The study of Anglo-Saxon laws, enacted in England between the 6th century and 1066, and Anglo-Norman laws, enforced between 1066 and 1189, isn't new. In 1840, Benjamin Thorpe published a book titled Ancient Laws and Institutes of England concerning the pre-Norman laws and, between 1874 and 1878, William Stubbs wrote the three volumes of his book The Constitutional History of England in its Origin and Development, particularly important for the law of the second period. However, despite the numerous studies that follow these works, none has been based on a comparison of these two models of law. Yet, thanks to such a work, this could bring to our knowledge two new important thoughts.It is difficult to consider that after the Norman invasion the Anglo-Saxon judicial practices have been erased since the legal tradition was important in the native society. It is also improbable that the new ruling class could have kept all the laws established before its coming. Consequently, from a purely legal viewpoint, the first interest of such a comparative research, based on the themes of continuity and rupture, is to observe the evolution of laws through two totally different “civilizations” that follow one another on the same territory, here, England.The second interest is mainly historical: can't we link both judicial systems to the success of the Invasion and to a successful implantation of an Anglo-Norman law? Moreover, as the Domesday Book shows, could William and his successors have created their own corpus of law without using the pre-existent system?
