The Peace of Edward and Guthrum forgery, c.1002-23

Dr Alexander Thomas introduces The Peace of Edward and Guthrum forgery, with a transcription and translation of Textus Roffensis, folios 40r-41v by Dr Christopher Monk.²

The Peace of Edward and Guthrum (hereafter Edward-Guthrum) is an infamous forgery of a Viking Age treaty text, supposedly between two kings, Edward the Elder (r.899-924) and Guthrum. It is well known among historians of the early medieval period because it was only discovered to be a fake in 1941 by Dorothy Whitelock.³ Up to that point, according to Patrick Wormald (p. 389), it had been considered a genuine text by many leading scholars in the field since at least 1568, including Felix Liebermann (the brother of the German impressionist artist, Max Liebermann), Benjamin Thorpe, and Frederick Levi Attenborough (the father of Sir David and Lord Richard Attenborough).⁴

Edward-Guthrum was created by Wulfstan, who was archbishop of York from 1002 until his death in 1023. In addition to his religious duties and responsibilities, Wulfstan of York became an influential figure within the court of Æthelred II, or ‘the Unready’, (r.978-1014 and 1014-1016) and helped to produce many of the King’s genuine law codes. Edward-Guthrum seems to have been created by Wulfstan to uphold the security and, to an extent, the authority of the Church in northern England, where Danish law was enforced.⁵ According to Wormald (p. 390), this appears to be evident from the second half of the preamble to Edward-Guthrum:

And they set worldly punishments also for those things for which they knew they might not otherwise regulate for the majority, knowing many a person would not otherwise submit to sacred remedy as they should. And thus they set a worldly remedy, in common with Christ and king, wherever a person would not submit legally to a sacred remedy as the bishops determine.⁶

Whitelock (pp. 7-9) highlights two reasons why Edward-Guthrum is a forgery. First, it uses many distinctive expressions, or formulae, which were frequently used by Wulfstan within his writings, including other law texts and homilies (Whitelock, p. 7). Second, the text uses terms not seen in any law code dating to before 1008, such as sibleger and leohtgesceot (Whitelock, pp. 8-9). Sibleger, meaning ‘incest’ in Old English, was an offence which features solely within the law codes of King Cnut (r.1016-1035), but also within Wulfstan’s writings (Whitelock, p. 8). Leohtgesceot was a church due, or payment, for lighting churches; this due also featured within Wulfstan’s works. There exist several lists of tenth-century church dues, and examples are found in Æthelstan’s Tithe Edict, Edmund’s First Law Code and Edgar’s Andover Code. Not one of these contains the term leohtgesceot (Whitelock, p. 9).

Yet before 1941, historians had good reason to believe Edward-Guthrum was genuine. After all, they had ten surviving land-granting charters,⁷ dating to the tenth century, which refer to a man called Guthrum who had the title dux or King. Some historians – for example, Thorpe (p. 166) and Attenborough (p. 97) – thought this could not have been the Guthrum, King of East Anglia, who had agreed the original peace with Edward the Elder’s father, Alfred the Great (r.871-899). This peace agreement is arguably found across two texts: the Treaty of Wedmore, which is a text with no surviving copies and which we only know about from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles,⁸ and the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum (hereafter Alfred-Guthrum).⁹ As Guthrum died in 890, the land grants, and consequently Edward-Guthrum, must have been referring to a second Guthrum (Thorpe, p. 166, note a), and it was this assertion which provided much of the rationale behind the idea that Edward-Guthrum was genuine.

The Textus Roffensis version of Edward-Guthrum is very closely related to a copy of the text found within the manuscript known as Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 383 (Wormald, p. 390).¹⁰ It also features within the Quadripartitus collection – a series of nine manuscripts¹¹ which in part provide a foundation to the Laws of Henry I, or the Leges Henrici Primi.¹² Edward-Guthrum features within seven of these manuscripts.¹³

Within Textus Roffensis, Edward-Guthrum is the only Danish peace document – a feature it shares with the manuscript known as British Library, Royal MS 11 B.ii. Textus Roffensis may not have included the genuine Alfred-Guthrum for two reasons. First, there may have been an unintentional omission by the scribe. Second, Textus Roffensis also includes the text known as Wergeld, which seems to be related to the earlier blood-feud laws of King Edmund (r.939-946) (Wormald, p. 390).¹⁴ Wormald explains that:

[Textus Roffensis] followed ‘Edward-Guthrum’ by Wergeld with no break, as if the two had become inextricably entwined, and it had no copy of Alfred-Guthrum at all. [Textus Roffensis’] copy[…], evidently disordered in that Wergeld came so hard on ‘Edward-Guthrum’, may just have lost Alfred-Guthrum, to which its rubric for ‘Edward-Guthrum’[…] should have applied (Wormald, p. 390).

It would therefore seem that the reasons behind Edward-Guthrum’s inclusion and Alfred-Guthrum’s exclusion from Textus Roffensis relied on the scribe and the texts’ transmission – the transmission being the way in which the texts were copied by scribe to scribe and from manuscript to manuscript.

In contrast, the aforementioned Cambridge manuscript has Edward-Guthrum following Alfred-Guthrum, which might suggest the scribe believed Edward-Guthrum was a successor to Alfred-Guthrum (Wormald, p. 390). Yet within Quadripartitus, Alfred-Guthrum and Edward-Guthrum are separated by a distinct third text, known evocatively as the Alfred-Guthrum Treaty Appendix.¹⁵ It is not clear why the scribe ordered these texts in this way within Quadripartitus; nevertheless, in this way, Edward-Guthrum is presented as a successor to Alfred-Guthrum (Wormald, p. 390).

The Peace of Edward-Guthrum may be a forgery by Wulfstan of York, but it provides a valuable insight into the importance, the peculiarities, and the occasionally complex transmission of early English laws.

Dr Alexander Thomas

Transcription

40r (select folio number to open facsimile)

Þis syndon þa domas ðe ælfred cyncg ⁊ guþrum
_AND þis is seo gerædnis, cyncg gecuran.
eac þe ælfred cyng, ⁊ guðrum cyng,
⁊ eft eadward cyng, ⁊ guðrum cyng
gecuran ⁊ gecwædon, þa þa engle ⁊ dene to fri-
þe ⁊ to freondscipe fullice fengon, ⁊ þa witan
eac þe syððan wæron oft ⁊ unseldan þæt seolfe
geniwodon, ⁊ mid gode gehihtan. Ðis ærest
þæt hig gecwædon, þæt hi ænne god lufian woldon,
⁊ ælcne hæþendom georne aweorpen.¹⁶ ⁊ hig
gesetton woruldlice steora eac for ðam þingum
þe hig wistan þæt hig elles ne mihton manegum
gesteoran, ne fela manna nolde to godcundre
bote elles gebugan swa hy sceolde. ⁊ þa woruld-
bote hig gesetton gemæne, criste, ⁊ cynge, swa
hwar swa man nolde godcunde bote gebugan
mid rihte to bisceopa dihte. ⁊ þæt is þonon æ-
rest þæt hig gecwædon, þæt cyricgrið binnan
wagum, ⁊ cyninges handgrið stande efne un-
wemme. ⁊ gif hwa cristendom wyrde, oððe
hæþendom weorþige, wordes oððe weorces,
gylde swa wer swa wite, swa lahslitte, be þam
þe syo dæde sy. ⁊ gyf gehadod man gestalie,
oððe gefeohte,¹⁷ oððe forswerige, oððe forlicge,

40v

gebete þæt be þam þe¹⁸ seo dæde sy, swa be were, swa be
wite, swa be lahslitte, ⁊ for gode huru bete swa
canon tæce, ⁊ þæs borh finde, oððe carcern¹⁹ ge-
buge. ⁊ gif mæssepreost folc miswyssige æt freol-
se, oððe æt fæstene, gylde xxx. scillinga mid englum,
⁊ mid denum þreo healf mare. Gif preost to riht-
andagan crisman ne fecce, oððe fulluhtes for-
wyrne, þam þe þæs þearf sy, gylde wite mid en-
glum, ⁊ mid denum lahslit, þæt is twelf oran. ⁊æt
syblegerum þa witan geræddan, þæt cyng ah þone
uferan, ⁊ bisceop þone nyþeran, butan hit man
gebete for gode ⁊ for worulde, be þam þe seo dæ-
de sy, swa bisceop getæce. Gif twegen gebro-
ðra, oððe twegen genyhe magas wið an wif for-
licgan, beten swyþe georne swa swa man geþafige,
swa be wite, swa be lah(slitte), be þam þe seo dæde sy. Gif gehadod man hine forwyrce mid deaþscyl-
de, gewilde hine man, ⁊ healde to bisceopes dome. ⁊ gif deaþscyldig man scrift spræce gyrne, ne
him man næfre ne wyrne. ⁊ ealle godes gerih-
to, forðige man georne be godes mildse,²⁰ ⁊ be þam
witan, þe witan toledan. Gif hwa teoþunge for-
healde, gylde lahslit mid denum, wite mid englum. Gif hwa romfeoh forhealde, gylde lahslit mid

41r

denum, wite mid englum. Gif hwa leohtgesceot ne
gelæste, gylde lahslit mid denum, wite mid englum. Gif hwa sulhælmyssan ne sylle, gylde lahslit mid
denum, wite mid englum. Gif hwa ænigra godcun-
dra gerihto forwyrne, gylde lahslit mid denum,
wite mid englum. ⁊ gif he wigie, ⁊ man gewundie,
beo his weres scyldig. Gif he man to deaþe ge-
fylle, beo he þonne utlah, ⁊ his hente mid he-
arme, ælc þara þe riht wille. ⁊ gif he gewyrce
þæt hine man afylle, þurh þi hine man gean godes
ryht, oððe þæs cynges geonbyrde, gif man þæt
gesoðige, licge ægylde. Sunnandæges cypinge
gif hwa agynne, þolie þæs ceapes, ⁊ twelf orena
mid denum, ⁊ xxx scillinga mid englum. Gif frigman
freolsdæge wyrce, ðolie his freotes, oððe gylde
wite lahslite. Ðeowman þolie his hyde, oððe hyd-
gyldes. Gif hlaford his þeowan freolsdæge
nyde to weorce, gylde lahslitte inne on deone
lage, ⁊ wite mid englum. Gif frigman rihtfæ-
sten abrece, gylde wite, oððe lahslite. Gif hit
þeowman gedo, ðolie his hyde, oððe hydgyldes. Ordel ⁊ aðas syndon tocwedene freolsdagum, ⁊
rihtfæstendagum, ⁊ se ðe þæt abrece, gylde
lahslit mid denum, wite mid englum. Gif man

41v

wealdan mage, ne dyde man næfre on sunnandæ-
ges freolse ænigne forwyrhtne, ac wylde ⁊ he-
alde, þæt se freolsdæg agan sy. Gif limlæweo
lama þe forworht wære weorþe forlæten, ⁊ he
æfter þam ðreo niht alibbe. Siððan man mot
hylpan be bisceopes leafe, se ðe wylle beorgan
sare ⁊ saule. Gif wiccan oððe wigleras, manswo-
ran, oððe morðwyrhtan, oððe fule afylede
æbære, horcwenan, ahwar on lande wurðan
agytene, ðonne fyse hi man of earde, ⁊ clæn-
sie þa ðeode, oððe on earde forfare hy mid eal-
le, buton hig geswican þe deoppar gebetan.²¹ Gif man gehadodne
oððe ælðeodigne þurh enig ðing forræde
æt feo oððe æt feore, þonne sceal him cyng be-
on oððan eorl ðær on lande, ⁊ bisceop ðere þeo-
de for mæg, ⁊ for mundboran, buton he elles oðer²²
ne²³ hæbbe, ⁊ bete man georne be ðam þe seo dæde sy,
criste ⁊ cyninge, swa hit gebyrige, oððe þa dæde
wrece swiðe deope, þe cyning sy on ðeode.²⁴

Translation

These are the judgements which King Alfred and King Guthrum approved.²⁵

And, moreover, this is the decree which King Alfred and King Guthrum,²⁶ and afterwards King Edward and King Guthrum, approved and proclaimed when the English and the Danes fully entered into peace and friendship; and the counsellors also,²⁷ who were later, often and frequently renewed the very same, and augmented it with good.²⁸

This is the first thing which they proclaimed, that they would love one God, and each would earnestly cast off heathendom. And they set worldly punishments also for those things for which they knew they might not otherwise regulate for the majority, knowing many a person would not otherwise submit to sacred remedy as they should.²⁹ And thus they set a worldly remedy, in common with Christ and king, wherever a person would not submit legally to a sacred remedy as the bishops determine.³⁰

And, therefore, this is first which they proclaimed, that the right of church sanctuary,³¹ and likewise the king’s protection, should stand unviolated.

And if anyone should violate Christianity or honour heathendom, in word or deed, that one should pay either wergild³² or a fine – or lahslit –³³ according to what the deed is.

And if an ordained person should steal, or fight, or falsely swear or fornicate, he should atone for it according to what the deed is, either by wergild or by a fine [Old English (OE) ‘wite’] – or by lahslit – and should atone especially before God as canon [law] teaches,³⁴ and should find surety for this or else go to prison.

