Commercial fraud in the middle ages: the case of the dissembling pepperer

Kathryn L. Reyerson

Medieval bus1 sex. dies is a !oPir oft WW/ inlet e.\ I among hisforia,;c. This stuck ‘exatkno a case c!J commercial fraud, !he fals$cation OJ xflon, in lhe southern French f~k~n oJ Alon~Jn~llier in Ihr mid-fourteenth century. Impure saffron was seized by urban ittpeclors at the workshop ($a peppcler, Johanne.5 Andree. Upon /he testimony ~[urilnesae.~, lhr impurio of the sagion was cot robota:cd, and munici,bal jusiitr decreed [ha! ii be publicly burned. Johannes Andree chose 10 conle.s( Ittic verdicr. claiming exemp,ionSromjudgmrnt @on Ihe pt 0und.s lhat he was u royal momyet. A cor@cl ufprisdic- /ion ensued, wiih the tector (I/‘ Mont/ellie?e/ sup- potling Andree against /he municipal consuls and tilt lawn bailtff.

This study focuses on the documentary rtidence

of the law suif : !he nature of lc accusalion against

Andree, the legitimacy of his defence, the precedents for consular supervision of the pepperers’ trade and

the importance of qualily control over merchandise,

and the background of the jurisdictional dispute belween the consuls and the rector. Finally, le legal terminoloy of lhis case of commercial fraud is considered in the context of legal theory and

medieval jurisprudence. F,om this analysis oj‘

municipal justice in practice, standards of business efhics, consumer prolectio:: and qualily control

emerge as imporlanl such as Monlpellier.

concerns in a trading

Historians have only rcccntiy hrgun to cx- plore the full ranr* of Irgal offrncc in 111~ middle ages. Violent crime 11~s been the most commonly studied aspect of mcdicval criminality; it was punished habitually by compensation or vcnclctta, c*sprcially in thr early iniddlc ages, morr rarely with physical retribution or through incarceration.’ Less Ifequcntly scrutinized by historians until Iatcly have brcn thr subtler crimes involving a violation of mcdirval businrss ethics. Thcx diversity of mcdicval Icgal opinion i> r+ vcaled in such an investigation. Mcdic*val attitudes towards illegality often vilrird according to the system considcrcd. Pro- visions of canon law, civil law, customary law and royal legislation failed to coincidr on all legal points. Municipal statutes rstab- blished divergent norms. Business went its own pragmatic way. Merchants would turn pirate in propitious circumstances, mint- masters might rmbczzlc, and rcspectablc businessmen could practice usury (Chrycttt 1970; Mate 1969; Lane 1964; Reycrson 1980). Yet, mutual faith and trust underlay business operations in thr midcllr itgcs. Com- menting on medieval leaders of commercr, industry and finance, R. S. Lopez said, “Unlimited liability and commrrcial hon- esty were the pillars upon which rested thr credit enjoyed by the Italian merchant companies” (Lopez 1948:66-7). Municipal governments and trade organizations took it upon Ihemsclves to police wrights and mcasurcs and to allsure the quality of mcr- chandisc. They acted to protect consumers from fraud, and whrn an abusr was detected, there were consequences for the offendar.

A law suit over commercial fraud in thr Languvdocian town of Montpellicr in the mid-fourteenth century provides a context in

Jourr~al of Medieval Hirrory 8 (1982) 63 73. North-Holland PubhI@ Company

03rJ4~I81/82/oooO-oooO/~2.75~ 1982 North-Holland 63

which lo examine medieval business ethics. Preserved in the Municieal Archives of

sidered in prudence.

the context of medieval

Montpellier are extensive iecords of litiga- tion of the mid-1350s in which a local pep-

