Statute of Rhuddlan

With Dafydd ap Gruffudd executed for high treason and Wales under his control, it was time for Edward to establish the government he wanted. Prior to this, Wales was governed by the Laws of Hywel Dda, and the country was ruled by separate principalities. Edward introduced England's shire system, and introduced English common law, although he allowed some Welsh legal practices.

Edward had built Rhuddlan castle in the north of Wales in 1277 after the first war between Edward and Wales. The Stature of Rhuddlan was issued from there, dividing the country into the the counties of Anglesey, Merionethshire, Caernarfonshire, and Flintshire, and revenues from them would now be collected by a new office, the Chamberlain of North Wales, who sent them to the Exchequer at Westminster. The English offices of sheriff and coroner and bailiff were established in each county.

Not everything about local law was changed, so there were differences when yo crossed the border from England to Wales. Murder, larceny, and robbery were treated the same. The Laws of Hywel Dda used arbitration to settle disputes, not proclamations from a judge, and that system was maintained.

Inheritance laws were also different from England, where primogeniture was important to keep estates intact. When dealing with land, Wales followed partitive or partible inheritance, with property being divided among heirs. Some changes were made to align with England, however: if there were no son, a daughter could inherit; an illegitimate child could not inherit; widows were entitled to a third of their husband's estate.

The Statute of Rhuddlan was superseded by the Laws in Wales Acts of 1535/6 and 1542/3 under Henry VIII, or, more formally: An Act for Laws and Justice to be ministered in Wales in like Form as it is in this Realm and An Act for Certain Ordinances in the King's Majesty's Dominion and Principality of Wales. Henry wanted the law in Wales to match those of England exactly, and also desired to force English as the official language in a country that almost exclusively spoke Welsh. The 16th century is not really pertinent to this blog, however, so we won't go into any more of that.

Instead, let's ask why I indicated the Acts above as 1535/6 and 1542/3? Wasn't it clear what year they were established. It is, but that depends on when you consider the year to start. Tomorrow let's talk about when the Middle Ages celebrated the "new" year.

The Laws of Hywel Dda

Yesterday we learned about Hywel Dda ("Howell the Good"), the 10th-century Welsh ruler, and mentioned that the parliament of Wales is housed in a building called "Hywel's House." The reason for this millenia-old tribute is Hywel's legacy in transforming Welsh law.

Wales was originally a number of small kingdoms with their own laws and practices. Hywel brought most of the kingdoms under one rule. For the sake of convenience and fairness, he created a set of laws that would apply to all the territories over which he had influence. Or did he?

Known in Welsh as Cyfraith Hywel, the Laws of Hywel (the earliest copies we have are Latin versions from the early 13th century) have a prologue that explains how Hywel called on priests and lawyers to meet in Dyfed and create a common set of laws. This anecdote might not be true: since we have no earlier Welsh versions, there is a theory that the story of the gathering of lawyers and priests was created specifically to counter the objections of the then-current Archbishop of Canterbury, John Peckham. Peckham, acting on behalf of King Edward I, was very critical of the Welsh, their ruler Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, and the bishop of St. David's in Wales. The gathering of priests might have been a story concocted to suggested that Wales' legal system had Christian influence at the foundation.

Whatever the origin of these laws, cultural memory attributes them to Hywel. One of the features that stands out is recognition of the rights of women. A small sample from a 1915 English translation:

Chap. i. The laws of the women.

1. The first of them is: if a woman be given in marriage, she is to abide by her agweddi (marriage portion) unto the end of the seventh year; and if there be three nights wanting of the seventh current year, and they separate, let them share into two portions everything belonging to them.

54. If a man willeth to separate from his wife, and after he shall have separated, willet another wife; the first, that has been divorced, is free: for no man is to have two wives.

55. Every woman is to go the way she willeth, freely, for she is not to be revenant; and nothing is due from her, except her amobyr (marriage fee), and only one amobyr; for a woman owes no ebedi (a relief payable to the superior lord), only her amobyr; therefore, as a man is to pay only one ebediw, in like manner, a woman is to pay only one amobyr; for there is no ebediw from her, only her amobyr. [link]

Hywel died in 950, but the Law lived on...until 1284 and the Statute of Rhuddlan, that is, which was established by Edward I of England. To do that, however, Edward would have to conquer Wales, but that's a story we'll start tomorrow.

The Cinque Ports, Part 1

The Cinque Ports (Old French: "Five Harbors") were five towns on the southeast coast of England where the distance to the continent was shortest. There are and were, of course, more than five towns in this area, but these five were given a special charter from the king to maintain ships in case of need.

The term "Cinque Ports" for these five was in use by 1135, even though a royal charter designating them as special was not created until 1155, and they were not granted liberties in exchange for their obligations until 1260. They were important enough to be listed as part of the 1297 re-issuing of the Magna Carta. The five were required annually to make available a total of 57 ships for 15 days' duty as needed by the king.

