direction of the Thus the given so much credit for bishops’ (be biscopa dihte). witan enacting laws in VI Atr is again recognized in the division of its secular and ecclesiastical parts. Every mention of legislative authority in both the Latin and Old English version of VII Atr is as a cooperative partnership between the king and his councillors. In the Latin version this is expressed seven times in the preamble and individual chapters, while the Old English version only alludes to legislative authority once and then in a first person we which could refer to either the king, the council, or both. Clear evidence of the king represented as acting of his own accord is absent from all of these documents. Though the king is shown in VIII Atr as sharing his legislative authority with the in one witan instance, it is notable that this code is the only piece of legislation from reign Æthelred’s that clearly presents the king as acting alone (apart from IV Atr which, as discussed above, is problematic). Sole ascription of legislative authority to the king in VIII Atr would seem to set the code of 1014 apart from the remaining corpus of laws. Is this sufficient cause Æthelred’s to consider VIII Atr as a text meant to reinforce the legitimate ‘king-centric’ king’s authority? A look at references to the king within the text may be enlightening. Excluding instances in which legislative authority is being voiced, the word cyningc appears fifteen times in VIII Atr, usually in describing the rights and king’s responsibilities, while appears once at the conclusion. The word cynehlaford cyningc appears only four times in V Atr, and seven times in VI Atr. In the Latin version of VII Atr appears four times, while no mention of the king is made at all in the Old English rex VII Atr, V Atr uses twice, and once, while VI Atr also uses hlaford cynehlaford once. cynehlaford How might we explain these differences in legislative references to the king? To be sure, the lesser number of instances where the king is referred to may be due to differences in content or in length, particularly in the case of VII Atr which only has seven
direction of the bishops’ (be biscopa dihte). Thus the witan given so much credit for enacting laws in VI Atr is again recognized in the division of its secular and ecclesiastical parts. Every mention of legislative authority in both the Latin and Old English version of VII Atr is as a cooperative partnership between the king and his councillors. In the Latin version this is expressed seven times in the preamble and individual chapters, while the Old English version only alludes to legislative authority once and then in a first person we which could refer to either the king, the council, or both. Clear evidence of the king represented as acting of his own accord is absent from all of these documents. Though the king is shown in VIII Atr as sharing his legislative authority with the witan in one instance, it is notable that this code is the only piece of legislation from Æthelred’s reign that clearly presents the king as acting alone (apart from IV Atr which, as discussed above, is problematic). Sole ascription of legislative authority to the king in VIII Atr would seem to set the code of 1014 apart from the remaining corpus of Æthelred’s laws. Is this sufficient cause to consider VIII Atr as a ‘king-centric’ text meant to reinforce the king’s legitimate authority? A look at references to the king within the text may be enlightening. Excluding instances in which legislative authority is being voiced, the word cyningc appears fifteen times in VIII Atr, usually in describing the king’s rights and responsibilities, while cynehlaford appears once at the conclusion. The word cyningc appears only four times in V Atr, and seven times in VI Atr. In the Latin version of VII Atr rex appears four times, while no mention of the king is made at all in the Old English VII Atr, V Atr uses hlaford twice, and cynehlaford once, while VI Atr also uses cynehlaford once. How might we explain these differences in legislative references to the king? To be sure, the lesser number of instances where the king is referred to may be due to differences in content or in length, particularly in the case of VII Atr which only has seven
Final%20PhD%20Submission%20with%20Corrections%20-%20William%20White.docx