-
Articles/Ads
Article Untitled Article ← Page 5 of 5
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Untitled Article
Judging by analogy from the laws of the other Germanic tribes of nearly the same period , a theow of one lordship could not intermarry with one of another lordship . This provision was necessary , not only to hinder the disputes which would naturally arise between the two
lords , but to provide against the division of the members of a family , which had been so strongly condemned by the Roman law . Marriages between theows were considered by the Anglo-Saxon laws perfectly legitimate ; but there was an exception which the clergy , after the introduction of Christianity , combated with much zeal , and which was probably afterwards laid aside ; not only was the marriage between two persons of servile condition looked upon as rendered
void by one obtaining his liberty , without being able to free the other , so that the party freed was at liberty to contract a new marriage with one who was free ; but if a free-born man married a female theow , either his own or another ' s , he was at liberty to break the union at his pleasure . The object of this exception was , without doubt , to enable the freeman to secure the freedom of his children , born after the act of manumission .
The whole tenor of the laws appears to show that the theow had no appeal from , or action against , his master . The secular laws restricted in nothing the jurisdiction of the lord over his theows , for he had power of life and death over them ; and although capable of possessing and being masters of personal property , they were exposed to their lords' violence and extortion . This answers to the
description given by Tacitus of the German slaves . The theow thus enjoyed far less protection of person , from the laws of the country , than the Roman colonus . In one case alone , the law appears to have stepped in between the proprietor and his theow , which was when the latter worked on Sunday ; according to the laws of King Ina , of Wessex ( a . u . 688—726 ) , if he worked on the Sunday by his lord ' s command ,
the lord lost all right over him , and he became free ; but if he did it without his master ' s knowledge , he was to suffer " in his hide , " that is , he was to be flogged . So low , indeed , was the theow in the eyes of the law , that his testimony appears not to have been received as a witness ; and the only trial to whiclfhe was subjected was that of the ordeal , by which it is probable that he nearly always proved guilty
Erom his lord the theow received much the same kind of protection as would have been given to a horse or a dog ; any one who had received injury from him must complain to his master , who alone had the right of judging and punishing « he who slew or maimed him , must pay proportionate damages to the master for his loss . ( To be continued . )
VOL . I . 2 E
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Untitled Article
Judging by analogy from the laws of the other Germanic tribes of nearly the same period , a theow of one lordship could not intermarry with one of another lordship . This provision was necessary , not only to hinder the disputes which would naturally arise between the two
lords , but to provide against the division of the members of a family , which had been so strongly condemned by the Roman law . Marriages between theows were considered by the Anglo-Saxon laws perfectly legitimate ; but there was an exception which the clergy , after the introduction of Christianity , combated with much zeal , and which was probably afterwards laid aside ; not only was the marriage between two persons of servile condition looked upon as rendered
void by one obtaining his liberty , without being able to free the other , so that the party freed was at liberty to contract a new marriage with one who was free ; but if a free-born man married a female theow , either his own or another ' s , he was at liberty to break the union at his pleasure . The object of this exception was , without doubt , to enable the freeman to secure the freedom of his children , born after the act of manumission .
The whole tenor of the laws appears to show that the theow had no appeal from , or action against , his master . The secular laws restricted in nothing the jurisdiction of the lord over his theows , for he had power of life and death over them ; and although capable of possessing and being masters of personal property , they were exposed to their lords' violence and extortion . This answers to the
description given by Tacitus of the German slaves . The theow thus enjoyed far less protection of person , from the laws of the country , than the Roman colonus . In one case alone , the law appears to have stepped in between the proprietor and his theow , which was when the latter worked on Sunday ; according to the laws of King Ina , of Wessex ( a . u . 688—726 ) , if he worked on the Sunday by his lord ' s command ,
the lord lost all right over him , and he became free ; but if he did it without his master ' s knowledge , he was to suffer " in his hide , " that is , he was to be flogged . So low , indeed , was the theow in the eyes of the law , that his testimony appears not to have been received as a witness ; and the only trial to whiclfhe was subjected was that of the ordeal , by which it is probable that he nearly always proved guilty
Erom his lord the theow received much the same kind of protection as would have been given to a horse or a dog ; any one who had received injury from him must complain to his master , who alone had the right of judging and punishing « he who slew or maimed him , must pay proportionate damages to the master for his loss . ( To be continued . )
VOL . I . 2 E