9'- S. V, MARCH 17, 1900.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
211
possession of William Fhillipott, of Greenhi
aforesaid, blacksmith, and by him used as a smithye
together with one garden," &c.
The lease was for 700 years, and comprised in addition to the toft and garden, five acres of land in another part of the village I am well acquainted with this property, aru I shall be glad to produce the deed to PROF SKEAT if he would like to see it.
Now here we have a house of one ba^ standing in the main street of a village, ani supported, of course, by two forks, or by twc pairs of pillars. We will suppose that in the adjoining croft there is another house of two bays, which would contain three forks, anc that both these houses have been set on fire by an incendiary and burnt down. In that case a valuer shall be called in to assess damages.
I will assume that PROF. SKEAT is himself the valuer, and as we are not trifling with mere quiddities, but are dealing with the momentous question of the origin of the coinage, and the great issues which that question involves, I will put two questions to the valuer. I lay my finger on that deed, I point to that house of one bay, and I ask the valuer to tell me whether, in valuing by the fork, he would count both forks, or only one. If he replies that he would count both forks, then I say that he must apply the same rule to the larger house, and count three forks. If he does that, he will find the value of the larger house to be one and a half times as much as that of the smaller house, whereas it ought to be twice as much, and so he will be an unjust judge. If he replies that he would only count one of the two forks in the house of one bay, then I shall tell him that he has admitted all that I want. He has admitted that only one fork must be counted in each bay, and that this one fork, or gafol, is the unit of value on which the assessment must be based. He has admitted that valua- tion by the gafol is the same thing as valua- tion by the bay ; and in making this admis- sion he has raised a violent presumption that gafol, a fork, and gafol, tribute, are identical. He has raised this violent presumption be- cause the actual bay, and not the monetary unit or shilling which afterwards represented the tax laid on the bay, was the measure of value. It was a measure of value in the same way that the ox was once a measure of value. And it does not matter whether we are counting forks for the purpose of assessing damages, or with the object of assessing tribute or property tax. If anybody should still doubt the validity of this conclusion, let me refer him to the Roman columnarium, or
tax imposed on the pillars that supported a
house (Cic., ' Ad Att.,' xiii. 6 ; Cses., * B. C.,'
iii. 32). The only difference between a pair
of columns and a fork is that the former were
straight and upright, whilst the latter was
curved, and inclined towards the ridge-tree.
To this day the roofs of old English houses
are supported either by "story-posts," i.e.,
upright pillars, or by "crutches ' or forks,
the latter having been by far the more fre-
quent. But the Romans had forks too, and
these, as in England, interchanged with
pillars (Ovid, ' Met.,' viii. 702). " Gavelage,"
then, or estimation by the fork, is identical
with columnarium, and this practice, like
the English land system, came straight
down, with no breach in continuity, from the
Romans. As pecunia came from pecus, cattle,
so gafol, tribute, came from gafol, fork, i.e.,
bay. The word afterwards meant the tax
laid on the bay, with its attendant land, arid
then tax or tribute generally.*
This conclusion is supported, and not vitiated, by the fact that ffafol, a fork, was eminine, and gafol, tribute, was neuter. A change in gender would have been useful in distinguishing the secondary from the pri- mary meaning of the word.
I approach another part of this subject with regret. PROF. SKEAT has inserted the word shieling in the title of his letter, and nade it appear to the reader that I have created this word as identical with shilling, coin. It is needless to say that I have done lothing of the kind. In a foot-note on the sh summer-house (ante, p. 31) I merely isked whether a Scotsman ever called a hilling a shieling. I was looking for evidence, ind had entirely suspended my judgment. 5o far was I from thinking that the vowel- ounds were of no importance that, on the ontrary, I had regarded the difference in hese sounds as a grave difficulty. I do not now why PROF. SKEAT should hazard the emark that the fact that a shielinc/is usually f one bay "has nothing to do with the natter." In the light of further evidence it nay have a good deal to do with the matter, if, as I have proved, the hidal house was the measure of value, and if "shilling" was the old name of the bay. I submit that I had a right to ask a question about the word shieling. With reference to that question
- The original meaning of A.-S. gafol-rceden must
have been "fork-reckoning," i.e., estimation and payment by the fork. The common provincial verb to " fork over" or "fork out" (i.e., pay) may have come from this source. Moreover, Kluge conjectures that G. Steuer, tribute, is from O.H.G. stiura, post, pillar.