’ Ttl‘: Andree ease was beard in two courts of law in, Montpellier, the curia ordinaria of

pcrcr, Johannes Andrec, was accuseh bf the French rectc r, administrative head of the selling adultcratcd, that is, impure saffron. pars antigua of Montpellier, that is to say The first information extant reveals legal Montpclli&ret, the quarter of the town proceedings already in progress on 10 June belonging originally to the bishop of 1355.” For the next two and a half years, Maguelonc which was purchased by Philip until the end of March 1358. there remain the Fair in 1293, and the curia ordinaria of the two notebooks of legal procedures, one of bailiff of the seigneurial quarter of Mont- which contains fifty folios of the testimony pellier, governed by twelve municipal con- of witnesses, and further documentation suls (Lecoy de la Marche 1892a:311ff, including lcttcrs from King John of France Germain 185 I b). The consuls’ quarter had to the sencschal of Beaucaire, ui&i of the been purchased in 1349 from James I11 of scncschal, am% of the Parhzent of Paris, and Majorca by Phiiip of Valois and was tcch- finally, records of a commission from the nically under the supervision of another Parlement of Paris and of an accord between royal offici q :, the governor (Thomas 192% Johanncs Andrcc and the consuls of Mont- 9). The bailiffs court was, officially, first a prllicr in connection with this case.3 In spite seigneurial and then a royal court, but, in of the accord, the suit dragged on, leaving practice, it operated as the consuls’ court one later trace in the local documents: an am? of the Pariement of Paris of 15 February

(Carbasse 1974; Chabaneau and Germain 1884-6 :400-7; Lewis 1947). The organiza-

1364 announced that an appeal by the con: tion and personnel of these courts w&e well suls, guardians of mercery, and thr bailiff of developed by the mid-fourteenth century Montpellier against the rector of Mont- (Rogozinski 1967,1969,1972;Straycr 1970). pellibet would be heard at thr next park- The rector and the bailiff were assisted by a ment of the stwkhauss~e of Beaucaire.4 The lieutenant and a vice-bailiff, respectively, results of this appeal have not been un- and by judges, notaries and sergeants. AI covrrcd, but the earlier documents permit times, jwocuralores appeared in court to reprc-

legal practice regarding the exploration of commercial fraud.

sent plaintiffs, defendants, and the authori- ties of justice.5 It was in these courts with

On the basis >f the cvidencr asscmblcd, the nature of the .lccusation against Johannes Andrcc, the procedure of prosecution, the

this p&sonnel that the Andrec cast would be heard.

The: circumstances tactics of the dcfcncc, and ;he compromise

surrounding the dis- covery of adulterated saffron at the workshop

between Andree and rhc consuls will be ex- ofJohannes Andrec were related on several amincd in turn. Then, an analysis of the occasions during the lengthy proceedings.d Irvcls of conflict in this case will reveal the complex network of jurisdiction in Mont-

Two guardians (custodes) of rhe pepperers’ trade made mspections in their function as

pcllier. Finally, Andrke’s crimr will bc con- deputized, sworn representatives of the con-

64

suls, charged with the responsibility ofdetcr- mining whether any falsification, wrong doing or adulteration was being practised in their trade. In what seems to have been a routine investigation at Andree’s shop, the guardians came upon impure saffron which they confiscated and transported to the con- sular house, according to customary pro- cedure.’ The consuls, declaring the saffron adulterated, turned it over to the bailiff in order that he might administer justice. In- quiring into the affair, the bailie received the testimor,y 4 numerous witnesses (eight in the first hIstance, sixteen in the final investigation) :hat the saffron was indeed adulterated.8 He then ordered that the saffron be publicly bl;rned, according to custom, as a deterrent to future offenders.

Thesaffron in question amounted to about twelve pounds. It was found in two linen sacks, one white, one black.@ The witnrmsses included pepperers, apothecaries, weighers and merchants from Montpellier and foreigners from Spanish lands such as Tarrega and Majorca. One testimony is printed in the Appendix. With varying ter- minology hut with general agreement, all of the witnesses asserted that the saffron was adulterated to some degree. Some suggested that one sack was more corrupt than the other, although their testimonies were in- consistent on this score.10 One possible motive for the adulteration was offered : in- corporation of foreign eiements might make the merchandise weigh more.” When asked to identify the foreign tubstance which had been added to the salTron, most witnesses stated that they were unfaailiar with the material but that it was not saffron. A few suggested that a sweet or honeyed substance, had been added, making the end product

easily distinguishable from saffron, which was bitter in taste. Other suggestions in- cluded a sweet liquor, a powder, and a heavy and sharp matter such as oats.'"

