Humanities desk
< July 5	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 6

England in the Middle Ages: Punishment for murder

In England during the Middle Ages, what was the punishment for murder (especially familicide, which means killing an entire family)? 81.104.74.28 (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably outlawing or capital punishment. Early enough in the middle ages, there might have been a fine depending on one's status relative to the victim instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might depend on when specifically you're talking about. For example in the Assizes of Clarendon in the mid-12th century, anyone accused of murder would be subject to a trial by water and if they lost, they might lose a hand or foot. There was also a difference between homicide (which had witnesses) and murder (which was done in secret). There is a vast amount of literature on medieval English law for all periods, so I'm sure we can find an even more precise answer (I will try tomorrow if no one else gets to it first). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier in the Middle Ages, see Weregeld. Alansplodge (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is a bit of a longer summary than what I said before...I see we have an article about Anglo-Saxon law, and articles about various later laws like the Assizes of Clarendon, the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Assize of Northampton, the Statute of Westminster, etc. We also have the Leges Henrici Primi, Henry de Bracton, Ranulf de Glanvill, and so on. The further reading sections in those might be helpful. Like I said earlier there is a vast amount of scholarship on medieval English law. I’m not sure what the best recent reference work would be, but the old 19th-century “History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I” by Pollock and Maitland is still useful for the basics. You can even read both volumes online.

Do you mean Anglo-Saxon law or later medieval law? They can be quite different. As Ian and Alan mentioned, the Anglo-Saxons used wergild, and there was a very complicated method for determining who owed what to whom. For murder it would depend on who the murdered person was, who murdered them, how they murdered them, and even where the murder occurred.

For the post-Conquest period (assuming that’s what you're asking about), there are no courts constantly sitting in one place, so you have to wait for a court to come to you. There’s also no “state” exactly, so the state doesn’t charge anyone. It’s the other way around – the victims or their families have to bring the accused to the court. To expand on what I said earlier, there's also a difference between homicide and murder. If you get in a fight and you kill another person in public, that’s homicide. You might be able to get away with this, if you and the witnesses had a convincing excuse, like it was self-defense or the other guy gravely offended you somehow. Otherwise there’s no need for a trial, it's wilful homicide, and it could be punishable by death (but not necessarily always).

On the other hand, murder was by definition done in secret. To take your example, if you sneak into a family’s house and kill them all in the middle of the night, that’s murder. The town or village or wherever you live has to wait for the judges to show up, and they’ll have to bring you to the court to accuse you. They don't really use wergild anymore, but they could fine you. This is where trial by ordeal comes in. The accused is subject to an ordeal (usually water), since there are no witnesses and the judges have no other way of determining the truth. Ordeals are weird because there’s really no way to succeed. If you fail the ordeal, you could lose a limb and/or have to pay a large fine. But even if you pass the ordeal, you would still be banished. I suppose the assumption there is that if someone is accused of a crime, they’re probably guilty. I don't think it matters if you kill one person or a large family; if no one saw you do it, it's murder, and it's not a capital crime.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot of nuance here, but that's the basic idea! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Disney television film A Knight in Camelot, Sir Sagramore murdered Clarence's family when Clarence was 6 years old. 13/14 years later, he vowed that he would challenge Sagramore to a duel when he would become a knight and avenge his family by fighting Sagramore to the death. When he was defeated by Vivien Morgan/Sir Boss, Clarence forced him to confess his crime or die. He confessed. He was last seen when Lancelot broke his sword in half. Clarence found justice sweater than revenge. And justice Sagramore had received. So what do you think what happened to him afterwards. Was he deposed from his position as knight of the round table? Or was he sentenced to death? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffbEKKSSyWc&list=PLEoGhqZ6bOeMShYarjJDicItRlGiE01n3) 31.50.93.255 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a fictional movie about a fictional time period, so...if the movie doesn't say, we'll never know. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "post-conquest period" is one of around 600 years, in which the law—in both creation and application—changed significantly, even fundamentally. By 1400, for instance, they would look at you blankly if you mentioned something as archaic as wergild (probably saying with incredulity, "what d'you think this is, the middle ages?"). See the work of John Bellamy, Barbara Hanawalt and Anthony Musson for the most recent scholarship. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity of the Spanish Tickler and pre-Wikipedia references

I posted about this on the talk page for WP:HOAXLIST (here) but have not received a reply, so I'm posting here as well. If there's a better place to bring up the matter of the wrongly listed "hoax," please tell me. As mentioned in my talk page post, the device is not a "Wikipedia hoax" since it is mentioned in print sources that predate the Wikipedia article. This one appears to be a French translation of the Directorium Inquisitorum, a 14th century text. I would like to know whether there is any scholarship on the question of whether the device was really used, or if it is likely a fake like the Pear of Anguish. I haven't succeeded in finding any, but there may be some work out there which discusses the device under other names, or which is not available in English. 2602:304:B041:C79:569:3662:602A:A89E (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]