Nobilis (6912 w.g.) = 72 solidi of 3 tremisses or 1½ gold mark. Liber (4608 w.g.) = 48 ” or 1 gold mark. Litus (2304 w.g.) = 24 ” or ½ a gold mark. _Between the Fli and the Sincfal._ Nobilis (9600 w.g.) = 120 solidi of 2½ tremisses. Liber (4800 w.g.) = 60 ” ” Litus (2400 w.g.) = 30 ” ” It is interesting to observe that the wergelds of the two districts north of the Zuider Zee, when translated back again into local solidi, turn out to have been in even numbers of such solidi, as well as in even gold marks of the Scandinavian district, whilst those of the Southern district, most under Frankish influence, make even numbers of the local solidus but not of the mark. When these Frisian wergelds in local solidi are regarded in connection with the fact that the wergelds on the east or Saxon side of the Weser were, as we shall find, also paid in a local solidus, and that this Saxon local solidus, like the solidi of the North Frisian district, was of two tremisses, and further that it represented the value of the one-year-old bullock, we are led to conjecture that the Frisian local solidi also may have represented the animal in which the wergelds were originally reckoned and paid. And this may perhaps be confirmed by the fact that, down to comparatively modern times, the East Frisian silver currency consisted chiefly of the _gulden_ and its one-tenth the _schaap_. Possibly the _gulden_ of this silver currency may point back to a time when the ‘gold piece’ was reckoned of the value of ten sheep.[161] But this is conjecture only. The dog, as we have seen, was the only animal whose value was fixed in the laws. [Sidenote: Why only one third of 160 solidi?] The fact that the gold and the silver values of the wergelds of titles I. and XV. of the lex seem to correspond leads up once more to the difficult question why the wergeld of the liber should be exactly one third of what the Ripuarian law apparently declared it to have been. Richthofen, in his preface and notes to the Frisian laws in the edition of Pertz, points out that in later additions to the laws there is a curious duplication and triplication of figures which has to be accounted for. The facts seem to be these:-- In Tit. XXII. _De Dolg_, relating to the Middle district and forming part of the more ancient law, the fines for wounding are first given for the _liber_, and then an explanation is made in the Epilogue that those for the _nobilis_ were one third higher and those for the _litus_ one half less. The composition for the eye is stated to be half the wergeld. [Sidenote: Fines and perhaps wergelds trebled afterwards.]