(1) The Salic Law originated with the Salian Franks, often simply called Salians, the chief tribe of that conglomeration of Teutonic peoples known as Franks (q.v.). The latter first appear in history about 240 (Vopisc., Vit. Aurel., c. 7), after which date we find them carrying on an almost uninterrupted struggle with the Roman empire, till 486, when they finally established a kingdom of their own in provinces which had previously been considered Roman. The Salian Franks first appear under their specific name in 358, when they had penetrated westwards as far as Toxandria (Texandria, now Tessenderloo, in Limburg, the region to the south and west of the lower Meuse), where they were subdued by the emperor Julian (Ammian., xvii. 8). As regards their previous history nothing is known with certainty, though it seems probable that the Franks who occupied the Batavian island c. 290, and were there conquered in 292 by Constantius Chlorus (Paneg. incerti auth., c. 4), and thence transplanted into Gaul, were the Salian Franks. We find, moreover, such un mistakable evidence of a connexion between the Sigambri and the Salii bibat Sicamber” (Sid. Apoll., Carm., xiii. 31). “Ut Salius jam rura colat flexosque Sicambri In falcem curvent gladios” (Claudian, De Laude Stilic., i. 222). According to the Gesta Franc., c. 1, the Franks at one time inhabited the town of Sicambria. The earliest Frankish kings, who were undoubtedly kings of the Salian Franks, are often called Sigambri, and always with the object of honouring them. St Remigius, when he baptized Clovis, exhorted him, “Mitis depone colla Sicamber” (Greg. Tur., ii. 31). Venantius Fortunatus (vi. 4) says to King Charibert, “Cum sis progenitus clara de gente Sygamber.” For further evidence, comp. Waitz, Verfass., ii. 22 sq. ] that the latter are by some regarded as the descendants of the Sigambri whom Tiberius removed in 8 b.c. from their home on the right bank of the Rhine; and it is argued that he did not transform them into the Gugerni, nor place them on the Merwede, a stream and locality near Dordrecht and Zwijndrecht, but transplanted them into the region now called the Veluwe, between the Utrecht Vecht and the Eastern Yssel, where the Romans probably made of them what the Batavi had been for years past—their allies—perhaps on the same condition as the latter, who merely furnished the Romans with men and arms. This accounts for the Sigambrian cohort in the Thracian War in 26 a.d. Some think, however, that the Salians were a separate tribe of the Franks who merely coalesced with the Sigambri (comp. Watterich, Die Gerinanen des Rheins; Waitz, Verfass., ii. 24). In 431 the Frankish (Salic) king Chlodio (Chlojo, Chlogio), said to have been a son (or the father) of Merovech, the founder of the Merovingian dynasty (Greg. Tur., ii. 9), took Cambrai and advanced his dominion as far as the Somme (Greg., ib.; Sid. Apoll., v. 211 sq.), though still acknowledging Roman supremacy. Childerich reigned from 457 to 481, and resided at Tournai, where his grave was discovered in 1653. His son Clovis (Chlovis, Chlodovech) in 486 extended his empire to the Seine (Greg. Tur., ii. 43, 27). For an account of him, see vol. ix. pp. 528, 529.

We have very few means of ascertaining when the Salic Law was compiled, and how long it remained in force. Our knowledge of the code is derived—(i.) from ten texts, preserved in a comparatively large number of manuscripts, chiefly written in the 8th and 9th centuries; (ii.) from allusions to a Salic Law in various charters and other documents. But the Latin texts do not contain the original Salic Law. This is clear (a) from the allusions we find in them to a “Lex Salica” and “Antiqua Lex,” which can hardly be anything but references to another and earlier Lex Salica ; (b) from a certain peculiarity and awkwardness in the construction of the Latin, which, though it is so-called Merovingian, and therefore very corrupt, would have been different if the texts were original compilations ; (c) from a number of words, found in nearly every paragraph of certain groups of the MSS., and now known as “Malberg glosses,” which are evidently the remains of a vernacular Salic Law, and appear to have been retained in the Latin versions, in some cases because the translators seemed doubtful as to whether their Latin terms correctly rendered the meaning of the original, in other cases because these words had become legal terms, and indicated a certain fine. We do not know 'whether the original Frankish law-book was ever reduced to writing, or merely retained in, and handed down to posterity from, the memory of some persons charged with the preservation of the law. All that we know of such an original is contained in a couple of prologues (apparently later than the texts themselves) found in certain MSS. of the existing

