FǼHÐE. WERGYLD.
The right of private warfare, technically called fǽhðe or _feud_[495],
was one which every Teutonic freeman considered inalienable; and which,
coupled with the obligations of family, was directly derived from his
original position as a freeman[496]: it was the privilege which he
possessed before he consented to enter into any political bond, the
common term upon which all freemen could meet in an equal form of
polity. It was an immediate corollary from that primæval law of nature,
that each man may provide for his own defence, and use his own energies
to secure his own well-being, and the quiet possession of his life, his
liberty and the fruits of his labour. History and tradition both assure
us that it did exist among the tribes of the North: and it is reasonable
to suppose that it must have done so, especially in any case where we
can conceive separate families and households to have maintained at all
an independent position toward one another. Where no _imperium_ yet
exists, society itself possesses only a _ius belli_ against its own
several members; and if neighbours will not be neighbourly, they must be
coerced into peace (the great and first need of all society and the
condition of its existence) by alliance of the many against the few, of
the orderly and peaceful against the violent and lawless. This right of
feud then lies at the root of all Teutonic legislation; and in the
Anglosaxon law especially it continues to be recognized long after an
imperial power has been constituted, and the general conservancy of the
peace has been committed to a central authority. It admits as its most
general term, that each freeman is at liberty to defend himself, his
family and his friends; to avenge all wrongs done to them, as to himself
shall seem good; to sink, burn, kill and destroy, as amply as a royal
commission now authorizes the same in a professional class, the
recognized executors of the national will in that behalf. Now it is
obvious that such a power, exercised in its full extent, must render the
formation of an orderly society difficult, if not impossible. The first
problem then is to devise means by which private vengeance may be
regulated, private wrong atoned, the necessity of each man’s doing
himself right avoided, and the general state of peace and security
provided for. For setting aside the loss to the whole community which
may arise from private feud, the moral sense of men may be shocked by
its results: an individual’s own estimate of the satisfaction necessary
to atone for the injury done to him, may lead to the commission of a
wrong on his part, greater than any he hath suffered; nor can the strict
rule of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” be applied, where
the exaction of the penalty depends upon the measure of force between
appellant and defender.
-----
Footnote 495:
Fǽhðe is etymologically derived from fá, _a foe_: it is the state or
condition of being fá with any one. “Gif hwá ofer ðæt stalige sý he fá
wið ðone cyning and ealle his freónd.” “If after that, any one steal,
be he foe (at feud) with the king, and all that love him.”
Footnote 496:
Tacit. Germ. xxii.
-----
In the feeling then of the omnipotence of the State, for paramount
purposes, over all the several individuals whose proximity to one
another necessarily caused the existence between them of relations,
amicable or hostile, the Teutonic nations set themselves the task of
regulating the _Right of Feud_. They could not entirely abrogate it, for
it was the very basis of that freedom which enabled every man to enter
into a contract or engagement as to the mode of its exercise; but they
defined, and as far as possible limited, its sphere and the extent of
its action.
