The Development and Decline of Malediction in the Charters of Anglo-Saxon England

Kasandra Marie Castle

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto

“The Development and Decline of Malediction in the Charters of Anglo-Saxon England”

Kasandra Marie Castle

Doctor of Philosophy

Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto

2016

Thesis Abstract

This thesis focuses on the use of maledictory sanction clauses to protect charters, whether written grants of land or privileges, in Anglo-Saxon England. Based on a specially designed and created database of all Anglo-Latin sanction clauses from authentic and substantially authentic single sheets from the ninth to the eleventh century (approximately 171 documents), it traces the formulation of the clause through the pre-Conquest period, revealing lexical, structural, and thematic patterns. Because they were subject to scribal creativity, sanction clauses reflect themes of importance to their draftsmen and run parallel to punitive and infernal concepts emphasized in contemporary works.

The thesis begins with a historical overview of medieval cursing and examines each of the elements potentially included in a sanction clause. It then presents data that was collected in a century-by-century arrangement in order to reveal potential patterns. Finally, it looks at the

Anglo-Norman Cartulary of Christ Church, Canterbury, extant in three medieval copies. The cartulary’s compiler recasts his source materials, altering them to fit a common mold. This recasting included the addition, deletion, and modification of the sources’ sanction clauses. Such interpretive acts tell us much about the intent of the early English cartularists, the archival

environment that produced such a compiler, and the perceived function of malediction in the post-Conquest period.

This dissertation suggests that sanction clauses dropped from contemporary diplomatic use, not because of a newfound perception of their inefficiency—they were, arguably, fairly inefficient modes of preservation all along—but because of the gradual secularization of the previously highly religious genre. The detail with which formulation of the Anglo-Latin sanction clause is laid out herein sheds further light on its intricacies and provides material for further study of its significance in the broader Anglo-Saxon social context.

iii

Acknowledgments

The research for and writing of this dissertation would not have been possible without the support and guidance of many individuals. I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to each of them.

To those who served on my committee: Michael Gervers, Joe Goering, and Alain Stoclet, your careful reading of Latin transcriptions, translations, and drafts was invaluable. Thanks are also due to Catherine Cubitt for her incredibly helpful suggestions as external examiner and to

Lawrin Armstrong as internal examiner. Thank you to Sébastien Barret, Jenneka Janzen, and

Amanda Wetmore for reading drafts simply out of the kindness of their hearts and to Isabelle

Cochelin for her tireless administrative support. I would like to extend especial gratitude to my supervisor, Andy Orchard for imparting his knowledge and expertise over the years. This project certainly would not have been possible without his ever-present guidance. Having the help of so many distinguished experts with wide-ranging specialties helped to improve the scope of this project immensely.

My thanks also go to my family: my mother, Kristen and partner, Drew. Your love and support sustain me.

If any errors remain, quod absit, they are my own.

Table of Contents

Thesis Abstract...... ii

Acknowledgments...... iv

Table of Contents ...... v

List of Tables ...... viii

List of Appendices ...... ix

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1

Methodology ...... 2

Terminology ...... 8

Corpus ...... 9

Database ...... 10

Structure of Thesis ...... 11

Chapter 2 Medieval Malediction ...... 14

Classical Roots ...... 14

Ecclesiastical Cursing ...... 16

The Benedictine Reform and the Codification of Excommunication ...... 22

Mental Context...... 24

Anglo-Saxon Sanction Clauses ...... 29

Constituent Parts ...... 30

Protasis ...... 32

Spiritual Penalties ...... 32

Secular Penalties ...... 37

Manentem Clause...... 40

Penance Clause ...... 41

Blessings ...... 43

Witness Lists ...... 43

Efficacy of Medieval Cursing ...... 44

Chapter 3 Summary of the Anglo-Saxon Single-Sheet Corpus ...... 51

The Seventh Century...... 52

Supplementary Clauses ...... 54

Protasis ...... 56

Punishment Clause ...... 57

Spiritual Punishments ...... 57

The Eighth Century ...... 61

Supplementary Clauses ...... 63

Protasis ...... 65

Punishment Clause ...... 67

Spiritual Punishments ...... 67

Secular Punishments ...... 67

The Ninth Century ...... 70

Supplementary Clauses ...... 73

Protasis ...... 76

Punishment Clause ...... 79

Spiritual Punishments ...... 79

Secular Punishments ...... 82

The Tenth Century ...... 83

The Royal Writing Office ...... 86

Supplementary Clauses ...... 89

Protasis ...... 93

Punishment Clause ...... 97

Spiritual Punishments ...... 97

Secular Punishments ...... 106

The Eleventh Century, (1000-1066) ...... 107

Supplementary Clauses ...... 109

Protasis ...... 110

Punishment Clause ...... 113

Spiritual Punishments ...... 113

Secular Punishments ...... 118

Forgeries ...... 119

Post-Conquest Diplomatic ...... 122

Chapter 4 Scribal Treatment of Maledictory Sanction Clauses at Christ Church, Canterbury ..125

Medieval English Cartularies ...... 126

Christ Church Canterbury’s Archival Environment ...... 137

Christ Church Anglo-Norman Cartulary ...... 142

Canterbury, D. & C., Register P ...... 148

London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1212 ...... 149

Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 189 ...... 151

Compilation and Production ...... 154

The Sanction Clauses ...... 155

Chapter 5 Conclusions ...... 176

Bibliography ...... 185

Appendix One: Mark-Up Schema ...... 216

Appendix Two: Additional Metadata ...... 219

Appendix Three: Christ Church, Canterbury Anglo-Norman Cartulary ...... 224

Appendix Four: Anglo-Norman Cartulary Sanction Clauses ...... 232

vii

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of the Seventh-Century Corpus...... 53

Table 2: Occurrence of Supplementary Clauses in the Seventh-Century Corpus...... 56

Table 3: Summary of the Eighth-Century Corpus...... 62

Table 4: Occurrence of Supplementary Clauses in the Eighth-Century Corpus...... 64

Table 5: Summary of the Ninth-Century Corpus...... 71

Table 6: Occurrence of Supplementary Clauses in the Ninth-Century Corpus...... 74

Table 7: Summary of the Tenth-Century Corpus...... 84

Table 8: Occurrence of Supplementary Clauses in the Tenth-Century Corpus...... 92

Table 9: Summary of the Eleventh-Century Corpus...... 107

Table 10: Occurrence of Supplementary Clauses in the Eleventh-Century Corpus...... 109

viii

List of Appendices

1. Mark-Up Schema...... 225

2. Additional Metadata...... 228

3. Christ Church, Canterbury Anglo-Norman Cartulary...... 233

4. Anglo-Norman Cartulary Sanction Clauses...... 241

Chapter 1

Introduction

Early medieval written agreements, such as those for property exchange, were secured by a number of internal devices, rooted firmly in the heavily ritualistic core of social interaction.

Within Continental medieval history, scholars such as Adam Kosto and Lester Little have examined the methods by which agreements were kept in medieval Catalonia and Romanesque

France, respectively.1 Within Anglo-Saxon studies Brenda Danet and Bryna Bogoch have discussed the presence of curses within Anglo-Saxon legal documents as a means of solidifying agreement.2 However, none of the literature has attended to the ways in which modes of assurance, specifically malediction, changed over the course of the Anglo-Saxon period and ultimately fell out of use. Without an understanding of the influence of cursing and the mentality from which the practice grew, we are left with an inadequate cognizance of medieval diplomatics and of the Anglo-Saxon religious mind.

This dissertation examines the formulation of Anglo-Latin legal malediction, determining when, where, and by whom it was used, and what its perceived function was. It will trace the curse’s diminishing use and ultimate replacement by alternative methods of guaranteeing

1 Adam J. Kosto, Making Agreements in Medieval Catalonia: Power, Order, and the Written Word (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Lester K. Little, Benedictine Maledictions: Liturgical Cursing in Romanesque France (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993). See also, Richard H. Helmholz, “Excommunication in Twelfth Century England,” 11 Journal of Law and Religion 235 (1994), 235-253. 2 Brenda Danet and Bryna Bogoch, “‘Whosoever Alters This, May God Turn his Face from Him at the Day of Judgment’: Curses in Anglo-Saxon Legal Documents,” The Journal of American Folklore 105, no. 416 (1992), 132-165.

1 2 agreement, both internal and external, and will contextualize this transition, identifying the general date of disuse and determining which factors prompted its obsolescence. It will posit, based on an analysis drawn from a specifically designed database of Anglo-Latin sanction clauses (described below), that the Anglo-Latin legal curse, related at its core to liturgical excommunication, fell out of use not because it was perceived as ineffective—people certainly continued to believe in the power of excommunication and the possibility of eternal damnation— but rather, because the shift towards alternative methods of preserving agreement reflects a growing secularization of the solemn charter and of the English legal process more generally.

Adopting an ontological approach, this dissertation will thoroughly contextualize Anglo-Latin legal malediction within the field of diplomatics and explore how it was received in the post-

Conquest period.

Methodology

Two major factors affect the quality and interpretation of the data gathered. First, the distribution of the extant material is uneven, geographically, chronologically, archivally, and typologically.

Nearly all the early material is royal (approximately 141 of the 171 documents included in this study);3 there are spans of time for which very few charters survive (approximately ten authentic

3 Petra Hofmann estimates that approximately 72% of authentic Anglo-Saxon charters are royal diplomas. “Infernal Imagery in Anglo-Saxon Charters,” PhD diss., University of St. Andrews, 2008, 18. On English episcopal acta, see Julia Barrow, “From the Lease to the Certificate: The Evolution of Episcopal Acts in England and Wales (c. 700-c. 1250),” in Die Diplomatik der Bischofsurkunde vor 1250 / La diplomatique épiscopale avant 1250, ed. Christoph Haidacher and Werner Köfler (Innsbrü ck: Tiroler Landesarchiv, 1995), 529-542; and ibid., “What Happened to Ecclesiastical Charters in England 1066–c. 1100?” in Myth, Rulership, Church and Charters: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Brooks, edited by Julia Barrow and Andrew Wareham (Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008), 45-66.

3 single sheets survive from the 870s to 930s as opposed to around forty from the 800s to 860s);4 and just a few regions and archives have preserved the majority of the extant corpus (Christ

Church, Canterbury and Worcester). This distribution creates a bias in the data that must not be ignored. For instance, while it appears that malediction was used primarily in royal diplomas, the comparative dearth of non-royal lay documents prevents examination of legal cursing more generally.5

The particularly high frequency of ‘forgery’ in eleventh- and twelfth-century England adds a second hurdle to the dataset.6 Shifting attitudes toward written evidence, appeals to tradition in an age of rapid change, and post-Conquest chaos in tenure all contributed to a

“flowering” of English forgery.7 Arthur Giry, in his seminal Manuel de diplomatique, took a

4 These numbers are from the database constructed for this study, however discussion of this gap in survival can be found in Nicholas P. Brooks and Susan E. Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, Anglo-Saxon Charters vols. 17 and 18, British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 135; and Susan D. Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas: A Paleography (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2006), 8. 5 On the other hand, the majority of vernacular Anglo-Saxon wills record bequests by laymen. The use of the vernacular in Anglo-Saxon documents is far more common in wills and writs than in charters; see Lupoi, Origins of the European Legal Order, 146. Alistair Campbell demonstrates however, that the formulas used in Old English and Latin diplomatic are closely linked. In a detailed analysis of the Old English will of Badanoth Beotting (S 1510), written by the same scribe as S 296, a Latin grant of King Æthelwulf of Wessex and Kent to his apparitor, Badanoth, he shows how the scribe successfully adapted elements of Christ Church, Canterbury diplomatic. Writing the will in the vernacular, then, had less to do with Latin literacy than following current practice. “An Old English Will,” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 37.2 (1938), 133-152. 6 For the problems of forgery and authenticity as they relate to forming a working corpus, see Ben Snook, The Anglo-Saxon Chancery: The History, Language and Production of Anglo-Saxon Charters from Alfred to Edgar Anglo-Saxon Studies 28 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2015), 11-16. See David Bates, “Charters and Historians of Britain and Ireland: Problems and Possibilities,” in Charters and Charter Scholarship in Britain and Ireland, edited by Marie Therese Flanagan and Judith A. Green (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 1-14, here 3-4 for a discussion of the difficulty of establishing the authenticity of medieval documents. 7 Giles Constable, “Forgery and Plagiarism in the Middle Ages,” Archiv für Diplomatik 29 (1983), 1–41, here 13; Stephen M. Yeager, From Lawmen to Plowmen: Anglo-Saxon Legal Tradition and the School of Langland, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014), 53-54. See also, Alfred Hiatt, The Making of

4 more philosophical approach to forgery, distinguishing three types of forged document.8 Current scholarship has continued in the same vein, stepping away from a strict true/false binary toward a more nuanced understanding of the medieval conception of truth as more subjective and dependent on sincerity than our current “physical” understanding.9 This shift acknowledges that there is much to learn from a forgery, precisely because it is a forgery. As T. A. Heslop suggests:

“one of the things a confected document tells us is how the forgers and their patrons in the twelfth century imagined that an instrument of that category ought to look and sound. […] It gives us a very particular insight into their historical imagination and their view of the past.”10

Elizabeth A. R. Brown, on the other hand, maintains that forgery never escaped its negative aura.11 There was never a point at which forgery was not strictly illegal. It is difficult to deny, however, that forgeries from this period rarely give off a wholly duplicitous feel. Rather, forgery was used as a tool for protecting an institution’s holdings and privileges, and therefore the institution itself, far more often than it was used with the intent to cheat or deceive. Awareness of

Medieval Forgeries: False Documents in Fifteenth-Century England (London and Toronto: The British Library and University of Toronto Press, 2004), for discussion of the paradigm shift between the eleventh- and twelfth-century ‘Golden Age’ of forgery and the period of forgery in the fifteenth century; and Richard Mortimer, “Anglo-Norman Lay Charters, 1066-c.1100: A Diplomatic Approach,” Anglo- Norman Studies 25, Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2002, edited by John Gillingham (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 2003), 153-175, especially 172-174. 8 Arthur Giry, Manuel de diplomatique, 2nd edition, 2 vols. (Paris: Alcon, 1925), II, 863-864. 9 Constable, “Forgery and Plagiarism,” 4. 10 T. A. Heslop, “Twelfth-Century Forgeries as Evidence for Earlier Seals: The Case of St Dunstan,” in St Dunstan, His Life, Times and Cult, edited by Nigel Ramsay, Margaret Sparks, and Tim Tatton-Brown (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 1992), 299-310, here 301. 11 Elizabeth A. R. Brown, “Falsitas pia sive reprehensibilis: Medieval Forgers and Their Intentions.” Fälschungen im Mittelalter, 33:1 (1988), 101-119. Yeager also observes that even in its ‘Golden Age,’ forgery was never necessarily a permissible practice. From Lawmen to Plowmen, 54.

5 this difference helps us more fully understand medieval forgery and avoid assumptions of deceit and of laying claim to land that has never been rightly held.12

A distinction between different motives for forgery is also important because it helps determine which documents can be used as historical evidence and what types of information we can safely take from them. Obviously, an entirely fabricated document cannot be fully relied upon for extracting historical minutiae such as topographical, chronological, or legal details.

However, authenticity can be just as much at issue when observations about the language of a document are at stake, for the precise formulation and wording of a document is necessarily influenced by the period in which it was written. Because copyists routinely changed word-order and word-choice, a copy of a charter with slightly anachronistic phrasing cannot automatically be dismissed. Linguistic anomalies may simply be due to a later copyist’s alteration or misinterpretation of the original text.13

Forged documents must not be simply dismissed out of hand, but sensitivity to the effect their existence has on conclusions about Anglo-Saxon charters must be consistently maintained.

While it would be impossible to determine with certainty the probable authenticity of each

12 Brooks and Kelly note, for example, that S 65 is without a doubt “a technical fabrication, but there does seem reason to think that it may be a fundamentally reliable later copy of an authentic diploma of 704.” Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, 322. Francesca Tinti discusses how at Worcester, authentic charters were amended and improved in addition to serving as the basis for blatant forgeries. “The Reuse of Charters at Worcester between the Eighth and the Eleventh Century: A Case-Study,” Midland History 37.2 (2012), 127-141. For further examples, see Susan E. Kelly, Charters of Malmesbury Abbey, Anglo- Saxon Charters 11 (London: Published for the British Academy: Oxford University Press, 2005), 51-64; Julia C. Crick, Charters of St Albans, Anglo-Saxon Charters 12 (London, Published for the British Academy: Oxford University Press, 2007), 58-74. 13 See Snook, The Anglo-Saxon Chancery, 12-13; and Nicholas Vincent, “Regional Variations in the Charters of King Henry II (1154–1189),” in Charters and Charter Scholarship in Britain and Ireland, ed. by Marie Therese Flanagan and Judith A. Green (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 70–106, here 75.

6 document in the corpus, it is imperative to keep the possibility of forgery in mind and to ask what its effect might be on the dataset as a whole. Determining the authenticity of an Anglo-

Saxon charter, however, is far from straightforward.14 Classical methods of diplomatic analysis cannot be used because, unlike Continental charters which derive from the late-Roman public model, Anglo-Saxon charters were not issued under a notarial seal, nor do they bear any outward signs of validation.15 Rather, their authenticity depended upon internal features: “upon pictorial and verbal invocations to God, upon pious preambles and anathemas, and also upon extensive

14 Indeed, the words’ very definitions are up for debate. See Luciana Duranti, “Reliability and Authenticity: The Concepts and Their Implications,” Archivaria 39 (1995), 5-10, for a discussion of the terms ‘reliable,’ ‘authentic,’ and ‘genuine.’ Pierre Chaplais asserts that because of the difficulty of assessing the authenticity of Anglo-Saxon diplomas—there are no outward signs of authenticity: no seals or autograph subscriptions, and paleographical dating is too broad to assert a document’s originality— “the words ‘forgery’, ‘authenticity’ and ‘original’ ought to be banned from a critical study of the Anglo- Saxon diploma.” In “The Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diplomas of Exeter,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 9 (1966), 1-34, here 3. For further discussion of the ever-changing criteria for assessing authenticity see Arnold Esch, “Chance et hasard de transmission: le problème de la représentativité et de la déformation de la transmission historique,” in Les tendances actuelles de l’histoire du Moyen Âge en France et en Allemagne: Actes des colloques de Sèvres (1997) et Göttingen (1998), Histoire ancienne et médiévale 66, edited by Jean-Claude Schmitt and Otto Gerhard Oexle (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002), 15-29. 15 Chaplais summarizes the problem, “By “original charter” we normally understand a document drawn up in the name of the grantor and with his approval, written at approximately the same time as the oral grant was made, and provided with identifiable marks of authentication such as the grantor’s seal or some autograph subscriptions or signa. [...] If we apply to them the classifying rules which have been summarized above, we reach the surprising conclusion that no Anglo-Saxon diploma should be described as an original.” Pierre Chaplais, “Some Early Anglo-Saxon Diplomas on Single Sheets: Originals or Copies,” Journal for the Society of Archivists 3.7 (1968), 315-336, here 315. See also, R. Allen Brown, “Some Observations on Norman and Anglo-Norman Charters,” Tradition and Change: Essays in Honour of Marjorie Chibnall Presented by her Friends on the Occasion of her Seventieth Birthday, edited by Diana Greenway, Christopher Holdsworth, and Jane Sayers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 145-163, here 149; and Simon Keynes, The Diplomas of King Æthelred 'the Unready', 978–1016: A Study in Their Use as Historical Evidence, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, ser. 3, vol. 13 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 30-31.

7 lists of named witnesses.”16 This problem is compounded by the fact that there is no definitive evidence for the existence of a centralized writing agency before the tenth century.17

For the purpose of this project, documents will be grouped using a three-tiered classification modified from one created by Patrick Wormald.18 Class 1 comprises those documents that are most probably authentic. Class 2 comprises those documents that display evidence of some tampering or are in some way untrustworthy. Class 3 comprises those documents that are most definitely altered, or, forged. Each class number is further divided to indicate, with a lower case letter, whether a document survives as an original single sheet (no letter), a single-sheet copy (b), or a cartulary copy (c). For example, a charter with authentic content that was copied at a later date is classified 1b. A charter with inauthentic content that survives as a contemporary single sheet would be classified 3. Of course, because matters of authenticity are complex, perhaps even more so with regard to English charters, there is some room for disagreement in the final classification of the corpus.19

16 Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, 105. 17 This is addressed in more detail in Chapter Three’s analysis of tenth-century charters. See Keynes, Diplomas, 14-83; Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas, 8-18. 18 Patrick Wormald, “Bede and the Conversion of England: The Charter Evidence,” in The Times of Bede: Studies in Early English Christian Society and Its Historian, edited by Stephen Baxter (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 135-166. Such a system is, of course, subjective, but necessary for the delineation of a working corpus. 19 S 772, for example, is judged an apparent original in Keynes, Diplomas of King Æthelred, 77-78, but an eleventh-century forgery in David N. Dumville, English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism, A.D. 950–1030 (Woodbridge and Rochester: Boydell, 1993), 70-73. Based upon the balance of opinion and on an assessment of the formulation of its sanction clause, S 772 has been assigned to Class 1 for the purposes of this study.

Terminology

For the sake of clarity, a few brief notes on technical diplomatic terminology are necessary.20

The form of Anglo-Saxon charters, like other diplomatic traditions, is quite regular, consisting of a set group of clauses or formulas, often arranged in the same order. Anglo-Saxon charters generally opened with a pictorial or verbal invocation appealing to God, immediately followed by or combined with a proem (also referred to as an arenga), providing a religious or moral justification for the act. The dispositive clause detailed the particulars of the act, listing lands and privileges granted along with any appurtenances. The dispositive section was most often followed by a vernacular boundary clause. The clause under study here, the sanction clause, forbade anyone from tampering with the act and threatened those who ignored its warning with spiritual punishments. Thompson, in her Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas: A Paleography, separates the sanction from the anathema.21 For this project, the two are treated as one, the sanction clause being the broader classification that sometimes (but not always) contained anathema. Charters most often ended with a dating-clause and a non-autograph list of those witnessing, confirming, or otherwise present during the act of donation. Of course, other clauses were sometimes inserted and the precise order of elements could be varied.

20 The diplomatic of an Anglo-Saxon charter as a whole will not be discussed at length here as it is extensively treated by others. See, for example, Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas, especially 27- 28. The traditional reference for the classification of medieval diplomatic is Maria Milagros Cárcel Ortí, Vocabulaire international de la diplomatique, Commission Internationale de Diplomatique Comité International des Sciences Historiques 2nd ed. (Valéncia, 1997), available online at . 21 Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas, 27.

As will become clearer in Chapter Two, distinctions amongst anathema, condemnatio, damnatio, and maledictio were inconsistent throughout the period. The terms, therefore, will be used interchangeably here.22

Due to the fact that most early-English charters and cartularies were produced anonymously and were copied and recopied in multiple stages, it is difficult to determine how many draftsmen or cartularists worked on any given document or volume. In the following, the singular terms scribe, draftsman, and cartularist are used unless there is clear evidence that multiple persons were at work on the same source.23

Corpus

The corpus for the core analysis of this study includes all extant Latin single-sheet charters from the Anglo-Saxon period with an authenticity classification of 1 or 2.24 While the sanction clauses

22 Elaine Treharne does likewise, observing that there does not seem to be a clear distinction made between anathema and excommunication in Old English texts. She points to a line, to be spoken by a bishop, that appears in multiple Anglo-Saxon excommunication formulas, noting that it covers all shades of meaning: excommunicamus, dampnamus, anathematizamus, atque a liminibus sancte Dei ecclesie sequestramus, “we excommunicate, damn, anathematize, and remove from the boundaries of the Holy Church of God.” “A Unique Formula for Excommunication from Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303,” Anglo-Saxon England 24 (1995), 190. This text is found in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303 as well as the formula printed in Felix Liebermann, ed. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. 1 (Halle, 1903–1916), 432-441. 23 In Chapter Four, for instance, the cartularist, or compiler, of the Anglo-Norman Cartulary of Christ Church, Canterbury is referred to in the singular. See Patrick Geary, “Medieval Archivists as Authors: Social Memory and Archival Memory,” in Archives, Documentation, and Institutions of Social Memory: Essays from the Sawyer Seminar, edited by Francis X. Blouin Jr. and William G. Rosenberg (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006), 106-113, here 108: Cartularies “are neither the mechanical compilations of archives, photographs as it were of whatever archival drudges found in their keeping, nor are they the creations of individual personalities. Rather they represent the complex intersection of various personal and communal programs that cannot be reduced to a single author, a single auctoritas, or indeed a single purpose.” 24 Kemble: The Anglo-Saxon Charters Website provides images for nearly all extant Anglo-Saxon single sheets:

10 from all Anglo-Latin charters dated between 700-1066 (approximately 1300 documents) have been gathered, only the single sheets with a presumed authenticity of Class 1 or 2 (see above) have been marked up here. Pertinent examples have been extracted from the larger dataset where applicable, especially in Chapter One. This larger dataset will come into play again in the

Conclusion where it is tested against the results of the single sheet analysis. Although writs, wills and other miscellaneous documents were often used to conduct transfers of land, these documents will not be included in the main analysis.

Database

There were two stages to the data collection process. In the first, all curses were extracted from the documents: the main sanction clause as well as any other clauses containing maledictory language (from the arenga, witness, and confirmation clauses, for example).25 Blessings, frequently appearing alongside curses, were also extracted. Other clauses, such as prohibition and manentem clauses (expressing a desire that the charter will stand firm), were collected where they appear in conjunction with a sanction clause.26 Metadata was thoroughly recorded: the type of document (grant of land or privilege, confirmation, or restoration) and its status as royal, non- royal lay, or ecclesiastical; its recorded or estimated date; its authenticity; the archive in which it is preserved; and the names of the grantor and beneficiary.

25 All transcriptions and translations of charters in Chapters Three and Four are my own—unless otherwise noted—but extensive use has been made of the eSawyer and the British Academy’s Anglo- Saxon Charters series. eSawyer. [http://www.esawyer.org.uk/about/index.html]; Anglo-Saxon Charters, British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973- present). The full-text of nearly every Anglo-Saxon charter can also be found online at the DEEDS Project based at the University of Toronto [http://deeds.library.utoronto.ca/]. 26 See pp. 40-44 for a discussion of these clauses.

The second stage was the encoding of the sanction clauses of the single sheet corpus using the qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA.27 Prohibition clauses, donation references, verbs of infringement, punishments (sanctions), lists of and characteristics of potential perpetrators, penance clauses, and blessings were noted.28 This level of markup enables advanced queries to be applied to the material in order to detect temporal and regional patterns in usage and style.

Structure of Thesis

Following this chapter’s Introduction, Chapter Two, “Medieval Malediction,” looks at the history of medieval cursing, beginning briefly with its classical roots. It surveys medieval cursing practices generally, examining in turn the potential influences on English maledictions, namely Antique and Christian (both biblical and ecclesiastical) cursing as well as Continental legal malediction. Each of these traditions helped to shape English conceptions of cursing and, thus, the legal sanction clause. Chapter Two looks next at the mentality that supported the belief in the efficacy of cursing, and discusses the power of the spoken word in medieval society and the role it played in law. The focus then narrows specifically to sanction clauses in Anglo-Saxon

England. First, the scholarship on legal malediction is discussed before examining each of the constituent parts of a proper sanction clause.

27 MAXQDA, software for qualitative data analysis, 1989-2016, VERBI Software – Consult – Sozialforschung GmbH, Berlin, Germany. 28 See Appendix One, pp. 216-218, for the complete mark-up system and Chapter Two, pp. 29-43 for a discussion of each of the diplomatic parts.

Chapter Three, “Summary of the Anglo-Saxon Single-Sheet Corpus,” is a century-by- century look at the sanction clauses of authentic (Class 1) and mostly-authentic (Class 2) Anglo-

Latin single sheets from the pre-Conquest period. It offers a more detailed examination of the structure and content of the sanction clauses, noting the first appearance of each element and tracing its evolution through the Anglo-Saxon period. The end of the chapter devotes space to the discussion of several notable forged single sheets that illuminate elements of Anglo-Saxon diplomatic, and paves the way for Chapter Four’s examination of post-Conquest perceptions of the clause.

Chapter Four, “Scribal Treatment of Maledictory Sanction Clauses at Christ Church,

Canterbury,” examines scribal interference that does not affect the dispositive ‘meat’ of a document—the deletion, insertion, amplification, and abbreviation of Anglo-Saxon maledictory sanction clauses within Anglo-Norman cartulary copies. Although the sanction clause was largely defunct by the twelfth century,29 the contemporary impulse to reorganize and memorialize monastic muniments within cartularies and historiographical volumes kept the clause alive. In the late eleventh-century Christ Church, Canterbury Anglo-Norman Cartulary, for example, the cartularist, with a degree of regularity, replaced, modified, and even invented entirely new sanction clauses for his documents. Such changes represent a side of scribal agency rarely encountered in the study of cartularies. They not only demonstrate a desire to bring ancient documents into line with institutional needs, but provide a view to the copyist’s playful side, where he exercises his creativity and skill within the peripheral clauses of serious legal documents.

29 Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 230.

The Conclusion, Chapter Five, looks back at the previous chapters and contextualizes their findings within the corpus of Anglo-Saxon charters as a whole. While the corpus for the study has up to this point been narrowed for purely pragmatic reasons, this chapter tests previous findings against a larger dataset. As a test case, this chapter broadens the corpus for the seventh century to include all authentic charters, and interrogates the boundaries between centuries and archives. It assesses Anglo-Saxon legal malediction as a whole and examines the patterns observed in the formulation of sanction clauses, exploring various social influences.

Chapter 2

Medieval Malediction

Classical Roots

Curses can be broadly divided into two distinct types: those of a personal nature, where a single individual furtively seeks remedy for a wrong committed against his or her person, and those of a corporate nature, where a group, institution, or representative of an institution openly seeks remedy against general or specific wrongdoers. Secret versus open performance is, broadly, the dividing line in the medieval period between the pagan and the Christian curse, between those curses sanctioned in the eyes of medieval society and those it forbade. Curses, when performed openly, were deemed acceptable because of their public, ceremonial nature.1 Private, vindictive curses, on the other hand, were punishable under both secular and Canon law.2 Legal restrictions, however, did little to prevent their use.

In Antiquity, personal curses flourished due to the lack of a defined legal course for seeking satisfaction against wrongdoers.3 Curses, arae (ἀραί), were incorporated into Greek legal

1 Liturgical cursing rituals are careful to express “corporate, never individual, indignation, no matter how much any individuals involved might have identified with their institutions or been personally invested in seeing an enemy humbled.” Little, Benedictine Maledictions, xiv. Canonical excommunication also required a formal, public method of notification and trial. Richard H. Helmholz, “Excommunication and the Angevin Leap Forward,” Haskins Society Journal 7 (1995), 134. 2 This is corroborated by Bernard Mees’ examination of pre-Christian Celtic curses in Celtic Curses (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2009). 3 Lindsay Watson, Arae: The Curse Poetry of Antiquity (Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1991), 6 and 38-42.

14 15 texts, thereby validating their use by the helpless as a path to justice (δίκη).4 In Latin sources of the period, cursing lacked the direct negative connotations with which it is associated today.

Indeed, both lexically and conceptually it converged with prayer—both verbal acts invoked the divine and were denoted by the same vocabulary: the verbs precor and imprecari have both positive and negative connotations depending on context. Similarly, the nouns preces and vota can mean either prayers or imprecations. These types of curses can be traced at least as far back as Homer and were a major part of Greek and Roman life.5

Defixiones, sometimes referred to as binding spells, were used by individuals in Greek and Roman societies to seek revenge against enemies, calling on deities associated with death and the underworld.6 Individuals inscribed curses or prayers on small lead sheets, rolled them tightly, and then placed them in sacred spaces—usually at a tomb or an underground source of water—with the hope that a deity might take up his or her cause.7 Later forms, popular in the

Hellenistic and Roman periods, more often took the form of prayers for justice or revenge. They are differentiated from earlier forms in that they often bear the name of the author and a justification for the curse, and humbly beseech the gods for help.8 This form of private cursing

4 Ibid., 38; and Helen Saradi, “Cursing in the Byzantine Notarial Acts: A Form of Warranty,” Byzantina 17 (1994), 441-533, here 441-442. See also Mees, Celtic Curses, 118-119 for the use of curses to enhance legal procedure in Celtic sources. 5 Watson, Arae, 12-13. 6 The most thorough assessment is Watson, Arae, especially 194-216. See also, John Gager, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells in the Ancient World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); and David R. Jordan, “Defixiones from a Well Near the Southwest Corner of the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 54 (1985), 205-255, especially 206-207; Hendrik S. Versnel, “Defixio,” in Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes, edited by, Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider . 7 Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 151. 8 Versnel, “Defixio.”

16 was brought by Roman conquerors to Celtic Europe.9 Defixiones are found across the Imperium

Romanum, especially early-medieval Celtic Gaul, Ireland, and Britain.10

Ecclesiastical Cursing

In order to protect itself, the medieval Church also developed several unique cursing rituals for deterring would-be violators of its privilege and property. One of these, perhaps the least well known, was the clamor. While its roots were grounded in secular legal proceedings rather than religion, the clamor eventually developed into a recognized liturgical form.11 Lester Little, who offers the fullest history of the liturgical use of the clamor, explains that: “in late antiquity and in

Carolingian Europe, ‘clamor’ was a juridical term for presenting a petition before a duly constituted tribunal. It was an institutionalized means of access to those in power, specifically to ask for justice.”12 Around the turn of the twelfth century, the Church ‘reoriented’ the clamor to serve its own needs.13 It developed a liturgical ritual in which a clamor, or an appeal for aid against enemies was made to the divine. Various forms of this prayer survive, some including curses, others not. Both forms, when they included curses, relied on the Psalms (primarily

9 Ibid., 150-151. 10 Mees, Celtic Curses, 200-201; Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 150-151; and Versnel, “Defixio.” 11 “To make a clamor (facere clamorem) meant to go before a magistrate to bring a suit, present a petition, request a favor or appeal a decision. [...] It also connotes commotion and shouting.” Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 17, citing the Vocabularium codicis Iustininiani, ed. by R. von Mayr, 2 vols. (Prague, 1923), 1:620, 667. On the secular use of the clamor in dispute settlements, see Richard E. Barton, “Making a Clamor to the Lord: Noise, Justice and Power in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century France,” in Feud, Violence and Practice: Essays in Medieval Studies in Honor of Stephen D. White, edited by Belle S. Tuten and Tracey L. Billado (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010), 213-235. 12 Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 19. 13 The clamor, however, continued to be frequently used in secular dispute settlements through at least the twelfth century as a means of publicizing a wrong and attempting to avoid violent resolution. Barton, “Making a Clamor to the Lord,” 233.

Psalms 3, 12, 45, 51, 58, 93, and 108 all of which deal with the theme of deliverance from one’s enemies) and Deuteronomy for much of their text.14

A second, related method of protection was to cut off from the Church those who acted against its interests or ignored its strictures. Excommunication, the exclusion from the community of the faithful or the Eucharist with opportunity for repentance and reintegration, was a stable practice by the third century at latest.15 Anathema too, a more advanced degree of excommunication, had been introduced by the opening of the fourth century, coming to be associated with the severest forms of excommunication.16

The principal assumptions of the canonists about excommunication were fourfold: it was the gravest sanction available within the bounds of canon law; it was to be instituted as a medicinal remedy, not punitive; it was reversible; and its implementation should not go so far as to disrupt public order.17 To this end, excommunication could only be imposed by an official— usually a bishop—and required the defendant to be notified in writing and to be permitted to give a defense.

While these principles may have held true within ecclesiastical courts, there are abundant examples of the ‘extra-judicial’ use of excommunication.18 Indeed, the penalty was often used

14 The Psalms are numbered here according to the Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, edited by Bonifatius Fischer et al., 3rd edition, 2 volumes (Stuttgart, 1985). 15 Ibid., 30. 16 Ibid., 31. 17 Richard H. Helmholz, “Excommunication as a Legal Sanction: The Attitudes of the Medieval Canonists,” in Canon law and the Law of England (London and Ronceverte: Hambledon Press, 1987). 101-117, here 103 and 117. 18 Helmholz, “Excommunication and the Angevin Leap Forward,” 133-149, here 138.

18 spontaneously as more a weapon than a legal sanction well into the twelfth century.19 In

England, in the early days, excommunication was “something like a curse, employed without thought of legal process and dependent for its effect on the justice of the cause and the strength of the man doing the excommunicating.”20 Helmholz describes the discrepancy between the canonists’ ideal and reality:

Although there are examples of proper judicial use of the sanction all along, the kind of excommunication one encounters most often in the sources from the first and indeed well into the second half of the twelfth century was not at all the careful sanction of the classical canon law just described. […] This sort of excommunication was more like the anathema that appears at the end of many Anglo-Saxon charters. It was like the terrible curses of the early Irish saints, or the fearsome monastic maledictions familiar in the ninth and tenth centuries. This sort of excommunication was the ‘sword of the Holy Spirit, more piercing than any two-edged blade’. It was a weapon to be unsheathed and wielded against one’s enemies.21

Excommunication was very often used in an unsanctioned manner. It was not until the twelfth century, as we will see below, that practical use caught up with the canonists’ ideal.

19 See, for example, the ‘War of Anathemas’ recounted by Galbert of Bruges, Galbertus notarius Brugensis: De multro, traditione, et occisione gloriosi Karoli comitis Flandriarum, Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis 131, edited by Jeff Rider (Turnhout: Brepols, 1994), 113 and 115 at pp. 157-158 and 161; and the spontaneous cursing of Thomas Becket described in Helmholz, “Angevin Leap Forward,” 139-140. 20 Richard H. Helmholz, Oxford History of the Laws of England: Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s, The Oxford History of the Laws of England vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 129. 21 Helmholz, “Excommunication as a Legal Sanction,” 237-238. On Irish cursing, see Jennifer Karyn Reid, “‘Caro verbum factum est’: Incarnation of word in early English and Celtic Texts,” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2007; Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 150-185; and Robin Chapman Stacey, Dark Speech: The Performance of Law in Early Ireland, The Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007).

The evidence for liturgical cursing in England is sparse, especially compared to the detailed accounts of clamors and excommunication extant from the Carolingian period. In

Anglo-Saxon England, excommunication appears as a punishment in only three legal codes before the reign of Æthelred in the tenth century at which point a shift in law-making occurs:22

Wihtred (c. 695), Alfred (c. 885 x 899), and I Edmund (c. 941 x 946).23 In Wihtred’s code, excommunication comes into play within the clauses dealing with sexual misconduct.24 King

Alfred’s code imposes the penalty of excommunication on those who fail to adhere to an oath.25 I

22 For a brief description of this shift and its relation to the sanction of excommunication, see Helmholz, Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol. 1, 126-127. 23 Catherine Cubitt, “Bishops and Councils in Late Saxon England: The Intersection of Secular and Ecclesiastical Law,” in Recht und Gericht in Kirche und Welt um 900, ed. by Wilfried Hartmann and Annette Grabowsky, Schriften des Historishchen Kollegs Kolloquien 69 (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2007), 151-167. Cubitt suggests that the number of clauses dealing with ecclesiastical subject matter in these three codes (especially Wihtred and I Eadmund) is unusually high because they “derive from specific types of assembly and should not be classed with other royal lawcodes,” 154. 24 Wihtred 3-4: Unrihthæmde mæn to rihtum life mid synna hreowe tofon oþþe of ciricean ge[m]a[n]an [MS genaman] ascadene sien. Æltheodige mæn, gif hio hiora hæmed rihtan nyllað of lande mid hiora æhtum 7 mid synnum gewiten. Swæse mæn in leodum ciriclicæs gemanan ungestrodyne þoligen. “Men in an unlawful union shall take up a just life with repentance of sins, or be separated from the community of the church. Foreign men, if they will not set their union to right, must depart from the land with their possessions and [their] sins. Our own men among the people [i.e., native] shall suffer loss of community of the church without forfeiture of goods.” Edited and translated by Lisi Oliver, The Beginnings of English Law, Toronto Medieval Texts and Translations 13 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002), 154-155. About this particular law, see Ibid., 168. 25 Gif he þonne ðæs weddie þe hym riht sy to gelæstanne 7 þæt aleoge, sylle mid eadmedum hys wæpn 7 his æhta his freondum to gehealdenne 7 beo XL nihta on carcerne æt cyninges tune, þrowige ðær swa biscop him scrife, 7 his magas hine fedan, gif he sylf mete næbbe. […] Gif he þonne losie, sy he aflymed 7 sy he amansemod of eallum Cristes ciricum. “If he then pledges what is lawful for him to perform and leaves it unfulfilled, with humility he shall give his weapons and his possessions to his friends to keep and be in prison forty nights in the king’s dwelling, endure there the judgment the bishop gives to him, and his kinsmen shall feed him, if he has no food himself. [...] If he escapes, he shall be banished and excommunicated from all of Christ’s churches.” Liebermann, Gesetze, Alfred 1.2 and 1.7, MS H. Translated in Todd Preston, King Alfred’s Book of Laws: A Study of the Domboc and Its Influence on English Identity, with a Complete Translation (Jefferson, NC: McFarlaNd & Company, 2012), 119.

Edmund assigns the sanction of excommunication for the non-payment of various tithes and dues, perjury, and sorcery.26

Later Anglo-Saxon codes use the sanction of excommunication more widely. At this point, the state of the excommunicate is more clearly defined. He is to be, quite literally, an outlaw of God and is to be shunned by the community. Indeed, those who provide aid or shelter to an excommunicate risk incurring punishment themselves.27 However, aside from these references, the penalty appears in such narrow, limited contexts that it continues to be difficult to define precisely.28 VII Æthelred, for example, specifically excommunicates apostate monks and priests.29 None of these texts, however, moves to define what such punishment entails. Such

26 Teoðunge we bebeodaþ ælcum Cristenum men be his Cristendome 7 cyricsceat 7 ælmesfeoh. Gif hit hwa don nelle, sy he amansumod. […] Ða ðe mansweriað 7 lyblat wyrcað, syn hy a fram ælcum Godes dæle aworpene, buten hy to rihtre dædbote gecyrran. Liebermann, Gesetze, I Eadmund, 2 and 6, MS H. “We enjoin all Christian men, in accordance with his Church, to pay church-dues and alms (Peter’s Pence). If anyone does not wish to do so, let him be excommunicated. […] Those who commit perjury and perform magic, let them be cast out forever from the fellowship of God, unless in repentance they turn to what is right.” Translation based on Agnes J. Robertson Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925), 7. 27 And se þe Godes utlagan ofer þone andagan, þe se cyngc sette, hæbbe on gewealde, plihte to him sylfum 7 ealre his are wið Cristes gespelian þe Cristendom 7 cynedom healdað 7 wealdað, þa hwile þe þæs God geann. “And he who keeps under his protection an excommunicated man (literally “outlaw of God”), beyond the term fixed by the king, shall be in danger of forfeiting his life and all his property to the deputies of Christ, who shall be the defenders and upholders of the Christian religion and the royal authority, as long as God shall permit.” VIII Æthelred 42. Edited and translated by Robertson, Laws of the Kings of England, 128-129. Gyf hwa weofodðegen afylle, sy he utlaga wið God 7 wið men, buton he ðurh wrecsið ðe deoppor gebete 7 ea wið ða mægða, oððe ladige mid werlade. “If anyone slays a minister of the altar, he shall be both excommunicated and outlawed, unless he makes amends to the best of his ability by pilgrimage, and likewise [the payment of compensation] to the kin [of the slain man], or else he shall clear himself by an oath equal in value to his wergeld.” II Cnut 39. Edited and translated by ibid., 196-197. 28 Cubitt, “Bishops and Councils, 158; and Treharne, “A Unique Old English Formula for Excommunication,” 185-211. 29 VII Æthelred, 5. Gif munuc oððe mæssepreost wiðerwsaca wurðe mid ealle, he sy amansumod æfre, buton he þe rædlicor gebuge to his þearfe. “If a monk or a priest becomes an utter apostate, he shall be excommunicated for ever, unless he is wise enough to return to his duty.” VIII Æthelred 41. Edited and translated by Robertson, Laws of the Kings of England, 128-129.

21 sparseness of reference and variation in application indicates an overall inconsistency in usage, making it difficult to discern a precise definition of the sanction.

In addition to ecclesiastical use, curses were employed for protection of personal and institutional property, both small (books) and large (land). Librarians, sacristans, or any number of other persons charged with the keeping of books, inscribed the volumes under their care with curses threatening those who stole or mutilated them in any way.30 Of course, the security of the books was enhanced by the implementation of strict borrowing policies and the chaining of books to shelves and tables.31 Similarly, the only internal means of protecting an endowment was to threaten spiritual consequences, including excommunication, for those who attempted to infringe it.32 Within the charters themselves, this translated to the use of sanction clauses. These clauses developed directly from Roman law where it was common for contracts to stipulate fines for the violation of terms.33 Sanction clauses need not necessarily contain malediction. Indeed, it was quite common for the sanctions of Continental charters to include secular penalties, sometimes alongside malediction, at other times alone.34

30 See Danet and Bogoch, “‘Whosoever Alters This,” 142-144; Marc Drogin, Anathema! Medieval Scribes and the History of Book Curses (New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun, & Co. Publishers, 1983); Archer Taylor, “The Judas Curse,” The American Journal of Philology. 42.3 (1921), 234-252, especially 247- 251; and Lawrence S. Thompson, “A Cursory Survey of Maledictions,” Bulletin of the New York Public Library 56 (1952): 55-75. G. A. Crüwell collects Continental examples of book curses in “Die Verfluchung der Bücherdiebe,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 4 (1906), 197-223. Glending Olson discusses the varying attitudes toward book curses in the middle ages, “Author, Scribe, and Curse: The Genre of Adam Scriveyn,” The Chaucer Review 42.3 (2008), 284-297, here 287. 31 See Thompson, “A Cursory Survey of Maledictions,” 55-75, especially 62. 32 The compiling of cartularies was another method of preventing loss of land. While perhaps not always permitted as proof, they did keep record of holdings all in one convenient place. 33 Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 53; Lupoi, Origins of the European Legal Order, 488-493; Studtmann, “Die Pönformel,” 261. 34 See François Bougard, “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction: la sanction spirituelle dans les sources diplomatiques,” in Exclure de la communauté chrétienne. Sens et pratiques sociales de l’anathème et de l’excommuniation (IVe-XIIe siècle), edited by Geneviève Bührer-Thierry and

Little, writing about Romanesque France, observes that “virtually every ecclesiastical, especially monastic, possession and privilege was attested by a written instrument––a charter–– and virtually every charter contained a sanction clause warning of dire consequences for anyone who contravened its terms.”35 The reasons for the sanction’s widespread use are readily apparent. Where available, secular lords could not always be counted on to be impartial judges.

Dispute settlements are riddled with accounts that reveal enormous conflicts of interest.36 A king, for example, may side against a plaintiff church for fear of upsetting a powerful lord.37

The Benedictine Reform and the Codification of Excommunication

Catherine Cubitt demonstrates that the attitude toward and practice of monastic cursing changed in the tenth and eleventh centuries, influenced by ideas circulating in relation to the Benedictine reform that reached its peak in the reign of King Edgar (957/9-975).38 The reform movement was led by powerful ecclesiastics—Oda, bishop of Ramsbury, then Archbishop of Canterbury;

Stéphane Gioanni, 215-238. Haut Moyen Âge 23 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), 225; Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 53-55; Ortí, Vocabulaire international de la diplomatique, clauses 237, 242, and 244; and Michel Zimmermann, “Le vocabulaire latin de malédiction du IXe au XIIe siècle: Construction d’un discours eschatologique,” Atalaya: Revue française d’études médiévales hispanique 5 (1994), 37-55, here 43-44. 35 Ibid., 52. 36 See Patrick Wormald, “A Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Lawsuits,” Anglo-Saxon England 17 (1988): 247- 281. 37 Eric John, cites S 1211 as an example of the limitations of the king’s power to enforce a decision unpopular amongst his powerful ealdormen and thegns. Orbis Britanniae and Other Studies, (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1966), 174. 38 Catherine Cubitt, “Archbishop Dunstan: A Prophet in Politics?” In Myth, Rulership, Church and Charters: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Brooks, edited by Julia Barrow and Andrew Wareham (Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008), 145-166, here 157. The reform was formalized at the Council of Winchester in the early 970s. Tracey-Anne Cooper, Monk-Bishops and the English Benedictine Reform Movement, Studies and Texts 193 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2015), 7.

Dunstan, abbot of Glastonbury, then Archbishop of Canterbury after Oda; Cenwald, Bishop of

Worcester; and, later Æthelwold, abbot of Abingdon then Bishop of Worcester—all influential with the king.39 Several Benedictine reformers had ties to Frankish monasteries, specifically those between the Charente and the Rhine, a region whence a concentrated amount of maledictory evidence stems.40 Dunstan himself, not yet Archbishop of Canterbury, was in exile from 956 to 958 at St Peters, Ghent.41 Frankish influence is reflected in documents like the New

Minster, Winchester foundation charter (S 745) 42 as well as the various Continental excommunication formulas that began to circulate in England.43 The eleventh-century insertion of the Marian office into London, British Library, Royal MS 2 B. V, a tenth-century glossed psalter, suggests “that by the early eleventh century English Benedictine monks had begun to practise liturgical cursing, just as their continental contemporaries had.”44 The performance of liturgical cursing rituals grew increasingly uniform.45

Excommunication itself was growing less spontaneous, falling in line with canonical strictures. It was performed in a more legalistic fashion, with serious attention accorded to due

39 See Snook, Anglo-Saxon Chancery, 126. 40 Cubitt, “Archbishop Dunstan,” 157-158; and Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 44-51. 41 Cubitt, “Archbishop Dunstan,” 157. 42 Ibid., 158 and see pp. 102-106, below. 43 London, British Library, Cotton MS Claudius C. vi, a manuscript of continental origin containing a copy of the Decretum of Burchard of Worms, was at Christ Church, Canterbury by the end of the eleventh century. See Treharne, “A Unique Old English Formula for Excommunication,” 201. 44 Cubitt, “Archbishop Dunstan,” 161. 45 The magnus clamor is known from the early eleventh century, by which point it had developed fairly stable content and order. Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 25-26. An interest in the procedure of canon law can be observed at this same time in England. Treharne, “A Unique Old English Formula for Excommunication,” 201.

24 process.46 This codification of excommunication came about at least in part due to the inability of the Church to enforce penalties without the support of the secular arm of the law. In his

Episcopal Laws, William I, possibly responding to this need, involves the secular sheriff in the summoning of a potential excommunicate if a bishop’s summons were ignored three times:

Si vero aliquis, per superbiam elatus, ad iusticiam episcopalem venire contempserit vel noluerit, vocetur semel et secundo et tertio. Quodsi nec sic ad emendationem venerit excommunicetur; et si opus fuerit ad hoc vindicandum, fortitudo et iusticia regis vel vicecomitis adhibeatur.47

The secular arm, however, was to be used only after the failure of the ecclesiastical court to administer justice on its own.48

Mental Context

Although they may differ in purpose, content, and form, all curses stem from a common mental framework. Performative events did not “occur in isolation, but were rather part of a larger nexus of beliefs about language and the exercise of power.”49 As Levi Roach has established, Anglo-

Saxon charters were themselves part of a defined ritual. Reading charters aloud, placing them— or pieces of sod as symbolic referents to the land conveyed—on altars or on gospel-books,

46 Helmholz, “Angevin Leap Forward,” 139. 47 Robertson, Laws of the Kings of England, 234-235. “But if anyone, puffed up with pride, should disdain or be unwilling to come to episcopal justice, let him be summoned once, twice and three times. But if even then he will not come to make amends, let him be excommunicated. And if it should be useful to enforce this, let the strength and justice of the king or the sheriff be employed.” 48 Logan, Excommunication and the Seclar Arm, 18-19; and Treharne, “A Unique Old English Formula for Excommunication,” 200. 49 Stacey, Dark Speech, 4.

25 swearing oaths, and attesting the document were all components of the ritualized granting of land.50

To a limited extent, title was determined by physical possession of a charter. S 1456, an account of the dispute between Godwine, Bishop of Rochester and Leofwine, reports that all deeds were transferred by Leofwine to Rochester, whence property had been alienated, as a part of the settlement.51 John Hudson also notes the ritualized element of documents changing hands, observing that: “a crucial element for bookland appears to have been the transfer of the charter itself. Such transfer at least on occasion involved ceremony.”52 Charters, as physical documents, were also desirable as evidence in court.

While they only survive in written form, there is internal evidence that suggests sanction clauses were part of this same ritual milieu. Both Little and Cubitt have argued that sanctions were likely to have been performed or at least read aloud.53 Bougard and Little note that

50 Heinrich Brunner, Zur Rechtsgeschichte der römischen und germanischen Urkunde, vol. 1 (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1880), 188-190; and Levi Roach, “Public Rites and Public Wrongs: Ritual Aspects of Diplomas in Tenth- and Eleventh-Century England,” Early Medieval Europe 19 no. 2 (2011), 182-203, here 186 and 189-190. See Kosto, Making Agreements, for parallel observations concerning the documents of Catalonia. 51 7 he behet þæs truwan þæt land æfter his dæge unbesacen eode eft into þære stowe þe hit ut alæned wæs 7 ageaf þa swutelunga þe he to þam lande hæfde þe ær of þære stowe geutod wæs 7 þa hagan ealle þe he bewestan þære cyrcan hæfde into þære halgan stowe. “And he gave a pledge that after his death the land should revert uncontested to the foundation from which it was leased, and gave up the deeds that he had concerning that land, which had been previously alienated from the foundation, and all the appurtenances which he had to the west of the church, to the holy foundation.” Transcription from Alistair Campbell, Charters of Rochester, Anglo-Saxon Charters 1 (Oxford: Published for The British Academy by Oxford University Press, 1971), no. 37. 52 John Hudson, The Oxford History of the Laws of England: 871-1216, The Oxford History of the Laws of England vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 141. 53 Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 56-57; and Cubitt, “Bishops and Councils in Late Saxon England,” 151-167.

26 ceremonial vestiges, words like amen and fiat, appear at the end of many sanction clauses.54 This practice is most likely modelled on the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-26 each of which ends with the phrase et dicet omnis populus amen.55 Cubitt draws attention to the early eleventh-century

“Life of St Ecgwine” written by Byrhtferth of Ramsey and commissioned by the community at

Evesham.56 Byrhtferth describes at length the ritual surrounding the eighth-century foundation of

Evesham Abbey, three centuries before his time:

Omnibus secundum seriem ecclesiasticam expletis, post perceptionem corporis et sanguinis Christi licentia leuite populus accepta recessit. Archiepiscopus ad altare conuersus et ego, humilis Christi seruus, priuilegium et libros ad centum uiginti mansas dedimus Deo, quos in altari posuimus, dicentes pariter communiter: Gloriose Domine, qui in superis regnis regnas et terrestria potenter gubernas et omnes creaturas absque sudore mire creasti: conserua, quaesumus, omnes qui hunc locum defendere uoluerint et tueri. Precipimus enim in nostri sanctissimi saluatoris nomine, ut neque regis fortis potentia neque iniqui ducis pertinacia neque astutia alicuius potentis militis inferat fraudem uel angustiam aut diminuat ex eo quod contulimus; sed seruis Dei sit concessa in sempiternam libertatem, qui desiderant sereno corde Domino militari, sicuti sacra promulgant patris atque abbatis Benedicti decreta. Adiunximus et maledictionem communiter, ita dicentes: Siquis (quod absit!) libertatem hanc infringere per suggestionem tetri demonis temptauerit, inflatus atque deceptus auaritie spiritu et diris stimulatus punctionibus Satane: sciat se eternaliter dampnatum cum Pilato et cum his qui

54 Hofmann cites fifty-nine occurences of amen or fiat or both after sanction clauses, thirty-two in authentic charters and twenty-seven in inauthentic charters. “Infernal Imagery,” 47, n. 83. See also, Bougard, “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction,” 227-228; Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 57; and Niles, “The Problem of the Ending of ‘The Wife’s Lament’,” in Old English Enigmatic Poems and the Play of the Texts, Studies in the Early Middle Ages 14 (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2006) 1126-1127. 55 “And the entire congregation said ‘amen’.” See Hofmann, “Infernal Imagery,” 47. 56 Edited and translated by Michael Lapidge, Byrhtferth of Ramsey: The Lives of St. Oswald and St. Ecgwine, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

crucifixerunt Dominum. Et cum clanguerit celestis tuba horribili sonitu, surgat ipse e profundis pelagi fluctibus tremebundus, iterum post iudicium generale submersurus faucibus teterrimi Orci strangulatus lugubriter beliabus catenis absque termino—nisi satisfactione ante finem sue uite emendauerit.57

In Byrhtferth’s account, the act of donation is imbued with religious authority, having been embedded within the ecclesiastical ritual itself. Following the Eucharist, the congregation is given permission to leave and the deeds of privilege are laid upon the altar.58 Those remaining pray for the grant’s safeguarding and pronounce an anathema on anyone who might act against it. Lacking historical materials from which to build his narrative, however, Byrhtferth likely based this account on contemporary eleventh-century practice or an eleventh-century understanding of Anglo-Saxon ritual.59 While we cannot depend upon the account’s particulars,

57 “When all things had been done according to ecclesiastical ceremony, after receiving the body and blood of Christ the people departed, having been given permission by the deacon. The archbishop, having turned towards the altar, and I, a humble servant of Christ, entrusted to God the privilege and the deeds for the 120 hides; we placed them in the altar, saying together and praying as one: O glorious Lord, You Who reign in heavenly realms and govern earthly affairs mightily, and Who wondrously created all creatures without effort: protect, we beseech You, all those who should wish to defend and safeguard this place. For in the name of our most holy Saviour we command that neither the force of a mighty king nor the obduracy of an evil ealdorman nor the cunning of some powerful thegn perpetrate some fraud or indigence or diminish that which we have bestowed; but let this church be given in perpetual liberty to the servants of God, who seek with cheerful resolve to serve the Lord as Christian soldiers, just as the holy decrees of our father, Abbot Benedict require. We jointly added an anathema, saying as follows: If through the instigation of the black demon someone, inspired and deceived by the spirit of greed and goaded by the deadly stings of Satan, should attempt (God forbid!) to infringe this liberty, let him know that he is damned eternally with Pontius Pilate and with those who crucified the Lord. And when the celestial horn shall have sounded with its terrible blast, may he rise trembling from the mighty depths of the sea, only to be swallowed once again after the Universal Judgement by the jaws of blackest Hell, strangled remorselessly by devilish chains without end—unless he should make satisfactory amends before the end of his life.” Edited and translated in ibid., iii.7, 264-267. 58 See above, p. 25 n. 50 for references to similar accounts. 59 Cubitt, “Bishops and Councils,” 160-161. Byrhtferth likely composed the Life around 1016 after seeking and receiving refuge at Evesham, having fled Ramsey, which was in danger of being suppressed by King Cnut. Byrhtferth of Ramsey, xxxix.

