The Peace of Edward and Guthrum forgery, c.1002-23
The Peace of Edward and Guthrum (hereafter Edward-Guthrum) is an infamous forgery of a Viking Age treaty text, supposedly between two kings, Edward the Elder (r.899-924) and Guthrum. It is well known among historians of the early medieval period because it was only discovered to be a fake in 1941 by Dorothy Whitelock.3 Up to that point, according to Patrick Wormald (p. 389), it had been considered a genuine text by many leading scholars in the field since at least 1568, including Felix Liebermann (the brother of the German impressionist artist, Max Liebermann), Benjamin Thorpe, and Frederick Levi Attenborough (the father of Sir David and Lord Richard Attenborough).4
Edward-Guthrum was created by Wulfstan, who was archbishop of York from 1002 until his death in 1023. In addition to his religious duties and responsibilities, Wulfstan of York became an influential figure within the court of Æthelred II, or ‘the Unready’, (r.978-1014 and 1014-1016) and helped to produce many of the King’s genuine law codes. Edward-Guthrum seems to have been created by Wulfstan to uphold the security and, to an extent, the authority of the Church in northern England, where Danish law was enforced.5 According to Wormald (p. 390), this appears to be evident from the second half of the preamble to Edward-Guthrum:
And they set worldly punishments also for those things for which they knew they might not otherwise regulate for the majority, knowing many a person would not otherwise submit to sacred remedy as they should. And thus they set a worldly remedy, in common with Christ and king, wherever a person would not submit legally to a sacred remedy as the bishops determine.6
Whitelock (pp. 7-9) highlights two reasons why Edward-Guthrum is a forgery. First, it uses many distinctive expressions, or formulae, which were frequently used by Wulfstan within his writings, including other law texts and homilies (Whitelock, p. 7). Second, the text uses terms not seen in any law code dating to before 1008, such as sibleger and leohtgesceot (Whitelock, pp. 8-9). Sibleger, meaning ‘incest’ in Old English, was an offence which features solely within the law codes of King Cnut (r.1016-1035), but also within Wulfstan’s writings (Whitelock, p. 8). Leohtgesceot was a church due, or payment, for lighting churches; this due also featured within Wulfstan’s works. There exist several lists of tenth-century church dues, and examples are found in Æthelstan’s Tithe Edict, Edmund’s First Law Code and Edgar’s Andover Code. Not one of these contains the term leohtgesceot (Whitelock, p. 9).
Yet before 1941, historians had good reason to believe Edward-Guthrum was genuine. After all, they had ten surviving land-granting charters,7 dating to the tenth century, which refer to a man called Guthrum who had the title dux or King. Some historians – for example, Thorpe (p. 166) and Attenborough (p. 97) – thought this could not have been the Guthrum, King of East Anglia, who had agreed the original peace with Edward the Elder’s father, Alfred the Great (r.871-899). This peace agreement is arguably found across two texts: the Treaty of Wedmore, which is a text with no surviving copies and which we only know about from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles,8 and the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum (hereafter Alfred-Guthrum).9 As Guthrum died in 890, the land grants, and consequently Edward-Guthrum, must have been referring to a second Guthrum (Thorpe, p. 166, note a), and it was this assertion which provided much of the rationale behind the idea that Edward-Guthrum was genuine.
The Textus Roffensis version of Edward-Guthrum is very closely related to a copy of the text found within the manuscript known as Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 383 (Wormald, p. 390).10 It also features within the Quadripartitus collection – a series of nine manuscripts11 which in part provide a foundation to the Laws of Henry I, or the Leges Henrici Primi.12 Edward-Guthrum features within seven of these manuscripts.13
Within Textus Roffensis, Edward-Guthrum is the only Danish peace document – a feature it shares with the manuscript known as British Library, Royal MS 11 B.ii. Textus Roffensis may not have included the genuine Alfred-Guthrum for two reasons. First, there may have been an unintentional omission by the scribe. Second, Textus Roffensis also includes the text known as Wergeld, which seems to be related to the earlier blood-feud laws of King Edmund (r.939-946) (Wormald, p. 390).14 Wormald explains that:
[Textus Roffensis] followed ‘Edward-Guthrum’ by Wergeld with no break, as if the two had become inextricably entwined, and it had no copy of Alfred-Guthrum at all. [Textus Roffensis’] copy[…], evidently disordered in that Wergeld came so hard on ‘Edward-Guthrum’, may just have lost Alfred-Guthrum, to which its rubric for ‘Edward-Guthrum’[…] should have applied (Wormald, p. 390).