The natural right of every man to do himself justice to the extent of
his own estimate[497], seems early to have received so much check as
could be given by the establishment of a _lex talionis_,—life for life,
and limb for limb. The eorl who captured the thane Imma, in the seventh
century, could say to him, “I might justly put thee to death, because my
kinsmen fell in the battle wherein thou wert made prisoner[498];” and
this principle was recognized even in the later legislation, after what
we may call a legal commutation of this right had been established: the
ordinance respecting oaths to be administered says, “A twelfhynde man’s
oath stands for six ceorls’ oaths; because if a man should avenge a
twelfhynde man, he will be fully avenged on six ceorls, and his wergyld
will be six ceorls’ wergylds[499].” The Teutonic nations generally
avoided the inconveniences of such a system by making the State itself
the arbitrator between the parties; that is, by establishing a tariff at
which injuries should be rated, and committing to the State the duty of
compelling the injured person to receive, and the wrongdoer to pay, the
settled amount. It thus engaged to act as a mediator between the
conflicting interests, with a view to the maintenance of the general
peace: it assured to the sufferer the legal satisfaction for his loss;
it engaged to his adversary that, upon due payment of that legal
satisfaction, he should be placed under the public guarantee and saved
from all the consequences of feud. For doing this, the State claimed
also some remuneration; it imposed a fine, called sometimes _fredum_,
from frið, peace, or _bannum_ from its proclamation (bannan)[500], over
and above the compensation between man and man. And this is obviously
what Tacitus means when he says[501], “They are bound to take up both
the enmities and the friendships of a father or relative. Nor are their
enmities implacable; for even homicide is atoned for by a settled number
of flocks or cattle, and the whole house receives satisfaction,—a useful
thing for the state, for feuds are dangerous in exact proportion to
freedom.” And again, “A portion of the fine goes to the king or state, a
part to him whose damages are to be assessed, or to his relatives.” Only
where the State would not, or could not, as may sometimes have happened,
undertake this duty, did the right of private warfare again resume its
course, and the family relations recover their pristine importance. The
man who presumes to fight, before he has in vain appealed to all the
recognized authorities for redress, is liable, under Ælfred’s law, to
severe punishment, except in one important case, which involved the
maintenance of the family itself, to secure which alone the machinery of
the State exists[502]. But where the offender refuses to avail himself
of the means of peaceful settlement which society has provided for him,
the person injured may make war upon him, and have the assistance of the
State in so doing. The most general expression of this right is found in
a proverbial formula retained in the law of Eádweard the Confessor, and
which may be said to comprise all the law of the subject: it says, “Let
amends be made to the kindred, or let their war be borne;” whence the
English had the proverb, ‘Bicge spere of síde óðer bere,’ that is to
say, _Buy off the spear or bear it_[503]. The mode however of applying
this general right was not left to individual caprice. The following
regulations made by successive kings will explain very fully the
practice and the theory of Feud or War. Ælfred ordains, “That the man
who knows his foe to be homesitting fight not, before he have demanded
justice of him. If he have power enough to beset his foe, and besiege
him in his house, let him keep him there for seven days, but not attack
him, if he will remain within-doors. If then, after seven days, he be
willing to surrender, and to give up his weapons, let him be kept safe
for thirty days, and let notice of him be given to his kinsmen and
friends.... But if the plaintiff have not power enough of his own to
besiege his foeman, let him ride to the ealdorman and beg aid of him:
and if the ealdorman will not aid him, let him ride to the king before
he fights. In like manner if a man come accidentally upon his foe, and
without previous knowledge of his homestaying; if the foe will surrender
his weapons, let him be kept safely for thirty days, and let notice be
given to his friends. If he will not surrender his weapons, he may
lawfully be attacked. But if he be willing to surrender and to deliver
up his weapons, and after that, any one attack him, let him pay _wer_
and wound, as well he may, and fine, and have forfeited his
mǽgship[504]. We also declare that it is lawful war, for a man to fight
for his lord, if any one attack his lord: and so also may the lord fight
for his man. And in like manner a man may fight for his born kinsman, if
any wrongfully attack him, except against his own lord: that we allow
not. And it is lawful war if a man find another with his wedded wife
within closed doors, or under one covering, or with his daughter born in
wedlock, or his sister born in wedlock, or his mother who was given to
his father as a wedded wife[505].”
-----
Footnote 497:
This is the wild right of every outlaw, the law of nature which
resumes its force when human law has been relinquished.
“I lost mine eye in laying the prize aboard,
And therefore, to revenge it, shalt thou die!”
Hen. VI. Part 2, act iv. sc. 1.
Such is the justice of him who has returned to the universal state of
war. Against such a one, Society, if it mean to be society, must on
its side declare a war of extermination.
Footnote 498:
Beda, Hist. Eccl. iv. 22.
Footnote 499:
“Twelfhyndes mannes áð forstent syx ceorla áð; forðám gif man ðone
twelfhyndan man wrecan sceolde, he hið full wrecen on syx ceorlum, and
his wergyld bið syx ceorla wergyld.” Oaths, § 12. Thorpe, i. 182.
