Anglo-Saxon Literature

by John Earle

INE’S LAWS.

The oldest extant West Saxon laws are those of King Ine,[92] who reigned thirty-eight years, A.D. 688-726. As the West Saxon power gradually absorbed all other rule in this island, we here find ourselves entering the central stream of history. In the preamble to Ine’s Laws the name of Erconwald, bishop of London, who died in 693, is among the persons present at the Gemôt. Consequently these laws must be referred to the first years of Ine’s reign, and they must be older than the date of the Kentish laws of Wihtred.

The laws of Ine are preserved to us as an appendix of the laws of Alfred. This is the case in all the manuscripts. Not only does the elder code follow the younger, but the numbering is continuous as if welding the two codes into one. Thorpe follows the manuscripts in this arrangement, though not in the numbering of the sections, and the student who consults his edition is apt to be confused with this chronological inversion, unless he has taken note of the cause. Ine reigned over a mixed population of Saxons and Britons, and his code is of a more comprehensive character than that of the Kentish kings. His enactments became, through subsequent re-enactments, the basis of the laws not only of Wessex, but also of all England. Accordingly they seem more intelligible to the modern reader.[93]

9. If any one take revenge before he sue for justice, let him give up what he has seized, and pay for the damage done, and make amends with thirty shillings.

12. If a thief be taken, let him die, or let his life be redeemed according to his “wer.” ... Thieves we call them up to seven men; from seven to thirty-five a band (hloth); after that it is a troop (here).

32. If a Wylisc-man have a hide of land, his “wer” is 120 shillings; if he have half a hide, eighty shillings; if he have none, sixty shillings.

36. He who takes a thief, or has a captured thief given over to him, and then lets him go or conceals the theft, let him pay for the thief according to his “wer.” If he be an ealdorman, let him forfeit his shire, unless the king be pleased to show him mercy.

39. If any one go from his lord without leave, or steal himself away into another shire, and word is brought; let him go where he before was, and pay his lord sixty shillings.

40. A ceorl’s close should be fenced winter and summer. If it be unfenced, and his neighbour’s cattle get in through his own gap, he hath no claim on the cattle; let him drive it out and bear the damage.

43. In case any one burn a tree in a wood, and it come to light who did it, let him pay the full penalty, and give sixty shillings, because fire is a thief. If one fell in a wood ever so many trees, and it be found out afterwards, let him pay for three trees, each with thirty shillings. He is not required to pay for more of them, however many they might be, because the axe is a reporter and not a thief (forthon seo æsc bith melda, nalles theof).[94]

44. But if a man cut down a tree that thirty swine may stand under, and it is found out, let him pay sixty shillings.

52. Let him who is accused of secret compositions clear himself of those compositions with 120 hides, or pay 120 shillings.[95]

ALFRED’S LAWS.

Here I will quote from the introductory portion a piece which illustrates the subject generally, and which is rendered interesting by the wide diversity of comment which it has elicited from Mr. Kemble and Sir H. Maine. The former is almost outrageously angry at Alfred for attributing the system of bôts or compensations to the influence of Christianity; while in the strong terms wherewith treason against the lord is branded, he can only see “these despotic tendencies of a great prince, nurtured probably by his exaggerated love for foreign literature.”[96] It is positively refreshing to come out of this heat and dust into the orderly and consecutive demonstration of Sir H. Maine, who concludes a course of systematic exposition on the history of Criminal Law, and indeed concludes his entire book on Ancient Law, with an appreciative quotation of this passage from the Laws of Alfred. It is thus introduced:—

“There is a passage in the writings of King Alfred which brings out into remarkable clearness the struggle of the various ideas that prevailed in his day as to the origin of criminal jurisdiction. It will be seen that Alfred attributes it partly to the authority of the Church and partly to that of the Witan, while he expressly claims for treason against the lord the same immunity from ordinary rules which the Roman Law of Majestas had assigned to treason against the Cæsar.”

Siththan thæt tha gelamp, thæt monega theoda Cristes geleafan onfengon, tha wurdon monega seonothas geond ealne middan geard gegaderode, and eac swa geond Angel cyn, siththan hie Cristes geleafan onfengon, haligra biscepa and eac otherra gethungenra witena. Hie tha gesetton for thære mildheortnesse, the Crist lærde, æt mæstra hwelcre misdæde, thæt tha woruld hlafordas moston mid hiora leafan buton synne æt tham forman gylte thære fioh-bote onfon, the hie tha gesettan; buton æt hlaford searwe, tham hie nane mildheortnesse ne dorston gecwæthan, fortham the God Ælmihtig tham nane ne gedemde the hine oferhogodon, ne Crist, Godes sunu, tham nane ne gedemde, the hyne sealde to deathe; and he bebead thone hlaford lufian swa hine selfne.	After that it happened that many nations received the faith of Christ, and there were many synods assembled through all parts of the world, and likewise throughout the Angle race after they had received the faith of Christ, of holy bishops and also of other distinguished Witan. They then ordained, out of that compassion which Christ had taught, in the case of almost every misdeed, that the secular lords might, with their leave and without sin, for the first offence accept the money penalty which they then ordained; excepting in the case of treason against a lord, to which they dared not assign any mercy, because God Almighty adjudged none to them that despised Him, nor did Christ, the Son of God, adjudge any to them that sold Him to death; and He commanded that the lord should be loved as Himself.
Hie tha on monegum senothum monegra menniscra misdæda bote gesetton, and on monega senoth bec hy writon hwær anne dom hwær otherne.	They then in many synods ordained a “bot” for many human misdeeds, and in many a synod-book they wrote, here one decision, there another.
Ic tha Ælfred cyning thas togædere gegaderode and awritan het monege thara, the ure foregengan heoldon, tha the me licodon; and manege thara the me ne licodon, ic awearp mid minra witena getheahte, and on othre wisan bebead to healdenne, fortham ic ne dorste gethristlæcan thara minra awuht feala on gewrit settan, fortham me wæs uncuth, hwæt thæs tham lician wolde, the æfter us wæren. Ac tha the ic gemette, awther oththe on Ines dæge, mines mæges, oththe on Offan, Myrcena cyninges, oththe on Æthelbryhtes, the ærest fulluht onfeng on Angel cynne, tha the me ryhtoste thuhton, ic tha her on gegaderode and tha othre forlet.	I then, Alfred, king, gathered these together, and I ordered to write out many of those that our forefathers held which to me seemed good; and many of those that to me seemed not good I rejected, with the counsel of my Witan, and in other wise commanded to hold; forasmuch as I durst not venture to set any great quantity of my own in writing, because it was unknown to me what would please those who should be after us. But those things that I found established, either in the days of Ine my kinsman, or in Offa’s, king of the Mercians, or in Æthelbryht’s, who first received baptism in the Angle race, those which seemed to me rightest, those I have here gathered together, and the others I have rejected.
Ic tha Ælfred, West seaxna cyning, eallum minum witum thas geeowde, and hie tha cwædon, thæt him thæt licode eallum to healdenne.	I then, Alfred, king of the West Saxons, to all my Witan showed these; and they then said, that it seemed good to them all that they should be holden.