Chapter XLII: Section IV

_Expressive and remarkable names of the months—state of the coinage_, _or currency—general value of different commodities in this country before the conquest—slavery—comparison with the present course of things_.

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 2_l._ 16_s._ 3_d._ 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 1_l._ 17_s._ 9_d._ The _Mancus_, a real coin, was valued at the 8th. of a mark, or 4_s._ and 8_d._ 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.”