Chapter VII: Tribal Customs of the Tribes Conquered by Charlemagne (1)

I. THE EFFECT UPON WERGELDS OF THE NOVA MONETA.

[Sidenote: The _nova moneta_ of Charlemagne.]

We have reached a point in our inquiry at which it becomes necessary to trouble the reader with further details concerning the changes in the Frankish currency, made by Charlemagne.

We are about to examine the customs as regards wergelds of those tribes which owed their laws, in the shape in which we have them, to the conquests of Charlemagne. The alterations in the currency, made literally whilst the laws were in course of construction, naturally left marks of confusion in the texts relating to wergelds, and we have to thread our way through them as best we can.

[Sidenote: A change from gold to silver.]

The change which we have to try to understand was in the first place a change from a gold to a silver currency--_i.e._ from the gold currency of Merovingian solidi and tremisses to the silver currency of Charlemagne’s _nova moneta_.

There had been a certain amount of silver coinage in circulation before, but the mass of the coinage had been hitherto gold, mostly in gold tremisses.

In all the Frankish laws hitherto examined the monetary unit was the gold solidus with its third--the tremissis. And the only question was whether the solidi and tremisses were of Imperial or of Merovingian standard--whether the solidus was the Merovingian solidus of 86·4 wheat-grains and the tremissis 28·8, or the Imperial solidus of 96 wheat-grains and the tremissis 32.

[Sidenote: Merovingian kings first used and then imitated Imperial coin.]

As regards the Lex Salica, originally the solidus was probably of the Imperial standard, because the Merovingian kings at first in their coinage copied the Imperial coins both in type and weight. And before they issued a coinage of their own they made use of Imperial coins, both gold and silver. Numismatists point in illustration of this to the fact that in the tomb of Childeric at Tournay were found no Frankish coins, but a large number of Roman coins, gold and silver, of dates from A.D. 408 to those of the contemporary Emperor Leo I. (457-474). And for proof that these Roman coins were afterwards imitated by Merovingian princes M. Maurice Prou had only to refer the student ‘to every page’ of his catalogue of ‘Les Monnaies Mérovingiennes.’[126]

[Sidenote: The denarius of the Salic law first the scripulum and then the Merovingian silver tremissis of 28·8 w.g.]

Now, if the gold solidus was at first of 96 wheat-grains, then the denarius (one fortieth) would be 2·4 wheat-grains of gold, and at a ratio of 1:10 the denarius would be the scripulum of 24 wheat-grains of silver, which was called by early metrologists the ‘denarius Gallicus.’ Further, at 1:12 the denarius would become the Merovingian silver tremissis of 28·8. So that probably the denarius of the Lex Salica may originally have been the scripulum, and under later Merovingian kings their own silver tremissis. Thus these silver tremisses had probably been regarded as the denarius of the Lex Salica for a century or two at least before Charlemagne’s changes.

Up to this time, therefore, there was apparently a distinct connection between the reckoning and figures of the Lex Salica and the actual Frankish coinage. The Merovingian coinage of gold and silver tremisses of 28·8 wheat-grains was therefore, from this point of view, so to speak, a tribal coinage for the Franks themselves, but not one adapted for currency, over a world-wide Empire such as Charlemagne had in view, and with which at last, when adopting the title of Emperor, he had practically to deal.

The changes he made in the currency were intimately connected, not only in time but in policy, with the extension of his kingdom and his ultimate assumption of the Imperial title.

[Sidenote: Charlemagne, on conquest of Italy, raised the gold and silver tremissis to the Imperial standard of 32 w.g.]

His raising of the weight of the Frankish gold tremissis and silver denarius from the Merovingian standard of 28·8 to the Imperial standard of 32 wheat-grains was probably the result of his conquest of Italy. He seems to have arranged it with the Pope, for they issued silver denarii of the higher standard with the impress of both their names upon them.[127]

It was natural that he should wish his coinage to obtain currency throughout his dominions, and this could not be expected if it was continued at a lower standard than that of the Byzantine Emperor.

Not only in the currency, but also in other matters, extended empire involved the breaking down of tribal peculiarities and greater uniformity in legal provisions and practice.

[Sidenote: The Lex Salica still in force for Franks. And its family holdings not yet extinct.]

To mention one instance suggested by our previous inquiry, we have noticed how the extension of Frankish rule in Gaul from the Loire to the Garonne increased the difficulties of maintaining two laws as to land. Strangers under Roman law, as in the ‘de migrantibus,’ one by one were settling among Franks holding alods or family holdings of terra Salica. Extended conquests reversed the process, and in conquered provinces immigrants living under Salic law became strangers amongst vicini living under Roman, Burgundian, or Wisigothic law.

The family holdings of terra Salica must have now become the exception and not the rule. This becomes evident in the provisions made for the army.

In the Capitulare of A.D. 803,[128] _de exercitu promovendo_, it was ordered that every free man (‘liber homo’) who, _de proprio suo_ or as a benefice, had four _mansi vestiti_, that is mansi occupied by tenants, should equip himself and attend ‘in hostem.’ And those not having so many mansi were to club together so that for every four mansi a soldier should be found. The possession of mansi had apparently become sufficiently general to be taken as the typical form of landholding.

In A.D. 807[129] special arrangements were made for the case of the recently conquered Frisians and Saxons.

If help should be needed in Spain, every five of the Saxons were to equip a sixth. If the need arose nearer home, every two were to prepare a third. Or if the need arose still closer at hand, all were to come. Of the Frisians, counts and vassals and those who held benefices, all were to come, and of those who were poorer every six were to equip a seventh. There is no mention of mansi in the case of the Saxons and Frisians.