Andrec’s offcnce was public knowledgr in Montpellier. The accusation5 against him were phrased in unambiguous terrns.‘$ Hc wa% described as a son of inequity and evil, spurred on by a diabolical spirit. Hc was indicted withfraus and dolus. It was further allc,ged that, since he had sold adultcratcad s&ion as if it had been good, 1cgai and sufficient, hc had committed a crime ol falsification which was viewed as ;I v olntion of the public good. Andree’s acis were termed malejiciu et delicla. Should they go unpublished, they would cncouragc bad practices.

Andrec’s reactions to these accusations can be reconstructed.*4 He admitted that the confiscated saffron contained in the two sacks carrying his seal and mark was indeed his. He stated that he had purchased four of the twelve pounds from a certain Johanncs dca Sancto Guillermo, and of thesr., he had retailed about two pounds. The remaining saffron he had bought from c,thcr men whose names he did not remember. Andrec affirmed that the saffron was good and sufficient when it was taken from his work- shop and home. Several times in the course of the inquiry, Andree stated that he sold good saffron, denying a;ly adulteration. He did admit that he had wet down the saffron with water. Although some ofAndree’s testi- mony was taken under interrogation during protective custody, there was no indication that he was coerced or tortured.*5

Andree’s defencc did not stop at the lcvcl of denial of the charges against him. In records of the :irst appeal by the consuls, the

65

bailiff, and tlir guardi;ms ol’ tbr prppwrb’ IriiCl(’ On 10 June 1355 agihst a ruling by tbr rrctor, it became .:lwr that Andrrr bad ,wcrtrd that bc was ;I mcwycr and bad rc~~ucstrcl the mastws of dir royal mint to prohibit thv bailiff ilnd other royal offici;,is liom intcrvcning in any way regarding the \;tid ~affron.~~ Andrw had alleged that since hc WRY a moncycr, hr had no other judge

tllitt~ tlrc ;tli)rcGd mint-mastrrs. Although

t/iv trint-masters did not WCk~JtrIe Andrcr’s demand, they commisaioncd a royal lawyer to inlinm himselfabout thr &Yron and. ifhc found it to be adulterated, to remit it to the bailiff forjudgment. Having taken testimony from fifteen trustworthy witnesses thar the saffron was false and adulterated, the lawyer returned the saffron IO the bailiff so that justice could bc executed.

In spite of this finding, the rector inter- vened in the proceedings at this stage to order that the guardians of the pepperers’ trade return the safEon to Andree; the rector ruled that the guardians’ responsi- bilities were terminated. This action on the rector’s part provoked protests and then a formal appeal to the king from the consuls.” They took issue vIith Andree’s attempt to pass himselfoff 3s a royal moneyer, offering a series of arguments to the contrary. The consuls alleged that, if Andree had been received as a moneycr, it was after 1351. They avowed, in fact, that he pcblicly held the office and workshop of a peppercr. According to the consuls, it was through favour and money that Andree sought to defraud the king and royal justice by with- drawing from the collectivity of the realm and from ordinary jurisdiction. Andree had had himself received as a moneyer, in the consuls’ view, only that his fraud go un-

punished. They Gbserved that the mint- masters themselves IXCI stated to the court that they were not empowered to defend moneyers received after 1350. The consuls further maintained that it could not be accepted that Andree was a moneyer, en- dowed with the privileges of moneyers. Moreover, since he kept a workshop as a peppcrer. he could not legally decline inspec- tion by the guardians of the trade. The con- suls, bailiff and guardians went so far as to assert that Andree was a sl:spect individual, notorious for similar crimes, as were his father and brother who had been publicly condemned and punished for falsification and adulteration of saffron and other mcr- chandise. No details of these earlier con- demnation! were provided. The consuls’ appeal further related that Montpellier had many workshops of avtrum et specierum (uvoir- du-poids and spices). Those reprobate indi- viduals who adulterated, falsified and dis- honoured the trade of pepperer were :hrown out. The court of the bailiff customarily scizcd and burned false merchandise. To impede this process was to pervert the good mores and customs of the town, Finaily, the consuls, bailiff and guardians affirmed that they were in no way subordinate to the rector. They chose to lodge their appeal with the king of France and his court.

