Tag Archives: slaves

In proportion to worth

In the course of revising an article and preparing a conference paper, both on different aspects of poisoning in the Lombard laws, I began to think a bit more about crimes in the Edictus Rothari which have composition equal to a proportion of the victim’s praetium, widrigild or ‘worth’. I won’t go in to too much specific detail here on the poisoning clause, that can wait for the article and conference, except to note that Rothari Nos 140 and 142 each award the victim of a failed poisoning attempt redress equal to half their praetium. The former of those clauses addresses the situation where the perpetrator is a freeman or woman, the latter when they are an enslaved man or woman. In the latter case the enslaved perpetrator is also killed, and their own praetium counted towards the composition. Heavy stuff, and informative to the Lombard legal imagination, but as I said mot my focus here. What I want to do instead is gather together the clauses of the Edictus Rothari in which the composition is set in proportion to the victim’s praetium. As with the 900 solidi cases I discussed in a previous post, giving a set of crimes a comparable compensation implies that these crimes were likewise considered to be of comparable severity. Moreover, I wonder, and this is a question that I wish to pose but not necessarily answer at this point, if setting the composition in proportion to the value of the person’s life informs something less tangible, more conceptual about how these specific crimes were imagined?

Or, is setting the composition in proportion to social status simply a convenient means of letting certain crimes be compensated at varying levels within the broader strata into which Lombard society was sub-divided in the injury tariffs? As I have previously discussed, the injury tariffs address three strata as a whole, outlining the composition due for different injuries for, first, a freeman Rothari Nos 43-75, then an aldius (‘half free’ men) or servus ministerialis (‘enslaved domestic worker’), Rothari Nos 76-102, and lastly the servus rustigianus (‘enslaved agricultural worker’), Rothari Nos 103-127. The actual praetium for different individuals within these strata varies, for instance an aldius is set at sixty solidi, a servus ministerialis fifty solidi. Therefore, cutting of the nose of either has composition fixed at eight solidi (Rothari No. 82), but as gouging out an eye is set at half praetium, for this injury Rothari No. 81 awards thirty solidi to the aldius but only twenty-five to the servus ministerialis. The enslaved agricultural worker of any rank similarly gets a pre-established composition should their nose be cut off, this time four solidi (Rothari No. 106). The gouging out of an eye is again awarded as half of the praetium, Rothari No. 105. In this case the higher ranking enslaved agricultural workers, such as the servus massarius (enslaved tenant) or master swineherd would each also be awarded twenty-five solidi for the eye, as both have a praetium of fifty solidi (Rothari Nos 132 and 135, respectively). As an aside, presume the composition would actually go to the owners of the enslaved people, rather than directly to them. While that needs saying, it is outside of my focus here).

At the lowest end of the strata containing enslaved agricultural workers, with a praetium of sixteen solidi each, are the enslaved student of a cattleherd, goatherd or oxherd (Rothari No. 136) and the enslaved field worker subordinate to the servus massarius (Rothari No. 134), for whom the composition for the gouged-out eye is only eight solidi. Despite the overarching system of three layers of Lombard society, which adds greater value to the enslaved domestic workers ‘who have been taught, nourished and trained in the home’ (Rothari No. 76, trans.  Fischer-Drew, The Lombard Laws, p.  65) in comparison to the other enslaved workers out in the field, when it comes to the half praetium crimes the worth of the servus ministerialis and the servus massarius are balanced. An eye for an eye, as it were.

 


I may have missed a few clauses on my quick skim through gathering them, but hopefully I have the majority (if/when I find any more, I’ll emend the post or make a note). I’ve sub-divided these clauses into a number of broader categories, although it should be noted that these are abstract and not specifically mentioned in the text or peritext of the Edictus.

 

Gouged Out and Severed Off Bits

As just discussed, gouging out the eye of a freeman (Rothari No. 48), an aldius or enslaved domestic worker (Rothari No. 81), or an enslaved agricultural worker (Rothari No. 105): half praetium. However, gouging out the remaining eye of an already one-eyed freeman has a relatively higher composition of two-thirds praetium. No specific mention is made for the remaining eye of a one-eyed aldius or enslaved person.

Cutting off the nose of a freeman is similarly valued at half praetium (Rothari No. 49), while cutting off the ear of a freeman is set at a quarter praetium. The severing of ear, nose or thumb for either an aldius or an enslaved person of any rank are each given a set composition, rather than in proportion to their worth.