28 it demonstrates, backed by the evidence of similar descriptions of Anglo-Saxon ritual, the existence of a ceremony surrounding the act of donation.

Other Anglo-Saxon legal forms stem from this same mental context. The Old English charm against theft provides another parallel for the use of ritual to protect ownership.60 The

‘charm,’ traditionally interpreted alongside magic texts, has been excluded from discussions of early English law. But as Andrew Rabin has argued, the text is better labeled a theft-ritual as it includes both performance instructions for the retrieval of stolen goods and a prayer to the cross.61 In addition to its content, the theft-ritual’s manuscript context also suggests a legal background. The text appears in the Textus Roffensis, a composite manuscript from which nearly all other texts are treated by scholars as legal in nature.62

Blessing, too, fits within the framework of ritual. Derek Rivard’s analysis of liturgical blessing, a speech act analogous to cursing, serves as a model for the examination of popular

60 Extant in four Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, three containing legal materials: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 190, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 383, and Maidstone, Kent, DRc/R1 (Textus Roffensis), and the fourth a collection of monastic texts: London, British Library, Cotton MS Tiberius A.iii. Andrew Rabin, “Ritual Magic or Legal Performance? Reconsidering an Old English Charm Against Theft,” in English Law Before Magna Carta: Felix Liebermann and Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. by Stefan Jurasinski, Lisi Oliver, and Andrew Rabin, Medieval Law and Its Practice 8 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 177-195. See also, Stephanie Hollis, “Old English ‘Cattle Theft Charms’: Manuscript Contexts and Social Uses,” Anglia 115 (1997), 139-164. 61 Rabin, “Ritual Magic or Legal Performance?” 178. Rabin points to Roy M. Liuzza who notes, “Titles place works in categories, and these categories often become the horizons of our study.” “Prayers and/or Charms Addressed to the Cross,” in The Cross and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. by Karen Jolly, Catherine Karkov, and Sarah Larratt Keefer (Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press, 2007), 279-323, here 298. 62 The theft-ritual is the only item from the Textus Roffensis, beside the regnal lists and a single writ of Cnut, not edited by Liebermann in his Gesetze. Wormald also denies the text’s legal status in Making of English Law, 232 and 384. Rabin, “Ritual Magic or Legal Performance?” 178-179.

29 religious belief.63 Rivard examines the act of ritual blessing and the ways in which it reflects the popular piety of the time.64 Blessings borrow extensively from scripture.65 They are a form of

“encapsulated belief” that exemplify “practical implementation of ethical and religious values through the performance of ritual.”66 The same could easily be said of curses. Indeed, much of the scholarship on blessing can be seamlessly transferred to the study of malediction. This scholarly crossover stems from the interrelatedness of the two procedures within the medieval mindset itself.67 Indeed, blessing and cursing are frequently employed side by side in the sanction clauses of Anglo-Saxon charters.

Anglo-Saxon Sanction Clauses

Anglo-Saxon charters are unique in their lack of external modes of verification such as seals and autograph subscriptions.68 Internal diplomatic, therefore, is crucial in assessing a document’s authenticity. Diplomatic formulae were equally important to contemporaries as a method of preserving the agreements themselves. Elaborate proems, sanctions, and prohibition clauses lent authority to documents, helping to preserve the acts of donation with which they were inscribed.

63 A. E. Crawley describes cursing and blessing as “perfect opposites.” “Cursing and Blessing,” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 4 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911). See p. 15, above. 64 Derek A. Rivard, Blessing the World: Ritual and Lay Piety in Medieval Religion (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009). 65 See for example, Numbers 6:24-26, Deuteronomy 1:11, I Thessalonians 3:12-13, Hebrews 13:20-21, etc. 66 Rivard, Blessing the World, 7. 67 As Little observes, “excommunication was in effect stripping a person of the protection of benediction.” Benedictine Maledictions, 190. See also, Cubitt, “Archbishop Dunstan,” especially 154- 155, for the connection between cursing and prophecy. 68 See Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, 105; and Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas, 4 and 10.

A group of Exeter charters in the name of King Æthelstan, rewritten or forged in the eleventh century, for example, include nascent obligation/prohibition clauses ordering the preservation of the act, and duration clauses with a religious tone—both of which work to set up and support the maledictions that follow.69

Constituent Parts

Michel Zimmermann offers one of the most thorough descriptions of the language of the medieval sanction clauses, focusing on Continental evidence from the eleventh and twelfth centuries. He writes: “la malédiction est un appel au malheur; est invocative; subjonctive et optative; loin de créer une relation directe entre l’agresseur et sa victime, elle sollicite la collaboration de tiers, elle met en mouvement des agents extérieurs; elle n’est pas simple violence verbale, mais expression médiatisée, ritualisée dans des formules d’écriture savante.”70

The sanction clause always appears in the final protocol, introduced by quod si or si quis.71 The length and detail of the formulas vary immensely: from the minimalist clause found in a grant of

King Æthelwulf from 850 (S 301) et qui minuerit imperpetuum dampnetur, to the New Minster,

Winchester refoundation charter (S 745), discussed at pp. 102-106 below, which includes five lengthy curses.72 The constitutive elements of each sanction clause, however, are virtually unchanging.

69 The charters greatly resemble one another in other ways as well: all begin with an incarnation date, more characteristic of later cartulary copies than Anglo-Saxon originals, and several (S 386, 387, 389, and 433) were even written by the same scribe. 70 Zimmermann, “Le vocabulaire latin de malédiction du IXe au XIIe siècle,” 38. See also, Ortí, Vocabulaire international de la diplomatique, 63-65. 71 Ibid., 42. 72 “And may he who should diminish it be damned forever.”

Hofmann breaks the Anglo-Saxon sanction into four components: the motive clause, the transgression clause, the punishment clause, and the penance clause.73 Here, however, the clause is further divided.74 The protasis—the first clause in a conditional sentence, expressing the condition itself—generally includes a reference to the donation, a motive clause, a list of potential perpetrators, a ‘quod non’ phrase (expressing the donor’s desire that the behavior described in the clause as a whole not come to pass), and the verb(s) of infringement. The core of the apodosis—the main clause of a conditional sentence, expressing the consequence—is the punishment clause, outlining the calamities that will befall those who ignore the clause’s warning. This clause is divided further below. The punishment clause is often followed by a penance clause, which allows for the guilty party’s repentance and offers forgiveness to those who make the proper amends. Occasionally, earlier charters then include a formulaic manentem clause expressing the desire that the charter stand firm, reading manentem hanc cartulam.75 A good number also include a blessing, either preceding or following the sanction proper, sometimes in poetic juxtaposition to it.76

73 Hofmann, “Infernal Imagery,” 6. 74 See Appendix One for the mark-up schema. 75 See pp. 40-41, below. 76 In S 221, 404, and 520, for example the sanction and blessing are made up of two short phrases, including ‘opposed’ present participles. See Susan E. Kelly, Charters of Abingdon Abbey, Anglo-Saxon Charters 7 and 8 (Oxford: Published for The British Academy by Oxford University Press, 2000-2001), 96, who notes that this is a typical formulation of the alliterative charters associated with Mercian diplomatic; and Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, 791.

Protasis

Following the introduction of the conditional clause (si quis) is a verb expressing action against

(contra) the donation (hanc donationem). Motives for the potential violation (superbia, praesumptio)77 are mentioned, as are possible offenders, and often a parenthetical phrase expressing a wish for the failure of any attempted violation or disbelief that transgression might occur (quod absit; quod non optamus; non credo).78 Verbal phrases expressing infringment most often include a verb of desire in the third person perfect subjunctive active (ending in -erit) combined with one or two infinitives (infringere uel minuere temptauerit).79 Transgression is not defined beyond such phrases.

Spiritual Penalties

The protasis is followed by the sanctions imposed on those guilty of trespass against the donation, expressed in the third person subjunctive. Bougard argues that this subjunctive phrasing allows those without canonical authority to issue excommunications.80

There is a fairly expansive lexicon employed in charters to describe spiritual punishment.

A good part of Zimmermann’s article is devoted to establishing distinctions and hierarchy amongst the terms in use. Standard definitions drawn from canon law can be found, but distinctions do not always hold up in practical legal documents. Zimmermann defines the following terms:

77 “With pride,” “with presumption.” 78 “May it never come to pass,” “which we do not wish,” “I do not believe.” 79 “[If anyone] should be tempted to infringe or to diminish [...]” 80 Bougard, “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction,” 228-229.

Maledictio (malediction): global concept, includes all possible punishments; Damnatio (damnation): strict eschatological scope, exclusion from eternal life; Excommunicatio (excommunication): purely ecclesiastical scope, excluded from community of faithful; Anathematizatio (anathematization): unites ecclesiastical and eschatological fields, separated from the community of the faithful and body of Christ, sent to hell with the devil.

Until the eleventh century, there is no clear theological discourse discernable in sanction clauses.

Usage is not even consistent across contemporary documents from the same institution.81

Anathema and excommunication are frequently associated with one another and listed as complementary punishments in various sanction clauses. Indeed, Zimmermann argues, anathema presupposes excommunication even though they are distinct punishments.82 Excommunication is presented as exclusion whereas anathema is accompanied by images of violence.83 The latter is the more extreme punishment.84 Helmholz, however, argues that scholars have overemphasized the distinction between excommunication and ‘cursing.’85 Treharne, noting the fluidity between the use of these terms in Old English as well as Latin sources, uses excommunication and anathema synonymously.86

Maranatha is an Aramaic term used in Corinthians and Revelation translated loosely as

81 Zimmermann, “Vocabulaire latin de la malediction,” 44-45. See also discussions of this language in the century-by-century analysis below. 82 See discussion of liturgical cursing, above. 83 Zimmermann, “Vocabulaire latin de la malediction,” 50. 84 Ibid., 51. 85 Helmholz, “Angevin Leap Forward,” 133-149. 86 Old English vocabulary includes amansumian, geniðerian, asyndrian, asceadan, and aweorpan. Treharne, “A Unique Formula for Excommunication,” 190.

‘our Lord is coming’ referring to the Second Coming of Christ.87 Combined with the word anathema in sanction clauses it suggests that violators will be damned on the Day of Judgment.

The strangeness of the term and its musical quality confer a mysteriousness that is appropriate to the curse, reinforcing its imprecatory quality.88 Still, the term is often misunderstood even by medieval scribes who mistake it for a personal name (habead maledictionem cum Marenatham et

Habiron) or fumble its spelling (habeat anathema mara thama).89 As Zimmermann asserts, we must be careful not to assign too precise a meaning to a word that was never translated into

Greek or Latin in scripture, especially since the only evidence for its use in Anglo-Saxon

England comes from documentary sources.90

In addition to threats of formal excommunication and anathematization, charters often call down the tortures of hell upon the heads of infringers. Hofmann analyzes the infernal and diabolical imagery in the early English charters, specifically within the sanction clauses. She argues that the literary infernal imagery employed in Anglo-Saxon charters was a purposeful

(although not a legal) element, fulfilling a pastoral function not accomplished by any of the charters’ other common elements.91 Fear of hell was understood as the first step towards God and

87 Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, s.v. maranatha. See also, Bougard, “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction,” 223; and Zimmermann, “Vocabulaire Latin de la Malediction,” 47. 88 On the phonetic quality of the word ‘maranatha’ see Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 34. 89 “Let him be cursed with Marenatha and Abiron,” and “Let him be anathema mara thama.” Examples are cited in Bougard, “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction,” 225-226, n. 38. 90 Zimmermann, “Vocabulaire latin de la malediction,” 47; and see the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources. 91 Hofmann, “Infernal Imagery,” 50.

35 salvation and was used as a way to regulate society.92 The monastic reform of the tenth century emphasized this fear.93 While the first phase of the reform focused on the instruction of monks and nuns, a second phase fostered the instruction of laymen through the writing and delivery of homilies.94 Wulfstan and especially Ælfric played a role in spreading this understanding of infernal suffering, including in their homilies vivid descriptions of the sufferings of hell.95 These descriptions align with the period of heightened depiction of infernal punishments in the sanction clauses of Anglo-Saxon charters.

Examining a corpus of over one thousand extant Anglo-Saxon documents, Hofmann finds that over two-thirds have sanctions and about half of these sanctions contain infernal imagery. A disproportionate amount of these sanctions occur in royal charters issued during the

92 Ibid., 59-71. 93 See “The Devil’s Account of the Next World,” a homily in the voice of a devil who, once captured, is forced by a hermit to speak of the various torments of hell. Edited by Fred C. Robinson, “The Devil's Account of the Next World: An Anecdote from Old English Homiletic Literature,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 73.1 (1972), 362-371. Cooper, Monk-Bishops and the English Benedictine Reform Movement,” 174-175. The text is extant in London, British Library, Cotton MS Tiberius A. iii, written, according to Cooper, between the years 1020 and 1023. 94 Ibid., 48; and Hofmann, “Infernal Imagery,” 66-72. 95 See, for example, Ælfric’s homily for “The Assumption of Saint John the Apostle”: Eow wæs heofenan rice gearo, and scinende gebytlu mid wistum afyllede, and mid ecum leohte: þa ge forluron þurh unwærscipe, and ge begeaton eow ðeosterfulle wununga mid dracum afyllede, and mid brastligendum ligum, mid unasecgendlicum witum afyllede, and mid anðræcum stencum; on ðam ne ablinð granung and þoterung dæges oþþe nihtes. “For you was the kingdom of heaven ready, and shining structures filled with repasts, and with eternal light: these ye have lost through heedlessness, and have got for yourselves dark dwellings filled with serpents, and with crackling flames, full of unspeakable torments and horrible stenches; in which groaning and howling cease not day nor night.” Edited and translated by Benjamin Thorpe, The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church. The First Part, Containing the Sermones Catholici or Homilies of Ælfric. In the Original Anglo-Saxon, with an English Version, vol. 1 (London: the Ælfric Society, 1844), 4.68. For additional references see Robert DiNapoli, An Index of Theme and Image to the Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: Comprising the Homilies of Ælfric, Wulfstan, and the Blickling and Vercelli Codices (Hockwold cum Wilton, Norfolk, England: Anglo-Saxon Books, 1995). On Old English descriptions of hell, see Hildegard L. C. Tristram, “Stock Descriptions of Heaven and Hell in Old English Prose and Poetry,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 79.2 (1978), 102-113.

36 second half of the tenth and the eleventh centuries. She provides helpful appendices charting the various formulae in play. There are thirty-two occurences of what Hofmann labels the ‘Hell as

Kitchen’ motif wherein sinners are thrown into iron cauldrons and tormented by demons.96 Other formulae include the ‘Mouth of Hell’ motif, that depicts the opening of hell as the mouth of a zoomorphic monster—an apparently Anglo-Saxon invention;97 and the ‘Glacial Curse,’ that adds extreme cold to the torments in hell to heighten the sense of pain.98

A common device in the punishment clauses of Anglo-Saxon charters, as well as those from Continental traditions, is to condemn the potential perpetrator to the same fate as a well- known sinner.99 The most common of these include Judas, Dathan and Abiram, and the Jews.

Indeed, Judas occurs in Anglo-Saxon sanction clauses nearly as often as demons in hell. This,

Hofmann points out, is due to “the medieval equation of breaches against charters with treason and the association of Judas with treason.”100 Occasionally, Judas and other sinners or demons are listed directly as the transgressor’s future companions in hell.101 For example, S 940, a grant of King Æthelred to St Peter’s Abbey, Chertsey issued sometime between 1006 and 1011, reads si quis autem hanc meam donacionem et confirmacionem infringere uel irritam facere

96 Hofmann’s Formula Group 2 and Motif Group XVII. Infernal Imagery, 74-76, 80-81, 249-251, and 389-340. 97 Hofmann’s Motif Group XXIV. Ibid., 82-86, 396. 98 Hofmann’s Formula Group 6 and Motif Group XXII. Ibid., 259-260, 394-395. 99 Bougard, “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction,” 223-224; and Zimmermann, “Vocabulaire latin de la malediction,” 48-49. 100 Hofmann, “Infernal Imagery,” 9. Hofmann explains the inclusion of such figures as negative exempla that served a didactic or pedagogical purpose, especially in those diplomas of the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. Ibid., 97-125. See Hofmann’s Formula Groups 1, 5, 16, 19, 24-26, 29, and 31 and Motif Groups III, IV, VIII, XII, and XXVIII. 101 See Taylor, “The Judas Curse,” 239-244; Zimmermann, “Vocabulaire latin de la malediction,” 48-49.

37 presumpserit, sciat se in illa tremendi iudicii die cum Iuda proditore et complicibus suis penas

Auerni perpetuas sine fine deflecturum nisi ante mortem suam fructifera satisfactione penituerit.102 Here, the transgressor is assigned the lot of the traitor Judas and his accomplices.

At other times, demons are listed as the instruments of torture.

The wrath of God (Dei iram) is mentioned almost universally in medieval sanction clauses.103 Other punishments include general pain (uiolentie sue penas luat), misery (eternis baratri incendiis lugubris [...] puniatur), and darkness (agminibus tetre caliginis lapsi).104

References to flames (flammis ultricibus sine fine dampnetur) and fetters (sit ipse grauibus per colla depressus catenis) are also frequent.105

Secular Penalties

In western Europe, clauses stipulating monetary fines were the norm, with most acts juxtaposing both spiritual and temporal sanctions.106 Little draws a connection between the type of penalty

102 “But if anyone should presume to infringe this my donation and confirmation or to render it useless, let him know that on the tremendous Day of Judgment, with the traitor Judas and his accomplices, he shall bow to the perpetual punishments of hell without end, unless he repents with fruitful satisfaction before his death.” 103 Bougard, “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction,” 222-223; and Zimmermann, “Le vocabulaire,” 46. 104 S 256: “Let him suffer punishments for his violence;” S 841: “Let him be punished in the everlasting fires of mournful Hell;” and S 610: “Slipping down into the streams of foul darkness.” Hofmann’s Motif Groups I, VI, and XI. 105 S 38: “Let him be damned to the vengeful flames without end;” and S 769: “Let him be weighed down by the neck with heavy chains.” Hofmann, “Infernal Imagery,” 9-10. Motif Groups II and XIII. 106 Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 53-55. Chaplais, “Some Early Anglo-Saxon Diplomas,” 322-323; Joachim Studtmann, “Die Pöformel der mittelalterlichen Urkunden,” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 12 (1932), 251-374, here 253. Indeed, Zimmermann writes that the neglect of one or the other can be due only to the laziness or inattention of the scribe. “Ils sont infligés au même moment, et on doit attribuer à la seule paresse ou inattention du scribe les rares documents où l’un des deux est seul représenté.” “Vocabulaire latin de la malediction,” 44. Although, pontifical documents and those from Byzantine Italy

38 specified and the strength of the administration issuing the charter. In Catalonia, for example, early documents contain only a financial penalty.107 In the tenth century, financial and spiritual sanctions were both included, with the latter emphasized. In the eleventh century, however, financial sanctions are again favored, but continue to appear alongside spiritual penalties until c.

1130-1135, when those all but disappear.108

Unlike their Continental counterparts, Anglo-Saxon charters give very few hints at monetary or other secular repercussions for infringing a document’s terms. Secular penalties, however, were not entirely foreign to the Anglo-Saxon mindset. The mid-tenth-century vernacular will of King Eadred (S 1515) ends with a secular penalty clause stipulating that the land of any man who refuses to heed the terms of the will would revert to the monastery where

Eadred is to be laid to rest, 7 gif þis hwa don nelle, þonne gange þæt land in þær min lic rest.109

It is generally agreed that the document is authentic; Miller points out, however, that it was unlikely to have been put into effect. A monetary penalty also appears in S 1011 from

Westminster Abbey, however, the document is a blatant forgery likely modelled on a charter of

and Croatia often employ the anathema as the only sanction against violators. Lupoi, Origins of the European Legal Order, 439. 107 Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 55. 108 Kosto, Making Agreements, 122. Little describes a similar pattern in Portuguese and Italian charters, in which spiritual sanctions were used from 883 to 1086, and in the tenth and eleventh centuries respectively. Spiritual penalites decline in the twelfth and disappear by the mid-thirteenth century. Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 55. 109 Florence E. Harmer, Select English Historical Documents of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), no. 21. “And if anyone will not do this, then the land should go to the place where my body shall remain.” The will is extant in only one medieval manuscript, the early fifteenth-century Shirburn Castle, Earl of Macclesfield, Liber Abbatiae, ff. 22r-23r. The clause does not appear in the later Middle English and Latin translations, also included in this manuscript. For an edition of all three texts, see E. Edwards, Liber Monasterii de Hyda, Rolls Series (London, 1866), 153-161.

Philip I of France for Saint-Denis, dated 1 August 1068. Nonetheless, the penalty’s presence in the twelfth-century production demonstrates an awareness of the existence of this kind of diplomatic.110

S 918, a grant of questionable authenticity, supposedly of King Æthelred to St Mary’s,

Abingdon dated 1008, specifies that he who infringes shall remain anathematized and separated from the Christian community: usque dum sancte reddat Dei genitrici Marie bis binas in quadruplum uillas, cum corporali penitentia calliditate sue machinationis relicta.111 The penalty itself has no parallels in Anglo-Saxon diplomatic, but the sanction as a whole bears striking resemblance to the clauses of S 993 and 1025, both eleventh-century royal grants in favor of St

Mary’s, Abingdon.112

Sources from the Anglo-Saxon period offer some examples wherein legal rather than divine recourse is relied upon for the settling of property disputes.113 Unfortunately, resolution processes and the details of settlement are rarely reported in detail.114 Indeed, Helmholz, discussing the maledictions containing spiritual penalties found in Anglo-Saxon testaments, suggests that their very presence indicates that “no effective earthly sanction existed” to secure

110 B. W. Scholz, “Two Forged Charters from the Abbey of Westminster and their Relationship with St. Denis,” English Historical Review (1961), 466–78. 111 Kelly, Charters of Abingdon Abbey, no. 135. “Until he should return to Mary, Holy Mother of God, twice two multiplied by four [i.e. sixteen] estates, performing bodily penance, with the cunning of his trick having been abandoned.” 112 See Kelly’s discussion in Charters of Abingdon Abbey, 529. 113 Wormald lists a total of 178 lawsuits from the pre-Conquest period, many of these dealing with property. “Anglo-Saxon Lawsuits,” 259-271. 114 Wormald, “Anglo-Saxon Lawsuits,” 252-253 and 281. See p. 44, n. 135, below. See also, Wormald, “Charters, Law and the Settlement of Disputes in Anglo-Saxon England.” 149-168.

40 the implementation of wills.115 This conclusion, surely, can be applied to royal diplomas and charters as well.

Manentem Clause

In many Italian and Frankish charters, the punishment clause is followed by a phrase expressing the belief that the charter will stand firm.116 For example, a charter of the year 720 in the register of Farfa, reads et cartula ista ... in sua permaneat nichilominus firmitate.117 The language derives specifically from sixth-century Italian private deeds, but was used regularly in early-Kentish diplomatic in the ablative or accusative absolute.118 In its original late-Roman context, the formula was designed to introduce a monetary penalty, but in Anglo-Saxon charters, it is complemented by a religious sanction.119 In its Anglo-Saxon form, the clause was devoid of serious legal significance and stemmed from insecurity about the grant’s stability.120

The manentem clause was not the only element borrowed from Continental diplomatic in the early Anglo-Saxon period. Sixth- and seventh-century Italian private deeds included a clause,

115 Helmholz, Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, 53. 116 Susan E. Kelly, Charters of St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury and Minster-in-Thanet, Anglo-Saxon Charters 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), lxxxii. See also Chaplais, “Some Early Anglo-Saxon Charters,” 323. 117 “And let that little charter endure entirely in its firmness.” Ignazio Giorgi and Ugo Balzani, eds., Il regesto di Farfa, ii (Rome: Presso la Società, 1875), no. 5. 118 Pierre Chaplais, “Some Early Anglo-Saxon Diplomas on Single Sheets: Originals or Copies?” Journal of the Society of Archivists 3.7 (1968), 315-336, here 323, reprinted in Prisca Munimenta, ed. F. Ranger (1973), 63–87; Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, 107. See, for example, S 8, 88, and 1171. 119 Chaplais, “Some Early Anglo-Saxon Diplomas 323; Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, 267. See Lupoi, Origins of the European Legal Order, 442-443 for a list of examples. 120 Lupoi, Origins of the European Legal Order, 446.

41 usually after the dispositive section, that prohibited the donor and his heirs from infringing the agreement.121 Clauses prohibiting the changing or revoking of a grant by the donor or his heirs were common in areas where legal remedies that allowed for the renunciation of gifts were inscribed in local codes.122 Clauses of this nature occur in early Anglo-Saxon charters (S 9, 15,

235, 1165).

Penance Clause123

Penance clauses, allowing for the repentance of infringers, appear at the end of many Anglo-

Saxon sanctions. Their use in Anglo-Saxon diplomatic is linked to the religious nature of the

121 Contra quam donationem nullo tempore nullaque ratione me, posteros successoresque meos venturos esse polliceor invocato tremendi diem [? for die] iudicii. “I promise, with the Day of Terrible Judgment having been evoked, that neither I, nor my descendants, nor my successors will come against this donation at any time or for any reason.” Gaetano Marini, I Papiri diplomatici (Rome: la Propagande, 1805), no. 86. Cited in Chaplais, “Some Early Anglo-Saxon Diplomas,” 320. See also, W. H. Stevenson, “The Anglo-Saxon Chancery,” The Sanders Lectures in Bibliography, Given in Cambridge, 1898, 12-13. Available online at www.kemble.asnc.cam.ac.uk. 122 The Codex Theodosianus, for example, states: Si quis maior annis adversum pacta vel transactiones nullo cogentis imperio, sed libero arbitrio et vol(un)tate confecta putaverit esse veniendum vel interpellando iudice(m) vel supplicando principibus vel non inplendo promissa ea, quae in(vo)cato dei omnipotentis nomine eo auctore solidaverit, non sol(um) inuratur infamia, verum etiam actione privatus restituta poena (quae) pactis probatur inser(t)a, earum rerum et proprietate careat et (emo)lumento quod ex pacto vel transactione illa fuerit consecutus. “If any person who has attained his majority should suppose that he should violate a pact or a compromise that had been made under no duress but by his own free will and judgment, and if he should suppose that such an agreement should be impugned either by an appeal to a judge or by a supplication to the Emperors or by his refusal to fulfill those promises which he had affirmed by invoking the name of God Almighty as his witness, not only shall he be branded with infamy but he shall also be compelled to pay the penalty which is proved to have been inserted in the pact. He shall also forfeit both the ownership of the property in question and the advantages that he was to have gained from that pact or compromise.” Theodor Mommsen, ed., Theodosiani libri XVI: cum Constivtionibvs Sirmondianis et Leges novellae ad Theodosianvm pertinentes (Berlin: 1905) II. 9. 3. Translated by Clyde Pharr, Theresa Sherrer Davidson, and Mary Brown Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. A Translation with Commentary, Glossary, and Bibliography (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952), 45-46. Cited in Chaplais, “Some Early Anglo-Saxon Diplomas,” 321. 123 Little, Benedictine Maledictions, refers to the penance clause as an ‘escape clause.’

42 sanction clause in England. Penance clauses did not take root on the Continent, where penalties were often monetary.124

Anglo-Saxon penance clauses, following the patterns of papal formulation, generally read nisi prius digna satisfactione emendauerit.125 They allow the perpetrator to make satisfactio in order to rid him- or herself of the spiritual penalties threatened within the clause. While there is no explicit description of what such ‘satisfaction’ might specifically have entailed, it likely indicated a mixture of spiritual and secular penitential gestures.126 In Wulfstan’s legal works, secular and religious penance are discussed as ‘twin systems’: “his codes regularly demand that the criminal make secular redress and do penance according to ecclesiastical law.”127 Similarly, the domboc of King Alfred designates a graduated series of secular and legal penalties for those who break oaths, beginning with the laying down of arms and imprisonment, and ending with outlawry and excommunication.128 It is this mindset that we see reflected in the penance clauses of Anglo-Saxon charters.

124 Lupoi, Origins of the European Legal Order, 162; and on clauses stipulating fines, Ortí, Vocabulaire International de la diplomatique, no. 242. 125 “Unless he will have first made amends with worthy satisfaction.” See ibid., 163-165. 126 See Timothy Reuter, “Contextualising Canossa: Excommunication, Penance, Surrender, Reconciliation,” in Medieval Polities and Modern Mentalities, edited by Janet L. Nelson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 147-166, here 156-163; Roach, “Public Rites and Public Wrongs,” 195; Emily Zack Tabuteau, Transfers of Property in Eleventh-Century Norman Law, Studies in Legal History (Chapel Hill, NC and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 208. 127 Cubitt, “Bishops and Councils,” 154. 128 Liebermann, Gesetze, Alfred 1.2. See Sarah Hamilton, “Rites for Public Penance in Late Anglo-Saxon England,” in The Liturgy of the Late Anglo-Saxon Church, edited by Helen Gittos and M. Bradford Bedingfield (London: Boydell Press, 2005), 65-103, here 84-85. See also ibid., “The Anglo-Saxon and Frankish Evidence for Rites for the Reconciliation of Excommunicants,” in Recht und Gericht in Kirche und Welt um 900, edited by Wilfried Hartmann and Annette Grabowsky. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs Kolloquien 69 (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2007), 169-196.

Blessings

The influence of the Church, visible in the Anglo-Saxon use of penance clauses, is also responsible for the frequent inclusion of benediction. Blessings are commonly included alongside Anglo-Saxon sanction clauses, following the custom of papal diplomatic dating back to the end of the sixth century.129 They offer up spiritual and worldly reward to those who keep the terms of an agreement, or protect or enlarge a grant of land.

Witness Lists

Beyond the sanction clause proper, there are several instances where witness lists bear maledictory language. In these documents a malediction and benediction are put directly into the mouths of a named individual, usually one of the persons in whose name the grant has been written, or the entire set of witnesses. S 1294 a grant dated 966 but forged in the post-Conquest period, includes maledictory language in the subscription of Archbishop Oscytel: + Ego

Osketulus archiepiscopus Ebor[acensis] perpetuam damnationem in sanctæ matris ecclesiæ aduersarios interpretatos istam sententiam corroboraui.130 In other cases, maledictions are placed at the end of the entire witness list, using the combined force of all those named to

129 Chaplais, “Some Early Anglo-Saxon Diplomas,” 322, n. 87; Wilhelm Levison, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century. The Ford Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in the Hilary Term, 1943 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946), 228-229; Lupoi, Origins of the European Legal Order, 157- 161; and Ortí, Vocabulaire International de la diplomatique, no. 245. 130 “I, Archbishop Oscytel of York, confirmed that sentence [and, in addition, I threatened] the adversarial intermediaries of our Holy Mother church with perpetual damnation.” See also S 132: Ego Offa rex Merciorum cum benedictione omnium episcoporum inpono signum sanctæ + ad confirmationem huius doni mihi donanti ad redemptionem: et minuenti ad æternam condempnationem et sine ullo remedio in inferno ad æterne poene cruciatum. “I Offa, King of the Mercians, with the blessing of all the bishops, place the sign of the Holy Cross as confirmation of this gift, donated for my redemption. And may he who diminishes [it] be condemned in eternity and tortured in eternal punishment in the inferno without any remedy.”

44 strengthen the clause.131 The witnesses in S 224, a grant of Æthelflæd, queen of the Mercians from c. 914, are directly associated with the malediction that follows their names: Omnes isti consenserunt ac scripserunt et in testimonium huius donacionis affuerunt. Deus illum conseruet qui istud conseruet. Deus illum disperdat qui istud dissoluat.132 This placement of the malediction occurs in Continental documents as well and, as Bougard demonstrates, is another indication of the performance of sanction clauses and their verbal proclamation.133 In lieu of other external signs of validation—seals, autograph signatures, notarial signs—the sanction clause, associated with the witness list, becomes a method of validation itself.134

Efficacy of Medieval Cursing

Charters themselves do not indicate the effectiveness of their form. There are no hints at their success rate for protecting the gifts with which they were inscribed, nor is a clear impression given by the sources documenting contemporary lawsuits concerning land.135 The best indicator appears in monastic chronicles and cartularies, which by their very existence provide evidence of the troubles facing those who strove to maintain monastic estates.

131 See also S 745 and 898. 132 “All those who consented, wrote, and were present in testimony of this donation. May God conserve him who conserves it. May God destroy him who dissolves it.” 133 Bougard, “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction,” 227-228, 234. 134 See Bougard’s citation of Continental instances of the sanction associated with the sealing clause and the witnesses. Ibid., 234. 135 Documentation of legal proceedings is almost exclusively written by the winning side and only contain one side of the story. Furthermore, details of the dispute, the nature of the offence, and the terms for settlement are sparse. For example, the reason for the dispute between Bishop Ælfwold of Sherborne and Earl Godwine (1045 x 1053) is never specified (Wormald’s lawsuit number 176). Wormald, “Anglo- Saxon Lawsuits,” 252-253 and 281.

Yet, other evidence points in the opposite direction, toward a genuine fear of curses legitimately incurred. Æthelred’s fear of and desire to be freed from the exhorrendo anathemate, the “terrifying anathema,” incurred through his own wrongdoing, is well attested.136 The charter implies that Æthelred’s transgressions had indeed brought down on his head the sanctions of the charters he had violated.137 Cubitt argues that “the events of 993 remind us therefore that the efficacy of solemn anathemas in Anglo-Saxon charters probably derived neither from the royal authority which usually stood behind the donations nor the power of the Church to impose canonical penalties, but in the fearful ritual significance of the anathemas themselves.”138

Similarly, Earl Godwine was inspired to reconcile with Ælfwold, bishop of Sherborne for fear of the bishop’s curse, which immediately struck him down.139 The text explains the Earl’s reaction

136 Roach, “Public Rites and Public Wrongs,” 194; Cubitt, “Bishops and Councils,” 162-167. Bougard cites similar language in a restitution of 1036 by the Count of Ampurias to the Abbey de La Grasse who, with his councillors, was terrified (expavius valde) upon hearing the maledicton of the charter in question read aloud. “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction,” 231. 137 S 876 confirming the privileges of Abingdon Abbey et citius a tanto tamque exhorrendo anathemate liberari [cu]piens. “And desiring to be freed quickly from the great and terrifying anathema.” 138 Cubitt, “Bishops and Councils,” 167. 139 Die placito dicta, cum res non ad pacem sed ad litigium precederet, discessit episcopus post altercationem has minas in comitem iaculatus: ‘Per dominam meam sanctam Mariam male tibi erit, quia contristasti me.’ Domum ergo regressus, uix pedem terrae apposuerat, equitaturam peditatu commutans, cum ecce satelles comitis aduenit, equo admisso, et pulsu ilium celeritatem cursus prodente. Rogare ille miserabiliter genibus affusus ut redeat: dominum suum statim post eius abscessum estuare corde, uix lingua palpitare. “On the day set for the plea, they did not reach a settlement, but quarrelled. The bishop departed after the set-to, hurling threats at the earl: ‘By my lady St Mary, it will be the worse for you that you have crossed me!’ Home he went. He had scarcely dismounted and put foot to the ground, when a servant of the earl arrived at a gallop, his horse’s heaving sides showing the speed with which he had come. He fell at the bishop’s knee and begged him pitiably to return: the moment he left, his lord had had a heart attack and could barely speak.” Listed in Wormald, “Anglo-Saxon Lawsuits,” no. 176. Edited and translated in Michael Winterbottom and Rodney M. Thomson, William of Malmesbury Gesta Pontificum Anglorum: The History of the English Bishops, Oxford Medieval Texts, 2 volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007), ii.81.3-4, 282-283.

46 to the curse in terms of physical ailment. We might understand it as fear of the result of remaining obstinate toward the Bishop.

Another example appears in a letter written to King Æthelbald II of Kent in 747, by

Boniface in which he warns the king of the impending consequences of his aggressive behavior towards monastics, reminding him of the fate of his predecessors who similarly alienated lands and violated privileges. Boniface describes Kings Ceolred and Osred, infamous abusers of monastic property and virtue, as sentenced to hell for their sins:140

Hi duo reges haec duo peccata maxima in provinciis Anglorum diabolico instinctu suis exemplis sceleratis contra precepta evangelica et apostolica salvatoris nostri publice facienda monstraverunt. Et in istis peccatis commorantes, id est in stupratione et adulterio nonnarum et fractura monasteriorum, iusto iudicio Dei damnati de culmine regali huius vitę abiecti et inmatura et terribili morte pręventi a luce perpetua extranei in profundum inferni et tartarum abyssi demersi sunt. Nam Ceolredum, precessorem venerande celsitudinis tuae, ut testati sunt qui presentes fuerant, apud comites suos splendide epulantem malignus spiritus, qui eum ad fiduciam dampnandę legis Dei suadendo pellexit, peccantem subito in insaniam mentis convertit, ut sine pęnitentia et confessione furibundus et amens et cum diabolis sermocinans et Dei sacerdotes abhominans de hac luce sine dubio ad tormenta inferni migravit.141

140 Another account describing Ceolred burning in hell appears in Boniface’s letter to the religious woman Eadburg. Boniface reports the vision of a monk of Much Wenlock who, when he momentarily gave up the spirit, witnessed Ceolred’s damnation. Edited in Michael Tangl, Die Briefe des heiligen Bonifatius und Lullus, 2nd edition, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae Selectae 1 (Berlin, 1916, repr. 1995), no. 10. 141 “These two kings, inspired by the devil, made public display of these two most grievous sins through the lands of the English in defiance of the commands of the Gospel and the apostolic teachings of our Savior. Persisting in these crimes, that is, in the adulterous violation of nuns and the destruction of monasteries, they were condemned by the righteous justice of God and cast down from their royal state, overtaken by an early and terrible death, shut out from the light eternal, and plunged into the depths of hell. Ceolred, the predecessor of Your Reverend Highness, as it was told by those who were present, while he sat feasting amidst his companions was suddenly stricken in his sins with madness by an evil spirit, who had seduced him by his persuasions in to rash defiance of the law of God. So without

According to the distinction made by Cubitt between ‘full-blooded’ curses and ‘fearsome negative prophecies,’ this account seems more closely to approach the latter.142 Nowhere in

Boniface’s account is it explicitly specified that Ceolred’s damnation is the enactment of a curse.

The penalty is, however, incurred as the result of infringing monastic property that was surely protected by a charter inscribed with a maledictory sanction clause. The sudden affliction suffered by Ceolred is certainly intended to appear as the direct result of a divine command. It is not unreasonable to suppose, then, that the account of such an occurrence, designed to frighten

Æthelbald into amending his covetous and often violent behavior, would have called to his mind and the minds of contemporaries the various infernal penalties of the sanction clauses of the charters he was violating.

The efficacy—or rather, the weakness—of the contemporary book curse is much more thoroughly studied. Both Keith Thomas, who discusses the role of Christianity in the loss of trust in forms of verbal control, and Lawrence S. Thompson, who examines book curses, describe a cognitive shift from a belief in the efficacy of cursing.143 Thompson suggests that the increasingly elaborate construction of curses indicates a decrease in their effectiveness at

repentance or confession, raving mad, talking with devils and cursing the priests of God, he passed on, without doubt, from this life to the torments of hell.” Translated by Ephraim Emerton, The Letters of Saint Boniface, Records of Civilization Sources and Studies 31 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940), no. 57 at pp. 129-130; Edited in Tangl, Briefe, no. 73. 142 Cubitt, “Archbishop Dunstan,” 156 143 Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971); Thompson, “A Cursory Survey of Maledictions,” 55-75. Although, Thompson points out, upon acquiring a new manuscript (what is now Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 132) bearing a book curse, the fourteenth-century bishop of Exeter, John Grandison, cautiously added the note: “Ego Johannes Exon Episcopus, nescio ubi est domus praedicta, nec hunc librum abstulit, sed modo legitimo adquissivi,” 61. We should note that such a precaution might indicate a respect for or an interest in ancient practices rather than a belief in their potency.

48 preventing theft or other transgressions as well as a decline in society’s belief in their power as forms of verbal control.144 Thompson sees this shift beginning in the tenth century and made firm in the eleventh century at which point “the whimsical becomes the order of the day.”145

References to ‘obscure’ biblical figures (Dathan and Abiram, for example), rhyme, and even humor were inserted into the genre.146 Beyond this, however, the ‘boldest’ move toward this newfound ‘humorous formalism,’ was the use of the vernacular which betrayed a lack of solemnity.147 Although these changes may have occurred at this time in book curses, they were certainly not new in the genre of cursing generally and, in earlier periods, do not necessarily indicate a relaxing of the genre. A number of sanction clauses written in rhyming couplets survive from the Anglo-Saxon period (if anything, this structure lends the clauses a magical

144 Ibid., 62-63. 145 Ibid., 62. 146 See, for example, the following, appearing in the eleventh-century Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliotek mark. Monacensis 14258: Sor supern scrip li poti \ / \ / \ / \ / \ te orum tor bri atur. / \ / \ / \ / \ / Mor superb rap li mori Cited in ibid., 62. See also, Wilhelm Wattenbach, who lists similar formulations in Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter (Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1875), 443. 147 Thompson cites a curse inscribed in the fifteenth-century London, British Library, Harley MS 1251: Thys boke is one / and Godes Kors ys anoder; / They take the ton, / God gefe them the toder. “A Cursory Survey of Maledictions,” 63.

49 performative quality).148 Furthermore, vernacular maledictions are to be found in even the earliest Anglo-Saxon legal documents.149

In discussions of the efficacy of cursing, the question of whether or not such penalties were even meant to be effective inevitably arises.150 But, as Kosto argues for the Catalonian documents, temporal penalties were intended to work. As comital power lessened, and such penalties were no longer enforceable, the spiritual took their place and a necessary shift in the expectations for efficacy occurred. While excommunication had worldly ramifications, it could also be ignored.151 Spiritual penalties that focused purely on the afterlife had the benefit of being unverifiable, but they were also only useful against those who possessed religious belief or who in fact cared about the state of their soul.152 As Bougard notes, the usefulness of the anathema resides in its place in a shared culture in which a specific reaction by those faced with it is expected.153

148 S 214 is a good example of a sanction clause with poetic structure: Augentibus hæc a Deo pax. Frangentibus uero uæ sintque maranatha in die magno aduentus Domini. “Peace from God to those augmenting this. But woe to those breaking [it] and let them be maranatha on the great day of the coming of the Lord.” See also, S 221, 594, 624, and 1387. 149 For an English vernacular sanction clause, see S 1197, a mid-ninth-century grant from Christ Church, Canterbury that survives as an original single sheet, se his ferwerne oððe hit agele se him seald 7 gehealden helle wite bute he to fulre bote gecerran wille Gode 7 mannum. “He who withholds or obstructs it, to him be given and maintained the punishment of hell, unless he be willing to agree full compensation to God and to mankind.” Edited and translated in Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, 744. For examples of the use of the German, French, and English vernaculars in the later medieval period, see Thompson, “A Cursory Survey of Maledictions,” 63-64. 150 Kosto, Making Agreements, 122; Studtmann, “Die Pönformel,” 330-354. 151 Kosto, Making Agreements, 122. 152 Hofmann, “Infernal Imagery,” 7-8. 153 Bougard, “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction,” 233.

Regardless of their actual ability to prevent tampering with the documents and agreements they were tasked with protecting, sanction clauses were used extensively throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. As we will see, 145 of the 171 Anglo-Saxon single-sheet documents included in this study contain a curse. The precise formulation of this clause and its development throughout the period will be the focus of the following chapter.

Chapter 3

Summary of the Anglo-Saxon Single-Sheet Corpus

This chapter provides a century-by-century discussion of the sanction clauses of all extant

Anglo-Latin single-sheet charters from the seventh to eleventh century—the eleventh century further divided into pre- and post-Conquest analyses—with an authenticity classification of 1 or

2. Forged documents (Class 3) are considered separately at the end of the chapter.1 The corpus includes 171 Anglo-Saxon documents and three authentic single-sheet diplomas of William I from the period directly after the Norman Conquest of 1066.2 The documents survive from more than twenty-six different archives and offer examples of one hundred and forty-seven maledictions with fifty-two blessings and ninety-nine penance clauses.

Although century-by-century analysis may not necessarily divide the documents into the cleanest diplomatic units—diplomatic norms shift more often with the succession of a new king or with the location of the beneficiary—representative groups of charters for other organizational schemes are sparse and divisions would soon grow unwieldy. Where a document is undated and the estimated date range spans two centuries, it is included in the grouping which analysis of the clause suggests is appropriate.

1 See Chapter One, p. 7 for an explanation of the authenticity classification system. 2 S 88 is divided into two documents. See p. 61, below.

51 52

The Seventh Century

In order to contextualize what follows, it is useful to begin this section on the earliest century from which Anglo-Saxon single sheets survive by examining the structure of the earliest extant

Class 1 original document: S 8, a grant of King Hlothhere to Abbot Berhtwald and the minster of

Reculver from the year 679 preserved in the archive of Christ Church, Canterbury.3 The document bears two sanction clauses. The first, appearing in the main body of the charter, reads:

Quisquis contra hanc donationem uenire temptauerit, sit ab omni christianitata [for christianitate] separatus et a corpore et sanguini domini nostri Iesu Christi suspensus, manentem hanc donationis chartulam in sua nihilominus firmitate.4 The second appears in an addendum concerning an additional estate: A nullo contradicitur, quod absit, neque a me neque a parentibus meis neque ab aliis. Si aliquis aliter fecerit, a Deo se damnatum sciat et in die iudicii rationem reddet Deo in anima sua.5 Like most early Anglo-Saxon maledictions, these two sanction clauses are fairly simple.6 They are grammatically straightforward and steer away from over-the-top intensity and verbosity.7 The rest of the documents from this century follow suit. All are in the third-person singular and are phrased in the future-less-vivid conditional with a perfect

3 London, British Library, Cotton Augustus ii. 2. Also preserved in the Anglo-Norman Cartulary of Christ Church, Canterbury. 4 “Anyone who should be tempted to come against this donation, let him be separated from all Christianity and suspended from the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, this charter of donation nevertheless remaining in its firmness.” 5 “May it—may it never come to pass—be contradicted by no one, neither by me, nor by my relatives, nor by others. If anyone does otherwise, let him know himself damned by God and let him account to God for his soul on the Day of Judgment.” 6 Indeed, Thompson in her Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas, selects S 8 as the document most representative of its period. 7 Compare Aldhelm’s style, discussed at pp. 86-88, below.

53 subjunctive in the protasis and a present subjunctive in the apodosis, except for the apodosis of S

1248 which is rendered as an indirect statement.

Including S 8, there are seven seventh-century documents with a Class 1 or 2 authenticity: S 8, 19, 20, 21 (a near facsimile copy of S 19 with the grant of an additional appurtenance), 236, 1171, 1248. The geographical distribution of the group is quite diverse. Four documents survive from the archive of Christ Church, Canterbury, one of which was issued jointly in favor of St Augustine’s Canterbury; two are originally from Lyminge, and one from

Reculver. S 1171 is from Barking; S 1248 survives at Westminster formerly from Barking; and S

236 is from Glastonbury. All are royal grants, with the exception of S 1248 which is ecclesiastical. Further details of these documents are summarized in Table 1, below:

Table 1: Summary of the Seventh-Century Corpus

Sawyer # Archive Internal Date Status Type Grantor 8 Christ Church, [679] Royal Grant King Hlothhere Canterbury (ex Reculver) 19 Christ Church, [697 or 712] Royal Grant King Wihtred Canterbury (ex Lyminge) 20 Christ Church, 699 Royal Grant of King Wihtred Canterbury and St Privilege Augustine’s, Canterbury 21 Christ Church, [697 or 712] Royal Grant King Wihtred Canterbury (ex Lyminge) 236 Glastonbury 681 Royal Grant King Baldred 1171 Barking [686 x 688] Royal Grant King Æthelred 1248 Westminster (ex 693 Ecclesiastical Grant [Bishop Eorcenwald] Barking)

Of these seven documents, only S 20, dated 699, lacks an anathema (see Table 2, at p. 56). It is also the only charter in the group that is a grant of privilege rather than of property. This difference, however, is unlikely to be the reason for the charter’s lack of an anathema; although the only grant of its kind in this century, grants of privilege in subsequent centuries are just as

54 likely to include maledictions as other types of documents. S 20 shares a grantor, King Wihtred, with S 19 and 21, and all three survive in the archive of Christ Church, Canterbury. Because the corpus for this century is widely distributed across archives, but spread over only a few decades, it is impossible to determine any more precisely why S 20 is an outlier. Based on the statistics of inclusion in other centuries and from charters copied into cartularies, were more seventh-century charters extant, it seems likely that others would also be found to lack a sanction clause.

Supplementary Clauses

Each of the six sanction clauses in the seventh-century corpus make varying use of supplementary clauses. Three documents, S 236, 1171, and 1248, include blessings. The blessings in S 1171 and 1248 are parallel in their grammatical structure to their corresponding maledictions. Both blessing and curse are conditional si quis clauses. The blessing in S 1171, for example, reads: Si quis autem hanc donationem augere uoluerit, augeat Deus bona sua in regione uiuorum cum sanctis suis sine fine. Amen.8 S 1248 is similar, following the same grammatical structure with the verb augeo, “to augment,” repeated in the protasis and apodosis:

Si quis uero hanc donationis munificentiam augere et amplificare uoluerit, augeat Deus partem eius in libro uitæ.9 The doubling of alliterative infinitives in the protasis adds to the poeticism of

8 “But, if anyone wishes to augment this donation, may God augment his goods in the realm of those living with His saints without end. Amen.” It is preceded by a curse, which translates “If anyone is tempted to act against or to corrupt this charter of donation, may he know himself condemned before omnipotent God, and Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit, that is, the inseparable Trinity and separated from all Christian society.” Si quis contra hanc donationis kartulam uenire temptauerit aut corrumpere ante omnipotentem Deum et Iesum Christum filium eius et Spiritum Sanctum, id est inseparabilem trinitatem, sciat se condemnatum et separatum ab omni societate Christiana. 9 “If anyone wishes to augment or to amplify this munificence of donation, may God augment his part in the Book of Life.”

55 the clause. Both S 1171 and 1248 have an active grammatical structure in the apodosis with Deus as the nominative subject of augeat. This structure is common in blessings, but rare in curses until the end of the period under study.10

Identical prohibition clauses appear in S 19 and 21 (again, S 21 is a later copy of S 19 with the grant of an additional appurtenance). Immediately before the sanction clause proper, S

19 reads: Quam donationem meam uolo firmam esse inperpetuum ut nec ego seu heredes mei aliquid minuere præsumant.11 Because S 19 and 21 are preceded by prohibition clauses, they begin with the words quod si as opposed to a form of si (ali)quis or quisquis like the rest of the documents from the period.12 S 8, discussed above, also features a prohibition clause: A nullo contradicitur, quod absit, neque a me neque a parentibus meis neque ab aliis.13 While the prohibition is not followed by the anticipated quod si, the two clauses—prohibition and sanction—still flow seamlessly together.

S 8 and 1171 end with the manentem clause inherited from Continental diplomatic.14

None of the seventh-century charters includes a penance clause to allow for repentance by the infringer, an element that becomes nearly obligatory in the latter half of the period under study.

10 This structure is discussed more fully in Chapter Four at pp. 165-169, below. 11 “I wish this my donation to be firm in perpetuity so that neither I nor my heirs should presume to diminish anything.” 12 Kelly remarks on the regularity of this pattern in her discussion of Kentish diplomatic in Charters of St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury and Minster-in-Thanet, lxxxii. 13 “May it—may it never come to pass—be contradicted by no one, neither by me, nor by my relatives, nor by others.” 14 See fuller discussion of the history of this clause at pp. 40-41, above.

The occurrence of malediction alongside major supplementary clauses, in the case of the seventh-century corpus only benediction, is summarized in Table 2:

Table 2: Occurrence of Supplementary Clauses in the Seventh-Century Corpus

Sawyer # Malediction Benediction 8 X (2) 19 X 20 21 X 236 X X 1171 X X 1248 X X

Protasis

Moving from the possible combinations of clauses to the minutiae of the sanction clause itself, the protases of this group, as a whole, include all of the elements one would expect: a quod non phrase, a donation reference, a list of potential perpetrators and their motivation for infringement, and at least one verb of infringement. S 8 and 236 contain basic quod non clauses, both reading quod absit, “may it never come to pass.” S 236 and 1248 outline the potential malefactor’s impetus for transgression. Both documents, unrelated in any readily apparent way, contain identical wording: tirannica fretus potestate.15 This type of language, as discussed below, became much more common in subsequent centuries.

15 This phrase also appears in Aldhelm’s letter to Geraint, efflagitamus, ut ulterius [...] traditionem ecclesiae Romanae [...] tyrannica freti pertinacia arroganter aspernemini. “We request that you no longer arrogantly spurn, trusting in tyrannical obstinancy, the tradition of the Roman Church.” Edited in Rudolfus Ehwald, Aldhelmi Opera, Monumenta Germaniae Historica Auctorum Antiquissimorum 15 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1919), 485, l. 10. Note that both S 236 and 1248 are later single-sheet copies. See Appendix Two for authenticity rankings.

Only three of six documents contain a donation reference in the protasis: S 8, 236, and

1171 read hanc donationem, hoc decretum, and hanc donationis kartulam, respectively.16 Three charters list potential perpetrators within their prohibition clauses. S 8 states: A nullo contradicitur [...] neque a me neque a parentibus meis neque ab aliis.17 Similarly, S 19 and 21 read: ut nec ego seu heredes mei aliquid inminuere praesumant.18 These three charters contain no further description of the potential perpetrators, but S 236 and 1248 both employ the phrase tirannica fretus potestate to modify the general ‘anyone’ (quis) of their clauses.19

Punishment Clause

Spiritual Punishments

Together, the seventh-century single sheets bear witness to most of the major types of spiritual punishment included in the corpus: separation from the community and from the body and blood of Christ, eternal damnation, and the impending threat of Final Judgment. It is not surprising that

Anglo-Saxon punishment clauses focused from the very outset on Judgment Day. Religious and lay-people alike would have been familiar with terrifying depictions of the Final Judgment, hearing at length about its horror from the pulpit.20 For example, Vercelli Homily 4, which forms part of a series of homilies composed sometime between the late ninth and the late tenth

16 “This donation,” “this decree,” and “this little charter of donation.” 17 “May it be contradicted by no one, neither by me, nor by my relatives, nor by anyone else.” 18 “So that neither I nor my heirs should presume to diminish it at all.” 19 “Trusting in tyrannical power.” 20 See Milton McC. Gatch, “Eschatology in the Anonymous Old English Homilies,” Traditio 21 (1965), 117-165.

