 and praying, confirming the infamy of the day. Well, Maxims II is clear that, quote, the criminal should hang, should properly repain evil he previously did. Other punishments appear as well. Giuliano, refusing marriage and worship of pagan gods, is hung from a beam by our hair, beaten for six hours and placed in prison. Fates of the Apostles recounts two executions of martyrs with swords, three with unspecified weapons, and one by beating. Punishment was familiar enough to act as a description for emotional experience, as when in vain, the death of one son at the hands of another, which precluded vengeance as well as restitution, is compared to the impotence of a father watching his son hang down the gallows. Quote, his son hangs in comfort to the raven, and he did not have the power to help him. Thus, while punishment and supportive social order was familiar, it also carried a profoundly personal resonance, it could convey a sense of alienation. Moreover, representations of Anglo-Saxon punishment continue to be evoked after the Norman Conquest of 1066. As the laws penned by Wolfstein, as the calls were discussing, continue to influence Norman legislation, so the Anglo-Saxon past, which was a rich source for historians, Norman and the English alike, to draw on its supportive claims to rights and privileges in England. The Norman historians, of course, dwelt on Harold Godwinson's usurpation of the throne, that Edward the Confessor promised to William and represented Harold's death as a perfectly just punishment, as the biotapestry would have it, Hick, Harold Rexx, to effect this est. Here, King Harold is killed. The English historians made other kinds of claims, but focused on the criminal English who had brought the nation to a state that it could be conquered, first by the Danes, then by the Normans. Thus, those punishments administered to Englishmen before and after the Conquest were made to carry meaning. The most popular villain from before the Conquest, one placed at the center of historical narratives, was Adrick, Aldermen of Versia. Depicted as a traitor and a villain during Knuth's Conquest of England and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Adrick inspired those who recorded his role in history to enumerate his many crimes, if not attribute new ones to him, and they did just make things up, and to provide great detail to the scene of his execution. In the 11th and 12th century accounts, Adrick is variously, and I love this sentence, Adrick is variously killed, killed and thrown over the walls of London, strangled and private and dumped from a window into the Thames, beheaded, publicly beheaded and dumped into the Thames, beheaded with his head displayed on the highest tower in London, and beheaded with his head displayed on the highest gate in London. With each account, it would seem that the historian selects Adrick's story to build into the structure of his larger narrative of the Conquest of England, first by Knute, then by the Normans. In fact, the Anglo-Norman historian's treatment of Adrick's execution should catch our attention because, as has been noted, between 1076 and 1312, not a single English Earl, and indeed hardly a single Baron was executed or murdered in England for political reasons. Through the forms of betrayal, discovery, judgment, and execution are made to take, the historian provides a moral commentary and offers an ideological guide for the audience's interpretation. Here I only have space to discuss a pair of texts in brief, but I believe that they effectively demonstrate the value of tracing the shifts and details across historiographical narratives. So in the deeds of the kings of the English people by William of Maldenbury, the guest of Regamon Gorham, William elaborates Adrick's story and gives him a much greater role than had any previous account. He also adds information that is not present in any previous accounts and makes clear the consequences of Adrick's actions. For example, a claim appearing nowhere else is that during the St. Bryce's Day Massacre of 1002, that was when King Ethelred declared that all Danes living among the English would be killed on the same day. Adrick murdered Gunnhill, the Danish king's swain's sister, thereby giving swain calls to conquer England. William also first recounted aspects that were retained by later historians. Most important of these is the claim that Adrick had the English king Edmund Ironside murdered. William says, and I quote, Ruber implicates Adrick as having, in support of Knute, contrived Edmund's death by means of servants. There were, it was said, two of the king's chamberlains to whom he had entrusted his entire life. Adrick won them over with promises and though at first they were horrified at such a monstrous crime, he soon made them his accomplices and as he had planned, when the king took his seat for the requirements of nature, they drove an iron hook into his hinder parts. This form of murder squares nicely with William's judgment of Adrick's character as Fex homidom, literally the shit of humanity. The gruesome crime goes well beyond switching sides during a battle. He not only betrays a king but perverts that king's most faithful servants and of course, he's a regicide. He's a threat to king and national life. Clearly, William's Knute understands this. Quote, in the same year, Adrick, to whose infamy I cannot do justice, was by the king's command and trapped in his term