The Capitulare of A.D. 803 seems to show that in the longer settled districts of the Empire the possession of so many mansi, _de proprio suo_, was the prevalent form of landownership. So that, although the lex Salica remained still in force, the number of Franks living under it seems by this time to have borne a very small proportion to those living under Roman and other laws.

Family holdings under the Lex Salica were, however, probably not quite extinct. In the ‘Capitula generalia’ of A.D. 825[130] was inserted the following clause providing specially for family holdings, which may possibly have been holdings of _terra Salica_, though it is not so directly stated.

De fratribus namque qui simul in paterna seu materna hereditate
communiter vivunt, nolentes substantiam illorum dividere, hac
occasione, ut unus tantum eorum in hostem vadat, volumus ut si
solus est vadat: si autem duo sunt similiter: si tres fuerint
unus remaneat: et si ultra tres numerus fratrum creverit, unus
semper propter domesticam curam adque rerum communium excolentiam
remaneat. Si vero inter eos aliqua orta fuerit contentio, quis
eorum expeditionum facere debeat, prohibemus ut nemo illorum
remaneat. In ætate quoque illorum lex propria servetur. Similiter
et in nepotibus eorum hæc conditio teneatur.

Concerning brothers who together live in common in the paternal
or maternal inheritance, unwilling to divide their substance,
when occasion comes that one of them only should go _in hostem_,
we will that if there be one only he should go, and if there be
two the same: if there be three let one remain; and if the number
of brothers grows to more than three, let one always remain on
account of domestic care and to attend to their common concerns.
But if among them any contention shall have arisen which of them
ought to go on the expedition we prohibit that any one of them
shall remain. During their lives also let the _lex propria_ be
preserved. In the same way let this condition be kept to even
among their grandsons.

When we reflect that the Franks living under the Lex Salica must have thus sunk into a small minority, it becomes obvious that wider views must of necessity have entered into the minds of Charlemagne and his advisers, not only as regards land, but also as regards the currency.

[Sidenote: The currency of the Lex Salica only a local one.]

The currency of the Lex Salica, with its solidi of 40 denarii, was, as has been said, after all a local one. And outside the old Frankish boundary, in the Wisigothic region, as well as probably in Italy, the Roman currency or local modifications of it apparently more or less prevailed. Ecclesiastics, as we have seen, even Alcuin himself, still used the terms of Roman currency in writing on monetary matters to their friends outside the Empire.

[Sidenote: The Roman drachma or _argenteus_ of 72 w.g. the silver denarius of the Empire.]

To them the denarius was still the Roman drachma of 72 wheat-grains of silver, commonly called the _argenteus_, in contrast to the gold solidus or _aureus_.

Gregory of Tours, when he has occasion to mention monetary payments, speaks of _aurei_, _trientes_, and _argentei_. In one story he speaks of _solidi_, _trientes_, and _argentei_.[131]

Further, in a supplement to the laws of the Wisigoths[132] is a statement under the name of _Wamba Rex_ (A.D. 672-680), which apparently represents the monetary system in vogue south of the Frankish boundary. It states that the pound of gold equalled 72 gold solidi, so that the gold solidus was not the Merovingian solidus but that of Constantine. It then states that the ‘dragma’ of gold = ‘XII argentei.’ The argenteus being the silver drachma, the ratio of gold to silver was 1:12.

To Isidore of Seville, from his Spanish standpoint, the silver drachma was still the denarius.[133]

Dragma octava pars unciæ est et _denarii_ pondus argenti, tribus
constans scripulis.

The drachma is the eighth part of an ounce, and the weight of the
silver denarius containing three scripula.

_Solidus_ apud Latinos alio nomine ‘sextula’ dicitur, quod his
sex uncia compleatur; hunc, ut diximus, vulgus _aureum_ solidum
vocat, cujus tertium partem ideo dixerunt tremissem.[133]

The _solidus_ with the Romans is otherwise called the _sextula_
because it is one sixth of the ounce; hence, as we have said, the
vulgar call the _solidus_ the _aureus_, the third part of which
is called the tremissis.

Thus the solidus was the typical gold unit or aureus, and the drachma was the silver denarius or argenteus.

[Sidenote: Twelve drachmas of silver = at 1:10 the Merovingian gold solidus.]

It is remarkable that at a ratio of 1:10 twelve Wisigothic or Roman argentei or drachmas of silver equalled exactly in wheat-grains the Merovingian gold solidus current on the Frankish side of the Garonne or the Loire.[134]

It would seem, then, probable that traditionally and ‘according to ancient custom’ outside the Frankish kingdom the Merovingian gold solidus had been equated with twelve silver argentei or denarii of this reckoning, whilst within Frankish limits 40 of the silver tremisses and now of the pence of the nova moneta were reckoned as equal to the gold solidus of the Lex Salica.

But even to the Frank the 40 denarii of the Lex Salica may have become antiquated except for wergelds and other payments under its provisions.

[Sidenote: The silver solidus of 12 silver tremisses already in use in accounts, as 1/20 of the pound of silver of 240 pence.]

The practice apparently had already grown up of reckoning 12 of the silver tremisses as a solidus of silver, twenty of which went to the pound of 240 pence, without, however, any pretence being made that this solidus of twelve silver pence was to be reckoned as equal to the gold solidus in making payments.

In the ‘Capitulare Liftinense’ of A.D. 743[135] a payment is enacted _de unaquaque cassata solidus, id est 12 denarii_. It was necessary to make this explanation.

It is not known how much earlier the practice of reckoning in pounds of silver of 20 solidi of 12 denarii came into vogue, but it was long before the issue of the nova moneta.