And if a mass-priest should mislead the people with respect to festival or fasting,³⁵ he should pay 30 shillings among the English, and among the Danish three half-marks.³⁶

If a priest should not fetch the chrism at the right time or should refuse baptism, even though it is necessary, he should pay a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English, and among the Danish lahslit, that is twelve oras.³⁷

And for incest the counsellors are to judge – the king has authority over the higher-ranked; a bishop, the lower-ranked – unless a person atones before God and before the world, according to what the deed is, as the bishop directs.

If two brothers, or two near relatives, lie with one woman, they should atone with great earnestness,³⁸ accordingly as one may decide, either by a fine [OE, ‘wite’] or by lahslit, according to what the deed is.

If an ordained person should become guilty himself of a crime deserving death, one should rule over him and hold to the bishop’s judgment.

If a condemned person should earnestly wish to confess, no one should ever refuse him.

And one should earnestly carry out all of God’s laws according to God’s mercy, and according to the penalty³⁹ which the [king’s] counsellors bring forth.

If someone should withhold a tithe payment, one should pay lahslit among the Danes, a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English.

If someone should withhold Rome-money,⁴⁰ one should pay lahslit among the Danes, a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English.

If someone should not meet the payment of ‘light-tax’,⁴¹ one should pay lahslit among the Danes, a fine [OE ‘wite] among the English.

If someone should not give plough-alms, one should pay lahslit among the Danes, a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English.⁴²

If someone refuses any sacred dues, one should pay lahslit among the Danes, a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English.

And if he should fight and wound someone, he should be liable for his wergild.

If he should put someone to death, he should then be an outlaw; and each of those who wishes justice may pursue and seize him with authority.⁴³

And if he should himself slay someone – through which he himself would strive against both God’s law and that of the king – if one may prove it to be true, he shall lie [dead] without compensation.⁴⁴

If someone should begin Sunday trading, that one should suffer the loss of the goods, and pay twelve oras among the Danish and 30 shillings among the English.

If a freeman should work on a feast day,⁴⁵ he should suffer the loss of his liberty, or pay a fine [OE ‘wite’] or lahslit. A slave should suffer the loss of his hide or [pay] a fine in lieu of flogging.⁴⁶

If a lord should oblige his slave to work on a feast day, he should pay lahslit within the Danelaw, and a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English.

If a freeman should break a lawful fast,⁴⁷ he should pay a fine [OE ‘wite’] or lahslit. If a slave does this, he should suffer the loss of his hide or [pay] the fine in lieu of flogging.

An ordeal⁴⁸ and oaths shall be forbidden on feast days and lawful fasting days, and he who breaks that should pay lahslit among the Danes, a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English.

If one has the power to govern, one should never put to death a criminal on any Sunday festival, but one should subdue and hold him until the feast day is passed.

If a criminal, who was maimed of limb, should be left [for dead], and after that he lives three nights, afterwards he who wishes to spare suffering and soul may help him, by the bishop’s leave.

If witches⁴⁹ or sorcerers, perjurers or murderers, or foul, polluted, notorious whores should be found to be anywhere in the land, then one should drive them from the country and cleanse the nation, or destroy them altogether in the country, unless they cease and then repent deeply.

If one should plot, through any means, against an ordained person or a foreigner,⁵⁰ with respect to property or life, then the king – or a jarl there in [Danish] land⁵¹ – and a bishop of the people shall be as kin and as protector, unless he may have someone else. And one should, as is fitting, atone earnestly according to the deed that has been done to Christ and king,⁵² who is king among the people; or one should punish the deed very severely.

Websites

Bosworth-Toller. Bosworth Toller’s Anglo-Saxon Dictionary online

Early English Laws, Early English Laws: Home

Sawyer, The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters, Electronic Sawyer: The Electronic Sawyer (cam.ac.uk)

Bibliography

Attenborough, F. L., The Laws of the Earliest English Kings (Russell and Russell, 1922).

Baker, P. S. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS F) (D. S. Brewer, 2000).

Bately, J. M. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS A) (D. S. Brewer, 1986).

Charles-Edwards, Thomas, ‘The Penitential of Theodore and the Iudicia Theodori’, in Archbishop Theodore: Commemorative Studies on His Life and Influence, ed. Michael Lapidge (Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 141-74.

Corèdon, Christopher, with Ann Williams, A Dictionary of Medieval Terms & Phrases (D. S. Brewer, 2004).

Cross, J. E. and Andrew Hamer, ed. and trans., Wulfstan’s Canon Law Collection (D. S. Brewer, 1999).

Cubbin, G. P. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS D) (D. S. Brewer, 1996).

Cubitt, Catherine, ‘Bishops, Priests and Penance in Late Anglo-Saxon England’, Early Medieval Europe 14 (2006), pp. 41-63.

Downer, L. J. (ed.), Leges Henrici Primi (Clarendon Press, 1972).

Irvine, S. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS E) (D. S. Brewer, 2004).

Jayakumar, S., ‘Some Reflections on the “Foreign Policies” of Edgar “the Peaceable”’, Haskins Society Journal 10 (2002), pp. 17-38.

Jurasinski, Stefan, The Old English Penitentials and Anglo-Saxon Law (Cambridge University Press, 2015).

Keynes, Simon, ‘Alms’, in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes and Donald Scragg (Blackwell Publishing, 1999), p. 31.

Lambert, Tom, Law and Order in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford University Press, 2017).

Liebermann, F., Die Gesetze Der Angelsachsen Hrsg. Im Auftrage Der Savigny-Stiftung (Niemeyer, 1903). Available at Early English Laws.

Miglio, Viola Giulia, ‘Old Norse and Old English Language Contact: Scandinavian Legal Terminology in Anglo-Saxon Laws’, Nordicum-Mediterraneum 5 (1), available as an open access article at Old Norse and Old English Language Contact: Scandinavian Legal Terminology in Anglo-Saxon Laws - Nordicum-Mediterraneum (unak.is)

Monk, Christopher J., ‘Framing Sex: Sexual Discourse in Text and Image in Anglo-Saxon England (Manchester University, unpublished PhD thesis, 2012), available here.

Nightingale, Pamela, ‘The Ora, the Mark, and the Mancus: Weight-Standards and the Coinage in Eleventh-Century England: Part 2’, The Numismatic Chronicle, vol. 144 (1984), pp. 234-48.

O’Keeffe, K. O. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS C) (D. S. Brewer, 2001).

Staffrod, Pauline, ‘Ealdorman’, in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes and Donald Scragg (Blackwell Publishing, 1999), pp. 152-53.

Taylor, S. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS B) (D. S. Brewer, 1983).

Thorpe, B., Ancient Laws and Institutes of England: Comprising Laws Enacted Under the Anglo-Saxon Kings from Aethelbirht to Cnut (Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1840).

Whitelock, D., ‘Wulfstan and the So-Called Laws of Edward and Guthrum’, The English Historical Review 56 (1941), pp. 1-21. Available at JSTOR.

Wormald, P., “Quadripartitus”, Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy Essays in Honour of Sir James Holt, ed. Hudson J. and Garnett G. (Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 111-147.

Wormald, P., The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century, Vol. 1 Legislation and Its Limits (Blackwell, 1999).

Yorke (a), B. A. E., ‘Councils, King’s’, in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes and Donald Scragg (Blackwell Publishing, 1999), pp. 124-25.

Yorke (b), B. A. E., ‘Guthrum’, in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes and Donald Scragg (Blackwell Publishing, 1999), p. 223.

Footnotes

1 An imposture, or forgery, written by Wulfstan, archbishop of York (1002-23), thus giving us the eleventh-century date.

2 Sincere thanks to Elise Fleming for proofreading this introduction, translation and notes.

3 See Whitelock’s paper “Wulfstan and the so-called Laws of Edward and Guthrum” (1941). See bibliography for the full reference.

4 See for references to Edward-Guthrum, Felix Liebermann, pp. 128-134; Benjamin Thorpe pp. 166-176; and Frederick Levi Attenborough, pp. 102-109. Please refer to the bibliography for full references.

5 See the introduction for Edward-Guthrum on Early English Laws [accessed 8th March 2023].

6 Translation by Christopher Monk; see his full translation below.

7 See Sawyer, charter numbers S393, S400, S405, S412, S413, S416, S417, S418, S418a and S434 [accessed 8th March 2023].

8 The Treaty of Wedmore (also known as the Treaty of Chippenham) established a peace between the West Saxons and the Danes following a decades long conflict. It also resulted in Guthrum, King of East Anglia, and several of his men being baptised in the Christian faith personally by Alfred the Great. For various accounts of the Treaty of Wedmore, see Taylor, pp. 36-37, for the Abingdon I Chronicle; Bately, pp. 50-51, for the Winchester or Parker Chronicle; Cubbin, p. 27, for the Worcester Chronicle; Baker, pp. 71-72, for the Bilingual Canterbury Epitome; O’Keeffe, pp. 61-62, for the Abingdon II Chronicle; and Irvine, pp. 50-51, for the Peterborough or Laud Chronicle. Full references are given in the bibliography.

9 In contrast to Wedmore, copies of Alfred-Guthrum still exist. The text established a boundary between south-west and north-east England and introduced new regulations to aid relations between the two sides. See Early English Laws [accessed 9th March 2023] for more information on this text. Alexander Thomas’ doctoral thesis, which examined the boundary Alfred-Guthrum created, can be found within the British Library’s EThOS catalogue.

10 Within his The Making of English Law book (see bibliography for full reference) Wormald follows Liebermann’s system of assigning sigla (abbreviations) to early English manuscripts and law texts. For example, Textus Roffensis is given the siglum H, Edward-Guthrum is abbreviated to EGu, and the Cambridge manuscript is referred to as B.

11 For this introduction, the four manuscripts known as the “London Collection” are also included. See Patrick Wormald’s chapter on the Quadripartitus, pp. 111-147, for a fuller explanation. A full reference can be found within the bibliography.

12 The Laws of Henry I provide a record of those enforced during the reign of the King. The Laws contain aspects of pre-Norman Conquest texts among other evident sources. See L. J. Downer’s book and Early English Laws [accessed 9th March 2023] for more information on this text. Full references can be found in the bibliography.

13 This includes a manuscript within the “London Collection” as well as Textus Roffensis itself.

14 A transcription and translation of Wergeld is being prepared for the Textus Roffensis pages on this website; see also Early English Laws [accessed 9th March 2023].

15 See Wormald, pp. 379-80; and Jayakumar, p. 23, note 30.

16 The first ‘e’ in ‘aweorpen’ is inserted above the line.

17 The ‘o’ in ‘gefeohte’ is inserted above the line.

18 ‘þe’ is inserted above the line.

19 The second ‘r’ of ‘carcern’ is inserted above the line.

20 The ‘l’ of ‘mildse’ is inserted above the line.

21 ‘þe deoppor gebetan’ appears in the left margin. The scribe provides an insertion mark after ‘geswican’ with a corresponding mark alongside the text in the margin.

22 ‘oðer’ appears in the right margin.

23 ‘ne’ appears in the left margin.

24 In the manuscript the text known as Wergeld – beginning ‘Twelf’ – has been appended as if it carries straight on from Peace of Edward and Guthrum; however, the two are discrete texts. A transcription and translation of Wergeld is forthcoming for the Textus Roffensis pages of this website.

25 The heading was likely provided by the Textus Roffensis scribe, rather than included in the manuscript he was copying.

26 Barbara Yorke explains that, ‘Guthrum was the leader of a Viking force which joined the Great Army in England in 871. He came close to overcoming King Alfred of Wessex in 878 when he forced him into hiding after a surprise attack. Later in the same year Guthrum was decisively defeated at the battle of Edington and agreed to be baptised with Alfred as his godfather. Guthrum retreated to rule the Viking settlers in East Anglia and issued coins in his baptismal name of Æthelstan. The text of a treaty survives which Guthrum made with Alfred between 878 and his death in 890.’ See Yorke (b) in the bibliography.

27 The king’s counsellors or advisers were known collectively in Old English as the witan, literally ‘wise ones’ or ‘wise men’; we might use the modern term ‘king’s council’ to approximate the collective role. Those advising the king included members of the royal house, archbishops and bishops, prominent abbots, ‘ealdormen’ and other leading laymen, such as thegns. Occasionally, the queen or queen-mother and abbesses would have been consulted; for further information, see the overview in Yorke (a); details in bibliography.

28 Wulfstan rather cunningly alludes to later royal counsellors augmenting the decree with ‘good’. It would seem that such ‘good’ included his own fabrications! Perhaps the fact that Alfred and Guthrum had actually produced a peace treaty, which included various laws relating to criminal and legal matters (this treaty is not preserved in Textus Roffensis), gave the archbishop enough truth upon which to build his fictional set of laws.

29 ‘remedy’, or ‘penance’.

30 ‘sacred remedy as the bishops determine’. The allusion is probably to the use of penitentials – handbooks used by priests – for determining the amount of fasting due as penance for a wide variety of sins. For the role of bishops in the practice of penance, see Cubitt. A number of English penitentials were circulating from as early as the eighth century, including one Anglo-Latin penitential attributed to (though not actually written by) Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury (668-90), and, during Wulfstan’s time, several vernacular penitentials. For more on the vernacular penitentials, see Jurasinski, and, especially in the context of sexual sins, Monk; for the penitential of Theodore, see Charles-Edwards, and, especially in the context of sexual sins, Monk, appendix 2, pp. 254-60; see the bibliography for all references.

