How the person must swear an oath, c.900 AD

Transcription

38v (select folio number to open facsimile)

_On ðone Drihten Hu se man sceal swerie.³
þe ðes haligdom is forehalig, ic wille beon N⁴
hold, ⁊ getriwe, ⁊ eal lufian ðæt he lufað, ⁊ eal
ascunian ðæt he ascunað æfter Godes rihte, ⁊
æfter woroldgerysnum, ⁊ næfre willes ne gewe-
aldes, wordes ne weorces owiht don ðæs him
laðre bið, wið þam ðe he me healde swa ic earnian
wille, ⁊ eall þæt læste þæt uncer formæl wæs þa
ic to him gebeah, ⁊ his willan geceas. _On ðone Drihten þe ðes haligdom is forehalig
swa ic spæce drife mid fullan folcrihte butan bræde,
⁊ butan swice, ⁊ butan æghwylcum facne, swa me
forstolen wæs ðæt orf N ðæt ic onspece, ⁊ þæt
ic mid N befangen hæbbe.
_On ðone Drihten næs ic æt ræde, ne æt dæde,
ne gewita, ne gewyrhta, ðær man mid unrihte N
orf ætferede. Ac swa ic ( ) orf hæbbe swa ic
hit mid rihte begeat, ⁊ swa ic >hit< tyme swa hit me se
sealde ðe ic hit nu on hand sette, ⁊ swa ic orf hæb-
be swa ic orf hæbbe⁵ swa hit me se sealde ðe hit to
syllanne agte, ⁊ >swa< ic orf hæbbe swa hit of minum
agnum ðingum com ⁊ swa hit on folcriht min agen
æht is, ⁊ min infoster. _On ðone Drihten, ne teo ic N, ne for hete, ne

39r

for hele, ne for unrihtre feohgyrnesse, ne ic
nan soðre nat bute swa min secga me sæde, ⁊ ic
sylf to soðe talige ðæt he mines orfes þeof wære. _On ðone Drihten,
ic eom unscyldig ægðer ge dæde ge dihtes æt þære
tihtlan ðe N me tihð. _On ðone Drihten, se að is clæne ⁊ unmæne, ðe N swor. _On ælmihtiges Godes naman ðu me >be
clæne þæt þæt ðu me sealdest, ⁊ fulle ware wið
æftersp>r æce on ða gewitennesse ðe unc ða mid
wæs N. _On ælmihtiges Godes naman, swa ic her N, on
soðre gewitnesse stande unabeden, ⁊ ungeboht
to swa ic hit minum egum oferseah, ⁊ minum earum
oferhyrde ðæt ðæt ic him mid sæcge. _On ælmihtiges Godes naman, nyste ic on ðam
ðingum þe þu ymbe specst ful ne facn, ne wac ne
wom, to ðære dæityde ðe ic hit þe sealde, ac hit
ægðer wæs ge hal, ge clæne butan ælcon facne. _On lifiendes Godes naman
swa ic feos bidde swa ic gywanan hæbbe ðæs þe me
N behet ða ic him min sealde. _On lifiendes Godes naman, ne ðearf ic N

39v

sceatt, ne scylling, ne penig, ne peniges weorð,
ac eal ic him gelæste ðæt ðæt ic him scolde
swa forð swa uncre wordgecwydu fyrmest
wæroN.

Translation

See Translation Notes

How the person must swear an oath.

In the Lord,⁶ whose holiness is foremost: to [name of lord]⁷ I wish to be loyal and true, and to love all that he loves, and to shun all that he shuns according to God’s law and secular customs, and neither willingly nor intentionally to carry out either a word or deed which to him is hateful; I wish to live up to the regard with which he may hold me; and everything agreed between us I will carry out when I submit to him;⁸ and his will I have chosen.

In the Lord, whose holiness is foremost: thus I prosecute my suit, with full folk-right, without fraud and without guile, and without anything false; and thus from me was stolen the livestock by [name of defendant]; that [livestock] I lay claim to, and that [livestock] with [name of helper] I have seized.⁹

In the Lord: I was neither, in counsel or in deed, a witness or an accomplice at the place where a person unlawfully took away livestock from [name of plaintiff]. Moreover, therefore, I have livestock which I rightfully obtained, and thus I guarantee that he sold it to me, which I now confirm by swearing;¹⁰ and so I have livestock just as he sold it to me, which he delivered up as seller; and so by my own means I have livestock as it came; and it, according to folk-right, is my own property, mine to rear.

In the Lord: I accuse [name of defendant], not from malice, nor as a pretext, nor for unrighteous gain, nor, in truth, do I know anything besides that which my informant told me, and I myself truthfully do state that he was a thief of my livestock.

In the Lord: I am innocent, both in deed and intent, of the charge of which [name of plaintiff] accuses me.

In the Lord: the oath which [name of defendant or plaintiff] swore is pure and without falsehood.

In the name of Almighty God: you promised me that you sold it to me whole and clean, and in full awareness against an after-claim, for which [name of witness of transaction] was the witness for us both.

In the name of Almighty God: as I here stand for [names of parties to transaction] in true witness, unbidden and unbought, that I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears that which I declare on their behalf.

In the name of Almighty God: I did not know of the things of which you speak, neither filth nor fault, blight nor blot,¹¹ at the time which I sold it to you; rather it was both whole and clean, without any blemish.

In the name of the Living God: thus I make request for [my] goods as I do not have those which [name of defendant] promised me when I paid him.

In the name of the Living God: I did not steal from [name of plaintiff], neither a sceat nor a shilling,¹² a penny nor a penny’s worth; rather I furnished him everything I was obliged thenceforth [to give], just as we had firmly agreed verbally.

Footnotes

1 Also referred to by scholars as Swerian (‘to swear an oath’). We should note carefully that se man should not automatically be assumed to specifically mean ‘the man’, as man (a variant of mann), though grammatically masculine, is used in Old English to mean ‘person’, either male or female. That women did swear oaths, were ‘oath-worthy’, in Anglo-Saxon England, particularly in the contexts of disputes and defence against false accusation, is well attested. See Carole Hough, ‘Women’, in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge et al (Blackwell, 1999), pp. 485–87, esp. p. 486.

2 Patrick Wormald observes: ‘An assortment of oath formulae is likely to have a whole variety of dates. Some may indeed go back a long way. […] Most of the transactions covered by Swerian formulae were at least as old as seventh-century laws. But the date of the collection as a whole cannot of course be earlier than the latest formula it contains.’ He proceeds to make a reasonable argument for a date from 900 onwards. See The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century, vol. 1 (Blackwell, 1999), p. 384. Swerian was copied by the principal scribe of Textus Roffensis, who completed his work around 1123.

