In the time between the Norman Conquest of England and the Black Death the Norman and Plantagenet kings of England made a number of laws which by turn encouraged and restricted the practice of archery by the people. These fell into two broad categories. Firstly there was Forest Law which governed the very extensive royal forests created by the Norman kings, with the prime purpose of preserving deer and other animals for the kings to hunt. Inevitably, the body of Forest Law included severe restrictions on anything to do with archery within the bounds of a royal forest, so that even having an unstrung bow in a man’s house was an offence unless he had express permission from the Forest Justices. Inevitably this permission did not come for free. Secondly, there were those parts of the general law of England which had the broad purpose of maintaining the King’s peace. Men were required to have weapons in their houses to meet their duty of actively assisting in this. At the most basic town and village level this meant that they had to take part in the Hue and Cry, a legally required version of ‘have a go’ that involved the pursuit and arrest of offenders. Very soon after the Norman Conquest the kings were sufficiently confident of their hold on the country that they required freemen to own arms so that law-abiding men were well enough armed to assist the sheriffs in keeping the peace if necessary. Through the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Assizes and Statutes were issued which placed a duty on men to own arms and practise in their use so that there were an adequate number of competent armed men to summon for service in times of war. As time passed and circumstances changed serfs came to be included in the groups required to have arms in their homes.
Anglo-Saxon law allowed men to hunt on their own land. The only clear statement of this is found in the ‘Laws of Cnut’ issued about 1020–3, which asserted that ‘it is my will that every man is entitled to his hunting in wood and field on his own land’. This is very significant since the ‘Laws of Cnut’ consists mainly of extracts from earlier English lawcodes, and so the popular right to hunt may have a long history in Anglo-Saxon England. These laws also outlined wide ranging royal hunting rights with the king declaring; ‘everyone is to avoid trespassing on my hunting, wherever I wish to have it preserved, on pain of full fine.’1 An example of a pre Conquest non royal hunting preserve is found in a charter dating to second half of the tenth century concerning an estate at Grimly in Worcestershire which makes mention of a hunting wood (silvis venationibus).2 The Norman kings made enormous changes to the hunting rights of the population of England. They declared much larger areas to be royal forests, these forests being primarily hunting preserves for the king as well as being a source of income from timber, pasturage and rents. It has been estimated that in the thirteenth century about a quarter of the land area of England was forest, and that this may have been reduced from a higher level in the previous century.3 The Norman kings rapidly developed a special body of law, Forest Law, which governed the lands included within the bounds of the royal forests. These can be most simply defined as the land which was governed by Forest Law, and were regarded as separate from the king’s demesne, which was the land the king held as his own and had not let to someone else.
Forest Law bore down most heavily on those landholders and serfs who were resident in the manors and villages that fell within the bounds of a royal forest. Until the thirteenth century, for those who lived within and around the bounds of the royal forests the demands and dictats of Forest Law could override their legal rights as defined in what came to be known as English Common Law. But it was a very confused situation since there is also clear evidence that criminal and civil pleas relating to offences and other legal matters occurring in areas within the bounds of the forests were heard in Common Law courts.4
The Foresters and other officers of the royal forests were often notorious for their heavy-handed implementation of Forest Law. One example of this oppressive and often corrupt implementation occurred when a forester took over the inquest into the lawing of dogs (the removal of three claws or more likely pads from a forefoot of all dogs that lived within the bounds of a forest to stop them chasing game). This was usually carried out by the Regarders, who were leading members of local society rather than royal employees. This forester then extorted money from the dogs’ owners by claiming that the law required the removal of the toes from a particular forefoot, and the one that had been maimed was always the wrong one.5 In the first 150 years after the Norman Conquest Norman of England, Forest Law included ferocious physical penalties for contravening many of its rules. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in its summary of William I’s reign comments that: ‘He set apart a vast deer preserve and imposed laws concerning it. Whoever slew a hart or hind was to be blinded.’6 The Chronicle is undoubtedly making an implied criticism of William and the way he radically changed the hunting rights of the people at large in comparison with the rights they had before the Conquest. The penalties in Henry I’s reign for offences against the ‘venison and the vert’, that is against both the beasts and the trees and pastures of the forest, not only included blinding, but also emasculation and death. William of Newburgh commented that ‘he [Henry I] made too little distinction between a person who killed a deer and one who killed a man.’7 Henry I’s laws as recorded at the end of his reign contain reference to an early version of Forest Law, but not in the clear detail that is recorded in later reigns. Clause 17 headed ‘Concerning the plea of the forests’ has two sections:
