Saturday, June 28, 2014

Food in other Germanic codes

The Franks were not the only Germanic group to record their laws. One of the more striking facts about the different “barbarian” groups in Europe is how readily most embraced the Roman idea of written law. Foremost among the others were the Burgundians, the Lombards and the Visigoths.

Some readers will be surprised to know the Burgundians and the Lombards were Germanic; both gave their names to regions (in France and Italy) whose inhabitants were to become entirely Latin (the Lombards were originally Longabards, which may have meant “long beards”). But like the Goths they probably originally came from Scandinavia, albeit after many wanderings.

The Burgundians and the Visigoths both briefly ruled parts of France before being defeated by the Franks. The Burgundians were absorbed into the Franks; the Visigoths were mainly driven into Spain, though they long kept power in what was known as Septimania (now largely Languedoc-Roussillon). The Lombards held power in Italy until Charlemagne defeated those in the north in 774 and made himself “King of the Lombards”. All three of these groups then have some relation to French history.


Burgundian law

This law, which the French also call the Loi Gombette, might be the earliest of these three codes:
The text labelled as Liber constitutionum collects the constitutions of the Burgundian kings Gundobad (died 516) and Sigismund (died 524). Sigismund issued the codification in his main residence Lyon in 517. Later novellae were added by him as well as by his successor Godomar. The codification has been known as Lex Gundobada since the nineth century.
(Bibliotheca Legum)
Though the Burgundian Code is one of the more well-known of the Germanic codes, it includes relatively little about food or agriculture.


While the modern wine-producing region of Burgundy has little to do with the territory of the first Burgundians, it is interesting that the code shows the most concern with vineyards. It not only addresses theft in vineyards, but the cases in which someone might either plant vines on land which had not yet been divided between “Romans” (that is, Gallo-Romans) and Burgundians, or on land already owned by another. As in all these laws, destruction by animals was a concern; the law specifically references complaints by both Burgundians and Romans about this happening (a unique reference in itself to events provoking a clause in a law). Pigs seem to have been a particular problem, since the vine-owner was allowed to kill one of the offending herd and use it as he wished (presumably eating it or salting it for later use). The same is said to be true of other animals, but since cattle and horses are excepted, sheep and goats were the most likely other possibilities. Anyone who snuck into a vineyard at night, free or slave, to commit a theft could be killed. A free man who did so during the day had to pay three solidi to the vine's owner but also pay a fine of the same amount (presumably to the authorities). A slave who did so was to receive three hundred blows with a stick. Not only could one readily imagine that the latter could often have been fatal, but this is a rare example of corporal punishment. The slave's master could buy his way out of this, but even then was supposed to guarantee a punishment of one hundred and fifty blows, to discourage others from similar behavior.

If a freeman was found after the fact to have committed such a theft, he was to pay twelve solidi to the vine owner and six as a fine. A separate section adds other similar stipulations, including the fact that the vine owner could not be punished for killing someone they found in their vines at night. (Typically all these codes allow the killing of an intruder under varied circumstances; some local modern American law does the same.)


Beyond vineyards, other forms of damage by animals were addressed. A large animal could be killed if causing damage in a wheat field, but had to be returned to the owner (after “taking into account” the damage caused). Someone who made a hole in a hedge to let their horses or other animals into a wheat or ordinary field had to pay a solidus for each animal. A slave who did the same was to receive one hundred blows. Note that anyone who blocked a public or neighborhood road with their hedge could be fined, and others were free to knock it over and even trample whatever was grown on what was meant to be public land.

This law is unique in foreseeing the case where someone might pen in someone else's animal after it caused damage only for it to be harmed in a fire, for instance. If an animal killed a human being by accident however, no one was to be punished. If one animal killed another, the offending animal was to be given to the person who suffered the loss.

Most of the mentions of animals, in fact, are related to the damage they might cause, not their special skills, their age, etc as in some other laws. Were the Burgundians unusually wary of their livestock?

Theft too was a concern. If someone tracked a missing animal to another's home and the latter refused to let them come in to check for it, they were considered to have committed a theft. The law explicitly, but briefly, mentions the theft of sheep, goats, and pigs, as well as beehives. Unusually, however, beasts of burden were explicitly allowed to wander far and wide without others being able to take possession of them.


Curiously the one list of comparative values comes in what was to be paid to a seer to find something stolen: five solidi for a slave, two for a mare, three for a horse, for a first class ox, two, for a cow, one, for a lamb, one, for a pig, one, for a goat, a third of a solidus (that is, a tremissis). (This is a rare mention of goats and perhaps a unique one of their lesser value.)

Like several other laws, this law limits the animals that can be taken as a guarantee for a debt. In this case, it is oxen whose value must be paid if taken by the creditor. More curiously, if a creditor went to seize goods and found other livestock, or slaves or horses but took an ox instead, they were to pay twelve solidi; if they took two, twenty-four solidi and a fine of twelve solidi, while still being obliged to return the animals. (The difference in the animals considered off-limits as collateral is one of the more striking features of these different laws.)

The theft of a plowshare required a free thief to not only provide all the parts of a plough but two oxen with their yoke to the owner; this is an unusual example of a payment in kind. A slave was simply to receive one hundred and fifty blows.


Other than vines, wheat is the crop most mentioned and the only other one whose theft is mentioned, including theft from a granary. (Note that there is no mention of stealing from a mill.) The accidental burning of a harvest, because of a wind spreading the fire, was not punished; but if there was no wind, the person who lit the fire had to pay for the lost harvest. Strangely, no other form of burning is mentioned.

The law does not mention specific fruit, but does punish cutting down another's fruit-bearing trees (as well as, curiously, pines). Other trees, however, could freely be cut down for firewood. Overall, outside enclosures, the law encourages a common use of lands.


It is rare that the law mentions hunting. Two exceptions – regarding a bow set as a trap for wolves and a trap set for wild animals in a deserted place – may be more about protection than game. Rules exist for hunting animals, however, and they are unique. Someone who stole a falcon had to accept its eating six ounces of flesh from his breast or pay six solidi to the owner and a fine of two. (Is the first concept even mentioned before "The Merchant of Venice"? Certainly, this is a rare mention of it.)

The penalty for stealing a hound is probably the most extraordinary in any of these laws. Three types of dogs are listed - veltravi, segutii, and petrunculi - possibly corresponding to a hound for hares or a tracking dog, a general hound and a dog for running. For any of these, the culprit was to "kiss the rear of this dog, in the presence of the assembly" – or pay five solidi to the dog's owner and a fine of two solidi (which must have been the option chosen by all but the most desperate).

