post of the day

Bartoleme de Las Casas, Brief Account of the Devastation of the Indies(1542)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Indies were discovered in the year one thousand four hundred and ninety-two. In the following year a great many Spaniards went there with the intention of settling the land. Thus, forty-nine years have passed since the first settlers penetrated the land, the first so claimed being the large and most happy isle called Hispaniola, which is six hundred leagues in circumference. Around it in all directions are many other islands, some very big, others very small, and all of them were, as we saw with our own eyes, densely populated with native peoples called Indians. This large island was perhaps the most densely populated place in the world. There must be close to two hundred leagues of land on this island, and the seacoast has been explored for more than ten thousand leagues, and each day more of it is being explored. And all the land so far discovered is a beehive of people; it is as though God had crowded into these lands the great majority of mankind.

And of all the infinite universe of humanity, these people are the most guileless, the most devoid of wickedness and duplicity, the most obedient and faithful to their native masters and to the Spanish Christians whom they serve. They are by nature the most humble, patient, and peaceable, holding no grudges, free from embroilments, neither excitable nor quarrelsome. These people are the most devoid of rancors, hatreds, or desire for vengeance of any people in the world. And because they are so weak and complaisant, they are less able to endure heavy labor and soon die of no matter what malady. The sons of nobles among us, brought up in the enjoyments of life's refinements, are no more delicate than are these Indians, even those among them who are of the lowest rank of laborers. They are also poor people, for they not only possess little but have no desire to possess worldly goods. For this reason they are not arrogant, embittered, or greedy. Their repasts are such that the food of the holy fathers in the desert can scarcely be more parsimonious, scanty, and poor. As to their dress, they are generally naked, with only their pudenda covered somewhat. And when they cover their shoulders it is with a square cloth no more than two varas in size. They have no beds, but sleep on a kind of matting or else in a kind of suspended net called bamacas. They are very clean in their persons, with alert, intelligent minds, docile and open to doctrine, very apt to receive our holy Catholic faith, to be endowed with virtuous customs, and to behave in a godly fashion. And once they begin to hear the tidings of the Faith, they are so insistent on knowing more and on taking the sacraments of the Church and on observing the divine cult that, truly, the missionaries who are here need to be endowed by God with great patience in order to cope with such eagerness. Some of the secular Spaniards who have been here for many years say that the goodness of the Indians is undeniable and that if this gifted people could be brought to know the one true God they would be the most fortunate people in the world.

Yet into this sheepfold, into this land of meek outcasts there came some Spaniards who immediately behaved like ravening wild beasts, wolves, tigers, or lions that had been starved for many days. And Spaniards have behaved in no other way during tla! past forty years, down to the present time, for they are still acting like ravening beasts, killing, terrorizing, afflicting, torturing, and destroying the native peoples, doing all this with the strangest and most varied new methods of cruelty, never seen or heard of before, and to such a degree that this Island of Hispaniola once so populous (having a population that I estimated to be more than three million), has now a population of barely two hundred persons.

The island of Cuba is nearly as long as the distance between Valladolid and Rome; it is now almost completely depopulated. San Juan [Puerto Rico] and Jamaica are two of the largest, most productive and attractive islands; both are now deserted and devastated. On the northern side of Cuba and Hispaniola he the neighboring Lucayos comprising more than sixty islands including those called Gigantes, beside numerous other islands, some small some large. The least felicitous of them were more fertile and beautiful than the gardens of the King of Seville. They have the healthiest lands in the world, where lived more than five hundred thousand souls; they are now deserted, inhabited by not a single living creature. All the people were slain or died after being taken into captivity and brought to the Island of Hispaniola to be sold as slaves. When the Spaniards saw that some of these had escaped, they sent a ship to find them, and it voyaged for three years among the islands searching for those who had escaped being slaughtered , for a good Christian had helped them escape, taking pity on them and had won them over to Christ; of these there were eleven persons and these I saw.

More than thirty other islands in the vicinity of San Juan are for the most part and for the same reason depopulated, and the land laid waste. On these islands I estimate there are 2,100 leagues of land that have been ruined and depopulated, empty of people.

As for the vast mainland, which is ten times larger than all Spain, even including Aragon and Portugal, containing more land than the distance between Seville and Jerusalem, or more than two thousand leagues, we are sure that our Spaniards, with their cruel and abominable acts, have devastated the land and exterminated the rational people who fully inhabited it. We can estimate very surely and truthfully that in the forty years that have passed, with the infernal actions of the Christians, there have been unjustly slain more than twelve million men, women, and children. In truth, I believe without trying to deceive myself that the number of the slain is more like fifteen million.

The common ways mainly employed by the Spaniards who call themselves Christian and who have gone there to extirpate those pitiful nations and wipe them off the earth is by unjustly waging cruel and bloody wars. Then, when they have slain all those who fought for their lives or to escape the tortures they would have to endure, that is to say, when they have slain all the native rulers and young men (since the Spaniards usually spare only the women and children, who are subjected to the hardest and bitterest servitude ever suffered by man or beast), they enslave any survivors. With these infernal methods of tyranny they debase and weaken countless numbers of those pitiful Indian nations.

Their reason for killing and destroying such an infinite number of souls is that the Christians have an ultimate aim, which is to acquire gold, and to swell themselves with riches in a very brief time and thus rise to a high estate disproportionate to their merits. It should be kept in mind that their insatiable greed and ambition, the greatest ever seen in the world, is the cause of their villainies. And also, those lands are so rich and felicitous, the native peoples so meek and patient, so easy to subject, that our Spaniards have no more consideration for them than beasts. And I say this from my own knowledge of the acts I witnessed. But I should not say "than beasts" for, thanks be to God, they have treated beasts with some respect; I should say instead like excrement on the public squares. And thus they have deprived the Indians of their lives and souls, for the millions I mentioned have died without the Faith and without the benefit of the sacraments. This is a wellknown and proven fact which even the tyrant Governors, themselves killers, know and admit. And never have the Indians in all the Indies committed any act against the Spanish Christians, until those Christians have first and many times committed countless cruel aggressions against them or against neighboring nations. For in the beginning the Indians regarded the Spaniards as angels from Heaven. Only after the Spaniards had used violence against them, killing, robbing, torturing, did the Indians ever rise up against them....

On the Island Hispaniola was where the Spaniards first landed, as I have said. Here those Christians perpetrated their first ravages and oppressions against the native peoples. This was the first land in the New World to be destroyed and depopulated by the Christians, and here they began their subjection of the women and children, taking them away from the Indians to use them and ill use them, eating the food they provided with their sweat and toil. The Spaniards did not content themselves with what the Indians gave them of their own free will, according to their ability, which was always too little to satisfy enormous appetites, for a Christian eats and consumes in one day an amount of food that would suffice to feed three houses inhabited by ten Indians for one month. And they committed other acts of force and violence and oppression which made the Indians realize that these men had not come from Heaven. And some of the Indians concealed their foods while others concealed their wives and children and still others fled to the mountains to avoid the terrible transactions of the Christians.

And the Christians attacked them with buffets and beatings, until finally they laid hands on the nobles of the villages. Then they behaved with such temerity and shamelessness that the most powerful ruler of the islands had to see his own wife raped by a Christian officer.

From that time onward the Indians began to seek ways to throw the Christians out of their lands. They took up arms, but their weapons were very weak and of little service in offense and still less in defense. (Because of this, the wars of the Indians against each other are little more than games played by children.) And the Christians, with their horses and swords and pikes began to carry out massacres and strange cruelties against them. They attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged nor pregnant women nor women in childbed, not only stabbing them and dismembering them but cutting them to pieces as if dealing with sheep in the slaughter house. They laid bets as to who, with one stroke of the sword, could split a man in two or could cut off his head or spill out his entrails with a single stroke of the pike. They took infants from their mothers' breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them headfirst against the crags or snatched them by the arms and threw them into the rivers, roaring with laughter and saying as the babies fell into the water, "Boil there, you offspring of the devil!" Other infants they put to the sword along with their mothers and anyone else who happened to be nearby. They made some low wide gallows on which the hanged victim's feet almost touched the ground, stringing up their victims in lots of thirteen, in memory of Our Redeemer and His twelve Apostles, then set burning wood at their feet and thus burned them alive. To others they attached straw or wrapped their whole bodies in straw and set them afire. With still others, all those they wanted to capture alive, they cut off their hands and hung them round the victim's neck, saying, "Go now, carry the message," meaning, Take the news to the Indians who have fled to the mountains. They usually dealt with the chieftains and nobles in the following way: they made a grid of rods which they placed on forked sticks, then lashed the victims to the grid and lighted a smoldering fire underneath, so that little by little, as those captives screamed in despair and torment, their souls would leave them....

After the wars and the killings had ended, when usually there survived only some boys, some women, and children, these survivors were distributed among the Christians to be slaves. The repartimiento or distribution was made according to the rank and importance of the Christian to whom the Indians were allocated, one of them being given thirty, another forty, still another, one or two hundred, and besides the rank of the Christian there was also to be considered in what favor he stood with the tyrant they called Governor. The pretext was that these allocated Indians were to be instructed in the articles of the Christian Faith. As if those Christians who were as a rule foolish and cruel and greedy and vicious could be caretakers of souls! And the care they took was to send the men to the mines to dig for gold, which is intolerable labor, and to send the women into the fields of the big ranches to hoe and till the land, work suitable for strong men. Nor to either the men or the women did they give any food except herbs and legumes, things of little substance. The milk in the breasts of the women with infants dried up and thus in a short while the infants perished. And since men and women were separated, there could be no marital relations. And the men died in the mines and the women died on the ranches from the same causes, exhaustion and hunger. And thus was depopulated that island which had been densely populated.


Source: Bartoleme de Las Casas, Brief Account of the Devastation of the Indies (1542)

From http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/casas.html

D-Day

Sixty four years ago this night the Pathfinders went into action, along with the French resistance.

Some Primary sources from those fateful days... http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq109-5.htm


From General Von Rundstedt's report, excerpt, see link for full report

H. Q., 20.6.1944. Commander-in-Chief West, (High Command, Army Group D) Operations
Section No. 5050/44

Experiences from the Invasion Battles of Normandy

A. Preliminary Remarks

1. Experiences fulfill their purposes only when they are quickly brought to the attention of the
troops. This happens from time to time through the medium of individual teletype messages.