Footnote 500:
The technical term is, _to set up the king’s protection_, “cyninges
munde rǽran.” Eádw. and Guð. § 13. Eádm. ii. § 7. Thorpe, i. 174, 250.
This is the engagement of the State that the arbitrament shall be
peaceably made, and it at once abrogates all right of feud, and fear
of violent revenge.
Footnote 501:
“Suscipere tam inimicitias seu patris seu propinqui quam amicitias
necesse est. Nec implacabiles durant; luitur enim etiam homicidium
certo armentorum ac pecorum numero, recipitque satisfactionem universa
domus: utiliter in publicum; quia periculosiores sunt inimicitiae
iuxta libertatem.” Germ. xxii. “Sed et levioribus delictis [including
homicide] pro modo poenarum equorum pecorumque numero convicti
multantur. Pars multae regi vel civitati, pars ipsi qui vindicatur,
vel propinquis eius exsolvitur.” Ibid. xii.
Footnote 502:
The Saxon law says, in accordance with the universal law of nature and
society, “A man may fight, without incurring the penalty of raising
war, against him whom he finds with his wedded wife, within closed
doors, or under one covering; or, with his daughter lawfully born, or
with his sister lawfully born, or with his mother, who was given to
his father as his wedded wife.” In these cases there is, and can be,
no murder before the law. It is needless to show from the history and
traditions of every European state, that this is a principle
universally recognized.
Footnote 503:
Leg. Eádw. Conf. xii. Thorpe, i. 447.
Footnote 504:
Probably, “Let him, forfeit all claim to the assistance of his
kinsmen, either in repelling feud or paying fine.”
Footnote 505:
Ælfr. § 42. I have slightly varied the form of expression in the last
sentences, on account of the difficulty of rendering the adjective
_orwige_. Ælfred says in these cases a man may fight _orwige_,
literally, _without incurring the guilt of making war_, without
becoming obnoxious to the penalties assigned to the crime of
war-raising.
-----
The inconveniences of this state of society induced Eádmund, about the
middle of the tenth century, to release the kindred from the
consequences of fǽhðe: he thus commences his secular laws:
“Eádmund the king makes known to all the people, old and young, that are
in his dominion, what I have deliberated with the counsel of my Witan,
both ordained and laic. First how I might best promote Christianity.
Then seemed it to us first most needful that we should most firmly
preserve peace and harmony among ourselves, throughout all my dominion.
Both I, and all of us, hold in horror the unrighteous and manifold
fightings that exist among ourselves: we have therefore decreed: If
henceforth any one slay another, let him bear the feud himself, unless
by the assistance of his friends, and within twelve months, he make
amends with the full _wer_, be he born as he may. But if his kindred
forsake him, and will not pay for him, it is my will that all the
kindred be _unfáh_ [out of feud] except the actual perpetrator; provided
that they do not give him either food or protection. But if afterwards
any of the kindred harbour him, he shall be liable in all that he
possesses to the king[506] and bear the feud with the kindred, because
they had previously forsaken him. But if any of the other kindred take
vengeance upon any man save the actual perpetrator, let him be foe to
the king and all his friends, and forfeit all that he has[507].”
-----
Footnote 506:
A forfeiture of this kind is recorded in the Codex Diplomaticus, Nos.
714, 719, 1304. A lady had harboured her brother, while an outlaw for
murder. Her lands were all forfeited and given to the king.
Footnote 507:
Eádm. Sec. Leg. § 1. Thorpe, i. 246.
-----
It is probable that this right thus reserved to the kindred of deserting
their guilty kinsman, was not often exercised, nevertheless the
subsequent laws of Æðelred and Cnut[508] may be considered to have been
understood in connexion with it, and subject to its limitations.
-----
Footnote 508:
See above, cap. ix. p. 264.