What did they get in return for this support? They could handle their own criminal and civil cases. They had the authority to punish murderers, delinquents, thieves, etc. They could claim unclaimed property, stray animals, and the debris and cargo of ships wrecked on their shores. They also had representation in Parliament.

The original five were Hastings, New Romney, Hythe, Dover, and Sandwich. Although the name for the five did not get amended, the number of towns that were part of the arrangement with the king grew over time. Two towns were added in 1190, Winchelsea and Rye. Instead of changing the French name, after these two were included reference was made to the "Cinque Ports and two Ancient Towns."

That was not the end, however. More towns that were near the original five were brought into the confederation and referred to as "limbs" of the original five. Hastings, Dover, and Sandwich each had two limbs. Rye and New Romney each had one limb. Over time, more limbs were added. Eventually, 40 towns were attached to the Cinque Ports, many of whom no longer belong because they have disappeared or are no longer ports due to coastal changes.

So are the Cinque Ports still relevant? Does this designation still have any meaning? Let's talk about the later history tomorrow.

Trial by Ordeal

Trial by Ordeal took many forms in the ancient world and the Middle Ages. In a sense, it was an appeal to God to reveal the culprit. In Old English it was called Godes dōm, "God's doom/judgement"; in Latin it was known as jūdicium Deī.

One simple method was cruentation, from Latin ius cruentationis, "law of bleeding," used in Germanic law. The belief behind cruentation was that the corpse of a murder victim would indicate the presence of its murderer by moving or spouting blood. It was used into the 18th century, even though after the Lutheran Reformation the application of a religious test in law was rejected in Denmark and Norway.

Another approach to Trial by Ordeal was the idea that God would not allow an innocent person to suffer. The accused would plunge his or her hands into boiling water, or carry red hot iron. Ordeal by fire was also tried, with the person walking at least three paces or walking across nine feet of coals. Of course this would produce burns, but they would be bandaged and re-examined in three days' time. A priest would then judge whether God had chosen to heal the innocent person's burns or let the guilty person's worsen and fester.

In Constantinople, before Michael VIII Paleologos (1224 - 1282) became emperor, he was accused of treason by Emperor John III Vatatzes and was ordered to go through trial by fire. He said he would hold the red-hot iron if the metropolitan bishop Phokas would take the hot iron from the altar with his own hands and place it in Michael's. This the bishop refused to do; the idea that innocents would not also be harmed by red-hot iron helped to discredit the practice. In fact, when Michael became emperor, he abolished the practice.

Pope Innocent III at the Lateran Council of 1215 forbade priests to take part in such things, and promoted compurgation instead.

The Byzantine Empire got the idea of trial by ordeal from the West, as the Crusades brought Western Europe ideas to Constantinople. One example they would have witnessed was the French mystic Peter Bartholomew, who submitted himself to ordeal by fire to prove his sincerity about a claim considered outlandish by others. What was he trying to prove, and how did it turn out? I'll tell you tomorrow.

More About Hair

Hair is a fascinating resource. It is a crop that renews without any special tending, producing thread and cushioning. It can be cut, dyed, and shaped into various patterns that can denote different things in society: high or low status, and even religious status. It can be used to denote maturity or your fitness for the ruling class.

Let's talk for a moment about sumptuary laws, designed (to quote Britannica.com) "to restrict excessive personal expenditures in the interest of preventing extravagance and luxury." They started long before the Middle Ages. A province of Sparta forbade residents to own furniture or even a house that could not be made simply with an ax and saw. Anything more elaborate was excessive and shameful. Spartans only were allowed iron money, not gold or silver. Roman law also had rules governing the materials for garments.

Medieval Europe adopted many sumptuary laws, often to make sure the increasing wealth of the growing middle class did not encourage them to dress extravagantly similar to the ruling class. French kings restricted the use of gold and silver embroidery, etc.

Sumptuary law could embrace hairstyles as well. We know this because Florentine women in 1326 asked the Duchess of Calabria to speak on their behalf to the duke. The women of Florence were restricted (unfairly, they felt) from wearing "false hair": wigs and hair extensions. The law was intended to prevent lower-class women from appearing aristocratic—an affront to the fabric of society. Pope Eugene IV (1383 - 1447; briefly mentioned here) issued a statement that women should be allowed to wear "false hair." To be fair, his reasoning was that it could be pleasing to her husband and reinforce domestic bliss and marital fidelity, so a woman's satisfaction was not necessarily foremost in his mind.

Long and flowing hair was attractive and seductive on a woman, and so once she was married the hair had to be put under a wimple or bound up, so that she did not appear seductive to other men. The image of a woman combing long hair, in many cases being watched by a man, appears in medieval art, and is even painted on combs.

