Table Of ContentR
A
Arguably, more legal texts survive from pre-Conquest England B
IN
than from any other early medieval European community. The
corpus includes roughly seventy royal law codes, to which can
be added well over a thousand charters, writs, and wills, as well
as numerous political tracts, formularies, rituals, and homilies
derived from legal sources. These texts offer valuable insight England in the Early
into early English concepts of royal authority and political
Medieval World
identity. They reveal both the capacities and limits of the king’s
regulatory power, and in so doing, provide crucial evidence for
the process by which disparate kingdoms gradually merged to
become a unified English state. More broadly, pre-Norman legal
texts shed light on the various ways in which cultural norms
C Crime and
were established, enforced, and, in many cases, challenged. rim
And perhaps most importantly, they provide unparalleled e
a
n Punishment in
insight into the experiences of Anglo-Saxon England’s diverse d
P
inhabitants, both those who enforced the law and those subject u
n
to it. ish Anglo-Saxon
m
e
n
t
in England
A
n
g
About the Series Series Editors lo
-
Elements in England in the Early Medieval Megan Cavell Sa
x
World takes an innovative, interdisciplinary University of o
n
view of the culture, history, literature, Birmingham En Andrew Rabin
g
archaeology and legacy of England Rory Naismith lan
d
between the fifth and eleventh centuries. University of
Individual contributions question and Cambridge
situate key themes, and thereby bring new
Winfried Rudolf
perspectives to the heritage of Anglo-
University of
Saxon England.
Göttingen
Emily V. Thornbury
Yale University
Cover image: Getty Images / Photo 12 ISSN 2632-203X (online)
ISSN 2632-2021 (print)
ElementsinEnglandintheEarlyMedievalWorld
editedby
MeganCavell
UniversityofBirmingham
RoryNaismith
UniversityofCambridge
WinfriedRudolf
UniversityofGöttingen
EmilyV.Thornbury
YaleUniversity
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
IN ANGLO-SAXON
ENGLAND
Andrew Rabin
University of Louisville
UniversityPrintingHouse,CambridgeCB28BS,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,NY10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,Australia
314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,
NewDelhi–110025,India
79AnsonRoad,#06–04/06,Singapore079906
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108932035
DOI:10.1017/9781108943109
©AndrewRabin2020
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2020
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
ISBN978-1-108-93203-5Paperback
ISSN2632-203X(online)
ISSN2632-2021(print)
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof
URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication
anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,
accurateorappropriate.
Crime and Punishment in Anglo-Saxon England
ElementsinEnglandintheEarlyMedievalWorld
DOI:10.1017/9781108943109
Firstpublishedonline:August2020
AndrewRabin
UniversityofLouisville
Authorforcorrespondence:AndrewRabin,[email protected]
Abstract:Arguably,morelegaltextssurvivefrompre-ConquestEngland
thanfromanyotherearlymedievalEuropeancommunity.Thecorpus
includesroughlyseventyroyallawcodes,towhichcanbeaddedwell
overathousandcharters,writs,andwills,aswellasnumerouspolitical
tracts,formularies,rituals,andhomiliesderivedfromlegalsources.
ThesetextsoffervaluableinsightintoearlyEnglishconceptsofroyal
authorityandpoliticalidentity.Theyrevealboththecapacitiesand
limitsoftheking’sregulatorypower,andinsodoing,providecrucial
evidencefortheprocessbywhichdisparatekingdomsgradually
mergedtobecomeaunifiedEnglishstate.Morebroadly,pre-Norman
legaltextsshedlightonthevariouswaysinwhichculturalnormswere
established,enforced,and,inmanycases,challenged.Andperhaps
mostimportantly,theyprovideunparalleledinsightintothe
experiencesofAnglo-SaxonEngland’sdiverseinhabitants,boththose
whoenforcedthelawandthosesubjecttoit.
Keywords:Law,OldEnglish,Anglo-Saxon,earlyMiddleAges,Englishhistory
©AndrewRabin2020
ISBNs:9781108932035(PB),9781108943109(OC)
ISSNs:2632-203X(online),2632-2021(print)
Contents
1 Introduction:DefiningLaw 1
2 MakingLaw 6
3 BreakingLaw 24
4 EnforcingtheLaw 43
5 Conclusion:ThinkingLaw 56
Bibliography 58
Acknowledgments 67
CrimeandPunishmentinAnglo-SaxonEngland 1
1Introduction:DefiningLaw
Everything can be called into question in England except the fact that it was
conqueredin1066.Englandisthelandoflawandofthemostscrupulousrespect
forthelaw;butthelawbeginsatthatdateonly,orEnglandassuchceasestoexist.