It might at first sight be thought that these twelve denarii may have been twelve _argentei_ or drachmæ, but 240 drachmæ would make far more than a pound. And by an edict of A.D. 765[136] Pippin had enacted that out of a pound of silver not more than 22 solidi were to be made, one of which was to go to the monetarius, and this clearly forbids the supposition that the solidus could be of twelve drachmæ. The pound would contain only eight such solidi.

Another Capitulare of A.D. 779[137] proves that the twelve denarii were Merovingian denarii of 28·8 wheat-grains.[138]

The issue of the new denarii of 32 wheat-grains was apparently made before A.D. 781, for in that year an edict was passed forbidding the currency of the old denarii.[139]

[Sidenote: The pound of the _nova moneta_ was 240 pence of 32 w.g. = 7680 w.g.]

There was nothing very remarkable in this raising of the silver denarius from 28·8 to 32 wheat-grains. It was merely adopting the Imperial standard. But the extraordinary thing was that Charlemagne seems to have thought that he could, by law, substitute the solidus of 12 of his silver denarii for the _gold solidus_ hitherto in use. The gold currency was going out and the silver currency was taking its place; but it was quite another thing to make the solidus of 12 silver denarii of 32 wheat-grains legal tender in the place of the gold solidus of the Lex Salica of 40 silver denarii of 28·8 wheat-grains. Yet this was what Charlemagne did, though perhaps only by degrees.

[Sidenote: Charlemagne enacted that the silver solidus should be legal tender for the gold solidus.]

The change was made under the pretence of the sanction of ancient custom. In the addition made to Tit. XXXVI. of the Ripuarian law the wording of the clause as to the payment of wergelds was ‘Quod si cum argento solvere contigerit, pro solido duodecim denarios, _sicut antiquitus est constitutum_.’ And this allusion to antiquity was repeated.

What was meant by this appeal to ancient custom it is not easy to see, unless it might be the probably long-established equation already mentioned between 12 Roman drachmas or argentei and the Merovingian gold solidus. Very possibly this equation was older than that of the 40 denarii to the solidus of the Lex Salica.

In a series of remarkable articles contributed to the _Forschungen zur Deutschen Geschichte_ of 1862,[140] Dr. Ad. Soetbeer endeavoured to show, and with considerable force, that the introduction into the Lex Salica of the round numbers of denarii--forty to the solidus--was of comparatively late date; and if this hypothesis be correct, then it may be that Charlemagne was appealing to an earlier Frankish custom of reckoning 12 silver denarii or drachmæ to the gold solidus. But even if it could be so, obviously the denarii of 12 to the solidus of ancient custom cannot have been the same denarii as those which afterwards were reckoned at 40 to the solidus.[141]

[Sidenote: This involved a ratio of 1:4.]

Economically speaking, the substitution of the solidus of 12 denarii for the gold solidus, if they had been Roman drachmæ, would have been reasonable and might have made no change in prices; but the substitution of 12 of the new denarii of 32 wheat-grains for the forty denarii of 28·8 wheat-grains, involving a ratio between gold and silver of 1:4, could only be justified by such a scarcity of silver as would prevent a rise in prices. That it was not so justified became very soon apparent.

Following the order of date, the Capitulare of A.D. 785, ‘de partibus Saxoniæ,’ shows that prices when quoted in the solidus of 12 pence immediately rose. The ox, the traditional value of which was two gold solidi, is reckoned as worth ten silver solidi. And M. Guérard has shown from the various instances given in the ‘Polyptique d’Irminon’ that on the estates of the Abbey of St. Germain-des-Prés the price of oxen remained at an average of eight silver solidi long after the death of Charlemagne.[142]

The Lex Salica continued in force with all its fines and wergelds stated in gold solidi of 40 denarii. And a Capitulare of A.D. 801[143] contains the following section which reveals the beginning of confusion:--

[Sidenote: Exception made as to Saxons and Frisians.]

Ut omnis solutio atque compositio, que in lege Saliga continetur,
inter Francos per duodecim denariorum solidos componatur, excepto
hubi contentio contra Saxones et Frisones exorta fuit, ibi
volumus ut 40 dinariorum quantitatem solidus habeat quem vel Saxo
vel Frisio ad partem Salici Franci cum eo litigantis solvere
debet.

That every payment and composition which is contained in the lex
Salica between Franks shall be paid by solidi of twelve pence,
except that where a dispute has risen up against Saxons and
Frisians we will that the solidus shall be of the amount of 40
pence which either a Saxon or a Frisian ought to pay to a Salic
Frank at law with him.

In A.D. 803 a clause was inserted in a Capitulare to the effect that all debts to the King should be paid in solidi of 12 denarii ‘excepta freda quæ in lege Saliga scripta sunt.’[144] This looks like a general reservation of the fines and wergelds of the Lex Salica. But it does not seem to have been so intended, or perhaps there was vacillation in the Councils of the Emperor.

A Capitulare of A.D. 816[145] contained the following:--

De omnibus debitis solvendis _sicut antiquitus fuit constitutum_
per duodecim denarios solidus solvatur per totam Salicam legem,
excepto leudis, si Saxo aut Friso Salicum occiderit, per 40
dinarios solvant solidum. Infra Salicos vero ex utraque parte de
omnibus debitis sicut diximus 12 denarii per solidum solvantur,
sive de homicidiis sive de omnibus rebus.

In the payment of all debts _according to ancient custom_ the
solidi shall be paid by 12 denarii throughout Salic Law, except
in the case of wergelds, if a Saxon or Frisian shall kill a Salic
Frank let the solidus be paid by 40 denarii. Among Salic Franks,
however, on both sides as to all debts, as we have said, 12 denarii
shall be paid for the solidus, whether in the case of homicides or
anything else.

