Introduction: Capital and Corporal Punishment in Anglo-Saxon England

Summary

Æt þam oðrum cyrre ne si þær nan oðer bot, gif he ful wurðe, butan þæt man ceorfe him ða handa oððe þa fet oððe ægþer, be þam ðe seo dæd sig. J gif he þonne gyt mare wurc geworht hæbbe, þonne do man ut his eagan, J ceorfan of his nosu J his earan J þa uferan lippan oððon hine hættian, swa hwylc þyssa swa man þonne geræde, ða þe ðærto rædan sceolon: swa man mæg styran J eac þære sawle beorgan.

At the second offense, there is to be no other remedy, if he is guilty, but that his hands, or feet, or both are to be cut off, depending on the deed. And if he has committed further offenses, his eyes should be put out and his nose and ears and upper lip cut off, or he should be scalped, whichever of these is decided by those who must judge. Thus one can punish and also protect the soul.

II Cnut 30.4–5

In the early eleventh century, Archbishop Wulfstan of York was confronted with the problem of reconciling principles of Christian mercy with the earthly obligation to punish criminals. The alignment of secular and spiritual priorities had long been an element of English law, as Christian clergy had been drafting English royal legislation since the turn of the seventh century. Yet it was only with Wulfstan’s codes for Kings Æthelred and Cnut that the rhetoric of salvation was fully and explicitly integrated into Old English law. In contrast to the laws of previous Anglo-Saxon kings, which required capital punishment for a range of offenses, Wulfstan’s legislation prescribed non-lethal penalties ‘so that God’s handiwork and his own purchase, which he dearly bought, not be destroyed for small offenses.’ Whereas an immediate death sentence might place the soul of the condemned beyond redemption, if he lacked the opportunity or inclination to repent before his execution, a life-sparing punishment allowed even the worst offenders enough time to make their peace with God. Whether or not they chose to be reconciled with the Church, under Wulfstan’s program of punishment, it would not be the judge or executioner determining the condemned’s fate in the afterlife, but the criminal himself.