The inhabitants of Lynn and the rest of their countrymen, in the Anglo-Saxon ages, could give more satisfactory reasons, it seems, for the names of their months, than we can for those of ours. December, which with them stood first, was called Midwinter-monath, the midwinter month. January, was denominated Aefter-yula, that is, after Christmas, or rather, after the feast called Yula, a pagan, riotous, lawless festival, observed at that time of the year, and to which our Christmas succeeded, with no small resemblance. February, they called Sol-monath, the sun month, from the returning of the sun at that season. March, they named Rhede, or Reth-monath, the rough, or rugged month. April’s name was Easter-monath, from a favourite Saxon goddess, whose festival was kept at that time, and may be said to be still kept by us, under the idea of the christian passover, which we seem to have dedicated to that same pagan goddess, by our continuing to preserve her precious memory, and celebrating the feast still in her name. May was called Trimilchi, from the cows being then milked three times in the day. June’s name was Seremonath, the dry month, July was called Mœd-monath, the mead month, from the meads being then in their bloom and beauty, or the people being there employed in hay making. August had the name of Weod-monath, the weed month, from the luxuriance, or abundance of weeds at that time. September was named Hærfest-monath, or the harvest month. October bore the name of Winter-fyllith, or winterfall, from winter approaching with the full moon of that month. November, their last month, they called Blot-monath, blood month, from the blood of the cattle then slain and stored for winter provision.
The Anglo-Saxons are said to have made use of coins as early as the reign of Ethelbright, or Ethelbert, who governed Kent from 561 to 616; as the fines ordered in his laws are all estimated by shillings, which was even then a denomination of money. The money-pound of the Anglo-Saxons, is thought to have been the same with the Tower-pound long in use at the mint, and to have weighed less than the Troy-pound by ¾ of a Troy-ounce. Its value was about 2l. 16s. 3d. of modern money. [268a] The Mark, like the Pound an imaginary coin, weighed eight ounces, or two thirds of the Pound. The merchant reckoned 12 ounces to the mark. Its value was 1l. 17s. 9d. The Mancus, a real coin, was valued at the 8th. of a mark, or 4s. and 8d. The Shilling, a real coin, was worth about eleven pence farthing of our money. The Anglo-Saxon penny, (pening, or sceata,) was a silver coin, and weighed near three-pence of our money. This little piece would do more in those times for its owner, than some shillings would do now. Halflings and Feorthlings, were the half, and the fourth, or quarter of the Anglo-Saxon penny, and were of silver. To these may be added a small brass coin called Styca. Beside these coins, it was usual with the Anglo-Saxons to complete the sum destined for any particular purpose, by adding what they called live money, such as oxen, sheep, horses, or slaves; [268b] which last species of traffick was carried to an almost incredible height of brutality.
The value or price of cattle, land, and other commodities, in the times of which we are now speaking, amounted to but a very small portion of what they now fetch.
“By the laws of Athelstan, (says Dr. Mavor) a sheep was valued at a shilling, or fifteen-pence of our money: an ox was computed at six times the value of a sheep, and a cow at four. A horse was valued at thirty shillings of our money, and a mare at twenty-four. Between the years 900 and 1000, a hide of land was purchased for about one hundred and eighteen shillings, which was little more than a shilling per acre. [269] On the whole, (he adds) when we combine the alteration in the weight of the pound, and the modern value of the precious metals from their greater plenty, we may conceive every sum of money mentioned by historians, during the Anglo-Saxon, and even the Norman times, as if it were multiplied more than a hundred-fold above a sum of the same denomination at present.”
Section V.
Probability that Lynn was formerly concerned in the exportation of slaves—comparison between the ancient and modern English slave-dealers—slaves and horses the chief exports of this country in those days—corn not then exported, though it had been formerly—imports—commerce—miscellaneous hints and observations.
