Making or Declaring Law? Legislative Intent and Privileged Speech in Anglo-Saxon England

IF 0.4 2区 历史学 0 MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN STUDIES Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1215/10829636-10689659
Stefan Jurasinski
{"title":"Making or Declaring Law? Legislative Intent and Privileged Speech in Anglo-Saxon England","authors":"Stefan Jurasinski","doi":"10.1215/10829636-10689659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Celebrated by a generation of literature scholars, lamented by E. D. Hirsch, the disappearance of the author and authorial intentions as means of interpretation has a history with branches in the study of pre-Conquest England. Long before the twentieth century, Anglo-Saxon legislators were disappearing from their laws, as discussion of their intentions in establishing them was viewed by historians with increasing disfavor. Even today, commentary on early English royal legislation seldom acknowledges that these texts enjoyed (or were intended to enjoy) the force of law in any meaningful sense. Only in the past decade have cracks emerged in the consensus that such legislation was meant for anything beyond symbolic purposes, a view backed by a much older consensus that pre-Conquest law could do no more than “declare” what had always been custom, thus revealing little about the purposes of kings and their counselors. This essay traces commentators’ reticence about acknowledging the legislative purposes behind early English legislation to disputes over codification that agitated German-speaking parts of Europe in the early nineteenth century. Yet the earliest editors and commentators prized these materials specifically because they exhibited the lawmaking powers of kings and their councils. The article examines neglected evidence afforded by early English legislation itself, finding that this earlier tradition was by no means exhausted when abandoned.","PeriodicalId":51901,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN STUDIES","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/10829636-10689659","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Celebrated by a generation of literature scholars, lamented by E. D. Hirsch, the disappearance of the author and authorial intentions as means of interpretation has a history with branches in the study of pre-Conquest England. Long before the twentieth century, Anglo-Saxon legislators were disappearing from their laws, as discussion of their intentions in establishing them was viewed by historians with increasing disfavor. Even today, commentary on early English royal legislation seldom acknowledges that these texts enjoyed (or were intended to enjoy) the force of law in any meaningful sense. Only in the past decade have cracks emerged in the consensus that such legislation was meant for anything beyond symbolic purposes, a view backed by a much older consensus that pre-Conquest law could do no more than “declare” what had always been custom, thus revealing little about the purposes of kings and their counselors. This essay traces commentators’ reticence about acknowledging the legislative purposes behind early English legislation to disputes over codification that agitated German-speaking parts of Europe in the early nineteenth century. Yet the earliest editors and commentators prized these materials specifically because they exhibited the lawmaking powers of kings and their councils. The article examines neglected evidence afforded by early English legislation itself, finding that this earlier tradition was by no means exhausted when abandoned.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
制定法律还是宣布法律?盎格鲁-撒克逊英格兰的立法意图与特权言论
作为一种解释手段,作者和作者意图的消失在被征服前的英格兰的研究中有着不同的分支,这一现象受到了一代文学学者的赞扬,也受到了e·d·赫希(e.d. Hirsch)的哀叹。早在20世纪之前,盎格鲁-撒克逊立法者就从他们的法律中消失了,因为历史学家对他们制定法律的意图的讨论越来越不受欢迎。即使在今天,对早期英国王室立法的评论也很少承认这些文本在任何有意义的意义上享有(或打算享有)法律效力。只是在过去的十年里,共识中出现了裂痕,即这种立法的目的不仅仅是为了象征性的目的,这种观点得到了更古老的共识的支持,即征服前的法律只能“宣布”一直以来的习俗,因此对国王和他们的顾问的目的透露得很少。这篇文章将评论家们对承认早期英国立法背后的立法目的的沉默追溯到19世纪早期欧洲德语区对编纂的争论。然而,最早的编辑和评论家特别珍视这些材料,因为它们展示了国王及其议会的立法权。本文考察了早期英国立法本身提供的被忽视的证据,发现这一早期传统在被抛弃时绝不是耗尽的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN STUDIES
JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN STUDIES MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: The Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies publishes articles informed by historical inquiry and alert to issues raised by contemporary theoretical debate. The journal fosters rigorous investigation of historiographical representations of European and western Asian cultural forms from late antiquity to the seventeenth century. Its topics include art, literature, theater, music, philosophy, theology, and history, and it embraces material objects as well as texts; women as well as men; merchants, workers, and audiences as well as patrons; Jews and Muslims as well as Christians.
期刊最新文献
Intention and Interpretation, Now and Then Who Has Intention? Chaucer Studies and the Search for Meaning Making or Declaring Law? Legislative Intent and Privileged Speech in Anglo-Saxon England The Audacity of Judging Mind in Medieval England Scholastic Literary Theory: Intentionalism and the Desire for Stable Sense
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1