¹ My thanks are due to Patrick Wormald, who read an earlier draft of this paper, to Dr Janet Nelson for comment and criticism and for her generous help on the dating of the Anglo-Saxon coronation ordines, and especially to Dr Simon Keynes for detailed criticism from which this paper benefited enormously.

² See Whitelock, Dorothy, ‘Wulfstan and the Laws of Cnut’, EHR 63 (1948), 433–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Wulfstan's Authorship of Cnut's Laws’, EHR 69 (1955), 72–85.Google Scholar See also now the important article by Wormald, Patrick, ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, ed. Hill, D., BAR, Br. Ser. 59 (Oxford, 1978), 47–80Google Scholar, and my own forthcoming ‘Laws of Æthelred and Anglo-Saxon Lawmaking’. On Wulfstan generally, see Bethurum, D., ‘Wulfstan’, Continuations and Beginnings, ed. Stanley, E. G. (London, 1966), pp. 210–46.Google Scholar References to the laws throughout are to the edition of Liebermann, F., Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen (Halle, 1903–1916) 1.Google Scholar

³ Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 1018 D: Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. Plummer, C. (Oxford 1892–1899) 1, 154.Google Scholar

⁴ ‘and hig gecwædan þæt hi furðor on æmtan smeagan woldan þeode þearfe mid Godes filste’: Whitelock, , ‘Wulfstan and the Laws of Cnut’, p. 440.Google Scholar

⁵ It may well not represent word for word the enactments of Oxford 1018. Cf. Wormald on the relationship of V and VI Æthelred and related texts to the meeting at King's Enham, , ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, pp. 49–58.Google Scholar

⁶ In this it is similar to II Edgar which begins simply ‘Ðis is seo gerædnys þe Eadgar cyng mid his witena geðeahte gerædde, Gode to lofe 7 him sylfum to cynescipe 7 eallum his leodscipe to þearfe’ (MS G), whereas the secular ordinance III Edgar begins ‘Þis is ðonne seo worldcunde gerædnes, þe ic wille þæt man healde’ (MS D). I Cnut begins ‘Ðis is seo gerædnes, þe Cnut ciningc mid his witena geþeahte geredde, Gode to lofe 7 hym sylfum to cynescipe 7 to þearfe; 7 þæt wæs…’ (MS A). II Cnut begins ‘ Þis is seo woruldcund gerædnes, þe ic wylle mid minan witenan ræde, þæt man healde ofer eall Englaland’ (MS G). The links and similarities between I and II Cnut and Edgar's laws demonstrate the desire to observe earlier legislation and perhaps suggest that Wulfstan was in some way responsible for the preservation of texts of Edgar's codes.

⁷ I Cnut 2.3 – 3.1 (cf. VIII Æthelred 1–5).

⁸ I Cnut 4–5.4 (cf. VIII Æthelred 18–27.1, omitting 26).

⁹ I Cnut 8–14 combines material from D with VIII Æthelred 7, 8, 10, 11 and 11.1 and II Edgar 2, 2.1 and 2.2.

¹⁰ I Cnut 14.1 – 17.3 is largely made up of material from D plus II Edgar 5.

¹¹ I Cnut 22–22.4 (cf. Wulfstan. Sammlungen der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien nebst Untersuchungen über ihre Echtheit, ed. Napier, A. (Berlin, 1883), pp. 20–1).Google Scholar

¹² 1 Cnut 22.5 and 22.6 (cf. Wulfstan's Canons of Edgar, ed. Fowler, Roger, EETS o.s. 266 (London, 1972), ch. 22).Google Scholar

¹³ I Cnut 26 (cf. Die ‘Institutes of Polity, Civil and Ecclesiastical’, ed. Jost, K., Swiss Stud. in Eng. 47 (Bern, 1959), ch. 5, p. 62).Google Scholar

¹⁴ E.g., 1 Cnut 4.1 and 4.2, 18, 23, 24 and 25.

¹⁵ I Cnut 20–20.2; see below, n. 25.

¹⁶ II Cnut 15.1 – 18.1 (cf. III Edgar 2–5.2, with some additions); II Cnut 20a (cf. III Edgar 6); II Cnut 25–6 (cf. III Edgar 7–7.3).

¹⁷ II Cnut 30–33.2 (cf. Æthelred 1.1–4.3, omitting 3 and adding I Cnut 31a).

¹⁸ II Cnut 57–9 (cf. Alfred 3, 4.2 and 7).

¹⁹ II Cnut 22 (cf. Æthelred 1.1); II Cnut 19 (cf. Ine 9).

