Notes
*Stevenson 1914, p. 703, dubious or spurious; Stenton 1918, p. 438, 'no conclusive exception need be taken' (= Stenton 1970, p. 53); Stenton 1918/1, pp. 258-9, authentic; Levison 1946, pp. 226-8, authentic; Darlington 1955, p. 25; Stenton 1955, p. 23, authentic; John 1960, pp. 9, 10, 67; Finberg, ECW, no. 551, authentic; Chaplais 1965, pp. 55-6, dubious (= 1973, pp. 36-7); Chaplais 1966, p. 26, on formulation (=1981, XV p. 26); Sims-Williams 1975, pp. 5-6, on wording of sanction; Cox 1976, p. 44, on place-name; Harrison 1976, p. 69, authentic, discusses formulation; Whitelock, EHD, pp. 480-1, some encouraging features and motive for forgery seems lacking; Meyer 1981, pp. 335-6 n. 3, on estate history; Scharer 1982, p. 23 n. 3, p. 30 n. 46, p. 76 n. 36, p. 93 n. 47, p. 167 n. 38, p. 189 n. 139, on details of formulation, expresses reservations; Keen 1984, p. 213, suggests early Shaftesbury connection; Wormald 1985, p. 25, broadly trustworthy, p. 30 n. 32, dates 676; Edwards 1988, pp. 229-34, authentic; Sims-Williams 1990, p. 112, may have been drafted by Bishop Leuthere or one of his circle; Murphy 1992, on estate history and topography; Kelly, Shaftesbury, pp. 4-10, edited version of authentic text.
