Seþe bið wer-fæhðe betogen ⁊ he onsacan wille þæs sleges mid aðe þonne sceal bion on þære hyndenne an kyning [æðe] be xxx hida swa be gesiðcundum men swa be cierliscum swa hwæðer swa hit sie. Gif hine mon gilt þonne mot he gesellan on þara hyndenna gehwelcere monnan [and, _but not in H_] byrnan ⁊ sweord on ꝥ wer-gild gif he þyrfe. (54) He who is charged with _wer-fæhthe_ and he is willing to deny the slaying on oath; then shall there be in the ‘hynden’ one king’s oath of 30 hides as well for a gesithcund-man as for a ceorlisc-man whichever it may be. If he has to pay him, then may he give the man of any one of those ‘hyndens’ a coat of mail and a sword in the wergeld if he need. The last part of the clause is ambiguous, but on the whole, taking into account the Latin of the ‘Quadripartitus’ and Liebermann’s suggested translation and the difficulty of the various other suggested readings, I think it is most probable that the meaning may be, that if the man charged cannot get the required ‘king’s oath’ or that of another hynden without paying for it, he may give ‘a coat of mail and a sword’ to the ‘hynden’ if it should be needful. We may have to recur to this section, but without attempting to build anything upon this more than doubtful addition to it. Nothing important, I think, turns upon it. [Sidenote: Both classes must follow to the fyrd.] The following is important as showing that both the gesithcund and ceorlisc classes were under the military obligation to follow to the fyrd. Gif gesiðcund mon landagende forsitte fyrde geselle cxx scill. ⁊ þolie his landes, unlandagende lx scill. cierlisc xxx scill. to fierdwite. (51) If a gesithcund-man owning land neglect the fyrd, let him pay 120_s._ and forfeit his land, one not owning land 60_s._; a ceorlisc-man 30_s._ as fyrd-wite. The recurrence in so many clauses of Ine’s Laws of the division of classes into gesithcund and ceorlisc leads to the conclusion that it must have been a very prominent one. It was accepted in the Laws of Ine as a fact existing and of common knowledge, with no mark upon it of novelty or innovation. The distinction was evidently ancient and radical, and yet the word ‘gesithcund’ is not met with in any later laws. * * * * * [Sidenote: Mention of twelve-, six-, and twy-hynde classes.] Throughout the 76 clauses of the Laws of Ine only one makes direct mention of the division of classes into twelve-hynde and twy-hynde, the distinction so generally made in the later laws, and in this clause, as in King Alfred’s Laws, the six-hynde class also appears:-- Aet twy-hyndum were mon sceal sellan to mon-bot xxx scill. æt vi-hyndum lxxx scill. æt twelf-hyndum c.xx. (70) With a twy-hyndeman’s wer shall be given as man-bot xxx scillings with a six-hynde’s lxxx scillings, [? lx s.], with a twelve-hynde’s cxx scillings.[249]