58 centuries, incorporates a lengthy account of Judgment Day into its exhortation to repentance, reading:

& mid ure sawle anre we sculon riht agyldan on þam myclan dome. Wa is hyre þonne earmre, gif hio ana stent, ealra godra dæda wana, on domes dæge beforan Gode. Þær þonne ne mæg se fæder hel pan þam suna, ne [se] suna þam fæder, ne nan mæg oðrum [...] And þonne standað forhte & afærede þa þe ær wirigdon & unriht worhton, & swið[e] betwyh him heofað & wepað. Hwylcne dom him dryhten deman wille be ðam dome þe he ðam halgum demed hæfð, & cwacigende on anbide standað, hwanne ær hie þæs reðan cyninges word gehyren.21

The idea that one must render an account of one’s sins appears in even the earliest charters, often with God acting as Judge. Themes of fear, misery and abandonment are also common to both homilies and Anglo-Saxon sanction clauses.

The seventh-century punishment clauses, although few in number, are in many ways representative of the broader Anglo-Saxon corpus: they threaten Judgment Day, separation from

God, the community, and the Church. Most Anglo-Saxon sanction clauses, even the most elaborate, can be reduced to this simplified structure, additional clauses and details serving to

21 “And with our soul alone we must pay what is due at that great judgment. Woe to it then, the wretched [soul], if it stands alone, lacking in all good deeds, on Doomsday before God. There the father may not help the son, nor the son the father, nor anyone another. [...] And then they will stand afraid and frightened, those who before committed evil and worked wickedness, and among themselves they will greatly lament and bewail whichever sentence the Lord Judge may decree for them according to the judgment with which he has judged the saints. And quaking they will stand in anticipation of [the time] when they will at last hear the words of the fierce king.” Lines 66-70 and 194-198, as cited and translated in Dorothy Haines, “Courtroom Drama and the Homiletic Monologues of The Vercelli Book,” in Verbal Encounters: Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse Studies for Roberta Frank, edited by Antonina Harbus and Russell Poole (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005), 105-123, here 108-109. For a full edition see Donald G. Scragg, The Vercelli Homilies and Related Texts, The Early English Text Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), no. 4. On the dating of the Vercelli Homilies see ibid., xxxviii-xlii.

59 enhance these core concepts. The one concept that is conspicuously absent from this early corpus is infernal punishment, which came to play a significant role as of the tenth century.

The most elaborate sanction clause of the seventh-century group is S 1248, which includes poetic alliteration on ‘f’ and ‘t’ in the protasis. Inspired by Matthew 13:29-30, the parable of the weeds among the wheat, the charter draftsman threatens all potential transgressors of the act with being bound by the nine orders of angels into bundles of tares: Si quis uero tirannica fretus potestate irritam facere nisus fuerit, nouerit se in tremendo uiuorum et mortuorum examine coram Christo singulorum facta æqua discretionis lance liberante nouemque angelorum ordinibus zizaniorum fasciculos sequestrata beatorum caterua colligantibus rationem districte reddituram [? for redditurum].22 This specific penalty does not appear elsewhere in the body of Anglo-Saxon single-sheets. However, as we will see, charter draftsmen throughout the corpus frequently draw on both the New and Old Testament to create unique punishment clauses rooted in scripture.23

As discussed in the Introduction, the general medieval terminology for cursing was imprecise, as demonstrated by the fluid use of ‘malediction’, ‘damnation’, ‘excommunication’, and ‘anathema’ throughout the period. The seventh-century documents, however, provide only two instances of this vocabulary in use. S 1171 envisions condemnation occurring in the presence of the three persons of the Trinity: ante omnipotentem Deum et Iesum Christum filium

22 “But if anyone, trusting in tyrannical power should strive to render [it] void, let him know that he will have to strictly give reason before Christ on the great examination of the living and the dead, when the deeds of all are weighed on the scale of discretion and those sequestered from the company of saints will be bound in bundles of weeds by the nine orders of angels.” See Matthew 13: 39-42 and 25:31-4. 23 See, for example, pp. 105, 114, and 116, n. 203, below.

60 eius et Spiritum Sanctum, id est inseparabilem trinitatem, sciat se condemnatum.24 The implication here is that condemnatio occurs after death, on Judgment Day.

The sanction clauses of S 19 and 21—two copies of a grant by King Wihtred of Kent to

St Mary’s, Lyminge—are worded identically, both placing transgressors under the sentence of anathema: quod si aliter temptatum fuerit a qualibet persona sub anathematis interdictione sciat se præuaricari.25 This structure is most akin to the curses found in excommunication formulas.26

Both copies lack an internal dating clause. The estimated date provided in the Anglo-Saxon

Charters series is either 697 or 712.27 Based on their sanction clauses alone, the two documents could easily belong either to the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century.

Separation—technically a part of excommunication but not explicitly connected in these charters—is threatened in S 8 and 1171. In fact, S 1171 separates the infringer from all Christian society, a punishment implicitly linked to the formal sanction of excommunication: separatum ab omni societate christiana.28 S 8 specifies that the infringer be separated from the Eucharist as well: sit ab omni christianitata [for christianitate] separatus [...] corpore et sanguini domini nostri Iesu Christi suspensus.29 It is important to remember that while many of the sanction clauses studied do not explicitly threaten excommunication or anathema, promises of

24 “Let him know himself condemned before omnipotent God and Jesus Christ his Son and the Holy Spirit, that is the inseparable Trinity.” 25 “But if anything otherwise should be attempted by any person, let him know that he transgresses under the interdict of anathema.” 26 See Little’s “Appendix C: A Miscellany of Curse Formulas” in Benedictine Maledictions, 254-267 27 Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, 286-293 and 294-297. 28 See Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 30-45; and the discussion below, at pp. 178-179. 29 “Let him be separated from all Christianity [...] and suspended from the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

61 separation—especially separation from the Church, community, and the Eucharist—would likely have been understood as such.30

The Eighth Century

Significantly more charters survive from the eighth century than the seventh century: twenty or twenty-one single-sheet documents as compared to seven. The total number depends on whether or not one includes S 88, a single-sheet copy from Rochester, likely ninth-century, which records the grant of a toll-exemption by King Æthelbald of Mercia to Bishop Eadwulf and the Church of

St Andrew, Rochester dated 733 with a confirmation by King Berhtwulf from between 844 and

851. The charter itself does not appear to have been altered in any substantive way, so it is therefore included in the eighth-century analysis while the confirmation text, which also has a sanction clause, is included in the ninth-century section.31 Nine of the twenty-one eighth-century documents survive at Christ Church, Canterbury (three formerly at Lyminge and one Rochester).

There are three from Rochester, four from Worcester, and one each from Evesham, Glastonbury, and Selsey. The provenance of two of the documents is uncertain. These details are summarized in Table 3, below:

30 Early insular penitentials, such as the Paenitentiale Ambrosianum, suggest the use of excommunication, consisting of various forms of separation, to compel a reluctant sinner to make satisfaction. Rob Meens, Penance in Medieval Europe, 600-1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 45-46. The Old English verb asceadan, “to separate” or “to exclude,” is used with the sense “to excommunicate” in Gregory’s Dialogues and the Capitula of Theodulf of Orleans. Hans Hecht, Bischof Waerferths von Worcester übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen (Hamburg: Henri Grand, 1907), 153, l. 2. Hans Sauer, Theodulfi Capitula in England: Die altenglischen Übersetzungen, zusammen mit dem lateinischen Text, Texte und Untersuchungen zur englischen Philologie 8 (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1978), 343, l. 7. 31 For an analysis of S 88’s authenticity, see Campbell, Charters of Rochester, no. 2.

Table 3: Summary of the Eighth-Century Corpus

Sawyer # Archive Internal Status Type Grantor Date 23 Christ Church, [732] Royal Grant King Æthelberht II Canterbury (ex Lyminge) 24 Christ Church, 741 Royal Grant King Æthelberht II Canterbury (ex Lyminge) 31 Christ Church, [748 X 762] Royal Grant King Eardwulf Canterbury (ex Reculver) 35 Rochester 778 Royal Grant King Egbert 56 Worcester 759 Royal Grant Eanberht, Uhtred and Ealdred, under-kings of the Hwicce 59 Worcester 770 Royal Grant Uhtred, regulus of the Hwicce 65 Christ Church, 704; [709 X Royal Grant; King Swæfred; King Canterbury 716] Confirmation Ceolred 88 Rochester 733 Royal Grant of King Æthelbald Privilege 89 Worcester 736 Royal Grant King Æthelbald 96 Uncertain (? 757 Royal Grant King Æthelbald Malmesbury) 106 Christ Church, 767 Royal Grant King Offa Canterbury 114 Evesham 779 Royal Grant King Offa 123 Christ Church, 785 Royal Grant King Offa Canterbury (ex Lyminge) 128 Christ Church, 788 Royal Grant King Offa Canterbury 139 Worcester 793 x 796 Royal Grant King Offa 153 Christ Church, [798] Royal Grant King Coenwulf Canterbury 155 Christ Church, 799 Royal Restoration King Coenwulf Canterbury 248 Glastonbury 705 Royal Grant King Ine 264 Uncertain (? 778 Royal Grant King Cynewulf Bedwyn) 266 Rochester 781 alt. from Royal Grant King Æthelberht 761 1184 Selsey 780 Non-Royal Grant; Oslac, dux of the South Lay; Royal Confirmation Saxons; King Offa

Supplementary Clauses

Sixteen of the twenty-one eighth-century documents contain sanction clauses; S 23, 128, 139,

153, and 155 are without. However, only S 24 and 56 are preceded by a prohibition clause. As with the seventh-century documents which include prohibition clauses, the sanction clauses of S

24 and 56 begin with quod si rather than a variation on si quis. Supplementary clauses, with the exception of the blessing and penance, tend to appear more in early documents and are a retention from direct Continental influence.32 S 56 resembles those of the seventh century, stating that the grantor does not wish his heirs to contradict his donation. S 24, however, has more similarities to the proems with which Anglo-Saxon charters open, discussing the transience of earthly pleasures, laying out the pious reasons for the act and expounding on the wisdom or appropriateness of the donation. S 24’s prohibition clause reads:

Uerum quia cauendum est ne hodiernam donationem nostram futuri temporis abnegare ualeat et in ambiguum deuocare presumptio, placuit mihi hanc paginem condere per quam non solum omnibus meis succes\s/oribus atque heredibus set etiam mihimet ipsi interdico ne aliter quam a me constitutum est ullo tempore quippiam agere audeant.33

Compare the proem of the same charter:

32 See above, at pp. 40-41. 33 “But because one must beware lest the presumption of a future age have the power to negate and to bring into doubt our present gift, it pleased me to create this document through which I prohibit not only all my successors and heirs but also me myself lest they dare to do anything at any time other than that which has been established by me.”

Prouabilibus desideriis et petitionibus piis assensum semper praebere gloriosum constat esse et rectum et tum maxime cum eadem desideria et petitiones ad dilatandum (for dilatandam) et augendam uitam Christi sacerdotum eiusque seruorum respiciunt.34

Each clause discusses the suitability or correctness of its own purpose—the prohibition with preventing incursion by future generations and the proem with introducing the written act.

Structured in this way, the prohibition acts as an introductory clause, or proem, for the sanction.

The penance clause first appears in the sanction of S 24, a grant of land by King

Æthelberht II to St Mary's, Lyminge dated 741. Penance clauses also appear in three other documents, for a total of four of sixteen sanction clauses, or 25%: S 59, 123, and 266. Only S 88 and 114 follow the sanction clause with the manentem clause inherited from Continental diplomatic (discussed above). Seven of the documents from this period, or 44% of documents with sanctions, include a blessing to offset the sanction clause (S 24, 59, 65, 88, 248, 264, and

266). Although a larger collection than that of the seventh century, the eighth-century sanction clauses are more or less the same in terms of their composition as demonstrated in Table 4, below:

Table 4: Occurrence of Supplementary Clauses in Eighth-Century Corpus

Sawyer # Malediction Benediction Penance

23 24 X X X

31 X

35 X

56 X 59 X X X

34 “It is agreed that it is glorious and right always to offer assent to credible requests and pious petitions, especially when those same requests and petitions provide for enlarging and augmenting the life of the priests of Christ and His servants.”

Sawyer # Malediction Benediction Penance

65 X X

88 X (2) X

89 X

96 X

106 X

114 X

123 X X

128

139

153

155

248 X X

264 X X 266 X X X

1184 X

Protasis

S 31 (748 x 762) and 35 (778), from Reculver and Rochester respectively, see the list of potential perpetrators move from the prohibition clause to the protasis of the malediction proper. The documents also assign the same characteristics to potential perpetrators: inuido maliuoloque animo.35 Three other documents in this set, S 65, 248, and 1184 characterize potential perpetrators with variations of the phrase tyrannica potestate fretus, carried over from the seventh century.36 S 114 and 123 go further and characterize the actions of perpetrators as implicated by maculo maiore peccati and performed with ausu temerario, respectively.37 The protases of S 24, 31, 35, 56, 114, 123, and 264 refer to the social positions of potential perpetrators. The most common reference is to the donor himself, his heirs or successors, or

35 “With a jealous and spiteful mind.” 36 “Trusting in tyrannical power.” 37 “By the greater stain of sin” and “with daring rashness.”

66 both. S 31 broadens its list to include anyone of a secular or ecclesiastical grade: ex quolibet uel ex ecclesiastico gradu uel ex saeculari dignitate.38

S 59, 65, 106, 114, and 123 include minimalistic quod non clauses, reading quod non or quod absit with S 123 adding the adverb omnino, “entirely,” to the phrase.39 Donation references commonly use the accusative donationem as a self-referent in what would then continue to be the most common phrasing throughout the Anglo-Saxon period (S 31, 35, 89, 96, 123, and 264). S

1184 reads decretum, which is the word’s first appearance in this corpus, although it is commonly employed thereafter. S 106 refers to the donation as a commutatio, a unique occurrence in the single-sheet corpus and, used in this way, exclusive to the charters of Christ

Church, Canterbury.40 The majority of the protases contain verbal phrases with a perfect active subjunctive form of temptare or praesumere paired with one or two infinitives with the sense ‘to infringe’ or ‘to violate’: uiolare, infringere, inrumpere, contraire, minuere.

38 “Anyone whosoever from the ecclesiastical rank or secular status.” 39 The left edge of S 59 is severely damaged resulting in the partial illegibility of the quod non clause. Birch emends to quod non optamus. Cartularium Saxonicum 1.2 (London: Whiting and Company, 1885), no. 203. The authenticity of the charter is disagreed upon. Wormald argues that the charter was forged with S 58 as a basis at Worcester in the ninth century. Sims-Williams suggests that the document is possibly a revised version of a lost charter of 770, and as such is not necessarily forged. It is included here as Class 2b with an understanding of its limitations. Patrick Wormald, “Charters, Law and the Settlement of Disputes in Anglo-Saxon England,” in The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe, edited by Wendy Davies and Paul Fouracre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 149–68, here 156- 157; and Ibid., How Do We Know So Much about Anglo-Saxon Deerhurst? Deerhurst Lecture 1991 (1993), 20-22 ; Patrick Sims-Williams, Religion and Literature in Western England, 600-800, Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990), 155, n. 61. 40 The word commutatio is well attested in similar contexts in Merovingian and Carolingian diplomas.

Punishment Clause

Spiritual Punishments

As far as punishments go, a wide range of spiritual sanctions are represented. However, two clauses stand out as representative of the breadth of these sanctions. Common themes of punishment in these clauses include the threat of Judgment Day and the need to give an account for one’s wrongdoings before God (S 56, 59, 65, 89, 96, 106, 248, 264, 266, and 1184), as well as various forms of separation, including—with some overlap—separation from angels (S 88), from the Eucharist (S 31 and 123), from the community of the faithful (S 56), from God (S 266), and from the saints (S 24, 31, and 88). Excommunication is threatened only once (S 31). Here, excommunication occurs in the present world, in praesenti, and is contrasted with the separation threatened in the same clause that will occur in the next life: et in futuro procul segregatum ab his qui a dextris Christi propter opera pietatis adstrare [? for adstare] ... meruerint.41 S 35 refers to the penalty of anathema, or specifically to anathema maranatha, a mysterious and rare form which stems from I Corinthians 16:22.42 Other forms of punishment include the wrath of God (S

24) and the sharing of the lot of Judas (S 1184).

Secular Punishments

The earliest hint at the concept of secular punishment or secular recourse in this corpus appears in S 1186a, a confirmation written on the dorse of S 106. The clause stipulates the value of any

41 “And, in the future, let him be separated far from those who will have earned, on account of their works of piety, to stand on the right side of Christ.” 42 Si quis non amat Dominum Iesum Christum sit anathema maranatha. “If anyone does not love Jesus Christ the Lord, let him be anathema maranatha.”

68 stolen property is to go to the owner, but the remainder is to go to the holder of the immunity: et ut \ab/ omnium fiscalium redituum operum onerumque seu etiam popularium conciliorum, uindictis nisi tantum prætium pro prætio liberæ sint inperpetuum.43 Brooks and Kelly clarify the somewhat convoluted clause: Pilheard’s “land would be free from all the tribute due to the royal fisc, and from all penalties of labour and of public councils (folk-moots); the land will be liable only to pretium pro pretio, that is, the simple value of stolen property and not to the additional fines.”44 This means that the owner of the land would be entitled to be compensated only for the price of the property itself. All money awarded in addition to the price would go to the holder of the immunity, Pilheard.45 Equivalent clauses from S 171, 178, 220, and 278 are cited as examples in the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, which defines pretium as though it were glossing the Old English angylde: a “payment made as atonement for injury.”46

The term pretium also appears in two other eighth-century sanction clauses. S 59, a royal grant of Uhtred, regulus of the Hwicce, preserved at Worcester reads: Omnimodo quoque in Dei omnipotentis nomi[ne interdicimus ut si] aliquis in hac prænominata terra aliquid foraras [for foras] furauerit alicui aliquid nisi specialiter pretium pro pretio [ad terminum ad penam nihil

43 “And that they are to be perpetually free from paying of all fiscal dues, from works and burdens, and also of public assemblies, except only price for price.” 44 Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, 367. 45 See also Dorothy Whitelock, English Historical Documents, 501, n. 7; Frederic William Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond: Three Essays in the Early History of England, 1897, repr. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1966) 274 and 290-292; H. P. R. Finberg, “Anglo-Saxon England to 1042,” in The Agrarian History of England and Wales, 1.2 A.D. 43-1042, ed. by H. P. R. Finberg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 383-525, here 463; Frank Merry Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971, repr. 2004), 298; James Campbell “The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England: Problems and Possibilities,” Haskins Society Journal 1 (1989), 23–37, here 34-35. 46 Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, s.v. “pretium,” sense 1.c.

69 foras].47 S 114, a royal grant of King Offa preserved at Evesham, reads: Et si quis ex heredum eius quod absit maculo maiore peccati forte inplicatus fuerit, dign[o] scilicet pretio se emundet a delicto commisso.48 This clause points clearly toward a system of monetary penalization. The same language again appears in S 178, a royal grant of 815 of King Coenwulf of Mercia:

Liberata quoque terra ista ab omnibus saecularium rerum seruitutibus permaneat exceptis his: arcis et pontis constructionibus et expeditione ac singulare pretium ad penam, id est angylde, aliqua uero foras nihil persoluat.49 Here, however, it is part of the immunity clause and is separated from the sanction by a payment clause written in the first-person singular voice of the beneficiary. The Dictionary of Old English cites this occurrence of the term angylde in its definition: “simple payment for damage or injury; mainly referring to payments based on the calculated value of stolen goods; full angylde ‘full value (of goods)’.”50

Elsewhere in charters, pretium occurs in dispositive clauses referring to payment given in return for land granted. For example, in S 161, a royal grant from Christ Church, Canterbury

47 “Also we absolutely [forbid], in the name of omnipotent God, that should anyone should steal anything outside it, that anything [be paid] except specifically ‘price for price’ [at the boundary. Nothing outside as a fine.]” The single sheet is damaged on its left-hand side. Readings in brackets have been supplied by Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum from S 58, another original of Uhtred concerning land at Aston, now lost. Wormald confirms that this charter may indeed be the model for S 59. “Charters, Law and the Settlement of Disputes,” 156-157. In S 59, the text following the word pretio and preceding the blessing is now lost. S 58 reads here: ad terminum ad penam nihil foras. On the questionable authenticity of S 59, see p. 66 n. 39, above. 48 “And if any one of his heirs, may it never come to pass, is by chance bound up in the great stain of sin, let him purify himself of the undertaken offence with an appropriate price.” 49 “And let that land remain free from all secular services except these: the building of fortress and bridge, expedition, and a single payment in penalty, that is angylde and nothing more.” 50 Dictionary of Old English: A to G online, s.v. “ān-gylde noun,” ed. by Angus Cameron, Ashley Crandell Amos, Antonette diPaolo Healey et al. (Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project, 2007).

70 dated 805, Kings Coenwulf and Cuthred grant land in exchange for pro placabili pretio, centum utique siclos auri purissimi ac totidem argenti.51

In other Anglo-Saxon sources, the word pretium is used to refer to a variety of payment types. The term is used in two Latin versions of the Minster-in-Thanet foundation story to refer to what in an Old English version—the mid-eleventh-century fragment of the Life of Saint

Mildrith (London, British Library, Cotton Caligula A. xiv, 121v-124v)—is the wergild awarded to Domne Eafe after an advisor of her cousin, King Ecgberht of Kent, murders her brothers; namely Goscelin’s Vita Sancti Mildrethae (1089 x 1099) and a passio of the murdered princes composed in the mid-eleventh to early thirteenth centuries.52 Stephanie Hollis explains that the revision likely occurred because the Benedictine reform made it inappropriate for monastic men and women to accept wergild.53 Understood in this way, the pretium is a payment, in this case of land, incurred as the result of misconduct.

The Ninth Century

There are forty-eight extant single-sheet documents dating from the ninth century (including the confirmation of Berhtwulf in S 88), thirty-six of which contain sanction clauses.54 Thirty-nine of the forty-eight documents are from Christ Church, Canterbury (one originally from St

51 “For an agreed-upon price, namely, one hundred shekels of the purest gold and as many of silver.” 52 See Stephanie Hollis, “The Minster-in-Thanet Foundation Story,” Anglo-Saxon England 27 (1998), 41- 64. Both texts are edited by David W. Rollason, The Mildrith Legend: A Study in Early Medieval Hagiography in England, Studies in the Early History of Britain (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1982), 90-104 and 108-143. 53 Hollis, “Minster-in-Thanet Foundation Story,” 53-54. Those in religious orders are prohibited from accepting wergild in VIII Æthelred 25. 54 See Table 6, below.

Augustine’s, Canterbury), three are from Rochester, two are from Worcester, one is from Old

Minster, Winchester, and three are of uncertain origins (one of which is possibly from Hereford).

The bias created by the disparate number of extant documents from Christ Church compared to other archives needs to be kept in mind. These details are summarized below in Table 5:

Table 5: Summary of the Ninth-Century Corpus

Sawyer # Archive Internal Type Status Grantor Date 40 Christ Church, 805 Royal Grant King Cuthred Canterbury 41 Christ Church, [805 X 807] Royal Grant King Cuthred Canterbury 88 Rochester [845] Royal Confirmation King Berhtwulf

161 Christ Church, 805 Royal Grant King Coenwulf and Canterbury King Cuthred 163 Christ Church, 808 Royal Grant King Coenwulf Canterbury 165 Rochester 811 Royal Grant King Coenwulf 168 Christ Church, 811 Royal Grant King Coenwulf Canterbury 169 Christ Church, 812 Royal Grant King Coenwulf Canterbury 173 Worcester 814 Royal Grant King Coenwulf 177 Christ Church, 814 Royal Grant King Coenwulf Canterbury 178 Christ Church, 815 Royal Grant King Coenwulf Canterbury 186 Christ Church, 822 Royal Grant King Ceolwulf Canterbury 187 Christ Church, 823 Royal Grant King Ceolwulf Canterbury 188 Christ Church, 831 Royal Grant King Wiglaf Canterbury 190 Worcester 836 Royal Grant of privilege King Wiglaf 214 Christ Church, 869 Royal Grant King Burged and Canterbury Queen Æthelswith 282 Christ Church, 845 [for c. Royal Grant King Ecgberht Canterbury 825 X 832] 287 Christ Church, 839 Royal Grant King Æthelwulf Canterbury 293 Christ Church, 843 Royal Grant King Æthelwulf Canterbury 296 Christ Church, 845 Royal Grant King Æthelwulf Canterbury 298 Old Minster, Winchester 847 Royal Grant King Æthelwulf 308 Uncertain 854 Royal Grant King Æthelred

Sawyer # Archive Internal Type Status Grantor Date 316 Christ Church, 855 for ? Royal Grant King Æthelwulf Canterbury 853 319 Christ Church, 874 [for 839 Royal Grant King Æthelwulf Canterbury X 844] 328 Christ Church, 858 Royal Grant King Æthelberht Canterbury 331 Rochester 862 Royal Grant King Æthelberht 332 Christ Church, 863 Royal Grant King Æthelberht Canterbury (ex St Augustine's, Canterbury) 338 Christ Church, 867 Royal Grant King Æthelred Canterbury 344 Christ Church, 873 Royal and Grant King Alfred and Canterbury Ecclesiastical Archbishop Æthelred 350 Christ Church, 898 Royal Grant King Alfred Canterbury 1194 Christ Church, 845 Non-Royal Exchange Werenberht, Canterbury Lay minister and prefectus 1196 Christ Church, 859 Non-Royal Exchange Plegred / Æthelmod Canterbury Lay 1199 Christ Church, 858 x 866 Non-Royal Grant Ealhhere Canterbury Lay 1203 Christ Church, 875 Non-Royal Grant; Eardwulf; Canterbury Lay Confirmation Archbishop Plegmund 1204 Christ Church, 888 [? for Non-Royal Grant Ceolwulf Canterbury 867] Lay 1259 Christ Church, 805 Ecclesiastical Restoration Archbishop Canterbury Æthelheard 1264 Christ Church, 811 Ecclesiastical Grant Archbishop Wulfred Canterbury 1266 Christ Church, 824 Ecclesiastical Grant Archbishop Wulfred Canterbury 1268 Christ Church, 825 x 832 Ecclesiastical Grant Archbishop Wulfred Canterbury 1269 Christ Church, 863 x 867 Ecclesiastical Grant Archbishop Canterbury Ceolnoth 1270 Uncertain (? Hereford) 840 x 852 Ecclesiastical Lease Bishop Cuthwulf and Hereford 1276 Christ Church, 889 Ecclesiastical Grant Bishop Swithwulf Canterbury 1431a Christ Church, 803 Synod Synod King Offa Canterbury 1431b Christ Church, 803 Synod Synod Archbishop Canterbury Athelhardus 1434 Christ Church, 824 Synod Synod Clofesho Canterbury 1436 Christ Church, 825 (? for c. Synod Synod (Narrative Clofesho Canterbury 827) record) 1438 Christ Church, 838 Synod Synod Kingston-on- Canterbury Thames, Surrey

1862 Uncertain 854 Royal Grant (Fragment) King Æthelwulf

Supplementary Clauses

More charters—thirty of the thirty-five documents with sanction clauses (86%)—include penance clauses than in previous periods, granting the guilty the opportunity to make amends for their transgressions.55 This is a huge jump from 44% in the eighth century and zero in the seventh. All follow the same basic pattern, nisi ante (digna) satisfactione (Deo et hominibus) emendare uoluerit/emendauerit.56 The penance clauses of S 328 and 1862 are embedded within the punishment clause rather than following it as is customary.

Sixteen sanctions, nearly half of the total, are paired with a blessing, roughly the same as the nearly 44% of sanctions in the eighth century.57 S 214 is an outlier in that the phrasing is in poetic juxtaposition to its sanction clause: Augentibus hæc a Deo pax. Frangentibus uero uæ sintque maranatha in die magno aduentus Domini.58 Such phrases were perhaps intended to be delivered aloud.59 The others begin (Et) si quis depending on whether or not they precede or follow the sanction, and as in previous centuries, tend to follow the conditional structure of the

55 S 40, 161, 163, 165, 169, 173, 177, 178, 187, 188, 282, 287, 293, 296, 308, 316, 319, 328, 331, 332, 338, 344, 1199, 1203, 1204, 1264, 1266, 1431a, 1431b, and 1862. 56 “Unless he first wishes make amends (to God and men) with (worthy) satisfaction.”

57 Simon Keynes identifies the combined curse and blessing as a feature of the West Saxon charters of King Alfred (871-899) and his son Edward (899-924). “The West Saxon Charters of King Æthelwulf and His Sons,” English Historical Review 109 (1994), 1109-1149, here 1137. 58 “For those augmenting this, peace in God. But for those breaking, woe, and let them be cursed on the great day of the coming of the Lord.” 59 Roberta Frank observes that Anglo-Saxon homilists often used poetic language and rhythm in direct speech. “Poetic Words in Late Old English Prose,” in From Anglo-Saxon to Early Middle English: Studies Presented to E. G. Stanley, ed. by Malcolm Godden, Douglas Gray, and Terry Hoad (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 87-107, here 91. See also Haines, “Courtroom Drama,” 105-123.

74 sanction with which they are paired. S 298 even echoes the motivation of potential perpetrators, characterizing the actions of potential benefactors as done pia intentione.60

S 187, 282, and 287 end with standard manentem clauses, all with variations reading: manente hac cartula in sua nihilominus firmitate roborata.61 S 41 begins with a prohibition clause that leads directly into the anathema: Nullus regum aut episcoporum uel principum presentium uel futurorum ista sit contemnere ausus.62 The occurrence of these clauses is outlined in Table 6:

Table 6: Occurrence of Supplementary Clauses in the Ninth-Century Corpus

Sawyer # Malediction Benediction Penance 40 X X X 41 X 88 X X 161 X X X 163 X X 165 X X 168 169 X X 173 X X 177 X X X 178 X X X 186 187 X X 188 X X 190 214 X X 282 X X 287 X X X 293 X X

60 “With pious intention.” The sanction reads: sacrilega presumptione. “With sacrilegious presumption.” 61 “With this charter remaining nevertheless reinforced in its firmness.” 62 “Let no king, bishop, or prince, present or future, dare to despise that.”

Sawyer # Malediction Benediction Penance 296 X X 298 X X 308 X X X 316 X X X 319 X X X 328 X X 331 X X X 332 X X X 338 X X 344 X X X 350 1194 1196 X 1199 X X X 1203 X X X 1204 X X X 1259 1264 X X 1266 X X 1268 1269 X 1270 1276 1431a X X 1431b X X 1434 1436 X 1438 1862 X X X

Protasis

During the ninth century, one begins to see more descriptive flourishes applied to standard diplomatic formulas.63 While the same standard elements are still used, they grow increasingly elaborate. Lists of potential perpetrators, for instance, are not only included more frequently, but also become longer and contain additional specifications. Eighteen charters modify the general quis with which the sanction clause begins. Eight of the clauses, while their language has changed to read alicuius personis homo, can still be translated simply as ‘anyone.’64 S 296 is concerned about ‘a man of any power,’ alicuius potestatis homo, and S 1196 about ‘any of my descendants,’ aliquis posterum [for posterorum] meorum. The remaining charters all list various grades of social standing and range from the vague, cuiuslibet etiam dignitates uel professiones

[? for dignitatis uel professionis] uel gradus (S 298), to the specific, aliquis regum aut episcoporum uel principum siue præfectum (S 188).65 S 88 contains a near-anomalous reference to the thelonarii, taxmen or collectors of customs; the term is elsewhere used in this way only in

S 89, a document from early eighth-century Worcester, extant only in late cartulary copies.66

Another development is apparent: the impetus clause is now occasionally exterior to the perpetrator, who is influenced or deceived by the devil. S 177, a grant of King Coenwulf to

63 S 40 and 161, both issued in 805, have sanction clauses that are similar in structure but different in content. Both begin with blessings and end with penance clauses. S 40 is more stylized with poetic verbal pairing. 64 S 287, 319, 332, 338, 344, 1199, 1203, and 1269. All are from Christ Church, Canterbury, but considering the limited archival distribution discussed above, this is unsurprising. 65 S 298: “Of whatever status, or profession, or order.” S 188: “Anyone, of kings, or bishops, or princes, prefects.” S 41, 88, 169, 173, 187, and 293 are all also in this vein, although the potential perpetrators of S 41 are listed in the prohibition clause. 66 Cambridge, Trinity Hall, 1, (s. xv in.) and London, British Library, Cotton Julius D. II (s. xiii med.).

Archbishop Wulfred dated 814, is an excellent example. It contains an extraordinarily elaborate motivation clause, reading: auaritiae ignibus aestuans superbiaeque typo tumidus diabolica fraude deceptus.67 Moreover, there is some diplomatic consistency in the documents of Christ

Church, Canterbury. The two earliest documents with motivation clauses, S 163 and 1264 dated

808 and 811 respectively, characterize potential perpetrators as acting maliuolo mente/audacia.68

A large group of documents dating from 831 to 875 include a motivation clause reading diabolica temeritate instigatus/ausus (S 188, 293, 296, 316, 319, 332, 338, 344, 1199, 1203, and

1269).69 A second group, dating from 812 to 854, reads diabolica/tyrannica fraude deceptus (S

169, 1266, and 1862 [of uncertain origin]) with S 328, dated 863 adding et mundana cupiditatæ inlectus.70 On the simpler side, one Christ Church document reads per tyrannidem (S 1264); and two per tyrannicam potestatem (S 282 and 1204). S 298, the only charter that is certainly not from Christ Church that includes a motivation clause, envisions potential perpetrators acting sacrilegia presumptione.71

The wish that such infringement not be carried out is expressed with only slightly different phrasing from the eighth century. Quod non optamus is the most frequently utilized

67 “Seething with the flames of avarice and swelling with the fever of pride and deceived by devilish trickery.” 68 “With a malevolent mind,” or “with malevolent audacity.” 69 “Incited by diabolical impudence.” S 1199 is damaged, but bears a clause beginning cum diabolica t[...] and is likely to have included similar language. 70 “Deceived by tyrannical/diabolical fraud (and enticed by worldly greed).” 71 “With sacrilegious presumption.”

78 with eleven occurrences.72 Quod absit appears seven times.73 The two phrasings are combined four times: absit quod non optamus.74

The most commonly used vocabulary in the donation reference remains donationem (S

88, 163, 165, 187, 188, 293, 319, 332, 344 1196, 1203, and 1269), with S 332 adding uel liuertatem and S 344 et confirmationem.75 However, there is a handful of miscellaneous vocabulary that also shows up: uicissitudinem (S 1264), uicissitudinis reconciliationem (S 169), libertatem (S 173), munificentiam (S 296 and 338), munificentiam uel liuertatem (316), apostoliciis praeceptis et nostrorum omnium (S 1431a), and hoc nostrum mandatum et domni apostolici papæ (S 1431b).76 In several instances, the donation reference is split by the verb(s) of infringement (S 188, 293, 296, 316, 332, 344 and 1269). These are the same documents wherein the additional phrase, quam a nobis constitutum est, or in the case of S 344 in aliuð constitumus, qualifies the accusative donation.77 The whole reads along the lines of hanc nostram donationem infringere uel minuere aut in aliut conuertere temtauerit quam a nobis constitutum est with variations occurring in the donation reference (discussed above) and the verbs of infringement (discussed below).78

72 “Which we do not desire.” S 161, 163, 177, 178, 188, 287, 293, 319, 338, 1266, and 1269. 73 “May it never come to pass.” S 40, 296, 316, 328, 1264, 1431b, and 1862. 74 “Let that which we do not desire be absent.” S 332, 344, 1199, and 1203. 75 “Or liberty.” “And confirmation.” 76 “Vicissitude,” “reconciliation of vicissitude,” “liberty,” “munificence,” “munificence or liberty,” “precepts of the Pope and all of us,” and “this mandate of ours and the apostolic Pope.” S 1199 most likely includes a donation reference, but the manuscript is too heavily damaged to discern what that might be. 77 “Which was constituted by us.” 78 If anyone “is tempted to infringe or to diminish or in any way change this our donation which was constituted by us.”

Verbs of infringement are consistent with the patterns of the previous two centuries: they include a verb of ‘wishing’ or ‘striving’ in the present active subjunctive and an infinitive with the sense ‘to violate’ or ‘to do harm.’ S 1431b is the biggest outlier, reading spreuerunt et pro nihilo ducunt.79 Infringement is modified in S 1862 by the phrase in magnis aut in modicus.80

The terms of infringement in S 1431a, a synodal record concerning the metropolitan rights of

Canterbury dated 803, specify not only actions against the document itself but against the actual proclamation set forth within it: si quis uero contra apostoliciis praeceptis et nostrorum omnium ausus sit tunicam Christi scindere et unitatem sancte Dei ecclesiae diuidere.81 Documents from other synods of the period leave out sanction clauses entirely.

Punishment Clause

Spiritual Punishments

In this group of ninth-century documents there are no threats of excommunication or condemnation as were seen in those of the previous century, but damnation is invoked four times

(S 177, 187, 1266, and 1431a) and anathematization seven times (S 169, 177, 188, 214, 282, 293, and 1204). Three times the anathematized is described as being bound by the chains of anathema

(S 177, 188, and 293). In S 177, both damnation and anathematization are part of the same punishment, anathema modifying damnatio: sciat se anathematis uinculis esse damnatum.82 S

79 “Should they scorn and consider worthless...” 80 “In a large or small way.” 81 “But if anyone dares to rend the tunic of Christ and to divide the unity of the Church of God against the Pope’s precepts and those of us all...” 82 “Let him know himself to be damned in the chains of anathema.”

293 is a particularly elaborate example, reading et aeterne anathematis uinculis esse nodatum.83

Anathema, and its description as a bound state, might be compared to biblical accounts of the devil, bound by chains in the pit of hell.84 In S 214 the word maranatha occurs alone, but clearly expresses anathematization.

As with the previous centuries, the reminder of the need to account for one’s sins on

Judgment Day remains the most common threat, mentioned explicitly or implied in twenty-three of the thirty-six clauses (S 41, 88, 161, 163, 165, 169, 178, 214, 287, 296, 308, 316, 319, 328,

332, 338, 344, 1196, 1199, 1203, 1264, 1431b, and 1862). The majority of the clauses are straightforward, reminding the sinner that he will have to justify his sins to God as in S 163: sciat se rationem esse reddituram ante tribunal domini nostri Iesu Christi.85 S 328 and 1862 break the mold, providing a short description of the Last Judgment: et in die magni æxaminis quando celum et terra mouentur coram Christo et exercitu celesti [...] rationem redditurum esse.86 These phrases are, of course, quite formulaic. Similar reminders of the need to render an account at death appear in Bede’s De die iudicii.87 The brief reference to the moving of heaven and earth is

83 “To be bound with the chains of eternal anathema.” 84 See Revelations 20:1-3: Et vidi angelum descendentem de caelo habentem clavem abyssi et catenam magnam in manu sua et aprehendit draconem serpentem atiquum qui est diabolus et Satanus et ligavit eum per annos mille et misit eum in abyssum. “And I saw an angel descending from heaven, holding in his hand a key to the abyss and a great chain and he seized the dragon, the ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years and sent him into the abyss.” 85 “Let him know that he will account for it before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 86 “And on the day of the great examination, when heaven and earth are moved, let account for it before Christ and His celestial army.” 87 See lines 6-9: Commemorans [...] Iudiciique diem horrendo examine magnum, / Perpetuamque reis districti iudicis iram. “I remembered [...] the great Judgment Day with its fearful trial, the strict Judge's eternal wrath towards the guilty”; and lines 36-37 Ille dies ueniet iudex dum uenerit orbis, / Debebis qua tu rationem reddere de te. “The day will come when the world's Judge will arrive and you must render an account of yourself.” Graham D. Caie, The Old English Poem Judgement Day II: A Critical Edition with editions of De die iudicii and the Hatton 113 Homily Be domes dæge, Anglo-Saxon Texts 2 (Cambridge:

81 part of the theme of the signs before Doomsday. A far more detailed description of this theme is also found in Bede’s poem.88

S 179 combines the threat of the final examination with the second most common penalty, separation: sciat se a Deo in die magno alienatum separatum atque eiectum.89 It differs from other separation penalties in that it does not specify from whom the perpetrator is alienated.

S 88 is more specific, combining Judgment Day and separation from the saints: sciat se separatum a congregatione omnium sanctorum in tremendo die iudicii.90 As before, other clauses specify separation from angels (S1203), the Eucharist (S 177), the community (S 298,

328, and 1862), God (S 178, 187, 188, and 293), heaven (S 1266), and the saints (S 88, 173, 177, and 298).

Not satisfied with simply casting the offender into hell, two charters assign him specific unsavory companionship. S 338 assigns transgressors the lot of those who sold and crucified the

D. S. Brewer, 2000), 129-130. Translated by Michael J. B. Allen and Daniel G. Calder, Sources and Analogues of Old English Poetry: The Major Latin Texts in Translation (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1976), 209. 88 Praecurrunt illum uel qualia signa: repente / Terra tremet montesque ruent collesque liquescent, / Et mare terribili confundit murmure mentes, / Tristius et caelum tenebris obducitur atris, / Astra cadunt rutilo et Tytan tenebrescet in ortu, / Pallida nocturnam nec praestat luna lucernam, / De caelo uenient et signa minantia mortem. “Remember what signs will precede Him: suddenly the earth will tremble and the mountains crumble down; the hills will melt and the sea confound men’s minds with its terrible roar; the sky will be covered sorrowfully with black shadows; the stars will fall and the sun grow dark in the crimson east; the pale moon will not uncover her nightly lamp, and signs threatening death will come from the sky.” Caie, The Old English Poem Judgement Day, 130, ll. 50-56. Translated by Allen and Calder, Sources and Analogues, 210. See also, Blickling Homily 7, Dominica Pascha, in Richard J. Kelly, The Blickling Homilies, Edition and Translation (London: Continuum, 2003), ll. 121-209. See also Judgment Day II, the Old English translation of De die iudicii, in ibid., 88-91, ll. 92-122. 89 “Let him know himself, on the great Day of Judgment, alienated, separated, and ejected by God.” 90 “Let him know himself separated from the congregation of all the saints on the terrible Day of Judgment.”

Son of God: pars […] illorum qui filium Dei et uendiderunt et crucifixerunt; while S 298 places them with misers and thieves (cum auaris et rapacibus) broadly and Judas Iscariot specifically.

Although the overall structure of the malediction in S 338 is standard, the draftsman appears to have relied on his own imagination in the punishment section of the clause. Firstly, there is a wish that an early death might befall those who infringe the transaction. This is followed, as mentioned above, by the promise that perpetrators will share the lot of those who betrayed Christ. These are both unique, until this point, to this particular charter.

Secular Punishments

S 169 and 1264 each contain clauses that explain, broadly, what is to be done if either party reneges on the agreement set forth in the charter. S 169 reads:

Insuper additur hoc: si huius uicissitudinis persona quilibet ex utralibet parte hanc commutationem aliter transmutare aut uiolare temptauerit quam difinitum fieri uidetur salua iure intemerata possessiuncula cum predicta libertate absque obstaculo alicuius quaestionis ad proprie hereditatis gremium redeat.91

Special measure, then, is taken to guarantee the proper conduct of both parties toward the agreement. The clause, entirely practical in nature, is attached to the sanction clause, indicating that the two were seen to complement one another and work towards the same end: the preservation of the agreement. The sanction of S 1264 is followed by a very similar clause:

91 “Moreover, this is added: if any person from either side of this exchange should be tempted to alter or violate this commutation otherwise than it is known to have been defined, except for a just cause, the small estate with the aforementioned liberty, without hindrance of any question, shall return in its original condition to the bosom of proper inheritance.”

Et si qualibet nostrae partis condicio innocens et incontaminata reperta ipsius rei fuerit seu forte utraque suae propriae iuris possessio salua et integra ratione ad pristinȩ hereditatis gremium reuertetur. Pars autem illa quȩ rea et deprauata fuerit suae propriae partis rea priuetur et iustum arbitrorum iudicium subire cogetur ibique iuste districtiones accipiat sentiatque satisfactionem.92

While the penalties of sanction clauses may not be explicitly secular, here again are hints that the settlement of disputes over land might have been.

The Tenth Century

Sixty-four documents are extant as Class 1 or 2 single sheets of the tenth century. This group is by far the largest and most widely distributed of all the centuries here discussed. The archive with the most extant charters is again Christ Church, Canterbury, but the overall tenth-century distribution is now more evenly spread out with only thirteen of the total sixty-five surviving from Christ Church. Abingdon has nine extant documents; Exeter eight (with one formerly at

Bodmin, three at Crediton, and one at Crediton or St Germans); Old Minster Winchester seven; and Burton four. The remaining eighteen archives are each represented by three or fewer extant single sheets. Details of these documents are summarized in Table 7 below:

92 “If in any way the arrangements of our side shall be found innocent and untainted of the same matter [i.e. of attempting to infringe the exchange/reconciliation], or if by chance each party's possession of its own right shall revert, by a sound and whole reckoning, to the care of its former inheritance, that side, moreover, which shall have been the guilty or wicked party, shall be deprived of its own share and compelled to undergo the just judgement of witnesses, and he/it shall there assent to distraints justly and shall experience satisfaction.” Translation in Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, 512.

Table 7: Summary of the Tenth-Century Corpus

Sawyer # Archive Internal Date Status Type Grantor 221 Much Wenlock 901 Royal Grant Kings Æthelred and Æthelflæd 367 Christ Church, 903 Royal Confirmation King Edward Canterbury 416 Old Minster, Winchester 931 Royal Grant King Athelstan 425 Christ Church, 934 Royal Grant King Athelstan Canterbury 447 Christ Church, 939 Royal Grant King Athelstan Canterbury 449 Old Minster, Winchester 939 Royal Grant King Athelstan 464 Christ Church, 940 Royal Grant King Eadmund Canterbury 470 New Minster, Winchester 940 Royal Grant King Eadmund 495 Evesham 944 Royal Grant King Eadmund 497 Christ Church, 944 Royal Grant King Eadmund Canterbury 510 Christ Church, 946 Royal Grant King Eadmund Canterbury 512 Christ Church, 943 Royal Grant King Eadmund Canterbury 528 Christ Church, 947 Royal Grant King Eadred Canterbury 535 Christ Church, 948 Royal Grant King Eadred Canterbury 546 Christ Church, 949 Royal Grant King Eadred Canterbury 552 Abingdon 949 Royal Grant King Eadred 563 Glastonbury 955 Royal Grant King Eadred 587 Abingdon 956 Royal Grant King Eadwig 594 Abingdon 956 Royal Grant King Eadwig 602 Burton 956 Royal Grant King Eadwig 618 Abingdon 956 Royal Grant King Eadwig 623 Burton 956 Royal Grant King Eadwig 624 Abingdon 956 Royal Grant King Eadwig 636 Old Minster, Winchester 956 Royal Grant King Eadwig 645 Westminster 957 Royal Grant King Eadwig 646 Uncertain (? Ely) 957 Royal Grant King Eadwig 649 Old Minster, Winchester 957 Royal Grant King Eadwig 670 Westminster 951 (? for 959) Royal Restoration King Edgar 677 Wells 958 Royal Grant King Edgar 684 Exeter (ex Crediton or St 960 Royal Grant King Edgar Germans) 687 Abingdon 960 Royal Restoration King Edgar 690 Abingdon 961 Royal Grant King Edgar 697 Old Minster, Winchester 961 Royal Grant King Edgar 702 Westminster 962 Royal Grant King Edgar

Sawyer # Archive Internal Date Status Type Grantor 703 Bury St Edmunds 962 Royal Grant King Edgar 704 Buckfast 962 Royal Grant King Edgar 706 Uncertain (possibly 962 Royal Grant King Edgar Wilton) 717 Christ Church, 963 Royal Grant King Edgar Canterbury 736 Abbotsbury 965 Royal Grant King Edgar 738 Old Minster, Winchester 966 Royal Grant King Edgar 745 New Minster, Winchester 966 Royal Refoundation King Edgar 755 Exeter 967 Royal Grant King Edgar 768 Burton 968 Royal Grant King Edgar 770 Exeter 969 Royal Grant King Edgar 772 Worcester 969 Royal Grant King Edgar 786 Worcester (ex Pershore) 972 Royal Grant of King Edgar privilege and Restoration 794 Ely 974 Royal Grant King Edgar 795 Exeter (ex Crediton) 974 Royal Grant King Edgar 801 Old Minster, Winchester 975 Royal Grant King Edgar 830 Exeter (ex Crediton) 976 Royal Grant King Edward 832 Exeter 977 Royal Grant King Edward 864 Rochester 987 Royal Grant King Æthelred 876 Abingdon 993 Royal Confirmation of King Æthelred privilege 878 Burton 996 Royal Grant King Æthelred 880 Exeter (ex Bodmin) 994 Royal Grant of King Æthelred privilege 884 Muchelney 995 Royal Confirmation King Æthelred 886 Abingdon 995 Royal Grant King Æthelred 890 Exeter (ex Crediton) 997 Royal Grant King Æthelred 892 Coventry 998 Royal Grant King Æthelred 1215 Christ Church, 968 Non-royal Grant Æthelflæd Canterbury Lay 1288 Christ Church, 924 (for 905 Ecclesiastical Lease Archbishop Canterbury or 920) Plegmund 1347 Worcester 984 Ecclesiastical Lease Archbishop Oswald 1379 Uncertain (? St Albans) 995 (for 994) Ecclesiastical Lease Bishop Æscwig of Dorchester 1417 New Minster, Winchester 924 x 933 Ecclesiastical Lease Familia of New Minster, Winchester

The Royal Writing Office

Hugely influential in the analysis of any tenth-century formulae in Anglo-Saxon diplomatic, is the development and centralization of the royal writing office in the 920s and 930s during the reign of King Æthelstan.93 With this change came both a greater consistency in the formulation of sanction clauses, but also increased creativity. Emulating the style of Aldhelm, these charters include obscure Latin vocabulary and graecisms and employ complex syntactical structures including hyperbaton, hyperbole, and alliteration.94 The central figure of this period is a draftsman—traditionally referred to as ‘Æthelstan A’—who travelled with the royal court, drafting documents throughout England.95 The charters of ‘Æthelstan A,’ intense in their erudite

Latinity, tend to follow a specific pattern. As Snook summarizes, “several formulae were repeated precisely across a number of charters without any variation as though they were being copied from a formulary or a set of notes. However, closer inspection of the way in which formulae behave across the corpus suggests that something rather more sophisticated was going on, for it is possible to identify more or less subtle tweaks and changes being applied to repeated

93 See Keynes, Diplomas, 14-83; and Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas, 19-18. 94 See Snook, Anglo-Saxon Chancery, 96-106; and D. A. Woodman, “‘Æthelstan A’ and the Rhetoric of Rule,” Anglo-Saxon England 42 (2013), 217-248, especially 220-225. On Aldhelm and his style see Mechtild Gretsch, The Intellectual Foundations of the English Benedictine Reform, Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 25 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Michael Lapidge, “Aldhelm's Latin Poetry and Old English Verse,” Comparative Literature 31.3 (1979), 209-231; Andy Orchard, The Poetic Art of Aldhelm, Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 8 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); and Michael Winterbottom, “Aldhelm’s Prose Style and Its Origins,” Anglo-Saxon England 6 (1977), 39-76. Snook discusses a series of Mercian charters from ninth century written in a similarly sophisticated Latin style in “When Aldhelm Met the Vikings: Advanced Latinity in Ninth- Century Mercian Charters,” Mediaevistick 26 (2013): 111-148. 95 In his study, Snook lists nineteen ‘authentic’ or ‘basically authentic’ diplomas written by ‘Æthelstan A’ during a career that spanned seven years, extant charters dating from 928 to 934. These are, in chronological order: S 399, 400, 403, 405, 412, 413, 1604, 416, 417, 418a, 418, 419, 379, 422, 423, 425, 407, 426, and 458. Anglo-Saxon Chancery, 88-90.

87 formulae.”96 Snook offers for comparison S 425, a diploma written on 28 May 934 which survives at Christ Church, Canterbury and S 407, written only weeks later on 7 June 934, extant at York (emphasis and edition are Snook’s):

Si autem quod absit aliquis diabolico inflatus Si autem quod absit aliquis typo supercilii spiritu hanc meæ compositionis ac confirmationis turgens hanc meae emptionis ac confirmationis breuiculam elidere uel infringere temptauerit, breuiculam elidere uel infringere temptauerit sciat sciat se nouissima ac magna examinationis die, se nouissima ac tremenda concionis die, classica tuba perstrep[en]te archangeli, bustis sponte acrhangeli clangente buccina, somatibus tetra dehiscentibus, somata jam rediuiua postponentibus poliandria, cum Juda impii relinquentibus, cum Juda proditore qui a satoris proditoris compliatore, infaustis quoque Judaeis pio sato, filius perditionis dicitur eiusque Christum ore sacrilego ara in crucis complicibus Judeis Cristum blasphemantibus, blasphemantibus aeterna confusione edacibus

æterna confusione, edacibus ineffabilium fauillantium tormentorum ignibus, sine fine tormentorum flammis, periturum.97 poenaliter arsurum.98

96 Snook, Anglo-Saxon Chancery, 91. 97 “But if anyone, may it never come to pass, inflated with diabolical spirit, is tempted to destroy or infringe this brief of my agreement and confirmation, let him know, on the last and great day of examination, with the trumpet of the archangel blaring, with tombs yawning freely, having been relinquished by those sleeping now revived, in eternal confusion, that he shall perish in the devouring flames of indescribable torments with the traitor Judas who is known by the pious seed of the sower as ‘the son of perdition’ and his accomplices, the Jews, blasphemers of Christ.” 98 “But if anyone, may it never come to pass, swelling with the arrogance of pride is tempted to destroy or infringe this brief of my purchase and confirmation, let him know, on the last and terrible day of assembly, with the war trumpet of the archangel sounding, with the dead emerging from their various tombs, that he shall pay the penalty, in eternal confusion in the devouring flames of blazing torments, with Judas the commitor of wicked treachery, and the unlucky Jews, blaspheming with sacriligeous mouths Christ on the altar of the cross, without end.”

Both clauses are substantively the same. The infringer will, on the Day of Judgment, meet with the same gruesome end. Alterations are, for the most part, limited to vocabulary substitutions that do not alter the sense of the clause: S 407’s tremenda for the magna of S 425, for instance.99

During the Benedictine reform movement beginning in England in the 940s, two offshoots of diplomatic style develop: the alliterative charters and the ‘Dunstan B’ charters.100

Like the ‘Æthelstan A’ diplomas, the alliterative charters employ frequent hyperbaton, obscure vocabulary, and of course, alliteration.101 The ‘Dunstan B’ charters, associated particularly with

Glastonbury—of which twenty-one authentic examples are extant from the years 951 to 975— are comparatively unembellished and written in straightforward prose, dispensing with such elements of Anglo-Saxon diplomatic as the invocation and proem.102 The group is remarkably uniform, as Keynes notes; all of the charters follow three basic patterns.103 Another draftsman, known as ‘Edgar A,’ has been identified as active between the years 960 and 963.104 These

99 Snook notes that these kinds of substitutions were rare in documents issued on the same day: see S 399 and 400, S 418 and 419, and S 422 and 423. Anglo-Saxon Chancery, 95. “This would seem to suggest that the text of the ‘Æthelstan A’ charters was not varied on a whim; rather, each time Æthelstan’s court moved somewhere new, a new diplomatic template was produced which was then used for drafting that session’s charters.” Ibid., 96. 100 The English reform movement was inspired by Continental precedent, but was not merely an imitation. Cooper, Monk-Bishops and the English Benedictine Reform Movement, 1. See also, Snook, Anglo-Saxon Chancery, 127-128. 101 Ibid., 140-143. S 472, 473, 479, 484/1606, 520, 544, 548, 549, 550, 552a, 555, 556, 557, 566, 569, 572, and 633. 102 First identified by Cyril Roy Hart, The Early Charters of Northern England and the North Midlands, Studies in Early English History 6 (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1975), 19-22. Charters which conform to the ‘Dunstan B’ type include S 555, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 568, 570, 676, 676a, 678, 726, 735, 743, 750, 785, 790, 791, 794a, 802, 803, and 862. As listed in Simon Keynes, “The ‘Dunstan B’ Charters,” Anglo-Saxon England 23 (1994), 165–193, here 173-179. 103 Keynes, “‘Dunstan B’ Charters,” 180, n. 69. 104 Eight apparent originals dated between 960 and 963 survive: S 684, 687, 690, 697, 703, 704, and 717. Keynes, Diplomas of Æthelred, 70-79; and Snook, Anglo-Saxon Chancery, 159-188.

