CHAP. protected from all fæhthe, provided that they afforded him neither mete nor mund, neither food nor shelter.31 1. WE may add some specimens of the violences which were committed in the Anglo-Saxon society in the days of Alfred, as our ancient lawyer Horne has stated them from the legal records of that period, which were subsisting in his time. DIRLING was the ally of Bardulf, and yet he came and ravished his wife, and then killed Hakensen, her father. These facts Bardulf declared himself ready to prove upon the offender by her body, or as a mayhend (maimed) man, or as a woman or a clericus ought to prove. CEDDE had a house with much corn and hay, and Wetod, his father, lived in it. But Harding came and set it on fire, and burnt Wetod in it. CADY was living in peace, when Carlin came, and with a sword run him through the body so that he died. ONE Knotting was lying maimed on his bed; another came and carried him to a water-ditch, or marl pit, and threw him into it, and there left him to die without help or sustenance. OMOND had a horse; Saxmund came and robbed him of it. ATHÆLF was living in peace, when Colquin came with violence, assaulted his house, and broke into it. DARLIOG was also living like a quiet person, but Wiloe came and arrested him without any right, took him away, and put into stocks or in irons. So Mainaword attacked Umbred and cut off his foot. OLIF with a weapon struck Barning, and wounded him, and ATHELING ravished Arneborough. THESE are not stated as unusual actions, or as deeds of the refuse of society, but as if occurring amid the ordinary course of the offences of the day. 31 Wilkins, 73. CHAP. II. Personal Injuries. II. THE Compensation allotted to PERSONAL INJURIES, arising CHAP. from what modern lawyers would call assault and battery, was curiously arranged. Homer is celebrated for discriminating the wounds of his heroes with anatomical precision. The Saxon legislators were not less anxious to distinguish between the different wounds to which the body is liable, and which, from their laws, we may infer that they frequently suffered. In their most ancient laws these were the punishments :— THE loss of an eye or of a leg appears to have been considered as the most aggravated injury which could arise from an assault; and was therefore punished by the highest fine or 50 shillings. To be made lame was the next most considerable offence, and the compensation for it was 30 shillings. FOR a wound that caused deafness, 25 shillings. To lame the shoulder, divide the chine-bone, cut off the thumb, pierce the diaphragm, or to tear off the hair, and fracture the skull, was each punished by a fine of 20 shillings. FOR breaking the thigh, cutting off the ears, wounding the eye or mouth, wounding the diaphragm, or injuring the teeth so as to affect the speech, was exacted 12 shillings. FOR cutting off the little finger, 11 shillings. FOR cutting off the great toe, or for tearing off the hair entirely, 10 shillings. FOR piercing the nose, 9 shillings. FOR cutting off the fore-finger, 8 shillings. FOR cutting off the gold-finger, for every wound in the thigh, for wounding the ear, for piercing both cheeks, for cutting either nostril, for each of the front teeth, for breaking the jaw-bone, for breaking an arm, 6 shillings. CHAP. II. FOR seizing the hair so as to hurt the bone, for the loss of either of the eye-teeth, or of the middle finger, 4 shillings. FOR pulling the hair so that the bone became visible, for piercing the ear or one cheek, for cutting off the thumbnail, for the first double tooth, for wounding the nose with the fist, for wounding the elbow, for breaking a rib, or for wounding the vertebræ, 3 shillings. FOR every nail (probably of the fingers), and for every tooth beyond the first double tooth, 1 shilling. FOR seizing the hair, 50 scættas. FOR the nail of the great toe, 30 scættas. FOR every other nail, 10 scættas. To judge of this scale of compensations by modern experience, there seems to be a gross disproportion, not only between the injury and the compensation, in many instances, but also between the different classes of compensation. Six shillings is a very inconsiderable recompence for the pain and confinement that follow an arm or the jaw-bone broke; and it seems absurd to rank in punishment with these serious injuries the loss of a front tooth. To value the thumb at a higher price than the fingers, is reasonable; but to estimate the little finger at 11 shillings, the great toe at 10 shillings, the fore finger at 8 shillings, the ring-finger at 6 shillings, and the middle finger at 4 shillings, seems a very capricious distribution of recompence. So the teeth seem to have been valued on no principle intelligible to us: a front tooth was atoned for by 6 shillings, an eye-tooth by 4 shillings, the first double tooth 3 shillings, either of the others 1 shilling. Why to lame the shoulder should occasion a fine of 20 shillings, and to break the thigh but 12, and the arm but 6, cannot be explained, unless we presume that the surgical skill of the day found the cure of the arm easier than of the thigh, and that easier than the shoulder.1 1 Wilkins, p. 4-6. In the compensation for the teeth, the injury to the personal appearance seems to have occasioned the severest punishment. The fine was heaviest for the loss of the front tooth. ALFRED made some difference in these compensations, CHAP. be seen in his laws. 2 which may He also appointed penalties for other personal wrongs. Ir any one bound a ceorl unsinning, he was to pay ten shillings, twenty if he whipped him, and thirty if he brought him to the pillory. If he shaved him in such a manner as to expose him to derision, he forfeited ten shillings, and thirty shillings if he shaved him like a priest, without binding him; but if he bound him and then gave him the clerical tonsure, the penalty was doubled. Twenty shillings was also the fine if any man cut another's beard off.3 These laws prove the value that was attached to the hair and the beard in the Anglo-Saxon society. ALFRED also enjoined, that if any man carrying a spear on his shoulder pierced another, or wounded his eyes, he paid his were, but not a wite. If it was done wilfully, the wite was exacted, if he had carried the point three fingers higher than the shaft. If the weapon was carried horizontally, he was excused the wite.4 2 Wilkins, p. 44—46. 3 Ibid. p. 42. 4 Ibid. II. LLS III. CHAP. III. Theft and Robbery. CHAP. THEFT appears to have been considered as the most enormous crime, and was, as such, severely punished. If we consider felony to be a forfeiture of goods and chattels, theft was made felony by the Anglo-Saxons in their earliest law; for if a freeman stole from a freeman, the compensation was to be threefold; the king had the wite and all his goods.1 THE punishment was made heavier in proportion to the social rank of the offender. Thus, while a freeman's theft was to be atoned for by a triple compensation, the servile were only subjected to a two-fold retribution.2 THE punishment of theft was soon extended farther. By the laws of Wihtræd, if a freeman was taken with the theft in his hand, the king had the option of killing him, of selling him, or receiving his were." INA aggravated the punishment yet more. If the wife and family of a thief witnessed his offence, they were all made to go into slavery. The thief himself was to lose his life, unless he could redeem it by paying his were." Ina's law defines these kinds of offenders. They were called thieves, if no more than seven were in a body; but a collection of above seven, up to thirty-five, was a hloth; a greater number was considered as an here, or an army": distinct punishments were allotted to these sorts of offenders. THE Saxon legislators were never weary of accumulating severities against thieves; the amputation of the hand and foot was soon added.' If a man's geneat stole, the master himself was subjected to a certain degree of compens 1 Wilkins, p. 2. 4 Ibid. p. 16. 2 Ibid. p. 7. 5 Ibid. p. 17. "Ibid. p. 12. 6 Ibid. p. 17. |