3 The rubric heading (red ink) has been set on the same line as the text proper.

4 The abbreviation ‘N’ (which in the manuscript resembles a stretched ‘H’ with a small symbol above it, and a full-stop both before and after the letter) is borrowed from Latin scribal practice: see note 4 above.

5 ‘swa ic orf hæbbe’ is accidentally repeated by the scribe.

6 ‘In the Lord’ appears to be an invocation of God/Christ as Lord to witness the oath, similar to modern day ‘I swear by Almighty God that…’.

7 At this point in the manuscript the abbreviation ‘.Ñ.’ is used, borrowed from Latin scribal practice, where it stands for nomine (i.e. ‘name’, in either the dative or ablative case). In Old English scribal practice, a form of the Old English word nama (‘name’) should be understood. The oath-taker supplies the relevant name of a person, in this first instance the name of the lord to whom loyalty is being sworn.

8 Grammatically, the oath-maker could be swearing to submit either to ‘it’, i.e. the aforementioned agreement (‘þæt formæl’), or ‘him’, i.e. his lord.

9 Alternatively, referring to the defendant, ‘whom I accuse, and whom … I have seized’, though grammatically such a translation is problematic.

10 Literally, ‘which I now set down in hand’.

11 I have tried to preserve the performative effect of the alliteration of the original language, though the second alliterative pair in Old English actually plays on the sound of ‘w’: woc (‘weakness’) and wom (‘stain/blot’). The alliteration is intentional, underscoring the power of words in the context of oath-making.

12 Sceat (roughly pronounced shat), plural sceattas: a small silver coin.

Restoration to Rochester Cathedral of six sulungs at Wouldham and one mansa at Littlebrook, 995

Cnut’s Charter for Christ Church, Canterbury, 1023 AD

Concerns the granting of the port of Sandwich and related water rights to Christ Church, Canterbury. Transcription and translation of Textus Roffensis, 57v by Jacob Scott (pending review).

Latin, dating to 1023. No rubric, though there is a space left for one. A space is left for a display initial; or perhaps the initial has been completely obliterated by water damage. The arm of Saint Bartholomew apparently refers to a relic; also mentioned are a large cloak and Bartholomew’s gold crown.

Transcription

57v (select folio number to open facsimile)

_[C]NVD rex anglorum dedit aecclesiae
xpi brachium Sancti Bartholomei
apostoli cum magno pallio, et sui capitis
auream coronam, et portum de sandwic,
et omnes exitus eiusdem aquae ab utraque
parte fluminis, ita ut natante naui
in flumine cum plenum fuerit, quam
longius de naui potest securis paruula
super terram proici, debet a ministris
aecclesiae xpi rectitudo nauis accipi. Null-
usque,

Translation

See Translation Notes

Cnut, king of the English, has given to the church of Christ, the arm of St Bartholomew the apostle with a large cloak, and of the head, a gold crown, and the port of Sandwich, and all of the outlets of the same water from both sides of the river, so that when a ship is in the river and it is full, how far from the ship can a small anchor be thrown on the ground, officials of Christ Church must assess the tightness of the ship, but none.

Acknowledgements

With thanks for the notes of Dr Christopher Monk.

Trial by Ordeal, mid-10th century

The anonymous law known as Ordal [‘Ordeal’] concerns the infamous administering of trial by ordeal: by water and by fire.

Transcription

32r (select folio number to open facsimile)

Dom Be haten isene, an[d] wætere.

_And of þam ordale we bebeodað godes bebo-
dum, 7 þæs arcebiscopes, 7 ealra bisceopa, þæt nan
mann ne cume innon þære ciricean siððan
man þæt fyr inbyrð, þe man þæt ordal mid hæ-
tan sceal, buton se mæssepreost, 7 se ðe þar-
to gan sceal, 7 beo þær gemeten nygon fet,
of þam stacan to þære mearce, be þæs mannes
fotan þe þarto gæð. 7 gif hit þonne wæter
sy, hæte man hit oð hit hleope to wylme,
7 sy þæt alfæt isen, oððe æren, leaden oððe
læmen. 7 gif hit anfeald tyh[t]le sy, dufe
seo hand æfter þam stane, oð þa wriste. 7
gif hit þryfeald sy, oð þæne elbogan. 7 þon-
ne þæt ordal geara sy, þonne gan twegen menn

32v

inn of ægðre healfe, 7 beon hig anræde þæt
hit swa hat sy, swa we ær cwædon, 7 gan inn
emfela manna of ægðre healfe, 7 stande on
twa healfe þæs ordales andlang þære cy-
ricean, 7 þa beon ealle fæstende, 7 fram heo-
ra wife gehealdene þære nyhte, 7 sprænge
se mæssepreost halig wæter ofer hig ealle,
7 heora ælc abyrige þæs halig wæteres,
7 sylle heom eallum cyssan boc, 7 cristes rode
tacn, 7 na bete nan man þæt fyr na længe þon-
ne man þa halgunge onginne, ac licge þæt isen
uppan þam gledan, oð þæt þa æftemestan collan,
lecge hit man syððan uppan þam stapelan,
7 ne sy þær nan oðer spæc inne buton þæt
hig biddan god ælmihtig georne, þæt he þæt soðe-
ste geswytelie, 7 ga he to, 7 inseglige man
þa hand, 7 sete man ofer þæne þriddan dæg,
swa hwæðer, swa heo beo ful swa clæne bin-
nan þam insegle, 7 se þe þas lage abrece,
beo þæt ordal on him forad, 7 gilde þam
cyninge cxx scillinga to wite.

Translation

See Translation Notes

Judgement by hot iron or water

And with this ordeal, we are commanding the command of God and the archbishop and all bishops:

No one may come into the church – except the mass-priest and the one who shall undertake the ordeal¹ – after the one who carries in the fire, who heats up the ordeal.

And, there, measure nine feet from the stake to the finish mark,² according to the measure of the foot of the one who undertakes the ordeal.

And, then, if it be water, heat it until it rapidly boils; and the cooking pot may be iron or brazen, leaden or earthen. And if it be a single accusation, he should plunge his hand after the stone, as far as the wrist. And if it be threefold, up to his elbow.

And when the ordeal is prepared, then from each side two men go in;³ and they shall reach agreement that it be as hot as we first said; and let equally as many persons of either side go in and stand on both sides of the ordeal, along the church. And all should have fasted and should abstain from their wife for the night. And the mass-priest shall sprinkle holy water over them all; and each of them shall taste of the holy water; and he shall give them the book⁴ to kiss and make the sign of the cross of Christ.

And no one may strengthen nor lengthen the fire when once the hallowing⁵ commences; but lay the iron upon the coals until they die down. Put it afterwards upon the post, and there let not anyone speak within, except that he beseech God Almighty earnestly, so that He the truth may reveal.