Cutting of the hand or foot of a freeman is set at half praetium (Rothari Nos 62 and 68, respectively), as are the same injuries for an aldius or enslaved domestic worker (Rothari Nos. 88 and 95, respectively), and again for an enslaved agricultural worker (Rothari Nos. 113 and 119, respectively). Injuries to either hand or foot that do not sever the appendage, but instead cause it to be permanently paralysed are given only for the freeman, and are valued at a quarter praetium, while the severing of a freeman’s thumb is set at one sixth of the praetium. Comparable injuries for the aldius or enslaved person are either not addressed or else are given a fixed composition.

 

Beatings and Bindings

Rothari No. 41 proscribes half praetium in composition for surprising a freeman and beating him (without the king’s consent). The law stresses that the high composition is due to the shameful nature of the act and the derisive treatment of the freeman in question. This emphasis on shameful behaviour was one of the points which got me wondering if compositions in which a proportion of the praetium was awarded reflected something more than just compensating for the wounds and injury. If restitution was being made for the shameful behaviour and assault to honour specifically in proportion and symbolic reference to the entire worth of the victim. Unless the same can be argued for the severed bits and gouged eyes mentioned above can be fit into this model, however, the argument may not be compelling. That said, the fact that only the freeman gets restitution in proportion to their worth for a severed nose or thumb may fall somewhere in the middle. Still much to ponder here.

If the assault on the freeman goes further, and he is captured and bound, without cause and again without the king’s consent (Rothari No. 42), then the proportion of composition due is increased to two-third praetium. In this clause, however, there is no discussion of shame or acting with derision. The binding of freemen could perhaps be considered a continuation of the shameful beating, a second clause augmenting the contexts of the first and assuming the treatment to be shameful taken as written. The clause division of Bluhme’s Leges 4 (1858) edition, does not support that reading, but a detailed look at the mise-en-page of the manuscripts is required before I’d like to really pronounce either way. Nevertheless, if the two clauses are considered together, and the do otherwise follow the usual pattern in the Edictus Rothari of addressing outcomes in increasing order of severity, then the shamefulness of the binding as well as the beating may well be inferred. At the very least, the two clauses form a general preamble on overall acts of violence made against a freeman, before the law-givers launch into the specific injuries to specific body parts as detailed in the tariffs.

 

Unseen/Internal Injuries

The final injuries that are compensated for in proportion to the worth of the victim are the non-lethal, failed attempts at poisoning which I mentioned at the outset (Rothari Nos 140 and 142, depending on whether the perpetrator is free or enslaved) and the case when injuries made to a freewoman cause her to miscarry (Rothari No. 75). In this latter instance, the baby is valued in relation to the mother’s preatium. The poisoning and miscarriage clauses appear on the surface to be substantially different, save for both being awarded the same composition. But I think cross-overs can be inferred, both directly and indirectly, which need to be considered. Firstly, both crimes affect the insides of the victim. The injury tariffs of the Lombards make no mention of internal organs (this is likewise true for nearly all of the early medieval ‘Germanic’ injury tariffs, with the exception of those in the Frisian laws, as discussed by Lise Oliver, and even then it is wounds to the belly that cause the intestines to spill out, and is therefore arguably internal organ as external wound: The Body Legal Legal in Barbarian Law (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011), p. 130). My reading, in the case of poisoning, is that a Lombard legal practitioner assessing the damage done to a victim of poisoning would be unable to determine the specific injuries to the victim without causing them further bodily harm. It seems to me that Rothari No. 75 in part presents a similar difficulty in assessing the specific damage done to the mother and unborn child.

These poisoning and miscarriage clauses differ, however, in their attitude to intent. The poisoning clauses, and likewise those on severing or gouging bits, do not address the intent of the perpetrator. Whether the injury was deliberate or accidental is not discussed, although in the case when a person is accidentally killed, by whatever means, is addressed in the penultimate clause of the Edictus, with the note that, if the killing was accidental, then only financial restitution is needed, and that no further faida [feud] is required (Rothari No. 387). The clauses on poisoning make no mention of intent or accident (e.g. if the wrong mushrooms are added to the soup), but the miscarriage law stresses that no faida is required as the injury was accidental. In fact, the reader of the laws can almost hear the words ‘must have been’ in the tone of the laws, and it seems that the Lombard law-givers had great difficulty imagining that a pregnant woman might be deliberately assaulted so as to abort her unborn child. This, probably, reflects another facet of the (painfully misogynistic) gender binary the law-givers were presenting and trying to legislate for, in which it was deemed absurd that a woman might take up arms and commit acts of physical violence. It seems to me that there is a desperate tone in this clause on miscarriage, the law-givers desperately begging that no woman’s miscarriage could have been deliberately inflicted.

But this brings me to another connection between the clauses on poisoning and miscarriage, and the research of Dr. Marianne Elsakkers. In her doctoral research she examines the intersection of poisons and abortives in the early medieval Anglo-Saxon and Salic law-codes and I cannot help but wonder if a related reading should be seen in the Edictus Rothari’s clause on miscarriage.

