The Fonthill Letter Flashcards
Where is the Fonthill Letter preserved?
In the archives of Christchurch Canterbury
What are possible explanations for the letter being preserved at Canterbury?
- It is odd it is not preserved at Winchester
- Its preservation at Canterbury could reflect the authority of the archbishop of Canterbury
- He would have been the most important person at an assembly, so could have been given to him to preserve
The language of the letter…
General West Saxon speech
- But does not 100% accord with philologist’s ideas about 10th century west Saxon
- Doesn’t necessarily mean later, just that sound changes could have taken place earlier than previously thought
The endorsement of the letter…
- The endorsement was clearly added a lot later, by a different scribe in a different script
What palaeographical indications are there that the letter was not the work of a professional scribe?
- It is a palaeographical mess
- There are many edits and corrections
- Poor line spacing, poor script etc.
- Keynes described it as ‘unpracticed’
Who are the people involved in the letter/ dispute?
- Ordlaf
- Helmstan
- Æthelhelm Higa
- The Bishop of Winchester
- King Alfred
- Edward the Elder
- ( a scribe)
- (Æthelthryth and Oswulf– original transaction)
Who was Ordlaf?
- Ealdorman of Wiltshire from 897
- Held lands all over Wiltshire, but lack of charters from 910-924 make it hard to trace his career
Topics for the use of the Fonthill letter as a historical source
- General legal principles/ proceedings
- Use of evidence
- Literacy
- Criminal records/ oath worthiness
- The role of the king
- Kindred ties
How does the Fonthill Letter compare to other sources of Anglo-Saxon law?
- F.L. illustrates the Anglo-Saxon legal system in action, which is a contrast to the law codes
- There is a tendency to try and understand A.S. law in a codified format; this letter is the complete contrast
- Allows us to see law in quite a personal sense
- Not the only record of A.S. lawsuits, but is the earliest
What does the fonthill letter never mention and how can we interpret this?
Never mentions any law under which Helmstan was indicted
- Could be seen as evidence that Alfred’s law codes were aspirational, rather than pragmatic
- Or just that mentioning the specific laws Helmstan had broken may not have been beneficial to Ordlaf’s case
How did Wormald interpret the letter as regards the role of the King?
Wormald saw the letter as evidence of a new legal system introduced by Alfred, BUT Wormald wanted everything to be introduced by Alfred so we should be cautious of that
- However: it does seem to be a testament to Alfred’s own intervention and pro-active legal stance
Tell us about Alfred and the law (general)?
does seem to be a testament to Alfred’s own intervention and pro-active legal stance
The letter’s difficulty as a source…
- Whitelock says it can be left to ‘speak for itself’; only if you’re her
- It is actually quite complicated
- We may find it hard to understand but to A.S.’ it could have made perfect sense; there is a gap in knowledge between them and us.
- There is so much we don’t know that it can be hard to make it coherent
What is the letter the only (mysterious) example of?
- The thing about the seal acting as proof Helmstan had been to Alfred’s grave
What can the letter tell us about the use of evidence
- Example that written evidence was a part of the A.S. legal system, and that a charter could be seen as a condition of proof
- It was prepared in advance to be used as evidence for an ongoing claim; Keynes has pointed out other examples evidence being submitted in advance of a dispute; it was then endorsed once the dispute was settled.
What is on the dorse of the document?
A witness list
What does it tell us about ‘criminal records’
- Indicates proclamation of guilt took place publically?
- People can take advantage of it and your lack of oath unworthiness
- Made him easier to charge?
Idea of Oath worthiness?
- After convicted of stealing belt, Helmstan might not have been ‘oath worthy’
- People then try to take advantage of this
Lack of professional scribe equates to lay literacy?
- Letter can be taken as evidence that Alfred’s demands his laymen learn to read had some effect
- Corroborates what Asser says
What is the relationship between Ordlaf and Helmstan?
Godfather/ son
- In various law codes, the bond of godfather-son is likened to that of a man and his lord
What does letter tell us about the importance of kindred ties?
- That you supported your kin; Ordlaf consistently supports his godson
- Corruption; Helmstan appears to be able to twist proceedings through his connection to powerful figures, such as Ordlaf
- who do you bribe? who do you want to know at court?- letter adds a human element
Evidence of the law not applying to those in high up positions?
- Helmstan appears to be able to twist proceedings through his connection to powerful figures, such as Ordlaf
- His first sentence; as he was a thegn, Helmstan could probably just pay off his weregild for his crime
- The second sentence- was just reversed; sentences flexible depending on who you know
How does the letter tie in with/ corroborate Asser?
- Chapter 106 of Asser’s life:
- Says how Alfred used to sit at assemblies for the benefit of his people when they could not come to a decision
- Says about lay literacy
What does it tell us about the role of the king?
- It is evidence that things were submitted directly to him and the extent to which the king (or Alfred) was personally involved in administration and the judicial process
More local element?…
- The king has reeves who work for him in the provinces
- Is a local case; all the places referenced are in Wiltshire
Limit to the king’s power?
Suggests the king’s final word did not actually end the disputing
Evidence that Ordlaf is the author?
- Informal style (layman)
- the letter undermines Ælfhelm Higa by not saying why he has a claim
- written in 1st person, and refers to Ordlaf in the third person
- Whitelock notes there is a connection made between Ordlaf and fonthill in another charter
- Bishop of winchester might have encouraged Ordlaf to write the letter
Regardless of who wrote it, why should we be aware of authorship?
- Clearly biased and not impartial. Be aware of context.
- For example, the letter undermines Ælfhelm Higa by not saying why he has a claim
Evidence/ argument that Ordlaf is NOT the author?
- Asser says how sometimes sons/ close males could learn to write instead of nobles; Ordlaf could have dictated
- Refers to Ordlaf in the third person
The use of third person…
- Gretsch argues adding Ordlaf in the third person was a tactic to make his claim sound less personal and add authority
- Alternately, could mean ordlaf is not the author
Date…
Cannot be exactly dated, but probably late Alfred early Edward