2. The following experiences summarize what has happened so far. It is left to the duty stations
named under "Distributor" to make the evaluation and to fill in details according to their own
judgment.

B.

The following most recent battle experiences confirm in broad outlines all the experiences which
were made known regarding Sicily, Salerno, Nottuno and those other heavy defensive battles in
Italy.

The proximity of the English mother country and thus also of all the embarkation and supply
bases afforded to the Anglo-Saxons in their first great land attack against the Western Bay of the
Seine and against the peninsula of the Cotentin the opportunity of employment on the greatest
scale so far of men, material and technical means. Systematic, almost scientifically conducted
preparations in all fields for this attack were rendered more easy in every respect by a
far-reaching network of agents in the occupied area of the west. The orders for the preparation
and the carrying out of the landing are books with numerous enclosures

The following most important battle experiences are to be passed on as the subject of instruction
and drill in all fronts not yet attacked for the attention of the troops and command authorities in
the battle area and for the instruction of all duty stations, protective forces, etc., in the entire
protecting area.

I

I--Four facts which must be emphasized:

(1) The enemy's complete mastery in the air.

(2) The skillful and large-scale employment of enemy parachute and airborne troops,

(3) The flexible and well-directed support of the land troops by ships' artillery of strong English
naval units ranging from battleship to gunboat.

(4) The rehearsal of the enemy invasion units for their task; most precise knowledge of the coast,
of its obstacles and defense establishments, swift building up of superiority in numbers and
material on the bridgehead after just a few days.

Opposed to this stands the quality of the German soldier, his steadfastness and his unqualified
will to fight to the fast with army, navy and air force.

All three branches of the service have given their best and will continue to give it.

II -- The Enemy Landing Procedure in Broad Outlines:

(a) The enemy had hoped to be able to surprise us. He did not succeed. The beginning of landings from the air on the Western Bay of the Seine and in the Cotentin was on June 6, 1944, at about 0100, under conditions of cloudy, overcast weather with a rather strong wind, intermittent showers and rough sea up to four degrees; at the same time at various sectors of the front strong enemy air formations delivered bombing attacks in the rear area. The enemy thereby wished to bring about an air raid alarm and make us take cover in order to be able to drop his parachute troops with as little risk of observation as possible. In several places parachutists turned out to be dummies (with boxes containing explosives). Purpose: Splitting up of local reserves and withdrawal from the decisive spot, involving loss of time for the defender.




findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_19990604/ai_n11722513
One of those paratroopers was so nervous, he couldn't give Ike his name...

All should have rights to this story
Topeka Capital-Journal, The, Jun 4, 1999

Dick snider This morning I wanted to write a D-Day column about the late Sherman Oyler, a paratrooper from Topeka who jumped into Normandy and helped get the Allied invasion of Europe started. He did it just a few hours after he had a memorable, and embarrassing, meeting with General Dwight D. Eisenhower, another Kansan and the man running the whole show.

My trouble was, the story I wanted to tell came to me from the book "D-Day" by Stephen E. Ambrose, and I couldn't get permission from the publisher to use it. Not that I didn't try.


In the front of the book it says it was published by Touchstone in New York City. It also says, "Copyright 1994" and "All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form." I took that to mean they didn't want newspaper columnists stealing from it, and if I did help myself to it I might be sued. That would be inconvenient for me, since I'd have trouble putting together a high-class, or even a low-class, legal defense team. So, I set out to gain permission from the publisher to borrow a few lines from the book. I called New York City information, not through one of the newfangled numbers advertised so heavily on TV by James Garner and others, but the old-fashioned way. I asked for Touchstone on the Avenue of the Americas, known to the locals as Sixth Avenue, and was told there was no such listing. No minor setback like this can stop a true reporter who has his teeth into a story, or someone else's story, as in my case. I went back to the book and found that Touchstone is a trademark of Simon & Schuster Inc. I called information again and this time got a number, which I called. I got a recording saying if I wanted to talk to an operator to "dial" zero. I punched zero and the phone rang about 20 times. I hung up and called again. Same deal. I dozed off, and when I awoke the phone was still ringing. I was about to hang up when a woman answered, and after I explained what I wanted she said, "You want Permissions. I'll ring." Another woman answered and I told her in great detail what I wanted. She replied, "You want Permissions," and gave me a new number, saying I'd have to hang up and call in again. I did and this time got a man who listened to my story and said, "You'll have to put that in writing and mail it in." I said I was facing an immediate deadline, and he, unimpressed, said. "Just a minute," and rang another number. This time I got a recording telling me how to mail in my request for permission. At that point I gave up, but I also had an inspiration. Surely, Oyler had told this story to people other than the book's author, so why didn't I get it from one of them?But who? I called Gene Smith, The Capital-Journal's resident expert on military affairs, told him my problem, and asked him whom Oyler might have regaled with this tale. "He told it to me," Smith said. "It was one of his favorite stories, so I'll tell it to you, and I haven't even read the book. You've found your source." So, after a few wasted hours and about $197 worth of useless phone calls, I heard Smith's version of the story, better than the one in the book. To start with, Oyler was a staff sergeant at Fort Benning, Ga., who couldn't get out of the base cadre and into the war. But finally his requests grew so annoying his CO told him he could transfer -- as a buck private. Oyler took him up on it. Now he's Pvt. Oyler, and a few hours before his D-Day jump he's eating a steak in the airfield mess when he's told he's wanted in one of the hangars. He put the steak between two slices of bread and stuck it in his uniform. At the hangar, he's told Gen. Eisenhower is there and was asking if anyone in the group was from Kansas. Oyler was pushed forward, and he said, "Sir, I'm from Kansas." Ike asked Oyler, "What's your name, son?"And Oyler gave Ike a blank stare. He couldn't think of his name. Maybe it was the excitement of the impending jump and the danger he faced, or maybe it was the presence of the supreme Allied commander, or maybe it was both. He couldn't for the life of him remember his name. Oyler's friends helped him out, shouting, "Go ahead, Oyler, tell him your name." And Oyler got it out. Ike gave him his famous grin, a thumbs-up sign, and said, "Go get 'em, Kansas." Later that night, Oyler jumped and hit a cow when he landed. Before daylight he had killed five enemy soldiers and run into a group of American paratroopers that included a wounded colonel being pushed in a wheelbarrow. John Wayne played the role of the colonel in the movie "The Longest Day." I told this story to Vic Yarrington, who was a crew member on one of the planes that dropped paratroopers. He noted that of the thousands of American soldiers scheduled to jump that night, only a handful chickened out, refusing to jump, and rode back to England in disgrace. Oyler, on the other hand, went home with three Bronze Stars for bravery.

update

My first lesson this week went well, may the morrow bring the same or better results.

The Farmer's Law


THE CHRONOGRAPHIA OF
MICHAEL PSELLUS
A.D. 976-1077

The Chronographia composed by the most learned and right honourable monk Michael, in which are recounted the deeds of the following Emperors: Basil and Constantine, the Porphyrogeniti; their successor, Romanus Argyropulus; Michael the Paphlagonian; Michael, nephew of the last-named, who originally had the title of Caesar; the two sisters Zoe and Theodora, also Porphyrogenitiae and both princesses; Constantine Monomachus, who shared the throne with them; the princess Theodora, one of the aforementioned sisters, who ruled as Empress alone; Michael the Aged; Isaac Comnenus. The History ends with the proclamation of Constantine Ducas.

[11]

BOOK ONE

BASIL II
976 - 1025

1. The circumstances in which the emperor John Tzimisces met his death have already been described (in the history of Leo Diaconus).**1 Basil and Constantine, the sons of Romanus,**2 were now the legitimate heirs to an Empire which through the efforts of their predecessor had won many triumphs and greatly increased its power.

2. Both princes had seen the last of their boyhood days, but their interests lay far apart, for whereas Basil, the elder of the two, always gave an impression of alertness, intelligence, and thoughtfulness, his brother was to all appearances apathetic, passing a lazy existence, and devoted to a life of luxury. It was natural, therefore, that they should abandon the idea of a diarchy. By mutual consent all real power was vested in Basil, and Constantine was associated with him as emperor in name only. It was a wise decision, for if the Empire was to be well governed it was essential that the older and more experienced brother should inherit the highest position in the state. There is perhaps something admirable in Constantine's renunciation of most of his privileges on this occasion, because legally he was entitled to share his father's inheritance on equal terms with his brother--and by 'inheritance' I mean the Empire. What makes his decision the more remarkable is the fact that he was very young at the time, just at the age, in fact, when lust for power is most easily kindled. One must remember, too, that Basil, far from being already a full-grown man, was still a mere stripling: to use the common expressions he was still 'growing his first beard', and yet Constantine [12] allowed him to take precedence. It is only right, therefore, that I should pay this tribute to the younger brother at the outset of this history.

3. Once invested with supreme power over the Romans, Basil was loath to share his designs with anyone else or to accept advice on the conduct of public affairs. On the other hand, having had no previous experience of military matters or of good civil administration, he discovered that he was unable to rely on his own judgment alone, and he was therefore compelled to turn for assistance to the parakoimomenus* [* Lord Chamberlain.] Basil.**3 Now this man happened to be at that time the most remarkable person in the Roman Empire, both for the depth of his intellect and for his bodily stature and regal appearance. Although he was born of the same father as the father of Basil and Constantine, on his mother's side he came of different stock. In early infancy he had suffered castration--a natural precaution against a concubine's son, for under those circumstances he could never hope to usurp the throne from a legitimate heir. Actually he was resigned to his fate and was genuinely attached to the imperial house--after all, it was his own family. He was particularly devoted to his nephew Basil, embracing the young man in the most affectionate manner and watching over his progress like some kindly fosterparent. It is not surprising, then, that Basil placed on this man's shoulders the burden of Empire. The older man's serious nature, too, had its influence on the emperor's character. The parakoimomenus, in fact, was like an athlete competing at the gamest while Basil the emperor watched him as a spectator, not a spectator present merely to cheer on the victor, but rather one who trained himself in the running and took part in the contests himself, following in the other's footsteps and imitating his style. So the parakoimomenus had the whole world at his feet. It was to him that the civilian population looked, to him that the army turned and he was responsible, indeed solely responsible, for the administration of public finance and the direction of government. In this task he was constantly assisted by the emperor, both in word and deeds for Basil not only backed up his minister's measures, but even confirmed them in writing.

