Chapter VI (2)

At first sight this seems unnatural and unlikely. But it ceases to be so if we may regard the alod of terra Salica as a family holding under conditions somewhat like those of the gwely. For under Cymric custom the brother did not succeed to the childless brother as his heir. The co-inheritors, as far as second cousins, were his heirs. In other words the lapsed share went to his _vicini_, but they were the kinsmen of his own gwely.[120]

Nor did a brother succeed to his brother’s _da_, and the grazing rights and homestead connected with it. He had received this _da_, as we have seen, from his chief of kindred by ‘kin and descent,’ _i.e._ by tribal right in his kindred, and therefore if he should die without children his _da_ and everything he had by kin and descent went, not to his brothers, but back to the kindred or the chief of kindred from whom he received it.

If the son die after 14 years of age and leave no heir, his
‘argluyd’ is to possess all his _da_ and to be in place of a son
to him and his house becomes a dead-house. (_Ven. Code_, i. p.
203.)[121]

The lapse of landed rights in family holdings to the kindred was one thing. Their passing out of the kindred to vicini who were strangers would be quite another thing.

When after a time, let us say under cover of the title ‘de migrantibus’ or upon extended conquests, others, perhaps ‘Romani possessores,’ had taken places in the villa side by side with the tribesmen living under the customary rules of _terra Salica_, or when Salic Franks had settled among strangers, the new element would have to be reckoned with.

In the clause ‘de migrantibus’ the protection of ancient Salic custom was sought by the exclusion of strangers at the instance of a single objector from terra Salica. In the Edict of Chilperic, on the other hand, the presence of stranger vicini was taken for granted, and the protection of terra Salica sought by extending the right of succession to brothers and females, so that at least fewer cases might arise of lapsed inheritances falling away from the kindred into the hands of the _vicini_ who might be strangers.

The breaking up of tribal custom thus was not all at once, but by steps. At first _terra Salica_ was limited to men, then female succession was allowed, and lastly, in default of kindred, stranger vicini under certain conditions were admitted to the lapsed inheritance.

IV. THE WERGELDS AND DIVISION OF CLASSES IN THE ‘LEX RIPUARIORUM.’

The customs of the Ripuarian Franks as to wergelds, as might be expected, do not seem to have varied much from those of the Salic Franks. They were probably neighbours in close contact with each other, and, judging from the laws, the population of the district was a mixed one.

[Sidenote: Wergeld of freeman as under the Lex Salica, 200 gold solidi. That of the official threefold.]

The wergeld of the Ripuarian ingenuus, like that of the Salic Frank or barbarian living under the Lex Salica, was 200 gold solidi, and 12 co-swearers were required to deny the homicide (Tit. VII.).

Here again official position seems, as under the Salic law, to be protected by a triple wergeld. The _grafio_ or _comes_, who was a fiscal judge, had a wergeld of 600 solidi (Tit. LIII.). The payment for one _in truste regis_ was also 600 solidi (Tit. XI.).

On the other hand, the wergeld of a ‘_homo regis_’ (Tit. IX.), like that of the ‘_puer regis_’ of the Salic law, was only 100 solidi, and that of the ‘man’ of the Church the same (Tit. X.), _i.e._ half that of the Ripuarian ingenuus.

Consistently with this, the triple payment for killing a woman between childbearing and 40, as also in the Salic Law, was 600 solidi, whilst the wergeld of the ‘femina regia’ or ‘ecclesiastica’ was only 300 solidi.

There are apparently hardly any indications as to how or to whom the wergelds were to be paid. There is only one reference to the _parentes_, and that is not connected with the wergelds. In Tit. LXXXV. it is stated that he who shall disinter a corpse and rob it shall pay 200 solidi and be ‘expelled till he shall satisfy the _parentes_.’

The murderer alone seems to be responsible, unless indeed the few words added to the clauses imposing the triple wergeld of 600 solidi upon the murderer of a woman may be taken to be of general application. The words are these:--

‘If the murderer shall be poor, so that he cannot pay at once,
then let him pay _per tres decessiones filiorum_.’

Has it really come to this, that since the Edict of Childeric II. came into force the parentes are released, and the descendants of the murderer, for three generations, are to be in slavery till the wergeld is paid? It may be so, for the penalty in default of payment of the wergeld probably included his own slavery, which involved with it that of his descendants.