These two brief entries suggest that hunters valued their animals greatly, even viscerally. Why so fewer clauses appear here regarding hunting than in other laws is a mystery.


Visigothic law

In 410, the Goths sacked Rome. This kind of thing will give a group a reputation and that of the Goths has been a bad one ever since. This is ironic, since both the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths were in fact very sophisticated groups who left a rich and complex history. Among other things, the Visigoths showed an early interest in Roman law, which informed their own legal codes.

The Visigothic Law was created in two stages, beginning with the Codex Euricanus, on which the Lex Visigothorum was based.
Codex Euricianus
Codex Euricianus is an artificial term for a codification for use in the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse. Only the titles 274 to 336 have survived fragmentarily in a single codex, the palimpsest Paris Lat. 12161. Other parts of the text can be reconstructed via its reception in the Lex Baiuvariorum and the Lex Visigothorum. The attribution of the text to the Visigothic king Euric (466-484) is widely accepted. His successor Alaric II. (484-507) was suggested as originator by Hermann Nehlsen. Contentwise the Codex is a very concise and valuable redaction of Roman law, which was supposed to comprise all spheres of legal affairs.
Lex Visigothorum
Based on the Codex Euricianus the Visigothic king Leovigild (569-586) draw up a new codification for his recently consolidated kingdom. His successors extended the text, so that a revised version came into being in the mid 7th century. This redraft with the original title Liber iudiciorum forms the basis of the surviving manuscripts. It was divided into 12 books and presumably dates back to the time of King Reccesvinths (653-672). Further enhancements were made by the kings Ervig (680-687) and Egica (687-702). The codification continued to have an impact even after the end of the Visigothic kingdom in 711.
(Bibliotheca Legum)
In practice, this code would most apply in Spain, though it applied in the south of France for a time and then in the more limited region of Septimania (approximately today's Languedoc-Roussillon). The law is complex and far-ranging, yet has relatively little to say about agriculture.


One unusual aspect of the law is its reference to renting animals out. This comes in the stipulation that one was not responsible for the death of a loaned or hired animal, unless it could be shown that the animal was over-worked or burdened, or lacked exercise, in which case an animal of equal value was owed.

Note that there is no composition or fine here. These exist in the Visigothic law, but far more rarely. Conversely, it is common for lashes to be prescribed for an offense. Corporal punishment is rare in many of the other codes and when it exists typically takes other forms.

Once again the theft of bells from animals is punished, providing comparative values in the compositions: from a mare or an ox, one solidus; from a cow, two tremisses; from a ram or other livestock, one tremissis.

Theft of parts of a mill was also punished with a fine, but one vaguely based on those for other thefts, and with a hundred lashes as well, as well as the return of what was stolen. Anyone who damaged a mill had to repair and might receive lashes as well.

A rare mention of harm to animals comes in the punishment for killing a horse, ox or other animal in secret or at night, which was ninefold the value of the animal. An animal known to be vicious was to be destroyed. If an owner tried to avoid doing so and the animal hurt or killed someone, a long list of various compensations were to be paid, depending on the rank, age and gender of the victim. On the other hand, someone who taunted an animal into an attack was held responsible for the outcome.

The familiar problem of animals destroying crops is addressed however. Letting any kind of livestock into vineyard or field of grain was punished, first, by the cost of the destroyed goods. A curious note is that a person of high rank was to pay a solidus for every horse or ox and a tremissis for every smaller animal involved to the owner of the property. A person of lesser rank had to pay half the value in addition to the basic cost; a slave got sixty lashes and his master had to pay for the damages. Otherwise, a person whose animals destroyed a vineyard or a wheat field had to give either land with an equivalent yield or, if he had none, as much fruit or grain as the land in question yielded.

Similar stipulations applied for destroying grass grown for hay.

A complex paragraph concerns someone who found another's animals in his vineyard or fields. The damage was then assessed and all concerned had to wait until the fruit or grain actually appeared to assess the ultimate damage. Other related paragraphs follow.

In this connection, the law also enumerates mutilations of an animal – of its lips, tail, ears, etc – found on another's property. In this case, the latter kept the mutilated animal and gave another of equal value in its place. No other law addresses this case. At first glance, such mutilations seem purely vindictive, but it may be they were meant to mark the animal as having caused damage.

Animals were allowed to roam freely in unenclosed areas and penalties applied both for driving them away and enclosing them.

Owners of land with streams were not allowed to enclose them entirely, but they could block them up to half way; if two owners shared a stream, they had to place their half-fences at some distance from each other. Basically however, it had to be possible for the public to place nets in these streams.

Diverting streams, in areas where water was scarce, was fined a solidus per four hours for a large stream, a tremissis for a smaller one (enforcement of such clauses must have been a nightmare.)


Those who set traps (of a variety of sorts) were to let people know they were there. Still, if travelers unknowingly wandered into them, the penalty was a third of that for injuring or killing someone.


This may be the only law to address malicious destruction of another's vineyard, specifically by burning it, cutting it down or turning it up by the roots. The culprit here had to give the victim two vineyards of equal value (the latter kept the damaged vineyard.) Stealing the grapes was punished in a similar way. A slave could get ten lashes for every damaged vine.

Destroying someone else's garden (presumably on purpose) was punished only by payment for the damages. In other laws, this is the kind of thing that was punished with a fine as well, but often that is not the case in Visigothic law. Note too the suggestion (as in Salic law) of a certain amount of plain vandalism among farmers.

Knocking down or burning fences or cutting fence posts was punished with a fine if these enclosed orchards or meadows, but only with repairs if there were no fruit trees inside. On the other hand, if an enclosure was “unreasonable”, effectively forcing people to cross crops, etc. it could legally be ignored.


The fines for cutting down trees are marginally informative. Cutting down an olive tree was fined five solidi where for a fruit tree it was three; this shows plainly the value of olives, whose oil was so fundamental in the south (further north, animal fat was often used). For an oak (which, among other things, provided food for pigs), it could be one or two, depending on the size; for other large trees, two. The text points out that such trees could be useful, even without bearing fruit. If the trees were carried away, they either had to be replaced by the same trees or paid double the preceding amounts.

Little else appears here about trees, except as part of a paragraph on fires. Burning someone else's grove, or trees, including, specifically, pine or fig trees (a curious pair to single out), was punished with one hundred lashes and compensation. The law states, apparently exceptionally, that the latter was to be determined by competent appraisers.