4. To most men of our generation who saw the emperor Basil he seemed austere and abrupt in manner, an irascible man who did not quickly change his mind, sober in his daily habits and averse to all [13] effeminacy, but if I am to believe the historians of that period who wrote about him, he was not at all like that when his reign began. A change took place in his character after he acceded to the throne, and instead of leading his former dissolute, voluptuous sort of life, he became a man of great energy. It was the pressure of events that brought about this complete alteration in the course of his life. His character stiffened, so to speak. Feebleness gave way to strength and the old slackness disappeared before a new fixity of purpose. In his early days he used to feast quite openly, and frequently indulged in the pleasures of love. His main concern was with his banqueting and his life was spent in the gay, indolent atmosphere of the court. The combination of youth and unlimited power gave him opportunities for self-indulgence and he enjoyed them to the full. The complete change in his mode of living dates from the attempted revolutions of the notorious Sclerus**4 and of Phocas.**5 Sclerus twice raised the standard of revolt and there were other aspirants to the throne, with two parties in opposition to the emperor. From that time onward, Basil's carefree existence was forgotten and he wholeheartedly applied himself to serious objects. Once the first blow had been struck against those members of his family who had seized power, he set himself resolutely to compass their utter destruction.**6

THE REBELLION OF SCLERUS

5. A policy so drastic, not unnaturally, stirred the nephews of Nicephorus Phocas to bitter revolt. The trouble began with Sclerus, a man who was not only a competent planner, but extremely clever in carrying out his schemes, possessed of vast wealth (no mean asset in one who aimed at a throne), with the prestige of royal blood and of success in great wars, with all the military caste at his side to help on his enterprise. Sclerus's attempted coup d'état found considerable support. It was the first of these daring efforts to depose Basil, but the pretender was very confident of victory. He marched against the emperor in full force, with cavalry and foot-soldiers, thinking he had but to stretch forth his hand to seize the Empire. Actually, the heavy-armed infantry had rallied to Sclerus en bloc and the emperor's advisers, knowing this, at first believed their cause to be hopeless. On second thoughts, however, they changed their minds and the whole affair took on a different aspect. Despair gave way to courage [14] when in a certain Bardas they thought they had discovered a worthy opponent for the rebel.**7 To them Bardas represented a safe anchorage, a shelter from the storm. He was, indeed, a man of noble birth and great valour, nephew of the emperor Nicephorus. So they entrusted to this Bardas whatever forces still remained. He was made commander-in-chief and sent forth to do battle with the common enemy.

6. Their immediate difficulties were thus overcome, but their new general was no less formidable than Sclerus. He was descended from an emperor. In all probability he would never be content to occupy a subordinate position. So they stripped him of his citizen's robes and all insignia of royalty, and forced him to enter the Church. Then they bound him by the most fearful oaths never to be guilty of treason, never to transgress the promises he had made. Having taken these precautions against any ambitious schemes he might entertain in the future, they sent him out with the whole of the emperor's forces.

7. According to the historians, this man Bardas reminded people of his uncle, the emperor Nicephorus, for he was always wrapped in gloom, and watchful, capable of foreseeing all eventualities, of comprehending everything at a glance. Far from being ignorant of warlike manoeuvres, there was no aspect of siege warfare, no trick of ambush nor tactic of pitched battle, in which he was not thoroughly versed. In the matter of physical prowess, moreover, Bardas was more energetic and virile than Sclerus. In fact, anyone who received a blow at his hand was a dead man straightway, and whole armies trembled even when he shouted from afar. He now divided up his forces, arranging them in battalions, and more than once--indeed, on several occasions--put his opponents to flight, despite their numbers. In truth, Bardas seemed to surpass his enemies, in skill and strategy and vigour, in inverse proportion to his own inferiority in numbers.

8. Each side was confident in face of its foes, and the two leaders, by common consent, decided to engage in single combat.**8 So, riding out to the space that divided the two lines of battle, they spied one another and without more ado came to close quarters. The rebel Sclerus, unable to curb his natural impetuosity, broke the rules of this kind of fighting, and as he approached Phocas struck him with all his might on the head. The blow gained additional power because it was delivered on the charge. Phocas, dumbfounded at the [15] unexpectedness of this stroke, momentarily lost control of his reins, but collecting his wits again, he returned the blow, on the same part of his adversary's body. The latter thereupon lost interest in the combat and rode away in flight.

9. Both patriots and rebels were convinced that here was the decisive point in the war. Certainly no event contributed more to the emperor's victory, for Sclerus was completely embarrassed. He could no longer withstand Phocas in battle. He was too ashamed to beg terms from the emperor. In these circumstances he adopted a policy which was neither very wise nor very safe, transferring his whole army from Roman territories to Assyria. There he made himself known to the king Chosroes and roused his suspicions, for Chosroes feared the great numbers of his army, and possibly he was nervous, too, in case the Romans planned some sudden attack on himself. The upshot of the matter was that all Sclerus's men were made prisoners and carried off to gaol.

THE REVOLT OF BARDAS PHOCAS

10. Meanwhile Bardas Phocas returned to the emperor. He was given the privilege of a triumph and took his place among the personal friends of his sovereign. So ended the first revolt. Apparently Basil was now freed from all his troubles, but this seeming collapse of the opposition proved to be only a prelude to the host of evils that were to follow. Phocas, after receiving high honours when he first returned to Byzantium, later found himself neglected. His ambitions appeared to be once more slipping from his grasp. This kind of treatment, in his opinion, was undeserved. He had not betrayed the trust reposed in him: he had entered into an agreement, on specific terms, and he had faithfully kept it. So, disgruntled, he broke away in revolt--a revolt more serious and more difficult to counter than the previous attempt of Sclerus--with the greater part of the army ranged beside him in opposition to Basil.**9 Having won over the leading and most powerful families, he decided to proclaim himself an open enemy of the regime. An army of Iberians was conscripted, fierce, proud warriors standing up to ten feet in height.* [* i.e. very tall. A Byzantine saying.] It was no longer in imagination, but in very truth, that he put on the imperial robes, with the emperor's crown and the royal insignia of purple. [16]

11. I will describe what happened next. A foreign war surprised the Babylonian, that same king Chosroes to whom Sclerus and his army had fled and from whom they had hoped for assistance. Those hopes, as I have said, had already been dashed. Well, this war proved to be a terrible strain on the king's resources and great numbers of armed men were involved in the struggle. It was impossible for Chosroes to feel any confidence in his own native forces without foreign aid. So he turned for help to the exiled Romans. They were at once released from their bonds, brought out of their prisons, strongly armed and set in battle-array against his enemies. They (Sclerus and his men), being virile and warlike soldiers, acquainted with the disposition of infantry in battle, arranged themselves in two groups, one on either flank. Then, charging on horseback in mass-formation and shouting their war-cry, they killed some of the enemy there on the spot and others they put to flight. The pursuit continued as far as the earthworks and the foe was completely annihilated.**10 On their way back the Romans, as if inspired with one common idea, took to flight themselves. The reason for this was that they feared Chosroes. They expected little consideration from him and they believed that he would throw them back into prison. So they made off, with all the speed they could muster, and they covered a great distance before the Assyrians noticed they had gone. (These operations took place in Assyria.) Chosroes, whose army had now reassembled, immediately issued an order that all soldiers of the Assyrian army who met these Romans were to join in pursuing them. A great multitude did in fact fall upon them from the rear, but they soon discovered how inferior they were to the Roman soldier, for the runaways suddenly wheeled about and defeated their pursuers. Indeed, the enemy suffered such losses that they retreated fewer in number than the Romans, although they had vastly outnumbered them when the engagement started.

12. Here, Sclerus decided, was the opportunity to revive his struggle for power. The whole Empire, he thought, was ripe for the plucking, for Phocas had already gone away to Anatolia and all the emperor's forces were scattered. Having arrived at the Roman frontier, however, he learnt that Phocas had designs on the throne himself, and since he was in no position to take on both the emperor and his rival, he indulged in a fresh outburst of insolence at the expense of the former, while he presented himself to the latter in the [17] guise of vassal. Phocas's hegemony was recognized and Sclerus agreed to serve under him. Thereupon their forces were divided in two and the rebel army was greatly strengthened. Full of confidence in their soldiers and military dispositions, they came down as far as the Propontis and strongpoints on the seashore, made their entrenchments secure and all but tried to leap over the sea itself.

13. The emperor Basil was well aware of disloyalty among the Romans, but not long before this a picked band of Scythians had come to help him from the Taurus, and a fine body of men they were.**11 He had these men trained in a separate corps, combined with them another mercenary force, divided by companies, and sent them out to fight the rebels. They came upon the insurgents unexpectedly, when they were off their guard seated at table and drinking, and after they had destroyed not a few of them, scattered the rest in all directions.**12 The remnants of the enemy actually banded together and opposed Phocas himself, with considerable enthusiasm.

14. Basil personally took part in these operations with the Roman army. He had just begun to grow a beard and was learning the art of war from experience in actual combat. Even his brother Constantine took his place in the battle-line, armed with breastplate and long spear.

15. So the two faced one another: on the one side, by the sea, the emperor's forces; on the higher parts, the rebels, with a great space between. When Phocas discovered that Basil and Constantine were in the enemy's ranks, he no longer put off the battle.**13 That day, he decided, was to be the turning-point of the war, the day which was to determine the future of the Empire. So he committed his cause to fortune. It was contrary to the advice of the astrologers in his retinue, for they would have dissuaded him from fighting. Their sacrifices clearly showed the folly of it, but he gave rein to his horse and obstinately refused to listen. It is said that signs of ill-omen appeared to him, as well as to the astrologers, for no sooner had he mounted his horse than the charger slipped under him, and when he seated himself on a second, that too, a few paces further on, suffered the same fate. His skin, moreover, changed colour, his heart was filled with foreboding, and his head was troubled with giddiness. Phocas, however, was not the man to give way once he had set himself to a task, so, riding at the head of his army, and being already somewhat near the emperor's forces, he gathered about him some foot-soldiers. [18] The men I refer to were the finest fighters among the Iberians, all of them young men, just growing their first beards, in the flower of their youth, tall men and men of equal height, as though they had been measured off with a ruler, armed on their right with swords, and irresistible when they charged. With these warriors about him, under one standard, Phocas moved foreward to attack in front of his army. Gathering speed, he made straight for the emperor with a wild war-cry, his sword uplifted in his right hand, as if he intended to kill the emperor there and then.

