The Law of Æthelberht is a set of legal provisions written in Old English, probably dating to the early 7th century. It originates in the kingdom of Kent, and is the first Germanic-language law code. It is also thought to be the earliest example of a document written in English, or indeed in any form of a surviving Germanic language, though extant only in an early 12th-century manuscript, Textus Roffensis.
The code is concerned primarily with preserving social harmony through compensation and punishment for personal injury, typical of Germanic-origin legal systems. Compensations are arranged according to social rank, descending from king to slave. The initial provisions of the code offer protection to the church. Though the latter were probably innovations, much of the remainder of the code may be derived from earlier legal custom transmitted orally.
Manuscript, editions and translations
There is only one surviving manuscript of Æthelberht's law, Textus Roffensis or the "Rochester Book". The Kentish laws occupy folios 1v to 6v, of which Æthelberht's has 1v to 3v. This is a compilation of Anglo-Saxon laws, lists and genealogies drawn together in the early 1120s, half a millennium after Æthelberht's law is thought to have been first written down. Æthelberht's law precedes the other Kentish law codes, which themselves precede various West Saxon and English royal legislation, as well as charters relating to Rochester Cathedral. Æthelberht's law is written in the same hand as the laws of other Kentish monarchs.
The compilation was produced at the instigation of Ernulf, bishop of Rochester, friend of the lawyer-bishop Ivo of Chartres. Ernulf was a legally minded bishop like Ivo, a canon lawyer and judge. He was responsible for commissioning copies of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at Canterbury Cathedral Priory and Peterborough Abbey, as prior and abbot respectively.
Francis Tate made a transcription of Textus Roffensis c. 1589, which survives as British Museum MS Cotton Julius CII. Henry Spelman, Ecclesiarum Orbis Brittanici (London, 1639), provided a Latin translation of provisions relating to the church. In 1640 Johannes de Laet translated the whole code into Latin. Though no original survives, several 18th-century authors copied it. The first full edition (with Latin translation) was:
George Hickes and Humfrey Wanley, Linguarum Vett. Septentrionalium Thesaurus Grammatico-Criticus et Archaeologicus (Oxford, 1703–05)
Many other Latin translations editions of the Kentish laws or Textus Roffensis followed in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, mostly from English and German editors. Notable examples include:
Felix Liebermann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen (Halle, 1897–1916), with German translation Frederick Levi Attenborough, The Laws of the Earliest English Kings (Cambridge, 1922), with English translation Lisi Oliver, The Beginnings of English Law (Toronto, 2002), with English translation
In 2014, Rochester Cathedral and the John Rylands University Library of Manchester cooperated to make the complete text available online in facsimile.
Origin
The code is attributed to Æthelberht, and for this reason is dated to that king's reign (c. 590–616×618). Æthelberht's code is thought to be both the earliest law code of any kind in any Germanic language and the earliest surviving document written down in the English language. Æthelberht is thought to be the king behind the code because the law's red-ink introductory rubric in Textus Roffensis attributes it to him.
Bede (Historia Ecclesiastica ii. 5), writing in Northumbria more than a century after King Æthelberht, attributes a code of laws to the king:Among the other benefits which he thoughtfully conferred on his people, he also established enacted judgments for them, following the examples of the Romans, with the council of his wise men. These were written in English speech, and are held and observed by them to this day. Bede goes on to describe details of the code accurately. In the introduction to Alfred the Great's law the latter king relates that he consulted the laws of Æthelberht.
The code as it survives was not written in the king's name and the 12th-century author of the rubric may have been influenced by Bede in his attribution. The lack of attribution in the original text may be a sign that law-making was not primarily a royal activity as it was to become in later centuries.