While combing [sic] the sources, I have found so much more regarding hair than I expected, including some items that might not be rated PG. More to come.

The Law of Innocents

Besides Brehon Laws, Ireland had Cáin laws (Cáin="law"; redundant, I know) that were made with the help of church figures. Adomnán of Iona (c.625 - 704) is responsible for a set of rules that has been called the first human rights treaty. The Cáin Adomnáin, the "Law of Adomnán," is also called the "Law of Innocents" because it was designed to protect women, children, and noncombatants during times of warfare.

It was produced in 697 from the Synod of Birr, a gathering of clerics and secular figures, Irish, Pictish, and Dal Riatan. It was likely called by Adomnán himself, based on his authority as the abbot of Iona.

Although designed to protect the innocent, it was unforgiving of the guilty. Section 33 of one of the two remaining manuscripts (both of a later date than the 7th century) is particularly harsh, and relates how an angel demanded rules to protect women:

Go forth into Ireland, and make a law in it that women be not in any manner killed by men, through slaughter or any other death, either by poison, or in water, or in fire, or by any other beast, or in a pit, or by dogs, but that they shall die in their lawful bed... 

For whoever slays a woman shall be condemned to a twofold punishment, that is, his right hand and his left foot shall be cut off before death, and then he shall die, and his kindred shall pay seven full cumals*, and one-seventh part of the penance. If, instead of life and amputation, a fine has been imposed, the penance is fourteen years, and fourteen cumals shall be paid. But if a host has done it, every fifth man up to three hundred shall be condemned to that punishment; if few, they shall be divided into three parts. The first part of them shall be put to death by lot, hand and foot having been first cut off; the second part shall pay fourteen full cumals; the third shall be cast into exile beyond the sea, under the rule of a hard regimen;

Women were not assumed to be angels, either. A woman who murdered, stole from a church, or tried arson, would be condemned to be pushed from shore in a boat with one oar and some gruel. This was considered a way to avoid killing a woman, and left her fate up to God (shades of Antigone!).

Section 50 deals with non-death offenses:

If it be rape of a maiden, seven half-cumals (is the fine) for it. If a hand (is put) upon her or in her girdle, ten ounces** for it. If a hand (is put) under her dress to defile her, three ounces and seven cumals for it. If there be a blemish on her head or her eyes or in the face or in the ear or nose or tooth or tongue or foot or hand, seven cumals are (to be paid) for it. If it be a blemish on any other part of her body, seven half-cumals are (to be paid) for it. If it be tearing of her dress, seven ounces and one cumal for it.

The Synod of Birr brought together different ethnic groups that we therefore assume were Christian. One group mentioned was the Picts, a name with which everyone may be familiar, but who were they? What was their relation Scottish and British and Irish people? Are they still around, and did they leave us any lasting monuments? Let's try to figure out what we really know about the Picts, and why were they called that? See you tomorrow.

*A cumal represented the value of three milch cows.
**The "ounces" are of silver.

Tanistry and Authority

Congal Cáech was a king of the Irish province of Ulaid (on the north east coast) in the early 7th century. Cáech means  "squinting" or "half blind." He was so-called because he was stung in the eye by a bee, and according to the Bechbretha this made him ineligible for the position of High King of Tara. His clan demanded that the eye of the beekeeper's son (he was the son of the High King Domnall mac Áedo) be put out to even the score.

This is one of the few hints we get about early Irish kingship eligibility: that the High King must be without blemish.How one could be eligible for kingship seems to follow the system of tanistry. The Tanist is the second-in-command or second-in-line after a ruler, and not necessarily a descendant. Historically, the males of the clan would choose their next leader from among all the righdamhna ("kingly material"), which could include sons of the departed ruler.

This method persisted in Ireland until the early 17th century when English common law replaced it. In Ireland today, the echo of tanistry can be heard in the title of the deputy prime minister, Tánaiste.

The illustration shows the numerous kingdoms of Ireland, with each having its own king, although often neighboring kingdoms banded together for protection from larger alliances. Political marriages between kingdoms also contributed to descendants with legitimate claims to multiple kingdoms, which could help them unite under one ruler.

Irish kings had a different set of responsibilities than other European kings. For one, they did not have the authority to create laws. The laws were worked out by the Brehons, the judges/arbitrators who wrote tracts on what was right and proper for a working society. The kings' job was to support the law, not make it up. During times of emergency a king could create a law, but this was seen as only temporary.

The king was never above the law. He was not always directly subjected to restitution, however: a designated underling would have to suffer the consequences, and would then be compensated monetarily by the king. The king could lose his status, however, if he engaged in "non-kingly" activities such as being seen doing the work of a commoner, acting cowardly in battle, or traveling without a proper retinue.