The rector answered the complaints of the appellants point by point, recognizing the privileges of moneyers and asserting his position as the lieutenant, commissioner and conservator of those privileges.‘* In the rector’s view, Andree had requested an appropriate remedy. The rector argued that the bailiff was not the competent judge in this cast. He reiterated his demand for the restoration of the saffron to Andree. He

66

further declared t;llt it was incorrect to state that he, the rector, had failed to uphold the mores of the patria and to punis? the guilty. It was not his intention to rule acainstjusticc but rather to proceed on accc unt of con- tumacy and dislbedicnce. The r( ctor viewed his j&diction as superior to that of the officials of the newer part of Montpellier, arguing that the bailiff and t1.e governor had no recourse to appral, unless on the grounds of deficient justice. Since, in his view, this was not the case, he refused to consent to the appeal. Hc fined 11le consuls, bailiff and gu*rcians in the event that the saffron were not reLurned.‘s

The Andrec case reached at least an in- tcrim revolution in 1357 ab a resu t of a com- promise between the defendant and the consuls. Andrec submiltcd himself to the jurisdiction of the consuls, renouncing rhe privileges of moneycr.20 What prompted his change of treart is unknown. Again, thcrc was no indication that he was coerced into submission, although he was held in protcc-

legal

tive custody during the testimony of witnes-

protection stemming

SCS.~’ It seems more likely that Andrec

from her status

finally recognized the futility of his strategy of defencr and agreed to admit some level of guilt. After the testimonies, he was rclcascd upon sufficient guarantees to aw;.it his scn-

as a

tence.

w0man.l’ Finally, on

His wife Mirabelle acted as his

22 M Arch 1358

jidtjutrix, principal defendant, da:btor and paccatrix, m,lking a series of renunciations of

(n.s.) Andree was found guilty and deprived in perpetuity of his trade of pepperer. He was prohibited from seLing pi blicly or secretly in Montpellier, and within its juris- diction, saffron, ginger, pepper, cloves, sugar or any subtle substance pertaining to the

prpperers’ tradr.2:’ Already in .July I3.57, or& of the l’urlement of Paris Irad orclc.rrd the bailiff to carry out tllc li~rthcomillg srntrncr.24 A further ordrr of tllc* hlemun~

of Paris to the hencsrhal of Bcaur,lirr in August I357 prohibited the rector horn intc:rfcrill,~ with thr a bovc accord.?3

Such was the sequcncr of cvcnts in 1)1( Andree case. A closer examination of the level:, of conflict underlying this affair is merited: first, the justification for consular intervention in a matter of fr.aud: then, the problems of professional designation and privilege; finally, the quarrel over jurisdic- tion within Montpellier.

Consular governments in the south of France. at Montpcllicr, Toulou~ and other towns, frequently took a direct role in the supervision of urban trades, even when these were organized into professional

existence earlier. It

corpora- tions

may have, dated

(Gouron 1958 :

from

177ff.). The claim of the consuls of Montpellier to supervise, through guardians, the quality uf merchan-

the mid-thirteenth

dise ia general, and of spices in particular,

century when

was well established by I355. P, clo.,ument of

trade

4 October 1326 described the formal instal-

organization became common (Gouron

lation by the consuls of three 1 cpperers and

1958:386-8; Pegat and others 1840:98-

an apothecary as custodes mercertum et avewm.2”

100).

The guardians took an oath in Occitan to guard against fraud and aduitrration and Lo report any violations to the consuls. The oath was termed in the text ai1 accustomed one, suggesting that the procedure was in

Not only were there precedents for trade supervision but also for the confiscation of adulterated saffron. On I I September 1326

67

inspection by the same guardians, clearly reinstituted in October, had revealed five skins of impure saffron in the possession of several Catalan merchants.*’ Examination by twenty pepperers and merchantsof Mont- pellicr and men of Marseille brought another ten skins of adulterated saffron to light.*s Witnesses were called upon to attest to the falsification. While the punishment meted out to the Catalans was not recorded, cvn- sular prerogative and procedure of inspec- tion were demonstrated clearly in these acts.