As I mentioned at the outset, I will not answer here the question regarding the symbolic implications of awarding composition in proportion to the praetium, widrigild/wergeld or worth of the victim as outlined in the Lombard laws. Having collated the main clauses and sub-divided them into speculative categories, my conclusion for now is that the Lombard law-givers’ approach to compensation here is multi-facetted at the least. At this moment, I severely doubt that a unifying interpretation of proportional restitution can be hypothesised, even within the scope of a single law-code, but I’m going to keep picking at it and will let the ideas ferment.

Advertisements

Theft, Aldia and Ancilla: Slaves and the ‘Half-Free’ in Lombard Law, Part II

This is the second of two posts, discussing slaves and the ‘half free’, in Rothari’s Edictus, focusing in this part on female slaves and half-free in particular. The first post can be found here. The main points made previously were that the praetium, or ‘worth’ owed to their owner should they be killed, were highly differentiated for different types of slave depending on their duties. The lowest being a field slave subordinate to another slave valued at 16 solidi, the highest 50 solidi for either a trained household slave or a master swineherd with three or more underlings. The aldius, or ‘half-free’ was valued somewhat higher, at 60 solidi. Conversely, in the case of injuries, these are merged into two broad groups: aldii and household slaves in the first group, and agricultural slaves in the second.

While these tariffs for death and injury appear to refer only to men, sometimes explicitly, a clause close to the end of the Edictus elaborates on specific instance in which women are killed. Rothari No. 376 addresses the killing of another man’s aldia or woman slave, on the grounds that she was a vampire ‘striga’ or witch ‘masca’. True to early medieval style, it is the perpetrator of this attack who is punished, on the grounds that it is illegal, impious and that ‘it is in no wise to be believed by Christian minds that it is possible that a woman can eat a living man from within’ [trans. Katherine Fischer Drew, The Lombard Laws, pp. 126-27]. For killing an aldia the perpetrator paid a fine of 100 solidi ‘for the guilt’ as well as 60 solidi for her life. The same praetium as for her male counterpart. In the case of a female slave the killer pays 60 solidi for the crime and composition according to her status as a household slave or field slave, and here a cross-reference is made to the values outlined previously in the Edictus. While the values laid out are often explicitly male in their terminology, women appear to be implicitly included within them. Women are only discussed directly in the cases where the nature of the crime is such that the victim or perpetrator is explicitly female. The most notable instances are rape (The potential for men to also be victims of rape not being recognised in the Lombard laws) and injuries leading to the death of an unborn child (Rothari No. 75, set at half the praetium of the mother according to whether she is free, unfree or half-free).

The focus of discussion here, though, is on crimes committed by female slaves and aldia to see how the distinction between these ranks is addressed. The main instance in the Edictus is theft, which at the very least reflects the stereotypical behaviour which the Lombard law-makers expected from unfree and half-free women. Theft is addressed directly in four of the clauses: Rothari No. 253 addressing theft by a freeman, No. 254 by a slave, No. 257 by a folkfree woman, and No. 258 by a female slave or aldia. In all cases the basic reparation is for the thief (or the one who owns them) to return the value of the goods nine-fold, with further details according to status and gender. Theft by freemen, for example, are only considered if the value taken is over 10 seliquae (twenty-four seliquae being equal in value to one solidus). In addition to the nine-fold return of the goods, the freeman must also pay 80 solidi in composition for the guilt, but if he is unable to do so then he is to be killed. A similar situation is true for the slave, except that the composition due is 40 solidi.

In the case of the ‘folkfree’ woman who commits theft (Rothari No. 257), that is a woman who has been freed rather than one who was born free, no additional composition is due, but, as discussed in this post, the law states that ‘shame [should] be reflected on her who did this disgraceful deed’ [Trans. Fischer-Drew, The Lombard Laws, p. 257]. As it is the ‘folk-free’ woman who is specifically addressed her, it may perhaps be assumed that the ordinary freewoman is subject to the same punishment as for the freeman. The imputation of shame for having committed theft, then, may be a statement reflecting on one who has previously managed to increase their station on the social ladder, but has kept the stereotypical behaviour from their previous position. I would still argue, however, that as this law only address folk-free women, not freedmen, the moralising on behaviour by the Lombard lawmakers is still fundamentally about gender, rather than exclusively social mobility. Or rather, that it relates specifically to female social mobility.