The text's reference to camp fires is probably unique; it addresses the case where a traveler might build a fire to keep warm or cook food that then spreads. Among the items that might be damaged are named crops, threshing floors, vineyards or orchards. In theory, the culprit was to pay the full value of any of these, though modern examples show that such damage can go beyond many individuals' means and this may well have been the case at the time.


Like other laws, the Visigothic law punishes someone who cultivates another's land by having them forfeit the fruit of their labors. But another case is more complicated; that in which one has co-inherited land. Typically the result here was that the offender had to provide an equal parcel of land to the other heir, but some nuances appear. Only vineyards and olive-groves are mentioned specifically, along with orchards and gardens. Though grain is mentioned (see below), it is surprising how little a concern it is overall.

Robbing or inflicting “annoyance” on another while they were traveling or working on a farm was punished separately, an unusual reference to the conditions under which theft occurred. It also suggests both activities were considered important.


This law, like several Frankish laws, takes witchcraft seriously and prescribes two hundred lashes for those who, for instance, bring hail down on vineyards and grain. Further, they are to be... scalped (decalvati). This may however simply have meant having the head shaved, though perhaps forcibly (De Mayke). However harsh the action, it presumably was not fatal, since they were then to be drawn through ten neighboring areas as a warning to others. This law is also unusual in prescribing imprisonment: these “enchanters” were to be confined and given clothing and food in order to prevent their causing further harm. Even in later centuries, it would be rare to include clothing for a prisoner, so this otherwise draconian passage can be considered generous on that one point. Alternately, the king could be consulted.

Another paragraph simply says that anyone who used charms or witchcraft to harm people or animals, or crops, vineyards, or trees, should suffer the same damage they tried to inflict on others.


This code specifically mentions food in only two cases. One is as a punishment for a bishop who, for whatever, reason, does not judge a case severely enough. He is to be deprived of wine or food for thirty days, limited only to a piece of barley bread and a cup of water. For the more devout, this might have been standard fare, but for a high dignitary it was a very harsh punishment.

The other case is particularly striking, and unique in these codes: it forbids keeping kosher:
The blessed apostle Paul said, "To the pure all things are pure," but nothing is pure to those who are defiled, because they are unbelievers; and, for this reason, the execrable life of the Jews and the vileness of their horrible belief, which is more foul than any other detestable error, must be destroyed and cast out. Therefore, no Jew shall make a distinction between food which is clean and unclean, as established by the customs and traditions of his ancient rites. No one shall perversely refuse to eat food of any kind, whose condition is proved to be good. No one shall reject one article of food, and accept another, unless the distinction be such as is considered salutary and proper by all Christians. Anyone detected in the violation of this law shall be subjected to the punishment instituted for the same.
This is only one of a litany of anti-Semitic provisions in Book XII: “Concerning the Prevention of Official Oppression, and the Thorough Extinction of Heretical Sects “. Taken together, these amount to a forcible conversion; it would be impossible to obey them and remain a practicing Jew. A later version of this stipulation is harsher in some regards; it defines similar punishments as for witchcraft:
Jews shall not make any Distinction in their Food, According to their Custom. The detestable Jewish custom, viler than any other superstition, dividing food into clean and unclean, accepts the former, while it rejects the latter. Whoever is convicted of the commission of the error of this practice, that is to say, who acts differently from the custom observed, under similar circumstances, by all true Christians, shall receive a hundred lashes and be scalped [or have their head shaven?], by order of the judge in whose district the offense was committed. The provisions of this law shall be observed in every respect concerning drink, as well as food; and the punishment herein before specified shall be inflicted upon all who abstain from the wines or other beverages of Christians.
Strangely however, it makes allowances for the fact that some people simply did not like pork:
In regard to the flesh of swine, we hereby decree that no distinction shall be made on account of religious prejudice; but if any Jew should avoid such food through natural abhorrence, and not from a regard to the usages to their perverse sect, especially if their behavior, in other respects, is similar to that of Christians, and if they have embraced Christianity, and observe its rules, and are known to be sincere believers, they shall not be liable to punishment under the aforesaid law, merely because they have rejected the flesh of swine; for the reason that it appears contrary to justice, that those whom the faith of Christ has openly ennobled, should be rendered liable to punishment on account of their rejection of a single article of food.
One of the most specific references to food in these Germanic laws, then, is, from a modern point of view, a very negative, even shameful, one; yet, perhaps for that very reason, worthy of note.



Lombard law

The Lombard law may be the most extensive and complex of the Germanic laws, even before the Edictus Rothari was augmented with the Grimoaldo additate, the Liutprandis, the Ratchis and the Aistulfi leges:
Under the term Leges Langobardorum various legal records of Lombard rulers in Italy are subsumed. The Edictus Rothari (also Edictum Rothari) forms the basis of all later law collections. It is a written fixation and an improvement of the old tribal legal customs of the Lombards, the cawarfide, and is divided into 388 chapters that mainly deal with the criminal law issues. Besides that, the Edictus also used biblical texts and other sources of law of Roman or Germanic origin. It was accepted in november 643 in Pavia by an assembly of the army.
The turn of the Lombards to the Catholic faith caused a variety of changes, which also required revisions in legislation. In the year 668 the leges a Grimoaldo additae were added to the Edictus Rothari. This formed the starting point for further such edicts like the Liutprandi leges, which consisted of 153 chapters. The Ratchis leges and Aistulfi leges are the last edicts issued by the Lombard kings. After the Frankish conquest of the Lombard kingdom under Charlemagne at the end of the 8th Century the Lombard law tradition survived especially in southern Italy in the duchies of Benevento and Spoleto to the 11th Century onwards. The Adelchis principis capitula and the Arichis II principis capitula continued legislation in Lombard tradition.
(Bibliotheca Legum)
The law has a great deal to say about animals causing damage (as well as a possessed man causing harm to animals). Some of the clauses echo those in Burgundian Law.

If an animal hurt another animal, the two owners were effectively to trade, the offended party getting a supposedly equivalent animal. Someone who borrowed or (once again) rented an animal was responsible for its damages. If someone caused dogs to attack a human or an animal, they, not the owner of the dogs, was responsible. (Note that this law, unlike several others, does not classify dogs by their specialties.)

One enumeration cites the foot of a horse, the horn of an ox, and the teeth of a dog or a pig as potentially causing harm or death – an unusually specific list in such laws.

