Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T03:10:49.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Economics of Ruler-Cult in Anglo-Saxon Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

William A. Chaney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

If economists have been accused, like Oscar Wilde's cynic, of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, historians, on the other hand, often know the value of everything and the price of nothing. Since value and price are historically related, however, the historian who ignores the economics which both embodies and reflects a value-system and world-view does so at his own cost. Thus, the laws of the early Germanic tribes — and of the Anglo-Saxons in particular, to whom this study is confined — are dominated by virtual tables of prices and compensations for offenses and injuries. To the general historian, and even to the medievalist, these are perhaps the least fascinating elements of the laws. Certainly the more cosmic elements of Germanic society almost vanish here beneath the weight of numbers. Nonetheless, even these apparently raw economic sources reveal, upon investigation, not only societal structure and the relationship of church and state but a concept of kingship which is the key to both. Penalties and fines in Anglo-Saxon law will be analyzed here to illuminate these aspects of the early English world.

The two greatest influences on the actual codification of Anglo-Saxon law are Roman and ecclesiastical. Before the introduction of Christianity no Germanic written code is known, and the written formulation of law is largely stimulated by an attempt to cope with the new religion and with the status of its institution, the Church, in terms of Germanic society. In Kentish law, for example, dooms concerning the Church show less alliteration and consequently may be taken as newer.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , May 1965 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bethurum, Dorothy, “Stylistic Features of the Old English Laws,” M.L.R., XXVII (1932), 271Google Scholar. It is pointed out, however, (p. 270) that although the weight of scholarly opinion tends to equate alliteration and Sagvers with antiquity and pre-Christian influence, the early laws of Kent are singularly short and less alliterative than the more extended forms of later codes.

2. Whitelock, Dorothy (ed.), English Historical Documents c. 500-1042 (London, 1955), pp. 327-28, 342–43Google Scholar. The earliest authentic charter is that of Hlothhere of Kent, 679 A.D. The pre-Christian and pre-written form of transfer is probably reflected in an actual symbolic act of exchange in the earliest charters of land grants. Kemble, J. M. (ed.), Codex Diplomatics Aevi Saxonici (London, 1847), VGoogle Scholar, No. 1019, 58. Whitelock, , English Historical Documents, p. 343Google Scholar.

3. Kemble, , Codex Diplomatics, III, No. 692, 291Google Scholar.

4. Bede, Historia Ecclesiastics, Bk. II, ch. v; King, J. E. (ed.), Baedae Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum [Loeb Classical Library] (London, 1930), I, 226Google Scholar. The principle underlying the very first law — protection of the new religion's property — is given by Bede as the cause for this first English code, “in which dooms he [Aethelberht] for the first time ordained what amends he ought to make, which had by theft taken away anything from the churches, bishops, or the other orders; wishing doubtless to provide a safeguard for them whom and whose doctrine he had received” (Bk. II, ch. v). Cf. Chaney, William A., “Aethelberht's Code and the King's Number,” American Journal of Legal History, VI (1962), 151CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. Stenton, Frank, Anglo-Saxon England (2nd ed.; Oxford, 1947), p. 181Google Scholar.

6. Levy, Ernst, “Reflections on the First ‘Reception’ of Roman Law in Germanic States,” A.H.R., XLVIII (1942), 23Google Scholar, attributing statements of general legal principles to Roman influence, declares that “no primitive people has, on its own account, ever arrived at such generalizations.”

7. Stenton, , Anglo-Saxon England, p. 62Google Scholar.

8. Ibid., p. 37. For the concept of Germanic sacral kingship, see Höfler, O., “Der Sakralcharacter des Germanischen Königtums,” The Sacral Kingship. Contributions To The Central Theme Of The VIIIth International Congress For The History Of Religions (Rome, April 1955) (Leiden, 1959), pp. 664–701Google Scholar; in the same volume, Ström, Ake V., “The King God and His Connection with Sacrifice in Old Norse Religion,” pp. 702–15Google Scholar; de Vries, Jan, “Das Königtum bei den Germanen,” Saeculum, VII (1956), 289–309Google Scholar. For general discussion, with further bibliography, see Chaney, William A., “Grendel and the Gifstol: A Legal View of Monsters,” P.M.L.A., LXXVII (1962), 514–19Google Scholar.