Thefts committed by either an aldia or ancilla are addressed together in Rothari No. 258. No distinction whatsoever is made for the various distinctions in rank and position as identified for injuries and praetium discussed earlier. Instead, all are subject to the same punishment: return of the goods nine-fold by her lord and a payment of 40 solidi for the guilt. No mention is made here of imputing shame, which strengthens the argument made before that the moralising in the previous clause was explicitly about female social mobility. The question that rises, however, is what purpose exactly does this clause serve? If woman are being implicitly addressed in the explicitly male clauses, then how does this clause differ? Both proscribe a nine-fold return of the goods stolen, and both proscribe a 40 solidi composition for the guilt itself.

Conversely, these two clauses differ in a number of small but significant ways: firstly, the aldius is not mentioned at any point in relation to theft, only the aldia. Secondly, theft by male slaves is only addressed if the value of the property taken is up to ten seliquae (therefore opposite to the freeman, where theft is only considered for property above that value), while for the ancilla and aldia no maximum or minimum limit to the value is discussed. Thirdly, where restitution cannot be made by men (free or unfree), they are put to death, no capital punishment is outlined for women. Finally, it is explicitly stated that the lord of the ancilla or aldia makes the payment, while it is not made clear in the case of the male slave. If anything, then, the law seems to take responsibility and consequence away from the female perpetrator, making it explicit that it is the lord who pays and removing the threat of death from them. For the male slaves, however, the situation is reversed, and the laws appear to lessen the responsibility of their lord, apparently burdening the slave with a composition they most probably will not be able to afford to pay, and facing therefore death.

The laws, therefore, hint at the role of women in the lower social strata of Lombard society, and many inferences both wild and cautious could be drawn from the evidence. The implications of these laws for the distinction in social hierarchy between aldia and ancilla are less clear; the clause makes no distinction between the two. Taken alongside the injury tariffs and the praetium for the different social ranks, it becomes increasingly clear that no distinct line can be drawn in Lombard society between the aldius or aldia and the slave or ancilla. On the one hand, fine distinctions are sometimes made within these groupings, to the extent that the aldius or ancilla appear as simply one more gradation of value, positioned just one small step higher than the most valued of slaves. On the other hand, aldius and slave, aldia and ancilla can be grouped together without need for distinction: honour does not appear to be at stake and half free seems still to be, to a great extent, property.

Slaves and the ‘Half-Free’ in Lombard Law, Part I

The structure of early medieval Lombard society, as presented in Rothari’s Edictus of 643 CE, was sub-divided into a number of broad strata. Ignoring the king and his officials, there are the freemen (homo libera) at the top, the country slaves (servus rusticanus) at the very bottom and the household slaves (servus menisteriales) and the ‘half-free’ aldius somewhere in between. English translations throughout are from Katherine Fischer-Drew, The Lombard Laws (University of Pennsylvannia Press, 1973), Latin from Edictus Rothari, ed. F. Bluhme, in Legum, IV, (Monumenta Germania Historica, 1868).

Neither free, half-free nor slave are explicitly defined within the Edictus, inferences about the group as a whole must instead be drawn from similarities and differences in the ways in which each is treated in specific circumstances. My focus here is primarily on the men of the lower levels, comparing the ways in which they are equated and differentiated within the laws. This is the first of two intended posts, the second will explore the extent to which these divisions extend to the social position of women in the Lombard society of the mid-seventh century.

The main aspects of the laws which allow for comparison between the social ranks are the compositions due in redress for killing or inflicting injures on a person, or the punishment allotted for the same crime according to the rank of the perpetrator. Perpetrators of different ranks, such as thieves, will be addressed in Part II of this post, and here I will focus on first injuries and then killings.

Redress for injuries (and killings) is made financially – that is composition is paid to the victim, their family or their owner – and with every injury having its (maximum?) price defined. Despite the apparent ease at comparing a value of, say 16 solidi opposed to 4 or 2 solidi for the same injury made against a freeman, an aldius or a slave, respectively, the situation is more complicated. Aldii, like slaves, are considered property, and the crime is against their owner. Likewise, the composition is paid to the owner as recompense for property damage, not to the person for the injury they sustained. In many instances the laws add to the composition due for the crime against an aldius or slave, redress for the work lost and a requirement to pay the doctor’s fee. Appeasing the honour of the slave or aldius, however, is not a concern: conversely, the clause introducing the tariffs for injuries against freemen firmly states that once payment has been made, the faida, that is the ‘feud’, ends, (Rothari No. 45).

With these provisos firmly in mind, there is still much information regarding the Lombard social hierarchy and the relative worth adjudged to different members that can be derived from Rothari’s Edictus. The injury tariffs divide Lombard society into three broad categories: first come those done to freemen (hominem liberum), in Rothari Nos 45 to 74; next addressing the ‘half-free’ ([h]aldius) and household slaves (servus menesteriales), Rothari Nos 77 to 102; finally the laws turn to country slaves (servus rusticiani), Rothari Nos 103 to 126. Immediately preceding the section addressing the aldii and household slaves, a clause outlines the difference between a household and country slave, defining the former as one who has been “taught, nourished and trained in the home” (Rothari No. 76).