89 diplomas are highly uniform and do not toy with stylistic inventiveness.105 Each of these diplomatic developments is important to the interpretation of the patterns that emerge across the tenth-century corpus.106

Supplementary Clauses

A major shift in diplomatic is visible in the supplementary clauses of tenth-century sanction clauses. Sixty-one of the sixty-five tenth-century charters include sanction clauses.107 Nearly every charter with a sanction includes a penance clause, fifty-three of sixty-one, or 87%, a proportion almost identical to the 86% of the extant documents from the previous century.

However, fewer sanctions are complemented by a blessing—seventeen charters, 28% compared to 46% in the ninth century.

For the most part, the penance clauses of this century follow the pattern of previous centuries, allowing for potential infringers to make amends (satisfactio) for their transgressions.

105 Snook, Anglo-Saxon Chancery, 175. As Snook points out, all of the ‘Edgar A’ diplomas issued between 960 and 963, save S 687, use the same sanction clause, varying little from S 690: Si quis autem nostram donationem in aliud quam constituimus transferre uoluerit, priuatus consortio sanctæ Dei æcclesiæ, æternis barathri incendiis lugubris iugiter cum Iuda Christi proditore eiusque complicibus puniatur si non satisfactione emendauerit congrua quod contra nostrum deliquid decretum. “But if anyone wishes to transfer our donation which we established to another, let him, having been separated from the fellowship of the Holy Church of God, be punished in the eternal fires of mournful hell together with Judas betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, if he will not amend with suitable satisfaction what he committed against our decree.” 106 Thompson summarizes all of these groups: Scribe 1: S 416 and 425 (Drögereit’s ‘Æthelstan A’); Scribe 2: S 447, 464, and 512 (Drögereit’s ‘Æthelstan C’); Scribe 3: S 497, 510, 528, 535, and 552 (Drögereit’s ‘Edmund C’); Scribe 4: S 636; Scribe 5: S 624 and 646; Scribe 6: S 687, 690, 703, 706, and 717 (Drögereit’s ‘Edgar A’); Scribe 7: S 649; Scribe 8: S 470. Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas, 127. Cf. Richard Drögereit, “Gab es eine angelsächsische Königskanzlei?” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 13 (1935), 335-436; and Keynes, Diplomas of King Æthelred, 16-17. 107 S 367, 670, 1347, and 1417 do not include sanction clauses.

However, in S 470 and 795, royal grants of King Edmund and King Edgar respectively, the required penance is secular in nature. S 795 reads, nisi prius legali satisfactione emendauerint.108

S 420, the earlier of the two grants, also requires that worthy penance is made to God: nisi prius digna Deo poenitentia ueniam legali satisfactione emendent.109 Three other charters attach an additional clause after the penance clause specifying that no pardon or rest shall be granted to transgressors: nec in uita hac practica ueniam nec in theorica requiem apostata obtineat ullam.110

Two charters insert a notwithstanding clause before the sanction, declaring void any old documents that might still be circulating, both of which contain some maledictory language.111

These clauses, when they are included, usually occur between the dipositive section and the sanction. S 470, a royal grant of King Eadmund issued in 940, includes one such example: Etiam si quis alium antiquum librum in propatulo protulerit, nec sibi nec aliis proficiat, sed in sempiterno graphio deleatur et cum iustis non scribatur nec audiatur.112 This curse is in addition to the sanction clause further down in the charter and it is the earliest example of the deletion of

108 “Unless they will have first made amends with legal satisfaction.” 109 “Unless they first make amends to God through worthy penance [and] obtain [their lord’s] pardon through legal satisfaction.” 110 “Let him, apostate, obtain neither pardon in this practical life nor rest in the theoretical life.” S 786, 876, and 880. 111 Ortí’s clause 215: clauses dérogatoires, de dérogation. Orders the execution of the act in spite of anterior or posterior acts to the contrary. Maria Milagros Cárcel Ortí, Vocabulaire international de la diplomatique, Commission Internationale de Diplomatique Comité International des Sciences Historiques, 2nd ed. (Valéncia, 1997), 59.

112 “But if anyone should bring forward into the open any other old book, let it accomplish nothing for himself or for others, but let [his name] be deleted from the everlasting book, and neither be written nor heard among the just.”

91 someone’s name, and thus all memory of them, from the Book of Life.113 As a curse, this punishment becomes common in the tenth century, although it does not appear elsewhere in the single sheet corpus.

S 786, in a narrative description of the donation’s contested history, inserts a clause with a similar function:

Tempore siquidem quo rura quae domino deuoto concessi animo iniuste a sancta dei aeclesia ablata fuerant perfidi qui nouas sibi hereditarias kartas usurpantes ediderunt sed in patris et filii et spiritus sancti nomine precipimus ut catholicorum nemo easdem recipiat sed a cunctis repudiatę fidelibus in anathemate deputentur ueteri iugiter uigente priuilegio.114

Like S 470, S 786 includes a separate anathema, in addition to the sanction clause itself, against those who circulate documents contrary to those held by Pershore. In this instance, the circulation of false, or alternative, charters has actually occurred and it is the documents themselves that are declared anathema. The inclusion of supplementary clauses is outlined in

Table 8:

113 In earlier charters, having one’s part augmented in the Book of Life appears in blessings, none of which, however, survive as single sheets. Augeat Deus partem eius in libro uite (See S 65, 71, 73, 103a, 1178, and 1183). The obliteration of a person’s name has its origin in Hebrew curses, backed by the belief that names held power. To be nameless was to be without essence, to no longer exist. See Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 68-69. Concerning the literal inscribing of the names of benfactors in physical registers, see Ibid., 195-196. 114 “But in that time, the lands which I, with a devoted mind, had granted to God, were stolen unjustly from the Holy Church of God. Perfidious individuals produced new titles with a view towards usurping [the property]. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we order that no catholic accept these [titles] but that, repudiated by the faithful, they be considered anathema, with the old privilege having remained continuously in force.”

Table 8: Occurrence of Supplementary Clauses in the Tenth-Century Corpus

Sawyer # Malediction Benediction Penance 221 X X 367 416 X 425 X 447 X X 449 X X 464 X X 470 X X X 495 X X X 497 X X X 510 X X 512 X X X 528 X X X 535 X X 546 X X 552 X 563 X X 587 X X 594 X X 602 X X 618 X 623 X X 624 X X 636 X X 645 X 646 X X X 649 X X 670 677 X X 684 X X 687 X X 690 X X 697 X 702 X X 703 X X 704 X X 706 X X 717 X X 736 X X

Sawyer # Malediction Benediction Penance 738 X X 745 X X X 755 X X 768 X X X 770 X 772 X X 786 X X 794 X X 795 X X X 801 X X 830 X X 832 X X 864 X X 876 X X 878 X X 880 X X X 884 X X 886 X X 890 X X

892 X X 1215 X X 1288 X X X 1347 1379 X 1417

Protasis

Compared to the previous two centuries, lists of potential perpetrators are limited in the tenth century. Only five clauses go beyond the general quis (S 546, 552, 736, 745, and 1215). The most extensive is S 546: tirrannica fretus potestate regalis æpiscopalis siue homo alicujus dignitatis.115 The most interesting language occurs in a grant of King Edgar from 965 which

115 “Trusting in the tyrranical power of royal or episcopal or a man of any status.”

94 forbids any ‘son of perdition’ from infringing the grant: quis filius perditionis. This phrase comes from John 17:12 where it refers to Judas.116 As will be discussed below, in their punishment clauses, other contemporary charters make this connection explicit, assigning infringers the lot of

Judas “who is called the ‘son of perdition’.”117 Despite the fact that so few charters list potential perpetrators, twenty-seven documents provide a motivation clause. Additionally, the language in which these descriptions are couched is much more varied as is demonstrated by the sheer number of variations listed here. The first set describes interior motivation, or faults the perpetrator himself: ausu temerario / temeritatis ausu (S 786, 876, 880, 892 and S 745); propria temeritate (S 495, 497, and 535); cum stulticiæ temeritate iactitando (S 552 and 755); elationis habitu incedens (S 447, 449, 464, and 510); cupiditate inlectus (S 1379); and cupiditatis liuore depressi (S 587 and 687).118 A second type of description assigns motivation to some tyrannical or diabolical external force: tirannica fretus potestate (S 546); diabolica temeritate instigatus (S

1215); diabolico/filargyrie inflatus spiritu (S 416, 425, and 768); suadente diabolo (S 697); diabolo instigante [...] fastu superbientes arrogantie (S 745); atri demonis face inflammatus (S

528); and epylempticus philargirie seductus amentia (S 786, 880, 876, and 892). 119 The third set describes the infringer as forgetting God or lacking proper awe: et deum et semetipsum

116 The phrase is found in the vernacular in Vercelli Homily 1 at line 51: þæt forwyrde bearn. Scragg, Vercelli Homilies, 11. 117 See S 416 and 425. 118 “With daring impudence;” “with particular impudence;” “boatsting with the impudence of stupidity;” “acting with a jealous demeanor;” “enticed by greed;” and “weighed down by the bruise of jealousy.” 119 “Supported by tyrannical power;” “prompted by diabolical impudence;” “inflated by a diabolical spirit/a spirit of greed;” “with the devil urging;” “with the devil prompting [...] glorying in arrogance of pride;” “inflamed with the fire of a terrible demon;” and “possessed by a devil having been seduced by the madenss of greed.”

95 obliuiscendo (S 830 and 832) and non perhorrescat (890).120 By all accounts, anyone who would dare to act contrary to these charters has either been completely overcome by the devil or is simply a greedy person who lacks an appropriate fear of God.

Donationem remains the word most frequently used as the donation reference: (S 470,

552, 618 [donationi], 690, 702, 703, 704, 706, 717, 738, 755, 770, 772, 794, 801, 864, 884, 886, and 1215). But as in the ninth century, tenth-century draftsmen adopt a broad vocabulary to refer to the document they were charged with writing: breuiculam (S 416, 425),121 difinitionum (S

447, 464, 510, 1379), donum (S 512, 677, 878), decretum (S 528, 546, 623, 684, 736, and 890), cartulam (S 563), cartam (S 587), dapsilitatem munificentiae/elemosinae (S 786, 880, and 892), largitionem liberam (S 646), libertatem (S 687, 876), munificentiam (S 768, 1215). The charters of Edgar (957/9-975) continue the qualification of the donation reference begun in the previous century: nostram donationem in aliud quam constituimus (S 690, 702, 703, 706, 738, 772, 717,

794, 801). This phrasing is echoed in the charters of Æthelred II of Mercia (978-1016) in S 864.

The structure of this donation reference is also used with varying formulation: hanc meam munificentiam pro deo datam (Edgar: S 768).122 The grant of the lay noble woman Æthelflæd, dated 968, includes this wording as well: hanc meam donationem uel munificentiam [...] quam a nobis constitutum est.123

120 “By forgetting God and himself;” and “not trembling.” 121 Snook points out that breuiculam is a neologism, previously unattested in this form. Anglo-Saxon Chancery, 122. 122 “This my munificence, granted before God.” 123 “This my donation or munificence [...] which was constituted by us.”

The quod non clause remains, for the most part, unchanged. Ten charters read quod absit and fourteen read quod non optamus.124 However, three other formulations emerge beginning in the 940s: mihi non optanti,125 quod neutrum aut optamus uel desideramus,126 and quod opto absit a fidelium mentibus.127

Two charters of Edgar and Æthelred—both royal confirmations of privilege—include a second anathema, forbidding action against the beneficiary, or the Church more generally. S 786

(Edgar) and 876 (Æthelred) both read: quod contra sanctam Dei æclesiam rebellis agere præsumpsit.128 Any rebellious act against the Church, let alone the privileges outlined in the charter, warrants full punishment. The infringement in S 546, an earlier grant of King Eadred to

Christ Church, Canterbury, dated 949 is the only grant to define precisely what type of action it means to prevent: Si quis [...] hoc decretum a Deo mihi conlatum infringere temptauerit siue huiuscæ donationis a prefata æcclesia uel passum pedis segregauerit.129 All other infringement is outlined with the verbal combinations discussed above.

124 “Let it not come to pass;” and “which we do not wish [should happen].” S 416, 425, 546, 602, 636, 645, 649, 736, 830, and 832; S 447, 449, 464, 470, 510, 512, 563, 623, 687, 786, 876, 880, 892, and 1215. 125 “Not desired by me.” S 587 and 884. 126 “Which we neither wish nor desire.” S 528. 127 “I hope that it does not occur to the minds of the faithful.” S 704, 770, 795, and 886. 128 “But if a rebel presumes to act against the holy Church of God...” 129 “If anyone [...] is tempted to infringe this decree, conveyed by me to God, or severs even the measure of a step of a foot from this donation to the aforesaid church...”

Punishment Clause

Spiritual Punishments

The persistent threat of Judgment is frequently called upon in previous centuries, but S 416, followed by S 425—both part of the ‘Æthelstan A’ group—is the first Latin single sheet to include an extensive description of Judgment Day.

Sciat se nouissima ac magna examinationis die, stridula clangente archangeli salpice, bustis sponte dehiscentibus, somata iam rediuiua relinquentibus, elementis omnibus pauefactis, cum Iuda proditore qui a satoris pio sato ‘filius perditionis’ dicitur, æterna confusione, edacibus ineffabilium tormentorum flammis periturum.130

In its description of the Final Judgment, S 425 lacks only the phrase elementis omnibus pauefactis. Both clauses include confusion, the dead emerging from tombs, and trumpets blaring, phrases borrowed from Aldhelm’s Carmen de uirginitate.131 Eleven other clauses of the period remind the sinner that he will one day need to account for his sins: sciat se in tremendo examine rationem redditurum (S 495, 497, 535, 602, 623, 636, 649, 684, 697, 1288, and 1379). These clauses differ only in their description of those before whom this justification will be performed:

130 “Let him know, on the last and great day of examination, with the trumpet of the archangel blaring, with tombs yawning freely, having been relinquished by those sleeping now revived, in eternal confusion, that he shall perish in the devouring flames of indescribable torments with the traitor Judas who is known by the pious seed of the sower as ‘the son of perdition’ and his accomplices, the Jews, blasphemers of Christ.” 131 Omnia de nigris resurgent corpora bustis / Clausae per campos et tumbae sponte patescunt, / Dum salpix crepat et clangit vox clara tubarum / Adventante Deo, qui cunctis praemia pensat / Seu pia perfectis seu certe saeva profanis. “All the bodies will rise from their dark graves, and the tombs throughout the field, having been closed, will open up by themselves when the trumpet blasts and the clear call of the horn resounds with God’s advent, Who metes out rewards to all—either divine rewards to the excellent or obviously cruel ones to the sinful.” Edited in Ehwald, Aldhelmi Opera, 364-365, ll. 278- 282. Translated in Michael Lapidge and James L. Rosier, Aldhelm The Poetic Works (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1985), 109. On the use of the phrase stridula clangente, see Keynes, Diplomas, 107.

98 coram Deo et angelis eius (S 602, 636, 649, and 1288); coram Christo et sanctis eius (S 684); ante tribunal districti judicis titubantem tremebundumque (S 495, 497, and 535); ante tribunal domini (S 623).132 Note that S 495, 497, and 535 also describe the infringer as ‘faltering’ and

‘trembling.’ S 697 further clarifies Judgment Day as the day ubi reddetur unicuique secundum opera sua.133 S 1215, while it does not explicitly remind the sinner of the future need to explain his actions, its punishment, separation from God and the society of his saints, does take place before the tribunal of the high and eternal Judge: sciat se ante tribunal summi et eterne iudicis a

Deo omnipotenti et a societate omnium sanctorum eius segregatum.134

A second set of Judgment Day descriptions relies on a quotation from the Gospel of

Matthew to describe the group of sinners waiting for the Judge. This group can be further divided. One group contains language like S 587, which includes a reference to Judgment Day: uocem audiant in examinationis die arbitris sic dicentis: ‘discedite a me maledicti in ignem

æternum’ ubi cum demonibus ferreis sartaginibus crudeli torqueantur in poena.135 S 646, 687, and 884 all follow this pattern. The second group—S 704, 770, 795, and 886—is very similar, but differs slightly in its lead up to the biblical citation, leaving out the reference to the Final

Examination, reading instead: fiat pars eorum cum illis de quibus econtra fatur: discedite a me

132 “Before God and his angels,” “before Christ and his saints,” “faltering and trembling before the tribunal of the strict Judge,” and “before the tribunal of the Lord.” 133 “When it shall be given to each according to his deeds.” 134 “Let him know himself segregated from omnipotent God and from the society of all his saints before the tribunal of the high and eternal Judge.” 135 “Let them hear on the day of examination, the voice of the Judge saying thus: ‘depart from me cursed ones into the etnernal fire’ where they shall be tortured in punishment in iron cauldrons by unmerciful demons.”

99 maledicti in ignem æternum qui paratus est Satane et satellitibus eius.136 This verbal condemnation appears in Matthew 25:41, which reads: “Depart from me, cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

After describing the Final Judgment, the draftsman looks past the Judge’s verdict, obviously cast as guilty, to describe the infernal punishments awaiting the infringer: the greedy flames of indescribable torture. Both S 416 and 425 assign the infringer the lot of Judas. S 425 adds Jews to the list: cum Iuda proditore qui a satoris pio sato ‘filius perditionis’ dicitur eiusque complicibus Iudeis Cristum blasphemantibus.137 This level of detail is picked up by later draftsmen who then run with it.

Thirty-three tenth-century sanction clauses, including S 416 and 425, threaten infernal suffering in their punishment clauses. This is a significant increase from previous centuries where hell is mentioned only once, in S 1184. In addition to a jump in the total number, references to the afterlife grow more descriptive, as just demonstrated in the two ‘Æthelstan A’ charters. Unsurprisingly, in descriptions of hell, nineteen clauses explicitly mention flames or fire (S 552, 690, 702, 704, 706, 717, 738, 745, 755, 772, 786, 794, 801, 864, 876, 880, 886, and

890). Less expected, perhaps, hell is described as cold in what Hofmann has dubbed the ‘glacial curse.’138 Accounts of hell as a place mingled with both hot and cold, however, are common to

136 “Let him share the fate of those against whom it is said: ‘Depart from me, cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for Satan and his angels’.” 137 “With the traitor Judas who is known by the pious seed of the sower as ‘the son of perdition’ and with his accomplices, the Jews blaspheming Christ.” 138 Hofmann, “Infernal Imagery,” 87.

100 other medieval sources.139 S 447 contains the earliest glacial curse, reading: perpessus sit gelidis glaciarum flatibus et pennino exercitu malignorum spirituum.140 S 449, 464, and 510 follow suit.

Torture and suffering, sometimes specified as perpetual perenni/eterno cruciatu (S 563, 745,

786, 876, 878, 880, 884, and 890), are mentioned with varying degrees of specificity. In several instances the punishment is doled out by, or the sinner is associated with, an army of evil spirits as in the glacial curse above (S 447, 449, 464, and 510), or in S 470: atque terribiles demonum cohortes obtutibus indesinenter aspiciant.141 The sinner is also bound (S 745 and 890), chained by the neck (S 552 and 755), thrown into frying pans or cauldrons (S 587 and 687), sold into darkness (S 528), tormented by weeping and the gnashing of teeth (S 618 and 745), and exposed to the horrors of the gate of infernal doom (S 470).

Hell is referred to as Avernus (S 618), Barathrum (S 690, 702, 706, 717, 738, 745, 772,

786, 794, 801, 864, 876, 880, and 890), inferno inferiori (S 449), Orcus (S 890), and Tartarus (S

645, and 755). The River Styx of classical mythology is also named in S 528 and 745.

The infringer’s companions in hell are more varied than those of previous centuries: demons (S 587, 687, 704, 755, 770, and 884); miscellaneous sinners (S 528, 704, 745, 770, 795, and 886); the devil (S 624, 704, and 770); the Jews or accomplices of Judas (S 425, 690, 702,

706, 717, 738, 745, 772, 794, 801, and 864); Ananias and Sapphira (S 745 and 786); and Judas

139 The imagery appears in the Old English poems Genesis (ll. 313-316), Christ and Satan (l. 131), and Solomon and Saturn (ll. 462-469). George Philip Krapp, The Junius Manuscript (New York: Columbia University Press, 1931), 12 and 140; Elliott Van Kirk Dobbie, The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942), 47. See Thomas D. Hill, “The Tropological Context of Heat and Cold Imagery in Anglo-Saxon Poetry,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 69 (1968), 522-532, here 530; and Tristram, “Stock Descriptions” 111, n. 37. 140 “Let him endure the icy breezes of cold and the feathered army of malignant spirits.” 141 “And let them see terrible troops of demons unceasingly before their gaze.”

101 himself (S 416, 425, 690, 702, 706, 717, 738, 745, 772, 786, 794, 801, 864, 876, 880, and 892).

The latter appears as another major pattern in the tenth-century punishment clause. S 794, 864,

738, 772, and 801 all include, with slight variations: iugiter cum Iuda Christi proditore eiusque complicibus puniatur.142 This is similar to the phrasing of the ‘Æthelstan A’ charters (S 416 and

425) discussed above.

Anathema appears six times in five charters: S 512, 745 (twice), 768, 830, and 832. S 768 includes separation from God and congregation as part of the anathema, the word congregatio referring to a community of saints or believers.143 Anathematization, therefore, is here applicable to both the present and afterlife. In S 512 the anathematization occurs on Judgment Day before the tribunal. Damnation by Christ is threatened in S 546 without the opportunity for redemption se sacrilegii culpam incurrisse et a domino Jhesu Christo in perpetuum sine ullo subtractionis resocilatu dampnaturum persentiat.144 Infringers of S 736 and 745 also incur damnation (the latter within the context of anathematization). Condemnation appears in the poetic sanction of S

221.145 S 587, 646, and 704 refer to malediction, all within the context of Matthew 25:41. No extant single sheets from this century refer to excommunication.

142 “Let him be punished together with Judas, betrayer of Christ, and his accomplices.” 143 Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, s.v. “congregatio” sense 2.a. 144 “Let him know that he has incurred blame for his sacrilege and will be damned by the Lord Jesus Christ in perpetuity without any relief of a reduction.” The original single sheet, Canterbury, D. & C., R 14, is damaged, but gaps can be filled from an eleventh-century facsimile copy, London, British Library, Cotton Augustus ii. 57. 145 Trina magestas conseruet conseruantes, condemnet ledentes. “May the triple majesty preserve those preserving, condemn those damaging it.”

102

Separation from the body and blood of Christ is incurred in five charters (S 745, 786,

876, 880, and 892) with the language per quem totus terrarum orbis ab antiquo humani generis inimico liberatus est added in S 786, 876, and 892.146 Separation from the community and the

Church, consortio sanctæ Dei ecclesiæ, is included in fourteen clauses (S 690, 702, 703, 706,

717, 738, 772, 786, 794, 801, 864, 876, 880, and 892). Separation from God and His saints appears three times: a Deo omnipotenti et a societate omnium sanctorum eius segregatum (S 768 and 1215), once, in S 832, with the additional alienation from the choirs of angels: et gloriam dei cum choris angelorum nequaquam uideat in terra uiuentium.147

Infringers only incur the wrath of God in once instance: et in futuro iram Dei incurrat (S

677). Three charters threaten a lack of rest or pardon, nec in theorica requiem apostata obtineat ullam (S 786, 876, and 880). One clause declares that the infringer will incur the guilt of sacrilege: se sacrilegii culpam incurrisse (S 546). Additionally, infringers are described as being

“not satisfied,” non impleat (S 594) or as having “converted joy,” letitia priuati (S 745).

The refoundation charter of New Minster, Winchester (S 745), because of its uniqueness of form, merits its own discussion: the document survives, as a small booklet written in golden letters, with a full-page illumination at its start.148 At thirty folios in length, S 745 can hardly be considered a ‘single sheet,’ but it is nevertheless included in this study because of its status as an

146 “Through whom all of the world was liberated from the ancient enemy of mankind.” 147 “And let him never see the glory of God with the choirs of angels in the land of the living.” 148 London, British Library, Cotton MS Vespasian A. vii at 3v-33v. A color plate of the frontispiece depicting King Edgar offering the Charter to Christ is printed in Janet Backhouse, D. H. Turner, and Leslie Webster, The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art 966–1066 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), color plate IV.

103 original in the classical sense defined by Chaplais.149 Central to the Benedictine reform movement, the document reports on the removal of secular canons from monasteries by King

Edgar and takes pains to make provisions for the successful implementation of the Rule and the protection of the monks.150 As a whole, the lengthy, twenty-two-chapter document follows the general form of an Anglo-Saxon royal diploma. It is, however, peppered throughout with seven prohibitions, maledictions, and benedictions, cautioning and encouraging those who would infringe or protect the monastery’s Benedictine status or its endowment.151

The charter’s first sanction, in Chapter IX, is directed against those who ‘lie in wait’ for the monks now established at the New Minster (de illorum anathemate qui monachis insidiantur).

Si autem qualibet occasione diabolo instigante contigerit ut fastu superbientes arrogantie deiecti canonici monachorum gregem quem ego uenerans cum pastore in Dei constitui possessione, deicere insidiando uoluerint, agatur de eis et de omnibus qui quolibet munere cecati iuuamen eis impenderint, quod actum est de angelis superbientibus et de protoplasto diaboli fraude seducto, ut paradisi uidelicet limitibus sublimibusque regni

149 Chaplais defines an ‘original’ as “a document drawn up in the name of the grantor and with his approval, written at approximately the same time as the oral grant was made, and provided with identifiable marks of authentication such as the grantor’s seal or some autograph subscritptions or signa,” in “Some Early Anglo-Saxon Diplomas,” 315. See above, pp. 5-7 for a discussion of the problems with this definition for Anglo-Saxon diplomatic. 150 Sean Miller, Charter of The New Minster, Winchester, British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 105-111; and Alexander R. Rumble, Property and Piety in Early Medieval Winchester: Documents Relating to the Topography of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman City and Its Minsters Winchester Studies 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 65-97. See also, Hofmann, “Infernal Imagery,” 160-210. Transcriptions and translations of S 745 are based on Rumble. 151 Chapters IX, X, XI, XVIII, XIX, XX and a final paragraph following the witness list, according to the numbering of the original document. Miller reads Chapters IX and X as one sanction with two anathemas, while Hofmann reads them as two distinct sanctions. “Infernal Imagery,” 166.

104

celorum sedilibus eiecti cum his qui Domini famulatum aspernentes contemserunt barathri incendiis detrusi iugi crucientur miseria. Nec inde euulsi se glorientur euasisse tormenta sed cum Iuda Christi proditore eiusque complicibus Acharonte conglutinati, frigore stridentes feruore perusti, letitia priuati, merore anxii, catenis igneis compediti, lictorum metu perculsi, scelerum memoria confusi, totius bonitatis recordatione semoti, eterno lugubres punientur cruciatu.152

The second half of the clause, beginning nec inde euulsi, reads like a litany of punishments. The descriptions of infernal sanctions are quite elaborate. Some of these, such as finding oneself repeatedly perplexed by the memory of one’s crimes, are new to the dataset. Even those punishments which were commonplace by this period, however, ring with a deeper sense of menace when combined in such numbers. The accumulation of descriptors was common to

Anglo-Saxon formulas depicting both heaven and hell, and had as an ultimate source the late-

Latin Visio Sancti Pauli.153 Although Anglo-Saxon homiletic texts moved away from the Visio’s central focus—to demonstrate the connotation between action in this life and reward or punishment in the next—the ‘catalogues of horrors’ included in many homilies owe much to the

152 “If moreover it should happen on any occasion, at the Devil's instigation, that, glorying in arrogance of presumption, the cast-down canons should wish to plot to cast down the flock of monks which I have respectfully established with a shepherd in God's property, let it be done with them, and with everyone who might give them aid, blinded by some kind of bribe, as happened with the proud angels and with the first man seduced by the Devil's trick, namely that, having been expelled from the bounds of Paradise and from the sublime seats of the kingdom of Heaven, they shall be thrust down into the fires of the Abyss with these [other] disdainful ones who have spurned the Lord's service, and be tormented with perpetual misery. Nor pulled out from there to boast that they have evaded the torments, but, rather, they shall be joined together in the Underworld with Judas, the betrayer of Christ, and his confederates, shrieking with cold, scorched with heat, deprived of joy, troubled by lamentation, fettered by fiery shackles, smitten by dread of the attendants, perplexed by the memory of crimes, removed from recollection of all goodness, mourning, they shall be punished with eternal torment.” Edition and translation from Rumble, Property and Piety, 83-84. 153 Theodore Silverstein, Visiones et revelaciones Sancti Pauli: una nuova tradizione di testi latini nel Medio Evo, Conferenza tenuta nella seduta del 9 maggio 1973 (Rome: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, 1974).

105

Visio.154 The enumerative technique of cataloguing the torments of Hell extended to Anglo-

Saxon sanction clauses, as seen in S 745. As Tristram observes, “the longer the enumeration, the higher the emphatic climax.”155

In Chapter XX, the first to deal with infringement of property, punishments concerning both the present and the afterlife are listed in two parallel clauses:

Minuentem perpetua possideat miseria. In Domini manens persecutione, eius genitricis sanctorumque omnium incurrat offensam. Presentis uite aduersitas illi semper eueniat. Nulla ei bonitatis accidat prosperitas, Omnia eius peculia inimici uastantes diripiant. In futuro autem eterni miserrimum cum edis in sinistra positum damnent cruciatus, si non satisfactione emendauerit congrua quod in Domini usurpans detraxit censura.156

The draftsman alludes to the Judgment of the Nations in Matthew 25:31-46. This same biblical story is quoted, as discussed above, in many tenth-century single sheets. In this case, the draftsman has simply adopted different language.

154 Antonette DiPaolo Healey, The Old English Vision of St. Paul (Cambridge, MA.: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1978), 54. Examples include pseudo-Wulfstan Homily 29 and Wulfstan Homily 30, Arthur S. Napier, Wulfstan: Sammlung der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien nebst Untersuchungen über ihri Echtheit (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung,1883), 138, l. 25-139, l. 15; and 146, ll. 11-16, respectively; and MS Hatton 116’s Rogationtide Sermon, Max Förster, Der Vercelli-Codex CXVII: nebst Abdruck einiger altenglischer Homilien der Handschrift (Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1913), 116, ll. 3-7. 155 Tristram, “Stock Descriptions of Heaven and Hell,” 103. 156 “Let perpetual misery overwhelm him who diminishes [the monastery's property]. Remaining in the Lord's persecution, let him incur the hatred of His Mother and all the saints. Let misfortune always befall him in this present life. Let no prosperity of goodness fall to him. Let ravaging enemies plunder all his property. In the future, moreover, let eternal torments condemn him, placed most wretchedly on the left hand side with the goats, unless he should make amends with a suitable reparation for what, encroaching, he has taken away from the Lord's property.” Edition and translation from Ibid., 90-91. See Matthew 25:33 where God, on Judgment Day, divides the people, placing sheep (the righteous) at his right hand and goats (the damned) at his left.

106

The final clause, following the witness list, is written in the first person plural, thereby adding the support of thirty-six individuals (including the king’s family, archbishops, bishops, abbots, ealdormen, and thegns) to the strength of the subsequent anathema:

Omnes qui nominatim hoc priuilegio regis iussu descripti uidemur posteritatis nostre prosapiam subnixe deposcimus ut manuum nostrarum uadimonium Christi cruce firmatum nequaquam uiolantes irritum faciant. Si successorum quispiam temeritatis ausu uiolare presumserit, corporis et sanguine Iesu Christi participatione priuatus, perpetua damnatus perditione anathema sit nisi diuino propitiante respectu ad humilem satisfactionem resipiscens conuersus fuerit.157

Beginning with the prohibition of all the witnesses named in the document against violation by their successors, the final sanction of S 745 states that the perpetrator will be both damned and cursed (anathema). As Hofmann observes, the sanctions of S 745 are representative of the types of punishments found throughout the documents of this period.158

Secular Punishments

There are few descriptions of punishment in the tenth-century single sheets that can be considered secular. S 677 and 832 threaten infringers with an early death, reading minuat omnipotens Deus dies illius in hoc seculo and et dies illius non dimidiauerit, respectively.159 S

157 “We, who were seen described by name in this document by the king's command, all humbly request the family of our posterity that they, violating, should in no way make invalid the recognizance of our hands strengthened with the Cross of Christ; if any successor, by the employment of imprudence should presume to violate [it], let him be cursed, bereft of participation in the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and condemned with perpetual perdition, unless, by the propitiation of divine regard, recovering his senses, he should be turned towards [making] humble reparation.” Edition and translation from Ibid., 97. 158 Hofmann, “Infernal Imagery,” 168. 159 “May omnipotent God diminish his days in this world,” and “and may he not live out half his days.”

107

645 declares the perpetrator ‘guilty,’ using an adjective that can imply secular or spiritual guilt: sciat se reum omni hora uite sue et tenebrosum Tartarum non euadere.160

The Eleventh Century, (1000-1066)

There are thirty extant Class 1 and 2 single sheets from eleventh-century England, twenty-six of which include sanction clauses.161 Geographically, the charters are widely distributed, surviving from thirteen different archives: Abbotsbury (two), Burton, (two), Christ Church, Canterbury

(eight, one ex Bodmin, St Petroc’s), Coventry (one), Evesham (one) Exeter (five, two ex

Crediton), New Minster, Winchester (one), Old Minster, Winchester (two), St Mary’s, Rouen

(one), St Albans, (one), Westminster (one), and Worcester (four). Royal grants remain the most frequently extant type of document, but a group of five ecclesiastical leases and a mortgage originate from the end of the period. This distribution is summarized in Table 9:

Table 9: Summary of the Eleventh-Century Corpus

Sawyer # Archive Internal Status Type Grantor Date 898 Coventry 1001 Royal Grant King Æthelred 905 Christ Church, 1003 (for Royal Lease King Æthelred Canterbury 1002) 906 Burton 1004 Royal Confirmation King Æthelred of Will 916 St Albans 1007 Royal Grant King Æthelred 922 Burton 1009 Royal Grant King Æthelred 950 Christ Church, 1018 Royal Grant King Cnut Canterbury 956 New Minster, 1019 Royal Restoration King Cnut Winchester

160 “Let him know that he is guilty all the hours of his life and that he shall not evade the dark underworld.” In the twelfth-century Quadripartius and Consilatio Cnuti, the term reus is used to mean ‘liable to forfeiture.’ Both texts are edited in Liebermann, Gesetze, vol. 1. See Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, s.v. “reus,” sense 4. 161 S 1005, 1385, 1393, and 1405 lack sanction clauses.

108

Sawyer # Archive Internal Status Type Grantor Date 961 Abbotsbury 1024 Royal Grant King Cnut 963 Christ Church, 1031 Royal Grant King Cnut Canterbury 971 Exeter (ex Crediton) 1031 Royal Grant King Cnut 974 Christ Church, 1035 Royal Grant King Cnut Canterbury 977 Evesham [1021 x Royal Grant King Cnut 1023] 994 Old Minster, 1042 Royal Grant King Harthacnut Winchester 1003 Exeter 1044 Royal Grant King Edward 1004 Abbotsbury 1044 Royal Grant King Edward 1005 Christ Church, 1044 Royal Grant King Edward Canterbury 1008 Old Minster, 1045 Royal Grant King Edward Winchester 1019 Christ Church, 1049 Royal Grant King Edward Canterbury (ex Bodmin, St Petroc's) 1021 Exeter 1050 Royal Act King Edward 1027 Exeter 1059 Royal Grant King Edward 1028 Saint-Denis, Paris 1059 Royal Grant King Edward 1031 Westminster 1060 Royal Grant King Edward 1033 St Mary's, Rouen 1061 Royal Grant King Edward 1044 Christ Church, [1042 x Royal Grant King Edward Canterbury 1044] 1385 Worcester [1003 x Ecclesiastical Lease Archbishop 1016] Wulfstan 1387 Exeter (ex Crediton) [1016 x Ecclesiastical Mortgage Bishop Eadnoth 1020] 1390 Christ Church, [1020 x Ecclesiastical Lease Archbishop Canterbury 1038] Æthelnoth 1393 Worcester 1038 Ecclesiastical Lease Bishop Lyfing 1405 Worcester 1058 Ecclesiastical Lease Bishop Ealdred 1407 Worcester 1053 Ecclesiastical Lease Bishop Ealdred

109

Supplementary Clauses

There are nine blessings in the corpus, two of which appear in S 956.162 Seventeen charters include penance clauses.163 The vague references to ‘legal remedy’ that appear in the tenth- century penance clauses continue into the eleventh century only in S 961: nisi ante terminum presumptionem hanc temerariam legali satisfactione emendare studuerit.164 S 1003, a grant of

King Edward to his chaplain, Leofric dated 1044, specifies that penance must be made unprompted: nisi prius hic digna penitudine studuerit ultro non coactus emendare.165 The inclusion of supplementary clauses in the eleventh-century documents is detailed in Table 10:

Table 10: Occurrence of Supplementary Clauses in the Eleventh-Century Corpus

Sawyer # Malediction Benediction Penance 898 X 905 X X 906 X X X 916 X X 922 X 950 X X 956 X X (2) X 961 X X 963 X X 971 X X 974 X X 977 X X 994 X X X 1003 X X 1004 X X

162 S 906, 922, 956 (2x), 963, 994, 1021, 1031, 1033, and 1387. 163 S 905, 906, 916, 950, 956, 961, 971, 974, 977, 994, 1003, 1004, 1008, 1028, 1031, 1033, and 1044. 164 “Unless before the deadline he shall strive to amend with legal satisfaction his presumptuous impudence.” 165 “Unless he first strive, voluntarily, to make amends with worthy contrition, without having been compelled.”

110

Sawyer # Malediction Benediction Penance 1005 1008 X X 1019 X 1021 X X 1027 X 1028 X X 1031 X X X 1033 X X X 1044 X X 1385 1387 X X 1390 X 1393 1405 1407 X

Protasis

The donation reference of the eleventh century has further diversified. Traditional words like donationem (S 974 and 1027), decretum (S 916 [plural decreta], 963, 977, 1003, 1019, 1021,

1031), and donum (S 950, 961, 1008, and 1033) are still in use, but they are often modified by larger adjectival strings or paired with other nouns. S 1003, for example, warns people not to violate nostrum decretum hanc donationis karterulam.166 S 898, a royal grant issued in the first years of the century, reads precepta priorum et hanc subscriptionis nostrae sigillum librumque presolidatum.167 Two nouns are used to refer to the act of donation in S 1021, decretum se cautionem huius episcopi.168 S 906, a royal confirmation of a will, refers to the land bestowed

166 “Our decree, this little charter of donation.” 167 “The precepts of [our] predecessors and this seal of our subscription and this strengthened book.” Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, s.v. “liber,” sense 8, ‘charter, deed.’ 168 “The decree or warranty of this bishop.”

111 rather than the donation in the abstract with the phrase hunc locum, “this place.” S 1031 is the only document to include the phrase in aliud quam constituimus, which was frequently employed in the charters of the tenth century, including the ‘Æthelstan A’ diplomas. Other accusative donation references include hanc mee donationis ac confirmationis breuiculam (S 994 and

1044), hanc donationis kartulam (S 905), hanc nostre munificentie dampsilitatem (for dapsilitatem) (S 971), hanc nostram largitionem (S 1044), and hanc nostri decreti xanctionem (S

922).169

There are only three charters that define the potential perpetrators beyond a general quis.170 The warning in S 906 is directed at everyone, whether of high or low degree: quispiam altioris inferiorisuae persone. In S 1390 the potential perpetrators have moved from the protasis to apodosis and become the subject of the verb incurrere: Quod si presumpserint, et ipsi et fautores sui iram Dei et excommunicationem omnium Dei fidelium incurrant et legem patrie domino suo soluant.171 S 1021, a royal act dated 1050, forbids “any plunderer of fraud or person who scoffs at sin” aliquis compilator fraudis uel caullator fautoris. As in the tenth century, a significantly larger proportion of charters define a motivation for potential perpetrators than actually list those perpetrators.172 Additionally, in the eleventh-century single sheets, only two of the thirteen sanctions have the same description, S 905 and 1044, reading tipho turgens

169 “This my brief of donation and confirmation,” “this charter of donation,” “this our abundance of munificence,” “this our largess,” and “this our sanction of decree.” 170 S 906, 1021, and 1390. 171 “But if they should presume [to claim the demesne for their descendants], let them and their abettors incur the wrath of God and excommunication from all God’s faithful and let them pay it back to his lord according to the law of his native country.” 172 S 898, 905, 922, 961, 963, 971, 974, 977, 994, 1003, 1004, 1021, and 1044.

112 supercilii.173 Six clauses deal with the inward pridefulness of the perpetrator himself: turgido superbie spiritu inflatus (S 898),174 prauo molimine (S 922),175 conamine suo (S 961),176 cupido conamine (S 1004),177 naeuo fomitatis [? for fomitis] iniquae cupidinis (S 1021), and non perhorrescat (S 963).178 Five others assume instigation by the devil or some outside force: tetri demonis fastu instinctus (S 977),179 tam epylempticus philargirie seductus amicitia […] auso temerario (S 971),180 diabolica temeritate inflatus (S 974),181 diabolico inflatus spiritu (S

994),182 and presumptione audaci instinctuque diabolico (S 1003).183

Twelve documents include a quod non clause.184 All but one of these clauses is standard, seven reading quod/ut non optamus and four quod absit.185 S 1003, however, reads quod futurum minime autumo, the first and only instance of this phrasing in this corpus.186

173 “Swelling with the arrogance of pride.” 174 “Inflated with the swollen breath of pride.” 175 “By corrupt effort.” 176 “By his own effort.” 177 “With greedy effort.” 178 “He does not shudder at.” 179 “Roused by the haughtiness of the foul demon.” 180 “Possessed by a devil having been seduced by the madenss of greed.” This phrasing is typical of tenth- century documents, appearing in S 768, 786, 880, 876, and 892. 181 “Inflated with diabolical impudence.” 182 “Inflated with a diabolical spirit.” 183 “With audacious presumption and diabolical instinct.” 184 S 905, 950, 961, 971, 974, 994, 1003, 1021, 1027, 1031, 1033 and 1044. 185 S 905, 950, 961, 971, 974, 1031, and 1033; S 994, 1021, 1027, and 1044. 186 “Which I do not anticipate at all.”

113

S 1031, a grant of 1060 by King Edward to Westminster Abbey incorporates a notwithstanding clause into the sanction: seu ueteres uel nouos apices ostenderit.187 Unlike the tenth-century examples, the prohibition against bringing forward any documents against the present diploma does not have its own anathema, but is added on to the sanction clause as another form of infringement.

Punishment Clause

Spiritual Punishments

The focus on infernal punishment visible in the tenth century is carried forward into the eleventh, although descriptions of hell are not as diverse. Fourteen sanction clauses include some mention of hell, referring to it as Barathrum four times (S 963, 971, 1003, and 1019), gehennalis once (S

906), infernus inferior once (S 974), infernales once (S 977), and infernus twice (S 956 and

1387).

Dathan and Abiram appear for the first time as companions in hell in S 1003 and 1028.188

The devil is mentioned in two charters: once—in a phrase new to the dataset, but drawn from

187 “Whether he shows old or new letters.” 188 For the story of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram against Moses see Numbers 16:1-50. Elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon England, the story is referenced mainly in homiletic materials, including Ælfric’s De oratione Moysi, edited in Walter W. Skeat, Ælfric’s Lives of Saints: Being a Set of Sermons on Saints’ Days Formerly Observed by the English Church (London: Early English Text Society, 1881; reprinted in 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), no. 13, ll. 221-229; four of the six extant Old English versions of the Sunday Letter, Dorothy Haines, Sunday Observance and the Sunday Letter in Anglo-Saxon England, Anglo-Saxon Texts 8 (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2010), C 88-91, D 45-47, E 122- 128, F 74-81; and Wulfstan Homily 43, Napier, Wulfstan, 210, l. 26-211, l. 11.

114 biblical sources—as Beelzebub principe muscarum (S 1003)189 and once simply as diabolus (S

1021).190 The company of the devil’s ministers or demons is mentioned in S 1021 and 1044, both times in conjunction with Satan himself. Sharing the lot of Judas appears in S 971 and 1028 and again in S 1004 in relation to his accomplices. A single reference to the apostate angels (angelis apostaticis) appears in S 922. And, as was common in tenth-century clauses, the infringer is lumped together with the general group of sinners to whom, according to the Gospel of Matthew, the Lord will say on Judgment Day: “Depart from me, cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”191

Cursing terminology remains obscure. The punishments of anathema and malediction are threatened in the same language; one term being substituted for the other. S 950, a charter of

King Cnut from the year 1018, states: a Christo maledicetur omnibusque sanctis eius in euum.192

In the second occurrence, in S 916, a grant of King Æthelred to St Albans, perpetrators are deprived of the blessing of God, the saints, Æthelred himself, and all Christianity and they are damned with a curse: omnipotentis Dei et omnium sanctorum meaque et omnium Christianorum

189 According to The Oxford Companion to the Bible, ‘Baal‐zebub’ in Hebrew means ‘Lord of the Flies.’ The name Beel‐zebul was later, in the Greco-Roman period, used to refer to the leader among the demons opposed to God. Robert Stoops, “Baal-zebub,” The Oxford Companion to the Bible, ed. by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 70. The charter source, here, has understood ‘Beelzebub’ as a name for Satan and added the epithet Prince of Flies. The phrase does not, to my knowledge, appear in any other charters from the Anglo-Saxon period. 190 S 1044 reads cum satane satellitibus. It is likely, however, that an et and eius dropped out after satane and satellitibus respectively, i.e. cum satane et satellitibus eius. If this were the case, the clause could be counted as a third threat of ‘companionship’ with the devil. See S 704 and 770 for this same formula and S 1021 for a formula of the same structure with different language. 191 Matthew 25:41. 192 “Let him be cursed by Christ and all His saints in eternity.”

115 benedictione careat, et aeterna maledictione damnatus intereat.193 The list of those whose blessings the guilty party will lack reads grammatically like the separation clauses of earlier charters. The sentence of anathema occurs three times in S 1021, 1031, and 1033 dated 1050,

1060, and 1061, respectively. In S 1031 the anathematized is seen in fetters sciat se anathematis interdictionum nexibus obligatum.194 In S 1390, infringers incur the penalty of excommunication: et excommunicationem omnium Dei fidelium incurrant.195

Four charters describe hell in terms of continual torture196 and seven mention flames.197

Sinners are threatened with being bound twice, once in S 1019 et ęternaliter lętali laquei uim uitę suę diris flammis cruciatur and again in S 1021 aeternis mancipatus habenis.198

The sanction clause of S 906, a grant of King Æthelred to Burton Abbey from 1004, is notable for several reasons, not least because it places the immunity clause (or statement of powers) with its exception of the three common burdens, within the punishment clause: tribus tantummodo exceptis expeditione scilicet arcis pontisue constructione.199 The move of the

193 “Let him lack the blessing of omnipotent God, and of all His saints, and of me, and of all Christians and let him perish, damned by eternal malediction.” 194 “Let him know himself bound by the fetters of the interdicts of anathema.” Nexus traditionally had the sense ‘bond’ or ‘fetter,’ but in the eleventh century it came to be used to refer to an obligation such as that between a debtor and creditor. See the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, s.v. “Nexus,” sense 5. 195 “Let them incur the excommunication of all the faithful of God.” 196 S 971, 994, 1019, and 1044. 197 S 906, 963, 971, 1019, 1027, 1028, and 1044. 198 “And bound forever in a deadly snare, let him have his life's force tortured by cruel flames” and “Let him be sold into eternal bonds.” 199 This clause is often referred to in discussions of Anglo-Saxon diplomatic form as the trimoda necessitas. “With the exception of only three things, namely, expedition (army service), and the building of stronghold or bridge.”

116 exception clause to the sanction results in a warning that lays special emphasis on the legal details of the agreement. The common, almost obligatory, phrase is tied up with the idea of infringement and, in a superficial way, helps to define what a transgression might entail. The clause’s description of infernal punishment is also of note: sciat se a cęlesti aligenari [...]200 et gehennalia subire tormenta, ubi uermis est non moriens, et ignis indeficiens, dentiumque stridor

[int]olerabilis.201 The description of hell as a place where ‘worms do not die’ as drawn from

Mark 9:47-48, appears only here and in S 1028.202 The concept of hell as a place filled with weeping and the gnashing of teeth appears in tenth-century clauses, but here the description lacks its first element.203

There are three straightforward references to Judgment Day and the need to offer explanation for one’s misdeeds: sciat se Domino rationem in die iudicii redditurum.204 The elaboration seen in the tenth-century documents, however, has disappeared.

Separation in all its various incarnations, continues to play a major role. S 971 threatens separation from the community and the body and blood of Christ sit ipse alienatus a consortio sancte dei aecclesiae et a participatione sacro sancti corporis et sanguinis Iesu Christi filii dei

200 The manuscript is damaged and illegible here. 201 “Let him know that he will be alienated from heavenly things and that he will endure the torments of hell, where worms do not die and flames are unceasing, and there is an intolerable gnashing of teeth.” 202 S 1028 reads: in ignem eternum ubi uermis eorum non moritur, et ignis non extinguitur. 203 The combination of weeping and gnashing of teeth appears in Matthew 13:42 and Luke 13:28. 204 “Let him know that he will have to give an account on Judgment Day.” This example is from S 905. Similar references appear in S 898 and 1033.

117 per quem totus terrarum orbis ab antiquo humani generis inimico liberatus est.205 Separation from the community of the church also occurs in S 977 and 1003, sit ipse a sancte dei aecclesiae consortio separatus and expulsus sit a nobis.206 Transgressors are denied entry to heaven in S

974 deneget ei Deus ingressum celestis uite and are separated from the kingdom of God in S

1031 et a regno dei separatum.207 Separation from God and the saints occurs in S 1021 sit separatus a Christo ipsiusque sanctis.208

Miscellaneous punishments include incurring the wrath of God (S 1390) and the wrath of

God and His Mother (S 1003): iram dei omnipotentis genitricisque eius uidelicet almae et intactae Mariae incurrat.209 S 994 warns that perpetrators will lack divine gifts: sciat se diuinis carere muneribus. Two clauses make clear that the tortures described above will result in a lack of rest (S 971)210 and a lack of consolation (S 1008), punishments common to Old English homilies.211

205 “Let him be alienated from the fellowship of the holy church of God and from participation in the holy body and blood of Jesus Christ the son of God, through whom the whole world was freed from the ancient enemy of the human race.” 206 “Let him be separated from the fellowship of the holy church of God;” and “Let him be expelled from us.” 207 “May God deny him entry to the celestial life;” “and [let him be] separated from the kingdom of God.” 208 “Let him be separated from Christ and his saints.” 209 “Let him incur the wrath of omnipotent God and His Mother, namely of the saintly and chaste Mary.” 210 Nec in theorica requiem apostata optineat ullam. 211 Nullius aduentantis consolationem uspiam repperiat. Compare the description of hell in the anonymous homily extant in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162. On þam is dæghwamlice ece sargung 7 unrotnys buton blisse 7 teara genihtsumnyss buton frofre. “Every day in them [i.e. hellish places] there is eternal sorrow and sadness without joy and abundance of tears without consolation.” Printed and translated in part in Hildegard L. C. Tristram, Early Insular Preaching: Verbal Artistry and Method of Composition (Vienna: Verlag, 1995), 50-51.

118

Secular Punishments

The punishment clause of S 1027, a grant of King Edward to Bishop Ealdred dated 1059 preserved in the archive of Exeter, is unique in that it refers to a monetary loss as a result of infringement. The sanction clause reads:

Huius uero predii donationem optamus et uolumus esse perpetuam et omni contradictione securam, neque christianum se fateatur qui eam infringere conatur. Et si quis in hoc consenserit, quod absit, penarum ultionibus sit ab istis testibus tamdiu addictus quoadusque per ignem urentem debiti huius persoluat nouissimum quadrantem.212

While the clause is far from resembling the monetary penalties of Continental charters, its very inclusion of monetary imagery is noteworthy. Within the punishment clause the draftsman, perhaps envisaging counterclaims to the grant of land, alludes to Matthew 5:25-26, thereby bringing to mind adversarial disputes and the courtroom. The biblical passage reads: Esto consentiens adversario tuo cito dum es in via cum eo ne forte tradat te adversarius iudici et iudex tradat te ministro et in carcerem mittaris. Amen dico tibi non exies inde donec reddas novissimum quadrantem.213 These words, spoken by Christ, set up an ideal course for settlement of any potential disputes concerning the land granted. Like the accused in the biblical passage, those who make claims contrary to the charter are encouraged to be reconciled quickly with the rightful holder of the land, Bishop Ealdred, in order to avoid a costly public settlement.

212 “Indeed, we wish and we will that the donation of this estate be perpetual and secure from all contradiction, nor should he confess himself a Christian who attempts to infringe it. And if anyone should conspire in this—may it be absent—let him by these witnesses be sentenced to avenging punishments until, by burning fire, he should pay the last farthing of this debt.” 213 “Come to an agreement with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way to court with him, lest by chance your adversary hands you over to the judge, and the judge hands you over to the guard, and you are cast into prison. Truly, I say to you, you will not emerge thence until you have paid the last farthing.”

119

S 1390, in addition to threatening the wrath of God and excommunication refers explicitly to a monetary fine et legem patrie domino suo soluant.214 The formulation of the charter as a whole, however, points to Continental models hinting, perhaps, at unusual circumstances of production.215

Forgeries

Post-Conquest forgeries of single-sheet charters, while they may not tell us much about the particulars of Anglo-Saxon diplomatic, reveal much about the way in which uniquely Anglo-

Saxon clauses were perceived. Some notable forgeries are worth discussing here.

Having mapped the elements of Anglo-Saxon sanction clauses, it is possible to detect some likely forgeries. While universally acknowledged as an eleventh-century copy, there are varying opinions regarding the authenticity of S 255, a grant of King Æthelheard to Bishop

Forthhere dated 739.216 Earlier scholars, like Napier and Stevenson, list the charter as authentic.217 Chaplais sheds some doubt on this status, pointing to the boundary clause which is more detailed than those typical of eighth-century documents and to the unusual immunity clause.218 Whitelock echoes Chaplais’ concerns, but suggests that while these elements were

214 “Let them pay it back to his lord according to the law of his native country.” 215 See Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, 1140-1143. 216 Chaplais suggests that S 255 was written c. 1069. “Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diplomas of Exeter,” 10. 217 “On the whole, there seems to be nothing in the charter to justify its being labelled as spurious.” Arthur S. Napier and William Henery Stevenson, The Crawford Collection of Early Charters and Documents (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895), 37-46. 218 Chaplais, “Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diplomas of Exeter,” 10.

120 interpolated the rest of the charter has an authentic basis.219 However, the inclusion of infernal language in the punishment clause, based upon the above analysis of the single-sheet evidence, is anachronistic. Descriptions of hell appear in no other Class 1 or 2 single sheet before S 1184, dated 780, which includes the phrase inferno inferiore. This is the lone example until the explosion of infernal punishment in the tenth century coinciding with the Benedictine reform. It is, of course, possible that the draftsman of the charter was ahead of his time, influenced by homilies and various other types of sources. Taken with the other evidence, however, it seems likely that the sanction of S 255 was written in the post-reform period.

Nearly all early references to performative gestures or to direct speech in relation to sanction clauses are in forged documents, such as those in S 132, 1208, and 1293.220 It is likely that these documents are describing customs contemporary to their composition if not their purported date. It was more common to include such descriptions in the cartulary-chronicles and foundation narratives of the late eleventh and the twelfth century. S 132, for example, is a past- tense account of the blessing and anathema that were carried out during the actual granting of the land in question. Accordingly, the sanction clause ends with the words: Et respondit omnis chorus: Amen.221 The excommunication formulas of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS

303 also call for a response from the congregation. This is the earliest single sheet recorded in

219 Whitelock, English Historical Documents, 455-456. For additional commentary see Heather Edwards The Charters of the Early West Saxon Kingdom, British Archaeological Reports, British Series (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1988), 255-258; and Patrick Wormald, “Bede and the Conversion of England: The Charter Evidence,” Jarrow Lecture 1984 (1985), 25. 220 See Chapter Two, pp. 24-29, for a discussion of the performance of legal acts. Authentic post- Conquest charters often include descriptions of ritual, such as placing a symbolic object of the altar. See Mortimer, “Anglo-Norman Lay Charters,” 168; and Tabuteau, Transfers of Property, 119-135. 221 “And the entire multitude responded, ‘Amen’.”