Latin versions. One of them states that four men “in villis quae ultra Renum sunt per tres mallos (judicial assemblies) convenientes, omnes causarum origines sollicite discutiendo tractantes, judicium decreverunt,” which must refer to a period before 358, as in that year the Salian Franks had already crossed the Rhine and occupied the Batavian island and Toxandria. Another prologue says that the Salic Law was compiled (dictare) while the Franks were still heathens (therefore before 496), and afterwards emended by Clovis, Childebert, and Chlotar. Nor can it be stated with certainty when the Latin translations which we now possess were made, but it must have been after Clovis had extended his power as far as the Loire (486-507), as in chapter 47 the boundaries of the Frankish empire are stated to be the Carbonaria Silva (in southern Belgium between Tournai and Liége) and the Loire.

There exist five Latin recensions, more or less different. (i.) The earliest of the code (handed down in four MSS. with little difference, and very likely compiled shortly after Clovis extended his empire to the Loire) consists of sixty-five chapters (with the Malberg glosses). In the course of the 6th century a considerable number of chapters appear to have been added (under the title of “edicts” or “decrees ”), some of which are ascribed to Clovis, and the remainder to his successors before the end of the century. One of them (chap. 78) may with some certainty be ascribed to Hilperic (c . 574). Some others seem to have originated with Childebert I. and Chlotar I. (whose joint reign lasted from 511 to 558), and are known collectively as “Pactus Childeberti et Chlotharii.” From internal evidence we may infer that this first version dates from a time when Christianity had not yet become general among the Franks. (ii.) Two MSS. contain a second recension, having the same sixty-five chapters (with the Malberg glosses) as the first, but with numerous interpolations and additions, which point to a later period. Especially may this be said of the paragraph (in chap. 13) which pronounces fines on marriages between near relatives, and which is presumed to have been embodied in the Lex Salica from an edict of Childebert II. issued in 596. In chapter 55 paragraphs six and seven speak of a “basilica,” of a “basilica sancti-ficata,” and of a “basilica ubi requiescunt reliquiae,” but it is more than doubtful whether we have here any evidences of Christianity, though a later recension (the fourth) altered “basilica” into “ecclesia,” the “reliquiae” into “reliquiae sanctorum,” and thereby gave a decidedly Christian aspect to the clause. (iii.) A third recension is contained in a group of nine MSS. (divided into two classes), three of which have the same text (with the Malberg glosses) as the MSS. of the first and second recensions, divided, however, systematically into ninety-nine chapters, while the other six MSS. have the same ninety-nine chapters, with very little difference, but without the Malberg glosses. This text seems to have been arranged in Pippin’s or Charlemagne’s reign (c . 765-779). The clause on marriages between near relatives mentioned above is not found in this recension. On the other hand, we find in chapter 55 ( = 77) fines pronounced on the murder of a presbyter and deacon (no bishop yet mentioned), while the six MSS. of the second class do not contain chapter 99 (“De Chrenecruda”), but merely say that the symbolism described in that chapter had been observed in heathen times, and was to be no longer in force, (iv.) The fourth version (handed down in a great number of MSS., and embodying in seventy chapters substantially the whole of the previous versions) is usually called Lex Salica Emendata, as the text bears traces of having been emended (by Charlemagne), which operation seems to have consisted in eliminating the Malberg glosses from the text, correcting the Latin, omitting a certain number of paragraphs, and inserting some new ones. In chapter 55 the bishop is mentioned with the presbyter and the deacon, (v.) Finally, we have a fifth text, which seems an amalgamation of the previous recensions, more especially of the second, third, and fourth, but here and there with considerable differences. It was published in 1557, at Basel, by Bas. Joh. Herold (Originum ac Germanicarum Antiquitatum Libri) ; but no trace of the Fulda and other MSS. which the editor says that he used has hitherto been found.

The Salic code consists of enactments regarding procedure in lawsuits (chaps. 1, 18, 26, 37, 46-53, 56, 57, 60), judicial fines and penalties for various kinds of theft and kidnapping (2-8, 10-12, 21- 23, 27, 28, 33-35, 38-40, 55, 61), for offences, injuries, &c., to persons, animals, and property (9, 15-17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 29-32, 36, 41-43, 64, 65); it regulates the “wergeld” (a word found only in the text published by Herold; all the other texts have leodis, leudis = people, associate of the people) of all classes of persons living under the Salic Law (41-43, 54, 63), the share of the kindred in the composition for homicide (58-62), the devolution of property and inheritance (59), migration from one village to another (45), &c.