[Sidenote: The fisc gradually takes the place of the kindred.]

The ancient tribal tradition that within the family there could be no feud or wergeld, but exile only, was still apparently in force. In Title LXIX. there is a clause which enacts that if any one shall slay one next in kin (‘proximus sanguinis’) he shall suffer exile and all his goods shall go to the fisc. This exile of the slayer of a near kinsman and forfeiture of his goods to the fisc seems to be almost the only distinct important survival of tribal feeling, apparently neither wergeld nor the death of the slayer being admitted. But in this case the fisc was, as usual, the gainer. Parricide under any system of criminal law would be a capital crime. The pertinacity with which the custom that, being a crime _within_ the kindred, there could be no feud and therefore no wergeld, was adhered to in the midst of manifold changes in circumstances, feeling, and law, is very remarkable.

There is not much else in the Ripuarian laws throwing light upon tribal customs as regards the solidarity of the kindred. But there is a good deal of interesting information upon the important subject of the treatment of strangers in blood.

[Sidenote: Distinction between persons living under Salic law and those living under Roman law who were treated as strangers in blood.]

We have seen that in the Lex Salica the definition of the _ingenuus_ with a wergeld of 200 solidi was the _Francus_ or _barbarus_ living under Salic law. The ‘barbarus’ who lived under Salic law was no longer a stranger; he had in fact become a Frank. As we should say, he had been _naturalised_. Hence there was no inconsistency in the apparent occasional indiscriminate use of the words ‘Francus’ and ‘ingenuus.’ They meant the same thing. But there is nothing to show that the ordinary Gallo-Roman was included under the term ‘_barbarus_ who lived under Salic law.’ On the other hand, we find him living under the Roman law.

In considering the method of dealing with people of so mixed a population as that of the Ripuarian district it is very important to recognise how, under tribal custom, every man continued to live under the law under which he was born, until by some legal process his nationality, so to speak, was admitted to be changed. The Cymric example has shown us how strictly the tribal blood and admission from outside into the tribe were guarded. In such a mixed population as that of the Ripuarian district, the strictness may have been somewhat relaxed, and the formalities of admission less difficult. But there is evidence enough, I think (with great deference to M. Fustel de Coulanges’ doubts on the subject), to show that to some extent at any rate social distinctions were still founded upon ‘difference of blood.’ At all events it is worth while to examine the additional evidence afforded by some clauses in the Ripuarian laws.

[Sidenote: Strangers of allied tribes have wergelds according to the law of their birth, but if they cannot find compurgators must go to the ordeal.]

In Tit. XXXI. it is stated that Franks, Burgundians, Alamanni, and others, of whatever nation, living in the Ripuarian country, are to be judged and dealt with, if guilty, according to the law of the place of their birth, and not by the Ripuarian law, and it is significantly added that (living away from their kinsmen as they often must be) if they cannot find compurgators they must clear themselves by the ordeal of ‘fire or lot.’[122]

Here we come upon one of the strongest tests of tribal custom in its insistence upon the necessity of a man being surrounded by a kindred before he can be a fully recognised tribesman. Unless he be surrounded by kinsmen who can swear for him, under tribal custom, he must have recourse to the ordeal in case of any criminal charge.

There is a clause, not inconsistent, I think, with Tit. XXXI., which seems to draw a clear distinction in favour of tribes more or less nearly allied in blood with Franks, viz. the Burgundians, Alamanni, Bavarians, Saxons, and Frisians, resident in the Ripuarian district, as contrasted with the _Romanus_, who surely must be the Gallo-Roman.

In Title XXXVI. the following wergelds are stated, the slayer being a Ripuarian in all cases:--

A stranger Frank 200 solidi
” ” Burgundian 160 ”
” ” Romanus 100 ”
” ” Alamann }
” ” Frisian } 160 ”
” ” Bavarian }
” ” Saxon }

[Sidenote: Wergeld of the _Romanus_ 100 solidi instead of 200 or 160 solidi.]

