Why mentioned as Englishmen.
Their acquittal by ordeal. they were men of Old-English birth, once of high rank in the land, and who had contrived still to keep some remnants of their ancient wealth.[1] They belonged doubtless to the class of King's thegns; if we were told in what shire the tale was laid, Domesday might help us to their names. This is one of the very few passages which might suggest the notion that Englishmen, as Englishmen, were specially picked out for oppression. And it may well be true that the forest laws pressed with special harshness on native Englishmen; no man would have so great temptation to offend against them as a dispossessed Englishman. What is not shown is that a man of Norman birth who offended in the same way would have fared any better. The mention of the accused men as Englishmen comes from the teller of the story only; and he most likely points out the fact in order to explain what next follows. On their denying the charge, they were sent to the ordeal of hot iron. Granting that killing a deer was a crime at all, this was simply the ancient English way of dealing with the alleged criminal. We are therefore a little surprised when our informant seems to speak of the appeal to the ordeal as a piece of special cruelty.[2] The fiery test was gone through; but God, we are told, took care to save the innocent, and on the third day, when their hands were
- ↑ Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 48. "Quinquaginta circiter viri quibus adhuc illis diebus ex antiqua Anglorum ingenuitate divitiarum quædam vestigia arridere videbantur."
- ↑ Ib. "Negant illi; unde statim ad judicium rapti, judicantur injectam calumniam examine igniti ferri a se propulsare debere. Statuto itaque die præfixi pœnæ judicii pariter subacti sunt, remota pietate et misericordia." Yet, unless there was some special circumstance of hardship which is not recorded, this was only the old law of England kept on by the Conqueror. (See N. C. vol. iv. p. 624; v. pp. 400, 874.) That is, if the accuser was English, and the King's reeves and huntsmen were largely English. If the accuser was French, the accused were entitled to a choice between the ordeal and the wager of battle. Can Eadmer mean that this choice was not allowed them?