It would therefore seem that the reasons behind Edward-Guthrum’s inclusion and Alfred-Guthrum’s exclusion from Textus Roffensis relied on the scribe and the texts’ transmission – the transmission being the way in which the texts were copied by scribe to scribe and from manuscript to manuscript.
In contrast, the aforementioned Cambridge manuscript has Edward-Guthrum following Alfred-Guthrum, which might suggest the scribe believed Edward-Guthrum was a successor to Alfred-Guthrum (Wormald, p. 390). Yet within Quadripartitus, Alfred-Guthrum and Edward-Guthrum are separated by a distinct third text, known evocatively as the Alfred-Guthrum Treaty Appendix.15 It is not clear why the scribe ordered these texts in this way within Quadripartitus; nevertheless, in this way, Edward-Guthrum is presented as a successor to Alfred-Guthrum (Wormald, p. 390).
The Peace of Edward-Guthrum may be a forgery by Wulfstan of York, but it provides a valuable insight into the importance, the peculiarities, and the occasionally complex transmission of early English laws.
Dr Alexander Thomas
Transcription
40r (select folio number to open facsimile)
Þis syndon þa domas ðe ælfred cyncg ⁊ guþrum
AND þis is seo gerædnis, cyncg gecuran.
eac þe ælfred cyng, ⁊ guðrum cyng,
⁊ eft eadward cyng, ⁊ guðrum cyng
gecuran ⁊ gecwædon, þa þa engle ⁊ dene to fri-
þe ⁊ to freondscipe fullice fengon, ⁊ þa witan
eac þe syððan wæron oft ⁊ unseldan þæt seolfe
geniwodon, ⁊ mid gode gehihtan. Ðis ærest
þæt hig gecwædon, þæt hi ænne god lufian woldon,
⁊ ælcne hæþendom georne aweorpen.16 ⁊ hig
gesetton woruldlice steora eac for ðam þingum
þe hig wistan þæt hig elles ne mihton manegum
gesteoran, ne fela manna nolde to godcundre
bote elles gebugan swa hy sceolde. ⁊ þa woruld-
bote hig gesetton gemæne, criste, ⁊ cynge, swa
hwar swa man nolde godcunde bote gebugan
mid rihte to bisceopa dihte. ⁊ þæt is þonon æ-
rest þæt hig gecwædon, þæt cyricgrið binnan
wagum, ⁊ cyninges handgrið stande efne un-
wemme. ⁊ gif hwa cristendom wyrde, oððe
hæþendom weorþige, wordes oððe weorces,
gylde swa wer swa wite, swa lahslitte, be þam
þe syo dæde sy. ⁊ gyf gehadod man gestalie,
oððe gefeohte,17 oððe forswerige, oððe forlicge,
gebete þæt be þam þe18 seo dæde sy, swa be were, swa be
wite, swa be lahslitte, ⁊ for gode huru bete swa
canon tæce, ⁊ þæs borh finde, oððe carcern19 ge-
buge. ⁊ gif mæssepreost folc miswyssige æt freol-
se, oððe æt fæstene, gylde xxx. scillinga mid englum,
⁊ mid denum þreo healf mare. Gif preost to riht-
andagan crisman ne fecce, oððe fulluhtes for-
wyrne, þam þe þæs þearf sy, gylde wite mid en-
glum, ⁊ mid denum lahslit, þæt is twelf oran. ⁊æt
syblegerum þa witan geræddan, þæt cyng ah þone
uferan, ⁊ bisceop þone nyþeran, butan hit man
gebete for gode ⁊ for worulde, be þam þe seo dæ-
de sy, swa bisceop getæce. Gif twegen gebro-
ðra, oððe twegen genyhe magas wið an wif for-
licgan, beten swyþe georne swa swa man geþafige,
swa be wite, swa be lah(slitte), be þam þe seo dæde sy. Gif gehadod man hine forwyrce mid deaþscyl-
de, gewilde hine man, ⁊ healde to bisceopes dome. ⁊ gif deaþscyldig man scrift spræce gyrne, ne
him man næfre ne wyrne. ⁊ ealle godes gerih-
to, forðige man georne be godes mildse,20 ⁊ be þam