The Salic Law speaks of—(a) freeborn persons (ingenuus Francus, Salicus Francus), with a wergeld of 200 solidi, which was tripled when such a person served in the army, and the latter amount again tripled when the person killed was an officer of the king; (b) serfs (leti or liti), who enjoyed personal freedom though belonging to some master, and (c) pueri regis (probably serfs in the service of the king), both with a wergeld of 100 solidi; (d) the Roman population, not yet placed on the same footing with the Francus (posscssorcs with a wergeld of 100 solidi; tributarii, perhaps = coloni, with a wergeld of 62½ solidi); (e ) slaves (servi), with a wergeld of 30 solidi; and a variety of other persons belonging to one or other of these classes (puer crinitus, class a; porcarius, faber ferrarius, aurifex, &c., class e). An aristocracy is not mentioned. The people lived together in villages (chap. 45); they exercised agriculture and reared cattle (2-5, 27, &c.); they hunted and fished (6, 33); vineyards and gardens were known to them (27, 6, &c.); and gold work and iron work are mentioned (10). The chief of the state was a king; his officers included the grafio, who was chief of a pagus (shire); sacebaro, chief of a hundred (both with a wergeld of 600 solidi; the latter could also be a puer regis, in which case he had a wergeld of 300 solidi); thunginus or ccntenarius, chief of a hundred, but probably elected by the people from among themselves, as his wergeld seems to have been the ordinary one. The judicial assembly was called mallus, the place where it assembled malloberg, the party in a suit gamalhis, the councillor of the assembly rachineburgus, an officer who had to advise upon the sentence to be pronounced, and to value the property in question.

The famous clause in the Salic Law by which, it is commonly said, women are precluded from succession to the throne, and which alone has become known in course of time as the Salic Law, is the fifth paragraph of chapter 59 (with the rubric “De Alodis ”), in which the succession to private property is regulated. The chapter opens with four (five) paragraphs in which it is enacted that—(1) if a man died without male issue, his mother (so in first recension; the second to fifth have “pater aut mater ”) would succeed to the inheritance (in hereditatem succedat); (2) failing her (the father and mother), his brother (brothers) or sister (sisters); (3) failing these, the sister of the mother; (1) when there was no sister of the mother, the sisters (sister) of the father; and (5), failing these, the nearest relative. After this the fifth paragraph reads as follows :— [table]

First recension.

Second recension.

Third recension.

Fourth recension.

Fifth recension.

It seems clear that the first four paragraphs of the chapter, which admit women to a share in the inheritance, refer to private, movable property, and that, by the fifth paragraph, the inheritance of land was exclusively confined to males. We know that this exclusion of women from landed property was hardly a rule anywhere in the Frankish empire, and certainly not in the 6th century, but it obtained more or less afterwards, especially during the feudal period, when all the owners of landed property (i.e., the tenants of fiefs) were liable to military service. We do not know when this exclusion of women from landed property began first to be applied and extended to an exclusion from the succession of thrones, as we do not read of such a notion until the middle of the 14th century during the controversy between Edward III. and Philip of Valois, when it was alleged to be derived from the Salic Law. It will be observed that the word Salica is not found in the oldest existing recension, but appears first in the second text, which some would ascribe to the end of the 6th century. Nor is the word found in the corresponding paragraph (56,4) of the Lex Ripuaria, which was based on the Salic Law. This addition (retained in all the other recensions, also in the so-called Lex Emendata) was no doubt made for some purpose, but we do not know whether it was made by a scribe, nor what particular notion it was intended to convey, nor whether it was this special word which gave rise to the idea of women being precluded from the succession of thrones.

The various texts of the Lex Salica, arranged in parallel columns, with a commentary on the Malberg glosses, were published in 1880, under the title Lex Salica: the Ten Texts with the Glosses, and the Lex Emcndata, ed. J. H. Hessels, with notes on the Frankish words in the Lex Salica by H. Kern, 4to, London, 1880; comp, also Geo. Waitz, Das dite Recht der salischcn Franken, 8vo, Kiel, 1846; Rud. Sohm, Die frank. Reichs-und Gerichts-Verfassung, 8vo, Weimar, 1871; Pardessus, Loi Salique, 4to, Paris, 1843.

Having treated of the Salic Law somewhat minutely, we need only say a few words about each of the other leges barbarorum, as they all present somewhat similar features, and hardly differ except in the time of their compilation, the amount of fines, the number and nature of the crimes, the number, rank, duties, and titles of the officers, &c.