Although limited in power when it came to the law, kings could collaborate with the church in developing laws. Adomnán of Iona produced a set of laws, the Cáin Adomnáin ("Law of Innocents"), which has the names of several kings attached to it showing heir involvement and support.

The Cáin Adomnáin has been called Europe's first human rights treaty, and is worth taking a closer look...next time.

Early Irish Law

Early Irish law was called Brehon Law, a system of civil (not criminal) rules, some of which survived until the 17th century when they were replaced with British laws.

It was called Brehon Law because it was administered by Brehons (from Old Irish breithem ("judge"), successors to Celtic Druids who acted as arbitrators in disputes, and questions of compensation and conduct.

Brehon Law recognized equality between sexes and concern for the environment. It was progressive in that it promoted restitution rather than punishment after wrongdoing. Even homicide and bodily harm were recompensed according to an established scale of value, similar to the Anglo-Saxon wergild. Payments were made to the family, not to a civil court. Capital punishment was not part of Brehon Law, unlike many other legal systems before and since, and revenge and retaliation were strongly discouraged.

The clan was the most important social unit, and the property inhabited by that clan was treated as communal when it came to resources such as bee hives, fruit trees, and water mills. The seventh-century Coibnes wisci thairidne ("The Kinship of Conducted Water") discusses the importance of water and why it belongs to all.* Land itself was rarely sold; the highest-ranking lord "rented out" not the land but the right to graze cattle on it.

The manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin (sample shown above) offer an extensive look at this early legal system. This particular illustration is part of a discussion of Bechbretha ("bee judgments"). Honeybees were an important part of the economy: people needed honey, and monasteries needed large amounts of beeswax. Bees were protected; bee possession was sacrosanct; but if you came across a swarm of bees (a mass clinging together on a branch, waiting for the secret apian signal to fly and find a new home), you could claim it for your own and remove it for your use.

The Anglo-Norman Invasion in the 1170s started to replace Brehon Law with English Law, but Brehon Law saw a revival in the 1300s as intermarriage between the Anglo-Norman lords and Irish led to Irish-oriented noble families.

Women in marriage had more agency than in Roman Catholic countries at the time, and I'll go into marriage and divorce tomorrow.

*Even in the 20th century, James Joyce has Leopold Bloom ask "How can you own water really?" in Ulysses.

The Trial of Alice Kyteler, Part 3

See Parts one and two.

The outcome of the trial was dire for Alice, her maid Petronilla, and her stepson William Outlaw. There were others associated with the household that were also on trial, such as Petronilla's daughter, and other associates who had been accused of consorting with Alice.

While the trial was in progress, however, Alice managed to escape prison. It seems likely that she had help from the Chancellor of Ireland, Roger Outlaw (who was her brother-in-law). So far as anyone knows, she left Ireland and was never heard from again. No records exist that give any clue to her fate.

Petronilla was not so lucky. She was condemned for heresy and burned at the stake.

William Outlaw's fate was more complex. Condemned for heresy, he was served with penance. He was required to hear mass three times each day for an entire year and make donations of food to the poor. Also, he was required to provide lead for part of the roof of St. Canice's Cathedral.

Before the year was up, Bishop Ledrede learned that William had failed to observe his penance. He was imprisoned, and only released after he was made to lie in the mud before the bishop and other clergy and declare his fault. His penance was increased: he was now required to provide even more lead to cover more of the roof of the Cathedral, and to go on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land on the first available boat heading that way.

In 1332, a Kilkenny Franciscan records that the bell tower of St. Canice's cathedral collapsed because of the weight of the lead. Bishop Ledrede was not present for this catastrophe, having fled Ireland himself. I'll explain why tomorrow.

The Trial of Alice Kyteler, Part 2

Read the first part here.

Bishop Richard Ledrede wants to try the case himself. In those days bishops had their own courts separate from civil courts, giving them jurisdiction over many crimes that took place within their diocese.

Alice fled to Dublin, where she turned for help to a relative of her first husband: Roger Outlaw, chancellor of English government in Ireland. Bishop Ledrede acted by excommunicating Alice; he then ordered William Outlaw, the son of Alice's first husband, to appear in his court for heresy and protecting heretics. But William also had influential friends, in this case the seneschal Arnold le Poer (who, yes, appears to have been related to Alice's latest deceased husband). This seneschal had the ability to overrule Ledrede—and he used it, arresting Ledrede and imprisoning him for two and a half weeks until William's court appearance date had come and gone.

Ledrede had his own weapons, however, and while in prison he placed his diocese under Interdict, during which no sacraments could be performed. This was a radical move that left Christians without baptisms or marriages, etc., and usually served to make secular authorities comply with the ecclesiastical authorities. Ledrede was released, and appeared in Arnold le Poer's court in full regalia with an entourage to impress upon everyone his status. le Poer had him put in the dock, calling him "an ignorant low-born vagabond from England." Ledrede replied by holding up the Host and saying "Woe, woe, woe, that Christ should be sent to stand at the bar, a thing unheard of since he stood trial before Pontious Pilate." le Poer had him thrown out of court.

