Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law: Being an Essay Supplemental to (1) 'The English Village Community', (2) 'The Tribal System in Wales'Seebohm, Frederic
History
Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law: Being an Essay Supplemental to (1) 'The English Village Community', (2) 'The Tribal System in Wales'
Seebohm, Frederic
Anglo-Saxons; Law, Anglo-Saxon; Law, Medieval; Tribes -- Great Britain
In the meantime, the consideration of the position of the ceorlisc class
having brought before us the penalties for breach of the precinct and for
fighting within the precinct of the various classes, it may be well to
consider also the evidence of King Alfred’s laws upon the mund-byrd or
borh-bryce of what we may regard perhaps as the official classes, and in
which apparently, at this date, even the twelve-hynde man had no part.
The mund-byrd or borh-bryce seems to be confined to those in official or
judicial position.
Already in King Alfred’s laws we have lost the word ‘grith’ as we had
already in Cnut’s laws lost the later phrase ‘sac and soc,’ but the
tribal principle underlying the meaning of the words remains the same and
becomes all the clearer as we go back in the evidence.
In s. 3, the borh-bryce and mund-byrd of the king are stated to be _five
pounds of_ ‘mærra pæninga,’[241] an archbishop’s three pounds, and those
of the ealdorman and lesser bishops two pounds, exactly as they were
reported to have been in Cnut’s time in the ‘grith-law’ of the South
Angles.[242]
[Sidenote: Its tribal origin.]
The almost indiscriminate use of the two terms in this clause suggests
again the very slight distinction between them. The man who by giving
his pledge placed himself artificially, so to speak, under the mund or
protection of a person in a judicial position or authority and broke
his pledge became guilty of borh-bryce or mund-byrd, it hardly mattered
which. The penalty apparently included both crimes in one. If we might
use the Brehon phrase it was the _eneclann_, or honour price of the
person whose dignity was injured, which had to be paid.
But, as we have seen, these penalties were not only personal but also
connected with the sanctity of what under Brehon law was called the
‘maigin’ or precinct. The Brehon tract which declares the extent of the
‘inviolable precinct’ of the ‘boaire-chief’ to reach as far as he can
throw a spear or hammer from the door of his house, also states that
those of higher chieftains extended by multiples of this according to
their honour-price, so that the inviolable precinct of the _ri-tuath_
extended to sixty-four spear-casts from his door.[243] We have already
quoted a fragment fixing the extent of the king’s ‘grith’ at ‘three
miles and three furlongs and three acre breadths and nine feet and nine
hand-breadths and nine barleycorns from the burhgeat where the king
is.’[244]
[Sidenote: The ceorl or gafol-gelda had a flet the peace of which could
be broken.]
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