A.D. 945. King Edmund to the monastery at Baederices wirde; grant of privileges in adjacent land. Latin with English bounds

Archive:

Bury St Edmunds

MSS:

1. Cambridge, Trinity College, R.5.40 (728), f. ir (s. xv)
2. Cambridge, University Library, Ff.2.33, f. 20r (s. xiii 2)
3. Cambridge, University Library, Gg.4.4, f. 94r (s. xv med.)
4. Cambridge, University Library, Mm.4.19, ff. 83v-85r (s. xii 2)
5. Lawrence, University of Kansas, Kenneth Spencer Research Library, MS E. 107
6. London, British Library, Add. 14847, f. 27r (s. xiii/xiv)
7. London, British Library, Harley 258, ff. 58v-59r (s. xvii)
8. London, British Library, Harley 638, ff. 30v-31r (s. xiv)
9. London, British Library, Harley 743, ff. 56v-57r (s. xiv med.)
10. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 297, pp. 327-331 (s. xii)
11. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Dodsworth 38 (S.C. 4180), ff. 145v-146r (s. xvii; incomplete)
12. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Dugdale 21 (S.C. 6511), ff. 40v-41r (s. xvii)
13. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Gough Cambridge 22 (S.C. 17772), ff. 15v-16r (s. xiv 2)

Printed:

Mon. Angl., i. 286-7; K, 404 and vol. iii. 423; Mon. Angl. (rev. edn), iii. 137 (no. 4); B, 808; Pierquin, Recueil, pt 2, no. 82; Douglas 1932, ii. 340-1, ex MS 10; John of Worcester, pp. 638-9

Comments:

Barker 1949, p. 57, cf. S 501; Lobel 1935, p. 2 n. 7, probably spurious; Zachrisson 1935, no. 9, on identification; Harmer, Writs, p. 144 and n. 1, generally considered spurious; Ker, Catalogue, p. 359 (no. 306), art b, on MS 10; Hart, ECEE, no. 74 (pp. 54-8), may be authentic, discusses bounds; Whitelock 1969, p. 113, probably a genuine base at least, cf. agreements with S 506; Hart, ECNE, p. 385, appears to be a late forgery based on an authentic chancery text, bounds certainly pre-Conquest; Keynes 1980, p. 143 n. 212, dubious; Gransden 1985, p. 12, cited; Hart 1992, p. 59, 62-6, authenticity uncertain, discusses bounds; Dumville 1993, pp. 35-6, 38, deserves favourable reconsideration; Wormald 1996, p. 123; Sharpe 2003, p. 256, only early Bury royal diploma which is "not certainly spurious"