16. While Phocas was so boldly charging towards him, Basil rode out in front of his army too. He took his stand there, sword in hand. In his left hand he clasped the image of the Saviour's Mother, thinking this ikon the surest protection against his opponent's terrific onslaught. Phocas swept on, like a cloud driven on by violent winds, whirling over the plain. Meanwhile those who were stationed on either flanks hurled their javelins at him. Among others, slightly in front of the main army, was the emperor Constantine, brandishing a long spear. After he had galloped forward some distance from his own men, Phocas suddenly slipped from his saddle and was thrown to the ground. At this point the accounts of different authors become contradictory. Some contend that he was hit by the javelin-throwers and fell mortally wounded. Others aver that he was overcome by a sudden faintness, the effect of a stomach disorder, and so fell down from the saddle. Whatever the true explanation may have been, Constantine arrogated to himself the proud distinction of having slain the rebel. The usual story, however, and the one considered to be most probable, is that the whole affair was the result of an intrigue. Poison was mixed, Phocas drank it, and when he moved about, the potion became suddenly effective, deprived him of his powers of reason, and caused the giddiness that led to his downfall. The original idea was Basil's, the ministering hand that of Phocas's cupbearer. For my own part, I prefer to express no opinion on the subject and ascribe all the glory to the Mother of the Word.

17. At all events, he fell, he who until then could neither be wounded nor taken alive, a piteous and mournful sight. As soon as the rival armies saw what had happened, the one was immediately split up and retreated, their close-packed ranks broken, their rout complete. The emperor's forces, on the other hand, immediately after Phocas's collapse, leapt upon him, scattered his Iberian body- [19] guard, and chopped him in pieces with repeated sword-blows. His head was cut off and brought to Basil.**14

18. The complete change in the emperor's character dates from that time. While he rejoiced at the death of his enemy, he was no less grieved by the sad condition of his own affairs, with the result that he became suspicious of everyone, a haughty and secretive man, ill-tempered, and irate with those who failed to carry out his wishes.

Intended for educational and personal use.

excerpted from

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/psellus-chrono00.html#BOOK%20ONE

post of the day

nothing new personally, here comes your totally random programming... hehe
Enjoy
Originally posted by Professor Kaiser of Grinnell http://web.grinnell.edu/individuals/kaiser/pskovjudicial.html

The Pskov Judicial Charter

*************************************

[Preface.] This charter was copied out from the charter of Grand Prince Aleksandr [1] and from the charter of Prince Konstantin and from various other additions [based] on Pskov customs, [and it is issued] with the blessing of our fathers, the priests of all five cathedrals [in Pskov], and the hieromonks, deacons, and priests and the entire clergy of God by all Pskov at [a meeting of] the city assembly in the year 6905 [=1396/97].

1. These [are the subjects litigated in the] prince's court: if [some thieves] steal from a storeroom which is locked, or from a sledge covered with a rug, or from a cart covered with a leather tarp, or from the deck of a boat, or [if they steal grain] from a grain storage pit or if they steal livestock or hay from atop a haystack, then all these matters [are litigated before] the prince's court, and [they pay] a fine of 9 dengas. And for robbery, breaking-and-entering, and pillage [they pay] 70 grivnas, and the prince's fine is 19 dengas; and 4 dengas.[2]

2. [Neither] the prince, nor the mayor, nor the archbishop's lieutenant is to [re]try a trial; nor are the judges or the lieutenants to [re]try a prince's trial.

3. And whoever will occupy the position of mayor [of Pskov], that mayor is to swear [lit., kiss the cross] that he will judge [cases] justly in accordance with his oath, and will not misappropriate town revenues, and at court will not exact revenge against anyone, and at court will not show favoritism, and will not condemn the innocent nor excuse the guilty. And [he must swear that] neither at court [nor] at a city assembly will he condemn [some] man without [an appropriate] investigation.

4. And the prince and mayor do not conduct court at the city assembly; they are to conduct court at the prince's residence, on the basis of justice in accordance with the oath [lit., according to their having kissed the cross]. And if they do not judge justly, then God will be their judge at the second coming of Christ. And neither the prince nor the mayor is to take secret bribes.

5. And whichever of the prince's men will travel to the surrounding districts as a lieutenant, he is to swear [lit., kiss the cross] that he wishes good to Pskov, and will judge correctly according to his oath [lit., according to his having kissed the cross]. And if he travels to some....[3]

6. And whatever mayor steps down from his post must [himself] complete all the litigation [initiated during his term]; his successor is not to rehear any of his cases.

7. And execute [the following:] the person who steals from the [town] fortress; the horse thief; the traitor; and the arsonist.

8. If something is stolen within the city [but not from the fortress], then [as many as] two times spare [the thief], [and,] having convicted him, punish him according to his guilt; but if [a thief] is convicted a third time, deprive him of his life just like the fortress thief.

9. If there be litigation with someone about land, whether plowland or water, and if there be a house on that land, or cultivated fields, and [one litigant] has plowed and possessed that land or water for four or five years, then that litigant is to refer to four or five neighbors [to confirm his claims to the land]. And once the neighbors to whom he referred have appeared [at court], and they speak the truth as if [they were standing] before God, that [the claim] is correct, that the man who summoned them has plowed and possessed that land or water for four or five years, while the opposing [litigant] in those years neither brought the matter to court nor took possession of that land or water, then [the first litigant's claim to] the land or water is clear, and he does not have to take an oath, since [the other litigant] did not bring the matter to court nor declare his claims in the course of those [four or five] years.

10. If there be litigation over forest land, and if two [litigants] place [before the judge] documents [confirming their rights] to the same land, and if the documents contradict one another, then both litigants are to take [to the land in question] border surveyors, and both [litigants] will walk off [the borders] as described in their documents [in the presence of the border surveyors]. Then, after the border surveyors have placed the report on borders before the Council [of Pskov], they [the

litigants] must decide [the matter] by judicial duel.

11. And whichever of the litigants loses [at the duel shall be recognized as having lost the litigation].[4]

12. If a litigant [be defeated in court on the basis of docu]ments, then convict that man and invalidate his documents, and give to the vindicated man a judgment charter to that land; and as a trial fee the prince and mayors and all the hundred-men are to take 10 dengas.

13. If someone by right of redemption begins to take from someone land, but the other person, from whom they [sic] are taking away the land, has uncertified documents affirming his prescriptive right [to the land in question], then the choice belongs to the man who has the uncertified documents, [either] to call for a duel or to oblige his opposite to take an oath regarding his redemption [claim] as long as he [tried to] take away the land.

14. If someone produces an uncertified note about storage [of goods] against [someone who is] deceased, and begins to litigate against [the dead man's] executors for [the recovery] of the stored goods, [whether it be] silver, clothes, or other property of any kind, then if the deceased completed a proper, written testament and it was placed in the [Pskov] archives [at the Holy Trinity Cathedral], then without a loan note and without collateral do not sue those executors [for anything] in violation of the [provisions of the] testament. If there be collateral or a loan note, then may [the litigant] seek [the recovery of his property] in accordance [with the provisions of] the note. And if someone possesses property on the basis of a [loan?] note or a pledge, while the executors of the deceased do not have collateral or a loan note against anyone, then they can seek nothing from him, neither loans, nor trading debts, nor stored property.

15. If a father or mother or son or brother or sister or someone else of close kinship survives the deceased, and possesses the [dead man's] property--only they are not outsiders--then [the dead man's kinsmen] are free to seek [the recovery of property against the estate of the deceased] without collateral and without a loan note from the deceased, and likewise they can be freely sued.

16. On storage [of property]. [If someone, having come from another land, gives] to someone [property for safekeeping and this property is destroyed either by theft][5] or by fire or during an uprising, and at that time he [to whom the property was allegedly given] denies having accepted [that property] from him, then [the complainant] is to seek [satisfaction] by litigation.

17. [And if someone,] a week after returning from a foreign land, or after a fire or a robbery, [initiates litigation over stored property], and [the one alleged to have taken it in storage and who subsequently had a fire or theft] denies [that he received it], then the case is to be decided at the choice of that one [against whom the suit was brought]: he may kiss [the cross as an oath] or go to the dueling field, or place [the value of the suit] at the cross for his plaintiff.

18. If some dependent peasant or herdsman in the Pskov countryside begins to sue for stored property or grain, then the Council is to seek the truth [of the matter], and extend to him against whom the suit is brought [the choice of whether] he himself wishes to kiss [the cross], or undertake a judicial duel, or whether he wishes to place [the sum at issue] at the cross.

19. If someone begins to seek stored goods according to an uncertified document which bears no list of goods, then that suit is to be disallowed.

20. If someone initiates litigation about assault or robbery according to a summons, then the prince, mayor and the hundred-men are to investigate [whether there is a] witness, where [the complainant] had dinner, or where he spent the night [at the time of the assault or robbery]; and if the witness names the persons who spent the night [with the complainant] or [if he identifies the place] where he dined, then [the judges must] also question the victim: Where did they beat and rob him? To whom did he declare this? And to whom he shall refer [as a witness]? And if that one to whom he refers [as witness], having come [to court], speaks the truth as if [standing] before God, that the victim announced his wounds and robbery to him, and if the witness, having appeared at court, testifies in those same words, then the court gives to the defendant the choice, whether he wishes to undergo a judicial duel with the [plaintiff's] witness or place at the cross that which he sought [by litigation].

21. If [the person who is to fight the duel] against the witness is elderly or too young, or is in some way maimed, or if he is a priest or a monk, then he is free to hire a substitute [to fight] against the witness, but the witness is not [to hire] a substitute.

22. If a complainant refers to some witness, and the witness does not appear, or, having appeared at court, does not testify to the same words [as did the complainant], or contradicts [the complainant], then that witness is not an [acceptable] witness, and the suit is not allowed.