-----
The law of Eádweard the elder (about A.D. 900 to 915), regulates the
mode of proceeding when both parties are willing to forego the feud,
upon the established principles of compensation. He says[509]: “The
wergyld of a twelfhynde man is twelve hundred shillings. The wergyld of
a twýhynde man is two hundred shillings. If any one be slain, let him be
paid for according to his birth. And it is the law, that, after the
slayer has given pledge for the wergyld, he should find in addition a
_werborh_, according to the circumstances of the case; that is, for the
wergyld of a twelfhynde man, the werborh must consist of twelve men,
eight by the father’s, four by the mother’s side. When that is done, let
the king’s protection be set up; that is, all, of either kindred, laying
their hands together upon one weapon, shall pledge themselves to the
mediator, that the king’s protection shall stand. In twenty-one days
from that day let one hundred and twenty shillings be paid as
_healsfang_, at a twelfhynde man’s wergyld. The healsfang belongs to the
children, brothers and paternal uncles: that money belongs to no kinsman
except such as are within the degrees of blood. Twenty-one days after
the healsfang is paid, let the _manbót_ be paid; twenty-one days later,
the _fight-fine_; in twenty-one days from this, the _frumgyld_ or first
instalment of the wergyld; and so forth until the whole sum be
discharged at such fixed time as the Witan have agreed. After this they
may depart with love, if they desire to have full friendship. And with
respect to the wergyld of a ceorl, all that belongs in his condition
shall be done in like manner as we have said respecting the twelfhynde
man.”
-----
Footnote 509:
Eád. and Guð. § 13. Thorpe, i. 174.
-----
The law of Eádmund contains similar provisions[510]. “The Witan shall
appease feud. First, according to folkright, the slayer shall give
pledge to his advocate, and the advocate to the kindred of the slain,
that the slayer will make compensation to the kin. Then it is necessary
that security be given to the slayer’s advocate, that the slayer may
draw nigh in peace, and himself give pledge for the wergyld. When he has
given his wed for this, let him further find a werborh, or security for
the payment of the wer. When that is done let the king’s protection be
set up: within twenty-one days from that, let the healsfang be paid;
within other twenty-one days, the manbót; and twenty-one days from that,
the first instalment of the wergyld.”
-----
Footnote 510:
Eádm. Sec. Leg. § 7. Thorpe, i. 250.
-----
The wergyld then, or life-price, was the basis upon which all peaceful
settlement of feud was established. A sum paid either in kind or in
money, where money existed, was placed upon the life of every free man,
according to his rank in the state, his birth or his office. A
corresponding sum was settled for every wound that could be inflicted
upon his person; for nearly every injury that could be done to his civil
rights, his honour or his domestic peace; and further fines were
appointed according to the peculiar, adventitious circumstances that
might appear to aggravate or extenuate the offence. From the operation
of this principle no one was exempt, and the king as well as the peasant
was protected by a wergyld, payable to his kinsmen and his people. The
difference of the wergyld is the principal distinction between different
classes; it defined the value of each man’s oath, his mund or
protection, and the amount of his fines or his exactions: and, as we
have already seen[511], it regulated the equivalent for his value. And
as it is obvious that the simple wergyld of the free man is the original
unit in the computation, we have a strong argument, were any needed,
that that class formed the real basis and original foundation of all
Teutonic society.
-----
Footnote 511:
See above, p. 275.
-----
Although this principle was common to all the Germanic tribes, very
great variety exists in the amounts severally adopted to represent the
value of different ranks,—a variety easily understood when we reflect
upon the relative condition of those tribes at the period when this
portion of their law was first settled. A slight account of them will be
useful, as an introduction to the consideration of our Anglosaxon
values. It will be seen throughout that various circumstances have
tended to introduce changes into the early and simple order[512].
-----
Footnote 512:
The following numbers are taken from Grimm, Rechtsalt. p. 272.
-----
Salian Franks.—Ingenuus, 200 sol.: litus, 100 sol.: ingenuus in hoste
600: litus in hoste, 300 sol.: ingenuus in truste 1800: litus in truste,
900 sol.
Thus if engaged in actual warfare, the value of the freeman and the
emancipated serf was tripled; and if in the _trust_ or immediate service
of the king, their respective values were multiplied nine times. It is
probable that the Ripuarian Franks adopted the same numbers.