witan, þe witan toledan. Gif hwa teoþunge for-
healde, gylde lahslit mid denum, wite mid englum. Gif hwa romfeoh forhealde, gylde lahslit mid
denum, wite mid englum. Gif hwa leohtgesceot ne
gelæste, gylde lahslit mid denum, wite mid englum. Gif hwa sulhælmyssan ne sylle, gylde lahslit mid
denum, wite mid englum. Gif hwa ænigra godcun-
dra gerihto forwyrne, gylde lahslit mid denum,
wite mid englum. ⁊ gif he wigie, ⁊ man gewundie,
beo his weres scyldig. Gif he man to deaþe ge-
fylle, beo he þonne utlah, ⁊ his hente mid he-
arme, ælc þara þe riht wille. ⁊ gif he gewyrce
þæt hine man afylle, þurh þi hine man gean godes
ryht, oððe þæs cynges geonbyrde, gif man þæt
gesoðige, licge ægylde. Sunnandæges cypinge
gif hwa agynne, þolie þæs ceapes, ⁊ twelf orena
mid denum, ⁊ xxx scillinga mid englum. Gif frigman
freolsdæge wyrce, ðolie his freotes, oððe gylde
wite lahslite. Ðeowman þolie his hyde, oððe hyd-
gyldes. Gif hlaford his þeowan freolsdæge
nyde to weorce, gylde lahslitte inne on deone
lage, ⁊ wite mid englum. Gif frigman rihtfæ-
sten abrece, gylde wite, oððe lahslite. Gif hit
þeowman gedo, ðolie his hyde, oððe hydgyldes. Ordel ⁊ aðas syndon tocwedene freolsdagum, ⁊
rihtfæstendagum, ⁊ se ðe þæt abrece, gylde
lahslit mid denum, wite mid englum. Gif man
wealdan mage, ne dyde man næfre on sunnandæ-
ges freolse ænigne forwyrhtne, ac wylde ⁊ he-
alde, þæt se freolsdæg agan sy. Gif limlæweo
lama þe forworht wære weorþe forlæten, ⁊ he
æfter þam ðreo niht alibbe. Siððan man mot
hylpan be bisceopes leafe, se ðe wylle beorgan
sare ⁊ saule. Gif wiccan oððe wigleras, manswo-
ran, oððe morðwyrhtan, oððe fule afylede
æbære, horcwenan, ahwar on lande wurðan
agytene, ðonne fyse hi man of earde, ⁊ clæn-
sie þa ðeode, oððe on earde forfare hy mid eal-
le, buton hig geswican þe deoppar gebetan.21 Gif man gehadodne
oððe ælðeodigne þurh enig ðing forræde
æt feo oððe æt feore, þonne sceal him cyng be-
on oððan eorl ðær on lande, ⁊ bisceop ðere þeo-
de for mæg, ⁊ for mundboran, buton he elles oðer22
ne23 hæbbe, ⁊ bete man georne be ðam þe seo dæde sy,
criste ⁊ cyninge, swa hit gebyrige, oððe þa dæde
wrece swiðe deope, þe cyning sy on ðeode.24
Translation
These are the judgements which King Alfred and King Guthrum approved.25
And, moreover, this is the decree which King Alfred and King Guthrum,26 and afterwards King Edward and King Guthrum, approved and proclaimed when the English and the Danes fully entered into peace and friendship; and the counsellors also,27 who were later, often and frequently renewed the very same, and augmented it with good.28
This is the first thing which they proclaimed, that they would love one God, and each would earnestly cast off heathendom. And they set worldly punishments also for those things for which they knew they might not otherwise regulate for the majority, knowing many a person would not otherwise submit to sacred remedy as they should.29 And thus they set a worldly remedy, in common with Christ and king, wherever a person would not submit legally to a sacred remedy as the bishops determine.30
And, therefore, this is first which they proclaimed, that the right of church sanctuary,31 and likewise the king’s protection, should stand unviolated.