9. Robertson, A. J. (ed.), The Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I (Cambridge, 1925), p. 119Google Scholar.

10. On the use of the term “Christ” as the Church, cf. Liebermann, Felix, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen (Halle, 1912), II, Pt. 2, 340Google Scholar, “Christus,” sec. 1, and 535, “Kirche,” sec. 2.

11. For this assertion of royal duties in the laws, cf. the preamble to 2 Edmund, 5 Aethelred 1, 7 Aethelred 1, 8 Aethelred 36, preamble to 10 Aethelred, 2 Cnut 40 §2; Robertson, , Laws, pp. 9, 79, 109, 127, 131, 197Google Scholar. For parallels, cf. p. 341, note 1 to 8 Aethelred 36.

12. Tacitus, Germania, ch. xii: “pars multae regi vel civitati, pars ipsi qui vlndicavit vel propinquis eius exsolvitur.”

13. Aethelberht 8, 15; Attenborough, F. L. (ed.), The Laws of the Earliest English Kings (Cambridge, 1922), pp. 5, 7Google Scholar. The code's date probably falls between Aethelberht's conversion and his death in 616 (or 617). The Kentish silver shiłling was four times in value the shilling of later Wessex. Ibid., p. 176, note 1 to Aethelberht 16. For payment of the royal mundbyrd, cf. Aethelberht 2, 10, and perhaps 6; ibid., pp. 5, 175, note 1 to c 6.

14. Aethelberht 2-3; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 5Google Scholar. In the former case, fifty shillings, the amount of the king's mundbyrd and the compensation to be paid for slaying a man in the king's tun (Aethelberht 8, 5), is also to be paid to the king. For double compensation due for breach of the peace of a church or meeting place, cf. Aethelberht 1.

15. Cf. the seminal study of Kantorowicz, Ernst H., The King's Two Bodies (Princeton, 1957)Google Scholar, esp. ch. vii, “The King Never Dies,” pp. 314-450.

16. Myrcna Laga 3 § 1-4. The king's wergeld is that “of six thegns by the law of the Mercians, namely 30,000 sceattas, which is 120 pounds in all” (c. 2). Liebermann, , Die Gesetze, I, 462Google Scholar; Harmer, F. (ed.), Select English Historical Documents of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (Cambridge, 1914), p. 89Google Scholar. Chadwick, H. M., Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions (Cambridge, 1905), pp. 13, 17–18Google Scholar; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 194Google Scholar, note 1 to Alfred 4 § 1.

17. Northleoda Laga 1-2; the wergeld of a bishop or ealdorman is 8,000 (c. 3). Liebermann, , Die Gesetze, I, 458–60Google Scholar; Harmer, , Select Documents, p. 89Google Scholar. Translations of the Myrcna Laga and Northleoda Laga are to be found in Whitelock, , English Historical Documents, pp. 432–33Google Scholar.

18. Chadwick, , Anglo-Saxon Institutions, p. 133Google Scholar, suggests this distinction as the basis of the double compensation for mundbryce of king and earl. The distinction between person and office is seen also in the early Welsh law of Hywel Dda: “The law says that the limbs of all persons are of equal worth; if a limb of the king be broken that it is of the same worth of the bondman. Yet nevertheless the worth of sarhad to the king or to a brëyr is more than the sarhad of a bondman if a limb of his be cut”; Richards, Melville (ed.), The Laws of Hywel Dda (Liverpool, 1954), p. 64Google Scholar.

19. For example, twelve shillings: Hlothhere and Eadric 9, 11, 12, 13; fifteen shillings: Aethelberht 84; fifty shillings: Hlothhere and Eadric 14. Attenborough, , Laws, pp. 21, 15Google Scholar.

20. For example, thirty shillings: 1 Edgar 5 § 1; sixty shillings: 3 Edgar 8 § 3 (but the two fines on buyer and seller total the customary 120); 200 shillings: 2 Edgar 4 § 2. Robertson, , Laws, pp. 19, 29, 23Google Scholar. On the term wite and its amounts in West Saxon law, cf. Chadwick, , Anglo-Saxon Institutions, pp. 127–34Google Scholar.

