Law of Hlothhere and Eadric
| Law of Hlothhere and Eadric | |
|---|---|
| Ascribed to | Hloþhere (died 685) and Eadric (died 686), kings of Kent |
| Language | Old English |
| Date | 7th century |
| Principal manuscript(s) | Textus Roffensis |
| First printed edition | George Hickes and Humfrey Wanley, Linguarum Vett. Septentrionalium Thesaurus Grammatico-Criticus et Archaeologicus (Oxford, 1703–5); see Law of Æthelberht#Manuscript, editions and translations |
| Genre | law code |
The Law of Hlothhere and Eadric is an Anglo-Saxon legal text. It is attributed to the Kentish kings Hloþhere (died 685) and Eadric (died 686), and thus is believed to date to the second half of the 7th century. It is one of three extant early Kentish codes, along with the early 7th-century Law of Æthelberht and the early 8th-century Law of Wihtred. Written in language more modernised than these, the Law of Hlothhere and Eadric has more focus on legal procedure and has no religious content.
The Law, as its name suggests, is attributed to the kings of Kent Hloþhere (died 685) and Eadric (died 686): this is stated in the rubric as well as the prologue of the main text. It is thought that the former reigned from 673 until 685, while Eadric ruled for a year and a half until his death in 686. The text does not indicate that Hloþhere and Eadric ruled together when it was issued, so it is possible that decrees of two reigns were brought together.
Like the other Kentish codes, the Law of Hloþhere and Eadric survives in only one manuscript, known as Textus Roffensis or the "Rochester Codex". This is a compilation of Anglo-Saxon historic and legal material drawn together in the early 1120s under Ernulf, bishop of Rochester. Hloþhere and Eadric's law occupies folios 3v to 5r.
Despite being of similar date, the Old English of Hloþhere and Eadric's law is less archaic than the language of either the Law of Æthelberht (early 7th century) or the Law of Wihtred (early 8th century). The language appears to have been "updated" [Oliver] at a later date, and this may indicate that among the Kentish codes it went through a unique route of transmission, perhaps being more intensely consulted than the other two. It is possible too however that this is an accident of evidence, and that other similarly "updated" versions once existed for the other two codes: they simply were not the versions copied by the Textus Roffensis scribe.
...
Wikipedia