31 ‘church sanctuary’, literally, ‘church-peace within the walls’.

32 ‘wer’ is used in the text, an abbreviation for wergild, which is the monetary value placed on the life of a free person, used in early English laws in matters of compensation and fines.

33 ‘or a fine [OE ‘wite] or lahslit’. Attention is paid from this point in the law-code to the corresponding English and Danish terms, wite and lahslit, which in this context both mean ‘fine’. Viola Giulia Miglio explains concerning the term lahslit: ‘The term is of Scandinavian origin, and enters OE as lahslit […]: it means “breach of the law” or “fine for perturbing the peace/ for a committed crime”. […] A cognate is not found in ON [Old Norse], but this OE term is equivalent to ON lögbrot “breaking of the law”.’ (Miglio, 4.3; see the bibliography)

34 Wulfstan seems to be alluding to his ‘Canon law’ collection, a collation of religious and moral laws and regulations written by or attributed to figures of authority in the Christian Church; an edition and translation of Wulfstan’s collection is available, written by J. E. Cross and Andrew Hamer (see Cross in the bibliography).

35 ‘festival or fasting’, referring to Christian festivals – or feast days – and fasting periods assigned by the Church.

36 The Danish mark was a weight-standard measurement, composed of eight oras. Pamela Nightingale observes that ‘there is no evidence’ that it ‘was adopted in England outside the Danelaw before Cnut’s conquest’. The ‘half-mark’ is first referred to in English sources in the treaty of Alfred and Guthrum where it is used as the weight for gold. She continues to note its appearance in the law-codes of the Danelaw but that ‘even there it seems to have survived more as a traditional fine, rather than as the normal accounting unit or standard of weight’ (Nightingale, p. 235; see bibliography).

37 There were eight oras in the Danish mark (Nightingale, p.234; see bibliography), so this is the same fine as in the previous clause.

38 To understand this, we need to take into account Canon law, which forbade the marriage of a surviving brother to his deceased brother’s widow, as she was considered the surviving brother’s sister (Cross, pp. 153-54, no. 139; see bibliography). Moreover, Canon law stated that the man who married his brother’s wife or the wife of a ’blood-relation’ was to be excommunicated (Cross, p. 154, no. 140). With this clarification, the ‘they’ evidently means the unlawfully married couple, who according to Canon law would be expected to separate, (Cross, p. 102, no. 85), not simply atone with acts of penance. We see, then, with this clause, that the theme of incest of the previous clause is continued.

39 ‘according to the penalty’: reading OE ‘þam witan’ as ‘þam wite’.

40 Alms payments to Rome began in England at least as early as the eighth century when Offa, king of the Mercians (r. 757-96) promised a sizeable sum (365 mancuses) each year to the pope for supporting the poor and for the provision of lights. In the time of Alfred, king of Wessex (r. 871-99), the practice of sending payments to Rome appears to have continued, though there is no clear evidence that at this point individual households contributed to this. That romfeoh, ‘Rome-money’, was expected to be paid by all Christian men by the mid-tenth century is clear – essentially, it developed into the tax known as ‘Peter’s pence’, levied at one penny per household payable annually by St Peter’s Day, August 1st (Keynes; see bibliography). The inclusion in this present set of laws of a punishment against anyone not paying this Church due supports the conclusion that Wulfstan was its author.

41 i.e. a tax to fund church candles.

42 ‘Plough alms’ evidently refers to a penny taxation at Easter for each plough within a village; see sulh-ælmesse in Bosworth-Toller, and Eleemosyna carucarum in Corèdon (see bibliography).

43 This alludes to the legally acceptable practice of feuding – taking vengeance through killing – by the family members of the victim in order to satisfy justice. Feuding, using violence, including killing, to avenge an affront to one’s honour, was culturally ingrained in early medieval societies in England; a useful discussion of how feuding was integrated into social order can be found in chapter 5 of Lambert (see bibliography).

44 That is, the family of the man committing homicide cannot claim compensation when vengeance is taken against him.

45 Or ‘festival’, i.e. on a religious holiday.

46 ‘loss of his hide [OE ‘hyde’], or ‘skin’, i.e. the slave is to be flogged; ‘a fine in lieu of flogging’, literally, the ‘hide-payment’ or ‘skin-payment’ (OE ‘hyd-gyldes’); the same penalty appears below.

47 In the sense that the fast is appointed according to Christian law or tradition, for example, the fasting period associated with Lent.

48 i.e. trial by ordeal.

49 Or, ‘wizards’.

50 Perhaps meaning a foreigner on pilgrimage.

51 ‘jarl’, translating OE ‘eorl’; eorl began to replace ealdorman during the reign of Cnut, king of England (r. 1016-35), both terms broadly meaning ‘nobleman’ (see Stafford, p. 153). In the context of this present law, where the focus is on distinguishing English and Danish legal terminology and practice, ‘jarl’ seems the most appropriate translation, as it was the title given to Danish chieftains within the Danelaw.

52 As the victim is under the protection of the king and bishop, the deed is, in effect, an assault on the honour of both Christ and the king.

Æthelstan’s Grately Code, c.926-c.930

Æthelstan’s Grately Code, dating to c. 926-c.930¹, concerns thievery, treachery to lords; the selling and buying of goods, Sunday trading, the punishments for arson and ‘secret’ murder by means of witchcraft; and the treatment of slaves. Transcription and translation from Old English of Textus Roffensis folios 32v-37r by Dr Christopher Monk.²

Background

Æthelstan was ‘king of the Anglo-Saxons and the Danes’ from either 924 or 925 to 927, and subsequently ‘king of the English’ from 927 until his death in October of 939 (Keynes, p. 514). He is often considered ‘the first English monarch’ (Foot, p. 10). Æthelstan’s major set of laws, known today as the Grately Code, survives in full in its original Old English only in Textus Roffensis. A truncated copy is found in an important compilation of Old English laws in a contemporaneous Cambridge University manuscript;³ and a few charred fragments from an early eleventh-century manuscript survive in the British Library.⁴ The text is known as the Grately Code because Grately, Hampshire, is the place from where the laws were probably issued. Though Grately is not mentioned in Textus Roffensis, the Latin version of the laws, that survives in the extensive legal collection known as Quadripartitus, produced during the reign of Henry I (r.1100-1135),⁵ does contain the statement that, ‘All this was established at the great assembly at Grately, at which Archbishop Wulfhelm was present and all the nobles and councillors whom King Athelstan could gather together.’ Dorothy Whitelock, whose English translation this is, suggests this may have come from a lost prologue to the law code (Whitelock, p. 422, and n. 1).

Content and themes

The main theme of Æthelstan’s Grately Code is thievery, but there are others too, including treachery to lords; the selling and buying of goods – Sunday trading is legislated against; the punishments for arson and murder, specifically ‘secret’ murder by means of witchcraft; and the treatment of slaves in various contexts is also touched upon. Within the Textus Roffensis web pages there is huge scope to develop further interpretive work about Æthelstan’s impact on law and order in early medieval England. For now, I would like to draw attention to two highlights within the Grately Code: the judicial process of the ordeals, and the concept of disobedience to the king.

The ordeals

I will be writing a more detailed post on the nature and significance of the judicial ordeals in early English laws but at this point I want to explain the basic principles of those ordeals mentioned in the Grately Code. The subsequent action taken against a ‘guilty’ person once the ordeal had finished varied significantly, depending on the circumstances of the crime and the person committing the crime; this is quite clear from reading Æthelstan’s pronouncements, below. I will endeavour to explore this aspect, too, in my future post. The ‘water-ordeal’, sometimes called the ‘cold water’ ordeal, refers to the plunging of an accused individual into cold water, probably a natural body of water, to the depth of one and a half ells, an ell probably being 45 inches or 114 cm (Zupko, p. 119). If the person sank, they were deemed without guilt; if they did not sink, then guilt was established.⁶ The ‘iron-ordeal’, sometimes called the ordeal by hot iron,⁷ involved the accused carrying in hand a piece of iron that had been heated on coals; it was carried for nine of his or her feet. This information is provided in the slightly later, anonymous law code known as Ordal; for my translation of this text go to Trial by Ordeal, mid-10th century — Rochester Cathedral. The Grately Code states that ‘there should be three nights before one undoes the hand’, an allusion to the part of the judicial process that involved the sealing – wrapping up in cloth – of the accused’s burnt hand and subsequent inspection of it for signs of innocence or guilt. Ordal is more explicit in its explanation of this part of the ordeal, stating that it should be determined on the third day ‘whether it be foul or clean inside the seal’. Neither text, however, clearly identifies the judicial significance of this: that if the hand is ‘foul’, then guilt is established; and if ‘clean’, then the individual is innocent. What is very interesting on this matter is the repeated use in the Grately Code of the Old English (OE) word ful to mean guilty. Sometimes, ful is used with direct reference to the ordeals, and at other times the judicial process of the ordeals is only implied. The core meaning of ful is ‘foul’, and in the context of disease and wounds means ‘festering’;⁸ this is how it is used in Ordal. Clearly, from the body of Old English legal texts, we can appreciate that the word also takes on a broader sense of ‘guilty’. Every time, however, that we read ful in the Grately Code, and elsewhere, we are tapping into a darkly visceral moment from early medieval history, to that point when the burnt hand of an accused had become infected, its foulness not merely indicating the beginnings of putrefaction but, more profoundly, guilt.

The threefold ordeal

It’s important to briefly look at the phrase ‘threefold ordeal’ that appears in the Grately Code, as its meaning is not explained therein. It is used directly in connection with the specific crimes of treachery to a lord, breaking into a church, and the deployment of witchcraft and sorcery leading to ‘murders’ – what might be usefully thought of as ‘secret’ killings.⁹ The use of the threefold ordeal is also implied for the crimes of arson and avenging a thief. We need, however, to turn to another Textus Roffensis law code, Be blaserum ⁊ be morðslihtum (‘Concerning arsonists and murders’), to grasp the meaning behind the use of ‘threefold’. Be Blaserum is an anonymous law code, and was perhaps a reformulating by local officials of Æthelstan’s commands about arson and murder – ‘at ground level’, as Wormald puts it (Wormald, pp. 367-38). You can find my translation of this law code here. Be blaserum shows that the ‘threefold’ aspect relates to two things: the accused must find three times as many ‘oath-supporters’ in order to avoid the ordeal; and, if unsuccessful in this, must face the iron-ordeal using a piece of iron three times as heavy as that used for the so-called ‘single’, or ‘simple’,¹⁰ ordeal. That is, the burning hot piece of iron would have weighed three pounds instead of the usual one. Though not part of the Grately Code, I should also mention another ordeal that had a ‘threefold’ aspect, namely the judgement by hot water.¹¹ Be blaserum explains that this required the accused to plunge the hand or arm into a cooking pot of boiling water to grasp a stone at the bottom, either ‘as far as the wrist’ for a ‘single’ ordeal or ‘up to his elbow’ for a ‘threefold’ ordeal. This three-fold feature of ordeals points to certain circumstances wherein more stringent measures were considered as necessary in the judicial process, something I will explore further in my future post.

The concept of disobedience to the king

There are numerous references within the laws of both Æthelstan and his predecessor, his father Edward the Elder (r. 899-924), to the payment of a fine for ‘disobedience’ (oferhyrness) to the king. It appears six times in the Grately Code. Tom Lambert observes regarding this ‘ideological concept’ that ‘[i]t seems to imply a royal right to issue commands not to engage in certain types of wrongdoing and to punish those who disobeyed’ (Lambert, p. 213). The types of wrongdoing associated with the ‘disobedience’ fine, argues Lambert, ‘could be characterised as breaches of legal procedure’ and ‘are all related to the proper functioning of legal structures’ (Lambert, pp. 213-14). In the example of the Grately Code, the fine is to be issued for those who refuse to attend assemblies; for the refusal to ride out on an enforcement raid (where a guilty person has his goods removed by the senior men of the borough and he is put under forced surety); for the receiving of another lord’s man who has been charged with a crime (thus helping him evade punishment); and finally, mentioned toward the end of the set of laws, it is to be issued against royal reeves who fail, fully or in part, to carry out the laws of the Grately Code. Lambert goes on to make the astute observation that we must not think that the ‘disobedience’ fine meant that that ‘kings had a general right to command their subjects and to punish disobedience’ outside the specific area of legal procedure (Lambert, p. 214).¹² He continues,

We certainly have no grounds for thinking that kings felt it appropriate to issue more sweeping commands encompassing forms of serious wrongdoing – commands that nobody commit theft or homicide, for example – and then to justify royal punishment of those acts with the theory that they constituted disobedience (Lambert, p. 214).

In other words, a king may issue a code of laws, but things like theft and homicide were viewed as crimes against the peace of the realm – everyone’s peace, we might say – not direct acts of disobedience to the king. Where certain duties to participate in communal legal procedures were not met, however, such was indeed viewed, at least by Æthelstan and his advisors, as disobedience to the king.

A note on reconstructions in the transcription

Water damage has affected the tops of all the Textus folios for the Grately Code, causing some of the text of the first few lines of each page to fade. Though most of the text is still legible, especially when using the zoom facility on the digital facsimile, some words are very difficult to make out. Therefore, the badly faded words in the opening few lines have been reconstructed in the transcript below by comparing the Cambridge University manuscript. Other reconstructions of other folios are guided by a sixteenth-century transcript of the British Library manuscript,¹³ made before it was largely destroyed in the infamous Cottonian fire of 1731.¹⁴ Reconstructions are shown in grey, rather than black, font.