²⁰ These are sometimes (but not invariably) given in the first person plural, indicating that this is what we add (e.g., II Cnut 20 and 20.1).

²¹ II Cnut 22.3 (cf. II Athelstan 23.2); II Cnut 23 (cf. II Æthelred 8); II Cnut 23.1 (cf. Swerian 8); II Cnut 24 (cf. IV Edgar 6.2).

²² There are parallels between II Cnut 50–54. 1 and Edward and Guthrum 4 and the Penitential of Pseudo-Theodore ch. 19.8 (ptd Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, ed. Thorpe, B. (London, 1840)).Google Scholar For earlier though not identical legislation on rape, adultery and concubinage, see Æthelberht 10, 11, 14, 16, 31 and 35; Wihtred 3, 4 and 5; Alfred 8, 11, 25 and 29; and the decrees of the papal legates, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents, ed. Haddan, A. and Stubbs, W. (Oxford, 1869–1871) 111, 453 and 455–6.Google Scholar

²³ See, e.g., II Cnut 19.1, 19.2, 20, 22.1, 22.1a, 24.1, 24.2, 24.3, 29.1 and 30.3a.

²⁴ E.g., II Cnut 15.1a, 15.3 and 15.

²⁵ I Cnut 20.1 and 20.2 and II Cnut 20.1, 22.2 and 27.

²⁶ Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., Law and Legislation from Æthelherht to Magna Carta (Edinburgh, 1966), p. 27.Google Scholar

²⁷ II Cnut 73, on the remarriage of widows (cf. VI Æthelred 26.1); II Cnut 76.2, limiting the liability of a wife and child (cf. Wulfitan, ed. Napier, p. 158).Google Scholar

²⁸ See III Edgar 1 and 1.1 and the fragment of X Æthelred Prologue and Prologue 2. Wormald (‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, p. 53) suggested that X Æthelred might be the official version of the Enham decrees.

²⁹ The coronation charter of Henry I is ptd Liebermann, Gesetze 1, 521–3, and The Laws of the King of England from Edmund to Henry I, ed. Robertson, A. J. (Cambridge, 1925), pp. 276–83.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Henry I's coronation charter, ch. 6. A revised translation of ch. 6 is offered by Thome, S. E., ‘Henry I's Coronation Charter, c. 6’, EHR 93 (1978), 794.Google Scholar

³¹ Those who have not failed in oath or ordeal since this gemot are to be treated leniently. This chapter re-enacts the similar limit of legal memory in I Æthelred 1.2, which refers back to the prior gemot at Bromdun. Wormald (‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, p. 63) dated Bromdun to Æthelred's coming of age in 984–5. It might date closer to his accession. III Athelstan 3 demonstrates that such limits of legal memory are not always coronations, comings of age etc.

³² Foreville, R., ‘Le Sacre des rois anglo-normands et angevins et le serment du sacre (Xl-XIle siècles)’, Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, 1978, ed. Brown, R. Allen (Ipswich), 1979, p. 57;Google ScholarSelect Charters, ed. Stubbs, W., 9th ed. (Oxford, 1913), p. 116.Google Scholar

³³ This oath is ptd Memorials of St Dunstan, ed. Stubbs, W., Rolls Ser. (London, 1874), pp. 355–7.Google Scholar For its date, see below, p. 185.

³⁴ See Memorials, ed. Stubbs, pp. 356–7.Google Scholar This consecration address follows the oath in London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra B. xiii (56r) and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 60 (2r), the latter being a copy made from BL Cotton Vitellius A. vii before the fire of 1731.

³⁵ See, e.g., ASC 1018 D, in Two Chronicles, ed. Plummer 1, 154;Google Scholar the preamble to the D code of Cnut's laws; Cnut's letter of 1020. Other laudatory references to Edgar are associated with Wulfstan, e.g. ASC 963 D (Ibid. pp. 114–15).

³⁶ Cf. Clanchy, M., ‘Remembering the Past, and the Good Old Law’, History 55 (1970), 165–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ Wormald, , ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, p. 59.Google Scholar

³⁸ ASC 1014 C: Two Chronicles, ed. Plummer 1, 145 (text);Google ScholarThe Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: a Revised Translation, ed. Whitelock, Dorothy et al. (London, 1961; rev. 1965), p. 93 (translation).Google Scholar

³⁹ There are difficulties in seeing them as such since no ecclesiastical rights or abuses are mentioned. The same problem arises in accepting them simply as a coronation charter, since again reference to the liberties of the church would be expected.