Thus the Roman stranger is placed in the lowest grade. His wergeld is only 100 solidi--half that of the Ripuarian or Salic Frank--whilst those tribes nearer in blood to the Frank are classed together with a wergeld of 160 solidi, not much less than that of the Frank. Indeed, there is reason to believe that these were the wergelds of the several tribes in force in their own country according to their own laws.[123]

In this connection the view of M. Fustel de Coulanges, that the term ‘Romanus’ is confined to the libertus freed under Roman law, hardly seems natural. The evidence seems to show that the man freed under the formalities of Frankish law thenceforth lived under Salic law and became a Frankish freeman with a freeman’s wergeld of 200 solidi, whilst the man who became a freedman under process of Roman law thenceforth lived under Roman law, and became a Roman freeman--a Romanus--with a wergeld of only 100 solidi. The inference that the difference in status was the result of difference in blood is not altered by the fact that the social status awarded to the Gallo-Roman was the same as that of the libertus in some other laws.

The fact relied upon by M. Fustel de Coulanges, that under the laws of the Burgundians and the Wisigoths the Gallo-Roman was placed in a position of equality with the Teutonic conquerors, need not, I think, affect the view to be taken of his position under the Salic and Ripuarian laws. Tribal custom had to meet in Burgundy and the Wisigothic district with Roman law and Roman institutions still comparatively in their full strength. Marriages with the Gallo-Roman population were encouraged, and the system of wergelds almost entirely superseded. The Frankish conquest was of another kind, and the Frank was hardly likely to care to meet the Gallo-Roman on equal terms.

[Sidenote: Position of the freedman or _denarialis_ under Frankish law. His wergeld 200 solidi.]

Passing now from the position of the stranger who was recognised as a freeman, let us try to get a clear idea of the position of the _freedman_ under the Ripuarian law, taking the cases of the Frankish freedman and the Roman libertus separately.

In Tit. VIII. the payment for slaying a _servus_ is 36 solidi. In Tit. LXII., if any one makes his servus into a _tributarius_ or a _litus_ and he is killed, the penalty is the same--36 solidi, but if he chooses to make him into a _denarialis_ (_i.e._ a freedman under Frankish law) then his value shall be 200 solidi.

The tributarius or litus has gained but one step up the ladder of Frankish freedom. But the denarialis, with nearly six times his wergeld, has as regards his wergeld reached the highest rung at a single leap.

[Sidenote: But till he has a free kindred, if he has no children the fisc is his heir.]

Though, however, as regards wergeld he has done so, in another sense he has by no means done so. Under tribal custom he would not attain to full tribal rights till a kindred had grown up around him. So under Tit. LVII. the ‘homo denarialis,’ notwithstanding his wergeld of 200 solidi, is recognised as having no kindred.

(s. 4) If a ‘homo denariatus’ shall die without children he
leaves no other heir than our fisc.

And in full accord with this statement is the following clause in the ‘Capitulare legi Ripuariæ additum’ of A.D. 803.

Homo denarialis non ante hæreditare in suam agnationem poterit
quam usque ad terciam generationem perveniat.

So that more of tribal custom still prevails in his case than at first appears. Only in the third generation are full rights of inheritance secured to his successors.

[Sidenote: Wergeld of the _libertus_ under Roman law 100 solidi.]

If now we turn to the _libertus_ under Roman law, Tit. LXI. states that if any one shall make his servus into a libertus and Roman citizen, if he shall commit a crime he shall be judged by Roman law, and if he be killed the payment shall be 100 solidi: but ‘if he shall die without children he shall have no heir but our fisc.’

Thus, as regards inheritance, the Frankish denarialis and the Roman libertus seem to be treated alike, notwithstanding the difference of wergeld.

Turning to another matter, the Ripuarian laws, being of later date than the Lex Salica, made provision for the wergelds of the clergy.

[Sidenote: Wergelds of the clergy, and of their ‘men.’]

Tit. XXXVI. provided that the clergy should be compounded for according to their birth, whether of the class of servi, or men of the king or of the Church, or liti, or ingenui. If _ingenui_, they were to be compounded for with 200 solidi. Then the wergelds of the higher clergy are stated as follows:--

Subdeacon 400 solidi
Deacon 500 ”
Priest 600 ”
Bishop 900 ”

And there is a long clause _De Tabulariis_ (Tit. LVIII.) providing that servi may be made under process of Roman law _tabularii_ of the Church, so that they and their descendants shall be and remain servants of the Church, and render the proper services of tabularii to the Church, without any one having power further to enfranchise them. In case of their death without children the Church is to be their heir. These appear to be the ‘men of the Church’ whose wergeld was 100 solidi.

[Sidenote: The clause ‘De alodibus.’]

