‘OF LAWS OF SHIPS AND SHIPMEN’

SCOTTISH HISTORICAL REVIEW

MONOGRAPHS SERIES
No. 20
 Scottish Historical Review Monographs are major works of scholarly
research covering all aspects of Scottish history. They are selected and
sponsored by the Scottish Historical Review Trust Editorial Board.

The trustees of the SHR Trust are: Mr Alex Woolf (convenor), Dr David
Caldwell, Dr Alison Cathcart (secretary), Dr David Ditchburn, Dr James
Fraser, Dr Karly Kehoe, Dr Catriona M. M. Macdonald, Dr Martin
MacGregor, Dr Andrew Mackillop, Dr E. V. Macleod, Dr Steven Reid and
Mrs Patricia Whatley.

CURRENT AND FORTHCOMING VOLUMES

Helen M. Physicians, Surgeons and Apothecaries: Medicine in Seventeenth-Century
1
Dingwall Edinburgh
Ewen A. Land for the People? The British Government and the Scottish Highlands, c.
2
Cameron 1880–1923
3 Richard Anthony Herds and Hinds: Farm Labour in Lowland Scotland, 1900–1939
R. Andrew
4 The Kingdom of the Isles: Scotland’s Western Seaboard, c. 1100–1336
McDonald
Church and Theology in Enlightenment Scotland: The Evangelical Party,
5 John R. McIntosh
1740–1800
6 Graeme Morton Unionist-Nationalism: Governing Urban Scotland, 1830–1860
Catriona M. M.
7 The Radical Thread: Political Change in Scotland. Paisley Politics, 1885–1924
Macdonald
James L. The Second Disruption: The Free Church in Victorian Scotland and the
8
MacLeod Origins of the Free Presbyterian Church
9 John Finlay Men of Law in Pre-Reformation Scotland
10 William Kenefick ‘Rebellious and Contrary’: The Glasgow Dockers, c. 1853–1932
11 J. J. Smyth Labour in Glasgow, 1896–1936, Socialism, Suffrage, Sectarianism
The Late Medieval Scottish Parliament: Politics and the Three Estates, 1424–
12 Roland Tanner
1488
‘Shaken Together in the Bag of Affliction’: Scottish Exiles in the Netherlands,
13 Ginny Gardner
1660–1690
Allan W. Land, Faith and the Crofting Community: Christianity and Social Criticism in
14
MacColl the Highlands of Scotland, 1843–1893
Andrew G.
15 Ireland, Radicalism and the Scottish Highlands, c. 1870–1912
Newby
16 Karen J. Cullen Famine in Scotland: The ‘Ill Years’ of the 1690s
Annemarie
17 Gender and Political Identities in Scotland, 1919–1939
Hughes
 The Sutherland Estate, 1850–1920: Aristocratic Decline, Estate Management
18 Annie Tindley
and Land Reform
19 Tanja Bueltmann Scottish Ethnicity and the Making of New Zealand Society, 1850–1930
‘Of Laws of Ships and Shipmen’: Medieval Maritime Law and its Practice in
20 Edda Frankot
Urban Northern Europe

www.euppublishing.com/series/shrm
‘OF LAWS OF SHIPS
AND SHIPMEN’
Medieval Maritime Law
and its Practice in
Urban Northern Europe

EDDA FRANKOT
 © Edda Frankot, 2012

Edinburgh University Press Ltd

22 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LF
www.euppublishing.com

Typeset in 10/12 ITC New Baskerville by

Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire, and
printed and bound in Great Britain by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY

A CIP Record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 0 7486 4624 1 (hardback)

ISBN 978 0 7486 6807 6 (webready PDF)
ISBN 978 0 7486 6808 3 (epub)
ISBN 978 0 7486 6809 0 (Amazon ebook)

The right of Edda Frankot to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in
accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
 Contents

Tables and Maps

Abbreviations
Acknowledgements
Preface

Introduction
1 A History of Maritime Law in Northern Europe
2 Shipwreck, Jettison and Ship Collision in Maritime Law
3 The Five Towns Introduced
4 Written Law: Urban Collections of Sea Law
5 Written Law: Local Developments in Lawmaking
6 Legal Practice: the Administration of Maritime Justice
7 Legal Practice: Maritime Proceedings at the Urban Courts
Final Conclusions

Bibliography
Index
 Tables and Maps

Tables
1.1 The articles in selected manuscripts of the Ordinancie
4.1 The Scottish translations of the Rôles d’Oléron
Maritime regulations in the different manuscripts of the Lübeck Town
4.2
Law
5.1 The articles of the Hamburg, Lübeck and Riga Sea Laws compared

Maps

I.1 The North Sea and Baltic area

3.1 The Kingdom of Scotland
3.2 The Netherlands around 1300
3.3 Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein
3.4 Medieval Livonia (Alt-Livland)
3.5 The Prussian State
 Abbreviations

General
ACA Aberdeen City Archive
ACR Aberdeen Council Register
Advocates Library (Edinburgh, now part of the collection
Adv. Libr.
of the NLS)
AHL Archiv der Hansestadt Lübeck
APG Archiwum Państwowe Gdańsku
The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, eds T. Thomson
APS
and C. Innes, 12 volumes (Edinburgh 1814–75)
ASA Altes Senatsarchiv (Lübeck)
BRW Bijdragen tot Regtsgeleerdheid en Wetgeving
Cod. Ord. Lub. Codex ordaliorum Lubecensium
Cod. Ord. Rev. Codex ordaliorum Revaliensis
GAK Gemeentearchief Kampen
HGbll Hansische Geschichtsblätter
HR 1 Hanserecesse 1256–1430 (Leipzig 1870–97)
Hanserecesse 1431–1476, ed. Goswin Freiherr von der
HR 2
Ropp (Leipzig 1876–90)
Hanserecesse 1477–1530, eds Dietrich Schäfer and
HR 3
Friedrich Techen (Leipzig and Munich 1881–1913)
Hansisches Urkundenbuch, eds Konstantin Hohlbaum et
HUB
al., 11 volumes (Halle etc. 1876–1939)
KB Koninklijke Bibliotheek (Bibliothèque Royale) Brussels
Liv-, Esth- und Curländisches Urkundenbuch, ed.
LECUB Friedrich Georg von Bunge, 15 volumes (Reval 1853–
1914)
LQB Leges Quatuor Burgorum (Scotland); APS, i, 333–56
Lübecker Ratsurteile, ed. Wilhelm Ebel, 4 volumes
LRU
(Göttingen 1955–67)
Lübeckisches Urkundenbuch, 11 volumes (Lübeck 1843–
LUB 1905)

Wouter Nijhoff and M. E. Kronenberg, Nederlandsche

NK
bibliographie van 1500 tot 1540 (The Hague 1923–71)
NLS National Library of Scotland
NStB Niederstadtbuch (Lübeck)
OA Oud Archief (Kampen)
RA Rechterlijk Archief (Kampen)
RGP Rijksgeschiedkundige Publicatiën
Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van den Oostzeehandel, vol.
RGP 35 I, 1122–1499 eerste stuk, ed. H. A. Poelman (The Hague
1917)
Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van den handel met
RGP 70 Frankrijk, Eerste deel 752–1585, eds Z. W. Sneller and
W. S. Unger (The Hague 1930)
The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland, eds K. M.
RPS
Brown et al. (St Andrews 2007–9)
SHR Scottish Historical Review
TLA Tallinna Linnaarhiiv
TM Tallinna Magistraat
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte,
ZRG GA
Germanistische Abteilung
Zeitschrift des Vereins für Lübeckische Geschichte und
ZVLGA
Altertumskunde

Sea laws
Bergen Town Law; Stadtrecht des Königs Magnus
Hakonarson für Bergen. Brüchstücke des Birkinselrechts
Bergen
und Seefahrerrecht der Jónsbók, ed. Rudolf Meissner
 (Weimar 1950)
Bjarkeyjar réttr Stadtrecht des Königs Magnus Hakonarson, ed. Meissner
Helsinge-Lagen, Kristnu-Balken af Smålands-Lagen, och
Bjärköarätten
Bjärköarätten, ed. D. C. J. Schlyter (Lund 1844)
Danzig judgements; APG, 300, R/Fq, 1, Waterrecht
Digestum; Corpus Iuris Civilis. Text und Übersetzung, vol.
Danzig Dig. III, Dig. 11–20, eds Okko Behrends et al. (Heidelberg
1999)

Gotland Sea Law; Dat Gotlansche Waterrecht (Osnabrück

Gotland SL
1967, facsimile of Copenhagen 1505)
Isländisches Recht. Die Graugans, ed. Andreas Heusler
Grágás
(Weimar 1937)
Hamburg Ship Law of 1301/6; Die ältesten Stadt-,
Hamburg
Schiffund Landrechte Hamburgs, ed. J. M. Lappenberg
1301/6
(Aalen 1966, reprint of Hamburg 1845)
Hamburg Ship Law of 1497; Die ältesten Stadt-, Schiff-
Hamburg 1497
und Landrechte Hamburgs, ed. Lappenberg
HR 1447 Hanserecess of 1447; HR 2, III, no. 288
1259 letter from Hamburg to Lübeck; Hansisches
HUB I, no. 538 Urkundenbuch I, ed. Konstantin Hohlbaum (Halle 1876),
no. 538
Jónsbók Stadtrecht des Königs Magnus Hakonarson, ed. Meissner
Kampen Dat Boeck van Rechte; GAK, OA, no. 5, Dat
Kampen BvR
Boeck van Rechte dier Stat van Kampen
Kampen Dat Gulden Boeck; GAK, OA, no. 6, Dat Gulden
Kampen GB
Boeck
Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. I, Text und
Leis Willelme Übersetzung, ed. F. Liebermann (Aalen 1960, reprint of
1903–16)
Lübeck SL Lübeck Sea Law; AHL, Hs. 753, Copiarius
Lübeck Town Law; Latin: Das alte Lübische Recht, ed.
Johann Friedrich Hach (Lübeck 1839); Low German:
Norddeutsche Stadtrechte, vol. II, Das
Lübeck TL
mittelniederdeutsche Stadtrecht von Lübeck nach seinen
 ältesten Formen, ed. Gustav Korlén (Lund and
Copenhagen 1951)
Lübeck Town Law (Reval manuscript from 1257 (R1)); Die
Lübeck TL
Quellen des Revaler Stadtrechts, vol. I, ed. Friedrich Georg
(1257)
von Bunge (Reval 1844)
Lübeck TL Lübeck Town Law (Danzig manuscript from 1263 (H));
(1263) Das alte Lübische Recht, ed. Hach

Lübeck Town Law (Reval manuscript from 1282 (R2));

Lübeck TL
Lübecki õiguse Tallinnaa Koodeks. 1282. Der Revaler
(1282)
Kodex des lübischen Rechts, ed. Tiina Kala (Tallinn 1998)
Second Novgorod Skra; Die Nowgoroder Schra in sieben
Novgorod II Fassungen vom XIII. bis XVII. Jahrhundert, ed. W.
Schlüter (Dorpat 1911)
Novgorod III Third Novgorod Skra; Die Nowgoroder Schra, ed. Schlüter
Rôles d’Oléron (Liber Horn); Karl-Friedrich Krieger,
Oléron Ursprung und Wurzeln der Rôles d’Oléron (Cologne and
Vienna 1970)
Ordinancie van Amsterdam or Staveren (Staveren
Ordinancie manuscript); A. Telting, Die alt-niederländischen
Seerechte (The Hague 1907)
Ordinancie Ordinancie van Amsterdam or Staveren (Privilegieboek
(Privilegieboek) Amsterdam); Telting, Die alt-niederländischen Seerechte
Hamburg/Riga Town Law; Die Quellen des rigischen
Riga I Stadtrechts bis zum Jahre 1673, ed. J. G. L. Napiersky
(Riga 1876)
Revised Riga Town Law; Die Quellen des rigischen
Riga II
Stadtrechts ed. Napiersky
General Swedish Town Law of Magnus Eriksson;
Swedish TL Collection de Lois Maritimes antérieurs au XVIIIe siècle,
vol. III, ed. J. M. Pardessus (Paris 1834)
Vonnesse van Damme; C. A. den Tex, ‘Oud-Nederlandsch
Vonnesse Zeeregt. Kritische Bewerking van den Tekst der
Vlaamsche Zeeregten’, BRW5 (1830), 33–62
Vonnesse Vonnesse van Damme (Bruges manuscript); Black Book of
(Codex the Admiralty, vol. IV, ed. Sir Travers Twiss (London
Brugensis) 1876)
Vonnesse Vonnesse van Damme (Kampen Waterrecht manuscript);
(Kampen) GAK, OA, no. 17, Dat Schiprecht
Vonnesse (MS Vonnesse van Damme (Bruges Waterrecht manuscript,
now kept in Cologne); Telting, Die alt-niederländischen
Bruges/Cologne)
Seerechte
Wisby Sea Law (Amsterdam 1588); Wisby Stadslag och
Wisby SL
Sjörätt, ed. D. C. J. Schlyter (Lund 1853)
Wisby TL Wisby Town Law; Wisby Stadslag och Sjörätt, ed. Schlyter
 Acknowledgements

Like so many before it, this book has been a long time in coming. In an age
when the completion of a PhD usually means the start of a long succession of
research assistantships in the faint hope of eventually gaining a ‘proper’
academic position, I too was distracted from finalising this text by
digitisation and other useful but time-consuming projects. These have also
resulted in publications and feelings of accomplishment, but none that can
match the sense of achievement of finishing this, my very own project,
created, conducted and completed by myself alone, without outside
interference or management.
However, this book would never have seen the light of day without the
guidance and support of many who I am now finally able to thank in the
traditional way. This book is based on the PhD thesis which I completed at
the University of Aberdeen in 2004. I am very grateful for the funding I
received from the Faculties of Arts and Social Sciences at that institution in
the first three years of my studies and from the International Max Planck
Research School in Frankfurt am Main for the remaining eighteen months, as
well as for the support and stimulation received from staff and students in
both institutions, especially from my PhD supervisors Professor Angelo Forte
and Dr Frederik Pedersen and from Professor Albrecht Cordes in Frankfurt. I
would also like to thank the Northern European Historical Research Network,
and especially Professor Allan Macinnes, for allowing me to spend two six-
month periods abroad in Kiel and Groningen, where I was looked after by
Professors Thomas Riis and Dick E. H. de Boer respectively. The latter has
also since then provided me with much-appreciated guidance and advice.
Thanks are also due to Professor Götz Landwehr from Hamburg, who kindly
answered some of my questions on our mutual field of interest. I am grateful
for the help I received from staff in the archives of four of the five towns
researched in this study: the City Archives in Aberdeen, the Gemeentearchief
in Kampen, the Archiv der Hansestadt Lübeck and the Archiwum Państwowe
Gdańsku, as well as from Juhan Kreem at the Tallinna Linnaarhiiv, who sent
me microfilms of all the relevant material. Similarly appreciated assistance
was provided at the National Library of Scotland, the British Library, the
Cambridge University Library and the Lambeth Palace Library.
I have also benefited from comments received from the external examiners
of my PhD thesis, Mr David Sellar and Dr Carsten Jahnke, the latter of whom
has since then kindly agreed to disagree with me on certain conclusions held
within this book. I owe a great debt to my then internal examiner, Dr David
Ditchburn, who has not only assisted in improving my writing significantly
over the years by way of his meticulous editing skills, but who has also acted
as a mentor in recent years, generously providing advice, pep talks, teaching
opportunities and time, and editing research proposals and job applications.
Since the completion of my PhD it has been my privilege to work on a
number of projects which, though keeping me from finalising this text, have
broadened my academic horizons, mainly into the early modern period (‘the
dark side’ or ‘journalism’, as some have called it) and I have been able to
benefit from the wisdom of Professors Aidan Clarke, Jane Ohlmeyer,
Thomas Bartlett, John Morrill and Hector MacQueen, and Drs Hanno Brand
and Micheál Ó Siochrú. I am also grateful to Professor Robert von
Friedeburg and other colleagues in the History department of the Erasmus
University in Rotterdam for providing me with a friendly and stimulating
new academic home.
I would like to express my gratitude to the board of the Scottish Historical
Review for agreeing to include this book in their monograph series. The series
editor, Dr Andrew Mackillop, deserves considerable thanks for his support
and good-natured comments on this text. I would also like to thank John
Watson and staff at Edinburgh University Press for guiding me swiftly
through the publication process. Jennifer Johnston and Alison Sandison from
the Geography department at Aberdeen University have quickly and
professionally turned my amateur drawings into proper maps.
Over the past years, my life has at times resembled that of the medieval
merchants and skippers whose legal trials and tribulations I have described in
these pages: always on the road but at home in many towns. Like those
medieval men, I was able to establish and maintain relations in these places
and always find a warm welcome in each of them. I would therefore like to
express sincere thanks to all those people who have made me feel at home
during my peregrinations in Scotland, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands.
These are and have been especially Jennifer McDonald, Irene Furneaux,
David Worthington, Alison Cathcart, Steve Murdoch, Iain MacInnes, Anne
Robertson, Karen Schleeh, Tanja Storn-Jaschkowitz, Annaleigh Margey,
Elaine Murphy, Joke Niezen, Janneke Spanninga, Berry Lieftink, Natacha
Nankman, Michiel Frankot and Heleen Meijer. I am particularly indebted to
my parents, Herman and Marieke Frankot, who formed a steady base in the
Netherlands during and just after my PhD and who have shown an admirable
ability to maintain (or at least feign) enthusiasm about my ever-changing
activities over the years.
Finally, my husband, Barry Robertson, knows like no other what it is like
to be a historian and a starting academic. His love, support and
companionship over the past few years have been a great source of comfort
and happiness to me. I feel very lucky that he has chosen to join me on my
journeys.
 Preface

The first north-western European sea law, the Rôles d’Oléron, compiled in
French in the thirteenth century, regulated the relations between the various
parties involved in the transportation of wine from the Atlantic coast of
France to England, Flanders and Scotland.1 In the fourteenth century this law
was translated into Scots (as well as into Flemish/Dutch) and would remain
the only compilation of maritime customs available in late medieval
Scotland. This translation, generally simply entitled ‘ship lawis’ (or ‘of lawis
of shippis and shipmen’), thus takes a special place among the medieval
Scottish laws as being the only ‘European’ set of rules, both with regard to its
subject matter, international shipping, as to its providence.
Scottish maritime law, then, cannot be studied in isolation, but must be
analysed within a European context. This is further supported by the fact that
maritime law was mainly relevant within the urban environment of Scottish
coastal burghs where merchants and skippers came to seek justice when
problems arose between them regarding the transportation of goods by sea.
The Scottish ports, like those elsewhere, were inherently focused outwards
and from their earliest times were exposed to external influences, for example
those from Flemish merchants invited by King Malcolm III and Queen
Margaret in the twelfth century or, indeed, from wine merchants from
Bordeaux or La Rochelle.2
In this study the European context is provided by comparing Scotland
(represented here by Aberdeen) not with France, England and Flanders, but
with towns in the Netherlands, northern Germany, Poland and Estonia. The
reasons for this are twofold. First, when I started my research in Aberdeen in
1999, the idea that that city was northern European, being geographically
closer to Norway than to London, was popular both at the university and at
the city council and archives. One of the objectives of my study therefore
became to challenge whether Aberdeen was indeed northern European when
studied in the context of maritime law. As a result, this book seeks to
determine which aspects of Scottish maritime law and its practice were
unique in northern Europe and which developments were shared with other
countries. Second, the study aims to establish whether a common maritime
law existed in northern Europe. As such, a comparison with France, England
and Flanders, which are known to have used the Rôles d’Oléron as well,
would not be useful as this may lead to the (incorrect as will become clear in
the following) conclusion that a common law did exist. A comparison with
regions that are known to have used other laws, such as northern Germany, is
more productive and leads to a more representative conclusion.
This book will contribute to the growing historiography on Scotland’s
legal and urban past, which in recent years has produced some important new
insights, for example with regard to the role of parliament and the central
courts.3 This study will further enhance those insights, focusing especially on
the functioning of the burgh courts within the kingdom’s legal framework.
The book’s comparative approach also allows general urban and legal trends
in Scotland to be placed within a European context. Never before has a
Scottish burgh and urban legal practice been compared in such detail with
other European towns and experiences. As such this study will add
significantly to the understanding of Scottish history within a northern
European context and fits in well with recent trends in viewing late medieval
Scotland increasingly as a European kingdom.4

Article 13 of this text specifically names Scotland as one of the destinations when regulating that
1 local pilotage charges are to be paid by the merchants: ‘Et ceux d’Escoce puis qe lem passe
Gernemue [And those of Scotland after passing Yarmouth]’ (Oléron, art. 13).
Evidence of direct commercial contacts between Scotland and Gascony in the fourteenth and
2 fifteenth centuries is meagre (Ditchburn, Scotland and Europe, 154), but the sea laws suggest that
direct contacts must already have existed in the thirteenth century.
Mark Godfrey’s recent book Civil Justice in Renaissance Scotland is important in this respect, as
3 are the various works that have already come forth from the Scottish Parliament Project, such as
Alan R. MacDonald’s The Burghs and Parliament in Scotland.
4 Of particular note in this regard has been the work of David Ditchburn on Scottish contacts with
continental Europe.
 Introduction

The topic of medieval maritime law has attracted increasing interest in the
past three decades.1 It is, however, a theme that deserves much more
attention in this age of Europeanisation and internationalisation. Because
maritime law regulates sea shipping, which connects different ‘nations’, it is
intrinsically international or supranational. Or is it? The existence of a
common maritime law in northern Europe has regularly been presumed, but
has never been proven. For example, it is often supposed that the Rôles
d’Oléron were generally used throughout northern Europe or, at least, that
they formed the basis for other northern European sea laws.2 The Wisby or
Gotland Sea Laws are also sometimes named as having been used throughout
the area.3 A few years ago Albrecht Cordes raised doubts as regards the
existence of a medieval lex mercatoria as a fixed common law regulating
trade throughout northern Europe.4 Such doubts extend to maritime law too.
The existence of several local sea laws (for example from Hamburg,
Kampen, Lübeck, Riga and Wisby) rather suggests that a common maritime
law did not exist in medieval northern Europe. Indeed, those authors who
have undertaken detailed research into the matter have stressed the
importance of certain written laws and the dissemination of copies of these
laws throughout the area, rather than their adoption or usage in all sea ports
bordering the North and Baltic Seas.5 A thorough examination of the spread
of manuscripts of maritime law and their use in the urban courts of northern
Europe has, however, never been undertaken. Most studies are either limited
to an analysis of one or two compilations of laws or to a comparison of the
contents of the written laws. Legal practice, in this context, has not yet been
studied.
Legal practice in the northern European urban courts, generally, has not
been researched thoroughly. In groundbreaking studies from the 1950s and
1960s, Wilhelm Ebel published a large number of judgements from the
Lübeck town court, analysing some in, for example, his Lübisches
Kaufmannsrecht.6 Other sources have received attention in isolation, but
generally, legal historians have focused on the written laws.7 Since, in my
opinion, neither the written laws nor legal practice should be studied in
isolation in an area such as maritime law, in which written laws came forth
from practice and in which custom played such an important role, both the
written laws and legal practice will be engaged with here.
This study will be the first to analyse the spread and development of
compilations of maritime regulations in northern Europe. It will also be the
first to examine in detail the administration of maritime law at urban courts in
this region. Such an examination has never before been conducted for the five
towns (which will be introduced below) individually, nor for urban courts in
general and comparatively. As such, this study is breaking new ground and
provides important new insights into the workings of medieval sea shipping,
the functioning of urban courts, the dissemination (or lack thereof) of legal
principles in northern Europe and the (non-)existence of common legal
traditions within the international maritime community.
The main question my study seeks to answer is whether it is accurate to
speak of a common law of the sea in medieval northern Europe. This
question will be answered on three different levels: with regard to, first, the
books of law; second, the contents of the written laws; and third, legal
practice in the town courts. First of all, the history of the written laws such as
the Rôles d’Oléron (and its translations into Flemish/Dutch and Scots), the
Ordinancie, the Hamburg and Lübeck Sea Laws and the Hanseatic statutes
will be analysed. Then comparisons will be made of regulations from all of
northern Europe regarding three important subjects dealt with in maritime
law: shipwreck, jettison (and other forms of general average)8 and ship
collision. Finally, in order to establish if there was a common practice as
regards maritime law at the town courts of northern Europe, aspects of legal
practice in five northern European towns (Aberdeen, Kampen, Lübeck, Reval
(Tallinn) and Danzig (Gdańsk)) will be analysed and compared. In four
chapters, the urban collections of sea laws, local developments in lawmaking
in some of these towns, the administration of maritime justice (including the
use of the written laws in court) and the maritime proceedings at the urban
courts in cases of shipwreck, jettison and ship collision will be dealt with.
This section on legal practice will be preceded by a chapter introducing and
comparing the five towns researched in this study.
The subjects of shipwreck, jettison and ship collision have often featured
in studies of medieval maritime law.9 This is because they are dealt with in
most of the written laws and are therefore the most readily comparable issues.
Shipwreck, jettison and ship collision are, moreover, subjects that would have
been taken before the town courts on a more regular basis than, for example,
the relationship between captain and crew, which would normally have been
dealt with on board ship rather than in the courtroom. No evidence survives
of the administration of justice aboard ship in the Middle Ages. This study is
restricted to maritime law (which regulated private relations between all those
aboard ship during the journeys); it does not include consideration of the law
of wreck (which regulated who was entitled to objects washed ashore). The
law of wreck belongs more properly within the area of Landrecht (land law).
The five towns highlighted in this study were chosen not only because they
were important centres of medieval trade, but also because of the survival of
sources in their present-day archives. Aberdeen, though not the largest burgh
in Scotland, was the second port after Edinburgh/Leith for most of the
medieval period and is the only Scottish town to retain most of its sources
from the fifteenth century.10 The town of Kampen also still possesses a rich
collection of medieval sources and, though its current size no longer suggests
it, was one of the largest Dutch shipping centres from the thirteenth to the
fifteenth centuries. Many other Dutch towns, such as Dordrecht and
Amsterdam, suffer from a scantness of medieval archives, which made them
unsuitable candidates for this study. Kampen is also known to have drawn up
maritime regulations in its town law, which makes it an interesting object of
study. Lübeck, Danzig and Reval form three of the four main Baltic ports in
the fifteenth century. The fourth, Riga, unfortunately suffers from a lack of
medieval source material and was therefore excluded. This explains too the
exclusion of the main German port on the North Sea coast, Hamburg, whose
archives were largely destroyed by fire in the nineteenth century. Both Riga
and Hamburg, as well as Lübeck and Danzig, developed their own maritime
laws.
Map I.1: The North Sea and Baltic area.

Another element in choosing these towns was their political and legal
diversity: Lübeck was the head of the Hanseatic League; it was politically
autonomous and had its own town law. Reval was legally dependent on
Lübeck and subservient to the Teutonic Order in international relations, but
in domestic affairs it was largely autonomous. Danzig was also politically
dependent on the Teutonic Order in the fourteenth century and was granted
Kulm law, like most of the Order’s Prussian towns. In the fifteenth century
Danzig became largely independent, and became a centre for maritime justice
in the area. Lübeck, Reval and Danzig were all members of the Hanseatic
League, as was Kampen when it suited the town commercially. Politically,
Kampen was practically autonomous and it had its own town law. The only
completely non-Hanseatic town was Aberdeen, which, in contrast to the other
towns, formed an integral part of the kingdom of Scotland, where the burghal
laws were largely uniform. The five towns were thus for a large part different
in the way they were ruled, the power they exercised outside the town and the
laws to which they were subject.
Despite the focus on these five northern European towns with regard to
legal practice, the overview of the written laws and their contents in the first
two chapters includes consideration of the Scandinavian, English and French
laws. The French laws are included because the Rôles d’Oléron were
translated into Flemish/Dutch and Scots and disseminated over a large area of
northern and north-western Europe. In the first chapter an overview is given
of all the written sea laws that appeared in the Middle Ages in order to
determine whether books of law were available throughout northern Europe
at any time during this period. In the second chapter the regulations regarding
shipwreck, jettison and ship collision from these law books are compared in
order to establish whether common rules existed as regards these subjects
throughout the area.
In the third chapter the growth, government, law and trade of the selected
towns are discussed and compared. Thus, developments in maritime law
analysed in subsequent chapters can be understood in their political,
economic and legal contexts. In Chapter four, the extant manuscripts of
maritime law are described in order to determine which written laws were
available to which towns and whether some communality existed in their
legal collections. Chapter 5 deals with the written laws specific to each of the
towns. As regards Lübeck, Danzig and Kampen, these laws are compared to
those considered closest to them, in order to establish how unique these laws
were. The Scottish translations of the Rôles d’Oléron are also analysed.
These translations have not been previously examined and this analysis offers
some important new insights, which are subsequently put to use in the final
chapter.
Chapter 6 deals with the administration of maritime justice. Besides
discussing who administered justice in the towns and what evidence there is
for the use of the written laws by the courts, some attention is also given to
Lübeck as court of appeal (Oberhof) for Reval and Danzig as a centre of
maritime justice for Prussia and Poland. The final chapter is devoted to the
judgements that were passed by the five courts in cases of shipwreck, jettison
and ship collision. Through a comparison of the judgements as regards each
of these subjects, and a comparison of these judgements to the written laws, it
is possible to determine whether a common legal practice existed in medieval
northern Europe and whether the written laws were used by the courts. In the
final conclusions, a definitive answer is given to the main question of this
study: was there a common law of the sea in medieval northern Europe?

Götz Landwehr has written several articles and monographs dealing with medieval maritime law,
such as Haverei; ‘Prinzipien der Risikotragung’; ‘Seerecht im Ostseeraum’; Seerecht der Hanse.
 Other studies include: V. der Decken, Seearbeitsrecht im Hamburger Stadtrecht; Forte, ‘
“Kenning be kenning” ’; Frankot, ‘The practice of maritime law’; ‘Jurisdictions in the law of the
1 sea’; ‘Maritime law and practice in late medieval Aberdeen’; ‘De “Ordinancie van Staveren” ’;
‘Diversity and unity’; Friedland, ‘Maritime law and piracy’; Goetze, ‘Der Anteil Lübecks’;
Jahnke, ‘Hansisches Seerecht’; Jahnke and Graßmann, eds, Seerecht im Hanseraum; O’Sullivan,
Ahndung von Rechtsbrüchen; Schweitzer, Schiffer und Schiffsmann; Ward, World of the Medieval
Shipmaster. Somewhat older are Krieger, Ursprung und Wurzeln and Wolter, Schiffrechte der
Hansestädte.
Most recently: Jahnke, ‘Hansisches Seerecht’, 65; Ward, World of the Medieval Shipmaster, 20.
Other examples include: Biederstedt, ‘Eine neue Handschrift des Seerechtes von Damme’, 26;
2 Ditchburn, Scotland and Europe, 32; Forte, ‘ “Kenning be Kenning” ’, 57; Friedland, ‘Maritime
law and piracy’, 33; Pohlmann, ‘Quellen des Handelsrechts’, 806, 808; Runyan, ‘The Rolls of
Oleron’, 98, in which the Rôles d’Oléron have been described as the ‘canon for Europe’s northern
seas’; Wagner, Handbuch des Seerechtes, 67.
Wagner, Handbuch des Seerechtes, 68–9, according to which the Waterrecht, a compilation of
Rôles d’Oléron and Ordinancie, was used in most maritime towns in northern Europe; similar
3 assumptions are made by Stoob, Die Hanse, 205, who calls the Ordinancie ‘hamburgische
Ordinancie’; Van den Auweele, ‘Zeerecht’, 224; Robinson, Fergus and Gordon, Introduction to
European Legal History, 161, states that the Wisby Sea Law was widely used in Hanseatic towns
such as Lübeck and Hamburg and other northern ports, superseding local customs.
Cordes, ‘Mittelalterlichen Lex mercatoria’, revised version in English: ‘Lex mercatoria’. He
writes (after note 25): ‘it was not before 1600 that the term “Lex mercatoria” was used in the
sense of a system of substantive trade law – used in this sense by English merchants as an
4 instrument against the disliked common law. Mentioning the Lex mercatoria’s respectable age in
this context was quite evidently not meant to be a historical statement but an argument within a
controversial legal discussion. Starting from here, the notion of the Lex mercatoria as a universal
and uniformed system of law began a life of its own . . .’.
5 For example, Kiesselbach, ‘Der Ursprung der Rôles d’Oléron’, 1; Krieger, Ursprung und
Wurzeln, 1; Landwehr, ‘Seerecht’, coll. 1,601–2.
6 Lübecker Ratsurteile, ed. Ebel; Ebel, Lübisches Kaufmannsrecht.
7 For example, Simon, ‘Appellationen von Reval nach Lübeck’, 47–63.
8 For a definition of general average, see Chapter 2.
For example, Wolter, Schiffrechte der Hansestädte; Krieger, ‘Die rechtlichen Voraussetzungen
9 des Seeverkehrs’, 1–20; Landwehr, Haverei; Goldschmidt, ‘Lex Rhodia und Agermanament’, 37–
90, 321–95.
As explained in the preface, England is not considered in this study. Occasional comparisons will
be made with the situation in England using the recently published study by Robin Ward (World
10 of the Medieval Shipmaster). Unfortunately, he has not specifically looked at urban courts, so a
detailed comparison with the English situation is difficult to make. Earlier research was
undertaken by Runyan, ‘The Rolls of Oleron’, 95–117 and Burwash, English Merchant Shipping,
171–2.
 1

A History of Maritime Law in Northern Europe

In early sea shipping the roles of skippers, shipowners and merchants usually
overlapped. As a consequence, maritime law was simple, required only to
regulate situations in which two ships collided.1 Gradually, however, more
and more people became involved in the freighting of a single ship, and a
differentiation eventually emerged between the roles of skippers, merchants,
shipowners and crew members. Maritime law became correspondingly more
complicated since remedies were required to reconcile points of conflict
between the expanding cast of maritime society. Following regional
developments in shipping technology, these regulations evolved differently in
the various regions of Europe and, more particularly for the present purpose,
of northern Europe.2 The oldest surviving regulations in northern Europe are
from Scandinavia and date to the late twelfth century.
Ships that were built specifically for the transportation of bulk cargo
probably first appeared in the tenth century.3 Before that time, the early
Viking Age ships were built to carry both warriors and small amounts of
cargo. These ships were ideal for raiding the coastal areas of northern Europe,
but when the Vikings consolidated their political position in the area and
shifted their emphasis to trading instead of raiding, changes occurred in
Scandinavian shipbuilding.4 On the one hand, longships were built to carry
personnel swiftly across the waters for military and defensive purposes. On
the other hand, broad ships appeared which were specialised in carrying
cargo.5
The Scandinavian ships were clinker-built. They possessed a strong
outside shell of overlapping cleft boards, which were riveted together, and
were reinforced by a light interior frame. A different type of ship emerged in
the twelfth century. This was made up of a heavily framed bottom of flush-
laid planks with clinker-built sides; it was called the cog. This ship soon
came to dominate shipping in the North Sea and Baltic region, though
clinker-built ships continued to be built alongside cogs throughout northern
Europe.6 The emergence of the cog in the Baltic coincided with a steep rise in
the carrying capacity of deep-sea vessels in northern Europe.7 Thanks to the
urbanisation process in the Baltic region, trade grew significantly, as did the
need for more and larger ships. Whereas the Viking ships had been built to a
high level of craftsmanship (for example in their ornamental details), from
the late twelfth century ships were produced more cheaply.8 Through
technological developments ships could be built to carry larger amounts of
cargo.9
Another steep rise in the carrying capacity of northern European vessels
took place at the turn of the fifteenth century. Again, a demand existed for
larger ships, this time because of a growth in the distribution of bulk goods,
such as salt, grain, timber and fish. Whereas ships measuring up to 200 tons
were built in the late fourteenth century, this size had doubled by the mid-
fifteenth century and tripled at the end of that century.10 As before,
developments in shipbuilding, such as the installation of more than one mast,
accommodated this rise in carrying capacity. At the same time, a new type of
vessel appeared in the northern seas in the late fourteenth century: the carvel-
built ship. Carvels had been used in the Mediterranean for centuries and by
the early fifteenth century they were developed to a high standard of naval
architecture.11 Their manner of construction was much cheaper than that used
in traditional northern shipbuilding. During the fifteenth century, carvel-built
ships sailing the northern seas were usually still in the possession of southern
European owners. They were mainly used in the salt trade from Portugal and
the Bay of Bourgneuf to northern ports and only from the 1480s did a
significant increase in northern ownership of the carvel occur.12
The growing carrying capacity of ships was an important factor in the
changing organisation of sea shipping. In the Viking Age ships were
generally owned by one person or by a small group of people, and goods
were normally shipped by several merchants, including the skipper. For a
single journey a joint venture was established by the skipper and the owners
of the goods who all had the same duties and rights aboard the ship. The
skipper generally owned part of the ship and steered it, whereas the others
involved acted as crew. The skipper remained a primus inter pares; decisions
were made by a council of all aboard the ship.13 In addition to the regulation
of on-board relations, rules had to be devised regarding the loss of, or
damages to, the goods and/or the ship. These rules became even more
important when the size of ships increased around the late twelfth or early
thirteenth century. Not only did the interests of the owner(s) of the ship and
the owners of the goods start to diverge, but since merchants started to focus
on handling trade, they increasingly sought to buy themselves out of their
duties aboard ships. Moreover, instead of paying rent for space on ships,
merchants began to arrange freight contracts with shipowners.14
Simultaneously, as merchants found other things to do, a specialised crew
developed. Crew members received wages. Only occasionally were they
assigned a small space in the hold of the ship in order to transport their own
goods (voering). Meanwhile, the owner(s) of the ship generally stayed ashore
and were represented on board by the skipper. The latter became more
independent from the merchants, although, at times, he still needed to take
council with either his passengers or his crew.15
From about the second half of the fourteenth century merchants only rarely
accompanied their goods. This was due to changes in the organisation of
trade (most importantly the use of bills of exchange), which made it possible
for merchants to send goods to agents stationed abroad. As a consequence,
skippers became even more independent from merchants. The increase in
carrying capacity of fifteenth-century vessels meant that more people became
involved in freighting a single ship. The skipper could now only afford to
own a small part of a vessel or of its cargo. Instead, he was often an
employee of the shipowners, and was accountable to them, standing at the
head of a larger crew including a few officers (perhaps one or more
helmsmen and boatswains).16 These developments are reflected in the sea
laws which were recorded in the fifteenth century. Larger crews resulted in
disciplinary problems on board, a subject which received significant attention
in the fifteenth-century laws.17 Rules about the accountability of skippers
were also laid down in this period.
These developments occurred at different times in the various European
regions and, as mentioned, corresponded with changes in the regulations
regarding sea trade which will be discussed in the next chapter. In the
thirteenth century written regulations regarding maritime law appeared
simultaneously in three different regions of northern Europe: in Scandinavia,
on the west coast of France and in the northern German towns. We will now
look at each of these regions in turn.
As described above, shipping in Scandinavia was often carried out by joint
ventures using light vessels such as the longship, but also the larger storskip
which could transport up to about 120 tons.18 One of the shipowners would
normally act as skipper (stýrimaðr), but sometimes more than one stýrimaðr
would be present on the ship.19 The stýrimaðr formed a shipping venture
with the hásetar who, in exchange for the right of passage, had to perform
duties aboard the ship. For the transportation of goods a fee was paid, but a
say in the command over the ship was shared by the stýrimaðr and the
hásetar.20
The regulations regarding these shipping ventures were recorded in
Norway after 1176 in the Farmanna logh (seamen’s law) of the Bjarkeyjar
réttr.21 They have only survived in some fragments. The Bjarkeyjar réttr,
which were drawn up on an unknown individual’s initiative, existed beside
the land laws of the different Norwegian regions (Gulathing, Frostothing,
Borgarthing, Eidsivathing) and contained those laws that deviated from them.
The Farmanna logh consists of nine articles concerning freighting contracts,
the seaworthiness of vessels, the duty of freighters towards the skipper, the
distribution of chores on board, damage to the ship and jurisdiction in the
event of problems, which was shared by all aboard.
In 1276 King Magnus Hakonson, also known as Lagabœtir (‘Law-mender’
or ‘Law-maker’), reformed both the land laws and the town laws, which were
standardised to national laws.22 The town law created for Oslo, Bergen,
Trondheim and Tonsberg has survived in the version drafted for Bergen.23
Part IX of this law is the Farmanna logh.24 This collection of laws is quite
extensive and consists of twenty-three elaborate articles concerning freighting
contracts and shipping ventures, the seaworthiness of the ship and the bailing
of water, the punctuality of freighters and skippers (if a skipper was very late,
the ship could leave without him), the necessity of having a skipper on board
every vessel, the settling of disputes, fines for overloading and arrangements
for return voyages. The laws also regulated jettison, damage to the ship, ship
collision, the use of timber (trees) in cases of emergency, the salvage of
anchors, sailing in convoys, the use of mooring places and of boats, and the
towing of ships (to and from the beach). According to several of these rules,
decisions had to be taken by a majority of the people on board.
In 1281 King Magnus introduced this town law to Iceland under the name
of Jónsbók. Its Farmanna lœg shows a few differences to that of the Bergen
Town Law, mainly concerning specific Icelandic circumstances.25 The law
consists of twenty-eight articles. Additions to the Bergen Town Law concern
different shipowners wanting to use the same ship for varying purposes,
mooring places and the hire of ships. These variations probably originated
from the Gràgàs, the Icelandic law before Norwegian supremacy was
established over Iceland in 1263.26 This law also included articles on
overloading and the towing of ships.
In Sweden, we find maritime regulations in the town law for Stockholm
(Bjärköarätten) recorded between 1285 and 1296, and in the general Swedish
Town Law promulgated by Magnus Eriksson (c. 1350).27 The sea laws in the
former were largely based on the maritime regulations in the town law of
Wisby, on the island of Gotland, a law which has survived only in a Low
German version of 1341–4.28 A version in Swedish most likely also existed,
since German and Swedish communities lived together in Wisby.29 Subjects
dealt with in the Swedish laws include jettison, the reimbursement of
damages, ship’s hire and the obligation to pay full freightage after a ship had
left the harbour. This mix of regulations is similar to that in the other
Scandinavian laws (for example as regards the decision-making by a
majority) but there are also similarities to the Lübeck and Hamburg Town
Laws.30 This suggests that there were some overlapping traditions between
Scandinavia and northern Germany, which will be discussed further in the
next chapter.
In Denmark, the town law of Schleswig (c. 1200), on which the town laws
of Flensburg, Åbenra and Haderslev were based, needs to be judged as
Scandinavian as well, even although Schleswig and Flensburg were not
always under Danish control during the Middle Ages.31 This law shows clear
similarities to the older Swedish and Norwegian laws, which can be
explained from the fact that Schleswig (Haithabu’s successor from the late
eleventh century) reached its peak as a Viking trading town in the twelfth
century.32 Its merchants used vessels similar to those of the Scandinavian
traders. The law contained ten articles on maritime law (Articles 53–5, 57–62
and 64), regulating mainly breaches of contract by merchants, mariners and
skippers (for example in case of drunkenness), but also shipwreck and the
casting of humans. The Schleswig laws were possibly adopted by Lübeck
before it had formulated its own sea laws.33 In its early history Lübeck
burghers originated mainly from inland regions and would not have had
much experience of sea trade and its regulation. It is likely, therefore, that
they initially adopted laws from trading partners of nearby ports.34
Shipping ventures also appear to have existed in England in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, judging by regulations from the Leis Willelme from c.
1150–70.35 The oldest and best-known sea laws in north-western Europe are,
however, the Rôles d’Oléron (or Jugemens de la mer), which were compiled
for the wine trade from Brittany and Normandy to England, Scotland and
Flanders. In this compilation we find evidence of the thirteenth-century
changes in the organisation of shipping, which resulted in the drawing up of
new laws regulating the relations between shipowners, skippers, merchants
and crew.
The Rôles d’Oléron carry the name of a small island off the coast of the
medieval duchy of Aquitaine and were probably drawn up in French in, or
shortly before, 1286.36 The two oldest manuscripts recording the laws, both
dating from the early fourteenth century, are of English origin. This can be
explained by the fact that Aquitaine had belonged de uxore to Henry II
(1154–89) since his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1153. A report
written in 1329 even claimed that Richard I (1189–99) was the author of the
laws and had written them at Oléron on his way back from the Holy Land
before bringing them to England, but this seems highly unlikely.37 That the
laws were mentioned in this report does show, however, that they were in use
in England in the first half of the fourteenth century. This is confirmed by the
appearance of the Rôles in two important legal manuscripts of the same
period.38 By 1375 the law had become inadequate for English legal purposes
and additions were made by a commission set up by King Edward III. This
commission was active intermittently until 1403 and its activities resulted in
the Inquisition of Queensborough. This, unlike the Rôles which are restricted
to private law, also included articles on criminal and public issues, such as
piracy, prizes and felonies aboard ships, of relevance to the English
admirals.39 Meanwhile, in France the Rôles d’Oléron had been adopted as the
official sea law by 1364.40
Copies of the laws spread throughout western Europe in the fourteenth
century. There is a Flemish translation, known as the Vonnesse van Damme
(the port of Bruges), dating from the late thirteenth or early fourteenth
century.41 Apart from references to the harbour of Sluis, near Bruges, this
translation is close to the original French text.42 Throughout the Middle Ages
the Rôles d’Oléron were used in their original French in England. The
situation was different in Scotland, where the laws were translated into Scots
in the fourteenth century. The earliest extant text, entitled Of lawis of scyppis,
dates from the second half of the fourteenth century.43 There are eight more
known copies in manuscripts from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The
translation appears to have been made from the original French, not the
Flemish Vonnesse van Damme, and is quite close to the text in the Liber
Horn.44 There is no specific evidence that the Rôles were adopted as the
official Scottish sea law, but that the extant copies are all part of compilations
of the main Scottish laws does suggest that they were in common use
throughout the country. This means that the thirteenth-century basis of
maritime law in France, England, Scotland and parts of the Low Countries
was the same, though the laws developed differently from then.45
The Rôles d’Oléron did not originate in one port, as the name might
suggest. The original of these written laws was presumably kept on the island
of Oléron and transcribers of the text subsequently joined the name of the
island to the law: ‘Ceo est la copie de la chatre Doliroun des jugemenz de la
meer’.46 The text is a compilation of customary laws. Although the name
Jugemens de la mer and the remark ‘et cest le jugement en ceo cas’ at the end
of each article suggest that the regulations were judgements of a court in
concrete cases, Krieger argued that they were in fact Weistümer (decisions
made for hypothetical cases which were to be used in future lawsuits).47
The Rôles originally consisted of twenty-four articles, but because articles
were sometimes omitted, divided or combined, the surviving copies
sometimes include different numbers of ‘judgements’. The subjects regulated
by the Rôles d’Oléron include payment of freightage in case of shipwreck,
reimbursement of damages to cargo and ship in cases of jettison, other forms
of general average and ship collision, loading and unloading of goods and
securing of both ship and cargo, duties of pilots and their payment, breaches
of contract as regards the settled time of loading, authority of the skipper to
sell the ship (only in accordance with the owners), shipping gear or goods in
cases of emergency and the necessity to confer with merchants as to the
appropriate time to sail. The relationship between skipper and crew is
regulated as regards hiring and firing of crew, responsibilities of the skipper
in taking care of hurt or sick mariners, in supplying them with food and in
keeping the peace, and duties of the crew as regards their presence aboard
ship.
In the second half of the fourteenth century a new written sea law appeared
in the Netherlands: the Ordinancie ende insettinghe die de coopluden ende
schippers holden mit malcander.48 It contains regulations with regard to
shipping from the Zuiderzee to the rest of Europe. In most manuscripts, the
text is combined with the Vonnesse van Damme and is placed either before or
after it. It has been argued that the Ordinancie (for trade with northern
Europe) was compiled to supplement the Rôles d’Oléron (for trade with
western Europe) and that the first was never meant to stand by itself.49 In two
manuscripts from the early fifteenth century the law is, however, presented
on its own.50 One manuscript derives from Amsterdam, which is significant
because the Ordinancie is sometimes considered to originate in this town.51
In addition, there are no signs in the Ordinancie that it was written as a
supplement. The Rôles or Vonnesse are not named in the Ordinancie and both
laws regulate similar subjects. Two of the articles from the Ordinancie were
even copied verbatim from the Rôles.52 If the text was made to supplement
the Vonnesse, it would not have been necessary to copy two of its articles.
Moreover, the Ordinancie was not created but is instead a compilation of
existing customs.53
These customs also relate to payment of freightage in cases of shipwreck,
reimbursement of damages after jettison, other forms of general average and
ship collision, loading, unloading and securing of cargo and costs of this,
duties of pilots and their payment, the authority of the skipper to sell goods in
case of an emergency, hiring and firing of crew, and rights and duties of
mariners when they get hurt. Other subjects that are dealt with are
bottomry54, overloading, the obligations of the skipper in the event of his
being unable to complete the journey because of a significant decrease in the
seaworthiness of the vessel during the voyage and the use of lighters in cases
of emergency or when entering or leaving the Zuiderzee through Marsdiep or
Vlie.55 A significant part of the Ordinancie thus deals with similar subjects to
the Rôles, though at times a development in regulation is recognisable, as will
be discussed in the next chapter. The inclusion of bottomry is another sign of
continuing developments. The articles on the use of lighters, on the other
hand, are related to the specific circumstances of sailing from or to the
Zuiderzee.
The oldest extant text of the Ordinancie is probably contained in the
Amsterdam manuscript, dated to 1413.56 This text belongs to the larger group
of manuscripts in which the Vonnesse van Damme are presented before the
Ordinancie. Telting has argued that the text included in a seventeenth-century
copy of the sea law from Staveren is older, but this is not likely, since some
articles in the copy from Staveren show corruptions, whereas those from
Amsterdam, for example, do not.57 Together with two copies from the early
and late fifteenth century respectively, which were both used by the Hanse
kontor (trading station) in Bruges, the Staveren copy forms the group of
known manuscripts in which the Ordinancie comes before the Vonnesse.58
The basic text of the Ordinancie consisted of twenty-seven or twenty-eight
articles: in some versions Article 3 was divided into two separate articles. In
some manuscripts Articles 2 and 3 were omitted, while these two articles,
sometimes together with three new articles, were added again at the end (see
Table 1.1). In the copy from Groningen two articles from the Hamburg Ship
Law were added at the end. No translations of the Ordinancie were made in
the Middle Ages like there were of the Rôles d’Oléron, and the area of
dissemination would therefore have been smaller than that of the Rôles, but
there are manuscripts from Flanders, the Netherlands, northern Germany,
Denmark and Prussia which include the text. The development of a
compilation of Vonnesse, Ordinancie and Lübeck law in the later fifteenth
century, which was known as Waterrecht, will be discussed below. First, we
need to focus on parallel developments in the towns of northern Europe,
especially in northern Germany.
Table 1.1: The articles in selected manuscripts of the Ordinancie.
 The towns in northern Germany, Hamburg and Lübeck in particular, were
largely autonomous and as such developed their own town laws, or adopted
laws from other towns. The latter happened especially when daughter towns
were founded, such as the large group of towns established by Lübeck, whose
law was thus disseminated widely in the coastal regions of the southern
Baltic. Between these towns a common legal tradition existed. The larger
trading towns especially, which were the most autonomous, developed their
own laws. This was the case for Hamburg, Lübeck, Riga, Kampen and
(eventually) Danzig. Though some mutual influencing took place, some
developments in these laws clearly stand on their own, as will be discussed
further below.
In contrast to the customary sea laws, which were written to be applied in a
large area, the maritime regulations in the town laws were restricted to
skippers, shipowners, crew members and merchants of a single town.59 All
citizens were bound to these laws by an oath which they took annually.60 The
customary sea laws were only valid when they were accepted by a group of
people as the law, as in Bruges and in some towns in the Netherlands, or
when they were enforced by royal authority, as in France and England. That
the autonomous northern European trading towns developed their own
maritime regulations suggests that they did not adopt the customary laws,
though some did own copies of these. These copies were presumably only
used in cases in which the town law was incomplete.61
The customary sea laws contained, moreover, private law restricted to the
problems that arose during the journey and to those involved in the sea trade,
whereas urban maritime regulations also contained public law relating to
harbours and wreck.62 Finally, the fines that needed to be paid for a breach of
rules were (at least partly) paid to the town, whereas in the customary sea
laws they fell to the injured party. Besides these differences in substantive
law between the customary laws and the maritime regulations in the town
laws, there are no major distinctions with regard to the subjects covered in
these compilations. Smaller disparities will be treated in the next chapter.
The oldest extant manuscript including the Lübeck Town Law was written
in Latin around 1227. Other manuscripts that have survived are those written
for Reval in 1257 and for Danzig in 1263.63 These Latin versions of the town
law display only two articles with regard to sea law, apart from that for
Reval, which has six.64 The first law in Low German was formulated in the
late 1260s or early 1270s.65 The oldest extant copy is from around 1275 and
was composed for Elbing (which had already received a now missing Latin
copy around 1240). Soon thereafter, a copy was made for Reval (1282). In
these late-thirteenth-century copies of the Town Law the number of articles
regarding maritime law ranges from nine to eleven.66 These articles regarded
the payment of freightage after shipwreck, reimbursement of damages in
cases of jettison, of other forms of general average and of ship collision, and
hire of ships.
A reform of the law by Albrecht von Bardewik in 1294 did not result in a
separate section on sea law, but five years later this chancellor of Lübeck
compiled a separate maritime law which was partly based on the Hamburg
Ship Law.67 In the first half of the fourteenth century, the Ordnung für
Schiffer und Schiffsleute was issued. In seven articles the rights and duties of
the crew relating to particular chores on board ship were laid down.68 The
separate regulation of these rights and duties indicates that relations between
skipper and crew were sometimes problematic.
The oldest extant town law of Hamburg is that edited by the notary Jordan
von Boizenburg in 1270, which survives in copies from Stade (1279) and
Riga (1294/7). Before this Low German law (known as the Ordeelbook)
appeared, a Latin version had been in existence from around 1225.69 The
section on sea law, Van Schiprechte, which is found in the Riga copy and in a
later edition from Hamburg (1301/6), is missing from the Stade manuscript.70
In a letter from Hamburg to Lübeck of 1259, a sea law is, however, referred
to as scipseghelinghe, indicating that, initially, a separate tradition of town
and sea law existed.71 This is confirmed by the introductory words of the
section on maritime law in the 1301/6 edition, which suggest that the
shipping law was ordained separately: ‘The common council and the
burghers of the town of Hamburg have ordained and published this shipping
law.’72 The sea law was probably joined with the town law between 1279 and
1294/7. Between this last date and 1301/6, seventeen regulations were added
to the Hamburg Ship Law, bringing the total to twenty-eight, which suggests
that many developments took place that needed regulation.73 Besides being
used in part by Lübeck and Riga, the law was adopted by Bremen between
1303 and 1308 and by Oldenburg in 1345, resulting in some legal
commonalities between these towns.74 A revision of the Hamburg Town
Law, carried out by Hermann Langenbeke in 1497, will be discussed below.
Before copying Hamburg’s Town Law, Riga had already made use of
another law. The town had been founded in 1201 by the bishop of Livonia,
who remained lord of the town thereafter. He provided the town with a form
of Gotlandic town law (jus Gutorum), similar to an older form of Wisby
Town Law.75 Merchants from Gotland had helped the bishop Christianise the
area, and relations between the town and the island were close.76 That Riga’s
town law was rooted in that of Wisby did not stop its burghers from changing
it. Already in 1238 they asked their bishop for permission to change the law
to fit their demands.77
Between 1294 and 1297 Riga copied the complete Hamburg Town Law.
Before then hardly any relation between Hamburg and Riga can be
demonstrated.78 Hamburg law was, however, more comprehensive and
systematic than that of Lübeck at this time, and this may have contributed to
Riga’s preference. Moreover, Riga and Lübeck were not on the best of terms
politically in the late thirteenth century because of a conflict of interest
between Lübeck and Riga’s ally Wisby as regards the trading station at
Novgorod. This conflict was solved in 1297.79 At the start of the fourteenth
century, the Riga council used its copy of the Hamburg laws to revise the
Riga Town Law. Besides some Hamburg regulations, this revised law
consists of older Riga laws and Lübeck law. The section on sea law was
subsequently supplemented with five articles (Articles 18–22) during the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.80 The final product thus consists of various
elements, both originating in Riga and not, but as a whole it is unique to
Riga.
The maritime regulations in this revised Riga Town Law relate to the usual
subjects of shipwreck, jettison and other forms of general average, ship
collision, overloading, the costs of loading and unloading, payment of
freightage when the ship has left the harbour and payment of the crew, but
also to more particular subjects such as nocturnal collisions, the division of
costs of bringing goods into town when the harbour is frozen over, the use of
the Rigan flag, salvage of goods on the beach and at sea, costs of a
pilgrimage in case of an emergency situation, the hire of barges and, finally,
arrangements of selling parts of the ship and deciding on the use of the vessel
in case of several shipowners.
In Novgorod, the German merchants at the kontor made use of the Skra.
The first Skra of about 1270 does not include articles regarding maritime law.
The second Skra, on the other hand, does and shows clear influences from
Lübeck law. It was written in 1295–6 to promote Lübeck’s bid for hegemony
in Novgorod and includes the stipulation that appeals from Novgorod’s court
had to be sent to Lübeck. Up until that time Wisby had featured as
Novgorod’s higher court. Novgorod’s third Skra from 1325 shows a minor
setback in Lübeck’s plans to control the kontor: appeals were permissible to
both Lübeck and Wisby, which were then to decide jointly on contested
matters.81 The third Skra is very similar to the second, but its differences
were based on Wisby law.82 As regards the articles of maritime law (Articles
38, 58 and 59, on jettison, cutting masts and freighting goods respectively),
only Article 38 was amended in accordance with Wisby law. Neither later
forms of the Skra (there were seven editions in total) nor any of the kontor’s
by-laws touch upon sea law.83
The last town law which needs to be discussed here is that of Kampen,
which developed separately from the other town laws discussed so far. In two
compilations of laws from the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries
(Dat Boeck van Rechte and Dat Gulden Boeck) a few regulations can be
found which are unique in northern European maritime law, as will be shown
in the next chapter.84 Others regulate similar subjects to articles from the
Ordinancie, which is due to the fact that both the Kampen Town Law and
Ordinancie regulated shipping on the Zuiderzee, and concerned
circumstances specific to an inland sea. This relation will be discussed further
below.85
In the fifteenth century, existing laws were combined in order to create
compilations that were comprehensive regarding subject matter and/or
included laws from the entire northern European region.86 Only the Hanseatic
statutes, which appeared all through the fifteenth century, were newly
developed. In these, the discussed development of larger ships and alterations
in the organisation of trade come to the fore.
Compilations of the Vonnesse van Damme and the Ordinancie had
appeared from the late fourteenth century. These were generally referred to as
Waterrecht. In three Danish manuscripts from the middle of the fifteenth
century, two articles were added at the end.87 The first is from the Lübeck
Town Law of 1294 (Article 137), the second is the first article of the
Ordnung für Schiffer und Schiffsleute, also from Lübeck. The version of the
Ordinancie in these manuscripts is the shortest that exists.88 In a manuscript
from the second half of the fifteenth century, also from Denmark, fourteen
articles from the Ordnung (Articles 1–6), from an unknown source (Article 7)
and from the Lübeck Town Law of 1294 (Articles 8–14) were copied,
followed by the texts of the Vonnesse and the Ordinancie plus the two
articles noted above.89 The first fourteen articles were written by a different
scribe and were numbered separately, indicating that this is the first instance
that these regulations were combined. It is also unlikely that the compilation
came into existence deliberately, as all articles would then have been written
by a single scribe and numbered consecutively. A consecutive numbering
from 1 to 66 was, however, only added at a later stage. The first and last
articles are identical (Article 1 of the Ordnung).90
 This manuscript was probably used for the first printed edition of the
compilation by Godfried von Gemen (Copenhagen 1505) headed ‘Her
beghynt dat hogheste water recht’ (‘here begins the highest water law’).91 At
the end he added ‘Here ends the Gotlandic water law which the common
merchant and skippers have statuted and made at Wisby, so that all men may
conform to this.’92 This name of Gotlandic water recht has been the cause of
much confusion ever since, but the compilation is still known as the Gotland
or Wisby Sea Law.93 It is certain, however, that the laws were not statuted at
Wisby, because the compilation consists wholly of laws originating
elsewhere and, as said, probably did not come into existence deliberately.
The most likely explanation for Gemen’s title is that the original manuscript
of the compilation, which he used for the edition, was kept on Gotland, just
as the original charter of the Rôles was preserved on Oléron.94
A second printed version of the compilation appeared in Amsterdam in
1532, headed ‘Hier beghint dat hogheste und dat olste water recht van
Wisbij’ (‘here begins the highest and oldest water law of Wisby’).95 This
edition is mentioned by authors regularly, but has been wrongly assumed to
have been the model for the third edition of the text (Lübeck 1537), which
includes five articles from the Ordinancie that are missing in the 1505
edition.96 Instead, the 1532 version is a copy of the 1505 edition with five
articles omitted (Articles 7, 11, 20, 24 and 38). The 1532 edition may in its
turn have been the model for two manuscripts of the Gotland Sea Law from
Lübeck written in 1533 and 1537, because these manuscripts omit the same
articles and show other similarities too. Judging by an addition to the title of
the Ordinancie in the 1532 edition, the compiler had recognised this part of
the text as being Netherlandish: ‘datmen in Hollant, Zeeland, Vlaenderen
holdende zyn’ (‘which is held in Holland, Zeeland and Flanders’). The
Lübeck laws and the Vonnesse were, on the other hand, considered ‘Wisby
law’: ‘ende mit dat Wisby rechte dat is dat olste waterrecht’ (‘and with the
Wisby law which is the oldest water law’). This addition can also be found in
the two Lübeck manuscripts, but not in any of the subsequent editions.
The 1537 Lübeck printed edition was partly based on that of 1532 or on
one of its manuscript copies from Lübeck, but the remaining part is based on
another model, including some articles which are missing in the other
editions.97 This 1537 version was subsequently translated and printed many
times throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.98 The
dissemination of the Waterrecht (including Lübeck law) in the fifteenth
century was, however, limited. The only known manuscripts are from the
Danish kingdom, although Danzig may also have owned a copy in the second
half of the fifteenth century.99 The spread of the Gotland and Wisby Sea
Laws in the sixteenth century lies outside the scope of this study.
Another compilation in which various laws were joined together, although
in a different way, is the ship law of the revised Hamburg Town Law of
1497. Dr Hermann Langenbeke, a lawyer and Hamburg’s burgo-master from
1482, revised the shipping laws of 1301 with the help of the Vonnesse van
Damme, the Ordinancie and the Roman Lex rhodia de jactu. The result was a
systematised, modernised sea law, the constituent parts of which were no
longer immediately recognisable.100 The 1497 Ship Law was probably the
only reasonably up-to-date compilation of the late fifteenth century.101
From the late fourteenth century, the Hanse regularly issued statutes
regulating trade and shipping in its region of influence. As time progressed,
these became increasingly more extensive, but they were never systematically
organised during the Middle Ages. Statutes regarding maritime law can
therefore be found scattered throughout the Hanserecesse (minutes of the
Hanseatic meetings) of 1378, 1380, 1412, 1417, 1418, 1434, 1435, 1441,
1447 and 1470.102 Some statutes were repeated regularly and in the 1447
recess all the statutes of the preceding years were collated. This compilation
included twenty-five articles regarding sea law. In 1470 only a few of these
were repeated. As Jahnke has correctly pointed out, therefore, it would be
inaccurate to speak of a Hanseatic sea law in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries.103 Indeed, when the Common Merchant in London in 1476 desired
to procure a sea law to be able to settle problems they had been experiencing
with seamen, the Hanseatic representatives at Lübeck responded that they did
not have an approved comprehensive law.104
The statutes are generally ad hoc regulations concerning problems that
arose at a particular time. They were therefore relatively up to date when
drawn up and give a more accurate picture than the sea laws of legal practice
(or ideals) at a certain time.105 The fact that some statutes were repeated over
and over again indicated that the need for some rules persisted. Duties of
shipowners towards the Hanse, obligations of skippers towards shipowners
and competences of skippers towards the crew were regulated in these
statutes.106 In 1482 a separate Schifferordnung appeared, regulating the
dealings between skipper and crew.107 The twenty-four articles of this
Schifferordnung had been drafted by Lübeck after complaints about
unreliable seamen by Hanseatic skippers in 1480 and were accepted by the
Wendish towns shortly thereafter, after also having been approved by
Danzig.108
A good example of the fifteenth-century tendency to create collections of
sea laws is a manuscript from the Hanseatic kontor at Bruges which is known
as the Flandrischer Copiar Nr. 9 and which is now kept in the Lübeck
Archives. It was written between 1485 and 1509 and was kept publicly in the
house of the Oosterlinges.109 The manuscript holds a collection of Hanseatic
statutes from 1434, 1441 and 1447, the Ordinancie, the Vonnesse van
Damme, a statute about salvage, some articles about seamen’s pay when the
ship has taken an alternate route and the Schifferordnung of 1482.110
During the three centuries that have been discussed in this overview of the
history of maritime law in northern Europe, there were many different
developments, sometimes occurring consecutively, sometimes in parallel in
the various regions. The laws themselves can be divided into two main
groups: the customary sea laws and the maritime regulations as part of a town
law. The Scandinavian sea laws, which were dealt with separately here
because they play only a minor role in this study, should be assigned to the
second group as they were laid down for a clearly defined region and people.
The citizens in this region, whether country, province or town, were bound to
this law by an oath. The customary sea laws, on the other hand, were adhered
to only when they were accepted by an undefined group of people as the law
or when they were enforced by a national authority as in England and France,
and possibly Scotland. Besides that, the customary laws were restricted to
private law, whereas the maritime regulations in the town laws, in general,
were not. With regard to content, some subjects were regulated in all or most
of the laws, though this does not mean that they were dealt with similarly,
whereas others appear only in one or two compilations. Some laws are also
more comprehensive than others. The most important subjects, which are
dealt with in all of the laws, are shipwreck, general average and ship
collisions.
Although copies of the customary sea laws were widely disseminated
throughout the region, many towns had their own maritime regulations; these
would have been used in the first instance. When these towns had a copy of
one of the customary sea laws, it would presumably only have been used
when the town law proved incomplete. Another possibility is that these
compilations were kept in the towns for the purpose of becoming acquainted
with the law that was utilised elsewhere. There was some mutual influencing
between the regulations of some of the towns, but the town laws of Lübeck,
Hamburg, Riga, Kampen, Wisby and Danzig were clearly different, as will be
analysed further in the next chapters.
In the fifteenth century first attempts were made at compiling laws to
create texts that were more widely usable. The spread of the Waterrecht, a
compilation of the customary sea laws and maritime regulations from
Lübeck, was too limited in the Middle Ages for the law to be called common.
The revised Hamburg Ship Law, on the other hand, only came into existence
in 1497 and remained restricted to the town of Hamburg. Finally, the
Hanseatic regulations enacted from the late fourteenth century were meant to
be adopted by all the Hanse towns, but there were many towns in northern
Europe that did not belong to this league.111 Moreover, these statutes were by
no means comprehensive, only regulating cases for which no satisfactory
rules existed.
Based on these observations, it must be concluded that none of the written
sea laws that were compiled and developed during the latter part of the
Middle Ages were available throughout northern Europe. It would therefore
be inaccurate to speak of a common maritime law as regards the written
compilations of sea laws. Since the different compilations may, however,
have contained similar regulations that were valid throughout the area, the
content of the various written laws will be compared next.