Transcription

32v (select folio number to open facsimile)

Æþelstanes gerænesse. ¹⁵

33r

Ærest þæt man ne sparige nænne þeof ðe æt¹⁶
hæbbendre handa gefangen sy, ofer xii ¹⁷
winter, ⁊ ofer eahta peningas, ⁊¹⁸ gif hit hwa do,
forgylde ðone þeof be his were, ⁊ ne beo þam þeofe
na ðe geþingodre, oþþe hine be þam geladie. ¹⁹ Gif he hine þonne²⁰ werian²¹ wille oððe
oðfleo, ðonne ne sparige hine man.
Gif man ðeof on carcerne gebringe, ðæt he beo
xl nihta²² on carcerne, ⁊ hine man ðonne alyse²³ ut
mid cxx scillingum ⁊ ga seo mægþ him on borh ðæt he
æfre geswice. ⁊ gif he ofer ðæt stalige, forgildan hy
hine be his were, oþþe hine eft ðær inne gebrin-
gan. ⁊ gif hine hwa²⁴ forstande, forgilde
hine be his were, swa þam cyninge swa ðam ðe hit
mid ryhte togebyrige, ⁊ ælc man²⁵ ðara ðe þær mid
stande, gesylle ðam cyninge cxx scillinga to wite. Ond we cwædon
be þam hlafordleasan mannum, ðe man nan
ryht ætbegytan ne mæg, þæt man beode ðære
mægþe, ðæt hi hine to folcryhte gehamette,
⁊ him hlaford finden on folcgemote. ⁊ gif hi
hine ðonne begytan nyllen, oððe ne mægen to þam andagan, ²⁶
ðonne beo he syþþan flyma, ⁊ hine lecge for
ðeof se þe²⁷ him tocume, ⁊ se ðe hine ofer ðæt
feormige, forgylde hine be his were, oþþe he

33v

hine be ðam ladige. be ryhtes wærnunge.
Se hlaford se ryhtes wyrne, and for his yfelan
man²⁸ licge, ⁊ man ðone cing foregesece,²⁹ forgilde þæt
ceapgild, ⁊ gesylle þam cynge cxx scillinga. ⁊ se ðe
ðone cyng gesece³⁰ ær he him ryhtes bidde, swa oft swa him to gebyrie,³¹ gilde ðæt
ilce wite þe se oþer sceolde gif he him ryhtes
wyrnde. ⁊ se hlaford þe his ðeowan æt þyfþe ge-
wita sy, ⁊ hit him on open wurðe, ðolige ðæs þeo-
wan, ⁊ beo his weres³² scyldig æt frumcyrre. Gif he hit ofter do, beo he ealles scyldig þæs he
age, ⁊ eac swilce cynges hordera oððe ure gere-
fena swilc ðære ðeofa gewita wære ðe staledon,
beo he be ðam ilcan. be hlafordsearwum. Ond we cwædon be hlafordsearwe, ðæt he beo his
feores scyldig, gif he his ætsacan ne mihte, oþþe
eft on þam þrimfealdum ordale ful wære. ⁊ we cwædon be ciricbryce, gif he ful wære on ðam
ðryfealdan ordale, bete be þam þe seo domboc
secge. be wiccecræftum.
Ond we cwædon be þam wiccecræftum, ⁊ be libla-
cum, ⁊ be morðdædum, gif man þær³³ acweald wære,
⁊ he his ætsacan ne mihte, þæt he beo his feores
scyldig. Gif he þonne ætsacan wille, ⁊ on ðam
þrimfealdum ordale ful weorðe, þæt he beo cxx.

34r

nihta on carcerne, ⁊ nimen þa magas hine siððan
ut, ⁊ gesyllan þam cynge cxx scillinga, ⁊ forgildan
ðone wer his magum, ⁊ gangon him on borh,
ðæt he æfre swylces³⁴ geswice. be blæserum. Ða blysieras, and þa ðe ðeof wrecon, beon þæs il-
can ryhtes wyrðe, ⁊ se þe ðeof wrecan wille, ⁊
nanne man ne gewundige, gesylle þam cyninge
cxx. scillinga to wite³⁵ for ðan æthlype.³⁶ ⁊ we cwædon be ðam
anfealdum ordale æt þam mannum þe oft be-
ti_htlede wæron, ⁊ hy fule wurdon, ⁊ hy ni_ton
hwa hy on borh nime, gebringe man hy³⁷ on carcer-
ne, ⁊ man hy don ut swa hit her beforan gecweden³⁸
is. be landleasum mannum. Ond we cwædon gif hwylc landleas man folgode
on oþre scire, ⁊ eft his magas gesece, þæt
he hine on þa gerad feormige, ðæt he hine to
folcryhte gelæde,³⁹ gif he þær gylt gewyrce, oþþe forebete.⁴⁰
Se ðe yrfe befo, be yrfes ætfenge.
nemne him man v men his neahgebura, ⁊ begite
ðara v, i ðæt him midswerige, þæt he hit on folc
ryht him toteo, ⁊ se þe hit him geagnian wille,
nemne him man x men,⁴¹ ⁊ begite þara twegen, ⁊ sylle
þone að þæt hit on his æhte geboren wære,
butan þam⁴² rimaðe, ⁊ stande þæs cyreaþ ofer xx

34v

be hwearfe. penega.⁴³ ⁊ nan man ne hwyrfe nanes yrfes bu-
tan ðæs gerefan gewitnesse, oððe þæs mæsse-
preostes, oððe þæs landhlafordes, oþþe þæs
horderes, oððe oþres ungelygenes⁴⁴ mannes. Gif
hit hwa do, gesylle xxx scillinga to wite, ⁊ fo se land-
hlaford to þam hwearfe.⁴⁵ be wohre⁴⁶ gewitnesse.
Gif man þonne afinde þæt heora⁴⁷ ænig on wohre⁴⁸
gewitnesse wære, þæt næfre his gewitnes eft
naht ne forstande, ⁊ eac gesylle xxx scillinga to wite. Ond we cwædon, se ðe scyldunga⁴⁹ bæde æt ofslage-
num þeofe, ðæt he eode ðreora sum to,⁵⁰ twegen on fæde-
ran maga, ⁊ þridda on medren, ⁊ þone aþ syllen
ðæt hy on heora⁵¹ mæge⁵² nane þyfðe nyston, ðæt
he his feores wyrðe nære for ðam gilte, ⁊ hy gan
siððan xii sume, ⁊ gescyldigen hine swa hit
ær gecweden wæs. ⁊ gif ðæs deadan mægas ðider
cuman noldon to ðam andagan, gilde ælc ðe hit
ær sprece cxx scillinga. Ond we cwædon þæt man nænne ceap ne gecea-
pige butan porte ofer xx penega, ac ceapige
ðær binnan on þæs portgerefan gewitnesse,
oððe on⁵³ oþres unlygenes⁵⁴ mannes, oððe eft on þara
gerefena gewitnesse on folcgemote. Ond we cweðaþ ðæt ælc burh sy gebet xiiii.

35r

niht ofer gangdagas.⁵⁵ Oþer þæt ælc ceaping sy bin-
nan porte.⁵⁶ Þridda þæt an mynet, sy ofer eall ðæs
cynges onweald, ⁊ nan man ne mynetige butan on
porte. ⁊ gif se mynetere ful wurðe, slea man of
þa hand, ðe he ðæt ful mid worhte, ⁊ sette uppon⁵⁷
ða mynetsmiððan. ⁊ gif hit þonne tyhtle sy,
⁊ he hine ladi_an wille, ðonne ga he to þam hatum
isene, ⁊ ladige þa hand mid ðe man tyhð ðæt he
þæt facen mid worhte. ⁊ gif he on þam ordale ful
wurðe, do man þæt ilce swa hit ær beforan cwæð. On cantwarabyrig
vii myneteras, iiii ðæs cynges, ⁊ ii þæs⁵⁸ biscopes, i
ðæs abbodes. To hrofeceastre ii cynges, ⁊ i þæs⁵⁹ bi-
scopes. To lundenbyrig viii. To wintaceastre vi. To læwe ii. To hæstingaceastre i. Oþer to cisse-
ceastre. To hamtune ii. To wærham ii. To exece-
astre ii. To sceaftesbyrig ii. Elles to þam oþrum
burgum i.
Feorðe, þæt nan scyldwyrhta ne lecge nan scepes
fellon⁶⁰ scyld, ⁊ gif he hit do, gilde xxx scillinga.
Fifte, ðæt ælc man hæbbe æt þære syhl ii ge-
horsede men. Syxte, gif hwa æt þeofe medsceatt⁶¹ nime, ⁊
oþres ryht afylle, beo he⁶² his weres scyldig.

35v

Seofoðe, þæt nan man ne sylle nan hors ofer sæ, butan he
hit gifan wille. Ond we cwædon be þeowan men gif he ful wurþe
æt þam ordale þæt man gulde þæt ceapgild, ⁊
swinge hine man⁶³ ðriwa, oððe þæt oþer gild sealde, ⁊ sy
þæt wite be healfum wurðe æt þam ðeowum. Gif hwa gemot forsitte
þriwa, gilde ðæs cynges oferhyrnesse, ⁊ hit beo
seofon nihtum ær geboden ær ðæt gemot sy. Gif he þonne ryht wyrcan nylle, ne þa oferhyr-
nesse syllan, þonne ridan þa yldestan men to ealle
þe to⁶⁴ þære byrig hiron, ⁊ nimon eall ðæt he age, ⁊
setton hine on borh. Gif hwa þonne⁶⁵ nylle ridan mid
his geferan, gilde cynges oferhyrnesse. And⁶⁶ beode man on þam gemote ðæt man eall⁶⁷ friþi-
ge þæt se cyng friþian wille, ⁊ forga þyfðe be his
feore, ⁊ be eallum þam þe he⁶⁸ age, ⁊ se þe be witum
geswican nylle, ðonne ridan þa yldestan⁶⁹ men to ealle
þe⁷⁰ to þære byrig hyron, ⁊ nimon eall ðæt he age,
⁊ fo se cyng to healfum, to healfum ða men
ðe on þære rade beon, ⁊ setton hine on borh. Gif he
nite hwa hine aborgie hæfton hine. Gif he nylle hit⁷¹
geþafian, leton hine licgan⁷² butan he ætwinde. Gif
hwa hine wrecan wille, oððe hine fælæce, þonne

36r

beo he fah wið ðone cyng ⁊ wið ealle his freond. Gif he ætwinde, ⁊ hwa hine feormige, sy he his
weres scyldig, butan he hine ladian⁷³ durre, be þæs flyman were⁷⁴
þæt⁷⁵ he hine flyman nyste.
Gif hwa þingie for ordal, ðingie on ðam ceapgilde
þæt he mæge, ⁊ naht on ðam wite, butan hit
se gifan wille, þe hit togebyrige. ⁊ ne underfo nan
man oþres mannes man butan his leafe þe he
ær folgode. Gif hit hwa do agife þone man, ⁊ bete
cynges oferhyrnesse, ⁊ nan man ne tæce his ge-
tihtledan man fram him, ær he hæbbe ryht
geworht. Gif hwa ordales weddige, ðonne cume he þrim
nihtum ær to þam mæssepreoste þe hit halgian
scyle, and fede hine sylfne mid hlafe, ⁊ mid wæ-
tere, ⁷⁶ ⁊ sealte, ⁊ wyrtum ær he togan scyle, ⁊ ge-
stande him mæssan þæra þreora daga ælcne,
⁊ geoffrige⁷⁷ to, ⁊ ga to husle ðy dæge þe he to ðam
ordale gan scyle, ⁊ swerige ðonne þane að, þæt
he sy mid folcryhte unscyldig ðære tihtlan,
ær he to þam ordale ga. ⁊ gif hit sy⁷⁸ wæter, ðæt he
gedufe oþre healfe elne on þam rape. Gif hit
sy ysenordal, beon ðreo niht ær man þa hand
undo, ⁊ ofga ælc man his tihtlan mid foreaðe

36v

swa we ær cwædon, ⁊ beo þæra ælc fæstende on ægþera⁷⁹
hand⁸⁰ se ðær mid sy, on⁸¹ godes bebode, ⁊ ðæs ærcebi-
scopes, ⁊ ne beo ðær on naþre healfe⁸² na⁸³ ma manna
þonne xii. Gif se getihtloda man ðonne⁸⁴ maran we-
rude beo þonne twelfa sum, þonne beo þæt ordal
forad, butan hy him fram gan willan. Ond se þe yrfe bycge on gewitnesse, ⁊ hit eft
tyman scyle þonne onfo se⁸⁵ his, þe he hit ær ætbohte,
beo he swa freoh swa ðeow, swa hweðer⁸⁶ he sy. ⁊ ðæt
nan cyping ne sy sunnan dagum. Gif hit ðon-
ne hwa do, þolige ðæs ceapes, ⁊ gesylle xxx scillinga to wite.⁸⁷ Gif minra gerefa⁸⁸ hwylc þonne⁸⁹ þis don nylle, ⁊ læs
ymbe beo þonne we gecweden habbað, þonne gyl-
de he mine oferhyrnesse, ⁊ ic finde oþerne
ðe wile. And⁹⁰ se biscop amanige þa oferhyrnesse
æt þam gerefan, þe hit on his folgoþe sy. Se ðe of ðissa gerædnesse ga, gilde æt frum cirre
v pund, æt oþrum cirre his were,⁹¹ æt þriddan
cirre ðolige ealles þæs þe⁹² he age, ⁊ ure eal-
ra freondscipes. Ond se ðe man að swerige, ⁊ hit him on open
wurþe, ðæt he næfre eft aðwyrþe ne sy, ne
binnan nanum gehalgodum lictune ne licge
þeah he forðfare⁹³ butan he hæbbe ðæs biscopes

37r

gewitnesse ðe he on his scrift⁹⁴ scire sy, þæt he hit swa
gebett hæbbe swa him his scrift scrife, ⁊ his scrift
hit gecyþe þam biscope binnan xxx nihta
hweþer he to þære bote cirran wolde. Gif he swa
ne do, bete be þam þe se biscop him forgifan
wille.