The Tit. LVI. _De alodibus_ is as follows:--

Si quis absque liberis defunctus fuerit, si pater materque
superstites fuerint in hereditatem succedant.

If any one shall have died without children, if father and mother
survive they shall succeed to the _hereditas_.

Si pater materque non fuerint, frater et soror succedant.

If there are not father and mother, brother and sister shall
succeed.

Si autem nec eos habuerit, tunc soror matris patrisque succedant.
Et deinceps usque ad quintam genuculum, qui proximus fuerit,
hereditatem succedat.

But if he has not these either, then the sister of the mother and
the sister of the father shall succeed. And further, up to the
fifth knee, whoever is nearest shall succeed to the inheritance.

Sed cum virilis sexus extiterit, femina in hereditatem aviaticam
non succedat.

But as long as the male sex survive, a woman shall not succeed to
the _hereditas aviatica_.

All that need be remarked regarding this title is, first its close resemblance to the clause ‘de alodis’ in the Lex Salica and the confirmation given by the phrase ‘hereditas aviatica’ to the family character of the ‘alod,’ and secondly that it seems to belong to the time when female succession was favoured.

Whether the ‘hereditas aviatica’ included the whole alod or only the land of the alod, on failure of male heirs, females were now to succeed.

[Sidenote: The traditional value of animals in payment of wergelds. The wergeld of 200 solidi = 100 oxen.]

There remains only to be noticed the interesting addition to Tit. XXXVI. which enacts that if any one ought to pay wergeld he should reckon, _inter alia_:--

The ox, horned, seeing, and sound, for 2 solidi
The cow, horned, seeing, and sound, for [3 or] 1 solidus
The horse, seeing and sound, for 6 solidi
The mare, seeing and sound, for 3 ”

And this is followed by a final clause which is found only in some of the manuscripts and which is probably an addition made under Charlemagne:--

If payment shall be made in silver, let 12 denarii be paid for
the solidus, _sicut antiquitus est constitutum_.

Thus our consideration of these laws ends with the fact that, before the disturbance in the currency made by Charlemagne, the wergeld of the Frankish freeman of 200 gold solidi or heavy gold mina was still, in the Ripuarian district at all events, a normal wergeld of 100 oxen.

V. THE ALAMANNIC AND BAVARIAN LAWS.

These laws have an interest of their own, but only those points come directly within the range of this inquiry which are likely to throw light upon the interpretation of the Anglo-Saxon laws.

Beginning at once with the wergelds, there are two distinct statements.

[Sidenote: The wergelds of the early Alamannic ‘Pactus,’ and of the later ‘Lex Hlotharii.’]

According to the ‘Pactus,’ which is assigned to the sixth or seventh century, and which is considered to represent customs of the Alamanni before they were conquered by the Franks,[124] the wergelds were as follows:--

Baro de mino flidis 170 solidi (? 160)
Medianus Alamannus 200 ”
Primus Alamannus 240 ”

And for women:--

Femina mino flidis 320 ”
Mediana 400 ”
Prima Alamanna 480 ”

These wergelds correspond very closely in some points with those of the Burgundian laws and should be compared with them.[125]

The wergeld of women was double that of men of the same class. In the Lex Salica and Lex Ripuariorum, women were paid for threefold.

In the Lex Hlotharii, s. LXIX., the wergelds are stated as follows:--

If any freeman (‘liber’) kills a freeman, let him compound for
him twice 80 solidi to his sons. If he does not leave sons nor
has heirs let him pay 200 solidi.

Women of theirs, moreover, always in double.

The medius Alamannus, if he shall be killed, let 200 solidi be
paid to the parentes.

It is not clear that there has been any change in the wergelds since the date of the ‘Pactus.’

[Sidenote: The wergeld of 160 solidi accords with the statement in the Ripuarian law.]

The wergeld of the medius Alamannus, 200 solidi, is the same as before. That of the liber, 160 solidi, seems to be the same as that of the baro de mino flidis in the ‘Pactus.’ It is also the wergeld of the Alamannus according to the clause mentioning strangers in the Ripuarian law. The use of the term ‘medius Alamannus’ seems to imply that there should be a primus Alamannus as in the ‘Pactus.’ But what these two classes of Alamanni with higher wergelds than that of the liber were does not appear.

