Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law: Being an Essay Supplemental to (1) 'The English Village Community', (2) 'The Tribal System in Wales'Seebohm, Frederic
History
Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law: Being an Essay Supplemental to (1) 'The English Village Community', (2) 'The Tribal System in Wales'
Seebohm, Frederic
Anglo-Saxons; Law, Anglo-Saxon; Law, Medieval; Tribes -- Great Britain
If anyone commit hamsocn let him make bot for it with v pounds
to the King by English law, and in Kent from hamsocn v to the
King and three to the archbishop and by Danish law as it formerly
stood, and if he there be killed let him lie unpaid for.
It is not very clear what the _ham-socn_ was. In the Latin versions it
is translated by ‘invasio domi.’ And it seems to be the same thing as
the ‘heimsókn’ of the Norse laws.[295] It seems to be a breach of the
peace within the sacred precinct of the ‘heim,’ and the penalty seems to
place it on the same ground as the borh-bryce and mund-byrd of the king
so as to have become in Cnut’s time one of the crimes which in Kent also
involved a penalty of fifty Kentish scillings.[296]
Here, then, the inference again is that fifty Kentish scillings were
equal in Cnut’s time to five pounds of silver.
It is quite true that these two statements of Kentish law are not found
in the other manuscripts of Cnut’s laws, so that in one sense they may be
regarded as interpolations, but in the MS. G they are not insertions made
afterwards. In both passages the words form an integral part of the text,
which throughout is written in a clear and excellent hand.
It is difficult to suggest any reason for the insertion of these two
statements of Kentish law other than the deliberate intention to point
out that the amount of the Kentish king’s mund-byrd of fifty Kentish
scillings was the same as the Wessex mund-byrd of five pounds of silver.
In addition, therefore, to the fact that at a ratio of 1:12 between gold
and silver the two amounts were alike, these passages seem to show that
the penalty of fifty Kentish scillings had become permanently recognised
in Cnut’s time as equal to the English penalty of five pounds of
silver.[297]
If the comparison had been made throughout in silver sceatts, the
equation would not have held good so exactly, for 1000 sceatts would not
have equalled exactly five pounds, _i.e._ 1200 of the same sceatts. The
exact equation seems to have been between fifty Kentish gold scillings of
two tremisses, and five pounds of silver at the current Frankish ratio of
1:12. So that the direct evidence of these passages from Cnut’s laws goes
very far to verify the hypothesis derived from numismatic considerations
that the scilling of the Kentish laws was a gold scilling of two
tremisses, like that of the Continental Saxons and North-East Frisians.
[Sidenote: Scætts cannot have been farthings.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account