23. If some complainant [in a case of assault] refers to a witness, but [the one] against whom the complaint was lodged [objects], saying, "That man himself beat me with his witness, and now he refers to him [as a witness]," then [only] that witness whom [both litigants] name at court is [acceptable] as a witness.

24. And if that litigant against whom the [allegation] of assault was lodged does not wish to accept that witness [proposed by the complainant], then, so that not just one litigant will have selected the witness, the Council is to send from the court its own people [to investigate the complaint], and do not convict the litigant who did not accept the [proposed witness] because of his unwillingness to accept that witness. The Council of Pskov is to pay no attention [to this fact].

25. If a bailiff goes to summon a litigant to court, and the person summoned does not come to the church in the local district for the reading of the summons, or [if] he hides himself to avoid the summons, then [the bailiff] is to read the summons in the local district center before the priest [of that church]; if that same person who is summoned by the summons, not fulfilling his duty, does not appear at court before the Council, then the Council is to issue with the bailiff a charter [ruling] against him [and obliging him to appear at court] within five days.

26. If someone takes a charter against [such a] litigant, having apprehended [the man] named in the charter, he is not to torture [him], nor beat him, [but] present [him] before the Council [of Pskov]. [Likewise,] the person named in the charter is not to fight against his complainant, nor thrash about; if he begins to thrash about or fight, or indeed if he commits homicide [against his complainant], then he himself will be liable for the homicide.

27. If a fight begins somewhere at the market or on the streets of Pskov, or in the adjacent districts, or in a village in the countryside during a feast, and if there is no robbery, and if many people saw that fight at the market or on the streets or at the feast, and four or five people who witnessed the fight, having come before us [the members of the Council?], say, "He beat that man [the plaintiff] [lit., I beat that man]," then whoever did the beating, that person is to be given to the victim [to make composition], and [oblige him also] to pay the prince's fine. If the victim [then] begins to allege robbery as well, then he needs [only] one witness for the complainant, due to the fact that a judicial duel is also prescribed.

28. If someone initiates a suit against a debtor for loaned money on the basis of uncertified documents, and besides that produces the [loan] collateral [as proof that the loan was made], then it is the choice of him who initiates the suit for [the recovery of the loaned] money: [if] he chooses, he may kiss [the cross as an oath] and take back his money; or if he wishes he may deposit his [the debtor's] collateral at the cross, and that one [the defendant] takes back his pledged property. But do not prescribe a judicial duel on the basis of pledged property [alone], and do not invalidate pledge notes.

29. If some man places with someone some collateral [for a loan], whether documents or money, and then he [the borrower] unexpectedly initiates a suit against his opponent [i.e., creditor], or obliges [the creditor to appear] before the Council [of Pskov], and the person with whom the collateral was placed has no document covering the collateral, then do not convict him [the borrower], but believe the one who placed the collateral, [and listen] to what he says, and before the court he who placed the collateral [in the first place] has the choice, whether he himself wishes to kiss [the cross] for his money, or if he wishes to place it at the cross and, having kissed [the cross], he takes his collateral [back].

30. If someone gives money in loan, then without collateral and without a note [give loans] up to one ruble, but give no loans greater than one ruble without collateral and without a loan note. And if on the basis of an uncertified loan note someone begins a suit about a loan of more than one ruble [but] without collateral, then the note is not sufficient, and that one is vindicated against whom the suit was filed.

31. If someone initiates a suit against someone about a loan according to an uncertified loan note, and besides that also produces the collateral--whether clothes or armor, or a horse, or some other movable property of obvious value--and that collateral does not cover the amount of money being sought in the suit, and if he [the defendant] denies having contracted such a loan, and denies that the collateral is his, saying, "I never placed any collateral with you and [furthermore] I never took from you any loan," then the person who initiated the suit against that person is to take the collateral [as his own]. Vindicate the man against whom the suit was begun.

32. If some man will serve as guarantor for another in a loan, and that man [the creditor] initiates a suit for his money against the man whom he guaranteed, and the litigant for whom the bond was given, taking a document against his opponent, says, "Brother, I paid you that money for your bond, and I have a document [confirming the repayment]." So he [the creditor] is not to initiate a suit against the litigant nor against the guarantor. But that document is not [acceptable proof] if [a copy] in those same words is not found in the Pskov archives [in the Holy Trinity Cathedral], and the complainant [creditor] is free to seek his money from the guarantor who gave his warranty [lit., his hand] for the [borrower].

33. And loans of up to one ruble may be guaranteed by bond, but [for loans] of more than one ruble [warranty is not acceptable].

34. If some Pskov man [suffers] a theft in Pskov or in the adjacent districts or in a village in the countryside, then [he must] declare [the theft] to the elders, or to neighbors, or to other outsiders. And if [the theft occurs] at a feast, then [he must] declare [it] to the person in charge of the feast or to the persons attending the feast. And the master of the feast is not required to take an oath [by kissing the cross]. The Pskov man [who suffered the theft] is not to take [the suspect from] his rural district to take a voluntary oath in Pskov. [But] he is to lead to take the oath [only] him against whom he has suspicions.[6]

35. Whoever is from the church where the theft occurred, as well as the residents of the adjacent districts, or a Pskov rural dweller, [these people] are not to call [a suspect] to the oath [in their own places], but [rather] the Pskov man is to lead [the suspect] to take the oath in the place where the theft occurred.

36. If, on the basis of uncertified loan notes, they initiate a suit against someone, and [if that person be] a woman, a child, an old person, [someone who is] infirm or in some way maimed, or a monk or nun, then they are free to hire a replacement [to take part in the judicial duel]; the litigants must kiss [the cross], but the replacements fight [the duel]; and against [such a] replacement a litigant is free [to hire] his own replacement or himself fight [in the judicial duel].

37. If a judicial duel be [required] by the court for a man, and, having come to the duel, he conquers his opposite, then he is to take from the litigant [who lost the duel] the sum of the suit [at issue]. But from the corpse [of an opponent who is killed at the duel] take no money; only take his armor or some other [valuable] in which [the dead man had] come to the duel. The person convicted by the duel is to pay both the prince's fine and the bailiff's fee for two bailiffs, 6 dengas each if the duel takes place; otherwise, if [at the duelling field the litigants] become reconciled, then [the guilty party] pays the bailiffs 3 dengas each, and there is no prince's fine if no litigant takes the suit.

38. If someone, on the basis of uncertified loan notes, initiates a suit against someone to collect a trade loan, [and] that person, [in turn,] produces a document, and in that document it will be written about the trade [loan that it was repaid], but no copy of that document containing the exact provisions of the other will be found in the archives in the Holy Trinity Cathedral, then that document is disallowed.

39. If some master, [either] a carpenter or [some other] hired [craftsman], works off his contractual agreement and the carpenter or hired [craftsman]...[7] completes his [contracted] work [and leaves]...[8] [but his employer refuses to pay him, then he is entitled to seek his pay] against the man who hired him and announce [publicly] his claim for pay.

40. If some hired household [craftsman] leaves his employer for good, not having completed his contractual term, then he is to take his pay proportionate [to the time of his labor]. And he may seek his pay for a year [after he left his work], whether [he seeks pay for] five or ten years, so long as he seeks payment within a year if he did not receive payment from the one who hired him. But if more than one year has passed [since he left that place of work], then he is not to litigate against his [former] employer.

41. If some hired carpenter begins to litigate for his pay against his employer without having finished the work [which he had agreed to do], but leaves anyway, saying to his employer, "I completed all my work for you," but his employer answers, "You did not complete all your work," then, if there is no written contract, the employer is to place the sum at issue before the cross, or the employer kisses the cross [to confirm his claim].

42. If some lord wishes to give to his dependent agriculturalist, or gardener, or fisherman a release, then [he is to give] that release at St. Filipp's Fast [14 November]. Likewise, if the agriculturalist wishes to depart from his village, or if the gardener or fisherman [wishes to depart], then [they] too may leave [only] at that time, and there is to be no departure at any other time, whether [initiated] by the lord, agriculturalist, fisherman, or gardener. But if the agriculturalist or gardener or fisherman denies [having received his] release [at the appropriate time], then give him justice [have him take an oath], and the lord is not to seek his quarter [from the harvest of the agriculturalist] nor a portion [of the produce] from the gardener nor from the catch of the fisherman.

43. If some fisherman mortgages the spring catch [of fish], or if a sharecropper mortgages [his future income], then he is to pay his lord the [same] spring catch as other fishermen got at that same fishing place.

44. And the lord is free to announce [his claim] and seek his loans publicly against the agriculturalists or against the gardeners or against the fishermen, and [to list] in detail his money and any grain [outstanding], whether spring or winter wheat. [And this right holds] according to the master's claim, unless he himself renounces [the claim].

45. If someone initiates a claim over a trade loan, or money that warranteed someone else, or over stored property, or over an ordinary loan, or over escheated property without [providing] a detailed list [of the property at issue], then such [a claim] is not allowed.

46. If some man recognizes in the possession of another man something that he lost, and [the other man] says to him, "I purchased [the property in question] at the market, but from whom I purchased it I do not know," then let him give [an oath in God's] truth on the matter [to affirm] that he bought it fairly at market, and did not share with [make a deal with] a thief, and that he will not [cannot?] produce him [from whom he bought the contested property], and that he did not steal it himself, nor was there a verbal agreement [with the thief]; then that [plaintiff who lost the property] loses the suit.

47. If someone purchased something in another land or city [but not at the market], or he found it somewhere, and another man recognizes [the property as having belonged to him], then judge the claim in the same way [you judge claims about property acquired] at the market.

48. If someone initiates a claim against the judicial lieutenants about a bribe [demanded of him], whether [the lieutenant] took clothes or a horse, saying, "I took [the clothes] or the horse in consideration of [my help]," then he is [guilty] of robbery, that he took a bribe or took a horse [as a bribe].

49. If the prince's servitors or judicial officers travel in pursuit of their obligations, then they take one denga for every 10 versts [= 6.6 miles]; if two or three travel together, then they take [only] one fee [to share among them]. And if a prince's servitor or a judicial officer refuses to go [at that rate], then a Pskov [litigant] is free to send [someone else in their place] for those same fees.