Where a horse or other domestic animal caused damage and its owner did not appear, the wounded party was to present the animal either to the local sworn judge or "in front of the church where the crowd gathers" and if no owner came forth could keep the animal. But if the animal died, he was to keep the skin in case the owner came forth. Where animals damaged a harvest or a field, the person responsible for the damage only paid for that if he could show it was not his fault; but if he was responsible for their going into the property involved, he had to pay a solidus per animal.

The owner of animals who had caused damage also had to pay a solidus per animal if he tried to prevent the wounded party from enclosing the animals. Things became far more complicated if the animals were already enclosed. The owner could recover them by paying at least 3 siliquae (a coin of minor value which is rarely mentioned in these laws). But the wounded party could be made to pay one solidus per head if he refused to hand them over, or keep them up to nine months, giving them only water, if the owner refused to pay a caution.

If pigs grazed on someone else's land, if there were less than ten, the land owner could keep one and charge three siliquae per head. For more than ten, he could kill one of the lesser ones (presumably keeping the animal for food). If one or several pigs were digging in someone else's land, the owner could kill one (only). Liutprand added stipulations regarding the killing of additional pigs and whether the owner or his swineherd was involved.

The theft of the dominant male of a herd of pigs (of at least thirty) was fined twelve solidi, less for a smaller herd. If someone killed such a pig while it was causing damage, the pig's master had to pay for the damage – but the other person had to also replace the pig.

Liutprand also added that anyone who found a loaded wagon drawn by oxen in his forest could take the wagon, its contents and the oxen home.

In general where animals were hurt or caught by hedges, ditches, etc. that were visible, no penalty was assessed. If an animal died or was hurt falling into a well, there was also no penalty because the well was considered to be of public use. And in fact one of Liutprand's additions addresses the very specific case of someone falling off a forked mechanism used to raise water out of a well. The owner in this case was not to be punished, lest he "forbid access to his well to poor people who not being able to dip into it would die of thirst". This is a very unusual observation of the sort and again confirms the importance of drinking water in medieval times. (The text, which seems to be based on a specific case, is also unusual in implying that anyone who ended up on such a device should have known better in the first place.)

This seems to be the only law which addresses a mare or a cow miscarrying after being beaten. The mare was counted for far more – a three solidus fine – than the cow – one tremissis. If the animal died, it was paid for "separately".

Again, bells on animals are mentioned but only for bulls (oxen), cows and horses. The theft was fined six solidi, the same price as for the theft of a yoke or the straps for one.


The familiar issue of taking collateral is addressed in unusual detail here, largely in regard to slaves (whom one could work as one's own while holding them). No animal seems to have been actually off-limits (as in other laws) but the penalty for taking a herd of pigs without royal permission and with the help of others was severe: death for the leader, or nine hundred solidi (a huge sum), divided equally between the king and the owner. Those who helped were to pay eighty solidi (already a great deal) each, unless they were serfs, who, the law acknowledged, had no choice.

Horses or oxen broken to the plough could only be seized where the creditor had nothing else and with the permission of an official called a sculdasius. Cows or smaller animals could be taken, however.

Liutprand added that someone who took cattle broken to the plough as a pledge (with the right permission) could work them for twelve days. If they died during that time, he owed nothing unless it could be shown he had worked them harder than his own (which he could refute by swearing on the Gospels). A complex passage follows examining which side of the Alps the debtor was on in the days the debt was to be paid. Such geographic precision is probably unique in these laws.

If large game caused damage or killed someone while being pursued, the hunter was responsible, but only during the pursuit itself. Like some Frankish laws, the Lombard law refers to a trained stag, valued more (twelve solidi) if he was in rut than not (six solidi). The law also addresses harm to falcons, cranes and swans. Theft of falcons was also addressed, with special note of those belonging to the king.

Also as in Frankish law, this one addresses animals killed or wounded by another hunter. Anyone who found one killed by another was to inform the latter, but got the right shoulder with seven ribs (a very unusual specification). Someone who killed an animal with an arrow had a right to it for twenty-four hours after ending his pursuit; after that it went to whomever found it.

Stealing other people's fishing equipment or from their fish preserves was also punished,


This law addresses the theft of hives, under a roof, or a swarm on a marked tree. A swarm found on an unmarked tree could be freely taken, but if the bee's owner came along, he had the right to take their honey. This may be the only specific reference to honey in these laws. Again, the king's bees are singled out.


If someone sold land which another worked and then its true owner appeared, the seller had to return the cost of the land and all the costs of working it. On the other hand, if (as in other laws), one worked someone else's land, all the work and yield was lost.

Anyone who built a mill on someone else's land also lost it.


Harm to sown fields is also addressed, as is theft of hay from another's field. Intentionally damaging another's field or tearing up his wheat was also punished. Even the case of a woman walking through a sown field is addressed, including her being bound and led off by the owner (which was punished) or urged by another to trample the land (also punished).

The law specifically addresses cutting down another's apple, pear, chestnut or olive trees, specifying three solidi fine for each. (It is not surprising that olives are added in a southern law; the mention of chestnuts is very unusual.)

Vines are addressed in an unusual way, in that vine stock in particular is cited. Theft of the stock, the tool used to cut it and a piece of it were punished, as was maliciously cutting into it. The law however seems to give a nod to human nature in saying that one could freely take up to three bunches of grapes without punishment. This is a rare reference to the grapes themselves rather than the vines.


Perhaps because it comes later, this law differs notably from the Salic law in one regard. Not only does it not punish a witch for eating human flesh, anyone who kills a woman based on that claim is punished “because... it is not all possible that a woman can eat a living human being from the inside.”


Overview


As different as these laws are, both from each other, and from the various Frankish laws, they agree in showing a world where animals could often do damage, yet were valued, where people sometimes worked the land of others or maliciously harmed its products, where hunting was important but not central, where the main cultivation was of grapes and wheat, where (for two of the laws) olives had a distinct importance, where limits were put on what could be taken for a debt (probably because an ox, for instance, was important to one's livelihood), where spells and curses remained real concerns, even where the law commanded otherwise. In later laws the context is more specifically Christian and the concept of renting animals begins to appear.

It should be noted too that all these "Barbarian" laws seek a balance between compensating loss and limiting excessive retaliation, between fixing blame and acknowledging the vagaries of chance; they are, in a word, fair-minded.