Angli et Werini.—Liber 200 sol.: adaling (noble) 600: libertus
(freedman) 80 sol.
Law of the Saxons.—Probably, the freeman 240 shillings: noble 1440:
freedman 120 shillings.
Law of the Bavarians.—The duke 960 shillings: the ducal family of the
Agilolfings, 640: the other five noble races, 320 shillings: the simple
free man 160 shillings.
Law of the Alamanni.—Primus (the first rank of the nobles) 240
shillings: medianus (the second rank of nobles) 200: minofledus (the
free man) 160.
Law of the Burgundians.—Noble 300 shillings: lower noble (mediocris)
200: freeman (minor) 150.
Law of the Frisians.—Noble 80 shillings: freeman 53⅓; freedman 26⅔
shillings.
Law of the Visigoths.—Freeman (between the years of twenty and fifty)
300 shillings: freedman 150.
In the North, 100 silfrs was the wergyld of the freeman, and there is no
account of the jarl’s. The Old Swedish laws generally assign 40 marks;
this is the reckoning of the Upland, Sudermanland, and Eastgothland
laws. The Westgothland law has 39 marks; the Jutish 54; and the Gutalag,
three marks of gold.
The wergyld of the clergy is slightly different: among the Salic Franks,
deacon 300, priest 600, bishop 900 shillings. A late addition to the
Ripuarian law computes,—clericus 200, subdeacon 400, deacon 500, priest
600, bishop 900.
This is sufficient to give a general outline of the system: it will be
observed that these continental computations give no reckoning for the
king. Beyond doubt they were for the most part settled after the royal
power had become so fully developed as to cast aside all traces of its
original character and nature.
The Anglosaxon equivalents for these computations are by no means clear;
nor, as far as we can judge, are they altogether consistent. It is
probable that they varied not only in the several Anglosaxon kingdoms,
but were also subject to change at various periods, as the relative
value of life and produce altered. The Kentish law which names only the
eorl and ceorl, as the two classes of free men, does not give us the
exact amount of their wergylds, but it supplies us with some data by
which perhaps an approximation may be made to it. In Æðelberht’s law (§
2, 5, 8) the king’s _mundbyrd_ or protection is valued at fifty
shillings, the eorl’s or noble’s at twelve (§ 13, 14, compared with §
10, 15, 16, 17), and the ceorl’s or simple freeman’s at six (§ 15, 25,
88). Thus the three classes stand in the relation of fifty, twelve and
six; or taking the ceorl as unity, their respective values are 8⅓, 2 and
1: that is,
Ceorl:eorl::1:2.
Ceorl:king::1:8⅓.
Eorl :king::1:4⅙.
Now the _medume leódgeld_ of the ceorl is stated to be one hundred
shillings (§ 7), and if Grimm and Thorpe were right in translating this
the _half_ wergyld, we should have the very improbable sums of 200, 400
and 1666⅓ Kentish shillings. _Meduma_ however does not signify _half_,
but _middling_, _moderate_: the enactment in Æðelberht’s law amounts in
fact to this: If a man slay another, he is to pay his wergyld; but not
so, if the slayer happen to be the king’s armourer or messenger; in that
case he is to pay only a moderated wergyld of one hundred shillings. It
was an exemption in favour of two most important officers of the royal
household; and shows partly the growing encroachment of prerogative,
partly the value set upon the talents of the officers themselves[513].