Landwehr, ‘Seerecht’, col. 1,596. The skipper was served by his personal servants and the
1 relation between them was regulated by other laws. The risks of the sea voyage would be borne
by the shipowner alone.
2 Landwehr, ‘Seerecht’, col. 1,596.
3 Crumlin-Pedersen, ‘Ships as indicators of trade’, 15.
4 A similar development seems to have taken place in Slav shipbuilding. Crumlin-Pedersen,
‘Ships as indicators of trade’, 17.
Ibid. 16–17. The sizes of such ships varied in accordance with their function: small coastal
5 vessels could carry an average of five tons whereas the deep-sea cargo carriers were built to be
freighted with fifty to sixty tons of goods.
Hocker, ‘Technical and organizational development’, 22; Bill, ‘Schiffbau im frühen 13.
Jahrhundert’, 87. Clinker-built ships could be constructed to similarly large sizes as cogs (if not
larger). In the fifteenth century some very large clinker-built (war)ships were constructed in
6 England (Jesus, built in 1416, measuring 1,000 tons and Grace Dieu, built in 1418, of 1,400
tons). Similarly, two sixteenth-century royal Danish flagships could carry about 800 tons:
 Engelen (1509) and Maria (1517). Bill, ‘Cargo vessels’, 104.
7 Crumlin-Pedersen, ‘Ships as indicators of trade’, 18.
8 Ibid. 19.
9 Bill, ‘Cargo vessels’, 105.
10 Hocker, ‘Technical and organizational development’, 23, 25.
In their designs, the southern shipbuilders made use of ‘arithmetic relationships between
11 primary hull dimensions and some fairly complex geometric calculations’. Hocker, ‘Technical
and organizational development’, 21.
12 Ibid. 21.
13 Müller-Boysen, Kaufmannsschutz und Handelsrecht, 48, 104.
14 V. der Decken, Seearbeitsrecht im Hamburger Stadtrecht, 34; O’Sullivan, Ahndung von
Rechtsbrüchen, 11.
15 V. der Decken, Seearbeitsrecht im Hamburger Stadtrecht, 42. This was, for example, the case
if the skipper decided to cast goods. See Chapter 2.
16 V. der Decken, Seearbeitsrecht im Hamburger Stadtrecht, 24.
17 O’Sullivan, Ahndung von Rechtsbrüchen, 36.
18 Bill, ‘Cargo vessels’, 94–5.
19 Müller-Boysen, Kaufmannsschutz und Handelsrecht, 137. Muller-Boysen argued that being a
stýrimaðr and owning part of the ship was a sign of high social status.
Müller-Boysen, Kaufmannsschutz und Handelsrecht, 139. Pappenheim, Landwehr and V. der
Decken wrote that all men involved in a venture freighted an equal amount of goods and that
the profit of the extra goods that were loaded was shared equally among them (based on
20 Bergen, art. 5): Pappenheim as cited in V. der Decken, Seearbeitsrecht im Hamburger
Schiffrecht, 32, n. 138, and Landwehr, ‘Seerecht’, col. 1,600. Such a venture is similar to one of
the forms Scandinavian trading ventures (felágh) could take, but these were not necessarily
synonymous with shipping ventures. The other laws show no evidence that this was standard
practice. See Müller-Boysen, Kaufmannsschutz und Handelsrecht, 128, 139.
21 The name signifies market law, although the literal meaning is Birchisland Law. Edition in
Stadtrecht für Bergen, ed. Meisner, 310–458, farmanna logh, 450–7.
22 A few local differences remained in the new law, and the regions thus kept their own local
laws.
23 Just as for the regions, all four towns had their own version with small differences.
24 Edition of the Bergen Town Law in Stadtrecht für Bergen, ed. Meisner, 258–301.
25 Edition of the Farmanna lœg in Stadtrecht für Bergen, ed. Meisner, 458–81.
The laws, also known as Graugans, were handed down in two manuscripts from the second
26 half of the thirteenth century. The sea law is only found in the older of these: Konungsbók
(1258–60). Isländisches Recht, ed. Heusler, xi.
27 Landwehr, ‘Seerecht’, col. 1,600. Edition in Helsinge-Lagen, ed. Schlyter (Lund 1844).
28 Older forms of the law of Wisby formed the basis for the third Novgorod Skra from 1325 and
also influenced the town law in Riga. Hasselberg, Visby Stadslag, 375.
29 Edition in Wisby Stadslag och Sjörätt, ed. Schlyter, 1–182.
30 Hasselberg, Visby stadslag, 361–2. Ebel, ‘Über skandinavisch-deutsche Stadtrechts
beziehungen’, 328–9, 331.
 Edition of the Schleswig Town Law in Danmarks gamle Købstadlovgivning, ed. Kroman, 3–17.
31 Edition of the Flensburg, Åbenra and Haderslev Town Laws in ibid. 91–135 (c. 1300), 243–51
(1335), 265–76 (1292) respectively.
32 Hasselberg, Visby stadslag, 359–60.
33 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 133.
34 See also Chapter 5.
35 Chapter 37, edition in Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 514–15.
Krieger, Ursprung und Wurzeln, 71: between 1224 and 1286, but most likely in, or shortly
before, 1286. Scholars before Krieger mostly dated the Rôles to the twelfth century (for
example, Black Book, ed. Twiss, i, lvii–lxiii; Biederstedt, ‘Eine neue Handschrift des
Seerechtes von Damme’, 26), whereas others dated it to the eleventh century (for example, Lois
Maritimes, ed. Pardessus, i, 298–301), but Krieger makes a good case for the thirteenth century
(for a complete overview of authors up to 1970, see Krieger, Ursprung und Wurzeln, 40–2).
36 The year in which the Rôles were sealed is given in some French copies as 1286, whereas some
others stated it to be 1266. Krieger argues that this last date was the result of a copying mistake
since the manuscripts with the year 1286 were written earlier. Krieger, Ursprung und Wurzeln,
39. Ward, World of the Medieval Shipmaster, 20, recently suggested that scholarly opinion
agrees on a twelfth-century origin and also rekindled Twiss’s theory, dismissed by Krieger, that
two traditions of the Rôles existed. Krieger suggested rather to divide the manuscripts up by
various regions. Krieger, Ursprung und Wurzeln, 7. This was recently underwritten by
Schweitzer, Schiffer und Schiffsmann, 24.
Black Book, ed. Twiss, i, lviii. After having been shipwrecked in 1192 on his return voyage
from the Holy Land, King Richard I was captured and handed over to Emperor Henry VI of
Germany, who set him free only in 1194. Richard subsequently returned to England, travelling
37 through Flanders and not via Oléron. Moreover, the Rôles show no sign that somebody as
important as a king had anything to do with its ‘codification’. Krieger, Ursprung und Wurzeln,
43. Cf. Ward, World of the Medieval Shipmaster, 20, who wrote ‘reputedly formulated by
Richard Coeur de Lion’ without further comment.
The oldest extant copy, dating from the early fourteenth century and now located in London
Metropolitan Archives, can be found in the Liber Horn (COL/CS/01/002, Ms. Liber Horn), a
38 manuscript compiled for one of the most important English lawyers of his time: Andrew Horn
(d. 1328), who was also a merchant in fish. Van den Auweele, ‘Zeerecht’, 221. The other
manuscript is the Liber Memorandum (early fourteenth century, London Metropolitan
Archives, COL/CS/01/003, Ms. Liber Memorandum).
39 Ward, World of the Medieval Shipmaster, 23.
A privilege from King Charles V of France gave Castilian merchants the right to bring their
maritime matters before the court of Harfleur and to be judged according to the ‘coutume de la
40 mer et les droiz de Layron’. Art. 42 of the ordonnance of April 1364, in Ordonnances des Roys
de France, eds Secousse et al., iv, 423–38 (art. 42 at 436). Ward, World of the Medieval
Shipmaster, 20.
41 The texts of the various manuscripts show that there were indeed several translations. See
Chapter 2.
42 Korthals Altes, Ons oudste Zeerecht, 4.
43 NLS, Bute Ms. 21246, ff. 172r–174v. The copy is preceded by four Scottish toll regulations
entitled ‘Of law and the custume of Schippis’, ff. 171r–171v.
44 A more extensive description and analysis of the Scottish translation of the Rôles d’Oléron is
 provided in Chapter 5.
Both in France and in England additions were made to the Rôles. See, for example, Ward,
45 World of the Medieval Shipmaster, with regard to England.

Krieger, Ursprung und Wurzeln, 120. Edition in ibid. 123–45. The quoted line is the first line of
the Liber Horn. Another edition, with an English tradition and commentary, was provided by
46 Ward more recently (World of the Medieval Shipmaster, 183–205), but this contains some very
minor mistakes in its transcription compared to Krieger, and a few misunderstandings in the
translation and commentary.
Krieger, Ursprung und Wurzeln, 31–2. About Weistum and hypothetische Urteilsfindung in
47 Germanic law see Ebel, Geschichte der Gesetzgebung, 15–21. The exception to this is art.
XVIII, where we find the remark ‘Et cest la custume en ceo cas’.
Telting, Alt-niederländische Seerechte, xii; Biben, ‘Geschiedenis van het Oud-Nederlandsche
Zeeregt’, 489. The title translates as ‘Ordinance and statute which the merchants and skippers
observe amongst themselves’. This is the title used in the versions of the text in a manuscript
from Staveren and in the manuscript from the Hanse kontor in Bruges (Ms. Bruges/Cologne).
In some other versions (such as the Privilegieboek of Amsterdam) the title is ‘Ordinancie die de
48 scipheers ende die coeplude mit malcander begheren [desire] van sciprecht’. In different
manuscripts the Ordinancie is claimed, through the title, to have originated in either
Amsterdam, Enkhuizen or Staveren; Telting (who published the text of the Ordinancie in four
versions in Die alt-niederländische Seerechte) argues in favour of Staveren. As with the Rôles
d’Oléron the actual place of origin is irrelevant, as the laws are codified customary law which
were presumably held in the Zuiderzee area before they were written up. With regard to this,
see Frankot, ‘De “Ordinancie van Staveren” ’ (forthcoming).
Landwehr, ‘Seerecht’, col. 1,602; Wolter, Schiffrechte der Hansestädte, 41; O’Sullivan,
Ahndung von Rechtsbrüchen, 42; Jahnke, ‘Hansisches Seerecht’, 46. The latter three claim that
49 the Ordinancie was handed down only with the Vonnesse, though O’Sullivan’s wording
suggests that there may be exceptions (‘Vielmehr ist die Ordinantie in der Regel nur zusammen
mit der Vonnisse von Damme verbreitet und überliefert worden.’).
In the Privilegieboek of Amsterdam (c. 1413, edition in Telting, Alt-niederländische Seerechte,
50 27–45) and in the Oldermansboek of Groningen (c. 1434–9, edition in Het Oldermansboek, ed.
Feith, 22–33).
51 See above, n. 48.
52 Ordinancie, art. 5 and art. 7 = Oléron, art. 23 and art. 6 respectively.
53 For a more extensive discussion of this, see Frankot, ‘De “Ordinancie van Staveren” ’
(forthcoming).
In general, bottomry means using the ship as security against a loan to finance a voyage. In this
case, it is used as security against the sale of merchants’ goods in case of an emergency. If the
54 skipper cannot reimburse the value of the goods at the port of destination, the merchant is
entitled to claim part of the ship. For the article on bottomry, see Landwehr, Seerecht der
Hanse, 15; Cordes, ‘Flandrischer Copiar Nr. 9’, 132.
55 For the Marsdiep and Vlie, see Chapter 3.
A manuscript from Dordrecht from the late fourteenth century was mentioned by Den Tex in
56 1828, but its current whereabouts are unknown. The manuscript was in private possession in the
nineteenth century. Den Tex, ‘Oud-Nederlandsch Zeeregt’, 513–14.
57 Telting, Alt-niederländische Seerechte, x, xiv; Frankot, ‘De “Ordinancie van Staveren” ’
(forthcoming).
58 MS Bruges/Cologne and Flandrischer Copiar No. 9 (now kept in Lübeck) published in
Seerecht im Hanseraum, eds Jahnke and Graßmann, 23–31.
The words ‘town law’ in this study indicate a collection of customs, privileges and by-laws
(keur, Willkür). See Dilcher, ‘Stadtrecht’, 613. The term ‘customary sea laws’
59 (‘Seegewohnheiten’) has been adopted from Landwehr, Das Seerecht der Hanse, 13. Landwehr
also differentiates between these customary laws and the maritime regulations of the towns,
which may in their turn contain customs.

60 Dilcher, ‘Stadtrecht’, 613–14.

61 See Chapter 7.
62 Krieger, Ursprung und Wurzeln, 33.
Am Ende argued that the Reval manuscript is actually a copy of a text that was written for
Reval in 1257. Am Ende, Verfassungsgeschichte Lübecks, 48–9. See Chapter 4. For detailed
63 descriptions of the manuscripts and their relation, see Am Ende, Verfassungsgeschichte
Lübecks, 46–54; Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 201–2. For a separate tradition in eastern Europe, see
Ebel and Schelling, eds, ‘Das lateinische lübische Recht’, 93–105.
Art. 41, 90, 94–7, in Quellen des Revaler Stadtrechts, ed. Von Bunge, vol. II. Jahnke states
64 there are nine articles in the oldest edition of the town law (‘Hansisches Seerecht’, 45),
presumably referring to the oldest Low German edition.
65 Soon after 1267, before 1282: Am Ende, Verfassungsgeschichte Lübecks, 74; between 1260
and 1282 (perhaps between 1260 and 1276): Frensdorff, Das lübische Recht, 65
66 See Chapter 4.
67 This relationship is discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 5.
68 LUB III, no. 112; HUB II, no. 667.
Reincke, ‘Das hamburgische Ordeelbook’, 88. The word Ordeelbook (book of judgements) is
69 probably a translation of the Latin Liber iudicorum which could mean both book of laws and
book of judgements. Bilderhandschrift. Erläutert von Reincke, 138.
This manuscript is wrongly dated 1292 by some authors. Bilderhandschrift. Erläutert von
Reincke, 139–40. Edition in Stadt-, Schiff- und Landrechte Hamburgs, ed. Lappenberg, 75–86.
Jahnke skips over the existence of the early Hamburg Sea Law (as well as the 1299 Lübeck Sea
Law), only presenting the relatively few articles in the Lübeck Town Law as an example of the
70 ‘scarcity’ of maritime regulations in the German town laws. He adds that these became more
extensive only in the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and were presented as a separate
section for the first time in the 1497 Hamburg Town Law. Jahnke, ‘Hansisches Seerecht’, 45–6.
He does mention the adoption of Hamburg regulations in Riga and Lübeck in 1270 [sic] and
1299 respectively later on. Ibid. 58.
71 HUB I, no. 538 (1259)
72 Hamburg 1301/6, art. 1. ‘De meine raet unde dhe borghere van der stad van Hamborch hebbet
dit schiprecht gewilkoret unde uth ghegheven.’
73 See Table 5.1. The contents of these laws will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
74 Wolter, Schiffrechte der Hansestädte, 32.
This town law of Riga has survived in a statute of 1227–8, consisting of forty-eight Latin
articles, which was written for the burghers of Reval who had chosen to use Riga law in their
town. There is no maritime law in this code. That this law was based on Gotland law is testified
only by charters. The older Wisby Town Law has not survived and it is therefore impossible to
compare the two. Frensdorff, ‘Das Stadtrecht von Wisby’, 65; Quellen des rigischen
75 Stadtrechts, ed. Napiersky, xi–xiv. The term jus Gutorum came up for the first time in the
1220s in a conflict between bishop and town about the election of a town judge. Frensdorff,
‘Stadtrecht von Wisby’, 60. The term denotes the laws of the German population on Gotland.
Frensdorff, ‘Stadtrecht von Wisby’, 63.

76 Frensdorff, ‘Stadtrecht von Wisby’, 60.

77 Ibid. 64.
78 Only two privileges from the count of Holstein to allow the Riga burghers to trade in Hamburg
free of toll (from 1251 and 1254) survive. Frensdorff, ‘Stadtrecht von Wisby’, 78.
79 Frensdorff, ‘Stadtrecht von Wisby’, 79–80.
80 Landwehr, ‘Haverei’, 113. Edition in Quellen des rigischen Stadtrechts, ed. Napiersky, 194–
200.
81 Frensdorff, ‘Stadtrecht von Wisby’, 83. From 1373 Lübeck functioned as the sole high court for
the Novgorod kontor.
Frensdorff thought the influence worked in the opposite direction. Hasselberg argues, however,
82 that the editors clearly tried to bring the Skra into line with Wisby’s law. Hasselberg, Visby
stadslag, 358.
Edition of the Skras in Die Nowgoroder Schra, ed. Schlüter. That the Novgorod Skra refers to
83 maritime law despite its geographical position in the inland of Russia can perhaps be explained
by the fact that maritime cases were sometimes brought to the Novgorod kontor by German
merchants trading there.
84 Edition of the Kampen laws in Overijsselsche Stad-, Dijk- en Markeregten, vol. I.
85 See Chapter 5.
86 The exact function of the laws will be analysed in the following chapters.
87 Two manuscripts are kept in the University Library at Copenhagen, the third at the Royal
Library in Stockholm. Wisby Stadslag och Sjörätt, ed. Schlyter, lviii–lix.
88 The second and third articles are missing, as are the three articles that were added at the end in
some other manuscripts. See Table 1.1.
89 Royal Library Copenhagen, no. 3123, ff. 270v–282v. For a full description of this manuscript,
see Wisby Stadslag och Sjörätt, ed. Schlyter, lvi–lvii.
In the printed versions and some later manuscripts this last article is therefore shortened. For an
90 edition of this manuscript, compared with the texts of the other Danish manuscripts and the
1505 print, see Wisby Stadslag och Sjörätt, ed. Schlyter, codex I, 185–258.
91 Wisby Stadslag och Sjörätt, ed. Schlyter, xxvii–xxviii.
92 ‘Hyr eyndet dat gotlansche water recht dat de gemeyne kopman unde schippers geordineret un
ghemaket hebben to Wisby, dat sik alle man hyr na richten mach.’
Not until the nineteenth century were all constituent parts correctly identified. Many
93 suggestions have also been made as to the origin of the name of the law code, which cannot all
be considered here.
94 For more detailed research, see Chapter 4.
The only known copy is bound together with the Kaert vander Zee, printed by Jan Seversz, who
worked in Amsterdam. Both texts were probably printed together. Unfortunately, the surviving
95 copy (KB Brussels, sign. II 28.584 A LP) is incomplete. It breaks off in the middle of art. 58 of
the Wisby Sea Law. Nijhoff and Kronenberg, Nederlandsche Bibliografie (NK), nos 3,290
 (Kaert vander Zee) and 4,085. The edition would otherwise probably have had sixty-three
articles.
The 1532 Amsterdam edition was mentioned by Johan Hadorph in his Företaal tot Then
gambla Wijsby Siö-Rätt (Stockholm 1689), ff. [2a–b] (as cited in NK) as having been printed in
Holland. Lois Maritimes, ed. Pardessus, i, 401, 456–7, wrongly combined the date of 1532 with
another edition mentioned by Hadorph which was printed in Harlingen in 1646 and thus wrote
of an edition from Harlingen of 1532. Verwer, Nederlants See-Rechten, 37, on the other hand,
wrote of Amsterdam; he might therefore have seen the printed edition. Biben, ‘De Geschiedenis
van het Oud-Nederlandsche Zeeregt’, 238, added to the confusion by speaking of a Boeck der
Zeeregten printed in Middelburg in 1532. Wisby Stadslag och Sjörätt, ed. Schlyter, xix, xcv, did
96 not manage to trace a printed edition of 1532 and Holtius attached no credit to such an edition
but did somehow assume that later editions were translations of a Dutch text (‘Het Wisbysche
Zeeregt’, 426, 428). Three years before, he had still quoted Biben’s Middelburg edition: ‘Over
Wisby en het Wisbysche Zeeregt’, 222. Through the NK the text has finally been retraced.
Because of the inclusion of the capital of Gotland in the title, editions from 1532 onwards were
called Wisby Sea Law, in contrast to Gotland Sea Law being used for the 1505 edition. Because
of the recently discovered similarities between the editions from 1505 and 1532, both will here
be called Gotland Sea Law and the editions of 1537 onwards Wisby Sea Law.

97 The first twelve articles (Articles 1–14 of the 1505 text without Articles 7 and 11) are almost
verbatim the same as those in the 1532 edition.
Lübeck 1537, Danzig 1538, Copenhagen 1545, Stockholm 1549, Amsterdam 1551, and so on;
98 see Wisby stadslag och Sjörätt, ed. Schlyter, xcv. According to Schlyter, Hadorph also
mentioned a 1536 London edition, which he could not find. Ibid. xix.
99 See Chapter 4.
100 Bilderhandschrift. Erläutert von Reincke, 144. It is, however, possible to recognise individual
articles.
101 The constituents of the Waterrecht and Gotland Sea Law were of course from the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries.
HR 1, II, no. 156, 30 May 1378, § 23; no. 157, 30 May 1378, §§ 1–4. HR 1, II, no. 220, 21 Oct
1380, §§ 18–19. HR 1, VI, no. 68, 10 Apr 1412, §§ 32–4, 40–3, 47–8; B. §§ 28–34, 44. HR 1,
VI, no. 397, 20 May–28 Jul 1417, §§ 33–5, 109, 114–16; no. 398, 24 Jun 1417, §§ 14–23. HR
102 1, VI, no. 556, 24 Jun 1418, A. §§ 65–8; B. §§ 34–46; no. 557, 24 Jun 1418, §§ 20–32. HR 2, I,
no. 321, 5 Jun 1434, §§ 13, 20–2, 29–30. HR 2, I, no. 396, May 1435, §§ 1–6. HR 2, II, no.
439, 12 Mar 1441, §§ 22–4, 30–1. HR 2, III, no. 288, 18 May 1447, §§ 30–7, 40, 54, 55, 63–5,
79, 81–2, 88–95. HR 2, VI, no. 356, 24 Aug 1470, §§ 28, 31–3, 38–40, 42.
103 Jahnke, ‘Hansisches Seerecht’, 67.
104 HR 2, VII, no. 338, 28 May–20 Jun 1476, §§ 194.4, 203.5. Goetze, ‘Der Anteil Lübecks’, 137–
8.
105 O’Sullivan, Ahndung von Rechtsbrüchen, 196.
106 Landwehr, ‘Seerecht im Hanseraum’, 97–8.
107 HR 3, I, no. 367, 22 Apr 1482.
‘Forderungen der Schiffer betreffs der Ordnung des Verhältnisses zu ihrem Schiffsvolke’, HR
108 3, I, no. 318, Dec 1380; HUB X, no. 927, 18 Sep [14]81. Landwehr, ‘Seerecht im Hanseraum’,
113. See also Chapter 5.
109 For the definition of Oosterlinges, see Chapter 4, n. 70.
110 Edition in Seerecht im Hanseraum, eds Jahnke and Graßmann.
111 Even within the Hanse the statutes were not all accepted by the individual Hanse towns. See
also Chapter 3.
 2

Shipwreck, Jettison and Ship Collision in Maritime

Law

Of all things, in sea-shipping there are certain inevitabilities present in

nature and imposed by circumstances, which lead to the formation of
identical rules as regards content, regardless of geographical location or
the state of legal culture at a particular time.1

This quote, part of Landwehr’s argument that it cannot be assumed that

Roman law was adopted in Hamburg solely on the basis of a similarity in the
regulation of jettison, must be kept in mind when comparing the content of
the written laws which were introduced in the previous chapter. Too often the
influence of one law on another is assumed simply because they regulate
matters in a similar fashion. There are, however, certain preconditions in
every situation regulated by law, and only a limited number of solutions that
law can offer. It is only logical, then, that different law compilations should
sometimes come to similar solutions for a particular legal problem.2
The question that will be answered in this chapter is whether the written
law compilations available in northern Europe did indeed come to similar
solutions as regards the regulation of shipwreck, jettison and ship collision,
and thus whether there was communality in this respect, even if direct
influences cannot be established.3 To answer this question, the regulations of
all the written sea laws available in northern Europe concerning each of these
subjects will be compared. Special emphasis will be placed on those aspects
of the law that were likely to come up in court. These are the most relevant to
our research on legal practice in the town courts and represent the more
interesting legal problems. Another aspect considered will be the differences
within the legal compilations (for example when the Ordinancie and the
Rôles d’Oléron, both part of the Gotland and Wisby Sea Laws, regulated
matters differently). Did variations in the written laws continue to exist in
these compilations or were these eradicated?

Shipwreck

A skipper and his crew had many options to try and prevent wreckage in a
storm, but these efforts were not always successful. Besides the risk of losing
the ship and the cargo, there was, in the earlier Middle Ages, also a danger of
becoming enslaved or being killed on reaching the shore after a shipwreck, in
addition to having one’s goods confiscated.4 From about 1100 this risk
slowly subsided when the right of wreck became one of the regalia of kings.
Merchants’ lives were thereafter protected by the royal peace. Groups of
merchants would eventually be exempted from the law of wreck by privilege,
meaning that they were free to salvage their own goods or have them
salvaged, but shipwrecked persons were still occasionally robbed of their
goods. The risk of losing everything had, however, been reduced
significantly. Nonetheless, shipwreck remained one of the worst things that
could befall a vessel.
Although the law of wreck and everything related to it (salvage, salvage
money, and so on) is noted in some of the sea laws (mainly those of the
towns), the subject will not be handled here, as it is, strictly speaking, part of
land law. Objects that washed ashore fell under the jurisdiction of territorial
lords or, in some cases, towns. The subject is, moreover, large and interesting
enough to deserve separate research.5
The main question dealt with in the regulations regarding shipwreck was
the payment of freightage.6 This concerned how much freight had to be paid
and whether it was due for the whole cargo or only for those goods that were
saved. Most of the sea laws agreed as regards the second element: freightage
was due only for salvaged goods.7 The Wisby Town Law alone insisted upon
half freight for lost items. According to this law, full freight was due for
saved goods, and the same was stipulated in the Ordinancie, an article in the
Lübeck Town Law and the Hamburg Ship Law of 1497.8 The Hamburg Ship
Law of 1301/6 and the Lübeck Sea Law spoke merely of ‘freight’: ‘Where
(when) a ship breaks: from that which is salvaged of the cargo, the skipper
shall have his freight.’9 Since no further specifications were given, this would
have meant the amount of freightage as agreed before the journey, that is full
freight. Another article of the Lübeck Town Law (K 107/133) laid down half
freight. This article is slightly older than that stipulating full freightage
mentioned above, but it is unclear why two different rules have been included
in this law.10
According to the Rôles d’Oléron the merchants would only have to pay
freightage ‘de taunt, come la nef ad fet de veyage sil plest al mestre’: ‘for as
far as the ship has made its voyage if it pleases the master’.11 In some of the
versions of the Vonnesse van Damme this has not been translated accurately:
‘die vracht alzoe verre als die meester ghenoeghet’: ‘the freightage as far as it
pleases the master’.12 What is meant in the Rôles is freight pro rata itineris,
relative to the part of the journey that had been travelled. If the master so
chose, he could also repair the ship or hire another to complete the voyage.
The compilations of the Vonnesse and the Ordinancie would have included
two differing rules, but since the regulation from the Rôles had been
corrupted in the translation, it is likely that the full freight rule from the
Ordinancie was enforced in those places where the Gotland and Wisby Sea
Laws were used. The Scottish translation partly follows the French text (‘of
als fer as he has done his vayage’), leaving out ‘sil plest al mestre’. It also
speaks of ‘schipmen’ rather than merchants, which confuses the matter
somewhat.13
In the Hanseatic statutes of 1447 a freightage pro rata itineris was
established too, but only for vessels that wrecked after the midway point of
their journey. If they wrecked before that point, half freight was due.14 A by-
law from Danzig distinguished between ships that wrecked in the harbour or
within sight of it, and vessels that foundered further away, namely
‘afkennyngh des landes’. In the first case half freight was due for salvaged
goods; in the second full freightage had to be paid.15
When goods were salvaged after shipwreck, their condition would often
have deteriorated as a result of exposure to salt water. In spite of this,
merchants were expected to pay freightage. A decree from 1372 in the
Kampen Town Law provided another possibility: the merchants could give
up their goods instead of having to pay freightage: ‘mochte dat guet ligghen
laten vor die vracht’.16 This practice is called ‘abandon’ and was adopted by
the Hanse also, in 1447.17 The goal of abandonment was to shift some of the
loss in value of the goods caused by the shipwreck to the skipper, whereas
before this loss was borne solely by the merchants.18
Besides the payment of freightage after shipwreck, a few more questions
were regulated in the northern European laws, but most of these are restricted
to one or two law compilations. Some laws stipulated that it was the crew’s
duty to assist with the salvage and to save as much as possible of the ship and
its cargo.19 The Hanse from the early fifteenth century decreed punishments
for sailors who refused to help.20 The Bergen Town Law laid down that the
members of a shipping venture did not have to remain with a wrecked ship if
it had foundered in enemy territory.21 According to many of the laws, the
skipper was allowed to endeavour to repair the ship.22 The Rôles d’Oléron
stipulated that he was also allowed to hire another vessel to complete the
journey.
In the Hamburg Ship Laws of 1301/6 and 1497, the Lübeck Sea Law and
the Riga Town Laws, the order of salvage was established: people were to be
saved first, followed by the goods that could be salvaged easily (‘rede goet’)
and the ropes.23 Subsequently, the merchants would be allowed to take the
ship’s boat to save any goods that had drifted from the wreck.24 In the Wisby
Town Law, finally, the arrangements relating to a ship wrecking in the
town’s harbour were regulated. If it foundered there, it had to be removed
within a month in summer and within eight weeks in winter, on pain of a fine.
If the ship was not salvaged within this period and damage was caused
because of it, this had to be compensated.25
The rules regarding shipwreck in the written laws of northern Europe were
mainly restricted to the regulation of the payment of freight. This is largely
due to the fact that many of the consequences of shipwreck were covered by
the law of wreck, which is not discussed here. Insurance did not yet exist in
northern Europe and reimbursements for lost goods did not normally take
place.26 Besides similarities between the regulations with regard to some
elements, the laws varied as to how much freight should be paid: all or half of
it, or a freight pro rata itineris. The possibility to leave those goods that had
been damaged instead of paying freightage (‘abandon’) was laid down in the
Kampen Town Law and the Hanseatic statutes of 1447 only. Based on this
we have to conclude that no general rule in northern Europe existed in the
Middle Ages with regard to the payment of freight after shipwreck.

Jettison and other forms of general average

The theme of average is the most important, but also the most complicated, in
maritime law.27 The term itself (German Haverei; Dutch averij; French
avarie; Italian avaria; derived from the Arabian awārīa, meaning damaged
goods) does not appear in northern Europe until after 1500. This fits in with
the general picture of this region following a century or two behind the
Mediterranean with regard to technical, organisational and legal innovations
in the shipping business.28 The laws do, however, deal with those cases
which, in present-day law, would fall under the regulations of general
average. Starting with jettison, the principle of distributing damages amongst
all involved in a sea journey would be applied on increasingly more diverse
average cases as the Middle Ages progressed.
In present-day law, a distinction is made between general average,
particular average and petty averages.29 General average is a contribution
made by all parties concerned in a sea adventure towards a loss brought about
by the voluntary sacrifice of the property of one or more of the parties
involved, for the benefit of all. This includes jettison, the cutting down of the
mast, the cutting of ropes or cables, the slipping of the anchor, the deliberate
running aground of a ship to prevent shipwreck, the sailing for a port of
refuge for the same reason, the protection of the ship against enemies or
pirates and the payment of ransom to the same.30 In the Middle Ages, another
form of general average existed: when a ship was in danger of foundering, a
pilgrimage could be pledged to God in order to gain his mercy and prevent
shipwreck. The costs of this pilgrimage and an offering (lotelghelt) were
distributed among all involved in the same manner as the contribution for
jettison and this form of general average is therefore always directly related
to jettison in the sources.31
Particular average signifies the damage or partial loss incurred by a ship,
cargo or freight as a result of an unavoidable accident. It is borne by the
individual owners of the articles damaged. Petty averages are various small
charges that occur regularly and are necessarily paid by the master in the
usual course of a voyage, such as port charges, common pilotage and the like.
From the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, but in some cases already in the
Middle Ages, these costs were divided between the owners of the ship (to
one-third) and the owners of the goods (to two-thirds). In present times these
costs are generally paid by the owner(s) of the ship.32 In medieval northern
Europe, the distinction between these different forms of average was not
made, and only the main cases of general average were dealt with in most of
the laws: jettison and, related to it, the cutting down of the mast.33
The reason for or the aim of jettison
The reason jettison and other forms of average were practised was to prevent
even greater losses of life, ship and cargo. This aim is named in some of the
laws: ‘to save the bodies (lives) and the ship and the goods and the wines’ in
the Rôles d’Oléron; ‘to save life, ship and goods’ according to the article in
the Ordinancie concerned with the cutting down of the mast.34 Although the
older Lübeck and Hamburg laws do not mention this aim, it is referred to in
the 1259 letter from Hamburg to Lübeck: ‘for the protection of lives and in
order to save the goods’.35 In the 1497 Hamburg Ship Law, both jettison and
the cutting down of the mast were to be carried out to save ship and cargo.36
In other laws, the reason for the jettison or related measures was named:
‘were it that a ship was in distress’, ‘out of need’, ‘because of unfortunate
danger’, ‘because of an emergency through wind or other circumstances’,
‘where people are in distress through water’, ‘because life, ships and goods
are in danger’.37
Although some written laws specified that a jettison was to be carried out
because of a storm or bad weather (‘torment’, ‘par force del temps’, ‘by
onweder’), others only (or also) laid down a more general situation of distress
(‘noot’, ‘dor noet willen’, ‘infortunium’) as the reason for lightening the
ship.38 The laws did not distinguish between accidental circumstances and
situations caused by human error, for example when goods had to be cast
because the skipper had misjudged the danger of an approaching storm.39
This is important, as it means that the compensation for lost goods or gear is,
in general, divided among all parties on board, irrespective of careless acts.
As will become evident when dealing with ship collision, medieval law, in
general, only distinguished between intent and accident.40

The decision to jettison goods or cut down the mast

According to some of the Scandinavian laws, the majority of those on board
decided whether goods were to be cast or not.41 This is because, in the
Scandinavian shipping ventures, all on board were considered equal, and
decisions were made by majority vote. In the Rôles d’Oléron, the procedure
was regulated differently. If the skipper thought it necessary to cast goods
overboard, he had to ask permission for the jettison from the merchants. If
they did not agree to the casting, however, the skipper could still decide to
take action if he considered the situation sufficiently desperate. In this case, if
the ship subsequently came safely to land, a third of its crew had to swear the
jettison had taken place out of need.42 Thus, whereas in the Scandinavian
shipping ventures crew and merchants were still the same, in north-western
Europe (France, Flanders, England and Scotland) they had become two
different groups. The skipper had more power in the northwestern European
laws, as he could apparently overrule the merchants with the support of a
third of his crew. This is part of the developments regarding the position of
the skipper, who became increasingly more independent from the merchants
while on the ship, which was sketched in the first chapter. In the Ordinancie,
the law had developed further still; there the possibility that none of the
merchants was aboard the ship during the journey was taken into account:
‘And was it, that no merchant was in the ship and they had need to cast:
whatever the skipper thought best with the majority of his company, is what
they should do.’43
The Wisby Town Law and, under its influence, the third Novgorod Skra
also include consultations as part of the regulation of jettison. In both laws, it
was laid down that, in case of a conflict about the question of whether to cast
or not, the majority decided.44 In this case, it is not mentioned specifically
that the skipper had to be part of this majority, as he did according to the
Ordinancie. Judging by the similarity to the earlier Scandinavian laws, this
regulation from the Wisby Town Law, recorded in a version from 1341/4, is
probably a remnant of an older law.45 This older law was also adopted in the
Novgorod Skra of about 1325, where it replaced an article which had
originated in Lübeck and which made no mention of any consultations.46
In fact, none of the other town laws, except the revised Hamburg Ship
Law, in which Article 4 of the Ordinancie was adopted, laid down rules for
deliberations about whether or not to cast goods. According to Landwehr, a
similar practice may nonetheless have existed in the northern European
towns, since the north-western European and the Scandinavian laws agree on
this point.47 This is, however, uncertain.48 There is even less certainty as
regards the regulations that may have existed in the northern European towns
concerning the overruling of merchants by the skipper in cases of jettison,
since these were different in western Europe and Scandinavia.
As regards the cutting down of the mast, the Rôles d’Oléron and the
Ordinancie laid down similar rules to those for jettison, although only very
concisely.49 In the Ordinancie, for example, we read: ‘The skipper is held to
ask the merchants and tell them (complain to them) of his need.’50 The Wisby
Town Law, on the other hand, stipulated that the damages for the mast were
to be borne by the skipper alone; there was no need for him to consult the
merchants.51 Again, an older rule found its way into the fourteenth-century
law.52 In the third Novgorod Skra from 1325, this rule from the Wisby Town
Law was not adopted. Instead, the stipulation from the second Skra was
maintained, which had been copied from the Lübeck Town Law.53 The
revised Hamburg Ship Law is the only compilation to display a more
elaborate regulation, which resembles that regarding jettison.54
The Kampen Boeck van Rechte and Gulden Boeck do not mention the
consultation of the merchants in case of a jettison, but they do stipulate the
need for the skipper to seek approval from the people on the ship before
cutting down the mast: ‘the skipper cut down the mast or slipped the anchors
with council and consent of those people that were on the ship . . .’.55 This
rule may have come into existence at a later time than that on jettison, which
would explain why consultation is included only in the latter. But since the
difference was maintained in the Gulden Boeck, there is another possibility
for the distinction. In case of a jettison, the skipper had to compensate for
goods that were not his. It was in his own interest therefore not to cast goods
unless it was absolutely necessary. In case of the cutting down of the mast,
however, the merchants had to compensate for gear that was not theirs. If the
shipmaster was to acquire compensation from the merchants, it was necessary
to have the latter’s consent before the mast was discarded. It is possible,
therefore, that the skipper only needed to consult with the merchants in the
Kampen laws when the mast had to be cut, and not when goods had to be
cast. The same was most likely the case in thirteenth-century Hamburg,
Lübeck and Riga, as will be discussed below.56

The valuation of the goods

After the vessel had come safely to shore, compensation had to be made for
the goods that had been cast overboard to prevent the loss of the rest of the
cargo, the ship and the lives of the men aboard. First, the value of the goods
that had been lost and of those that had been saved had to be established.
Second, the costs of the damage had to be divided among all involved in the
sea journey. When, probably from the thirteenth century, the skipper (as
representative of the shipowner(s)) had to compensate towards the loss of
goods through jettison as well, the value of the ship and/or of the freight also
had to be set.
The value of the goods was, in general, assessed at the estimated selling
price of the goods in the port of destination. This is the case in the
Scandinavian laws in which the valuation of the goods is covered (the Bergen
Town Law, the Jónsbók and the Wisby Town Law), as well as in the Lübeck
Town Law and in both Novgorod Skras.57 The question is not regulated in
the older Hamburg Ship Law and the Lübeck Sea Law, but it does appear in
the additions to the revised Riga Town Law. There, the goods were valued
according to the market price in the port of origin.58 It is not known why
some laws specify the market price in the port of destination and others in the
port of origin.
The Kampen Boeck van Rechte stipulated that the merchants should state
the value of their goods under oath (‘toe eends oeren rechte’).59 When the
article was renewed in 1407 the provision had changed: ‘And the merchant
shall contribute with the value of his goods that remains after having paid
freight and other costs, the price being reckoned between the least and the
most, within fourteen days.’60 This definition was also adopted in the Gulden
Boeck (Article 5). The value of the goods was thus established at the average
of the cost and selling prices.
In the Rôles d’Oléron the value of the jettisoned goods was assessed
according to the price of the goods that had been saved: ‘Those [goods] that
will be jettisoned, should be appraised at the value of those that will come to
safety, which shall be sold and divided pound by pound among the
merchants.’61 Since the Rôles were written for the wine trade, and it would be
mostly wine that was cast, this rule made sense: the lost wine was valued
according to the price of the wine that was saved. On vessels that carried a
variation of goods, this would, however, have been difficult. What would
have happened, for example, when all goods of a particular sort had been
cast?
The section about the setting of the value of the goods and the division of
the damages in the Rôles d’Oléron has been translated differently in the
various versions of the Vonnesse van Damme:
Ende tgoed, datter gheworpen wart, wart ghepriist ten fuere van datter
behouden wort ende ghedeelt, van ponde te ponde, onder de
 cooplieden.62 (Codex Brugensis)
Unde dat goet, dat dar worpen was, scal sin geprijst in dem marct punt
na punttale, unde gedeelt under de cooplude up dat gud, dat dar
beholden wort.63 (Ms. Bruges/Cologne)
Ende het sal worden gepryst van ponde tot ponde en gedeelt onder den
coopluyden, op ‘t goed datter behouden wert.64 (Vonnesse)
The first of the three texts is the most clear-cut and stays closest to the
French, although even here parts of the article are missing. The other two
translations, of which one is probably a bad copy of the other, are hardly
understandable without comparison to the Rôles d’Oléron. The same is true
as regards the Scottish translation. There it says: ‘It sal be prisyt and made ilk
lib. utherys bruthyr betwx the chepmen’ (‘it shall be priced and every pound
made the other’s brother between the shipmen’).65 What becomes evident
when considering these translations is that they were not always made by
men with a knowledge of the law.66 The fact that these corrupted texts were
subsequently copied regularly without change does raise doubts as to whether
copies of these laws were used at all when they were unusable in legal
practice.67
In the Ordinancie the article is not entirely clear either, but only because it
does not specify which market is meant: that at the port of origin or that at the
port of destination.68 Finally, the Gotland Sea Law stipulated in its Article 7
(which is found in only a few manuscripts and in the printed edition of 1505,
but not in that of 1532)69 that the value of the goods should be set at the price
which could be obtained for them at the market where they were meant to be
sold. One should remember that the abovementioned articles of the Rôles
d’Oléron, the Ordinancie and the Lübeck Town Law were all copied
unchanged into the Gotland Sea Law. This means that there are several
different regulations in this compilation, which was copied regularly into the
early modern period.

The compensation of the damages ‘mark markelike’

As regards the compensation of the damages caused by a jettison, it was laid
down that these should be distributed among all involved in the journey,
meaning both the merchants and the skipper as representative of the
shipowner(s). The goods were compensated according to the principle of
‘mark markelike’ or ‘na marktal’. This means that the damage was divided
proportionally according to the value of all involved goods, every mark
considered equal.70 This compensation of goods ‘mark by mark’ (or a similar
definition) can be found in most laws.71
The Rôles d’Oléron stipulated that the saved goods should be sold and then
divided pound by pound (‘livere a livere’) among the merchants.72 Although
a ‘livere’ can be taken to mean a pound in weight, and Landwehr translated it
as such,73 it should be considered to mean a pound in money. It does not
make sense to sell the saved goods and then divide these same goods among
the merchants pound by pound. The fact that the lost goods were estimated
according to the value (‘foer’) of the other goods confirms this.
The wording of the regulations in the Bergen Town Law and the Jónsbók
indicates that jettisoned cargo had not always been compensated mark by
mark: ‘jettison should be divided according to the value of the goods and not
in accordance with how many people were aboard or with the weight of the
goods’.74 The fact that this was mentioned specifically suggests that in earlier
years jettison was compensated according to ‘mantal’ or ‘punttal’, that is,
according to the number of men involved or the weight of the goods.75
Meanwhile, the procedure described in the revised Riga Town Law was
unique.76 Here the compensation is calculated by pounds in weight (‘na
punttalen’). Special arrangements were made for some valuable goods that
may have been relatively light: from a value of three marks of silver per
pound or more, goods were to be counted doubly.77 In a later addition, this
was further clarified by stipulating that goods cheaper than three marks per
pound should be reckoned ‘punt vor punt’.78 The value of the ship was
estimated similarly, as will be discussed below.

The inclusion of ship and freightage in the compensation

In the older Scandinavian laws, the losses caused by a jettison were divided
equally among all persons aboard the ship.79 The value of the ship and the
freightage were, however, not included in the assessment of the
compensation of any losses to the cargo. The hásetar paid a fee to the
stýrimaðr for the use of the ship, and any risks of damage to the ship fell
solely to the owner. The members of the shipping venture were only united in
transporting goods and the risk this involved.80 The same is the case in the
English Leis Willelme of the twelfth century.81
When considering the Rôles d’Oléron, it is possible to tell that the ship and
the freightage were only recently included in the compensation of jettison.
Following the section regarding the selling of saved goods and the
distribution of proceeds ‘livere a livere’ among the merchants, the article
stipulates: ‘And the master must then say whether to count the ship or his
freightage, at his choice, to compensate the damage’.82 Since the
compensation of the goods among the merchants had already been completed
in the previous sentence, this line must have been added at a later date.
Otherwise, both parts of the reimbursement would have been combined in
one sentence. This later addition may have confused the Flemish copyists,
resulting in unusable translations of the entire regulation. The Scottish
translation of this specific section also appears muddled. There, it is
suggested that the skipper should be compensated (by the shipmen?) for his
damages (‘and his skathys to be amendyt’), although the article as a whole is
not entirely clear.83
In the Hamburg laws, a similar transition is recognisable. In the 1259 letter
from Hamburg to Lübeck it is stated that the skipper would have to
compensate, but it is not specified whether he had to contribute with the
value of his ship or his freightage: ‘to it shall be contributed by the master of
the ship with the merchants, mark equals mark’.84 Landwehr argued that the
word ‘with’ stressed that this is a change towards an earlier rule.85 The
change is clearer in the older Hamburg Ship Law: ‘Where such a ship casts
goods out of need, the ship shall also be reckoned mark by mark’.86 This
time, the word ‘also’ indicated a recent change to the rule. The fact that the
merchants had to contribute too was taken to be generally known.87 In the
Lübeck article on jettison, which was based on this Hamburg rule, the
contribution of the merchants was included in the wording, and in the revised
Riga Town Law ‘dat scep unde dat guth’ were also named.88
In none of the laws from Hamburg, Lübeck and Riga is the freightage
mentioned as part of the compensation, nor is it in the Wisby Town Law, the
Novgorod Skra, the Bjärkoarätten or Article 7 of the Wisby Sea Law.
Besides the Rôles d’Oléron, in which the skipper had a choice to contribute
with either his ship or his freightage (which choice disappeared in the
Flemish and Scottish translations), only the Ordinancie and the Kampen
Town Law included the freightage in the compensation too.89 By contrast
with the rule in the Rôles, the Ordinancie stipulated that the merchants had to
choose between ship or freightage: ‘And the shipmaster shall contribute from
his ship or of his freightage, whichever the merchants choose’.90
This difference signifies the difficulty medieval law had in devising
arrangements for settlement in jettison cases that considered all factors. When
a jettison was successful, not only were the ship and the remaining goods
saved, but the skipper would also receive freightage (for the goods that were
saved) which would otherwise have been lost.91 This freightage should
therefore normally have been included in the compensation. Consequently,
that part of the freightage that was lost to the skipper (for the goods that were
cast) should also have been counted as part of the loss. This loss of
freightage, which resulted in a loss in profit for the skipper, was not a direct
consequence of the jettison and it was therefore not considered damage
according to medieval laws.92 This is probably also the reason why freightage
was not included at all in the sea laws of Hamburg and Lübeck and those of
the other Baltic towns. Only in the sixteenth century, when maritime law
became a field of interest for learned lawyers, was the material concept of
damage replaced by one relative to economic loss.93 From that time,
freightage was included in the compensation, both as part of the damages and
as part of the compensation.
Although the articles in the Rôles d’Oléron and the Ordinancie did include
the freightage, and thus acknowledged that the amount of freightage received
by the skipper was influenced by the jettison, the compilers did not
differentiate between the loss of freightage as a result of the jettison and the
gain in freightage when the jettison was successful in preventing shipwreck.
Therefore the skipper (or in the case of the Ordinancie the merchants) was
given the choice whether the shipmaster would contribute with either the ship
or the freightage.
The variation between the Rôles and the Ordinancie was probably caused
by the fact that the inclusion of ship or freightage in the compensation was a
new addition when the Rôles were first recorded. Because the skipper (again,
as representative of the shipowners) was put at a disadvantage compared to
the old situation, in which he did not have to contribute at all, he was at least
given the choice between contributing with his freightage or his ship. In the
Ordinancie this was different; the rule had been valid for a while by then.
The regulation now became fairer towards the merchants, allowing them to
choose, while they had previously been at a disadvantage when the skipper
was allowed to choose between the ship and the freightage (and would
understandably choose the less valuable of the two). The difference between
Rôles and Ordinancie did not cause a problem in the Waterrecht, in which
both rules were included, as the choice of the skipper included in the Rôles
had been omitted when the text was translated into Flemish.94
The problem of the freightage was solved differently in the town of
Kampen. Initially, the Boeck van Rechte laid down that the skipper was to
contribute with the ship and the freightage paid to him from the saved
goods.95 This was changed in a council decree of 1407. From that time
freightage would also have to be paid for jettisoned goods.96 The
arrangement thus became fairer: because freightage was paid for all the
goods, the difficulties concerning lost freightage versus gained freightage,
discussed above, disappeared. Since the skipper suffered no losses as a result
of a jettison, he had to contribute with both his ship and freightage.
The Kampen Town Law was not the only law in which freightage for
saved and cast goods was laid down. Article 7 of the Gotland Sea Law, which
can be found in only a few manuscripts and in the 1505 edition, also provided
that freightage should be paid for all goods. Furthermore, in at least one
manuscript of the Ordinancie a copying mistake crept in which resulted in a
new rule. Article 3 of this law regulated the selling of goods during the
journey in emergency situations.97 The word ‘vercopende’ (‘selling’) was
changed to ‘werpende’ (‘casting’) by omitting the ‘co’, thus changing the
entire meaning of the article. The article now appeared to be dealing with
jettison and stipulated that no freightage was due when a jettison was
undertaken in the first half of the journey, whereas full freight had to be paid
when goods were cast overboard in the second half of the journey. Although
only one known manuscript displayed the article in this fashion, it was
adopted in the Swedish Sea Law of 1667 and in the Rotterdam Insurance and
Average Decree of 1721.98 In the Middle Ages, the article probably had little
influence, as did article 7 of the Gotland Sea Law.

The valuation of the ship

In order to calculate the compensation payable by the skipper after a jettison,
the value of the ship had to be established. In the Ordinancie a method called
setten was introduced. According to this method, the skipper had to set a
price for his ship, upon which the merchants had the choice either to accept
this valuation for the calculation of the compensation, or to buy the ship for
this amount. This method prevented the skipper from fixing too low or too
high a price. The value of the vessel was assessed according to its state after
the journey, as the ship may have been damaged by the storm in which the
jettison was carried out.
This method was adopted from the Ordinancie by the compilers of the
1497 Hamburg Ship Law. Earlier Hamburg and Lübeck laws do not mention
the value of the ship or how it was to be assessed. It is possible that the
method of setten was used in practice in these towns before the late fifteenth
century, but there is no evidence of this in the written laws. In Kampen
before 1407 a different method was used to estimate the value of a vessel: the
skipper had to assess his ship under oath.99 In 1407 setten was adopted in
Kampen for the valuation of a ship after jettison. This method had already
been in use for the selling of ships before then.100
In Riga the compensation of jettison was reckoned per pound (‘na
punttale’), as explained above. In accordance with this, the value of the ship
had to be converted to pounds in weight. As in the valuation of the goods,
every three marks were reckoned as a pound. The value of the ship in marks
therefore had to be divided by three to obtain the weight in pounds that could
be used for the calculation of the reimbursement: ‘The ship and the goods
that were cast shall be reckoned: what they are worth shall go three marks for
a pound.’101 How the value of the ship was to be estimated is not further
explained. This method of calculating the contribution of the skipper and the
merchants to the reimbursements after a jettison is unique in northern Europe.

The compensation for damage to the ship

The subject of the cutting down of the mast has already been discussed. Like
jettison, this measure was carried out in emergency situations in order to save
the ship, the cargo and the people on board. Because, like jettison, it was a
voluntary sacrifice for the benefit of all, compensation took similar forms. As
explained above, the risks of damage to the ship were carried wholly by the
owner(s) according to the older Scandinavian laws. The interests of the
shipping venture were concentrated solely on the safe transportation of the
goods; the ship was not considered when calculating the reimbursement of
cast goods and all damage to the ship was borne solely by the owner(s). This
is laid down explicitly in the Swedish Bjärköarätten and in the Wisby Town
Law.102 In the Norwegian and Icelandic laws, on the other hand, neither
deliberate nor accidental damage to the ship was included.
In the Hamburg Ship Law, the Lübeck Sea Law and the Riga Town Law
the cutting down of the mast was regulated as follows: ‘Are the mast or the
ropes cut, the shipmaster bears the damage alone, unless wilkore was done: of
this wilkore shall be testified by those that were in that ship.’103 The word
wilkore in this sentence is confusing. It normally means by-law or statute, but
it is utilised differently here. Landwehr has argued that it indicated that an
agreement had been made before the journey, which settled whether the
merchants would compensate in cases of deliberate damage to the ship.104
According to him, this is confirmed by the regulation in the revised Riga
Town Law in which the word wilkore was replaced by voreword, which
means a preceding agreement.105 This replacement can, however, also have
been made because the Hamburg article did not correspond with Riga law.106
As it happens, wilkore can also simply mean consent and, as such, the
regulation would read ‘those aboard the ship must testify that they have given
their consent’, which makes more sense. If an agreement had been made
before the journey, witnesses, who would have been present at any legal
transaction, would have been able to give testimony that such an arrangement
had been made (and not the people on board ship as the article suggests).
Moreover, the situation in which the mast was cut down could only be
assessed when it occurred, and not beforehand.
It is telling in this respect that Von Bardewik copied the Hamburg article
when compiling the Lübeck Sea Law and not the regulation recorded in the
Lübeck Town Law, which provided that the cutting down of the mast should
be compensated (whereas its accidental loss would not) as early as 1257.107
This latter provision was repeated in the Low German version of the Lübeck
Town Law of the late thirteenth century:
If one should lose a mast or a sail during sailing by accident, it should
not be compensated for by those in the ship. When, on the other hand, it
is cut down out of need and cast, the ship and the people aboard the ship
shall contribute ‘na marktal’ and the skipper shall contribute his
share.108
Considering that many of the articles of the Hamburg Ship Law were
amended by von Bardewik in his Lübeck Sea Law, it is noticeable that he
copied the article regarding the cutting down of the mast without alterations.
If Lübeck law included the compensation of the cutting of the mast as early
as 1257, why would von Bardewik adopt a rule that such damages would not
be reimbursed unless an agreement had been made before the journey?109
The Hamburg article must, therefore, be understood to mean that consent
needed to be given for the cutting, and that the damages would be reimbursed
if the merchants had given their consent.
The rule from the Lübeck Town Law was adopted in the second and third
Novgorod Skras (Article 58) and similar regulations are recorded in the Rôles
d’Oléron, the Ordinancie, the 1497 Hamburg Ship Law and the Kampen
Town Law. The latter also includes arrangements regarding how to assess the
value of the different shipping gear: the mast should be estimated at the
purchase price, whereas the anchor should be valued in accordance with its
state when it was dropped. Both assessments had to be conducted under
oath.110
Finally, an interesting remark is included at the end of the article in the
Kampen Boeck van Rechte and Gulden Boeck:
We have written this law regarding ships that come to our port with
guests or with burghers [of Kampen] and when they come to other ports
in other lands, they should abide by the law that is decent and customary
there.111
Apparently, the Kampen council knew or assumed that different regulations
existed elsewhere in Europe. The remark also indicates that the council
expected Kampen merchants to subject themselves to foreign laws when
involved in an accident abroad. This subject will be further explored in
Chapter 6, but the remark offers convincing evidence that different rules
existed in northern Europe regarding the cutting of the mast at least, but
probably concerning other subjects as well.
The theme of general average in medieval maritime law is a diverse and
complicated matter. The main developments that took place in the regulation
of the two main examples of average, jettison and the cutting of the mast,
corresponded to the changes in mercantile practice discussed in Chapter 1. In
the older Scandinavian laws the ownership of a vessel was regarded as
completely separate from that of the cargo. When goods were cast overboard,
the damages were distributed between all those who had freighted goods
aboard a particular vessel, whereas damage to the ship was borne solely by its
owner(s). A change took place in the thirteenth century. This change is
evident in the Rôles d’Oléron and in the Hamburg Ship Law, in which the
shipmaster, as representative of the shipowner(s), was made to contribute to
the compensation of jettison, since he profited from it too. From that time, the
skipper contributed with his ship (Hamburg, Lübeck, Riga, Novgorod); with
his ship or his freightage as determined by the skipper (Rôles); with his ship
or his freightage as chosen by the merchants (Ordinancie, Wisby Sea Law);
or with his ship and his freightage (Kampen and some manuscripts of the
Ordinancie). As a consequence of this change, the damages as a result of the
cutting of the mast were compensated by the merchants in a similar manner
(Lübeck, Novgorod, Rôles, Ordinancie, Hamburg 1497 and Kampen). The
thirteenth-century laws of Hamburg (and the Lübeck Sea Law) and Riga
decreed that all damages to the ship had to be borne by the owners, unless
consent to the cutting had been given by the merchants.
That the freight was included in the compensation for jettison in only a few
of the laws (and no communality therefore existed) is perhaps due to the
difficulty the compilers of these laws had in grasping all the consequences of
a jettison, and thus in establishing a fair claim settlement. Since no freight
had to be paid for cast goods, the skipper lost part of his profit through the
jettison. This loss was, however, not assessed in the calculation of the
reimbursement. Only the ship or the freightage was included in this
calculation according to some laws, whereas it was omitted altogether in
others. The Kampen Town Law was the only law in which a reasonably fair
claim settlement was laid down: freightage was due for both saved and cast
goods, and as a consequence the skipper had to contribute to the jettison with
both his ship and his freightage.

Ship collision
Ship collision is one of the oldest questions regulated in maritime law. Even
if a skipper shipped his own goods on his own vessel, a law was necessary
for those situations in which two vessels collided, in order to establish who
had to pay damages and how much.112 Different forms of ship collision were
handled in the northern European laws: intentional and accidental collisions;
collisions on the open sea or in a harbour; during daytime or at night. The
laws also differentiated between collisions in which one ship foundered and
those in which the vessels were just damaged.113
The question of intent was one of the main issues involved in the
regulation of collisions.114 The innocence of the colliding skipper in this
respect had to be established by his oath, and sometimes that of his crew, for
example according to the Rôles d’Oléron, the 1259 letter from Hamburg to
Lübeck and the 1497 Hamburg Ship Law.115 If the skipper refused to swear
an oath, or when his guilt was established in another way, he normally had to
reimburse all the damages done to the other vessel. This was not always
expressed explicitly in the laws. In the Rôles d’Oléron, for example, it was
only laid down that the skipper had to swear the collision was unintentional
(Article 15), but not what the consequences would be of a refusal to do so.
The same applies in both the Hamburg Ship Law and the revised Riga Town
Law.116 The Lübeck Town and Sea Laws, on the other hand, provided for the
reimbursement of all the damages when the skipper did not wish to swear an
oath.117 In the Ordinancie, oaths are not mentioned, but since swearing was
the usual method to establish guilt or innocence, it was most likely necessary.
According to the Ordinancie too, a guilty skipper had to pay for all the
damages. In the Wisby Sea Law a sentence has been added to Article 15 of
the Rôles, which stipulates reimbursement of all the losses if the collision was
intentional.118
In the Kampen Town Law a more severe punishment was decreed for the
protagonist: the forfeiture of life and goods.119 It is the only regulation
concerning ship collision in these laws; no rules regarding accidental
collisions were included. With regard to intentional collisions, no form of
reimbursement for the victim was specified; his losses were presumably
compensated utilising the confiscated goods of the offender. Contrary to this,
the older Scandinavian laws stipulated that the colliding skipper had to
recompense his colleague for all the damages irrespective of guilt. In the
Bergen Town Law a set value for every single part of the ship that could be
damaged in a collision was laid down (Article 18). The Jónsbók, on the other
hand, regulated that these parts had to be evaluated by knowledgeable men
(Article 19). According to both, the damaged vessel had to be replaced if it
could not be repaired. If a collision had been intentional, an additional fine
was imposed.
The wording of Article 15 of the Rôles d’Oléron indicates that a full
reimbursement of damages by the colliding skipper had been the usual
practice in north-western Europe before the thirteenth century as well:
And the reason why this judgement was made is that an old ship puts
 itself in the way of a better [ship] voluntarily if she [would be
reimbursed] for all her damages from colliding with the other ship; but if
she knows that she has to share half, she will want to stay out of the
way.120
This rule was supposedly introduced to prevent owners of older ships from
manoeuvring their vessel in the sailing route of a better ship, in the hope of
receiving a full reimbursement when their vessel was damaged.121 From this
follows that colliding ships had originally been liable for all the damages
irrespective of guilt.
The northern European laws, in general, only differentiated between
intentional and accidental collisions, but carelessness was occasionally
punished as well. In the Rôles d’Oléron, a separate article regulated the
situation in which two or three vessels were anchored in a shallow port. In
this situation, the ships could be lying in a safe position initially, but a change
of wind or tide could cause the turning circle of the vessels to coincide, which
could result in a collision. When such a dangerous situation arose, the
skippers had to raise their anchors. If they did not, and damage occurred, a
full reimbursement was due by the careless skipper.122 In both the Rôles and
the Ordinancie, it was laid down that, within the harbour, the anchor should
be marked with a buoy. If an unmarked anchor caused damage, however,
only half of it would have to be compensated.123 The Riga Town Law,
finally, regulated night-time collisions. If two ships collided in the dark and
one of them had been sailing with its lanterns unlit, the careless shipmaster
had to settle all the damages if his ship ran into the other vessel. If the other
vessel collided with his, he was liable for his own damages.124
The laws also differentiated between collisions at sea, those near the shore
and those in a harbour. In all situations, the damages to the receiving ship
were divided between the skippers. This division is, however, not very
clearly defined in most laws. In the Ordinancie, for example, we read: ‘Also,
a ship [. . .] that collides with another by accident: the damage shall be
reckoned half’.125 With regard to the calculation of the compensation
payments, the role of the cargo on board the colliding ship is also seldom
transparent. In general, it was laid down that either the ship or the skipper
was expected to ‘den schaden half ghelden’ (‘to reimburse half the damage’).
From this follows that the merchants’ goods on the colliding ship were
probably omitted from the calculation.
 The Rôles d’Oléron were more precise in this respect. They laid down that
the damage to the receiving ship had to be divided equally between the
shipmasters. In addition, the wine freighted on both vessels had to be
distributed among the merchants from both ships to compensate for the wine
that was spoilt in the collision.126 Although the words ‘livere a livere’ have
been omitted here, the reimbursement of the wine seems to have been
regulated like that after jettison. The reason the cargo was included in this
article was that it specifically regulated a collision in which wine had spilt
(‘Et y a des vins enfoundres’). Apart from the Ordinancie and the Hamburg
Ship Law, none of the other laws considered damage to goods as a result of
ship collision.
The Ordinancie, like the Rôles d’Oléron, regulated the compensation of
damages to the ship and to the cargo separately:
Also, if it happens that one ship collides with another by accident, so
that one ship remains lost with its goods, the goods in both ships should
be valued as they were before either ship was lost; then so the price of
both goods added up shall pay for the lost goods, pound equals pound,
mark equals mark.127
The article in the Ordinancie handled a specific situation, that is to say a
collision in which one of the ships sank with its cargo. Lost goods were
compensated according to the value of the goods in both ships, as they were
after jettison. Contrary to the regulation in the Rôles, however, the
compensation of the damages to the ship was calculated in the same manner:
Similarly the worth of both ships shall be estimated next, before the
damage occurred; so the price of both ships added up shall pay for the
lost ship, pound equals pound, mark equals mark.128
The reason why the skipper was not expected to simply pay half the damages
can be gathered from the Hamburg Ship Law, which also handled collisions
in which one ship sank:
But was the damage suffered by the ship and the goods that remained
below greater than the ship that remained above is worth with its gear,
as it was when it did its damage, the skipper and his goods should not
have any further distress over it; and the merchants’ goods that are in the
ship that did the damage should not be held to contribute.129
This article provided for the possibility that a sunk ship with all its goods was
worth more than the colliding ship with its gear.130 When two ships of
significantly varying sizes collided, the situation could even occur in which
the damaged ship was worth more than twice as much as the colliding vessel.
To ensure that the shipowner(s) of the latter did not bankrupt themselves, the
method described in the Ordinancie was used in which the value of both
ships was taken into account. A significant difference between the regulations
from Hamburg and the Ordinancie is that in the former the merchants from
the colliding ship did not have to contribute to any damages, whereas in the
latter they did (to the lost cargo).
The regulation of ship collision took different forms in the northern
European laws of the Middle Ages. In the Kampen Town Law, for instance,
only intentional collisions were dealt with, and briefly at that. In the
Ordinancie, on the other hand, three articles are recorded that deal with
different forms of collision. The question of intent was one of the main
themes in the regulation of ship collision. Whether or not the damage had
been done intentionally was established by oath and was instrumental in
determining how much the colliding skipper was required to reimburse.
In the older laws, the colliding skipper was liable for all the damages.
Intent was punished with an extra fine. From the time of the Rôles d’Oléron
this changed. Only in cases of intentional collision would the guilty party
have to reimburse all, otherwise – in accidental collisions – he was due to
compensate for only half of the damages. This change suggests a more
sophisticated understanding of liability in cases of ship collision. On the other
hand, carelessness was only rarely dealt with in the laws; in general, they
focused on the differentiation between intent and accident. According to the
Kampen laws, skippers who ran their vessel into another on purpose lost their
lives and their goods.
Damage to the cargo in ship collision was only considered in the Hamburg
Ship Law, the Ordinancie and the Rôles d’Oléron. The laws had different
solutions for this legal problem: in the Ordinancie and the Rôles the goods
from the colliding ship were utilised towards compensating the damaged
cargo, whereas according to the Hamburg Ship Law the skipper alone was
considered liable. This is an important difference that remained in effect
throughout the Middle Ages. Whereas the compilers of the 1497 Hamburg
Ship Law adopted some rules from the Ordinancie, in this matter the
regulation from the earlier version of the Hamburg law was maintained.
Common regulations in northern Europe?
Many situations at sea could result in damage to a ship or its cargo. As
different interests were at stake when goods were transported by ship, these
situations needed to be regulated by law. In the early days, when a ship and
the goods it transported were all owned by a single party, rules were only
necessary for ship collision. In the age of shipping ventures, the interests of
the shipowner and the owners of the goods became strictly separate when it
came to damage to the vessel or the cargo. The transportation of goods was
an enterprise in which all merchants were involved on equal terms, and a loss
through jettison of some of the cargo to save the rest would be shared by all
who transported goods on board a single vessel. The owner of the ship would
not contribute, and all damage to his ship, whether accidental or done
deliberately to save the vessel, had to be borne by him alone.
This distinction between the shipowner’s interests and those of the
merchants disappeared in the thirteenth century. It became clear that both
profited equally when measures were undertaken to prevent shipwreck. The
regulations concerning jettison changed first, resulting in the consideration of
the goods and the ship (and sometimes also the freightage) in the
compensation of the losses. This was followed by a similar change in
regulating voluntary damages to the ship. These general developments are all
reflected in the laws; many of the differences between various regulations
concerning shipwreck, general average and ship collision can be explained by
considering these changes in the organisation of sea shipping. Some cannot,
however, and it is these differences that are important when reaching a
conclusion on the question of common regulations in northern Europe.
As regards shipwreck, the question of freightage was answered variously.
Although most sea laws laid down the payment of full freight when a ship
had foundered, the Rôles d’Oléron, the Hanseatic statutes and a by-law from
Danzig decreed a freightage dependent on the distance that the ship had
travelled before it wrecked. As this variation could result in merchants having
to pay a significantly smaller amount of money for the transportation of their
goods, this can be considered a difference in regulation, even although the
laws agree that freightage needed to be paid. In addition to this, the 1447
Hanseatic statutes also included the possibility to ‘abandon’ the damaged
goods as an alternative to paying freight. The Kampen Town Law had
already provided for this in 1372, but none of the other laws allowed for it.
Another question in which the laws varied was the compensation of
damages in cases of general average. In some compilations, the freightage
was included in the compensation of jettison, whereas in others it was not.
None of the sea laws, apart from the Kampen Town Law, devised a fair claim
settlement which took all elements of loss and gain into account. As regards
the cutting of the mast, not all laws included the cargo in the compensation,
which, as a consequence of including the ship in cases of jettison, it should
have been.
Finally, variation also existed as regards ship collision. One question was
the inclusion of the goods on colliding ships in the compensation of damaged
or sunk vessels and their cargo, which differed between the Ordinancie and
the Rôles on the one side, and the Hamburg Ship Law on the other. The
amount of compensation that was laid down also varied. Most of the laws
simply stipulated that both skippers should pay half the damages to the
receiving ship. The Rôles d’Oléron and the Ordinancie, on the other hand,
decreed a calculation similar to that in jettison; the first only as regards
damaged goods, the second regarding both vessel and cargo when one of the
ships had sunk.
So, even though many laws relating to the discussed subjects were in
accordance and although some differences between the laws were due to
natural developments in sea shipping, some important variations concerning
all three themes existed in the sea laws. This drives us to conclude that the
written laws of northern Europe did not contain common regulations as
regards shipwreck, jettison and ship collision.