FOR FURTHER READING:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimania



Bibliotheca Legum



Corpus iuris germanici antiqui: Legem Salicam, Ripuariorum,Alamannorum Baiuvariorum, Burgundionum, Frisionum, Angliorum etWerinorum, Saxonum, Edictum Theoderici, Leges Wisogothorum, et edictaregum Langobardorum continens ed Ferdinand Walter 1824

Peyré, J. F. A., Lex Burgundionum: Lois des Bourguignons,vulgairement nommées Loi Gombette, traduites pour la première sois.Par M. J. F. A. Peyré 1855

Davoud-Oghlou, Garabed Artin, Histoire de la législation desanciens germains, v2 1845


The Visigothic code (Forum judicum), tr. S. P. Scott, THE LIBRARY OF IBERIAN RESOURCES ONLINE

"Book VIII: Concerning Acts of Violence and Injuries /Title III: Concerning injuries to Trees, Gardens, or Growing Crops of any Description", The Visigothic Code: (Forum judicum) ed. S. P.Scott

De Jong, Mayke, "Adding Insult to Injury: Julian of Toledo and his Historia Wambae",The Visigoths from the Migration Period to the Seventh Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, ed Heather, Peter  1999



Saturday, June 21, 2014

Food in Frankish laws


Among the rare documents that survive from the early medieval period are a number of legal codes, most, though not all, Frankish. While these rarely address food per se, they do address agriculture and even to some degree infrastructure related to food. This makes them valuable for food history, even if they offer inconsistent and often spotty information.

Salic Law

The earliest of these, the Salic Law, is also the richest in food-related information. This law exists in several versions, including variations from much later centuries. But the earliest is believed to have been written down under Clovis (reigned 482-511) and the relevant information does not greatly change across versions. The law is especially useful in offering, if not absolute, relative values, since it assigns amounts to be paid as compensation (wergeldfor each offense. These are paid either in coins of silver (denarii) or gold (solidii). For comparison's sake, one of the highest prices (24,000 deniers or 600 solidi) was for killing a child under twelve, whether they were "distinguished by long hair, [that is, royal] or of the class of the people". The very highest was 72,000 d./1800 s, for killing one of the king's antrusions (a kind of trusted bodyguard). (The initial version of the law probably only used solidi; the Franks did not institute silver denarii until 675.)

A striking aspect of this law is that it begins by addressing livestock and agriculture. Other Germanic legal codes also touch on these subjects, but none give them the sustained attention found here. More striking still is the fact that it begins by addressing the theft of pigs. This neatly illustrates the Frankish love of pork – pigs were used only for food, unlike sheep, goats or cattle. The variations in compensation then, when they do not relate to an animal's ability to breed, suggest some refinement in taste in this area. The amounts depended on the pig's age, whether or not it was weaned, its role as leader of the troop, how many other pigs were stolen with it, whether it was locked up or in a field at the time. The prices ranged from 40 deniers (1 solidus) for a weaned pig to 600 d./15 s. for a suckling pig from the third litter. A number of these prices are in addition to the value of the animals themselves (which seems therefore to have been open to negotiation) and the costs of recovering them. The various circumstances and nuances outlined also suggest that theft of pigs was frequent enough to have been divided into categories.

Above all, the care taken to define the differences between suckling pigs, weaned pigs, pigs who led herds, pigs destined for reproduction, etc. shows how much Franks concerned themselves with the subject.

The law also mentions a pig prepared for sacrifice. This was probably for a pagan ceremony (only some Franks converted to Christianity along with Clovis). However, it is not impossible that well-intentioned recent converts simply performed a familiar sacrifice to their new god. Like the Gauls in Cisalpine (Italian) Gaul, the Franks also used bells to distinguish their livestock and the price for removing these from a sow was far higher (600 d/15 s) than for that of other livestock (120 d/3 s.).

If the law addresses the theft of cattle after that of pigs, and in fewer articles (fourteen instead of twenty), it is tempting to think that these mattered less to the Franks. But the values placed on different animals are, in general, much higher. Stealing a cow by herself cost 1200 d/30 s; if the cow were accustomed to the yoke, the price was 1400 d/35 s. The theft of an ox cost the same, while that of a bull heading a herd and “accustomed to the common use of the cows of three districts” cost 1800 d/ 45 s. (All these costs were in addition to that of the animal itself and the cost of pursuit.) To some degree of course these amounts might simply have reflected the difference in size between pigs and cattle. But whether because of their use or their size, the amounts listed show cattle to have been valued animals. The animal's aptitude for labor or breeding too was clearly a concern. It seems likely then that people tried to get the maximum value from each animal before slaughtering it; likely but not certain, given the archaeological evidence. In fact, people of the time ate far more beef than the written record typically suggests.

The theft of individual or even multiple sheep or goats cost 120 deniers, which is the same price as for certain classes of pig. Separate articles exist for lambs and sheep, but only one for kids and goats. Both these animals had other uses than providing meat: goats might have been used for their milk; the sheep were certainly shorn for their wool. But both were certainly eaten as well.

Game overall made up a lesser part of the medieval diet than is often thought, but hunting certainly mattered to the Franks. Stealing animals or game killed by others could cost from 600 d/15 s to 1800 d/45 s. The Franks already used trained falcons, the theft of which could cost as much as 1800 d/45 s (in addition to the usual costs of the animal and the pursuit). Compare these to the 40 to 600 d. charged for the theft of pigs. The law also punished killing a stag brought to bay by another hunter's dogs. Like the Gauls, the Franks used poisoned arrows. Salic law elsewhere mentions poisoning with toxic plants, which were probably used on such arrows as well (the Gaul used hellebore). They also used iron-clad traps.

The law mentions dogs specifically trained to hunt bears, boars and hares, giving some idea of the importance of these animals. (Even bear was sometimes eaten, though that may not have been the purpose of hunting it.) It also mentions “a domestic stag, bearing the mark of its master, and trained to the hunt”. These stags – apparently unique to the Franks and the Lombards – are believed to have been used like later “stalking horses” to allow hunters to get closer to deer (Baillie-Grohman),

All the above fits neatly with the Roman idea of Germanic groups as mainly eating meat (and dairy, implied in some of the animals, if not explicitly addressed). But the Germans had always been farmers as well and the law tries to balance concern for livestock with concern for crops. A person who mistreated an animal found in his fields could be forced to pay the animal's value. But if a herder let his flock or herd go into someone else's wheat field and denied the fact, he could be made to pay 600 deniers (a high sum). This was the same price as for stealing the coulter (the blade) from a plow.

Entering a garden to commit a theft also cost 600 deniers. A theft from a field cost less (120 deniers), perhaps because it represented less of an intrusion. Some, it seems, went so far as to harvest the grapes or wheat of another, a crime which also cost 600 deniers (and which presumably took some time to commit).