1. The plea of the forest is embarrassed with many inconveniences.
2. It is concerned with the clearing of land; cutting wood; burning; the carrying of bows and spears in the forest; the wretched practice of hambling dogs [what was later called lawing dogs]; anyone who does not come to aid in a deer hunt; anyone who lets loose the livestock which he has kept confined; buildings in the forest; failure to obey summons; encountering anyone in the forest with dogs; the finding of hide or flesh.8
The author of this account of Henry’s laws perhaps implies that Forest Law is outside the main body of the law of the kingdom by the way in which he gives this vague summary of it. His phrase ‘the wretched practice of hambling dogs’ suggests that he was unhappy about aspects of Forest Law, reflecting what became a clear antipathy felt by many in England in later reigns.
In the Assize of the Forest in 1184, Henry II codified and restated Forest Law as it had developed up to that date. The first article establishes the penalties for infringing the Forest Law at the same level as his grandfather Henry I had enforced. There seems to have been no perceived need to specifically restate them.
The second article states ‘He forbids that anyone shall have bows or arrows or hounds or harriers in his forest unless he shall have as his guarantor the king or some other person who can legally act as his guarantor.’ The ninth article dealt with a particular menace to the deer in the royal forests; ‘the king forbids that any cleric shall transgress either in regard to his venison or to his foresters.’ This article was another part of Henry’s struggle with the Church throughout his reign to limit its independence from royal law and influence. The tenth article dealt with surreptitious hunting, saying ‘The king has commanded that none shall hereafter in any wise hunt wild animals by night with a view to their capture either within the forest or without, wheresoever the animals frequent or have their lairs under pain of imprisonment for one year and payment of a fine or ransom at pleasure.’9 It is noteworthy that this last article extends the king’s protection over those animals considered huntworthy outside the bounds of the forest if they wander at night. Human activity in the daytime might be expected to encourage the animals to keep in the shelter of the forest, but in the quiet of the night they might wander outside the bounds of the forest and become ‘fair game’. This article also ensured a ‘buffer zone’ around the forest at night when it would have been easier to enter the forest unseen to poach. However, this article could also be used by the forest officers to interfere in the lives of those who lived around the forest.
Henry II left the system of forest administration which applied Forest Law and raised income for the king from the forests in such a robust and efficient condition, that it carried on running effectively through Richard’s reign. This was despite Richard’s neglect of the details of administering the English part of his inheritance.
King John enthusiastically maintained the efficiency of the forest administration, with an eye to gaining as much profit as possible from both the resources of the forests themselves and from the administration of Forest Law. There is no clear evidence that he extended the area afforested beyond that his father Henry II had held, indeed it is possible he reduced it slightly through his regular acceptance of gifts to secure various forest privileges.10 But through his efficient administration of the royal forests he retained such effective control of the forests that he was able to use rigorous enforcement of Forest Law to inconvenience his opponents among the nobility and the Church. The Cistercian order being one group that particularly suffered in this way. After twelve years of this oppressive use of prerogative power in relation to the forests he held a particularly harsh, and potentially profitable, Forest Eyre in 1212. All this led to reform of Forest Law being an important part of the demands of the barons in their dispute with King John in the latter part of his reign. When King John and the barons signed Magna Carta in 1215 many hoped that by doing this they were re-establishing the agreement between the king and his magnates that was so necessary for successful medieval government. In fact John saw it only as way to gain a breathing space to allow him the opportunity to regain dominance. As soon as most of the barons left London John repudiated the charter, and was supported in this by Pope Innocent III who annulled it because John had signed it under duress. But John died in 1216 before he could win or perhaps more likely lose the war against the barons. Magna Carta was re-enacted in the name of his successor, the nine-year-old Henry III, this time with the support of the papal legate.