And let the accused⁶ go forth; and seal his hand; and let it be determined over on the third day, whether it be foul or clean inside the seal.⁷ And whoever shall break this law, the ordeal on [account of] him shall be void, and he shall render the king 120 shillings as punishment.⁸

Footnotes

1 Literally, ‘the one who shall go thereto’; a similar phrase is used in the next paragraph.

2 i.e. the starting and finishing points the accused must walk between with the piece of hot iron in his hand.

3 i.e. from among the supporters of the defendant and plaintiff.

4 i.e. the Bible or a Gospel book.

5 or ‘sanctification’.

6 ‘him’.

7 It was determined if there was present any infection in the hand (e.g. visible puss): infection was the mark of the guilty; cleanness, the innocent.

8 The so-called ‘disobedience fine’: this seems to suggest that if the rules of the ordeal are not followed, then the ordeal is void and a fine must also be paid to the king.

Corpse Robbery, late 10th century

This anonymous lawcode fragment forbids the robbery of corpses. Possibly Scandinavian in origin as it uses the term niðing meaning ‘outlaw’.

Transcription

32v (select folio number to open facsimile)

Walreaf is niðinges dæde. Gif hwa of sacen
wille, do þæt mid eahta 7 feowertig fulborenra
þegena.

Translation

See Translation Notes

Corpse robbery is an outlaw’s deed.

If someone should wish to be acquitted thereof, do so with forty-eight full-born [or ‘noble-born’] thegns.¹

Footnotes

1 i.e. the accused requires the oath of 48 thegns to refute the charge.

Edmund’s First Code, 942-6 AD

Transcription

44r (select folio number to open facsimile)

Eadmundes cyninges _EADMUND cyning < asetnysse.
gesomnode mycelne sinoð to lundebyrig

44v

on ða halgan easterlicon tid ægðer gegodcun-
dra hada ge woroldcundra, ðær hwæs oDa, 7
wulfstan arcebisceop, 7 mænige oðre biscopas
smeagende ymbe heora saula ræd, 7 ðara ðe
him underðeodde wæron. Dæt is ærest
ðæt ða halgan hadas ðe godes folc læran scy-
lan lyfes bysne, ðæt hi heora clænnesse he-
aldan be heora hade, swa wer-hades, swa wif
hades, swa hweðer hit sy. Gif hy swa ne don
þonne syn hy ðæs wyrðe ðe on ðam canone
cwæð, ðæt is ðæt hy ðolian worold-æhta, 7
gehalgodre legerstowe, buton hy gebetan. Teoðunge we bebeodaþ ælcum cristenum men
be his cristendome, 7 cyric-sceat, > 7 ælmes
feoh, gif hit hwa don nelle, sy he amansumod. Gif hwa cristenes mannes blod ageote, ne cu-
me he na on ðas cyninges ansyne, ær he on
dæd-bote ga swa biscop him tæce, 7 his scrift
him wissige. Se ðe wið nunnan hæme, gehal-
godre legerstowe ne sy he wyrðe, bute he
gebete, ðe ma ðe manslaga, ðæt hylce we
cwædon be æwbryce. Eac we gecwædon þæt ælc
biscop bete godes hus on his agnum, 7 eac þo-
ne cyning myngige ðæt ealle godes cyrcan

45r

syn wel be-hweorfene swa us mucel þearf is.

Da ðe mansweriað, 7 lyblat wyrcað, syn hy
a fram ælcum godes dæle aworpene, buten
hy to rihtre dædbote gecyrraN.

Translation

See Translation Notes

The law of King Edmund¹

King Edmund assembled a great council² at London on the holy Eastertide, both divine and worldly ranks. Oda³ and Archbishop Wulfstan⁴ were there, and many other bishops inquiring about the counsel of their souls and of those who were subject to them.⁵

What is first is that those in holy orders fulfil an exemplary life, in order to teach God’s people; that they hold their cleanness⁶ according to their office, whether they be male or female.

If they do not do so, then they shall be treated accordingly as is stated in the rule,⁷ namely, they forfeit worldly possessions and a holy burial, unless they repent.

We command tithing for each Christian, in conformity with Christendom, and church-scot,⁸ and alms-giving. If anyone does not do this, he shall be excommunicated.

If someone sheds the blood of a Christian, he may not come into the presence⁹ of the king until he repents, just as the bishop shall teach and show him his penance.

He who has sex with a nun, he shall not be worthy of a holy burial, no more than a murderer, unless he shall repent. Such waywardness we refer to as adultery.

Also, we say that every bishop shall reform the house of God by himself; and he shall also remind the king that all of God’s church be widely spread, as is our great need.

Those who swear falsely and work sorcery, they shall be cast off forever from every portion of God, unless they turn to lawful penitence.

Footnotes

1 King Edmund ruled 939–946.

2 ‘synod’.

3 Oda, archbishop of Canterbury, 941–958.

4 Wulfstan I, archbishop of York, 931–956; not to be confused with the more famous Wulfstan, archbishop of York, 1002–1023.

5 or ‘him’, i.e. the king.

6 i.e. remain celibate.

7 ‘canon’.

8 a tax paid to the church.

9 literally, ‘face’.

Æthelred’s Woodstock Code, 997 AD

Æthelred’s Woodstock Code, also known as I Æthelred. This law is dated to the year 997.

Transcription

46r (select folio number to open facsimile)

Æþelredes cyninges geræd-
_ÐIS is seo gerædnys ðe æþelred < nisse.
cyning 7 his witan geræddon eallon
folce to friþes bote æt wudestoce, on myrce-
nalande æfter engla lage, þæt is þæt ælc freo-man
getreowne borh hæbbe, þæt se borh hine to ælcon
rihte gehealde gif >he betyhtlad wurðe. Gif
he ðonne tyht-bysig sy, gange to þam þryfeal-
dan ordale. Gif se hlaford sæcge þæt him naðer
ne burste, ne að, ne ordal syððan þæt gemot wæs
æt bromdune. Nime se hlaford him twegen ge-
treowe þegenas, innan þam hundrede, 7 sweri-
an þæt him næfre að ne burste, ne he þeof-gyld
ne gulde, butan he þone gerefan hæbbe, þe