As between Salic Franks, therefore, the solidus of 12 denarii was to be legal tender in payment of wergelds and everything else.

[Sidenote: The _nova moneta_ enforced by penalties.]

This was all very well for debtors, but it was not so satisfactory to creditors. The exception that, when a Frank was killed by a Saxon or a Frisian, the wergeld was still to be paid in the solidus of 40 denarii, was an admission that to receive it in solidi of 12 denarii would have been a hardship. And as to the general public, the acceptance of payment of debts in the denarii of the nova moneta had to be secured by penalties. A clause was introduced into the Capitulare of A.D. 794[146] according to which freemen refusing the new denarii were to be fined 15 solidi; whilst servi refusing them were to be publicly beaten naked at a post.

[Sidenote: And it became permanent and was adopted by Offa and Alfred.]

The permanent result was very remarkable. The new currency was maintained as legal tender in France, and the gold currency practically disappeared. Charlemagne and his successors coined very few more gold solidi and tremisses. King Offa and after him Alfred raised the English sceat to the penny of 32 wheat-grains, probably in imitation of the nova moneta, and Charlemagne’s pound of 240 of these pence--_i.e._ of 7680 wheat-grains of silver--became generally recognised as the pound of monetary reckoning in Western Europe.

[Sidenote: But the ratio between gold and silver went back to 1:12.]

So far Charlemagne triumphed. But in the meantime the artificial ratio of 1:4, sought to be established between gold and silver, could not be maintained. The pound of silver remained the standard in accounts, but one of Charlemagne’s successors restored the Imperial ratio of 1:12 and enacted that the pound of pure gold should no longer be sold at any other price than 12 pounds of silver. The date of the edict by which this restoration of the old ratio was secured was A.D. 864.[147]

These were the changes in the currency which took place during the period of the formation of the Lex Frisionum and Lex Saxonum which we have next to examine.

No wonder that they should have introduced confusion and alterations in the text of the various clauses. And in order that we may be able to feel our way through them it now only remains that we should realise the actual difference between the amount of silver in the 40 denarii of the solidus of the Lex Salica and the amount of silver in the 12 denarii of the new solidus of the _nova moneta_ which had thenceforth to take its place as legal tender in the payment of debts and wergelds.

In the first place, we know that the denarius of the nova moneta was a silver penny of 32 wheat-grains, so that Charlemagne’s solidus of 12 silver pence contained 384 wheat-grains of silver.

[Sidenote: All debts could be paid in one third of the weight of silver required before.]

In the next place, whatever the denarii of the Lex Salica may originally have been, we know that the Merovingian silver denarii which had long been current in France and in England were of the same weight as the Merovingian gold tremisses, viz. 28·8 wheat-grains. Forty of these would contain 1152 wheat-grains of silver--_i.e._ exactly three times as much silver as the twelve denarii of the nova moneta.

So that if a wergeld were paid in silver it could now be paid in exactly one third of the weight of silver hitherto required under the Salic law, and so of every other debt.

Finally, not only was the ratio between gold and silver disturbed, but also the ratio between money and cattle. And this was an important matter in the payment of wergelds, for, as we have seen, the normal wergeld was 100 head of cattle. Obviously, wergelds would no longer be paid, as of old, either in gold or in cattle, when they could be paid at a third of the value in silver.

[Sidenote: In which currency are the wergelds of the Frisians and Saxons recorded in the laws?]

In framing new laws representing the old customs of the newly conquered Frisians and Saxons, the question would certainly arise whether the wergelds were to be stated in the equivalent of their old customary value in cattle, or reduced to one third of their old value by retaining the traditional number of solidi as if they were still of the gold value.

We have seen that Frisians and Saxons were exceptionally dealt with; but they had now become a part of the Empire, and, with the best intentions, how was the framer of their laws to describe their ancient wergelds which had hitherto been paid in gold solidi or in cattle? No one of the courses open to him would be without its difficulties.

He might record the customary wergeld as still to be paid in gold solidi; in which case the wergeld would be three times that of neighbouring tribes who could now pay their wergelds in silver.

Or he might divide the amount of the ancient wergeld by three, so as to reduce it to the lower level; in which case the number of animals in which by long custom the wergeld had been paid would be worth three times the wergeld payable in gold.

These would be the alternatives if the payment in gold were continued, and never as yet in any of the laws had the wergelds been stated otherwise than in gold.

There was only one other way open to the legislator, if he wished to keep up the old customary values, viz. to translate the gold values at the old ratio into the new silver solidi: that is, to treble the gold figures of the ancient customary wergelds and make them payable in silver solidi. This would probably be the best course if he wished to continue the old relation of the wergelds to the animals in which they had hitherto been mostly paid. But then it might be difficult to enforce the payment of wergelds in silver in districts where the currency was still gold.

The legislator would, in any case, have to make up his mind whether to lower the ancient wergelds of the newly conquered tribes to a third of what they had been, or to keep up the value of the wergelds and the number of cattle in which they had from time immemorial been paid.

The wergeld in the popular tribal mind was a thing so fixed and so sacred that the makers of the Lex Frisionum and the Lex Saxonum were almost certain to find themselves between the horns of a dilemma.

II. THE LEX FRISIONUM.

The tribes conquered by Charlemagne, whose laws we have now to examine, differed from those whose laws and wergelds have been already considered in one important particular. They were not conquering tribes which had migrated into districts already under Roman law.

The conquests of Charlemagne over the Frisians and Saxons were conquests of German tribes settled as of old in their own countries. They were, moreover, conquests of still pagan tribes by Christian and partly Romanised Franks.