Consular preoccupation with the quality of merchandise in a town such as Mont- pellier was amply justified. Located in prox- imity to the Mediterranean in lower Languedoc, Montpellier served as an entrepot for imported goods, silks, spices, and pharmaceutical products of Mediter- ranean origin (Germain 186la and b; Thomas 1936; Reyerson 1974a and b). International trade was vital to the urban economy. Saffron of Catalonian provenance had become by the late thirteenth century an important item of commerce transshipped through Montpellier to northern markets in Champagne; by the late 1330s and 134Os, Parisian markets were frequent destinations of saffron exports from Montpellier (Reyer- son 1974b:261-7). Saffron was a precious and expensive product, the quality of which reflected upon business activities in Mont- pellier. The town had a reputation to main- thin, not only in the marketing of spices, but in their usage in such delicacies as spiced wine (Don 1959:316ff.). The pepperers of Montpellier were among the most prestigi- ous urban professions, sharing in the lottery for the top position in the consular hier- archy, and participating in the front ranks of municipal parade ceremony (Gouron

1958:56ff., 286). High standards in the pepperen’ trade were a necessity for the preservation of urban economic renown.

The issues of professional designation and privilege raised by Andree’s defence against consular prerogatives deserve investigation. The mid-fourteenth century was a period when there was still flexibility of professional designation in Montpellier. In the notarial acts of the time, individuals might be termed merchants in one instance, changers, apothe- caries or pepperers in another (Gouron 1958 : 179, 283). The presigious pepperers (pebriers sobeirans) did not form an official corporation; it was only in 1366 that thev founded a charitable orgamzation (confrtriej (Gouron 1958:288). Furthermore, it was possible to exercise two professions or to change professions in Montpellier (Gouron 1958:282-3). Andree’s defence encountered no dtfficulties on the grounds of dual pro- fessional designation.

The special privileges of jurisdiction which Andree claimed as a moneyer were first insti- tuted by a charter of Philip Augustus, dated 26 November 1211 (Germain 1850-4: 164). These privileges involved an exemption from ordinary jurisdiction in all instances except those of homicide, rape and arson. In ail other cases, royal monevers were to be judged by the provosts or masters of the mint and by no one else (Germain 1850-4: 166-72). The privileged status of moneyers persisted into the mid-fourteenth century. However, King John had ruled in 1350 that municipal tax exemptions, were valid only if the moneyers were practising their pro- fession (Henneman 1971: 311). The appeal document of 1355 suggested a limitation of juridical exemptions for moneyers received into the profession after 1350.20 The era was

68

one of some privileges, an

One last iFsue, the nature of Andree’s crime, merits consideration in the context of medieval jurisprudence. It would seem that the consuls of Montpellier had discovered by the fourteenth cen&y the legal principle of Fraus omnia corrumpit which would later find its place in the French Code ciuil (Vidal 1957). Andree was accused of all manner of offence: fraus, dolus, crimen, delicta and male- &a. In the south of France, the use of Roman law terminology of a related nature can be dated to the twelfth century when formulae such as sine dolo and sine ullafraude began to appear (Meynial 1929:534). Medi- eval jurists of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries refined the classifications of Jraws and d&s, introducing distinctions between them (Ourliac and de Malafosse 1969: 131- 41). Bartolus termed do&s the genus and fraus the species (Fransen 1946:59; Coing 1939). It was asserted that dolus was com- mitted through acts and words, while fraus involved only acts (Fransen 1946:59). Bad faith and deception underlay these crimes (Vidal 1957:Z). The theory of fraud, of Romanist not canon law origin, gave rise to various remedies of justice: an action de da/o; an exception; and a remedy of restitu- tion (Meynial 19293545; Bcrger 1953).

The documents of the Andree cast, reprc-

Andree to assert his membership as a means of defence against the accusation of safEon fraud. The evidence of the case provides no proof beyond his allegations and the recep- tion given them by the mint-master and the rector that he had ever enjoyed official acceptance as a moneyer, or that he had ever practised the trade.

