meyjar flugu sunnan
myrkvið igögnum.
and so in many passages. The darkness of the forest gives rise also to the adjective murky.
[76]. Tacitus says of the Semnones: “Stato tempore in silvam, auguriis patrum et prisca formidine sacram, omnes eiusdem sanguinis populi legationibus coeunt, caesoque publice homine celebrant barbari ritus horrenda primordia. Est et alia luco reverentia. Nemo nisi vinculo ligatus ingreditur, ut minor, et potestatem numinis prae se ferens. Si forte prolapsus est, attolli et insurgere haud licitum, per humum evolvuntur: eoque omnis superstitio respicit, tanquam inde initia gentis, ibi regnator omnium deus, cetera subiecta atque parentia.” Germ. 39. Again: “Apud Naharvalos antiquae religionis lucus ostenditur.” Ibid. 43. Without asserting the existence of the Mark among the Greeks with all the peculiar German characteristics, we may borrow from them an illustration and definition of its nature. Between the territories of the Athenians and Megareans lay a tract of land, the cultivation of which by the latter formed the pretext or justification of the excommunication launched against them by “Olympian” Pericles, which ultimately led to the Peloponesian war, and the downfal of Athens. The Athenians, Thucydides tells us, refused to rescind their intemperate decree, ἐπικαλοῦντες ἐπεργασίαν Μεγαρεῦσι τῆς γῆς τῆς ἱερας καὶ τῆς ἀορίστου· (Lib. i. 139), where the Scholiast explains ἀορίστου by οὐ σπειρομένης. Sacred and not divided into plots for cultivation by the plough, is the exact definition of a Teutonic Mark. Compare χοίριος νάπη (silva porcina) between Laconia and Messenia. Paus. iv. 1. In the legend of St. Gúðlác, the saint is said to occupy the desert wilderness, mearclond, the mark (Codex Exoniensis, p. 112, l. 16), and this is accurately defined as ídel ⁊ ǽmen, éðelrihte feor, empty and uninhabited, in which there were no rights of property. Ibid. p. 115. l. 9.
[77]. Caesar appears to have understood this. He says: “Civitatibus maxima laus est, quam latissimas circum se vastatis finibus solitudines habere. Hoc proprium virtutis existimant, expulsos agris finitumos cedere, neque quemquam prope audere consistere: simul hoc se fore tutiores arbitrantur, repentinae incursionis timore sublato.” This is true, but in the case of most settlements the necessity of maintaining extensive pasture-grounds must have made itself felt at a very early period.
[78]. Efese. Goth. Ubiswa. The name for this custom was Yfesdrype, Eavesdrip. In a charter of the year 868 it is said: “And by the custom (folces folcriht) two feet space only need be left for eavesdrip on this land.” Cod. Dipl. No. 296. In Greece the distances were solemnly regulated by law: see Plut. Solon, cap. 23.
[79]. The people in the hundreds of East and West Meon, Hampshire; in Herefordshire; and in Worcester and Gloucester.
[80]. To a very late period, the most powerful of our nobles were the Lords Marchers or Lords of the Marches of Wales and Scotland. Harald was lord of the Marches against the Welsh. And so the hereditary Markgraves or Counts of the Mark, Marchiones, have become kings in Germany and Italy. Our only Markgraviats by land could be against the Welsh on the west, the Picts and Scots on the north. There were undoubtedly others among the Saxons while their kingdoms remained unsettled: but not when once the whole realm became united under Æðelstán. The consolidation of the English power has put down all but transmarine invaders; hence the sea is become our Mark, and the commanders of our ships, the Margraves. But, as Blackstone rather beautifully says, “water is a wandering and uncertain thing,” and our Margraves therefore establish no territorial authority. The reader is referred to Dönniges, Deutsches Staatsrecht, p. 297, seq., for a very good account of the Marches of the German Empire.
[81]. If a stranger come through the wood, he shall blow his horn and shout: this will be evidence that his intentions are just and peaceful. But if he attempt to slink through in secret, he may be slain, and shall lie unavenged. Leg. Ini. § 20, 21. Thorpe, i. 114, 116. If the deathblow under such circumstances be publicly avouched, his kindred or lord shall not even be allowed to prove that he was not a thief: otherwise, if the manslaughter be concealed. This raises a presumption in law against the slayer, and the dead man’s kindred shall be admitted to their oath that he was guiltless.
[82]. Cod. Vercel. And. l. 38.