21. For example, Ine 45, Alfred 37 § 2, 2 Athelstan 1 § 5, 3, 6 § 1-§ 3, 20-20 § 2, 22 § 1, 25-25 § 1, 4 Athelstan 4, 7, 5 Aethelstan 1, 1 § 2-§ 4, 6 Athelstan 1 § 5, 8 § 4, 11, 3 Edmund 2, 6 § 2, 7 § 2, 2 Edgar 4 § 1, 3 Edgar 3, 7 § 2, 1 Aethelred 4 § 3, 4 Aethelred 6, 9 § 2, 5 Aethelred 28 § 1, 8 Aethelred 5 § 1, 10 § 1, 11 § 1, 1 Quit 3a § 2, 9, 10, 2 Quit 15a § 1-§ 2, 25a § 2, 29 § 1, 33 § 2. 44 § 1, 65, 80 § 1. Attenborough, , Laws, pp. 51, 81, 129, 131, 137, 139, 141, 149, 151, 153, 155, 159, 165, 169Google Scholar; Robertson, , Laws, pp. 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 55, 77, 79, 87, 119, 121, 159, 165, 181, 183, 189, 193, 199, 207, 215Google Scholar. There are numerous others in which it is less clear that the 120 shillings are paid to the king.

22. For the identification of royal frith with the king's mundbryce, for the breaking of which the penalties are the same, cf. Drew, Katherine Fischer, Lombard Laws and Anglo-Saxon Dooms (Houston, 1956), p. 118Google Scholar.

23. Ine 45: “120 shillings compensation shall be paid for breaking into the fortified premises of the king”; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 51Google Scholar.

24. For example, Ine 76, in which the godson of a king is, when slain, to be compensated for by payment equal to his full wergeld to the king, in addition to wergeld to the relatives, in contrast to a lower sum for a nonroyal godson; the compensation for wergeld of a bishop's godson is half that of a king's godson (76 § 1). Attenborough, , Laws, p. 61Google Scholar.

25. The earliest, other than Wihtred 4 (which does not involve wite), is Ine 23-23 § 2; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 43Google Scholar. Cf. 2 Cnut 40; Robertson, , Laws, p. 197Google Scholar.

26. Ine 23 § 1, 27, Alfred 1 § 3, 31; Attenborough, , Laws, pp. 43, 45, 63, 77Google Scholar.

27. Contrast, for example, Ine 39 and Alfred 37-37 § 2 on a man moving from one district to another, which Liebermann rightly takes to be a growth of state authority; Attenborough, , Laws, pp. 49, 81, 198Google Scholar, note 1 to Alfred 37 § 1.

28. Aethelberht 1, 3; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 5Google Scholar.

29. Aethelberht 4, 1; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 5Google Scholar. On the significance of nine for royal compensation, cf. Chaney, , “Aethelberht's Code and the King's Number,” Amer. Jour. Legal Hist., VI (1962), 151–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. Wihtred 2; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 25Google Scholar.

31. Wihtred 16; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 27Google Scholar.

32. Alfred 8, which concerns a nun taken from a nunnery without royal or episcopal permission; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 69Google Scholar.

33. Ine 45; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 51Google Scholar.

34. Ine 6 § 1; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 39Google Scholar. This is less than the breach of peace in the royal house, which the same code sets at the forfeiture of all the offender's property and the placing of his life in the king's hands: Ine 6. For the relative value of the Kentish and West Saxon shillings, cf. Chadwick, , Anglo-Saxon Institutions, pp. 12–20Google Scholar.

35. Alfred 40; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 83Google Scholar.

36. Attenborough, , Laws, p. 65Google Scholar.

37. 2 Cnut 58-58 §2; Robertson, , Laws, p. 205Google Scholar. In the Northleoda Laga an aetheling's, wergeld is the same as that of an archbishop. Cf. 1 Cnut 3a § 2, in which grithbryce of a principal church is the fine for breach of the king's mund, “five pounds in districts under English law, (and in Kent for breach of the mund, five pounds to the king and three pounds to the Archbishop),” the parenthetical clause added by MS. G; Robertson, , Laws, pp. 157-59, 348Google Scholar, note 2 to law, with reference to equality of king and bishop in Be Grithe 6.