‘Gerade in der Seeschiffahrt gibt es jedoch naturgegebene Sachzwänge, die unabhängig von
1 dem jeweiligen Stand der Rechtskultur und der geographischen Lage, zur Ausbildung inhaltlich
übereinstimmender Regeln führen.’ Landwehr, Haverei, 104.
Cordes, ‘Lex mercatoria’, after note 38, also warns researchers to ‘distinguish clearly between
2 influences based on relations on the one hand and similar but independent developments on the
other’.
3 Whether any influence due to close relations took place will be analysed in Chapter 5 as regards
the local laws of Lübeck, Danzig and Kampen.
In England, for example, under Henry I (r. 1100–35) and Henry II (r. 1154–89) a ship was
defined a wreck only if none of the crew survived. Richard I (r. 1189–99) changed this: now
4 even the heirs of the owners could lay claim to their ship and goods. Henry III (r. 1216–72)
decreed that if a man, a dog or a cat survived, a vessel was not a wreck. Niitemaa, Strandrecht
in Nordeuropa, 58–9.
Niitemaa’s Strandrecht in Nordeuropa is very good, but is restricted in its geographical scope.
5 Moreover, Niitemaa made little use of the large amount of correspondence that exists regarding
the right of wreck.
6 Freightage/freight here means a charge for the transportation of cargo.
 Oléron/Vonnesse, art. 4, also in Gotland SL, art. 18 and Wisby SL, art. 16; Ordinancie, art. 1,
also in Gotland SL, art. 40 and Wisby SL, art. 37; Hamburg 1301/6, art. 14; Hamburg 1301/6
7 (additions), art. 36; Hamburg 1497, art. 6 and art. 43; Lübeck TL, art. 230; Lübeck SL, art. 16;
Kampen BvR, art. 98; Kampen GB, art. 9; Danzig, art. 2; HR 1447, art. 93.

8 Wisby TL, art. 12; Ordinancie, art. 1; Lübeck TL, art. 230; Hamburg 1497, art. 6.
‘So wor eyn schip tobrikt, unde so wat van deme ghude gheberghet werd, dar schal de
9 schiphere de vracht af hebben.’ Hamburg 1301/6 (additions), art. 36. A similar definition can
be found in Lübeck SL, art. 16.
10 For a discussion of the payment of freightage in Lübeck’s practice, see Chapter 7.
11 Oléron, art. 4.
12 Vonnesse (Kampen), art. 4, also in Gotland SL, art. 18; Wisby SL, art. 16.
13 Bute Ms, art. 17.
14 HR 1447, art. 94.
15 Danzig, art. 2.
16 Kampen BvR, art. 98; Kampen GB, art. 9.
17 HR 1447, art. 93.
18 Landwehr, ‘Prinzipien der Risikotragung’, 607.
Oléron/Vonnesse, art. 3, also in Gotland SL, art. 17 and Wisby SL, art. 15; Kampen BvR, art.
19 100; Kampen GB, art. 29; HR 1378, art. 2; HR 1412, art. 32; HR 1417a, art. 114; HR 1417b,
art. 16; HR 1418, art. 20; HR 1435, art. 3; HR 1447, art. 30; HR 1482, art. 14. For exact
references, see Chapter 1, n. 102.
20 HR 1412, art. 33; HR 1417a, art. 115; HR 1417b, art. 17; HR 1418, art. 30; HR 1447, art. 31
and art. 41.
21 Bergen, art. 9.
Oléron/Vonnesse, art. 4, also in Gotland SL, art. 18 and Wisby SL, art. 16; Ordinancie, art. 1,
22 also in Gotland SL, art. 40 and Wisby SL, art. 37; Hamburg 1497, art. 6; Bergen, art. 9;
Bjarkayjarréttr, art. 6. In the last two, the skipper was given ‘half a month’ to repair the ship.
23 Die ältesten Schiffrechte Hamburgs, ed. Lappenberg, cxxxviii, n. 3.

24 Hamburg 1301/6, art. 28; Hamburg 1497, art. 42; Lübeck SL, art. 30; Riga I, art. 13; Riga II,
art. 12.
25 Wisby TL, art. 3.
26 For an exception (Aberdeen), see Chapter 7.
This paragraph is partly based on Landwehr’s book on Haverei, which is very elaborate and
27 cannot be matched (especially in its legal discussion) in the limited space available here. The
comparisons are, however, largely my own, and occasional disagreements with Landwehr are
noted as well.
In the city states of Italy (Venice, Pisa and Genoa) and in Valencia the term avaria was already
used from the second half of the thirteenth century. It appears in Dutch and Hanseatic legal
28 sources in the sixteenth century. In the 1551 Ordinance of Emperor Charles V for the
Netherlands (art. 28, 41 and 42) and in the Hanseatic Sea Law of 1614 (VIII; XII, art. 2) a
distinction between general and particular average was already made. Landwehr, Haverei, 5.
29 Ibid. 3.
30 Ibid. 4.
Lotelghelt is dealt with in the same article as jettison in most laws (Ordinancie, Boeck van
Rechte, Gulden Boeck). In the 1497 Hamburg Ship Law, it is handled separately, but the
reimbursement is to take place ‘alse werpgelde’ (‘as jettison’). In the Riga Town Law, it is dealt
31 with immediately after jettison. Ordinancie, art. 4, also in Gotland SL, art. 41 and Wisby SL, art.
38; Hamburg 1497, art. 32; Kampen BvR, art. 4; Kampen GB, art. 5 and 7; Riga II, art. 18. See
also Chapter 5.

32 Landwehr, Haverei, 4–5.

33 To simplify matters, ‘the cutting down of the mast’ in this text stands for all deliberate damage
that is done to the ship in order to save it and the goods and lives aboard.
‘Pur sauver les corps et la nef et les darres et les vins’: Oléron, art. 8; Vonnesse, art. 8, also in
34 Gotland SL, art. 22 and Wisby SL, art. 20. A similar wording in: Oléron, art. 9; Vonnesse, art. 9,
also in Gotland SL, art. 23 and Wisby SL, art. 21. ‘To beholdende lijff, schip ende guedt’:
Ordinancie, art. 5, also in Gotland SL, art. 42 and Wisby SL, art. 39.
35 ‘Ob tuicionem vite et bona obtinenda’: HUB I, no. 538.
36 Hamburg 1497, art. 33.
‘Weert dat een schip noot hadde’: Ordinancie, art. 4, also in Gotland SL, art. 41 and Wisby SL,
art. 38. ‘Dor not willen’: Hamburg 1301/6, art. 22; Riga I, art. 7; Riga II, art. 4 and art. 22. ‘Ex
infortunio periculo’: Lübeck TL (1257), art. 94. ‘Propter necessitatem aure vel aliter
37 qualitercunque’: Lübeck TL (1263), art. 99. ‘So war lude sint an water not’: Lübeck TL, art. 89,
also in Gotland SL, art. 11; Novgorod II/III, art. 38. ‘Van node lyves, scieps ende gueds’:
Kampen BvR, art. 5; Kampen GB, art. 14. There are similar definitions to be found in Wisby TL,
art. 10; Lübeck SL, art. 24; Bergen, art. 10; Jónsbók, art. 10; Bjärköarätten, art. 20.1; Gotland
SL, art. 7; Leis Willelme, art. 37.
38 Oléron/Damme, art. 8; Oléron, art. 9; Ordinancie, art. 5; Ordinancie, art. 4; Hamburg 1301/6,
art. 22; Lübeck TL (1257), art. 94.
39 Landwehr, Haverei, 12.
In German: Absicht and Ungefähr. Richard Behrend, ‘Das Ungefährwerk in der Geschichte des
Seerechts’, ZRG GA 19 (1898), 54. Only from the seventeenth century did legal scholars
40 acknowledge that the consequences of carelessness needed to be judged differently from those
caused by accident. For example, in Joachim Lucas Stein, Abhandlung des Lübschen See-
Rechts [1746], §§ 67–8, as cited by Landwehr, Haverei, 16.
41 Grágás, art. 166; Bjärköarätten, art. 20.1; Swedish TL, art. 11.
Oléron, art. 8. In the Vonnesse van Damme (art. 8) three of the crew had to swear, in the
42 Gotland Sea Law (art. 22) two or three. The latter was perhaps changed to fit the regulation of
the Ordinancie (which also stipulated two or three of the crew, art. 4) in the same compilation.
In the Wisby Sea Law (art. 20), it is again a third of the crew.
‘Ende were datter gheen coopman in den schepe were ende men noot hadde te werpen, wes dan
43 die schipper guet duchte met den meredele van syne selschap, dat solde men daartoe doen.’
Ordinancie, art. 4.
44 Wisby TL, art. 10; Novgorod III, art. 38.
45 This is not the only regulation that is based on an older law, as will become clear again below.
46 Article 38 of Novgorod II was based on Lübeck TL, art. 89.
47 Landwehr, Haverei, 17. He speaks solely of Hamburg and Lübeck here, but the town laws of
 Riga and Kampen do not consider consultations either.
48 See below.
49 Oléron, art. 9; Damme, art. 9, also in Gotland SL, art. 23 and Wisby SL, art. 21; Ordinancie, art.
5.

‘Die schipper is schuldich den coopluyde te vraghen ende te claghen synen noot.’ Ordinancie,
50
art. 5.
51 Wisby TL, art. 11.
52 The older Scandinavian sea laws did not cover the cutting down of the mast, since the ship was
not considered part of the shipping venture. See below.
53 Novgorod III, art. 58 (the same as Novgorod II, art. 58, which was adopted from Lübeck TL, art.
153).
54 Hamburg 1497, art. 33.
55 ‘de sciphere mit rade ende mit hengnisse dier lude de waren in den scepe de mast corve of de
benninghe slippern lete . . .’: Kampen BvR, art. 5; similar wording in Kampen GB, art. 14.
56 See below. Hamburg 1301/6, art. 22; Lübeck SL, art. 24; Riga I, art. 7; Riga II, art. 4. Only in
Lübeck TL (art. 153) is the cutting down of the mast definitely compensated for.
Bergen, art. 8; Jónsbók, art. 10; Wisby TL, art. 10; Lübeck TL (1257), art. 94 and Lübeck TL, art.
57 89 (the section about the value of the goods is not found in the article in Lübeck TL (1263));
Novgorod II and III, art. 38.
58 ‘Alse dat in deme markete ghecostet hevet’ (‘by how much they have cost at the market’): Riga
II, art. 22.
59 Kampen BvR, art. 5.
‘Ende die coepman sal gelden van sinen guede dat hem blijft boven vracht ende ongelt als dat
60 guet gelt tusschen den mynsten ende meysten binnen xiiij dagen.’: Kampen BvR, art. [1407]
(unnumbered article).
61 ‘Cels qi serrount gete hors, deyvent estre aprisagez a foer de ceux, qi serrount venuz a sauvete
et serrount venduz et partis livere a livere entre les marchaunz.’: Oléron, art. 8.
‘And the goods that will be cast, shall be valued by the price of those which are saved and
62 divided, pound by pound, amongst the merchants.’ Vonnesse/Codex Brugensis (Twiss), art. 8.
The text in the Wisby Sea Law (art. 20) is closest to this.
‘And the goods that were cast there, shall be valued on the market, pound by pound, and
63 divided amongst the merchants upon the goods that shall have been saved.’ Vonnesse (Ms.
Bruges/Cologne), art. 8.
64 ‘And it shall be valued pound by pound and divided amongst the merchants, upon the goods
that were saved.’ Vonnesse, art. 8, also in Gotland SL, art. 22.
65 NLS, Bute Ms. 21246, art. 21 (f. 174r). See also Chapter 4.
66 The same was concluded by Forte, ‘ “Kenning be kenning” ’, 60.
The poor translations are found in most of the manuscripts of the Waterrecht and in the printed
67 edition of 1505. In the later editions (Wisby Sea Law) the comprehensibility of the text was
improved, a sign that these were edited by more knowledgeable people.
68 ‘Alst an den market ghelt’ (‘as it is worth at the market’): Ordinancie, art. 4, also in Gotland
SL, art. 41 and Wisby SL, art. 38.
Gotland SL, art. 7. Landwehr, Haverei, 57, wrote that the article was copied in six manuscripts,
69 without detailing which. The only manuscripts known to me are the Copenhagen manuscript on
which the 1505 edition is possibly based and a copy from Danzig in the second Waterrecht
manuscript (APG, 300, R/Fq, 2, ff. 31r–50v).
70 Landwehr, Haverei, 25.
Ordinancie, art. 4; Hamburg 1301/6, art. 22 (not in Hamburg 1497); Lübeck SL, art. 24; Riga I,
71 art. 7; Kampen BvR, art. 5 (not in Kampen GB); Lübeck TL (1257), art. 94; Lübeck TL (1263),
art. 99; Lübeck TL, art. 89; Wisby TL, art. 10; Novgorod II, art. 38 (not in Novgorod III).
72 Oléron, art. 8; for the text, see above.
73 Landwehr, Haverei, 26.
74 Bergen, art. 8; Jónsbók, art. 10.
75 Landwehr, Haverei, 25–6.
76 Ibid. 64.
77 Riga II, art. 4.
78 Riga II, art. 18.
79 Bergen, art. 8; Jónsbók, art. 10; Grágás, art. 166; Bjärköarrätten, art. 20.1.
80 Landwehr, Haverei, 43. For the earlier developments in Scandinavian sea law, see Landwehr,
Haverei, 43–4.
81 Leis Willelme, art. 37.
‘Et y doit le mestre partir a countre la nef ou soun fret a soun chois pur estorer le
82 damage.’Oléron, art. 8. Ward takes ‘fret’ to mean cargo. Ward, World of the Medieval
Shipmaster, 96.
83 Bute Ms, art. 21.
84 ‘ibi dabitur a magistro navis cum mercatoribus marcha marche coequalis’. HUB I, no. 538.
85 Landwehr, Haverei, 48.
86 ‘So war ein scip dor not willen gut utwerpet, dat scip sal mede gelden marc markelic.’ Riga I,
art. 7 and Hamburg 1301/6, art. 22, my underlining.
87 Landwehr, Haverei, 41. The exclusion of well-known rules from the written laws in the Middle
Ages is also discussed by Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 12; Gilissen, La Coutume, 65.
88 Riga I, art. 7; Riga II, art. 4.
The Flemish translation simply states that the skipper had to contribute with either ship or
89 freightage: Vonnesse, art. 8. The Scottish translation is very unclear, but the skipper’s choice
has clearly disappeared there too. NLS, Bute Ms, art. 21. See Chapter 4.
‘Ende die scipheere sal gelden van sinen scepe jof van sijnre vrachte, wes die coeplude dairof
kiesen.’ Ordinancie (Privilegieboek), art. 4. In the three manuscripts that are known to have a
copy of the Ordinancie before the Vonnesse van Damme (Mss Staveren, Bruges/Cologne and
Flandrischer Kopiar), it says ‘van synen schepe ende van syner vrachte’ (my underlining) (‘of
90 his ship and of his freight’), without leaving out the words ‘wes die cooplude daaraf kiesen’
(‘whichever the merchants choose’). As this does not make sense, a mistake must have been
made when the article was copied (either the change was mistakenly introduced, or the last
words were accidentally left in). Landwehr wrote that this mistake was included in some
manuscripts of the sixteenth century, but I have only come across it in texts from the late
fourteenth to fifteenth centuries. Landwehr, Haverei, 55.
91 This applied when freight was only paid for saved goods, which was, in general, the case.
 92 Landwehr, Haverei, 52.
93 Ibid. 52–3.
In the Gotland Sea Law the choice of the merchants which had been laid down in the
94 Ordinancie was left out too, but in the Wisby Sea Law it was not. Gotland SL, art. 41; Wisby
SL, art. 38.
95 Kampen BvR, art. 4.

96 Kampen BvR, art. [1407].

In some manuscripts, the article was divided into two articles (3 and 4), in one Danzig
97 manuscript it was omitted (perhaps because of the described mistake?) and in others it was
added at the end.
Landwehr, Haverei, 31. The manuscript with the mistake is that on which Verwer based his
edition of the Ordinancie of 1711: a manuscript of the sixteenth century from Enkhuizen.
Verwer, Nederlants See-Rechten. Verwer thought this version right and calls the other versions
which he found in most of the prints ‘onverstanelijk verwardt en bedorven; sprekende gantsch
98 misselijk en sonder eenig slot, van Vercoopen’ (‘incomprehensibly muddled and contaminated:
speaking very meanly and without any coherence of “Vercoopen” ’). The reason for this harsh
judgement is that the changed rule was in use at the time of writing, as he wrote: ‘gelijk ’t ook
wesentlijk in vol gebruik is’. Verwer, Nederlants See-Rechten, 50. None of the other
manuscripts nor any of the prints known to me have this mistake.
99 Kampen BvR, art. 4.
100 Cf. Landwehr, Haverei, 50, who stated that the Kampen Town Law adopted the method from
the Ordinancie. See also Chapter 5.
101 ‘Dat schep unde dat gut, dat dar worpen is, scal men rekenen, wat dat wert is, des scal dre marc
gan vor en punt.’ Riga II, art. 4; a similar rule can be found in art. 18.
102 Bjärköarätten, 20.2; Wisby TL, art. 3.
‘Wert mast ofte touwe ghecorven, de schiphere hevet den schaden aleine, dar ne werde wilkore
103 ane dan; unde den wilkore scolen tughen dhe in dheme schepe do weren.’ Hamburg 1301/6, art.
22; Lübeck SL, art. 24; Riga I, art. 7.
104 Landwehr, Haverei, 45.
105 Riga II, art. 4.
106 Riga only used the Hamburg Town Law to create its own laws.
107 Lübeck TL (1257), art. 94. The article is missing in the manuscript from Danzig of 1263.
‘Verlust men enen mast oder en segel inder segelinge van ungelucke, des ne dorven nicht
108 gelden de in deme schepe sint. Wert aver he dor not gehowen unde ut geworpen, so schal dat
schip unde de lude de in deme schepe sint gelden na marktal, unde de schiphere schal sin del
gelden.’ Lübeck TL, art. 153.
109 Landwehr notes this difference as well, but does not go into possible reasons or implications.
Landwehr, Haverei, 47.
110 Kampen BvR, art. 5; Kampen GB, art. 14.
‘Dit recht heb wi laten scrijven van sciepen de comen mit ghasten oft mit borgheren tot onser
111 havene ende soe wanner sie comen tandern havenen in andern lande, dar nemen si dat recht alse
daer zedelic ende woentlic is.’
112 For example, in the Codex Hammurabi from about 1750 bc. Landwehr, ‘Prinzipien der
 Risikotragung’, 595.
113 Cf. Jahnke’s comment that only the Rôles d’Oléron and the Ordinancie dealt with sea law
‘proper’ (though without defining this), such as ship collision. Jahnke, ‘Hansisches Recht’, 47.
114 As discussed above, medieval law in general only distinguished between intent and accident.
Whether or not a person handled carelessly was not yet considered. Landwehr, Haverei, 16.
‘Colliding skipper’ is defined here as the skipper sailing the vessel that collided into another
ship. When a ship had stricken sail, anchored or sailed closer to land or a cliff, it was not very
manoeuvrable. Other ships were therefore expected to swerve by such a vessel. When a
115 collision occurred, the skipper of the more manoeuvrable ship was seen as the guilty party.
Oléron, art. 15; Vonnesse, art. 15 or art. 10 in some manuscripts, also in Gotland SL, arts 29–30
and Wisby SL, art. 27; HUB I, no. 538; Hamburg 1497, art. 48.

116 Hamburg 1301/6, art. 21; Riga I, art. 6; Hamburg 1497, art. 47; Riga II, art. 3.

117 Lübeck SL, art. 23, similar regulation in Lübeck TL, art. 132, also in Gotland SL, art. 65 and
Wisby SL, art. 71.
118 Wisby SL, art. 27.
119 ‘Bi oere pene van lyve ende van guede’ (‘on their pain of life and goods’): Kampen BvR, art. 3,
similar wording in Kampen GB, art. 23.
‘Et est resoun pur quei cest jugement est fet si est, qe une viele nef se mist volunters en la voie
a une meilure, si ele touz ses demages pur quider aver lautre nef; mes quant ele siet, qele doit
120 partir la moite, ele se voit volunters de la voie.’ Oléron, art. 15. This part was made into a
separate article in some versions of the Waterrecht and the Gotland Sea Law, making little
sense on its own.
Behrend, ‘Ungefährwerk’, 60, concluded that this part of the article is unhistorical and was
121 added to legitimise the change in regulation. Ward takes the comment at face value and calls it,
somewhat anachronistically, ‘a trailblazer for insurance scams’. Ward, World of the Medieval
Shipmaster, 169.
Oléron, art. 16; Vonnesse, art. 16 or art. 11 in some manuscripts, also in Gotland SL, art. 31 and
122 Wisby SL, art. 28. For a more detailed explanation of this situation, see Jahnke and Graßmann,
eds, Seerecht im Hanseraum, 78, n. 85.
123 Oléron, art. 16; Vonnesse, art. 16 or art. 11 in some manuscripts, also in Gotland SL, art. 31 and
Wisby SL, art. 28; Ordinancie, art. 14, also in Gotland SL, art. 51 and Wisby SL, art. 50.
124 Riga I, art. 2; Riga II, art. 2.
125 ‘Item een scip [. . .] die enen anderen anseylet sijns ondancs, dat scolde den schaden half
ghelden’. Ordinancie, art. 12, also in Gotland SL, art. 49 and Wisby SL, art. 48.
126 Oléron, art. 15.
‘Item dat gevalt dattet eene schip dat ander aenseylet met ongevalle, dattet eene schip mitten
goeden blijft verlooren, soo sal men werderen dat guedt in beyde schepen te gheldene, eer
127 eenich schip verloren was; dan soo sal den prijs van beyden gueden, toe samen gesommeert,
betalen dat verlooren guedt, pond pondes ghelijcke, marc marckes ghelijcke.’ Ordinancie, art.
2, also in Wisby SL, art. 68 (not in Gotland SL).
‘Voort lickerwijs sal men prysen die weerde van beyde schepen, alsoo eer die schade
128 geschiede; soo sal de prijs van beyden schepen ghesommet te gader werden, betalende dat
verlooren schip pond ponds ghelijc, marc marckes lijcke.’ Ordinancie, art. 2.
‘Were aver de schade groter, den schip unde ghuet lede dat under blift, wen dat schip myd
zyner tobehoringe werd is, dat dar bovene blift, alze id denne is dar id den schaden deyt: dar en
129 darf de schiphere unde zyn ghud nyne noet vorder umme lyden; vnde ok en darf des kopmannes
ghud, dat in deme schepe is dat den schaden daen heft, des schaden nicht mede ghelden.’
Hamburg 1301/6 (additions), art. 33, also in Hamburg 1497, art. 48.
This article concerned deliberate collisions which required reimbursement for the whole
130 damage. The possibility of swearing an oath to establish innocence was noted only at the end of
the article.
 3

The Five Towns Introduced

Now that it has been established that neither a single written law compilation
was available, nor that common regulations regarding the discussed subjects
were valid throughout northern Europe during the later Middle Ages, it is
time to determine whether any communality can be found in legal practice at
the urban courts. Questions such as which written laws were available in the
courts; whether any influence of other compilations on the contents of the
written laws can be established; whether the written laws were used for the
administration of justice; and what the content was of the judgements passed
by the courts will be answered in Chapters 4 to 7 as regards the five towns
selected for particular study (Aberdeen, Kampen, Lübeck, Reval and
Danzig). In this chapter these towns will first be introduced and then
compared.

Aberdeen
Aberdeen was the only one of the five towns considered in this study that was
an integral part of a single state throughout its medieval history: the kingdom
of Scotland. This does not mean that this status was uncontested throughout
its history. English kings in the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries
repeatedly tried to annex Scotland to their kingship. Moreover, the medieval
Scottish kings never ruled a fully centralised kingdom. The territory was too
vast and inhospitable for effective control in all corners of the land.1 Despite
the existence of several burghs, Scotland remained essentially a rural society
throughout the Middle Ages. Towns were small compared to those in
England and on the continent, and only a small proportion of Scots came to
live in them.2
Aberdeen is situated at the transition of a cliffy coastline from the south
and dune-fringed beaches from the north, between the estuaries of the rivers
Dee and Don. Until 1891 two towns existed in Aberdeen: Old Aberdeen, or
Aberdon as it was sometimes called, and New Aberdeen. Old Aberdeen was
the seat of a bishop from 1131 and was centred around St Machar’s
Cathedral.3 New Aberdeen started as a small trading and fishing settlement in
the early Middle Ages. The Dee estuary provided a good starting point for
overseas and inland trade, and was a valuable source of fish.4 Not until the
second half of the eleventh century did Aberdeen become a place of some
importance. Foreign merchants had been encouraged to trade in Scotland by
Queen Margaret during the reign of King Malcolm III (1058–93), and some
commerce is known to have existed with Flanders and England at this time. It
is very likely that Aberdeen was one of the destinations of this trade as it was
named as one of three main trading centres north of the Forth (with Perth and
Inverkeithing) in the early twelfth century.5
Aberdeen became a royal burgh during the reign of King David I (1124–
53), gaining certain economic and legal privileges. Because of Aberdeen’s
position so far north of all other large ports on the east coast (Berwick, Leith,
Dundee and Perth), it grew to become the dominant port in the northern part
of the kingdom.6 This position was strengthened through royal privileges,
such as a weekly market and an annual fair. The town was thus able to
become a central distribution point for all goods that were produced in a very
large hinterland. The annual fair would, moreover, attract merchants from
further afield.7
The Scottish towns had a unified town law: the Laws of the Four Burghs
(Leges Quatuor Burgorum). These included regulations from the late twelfth
and early thirteenth centuries and were compiled in the second half of the
latter century at the latest.8 In contrast to continental town laws, which
generally came into existence as part of the bids by urban communities to
gain independence from (local) lords, the Scottish burghs and burghal laws
were created under royal patronage. This meant that the burghs were part of
the legal structure of the realm, and did not have a legal status completely
separate from it like the continental towns, though they did have a certain
measure of autonomy.9
The four burghs were Roxburgh, Berwick, Edinburgh and Stirling, which
also made up the Court of the Four Burghs, first documented in 1292.10 This
court existed to handle questions from the Scottish towns regarding
customary law, to function as a higher court in matters concerning the burgh
laws and to stipulate new ordinances. The court was presided over by the
king’s chamberlain, who also visited each burgh annually to hold court (the
‘eyre’) and supervise burghal affairs.11 In the fifteenth century the Court of
the Four Burghs was possibly extended to include members from all
burghs.12 The Scottish towns were also subject to decisions of the parliament
in the shape of legislation and statutes gathered in the Acts of Parliament, but
as the central administration was not powerful enough to execute these laws
effectively, these acts were often not implemented.13

Map 3.1: The Kingdom of Scotland.

 The early burgh of Aberdeen was governed by royal officials. By the
fourteenth century these consisted of a praepositus, also known as alderman
or provost, and four ballivi, bailies.14 The latter remained royal officials
throughout the Middle Ages, thus officially dispensing the king’s justice, and
presided over their own bailie court.15 The alderman, on the other hand,
represented the guild or the town community.16 In burgh government, the
officials were supported by the burgh court (curia burgensium, curia burgi),
which consisted of all the burgesses. In these meetings local laws and
customs were established by which all were bound.17 Head courts (curia
capitali), in which all decisions affecting the entire community had to be
approved, were held three times a year. A council was in place from the late
fourteenth century at the latest, which in Aberdeen consisted of between
twelve and twenty-four members and was presided over by the alderman.18
The legal court (curia legalis, later also curia tenta per ballivos) was
presided over by the bailies, but decisions were made by the burgesses
present.19 This court mainly considered civil cases, but matters concerning
mercantile affairs such as forestalling and the unprivileged cutting of cloth
were handled by the guild court, presided over by the dean of guild.20 The
dean also claimed jurisdiction over all maritime cases but, in accordance with
Article 25 of the Leges Quatuor Burgorum, such cases were normally
handled by the bailies instead.21 From the mid-fifteenth century, the provost
and the bailies were sometimes appointed depute admirals and were thus
competent to treat admiralty cases. An admiralty court for the whole of
Scotland existed from at least 1488.22 Because of the international character
of many maritime cases and the diplomatic relations sometimes involved,
maritime cases were also regularly remitted to the Lords of Council from the
late fifteenth century. Indeed, in the sixteenth century, there was an
occasional struggle as to who was competent: the admiral, the bailies in their
function as the admiral’s deputes or the dean of guild.23
Burgesses could appeal against decisions of the burgh courts before the
Chamberlain’s Eyre which was held once a year, but also to the Court of the
Four Burghs. Parliament also functioned as the country’s highest court, but
the King’s Council gradually came to supersede it in the fifteenth century.
The pressure of an increasing number of cases demanded a more professional
and fixed body than parliament which only sat for short periods and was not
able to administer regular justice effectively. By the 1490s the Council,
seated in Edinburgh since the 1460s, had taken over parliament’s judicial
functions almost completely. This development eventually culminated in the
foundation of the College of Justice in 1532.24

Scotland and the Hanse

Although Scottish towns were, and could never be, members of the Hanseatic
League, their main trading partners were German merchants based in
Flanders.25 Before 1321 a Scottish staple was established in Bruges, which
functioned as the great entrepot for trade from northern, western and southern
Europe, and, in principle, all Scottish wool, hides and woolfells were
exported there. The Scots enjoyed special protection and privileges in the
town and from 1407 the interests of the Scottish merchants in Bruges were
represented by a ‘Conservator of the Scottish privileges’.26 Relations with
Bruges were, however, not without their problems. Because of falling trade
and general maritime turmoil, Scottish merchants became involved in piracy,
which resulted in a Hanseatic embargo on the import of cloth made from
Scottish wool from 1412 to 1415 and from 1419 to 1436.27 This embargo was
not enormously effective, since some of Scotland’s most important trading
partners, such as Danzig, Stralsund and Hamburg, opposed and broke it.28
Trade with Bruges also continued, although the Scottish staple was moved to
Middelburg in Zeeland several times during the fifteenth century, and trade
also started to develop with Veere, Bergen op Zoom and Antwerp from the
1460s. However, Bruges remained Scotland’s main trading partner until the
late fifteenth century, as well as being the main outlet for Aberdeen’s wool.29

Kampen
Kampen lay in the Oversticht, consisting of the present-day provinces of
Overijssel and Drenthe, and the town of Groningen, subject to the Utrecht
bishop and part of the German Empire. The base of the bishop’s power lay in
the Sticht, the present-day province of Utrecht, and the bishops were
generally too weak to use their power far beyond this province. In the twelfth
century, when trade along the River IJssel started to develop, merchants
settled at a strategic point beside the mouth of the river.30 In the second half
of the twelfth century, a large church was built to serve the community of
settlers; the size and allure of this church implies that the settlement was
already of some significance.31
By the mid-thirteenth century Kampen had already become a trading centre
of some standing in northern Europe. This is confirmed by the privilege
issued by King Abel of Denmark in 1251 for the umlandsfaræ or
ommelandvaarders, traders who took the sea route around Skagen to reach
the Baltic instead of the land route from Hamburg to Lübeck. Although the
privilege does not specify who exactly its beneficiaries were, we can assume
that burghers of Kampen were among them, as an original of this privilege is
kept in the Kampen archives.32 Kampen’s swift development was due to its
geographical situation: it was surrounded by fertile land and well-stocked
water. From the second half of the twelfth century, moreover, the mouth of
the river IJssel was deep and wide enough for trading vessels to reach
Kampen. Floods in the second half of the thirteenth century widened the
openings from the Zuiderzee out to the North Sea: the Vlie (between Vlieland
and Terschelling) and, some years later, the Marsdiep (between Huisduinen
and Texel). Seaborne ships could now enter the Zuiderzee, providing better
conditions for long-distance trade to the coastal towns by this inland sea.33
The IJssel formed an important waterway with the towns in the Rhineland
and especially Cologne. Thus, Kampen became a trading and transhipment
point for goods from the countries bordering the North and Baltic Seas and
from the Rhineland.
Map 3.2: The Netherlands around 1300.

In the thirteenth century the Kampen government consisted of the schout

representing the bishop, schepenen (aldermen), raden (councillors) and the
universitas civitatis Kampensis or gemeente (town community).34 How
exactly these groups functioned within the local government in this period is
unclear. Around the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth
centuries the schepenen and raden made use of the unrest that existed within
the Utrecht diocese to make a bid for greater autonomy. The increase of
power of the schepenen and raden took place at the expense of the schout’s
authority. As a result, the schout lost his influence on town government,
although he did remain involved in the administration of justice.35
Town government from the fourteenth century consisted of twelve
schepenen, who were supported by twelve raden. In practice, the same men
from the rich merchant families remained in government throughout their
lives. Two burgomasters, appointed for a month at a time, were in charge of
daily government.36 Besides dealing with daily government, the schepenen
were also in charge of law and order. The two burgomasters administered
justice in the lower court in which civil cases and small offences were
handled. Appeals and larger offences were considered by the higher court
which consisted of all the schepenen. Appeals from this court could be
lodged before the full board of schepenen and raden. The schout
administered justice over guests.37 An important role in the town government
was played by the clerk, especially at the start of the fourteenth century when
books recording the administration of the town and the law started to
appear.38 Two collections of town laws have survived from the late
fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries: the Boeck van Rechte and the Gulden
Boeck, respectively, which will be discussed further below.

Kampen and the Hanse

The relationship between the Hanse and the town of Kampen was complex.
Occasionally Kampen functioned as a neutral power or blockade breaker in
conflicts between the Hanseatic League and Norway, Flanders, Denmark and
Holland. Nonetheless, the town was very interested in the activities of the
League, and regularly attended the Hanseatic meetings. Between 1367, when
Kampen decided to join the war against Denmark, and 1393, the town was
present at thirty-five meetings, more than any other Netherlandish town.39
Kampen also at times shared in the Hanseatic privileges.
In 1441 Kampen applied for (re)admission into the Hanse and was
accepted.40 Some Hanseatic towns were suspicious of Kampen, expecting its
traders to be working with merchants from Holland and Zeeland. Thorn and
Königsberg, for example, were against Kampen being granted membership at
all, and Danzig only agreed to admission if Kampen would commit itself to
comply with the League’s rules. Kampen remained a member of the Hanse
into the early sixteenth century when the League had already lost most of its
importance, and when Kampen’s trade had also become less significant.
From the second half of the fifteenth century the IJssel had slowly silted,
making it more difficult for increasingly large sea-trading vessels to navigate.
Kampen’s trade further deteriorated when it became involved in wars
between the duke of Burgundy and the duke of Guelders. These ended in
1528 when Utrecht, Overijssel and Drenthe were annexed by the Habsburg
emperor, Charles V. Trade with the Baltic continued, but Scania had already
lost its significance by then and the merchants from Holland and Zeeland had
become too dominant for their position to be easily challenged by those from
Kampen and neighbouring towns.

Lübeck
In the 1140s a new town of Lübeck was founded about six kilometres from
the old Slavonic castle of Lübeck (Alt-Lübeck, Slavonic Liubice) by Count
Adolf II of Schauenburg, the new lord of Holstein since the area had been
taken over by Germanic people. The new town was situated on a peninsula
by the meeting point of the Trave and Wakenitz rivers, in a location better
suited for the large trading settlement that Adolf had in mind than that of Alt-
Lübeck.41 Through its position on the coast of the Baltic Sea and its
favourable infrastructure, the town soon became an important centre of trade
in the area. It continued to grow in the second half of the twelfth century
despite regularly changing overlords.42 In 1200 and 1201 the county,
including the towns of Hamburg and Lübeck, was conquered by the Danish
king Knut IV (1182–1202). Lübeck had by this time already grown to some
importance in the Baltic region.
Knut was succeeded by his brother Waldemar II (1202–41). Lübeck was
now part of a kingdom which spread over a large part of the Baltic area. As a
result, the town could extend its trade in the southern and eastern Baltic
regions. When King Waldemar II sought to establish his power in Estonia
and Livonia, after these areas had been partly Christianised and colonised, he
eventually lost touch with Lübeck’s needs, even temporarily closing down its
harbour in 1220. In 1223, when Waldemar and his son were captured by
northern German lords, Lübeck renounced Danish overlordship.43 In 1226
Lübeck was granted Reichsfreiheit by Emperor Frederick II (1220–50). This
meant that the town would acknowledge the emperor as its sole lord, and
never again be conveyed to another vassal.44 From that time Lübeck was
almost completely autonomous, although officially still part of the German
Empire.
Little is known about Lübeck’s government in the twelfth century. The
different lords of the town were usually represented by a Vogt (advocatus,
governor). This Vogt convened all citizens who owned property in the town
to the so-called Echteding three times a year. At this meeting, questions of
communal property, town affairs and inheritance cases were handled. These
same citizens were called to the Vogtding, where all criminal and private law
cases were considered. Day-to-day town government was probably conducted
by merchants on behalf of the wider body of citizens. By a privilege of
Emperor Frederick I of 1188, the community of burghers was granted
statutory rights (rights of kore, Willkürrecht), and some time before 1201 the
independent representation of the civilians became formalised through the
creation of consules.45
These consules soon developed into an executive as well as legislative
council, relatively independent from the community. Two-thirds of the
council members were responsible for daily government, whereas the
remaining third were on leave for a year, only to be called upon when
important matters were handled (for example when new by-laws were
decided upon). The two most eminent councillors were appointed burgo-
masters from about 1230–40. Around 1300 this number was raised to four.
Two were responsible for daily government, whereas a third, similar to the
arrangements among councillors, was on leave. The fourth (and youngest)
burgomaster was a member of the council and only called to office if one of
the other three died.46 The communitas (a representative body of the burghers
of the town) was expected to attend important council meetings, so as to
create a broader base for its decisions. The bursprake, which is first recorded
in 1297, was a gathering of all the burghers of the town at which the by-laws
were read out to them and they were informed about new statutes and
decisions, much like the burgh court in Aberdeen. They were then required to
swear an oath to abide by these laws. In later times it was instituted that all
citizens were to be present at these meetings.47
Map 3.3: Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein.

From around 1243 the Vogt, who by that time only functioned as a judge
chosen by the council, was joined by two councillors in the Vogtding, also
known as the Niedergericht (lower court). During the fourteenth century the
Vogt disappeared from the Niedergericht altogether and was replaced by a
clerk.48 In the Niedergericht, criminal and private law cases were handled,
but serious cases and appeals were considered by the council.49 For guests, a
guest court (Gastgericht) existed which could handle cases more swiftly than
the other courts, in order to expedite the business of short-term visitors to the
town. Cases that involved guests could also be brought before the
Niedergericht and the council.50
In these courts Lübeck’s own town law was utilised. Collections of laws
were written in Latin in the thirteenth century; manuscripts in Low German
started to appear from the last third of that century. These laws were edited
and supplemented over the years with new statutes and by-laws. They were
copied for dispatch to between eighty and one hundred towns which were
granted Lübeck law in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Lübeck
functioned as a higher court (Oberhof) for these towns, although some
intermediary courts were instituted for the smaller towns, such as for example
at Reval, Elbing, Anklam, Rostock and Greifswald.51

Lübeck and the Hanse

The terms ‘Lübeck’ and ‘Hanse’ are practically inseparable. During the four
centuries that the Hanseatic League was active, Lübeck was its political head
(caput omnium).52 This was because the town played such an important role
in northern European commerce. Since Lübeck’s main activity was long-
distance trade, it did everything in its might to further its trade. It gained
trading privileges in as many territories as possible, combined with other
towns (in hanses) to gain a commercial advantage in different ports; it
threatened trading partners through blockades, for instance Novgorod in
1277, Bruges in 1280 and Norway in 1284, and it even pursued war.53
Hanses were originally associations of merchants from one or several
towns that traded in a particular foreign port or territory, in order to defend
their interests in a more effective way, mainly by gaining privileges from
foreign lords.54 The thirteenth century saw some changes in the manner in
which trade was conducted. First of all merchants, having accompanied their
goods up until this time, increasingly started to handle their business from
their home town which, as was discussed in the first chapter, is reflected in,
for example, the maritime laws. Abroad, they were represented by their
associates or assistants in several different towns, which caused the volume
of trade of single merchants to grow.55 Second, towns became increasingly
more involved in trade, protecting business that was conducted by their
burghers, and setting up trading agreements or negotiating privileges with
other towns or territories.56 This was because town councils consisted mainly
of merchants. Moreover, the council members from the different Baltic towns
were often related. Thus, whereas in the twelfth century hanses were
generally associations of individual merchants, backed up by their respective
home towns, from the thirteenth century the towns became more actively
involved.57 This is also the period in which the northern German towns first
started to draw up maritime regulations.
Because of recurring conflicts between the German merchants on one side
and the town of Bruges and its lord on the other, Lübeck decided to call all
towns that traded in Bruges to a general meeting in 1356. This meeting is
generally considered to be the first Hansetag, the first general meeting of the
Hanseatic League. Soon thereafter a blockade was set up against Bruges
(1358–60). Despite meeting on a regular basis after 1358, the Hanseatic
League would never become a clearly defined union with a constitution and
comprehensive rules or its own executive or financial organs. The Hanse was
an Interessengemeinschaft, sharing communal interests, but only existing and
functioning when urban interests corresponded.58 Shared interests ensured
that, although consisting of an ever-changing group of towns, the League
remained active throughout the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, conflicts and
competition between the different groups of towns (Wendish, Prussian,
Livonian, Netherlandish) became increasingly regular from the late
fourteenth century. The meetings of the Hanse were usually held annually in
Lübeck during the second half of the fourteenth century and about once every
three years in the fifteenth. Apart from these ‘general’ meetings, which were
rarely attended by even all of the active members, gatherings of smaller
groups of towns were organised more regularly.
Lübeck generally acted as leader of the Hanse: it raised certain issues,
proposed decisions and devised statutes. From 1418 Lübeck was officially
acknowledged as head of the Hanse.59 The town had already been in charge
of Hanseatic business between meetings during the fourteenth century. It sent
out correspondence to other towns and negotiated with trading partners and
with neighbouring lords. Decisions at the meetings were made unanimously,
meaning that they were enacted when none of the town representatives
present filed any complaints.60 Decisions and enactments were recorded in
the Hanserecesse, the minutes of the general meetings, which were
subsequently issued to all active members. It was expected that the statutes
laid down in the Hanserecesse would be adopted by all members. In reality
the towns decided themselves whether they would do so: they were not
bound by collective responsibility. When a statute contradicted the law in a
particular town, or when a particular town council did not wish to adopt a
specific rule, it was simply ignored without major repercussions.61 Only
when a town was openly hostile towards a decision was it verhanst, or
expelled.

Reval (Tallinn)
Throughout the Middle Ages, the area of present-day Estonia and Latvia was
known as Livonia (Alt-Livland). Besides the Estonians and Livonians,
Latvians and other Baltic tribes also inhabited the region. Trading in the area
were Danes, Swedes, Finns and Russians.62 The Livonian area was
Christianised from Riga (founded by Bishop Albert I in 1201) with the help
of the Order of the Sword Brothers (Fratres militae Christi, established by
Albert in 1202) and other German crusaders.63 In 1218 the bishop requested
King Waldemar II of Denmark’s help in subduing the Estonians, which
Waldemar provided, having been promised by the pope that he could annex
all he conquered from the heathens.64 Waldemar arrived in the harbour of the
trading settlement which would become Reval in 1219 and duly defeated the
Estonians. In the following years he had trouble maintaining his power and,
after his capture in 1223 and death in 1227, the Danes withdrew from
Estonia, only to return again in 1238. In the meantime the Sword Brothers
had founded a permanent town at Reval around 1230 with a community of
German merchants and their families from Gotland.65 The Danish Crown
ruled Estonia until 1346, when the land was sold to the Teutonic Order. The
Order would continue to rule Livonia and Reval until 1561.
Map 3.4: Medieval Livonia (Alt-Livland).

Long before the conquerors from the west came, a trade settlement existed
at the location of Reval, which was originally known by the Old-Swedish
name of Lindanyse or Lindanās. The settlement was situated beside an
accessible bay in the Finnish Gulf which was sheltered by cliffs, islands and
reefs, and at the crossroads of five trade routes. The area around Lindanyse
was known as Revele, a name that was transferred to the town by the Danes
and Germans. The Estonian name Tallinn (Taani Linn) means town or castle
of the Danes.66
Although Reval and the duchy of Estonia belonged to the Danish Crown
for over a century after 1238, they were essentially German. The king’s
vassals were mainly Saxons, and the duchy was left to be ruled by the king’s
Vogt (capitaneus, captain), who collected tithes and land taxes for him,
whereas the king himself mainly refrained from interfering in the duchy’s
business. The community of German merchants of Reval, which appeared as
a civitas for the first time in the agreement of 1238 (granting Estonia to the
Danish king), lived in the Unterstadt. The Oberstadt, on the other hand,
consisted of a stronghold on the Domberg, a hill, with the residences of lord
and nobles, and the cathedral church and living quarters of the bishop and his
chapter. It was also inhabited by craftsmen and servants.67
The Unterstadt gained important privileges from the king during the
thirteenth century. The first documented is that granted by King Eric
Plogpenning in 1248 in which he confirmed Waldemar’s privileges to the
town and granted it Lübeck law. The use of Lübeck law was confirmed and
extended by King Christopher I in 1255 and 1257, and by Queen Dowager
Margaret in 1273. Also, in 1257, a Latin copy of the Lübeck Town Law was
produced for Reval, followed by a version in Low German in 1282.68
The town’s privileges were confirmed by the Grand Master of the Teutonic
Order in 1347. Although he was the official ruler of Livonia, he was rarely
involved in local affairs. In his stead, the Livonian Master acted as lord in the
area, but was mostly represented by the Komtur or Hauskomtur in Reval. If
the town community had any problems with the clergy, nobles or officials of
the Order residing in the castle on the hill, these were referred to the Livonian
Master. For all other legal matters within the town, the council remained the
highest instance, but appeals could be directed to the Oberhof in Lübeck.69
Compared to Riga, Reval’s relations with the Teutonic Order were very
good and the town prospered under the Order’s wings. The town profited
from the support of the Knights on the international stage, but remained
largely autonomous.70 It was governed by a council of (on average) between
twenty-four and twenty-six councillors, including four or five burgomasters.
Unlike Lübeck, half the council was in office for daily business, leaving the
other half to take care of personal affairs, except when important cases were
considered. From the mid-fifteenth century, the council became a permanent
body of about fourteen councillors and four burgomasters.71 The town
community had some influence on the decision-making process in the town,
though just how much is unclear. The burghers were expected to be present at
the three-yearly Echteding or Eddach meetings, and were involved when
important decisions had to be made. Their influence decreased when the
power of the council grew, but it never completely disappeared.72

Reval and the Hanse

The Livonian towns started to cooperate with regard to trade in the mid-
fourteenth century, after Reval had been included in the principality of the
Teutonic Order in Livonia. At the first general meeting of the Hanseatic
League in 1356 the Livonian towns joined with the Swedish and Gotlandic
towns to form the ‘Livonian Third’ within the Hanse. At that time the
Livonians managed to gain important privileges for their trade in Flanders.73
In 1360–2 the first meeting of the Livonian Third took place, but the
Livonian towns themselves also held their own meetings from about 1363.74
These Livonian meetings mainly involved Riga, Reval and Dorpat. Other,
smaller towns were also occasionally represented, but only the three larger
towns were present at the general Hanse meetings. Although the towns
occasionally had differing interests when it came to trade, they usually held
together when it came to defending their common interests in Flanders and
Russia.75
In general, the Livonian towns were loyal members of the Hanse and
profited from its privileges throughout northern Europe, and from its support
in their trade with Russia. The only problems occurred when the Teutonic
Order decided to impose blockades on trade to certain towns or areas or take
other measures that damaged Reval’s trade.76 These blockades indicate that
the interests of the Knights and those of Reval did not always coincide,
although the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order was not as active
commercially as its Prussian counterpart. A good example of an issue of
conflict between Reval and the Order was the status of Narva. The town was
one of the Knights’ important strongholds, but Reval and Dorpat opposed its
acquisition of privileges because they considered the town a competitor.
Narva was, therefore, never allowed to become a member of the Hanse.77 On
the whole, however, Reval managed to be a loyal member of the Hanse as
well as a loyal subject of the Order. It profited from the relation with both to
protect and further its own interests.78

Danzig (Gdańsk)

Danzig belonged to several different masters and was fought over repeatedly
during the three centuries covered in this study. Until 1308 Danzig was part
of the principality of Eastern Pomerania. From the late tenth century until the
first quarter of the thirteenth century this principality was part of the duchy,
and later kingdom, of Poland, though only formally in some periods.79 The
princes of Pomerania regularly tried to free themselves from Poland, and
Duke Swantopolk (Swie˛topełk) eventually succeeded around 1225–7.80 In
1294 a Polish duke succeeded to the principality: Przemysław II, who in 1295
also became king of Poland. After his murder in 1296, uncertainty regarding
his succession in both Pomerania and Poland caused conflict involving
various nobles, the kings of Bohemia, who ruled Pomerania and Poland from
1301 until 1306, and the Teutonic Order. After the murder of King Wenzel II
of Bohemia and his son Wenzel III in 1306, a complicated struggle involving
all parties followed.81 The Teutonic Order finally conquered Danzig in 1308
and the rest of the duchy in 1309. The Teutonic Order then incorporated
Pomerania into its Prussian territory and ruled the area until 1454. In this year
Danzig, the other Prussian towns and a large group of nobles rebelled against
the Order with the help of the Polish King Kasimir to whom they had sworn
fealty. A thirteen-year war followed, which lasted until 1466. From 1466
Prussia, apart from its eastern regions which remained in the Order’s power
as a fief from the Polish king, was part of the Polish kingdom.
Geographically, the location of Danzig by the mouth of the River Vistula,
close to the sea but protected from it by a thirty-kilometre peninsula, was
perfect. To the west of the town, hills offered protection, whereas fertile lands
to the east and south-east were used for agriculture and cattle breeding. The
town itself was not built directly by the Vistula because of the danger of
floods. Instead, a castle with a surrounding settlement was constructed on the
Mottlau, which joined the Vistula just north-east of Danzig, in the second
half of the tenth century.82 It was first mentioned in the life of Saint Adalbert
of Canaperius as ‘urbs Gyddanyzc’ in 997.83 Most princes of Eastern
Pomerania resided in the castle and the urbs thus became a political centre.
This settlement would later become the Altstadt. Before this time a Slavonic
colony had already existed by the Mottlau.84
In the late twelfth century merchants from northern Germany appeared in
Danzig and settled to the south of the Altstadt. It is very likely that these
merchants were granted certain privileges when they settled in Danzig, most
importantly the right to use their own laws and to establish a market. Soon
the location of the settlement became impractical because the cogs of the
thirteenth century could not reach the town. The settlement was therefore
moved to the former site of the Slavonic colony by the Mottlau. This German
settlement probably received town rights from Prince (later Duke)
Swantopolk around 1224.85 It would later be known as the Rechtsstadt.
Map 3.5: The Prussian State.

No written record has survived about the founding of this town. It is

unclear, for example, whether the early settlement was granted Magdeburg or
Lübeck law at its foundation. A bailiff (Schulze/Schultheißen), a feature of
Magdeburg Town Law, appeared as a witness in the oldest document related
to the Rechtsstadt, which dates from 1227. Lingenberg argued, however, that
the Rechtsstadt and the German colony before 1224 used a form of Lübeck
law that the colonists had brought from northern Germany. In this period they
did not yet use written laws nor had they an established government and court
system.86
In 1263 Duke Swantopolk and the burghers from Danzig requested a copy
of Lübeck law from the town council in Lübeck. A copy in Latin was
prepared, with a dedication that stated that the manuscript was made after a
request from Danzig. Whether this manuscript ever reached Danzig is
doubtful, since the manuscript is not kept in Danzig and shows no signs that
it was ever used there.87 In 1294–5 Duke Przemysław II, who was also king
of Poland, granted Danzig the Magdeburg Town Law. This innovation was
probably initiated by Przemysław in order to obtain a unified town law within
his realm. Apart from Elbing, all the main towns in Eastern Pomerania and
Poland were granted Magdeburg Town Law.88
When the Teutonic Order conquered Danzig in 1308 it consisted of the
Rechtsstadt and the Altstadt. The Knights ordered parts of the Rechtsstadt to
be destroyed to prevent it turning into a centre of resistance whilst the Order
was occupied conquering the rest of Pomerania.89 The Order later allowed
the town to be rebuilt, but it is unclear exactly when. The Order converted the
castle into a convent from which the town and its surroundings would be
ruled by the Komtur, the Order’s representative.90
The Rechtsstadt received a new charter in 1342 or 1343 and was granted
Kulm Town Law in 1346.91 Officially, the Order had supreme control over
government and the administration of law in the Rechtsstadt, but in fact the
town was relatively autonomous. The Order supported the town in its trade
and external relations. By the late fourteenth century Danzig had surpassed
all other Prussian towns in importance. From the 1380s the council was
elected by a select group consisting mainly of long-distance traders, without
any influence from the Komtur. The Hauskomtur, the Komtor’s deputy,
remained involved in the Schöffengericht, the court of the bailiff, but it was
presided over by the Schultheißen, who was elected by the council. From the
early fifteenth century at the latest the town council was able to lay down its
own by-laws without the consent of the Komtur.92
The Altstadt was granted town rights by the Order in 1377, but the Order
remained lord and master over its lands. The Order also established a new
town, the Jungstadt. The Knights fully controlled this town’s government and
its trade. They had been involved in trade since the late thirteenth century,
and had now established a base for this activity. The Jungstadt’s trade would
become significant, but the town was no match for the Rechtsstadt. Only the
latter was represented in the meetings of the Prussian towns and those of the
Hanseatic League, and was even called maius oppidum Gdanczk when
referred to by the other towns of Danzig.93 Other parts of Danzig were the
Hakelwerk, which remained a colony of fishers until its incorporation into the
Rechtsstadt in 1454, and the Neustadt, which consisted of land outside the
town granted to the Rechtsstadt in the 1340s.94
From the late fourteenth century, the Teutonic Order increasingly favoured
its own trade over that of the Rechtsstadt. Before then, the Grand Master had
played a significant role in supporting the Prussian towns in their trade.
Relations had soured after the Order had been defeated at Tannenberg in
1410 and fell deep into debt. The Knights started to levy increasingly higher
taxes and imposed random restrictions on trade.95 This eventually resulted in
the Prussian towns rebelling against the Order in 1454. As a result, the
Rechtsstadt annexed the other Danzig towns in 1454 and 1455. Only the
Altstadt was allowed to keep its council, which was incorporated into a
general council.96 The now united town of Danzig obtained extensive
privileges from the Polish king, including the right to levy its own taxes. In
1457 Danzig received the ‘Great Privilege’ which gave the town an even
greater degree of autonomy and Reichsunmittelbarkeit, meaning that it was
only answerable to the king. The highest maritime court of the kingdom was
also established in Danzig.97 Relations with King Kasimir and his two
successors until 1500 were good, although dealings with the other Prussian
towns were less friendly. Because of its special rights within the kingdom,
Danzig’s trade was blooming and would continue to do so for the next two
centuries.98

Danzig and the Hanse

The five main Prussian towns, Thorn, Elbing, Kulm, Königsberg and
Braunsberg, already participated in the hanses in Flanders, England, Norway
and Russia in the thirteenth century. At that time, Danzig was still part of
Eastern Pomerania and traded mainly with Lübeck to obtain goods from
western Europe. In 1347 the so-called ‘Westfalian-Prussian Third’ within the
Hanse was founded, which by then included Danzig, and in 1356 the Prussian
towns joined the first general Hanseatic meeting in Bruges. At this time
Thorn and Elbing still played the leading role, but Danzig began to dominate
from the late fourteenth century.99
The Prussian towns were very active members of the Hanseatic League,
but they did not always agree with its policies and sometimes declined to take
part in its actions. Meetings of the Prussian towns were held regularly and
were presided over by the Grand Master. The Teutonic Order played an
important part in the decision-making process of these meetings. Initially, the
interests of the Knights and the towns were very similar, and the Order was
sometimes even considered a member of the League. Despite profiting from
Hanseatic privileges, especially in Flanders, however, it tended not to abide
by trading restrictions imposed by the League, nor did it normally attend the
general Hanseatic meetings.100 The Order did play an important role as
protector of the Hanse and initially supported the Prussian towns in their
trade. When the Order started to concentrate increasingly on its own profits,
however, complaints against it were voiced by the larger towns in the
Prussian meetings. The interests of the Teutonic Order and the larger towns
drifted further apart after the Knights’ defeat at Tannenberg in 1410. The
Order started to ignore the towns’ privileges and sought only to advantage its
own trade. On the other hand, the Grand Master was still acknowledged as
helper and protector of the League by the other Hanseatic towns. The
Prussian towns could therefore not count on support from the other towns in
the struggle with their lord, which ended in 1454.101
The position of the Prussian towns within the Hanse was relatively
independent. Initially, the Prussian and Wendish towns had similar interests;
both functioned as transit-ports and traded identical types of goods with the
same trading partners. At the same time the two groups of towns were
competitors in the way in which this trade was conducted. The Prussian
towns traded through the Sound, whereas Lübeck tried to obstruct this
ommeland-trade. From the late fourteenth century Prussia became an
important provider of much-needed grain and timber for the west, which was
the basis of Danzig’s swift growth.102 The Dutch and English especially were
seen as valuable partners by the Prussians, whereas the Wendish towns
considered them competitors. They initiated Hanseatic statutes prohibiting
shipbuilding for non-Hanseatics, for example, but the Prussian towns
continued to build vessels for the Dutch market. Similarly, merchants from
Danzig would trade with the English and Dutch in contravention of Hanseatic
statutes.103
The opening-up of an extensive Polish hinterland, the granting of almost
complete autonomy and the fusion of the different towns into one large
Danzig with considerable tracts of land outside the town boundaries in 1454
resulted in Danzig becoming an economic power in the Baltic which would
only grow stronger towards the end of the fifteenth century. It would
eventually surpass Lübeck and the Wendish towns in the sixteenth century. In
conclusion, one might say that Danzig gained its greatness mainly
independently of the Hanse, even though it was considered one of the
League’s most important members from the late fourteenth century.

The five towns compared

The five towns selected for this study were for a large part different as
regards the way they were ruled, the power they exercised outside the town
and the laws to which they were subject. They were, on the other hand, very
similar with regard to their geographical situation. All five towns were
located in areas very suitable for large ports: near accessible rivers or bays, at
the crossroads of trading routes and surrounded by fertile lands that made up
the necessary hinterland. Each of the five towns therefore grew to be an
important centre of trade in its own area and also played a significant role in
international commerce, although on different levels.
Danzig, Reval and Aberdeen came to greatness as trading towns first and
foremost on the basis of the produce from their respective hinterlands. An
important reason for Aberdeen’s wealth was its inland trade.104 The town was
the only large commercial centre in the north of Scotland and profited from
this situation from a very early date. A deterioration in the quality of wool
resulted in a slump in exports between about 1380 and 1440, but Aberdeen
regained its position as Scotland’s second largest port in the second half of
the fifteenth century as a result of salmon exports.105 Aberdeen was the least
active of the five towns in long-distance trade, although it was very
dependent on international shipping.
Danzig managed to profit greatly from Baltic grain being in heavy demand
in some parts of western Europe, especially from the second half of the
fifteenth century.106 This demand coincided with a significant increase in
Danzig’s Polish hinterland as a result of the town’s incorporation in the
Polish Kingdom in 1454. Before that time, Danzig had already been the
largest trading town in the eastern Baltic area. When German merchants had
settled in Danzig around 1170–80, the volume and reach of its overseas trade
had been extended significantly and Duke Swantopolk had further promoted
this trade in the first half of the thirteenth century.107 With support from the
Teutonic Order in its trade and external relations, Danzig’s trade grew further
in the second half of the fourteenth century. From the final years of that
century the town was the largest economic power in Prussia, trading with
most countries in northern and western Europe, as well as with the Iberian
peninsula.108 Lübeck was Danzig’s most important trading partner
throughout most of the Middle Ages, although its role declined as Danzig
increasingly expanded its trade to the west.109 Whereas Lübeck’s trade
diminished in the late fifteenth century, Danzig’s only increased further
because of the grain supplies from its hinterland. A similar development can
be seen in Reval, though on a smaller scale.
Like Danzig, Reval mainly exported goods from its hinterland and,
similarly, rye became an important factor in its continuing growth, although
at a slightly later time than the Prussian towns and on a smaller scale.
Although the town is well known for its trade with Russia, this was certainly
not the only source of income. Throughout the Middle Ages, Lübeck
remained the town’s main trading partner. Goods from the west were bought
in Lübeck for transport east, and furs, leather, flax, tallow and other goods
were brought back. A similar trade was conducted with Danzig, but the
Livonian merchants also traded directly in the west at Bruges and London.
For the salt trade to the Baltic, Dutch ships were used increasingly in the
fifteenth century.110 Both Danzig and Reval considered the merchants from
Holland and England as valuable trading partners, as opposed to Lübeck,
which viewed them as competitors.
Lübeck was the main entrepot in the Baltic region and one of the largest
trading towns in Europe for the period under scrutiny. Soon after 1159
Lübeck merchants were trading on Gotland and with the domination of
Gotland merchants in the Baltic slowly receding, from the 1180s German
merchants could be found trading in the east themselves.111 Another region
of interest for twelfth-century merchants from Lübeck was Scania, because of
the herring trade. The Lübeck merchants would maintain their position as
main players at the herring markets in Falsterbo and Skanör until these lost
their significance in the fifteenth century.112 London was another port
frequented by German merchants. They exported, in the main, cloth.
Lübeck’s main trading partner, finally, was Bruges. Only towards the end of
the fifteenth century did Lübeck’s power start to diminish somewhat when
other trading powers – the Dutch and the town of Danzig – started to prevail
in Baltic trade.113 Lübeck’s main activity was long-distance trade and it
gained its power first and foremost by functioning as a transhipment point for
trade from all over Europe. When merchants started to bypass Lübeck in the
late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the town lost much of its greatness.
Long-distance trade was also the main pursuit of the town of Kampen.
Goods were shipped to and from Cologne and the Rhineland, and Kampen
ships could be found transporting merchandise all over northern and north-
western Europe. For example, the ommelandvaart brought Kampen
merchants to Scania for the herring trade from 1250 at the latest. The herring
was brought home or transported to other ports along the North Sea and
Baltic coasts all through the Middle Ages. Kampen had also traded in
Flanders since the late thirteenth century and ships from the town were often
chartered in Flanders by foreign merchants to transport goods all over
Europe.114 Trade existed with Holland as well, but in the second half of the
fifteenth century relations soured because of the similar role the towns played
in Baltic and European trade.115 Competition from Holland towns in the
transportation of goods resulted in Kampen’s trade slowly deteriorating from
the late fifteenth century.
Aberdeen’s growth was due to a few factors. Its strategic position as the
only large town within an extensive area has already been mentioned. It is
likely that the town’s trade was already furthered by the king and queen of
Scotland in the late eleventh century. It also received some important
privileges from successive kings in the twelfth to fourteenth centuries. During
the Wars of Independence the town moreover became an important port for
the Scottish resistance and Robert the Bruce.116 The slump in Aberdeen’s
trade in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries was due to a lack of
available merchandise of sufficient quality.117 Combined with a location on
northern Europe’s periphery and the lack of a strong central lord to support
the town on the northern European stage, Aberdeen would never become an
international trading superpower.
The reason for Lübeck’s greatness was, besides its central location, the
support of several strong territorial lords in the early stages of its history.
Henry the Lion promoted the town’s international trade, Emperor Frederik I
provided the town with some valuable privileges, the Danish kings favoured
Lübeck’s trade in the Baltic and granted important privileges on Scania and
Emperor Frederik II, finally, granted the town complete autonomy when it
had already gained an important position in European trade and a strong
political position within its surrounding area. Kampen’s growth was due to its
strategic position in trade with the Rhineland. The town also managed to
profit from the 1251 ommelandvaart privileges from the Danish king and
became an important provider of transportation of merchandise. Unlike
Lübeck in its early history, Kampen did not have the support of a strong
territorial lord in its international trade. On the contrary, it became relatively
autonomous from an early stage, as did the other towns in this area. Because
of its location off the main sea routes, Kampen did not grow to have the same
significance as Lübeck, but it was nevertheless one of the largest trading
towns in the Netherlands.
Although trade was certainly promoted by some of the Eastern Pomeranian
lords, Danzig remained a regional centre of commerce during the thirteenth
century, being mostly dependent on Lübeck for its supply of goods from
western Europe. As the political centre of Eastern Pomerania, the town was
not as autonomous as some other towns in the area, but the community of
German merchants was allowed to use its own laws. When the town became
part of the Prussian territory of the Teutonic Order in 1308, its international
trade grew and was actively supported by the Knights. Having gained
sufficient strength in the second half of the fourteenth century, Danzig
became increasingly more independent. Its real strength surfaced when the
town was incorporated into the Polish Kingdom in 1454, bringing autonomy,
a united town, large tracts of land and an enormous hinterland.
Under Danish rule Reval also became a regional centre of trade. Like
Danzig, it lacked Lübeck’s strategic position, and it was therefore also largely
dependent on this entrepot for merchandise from western Europe. Reval did,
however, gain greater autonomy than Danzig in the thirteenth century and the
town’s privileges remained in effect under the Teutonic Order. As in Danzig
in the fourteenth century, the Knights furthered Reval’s international trade,
but the town had fewer problems with the Order in the fifteenth century. In
Livonia the Knights mainly directed their attention to Riga, leaving Reval to
enjoy greater autonomy.
Medieval towns were, by definition, relatively autonomous. They were
given special privileges from their respective territorial lords which separated
them from the surrounding countryside. These privileges often included
market rights, the right to use a town law and, mostly at a later time, statutory
rights. Town inhabitants were often represented by a council and although
territorial lords initially exercised their influence on town government
through officials, this influence almost always decreased when the town
community or, more commonly, the council became stronger.
In Lübeck, this external influence disappeared almost entirely when the
town was granted Reichsfreiheit in 1226. The town community had already
received statutory rights in 1188, but by the thirteenth century the council
acted mostly independently from this community as the legislative and
executive body. The statutory rights allowed the council to create its own
town law at a very early date. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries this town
law was widely disseminated when it was granted to many of the German
towns that had started to appear all along the southern Baltic coast. Some
received manuscript copies of the Lübeck Town Law from the Lübeck
council, and this body was often asked for legal advice. Lübeck also came to
function as a court of appeal for the burghers of all the towns with Lübeck
law. Besides its great influence in northern European trade, the town thus
also had a great impact on the legal developments in many Baltic towns.
Reval was one of the towns that was granted Lübeck law. Although Reval
was dependent on Lübeck as regards the contents of its laws, the town was
completely autonomous with respect to the execution of this law from the
mid-fifteenth century.
The German merchants in Danzig probably made use of a form of Lübeck
law in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but this law was no longer in
use from the late thirteenth century, when Duke Przemysław granted the
town Magdeburg law. In 1346 the Teutonic Order replaced this with Kulm
law. Only in the second half of the fourteenth century did Danzig gain
sufficient rights to ensure an autonomy similar to that already enjoyed by
Lübeck and Reval at a much earlier date. Statutory rights had been received
by the start of the fifteenth century. From the late fourteenth or early fifteenth
century, a maritime court for the whole of Prussia was situated in Danzig,
which meant that the town council could exercise an important influence on
developments in this field in a more extensive area. Danzig’s privileges were
confirmed and extended by the Polish king in 1456, resulting in
Reichsunmittelbarkeit.
Like Danzig, Kampen gained the bulk of its autonomy in the fourteenth
century. This was the result of political unrest in the Utrecht diocese in the
late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. The town’s privileges were
extended at this time, including the highest jurisdiction in 1309 and the
exclusion of the bishop’s official from town government by about 1300. It is
likely that the town had statutory rights in the fourteenth century, as the
oldest by-law is dated 1313. Contrary to Lübeck’s law, this town law
remained restricted to Kampen and did not affect legal developments
elsewhere, nor was it influenced in any significant way by other laws.
Lübeck, Reval and Danzig were all members of the Hanse, as was Kampen
when it suited the town commercially. This means that all four towns
regularly partook in the Hanseatic meetings at which communal strategies
were discussed and general decisions made. Lübeck had a large influence on
these meetings, but this did not signify that the other three towns agreed with
every action or abided by each decision. All four towns first and foremost
acted out of self-interest. Since Lübeck was head of the Hanse, this self-
interest coincided with what it considered Hanseatic interest, but the self-
interest of the other three towns sometimes opposed it. The varying interests
in the Hanse become very clear when we consider the Hanseatic boycott of
Scottish trade from 1412 to 1415 and 1419 to 1436. Despite its lengthy
duration, it did not bother trade with Scotland greatly, because three
important members, Hamburg, Stralsund and Danzig, did not abide by it. In
the fifteenth century the Bruges staple was very important for Aberdeen as a
market for its wool, and the town was therefore for a large part dependent on
the Hanse, or at least on some of its members. This did not, however,
influence Aberdeen’s government or law in any way.
Like the other four towns, Aberdeen received some important privileges
which secured a certain amount of independence from central government.
However, as opposed to the other four towns, Aberdeen was part of the legal
structure of the Scottish realm and subject to a unified burgh law. Scottish
law in general was for a large part centralised. In addition to the Laws of the
Four Burghs, the towns were subject to decisions of parliament, and there
were several national higher courts: the Court of the Four Burghs, parliament,
the Chamberlain’s Eyre and the King’s Council which eventually came to
replace parliament in its judicial functions. Because of a lack of an effective
central bureaucracy, not all centrally made decisions were followed, however,
and the towns did have some statutory rights. The town bailies were royal
officials originally, and were considered to dispense the king’s justice, but
they were elected by the council. The sheriff only remained in charge of
criminal justice, at least until 1445. Like the other four towns, Aberdeen was
thus to some extent independent, but overall it did have a much less legally
autonomous status.

