[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.