46v

þæs wyrðe sy, þe þæt don mæge. Gif se að þonne
forð-cume, ceose se man þonne þe þær be-tyht
let sy, swa hweðer he wylle, swa anfeald ordal,
swa pundes wurþne að, innan þam þrim hun-
dredan ofer þrittig peninga. Dif hy þonne
aþ syllan ne durron, gange to þam þryfealdan
ordale. Dif he þonne ful wurðe, æt þam for-
man cyrre bete þam teonde twygylde, 7 þam
hlaforde his were, 7 sette getreowe borgas þæt he
ælces yfeles geswice eft. 7 æt þam oþran cyr-
re, ne sy þær nan oðer bot butan þæt hlaford[;]
gif he þonne ut-hleape 7 þæt ordal forbuge, gyl-
de se borh þam teonde his ceap-gyld, 7 þam hla-
forde his were, þe his wites wyrðe sy. 7 gyf
mon þone hlaford teo þæt he be his ræde utt-
hleope, 7 ær unriht worhte, nime him fif
þegnas to, 7 beo him sylf sixta, 7 ladie hine þæs.
7 gif seo lad forð cume, beo he þæs weres wur-
ðe. 7 gif heo forð ne cume, fo se cyning to
þam were, 7 beo se þeof ut-lah wið eall folc; 7 hæb-
be ælc hlaford his hired-men, on his agenon
borge. Gif he ðonne betyhtled wurðe, 7 he utt
oþhleape, gylde se hlaford þæs mannes were þam
cyninge. 7 gif man þone hlaford teo þæt he

47r

be his ræde ut-hleope, ladie hine mid fif þeg-
num, 7 beo him sylf sixta. Gif him seo lad byr-
ste, gylde þam cynge his were, 7 sy se man ut-lah.
7 beo se cyng ælc þæra wita wyrðe þe þa men ge-
wyrcen þe bocland habban, 7 ne bete nan man
for nanre tyhtlan butan hit sy >þæs< cynges gere-
fan gewitnesse. 7 gif þeow-man ful wurðe
æt þam ordale, mearcie man hine æt ðam for-
man cyrre, 7 æt ðam oðrum cyrre ne sy þær
nan oþer bot buton þæt heafod. 7 þæt nan
man ne do naþor ne ne bycge, ne ne hwirfe bu-
ton he borh hæbbe, 7 gewitnesse. Gif hit þon-
ne hwa do fo se land-hlaford to, 7 healde þæt orf
oð þæt man wite hwa hit age mid rihte. 7 gif
hwylc man sy þe eallon folce ungetrywe sy, fa-
re þæs cynges gerefa to, 7 gebringe hine un-
der borge, þæt hine man to rihte gelæde, þam þe
him onspræcon. Gif he ðonne borh næbbe,
slea mon hine, 7 on ful lecge, 7 gif hwa hine
forenne forstande, beon hy begen anes rihtes
wyrðe. 7 se þe þys forsytte, 7 hit geforðian
nylle, swa ure ealra cwide is, sylle þam cynge
cxx scllingas.

Translation

See Translation Notes

Decree of King Æthelred

This is the decree which King Æthelred and his council decreed at Woodstock for all the people as a remedy of peace in Mercia according to English law:

That is, that every freeman have a trustworthy surety, that the surety hold him to all justice, if he be charged.

If he then be accused, he should go to the three-fold ordeal.

If the lord should declare that neither oath nor ordeal failed for him since the assembly at Bromdune:¹ let the lord take for him two trustworthy thegns, from within the hundred, and swear that neither oath failed for him nor did he pay a thief’s fine – unless he has the reeve, who is worthy to do this, and he may do this.

If the oath then is forthcoming, then let the person who be accused choose whichever he will, whether the single ordeal, or the oath worth a pound within the three hundred, [if the suit is] over thirty pennies.

If then they dare not give an oath, let him go to the three-fold ordeal.

If then he be judged guilty, at the first occurrence he shall compensate the plaintiff two-fold and the lord with his wergeld; and let trustworthy sureties be appointed so that he henceforth desist from every evil.

And at the second occurrence, let there not be any other compensation there except his head.²

If he should then escape and avoid the ordeal, let the surety compensate the plaintiff with the market price of his goods, and to the lord his wergeld, who is entitled to his fine.

And if someone should accuse the lord, that it was by his counsel that he escaped and committed the wrong, let him [the lord] take five thegns, and be himself a sixth, and defend himself from this. And if the defence is forthcoming, let him be entitled to the wergeld. And if it be not forthcoming, let the king take the wergeld, and let the thief become an outlaw against all the people.

And let every lord have his retainers³ in his own surety. If he [a retainer] then should stand accused and he should escape, let the lord pay the man’s wergeld to the king.

And if someone should accuse the lord, that it was by his counsel that he escaped, let him defend himself with five thegns, and be himself a sixth. If for him the defence should fail, let him pay the king his wergild and let the man be an outlaw.

And let the king be entitled to every fine which the men who have bookland pay out, and let no one compound⁴ for any accusation unless it be by witness of the king’s reeve.

And if a slave is judged guilty at the ordeal, one should brand him at the first occurrence, and at the second occurrence, there should be no other pay-back there except his head.

And that no one neither sell nor barter unless he have surety and a witness.

If then someone should do this, let the land-lord take and hold the property⁵ until he understands who owns it rightfully.

And if someone should be untrustworthy to all the people, one should go to the king’s reeve and bring him [the untrustworthy one] under surety, so that one may bring him to justice, to those who accused him.

If he then does not have surety, let him be slain, and lie in guilt; and if someone should defend him beforehand, may they both prove at once to be straight.

And he who obstructs this, and does not wish to carry it out, just as we all say: let him give the king 120 shillings.

Footnotes

1 Bromdune, unidentified; possibly the same as Brumdon in Dorset (Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary: available here [accessed 07/07/2017]

2 Actually reads ‘the lord’ (‘þæt hlaford’); but compare the later clause regarding the slave, where ‘the head’ (‘þæt heafod’) is given. It is likely either hlaford was used in error, or it was being used metaphorically, since the lord is indeed the head of his people.

3 literally, ‘household-men’.

4 compound: ‘forbear from prosecuting (a felony) in exchange for money or other consideration’ (Oxford Dictionary of English).

5 or ‘livestock’.

The Trial of Penenden Heath, c. 1076

Deplacito apud Pinendanam inter Lanfrancum archiepiscopum et Odonem Baiocensem episcopum.

Translation: The plea at Penenden between Archbishop Lanfranc and Odo Bishop of Bayeux.

Introduction

This document records the famous three-day Trial of Penenden Heath that took place in 1072. It is not a copy of the official record, which no longer exists, but of what scholars believe is an exaggerated account.

The plaintiff of the trial was Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury; the accused was William the Conqueror’s half-brother, Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who was also at the time the powerful Earl of Kent.

Odo is painted as the villain for grabbing land that rightfully belonged to Canterbury Cathedral; lands owned by Rochester Cathedral were also under scrutiny, hence the inclusion of the document in the Rochester cartulary.  However, historians point out that Odo inherited many of these encroachments from the previous earl of Kent.

