[284] See Laws of Ethelbert, ss. 77, 78 and 79, and 83.

[285] In translating Luke xx. 24 and Mark xii. 15, ‘Show me a penny,’ the word used to translate ‘denarius’ is skatt.

Again, Luke vii. 41, the two debtors, one owing 500 and the other 50 denarii, are translated by Ulphilas as owing ‘skatte finfhunda’ and ‘skatte finftiguns.’

Again in John xii. 5, ‘Why was not the ointment sold for 300 denarii?’ ‘ccc skatti’ are the words used, and so also in the parallel passage Mark xi. 5, ‘thrijahunda skatti.’

In all these cases it seems to be clear that the skatt is the coin. And that it was a silver coin seems to be shown by the use by Ulphilas of the word skatt in reference to the ‘thirty pieces of silver’ in Matt. xxvii. 6-9.

[286] The word occurs seven times in the five Gothic records from Naples and Arezzo generally appended to editions of ‘Ulfilas.’ In the edition of Massmann (Stuttgart, 1857) see vol. ii. p. 810. In that of Heyne and Wrede (Paderborn, 1896) see p. 227 &c.

[287] Schmid, Anhang x. p. 404; Thorpe, p. 76.

[288] This may be doubtful: Sceatta scilling-rim, ‘gold to the worth of 600 scillings,’ Grein, ii. p. 408; sceatta, gen. plural of ‘sceatt,’ nummus, pecunia. Grein, ii. p. 405.

[289] British Museum Catalogue, Anglo-Saxon series, vol. i. xiii.

[290] See Schmid’s Glossary, sub ‘Geldrechnung,’ p. 594. The inference seems to be too strong to be disregarded. Comparing s. 54 with ss. 70-72, the great toe is valued at 10 scillings, i.e. half the value of the thumb in s. 54, viz. 20 scillings. And it is stated in s. 54 that the thumb nail is worth 3 scillings, and in s. 72 that the toe nail is to be paid for at 30 scætts, which would be half 3 scillings of 20 sceatts. The other toes are said in s. 71 to be respectively worth half the fingers. The finger nail in s. 71 at 1 scilling compares with the other toe nails at 10 scætts in s. 72—again one half. Presuming that the scale of one half is maintained throughout, 30 scætts is half 3 scillings and 10 scætts half one scilling. The scilling, therefore, must be 20 scætts.

This conclusion is strengthened by the graduated scale of payments in ss. 33-36, viz. 50 scætts (i.e. 1½ scilling) 3, 4, 10, 20 scillings. See also s. 16, where the scale is 30, 50 (? 60) sceatts and 6 scillings (120 scætts). In ss. 58-60 a bruise is 1 scilling, covered 30 scætts, uncovered 20 scætts. It seems to be impossible to make these figures comport with the Mercian scilling of 4 scætts or the Wessex of 5 scætts or the Salic solidus of 40 scætts. The conclusion must be that the Kentish scilling was of 20 scætts.

[291] 576 divided by 10 = 57·6, i.e. two tremisses of 28·8 wheat grains.

[292] Alfred’s words were: ‘But those things which I met with, either of the days of Ine my kinsman, or of Offa King of the Mercians, or of Æthelbryht, who first among the English race received baptism, those which seemed to me the rightest, those I have here gathered together and omitted the others.’

[293] British Museum Cott. Nero A. 1. fol. 5, and supra, p. 346.

[294] British Museum, ibid. fol. 33 b.

[295] See Gulathing, 178.

[296] Compare Cnut’s secular laws, s. 59, on Borh-bryce. In both passages the additional words ‘and three to the archbishop’ do not seem to be taken from Kentish law. It is obvious from the fragment ‘Of Grith and of Mund’ that it was well known that in Kentish law ‘the mund-bryce of the King and the archbishop were the same.’

[297] See also Anhang iv. Schmid, p. 385.

[298] See Schmid, Glossary, sub ‘Geldrechnung,’ p. 594.

[299] Konrad von Maurer’s ‘Ueber Angelsächsische Rechtsverhältnisse,’ in the Kritische Ueberschau, vol. iii. p. 48.

[300] Compare the ‘octogild’ and ‘novigild’ of the Alamannic and other laws. The literal meaning of ‘xii gylde’ seems to be payable with ‘twelve times the gylde.’

[301] The division of the words in the MS. is as follows: ‘Gif cyninges ambiht smið oþþe laadrinc mannan of slehð medumanleod gelde forgelde.’

[302] So also Grimm in his Deutsche Rechts Alterthümer, p. 653, ‘dimidio, nicht moderato, wie Wilk. übersetzt.’ Compare ‘medeme mynster,’ supra, p. 346, and ‘medeme thegn,’ Cnut, ii. 71, s. 2.

[303] Possibly the King’s servants were otherwise exempt for injuries done in carrying out their work.

