The Saxons in England, Volume 1 (of 2): A history of the English commonwealth till the period of the Norman conquestKemble, John Mitchell
History
The Saxons in England, Volume 1 (of 2): A history of the English commonwealth till the period of the Norman conquest
Kemble, John Mitchell
Great Britain -- History -- Anglo-Saxon period, 449-1066
That this original right was interfered with by the law of property is
not denied. But here different cases are to be considered. First,
whether the serf or _nativa_ is the property of the party who unites
with him or her. Secondly whether the free party unite with some other
owner’s serf or neif; next, whether the issue are born in wedlock or
not; and lastly how far the public law and right is involved in the
question of freedom and servitude. The last consideration in fact
involves the first, because, under the first, except in the case of
hardly intelligible neglect, marriage could never take place between two
unequal parties at all: emancipation must have preceded the ceremony;
while the civil law would of course rule that the ceremony itself,
taking place by consent, was an act of emancipation not to be gainsaid.
It is therefore with regard to third parties only that a question can
arise[377]. There is no proof that such a question ever did arise among
the Anglosaxons, or that it was thought needful to provide for it by
law: and the earlier evidences with which this book has especially to do
are either entirely silent, or so general in their expressions that we
cannot decide from them upon a particular case. In fact the whole
argument is reduced to the second head, viz. where one parent is the
property of a third party, and where the child is born in lawful
wedlock; for a child not so born is not subject to any law which binds
the parents, is _nullius filius_, and can as little be injured as
advantaged by the law.
-----
Footnote 377:
Of course (except under circumstances which the Christian clergy, and
probably even the heathen priesthood,—and if neither of these, yet the
universal human feeling—would condemn,) the issue of such marriage
could not have been treated as unfree, during the life of the father.
But a question might arise after death, and on subsequent inheritance
by third parties. And cases might occur where the public right
rendered it necessary to take care that the unfree should not enjoy
the advantages of freedom.
-----
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account