Frankish conquest had extended far into Frisian and Westphalian territory under the Merovingian kings. In Frisia Frankish influence was shown by the existence of Merovingian mints at Duurstede.[148] In Westphalia, at Soest and Paderborn, there were already Christian churches under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Cologne. But neither the conquest nor the conversion was completed till the time of Charlemagne.

[Sidenote: Was the wergeld 160 solidi?]

We have already learned from Titles XXXI. and XXXVI. of the Ripuarian law that there were Frisians as well as Saxons, Burgundians, Alamanni, and Bavarians resident in the Ripuarian district. Moreover, it was directly stated that these immigrants were to be judged, not by Ripuarian law, but by their own law and custom. Further, being often isolated and without kindred near them to swear for them, if charged with crime they were to clear themselves by the ordeal of fire or lot. And finally their wergeld was stated to be 160 solidi, the inference being that this was the wergeld of the Frisian freeman in his own country, by the law and custom of which he was to be judged.

So that we approach the text of the Frisian law with this valuable earlier knowledge in our possession. Two centuries before the date to which the collection of Frisian laws is assigned, the Ripuarian law bears witness that the Frisian wergeld was 160 solidi. Even if these clauses were not a part of the original text and did not date back to the sixth century,[149] the inference would be strong, and perhaps all the stronger, that such must have been the wergeld at the later date of the Frisian law. This earlier evidence is important, as, without the clue it gives us and with nothing but the Frisian law to guide us, we might very easily have been led to a wrong conclusion.

[Sidenote: The laws are of different dates.]

There seems to be no text of the Frisian laws earlier than that published by Herold at Basle in 1557, and he does not state from whence he obtained the text followed by him.[150]

Moreover, it is clear from internal evidence that the laws as we have them are by no means of one single date. They form, in fact, a collection of the customs of the three districts into which Frisia was divided, with modifications and various additions made to the original collection at different times.

At first sight there are inconsistencies in the statements of the wergelds, and, as in other cases, the key to an understanding of them is to be found, to some extent, in close attention to the currencies in which the amounts of the compositions are stated.

It is not necessary to enter into any discussion of the various theories suggested to meet the difficulties caused by the confusion of the various currencies. The knowledge already obtained in the course of this inquiry will, I think, if adhered to, suffice to clear the way sufficiently for our purpose. Bearing in mind that the ‘Lex Frisionum’ as we have it is a compilation with various additions, the inconsistencies in the text will be no surprise provided that the reason for their occurrence is apparent.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: The three districts of Frisia and their local solidi.]

Frisia was divided into three divisions, and in certain glosses which appear late in the laws[151] we are told that each division had a separate solidus of its own.

(1) Between the _Laubach_ and _Weser_ (the Northern division) the solidus is described as of two denarii, _i.e._ tremisses, of the nova moneta.[152] This solidus, we shall find, was like that of the Saxon tribes on the Eastern side of the Weser. The solidus, being of two tremisses, contained sixty-four wheat-grains of gold.

(2) In the middle division, between the _Laubach_ and _Fli_, the solidus is said to have been of three denarii, or tremisses, of the nova moneta,[153] _i.e._ ninety-six wheat-grains of gold. This solidus is the gold solidus of three tremisses after it had been raised by Charlemagne to the standard of the Eastern Empire.

(3) In the Southern or Western divisions, between the _Fli_ and the _Sincfal_, the solidus was 2½ denarii or tremisses _ad novam monetam_, _i.e._ eighty wheat-grains of gold.[154]

But it seems to be clear that the statements of the wergelds and other fines in earlier clauses of the laws are not made in these local solidi.

Thus in Title XVI. we are told that _Inter Laubachi et Sincfalam_, _i.e._ in both Middle and Southern divisions, in cases of homicide the payment to the lord for breach of his peace (_de freda_) was thirty solidi, ‘_which solidus consists of three denarii_,’ although the local solidus of the Southern division was that of 2½ tremisses. Sometimes the fines are stated in solidi of three tremisses and sometimes in solidi of 20 to the pound. There is no difficulty, after what we have seen in other laws, in recognising in the solidus of three tremisses the _gold solidus_, and in the solidus of 20 to the pound the _silver solidus_ of the Frankish Empire.

Again, we at once recognise in the term _nova moneta_ the new standard of Charlemagne, and in the term _veteres denarii_, which also occurs in the laws, the gold or silver tremisses of the Merovingian currency before the monetary reform of Charlemagne.

All this is exactly what might be expected in laws of somewhat different dates, some of them perhaps going back to the time of the Merovingian conquests, and others following upon the conquests of Charlemagne.

[Sidenote: Wergelds in gold solidi under Tit. I.]

Having thus so far cleared the way, we pass on to the amounts of the wergelds as stated in the Lex.

Title I. is headed _Incipit lex Frisionum, et hæc est simpla compositio de homicidiis_. And the wergelds of the three districts as stated in the text and glosses may be tabulated as follows:--

(1) _Between the Laubach and the Weser._[155]

Nobilis 106 solidi and 2 denarii (or tremisses)
Liber 53 ” ” 1 denarius
Litus 26½ ” ” ½ tremissis

(2) _Between the Laubach and the Fli._[156]

Nobilis 80 solidi Payable ⅔ to the heir of the slain and ⅓
to his ‘propinqui proximi.’
Liber 53 ” and 1 denarius (_i.e._ tremissis).
Litus 27 ” less 1 denarius (payable to his lord).
” 9 ” less ⅓ denarius payable to the propinqui of
the slain.

