Site Library Library of Germania

How are the law-codes that survive from Anglo-Saxon England useful in revealing aspects of Anglo-Saxon social values?

We have much information regarding the social and legal values from many parts of the ancient world. From the mythologies of the Greeks and Romans we can see many of the important issues facing the people of these cultures. As very powerful and well-organised societies we also have a lot of well-documented laws and histories that were meticulously recorded. Even when these histories are politically motivated, they can still be used as a powerful insight into the social and political climate of the time. The strength, power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church also prompted other nations to follow suit, which put into writing many things that were important to them, in the language of the Church, Latin. Unfortunately for historians of ancient Britain, for many years, no such influence was felt here after the departure of the Roman authority. Much of what we know of our own history comes from the writings of other nations. We are lucky that the Romans did feel compelled to record what they saw and knew, or we may have known even less of our own cultural history. We know that the Anglo-Saxons were initially pagan from accounts written by historians such as Tacitus, Gildas and the Bede and these ‘histories’ are of some limited use. What we must remember, though, when using these resources, is that they are concerned with mainly clerical matters and that they demonstrate some powerful bias, especially in the writings of Gildas. What we also lack are any surviving, early, stories from the Anglo-Saxons themselves, telling us of their religious beliefs or their cultural structure. Though we can extrapolate much information from other Germanic tribes, it does not necessarily follow that the Anglo-Saxons followed the same paths. One thing we do know of these Germanic pagans, much like the Celts, is that they had a strong oral tradition and literature was much less important to them than to the Christians from Rome. We can however look behind extant stories and poems, such as Beowulf or The Wanderer, as well as many others and extract some references to help us gain some insight into what their pagan practices may be. Of course, the main problem here is that Anglo-Saxon culture, by the point that these were written down, had already embraced Christianity for centuries. As for the society and social values of the Anglo-Saxons we can also look into the sagas and poems, where we may detect mourning for their glorious heroic past (?), for social problems and thoughts on their contemporary audience. one problem here, is how to accurately date these stories. We do, however, have another useful resource. These Resources accurately reflect the contemporary cultures, and, can be accurately dated: The Anglo-Saxon Laws. These laws have been left to us from a wonderful era in British History, between 1000 – 1500 years ago. The importance of these laws has lead them to be regarded as “the most genuine expression of Teutonic legal thought.” The issues that these laws deal with, as well as their very existence, give us possibly the best view of what was happening in the real world, outside of the heroic poetry and legends of the time. The Anglo-Saxon laws are a vast resource. To comment on all of them is well beyond the scope of a small essay. What I will try to concentrate on are the Kentish laws, which cover the earlier parts of Anglo-Saxon rule, from 597-725.