[304] Cf. Book of Aicill, p. 267, where injury inflicted in quick driving or at work has only a half fine; ‘the excitement of the work or of quick driving takes the other half fine off them.’ See also the elaborate rules with regard to accidents of the smith in his smithy, p. 187 &c. The general rule stated is ‘that the person who plies the sledge on the anvil is exempt from penalties for injuries arising from the work he is engaged on;’ and again ‘if either the sledge or anvil break, he is exempt for injuries to idlers, and he pays one third compensation to fellow labourers, &c.’ Clerical influence may perhaps be recognised in both the Brehon and Kentish clauses.

[305] That the soul-scot in later times was paid at the open grave see Ethelred, v. 12, vi. 20, ix. 13; C. E. 13.

[306] Compare s. 86 and 87, where ealne weorðe means a ‘whole worth’ of an esne, and contrast the ‘medume leodgild’ of 100 scillings payable as bot by the lender with the ‘ealne leod’ payable by the slayer.

[307] That the esne was very near in position to the ‘theow’ see Alf. 43, where Church holidays are to be given to ‘all freemen but not to theow-men and esne work-men’—‘butan þeowum mannum & esne-wyrhtum.’

[308] Liebermann considers that the 300 and 100 scillings are the wergeld of the eorlcundman and the freeman. His translation reads: ‘welcher steht im 300-Scillwergelde’ and ‘welcher im 100-Scillwergelde steht.’ Whether these payments are the wergelds is the point at issue. Schmid, in his note to this passage, favours the view that 300 scillings was the half-wergeld of the eorl and 100 scillings the half-wergeld of the freeman.

[309] xxxv. 5. ‘Si servus alienus aut laetus hominem ingenuum occiderit, ipse homicida pro medietatem compositionis illius hominis occisi parentibus tradatur, et dominus servi aliam medietatem compositionis se noverit soluiturum.’

[310] ‘Ceorlian,’ to marry a husband; ‘wifian,’ to marry a wife. Bosworth, sub voce.

[311] Supra, p. 259.

[312] Supra, p. 176.

[313] Supra, p. 199.

[314] Supra, p. 169.

[315] In the Bavarian and Saxon laws the litus was paid for at one fourth the wergeld of the liber. The inference from this might strengthen the view that the Kentish wergeld of the ceorl could hardly be as low as 100 scillings.

[316] I adhere to this view after careful consideration of the elaborate argument in the Die Gemeinfreien der Karolingischen Volksrechte, von Philipp Heck (Halle, 1900), in reply to the criticism by H. Brunner in the Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, xix Band, 1899.

[317] 1200 scillings of 4d. with one fourth added = 1200 scillings of 5d.

[318] Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, i. 225-6.

[319] 60 + 40 Kentish scillings = 1200 + 800 scætts. The average 1000 sceatts = 200 Wessex scillings of 5 scætts.

[320] Supra, p. 265.

[321] Supra, p. 367.

[322] Supra, p. 322; and Laws of Alfred, s. 27 and 38.

[323] Supra, pp. 415-416.

[324] This is not the place to enter into the details of the Kentish holdings, but reference may be made by way of example to the 5½ ‘sulings’ of ‘Christelet’ in the Black Book of St. Augustine. The suling is still the unit for services and payments. The ‘Suling de Fayreport’ contains 300 acres (and was probably originally a suling and a half), but it is divided into 11 holdings, 8 of 25 acres each and 3 of 33⅓ acres each. Six of the eleven holdings are still occupied by persons bearing the name of ‘de Fayreport’ or the ‘heredes’ of such persons, and probably the others may belong to relatives. The ‘Suling de Ores’ is, on the other hand, divided into about 40 quite irregular holdings, varying from less than an acre to 44 acres. Several are still occupied by ‘heredes’ of persons of the family ‘de Ores.’ (Cottonian MSS. Faustina, A. 1, British Museum, fol. 567 et seq.) The manor ‘de Ores’ is in the list of those afterwards disgavelled: see Elton’s Tenures of Kent, p. 400.

[325] See Mr. Round’s interesting chapter, ‘Sokemen and their Services.’ (Feudal England, pp. 28-34.)

[326] Domesday Book and beyond, p. 306 et seq.

[327] Ibid. pp. 204-209.

[328] Compare Brunner’s chapter 32, ‘Adel und Freie,’ in his Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, p. 247 et seq., with Das Römische Recht in den Germanischen Volksstaaten, von Prof. Dr. Alfred von Halban (Breslau, 1899), pp. 132, 207, 262, 280, and 294. And see Dahn’s chapter ‘Der Adel,’ p. 88 et seq., in his Die Könige der Germanen, Band vi. (Leipzig, 1885).

[329] Compare the tendency to triple divisions in the Kentish Laws: supra, p. 465.

[330] Marculfe, ii. 18 and 16. Formulæ Lindenbrogianæ, 16. And see F. de Coulanges’ useful chapter on ‘Organisation judiciaire chez les Francs’ in Quelques problèmes d’histoire (1885).