Each set of tariffs addresses roughly the same types of injury in order, and lays out the composition due in redress according to the social class of its victim. A quick cross-comparison of the values given across the three levels rapidly reveals two details: 1) despite the similarity across the three tariffs, specific injures are not addressed at all social ranks, and 2) there are more specific injuries for freemen than for aldii and slaves. Choosing a few injury types from the lists (almost) at random, but excluding injuries where the composition due is a proportion of the injured person’s praetium or ‘worth’ which I will come to shortly, a quick comparison of the respective values can be made (EDIT: a tabulated comparison of all the injury tariffs is given in Appendix I, at the bottom of this post) :

  • Knocking out one of the front teeth ‘that appears when smiling’ accrues a composition of 16 solidi for a freeman (Rothari No. 51). For the same injury inflicted on an aldius or household slave the composition is only a quarter, 4 solidi (Rothari.No. 85), while the country slave it half this value again, or one eighth that for the freeman, with a composition of only 2 solidi (Rothari No. 109).
  • The same proportions by ranks are seen in the case of cutting off a ring-finger (or ‘fourth finger’) has a composition of 8 solidi for a freeman (Rothari No. 66), 2 solidi for an aldius or household slave (Rothari No. 92), and 1 solidus for a country slave (Rothari No. 117).
  • The proportions change slightly in the case of chest wounds, with one made against a freeman receiving redress of 20 solidi, (Rothari No. 59) but with 6 solidi for the same injury against an aldius or household slave (Rothari No. 101). This then is slightly more than a quarter of the composition given for a freeman, but the composition due for a chest wound to a country slave remains in the same proportion (half) to that for the aldius and domestic slave with a value of 3 solidi, (Rothari No. 111).

That the laws associate the household slave and the aldius together in the same section suggests that they shared the same economic worth and social value. A more nuanced situation can be seen, however, by examining the redress due for the killings, a sum defined as their ‘worth’ which is praetium or, occasionally, widrigild (the langobardic cognate of the wergeld of the Anglo-Saxons).

The composition due for killing a freeman is a sum equal to his worth, (Rothari No. 11): 300 solidi for an ordinary, land-holding freeman, or 150 solidi for a lesser one who did not own land (see Fischer-Drew, 29). The value could be even higher, such as if the freeman was an officer of the royal court. Clauses in the Edictus running from Rothari No. 129 to 134 lay out the praetium for a range of individuals in the lower social strata. The aldius has the highest amount, valued at 60 solidi (Rothari No. 129). The following two clauses distinguishes between two types of household slave, the ordinary one having a praetium of 50 solidi (Rothari No. 130), and with slaves subordinate to them being valued at half the worth, or 25 solidi (Rothari No. 131). In this way a hierarchy of value is made in the case of killing, for a group who were treated as broadly homogenous in the case of injuries. As four of the injuries identified in the tariffs, however, set the composition as equal to half the praetium differentiation between these classes was produced here by default (gouging out an eye, cutting of a hand, a foot or crippling without severing a hand, foot or limb Rothari Nos 81, 88, 95 and 126, respectively). The severed ringfinger of a household slave might be worth as much as that of the aldius’ (2 solidi), but the gouged eye ranges from 30 solidi for the aldius, to 25 solidi for the household slave and only 12½ solidi for their subordinate slave.

Turning to the agricultural slaves, a master swineherd (presumably still a slave, although the laws give him the specific title of porcariu[s] without the word servus attached) with at least three underlings ranks highest at 50 solidi, equal to the household slave, while his subordinates are valued at 25 solidi each (Rothari No. 135). Further down the social ladder are the tenant slave (Rothari No. 132), ox ploughman (Rothari No. 133) and cattleherd, goatherd or oxherd (Rothari No. 136) all valued at 20 solidi. Valued lowest of all is the field slave who is subordinate to a tenant slave, given a praetium of 16 solidi (Rothari No. 134). The same four injuries in the tariffs for the country slaves as outlined for the aldius and household slaves previously are given composition equalling half their praetium: gouging out an eye, cutting of a hand, a foot or crippling without severing a hand, foot or limb (Rothari Nos 105, 113, 119 and 126, respectively). A quarter of the praetium is awarded to the owner of a country slave for a broken arm, hip or leg that has not healed within a year (Rothari No. 112). Subdivisions in the ranking of the country slaves, then, can also be clearly seen that would be made manifest in the redress given to their owners in the case of specific, severe injuries as well as if they were killed.

