University of Virginia Library

ARTICLE 10

On arson and the compensation payable therefor.[62]

1. If someone sets fire at night to somebody's property, and
ignites the house of a free man (or of a serf) he is bound, first of all,
to pay a fine according to the rank of the person and make restitution
for all of the buildings; and whatever he sets on fire there,
furnishings and equipment, he will have to restore. And with all
free men who have escaped from said fire without their clothes on,
he will have to settle according to their wound money; in the case of
women, however, this will have to be doubled. Moreover, for the
roof of the house, he will have to settle with a fine of 40 shillings.

2. And in the case of the barn[63] of a free man, if it is enclosed
with walls and provided with a lockable bar, he will have to settle
for the roof with a fine of 12 shillings; if, however, it is unenclosed,
what the Bajuvarians call a scof,[64] i.e., a shed without any walls, he
will have to settle with a fine of 6 shillings.

In the case of such a granary, however, as they call a parc,[65] he
will have to settle with a fine of 4 shillings.

But in the case of a mita,[66] if he un-roofs it or sets it on fire, he
will have to settle with a fine of 3 shillings.

But in the case of a smaller one, which they call a scopar,[67] he
will have to settle with a payment of 1 shilling.

And everything he will have to restore in like.

3. In the case of smaller buildings, if someone devastates them,
or tears their roofs down, as often happens, or surrenders them to
fire, which they call firstfalli,[68] he will have to settle for every one
which is separately built, such as a bathhouse, a bakehouse, a
kitchen house, or any other structure of this sort, with a fine of 3
shillings and will have to restore whatever is destroyed or burned
down.

4. However, if he sets fire to a house so that it bursts into flame
yet the house does not burn down and is saved by the members of
the household, he will have to settle the wound money for each of
the free people, because he inunwan[69] them, as they say, i.e., put
them in fear of their life, and beyond that he will not have to make
any further compensations in excess of that which has been consumed
by the fire.

The fines forfeited to the duke, however, remain unaffected.
And if he wishes to contest any of these he will have to defend
himself with a champion or must take an oath supported by 12
oath helpers.

As far as the serfs are concerned the destruction of a house
(firstfalli) will have to be settled in like manner as the cutting off of
a hand.

5. And now, since we deem our ruling on the burning of buildings
completed, it is not inappropriate that we explore in greater
detail the fines imposed upon the destruction of the living quarters
of a household.

6. If someone with criminal or any other intent, through arrogance
or hostility, through negligence or a certain lack of understanding,
tears down the roof of a free man, he will have to settle
with a fine of 40 shillings.

7. If [he tears down] that post by which the ridge is held in place
and which they call firstsul ("ridge post"), he will have to settle
with a fine of 12 shillings.

8. If he tears down in the interior of the building that post which
they call winchilsul ("corner post"),[70] he will have to settle with a
fine of 6 shillings.

9. For the other posts of this order, however, he will have to
settle with a fine of 3 shillings.

10. But for the corner posts of the outer order he will have to
settle with a fine of 3 shillings.

11. For all the other posts of this order he will have to settle, for
each individually, with 1 shilling.

12. For the tie beams,[71] however, he will have to settle each with
a fine of 3 shillings.

13. For the outer beams, however, which we call spanga[72] [literally,
"clamp"] because they hold together the order of the walls,
he will have to settle with a fine of 3 shillings.

14. For everything else, however, that is the boards,[73] the
shingles,[74] and the bracing-struts,[75] or whatever else is used in the
construction of a building, he will have to settle with 1 shilling each.

And if a person has inflicted all of this damage to the building
of another person, he shall not be compelled to pay more than what
is due for the destruction of the roof and whatever crimes he has
committed greater than this. Minor infractions of this person are
not to be prosecuted with the exception of those for which restitution
has to be made according to law.

*

The article then goes on to define the compensation set
for damage to the yard, the braided wattle enclosures, the
pastures, roads, and pathways.