Rivalries of jurisdiction within Mont- pellier further complicated the Andrec case. After the French acquisition of the seigneurial q larter of Montpellier in 1349, this section apt the episcopal quarter of MontpelWet, acquired in 1293, remained separate jurisdictions. After 1349, the con- suls and the bishop of Maguelone, no longer in charge of the episcopal quarter, com- plained repeatedly to the king that the rector, the royal representative in Mont- pellibret, was protecting deliquents from prosecution and permitting tax exemptions to some bourgeois, Royal decisions went initially in the consuls’ favour (Combes 197O:l llff.). Later, in 1360, the regent Charles reaffirmed all the prerogatives of the rector. Before 1349, the rector had been a champion Df royal prerogative. However, since that tlace, the consul>. had also become direct French subjects. To reassert his pre- eminence in the town, thr rector had estab- lished a pattern of protecting inhabitants from consular it&diction. rhe rector’s

I

actions in zhe Andree case were consistent with his general stance. The king hzd to intervene on several occasions to prevent the rector from interfering with the appeal pro- cess instituted bv the consuls, and to main-

between the consuls tain and

, the final agreement Andree.”

sentative ofjuridical practice rather than of theory, reveal no attempt to distinguish be- tweenfiaus and do/us which were employed synonymously with other terms to charac- terize the offence. Andree’s crime was viewed by the consuls, bailiff and guardians, and their Iegai personnel as one ofdeception, of the bad intention of cheating saffron clients through the sale of corrupt merchan- dise, and of an ofiencc against the public good. The consistency of evaluations by all

69

witnesses concerning the impurity of

Andree’s saffron leaves little doubt about the factual level of the accusation. The remaining evidence does not permit inquiry into the possibi!ity of falsification of the saffron unbekn-wr: to Andree in his shop 01 after seizure by the guardians. However, Andree’s wily defence and ultimate sub-

mission to the consuls imply some admission ofguilt. The punishment handed down, that of deprivation of the practice of the pep- perer’s trade, was commensurate with the offence of fraud.

This example of commercial iiaud prose- cution illustrates the complexity of medieval justice in a case involving business ethics. Rival authorities vied for jurisdiction. Privileges of legal immunity clouded the issues. The legal terminology of the case was imprecise on a theoretical level but explicit in its reflection of the severity of the crime of commercial fr,tud for the inhabi- tants of Montpellier. The time invested in the prosecution of the crime, and the expense of the law suit for the consuls, demonstrate the importance which ‘hey protection of consumcrs.32

assigned

Appendix : Sample testimony against Johanies Andree (Louvet no. 1765, fos. 19v, 21r)

Jacobus Pauli piperarius Montispessulani testis receptus, juratus et examinatus super contentis in dictis titulis perventionis pre- dicte contra dictum delatum sive perventum formatis, omnibus et singulis sibi lectis et in linga [sic] Romana expositis. Dixit inter- rogatus se recordari aliquid super aliquibus

de contentis in dictis titulis deposuisse et depositionem suam scriptam fuisse per no- tarium huius cause qui tune erat; quam depositionem ante omnia peciit sibi legi et in lingua Romana exponi ne variare valeat suo ditto seu depositioni. Cum memoria homi- nis labilis existat quod quidem dictum seu depositio fuit eidem testi loquenti lecta et in lingua Romana exposita cuius dicti sive depositionis tenor sequitur et est talis.

Jacobus Pauli piperarius Montispessulani testis, receptus per modum secrete informa- tionis, juratus ad Sancta Dei Quatuor Ewangelia per ipsum corporaliter tacta, et diligenter interrogatus super predictis de- nunciatis dixit se hoc scire et verum esse videlicet quod safranum sive croceum pre- dictum utriusque saculi sibi hostensum et per ipsum loquentem inspectum non est mercabile. Ymo est, ut dixit, falsum et incameratum pro eo, ut dixit, quia dictum saffranum est honeratum seu mixtum cum alia materia que non est de substancia safrani. Ymo est aliena. Cuius materie speciam ipse loquens non potest aliquid cognoscere propter quam mixtionem dictum safranum est incamaratum quia posita est ibi dicta materia, judicio ipsius loquentis, ad finem ut plus dictum croceum cum dicta materia ponderet.

Qua quidem depositione eidem testi loquenti lecta et in lingua Romana exposita. Dixit ipse testis loquens dictam depositionem esse suam et ita aliquid deposuisse prout in ipsa depositione continetur. Qui quidem depositioni tanquam verati et veritatem in se continenti stare et perseverare vult et intendit nichil addito, nichilque remoto.