(3) _Between the Fli and the Sincfal._[157]

Nobilis 100 solidi }
Liber 50 ” } of three denarii [_i.e._ tremisses]
Litus 25 ” } _novæ monetæ_

These wergelds, with one exception, are alike throughout, so far as regards the proportions between the three classes. The wergeld of the liber is double that of the litus, and that of the nobilis double that of the liber except in the Middle district, in which the wergeld of the nobilis is only 1½ times that of the liber. In the same district there is an additional payment to the _propinqui_ of the litus, his proper wergeld, half of that of the liber, going to his lord.

It will be observed that in the last district only are the denarii (_i.e._ tremisses) stated to be _novæ monetæ_. The inference is that in the other two districts the tremisses, and therefore the solidi, were of the lower Merovingian standard.

The district in which the tremisses were novæ monetæ was the Southern district, first conquered and most thoroughly brought under Frankish influence. The other two districts had apparently not yet so completely come under it.

Accordingly, if we take the 106⅔ solidi of the nobilis of the Northern district to be of Merovingian standard, the result is (106½ × 86·4 wheat-grains) 9216 wheat-grains, or exactly 16 Roman ounces, _i.e._ the mina called, as we have seen, the Attic mina, which in Scandinavian usage was divided into two gold marks.

The wergeld of the nobilis in the Middle district between the Laubach and the Fli is stated to be 80 solidi instead of 106 solidi and two denarii. But as the wergeld of the liber and litus are the same as those of the Northern district, and therefore also presumably expressed in Merovingian currency, the wergeld of 80 solidi of the nobilis, to be consistent, should also be of the same Merovingian standard. And so it seems to have been, for 80 Merovingian solidi (80 × 86·4 wheat-grains) make exactly the Roman pound of 6912 wheat-grains or 12 Roman ounces, _i.e._ 1½ gold marks.

In the wergelds of both Northern districts, therefore, an original reckoning in gold marks of the Scandinavian system seems to have been afterwards translated with exactness into an uneven amount and fractions of solidi of the Merovingian standard.

[Sidenote: Wergelds in gold marks of the Baltic tribes.]

We may therefore state the wergelds of the two districts north of the Zuider Zee in marks of the Scandinavian system thus:

Nobilis 2 or 1½ gold marks.
Liber 1 ” mark.
Litus ½ ” mark.

That these wergelds could be stated thus evenly in gold marks of the Scandinavian system, whilst in Frankish solidi they could be stated only in uneven numbers and fractions, is an interesting fact. It seems to show that the original wergelds went back to a time when the trade intercourse of Northern Frisia was connected mainly with Scandinavia, the Baltic, and the Eastern trade route. In ‘Beowulf’ we found that Frisia was on the horizon of the area included within the vision of the poet, the interest of whose story lay chiefly in the Baltic.

[Sidenote: Only one third of 160 solidi.]

Now let us compare the wergeld of the liber in these districts, viz. 53 solidi and 1 tremissis of Merovingian currency, with what the statement in the Ripuarian law would lead us to expect it to have been, viz. 160 of the same solidi. It is exactly one third of what it ought to be. And the inference from what we have learned in the last section would be that the maker of the laws had divided the wergeld of ancient custom by three.

But for the moment we pass on to follow further the text of the Frisian laws.

[Sidenote: Slave to be paid for at his value.]

In s. 11 of Tit. I. it is enacted that if any one, whether nobilis, liber or litus, or servus, shall slay the servus of another, he shall compound for the servus according to his value. And in s. 13 of the same title it is stated that if a slave shall kill either a nobilis or liber or litus, unknown to his lord, the lord of the slave shall swear that he did not order it and pay twice the value of the slave. But if the lord cannot deny that he ordered it he must pay for the homicide as if he had done it with his own hand.

In Title IV. it is again enacted that if any one shall kill the slave of another he shall be compounded for at the value put upon him by his lord. And the same rule is made to apply to the case of a horse, ox, sheep, goat, pig, and all domestic animals, except the dog: they are all to be paid for at the owner’s estimate of value, or the alleged slayer must clear himself with as many oaths as the judge may require.

[Sidenote: Value of the dog.]

The _dog_ is the only animal whose value is fixed by the law. And its value at first sight was not the same in the several divisions.

_Between Laubach _Between Laubach
and Sincfal._ and Weser._

Dog for hawking 4 sol. 8 solidi and 12
Wolfhound accustomed to kill wolves 3 sol.
Wolfhound which wounds but does not kill 2 sol. 8 ”
Shepherd dog 1 sol. 4 ”

The difference between the value of the dog in the Northern and the other divisions can hardly be other than one of different currencies. Probably the values for the Northern division may be silver values. It may, however, be remarked in passing that the value of a dog in any case is not lightly to be regarded as excessive. Its high value in the Frisian laws, and also in other laws, shows how dependent the tribes surrounded by forests were upon its help. In the Cymric Codes, as we have seen, the herdsman’s dog was worth as much as an ox. In the Alamannic Laws the shepherd dog which could kill a wolf was valued at 3 gold solidi, or half as much again as the ‘best ox,’[158] and in the Lex Salica the _canis pastoricalis_[159] was valued at 3 solidi. It is not difficult, therefore, to understand how in Frisia the dog which could kill a wolf should be worth 3 gold solidi, and the ordinary shepherd dog a gold solidus.

We now come to a set of clauses in which the differences between the three districts again appear, and in one of which, viz. again the district between the Laubach and the Weser, we meet with values stated in _silver solidi_ of 20 to the pound, _i.e._ of twelve pence.

[Sidenote: Methods of compurgation and ordeal.]

