| Description | From: Cnut, king of England
To: Canterbury Cathedral Priory
Cnut has placed his gold crown on the altar of Christ in Canterbury, to the use of the church. He also grants the priory the port of Sandwich and all issues from the water of the same on each side of the river, whomever the land may belong to, from Pepperness to 'mearcesfleote', so that the priory shall receive the rights for a distance as far as a small axe called a 'taperax' can be thrown from a ship when it is floating on the river at full tide to the land, for the monks' food. No man shall have any custom in the port except the priory. The priory shall also have a small boat ('navicula'), the right of ferrying across the harbour and toll from all ships coming to the port. If anything is left in the sea at the fullest extent of low tide and beyond that to a point that can be reached by a man holding out a piece of wood called a 'spreot' and stretching out as far as he can, that shall also belong to the priory. Half of whatever is found in this half of the sea and brought to Sandwich shall be the monks', whether clothing, fishery, arms, iron, gold or silver (the other half shall remain to those who found it), notwithstanding any earlier charters to the contrary . Anathema. Dated 1023.
Witnesses: Cnut, king of the English; AEthelnoth, archbishop of Canterbury; AElfric, archbishop of York; AElfwine, bishop of London; AElfsige, bishop of Winchester; Bryhtwold, bishop of Ramsbury; AEthelric, bishop of Dorchester; AElmaer, Godwine, Bryhtwine and AEthelstan, bishops; AElmaer, Brihtmaer, Brihtwig and Wulnoth, abbots; Godwine, Eglaf, Yric and Thrym, earls ('dux'); Thord,, Agemund, AElric, AElfwine, Brihtric, Leofric, Siraed, Godwine and Eadmaer, thanes ('minister') . The traditional consensus of scholarly opinion is that this is a post-Conquest fabrication, probably based on a genuine charter (not necessarily concerning Sandwich), to bolster Christ Church's claim to the disputed Sandwich grant but Brooks and Kelly raise significant points in its favour, so that it cannot be ruled out that it may in fact be an honest copy of a genuine grant. [Date: handwriting.] Original dated 1023, no month.
Brooks, cited below, considers this to be derived from a late 11th century forgery, based on a more limited original grant of 1023.
Endorsed with description and note that the document is in Latin in 12th cent hands and 'Sanduuiz' and note of registration in late 13th cent hands. |
| Related Material | Another version in Latin: CCA-DCc-ChAnt/S/259
Another version in Old English: CCA-DCc-ChAnt/S/260
Registered versions: CCA-DCc-Register/A, ff144v-145r, and CCA-DCc-Register/E, f45r (codicelli section) and CCA-DCc-Register/B, ff171r-171v, and CCA-DCc-Register/E, ff200r-200v |