The description becomes somewhat theatrical when we are told that ‘bishop Æthelric of Chichester, a man of great age learned in the law of the land, [...] was brought to the plea in a cart on the king’s orders to expound and demonstrate the ancient customs of the law’ [translated by David Bates].  The outcome of the trial is presented as emphatically in Lanfranc’s favour.  History shows that not long after the trial Odo became a disgraced figure in England and was imprisoned by King William and stripped of all his properties.

Commentary

Translation is by David Bates (Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: The Acta of William I, ed. David Bates, pp. 315-16 (no. 69).

The record of the Trial of Penenden Heath survives in various versions.  However, the original, official record of this 1072 legal plea no longer exists.  The oldest extant version is the one copied into Textus Roffensis.  This dates to around 1090, some eighteen years after the trial took place.  Historians have called into question some of the details concerning the rights granted to the archbishop of Canterbury. 

The plaintiff of the trial was Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury; the accused was William the Conqueror’s half-brother, Bishop Odo of Bayeux: 

A notice that after king William had subdued the English kingdom, his brother, bishop Odo of Bayeux, came to England before archbishop Lanfranc and settled in the county of Kent where he exercised great power.  And because in those days there was no one strong enough to be able to resist, he appropriated many lands and customs of the archbishopric of Canterbury to his lordship.   Subsequently, Lanfranc, abbot of the church of Caen, came to England on the king’s orders and was raised to primacy of the entire English kingdom.  When he had lived in England for some time and found that many of the ancient lands of the church were missing, and had discovered that they had been distributed and alienated by his negligent predecessors, having diligently and thoroughly ascertained the truth, he informed the king as quickly as he could of his case.  The king ordered the whole shire to deliberate without delay and all the Frenchmen and especially the Englishmen knowledgeable in the ancient laws and customs to convene in a single gathering.  When they had assembled at Penenden, all alike considered the problem.  And since there were many disputes over land, and since there were arguments between the archbishop and the bishop of Bayeux about the customary laws, and also about the relationship of the king’s and the archbishop’s customs, they were unable to proceed quickly on the first day, and, for this reason, the whole shire-court was detained for three days.

Odo is clearly painted as the villain, yet historians have established that in some cases the encroachments of land for which he was held accountable had taken place before he became the earl of Kent.

The outcome of the trial is presented as emphatically in favour of Lanfranc:

During the three days, archbishop Lanfranc proved his right to several estates which were then held by men of the bishop [...] He proved his right to these lands and others so completely that, by the day on which the trial ended, no man in the whole of the kingdom of England had any claim to them.

Traditionally, the trial has been perceived as evidence of the continuity between English and Norman law, and of the Norman respect for the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition.  This is best illustrated in the Rochester version in its description of the witnesses of the trial.  Note how the presence of one particular individual is singled out:

Present at the plea were bishop Geoffrey of Coutances who was there in the king’s place and who presided, archbishop Lanfranc who, as has been said, was the plaintiff and gained everything, the earl of Kent, namely the aforesaid bishop Odo of Bayeux, bishop Ernost of Rochester, bishop Æthelric of Chichester, a man of great age learned in the law of the land, who was brought to the plea in a cart on the king’s orders to expound and demonstrate the ancient customs of the law, Richard of Tonbridge, Hugh de Montfort, William de Arques, Haimo the sheriff, as well as many other barons of the king, the archbishop and the other bishops, and other men of other shires and many Frenchmen and Englishmen of great authority from the county of Kent.

Æthelric’s presence at the trial in 1072 has been called into question.  We know that King William actually deposed Æthelric as the bishop of Selsey around two years before the trial; in fact, William had him imprisoned.  Though the details of the circumstances surrounding this event are not clear, we are nevertheless forced to consider whether the account of Æthelric’s presence should be taken at face value.  ‘It is curious’, observes one historian [Alan Cooper], ‘that the King would have specifically demanded the presence of someone he had disgraced and put in custody.’ 

It is clear that Æthleric is presented as the embodiment of wisdom and Anglo-Saxon legal tradition.  Perhaps, then, rather than drawing upon fact, the author of the account saw the aged Æthelric as a symbolic seal of authority, and hence a rather convenient way of shoring up the rights, in favour of Canterbury, made sometime after the trial.

The presence of another of the witnesses, bishop Ernost of Rochester, is also controversial.  This is because the trial can be securely dated to 1072, and yet Ernost was bishop of Rochester only between 1075 and 1076.  The real bishop of Rochester at the time of the trial was Siward, who was remembered in later times as a negligent and apathetic bishop, hardly the reliable witness of the trial that Canterbury, or indeed Rochester, another of the beneficiaries, would have wanted. 

These are not the only dubious details in the document, which may well incorporate other moments of invention.  The special privileges relating to Lanfranc’s Canterbury are not independently corroborated by contemporary sources, such as the Domesday Book, and neither is there precedent for these in earlier Anglo-Saxon laws.

Though it is clear that Lanfranc did win back for Canterbury, and for the church at Rochester, a considerable amount of land, some of the other claims are rather unusual.  One especially fascinating exemption relates to the so-called ‘murder fine’, imposed on landowners who failed to capture a murderer on the king’s highway:

In the presence of all, it was shown by many clear reasons that the king of the English could claim only three customs in the lands of the archbishop. [...] The third custom is that if anyone commits murder or an act which results in the shedding of blood on the king’s highway, or does anything which no one is allowed to do, and if he is caught in the act, then he will make amends to the king.  If, however, he is not detained, and escapes without giving surety, then the king cannot take anything from him [i.e. from the archbishop, referring to the ‘murder fine’].

Perhaps on reflection, rather than simply being a record of continuity between Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman laws, the account of the Trial of Penenden Heath underscores just how vital it was for the community at Canterbury to secure its lands and privileges, something that is emphasized in the conclusion of the document:

When the king was informed of the many witnesses and reasons which had contributed to the verdict, he was delighted, and joyfully confirmed it with the agreement of all his magnates that it should be preserved and upheld intact.  As a result this was written down so that it will be remembered in future, and so that all who succeed to Christ Church, Canterbury, may know the nature and the extent of the rights they hold from God, and what the kings and the magnates of the kingdom may exact from them.  

Charm for stolen livestock, recorded c.1123

The copying of a charm, or incantation, into a collection of laws may seem quite strange. However, this particular charm relates to the crime of theft, so the compiler of Textus Roffensis may have thought it appropriate to include it. Its mixture of magic ritual and Christian language suggests that the Pagan heritage of the Anglo-Saxons had survived hundreds of years. Perhaps what is being said here is that there was more than one way to stop a thief!