38. Alfred 7, 15; Attenborough, , Laws, pp. 69, 73Google Scholar.

39. 3 Aethelred 12; Robertson, , Laws, p. 69Google Scholar. A mark contained eight ores (aurar), so the amount deposited against a king's action, three marks, is twice the amount for a bishop's action. Ibid., p. 319, note 2 to 3 Aethelred 1 § 2. For the same ratio in compensation for royal and episcopal godsons, see above, note 24.

40. (So-called) Laws of William I 2, 16; Robertson, , Laws, pp. 253, 261Google Scholar.

41. 4 Edgar 1 § 8; Robertson, , Laws, p. 33Google Scholar.

42. 1 Cnut 26; Robertson, , Laws, p. 173Google Scholar.

43. Cnut's Proclamation of 1020 1, 8; Robertson, , Laws, pp. 141, 143Google Scholar.

44. 2 Athelstan 25 § 1; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 141Google Scholar.

45. C. 10 of councils, quoting II Timothy 2:4; Haddan, A. W. and Stubbs, W. (eds.), Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents Relating to Great Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 1871), III, 452Google Scholar.

46. See above, p. 6, and notes 28, 29.

47. Wihtred 2; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 25Google Scholar.

48. Alfred 6-6 § 1; Attenborough, , Laws, pp. 67–69Google Scholar. The value of the object with no increase is suggested by Pope Gregory I to Augustine for theft from a church; Bede, Hist. Eccl., Bk. I, ch. xxvii, responsum 3.

49. Stenton, , Anglo-Saxon England, p. 273Google Scholar.

50. Attenborough, , Laws, p. 131Google Scholar.

51. I Edmund 5; Robertson, , Laws, pp. 7, 296Google Scholar.

52. This is true in spite of Robertson's correct comment that the homiletic last codes of Aethelred's reign give “small sign of any practical policy with regard to the difficulties of the time”; Robertson, , Laws, p. 49Google Scholar.

53. Robertson, , Laws, pp. 83, 97, 105Google Scholar. Jost regards 5 Aethelred as the authentic laws of Eanham and 6 Aethelred as Wulfstan's Privatarbeit for that council. K. Sisam holds the former to be laws of this council of 1008 A.D. in the form for general circulation and the latter to be a version for parish priests in the province of York; Jost, K., Wulfstanstudien [Swiss Studies in English, XXIII] (Bern, 1950), pp. 13–44Google Scholar; Bethurum, Dorothy (ed.), The Homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford, 1957), p. 44Google Scholar.

54. Robertson, , Laws, pp. 117–19Google Scholar.

55. 8 Aethelred 5-5 § 1; Robertson, , Laws, pp. 119, 339Google Scholar.

56. 1 Cnut 2 § 1; Robertson, , Laws, p. 155Google Scholar.

57. On Germanic marriage with the widow, cf. Chadwick, H. M., Origin of the English Nation (Cambridge, 1924), pp. 305–20Google Scholar; on the king as “warden of the holy temple,” cf. Vigfusson, Gudbrand and Powell, F. York (eds.), Corpus Poeticum Boreale (Oxford, 1883), II, 478Google Scholar.

58. 1 Cnut 2 § 5 and 3a § 1-2; Robertson, , Laws, pp. 157–59Google Scholar.

59. Alfred the Great, for example, gave half his revenues to “God and the Church”; of this gift one quarter went to the foundations of Athelney and Shaftesbury and one quarter to other monasteries in Wessex and abroad; Asser, De Rebus Gestis Aelfredi, c. 102.

60. Attenborough, , Laws, pp. 69, 73Google Scholar. The compensation “if anyone seizes by the breast a young woman belonging to the commons” is five shillings: Alfred 11; ibid., p. 71.

61. 1 Edmund 4; Robertson, , Laws, p. 7Google Scholar.

62. 6 Aethelred 39; Robertson, , Laws, p. 103Google Scholar. Cf. 5 Aethelred 21 and 6 Aethelred 26. Ibid., pp. 85, 99.