And if anyone should violate Christianity or honour heathendom, in word or deed, that one should pay either wergild32 or a fine – or lahslit –33 according to what the deed is.
And if an ordained person should steal, or fight, or falsely swear or fornicate, he should atone for it according to what the deed is, either by wergild or by a fine [Old English (OE) ‘wite’] – or by lahslit – and should atone especially before God as canon [law] teaches,34 and should find surety for this or else go to prison.
And if a mass-priest should mislead the people with respect to festival or fasting,35 he should pay 30 shillings among the English, and among the Danish three half-marks.36
If a priest should not fetch the chrism at the right time or should refuse baptism, even though it is necessary, he should pay a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English, and among the Danish lahslit, that is twelve oras.37
And for incest the counsellors are to judge – the king has authority over the higher-ranked; a bishop, the lower-ranked – unless a person atones before God and before the world, according to what the deed is, as the bishop directs.
If two brothers, or two near relatives, lie with one woman, they should atone with great earnestness,38 accordingly as one may decide, either by a fine [OE, ‘wite’] or by lahslit, according to what the deed is.
If an ordained person should become guilty himself of a crime deserving death, one should rule over him and hold to the bishop’s judgment.
If a condemned person should earnestly wish to confess, no one should ever refuse him.
And one should earnestly carry out all of God’s laws according to God’s mercy, and according to the penalty39 which the [king’s] counsellors bring forth.
If someone should withhold a tithe payment, one should pay lahslit among the Danes, a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English.
If someone should withhold Rome-money,40 one should pay lahslit among the Danes, a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English.
If someone should not meet the payment of ‘light-tax’,41 one should pay lahslit among the Danes, a fine [OE ‘wite] among the English.
If someone should not give plough-alms, one should pay lahslit among the Danes, a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English.42
If someone refuses any sacred dues, one should pay lahslit among the Danes, a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English.
And if he should fight and wound someone, he should be liable for his wergild.
If he should put someone to death, he should then be an outlaw; and each of those who wishes justice may pursue and seize him with authority.43
And if he should himself slay someone – through which he himself would strive against both God’s law and that of the king – if one may prove it to be true, he shall lie [dead] without compensation.44
If someone should begin Sunday trading, that one should suffer the loss of the goods, and pay twelve oras among the Danish and 30 shillings among the English.
If a freeman should work on a feast day,45 he should suffer the loss of his liberty, or pay a fine [OE ‘wite’] or lahslit. A slave should suffer the loss of his hide or [pay] a fine in lieu of flogging.46
If a lord should oblige his slave to work on a feast day, he should pay lahslit within the Danelaw, and a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English.
If a freeman should break a lawful fast,47 he should pay a fine [OE ‘wite’] or lahslit. If a slave does this, he should suffer the loss of his hide or [pay] the fine in lieu of flogging.
An ordeal48 and oaths shall be forbidden on feast days and lawful fasting days, and he who breaks that should pay lahslit among the Danes, a fine [OE ‘wite’] among the English.
If one has the power to govern, one should never put to death a criminal on any Sunday festival, but one should subdue and hold him until the feast day is passed.
If a criminal, who was maimed of limb, should be left [for dead], and after that he lives three nights, afterwards he who wishes to spare suffering and soul may help him, by the bishop’s leave.