The instructions for the procedures to be followed are written in Old English. The incantation itself is a mixture of Latin and Old English and is quasi-Christian, incorporating references to the Cross of Christ and the names of the Old Testament figures Abraham and Job. It also denigrates the Jews of Christ’s day as tormentors of Christ and as a people whose sin may never be hidden – just as a thief cannot hide!

Listen to Dr Christopher Monk reading the stolen livestock charm here.

Transcription

95r (select folio number to open facsimile)

_Gif feoh sy under numen: gif hit sy hors, sing
on his feotere, oððe on his bridels. Gif hit
sy oþer feoh, sing on þæt hofrec and ontend þreo
candela and dryp on ðæt ofrec wæx ðriwa: ne mæg hit
ðe manna forhelan. Gif hit sy inorf sing
on feower healfa ðæs huses, and æne on middan. Crux Christi reducat. Crux Christi per furtum periit: in-
venta est. Abraham tibi [semitas],¹ vias, montes conclu-
dat; Iob et flumina; [ Jacob te]² ad iudicii ligatum perducat. Iudeas Christi Crist ahengan ðæt him com to wite
swa strangum gedydon heom dæda þa wyrstan
hy ðæt drofe forguldon hælon hit him to
hearme myclum and heo hit nafor helan ne
mihton.

Translation

If livestock is stolen: If it is a horse, sing [the charm] upon its fetters or upon its bridle. If it is other livestock, sing over the hoof-track, and light three candles and drip wax three times over the hoof-track: no man may hide it. If it is household property, sing to the four sides of the house and once in the middle.

[To be sung/chanted:]

May the Cross of Christ restore. The Cross of Christ was lost by theft: it was found. May Abraham shut up to you paths, roads, mountains; and Job the rivers. May Jacob lead you to judgement bound.

The Jews of Christ’s [day] hanged Christ; that came back upon them as a punishment just as powerful. They did to him the worst of deeds, they paid for that with trouble. They concealed it to their great harm, but they were never able to conceal it.

Footnotes

1 Actually reads ‘sanitas’ (‘sanity’), but this seems to be an error as it does not fit grammatically; ‘semitas’ appears instead in other manuscripts.

2 The subject and object of the verb are missing in Textus Roffensis; ‘Jabob te’ is used in other manuscripts.

Henry I Coronation Charter

Henry I’s Coronation Charter is a notification to all the shires of England that King Henry has been crowned. In it, the new king promises to make a number of improvements to English law, removing unjust exactions and restoring the standard set by the law of King Edward (i.e. Edward the Confessor, who reigned 1041-1065).

There are several versions of Henry I’s Coronation Charter. The copy found in Textus Roffensis is the oldest surviving of these. Interestingly, the introduction to the Rochester copy, which differs from other versions, gives the date of Henry’s charter as ‘circa 1101’, though we know it was in fact produced on 5th August, 1100. At the end of the charter the names of the witnesses include ‘Bishop Gundulf’, who was bishop of Rochester at the time. However, Gundulf does not appear as a witness on later surviving copies. One scholar suggests that the scribe, when copying from his exemplar, erroneously expanded the initial ‘G’ for Bishop Gerard (bishop of Hereford) who is recorded in other versions of the charter as a witness. This seems the most likely reason for Gundulf being included as a witness in Textus Roffensis, though we should note that there are other differences between the various versions’ lists of witnesses, and so the possibility that Rochester’s bishop witnessed the signing of Henry’s Coronation charter still remains.

The translation below is my own but follows quite closely that by Prof. Richard Sharpe for Early English Laws. Please note especially my reproduction of his use of the legal expression ‘lease by farm’.

Folio

Transcription

Translation (see Translation Notes)

96r (select folio number to open facsimile)

Institutiones Henrici regis

The institutes of King Henry

Anno incarnationis domini circæ MCI [mille, centum, unum] Henricus filius Willelmi regis, post obitum fratris sui Willelmi, dei gracia rex Anglorum, omnibus fidelibus salute.

In the year of the incarnation of the Lord circa 1101, Henry son of King William, king of the English after the death of his brother William [i.e. William II, also known as William ‘Rufus’] and by the grace of God, to all the faithful, greetings.

Sciatis me dei misericordia et communi consilio baronum totius regni Angliæ eiusdem regem coronatum esse. Et quia regnum oppressum erat iniustis exactionibus, ego dei respectu et amore quem erga uos habeo, sanctam dei æcclesiam in primis liberam facio. Ita quod nec uendam nec ad firmam ponam.

Know that, by the mercy of God and the general counsel of all the barons of the kingdom of England, I have been crowned king of the same. And because the kingdom has been burdened with unjust taxes, I, out of respect for God and the love I have towards you, in the first instance make the holy church of God free, so that I shall neither sell it nor lease it at farm [i.e. lease it under contract as a means of gaining revenue].

Et omnes malas consuetudines quibus regnum Angliæ iniuste opprimebatur inde caufero. Quas malas consuetudines ex parte hic pono.

And all the bad customs by which the realm of England was unjustly oppressed I remove thenceforth, which bad customs I record here in part.

Pacem firmam in toto regno meo pono et teneri amodo precipio.

Lagam regis Eadwardi uobis reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus pater meus eam emendauit consilio baronum suorum.

TraI set a firm peace in my whole kingdom and I command that it is henceforth preserved.

The law of King Edward I restore to you along with the amendments by which my father improved it by the counsel of his barons.

King William’s Statute, r.1066-1087 AD

Known by its Old English title Willelmes Cyninges Asetnysse (‘King William’s Statute’), this writ, or royal command, introduced to the English the unfamiliar Norman practice of trial by combat, known in Old English as ornest. Textus Roffensis ff. 47r-47v. Translated from Old English and edited by Dr Christopher Monk.

Written in Old English some time after William the Conqueror became William I of England (he reigned between 1066 and 1087), this is unique to Textus Roffensis, though Latin translations survive.

Translation

See Translation Notes

King Williams Statute

King William kindly greets everyone across all England to whom this writ comes and commands and also instructs all persons among the English race to observe the following:

If an English person summons any French person to trial by combat, because of theft or manslaughter or for anything formerly for which trial by combat or judicial suit may be appropriate, he may have full leave to do that, but if the Englishman forsakes the trial by combat, then the Frenchman, whom the Englishman accuses, may clear himself against him with an oath along with his testimony [or, with his witness], according to Norman law.

Also, if a French person summons an English person to trial by combat because of such things, the Englishman, by full leave, may defend himself through combat by trial, or with [ordeal by] iron if that is acceptable to him. But if he is infirm and does not wish or is unable to undertake trial by combat, one may obtain for him a lawful substitute. And if the Frenchman is defeated, he shall give the king 3 pounds. And if the Englishman does not wish to defend himself through trial by combat or with testimony, he may clear himself with [ordeal by] iron.