Alice decided the best defense is a good offense, accusing Ledrede of defamation. With le Poer acting as her and William Outlaw's lawyer, they took their case to the justiciar, the chief political officer. le Poer claimed:

As you well know, heretics have never been found in Ireland, which has always been called the ‘Island of Saints’. Now this foreigner comes from England and says we are all heretics and excommunicates. Defamation of this country affects everyone of us, so we must all unite against this man.

The justiciar, however, ruled in favor of Ledrede and allowed him to handle the trial in Kilkenny. Alice Kyteler, William Outlaw, Alice's maid Petronilla—all were in danger. Ledrede was not going to "lose" this battle after what he had just been out through. There were consequences for all three from this event—unequal consequences, as it happened—and even Ledrede did not escape the aftermath; but those will be revealed tomorrow.

Gavelkind

Simply put, possession of land equalled power. The laws of primogeniture and ultimogeniture existed to keep estates together. There were places, however, in which these laws did not apply and entirely different practices took place.

Gavelkind was a system of partible inheritance; that is, estates were not kept together at the holder's death but distributed among the heirs—excuse me, among the male heirs. It was used in Kent, even after the Norman Invasion (through special arrangement), although the aforementioned other methods of inheritance applied elsewhere in England.

The holder of the land, if he were 15 years old or older, had authority to pass on part (or all) of his land and create his own mini-fiefdom. He could divide it any way he liked in his will. If he died intestate, however, other rules applied:

• His widow, if they had no children, got half the estate (the other half went to the crown); if she remarried, she lived with her new husband's estate and lost her deceased husband's land.
• In the case of existing children, the land was divided equally among the male heirs. If a son had died and left grandsons, they would divide their deceased father's share.

Gavelkind existed in Ireland and Wales, and this may explain the name. Traditional Irish law divided the father's land among all the sons. Best guess is that it is from the Old Irish phrase Gavail-kinne, "family settlement." In Wales this was called cyfran, an ancient tradition passed down orally until Hywel Dda, a king who ruled most of Wales by the time of his death around 950, codified the legal system. Cyfran stated that all sons would inherit equally, even those who were illegitimate. This was great for the heirs, but bad for the land. It diluted wealth and power, which some might consider good and democratic, but it also increased competition among siblings whose estate was a fraction of the one on which they grew up. In 1535, the Laws in Wales Acts replaced gavelkind with primogeniture. Actions replacing gavelkind are referred to as "disgavelling."

I said I'd discuss Knight-service as well, but it deserves its own entry, so...next time?

Copyhold

Recent posts discussed practices of inheritance such as primogeniture and ultimogeniture. There was also, evolving from the feudal system, a practice that could pre-determine how real estate was passed from one person to another independent of genealogy.

Copyhold was a form of land ownership that lasted into modern times in England. Its name is simply derived from giving the landholder a copy of the land title, rather than the original deed. The legal owner was called the copyholder (even though the copy was physically held by his tenant).

Copyhold existed until the Law of Property Act of 1925, even though feudalism had disappeared by the early 1500s. As in feudalism, the tenant in a copyhold had responsibilities. These varied and could include maintenance of the land, service to the lord, or rent paid in money or goods. The tenant could have rights to natural resources such as gathering wood, or hunting on the land, and could be granted a certain number of animals allowed to graze on the common areas.

Copyhold could be passed on in two ways (of course the tenant could simply give the copy back to the lord and move away). The tenant could include the tenancy in a will, but the lord could recall the copyhold if he felt the inheritor could not fulfill the responsibilities involved. The holder, however, had opportunities to ask to "sell" it to another by arranging with the lord to return it and have it granted to another of the original holder's choosing.

There was also "Copyhold for lives." In this arrangement, the copyhold was actually granted with more than one person attached to the deed. A primary tenant would have the expected rights and duties, and upon his death it would automatically be passed on to the next in line. This created ahead of time a queue for how the land would be passed along. It was possible to change names in the succession by paying a fine to the lord, but this method made it more difficult for the original tenant to change his mind about his successor.

There were a few different systems to the west, in Ireland and Wales. Tomorrow I'll talk about gavelkind and knight-service, and then we'll move on.

Inheritance by the Youngest

We are accustomed to linking inheritance with a preference for the eldest, even without strict primogeniture involved. In New York State in 2021, if one dies intestate, their possessions are distributed equally among all members of the immediate family. Someone in the family, however, needs to be designated as executor, and the law offers the job to the siblings according to age.

There have been situations in the past, however, when the youngest member of the family had preference. The technical term is ultimogeniture, and was also known as junior right or postremogeniture.