50. And the prince's scribe takes [as his fee] for writing up a summons, or a default judgment charter, or a bailiff's document what the litigant is able to pay; if he wants more than [the litigant] can pay, then [the litigant] is free to have someone else write up [the document], and the prince is to affix his seal; if the prince will not affix his seal, then obtain the seal at the [Pskov archives in the] Holy Trinity Cathedral, and there is no irregularity in this procedure.

51. If some dependent agriculturalist begins to deny [having taken] a loan from his lord, and says, "I lived for a time in your village, but I am not obligated to you [for anything]," then the lord is to provide four or five outsiders [to testify] to the matter. And those people are to speak as if [they were standing] directly before God, [saying] that the agriculturalist dwelt in that village free [of obligations]. Then the lord, having given an oath [to his claim] is to take [what is due] him, or else he believes the agriculturalist [and accepts what the agriculturalist says]; the choice is the lord's. But only if the lord does not provide any [outside] people [to testify] to this matter, [detailing] under what conditions the agriculturalist settled in his village, then the claim of that man [the lord] to his loan is not recognized.

52. If a complainant does not exact his claim against a thief or robber, then the prince likewise receives no fine.

53. If a son does not feed his father or mother their whole lives [lit., up to their deaths], but deserts their home, then [after their deaths] he is to take no part [of their property].

54. If, during the course of litigation or during the taking of an oath, [the person suspected of theft] indicates the person from whom he purchased [the property in question], then conduct a trial with that person [from whom the accused had acquired the property], and [the one] who removed [suspicion from himself] becomes a guarantor [for the person he named to appear in court].

55. If some people bring a claim against someone for his [sic] father's estate, either by intestacy or by terms of a testament, and the neighbours or outsiders have knowledge [of the matter], and four or five men, having come [before the court], speak the truth as if [they were standing] before God, that in fact [the claimant] did [properly] receive the intestate or testamentary estate of his father, then do not make him kiss the cross, and do not allow rival claims. But if there will [not] be four or five men who will speak the truth as if [standing] before God, then he is to give an oath that [he received] the inheritance properly [lit., clear and cleanly].

56. Likewise, if someone bought something at market, but does not know from whom he bought [the property in question], but [the matter] will be known to good, reliable people, then [let him] take four or five men who say, [speaking] the truth as if [standing] before God, "He purchased [that property] in our presence at market." Then that person is vindicated who had [those witnesses], and he need not kiss [the cross]. But if there be no witnesses for the man [who made the purchase], then let him take an oath [to the truth], and [if he does], the former [i.e., the plaintiff] loses the case.

57. If someone takes a bailiff from the prince or from the mayor [in order] to investigate a theft, then the prince and mayor are to send as bailiffs good men and true, and the bailiffs are to investigate [in the place] where the theft took place. If those bailiffs say these words, that "When we came to the house [of the suspect] to investigate the theft, that man did not give us [entry to his house] to investigate, and did not admit us to his house, and ejected us from his household"; and that man whom they were investigating says these words: "Those bailiffs did not come to me, lords"; or else that same man says these words: "Those bailiffs did come to me, and I opened to them my home, but they, without investigating me, themselves fled from my household, and [now] they falsely accuse [me] of having ejected [them from my house]"; then the prince and mayor are to question the bailiffs, "Do you have any evidence to [your claim or is there anyone] before whom that man ejected you from his house?" Then the bailiffs are to present [at court] two or three people, and those people, having appeared at court, [are to] speak the truth, as if [standing] before God: "[Indeed], that man in our presence did eject those bailiffs from his house, and did not give them [entry] to investigate." Then let those bailiffs take an oath [to their claim], and that man [who refused the bailiffs entry is convicted] of theft. But if the bailiffs [do not present any witnesses], then the bailiffs are not [reckoned] as bailiffs, and the claim for theft is not allowed on account of the bailiffs' [performance].

58. At court no persons except the two litigants are admitted, and no helpers [are admitted] for either side, except for [litigants who are] women, or children, or monks or nuns, or any person who is old or deaf; for these [litigants] helpers are admitted. And, except [for these cases], if someone helps [a litigant], whether he by force invades the [place where the] litigation takes place or strikes the guard at the door, then place him in confinement, and the prince takes from him a ruble, and the door guards take 10 dengas.

59. The prince [names] one man as guard and [the city administration of] Pskov names another, and they are to kiss the cross that they will not ruin the just nor vindicate the guilty. And from each trial the guards are to take on behalf of them both one denga from the guilty party.

60. And do not give credence to [the accusation] of a thief, but against the one whom he accuses [send someone] to investigate his house. If [the investigators] find in his home physical evidence [of a theft], then he is indeed a thief. But if they do not find in his house [any physical evidence] of theft, then he is free [of all suspicion].

61. The prince and mayor are not to invalidate judgment charters, but [they may] invalidate false charters and notes at court, once having investigated the truth [of the matter].

62. If someone begins a suit against another on the basis of uncertified notes, or on the basis of collateral, but at the trial or even at the [kissing of the] cross he reaches a settlement [and] takes from his opposite only a little of a large [sum at issue], then there is no fine for that, [nor is there a fine] if he drops the entire suit before the kissing [of the cross].

63. If some dependent agriculturalist [decides to leave] the village of his lord [and end their relationship], or the lord decides to terminate [the relationship], then the lord [is entitled] to take from the agriculturalist half [of the last harvest], and the agriculturalist [takes the other] half.

64. If some bailiffs, whether they be the prince's men or [the city's] official or Pskov men, travel to summon a man to court or to unchain or chain [a man], then they take a fee of one denga for 10 versts [= 6.6 miles].

65. If a bailiff goes [out to investigate] a theft, then he is to take twice the [usual] fee; the person found guilty of theft is to pay [the bailiff's fee]. But if he [the bailiff] discovers no evidence of theft, then the person who summoned the bailiff is to pay the bailiff's and guard's fees.

66. If some bailiff or [other] official takes for his fee a horse or takes something else [as guarantee of payment of the fee], then he [the bailiff] is to give [that property] as bond to some disinterested person. If, [on the other hand, no one] will take [the property] as bond, then he is to take it himself as bond, and the person who loses the litigation is to pay [the bailiff's] fees.

67. If a litigant, having come with the bailiff [to the party against whom he has initiated the action], by force takes [some property as guarantee] for his debt, and does not win his case, then this [action] is counted against him as robbery, and punish robbery [with the payment of] one ruble, and the person who loses the litigation pays the bailiff's fee.

68. No mayor is to take part in litigation for another [person]; [he should take no part in litigation] except for [cases concerning] his own affairs or [cases involving] the church for which he serves as elder; in these cases he [lit., they] is free to litigate.

69. Nor is any lieutenant to litigate for another [person]; [he is to take no part in litigation] except for his own affairs.

70. And for [cases pertaining] to church land neighbors are not to go to court as helpers; for [cases involving] church land the elders [of the church] are to go to court.

71. No helper at court is to take part in two cases on the same day.

72. If some man be written into a testament [as heir on condition that he feed the testator from that land until the testator dies], but, on receipt of documents [confirming his possession] of that land or fishing spot, he sells that land or fishing spot, or whatever [immovable property he received], and they catch this man [violating the conditions under which he received the property], then he [the man who violated the agreement] is to redeem that land or fishing spot or whatever [other immovable property he conditionally received], because [the heir] stole the sustenance [of the testator].

73. If some man will [initiate a claim] against someone [about a loan] on the basis of a [certified] loan note, and if[, in addition to the principal,] interest will also be written in the note, and the time for repayment arrives, then he [the creditor] announces to the Council [of Pskov] about the interest [specified in the note], and he is to take his interest after [the expiration of] the term [specified in the note]. But if he does not announce to the Council the specified term, then he is not entitled to take the interest after [the expiration of] the term [of the note].

74. If someone initiates a claim about a loan prior to the expiration of the [loan] term, then he [the creditor] is not entitled to take interest [on that loan]. If that person against whom [he seeks] to recover his money begins to repay [the person] to whom he was indebted prior to the expiration of the [loan] term, [then] he is [also] to pay the interest according to the schedule [specified in the loan].

75. If some dependent agriculturalist presents an uncertified note against his lord, then ignore that note.

75a. And long-time dependent agriculturalists are to perform cart service for their lords.

76. If some dependent agriculturalist flees from his village abroad or somewhere else, and his household inventory remains in the village, [then] the lord is to take back his advance to the agriculturalist [from this property]. And the lord is to take bailiffs from the prince and from the mayor, and summon the local elders and [disinterested] outsiders, and before these bailiffs and outsiders the lord is to sell the property of the agriculturalist and take back his own loan. If [the property abandoned at flight] does not suffice to cover his loan, then, if at some time the agriculturalist reappears, the lord is free to seek the remainder of his loan [from the returned fugitive], and there is no penalty to the lord [for having sold the property of the fugitive], and the agriculturalist is not to sue the lord over that property. But [if he thinks some error was made] he may initiate a suit against Pskov.

77. And Pskov judges and the city mayors and elders of the adjacent districts are to kiss the cross [to swear that] they will judge justly according to their oath, and if they do not judge justly, may God judge them on the Day of Judgment [lit., terrible day] at the second coming of Christ.

78. If together with the hundred-men some servitor of the prince travels [to investigate a case] about land borders, then he is likewise to kiss the cross [that he will conduct his business justly].

79. If [litigants] begin a suit about land or about water, and during [litigation] they present [to the court] two charters [alleging ownership of the land or water in question], have the prince's secretary read one charter and the city secretary read the other. And if a charter originates from the adjacent districts, then the city secretary is to read that charter.

80. If someone fights with someone at a feast [either] in Pskov or in the adjacent districts, or in the rural districts, or anywhere else, but the bailiffs are not summoned and they arrange a reconciliation between themselves, then no fine for the prince obtains.

81. In carrying out the work of bailiffs [including] the verification of evidence, the prince's servitors and the Pskov judicial officials are to be equally represented.