Deinde fuit ipse testis loquens interrogatus post dictam eius depositionem si amore, timore, gratia, odio vel favore doctus, in-

70

structus, conductus aut aliquo per aliquem subornatus deposuit, dixit quod non.

Intcrrogatus si fuit aliquid sibi datum, quitatum, promibsum aut remissum Ut ita deponcret, dixit quod non.

Interrogatus quam partem mallet obtinere, an partem curie pro qua Fuit receptus. an partem contra quam pro- ducitur, dixit quod de jure habente in eadem.

Interrogatus si habuit cum aliquo col- loquium sel! tractatum ut uno et eodem modo tieponerent, dixit quod non.

Interrogates si spectat habere comodum si curia in causa presenti ipsum producen- tern oblineat aut incomodum si subcumbat, dixit quod non.

Supe- aliis idem testis loquens intcr- rcgatus dixit deposita supra per eundem ewe vera prout ea deposuit et aliquid nichil scirc nisi pnwt supra, dcpositum extitit per eundem.

.Notes

I Tlli\ m~Iy W;L, fint prcwntrd .rt the Fiftwntl~ Intcrnatic nal Congress on Medievai Studier, Webtcrr~

Michigm Univ&y, Knlamazoo, Michigan. Mny 1980. Rw arch was aupportrl by thr Graduaw School of the University of Minnwr~ta in B Summer Rcwarcl~ Fcllowvshi~~. Thanks JTS due to thr Archive\ Munici.

pales of Slontpellier for aw .tancc in awmbling tht primary ssarce~, md to th Interlibrary Loan Divi- Gon of W lson Library, Umversity of Minnewta, br .tid in thr consultation ofwme wcondary studicx z Luw et no. 1750. The Gxtwnth-century invm. tory numl rrb of Louvct wtained by Berth& in his inventory will be used hcncrforth in refiirenrc tc further do uments ofthc Grand Charlrrero~the Archiw

Municipal ‘5 at Montpellier (Bertheli: 1895). 3 Lou\ et no,. I75 I-65 and 2584. r( Lou\ et no. 1766. L For t xamplcs, we Louvct noa. 1750 and I765 e Lou\ el no. I750, 10 June 1’5%. p, 3 and Luuvc~

nu. 1765, :2r, article v. Lcwvet no. 1765, spanning

ut plw pondrwt pn)ptrr qu.m’

dictum rrocrum hive wfranutn cst

fret trf small &d\. nnd dry” (Lqxx dud Raymwtd 1955:352). I :I

IAJUW~ no. 1765. f. Iv 3r. 14 Louvrl no, I765,l: 4r 15 R. Gr.und (1940:5%

.qqx.tl wcrc .Irticul;itcd. iri Louvrt rw.‘l750, I5 Juw’i355, p[~. 6ff.. bebrc the fcc~or, hi\ lirntcw.mt, hmnliw S.G,~ur~.@ril~~ .rnd Pomiw de Boniaco, ruyal clrric and judgr of the cwn ordinaria of thr pars anlrqun. I” Louvr; no. 1750, I5 Junr 1’153, pp I I ff.

71

1. The details regarding these fines were recorded in royal letters. See Louvet nos. 1751, 1752, I753 and 1755. The consuls were lined 2506 marks, the bayle 200 and the guardians 100 marks. 10 Lottvet no. 1761, 3 July 1357. *I Louvet no. 1765. See note 8 above. While it cannot be satisfactorily answered, the questions of collusion on the part of the witnews and of framing of Andree on tbe part of the guardians or the consuls must be raised. Andrcc argued that the saffron was not adulterated when it left his home. However, all of the witnesses invoked in the survivirg evidence of the case testified to the impurity of the spice. 99 Louvet no. 1765, bs. 44r-45v. OS Louvet no. 1765, f. 49r. 2. Louvet nos. I762 and 1763. 4s Louvet no. 1764. 1s Louvet no. 272. This document was published by Gcrtnain (186la:422-4, p. j. xcv). The guardians in thit instance were designated not bv their trade hut by the products or merchandise involved in their commerce (Gouron 1958: 178-g). Handlers of such merchandise formed part of the mercantile elite of international trade in Montpellier. 2: Louvet no. 1748, edited by Germain (186la: 474-7) and translated by Lopez and Raymond (1955: 270-I). II Louvet no. 1749. 2. Louvc~ no. 1750,lSJunc 1355, p. ‘t. 90 Louvet no. 1756, letter of King John of 6 July 1356; Louvr! no. 1758, letter of I4 July 1356; and Louver no. i 764. 31 Aueust 1357. a commission of the Parlemcar of Paris orde&r the srneschal the rector from interfering’in the accord.