This later statement of the wergelds seems also to contain a provision which can, I think, only be explained by tribal custom. It occurs again in clause XLVI., which enacts that the same payment has to be paid to the parentes of a person sold out of the country beyond recall as if he had been killed. This rule is the same in the Salic and Ripuarian codes. But in this law a distinction is made between the case of a slain man leaving an heir, and the case of his leaving no heir.

[Sidenote: Wergeld of 200 solidi if no heir of the person slain.]

If he cannot recall him let him pay for him with a wergeld to the
parentes. That is twice 80 solidi if he leave an heir. But if he
does not leave an heir let him compound with 200 solidi.

The explanation must be that if the lost kinsman leaves no heir, the loss is all the greater to the kindred. This looks like a survival of tribal custom. The dread of a family dying out lay, as we have seen, at the root of the widespread custom which brought in the sister’s son to fill the vacant place when there was no one else to keep up the family. This addition in the later statement, though omitted in the ‘Pactus,’ pointing back as it appears to earlier custom, seems to show that the Lex as well as the ‘Pactus’ may in the matter of wergeld be traced to Alamannic rather than Frankish sources.

[Sidenote: Wergeld of women.]

In both the ‘Pactus’ and the Lex, as we have seen, the wergelds of women were double those of men. The Bavarian law gives the reason of the rule (IV. 29) and also the reason why sometimes an exception was made to the rule.

Whilst a woman is unable to defend herself by arms, let her
receive a double composition; if, however, in the boldness of her
heart, like a man, she chooses to fight, her composition shall
not be double.

In titles XXIX. and XXX. of the Alamannic law it is enacted that if a man be slain in the _curtis_ of the Dux a threefold wergeld must be paid, and that if the messenger of the Dux be killed within the province his triple wergeld must be paid.

[Sidenote: The freeman’s wergeld of 160 solidi under Bavarian law.]

In the Bavarian law the wergeld of the freeman is stated to be 160 solidi, thus:--

If any one kill a free man (‘liberum hominem’) let there be paid
to his parentes, if he have any, or if he have no parentes to the
Dux or to him to whom he was commended whilst he lived, twice 80
solidi: that is, 160 solidi. (Tit. IV. c. 28.)

There are no wergelds mentioned in the Bavarian law corresponding to those of the _medius Alamannus_ and the _primus Alamannus_ of the Alamannic laws.

[Sidenote: Higher wergelds of certain families.]

According to Tit. III. 1, there were certain families who were held in double honour, and had double wergelds. The Agilolvinga had fourfold wergelds, being the family from whom the Dux was chosen. The Dux himself had a fourfold wergeld with one third added. If the life of any of his parentes were taken the wergeld was, according to one manuscript, 640, and according to another 600 solidi.

These wergelds of the Alamannic and Bavarian laws are not on all fours with those of the Salic and Ripuarian Laws. But in both cases the ordinary freeman’s wergeld is 160 solidi (unless there be no heir to inherit), so that in both cases the wergelds correspond sufficiently with the clause in the Ripuarian Laws which accords to them a wergeld of 160 solidi, after having before stated that strangers are to be judged according to the laws under which they were born.

[Sidenote: Wergelds of the freedman and the servus.]

In the Bavarian law there is special mention of the freedman and the servus, and it is worth while to dwell a moment on the position assigned to them as compared with the ordinary freeman.

There are three titles headed as under:--

Title IV. De _liberis_, quo modo componuntur.
” V. De liberis qui per manum dimissi sunt liberi,
quod _frilaz_ vocant.
” VI. De _servis_, quo modo componuntur.

These clauses relate to injuries as well as to homicide. As regards all minor injuries, the freedman is paid for at one half, and the servus at one third, of the payment to the liber for the same injury.

[Sidenote: Payments for eye, hand, or foot one fourth the wergeld.]

But when the payment comes to be for the eye, hand, or foot, the difference is, roughly speaking, doubled. The payment for the liber is 40 solidi, for the freedman 10 solidi, and for the servus 6 solidi (? 5 sol.). And these payments are seemingly intended to be one quarter of the respective wergelds for homicide. We have seen that the wergeld of the freeman was 160 solidi. These clauses state that the freedman’s wergeld was 40 solidi, and that of the servus 20 solidi, and that in both these cases the lord took the payment.

In Tit. IV. 30, _De peregrinis transeuntibus viam_, the passing stranger’s death was to be paid for with 100 solidi to his parentes, or in their absence to the fisc.