82. If some scribe shall write a judgment charter about land, then he is to take 5 dengas for [writing] the judgment charter, and for [writing] the summons [one] denga, and for [affixing] the seal [one] denga, and for a default judgment charter and for a bailiff's authorization then they [sic] are to take...[9] at [one] denga each. If the prince's scribe wishes to take [as his fee] more than [the party] can [pay], then [the latter] is free to get it written up elsewhere, and the prince affixes the seal. If the prince will not affix the seal, then [obtain] the seal at [the Pskov archives at] the Holy Trinity Cathedral. And there is no irregularity in this [procedure].

83. If some Pskov man obtains a charter from the prince and from the mayor [in connection with his travel] abroad on his own business, then from such a charter the prince's scribe is to take [one] denga, and [one] denga for the seal.

84. If some dependent agriculturalist dies in the village of his lord, and if there is no wife, nor children, nor brothers, nor any [other] kinsmen, then the lord is to sell the agriculturalist's property [in the presence of] bailiffs and disinterested outsiders, and [the lord] is to take back his advance [from this property], and no kinsman nor brother of the agriculturalist on that account may initiate a suit about the property of the [deceased] agriculturalist.

85. If some man's, that is, some lord's dependent agriculturalist, who, according to a loan note, [was indebted to his lord], dies, and if his wife and children survive him, [but they] are not [mentioned] in the loan note, all the same the wife and children are not exempt from [repaying] the lord's advance, and they are to pay that advance according to the terms of the loan note. If the agriculturalist did not leave a loan note, then the court is to judge them [the survivors] according to Pskov custom.

86. If the [deceased] dependent agriculturalist has a brother or some other kinsman, and they claim the property, then the lord is to seek his advance from them. [And] the agriculturalist's brother and kinsman are not to hide [lit., steal] neither a basket nor a tub [of grain]; if there be a horse or cow [remaining among the dead man's property], then they [the kinsmen] may seek it from the lord [of the deceased].

87. If a dependent agriculturalist initiates a suit for property from his lord, and the lord justifies his claim to that which the agriculturalist sought from the lord as his own property, and it is known to outside people and nearby neighbors that [the property] is the lord's, then the suit of the agriculturalist is not allowed, and the lord is vindicated.

88. If the wife of some man dies without a testament, and she leaves behind an estate, then her husband is to possess that estate for as long as he lives and so long as he does not remarry. If he remarries, then he is not [entitled] to feed [himself from that land].

89. If the husband of some wife dies without a testament, and he leaves behind an estate or movable property, then so long as she does not remarry his wife is entitled to the usufruct of that land. But if she remarries, then she has no claim to it.

90. If the wife of some man dies, and her husband remarries, and the wife's mother or sister or some other kinswoman initiates a suit over her clothing, then her husband is to give back that clothing justly [and] in conscience [lit., according to his soul], but the husband need not kiss [the cross] about [whether he returned] his wife's clothing in full. Likewise, if a man dies, [and his wife remarries?], and his father or brother initiate [a suit] against his wife about his clothing, then she is to give back that clothing justly in good conscience [lit., according to her soul] whatever of his remains [with her]; but the wife need not kiss [the cross] about [whether she returned] her husband's clothing [in full].

91. If someone's son dies, and his bride survives [him], and she initiates a suit against her father-in-law or brother-in-law about valuables or clothing [brought to the family with her dowry?], then the father-in-law or brother-in-law is to give back [to her] her clothing or valuables. If the bride claims more than she is entitled to, then the father-in-law or brother-in-law has the choice: [if he wishes] he himself may kiss the cross [to verify his claim] or place at the cross [that] about which she filed the exaggerated claim.

92. If someone initiates a suit against someone about money [advanced] for a mutual endeavor or about any other [venture], except some commercial or merchant matter, and introduces an uncertified note for that [claim], then extend the choice to that one against whom the suit is filed, [whether] he himself wishes to kiss [the cross to verify his claim], or [whether] he wishes to place at the cross [the sum claimed] by the suit, or [whether] he wishes to fight a judicial duel with him.

93. If a debtor to someone [as specified] in a loan note, hides himself, and at the time specified [to repay the loan] does not appear, or if a dependent agriculturalist will be [listed as a debtor] in a loan note, and he begins to conceal himself, then [once discovered] the guilty person who hid is to pay all losses [which resulted], and the bailiff's fee, the fee for chaining him, and [the costs of preparing the appropriate] document.

94. If some elder brother lives with his younger brother in one household, and [creditors] allege [against them] a debt of their father, but there is no loan note against their father, then have the elder brother take an oath, and [if the debt be recognized] then he is to pay [the debt] from their common property, and [the brothers] are to divide what remains.

95. If some younger brother or cousin [nephew?] lives in one household with his older brother or cousin [uncle?], and he appropriates money from his brother or cousin and denies [having done so], then he is to take an oath as to how matters stand with him [i.e., that he took only what was his]; but [in any case] effect a division of property [i.e., divide the household property].

96. If a homicide occurs somewhere, and they capture the person who committed the homicide, then the prince is to take one ruble from those [sic] who committed the homicide.

97. If a son should kill his father, or a brother his brother, then the prince is to take a fine.

98. If some man comes with a bailiff to a house to capture a thief and to find [physical evidence] of a theft, or to seize a debtor, but the wife [of the accused] at that time miscarries [lit., miscarried], and she accuses the bailiff or the litigant of homicide, or [she files a] claim [against him], then there is no [basis for] homicide in this.

99. If some complainant does not appear to take an oath at court, then he is to pay [the sum at issue] without kissing the cross; and the cost to him is the amount which [the other litigants] sought from him.

100. If some man during his life or just prior to death gives something by his hand to his kinsman, whether clothing or some other movable property, or landed property, and he provides a deed charter declared before a priest or [other disinterested] outsiders, then [the recipient] is to possess [that property] on the basis of that gift, even if there is no testament [confirming the gift].

101. On trade and on guarantorship. If someone initiates a suit against someone about trade [matters], or about a guarantee bond, or some other specified matter, then judge [the matter by giving] the choice to the one against whom the suit was lodged, [whether] he wishes to undertake a judicial duel or place [the sum at issue] before the cross.

102. If some master [craftsman] initiates a suit against his apprentice for the costs of apprenticeship, and the apprentice denies the suit, then the choice is the master's, whether he himself wishes to kiss [the cross] for the costs of apprenticeship or believe the apprentice.

103. A tenant is free to initiate a suit against his [land]lord for a loan or any other matter. If someone [initiated] a suit with someone on the basis of a loan note or pledged property, and then that person who was [named] in the note or who placed goods in mortgage t o someone, initiates a suit for the same [sum at issue], [whether] a loan or goods in storage, or about trade [matters], or some other matter, on the basis of uncertified notes, then the court is to decide the matter according to Pskov custom.

104. If some litigants declare [that they hold] a mortgage against [the property] of the deceased, [and they present] two or three or [even] five documents to one [piece of] land or to a [body of] water or for one house or one storage building, and if those [same] litigants will have in addition to the mortgage other loan notes against the deceased while other claimants do not have any loan notes, but only a mortgage note, and if kinsmen of [the deceased] wish to redeem the mortgage, then, having having given them an oath, divide the sum obtained, [rendering to each] as much money as his share of the mortgage [represents]. If some complainant has a mortgage [note] and loan notes against [the property] of the deceased, then he need not kiss [the cross] to pursue his claim.

105. If some foreigner initiates a suit against another foreigner [lit., in a foreign land] over assault and robbery, then give the choice to him against whom the claim is laid, [whether] he himself wishes to kiss [the cross to show] that he neither beat him nor robbed him, or [whether he wishes] to place at the cross the sum the complainant seeks.

106. If someone litigates with someone about land or about a beehive, and introduces old documents and his purchase charter [for the property in question], and his documents concern many co-holders of the land and beehive, and all the co-holders appear at court in one place, each answering for his own land or for [his own] beehive, and they place their charters before the Council [of Pskov], and they take officials to investigate the boundaries, and they lead them with the help of local long-time residents [who know and affirm the history of the landholding] [along borders] that accord with the charters, then give them an oath, each for his own part [of the land]. If [only] one [of the co-holders] kisses [the cross], but kisses [the cross] on behalf of all the co-holders, then give him a judgment charter for that part [of land] for which he kissed [the cross].

107. If someone places [with a creditor] collateral for money [he received] or something else, and the time comes to give the money back, and he requests his collateral back, but he [the creditor] denies [having received from him any] collateral, saying, "I did not give you any money, and I did not take from you any collateral," then the court [presents] to that man against whom the suit was lodged three choices [by which to justify himself]: [he may, if] he wishes, himself kiss [the cross to affirm] that he had no collateral [from the complainant], or he may place the value of the collateral at the cross, or he can go with him [the complainant] to the judicial duel.

108. If [in the present,] original [Pskov Judicial] Charter some matter is missing, then the mayors are to refer the matter to the Council of Pskov at a city assembly, and write that case [into the Pskov Judicial Charter]. If in the future some provision in this Charter will not be to the liking of the Council of Pskov, then [the Council] is free to remove that provision from this Charter.

109. The archbishop's lieutenant is to judge priests, deacons, eucharist bread bakers, monks, and nuns. If a priest, or deacon [comes before a court] or [if litigation is instituted] against a monk or nun, so that both [litigants] are church people, and not ordinary [citizens], then the prince is not to judge them, nor is the mayor, nor are any other [secular] judges to judge [them], for [they are subject to] the court of the archbishop's lieutenant. If one of the litigants be an ordinary citizen, a layman, and it is not a churchman [litigating] with another churchman, then the prince and mayor are to judge the case in common with the archbishop's lieutenant; the same [procedure obtains for] other judges.

110. If some man initiates a claim for a horse, or for a cow or for some other livestock, or even for a dog, and says, "This is my own home-bred [animal]," then give him an oath [to determine if the animal was] actually home-bred.

111. If some [litigant] strikes his opposite [at court] in the presence of the Council [of Pskov], then that man is to give him [one] ruble, and [he also pays] a fine to the prince.

112. And [the fee for the loss of] a ram is 6 dengas, and 10 dengas for a sheep, paid to the owner, and 3 dengas to the judge [according] to ancient law. And for a goose and for a gander [pay] 2 dengas [each] to the owner and 3 dengas to the judge; for a duck and for a drake and for a rooster and for a chicken [the fee is] 2 dengas [each].

