[150] See Richthofen’s preface to the Frisian Laws in Pertz, p. 631.
[151] They appear in the ‘Additio Sapientium,’ Tit. ii., clauses lxiii. and lxxviii.
[152] ‘Inter Wisaram et Laubachi, duo denarii novi solidus est.’
[153] ‘Inter Laubachi et inter Flehi, tres denarii novæ monetæ solidum faciunt.’
[154] ‘Inter Flehi et Sincfalam solidus est duo denarii et dimidius ad novam monetam.’ That the word denarius was applied to gold as well as silver coins, see mention of the ‘gold penninck’ of Gondebald in Chronijck van Vrieslandt, sub A.D. 739.
[155] ‘Inter Laubachi et Wisaram weregildus nobilis 106 solidi et duo denarii, liberi 53 solidi et denarium, liti 26 solidi et dimidius et dimidius tremissis.’
[156] ‘Si nobilis [or liber or litus] nobilem occiderit, 80 solidos componat; de qua muleta duæ partes ad hæredem occisi, tertia ad propinquos ejus proximos pertineat … liberum solidos 53 et unum denarium solvat … litum 27 solidos uno denario minus componat domino suo, et propinquis occisi solidos 9 excepta tertia parte unius denarii.’
[157] ‘Inter Fli et Sincfalam weregeldus nobilis 100 solidi, liberi 50, liti 25 (solidi denarii 3 novæ monetæ).’
[158] ii. lxxxiv.
[159] Tit. vi.
[160] Engel’s Traité de Numismatique du Moyen Age, i. 233 and 329.
[161] Martini’s Manuale de Metrologia, sub ‘Emden.’ And compare Ridgeway, p. 871. He shows that in Italy and Sicily 10 sheep = 1 cow.
[162] It is true that in the clauses trebling the amounts for wounds it is not directly stated that the wergelds were also trebled; but the use of the words in Tit. I., ‘in simplo,’ suggests that it may have been so; whilst the facts that the triple payment for the loss, e.g. of the eye, which in the title De Dolg was a half wergeld, would otherwise exceed the full wergeld, and that, in the one case in which in the ‘De Dolg’ the whole wergeld was payable, the amount in the Additio is the treble wergeld, make it almost certain that it was so, otherwise the injury would be paid for at three times the value of a man’s life.
[163] 4608 × 3 = 13824, i.e. 160 solidi of 86·4 wheat-grains. The wergeld of the Island of Gotland was also 3 gold marks or 160 solidi of Merovingian standard. See also on the whole question Dr. Brunner’s article ‘Nobiles und Gemeinfreie der Karolingischen Volksrechte’ in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung &c., vol. xix.
[164] It would exactly equal 200 of the local solidi of two tremisses at a ratio of 1:8, or 160 solidi of 80 wheat-grains instead of 86·4.
[165] Pertz, p. 83.
[166] Pertz, p. 84.
[167] Pertz, p. 34.
[168] Pertz, p. 84.
[169] Pertz, p. 118.
[170] See Du Cange sub voce ‘Pecunia,’ and the cases there mentioned in which the word = pecudes, grex, &c.
[171] See Études sur la Lex dicta Francorum Chamavorum et sur ‘Les Francs du Pays d’Amor,’ par Henri Froidevaux. Paris, 1891, chap. ii.
[172] It has already been stated that the wergeld of the Island of Gotland was three gold marks or 160 Merovingian solidi. But owing to the late date of the Gotland laws it cannot be regarded as certain that the amount was the same at the date of the Ripuarian laws.
[173] The depreciation in weight cannot have been the result of ignorance of the Roman standard. We learn from the excellent table given by Montelius in his Remains from the Iron Age of Scandinavia that the gold solidi of the Eastern Empire found their way into the Islands of Gotland, Oland, and Bornholm in considerable numbers, between A.D. 395 and 518. He shows that, while no silver coins of the Republic or before Nero have been found in Scandinavia, coins belonging to the silver currency of Rome after Nero found their way northwards in considerable numbers. Of Roman coins A.D. 98-192 only four gold coins are known to have been found and 2304 silver coins. Then the gold currency begins, and of dates between A.D. 235-395, sixty-four gold coins have been found and only one solitary silver coin. Lastly came the gold currency of the solidus of Constantine and his successors A.D. 395-518, and of this period 286 gold coins and one silver coin are recorded as having been found in Scandinavia. It is clear, then, that the Roman standard as well as the Roman system of division of the lb. was known in the North. For a long period no doubt the chief trade of the Baltic was with the Byzantine Empire and the East.
[174] Die Entstehungszeit der älteren Gulathingslög von Dr. Konrad Maurer, p. 5.