Magna Carta dealt with the general issues where royal government had exploited the king’s power to harm the interests of all free men in England and did not include detailed recommendations to resolve the tensions arising from Forest Law and the extent of the royal forests. It laid the foundations for major developments in the rights and roles of all men (and to a lesser degree women) in medieval England, whether free or serfs. But it included two articles relating to the forest in broad terms. Clause 48 stated that:
All evil customs of forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their servants, river banks and their wardens are to be investigated at once in every county by twelve sworn knights of the same county who are to be chosen by worthy men of the county, and within 40 days of the inquiry they are to be abolished by sthem beyond recall, provided that we, or our Justiciar, if we are not in England, first know of it.11
This was a radical change since it was the first time that anyone outside the royal administration was given the duty and power to investigate and change law and practice within the royal forests. It was a step towards including the royal forests within the ordinary legal and administrative systems of the country. Clause 44 addressed another grievance where the administration of Forest Law had been over zealous, declaring that ‘Henceforth men who live outside the forest shall not come before our Justices of the Forest upon a general summons, unless they are impleaded or are sureties for any person or persons who are attached for forest offences.’12 This clause restricted the jurisdiction of the Forest Justices and Forest Law to the forest itself and matters pertaining directly to it, rather than Forest Law overriding the Common Law in the districts around the forests as had previously been the case.
In November 1217 the Forest Charter was sealed in the name of the young Henry III. This charter codified the complaints and demands of the barons and other landholders which were not included in detail in the Magna Carta, and matters discovered by the inquisitions of the juries of knights established in Magna Carta. Undoubtedly the most important clause in the Forest Charter for the people of England at large was Clause 10 which declared ‘None henceforth shall give life or limb for our venison’. This clause goes on to say that those convicted of taking venison shall be fined, or, if they are unable to pay a fine, imprisoned for a year and a day. On release those imprisoned must find sureties for their subsequent behaviour or be banished from the kingdom.13 This repudiation of the Norman kings’ attitude that to kill a deer was as serious as killing a man, almost certainly led directly to an increase in poaching by the common man since the penalties for poaching were now survivable. Although the penalty of a year and a day in prison should not be underestimated, medieval prisons were foul, pest-ridden places that could kill the healthiest person. Moreover, since prisoners relied on friends and family for food, care and clothing, being in prison could be a serious financial penalty on the prisoner and his family.
As will become clear in the discussion of illegal hunting below, some men came to be recognised as habitual offenders against the king’s venison. More court records survive from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries than do from the earlier centuries, which may mean that we know more about poaching in those centuries, rather than that more actually happened. But the removal of the threat of maiming or death must have made men more willing to take the risk of attempting to poach the king’s deer.
There are two other significant themes in the Forest Charter. The first is that the extent of the royal forests should be limited to their extent at the beginning of Henry II’s reign. But this was not straight forward since successive juries enquiring into the extent of royal forests came to differing conclusions in regard to the boundaries of particular forests over the next fifteen years. Secondly the Regarders were given more control over the numbers and powers of the foresters in a serious attempt to restrict the opportunities for the foresters to levy oppressive fines and fees on the people living in the forest.
By the thirteenth century, particularly after the enactment of the Forest Charter, the officers responsible for the administration of royal forests and the implementation of Forest Law fell into two groups: one included the Forest Justices and foresters appointed by the king, and the other representatives of the men of standing who lived in the counties containing the forests.
Ideally the Justices of the Forest Eyre were appointed at regular intervals, and travelled the country visiting each Forest Court to hear cases. In theory they were men of experience within the royal administration who were independent of the Forest administration. But, because the king directed when the Eyre should be held these Justices were often unpopular for their willingness to impose high fines and so raise money from the administration of justice to fill the king’s coffers. The men who administered each forest were appointed by the king directly or indirectly. Each forest usually had a Warden who was in charge of a group of Foresters of different rank. The most important were the Foresters in Fee, who held land for the service of being a forester in person or through a substitute. In addition to these was a more numerous body of paid foresters, the riding foresters who were the more senior and the walking foresters. These men did most of the work of looking after the forest. The activities of these Justices and officers were ‘monitored’ by two groups of men representing the people living within and around the forest.