-JeanAnouilh,Becket,ortheHonorofGod
“WelearntthedatesofthekingsandqueensofEnglandatschool,”saidMorse.
“TroubleiswestartedatWilliamtheFirst.”
“Yououghttohavegonebackearlier,Inspector–muchearlier.”
-ColinDexter,TheJewelthatwasOurs
Sometime in the final decade of the tenth century, two wealthy landowners,
Wynflæd and Leofwine, fell into dispute over a set of estates near Datchet in
Berkshire. The charter recording the dispute tells us that Wynflæd initially
presentedherclaimsdirectlytoKingÆthelred(r.978–1016)accompaniedby
ArchbishopSigericofCanterbury,BishopOrdbrihtofSelsey,ealdormanÆlfric
of Winchester, and the king’s mother Ælfthryth as witnesses. Æthelred then
orderedArchbishopSigerictosummonLeofwinetocourt,buthe–surprisingly
consideringtheauthorityofthosecallingforhispresence–refusedtoappear.
Possibly pointing to the laws of King Edgar (r. 959–75) decreeing that royal
appeals cannot precede local judgment, Leofwine demanded that the king
withholdhisrulingandrecognizethejurisdictionoftheregionalshire-court.1
Forced to yield, Æthelred sent his seal to the court judges along with the
commissionthattheyshouldresolvethedisputeinaway“swarihtlicegeseman
swa him æfre rihtlicost þuhte” (that ever seemed most just to them). In
this second proceeding, Wynflæd produced an even more impressive array of
witnessesincludingmorethantwenty-fivemembersofthechurchandnobility,
again led by Ælfthryth. Leofwine’s witnesses are not recorded, but they too
musthavebeenimpressiveforthecaseultimatelyendedinacompromise.Had
it not done so, the judges predicted, “þær syþþan nar freondscype nære”
(thereaftertherewouldbenofriendship).2
1 IIIEdgar2and5–5.2.OldEnglishroyallegislationisreferredtobythenameofthekingunder
whomitwasissued.Inwhatfollows,whenreferencingtheking’sperson,hisnamewillbein
romanfont.Whenreferencinghislaws,theking’snamewillbeitalicizedand,ifhehasissued
multiple law codes, prefaced by a roman numeral. All quotations from Old English royal
legislation are taken from Liebermann, Gesetze. Accessible translations are available in
Attenborough,EarliestLawsandRobertson,LawsoftheKingsofEngland.Unlessotherwise
noted,alltranslationsinthisElement,bothfromthelawsandotherdocuments,aremyown.
2 S 1454. Charters will be cited by their index number in Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters. An
updated version of Sawyer’s index can be found online at https://esawyer.lib.cam.ac.uk.
A selection of charters with accessible translations can be found in Robertson, Anglo-Saxon
Charters.ThetextforS1454hasbeentakenfromBrooksandKelly,ChartersofChristChurch
Canterbury,no.133,vol.II,pp.987–93.
