The numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal Numismatic Society

MISCELLANEA.
NOTE UPON " PENNY OP CNUT THE GHEAT : A RECTIFICATION."
Letter from Prof. C. F. Herbst to John Evans, Esq., Prts. of tk$
Num. Soc.
COPENHAGEN, 28th April, 1881.
IN my letter to Henry W. Henfrey, Esq., which appeared in
the Numismatic Chronicle, N.S., vol. xx. pp. 226 231, a
couple of misapprehensions have unfortunately crept in which I
feel myself called upon to put right. My letter was translated
into English for me by my friend Professor George Stephens,
of the University of Copenhagen, a born Englishman. It
exactly expressed my meaning, but without my knowledge or
consent it has been in several places altered by Mr. Henfrey.
I have no doubt that in so doing Mr. Henfrey intended nothing
but benevolence to me, and I care very little for such small
changes however uncalled for in general ; but a couple of
these are so serious that I am compelled to protest against
them.
At p. 227, line 16 from above, in the sentence "dates only from
the time of Cnut the Saint," the word " only " is added. This
I did not write. At p. 228, line 5 from above, we read, " of
the reign of Cnut the Saint," instead of my own words, " from
the time of Cnut the Saint." These two changes I entirely
disallow. I purposely used the expression, " from the time of
Cnut the Saint," and at p. 228, lines 24 28, I say, in agreement
herewith, "that I can give no satisfactory answer upon
the pertinent question, how the piece can belong to Cnut the
Saint." But on the same page I have stated the grounds
which convinced me that the coin is " from the time of Cnut
the Saint," not " from the time of Cnut the Great." Mr.
Henfrey has given no direct reasons in opposition hereto in
and I am persuaded that
the answer he appended to my letter ;
every numismatist, familiar with the English and Danish
coins of the eleventh century, will acknowledge the validity of
the arguments I have advanced.
At p. 232 Mr. Henfrey characterizes the three examples of
"
at the
puzzling pieces I have given as being " blundered ;
same time he asserts, in opposition to me, that Mr. Brice's
penny is " exceedingly well struck," and not at all "blundered."
I cannot understand by what right he makes this curious dis-
VOL. I. THIRD SERIES. K