Regarding all matters of outlawry, the king has decided that the Englishman may clear himself with [ordeal by] iron. And if the Englishman summons the Frenchman concerning a matter of outlawry, and, further, should wish it to be proved concerning him, the Frenchman may defend himself with trial by combat; but if the Englishman does not dare to summon him to trial by combat, the Frenchman may defend himself with an inviolate oath.

Genealogy of the Anglo-Saxon Kings,

101r-101v Genealogy of the West Saxon English Kings (Adam to Eward)

Transcription

101r (select folio number to open facsimile)

Ðis ys angel-cynnes cyne-cynn
þe her gemearcod is. _ADAM wæs se æresta man, 7 he
gestrinde Seth, 7 seth, gestrinde
enos, 7 enos, gestrinde kainan, 7 kainan,
gestrinde malaleel, 7 maleel, gestrinde
iared, 7 iared, gestrinde eno(c)h. Æfter
enoch, wæs matusalam. Þa wæs lamech. Ða wæs ( ) noe. Þa wæs Sem. Ða wæs scyf,
se wæs in tham arken geboran. Þa wæs bed-
wig. Ða wæs hwala. Þa wæs haþra. Þa wæs
iterman. Ða wæs heremod. Þa wæs sealdra. Þa wæs beaw. Ða wæs tethuua. Ða wæs geata, þe-
ne þa hæþena wurðedon for god. Þa wæs
godwulf. Ða wæs finn. Þa wæs friðewulf. Ða wæs frealaf. Þa wæs friðewold. Ða wæs
woden. Þa wæs bældæg. Ða wæs brand. Þa
wæs friðegar. Ða wæs freawine. Þa wæs
wig. Ða wæs gewis, of ðam brittas clype-
dan þæt land gewis. Þa wæs esla. Ða wæs
elesa. Þa wæs cerdic. Ða wæs creoda. Þa
wæs cynric. Ða wæs ceawlin. Þa wæs
cuðwine. Ða wæs cuþa. Þa wæs ceolwold. Þa wæs cenred. Ða wæs ingeld. Þa wæs
eoppa. Þa wæs eafa. Ða wæs ealhmund.

101v

Ða wæs ecgbryht. Þa wæs aðulf. Ða wæs æl-
fred. Þa wæs eadweard. Ða wæs eadmund. Þa wæs eadgar. Ða wæs æþelred. Þa wæs ead-
word.

Translation

This is the English kingly kin which is noted here:

ADAM was the first man,

and he begot Seth;

and Seth begot Enos;

and Enos begot Cainan;

and Cainan begot Malaleel;

and Malaleel begot Jared;

and Jared begot Enoch.

After Encoh was Methuselah.

Then was Lamech.

Then was Noah.

Then was Shem.

Then was Scef, who was born in the ark.

Then was Bedwaig.

Then was Hwala.

Then was Iterman.

Then was Heremod.

Then was Sealdra

Then was Beaw.

Then was Tethuua.

Then was Geata,

_

Godwulf.

Then was Finn.

Then was Fridewulf.

The was Frealaf.

Then was Fridewold.

Then was Odin.

Then was Bældæg.

Then was Brand.

Then was Fridegar.

Then was Freawine.

Then was Wig.

Then was Gewis, of the Gewis.

Then was Esla.

Then was Elesa.

Then was Cerdic.

Then was Creoda.

Then was Cynric.

Then was Ceawlin.

Then was Cudwine.

Then was Cupa.

Then was Ceolwold.

Then was Cenred.

Then was Ingeld.

Then was Eoppa.

Then was Eafa.

Then was Ealhmund.

Then was Ecgbryt.

Then was Asaf.

Then was Alfred.

Then was Edward.

Then was Edmund.

The was Eadgar.

Then was Eathelred.

Then was Edward.

102r-103v Royal genealogy for Bernicia

The list is written in two columns. Names of each king are given a coloured initial, alternating between red and green. Roman numbers, in red ink, are sometimes provided to indicate the number of years the king reigned. Sub-headings, in red ink, are written in Latin.

102r
Hæc sunt genealogiæ pro partes Britanniæ re-

These are the genealogies for the regions of Britain of the

gum regnantium per diversa loca Norðhymbrorum.

reigning kings throughout diverse territories in Northumbria.

102v-103v Royal genealogy for Mercia

102v
_

_

102v Royal genealogy for Northumbria

_

_

102v-103r Royal genealogy for Mercia

_

_

102r-103v Royal genealogy for Lindsey

_

_

102r-103v Royal genealogy for Kent

_

_

102r-103v Royal genealogy for East Anglia

_

_

103v-104r Genealogy of the West Saxon Kings

The format follows that of the previous genealogical list (at 101r-101v) although the order is reversed.

Hæc sunt genealogiæ regum oc-
identalium Saxonum.

These are the genealogies of the kings of the West Saxons:

Rochester Bridgework List in Textus Roffensis

Transcription

164v-165v Latin Bridgework list

164v (select folio number to open facsimile)

Haec descriptio demonstrat aperte unde
debeat pons de rouecestra restaurari quotiens
Primum eiusdem < fuerit fractus
ciuitatus episcopus incipit operari in orien-
tali brachio p'ma' pera' de terra. dein
de tres uirgatas plancas ponere. Et
tres suliuas. ideft tres magnas trabes
supponere. Et hoc faciet et borestealla.
Et de cuclestana. Et de freondesberia. Et de sto-
che. Postea sed'a pera peranet ad gillinge-
ham. et de catham. et un'a urrgat'a plancas
ponere. et iii. suliuas supponere. Dein-
de tertia pera pan et iteru ad episcopum cuu-
taas eisdem. et duas uirgatas et dunidea' plan-
cas ponere. et iii. er. suliuas supponere. et
hoc fiet de hallingis. et de trotescliud. et
de meallingis. et de fleotes. et de stanes.
et de pinindene. et de falceham. Postea quarta
pera peranet at regem et iii. et dimidiam
uirgata' plancas ponere. et iii.er. et suliuas
supponere. et hoc deb et fieri de et ilefforda.
et de toto illo lefto quod ad illu de manerium
panet. et de super montaneis. et de aclea. et de
smalalan de et de cusintun et de dudeslander et