If witches49 or sorcerers, perjurers or murderers, or foul, polluted, notorious whores should be found to be anywhere in the land, then one should drive them from the country and cleanse the nation, or destroy them altogether in the country, unless they cease and then repent deeply.
If one should plot, through any means, against an ordained person or a foreigner,50 with respect to property or life, then the king – or a jarl there in [Danish] land51 – and a bishop of the people shall be as kin and as protector, unless he may have someone else. And one should, as is fitting, atone earnestly according to the deed that has been done to Christ and king,52 who is king among the people; or one should punish the deed very severely.
Websites
Bosworth-Toller. Bosworth Toller’s Anglo-Saxon Dictionary online
Early English Laws, Early English Laws: Home
Sawyer, The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters, Electronic Sawyer: The Electronic Sawyer (cam.ac.uk)
Bibliography
Attenborough, F. L., The Laws of the Earliest English Kings (Russell and Russell, 1922).
Baker, P. S. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS F) (D. S. Brewer, 2000).
Bately, J. M. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS A) (D. S. Brewer, 1986).
Charles-Edwards, Thomas, ‘The Penitential of Theodore and the Iudicia Theodori’, in Archbishop Theodore: Commemorative Studies on His Life and Influence, ed. Michael Lapidge (Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 141-74.
Corèdon, Christopher, with Ann Williams, A Dictionary of Medieval Terms & Phrases (D. S. Brewer, 2004).
Cross, J. E. and Andrew Hamer, ed. and trans., Wulfstan’s Canon Law Collection (D. S. Brewer, 1999).
Cubbin, G. P. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS D) (D. S. Brewer, 1996).
Cubitt, Catherine, ‘Bishops, Priests and Penance in Late Anglo-Saxon England’, Early Medieval Europe 14 (2006), pp. 41-63.
Downer, L. J. (ed.), Leges Henrici Primi (Clarendon Press, 1972).
Irvine, S. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS E) (D. S. Brewer, 2004).
Jayakumar, S., ‘Some Reflections on the “Foreign Policies” of Edgar “the Peaceable”’, Haskins Society Journal 10 (2002), pp. 17-38.
Jurasinski, Stefan, The Old English Penitentials and Anglo-Saxon Law (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Keynes, Simon, ‘Alms’, in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes and Donald Scragg (Blackwell Publishing, 1999), p. 31.
Lambert, Tom, Law and Order in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford University Press, 2017).
Liebermann, F., Die Gesetze Der Angelsachsen Hrsg. Im Auftrage Der Savigny-Stiftung (Niemeyer, 1903). Available at Early English Laws.
Miglio, Viola Giulia, ‘Old Norse and Old English Language Contact: Scandinavian Legal Terminology in Anglo-Saxon Laws’, Nordicum-Mediterraneum 5 (1), available as an open access article at Old Norse and Old English Language Contact: Scandinavian Legal Terminology in Anglo-Saxon Laws - Nordicum-Mediterraneum (unak.is)
Monk, Christopher J., ‘Framing Sex: Sexual Discourse in Text and Image in Anglo-Saxon England (Manchester University, unpublished PhD thesis, 2012), available here.
Nightingale, Pamela, ‘The Ora, the Mark, and the Mancus: Weight-Standards and the Coinage in Eleventh-Century England: Part 2’, The Numismatic Chronicle, vol. 144 (1984), pp. 234-48.
O’Keeffe, K. O. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS C) (D. S. Brewer, 2001).
Staffrod, Pauline, ‘Ealdorman’, in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes and Donald Scragg (Blackwell Publishing, 1999), pp. 152-53.
Taylor, S. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS B) (D. S. Brewer, 1983).
Thorpe, B., Ancient Laws and Institutes of England: Comprising Laws Enacted Under the Anglo-Saxon Kings from Aethelbirht to Cnut (Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1840).