The law also covers the case where someone might intentionally have made a hole in a hedge or let animals into a field or vineyard “by vengeance or wickedness”, as well as the destruction of grafts or trees that had been grafted or removing bark from a fruit tree. All of this suggests a certain amount of feuding, even pure vandalism, between farmers.

The law only mentions apple and pear trees specifically, though the theft of fruit trees in general or “other trees of the type that are cultivated” is also mentioned. The only vegetables specifically mentioned are turnips, broad beans, peas and lentils. Lentils are less mentioned in later years, but broad beans and field peas became medieval staples.

Hand mills were still common a century later, but larger mills apparently existed among the Franks. It was a crime to steal grain from them, costing 15 gold pieces to the mill owner and another 15 (600 deniers) to the owner of the grain. All of this implies a commercial mill with its own customer base, even if some grinding could be done domestically. Theft of iron implements from a mill (whatever those might have been) cost the offender even more: 1800 d / 45 s.

The Franks then were certainly consumers of grain. They probably had bread – early Germanic groups did – but the one mention of a prepared food in the law is of porridge: witnesses to a contract had to have eaten the pultis of the man they were swearing for. The sense here seems to be the same as in the later phrase “eat another man's bread”, showing how basic a food porridge was in Germanic culture.

There is also the question of the “sugar refineries” of earlier eras: beehives. Before sugar came to Europe, honey had a disproportionate importance, not only in cooking, but even in other domains The law reflects that; seven articles address the theft of hives, which could be under a roof or in a locked enclosure. The text distinguishes between situations where other hives were available – the payment then was only fifteen golden sols – and those where none were – the payment then was triple that amount.

Finally, the law references another, illicit, kind of food:if a witch is convicted of having eaten human flesh, she will be condemned to pay 8000 deniers or 200 golden solidi.” Whether this ever actually happened or was simply the fantasy of fearful Franks is a separate question.


Laws for subject groups


Several subsequent Frankish laws were specifically intended for different groups. While these are sometimes said to be derived from Salic law, they differ in both scope and detail. None is as comprehensive in regard to agriculture as the Salic law, but they do include scattered references to related subjects.



Three of these were collected in the eighteenth century as laws of Dagobert I, dated 630. The dating has been revised and is still uncertain, but, given the 630 date, the first thing to point out is what does NOT appear in them.
Bakers are named collectively in 630 in the laws of Dagobert, which seems to show that they formed a sort of trade corporation in the laws of Dagobert. (Lacroix)
In 630, the Merovingian King Dagobert had made the grinding of corn a feudal right; private persons (noblemen and members of religious communities excepted) and master bakers had to have their grain ground at the communal mill belonging to the lord of the manor. (Toussaint-Samat)
Similar statements have been made in a number of works to support the idea that corporations (guilds) existed in France at this point as well as public bakers. Both may have, but no evidence has survived of either and none of the three laws listed for Dagobert under the date of 630 refer to either bakers or millers. Banal mills (referenced in the second statement) would not appear until around the Crusades. The fact that, ultimately, not all these laws have been found to date that far back only makes such statements that much less credible.


One group of Franks lived separately from the Salian Franks (Clovis' group) and along the banks of the Rhine, which may or may not be why they were called (probably by others) Ripuarian Franks (ripa means “bank”). The Lex Ribuaria is believed to have been developed for them by the (dominant) Salians, but based on their own customs:
The Lex Ribuaria is an updated version of the Salic Law issued for Ribuaria (the Rhineland around Cologne) or for Austrasia. An origination during the establishment of the subkingdom for Dagobert I. (623) or for Sigibert III. (633) has been considered. The proximity to the edicts of King Chlothar II. (584-628/9) is undeniable, which also indicates its formation in the 7th century.
(Bibliotheca Legum)
This law contains very little about food or agriculture. Notably it does state that “if someone carries off another's harvest with a cart or wagon, they will be fined 15 solidi.” Similar statements are made about hunting and fishing: “If someone steals or hides something [used] for game, or fish, 15 solidi is judged....If someone kills or steals a trained or 'faithful' stag, they must give... 45 solidi.” The law also addresses the question of quadrupeds killing men or killing or hurting each other. It barely mentions specific animals however, except in one section which sets the wergeld not only for different kinds of arms and armor, but some animals: “a healthy, sighted horned bull two solidi, a healthy, sighted horned cow one solidus, stallion... six solidi, mare.. three solidi...”

These animals both could be eaten (the Franks continued to eat horsemeat, if not often). But given that other edible quadrupeds are not mentioned, the interest here is probably in their functional value (cattle for ploughing, horses for war)
.

The next law attributed to Dagobert in 630 is probably from the eighth century. It was for the Alemanni, a small group whose name - “All men” - would become the French word for what English-speakers call Germans.
The Lex Alamannorum is attributed to Duke Lantfrid (709-730) by two manuscripts, whereas the majority of codices designate the law text to King Chlothar. The dominant view of research sees Lantfrid as the real originator.
(Bibliotheca Legum)
Typically amounts in these laws are for legal compositions, but one chapter here explicitly addresses the price of oxen: for the best, five tremisses, the average four, the lessor as valued. This may have been to avoid the bickering over price which no doubt resulted when the cost of an animal was to be paid separately from the defined composition. As it is, it is a rare example of price setting at this point.

The law also addresses the killing of cows, bulls and smaller (presumably domestic) animals, as well as the theft or killing of buffalo, aurochs and stags, distinguishing not only between trained and untrained stags but red and black ones. The same section mentions bears, poultry, boars, roe deer, cranes, ducks, storks, ravens, crows, doves and other birds. Such an enumeration in a law is very unusual.

Another chapter sets compositions to be paid for killing people in specific positions, giving an idea of their value. Killing a swineherd with a herd of forty pigs and a trained dog, a horn and others working for him (a rounded portrait in itself) cost forty solidi, the same as for a shepherd with eighty sheep, a senechal (later an important official, but then essentially master of the household or head butler) with twelve vassals; and a cook with others under him. This was the same cost as for a goldsmith; high, but not as high as, say, eighty for taking another man's wife.

Note that, in modern terms, most of these people were managers, with part of their value lying in their having subordinates.

Taking herds or flocks – of pigs, horses, cows or sheep – in pledge was punished with the same fine. (Why this was frowned upon is not clear, though it may be similar to the legal principle in some states that a pension or a residence cannot be seized in legal proceedings.)