The line between the aldius and the slaves is narrow but nevertheless discernible – a sliver of 10 solidi between their 60 solidi and the uppermost value of 50 solidi for the household slave or the master swineherd. While ostensibly distinct, these values still seem very much as part of a group when compared against the 150 to 300 solidi or higher of value given to the freemen. It is a truism of early medieval studies, however, that one cannot directly compare the wergild of the freeman with the praetium of the slave despite the values being reckoned in the same currency (although it should be noted here that solidi is essentially an accounting convention imported into Lombard Italy from their contact with the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire, rather than reflecting specific coinage in use). Wergeld, or better widrigild, is for appeasing honour and ending the feud, paid to the victim or to their family. Praetium, conversely, is the market value of a commodity, paid to the owner for the damage to or loss of their property. Fischer-Drew’s translation silently corrects the apparent ‘mistake’ found throughout the 1868 Monumenta Germaniae Historica edition and the laws themselves, keeping praetium as ‘worth’ for the salves and aldii but consistently changing it to ‘wergild’ for the free. In the case of freemen the laws occasionally use the langobardic widrigild for ‘worth’, but far more often than not use the Latin praetium instead. I will pose, but not answer the pressing question here: what, then, does it mean that the Lombard laws repeatedly use ‘praetium’ for describing the composition due for free, half-free and un-free? I hope to return to this question in the future, but it is one that requires a close-reading and manuscript-led investigation, and probably one made in comparative study across the surviving ‘barbarian’ laws of Western Europe.

What can be said is that the laws are detailed on the exact relationship of the aldius to the various rankings of slaves. Where the two are treated as a homogenous group, there is still space for distinction – at least when the injuries are at the most severe. Part II of this post will step away from injuries to male aldii and slaves, and will consider the distinction between them when they are the perpetrators of a crime, and when their female counterparts are expressly addressed in the mid-seventh century Lombard society as constructed in Rothari’s Edictus.


Appendix I: Comparison of Injury Tariffs in Rothari’s Edictus

Crime Freemen Aldius / Household Slave Agricultural Slave
Strikes so a wound is apparent 1 solidus
(Rothari No. 77)
1/2 solidus
(Rothari No. 125)
— two blows 2 solidi
(Rothari No. 77)
— three blows 3 solidi
(Rothari No. 77)
— four or more blows Up to 2 solidi
(Rothari No. 125)
Hits another man on head, bone broken 12 solidi
(Rothari No. 47)
–two bones broken 24 solidi
(Rothari No. 47)
— three or more bones broken 36 solidi
(Rothari No. 47)
Gouging out an eye Half praetium
(Rothari No. 48)
Half praetium
(Rothari No. 81)
Half praetium
(Rothari No. 105)
Cutting off nose Half praetium
(Rothari No. 49)
8 solidi
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 82)
4 solidi
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 106)
Cutting off lips 16 solidi
(Rothari No. 50)
— if 1, 2 or 3 teeth exposed 20 solidi
(Rothari No. 50)
4 solidi
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 84)
3 solidi
(Rothari No. 109)
Knocking out a front tooth 16 solidi
(Rothari No. 51)
4 solidi
(Rothari No. 85)
2 solidi
(Rothari No. 109)
— two or three teeth
(or several: aldius / household slave;
or more: agricultural slave)
16 solidi per tooth
(Rothari No. 51)
4 solidi per tooth
(Rothari No. 85)
2 solidi per tooth
(Rothari No. 109)
Knocking out jaw teeth (molars) 8 solidi per tooth
(Rothari No. 52)
2 solidi per tooth
(Rothari No. 86)
1 solidus per tooth
(Rothari No. 109)
Cutting off ear Quarter praetium
(Rothari No. 53)
2 solidi
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 83)
2 solidi
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 107)
Wound to the face 16 solidi
(Rothari No. 54)
1 solidus
(Rothari No. 104)
Wound to the nose
if heals leaving only a scar
16 solidi
(Rothari No. 55)
Injury to the ear
if heals
16 solidi
(Rothari No. 56)
Arm wound
pierced
16 solidi
(Rothari No. 57)
Arm wound
not pierced
8 solidi
(Rothari No. 58)
Punctures arm or leg 3 solidi
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 102)
2 solidi
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 110)
Strikes arm or leg
doesn’t puncture
1 solidus
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 102)
1 solidus
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 110)
Strikes on chest
wounds
20 solidi
(Rothari No. 59)
6 solidi
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 101)
3 solidi
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 111)
Strike on hip
pierced
16 solidi
(Rothari No. 60)
Strike on hip
not pierced
8 solidi
(Rothari No. 60)
Broken hip or shin 3 solidi
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 94)
Breaking arm, hip or shin 3 solidi
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 112)
— if not healed within a year Quarter praetium
(Rothari No. 112)
Cut off hand Half praetium
(Rothari No. 62)
Half praetium
(Rothari No. 88)
Half praetium
(Rothari No. 113)
— hand paralysed but not severed Quarter praetium
(Rothari No. 62)
Hand, foot or limb crippled but not severed Same value as if entirely cut off
(Rothari No. 126)
Same value as if entirely cut off
(Rothari No. 126)
Cuts off thumb sixth praetium
(Rothari No. 63)
8 solidi
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 89)
4 solidi
(Rothari No. 114)
Cuts off index finger 16 solidi
(Rothari No. 64)
6 solidi
(Rothari No. 90)
3 solidi
(Rothari No. 115)
Cuts off middle finger 5 solidi
(Rothari No. 65)
2 solidi
(Rothari No. 91)
1 solidus
(Rothari No. 116)
Cuts off ringfinger 8 solidi
(Rothari No. 66)
2 solidi
(Rothari No. 92)
1 solidus
(Rothari No. 117)
Cuts off little finger 16 solidi
(Rothari No. 67)
4 solidi
(Rothari No. 93)
2 solidi
(Rothari No. 118)
Cuts off foot Half praetium
(Rothari No. 68)
Half praetium
(Rothari No. 95)
Half praetium
(Rothari No. 119)
— foot paralysed but not severed Quarter praetium
(Rothari No. 68)
Cut off big toe 16 solidi
(Rothari No. 69)
4 solidi
+ lost work,
+ doctor’s fee
(Rothari No. 96)
2 solidi
(Rothari No. 120)
Cut off second toe 6 solidi
(Rothari No. 70)
2 solidi
(Rothari No. 97)
1 solidi
(Rothari No. 121)
Cut off third toe 3 solidi
(Rothari No. 71)
2 solidi
(Rothari No. 98)
1 solidus
(Rothari No. 122)
Cut off fourth toe 3 solidi
(Rothari No. 72)
1 solidus
(Rothari No. 99)
1/2 solidus
(Rothari No. 123)
Cut off little toe 2 solidi
(Rothari No. 73)
1 solidus
(Rothari No. 100)
1/2 solidus
(Rothari No. 124)