63. Robertson, , Laws, pp. 95, 145, 163, 201Google Scholar.

64. Edward and Guthrum 12; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 109Google Scholar. This code has been attributed, largely on stylistic grounds, to Archbishop Wulfstan; Whitelock, Dorothy, “Wulfstan and the So-Called Laws of Edward and Guthrum,” E.H.R., LVI (1941), 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The contents of the laws, however, may come from the period to which they have been traditionally ascribed.

65. Robertson, , Laws, pp. 127, 197Google Scholar. Although it is the present fashion to assign as many codes as possible to the authorship of Archbishop Wulfstan, it is difficult to believe that he would make king and bishop the “kinsmen and protectors” in such cases in one code and the king only in another. This discrepancy is, however, what one would expect if the contents of Edward and Guthrum date from an earlier period —e.g., the reigns of those two rulers — than Aethelred's code.

66. Besides the above, cf. Edward and Guthrum 4, in which, for the punishment of incest, “the king shall take possession of the male offender, and the bishop the female offender”; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 105Google Scholar.

67. Edward and Guthrum 12; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 109Google Scholar. In 2 Cnut 40 § 1, this payment is made to the king alone, and in 8 Aethelred 33, the king alone acts as “kinsman and protector,” both laws reflecting the growth of the king's peace; Robertson, , Laws, pp. 127, 197Google Scholar.

68. 8 Aethelred 2, repeated in 1 Cnut 2 §4; Robertson, , Laws, pp. 119, 157Google Scholar.

69. 8 Aethelred 15; Robertson, , Laws, p. 123Google Scholar. “In accordance with former custom” indicates that this division is earlier than Aethelred.

70. C. 48; cf. 49, 54-54 § 1. Liebermann, , Die Gesetze, I, 383.Google Scholar

71. C. 59; Liebermann, , Die Gesetze, I, 384.Google Scholar

72. Robertson, , Laws, p. 127Google Scholar. The Anglo-Saxon beginning is remarkable for its alliteration.

73. 8 Aethelred 37-38; Robertson, , Laws, pp. 127–29Google Scholar. Cf. 5 Aethelred 31, 6 Aethelred 38; ibid., pp. 89, 103.

74. Robertson, , Laws, pp. 105–07Google Scholar. Italics mine.

75. Edward and Guthrum 12; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 109Google Scholar.

76. 2 Cnut 42; Robertson, , Laws, p. 196Google Scholar.

77. 1 Cnut 10 § 1; Robertson, , Laws, p. 165Google Scholar. Cf. Chaney, William A., “Anglo-Saxon Church Dues: A Study in Historical Continuity,” Church History, XXXII (1963), 271–73Google Scholar, on the pagan background of Martinmas payment.

78. 1 Cnut 9 § 1; Robertson, , Laws, p. 165Google Scholar. According to the so-called Laws of William I, 17b § 3, one arraigned in the King's Court for failure to pay Peter's Pence is fined “30 pence to the bishop and 40 shillings [that is 120 Mercian shillings] to the King.” Ibid., pp. 263, 368, note 1 to 17b § 3.

79. Alfred 8; Attenborough, , Laws, p. 69Google Scholar. 2 Cnut 36; Robertson, , Laws, p. 195Google Scholar. Liebermann also judges payments to “Christ” to be made to the bishop; Liebermann, , Die Gesetze, II, Pt. 2, 313 ff.Google Scholar, “Bischof,” esp. sec. 6; also 340, “Christus,” sec. 1.

80. 1 Cnut 26 § 3; Robertson, , Laws, p. 175Google Scholar.

81. See above, p. 3, and note 9.

82. Widsith, 11, 133–34Google Scholar.

83. On the relation of this to the later parallelism of Christus and fiscus, cf. Kantorowicz, , King's Two Bodies, pp. 173–92Google Scholar.

84. Thus the great Bible manuscripts produced in the monastery of Jarrow were known as Pandects, “a name transferred from the Justinian Code to the Divine Code”; Colgrave, Bertram, The Venerable Bede and His Times [Jarrow Lecture, 1958] (Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, 1958), p. 9Google Scholar.