Of all surviving literary sources on early medieval architecture
this article of the Lex Bajuvariorum offers the
fullest and most detailed information on the nature of
contemporary domestic building. In the first place it
confirms what had already been demonstrated by the Lex
Alamannorum, namely, the fact that the West Germanic
farmhouse of the eighth century consisted of an aggregate
of separate structures, which included a living house (domus),
a bathhouse (balnearius), a bakehouse (pistoria), and a
kitchen house (coquina), plus an entire group of agricultural
service structures, such as the various barns and stables
(scoria, granarium quod parc appellant, etc.). But more
importantly, in paragraphs 6-14 we are furnished with an
item by item account of the component members of the
roof-supporting frame of timber. Their functions are defined
by their names, listed often both in Latin and in their
vernacular Old High German form; and their varying
size and structural importance are reflected in the weight
of the fine that is placed upon their damage or destruction.
Listed in the sequence of their constructional importance
they are:

1. Culmen or first: the "ridge" or "ridge beam" to
which the head of the rafters is fastened. Its demolition
entails the collapse of the entire roof; hence, the largest
fine is set for its destruction (40 shillings). In the Lex
Bajuvariorum the term is alternatingly used in the specific
sense of "ridge" or "ridge pole" or as pars pro toto for the
entire roof of the house.

2. Firstsul: "the post by which the ridge is carried" (eam
columnam a qua culmen sustentatur). The structural importance
of this column finds recognition in the fact that the fine
imposed upon its demolition is set at 12 shillings, almost a
third of the fine imposed for the destruction of the whole
house.

[ILLUSTRATION]

HOUSE OF THE LEX BAJUVARIORUM. 8TH CENTURY

287.B

287.A

287.D

287.C

RECONSTRUCTION BY OTTO GRUBER (1926, 24, fig. 13)

The principal characteristic of the house type on which Gruber modeled his reconstruction of the Bajuvarian standard house is that its roof is supported
by three parallel rows of posts, the center row carrying a ridge beam, the outer rows roof plates or purlins. Gruber calls this a "ground floor house for man
and livestock" (ebenerdiges Wohnstallhaus). The earliest extant examples date from the end of the 15th century. They are found on both the Swiss and
German sides of Lake Constance, the Aargau, the Kanton of Bern in the southern parts of the Black Forest, and less frequently in the Saar river basin
and the Eifel Mountains.

In late and post-medieval times the interior of this house was divided, in accordance with the transverse alignment of its posts, into a series of compartments
used for hay or harvest storage (Schopf), usually under a hipped portion of the roof; for livestock (Stall); as central access area to other compartments
(Tenne) and in winter also for wagon storage; as kitchen (Küch); and as a withdrawal area often subdivided by an axial wall into two private rooms
(Stuben), under the roof at the end of the house opposite the Schopf.

In general structural organization this house may well derive from that of the Lex Bajuvariorum, but whether the latter may have been divided into
compartments cannot be decided on textual evidence. (For extant examples see O. Gruber, 1926, and a posthumous study by him, Bauernhäuser am
Bodensee, edited by K. Gruber, Lindau and Konstanz, 1961.)

3. Winchilsul: this member is explicitly said to stand in
the interior of the building (interioris aedificii). It is part of
a columnar order whose individual posts (assessed at 3
shillings) rate only half of its own value (6 shillings).
The context leaves no doubt that winchilsul was the Old
High German designation for the four corner posts of the
freestanding inner frame of timbers which carried the roof
plates and separated the house internally into a center
space and a peripheral suite of aisles. The corner posts
were obviously of a heavier make than "the remaining
posts of this order" (ceterae huius ordinis), since they were
rated twice their value. But rising only midway up to the
roof, they rate in turn only half the value of the ridge-supporting
firstsul.

4. Columna angularis exterioris ordinis: "the corner
column of the outer order of posts." Its penal value amounts
to 3 shillings, in contradistinction to the "other members
of this order" (aliae columnae huius ordinis) which are
assessed at 1 shilling each.