121 this narrative fashion, but others do follow, especially those charters that are incorporated into the cartulary-chronicle tradition. S 132 also claims the first appearance of the dual sanction of condemnation and excommunication, the phrasing (et condempnet et excommunicet et in hoc sæculo et in futuro) indicating a potential distinction between the two punishments, although what this distinction might be is unclear.222 The clause does make explicit that this sentence applies to the present and afterlife of the guilty party. The structure could express a temporal distinction between condemnation and excommunication, but is more likely simply a stylistic choice: this type of doubling appears throughout the clause, the overall structure of blessing coupled with anathema being another example.

The draftsman of S 1293, a charter of Bishop Dunstan that announces the confirmation by King Edgar of Westminster’s privileges and land-holdings, employs every method at his disposal to confer authenticity on his document. The charter was produced at or near

Westminster Abbey in the mid-twelfth century by a scribe who worked on at least twelve other documents in favor of the abbey.223 Heslop describes the hand as a “‘curious mock’ insular miniscule” and the content as “pretentious” and riddled with anachronistic abbreviations. The charter is clearly designed to impress twelfth-century contemporaries rather than to resemble a document of its claimed date, 959. Not only is it impossibly sealed by the Bishop himself—the sealing of documents did not come into practice in England until the early twelfth century—but it is also lightly illuminated, with several initials accented with gold leaf atop a red

222 “Let him be both condemned and excommunicated, both in this age and in the future.” 223 The DEEDS dater suggests a date of 1103. See, the DEEDS Project, . Two of the twelve documents written by the scribe are also forged Anglo-Saxon single sheets: S 774 and S 124 MS 1. Heslop, “Twelfth-Century Forgeries,” 301.

122 background.224 The blessing and anathema are put directly in the mouth of Dunstan, having been incorporated into the ritual of sealing, an attempt at lending further inviolability to the act.

Post-Conquest Diplomatic

Many differences between pre-Conquest English and Norman charters stem from the fact that the former derived from the late Roman private deed and the latter from the late Roman public deed.225 The charters of both traditions, however, were equally likely to include sanction clauses.

Norman diplomatic, like other Continental traditions, made use of the temporal penalty, but also included spiritual sanctions that, according to Brown, could “match in terror anything to be found in Old English diplomas.”226 Tabuteau, examining property transfer in eleventh-century

Normandy, demonstrates a correlation between the use of spiritual sanctions or anathema, and a monastic foundation’s age.227

Sweeping changes in diplomatic form did not immediately follow the shift from an

English to Norman ruling elite. Many of the diplomas issued by William I in the post-Conquest

224 On seals in England, see P. D. A. Harvey and Andrew McGuinness, Guide to Medieval British Seals (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996). On the decoration of royal diplomas in late-medieval England see Elizabeth Danbury, “The Decoration and Illumination of Royal Charters in England, 1250– 1509: An Introduction,” in England and her Neighbours, 1066–1453. Essays in Honour of Pierre Chaplais, edited by Michael Jones and Malcolm Vale (London: Hambledon Press, 1989), 157-179. 225 See Brown, “Some Observations on Norman and Anglo-Norman Charters,” 148. 226 Brown argues that the inclusion of a temporal sanction was not as rare as previously emphasized in the study of Marie Fauroux, Recueil des actes des ducs de Normandie de 911–1066 (Caen: Caron, 1961), 54. “Some Observations on Norman and Anglo-Norman Charters,” 150, n. 28. 227 Tabuteau, Transfers of Property, 205.

123 period adopted Anglo-Saxon diplomatic features.228 This high level of continuity, however, is likely due to the fact that William I’s acta were written by their beneficiaries.229

Following the definition outlined by Bates, there are eleven original Norman diplomas from the reign of William I (Bates numbers 46, 47, 51, 144 [x2], 165, 229, 246, 248, 283, 284) and five extant original English diplomas (39, 67, 68, 138, 176).230 Of these sixteen documents, three bear sanction clauses.231 The sole English diploma from this group to include a sanction is number 138, a document dated 1069 in which William consents to a grant by bishop Leofric of

Exeter to the church of St Peter of Exeter. As Chaplais notes, the charter has all the characteristics of a typical Anglo-Saxon diploma from the reign of Edward the Confessor; it includes a pictorial invocation, a proem, a dispositive phrase, a sanction, a dating clause, a corroboration, a vernacular boundary clause, and a series of non-autograph crosses and subscriptions.232 The document’s sanction clause reads:

Siquis autem quod absit diabolo instigante meum regalem concessum presumat evertere et beneficia predictę ęcclesię et canonicis data detrahere, vel in aliquo minuere, nisi conversus reddendo et dupliciter restiuendo sanctę Dei ęcclesię satisfaciat, in resurrectione beatorum divina voce damnatus fiat socius omnium demoniorum.233

228 See David Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: The Acta of William I (1066-1087) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 11. 229 On the production of the acta of William I see Bates, Acta of William I, 96-109. See also, Brown, “Some Observations on Norman and Anglo-Norman Charters,” 150-151. 230 Bates, Acta of William I, 12, 44. 231 Bates numbers 138, 248, and 283. 232 Pierre Chaplais, “The Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diplomas for Exeter,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 39 (1966), 1-34, here 31-33. Reprinted with an addendum in Essays in Medieval Diplomacy and Administration (London: Hambledon Press, 1981). 233 “But if anyone, may it not come to pass, with the devil instigating, presumes to overturn my royal concession either to take away the privileges granted to the aforementioned church and canons or to

124

There are obvious parallels between this sanction and those of the pre-Conquest Anglo-Saxon period. The overall structure of the clause, with its motivation and quod non clauses in the protasis as well as the punishment’s emphasis on separation from positive and companionship with negative entities, is familiar. These elements, however, are also to be found in pre-Conquest

Norman diplomatic. A similar protasis appears in a c.1052 x 1058 grant by William, reading: Si quis autem, quod absit, ex successoribus nostris diabolicæ suggestionis instinctu, hujus elemosinæ dono abstrahendo, minorando, vel mutando, seu omnino denegando, inferre calumniam temptaverit [...].234 The motivation and quod non clauses are nearly identical to those in the post-Conquest sanction. With its inclusion of a secular penalty, however, William’s post-

Conquest charter draws strongly on its Norman diplomatic heritage.

While Anglo-Norman diplomatic may have begun to phase out the sanction, interest in the clause’s form lingered and, at Canterbury, even intensified. The following chapter examines the treatment of the sanction clause in the Anglo-Norman Cartulary of Christ Church,

Canterbury, a text in which the compiler adds to and modifies the maledictory language of his source texts.

diminish it in any way, let him be damned at the resurrection by the divine voice of the saints and keep the society of all the demons, unless converted, he should make amends by returning and restoring twofold to the Holy Church of God.” 234 Fauroux number 141. The phrase instigante diabolo also appears in Fauroux number 117 among others.

Chapter 4

Scribal Treatment of Maledictory Sanction Clauses at

Christ Church, Canterbury

Patrick Geary, invoking Friedrich Nietzsche, reflects that forgetting is an essential component to creating a collective remembrance of the past.1 This principle holds true for the work of the medieval cartularist. In his capacity as archivist, the cartularist sifts through the records of the past, choosing which should perish, which should be remembered, and in what form they should be viewed. There is a great deal of power in this position; a power that is wielded in different ways and to greater or lesser degrees by each cartularist.2

As discussed in Chapter Three, the maledictory sanction clause had fallen largely out of use in English charters by the twelfth century. The impulse to reorganize and memorialize monastic archival holdings during this same period, however, kept the clause alive through its repeated copying and reconfiguration within cartularies and historiographical volumes.

Cartularists, however, did not blindly copy the sanction clauses in their materials, they reacted to them: modifying, deleting, inserting, and amplifying.3 These interpretive acts tell us much about the intent of the early English compilers of cartulary materials and the perceived function of their

1 Geary, “Medieval Archivists as Authors,” 106. 2 Refer to the ‘Terminology’ section of the Introduction for a discussion of the use of the singular cartularist throughout. 3 For examples, see pp. 155-165 and Appendix Four.

125 126 works. They also reveal each cartularist’s perception of what a useful, fully formed charter looked like.

This dissertation has focused broadly on maledictory sanction clauses in the charters of early medieval England. Here, we shall use the information gathered in this pursuit to delve into a twin analysis of early English cartulary production and the perception of the sanction clause in post-Conquest England, based on the hypothesis that we can dig deeper into the complexities of cartulary production and early-English diplomatic by looking at the intricacies of a single diplomatic clause. The chapter will focus specifically on the charters and archival ventures of eleventh- and twelfth-century Christ Church, Canterbury for whom this period was a time of great archival activity.4 It will begin with an overview of cartularies in England and the historiographical tradition surrounding them, situating the subsequent case-study within this context.

Medieval English Cartularies

There is some ambiguity regarding the precise number of cartularies extant from medieval

England stemming largely from discrepancies in criteria for identifying and methods for counting them. In G.R.C. Davis’ Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain and Ireland, for example, composite cartularies are given a single entry while multi-volume cartularies are given individual entries for each physical volume.5 The catalogue does not distinguish between

4 See Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, 67. 5 G. R. C. Davis, Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain and Ireland, revised by Claire Breay, Julian Harrison, and David M. Smith (London: British Library, 2010). See Jean-Philippe Genet, “Cartulaires Anglais du Moyen Âge,” in Les Cartulaires: Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’Ecole nationale des chartes et le G.D.R. 121 du C.N.R.S., edited by Olivier Guyotjeannin, Laurent Morelle, and Michel

127 cartularies proper, registers, and other ‘cartulary-like’ materials, which results in the extremely inflated count of over 1,400 medieval cartularies extant and untraced, secular and ecclesiastical.

Trevor Foulds, employing a much stricter definition, excluding registers and other ‘cartulary- like’ materials, counts approximately 366 ecclesiastical cartularies extant from medieval

England, Scotland, and Wales.6 Lay cartularies, rare in early medieval Europe as a whole, do not appear in England until the thirteenth century, when cartulary compilation became increasingly common.7 Only a small handful of these 366 volumes—around four—were compiled before the twelfth century, the period covered by this study.8 The earliest of these dates from early eleventh-century Worcester where three cartularies were compiled within a ninety-year span.

The oldest of the three volumes is the early eleventh-century Liber Wigorniensis, compiled during the episcopate of Wulfstan, simultaneously bishop of Worcester and Archbishop of York

Parisse, 343-361, here 347 (Paris: École des Chartes, 1993), who discusses the first edition of Davis’ catalogue and provides a reassessment of the geographical and chronological distribution of medieval English cartularies. 6 Foulds defines a cartulary as “a work in which the muniments, that is, the title-deeds to lands, properties, rights and privileges of a monastery or church or corporation or landholding family are recorded.” Of course, it can be difficult to draw a clean line between registers and cartularies, hence the approximation in the total number. Trevor Foulds, “Medieval Cartularies,” Archives 18, no. 77 (1987): 3-35, here 6. 7 See graph depicting rates of cartulary production at ibid., 17. 8 London, British Library, Cotton MS Nero E. I, part 2, London, British Library, Cotton MS Faustina B. VI, part i, and London, British Library, Cotton MS Claudius A. III (three fragments of ‘Nero- Middleton’); London, British Library, Cotton MS Tiberius A. XIII (‘Hemming’s Cartulary’); London, British Library, Cotton MS Tiberius A. XIII (‘Liber Wigorniensis’); and the Anglo-Norman Cartulary of Christ Church, Canterbury (lost, but extant in three medieval witnesses: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 189; Canterbury, D. & C., Reg. P; London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1212).

128 from 1002 to 1016.9 The other two, the fragmentary Nero-Middleton10 and Hemming’s

Cartulary,11 were compiled around 1062 x 1095 and c. 1096 respectively, as part of the archival initiative begun by St Wulfstan Bishop of Worcester from 1062-1095, the maternal nephew of

Archbishop Wulfstan.12

Bearing these numbers in mind, it seems prudent, before beginning an analysis of the scribal reproductions of the charters of a particular archive, to step back and examine the myriad of potential catalysts for undertaking a cartulary project in the first place. Early editors of cartularies would likely have viewed such a question as foolhardy; to them the answer was obvious. Cartularies were ‘snapshots’ of single moments in the lives of archives, ‘conduits’ for the details of land transfer.13 Because of these assumptions, editors ignored cartulary versions of charters in favor of extant single sheets or simply used them to piece together the circumstances

9 London, British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius A. xiii, fos. 1-118. See Jonathan R. Herold, “Memoranda and Memoria: Assessing the Preservation of Acta at Eleventh-Century Worcester Cathedral,” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2008; and Francesca Tinti, “From Episcopal Conception to Monastic Compilation: Hemming’s Cartulary in Context,” Early Medieval Europe, 11.3 (2002), 233-261; Ibid., “Si litterali memorie commendaretur: Memory and Cartularies in Eleventh-Century Worcester,” in Early Medieval Studies in Memory of Patrick Wormald, edited by Stephen Baxter, Catherine Karkov, Janet L. Nelson, and David Pelteret, Studies in Early Medieval Britain (Farnham, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009), 475–498; and ibid., Sustaining Belief: The Church of Worcester from c. 870 to c. 1100 (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010), 85-125. 10 This is a fragmentary text. Four folios are bound, out of order, in London, British Library, MS Cotton Nero E. i, part 2. A fifth folio and fragments of a sixth are labeled London, British Library, Additional MS 46204. 11 Hemming’s Cartulary and the Liber Wigorniensis were bound together sometime during the twelfth century, Hemming’s Cartulary making up the second half (fos. 119-199) and the Liber Wigorniensis the first half (fos. 1-118) of London, British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius A. xiii. 12 See the Enucleatio libelli, Hemming’s explanatory introduction to his cartulary. Edited by Tinti, “Memory and Cartularies,” 475-498. Tinti elaborates on Wulfstan’s role in the composition of the Worcester cartularies in Sustaining Belief, 125-150. 13 See, for example, Emile Lesne, Histoire de la propriété ecclésiastique en France Vol. 4, Les livres ‘Scriptoria’ et bibliothèques du commencement du VIIIe à la fin du XIe siècle (Lille: Facultés catholiques, 1938).

129 of agreements for which no original survived. They were not valued in their own right as items worthy of scholarly interest. Their function was seen as purely legal or administrative, working to organize and preserve archives, manage groups of estates, and support claims to land and privileges. While the existence of the administrative function of cartularies can by no means be denied, it was not, contrary to early scholarly opinion, their sole aim.

It is now widely acknowledged that a great deal of subjectivity lay behind cartulary compilation, that each individual volume was, in the words of Geary, “the result of a process of neglect, selection, transformation, and suppression.”14 Far from objective representations of an archive’s entirety, cartularies are collections of strategically selected and oft-manipulated charters of title and privilege. A common element in the motivation for their production was the presence of some sort of pressure, internal or external, prompting reassessment of the current state of an institution’s archive, resulting in the organization and compilation of all or a portion of its muniments.15 This pressure might be as simple as the realization that the archive had grown unwieldly.16 More commonly, it stemmed from anxiety concerning the longevity of holdings in the midst of an unstable political atmosphere brought on by such events as conquest, civil unrest, the ascension of a new monarch, or the election of a new bishop or abbot.17 The few prefaces to

English cartularies written during this period universally indicate an additional factor: the concern for the preservation of institutional identity as a didactic tool for the benefit of both the

14 Patrick J. Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millenium (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 83. 15 What Foulds calls ‘crisis.’ Medieval Cartularies, 29. 16 Ibid., 20-21. 17 See, for example, Geary’s discussion of the preparation of dossiers of charters in Eastern Francia in the eighth and ninth centuries in the face of the Carolingian rise to power. Phantoms of Remembrance, 84-87.

130 present-day community and posterity.18 The most frequently cited of these is that of the monk

Hemming to his eleventh-century Worcester compilation.19 Hemming states that he has undertaken the production of a cartulary at the behest of St Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester from

1062 to 1095, and elaborates on the purpose of this venture:

Hunc libellum de possessionibus huius nostri monasterii ego Hemmingus monachus et sacerdos quamuis indignus et conseruus seruorum Dei habitantium in monasterio sanctę Dei genitricis MARIĘ, sito in urbe quę Anglicę Vuigornaceaster nominatur [...] ea maxime intentione composui, ut posteris nostris claresceret quę et quantę possessiones terrarum ditioni huius monasterii adiacere, ad uictum dumtaxat seruorum Dei, monachorum uidelicet, iure deberent, quamque iniuste ui et dolis spoliati his caremus.20

While these prefaces are helpful in understanding the circumstances surrounding cartulary production, their uses are somewhat limited. Not only do they survive in relatively small numbers, but they are part of a genre of medieval prefatory works that adhere to various, somewhat affected, topoi— “topoi of self-abnegation, duty, and concern for the preservation of the past.”21 It is fair to assume, however, that one or more of these concerns—administration,

18 See Foulds, Medieval Cartularies, 22-29. 19 See p. 134, n. 33, below. 20 “I Hemming, monk and unworthy priest, fellow-servant of the servants of God who live in the monastery of Saint Mary, mother of God, situated in the town called in English ‘Wigornaceaster’ [...] have composed this little book on the possessions of our monastery especially so that those who come after us may know which and how many possessions of land belonging to this monastery should be rightly used for the sustenance of the servants of God, that is, the monks, and how, having been unjustly deprived of such lands by violence and fraud, we now lack them.” Transcription and translation are from Tinti, “Memory and Cartularies,” 492-493. 21 Geary, “Medieval Archivists as Authors,” 108. On cartulary prefaces generally see Pascale Bourgain and Marie-Clotilde Hubert, “Latin et rhétorique dans les préfaces de cartulaire,” in Les Cartulaires: Actes de la Table ronde organisée par l’Ecocle national des chartes et le G.D.R. 121 du C.N.R.S. (Paris, 5-7 décembre 1991), ed. by Olivier Guyotjeannin, Laurent Morelle, and Michel Parisse (Paris: École des Chartes, 1993), 115-136.

131 preservation, and memorialization, or ‘legal, historical, and sacral’22—were likely to play some small role in the production of any given cartulary.

The ways in which each individual cartularist went about these goals varied. The decisions about which documents to include, in which order and how faithfully they should be copied, or with what types of texts the cartulary ought to be bound, reflect each particular cartularist’s own aims and predilections. There are, nevertheless, some typical patterns to which most cartularies adhere.23 The most common arrangement for early-English cartularies is topographical, with documents arranged both hierarchically (papal documents are often placed at the beginning) and according to the geographical location of the land with which the documents are concerned. This scheme can be further subdivided into units by administrative location or

‘geographical reality.’ This technique is achieved by beginning with lands at or around the locale of immediate concern, the religious house for which the cartulary is being compiled for instance, and then moving clockwise around the map. Less commonly, cartularies are arranged chronologically or by donor, reflecting more historical concerns.24 These can be either

‘general’—containing all or most of an organization’s muniments—or, ‘specific’—focusing on particular regions or categories of muniments.

22 Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, 86, citing Stephan Molitor, “Das Traditionsbuch,” Archiv für Diplomatik 36 (1990), 61-92. 23 See the introduction to Davis, Medieval Cartularies; Foulds, “Medieval Cartularies”; and Genet, “Cartulaires Anglais du Moyen Age” for a breakdown of the major types of cartularies and cartulary-like materials in this period. 24 See Davis, Medieval Cartularies, xv. For an example of chronological arrangement, see Davis no. 497, London, British Library, Cotton MS Galba E. II from St Benet of Hulme Abbey. Examples of arrangment by grantor include Davis no. 5, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Lyell 15 from Abingdon Abbey; and no. 801 London, British Library, Egerton 3031 from Reading Abbey.

132

Another facet of archival activity central to the early medieval period, yet less frequently discussed, is the copying of charters into non-legal manuscripts. Histories and chronicle- cartularies weave charters and other legal documents into a narrative to give a historical account of an institution’s past.25 Chronicle-cartularies range from those stringing charters together with a minimalistic series of annalistic features, like the Abingdon Chronicle completed before 1164, to those with charters fully incorporated into the narrative flow, supporting the thrust of the institution’s story, like the Liber Eliensis completed between 1169 and 1174.26 To put the scale of such undertakings into perspective, William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Pontificum Anglorum and

Gesta Regum Anglorum contain between them, by Julia Barrow’s count, quotations from or full- texts of some one hundred documents.27

Groups of charters are also found copied into the leaves of liturgical books and commemorative volumes (Libri vitae), written in spaces left blank by chance or on folios

25 Graeme Dunphy, “Cartulary Chronicles and Legal Texts,” The Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, edited by Graeme Dunphy (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 256-259. 26 For the Abingdon Chronicle, see Joseph Stevenson, ed., Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, (London: Longman, 1858). For the Liber Eliensis, see E.O. Blake, ed., Liber Eliensis (Camden Society, 3rd series, xcii, 1962) and for a translation Janet Fairweather, Liber Eliensis: A History of the Isle of Ely from the Seventh Century to the Twelfth Century, (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005). See Antonia Gransden, Historical Writing in England c. 550-c. 1307 vol. 1, (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), 5 for a discussion of these texts and of historical writing during this period generally. 27 Barrow, “William of Malmesbury’s Use of Charters,” in Narrative and History in the Early Medieval West, edited by Elizabeth M. Tyler and Ross Balzaretti, 67–85 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 67; Gransden, “William of Malmesbury,” 166-185. The texts are edited in Roger Aubrey Baskerville Mynors, Rodney M. Thomson, and Michael Winterbottom, William of Malmesbury Gesta Regum Anglorum: The History of the English Kings, Oxford Medieval Texts 2 volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998); Winterbottom and Thomson, Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, The History of the English Bishops, Oxford Medieval Texts, 2 volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007).

133 purposefully inserted for this treatment.28 There is a particularly rich tradition, both Continental and Insular, of charters being inscribed in gospel-books or evangeliaries.29 Doing so was likely initially a matter of convenience, as early Anglo-Saxon land transfers were conducted ceremonially at the altar with a sod of earth or the charter in question placed upon the altar or gospel-book.30 This practice was widespread throughout the Middle Ages, continuing past the point where new archival technologies, like enrolment, had rendered the precaution obsolete.31

The impulse to transcribe records of property exchange within the covers of sacred books may initially seem counterintuitive, as an incongruous mingling of the sacred and the mundane.

However, behind such melding of purposes lay several practical motivations. First, protection: a monastery’s liturgical volumes were not stored in its library with the rest of its books. Rather, they had pride of place, and were kept in the sacristy with the house’s other treasures, or were displayed on, or in, the altar.32 Location alone, then, would have deterred tampering. Insertion

28 For a list of English liturgical books containing charters, see Francis Wormald, “The Sherborne ‘Chartulary’,” in Fritz Saxl: A Volume of Memorial Essays from His Friends in England, edited by D. J. Gordon (London: Nelson, 1957), 101-119, here 106, n. 2. For recent additions to this list, see Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, 54, n. 41. 29 See Christopher R. Cheney, “Service-Books and Records: The Case of the ‘Domesday Monachorum’,” Historical Research 56, no. 133 (1983): 7-15; and Jean-Loup Lemaître, “Les actes transcrits dans les livres liturgiques,” in Les Cartulaires: Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’Ecole nationale des chartes et le G.D.R. 121 du C.N.R.S., edited by Olivier Guyotjeannin, Laurent Morelle, and Michel Parisse (Paris: École des Chartes, 1993), 59-78. 30 See above, pp. 24-29. Cf. Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church Canterbury, 53; Roach, “Public Rites and Public Wrongs,” 186. 31 See David A. Carpenter, “The English Royal Chancery in the Thirteenth Century,” in Ecrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales: Espace français, espace anglais, edited by Kouky Fianu and DeLloyd J. Guth (Louvain-la-Neuve: Fédération International de Instituts d’Etudes Médiévales, 1997), 25–53. Repr. in English Government in the Thirteenth Century, edited by Adrian Jobson (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004), 49-70. 32 Thomas of Elmham’s Historia, though of a later date, lists the locations of various volumes belonging to St Augustine’s Canterbury: “In vestiario etiam habetur Textus Evangeliorum in cuius principio .x. canones annotantur […] Item est et alius liber positus super eandem tabulam magni altaris, qui habet

134 into a valuable manuscript not only guaranteed a document’s safekeeping, it bolstered its status, placing the document on the same level as the holy book which preserved it. It positioned the holdings of the institution within a sacred milieu, signifying that the property described, dedicated to the work of God, was an important piece of the divine order. 33 A document imbued with such significance would have been difficult to ignore.

Beyond the arrangement of charters within volumes of different sorts, cartularists exerted their influence on documents through alteration of the original text. Alexandre Bruel, as far back as 1875, noted that cartularists more often than not made changes to the acts they were charged with copying.34 Generally, these changes fell into one of five categories: the correction of what the scribe perceived as faulty Latin;35 the replacement of individual words or short phrases; the

exterius imaginem divinae maiestatis argenteam, deauratam, cum lapidibus crystallinis et beryllis per cicruitum positis, in quo continetur Passionarium Sanctorum incipiens a S. Apollinare, et finiens in passione sanctorum martyrum Simplicii Faustini et Beatricis.” In Montague Rhodes James, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903), 501-502. Byrhtferth of Ramsey, too, in the Life of St Ecgwine, describes a charter being placed in an altar. Edited in Lapidge, Byrhtferth of Ramsey, 264-265. On this passage, Lapidge notes that some Anglo-Saxon altars had compartments in which to store valuable documents. Altars so constructed—what Joseph Braun calls ‘Kastenaltar’ or ‘chest-altars’—survive from sixth century Rome: Der christliche Altar in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklungi, vol. 1 (Munich: Verl. Alte Meister, 1924), 191-220. 33 See Francesca Tinti’s discussion of Nero-Middleton, produced at Worcester during the episcopate of St Wulfstan, bound with (or copied into) a deluxe bible purported to have been given to the community by King Offa. Tinti argues that this bible, mentioned twice in Hemming’s Cartulary and once in the Liber Wigorniensis, would have been held in great reverence by the community during this period, implying that the cartulary itself must have been viewed, or Wulfstan wished it to be viewed, as a text of sacred importance—as God’s property. Tinti, “Memory and Cartularies,” 478. 34 Alexandre Bruel, “Note sur la transcription des actes privés dans les cartulaires antérieurement au XIIe siècle,” Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes 36 (1875), 445-456. 35 At Canterbury specifically, the period between 853 and 873 saw a severe decline in the standard of Latinity with spelling and grammatical errors abounding. Cf. S 316, 328, 332, 344, 1195, 1196, and 1197, all of which were written by the same Canterbury scribe. Snook, “When Aldhelm Met the Vikings,” 111. See also, Nicholas Brooks, The Early History of the Church of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597- 1066, Studies in the Early History of Britain (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1984), 360-361; and Michael Lapidge, “Latin Learning in Ninth-Century England,” in Anglo-Latin Literature, 600-899 (London: Hambeldon Press, 1996), 409-454, here 451.

135 switching from direct to indirect discourse and vice versa; abridgements; and additions explaining and clarifying the original terms or noting subsequent donations and confirmations.

This is not to mention a large portion of changes that are to be blamed on the laziness or inattention of scribes, including errors of addition, such as dittography; errors of omission, such as homeoteleuton, homeoarchy, and haplography; errors of transposition, such as metathesis.36

Upon further investigation of the twelfth-century cartularies of Cluny, however, Bruel observed another, rarer type of alteration—additions meant to modernize, amplify, and solemnize the language of the original act. “En transcrivant les actes anciens, les clercs les ont enrichis des formules qui étaient en usage à cette époque, c’est-à-dire environ vers le milieu du XIe siècle, comme on le voit en comparant ces textes avec les originaux qui renferment des formules analogues.”37 The purpose of these changes, he writes, was to “frapper plus vivement les imaginations par les promesses de récompenses pour les bons et de punitions pour les méchants.”38 Bruel includes ten examples of amplified arenga and anathema from various Cluny cartularies. Cart. A. Odon. 172, for example, expands the text of the mid-tenth-century Paris,

Bibliothèque nationale de France, Moreau 9-137 from:

Si quis vero scamium istum contradixerit, auri unciam componat et inantea firmus permaneat, cum stipulacione subnixa39

to the more elaborate:

36 See Raymond Clemens and Timothy Graham, Introduction to Manuscript Studies (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2007), 35-36. 37 Ibid., 448-449. 38 Ibid., 448. 39 “But if anyone contradicts that exchange, let him pay an ounce of gold and let it afterwards remain firm, with the commitment persisting.”

136

Si quis vero forte, quod minime futurum credo, calumpniator contra cambium hoc temerario ausu insurgere presumpserit, non ejus vox ab aliquo audiatur, neque quod requirit obtinere valeat, sed insuper eliminatus ab ecclesia juxta legem mundialem auri unciam cui injuriam fecerit, judice cogente, reddere compellatur et nostra commutatio rata semper immobilisque permaneat, stipulatione subnixa.40

The cartulary version of the sanction clause is significantly expanded. A quod non clause is inserted (quod minime futurum credo) as well as a characterization of the actions of the potential infringer (ausu temerario). The cartulary text also adds a more detailed description of the penalties for infringement of the act.

Bruel’s study, although brief, drew attention in the nineteenth century to a phenomenon that remains neglected today. Editorial commentary on scribal amplification of cartularies is generally confined to observations on the correction of language, abridgement, or minor clarifications. Little attention is given to the precise nature of the changes and the implications these might have for our understanding of a particular institution’s archival practices, its political preoccupations, and its position within its broader community.41

40 “But if any perverter of the law, by chance, which I hardly believe will happen, presumes to rise, with daring temerity, against this exchange, let not his voice be heard by anyone, nor let him be able to obtain what he requires, but let him be eliminated from the Church, let him be compelled to return, according to worldly law, with the judge pressing, an ounce of gold to whom he made injury and let our exchange remain perpetually authoritative and immovable, with the commitment persisting.” Printed in ibid., 453. 41 Geary discusses three compilers identified by name within their works before the year 1100: the name Cozroh appears in the ninth-century Cartulary of Freising; Anamot in the fragmentary cartulary of Regensburg (c. 893); and the name Gregory of Catena is attached to the cartulary of Farfa (c. 1060-1130). All three cartularists moved beyond straightforward transcription and made changes to their source documents, correcting Latin and clarifying where documents were unclear. As Geary points out, it is impossible to know whether the compilers moved beyond basic emendations to alter the actual content, but, he asserts, it “is likely if not entirely provable.” “Medieval Archivists as Authors,” 106-113.

137

While Bruel provides a useful list of many of the changes made by cartularists at Cluny, his analysis of the motivations behind these changes only scratches the surface. The remainder of this chapter will focus on the archival history of Christ Church, Canterbury and on the compilation of its Anglo-Norman Cartulary, examining scribal alterations that can only reflect the predilections of the original compiler himself. It will analyze the cartularist’s choices in light of Bruel’s discussion in order to see how far such an examination might illuminate the archival environment of Christ Church and the mind of the cartularist.42

Christ Church Canterbury’s Archival Environment

Christ Church, Canterbury is an excellent candidate for the close study of medieval English archival practice. Not only did the cathedral community at Canterbury preserve an extraordinarily large number of Anglo-Saxon charters—some 184 distinct acts—these charters are dispersed fairly evenly across the pre-Conquest period, surviving even from those decades unrepresented in other large archives. Of these 184 documents, 114 survive as single sheets, 84 of which, by the estimation of Brooks and Kelly, can be deemed contemporary with their internal dates.43 Interestingly, many of these documents survive in multiple medieval manuscripts—S

959 survives in twenty-three copies—reflecting a rather strong drive to memorialize

Canterbury’s traditional claims to lands and privileges.44 Beyond the compiling and repeated

42 On the use of the singular ‘cartularist’ here, see discussion below, at pp. 154-155. 43 Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church Canterbury, 40. 44 See the eSawyer for a list of manuscripts.

138 copying of the Anglo-Norman Cartulary, discussed below, a series of registers containing full texts of charters was maintained from the thirteenth through the fifteenth century.45

This archival impulse and desire to nurture institutional identity, extended beyond the gathering of muniments and copying them into cartulary form. Other work towards these ends was undertaken at Canterbury in the eleventh century, namely, the production of the bilingual F- text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle around the year 1100.46 The F-text, an abbreviation—with accompanying Latin translation—of an ancestor of the E-manuscript is supplemented both by additions from the A-text of the Chronicle and by insertion of various Canterbury documents.47 F is, as Jorgensen puts it, “a messy text subjected to repeated revisions.”48 Working in the years

1016-1023, the F-scribe was particularly active. In addition to the F-text of the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle, he is known both to have annotated Chronicle MS A and to have written two forged charters, S 1088 and 1221.49

45 Canterbury, D. & C., Reg. A-D (Davis nos. 169-172), Canterbury, D. & C., Reg. E (Davis no. 168), and Canterbury, D. & C., Reg. I (Davis no. 165). 46 Survives as one of nine medieval texts bound together by Sir Robert Cotton in London, British Library, Cotton MS Domitian A. VIII. The F text has been most recently edited by Peter S. Baker, The Anglo- Saxon Chronicle: MS F, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition 8 (Cambridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2000). 47 Most relevant for our purposes are the four charters inserted by the F-scribe at annals 694, 742, 796, and 1029. Like the compiler of the Anglo-Norman Cartulary, the scribe of the F-text translated his charters, only in this case from Latin into Old English. 48 Alice Jorgensen, “Rewriting the Æthelredian Chronicle: Narrative Style and Identity in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle MS F,” in Reading the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Language, Literature, History, ed. by Alice Jorgensen, 113-138 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), 119. 49 Dumville records nearly forty ‘interventions’ to the Chronicle MS A made in the hand of the F-scribe up to the year 616 with additional insertions at 640, 725, 748, 760, 768, 784, 925, and 940. “Some Aspects of Annalistic Writing at Canterbury in the Eleventh and Early Twelfth Centuries,” Peritia: Journal of the Medieval Academy of Ireland 2 (1983): 23-57, here 43. Janet Bately disagrees, citing only thirty interventions up to 616. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: MS A, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition 3 (Cambridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1986), xl-xli. The details of these two arguments are summarized by Baker, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: MS F, at xx-xxii. See also, Susan Irvine, The

139

During this same period, and slightly earlier, Christ Church began copying charters into sacred books. Four Christ Church gospel-books contain charter inscriptions: two in ‘St John’s

College Gospels’ (Oxford, St John’s College, MS 194) s. ix ex. or x in., eight in the ‘MacDurnan

Gospels’ (London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1370 [formerly 771] with London, British Library,

Cotton MS Tiberius B. iv, fol. 87) s. ix2, twenty-four in the ‘Æthelstan’ or ‘Coronation Gospels’

(London, British Library, Cotton MS Tiberius A. ii) s. ix/x,50 and two in the ‘Gospels of King

Cnut’ (London, British Library, Royal MS 1 D. ix) s. xi in.51 Altogether, this amounts to thirty- six copies of charters in Canterbury gospel-books.52

There is no way of knowing how closely the current archive resembles the shape of its medieval counterpart. Christ Church experienced a number of disasters throughout its early history, several of which directly affected the contents of its archival holdings. Viking raids in

851, 892 to 893, and again in 1011, together with the Kentish rising from 796 to 798 all caused significant damage, with the treasures of the cathedral community being pillaged and burnt. The best-documented disaster was the fire on 6 December 1067 which nearly leveled the Anglo-

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: MS E, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition 7 (Cambridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1983), lxxxix-xc. The forged documents attributed to the F-scribe are discussed in Baker, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: MS F, xxiii-xxiv. 50 The Æthelstan Gospels formed part of the vast collection of the late sixteenth to early seventh-century antiquarian collector Sir Robert Bruce Cotton. Cotton removed manuscript leaves containing Old English and Latin documents from the Gospels and had them rebound. They remain in their separated state as London, British Library, Cotton Claudius A. iii, ff. 2-7, 9* and London, British Library, Cotton Faustina B. vi, vol. i, ff. 95, 98-100. N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), no. 185 and Helmut Gneuss and Michael Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A Bibliographical Handlist of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100, Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014), no. 362. 51 See above, pp. 132-134 for information on gospel-books containing charter inscriptions from England generally. See also, Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church Canterbury, 40-56. 52 For a full list of the documents, see ibid., 85-95.

140

Saxon cathedral and, reportedly, destroyed its vast collection of charters. Both the D and E manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle report briefly on the fire, stating 7 þæs dæges forbarn

Cristes cyrce on Cantwarebyri.53 A conspicuous number of sources survive, attesting to the fire’s near or total destruction of the community’s charters. Eadmer, a Christ Church monk who was placed in the community as a young boy, was seven years old when the fire occurred.54 He mentions the event in his Vita S Bregowini, claiming that it was to be blamed for the losses of the community’s royal and papal charters and privileges.

In qua conflagratione quę uel quanta damna locus ipse perpessus sit.’ nullus hominum edicere potest. Ut tamen quędam inde tangamus.’ quicquid in auro, in argento, in diuersis aliarum specierum ornamentis, in diuinis ac sęcularibus libris pręciosius habebat, fere totum uorans lingua ignis absorbuit. De his tamen quia fuerunt recuperabilia.’ minus est fortasse dolendum. At dolor immanis et nullo fine claudendus hucusque eandem ęcclesiam premit, quoniam priuilegia Romanorum pontificum, priuilegia regum et principum regni ipsi ęcclesię studiose sigillata et collata, quibus se et sua perenni iure muniri deberet atque tueri.’ Ex integro redacta in nichil deperierunt. Si qua autem sunt ex illis recuperata.’ diuersis in locis ubi contrascripta fuerunt reperta sunt et accepta, bullis atque sigillis quę alia fieri nequibant cum ęcclesia in qua seruabantur igne consumptis.55

53 “And on that day Christ Church in Canterbury was burnt.” G. P. Cubblin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: MS D, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition 6 (Cambridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1996). 54 Brooks, Early History of the Church of Canterbury, 37-38. 55 Bernard W. Scholz, “Eadmer’s Life of Bregwine, Archbishop of Canterbury, 761-764,” Traditio 22 (1966), 127-148, here 144. Willis translates, “The exact nature and amount of the damage occasioned by that conflagration no man can tell. But its extent may be estimated, from the fact that the devouring flames consumed nearly all that was there preserved most precious, whether in ornaments of gold, of silver, or of other materials, or in sacred and profane books. Those things that could be replaced, were therefore less to be regretted; but a mighty and interminable grief oppressed this Church because the privileges granted by the popes of Rome and by the kings and princes of this kingdom, all carefully sealed and collected together, by which they and theirs were bound to defend and uphold the Church for ever, were now reduced to ashes. Copies of these documents were sought for, and collected from every place where such things were preserved: but their bulls and seals were irrecoverably destroyed with the church

141

He relates the fact again in his Historia novorum: Qui eo quidem magis in istis laboravit quod antiqua ipsius ecclesiæ privilegia in ea conflagratione quæ eandem ecclesiam tertio ante sui introitus annum consumpsit pene omnino perierant.56 Archbishop Lanfranc, too, in his letter to

Pope Alexander II of 1072, refers to archival loss, writing: Reliqua enim reliquorum tam autentica quam eorum exemplaria in ea combustione atque abolitione quam aecclesia nostra ante quadriennium perpessa est penitus sunt absumpta.57 These claims, as pointed out by Brooks and Kelly, are rather convenient in that they were perfectly timed to allow for the production of a series of papal documents granting rights of supremacy to the See of Canterbury about which it was currently disputing with York. If the sheer number of surviving documents from the Christ

Church archive do not prove the fire story false, the fact that the primacy forger based his texts on authentic papal letters gives the lie to the claim. “The fire was a convenient excuse for the community’s inability to document their ecclesiastical claims, as it was also for the weakness of its documentation for properties threatened by secular encroachment.”58 This does not mean that devastating losses were not suffered. Gameson, notes that in the aftermath of this fire, there was

in which they had been deposited.” R. Willis, The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral, (London: Longman & Co., 1845), 9. 56 Martin Rule, ed., Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia (London: Longman, 1884),16. Geoffrey Bosanquet translates, “What added all the more to his labours in this respect was the circumstance that in the fire which destroyed the Church of Canterbury in the third year before the year in which he himself had come to Canterbury, the ancient grants of privilege of that Church had been almost wholly lost.” Eadmer’s History of Recent Events in England (London: Cresset Press, 1964), 17. 57 “Other documents from other hands were utterly consumed—both the originals and the copies—in that destructive fire which our church sufferred four years ago.” Edition and translation from The Letters of Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, edited by Helen Clover and Margaret Gibson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 52. 58 Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church Canterbury, 58.

142 a rush to remedy the resulting gaps in the community’s library.59 The books produced during this period “tend to be physically unprepossessing, haste not taste being the driving force.”60 It is this environment, desperate to rewrite Canterbury’s history and to solidify its claims, from which creative archival projects like the Anglo-Norman Cartulary and the F-text of the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle grew.

Christ Church Anglo-Norman Cartulary

It is not surprising that a cartulary would grow out of a period so abuzz with archival activity as that at Canterbury in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Written in the late eleventh or early twelfth century, the Anglo-Norman Cartulary compiles the Anglo-Saxon muniments of Christ

Church, spanning the years 608 x 615 to 1106.61 The cartulary has until recently been largely ignored. In his catalogue of the medieval cartularies of Great Britain and Ireland originally published in 1958, G. R. C. Davis listed the four witnesses to the Anglo-Norman cartulary, but neglected to give a discreet entry for the lost original, glossing over the fact that a far earlier compilation lay behind the extant cartulary texts. Although this omission was remedied in the

2010 edition revised by Breay, Harrison, and Smith, listing the untraced cartulary as number

59 Richard Gameson, The Earliest Books of Canterbury Cathedral: Manuscripts and Fragments to c. 1200 (London: The Bibliographical Society, The British Library, and The Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, 2008), 23-24. 60 Ibid., 24. 61 Fleming P 1, a forged privilege of Pope Boniface IV and Fleming P 89, in which Anselm restores the manor Stisted in Essex to the monks.

143

162.1, the text remains relatively untouched.62 The most extensive coverage of the Anglo-

Norman cartulary is provided by Robin Fleming in her 1997 introduction and edition.63

The compiler of the Anglo-Norman Cartulary exerts an enormous amount of influence over his source materials: abbreviating, restructuring, reformulating, and translating the charters to fit a common mold.64 Its charters are streamlined. Each charter’s internal order is reversed, beginning with an incarnational date even where no date appears in the original documents.65 He then skips straight to the dispositive section, omitting all other clauses common to a traditional

Anglo-Saxon protocol. Boundary clauses and witness lists are generally left out, but not always.

In cases where the original material was in the vernacular, the cartularist has translated the document into Latin.66 Typical entries, according to the sequence of clauses, resemble S 1619 in the L manuscript. They begin with an incarnational date followed by the dispositive clause. Most end with an immunity clause and a sanction:

Anno dominice incarnationis .dcccxxi. Ego Cenulfus rex concedo uenerando atque in Christo karissimo Wlfredo archiepiscopo pro remedio salutis eterne partem terre iuris mei in tribus locis, id est Coppanstan, Gretianarse, et Scealdefordan, liberas ab omni seculari

62 The untraced cartulary is listed as 162.1. Its various witnesses are listed as numbers 159, 160, 163, ad 163A. 63 Edited by Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary,” 83–155. 64 The cartularist’s influence is quite extraordinary. A comparison of all extant English cartularies up to the thirteenth century with their Anglo-Saxon single-sheet sources yielded no examples of equivalent treatment. 65 The first charter of undoubted authenticity to include an incarnation year is S 89 and this is included after the sanction clause, before the witness list. K. Harrison, “The Beginning of the Year in England c. 500–900,” Anglo-Saxon England 2 (1973), 51-70, here 65. 66 For a discussion of Latin translations and summaries of Old English wills in later chronicles and cartularies, see Kathryn A. Lowe, “Latin Versions of Old English Wills,” Legal History 20.1 (1999), 1- 24.

144

seruitio et regio tributo. Si quis hanc meam donationem infringere temptauerit, auferatur ab eo requies perpetua et detur ei pena eterna.67

The cartularist adheres to this basic structure even where he has created charters virtually from scratch, working from brief notices in obituary lists, necrologies, gospel-books, and various legal materials, making full use of the Canterbury library and archival resources.68 The final product of this diplomatic overhaul is a standardized, unilingual text designed to emphasize facts over narrative.69 It is ideally constructed for use as a reference tool or for transformation into an annal.70

The date of compilation of the Anglo-Norman Cartulary is unsettled. Fleming argues that the original cartulary was composed between the years c. 1073 and 1083, pinpointing to this

67 “In the year of the incarnation of the Lord 821, I King Cenwulf concede to Archbishop Wulfred, venerable and most-beloved in Christ, for the remedy of eternal salvation, part of my land in three places, that is Coppanstan, Gretianarse, and Scealdefordan, free from all secular service and royal tribute. If anyone is tempted to infringe this my donation, may eternal rest be withdrawn from him and may eternal punishment be bestowed on him.” 68 Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary,” 92. 69 Ibid., 93-94. 70 Indeed, many annalistic features appear throughout the cartulary. The very format of the individual cartulary entries resembles an annal in their initial placement of the dating clause. At the end of the second charter in PL, S 1609, there appears a list of obits occurring within the year of the charter’s issue: xiii kal Feb obiit Eadbaldus rex Anglorum filius Ethelberti Etherti (Athelberti L) regis quem beatus Augustinus ad fidem Christi convertit. xvii (xiii L) kal Junii obiit Berta regina Anglorum uxor Etherti (Athelberti L) regis. “In the ninth kalends of February, Eadbald, King of the English, son of King Ethelberht who Augustine converted to the faith of Christ. On the seventeenth kalends of June Berta, Queen of the English, wife of King Ethelberht died.” (Transcription from Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary,” 109). In PL, entries 66/74 and 69/78 begin [I]tem eodem anno and [E]odem anno respectively (“in the same year”), a common phrase in texts like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Entry 74/71/80 in PCL begins with another historical note, [A]nno Dominice incarnationis millesimo xxxviii Ædsinus presbyter regis Cnut sussepit (suscepit CL) habitum monachi in ecclesia Salvatoris in Dorobernia. (Transcription is from P, Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary,” 144). “In the year of the incarnation of the Lord 1038, Ædsinus, priest of King Cnut, took up the habit of a monk at the Church of the Savior in Canterbury.” It continues with another temporal reference Eodem tempore, “in the same time.” None of these annalistic features, however, is consistently maintained.

145 period a series of anxieties that surface in the cartulary.71 She notes that preoccupations with bookland, the delineation of intramural properties, the separation of monastic from archiepiscopal estates, and controversies between Christ Church and both St Augustine’s,

Canterbury and York, reflect situations current to the period directly following the Conquest.72

Truly solidifying this argument, moreover, is the cartulary’s focus on Christ Church’s commemorative liturgy. The selection of charters in the Anglo-Norman Cartulary adheres closely to the lists of donors who appear in the Christ Church obituaries.73 In fact, there are only three names listed in the eleventh- and twelfth-century lists that do not have charters appearing in the cartulary: the thegn Beorhtmær of Gracechurch, William I, and his wife Mathilda. These donors, according to Fleming, were left out of the compilation because their deaths postdated its composition and their names, therefore, had not yet been entered into the obituaries.74 Since each of their deaths occurred by 1087, this seemingly confirms the cartulary’s production in the 1070s or 1080s. Against a later date, Fleming argues that following the Domesday inquest and

Domesday Book, Canterbury’s property was fairly secure against challengers; the community would not have felt the need to defend its rights so rigorously after this point.75

Brooks and Kelly see similar motivations behind the Anglo-Norman Cartulary’s composition: asserting the existence of a monastic community at Canterbury from its very

71 Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary,” 84. 72 Ibid., 96-102. 73 Ibid., 104. 74 Ibid., 105. For more on Canterbury’s commemorative liturgy see Robin Fleming, “History and Liturgy at Christ Church, Canterbury,” Haskins Society Journal 7 (1995), 67-83. 75 Ibid., 103. This is difficult to reconcile with her assertion that production was largely commemorative in aim and the observation that several estates included in the cartulary (including P 61 and 74) had long since passed from Canterbury control and were not currently disputed.

146 foundation, Canterbury’s status as a primatial see with authority over all of Britain, and interest in furthering, or rewriting, Christ Church history and chronology. They argue, however, that these concerns more closely reflect the problems which plagued the community during the years

1090-1120.76 Far from firmly settling the distinction between the estates of the monks and the archbishop, the Domesday Book declared the archbishop the lord of the monk’s lands. When, therefore, there was a vacancy at Canterbury, such as that of 1089-1093, the responsibility for administering the monks’ estates fell to the king, who had the authority to assign lands to the monks or to confiscate them for himself.77 Canterbury’s focus on asserting primatial claims, an aim strongly reflected in the cartulary, also peaked during this period.78

The dating proposed by Brooks and Kelly is further supported by the patterns of book production at Christ Church. As Teresa Webber demonstrates, the post-Conquest surge in book production at Christ Church, which arguably resulted in a distinct ‘house-style’ of script, did not occur until the generation after Lanfranc who arrived with his Norman monks in 1070, namely from the 1090s to the 1120s.79 While Lanfranc was responsible for the purchase of a number of books for the Christ Church community, few were actually produced within its own scriptorium.

In his discussion of annalistic writing in Canterbury, Dumville identifies c. 1090 to c. 1110 as a

‘crucial phase’ of historical writing, namely during the priorate of Ernulf (1096-1107) and the

76 Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church Canterbury, 70-71. 77 Ibid., 70-71 and n. 97. 78 Ibid., 71. See also Dumville, “Annalistic Writing at Canterbury,” 54, for the discussion of the primacy- question as an ‘all-purpose explanation’ for historiographic problems. 79 Teresa Webber, “Script and Manuscript Production at Christ Church, Canterbury, after the Norman Conquest,” in Canterbury and the Norman Conquest: Churches, Saints and Scholars 1066-1199, ed. by Richard Eales and Richard Sharpe (London: Hambledon Press, 1995), 145-158, here 150-151.

147 archiepiscopate of Anselm (1093-1109).80 It is during the years c. 1090 to c. 1130 that we see the

F-scribe of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle actively working through the archives, making editorial interventions in S 1088 and 1221.81 The improvement of these documents and the evidence of a simultaneous ‘intensive overhaul’ of the Christ Church archival records give the appearance of preparation for the compilation of a cartulary, a cartulary which, I suggest, was indeed the

Anglo-Norman Cartulary.82

Because, sadly, the original Anglo-Norman Cartulary manuscript is lost to us, palaeographical evidence is of no help with problems of dating. However, considerable information about what the cartulary may have included can be discerned from the three distinct twelfth- and thirteenth-century copies still extant:83

C Cambridge Corpus Christi College, MS 189, ff. 195-201 + 1 (Davis 163) s. xiiex

P Canterbury, D & C, Reg. P, ff. 11r-29r (Davis 163A) s. xiii1

80 Dumville, “Annalistic Writing at Canterbury,” 48. See ibid., 52-53 for a summary list of the chronicles to be found at Christ Church during this period. 81 See above, p. 138. Ibid., 49. 82 To quote Dumville, “It would be no surprise if such compilation were produced at this time, given the other endeavours in progress then and given the comparative evidence of the Textus Roffensis cartulary when Ernulf presided at Rochester.” Ibid., 50. Dumville suggests, based on the paleographical evidence provided by Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 189, written in a hand of the second half of the twelfth century, that this project could not have been what we now identify as the Anglo-Norman Cartulary. However, at the time he was writing, no significant study of the relationship between the three extant manuscripts of the cartulary and their lost antecedent had been written—London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1212 was not even listed in connection to it. It now seems very likely that the cartulary here under study could be that for which Dumville detected signs of preparation. 83 Sigla adopted here are from Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary.” The correspondence with sigla from Brooks and Kelly is as follows: C = F, P = G, L = H. The fourth witness is an antiquarian copy of MS L, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Tanner 223 (Davis 160) s. xvi. As it contains no significant variation from its parent manuscript, it is not included in this study.

148

L London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1212, pp. 304-339 (Davis 159) s. xiiimed

As illustrated below, these three versions, while differing in some important ways, have enough similarities to allow for some basic conclusions concerning the original cartulary’s compilation.

Canterbury, D. & C., Register P

The first of these three versions to be examined, is that now extant in Canterbury, D. & C.,

Register P, copied at Christ Church in the early thirteenth century. Originally the first text bound within Canterbury, D. & C., Register O before that manuscript was divided in half, the portion with the Anglo-Norman Cartulary was rebound as Register P in the eighteenth century.84 The register, of relatively low quality from the outset, was damaged in a fire started inadvertently by workers repairing the roof of the Audit House on 23 June 1670.85 The register escaped with only charred edges and a slight warping of the page.

P follows the same order as C, which is presumably close to that of the original cartulary, but it was copied by a scribe who paid less attention to detail. P is a fuller version than C, including approximately 86 documents (the number is different depending on which editor one follows, as each makes textual divisions in different places). There are very few substantive differences between the individual readings of P and L, especially in their sanction clauses, indicating that one is a copy of the other or that they were working from the same exemplar. The single major difference occurs in S 1637 where P includes a sanction clause where CL has none,

84 Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary”, 87 n. 27. 85 Nigel Ramsay, “The Cathedral Archives and Library,” in A History of Canterbury Cathedral, edited by Patrick Collinson, Nigel Ramsay, and Margaret Sparks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 341- 407, here 383.

149 reading: Si quis easdem uillas aut aliquam partem ex hiis uillis a predicta ecclesia abstulerit, sit ei pars et societas cum Iuda qui Christum uendidit in inferno inferiori, nisi de hoc quod male gessit congruam faciat emendationem.86 There being no extant single sheet for this charter, it is impossible to tell whether P added this clause to his text or whether L simply neglected to include it.87 C does not provide further insight, as it would have been unlikely to include a sanction clause either way. The clause itself raises no immediate suspicion as its language conforms to the standard Canterbury sanction clause of the period.88

London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1212

A second version of the Anglo-Norman Cartulary survives as London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1212.

A botched attempt in 1237 by several Canterbury monks and their prior, John of Cetham, to alter a papal privilege to read in their favor rather than their archbishop’s, prompted Pope Gregory IX on 22 May 1238 to send his legate, Otto, to Canterbury to investigate. Otto, sifting through the archive, separated those acts favoring the monastic community from those favoring the archbishop, and thus established two distinct archives. Those of interest to both parties were to go to the archbishop. Where duplicates existed, a copy went to each party.89 The fact that no pre-

Conquest originals were transferred to the archiepiscopal archives during this time indicates that

86 “If anyone steals those estates or any part of those estates from the aforementioned church, let him have the lot and the society of Judas who sold Christ in the lower regions of hell, unless he makes suitable amends for that which he did wrong.” 87 Another minor difference occurs in S 132 where P neglects to copy the phrase ‘qui hodie repleuit orbem terrarum. 7 omnia continet. 7 scientiam habet uocis alleluia.’ found in both L and the original. 88 See p. 166 below. 89 Christopher R. Cheney, “Magna Carta Beati Thome: Another Canterbury Forgery,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 36 no. 93 (1963), 1-26, here 17-19.

150 they were not a part of Otto’s examination and were, thus, not likely kept in the library with the remainder of the archive.

When, in c. 1270, a scribe working in the archbishop’s treasury sought to include pre-

Conquest charters in the ever-expanding composite compilation—now London, Lambeth Palace,

MS 1212—the large number of Canterbury single sheets were still nowhere to be found. Their absence, as established by Brooks and Kelly, was likely due to the fact that Canterbury’s single- sheet charters were not kept in the library or the archive during this period.90 As a stopgap, the

Lambeth scribe produced a copy of the Anglo-Norman Cartulary in their place.91 The collection of single sheets was eventually discovered by a scribe of Archbishop Pecham (1279-1292) who copied the twenty-six pre-Conquest documents at pp. 382-408 of the Lambeth cartulary under the heading Transcripta de codicellis primariis siue cartis terrarum antiquitus dictis landboc.92 In several cases where single sheets do not survive, the entries at London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1212 pp. 382-408, or various antiquarian transcriptions, including those of William Somner, may be cautiously used instead.93 A comparison of the Lambeth scribe’s work with extant originals demonstrates that he copied very closely from his source materials, making few, if any, intentional alterations. There is no discernible agenda in his copying beyond the preservation of

90 Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church Canterbury, 75. 91 This section of the Lambeth cartulary is produced in a single hand. See Ibid., 75. 92 Ibid., 75. 93 William Somner (1598-1669) held the chair in Old English studies at Cambridge University. Dedicated to the history of his native Canterbury, he wrote The Antiquities of Canterbury (1640) in which he discussed the city and cathedral. Within this work, Somner also incorporated transcriptions of single-sheet charters, many of which are now lost. See John D. Niles, The Idea of Anglo-Saxon England 1066-1901: Remembering, Forgetting, Deciphering, and Renewing the Past (Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2015), 120-122; and for a fuller bibliography see the introduction by William Urry to William Somner, The Antiquities of Canterbury, (East Ardsley, UK: EP Publishing Limited, 1977), v-xix.