Translation

Æthelstan’s laws

First, that one should not spare any thief who is caught red-handed, [who is] over 12 years, and [the value is] over eight pennies; and if one does so, he should pay for the thief according to his wergild⁹⁵ – and it will not be settled for the thief – or let him clear him [by an oath] by that [amount].

If he [the thief] wants to resist or flee,⁹⁶ then one should not spare him.

If one brings a thief into prison, in that case he will be in prison forty nights, and one may then redeem him with 120 shillings,⁹⁷ and the family will act as guarantor for him,⁹⁸ so that he should desist evermore.

And if he steals after that they should pay for him with his wergild, or bring him there again.

And if anyone stands up for him, he should pay for him with his wergild, whether to the king or to the one to whom it rightly belongs; and each one of those who stands by him, let them give to the king 120 shillings as a fine.

And we spoke concerning the lordless men, from whom one cannot obtain justice, that one should bid their family, so that they bring him home to [face] justice,⁹⁹ and find him a lord in the public assembly.

And if they then will not, or cannot, bring him on the appointed day, then he will afterwards be an outlaw, and he who comes upon him may kill him as a thief.¹⁰⁰ And he who harbours him after that, should pay for him with his wergild, or clear himself [by oath] to [the value of] that.¹⁰¹

Concerning refusal of justice¹⁰²

The lord who refuses justice, and takes the part of his evildoer,¹⁰³ and appeals to the king, he should pay back the market-price [of what is stolen], and give to the king 120 shillings.

And he who appeals to the king before he demands justice from him [the wrongdoer] – as often as it becomes him¹⁰⁴ – should pay the same fine as the other would have,¹⁰⁵ if he had refused him justice.¹⁰⁶

And the lord who is an accessory to theft by his slave, and this becomes known about him, should forfeit his slave,¹⁰⁷ and should be liable to his wergild in the first instance.¹⁰⁸

If he does it often, he should be liable for all that he owns; and, likewise, any of the king’s treasurers or of our reeves, who were accessories of the thieves who stole, should be subject to the same.

Concerning treachery against one’s lord

And we declared concerning treachery against one’s lord that he should be liable to forfeit his life if he is unable to deny it [the charge] or if he were afterwards found guilty at the threefold ordeal. And we declared concerning breaking into a church,¹⁰⁹ that if he were found guilty at the threefold ordeal, he should pay according to what the lawbook says.¹¹⁰

Concerning witchcrafts

And we declared concerning witchcrafts, and concerning sorceries,¹¹¹ and concerning murders,¹¹² if one were thereby killed, and he is unable to deny it, then he should be liable to forfeit his life.

If he then wishes to deny it, and at the threefold ordeal is found guilty, [we declared] that he be 120 nights in prison, and then the [guilty person’s] family will take him out and give to the king 120 shillings, and pay the wergild to his [the murdered person’s] family, and go surety for him so that he hereafter should desist from such.

Concerning arsonists

The arsonists and those who avenge a thief should be measured by the same judgment,¹¹³ and he who wishes to avenge a thief, but no one is wounded, should give to the king 120 shillings as a fine for the assault. And we declared concerning the single ordeal,¹¹⁴ with regard to those persons who often were accused and were found guilty, and they know no one to stand surety for them, one should bring them to prison, and one should release them as it was stated here before.

Concerning landless persons

And we declared that if any landless person took service in another shire and afterwards seek his family,¹¹⁵ he [the family member] may take him in [the landless man] on the condition that he lead him to justice, should he carry out an offence there, or else pay compensation.¹¹⁶

Concerning the taking possession of property¹¹⁷

He who seizes property, one should obtain for him 5 persons from his neighbours, and from the 5 get one who should swear with him that he claims it according to public law;¹¹⁸ but he who wishes to declare it as owned by himself,¹¹⁹ one should take for him 10 men, and from them two [oath-supporters], and he should give the oath that it was born on his land – the oath of all is not needed¹²⁰ – and this selected oath is to be valid [in cases] over 20 pennies.¹²¹

Concerning exchange [of property]

And no one is to exchange any property without the witness of the reeve, or the mass-priest, or the land-lord,¹²² or the treasurer or other trustworthy person.

If such is done, one should pay 30 shilling as a fine, and the land-lord is to take the exchanged property.

Concerning false witness

If one should then find that any of them gave false witness, never again shall his witness be valid; and also he should pay 30 shillings as a fine.

And we declared that he who may demand payment for a slain thief should come forward with three others,¹²³ two from the father’s kin and the third from the mother’s; and they are to give the oath that they have not known of any thievery in their relative – for which guilt he would not be worthy of life. And they [the slayers of the man]¹²⁴ shall then go with 12 others, and shall prove him [the slain thief] liable as it was declared before. And if the dead person’s family does not come forward at the appointed day, each one who spoke before of it [those demanding the payment] should pay 120 shillings.

And we declared that no one should trade any goods over 20 pennies outside the town,¹²⁵ but should trade there inside with the witness of the town-reeve,¹²⁶ or other trustworthy person; or thereafter with the witness of the reeves at a public assembly.

And we declare that each borough be repaired 14 nights after Rogationtide.¹²⁷

Second, that each market be within a town.

Third, that a single coinage be over all the king’s realm, and no one may mint outside of a town. And if the minter be found guilty, one should cut off the hand with which he committed the crime, and set it above the mint.¹²⁸

And when there is an accusation, and he wishes to clear himself, then he should go to the [ordeal] of hot iron, and he should redeem the hand with which he was accused of committing the crime.¹²⁹ And if he be found guilty in the ordeal, one should do the same as is stated before.

In Canterbury [there are to be] 7 minters, 4 of the king, two of the bishop,1 of the abbot. At Rochester, 2 of the king and one of the bishop. At London, 8. At Winchester, 6. At Lewes, 2. At Hastings, 1. Another at Chichester. At Southampton, 2. At Wareham, 2. At Exeter, 2. At Shaftesbury, 2. Otherwise, in the other boroughs, 1.

Fourth, that no shield-maker may lay sheepskin on a shield, and if he does he should pay 30 shillings.

Fifth, that each person should have in respect to the plough two mounted men.¹³⁰

Sixth, if anyone takes a bribe from a thief, and another’s rights are suppressed, he should be liable for his wergild.

Seventh, that no person may sell any horse overseas, unless he wishes to gift it.¹³¹

And we declared concerning an enslaved person, if he is found guilty at the ordeal, that one should pay the market value [of the stolen goods],¹³² and one should beat him three times, or else a second payment should be given; and the [public] fine with respect to slaves should be at half the rate.¹³³

If someone fails to attend an assembly three times, one should pay [a fine] for disobedience to the king; and it should be announced seven nights before the assembly happens.

If he then will not carry out what is right, nor will pay the disobedience fine, then the most senior men shall ride there, all who belong to the borough, and take all that he owns, and place him under surety.¹³⁴ If, however, anyone will not ride with his fellows, he should pay [a fine] for disobedience to the king.

And one should announce in the assembly that one should be at peace with all that the king should wish to be at peace with,¹³⁵ and refrain from theft on pain of death and by all that he may own. And he who does not wish to cease, [even] for [such] penalties, then the most senior men shall ride there, all who belong to the borough, and take all that he owns; and the king should take possession of half, and half to the men who are on the raid; and they should set him under surety.

If he does not know anyone to stand surety for him, they should imprison him. If he will not allow this, let him lie [dead] – unless he should escape.

If anyone wishes to avenge him or carry on a feud for him, then he will be at enmity with the king and with all his [the king’s] friends.

If he should escape, and someone harbours him, he should be liable for his wergild, unless he dares to clear himself – by the [amount of the] fugitive’s wergild – that he did not know him to be a fugitive.

If someone should make terms for the ordeal, he may make terms [based] on the market value, and not on the penalty, unless he, to whom it belongs, wishes to grant it.¹³⁶

And no one should receive the man of another without the permission of him whom he served before. If someone does so, he should give back the man, and pay [the fine of] disobedience to the king; and no one may dismiss from himself an accused man of his own before he has rendered justice.

If anyone should pledge [to undertake] the ordeal, then he should come the third night beforehand to the mass-priest who shall consecrate it [i.e. the ordeal], and he should sustain himself with bread and with water and salt and vegetables before he shall go thereto; and he should be present at mass each of those three days, and should make his offering, and go to the housel on the day on which he shall go to the ordeal;¹³⁷ and he should then swear the oath that he is, according to public law, innocent of the charge, before he goes to the ordeal.

And if it is [the ordeal of] water, that he should sink one and a half ells on the rope.¹³⁸ If it is the iron-ordeal, there should be three nights before one undoes the hand.¹³⁹ And let each person begin his accusation with a preliminary oath just as we declared before; and each of those, of both sides,¹⁴⁰ who are there should fast, according to God’s command and that of the archbishop; and there should not be on either side any more than 12 persons. If then the accused person be one in a company of more than twelve, then the ordeal should be void, unless they be willing to go from him.

And he who buys property before a witness, and afterwards has to vouch warranty for it, then he from whom he previously bought it should take back his [goods],¹⁴¹ be he free or slave,¹⁴² whichever he is.

And [we declared] that there be no trading on Sunday. If then anyone does this, he should forfeit the goods, and pay 30 shilling as a fine.

If any of my reeves is then unwilling to do this,¹⁴³ or does less than we have declared, then he should pay [the fine] of disobedience to me, and I shall find another who will. And the bishop, in whose district it be,¹⁴⁴ should exact the [fine of] disobedience from the reeve. He who departs from these laws should pay in the first instance 5 pounds, and on the second occasion his wergild; on the third occasion he should suffer the loss of all that he owns, and the friendship of us all.

And he who swears a false oath, and it comes into the open about him, [we have declared] that he never afterwards be oath-worthy, nor should be laid within any holy cemetery should he die,¹⁴⁵ unless he would have the testimony of the bishop in whose confession-shire he is,¹⁴⁶ that he has repented for it just as his confessor has prescribed for him. And his confessor should make it known to the bishop within 30 nights whether he was willing to turn to atonement. If he does not do so, he should pay according to what the bishop will allow him.¹⁴⁷

Bibliography

Bartlett, Robert, Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval Judicial Ordeal (Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, 1986).

Clark Hall, J. R., A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, fourth edition (University of Toronto Press, 1960).

Foot, Sarah, Æthelstan (Yale University Press, 2011).

Gilbey, Walter, Horses Past and Present (Vinton & Co., Ltd, 1900), available via Project Gutenberg EBook

Gittos, Helen, Liturgy, Architecture, and Sacred Places in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford University Press, 2013).

Keynes, Simon, ‘Appendix: Rulers of the English, c.450-1066’, in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes, and Donald Scragg (Blackwell Publishing, 1999).

Lambert, Tom, Law & Order in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford University Press, 2017).

Liebermann, Felix, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, 3 volumes (M. Niemeyer, 1903–16) (edition available via Early English Laws website for each law code).

Whitelock, Dorothy, English Historical Documents, Volume I, c.500-1042, second edition (Eyre Methuen/Oxford University Press, 1979).

Wormald, Patrick, The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century (Blackwell Publishing, 1999).

Zupko, Ronald E., A Dictionary of Weights and Measures for the British Isles: The Middle Ages To the Twentieth Century (American Philosophical Society, 1985).

Websites

Bosworth & Toller dictionary Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary online (bosworthtoller.com)

British Library, Medieval manuscripts blog, Medieval manuscripts blog

Colin Flight’s website, Durobrivis

DOE. The Dictionary of Old English: A to I; limited free access here

Early English Laws, Early English Laws: Home

Parker Library On the Web: Manuscripts in the Parker Library at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, Parker Library On the Web - Spotlight at Stanford

Footnotes

1 This is Dorothy Whitelock’s date: Whitelock, p. 417.

2 Many thanks indeed to Elise Fleming for kindly proofreading the commentary, translation and notes.

3 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 383, folios 14v-15v; the text starts at the bottom of 14v with the heading, ‘Be ðeofum.’ and ends abruptly at the bottom of 15v. Thus only about one fifth of the Grately Code is preserved in the Cambridge manuscript. The digital facsimile can be found here [accessed 22 February 2023].