[175] The Reksthane is an official, and quite a different person from the Bónde.
[176] The Árborinn man seems to be the same as the Aettborinn man, i.e. ‘a man born in a kindred.’
[177] Elsewhere called the Odal-born-man.
[178] The hauld seems to have been the same as the odal-born man.
[179] See also the Frostathing Law IV. 31, in which in a similar case the person is outlawed.
[180] The Nefgildi-men include the slayer’s mother’s father, daughter’s son, mother’s brother, sister’s son, father’s sister’s son, mother’s sister’s sons, son’s daughter’s son, daughter’s daughter’s son, brother’s daughter’s son, sister’s daughter’s son.
[181] 4608 × 30 = 138240, and this divided by 8 = 17280 w.g. of gold, i.e. 200 gold solidi of 86·4 w.g.
[182] The following is from the Venedotian Code, i. p. 179. ‘The ecclesiastical law says that no son is to have the patrimony but the eldest born to the father by the married wife: the law of Howell, however, adjudges it to the youngest son as well as to the oldest (i.e. all the sons), and decides that sin of the father or his illegal act is not to be brought against a son as to his patrimony.’ Bastards were not excluded till the Statute of Rothllan.
[183] ‘Geschlecht und Verwandtschaft im alt-norwegischen Rechte,’ in the Zeitschrift für Social- und Wirthschaftsgeschichte, vol. vii. (Weimar). To this essay I am much indebted.
[184] Some authorities infer from this that the parents alone were put in the grave. K. von Maurer thinks only the children, and apologises for it as ‘nur eine aus grauer Vorzeit überlieferte Antiquität.’
[185] Skåne, being only divided from the island of Zealand by the Sound, during the Viking period belonged to Denmark. It afterwards became a Swedish province, being finally ceded by Denmark in 1658.
[186] The various views upon the relation of the two versions to each other are very usefully discussed in the introduction to M. Beauchet’s Loi de Vestrogothie (Paris, 1894), pp. 67-75. The Latin version was published in 1846 at Copenhagen as Vol. I. of the Samling af Danske Love and both Latin and Danish versions in Dr. Schlyter’s Corpus Juris Sueo-Gotorum antiqui, Lund. 1859.
[187] See Du Cange, s. v. ‘Moventes’ = pecudes.
[188] ‘Filius-familias’ in another MS.
[189] As to the fælagh or partnership between husband and wife, see the Gulathing Law, 53. The word fælagh seems to be equivalent to the ‘definitio’ of the Latin text, the definitio of the property being made at the time of the marriage. The word seems to be allied to the English word ‘fellowship.’ See Skeat, sub ‘fellow,’ who refers it to Icelandic ‘felag,’ literally ‘a laying together of property.’
[190] See Untersuchungen zur Erbenfolge &c., Julius Ficker, ii. p. 143: ‘Gulathingsbuch und Frostathingsbuch kennen keinen Eintritt der Sohnessöhne in das volle Recht des Parens.’
[191] Beauchet, p. 60.
[192] Addition F. 1.
[193] Skanska Stadsrätten, s. 43.
[194] See I. s. 92 of the Danish version. The word Manbötær = mulcta homicidii, Schlyter, Gloss. sub voce.
[195] See Ancient Laws of Scotland, preface, p. 42.
[196] Ibid. i. 8.
[197] These extracts are abridged and put into modern English.
[198] Compare the colpindach with the Irish ‘colpach heifer.’ In the Crith Gabhlach, p. 300, the Irish text has the word colpdaig translated ‘colpach heifer.’ Probably the xxix should be ixˣˣ, i.e. 180. See Ancient Laws of Scotland, p. 270 (red paging), as to the next clause.
[199] ‘Oc-thigernd’ = ‘Jung herr,’ Windisch, p. 757.
[200] Scotland under her early Kings, i. p. 258 n., and ii. p. 307.
[201] Ancient Laws of Scotland, i. p. 233.
[202] History of English Law, Pollock and Maitland, i. pp. 145 and 202. There is an elaborate comparison of this Scotch treatise with Glanville’s in the Ancient Laws of Scotland commencing at p. 136 (red), which is very helpful.
[203] Book of Deer, preface, p. lxxxi. Toshach (toisech). The two officers in a townland were the mormaer and the toisech. Ced in Irish = hundred. Tosh-ced-erach possibly may have meant ‘head of the hundred.’
[205] Robertson’s Historical Essays, p. 47.
[206] See preface to the Ancient Laws of Scotland.
[207] Gulathing law, s. 152.
[208] See Windisch, Wörterbuch, sub voce ‘ter-fochrice,’ also ‘fo-chraic.’
[209] Vol. i. p. 655.