1 Clancy and Crawford, ‘The formation of the Scottish Kingdom’, 29.

2 Ditchburn and Macdonald, ‘Medieval Scotland’, 97; Dennison, Ditchburn and Lynch, eds,
Aberdeen before 1800, xxvi; Lynch, Spearman and Stell, ‘Introduction’, 4.
The name Old Aberdeen suggests that the settlement is older than New Aberdeen. By 1131
New Aberdeen already existed and was perhaps even a royal burgh, whereas Old Aberdeen
 3 would not become a burgh of barony until 1489. See also Dennison and Stones, Historic
Aberdeen, 93.

4 Dennison, ‘Aberdeen before Aberdeen’, 4; Dennison, Simpson and Simpson, ‘The growth of
the two towns’, 13.
5 Dennison and Stones, Historic Aberdeen, 14; Dennison, ‘Aberdeen before Aberdeen’, 6.
6 Dennison, ‘Aberdeen before Aberdeen’, 6. See also Stevenson, ‘Trade between Scotland and
the Low Countries’, 271.
7 Dennison and Stones, Historic Aberdeen, 18.
8 MacQueen and Windram, ‘Laws and courts’, 209–11.
9 Ibid. 212.
10 In 1368 David II decided that Roxburgh and Berwick, which were now both in English hands,
were to be replaced by Linlithgow and Lanark. Pagan, The Convention of the Royal Burghs, 11.
11 Ibid. 2, 5, 10.
12 Ancient Laws and Customs, ed. Innes, ii, x. This is confirmed by ACA, ACR IV, p. 497, Bailie
court, 3 Nov 1447. See also Chapter 7.
13 Lynch, ‘Towns and townspeople’, 175.
14 Ewan, ‘Age of Bon-Accord’, 37.
15 With regard to the dispensing of royal justice, see MacQueen and Windram, ‘Laws and courts’,
214.
16 Early Records, ed. Dickinson, cxv.
17 Ibid. lxxix.
Ibid. lxxxiii. Ewan (‘Age of Bon-Accord’, 37) wrote of a council of between twelve and
18 twenty, but in 1447 there is mention of a council of twenty-four (ACA, ACR V.ii., p. 724,
Guild court, 4 Nov 1447) and there may be other instances of this. As such, it would be more
accurate to speak of a council of between twelve and twenty-four.
19 Early Records, ed. Dickinson, cxxi.
20 Ibid. cxxviii. With regard to the merchants’ guild, see also Booton, ‘Economic and social
change’, 46–57.
Early Records, ed. Dicksinson, cxii. Welwod in 1613 wrote that before the office of admiral
21 was created, the deans of guild had handled civil cases ‘betwixt Mariner and Merchant’:
Welwod, Abridgement, 11.
Early Records, ed. Dickinson, cxiii. The first man who was named as Scottish admiral was
Alexander Stewart, earl of Mar, in 1415. Calendar of Papal Letters to Scotland, 1394–1419, ed.
McGurk, 306. The office was firmly established from 1488 when the first earl of Bothwell,
Patrick Hepburn, became Lord High Admiral. The office remained in the hands of the earls
until 1568. The oldest extant admiralty acts are from the second half of the sixteenth century.
22 Acta Admirallatus Scotiae 1557–61, ed. Wade, xiii–xiv. See also McMillan, ‘The Admiral of
Scotland’, 12, and for the Lord High Admiral and his jurisdiction in Scotland, see Murdoch,
The Terror of the Seas?, 10–20. The first Curia admirallatus that I have come across in
Aberdeen is from 1451, when the depute admirals Gilbert Menzies and John of Fife represented
George of Crightone, lord of ‘Carnys’, admiral of Scotland. ACA, ACR V.i., p. 127, Curia
admirallatus, 13 Sep 1451. See also Chapter 7.
23 Early Records, ed. Dickinson, cxiv. Finlay, ‘Foreign litigants’, 38–9.
24 Godfrey, Civil Justice in Renaissance Scotland, 10, 27.
The Hanse developed from an association of merchants under the protection of the German
25 emperor and therefore consisted solely of ‘German’ towns. These included the towns founded
by Germans on the southern Baltic coast, such as Danzig and Reval, but not the trading stations
(kontors) at Bergen, Bruges, London and Novgorod.
26 Stevenson, ‘Medieval Scottish associations with Bruges’, 95, 100.
The most prominent of these pirates was Alexander Stewart, earl of Mar, who operated from
27 Aberdeen in the early fifteenth century together with Aberdeen’s provost Robert Davidson. Mar
was appointed admiral around 1423. Ditchburn, ‘Merchants, pedlars and pirates’, 375. Jackson,
‘Aberdeen and the sea’, 160.
Many Stralsund ships can found in the council registers. Several cases involving Stralsund
skippers were, for example, handled at the town courts in 1478: ACA, ACR VI, p. 546, Bailie
28 court, 11 Sep 1478; p. 547, Curia burgi, 25 Sep 1478; p. 549, Burgh court, 3 Oct 1478; p. 553,
Curia burgi, 12 Oct 1478; pp. 557–8, Bailie courts, 13–14 Oct 1478. Ditchburn, ‘Cargoes and
commodities’, 19.
Ditchburn, ‘Merchants, pedlars and pirates’, 348–69; Stevenson, ‘Trade with the south’, 194;
29 Stevenson, ‘Medieval Scottish associations’, 107; Ditchburn and Harper, ‘Aberdeen and the
outside world’, 387.
30 Kossmann and Kossmann-Putto, ‘Kampen en Essen’, 141.
31 Ibid. 129. Kossmann-Putto and Kossmann, ‘Ontstaan van Kampen’, 4.
32 Original in GAK, OA, no. 2004, 24 Sep 1251 (printed in HUB I, no. 411). The privilege is also
mentioned in a charter of 1362 as being issued for Kampen (HUB IV, no. 54, 21 Aug 1362).
33 Don, ‘Das niederländische Kampen als althansische Schiffahrts- und Reederstadt’, 67–8.
34 Kamper Schepenacten, ed. Kossmann-Putto, 2.
35 Ibid. 3–4.
36 Ibid. 5–7.
37 Ibid. 4, 7–8.
This change in the registration regarding town and legal administration around 1300 is not
38 unique. It is a development that can be seen throughout Europe. Le Bailly, Recht voor de raad,
116.
Staveren was present thirteen times, Harderwijk eleven times, Elburg eight times, Zutphen
fourteen times, Deventer only five times. Four towns from Holland and Zeeland also regularly
39 visited the meetings: Amsterdam nineteen times, Zierikzee twelve times, Dordrecht ten times
and Brielle eight times. For a list of meetings and the attendance of towns from the
Netherlands, see Meilink, Nederlandsche Hanzesteden, 118–19.
Because no clear proof of earlier membership exists, some authors doubt if Kampen was
readmitted in 1441. (among others W. Stein in HGbll 40 (1913), 541ff. as cited by Petri, ‘Die
Stellung der Südersee- und IJsselstädte’, 47, n. 48.) The recess from that year states, however,
40 ‘dat men se wedder in de hense entfenge der se ychteswilke tijt ontboren hadden’ (‘that they
were again received in the Hanse, which they have had to do without for a while’). HR 2, II, no.
439, meeting at Lübeck, 12 Mar 1441, §25. Thus, the general view in 1441 was that Kampen
(or its merchants) had shared in the rights and privileges of the Hanse before. Whether we
would like to define this as membership now or not is irrelevant.
41 Gläser, Hammel and Schefter, ‘Lübeck’, 249; Hammel-Kiesow, ‘Die Anfänge Lübecks’, 37–
42; Am Ende, Verfassungsgeschichte Lübecks, 194.
 Duke Henry the Lion of Saxony and Bavaria (1159–80); Emperor Frederik I Barbarossa (1180–
42 90); Count Adolf III of Holstein (1190–1200/1). Hammel–Kiesow, ‘Anfänge Lübecks’, 49;
Gläser, Hammel and Schefter, ‘Lübeck’, 250; Hoffmann, ‘Lübeck im Hochund Spätmittelalter’,
103, 105.
43 Hoffmann, ‘Lübeck im Spätmittelalter’, 113–14.
44 LUB I, no. 35, Jun 1226. Am Ende, Verfassungsgeschichte Lübecks, 162.
45 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 227, 319. Hoffmann, ‘Lübeck im Spätmittelalter’, 217–18. Am Ende,
Verfassungsgeschichte Lübecks, 136.
46 Am Ende, Verfassungsgeschichte Lübecks, 212, 232. Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 232.
47 Pitz, Schrift- und Aktenwesen, 290, 295–6, 314; Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 316–17; Hoffmann,
‘Lübeck im Spätmittelalter’, 235.
48 Pitz, Schrift- und Aktenwesen, 261–2, 358.
In the Niedergericht, judgements were passed by a group of burghers who were chosen by the
governor from the public present at the case. This group was presided by a lawfinder
49 (Rechtfinder) who would propose a judgement which would then be decided upon by the group.
The judgement was finally passed to the judges who again had to consent and then make the
judgement public. Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 347, 351; Hoffmann, ‘Lübeck im Spätmittelalter’,
237. Cf. with the procedure in the council, Chapter 6.
50 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 376–7.
51 Ibid. 241–2.
52 Gläser, Hammel and Schefter, ‘Lübeck’, 248. See also Henn, ‘Was war die Hanse?’, 21.
53 Gläser, Hammel and Schefter, ‘Lübeck’, 248. Hoffmann, ‘Lübeck im Spätmittelalter’, 140.
54 For a description of the meaning of the word hanse and of the Hanse, see Henn, ‘Was war die
Hanse?’, 14–23; Hammel-Kiesow, Die Hanse, 26.
55 This was made possible through changes made in the mode of payment. Hammel-Kiesow,
Hanse, 52–3.
56 Hammel-Kiesow, Hanse, 54.
Recently, authors have moved away from the idea that there was a clear development from
57 hanses of merchants to hanses of towns to the thesis that there was not such a clear change. For
example Hammel-Kiesow, Hanse, 10; Henn, ‘Was war die Hanse?’, 20.
58 Pichierri, Die Hanse, 68.
59 Hoffmann, ‘Lübeck im Spätmittelalter’, 143–4.
60 Hammel-Kiesow, Hanse, 73–4.
61 Ibid. 72. See, for example, Danzig’s shipbuilding for the Dutch market against Hanseatic
prohibitions in this chapter.
62 Johansen and Von zur Mühlen, Deutsch und Undeutsch, 19.
63 Christiansen, The Northern Crusades, 77, 98, 123.
64 Christiansen, Northern Crusades, 106; Johansen, Nordische Mission, 103.
65 Johansen, Nordische Mission, 41–2. Kala, Lübeck Law and Tallinn, 20–2.
66 Johansen and Von zur Mühlen, Deutsch und Undeutsch, 30–1.
67 Christiansen, Northern Crusades, 56 and 192.
Johansen and Von zur Mühlen, Deutsch und Undeutsch, 37. Von Bunge, Liv-, esth- und
68 curländische Rechtsgeschichte, 159–60.

69 Johansen and Von zur Mühlen, Deutsch und Undeutsch, 47–50 and 60. See Chapter 6.
70 Angermann, ‘Die Stellung der livländischen Städte’, 117.

71 Von Bunge, Die Revaler Rathslinie, 22–3, 27–8 and 37–8; Johansen and Von zur Mühlen,
Deutsch und Undeutsch, 61.
72 Von Bunge, Geschichte des Gerichtswesens, 11. Johansen and Von zur Mühlen, Deutsch und
Undeutsch, 64.
73 Johansen and Von zur Mühlen, Deutsch und Undeutsch, 45.
74 Johansen, ‘Die Bedeutung der Hanse für Livland’, 45.
75 Misāns, ‘Zusammenarbeit und Konkurrenz’, 274–9, 285.
The Order imposed blockades on trade to Prussia during the war between the Teutonic Order
76 and the Prussian towns from 1454 to 1466, and on trade to Riga in a war between Riga and the
Order in the 1480s. Kreem, The Town and its Lord, 118–21.
77 Ibid. 118.
78 Vogelsang, ‘Reval und der Deutsche Orden’, 44–8.
79 Lingenberg, Oliva und Danzig, 267.
80 Swantopolk called himself duke from 1227. Lingenberg, Oliva und Danzig, 400.
81 Lingenberg, Oliva und Danzig, 413–20.
82 Simson, Geschichte der Stadt Danzig, i, 1–3.
83 Ibid. 11. ‘Vita St. Adalberti de Canaparius’, in Simson, Geschichte der Stadt Danzig, iii, no. 1.
84 Lingenberg, Oliva und Danzig, 268–9.
The founding date of Danzig has been the subject of much discussion. See Lingenberg, Oliva
85 und Danzig, 298–310. Benninghoven agrees with Lingenberg’s dating in his review of the
book: Benninghoven, ‘Entstehung und Baugeschichte’, 33.
86 Lingenberg, Oliva und Danzig, 337, 390.
The manuscript is kept in Göttingen, at the University Library. Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 78–80.
Ebel argued that it is possible that Danzig only requested the manuscript in order to be able to
87 make an informed choice as to which town law it would use in the future. Lingenberg does not
agree; he argues that it is more likely that the German colony already used an early form of
Lübeck law, since Danzig had maintained relations with Lübeck from its founding. Lingenberg,
Oliva und Danzig, 384–90.
88 Ibid. 396.
89 Benninghoven, ‘Entstehung und Baugeschichte’, 26–7, 36–7, 39. Lingenberg, Oliva und
Danzig, 420–7.
90 Ibid. 419–20, 430.
Kulm Town Law is an amended version of the Magdeburg Town Law which was granted to all
91 towns within the Prussian territory of the Teutonic Order. The town of Kulm functioned as the
highest court of appeal within this territory until 1454–66, when it was moved to Königsberg.
Elbing was the only town to be allowed Lübeck law. Ebel, ‘Kulmer Recht’, 9–16.
92 Biskup, ‘Der Deutsche Orden und die Freiheiten’, 117–19. Czaja, ‘Preussische Hansestädte und
der Deutsche Orden’, 63, 65. See also Chapter 4.
93 Hirsch, Danzigs Handels- und Gewerbsgeschichte, 34–5. Simson, Geschichte der Stadt Danzig,
 i, 93, 96.
94 Simson, Geschichte der Stadt Danzig, i, 49. Lingenberg, ‘Danzig’, 374.
95 Cieślak and Biernat, History of Gdańsk, 61.
96 Simson, Geschichte der Stadt Danzig i, 239–41.
97 HUB VIII, no. 563, 15 May 1457. Reproduced in Curicken and Curicken, Der Stadt Dantzig,
153–6. See also Chapter 6.
98 Simson, Geschichte der Stadt Danzig, i, 332.
99 Biskup, ‘Der Deutsche Orden und die Freiheiten’, 121.
100 Biskup and Labuda, Die Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens, 361; Arnold, ‘Die Hanse und
Preussen’, 87.
101 Biskup, ‘Der Deutsche Orden und die Freiheiten’, 125.

102 Biskup, ‘Der Deutsche Orden und die Freiheiten’, 121–2. Biskup and Labuda, Geschichte des
Deutschen Ordens, 358, 432.
Cieślak and Biernat, History of Gdańsk, 57–8. The selling of ships outside the Hanse was
103 prohibited according to Article 81 of the 1447 Hanserecesse (HR 2, III, no. 288); trade with
persons outside the Hanse according to Article 14 of the 1434 Hanserecesse (HR 2, I, no. 321).
104 Booton, ‘Inland trade: a study of Aberdeen’, 158.
105 Ditchburn, ‘Cargoes and commodities’, 13–18; Ditchburn and Harper, ‘Aberdeen and the
outside world’, 389.
An important reason for a growth in trade to Holland from the Baltic was a decrease in
106 available grain from France and the southern Netherlands, mainly because of political
developments from 1476 onwards. Van Tielhof, De Hollandse graanhandel, 12.
107 Lingenberg, Oliva und Danzig, 334. LUB I, no. 130 (between 1220 and 1224?); no. 132
(1240?); no. 133 (30 Jan 1248); no. 202 (31 Jul 1253); no. 272 (23 Apr 1263).
108 Lingenberg, Oliva und Danzig, 412. Kalisch, ‘Vorwort’, 7.
Lübeck remained an important source of products for Danzig’s import trade, sometimes
109 providing more than 90 per cent of Danzig’s cloth imports. This decreased to less than 50 per
cent in the late fifteenth century as a result of Dutch expansion in the Baltic. Stark, Lübeck und
Danzig, 83.
110 Angermann, ‘Stellung der livländischen Städte’, 116. Angermann, ‘Die Bedeutung Livlands für
die Hanse’, 109. Johansen and Von zur Mühlen, Deutsch und Undeutsch, 73.
111 Hoffmann, ‘Lübeck im Spätmittelalter’, 101–2.
112 Jahnke, Das Silber des Meeres, 274–5.
113 Hoffmann, ‘Lübeck im Spätmittelalter’, 215–16.
114 Meilink, Nederlandsche Hanzesteden, 197, 267.
115 The three main characteristics of this role were fishing, freighting and broking. Petri, ‘Die
Stellung der Südersee- und IJsselstädte’, 49.
116 Ditchburn and Harper, ‘Aberdeen and the outside world’, 386.
117 Ditchburn and Macdonald, ‘Medieval Scotland’, 113. Ditchburn, ‘Merchants, pedlars and
pirates’, 41.
 4

Written Law: Urban Collections of Sea Law

By studying the development and dissemination of the different law

compilations and their manuscript copies in the first chapter, it was
established that no single sea law compilation was available throughout
northern Europe at any time during the Middle Ages. In this chapter, this will
be investigated further by considering the manuscript collections of each of
the five towns in order to determine which sea laws were at the courts’
disposal and from what date. A comparison of the urban collections will
allow us to establish whether there was any communality in these and, if not,
to explain why they were different.

Aberdeen (Scotland)

The Scottish translations of the Rôles d’Oléron

None of the manuscripts containing any of the Scottish translations of the
Rôles d’Oléron can be linked to Aberdeen directly.1 The relatively unified
character of Scottish burghal law suggests, however, that those laws available
in manuscript form in one burgh would have been known elsewhere too,
either in writing or orally, and there is no reason why a collection of Scottish
laws should not have been available to the Aberdeen government and courts.
A description of the extant manuscripts from the whole of Scotland and the
texts they contain is therefore relevant, especially because these text have
received little attention from scholars up until now.2
Nine manuscripts are presently known to include a translation of the Rôles
d’Oléron. Six of these are kept in the National Library of Scotland.3 One
each can be found in the Cambridge University Library, the Lambeth Palace
Library and the Harleian Collection of the British Library (formerly British
Museum).4 The oldest manuscript that survives is the Bute Manuscript, which
is from the second half of the fourteenth century. The title ‘Of law and
custome of schyppys’ is the last in the list of contents, which also contains
the Regiam Majestatem, the Leges Quatuor Burgorum and other legal texts.5
On folio 171r this title is followed by four articles of the Custuma Portuum,
before continuing, on folio 172r, with the twenty-four articles of the Rôles
d’Oléron, in Scots, headed ‘leges navium’.6 The first article is entitled ‘Of
lawis of scyppis’. The articles are unnumbered, but all are headed by a short
title in red and the initial letter drawn in red or blue ink. The text finishes on
folio 174v. Although the manuscript includes the whole of the Rôles
d’Oléron as drawn up in the Liber Horn, the sequence of the regulations is
quite different (see Table 4.1).
The second manuscript (Adv. Ms. 25.4.15) is from the third quarter of the
fifteenth century, possibly from 1455. It contains the Regiam Majestatem,
Quoniam Attachiamenta, statutes, burgh laws and some smaller legal texts,
most of which are in Scots.7 ‘The lawys of schippis’ can be found on folios
159v–163r. The copy is headed ‘Her folowys the lawys of schippis’ and
includes twenty articles, unnumbered and untitled. As a result the individual
regulations are not easily recognisable, which makes the text impractical to
use in practice. The twenty articles correspond to the first twenty articles of
the Rôles d’Oléron; only Articles 14 and 15 have been switched around.
The third manuscript, Adv. Ms. 25.5.7, is from the 1470s. It contains the
Regiam Majestatem, statutes, baron court laws, burgh and guild laws and
other legal texts which are all in Scots. The ship laws originally consisted of
twenty-one articles, but because of some missing folios, the first three articles
are lost, as well as part of the fourth. The remaining articles were written on
folios 132r–134v. The text includes most of the Rôles in the correct sequence,
but Articles 14 and 15 have again been switched, and Articles 12, 13 and 19
have been omitted. The regulations are numbered and titled, but not always
correctly. The number viii is used twice, so that the last article is numbered
xx instead of xxi; the title of vi is that of Article 7 of the Rôles (it is used
again in vii), and that of x, which corresponds to Article 11 of the Rôles is
that of Article 12, which article itself has been omitted.
Table 4.1: The Scottish translations of the Rôles d’Oléron.
 The fourth manuscript, Adv. Ms. 25.5.6, was (mostly) written by James
Monynet in 1488. It contains the Regiam Majestatem, as well as statutes,
burgh and guild laws, Quoniam Attachiamenta, forest laws and some smaller
texts, of which some are in Scots. The title ‘The lawis ande the Custimys of
the schippis’ can be found on folio 205r, followed by the four articles of the
Custuma Portuum. The translation of the Rôles d’Oléron on folio 206v is
headed ‘Off lawis of schippis & schipmen’. From folio 207v to 210r the
words ‘The schip’ have been written on the top left pages and ‘Lawis’ on the
top right pages. The final article is on folio 216v. This copy includes forty-
five articles which are unnumbered, but most of which are titled. The first
twenty-four articles are exactly the same as those in Bute Ms., whereas the
other twenty-one correspond with the copy in Adv. Ms. 25.5.7, including the
articles lost at the beginning. Only Article 22 from the Rôles was initially
omitted in the second copy, being then added at the end. The manuscript thus
contains a double copy of the Rôles d’Oléron in Scots, with the exception of
Articles 12, 13 and 19 which are included only once.
Lambeth Palace Library Ms. 167 has recently been dated to the late
fifteenth century by the Scottish Parliament project, instead of to the sixteenth
century as previously suggested in the nineteenth-century catalogue. This is
based on the handwriting and the fact that the latest material is dated to
1469.8 The fact that the manuscript contains a single rather than a double
copy of the Rôles d’Oléron also suggests that it is from the fifteenth rather
than the sixteenth century, as all manuscripts from Adv. Ms. 25.5.6 onwards
include double copies. Ms. 167 contains Regiam Majestatem, Leges Quatuor
Burgorum, acts of parliament and other legal texts, mostly in Latin. The ship
laws are untitled and appear hidden between parts of the Leges Forestarum
on folios 214r–217r. There are twenty-four articles that are not numbered or
individually titled. Again, this would have made the text difficult to use in
practice. The articles are in the same sequence as the articles in Bute Ms.
There is no decoration at all.
The final manuscript from the fifteenth century is British Library Harley
Ms. 4700, which is probably from the later years of that century.9 It contains
the Regiam Majestatem, Leges Quatuor Burgorum and other legal texts, most
of which are in Latin. The ship laws are again preceded by the Custuma
Portuum, headed ‘The lawis and the custummys of the schippis’. The laws
themselves start on folio 145r and are titled ‘Of lawis of schippis and
schipmen’. The text consists of forty-five articles and finishes on folio 151v.
The sequence is the same as that in Adv. Ms. 25.5.6. The titles and first
words of each article are in red and the text is rubricated.
The remaining three manuscripts are from the sixteenth century. The first,
Adv. Ms. 25.5.9, contains an exact copy of the forty-five articles included in
Adv. Ms. 25.5.6. Indeed, the whole manuscript is possibly a copy of this
collection, or is at least closely related to it. Most texts were copied by John
Bannatyne in 1520. The ‘lawis of schippis & schipmen’ can be found on
folios 144r–150v, preceded by the ‘The lawis & the custumez of schippis’ on
folios 143v–144r. The titles at the top of the pages are different from those in
25.5.6. ‘Of lawis of (schippis &) schipmen & the Jugement of the lawis of the
sey’ is written on folios 144v–145r, 147v–148r and 148v–149r; ‘Of the lawis
of schippis’ on 145v–146r and 146v–147r; and ‘The Lawis of the sey’ on
149v–150r and 150v.
Cambridge University Library Ms. Ee.4.21 has been dated to the mid-
sixteenth century in the nineteenth-century catalogue.10 It has an owner’s
mark by Robert Reid, who was bishop of Orkney around 1550. The
manuscript includes Regiam Majestatem, statutes, Leges Quatuar Burgorum
and other legal texts, mostly in Latin. The copy of the ship laws is contained
on folios 306v–312v and titled ‘Of lawis of schippis and schipmen’. The
articles are numbered incorrectly: the numbering includes the preceding four
articles of the Custuma Portuum (headed ‘The lawis and custumis of
schippis’) and only encompasses titled articles to a total of thirty-three. In
fact, the copy consists of forty-five articles in the same sequence as Adv. Ms.
25.5.6.
Finally, Adv. Ms. 7.1.9 was probably written in the 1560s. It contains the
Regiam Majestatem, burgh laws, statutes, Quoniam Attachiamenta, forest
laws and some smaller legal texts, again mostly in Scots. The title ‘Off lawis
of schippis and schipmen’ can be found on folio 100v, again preceded by the
articles from the Custuma Portuum on folios 100r–v. This copy of the Rôles
contains thirty-nine articles in the same sequence as Adv. Mss. 25.5.6 and
25.5.9, but six articles have been omitted. These are (compared to the other
two) Articles 32, 33, 34, 36, 41 and 44. This means that nine of the laws are
presented only once, whereas the remainder are included twice. The articles
have remained unnumbered but most of them are titled. The final article can
be found on folio 105r.

Scottish sea laws

The Leges Quatuor Burgorum only include one regulation concerning the
administration of maritime law. In Article 25, it is stipulated that the bailies
were to judge any cases in which foreign skippers and merchants were
involved.11 In practice this was not always adhered to, as will be discussed in
Chapter 6. The Custuma Portuum or ‘Of the custome of schippis’ concerned
customs in the sense of duty paid for imported goods, and not customary law
as is suggested by the title ‘Of the law and the custome of schippis’ which is
included in some of the manuscripts described above.12 Most of the copies of
the ship laws were preceded by the Custuma Portuum, which is because both
concern sea shipping. The Acts of Parliament include regulations regarding
trade, such as that allowing only ‘personnis bot hable and of gud fame’ to
transport merchandise by sea, or that ordering the building of ‘schippis’ and
‘buschis’ of at least twenty tons on which the idle men of the burghs were
forced to hire for wages on pain of banishment.13 Whether these men would
have provided good and reliable service as crew members is, of course,
questionable. Another rule laid down by parliament under King James I in
1430 concerned the law of wreck. In principle, shipwrecked goods from
foreign ships would fall to the king, but if a vessel hailed from a country
where a different law was applied, this foreign law would be adhered to.14
This law was perhaps introduced to ensure merchants would continue to
frequent the Scottish ports, as regulations elsewhere, for example in England,
allowed for (a portion of) salvaged goods to be returned to their original
owners.15
In 1467 parliament under King James III released several rules regarding
shipping and trade. Most important is that which stipulated that a charter
party should be drawn up between skippers and merchants for every
journey.16 The skipper was also ordered to recruit an adequate number of
sailors, helmsmen and carpenters. Any damage to the cargo resulting from a
lack of crew would have to be reimbursed to the merchants. No freighting on
the ship’s decks, especially the orlop (the lower deck), was allowed unless
goods were taken free of charge. Such goods would not be compensated in
case of a jettison.17 In case of any disagreements on board, the law of the
next port of call would have to be abided by.18 That these rules were not
observed satisfactorily is indicated by an act of parliament of October 1487,
which was issued after some burgh representatives had requested the statutes
to be implemented.19

Other sea laws

Apart from the translations of the Rôles d’Oléron, there appear to have been
no copies of any of the other northern European sea laws in Scotland. There
is no evidence that the Dutch Ordinancie and the Waterrecht were available
in the Middle Ages. This may seem surprising given the importance of trade
relations with the Low Countries, but it fits in with the situation in England
and France, where these laws did not make an impact in the Middle Ages
either. Some clues about the reception of the Wisby Sea Law can, however,
be obtained from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Scottish writers. As in
England, an extensive literature about Scottish law developed from the
sixteenth century. Central court decrees were collected in so-called Practicks,
which are in form similar to the English law reports.20 Abridgements of laws,
which included abstracts from all possible legal sources, were also produced.
Three such works also included sea laws: Balfour’s Practicks, written in the
1560s and 70s, Welwod’s Abridgement of All Sea-lawes from 1613 and
Bisset’s Rolment of Courtis, which he finished in 1626.
Sir James Balfour of Pittendreich (d. 1583) collected acts of parliament,
regulations from the Regiam Majestatem and other old laws, as well as
central court decisions reaching back to 1469.21 Thirty pages out of a total of
684 in the 1754 printed edition were dedicated to maritime law.22 This part
was entitled ‘The sea lawis collectit furth of the actis of parliament, the
practiques, the lawis of Oleron, and the lawis of Wisbie, and the
constitutionis of Francois King of France, annis 1543, 1557’. Most of the
twenty-four regulations from the Rôles d’Oléron were reproduced in a more
extended form than those in the Scottish manuscripts. A few articles have
been omitted, while others were added which cannot be found in the original
Rôles and were probably taken from later, extended versions, presumably
from England as no extended versions are extant from Scotland. The rules are
referred to as ‘Ship lawis’. Balfour also included a number of articles which
he attributes to ‘Wisbie’, but only some of these can be found in the
sixteenth-century versions of the Wisby or Gotland Sea Law.
In 1613 William Welwod wrote an extension to his 1590 work The Sea-
law of Scotland, called An Abridgement of All Sea-Lawes.23 In addition to
citing extracts of ‘all’ extant sea laws, he wrote a short history of maritime
law. According to this history, the oldest laws in the Atlantic were ‘devised
by them of the Iland of Oleron’. These were translated into Dutch by ‘them of
Wisby, for the sea use of the Dutch coast’.24 Welwod did not include the
Scottish translations of the Rôles d’Oléron. In his introduction, he wrote that
contracts normally bore a clause of ruling by law of Oléron, which is ‘a
forraine law, as all the other lawes of the Admirall court commonly are’.25 In
the abstracts of the laws, the Rôles are often referred to, but ‘Wisbie’ only
once.26 The law in question again does not originate from the Wisby Sea
Law, but perhaps derives from the same law that Balfour used.
Habakkuk Bisset, in his Rolment of Courtis which was completed in 1626,
reproduced maritime regulations in the ‘fourt buik Of admirall and sea
lawes’.27 Bisset based his introductory history on Welwod’s account and
wrote that in the Atlantic area (including the Scottish seas) the laws of Oléron
or Wisby were observed and that ‘The scottis sea lawes followes the samin
allanerlie’ (solely/exclusively).28 The laws that he published as ‘judgements
and decreittis as war maid and statute for materis of the sea, of schipis,
maisteris, maryneris, merchandis and of all their doingis and practices etc.’
are articles from the edition of the Rôles d’Oléron as they were printed in
England by Petyt in 1536 in his Rutter of the Sea.29 It was followed by some
additions which were called ‘the auld lawes of Visbie’. In this case, five of
the articles do derive from the Wisby Sea Law, but the remainder could not
be identified.30
From these three works, it can be gathered that the Rôles d’Oléron, also
known as the ‘Ship lawis’, were the best known and best copied of the
foreign maritime laws in Scotland, even in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. The Wisby Sea Law was known, but all three of the authors
include regulations which they falsely attribute to this law. It is remarkable
that a Scots translation from the early seventeenth century of some of these
regulations existed at all, since the earliest French translation (in print) was
published by Cleirac in 1647 whereas the first printed English translation
appeared in 1704. It is possible that an earlier translation existed.31 Earlier
knowledge of these laws may have been based on the Dutch editions.
Nonetheless, there is no evidence that any other foreign sea law aside from
the Rôles d’Oléron was available or used in Scotland before the sixteenth
century.

Kampen

The Boeck van Rechte and the Gulden Boeck

In Kampen, two collections of town laws survive: the Boeck van Rechte,
which was started in the late fourteenth century, and the Gulden Boeck,
begun in the first half of the fifteenth century.32 Since the oldest dated
regulation in the Boeck van Rechte is from 1313, an older collection of town
laws probably preceded it.33 This is also suggested by the small introduction
on folio 1r of the manuscript:
Here begins the book of law of the town of Kampen, in God’s name
amen. We, the alderman and council of the town of Kampen, have made
this book with consent and support of our community, in which shall be
written all laws, statutes and regulations which have been found or will
be found in the future, which our burghers and town shall be held to
abide by in their right for all eternity, in good faith.34
The Boeck van Rechte includes several maritime regulations gathered under
the title ‘Van schippers ende schepen’ (‘Of skippers and ships’) on folio 17r,
followed by nine articles on sea law, four on other subjects and another eight
relating to maritime matters. Four separate regulations were entered further
on in the manuscript. Of these, the oldest dated article (Article 2) is from
1348, but a majority of the regulations is undated, so some of the articles may
be older. Article 22, for instance, which directly follows the sea laws, is from
1338. The other two dated articles concerning maritime law in this section
(Articles 20 and 21) were drawn up in 1352.
The laws in the Boeck van Rechte as a whole are numbered from the
beginning of the manuscript, but the numbering restarts at the section on sea
law even though the 119 articles that follow deal with other subjects for the
most part. The compiler may initially have planned to rearrange the laws
systematically, but he appears to have given up on this plan after grouping
together some of the other sea laws. There are two more regulations
concerning maritime law further on in this section, namely Articles 98 and
100, which are both dated 1372. The first 118 of the 119 articles appear to
have been compiled together, as two of the final articles date to 1351 and
1352 while others are younger. A terminus post quem for compilation is
provided by the youngest dated law, which was drawn up in 1391. The
collection was therefore compiled in the last decade of the fourteenth century.
Article 119 is dated 1396 and was written in a different hand. A few
regulations were added at a later date, as these have remained unnumbered
and untitled. Two of these, dated 1407 and 1409 on folios 39r and 42r
respectively, concern maritime law. The last dated regulation was drawn up
in 1416.
Most of the regulations concerning sea law in the Boeck van Rechte are
repeated in the Gulden Boeck, although they have sometimes been altered or
divided up. To these were added some articles that do not feature in the
Boeck van Rechte. Some of these were drawn up before 1416. They were
probably copied from one of the other registers kept by the town council.35
None of the articles regarding sea law is dated after 1409, with the exception
of the last one, which was added by another scribe in the year ‘l’, probably
1450.36 Also, an addition to the article on jettison (Article 5) was made in
1481. Taking into account that the most recent article in the Boeck van Rechte
is dated 1416, the Gulden Boeck was most probably created shortly after that
date.37
 In the Gulden Boeck the sea laws were newly edited under the title of
‘Waterrecht’. In the table of contents (folios 4r–14r) thirty-nine articles are
listed. On folio 17r four articles about the administration of justice on Scania
are included, also under the heading of ‘Waterrecht’. The sea laws listed in
the table of contents were written on folios 19r–28v. One article, indexed for
inclusion on folio 23, was omitted. The sea laws in the Gulden Boeck were
written in a completely different order than those in the Boeck van Rechte. A
separate heading was created for the articles concerning the crew:
‘Scepeskijndere’.38 That some articles were altered, or rather updated, and
others divided up in order to organise them in a more appropriate way
indicates that the town council had the intention of creating a sea law that was
more accessible and up to date. The articles have remained unnumbered, but
they are easily recognisable as separate regulations. There are no further
regulations regarding maritime matters in the manuscript, but four folios were
left empty for possible additions, like the regulation from 1450 already
mentioned. The reason why only one article was added to these laws between
1409 and 1500 may have been the arrival of a copy of the Vonnesse van
Damme and the Ordinancie at some point during the fifteenth century.

The Schiprecht
Inventory no. 17 of the Oud Archief of Kampen is the Schiprecht which,
according to the compiler of the inventory, was drawn up around 1550.39
There are several reasons why this is an unlikely date, one of which is the
evidence of the handwriting which is clearly of the fifteenth century. Also, if
the Vonnesse and the Ordinancie had spread as far as Danzig by the early
fifteenth century, it seems unlikely that Kampen, situated on the Zuiderzee
where the Ordinancie originated, only received a copy in the mid-sixteenth
century. Moreover, by this time Kampen had lost much of its importance as a
sea trading town, making a copy of the sea law somewhat redundant. The
manuscript was most likely written between about 1425 and 1450.40
The text was produced for the town council in Kampen, as becomes
evident when considering the remark on the first page: ‘Dyt boeck hoirt der
stadt van Campen toe ende is tboeck vander Water rechten’ (‘This book
belongs to the town of Kampen and is the book of water laws’).41 The first
quire of four folios (of which the first folio is stuck to the cover) contains a
table of contents which was written by another medieval scribe around the
third quarter of the fifteenth century. This table was probably added to the
text in Kampen before the book was bound. Two additions on the first pages
were written by yet another medieval hand and suggest that the Gulden Boeck
was used simultaneously with these sea laws. On the page stuck to the front
cover was written: ‘about the accountability as regards the setting of ships: in
the Gulden Boeck fol. xxvij’.42 On the next page, after the remark stating the
owner of the manuscript, we find ‘water law is also found in the town’s
Gulden Boeck’.43
The sea laws that follow on folio 1 are clearly recognisable as the
Vonnesse van Damme. Every article is headed ‘Dit is tfonnesse’ written in
red ink. The initial E of the first sentence (‘Eerst men maect een man meester
. . .’) is decorated, while the rest of the text is rubricated. This indicates that
the manuscript was written at a professional scriptorium, probably at one of
the monasteries in the area, rather than by a town clerk. Compared to the
copies in the Danzig archives, this manuscript is quite attractive.
The twenty-four articles of the Vonnesse, which are in the same sequence
as the original, are followed on folio 7r by a version of the Ordinancie in
thirty-one articles. Compared to the Amsterdam original, Articles 2 and 3/4
have been moved to the end of the text as Articles 29 and 30 and Article 16 is
divided into two articles: 13 and 14 (see Table 1.1).44 Article 28 of the
original was initially omitted, because the first line is the same as the starting
sentence of Article 27, but it was subsequently added at the end of the text,
after ‘Dits waterrechte etcetera’. Articles 26, 27 and 28 in the Kampen
manuscript, finally, are only found in this manuscript, the 1429 copy from
Danzig and the Wisby Sea Law, as previously related.45

The Hanseatic statutes

Kampen was present at many of the Hanseatic meetings, but it appears to
have been absent at most of the Hansetage at which statutes regarding
maritime matters were drawn up, with the exception of the last three which
took place after Kampen’s readmission into the League (1441, 1447 and
1470). The necessity of this readmission suggests that relations between
Kampen and the Hanse in the previous decades had been strained. This
explains Kampen’s absence from some of the meetings, not a lack of interest
in Hanseatic or maritime matters. Also, the majority of Hanseatic towns did
not attend all Hansetage, and regional groups of towns would generally send
one of them as a representative. Kampen cooperated mainly with Zwolle and
Deventer. Of the three meetings that Kampen did attend, the minutes are still
available in Kampen. Copies of the Hanserecesse were collected in eight
volumes of Acta Hanseatica, which are kept at the town archives.46 On a few
occasions Kampen did receive copies of the minutes despite its absence.47

Lübeck

Maritime regulations in the Lübeck Town Law

The oldest manuscripts of the Lübeck Town Law were written in Latin.48
Only two Latin copies from Lübeck have survived. The first is known as
Fragment (L), although it is not actually a fragment of a manuscript, but
rather a sort of copybook.49 It consists of only seven folios (fourteen pages),
of which the last five pages are empty. The handwriting changes midway
through the text and there is no formal ending, which indicates that the text
was a work in progress. The manuscript has been dated to between 1226 and
1234.50 The text contains seventy-two articles, one of which deals with sea
law (Article 65: ‘De promone’/‘On flat boats’). The second Latin manuscript
from Lübeck contains only toll regulations, and is therefore of no further
interest here.
That only these two relatively unimportant Latin manuscripts have been
preserved, when all the main Low German texts from Lübeck have survived,
is probably due to the fact that most of the Latin manuscripts were destroyed
in Lübeck when they became superfluous after the appearance of Low
German versions. The two remaining manuscripts were probably forgotten;
they were only recovered in the archives in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries respectively.51 There are other Latin manuscripts of Lübeck law
which have survived, but these are mostly authorised copies that were made
for other towns.52
Considering the manuscripts of the Town Law, it is possible to establish
when various articles on sea law were recorded for the first time (see Table
4.2). As related above, the oldest surviving manuscript (written between 1226
and 1234) contained one article on sea law dealing with the use of a flat boat
(pram) without the consent of its owner. No new articles regarding sea law
had been added by 1243, when an authorised copy was prepared for Tønder
in Denmark. The manuscript copies created for Danzig in 1263 and for Reval
in 1257 include one and five more articles respectively. These articles were,
however, added to the manuscripts at a later stage; they were first recorded
between 1263 and 1275.53 Article 90 in the manuscript for Danzig (H), which
is identical to Article 94 in the Reval copy (R1), regulates jettison, as does
Article 95 of R1.54 Articles 96 and 97 in this manuscript deal with ship’s
hire.55
The first Low German version of the Town Law was produced in the late
1260s or early 1270s; the oldest extant copy (for Elbing, E) dates to 1275.
This manuscript contains 161 articles of which ten, scattered throughout the
text, consider questions of maritime law.56 Shortly after 1275 an exemplar of
Lübeck Town Law was created in Lübeck. This manuscript, known as
Ratshandschrift or Kanzleihandschrift (K), was used by the council for the
administration of law and functioned as a model for authorised copies
produced for other towns. The manuscript includes eight different hands,
dating to the period from 1270 to about 1350. It is now kept in
Copenhagen.57
A copy of the exemplar, containing 168 articles, was made for Reval (R2)
in 1282. Nine articles deal with maritime law.58 One article (Article 134 in E,
133 in K) was omitted because it was almost verbatim the same as another
(Article 108 in E, 107 in K).59 In 1294 Chancellor Albrecht of Bardewik
reorganised the articles of the Town Law in an attempt to systematise the text
according to subject.60 His copy (Ba) contains 207 articles and forty-nine
were added at a later date.61 Eleven articles concern the law of the sea of
which two are later additions from before 1297.62
Table 4.2: Maritime regulations in the different manuscripts of the Lübeck Town Law.

a = from 1224 to 1236

b = from 1263 to 1275 I
c = from 1263 to 1275 II
d = from 1263 to 1275 III
e = from 1294 to 1297

The last two copies based on K were ordered by Burgomaster Tideman

Güstrow of Lübeck in 1348 (Ti1 and Ti2) and written by the Cathedral’s
vicar Helmich Thymmo. The first is an almost verbatim copy of the
exemplar, which by that time included 257 articles, and the second a
somewhat reorganised transcript. Both include the eleven articles on sea
law.63 No authorised copies were made of K after 1350, nor were any more
regulations added to this text. Instead, private compilations of Lübeck law
began to appear. In the fifteenth century such compilations included Lübeck
law and, for example, Hamburg, Roman or Saxon law or the Waterrecht.64
None of these fifteenth-century compilations derives, however, from Lübeck
itself.65 Initially, these manuscripts included clearly distinct sections of each
of the laws, but in the sixteenth century these laws were combined to create
texts that were subsequently considered to contain purely Lübeck law. Such
texts were not applied in the town courts, but they were used as a basis for the
revision of the Lübeck Town Law in 1586. This revision was undertaken by
the Lübeck town council after repeated requests starting in the late fifteenth
century from its daughter towns, especially Kiel, Rostock, Wismar, Stralsund
and Elbing, to provide clarity with regard to the contents of its law, as many
of the then available texts contradicted each other.66 As mentioned, no
authorised copies of Lübeck law had been produced since 1350, but the law
had steadily developed. Evidence of this development could, however, only
be found in the judgements of the Lübeck court, and these were not readily
available to Lübeck’s daughter towns. The latter were dependent on Lübeck
for the revision of the law. The 1586 Town Law consists of articles from the
Bardewik edition of 1294 and the Ratshandschrift, regulations from the 1270
Hamburg Town Law and statutes from the Hanserecesse.

The Lübeck Sea Law of 1299

The Lübeck Sea Law was compiled by Chancellor Albrecht of Bardewik and
was confirmed and sealed by the Lübeck town council at Invocavit 1299 (6
March).67 The original is kept in Bardewik’s Copiarius (folios 354r–361r)
and consists of forty-two articles.68 There is supposedly one copy with a
Flemish translation in a fifteenth-century Hanseatic book of laws, but this has
never been studied.69 Perhaps it was used in the Hanseatic kontor in Bruges.
The law is often referred to as ‘Jus maritimum in usum Osterlingorum’
(‘Maritime law for the use of the Oosterlinges’), but this does not appear in
the original manuscript.70 The name was first used in a printed edition of the
law by the syndic Dreyer, a Lübeck government official who published many
of the town’s laws around 1750.71 In the Copiarius the law is titled ‘IUS
MARITIMVM Lubecense ao 1299’. Dreyer provided Latin summaries of
each article in the margins. No glosses are included in the original which
could point to its use in the Middle Ages and the laws remained unchanged.
The text was also never copied into any of the manuscripts of town law,
neither official nor private. This may be because the laws concerned North
Sea shipping, whereas the towns using Lübeck law were all situated on the
Baltic coast. Whether the 1299 sea law was used in practice will be discussed
below.

Other sea laws

Lübeck will have possessed copies of all the Hanseatic statutes, although not
all the minutes of the Hanseatic meetings (recesse) have survived in the
Lübeck archives.72 Lübeck actively took part in devising these regulations
and was in charge of replicating the Hanserecesse for dispatch to all other
active Hanse towns. More importantly, the statutes had to be incorporated
into the town laws of all members in order to gain validity.73 Although this
was not always abided by, Lübeck, as instigator of much of Hanseatic
regulation, can be expected to have included the statutes in its town law as a
rule. The statutes from the 1418 meeting appear in some of the private town
law manuscripts from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.74
The Ordnung für Schiffer und Schiffsleute, which contains seven articles
describing the rights and duties of the crew with regard to certain activities on
board ships, was written in the first half of the fourteenth century.75 It cannot
be found in any of the official manuscripts of Lübeck Town Law, but it was
included in some of the compilations of Lübeck and Hamburg law of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.76 Articles 1 and 3–7 were also adopted in
the Gotland and Wisby Sea Laws. There, they make up Articles 1–6. The first
regulation is also repeated as the last article of these compilations.
No medieval copies of any of the other northern European laws survive,
apart from the mentioned compilations of Lübeck and Hamburg law. This is
quite remarkable, as one would expect the most important entrepot in
northern Europe to have owned copies of the most widely disseminated
medieval maritime law in that region. There are two sixteenth-century
manuscript copies of the Gotland Sea Law, produced in 1533 and 1537.77
They are probably copies of the 1532 Amsterdam edition of this law. The
first printed edition of the Wisby Sea Law from Lübeck was published
around the same time (1537). The appearance of this edition, which contains
more articles than the publication from 1532 or the two Lübeck manuscripts,
suggests that another manuscript of the Gotland or Wisby Sea Law was
available in the town. There is no evidence, however, that such a manuscript
can be dated to the period before 1500.78 Nonetheless, the absence of such
copies does not imply that the Waterrecht itself was unknown in Lübeck.
Indeed, one of its constituent parts was Lübeck law. The investigation into
legal practice in the final chapter will clarify whether the Lübeck council
actually preferred using its own laws until 1500 or whether other laws were
utilised too.

Reval

Lübeck Town Law

In a charter of 1248 King Eric Plogpenning confirmed the privileges granted
to Reval by King Waldemar II.79 The text is unclear as to whether
Waldemar’s privileges had already included Lübeck law or whether King
Eric granted them for the first time: ‘Eric etc. confirming herewith the
privileges given to our burghers of Reval by our Lord King Waldemar, grants
to the same all the laws which the Lübeck burghers have.’80 The use of the
Lübeck law was confirmed by King Christopher in 1255.81 Two years later a
copy of the Lübeck Town Law was produced for Reval at the request of its
council and the Danish king. This Latin copy of the Lübeck Town Law (R1)
is preceded by a copy of a charter by King Christopher dated 16 September
1257, granting Reval Lübeck law, and a preamble by the Lübeck council
stating that King Christopher and the burghers of Reval had requested a copy
of the law, dated August 1257.82
Am Ende has argued that the manuscript kept at the Tallinn town archives
is actually a copy of a 1257 original, because the charter from King
Christopher at the start of the manuscript post-dates the preamble, but
precedes it on the page. It is unlikely that the Lübeck scribe left a space at the
start of the manuscript to add the text of a charter that had not yet been
issued.83 Moreover, a translation of the original manuscript, produced in the
fourteenth century (R3), states that Christopher’s charter in the original codex
was sealed, but there is no evidence of a seal in R1.84 Both R1 and R3 are
therefore copies of a 1257 original, which has been lost.85
Am Ende has dated R1 to after 1282, as it includes an addition to Article
73 which is not found in any of the other Latin texts, nor in the earliest
German versions. The Low German copy of the Lübeck Town Law from
Reval dated to 1282 (R2), for example, does not include this addition. R1
included 103 articles, but it is no longer complete; the penultimate folio of a
total of sixteen has been cut out. The content of the last five articles,
contained on this folio, can be gathered from the translation. The 1257
exemplar originally consisted of the first eighty-seven articles of R1. Articles
89 to 103 were added to the exemplar between 1263 and 1282.86 Article 88 is
included only in R1 (and R3), but in none of the other manuscripts of the
Lübeck Town Law. In 1257 the Town Law had only contained one article on
sea law (Article 41). Five more were added to the Reval manuscript between
1263 and 1275 (Articles 90 and 94–7). Contributions to jettison and the
cutting of the mast were regulated in Articles 94 and 95 respectively.
In 1282 King Eric Glipping and his mother, Margaret, presented Reval
with a Low German manuscript of the Lübeck Town Law (R2).87 This text is
also preceded by a preamble, which is almost exactly the same as that in the
Latin manuscript. Two miniatures have been included on the reverse of the
front page, which are thought to represent the king and his mother. The
manuscript contains 168 articles, nine of which were added at a later date by
the same scribe.88 Another manuscript from the late thirteenth century is to a
large extent identical to R2, but only includes 167 articles.89 Small variations
in sequence and wording of the articles exist between the two manuscripts
and they were written by different scribes. It is unclear whether they were
copied from the same exemplar or whether one is a copy of the other.90 The
second manuscript was supplemented around 1390 with twenty-one court
judgements from Lübeck which were probably meant to be used as
precedents.91 Both manuscripts include nine articles on maritime law (in R2:
Articles 41, 85, 89, 98, 107, 132, 137, 146, 152). Articles 107, 132 and 137
cannot be found in R1. Article 107 regulates the payment of freight after
shipwreck; Article 132 concerns ship collision. The fourth manuscript
including Lübeck law contains the already mentioned Low German
translation of the 1257 exemplar (R3).92 The translation was made in 1347,
but this particular copy dates from the mid-fifteenth century.93 A final
manuscript of Lübeck Law was produced in 1511 and contains 219 articles.94

Other sea laws

There are no indications that a copy of the Lübeck Sea Law was kept or
utilised by the Reval council, despite the town having been granted Lübeck
law. No medieval or sixteenth-century copies from any of the other sea law
compilations survive either, nor is there any evidence of written by-laws
concerning maritime law having existed. The town thus appears to have been
dependent solely on Lübeck law. The only written regulations that were
available besides the nine in the Lübeck Town Law were the Hanseatic
statutes. Reval was a loyal member of the Hanse and was present at most of
the meetings at which the statutes regarding maritime matters were drawn up,
apart from those in 1378, 1380 and 1412. Riga was, however, present at this
last assembly, representing the Livonian towns, and Reval did receive a copy
of the minutes.95 Reval was present at the meetings of 1417, 1418, 1434,
1447 and 1470. None of the Livonian towns attended in 1441. The Tallinn
archives do not own copies of all the relevant recesse, but some may have
been lost.96 The Schifferordnung of 1482 has survived as a separate
manuscript entitled Jus Nautarum.97

Danzig

Town law
Towns in Silesia, Pomerania, Eastern Pomerania and Bohemia were generally
granted ‘German law’, which provided them with a status outside or above
Slavonic, Polish or Pomeranian land laws. German law usually included the
appointment of a Schultheißen, a bailiff, who governed the settlement in the
name of the territorial lord. In later years additional privileges would be
issued, granting towns the use of a particular law for the administration of
justice: Lübeck, Magdeburg or Kulm Town Law.98 It has been argued that
the inhabitants of the German settlement and town at Danzig utilised
unwritten Lübeck law. This argument is based on the fact that Lübeck was
Danzig’s main trading partner in the thirteenth century and that a copy of
Lübeck’s town law was requested by Duke Swantopolk and the burghers and
council of the town of Danzig in 1263.99 The Latin copy produced at this
request (H) consists of 100 articles, of which five are additions from the
period 1263–75.100 Two of these articles deal with maritime law (40 and 99)
and the second of these concerns jettison. There is no evidence that the
manuscript ever reached Danzig nor is there any that it did not or that it was
used elsewhere.101
Only thirty years later, in 1294–5, King Przemysław II of Poland granted
Danzig Magdeburg law. As discussed above, the Teutonic Order finally
provided it with Kulm Town Law in 1346. There is no evidence of
manuscripts of these town laws having been available in Danzig. They
would, moreover, not have been particularly useful for the administration of
maritime law, as Magdeburg and Kulm were both inland towns and their laws
therefore do not contain any regulations concerning sea shipping. This was
inconvenient for a town like Danzig, whose existence was largely based on
sea trade, and probably provides the explanation for Danzig’s acquisition of
an extensive collection of sea laws in the fifteenth century.

By-laws (Willkür)
No collection of by-laws has survived from the period before 1450, apart
from a few fragments from the fourteenth and the first half of the fifteenth
centuries. There is evidence, however, that such a collection was already in
use during the Order’s rule. In 1427 it was laid down that the jurisdiction in
matters concerning the Willkür was passed from the sitting council to the full
council.102 The oldest surviving manuscript of by-laws was written by one
scribe and was probably the council’s official copy.103 It must have been
produced after 1455, because it stipulated in Article 14 that nobody was
allowed to build anything ‘where the Jungstadt has stood’ (‘do die junge stat
gestanden hat’). This part of Danzig had been destroyed at the start of 1455.
In another by-law ‘this war’ (‘dieszen krygen’) is referred to, which indicates
that the war (1454–66) was still ongoing when the text was written.104 As the
statutory right (Wilkürrecht) was granted to Danzig by the Polish king in
1455, the collection was probably compiled shortly thereafter.105
The oldest surviving Willkür consists of 165 unnumbered articles in an
almost completely arbitrary order. The maritime regulations are, however,
grouped together as Articles 101 to 116. In 1479 three articles were added to
the Willkür, which are of no further interest here. The text is preceded by a
land Willkür (twenty-seven articles) granted by the Polish king. Many by-
laws in the manuscript were amended, deleted or added later during the
fifteenth century, in preparation for the next edition.106
In the second oldest extant manuscript, the text was edited completely. The
articles were placed in a different order and in addition to the changes already
introduced in the oldest text, further articles were added.107 The manuscript
was written after the Thirteen Years War, as some changes in the wording of
articles make clear, such as the use of ‘yn kriges’ (‘in war’) as opposed to ‘in
dieszen krygen’ (‘in this war’) in Article 16.108 That two of the three
additions from 1479, as well as some new by-laws, were included in the text
indicates a date of compilation after 1479. Simson dates the handwriting of
the main text, and possibly of some of the additions, to the fifteenth century.
He argues that the copy was produced between 1479 and 1500, probably
closer to the earlier rather than the later date.109 The manuscript consists of
202 articles which appear more organised than those in the older text,
although they are not divided by separate headings. Thirteen more additions
were introduced to the text between the turn of the fifteenth century and the
1560s, but none of these concern maritime law.110

Waterrecht manuscript 1
Besides the by-laws and the two articles regarding maritime law in the
Lübeck Town Law, the town court in the fifteenth century had two
manuscripts at its disposal which were dedicated to the law of the sea. The
oldest constituent part of the first (Fq, 1) dates from the early fifteenth
century.111 The manuscript can be divided into five parts, written alternately
on paper and on parchment.112 The first part consists of four sheets of paper.
The first of these contains a list of contents consisting of the first twelve
articles of the Vonnesse van Damme. The list is untitled and incomplete. The
remaining three folios are empty. The second part consists of twelve sheets of
parchment (folios 5–16). An interesting introduction appears on folio 5r:
‘These are the judgements passed by an honourable council of this
praiseworthy town of Danzig in those cases which belong in the sphere of the
common waterrecht.’113 The introduction continues to state that the
judgements that follow were recorded for use in future cases, as precedents so
to speak.114 Nine judgements have been recorded on folios 6r–9v in
sixteenth-century handwriting, the last of which is incomplete. Some of the
articles are dated.115 Folios 10–16 are empty.
The third part of the manuscript was again written on paper (folios 17–28).
Folio 17r includes two judgements that have been deleted. The first is dated
1425 and the second is a summarised version of the first. The first appears to
be in the same fifteenth-century hand as the list of contents on folio 1,
indicating that this list was written around 1425. The second judgement was
written by another scribe. Folios 17v–22r contain the nine judgements of the
second part without the introduction of folio 5r. In this case the ninth article
is complete and dated 1431. It is followed by six more judgements on folios
22v–25v numbered 10–15, some of which are dated.116 The articles were
written by several different hands, and only the groups 2–8, 9–10 and 12–13
were each written by one scribe. The judgements may thus have been the
work of seven scribes, all working in the first half of the fifteenth century.
The judgements that are dated appear in chronological order. It is therefore
very likely that the remaining judgements were written in the same year as
the preceding or following dated articles. This conclusion is supported by the
fact that most undated articles were written by a scribe of whom at least one
other article was dated.117 As such, only Article 14 remains undatable, but
since the other articles appear chronologically, it can be ascribed to a year
between 1433 and 1436. These judgements are probably the result of a need
felt by the council in the 1420s and 1430s to record its judgements in
maritime law as precedents, possibly because the Danzig court became
increasingly more involved in the administration of maritime justice in
Prussia.118
The fourth part consists of twenty-two sheets of parchment (folios 29r–
50v) and contains a copy of the Vonnesse van Damme and the Ordinancie.
This copy has been dated to around 1407.119 The copy of the Vonnesse is
complete and consists of twenty-four articles entitled: ‘Dit is twater recht in
vlaenderen’. This title was changed to ‘Dit is twater recht de men in
vlaenderen thom Damme usert dar de andern watherrechte uth gesprathen
sienn’ (‘This is the water law which is used in Flanders at Damme from
which the other water laws have sprouted’) by a later (fifteenth-century)
hand.120 Each of the articles is headed ‘Dit is tfonnesse’.
The Vonnesse are directly followed by a copy of the Ordinancie on folio
39v, entitled ‘Hier beghint die ordinancie die die scipheers ende die cooplude
met malcanderen begheren van sciprecht’ (‘Here begins the ordinance which
the skippers and merchants together desire as regards ship law’). This title is
repeated on folio 40r. The copy of the Ordinancie consists of twenty-eight
articles and is the shortest of all the known versions of this sea law (see Table
1.1). Articles 2 and 3 of the Staveren version have been omitted, Article 11 is
divided into three articles (9–11) and Article 15 into two (15–16). In the
sixteenth century (c. 1580) a Latin remark was added on folio 50v by council
secretary Kasper Schütz121: ‘Here fail the eight chapters that are reproduced
in the Lübeck copy (exemplar?)’.122
The last part of this manuscript contains the sixteen articles of the
Hanseatic Schifferordnung of 1482. It was written on the last four of six
sheets of paper (folios 53r–56r). Articles 13 and 16 have been added by other
scribes, and Article 15 has been deleted. The last article is followed by the
remark (by yet another scribe) that these articles should be copied and hung
‘up den hoff’, probably the Artushof, a hall near the town hall where the
merchants gathered, so that all seamen would be aware of the rules to which
they were expected to conform.123 This suggests, of course, that at least some
of them could read, and gives an indication as to how knowledge of laws was
acquired.
As a whole, the manuscript consists of several loose quires which were
only compiled after the Middle Ages. The second part is an incomplete copy
of the third part, written in the sixteenth century. The title at the beginning of
these nine judgements is also a later addition. Since this quire is presented
before the original text in the manuscript, the parts were probably bound
together at a later time. It is possible that Schütz compiled the manuscript in
the late sixteenth century.