The common wergyld then was above one hundred, and I think it can be
shown that it was below two hundred, shillings. The case of a wergyld
paid for a king, though rare, is by no means unexampled[514]. In the
year 687, Múl Æðelweard, a scion of the royal race of Wessex, invaded
Kent, and having incautiously suffered himself to be surprised by the
country-people, was burnt to death in a house where he had taken refuge
with a few comrades. Seven years later the men of Kent made compensation
to Ini for Múl’s death. The sum given is very variously stated. William
of Malmesbury says it was thirty thousand mancuses[515]; which,
calculated at eight mancuses to the pound, would be three thousand,
seven hundred and fifty pounds, and this is the sum mentioned by
Florence of Worcester[516]. Æðelweard, the oldest Latin chronicler, but
still removed four centuries from the time, makes it amount to thirty
thousand solidi or shillings, each of which is to be calculated at
sixteen pence[517]. Some manuscripts of the Saxon Chronicle read thirty
thousand pounds[518], “þrittig þusend punda,”—others, thirty pounds,
“þrittig punda.” Now however contradictory all these statements may at
first sight appear (and there can be no doubt that some of them are
ridiculously exaggerated), it is not impossible to reconcile and explain
them. Every one of the authorities I have cited, except Florence, who
has evidently calculated his sum upon what he believed to be the value
of the mancus, reads thirty thousand of some coin or other. One will
have them pounds, another shillings, another mancuses, etc. Now they are
all wrong in their denomination, and all equally right in their number;
and for this very obvious reason,—the originals from which they derived
their information did mention the number, and did not mention the
denomination. Each author put the question to himself, “Thirty thousand
_what_?” and answered it by supplying the supposed omission with the
coin most familiar to himself. But there cannot be the least doubt that
the Saxon original read þrittig þusenda, thirty thousand, and nothing
else; and this is not only actually the reading of some MSS. of the
Chronicle, but most likely the cause of the error which lies in the
other copies, incautious transcribers having been misled by the
resemblance between the Saxon þ and _p_ and mistaken the contraction
þrittig þūnda for þrittig punda, thirty pounds. It is the custom of the
Anglosaxon tongue, in describing measures of land or sums of money, to
use the numerals only, leaving the commonest units to be supplied by the
reader. Thus if land were intended, thirty thousand would denote that
number of _hides_; and where money is intended, at least in Kent, thirty
thousand _scæts_[519]. This then I believe to have been the sum paid to
Ini, and the regular personal wergyld of a Kentish king. Let us now
apply this sum to elucidate the value of the other Kentish wergylds.
From a comparison of the compensation appointed for injuries done to the
nails of the fingers and toes, Mr. Thorpe, the late Mr. Allen, and I
concluded that the value of a Kentish shilling was twenty scæts. But
thirty thousand scæts would be fifteen hundred such shillings, and
assuming this to be the royal wergyld, we shall find the eorl’s to be
360, the ceorl’s 180 shillings, which amounts are exactly thirty times
the value of the several mundbyrds[520]. In the first volume of Mr.
Thorpe’s Anglosaxon Laws, at p. 186, there is a document which professes
to give the values of different classes in Northumberland. Its date is
uncertain, though it appears to have been generally assigned to the
commencement of the tenth century. I confess that I can hardly reconcile
myself to so early a date, and think it altogether a suspicious
authority. It tells us as follows:
“1. The Northpeople’s royal gyld is thirty thousand _thrymsas_; fifteen
thousand thrymsas are for the wergyld, and fifteen thousand for the
royal dignity. The _wer_ belongs to the kindred; the _cynebót_ to the
people.
“2. An archbishop’s and an æðeling’s wergyld is fifteen thousand
thrymsas.
“3. A bishop’s and an ealdorman’s, eight thousand thrymsas.
“4. A hold’s and a king’s high reeve’s, four thousand thrymsas,
“5. A mass thane’s and a secular thane’s, two thousand thrymsas.
“6. A ceorl’s wergyld is two hundred and sixty-six thrymsas, that is two
hundred shillings by Mercian law.
“7. And if a Welshman thrive so well that he have a hide of land, and
can bring forth the king’s tax, then is his wergyld one hundred and
twenty shillings; and if he thrive not save to half a hide, then let his
wer be eighty shillings.
“8. And if he have not any land, but yet is free, let him be paid for
with seventy shillings.
“9. And if a ceorlish man thrive so well that he have five hides of land
for the king’s _útware_, and any one slay him, let him be paid for with
two thousand thrymsas.
“10. And though he thrive so that he have a helm and coat-of-mail, and a
sword ornamented with gold, if he have not that land, he is
notwithstanding a ceorl.
“11. And if his son and his son’s son so thrive that they have so much
land after him, the offspring shall be of gesíðcund [noble] race at two
thousand.