[210] This passage is from the last clause in the so-called treaty between Edward and Guthrum, ‘when the English and Danes fully took to peace and to friendship, and the Witan also who were afterwards, oft and unseldom that same renewed and increased with good.’ Thorpe, p. 71; and see Schmid’s Einleitung, p. xlii.
[211] 120s. of 5d. = 50s. of 12d.
[212] Three marks are double 12 ores.
[213] See the instances of services of sochemen given by Mr. Round in his invaluable chapter on the Domesday book in his Feudal England, pp. 30-34, from the ‘Ely placitum’ of 1072-1075: ‘Qui quotiens abbas preceperit in anno arabunt suam terram’ &c. And again quotienscunque ipse præceperit in anno arabunt’ &c. These are services of the sochemanni of Suffolk and Norfolk ‘qui non possunt recedere.’
[214] Cf. Ine, 74. The xls. to be paid for the ‘Waliscus’ slave who had committed homicide may be double value by way of penalty.
[215] Laws of Cnut, s. 63 and s. 66.
[216] Mr. Keary’s Introduction to the Catalogue of the Coins in the British Museum, Anglo-Saxon series, vol. ii. p. lxxxi.
[217] Engel, vol. ii. p. 849 et seq.
[218] Introduction, vol. ii. p. lvii.
[219] The word is used in the sense of mint-master or money coiner. See Du Cange, sub voce ‘Monetarius.’
[220] The Anglo-Saxon pound of 240 pence or 364 grammes divided by fifteen = 24·2 grammes.
[221] The normal weight of the English penny of 32 wheat-grains was 1·51 grammes. The coins of Cnut’s predecessors sometimes fully reached this standard, though oftener somewhat below it. The exact weight of 1/20 of the Danish ore would be 1·21 grammes, and Cnut’s silver pence seem to aim at this weight. Out of 574 silver pence of Cnut described in the Catalogue of the British Museum 400 weigh between ·972 and 1·23 grammes. Only 1½ per cent. are of greater weight. Ethelred’s silver pence were not by any means generally of full standard of 32 wheat-grains or 1·51 grammes, but still, out of 339 in the British Museum 25 per cent. are fairly up to this standard and 90 per cent. are above the weight of the new silver pence of Cnut—1/20 of his ore. Cnut also reduced the size of the pence. See the B. M. Catalogue plates.
[222] ‘Grith’ seems to be a Danish word of nearly the same meaning as ‘frith.’ See Schmid’s Glossary, sub voce.
[223] This is in accordance with Ine, 6.
[224] Laws of Ethelred, ix. (Thorpe, p. 145).
[225] Thorpe, p. 124.
[226] MS. G. British Museum, Cott. Nero A. 1. fol. 5.
[227] Thorpe, p. 141, Schmid, Anhang iv.
[228] Compare Æthelstan, iv. 4.
[229] This, from the Kentish Laws, was correctly quoted.
[230] Schmid, Anhang xii.
[231] Pollock and Maitland, i. p. 20. But see Laws of King Edmund, s. 4, ‘On Blood-shedding.’ ‘Also I make known that I will not have to “socn” in my “hirede” that man who sheds man’s blood before he has undertaken ecclesiastical “bot” and made “bot” to the kindred,’ &c. See also in s. 6 the use of the words ‘mund-brice and Ham-socn.’
[232] Another reading has xxx. See Schmid, p. 206. The Latin version has xxv, and the quotation in the Laws of Henry I also has xxv.
[233] 25 × 240 = 6000 pence = 1200 Wessex scillings of 5d.
[234] Catalogue of English Coins, Anglo-Saxon series. Introduction, p. xxxi, to vol. ii.
[235] Thorpe (p. 75) appends this clause to the so-called Laws of Edward and Guthrum. But Schmid considers it as a fragment and places it in his Anhang vii.
[236] Schmid, Anhang vii. 2; Thorpe, p. 79.
[237] A ceorl’s wergeld is cclxvi thrymsas, i.e. cc scillings by Mercian law. 266⅔ × 3 = 800 pence or 200 Mercian scyllings of 4 pence.
[238] From the text of MS. D.
[239] The fragment itself is a combination of two or more. But the statement of wergelds in thrymsas seems to unite them. Schmid also points out that the eorl had not yet superseded the ealdorman. See Einleitung, p. lxv.
[240] 2000 thrymsas of 3d. equalled 1200 Wessex scillings of 5d., so that the ceorl with five hides to the king’s utware became a twelve-hynde man. There is no allusion to the six-hynde status as a halfway step towards the gesithcund status. And the use of the word ‘gesithcund’ seems to throw back the original date of these clauses to that of Ine’s law, the word not being used in later laws. See Schmid’s Glossary, sub voce ‘Gesith.’