These clauses are interesting as illustrating Frisian methods of compurgation, the ordeal of the lot and of hot water, and trial by battle, all of which evidently belong to ancient tribal custom.

Title XIV. relates to the slaying of a man in a crowd, and describes the means taken to ascertain whose deed it was. Each division had its own custom. That of the _Middle district_ is first described:--

The relative of the slain may summon seven men and charge each
of them with the crime, and each is then put upon his oath with
eleven co-swearers. Then they are to go to the church, and lots
are to be cast upon the altar, or if the church be too far off
the lots are to be cast upon relics.

The lots are to be two pieces (tali) cut from a rod and called
_teni_, on one only of which is the sign of the cross, the other
being left blank. A clean cloth is to be spread over the altar
or the relics, and then the priest (or if none, an innocent boy)
ought to take one of the lots from the altar and pray God to show
by some evident sign whether those seven who have sworn have
sworn truly. If he takes up the lot marked with the cross, then
those who have sworn were innocent. But if he takes up the other,
then each one of the seven makes his own lot, from a rod, and
marks his own sign on it, and so that both he and those standing
by can recognise it. And the lots shall be wrapped up in clean
cloth and laid upon the altar or relics, and the priest, if he be
there, and if not the innocent boy, as above, shall take up each
of them one by one from the altar, and shall ask him who knows
it to be his own lot. And he whose lot happens to be last shall
be compelled to pay the composition for the homicide. The rest,
whose lots have already been taken up, are absolved.

But if, in the first trial of the two lots, he takes up the one
marked with the cross, the seven shall be innocent, as aforesaid,
and he (the accuser), if he wishes, shall summon others for the
same homicide, and whoever may be summoned ought to clear himself
by complete oath with 11 co-swearers. And this shall be enough
for the accuser, nor can he bring any one further to the lot.

This law prevailed between the Laubach and the Fli. But between the Fli and the Sincfal for a case of this kind the following was the custom:--

He who seeks composition for a homicide shall swear on saints’
relics that he will not summon in this matter other than those
who are suspected by him of the actual homicide: and then he
shall summon for the homicide one or two, or even three or four,
or however many there be who have wounded him who was slain. But
though there were twenty, or even thirty, yet not more than seven
are to be summoned, and each of those summoned shall swear with
eleven others, and shall, after the oath has been tested by the
judgment of God, show himself innocent by the (ordeal of) boiling
water. He who swears first shall go to the ordeal first, and the
rest in order. He who shall be found guilty in the ordeal shall
pay the composition for the homicide, and to the king twice his
own wergeld: the rest of his co-swearers shall be treated as
above concerning perjurers.

Between the Laubach and the Weser the following was the custom:--

He who seeks composition for homicide shall summon one man,
declaring him to be the homicide of his kinsman, and saying
that he ought to pay the ‘leud’ of the slain man. And if he, in
reply, says that he is willing to purge himself on oath with his
co-swearers, let him who has summoned him as homicide say that
he wishes to summon him _in placito publico_, and let him so do.
Let him summon him _in placito_ before judges, and let him who
is summoned, if he cannot deny, show another defendant for the
homicide of which he is accused. And this ought to be done thus:

Let him produce the man he wishes, and let him swear “he is
guilty of the homicide for which I am summoned,” holding him by
the hem of his cloak. But if he wishes to deny this oath let him
swear and go forth to wager of battle against him. And whichever
of them in that battle is conquered (_et sibi concrediderit_)
shall pay the ‘leud’ of the slain. But if he be slain his next
heir shall pay the composition of the homicide. But in this
battle it is lawful for either to pay a champion for himself if
he can find one. If the hired champion is slain, let him who
hired him pay sixty _solidi_ (_i.e._ _three libræ_) to the king,
and over and above pay the ‘leud’ of the slain man.

[Sidenote: Wergelds stated in silver.]

The payment of _sixty solidi_--_i.e._ _three libræ_--clearly indicates that the solidus of this clause was the Frankish silver solidus of 12_d._, of which 20 made the pound of silver. And this helps us to understand that the compositions described in the immediately succeeding and closely connected clause are also silver values. (Tit. XV.)

This is the custom in the same region observed for the
composition of wergeld:--

(1) Composition of a _nobilis homo_ }
‘per denarios veteres’ } 11 lbs.

(2) Composition of the _liber_ ‘per }
denarios veteres’ } 5½ lbs.

(3) Composition of a _litus_, of which }
two thirds pertains to the } 2 lbs. 9 oz.
lord, one third to his kinsman }

(4) Composition of a _servus_ 1 lb. 4½ oz.

There can, I think, be no doubt that the libræ of this clause are silver pounds, and further, that as they are stated to be pounds ‘per denarios veteres’ they must be pounds of Merovingian and not of Carlovingian weight.

[Sidenote: These silver values equal to the gold ones at the Norse ratio 1:8.]

The pounds of this statement are therefore Roman pounds, of 240 Merovingian pence. Let us compare then the wergeld of the liber of 5½ such pounds of silver with the wergeld of the liber as stated in Tit. I., which we saw was equivalent to one mark of gold. Following the Scandinavian ratio of 1:8, the mark of 8 ounces of gold would equal 64 ounces of silver--_i.e._ 5⅛ pounds instead of 5½. The silver wergeld of the nobilis would equal 10⅔ pounds instead of 11. The reckoning is rough, but near enough to justify the conclusion that what was aimed at was the nearest even pound of silver, and that therefore the wergeld of the one statement is the equivalent of the wergeld of the other statement.