Whitelock, D., ‘Wulfstan and the So-Called Laws of Edward and Guthrum’, The English Historical Review 56 (1941), pp. 1-21. Available at JSTOR.
Wormald, P., “Quadripartitus”, Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy Essays in Honour of Sir James Holt, ed. Hudson J. and Garnett G. (Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 111-147.
Wormald, P., The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century, Vol. 1 Legislation and Its Limits (Blackwell, 1999).
Yorke (a), B. A. E., ‘Councils, King’s’, in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes and Donald Scragg (Blackwell Publishing, 1999), pp. 124-25.
Yorke (b), B. A. E., ‘Guthrum’, in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes and Donald Scragg (Blackwell Publishing, 1999), p. 223.
Footnotes
1 An imposture, or forgery, written by Wulfstan, archbishop of York (1002-23), thus giving us the eleventh-century date.
2 Sincere thanks to Elise Fleming for proofreading this introduction, translation and notes.
3 See Whitelock’s paper “Wulfstan and the so-called Laws of Edward and Guthrum” (1941). See bibliography for the full reference.
4 See for references to Edward-Guthrum, Felix Liebermann, pp. 128-134; Benjamin Thorpe pp. 166-176; and Frederick Levi Attenborough, pp. 102-109. Please refer to the bibliography for full references.
5 See the introduction for Edward-Guthrum on Early English Laws [accessed 8th March 2023].
6 Translation by Christopher Monk; see his full translation below.
7 See Sawyer, charter numbers S393, S400, S405, S412, S413, S416, S417, S418, S418a and S434 [accessed 8th March 2023].
8 The Treaty of Wedmore (also known as the Treaty of Chippenham) established a peace between the West Saxons and the Danes following a decades long conflict. It also resulted in Guthrum, King of East Anglia, and several of his men being baptised in the Christian faith personally by Alfred the Great. For various accounts of the Treaty of Wedmore, see Taylor, pp. 36-37, for the Abingdon I Chronicle; Bately, pp. 50-51, for the Winchester or Parker Chronicle; Cubbin, p. 27, for the Worcester Chronicle; Baker, pp. 71-72, for the Bilingual Canterbury Epitome; O’Keeffe, pp. 61-62, for the Abingdon II Chronicle; and Irvine, pp. 50-51, for the Peterborough or Laud Chronicle. Full references are given in the bibliography.
9 In contrast to Wedmore, copies of Alfred-Guthrum still exist. The text established a boundary between south-west and north-east England and introduced new regulations to aid relations between the two sides. See Early English Laws [accessed 9th March 2023] for more information on this text. Alexander Thomas’ doctoral thesis, which examined the boundary Alfred-Guthrum created, can be found within the British Library’s EThOS catalogue.
10 Within his The Making of English Law book (see bibliography for full reference) Wormald follows Liebermann’s system of assigning sigla (abbreviations) to early English manuscripts and law texts. For example, Textus Roffensis is given the siglum H, Edward-Guthrum is abbreviated to EGu, and the Cambridge manuscript is referred to as B.
11 For this introduction, the four manuscripts known as the “London Collection” are also included. See Patrick Wormald’s chapter on the Quadripartitus, pp. 111-147, for a fuller explanation. A full reference can be found within the bibliography.
12 The Laws of Henry I provide a record of those enforced during the reign of the King. The Laws contain aspects of pre-Norman Conquest texts among other evident sources. See L. J. Downer’s book and Early English Laws [accessed 9th March 2023] for more information on this text. Full references can be found in the bibliography.
13 This includes a manuscript within the “London Collection” as well as Textus Roffensis itself.
14 A transcription and translation of Wergeld is being prepared for the Textus Roffensis pages on this website; see also Early English Laws [accessed 9th March 2023].
15 See Wormald, pp. 379-80; and Jayakumar, p. 23, note 30.
16 The first ‘e’ in ‘aweorpen’ is inserted above the line.
17 The ‘o’ in ‘gefeohte’ is inserted above the line.
18 ‘þe’ is inserted above the line.