Ferrymen and Fugitives

Legislation relating to the portunarium, or ‘ferryman’, appears four times within the the Edictus, the first of the written barbarian law-codes of the Lombards, promulgated in 643 CE in the name of King Rothari. The clauses on ferrymen run consecutively in the law-code, and are edited as Nos. 265 to 268 in Frederick Bluhme’s mid-nineteenth-century, Monumenta Germaniae Historica edition of the Lombard Edictus and Alfred Boratius’ edition of the eleventh-century version of the texts, the Liber legis langobardorum or Liber Papiensis in the same volume. The arrangement of clauses with related themes so that they are adjacent to each other in the laws is nothing unusual, numerous thematic blocks can be identified. In many cases these groupings also progress thematically from one to the next, or, after taking a step back, can be seen to work as units within a larger theme. The clauses to either side of those dealing with the ferryman illustrate this perfectly.

Rothari clause Nos 253 to 263 address the subject of theft, looking at various social iterations beginning with theft committed by a freeman, and then considering slaves, free women, ‘half-free’ women (that is, aldia), freemen ordering their slaves to steal for them and so forth. The following clause, No. 264, progresses from theft to freemen or slaves apprehended while trying to flee the country. While the person could of course be fleeing for many reasons, the clause specifically notes that, following Katherine Fischer-Drew’s translation of the Lombard laws, that the apprehending ‘judge or other resident’ should ‘keep safe the property which he [the fugitive] carried with him’, and then stresses on two occasions that the ‘properties that he took’ should be returned. While these could easily have been the personal properties of the fugitive, as the clause follows on directly from the discussion on theft, it seems strongly implied that those properties were stolen goods.

The clauses following here, Nos 265 to 276 address fugitives in different ways, including a bond’s man who run from their own lord to another (No. 269) and if that second man refuses to return them (no. 270); if they run to the king’s court (No. 271) or take sanctuary in the church (No. 272); if someone harbours or aids a fleeing bondsman (Nos 274 to 276) or, going back a few clauses in the laws to the focus of this discussion, the culpability and responsibilities of ferrymen who aid, knowingly or otherwise, fugitives (Nos. 265 to 268).