by the same trick that he had frequently used in the past to entrap many others and his disgusting spirit was transferred to hell. High words had arisen as a result of some dispute or other and Adrick, emboldened by the services he had rendered, reminded the king as though in a friendly fashion of his desserts and he said, first I abandoned Edmund for you and then also put him to death out of loyalty to you. At these words, Knute's expression changed. His face flushed with anger and he delivered sentence forthwith. That you too, he said, will deserve to die if you were guilty of high treason against God and myself by killing your own Lord and a brother who is in alliance with me. Thy blood be upon thy head for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying that thou hast lifted up thy hand against the Lord's anointed. And then, to avoid a public disturbance, the traitor was strangled in the same chamber and thrown out the window into the Thames, thus paying the due penalty for his property. However much Knute sounds like a character out of Pulp Fiction. He is a wise or at least clever king who can entrap a traitor, but however just his judgment of Adrick, this is a political murder rather than an execution. While Adrick is a damning portrayal of a disloyal English aristocrat, William's Knute is an ambiguous royal figure with questionable motives. There is drama here that is more meaningful than the history of the events. Henry of Huntingdon follows William of Moldsbury in much of his account of Adrick and Knute. He gives us the fullest account of all, including the representation of Knute as a just king. What is essential for justice to take place is that everything must be in the open. As in William of Moldsbury's account, Adrick is made responsible for Edmund's death immediately after Edmund and Knute reached an agreement to partition England. However, instead of seducing his servants away from him, Henry has Adrick sent his own son. A few days after this, King Edmund was treacherously killed at Oxford. This is how he was killed. When the king, fearful and most formidable to his enemies, was prospering in his kingdom, he went one night into the lavatory to answer a call of nature. There, the son of Alderman Adrick, who by his father's plan was concealed in the pit of the privy, struck the king twice with a sharp knife in the private parts and leaving the weapon in his bowels fled away. While the story of Edmund's death remains largely the same, he's killed in the privy through Adrick's plot. The details are important and stand in for what is omitted from Henry's account. The murder takes place immediately after the partition in which Edmund received Wessex and Knute Mercia, the region that Adrick controlled. Therefore, there are suggestions of political maneuvering underlying this account. Second, the issue of heirs is established. Adrick sends his son instead of seducing away Edmund's servants as in William's version. And Edmund is stabbed in his private parts suggesting the destruction of his line. Adrick's treachery here is depicted as elevating his own family at the expense of the English, king, royal line, and community. However, Henry's imagery of the betrayal should drive our interpretation. I think taking a cue from William's description of Adrick as Bex Hometham, Henry places Adrick's son beneath the king, standing in shit, stabbing upward, and you could just imagine, I'm not describing. I posit that this ought to be seen as a commentary on the aristocracy working actively to elevate themselves. While Henry follows William in recounting that Edmund is murdered according to Adrick's plan, he diverges in having Adrick executed and displayed. Both is a representation of justice and a warning to would-be traders. Quote, then Adrick came to King Canute and saluted him, saying, hail, soul king. When he disclosed what had happened, the king answered, as a reward for your great service, I shall make you higher than all the English nobles. Then he ordered him to be beheaded and his head to be fixed on a stake in London's highest tower. What stands out in these examples is that as the post-conquest historians looked back to the Anglo-Saxon period and attempted to explain the conquest, they not only repeated their sources, they added to and modified them. The stories took on new elements, new details and conveyed new meanings. Well after they had happened, the crimes and the punishments of the English grew and were embellished to continue producing meaning, giving warnings to kings to guard against injustice and treachery, giving spectacular warnings to would-be criminals and traitors through long-dead characters and explaining to the English that they had been conquered because of a lack of fidelity and unity in the nation. Thus Anglo-Saxon punishment was not only still legible after the Anglo-Saxon period, punishment narratives were still actively written to convey meaning in the post-conquest world. So thank you and that leaves us about 20 minutes for conversation and questions if you're so inclined. As for descriptions of the process, I wish there were. One of the problems with dealing with Anglo-Saxon law and legal culture is we have to patch so much together from very spare evidence. So we have a handful of Anglo-Saxon lawsuits, maybe 100, 150 or so that outlines some procedure. We have a few narrative sources, but for the most part we're still working on that. So