[241] I.e. of pure silver. Compare the same phrase ‘de novis et meris denariis’ in the Edictum Pistense, A.D. 864, quoted supra, p. 191, n.
[243] Ancient Laws of Ireland, vol. iv. p. 227.
[245] Ine came to the throne in A.D. 688, and Alfred’s treaty with Guthrum was in A.D. 880.
[246] See Schmid’s Glossary sub voce ‘Eideshülfe.’ There is only one mention of oaths of so many hides in the later Anglo-Saxon laws, viz. in Alfred, s. 11, in which it is stated that a woman must clear herself from a charge of previous unchastity with 60 hides.
[247] The monk’s oath was one fourth of the priest’s in value: so 400 argentei = one fourth of 800 sicli.
[248] See Schmid’s introduction, where he states his reasons for placing Ine’s Dooms before Alfred’s in his edition of the Laws.
[249] This is repeated in Henry I. lxix.
[250] Schmid, Anhang ii.
[251] Schmid, Glossary, sub voc. ‘Die Britischen Einwohner von Cumberland.’ But the mention of York is conclusive.
[252] See Schmid’s note on this passage, and see also Liebermann’s translation.
[253] Thorpe, p. 150; Schmid, Anhang i.
[254] The only mark of the geographical position of the district is that in the final clause: ‘Formerly the Went-sætas belonged to the Dun-sætas, but more properly they belong to the West Saxons; there they shall give tribute and hostages.’
[255] Translated in the Latin version by ‘corium,’ the meaning probably being that 12 scillings would buy off a scourging.
[256] In the Laws of Henry I. (lxx. s. 5) the ‘theow-wealh’ is translated ‘servus Waliscus,’ and is worth double the ordinary slave, unless the amount be a double penalty.
[257] The usual explanation of these terms is that they are derived from the number of shillings in the wergeld. Mr. Earle in his valuable Handbook to the Land Charters &c. (p. 1) considers ‘hynde’ to be an old form of ‘ten’ and to refer to the number of soldiers of whom the twelve-hynde and six-hynde men were captains. ‘The former was a captain of 120 and the latter of 60.’ Neither of these explanations seems to me to be satisfactory.
[258] This view that the single oath of the twelve-hyndeman was reckoned as a 10 hide oath is confirmed by the translation in the Latin of the Quadripartitus of Ine’s Laws, s. 46. The Anglo-Saxon ‘þonne sceal he be lx hyda onsacan,’ is translated by ‘tunc debet per lx hidas i.e. per vi homines abnegare.’ And in s. 19 ‘potest jurare pro lx hidis i.e. pro hominibus vi.’ Schmid remarks on these passages: ‘Hiernach würde also jeder Eideshelfer 10 Hiden vertreten.’
[259] Schmid, p. 157; Thorpe, p. 97.
[260] Judicia Civitatis Lundoniæ, c. 8, s. 2; Ath. L. vi.
[261] Decretum Episcoporum et aliorum sapientum de Kancia de pace observanda. Ath. L. iii.
[262] Birch, No. 102, A.D. 701.
[263] Ib. 113, A.D. 705.
[264] Ib. 142, A.D. 725.
[265] Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 24.
[266] Glossary, sub voce ‘Gesith,’ and see Bede, iii. 14 and 22, iv. 4 and 10, and v. 4 and 5.
[267] Bede, ii. c. ix.
[268] English Village Community, chap. v.
[269] See Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, New Series, vol. xiv.
[270] English Village Community, p. 117 et seq.
[271] Birch, 412.
[272] Roxburgh Club, p. 138.
[273] Compare ærdian, to inhabit; and so burbærde and theowbærde, as below.
[274] About A.D. 995. Cod. Dip. 1290.
[275] Cod. Dip. mcccliv. See also Liber Eliensis, p. 120.
[276] Alfred, s. 37.
[278] The difference in spelling will be noticed. The Kentish spelling is mostly scætt. Elsewhere the spelling is sceatt.
[279] Schmid, Anhang vii. p. 398.
[280] It cannot be right, I think, to reason the other way with Schmid, that as there were 30,000 sceatts in the King’s wergeld of 120 pounds, there must have been 250 sceatts in the pound and 4·166 sceatts in the Mercian scilling instead of four.
[281] Catalogue &c., Introduction, p. xviii.
[282] ‘We must remember further that many of the coins of the Kings of Mercia were probably likewise struck in Kent, and that when we find, as we do, the same moneyers’ names occurring on the coins of a King of Mercia … and on the coins of Ecgbeorht, the probability is that these moneyers were Kentishmen who struck first for one master of their country and then for the other’ (Ib. p. xvii).
[283] See Schmid’s Glossary, sub voce.