The Bible notes that Isaac, Jacob, and David were youngest sons, as was Joseph with his coat of many colors. Hesiod's Theogony describes both Cronus and Zeus as the youngest of their respective families. There is nothing in Hebrew or Greek law that suggests ultimogeniture was practiced, but they saw some significance in being the youngest.

More recently, in Medieval England, ancient English boroughs sometimes practiced ultimogeniture. It was found in rural areas with Saxon citizens as opposed to Norman French-oriented areas where primogeniture was practiced.

No legal writing exists that explains the benefit of ultimogeniture, but we can conjecture, and that leads me to the picture I've included here. The Amish practice ultimogeniture. As each son reaches an age where he wants to start his own family and farm, the question arises of what he should do. His father, however, is still hale enough to farm, and is not going to turn his own farm over to one of his children. Arrangements are made to find land for the son. Elder sons might even go work for someone else or take on another trade. By the time the youngest son is ready to have a family and farm, the father is likely now old enough to retire and turn the farm over. (Handled properly, this can also avoid estate taxes.)

That might explain some of the historical reasoning for ultimogeniture: the simple fact that the father maintains the estate for as long as he can, the elder sons cannot wait around for him to die, and so they go off to find their own careers, and ultimately the youngest is still around when the father is ready to retire. In my own family history, a house that was owned from 1837 until the 1960s was taken over by the youngest person in each succeeding generation once the father died; the widow stayed in the home while the youngest son raised his own family there.

Ultimogeniture—which was all about transferring property from one generation to the next—did not preclude partible inheritance, the dividing of the land (making sure that elder sons got something as well). Partible inheritance was not welcome in the feudal system, where the lord wanted to maintain control over an intact estate. There was a practice, however, that allowed transfer of land rights that was not quite feudal and was not based on genealogy. Next time, I'll explain copyhold.

Reviving the Justinian Code

The Byzantine Emperor Justinian I had many accomplishments, but establishing the Corpus Juris Civilis ("Body of Civil Law"), often referred to as the Code of Justinian, was one of the most lasting. The first main codification of Roman law, it influenced many modern legal systems. It was given the force of law as the sole source of legal interpretation, which made the application of law across the Empire consistent.

Although established in the 6th century, copies were extensive for the centuries that followed (no originals from the 6th century remain). City-states in northern Italy adopted the Justinian Code as they grew and needed more formal systems of law to guide them internally and in their relationships with each other. By the time Frederick I Barbarossa came to the throne it was also being used in his territories north of the Alps.

Frederick began to use the Justinian Code which not only made application of the law consistent over a large area, it also bolstered Frederick's grander claims. Based on a Roman Imperial foundation, the Code embraced the idea of the "divine right of rulership." Frederick, like many worldly rulers in the Middle Ages, was in conflict with the Church over ultimate authority. The Justinian Code gave him a reason to push forward the idea that he had divine authority to do as he liked, such as taking over northern Italy as well as Germany, and clashing with Archbishops.

The Justinian Code was also adopted as the foundation of the Napoleonic Code, which abolished feudalism.

The "divine right of kings" was a common concept in the Middle Ages. One of the earliest examples was offered in the 7th century by Adomnán of Iona; I'll tell you about him next time.

Stannaries

A stannary was an administrative division in the counties of Cornwall and Devon based on tin-mining. The term comes from Middle English stannarie based on Medieval Latin stannaria, "tin mine,"which itself is from the Latin stannum, "tin." (You may know that the chemical symbol for Tin is Sn; now you know why.)

Tin was so important that a body of law was developed to deal specifically with stannaries. King John in 1201 gave the tin miners of Cornwall the Stannary Charter: the right to prospect for tin anywhere, to be exempt from standard taxation, and to have their own stannary courts in the case of law-breaking. King Edward I in 1305 confirmed these rights, as did Edward III when he created the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337. Crockern Tor, pictured above, was the site of the Stannary Parliament, representing the tin industry.

Tin mining pre-dated the Middle Ages in Cornwall. When the Romans arrived, it was already thriving. Diodorus Siculus in 44BCE wrote the earliest reference to Cornwall we know:

The people of that promontory of Britain called Belerion [west Cornwall] are friendly to strangers and, from their contact with foreign merchants, are civilised in their way of life. They carefully work the ground from which they extract the tin.

In the Middle Ages, the tin was smelted and made into blocks (later standardized at 170 kilograms). They were taken to specifically designated locations called stannary towns where a "prover" would test it for quality, then put an official stamp on it and allow it to be sold. A duty would be calculated on the sale, equivalent to four shillings per hundredweight (170 kilograms = 3.34 hundredweight) under Edward I. Duty amounts changed over time, but the amount of tin coming out of Cornwall and Devon was considerable, so anyone given the right to the duties could have a hefty income. After King John died (and after some other events), the king's council allowed his widow, Isabella of Angoulême the duty from the stannaries of Devon.

