12 8. V. MARCH, 1919.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
73
document. A " duplicate," if a duplicate
existed, would indeed have equal validity
with the original, or rather would be an
original itself, as, for example, in the case
of a chirograph of a convention or a
indenture. What MB. BADDELEY quotes i
only a piinted copy of a manuscript copy
but how can a mere copy, or the print of a
copy, be " more perfect " than the origina 1
charter ? This " more perfect duplicate '
turns out to be part of a monkish interpola
tion in a MS. copy of the ' Gesta ' made
probably late in the twelfth century at
Gloucester by a Gloucester scribe, for the use
of the Gloucester abbey of St. Peter. More
hereafter. En attendant I may remark that
Dr. Stubbs will have none of it as part oi
the genuine text, consigning it to an igno-
minious place in minute type at the very
end of Liber V. Thus the evidence is not
so irrefragable as MB. BADDELEY thinks.
It is not finally conclusive for these four
reasons :
1. It is found only in a copy.
2. The only original and genuine docu- ment knows nothing about it.
3. There is a suspicious resemblance between the two contending dates the quoted one, MCXXVIL, and the apparently obvious one, MCXXIII. suggesting a pos- sible blunder on the part of a copyist .
4. History seems to agree. I have proved that the charter passed in one of two short intervals February to June, 1123, or Sep- tember, 1126, to August, 1127 and that internal evidence points to a date when the King held a great council of prelates and barons at Winchester. In each of those two brief intervals the King did hold such a council the one at Winchester at Easter, 1123 ; the other, not at Winchester, but at Westminster, Christmas, 1126 ('D.N.B.'). The great ecclesiastical Council of West- minster in May, 1127, is ruled out.
1 MS. By a pardonable lapse of
MB. BADDELEY surely had for-
but affuerunt, not^iffluerunt, is the word in
the original MS.
memory
gotten that he must have written affuerunt (were present) in the copy from the Glouces- ter original which, as he tells us, he made " two or three years back."
MB. G. H. WHITE'S convincing reasoning I hope, with the Editor's kind permission, to refer to in my next.
CHABLES SWYNNEBTON. Stanley St. Leonards Vicarage, Glos.
MB. ST. CLAIB BADDELEY refers to a " variety " of Henry I.'s charter in the ' Gloucester Cartulary,' i. 235 (i.e., no. cxlii.), attested by Roger de Gloucester himself ; but this is evidently an earlier charter granted by the King at Falaise before Roger died of his wound. It is the " Confirmatio " printed by MB. BADDELEY which is a dupli- cate of no. cxlii., with the addition of the missing list of witnesses the only variants (apart from the spelling of proper names)
being
horto.
dux " for rex, and " orti " for de
(No doubt the same careless scribe
who changed the king into a duke has dis
arranged the list of witnesses ; for the
bishops should precede the Chancellor, and
the Count of Meulan should precede Richard
de Reviers.) As Waldric the Chancellor
became Bishop of Laon in November, 1106,
we can at last fix the date of this charter,
within the limits circa July, 1105 November,
1106.
For although MB. BADDELEY assigns the death of Roger to 1106, I think that the "loucester monks (i. 69) and MB. SWYN- NEBTON are rig;ht in giving the date as 1105. doubt William of Malmesbury speaks of ihe event as if it occurred not long before
- he battle of Tinchebrai (Sept. 28, 1106),
ut he summarizes occurrences in Normandy ery briefly here (ed. Stubbs, pp. 474-5).
For these reasons, notwithstanding the Again, Orderic appears to record the cam-
rsion of the original which occurs in naicm. whirvh ^^r\ with the abortive
version
the corrupt insertion in William of Malmes-
bury, I still am strongly of opinion that
the Gloucester charter passed at Easter, 1123
of course aptjd Wintoniam. (See also my
argument at 12 S. iv. 149.) On the other
hand, the date may be 1127.
MB. BADDELEY chides Mr. W. H. Hart, the editor of the ' Gloucester Cartulary ' "(Rolls Series), for having, as he supposes, misprinted affuerunt in his rendering of the
paign, which ended with the abortive
attempt on Falaise, under 1106 ; but I think
that M. Le Prevost shows clearly that the
year should be 1105 (Ordericus Vitalis, ed.
Soc. de 1'Histoire de France, iv. 218-20).
Cp. Ramsay, ' Foundations of England,'
ii. 252-3.
As this charter (cxlii.) also confirms the grant of land through Walter de Gloucester in exchange for the monks' garden, t is evident that their historian is wrong in
Gloucester charter, instead of affluerunt, assigning this exchange to 1109 (i. 59)
- and he calls it " a ruinous change." There in the passage which I quoted ante, p. 18.
is, indeed, a poetical flavour about affluerunt,
the word in the "more perfect duplicate,"
The true date cannot be later than Novem
ber, 1106; but, as the charter mentions it