The Regarders were formally established by the Assize of Woodstock in 1185. They were appointed by the sheriff, usually twelve of them for each county, to look into all the activities that went on in the forest, such as assarts (clearing of forest land for cultivation), purprestures (making buildings or enclosures within the forest), whether trees had been cut down, the presence of mines or forges in the forest and who had bows and arrows within the forest.14 All these activities were the sort of matters which corrupt or grasping foresters could make money out of by effectively licensing them for a fee to the detriment of the forest. The other group were the Verderers who were elected by the County Court. They were established by Richard I’s reign at the latest, and their main duty was to attend the forest courts every forty days to view the attachments (accusations put before the court) made by the foresters.15 This enabled them to check that the foresters were not making too many accusations with little or no foundation. The Forest Charter built upon the roles of these two groups to establish more robust checks on the scope for abuse of their powers by the foresters.
As the account of illegal hunting below demonstrates, the royal administration had every reason to be very concerned about the carrying of bows and arrows within the bounds of the forests. This concern was so deeply felt that even forest officers could be restricted in their right to carry them, again not without good cause since foresters very easily became poachers. One clear example of this comes from the Peak Forest in the early 1290s. John of Wolfhunt and Thomas Foljambe held a bovate of land between them for the service of hunting wolves in the forest. This was not an all round the year job, they were expected to make two expeditions each year to catch wolves, normally in March and September. The way they were to do this was quite explicitly described. They were to go into the forest accompanied by only one servant each to carry traps, equipped with a hatchet, a spear and a hunting knife but expressly neither a bow nor arrows. They were also allowed one unlawed mastiff each.16 John’s name is noteworthy since he is described as holding his portion of the land by hereditary descent whereas Thomas acquired his by purchase.
Like the basics of Forest Law, the roots of the legal duty of all free men in England to be prepared to provide military service to protect the kingdom can be traced back to Anglo-Saxon times as well. This service was owed in response to a summons from the king through his officials. Before the Norman Conquest this meant service in the Fyrd. There has been a great deal of discussion among academics about the degree of continuity of the Fyrd tradition into Post-Conquest England. The current consensus is that the Norman and Plantagenet kings recognised the value of the tradition and used it to achieve two ends. Firstly, it was a way of repairing a fracture in the English social structure brought about by the Conquest itself. By offering the opportunity of military service to Englishmen, it both included them in the aims of the new regime, and gave them an opportunity to expend their aggressive energies. Secondly, it was a very simple way of providing the Norman kings and the great magnates, particularly the Marcher barons, with a considerable part of the armies necessary for their persistent military activities.
The Norman and Plantagenet kings developed this duty of bearing arms in a series of Assizes of Arms and the Statutes associated with these Assizes. In these, the male population of England aged between 15 and 60 was divided into groups defined initially by both legal and financial status. Members of each group were expected to serve in person, armed to the appropriate standard for the group. Through these Assizes and Statutes the Norman and Plantagenet kings demonstrated that they were sufficiently confident in the stability of the broad population of England that they could require their subjects to have arms in their houses and be competent in their use.
The first Assize of Arms that we are aware of was proclaimed Henry II in 1180–1. He issued two versions, the earlier one proclaimed in Le Mans covering the Angevin and Norman parts of his empire, and the other issued in 1181 covered his English kingdom. It seems surprising with hindsight from an English point of view that while the Assize issued in Le Mans specified that those men in the lowest income group should have ‘a gambeson, iron cap, spear, sword or bow and arrows’, the English one only specified a gambeson, iron cap and spear for the same group.17 A possible explanation for this omission in the English Assize of Arms can be found in an order Henry issued in 1175 when he was holding court at Woodstock. Henry decreed that ‘none shall carry arms in England east of the Severn, namely bows and arrows and knives with points.’18 The penalty for so doing was arrest and imprisonment. What motivated this order is uncertain. It has been suggested, because of the mention of the Severn and the skill of the South Welsh with bows, that this was a measure to restrict wandering Welsh miscreants. It could just as easily reflect Henry’s uncertainty about the reliability of his English subjects, and their willingness to keep the king’s peace after the disorders of the previous reign. Also, given Henry’s enthusiasm for hunting and the extent of the royal forests in England, it could be an attempt to restrict popular archery as part of a concern about poaching. Certainly Henry seems to have been less interested in military archery than either his predecessor, Stephen, or some of his successors.