Rothari No. 265 begins the discussion on ferrymen, by allowing a ferryman accused of transporting a fugitive OR thief across a river to clear themselves from guilt with only an oath. Here it is assumed that the ferryman will not offer false oath, and the emphasis is on the ferryman having not known that their passenger was on the run. The specific requirement of ‘oath alone’ emphasises the law overall being on the ferryman’s side and hints at their importance in the travel and communication networks of the Lombard regnum.

Rothari No. 266, however, modifies this to include the situation where the ferryman is in the know and transports a thief fleeing with goods anyway. Here the ferryman becomes treated as an accomplice, must pay composition along with the thief for whatever goods were taken, and in addition must pay a further fee of twenty solidi to the king’s treasury. The fees and compositions due within the Lombard laws vary greatly, sometimes being as small as half a solidi, sometimes rising as high as twelve-hundred solidi. Twenty solidi, however, has been suggested to be the uppermost cut offline between the less and more serious cases, based on the understanding that if a person could not pay the fine, then they became a debt slave until they had worked off what they owed in the lesser cases, but a permanent slave if the value was more than twenty solidi (See Fischer-Drew: 28).

Rothari No. 267 examines the other half of that equation, wherein a ferryman knowingly transports a fugitive slave. Here, in addition to a fee of twenty solidi to the king’s treasury, the ferryman was obliged to search out and capture the fugitive, and then return them (with the property they were carrying, stolen or personal?) to their owner, or else to compensate the owner the value of the slave and said property.

When the fugitive in question is a freeman, however, and the ferryman knowingly transports him, then the stakes increase significantly. Rothari No. 268 states that here the ferryman must either pay a fine equal to his own wergild, or failing that lose his life. The clause, perhaps recognising that a fugitive freeman may be in a better position to put up a struggle than a fugitive slave (better health? better weapons? better training in combat?) and putting greater significance on the social value of a freeman than a slave, points out that even if the ferryman could not hold the fugitive, they should at least have run on ahead proclaiming the guilt so that others could intervene.

To my knowledge, Rothari’s Edictus does not make further comment on one other than a ferryman who knowingly aids a fugitive freeman. No. 276, however, addresses giving shelter or help in the form of directions or provisions, to a fleeing slave. As with No. 267, the person is obliged to hunt down the slave. If they succeed in catching the fugitive, they must return them and pay their owner for the lost labour, and if unable to catch the fugitive they instead repay the value of the slave and the property they had taken with them. In this instance, then, there is no fee made to the royal treasury.

Whenever a specific occupation or social class is addressed in the laws, there is normally a reason. The subtle variations between the laws are revealing when examined closely. That is to say: that a ferryman accomplice to a fugitive slave or thief pays a fee to the royal treasury; that a ferryman can prove that they did not know their passenger was on the run can prove their innocence with an ‘oath alone’; and that in the case of aiding fugitive freemen, only ferryman are addressed in specific detail. The question I am mulling now, then, is what do these laws imply for the social and legal context of Lombard Italy? It is not a question I can answer fully here yet, but I have a few thoughts fermenting.

The ability to move around the kingdom must have been vital, and with the many rivers bisecting the land ferries and their operators must have played a significant role. A fugitive, or any person, might be able to move relatively freely across open land, but when crossing a river they would need a bridge or ferry. The ferryman might be expected to know the goings on of the local area, to recognise well enough if a person was likely to be a fugitive slave. Conversely, for a freeman, clause No. 268 almost implies that the ferryman should be able to recognise that he is now a fugitive, as if some outwardly obvious change would occur between an honest and dishonest freeman.

As a nexus point in the transport routes of the kingdom, the actions of the ferryman are of importance to the kingdom as a whole. It may be for this reason that the twenty solidi fine for aiding a thief or fugitive slave goes to the king, not to their owner, that willingly, or at least knowingly, aiding them was an action against the king and the broader interests of society as a whole, as much as it was opposing the financial and labour interests of the slave in question’s owner. Returning to clause No. 265, the broader interests of society and infrastructure can again be seen where the fugitive or thief is unknowingly assisted, and the law falls very much in favour of the ferryman. Clearing themselves of guilt by ‘oath alone’ resonates with significance, and here the implications seem more obvious. The laws balance private interests with societal good: if ferrymen were worried that for every person of unknown or even apparently good-standing they let cross, they might later find themselves having to pay a fee, try and track them down and then return them or their value to their owner, would they take any passengers at all?

Edictus Langobardorum’, ed. by Frederick Bluhme; ‘Liber Papiensis’, ed. by Alfred Boratius, in Legum, iv, ed. by Georg Heinrich Pertz (Monumenta Germaniae Historica: 1868)

The Lombard Laws, ed. and trans. by Katherine Fischer-Drew (University of Pennsylvania Press: 1973)