[Sidenote: Bavarian wergelds.]

The wergelds of the Bavarian laws may therefore be thus stated:--

Ducal family (4 fold) 640 solidi
Families next in honour 320 ”
Liber 160 ”
Stranger 100 ”
Freedman 40 ”
Servus 20 ”

And all these solidi were gold solidi of Imperial or Merovingian standard, it does not matter much which.

[Sidenote: No wergeld within the family.]

The crime of homicide within the near family was dealt with in the Alamannic law in conformity with ancient tribal custom. There was no wergeld in such a case.

If any man wilfully kills his father, uncle, brother, or maternal
uncle (avunculus), or his brother’s son, or the son of his uncle
or maternal uncle, or his mother, or his sister, let him know
that he has acted against God, and not fulfilled brotherhood
according to the command of God, and heavily sinned against God.
And before all his parentes, let his goods be confiscated, and
let nothing of his pertain any more to his heirs. Moreover, let
him do penance according to the Canons. (Tit. XL.)

Once more in these laws the parricide (the fisc having taken his property) goes free, but for the penance required by the Canons of the Church.

[Sidenote: Wergelds of the clergy.]

As regards the wergelds of the clergy in the Alamannic law the Church seems to claim triple penalties. The wergelds of the clergy are as follows, according to the Lex Hlotharii (XI. to XVII.):--

Bishop as that of the Dux or Rex.
Priest, parochial 600 solidi
Deacon and monk 300 ”
Other clerics like the rest of their parentes.
Liber per cartam (the Ripuarian tabularius) 80 ”

The free colonus of the Church as other Alamanni.

According to the Bavarian law (Tit. I. c. x.) a bishop’s death was to be paid for by the weight in gold of a leaden tunic as long as himself, or its value in cattle, slaves, land, or villas, if the slayer should have them; and he and his wife and children are to be _in servitio_ to the Church till the debt is paid.

The lower clergy and monks were to be paid for according to their birth _double_; parochial priests threefold. (I. c. viii. and ix.)

[Sidenote: The wife’s inheritance goes back to her kindred if no children born alive.]

In the _Liber secundus_ of the Alamannic law is an interesting clause which throws some light upon the position of married women.

(XCV.) If any woman who has a paternal inheritance of her own,
after marriage and pregnancy, is delivered of a boy, and she
herself dies in childbirth, and the child remains alive long
enough, _i.e._ for an hour, or so that it can open its eyes and
see the roof and four walls of the house, and afterwards dies,
its maternal inheritance then belongs to its father.

This is natural, but it seems to show that if the child had been born dead and the wife had died without children her paternal inheritance would have gone back to her kindred and not to her husband.

In the absence of other evidence this is perhaps enough to show that in accordance with tribal custom the kindred of the wife had not lost all hold upon their kinswoman, and therefore that she by her marriage had not passed altogether out of her own kindred.

[Sidenote: Traditional value of cattle stated in gold tremisses.]

Lastly, there are clauses in the same _Liber secundus_ which declare the value of the solidus in equation with cattle.

LXXX. Summus bovus 5 tremisses valet. Medianus 4 tremisses valet.
Minor quod appreciatus fuerit.

LXXVII. Illa mellissima vacca 4 tremisses liceat adpreciare. Illa
alia sequenteriana solidum 1.

These clauses show that the solidi in which the wergelds were paid were gold solidi of three tremisses.

In the Ripuarian laws the ox was equated with 2 gold solidi, _i.e._ 6 tremisses, so that we learned from the equation that the wergeld of the Ripuarian liber, 200 solidi, was really a wergeld of 100 oxen. But the above equations show that under Alamannic law the wergeld of the liber was not so.

In the Alamannic laws the best ox was valued only at five tremisses instead of six, so that the wergeld of 200 solidi of the medius Alamannus was really a wergeld of 120 oxen; and the 160 solidi of the wergeld of the _baro de mino flidis_ of the ‘Pactus,’ or simple ‘liber’ of the Lex Hlotharii, was a wergeld of 96 oxen or 120 Alamannic ‘_sweetest cows_.’

Any one who has seen the magnificent fawn-coloured oxen by which waggons are still drawn in the streets of St. Gall will appreciate what the ‘summus bovus’ of the Alamannic region may have been. Why it should have been worth in gold less than the oxen of other lands does not appear.