4 London, British Library, Cotton MS Otho B.xi.

5 For more on Quadripartitus, see Wormald, pp. 236-44.

6 See the index in Bartlett, p. 178, ‘for specific historical examples of the use of the ‘cold water’ ordeal.

7 See the index in Bartlett, p. 178, for specific historical examples of the use of the ‘hot iron’ ordeal.

8 See DOE, fūl adj., 1, 1.a.ii and 1.a.iii; and for the legal meaning of ‘guilty’, see 4c.

9 Whitelock, p. 418, translates ‘be morðdædum’ (literally, ‘deeds of murder’) as ‘concerning[…] secret attempts on life’; similarly, Wormald, p. 367, in translating the law code Be blaserum ⁊ be morðslihtum, gives ‘about[…] underhand killings’ for ‘be þam morþslyhtum’ (literally, ‘concerning murder-slaughters’).

10 Bartlett, p. 31, uses ‘simple’ rather than ‘single’. The OE word anfeald, literally ‘one-fold’, can be translated either way, though DOE offers ‘simple’ in legal contexts: see ān-feald 2.f., ‘in legal phrases referring to the usual form of an oath, charge, ordeal, etc. without amplification or modification: anfeald aþ / lad / ordal / spræc / tihtle / wegild “simple oath / purgation / ordeal / suit / charge / compensation”. My view is that in the context of ordeals, anfeald specifically relates to measurement (a one pound weight in the iron-ordeal); moreover, where ordeals can also be þrimfeald – threefold, it makes good sense to translate anfeald as ‘single’ rather than ‘simple’.

11 See the index in Bartlett, p. 178, for historical examples of the use of ordeal by ‘cauldron’.

12 My own emphasis.

13 The transcript (London, British Library, Additional MS 43703) was made in 1562 by the antiquarian Laurence Nowell; a digital facsimile of the transcript is available on the Early English Laws website, here [accessed 22 February 2023]. Colin Flight’s transcript of the laws of Textus Roffensis has also proved useful in reconstructing illegible words, and is available here [accessed 22 February 2023].

14 A British Library blog post on the fire is available here [accessed 22 February 2023].

15 ‘gerædnesse’ is the more expected spelling, as is noted by Liebermann, Early English Laws: Liebermann edition [accessed 15 December 2022].

16 There is water damage at the top of the folio, which makes some words on the first six lines difficult or impossible to read. The affected words are shown in grey font and have been reconstructed based upon the text in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 383, folios 14v-15r. Also, in the top right margin, there is what appears to be a Latin annotation in a later, non-medieval hand; I cannot make out most of the words.

17 Flight has ‘xx’, but with the benefit of the zoom feature on the digital facsimile it is possible to see that ‘xii’ is written. This corresponds with both the Cambridge manuscript and the Nowell transcript, both of which have ‘twelf’ (‘twelve’).

18 ‘7’ is inserted above the line.

19 ‘þingodre.’ is followed by an insertion mark; the corresponding insertion mark in the right margin has the text (lines 5 and 6), ‘oþþe hine be þam geladie’, so I have inserted the text accordingly. Though the inserted text is faded, I can make out the spelling of the last word as ‘geladie’ and so have opted not to use the different ‘geladige’ from the Cambridge manuscript.

20 ‘þonne’ is inserted above the line.

21 There is an erasure between and a line connecting ‘weri’ and ‘an’.

22 There is a line written between ‘ni’ and ‘hta’.

23 ‘ne a’ is inserted above the line to correct ‘ðone lyse’ to ‘ðonne alyse’.

24 There is a space left after ‘hwa’.

25 ‘man’ is inserted above the line.

26 ‘to þam andagan’ was evidently added as a correction of an omission as it extends into the margin.

27 ‘þe’ is inserted above the line.

28 ‘man’ is inserted in the margin, to the side of ‘licge’.

29 The ‘ge’ of ‘foregesece’ is inserted above the line.

30 The ‘ge of ‘gesece’ is inserted above the line.

31 ‘swa oft swa him to gebyrie,’ appears in the left margin, along with an insertion mark, now badly faded; the corresponding insertion mark in the main body is inserted after ‘bidde,’.

32 Old English wer is used in this context as an abbreviation for wergild.

33 ‘þær’ is inserted above the line.

34 ‘swylces’ is inserted above the line.

35 ‘to wite’ is inserted above the line.

36 The ‘t’ of ‘æthlype’ is inserted above the line.

37 ‘hy’ is inserted above the line.

38 The ‘ge’ of ‘gecweden’ is inserted above the line.

39 The ‘ge’ of ‘gelæde’ is inserted above the line.

40 ‘oþer forebete’ is added later, extending into the margin.

41 ‘men,’ is inserted above the line.

42 ‘þam’ is inserted above the line.

43 The words ‘penega’, ‘[bu]-tan ðæs’ and ‘preostes’ at the beginning of the first three lines, shown in grey font, have been reconstructed by comparing Nowell’s transcription.

44 The second ‘e’ of ‘ungelygenes’

45 The ‘fe’ of ‘hwearfe’ is inserted above the line.

46 The ‘h’ of ‘wohre’ is inserted above the line.

47 The ‘o’ of ‘heora’ is inserted above the line.

48 The ‘h’ of ‘wohre’ is inserted above the line.

49 A mark along the line splits the word ‘scyld¬_unga’.

50 ‘to,’ is inserted above the line.

51 The ‘o’ of ‘heora’ is inserted above the line.

52 The ‘e’ of ‘mæge’ is inserted above the line.

53 ‘on’ is inserted above the line.

54 The first ‘e’ of ‘unlygenes’ is inserted above the line.

55 Comparison with the Nowell transcript has helped to clarify some of the faded words – those shown in grey font – at the top of this page.

56 The ‘e’ of ‘porte’ is inserted above the line.

57 The second ‘p’ of ‘uppon’ is inserted above the line.

58 ‘þæs’ is inserted above the line.

59 ‘þæs’ is inserted above the line.

60 The second ‘l’ of ‘fellon’ is inserted above the line.

61 The final ‘t’ of ‘medsceatt’ is inserted above the line.

62 ‘he’ is inserted above the line.

63 ‘man’ is inserted above the line.

64 ‘þe to’ is added in the left margin to correct an omission.

65 ‘þonne’ is inserted above the line.

66 The ‘A’ of ‘And’ is an alteration of ‘O’.

67 The second ‘l’ of ‘eall’ is inserted above the line.

68 ‘he’ is inserted above the line.

69 The ‘e’ of ‘yldestan’ is inserted above the line.

70 ‘þe’ is inserted into the left margin to correct an omission.

71 ‘hit’ is inserted into the right margin to correct an omission.

72 ‘gan’ of the word ‘licgan’ is inserted above the line.

73 A space with an ‘¬_’ splits the word ‘ladian’.

74 ‘þæs flyman were’ is inserted into the right margin to correct an omission.

75 The abbreviation for ‘þæt’ is inserted into the left margin to correct an omission.

76 The first ‘e’ of ‘tere’ is inserted above the line.

77 The ‘ge’ of ‘geoffrige’ is inserted above the line.

78 ‘sy’ is inserted above the line.

79 The ‘þera’ part of the word ‘ægþera’ is inserted into the right margin as a correction.

80 The words in grey font on this and the previous line have been reconstructed by comparing the Nowell transcript; however, ‘fastende’ is not clear in Nowell (Nowell has a rather untidy hand) but is just about decipherable using zoom on the Textus digital facsimile.

81 ‘on’ is inserted above the line.

82 The final ‘e’ of ‘healfe’ is inserted above the line.

83 ‘na’ is inserted above the line.

84 The first ‘n’ of ‘ðonne’ is inserted above the line.

85 ‘se’ is inserted above the line.

86 The ‘hwe’ of ‘hweðer’ is inserted above the line.

87 ‘to wite’ is inserted into the right margin to correct an omission.

88 The ‘a’ of ‘gerefa’ is separated from the rest of the word by the extended bar of the ‘f’.

89 ‘þonne’ is inserted above the line.

90 The original ‘O’ of ‘Ond’ is altered to ‘A’ (‘And’).

91 The final ‘e’ of ‘were’ is inserted above the line.

92 ‘þe’ is inserted above the line.

93 The ‘ð’ of ‘forðfare’ is inserted above the line.

94 ‘scrift’ is inserted above the line.

95 That is, the wergild of the thief. The wergild was the value of the life of a free person according to their rank; it was used in matters of law with respect to payment of compensation and fines.

96 ‘resist’, or ‘defend himself’, as Whitelock, p. 417, renders it. The sense, however, is not that the thief wishes to legally defend himself but rather that the thief, who has been caught in the act, attempts physically to resist capture.

97 120 shillings appears to equate to the wergild of a free person of the lowest class.

98 ‘family’, or ‘kindred’.

99 Compare DOE, ‘folc-riht noun […] 1. public law, customary law […] 2. to folcrihte lædan ‘to lead (someone acc.) to justice’.

100 More literally, ‘lay him as a thief’, with the sense of causing him to lie dead.

101 Following Liebermann, ‘oder reinige sich [durch Eid] im Werthe dieses [Wergelds]’, ‘or purify himself [by oath] to the worth of this [wergeld]; Early English Laws: Liebermann edition [accessed 16 December 2022]; Whitelock, p. 418, gives: ‘or to clear himself by an oath of that amount’. The basic sense is that the one accused of harbouring an outlawed thief must pay a wergild as a fine or clear himself from the accusation by swearing an oath; see the entry for ladian in the online Bosworth & Toller dictionary: Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary online (bosworthtoller.com) [accessed 16 December 2022].

102 The refusal of justice relates to a lord’s denial or prevention of prosecution at his own court of an individual under his jurisdiction (a freeman who has sworn fealty to his lord), either by the lord taking the side of the culprit and then appealing to the king, or by ignoring or pre-empting due process at his own court by directly appealing to the king first.

103 See Clark Hall, ‘licgan […] 1. for take the part of’; Clark Hall cites this line in Æthelstan’s law as the example for this rather specific use of the verb. Literally, the meaning is that the lord ‘lies (down) for’ the evildoer. As an alternative, we could read ‘licge’ (‘lies’, as in ‘lies down’) to be an error for ‘leoge’ (‘lies’, as in ‘tells a lie’), giving us the sense that the lord lies for the culprit, in other words, he defends a guilty man who is under his jurisdiction.

104 Alluding to the importance of the lord regularly holding court.

105 ‘the other’, here, is referring back to the lord of the previous sentence who stands up for one of his guilty men.

106 In the sense of refusing to bring the criminal to justice.

107 It is unclear what happens to the slave.

108 The lord must pay a penalty fine equivalent to his own wergild – a slave would not have a wergild.

109 DOE also suggests cyric-bryce could perhaps also mean ‘sacrilege in a wider sense’.

110 Here referring to pre-existing laws, specifically, it would seem, to the laws of Alfred which state that if one steals anything in church one would pay compensation and a fine, and lose one’s hand; see Whitelock, p. 418, n. 3.

111 Other uses of lyblac ‘sorcery’ in Old English texts point to acts that cause harm; Bosworth & Toller define it as ‘the art of using drugs or potions for the purpose of poisoning, or for magical purposes’, bosworthtoller.com/21921 [accessed 12 February 2023].

112 The ‘murders’ here are, contextually, associated with the foregoing ‘witchcrafts’ and ‘sorceries’ and so may perhaps best be understood as surreptitious killings. Note that Whitelock (p. 418) gives ‘secret attempts on life’ and observes (p. 418, n. 4), ‘literally, “murders”. Open killing was not regarded as murder in Anglo-Saxon law.’

113 Presumably meaning that those accused of arson or who avenge a thief should face the threefold ordeal.

114 Or ‘simple ordeal’. The ‘single ordeal’, in the context of the ordeal by hot iron, refers to the one pound weight of the hot iron, as opposed to the three pound weight of the ‘threefold ordeal’.

115 In the sense of ‘if he should return to his family’, his kin group in the shire from where he originated.

116 Presumably, ‘there’ refers to ‘another shire’ in the earlier clause. Thus the one who takes in the returning landless relative, if it turns out they have committed an offence in the other shire, must be prepared to either take him back to face justice or pay the compensation on his behalf.

117 A more modern legal term would be ‘attachment’.

118 DOE, folc-riht 1, ‘public law, customary law’.

119 This is referring to the one who is accused of stealing the property.

120 More literally, ‘without the number-oath [OE rim-að]’, that is, the oath of the whole number of support witnesses.

121 DOE cyre-āþ, ‘selected oath, an oath sworn by an accused man and a selection of oath-takers nominated by the judge or the adversary of the accused man, in contrast to an oath butan cyre’; cyre A.1.a, ‘butan cyre “without selection (of the oath-takers by the judge or adversary)”’.

122 Or, ‘lord of the estate’, Whitelock, p. 419; i.e. the lord of the persons wishing to make the exchange.

123 This relates the circumstance of contested guilt after a person has been slain as a thief; the demand of the family members would be for the slain person’s wergild. Most likely this is the context where the victims of theft acted in vengeance against the thief, as they had the right to do if he was caught in the act, but where the family of the thief contest the guilt and provide three family members as compurgators and testify to his innocence.

124 Following Liebermann, who reads ‘they’ as the party who has slain the man, whereas Whitelock suggests it could possibly mean that the family of the slain person must prove him to be liable to be paid for, which I personally find too awkward; see Whitelock, p. 419, ns. 3 and 4.