One of the first issues to be addressed in the importance of the Anglo-Saxon laws lies behind the consideration of why the laws were promulgated at all. King Æthelburht wrote the first of these laws, and it can be reliably dated to between 597 which marks the arrival of Augustine, who is mentioned in Æthelburht’s introduction, and 604, 612 or 614, the death of Augustine. These laws were written over 150 years after the Anglo-Saxons had settled in England. Why then were the laws now considered to be important enough to put into writing? Of considerable importance here is the conversion and baptism of Æthelburht into the Christian faith shortly after Augustine’s arrival (a complicated process one assumes as he is supposed to have descended from Woden himself). The importance of this new religion and its teachings through the Ten Commandments and Christ must have had a huge impact on the previously heroic and war-like Anglo-Saxon people. Consider the words of Christ:
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Until this point the Anglo-Saxon laws were like many other ancient laws, that is to say that they were customary and almost certainly orally transmitted at important occasions. The ‘eye for an eye’ scenario can be seen to accurately portray the Germanics pagan culture. As Æthelburht had been baptised into the Christian faith he is seen to have gained the benefit of Christian wisdom. With this wisdom came the obligation to end the institution of blood feuds that had long been established in Germanic traditions. He was to provide to his people a set of legislation that offered “an alternative to retaliation and the feud.” This was a radical step and some serious consideration needed to be put into how to change these long established traditions of vengeance. Such traditions are clearly demonstrated in Beowulf when Grendal is described as “He wanted no friendship with any man of the Danish force…or pay compensation” The alternative to the blood feud was to gain payment for the injuries caused by a person. This also happened in pre-Christian times but not without risks. The Fact that, to settle this dispute, a value would have to be reached would have caused its own problems and may have often inflamed the situation even further. Although Beowulf deals primarily with Scandinavian traditions, it has obvious relevance to the Anglo-Saxon culture. Many of the Scandinavian practises involved needed no explanation for the Anglo-Saxon audience
“So that it would seem the customs of Baltic chieftains were…not very far removed from those of Anglican tradition.” We can see the weaknesses of a culture similar to Beowulf’s when we consider that when the two sides of Beowulf’s family are killing each other, Beowulf cannot take part, and he does not avenge Heardred upon Eanmund. One of the main points of Æthelburht’s laws was to give each person in the social hierarchy a fixed value, in terms of his bodily value, the value of his words and oath, and the value of infringement of his protection (mundbyrd). These existed in the forms of ‘geld’, which can be regarded as ‘man-price’ or ‘value’. This was not an unusual practice and was already evident in many other societies. There is evidence that the Irish, Scandinavians, Romans, Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians and other Germanic tribes also followed such practices. Another part of his laws concentrates on fixing compensation, both to the aggrieved party, and often to the King himself. This compensation existed in the form of a ‘bot’. These bots often give us an insight into the value of each part of the Anglo-Saxon body. For example, in Æthelburht’s 43rd law, the bot is 50 shillings for the loss of an eye. It is evident that the laws of Æthelburht were expressed aspirations of “a new idea – that it was not wrong to take money instead of blood.” This radical and persuasive change seems to be the main reason for Æthelburht to embark on these new rules. Although Bede tells us that Æthelburht bestowed on the nation “ a code of law inspired by the example of the Romans,” there is little really to back this up. What is remarkable here is that if Bede was right, why were these laws not written in Latin like every other nation under the Roman influence. In fact the ‘Laws of Æthelburht’ is the earliest extant text to be written in the English language. What is even mare remarkable is that “No other Teutonic language possesses any original records of equal antiquity.” The first of Æthelburht’s laws is significant because it addresses how the Church should be compensated, probably for theft but possibly also the multiples of ordinary gelds or bots. This law seems to contradict the letter received by Augustine from Pope Gregory, which says “God forbid that the Church should recover with interest any worldly goods she may lose.” Bede give us account, also, that Augustine received letters of castigation from Pope Gregory, and so perhaps he disagreed with this ruling. What is noteworthy, though, in this first ever law of Anglo-Saxon antiquity, is the multiples of bot to be paid. For instance ‘a bishop’s property, eleven fold; a priests property, nine fold…’ This combined with Æthelburht’s fourth law that ‘if a freeman robs the king, he shall pay back a nine fold amount.’ This would make the compensation for theft from Æthelburht less than that from Augustine. As well as the bot and the geld, another form of punishment is mentioned in ch 9. This is known as ‘wite.’ Whereas the victim of a crime would generally receive the bot, or the family of one who was killed would receive the geld, the wite would be received by the king. This was a kind of punishment or penance, but more accurately described as a fine. The use of wite in this way demonstrates the new idea that crime was no-longer personal, and the fledgling “idea that a crime is an offence against the state.” After dealing with theft for the earlier part of his laws, Æthelburht legislates for homicide. He puts the responsibility on the murderer, the supplier of the weapon and the family of the murderer should he abscond. This highlights the unchanged responsibilities that kindred still had to undertake, and allows crime to be recompensed in any eventuality. Chapters 32 – 72 which represent almost half of the laws of Æthelburht are all concerned with the bot of individual body parts. The most unusual clause in all of these is chapter 65 clause 1. In regard to a broken thigh it states that ‘If he becomes lame, the settlement of the matter may be left to friends.’ This infers to me, that, only in the case of a broken thigh, compensation is to be decided the old fashioned way. One has to wonder if this is a mistake, or what makes a thigh so important? Chapters 73 – 84 are concerned with the rights of women. I believe that the importance here is one of importance, due to their positioning in the texts, just before the laws regarding servants and slaves, although I have found nothing to corroborate this idea. The main problem here is chapter 79, which reads;
‘Gif mid bearnum bugan wille, healfne scæt age.’
This is generally translated as;
‘If she (a married woman) wishes to depart with her children, she shall have half the goods.’ This gives the impression that women had the power to freely leave their husbands, should they feel it necessary. However, Carol A. Hough disagrees with this point. Her reasons are firstly, law 77 refers to men buying a maiden, implying that they are then the property of the husband (which is in accordance with chapter 82), and secondly, the verbs bu(g)an and bugan are both usually translated elsewhere as ‘to dwell’ or ‘to inhabit.’ If this were what was actually meant, then chapter 79, read as the same mother and widow of chapter 78, would indicate that a widow living with her children “is entitled to half the property left by her husband, her full allowance under the terms of ch. 78.” I disagree with her on this point as, if this were true, chapters 78 and 79 would be needlessly identical clauses. It seems to me to be unlikely that the mother of chapter 79 is a widow at all. I do agree that this does not point to equality, however, as chapter 80 states that if the father wishes to keep the children, then her share of the wealth is reduced to that of a child. This would seem to me to indicate that the husband’s rights supersede the wife’s. The whole structure of Æthelburht’s laws seems to denote a hierarchy. It begins with the Church, followed by the King, the eorls (or earls), the ceorls (freemen or commoners), the women, and finally, the servants and slaves. The importance of Christianity’s impact on the laws of England can also be seen when we note that after Æthelburht’s death (buried in Canterbury Cathedral by a pagan shrine), a pagan king, Eadbald, ascended to the throne. We have no laws written by pagan kings.
Kings Hlothhere’s and Eadric’s laws also addressed the issue of a widow’s rights in chapter 6. This states that it is proper for a child to be with his mother, but that he should also have a guardian from his father’s family until he is 10 years of age. This could indicate the age of adulthood in Anglo-Saxon society. In these laws, we also encounter the advent of oaths. Chapters 5 and 10 tell us that for an accused man to clear himself, he needs to give an oath of his innocence, which is to be substantiated by the oaths of others, at least one of which must be from his village. At first glance this looks like an easy escape clause for any would be thief, however it does police itself. We only need to look at Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry such as The Battle of Maldon to see the power of the oath. Also, as has been stated, one of the oath givers would need to be from the defendant’s own village. ‘Needless to say, in a small agrarian village neighbours knew each other’s business extremely well’ , and no one would swear on someone they believed to be guilty.
The final, useful addition of Hlothhere and Eadric is in chapter 16. It here states that to buy property in London, witnesses must be provided. This seems to be as a kind of living receipt.
The laws of Wihtred extend the theory on oaths. These do seem to be a little unfair, as chapters 16,17, 18 and 20 state that a king, bishop, head of a monastery, priest or thegn can clear themselves with an unsupported oath. This does show some real class discrimination, but as “clases of men were founded upon…bonds of kindred and lordship, noble blood, royal service and possession of wealth and land,” it is clear that these loyalties were, at least partially, founded. Wihtred also makes a clear stance on homosexuality. We can only assume that this was a problem and not a phobic reaction, as the fines for illicit unions were comparable to the wergeld. We can also see that during the reign of king Wihtred, 690-725, there was still a strong attachment by many to the old pagan ways. Having been Christian for nearly 100 years, the Anglo-Saxon society was obviously not as open to paganism as was the Æthelburht of Bede I, 25. The penalty for making ‘offerings to devils’ was to lose either the healsfang (probable one fifth of the wergeld) or all of ones possessions. Presumably whichever was greater. We can also assume that theft was still an inherent problem of this society. To combat this Wihtred removed the burden of the wergeld regarding any thieves, so that now, it caught in the act, a thief could be killed. As someone who can prove they have killed a thief or brought them to justice is entitled to a reward, we can now see a way of enforcing some of the laws so far promulgated. One final point regarding Wihtred’s Kentish law is the similarity between his 28th chapter, and Ine’s Wessex law, chapter 20. These laws (regarding unannounced strangers being treated as thieves) are almost identical. F. L. Attenborough remarks that this points “to communication between…the two kingdoms (following) the restoration of friendly relations in 694.”
To help complete a picture regarding the reign of Wihtred, a brief look at some of his contemporary, Ine’s, laws may be of use. Of note in Ine’s laws is the emergence of new social classes. These become more developed later on, but we do now have evidence of a kind of sheriff. These were known as ealdormen. We also are introduced to the peasant classes of gafolgelda (who probably owned a hide of land) and the geburs, who were landless peasants. Again Ine addresses the perennial problem of theft. In chapter 13 clause 1, we see that crime was becoming organised by his inclusion of thieves (up to seven people), marauders (seven to thirty-five), and raids (over thirty-five). We are also privy to the fact that the laws on theft were being subverted. Given Ine’s detailed and severe attention to any thief. There may also have been a trend towards fraudulent sales leading to the introduction of chapter 25 on trade. This law states that in order to trade, witnesses must always be present. Military conscription is also accounted far in Ine’s 51st law. Here we can see how a king assembled an army at times of war. The fine far non-compliance was on a sliding scale with the nobility having the higher fines. It was obviously important for any society at this time to be able to have a military defence, and with it, the desire to abscond. This is a remarkable law when we consider that, the reign of Ine was “relatively peaceful;seldom were there any large-scale campaigns or conquest by force.” Perhaps his steps on conscription, and the knowledge of it elsewhere, is why King Ine was left to his own devices. Certainly it would appear that this law contributed to a relatively peaceful period for the Anglo-Saxon society.
One of Hollywood’s favourite ideas of old law is also included in the laws of Ine. The trial by ordeal. The trial by ordeal was a pre-jury way of defining someone’s guilt. This is good evidence of the assimilation of pagan ways into Christianity. The main elements of the ‘Trial by Ordeal’ were the ‘ordeal of hot water’, the ordeal of cold water’ and the ‘ordeal of hot iron’. The origin of these ordeals was to “appeal to supernatural knowledge (originally to the gods of fire and water) by men who felt themselves powerless to penetrate the mysteries of crime.” There is no evidence that the ‘trial by ordeal’ or the ‘wager of battle’ were used in Anglo-Saxon times, and are not recorded in England until the arrival of the Normans. The Anglo-Saxon ordeals are contemporarily explained in the ‘Decree Concerning Hot Iron and Water’, in F. L. Attenborough, ‘The Laws of the Earliest English Kings’.