At the same time the fact of the reckoning being throughout in Roman, _i.e._ Merovingian pounds, and not in those of Charlemagne’s _nova moneta_, is instructive. It shows that this clause belongs to the period during which the silver currency was pushing its way into Frisia. A reckoning in silver had become necessary, although, as we happen to know, the Frisians had a special liking for gold. They continued to coin gold much longer than the Franks, and some years later than the date of the laws. The Frisians were in close contact with the mint at Duurstede, which was in fact the commercial metropolis of the North at the date of the laws. The mint at Duurstede continued to coin gold coins till the city was destroyed by the ravages of the Northmen in A.D. 837, and it was from these Duurstede Frisian coins that the types were taken of the first Scandinavian coinage.[160] In the meantime the close connection between Frisia and the Scandinavian district is quite sufficient to account for the Scandinavian ratio of 1:8 being the one used in the translation of the gold wergeld of the district next to the Weser into a silver equivalent.

[Sidenote: The wergelds in the local gold solidi.]

Let us now at last translate the wergelds of the three Frisian districts, as stated in Tit. I. in gold solidi of three tremisses, back again into what they must have been when reckoned in the local solidi. If originally they were reckoned in these local solidi the result should be in even numbers.

_Between the Laubach and the Weser._

Nobilis (9216 w.g.) = 144 solidi of 2 tremisses or 2 gold marks.
Liber (4608 w.g.) = 72 ” or 1 gold mark.
Litus (2304 w.g.) = 36 ” or ½ a gold mark.

_Between the Laubach and the Fli._

Nobilis (6912 w.g.) = 72 solidi of 3 tremisses or 1½ gold mark.
Liber (4608 w.g.) = 48 ” or 1 gold mark.
Litus (2304 w.g.) = 24 ” or ½ a gold mark.

_Between the Fli and the Sincfal._

Nobilis (9600 w.g.) = 120 solidi of 2½ tremisses.
Liber (4800 w.g.) = 60 ” ”
Litus (2400 w.g.) = 30 ” ”

It is interesting to observe that the wergelds of the two districts north of the Zuider Zee, when translated back again into local solidi, turn out to have been in even numbers of such solidi, as well as in even gold marks of the Scandinavian district, whilst those of the Southern district, most under Frankish influence, make even numbers of the local solidus but not of the mark.

When these Frisian wergelds in local solidi are regarded in connection with the fact that the wergelds on the east or Saxon side of the Weser were, as we shall find, also paid in a local solidus, and that this Saxon local solidus, like the solidi of the North Frisian district, was of two tremisses, and further that it represented the value of the one-year-old bullock, we are led to conjecture that the Frisian local solidi also may have represented the animal in which the wergelds were originally reckoned and paid. And this may perhaps be confirmed by the fact that, down to comparatively modern times, the East Frisian silver currency consisted chiefly of the _gulden_ and its one-tenth the _schaap_. Possibly the _gulden_ of this silver currency may point back to a time when the ‘gold piece’ was reckoned of the value of ten sheep.[161] But this is conjecture only. The dog, as we have seen, was the only animal whose value was fixed in the laws.

[Sidenote: Why only one third of 160 solidi?]

The fact that the gold and the silver values of the wergelds of titles I. and XV. of the lex seem to correspond leads up once more to the difficult question why the wergeld of the liber should be exactly one third of what the Ripuarian law apparently declared it to have been.

Richthofen, in his preface and notes to the Frisian laws in the edition of Pertz, points out that in later additions to the laws there is a curious duplication and triplication of figures which has to be accounted for. The facts seem to be these:--

In Tit. XXII. _De Dolg_, relating to the Middle district and forming part of the more ancient law, the fines for wounding are first given for the _liber_, and then an explanation is made in the Epilogue that those for the _nobilis_ were one third higher and those for the _litus_ one half less. The composition for the eye is stated to be half the wergeld.

[Sidenote: Fines and perhaps wergelds trebled afterwards.]

Then, under the heading _Additio Sapientium_, Tit. II., the amount for the hand is stated to be ‘25 solidi et 5 denarii.’ And after the mention of the amounts for the several fingers are the words, ‘_Hoc totum in triplo componantur_.’ The payments for hand and eye are generally alike, and three times 25 solidi and 5 denarii = 80 solidi, _i.e._ half a wergeld of 160 solidi.

Immediately following these words Tit. III. begins with the statement that the foot entirely cut off is to be compounded for as the hand, _i.e._ by 53 solidi and 1 tremissis, being double the previous amount. The payment for the eye put out is ‘ter quadraginta solidi,’ _i.e._ 120 solidi. Then whilst in the title _De Dolg_ the ear is valued at 12 solidi, in Tit. III. of the Additio it is valued at ‘_ter_ duodecim solidi.’ Again, according to the title _De Dolg_, if both testicles were destroyed, the whole wergeld was to be paid: and in Title III. of the Additio the fine has become _ter_ 53 solidi and 1 tremissis, three times the wergeld of the liber in Tit. I.

It is not needful to pursue the comparison further than to point out that Richthofen had some reason at any rate to form the opinion that in the additions to the law made, as he thinks, after A.D. 785 and probably about A.D. 802, the _wergelds_ were trebled, as well as some of the payments for wounds; and that the inference from the Ripuarian laws that the Frisian wergeld was 160 solidi was therefore correct.[162]

So far Richthofen’s contention is, I think, a correct one.

But what was the reason of this trebling of the wergeld in the additions to the laws?

[Sidenote: The wergeld of ‘liber’ was probably 160 solidi.]

Was it that the ancient wergelds were originally one third of those of neighbouring tribes and trebled at some auspicious moment to make them correspond with others; or have we not rather to do with the results of that confusion in the currency which was caused by the endeavour to force into use the silver solidus of 12 pence as the equivalent of the gold solidus?