“12. And if they have not that, nor to that amount can thrive, let them
be paid for as ceorlish.”
-----
Footnote 513:
The royal messengers were often of the highest rank. The heroic
character of the weapon-smith or armourer appears throughout the
traditions of the North, and indeed in the epic poetry of all nations.
Footnote 514:
In the year 679 a battle was fought between Ecgfrið of Northumberland
and Æðilræd of Mercia. “Anno regis Ecgfridi nono, conserto gravi
praelio inter ipsum et Aedilredum regem Merciorum, iuxta fluvium
Treanta, occisus est Aelfuini, frater regis Ecgfridi, iuvenis circiter
decem et octo annorum, utrique provinciae multum amabilis. Nam et
sororem eius quae dicebatur Osðryd, rex Aedilred habebat uxorem.
Cumque materies belli acrioris et inimicitiae longioris inter reges
populosque feroces videretur exorta, Theodorus, deo dilectus antistes,
divino functus auxilio, salutifera exhortatione coeptum tanti periculi
funditus exstinguit incendium: adeo ut pacatis alterutrum regibus ac
populis, _nullius anima hominis pro interfecto regis fratre, sed
debita solummodo multa pecuniae regi ultori daretur_. Cuius foedera
pacis multo exinde tempore inter eosdem reges eorumque regna durarunt.
In praefato autem praelio, quo occisus est _Rex_ Aelfuini,” etc. Beda,
H. Eccl. iv. 21, 22.
Footnote 515:
Will. Malm. Gest. Reg. lib. i.
Footnote 516:
Flor. Wigorn. an. 694.
Footnote 517:
Æðelw. Chron. ii. cap. 10.
Footnote 518:
Chron. Saxon, an. 694.
Footnote 519:
Conf. Leg. Hloðh. § 13. Æðelr. § 7. Ælfred’s Beda, iii. 5. So, án
fíftig, _one fifty_, means fifty _psalms_ to be sung or said. Æðelst.
iv. § 3. v. 8. § 6. No one mistakes the meaning of _five hundred, five
thousand a year_.
Footnote 520:
1500 Kentish shillings, which are equivalent to rather more than 7800
Saxon shillings, were a sufficient sum, at a period when an ewe with
her lamb was worth only one Saxon shilling. Leg. Ini, § 55.
-----
Another, and perhaps more trustworthy document, printed at p. 190 of the
same volume, gives us the following values as current in Mercia.
“A ceorl’s wergyld is by Mercian law, two hundred shillings. A thane’s
wergyld is six times as much, that is, twelve hundred shillings. Then is
a king’s simple wergyld, six thanes’ wer by Mercian law, that is thirty
thousand sceats and that is altogether one hundred and twenty pounds. So
much is the wergyld in the folkright by Mercian law. And for the royal
dignity such another sum is due, as compensation for cynegyld. The _wer_
belongs to the kindred, the cynebót to the people.”
A passage already cited in this chapter gives the wergylds of the
freeman and noble in Wessex as respectively two hundred and twelve
hundred scillingas, whence those classes are called twýhynde and
twelfhynde: these denominations correspond to the old and usual ceorl
and eorl; and as the original expression for all classes of society was,
_be it churl, be it earl_, Cnut could use as perfectly equivalent, _be
it twýhynde, be it twelfhynde_[521]. But in Wessex a third class is
mentioned, whose wergyld was half that of the twelfhynde, and three
times that of the ceorl: they are called sixhynde, men of six hundred.
It is difficult to say whether they are the original nobles, three times
as valuable as the freeman, and whether the twelfhynde are an exclusive
class of magnates, raised above them during the progressive development
of the royal power; or whether, on the contrary, the twelfhynde and
twýhynde are the original divisions, and the sixhynde a middle class of
ministerials, which sprang up when ceorls had entered the service of the
crown, and thus became raised above their fellow freemen. I incline to
the latter opinion, partly from the apparent absence of this sixhynde
class in Mercia, partly from the apposition noticed above, and the
omission of the sixhynde altogether from the passage in Eádweard’s law,
which regulates the payments for the other two classes. There is no
statement of a royal wergyld in Wessex, but from what has been said of
the composition made for Múl, it may be inferred that it was thirty
thousand sceattas or 120 pounds, like that of Mercia. The total
inconsistency of these several values will be apparent if we arrange
them tabularly:
┌───────────────┬────────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────
│ │ Northumb.│ Mercia.│ Wessex.│ Kent.
