Page:St. Oswald and the Church of Worcester.djvu/39

 only hazard a conjecture as to the cause of variation. We may suppose that the original charter was mutilated at the end, so that the names were lost; and that a later scribe wrote on the margin or between the lines the Saxon note which perplexes us. At any rate we are justified in suspecting that the copy does not represent the charter in its original form; and we shall be prepared to reject the statement about Wynsige and the monks, if we find it to be inconsistent with historical probability.

After 969 there is, as we have said, a considerable gap in the Worcester charters; and the next charter which gives us a list of the 'familia' does not come till 977. Oswald became archbishop of York after Oskytel's death (1 Nov. 971), possibly not till 972 (Flor. Wig.); but he retained the see of Worcester. King Edgar died July 8, 975: a reaction against the monks who had displaced clerks followed; but we have no indication that Worcester was affected by it. We must now notice two charters which fall within this gap.

B. C. S. 1293 is a memorandum of a lease granted by Archbishop Oswald at London in 973: only a few signatories are named, and these are not of the Worcester 'familia' But in 974 we have a charter (B. C. S. 1298) which has no attestations, but is said in a Saxon note to have been granted 'with the witness of Wynsige dean and all the monks at Worcester'. This is a parallel to the charter which we have already considered, and it must be examined in its turn.

It belongs to another type of Oswald's charters. It begins 'Ego Osualdus archiepiscopus ergo Christi crismate praesul iudicatus': then the date A. D., and the body of the grant ending with the word 'restituatur' Next we have the bounds: 'Þis syndon …' After this we have two Saxon sentences: (1) 'This was done with the witness of Wynsige dean and all the monks at Worcester;' (2) 'Brihtlaf was the first man, and now it is held by his sons, Byrhtwine and Byrhtmær.' There is no list of the 'familia' attesting.

It is plain that the second of these notes is no part of the original document, but a subsequent addition. The first is perplexing; but,