(2) The Ripuarian Law, or Law of the Ripuarian Franks (Lex Ripuaria or Riboaria, L. Ripuariorum or Ribuariomm, L. Ripuariensis or Ribuariensis), or inhabitants of the river-banks, was in force among the East or Rhenish Franks in the Provincia Ribuaria, also called Ducatus or Pagus Ribuarius (see vol. ix. p. 723), of which Cologne was the chief town. It has much in common with the Salic Law; in fact, chapters 32-64 are, with the exception of some necessary modifications and additions, merely a repetition of the corresponding chapters of the Salic Law, and even follow the same arrangement, so that this part of the code is hardly anything but the Salic Law revised by order of the kings of Austrasia. Professor Sohm (whose edition, published in 1883 in Mon. Germ. Hist., Legg., vol. v. part 2, is based on nearly forty MSS., written between the 8th and the 11th century) divides the eighty-nine chapters of this code into four distinct portions, ascribing the first portion (chaps. 1-31), which contains enactments not met with in the Salic Law, to the first part of the 6th century, the second (chaps. 32-64) to the second part of the same century (c. 575), the third (chaps. 65-79) to the 7th century, and the fourth (chaps. 80-89) to the beginning of the 8th century. This result practically agrees with the statements found in a prologue in certain MSS. (which contain some of the barbarian codes), where it is said that the “Leges Francorum ( = Lex Ripuariorum), Alamannorum, et Bajuvariorum” were compiled at Châlons-sur-Marne at the dictation of Thierry I. (511-534), by wise men learned in the law of his kingdom, and that the codes were afterwards revised and amended by Childebert I., Chlotar I., and Dagobert. Charlemagne promulgated some additional chapters to the Ripuarian Law in 803 (Mon. Germ. Hist., Legg., i. 117). We may here observe that the Salic and Ripuarian Laws were to some extent introduced into England by the Norman Conquest, as appears from the Laws of Henry I., where we find enactments “secundum Legem Salicam” and “secundum Legem Ripnariam”; comp. Leg. Hen. I., capp. 87, §§ 9, 10, 11 (word for word = L. Sal., tit. 43), 89, 90 § 4 ( = L Rip., 70), and 83 § 5 ( = L. Sal., tit. 55 § 4). (3) With the Ripuarian Law the Lex Francorum Chamavorum is intimately connected. The two MSS. in which it is preserved call it “Notitia vel commemoratio de illa ewa (law) quae se ad Amorem habet.” Amor is the district called Hamarlant, Hamalant, Hammelant, Hamuland, in the 9th century. This name was derived from the Chamavi, a German state mentioned by Tacitus (Ann., xiii. 55; Gcrm.,c. 33, 34), which afterwards constituted a part of the Frankish empire. In the 9th century Hamalant was a part of the Pagus Ribuarioruin. The whole code consists of only fortyeight short paragraphs, which are apparently nothing but statements made in answer to the “missi dominici” whom Charlemagne despatched to the various nations of his empire to inquire into their condition and to codify their respective laws. It may therefore be ascribed to the beginning of the 9th century (802 or 803). Professor Sohm has published it as an appendix to the Lex Ripuaria (Mon . Germ. Hist., Legg., vol. v. part 2, p. 269).

(4) The Lex Alamannorum was (according to the prologue mentioned above) first compiled by the East-Frankish king Thierry (511-534), and afterwards improved and renewed by Childebert I. (511-558), Chlotar I. (558), and Dagobert I. (622-638). Although not much reliance can be placed on this statement, the researches of Professor Merkel, who edited the code from forty-eight MSS. {Mon. Germ. Hist., Legg., vol. iii.), show that some kind of code called Pactus (of which he published three fragments) was cornpiled for the Alamanni in the reign of Chlotar I. (537-561). Under Chlotar II. (613-622) a more complete code, consisting of seventy-five chapters, was compiled, which was revised under Dagobert (628) and augmented with chapters 76-97; it was again altered and augmented under the Alamannic duke Landfrid (d. 730), whose work Merkel calls Lex Alamannorum Lantfridana, and finally augmented in the Carolingian period (hence called Lex Alamannorum Karolina sive reformata), perhaps early in the 9th century. The code consists of 97 (in some MSS. 98, 99, 105, and 107) chapters.

(5) The Lex Bajuvariorum, or Pactus Bawarorum, had the same origin as the Lex Alamannorum, if we accept the somewhat unreliable statement of the prologue spoken of above. It seems probable that some kind of code was compiled for the Bavarians during the reigns of Clovis’s sons. Those paragraphs which treat of ecclesiastical affairs and the position of the Bavarian dukes towards the Frankish kings (tit. ii. chap. xx. § 3) have clearly been...