The list of dogs who could be stolen or killed is interesting for the different specializations represented. Aside from premium hunting dogs, there were those for herding pigs or cattle, for hunting hares and for "defending courtyards" (.e., watchdogs).

In terms of domestic structures, the article on arson mentions spicaria (small granaries or possibly pantries), granaries, cellars, pigpens, sheep cotes, and even hot baths. The one mention of a mill (but not the miller) regards its obstructing water; mills (and any other enclosure of water) had to be made so that they cause no harm to others (including by making water rise). Among other things, this shows that water mills (which were slow to appear in Gaul) were now common.

Finally, this code is unusual in defining prepared foods, in this case to be given by “servants of the Church” in addition to their required service: fifteen pails of beer, a pig worth one tremisso, two muids of bread, five chickens, and twenty eggs. This sort of list is especially useful in outlining what foods were considered staples. (The use of muid, a measure of volume, for bread, rather than pound or another measure of weight, is unusual.)


The Bavarian Law is probably from far later than the 630 date earlier recorded: it is likely from the eighth century:
The first ever evidence of the Lex Baiuvariorum is found at the Synod of Aschheim in 756. It is probably a transcript from the 740s. The Visigothic law, the Lex Alamannorum and Frankish laws (Königsgesetze) served as models of this law text, and maybe even also antecedents of the Bavarian law from the 7th century. Very recently the Abbey of St. Emmeram in Regensburg has been suspected as the place of origin (Landau 2004).
(Bibliotheca Legum)

In regard to arson, this law refers specifically to setting a fire at night. It refers to a specific type of granary called a parch. Otherwise, it refers to a number of free-standing buildings, including among these the hot baths, the bakery, and the kitchen – a useful note that at this point these were often separate from the dwelling (for the very practical reason that they used fire).

One curious entry punishes someone who drives off or disperses pigs by yelling at them; but it has to be a herd of seventy pigs, with a swineherd who has a horn. Also, pigs didn't just get eaten; they were notorious eaters all through the Middle Ages, even of children, and one clause orders a reward for anyone who buries a body to keep it from being "soiled" by pigs, or torn by other animals.

This law punished taking either eggs or pigs as a pledge. When paying a fine for a pledge of eggs, the person was to "stay silent on the reason for the pledge" (taceat de causa pro qua pignus tullit), a curiously tactful detail.

The law is unique in addressing very specific harm which could be done to animals, such as cutting or knocking the horns off bulls or cows or an animal getting hurt jumping a hedge (if the latter was as high as a man's chest, no payment was due). The harm animals did to crops is again addressed as well.

The theft of bells was, as in the Salic law, punished, but pigs were not the favored animal: one solidus was due for those on a horse or bull, two tremisses for those on a cow, one for smaller animals.

The farming duties of someone on the Church's land are laid out in unusual detail, not only the measure of land (forty by four hundred feet) to work, but that he will sow, gather, transport, store its yield, that he will enclose, cut and gather hay, that he will plan, spade, propagate, cut and harvest vines. With this is an unusually specific (for a law) definition of the rent to pay: every tenth bundle of flax, the tenth beehive, four chickens and fifteen eggs. (How often beehives were increased, so that a tenth became available, is an intriguing question.)

This law not only punishes those who steal another's harvest, but even those who (unauthorized) work another's land. It also uses the unique word aranscarti to refer to someone who ruins another's harvest by cursing it. The penalty for this was weighty; the accused had to take care of the family and its animals, and make good any negative effects for a year, as well as paying twelve solidi. (This could be avoided by appealing to twelve sworn people – i.e., a jury – or in a trial by combat.) The general idea of curses, potions, etc. recurs through all these laws; Christianity did not displace belief in witchcraft.

Sneaking into someone else's orchard to steal fruit is punished. Anyone who destroys another's arbor or cuts his fruit trees (when there are twelve of more) pays twenty solidi to the owner but also to the authorities and has to replant similar trees, and pay a solidus every fall until the new trees start to bear fruit. Theft of a bush or the food from it in another's forest is also punished.

This section specifically names apple and pear trees, the same ones singled out by the Salic Law.

This law is also unique in punishing someone for soiling a fountain, not only by fining them, but making them clean it (how, is not clear). Where several people live near it, they are all to share in the fine. (Note that this is yet further evidence that people of the time knew the difference between good water and bad and valued safe, drinkable water.)

Again, dogs are classified by an assortment of skills: being able to follow a scent, hunting underground, hunting hares or large game, attacking wolves, etc. Stealing a watch dog during the day cost less (one solidus) than at night (three), because the latter was considered theft. Even if a dog attacked a man and the latter killed it, he had to pay a composition, but got half back if he was wounded.

Birds too are classified by skills. One type of falcon may have been specialized in taking cranes. Another took ducks and another geese. Killing woodland birds “who sing and fly in the houses of nobles” was also punished.

When a swarm of bees belonging to one person went to another's tree or hive, most were to be returned, but those who remained after the tree was smoked or the hive knocked over belonged to the latter. This passage includes the useful information that hives could be of wood, bark or wicker; but this law no longer mentions these being covered or enclosed, as in Salic law.



The Carolingians

Though Charlemagne's rules for his own estates (the Capitulary de Villis) are extraordinarily informative, his numerous public laws (typically issued in Capitularies) give very little information on food. The one big exception appears in early attempts to set prices. The most famous of these is in his Frankfurt Capitulary of 794, which sets the prices for grains – “For a modius of oats, one denier, for a modius of barley, two, modius of rye three, modius of wheat four deniers” – followed by prices for bread: “If one wants to sell it as bread, twelve loaves of wheat, each of two pounds, must be given for one denier... fifteen of rye, of two pounds each, twenty of barley, of two pounds each, twenty five of oats, of two pounds each."

Cereals from the royal domains were cheaper: two muids of oats or one of barley for one denier, one muid of rye for two and one of wheat for three.


The Saxon Capitulary of 797, delivered at Aix-la-Chapelle, also includes specific prices. The pagan Saxons had long rebelled against Charlemagne and much of this text is draconian. But one chapter simply defines the solidus for the Saxons, setting it initially as the price of a bull or cow before fattening. A bull or a cow a year old, cost 1 Saxon solidus in Autumn, when entering the stable, more when coming out in the Spring, in function of how much it had grown. The prices for grain differ for the Bortrini and those in the north (neither clearly defined). For the Bortrini, forty measures (scapilos) of wheat cost one solidos, as did twenty of rye (strangely, since rye was typically less expensive). For those of the north (Septentrionales), thirty measures of wheat and fifteen of rye were given for a solidos.