165r

de gisleardes lande, et de Wldeham, et de
burhham, et de aclesse, et de Stokenbury,
et de Loose, et de Linton, et de Lichebundesl
et de horsteda, et de fearnlega, et
de terstane, et de cealca, et de hænhersta,
et de hathdune. Deinde quinta pera est
archiepiscopi, iiii. or uirgatas plancas ponere,
et tres suliuas summittere, et hoc debet
fieri de Wroteham, et de mæidestana,
et de oteringaberiga, et de netlasteda,
et de duobus peccham, et de hæselholte, et
de mæreuurtha, et de lilleburna, et de
suuanatuna, et de offeham, et de dictune,
et de Westerham. Postea sexta pera de-
bet fieri de holingeburna et de toto
illo lesto quae ad hoc pertinet, iiii. or uirga-
tas plancas ponere, et tres suliuas sup-
ponere. Septimam et octauam peram de-
bent facere homines de hou, et quattuor
et dimidiam uirgatas plancas ponere, et
sex suliuas supponere. Deinde nona
pera quae ultima est in occidentali bra-
chio est iterum archiepiscopi, iiii. or uirgatas
plancas ponere, et tres suliuas summit-

165v

tere, et haec deb et fieri de northfleta, et
de cliua, et de heahham, et de denituna,
et de meletuna, et ( ) de hludesduna, et
de meapeham, et de snodilanda, et de ber-
lingæs, et de pedlesuurthe, et de omnibus il-
lis hominibus qui manent in illa ualle.
Et sciendum est quod omnes illae suliuae quae
in ponte illo ponentur tantae grossitudi-
nis debent esse, ut bene possint sustine-
re omnia grauia pondera superiacentium
plancarum, et omnium desuper pertranseun-
tium rerum.

166v-167r Old English Bridgework list

166v

Þis is þære bricce-geweorc on hrouecæstre.
_her syndon genamad pa land pe man hi of
scael weorcan. Ærest paere burge biscop fehd
on pone earma to wercene pa land peran. 7 preo
gyrda to pillianre. 7 ·iii· sylla to lycanne.
Pret is of Borcstealle. 7 of Cucclestane. 7
of Frinondesbyrig. 7 of Stoce. þanne seo od-
er per gebyraþ to Gyllingeham. 7 to
caetham. 7 an gyrd to pillanne. 7 -iii· sylla
to leccenne. þonne seo bridde per ge-
byrad eft þam bioscope. 7 þridde healf
gyrd to þillianne, 7 iii· sylla to lecenne. of
Heallingan. 7 of Trotescliue. 7 of Meallingan.
7 of Fliote. 7 of Stane. 7 of Pinindene. 7 of
Falchenham. þonne is se feoroe perb pres
cinges. 7 fioroe healf gyrd to pillanne. 7 sylla
.jjj. to leccanne. of Ægelesforda. 7 of ellan pam
lrepe pe prer to lip. 7 of Ufanhylle. 7 of Aclea.
7 of pam smalanlande. 7 of Cusintune. 7 of Du-
deslande. 7 of Gislearde- slande. 7 of Wuldeham.
7 of Burhham. 7 of Æcclesse. [7 of Stokenbury, 7 of Loose,
7 of Linton, 7 of Lichebundesland,] 7 of Horstede. 7 of Fearn-
lege. 7 of Trerstane.d 7 of Cealce. 7 of Hennhyrste.e 7
of Edune. þonne is sy fifte per pres arcebiscopes
to

167r

Wroteham. 7 to Mregpanstane. 7 to Wopringa-
byran. 7 to Netlestede. 7 to pam twam Pecc-
ham. 7 to Hreselholte. 7 to Mreranwyrpe. 7
to Lillanburnan. 7 to Swanatune. 7 to Offaham.
7 to Dictune. 7 to Westerham. 7 ·iiii· gyrda to
pyllanne. 7 ·iii· selle to leccanne; þonne is syo
syoxte per to Holinganbuman. 7 to eallan
pam lrepe. 7 ·iiii· gyrda to pelliene. 7 ·iii· sylla
to lecenne. Ponne is syo syouepe 7 syo eah-
tepe per to Howaran lande to wyrcenne. 7
fifte healf gyrd to pillanne. 7 ·vi· sylla to lyc-
canne. þonne is syo nigaþa per pres arcebi-
scopes. pret is syo land per ret prem west ende.
to Flyote. 7 to his Cliue. 7 to Hehham. 7 to Dene-
tune. 7 to Melantune. 7 to Hludesdune. 7 to
Meapeham. 7 to Snodilande. 7 to Berlingan.
7 to Peadeleswyrþe. 7 ealla pa drenewaru. 7 -iiii·
gyrdu to þilianne. 7 þryo sylle to leccanne.

Translation

This description shows clearly how the bridge of Rochester should be rebuilt whenever it is broken:

First the bishop undertakes to construct the eastern pier on the land side, and to plank three rods, and to set in place 3 beams: That is from Borstal, and from Cuxton, and from Frindsbury, and from Stoke.

Then the next pier pertains to Gillingham, and from Chatham: and one rod to plank and 3 beams to set.

Then the third pier pertains to the bishop once more; and two and a half rods to plank and 3 beams to set: from Halling, and from Trottiscliffe, and from Malling, and from [South]fleet, and from Stone, and from Pinden, and from

Then the fourth pier is the king's; and three and a half rods to plank and 3 beams to set: from Aylesford and all the lathe that lies thereto, and from Overhill[?], and from Oakleigh, and from the narrow estate, and from Cossington, and from Dowdes, and from Giselbhurst, and from Wouldham, and from Burham, and from Eccles, and from Stokenbury, and from Loose, and from Linton, and from Lichebundesl, and from Horsted, and from Farleigh, and from Teston, and from Chalk, and from Henhurst, and from Haven[?].

The fifth pier belongs to the archbishop, and three of Wrotham, and of Maidstone, and of Wateringbury, and of Nettlestead, and of the two Peckhams, and of Hadlow, and and of Mereworth, and of Leybourne, and of Swanton, and of Offham, and of Ditton, and of Westerham.

The sixth pier pertains to Hollingbourne and to all the lathes four rods to plank, and three supports.

The seventh and eighth pier pertains to the men at Hoo, and the fourth and fifth planks, and sixth support.

The the ninth pier, which is the lowest in the western side, is again to the archbishop, fourth or to lay down rods, and three shafts of wood, and this should be from Northfleet, and from Cliff, and from Higham, and from Denton, and from Milton, and from Luddesdowne, and from Meopham, and from Snodland, and from Birling, and from Paddlesworth, and all the inhabitants of the valley. And it should be known to all, that will be placed on that bridge must be so thick that it could well bear all the heavy weights of the fallen planks and all the things passing through it.

Wotton Surveys 1557-1560

Kent Lay Subsidy of 1334/6

Kent Hundred Rolls

Hadlow Survey and Appendix

Early Kent Muster Rolls

Inhabitants of West Kent 1487

A seventeenth-century inventory for Westenhanger Castle and Sturry Court