Waterrecht manuscript 2
Parts of the second sea law compilation (Fq, 2) can also be dated to the first
half of the fifteenth century.124 The manuscript starts with a copy of the
Vonnesse van Damme and the Ordinancie which has been dated to around
1429. It was probably written by council secretary Konrad of Byczyna.125
The title of the Vonnesse on folio 1r is similar to that in the first manuscript.
None of the twenty-four articles is numbered or headed by ‘Dit is tfonnesse’.
The Vonnesse are directly followed by a copy of the Ordinancie on folio 10v,
entitled ‘Dith ys de ordinancie der schippers mitt den koppludenn
handttherende van denn waterrechten und de funthnisse daraff’ (‘This is the
ordinance that the skippers employ as regards the water laws and the
judgements thereof’). The titles of both laws appear to have been added by a
different scribe, who also wrote the list of contents on folios 29r–30r. The
Ordinancie consists of twenty-nine numbered articles and ends on folio 18v.
Articles 7 and 9 of the Staveren original have been omitted and Article 15 has
been divided into two (11–12, see Table 1.1). The last regulation of the
original is followed by three articles, which are included in this manuscript,
the copies from Kampen and Dordrecht, and the printed editions of the Wisby
Sea Law from 1537 onwards. Articles 2 and 3 have been added at the end of
the text.126 These two articles were supplemented later by another scribe; the
initials and titles have been omitted.
A list of contents of the Ordinancie consisting of twenty-six articles was
included on folios 27v and 28r. The titles of Articles 6, 28 and 29 are missing
in this list which confirms that the last two regulations were added at a later
time. There is another list of contents on folios 29r–30r which is numbered
1–35. These entries are followed by another six in a different handwriting.
The list of contents corresponds to the first two parts of the following copy of
the Gotland Sea Law, but four titles have been omitted in the list (26, 30, 33
and 35), making a total of thirty-nine articles in the sea law. The six added
entries in the list match the first six articles of the Ordinancie which makes
up the third part of the Gotland Sea Law.
The copy of the Gotland Sea Law, on folios 31r–50v, is entitled ‘Hyr
begindt dat hogeste Waterrecht’. It starts with the first fourteen articles of the
Gotland Sea Law. These are followed by twenty-five articles of the Vonnesse
van Damme (Article 15 is split into two: 29 and 30), twenty-eight of the
Ordinancie and two more from Lübeck. These last two parts have been
numbered separately (1–28; 35–36). Numbers 29–34 are missing. After
Article 28 on folio 50v a sign has been drawn which is repeated on folio 51r
with the words ‘D E S U N T sex articuli’: six articles are missing. This copy
of the Gotland Sea Law was never completed; initials and titles have only
been added to the first eleven articles. The manuscript as a whole ends with a
single judgement on folio 98v, dated 1431.
The numbering of the third part of the Gotland Sea Law, as well as the sign
and the remark, were probably added at a later time, when the text was
compared to a copy that included the six articles that are missing here. These
six articles were contained in the later editions (from 1537) of the Wisby Sea
Law. Without them, the content of the second text is exactly the same as that
of the 1505 printed edition from Copenhagen. The Danzig text also has a few
distinguishing marks in common with the 1505 edition, which differentiate
both from the manuscript from Copenhagen on which the edition is
supposedly based.127 The manuscript has therefore been thought to be a copy
of the printed edition, but this does not explain the odd numbering in the
Danzig manuscript, as the 1505 edition is numbered continuously from 1 to
66. Considering some textual differences, it is also unlikely that the printed
edition is based on the Danzig text. The exact relation between the different
versions thus remains a mystery.
Judging by the handwriting, this copy of the Gotland Sea Law was
probably written in the first half of the sixteenth century. It is therefore
unlikely that this text is that which was sent to Danzig from Wisby after a
request for a copy of Wisby’s sea law from the former in 1447.128 Janik has
argued that the manuscript is a later copy of the copy received in or shortly
after 1447. This argument is worth considering, as a manuscript was probably
sent from Wisby in that year, although it has not survived. According to the
request sent by Danzig in 1447, Wisby had already agreed to send a copy of
their maritime law to Danzig. The letter stated that representatives from
Danzig and Wisby had discussed the matter at the 1447 Hanse meeting in
Lübeck, the former having enquired whether Wisby possessed a better copy
of the Waterrecht. Danzig was in want of a better copy because its court was
now hearing an increasing number of maritime cases
about the expositions of the waterrecht, of which we have many cases
here in our town, to be able to administer justice upon the seafaring man,
which expositions we have heard you to have in writing clearly, much
more clearly than we have in writing . . .129
That the Danzig court asked for a better or clearer copy suggests that it
considered Wisby’s copy to be more extensive than the two already at its
disposal. This could indicate that it contained some of the Lübeck laws
included in the Gotland and Wisby Sea Laws. Another possibility is that
Danzig had only heard that the Wisby copy was better, which may suggest
that the Wisby court had a good reputation concerning its expertise in
maritime law. This could then serve as an important clue as to why the
Waterrecht came to be called Gotland or Wisby Sea Law.
 If the text in Fq, 2 is a copy of a manuscript produced in 1447, Wisby was
in possession of a very early compilation of the Waterrecht including Lübeck
law. Other copies from the second half of the fifteenth century are less
comprehensive. The manuscript from Copenhagen, which is considered to be
the first manuscript containing the full compilation, based on the previously
mentioned evidence of the numbering and the work of two scribes, has been
dated to the late fifteenth century. Such an early copy is therefore not likely
to have existed but, as both the Wisby original and its Danzig copy are now
lost, it cannot be ruled out as a possibility. An alternative solution is that the
two articles supplemented to the 1429 copy were added in 1447. On
comparing the Wisby and Danzig sea laws, it may have become clear that
only those two articles were missing from the version already available in
Danzig, and it may therefore not have been useful to copy the whole
manuscript. Based on this evidence it is possible to conclude that Danzig
possessed at least two and possibly three copies of the Waterrecht in 1447,
and at least three and potentially four from the early sixteenth century,
emphasising that the town was an important centre for the administration of
maritime justice in this period.130

Other sea laws

A printed edition of the Gotland or Wisby Sea Law supposedly appeared in
Danzig in 1538. It is mentioned in a book on Kulm law published in Danzig
in 1745, but neither Schlyter in 1853 nor Matysik in 1961 found any copies
of it.131 As only one copy of each of the editions from 1505, 1532 and 1537
survives, all 1538 prints may have been lost. The 1538 Danzig edition may
have been based either on the 1532 Amsterdam publication or on that from
Lübeck of 1537, as it appears to have had a similar title to both. A third
possible model is the sixteenth-century copy of the Gotland Sea Law in
Waterrecht manuscript 2.
As a permanent member of the Hanse, Danzig would have received copies
of all the Hanserecesse. The town was present at all the meetings at which
statutes regarding maritime law were drawn up, apart from that of 1482.
Copies of all the relevant recesse, except those of 1378 and 1412, survive, as
well as the 1482 Schifferordnung.132

A comparison
The collections of written laws available in the five towns differed quite
significantly. Only the Hanseatic statutes were accessible in written form in
four of the five towns, with the exception of Aberdeen. The 1447 minutes, in
which the payment of freightage after shipwreck was regulated, were
available in all four of these towns. The Hanseatic statutes were, however, far
from comprehensive and the presence of written copies of them in a large
percentage of the northern European towns does not indicate the existence of
a communal maritime law.
The Lübeck Town Law was available in Lübeck and Reval during the later
Middle Ages. It was probably also valid in Danzig from its foundation until
1294–5 when Lübeck law was replaced by Magdeburg and later Kulm law.
At that time Danzig’s version of the town law contained only two articles on
sea law. Reval’s most recent copy (of 1282) included nine; the most complete
edition from Lübeck from about 1297 eleven. In Reval, the Lübeck Town
Law and the Hanseatic statutes were the only two compilations of laws
including maritime regulations that were available in writing during the
Middle Ages. In Lübeck the council could also utilise the 1299 Lübeck Sea
Law and the Ordnung für Schiffer und Schiffsleute from the first half of the
fourteenth century. Danzig possessed a large collection of written sea laws in
the fifteenth century. Between 1425 and 1436 sixteen judgements, one of
which was deleted, were recorded as precedents. From the second half of the
fifteenth century, compilations of by-laws survive, in which local regulations
for the harbour were recorded. Besides these specifically Danzig laws,
manuscripts of the Waterrecht were available. The oldest of these was written
around 1407, the second around 1429 and a possible third was received in
1447. In the first half of the sixteenth century the third extant copy was
compiled which consists of the whole of the Gotland Sea Law, including the
articles from Lübeck. A copy of the Waterrecht was also available in
Kampen in the second half of the fifteenth century. In addition, the town had
drawn up its own Kampen Town Law in the Boeck van Rechte and the
Gulden Boeck, both of which contain maritime regulations. In Aberdeen,
finally, no evidence was found that the council possessed any written
compilations of sea laws. Six collections of the main Scottish laws including
a translation of the Rôles d’Oléron in Scots from before 1500 are, however,
extant. The Rôles may therefore be considered part of the central body of law
in Scotland and it is likely that the Aberdeen courts had knowledge of these
laws. This will be further discussed below.
 Three of the five towns were in possession of law compilations originating
in that particular town (Lübeck, Danzig and Kampen). In the case of the
Lübeck Town Law, these laws were also spread elsewhere, but the use of the
Lübeck Sea Law, the Danzig judgements and the Kampen laws remained
restricted to their respective councils. The time of compilation of these
compilations was quite different. The Lübeck laws were recorded relatively
early, in the thirteenth century, because the towns in the Baltic region that
had been granted Lübeck law had to be provided with copies of these laws.
The Kampen laws in their extant form were compiled in the late fourteenth
and early fifteenth centuries, but town laws had been recorded from the early
fourteenth century when the town probably received statutory rights. Before
that time Kampen law was administered orally; there was no need to write it
down for other towns. The Danzig judgements were not compiled until the
second quarter of the fifteenth century. The town council had been appointed
as the central maritime court for Prussia in the final years of the fourteenth or
first quarter of the fifteenth century and, for this office, needed a collection of
maritime regulations. Before that time Danzig had been relatively dependent
on the Teutonic Order. By the late fourteenth century Danzig had become
sufficiently independent to be able to pass by-laws and administer law
without the Order’s permission.
Reval and Aberdeen did not create their own laws or sea laws. These
towns were not legally autonomous like the other three. Reval was dependent
on Lübeck for its laws, which may be why no other written regulations
besides those in the Lübeck Town Law and the Hanseatic statutes were
utilised. Copies of the Lübeck Sea Law and the Ordnung für Schiffer und
Schiffsleute may have been expected there as well, but their absence may be
due to the Lübeck Sea Law having been written for North Sea shipping.
Reval only became involved in this on a larger scale in the fifteenth century,
over a century after the Sea Law had been compiled. Aberdeen was part of
the kingdom of Scotland, in which a relatively uniform legal system existed,
with a unified body of law. There were local divergences, but no significant
local compilations of laws came into existence, as they had in other areas of
northern Europe. The sea law utilised in Scotland, the Rôles d’Oléron, was
the same as that available through the Waterrecht elsewhere in northern
Europe, such as in Danzig and Kampen, and in Lübeck after 1500. In those
towns the Rôles were not the only laws accessible, however, whereas in
Aberdeen they were, the odd regulation in the acts of parliament and the
Leges Quatuor Burgorum aside.
None of the sea law compilations was available in all five towns. The four
Hanseatic towns all had copies of the Hanseatic statutes, but these only
covered the payment of freightage after shipwreck and could therefore only
function in addition to other laws. The main body of law in three of the five
towns was specific to those particular towns. In Danzig and Kampen, this law
was complemented by the Waterrecht, of which part was also valid in
Aberdeen. Reval was legally dependent on Lübeck, but was only in
possession of part of its written laws. All five towns thus had a different
collection of maritime laws at their disposal and no communality as regards
the available collections of sea laws in northern Europe existed. As
concluded in the first chapter, no single written sea law was available
throughout northern Europe at any time during the Middle Ages.

Some of the manuscripts cannot be placed at all as regards the Middle Ages, but it is unlikely
1 that any of the manuscripts now extant is from Aberdeen. The copies from the late fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries were mostly written for private use.
They are not, for example, mentioned in the Introductory Survey of the Sources and Literature
of Scots Law. Only Angelo Forte has named some of the manuscripts. Forte, ‘ “Kenning be
2 kenning” ’, 57. Gero Dolezalek listed the sea laws as part of the contents of the six NLS
manuscripts, but not of the other three, in his recent Census of manuscripts of legal literature in
Scotland, 47, 52, 69, 70.
NLS, Bute Ms. 21246; Adv. Ms. 25.4.15 (formerly Adv. Libr. W.4.ult.); Adv. Ms. 25.5.7
(formerly Adv. Libr. A.1.32); Adv. Ms. 25.5.6 (formerly Adv. Libr. A.1.28); Adv. Ms. 25.5.9
3 ‘Bannatyne’ (formerly Adv. Libr. A.7.25); Adv. Ms. 7.1.9 ‘Malcolm’ (formerly Adv. Libr.
A.3.22). Forte, ‘ “Kenning be kenning” ’, 61, mentions another manuscript (Adv. Ms. 24.6.3
(3)), but this actually contains the original of Balfour’s Practicks, which includes some articles
of the Rôles d’Oléron, see below.
4 Cambridge University Libary, Ms. Ee. 4. 21; Lambeth Palace Library, Ms. no. 167; British
Library, Harleian Ms. 4700.
The Regiam Majestatem is largely compiled of Anglo-Norman material copied from Glanvill’s
5 De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (late twelfth century), but also includes some later
Romano-Canonical material. Recent research has dated the compilation to shortly after 1318.
Sellar, ‘A historical perspective’, 39.
6 For Custuma Portuum, see below.
The Quoniam Attachiamenta is a ‘systematic handbook of procedure in the Scottish feudal
7 courts, written by an experienced practitioner’. It was written in the latter part of the fourteenth
century. Cooper, ‘The Scoto-Norman Law’, 7. Edition in Quoniam Attachiamenta, ed. T. David
Fergus (Stair Society 1996).
8 ‘Notes on the sources for the Parliaments of Scotland’, accessed on 30 August 2011. The date
has been adopted by the National Church Institutions Database of Manuscripts and Archives.
9 Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts.
Catalogue of the Manuscripts preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge, ii, 131–
10 2.

11 APS, i, 337, no. xxv De contencione orta inter nautas extraneos/Of stryff muffyt betuix
schipmen in burgh.
12 APS, i, 671.
13 RPS, 1458/3/11; A1493/5/21, accessed on 9 March 2009.
14 RPS, 1430/19, accessed on 9 March 2009.
15 Niitemaa, Strandrecht in Nordeuropa, 58–9.
This is different fom practice in England, where charter parties were not mandatory, though
16 signatories expected them to be recognised as legal documents in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries. Ward, World of the Medieval Shipmaster, 80.
Freighting on the orlop was prohibited entirely by the Hanse in 1447: HR 2, III, no. 288, § 82.
17 Such regulations may have become necessary because a new type of ship with an orlop had
appeared shortly before. This suggestion was kindly provided by Dr Carsten Jahnke.
18 RPS, 1467/1/14, accessed on 9 March 2009.
19 RPS, 1487/10/19, accessed on 9 March 2009.
20 They are called ‘embryo law reports’ in Sources and Literature of Scots Law, 27.
21 Ibid. 32.
22 The Practicks of Sir James Balfour, ed. McNeill, ii, 614–44. This is a reprint of the 1754
edition.
Welwod, Abridgement. The 1590 book was written in Scots, whereas the Abridgement was in
23 English. Welwod was professor of civil law at St Andrews. Acta Admirallatus, ed. Wade, xviii,
n. 1.
24 Welwod, Abridgement, 3.
25 Ibid. [ii].
26 Ibid. 49.
27 Habakkuk Bisset’s Rolment of Courtis, ed. Hamilton-Grierson, ii, 199–266.
28 Ibid. 202.
Ibid. 241. Thomas Petyt, A Rutter of the Sea (London 1536). This is the first edition of a
29 translation of the Rôles into English. The articles in Bisset can be found on pages 241–9 and
256–8.
30 Bisset’s Rolment of Courtis, 250–6.
31 Wisby Stadslag och Sjörätt, ed. Schlyter, xci, xcvi, c.
32 GAK, OA, no. 5, Dat Boeck van Rechte dier stat van Campen 1313–1416. GAK, OA, no. 6,
Dat gulden Boeck 1329–1614.
33 Kossmann-Putto, Schepenacten, 11. Overijsselsche Stad-, Dijk- en Markeregten, vii.
‘Hijr beghint dat boeck van rechte dier stat van Campen, in Goeds namen amen. Wi scepen
ende raet der stat van Campen hebben dit boeck ghemaket bi consente ende thodoene onser
34 ghemeente, daer men scrijven sal al recht, statute ende vorworde de men ghevonden heft of
noch vinden sal, daer men onse borgher ende stat mede holden sal in oeren rechte ewelike te
duijrene, sonder enigherhande argelist’.
Such as GAK, OA, no. 3, Stadboek van Kampen (Oudste Foliant) Register van acten van
voluntaire jurisdictie en andere zaken 1316–1385; OA, no. 7, Collectorium. De electione
35 magistratus. Register van aantekeningen over zeer uiteenlopende zaken 1365–1427; an
unknown register; or scattered leafs.

36 This article is listed in the table of contents, but also in a different handwriting.
In the archive inventory, it is dated to the mid-fifteenth century. Don, Archieven der Gemeente
37 Kampen, i, 1. In Overijsselsche Stad-, Dijk- en Markeregten, viii–ix, the handwriting is dated to
the mid-fifteenth century also.
38 Kampen GB, f. 24r.
39 Don, Archieven, 3.
40 My assumptions with regard to the dating of the handwriting were confirmed by Professor Dick
E. H. de Boer.
41 GAK, OA, no. 17, Dat Schiprecht, f. ar. Manuscripts were almost always written by order of a
customer, as they were expensive and time-consuming to make.
42 ‘Van rekenscap van scepe toe setten int gulden boec fol. xxvij.’ The article referred to is
actually on f. 26 of the Gulden Boeck.
43 ‘Van water recht is oick inder stat gulden boic.’
44 The articles in the manuscript from Kampen are not numbered.
45 Biben, ‘Geschiedenis van het Oud-Nederlandsche Zeeregt’, 471.
46 GAK, OA, nos 2,125–32 Acta Hanseatica.
Considering the lists of manuscripts used for the edition of the recesse in HR (of those
concerning sea law), Kampen copies existed at the time of editing of the statutes of the
meetings of 1434 (HR 2, I, no. 321, 5 Jun 1434, part of the articles in a newer hand); 1441 (HR
47 2, II, no. 439, 12 Mar 1441); 1447 (HR 2, III, no. 288, 18 May 1447); 1470 (HR 2, VI, no. 356,
24 Aug 1470). The Acta Hanseatica also include a copy of the meeting of 1418 (HR 1, VI, nos
556–7, 24 Jun 1418), GAK, OA, no. 2,125 Acta Hanseatica, and the Collectorium contains five
articles from the meeting of 1380 (HR 1, II, no. 220, 21 Oct 1380), GAK, OA, no. 7
Collectorium.
Because of the extensive research on the manuscripts of Lübeck law already undertaken and the
48 large number of available manuscripts, this paragraph is based mainly on secondary literature
and editions.
The Fragment used to be kept in the town archives in Lübeck, but disappeared after a large part
49 of the contents of the archives were stored elsewhere during World War II. The manuscript has
not yet reappeared. A photograph of the copybook is, however, available (AHL, A 3 Repert.
78-3).
50 Am Ende, Verfassungsgeschichte Lübecks, 70.
51 Ibid. 72.
52 For a description of all manuscripts, see Chapter 2. The manuscripts from Reval and Danzig are
considered in the relevant sections below.
53 Am Ende, Verfassungsgeschichte Lübecks, 56.
54 Edition of the Danzig copy (H) by Hach, Alte Lübische Recht as his Codex I, 185–228.
55 Edition of the Reval copy (R1) in Quellen des Revaler Stadtrechts, vol. II.
56 Articles 43, 85, 89, 99, 108, 133, 134, 139, 148 and 154. For the Elbing Mss of Lübeck law, see
Carstenn, ‘Die Elbinger Handschriften des Lübischen Rechts’, 143–83.
57 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 203–4.
 Articles 41, 85, 89, 98, 107, 132, 137, 146 and 152. Edition of R2 by Kala in Der Revaler
58 Kodex des lübischen Rechts. Landwehr, ‘Seerecht im Hanseraum’, 96, n. 8, has omitted Article
107 in his list.
59 Edition of K in Norddeutsche Stadtrechte, ed. Korlén, ii, 83–158.
60 Around the same time a copy was made for Kiel (Ki, now kept in Copenhagen) and a second
one for Elbing (E2). Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 204.
61 Due to the restructuring of Bardewik, the first 214 articles of K are to be found in the first 207
articles of Ba.
Articles 133–9, 146, 206, 212 and 222. Edition of Ba as Codex II in Alte Lübische Recht, ed.
62 Hach, 246–376. In 1297 a copy for the town of Kolberg (Kl) was produced including the two
additions. Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 204.
Wolter included another three articles: Article 61 which concerns inheritance and includes a
63 sentence about ships; Article 168 which concerns business associations; and Article 295 which
does not appear to exist in any of these manuscripts. He omitted Article 43 about the flat boat.
Wolter, Schiffrechte der Hansestädte, 14–15.
64 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 206, 208.
For a description of manuscripts, see Schiffrechte Hamburgs, ed. Lappenberg, P–T, c–cii. Two
65 sixteenth-century Lübeck manuscripts (from 1533 and 1537) include the Gotland Sea Law. See
further below.
66 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 209, 212–13.
67 Edition of the Lübeck Sea Law in LUB II, no. 105.
AHL, Hs. 753, Copiarius, ff. 354r–61r. The numbering generally referred to is that added by
68 Dreyer in the eighteenth century. The articles were not numbered originally, but numbering was
added at a later time, possibly still in the Middle Ages. This numbering is incomplete and skips
a number between 34 and 36.
69 HUB I, 428, n. 2, as cited by Wagner, Handbuch des Seerechts, 75.
Oosterlinges, esterlinges, sterlingi, Ostelins, Austrelins were the names used in western Europe
(England, Flanders, Netherlands) for the merchants from the ‘East’, i.e. from the Baltic area but
also Ostfriesland or Bremen. The term was used colloquially, contrary to ‘Hansa’ and
‘mercatores Alemannie’ which were used in letters and official documents. Hammel-Kiesow,
70 Die Hanse, 66. The name would not have been utilised by the merchants themselves, and would
therefore not have been in use in Lübeck around 1299. Jahnke is therefore mistaken when he
writes about the adoption of Hamburg laws in Riga and Lübeck and later in Bremen and
Oldenburg as ‘jus maritimum Lubecense in usus Osterlingorum’. Jahnke, ‘Hansisches
Seerecht’, 58.
The laws were published in J. C. H. Dreyer, De formula receptionis juris Lubicensis (Lübeck
1751); Vermischte Abhandlungen (1754). It is possible that Dreyer copied the title from the
71 Bruges copy, but as this originates from the Hanse too, it is unlikely that the term
Osterlingorum would have been used. Dreyer is, moreover, known to have been less than
accurate when citing his sources. See, for example, Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 79.
Considering the lists of manuscripts used for the edition of the recesse in HR (of those
concerning sea law), Lübeck copies existed, at the time of editing, of the statutes of the
72 meetings of 1412 (HR 1, VI, no. 68, 10 Apr 1412); 1417 (HR 1, VI, no. 397, 20 May 1417, no.
398, 24 Jun 1417); 1418 (HR 1, VI, no. 556, 24 Jun 1418, but not the text of no. 557 (same
date)); 1434 (HR 2, I, no. 321, 5 Jun 1434); 1441 (HR 2, II, no. 439, 12 Mar 1441); 1447 (HR
2, III, no. 288, 18 May 1447).
73 Landwehr, Seerecht der Hanse, 30; Pitz, Bürgereinung und Städteeinung, 408–9. See also
Chapter 6.
Landwehr, ‘Seerecht im Hanseraum’, 98. The text of HR 1, VI, no. 557, Articles 20–32 is used
74 here.

75 Landwehr, ‘Seerecht im Hanseraum’, 97; Goetze, ‘Der Anteil Lübecks’, 132. Edition of the
Ordnung in LUB III, no. 112 and HUB II, no. 667.
76 In the third codex edited by Hach, Alte lübische Recht, 379–548, as Articles 214, 193 and 215–
19.
77 The copy from 1537 is currently held in the Lübeck town library (Stadtbibliothek), Ms. Lub.
no. 584. The copy from 1533 was formerly held in the Dreyer library.
Cf. with the comment that the Waterrecht was used by the maritime courts in Lübeck: Jahnke,
‘Hansisches Seerecht’, 59 referring to O’Sullivan, Ahndung von Rechtsbrüchen, 42 referring to
78 Vogel, Geschichte der deutschen Seeschiffahrt, i, 365. Vogel refers to Wagner (‘Beiträge zur
Geschichte des Seerechts’, 408) but the latter makes no such statement. See also Frankot,
‘Diversity and unity’ (forthcoming).
79 Only a copy from 1 February 1347 has survived. LECUB I, no. 223. The original was dated 15
May 1248.
‘Ericus etc. Libertates, civibus nostris de Revalia indultas a domino Rege Waldemaro, tenore
80 praesentium confirmantes, remittimus ipsis omnia iura, quae habent cives Lybicenses.’ Von
Bunge, Liv-, est- und curländische Rechtgeschichte, 159. Kivimäe, ‘Das Lübische Recht’, 30.
81 LECUB I, no. 284, 16 Aug 1255.
82 TLA, TM, no. Cm 5.
83 Am Ende, Verfassungsgeschichte Lübecks, 49; Kala, Lübeck Law and Tallinn, 41.
84 Quellen des Revaler Stadtrechts, ed. Von Bunge, i, 39.
85 Am Ende, Verfassungsgeschichte Lübecks, 49.
86 Ibid. See concordance in Norddeutsche Stadtrechte, ed. Korlén, ii, 27–32 and Am Ende,
Verfassungsgeschichte Lübecks, 229–32.
87 TLA, TM, no. Cm 6.
88 Kala, Revaler Kodex, 28; Norddeutsche Stadtrechte, ed. Korlén, ii, 14.
89 TLA, TM, no. Cm 10/10a.
90 Korlén, Norddeutsche Stadtrechte, ii, 29.
91 Simon, ‘Appellationen von Reval nach Lübeck’, 50; Kala, Revaler Kodex, 29, n. 56.
92 TLA, TM, no. Cm 19.
Quellen des Revaler Stadtrechts, ed. Von Bunge, ii, ix. Kala dates the manuscript to the mid-
93 fourteenth century, possibly 1355. Kala, Lübeck Law and Tallinn, 46. Am Ende dates the
manuscript (and the translation) to the fifteenth century. Am Ende, Verfassungsgeschichte
Lübecks, 49.
TLA, TM, no. Cm 20. Kala, Lübeck Law and Tallinn, 46–7. Ebel (Lübisches Recht, 206–7)
94 named another manuscript from the Tallinn archives which was written in 1509, but neither
Kala nor Von Hansen and Greifenhagen (Katalog des Revaler Stadtarchivs) refer to it.
95 HR 1, VI, no. 68, 10 Apr 1412.
Considering the lists of manuscripts used for the edition of the recesse in HR (of those
concerning sea law), Reval copies existed at the time of editing of the statutes of the meetings
 96 of 1412 (see above); 1417 (HR 1,VI, no. 397, 20 May 1417, but not no. 398, 24 Jun 1417);
1434 (HR 2, I, no. 321, 5 Jun 1434); 1447 (HR 2, III, no. 288, 18 May 1447); 1470 (HR 2, VI,
no. 356, 24 Aug 1470).
97 TLA, TM, no. Cm 17e.

98 Keyser, ‘Das Stadtrecht Danzigs’, 84–7.

99 Ibid. 89–90; Lingenberg, Oliva und Danzig, 384–90.
100 See Table 4.2. Edition of H in Hach, Alte Lübische Recht, 185–215.
101 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 79.
Simson, Geschichte der Danziger Willkür, 11–13. In 1475 a separate court was instituted to
102 administer justice in matters concerning the Willkür called ‘Wetteherren’. Simson, Danziger
Willkür, 22.
103 APG, 300, R/X, 1. Simson, Danziger Willkür, 23; the text of the by-laws is published on pp.
25–65.
104 Simson, Danziger Willkür, 15.
105 Ibid. 16.
106 Ibid. 16–24.
107 APG, 300, R/X, 2. The titles of the articles of this manuscript are printed in Simson, Danziger
Willkür, 81–91, with a concordance to the articles in the oldest manuscript.
108 Simson, Danziger Willkür, 67.
109 Ibid. 68.
110 Ibid. 74–5.
111 APG, 300, R/Fq, 1, Waterrecht 1407, 1425–1438, 1482.
The information about the external features of this manuscript and Waterrecht manuscript 2 are
gathered from Janik, Najstarszy Tekst, 27–9, 50–1, as the original manuscripts are no longer
produced in the Gdansk archives. I am grateful for the help of Anna Plisecka in translating parts
112 of this book. The manuscripts are also described in Holtius, ‘Oude Zeeregten in Dantzig’, 6–9;
Goldschmidt, ‘Danziger Seerechtsquellen’, 295–7. An overview of publications on Polish
maritime law up to 1963 is given in Janik, ‘Die wichtigsten Probleme der Seerechtsgeschichte’,
597–609.
113 ‘Dis seynt die ortheill vonn eynem ersamen rate dieser lobelichen stadt Dantzcike gesproken in
den sacken welche zcu erkentnis des gemeynen wasserrechts gehoren.’
114 See also Hirsch, Danzigs Handels- und Gewerbsgeschichte, 78.
115 Judgement 1: 1428; 7 and 8: 1429.
116 Judgement 11: 1431; 12: 1433; 13: 1433; 15: 1436.
117 Judgements 2–6 must therefore be dated to 1428–9, no. 10 to 1431.
118 See Chapter 6.
Based on the handwriting, Janik argues that a date of 1407, attached to the manuscript at some
point in its history, is plausible. Janik, Najstarszy Tekst, 36. Hirsch (according to Holtius, ‘Oude
Zeeregten’, 11) considered this copy to be from the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century,
which is highly unlikely since the Ordinancie was not written until circa 1350. As the
119 Ordinancie was dated to 1407 by Wagner (‘Quellen des Wisby’schen Seerechts’, 397–9) on the
assumption that it was created by the Hanse in that year, some prudence with regard to the
 dating of this manuscript is called for, especially since that would make this manuscript the
oldest extant version of the Ordinancie though it does not include the oldest text. See Frankot,
‘De “Ordinancie van Staveren” ’ (forthcoming).
120 This title was added before 1432; see Chapter 7.
Janik, Najstarszy Tekst, 29. According to Hirsch, who was head archivist in Danzig in the mid-
121 nineteenth century, Kasper Schütz also numbered the articles of the Vonnesse and the
Ordinancie in this manuscript. Holtius, ‘Oude Zeeregten’, 8.
122 ‘Desiderantur hoc capita octo, quae in Lubecensium exemplari sum [sic] expressa.’
‘Ersame leve frunde, dit were unsze boghere so it Jw gut duchte: dat sulke artikell mochten uth
123 geschreffen werden unnde up den hoff gehangen werden, dat eyn ider szemaen wuste worna he
syck richten szolde.’
124 APG, 300, R/Fq, 2, Waterrecht 1429, 1431, 1447.
125 Janik, Najstarszy Tekst, 47–8. According to Hirsch, this copy is from the second half of the
fifteenth century. Hirsch cited in Holtius, ‘Zeeregten in Dantzig’, 9.
126 Janik considered the last five articles to be of Lübeck origin, without further explanation. Janik,
Najstarszy Tekst, 49.
Most striking at a first glance is the difference in the mentioned towns: ‘Kopmanhaven’ instead
127 of ‘Bordeus’ (Article 27 of the Gotland Sea Law), the addition of ‘van der Vere’ (Article 42 of
the Gotland Sea Law) and ‘Danske’ instead of ‘Amsterdam’ (Article 49 of the Gotland Sea
Law).
128 APG, 300, 27/4, f. 259r, letter from Danzig to Wisby, 11 Sep 1447. Based on this letter, Hirsch
argued that the copy was from 1447. Hirsch, Danzigs Handels- und Gewerbsgeschichte, 79–80.
‘alse van de uthsettynge des waterrechts, dar wy vele anfalles van hebben hir in unser stat ume
129 den zeefarenden man hir mit uns in dem rechte tovorscheiden, welk uthsettinge wy wol
vornomen hebben, by Iuw clarlick in schriften weren, unde vele clarliker denn wy darvan in
schrifften vinden . . .’
130 See Chapter 6.
Das vollständige Culmische Recht (Danzig 1745), cited in Wisby Stadslag och Sjörätt, ed.
131 Schlyter, lxxvi. Schlyter found no copies of the 1532 edition from Amsterdam either, of which
a copy is now kept in the KB in Brussels. Matysik, ‘Przedmowa’, 8. T is also mentioned by
Janik in ‘Probleme der Seerechtsgeschichte’, 599.
Considering the lists of manuscripts used for the edition of the recesse in HR (of those
concerning sea law), Danzig copies existed at the time of editing of the statutes of the meetings
132 of 1380 (HR 1, II, no. 220, 21 Oct 1380); 1417 (HR 1, VI, no. 397; 20 May–28 Jul 1417, but
not no. 398); 1418 (HR 1, VI, no. 556, 24 Jun 1418, and no. 557, 24 Jun 1418); 1434 (HR 2, I,
no. 321, 5 Jun 1434); 1435 (HR 2, I, no. 396, May 1435); 1447 (HR 2, III, no. 288, 18 May
1447); 1470 (HR 2, VI, no. 356, 24 Aug 1470).
 5

Written Law: Local Developments in Lawmaking

As the Scottish translations of the Rôles d’Oléron have never before been
studied, these texts will be analysed in some detail in this chapter in order to
establish, first, whether they were translated from the French or the Flemish;
second, whether there were several translations into Scots; and, finally,
whether the Scottish texts are faithful translations of the original or whether
significant changes were made which may suggest local variations in the
customs contained in the Rôles d’Oléron. Given that local developments did
take place in Kampen, Lübeck and Danzig, where sea laws were drawn up
whose use remained for the most part restricted to these towns, some attempt
is necessary to determine whether the contents of these laws were influenced
by legal developments elsewhere, or vice versa. The Kampen Town Law, the
Lübeck Sea Law and the Danzig judgements will be compared to the laws
considered closest to them, that is to say the Ordinancie, the Hamburg Ship
Law and the Waterrecht respectively. As regards Lübeck and Danzig, the
other laws that originated in these towns will also be considered. A
comparison of the individual developments of these three towns will
subsequently help to explain the different ways in which the town councils
utilised other laws or were influenced by developments elsewhere to create
their own sea law collections.

The Scottish translations of the Rôles d’Oléron

Because Scottish translations of the Rôles d’Oléron have, up until now, only
been acknowledged by Angelo Forte, it is necessary to research at least some
of the details of this translation.1 First of all, it needs to be determined
whether the Scottish texts were translated from the French original or from its
Flemish translations. Thus a terminus post quem can be given for the
translation and it can also be determined what route the texts of the sea law
followed: did they come directly from France, via Flanders or perhaps via
England? Second, a comparison between the Scottish texts and between these
texts and the Rôles d’Oléron will allow us to establish whether there were
indeed several translations, which is suggested by the fact that two of the
texts were at some point copied together although they included the same
laws. At the same time, any possible differences in content between the
Scottish and French texts can be detected, in order to determine whether the
regulations in Scotland and France/England varied.

The Scottish translations compared to the French and Flemish originals

The word Oléron does not appear in any of the nine known Scottish
manuscripts of the ship laws, although the laws were acknowledged as such
in Scotland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries at least.2 Only the
beginning of NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15 (A1) shows a likeness to the start of the
Liber Horn (the oldest extant manuscript of the Rôles d’Oléron), referring to
the ‘Jugement of the sey’.3 Also, some of the pages in NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.5.9
(A4) are headed ‘The lawis of schipmen & Jugement of the lawis of the Sey’.
In England, the laws were also known as the ‘Judgments of the
sea/Jugements de la mer’. The Dutch and Flemish texts made no mention of
the name of Oléron either: here the Rôles d’Oléron were generally known as
‘Waterrecht’. The title ‘Dit is tfonnesse’, which was often used to head each
of the Flemish articles,4 cannot be found in the Scottish texts, but neither can
the line ‘Et cest le jugement en ceo cas’ at the end of each article in the Rôles
d’Oléron, except in the first article of A1.
Comparing the words of the actual texts, the translations seem to be closer
to the French version than to the Flemish. Some words remain remarkably
close to the original French, which cannot be explained solely by the fact that
French was a language often used in Scotland. In fact, commercial relations
with Flanders were influential regarding maritime matters, and the likeness of
Scots to Dutch/Flemish is sometimes striking.5 Of course, a translation from
the French does not necessarily mean that the exemplar of the translation
came from France. It may also have come from England. This will be
discussed further below.
Words that stay close to the French, and not to the Flemish, include, for
example (the Flemish text is given in brackets): ‘comaundement ou
procuracioun’/‘commandment or procuratioun’ (‘procuracie’), ‘mestier de
despenses’/‘mystar of despens’ (‘to doene van vitaelgen’) in Article 1;6
‘attendre soun temps’ (as in weather)/‘bydis his time’ (‘ombeidende tiid ende
wind’) in Article 2;7 ‘il est tenu damender’/‘he is haldyn to mak amendis’
(‘hy eist sculdich te beterne’) in Article 3;8 ‘sempire’/‘payr’ (‘breict’) in
Article 4;9 ‘purveier’/‘purway’ (‘provenance te ghevene’) in Article 6;10
‘eschaper’/‘eschap’ (‘liden’), ‘taunt’/‘alsmekill’ (‘bi also’) in Article 8;11 ‘dur
sege’/‘herd segis’ (‘droge zate’) in Article 9;12 ‘quite et deliveres’/‘quyt and
be deliverit’ (‘los ende quite’) in Article 11;13 ‘contekes’/‘contak’ (‘debaet’)
in Article 14;14 ‘enfoundre’/‘fondrys’ (‘ute vlieghen’), ‘prisagez et
parti’/‘presyt and partyt’ (‘te zine bi prise’) in Article 15;15 ‘pur furnir la
veyage’/‘perfurnis of his wiagis’ (‘te vuldoene de reise’) in Article 19;16
‘vewe par vewe et corps par corps’/‘syth be syth body thrw body’ (‘wille hi
of ne wille, lechame over lechame’) in Article 20.17 The replacement of
Bordeaux by Sluys in Articles 1, 4 and 8 of the Vonnesse van Damme is not
found in the Scottish texts. There ‘Burdews’ features, as well as Rochele in
some other articles. Based on this comparison it appears that the Scottish text
was based on the French text rather than on the Flemish.
Despite this similarity in the wording, the meaning of the original was
sometimes changed or made unintelligible in the Scottish texts. The most
noticeable difference is the use of ‘schipmen’ in many instances where
‘merchants’ is meant (in French ‘marchaunz’). The word ‘marchand’ can be
found only three times in NLS, Bute Ms. (B, Articles 11, 15 and 23), whereas
the word ‘schipmen’ is used wrongly in five articles in all of the texts (Horn,
Articles 4, 8, 9, 10 and 23). A clue to an explanation of this is given in B, in
which the word ‘chepmen’ is used in most instances where the other
manuscripts have ‘schipmen’ instead of ‘merchants’. Only in Article 11
(which is the first article in these copies) is the word ‘chepmen’ also used
once in NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.5.6 (A3), Adv. Ms. 25.5.9 (A4), Adv. Ms. 7.1.9
(A5), British Library, Harley Ms. 4700 (H) and Cambridge University
Library, Ms. Ee. 4. 21 (C), but not in A1 and Lambeth Palace Library, Ms.
167 (L) (the word is not used at all in NLS Adv. Ms. 25.5.7 (A2)). The
original translator may have used the word ‘chapman’ (pedlar) instead of
‘merchant’ in the majority of translations of this word, but this has perhaps
erroneously been changed to ‘shipman’ at a later date. In those cases where a
sailor is meant, the word ‘schipman’ is always used in all copies. These
similarities between the copies suggest that only one translation from French
into Scots was made.
 This assumption is further supported by an analysis of other passages that
were mistranslated. Article 8 (on jettison) of the Rôles d’Oléron was, for
example, badly translated:
kil ne fesoit mes pur sauver les corps et les darres et les vins. Cels qi
serrount gete hors, deyvent estre aprisagez a foer de ceux, qi serrount
venuz a sauvete et serrount venduz et partis livere a livere entre les
marchaunz. Et y doyt le mestre partir a countre la nef ou soun fret a soun
chois pour estorer le damage.18 (Oléron, Article 8)
that he ne dyd it bot in saufte of the schip and of the men. And than the
gys (goods) be it wynys or uthyr gude that is castyn, it sal be presyt and
made ilk lib. utherys bruthyr betwx the chepman. Thai aw to part the
master agaynys the chepman wyth his fraucht and his skathys to be
amendyt.19 (B, Article 21)
that he it dide in saufte of the schip and the gudis betwyn or quhat sa
ever it be thar in. And the gudis that ar castyn salbe presit and maide ilk
lib. otheris broder betwix the schepmen. Thai aw to pay the master again
the schip with his fraucht and his scathes to be amendit.20 (A1, Article
8)
that he kest noght tha gudis for na causs bot for the savite of the schip
and of the gudis. And than the gudis that ar castin sall be departyt ilkane
vyth utheris bruther, vyth the fraght of the schip and his skaythis to be
amendyt.21 (A2, Article 8)
In all three texts, the part about the estimation of the jettisoned goods
according to the price of those that were saved is left out and, instead, the
Scottish regulations can be understood to rule that the price of the jettisoned
goods (the damages) should be divided pound by pound amongst the
‘shipmen’, instead of that of the saved goods in the Rôles d’Oléron. The
inclusion of the skipper in the reimbursement with his ship or his freight is
completely misunderstood; in the Scottish texts the skipper is to be paid for
his freight and his damages. Again, although the wording varies, the
corruption is similar in the three texts, which confirms that all were based on
a single translation of the French into Scots. This will be analysed further in
the comparison of the translations in the next paragraph.
Based on the comparison of the translations with the French and Flemish
texts, it is possible to conclude that the translation was based on an original in
French and not on any of the Flemish texts. This translation could therefore
have been made at any time between 1286 and the late fourteenth century (B)
and could have been based on a model from either France or England.
Diplomatic relations in this period were more friendly with the former.
However, despite the wars, trade with England did continue and Scottish
laws, both burghal and general, were mainly influenced by English legal
tradition.22 In addition, the translations often remain close to the text in the
English Liber Horn. It is more likely, therefore, that the model came from
England than from France.

The Scottish texts compared

As established above, four of the nine manuscripts under consideration (B,
A1, A2 and L) contain a single version of the Rôles d’Oléron, whereas the
other five (A3, A4, A5, H and C) include two different texts. The material is
ordered differently in B/L, A1 and A2, but the remaining five all follow the
sequence of B/L followed by A2 (though some articles have been omitted in
A5). A comparison of the texts is required to determine whether only the
sequence is different or whether the contents vary too.
B and L are for a large part the same, but clearly neither is a copy of the
other. In both copies mistakes have been made that cannot be found in the
other text. For example, in Horn Article 5 (Article 18 in both copies) B has
‘some festnys’ (cables), whereas L has ‘four festynnys’.23 All the other texts
also have ‘four’, as does the original (‘quatre amarrees’). In Horn Article 13
(Article 3 in both copies) the town of Calais has been omitted in L, but can be
found in all the other texts.24 At times L is closer to A1, for example in
Article 6, in which only those two texts have ‘ship’ instead of ‘ship gude’.25
Also, in Article 7 L has ‘ill’, A1 and A2 have ‘seykness’, whereas B (and all
the double copies) have ‘evill’.26 Based on the comparison of all the texts it is
also clear that the five double copies in A3, A4, A5, H and C were not based
directly on B or L. As B is by far the oldest surviving manuscript, this will be
used as the representative of these texts in the following.
When analysing the two versions in A3, A4, A5, H and C, it is confirmed
that these five manuscripts contain copies of both the texts of B and A2,
though on older versions of these texts. Like B, A2 shows mistakes, such as
missing words, which cannot be found in any of the double copies in A3, A4,
A5, H and C. But otherwise the five manuscripts only show minor
differences in comparison to B and A2 and to each other. With regard to the
relation between A3, A4, A5, H and C, it seems likely that H is a copy of A3,
but that none of the other three is.
A3 includes an addition in the margin to its Article 16 (Horn Article 3)
taken from the second version of this article in the same manuscript (Article
27).
He is not halding to lene thaim ony thing [na yhit to gif thaim ocht. And
alsua thai haf tynt thar hyre quhen the schip is tynt, thai may not sell the
takil of] Fore thane thai have tynt thare hyris.27 (A3, Article 16)
The maister is nocht halding to len thaim na yhit to gif thame ocht. Ande
sua thai have tynt thar hyre quhen the schip is tynt, thai may not sell the
takill of hir but commandment of the maisteris of that schipe.28 (A3,
Article 27)
A4, A5 and C do not include this addition, but H does. There is also another
example in which a piece of text (Horn Article 24) is only left out in A3 and
H, but not in A4 and C (the article is omitted in A5).
Now that has been established that A3, A4, A5, H and C were mere copies
of B and A2, these five texts can be excluded from a further comparison
which must be undertaken to establish the differences and similarities
between B, A1 and A2. When comparing the first article of the Rôles
d’Oléron in each of the three articles, the texts are very similar:
A man is made mayster of a schip, that is twa mennys or thre, the schip
passys oute of the land and cummys to Burdews or to Rochel for to be
frauchtyt or at ony uthyr stede, the maystyr may nocht sel the schip bot
gyf he hafe commandment of hys maysteris. Bot gyf he hafe mystar of
despens, he may lay in wed som of the takyl be consaile of his falous
wyth in burde.29 (B, Article 14)
In the jugement of the sey in the first mak a man maister of a schip, thet
is twa mennis or iij, the schip passis out of the lande and cumis to
burdus or to the rochell or to be frachtyt in ony strangis sted, the maister
may not sell the schip bot gif he haf commandment or procuratioun of
his masteris. Bot gif mister of expensis, he may weill lay sum of the
takill in wed with consail of his falowis within burd. And this is the
 iugement in this case.30 (A1, Article 1)
It is to wit that a man maid maister of a schip, that is twa mennis or thre,
the schip passis oute of the lande ande cummys in burdiouss or to ony
uthir strange stede to be fraucht, at the maister may nocht sell the schip
bot gif he commandment haf or certane bidding of his maisteris. Bot gif
he have mister of dispensis, he may wele lay sum of the takillis in to
wed with counsale of his folowis within schipeburd etc.31 (A3, Article
2532)
A1 is the only manuscript that includes the ‘And this is the jugement in this
case’, as is usual in the Rôles d’Oléron, but this ending is found only in the
first article. In Article 12 there is, however, also the addition ‘and that I gif
for donne’, which can be considered similar. When comparing the three texts
to the French original, A1 stays closer to it than the other two. The Rôles
d’Oléron, for example, also use the wording ‘commandement ou
procuracioun’.
This closeness to the French original of A1 appears also when comparing
other articles. One noticeable change that must have been made deliberately
is the replacement of ‘wines’ in article 4 with ‘skynnis’.33 Sheep skins were
an important Scottish export product and this change was thus made to adapt
the laws to Scottish circumstances. B, on the other hand, often shows minor
additions which in general do not change the meaning of the text, whereas
more marked variations sometimes appear in A2:
Il deyvent estre countes livere a livere come get. Et il deyvent partir les
marchaunz et paier saunz nul delai tot avaunt qe les darres serrount
mises hors de la nef. Et si la nef estoit en dur sege et le mestre demo-rast
pur lur debat et yl y eust corisoun, le mestre ne doit partir, eins si doit
aver soun fret cum des autres darres qi sount sauvez.34 (Oléron, Article
9)
It aw to be castin out punde punde lik as it war castin. It aw to be payit
amang the schipmen or ony gudis pas out of the schip. And gif the schip
be in herd segis and the schipmen be greffyt and the master duelle about
thar debat, the master aw nocht to pas away befor that he his fraucht haf
of the gudis at thai debat for etc.35 (A1, Article 9)
It aw to be castyn ponde be ponde as it war castyng, and aw to be payit
 amang the chepmen or ony gudys pas oute of the schip. And gyf the
schip be in harde sege, the mayster aw to ger the schipmen amend it
sone at the schyp tak na skath. And gyf ony debate be amang the
schypmen of thair gudes and thai be sare grevit, the mayster aw to dwel
abowte thair debate and ger it be amendyt wythin the schyp burde
sufficiandly ilkane tyl uthyr, and mak thaim gude frendis as thai war
before. Bot the mayster aw nocht to part away before he hafe his fraucht
of the gudis the qwhylkys thai are in debate fore.36 (B, Article 22)
The gudis sall be castin pund to pund as it var, and pay the master his
tynsall or at ony gudis pass out of the schip. And geyff the schip be in
hyr and the master duell about ther debayt, the master sall be payt his
tynsalle sustenyt in ther defaut vyth the fraght.37 (A2, Article 9)
In this case, B shows some rather elaborate additions as compared to the
second half of Article 9 of the French text. The wording of this second part in
A2 is almost entirely different from that of the other two. As opposed to
being another translation of the original, the writer of this manuscript created
these words himself, since in other parts the wording does resemble that in
the other texts. The writer perhaps based these changes on a rule from
practice.
Similar changes can be found in a few more articles. When considering the
translation of some of the French articles in A1, a few of these are indeed
unclear. Instead of copying that text slavishly, as was most commonly done
in the Middle Ages, the writer of A2 changed some unintelligible parts, again
possibly basing the new text on existing customs. The text of Article 14 of
the Rôles d’Oléron is a good example of this:
Contek is fet en une nef entre le mestre et ses mariners. Le mestre deit
ouster la towaile devaunt ses mariners trois foitz avaunt qe il les menge
hors. [. . .] Et si ensink soit qe le mestre ume autresi bon mariner cum li
en la nef, et la perde par acun aventure, le mestre est tenu de rendre le
damage de la nef et de la marchaundise qil y serra sil ad de quei.38
(Oléron, Article 14)
Contok be maid betuix the schipmen and the master aw to be honoryt
befor thaim. And gif ony of thaim be rebel again hym, he aw to
command him thrise out of the schip. [. . .] And be not the master als
gud schipman as thai that ar thar in, gif ony scathes cumis to the schip,
 the master is haldin to mak amendis.39 (A1, Article 15)
The mayster of the schip aw to be honowryt befor hys servandys. And
gyf one of thaim be rebelland agaynys hym, he aw to put hym owte of
the schyp. [. . .] And gyf the mayster war nocht swa gude schypman as
he wende he war thar in, and oucht cum to the schyp bot gude, the
mayster sal pay it and mak amendys of the gudys.40 (B, Article 10)
Geyff that contak be mayd amangis schipmen, the master aw to be befor
thaim and geyff ony of thaim rebell aganys hym, he aw to command
thris out his schip. [. . .] And geyff the master be noght sa gud a
schipman as uther in the schip, and he vill noght do consall, geyff ony
skathis cummys to the schip or to the gudis that ar in the schip, he is
haldin to tha skathis to mak amendis.41 (A2, Article 13)
This article is originally about the practice of refusing a troublemaker his
food three times, and thus giving the mariner three chances to make up with
the skipper, before he was ejected from the ship to make sure the situation did
not escalate.42 In the Scottish texts, this practice has disappeared. Instead, the
prominence of the skipper in relation to his mariners was stressed: he had to
be honoured and if any of the sailors rebelled, they could be thrown off the
ship. Whether this variation is due to a bad understanding of the French text,
or to a deliberate change to fit Scottish customs, is unclear. It is likely,
however, that the last part of the article was translated badly, since it does not
make much sense in B and A1: if the skipper is not as good a shipman as the
mariner who was ejected, and anything happens to the ship, the skipper has to
bear the damages. In the original it says that if the skipper cannot find a good
replacement for the shipman, and so on. In A2 the text is changed to mean
that when the skipper is not as good a shipman as others in the ship and he
will not ask their counsel, he will have to compensate any damages to the
ship and the cargo.
Based on this comparison of the three texts and of the original, it is
possible to conclude that all three versions were based on an earlier Scottish
translation which three copyists/writers used in a different fashion. In the case
of B and A2 there was at least one other stage between the original translation
and those manuscripts, as comparisons with L and the double copies in A3,
A4, A5, H and C have established. None of the three texts can be based on
any of the other three. Although A1 stays closest to the original text, it lacks
the final four articles, which are included in the other two. B and A2 both
show some noticeable differences from but also great similarities with the
original, but generally in different places, making it impossible for either to
be a copy of the other. Moreover, the writer of B changed the sequence of the
articles significantly, whereas A2 largely follows the order of the Rôles
d’Oléron but is missing three articles.
The copyist of A1 copied the original translation almost verbatim. Only a
few instances can be found in which he probably left out a word or part of a
sentence. The writer of B, on the other hand, mostly added words and
sentences to the text and significantly changed its sequence. This was
probably done to suit its user, although it is not exactly clear in what way.
The additions do not always make the text clearer and the sequence does not
seem any more logical than that of the Rôles d’Oléron. The writer of A2
mainly made more significant changes to the text, though only in some
articles. He adjusted the wording of the sentences in those cases where these
were unclear or perhaps not in accordance with Scottish legal practice. The
copyists of A3, A4 and A5, finally, again copied the texts of B and A2 almost
verbatim, probably based on an intermediate manuscript. Why six articles
were left out in A5 (and, for that matter, four and three in A1 and A2
respectively) remains unclear.

Conclusions
The texts of the ‘Lawis of schippis’ in the nine known manuscripts have
given us some clues as to the development of the Scottish translations.
Although B is the oldest extant manuscript with a Scottish version of the
Rôles d’Oléron, it is not the original translation. It was based on (a copy of)
an older text which was also used as a model for A1 and A2. Indeed, the text
of A1 remains closer to the original than that of B. The writer of the latter
made some additions to the text which did not significantly alter its meaning.
The copyist of A2, on the other hand, made changes to the wording of some
of the articles, thus occasionally changing their meaning. L follows the same
sequence as B but neither is a copy of the other. The texts in A3, A4, A5, H
and C were based on texts similar to those in B and A2.
Both the texts in A3/A4/A5/H/C and A2 contained a few articles with a
slightly different content from that of the original Rôles d’Oléron. The double
copies did, however, also include a copy of the versions in B in which the
meaning of the articles was not altered significantly, although it was
sometimes unintelligible. Because of this unintelligibility, users of these
double copies may in practice have turned instead to the copy of A2 in those
cases in which the articles in this version were easier to understand. Whether
the Aberdeen council used any of these written laws in practice will be
discussed in Chapter 7. Here it suffices to conclude that a few of the Scottish
articles in some of the manuscripts differed slightly from the French. It is
unclear whether these differences were based on legal practice, or whether
the copyist of A2 made them up. The main part of the Scottish articles
remained close to the original.
The original translation of the Rôles d’Oléron into Scots was based on an
original in French which may have come from either France or England, but
most likely from the latter. Since the original Rôles were drawn up in the late
thirteenth century and the oldest extant copy is from the early fourteenth, the
translation into Scots was probably not made before this latter date. It must
have been created before the late fourteenth century, however, since B was
written at that time. The translation can therefore be dated to the second or
third quarter of the fourteenth century.

Kampen
The contents of the Boeck van Rechte and the Gulden Boeck as regards
shipwreck, jettison and ship collision have already been dealt with in the
second chapter. Some of Kampen’s laws have proven to be unique for
northern Europe (especially as regards jettison), whereas others were similar
to other northern European laws (for example those concerning the cutting
down of the mast). A few similarities to the Ordinancie, which was also
compiled for Zuiderzee trade, have already been indicated. Contact between
the towns by the Zuiderzee were close, and all were dealing with similar
problems which were typical to sailing on an inland sea with two narrow
entrances (Marsdiep and Vlie). A certain likeness and mutual influence can,
therefore, be expected when comparing the two laws. In this section, the
relationship between these two laws will be analysed further in order to
determine the similarity of these laws, as well as the degree of influence they
exerted on each other.

The Boeck van Rechte

The articles regarding maritime law in the Boeck van Rechte were recorded
around the same time or just before the Ordinancie was drawn up, that is to
say in the second to third quarter of the fourteenth century. It is unlikely,
therefore, that the Kampen council was familiar with the contents of the
Ordinancie in its written form when it compiled its laws. Moreover, both
laws probably consisted mainly of existing customs. If any influence from
either law was exerted on the other, it must have taken place in day-to-day
practice. Such an influence is, of course, hard to establish since both laws
were drawn up at around the same time and common customs may have
existed in the Zuiderzee area without any influence being exercised either
way. When comparing the maritime regulations in the Boeck van Rechte and
the Ordinancie, it is therefore only possible to indicate similarities and
differences. A potential influence of the Ordinancie on the Kampen laws can
only be established with regard to the addition from 1407 and 1409 and the
Gulden Boeck.
Jettison and lotelghelt (the contributions to a pilgrimage as explained in
Chapter 2) were dealt with in Article 4 of both the Boeck van Rechte and the
Ordinancie.43 The former covered both subjects simultaneously and only
dealt with the contribution to damages after jettison, whereas the second
regulated lotelghelt at the end of the stipulation after prescribing the
consultation procedure between skipper and merchants as regards jettison.
The Ordinancie also stipulated that merchants should be allowed to choose
whether the value of the ship or freight should count towards the
compensation of jettison. The Kampen law, on the other hand, laid down that
the skipper should contribute with both his ship and his freight. Contrary to
the Ordinancie, in which the practice of setten was prescribed to establish the
value of the ship, the Boeck van Rechte stipulated that the ship should be
valued under oath.
Both laws considered the possibility of money being transported on the
ship. The Boeck van Rechte laid down that only half this money should be
included in the contribution calculations (‘twe marc vor eene’). The
regulation in the Ordinancie was more extensive; it also stipulated that the
owner of the money should reveal its presence before a jettison was carried
out, and it described the value of other things that counted towards the
contribution, such as a cot. The Kampen law was more elaborate on the
subject of lotelghelt. The Ordinancie again regulated the process of
consultation and then laid down the amount of lotelghelt: ‘as much as is set
and is reasonable and customary’ (‘soe vele dat men dairop settet ende
redelijck is ende woenlick’). The contributions should be calculated like these
were in cases of jettison (‘gelyke werpeghelde’). In the Boeck van Rechte the
costs were laid down per place of pilgrimage, that is to say to Our Lady in
Rocamadour (‘Modone’; ‘Rosmodone’ in the Gulden Boeck) in the south of
France, to Santiago de Compostela and to Our Lady in Aachen. Concerning
all three places the costs of the journey and a donation were regulated.
The rules regarding these two subjects were thus distinct in many respects.
The variation in the contributions of the skipper (ship and freight vs. ship or
freight) and the different methods to establish the value of the ship are
especially significant. On the other hand, both laws did deal with some
questions that are found in few other laws: the valuation of money in the
contribution to jettison, which was also found briefly in the third Novgorod
Skra, the Wisby Town Law and the revised Riga Town Law, and the subject
of lotelghelt, which is dealt with in an unsatisfactory manner in the revised
Riga Town Law and the 1497 Hamburg Ship Law.44 Some mutual customs
therefore seem to have existed in the Zuiderzee area, as well as an interest to
include some subjects that were not commonly dealt with in the written sea
laws. Some influence from either on the other may therefore have been
exercised, but only as regards the inclusion of certain subjects, not in respect
to their actual regulation.
The subject of the cutting of the mast was dealt with in Article 5 of both
laws.45 These regulations show more similarities in their content: both
mention the cutting of the mast or the anchor cables and the necessary
consent of the merchants to conduct this measure. The Kampen law stated
that felling could only be carried out in an emergency situation. The
Ordinancie named the saving of ship and cargo as the aim of the cutting. The
Ordinancie also considered the possibility that the merchants would object
against the felling of the mast. In this case the skipper was still allowed to cut
if he, with a third of his crew, would swear under oath that it was done in an
emergency situation. The Kampen law, on the other hand, regulated the
valuation of the mast and the anchor. As was discussed above, it also
acknowledged that other rules possibly existed elsewhere. The similarities
between the two laws concerning this matter cannot be ascribed to close
relations between the towns by the Zuiderzee; they are common to a larger
group of sea laws. The differences between the laws are less distinct, but
there are no particular joint customs recognisable.
 Regarding shipwreck, Article 98 of the Kampen Town Law, drawn up in
1372, stipulated that spoilt goods could be abandoned instead of merchants
having to pay freight.46 Freightage was due for undamaged goods. This rule
did not specifically concern shipwreck, but rather any damage to cargo that
was caused by an emergency situation (‘van noedes weghen’). Also recorded
in 1372, Article 100 concerned the shipwreck of vessels ‘onder Enghelant’, in
England’s jurisdiction.47 In such cases, sailors were obliged to help salvage
the goods in return for board and voering, provided enough of the cargo was
salvaged to cover the costs of these.
These two laws, which were drawn up after most of the other maritime
regulations, were not influenced by the rules laid down in the Ordinancie, as
different aspects were considered there altogether. The possibility of
abandonment of goods was unique to Kampen until it was provided for in the
Hanseatic statutes in 1447 (Article 93). The law about shipwrecks in English
territory probably came into existence as a result of specific occurrences there
which had demanded regulation. The Ordinancie, on the other hand, laid
down that a skipper should be allowed to repair his ship, if possible. If a
vessel was too damaged to complete a journey, merchants would be obliged
to pay full freightage for all their goods that had been salvaged. If the
merchants did not have sufficient money on them, the skipper was allowed to
take part of the goods to the value of the freight. So, apart from the fact that
(full) freight was due only for saved goods in both laws, there were no
similarities between the Ordinancie and the Boeck van Rechte.
Both laws also considered different aspects of ship collision. The Kampen
Town Law only stipulated that deliberate collisions resulted in the forfeiture
of life and goods of the skipper (Article 3).48 Neither the Boeck van Rechte
nor the Gulden Boeck regulated accidental collisions. The Ordinancie, on the
other hand, included three separate articles on this subject, – Articles 2, 14
and 15 – as well as prescribing the use of buoys on anchors to prevent
damage in Article 16.
As both laws regulated shipping to and from the Zuiderzee, both dealt with
the subject of the usage of lighters. To gain entrance to the Zuiderzee, ships
had to sail through the Vlie or the Marsdiep. With the growing size of ships,
this became increasingly difficult towards the later Middle Ages, as ships
could easily run aground on one of the many sandbanks. Smaller ships were
used to lighten the vessel so it could pass these dangerous spots without
trouble. The Kampen Town Law, in Article 7, included rules regulating the
contributions to any damage to either ship or lighter, which were calculated
considering the ship, the freight and the cargo, and the costs of the lighting,
which only regarded the vessel and the goods.49 According to the
Ordinancie, the costs of the use of lighters after a vessel had run aground had
to be split between the skipper and the merchants equally (Article 18), but
those of the lighting of a ship to prevent it running aground were divided
between skipper and merchants two to one (Article 19). If a ship was still
drawing too much depth after goods had been removed, all the costs of the
lighting would have to be borne by the skipper (Article 19). Goods
transferred onto lighters would have to be unloaded within five days (Article
21). Again, there were no particular similarities between the laws; both dealt
with the subject differently.
There are thus some resemblances in the subjects dealt with in the Kampen
Town Law and the Ordinancie, and in the regulation set for them, but only a
few of those distinguish themselves as customs specific to the Zuiderzee area,
different from any of the other northern European laws. With regard to most
of the subjects discussed, however, different aspects were considered in the
Ordinancie and the Boeck van Rechte, and some significant distinctions in
the rules existed. No communality therefore appears to have existed between
the Ordinancie and the Kampen Town Law in the second half of the
fourteenth century.

The 1407 and 1409 decrees

In 1407 the aldermen and council of Kampen decreed some new rules
concerning jettison, overloading and piracy.50 Several changes were made
with regard to jettison. First of all, freight was now due for cast and saved
goods. Second, the valuation of the merchants’ goods was altered from being
stated under oath to being established by taking the average between the cost
and selling prices, also subtracting freight and other costs relating to their
carriage. Finally, the method of setten was introduced for the valuation of the
ship.
The Kampen Town Law is the only law that includes the payment of
freight for cast goods. This payment is combined with the contribution of the
skipper with both his freight and his ship towards the compensation of the
cast goods.51 The other two mentioned subjects are also considered in the
Ordinancie. Landwehr therefore suggested that the method of setten was
adopted from the Ordinancie, as was mentioned in Chapter 2, but it was
actually already in use in Kampen for the sale of ships (Article 1). That this
method was now also prescribed for the valuation of vessels after jettison
may have been influenced by the practice at other towns by the Zuiderzee,
but it was certainly not adopted directly from the Ordinancie. The valuation
of the merchants’ goods was perhaps changed in 1407 because the
interpretation of the older regulation had caused confusion in legal practice. It
is unlikely that this part was adopted from the Ordinancie, when the rest of
the regulation is very different from the article in that law. The other new
rules included in the 1407 decree also show little resemblance to relevant
regulations in the Ordinancie; the subject of piracy is not dealt with in the
latter at all.
In 1409 a decree was passed by the aldermen and council regulating the
accountability of skippers and merchants towards their ‘reijders’
(shipowners/owners of goods).52 Both were to render account of all their
journeys. This decree makes it evident that the large businessmen were
powerful in the council and the town: the decree clearly favours them. It also
indicates that the skipper had become an employee of the shipowners in the
fifteenth century, and that the rich merchants sent out assistants to do their
business abroad.53 None of this was laid down in the fourteenth-century
Ordinancie.
Neither Kampen decree therefore appears to have been influenced by the
contents of the Ordinancie. The practice of jettison was to some extent
brought into line with regulations in the Ordinancie, but significant
differences remained. The new regulations laid down in Kampen in 1407 and
1409 may, however, have found their way into the practice of other
Zuiderzee towns, or may indeed have been influenced by customs in these
towns but none of these had been drawn up in the Ordinancie.

The Gulden Boeck

When the Gulden Boeck was compiled shortly after 1416 only minor changes
were made to the contents of the sea laws. As regards jettison, the texts of the
Boeck van Rechte and the decree of 1407 were combined (Article 5) and the
regulation about money transported on the ship was omitted from this
article.54 The possibility of merchants carrying money on their person was
taken into account separately (Article 6), whereas the costs of the different
pilgrimages were listed in Article 7.55 As regards shipwreck, the geographical
restrictions (‘under Enghelant’) of the 1372 rule were deleted to create
Article 29.
There is one addition to the Gulden Boeck that may have been influenced
by the contents of the Ordinancie. Article 17 regulates the payment of a pilot
hired to navigate the Zuiderzee (‘binnen land’).56 The article is dated 29
November 1400 but is not included in the Boeck van Rechte. The text of the
article is similar to that of Article 23 of the Ordinancie, although it appears
not to be directly copied from it:
Item wat schepe comen int Vlie of int Mersdiep van ommeland ende
hier op willen weesen, ende ist dat men dair en leydsman winnet, dat
schip ende guedt hier op te bringhen, des sal die schipper de leidsmanne
den cost gheven, ende die cooplude scolen den leidsmanne lonen van
eren guede.57 (Ordinancie)
Soe wat schipheren int Vlye, int Mersdiep off in anders enighe havene
binnen lands comen ende enen loetsman wynnen op te segelen, so sal
hem die scipheer den cost gheven ende die coepmanne zoelen dat loen
betalen. Ende dit is te verstaen bynnen lands cleyne lodzmandze.58 (GB)
It is likely that the drawing up of this rule was influenced by the practice
among the Zuiderzee towns. Whatever the case may be, a common rule
certainly existed from 1400 as regards the payment of an inland pilot.
In conclusion, Kampen’s laws had little in common with the rules drawn
up for the Zuiderzee towns in the Ordinancie despite a geographical
proximity, frequent trade connections and the common experience of living
by an inland sea. The oldest surviving Kampen Town Law was recorded
around the same time or shortly before the Ordinancie (the second to third
quarter of the fourteenth century), but there were only a few similarities
particular to these Zuiderzee laws. More importantly, there were some
significant differences as regards jettison and divergent aspects were dealt
with concerning ship collisions and shipwreck. In 1407 the practice as
regards jettison in the Kampen Town Law became more similar to that
described in the Ordinancie, but the main difference remained. The changes
that were introduced were not influenced directly by the contents of the
Ordinancie, but perhaps by the practice in the other Zuiderzee towns. The
same appears to be the case with regard to the only significant addition to the
sea laws introduced in the Gulden Boeck. Overall, the Kampen laws appear to
have developed largely in isolation without any major developments from
elsewhere.