19 The second ‘r’ of ‘carcern’ is inserted above the line.
20 The ‘l’ of ‘mildse’ is inserted above the line.
21 ‘þe deoppor gebetan’ appears in the left margin. The scribe provides an insertion mark after ‘geswican’ with a corresponding mark alongside the text in the margin.
22 ‘oðer’ appears in the right margin.
23 ‘ne’ appears in the left margin.
24 In the manuscript the text known as Wergeld – beginning ‘Twelf’ – has been appended as if it carries straight on from Peace of Edward and Guthrum; however, the two are discrete texts. A transcription and translation of Wergeld is forthcoming for the Textus Roffensis pages of this website.
25 The heading was likely provided by the Textus Roffensis scribe, rather than included in the manuscript he was copying.
26 Barbara Yorke explains that, ‘Guthrum was the leader of a Viking force which joined the Great Army in England in 871. He came close to overcoming King Alfred of Wessex in 878 when he forced him into hiding after a surprise attack. Later in the same year Guthrum was decisively defeated at the battle of Edington and agreed to be baptised with Alfred as his godfather. Guthrum retreated to rule the Viking settlers in East Anglia and issued coins in his baptismal name of Æthelstan. The text of a treaty survives which Guthrum made with Alfred between 878 and his death in 890.’ See Yorke (b) in the bibliography.
27 The king’s counsellors or advisers were known collectively in Old English as the witan, literally ‘wise ones’ or ‘wise men’; we might use the modern term ‘king’s council’ to approximate the collective role. Those advising the king included members of the royal house, archbishops and bishops, prominent abbots, ‘ealdormen’ and other leading laymen, such as thegns. Occasionally, the queen or queen-mother and abbesses would have been consulted; for further information, see the overview in Yorke (a); details in bibliography.
28 Wulfstan rather cunningly alludes to later royal counsellors augmenting the decree with ‘good’. It would seem that such ‘good’ included his own fabrications! Perhaps the fact that Alfred and Guthrum had actually produced a peace treaty, which included various laws relating to criminal and legal matters (this treaty is not preserved in Textus Roffensis), gave the archbishop enough truth upon which to build his fictional set of laws.
29 ‘remedy’, or ‘penance’.
30 ‘sacred remedy as the bishops determine’. The allusion is probably to the use of penitentials – handbooks used by priests – for determining the amount of fasting due as penance for a wide variety of sins. For the role of bishops in the practice of penance, see Cubitt. A number of English penitentials were circulating from as early as the eighth century, including one Anglo-Latin penitential attributed to (though not actually written by) Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury (668-90), and, during Wulfstan’s time, several vernacular penitentials. For more on the vernacular penitentials, see Jurasinski, and, especially in the context of sexual sins, Monk; for the penitential of Theodore, see Charles-Edwards, and, especially in the context of sexual sins, Monk, appendix 2, pp. 254-60; see the bibliography for all references.
31 ‘church sanctuary’, literally, ‘church-peace within the walls’.
32 ‘wer’ is used in the text, an abbreviation for wergild, which is the monetary value placed on the life of a free person, used in early English laws in matters of compensation and fines.
33 ‘or a fine [OE ‘wite] or lahslit’. Attention is paid from this point in the law-code to the corresponding English and Danish terms, wite and lahslit, which in this context both mean ‘fine’. Viola Giulia Miglio explains concerning the term lahslit: ‘The term is of Scandinavian origin, and enters OE as lahslit […]: it means “breach of the law” or “fine for perturbing the peace/ for a committed crime”. […] A cognate is not found in ON [Old Norse], but this OE term is equivalent to ON lögbrot “breaking of the law”.’ (Miglio, 4.3; see the bibliography)
34 Wulfstan seems to be alluding to his ‘Canon law’ collection, a collation of religious and moral laws and regulations written by or attributed to figures of authority in the Christian Church; an edition and translation of Wulfstan’s collection is available, written by J. E. Cross and Andrew Hamer (see Cross in the bibliography).