to prevent

31 The general opprobrium attached to Andree’s crime reflects the attitude conveyed by the Dig&. Infamy was closely associated with the acrio dp dofo (Fransen 1946:38). The expressions intmia publico (Louvet no. 1765, f. I r) and dtfimnfus, used to describe Andrer (Louvet no. 1750, 15 June 1355, p. 9), suggest some links between theory and practice.

They termed themselves expensibtu et lab&bus &rgrrC in Louvet no. 1750, I5 June 1355, p. IO.

Literature

Bergcr, A. 1953. Encyclopedic dictionary of Roman law. Philadelphia.

BerthelC, J. 1895. Archives communales de Mont- pcllier anterieuw a 1789, Invcntaires et docu- ments: 1. Notice sur Ic. anciens inventaire\, in- vr,ttniie du Grand Chartricr. Montpellicr.

Carbassc, J.-M. 1974. Consulate meridionaux cl justice criminellc au moyen-8ge. ThCar d’Etat, Faculte de Droit et des Sciences Economiqura de Montpellicr. Universite de Montprllicr I.

Chabanrau, C. and A. Germain. 18846 Libcr instrumcntorum memorialium. Montpcllicr.

Cheyettc, F. L. 1970. The sovereign and the pirates, 1332. Speculum 45:40-68.

Coing, H. 1939. Simulatio und fraus. Festwhrili Paul Koschakcr 3403-19. Wcimar.

Cornbe\, J. 1970. Quclquca rwnarqucs sur les bourgrois dr Montpeliier au moycn Bgc. Recuril de memoirrs ct travaux publie par la aociete d’hbtoire du droit et des instituoons drs ancicns pays dc droit Ccrit. Melanges Pierre Tisw raw. 7 :93-132.

Dion, R. 1959. Histoire de la vignc et du vin en Franrt dc\ origines au XlXc sitclc. Paris.

Franaen, G. 1946. Le dol darts la conclwion des ac~c* juridiques. Evolution des doctrines et systtme du code canonique. Cembloux.

Gcrmain, A. 1850-4. Memoirr sur Ic\ .mcicnncs mon- n&a ariep nriale\ de Mclgucil ct de Montpellier. Memoircs de la socitte archtologique de Mont- pellier 3: 133-257.

Gcrmain, A. 1851.1, b, and c. Hiatoirc dc la communr de Montpcllier. 3 vols. Montpellicr.

Germtin, A. l86la and b. Hi*toire du rommcrc~ dt Montpellicr anterirurcmcnt a I’ouvcrturr du port de Crtte. 2 ~01s. Montpcllier.

Gouron, A. 1958. La reglcmentation dr> metier\ cn Langurdoc au moycn age. Gcnevc, Paris.

Grand, R. 1940. La priwn et la notion d’rmpriaon- nemrnt dam I’ancien droit. Revue historique dc droit fransais ct &ranger 4111 ser. 19:58-87.

Henneman, J. B. 1971. Royal taxation in fourtcmth- century France. Princeton.

Lane, F. C. 1964. investment and usury in medieval Venice Explorations in cntreprcneurial history 2nd ser. 2:3-15.

Lecoy de la Marche, A. l892a ant: b. Lea relations politiques de la France avec le royaumc de Majorquc (Iles Balearea, Roussillon, Montpellirr, etc.). 2 vols. Paris.

I.ewis, A. R. 1947. The development or town govern- ment in twelfth-century Montpcllicr. Speculum 22:51-67.

Lopez, R. S. 1948. 1tali.m leadcrsltip in the medieval business world. Journal ofeconomic history 8 suppl. : 63-8.

Lopez, R. S. and 1. W. Raymond, 1955. Mcdicval trade in the Mediterranean world. New York, London.

Mate, M. 1969. A mint of trouble, 1279 to l.‘37.

72