Ine of Wessex - Laws

Laws

The earliest Anglo-Saxon law code to survive, which may date from 602 or 603, is that of Æthelberht of Kent, whose reign ended in 616. In the 670s or 680s, a code was issued in the names of Hlothhere and Eadric of Kent. The next kings to issue laws were Wihtred of Kent and Ine.

The dates of Wihtred’s and Ine’s laws are somewhat uncertain, but there is reason to believe that Wihtred’s laws were issued on 6 September 695, while Ine’s laws were written in 694 or shortly before. Ine had recently agreed peaceful terms with Wihtred over compensation for the death of Mul, and there are indications that the two rulers collaborated to some degree in producing their laws. In addition to the coincidence of timing, there is one clause that appears in almost identical form in both codes. Another sign of collaboration is that Wihtred’s laws use gesith, a West Saxon term for noble, in place of the Kentish term eorlcund. It is possible that Ine and Wihtred issued the law codes as an act of prestige, to re-establish authority after periods of disruption in both kingdoms.

Ine’s laws survive only because Alfred the Great appended them to his own code of laws. The oldest surviving manuscript, and only complete copy, is Corpus Christi College, Cambridge MS 173, which contains both Alfred’s and Ine’s law codes and the oldest extant text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Two more partial texts survive. One was originally a complete copy of Ine's laws, part of British Library MS Cotton Otho B xi, but that manuscript was largely destroyed in 1731 by a fire at Ashburnham House in which only Chapters 66 to 76.2 of Ine's laws escaped destruction. A fragment of Ine’s laws can also be found in British Museum MS Burney 277.

It is possible that we do not have Ine’s laws in their original 7th-century form. Alfred mentions in the prologue to his laws that he rejected earlier laws which he disliked. He did not specify what laws he omitted, but if they were the ones no longer relevant in his own time, it cannot be assumed that the surviving version of Ine's laws is complete.

The prologue to Ine's laws lists his advisors. Three people are named: bishops Eorcenwald and Hædde, and Ine’s father, King Cenred. Ine was a Christian king, whose intent to encourage Christianity is clear from the laws. The oath of a communicant, for example, is declared to carry more weight than that of a non-Christian; and baptism and religious observance are also addressed. Significant attention is also paid to civil issues—more than in the contemporary Kentish laws.

One of the laws states that common land might be enclosed by several ceorls (the contemporary name for Saxon freemen). Any ceorl who fails to fence his share, however, and allows his cattle to stray into someone else's field is to be held liable for any damage caused. This does not mean that the land was held in common: each ceorl had his own strip of land that supported him. It is notable that a king's law is required to settle a relatively minor issue; the laws do not mention the role of local lords in obtaining compliance from the ceorls. It is clear from this and other laws that tenants held the land in tenure from a lord; the king's close involvement indicates that the relationship between lord and tenant was under the king's control.

The laws that deal with straying cattle provide the earliest documentary evidence for an open-field farming system. They show that open-field agriculture was practiced in Wessex in Ine's time, and it is probable that this was also the prevalent agricultural method throughout the English midlands, and as far north and east as Lindsey and Deira. Not all of Wessex used this system, however: it was not used in Devon, for example. The law which mentions a "yard" of land is the first documented mention of that unit. A yard was a unit of land equal to a quarter of a hide; a hide was variable from place to place but could be as much as 120 acres (49 ha). The yard in this sense later became the standard holding of the medieval villein, and was known as the virgate. One historian has commented that "the beginnings of a manorial economy are clearly visible in Ine's laws."

The fine for neglecting fyrd, the obligation to do military service for the king, is set at 120 shillings for a nobleman, and half that for a ceorl, incidentally revealing that ceorls were required to serve in the army. Scholars have disagreed on the military value of the ceorl, but it is not surprising that all free men would fight, since defeat might have meant slavery.

Another law specified that anyone accused of murder required at least one high-ranking person among his "oath-helpers". An oath-helper would swear an oath on behalf of an accused man, to clear him from the suspicion of the crime. Ine's requirement implies that he did not trust an oath sworn only by peasants. It may represent a significant change from an earlier time when a man's kin were expected to support him with oaths.

The laws made separate provision for Ine's English and British subjects and were neither oppressive to the British nor completely even-handed. The evidence they provide for the incomplete integration of the two populations is supported by research into placename history, the history of religious houses, and local archaeology, which indicates that the western part of Wessex was thinly settled by the Germanic newcomers at the time the laws were issued. It is notable that, although issued by the Saxon king of a Saxon kingdom, the term used in the laws to define Ine's Germanic subjects is Englisc. This reflects the existence, even at this early date, of a common English identity encompassing all the Germanic peoples of Britain.

Read more about this topic:  Ine Of Wessex

Famous quotes containing the word laws:

    What a pity if we do not live this short time according to the laws of the long time,—the eternal laws!
    Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)

    It wasn’t by accident that the Gettysburg address was so short. The laws of prose writing are as immutable as those of flight, of mathematics, of physics.
    Ernest Hemingway (1899–1961)

    If ... we admit a divinity, why not divine worship? and if worship, why not religion to teach this worship? and if a religion, why not the Christian, if a better cannot be assigned, and it be already established by the laws of our country, and handed down to us from our forefathers?
    George Berkeley (1685–1753)