Now the medume leódgeld of the ceorl is stated to be one hundred shillings (§ 7), and if Grimm and Thorpe were right in translating this the half wergyld, we should have the very improbable sums of 200, 400 and 1666⅓ Kentish shillings. Meduma however does not signify half, but middling, moderate: the enactment in Æðelberht’s law amounts in fact to this: If a man slay another, he is to pay his wergyld; but not so, if the slayer happen to be the king’s armourer or messenger; in that case he is to pay only a moderated wergyld of one hundred shillings. It was an exemption in favour of two most important officers of the royal household; and shows partly the growing encroachment of prerogative, partly the value set upon the talents of the officers themselves[[513]]. The common wergyld then was above one hundred, and I think it can be shown that it was below two hundred, shillings. The case of a wergyld paid for a king, though rare, is by no means unexampled[[514]]. In the year 687, Múl Æðelweard, a scion of the royal race of Wessex, invaded Kent, and having incautiously suffered himself to be surprised by the country-people, was burnt to death in a house where he had taken refuge with a few comrades. Seven years later the men of Kent made compensation to Ini for Múl’s death. The sum given is very variously stated. William of Malmesbury says it was thirty thousand mancuses[[515]]; which, calculated at eight mancuses to the pound, would be three thousand, seven hundred and fifty pounds, and this is the sum mentioned by Florence of Worcester[[516]]. Æðelweard, the oldest Latin chronicler, but still removed four centuries from the time, makes it amount to thirty thousand solidi or shillings, each of which is to be calculated at sixteen pence[[517]]. Some manuscripts of the Saxon Chronicle read thirty thousand pounds[[518]], “þrittig þusend punda,”—others, thirty pounds, “þrittig punda.” Now however contradictory all these statements may at first sight appear (and there can be no doubt that some of them are ridiculously exaggerated), it is not impossible to reconcile and explain them. Every one of the authorities I have cited, except Florence, who has evidently calculated his sum upon what he believed to be the value of the mancus, reads thirty thousand of some coin or other. One will have them pounds, another shillings, another mancuses, etc. Now they are all wrong in their denomination, and all equally right in their number; and for this very obvious reason,—the originals from which they derived their information did mention the number, and did not mention the denomination. Each author put the question to himself, “Thirty thousand what?” and answered it by supplying the supposed omission with the coin most familiar to himself. But there cannot be the least doubt that the Saxon original read þrittig þusenda, thirty thousand, and nothing else; and this is not only actually the reading of some MSS. of the Chronicle, but most likely the cause of the error which lies in the other copies, incautious transcribers having been misled by the resemblance between the Saxon þ and p and mistaken the contraction þrittig þūnda for þrittig punda, thirty pounds. It is the custom of the Anglosaxon tongue, in describing measures of land or sums of money, to use the numerals only, leaving the commonest units to be supplied by the reader. Thus if land were intended, thirty thousand would denote that number of hides; and where money is intended, at least in Kent, thirty thousand scæts[[519]]. This then I believe to have been the sum paid to Ini, and the regular personal wergyld of a Kentish king. Let us now apply this sum to elucidate the value of the other Kentish wergylds. From a comparison of the compensation appointed for injuries done to the nails of the fingers and toes, Mr. Thorpe, the late Mr. Allen, and I concluded that the value of a Kentish shilling was twenty scæts. But thirty thousand scæts would be fifteen hundred such shillings, and assuming this to be the royal wergyld, we shall find the eorl’s to be 360, the ceorl’s 180 shillings, which amounts are exactly thirty times the value of the several mundbyrds[[520]]. In the first volume of Mr. Thorpe’s Anglosaxon Laws, at p. 186, there is a document which professes to give the values of different classes in Northumberland. Its date is uncertain, though it appears to have been generally assigned to the commencement of the tenth century. I confess that I can hardly reconcile myself to so early a date, and think it altogether a suspicious authority. It tells us as follows:
“1. The Northpeople’s royal gyld is thirty thousand thrymsas; fifteen thousand thrymsas are for the wergyld, and fifteen thousand for the royal dignity. The wer belongs to the kindred; the cynebót to the people.
“2. An archbishop’s and an æðeling’s wergyld is fifteen thousand thrymsas.
“3. A bishop’s and an ealdorman’s, eight thousand thrymsas.
“4. A hold’s and a king’s high reeve’s, four thousand thrymsas,
“5. A mass thane’s and a secular thane’s, two thousand thrymsas.
“6. A ceorl’s wergyld is two hundred and sixty-six thrymsas, that is two hundred shillings by Mercian law.
“7. And if a Welshman thrive so well that he have a hide of land, and can bring forth the king’s tax, then is his wergyld one hundred and twenty shillings; and if he thrive not save to half a hide, then let his wer be eighty shillings.
“8. And if he have not any land, but yet is free, let him be paid for with seventy shillings.
“9. And if a ceorlish man thrive so well that he have five hides of land for the king’s útware, and any one slay him, let him be paid for with two thousand thrymsas.