Content area
Abstract
This dissertation builds on the foundations laid by historians in analyzing Anglo-Saxon law codes, locating them in their historical contexts and positing the potential significance(s) of the production of vernacular lex scripta. I focus on the rhetoric surrounding Cnut, arguing that Cnut was drawn into the Anglo-Saxon legislative tradition and "domesticated" by Archbishop Wulfstan, came to understand the imperial rhetoric of the tradition, and fashioned his imperial pretensions based on his engagement with that tradition. Through a comparative examination of the extant Anglo-Saxon laws, Wulfstan's non-legislative writings, and the extant legal documents written in English in Cnut's voice and addressed to the English people, I demonstrate Cnut's active participation in the rhetoric of those documents, his concern with the English perception of him as a legitimate king, and his growing imperial pretensions.
Based on Wormald's readings of Anglo-Saxon lex scripta as representative of periods of imperial ambition, I show how kings from Alfred to Æthelred used lex scripta to consolidate power for the kingship. In this I argue that we see the rise of a personal relationship between the nation and the king. However, led by Wulfstan, the witan established terms for Æthelred to return from exile and reclaim his throne, limiting the king's power and consolidating power for the church through the witan. In particular, I analyze the development of the three non-legislative texts that Wulfstan wrote and revised during the same period that he was drafting legislation: Canons of Edgar, Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, and Institutes of Polity. I show that initially Wulfstan tried to consolidate power for the church, but that his revisions of the Sermo Lupi during Cnut's reign show a growing hopefulness that Cnut could form and enforce his ideal Christian society. The price of Cnut's legitimation was accepting the terms of the witan. However, reading Cnut's legal documents as Cnut's voice, I draw out the significance of Cnut portraying himself in the letters of 1020 and 1027 as protector of the English rather than conqueror. Additionally, comparing Wulfstan's writings with those in Cnut's name, I uncover Cnut's control over the rhetoric surrounding him.