151 these deeds for the archbishop’s archives. The Somner transcriptions, on the other hand, are the work of a slightly less reliable (if only because of his temporal remove from the documents) seventeenth-century antiquary.94

The Lambeth copyist of the Anglo-Norman cartulary was a scribe of some talent. While he appears to have taken the greatest liberties with the original cartulary text—reordering and adding to the compilation—he also seems to have had the most solid grasp of Latin and often provides the best readings.95 The function of the Lambeth cartulary as a whole is more utilitarian than commemorative. The volume itself includes no preface, nor do any of the individual cartulary texts bound within. The parchment is well worn and tabular bookmarks are sewn in throughout, demarcating documents of especial importance. Half sheets bearing documents previously overlooked are tucked between pages. Various finding aids—catchwords, rubrics, marginal notations—help the reader skim the volume for particular texts. Annotations in multiple hands of various periods appear in all sections. This utilitarian framework must be kept in mind when examining the internal workings of the L-text for additional insight into the cartularist’s motivations.

Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 189

C, the earliest witness, is a late twelfth-century copy of the cartulary, now divorced from its original manuscript context. It was bound in the post-reformation period at the end of a historical

94 On Somner’s abilities and habits as an editor see Kathryn A. Lowe, “William Somner, S 1622, and the Editing of Old English Charters,” Neophilologus 83.2 (1999), 291-297. 95 As compared to P which contains grammatical mistakes, dropped words, and strange spellings. See Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary,” 87 and 91. L rectifies the chronological order of the cartulary entries.

152 miscellany of St Augustine’s, Canterbury: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 189.96 As a result of its removal from its previous binding, C is missing the folio which would have contained the opening text of the cartulary—the forged papal privilege of Boniface IV—and its final folio,

202, has been torn in half. Other than these minor deficiencies, C appears to have survived intact.

The text is written in what Brooks and Kelly label a “modest Canterbury documentary hand” and includes blank space where initials and rubrics were to be filled in after completion of the main text, but were never added.97

C is the most predictable witness; while P and L each transmits unique readings and documents, C does not. In an attempt to achieve a streamlined text, C’s scribe drastically abbreviates the original cartulary, removing what he must have viewed as extraneous clauses, but what to us seem to be key features of Anglo-Saxon diplomatic (the pro salute, blessing, anathema, and descriptions of ritual). While this generally boils down to the omission of the entire eschatocol, there are four instances where the cartularist has suppressed only the sanction clause and then continued copying the remainder of the document, indicating that he did not simply cut off each document after he finished copying the dispositive clause. In S 1259, for example, C omits the anathema found in both P and L and then picks up again with the immunity clause.98

The C-scribe is so determined to remove all language of this sort, that he even alters royal subscriptions, deleting benedictory and maledictory language, and replacing it with straightforward legal formulae. In S 132, for example, C retains the abbreviated witness list, but

96 See Davis, Medieval Cartularies, no. 163; Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church Canterbury, 96-97; Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary,” 86. 97 Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church Canterbury, 96. 98 The other three instances are S 132, 398, and 1430a.

153 replaces cum benedictione omnium episcoporum inpono signum sancte crucis ad confirmationem huius doni mihi donanti ad redemptionem, et minuenti ad eternam dampnationem et sine ullo remedio in inferno ad eterne pene cruciatum in Offa’s subscription with the simple phrase ad confirmationem huius doni signum sancte crucis impono.99 All language describing the blessing of the bishops, the redemption of the donor’s soul, and the threat of malediction on any man who diminishes the act is removed, relaying only the fact that Offa, King of the Mercians, placed the sign of the Holy Cross on the gift. Of the 82 charters included in C, only four include a sanction clause.100 In each case, the clause is substantively identical to those in P and L indicating that the

C scribe was editing these documents himself, not copying from an exemplar from which the clauses had already been removed.101 Whether the inclusion of these four clauses was accidental or deliberate is unclear.

The truncated nature of C’s texts suggests that it was created for an altogether different purpose than the original cartulary, or even P and L. Indeed, it is possible that the C manuscript may be a copy of a list produced by Gervase of Canterbury, a twelfth-century Canterbury monk who wrote the Tractatus de Combustione et Reparatione Cantuariensis Ecclesiae, a chronicle of

Canterbury with a later continuation, the Actus Pontificum, and Gesta Regum, among other

99 “I, with the blessing of all the bishops, place the sign of the holy cross as a confirmation of this gift for the redemption of myself the granter, and the eternal damnation and the torture of eternal punishment in hell without end for he who diminishes [it]” for “I place the sign of the holy cross as a confirmation of this gift.” 100 S 1089, 1212, 1430a, and 1632. 101 Further indications that the C-scribe was editing as he copied rather than copying from a previously edited text are discussed at Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary,” 90-91.

154 works.102 Gervase intended to include a list of the gifts of kings and bishops with these latter two texts. Although the list does not survive appended to any of his works, Brooks and Kelly suggest that the chronological list copied by the Kentish antiquary Sir Edward Dering may be a late copy of Gervase’s lost list. The list follows closely the order of the C manuscript. “It is conceivable that it was Gervase himself who abbreviated the version of the Anglo-Norman Cartulary to produce

MS F (C), and that he also compiled the summary list of royal and archiepiscopal donations to

Christ Church that lies behind Dering’s list as an appendix to his works.” 103 If Gervase was the sacristan by 1193, as he reports in his chronicle,104 he may have had exclusive access to the portions of the archive not kept in the library. Whoever the scribe, it is apparent that C is wholly unconcerned with preserving the Anglo-Saxon ‘flavor’ of the cartulary documents. They suit his purpose even stripped of the requisite components of a legitimate pre-Conquest charter.

Compilation and Production

The loss of the original Anglo-Norman Cartulary manuscript renders discussion of the process of compilation difficult. However, because each of the surviving manuscripts is a more or less faithful copy of the parts of the original text beneficial to its underlying aims, we can form some basic ideas about its initial compilation. Framing the scope of the cartulary project and compiling the sources which were to be included in it could have been performed either by an individual or a number of people active in the community. Because several of the cartulary’s entries were

102 On Gervase and his works see Carol Davidson Cragoe, “Reading and Rereading Gervase of Canterbury,” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 154 (2002), 40-53. 103 Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church Canterbury, 77-78. 104 William Stubbs, ed., The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, vol. 1, Rolls Series LXXIII (1879-80), 520-523.

155 constructed out of stray references to donations in miscellaneous books, these people must have been quite familiar with the contents of Christ Church’s library and archive.105 While, again, more than one person may have been responsible for physically writing the original cartulary text, it seems probable that the prepping of the source materials—their editing and translating— was performed by, or heavily supervised by, one individual. Source materials are handled with a great deal of consistency. Even entries that were developed from non-charter materials are fitted into the same mold. 106 Based on the supposition that the editing of the cartulary entries was the responsibility of a single man, the singular forms ‘cartularist’ and ‘compiler’ will be used throughout this chapter.

The Sanction Clauses

We are dependent on historical context to determine the motivations behind the composition of the Christ Church Anglo-Norman cartulary; the contents of the cartulary itself provide no explicit information about its production circumstances. Unlike the cartularies of Worcester, Ramsey, and

Dover, compiled c. 1100-1150, c. 1170, and 1372 respectively, there is no preface narrating the process by which the decision to compile the muniments of the community was made.107

Although there is, of course, a remote possibility that such a preface was attached to the original manuscript but is now lost, it is not particularly likely. Still, some of the compiler’s motives and anxieties—the status of bookland, the separation of monastic holdings from archiepiscopal

105 Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary,” 91-93. 106 P 68 (C 66, L 77), for example, is formed from a note found in the Coronation Gospels. London, British Library, Cotton MS Claudius A. iii, 6r. See Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary,” 92, for this and other examples. 107 See Foulds, “Medieval Cartularies,” 22-24, for a discussion of these three prefaces.

156 estates, and the problematic relationships with other ecclesiastical institutions, namely St

Augustine’s Canterbury and York—are readily apparent; they are common to many communities in this tumultuous period.108

These and other motivations are confirmed through careful observation of the changes the cartularist made to the source documents with which he was working.109 Many of the changes work to emphasize these very concerns. His stylization of Canterbury’s archbishop as ‘primas totius Britannie,’ for instance, could only have come from the post-Conquest period when the controversy concerning the archiepiscopal primacy over Britain raged.110

As stated above, the cartularist also replaced, modified, or invented sanction clauses for his documents with a fair amount of regularity. These changes are laid out in great detail in

Appendices Three and Four, the latter including the full text of the sanction clauses from all three versions of the Anglo-Norman Cartulary alongside those from any potential sources. 111 The first

108 The Ramsey Book of Benefactors (c. 1170), for example, tells of external and internal conflicts during the reign of Stephen that prompted the compilation of a cartulary. Foulds, “Medieval Cartularies,” 22. Jennifer Paxton demonstrates that the compilation of the Liber Eliensis, a chronicle-cartulary written in the second half of the twelfth century, was prompted by the ‘trauma’ caused by the creation of the bishopric of Ely in 1109 and Bishop Nigel’s politically entangled rule. “Monks and Bishops: The Purpose of the Liber Eliensis,” The Haskins Society Journal: Studies in Medieval History 11, edited by Stephen Morillo. (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003), 17-30, here 17-18. Julia Crick discusses post-Conquest instability of monastic property in “Historical Literacy in the Archive: Post-Conquest Imitative Copies of Pre-Conquest Charters and Some French Comparanda,” in The Long Twelfth-Century View of the Anglo- Saxon Past, edited by Martin Brett and David A. Woodman. Studies in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland (Farnham, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014), 159-190, here 160. 109 See above, pp. 143-144 for a discussion of the overall changes to each document included in the cartulary. 110 See Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church Canterbury 64; and Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary,” 95 n. 64. 111 Appendix Four is based on Fleming’s concordance in ibid., which is in turn derived from that created by Nicholas Brooks, “The pre-Conquest Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury,” DPhil diss., University of Oxford, 1969, 320-325.

157 seven columns in Appendix Three explain the precise nature of the relationship between the cartulary clauses and their source texts. A quick glance down these columns reveals little in the way of a consistent pattern or a methodology behind the cartularist’s digestion of his source clauses and his subsequent output. 112 Because the majority of the documents included in the original compilation (save that of the initial papal forgery and several ecclesiastical donations) are royal grants or synodal documents, there can be no patterns detected based on document type.

Neither can much be gleaned from the order in which the changes were carried out. Overall, while the cartularist generally preferred to alter the wording of the sanction clauses in his source texts, he often draws from the language of other texts in the cartulary. There is no discernible pattern of modification observed. The cartularist treats identical language differently from document to document. While this inconsistency may appear to be evidence for the workings of several compilers, the very decision to alter the sanction clauses in such a way, an exceedingly rare choice in cartularies, suggests that this is the work of a single mind. We are left to look for the cartularist’s traces within the changes made to each individual clause.

Of the eighty-eight documents most likely to have been included in the original compilation,113 fifty include sanctions.114 Fifty-nine of the total eighty-eight documents—two thirds—have an additional extant version or related source against which we can compare the

112 The appendix is arranged following the order of CP as it is most likely to resemble the original order of the cartulary. L has reordered the text in order to achieve a more exact chronology. 113 According to Fleming’s numbering (different editors break the text at different places), C includes eighty-two documents and lacks seven documents shared by PL. PL share eighty-nine documents, while L contains and additional nine for a total of ninety-eight. 114 Curiously, Fleming counts only forty-one charters with sanction clauses, skipping S 132, 155, 180, 952, 1378, 1612, 1613, 1632, and 1641 (P 11, 13, 15, 30, 41, 49, 55, 64, and 65 by her numeration). All fifty are considered here.

158 cartulary texts (although it is in some cases difficult to establish if the alternative version was indeed used as a direct source for the cartulary copy). Of this latter number, thirty-six documents

(41%) contain curses. Eight are additions to the source texts, while twenty-three clauses are reworked or replaced outright. The curses in five documents received virtually no treatment at all, matching their source texts almost to the letter. In fifteen cases, however, the cartularist removed a sanction clause from a source document without inserting a new one.

What do these deliberate changes tell us about the cartularist himself, about the

Canterbury archival community, or about perceptions of anathema in the eleventh and twelfth centuries? It is certainly difficult to ascertain the precise motivation behind a decision made at such a remove from the source material, but as will be demonstrated, analysis of specific alterations sheds some light on the intentions of this particularly interesting cartularist. Certainly, focusing on a single diplomatic clause, allows us to consider more closely the motives of this compiler, tracking his creative choices with greater detail.

The changes made to the cartulary’s sanction clauses can be divided into three levels, loosely following those set forth by Bruel.115 First-level changes include those made at surface depth: changes to grammar or syntax, either to correct real or perceived errors in the original text or to shape the text according to stylistic preferences.116 These kinds of first-level changes abound in the Anglo-Norman cartulary, as they do in most medieval copies of texts. They are a regular practice in the process of copying or compiling texts in the Middle Ages and their presence is

115 Discussed above at pp. 134-137. 116 In S 132 the single-sheet charter’s benedictionem sempiternum is corrected to benedictionem sempiternam in PL and in S 537 libro uiuencium is replaced with libro uite.

159 unsurprising here. Despite some medieval claims to the contrary, most cartularies move beyond first-level corrections, making changes of a more substantive nature.117 At this second level, we find abridgements and expansions meant to streamline or clarify the text.118 These changes, too, are to be expected in medieval cartulary production where clauses outside the dispositive core are often viewed as extraneous and therefore edited out of the copied text. The third level encompasses those changes made not in pursuit of clarity (as in level two), but with the direct aim of altering the sense of the document or adding solemnity and authoritative weight, either by

“antiquing” or modernizing its diplomatic form.

S 22 is a good place to start analysis of these amendments, as it is representative of the most straightforward changes made by the cartularist, those common to cartulary production of this period. S 22 survives as an eleventh-century single-sheet copy of a ninth-century forgery written by the famed Canterbury scribe Eadwig Basan (Eadwig ‘the Fat’), identifiable thanks to a colophon in the English gospel-book Hanover, Kestner-Museum, Hs. W.M. XXIa, 36, 183v.119

Bishop lists eleven instances of the scribe’s hand including three charters: S 22, 950, and 985. As

Teresa Webber points out, however, it is possible that the scribe who copied the text simply

117 See for example the claims of Johannes Grammaticus in the prologue he wrote for the Regestum Farfense of Gregory of Catena (c. 1060-1130): Quae ueraciter elucubrando nichil eis omnino addidimus, uel minuimus, nec mutauimus, sed corruptis partibus rethorice emendatis, eo respectu quo scripta erant, ea legaliter transtulimus per manus confratris nostri magnae sagacitatis Gregorii Sabinensi comitatu oriundi. As quoted in Geary, “Medieval Archivists,” 113, n. 33. 118 Many cartularies, including the Anglo-Norman Cartulary, excise lengthy sections such as the boundary clause or the witness list from source materials. 119 The colophon is reproduced in T. A. M. Bishop, English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), pl. 24. See also, Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, 56-57; David N. Dumville, “‘Eadwig the Fat’ and Anglo-Caroline Minuscule, Style IV,” in English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism, A.D. 950-1030 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1993), 111-140; and Richard W. Pfaff, “Eadui Basan: Scriptorum Princeps?” in England in the Eleventh Century: Proceedings of the 1990 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. by Carola Hicks, 267-283 (Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1992).

160 reproduced the colophon, along with its attribution, from an exemplar.120 Regardless of whether or not this particular scribe’s name was Eadwig, because we can follow his career—a rare occurrence in Anglo-Saxon England where attributive clauses are uncommon—S 22’s production is datable to the eleventh century.121 This places it in the midst of Canterbury’s campaign for historicization. The charter seems to have been important in developing the cathedral community’s image as it appears both in the F-text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as well as the

Anglo-Norman Cartulary. Before including the document in his compilation, the cartularist apparently sifted through the entirety of this charter, altering it to better suit his community’s needs. The sanction clause did not escape his careful eye. The single sheet includes a standard

Canterbury anathema, threatening separation from the body and blood of Christ and excommunication on any who infringe the charter’s terms:

Si quis autem rex umquam post nos eleuatus in regnum aut episcopus, aut abbas, uel comes, seu ulla potestas hominum contradicat huic kartule, aut infringere temptauerit, sciat se sequestratum a corpore et sanguine domini nostri iesu christi seu etiam sic excommunicatum sicut qui non habet remissionem neque in hoc seculo neque in futuro, nisi ante pleniter emendauerit iudicio episcopi.122

In the Anglo-Norman Cartulary S 22 has a modified sanction clause, reading:

120 Weber, “Script and Manuscript,” 146, n. 8. 121 On colophons see Richard Gameson, The Scribe Speaks? Colophons in Early English Manuscripts, H. M. Chadwick Memorial Lectures 12 (Cambridge: Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic, 2010). Names were infrequently assigned even to poetry. Emily Thornbury lists only fifty named Anglo-Saxon authors in her “A Handlist of Named Authors of Old English or Latin Verse in Anglo-Saxon England,” in Becoming a Poet in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 243-247. 122 “But if ever any king elevated in the kingdom after us, or bishop, or abbot, or count, or any other human power, contradicts or is tempted to infringe this charter, let him know himself sequestered from the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and also excommunicated, and he shall not have remission in this age or in the future unless he first fully makes amends according to the judgment of the bishop.” London, British Library, Stowe Charters 2.

161

Si quis autem rex post nos leuatus in regnum, aut episcopus, aut abbas, seu alia persona contradixerit huic concilio uel scripto, iudicio concilii facto, sciat se a corpore et sanguine Domini sequestratum et sic excommunicatum sicut ille qui non habebit remissionem neque in hoc seculo neque in futuro, nisi ante mortem secundum iudicium archiepiscopi emendauerit.123

Here, the compiler has taken his usual approach, simplifying language where possible: condensing the original’s domini nostri iesu christi to a simple domini; reducing the list of potential perpetrators from aut episcopus aut abbas uel comes seu ulla potestas hominum to aut episcopus aut abas seu alia persona, a change he makes in several other documents.124 The motive behind such adjustments is clear: the cartularist—as illustrated by his restructuring of the documents themselves—is fond of succinctness and precision. Each of these changes streamlines the language of the clause. Not all of his decisions, however, can be explained by a desire for economy. In describing what is not to be infringed, the cartularist makes a move in the opposite direction, expanding the original’s generic kartule to consilio uel scripto iudicio concilii facto.125

While inconcise, this change is much more precise in its expansiveness. It includes both written and spoken manifestations of the council’s judgment and explicitly situates the charter as the product of a royal council, granting the document the explicit authority of the king and witan.

123 L: pp. 307-308; P: 12r-13r consilio altered to concilii; C: 195rv sanction not included. “But if any king elevated in the kingdom after us, or bishop, or abbot, or any other person contradicts this counsel or writing made by the judgment of the council, let him know himself sequestered from the body and blood or our Lord and excommunicated so that he will not have remission either in this age or in the future, unless before death he makes amends according to the judgment of the archbishop.” 124 The scribe makes a similar move in S 188 altering the text in London, British Library, Cotton Augustus ii. 94 from aliquis regum aut episcoporum uel principum siue præfectum to aliquis homo. 125 “Counsel or writing made by the judgment/authority of the council.”

162

In the penance clause, too, adjustments are made. Where the original reads nisi digna satisfactione correxerit iudicio episcopi the Anglo-Norman Cartulary specifies that the satisfactione must be made before death and according to the judgment of the archbishop specifically. After the disastrous episcopate of Stigand, during which many of the community’s lands were alienated, Archbishop Lanfranc (1070-1089) and his successors had much work to do to recover the spiritual authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This insistence on the power of the archbishop and the archbishop alone to receive satisfactio is thus best understood in the context of the struggle, beginning with Lanfranc in 1070 but not fully resolved until c. 1125, to carve out a position of supremacy for the Archbishops of Canterbury over all of England.126

Thus, in just one example from one specific diplomatic clause, four concerns preoccupying the mind of the scribe surface: a desire for economy and precision, concern for perceived legitimacy of form, anxiety over the prestige of the archbishop’s position, and desire to solidify his jurisdiction over the liturgical rights of excommunication and forgiveness. The concerns are detected throughout the cartulary

S 90, extant as the ninth-century forged single sheet Canterbury, D. & C. Chart. Ant. M

363, is also modified by our scribe in minor but interesting ways. As ought to be expected, many changes are made at a grammatical and orthographic level. Lexically, two additional alterations are made: the first is the rephrasing of sanguinis christi to sanguinis domini in PL. The second occurs in the list of potential perpetrators, which, as demonstrated above, the cartularist habitually condensed. Here, he has copied the list si comes uel presbyter diaconus clericus aut moniales

126 See Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church Canterbury, 64-66.

163 making only one substantive change: altering the feminine moniales to masculine monac(h)us.127

One might think, archivally speaking, the sanction would be a ‘throwaway’ clause: a place where the scribe might allow his mind to wander as he copied out the words from his exemplar, a place where, as a result, slip-ups might occur, enabling the detection of scribal ‘improvements’ elsewhere in the document. Not so here. The cartularist catches gender discrepancy, fitting the charter more precisely to its contemporary Christ Church context.128 In the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle F-text, the scribe, possibly trying to avoid the issue altogether, simply abbreviates to the ungendered mo’. The only other modification is the removal of the introduction to the scriptural excerpt which closes the clause, which is a seemingly inconsequential move towards brevity.

Throughout the cartulary, alterations seem to demonstrate a fondness for variety, or a very un-Anglo-Saxon dislike of repetition.129 While a defining characteristic of Old English verse is

“an aesthetics which takes pleasure in the familiar and which creates familiarity by repetition,” the cartularist frequently attempts to eliminate the recurrence of particular words and ideas. In S

127 See Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, 345, for an analysis of the implications of the use of the feminine monialis in the source document. 128 Brooks and Kelly suggest that the reference to monialis in the anathema of the original grant may have been intended as a warning to Cwoenthryth, abbess of Minter-in-Thanet, over whom Archbishop Wulfstan was trying to exert greater authority. The forged original also includes the term dominarum, perhaps in error, but perhaps implying that this synodal decree was concerned specifically with abbesses. Charters of Christ Church Canterbury, 344-345 and 598-604. 129 “While Anglo-Saxon poets were accustomed to refer to the same object or concept with different terms—variation—often for pronounced artistic effect, they show, at the same time, no reluctance to use the same word, repeatedly in close proximity.” Elizabeth M. Tyler, “Verbal Repetition and the Aesthetics of the Familiar,” in Old English Poetics: The Aesthetics of the Familiar in Anglo-Saxon England (York: York Medieval Press, 2006), 123-156, here 123-124. See also Carol Braun Pasternack, “Rhythm, Repetition and Traditional Expression,” in The Textuality of Old English Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 60-89.

164

40/1615, for example, the cartularist alters the verbal pairs in both the blessing and anathema from augeat augeatur and deminuerit deminuetur to auxerit adaugeat and inminuerit diminuetur.130 In these cases, it is difficult to ascribe to the compiler any potential motivation other than a desire to increase the diversity of diction. In S 132, for example, in the secondary sanction clause included in the subscription of King Offa, PL reads dampnationem in place of the condempnationem of Canterbury Ch. Ant. C 69. While it is tempting to delve into liturgical distinctions between the various forms of ritual sanction, here the scribe is likely merely attempting to avoid reusing the condempnatio or excommunicatio of the charter’s main sanction clause.

S 8’s cartulary version changes the donation reference from hanc donationem to hanc meam donationem. This puts the words of the malediction itself directly into the mouth of the king. It expresses the single sheet’s a me donata, which appears just before the beginning of the second sanction clause. The quod non phrase, too, renders the clause more personal, moving from quod absit to quod non optamus.131

Another way to approach the cartulary’s sanction clauses is to examine those entries in which malediction has been added. Eight uncomplicated cases of addition are present in the cartulary.132 Within these clauses, patterns of language usage emerge. The cartularist strongly favors an extended donation reference in the protasis. Five of the nine added clauses go beyond

130 P: 20, C: 19, L: 25. 131 This phrase occurs in the DEEDS database 121 times prior to 1125 and dissapears thereafter, indicating it to be an Anglo-Saxon formula. 132 S 155, 1090, 1259, 1438, 1530, 1640, 1641, and 1642. In a section of S 1212 which was added to the base text of S 1211, an additional anathema appears.

165 an accusative reference with variations of aliquam iam dictarum uillarum alias a predicta ecclesia (S 1641).133 Verbs meaning ‘to steal’ or ‘to remove from’ are used six times in five clauses (amouere, auferre).134 Lastly, six of the clauses consign perpetrators to sharing the company of the devil ([cum] diabolo, Belthebub principi demoniorum).135

But how do we know that these adjustments were made by the cartularist himself? Perhaps he was taking clauses from documents familiar to him, recycling the language of charters found in the Canterbury archives to add variety? The evidence suggests not. Several patterns in the sanction clauses indicate that the interpolated language was introduced into the documents in question no earlier than the eleventh century.

That these clauses were edited at a relatively late date becomes clear when we take a broader view of the entire corpus of Anglo-Saxon sanction clauses. Syntactically, these clauses are consistent. The vast majority, predictably, are expressed in the general future-less-vivid conditional with a perfect subjunctive in the protasis and a present subjunctive in the apodosis. In

Canterbury sanction clauses, the protasis most commonly includes a finite form of the verb uolo or tempto paired with infinitives like infringere or minuere, and in the apodosis the verbal phrase sciat se. The sciat se construction does not specify the deity as the instigator of potential misfortune. Rather, the clauses have general optative meaning with an undefined he/she as the nominative subject. Clauses in which the apodosis specifies a nominative divine agent—Deus, dominus, Christus—are extremely rare. To my knowledge, there are only twenty-two occurrences

133 S 155, 1090, 1212, and 1640. 134 S 155, 1090, 1212 (2x), 1640, and 1641. 135 S 155, 1090, 1212, 1438, 1640, 1641.

166 of this construction in the entire Anglo-Saxon diplomatic corpus.136 Fourteen of the twenty-two are from Christ Church, Canterbury. Of the total number of documents, only two are trustworthy contemporary or near-contemporary single sheets, both from Christ Church: S 981, dated 1038, and S 1503, dated 1014. In every instance, the Christ Church documents employing this formulation are found in the Anglo-Norman Cartulary or in another document produced in the eleventh century or later, including the only two original single sheets in which the structure occurs.

The curse in question precisely fits the general Anglo-Saxon Canterbury mold cited by

Nicholas Brooks, so much so that he indeed includes it in his list of model Christ Church sanction clauses.137 Contrarily, the P manuscript of the Anglo-Norman Cartulary reads:

Si autem sit, quod non optamus, aliquis regum aut episcoporum uel principum siue præfectum diabolica temeritate instigatus quod hanc nostram donationem infringere uel minuere aut in aliut conuertere temptauerit quam a nobis constitutum est, sciat se a Deo omnipotenti alienatum et aeternae anathematis uinculis esse nodatum, nisi ante ea digna satisfactione emendare uoluerit.138

On the other hand, the P manuscript of the Anglo-Norman Cartulary reads:

136 Abingdon: S 1603; Burton: S 224; Christ Church, Canterbury: S 111, 175, 176, 188, 981, 1212, 1611, 1617, 1628, 1630, 1642, 1644, 1646 Christ Church, Canterbury and Old Minster, Winchester S 1503; New Minster Winchester: S 365; Rochester: S 299; St Augustine’s, Canterbury: S 1048 and 1050; Worcester: S 180 and 181 (forgery based on S 180). 137 Brooks, Early History of the Church of Canterbury, 329. 138 “But if, that which we do not wish, any king or bishop or prince or prefect, incited by diabolical temerity, is tempted to infringe or diminish this our donation which was constituted by us, or to change it in anyway, let him know himself alienated from omnipotent God and bound by the chains of eternal anathema, unless he should first wish to amend it with worthy satisfaction.” London, British Library, Cotton MS Augustus, ii. 94.

167

Si, quod non optamus, aliquis homo ausus fuerit hoc donum meum uiolare, Christus, cui ego Wiglaf gratia dei rex hoc munus contuli, eradicet eum de terra uiuentium.139

Along with a handful of minor changes, including abridgment of the list of potential perpetrators from a list of positions of power to a single ‘aliquis homo,’ the penalty clause has been transformed in both content and structure. Christus, here, is the nominative subject of the verb eradicet.140 Not only is this formulation novel, in that Christ is named as the agent who will eradicate, eradicet, the potential perpetrator from the land of the living, de terra uiuentium, the diction is almost entirely unparalleled in surviving sources. Indeed, apart from S 188, the powerful verb eradico appears elsewhere, to my knowledge, in only one charter: S 149, extant in its earliest form in a twelfth-century manuscript of the Gesta pontificum of William of

Malmesbury, a chronicler known for his own meddling inventiveness and for deliberately incorporating forged materials into his work.141

139 “If, that which we do not wish, any man should dare to violate this my gift, may Christ, to whom I Wiglaf, king thanks to God, granted this gift, eradicate him from the land of the living.” 140 L reads: si quod non optamus aliquis homo ausus fuerit hoc donum meum uiolare christo cui ego Wiglaf, gratia dei rex, hoc munus contuli, eradicet eum de terra uiuentium. The dative christo leaves the active eradicet without a defined subject. It is possible that this difference in readings, rare in PL, might indicate awareness of the phrasing of this particular clause’s unorthodoxy. Alternatively, it may be evidence of nothing more than scribal error. 141 The verb is used in the late seventh-/early eighth-century Liber monstrorum which reads: sub astris minus producuntur monstra, quae ab ipsis per plurimos terrae angulos eradicata funditus et subuersa legimus. “Fewer monsters are produced under the stars, and we read that in most of the corners of the world they have been utterly eradicated and overthrown by them (i.e. humans).” Text and translation from Andy Orchard, Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf-Manuscript, revised edition (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995), 256-257. “Eradicabo te de terra” in Itinerarium Kambriae (written c. 1191) Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, vol. 6 II.14. The verb can also have then sense ‘to obliterate from memory.’ See Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, “Eradicare,” sense 4.a. On William’s reliability as a historian see Barrow, “William of Malmesbury’s Use of Charters,” 67; and Gransden, “William of Malmesbury,” 166-185, especially 176-178. Editions are cited above, p. 132 n. 27.

168

If the Anglo-Norman cartularist is not borrowing this structure from Anglo-Saxon maledictory materials, where does it come from? Norman diplomatic immediately suggests itself as a potential path of influence, and sanction clauses were indeed a regular feature of William I’s ducal and regnal charters. A typical pre-Conquest Norman sanction clause, according to David

Bates, reads along the lines of: Et si quis ab hodierna die in posterum insurrexerit modo quolibet, quod absit, calumniando, et beate Marie et predicto Sancto subripuere voluerit, cum Datham et

Abiron et Simone Mago atque impiissimo Juda traditore procul dubio eterne maledictioni subiaceat. Amen. Fiat. Fiat. Fiat.142 The pattern is similar enough to general Anglo-Saxon forms, especially in the punishment clause, but it does not explain this particular selection by the

Canterbury cartularist.

Nor does the formulation transfer to the diplomatic of subsequent Archbishops of

Canterbury. Rather, this short-lived maledictory construction appears to have been borrowed from the unlikeliest of places—blessings. There are no fewer than fifty occurrences of blessings with this grammatical structure in Anglo-Saxon charters, both in Latin and Old English.143 This mirrors

142 “And if anyone from the present day should rise up in the future in any way, may it not come to pass, [or] should by misrepresentation, wish to steal from the Blessed Mary and the aforementioned saint, let him lie beyond doubt in eternal malediction with Dathan and Abiram and Simon Magus and the most impious traitor, Judas.” See Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, no. 258. See also, Fauroux, Recueil des actes, 54-55. 143 See for example, S 149, augentem hanc meam elemosinam Deus conseruet et benedicat. “May God preserve and bless those augmenting this my gift;” and S 1508, and swa hwylc mon swa ðas god 7 þas geofe 7 þas gewrioto 7 þas word mid rehte haldan wille ond gelestan gehalde hine heofones cyning in þissum life ondwardum 7 eac swa in þem towardan life. “And whosoever desires rightly to keep and duly perform these benefactions and gifts, and these written enactments and declarations, may the King of Heaven preserve him in this present life and also in the next life.”

169 biblical usage where the majority of curses are phrased as general optatives or requests, and blessings are constructed with the nominative Deus or Dominus.144

Even if this formulation was found in Anglo-Saxon usage and simply undocumented in extant acts—which seems rather unlikely—it must have been quite rare. Its appearance in the eleventh century and its concurrent adoption in the Anglo-Norman Cartulary, then, is striking. If nothing else, its co-occurrence marks the language as foreign to the ‘original’ acts and, I argue, suggests that its inclusion in the Anglo-Norman Cartulary is the handiwork of the cartularist himself.

What, then, can we deduce from these patterns of alteration? Robin Fleming has argued that the cartularist’s central focus was liturgical, with the fixation on sanction clauses laying “at the heart of the whole conception of the cartulary.”145 There seems to be something subtler happening, prompting deeper analysis of questions of authority and authenticity.

The eleventh and early twelfth centuries were a time of great interest in and copying of

Anglo-Saxon texts, particularly legal and homiletic materials, two genres that were intertwined in

Anglo-Saxon England.146 It was during this time that Latin compilations of Old English law codes

144 See for example, Deuteronomy 7:12-13. Si postquam audieris haec iudicia custodieris ea et feceris custodiet et Dominus Deus tuus tibi pactum et misericordiam quam iuravit patribus tuis et diliget te ac multiplicabit benedicetque. “If you heed these judgments, keep and perform them, the Lord your God will keep for you the covenant and compassion that he promised to your ancestors. He will love you, multiply you, and bless you.” On medieval blessing see Little, Benedictine Maledictions, 186-193; and Rivard, Blessing the World, 25-43. 145 Fleming, “Anglo-Norman Cartulary,” 102. 146 James Campbell, “Some Twelfth-Century View of the Anglo-Saxon Past,” in Essays in Anglo-Saxon History (London: Hambledon Press, 1986), 209-228; Julia Crick, “St Albans, Westminster and Some Twelfth-Century Views of the Anglo-Saxon Past,” Anglo-Norman Studies 25, The Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2002, edited by John Gillingham (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003), 65-83; Vivian H. Galbraith, Historical Research in Medieval England, Creighton Lecture 1949, London 1951, reprinted in

170 like the Quadripartitus and the Leges Henrici Primi were produced, not as the products of antiquarian sentiment, but as real attempts to restore the ‘Law of King Edward,’ in an effort to make improvements to current norms.147 Connecting current legal practice to legitimate Anglo-

Saxon custom helped to solidify powers, and ‘to mitigate cultural anxieties.’148 This analysis is relevant to the context of the post-Conquest ecclesiastical archive as well, where copying was completed with an eye toward legitimizing traditional Anglo-Saxon institutions and circumventing the loss of ecclesiastical powers to the new Norman overlords.

Much like the copying and modifying of vernacular legal-homiletic texts as a method of legitimizing traditional jurisdictional powers, the copying and modifying of charter materials could help bond traditional claims to land with current forms of tenure, legitimizing these privileges in the eyes of new figures of power.149 Charters and cartularies were used as a means of

Kings and Chroniclers: Essays in English Medieval History, Hambledon Press History Series 4 (London: Hambledon Press, 1982); Richard W. Southern, “Aspects of the European Tradition of Historical Writing, 4: The Sense of the Past,” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5th series 23 (1973): 243-263; Yeager, From Lawmen to Plowmen, 89. 147 Patrick Wormald, “Quadripartitus,” in Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy: Essays in Honour of Sir James Holt, ed. by George Garnett and John Hudson, 111-147 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), here 140. See also Bruce O’Brien, “The Instituta Cnuti and the Translation of English Law,” Anglo-Norman Studies 25 Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2002, edited by John Gillingham (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003), 177-197. 148 Yeager, From Lawmen to Plowmen, 53. 149 Jennifer Paxton, “Forging Communities: Memory and Identity in post-Conquest England,” Haskins Society Journal 10 (2001), 95-109. See also Robin Sutherland-Harris, “Authority, Text, and Genre in Accounts of Diocesan Struggle: The Bishops of Bath and Glastonbury,” in Authorities in the Middle Ages: Influence, Legitimacy, and Power in Medieval Society, edited by Sini Kangas, Mia Korpiola, and Tuija Ainonen, 107-122. Fundamentals of Medieval and Early Modern Culture 12 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013).

171

“solidifying the identity of the monastic community in the present” by anchoring it to the memory of the Anglo-Saxon past.150

Julia Crick, in her assessment of imitative charters employing archaized script, draws some useful parallels with other forms of imitation. During the long twelfth century—extending from the beginning of the reign of William I to the end of the reign of John—scribes who forged charters often used imitative scripts to place their documents in the past.151 These scribes, conscious of the past, anticipated the potential perceptions of anachronism in their audience, and picked out from existing archival materials the textual and physical elements needed to produce documents that would successfully deceive contemporaries.152 The final product, then, was often an ornamental, exaggerated version of a legitimate Anglo-Saxon charter.153

A cohesive blend of historical and contemporary features ties the Anglo-Norman

Cartulary documents to their legitimate Anglo-Saxon inception, solidifying Canterbury’s— specifically the monastic community’s—hold on its traditional lands and privileges. The cartulary should be viewed, in Brigitte Bedos-Rezak’s terms, as an act of ‘intertextual copying,’ wherein diplomatic forms were appropriated and repeated as a means of authorization. The Anglo-Norman

Cartulary sanction clauses both appropriate and repeat Anglo-Saxon forms while subtly echoing one another, providing a layer of internal authorization of their form. Thus the clauses appear

150 Paxton, “Forging Communities,” 96. 151 See Crick, “Historical Literacy in the Archive,” Table 10.1, 165-167, for a preliminary list of single- sheet copies of pre-Conquest charters made during this period. 152 Ibid., 190. 153 Ibid., 190. On the ornamental quality of Durham forgers, Crick cites Frank Barlow, Durham Jurisdictional Peculiars, Oxford Historical Series: British Series 19 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950), 150-151.

172 legitimate in their obvious reflection of the Anglo-Saxon past and in the appearance of standardization achieved in their ‘textual self-referentiality.’154

How, we might ask, can the deliberate alteration of a text designed to convey the particulars of a legal transaction enhance that same text’s authority? Does it not, indeed, detract from any legitimacy to which the compilation might lay claim? Answers to these questions may be sought in two places. First, in the medieval concepts of authority and authorship.155 In her analysis of London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. iii, a manuscript compiled at Christ

Church, Canterbury between 1020 and 1023, containing ninety-four different texts, Cooper notes the drive of the compiler to use old texts as a basis from which to create new ones rather than creating his own. This choice, she argues, stems from views concerning authority. In this period:

“the authoritative integrity of a text was far more important than its physical integrity; indeed, textual authority was so important in this period that redactors often went to extraordinary lengths to form a new text from an old one. [...] Texts from the past had authority, but were regarded as malleable resources and not sacrosanct artifacts.”156 Our own notions of authority may not allow for such malleability, but the medieval conception encouraged it.157 The same understanding is at

154 Brigitte Bedos-Rezak, “Towards and Archaeology of the Medieval Charter: Textual Production and Reproduction in Northern French Chartriers,” in Charters, Cartularies, and Archives: The Preservation and Transmission of Documents in the Medieval West, ed. by Adam J. Kosto and Anders Winroth, 43-60, here 56 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies, 2002). 155 For which, see Joyce Hill, “Ælfric, Authorial Identity and the Changing Text,” in The Editing of Old English: Papers from the 1990 Manchester Conference, edited by Donald G. Scragg and Paul Szarmach (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1994), 177-189; Alastair J. Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages (London: Scholar Press, 1984). 156 Cooper, Monk-Bishops and the English Benedictine Reform Movement, 11. 157 King Alfred uses the silva metaphor to describe the act of writing, compiling material from a “forest” of other texts. Martin Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture: ‘Grammatica’ and Literary Theory 350- 1100 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 275. See also Katherine O’Brien O’Keefe, who demonstrates that medieval texts, like Caedmon’s Hymn, were transmitted “with varying degrees of

173 work in the homilies of Ælfric.158 Joyce Hill notes that scholars have been quick to assign to

Ælfric, who names himself as the author of his texts and appeals to scribes for their correct and careful copying, an authorial persona in the modern sense.159 Modern concepts of authorship, however “are not applicable to the Anglo-Saxon period, even when they appear to be present.”160

Ælfric’s concern was not for the integrity of the text as a fixed unit but for the integrity of the theological message which his texts conveyed. It was, like other works of the period, a utilitarian collection which he and others edited and altered when new needs arose.161

Cartularists, too, worked within this authorial construct and unless they were being intentionally duplicitous or careless, they restricted major alteration to the peripheral, literary clauses of documents.162 The arenga and the sanction clause were places where scribes could, and consistently did, play with their documents’ language. In the charters of King Edgar, drafted by a centralized agency (see Chapter Three, above), it is these clauses, namely the proem and the sanction, which were the most liberally treated. Snook writes, “These were the ‘literary’ parts of the charter, the parts which, whilst they provide a splendid opportunity for a draftsman to air some of his favourite Graecisms, did not actually ‘do’ much in a legal or a political sense.”163

This discussion of the habits of charter draftsmen, can be productively extended to cartularies.

fixity.” Visible Song: Transitional Literacy in Old English Verse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 32-46. 158 Hill, “Ælfric, Authorial Identity and the Changing Text,” 179. 159 Ibid., 180-181. 160 Ibid., 179. Emphasis in original. 161 Ibid., 181. 162 See Geary, “Medieval Archivists as Authors,” 112. 163 Snook, The Anglo-Saxon Chancery, 163.

174

This was the space where cartularists and charter draftsmen alike felt as though they could legitimately exert their own creative influence.164

Beyond attempts at increasing the authority of a compilation, there is a certain kind of playfulness in the way compilers interacted with sanction clauses. It reflects a fascination with their language and form. Bougard notes the ways in which especially cultivated charter draftsmen vary the language and sources for their sanction clauses, displaying “inventiveness, or even preciousness.”165 The sanction clauses of the Anglo-Norman Cartulary reflect, in a way akin to the cartulary’s concern for memoria, an anxiety about form and perceived authenticity. With an eye on both the past and the future, the cartularist demonstrates a concern for the constructed legitimacy of his compilation and of the privileges it preserved. This concern accords with the overall image of the archive at Christ Church: a picture of archival activity, buzzing about the business of perfecting the image of ancient monastic lineage and archiepiscopal primacy. The monks, led by successive like-minded archbishops, were single-minded in their pursuit of historical legitimacy, a goal which lay behind nearly every editorial decision made in the archive and scriptorium. As Brooks and Kelly phrase it, the Christ Church community “constructed a specifically monastic identity which effectively rewrote its history.”166 The Anglo-Norman cartularist fits firmly into this view. Through the medium of the cartulary, our compiler constructs

164 See Snook, Anglo-Saxon Chancery, for an excellent discussion of how charter draftsmen in the tenth century, influenced by the style of Aldhelm, did just this. 165 “Les scribes les plus cultivés font preuve d’inventivité, voire de préciosité, témoignant du souci de varier les sources et le registre lexical.” Bougard, “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction,” 226. 166 Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church Canterbury, 64.

175 a social memory for Christ Church, connecting the Anglo-Saxon past to the present and the future.

Chapter 5

Conclusions

As noted in the Introduction, one difficulty with the method of data collection for this study, especially in the earliest part of the period, is the limited number of extant authentic originals.

Such a difficulty necessitates some kind of test case to be run in order to be certain that the findings of Chapter Three are consistent with the extant Anglo-Saxon diplomatic corpus as a whole. To this end, a supplementary comparison between seventh-century Class 1 and 2 originals and Class 1 and 2 charters surviving as medieval copies is laid out here. This particular set of documents was chosen in part because of its manageable size, but also with an aim toward detecting whether or not the seeds of the sudden spike in descriptions of Judgment Day and Hell in the tenth century were visible in the earlier period.

Twenty-seven seventh-century documents were analyzed for this purpose.1 Of these twenty-seven documents, twenty-three include sanction clauses; S 65a, 65b, 235, and 1648 are without. Six of the twenty-three sanction clauses are paired with a blessing, a slightly lower ratio than that from the single-sheet analysis, but not necessarily a significant discrepancy.2 S 14 and

1172 are the only two documents from both datasets to include a penance clause. It is noteworthy that both documents are from the last decade of the century, with S 14 dated 690 and S 1172 issued between 692 and 709. The punishment clauses from this group, as in the single-sheet

1 S 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 45, 51, 53, 65a, 65b, 71, 73, 231, 235, 1164, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1245, 1249, and 1648. Texts of these charters were drawn from the Anglo-Saxon Charters series, where available, or the eSawyer. 2 S 7, 10, 13, 71, 73, and 1171.

176 177 corpus, tend to focus on Judgment Day, with only S 53, a royal grant of Oshere, king of the

Hwicce, to the abbess Cuthswith dated 693, including any reference to hell.3 The perpetrator undergoes separation in nine documents: from the community of saints or the holy (S 51), from the Church or Christian society (S 14, 15, 235, 1164, and 1171), from the kingdom of heaven (S

14), from the body and blood of Christ (S 9, 12, and 15), and from God Himself (S 11).

Judgment Day appears in thirteen documents.4 The perpetrator is condemned in S 1168 and

1171, the former in association with Judgment Day. Three charters threaten anathematization, sciat se coram Deo et sanctis angelis eius eterno anathemate reum.5 As with the single-sheet corpus, excommunication, damnation, and malediction are absent. A single document from

Shaftesbury (S 1164) threatens the wrath of God, inprimis iram Dei incurrat.

This broader look at seventh-century sanction clauses is in close alignment with the observations from the single-sheet analysis. It would, of course, be ideal to extend this exercise to each century of the period. The large number of authentic charters extant from subsequent centuries, however, will not permit such an extension in the space remaining. That said, while sweeping generalizations about the diplomatic of the period should be avoided, there is no reason not to draw tentative conclusions about the patterns that emerge.

3 Si quis hanc donationem minuetur sciat se redditurum rationem in die iudicii, et partem eius esse cum peccatoribus et cum Iuda traditore, cruciciatus sine fine in inferno cum diabulo. “If anyone diminishes this donation, let him know that he shall answer for it on the Day of Judgment, and his lot shall be with the sinners and with the traitor Judas, tortured without end in hell with the devil.” Latin text from eSawyer. 4 S 11, 45, 53, 71, 73, 231, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1172, 1245, and 1249. 5 “Let him know himself guilty in eternal anathema before God and His Holy Angels.” S 7, 10, and 13.

178

As has been noted, there are no surviving formularies from the Anglo-Saxon period, nor were there likely to have been; Anglo-Saxon diplomatic is accordingly quite diverse.6 This diversity, however, is not random. As seen in Chapter Three, diplomatic patterns emerge and develop throughout the period in a methodical manner, moving from a focus on separation in the seventh and eighth centuries, to vivid descriptions of the Last Judgment and of infernal suffering in the tenth, and finally to the recycling and remodeling of diplomatic forms in the Anglo-

Norman Cartulary of Christ Church, Canterbury.

These shifts in diplomatic can be better understood in a broader social context. The penalty clauses in the earliest Anglo-Saxon single-sheet charters lay parallel to major themes in

Old English poetry. The idea of exile, or separation, from one’s lord and his gifts, and from the community with its joys of the meadhall, is frequently referred to as the punishment for betraying the bond between the lord and thegn.7 Accounts of exile imposed as a punishment for various forms of legal offense also appear in several narrative sources.8 Of course, separation is also closely linked to the idea of excommunication: a formal exclusion from the Christian community and its sacraments.9 The sentence of separation imposed in the sanction clause of early Anglo-Saxon charters, then, may have incorporated both secular and religious senses.

6 Keynes, Diplomas, 115-120; and Lupoi, Origins of the European Legal Order, 147. 7 The relationship between lord and retainer is best seen in poems like Beowulf and Genesis B. For themes of separation and exile see Christ and Satan (especially line 187), The Seafarer, and The Wanderer. Rosemary Woolf describes how this relationship extends even to Satan and his demonic vassals. “The Devil in Old English Poetry,” in Art and Doctrine: Essays on Medieval Literature, edited by Heather O’Donoghue (London: Hambledon Press, 1986), 1-14, especially 9-11. 8 See Wormald, “Anglo-Saxon Lawsuits,” 253, for examples. 9 “The essential element in excommunication was this separation from the faithful—separatio a communionefidelium.” Logan, Excommunication and the Seclar Arm, 13.

179

Indeed, excommunication and outlawry were linked in the Anglo-Saxon mind, further suggesting that the transgression of a charter may have been expected to incur both penalties.10

The focus on Judgment Day is also mirrored in Anglo-Saxon poetry and homiletic literature. As discussed in Chapter Three, early Old English homilies include terrifying descriptions of the Final Judgment. These descriptions, like those in contemporary sanction clauses, is heightened during the tenth-century reform period. Charter draftsmen tied to the reform movement and associated with the development of the royal writing office aimed to emulate the style of Aldhelm, employing a number of literary devices—obscure Latin and Greek vocabulary, hyperbaton, hyperbole, alliteration—within their documents, especially within the sanction clause.11

As seen in the tenth-century single sheets, sanction clauses of this period undergo a great deal of change. References to companions in hell and descriptions of torments also expand. As demonstrated by Bougard, this is a shift that occurs throughout most of Christian Europe.12 This peak is likewise confirmed by an examination of the entire corpus of extant Anglo-Saxon charters which provide few examples of such descriptions before the tenth century.13

10 Ibid., 13; Treharne, “A Unique Old English Formula for Excommunication,” 192-195. 11 See above, pp. 86-88. 12 Bougard, “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction,” 222, 226-228. 13 Hofmann reports similar findings regarding infernal imagery specifically: “About 72% of all sanctions containing infernal imagery in authentic charters are tenth-century charters, roughly 19% of all sanctions containing infernal imagery in authentic charters are eleventh-century charters, and less than 5% of all sanctions containing infernal imagery in authentic charters are seventh-, eighth- and ninth-centuries [sic] charters.” “Infernal Imagery,” 15-17.

180

Explanations for this surge in eschatological imagery have referred to the tenth-century ideology of kingship.14 Hofmann argues that curses in Anglo-Saxon diplomas increased quantitatively and qualitatively in this period in conjunction with the heightened contemporary

“idea that the king was divinely ordained and as such Christ’s earthly counterpart.”15 The king, divinely ordained and thus closely tied to God, was not an ordinary layman. His status not only allowed for his charters to contain penalties that otherwise belonged strictly to the ecclesiastical realm, but offered an opportunity to demonstrate his power and to fulfill his pastoral duty.16

“This is not to say,” Hofmann writes, “that spiritual sanctions themselves were ideological instruments, but their increased use in royal diplomas from the tenth century onwards appears to have been ideologically motivated.” Charters issued by the king were equivalent to a divine decree.17 The direst penalties were only fitting for transgressions against such.

As Bougard outlines, the spiritual sanction clause began to lose ground in the eleventh century, disappearing from some regions as early as 1050, while remaining in others until the thirteenth century.18 In England, sanction clauses continued to be use through the twelfth century, well beyond the period under study, but were entirely abandoned by the thirteenth.19

Before their decline in use, however, the clause was increasingly streamlined and alternative

14 Hofmann, “Infernal Imagery, 52-54; Catherine E. Karkov, The Ruler Portraits of Anglo-Saxon England, Anglo-Saxon Studies 3 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004), 79-81. 15 Hofmann, “Infernal Imagery,” 53. 16 Ibid., 52-54. 17 Karkov, Ruler Portraits of Anglo-Saxon England, 81. 18 Bougard, “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction,” 230. See also, Kosto, Making Agreements, 121 who demonstrates that penalty clauses begin to disappear in Catalonia c. 1200. 19 Kaye, Medieval English Conveyances, 44.

181 internal forms of preservation that strove to protect terms more strictly began to replace the sanction clause. Penance clauses not only began to be used more frequently, but to specify secular forms of satisfactio.20 Increasingly, clauses that might be considered more strictly ‘legal,’ were associated with or used in conjunction with the sanction clause. For example, in several instances the notwithstanding clause, declaring previous versions of the act to be void, used maledictory language and was linked to the sanction (S 470 and S 786).21 Furthermore, standard clauses describing immunity and related exceptions, usually attached to the dispositive clause, appear within the penalty clause of the sanction of S 906.22 The linking of these more secular legal clauses with spiritual sanction clauses indicates that both were seen to have the same goal, the preservation of the act, and attests to the early stages of the disuse of the sanction and the growing secularization of the charter generally. This decline makes the attention to the sanction clauses in the Anglo-Norman Cartulary all the more interesting, demonstrating that spiritual sanctions continued to be of interest as creative opportunities for cartularists.

New external forms of validation were also introduced during this same period. In twelfth-century England, the seal finally came into use as a method of authenticating documents.23 However, as seals, and inevitably their forgery, became commonplace, so did mistrust in their form. This environment contributed to a need for alternative means of

20 See pp. 89-90, above. 21 See pp. 90-91, above. 22 See pp. 115-116, above. 23 See P. D. A. Harvey and Andrew McGuinness, Guide to Medieval British Seals (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996); P. D. A. Harvey, “Seals and the Dating of Documents,” in Dating Undated Medieval Charters, edited by Michael Gervers (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2000), 207-210; and Elizabeth A. New Seals and Sealing Practices (London: British Records Association, 2010).

182 authentication that came in the form of the notary. Notaries also appeared in the thirteenth century, becoming permanently established in the 1280s, adding another hurdle to falsification.24

In the warranty clause, appearing for the first time in its fully developed form in the mid- twelfth century, the grantor undertook to protect the beneficiary from incursion by a named or unnamed third party (often a relative).25 Tabuteau describes the two duties encompassed by the fully developed concept of warranty as “first, to defend, that is, to demonstrate that the person or institution which had vouched the warrantor had rightful possession of whatever had been challenged; second, if the defense was unsuccessful and the person or institution which had vouched him to warranty therefore lost possession, to compensate the original defendant for the lost possessions.”26 Warranty clauses were infrequently used before the 1160s and did not become a ‘standard’ feature of charters until the end of the thirteenth century.27 Indeed, sanction and warranty clauses, overlapping in their periods of use, were sometimes blended together. A charter from Cirencester from the late twelfth century, for example, includes a clause reading:

Hanc donacionem sigillo meo corroboravi et feci sacerdotem eiusdem ecclesie excommunicare omnes quicumque in posterum hanc donacionem in irritum revocare voluerint.28 This clause sits somewhere between the preventative curse of the traditional sanction clause and the explicit

24 See Christopher R. Cheney, Notaries Public in England in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). 25 Paul R. Hyams, “Warranty and Good Lordship in Twelfth Century England,” Law and History Review 5 (1987): 437-403, especially 440-441; Kaye, Medieval English Conveyances, 43-56; and Tabuteau, Transfers of Property, 196-204. 26 Tabuteau, Transfers of Property, 196 27 Kaye, Medieval English Conveyances, 46-47. 28 “I strengthened this donation with my seal and had the priest of the church excommunicate anyone coming after who should wish to render this donation void.” The Cartulary of Cirencester Abbey, Gloucestershire 1, edited by C. D. Ross (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), number 240/326.

183 pledge of a donor to protect the interests of the grantee of the express warranty clause.29

Although a distinctly different diplomatic element, the warranty clause, even in its fully developed form, bore similarity to the sanction in its form, function, and placement within documents. A mid-thirteenth-century grant by Roger II de Ispania to Thurgarton Priory includes an example:

Et ego vero dictus Rogerus et heredes mei vel mei assignati dictam terram et pratum predictum cum omnibus pertinenciis suis ut supradictum est contra omnes gentes tam Judeos quam Christianos prefatis dominis meis priori et conventui et eorum successoribus warantizabimus acquietabimus et in omnibus inperpetuum defendemus.30

In its first person declaration of protection that encompasses the donor and his heirs, it resembles the purpose and language of the sanction’s list of potential perpetrators. The language with which the donation is described is parallel to the donation references of earlier sanctions. The placement of the warranty clause supplants that of the sanction, often appearing before a corroboration clause and the list of witnesses—itself an attempt at preservation.