The relative value assessed to all of these members
suggests that the outer wall posts had only half the strength
of the posts of the inner frame.

5. Trabes: the horizontal long and cross pieces ("tie
beams" and "roof plates"), which frame the principal
uprights together. The relation of paragraph 12 to paragraph
13 leaves no doubt that trabes is used as a generic
designation for all those horizontal timbers which connect
the uprights lengthwise and crosswise. Paragraph 12 deals
with the trabes of the inner order, i.e., the "tie beams"
and "roof plates" which connect the principal inner posts
that separate the nave from the aisles of the hall. Their
penal value (3 shillings) is identical with that of the supports
on which they rest, save for the heavier corner posts
(winchilsul) which rate twice that value. Paragraph 13
deals with the trabes of the outer order (exterioris vero) and
refers to them with the Old High German designation:

6. Spanga, "clamp," so-called "because they hold the
walls together." The fine assessed for the destruction of
these timbers, in modern architectural terminology referred
to as "wall plates," is identical with that of the corresponding
pieces of the inner order (3 shillings).

7. Asseres, laterculi, and axes, the "rafters," the "shingles,"
and the "bracing struts". Their penal value is 1
shilling each.

We are not the first, of course, to try our hand at a
reconstruction of the Bajuvarian standard house based on
this meticulous enumeration of its component structural
members. A first attempt of this kind, consisting of a plan
only, was made in 1902 by Karl Gustav Stephani (fig.
286);[76] a second, consisting of a plan and various sections
and elevations, in 1926 by Otto Gruber (fig. 287);[77] and a
third, in the form of an isometric perspective, in 1951 by
Torsten Gebhard (fig. 288).[78]

Stephani's interpretation (fig. 286) of the house as a one-room
structure with a porch on one of its narrow ends
misses the basic message of the text, which makes a clear
distinction between an "inner" and an "outer order of
posts" and within each of these between their "regular
members" and their "corner posts." This suggests a house
that is composed of a center space and a peripheral belt of
outer spaces. Even more untenable is Stephani's explanation
of firstsul as a ridge-supporting center post. I presume
that it was the fact that this term is used in the singular
which induced Stephani to interpret the passage to mean
that the ridge of the Bajuvarian house was supported by a
single post that stood in the very center of the building.
Such an arrangement is constructively incongruous and
must be refuted on both linguistic and architectural
grounds. Linguistically, one finds, the singular form appears
again in the very next paragraph, and there it refers
to a structural member (winchilsul, "corner post") which
by definition cannot have possibly existed in a singular
form, since a house with one corner post would be a logical
absurdity. Constructionally, a ridge beam may be supported
by a center post, but a center post alone could not
possibly hold it in place; its stability required additional
supports at each end of the beam. It must have been
Stephani's faulty exegesis of the text that induced Dehio
to remark with regard to the Lex Bajuvariorum that "the
attempt to reconstruct the Bajuvarian standard house is
unconvincing."[79] The criticism is fully justified when
applied to Stephani, but it would be wrong if it implied, as
the context suggests, that the source did not lend itself to a
convincing reconstruction.

Gruber's reconstruction (fig. 287) comes considerably
closer to the truth; but his internal subdivision of the house
into areas used as stables, barns, and living quarters are derived
from post-medieval house forms (Old Upper Suebian
farmhouse and Hotzen house) and are, therefore, purely
conjectural. Decidedly wrong in Gruber's reconstruction
is the application of the term winchilsul to all the members
of the "inner order" (designated with the Arabic figure 2
in his plan), because the text distinguishes clearly between
the "corner posts" (winchilsul) and the "other columns
of this order" (ceterae vero huius ordinis).