113. A fraternal organization may conduct a trial just like a judge.

114. If, while drunk, someone barters for something with someone or purchases something, and then they [sic] sober up, and one of the [partrners to the transaction] is dissatisfied, then have them return what they exchanged [to one another], and there is no need for kissing [the cross] or going to court.

115. And the prince's people are not to have taverns in their households, nor in Pskov [proper,] nor in the adjacent districts; and they are not to sell mead by the bucket, by the ladle, or by the barrel.

116. If someone initiates a suit against someone about arson, but there is no evidence [to prove the claim], then call for a volunteer [from between them] to take the oath.

117. If someone tears out the beard of another man, and a witness testifies [to the deed], then give him [the witness?] the cross to kiss, and he is to fight [the offender] in a judicial duel. If the witness is victorious, then [the offender] is to pay 2 rubles for the beard and for the assault. [In such cases] there need be only one witness.

118. If [someone] purchases a cow by agreement, then[, if the cow later calves, the seller] cannot sue for the calf on account of the trade. But if the cow begins to discharge bloody urine, then [the purchaser] is to return that cow, and receive his money back.

119. [A judge may] order a judicial duel in suits between women, and there is to be no substitute for the woman on either side.

120. If someone initiates a suit against someone for assault, whether there be five or ten, or however many there be [accused of] assault against five or [even] against one [victim], and if they win their case, then assess them all for all their assaults one ruble, and the prince [receives] a single fine.

**********

NOTES

[1] There is considerable controversy about exactly which Prince Aleksandr the compiler has in mind: Aleksandr Nevskii (d. 1263) or Aleksandr of Rostov (who ruled in Pskov intermittently in the years 1410-1434). Prince Konstantin was the brother of Vasilii I, and ruled in Pskov briefly in 1407 and again in 1412.

[2]The text here appears to be corrupted, leading scholars to treat these two articles in different ways. Some are inclined to join the last phrase of article one to the text of article two. The present text follows the article division justified in Pamiatniki russkogo prava, 8 vols. (Moscow: Gosiurizdat, 1952-63), 2:330-31. For a more recent review that rejects this division see Rossiiskoe zakonodatel'stvo X-XX vv., 1:346-47. For a reproduction of the manuscript text see I. D. Martysevich, Pskovskaia sudnaia gramota (Moscow: MGU, 1951), facing p. 136.

[3] The manuscript here omits about three lines of text.

[4] The text contains an omission here; the proposed reading, borrowed from the editors of Pamiatniki russkogo prava, 2:287, 338-39, continues the sense of the preceding article. For a summary of other views, see Rossiiskoe zakonodatel'stvo X-XX vekov, 1:352.

[5] Again the text omits part of the article. The translation here depends upon the reconstruction proposed in Pamiatniki russkogo prava, 2:288, 341.

[6] Many scholars attempt to resolve the considerable difficulties of this passage by combining articles 34 and 35, in the process slightly altering the grammar of article 35 as suggested and justified in Pamiatniki russkogo prava, 2:290-91, 349. For other views, see Rossiiskoe zakonodatel'stvo X-XX vv., 1:360.

[7] A small omission occurs here in the text.

[8] Another small omission occurs here; the inserted text is based on the apparent sense of the remainder of the article.

[9]There is a brief interruption--about eight letters in length--in the text.

update

Been writing up lesson plans the last few days. Checks and Balances and Balance of Power here I come...

If you get the chance, read The Alienist and The Angel of Darkness by Caleb Carr. I should warn you though, expect plenty of fear with this as an evening read... Back in that dark time when Manattan's claim as The City was about to 'formally' end. Those born in any of the five boroughs learned to call it such to this day...

was chatting with a friend yesterday about potential articles we could co-author on Roman history. Amazing the amount of things to write on in military history alone...

Does anyone know of any sites that would pay to have articles submitted?

daily post

Not much to report on personally so here's a historical excerpt to tide you over.

ARTICLE I. The National Assembly hereby completely abolishes the feudal system. It decrees that, among the existing rights and dues, both feudal and censuel,[1] all those originating in or representing real or personal serfdom shall be abolished without indemnification. All other dues are declared redeemable, the terms and mode of redemption to be fixed by the National Assembly. Those of the said dues which are not extinguished by this decree shall continue to be collected until indemnification shall take place.

II. The exclusive right to maintain pigeon houses and dovecotes is abolished. The pigeons shall be confined during the seasons fixed by the community. During such periods they shall be looked upon as game, and every one shall have the right to kill them upon his own land.

III. The exclusive right to hunt and to maintain uninclosed warrens is likewise abolished, and every landowner shall have the right to kill, or to have destroyed on his own land, all kinds of game, observing, however, such police regulations as may be established with a view to the safety of the public.

All hunting capitaineries, [2] including the royal forests, and all hunting rights under whatever denomination, are likewise abolished. Provision shall be made, however, in a manner compatible with the regard due to property and liberty, for maintaining the personal pleasures of the king.

[Page 406] The president of the Assemby shall be commissioned to ask of the king the recall of those sent to the galleys or exiled, simply for violations of the hunting regulations, as well as for the release of those at present imprisoned for offenses of this kind, and the dismissal of such cases as are now pending.

IV. All manorial courts are hereby suppressed without indemnification. But the magistrates of these courts shall continue to perform their functions until such time as the National Assembly shall provide for the establishment of a new judicial system.

V. Tithes of every description, as well as the dues which have been substituted for them, under whatever denomination they are known or collected (even when compounded for), possessed by secular or regular congregations, by holders of benefices, members of corporations (including the Order of Malta and other religious and military orders), as well as those devoted to the maintenance of churches, those impropriated to lay persons, and those substituted for the portion congrue,[3] are abolished, on condition, however, that some other method be devised to provide for the expenses of divine worship, the support of the officiating clergy, for the assistance of the poor, for repairs and rebuilding of churches and parsonages, and for the maintenance of all institutions, seminaries, schools, academies, asylums, and organizations to which the present funds are devoted. Until such provision shall be made and the former possessors shall enter upon the enjoyment of an income on the new system, the National Assembly decrees that the said tithes shall continue to be collected according to law and in the customary manner.

Other tithes, of whatever nature they may be, shall be redeemable in such manner as the Assembly shall determine. Until this matter is adjusted, the National Assembly decrees that these, too, shall continue to be collected.

[Page 407] VI. All perpetual ground rents, payable either in money or in kind, of whatever nature they may be, whatever their origin and to whomsoever they may be due, . . . shall be redeemable at a rate fixed by the Assembly. No due shall in the future be created which is not redeemable.

VII. The sale of judicial and municipal offices shall be abolished forthwith. Justice shall be dispensed gratis. Nevertheless the magistrates at present holding such offices shall continue to exercise their functions and to receive their emoluments until the Assembly shall have made provision for indemnifying them.

VIII. The fees of the country priests are abolished, and shall be discontinued so soon as provision shall be made for increasing the minimum salary [portion congrue] of the parish priests and the payment to the curates. A regulation shall be drawn up to determine the status of the priests in the towns.

IX. Pecuniary privileges, personal or real, in the payment of taxes are abolished forever. Taxes shall be collected from all the citizens, and from all property, in the same manner and in the same form. Plans shall be considered by which the taxes shall be paid proportionally by all, even for the last six months of the current year.

X. Inasmuch as a national constitution and public liberty are of more advantage to the provinces than the privileges which some of these enjoy, and inasmuch as the surrender of such privileges is essential to the intimate union of all parts of the realm, it is decreed that all the peculiar privileges, pecuniary or otherwise, of the provinces, principalities, districts, cantons, cities, and communes, are once for all abolished and are absorbed into the law common to all Frenchmen.

XI. All citizens, without distinction of birth, are eligible to any office or dignity, whether ecclesiastical, civil, or military; and no profession shall imply any derogation.

XII. Hereafter no remittances shall be made for annates or for any other purpose to the court of Rome, the vice legation at Avignon, or to the nunciature at Lucerne. The [Page 408] clergy of the diocese shall apply to their bishops in regard to the filling of benefices and dispensations, the which shall be granted gratis without regard to reservations, expectancies, and papal months, all the churches of France enjoying the same freedom.

XIII. [This article abolishes various ecclesiastical dues.]

XIV. Pluralities shall not be permitted hereafter in cases where the revenue from the benefice or benefices held shall exceed the sum of three thousand livres. Nor shall any individual be allowed to enjoy several pensions from benefices, or a pension and a benefice, if the revenue which he already enjoys from such sources exceeds the same sum of three thousand livres.

XV. The National Assembly shall consider, in conjunction with the king, the report which is to be submitted to it relating to pensions, favors, and salaries, with a view to suppressing all such as are not deserved, and reducing those which shall prove excessive; and the amount shall be fixed which the king may in the future disburse for this purpose.

XVI. The National Assembly decrees that a medal shall be struck in memory of the recent grave and important deliberations for the welfare of France, and that a Te Deum shall be chanted in gratitude in all the parishes and the churches of France.

XVII. The National Assembly solemnly proclaims the king, Louis XVI, the Restorer of French Liberty.

XVIII. The National Assembly shall present itself in a body before the king, in order to submit to him the decrees which have just been passed, to tender to him the tokens of its most respectful gratitude, and to pray him to permit the Te Deum to be chanted in his chapel, and to be present himself at this service.

XIX. The National Assembly shall consider, immediately after the constitution, the drawing up of the laws necessary for the development of the principles which it has laid down in the present decree. The latter shall be transmitted by the deputies without delay to all the provinces, together with [Page 409] the decree of the 10th of this month, in order that it may be printed, published, read from the parish pulpits, and posted up wherever it shall be deemed necessary.





Footnotes

[1] This refers to the cens, a perpetual due similar to the payments made by English copyholders.
[2] See above, p. 365.

[3] This expression refers to the minimum remuneration fixed for the priests.

The Decree Abolishing the Feudal System,
August 11, 1789

J.H. Robinson, ed.,
Readings in European History 2 vols.
(Boston: Ginn, 1906), 2: 404-409

Hanover Historical Texts Project
Scanned by Brooke Harris, October 1996.
Proofread by Angela Rubenstein, February 1997
Proofread and pages added by Jonathan Perry, March 2001.

Intended for education and personal use...