The Assize of Arms of 1230 included the novel provision of recognizing the availability of competent archers and the need to encourage the development of military archers. Archers, willing to use their skills in defence of their homes, had been available in considerable numbers in some parts of the kingdom of England for many years as Richard of Hexham’s account of the Battle of the Standard in 1138 makes clear. This account can be found in chapter VIII. The 1230 Assize stated that ‘he who has goods to the value of 20/- shall have a bow and arrows, unless he lives in our forest, if he lives in our forest and has goods to the value of 20/- he shall have an axe or a spear.’19 These requirements were expanded in the Assizes of 1242 and 1253 and finally in 1285 when the Statute of Winchester, which was for the most part a revision and expansion of these earlier Assizes of Arms, consolidated these developments.20 The Statute laid down what type of soldier each man should serve as, and the weapons that he should have in his house. Later generations looked back to it as the measure of legitimacy with regard to the demands for compulsory military service made by their kings.
Given the scale of his military activities, Edward I might have been expected to have brought about major changes to the recruiting system in England, but this was not the case. His main contribution was a pragmatic one, extending the paying of royal wages for arrayed troops so that they received them from the time they reached the place of muster.21 His concern was to get predictable numbers of troops to where he needed them on time, and payment of wages from arrival at the muster point helped. The real developments in the system had been brought about by his father, Henry III, a much less successful military figure. Firstly, in 1230 he extended the duty of military service to include the unfree, and divided freemen and town burghers into two wealth categories, those holding 40/- of goods and those holding 20/-.22 This was the first Assize that helped to erode the differences in status between free and unfree men in England. Serfs made up about 70% of the rural population, and they ranged from those who held enough land to live well to those who struggled to survive.23 In medieval England in the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries, perhaps as much as 90 per cent of the population of England lived outside the towns and cities, so to include the serfs in the groups that were expected to contribute men to the king’s army was very important. Most obviously it ensured that the king’s officials had many more men to choose from when raising armies, but it also developed in these men a sense of having a responsibility towards the wellbeing of the kingdom. In doing this Henry widened the pool of potential fighting men considerably, which was a major contribution to the effective development of the English army over the next two centuries. Secondly, his Assize of Arms of 1242 brought about changes in the types of arms held by the various financial groups, and, most importantly for the purposes of this book, recognised the importance of the bow and allocated it to those holding land worth more than 40/-. This group, whether free men or serfs, would be men who had sufficient land to feed them and their family with some ease and so represent the higher levels of village society. By specifying these men as potential archers in the king’s army, Henry III’s administration is making it clear that they believed that these were the sort of men who might have bows anyway.
Edward earned a formidable military reputation, and inevitably he wanted include as many of his subjects as possible in the pool of men he call upon in his military campaigns. So, in 1285 he issued the Statute of Winchester. The main regulations of the Statute were:
Every man between fifteen years and sixty years shall be assessed and sworn to armour according to the quantity of their lands and goods; that is to wit from £15 land or 40 marks goods a hauberk, sword, knife and a horse: £10 lands or 20 marks goods a hauberk, sword and a knife: and from 40/- land and more unto 100/- of lands sword, bow and arrow and a knife: and he that hath less than 40/- yearly shall be sworn to keep gisarmes, knives and other less weapons: and he that hath less than 20 marks in goods shall have swords, knives and other less weapons: and all others that may shall have bows and arrows out of the Forest and in the forest bows and boults.
Boults or bolts at this time were blunt arrows for shooting birds and small game like rabbits, so this regulation would limit the ownership of sharp arrows which could be used to hunt deer to those who had need of them for legitimate sport or for their work. The Statute formalised a review system to ensure that men did indeed have the right arms available by decreeing ‘that a view of armour [a view of arms in the records discussed below] be made two times every year’.24 The Statute of Winchester was the final stage in the transformation of the purpose of the Assizes of Arms. In 1181 the purpose was as much concerned with local law and order, by ensuring that law-abiding free men were well armed, as it was with providing a pool of potential soldiers. By 1285 this had changed and the Assize had become a key part of the English military system, aiming to ensure that a large number of men both free and unfree who owned a level of military equipment were available to the Commissioners of Array, from whom they could select the necessary forces.