It is difficult to know where to end when looking at so much information. It is certainly a great pity that these laws do not attract more attention as do the extant poetry, as there is masses to be gleaned from this factual documentation. The laws that I have concentrated on only represent about a third of the extant literature available. The laws of ever king reflect upon not one, but two classed based societies intermixed with each other. We have the secular society descending from the King, to his thegns, to minor nobles, onto the peasants of differing standings, women, servants and ending with the slaves. This is mirrored in the ecclesiastical status dependant upon the hierarchy of the Church. Two of the main issues consistently seen are the subjects of theft and homicide. Theft, certainly, seems to have been a major problem to control in Anglo-Saxon society. We have seen the introduction of the death penalty for serious offences. The constant considerations of theft seem to show a flagrant disregard for the kings’ laws. So damaging was this that Æthelstan’s sixth set of laws, chapter 8, states that anyone harbouring and protecting a known thief will, basically, have war declared upon them due to the tyranny caused. He also adds that anyone neglecting to help in this war will be fined 30 pence! We can see from this law just how serious this problem of theft and defiance had become. Perhaps because of a lingering family and heroic, pagan background, the Anglo-Saxon society was simply not ready to fully submit to a centralised government. Many battle poems such as Maldon and Brunanburh tell us of the external pressures and warfare exerted by the Vikings against the Anglo-Saxons, but it would appear that there was also a lot of internal strife within this culture. Whether this violence was evident before the politics, we cannot be certain, but it may appear that these laws possibly caused as many problems as they solved. The transformation to almost polar opposite religions must have caused huge stress and political unrest within any culture. Altering ones own perception is certainly a lot different to altering the ideals of a whole society, especially one based in bloodshed and heroism. The Anglo-Saxon laws and their impact on society seem to me to be one of reconciliation. As with much extant poetry, we can see kings and poets alike doing their utmost to bring together the Christian ideals and teachings and putting this proverbial round peg into the square hole of the Anglo-Saxon warrior ethos.