While the advent in England of seals, notaries, and warranty clauses certainly did its part to push the sanction clause from current diplomatic, all of these changes are due to the gradual secularization of the English charter. At both the height of its use and its decline, the sanction clause reflects contemporary preoccupations and ideas. Draftsmen, responding to the opportunity to display their literary strengths, dreamt up new penalties to impose on infringers of their

29 See Kaye, Medieval English Conveyances, 44-46. 30 “And I the said Roger and my heirs will warranty and exempt from obligation and in all things defend forever the said land and the aforementioned field with all its appurtenances just as it was said above, assigned by me with my aforementioned lords to the prior and the convent and its successors, against all peoples, both Jews and Christians.” Trevor Foulds, The Thurgarton Cartulary (Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1994), no. 21 at p. 15.

184 documents, allowing current literary and homiletic themes to seep in. The subsequent treatment of these same clauses by post-Conquest cartularists is emblematic of the type of work undertaken by Anglo-Norman historians of the Anglo-Saxon past. While they may have passed from use as a substantive legal clause, interest in their form took longer to fade.

185

Bibliography

Allen, Michael J. B. and Daniel G. Calder. Sources and Analogues of Old English Poetry: The Major Latin Texts in Translation. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1976.

Amt, Emilie. The Latin Cartulary of Godstow Abbey. Records of Social and Economic History, New Series 52. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Angenendt, Arnold. “How was a Confraternity Made? The Evidence of Charters.” In The Durham Liber Vitae and its Context, edited by David Rollason, A.J. Piper, Margaret Harvey, and Lynda Rollason, 207-219. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004.

Backhouse, Janet, D. H. Turner, and Leslie Webster. The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art 966– 1066. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984.

Baker, Peter S. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: MS F. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition 8. Cambridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2000.

Barlow, Frank. Durham Jurisdictional Peculiars. Oxford Historical Series: British Series 19. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950.

Barrow, Julia. “Demonstrative Behaviour and Political Communication in Later Anglo-Saxon England.” Anglo-Saxon England 36 (2007): 127-150.

–––––. “From the Lease to the Certificate: The Evolution of Episcopal Acts in England and Wales, (c. 700–c. 1250).” In Die Diplomatik der Bischofsurkunde vor 1250 / La diplomatique épiscopale avant 1250, edited by Christoph Haidacher and Werner Köfler, 529-542. Innsbruck: Tiroler Landesarchiv, 1995.

–––––. “How the Twelfth-Century Monks of Worcester Perceived their Past.” In The Perception of the Past in Twelfth-Century Europe, edited by Paul Magdalino, 53-74. London and Rio Grande: Hambledon Press, 1992.

–––––. “What Happened to Ecclesiastical Charters in England 1066–c. 1100?” In Myth, Rulership, Church and Charters: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Brooks, edited by Julia Barrow and Andrew Wareham, 45-66. Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008.

186

–––––. “William of Malmesbury’s Use of Charters.” In Narrative and History in the Early Medieval West, edited by Elizabeth M. Tyler and Ross Balzaretti, 67-85. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 16. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006.

Barrow, Julia S. and N.P. Brooks. St Wulfstan and his World. Studies in Early Medieval Britain 4. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate, 2005.

Barton, Richard E. “Making a Clamor to the Lord: Noise, Justice and Power in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century France.” In Feud, Violence and Practice: Essays in Medieval Studies in Honor of Stephen D. White, edited by Belle S. Tuten and Tracey L. Billado, 213-235. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010.

Bately, Janet. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: MS A. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition 3. Cambridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1986.

Bates, David. “Charters and Historians of Britain and Ireland: Problems and Possibilities.” In Charters and Charter Scholarship in Britain and Ireland, edited by Marie Therese Flanagan and Judith A. Green, 1-14. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

–––––. “The Earliest Norman Writs.” English Historical Review 100, no. 395 (1985): 266-284.

–––––. Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: The Acta of William I (1066-1087). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Bedos-Rezak Brigitte. “Diplomatic Sources and Medieval Documentary Practices: An Essay in Interpretative Methodology.” In The Past and Future of Medieval Studies, edited by John Van Engen, 313-343. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.

–––––. “Towards and Archaeology of the Medieval Charter: Textual Production and Reproduction in Northern French Chartriers.” In Charters, Cartularies, and Archives: The Preservation and Transmission of Documents in the Medieval West. Proceedings of a Colloquium of the Commission Internationale de Diplomatique. Princeton and New York, 16-18 September 1999, edited by Adam J. Kosto and Anders Winroth, 43-60. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2002.

Beech, George T. “The Contribution of Diplomatics to the Identification of an Early-Eleventh- Century Aquitanian Narrative.” In Charters, Cartularies, and Archives: The Preservation

187

and Transmission of Document in the Medieval West, edited by Adam J. Kosto and Anders Winroth, 61-80. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2002.

Beriou, Nicole, Jean-Patrice Boudet, and Irene Rosier-Catach, eds. Le pouvoir des mots au Moyen Âge. Bibliotheque d'histoire culturelle du Moyen-Age 13. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014.

Berman, Harold J. Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.

Biancalana, Joseph. “Contractual Penalties in the King’s Court 1260–1360.” Cambridge Law Journal 64, no. 1 (2005): 212-242.

–––––. “The Development of the Penal Bond with Conditional Defeasance.” The Journal of Legal History 26, no. 2 (2005): 103-117.

–––––. “For Want of Justice: Legal Reforms of Henry II.” Columbia Law Review 88, no. 3 (1988): 433-536.

Bijsterveld, A.J.A. "The Medieval Gift as Agent of Social Bonding and Political Power: A Comparative Approach." In Medieval Transformations: Texts, Power, and Gifts in Context, edited by Esther Cohen and Mark B. De Jong, 123-156. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Birch, Walter de Gray. Cartularium Saxonicum: A Collection of Charters Relating to Anglo- Saxon History. 4 vols. London: Whiting & Company, 1885-1899.

Bishop, T. A. M. English Caroline Minuscule. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.

Bjork, Robert. “Speech as Gift in Beowulf.” Speculum 69:4 (1994): 993-1022.

Blair, John. The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Blake, E.O. Liber Eliensis. Camden Third Series 92. London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1962.

Bosanquet, Geoffrey. Eadmer’s History of Recent Events in England. London: Cresset Press, 1964.

Bougard, François. “Jugement divin, excommunication, anathème et malédiction: la sanction spirituelle dans les sources diplomatiques.” In Exclure de la communauté chrétienne. Sens et pratiques sociales de l’anathème et de l’excommuniation (IVe–XIIe siècle), edited

188

by Geneviève Bührer-Thierry and Stéphane Gioanni, 215-238. Haut Moyen Âge 23. Turnhout: Brepols, 2015.

Bourgain, Pascale and Marie-Clotilde Hubert. “Latin et rhétorique dans les préfaces de cartulaire.” In Les Cartulaires: Actes de la Table ronde organisée par l’Ecocle national des chartes et le G.D.R. 121 du C.N.R.S. (Paris, 5–7 décembre 1991), ed. by Olivier Guyotjeannin, Laurent Morelle, and Michel Parisse, 115-136. Paris: École des Chartes, 1993.

Bowman, Jeffrey A. “Do Neo-Romans Curse? Law, Land, and Ritual in the Midi (900–1100).” Viator 28 (1997): 1–32.

Boye, Fritz. “Über die Poenformeln in den Urkunden des früheren Mittelalters.” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 6 (1916): 77-148.

Braun, Joseph. Der christliche Altar in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, vol. 1. Munich: Verl. Alte Meister, 1924.

Bremmer, Rolf H. “An Old English Rhyming Curse.” Notes & Queries 40 (1993): 434-435.

–––––. “The Final Countdown: Apocalyptic Expectations in Anglo-Saxon Charters.” Time and Eternity: The Medieval Discourse, ed. By Gerhard Jaritz and Gerson Moreno-Riaño, 501- 514. International Medieval Research 9. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003.

Brooks, Nicholas. “Anglo-Saxon Charters: The Work of the Last Twenty Years.” Anglo-Saxon England 3 (1974): 211-231, reprinted with a postscript in Nicholas Brooks, Anglo-Saxon Myths: State and Church, 400–1066. London: The Hambledon Press, 2000, 181–215.

–––––. The Early History of the Church of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597–1066. Studies in the Early History of Britain. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1984.

–––––. “The pre-Conquest Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury.” DPhil diss., University of Oxford, 1969.

Brooks, Nicholas and Catherine Cubitt. St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence. London and New York: Leicester University Press, 1996.

189

Brooks, Nicholas P. and Susan E. Kelly. Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury. Anglo-Saxon Charters vols. 17 and 18. British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Brown, Elizabeth A. R. “Falsitas pia sive reprehensibilis: Medieval Forgers and Their Intentions.” Fälschungen im Mittelalter 33:1 (1988): 101-119.

Brown, R. Allen. “Norman and Anglo-Norman Charters.” In Tradition and Change: Essays in Honour of Marjorie Chibnall by her Friends on the Occasion of her Seventieth Birthday, edited by Diana Greenway, Christopher Holdsworth, and Jane Sayers, 145-164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Brown, Warren. “Charters as Weapons: On the Role Played by Early Medieval Dispute Records in the Disputes They Record.” Journal of Medieval History 28 (2002): 227-248.

Bruel, Alexandre. “Note sur la transcription des actes privés dans les cartulaires antérieurement au XIIe siècle.” Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes 36 (1875): 445-456.

Brunner, Heinrich. Zur Rechtsgeschichte der römischen und germanischen Urkunde. Vol. 1. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1880.

Caie, Graham D. The Old English Poem Judgement Day II: A Critical Edition with editions of De die iudicii and the Hatton 113 Homily Be domes dæge. Anglo-Saxon Texts 2. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2000.

Campbell, Alistair. “An Old English Will.” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 37.2 (1938): 133-152.

–––––. Charters of Rochester, Anglo-Saxon Charters 1. Oxford: Published for The British Academy by Oxford University Press, 1971.

Campbell, James. “The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England: Problems and Possibilities.” Haskins Society Journal 1 (1989): 23-37.

–––––. “Some Twelfth-Century Views of the Anglo-Saxon Past.” In Essays in Anglo-Saxon History, 209-228. London: Hambledon Press, 1986.

Carpenter, David. “‘In Testimonium Factorum Brevium’: The Beginnings of the English Chancery Rolls.” In Records, Administration and Aristocratic Society in the Anglo-

190

Norman Realm: Papers Commemorating the 800th Anniversary of King John’s Loss of Normandy, edited by Nicholas Vincent, 1-28. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2009.

–––––. “The English Royal Chancery in the Thirteenth Century.” In Ecrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales: Espace français, espace anglais. Edited by Kouky Fianu and DeLloyd J. Guth, 25-53. Louvain-la-Neuve: Fédération International de Instituts d’Etudes Médiévales, 1997. Repr. in English Government in the Thirteenth Century. Edited by Adrian Jobson, 49-70. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004.

Chaplais, Pierre. “The Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diplomas for Exeter.” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 39 (1966): 1-34. Reprinted with an addendum in Essays in Medieval Diplomacy and Administration. London: Hambledon Press, 1981.

–––––. “The Origin and Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diploma.” Journal of the Society of Archivists 3 (1965): 48-61.

–––––. “Some Early Anglo-Saxon Diplomas on Single Sheets: Originals or Copies.” Journal for the Society of Archivists 3.7 (1968): 315-336.

–––––. “Who Introduced Charters into England? The Case for Augustine.” Journal of the Society of Archivists 3, no. 10 (1969): 526-542.

Cheney, Christopher R. English Bishops’ Chanceries, 1100–1250. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1950.

–––––. “Magna Carta Beati Thome: Another Canterbury Forgery.” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 36 no. 93 (1963): 1-26.

–––––. “Service-Books and Records: The Case of the ‘Domesday Monachorum’.” Historical Research 56, no. 133 (1983): 7-15.

Chibnall, Marjorie. Anglo-Norman England, 1066–1166. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

Clanchy, Michael, T. From Memory to Written Record: England 1066–1307, 3rd ed. Maldon, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.

Clemens, Raymond and Timothy Graham. Introduction to Manuscript Studies. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2007.

191

Clover, Helen and Margaret Gibson, eds. The Letters of Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.

Collinson, Patrick, Nigel Ramsay, and Margaret Sparks. A History of Canterbury Cathedral. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995.

Constable, Giles. “Forgery and Plagiarism in the Middle Ages.” Archiv für Diplomatik 29 (1983): 1-41.

Cooper, Tracey-Anne. Monk-Bishops and the English Benedictine Reform Movement. Studies and Texts 193. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2015.

Cragoe, Carol Davidson. “Reading and Rereading Gervase of Canterbury.” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 154 (2002): 40-53.

Crawley, A. E. “Cursing and Blessing.” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Vol. 4. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911.

Crick, Julia. Charters of St Albans. Anglo-Saxon Charters 12. London, Published for the British Academy: Oxford University Press, 2007.

———. “Historical Literacy in the Archive: Post-Conquest Imitative Copies of Pre-Conquest Charters and Some French Comparanda.” In The Long Twelfth-Century View of the Anglo-Saxon Past, edited by Martin Brett and David A. Woodman, 159-190. Studies in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland. Farnham, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014.

———. “Insular History? Forgery and the English Past in the Tenth Century.” In England and the Continent in the Tenth Century: Studies in Honour of Wilhelm Levison (1876-1947), edited by David Rollason, Conrad Leyser, and Hannah Williams, 515-544. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.

———. “Liberty and Fraternity: Creating and Defending the Liberty of St Albans.” In Expectations of Law in the Middle Ages, edited by Anthony Musson, 91-103. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2001.

———. “St Albans, Westminster and Some Twelfth-Century Views of the Anglo-Saxon Past.” Anglo-Norman Studies 25. The Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2002, edited by John Gillingham, 65-83. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003.

192

Crüwell, G. A. “Die Verfluchung der Bücherdiebe.” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte. 4 (1906): 197- 223.

Cubblin, G. P. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: MS D. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition 6. Cambridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1996.

Cubitt, Catherine. “Archbishop Dunstan: A Prophet in Politics?” Myth, Rulership, Church and Charters: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Brooks, edited by Julia Barrow and Andrew Wareham, 145-166. Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008.

———. “Bishops and Councils in Late Saxon England: The Intersection of Secular and Ecclesiastical Law.” In Recht und Gericht in Kirche und Welt um 900, edited by Wilfried Hartmann and Annette Grabowsky, 151-167. Schriften des Historishchen Kollegs Kolloquien 69. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2007.

———. “Pastoral Care and Religious Belief.” In A Companion to the Early Middle Ages: Britain and Ireland, edited by Pauline Stafford, 395-413. Chichester: Blackwell, 2009.

Danbury, Elizabeth. “The Decoration and Illumination of Royal Charters in England, 1250– 1509: An Introduction.” In England and her Neighbours, 1066–1453. Essays in Honour of Pierre Chaplais, edited by Michael Jones and Malcolm Vale, 157-179. London: Hambledon Press, 1989.

Danet, Brenda and Bryna Bogoch. “From Oral Ceremony to Written Document: The Transitional Language of Anglo-Saxon Wills.” Language and Communication 12, no. 2 (1992): 95- 122.

———. “From Oral to Literate Law: Orality, Literacy and Formulaicity in Anglo-Saxon Wills.” Legal Semiotics and the Sociology of Law, edited by B.S. Jackson, 227–292. Onati: The Onati Institute for the Sociology of Law, 1992.

–––––. “Orality, Literacy and Performativity in Anglo-Saxon Wills.” In Language and the Law, edited by John Gibbons, 100-135. New York: Longman, 1994.

–––––. “‘Whosoever Alters This, May God Turn his Face from Him at the Day of Judgment’: Curses in Anglo-Saxon Legal Documents.” The Journal of American Folklore 105, no. 416 (1992): 132-165.

193

Davies, Wendy. “The Latin Charter-Tradition in Western Britain, Brittany and Ireland in the Early Mediaeval Period.” In Ireland in Early Mediaeval Europe: Studies in Memory of Kathleen Hughes, edited by Dorothy Whitelock, Rosamond McKitterick, and David Dumville, 258–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Davies, Wendy and Paul Fouracre, eds. Property and Power in the Early Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Davis, G. R. C. Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain and Ireland, revised by Claire Breay, Julian Harrison, and David M. Smith. London: British Library, 2010.

DEEDS: Documents of Early England Data Set. [http://deeds.library.utoronto.ca/content/about- deeds].

Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources. Edited by R. E. Latham, D. R. Howlett, and R. K. Ashdowne. British Academy: Oxford, 1975–2013.

Dictionary of Old English: A to G. Edited by Angus Cameron, Ashley Crandell Amos, Antonette diPaolo Healey, et al. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project, 2007.

DiNapoli, Robert. An Index of Theme and Image to the Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: Comprising the Homilies of Ælfric, Wulfstan, and the Blickling and Vercelli Codices. Hockwold cum Wilton, Norfolk, England: Anglo-Saxon Books, 1995.

Dobbie, Elliott Van Kirk. The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems. New York: Columbia University Press, 1942.

Drögereit, Richard. “Gab es eine angelsächsische Königskanzlei?” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 13 (1935): 335-436.

Drogin, Marc. Anathema! Medieval Scribes and the History of Book Curses. New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun, & Co. Publishers, 1983.

Drout, Michael. How Tradition Works: A Meme-Based Cultural Poetics of the Anglo-Saxon Tenth Century. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2006.

Dumville, David N. “‘Eadwig the Fat’ and Anglo-Caroline Minuscule, Style IV.” In English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism, A.D. 950–1030, 111-140 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1993).

194

–––––. English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism, A.D. 950– 1030. Woodbridge and Rochester: Boydell, 1993.

–––––. “Some Aspects of Annalistic Writing at Canterbury in the Eleventh and Early Twelfth Centuries.” Peritia: Journal of the Medieval Academy of Ireland 2 (1983): 23-57.

Dunphy, Graeme. “Cartulary Chronicles and Legal Texts.” The Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, edited by Graeme Dunphy, 256-259. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Duranti, Luciana. “Reliability and Authenticity: The Concepts and Their Implications.” Archivaria 39 (1995): 5-10.

Eales, Richard and Richard Sharpe. Canterbury and the Norman Conquest: Churches, Saints, and Scholars, 1066–1109. London and Rio Grande: Hambledon Press, 1995.

Edwards, E. Liber Monasterii de Hyda. Rolls Series. London, 1866.

Ehwald, Rudolfus. Aldhelmi Opera. Monumenta Germaniae Historica Auctorum Antiquissimorum 15. Berlin: Weidmann, 1919.

Emerton, Ephraim. The Letters of Saint Boniface. Records of Civilization Sources and Studies 31. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940.

Enzensberger, Horst. “Chanceries, Charters and Administration in Norman Italy.” In The Society of Norman Italy, edited by Graham A. Loud and Alex Metcalfe, 117-150. Medieval Mediterranean 38. Leiden: Brill, 2002. eSawyer. 2016 King's College London [http://www.esawyer.org.uk/about/index.html].

Esch, Arnold. “Chance et hasard de transmission: le problème de la représentativité et de la déformation de la transmission historique.” In Les tendances actuelles de l’histoire du Moyen Âge en France et en Allemagne: Actes des colloques de Sèvres (1997) et Göttingen (1998). Histoire ancienne et médiévale 66, edited by Jean-Claude Schmitt and Otto Gerhard Oexle, 15-29. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002.

Fairweather, Janet. Liber Eliensis: A History of the Isle of Ely from the Seventh Century to the Twelfth Century. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005.

Farringdon, Jill M. Analysing for Authorship: A Guide to the Cusum Technique. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1996.

195

Fauroux, Marie. Recueil des actes des ducs de Normandie de 911–1066. Caen: Caron, 1961.

Feniello Amedeo and Jean-Marie Martin. “Clausole di anatema e di maledizione nei documenti.” Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome-Moyen Âge 123, no. 1 (2011): 105-127.

Finberg, H. P. R. “Anglo-Saxon England to 1042.” In The Agrarian History of England and Wales. Vol. 1.2 A.D. 43-1042, edited by H. P. R. Finberg, 383-525. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Fleming, Robin. “Christ Church Canterbury’s Anglo-Norman Cartulary.” In Anglo-Norman Political Culture and the 12th-Century Renaissance: Proceedings of the Borchard Conference of Anglo-Norman History, 1995, edited by C. Warren Hollister, 83-155. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997.

–––––. “History and Liturgy at pre-Conquest Christ Church.” Haskins Society Journal 6 (1994) 67-83.

Flight, Colin. The Bishops and Monks of Rochester: 1076–1214. Monograph Series of the Kent Archaeological Society 6. Maidstone: Kent Archaeological Society, 1997.

Foot, Sarah. “Reading Anglo-Saxon Charters: Memory, Record, or Story?” In Narrative and History in the Early Medieval West, edited by Elizabeth M. Tyler and Ross Balzaretti, 39-65. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 16. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006.

Foulds, Trevor. “Medieval Cartularies.” Archives 8:77 (1987): 3-35.

–––––. The Thurgarton Cartulary. Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1994.

Frank, Roberta. “Poetic Words in Late Old English Prose.” In From Anglo-Saxon to Early Middle English: Studies Presented to E. G. Stanley, edited by Malcolm Godden, Douglas Gray, and Terry Hoad, 87-107. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Gager, John. Curse Tablets and Binding Spells in the Ancient World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Galbraith, Vivian H. An Introduction to the use of the Public Records. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934.

196

–––––. Historical Research in Medieval England. Creighton Lecture 1949. London, 1951. Reprinted in Kings and Chroniclers: Essays in English Medieval History. Hambledon Press History Series 4. London: Hambledon Press, 1982.

Gameson, Richard. The Earliest Books of Canterbury Cathedral: Manuscripts and Fragments to c. 1200. London: The Bibliographical Society, The British Library, and The Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, 2008.

–––––. The Scribe Speaks? Colophons in Early English Manuscripts. H. M. Chadwick Memorial Lectures 12. Cambridge: Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic, 2010.

Gatch, Milton McC. “Eschatology in the Anonymous Old English Homilies.” Traditio 21 (1965): 117-165.

Geary, Patrick J. “Medieval Archivists as Authors: Social Memory and Archival Memory.” In Archives, Documentation, and Institutions of Social Memory: Essays from the Sawyer Seminar, ed. by Francis X. Blouin Jr. and William G. Rosenberg, 106-113. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006.

–––––. Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millenium. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Genet, Jean-Philippe. “Cartulaires Anglais du Moyen Âge.” In Les Cartulaires: Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’Ecole nationale des chartes et le G.D.R. 121 du C.N.R.S., edited by Olivier Guyotjeannin, Laurent Morelle, and Michel Parisse, 343-361. Paris: École des Chartes, 1993.

Gervers, Michael. Dating Undated Medieval Charters. Budapest and Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000.

Gervers, Michael and Rodolfo Fiallos. “The Dating of Medieval English Private Charters of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.” In A Distinct Voice: Medieval Studies In Honor Of Leonard E. Boyle. Edited by Jaqueline Brown and William P. Stoneman, 455-504. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997.

Giorgi, Ignazio and Ugo Balzani. Il regesto di Farfa, ii. Rome: Presso la Società, 1875.

Giry, Arthur. Manuel de diplomatique, 2nd edition, 2 vols. Paris: Alcon, 1925.

197

Gittos, Helen and M. Bradford Bedingfield. The Liturgy of the Late Anglo-Saxon Church. Henry Bradshaw Society Subsidia 5. Rochester, NY: Boydell, 2005.

Gneuss, Helmut and Michael Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A Bibliographical Handlist of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100. Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014

Gransden, Antonia. Historical Writing in England c. 550–c. 1307. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.

Green, D. H. The Beginnings of Medieval Romance: Fact and Fiction, 1150–1220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Gretsch, Mechtild. The Intellectual Foundations of the English Benedictine Reform. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Guillotel, Hubert. Les actes des ducs de Bretagne, 944–1148. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2014.

Guth, DeLloyd J. “Introduction: Formulary and Literacy as Keys to Unlocking Late-Medieval Law.” In Ecrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales: Espace français, espace anglais, edited by Kouky Fianu and DeLloyd J. Guth, 1-12. Textes et études du moyen âge 6. Louvain-la-Neuve: Fédération International de Instituts d’Etudes Médiévales, 1997.

Hall, Huber. Studies in English Official Historical Documents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1908.

Hagger, Mark. “The Earliest Norman Writs Revisited.” Institute of Historical Research 82, no. 216 (2009): 181-205.

Haines, Dorothy. “Courtroom Drama and the Homiletic Monologues of The Vercelli Book.” In Verbal Encounters: Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse Studies for Roberta Frank, edited by Antonina Harbus and Russell Poole, 105-123. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005.

–––––. Sunday Observance and the Sunday Letter in Anglo-Saxon England. Anglo-Saxon Texts 8. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2010.

198

Hamilton, Sarah. “The Anglo-Saxon and Frankish Evidence for Rites for the Reconciliation of Excommunicants.” In Recht und Gericht in Kirche und Welt um 900, edited by Wilfried Hartmann and Annette Grabowsky, 169-196. Schriften des Historishchen Kollegs Kolloquien 69. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2007.

–––––. “Rites for Public Penance in Late Anglo-Saxon England.” In The Liturgy of the Late Anglo-Saxon Church, edited by Helen Gittos and M. Bradford Bedingfield, 65-103. London: Boydell Press, 2005.

Harmer, Florence E. Anglo-Saxon Writs. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1952.

–––––. Select English Historical Documents of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914.

Harrison, K. “The Beginning of the Year in England c. 500–900.” Anglo-Saxon England 2 (1973): 51-70.

Hart, Cyril Roy. The Early Charters of Northern England and the North Midlands. Studies in Early English History 6. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1975.

Harvey, P. D. A. and Andrew McGuinness. Guide to Medieval British Seals. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.

Healey, Antonette DiPaolo. The Old English Vision of St. Paul. Cambridge, MA.: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1978.

Hecht, Hans. Bischof Waerferths von Worcester übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen. Hamburg: Henri Grand, 1907.

Heidecker, Karl. Charters and the Use of the Written Word in Medieval Society. Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy 5. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000.

–––––. “Communication by Written Texts in Court Cases: Some Charter Evidence (ca. 800–ca. 1100).” In New Approaches to Medieval Communication, edited by Marco Mostert, 101- 126. Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy 1. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999.

Helmholz, Richard H. Canon Law and the Law of England. London and Ronceverte: Hambledon Press, 1987.

199

–––––. “Excommunication and the Angevin Leap Forward.” Haskins Society Journal 7 (1995), 133-149.

–––––. “Excommunication as a Legal Sanction: The Attitudes of the Medieval Canonists.” In Canon law and the Law of England. London and Ronceverte: Hambledon Press, 1987.

–––––. “Excommunication in Twelfth Century England,” Journal of Law and Religion 235 (1994): 235-253.

–––––. The Oxford History of the Laws of England: The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s. The Oxford Hisotry of the Laws of England vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Herold, Jonathan. “Memoranda and Memoria: Assessing the Preservation of Acta at Eleventh- Century Worcester Cathedral.” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2008.

–––––. “Early Medieval Record Keeping: Exploring the Preservation of Medieval Memoranda.” http://individual.utoronto.ca/emrecordkeeping/index.html

Heslop, T. A. “Twelfth-Century Forgeries as Evidence for Earlier Seals: The Case of St Dunstan.” In St Dunstan, His Life, Times and Cult, edited by Nigel Ramsay, Margaret Sparks, and Tim Tatton-Brown, 299-310. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 1992.

Hiatt, Alfred. The Making of Medieval Forgeries: False Documents in Fifteenth-Century England. British Library Studies in Medieval Culture. London and Toronto: British Library and University of Toronto Press, 2004.

Hill, Joyce, “Ælfric, Authorial Identity and the Changing Text.” In The Editing of Old English: Papers from the 1990 Manchester Conference, edited by Donald G. Scragg and Paul Szarmach, 177-189. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1994.

Hill, Thomas D. “The Tropological Context of Heat and Cold Imagery in Anglo-Saxon Poetry.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 69 (1968): 522-532.

Hofmann, Petra. “Infernal Imagery in Anglo-Saxon Charters.” PhD diss., University of St. Andrews, 2008.

Hollis, Stephanie. “The Minster-in-Thanet Foundation Story.” Anglo-Saxon England 27 (1998): 41-64.

200

–––––. “Old English ‘Cattle Theft Charms’: Manuscript Contexts and Social Uses.” Anglia 115 (1997): 139-164.

Hudson, John. Land, Law, and Lordship in Anglo-Norman England. Oxford Historical Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

–––––. The Oxford History of the Laws of England: 871–1216. The Oxford History of the Laws of England vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Hyams, Paul R. “The Charter as a Source for the Early Common Law.” Journal of Legal History 12 (1991): 173-189.

–––––. “Warranty and Good Lordship in Twelfth Century England.” Law and History Review 5 (1987): 437-403.

Insley, Charles. “Archives and Lay Documentary Practice in the Anglo-Saxon World.” In Documentary Culture and the Laity in the Early Middle Ages, edited by Warren C. Brown, Marios Costambeys, Matthew Innes, and Adam J. Kosto, 336-362. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

–––––. “Charters and Episcopal Scriptoria in the Anglo-Saxon South West.” Early Medieval Europe 7 (1998): 173-197.

–––––. “Where Did All the Charters Go? Anglo-Saxon Charters and the New Politics of the Eleventh Century.” Anglo-Norman Studies 24 Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2001, 109-127. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002.

Irvine, Martin. The Making of Textual Culture: ‘Grammatica’ and Literary Theory 350-1100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Irvine, Susan. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: MS E. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition 7. Cambridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1983.

Jack, R. Ian. “An Archival Case History: The Cartularies and Registers of Llanthony Priory in Gloucestershire.” Journal of the Society of Archivists 4, no. 5 (1972): 370-383.

Jackson, William A. “The Curse of Ernulphus.” Harvard Library Bulletin 14 (1960): 392-394.

James, Montague Rhodes. The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903.

201

John, Eric. Orbis Britanniae and Other Studies. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1966.

Jordan, David R. “Defixiones from a Well Near the Southwest Corner of the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 54 (1985): 205-255.

Jorgensen, Alice. Reading the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Language, Literature, History. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 23. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.

–––––. “Rewriting the Æthelredian Chronicle: Narrative Style and Identity in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle MS F.” In Reading the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Language, Literature, History, edited by Alice Jorgensen, 113-138. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 23. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.

Karkov, Catherine E. The Ruler Portraits of Anglo-Saxon England. Anglo-Saxon Studies 3. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004.

Kelly, Richard J. The Blickling Homilies, Edition and Translation. London: Continuum, 2003.

Kelly, Susan. “Anglo-Saxon Lay Society and the Written Word.” In The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe, edited by Rosamond McKitterick, 36-62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

–––––. Charters of Abingdon Abbey. Anglo-Saxon Charters 7 and 8. Oxford: Published for The British Academy by Oxford University Press, 2000–2001.

–––––. Charters of Malmesbury Abbey. Anglo-Saxon Charters 11. London, Published for the British Academy: Oxford University Press, 2005.

–––––. Charters of St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury and Minster-in-Thanet. Anglo-Saxon Charters 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Kemble: The Anglo-Saxon Charters Website. [http://www.kemble.asnc.cam.ac.uk/node/32].

Ker, N. R. Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957.

–––––. “The Handwriting of Archbishop Wulfstan.” In Books, Collectors and Libraries: Studies in the Medieval Heritage, edited by Andrew G. Watson, 9-26. London and Ronceverte, WV: The Hambledon Press, 1985.

–––––. “Hemming’s Cartulary: A Description of the Two Worcester Cartularies in Cotton Tiberius A. XIII.” In Books, Collectors and Libraries: Studies in the Medieval Heritage,

202

edited by Andrew G. Watson, 31-60. London and Ronceverte, WV: The Hambledon Press, 1985.

Keynes, Simon. “Anglo-Saxon Charters: Lost and Found.” In Myth, Rulership, Church and Charters: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Brooks, edited by Julia Barrow and Andrew Wareham, 45-66. Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008.

–––––. The Diplomas of King Æthelred 'the Unready', 978–1016: A Study in Their Use as Historical Evidence. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, ser. 3, vol. 13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

–––––. “The ‘Dunstan B’ Charters.” Anglo-Saxon England 23 (1994): 165-193.

–––––. “The Power of the Written Word: Alfredian England 871–899.” In Alfred the Great: Papers from the Eleventh-Centenary Conferences, edited by Timothy Reuter, 175-197. Studies in Early Medieval Britain 3. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.

–––––. “Royal Government and the Written Word in Late Anglo-Saxon England.” In The Uses of Literacy in Medieval Europe, edited by Rosamond McKitterick, 226-257. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

–––––. “The West Saxon Charters of King Æthelwulf and His Sons.” English Historical Record 109 (1994): 1109-1149.

Kosto, Adam J. “The Liber feudorum maior of the Counts of Barcelona: The Cartulary as an Expression of Power.” Journal of Medieval History 27 (2001), 1-22.

–––––. Making Agreements in Medieval Catalonia: Power, Order, and the Written Word. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Krapp, George Philip. The Junius Manuscript. New York: Columbia University Press, 1931.

Lapidge, Michael and James L. Rosier. Aldhelm The Poetic Works. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1985.

Lapidge, Michael. “Aldhelm's Latin Poetry and Old English Verse.” Comparative Literature 31.3 (1979): 209-231.

203

–––––. Byrhtferth of Ramsey: The Lives of St. Oswald and St. Ecgwine. Oxford Medieval Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

–––––. “Latin Learning in Ninth-Century England.” In Anglo-Latin Literature, 600–899, 409- 454. London: Hambeldon Press, 1996.

Lemaître, Jean-Loup. “Les actes transcrits dans les livres liturgiques.” In Les Cartulaires: Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’Ecole nationale des chartes et le G.D.R. 121 du C.N.R.S., edited by Olivier Guyotjeannin, Laurent Morelle, and Michel Parisse, 59-78. Paris: École des Chartes, 1993.

Lesne, Emile. Histoire de la propriété ecclésiastique en France. Vol. 4, Les livres ‘Scriptoria’ et bibliothèques du commencement du VIIIe à la fin du XIe siècle. Lille: Facultés catholiques, 1938.

Levison, Wilhelm. England and the Continent in the Eighth Century. The Ford Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in the Hilary Term, 1943. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946.

Liebermann, Felix, ed. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen 3 vols., Halle, 1903–1916.

Little, Lester K. Benedictine Maledictions: Liturgical Cursing in Romanesque France. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993.

–––––. “Formules monastiques de malediction aux IXe et Xe siecles.” Revue Mabillon 58 (1975): 377-399.

–––––. “La morphologie des maledictions monastiques.” Annales: Economies, Societes, Civilisations 34 (1979): 43-60.

Liuzza, Roy M. “Prayers and/or Charms Addressed to the Cross.” In The Cross and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Karen Jolly, Catherine Karkov, and Sarah Larratt Keefer, 279-323. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press, 2007.

Logan, F. Donald. Excommunication and the Secular Arm in Medieval England: A Study in Legal Procedure from the Thirteenth to the Sixteenth Century. Studies and Texts 15. Toronto: Pontificial Institute for Mediaeval Studies, 1968.

Lowe, Kathryn A. “Latin Versions of Old English Wills.” Legal History 20.1 (1999): 1-24.

204

–––––. “Two Thirteenth-Century Cartularies from Bury St Edmunds: A Study in Textual Transmission.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 93 (1992): 293-301.

–––––. “William Somner, S 1622, and the Editing of Old English Charters.” Neophilologus 83.2 (1999): 291-297.

Lupoi, Maurizio. The Origins of the European Legal Order. Translated by Adrian Belton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

MacLean, Simon. “Monastic Reform and Royal Ideology in the Late Tenth Century: Ælfthryth and Edgar in Continental Perspective.” In England and the Continent in the Tenth Century: Studies in Honour of Wilhelm Levison (1876–1947), edited by David Rollason, Conrad Leyser, and Hannah Williams, 255-274. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.

Maitland, Frederic William. Domesday Book and Beyond: Three Essays in the Early History of England, 1897, repr. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1966.

Marini, Gaetano. I Papiri diplomatici. Rome: la Propagande, 1805.

Mayr-Harting, Henry. “Alcuin, Charlemagne and the Problem of Sanctions.” In Early Medieval Studies in Memory of Patrick Wormald, edited by Stephen Baxter, Catherine Karkov, Janet L. Nelson, and David Pelteret, 207-218. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate, 2009. von Mayr, R. Vocabularium codicis Iustininiani. 2 vols. Prague, 1923.

MAXQDA, software for qualitative data analysis, 1989-2016, VERBI Software – Consult – Sozialforschung GmbH, Berlin, Germany.

Meens, Rob. Penance in Medieval Europe, 600-1200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Mees, Bernard. Celtic Curses. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2009.

Miller, Sean. Charters of The New Minster, Winchester. Anglo-Saxon Charters 9. Oxford: Published for The British Academy by Oxford University Press, 2001.

Minnis, Alastair J. Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages. London: Scholar Press, 1984.

Molitor, Stephan. “Das Traditionsbuch.” Archiv für Diplomatik 36 (1990), 61-92.

205

Mommsen, Theodor, ed. Theodosiani libri XVI: cum Constivtionibvs Sirmondianis et Leges novellae ad Theodosianvm pertinentes. Berlin: 1905.

Morelle, Laurent. “The Metamorphosis of Three Monastic Charter Collection in the Eleventh Century (Saint-Amand, Saint-Riquier, Montier-en-Der).” In Charters and the Use of the Written Word in the Medieval Society, edited by Karl Heidecker, 171-204.

Mortimer, Richard. “Anglo-Norman Lay Charters, 1066–c. 1100: A Diplomatic Approach. In Anglo-Norman Studies 25 Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2002, edited by John Gillingham, 153-175. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 2003.

Murray, Alexander. Excommunication and Conscience in the Middle Ages. The John Coffin Memorial Lecture. London: University of London, 1991.

Musson, Anthony. Expectations of Law in the Middle Ages. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2001.

Mynors, Roger Aubrey Baskerville, Rodney M. Thomson, and Michael Winterbottom. William of Malmesbury Gesta Regum Anglorum: The History of the English Kings. Oxford Medieval Texts 2 volumes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Napier, Arthur S. and William Henery Stevenson. The Crawford Collection of Early Charters and Documents. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895.

Niles, John D. The Idea of Anglo-Saxon England 1066–1901: Remembering, Forgetting, Deciphering, and Renewing the Past. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.

–––––. “The Problem of the Ending of ‘The Wife’s Lament’.” In Old English Enigmatic Poems and the Play of the Texts, 1107–1150. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 14. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2006.

O’Brien, Bruce. “Forgery and the Literacy of the Early Common Law.” Albion 27, no. 1 (1995): 1-18.

–––––. “The Instituta Cnuti and the Translation of English Law.” Anglo-Norman Studies 25 Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2002, edited by John Gillingham, 177-197. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003.

206

Ogawa, Hiroshi. “Late Old English Judgement Day Homilies: The Vercelli Tradition in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” In Language and Style in Old English Composite Homillies, 63-105. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2010.

O’Keefe, Katherine O’Brien. Visible Song: Transitional Literacy in Old English Verse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Oliver, Lisi. The Beginnings of English Law. Toronto Medieval Texts and Translations 13. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002.

Olson, Glending. “Author, Scribe, and Curse: The Genre of Adam Scriveyn.” The Chaucer Review 42.3 (2008): 284-297.

Orchard, Andy. The Poetic Art of Aldhelm. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

–––––. Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf-Manuscript, revised edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995.

Ortí, Maria Milagros Cárcel. Vocabulaire international de la diplomatique. Commission Internationale de Diplomatique Comité International des Sciences Historiques. 2nd ed. Valéncia, 1997.

Otter, Monika. Inventiones: Fiction and Referentiality in the Twelfth-Century English Historical Writing. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Pasternack, Carol Braun. “Rhythm, Repetition and Traditional Expression.” In The Textuality of Old English Poetry, 60-89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Paxton, Frederick S. Christianising Death: The Creation of a Ritual Process in Early Medieval Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.

Paxton, Jennifer. “Forging Communities: Memory and Identity in post-Conquest England.” Haskins Society Journal 10 (2001): 95-109.

207

–––––. “Monks and Bishops: The Purpose of the Liber Eliensis.” The Haskins Society Journal: Studies in medieval History 11, edited by Stephen Morillo, 17-30. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003.

Pfaff, Richard W. “Eadui Basan: Scriptorum Princeps?” In England in the Eleventh Century: Proceedings of the 1990 Harlaxton Symposium, edited by Carola Hicks, 267-283. Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1992.

Pharr, Clyde, Theresa Sherrer Davidson, and Mary Brown Pharr. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. A Translation with Commentary, Glossary, and Bibliography. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952.

Postles, David A. “Choosing Witnesses in Twelfth Century England.” Irish Jurist 23, no. 2 (1988): 330-346.

–––––. “Country clerici and the Composition of English Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century Charters.” In Charters and the Use of the Written Word in Medieval Society, edited by Karl Heidecker, 27-42. Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy 5. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000.

–––––. “Seeking the Language of Warranty of Land in Twelfth-Century England.” Journal of the Society of Archivists 20, no. 2 (1999): 209-222.

Potts, Cassandra W. “The Early Norman Charters: A New Perspective on an Old Debate.” In England in the Eleventh Century: Proceedings of the 1900 Harlaxton Symposium, edited by Carola Hicks, 25-40. Harlaxton Medieval Studies 2. Paul Watkins Medieval Studies 12. Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1992.

Pratt, David. “Written law and the Communication of Authority in Tenth-Century England.” In England and the Continent in the Tenth Century: Studies in Honour of Wilhelm Levison (1876–1947), edited by David Rollason, Conrad Leyser, and Hannah Williams, 331-350. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.

Preston, Todd. King Alfred’s Book of Laws: A Study of the Domboc and Its Influence on English Identity, with a Complete Translation. Jefferson, NC: McFarlaNd & Company, 2012.

Rabin, Andrew. “Ritual Magic or Legal Performance? Reconsidering an Old English Charm Against Theft.” In English Law Before Magna Carta: Felix Liebermann and Die Gesetze

208

der Angelsachsen, edited by Stefan Jurasinski, Lisi Oliver, and Andrew Rabin, 177-195. Medieval Law and Its Practice 8. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010.

Ramsay, Nigel. “The Cathedral Archives and Library.” In A History of Canterbury Cathedral, edited by Patrick Collinson, Nigel Ramsay, and Margaret Sparks, 341-407. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Reid, Jennifer Karyn. “‘Caro verbum factum est’: Incarnation of word in early English and Celtic Texts.” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2007.

Reuter, Timothy. “Contextualising Canossa: Excommunication, Penance, Surrender, Reconciliation.” In Medieval Polities and Modern Mentalities, edited by Janet L. Nelson, 147-166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Rider, Jeff. Galbertus notarius Brugensis: De multro, traditione, et occisione gloriosi Karoli comitis Flandriarum. Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis 131. Turnhout: Brepols, 1994.

Rio, Alice. Legal Practice and the Written Word in the Early Middle Ages: Frankish Formulae, c. 500–1000. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Rivard, Derek A. Blessing the World: Ritual and Lay Piety in Medieval Religion. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009.

Roach, Levi. “Public Rites and Public Wrongs: Ritual Aspects of Diplomas in Tenth- and Eleventh-Century England.” Early Medieval Europe 19 no. 2 (2011): 182-203.

Robertson, Agnes J. Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925.

Robinson, Fred C. “The Devil's Account of the Next World: An Anecdote from Old English Homiletic Literature.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 73.1 (1972): 362-371.

Rollason, David, Conrad Leyser, and Hannah Williams. England and the Continent in the Tenth Century: Studies in Honour of Willhelm Levison (1876–1947). Studies in the Early Middle Ages 37. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.

209

Rollason, David W. The Mildrith Legend: A Study in Early Medieval Hagiography in England. Studies in the Early History of Britain. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1982.

Ross, C. D., ed. The Cartulary of Cirencester Abbey, Gloucestershire 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Rule, Martin ed. Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia. London: Longman, 1884.

Rumble, Alexander R. Property and Piety in Early Medieval Winchester: Documents Relating to the Topography of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman City and Its Minsters. Winchester Studies 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Saradi, Helen. “Cursing in the Byzantine Notarial Acts: A Form of Warranty.” Byzantina 17 (1994): 441-533.

Sauer, Hans. Theodulfi Capitula in England: Die altenglischen Übersetzungen, zusammen mit dem lateinischen Text. Texte und Untersuchungen zur englischen Philologie 8. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1978.

Scholz, Bernard W. “Eadmer’s Life of Bregwine, Archbishop of Canterbury, 761–764.” Traditio 22 (1966): 127-148.

–––––. “Two Forged Charters from the Abbey of Westminster and their Relationship with St. Denis.” English Historical Review (1961): 466-478.

Schwyter, Jürg Rainer. Old English Legal Language: The Lexical Field of Theft. North-Western European Language Evolution, supplement vol. 15. Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press, 1996.

Scragg, Donald G. The Vercelli Homilies and Related Texts. The Early English Text Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Sharpe, Richard. “Charters, Deeds, and Diplomatics.” In Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliography, edited by F.A.C. Mantello and A.G. Rigg, 230-240. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996.

Silverstein, Theodore. Visiones et revelaciones Sancti Pauli: una nuova tradizione di testi latini nel Medio Evo. Conferenza tenuta nella seduta del 9 maggio 1973. Rome: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, 1974.

210

Sims-Williams, Patrick. Religion and Literature in Western England, 600–800. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Smith, Scott Thompson. Land and Book: Literature and Land Tenure in Anglo-Saxon England. Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series 13. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012.

–––––. “Marking Boundaries: Charters and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. In Reading the Anglo- Saxon Chronicle: Language, Literature, History, edited by Alice Jorgensen, 167-185. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 23. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.

Snook, Ben. The Anglo-Saxon Chancery: The History, Language and Production of Anglo-Saxon Charters from Alfred to Edgar. Anglo-Saxon Studies 28. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2015.

–––––. “When Aldhelm Met the Vikings: Advanced Latinity in Ninth-Century Mercian Charters.” Mediaevistik 26 (2013): 111-148.

Somner, William. The Antiquities of Canterbury. East Ardsley, UK: EP Publishing Limited, 1977.

Sønnesyn, Sigbjørn Olsen. William of Malmesbury and the Ethics of History. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012.

Southern, Richard W. “Aspects of the European Tradition of Historical Writing, 4: The Sense of the Past.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5th series 23 (1973): 243-263.

Stacey, Robin Chapman. Dark Speech: The Performance of Law in Early Ireland. The Middle Ages Series. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.

Stenton, Frank Merry. Latin Charters of the Anglo-Saxon Period. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.

Stevenson, Joseph ed. Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon. London: Longman, 1858.

Stevenson, W. H. “The Anglo-Saxon Chancery.” The Sanders Lectures in Bibliography, Given in Cambridge, 1898. Available online at www.kemble.asnc.cam.ac.uk.

Stoclet, Alain. Immunes ab omni teloneo: é tude de diplomatique, de philologie et d'histoire sur l'exemption de tonlieux au haut Moyen Age et spé cialement sur la praeceptio de navibus.

211

Bibliothèque de l'Institut historique belge de Rome 45. Brussels: Institut historique belge de Rome, 1999.

Strayer, Joseph R. “On the Early Norman Charters, 911–1066.” In Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives of History: Essays by Joseph R. Strayer, 39-43. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971.

Stubbs, William ed., The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury. vol. 1, Rolls Series LXXIII (1879–80): 520-523.

Studtman, Joachim. “Die Pönformel der mittelalterlichen Urkunden,” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 12 (1932): 251-374.

Sutherland-Harris, Robin. “Authority, Text, and Genre in Accounts of Diocesan Struggle: The Bishops of Bath and Glastonbury.” In Authorities in the Middle Ages: Influence, Legitimacy, and Power in Medieval Society, edited by Sini Kangas, Mia Korpiola, and Tuija Ainonen, 107-122. Fundamentals of Medieval and Early Modern Culture 12. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013.

Tabuteau, Emily Zack. Transfers of Property in Eleventh-Century Norman Law. Studies in Legal History. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988.

Tangl, Michael. Die Briefe des heiligen Bonifatius und Lullus. 2nd edition. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae Selectae 1. Berlin, 1995.

Tanner, Heather, J. “Henry I’s Administrative Legacy: The Significance of Place-Date Distribution in the Acta of King Stephen.” In Henry I and the Anglo-Norman World: Studies in Memory of C. Warren Hollister, edited by Donald F. Fleming and Janet M. Pope, 183-199. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2007.

Taylor, Archer. “The Judas Curse.” The American Journal of Philology. 42.3 (1921): 234-252.

Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century England. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. First published 1971 by Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Thompson, Lawrence S. “A Cursory Survey of Maledictions.” Bulletin of the New York Public Library 56 (1952): 55-75.

212

Thompson, Susan D. Anglo-Saxon Diplomas: A Palaeography. Publications of the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies 6. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2006.

Thompson, Victoria. Dying and Death in Later Anglo-Saxon England. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004.

Thornbury, Emily. “A Handlist of Named Authors of Old English or Latin Verse in Anglo-Saxon England.” In Becoming a Poet in Anglo-Saxon England, 243-247. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Thorpe, Benjamin. The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church. The First Part, Containing the Sermones Catholici or Homilies of Ælfric. In the Original Anglo-Saxon, with an English Version 1. London: the Ælfric Society, 1844.

Tinti, Francesca. “From Episcopal Conception to Monastic Compilation: Hemming’s Cartulary in Context.” Early Medieval Europe, 11.3 (2002): 233-261.

–––––. “Si litterali memorie commendaretur: Memory and Cartularies in Eleventh-Century Worcester.” In Early Medieval Studies in Memory of Patrick Wormald, edited by Stephen Baxter, Catherine Karkov, Janet L. Nelson, and David Pelteret, 475-498. Studies in Early Medieval Britain. Farnham, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009.

–––––. Sustaining Belief: The Church of Worcester from c. 870 to c. 1100. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010.

–––––. “The Reuse of Charters at Worcester between the Eighth and the Eleventh Century: A Case-Study.” Midland History 37.2 (2012): 127-141.

Treharne, Elaine M. “A Unique Old English Formula for Excommunication from Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303.” Anglo-Saxon England 24 (1995): 185-211.

Tristram, Hildegard L. C. Early Insular Preaching: Verbal Artistry and Method of Composition. Vienna: Verlag, 1995.

–––––. “Stock Descriptions of Heaven and Hell in Old English Prose and Poetry.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 79.2 (1978): 102-113.

213

Tyler, Elizabeth M. “Verbal Repetition and the Aesthetics of the Familiar.” In Old English Poetics: The Aesthetics of the Familiar in Anglo-Saxon England, 123-156. York: York Medieval Press, 2006.

Van Houts, Elisabeth, ed. Medieval Memories: Men, Women, and the Past, 700–1300. Women and Men in History. Harlow: Longman, 2001.

Vincent, Nicholas. Records, Administration and Aristocratic Society in the Anglo-Norman Realm: Papers Commemorating the 800th Anniversary of King John’s Loss of Normandy. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2009.

–––––. “Regional Variations in the Charters of King Henry II (1154–1189).” In Charters and Charter Scholarship in Britain and Ireland, edited by Marie Therese Flanagan and Judith A. Green, 70-106. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

–––––. “The Organization of Material in Medieval Cartularies.” In The Study of Medieval Records: Essays in Honour of Kathleen Major, edited by Donald A. Bullough and R.L. Storey, 132-150. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.

–––––. “Why 1199? Bureaucracy and Enrolment under John and his Contemporaries.” In English Government in the Thirteenth Century, edited by Adrian Jobson, 17-48. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004.

Vodola, Elisabeth. Excommunication in the Middle Ages. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1986.

Watson, Lindsay. Arae: The Curse Poetry of Antiquity. ARCA, Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers, and Monographs 26. Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1991.

Wattenbach, Wilhelm. Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1875.

Webber, Teresa. “The Scribes and Handwriting of the Original Charters.” Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society 71 (1991): 137-152.

–––––. “Script and Manuscript Production at Christ Church, Canterbury, after the Norman Conquest.” In Canterbury and the Norman Conquest: Churches, Saints and Scholars 1066–1199, edited by Richard Eales and Richard Sharpe, 145-158. London: Hambledon Press, 1995.

214

Whitelock, Dorothy. English Historical Documents, 500–1041. 2nd edition. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.

Williams, Anne. “The Spoliation of Worcester.” Anglo-Norman Studies 19 (1997): 383-408.

Willis, R. The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral. London: Longman & Co., 1845.

Winterbottom, Michael and Rodney M. Thomson. William of Malmesbury Gesta Pontificum Anglorum: The History of the English Bishops. Oxford Medieval Texts, 2 volumes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007.

–––––. William of Malmesbury Saints’ Lives: Lives of SS. Wulfstan, Dunstan, Patrick, Benignus and Indract. Oxford Medieval Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.

Winterbottom, Michael, “Aldhelm’s Prose Style and Its Origins.” Anglo-Saxon England 6 (1977): 39-76.

Woodman, D. A. “‘Æthelstan A’ and the Rhetoric of Rule.” Anglo-Saxon England 42 (2013): 217-248.

Woodman, Francis. The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral. London, Boston and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

Woolf, Rosemary. “The Devil in Old English Poetry.” In Art and Doctrine: Essays on Medieval Literature, edited by Heather O’Donoghue, 1-14. London: Hambledon Press, 1986.

Wormald, Francis. “The Sherborne ‘Chartulary’,” In Fritz Saxl: A Volume of Memorial Essays from His Friends in England, edited by D. J. Gordon, 101-119. London: Nelson, 1957.

Wormald, Patrick. “A Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Lawsuits.” Anglo-Saxon England 17 (1988): 247–281.

–––––. “Bede and the Conversion of England: The Charter Evidence.” In The Times of Bede: Studies in Early English Christian Society and Its Historian, edited by Stephen Baxter, 135-166. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

–––––. “Charters, Law and the Settlement of Disputes in Anglo-Saxon England.” In The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe, edited by Wendy Davies and Paul Fouracre, 149-168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

215

–––––. How Do We Know So Much about Anglo-Saxon Deerhurst? Deerhurst Lecture 1991 (1993).

–––––. Legal Culture in the Medieval West: Law as Text, Image and Experience. London: Hambledon Press, 1999.

–––––. “Quadripartitus.” In Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy: Essays in Honour of Sir James Holt. Ed. by George Garnett and John Hudson, 111-147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Yeager, Stephen M. From Lawmen to Plowmen: Anglo-Saxon Legal Tradition and the School of Langland. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014.

Zimmermann, Michel. “Le vocabulaire latin de la malédiction du IXe au XIIe siècle: Construction d'un discours eschatologique.” Atalaya: Revue française d'études médiévales hispaniques 5 (1994): 39-54.

Zulueta de, Francis and Peter Stein. The Teaching of Roman Law in England around 1200. London: Selden Society, 1990

Appendix One: Mark-Up Schema

The following terminology was used to mark-up the elements of the sanction clauses gathered for analysis in Chapters Three and Four.

Metadata Archive Authenticity1 Benediction Internal date Language Name of beneficiary Name of grantor Sawyer number Status: Royal, ecclesiastical, non-royal lay Type: Grant of land or privilege, confirmation, restoration, dispute, synod Translation Malediction Supplementary Clauses Blessing Immunity clause Introductory phrase Manentem clause Notwithstanding clause Prohibition clause Penance clause Protasis Donation reference Motivation clause Potential perpetrators Quod non clause Verb(s) of infringement Infringement other than against grant Punishment Worldly Alienated in land of living Debtor Done for them and those who aid them Early death Fine Guilt Misery Misfortune No honor of merit No pardon

1 Authenticity was assessed according to the hierarchy discussed at p. 7.

216 217

Not a Christian Not enriched by what was taken Obnoxious Property plundered Secular legal language Punishment Spiritual Anathema Anathema Maranatha Bundles of tares Companions Ananias and Sapphira Dathan and Abiram Demons / Hosts of spirits Devil Beelzebub Prince of flies Jews Judas Miscellaneous sinner Those on left hand side of Christ With goats Converted joy Damnatio Diminished glory Divine wrath / anger Drain bitter cup Excommunicatio Expelled from heaven Guilt Hatred of Virgin and saints Infernal punishment / Cast into Hell Army of evil spirits Avernus Barathrum Bound Chained by neck Cold Continual torture / punishments Fear of attendants Flames Frying pan / Cauldron Gehennalis Gnashing of teeth Horrors of the gate Inferno inferiori Memory Misery Orcus River Styx Sold into darkness Tartarus

218

Weeping Worms Judgment Day / Render an account of sins Judgment Day description Confusion Flames Graves Noise Scales Sleep Terror / Fear Verbal condemnation Lack blessing Lack divine gifts Maledictio No consolation No pardon No rest Not satisfied Separation From happiness From angels From Body and Blood From Community / Church From God From heaven From chorus of angels From saints / the holy

219

Appendix Two: Additional Metadata

Appendix Two includes information important to the understanding and analysis of the corpus of

Anglo-Saxon documents here presented that was not included in the Chapter Three tables. This includes the presumed authenticity and beneficiary of each document, arranged in the order in which they appear in Chapter Three. Authenticity is assessed according to the three-tiered hierarchy discussed at p. 7, above.