125 OE port has the sense in this context of a town with market rights, perhaps one with a harbour; see Clark Hall, port.

126 Or, ‘port-reeve’.

127 OE gang-dæg, literally ‘walking day’, in the plural meaning Rogationtide, the three days preceding the Feast of the Ascension. Rogationtide in the early medieval period was associated with penance and prayer but also the blessing of crops and the local community by clergy, who would lead the laity in a procession around the landscape, walking barefoot and holding relics, crosses and holy books. There is evidence for less sombre celebrations among the laity: games, huge feasts and even horse-racing. For more information, see Gittos, pp. 134-39.

128 Literally, ‘mint-smithy’. Presumably, the hand would stand as a visible sign to all in the community that the particular metalworker responsible for illegal minting was dishonest.

129 Here, the order is confusing but it seems logical that the accusation and ordeal take place before guilt is established and the minter loses his hand. The redemption of his hand is therefore the saving of his hand.

130 The meaning of the Old English is not entirely clear. Liebermann in his German translation gives a ‘probable’ reading meaning ‘that everyone who owns a plough should keep 2 mounted men/warriors’; see Lieberman, p. 159 [accessed 24 February 2023]. Similarly, Whitelock, p. 420 and n. 3, translates it as ‘every man is to have two well-mounted men for every plough’ and notes that ‘If this refers to military service, the demand is much heavier than in later times, when there is some evidence that one man went from five hides.’ On balance, this probably does relate to the obligation of lords, who hold plough-lands, to provide horsemen to the king.

131 Walter Gilbey (1831-1914), a well-known horse-breeder of the Victorian period, offers his perspective on Æthelstan’s forbidding of the export of horses in his work Horses Past and Present (available online as a Project Gutenberg EBook): King Athelstan (925-940) is entitled to special mention, for it was he who passed the first of a long series of laws by which the export of horses was forbidden. Athelstan's law assigns no reason for this step; but the only possible motive for such a law must have been to check the trade which the high qualities of English-bred horses had brought into existence. At no period of our history have we possessed more horses than would supply our requirements, and Athelstan's prohibition of the export of horses beyond sea, unless they were sent as gifts, was undoubtedly due to a growing demand which threatened to produce scarcity. This king saw no objection to the importation of horses: he accepted several as gifts from Continental Sovereigns, and evidently attached much value to them, for in his will he made certain bequests of white horses and others which had been given him by Saxon friends.

132 The responsibility for recompensing the victim of theft with the market value of the stolen goods lay with the slave’s owner, though other early English laws suggest slaves themselves may have had personal money, in which case we may assume that this money would be used first. This payment may be read as additional to returning the goods.

133 This is alluding to the fine that goes into the public coffers; it is in addition to recompensing the victim of the theft. The slave’s owner is responsible for this.

134 Likely with the sense that he will be imprisoned if no-one stands surety for him; see the next law, below.

135 DOE gives for friþian ‘to be at peace with, protect, preserve, defend’; so the sense here appears to be that all should defend and uphold the king’s position in a judicial matter.

136 This appears to relate to someone interceding (see þingian in Bosworth Toller) in order to settle a dispute relating to theft; that is, the trial by ordeal does not take place because the intercessor is able to get the accused/thief and the accuser/victim to reach a settlement, though this settlement has to be based on the true value of the goods, not on the payment of a fine (which may be of less value), unless the accuser/victim grants the latter. This intercession thus guarantees that the accused/thief is spared the horror of the ordeal – which at any rate may well lead to a monetary penalty – and the accuser/victim obtains recompense.

137 OE husel survives in the archaic housel, meaning the administering and/or receiving of the Eucharist, i.e. holy communion.

138 ‘oþre healfe’, ‘one and a half’, following Whitelock, p. 421. An ell was a measurement for cloth in the late medieval period, ‘generally containing 45 inches (1.143m)’ according to A Dictionary of Weights and Measurements for the British Isles: The Middle Ages To the Twentieth Century, ed. Ronald E. Zupko (American Philosophical Society, 1985), p. 119.

139 The hand is bound after the ordeal of carrying the hot iron bar. It is then inspected three days later: if it is not infected, the person is deemed without guilt; if it is infected, guilt is established.

140 Literally, ‘of both hands’; Whitelock, p. 421, gives ‘of both parties’; it would seem, however, that the phrase alludes to the practice of the advocates of both the accused and the accuser physically lining up on the left-hand and right-hand sides inside the church, where the ordeal takes place; see by way of comparison, the instructions in the law known as Ordal.

141 The context appears to be where an accusation is made, subsequent to the sale, that the goods (quite possibly referring to livestock) were stolen, and the buyer then has to vouch that he bought them in good faith; and due to the fact that the sale was witnessed by an official, the buyer can return the goods and the seller is obliged to take them back. Thus the person unwittingly buying stolen goods is saved from being accused.

142 That a seller or buyer – which is not clear – may be a slave seems to imply that a slave, perhaps on behalf of his lord, may have been involved in the process of selling and/or buying.

143 The ‘this’ appears to refer to the upholding of the entire set of laws of the Grately code, rather than just the preceding law of Sunday trading; see the reference to those who deviate from ‘these laws’ (OE ‘ðissa gerædnesse’), which follows shortly after.

144 ‘district’, OE folgoþ; Whitelock, p. 421, gives ‘diocese’.

145 ‘die’, more literally, ‘go forth’.

146 ‘confession-shire’, a literal translation of ‘scrift-scire’; Francesca Tinti (Tinti, p. 34) explains that ‘the use of the term scriftscir indicates the importance of confession’ in defining the territories over which a church holds spiritual jurisdiction.

147 In other words, the oath-breaker may pay a monetary payment in lieu of an act of penance, the amount being determined by the bishop.

Concerning arsonists and murders, probably 10th century

Concerning arsonists and murders (Be blaserum ⁊ be morðslihtum), anonymous, probably the 2nd quarter of the 10th century. Translation from Old English of Textus Roffensis folio 31v-32r by Dr Christopher Monk.

Thought to be the earliest of the anonymous Old English law codes,¹ this text concerns the judicial process for those accused of arson or murder,² and it relates some of the particulars of trial by ordeal.³

It is this brief law that enables us to understand that a ‘threefold’ ordeal of iron, referred to elsewhere in the Old English laws (see, for example, Æthelstan’s Grately Code), involved increasing threefold the weight of the iron bar, to be carried by the accused, from one to three pounds. In another anonymous law, known as Ordal,⁴ we learn that the iron bar was heated upon coals and was carried by the accused for a measurement of nine of his, or her, feet.

This text is also important for showing that the crimes of arson and murder required greater support of one’s oath – the declaration of one’s innocence – if the accused were to escape the ordeal. The deepening of one’s oath threefold meant the accused had to find three times the usual number of people to publicly stand as ‘oath-supporters’.

Transcription

31v (select folio number to open facsimile)

_We cwædon be þam blaserum, cxxi⁵
⁊ be þam morþslyhtum, þæt man dypte þone
aþ be þryfealdum, ⁊ myclade þæt ordalysen
þæt hit gewege þry pund, ⁊ eode se man sylf

32r

to þe man tuge, ⁊ hæbbe se teond cyre, swa wæter-
ordal, swa ysenordal, swa hwæþer him leofra
sy. Gif he ðone að forþbringan ne mæg, ⁊
he þonne ful sy, stande on þæra yldesta man-
na dome, hweþer he lif age þe nage, þe to ðære
byrig hyran.

Translation

See Translation Notes

We declared concerning arsonists and concerning murders that one should deepen the oath threefold,⁶ and one should enlarge the ordeal-iron so that it should weigh three pounds, and the person who is the one accused should walk themself;⁷ and the accuser should have the choice, whether the water-ordeal or the iron-ordeal,⁸ whatever is pleasing to him.

If he [the accused] is unable to bring forth the oath,⁹ and he then be guilty [after the ordeal], it should stand on the judgement of the most senior men that belong to the borough court whether he keeps his life or not.

Bibliography

Wormald, Patrick. The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century (Blackwell, 1999).

Website

Early English Laws, Early English Laws: Home

Footnotes

1 See the introductory comments on the Early English Laws website.

2 Wormald, p. 367, gives ‘underhand killings’.

3 Many thanks to Elise Fleming for kindly proofreading the introduction, translation and notes.

4 Ordal follows this text just a few lines after it finishes, there being the fragmentary text known as Forfang in between the two.

5 The number (121) indicates that this short law is integrated into the law code of King Ine of Wessex (reigned 688-726), which itself is appended to the laws of Alfred the Great (reigned in Wessex 871-899).

6 That is, the accused person must find three times the usual number of people to act as supporters of his oath of denial.

7 OE man signifies a person of either sex. There was to be no representative serving as substitute; the accused person themself had to hold the heated iron and walk the length of the ordeal.

8 It is unclear whether the ‘water-ordeal’ here refers to the so-called ‘hot water’ ordeal (plunging one’s hand or arm into boiling water), described in Ordal, or the so-called ‘cold water’ ordeal (being plunged into a body of water to a certain depth), outlined in Æthelstan’s Grately Code.

9 That is, he is unable to assemble the increased number of oath-supporters.

Forfang: a reward for retrieving stolen property, probably 10th century

Forfang: a reward for retrieving stolen property. Anonymous, probably 2nd quarter of the 10th century. Transcription and translation from Old English of Textus Roffensis folio 32r by Dr Christopher Monk.

The three lines of this fragmentary text is the ‘summary clause’ of an anonymous code known today as Forfang,¹ which deals with the reward for retrieving stolen property, both human (i.e. slaves) and animal (specifically, horses). The Textus Roffensis scribe seems to have been working from a truncated exemplar, so he did not include the remaining text of this law (Wormald, p. 369). In fact, Forfang, a little peculiarly, is presented as if it is the final part of the previous law, which concerns arson and murder (which can be found here).²

The summary clause in isolation is confusing. It begins to make sense once we take into account what it is summarising. The full text of Forfang is found in the manuscript Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 383, at folio 9v, and the late Patrick Wormald’s interpretation of this is as follows:

The gist is that ‘wise men have ordained (witan habbað gerædd)’ that the reward is to be fifteen pence, whether for men (i.e. runaways) or horses, throughout the whole land, regardless of the number of shires traversed in the search. It had once been the case that rewards were proportionate to the distances involved, and paid at the rate of one penny for every shilling’s worth of goods stolen, but it was now thought unfair to burden the ‘small man’ with the cost of an excessive reward as well as extended travel. (Wormald, p. 369.)

The summary clause thus specifies that the reward the owner was to pay the finder for retrieving his stolen goods was now to be fixed at 15 pennies in every case.

Transcription

32r (select folio number to open facsimile)

Forfang ofer eall, sy hit on
anre scipe,³ sy hit on ma, fiftyne peningas,
⁊ æt ælcon smalon orfe, æfre æt scyllinge penig.

Translation

See Translation Notes

The reward everywhere, be it over one shire or more, [shall be] fifteen pennies, and so with the property of any small [man], ever before at one penny [per] one shilling[‘s worth of goods].

Bibliography

Wormald, Patrick. The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century (Blackwell, 1999).

Website

Parker Library On the Web: Manuscripts in the Parker Library at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, Parker Library On the Web Home

Footnotes

1 Many thanks to Elise Fleming for proofreading the introduction, translation and notes.

2 For more on the transmission of Forfang, see Wormald, p. 370.

3 ‘scipe’ is an error for ‘scire’.

Æthelstan modifies the penalties for theft (c.930-39)

Concerning both the age at which a thief could be executed and the lower limit of the value of property stolen for which a thief could be put to death. Translation from Old English of Textus Roffensis folios 92v-93r by Dr Christopher Monk.

This text,¹ found only in Textus Roffensis, is a modification of King Æthelstan’s legislation on the penalties for theft.² It concerns both the age at which a thief could be executed and the lower limit of the value of property stolen for which a thief could be put to death.

In his first known pronouncements on theft, recorded in what is known as the Grately Code (issued at Grately, Hampshire, c.926-c.930),³ Æthelstan stated: ‘First, that one should not spare any thief who is caught red-handed, [who is] over 12 years, and [the value is] over eight pennies’.⁴ The modification, made by the king during a meeting with his counsel at Whittlebury,⁵ changes the age to 15 and the property value to 12 pennies.

Legal and cultural context

That thieves caught in the act could legitimately be killed was well established before Æthelstan; however, he insisted ‘on a stricter implementation of existing punishments’, as Tom Lambert notes in his study, Law & Order in Anglo-Saxon England (Lambert, p. 175).

After first granting an amnesty for thieves (seen in the Exeter Code, which also appears in Textus Roffensis), ‘such that those who committed theft could for a specified period compensate their victims without suffering any punishment’, the king, at Thunderfield (Surrey), ushered in what Lambert calls ‘the dawn of a new, distinctly merciless order’ (Lambert, p. 175). The Thunderfield Code states:

And if there is a thief who has committed theft since the council was held at Thunderfield, and is still engaged in thieving, he shall in no way be judged worthy of life, neither by claiming protection nor by making monetary payment, if the charge is truly substantiated against him – whether it is a freeman or a slave, a noble or commoner, or, if it is a woman, whether she is a mistress or maid – whosoever it may be, whether taken in the act or not taken in the act, if it is known for certainty [sic] – that is if he shall not make a statement of denial – or if the charge is proved in the ordeal, or if his guilt becomes known in any other way. (Lambert, pp. 175-76.)