Lübeck
The relationship between the Hamburg Ship Law and the Lübeck Sea Law
has already been mentioned.59 The existence of a letter from Hamburg
informing the Lübeck council how it regulated certain maritime questions
indicates that the two towns discussed legal problems. Indeed, when
Hamburg was founded in 1188 it initially received Lübeck law and although
the town eventually developed its own laws, a legal connection between
Lübeck and Hamburg remained throughout the Middle Ages.60 In this
section, this relationship will be analysed further in order to establish the
extent of Hamburg’s influence on the formation of Lübeck law and vice
versa. Another focal point will be the connection between the Lübeck Sea
Law and the maritime regulations in the town law in order to explain how
these two collections functioned side by side. Did they indeed regulate
shipping in different geographical areas, as has been suggested, and did they
complement or contradict each other? The final section will be dedicated to
analysing the contents of the Ordnung für Schiffer und Schiffsleute and the
Hanseatic statutes.

The 1259 letter from Hamburg to Lübeck

The 1259 letter was drawn up in response to a complaint from two Lübeck
representatives about articles of the Hamburg sea law, called scipseghelinghe,
which, according to them, were too severe (‘pergravis videretur’).61 First of
all, they considered the salvage money awarded to the crew for saving the
cargo after a shipwreck to be too high. The Hamburg council replied that a
lower reward would lead to a diminished willingness of the crew to assist in
the salvage. Another question concerned the salvage of gold and silver. The
letter stated that the Hamburg law did not yet include regulations considering
this question, as it was drawn up at a time when merchants did not yet ship
such valuables. The Lübeck council was therefore free to lay down its own
law: ‘as regards silver and gold, you may ordain that which you see fit and
reasonable’.62 Other subjects covered in the letter were jettison and ship
collision, the regulation of which was discussed in Chapter 2.63 Finally, it
was established that if a merchant filed a complaint against a skipper, the
latter’s oath was sufficient to prove that he had delivered certain goods to an
agreed recipient. At the end of the letter, Hamburg requested that the Lübeck
councillors inform it of any changes made to the discussed rules which they
thought so pergravis.
Although the letter stated the immediate cause behind its dispatch (the
complaint of two Lübeck representatives), many questions arise as to the
precise circumstances that led to it being drawn up and about the legal
relationship that existed between Hamburg and Lübeck at this time.
Kiesselbach argued that the letter was sent because Lübeck merchants had
complained about the amount of salvage money they had had to award
Hamburg crew members when their vessels, loaded in Hamburg, had
wrecked.64 This does not, however, explain why other rules were dealt with
as well. The end of the letter rather suggests that Lübeck had adopted some
Hamburg laws, or was in the process of adopting them. An earlier
communication, whether oral or written, official or unofficial, must have
preceded the 1259 letter. In this communication the Lübeck representatives
had asked for clarification regarding some of Hamburg’s laws. Landwehr
argued that this legal discussion was prompted by recent changes to the law,
such as the inclusion of the ship in the compensation of jettison.65 He
suggested that the additions to the 1257 Reval manuscript of the Lübeck
Town Law were the immediate cause for the inquiry from Lübeck. The
changes to the contribution to jettison may have been controversial in the
town at that time.66 Jettison is, however, only dealt with briefly in the letter
and not in the first instance. If it had been the main point of discussion, it
would surely have warranted more elaboration. Moreover, the new rule
concerning jettison was not added to the Reval manuscript until after 1263.
The rule in that letter is also much clearer than that quoted in the 1259 letter,
which is rather ambiguous and can be interpreted in two different ways.
Finally, the other subjects handled in the letter were ignored in the Reval
manuscript. Landwehr’s explanation is, therefore, not entirely convincing.
What can be gathered from the letter is that Hamburg by that time
maintained a sea law known as scipseghelinghe, that Lübeck had shown an
interest in this law and that it sought clarification on some of its rules and
thought others too severe. The Hamburg council allowed Lübeck to change
the Hamburg sea laws, which indicates that the Lübeck council planned to
adopt them. The text about ship collision in the letter shows clear similarities
to the regulations in the Lübeck Town and Sea Laws (Articles 132 and 23
respectively), but these were only added to the laws several years later (see
Table 4.2). The stipulation on jettison was added to the Lübeck Town Law
shortly after 1263, followed by others until 1275. Salvage is not regulated in
this law, but it is dealt with in the Lübeck Sea Law. The amounts of salvage
money stipulated in this law are, as is to be expected, lower than those in the
Hamburg law. Based on this evidence, the 1259 letter does not appear to have
had any direct influence on the development of maritime law in Lübeck.67

The Lübeck Sea Law of 1299 vs the older Hamburg Ship Law
Lappenberg concluded that despite apparent similarities, there were clear
differences between the Lübeck Sea Law and the Hamburg Ship Law.68
Nevertheless, subsequent authors have argued that the Hamburg law was
completely or largely adopted in Lübeck, and that only nine articles in the
Lübeck Sea law originated in Lübeck.69 When comparing the two laws, one
has to conclude that Lappenberg was right, although it is important to keep in
mind that the oldest surviving copy from Hamburg of its Schiprecht dates
from 1301/6, whereas the Lübeck Sea Law is a few years older. Changes
could therefore have been made to the Hamburg law between 1299 and
1301/6.70
The oldest surviving copies of the Hamburg Town Law from 1270 do not
contain the shipping law. It is probable, therefore, that the latter was a
separate entity until it was added to the town law in the late thirteenth or early
fourteenth century. The first sentence of the Ship Law suggests the same:
‘The common council and the burghers of the town of Hamburg have
ordained and proclaimed this shipping law.’71 From this it appears that the
shipping law had been ordained and proclaimed separately. That the 1259
letter stated a name for the law (scipseghelinghe) confirms this. Kiesselbach
may have been right in concluding that this separate shipping law originated
from the merchants’ hanse, but his assumption that this hanse was in charge
of the sea law and the administration of maritime justice until the Schiprecht
was added to the town law is unconvincing.72 The fact that the Hamburg
council allowed Lübeck to change the Hamburg laws in 1259 indicates that
the town council had jurisdiction in maritime law. As such, the earliest Latin
versions of the town law may already have included articles on sea law, like
early versions of the Lübeck Town Law did. These were at some point
perhaps combined with regulations from the merchants’ hanse.
The earliest version of the Hamburg Town Law with a section on sea law
is the 1294/7 copy from Riga. This includes the oldest surviving form of the
Hamburg Ship Law. Compared to the version from 1301/6, Articles 1–14 and
17–19 are missing, as is a large part of Article 16 (see Table 5.1). Articles 2
and 14 are unique to the Riga copy. Article 2 may have been drawn up in
Hamburg, but if it was, it was omitted in later copies. Article 14 originated in
Riga. The text of the Riga articles is almost verbatim the same as the relevant
sections of the Hamburg copy. The wording of these sections of the Hamburg
law therefore appears to have remained unchanged between 1294/7 and
1301/6. This means that any verbal differences between the Lübeck Sea Law
drawn up in 1299 and the 1301/6 Hamburg Ship Law are the result of
changes made by Albrecht von Bardewik when he edited the Hamburg law
for his version of the Sea Law. Variations in the number of articles between
the three versions may have arisen because articles were omitted when the
law was copied by Riga or Lübeck, or because articles were added to the
original Hamburg Ship Law after it had been copied by these two towns. The
second option seems the more likely of the two, although the first cannot be
completely ruled out.73 This does mean that seventeen articles were added to
the Hamburg Ship Law within a few years and in two stages (between 1294/7
and 1299 and between 1299 and 1301/6), suggesting a lot of activity in legal
development in Hamburg at this time.
A comparison of Article 16 on windegelt, which is the cost of the loading
and unloading of goods, literally the price for the hoisting of the goods or for
the use of the hoisting crane, illustrates that parts were added rather than
deleted. In the Hamburg copy the article is wide-ranging, listing the costs for
the hoisting of a large amount of goods. There is a note at the end that all
sums should be understood to be in English currency (‘Unde al is id bi
englischen ghelde gheseghet’). In the article there is, however, mention of
Flemish and Hamburg coins too. In the copy from Riga the text is much
shorter and divided into two articles, 3 and 4. The Lübeck version is
somewhat longer and split into Articles 19 to 22. In both the Riga and Lübeck
regulations, all the sums are in English money. The note about currency thus
fits these older versions of the regulation, but not the revised text in the
Hamburg copy. The section including the Hamburg and Flemish
denominations must therefore have been added at a later time, rather than
having been deleted for the Lübeck and Riga copies. In the Lübeck copy a
few words may have been added by von Bardewik, as they do not appear in
the 1301/6 text. Alternatively, they may have been omitted when that copy
was made.
Table 5.1: The articles of the Hamburg, Lübeck and Riga Sea Laws compared.
Hamburg 1301/6 Lübeck 1299 Riga 1294/7
I I –
II – –
III II, VI –
IV V, XLI –
V VIII –
VI – –
VII IX –
VIII VII –
IX X –
X – –
XI XI, XXVIII, XXXI –
XII XII –
XIII XIII –
XIV XVI –
XV XVIII I
XVI XIX–XXII (parts missing) III–IV (large parts missing)
XVII XXVIII (first part missing) –
XVIII – –
XIX – –
XX XIV, XVII V (second part missing)
XXI XXIII VI
XXII XXIV VII
XXIII XXXII–XXXIV (added parts) VIII
XXIV XXV X (first words of XXV)
XXV XXVI IX (first words of XXIV)
XXVI XXVII XI
XXVII XXIX XII
XXVIII XXX XIII

Italicised numerals indicate that the article deals with the same subject as the Hamburg version. Not
used in the table are Lübeck 3, 4, 15, 35–40, 42; Riga 2, 14.

The articles that were not included in the Riga manuscript (Articles 1–14
and 17–19) must therefore have been added to the Hamburg law after the
copy for Riga had been produced. A comparison with the Lübeck Sea Law
indicates whether these additions were made either before or after 1299.
Table 5.1 lists the articles in the Lübeck and Riga laws as they correspond to
those in the Hamburg Ship Law of 1301/6. The Lübeck articles that consider
the same subject as regulations in the Hamburg Law, but which have no
textual similarities to them, have been italicised. The table shows that of the
articles missing from the Riga copy, only Articles H7, 9, 11, 12 and 13 were
definitely used by von Bardewik when drawing up L9, 10, 11/28/31, 12 and
13 respectively. This is illustrated by a comparison of articles H13 and L13:
Id ne mach och nen schiphere sin schip vor sunte Mertines daghe
oplecghen to winterlaghe sunder der vruchtlude willen. Na sunte
Mertines daghe ne scal och nen schiphere to der she seghelen to der
vruchtlude willen.74 (H13)
Et ne mach ok nen schiphere sin schip vor sunte Mertines daghe up
lecghen to winter laghe sunder der vruclude willen. Na sunte Mertines
daghe ne schal oc nen schiphere to der se seghelen et ne si er beider
wille des schipheren unde siner vruchlude.75 (L13)
Articles H2, 6, 10, 18 and 19 were definitely not used by von Bardewik and
were therefore probably added to the Hamburg law after 1299. Articles H5
and 17 show slight similarities in their wording to L8 and 28, but these may
be coincidental, as the regulations concern local judicial custom:
It ne mach nen man nen ordeil beschelden in der morghensprake: he ne
moghe id besetten mit v verdinghen, unde so we dat beschelt de scal id
denne to Hamborg oppe dat hus theen.76 (H5)
It ne mach nemen en ordel beschelden in der banch vor deme
oldermanne: he ne moghet bewisen mit ener marc silvers jofte he
nedervellich wert de ghene de dat ordel beschilt. Unde so we dat be
schelt, de schallet to Lubeke then uppe dat hus vor dhen sittenden rat.77
(L8)
The remaining articles (H1, 3, 4, 8 and 14) all have counterparts in the
Lübeck law which deal with roughly the same subjects (L1, 2/6, 5/41, 7 and
16). The wordings of these texts are, however, different, and there are no
indications that von Bardewik used these articles for his sea law. Von
Bardewik replaced Article H14 on shipwreck with the regulations from the
Lübeck Town Law (Article K230):
 So wor so ein schip tobricht unde komt mit dheme brokenen schepe also
vele to lande also dhe vrucht wert is, dar scal de schiphere sine vrucht
afnemen.78 (H14)
So wor en schip to breck unde bringhet de bodeme ene iewillicken
vruchmannes ghudes also vele to lande dattet sine schipvrucht betalen
mach, de schal gheven sine schipvrucht. Deme aver neghen ghut to
lande ne cumt, de darf neghene schipvrucht betalen.79 (L16)
So wor lude winnet en schip unde dat schepet mit ereme gude, brecht
dat schep uppe der reise unde bringhet dhe bodheme enen gewelken
vruchtmannes gude also vele tu lande dat he gheven moghe sine vrucht,
he schal gheven gance schephvrucht. Deme oc neghen gut to lande ne
kumt, dhe ne darf neghene schepvrucht gheven.80 (K230 (first part))
Bardewik also substituted H21 with K132 (L23). Article H20 on salvage was
replaced because, as we have seen with regard to the 1259 letter, Lübeck
merchants were not prepared to pay as much salvage money as those from
Hamburg.
As regards the regulations for the hanses in Flanders and Utrecht (H1–5,
L1–6, 8), it has always been assumed that the Lübeck articles were based on
those in the Hamburg Ship Law, even though there are no textual
resemblances:
So welc use borgher kumt in Flanderen unde hevet he also vele
copschattes also xiij sol. englis oder mer, he scal gheven enen schilling
englis to hanse unde twe penninghe vlamis user vrouwen sunte Marien [.
. .]81 Unde van desseme ghelde dat men aldus to hanse ghift scal de
olderman unde dhe dhenne dar sin dhe twe deil vordoen na eren willen
unde den dridden deil scal men in den bloc lecghen to nutschap82 (H1)
So wellich man de unse borghere is de to Vlanderen cumt in de havene
de dat Swen gheheten is, de egenes ghudes also vele hevet an
copmanschap alse xiij scillinghe enghelsch eder mer, de schal gheuen xij
penninge enghelsch to hense. Der schal men de twe del lecghen in de
bussen dat recht mede to sterkende unde dat unrecht mede to werende
unde dat drudden del van den xij penninghen enghelschen schal de
olderman unde de hense brodere blidelicken vor don na ereme willen83
(L1)
That the surviving Lübeck text is actually older than that from Hamburg
would rather suggest that these articles originated in Lübeck itself and that
the Hamburg council was possibly even influenced by Lübeck in its decision
to add the regulations of their hanses in Flanders and Utrecht to its shipping
law. That a large part of the Lübeck Sea Law was based on the Hamburg law
does not imply that the remaining part, which shows only minor similarities,
was copied from this law as well. The detailed comparison carried out above
has shown that Lübeck did not slavishly adopt Hamburg’s law, but instead
used the text of its laws as a model for the creation of its own sea law.84 This
exercise does indicate that the regulations in both towns were similar; Lübeck
would not have accepted laws that were completely foreign. This similarity in
law and the close relationship between the towns (indeed, Hamburg had still
used Lübeck law in the first half of the thirteenth century) leads to the
conclusion that it was not unlikely that Hamburg was in its turn influenced by
Lübeck or that it was a mutual decision to include the rules of the hanses.
The three discussed laws from Hamburg, Lübeck and Riga show three
phases in the development of the Hamburg Ship Law. The Riga codex
contains Hamburg law, as it is an almost exact copy of the Ship Law. It was
probably not adopted as a whole in Riga, but instead was used to create the
revised Riga Town Law in the early fourteenth century. The Lübeck copy, on
the other hand, contains Lübeck law; that a text of Hamburg law was used as
a basis for about half of its articles does not alter this fact.

Other influences on Lübeck maritime law

It has recently been suggested that Lübeck and Hamburg in their early history
used the Rôles d’Oléron and that the Lübeck and Hamburg laws contain
additions or supplements to these laws.85 This theory is unconvincing for a
number of reasons. First of all there is no indication that the Rôles d’Oléron,
which were used in the wine trade between France and Flanders, England and
Scotland, had reached northern Germany by the thirteenth century. In fact,
the compilation was not put into writing until 1286 or shortly before and was
only translated into Flemish/Dutch in the early fourteenth century. Combined
with the Ordinancie in the Waterrecht, the text only reached the Baltic in the
fifteenth century, when Hamburg and Lübeck had long developed their own
laws. Indeed, there is no evidence that Lübeck owned a copy of the
Waterrecht before 1500. If the Rôles d’Oléron were used in these towns,
surely copies of these laws would have been made at an earlier time? Even if
the customs that were valid in western Europe had reached Hamburg and
Lübeck orally before their compilation in the Rôles in the second half of the
thirteenth century, some evidence of this would have existed. It is unlikely
that Hamburg and Lübeck would only have put the additions to the customs
in the Rôles into writing, but not the customs themselves.
Second, as has been shown in Chapter 2, the Hamburg and Lübeck laws
contain regulations that deal with the same subjects as the Rôles d’Oléron, at
least with regard to the important themes discussed in this study, but in a
decidedly different manner. As both the Rôles and the Hamburg and Lübeck
laws in their current forms were developed around the same time, and the
former are occasionally more concise than the latter, as previously discussed,
it is unlikely that the German laws are updated versions of the French
regulations.
Finally, it is more likely that any influence on the development of
Hamburg and Lübeck law came from actual trading partners from the Baltic
and North Sea areas, such as Scandinavian and Frisian merchants. The
argument that Scandinavian laws deal with joint ventures, whereas both the
Rôles and the Hamburg and Lübeck laws discuss relations between the four
separate groups of skipper, shipowner(s), merchants and crew, and that the
Scandinavian tradition must therefore be seen as separate is not relevant.86 In
both the Rôles and Hamburg laws it can be recognised that relations aboard
ships had only changed recently, when the laws were drawn up.87 Joint
ventures probably existed throughout northern and north-western Europe
until developments in the thirteenth century.
It is more likely, then, that Lübeck in its early history, as most of its
citizens hailed from landlocked Westfalia, would have looked to nearby
Schleswig for maritime regulations, as has been suggested by Ebel.88 Only
during the thirteenth century, when Lübeck’s merchants started to gain more
maritime experience themselves, were rules drawn up to regulate their
expanding activities in the Baltic and North Sea. This happened, as has been
shown, partly in cooperation with Hamburg.

The Lübeck Sea Law vs the Lübeck Town Law

Considering Lübeck’s expanding activities in maritime trade in the thirteenth
century, it is noticeable that the Lübeck Sea Law only appeared in 1299 when
an increasing, but still relatively small, number of maritime regulations had
been part of the town law since the 1240s.89 So why was the Lübeck Sea Law
not drawn up a few decades earlier? And why was a separate sea law created
in 1299 when a small number of maritime regulations continued to remain
part of fourteenth-century editions of the Town Law?
It has often been suggested that the Lübeck Sea Law was drawn up to be
used for North Sea shipping (or for shipping to Flanders), whereas the
maritime regulations in the town law concerned Baltic trade.90 Indeed, some
of the articles of the former specifically name Flanders as the intended
destination: ‘a man who is our burgher comes to Flanders in the harbour that
is called Swin’ (Article 1), ‘when a ship comes in the Swin’ (Article 11), ‘If a
skipper lets his crew member off without a lawful break [of contract] in
Flanders’ (Article 28).91 In Article 36 it is named as the starting point of a
journey to the Sound: ‘If a ship sails from Flanders to the Øresund’.92 With
regard to this latter example, it is remarkable that the Lübeck law actually
mentions sailing through the Sound from Flanders, as the town is generally
considered to be against the ommelandvaart, since it profited from the
transportation of goods by land or river from Hamburg to Lübeck.
Most of the articles do not include geographical restrictions. These were
therefore probably written to be used more generally. The fact that Flanders
is specifically named in some of the regulations and not in others rather
suggests that only these, and perhaps the following articles with a similar
theme, were restricted to shipping to and from Flanders. Nonetheless, the
1299 Sea Law as a compilation may still have been written to be used by
those involved in North Sea shipping, even if many of the regulations had a
more general validity. This general validity is confirmed by the fact that two
of its articles were for a large part copied from the Lübeck Town Law (L16 =
K230 (on shipwreck) and L23 = K132 (on ship collision)) and that the
regulations regarding jettison and the cutting of mast and ropes were similar
in both laws, although the text was copied from the Hamburg law (L24 =
H22, K89 and 153). These regulations were certainly not written solely for
North Sea shipping since Lübeck was a Baltic port. Moreover, it is hard to
believe that the Lübeck court would judge its own skippers and merchants
differently based on which sea they had sailed.
Besides the abovementioned points of agreement between the Lübeck Sea
Law and the maritime regulations in the Lübeck Town Law, there are no
further similarities between the contents of the laws. The regulations in the
Town Law considered subjects like the hiring of ships and boats, the term in
which a ship had to be unloaded in Lübeck and the process of giving
testimony before the ship’s court. Together with jettison, shipwreck and ship
collision, these were themes that were relevant within the town’s bounds
when agreements had been made between skippers and merchants, when a
case could be settled by the skipper in Lübeck’s harbour or when a matter
was brought before the town court.
The Sea Law, on the other hand, generally dealt with themes that were
relevant during the journey and when ships arrived in foreign ports: rules of
conduct at the Flemish hanse, rights and duties of the crew, salvage of goods
during the journey, costs for loading and unloading goods and the
overloading of a vessel. This distinction between the two laws makes only a
very general rule; some of the articles from the Sea Law would have fitted
well into the Town Law, and vice versa. One does wonder why all maritime
regulations were not simply adopted in the Sea Law.
The coexistence of the Lübeck Sea Law and the regulations in the Lübeck
Town Law must be considered in the light of a general reluctance on the part
of the Lübeck council to write down or systematise its laws, contrary to the
activity of the Hamburg council who, in 1270, 1301/6 and again in 1497,
edited and revised its laws. The appearance of the sea law in 1299 was
probably mainly due to the zeal of one man, Albrecht von Bardewik.
Between 1300 and 1350 only a few additions were made to the Town Law
but until the appearance of the revised Lübeck Town Law in 1586 after
repeated urging by its satellite towns no new changes were introduced. As
regards maritime law the regulations in the Town Law and the Lübeck Sea
Law were meant to be used simultaneously, as both contained different laws.
These could then be supplemented by the rules in the Ordnung für Schiffer
und Schiffsleute from the first half of the fourteenth century and the Hanseatic
statutes from the late fourteenth century.

The Ordnung für Schiffer und Schiffsleute and the Hanseatic statutes
Whereas the regulations in the Lübeck Sea Law regarding the crew mainly
stated the responsibilities of the skipper towards them, the Ordnung für
Schiffer und Schiffsleute laid down rules of conduct for the crew itself. Most
of the rules are additions to those in the Sea Law; only Articles 1 and 5 of the
Ordnung show some similarities to Articles 7 and 9 of the Sea Law
respectively. The Ordnung thus filled a gap that had probably become
apparent in (legal) practice. Problems with the crew occurred often, as is also
indicated by the repeated complaints that eventually led to the Hanseatic
Schifferordnung of 1482. The Ordnung was thus an important tool for
skippers to better control their crew. The laws were drawn up for Lübeck
specifically and do not appear to be influenced by any other law.
Hanseatic statutes generally came into being as a reaction to specific
problems that had arisen in maritime traffic and which were brought up in the
Hanseatic meetings. Altogether, twenty-five maritime regulations can be
found in the Hanserecess of 1447. These deal with themes such as duties of
shipowners towards the Hanse, those of skippers towards shipowners and the
powers of skippers to discipline their crew. As mentioned above, Lübeck
often devised these statutes, which were then presented to the other Hanseatic
towns for confirmation.93 In some cases, Lübeck’s authorship is clearly
recognisable and occasionally it pushed through statutes that had previously
met with opposition.94 To secure acceptance of the 1482 Schifferordnung, for
example, Lübeck only presented it for confirmation to the other Wendish
towns. One of the articles was also sent to Danzig, by then an important
competitor to Lübeck, accompanied by a letter stating the importance of such
statutes and appealing for approval. Receiving confirmation from both
Danzig and the Wendish towns, the Ordnung was subsequently ordained as
general Hanseatic law.95 The Hanseatic statutes were thus largely regulations
favoured by Lübeck.

Danzig

As related above, the Danzig council gathered a large collection of sea laws
in the fifteenth century, which are compiled in two manuscripts devoted to
maritime law. The most interesting element of this collection is the section
including judgements from Danzig’s own court, drawn up between 1425 and
1436. Because of the availability of one copy of the Waterrecht from 1407,
and a second from 1429, these Danzig judgements will be compared to the
regulations collected in this compilation in order to establish whether the
Danzig council was influenced by these regulations when the judgements
were drawn up. Before that, the contents of the Danzig by-laws concerning
maritime law will be discussed briefly.
The by-laws (Willkür)
When Danzig was amalgamated with the Prussian territory in 1308, the
Teutonic Order already controlled the Willkürrecht of the Prussian towns.96
Danzig was probably subjected to this control too, although its statutory
rights were not mentioned in the 1342/3 charter granted to the town by the
Order.97 During the remainder of the fourteenth century, the towns’
Willkürrecht remained a question contested by Danzig and the other large
Prussian towns.98 From the early fifteenth century, when the Teutonic Order
slowly started to relinquish power over the towns, these towns sometimes
managed to pass by-laws without the Order’s consent. There are examples of
this even from the late fourteenth century. From this time the Rechtsstadt
Danzig probably succeeded in passing most or even all of its by-laws
autonomously, although statutory rights were never granted formally by the
Teutonic Order.99 In 1455 Danzig gained full Willkürrecht from the Polish
king. Because the inhabitants of the towns were expected to abide by the by-
laws, these were read out to them every year. Thus, they could also learn of
any changes introduced to the laws. In 1394 the Grand Master ordered a
particular land by-law to be proclaimed at the town hall of the Prussian towns
every year. Such an order can also be found in the oldest and second oldest
Willkür from Danzig.100
There is one article concerning sea law in the land Willkür that was
imposed by the Polish king. It is one of two articles that cannot be traced
back to any of the older statutes of the Teutonic Order.101 Article 25 laid
down that if a seaman ran off with his pay, this would be considered theft and
he would lose his life.102 The town Willkür dealt with sea law and related
matters in sixteen articles (101–16). The contents of these are divided over
twenty-one articles in the second oldest Willkür (133–53), which include
some additions. Most of the by-laws are local regulations that concern the
building of ships, the harbour and the loading and unloading of goods. A few
by-laws regulate the rights and duties of sailors. Article 109/144 is a
repetition of Article 25 of the land Willkür. None of the articles regulated
shipwreck, jettison or ship collision. For these subjects, we need to turn to the
judgements in Waterrecht manuscript 1.

The judgements in Waterrecht manuscript 1

Waterrecht manuscript 1 contains a small collection of fifteen judgements
dealing with maritime law that were drawn up in the 1420s and 30s. In some
of these the actual legal case in which the judgement had been passed was
described but in only two cases were the names of the parties involved given.
In others a normative rule was written without any reference to a specific
case. At the start of Judgement 6, for example, it is stated that the council had
enacted the following as regards jettisoned goods (‘van gewor-penn gude
hefft de raed besloten und uthgespraken’). These rules consisting of
Judgements 2–6 were therefore probably enacted for hypothetical cases
(Weistümer) and were not directly based on actual lawsuits.103 These
Weistümer and the judgements passed in actual cases could both be used as
precedents; it was considered irrelevant whether a case was decided in a
concrete case or in a hypothetical one.104
A large portion of the judgements concern the matter of freightage, which
confirms that this subject was dealt with regularly in the town courts. Several
different questions of freight were considered: after shipwreck (no. 2), if the
skippers decided to winter after a ship had already been loaded (no. 3), if a
ship had to return to harbour to be repaired and a merchant decided to look
for alternative transportation (nos 4 and 10) or if he wanted to unload his
goods after the vessel had sailed (no. 5), after jettison (no. 6) and after a
shipwreck if a skipper had received part of the freight in advance (no. 8).105
Other judgements dealt with liability when a ship came from the shipyard
with a leak (no. 9), liability after salt was spoilt in bad weather (no. 13) and
wages for seamen when a ship was sold (no. 14).106
Some articles deal with situations in which the skipper returned to the
harbour because problems had occurred at sea, or sailed into port because of
an emergency. The Vonnesse van Damme and the Ordinancie provided the
skipper with the opportunity to repair his ship for the purpose of finishing a
voyage to honour agreements made between him and the freighters. The
same applies in Judgement 4. If a merchant decided to unload his goods after
the ship had been repaired, he was liable to pay half freight. Similarly, it was
laid down in Judgement 10 that when a merchant unloaded his goods without
need, but only for his own profit, he would have to pay full freightage. If the
skipper could find a new load to replace this merchant’s, only half freight
was due. According to Judgement 1, moreover, the skipper was obliged to
finish his journey after having sailed into an emergency port, unless the
merchants gave him permission to unload their goods.107
 The payment of freightage after shipwreck was handled in Judgement 2.
When a ship was wrecked in or just outside the harbour, the merchants were
liable to pay half freight for goods that were salvaged, but if the ship had
been out of sight of the port (‘affkennyngh des landes’), full freight was due.
As discussed in Chapter 2, this rule differs from those laid down in the copies
of the Vonnesse (Article 4) and the Ordinancie (Article 1). The latter stated
that full freightage was due for salvaged goods. The Rôles d’Oléron, on the
other hand, stipulated payment of freightage pro rata itineris, but this section
was not always translated effectively in the Dutch texts.108 The text in
Danzig’s 1407 copy is a good example of this: ‘den vracht also verre alst dien
meester ghenoeghet’ (‘a freight as far as the master pleases’).109 The town’s
other fifteenth-century copy, which arrived around the time that the
judgement was recorded (1428–9), is much clearer: ‘de vracht also verne alse
dat schipp gedan sal hebben de reyse upp dat dem schipper genoget’ (‘a
freight as far as the ship will have completed of the voyage so that it pleases
the skipper’).110 If this copy did indeed arrive in Danzig at about the same
time as the Danzig judgement was passed, it is unlikely that the relevant
article of the Vonnesse and the full-freight rule from the Ordinancie were
applied in legal practice. The arrival of the 1429 manuscript may, however,
have brought about a change in the regulation of this subject in Danzig.
Indeed, both the Vonnesse and Judgement 2 laid down a freight related to the
distance travelled, be it in different ways. That a judgement was drawn up on
this subject may suggest that a change was recently introduced. Whether the
full-freight rule from the Ordinancie or Article 4 of the Vonnesse were
adopted at a later time will be established in Chapter 7.
As regards jettison, Judgement 6 provided that all saved goods should
contribute to the compensation of any lost goods. Again, if the ship had been
out of sight of the port, full freightage was due for the salvaged goods. If
some of the skipper’s rigging and gear had been saved, these should also be
included in the contribution. There is no mention of the ship in this
regulation. Whether the ship was indeed excluded from the compensation in
Danzig practice, which would be very unusual for the fifteenth century and
unlikely since the ship’s rigging was included, or whether the contribution of
the ship was considered self-evident will have to be determined by analysing
this practice in the last chapter. The Danzig rule does not show any particular
similarities to the regulations in the Vonnesse and the Ordinancie. The
question of the payment of freight after jettison is not dealt with in Article 8
of the Vonnesse, nor was it explicitly regulated in the Ordinancie (Article 4).
It rather seems to have come forth from actual cases handled by the town
court.
Judgement 12 from 1434 finally considered ship collision.111 The text
describes a case in which a ship coming from Flanders collided with a vessel
lying anchored near Danzig carrying wine and other goods. This vessel and
some of its cargo were damaged. The council judged that if the skipper and
two of his crew would swear that the collision was unintentional, the former
would be liable for only half the damages to the goods. The other half were
due to be reimbursed by the merchants on the damaged ship; the costs would
be divided among them in the same way as damages after jettison (‘gelik
werpegude’). The damages to the ship were divided equally between the two
skippers.
This judgement was very similar to the regulation in Article 15 of the
Vonnesse. Both articles handled the same situation, namely that in which a
ship collided with another lying anchored resulting in wine and other goods
being spoiled. Both laws laid down that the damage to the ship should be
divided equally among the two vessels and that the saved goods on the
damaged ship should contribute to the lost cargo. In the Vonnesse the goods
on the colliding ship were also included in the reimbursement of the lost
goods, whereas in the judgement from Danzig the merchants on this ship
appear to have been indemnified from any claims.112 The division of the
damages of the goods is therefore slightly different in the two laws, but this
difference may not have been so clear to medieval eyes. The oath of skipper
and crew to release the skipper from guilt was included in both laws.
Considering that the judgement was drawn up in 1434, a few years after the
arrival of the second copy of the Waterrecht, it is possible that the judgement
was based on Article 15 of the Vonnesse, which it resembles closely. Again, a
change in the regulation may have caused this judgement to be recorded. The
question remains why it was recorded when a similar rule was already
available in writing. It suggests that the copy of the Waterrecht was not
utilised in its entirety, but only as seen fit by the council. The collection of
judgements, on the other hand, was made for specific use in court.
Comparing the Danzig judgements and the first two copies of the
Waterrecht, it is possible to conclude that the 1429 copy was used to draw up
some of the judgements, but certainly not all. As regards ship repairs the
judgements show an extension; a change to the regulation of the payment of
freight may have been influenced by the arrival of the second manuscript.
Concerning jettison the court was not influenced by the Waterrecht; in the
case of ship collision it probably did make use of the Vonnesse. The
Waterrecht thus seems to have been used as a source of inspiration in
drawing up the judgements, but only the latter represented legal practice at
the town court. The Waterrecht was only utilised as seen fit by the council.
Whether this remained the case throughout the fifteenth century will be
analysed in the final chapter.

Conclusion

The use of the Kampen sea laws, which were part of the town laws recorded
in the Boeck van Rechte and the Gulden Boeck, was restricted to the town
where they originated. Because the Ordinancie came into being in Kampen’s
fellow towns on the Zuiderzee coast, a comparison between the Kampen
Town Law and the regulations in this law was undertaken. Despite certain
similarities in the subjects handled, which could be ascribed to the shared
circumstances of navigating an inland sea, there were important differences
as regards content between the Ordinancie and the earliest version of the
town law. A few of these differences disappeared in 1407, when some
changes to the Kampen laws were introduced, but the main variations
continued to exist. The contents of the Ordinancie had no direct effect on the
changes introduced, but some mutual influence may have occurred in legal
practice. Considering the closeness between the Zuiderzee towns, this
influence was, however, minimal. Kampen thus maintained its autonomous
position and did not conform to the laws of the other Zuiderzee ports.
In the past authors have attributed a large influence on the creation of the
Lübeck Sea Law to Hamburg. Hamburg’s letter to Lübeck of 1259 suggested
that the two towns discussed matters of maritime law at an early date. The
precise circumstances that led to the correspondence remain largely
unknown, but the letter indicated that this was not the first time that the towns
exchanged information about the law of the sea. By 1259 Hamburg was
already using a shipping law known as scipseghelinge. Lübeck showed an
interest in this law and perhaps planned to adopt some of its rules. It appears
from the letter that Lübeck did not agree with all the Hamburg regulations
and had requested clarification on some, and that Hamburg allowed for the
laws to be changed by Lübeck. Considering the Lübeck laws that appeared
soon after 1259, the Hamburg rules do not seem to have been directly
adopted in the written laws. The regulations may, however, have been used to
create a Latin sea law for North Sea shipping, which may have been
discarded when the Low German version came into use.
A comparison of Lübeck Sea Law and Hamburg Ship Law indicates that
von Bardewik directly copied about half of the Lübeck Sea Law from the
Hamburg Ship Law, making minor changes where necessary. The articles
from the other half of the law were not based on the Hamburg law, although
some of them regulated similar subjects. The Hamburg and Lübeck laws
were thus partly alike, which can be attributed to the towns’ close legal and
political relationship, controlling trade from the Baltic to the North Sea. The
towns were, however, also two clearly separate and autonomous entities and
differences in the laws therefore remained.
Danzig’s judgements were compared to the regulations in the Waterrecht,
of which a second copy arrived around the time the judgements were drawn
up (1425–36). The judgements regulated a few subjects that were not dealt
with in the Waterrecht and also provided an extension to some of the rules
laid down in that compilation. Two judgements showed a possible influence
of the arrival of the second manuscript. The rule regarding ship collision was
very likely based on the Rôles d’Oléron. A change to the regulation of the
payment of freightage after shipwreck may also have been influenced by that
law, although the Danzig judgement continued to vary from its regulation.
The judgements were thus for a large part unique to Danzig and their use
remained restricted to this town’s court. There were no towns legally
dependent on Danzig, although the latter did function as a central maritime
court for Prussia from the early fifteenth century, and for Poland from 1457.
The need to draw up these judgements was probably a result of this function
and, in this context, the judgements will have been utilised to pass decisions
in cases from other towns.
The role of each of the three towns on the northern European stage again
becomes apparent when considering these conclusions. The town of Kampen
was legally autonomous without any satellite towns. It had its own unique sea
law, which was not drawn up according to those of the other Zuiderzee ports
nor disseminated beyond the town bounds. Lübeck used part of Hamburg’s
laws to gain influence on North Sea shipping but adapted the laws to make
them their own and thus distinguish them from the Hamburg Ship Law.
Danzig’s judgements were largely unique and came forth from its position as
the central court for a large area. The town council had to administer all
maritime cases in Prussia and Poland and in this context its judgements were
written down for future use. As Danzig was the sole maritime court in the
area, there was no need to spread the judgements elsewhere. This detailed
comparison of the contents of these local sea laws has confirmed the
conclusion reached in the second chapter that the written laws of northern
Europe did not contain uniform rules at any time during the Middle Ages.

1 Forte, ‘ “Kenning be kenning” ’, 57.

2 See Chapter 4.
3 The Liber Horn starts ‘Ceo est la copie de la chatre Doliroun des jugemenz de la meer’. Oléron,
title.
4 For example, in the Kampen Ms. (GAK, OA, no. 17) and the oldest Danzig Ms. (APG, 300,
R/Fq, 1).
5 For example, kist = kyst for chest, anker = ankyr for anchor, stad = stede for town, schade =
skath for damage, fracht = vracht for freight, schip = schip for ship.
Oléron/Vonnesse (codex Brugensis), art. 1; NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 159v (art. 1)/NLS, Bute
6 Ms., f. 173r (art. 14). I have used Twiss’s edition of the oldest copy of the Vonnesse here. The
differences between the Scottish translation and the other versions of the Vonnesse are greater.
7 Oléron/Vonnesse (Codex Brugensis), art. 2; NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 159v (art. 2).
8 Oléron/Vonnesse (Codex Brugensis), art. 3; NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 160r (art. 3).
9 Oléron/Vonnesse (Codex Brugensis), art. 4; NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 160r (art. 4).
10 Oléron/Vonnesse (Codex Brugensis), art. 6; NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 160v (art. 6).
11 Oléron/Vonnesse (Codex Brugensis), art. 8; NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 161r (art. 8).
12 Oléron/Vonnesse (Codex Brugensis), art. 9; NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 161r (art. 9).
13 Oléron/Vonnesse (Codex Brugensis), art. 11; NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 161v (art. 11).
14 Oléron/Vonnesse (Codex Brugensis), art. 14; NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 162r (art. 15).
15 Oléron/Vonnesse (Codex Brugensis), art. 15; NLS, Bute Ms., f. 174v (art. 24).
16 Oléron/Vonnesse (Codex Brugensis), art. 19; NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 162v (art. 19).
17 Oléron/Vonnesse (Codex Brugensis), art. 20; NLS, Bute Ms., f. 172v (art. 7).
18 For a translation, see Chapter 2.
19 NLS, Bute Ms., f. 174r.
20 NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 161r.
21 NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.5.7, f. 132v.
22 MacQueen and Windram, ‘Laws and courts’, 222.
23 NLS, Bute Ms., f. 173v; Lambeth Palace Library, Ms. 167, f. 216r.
24 Lambeth Palace Library, Ms. 167, f. 214v.
25 Lambeth Palace Library, Ms. 167, f. 216r; NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 160v.
26 Lambeth Palace Library, Ms. 167, f. 216r; NLS Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 160v; Adv. Ms. 25.5.7, f.
132r.
27 NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.5.6, f. 209v. (my brackets).
28 NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.5.6, ff. 212r–212v.
29 NLS, Bute Ms., f. 173r.

30 NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 159v.

31 NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.5.6, f. 211v.
Since the first three articles of A2 are missing because of a ripped-out page, the version in A3 is
32 used here. Although this article may vary slightly from the original, a comparison of A2 and A3
has shown that only minor differences exist between these two texts.
33 NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.14, f. 160r.
‘They shall be reckoned pound by pound as in jettison. And the merchants should share and pay
34 everything without delay, before the goods are taken from the ship. And if the ship should be
on hard ground and the master delays because of their debate and there shall be leakage, the
master does not have to share, but he shall have his freight as of the other goods that are saved.’
35 NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 161r.
36 NLS, Bute Ms., f. 174r.
37 NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.5.7, f. 132v.
‘A dispute arises on a ship between the master and the mariners. The master should remove the
tablecloth three times from his mariners, before he sends them out of the ship. [. . .] And if the
38 master cannot find an equally good sailor as he [to serve] on the ship, and the ship founders
through some cause, the master will have to compensate the damages to the ship and the cargo
within it.’
39 NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.4.15, f. 162r.
40 NLS, Bute Ms., ff. 172v–173r.
41 NLS, Adv. Ms. 25.5.7, ff. 133r–133v.
42 Korthals Altes, Ons oudste zeerecht, 42.
43 GAK, OA, no. 5, ff. 17r–17v.
44 Novgorod III, art. 38; Wisby TL, art. 10; Riga II, art. 5 and art. 18. Riga II, art. 18; Hamburg
1497, art. 32.
45 GAK, OA, no. 5, f. 17v.
46 GAK, OA, no. 5, f. 33v.
47 GAK, OA, no. 5, f. 33v.
48 GAK, OA, no. 5, f. 17r.
49 GAK, OA, no. 5, f. 18r.
50 GAK, OA, no. 5, f. 39r.
51 See Chapter 2. Only Article 7 of the 1505 printed edition of the Gotland Sea Law also provides
for freight to be paid for all goods.
52 GAK, OA, no. 5, f. 42r.
53 See Chapter 1. Similar regulations can be found in the 1434 Hanserecess: HR 2, I, no. 321, §
21.
54 GAK, OA, no. 6, f. 19r.
55 GAK, OA, no. 6, ff. 19r; 19r–19v.
56 GAK, OA, no. 6, f. 22r.
‘And when vessels coming in the Vlie or the Marsdiep from outside wanting to come here and
57 a pilot is hired to bring a ship and its goods here, the skipper shall give him board and the
merchants shall pay the pilot from their goods.’

‘So what shipmasters come into the Vlie, the Marsdiep or in any port inland and hire a pilot to
58 sail, the shipmaster shall give him board and the merchants shall pay his wage. This is to be
understood for inland or small pilotage.’
59 See Chapter 1.
Around 1225 a Latin town law was developed, but the use of Lübeck law was still confirmed to
60 Hamburg after that date. The town certainly had its own town law by 1270. Ebel, Lübisches
Recht, 30.
The date of the letter has been established by Hohlbaum in HUB I, no. 538, n. 4 (p. 189), on the
61 basis of the names of the two Lübeck negotiators mentioned, who were active in Hamburg in
that year. The letter itself is undated.
62 ‘Propterea super argentum et aurum quicquid vobis fore congrui videtur et rationabile, poteritis
ordinare.’
63 See Chapter 2.
Kiesselbach, ‘Grundlage und Bestandteile’, 78. It is important to remember that Lübeck ships
64 did not originally sail from Lübeck to North Sea destinations. Goods were transported to
Hamburg by land and shipped by sea from there.
65 See Chapter 2.
66 Landwehr, Haverei, 48.
67 See also Goetze, ‘Der Anteil Lübecks’, 131, who has come to the same conclusion.
68 Schiffrechte Hamburgs, ed. Lappenberg, cxli–cxlv.
69 Wolter, Schiffrechte der Hansestädte, 30; Landwehr, Haverei, 8; Landwehr, ‘Seerecht im
Hanseraum’, 97; Goetze, ‘Der Anteil Lübecks’, 132.
70 This important fact was kindly pointed out to me by Professor Götz Landwehr.

71 ‘De meine raet unde dhe borghere van der stad van Hamborch hebbet dit schiprecht
ghewilkoret unde uth ghegheven.’ Hamburg 1301/6, art. 1.
72 Kiesselbach, ‘Grundlage und Bestandteile’, 81, 83.
73 This was kindly suggested to me by Professor Götz Landwehr. Cf. Schiffrechte Hamburgs, ed.
Lappenberg, cxli.
Hamburg 1301/6, art. 13. ‘And no skipper may store his ship for winter before Saint Martin’s
74 Day without consent of the merchants. After Saint Martin’s Day, no skipper shall sail to sea
without the merchants’ consent.’
Lübeck SL, art. 13. Instead of ‘without the merchant’s consent’: ‘unless it be the will of both the
skipper and his merchants’. The introduction of the will of the skipper in this article does not
75 indicate an important change. The consent of the skipper was most likely simply omitted in the
Hamburg version because it was considered obvious (see Chapter 2). The wording of the
Lübeck Sea Law is more precise in several articles, without actually changing their meaning.
Hamburg 1301/6, art. 5. ‘No man may appeal against a judgement in the morning meeting: he
76 will have to pay a fine of five “verdinghen”; whoever appeals, shall do it in Hamburg at the
 town hall.’
Lübeck SL, art. 8. ‘No man may appeal against a judgement at the bench before the ‘olderman’:
he will have to prove with a mark of silver if he who appeals against the judgement is
77 ‘nedervellich’(?). Whoever appeals, shall do it in Lübeck at the town hall before the sitting
council.’

78 Hamburg 1301/6, art. 14. ‘Where such a ship breaks and so much comes to shore with the
broken ship as the freight is worth, the skipper shall take his freight thereof.’
Lübeck SL, art. 16. ‘Where a ship breaks and the hull brings so much of each merchant’s goods
79 to land that he may pay his freightage, he shall give his freightage. But he to whom no goods
come to shore shall not have to pay freightage.’
Lübeck TL, art. 230. ‘Where people rent a ship and load it with their goods, and this ship breaks
80 along the journey and the hull brings so much of each merchant’s goods to shore that he may
give freight, he shall give full freight. Also, to whom no goods come to land, he shall not have
to pay freightage.’
81 Left out is a section about the hanse in Utrecht.
Hamburg 1301/6, art. 1. ‘So which of our burghers comes to Flanders and has merchandise to
the value of thirteen English shillings or more, he shall give one English shilling to the hanse
82 and two Flemish pennies to Our Lady Saint Mary [. . .] And of this money that is thus given to
the hanse, the alderman and those present shall spend two parts to their will and the third shall
be put in the chest for the common good.’
Lübeck SL, art. 1. ‘So, a man who is our burgher and comes to Flanders in the harbour that is
called Swin, and who has goods of his own as merchandise worth thirteen English shillings or
83 more, he shall give twelve English pennies to the hanse. Two parts of this shall be laid in the
box to strengthen the law and to go against injustice and the third part of the twelve English
pennies shall be spent kindly by the alderman and the hanse brothers to their will.’
Bardewik copied quite a few articles verbatim (H7, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, 22–24, 27 and 28),
84 sometimes making small changes. Some articles were replaced (H14, 20 and 21), a few
supplemented (H11 and 23) and many added (L3, 4, 15, 35–40 and 42).
85 Jahnke, ‘Hansisches Seerecht’, 55–9.
86 Cf. Jahnke, ‘Hansisches Seerecht’, 56.
87 See Chapter 2.
88 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 133. With regard to the inexperience of Lübeck merchants, see Jahnke,
‘Hansisches Recht’, 56.
A separate sea law in Latin may have existed in Lübeck before 1299. Like the Latin
89 manuscripts of the Town Law, it may have been destroyed when it became redundant (in 1299).
There is, however, no evidence of this.
Landwehr, ‘Seerecht im Hanseraum’, 97; Goetze, ‘Anteil Lübecks’, 131; Wolter, Schiffrechte
90 der Hansestädte, 30; Quellen zur Hansegeschichte, ed. Sprandel, 391; Reincke, ‘Die ältesten
hamburgischen Stadtrechte’, 10, n. 7.
‘wellich man de unse borghere is de to Vlanderen cumt in de havene de dat Swen gheheten is’;
91 ‘wanne ein schip in dat Swen cumt’; ‘Gift ein schiphere sinen schipmannen orlof sunder
witliken broke in Vlanderen’.
92 ‘Seghelet ock ein schip van Vlanderen in den Noressunt’.
93 See Chapter 3.
 94 This is, for example, the case in the statute of 1417. Goetze, ‘Der Anteil Lübecks’, 136–7.
95 Goetze, ‘Der Anteil Lübecks’, 140; Landwehr, ‘Seerecht der Hanse’, 35–6 and 40.
By the Kulmer Handfest for Kulm and Thorn of 1233 the Teutonic Order had initially granted
96 the towns a relatively high level of independence as regards self-government. When the towns
grew and became increasingly more powerful, however, the Order sought to reduce these
rights. Biskup, ‘Der Deutsche Orden und die Freiheiten’, 119.
97 Simson, Danziger Willkür, 13.
98 Biskup, ‘Der Deutsche Orden und die Freiheiten’, 126
99 Czaja, ‘Preussische Hansestädte und der Deutsche Orden’, 64–5. Simson, Danziger Willkür, 6.
100 Simson, Danziger Willkür, 8–9.
101 Ibid. 17.
102 Article 25 in the oldest and second oldest Willkür.
103 For the sake of clarity, all fifteen articles will be called judgements here.
104 Diestelkamp, ‘Reichsweistümer als normative Quellen’, 310; Ebel, Geschichte der
Gesetzgebung, 16.
105 APG, 300, R/Fq, 1, ff. 18v; 18v; 19r and 22v; 19r; 19v; 21r.
106 APG, 300, R/Fq, 1, ff. 21v; 25r; 25v.
107 APG, 300, R/Fq, 1, ff. 17v–18r.
108 See Chapter 2.
109 APG, 300, R/Fq, 1, f. 30r.
110 APG, 300, R/Fq, 2, f. 2v.
111 APG, 300, R/Fq, 1, f. 24v.
112 Possibly this was considered something between the merchants and the skipper on the colliding
ship and not subject of the conflict handled in court in this matter.
 6

Legal Practice: the Administration of Maritime Justice

The administration of maritime justice in general was conducted on two

levels. Although this study focuses mainly on the practice of maritime law in
the town courts, justice was also administered on board ships. As there is
almost no information about this practice, as it was oral in nature, only a few
comments can be made on it here. In Article 85 of the Lübeck Town Law
(‘Van tuge in schepes richte’; see Table 4.2) it is laid down that, when a
complaint was brought before the skipper and others on board ships, and
judgement was passed by the shipmaster, the case did not need to be taken to
another court.1 This article was included in the Town Law between 1263 and
1275. None of the other written laws refers to the jurisdiction of the skipper.
Although the Lübeck article does not specify which cases could be taken
before this ship’s court, the shipmaster’s jurisdiction would have been
restricted to matters in which he himself was not involved. Most of these
cases would have concerned discipline on board. That groups of skippers
requested additional regulation concerning this subject repeatedly in a
Hanseatic context throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, resulting
in the Ordnung für Schiffer und Schiffsleute and the 1482 Schifferordnung,
indicates that they administered justice in these cases themselves.2 It also
suggests that shipmasters required assistance from the law to maintain
discipline on their ships and could not stipulate rules themselves. Town
courts, on the other hand, could formulate laws if none were available in
writing.3 The cases concerning shipwreck, jettison and ship collision
examined in this study can be expected to have been dealt with by the town
courts, and it is this urban administration that is the focus of analysis here.

Who administered justice?

The administration of maritime justice in the ports of northern Europe was
generally undertaken by the immediate town councils. Other civil cases were
also dealt with by lesser courts, but maritime matters were handled
exclusively by the council in most northern European towns. This indicates
that the rich merchants and shipowners manning the council preferred to keep
the administration of such cases, in which they themselves were often
involved, in their own hands and that they considered these cases of sufficient
importance to be reviewed by the full body of councillors. Merchants and
shipowners sitting on the council would at this time have been the most
knowledgeable with regard to maritime law. These laws had come forth from
practice, had been written in the vernacular and, as yet, no learned maritime
lawyers existed. The suggestion that urban courts were ‘non-specialised’ is
therefore unjust, at least with regard to civil cases.4
In Scotland, maritime cases were supposed to be handled by the bailie
court according to the burgh laws.5 This is confirmed by the Aberdeen
sources, although such matters were also occasionally dealt with by the guild
court or by the admiral deputes in an admiralty court.6 It is unclear whether
there was any specific reasoning behind the decision to put a specific case
before the guild or admiralty courts rather than the bailie court. The officers
of these courts would all have been part of Aberdeen’s ruling elite, so in
practice it would probably not have mattered much which court dealt with a
particular case. However, as mentioned in Chapter 3, there does appear to
have been occasional struggles as to who was competent in maritime matters
in the sixteenth century. There is no evidence of this in the fifteenth-century
sources.
Sometimes the council, or members thereof, was present when a decision
regarding certain legal actions, such as oaths and the valuations of ships, was
taken, but judgements regarding maritime matters were generally passed in a
bailie court. The decisions were made by assizes (juries).7 Appeals could be
lodged before different courts: the Court of the Four Burghs or a council of
all the burghs of Scotland, the Lords of Council or parliament. Sometimes
cases were referred to higher courts before a judgement was passed. This was
the case when matters were considered especially delicate or when the
Aberdeen judges felt incompetent in a particular case.8
In Kampen, both the aldermen and the council considered maritime
matters. The body of aldermen and council also functioned as the highest
court in the town. In Lübeck civil cases could either be taken before the
Niedergericht or the council, but maritime matters were handled solely by the
latter. The council also operated as the highest court in the town itself and as
a court of appeal (Oberhof) for cases from the towns that had been granted
Lübeck law, such as Reval, Elbing and Rostock. In Reval, maritime cases
were also dealt with by the council. Reval burghers were granted the
privilege to appeal against decisions from their council before the Lübeck
Oberhof. They were generally allowed to appeal by post, contrary to burghers
from other towns, but this was a favour that had to be confirmed by Lübeck
time and time again. The functioning of the Lübeck council as a court of
appeal will be discussed further below.
The Prussian towns residing under the Teutonic Order, apart from Elbing,
had been granted Magdeburg/Kulm law. This law provided for a
Schöffengericht, an aldermen’s court, as the highest court in the towns. The
Danzig council was, however, granted the privilege to become the central
maritime court for the whole of Prussia in the late fourteenth or early
fifteenth century. This position will be discussed in more detail below.
Functioning as a central court for Prussia, the Danzig council also operated as
the highest instance for maritime cases for its own burghers.
Whereas the question as to who administered justice in a particular town is
easy to answer, the problem regarding which town court was competent to
pass judgement in a particular case is much more difficult to solve. Although
one would expect this to have caused regular problems in supranational
shipping ventures in which skippers, merchants, shipowners and crew from
several different towns could be involved, there is little evidence of such
irregularities.9 In general, opposing parties appear to have argued very little
when deciding which court to go to. A good example is the case, discussed
further later in the chapter, in which a ship caught fire near the Norwegian
coast on its way back from Bergen to Kampen, and in which a Staveren
skipper and Lübeck merchants were involved.10 This case was taken to the
Lübeck court. Similarly, an Amsterdam skipper and three Kampen merchants
agreed to bring their case before the Danzig court because their ship had
foundered near there.11
In cases in which a conflict did occur, this conflict concerned the question
of which law applied, rather than which court to use. Three examples of such
problems appear in the sources. In one of these cases the question of which
law applied was linked to the question of which court to use, as the choice
was between Wisby and Riga law, knowledge of which would not have
extended to other courts. In the other two cases the choice was between local
and maritime law, both of which were utilised by the same court. The first
example is documented in a letter from Alt-Stettin to Riga sent on 21 August
1425.12 A skipper from Alt-Stettin, Merten Jawerk, had loaded goods in
Flanders which were to be brought to a burgomaster and some burghers in
Riga. Unfortunately, the ship was wrecked near Gotland. Part of the cargo
was salvaged and carried to Riga by alternative transport. The town council
in Wisby, which reviewed the case, decided, in accordance with the Wisby
Town Law, that the merchants were liable to pay half freight for the lost
goods and full freightage for the salvaged cargo. Jawerk subsequently went to
Riga to demand his freightage from the merchants, but they wished to be
subjected to Riga instead of Wisby law. Considering both laws, it is easy to
understand why the merchants preferred to be judged according to Riga law.
This law stipulated that freightage was only due for salvaged goods and not
for any that were lost. Judging by the existence of this letter from the Alt-
Stettin council on behalf of Jawerk to the town of Riga, the skipper did not
receive the desired freightage from the Riga merchants. The outcome of the
case is unfortunately not documented.
Another case in which a conflict occurred concerning the question of
which law applied in a particular matter is from Danzig. In 1435 the
Großkomtur of Danzig referred a case to the town council because one of the
two parties involved wanted to be subjected to the ‘waterrecht’, a law which
the Grand Master and the komtur were not sufficiently familiar with. The
other party requested to be judged according to Kulm law. The Großkomtur
asked the Danzig council to decide which of the two laws applied in this case
and refer it to the relevant court.13 It is noteworthy that the court had to
choose between the sea law and Kulm law in this matter, as the latter does
not contain any maritime regulations in its written form. Again, no
information has survived concerning the outcome of the case, nor are the
exact circumstances elaborated upon.
A third example concerns the seizure of goods related to a journey at sea.
This case was dealt with by the Lübeck court after an appeal from Stralsund.
Again, both parties wished to be judged according to different laws. The
plaintiff preferred the ‘waterrecht’ to be used, whereas the defendant thought
‘lubesch rechte’ should be applied. The Lübeck court decided that because
the seizure had taken place within Stralsund’s jurisdiction, and Lübeck law
was used there, the matter should be considered ‘myt lubeschem rechte’.14
This comment suggests that the town laws were only valid when the activities
related to a case had taken place within the town’s jurisdiction but, as the first
example has shown, this was not necessarily the case. Nor is there any other
evidence to support the suggestion. The comment therefore rather establishes
the precedence of Lübeck over maritime law in towns ruled according to this
law. From the above examples, it appears that the only matter that
occasionally caused debate between the parties in a legal matter was the
question of which law should be applied rather than which court was
competent.15 Why, then, did a common supranational law, or communal
regulations at least, not come into existence?
For a system of law to function there needs to be either an authority that
can implement laws from above or a community of people who swear an oath
to abide by a law. Neither of these existed on a supranational level in
medieval northern Europe. The Hanseatic League comes closest to the
definition of an international organisation that could formulate a common
law, but it always remained a loose federation of towns which were either
autonomous or subject to different lords, and had no power to implement
such a law.16 Every statute that was released had to be confirmed by the
council of each individual town in order to become valid in that particular
place.17 Having compared the laws of important Hanseatic towns such as
Lübeck, Hamburg, Danzig and Riga, it has become apparent that these larger
towns especially attached great value to being able to draw up their own
laws. No efforts to devise a general Hanseatic law were therefore made until
the late sixteenth century.
If it had been possible for the Hanseatic League to implement such a
general law for the Hanseatic towns, non-Hanseatic towns would still have
been subject to other jurisdictions in England, Scotland, Denmark, and so on.
This patchwork of jurisdictions in medieval northern Europe made the
coming into being of a supranational law or a common maritime court
impossible. Indeed, even today in the European Union, international laws
only exist in restricted areas; many national regulations continue to exist and
differ from each other.
The question remains how parties decided before which court they would
bring their case, especially when burghers from several different towns were
involved. In general, the cases appear to have been dealt with by the court of
either one of the parties, the place of departure or arrival or, especially in
cases of damage to ship and/or goods, at a port nearest to the accident site.
The Alt-Stettin skipper pleaded his case before the Wisby court because his
ship was wrecked near Gotland. He did, however, subsequently have to travel
to Riga to claim his freightage from the merchants who had not accompanied
their goods. The Staveren master of the ship that burnt off the coast of
Norway went to Lübeck, because the merchants involved lived there. The
claimants probably chose a court for practical reasons because it was in their
best interest to receive any claimed sums of money as soon as possible.18
That a different law from the claimant’s own may have been valid at this
chosen court was in general probably not much of an issue. The note in the
Kampen Town Law (mentioned in Chapter 2) supports this. The Kampen
town council expected its burghers to subject themselves to foreign laws
when abroad, even though it supposed these laws to be different from its
own. This is also confirmed by a case from Kampen in which a skipper stated
that he wanted to abide by the law of the place where his ship foundered,
even though some of his crew wanted to know what the Kampen law
provided for in this case.19 In the opposite case a Scottish act of parliament,
as we have seen, stipulated that, with regard to the law of wreck, goods
would only fall to the king if the law of the place of origin of the wrecked
vessel corresponded to Scottish law. If it did not, the law of that place would
be applied.20 Having to deal with different customs and uses was inherent to
medieval international trade, and merchants and skippers probably thought
nothing of bringing their matters before the court of a foreign port where they
had normally been granted equal rights to a fair trial as resident traders.

Lübeck’s council as court of appeal for Reval

The granting of Lübeck law to a town included the right to use the Lübeck
council as Oberhof. This was stipulated in the Lübeck Town Law for the first
time in the 1270s but had been valid before then, as it is mentioned in some
of the charters granting Lübeck law, such as those of Oldenburg (1236), Kiel
(1242), Elbing (1246) and Dirschau (1260).21 The article is included in the
1282 Reval manuscript:
If in the towns or in the wicbelden where our law is [valid] someone
finds a judgement that is passed before the council and that he wants to
appeal against: if he has found this [judgement] from the council to be
unlawful, he may appeal against it before our council.22
Appealing against the judgement of a court was a practice first introduced in
German town law. In land law, it was possible to protest against a verdict that
was suggested by the lawfinder before the judge made it final; any man
present in the court could object at this stage. Another court would then be
called to decide in the matter between the objector and the lawfinder. When
this case was resolved, the lawsuit would be remitted to the first court where
the judge would pass a final judgement in the original case. Because of the
disappearance of the office of lawfinder in the town courts, the proceedings
in these courts changed.23 The town council would deliberate in private after
the parties had presented their case, and would pass judgement by majority.
The burgomaster would then declare this decision publicly. If the case was
appealable, an appeal had to be lodged immediately after the judgement had
been delivered.24 This could only be done by either one of the parties.25
In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, as well as for most of the first
half of the fifteenth century, pleadings were conducted orally. The parties
would present their case in person and the deliberations and decision of the
court remained unrecorded. Only from the late fourteenth century were
lawsuits in some towns documented through short entries in a town book
(Stadtbuch; stadboek) or court register. Only a few towns kept such registers
in the fifteenth century.26 Appeals also were therefore mostly handled orally.
In the Lübeck court of appeal both parties (or their representatives) had to
start by reiterating the judgement passed in their home town. If the parties
disagreed on this matter, they were sent away again to agree on the
judgement.27 The Lübeck council was not concerned with issues of fact, only
with issues of law. This meant that the Lübeck court would only pass a
decision on the question of whether the law was applied correctly.28 This
decision would again be made public orally. From the fifteenth century, when
cases were sometimes registered in the Niederstadtbuch, a written statement
of the decisions could also be provided.29 In order to become legally valid,
the verdict had to be taken on by the town court in which the appeal had
originally been lodged. Lübeck was not constitutionally superior to her
‘daughters’; her superiority concerned only the content of the law, and the
verdicts still had to be confirmed by the court where the case had been
considered in the first instance.30
Because of the distance of Elbing and Reval from Lübeck, burghers of
these towns were allowed to appeal to the Lübeck Oberhof by letter. In
Elbing this was laid down in a by-law, which was confirmed by the Grand
Master of the Teutonic Order when he finally permitted the town to use the
Lübeck council as a court of appeal in 1343.31 For Reval the situation was
different. Although the town was allowed by Lübeck to send appeals by post
on repeated occasions, this was considered a privilege that could be
withdrawn at any time and was not to be taken for granted. In 1366, for
example, Lübeck replied to a written appeal from Reval that the Oberhof
would decide on the matter as soon as the two parties presented their case
before its court personally. Reval then requested that its burghers be
permitted to appeal to the Lübeck council in writing, as had been allowed
before, since the road to Lübeck was long and dangerous.32 Similar examples
can be found throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and regularly
either Lübeck or Reval stressed that appealing by post was a favour granted
by the former and not an obligation towards the latter.33 Indeed, Lübeck
sometimes even refused to accept these ad hoc arrangements, stating that it
was not its custom to write about its laws.34 This latter comment fits in with
the apparent reluctance of the Lübeck court to revise its written laws
discussed in Chapter 5.
Around three hundred written appeals about various subjects survive in the
sources from the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. These appeals were
always drawn up by the Reval council and included an account of the lawsuit
held before its court stating complaint and defence, the verdict and requesting
a decision from Lübeck.35 Two copies were usually sent in case one of them
was lost. The earliest responses from Lübeck were generally quite short,
recording only the council’s decision or tersely confirming the original
verdict: ‘That which you have decided in that case, we hold as the law’.36
Short descriptions of cases and original judgements were included in the later
letters. These letters were sent to the council in Reval which would then pass
the judgement in court orally. The same practice was applied when burghers
from Narva and Wesenberg appealed to the Reval court.37
A study of the appeal registers from Lübeck has led Ulrich Simon to
conclude that Lübeck generally confirmed Reval’s judgements; only two out
of sixty-two verdicts that he studied were changed. A third case, from 1486,
is discussed below. Simon wonders whether this is because the Reval
sentences were delivered in writing; he argues that the Lübeck court would
sooner have been inclined to change a judgement presented orally like the
other appeal cases.38 It is difficult to reach a conclusion on this, as these other
appeal cases are not as well documented as those from Reval. Appeals from
other towns that were recorded include only Lübeck’s decision and not the
original judgement. The small number of appellant decisions that differed
from the original verdict can also be explained by assuming that the Reval
court applied Lübeck law correctly or that the Lübeck court generally
considered the Reval judgements to be reasonable. As Chapter 7 will show,
the law applied by the Lübeck court was not constant but dynamic, and
adapted to each specific case.