I'll talk a little bit about my sources and then pass it along. Certainly the Old English translation of the constellation of philosophy is a pretty remarkable text. It's extremely long, extremely intense, but what strikes me about it is that it is done in a fairly loose manner in certain sections. So this was created as part of King Alfred's translation program to turn Latin text into Old English so everybody could read them. And the looseness with which this particular chapter, Chapter 38 was translated, suggests to me that the so-called translator was adding quite a bit of his own perspective, which makes it so useful to us in sort of pulling out some information about what judges might have been doing, thinking, or feeling at this point. A difficult question. As for the archeological evidence, in the last 15 or 20 years there has been a great absurd of re-identification of cemeteries as deviant cemeteries. So while at first, I believe, in the early part of the 20th century, these were often identified as Roman cemeteries or something else entirely. Sometimes they're even identified as human sacrifice or in theolithic, stuff that doesn't hold up to scrutiny today. The thinking is that these were very separate areas that were probably used as execution sites and then the bodies were just left there. What makes this so interesting in the later Anglo-Saxon period is that in the 10th century, we start to see a firmer requirement that Christian bodies in good standing with the church be buried in consecrated ground. Before the 10th century, it was kind of hit and miss. You didn't lose anything. But starting in the mid-10th century or so, everyone wanted to be within those cemeteries attached to church yards and blessed by a bishop. So when you have something that is so very separate and where you have burials where limbs are scattered everywhere, people's heads put between their legs, decomposition, setting in at different rates, sort of suggesting display above ground before burial, we get a very different picture of how the reality of Anglo-Saxon justice might have operated. So reading that against the laws, we did a little bit of procedure, maybe. Susanna, there's not much as Nicole says about the process. There's less narrative than we would like. But you can piece together things. And I'm thinking of Beowulf and heroic poetry, particularly Beowulf. There's a lot going on there about the honorableness of blood revenge, of blood feud. There's also an interesting elision between money and gold or treasure. So it's very hard. The hordes, the Crandall horde, and also Sutton Hoo, which is a wonderful, you can look it up on the internet, but it's a wonderful burial discovery that was made that also contains treasure troves as well and coins. So we can trace the actual coins and where they came from, but it's also this elision between just valuable stuff and coins. There's not really a strong distinction between them. So heroic poetry, I would say, is important for the romance in some ways of honorable blood. And the law codes, there's also the Anglo-Saxon chronicles as well. And I think it's interesting to note, particularly about the law codes, that they really wouldn't have gotten written down if it hadn't been because of the programmatic Christianizing of England. Because that was a literate culture that wrote in Latin. And so things, law codes, and so it's very hard to separate the theologizing of the law from the actual records. But I'd like to just add a couple of little things that have nothing to do with paper. So first, there actually is a remarkable amount of discussion of process. They just don't tell us the details. So they say, there will be this process of ordeal, and it will be the ordeal of the hot iron or the boiling hot, or hot iron. You have to carry a hot iron in your head to a certain distance. We don't know the distance. And then they would bandage it and open it up again a couple of days later. And if it was separating, you were guilty. If it was healing nicely, you were fine, like God and your knee. The boiling pot, you had to reach into a boiling pot and pull a stout out from the bottom. And then they wrapped your head and so on and so forth. And the worst, the crime, the worst of your ordeal, the deeper the water. There was the ordeal of bread and cheese, which is the one I would go for, where you had to eat bread and cheese and not choke. Between boiling water and bread and cheese, bread and cheese. So we see these, but they don't give the details. And in part, I think that's because everybody knew them. They were familiar enough that they were like, no, this is the process. That's how it goes. Speaking to some of the things that Valerie was talking about, we also have certain details of process such as how much wounds are worth and how you measure them. So if I have hit someone in the head and I have wounded their face, it's worth more than if I hit them in the head and it's hit by the hair. So there's an element of shame. If I have hit someone in the head hard enough that I have broken their skull and I can pick a bone out of it, depending on the size of that bone chunk, they get a particular pavement. This also assumes that they would live. And we have skulls that have clearly healed with holes in them, which means that they could do the surgery to pick out the bone splinters and hit people a lot. So they're not as bad as we kind of imagined. But the way to