35 ‘festival or fasting’, referring to Christian festivals – or feast days – and fasting periods assigned by the Church.
36 The Danish mark was a weight-standard measurement, composed of eight oras. Pamela Nightingale observes that ‘there is no evidence’ that it ‘was adopted in England outside the Danelaw before Cnut’s conquest’. The ‘half-mark’ is first referred to in English sources in the treaty of Alfred and Guthrum where it is used as the weight for gold. She continues to note its appearance in the law-codes of the Danelaw but that ‘even there it seems to have survived more as a traditional fine, rather than as the normal accounting unit or standard of weight’ (Nightingale, p. 235; see bibliography).
37 There were eight oras in the Danish mark (Nightingale, p.234; see bibliography), so this is the same fine as in the previous clause.
38 To understand this, we need to take into account Canon law, which forbade the marriage of a surviving brother to his deceased brother’s widow, as she was considered the surviving brother’s sister (Cross, pp. 153-54, no. 139; see bibliography). Moreover, Canon law stated that the man who married his brother’s wife or the wife of a ’blood-relation’ was to be excommunicated (Cross, p. 154, no. 140). With this clarification, the ‘they’ evidently means the unlawfully married couple, who according to Canon law would be expected to separate, (Cross, p. 102, no. 85), not simply atone with acts of penance. We see, then, with this clause, that the theme of incest of the previous clause is continued.
39 ‘according to the penalty’: reading OE ‘þam witan’ as ‘þam wite’.
40 Alms payments to Rome began in England at least as early as the eighth century when Offa, king of the Mercians (r. 757-96) promised a sizeable sum (365 mancuses) each year to the pope for supporting the poor and for the provision of lights. In the time of Alfred, king of Wessex (r. 871-99), the practice of sending payments to Rome appears to have continued, though there is no clear evidence that at this point individual households contributed to this. That romfeoh, ‘Rome-money’, was expected to be paid by all Christian men by the mid-tenth century is clear – essentially, it developed into the tax known as ‘Peter’s pence’, levied at one penny per household payable annually by St Peter’s Day, August 1st (Keynes; see bibliography). The inclusion in this present set of laws of a punishment against anyone not paying this Church due supports the conclusion that Wulfstan was its author.
41 i.e. a tax to fund church candles.
42 ‘Plough alms’ evidently refers to a penny taxation at Easter for each plough within a village; see sulh-ælmesse in Bosworth-Toller, and Eleemosyna carucarum in Corèdon (see bibliography).
43 This alludes to the legally acceptable practice of feuding – taking vengeance through killing – by the family members of the victim in order to satisfy justice. Feuding, using violence, including killing, to avenge an affront to one’s honour, was culturally ingrained in early medieval societies in England; a useful discussion of how feuding was integrated into social order can be found in chapter 5 of Lambert (see bibliography).
44 That is, the family of the man committing homicide cannot claim compensation when vengeance is taken against him.
45 Or ‘festival’, i.e. on a religious holiday.
46 ‘loss of his hide [OE ‘hyde’], or ‘skin’, i.e. the slave is to be flogged; ‘a fine in lieu of flogging’, literally, the ‘hide-payment’ or ‘skin-payment’ (OE ‘hyd-gyldes’); the same penalty appears below.
47 In the sense that the fast is appointed according to Christian law or tradition, for example, the fasting period associated with Lent.
48 i.e. trial by ordeal.
49 Or, ‘wizards’.
50 Perhaps meaning a foreigner on pilgrimage.
51 ‘jarl’, translating OE ‘eorl’; eorl began to replace ealdorman during the reign of Cnut, king of England (r. 1016-35), both terms broadly meaning ‘nobleman’ (see Stafford, p. 153). In the context of this present law, where the focus is on distinguishing English and Danish legal terminology and practice, ‘jarl’ seems the most appropriate translation, as it was the title given to Danish chieftains within the Danelaw.
52 As the victim is under the protection of the king and bishop, the deed is, in effect, an assault on the honour of both Christ and the king.