2 ElementsinEnglandintheEarlyMedievalWorld
ThelawsuitbetweenWynflædandLeofwineisstriking,notjustforwhatit
reveals about early medieval dispute resolution, but also for what it suggests
about the character of pre-Conquest legal culture more generally. Historians
differ over the efficacy of early law and its role in the governance of the
kingdom: some view legal authority during this period as diffuse and largely
subjecttothecustomsandpracticesoflocalcommunities,whileothersseean
effective centralized bureaucracy ruled by a powerful and interventionist
monarch.3 Yet neither version of early English legal culture fully reflects the
decisions,assumptions,andpracticesoftheparticipantshere.Rather,disagree-
ments regarding jurisdiction, royal prerogative, land tenure and inheritance,
judgment and compromise, and even the relative value of justice (riht) and
friendship(freondscype)suggestthattheking,court,witnesses,anddisputants
allapproachedtheprocessofadjudicationwithverydifferentperspectiveson
thelawandtheauthorityunderwhichitwasadministered.Thelegalworldof
thedisputeisneitherentirelylocalnorfullycentralized;instead,itconsistsof
a series of complex negotiations between different centers of authority – the
royalcourt,thechurch,theregionalaristocracy,andthelocalcourts–inwhich
eachseekstoassertitsownviewoflawinordertoclaimprecedenceoverthe
others.Withinthiscontext,Æthelred’scommandtothejudgesthatthecasebe
decidedinthemannerthatseemed“rihtlicost”(mostjust)invitesthereaderto
ask whether those involved in the dispute all understood what it meant to be
“most just” in the same way.4 What royal expectations (or demands) did
Æthelred’scommissionimply?Whatdiditmeantocommandthatthedispute
besettledaccordingtorihtasopposedtolaga(law)?Andtowhatdegreewere
concepts of riht shaped by factors such as social class, regional background,
gender, and (perhaps most importantly) self-interest? In offering a concise
introductiontothelegalworldofAnglo-SaxonEngland,thisElementwilltry
tosuggestatleastthebeginningsofananswertothesequestions.
Anyanswer,ofcourse,muststartwiththetextsthemselves.Arguably,more
legal texts survive from pre-Conquest England than from any other early
medievalEuropeancommunity.5Theseincludeapproximatelyseventyactsof
legislationalongwithwelloverathousandcharters,writs,wills,manumissions
and royal diplomas. Also to be included are numerous quasi-legislative texts,
3 AsummaryofthecaseforamorecentralizedgovernmentcanbefoundinCampbell,“TheLate
Anglo-SaxonState,”1–30;Wormald, “Godand King,”333–58,especially 48–54.,and more
recentlyinBaxter,“TheLimitsoftheLateAnglo-SaxonState,”503–515;andReynolds,Deviant
BurialPractices.Forcounter-arguments,seeHyams,“FeudandtheState,”1–43;Rabin,“Capital
Punishment,”181–200;Lambert,LawandOrder,1–26.
4 SeealsoKennedy,“LawandLitigation,182–183;Rabin,“LawandJustice,”86–91.
5 Forthemostinfluentialrecentsurveysofthelawsandlegaltextsofpre-ConquestEngland,see
Wormald,MakingandHudson,OxfordHistory.
CrimeandPunishmentinAnglo-SaxonEngland 3
legal formularies and rituals, and homilies derived from legal sources. The
corpusrangesfromtheearliestOldEnglishtextofanysubstance,thelawsof
Æthelberht ofKent (r. c. 589–616),tothe latest inthe formof post-Conquest
landgrants.LegalcompendiasuchasthelawsofAlfred(r.871–99)orCnut(r.
1016–35)suggestadesiretocomprehensiblyregulatethelegalactivitiesofthe
kingdomanditssubjects,whileothertexts,someasshortasasentenceortwo,
represent limited rulings on specific issues. Some texts refer to the king as
imperator,casere,orbasileus–termsevocativeofRomanimperialkingship6–
whileothersembracealanguageofrulegroundedintheformulaicstructureand
phrasing oftraditional OldEnglishpoetry.7Takentogether,thelaws, charters
andsimilardocumentsdemonstratethebreadthanddiversityofpre-Conquest
legal thought, yet they also indicate just how porous the boundary between
“legal”and“non-legal”textscouldbe.Æthelred’slaterlawsinitiallyappearto
be traditional legislation, but they also frequently lapse into the homiletic
cadences of their putative author, Archbishop Wulfstan of York (d. 1023).
Likewise, the great legal anthology Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS
383(C.C.C.C.383)containswhatlookslikeatreatybetweenKingEdwardthe
ElderandtheVikingKingGuthrum,yetthetextisaneleventh-centuryfiction
interpolatedintothelegalrecordnearlyonehundredyearsafteritclaimstohave
been written. Also included in both C.C.C.C. 383 and the other major manu-
scriptsourceforearlyEnglishlaw,theTextusRoffensis,isacharmagainstcattle
theft–agenreseldomconsidered“legal”bymodernscholarsandomittedfrom
standardeditionsofpre-Conquestlawsbutwhichtheanonymouscompilersof
themanuscriptsnonethelessviewedasanappropriatetexttoaccompanyroyal
legislation. Elsewhere one finds passages of legislation that scan like verse,
portions of saints’ lives that read like charters, and religious rituals that echo
royal legislation, among many other examples of cross-genre fertilization.
