202
THE SAXONS IN ENGLAND.
[book i.
“ Richilda, quae Iibertatem suam fornicando pol-
luit, amisit.... filiae illorum Iiberae permaneant,
.... nisi forte adulterio vel fornicatione polluan-
tur.” It is true that the Anglosaxon laws do not
give us any enactment of a corresponding nature :
nevertheless I entertain no doubt that incontinence
was a ground of slavery in the case both of man
and woman. Toward the end of the ninth century,
Denewulf, bishop of Winchester, leased the lands
of Alresford to a relative of his own, on condition
of a yearly rent : “Is equidem insipiens, adulterans,
stuprum, propriam religiose pactatam abominans,
scortum diligens, Iibidinose commisit. Quo reatu,
omni substantia peculiali recte privatus est, et prae-
fatum rus ab eo abstractum rex huius patriae suae
ditioni avidus devenire iniuste optavit1.” However
unjust the canons of Winchester might think it, it
is clear that the Witena-gemot did not ; for the
bishop was obliged to pay 120 mancusses in gold to
the king, to have back his own land. Again in the
year 1002, we hear of a lady forfeiting her lands to
the king, by reason of incontinence2. The conse-
quences of this destitution can hardly have been
other than servitude ; and it may be at once admitted
that where there were no lands to forfeit, servitude
was the recognized punishment of the offence.
Theodore 3 when apportioning the penance due to it,
says, “ Si intra viginti annos puella et adolescens
peccaverint, i annum, et in secundo iii quadragesi-
mas ac légitimas ferias. Si propter hoc peccatum
ɪ Cod. Dip. No. G01. 2 Ibid. No. 1296.
3 Lib. Poenit. xvi. § 3. Thorpe, ii. 9.
CH. VIΠ.]
THE UNFREE. THE SERF.
203
servitio humano addicti sunt, iii quadragesimas.”
Again, “ Maritus si ipse seipsum in furto aut forni-
catione servum facit, vel quocunque peccato1,” etc.
The last division of the servi casu comprises
those who have been reduced to slavery by violence
or fraud, in short illegally. Illegitimate children,
poor relations, unfriended strangers, young persons
without power of self-defence, may thus have been
seduced or forced into a servile condition of life,
escape from which was always difficult, inasmuch
as there is necessarily a prima facie case against
the serf, and he can have no standing in the court
composed only of the free. To this head seem re-
ferable the passages I have already alluded to in
Theodore’s Poenitential2, and which I will now cite
at length : “Si quis Christianus alterum Christia-
num suaserit, ac in alteram regionem seduxerit,
ibique eum Vendiderit pro proprio servo, ille non
est dignus inter Christianos requiem habere, donee
redimat eum et reducat ad proprium locum.” And
again : “ Si quis Christianus alterum Christianum
vagantem reppererit, eumque furatus fuerit ac ven-
diderit, non debet habere inter Christianos requiem,
donee redimat eum, et pro illo furto septem annos
poeniteat3.”
The other great division includes all the servi
natura, nativi, or serfs by reason of unfree birth;
and as these are necessarily the children either of
parents who are both unfree, or (under particular
circumstances) of one unfree parent, it follows that
1 Thorpe, ii. 9, note 4. a Supra, p. 200, note 2.
3 Lib. Poenit. Theod. xlii. § 4. 5. See also xxiii. § 13.