Danzig as a centre for the administration of maritime justice

Danzig was an important centre of maritime justice from the first half of the
fifteenth century. Not only did it correspond with other towns in the region
regarding maritime law, but the town council was also appointed as the
central maritime court in Prussia by the Grand Master and the joint Prussian
towns. When exactly this occurred is unclear, but at a Prussian meeting in
1425 Danzig stated:
as the eldest of the councils of the towns of this land will still know they
[the Danzig councillors] were in the past ordered by the Grand Master
and the joint towns of this land to judge all cases and conflicts that arise
between seafaring men, such as between skippers, merchants and
seamen . . .39
An ordinance issued by the Danzig aldermen after 1422 similarly included a
statement that ‘all cases regarding shipping and maritime law included in the
“wassir recht” should be judged by the council, since the “common lands”
have blessed it with this right’.40 As the Prussian minutes from 1425 suggest,
the Danzig council received this right some years before 1425.
At a meeting in 1397 plans had been discussed to set up a
‘Coufmansgerichte’, a merchant’s court.41 This could well be understood to
mean a maritime court, because elsewhere the term ‘merchant law’ is used to
indicate maritime law.42 Danzig may have been appointed as a central court
as a result of this decision, that is to say in the latter years of the fourteenth or
the early fifteenth century.43 However, no cases handled by the Danzig court
before 1425 survive. And even after this date, in 1427, a case regarding
freightage was dealt with by councillors of four of the Prussian towns,
although the court was held in Danzig.44 This latter case involved a large
number of ships that had been prohibited from leaving the port by the Grand
Master, however, and was therefore probably considered important
diplomatically. After 1428 the Danzig council was regularly requested to
judge cases. In 1457 Danzig was granted the highest authority in all shipping
matters and the jurisdiction in all maritime cases, including those concerning
the law of wreck and piracy, by the Great Privilege of King Kasimir of
Poland.45
As mentioned before, the council was in charge of maritime jurisdiction in
Danzig and not the Schöffengericht as it had been elsewhere in Prussia. This
is made apparent in two letters sent by the council in 1436. In that year a
skipper, whose case had already been decided in 1431 according to the
‘waterrecht’, complained to the council that his opponent now wanted to
bring the matter before an ecclesiastical court. The Alt-Stettin court had not
acknowledged the Danzig judgement because it had not been passed by
‘Richter, Scheppen und Geheget Ding’ (judge, aldermen and thing). The first
letter sent to Alt-Stettin by Danzig in 1436 confirmed the 1431 judgement.46
The second stated that the council functioned as the maritime court in
Danzig:
that we have by order of our lord and by desire of the communal towns
of the land in past years judged those cases touching upon sea law such
as all kinds of conflicts between skippers, merchants and seamen about
freight, hire and voering, about loading and offloading and still judge
these today und not the Schultheißen and aldermen of our town.47
A letter from the bailiff and aldermen confirming this arrangement was
included in the correspondence to Alt-Stettin. The council stressed that, until
now, no one had questioned or disputed this right. Another reply was sent in
December, when the case was again disputed in a letter from Stettin.48

The use of the written laws in court

In Chapter 4 the collections of sea laws available in the later Middle Ages in
each of the five towns were discussed. The presence of these collections does
not, however, entail their use in court proceedings. In this section any direct
evidence concerning the use of written law in court practice will be discussed
by analysing the references to maritime law in general and specific law books
in particular for each of the five towns.
Aberdeen
The Council, Bailie and Guild Court Registers constitute a rich source for
Aberdeen legal practice. Proceedings of the courts were recorded on a regular
basis. Although Dickinson concluded that the courts were in general reluctant
to pass final judgements, this appears to have been less the case in maritime
matters though it is unclear why a difference would exist.49 According to the
burgh laws, such matters needed to be dealt with more swiftly if they
involved ‘foreigners’ as these could not be expected to remain in town for
very long.50 Most of the time assizes of ‘worthy men’ or ‘honourable sworn
personis’ were invited to pass judgement in maritime cases. These assizes, at
least at times, consisted of merchants, skippers and, occasionally,
helmsmen.51 On average, the assizes included about twelve men, although
with a view to reaching a majority of vote, odd numbers were preferred.52 As
an alternative to a full-blown lawsuit, cases were occasionally considered by
a smaller number of people, through arbitration or amicable agreement.53
Presumably this happened more regularly than is evident from the sources, as
such settlements would also be agreed upon orally.
The ‘Lawis of schippis’ were not specifically mentioned in any of these
cases. There is, however, one reference each to ‘leges aquarum’ and ‘Watter
law’. The first term is used in an entry concerning freightage dealt with by
the bailie court on 5 November 1454. The Aberdeen assize decided that the
merchants were due to pay half freightage for an unspecified journey which
had apparently not been completed. The verdict was delivered with the
reservation that if the skipper returned within forty days with a letter from the
burgh of Edinburgh (‘ubi leges aquarum habentur’), stating that the
merchants were liable to pay full freight, the whole amount would have to be
settled.54
The assize elected to pass judgement in this case was thus uncertain
whether its verdict corresponded to the regulations in the ‘leges aquarum’.
The Edinburgh council was deemed more knowledgeable in this case.
Because of the variety of meanings of the word ‘habentur’ Edinburgh may
either have actually ‘had’ water laws in written form, its council may only
have ‘known’ the laws and been famous for its wisdom in such matters, or it
may have been considered a higher court that ‘kept’ the laws.55 The entry
certainly suggests that the Aberdeen court did not own a written copy of the
‘leges aquarum’.
 On 2 March 1490 the bailie court considered another matter of freightage.
In a dispute between some merchants and the owners of a hulk, the assize
decided that the merchants should be issued their goods, which would have
been retained by the shipmaster awaiting payment of freight, provided they
gave a surety to the owners ‘for alsmekile fraucht as the auneris may optene
of thame be the Watter law [for as much freight as the owners may obtain of
them by the water law] in the Feire [Veere] or the Moy [Arnemuiden?]’.56
The entry does not specify who the parties were nor their ports of departure
or destination. It is unclear, therefore, why the sea law of Veere or
Arnemuiden (which may have been the Vonnesse van Damme or other
customs valid in these towns) would have been relevant. In all likelihood, the
parties were planning to take their matter to court there because one of them,
or both, were from those parts.
The burgh statutes were also occasionally named in the sources, although
not in relation to maritime cases.57 The Leges Quatuor Burgorum were not
explicitly mentioned in any of the relevant entries referred to. Before a burgh
court of alderman and bailies, the forspeaker for a skipper from Stralsund
requested the latter to be subjected to the ‘law of the said burgh [Aberdeen] . .
. within thre tydis as sey farand men’, applying Article 8 which stipulated that
cases involving at least one foreign merchant should be brought to a close
within ‘the third flood of the sea’.58 The Scottish burghs would sometimes
correspond with each other about the contents of the Leges Quatuor
Burgorum. This confirms that a certain amount of uniformity existed in the
legal practice of the burghs, and that the councils of the large towns
themselves sought to establish this unity. In the late 1460s, for example,
Aberdeen received letters from Perth, Edinburgh and Dundee about an
inheritance case in which the latter two quoted Chapter 24 of the Leges
Quatuor Burgorum which dealt with such cases.59 This and other examples
show that the burghs owned copies of the burgh laws.60
In maritime cases a charter party, also called ‘condicione’ or ‘obligation’,
was often referred to. As was laid down by the Scottish parliament in 1467,
such contracts were normally drawn up as a conclusion of negotiations
concerning freighting conditions. Only when disputes regarding the
interpretation of a charter party occurred would parties appear before the
court.61 Another reason would be that they had neglected to draw up such a
document at all. This was the case in 1477, when a skipper and a merchant
appeared before the court concerning the transportation of ‘a pak of wad’
(woad). In this cases the assize decided that the skipper should pay ‘a pipe
fraght for the said wad, like as use and wount [custom] was tobe gevin til
utheris skipperis’.62 Apparently, this was the customary rate for woad.
In most maritime cases sentences were ‘concludit and deliverit’, ‘ordanit
and deliverit’, ‘ordanit and gevin’, ‘determinaverunt et concluserunt’ or
‘fundin and deliverit’ by the different assizes and courts, suggesting that
copies of written laws were seldom used in the Aberdeen courts. The only
written laws that appear to have been available were the Leges Quatuor
Burgorum, the town’s own statutes and presumably copies of the acts of
parliament. In those matters in which the written laws provided insufficient
solutions, judgements were ‘found’ by the juries in the different burgh courts.
Cases were sometimes referred to other courts. Besides the mentioned lawsuit
in which the assize was unsure whether its judgement corresponded to the
‘leges aquarum’, cases were also sent to higher courts before a verdict had
been passed. In 1447 a case was forwarded to Edinburgh so that the parties
could be subjected to the ‘avisis of the commissaris of hale [the full number
of] burowez’, probably referring to the extended Court of the Four Burghs.63
In 1444 a case was postponed until the next general council where it could be
dealt with by the ‘commissaris of burrowis’.64 In 1451 a case from the ‘Curia
admirallatus’ was referred to King and Council ‘because the said mater
belongis in a part to oure soverane lord the king and thai [the assize] have
herd seildin [rarely] or never sic materez declarit’. The said matter was
indeed one that needed the authority of the king: a vessel from Stralsund had
been taken by a ship of war from the town of Dieppe.65
Considering the evidence, there appear to have been many paths along
which a judgement could be reached in the Aberdeen town courts. Maritime
matters were mostly decided by an assize in a bailie court which applied
customary law and ‘found’ its judgements. Sometimes written burgh laws or
local acts were used to pass a verdict. When the court was unsure which law
should be applied, or felt incompetent to pass judgement, other towns were
consulted or cases were forwarded to other courts. This could be the
Edinburgh burgh court, which was considered more competent regarding the
‘leges aquarum’, the Court of the Four Burghs or, in delicate diplomatic
matters, King and Council or the Lords of Council. Until 1454 at least, the
Aberdeen court does not appear to have owned any written sea laws. There is
no evidence that it did so after this date. Whether the Rôles d’Oléron, in their
original or corrupted Scottish form, were adhered to nonetheless, will be
discussed in the next chapter.

Kampen
That the sea laws in Kampen were supplemented and changed throughout the
fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries suggests that the town council utilised
its laws in cases of maritime law. Explicit evidence of the use of the written
laws is, however, very scant. There are no specific references to the Boeck
van Rechte, the Gulden Boeck or the Schiprecht. In fact, there is only one
case in which the law is referred to at all.
Around 1489 a testimony by two men about a discussion that had arisen
aboard their ship was recorded in the Liber Testium. It concerned ‘what the
law laid down regarding pilgrimage’ (‘wat dat recht were vander bedevart’).
One member of the crew had been drawn by lot to go on a pilgrimage to
Santiago de Compostela because the ship had been ‘in great distress’ (‘in
groeten noeden’). In relation to this the question had been raised of what the
law provided for such instances. Two men had then replied that, according to
the law, three pounds ‘groten’ and one noble were due to be paid to the
pilgrim. This does not correspond entirely to the rule laid down in the Boeck
van Rechte (Article 3) and the Gulden Boeck (Article 7), in which three
English pounds and three English shillings were stipulated, but this may be
because these laws were recorded over a century earlier; prices would have
changed since then. The skipper had replied, however, that he wanted to
abide by the law of the land where the ship would run aground.66 No further
mention is made of where the ship eventually landed, but that the testimony
was made in Kampen indicates that the ship returned home. What is relevant
in this case is that two of the men aboard the ship knew the Kampen
regulations in detail. This shows that the law, although not in the form
recorded in the two Kampen compilations, was used and thought important. It
also indicates that the law was known among people aboard the ship besides
the skipper. There is no direct evidence of the use of written law in the
sources. The comparison of written law and court proceedings conducted in
the next chapter will offer more information.

Lübeck
The judgements of the Lübeck town court are gathered in the
Niederstadtbücher. In these only one explicit reference to Lübeck law was
found. The town council in general declared its verdicts ‘vor recht’, which
indicates that they established what was lawful in a particular case without
referring to any written laws.67 In 1461 a merchant specifically asked the
council to pass judgement according to Lübeck law in a case against a
skipper (‘Begherende des van deme Rade vorscreven eyn Lubesch rechte
afftoseggende’).68 As will be shown below, it was a Hanseatic statute that
was actually used to decide this case.69
Specific laws were referred to more frequently in appeal cases. In a lawsuit
of 1471 concerning the payment of freightage after shipwreck the Reval
council had decided in favour of the shipowners, in accordance with the
Hanserecess of 1447 (‘Dat recesz van den gemenen hanse Steden int jar
XLVII’).70 The merchants then appealed to the court in Lübeck, which
confirmed the judgement ‘na unseme lubeschen rechte’ (‘according to our
Lübeck Law’).71 The same is referred to in a lawsuit dated 1482. In this case
a salver had been ordered by the Reval court to return salvaged goods to their
rightful owners in exchange for salvage money. The man subsequently
appealed to the Lübeck court, but it confirmed the verdict, again ‘na
lubeschen rechte’.72
Another relevant case was settled between a skipper and some merchants
in 1486. The latter had refused to pay the former freightage after their goods
had been damaged by storm and fire just outside the port of Reval. The Reval
council decided that the merchants had to pay full freight. Alternatively, they
could abandon their goods. When the merchants brought the case before the
Lübeck court of appeal, it adjusted the verdict, according to the record,
applying ‘lubeschen rechte’. In fact, a Hanseatic statute was used.73 This case
will be further examined in the section on Reval. Lübeck law is also
mentioned in the statements of the two parties involved in this case. The
skipper hoped ‘to gade unnd to lub. rechte’ (‘by God and Lübeck law’) that
the case would be decided in his favour.74 This formula is found regularly in
documents associated with Lübeck and was used to express a trust in God
and in the law.75 This trust is voiced in the merchants’ statement too. A final
example in which Lübeck law was referred to is the appeal case from
Stralsund which was discussed above. In this matter, Lübeck decided that
‘lubeschen rechte’ should be applied because the seizure of goods had taken
place within Stralsund, a town using Lübeck law.
The Lübeck court thus applied Lübeck law for appeal cases from Reval
and Stralsund. In matters that had arisen within Lübeck itself, the court did
not explicitly refer to this law. That judgements were passed according to
Lübeck law was probably considered too obvious to need recording. When
the term ‘Lübeck law’ was used, it did not necessarily indicate the laws
recorded in the Lübeck Town and Sea Laws. Two of the above described
cases, and possibly a third, were decided according to Hanseatic statutes,
even though this is only stated explicitly in the first one. This confirms that
these statutes were incorporated into the town law. Whether written laws
were applied in other cases will be discussed in the next chapter.

Reval
The Reval council, like its Lübeck counterpart, rarely referred to specific
laws when delivering its verdicts. Judgements were, for example, ‘vor recht
gewyst und affgesproken’ (‘passed and approved as law’) after due
consideration and consultation.76 Lübeck law, either in written or unwritten
form, would have been used when applicable unless stated otherwise. There
is one case in which Article 93 of the 1447 Hanserecess was referred to and
applied. This lawsuit from 1471 regarding the payment of freightage after
shipwreck, which was subsequently brought before the Lübeck court of
appeal, has already been discussed above. The Lübeck court confirmed the
decision ‘na unseme lubeschen rechte’.77 Indeed, as we have seen, Lübeck
law is mentioned regularly by the Lübeck town council in response to appeals
from Reval. In 1482 a judgement about salvage money was confirmed, and
four years later another verdict about the payment of freightage after
shipwreck was adjusted, both according to ‘lubeschen rechte’.78 In this latter
case, the Reval court had applied Article 93 of the 1447 Hanserecess, which
laid down that full freightage was due for salvaged goods unless the merchant
chose to abandon them. The Lübeck court in its turn referred to Article 94 of
the same statutes in its judgement, which stipulated that only half freight was
due to be paid when a ship foundered in the first half of the voyage and a
freight pro rata itineris when it wrecked after the midway point of the
journey.
In those cases in which none of the written laws could be applied and
decisions were passed by the Reval council based on common sense, these
would still have been considered in accordance with Lübeck law. This is
confirmed by the fact that parties regularly asked this law to be applied, for
example in the 1486 appeal case after goods had been damaged by storm and
fire, and in some letters sent to the Reval court about particular cases.79 The
formula ‘ik hope to gade unnd to lub. rechte’ can be found in a number of
statements from Reval burghers. This indicates that it was clear to them that
they were ruled according to Lübeck law, centuries after this law had been
presented to them. The knowledge that they could appeal against decisions of
their own council at the Lübeck Oberhof strengthened this, as did the strong
relationship between the two towns nourished by trade and personal links.
Both must have been important factors in keeping trust in Lübeck law alive.

Danzig
The judgements in Waterrecht manuscript 1 provide a few clues as regards
the use of written sea laws at the Danzig court. The judgements themselves
were recorded as precedents but were sometimes based on other written laws.
This is evident, for example, when considering Judgement 11 from 1432.80
This dealt with a conflict between two skippers about crew members
transferring from one ship to another. As it happened, the first skipper had
changed the destination of his vessel from Prussia to Flanders. The skippers
brought the case before the Danzig court requesting a decision according to
‘waterrechte’. Because the council had not considered or heard of such a case
before, it decided to write to the Common Merchant in Bruges who could in
turn seek clarification from the council in Damme concerning the law in such
a case.81 ‘They that deal with the law’ (‘den genen de mit dem Rechte umme
gaen’) in Damme deliberated about the matter for a long time before
concluding unanimously that the first skipper could not lay claim to damages
from the second according to the ‘Water Rechte’. The Danzig council
adopted this decision, as both skippers had requested a judgement according
to this law.
The word ‘waterrecht’ in this case does not refer to written law, because
apparently none was available to the Danzig court which dealt with this
specific matter. Instead, a verdict from the court of Damme was acquired.
The reason for appealing to this court must have been that the law used in
Danzig was considered to be from Damme. Despite being only a translation
of the Rôles d’Oléron, the Vonnesse van Damme were apparently thought by
some to originate in Damme and this town was therefore considered to be an
authority on sea law even in the fifteenth century. The Damme council,
moreover, answered the request and deemed itself competent to do so.
Perhaps it received such requests on a regular basis. The case also confirms
that Danzig used the Vonnesse in its court in the 1430s. The change in the
title of the first copy of the Waterrecht from ‘Dit is twater recht in
vlaenderen’ to ‘Dit is twater recht de men in vlaenderen thom Damme usert
etc.’ must therefore have been made before this time.82
The waterrecht is mentioned in two more of the judgements (nos 10 and
15). In the first, a judgement was passed ‘vor eyn water recht’ (as
waterrecht), just as verdicts were passed ‘vor eyn recht’ in other articles (nos
7, 12 and 14) and in the Reval and Lübeck sources, declaring what is lawful
in a particular case. This confirms that the judgements could be used as
precedents. In the case considered in Judgement 15 both parties wished a
verdict according to ‘waterrecht’. Again the word did not refer to any specific
written laws. Instead, it indicates that sea law was seen as distinct from other
law, which is why maritime cases were handled by the council and not by the
Schöffengericht.
It is in this general sense that the term waterrecht was used in Danzig’s
correspondence about legal cases too. Either verdicts were passed according
to waterrecht or requests were made for this law to be applied. As has been
related above, plaintiff and defendant did occasionally disagree as to which
law was to be used. In 1435 the Grand Master wrote to the Danzig council
concerning a case in which a Lübeck burgher wanted to be judged according
to ‘wasser rechtes’ and a Danzig burgher requested that ‘Culmisch recht’
(Kulm law) be used.83 An exception to this general use of the term is a long
letter of 1433 in which a referral to the waterrecht does appear to indicate a
written law.84 In this case the skipper applied to the Danzig court for payment
of full freightage for goods which some merchants wanted to unload from his
ship: ‘this the skipper did not want to allow unless they promised to give him
his full freight for all the goods after the bonnig had been broken in
accordance with the waterrecht’.85 In comparison, Judgement 5, recorded in
1428–9, laid down that if a merchant wanted to unload part of his goods and
‘wilden bonnich breken’, he would be liable to pay full freight. It appears
then that the skipper was aware of this (written) law when he lodged the case.
However, another law was ultimately applied by the court.86
As in Lübeck and Reval, the only written laws that were explicitly referred
to in Danzig were the Hanseatic statutes. In a letter to Wollin from 1459
Danzig stressed that according to the privileges, recesse and statutes of the
Hanseatic towns (‘na inholdunge der henszestede privilegia, recesse und
beslutunge’), skippers were allowed to salvage their own ship and goods.87
This was an issue that had been defended by the Hanseatic towns from their
inception. In a letter of 1491 to Kolberg, Stettin, Greifswald and Stralsund
(all Hanseatic towns themselves), Danzig reminded them of the ‘gemeynen
hanse stede besluth unnde recesse’ regarding the trading with zeedriftich
goods, literally goods floating on the sea, which had been sold and bought in
these towns.88 This trading was prohibited regularly by Hanseatic statutes, for
example in Article 90 of the 1447 Hanserecess.89
A final example that denies the use of written law is related in a letter
concerning a jettison from 1500. In this letter the town of Kalmar demanded
an explanation for the outcome of a case that had been considered in Danzig.
In this case goods had been cast from a ship in distress in order to lighten the
vessel. When the skipper appeared before the Danzig council, he was told
that he should elect some wise men (‘frame lude’) to pass judgement. These
men decided that the skipper was due to receive full freightage for the cast
goods, salvaged and unsalvaged. The Kalmar council stated in its letter that it
did not agree with or understand this judgement.90 The story related in this
letter was, of course, based on the statements of the skipper, who apparently
had no written documentation stating the verdict. There were no witnesses
contradicting him because the merchant whose goods it concerned had not
been present in Danzig. Considering this case, it is hard to imagine that the
Danzig court, which was highly experienced in handling maritime cases as it
was the highest court dealing with such matters in the Polish kingdom, would
refer such a case to a board of wise men. The verdict itself contradicts all the
laws used in Danzig and elsewhere in northern Europe, apart from those in
Kampen. It would therefore seem likely that the skipper invented this story in
order to obtain payment of full freightage for the cast goods.
In conclusion, the Danzig court appears to have applied some of its written
laws. The Vonnesse van Damme and the judgements from Waterrecht
manuscript 1 were consulted at least in the 1430s. These judgements were
also known by some skippers. The term waterrecht was used regularly in
verdicts and correspondence, but must be understood in a general sense, only
rarely referring to any specific written laws. The Hanseatic statutes were
mentioned specifically and were used and adhered to in as far as it suited
Danzig.91
Conclusions
The administration of maritime justice in the medieval towns of northern
Europe was generally undertaken by the town council. Only in towns where
Magdeburg/Kulm law applied did the Schöffengericht deal with such cases.
In Danzig this function was, however, adopted by the council in the late
fourteenth or early fifteenth century. In Aberdeen, and most likely elsewhere
in Scotland, the bailie court generally considered maritime matters. The same
men, however, passed judgement in all northern European towns: the rich
merchants and shipowners, although the occasional helmsman was elected to
sit on a jury in Scotland.
The function of the five town courts was different. The councils of Lübeck
and Danzig both operated as the highest instance in their respective towns,
but the former also functioned as a court of appeal for other towns governed
by Lübeck law. The Danzig council, on the other hand, had been appointed as
the central maritime court for the whole of Prussia and Poland. In Kampen
the highest court was made up of aldermen and council. Citizens of Reval
and Aberdeen, on the other hand, had to seek higher justice outside their
respective towns. The Reval burghers could appeal against decisions from its
council to the Lübeck Oberhof. In Scotland, several instances existed for
appeals: the Court of the Four Burghs, the Lords of Council and parliament.
Although citizens from several different towns could be involved in a
maritime case, deciding where to settle it does not appear to have caused
many problems in medieval northern Europe. A few conflicts as regards the
question of which law was to be applied have been documented, but, in
general, matters were brought before the court of the port considered most
practical by the claimant. This would have been the home town of either of
the parties, the place of departure or destination, or the nearest harbour to the
site of an accident.
The spread of Lübeck law to a large number of towns on the southern
Baltic coast made the appearance of a court of appeal in Lübeck necessary. If
a burgher from one of these towns considered the decision of his home
council to be unlawful, he could lodge an appeal at the source of Lübeck law,
the Lübeck town council. In such cases, the Lübeck council would only
declare on issues of law and the home court would need to confirm Lübeck’s
decision to make it legally valid. Because of its distance from the Oberhof,
Reval burghers were allowed to appeal by post. The letters that were sent to
Lübeck from Reval make for an important source on the practice of maritime
law in both these towns. The council of Danzig was appointed as a centre of
maritime justice by the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order and its fellow
Prussian towns in the latter years of the fourteenth or first quarter of the
fifteenth century. Contrary to proceedings at the Oberhof in Lübeck, maritime
cases from within Prussia, and later on from Poland, were brought before the
Danzig council directly.
Only a small number of direct references to written laws appear in the
sources from the five researched towns. The only laws that are named are the
Hanseatic statutes in documents from Lübeck, Reval and Danzig. The terms
Lübeck law and waterrecht are used in several records, but they seem to have
been utilised in a general sense and not to refer to a particular written law. In
Danzig one decision seems to have been in exact accordance with a written
law. There is also some indirect evidence that the Vonnesse van Damme were
adhered to in this town. In Kampen the law was referred to once, but in this
case the amount of money mentioned differed from that in the written law.
The sources from Aberdeen rather indicate that no written sea law was
available in this town.
Direct evidence of the use of the written laws in the northern European
towns is thus rather scant. Another method by which to determine whether
the written laws were utilised by the town courts is by comparing the
judgements passed by these courts with the regulations in the law books
available to them. This method will allow us to determine whether the towns
did indeed only make rare use or no use at all of their written laws, and
whether the towns utilised their law books in different ways. At the same
time, judgements from the five towns in cases of shipwreck, jettison and ship
collision will be compared in order to establish whether a common practice of
maritime law existed among the northern European towns, where such
communalities did not emerge as regards the written laws and their contents.

‘So we umme schult to vorderende, oder umme ene andere sake, kumt an en schip und klage rort
vor deme schipherre mit den luden deme klegere na schepes rechte. Umme schult oder umme
andere sake, de gene de dese schult oder dese sake vorderet, de ne is nicht plictich ienege tughe
anders vor to bringende.’ Lübeck TL, art. 85. Jahnke suggests that the article should be taken to
1 mean that complaints in connection to transport or trade over sea were decided by the skipper as
a rule, and not by the town court. Jahnke, ‘Hansisches Seerecht’, 58. Though I agree that this
article confirms that the skipper had some jurisdiction in ‘shipping law’, the article does not
stipulate that these cases had to be judged by the skipper. In fact, cases of, for example, jettison,
could not be handled by the skipper as, according to the Rôles, oaths had to be taken that his
casting overboard of the goods had been necessary. Oléron, art. 8.
2 See Chapters 1 and 4.
 In a letter from Amsterdam to Bremen, which was a reply to a request for legal advice, the
former replied that it could not find an answer to this specific question in its written laws, but
3 that the Amsterdam court always reached decisions using reason when this was the case. HUB
X, no. 344, 27 Sep 1474.
Ward, World of the Medieval Shipmaster, 27, suggests that ‘technical difficulties’ among other
things began to prove too much for non-specialised courts, referring to local/urban courts. He
4 then provides examples of a case of beach robbery and one of piracy, both of which belonged to
the king’s jurisdiction and not to that of local courts. Ward, World of the Medieval Shipmaster,
27–8.
5 LQB, art. 25.
6 For example: ACA, ACR, V.i., p. 127, Curia admirallatus, 13 Sep 1451; ACA, ACR, V.ii., p.
692, [Curia gilde], 16 Dec 1444.
7 See further below.
8 See Chapter 7.
Jahnke suggests that this is because all courts would have based their decisions on the same
9 laws, but as it has been shown that this was not the case, a different explanation needs to be
found. Jahnke, ‘Hansisches Seerecht’, 65.
10 AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift) 1481–1488, f. 265r (LRU I, no. 321), 21 Aug 1484.
11 APG, 300, D/20, 234, Amsterdam to Danzig, 27 Oct 1486.
12 HUB VI, no. 594, 21 Aug 1425.
13 APG, 300, D/39, 57, Grand Master to Danzig, 19 Mar 1435.
14 LRU IV, no. 239 (AHL, Cod. Ord. Lub., no. 189), 10 Oct 1483.
Discussions about which law to use also appear in English legal practice, though this was
15 sometimes combined with the question regarding which court was competent. Ward, World of
the Medieval Shipmaster, 82–3.
16 See also Frankot, ‘Jurisdictions in the law of the sea’, 166–8.
17 See also Chapter 3.
There is little evidence in the sources from legal practice that maritime cases were dealt with
particularly swiftly compared to other cases. The Scottish burgh laws (art. 8) do mention a term
18 of three tides for the handling of cases between foreign merchants and this rule was referred to
once in a recorded case (ARA, ACR VI, p. 547, Curia burgi, 25 Sep 1478), see also below. No
evidence for this survives for the remaining four towns, although quick justice will surely have
taken place.
19 GAK, RA, no. 6, f. 129v, [1489]. See also below.
20 RPS, 1430/19, accessed on 9 March 2009. See also Chapter 4.
21 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 110.
Lübeck TL (1282), art. 112 ‘van ordele’: ‘Wert in den steden oder in den wicbelden dar unse
recht is gevunden iemende en ordel, dat wiset men vor den rat ofte he dat besceldet. Wert it eme
den so gevunden van dem rade dat it eme nicht recht ne dunket, so mach het beschelden vor
unsen rat.’ The word schelden refers to the dismissal of a found judgement which has not yet
been passed, and is therefore not strictly an appeal, also because the judgement from the Lübeck
22
council needed to be confirmed by the home court. Weitzel, Über Oberhöfe, 9–11. A case is
considered an appeal by most authors when a judgement had been passed before the appeal was
lodged against it, even when a verdict still needed to be confirmed by the home court, which was
 the case in Lübeck (for example, Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 106; Ebel, ‘Der Rechtszug nach
Lübeck’, 17) and I will therefore use this term here.

23 For this reason, Lübeck at some point refused to give decisions in undecided cases. Ebel,
Lübisches Recht, 112. Cf. Chapter 3, n. 49 about the Niedergericht.
Some cases were unappealable, for example those that were regulated by a local by-law that was
only valid in Reval or another town that utilised Lübeck law. Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 122–4;
24 Ebel, ‘Rechtszug’, 30–3. When a party appealed, it would have to pay caution money, in case it
was proved wrong in having appealed. Von Bunge, Gerichtswesen, 115; Ebel, Lübisches Recht,
114.
25 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 112–13; Ebel, ‘Rechtszug’, 20.
26 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 113; Ebel, ‘Rechtszug’, 20.
27 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 115–16; Ebel, ‘Rechtszug’, 25–6.

28 According to today’s definitions, this means that Lübeck functioned as court of cassation.
Simon, ‘Appellationen von Reval’, 117.
29 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 117; Ebel, ‘Rechtszug’, 25.
30 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 119; Ebel, ‘Rechtszug’, 27.
Before 1343 the town had often pleaded with the Teutonic Order to allow this, but to no avail.
31 As far as Lübeck was concerned, appeals against judgements passed according to Lübeck law
could only be dealt with by the Lübeck court, especially if they concerned subjects not regulated
elsewhere. Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 110.
32 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 120, n. 25; Ebel, ‘Rechtszug’, 28, n. 119. Unprinted source, calended in
the Katalog des Revaler Stadtarchivs by Von Hansen and Greifenhagen, III. Abt., nos 281–2.
33 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 120.
For example, LECUB, no. 1579 (c. 1390): ‘dat it unse wonheit nicht en is, dat wi unse recht
34 plegen van unse to scrivende’, no. 1625 (19 May 1403) and no. 1881 (11 May 1411). Cf. with
the reluctance of Lübeck to record its laws (Chapter 5).
35 Simon, ‘Appellationen von Reval’, 50. Ebel, ‘Rechtszug’, 29.
36 ‘Alse gij dar op gedelet hebben, dat holde wij vor en recht’. Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 121; Ebel,
‘Rechtszug’, 30.
37 Von Bunge, Gerichtswesen, 127.
38 Simon, ‘Appellationen von Reval’, 50.
‘alse den eldesten der rethe in den steten dis landes wol wissentlich ist das en in vorcziten von
unser hern und der gemeynen stete wegen dis landes befolen ist, alle sachen vnd schelinge, dy
39 czwischen den zeefarnden luten seyn, alse czwischen schippern, kouffluten und schiffskindern
richten sullen. . .’. Akten der Ständetagen Preussens, ed. Töppen, i, no. 337, meeting in
Marienburg, 14 Apr 1425.
‘Alle zachen, die von schiffahrt und zeefarende sachen seyn, die gehorn in das wassir recht und
40 geborn dem rathe zcu richten wen das gemeyne lant sie domete begnadiget hat.’ As cited by
Hirsch, Danzigs Handels- und Gewerbegeschichte, 75 (ordinance of the Danzig aldermen, after
1422).
41 Marienburg meeting, 1 May 1397, as cited by Hirsch, Danzigs Handels- und
Gewerbegeschichte, 75.
42 HR 1, V, no. 185, Lübeck meeting of the Hanse, April 1404, § 16.
43 Hirsch, Danzigs Handels- und Gewerbegeschichte, 75.
44 Akten der Ständetage Preussens, ed. Töppen, i, no. 379, meeting in Danzig, 23 Aug 1427.

45 HUB VIII, no. 563, 15 May 1457. Printed in Curicken and Curicken, Der Stadt Dantzig, 332.
46 APG, 300, 27/2, f. 130r, Danzig to Alt-Stettin, 28 Feb 1436.
‘dat wy van befelinge unser heren und der Gemenen Stede des landis verlangen vorgangen jaren
wat zaken dat water recht anroroende was, alse allerley schelinge tuschen schipperen, copluden
47 und schepeskinderen, van fracht und van hure, van foringe, van inschepinge und uthschepinge
gerichtet hebben und noch huden in den dach dat richten, und nicht de schulttisse und scheppen
unser stad’. APG, 300, 27/2, f. 130v, Danzig to Alt-Stettin, 28 Feb 1436.
48 APG, 300, 27/2, f. 155v, Danzig to Nicolas burgher of Alt-Stettin, 14 Dec 1436.
49 Early Records, ed. Dickinson, cxxx.
50 LQB, art. 8.
In a case of 1449 the assize consisted of seven merchants and eight skippers, of which only the
51 last two remained unnamed. ACA, ACR V.i., p. 68, Curia ballivorum, 28 Nov 1449. In a lawsuit
from 1485 the assize was made up of twelve men, of whom three were specified as skipper and
two as ‘stereman’. ACA, ACR VI, p. 904, Bailie court, 11 Feb 1484/5.
Of six assizes of which the members were named, one each contained nine (1465), eleven
52 (1468), twelve (1485) and fifteen men (1449), and two included thirteen men (1451 and 1478).
With regard to uneven numbers in criminal juries, see Sheriff Court Book of Fife, ed. Dickinson,
xcvi–xcvii.
53 For example, ACA, ACR, V.i., p. 188, arbitration, 3 Oct 1453.
54 ACA, ACR V.i., p. 216, Curia ballivorum, 5 Nov 1454.
The entry mentions a letter of the ‘burgi de Edynburgh’, meaning the burgh (council) itself and
55 not the Court of the Four Burghs or the Lords Council at Edinburgh, which will both appear
below.
56 ACA, ACR VII, p. 170, Curia ballivorum, 2 Mar 1489/90.
In 1444, for example, it was laid down that all trespassers of the law should be punished
57 according to ‘the commoune law and the statutis of this burgh’. ACA, ACR V.ii., p. 691, In
consilio, 13 Dec 1444.
58 ACA, ACR VI, p. 547, Curia burgi, 25 Sep 1478.
59 MacQueen and Windram, ‘Laws and courts’, 219.
60 Early Records, ed. Dickinson, cxliii; APS, i, 723.
The first instance in which a shipping contract is mentioned in the Aberdeen registers is in 1460:
61 because the charter party was not available, the case was referred to the parties’ home courts
(Edinburgh and Pittendreich). ACA, ACR V.i., p. 399, Alderman and council, 19 Jun 1460.
62 ACA, ACR VI, p. 485, Bailie court, 22 May 1477. ‘Pipe fraght’ was the amount of freightage
paid for a pipe, that is to say a wine cask, which was also used as a measure.
63 See Chapter 3. ACA, ACR IV, p. 497, Curia ballivorum, 3 Nov 1447.
64 ACA, ACR V.ii., p. 692, [Curia gilde], 16 Dec 1444.
65 ACA, ACR V.i., p. 127, Curia admirallatus, 13 Sep 1451.
66 GAK, RA, no. 6, f. 129v, [1489?].
67 Diestelkamp, ‘Reichsweistümer als normative Quellen’, 309.
AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Urschrift) 1451–1465 Palmarum, f. 468r (LRU IV, no. 52), 8 Mar
68 1461.

69 See Chapter 7.

70 LRU IV, no. 117b (formerly AHL, ASA Interna, Appellationen, Konv. 17, no. 174), 22 Jun
1471. This citation is from LRU IV, no. 117a (see below).
71 LRU IV, no. 117a (AHL, Cod. Ord. Lub., no. 61), 18 Oct 1471.
72 LRU IV, no. 229 (AHL, Cod. Ord. Lub., no. 178), 8 Jul 1482.
73 LRU IV, no. 282b (formerly AHL, ASA Interna, Appellationen, Konv. 17 fasc. 34), 6 Mar 1486
(appeal); LRU IV, no. 282a (AHL, Cod. Ord. Lub., no. 239), 19 May 1486 (reply).
74 LRU IV, no. 282b.
75 Goetze, ‘Anteil Lübecks’, 129.
76 LRU IV, no. 282b (formerly AHL, ASA Interna, Appellationen, Konv. 17 fasc. 34), 6 Mar 1486.

77 LRU IV, no. 117a (formerly AHL, Cod. Ord. Lub., no. 61), 18 Oct 1471 and LRU IV, no. 117b
(formerly AHL, Appell. Vol. II, no. 174), 22 Jun 1471.
LRU IV, no. 229 (formerly AHL, Cod. Ord. Lub., no. 178), 8 Jul 1482. LRU IV, no. 282b
78 (formerly AHL, Appellationen, Konv. 17 fasc. 34), 19 May 1486 and LRU IV, no. 282a
(formerly AHL, Cod. Ord. Lub., no. 239), 6 Mar 1486.
79 See, for example, TLA, TM, no. Bi 3, f. 46r [no date, late fifteenth century].
80 APG, 300, R/Fq, 1, ff. 23v–24r.
‘Wente desulven zaken in vortijden bij dem rade nicht gehandelt noch gehoret syn, so heft de
81 rath darumme geschreven dom Copmanne to Brugge und en gebeden dat se darumme in
radeswyse willen vorhoren by dem rade to Damme wes eyn recht darvan syn mach’. APG, 300,
R/Fq, 1, ff. 23v–24r.
82 See Chapter 4.
83 APG, 300, D/39, 57, Grandmaster to Danzig, 19 Mar 1435.
84 APG, 300, 27/2, ff. 73v–74v, Danzig to [Lübeck], on or before 30 May 1433.
85 APG, 300, 27/2, f. 74r. ‘des de schipper nicht also tolaten wolde, se wolden eme denne sine volle
fracht gloven te geven van allem gude na deme de bonnig gebraken wurde, na eme watere recht.’
86 See Chapter 7.
87 APG, 300, 27/6, f. 119r, Danzig to Wollin, 20 May 1459.
88 APG, 300, 27/7, ff. 52v–53r, Danzig to Kolberg, Stettin, Greifswald and Stralsund, 24 Dec 1491.
The issue was dealt with in the meetings of the Prussian towns too. See, for example, the
89 ordinance about the salvage of stranded goods, Akten der Ständetagen Preussens, ed. Töppen, i,
no. 442, meeting in Elbing, 8 Mar 1433, § 1.
90 APG, 300, D/11, 238, Kalmar to Danzig, 8 May 1500.
91 See also Chapter 3.
 7

Legal Practice: Maritime Proceedings at the Urban

Courts

The written laws of northern Europe were mostly compiled in the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries and reflect the stage of development in sea shipping
of this period. As was explained in the first two chapters, these developments
in sea shipping influenced the regulation of maritime law. Changes in the
relations aboard ship, for example, resulted in the coming into being of new
legal problems for which the sea laws had to offer solutions. But although
shipping continued to develop in the fifteenth century, only a few new
regulations were introduced. Instead, the laws of the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries were combined and disseminated further across northern Europe.
The question that arises is whether these written laws were utilised in legal
practice in the fifteenth century, when they no longer reflected the newest
developments in sea shipping.
In the previous chapter, direct evidence for the use of these laws (in the
shape of explicit references to written laws) was considered, but the actual
court proceedings, which truly reflect legal practice in the fifteenth century,
remain to be analysed. This analysis will allow us to determine whether the
law books were still in use by comparing the written laws with the
judgements passed by the town courts. Court proceedings from Aberdeen,
Kampen, Lübeck, Reval and Danzig will be considered in this chapter by
investigating the decisions in cases of shipwreck, jettison and ship collision.
Comparing these decisions will in turn make it possible to establish whether a
common legal practice existed in urban northern Europe.
Before turning to these comparisons, some remarks about the sources need
to be made. In each of the five towns studied, administrative developments
had generally led to the maintenance of urban registers in the later Middle
Ages. In these, the town councils recorded important occurrences concerning
daily government, as well as court proceedings. The amount of relevant
material that can be gathered from these registers varies among the five
towns, however. Paradoxically, the most peripheral town, Aberdeen, offers
the most information. An almost complete set of council registers has
survived for the fifteenth century, providing rich material compared to the
other four towns. The offerings for Lübeck, Reval and Danzig are more or
less equal, but the sources from the first two mainly cover the latter part of
the fifteenth century, whereas Danzig’s records are spread more evenly
across the period, starting in the 1420s. Because of Lübeck’s function as
Oberhof for Reval, these two towns share some of their sources. The Kampen
registers are the least informative with regard to maritime law. This is partly
because most of the sources only cover the second half of the fifteenth
century, or parts thereof, and because Kampen lacks a series of urban
registers. Moreover, Kampen’s protected position on the River IJssel, in a
relatively calm area of the Zuiderzee, probably made for relatively few
shipwrecks in Kampen’s area of authority compared to towns situated on a
sea coast.1 Many cases may also have been settled outside the courts.
Because orality still played such an important role in medieval society, the
extant sources for all five towns only document a selection of the cases that
actually occurred or were dealt with by the courts. We have to keep in mind,
of course, that only extraordinary cases ended up at court and even these
would not always be recorded.2 Most matters would simply have been settled
outside the courts or by arbitrators. Nonetheless, the sources offer interesting
insights into the practice at the town courts and allow for a representative
comparison of written law and judgements, and between the verdicts
themselves.

Shipwreck
The urban courts were regularly confronted with the question of payment of
freightage after shipwreck. No cases have, however, been recorded in
Kampen, and the comparison is therefore restricted to the other four towns. In
Aberdeen the question of freightage was dealt with by the courts relatively
infrequently compared to the overall maritime material from this town. Both
freightage cases have already been discussed briefly. In 1444 a barge
belonging to the earl of Orkney wrecked at ‘the scaw’, perhaps Skagen at the
very northern tip of Denmark. In December of that year the merchants who
had freighted goods on the ship, and who were also to pass judgement in this
matter, decided that they did not know how much freight was due (‘it is
unknawin to the said merchandez quhether . . . thai aw to pay al the fracht or
part or noght’). Moreover they did not wish to be judges in their own case
(‘and sen the mater langis thaim, thai arre lath to be jugis in their awne
cause’). Apparently, most of the overseas merchants who would normally
have sat on the assize to judge such cases were involved in this affair
themselves. The fact that they were up against a powerful lord like the earl of
Orkney may also have led the merchants to suggest that the matter be referred
to the next general council, where burgh representatives from the whole of
Scotland could consider the case.3
Ten years later, in 1454, an assize ordered half freight to be paid in a case
that had probably involved a shipwreck, although this is not specifically
stated.4 Only the fact that the matter came before the court and that half
freight was charged suggests that the journey remained uncompleted. Again,
the reason for the decision is not recorded and it is not possible to determine
why the half-freight rule had been applied. As related above, the possibility
for a revision by the Edinburgh council ‘ubi leges aquarum habentur’ was
kept open. Based on these two cases, it becomes clear that the question of
freight after shipwreck was one in which the Aberdeen court did not always
consider itself competent to judge. That no other cases were dealt with by the
Aberdeen courts may be due to the development of charter parties that could
lay down provisions for various eventualities. What remains unclear is which
rules concerning freightage after shipwreck were valid in Aberdeen practice.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the Lübeck laws contained two different rules
concerning the amount of freightage due after shipwreck. In Articles 107 and
133 of the Town Law (K) half freight was laid down, whereas in Article 230
of the same law and in Article 16 of the Lübeck Sea Law full freight was
stipulated. According to the Hanseatic statutes (Article 94), half freightage
was due when a ship wrecked in the first half of the journey and a freightage
pro rata itineris if it happened in the second half.
Landwehr argued that the half-freight rule was generally used in the
Lübeck court.5 This rule was, however, not always applied in the examples
he offered to support his case. In other cases it is unclear which rule was
utilised. In 1484, for example, skipper Poppe Claussen appeared before the
Lübeck court demanding payment of freightage for the transportation of
goods from Kampen to Bergen in Norway and back. The ship had caught fire
just off the Norwegian coast on its return voyage, and only some of the cargo
was saved. The Lübeck court decided that the merchants were liable to pay
half freight (meaning for the first half of the journey) for all the goods that
had been brought from Kampen to Bergen. For the return journey, half of the
other half of the freight (‘nemptlik den verdern pennyngk’, namely the fourth
penny, a fourth) was due, but only for the goods that had been saved.6 Both
Landwehr and Cordes argued that the half-freight rule had been applied
here.7 This is not necessarily the case. The burning of the ship took place in
the first half of the second part of the journey. The Hanseatic rule laying
down half freight if the ship wrecked before the midway point of the journey
may therefore also have been applied.8
Hanseatic law may also have been utilised in some of the other examples
offered by Landwehr. In some of these it is not explicitly stated whether the
accident took place in the first half of the journey or not. Unfortunately, the
reason for court decisions was often not recorded.9 In a case from 1487, for
example, a ship had wrecked at ‘Notouwe’.10 Some of the merchants had
salvaged their goods, or parts thereof, but they were unwilling to pay freight.
The only other information documented in this case is the decision: ‘They
who have salvaged and received some of those goods are held to pay half
freight for them to the skipper.’11 The ship’s port of departure and destination
were not recorded and it is not possible to determine whether the shipwreck
occurred in the first half of the journey or not, and what the grounds for the
judgement were.12 The same applies in two other matters concerning freight
considered in 1494 and 1499.13
It is certain that Hanseatic law was utilised by the Lübeck council in the
1486 appeal case from Reval, which was discussed in the previous chapter.
The Reval council had originally decided that the merchants were due to pay
full freightage or, alternatively, could ‘abandon’ their goods, applying Article
93 of the 1447 Hanserecess. The Lübeck court adjusted this verdict using, as
it stated, ‘Lübeck law’:
If the skipper wrecked beneath half of the way for which he was loaded,
the merchants should pay no more than half freight for the sound goods
that they receive and may leave other, unsound, goods to the skipper for
the freight.14
The court actually applied Article 94 of the 1447 Hanseatic statutes, in this
case combined with Article 93. This latter article was also utilised (‘na
inneholde des recesses’, ‘according to the content of the recess’) in the appeal
case of 1471 discussed in Chapter 6.15 In that case, the amount of freight was
not specified. In another incident of shipwreck, on this occasion near
Shetland (‘Hitland’) on the vessel’s return from Iceland in 1469, Lübeck
advised Braunschweig that freight had to be calculated ‘na antale des weges’
(pro rata itineris).16 This was again in accordance with Article 94 of the 1447
Hanserecess, considering that Shetland lies just over halfway between
Iceland and Hamburg, where the ship was headed. It is unlikely that the
Lübeck court made use of the Rôles in this case, as has been suggested by
Jahnke, as the Hanseatic regulations were more readily available to Lübeck
and were used on other occasions.17
In the abovementioned cases, only the half-freight rule of the Town Law
and the Hanseatic statutes have played a role. The regulations laying down
full freightage for salvaged goods appear not to have been applied as often.
There is one case from 1488 in which the Reval court decided that ‘vracht’,
without any further specifications, was due. This decision was confirmed by
Lübeck. Ebel argued that ‘vracht’ indicated full freight.18 The fact that he
was probably right will be discussed further below.
Although the Lübeck court consistently decided that freight was due only
for salvaged goods, its judgements on the amount of freightage due after
shipwreck were seemingly contradictory.19 The suggestion that different
rules may have existed for North Sea and Baltic Sea shipping is, however,
certainly incorrect. Shipwrecks on the North Sea (to Iceland/Shetland and
Norway) were treated no differently from those on the Baltic (from and to
Reval). Yet a change does appear to have occurred around 1487. Before that
date Hanseatic rules were used, whereas the half-freight rule was applied
thereafter. Why this change occurred then is unclear, but it is unlikely that the
written town laws of the thirteenth century came into use again. Instead, the
change perhaps originated elsewhere. It is significant in this respect that not
only the revised Lübeck Town Law of 1586 but also the Hanseatic Sea Law
from 1591/1614 included the half-freight rule, confirming that it may have
(re)appeared in legal practice in the late fifteenth century. The Hanseatic rules
were applied before then from at least 1447 until about 1486. There are no
cases from practice that predate 1447.
Contrary to Lübeck, Reval generally applied the full-freight rule from the
Lübeck Town Law. It had done so in the abovementioned lawsuit from 1488
and in the previously described appeal case from 1486. The letter of appeal
from Reval concerning this appeal is extensive and includes the written
public statements (‘apenen cedel’) of both parties which had been read aloud
in the Reval court. The plaintiff, skipper Ludeke van Ollen, had first
presented his case, relating how his and other ships had been held up just
outside Reval harbour (‘achtern dat bolwerk’) for eight or nine days because
of bad weather.20 The cargo, mostly rye, had been spoilt, but not because of
negligence on his part. He therefore demanded to be paid full freight for the
salvaged goods and requested an oath to be sworn by the defendants that the
damage was not his fault. He hoped that the matter would be settled
according to Lübeck law and ‘waterrecht’.
The five defendants, merchants from Reval, argued that it was negligence
on Van Ollen’s part that had caused the goods to be burnt and spoilt, because
he had kept a fire burning on the ship at night. They stated: ‘And when the
law lays down that a skipper can load a merchant’s goods and then neglect
ship and goods and the merchant would nonetheless be expected to pay full
freight, the merchant would be badly looked after.’21 They expressed their
hope (‘vorhopen wy to gade unnd to lub. rechte’) of being exempted from
having to pay full freight. The report on the proceedings does not specify
whether any oaths were taken by the merchants. According to Article 32 of
the 1447 Hanserecess, the skipper was respons ible for cooling the rye on
board the ship.22 That the rye burnt suggests that this was not done properly
and the skipper should therefore have had to reimburse all the damages. The
Reval court considered the case a shipwreck, however, and applied Article 93
of the same Hanserecess. The court decided that full freightage was due for
the unspoilt goods which the merchants were willing to receive. The spoilt
rye could be abandoned. The merchants lodged an appeal against this verdict
which was sent to Lübeck by post on 6 March 1486.
The Lübeck court replied two and a half months later, adjusting the verdict
in accordance with Article 94 of the 1447 Hanserecess. It decided that if the
ship was wrecked in the first half of the journey, the merchants would only be
liable to pay half freight for the goods they wished to receive.23 The ship had
indeed completed less than half of its voyage, as it had loaded rye for
transportation westwards (‘umme westwart to lossende’) and then became
impeded just outside Reval’s harbour. The question remains why the Reval
court applied Article 93 of the Hanseatic statutes of 1447 (‘abandon’ and
‘freight’) but not Article 94 (‘half freight’ and ‘freight pro rata itineris’). A
copy of the 1447 Hanserecess was certainly available in Reval. It appears
that Article 94 had not been adopted by Reval; instead the town held to the
full-freight rule as laid down in the Lübeck Town Law.24 This confirms the
suggestion made by Ebel that the full-freight rule was also applied in the case
from 1488.
Article 93 of the 1447 Hanserecess was also applied in the 1471 appeal
case concerning the shipwreck near Shetland. Before this appeal was sent to
Lübeck on 22 June, and presumably before the case had been heard by the
Reval court, a letter had been sent from Lübeck on 24 May and was received
in Reval some time after.25 In this letter, Lübeck requested that the owners of
the sunk ship of Hanneke Vrome be paid freightage by the merchants whose
goods had been salvaged, in accordance with the 1447 Hanserecess (Article
93). A Reval councillor was appointed as the representative of the
shipowners. This representative appeared as one of the two plaintiffs when
the case was heard by the Reval court. Attempts to obtain the freight had
apparently remained fruitless. The merchants argued that the shipowners had
not contributed to the costs of the salvage and that they themselves were not,
therefore, obliged to pay freightage. The Reval council did not accept this
argument and decided that freight, presumably full freight, was due to be paid
in accordance with the 1447 recess, which was read out in court.26 The letter
from Lübeck, which stated exactly this reason for the demand for freight,
probably influenced the council in passing its judgement. Reval was subject
to Lübeck law, and Lübeck itself suggested that this rule be applied.
The merchants were apparently not informed about the letter sent from
Lübeck, as they might otherwise have decided not to appeal against the
judgement at the Lübeck Oberhof. As might have been expected, the Lübeck
court confirmed (‘bevestiget, bestediget unde confirmeret’) the judgement ‘na
unseme lubeschen rechte’ on 18 October 1471.27 This decision is not an
indication of bias on the part of the Lübeck court, as it only confirmed that
Reval had applied the law correctly and did not declare on the contents of the
case. The merchants would probably have been wiser to have paid the
freightage first and then filed a complaint against the shipowners for not
contributing to the costs of the salvage.
Reval practice regarding the payment of freightage was thus slightly
different from that of Lübeck. This is partly because the Lübeck court was
not consistent on the matter. Based on the judgements from Reval from 1471,
1486 and 1488, the Reval court adhered to the full-freight rule for salvaged
goods laid down in the Lübeck Town Law. Under the influence of the
Hanseatic statutes the possibility of abandoning spoilt goods was introduced.
The rule laying down half freight for the first half of the journey and a freight
pro rata itineris for the second appears not to have been adopted by Reval.
Through the appeal from 1486 and Lübeck’s adjustment of Reval’s verdict, it
did find its way into Reval practice, but only two years later the full-freight
rule was applied again and confirmed by Lübeck.
In Danzig it was laid down in 1425, in the judgement in Waterrecht manu-
script 1 which was later deleted, that half freightage was due to be paid for
any goods that merchants regained after a shipwreck.28 This judgement was
passed in a case between shipmaster Peter Leddige and the merchants who
had transported goods on his vessel, which had foundered near the island of
Bornholm, on its way from Danzig to Flanders. Leddige claimed freight for
all the salvaged goods, but the court decided that the merchants were not
liable to pay freight for the goods that had been taken as salvage money by
the Bornholm Vogt (‘den vierden pennynge’, a fourth). The verdict was
probably deleted when Judgement 2 was recorded around 1428. This latter
judgement established a different rule: half freight was due when the ship
wrecked in the harbour or just outside it and full freight when the ship had
been out of sight of the port. In the case between Leddige and his merchants,
this would have meant that full freight would have been due. Court practice
therefore appears to have changed around 1428–9.
In 1486 the council of the town of Amsterdam sent a letter to its Danzig
counterpart, requesting a document confirming the verdict in a case between
a skipper from Amsterdam and three merchants from Kampen. According to
the letter, the merchants had freighted goods on a ship sailing westwards
from Riga, but the vessel had to be left for a wreck in Danzig. When the
skipper and the merchants had taken their case to court, the Danzig council
had decided that half freight was due.29 Amsterdam’s request for a certificate,
which had been sent on behalf of the skipper, was repeated in January
1487.30 Based on this letter, it appears that court practice in Danzig
concerning this issue had changed again between 1428–9 and 1487. Applying
Judgement 2 would have resulted in full freight being due, as the vessel had
clearly been out of sight of the port of departure. There are three possibilities:
Judgement 2 had been discarded in favour of either the 1425 decision, Article
94 of the 1447 Hanserecess, or the Lübeck half-freight rule that was part of
the Gotland Sea Law (Article 13). Sailing west from Riga, Danzig would
most likely have been in the first half of the journey as Danzig is situated
about halfway between Riga and Lübeck. Half freight would thus have been
due according to Article 94 of the Hanseatic statutes, which laid down half
freight for the first half of the journey. As usual, no reason for the verdict was
provided and it remains unclear why half freight was imposed. It is certain,
however, that neither the Vonnesse, the Ordinancie nor Judgement 2 were
utilised in this case.
Other issues related to shipwreck were also dealt with by the town courts.
A report to the Reval council from a merchant who remains anonymous
provides some clues about the practice of salvaging goods and regaining
them after shipwreck.31 The account is quite substantial, covering three
pages. The merchant reported a shipwreck in ‘de scheren’ in the south of
present-day Finland near Rasaborg in the autumn of 1502. The ship had been
underway from Lübeck to Reval laden with herring, Hamburg beer, cloth,
wax and other goods.32 Some of the salvaged cargo was transported to Reval
directly. Other goods were regained by merchants who had personally
travelled to Finland after the shipwreck. Their colleagues who had travelled
on the wrecked vessel had been able to retrieve their goods themselves. A
group of these merchants claimed a proportion of a load of wax as
compensation for goods that they had lost in the wreckage. They argued that
the goods that were saved should be divided among all parties involved. The
writer of the letter, who claimed that the wax was his, disagreed. He argued
that the goods were freighted to Reval ‘on their own adventure’ (‘uppe ere
egene eventur’), indicating that everyone had to bear their own risk. The
writer therefore demanded that each merchant should regain the goods that he
could prove were his, as was laid down in Lübeck law.33
The writer of the account was right in stating that the risks of shipwreck
had to be carried by all individually, unless of course other arrangements had
been made in the carriage contract. Although this is not stipulated explicitly
in the Lübeck laws, it is implied in Article 230 of the Lübeck Town Law and
Article 16 of the Lübeck Sea Law. Neither of these articles appears to have
been available in writing in Reval, but the rule would have been valid
nonetheless, as was explained in the previous chapter. The laws laid down
that freight was only due by the owners of salvaged goods, thus implying that
only the owners of these goods were entitled to them. The Hamburg Ship
Law of 1497 confirms this (Article 44): ‘When shipwrecked goods are
salvaged, such salvaged goods should not help to carry the damage of
unsalvaged and lost goods.’34 The outcome of this case from Reval is,
unfortunately, unknown, but it gives an insight into the events after a
shipwreck had taken place. It also shows that this particular merchant
believed he knew the law and put his trust in it. The length of the report and
its survival also illustrate the development of a written legal system. The
account was possibly drawn up to be read aloud as part of a hearing at the
town court.
In Aberdeen a different practice appears to have existed as regards the
compensation of lost goods after a shipwreck. In most of the laws dealt with
in this study and in the court proceedings in the other towns, goods lost
through shipwreck were not compensated. Compensation was therefore
seldom cause for a lawsuit. In the case of the earl of Orkney’s shipwrecked
barge it was decided by an assize in a bailie court in March 1445 that all
involved merchants should lot, that is to say that they had to contribute a
proportionate share to the damages, as was the case in jettison.35 Similarly, in
1481 a merchant was assigned some goods from a shipwrecked caravel by lot
(‘by cut and cavil’) and was also expected to contribute to the damages to
other goods.36
Interestingly, a decision by the ‘scepynnes and wit’ (aldermen and council)
of ‘the moy’ (Arnemuiden?) from 1449 regarding the contribution of the
crew with their voering (‘furyng’) laid down the same:
That schipmennys furyngis suld be free of lottyng, that is to say that
alsmykel as the fracht of thair furyng drawis suld not lot, bot the gudes
that was apon thaire furyng for the remanend of the valu of thaim suld
lot like as othiris gudis of the schip.37
Thus the voering was free from contribution, but any additional goods taken
aboard by the crew were subject to lot like the other goods on the ship. This
verdict was passed in a case in which an Aberdeen vessel had foundered on
the Dutch coast on its way to London with a cargo of salmon. That the
voering was free from contribution up to a certain amount in cases of jettison
was laid down in the Rôles d’Oléron (Article 8) and its translations, and it is
this rule that appears to have been applied here. The two decisions from the
Aberdeen court are thus in accordance with that of the Dutch aldermen and
the regulation of the contribution of lost goods after jettison, although in this
case only the merchants were expected to contribute and not the skipper.
However, the verdicts oppose the rules regarding shipwreck in the written
laws and judgements passed in legal practice elsewhere.
A sense of solidarity seemingly existed among members of the Aberdeen
maritime community, and an idea that when accident struck some, it may just
as easily have struck others. The overseas merchants were all members of the
guild, in which a strong sense of community was fostered and through which,
from early times, help was provided to members who had suffered losses
beyond their control. Since the government and courts consisted of these
same guild members, the custom of dividing losses between all parties
involved in a maritime venture would also have found its way into legal
practice. As the evolution of guilds in Aberdeen was not dissimilar to
developments elsewhere in northern Europe and strong relations between
merchants existed everywhere, the question remains, however, why this
community spirit is not apparent in legal custom elsewhere.
Another issue dealt with by the Aberdeen courts was the possibility of
loading goods from a wrecked ship onto another vessel in order to complete a
contracted voyage, as was discussed in the Rôles d’Oléron. This law was
applied in 1466 when the cargo of a Spanish barge that had wrecked in
Aberdeen harbour was divided between another barge and a crayer, and
carried to Sluys in Flanders where both ships were due to go (‘et fuyr thaim
to the port Salus quhare thai are frachtit to’). The shipmasters and their crews
were also made to swear that the goods were loaded with the consent of the
master of the Spanish barge.38 Whether it was the wreck of this same Spanish
barge that was obstructing traffic in the harbour thirteen years later is unclear,
but in 1479 Andrew Scherar took it upon himself to make some
improvements to the harbour and remove the wreck of a Spanish barge, in
exchange for the acquittance of some outstanding debts resulting from his
office as provost.39 It appears that there was no rule for the Aberdeen harbour
comparable to that recorded in the Wisby Town Law (Article 3), which laid
down that wrecks should be removed by the owners within a month in
summer and eight weeks in winter.40
Finally, in Reval in 1482 the question of salvage money was considered. In
this case a councillor and burgher from Reval pleaded for the return of their
goods which had been dredged up from the sea near the island of Ösel by
another Reval burgher. The court decided that the goods should be restored to
the owners on payment of a reasonable salver’s wage (‘redelick bergelon’).
An appeal was lodged against this judgement but it was confirmed by the
Lübeck court ‘na lubeschen rechte’.41 In the fifteenth century payment for the
salvage of goods was made in the shape of a wage rather than a proportion of
the goods as had previously been the case.42 The terms ‘redelik arbeideslon’
and ‘redelik bergegeld’ are often used in letters by the Hanseatic towns
attempting to retrieve salvaged goods.43 Wages had already been laid down
in Article 15 of the Lübeck Sea Law. Moreover, freedom from the law of
wreck had been part of privileges granted to the Hanseatic towns, and
especially Lübeck, since the start of the thirteenth century. This issue
remained an important item on the towns’ agenda throughout the Later
Middle Ages and came up regularly at the Hanseatic diets. Statutes
prohibiting the sale and purchase of salvaged goods appeared at regular
intervals from 1365.44 In the case from Reval it is unclear whether the salver
was sued because he did not want to return the goods at all, or because he
wanted to take a larger part than was his due. Unfortunately, while Lübeck’s
reply survives, the original appeal with a description of the complaint does
not. It is also unclear which of the two parties appealed. Be that as it may, the
Reval court decided according to the common Hanseatic practice as regards
salvage, and in accordance with Lübeck law as considered by the Lübeck
court.
The question of freight after shipwreck regularly came up in urban court
proceedings, apart from those in Kampen. There was no communality in the
verdicts. Indeed, not even the judgements passed by the Lübeck court were
uniform. It applied the Hanseatic rule, laying down half freight for the first
half of the journey and a freight pro rata itineris for the second, but on other
occasions it ordered half freight to be paid and even confirmed a Reval
judgement stipulating full freight. The Reval council generally appears to
have stuck to the full-freight rule, but also allowed for the possibility of
abandoning the goods for the freight in accordance with Article 93 of the
1447 Hanserecess.
From Aberdeen, only one judgement survives stipulating half freight, but
the possibility was left open that Edinburgh would order full freight instead.
Danzig applied the half-freight rule in 1425, but changed this only a few
years later. From that time half freight was laid down for a shipwreck in the
harbour or within sight of it and full freight was due beyond that. In the late
fifteenth century, however, the half-freight rule was again applied, or
possibly Article 94 of the 1447 Hanserecess. It is unclear when this change in
legal practice occurred.
Other rules concerning shipwreck could also be deduced from legal
practice. In Aberdeen the opportunity to load cargo onto other vessels was
provided for and in Reval, and also, through an appeal, in Lübeck, it was
decided that salvaged goods should be restored to the owners on payment of a
reasonable wage to the salvers. Aberdeen practice deviated from that in the
other four towns as regards the contribution towards lost goods after
shipwreck. That the town was not unique in this is indicated by a judgement
from Zeeland, indicating that a common practice may have existed in north-
western Europe. In the towns of the rest of northern Europe the risks of a
shipwreck had to be borne by the merchants themselves. This is confirmed by
the testimony of a Reval skipper.
The same differences that existed in the various written laws as regards the
payment of freight are thus apparent in the court decisions. The deviation of
Aberdeen concerning the compensation of losses after shipwreck is specific
to legal practice; the written laws all agreed that the risks of shipwreck were
at everyone’s own ‘adventure’. Legal practice as regards shipwreck was thus
even less uniform than the written laws.