This whole system of special privilege, etc., existed until the Tin Duties Act of 1838.

The history of mining in Cornwall was far more extensive than dealing with tin, even tied to a Biblical legend. I'll tell you more next time.

Alfred's Improvements

Alfred the Great (849 - 899) was not an idle king, even when not battling Danish invasions to protect the shores of Great Britain.

Some of his reforms and innovations did involve the military, though. The traditional way to deal with trouble was for each small community to assemble its own men against an attack. The Danes, however, would attack swiftly a small area, conquer it, and fortify it as a new base from which to mount further attacks and to which they could retreat if their further military plan looked like it was failing. They could make steady progress across the country before a large-scale defense could be mounted by a king. After defeating Guthrum at Edington, Alfred used the following respite to plan a standing army, ready to march and strike at the first sign of invaders.

In order to do this, Alfred had to raise taxes. His people had what was called the trinoda necessitas (three-fold tax): obligations for military service, fortress work, and bridge repair. Alfred increased a landholder's taxes based on the productivity of his land. He also created over third fortified places in souther Great Britain from which he could organize resistance to invaders.

He also increased naval power. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle claims that Alfred's ships were larger and faster than ships of the Danes or Frisians. Alfred wanted to stop invaders before they reached shore, if possible.

He was also responsible for some legal reforms. He gathered together many of the laws from the past, including the code of King Ine of Wessex (689 - 726), rejecting laws that didn't please him, and produced a law code of 120 chapters with a strong biblical influence.

Even while dealing with these many "royal obligations" he was encouraging changes in education and culture. Perhaps inspired by Charlemagne's re-birth of culture, he established a school at court for his children and others. He also arranged for translations into English of Latin works he felt everyone should know. Concerned that the Viking invasions were a sign of God's wrath, he founded monasteries and "imported" monks because he found little local interest in populating the monasteries. He made sure copies of Gregory the Great's Pastoral Care went to his bishops for the better preparation of priests.

Now, calling anyone "the Great" will always raise questions about the accuracy of the epithet, and Alfred is no exception. Tomorrow we'll hear why some modern historians claim he wasn't that Great. See you then.

The Temple Inn

After the Knights Templar were dissolved in 1312, Pope Clement V wanted all their property turned over to the Knights Hospitallers. King Edward II of England, however, claimed their properties in England for the Crown. The Templar properties in London included several buildings along the banks of the Thames, some of which were consecrated. Edward granted those for Hospitaller use, and made them pay for the non-consecrated buildings.

The Hospitallers were not so large and expanding that they needed the space, and so it is likely that they used it as income, renting it as living/work space. Tradition says that there were lawyers living there in the 1340s, but a formal educational institution cannot be proved...although there is a recorded incident in 1339 when "a man was killed in the Temple by a servant of the apprentices of the king’s court, which suggests that they may already have formed a community there." [link] In 1388, both "Inner Temple" and "Middle Temple" are specifically named in documents. The picture above is a mezzotint from 1826 showing dinner in the hall of one of the Temples.

Another incident involving the Temple is confirmed during the Peasants Revolt in 1381 (most recently summarized here, but also found in much more detail throughout this blog). The rebels tore down the Inner Temple hall and several houses before burning down the Savoy. When the building was torn down in 1868, it was noted that the roof used 14th century construction methods that would have been unavailable to the Templars.

Wat Tyler's followers supposedly were happy to destroy all the legal records they could find. It is true that no records exist from the 1300s, but neither do any exist from the 1400s. No formal records exist for any of the Inns of Court prior to 1500, except for Lincoln's Inn whose Black Books begin in 1422. The 1500s saw significant expansion of the Inns and their population and influence on English law.

Our brief history of the Temple after it was taken from the Templars is done, but what of the Hospitallers? When did they give it up? What happened to them? Let's look at that tomorrow.

The Inner Temple

Why were two of the compounds for legal training in London named "Inner Temple" and "Middle Temple"? First, let's explain that "Middle Temple" was a nickname. There was an Inner and an Outer Temple at the location, and "Middle" was named that just because it was between the two, but it wasn't really a temple. The Inner Temple, however, was a temple, in that it was built and used by the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon, known these days as the Templars.

Founded in 1119CE and devoted to the emancipation of the Holy Land, their international presence made them popular as safe escorts and money-handling institutions. They maintained almost a thousand locations across all of Europe and the Near East, and were a popular recipient of donations.

During the reign of Henry II, the Knights built their set of buildings on the banks of the Thames, laying down a new street that gave access to them. They called this New Street, but today it is known as Chancery Lane. It was obviously not a law school at the time, although lawyers were there as advisors for the Knights.