├───────────────┼────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
│ │ þrymsas.│ Scil.│ Scil.│ Scil.
│King │ 15000│ 7200│ 7200│ 1500
│ │ +15000│ +7200│ +7200│ +1500
│Archbishop │ 15000│ │ │
│Æðeling │ 15000│ │ │
│Bishop │ 8000│ 1200│ 1200│ 360
│Ealdorman │ 8000│ 1200│ 1200│ 360
│Hold │ 4000│ │ 600│
│Heáhgeréfa │ 4000│ │ 600│
│Priest │ 2000│ │ 600│
│Þegen │ 2000│ │ 600│
│Freeman │ 266│ 200│ 200│ 180
└───────────────┴────────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────
If these data be accurate, we must conclude that the ratio of the king
and noble to the ceorl in the different states varied as follows:
North. king: ceorl::113:1 nearly.
Merc. king: ceorl:: 72:1.
Wessex king: ceorl:: 72:1.
Kent king: ceorl:: 172⁄9:1.
North. noble, 1st class:ceorl::56 :1 nearly.
2nd class:ceorl::30½:1 nearly.
3rd class:ceorl::15¼:1 nearly.
4th class:ceorl:: 7½:1 nearly.
Merc. noble : ceorl::6 : 1.
Wessex noble, 1st class: ceorl::6:1.
2nd class: ceorl::3:1.
Kent noble : ceorl::2:1.
-----
Footnote 521:
“Swá eác we settað be eallum hádum ge ceorle ge eorle.” Ælf. § 4.
“Cnut cing grét ... ealle míne þegnast welfhynde and twýhynde
freóndlíce.” Cod. Dipl. No. 731.
-----
Now this variety, which is totally irrespective of the real value of the
þryms and the shilling, seems to involve this part of the subject in
impenetrable darkness. All that we can permit ourselves to guess is,
that circumstances had in process of time altered the original relations
between the classes, but in different ratios in the different kingdoms.
This however is not all the difficulty: we have to contend with the
complication arising from the fact, that the scilling, the currency in
which all the southern calculations are nominally made, really differed
in value in the several states: and thus when we attempt to compare one
freeman with another, we find their respective prices to be in Mercia
833⅓ sceats, in Kent 3600.
However the details were arranged, the principle itself is clear enough,
and we must now be content to remain in ignorance of the means adopted
to reconcile conflicting interests measured by a standard so imperfect.
But the wergyld or price of the whole man was not all that the law
professed to regulate. When once the principle had been admitted, that
this might be fixed at a certain sum, it was an easy corollary not only
that the sum in question should limit the amount of responsibility to
the State[522] but that a tariff for all injuries should be settled. In
the laws of Æðelberht and Ælfred we find very detailed assessments of
the damage which could be done to a man by injuries, either of his
person, his property, or his honour: many of these are amusing and
strange enough, and highly indicative of the rude state of society for
which they were adapted. But it seems unnecessary to pursue the details
they deal with: they may serve to turn a period about Teutonic
barbarism, or to point a moral about human fallibility; but the
circumstances under which they were rational and convenient arrangements
have passed away, and they are now of little interest as historical
records, and of none with a view to future utility.
-----
Footnote 522:
Capital punishments are necessarily rare in early periods. Tacitus
limits those of the Germans to cases of high-treason or effeminacy,
two crimes which strike at the root of all society. Hence the highest
punishment is payment of the wergyld: a capital thief is wergyld-þeóf.
If he cannot or will not pay, he is outlawed, that is excluded from
the benefits of the mutual guarantee among free men: he may be slain
as a common enemy, _iure belli_, or reduced to slavery, which is the
more usual result.
-----