⁴⁰ The possibility of peasant risings as early as this should not be ruled out: see Hilton, R. H., Bond Men Made Free (London, 1973), ch. 2, esp. pp. 64–71.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Wormald, (‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, p. 54)Google Scholar plausibly attributes the order to celebrate St Edward's mass-day to Cnut, not Æthelred. The same law called for the celebration of Dunstan's feast, and it should be recalled that Dunstan was not only a great religious leader but a supporter of Edward and an opponent of Æthelred in 975. Cnut may have underlined his point by encouraging the cult of other murdered princes: note the reference to his interest in Wigstan and in his translation to Evesham in the Life of Wigstan, St, Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham, ed. Macray, W. D., RS (London, 1863), pp. 324–32.Google Scholar

⁴² Liebermann, , Gesetze 1, 273–5;Google ScholarEnglish Historical Documents c. 500–1042, ed. Whitelock, Dorothy, 2nd ed. (London, 1979), no. 48.Google Scholar

⁴³ These developments are discussed by,David, M. in ‘Le Serment du sacre du IXe au XVe siècle’, Revue du Moyen Age Latin 6 (1950), 5–272Google Scholar, esp. at 47–121, and by Ullmann, W. in The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship (London, 1969), esp. at pp. 80–110.Google ScholarNelson, J. (‘Inauguration Rituals’, Early Medieval Kingship, ed. Sawyer, P. H. and Wood, I. (Leeds, 1977), pp. 59–62)Google Scholar has stressed how closely they are in bound in time and development with the episcopal initiatives in anointing and coronation.

⁴⁴ Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., Early Germanic Kingship (Oxford, 1971), p. 135, and see below, n. 46.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Nelson, J., ‘Kingship, Law and Liturgy in the Political Thought of Hincmar of Rheims’, EHR 92 (1977), 241–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ I cannot agree with D. Bethurum's contention that Wulfstan extolled the position of bishops over that of kings and anticipated Gregorian ideas; see her ‘Regnum and Sacerdotium in the Early Eleventh Century’, England before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. Clemoes, P. and Hughes, K. (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 129–45.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ If there was a consecration in the brief reign of Edmund Ironside it is possible that Wulfstan was present.

⁴⁸ On the dating of the First Ordo, see Nelson, J., ‘The Earliest Royal Ordo: some Liturgical and Historical Aspects’, Festschrift for W. Ullmann, ed. Wilks, M. and Tierney, B. (forthcoming).Google Scholar On the dating of the Second Ordo, see Ward, P. L., ‘An Early Version of the Anglo-Saxon Coronation Ceremony’, EHR 57 (1942), 345–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Hohler, C., ’Some Service Books of the Later Saxon Church’, Tenth-Century Studies, Essays in Commemoration of the Millennium of the Council of Winchester and ‘Regularis Concordia’, ed. Parsons, D. (London and Chichester, 1975), pp. 67–9.Google Scholar In The Claudius Pontificals, ed. Turner, D., Henry Bradshaw Soc. 97 (1971), at xxx–xxxiiiGoogle Scholar, Turner ascribes the earliest version of the Second Ordo to the coronation of Athelstan. The version which he edits, Ibid. pp. 89–95, is from an early-eleventhcentury Canterbury pontifical (BL Cotton Claudius A. iii). This is the version with the promissio at the beginning, and it appears also in the so-called Pontifical of Dunstan (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Lat. 943; late-tenth-century, from Sherborne) and in the Pontifical of Bishop Sampson (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 146; first half of the eleventh century, from the Old Minster, Winchester). I am very grateful to Janet Nelson for information on the dating of these ordines.

⁴⁹ The version of the First Ordo in the Leofric Missal (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579) states ‘Rectitudo regis est noviter ordinati et in solium sublimati populo tria precepta sibi subdito praecipere.’ The version in the Egbert Pontifical (BN Lat. 10575) prefaces this with the rubric ‘Primum mandatum regis ad populum’.

⁵⁰ Both the ordo in the Dunstan Pontifical and the description in the ‘Vita Oswaldi’, Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops, ed. Raine, J., RS (London, 1879–1894) 1, 436–8Google Scholar, agree on these details of Edgar's consecration. The ‘Vita Oswaldi’ was written during the 990s, by which time an ordo with the promissio at the beginning was in use. The change to a promissio before consecration probably dates to 973. In a personal communication Janet Nelson associates the version of the Second Ordo in the Dunstan Pontifical with 973.

⁵¹ See above, n. 33.

⁵² See above, n. 34.