actually measure how big that was wasn't to sort of measure it by your arm or your head. It was to put a bowl or a shield across the road and throw it into it. And if you could hear it, take it, it was worth the search for them. So there's a weird little process like that. But then how far you have to carry the hot IRC? You don't know. It's only against the law to do it. How involved in the process is it by language or by environment? I have answers. If nobody else cares about it. So there are multiple answers to this. So on the one hand, Viagra Saxons traded with the Welsh in the past 15 years or so. We have discovered that there was far more intermarriage than we had ever thought prior to this. And that the idea of sort of Englishness versus Britishness, that really for several centuries we just assume, things were a little bit more flexible. Now that being said, the word for the Welsh that the English used was Welsh, which if you've read Beowulf you get Welsh thou. She is the queen of froth gar, yeah, the English term. Welsh means Welsh, it means foreign and it's also a word they used to mean slave. In fact, Welsh thou is they literally means slave slave or foreign slave. So they didn't think highly of them, but the evidence that we're sort of starting to develop more and more is ethnicity was not nearly as fixed as we tended to think about it, even if they didn't have a terribly high opinion of the Britishness. But I answered your question. Well, the problem there is who is in control of which territory? English law only is valid in English territory, right? And the Welsh had their own law court codes that are incredibly rich, oh yeah. But what are the things that we actually get in treaties, both between the English and the Dades and the English and the Welsh, is a man in whichever territory will have the same wear and build, right? Which means you have the same legal status. So those are treaties that they come to, which means they really didn't want to, but for some reason or other, they came to that piece and they established that. That an Englishman and a Danishman or an Englishman and a Welshman would have the same man but wear and build in whichever territory. But what we do see, and certainly in the early period when there seems to be more reference to the Welsh in early Anglo-Saxon law and in the later period when we start to see the Danes filled out same sort of foreign role in Anglo-Saxon law, in the Anglo-Saxon law, it is said that they will be judged according to their own culture's value. So a Dane will be judged according to the Danish wear and build in Anglo-Saxon law. Does that make sense? The wear and build of his people will apply in Anglo-Saxon law. And I can't speak quite so authentically to the Welsh, but I assume it's comfortable. Can I just add a random sidebar? Many of you may have come across Michelle Foucault's discipline and punish. You might have come across it in other classes. And it opens with a very famous episode from much later period and in France of a regicide and the very details, an excruciating death that he suffered. And it's really this period and that opening passage that Nicole started with, where pain becomes, and it's again, I think, indistinguishable from a whole theological, a theological theologizing of law and an increasingly ecclesiastically powerful culture, but pain becomes interesting, psychologically interesting and salvific, that by suffering, you can, there's justice in suffering itself, rather than the things that I was looking at where there's a payment to be made and then there's closure. And so there's a lot of, there's a psychological difference that is quite interesting and it's really starting to come together in the later part of this period. I don't think it's good. But it's good. Yes. Yeah, panels of reputable men. Pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain. It was customary law, so it wasn't common law. So there wasn't, these laws were not precedent that have to be enforced everywhere. And so they were, they were prompts, but I would be very surprised if they were uniformly applied, but the local community was the repository of customary law, and so they would be applying those standards, right? Yes, but with... But with increasing centralization, especially over the course of the late night century with Alfred, and this is really moving to a sigmo English nation moving toward, they're not prior to Alfred. He declares himself to be the final judge, so you can appeal all the way up to the king and he is the final judge, but that's only coming in the ninth century. In the seventh century it's very much local and customary, that's starting to shift as you get later. And yet it is an illusion, because the king declares the law, the law is issued in the king's name, but on a practical level, there are very few cases in my understanding that the king actually judges. At very high levels, or perhaps when something has been appealed several times, then you get the king involved. For the most part, we don't know who is doing the actual judging. There are various sort of regional units, we have Shire courts and 100 courts, these sort of local regional magistrates who are hearing what's going on. Sometimes these are local noblemen who are in charge of their area, other times they are the king's representatives. So I think going back to the question about procedure that we started off with, there's a lot yet to