The Knights ran into trouble when, on 13 Friday 1307, France ordered the arrest of all Templars. (If the date makes you wonder, go here.) King Philip IV needed money after his wars with England, and relied on rumors of impropriety to convince Pope Clement V to outlaw them, allowing Philip to confiscate their wealth. England did not have any beef with the Knights, but their order faded quickly and was officially dissolved in 1312. The buildings in London were given to the Knights Hospitaller, an order whose activities were similar to the Templars.

You can read more about Clement's decision here, and why he was so aligned with Philip to go along with him here. I want to talk a little more about the Inner Temple and what happened to it later. See you next time.

The Inns of Court

To my surprise, I have used "law" or "laws" (should really get around to combining them) as keywords in 43 posts (out of nearly 800), but have never mentioned the Inns of Court, where civil law was learned.

In the early Middle Ages, law was taught by the clergy, but Pope Honorius III in 1218 forbade the clergy to practice civil law. Then, in 1234, Henry III forbade law schools within the London city limits. Laymen interested in teaching law moved outside London and looked for buildings or collections of buildings to buy or rent, and the guilds in which they worked evolved into the Inns of Court. Four Inns exist: The Honorable Societies of Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. They truly were inns, because students lived as well as learned there. They are all near each other.

Although Lincoln's Inn claims the earliest records going back to 1422 (incidentally, the picture above is the Lincoln's Inn library) we know that lawyers lived in the Temple as early as 1320, though not as teachers. In 1337 the place was divided into the Inner Temple, and the Middle Temple (as distinct from an Outer Temple that existed). By 1388 they were two distinct groups. In 1620, a meeting of senior judges decreed that all four were considered equal in order of precedence, regardless of when they may have been founded.

Like the seven subjects of the University curriculum, law students were expected to spend seven years learning the law, mostly by attending court and asking questions afterward. Their experience included dining communally with practicing barristers for networking and additional knowledge. It wasn't until the mid-18th century that common law became. subject for study in universities.

The Inns of Court recognized three levels: student (learning law), barrister (practicing law), and master of the bench (called "bencher"). Benchers were senior members of the Inns, and could be appointed by existing benchers when still a barrister. An appointed High Court Judge was automatically a bencher. Benchers were the governing body of their respective Inn. Their duties were to admit students, "graduate" students, and appoint other benchers. One bencher was appointed Treasurer for a term on one year.

But I know the question nagging at you is "Why were they called the Inner and Middle Temple?" You either know why, and are wondering if I'll address the subject, or don't know why, and are hoping I'll answer your question. Good news for both: I'll answer the question tomorrow.

If you are curious what the seven subjects were, you can find a list in this post, or you can learn more about them (and much more) here.

Sharia Law in the Middle Ages

Christians and Jews living in Muslim-controlled lands in the Iberian Peninsula were subject to Sharia Law...to a point. Sharia (sharī'ah) in Arabic refers to God's immutable divine law, as opposed to fikh, secular interpretation of the law. The word appears exactly once in the Koran, defined as "way" or "path." It is used as the Arabic translation of the word torah in a 10th-century translation of the Torah.

The teaching of the law was not dissimilar to what we saw in medieval England. Arabic Madrasahs were similar to the English Inns of Court. The Latin qualification licentia docendi ("license to teach") was identical to the meaning of the Islamic ijazat al-tadris wa-l-ifta. (Note: the Latin phrase could be abbreviated "ld" but this is not the origin of LLD, Doctor of Laws.)

Islamic law studies had different statuses: faqih was a Master of Law, mufti was a professor of legal opinions, and mudarris was a teacher. These parallel the Medieval Latin terms magister, professor, and doctor. The mufti and the professor could express their opinion on what the law meant—even if they were wrong.

Sharia drew distinctions between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, free people and slaves. In many situations a woman's worth was considered half that of a man. A husband's financial obligations, however, gave wives some protection against divorce and following poverty. Women could be plaintiffs or defendants in Sharia courts, without having to rely on a male representative. A Muslim man could marry a Christian or Jewish woman, and she was allowed to worship at her own church/synagogue.

Non-Muslims were considered dhimmi, which literally means "protected person." This status was given to Jews and Christians, who were "People of the Book" (the book being the shared Old Testament). They had certain privileges—although in many cases "permissions" might be more accurate—and certain obligations. Dhimmi paid the jizya, a tax on non-Muslims residing in Muslim-controlled countries. If you were not a dhimmi but were, say, a pagan, you were not required to pay the jizya; you were required to convert to Islam or face death. (Later, dhimmi status was applied to pagans and many more types, such as Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists.

This is obviously the briefest of looks at Sharia law and how it might affect folk in the Middle Ages. I think it's time to head north. Tomorrow I'll talk about the above-mentioned Inns of Court.