⁵³ This was known to Wulfstan and inspired sections of Wulfstan, ed. Napier, no. L, and Polity. But the sermon is not in Wulfstan's distinct style and its manuscript traditions do not suggest connection with him. BL Cotton Cleopatra B. xiii was an Exeter book and the mutilated BL Vitellius A. vii from which Junius made his transcript was a Ramsey manuscript.

⁵⁴ Hart, C., ‘Athelstan Half-King and his Family’, ASE 2 (1973), 133, n. 6Google Scholar, associates IV Edgar with 973 on the grounds that ch. 15 entrusts the law's distribution to Ealdormen Ælfhere and Æthelwine, who were dominant 970 x 975. Ch. 15 also mentions Earl Oslac. It should be noted that these three may be singled out solely because they had Danes under their jurisdiction. Any date between 963 and 975 is possible, though 973 must remain a strong candidate.

⁵⁵ ASC 1042 E, 1043 C: Two Chronicles, ed. Plummer 1, 162–3;Google ScholarWillemi Malmesbiriensis Monachi De Gestis Regum Anglorum Libri Quinque, ed. Stubbs, W., RS (London, 1887–1889), 1, 239.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ The identity is demonstrated by Florence, of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis, ed. Thorpe, B. (London, 1848–1849) 1, 228–9.Google Scholar Foreville's recent remarks on the subject, ‘Le Sacre des rois’, p. 56, are vitiated by a failure to recognize that such a promise was already part of the Anglo-Saxon coronation ceremony.

⁵⁷ William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum, ed. Stubbs 11, 307.Google Scholar Foreville sees this as the origin of the two oaths of the Angevin coronation (‘Le Sacre des rois’, pp. 56–7).

⁵⁸ The letter of 1020, ch. 9, refers to any who contravene God's law or secular law, Denisc oððe Englisc. II Cnut Prologue stresses that this law is to be held ofer call Englalande.

⁵⁹ This homily (Wulfstan, ed. Napier, no. L) deals with the duties of kings and other rulers in society. Plummer, (Two Chronicles 11, 222)Google Scholar suggested that it was the sermon preached by Eadsige to Edward the Confessor in 1043. In spite of Jost's, Karl doubts (Wulfstanstudien, Swiss Stud. in Eng. 23 (Bern, 1950), 249–61)Google Scholar, Bethurum, D. (Homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford, 1957), pp. 39–41)Google Scholar attributes its authorship to Wulfstan. She feels that it may never have been preached as a sermon but that it presents a collection of notes for a sermon later to be addressed to a meeting of the witan.

⁶⁰ Florence of Worcester, Chronicon, ed. Thorpe 1, 196–7.Google Scholar

⁶¹ William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum, ed. Stubbs 1, 237–9.Google Scholar

⁶² On the circumstances of Henry's accession, see Warren-Hollister, C., ‘The Strange Death of William Rufus’, Speculum 48 (1973), 637–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶³ See Le Patourel, J., The Norman Empire (Oxford, 1976), pp. 342 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Mason, E., ‘William Rufus, Myth and Reality’, JMH 3 (1977), 1–20.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ The fact that he did not do so is irrelevant; cf., e.g., Teunis, H. B., ‘The Coronation Charter of 1100: a Postponement of Decision. What did not Happen in Henry I's Reign’, JMH 4 (1978), 135–44.Google Scholar Cnut, whilst apparently eschewing malpractices, is emphatic in his laws on the detailing of royal rights.

⁶⁶ See above, n. 33.

⁶⁷ Æthelred bet gretan his witan. Harmer, F. (Anglo-Saxon Writs (Manchester, 1952), p. 16, and App. 4, no. 3)Google Scholar pointed out that this communication was apparently in writ form.

⁶⁸ See Foreville, , ‘Le Sacre des rois’, pp. 61–2Google Scholar, on Anselm, Henry of Winchester, Theobald of Bec, Thomas Becket and Stephen Langton.

⁶⁹ See Ælfric's sermon for the Sunday after Ascension, Homilies of Ælfric. A Supplementary Collection, ed. Pope, J. C., EETS 259–60 (London, 1967–1968), 372–92Google Scholar, and Wulfstan's Polity, chs. 5 and 6, on bishops.

⁷⁰ See above, n. 64.

⁷¹ I have discussed this, its unpopularity and its enforcement in ‘Historical Implications of the Regional Production of Dies under Æthelred II’, BNJ 48 (1978), 35–51.Google Scholar

⁷² Wormald, , ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, p. 65.Google Scholar

⁷³ On this see Brooks, N., ‘Arms, Status and Warfare in Late-Saxon England’, Ethelred the Unready, ed. Hill, pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ I Æthelred 1.14 and III Æthelred 11.