The extension of execution to those not caught in the act was radical. And the removal of protection and monetary compensation was brutal. This is the context, then, in which the Whittlebury modification falls.

Æthelstan’s punishment of those who committed thievery was, indeed, ‘distinctly merciless’. However, we learn from the modification that the king found the execution of persons ‘so young’ – as young as twelve – and for ‘so little’ – as little as eight pennies – just a little uncomfortable. It seemed to him ‘too cruel’, we are told.

Lest, however, we are tempted to think of Æthelstan as a kind-hearted ruler, the modification still allowed for the killing of children younger than fifteen in certain circumstances, namely, where they put up a fight in resisting capture or attempted to flee.

If the child had his life spared, he was either to be imprisoned or his family were to redeem him with the full value of his wergild, that is, the legal price of his life, which was something every free person was granted according to their rank. Unfortunately, should the wergild payment not be forthcoming – perhaps the family could not afford it – then the child had to become enslaved.

Upholding peace

We may wonder why punishment for theft was so disproportionate and brutal. In the broader context of law and order in the centuries before the Norman Conquest of England, the treatment of thievery is a complex subject that merits more than a few sentences. However, we might summarise one key reason for the legislating of harsh punishment for thieves by referring to the final words of this modification law, in which King Æthelstan states: ‘If we uphold it thus, then I trust to God that our peace [‘frið’] will be better than it was before’.

The peace here alluded to might be best understood as communal – ‘our peace’ – the peaceful state of all the people, the whole kingdom. In Anglo-Saxon laws the supressing of theft is closely associated with this peace, as if there were a collective responsibility to remove the tyranny of thieves (see Lambert, pp. 207-210). We may thus read the ‘evermore frightening punishments’ for thieves (Lambert, p. 210) as an attempt at deterrence, and as the king taking the lead in upholding the peace of the kingdom.

At some point in its transmission the modification text was appended to another of Æthelstan’s law codes, also unique to Textus, which was issued at London, sometime after Thunderfield. You will notice that it begins with ‘Twelfthly’, following on from the previous eleven sections in the London Code.

Transcription

92v (select folio number to open facsimile)

_Twelfte, þæt se cyng cwæð nu eft at witlanby-
rig to his witan, ⁊ het cyðan þam arcebiscope be þeo-
drede biscop, þæt him to hreowlic þuhte, þæt man
swa geongne man cwealde oððe eft for swa
lytlan swa he geaxod hæfde, þæt man gehwær dyde. Cwæð þa þæt him þuhte, ⁊ þam þe he hit wiðrædde,
þæt man nænne gingran mann ne sloge þonne xv.
wintre man, buton he hine werian wolde, oððe
fleoge, ⁊ on hand gan nolde, þæt hine man þonne
lede, swa æt maran, swa æt læssan, swa hwæðer
hit þonne wære. ⁊ gif he þonne on hand gan
wille, þonne do hine man on carcern, swa

93r

hit æt greatanlea gecweden wæs, ⁊ hine be þam
ylcan lynige.⁶ Oððe gif he in carcern ne cume,
⁊ man nan næbbe, þæt hi hine niman be his ful-
lan were on borh, þæt he æfre ma ælces yfeles
geswice. Gif seo mægð him ut niman nelle,
ne him on borh gan, þonne swerige he swa him
bisceop tæce, þæt he ælces yfeles geswycan wille,
⁊ stande on þeowete be his were. Gif he þonne
ofer þæt stalie, slea man hine, oððe ho, swa man
þa yldran ær dyde. ⁊ se cyng cwæð eac, þæt
man nænne ne sloge for læssan yrfe þonne
xii. pænigas weorð, buton he fleon wille, oððe hine
werian, þæt man ne wandode þonne þeah hit læsse
wære. Gif we hit þus gehealdað, þonne gely-
fe ic to gode, þæt ure frið bið betera, þonne hit
æror wæs.

Translation

See Translation Notes

Twelfthly, that the king now spoke once more to his council at Whittlebury, and made it known to the archbishop,⁷ through Bishop Theodred,⁸ that to him it seemed too cruel that one so young a person should be slain, or for so little, as he had learned was done everywhere.

He then said that it seemed to him, and to those with whom he had discussed it, that one should not slay a young person less than fifteen years old,⁹ unless he wishes to fight,¹⁰ or flees, and does not wish to submit; in that case one may lay him low,¹¹ whether for a greater or lesser [offence], whichever it then might be.

And if, however, he wishes to submit, then one should put him in prison, as it was agreed at Grately, and, according to the same, let him be redeemed.¹²

Or if he does not go to prison, or none is available,¹³ that they take him under surety of his full wergild,¹⁴ that he for evermore cease from all evil.

If the kindred is unwilling to take him out [from prison], or stand surety for him, then he should swear as the bishop directs him, that he will cease from all evil, and he should stand in slavery for his wergild.¹⁵

If then he should steal after that, one should slay or hang him, as one would do with an older person.

And the king also said that one may not slay anyone for less than property worth 12 pennies; unless he wants to flee, or fight, in which case one should not hesitate, even though it were for less.

If we uphold it thus, then I trust to God that our peace will be better than it was before.

Bibliography

Lambert, Tom, Law & Order in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford University Press, 2017).

Lapidge et al, The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes, and Donald Scragg (Blackwell Publishing, 1999).

Whitelock, Dorothy, English Historical Documents c.500-1042, second edition (Eyre Methuen/Oxford University Press, 1979).

Websites

Early English Laws, Early English Laws: Home.

Bosworth Toller’s Anglo-Saxon Dictionary online, Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary online (bosworthtoller.com).

Further reading

Wormald, Patrick, The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century (Blackwell, 1999).

Footnotes

Use your browsers 'back' button to jump back to the text.

1 Many thanks to Elise Fleming for proofreading the introduction, translation and notes.

2 Æthelstan was regarded as ‘king of the English’ from 927 until his death on 27 October 939. Prior to being king of the unified kingdom of the English, he was recognised as king in Mercia and his brother Ælfweard as king in Wessex, following the death of their father, Edward the Elder on 2 Aug. 924. As Ælfweard did not long survive his father, Æthelstan became king ‘of the Anglo-Saxons’, being consecrated as ‘king of the Anglo-Saxons and of the Danes’ on 4 September 925 (Lapidge et al, p. 514).

3 Whitelock’s date, p. 417.

4 ‘Ærest thæt man ne sparige nænne þeof þe æt hæbbendre handa gefangen sy, ofer xii winter, ⁊ ofer eahta peningas’, Textus Roffensis, folio 33r, opening lines. A full translation of the Grately Code is available on the Textus pages of this website.

5 Whittlebury today is a village in the south of Northamptonshire, close to the border of Buckinghamshire.

6 ‘lynige’ appears to be an error for ‘lysige’, as noted by Felix Liebermann: see Early English Laws: Liebermann edition [accessed 14 December 2022]. The verb, therefore, is lisian ‘to redeem’: see the entry at Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary online (bosworthtoller.com) [accessed 14 December 2022].

7 Wulfhelm, the archbishop of Canterbury, was appointed c. 926; his term ran until his death on 12 February 941.

8 Theodred, the bishop of London, was consecrated between 909 and 926; his term ran until his death, which was between 951 and 953.

9 Literally, ‘less than fifteen winters’.

10 Or, ‘defend himself’; Whitelock, p. 427, gives ‘unless he tried to defend himself’.

11 Or, ‘kill him’; Whitelock, p. 427, gives ‘in that case he was to be struck down’.

12 That is, according to the same agreement at Grately.

13 More literally, ‘or/and one has none’.

14 The ‘they’ here refers to those redeeming the criminal; we can presume this typically would have been the child’s parents or other relatives; see the clause that follows. The wergild (Old English wer is an abbreviated form of wergild) was the established monetary value of a free person’s life according to their rank. This amount would have to be paid in order to redeem the criminal.

15 That is, the child must become a slave in lieu of the unforthcoming wergild payment.

Concerning a woman’s betrothal, early 11th century

Be wifmannes beweddung (‘Concerning a woman’s betrothal’) (early-11th-century). Translation from Old English, commentary and notes on Textus Roffensis folios 94v-95r by Dr Christopher Monk.

This is a legal formula, probably originally dating to the early eleventh century, that establishes the prenuptial rights of a betrothed woman in England in the decades before the Norman Conquest, including her property entitlement on the death of her husband. It also provides us with insights into the betrothal practices of the period, such as the roles of kinsmen for both the woman and the man; and it addresses the obligation to have a priest present at the marriage, not only in order to bless the union but also to ensure the couple are not too closely related.

Transcription

94v (select folio number to open facsimile)

_Gif man mædan Be wifmannes beweddunge.
oððe wif weddian wille, ⁊ hit swa hire, ⁊ freon-
dan gelicige, ðonne is riht ðæt se brydguma
æfter godes rihte, ⁊ æfter woroldgerysnum
ærest behate, ⁊ on wedde sylle ðam ðe hire
forsprecan synd, þæt he on ða wisan hire ge-
ornige ðet he hy æfter godes rihte healdan
wille swa wær his wif sceal, ⁊ aborgian his frind
ðæt. Æfter ðam is witanne hwam ðæt foster-
lean gebyrige, weddige se brydguma eft þæs,
⁊ hit aborgian his frynd. Ðonne syððan cyþe se
brydguma hwæs he hire geunge wið þam ðet heo
his willan geceose, ⁊ hwæs he hire geunge gif
heo læng sy ðonne he. Gif hit swa geforword bið,
þonne is riht ðæt heo sy healfes yrfes wyrðe, ⁊
ealles gif hy cild gemæne habban bute heo eft
wær ceose, trymme he eal mid wedde þæt þæt
he behate, ⁊ aborgian frynd þæt. Gif hy þonne
ælces þinges sammæle beon, ðonne fon magas
to, ⁊ weddian heora magan to wife, ⁊ to rihtlife
ðam ðe hire girnde, ⁊ for to þam borge se ðe ðæs
weddes waldend sy. Gif hy man ðonne ut of
lande lædan wille on oðres þegnes land, ðonne
bið hire ræd ðæt frynd ða forword habban

95r

ðæt hire man nan woh to ne do. ⁊ gif heo gylt
gewyrce ðæt hy moton beon bote nyhst, gif heo
næfð of hwam heo bete[.]¹ æt þam giftan sceal mæsse-
preost beon mid rihte se sceal mid godes bletsun-
ge heora gesomnunge gederian an ealre gesund-
fulnesse. Wel is eac to warnianne ðæt man
wite ðæt hy ðurh mægsibbe to gelænge ne beon,
ðe læs ðe man eft twæme ðæt man ær awoh
tosomne gedydan.

Translation

See Translation Notes

Concerning a woman’s betrothal.

If one wishes to betroth a maiden or woman,² and it is pleasing to her and her kinsmen,³ then it is right that the [prospective] bridegroom, according to God’s laws and to worldly customs, should first make a promise, and give a pledge to those who are her spokespersons, that he desires her in such a way that he shall keep her as his wife, according to God’s law; and his kinsmen are to stand surety for it.

After that, it is to be known to whom the payment for [her] maintenance belongs:⁴ the bridegroom shall give a pledge as before, and his kinsmen stand surety for it.

Then, afterwards, the bridegroom should declare what he would give her should she accept his wish [to marry her], and what he would give her if she outlives him. If it be agreed upon, then it is right that she be worthy of half the property, and all of it if they have a child together, unless she were to choose another man; he should confirm all that he may promise with a pledge; and his kinsmen will stand surety for it.

If they then be in agreement over all these things, then the kin may take and betroth their kinswoman as wife, and to a lawful life, ⁵ to him who desired her, and he who is head of the betrothal shall be granted the surety payment.

If one should then wish to lead her out of the land into another thegn’s land, then it is advisable that kinsmen obtain for her the assurance that no one will do any harm to her; and, if she should commit a wrong, that they be allowed to substitute for paying compensation, if she does not have anything with which to make compensation.

At the marriage there shall be by law a mass-priest, who shall with God’s blessing join them together in all prosperity. It is also well to take heed that one knows that they are not through kinship too close, lest afterwards one must destroy what previously was wrongfully joined together.

Cited works

DMLBS. Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, available here

DOE. The Dictionary of Old English: A to I; limited free access here

Whitelock, Dorothy, English Historical Documents c.500-1042, second edition (Eyre Methuen/Oxford University Press, 1979).

Footnotes

Use your browsers 'back' button to jump back to the text.

1 Clearly, this is the end of the clause concerning the matter of the bride being taken to a new land. For some reason the scribe has not indicated that a new clause, relating to the marriage ceremony, follows.

2 Implicit, perhaps, is that the ‘woman’ (‘wif’) is a widow; see Whitelock, p. 467.

3 Old English freond, ‘friend’, takes on the sense of ‘kinsman’ in certain contexts. Freond is used in the interlinear gloss of the Lindisfarne Gospels, corresponding to Latin cognatus ‘kinsman or relative by marriage’ (see DOE, frēond, 3; and DMLBS, cognatus, c).

4 The fosterlean, ‘payment for maintenance’ (DOE), appears to refer to a payment by the prospective husband that represents the cost to her parents of bringing up the woman as a child.

5 Whitelock, p. 468, offers ‘in lawful matrimony’.