Sawyer Number Authenticity Beneficiary 8 1 Abbot Berhtwald and Reculver 19 2b [St Mary's, Barking] 20 1b Churches and monasteries of Kent 21 2b St Mary's, Lyminge 236 2b Abbot Hæmgils 1171 1 Abbess Æthelburh and Barking abbey 1248 2b [St Mary's, Barking] 23 1 Dunn, priest and abbot, and St Mary's, Lyminge 24 1 St Mary's, Lyminge 31 1 Abbot Heaberht and Reculver minster 35 1 Bishop Deora of Rochester 56 1 Abbot Headda 59 2b Æthelmund, minister 65 2b Bishop Wealdhere of London 88.1 1b Bishop Eadwulf and the Church of St Andrew, Rochester 89 1 Cyneberht, comes 96 1b Abbot Eanberht 106, 1186a 1 Abbot Stithberht 114 1 Duddonus (Dudda), minister 123 1 Ealdberht, minister and Selethryth, his sister 128 1 Osberht, minister and his wife 139 1 Æthelmund, minister 153 1b Oswulf, dux and minister 155 1 Christ Church, Canterbury 248 2b Abbot Beorhtwald 264 1 Bica, minister and comes 266 2b Bishop Deora of Rochester 1184 1 Church of St Paul 40 1 Archbishop Wulfred

220

Sawyer Number Authenticity Beneficiary 41 1 Æthelnoth, prefectus 88.2 1b Bishop Eadwulf and the Church of St Andrew, Rochester 161 1 Wulfheard, priest of the late Archbishop Æthelheard 163 1 Eadwulf, minister 165 1 Bishop Beornmod 168 1 Archbishop Wulfred 169 1 Archbishop Wulfred 173 1 Swithnoth, comes 177 1 Archbishop Wulfred 178 1 Archbishop Wulfred 186 1 Archbishop Wulfred 187 1 Archbishop Wulfred 188 1 Archbishop Wulfred 190 1 Minster at Hanbury, Worcester 214 1 Wulflaf 282 2b Ætheric, minister 287 1b Dudda (Ithda) 293 1 Æthelmod, minister 296 1 Badanoth, apparitor 298 1 King Æthelwulf of Wessex 308 1b General (Churches and thegns of the kingdom) 316 1 Ealdhere, minister 319 2b Eadred 328 1 Wulflaf, minister 331 1 Dryhtwald, minister 332 1 Æthelred, minister and princeps 338 1 Wighelm, priest 344 1 Liaba, son of Birgwine 350 1 Sighelm, dux 1194 1 Werheard, priest and abbot 1196 1 Æthelmod / Plegred 1199 1b Oswig and Weahtryth 1203 2b Wighelm 1204 1 Eanmund 1259 1 Christ Church, Canterbury 1264 1 Christ Church, Canterbury 1266 1 Christ Church, Canterbury 1268 1 Christ Church, Canterbury 1269 1 Familia at Christ Church, Canterbury 1270 1 Ælfstan, dux

221

Sawyer Number Authenticity Beneficiary 1276 1 Beorhtwulf 1431a 1 Christ Church, Canterbury 1431b 1 Synod 1434 1 Archbishop Wulfred 1436 1 Archbishop Wulfred 1438 1 Christ Church, Canterbury 1862 1b ? fragmentary text 221 1 Much Wenlock 367 1b Æthelgyth, daughter of Athulf 416 1 Wulfgar, minister 425 1 Ælfwald, minister 447 1 Ealdwulf, minister 449 1 Wulfswith, ancilla Dei 464 1 Æthelswyth, nun 470 1 New Minster, Winchester 495 1 Bishop Ælfric of Ramsbury 497 1 Ælfstan, minister 510 1 Ordhelm and Ælfwold 512 1 Ælfstan, minister 528 1 Oswig, minister 535 1 Ælfwynn, religiosa femina 546 1b Christ Church, Canterbury 552 1 Wulfric 563 1 Ælfgyth, a nun at Wilton 587 1b Ælfhere, comes 594 1 Ælfwine 602 1/1b Æthelnoth, minister 618 1 Brihtric, minister 623 1b Eadwig, minister 624 1 Edmund, optimas 636 1 Wulfric, princeps 645 1b Lyfing, minister 646 1 Archbishop Oda 649 1 Wulfstan, minister 670 2b St Peter's, Westminster 677 1 Ealhstan, minister 684 1 Eanulf, minister 687 1 Wulfric, minister 690 1 Abingdon Abbey 697 1 Cenwulf

222

Sawyer Number Authenticity Beneficiary 702 1b Ælfheah 703 1 Æthelflæd, matrona 704 1 Æthel...e, minister 706 1 Titstan, cubicularius 717 1 Ingeram, minister 736 1 Wulfheard 738 1 Ælfgifu 745 1 New Minster, Winchester 755 1b Wulfnoth Rumuncant, vassal 768 1 Bishop Wulfric 770 1b Ælfheah Gerent and his wife, Morwrei 772 1 Ælfwold, minister 786 1 Pershore Abbey 794 2b Ælfhelm, minister 795 1 Ælfhere, minister 801 1 Bishop Æthelwold 830 1/1b Ælfsige 832 2b Æthelweard, comes 864 1 Æthelsige, minister 876 1 Abingdon Abbey 878 1 Wulfric, minister 880 1 Bishop Ealdred of Cornwall 884 1 Muchelney Abbey 886 1b Wulfric, minister 890 1 Bishop Ælfwold 892 1 Leofwine, dux 1215 1 Ælfwold 1288 1 Byrthræd 1347 1 Cynelm, minster 1379 1 Ælfstan 1417 1 Alfred, minister of King Athelstan 898 1 Clofi 905 1 Æthelred, minister 906 1 Burton Abbey 916 1 St Albans 922 1 Morcar, minister 950 1 Archbishop Ælfstan (Lyfing) 956 1 New Minster, Winchester 961 1 Orc, minister 963 1 Æthelric, minister

223

Sawyer Number Authenticity Beneficiary 971 1 Hunuwine, minister 974 1 Bishop Eadsige 977 1 Æfic, monk 994 1 Bishop Ælfwine, of Winchester 1003 1 Leofric, chaplain 1004 1 Orc, minister 1005 1 Ordgar, minister 1008 1 Bishop Ælfwine of Winchester 1019 1 Eadulf, minister 1021 1 Exeter 1027 1b Bishop Ealdred 1028 1 St Denis 1031 1 Westminster Abbey 1033 1b St Mary's, Rouen 1044 1 Æthelred, optimas 1385 1 Wulfgifu 1387 1b Beorhtnoth 1390 1 Ælfwold and Eadred, ministri 1393 1 Earcytel 1405 1 Dodda, minister 1407 1 Balwine

224

Appendix Three: Christ Church, Canterbury Anglo-Norman Cartulary

The following table organizes the choices of the Anglo-Norman cartularist concerning sanction clauses into thirteen columns. The first three present the order of the entries in each of the three

Anglo-Norman Cartulary manuscripts: Canterbury, D. & C., Register P; Cambridge, Corpus Christi

College, MS 189; and London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1212. The next seven columns specify whether or not the source material for each charter contained a sanction clause and how the cartularist treated each sanction clause. Where no extant source document has been identified the presence of a sanction clause in the Anglo-Norman Cartulary is indicated by y(es) or n(o). Where sources are extant, the actions of the cartularist are noted—replacing, modifying, deleting, or adding. These columns also indicate when the clauses in both source and cartulary are substantively the same and when sanction clauses are absent. Parentheses in these seven columns indicate source materials in Old English.

Next come the status of the document—papal, royal, or non-royal lay—and its type. Reference numbers, listed in the final column, are from Sawyer unless otherwise noted. See pages 156-158 above for further discussion of the table and its implications.

Abbreviations: A: Sanction clause added Agt.: Agreement B: Böhmer C: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 189 Conf.: Confirmation Const.: Constitution Disp.: Dispute Settlement Eccl.: Ecclesiastical L: London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1212 P: Canterbury, D. & C., Register P Purch.: Purchase Rest.: Restoration State.: Statement

225 P P L L C Type Type None None Same Same Ref. # Ref. Status Status Added Added Deleted Deleted Modified Modified Replaced Replaced No Source Source No

1 X 1 X Papal B1

2 1 2 N Royal Grant 1609

3 2 3 X Royal Grant 8

4 3 4 X Royal Grant 230

5 4 5 Y Royal Grant 1610

6 5 6 X Royal Grant 19

X X 7 N Papal Letter B 6

X X 8 Y Papal Letter B 5

7 6 9 X Royal Grant; 22 Synod

8 7 10 X Royal Grant 24; 1611

9 8 11 X Synod 90

10 9 12 N Eccl. Misc. P10 tract

11 10 13 Y Royal Grant 1612

12 11 15 Y Royal Grant 38

13 12 16 Y Royal Grant 1613

14 13 19 X Synod 1430a

Royal Grant; 22 Synod

226 P P L L C Type Type None None Same Same Ref. # Ref. Status Status Added Added Deleted Deleted Modified Modified Replaced Replaced No Source Source No

Synod 1431b

15 14 21 X Royal Rest. 155

16 15 22 X Eccl. Rest. 1259

17 16 24 X Royal Grant 160

18 17 14 X Royal Grant 111

19 18 33 X Eccl.; Disp. 1436 Royal

20 19 25 X Royal Grant 40; 1615

Royal Grant 177

21 20 26 X Royal Grant 164; 1616

22 21 27 X Royal Grant 1617; 168; 169

23 22 28 X Royal Grant 1618; 1265; 176

24 23 29 X Royal Grant 175

25 24 30 Y Royal Grant 1619

26 25 31 X Royal Grant 186

27 26 32 N Royal Grant 1620

227 P P L L C Type Type None None Same Same Ref. # Ref. Status Status Added Added Deleted Deleted Modified Modified Replaced Replaced No Source Source No

28 27 34 X Royal Grant 187

29 28 35 X Eccl. Grant 1264; 1266; 1621

30 29 36 X Royal Grant 188

31 30 37 N 1414

32 31 38 X Royal Conf. 1623; 323

33 32 40 X Synod 1438

34 33 41 N Eccl. Purch. 1625

35 34 42 X Royal Grant 286

36 35 43 X Royal Conf. 1626

Lay, Grant 1188 Eccl.

Disp. 1439

37 36 44 X Eccl. Grant 1627; 1288

38 37 45 X Royal Grant 1628

39 38 46 N Eccl. Purch. 1629

40 39 50 N Lay Grant 1209

41 40 18 X Royal Grant 132

228 P P L L C Type Type None None Same Same Ref. # Ref. Status Status Added Added Deleted Deleted Modified Modified Replaced Replaced No Source Source No

42 41 17 X Royal Grant 1614; 123; 125

43 42 47 X Royal Grant 398

44 43 51 N Lay Grant 1210

45 44 54 X Royal Grant 537

46 45 55 X Royal Grant 546

47 46 56 X Royal Grant 31

48 47 52 X Royal Grant 477; 515

49 48 57 Y Royal Conf. 1632

50 49 58 N Lay Grant 1633

51/52 50/51 59/60 (X) (X) Royal Grant, 1212 Conf.

Royal Disp. 1211

53 52 63 Y Royal Grant 1636

54 53 64 (X) Royal Will 1503

55 54 67 Y Eccl. Rest. 1378

56 55 68 X Royal Grant 1638

Royal State. 1229

57 56 69 X Royal Grant 905

58 57 39 Y Eccl. Grant 1624

229 P P L L C Type Type None None Same Same Ref. # Ref. Status Status Added Added Deleted Deleted Modified Modified Replaced Replaced No Source Source No

59 58 48 N Lay Grant 1639

60 59 49 Y 1630

61 60 61 X Eccl. Grant 1634

Royal Grant; 717 ; Lay Grant

62 61 62 X Eccl. Grant 1635

63 62 72 X Eccl. Grant 1640

64 X 75 Y Royal Conf. 952

65 63 73 X Eccl. Grant 1641

66 64 74 X Royal Grant 950

67 65 76 X Royal Grant 1642

Eccl. Agt. 1465

68 66 77 X Non- Grant 1222 royal lay

69 67 78 X Non- Grant 1221 royal lay

70 X 70 X Royal Grant, 914 Conf.

71 68 71 (X) Non- Grant 1218 royal lay

230 P P L L C Type Type None None Same Same Ref. # Ref. Status Status Added Added Deleted Deleted Modified Modified Replaced Replaced No Source Source No

Non- Will 1501 royal lay

Royal Conf. 939

72 69 65 Y Non- Will 1637 royal lay

73 70 66 (X) Non- Grant 1646 royal lay

Non- Will 1535 royal lay

74 71 80 X Royal Grant 1643

Royal Grant 981

75 72 82 (X) Royal Writ 1089

76 73 83 (X) Royal Grant 1047

77 X 85.1 N Non- Grant royal lay

78 74 86 X Royal Writ 1090

79 75 84 N Non- Grant 1645 royal lay

80 76 85 X Non- Will 1530 royal lay

231 P P L L C Type Type None None Same Same Ref. # Ref. Status Status Added Added Deleted Deleted Modified Modified Replaced Replaced No Source Source No

81 77 53 Y Non- Grant 1631 royal lay

82 78 79 (X) Eccl. Grant 1389

83 79 81 Y Eccl. Grant 1644

84 X 23 X Synod 1431a

85 X 20 N Eccl. Grant 1258

86 80 77.1 X Royal Grant 959

X X 87 N Royal Writ 1087

X X 88 ? (L 88)

X X 89 Eccl. Writ Regest a I 101

X X 90 ? (L 90)

X X 91 Royal Writ Regest a I 243

X X 92 Royal Writ Regest a I 176

X X 93 Royal Writ Regest a I 265

87 X 96 N Bound ? (L s 96)

88 81 94 N Royal Rest. Regest a II 756

89 82 95 X Eccl. Rest. EEA 28, 15

232

Appendix Four: Anglo-Norman Cartulary Sanction Clauses

The following table provides the text of all sanction clauses included in the Anglo-Norman

Cartulary as well as any potential source texts or texts related to the cartulary entry. The first column includes the reference number for each document, drawn from Sawyer unless otherwise noted. Where no reference number is available beyond that of the cartulary text, the number for the charter in the P manuscript is used. In the second column are the sanction clauses from all available source texts. An ‘X’ indicates that no source document is known for that particular cartulary entry. The word ‘No’ is used in cases where a source text is available but has no sanction clause. The next three columns display the sanction clauses for each of the three cartulary witnesses: Canterbury, D. & C., Register P; London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1212; and

Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 189. The sigla in parentheses are from Fleming and

Brooks and Kelly, respectively. Again, an ‘X’ indicates that the respective document does not appear in a particular witness, while a ‘No’ indicates that the document appears, but with no sanction clause. Material common to both the source and cartulary text is italicized. Bold text designates material that has been added. Underlined text indicates material in the source text that has either been deleted or ignored. Words that have been altered only as far as case, tense, or spelling are double-underlined.

Abbreviations:

B: Walter de Gray Birch, Cartularium saxonicum: A Collection of Charters Relating to Anglo-Saxon History (London: Whiting, 1885-1893).

EEA: English Episcopal Acta, British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980-present).

233

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) B 1 Quae nostra decreta si Que nostra decreta si Que nostra decreta si X quis successorum quis successorum quis successorum uestrorum regum siue uestrorum regum siue uestrorum regum siue episcoporum, episcoporum, episcoporum, clericorum siue clericorum siue clericorum siue laicorum irrita facere laicorum irrita facere laicorum irrita facere temptauerit a principe temptauerit, a principe temptauerit, a principe apostolorum Petro et a apostolorum Petro et a apostolorum Petro et a cunctis successoribus cunctis successoribus cunctis successoribus suis anathematis suis aneathematis (sic) suis anathematis uinculo subiaceat quo uinculo subiaceat, quo uinculo subiaceat, quo adusque quod adusque, quod adusque, quod temerario ausu peregit temerario ausu peregit, temerario ausu peregit, deo placita deo placita deo placita satisfactione peniteat et satisfactione peniteat et satisfactione peniteat et huius inquietudinis huius inquietudinis huius inquietudinis ueram emendationem uestre emendationem uestre emendationem faciat. promittat. promittat.

1609 X No No No 8 Quisquis contra hanc Si quis quod non Si quis quod non No donationem uenire optamus hanc meam optamus hanc meam temptauerit sit ab omni donationem uiloare donationem uiolare Christianitata separatus presumserit sociatus presumpserit sociatus et a corpore et sanguini diabolo & angelis eius diabolo & angelis eius domini nostri Ihesu locus eius fiat in locus eius fiat in Christi suspensus [...] inferno inferiori. inferno inferiori. A nullo contradicitur quod absit neque a me neque a parentibus meis neque ab aliis si aliquis aliter fecerit a Deo se damnatum sciat et in die iudicii rationem reddet Deo in anima sua.

234

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 230 Si quis uero quod absit Si quis quod absit Si quis quod absit No contra hæc decreta contra hoc decretum contra hoc decretum firmiter statuta ire ausus fuerit aud ausus ire fuerit aut contraire et ea soluere soluere decreuerit soluere decreuerit conatus fuerit nouerit nouerit se ante tribunal nouerit se ante tribunal se ante tribunal Christi cum Iuda Christi cum Iuda examinis Christi traditore a deo traditore a deo rationem redditurum et dampnandum 7 in dampnandum 7 in habere partem cum secula seculorum ibi secula seculorum ibi Iuda traditore domini permansurum. permansurum. nostri Iesu Christi in inferno inferiore. [...] Pax cunctis legentibus. Consensumque prebentibus. Sitque laus utentibus. Luxque perpes credentibus. virtus vita faventibus. Rite constet senatibus Anglorum atque cetibus qui dona firment nutibus.

1610 X Si quis eas a iure Si quis eas a iure No predicte ecclesie aufere predicte ecclesie conatus fuerit, nisi deo auferre conatus fuerit, et hominibus nisi deo et hominibus satisfaciat, perpetuo satisfaciat, perpetuo anathemate feriatur. anathemate feriatur. 19 Quam donationem Si quis contra hoc Si quis contra hoc No meam uolo firmam donum meum ire donum meum ire esse inperpetuum ut studuerit cum iuda studuerit cum iuda nec ego seu heredes traditore sit ei portio traditore sit ei portio mei aliquid minuere in secula seculorum in secula seculorum præsumant. Quod si nisi resipuerit digna nisi resipuerit digna aliter temptatum fuerit satisfactione. satisfactione. a qualibet persona sub anathematis interdictione sciat se præuaricari. Böhmer X X No X 6 Böhmer X X Et si forsan quod absit X 5 fastu quisquam prosiliat non eum sed a quo missus est iuxta uocem dominicam spernens absque ullo adminiculo condempnabitur.

235

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 22 (1) Si quis autem rex Si quis autem post nos Si quis autem rex post X umquam post nos rex leuatus in regnum, nos leuatus in regnum, eleuatus in regnum aut aut episcopus, aut aut episcopus, aut episcopus aut abbas abas, seu alia persona abbas, seu alia uel comes seu ulla contradixerit huic persona contradixerit potestas hominum consilio uel scripto, huic concilio uel contradicat huic kartule iudicio consilio (alt. to scripto, iudicio aut infringere concilii) facto, sciat se concilii facto, sciat se temptauerit, sciat se a corpore et sanguine a corpore et sanguine sequestratum a corpore domini sequestratum et domini sequestratum et et sanguine domini sic excommunicatum sic excommunicatum nostri Iesu Christi seu sicut ille qui non sicut ille qui non etiam sic habebit remissionem in habebit remissionem excommunicatum sicut hoc seculo neque in neque in hoc seculo qui non habet futuro, nisi ante neque in futuro, nisi remissionem neque in mortem secundum ante mortem hoc seculo neque in archiepiscopi secundum futuro, nisi ante emendauerit. archiepiscopi pleniter emendauerit emendauerit. iudicio episcopi; (2) Si quis autem tyrannica potestate inflatus ex habitu secularium seu ecclesiasticarum infringere minuere temptauerit auctoritatem archiepiscopi et christi ęcclesię uel libertatem coenobiarum carebit letitia et communione nostrorum omnium uiuens et moriens non solum ipse sed et qui ei uiuenti uel morienti coniungitur, nisi digna satisfactione correxerit iudicio episcoporum.

236

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 24; Quod si quis forte Si quis hoc donum Si quis hoc meum No 1611 obseruare neglexerint meum uiolare donum uiolare et absque digna presumserit disperdat presumpserit satisfactione presentis et distruat illum Deus disperdat et distruat uitæ impleberint dies nisi celeri satisfactione illum Deus nisi celeri sciat se omnipotentis malum quod fecerit satisfactione malum Dei iram incurrere et a emendet. quod fecit emendet. socitate sanctorum omnium segregatum. Quoniam sanctissimam beatissimæ uirginis Mariæ locum deonestare conatus est. Qui uero hæc augenda custodierint nihilque inrogarent aduersi auribus percipiant uocem clementissimi iudicis inquientis ad pios. Uenite benedicti patris mei percipite regnum quod uobis paratum est ab origine mundi. 90 Si quis autem regum Si quis autem regum Si quis autem regum No successorum successorum nostrorum successorum nostrorum nostrorum seu seu episcoporum uel seu episcoporum uel epis[coporum] uel principum hoc salubre principum hoc salubre principum hoc salubre decretum infringere decretum infringere decretum inf[ringere temptauerit reddet temptauerit reddet tempt]auerit r[ed]dat rationem Deo rationem Deo rationem Deo omnipotenti in die omnipotenti in die omnipotenti in die tremendo si autem tremendo si autem tremendo si comes uel comes presbiter comes presbiter pręsbyter diaconus diaconus clericus uel diaconus clericus uel clericus aut moniales monacus huic monachus huic huic institutioni institutioni restiterit sit institutoni restiterit sit restiterit sit sui gradui suo gradu priuatus et a suo gradu priuatus 7 a priuatus et a participatione corporis participatione corporis participatione corporis et sanguinis domini 7 sanguinis deum et sanguinis christi separatus 7 alienus a separatus 7 alienus a separatus et alienus a regno Dei nisi ante regno Dei nisi ante regna Dei nisi ante ea placita satisfactione placita satisfactione satisfactione emendauerit quod malo emendauerit quod malo emendauerit quot sui superbie inique gessit. superbie inique gessit. malo superbiæ iniquie Scriptum est enim Scriptum est enim gessit quia in euangelio quecumque ligauerit quecumque ligaueritis dictum est quicumque super terram erunt super terram erunt ligaueritis super ligata et in celo et ligata 7 in celo et quod terram erit ligatum et quecumque solueritis 7 solueritis super terram in celis et quecumque quecumque super erunt soluta 7 in celo. solueritis super terram terram erunt soluta 7 in erit solatum et in celis. celo. P10 X No No No

237

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 1612 X Quod si aliquis quod Quod si aliquis quod No absit hoc meum donum absit hoc meum donum uiolare presumpserit, a uiolare presumpserit, a Deo et sanctis eius sit Deo et sanctis eius separatus, diabolo et separatus, diabolo et angelis eius sit angelis eius sit coniunctus. coniunctus. 38 X Si quis quod absit Si quis quod absit No contra hoc donum contra hoc donum meum facere meum facere temptauerit, iram temptauerit, iram omnipotentis Dei omnipotentis Dei incurrat et cum impiis incurrat et cum impiis et peccatoribus et peccatoribus flammis ultricibus sine flammis ultricibus sine fine dampnetur. fine dampnetur. 1613 X Huic donationi nostre Huic donationi nostre No qui obuiare qui obuiare presumpserit, cum presumpserit, cum hedis sinistra Christi in hedis a sinistra Christi die iudicii inueniatur. in die iudicii inueniatur. 1431b; Si ergo quod absit, ipsi Si ergo quod absit ipsi Si ergo quod absit ipsi Si ergo quod absit ipsi 1430a hoc nostrum mandatum hoc nostrum mandatum hoc nostrum mandatum hoc nostrum mandatum et domni apostolici et domni apostolici et domni apostolici et domni apostolici papæ spreuerunt et pro preceptum spreuerint preceptum spreuerint preceptum spreuerint nihilo ducunt sciant se et pro nichilo ducunt, et pro nichilo ducunt, et pro nichilo ducunt, (two MSS add: a sciant se a presenti sciant se a presenti sciant se a presenti sanctę Dei ęcclesię ecclesia iustorum ecclesia iustorum ecclesia iustorum communione segregatos et in die segregatos et in die segregatos et in die sequestratos et in iudicii ante tribunal iudicii ante tribunal iudicii ante tribunal tremendo iudicio) ante Christi, nisi ante Christi, nisi ante Christi, nisi ante tribunal Christi ni emendauerint rationem emendauerint rationem emendauerint rationem antea emendant reddituros. reddituros. redituros. rationem reddituros. 155 No Si quis de hinc Si quis dehinc easdem No easdem terras a iure terras a iure prefate prefate ecclesie ecclesie amouerit ex amouerit ex parte Dei parte omnipotentis omnipotentis 7 Dei 7 omnium omnium sanctorum et sanctorum 7 nostra nostra scilicet tocius scilicet totius concilii. consilii in quo hic in in quo hic in nomine nomine domini domini congregati congregati sumus sumus excomunicetur 7 a excommunicetur 7 a Deo cum diabolo in Deo cum diabolo in infernum deputetur infernum deputetur nisi ante mortem Deo nisi ante mortem Deo et eidem ecclesie. 7 eidem ecclesie. Christi in Dorobernia Christi in Dorobernia ciuitate satisfaciat. ciuitate satisfaciat.

238

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 1259 Rogamus etiam amicos Itaque summo studio Itaque summo studio No nostros id est reges et omnes reges et omnes reges 7 pontifices et omnes qui pontifices sequaces pontifices sequaces potestatem in hac nostros 7 omnes alios nostros 7 omnes alios provincia habeant ut qui potestatem habent qui potestatem habent semper augere his uel habitur sunt in uel habituri sunt in fratribus et non hac prouincia rogamus hac prouncia rogamus minuere suum bonum 7 humiliter 7 humiliter dignentur [et] certe obsecramus ut semper obsetramus ut semper credimus eo magis augere studeant augere studeant Deum omnipotentem eisdem fratribus eisdem fratribus illis augere aeterna nostris bonum suum 7 nostris bonum suum 7 bona in caelestibus non minuere. [Si quis] non minuere. Si quis regnis. autem hanc nostram autem hanc nostram munificenciam munificentiam infringere infringere temptauerit, deleatur temptauerit, deleatur memoria eius de libro memoria eius de libro uite. uite. 160 Si quis autem hanc No No No nostram donationem infringere uel minuere temptauerit sciat se rationem redditurum in die Iudicii, nisi ante digna satisfactione Deo et hominibus emendare uoluerit. 111 Et hoc prædictum Si quis huic donacioni Si quis huic donacioni No donum interpetuum nostre contradixerit, nostre contradixerit, largitum qui auertit a perpetuo anathemati perpetuo anathemate possessione æccleesiæ subiaceat. subiaceat. Christi auertat a se Christus misericordiam suam manente hac cartula nihilominus in sua firmitate. 1436 No No No No

239

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 177 Si quis autem quod non X X X optamus auaritiae ignibus aestuans superbiaeque typo tumidus diabolica fraude deceptus supramemoratam donationis concessionem infringere aut minuere temptauerit sciat se anathematis uinculis esse damnatum et a communione corporis et sanguinis Christi hic et in ultimo examine et ab electione omnium sanctorum esse separatum nisi prius digna satisfactione emenda[ue]rit. Et si quis augendo multiplicandoue beniuolo animo amplificare aut defendere uoluerit augeat illi omnipotens Deus aeterna bona in caelestibus regnis. 40; Si quis hanc Si quis hanc nostram Si quis hanc nostram No 1615 largitionem illi augeat largicionem auxerit largitatem auxerit. augeatur illi a Deo vita. adaugeat illi Deus adaugeat illi Deus Si quis deminuerit uitam. Si quis autem uitam. Si quis autem quod absid deminuetur illam minuerit illam inminuerit. sibi gloria in Christo dimnetur (sic) ei gloria diminuetur sibi gloria nisi satisfacsione in Christo. in Christo. emendauerit. 164; Si quis contra hanc No No No 1616 donacionem meam diabolica fraude infringere temptauerit, sciat se sine dubio anathemam maranatam esse, nisi digna satisfaccione emendauerit. Et si quis augendo multiplicare uoluerit, augeat omnipotens Deus illi eterna bona in celestibus regnis. 168 No

240

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 169; Insuper additur hoc: Si Hanc largifluam Hanc meam No 1617 huius uicissitudinis meam munificenciam largifluam persona quilibet ex quisquis uiolare munificenciam utralibet parte hanc presumpserit, quisquis uiolare commutationem aliter disperdat illum Deus presumpserit, transmutare aut uiolare et memoria eius non disperdat illum Deus temptauerit quam requiratur a et memoria eius non difinitum fieri uidetur generatione et requiretur a salua iure intemerata generatione. generatione et possessiuncula cum generatione. predicta libertate absque obstaculo alicuius quaestionis ad proprie hereditatis gremium redeat. Aut etiam quilibet dominorum seu summo saeculi dignitatum gradu ditatus huius uicissitudinis reconciliationem tyrannico fraude fretus ex his utralibus partibus quod tam firmiter reconciliaretur hanc mutare uel fraudare iniqui temptauerit nouerit se anathematum esse et ante tribunal summi iudicis Christi rationem redditurum nisi prius digna satisfactione emendauerit. 1265 Si quis illorum per audaciam suæ malæ uoluntatis hanc prædictam constitutionem inritam habere et in obliuionem deducere et congregare conuiuias ad uescendum et bibendum seu etiam dormiendum in propriis cellulis, sciat se quisquis ille sit reatum se esse propriæ domi et in potestate archiepiscopi ad habendum et cuicunque ei placuerit donandum l’ manentem itaque hanc kartulam in sua nihilominus firmitate.

241

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 176; Quod si quisque huic No No No 1618 largitioni contradixerit, contradicat ei Deus et deneget ingressum celestis uitæ. 175 Quod si quisque huic Si huic nostro dono Si quis huic dono No largitioni contradixerit, contradixerit, contradixerit, contradicat ei Deus et contradicat ei Deus et contradicat ei Deus et deneget ingressum deneget ingressum deneget ingressum cælestis uitæ. regni celestis. celestis uite. 1619 X Si quis hanc meam Si quis hanc meam No donationem infringere donationem infringere temptarit, auferatur ab temptauerit, auferatur eo requies perpetua et ab eo requies perpetua detur ei pena eterna. et detur ei pena eterna. 186 No No No No 1620 X No No No 187 Si quis autem regum No No No aut principum uel qualibet magna paruaque persona hanc nostram donationem corrumpere temtauerit, sciat ille se esse damnatum et a Deo separatam hic et in futuro, nisi digni satisfactione emendauerit iniquitatis suæ audacium.

242

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F)

1264 Si autem quod absit aliquis maliuola audacia hanc nostram uicissitudinem per tyrannidem inuadere uel infringere temtauerit nouerit se ante tribunal summi et tremendi iudicis Christi esse rationem redditurum. nisi illud prius digna satisfactione emendauerit. Et si qualibet nostrae partis condicio innocens et incontaminata reperta ipsius rei fuerit seu forte utraque suae propriae iuris possessio salua et integra ratione ad pristinȩ hereditatis gremium reuertetur. Pars autem illa quȩ rea et deprauata fuerit suae propriae partis rea priuetur et iustum arbitrorum iudicium subire cogetur ibique iuste districtiones accipiat sentiatque satisfactionem. 1266; Si quis autem hanc No No No 1621 nostram uicissitudinem nisus fuerit seruandi seruetur ei æterna beatitudo sin aliter quod non optamus tyrannica fraude deceptus infringere temtaferit sciat se esse damnatum et a participatione regni cælæstis separatum nisi ante satisfactione emendaferit.

243

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 188 Si autem sit quod non Si quod non optamus Si quod non optamus No optamus aliquis regum aliquis homo ausus aliquis homo ausus aut episcoporum uel fuerit hoc donum fuerit hoc donum principum siue meum uiolare meum uiolare Christo præfectum diabolica Christus cui ego cui ego Wiglaf gratia temeritate instigatus Wiglaf gratia dei rex dei rex hoc munus quod hanc nostram hoc munus contuli contuli eradicet eum donationem infringere eradicet eam de terra de terra uiuentium. uel minuere aut in aliut uiuentium. conuertere temptauerit quam a nobis constitutum est, Sciat se a Deo omnipotenti alienatum et aeternae anathematis uinculis esse nodatum, nisi ante ea digna satisfactione emendare uoluerit. 1414 X No No No 323 No X X X 1623 X No No No No X X X

No X X X 1438 No Si quis hanc Si quis hanc uiolare No donationem uiolare presumpserit, ex presumpserit, ex parte Dei et nostra, parte Dei et nostra, regum, episcoporum, regum, episcoporum, abbatum et omnium abatum et omnium Christianorum sit Christianorum sit separatus a Deo, et sit separatus a Deo, et sit pars eius cum diabolo pars eius cum diabolo et angelis eius. et angelis eius. 1625 X No No No 286 Si quis hoc regum uel No No principum seu alicuius persone homo surrexerit, qui hanc nostram doncionem et munificenciam infringere uel minuere temtauerit, sciat se racionem esse redditurum coram Deo et Christo Iesu qui iudicaturus est uiuos et mortuos, nisi ante digna satisfacione Deo et hominibus emendare uoluerit, manente hac cartula in sua nichilominus firmitatae roborata.

244

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 1439; (1) Et si quis post hæc No No No 1626 alicujus personis homo diabolica instigatus temeritate insurrexerit qui hoc kanonica et synodalia decreta infringere temptaverit, a societate sanctorum omnium et a coetu congregationis et communionis ipsorum sciret se esse alienatum synodali judicio statuerunt. [...] (2) et firmiter decreverunt ut sub anathematis vinculo esset nodatus qui hanc reconciliationem in aliquo irritum faceret, sicut et ille excommunicatus constat a consortio sanctorum omnium et a communione synodalis concilii et familiis nostris ecclesiæque Dei alienus existat qui hoc kanonica statuta et synodalia præcepta infringere studuit, nisi digne Deo et hominibus præsumptionis suæ conamen emendare uoluerit, et hoc signo sanctæ crucis Christi roborando omnes pariter conscripserunt. 1288; Si quis autem hoc No No No 1627 obseruare uoluerit seruetur ei æterna benedictio in cælis sin autem reddat rationem coram Deo et angelis eius nisi hic digna satisfactione emendare uoluerit. 1628 Si quis hoc donum Si quis hoc donum ab Si quis hoc donum No minuerit ab alterutra alterutra ecclesia minuerit ab alterutra ecclesia, minuat ei minuerit, minuat ei ecclesia, minuat ei omnipotens Deus uitam omnipotens Deus uitam omnipotens Deus uitam eternam. eternam. eternam. 1629 X No No No

245

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 1209 X No No No 132 Omnes isti una mecum Omnes isti una mecum Omnes isti una mecum No clamauerunt ad clamauerunt ad clamauerunt ad dominum in die sancto dominum in die sancto dominum in die sancto in æcclesia sancti in ecclesia sancti Pauli in ecclesia sancti Pauli Pauli spiritus domini spiritus domini 7 spiritus domini qui qui hodie repleuit omnes sancti apostoli hodie repleuit orbem orbem terrarum et dei qui ab illo spiritu terrarum. 7 omnia omnia continet et repleti sunt.' tribuat continet. 7 scientiam scientiam habet uocis benedictionem habet uocis alleluia. 7 alleluia et omnes sancti sempiternam omnes sancti apostoli Dei apostoli qui ab illo consentientibus 7 dei qui ab illo spiritu spiritu repleti sunt defendentibus hanc repleti sunt.' tribuat tribuat benedictionem largitatem condempnet benedictionem sempiternum 7 excommunicet 7 in sempiternam consentientibus et hoc seculo 7 in futuro consentientibus 7 defendentibus hanc eum qui auferet uel deffendentibus hanc largitatem et minimam partem huius largitatem 7 condempnet et doni. ab ecclesia sancti condempnet 7 excommunicet et in hoc saluatoris que sita est excommunicet 7 in hoc sæculo et in futuro eum in urbe Cantuariorum. seculo 7 in futuro eum qui auferat uel 7 respondit omnis qui auferat uel minimam partem huius chorus amen. [...] Ego minimam partem huius doni ab æcclesia sancti Offa rex cum doni ab ecclesia sancti saluatoris quæ sita est benedictione omnium saluatoris que sita est in urbe episcoporum inpono in urbe Cantuariorum. Canteuuariorum. Et signum sancte crucis 7 respondit omnis respondit omnis ad confirmationem chorus amen. [...] Ego chorus. Amen. [...] Ego huius doni michi Offa rex cum Offa rex Merciorum donanti ad benedictione omnium cum benedictione redemptionem et episcoporum inpono omnium episcoporum minuenti ad eternam signum sancte crucis inpono signum sanctæ dampnationem et sine ad confirmationem + ad confirmationem ullo remedio in inferno huius doni michi huius doni mihi ad eterne pene donanti ad donanti ad cruciatum. redemptionem et redemptionem et minuenti ad eternam minuenti ad æternam dampnationem et sine condempnationem et ullo remedio in inferno sine ullo remedio in ad eterne pene inferno ad æterne cruciatum. poene cruciatum.

246

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F)

123 Si quis uero quod omnino absit successorum meorum regum uel principum hanc prefatam donationem ausu infringere temerario presumpserit sit separatus a participatione corporis et sanguinis christi nisi ante ea reatum suȩ presumptsionis digna satisfactione emendauerit. 125; Si quis uero quod Si quis uero hoc Si quis uero hoc No 1614 omnino absit donum meum donum meum successorum meorum infringere infringere regum uel principum temptauerit, perpetuo temptauerit, perpetuo hanc prefatam anathemate feriatur. anathemate feriatur. donationem ausus infringere temerario præsumpserit sit in presenti a participatione corporis et sanguinis Christi et in ultimo examine segregatus a cetu omium sanctorum nisi ante ea reatum suæ presumptionis digna satisfactione emendauerit. 398 Si quis autem quod non Si quis autem quod non Si quis autem quod non No optamus hanc nostram optamus hanc nostram optamus hanc nostram donationem elationis donationem elationis donationem elationis habitu cedens habitu cedens habitu cedens infringere temptauerit, infringere temptauerit, infringere temptauerit, a Deo separatus fiat a Deo separatus fiat a Deo separatus fiat consors malignorum consors malignorum consors malignorum spirituum, nisi pura spirituum, nisi pura spirituum, nisi pura emendatione emendatione emendatione ememendauerit (sic). emendauerit. emendauerit. 1210 X No No No

247

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 537 Si quis uero cuiuslibet Si cuiuslibet sexus, Si cuiuslibet sexus, No sexus, ordinis uel ordinis uel dignitatis ordinis uel dignitatis dignitatis presencium hoc memoriale meum hoc memoriale meum seu futurorum hoc corrumpere corrumpere memoriale meum temptauerit, deleatur temptauerit, deleatur corrumpere memoria eius de libro memoria eius de libro temptauerit, deleatur uite et robur eius sine uite et robur eius sine memoria eius de libro refrigerio eternaliter refrigerio eternaliter uiuencium et robur conteratur. conteratur. eius sine refrigerio eternaliter conteratur. 546 Si quis autem quod No No No absit tirrannica fretus potestate regalis æpiscopalis siue homo alicuius dignitatis hoc decretum a Deo mihi conlatum infringere temptauerit siue huiuscę donationis a prefata ęcclesia uel passum pedis segregauerit ni primus hoc inorme scelus poenitendo deterserit se sacrilegii culpam [incurrisse et a domino] Iesu Christo inperpetuum sine ullo subtractionis resocilatu dampnaturum persentiat.

248

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 31 Quisquis igitur ex No No No quolibet uel ex ecclesiastico gradu uel ex saeculari dignitate his qui utiliter pro Dei intuitu seruis Christi concessimus inuido maliuoloque animo contraire praesumpserit aut in aliqua re praefatam donationem nostram inritam facere temptauerit sciat se sine dubio et in praesenti ob meritum malitiae suae juste excommunicatum fieri a corpore et sanguine Christi et in futuro procul segregatum ab his qui a dextris Christi propter opera pietatis adstrare et illam beatam uocem audire meruerint: Uenite benedicti patris mei percipite regnum quod uobis paratum est ab origine mundi. 515; Si quis uero No No No 477 catholicorum aut regum aut episcoporum aut prefectuum hoc decretum augere uoluerit, adaugeat illi Deus tempora bona in seculo et uitam eternam in futuro. Si uero quispiam minuere aut uiolare aut omnino satagit infringere, sciat se cum Caipha et Pilato simulque Iuda traditore misero inferno inferiori demersum esse, nisi ante eius obitum grauibus penis se affligat et digna satsifaccione emendet quod incredibiliter gessit contra nostrum fidele decretum.

249

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 1632 X Ad maladictionem Ad maledictionem Ad maledictionem impiorum raptorum, impiorum raptorum, impiorum raptorum, immo magis Deo immo magis Deo immo magis Deo fauente ad beniuolerum fauente ad beniuolum fauente ad beniuolorum iustorumque iustorumque iustorumque benedictionem, eterna benedictionem, eterna benedictionem, eterna conclusione renouamus conclusione renouamus conclusione renouamus et in domino summo et in domino summo et in domino summo roboramus. roboramus. roboramus. 1633 X No No No 1211; 7 cwæþ þæt Crist sylf (1) Si quis hanc meam (1) Si quis hanc meam (1) No; (2) De 1212 mid eallum donationem a iure donationem a iure precessorum nostrorum heofonlicum mægne prefate ecclesie auferre predicte ecclesie decreto firmamus, hoc þane awyrgde on conatus fuerit, auferat auferre conatus fuerit, eternaliter statuentes ut ecnesse þe þas gife ei omnipotens Deus auferat ei omnipotens impii quique a æfre awende oþþe regum suum. (2) Quin Deus regnum suum. (2) priuilegiis prædictis gewanude. predecessorum Quin predecessorum Christo tonanti aliquid nostrorum decreto nostrorum decreto auferentees, sub firmamus, hoc firmamus, hoc anathemate in eternum eternaliter statuentes ut eternaliter statuentes ut cum diabolo puninatur. impii quique a impii quique a priuilegiis prædictis priuilegiis prædictis Christo tonanti aliquid Christo tonanti aliquid auferentees, sub auferentees, sub anathemate in eternum anathemate in eternum cum diabolo puninatur. cum diabolo puninatur. Qui uero hanc libertatem augendo firmauerit illesam, piissimo liberetur a domino cum nouissima insonuerit tuba, reddens cuique secundum opera sua. 1636 X Quisquis hanc meam Quisquis hanc meam No largifluam largifluam munificentiam uiolare munificentiam uiolare presumpserit, cum presumpserit, cum reprobis in die iudicii a reprobis in die iudicii a sinistris Christi sinistris Christi collocatus, accipiat collocatus, accipiat sententiam sententiam dampnationis cum dampnationis cum diabolo et angelis eius. diabolo et angelis eius. 1503 7 se þe þysne cwide Si quis hanc meam Si quis hanc meam No þurh ænig þincg donationem frangere donationem frangere awende habbe him wið uoluerit, deneget ei temptauerit, deneget ei God ælmihtigne Deus ingressum uite Deus ingressum uite gemæne 7 wið Sancta celestis et locus eius sit celestis et locus eius sit Marian 7 wið Sancte in inferno. in inferno. Peter 7 wið ealle þa þe Godes naman heriað.

250

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 1378 X Hanc mee munifice Hanc mee munifice No concessionis libertatem concessionis libertatem conantes mutare uel conantes mutare uel minuere seu frangere, minuere seu frangere, habeant partem cum habeant partem cum hiis quibus dicetur: hiis quibus dicitur: Discedite a me operarii Discedite a me operarii iniquitatis in ignem iniquitatis in ignem eternum ibi erit fletus eternum ibi erit fletus et stridor dencium, nisi oculorum et stridor prius digna penitentia dencium, nisi prius et legali satisfaccione digna penitentia et ante exitum corporalis legali satisfaccione uite canonice ante exitum corporalis emendauerit. uite canonice emendauerint. 1229; No No No No 1638 905 Si autem quod non No No No optamus aliquis tipho turgens supercilii hanc meam donationis kartulam adnihilare temptauerit sciat se domino rationem in die iudicii redditurum nisi digna ante emendauerit satisfactione. 1624 X Si quis hanc meam Si quis hanc meam No donacionem Christi donacionem Christi ecclesie Dorobernia ecclesie Dorobernia abstulerit, perpetuo abstulerit, perpetuo anathemate perculsus, anathemate perculsus, diaboli possessio fiat, diabolus eum in societate suorum. possideat, in societate suorum. 1639 X No No No 1630 X Si quis hoc donum Si quis hoc donum No meum fregerit, meum fregerit, disperdat illum disperdat illum Deus. dominus.

251

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 717; Si quis igitur hanc Si quis han nostram Si quis hanc nostram No 1634 nostram donationem in donacionem in aliud donacionem in aliud aliud quam quam constimus quam constituimus constituimus transferre uoluerit, transferre uoluerit, transferræ uoluerit priuatus consortio in priuatus consortio priuatus consortio Dei et sancte ecclesie sancte Dei ecclesie sancte Dei æcclesiæ eternis incendiis iugiter eternis incendiis iugiter æternis barathri cum Iuda traditore cum Iuda traditore incendiis lugubris puniatur, si non puniatur, si non iugiter cum Iuda congrua satisfactione congrua satisfactione Christi proditore emendauerit quod emendauerit quod eiusque complicibus contra nostrum contra nostrum puniatur, si non decretum deliquid. decretum deliquid. satisfactione emendauerit congrua quod contra nostrum deliquit decretum. 1635 X No No No 1640 No Si quis aliquam Si quis aliquam No harum uillarum ab harum uillarum ab ecclesia iam dicta ui ecclesia iam dicta ui aut aliquo ingenio aut aliquo ingenio auferre conatus auferre conatus fuerit, a Christo fuerit, a Christo separatus diabolo separatus diabolo coniungatur. coniungatur. 952 X Si uero quod absit Si quod absit aliqui X aliqui infelices infelices priuilegiorum priuiliorum inueniuntur inueniuntur predones predones infesti, a infesti, a plasmatorum plasmatorum creaturarum creaturarum maledicentur maledicantur perenniter, nisi perenniter, nisi citissime metropolitano citissime metropolitano archiepiscopo archiepiscopo emendent, quod contra emendent, quod contra bonorum sapientumque beatorum uirorum decretum sapientumque uirorum nequiter deliquerunt. decretum nequiter deliquerunt. 1641 No Si quis aliquam iam Si quis aliquam iam No dictarum uillarum dictarum uillarum alias a predicta alias a predicta ecclesia aufferendo ecclesia auferendo locare studuerit locare studuerit et excommunicatus excommunicatus diabolo societur. diabolo societur.

252

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 950 Si quis hominum ut No No No non optamus hoc nostram donum umquam peruertere uel frangere satagat a Christo maledicetur omnibusque sanctis eius in euum. nisi ante mortem congrua (sic) emendet satisfactione quod nostrum contra regium deliquit decretum. 1465; No Si quis hoc donum Si quis hoc donum Si quis hoc donum 1642 meum frangere meum frangere meum frangere temptauerit, deneget temptauerit, deneget temptauerit, deneget ei Deus ingresssum ei Deus ingresssum ei Deus ingresssum celestis uite et pars celestis uite et pars celestis uite et pars eius sit in inferno eius sit in inferno eius sit in inferno inferiori. inferiori. inferiori. 1222 No No No No 1221 Si quis quod non Si quis has terras a Si quis easdem uillas a No optamus hanc nostram predicta ecclesia predicta ecclesia donationem infringere elongauerit ab elongauerit ab temptauerit sit pars et omnipotente Deo omnipotente Deo societas eius cum Iuda excommunicatus in excommunicatus in qui pro auaritia sua die magni iudicii a die magna iudicii a tradidit ueritatem que sinistra iudicis sinistra iudics est Christus nisi plena constitutus diabolo constitutus diabolo satisfactione coniungatur. coniungatur. reconcilietur Deo et hominibus.

253

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 914 Si quis uero beniuolum Si quis uero beniuolum Si quis uero beniuolum X hoc nostrum hoc nostrum hoc nostrum priuilegium muneribus priuilegium muneribus priuilegium muneribus Deo dignis augere Deo dignis augere Deo dignis augere satagit amplicet sibi satagat amplificet sibi satagat amplificet sibi Deus mansionem Deus mansionem Deus mansionem amenam sedibus in amenam sedibus in amenam sedibus in superis cum omnibus superis cum omnibus superis cum omnibus sanctis. Si autem ut sanctis. Si autem quod sanctis. Si autem ut non non optamus quis non optamus quis optamus quis maliuolus maliuolus diabolico maliuolus diabolico diabolico instinctus instinctus flatu hanc instinctus flatu hanc flatu hanc nostram nostram nostram confirmationem confirmationem confirmationem minuerit uel dempserit minuerit uel dempserit minuerit uel dempserit aliquid partem cum aliquam partem cum aliquid partem cum Iuda proditore domini Iuda proditore domini Iuda proditore domini accipiat et dentibus accipiat et dentibus accipiat et dentibus Cerberi infernalis sine Cerberi infernalis sine Cerberi infernalis sine termino cum termino cum termino cum demonibus omnibus demonibus omnibus demonibus omnibus Stigia palude Stigia palude Stigia palude corrodetur nisi mortem corrodetur nisi mortem corrodatur nisi mortem ante communem ante communem ante communem congrua emendet congrua emendet congrua emendet satisfactione quod satisfactione quod satisfactione quod nequiter contra Deum nequiter contra Deum nequiter contra Deum suum deliquid suum deliquid suum deliquid factorem. factorem. factorem. 939 No X X X 1501 No X X X 1218 X No No No 1637 X Si quis easdem uillas No No aut aliquam partem ex hiis uillis a predicta ecclesia abstulerit, sit ei pars et societas cum Iuda qui Christum uendidit in inferno inferiori, nisi de hoc quod male gessit congruam faciat emendati[onem].

254

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 1535; And se þe mine quyde Si quis eas a iure Si quis eas a iure Si quis eas a iure 1646 beryaui þe hic nu eiusdem ecclesie eiusdem ecclesie eiusdem ecclesie biqueþe habbe a Godes abstulerit, auferat ei abstulerit, auferat ei abstulerit, auferat ei ywitnesse, beryaued he Deus gloriam suam. Deus gloriam suam. Deus gloriam suam. worþe þises erthliche mergþes and ashiregi hine se almigti Drigten, þe alle shepþe shop and ywrogte, uram alre halegene ymennesse on domesday, and sy he bytagt Satane þane diefle and alle his awaryede yueren into helle grunde, and þer aquelmi and godes wiþsaken bute ysuyke, and mine irfnumen neuer ne asuenche. 981; Et si aliquis hominum No No No 1643 fuerit tam audax contra Deum qui hanc regis munificentiam mutare uoluerit auertat illum Deus omnipotens a gaudiis regni celestis in profundum inferni nisi ante fine perfectius emendauerit; And gyf ænig sy swa dyrstig on[...]gæn God þæt þis awændan wille awænde hine God ælmihtig fram heofene[rice]s myrcðe in to helle grunde buton he ær his ænde hit þe deopper gebete. 1089 7 ic nelle geþafian þæt Et nolo pati ut eas Et nolo pati ut eas Et nolo pati ut eas æn[ig man þis tobrece] aliquas eas frangat, si aliquas eas frangat, si aliquis frangat, si non be minan fullan non uult perdere non uult perdere uult perdere amicitiam freondscipe [7 gif ænig amicitiam meam. Si amicitiam meam. Si meam. Si quis autem man sy swa] dyrstig quis autem huius quis autem huius huius donationis þæt þise cwide æfre donationis aliquid donationis aliquid aliquid fregerit awænde oððe þær to fregerit temerario ausu, fregerit temerario ausu, temerario ausu, geþwærlæce sy [he faciendo aut faciendo aut faciendo aut Iudas gefere þe] Crist consenciendo, socius consenciendo, socius consenciendo, sit belæwde 7 Drihten sit Iude qui tradidit sit Iude qui tradidit socius Iude qui tradidit fordo hine a on ecnysse Christum et ab Christum et ab Christum et ab Amen omnipotenti Deo omnipotenti Deo omnipotenti Deo inperpetuum inperpetuum inperpetuum dampnetur. dampnetur. dampnetur.

255

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 1047 Eall ic wille þæt ælces Si quis autem aliquid Si quis autem aliquid Si quis autem aliquid ma\n/nes gife stande 7 horum a iure eiusdem horum a iure eiusdem horum a iure eiusdem ic nelle geþafian þæt ecclesie abstulerit, ecclesie abstulerit, ecclesie abstulerit, ænig mann þis awende. faciendo aut faciendo aut faciendo aut 7 gif ænig mann si swa consenciendo perpetuo consenciendo perpetuo consenciendo perpetuo dyrstig oþþe þærto anathemate feriatur et anathemate feriatur et anathemate feriatur et gþwærlæce þæt ænig cum Iuda traditore cum Iuda traditore cum Iuda traditore þara lande þe lið into dampnetur. dampnetur. dampnetur. Cristes Cyrcean þanon geutige si he Iudas gefera þe Crist blæwade 7 þe þisne cwyde æfre awende þe ic mid minre agenre hand on þissere Criste bec Cristes betæhte on uppan Cristes weofod Drihten fordo hine a on ecnesse. Amen. 1090 No Si quis illam uillam a Si quis illam uillam a No iure predicte ecclesie iure predicte ecclesie aliquo modo aufferre aliquo modo auferre conatus fuerit, conatus fuerit, sociatus Belthebub sociatus \sit/ principi demoniorum Beelzebub principi commendetur. demoniorum. 1645 X No No No 1530 No X X X 1530 No Si quis hoc donum Si quis hoc donum No meum uiolatuerit meum uiolauerit anathema sit. anathema sit. 1631 X Si quis hanc Si quis hanc meam No donationem meam donationem uiolare uiolare presumpserit, presumpserit, post post mortem raptus a mortem raptus a Tarareis ministris in Tarareis ministris in flamigedomo pestifera flamigera domo mortis concludetur. pestifera mortis concludetur. 1389 7 se þe þis wille Quicquis eandem Quisquis eandem Quisquis eandem awendan awende hine terram a iure prefate terram a iure prefate terram a iure prefate Crist fram heofenan ecclesie auertere ecclesie auertere ecclesie auertere rices myrhðe into helle conatus fuerit conatus fuerit conatus fuerit wite. anathema sit. anathema sit. anathema sit. 1644 X Si quis hanc Si quis hanc meam No donationem a iure donationem a iure predicte ecclesie predicte ecclesie amouerit, amoueat eum amouerit, amoueat eum amoueat eum Deus a Deus a regno suo et det regno suo et det ei ei locum in profundum locum in profundum inferni. inferni.

256

Ref # Source/Related Text Canterbury (P/G) Lambeth (L/H) Cambridge (C/F) 1431a Si quis uero Si quis uero quod Si quis uero quod X apostolicus praeceptis omnio absit contra omnio absit contra et nostrorum omnium apostolica precepta et apostolica precepta et ausus sit tunicam omnium nostrorum nostrorum omnium Christi scindere et ausit sit tunicam ausus sit tunicam unitatem sancte Dei Christi scindere et Christi scindere et ecclesiae diuidere, unitatem eius sancte unitatem eius sancte sciat se nisi digne ecclesie diuidere, sciat ecclesie diuidere, sciat emendauerit quod se esse eternaliter se esse eternaliter inique contra sacras dampnandum nisi ante dampnandum nisi ante canones fecit mortem quod inique mortem quod inique aeternaliter esse contra sacros canones contra sacros canones damnatum. fecit eidem ecclesie fecit eidem ecclesie digne satisfecerit. digne satisfacerit. 1258 X No No X 959 Si autem quod non No No No optamus aliquis tumido supercilio inflatus hanc nostram corroborationem infrigere uel minuere temptauerit nouerit se anathematizatum esse a Deo et sanctis eius ni ante mortem digna satisfactione emendauerit quod iniuste deliquit. 1087 X X No X

L 88 X X No X

L 89 X X No X

L 90 X X No X

L 91 X X No X

L 92 X X No X

L 93 X X No X

L 96 X No No X

L 94 X No No No

EEA No No No No 28, 15