Considering how very fruitful in slaves England appears to have been under the Anglo-Saxons, and how commonly they bought and sold their slaves, (and even their own kindred,) and that they were actually a principal article of their exports to other countries, [270] it is more than probable that Lynn and other Norfolk ports were then deeply concerned in that traffic.—Slaves are known to have then abounded in the parts about this town; and no other commodity, or produce of the country, was more marketable, or saleable, both at home and abroad; we may therefore be sure that the merchants and opulent people of Lynn were not inattentive to so fashionable and profitable a branch of commerce. Some indeed, even then, disapproved of it, and a bishop, of the name of Wolfstan, is said to have firmly set his face against it at Bristol, and to have made the people somewhat ashamed of their proceedings; but it does not appear that they relinquished it, for Bristol continued to be the chief English mart for slaves, long after his time. His conduct, however, was highly laudable, memorable, and exemplary; but where among our modern prelates, can we find one that has virtue or fortitude enough to imitate the noble example of Wolfstan!
How vile and mercenary must the character of those ancient English dealers in human flesh appear, when we contemplate them as selling their own countrymen and neighbours, and even their kindred! It reminds us of what has often been said of the modern commercial, or mercantile character: that a merchant would sell his own father, if he could do it safely and gainfully.—Between our ancient and modern English slave dealers, there is some dissimilarity, though they both acted from the same principle, and the conduct of each appears thoroughly unjustifiable and atrocious.—The latter dealt only in strangers, at a great distance, and of another colour; but the former trafficked, as was before observed, in their own countrymen, and near neighbours, brought up among them, and, occasionally, even in their own near relations. Of the two, therefore, the conduct of the ancients appears, at first sight, as far the most unnatural and stocking; but that will cease to be the case, upon further consideration, and when times and circumstances are duly attended to. Those ancients lived in rude and barbarous ages, when the natural rights of man were not understood, and when darkness visible was every where predominant; which must, in some measure, extenuate their misdeeds. But our modern slave-dealers have carried on their operations in the open day, and in the very face of the sun—they have adhered to this most barbarous and savage traffick in the most enlightened age of the world—they have persisted in it, in spite of the frequent and solemn remonstrances of the most virtuous and enlightened of their countrymen, and in defiance of the clearest demonstrations of the flagiciousness of their conduct. They have, therefore, no cloak for their sin, no excuse or palliating plea for their atrocities. To them belongs the pre-eminence of turpitude and infamy, and they may be said to stand at the head of those monsters who have been a disgrace to christianity, to humanity, and to their country.
Slaves and horses appear to have been the principal, if not the only articles exported from this country during the Anglo-Saxon ages. Corn constituted then no article of our exports, though it had done so formerly, in a considerable degree, while Britain formed a part of the Roman Empire. Agriculture must therefore have miserably declined here since the arrival of the Saxons, and the country had no reason to congratulate itself on its change of masters. After the introduction of Christianity the monks are said to have been, by much the best husbandmen, and also the best, if not the only gardeners in the country. They were certainly the most enlightened class of the community, and the little knowledge and learning which the country then possessed were chiefly, if not entirely, confined within the solemn precincts of the monasteries.
Of our imports in those days, books, relics, pictures, and images of saints, clerical vestments, and church ornaments, are said to have been the chief articles; which gives but a very miserable idea of the state of the country, and its commerce, in the mean time.—They were however, not the only articles, for it appears that wines also were imported from France and Spain, cloths from Germany and Flanders, furs, deer-skins, (and probably, bear-skins,) ropes, whale oil, &c. from Scandinavian and even a portion of all the different commodities then known in any part of Europe is supposed to have been at that period imported to this country. Yet the balance of trade is said to have been much in our favour—that is, we got much more by the sale of our Slaves and horses, in which our exports consisted, than what we lost or laid out in the purchase of all the various articles which we imported, many of which, at the same time, must have been pretty expensive. This seems to imply, that those Slaves and horses, with which foreign markets were supplied from hence, must have been very numerous, as well as very beneficial and lucrative to our English merchants.