Bibliography

Primary Reading

Simpson. A.W.B, ‘The Laws of Ethelbert,’ On the Laws and Customs of England, (ed) Arnold et al, University of North Carolina Press, 1971.

M. Swanton ed., Beowulf, Manchester University Press, 1994.

Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English Kings, Penguin Classics, London, 1990.


Secondary Reading

Seebohm. F, Tribal Customs in Anglo-Saxon Law, Longmans, Green & Co., London 1911.

Attenborough. F. L, The Laws of the Earliest Kings, Lannarch Press, 2000.

White. A. B, ‘Anglo-Saxon Institutions. 449-1066,’ The Making of the English Constitution, 2nd Ed, The Knickerbocker Press, London, 1925.

Lyon. B, ‘Anglo-Saxon Society and the Law,’ A constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England, 2nd ed, W. W. Norton & Co, London, 1980.


Hough. C. A, ‘Early Kentish ‘divorce laws’, Anglo-Saxon England, 23, Cambridge University Press, 1994.


Anglo-Saxon Law, http://51.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AN/ANGLO_SAXON_LAW.htm, accessed 10-01-03

How are the law-codes that survive from Anglo-Saxon England useful in revealing aspects of Anglo-Saxon social values?

‘The Dream of the Rood is a poem about transformation.’
How Judith represents a reworking and a reinterpretation of its source.
An ambiguous attitude to exile expressed in The Seafarer
‘The Wanderer, is concerned with exploring a process.’