be established about who is actually making these judgments. In some cases we can identify particular noblemen or local officials who were involved, but sometimes there is just a blank. So it's a good question, if you have answered, please let us know immediately. I really don't know what happened, what happened to the noblemen, but thanks for that. My question is, how do you put the risk of the noblemen? In terms of law or in terms of... How do you put the risk of the noblemen? There were many efforts on William's part to retain an apparent continuity with Anglo-Saxon law, but with the Dome's Day Survey, where basically the entire country got inventory to down to the last piglet, there was a complete overhaul of government, as well as personnel, because increasingly he replaced powerful people with his own men. At the same time, old English remains in circulation for another couple hundred years, so even though absolutely we see a massive governmental overhaul by the 1070s, 1080s, the language does not get supplanted, so there is clearly a multicultural, multilingual experience happening in England across that period. So the break is certainly real, but it might not have been perceived quite as tangibly as we can see it in hindsight. Is there a possibility for Dome's Day? And punishment shift, there are, after William had really established his foothold, the punishment starts to really shift so that there's a lot less of judicial mutilation, which is not to say that there aren't punishments. The Dormins really got into blinding incarceration, which are not really things the Anglo-Saxons did very much. But, far fewer executions. So, I mean, you may call on that one, but... Winsome, Winsome. Are you asking if the family of the agreed party were holding out for blood? I don't think that there's any one answer to that. It was very much locally decided, and depending on how powerful you were, there are stories of families that feuded bitterly, and would have periods of truces, and then it would all flare up again, as well, because of somebody, you know, because of the other grievance that was decades old. Not unlike any kind of disturbed area where, you know, peace is one for a while, and actually, that's one of the nice phrases of William Miller in Miller's book. He would talk about the contingency of these payments. They were a solution for a while, and a while is okay. Rationale was, hmm. It sounds entirely counterintuitive. The rationale was that if you sin, you must do penance before you die. If you refuse to do penance and confess the really awful things you've done, then penance needs to be imposed upon you by force. And the rationale, the penitential rationale, was that if all of your limbs are chopped off, you will ask God to please save you. It was seen as something of a four-case of hell. You think this is bad, you wait until damnation. It's gonna be even worse. So it didn't bring you closer to God by virtue of the actual relation. It brought you closer to God because it really gets you to ask God to save you immediately. At the same time, this seems very much to be a parallel rationale because my guess is that chopping off someone's hands, feet, nose, and scalp is going to be an awfully good demonstrative act to get other people to stop doing crime. We know that people occasionally survived these mutilations either for a couple of days or long enough for their family to take them home and try to get them healed somehow. So you have to really steal yourself to think about this idea of a handless, noseless, footless individuals walking around, or whatever. Because, not to make light of that, but because they had violated earthly law. If you mess with the king, you will suffer badly. So you have these two threads operating in tandem here, I think. But hopefully, yeah, you can use that very nasty secular punishment to get you closer to God and hand. That was the idea. The better off you are. Fun time. Great egg works the same way, by the way. It's a good question. I think punishment of that sort was not meant to rehabilitate in the way that we understand it today. There was not much expectation that you would walk away from a severe mutilation, go back to work, and become a functioning member of society because it was simply impossible. I think also, these severe mutilations, even though they didn't kill you outright or weren't intended to kill you outright, my guess is that there was a very low survival rate in this period of time. That said, I think the real rehabilitation that these authorities were aiming for was the soul. And if doing all of this very painful punishment to a criminal body was not enough to get them closer to God, to ask God for forgiveness and earn salvation, then that body was beyond help and that soul was beyond help as well. So it's a tough question to answer because the rehabilitation is in the afterlife, not in the current life. Does that answer your question? So before everybody rushes out, listen to these final two statements, please. Again, if you are here for extra credit because your professor told you to come, there are signed up sheets over there. Sign in and I will give them to your professors. Two, the faculty who are here and the graduate students who are here, if you are interested in joining us, we're gonna have a reception down on the seventh floor and you can follow us down. Thank you for coming on this evening. Go have a happy night now.