HighlightingsuchoverlapsisnotmeanttosuggestthattheAnglo-Saxonssaw
no distinction between the drafting of laws or charters and other forms of
writing.Rather,itistopointoutthatlegalcompositionfrequentlyincorporated
othergenresandwasincorporatedbytheminturn.Eventhoughindividuallaws
andchartersareonlyrarelycitedwithanysortofspecificity,thelanguageand
ritualsofthelawpermeatedthetextualworldofpre-ConquestEngland,shaping
perceptionsofauthorityanddefiningtheparametersofearlyEnglishsociety.
Yet recognizing pre-Conquest legal texts as both hybrid and normative
should not detract from our view of Anglo-Saxon law as law, that is, as
6 It should be noted, however, that there is only limited evidence for pre-Norman lawmakers’
familiarity with Roman law. See Winkler, “Roman Law”; Wormald, Making, 96–97; Porter,
“Terminology,”andsection2.1.
7 Seesections2.3and2.4.
4 ElementsinEnglandintheEarlyMedievalWorld
aregulatoryinstrumentdesignedtoensurethestabilityandsecurityofcommu-
nity and kingdom. It should, however, make us wary of imposing modern
notionsoflawonpremodernlegalculture.Thelawsofpre-ConquestEngland
differ from contemporary Anglo-American legal practice in significant ways,
perhapsthemostimportantofwhichbeingtheabsenceofdistinctionbetween
publicandcivilwrongs(inmodernterms,betweencrimeandtort).Likewise,
pre-Conquest law also did not distinguish between what would come to be
knownasfelonyandmisdemeanor.8Rather,wrongstopersonsortheirproperty
were understood, particularly in the earliest texts, as violations against an
individualandtheirfamily.Accordingly,theresponsibilityforpursuingredress
laywiththekingroupratherthanastate-sponsoredapparatusoflegalenforce-
ment.Asaresult,disputesoverlandownershipandaccusationsoftheftorother
forms of injurious behavior were often treated in similar ways: the accused
wouldnotbe“arrested”inanymodernsense;ratheracomplaintwasbroughtby
theaggrievedpartytotheshirecourt.Dependingonthestatusofthoseinvolved,
acertainnumberofwitnesses–muchlikethosemartialedbyWynflæd–would
be required of each side in order to testify to the truth or falsehood of the
accusation.Incertaincircumstances,thecourtmightalsoordertheaccusedto
undergoanordealtodemonstrateinnocenceorguilt.Oncetheaccusationhad
beenproventothecourt’ssatisfaction,itthenassessedanappropriatepenaltyin
theformofafine,confiscationofproperty,thelossofalimb,exile,ordeath.
Lawsuit records indicate that appeals were possible, though the frequency of
appealsandtheirchancesofsuccessareunknown.Thatsaid,accusationswere
a tricky business in Anglo-Saxon England, and if the ownership of an estate
could not be demonstrated unequivocally or its owner could not be fully
exoneratedofsomemisdeed,thenitwasnotuncommonforthecrownorchurch
tosnapupanyestatesinvolvedforitself.
This brief account summarizes in broad terms how a pre-Conquest legal
dispute might proceed, yet as the historian Patrick Wormald cautions, the
“‘typical’Anglo-Saxondisputesettlement(iftherewasanysuchthing)remains
elusive.”9 In the absence of official court records, accounts of disputes were
largelydrawnupbythosewhobenefitedfromthesettlementortheirheirs,and
onlytheniftheyhadaccesstoscribesorwereliteratethemselves.Undersuch
circumstances,therecanbelittlesurprisethatthemajorityofsurvivinglawsuits
involvethechurch,andthatthemajorityofthosearecasesinwhichthechurch
profitedinsomeway.Yetwhetheradisputeinvolvedthechurchorthelaity,for
8 O’Brien,“FromMorðortoMurdrum,”321–357;Lambert,“Theft,HomicideandCrime,”3–43;
Lambert,“RoyalProtectionsandPrivateJustice,”157–76;andKamali,FelonyandtheGuilty
MindinMedievalEngland,20–24.
9 Wormald,“Charters,Law,andtheSettlementofDisputes,”292.