For honey, the Bortrini were to give one and a half buckets (siglae) of honey for a solidus; those of the north, two. (This is the first indication of a price for honey in these centuries and suggests that it was very expensive, a bucket having almost the value of a bull or a cow.) The same [measure of?] ground barley and wheat was given for a solidus. (The text then specifies that twelve deniers make a solidus.)

In 806, there was a famine and the fifth Capitulary of that year (from Noyon) specifies special prices for a muid of grain: oats, two, barley or spelt, three, rye, four, "prepared" wheat, six. (Peyré) (This is an exceptional mention of spelt.) The note that the wheat should be “prepared” was probably to avoid (however ineffectively) speculators “stretching” wheat with bran, etc.

Otherwise, in his first Capitulary of 809, Charlemagne stated that no wine or grain should be sold before it was harvested, “by which occasion people become poor”; that is, by speculating on goods that a bad harvest might render unavailable. This is perhaps the first medieval mention of speculation.


Charlemagne's son, Louis the Pious (reigned 814 – 840), included even less about food in his laws. It is worth noting that over time the law seems to have concerned itself less with the details of agriculture, perhaps because the existing codes applied but perhaps too because local infrastructure began to return and much of this may have been handled at the local level, as it would more officially be in later statues and coutûmes.

On the other hand, in his fifth Capitulary for 819, Louis includes details which previously had appeared in separate documents for official travelers called tractoria; these were the rations to be provided them as they traveled. One purpose of this stipulation may have been to prevent such officials from demanding more than they were due; as it is, the defined rations were far simpler than earlier enumerations, which included oil, spices, garum, etc. Under Louis the Pious, the rations varied by rank, but even a bishop's was not luxurious: forty loaves of bread, three lambs, three measures of “fermented drink”, a young pig, three chickens, and fifteen eggs. This predictably declined further down the hierarchy: for an abbot or a count, thirty loaves, two lambs, two measures of drink, one young pig, three chickens and fifteen eggs; and for a vassal (but hardly a peasant) seventeen loaves, one lamb, one young pig, one measure of drink, two chickens, and ten eggs.

Charles the Bald (reigned 823 – 877) went even further than his father, recording complaints in his Capitulary of Toulouse of 843 of the hardship inflicted on local priests by traveling bishops. At that point, following interventions by the clergy itself the ration, specified in the Capitulary, was limited to one muid of wheat and one of barley and one muid of wine and a young pig worth six deniers, or the six deniers. Bishops could also take two solidos (in deniers) instead. The bishops had tried to circumvent these limits by arguing over the measures, dividing parishes up so they would have more pretexts to visit, etc. Charles set that the public, approved measure in that region should apply and also limited the bishops to one voyage a year, or its equivalent in rations. He also encouraged them to only visit larger parishes, or to unite the smaller ones into a single one for purposes of this contribution. (Mollard) This capitulary then specifically instructs the hosts not to provide more than these listed items: ten loaves of bread, a half-muid of wine, a muid of oats, a young pig worth four deniers, two chickens and ten eggs. (The oats were probably for the horses.)

Again, this enumeration gives some idea of what was considered a basic ration of food.

Finally, in the Edict of Pistres of 864, which largely addressed Viking depredations, Charles addresses the question of standard measures in France. He asks that counts and public officers have standards available for measures, based on those in his palace. He even implies that this has traditionally been the case, though his own declaration seems to be the first surviving mention of it. Further on in the same section, he writes of “cities and towns and... the markets”, interesting in itself since it implies an urban infrastructure whose existence is considered uncertain in this period. He asks that in these places officers of the state have measures available so that those who “sell baked bread or meat by the piece, or wine by the sexter cannot adulterate or reduce” what they sell. He then however focuses on one profession only, going on to say that the Bishop or the Abbot or the Count in charge will be able to measure bread from bakers. And if they are found to have false weight or adulterated goods, they are to be punished.

This sort of oversight of bakers would become common as cities revived. But this may be the first such mention in the Frankish period, as is the very mention of professional bakers, who had existed under the Romans but may have declined or even disappeared under the Franks.


Overview

The information in these laws is useful but profoundly inconsistent. Why did the Franks pay such careful attention to the details of agriculture and animal husbandry, details which are, if not absent, much less apparent in subsequent codes? Still, until Charlemagne, these subjects remained concerns of the law, as did hunting. The different codes vary in peculiar ways, but these may have reflected the cultural variations of the groups addressed. The later codes mention buildings - granaries, bakeries, baths, etc. - more, which may simply mean the Germanic groups had begun to settle in. Specific positions, too, become more important with time; these may not even have existed as separate functions among the early Germans. Honey remains important, but there is already a clear difference between the early Franks, for instance, and the Bavarians. More prepared foods appear, fitfully, in the later laws. There is also a stronger sense of feudal obligations, which were developing over time; working the land was less and less a concern of individual farmers and more and more a matter of fulfilling a duty to a more powerful institution.

Only a handful of agricultural products are mentioned specifically, more in the Salic law than later. Charlemagne's attempts to legally define prices begin to incidentally provide an idea of the major grains and their relative values. The very idea of monetary value takes on more specific importance over time.

By the time of Charles the Bald, the outlines of an urban system begin to appear as well as some attempt to reign in the Church. Hints appear of strictures that over time would become urban and local, not national.


FOR FURTHER READING:



Lois des Francs, contenant la loi salique et la loi ripuaire, suivant le texte de Dutillet, revu, avec la tr. en regard et des notes, par J.F.A. Peyré 1828


Lacroix, Paul, Franz Kellerhoven, Moeurs, usages et costumes au moyen age et a l'époque de la Renaissance par Paul Lacroix 1871

Toussaint-Samat, Maguelonne, A History of Food 2009




Baillie-Grohman, W. A., "A Famous Medieval Hunting-Book", The Monthly Review, V6 1902

Capitularia regum Francorum: additae sunt Marculfi monachi et aliorum formulae veteres et notae doctissimorum virorum ed Etienne Baluze, Marculfus v1 1677

Faider, Amedee, "Histoire du droit de chasse et de la législation sur la chasse en Belgique, en France, en Angletree, en Allemagne, en Italie et en Hollande", Mémoires couronnés et autres mémoires publićs par l'Académie royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique. Collectionin-80. Tome I-LXVI [1840-1904]. 1877