The significant point in the Statute of Winchester was the last requirement ‘and all others that may shall have bows and arrows’. Edward was both declaring that all men who were physically able had a duty to take part in the defence of the kingdom and that the bow and arrow was a weapon that was available to everyone. This is a significant move from the assumptions implied in Henry III’s Assize where archery skills were expected from a much more limited group. In nearly all other parts of Europe the weapons that the poorer levels of the population were expected to have were pole or staff weapons. These might be agricultural tools or long spears with the simplest of points like those used so effectively against the English by the North Welsh and the Scots, or maybe staves with simple spikes or weighted heads, like the godendag used by the Flemish infantry to such good effect at the Battle of Courtrai in 1302. But Edward specified bows and arrows.
Historians have long emphasised the Anglo Norman kings’ experiences in Wales as a major influence on their recognition of the importance of encouraging the development of archery skills for military purposes, but this is too simple. Edward experienced the Welsh archers fighting both for and against him, and he also employed English archers in his campaigns. In 1277 for example he had a company of 100 archers from Macclesfield Forest in his army.25 So it seems that Edward was recognising a broadly based tradition of English popular archery in this requirement of the Statute of Winchester, just as his father had done to a lesser degree earlier in the century. Evidence for this tradition can be found in the following chapters.
From Edward I’s reign until late in that of his grandson Edward III the Statute of Winchester was considered adequate to ensure that there were enough men competent with various types of arms to defend the kingdom and make up the armies that pressed Edward III’s claims in France with such spectacular success. Indeed by 1327 in London, the enthusiasm for owning and carrying weapons of all kinds, not just bows and arrows had become so marked that proclamations against the carrying of arms within the City had to be issued.26 The only evidence for any other royal proclamation or law specifically encouraging archery comes from a not always reliable source. One variant of Jean Froissart’s Chronicle includes a statement that in 1337 Edward III ordered that ‘none should engage in any sports than the hand bow (l’arch a main) and arrows and that all workers making bows and arrows should be made free and quit of all their debts.’27 Froissart produced an invaluable account of the first stages of what became known as the Hundred Years War but he could be unreliable about details and dates on occasion. Unfortunately there is no support in any other record for Froissart’s account. However, the first part of this alleged proclamation matches the one that was certainly issued in 1363, and the second, the cancelling of bowyers and fletchers debts, is typical of the gestures medieval kings made, acting to benefit a group necessary for their plans at the expense of others. So there may be truth in both parts of Froissart’s account but when these orders were enacted remains the question.
1 Whitelock, D. (ed.), English Historical Documents 500–1042 (Eyre Methuen, 1979) pp.454 and 467
2 Wiltshire, M. et al., Duffield Frith (Asbourne, 2005) p.40
3 Young, C.R., The royal forests of Medieval England (Philadelphia, 1979) p.5
4 Ibid., pp.30–1
5 Ibid., p.82
6 Garmonsway, G.N. (trans.), Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Everyman, 1954) p.221
7 Quoted in Young, C.R. (1979) p.11
8 Downer, L.J. (ed. and trans.), Leges Henrice Primi (Clarendon Press, 1972) pp.120–1
9 Douglas, D.C. and Greenaway, G.W. (eds), English Historical Documents 1042–1189 (Eyre Methuen, 1981) pp.451–3
10 Young, C.R. (1979) p.26
11 Holt, J.C., Magna Carta (Cambridge, 1992) p.465
12 Ibid., p.463
13 Ibid., p.514; actually from the 1225 issue of the charter.
14 Young, C.R. (1979) pp.49 and 89
15 Ibid., pp.42 and 85
16 Burton I.E., The royal forest of the Peak (Bakewell, 1966) p.16
17 Stubbs, W. (ed.), Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis (Longman Green and Co., 1867) Vol.1, pp.269–70 and 278
18 Ibid., p.93
19 Calendar of Close Rolls (1230) p.398
20 Powicke, M., Military Obligation in Medieval England (Clarendon Press, 1962) p.119
21 Ibid., p.124
22 Ibid., pp.85–6
23 Dyer, C. (2003) pp.97–8
24 Statutes of the Realm, Vol.1 (London, 1735) pp.97–8.
25 Hardy, R., The Longbow (Patrick Stephens, 1992) p.42
26 Calendar of Pleas and Memoranda Rolls 1323–46 (Cambridge University Press, 1926) p.18
27 Luce, S. (ed), Chronique de Jean Froissart, Book 1 (Paris, 1869) p.402