By far the most convincing of all the existing reconstructions
is that of Thorsten Gebhard (fig. 288). As a point of
minor criticism it might be noted that there is nothing in
the Lex Bajuvariorum which would suggest that the center
space was boarded off against the outer space by the solid
wooden paneling shown in Gebhard's reconstruction;
while, conversely, this reconstruction fails to show a feature
that is explicitly mentioned in the text, namely, the "remaining
posts of the inner order" (ceterae huius ordinis
[columnae]). Gebhard is probably right when he assumes
that the Bajuvarian standard house had its principal
entrance in the middle of one of its long sides, but again

[ILLUSTRATION]

HOUSE OF THE LEX BAJUVARIORUM

288. AXONOMETRIC VIEW

8TH CENTURY

[reconstruction by Thorsten Gebhard, 1951, 234, fig. 3]

In overall appearance this reconstruction of the house of the Lex Bajuvariorum
is fairly convincing. But like Stephani, Gebhard fails to account
for the inner order of posts ("columnae interioris aedificii") which, the text
states, stood between the cornerposts (winchilsul).

The horizontal timbers connecting the heads of these posts could not have
carried the roof load over very wide spans without additional posting as
described in the text; unsupported, they would surely have sagged or broken.
The same holds true for the ridge purlin. Nor is there any indication in the
text that the center space of the house was separated from the peripheral
spaces by a solid wall partition, as Gebhard shows.

*

The orientation of the large group of buildings at Zwenkau-Harth (fig. 288.X.a) is
conspicuous in the treatment to be found in Quitta, 1958, and was possibly to gain advantageous
solar exposure, or protection from the wind.

[ILLUSTRATION]

ZWENKAU-HARTH NEAR LEIPZIG, GERMANY

288.X.b SECTION

3RD MILLENNIUM B.C.

[after Quitta, Neue Ausgrabungen in Deutchland, 1958, 69 and 75]

Houses divided lengthwise into four aisles by three axial rows of posts,
carrying ridge beam and purlins, were among main characteristics of the
architecture of the Banded Pottery People (Bandkeramiker) who introduced
agriculture and animal husbandry into Central Europe between 50003000
B.C., and who, owing to their sedentary life of seeding and harvesting,
became the first European village builders.

A distinctive construction feature of their houses is the transverse alignment
of the roof-supporting posts that divide the house crosswise internally
into a sequence of compartments—a trait perplexingly similar to the partitioning
of the late and post-medieval houses studied by Gruber (fig. 287).
The house of the Lex Bajuvariorum, as well as its late medieval derivatives,
may have its first roots in this Neolithic house tradition, but the precise
manner in which these concepts might have been transmitted over three
milennia is not known. (For possible Bronze and Iron Age links, see fig.
289.A)

this is a purely conjectural feature. In my reconstruction
(fig. 289) I have limited myself to showing only those members
which are explicitly mentioned in the Lex. The Lex
does not tell us anything about the position of the hearth,
but the location of the hearth is not in question. In structures
of this type the hearth was always in the middle, or
somewhere else along the axis of the center space, at
maximal distance from the incendiary timbers of the walls
and the roof.

Dehio, then, greatly underrated the importance of the
Lex Bajuvariorum for the history of early medieval house
construction. This code not only lends itself to a structural
reconstruction of the Bajuvarian standard house, but it does
so with singular explicitness, and from the information thus
obtained we can draw general conclusions that are of
importance for the broader issues of our study. Foremost
among these is the recognition that during the eighth
century a European house type existed with a general
design that closely resembled the North Germanic house of
the Saga period. Like the latter, it is a skeletal timber
structure and is covered by a large pitched roof, whose
rafters converge in a ridge pole.

There are some distinctive differences, to be sure. In the
Saga house, as has been pointed out, the ridge pole was carried
by short king posts (dvergr) that rose from the center of
the cross beams. In the house of the Bajuvarians the ridge
was supported by posts that rose from the ground. The
Saga house was three-aisled like the Germanic all-purpose
house discussed below, pp. 45ff. The house of the Lex
Bajuvariorum is four aisled, bearing striking, yet so far
inexplicable, resemblance to a house type common in
Central Europe in the 3rd millenium B.C. (see caption,
288X).