Jettison and other forms of general average

Different aspects of jettison and other forms of general average were dealt
with by the urban courts. First, it needed to be established whether a jettison
was carried out in an emergency. In Lübeck in 1489 a skipper, who was the
plaintiff in this case, was ordered to swear an oath with two of his crew
members that goods had been jettisoned ‘wedders unde wyndeshalven’
(because of weather and wind).45 Such an oath is not laid down in the Lübeck
Town and Sea Laws concerning average, but it was probably considered a
known custom in Lübeck that did not need to be recorded. The Gotland Sea
Law, the Hamburg Ship Law of 1497 and the Ordinancie all stipulated that
two or three members of the crew had to swear with the master, but as no
medieval copies of these sea laws survive from Lübeck, there is no evidence
that its council was influenced by these laws.46
When a shipmaster had established through his oath that a jettison had
been necessary, the contributions of the skipper and the merchants to the
damages would be calculated considering the value of both the ship and the
goods: ‘over schip ende gud’. This definition was used regularly in the
judgements of the Lübeck court. In a case from 1495, for example, six
merchants complained that skipper Hinrick Sassen of Hamburg had cast
twenty-four lasts of salt and other goods overboard in the ‘Belte’, either the
Little or Great Belt. The council decided that ‘whatever the afore-named
skipper jettisoned out of need shall be reckoned over ship and goods’.47 The
expression ‘over schip ende gud’ cannot be found in any of the written
Lübeck laws. It was only used in the Hamburg Shipping Law of 1497
(Article 33): ‘When a skipper casts any goods because of a storm to save ship
and goods, the damage shall be reckoned aver schip unde gud, jettisoned and
unjettisoned.’48 None of the court proceedings, in their turn, established
exactly how the contributions should be calculated. The wording ‘mark
markelike’ or similar definitions that were applied in many of the written
laws were not used in the court decisions.
The definition ‘over schip ende gud’ was also used by the Reval council.
In the autumn of 1490 many storms swept across the Baltic and impeded
shipping between Lübeck and Reval. Many ships were forced to cast goods
overboard. In 1491 a letter was sent from Lübeck to Reval recounting the
jettison of a pack of cloth worth 104½ Lübeck marks from the ship of Elar
Elvesson. This pack belonged to a merchant from Dorpat. The Reval council
requested that the Lübeck merchants who had freighted goods on Elvesson’s
ship contribute towards reimbursement of the pack of cloth to the skipper.
The latter had apparently already compensated the Dorpat merchant for his
damages. The contribution would be calculated in proportion to their goods
(‘na andel synes guder’) ‘because it is reasonable and in accordance with the
law to apportion cast goods and suffered damage over ship and goods’ (‘unde
wente deme billick unde recht is sodane geworpene guderen unde geledene
schade zulle gan over schip unde gud’).49 This calculation of the
contributions to the damages in proportion to the saved cargo and the ship is
in accordance with Lübeck law and legal practice.
The wording ‘over schip ende gud’ is also used in a Kampen testimony. In
1486 Peter Johansoen from Bolsward testified that he had contributed his
share of the damages after a jettison, which damages had been divided ‘over
schip ende guet’.50 Legal terminology in cases of jettison thus appears to
have corresponded with that used elsewhere in northern Europe, although,
strictly speaking, it contradicted the written Kampen laws. These laid down
that the freight received by the shipmaster was to be included in the
calculations as well. This contradiction could indicate that legal practice
changed in Kampen at some point after 1416, perhaps under influence of the
copy of the Ordinancie, which arrived in the town in the third quarter of the
fifteenth century. However, as this information was extracted from a
testimony and not from actual court proceedings, such conclusions must
remain tentative.
The definition ‘over schip ende gud’ does not survive in the sources from
Danzig. Instead, in a case from 1440 the damages after a jettison were
divided between both ship and goods ‘na penningetal’. This decision is
recorded in a letter to Stockholm.51 In Chapter 5, Judgement 6 of Waterrecht
manuscript 1 was discussed. In this judgement the ship was not mentioned as
part of the contributions to jettisoned goods and the question was posed of
whether this was because its inclusion was considered self-evident.
Analysing the verdict from 1440, it appears likely that this was the case,
rather than that the rule actually changed between 1433, when Judgement 6
was drawn up, and 1440. With regard to jettison these judgements are the
only two that survive, discounting the case from 1500 discussed in Chapter 6
in which full freight was supposedly imposed for the salvaged and lost goods
by a board of wise men.
Other questions of general average were dealt with by the Danzig court.
An interesting case was reported in a letter from Danzig which was probably
sent to Lübeck.52 It dealt with a variety of problems that could occur in
overseas shipping. In the winter of 1432–3 several ships were caught in the
ice at the mouth of the Vistula. Some of the skippers appeared before the
council complaining that a number of crew members had left their vessels,
refusing to remain with the cargo for fear of losing their lives. The sailors
were ordered to return to their ships by the council in order to secure the
goods and ensure the seaworthiness of the vessels. The costs of this extra
work would be divided between the shipmaster and the merchants.
Next, a single skipper appeared in court with some of his merchants
reporting that his ship had been damaged by the ice and that he was
concerned that he might lose both the ship and the cargo. The vessel had
sailed from Livonia with flax and was destined for Lübeck. The merchants
wished to unload their goods, but the skipper would only allow this in
exchange for payment of full freight. The council decided that, because of
this emergency situation (‘sulke merklike notzake’), the merchants could
unload part of the cargo so the skipper was able to repair his ship. They
would have to reload their goods when this repair had been carried out. The
costs of the unloading and reloading would have to be borne by the
merchants themselves and divided equally among them. If any of the cargo
was damaged as a result of the unloading or of remaining on board, the saved
goods would contribute towards the damages ‘na penningtalen’ (according to
the value of the goods).
When the ice subsequently broke and started to float to the open sea, the
ship was carried along with it including the helmsman and some of the crew.
In order to save their lives, the ship and the cargo, the sailors cut down the
mast with its ropes and cast it overboard. The skipper and other crew
members then rescued the ship (presumably with another vessel) and brought
it back to the mouth of the Vistula. Once returned there, however, it sprung a
leak and some of the flax became wet. The flax was again unloaded to allow
for repairs. The skipper then appeared before the court for a second time with
two other merchants. This time, the council decided that the goods that had
been saved should contribute towards those that had been spoilt. After the
vessel had been restored to a seaworthy condition, the skipper would have to
reload the goods again at the merchants’ expense and sail to the original port
of destination. When the merchants declined to reload all their goods, the
council decided that they had to pay full freightage straight away for the
unspoilt cargo. For the water-damaged goods, full freight would be due on
arrival of the skipper in Lübeck. Finally, the skipper demanded a
reimbursement for all his damages: ‘to give pay to the salvers, to repair his
ship, to raise the mast, to buy new ropes and a boat and other costs which he
had made because of this’.53 At the merchants’ request the case was
postponed until the ship arrived at its destination in Lübeck. They argued that
they were not authorised to reimburse such damages as the goods belonged
there.
It is noteworthy that the costs of securing the ship and the goods were
divided between skipper and merchants, whereas the costs of unloading
goods in order to repair the ship had to be borne by the latter alone.
According to the Ordinancie and the 1497 Hamburg Ship Law, which are the
only laws to deal with a similar situation, the costs of lightening a vessel after
it had run aground were to be split between ship and goods, as in jettison.54
The revised Riga Town Law dealt with the capture of vessels in ice: the costs
of freeing them were to be divided between the ship (one quarter) and the
cargo (three-quarters) (Article 8). It appears, then, that the Danzig court dealt
with these issues differently.
The risks of unloading a selection of the cargo were also to be borne solely
by the merchants.55 The damages to the spoilt goods were to be divided
between the merchants. The expenses incurred by the skipper in securing the
goods, repairing the ship and hiring extra help, on the other hand, were to be
split between the skipper and the merchants. In this case only a judgement
concerning the securing of ship and goods was passed; the rest would be
considered on arrival of the vessel in Lübeck.
The payment of freight was another issue that arose in this case. The
skipper proposed the application of Judgement 5, which stipulated the
payment of full freightage if the merchant broke the ‘bonninge’, but the
council applied Judgement 4 instead.56 This laid down that the skipper should
be allowed the opportunity to repair his ship. The verdict concerning the
payment of freight for the goods that were not returned to the vessel after it
had been repaired complied with Judgement 10, although the latter only
described a case in which the ship returned to its home port, whereas this ship
was in a foreign harbour. That was probably why the skipper was not obliged
to look for substitute cargo as was laid down in Judgement 10. On the whole,
it appears that the decisions in this case favoured the shipmaster, as
representative of the shipowners, over the merchants.
The Aberdeen courts also considered a few cases of jettison in the second
half of the fifteenth century. In 1456 Simon, the master of a cog called the
Mariknyght, appeared before the bailie court in a case against Mathew Fichet
and other merchants from Aberdeen concerning the compensation of some
jettisoned goods. The assize decided that the cargo that was left in the ship
should contribute towards the cast goods. It considered irrelevant in this
instance the fact that some of the merchants had not agreed to the jettison.
The skipper, moreover, had to contribute with the value of his ship or his
freightage (‘de precio vel naulo eiusdem navis’).57 Similarly, in 1485 an
assize of merchants and skippers, including two helmsmen and the skipper of
the ship in question (a bus), decided that the merchants involved should lot
with a merchant whose goods had been cast overboard. The skipper had to
contribute to the cast goods with his ship or his freightage.58
In contrast to the corrupt translation of Article 8 of the Rôles d’Oléron in
the Scottish texts of this law, according to which the skipper was to be paid
for his freight and his damages, both judgements laid down that shipmasters
should contribute to a jettison with either their ship or their freight. Court
practice at Aberdeen thus corresponded with the original regulation in the
Rôles and not with its Scottish translations. These original laws had most
likely been valid through custom since the thirteenth century. Also, this
confirms again that the Aberdeen court did not have any copies of the ‘ship
lawis’ at its disposal. A case from 1457 in which a merchant demanded ‘ij
marcis of lottyng siluer of gudis at war castyne’ from a colleague confirms
that merchants were reimbursed with a share of the saved goods in cash and
not in kind or pounds in weight, as was suggested by Landwehr.59
Two more details of proceedings after jettison can be deduced from the
Aberdeen sources. First, in a burgh court of 1480 the amount of cast goods
belonging to a certain merchant was established through the testimonies of
three witnesses (‘witnessing to the verite anent the casting of certane gudis’).
The skipper, a schipman and a third person provided similar statements
concerning the character and amount of goods that had been jettisoned.60
That the shipmaster decided whether goods should be cast is indicated by the
testimony of a skipper at a bailie court in 1495. This is not laid down
specifically in the written laws. In this case, the skipper had refused to allow
a jettison, but some goods were thrown overboard nonetheless. The testimony
was presumably given by the skipper to relieve him of the obligation to
contribute towards the cast goods.61
A similar custom existed in Kampen, as is indicated by another testimony
drawn up in this court around 1470:
That I have heard and seen that Willem Morre said that he would cast
his goods and called out that the people should cast, but I did not hear a
word from the skipper nor had he given his consent, but he was in the
dorrick and bailed the water out.62
This evidence was given by Willem Kroec during court proceedings to
determine whether the jettison had been necessary in this case. The testimony
implies that the jettison had not been necessary because the skipper had not
ordered it or given his consent. The damages would therefore probably have
had to be borne by Willem Morre, who had cast the goods overboard, alone.
The decision of the Aberdeen court that merchants had to contribute
towards cast goods irrespective of their consent to a jettison appears on first
consideration to oppose the verdict in a case in which the mast had been cut
with the permission of only a selection of the merchants. In 1453 the master
of a bus claimed full freight for an interrupted voyage because the mast had
had to be cut in order to save the ship. He also requested compensation for
the mast. Concerning the first question the assize decided that only half
freightage was due ‘be condicion made betuex the maister and marchaundis
forsaid at Northberwike’. If the skipper or the shipowners could provide
evidence that another agreement had been made to replace the one drawn up
in North Berwick, the newer document should be adhered to. As regards the
lottyng, the assize concluded that:
alsmony of the merchandis at consentit to the hewyne of the said mast,
thaire gudes and the gudez of thaim that thai war merchandis to sal pay
lottyng of the said mast, and the remanend of the gude sal be free of
lottyng.63
The cargo of the merchants who had agreed to the cutting and the goods of
those men they represented were to be included in the calculations of the
contribution towards the mast, but the remaining cargo was to be exempted
from this assessment. Because the skipper had to be reimbursed for his losses
in cases of voluntary damage to the ship, he needed their consent for such
measures in order to receive compensation. In cases of jettison, on the other
hand, the shipmaster had to contribute, as was explained in Chapter 2. The
Aberdeen verdicts, therefore, do not contradict each other.
A similar case was considered at the Lübeck court. In 1497 skipper Gorges
Wolder appeared before the court claiming against the merchant Mathias
Kronen. Kronen had not been aboard the ship when consent had been granted
by the freighters present to cut the mast. The council decided that when the
merchants on the ship agreed to cut the mast in order to save the cargo, this
agreement was legally binding for everyone who had freighted goods on the
ship.64 This decision contradicts the Aberdeen verdict in that it considered the
consent of a selection of the freighters to be binding for all. However, the
circumstances vary slightly, as in the Aberdeen case the merchants opposing
the cutting had been aboard ship, whereas in the lawsuit from Lübeck they
had been absent. This variation may explain the different judgements, but it is
difficult to determine for certain.
That the Lübeck merchants had to contribute to the mast if it had been cut
to save the ship is in accordance with the written Lübeck laws (Article 153 of
the Lübeck Town Law (K); Article 24 of the Sea Law). The Sea Law also
stipulated that the merchants aboard the ship had to agree to the cut. This
condition was clearly satisfied in the case from 1497: ‘mit der coplude willen
de im schepe gewesen syn’ (‘with consent of the merchants who were in the
ship’). The possibility that the merchants might not accompany their goods
was, however, not yet taken into consideration in this thirteenth-century law,
as it was a practice that only developed at a later time.65 The Ordinancie was
the first law to allow for such circumstances in its article on jettison (Article
4).66 Article 31 of the Hamburg Ship Law of 1497 also provided for it. These
laws stipulated that a majority of the crew had to agree to a jettison if no
merchants were aboard the ship. The merchants were thus bound by the
decision of a legally acknowledged group of people. In the case before the
Lübeck court, it was established that the merchants present on the ship
formed such a group. Whether they would have decided differently in the
case considered in Aberdeen is a question that will, however, have to remain
unanswered.
Two more records of court proceedings from Lübeck indicate that the town
court handled the principles of general average loosely. In both cases
damages were divided between shipmaster and merchants as in jettison. The
first matter concerned the plaintiff, Hinrick van der Heyde, and the defendant,
skipper Thomas Mossingh. In March 1461 the plaintiff requested that Lübeck
law be applied after some of the cargo carried on Mossingh’s vessel, which
had been loaded onto a boat to be discharged in Lübeck’s harbour, had been
lost when the boat sank in bad weather. The plaintiff argued that the goods
had been offloaded ‘to des ghemenen besten willen to lossende der gudere de
dar inne bleven’ (‘for the sake of the common good in order to save the goods
that remained aboard ship’). Taking that into consideration, the council
decided that the damages were to be divided ‘over ship and goods’.67
This situation was not regulated in the Lübeck laws. The only law that did
provide for such circumstances was the Roman Lex Rhodia de Iactu:
If a heavy-loaded ship, that could not make a river or a port, was
lightened by transferring part of the goods onto a boat to prevent the
ship getting into danger in front of the river or at its mouth or in the
harbour, and the boat sinks, compensation will have to take place
between those whose goods were saved on the ship, and those whose
goods were lost in the boat, as if they had been cast.68
This law in its turn influenced a regulation in the 1497 Hamburg Ship Law,
although the section on the prevention of danger is lacking there. The
principle of the rule is, however, the same as that applied by the Lübeck
council in 1461. If this verdict was based on any written law, it could only
have been the Digest, but the motivation used in court (‘umme de to des
ghemenen besten willen to lossende . . .’) is different from that provided in
the Lex Rhodia. Lübeck’s decision therefore established this rule in writing
for the first time. It may have existed in custom before, or it may alternatively
have been a new rule. Before this time, such situations may have been
considered shipwreck or, in present-day terminology, particular average.
The other case in which the costs of a measure were divided ‘over ship and
goods’ involved a skipper from Stralsund and merchants from Stockholm. In
this case, considered by the Lübeck court in 1493, the governor of Gotland
had saved a ship and its cargo and was rewarded with some of the goods.
Because these goods had been given away ‘for the rescue of both the master’s
ship and the merchants’ goods’ (‘umme reddinge des erbenomeden
schiphernn schepes unde de coepmans gudere’), their costs had to be divided
between all parties involved. A condition of this verdict was that the skipper
had not been negligent; if it was established that ship and cargo had had to be
saved because he had been careless, then the skipper would become liable for
all the damages.69 The council considered this situation to be related to
jettison and other forms of average. Without the governor’s help the ship and
the goods would probably have been lost and the costs of the rescue were
therefore divided between the owners of the ship and the goods. As no legal
definition of average as yet existed, the notion of dividing the contribution
towards the costs or damages between these two parties when the common
good had been served by a specific measure could be applied whenever the
council saw fit.
In Aberdeen a variety of cases, including the cases of shipwreck already
discussed, also dealt with circumstances in which the contribution towards
damages was an issue. Two lawsuits concerned the loss of anchor and cables
but in both this gear was probably lost through accident. According to most
laws, the damage would have had to be borne by the skipper himself.70
However, in both cases lottyng was laid down. In 1464 it was decided that the
merchants should contribute their share of the costs of the salvage of anchor
and cables if these could be located. If they were not regained, the merchants
should lot ‘punde punde like’. The value of the gear would have to be
established by the skipper under oath.71 Similarly, in 1499 some merchants
testified that they had contributed goods to the value of their lot for the
compensation of a lost anchor and cable.72 Accidental damage to the ship
was thus treated in the same way as goods lost through shipwreck, apart from
the fact that, for an unknown reason, the skipper was exempted from
contributing in the latter matter.
A special case of average, finally, was handled in 1485. It concerned the
jettison of a barrel of salmon after it had been put on the lower deck
(‘owyrlop’) for ‘saufty of the merchandis gudis’.73 According to the 1467 Act
of Parliament it was forbidden to carry goods on any of the decks, unless they
were exempted from freightage. If such goods were cast, they were not
compensated.74 In this case, however, the merchant had paid freight, and the
skipper and one or two of his sailors were therefore ordered to swear an oath
that the barrel had originally been placed under the orlop and had been
moved at a later stage.75 If they would swear to this, the barrel would be
compensated by the other merchants and the skipper, but if they would not
and the salmon had been put on the orlop from the start of the voyage, the
skipper would be held liable to pay the damages. This confirms that it was, in
principle, prohibited to carry cargo on the decks and that the 1467 act of
parliament was thus adhered to in that respect.
The idea that the damages after a jettison should be divided ‘over ship and
goods’ was common throughout northern Europe. This definition is found in
the records of court proceedings from Lübeck, Reval and Kampen, although
it was not used in any written laws until the publication of the 1497 Hamburg
Ship Law. The wording cannot be found in the extant sources from Danzig
and Aberdeen, but a contribution towards the damages of both the skipper
and the merchants was the norm all the same. In Aberdeen either the ship or
the freight could be used by the skipper for this. In Kampen the freight was,
at least initially, included in the calculations also, in accordance with the
Kampen Town Law, but this may have changed later. Both the Reval and
Danzig courts specified that the contribution should be calculated in
proportion to the value of the goods. Other situations of general average in
which the damages were divided ‘over ship and goods’ were considered by
the Lübeck court. These concerned the payment of salvage money to the
rescuer of a ship and its cargo, and the sinking of the boat that had functioned
as a lighter. In Danzig this situation was handled differently. According to its
council only the merchants had to contribute towards the lost goods.
Both the Kampen and Aberdeen courts decided that permission was
needed from the skipper to carry out a jettison. The consent of the merchants,
on the other hand, was not necessary according to an Aberdeen judgement.
However, in contrast to Lübeck practice, an oath establishing that the jettison
had been carried out in an emergency situation was not required. Aberdeen
and Lübeck practice possibly also differed in circumstances when merchants’
consent was needed for cutting the mast. The Lübeck court decided that it
was legally binding for all merchants when those aboard ship had agreed to
the cutting. The Aberdeen assize stipulated that only those who had
consented needed to contribute.
The towns thus agreed that both merchants and skippers needed to
contribute towards the losses caused by a jettison. However, in Aberdeen the
skipper had to compensate using either his ship or his freight and in Kampen
initially both. Other differences existed as regards the oath to establish the
need to jettison and the consent of merchants to cut the mast. Although it is
noteworthy that a common definition was used as regards the division of the
damages (‘over ship and goods’), the content of the verdicts again differed. It
is clear that no uniform practice existed, even though the differences between
the towns were not as significant as those concerning the payment of
freightage after shipwreck.

Ship collision
Only one case of ship collision was dealt with by the Aberdeen court. In 1490
John Fichet was judged ‘in amerciament of the court for the wranguyse
bringing of the wrak of the hulk to the key in skacht [damage] of the toune’.
At the same time, it was decided by the bailie court that both Fichet and
another skipper (or shipowner) of a ‘keile’ should, with two witnesses,
establish the damage done to each of their ships by the other, indicating that a
collision had taken place.76 After this had been taken care of, ‘ilkane tile
upricht tile uther’: each would have to compensate the other.77 This must be
understood to mean that the losses of each were halved and divided between
the two skippers or shipowners.78 Contrary to the written laws, according to
which only the hit skipper would be compensated, the damages to both ships
were thus shared amongst the shipmasters. This may be because neither was
considered to have collided with the other, but it may also be ascribed to a
different practice; all damages resulting from an unintentional collision may
have been divided equally.
Another ship collision may have taken place near Aberdeen harbour in
1441.79 Before the guild court, Henric Raife, ‘maister of the barge that brak
noght lang syne beside this havin’, and Clais Mollenare ‘maister of the brokin
hulk’, both with their merchants, declared before the court that they had not
been obstructed in any way by the burgesses or neighbours of the town whilst
salvaging their ship and goods and ‘wyst [knew] of na cause of playnt, bot
the gude men of the toun had don right weile to thaim of the quhilk thai
thankit hartli the gude men of the toun’.80 There are no other entries relating
to these two ships, so it is impossible to establish with certainty that the
damage to them was caused by a collision rather than by a double shipwreck.
If it was a collision, any compensation procedures must have taken place
outside the court, or have remained unrecorded.
The oldest relevant case from Kampen was recorded in the urban register
Digestum Vetus and is relatively well documented. In 1460 Johan Witte’s
ship collided with that of Johan Sellen when both were anchored near the
island of Texel. Sellen’s ship sank, taking fourteen men with it. He and his
companions brought the case before the court in Kampen, demanding a large
sum of money from Witte in compensation. Witte rejected this sum as he
insisted the collision had occurred through accident and bad weather. He was
prepared to recompense Sellen for some of his damages and had brought a
handkerchief full of money to the court as evidence of his good will. He
vouched that the sum he was offering was larger than any amount he would
have demanded himself, had he been in Sellen’s position.
The aldermen and council decided that Witte should declare the amount
that he was willing to pay under oath, after he had given his handkerchief of
money in custody to the court. Eventually, they decided that Witte had to pay
damages to the amount of 500 pounds. Sellen had to state under oath how
many goods had been on board the ship.81 Every barrel of merchandise
would be reckoned as a barrel of herring and Sellen would receive half the
value for each. For loose goods, such as cheese and wooden shoes, he would
be compensated for up to half their value too. Presumably the remainder of
the money would be used to recompense the shipowners for the damages to
the ship. Whether this would have amounted to half these damages is
doubtful, but on the whole the council appears to have stuck to a rule that the
colliding skipper had to contribute towards half the losses.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the Boeck van Rechte and the Gulden Boeck did
not regulate the accidental collision of ships. This was, however, clearly a
case of an unintentional clash. The method by which Sellen was reimbursed
for his damages was in accordance with the rules laid down in other sea laws,
such as, for example, the Lübeck Sea Law, but not with the regulations in the
Vonnesse van Damme (Article 15) and the Ordinancie (Article 2), both of
which were available to the council as part of the Schiprecht. According to
those two laws, the merchants on Witte’s ship ought to have contributed to
the damages with a proportion of their goods. The copy of the Schiprecht
therefore either was not yet available in 1460, or had not (yet) been applied.
Kampen custom instead corresponded to the Lübeck and Hamburg laws. The
arrangement that all barrels would be reckoned as barrels of herring appears
to be have been the norm in Kampen, perhaps to avoid difficult calculations;
in Article 5 of the Gulden Boeck, which concerned jettison, it was laid down
that all chests aboard the ship would be reckoned as barrels of herring.
A similar case of ship collision was recorded in the Liber Causarum. On
16 February 1493 the council passed judgement in the matter between the
plaintiff, Douwe Jacobssoen, and the defendant, Kerstken Wolterssoen, both
skippers. Wolterssoen’s ship had collided with that of Jacobssoen and the
latter had sunk. The council decided that the value of both ships and their
cargoes, in their state before the collision, should be determined, and that the
sum of these should ‘pay’ (‘betalen’) for the damages ‘pound equals pound,
mark equals mark of both ship and goods’ (‘pont ponts gelyke marck marcks
gelyke van schepe ende gude’).82
About a month later, on 14 March, both men appeared in court again with
their companions to consider the valuation of the goods. The court decided
that the goods should be valued by adding up half the cost price and half the
market price.83 A third court date was arranged for 26 June 1493. This time a
judgement was passed concerning the freightage due for the goods. It was
decided that the merchants were due to pay full freight for one half of the
goods and half freight for the other.84 The judgement did not specify whether
this applied to both ships and whether freight was due for the lost and the
saved goods, although both appear to have to been the case.
The first verdict corresponded to Article 2 of the Ordinancie (Article 29 in
the Schiprecht):
The council judges that both ships as they were before the collision
should be valued and estimated and the goods aboard both ships at the
time of the collision, and from that entire sum the damage of ship and
goods shall be paid pound by pound and mark by mark.85 (judgement)
And the goods in both ships shall be valued before any of the ships were
lost. And the sum of the value of both cargoes together shall then pay for
the lost goods pound by pound and mark by mark. Furthermore the
value of both ships shall be estimated likewise.86 (Schiprecht)
The judgement is presented in a slightly edited form, but the similarities
between the two texts are clear.87 The likelihood that Article 29 of the
Schiprecht was applied in this case is supported by the fact that this
regulation from the Ordinancie, in which the contribution to the damages was
calculated in proportion to the value of the ship and goods, as in jettison, is
unique in medieval maritime law.88 There is, of course, a possibility that the
judgement was not directly based on the Schiprecht and that the usage was an
adopted custom from one of the neighbouring Zuiderzee towns, but,
comparing the wording of both texts, it seems likely that the manuscript of
the Schiprecht was available and was applied in Kampen by 1493. This is in
accordance with earlier conclusions that the manuscript was received in
Kampen in the third quarter of the fifteenth century.89
The second verdict from 1493, which laid down the valuation of the goods,
corresponded to a general custom applied in Kampen. The regulations drawn
up in 1407 stipulated that, after a jettison, goods should be valued by the
‘least’ and the ‘most’, which must be taken to indicate the cost and market
prices.90 The third decision in this case demanded that half freight be paid for
one half of the goods and full freight for the other half, meaning that three-
quarters of the freight was due for the whole cargo. The payment of freight
after ship collision is not regulated in any of the written laws. In this case the
collision had, however, been dealt with as general average, concerning which
the Kampen laws laid down full freight for all goods, but also that the
freightage be reckoned in the contribution towards the damages. This had not
occurred here, which may be the reason why only three-quarters of the freight
was due to be paid.
Only two cases of ship collision appear in the Lübeck sources, neither of
which includes a verdict. None is included in Ebel’s collection of Ratsurteile.
It is unlikely that only two collisions took place in or near Lübeck harbour in
the second half of the fifteenth century and presumably other incidents were
mostly dealt with outside the town court. The Lübeck Town and Sea Laws
were concise as regards ship collision: if a skipper sailed into another
intentionally, he was liable to pay all the damages; if it was an accident, he
was bound to reimburse only half the costs. The skipper’s innocence in such
matters was to be established by oath.
The first entry is dated 1458 and documents the amicable agreement
between the representatives of two skippers. Hinrick Vinger had sailed into
Hans Bernd’s ship when both were returning from Reval. The collision had
happened at night and does not appear to have caused any damage, but for
reason of the ‘discord that had arisen between them because of this’
(‘unwillen alse van der wegen under en irresen is’), Vinger was to pay five
Lübeck marks to Bernd. All would be forgiven thereafter.91
The other entry consists of two parts. The first is a decision from February
1482, which is followed by the second, a copy of a document drawn up in
June 1481. Both record the same collision which had resulted in the sinking
of one ship. The document from 1481 laid down that court proceedings about
the collision would have to be delayed until Christmas, as the skipper of the
surviving ship had to go away on business with his vessel.92 The lawsuit was
postponed again in February 1482, for a similar reason, this time until Saint
Michael’s day (29 September), as was decided by the town council according
to the first entry.93 The outcome of the matter remains unknown, and both
Lübeck cases are thus unhelpful in establishing which laws were applied in
cases of ship collision.
The Reval sources also document a settlement. In 1486 Aleff Neselunck, a
merchant from Königsberg, and Herman Wessel, a skipper from Hamburg,
appeared before the sitting council to report on a settlement between them. A
collision had taken place between Wessel’s ship and another sailed by Cleys
Piper. Piper’s vessel had drifted before the stern of Wessel’s ship during a
storm. The latter had rammed into the former and Piper’s vessel had sunk.
Wessel agreed to a settlement with Neselunck, who represented the parties
involved in Piper’s ship, and paid 370 Riga marks. He also promised to
organise a wake and a requiem mass at Saint Olav’s Church in Reval for the
late Thewes Luttiken who had drowned with the ship. In exchange Neselunck
released Wessel from further demands for damages. The entry does not
specify whether the sum of 370 Riga marks was a specific portion of the total
of the losses caused by the collision.94 The accident had been unintentional
and, according to Lübeck law, half the damage would have had to have been
reimbursed by Wessel.95 Although the source does not mention the size of
the ship, a sum without prejudice of 370 Riga marks seems a small amount
for half a ship and half its cargo.96 The sum laid down was perhaps a pay-off
to settle the case amicably. After all, neither skipper was responsible for the
accident and taking the matter to court would have been expensive. Both the
parties did, however, wish to formalise their agreement by confirming it
before the council and requesting it to be recorded in the register.
In 1495 another case of a (supposed) ship collision was considered by the
town court. The plaintiff, Bernt Papke, claimed that the ropes of skipper Gert
Avendorp’s ship had broken and that the latter’s vessel had crashed into his
ship in Reval harbour. Papke’s vessel subsequently sank. Avendorp replied,
however, that Papke’s ship had sunk before his own ship had broken adrift.
He had brought along two boatswains to testify to this in court, both his own
and Papke’s. The case was decided in favour of the defendant, Avendorp, and
the matter was thus considered not to have been a collision at all.97
A third case concerning a ship collision near Reval was recorded in the
Danzig registers. In 1488 Tideke Blanke, head boatswain on Thomas
Gammeratten’s ship, reported on a collision near Reval harbour on Saint
Michael’s Eve, 28 September 1484. Thomas Stangen’s ship had broken adrift
(‘driftich geworden’) and collided with Gammeratten’s vessel. The latter had
sunk.98 Two years later Gammeratten’s wife appeared before the Danzig
court, filing a complaint against Stangen, who was a burgher of Reval, in
relation to the collision. Stangen replied to the charges, reporting that the case
had been settled by the Reval council. The Danzig court thereupon decided
that Stangen would need to produce evidence of the judgement passed by the
Reval court.99 A similar complaint filed by the freighters on Gammeratten’s
ship received the same response.100
A year later Stangen returned to Danzig with a letter from Reval which
stated that the case had been decided there.101 Unfortunately, the entry in the
Danzig register does not document the content of this judgement. It only
reports that the skipper and the merchants applied separately for
compensation of their damages from Stangen. This indicates that only the
shipmaster was held liable to reimburse these damages and that the merchants
on his ship were probably exempted from contribution. The involvement of
the merchants on both vessels involved in a ship collision was not considered
in the Lübeck Town and Sea Laws. Both only regulated the liability of the
colliding skipper to reimburse half the damages to the other ship. Whether
Stangen was indeed judged to be liable to pay half these damages cannot be
determined, nor how much he had to contribute towards the lost cargo. As
was the case in Lübeck, none of the matters recorded in Reval can assist in
establishing which laws were applied concerning ship collision.
The Danzig sources do not offer much information either. Although there
are two cases of ship collision for which testimonies were recorded, only one
lawsuit (from 1445) includes a judgement. In this case, a vessel from
Königsberg had collided with a ship from Danzig. As a result, the latter had
run aground. The Danzig council decided that the skipper from Königsberg
was liable to pay half the damages after he had sworn the crash had been
unintentional. The amount of damages had to be established under oath. The
Königsberg skipper also had to organise and pay for a pilgrimage, a burial
and a requiem mass for all the seamen who had died in the collision.102 Some
of the aspects of this verdict are in accordance with Judgement 12, which was
drawn up in 1433. These include the oath of the skipper that the collision had
been unintentional, the halving of the damages and the fixing of these under
oath. Judgement 12 insisted, however, upon an oath by the skipper and two of
his crew, and it also regulated the contribution of the merchants towards the
damages. In this court case, the verdict only considered both the skippers; a
settlement between the merchants may have taken place separately.
The testimonies in the first of the two abovementioned cases were given to
clarify that the sinking of a Danzig ship had been the result not of a collision,
but of an accident. The testimonies were included in two letters to the
Common Merchant at Bruges in 1439.103 The other witness statements, from
1458, appear to have been recorded for use in court proceedings. They
include two contradictory testimonies concerning which of two ships had
collided into the other, and a third statement by five men who had been
appointed by the council to inspect the ropes and the anchor of one of the two
vessels.104 Unfortunately, an account of the actual court proceedings does not
survive.
As regards ship collision, there is only evidence of verdicts from three of
the five towns. No judgements survive from either Lübeck or Reval. The
analysis and comparison of the other judgements is complicated by the fact
that the merchants and their goods were considered in the verdicts in some of
the studied cases, but not in others. In Danzig the colliding skipper was made
to reimburse half the damage to the ship and half the value of the lost goods
in the 1430s. The same happened in the second judgement from Danzig from
the 1440s and the first verdict from Kampen, which occurred in the 1460s. In
the first Danzig case the merchants on the damaged ship were made to
contribute towards the lost goods, as in jettison. In the second case the
skipper was forced to organise a pilgrimage, burials and a requiem mass in
addition to reimbursing the damages, because people had died in the
collision. The merchants were, however, left out of considerations, as were
their colleagues in the case from Kampen. In a second lawsuit from Kampen
from the 1490s the damages to the hit ship and its cargo were divided
between both skippers and all the involved merchants. Finally, in Aberdeen
in the 1490s the damages to both ships were divided between both skippers.
The verdicts were thus different every single time, which can partly be
ascribed to the fact that when two vessels collided, there were several
possible outcomes: either one or both ships could have been damaged, either
could have sunk, the goods might have been lost or damaged and people
might have drowned. The judgements did agree that the damages had to be
shared between the parties involved in one way or another. The decision from
Aberdeen differed from the others in that it laid down the reimbursement of
the damages to both ships, whereas in the other two towns, as in the written
laws, only the damage to the hit ship (and its cargo) was considered. Nor was
there any real uniformity between the Kampen and Danzig verdicts,
especially after the former introduced the more complicated calculation
included in the Ordinancie in the fifteenth century.

A comparison of written law and practice

A comparison between written law and practice in Aberdeen demonstrates
that some of the judgements passed at its courts corresponded to the original
Rôles d’Oléron; the corrupt Scottish translations did not find their way into
its practice. The customs recorded in the Rôles were at the time of their
‘codification’ used for the wine trade from the French Atlantic coast to
England, Flanders and Scotland and these customs still seem to have been
used, at least in Scotland, in the second half of the fifteenth century. In the
remarkable instance in which Aberdeen practice appeared to deviate from the
Rôles, a similar verdict is known from the Dutch coast. A common practice
still possibly existed in this area. Some of the verdicts in Aberdeen differed
from those in the rest of northern Europe; contributions towards goods lost in
shipwreck were not granted in any of the other towns, nor was the rule that
only those who gave their consent to cutting the mast would have to bear the
costs applied there.
In Kampen it would appear that written laws were used in those cases in
which they could be applied. The copy of Dat Schiprecht, which probably
arrived in Kampen some time between 1460 and 1475, appears to have been
utilised in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Often, however,
judgements were passed according to custom, or new regulations were
created for matters which had not previously been considered, as they were in
the other towns.
Comparing written law and practice in Lübeck confirms that the written
laws of the thirteenth century were no longer utilised in court by the second
half of the fifteenth century, although similar rules may still have been
applied. In many cases regulations had changed or were made more
comprehensive, without the town council seeing a need to adapt or
supplement its written laws. The existing laws had mostly been drawn up
through the initiative of individual men such as Albrecht von Bardewik in
1294 and 1299 and Tidemann Güstrow in 1348, or because regulations
needed to be communicated to other towns, like the Hanseatic statutes. The
town council and court in Lübeck itself could apparently do without these
written laws, because the Lübeck Town Law was not revised or
supplemented between 1348 and 1586. The only texts that were applied,
although not consistently, were the Hanseatic statutes from the fifteenth
century, which were incorporated into Lübeck law. In addition, the court’s
verdicts either established rules that originated in custom or laid down new
regulations for cases not previously heard. These verdicts thus reflect the law
as it existed at a certain time and are often the only evidence of the validity of
a particular rule.105 The judgements could also be used for future reference,
as precedents so to speak, but they were not always adhered to; at times
Lübeck’s legal practice was far from uniform.106 A final point of note
concerns the similarities that have appeared between the Lübeck judgements
and the laws laid down in the Hamburg Shipping Law of 1497. This
resemblance reflects the conformity in legal practice between the two towns
that apparently continued in the fifteenth century.
Concerning Reval, it is possible to conclude that the town council was
inconsistent in its use of the Hanseatic statutes; it applied Article 93, but not
Article 94. The Lübeck Town Law was more consistently used, although
mostly not in the form available in writing in Reval itself. Lübeck law was
continuously developing through new court judgements and some of these
Lübeck verdicts were formally or officially collected in Reval. Knowledge of
regulations might also have reached Reval through visitors to and from
Lübeck. Despite this, legal practice in the two towns was not entirely
identical. Indeed, as has become evident, court proceedings in Lübeck itself
were not always consistent, especially as regards the payment of freight after
shipwreck. It is exactly on this issue that Reval’s practice deviates from that
of Lübeck. In principle, and according to medieval views, the law used in
Reval was Lübeck law and identical to that applied in Lübeck. Legal practice
in the two towns was therefore in theory the same. In practice, occasional
differences were unavoidable because of the dynamic character of ‘Lübeck
law’.
In Danzig’s case the border between written law and practice is also rather
fluid. This is because the judgements in Waterrecht manuscript 1 were drawn
up to be used as written laws but had, at least partly, come forth from actual
court proceedings. It is possible to conclude that Danzig’s verdicts were only
in some instances based on written laws. From the 1420s to 1440s the council
used its written laws in as far as they were applicable. When the judgements
in Waterrecht manuscript 1 had been drawn up, the Vonnesse had
occasionally been utilised, and in some of the verdicts these judgements
were, in their turn, applied. In the 1480s none of the written laws appears to
have still been in use, apart from perhaps the Hanseatic statutes.
Compared to Lübeck and Reval, Danzig showed an early tendency to
record its decisions, which can probably be ascribed to its role as a centre of
maritime justice in Prussia. It was assigned this function by the Grand Master
and the other Prussian towns, and was confirmed in it by the Polish king after
1454. Danzig’s large collection of sea law texts and its desire to receive
Wisby’s law, which was considered to be more comprehensive than its own,
are related to this role. But in practice the Danzig court made little use of
these texts apart from the time when it was drawing up some of its
judgements which, in their turn, were applied in later cases. In that respect
Lübeck and Danzig were similar: both maintained a very dynamic maritime
law whose contents were dependent on the whims of the council. This is in
accordance with the autonomous and powerful role played by both towns in
the fifteenth century. Reval, on the other hand, was dependent on Lübeck and
therefore more stable in its jurisdiction. Unless a judgement was overruled by
the Lübeck Oberhof, Reval in general stuck to its laws.
Although the five towns were similar in that none made exhaustive use of
its written laws, their reliance on the books of law was slightly different.
Danzig utilised its judgements the most, which is due to the fact that they
derived from its own practice. Kampen also made use of its own laws where
possible and applied the Ordinancie in at least one matter in which the
Kampen laws were incomprehensive. Lübeck, as the third town that had
drawn up its own laws, only possessed older written laws which had become
outdated. These laws were therefore no longer used and Lübeck practice is
mainly reflected in its judgements. These judgements were, in principle, valid
in all towns using Lübeck law, including Reval. Legal practice in the two
towns did not, however, always correspond and Reval was more consistent in
its judgements than Lübeck. This was because Reval was dependent on
Lübeck and could not change the latter’s law at will. Aberdeen, finally,
appears not to have owned any copies of written sea laws, but largely
conformed to the customs laid down in the Rôles d’Oléron, customs which
were in theory valid throughout north-western Europe.

Conclusions
In conclusion, it is possible to state that no common legal practice existed as
regards the use of the written sea laws and the judgements passed in cases of
shipwreck, jettison and ship collision. The five towns made use of their
written laws to differing degrees in the fifteenth century: Danzig and Kampen
applied the written laws most regularly, probably because they were the most
up to date, whereas Aberdeen and Reval were loyal to existing customs and
Lübeck formulated its own decisions and changed them at will. None of the
five towns made exhaustive use of its written laws, but applied them when
considered appropriate. In other cases the courts used their common sense
when passing judgement. As the courts consisted of men with experience in
trade and shipping, verdicts would be based on their practical knowledge of
these subjects.
A comparison of the court proceedings in cases of shipwreck, jettison and
ship collision has established that there was no uniform practice in urban
northern Europe in the fifteenth century. The decisions concerning all three
subjects regularly differed, even within the towns themselves. Occasional
similarities did exist (the use of the wording ‘over ship and goods’ is a good
example) but the overall picture is characterised by an individual legal
practice in each of the towns. The most striking differences existed between
Aberdeen and the other towns, but this is perhaps partly because a relatively
large number of judgements from the Scottish town have survived; in a
number of cases differences could be indicated between Aberdeen and one
other town because no decisions from the others survive.

Most of the problems that occurred did so when vessels entered or left the Zuiderzee through
1 the Vlie and the Marsdiep. Many sandbanks and strong currents made sailing conditions
difficult there. The Zuiderzee itself was relatively calm with little tidal influence.
2 Cf. Ward, World of the Medieval Shipmaster, 80–1, who recommends caution when using court
proceedings because of the atypicality of cases.
ACA, ACR V.ii., p. 692, [Curia gilde], 16 Dec 1444. The earl of Orkney was one of the nobles
 3 who received a pension from the burgh of Aberdeen: Booton, ‘Economic and social change’,
52.
4 See Chapter 6; ACA, ACR V.i., p. 216, Curia ballivorum, 5 Nov 1454.

Landwehr, ‘Prinzipien der Risikotragung’, 606, n. 23. He subsequently differentiated this,

5 stating that the Lübeck council did not give justifications in all of its verdicts and as a result it is
hard to determine whether Hanseatic law was applied or not (Landwehr, ‘Prinzipien der
Risikotragung’, 608).
6 AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift) 1481–1488, f. 265r (LRU I, no. 321), 21 Aug 1484.
7 Cordes, ‘Mittelalterlichen Lex mercatoria’, 183.
That the journey was divided into two halves in the verdict is confusing, because the freightage
appears to have been negotiated for the entire journey (seeing that the term ‘half freight’ was
used for the carriage of the goods to Norway). If the half-freight rule had been applied for the
8 complete voyage, only half freight would have been due and not three-quarters, as it was in this
case. Similarly, if the Hanseatic law had been applied, a freight pro rata itineris ought to have
been paid. The return journey must, therefore, have been considered as a whole. Cf. Ebel,
Lübisches Kaufmannsrecht, 77.
9 This was the norm in medieval times; only rarely were reasons given for a verdict: see
Godding, La Jurisprudence, 20; Le Bailly, Recht voor de raad, 113.
10 ‘Notow’ was a harbour on the south-west coast of Norway. See Fyllingsnes, ‘Notow’, 3–21.
11 ‘We wes van den guderen geberget unde entvangen hadde, de were deme schiphere darvan
plichtich de halven vracht to betalende’.
12 AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift) 1481–1488, f. 490r (LRU I, no. 384), 24 May 1487.
LRU IV, no. 346, 14 Jun 1494. About the same case: AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift)
13 1489–1495, f. 419r (LRU IV, no. 345), 7 Jun 1494; AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift)
1496–1500, f. 331r (LRU I, no. 923), 6 Jul 1499.
‘Is de scipper beneden der helffte des weges dar he vorvrachtet was gebleven, denne dorven
14 eme de koplude nicht mer dan de halven vracht vor sodane duchtige gud dat se weder entfangen
betalen, unde moghen dat ander unduchtige gud deme scipper vor de vracht laten beliggen’.
LRU IV, no. 282a, 19 May 1486.
15 LRU IV, no. 117b/a, 22 Jun/18 Oct 1471. See also below.
16 HUB IX, no. 686, letter from Lübeck to Braunschweig, 31 Dec 1469.
17 Jahnke, ‘Hansisches Seerecht’, 65, referring to my thesis and suggesting that I have not seen the
connection (presumably between the pro rata itineris judgement and the Rôles).
18 Ebel, Lübisches Kaufmannsrecht, 78. The case is not included in LRU.
Jahnke, ‘Hansisches Seerecht’, 65, incorrectly quotes this conclusion (that the verdicts from
19 Lübeck were ‘far from uniform’) from my thesis as if it relates to cases of jettison rather than
shipwreck.
20 The bolwerk was situated at the entrance of Reval harbour.
‘Und wen dat dat recht vormochte dat eyn schipper des kopmans gudt inladen mochte und
21 vorwarlosen dan schip und gudt, und de kopman den noch dem schipper de fulle fracht geven
solde, so en wer de koepman ovel besorghet.’ LRU IV, no. 282b, 6 Mar 1486.
22 HR 1447, § 32. A similar rule can be found in the Ordinancie, art. 12.
23 LRU IV, no. 282a, 19 May 1486.
24 Lübeck TL, art. 230 (not in the Reval copies).
25 The date of the hearing is unknown.
26 LRU IV, no. 117b (formerly AHL, Appellationen, vol. II, no. 174), 22 Jun 1471.

27 LRU IV, no. 117a (formerly AHL, Cod. Ord. Lub., no. 61), 18 Oct 1471.

28 APG, 300, R/Fq, 1, f. 17r, 1 Oct 1425.

29 APG, 300, D/20, 234, Amsterdam to Danzig, 27 Oct 1486. Calended in RGP 36, no. 2823.
30 APG, 300, D/20, 236, Amsterdam to Danzig, 3 Jan 1487. Calended in RGP 36, no. 2827.
31 The addressee is not mentioned specifically, but was most likely Reval, since a copy is kept in
the collection of Juridica at the Tallinn town archives.
It is noteworthy that wax was transported from Lübeck to Reval, since it was a typical export
32 product from the eastern Baltic area and would normally be shipped in the opposite direction.
The other goods are typical western European export products.
33 TLA, TM, no. Bi 3, ff. 75r–76r [1502/3].
34 ‘So wan schipbrokyghe gudere gheborgen werden, van suszdanen ghebergeden guderen dorf
me nenen schaden helpen dragen der ungeborgene unde vorblevene ghudere.’
35 ACA, ACR IV, p. 392, Curia ballivorum, 8 Mar 1444/5.
36 ACA, ACR VI, p. 707, Curia legalis, 10 Dec 1481.
37 ACA, ACR V.i., p. 29, Bailie court, 8 Feb 1448/9.
38 ACA, ACR V.i., p. 572, [Balie court], 4 Feb 1465/6.
39 ACA, ACR VI, p. 598, Council and community, 10 Sep 1479.
40 Wisby TL, art. 3.
41 LRU IV, no. 229 (formerly AHL, Cod. Ord. Lub., no. 178), 8 Jul 1482.
42 Niitemaa, Strandrecht in Nordeuropa, 201–48.
For example: Lübeck to King Waldemar IV of Denmark, in LUB III, no. 576, 25 Jul 1366; an
43 arbitral decision by King Eric of Denmark between the Vogt of Gotland and the Hanseatic
towns, in LUB VI, no. 669, 17 Jul 1425; Lübeck to King Karl of Sweden in: HUB IX, no. 557,
20 Feb 1469.
44 First appearance: HR 1, I, no. 374, 5 Oct 1365, art. 12; for example also in HR 1, VI, no. 70, 11
May 1412, art. 9 and HR I, 6, no. 398, 24 Jun 1417, art. 14.
45 AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift) 1489–1495, f. 40r (LRU I, no. 441), 29 Sep 1489.
46 Gotland SL, art. 22; Hamburg 1497, art. 31; Ordinancie, art. 4, also in Gotland SL, art. 41 and
Wisby SL, art. 38.
‘Wes de erbenomede schiphere in der noet also geworpen hefft, dat mot aver schip unde gut
47 gan’. AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift) 1489–1495, f. 560v (LRU I, no. 683), 3 Oct
1495.
48 ‘Welck schipher in waters noden umme schip unde gud to bergende ienighe gudere warpet, den
schaden schalme reken aver schip unde gud, geworpen unde ungeworpen.’
49 TLA, TM, no. Aa 10, f. 167r, mid 1491.
50 GAK, RA, no. 6, f. 97r, 1486.
51 APG, 300, 27/3, f. 106v, Danzig to Stockholm, 16 Apr 1440.
52 APG, 300, 27/2, ff. 73v–74v, Danzig to [Lübeck], on or before 30 May 1433 (next letter dated
30 May).
‘alse dem volke verbeteringe to geven sin schipp wedder to maken, mast to reisen, nuwe touw
53 und eyn both wedder to kopen und anderley unkost dehe darumme hadde gedaen’. APG, 300,
27/2, f. 74v.

54 Ordinancie, art. 18 (art. 19 in Fq, 1 and art. 15 in Fq, 2). Hamburg 1497, art. 39 is based on the
Ordinancie.
This situation is dealt with in the 1497 Hamburg Shipping Law (art. 40) and in Roman Law
55 (Dig. 14, 2, 4, pr.). In these laws the sinking of the boat with the unloaded goods caused the
damages to be divided among ship and goods, whereas the offloaded goods would not have to
contribute to any damages if the ship wrecked. See also below.
56 See Chapter 6.
57 ACA, ACR V.i., p. 264, Curia ballivorum, 4 Mar 1455/6.
58 ACA, ACR VI, p. 904, Bailie court, 11 Feb 1484/5.
59 ACA, ACR V.i., p. 300, Curia ballivorum, 19 May 1457. Landwehr, Haverei, 26. See also
Chapter 2.
ACA, ACR VI, p. 625, Burgh court, 22 Mar 1479/80. The schipman was John Collison, son of
David Collison, who had climbed the social ladder and thus became the founder of one of the
60 eleven elite families in the second half of the fifteenth century. John would eventually marry
Elizabeth Lesley, a daughter of landed nobility, and become provost in 1521, but was
apparently still at the start of his career here.
61 ACA, ACR VII, p. 638, Curia ballivorum, 23 Jun 1495.
‘Dat ic ghehoert hebbe unde ghesien dat Willem Morre hettede syn goet werpen ende riep
62 datmen werpen solde, mer vanden scipper een hebbe ic nicht een woert ghehoert offte consent
dair toe gheuen, mer hij lach onder in den dorrick unde oessden dat water wt.’ GAK, OA, no. 8,
piece of paper after f. 73v, [1470]. The dorrick is the place in the ship where dirt accumulates.
63 ACA, ACR V.i., p. 187, Curia ballivorum, 26 Oct 1453.
64 AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift) 1496–1500, f. 139v (LRU I, no. 786), 20 Jul 1497.
65 See Chapters 1 and 2.
66 Also in Gotland SL, art. 41; Wisby SL, art. 38.
67 AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Urschrift) 1451–1465 Palmarum, f. 468r (LRU IV, no. 52), 8 Mar
1461.
‘Navis onustae levandae causa, quia intrare flumen vel portum non potuerat cum onere, si
quaedam merces in scapham traiectae sunt, ne aut extra flumen periclitetur aut in ipso ostio vel
68 portu, eaque scapha summersa est, ratio haberi debet inter eos, qui in nave merces salvas
habent, cum his qui in scapha perdiderunt, proinde tamquam si iactura facta esset.’ Dig. 14.2.4.
pr.
69 AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift) 1489–1495, f. 349r (LRU I, no. 577), 31 Aug 1493. It
is unclear why this case was taken before the Lübeck court.
70 This was particular average. See Chapter 2.
71 ACA, ACR V.i., p. 503, Curia ballivorum, 11 Apr 1464.
72 ACA, ACR VII, p. 927, Curia ballivorum, 18 Jan 1498/9.
73 ACA, ACR VI, p. 932, [Bailie court], between 13 and 20 Sep 1485.
74 See Chapter 4.
75 It is strange that a piece of cargo was put on the orlop for safety, as this would not improve the
ship’s stability. Perhaps it was put there in order to be able to jettison it more swiftly.
76 There is mention of a ‘keilschip’ elsewhere: ACA, ACR V.i., p. 399, 19 Jun 1460.

77 ACA, ACR VII, p. 176, Curia ballivorum, 22 Mar 1489/90.

Both men were members of one of the eleven elite Aberdeen families and it is therefore likely
78 that they owned at least part of the ships.

79 It is not specifically stated that a ship collision took place. Two ships wrecked near the harbour
at the same time.
It is interesting to see that the sources in general refer to ‘the barge’, ‘the bus’ and so on,
signifying first of all that the men in court were informed about the comings and goings in the
80 harbour because they were involved in it themselves, but also that the traffic in the harbour was
not very busy and that there were generally only a few ships there each year. ACA, ACR V.ii.,
p. 684, Curia gilde, 9 Oct 1444. Cf. Ditchburn and Harper, ‘Aberdeen and the outside world’,
378–9.
81 GAK, OA, no. 8, ff. 35v–36r, [1460].
82 GAK, RA, no. 2, f. 36v, 16 Feb 1493.
83 ‘Die helffte als sie yn gecofft syn ende dander helffte als sie ther marckt gegulden hebben tot
coipmans pryse.’ GAK, RA, no. 2, f. 37r, 14 Mar 1493.
84 ‘Dat men van de ene helffte die vulle vracht van betalen sall ende van dander helffte die halue
vracht.’ GAK, RA, no. 2, f. 38r, 26 Jun 1493.
‘Wyset de rait dat men beyde schepen als sie weren voir dat ynzeilen, ende dat guet dat yn
85 beiden schepen yn der tijt des ynzeilens was sal sommeren ende weerdienen, ende van die
alynge somme sal men den schaden betalen pont ponts gelyke, marck marcks gelyke van
schepe ende gude.’ GAK, RA, no. 2, f. 36v.
‘Soe salmen werderen die goeden in beyden scepen te gelden eer enich scipp verloren was. Dan
86 soe sal die prijs van beyden guede te samen ghesommet betalen dat verloren guet pond ponde
ghelijck, marck marcke ghelike. Voert gelikerwys soe selmen prisen die warde van beyden
scepen.’ GAK, OA, no. 17, f. 13v.
The calculations would in fact have changed slightly as a result of the variation between the
judgement and the article from the Ordinancie. In the former the damages to the ship and cargo
were divided in proportion to the value of both the ships and all the goods added up. If the
87 goods were worth less than the ship, the merchants would have to contribute more than if the
calculations were made separately for the ship and the goods. It is questionable, however,
whether we should interpret medieval judgements this precisely. The judges most likely
considered the regulations to be the same.
88 Landwehr, ‘Haverei’, 94. See also Chapter 2.
89 See Chapter 4.
90 See Chapter 2.
91 AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Urschrift) 1451–1465 Palmarum, f. 325r, 5 Mar 1458.
92 AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift) 1481–1488, ff. 32r–32v, 9 Feb 1482.
93 AHL, ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift) 1481–1488, ff. 32v–33r, 16 Jun 1481.
94 TLA, TM, no. Aa 7, f. 32r, 5 Aug 1486.
 95 Lübeck TL, art. 132.
In comparison, a hulk that was captured by the Dutch in 1439 had cost 1,025 Riga marks to be
96 built and 400 to be equipped. This was not an enormously large ship and vessels became bigger
towards the end of the fifteenth century. Hirte and Wolf, ‘Kogge, Holk, Kraweel’, 766.
97 TLA, TM, no. Aa 7, f. 64v, 24 Nov 1495.
98 APG, 300, 59/8, f. 46r, 1488.
99 APG, 300, 59/8, f. 52v, 17 Sep 1490.
100 APG, 300, 59/8, f. 52v, 4 Oct 1490.
101 APG, 300, 59/8, f. 52v, 16 Sep 1491.
APG, 300, 27/4, f. 172, Danzig to Kneiphof-Königsberg, 9 Nov 1446, as cited by Hirsch,
102 Danzigs Handels- und Gewerbegeschichte, 77. Penintential pilgrimages were quite common in
continental Europe for unintentional death or smaller misdemeanours, like insult. See, for
example, Van Herwaarden, Opgelegde bedevaarten.
103 APG, 300, 27/3, f. 102v, Danzig to the German Merchant at Bruges, 9 Jan 1439 (both letters).
104 APG, 300, 59/7, ff. 13r–13r, Oct 1458.
105 Ebel, Lübisches Recht, 211, called the judgements the only indisputable and pure source of
Lübeck law in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
106 The already mentioned collection of judgements made by Johann Rode von Stadthagen in the
Codex ordaliorum Lubecensium of 1515 is an example of this.
 Final Conclusions

This study has aimed to determine whether it is appropriate to speak of a

common northern European law of the sea in the period before 1500. A
detailed analysis of the spread of the written laws, of their content and of
various aspects of legal practice has proven that a common maritime law
never came into being in medieval northern Europe. Instead, local variations
continued to exist throughout the period, revealing themselves in varying
collections of manuscripts, diverging regulations in the law books, a different
use of the written laws and dissimilar judgements in the town courts.
Two forms of written sea laws came into existence in the Middle Ages: the
customary sea laws and maritime regulations as part of urban laws. Although
the customary sea laws were spread over a large area, the local maritime laws
continued to play an important role in their towns of origin. When such towns
possessed copies of any of the customary sea laws, these were used as
auxiliary laws and did not replace the regulations in the town law. There is no
evidence that the Rôles d’Oléron were used throughout northern Europe and
that the town laws only include additions to them, as was recently suggested.1
A comparison of the manuscript collections of Aberdeen, Kampen, Lübeck,
Reval and Danzig has, moreover, shown that the customary sea laws were not
available to all of the towns and that the five town courts had differing book
collections at their disposal.
The contents of the various maritime laws also show some important
differences when comparing the regulations on shipwreck, jettison and ship
collision. Although some variations were due to developments in sea
shipping, and although similarities did also exist between some of the laws, it
is certainly inappropriate to speak of common contents. This conclusion is
further supported by a more detailed comparison of the specific laws of three
of the towns (Kampen, Lübeck and Danzig) with the compilations considered
closest to them. Although, again, similarities existed (Lübeck even copied
about half of the Hamburg Ship Law), the regulations varied to a large extent
and each of the three laws must therefore be considered specific to each of
the towns.
The administration of maritime justice was generally undertaken by the
town councils in medieval northern Europe. Only in Scotland did the bailie
court, and in some Prussian towns the Schöffengericht, deal with maritime
cases. The town courts could, however, have very different roles. Whereas
the role of the courts of Kampen, Reval and Aberdeen was quite restricted,
only functioning as local courts, the Lübeck council also functioned as
Oberhof for all the other towns that were granted Lübeck law and the Danzig
council was appointed as central maritime court for the whole of Prussia, and
later Poland. None of the five towns made exhaustive use of its collection of
written laws, but the reliance of each on their books of law was different,
dependent on the existence of any recent written compilations (for example
the Hanseatic statutes and the Danzig judgements). The verdicts passed by
the town courts in matters of shipwreck, jettison and ship collision were
therefore only sometimes based on any of the written laws. They do,
however, also show variations and again, it would not be appropriate to speak
of a common legal practice.
Many of the differences that existed between the five towns under scrutiny
in this study can be explained by considering the varying roles that each of
them played on the European stage. Lübeck was the head of the Hanseatic
League, it was politically autonomous and it had its own town law, which
was granted to many other towns on the Baltic coast. For these towns, the
town council functioned as an Oberhof. Reval was legally dependent on
Lübeck and relied politically on the Teutonic Order. It had no laws of its own
and the town council therefore applied the Lübeck customs consistently in
court.
The Teutonic Order was also in charge in Danzig in the fourteenth century
and granted it Kulm law, like most of its Prussian towns. In the fifteenth
century, Danzig became largely autonomous and was instituted as a centre of
maritime justice in the area, for which it produced its own laws. Like Danzig,
Lübeck and Reval, Kampen was a member of the Hanse, but only when it
suited the town commercially. Politically and legally, Kampen was also
practically autonomous. The town had its own town law, which did not
spread elsewhere, and had an independent court. Finally, Aberdeen formed an
integral part of the Kingdom of Scotland, where burghal laws were largely
uniform. The town council relied on the same maritime customs that were
used throughout Scotland and its burghers could make use of several national
courts of appeal.
Based on the whole study, Aberdeen shows the most deviations from the
other four towns: in the administration of justice, in the availability of written
laws and in its judgements. Two explanations can be provided for this. First,
Aberdeen was the only one of the five towns that was not a ‘German’ town.
Though Kampen, Lübeck, Reval and Danzig experienced very different
developments in their histories, they can be considered to have been part of
the German urban legal tradition. This meant that, as centres of commerce,
they were able to obtain a large measure of autonomy and were administered
in accordance with a town law that was either unique to a town, as was the
case in Kampen, or disseminated among various towns, like the Lübeck,
Magdeburg and Kulm laws. The towns were generally not subject to any
other laws and the town councils formed the highest legal authority, though
relations of dependence could exist between mother and daughter towns, as
was the case between Lübeck and Reval.
Like most towns in Europe, Aberdeen had a legal status separate from that
of its surrounding countryside. But in contrast to the development in German
towns, where the town councils strove to gain independence from (local)
lords, in Scotland the burghs were created and developed under royal
patronage. This patronage also ensured that a common body of law came into
existence which was applicable in all Scottish burghs. In addition, the burgh
courts were part of a structure of courts which also included the
Chamberlain’s Eyre and the Court of the Four Burghs (and, as we have seen,
some cases were referred to King and Council). Moreover, the officers of the
court were considered to be dispensing the king’s justice and, in general,
burgesses were not treated very differently from other subjects of the realm.
Aberdeen was thus subject to a legal structure that varied significantly from
that in the other four towns and to a central body of law, which reduced the
possibilities of developing locally differing laws or of being affected by legal
influences from outside Scotland.
Second, as with other Scottish laws, both burghal and general, maritime
law appears to have been influenced by England, rather than by any of its
continental trading partners. As a result, the Rôles d’Oléron were
incorporated into the central body of Scottish laws in the fourteenth century,
though they were most likely already used in their customary form before
then. Interestingly, though, none of the English additions to the Rôles appears
to have reached Scotland before the sixteenth century. But, like in England,
none of the other maritime laws circulating in Europe made an impact on its
legal traditions in the Middle Ages. As regards maritime law, Aberdeen
should therefore be considered part of north-western Europe (France,
England, Flanders and perhaps Holland-Zeeland), rather than of northern
Europe. In contrast to northern Europe, north-western Europe does seem to
have had a common tradition based on the Rôles d’Oléron. However, whether
such a separate tradition truly existed has not been the subject of this study.
In medieval northern Europe, whether including or excluding Scotland, a
common tradition most definitely did not exist, as this study has made
abundantly clear.

1 See Chapter 5.
 Bibliography

MANUSCRIPT SOURCES
Aberdeen City Archive (ACA)
ACR, Ms. Council, Bailie and Guild Court Book I Michaelmas 1398 to 18
April 1407.
ACR, Ms. Council, Bailie and Guild Court Book II Michaelmas 1408 to
September 1414.
ACR, Ms. Council, Bailie and Guild Court Book IV 11 January 1433/4 to 28
February 1447/8.
ACR, Ms. Council and Bailie Court Register V.i. 1 April 1448 to 27 August
1468.
ACR, Ms. Guild Court Register V.ii. 30 September 1441 to 26 April 1465.
ACR, Ms. Council, Bailie and Guild Court Register VI 14 November 1466 to
30 December 1486.
ACR, Ms. Council, Bailie and Guild Court Register VII 1 February 1486/7 to
25 September 1501.

Archiv der Hansestadt Lübeck (AHL)

Hs. 753, Copiarius.
ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Urschrift) 1430–1451 Pantaleonis.
ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Urschrift) 1451–1465 Palmarum.
ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Urschrift) 1465–1475.
ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift) 1481–1488.
ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift) 1489–1495.
ASA Kanzlei, NStB (Reinschrift) 1496–1500.

Archiwum Państwowe Gdańsku (APG)

300, 27/2, Missivarum liber 1431–1438.
300, 27/3, Missivarum liber 1436–1449.
300, 27/4, Missivarum liber 1440–1448.
300, 27/6, Copie literarum missilium 1455–1470.
300, 27/7, Liber missivarum 1489–1508.
300, 59/1, Ksie˛gi miejskie i libri memorandorum 1422–1424.
300, 59/2, Stadtbuch 1294, 1375–1427.
300, 59/3, Stadtbuch 1380–1402.
300, 59/4, Stadtbuch 1402–1415.
300, 59/4a, Stadtbuch 1425–1426.
300, 59/7, Der Szadt denke bock 1457–1475.
300, 59/8, Der Stadt denke bock 1475–1533.
300, D, [received letters].
300, R/Fq, 1, Waterrecht 1407, 1425–1438, 1482.
300, R/Fq, 2, Waterrecht 1429, 1431, 1447.

British Library
Harleian Ms. 4700.

Cambridge University Library

Ms. Ee. 4. 21.

Gemeentearchief Kampen (GAK)

OA, no. 3, Stadboek van Kampen (Oudste Foliant) 1316–1385.
OA, no. 5, Dat Boeck van Rechte dier Stat van Campen 1313–1416.
OA, no. 6, Dat Gulden Boeck 1329–1614.
OA, no. 7, Collectorium. De electione magistratus 1365–1427.
OA, no. 8, Digestum vetus 1448–1478.
OA, no. 17, Dat Schiprecht.
OA, no. 90, Ingekomen stukken 1402–1515.
OA, no. 218–220, Minuten van uitgaande brieven 1463–1477; 1477–1492;
1492–1505.
OA, no. 2004 [charter].
OA, no. 2125, 2126, Acta Hanseatica.
RA, no. 2, Liber causarum 1475–1604.
RA, no. 6, Liber Testium 1483–1493.

Lambeth Palace Library

Ms. no. 167.

National Library of Scotland (NLS)

Bute Ms. 21246.
Adv. Ms. 25.4.15 (formerly Adv. Libr. W.4.ult).
Adv. Ms. 25.5.6 (formerly Adv. Libr. A.1.28).
Adv. Ms. 25.5.7 (formerly Adv. Libr. A.1.32).
Adv. Ms. 25.5.9 ‘Bannatyne’ (formerly Adv. Libr. A.7.25).
Adv. Ms. 7.1.9 ‘Malcolm’ (formerly Adv. Libr. A.3.22).

Tallinna Linnaarhiiv (TLA)

TM, no. Aa 7, Denkelbuch der Stadt Reval 1415–1523.
TM, no. Aa 9a, Abschrift gescholtener sententien die nach Lübeck gegangen
1458–1515 (Cod. Ord. Lub.).
TM, no. Aa 10, Konzeptbuch des Rats der Stadt Reval 1481–1505.
TM, no. Bi 3, Juridica.
TM, no. Cm 17e, Hansische Schifferordnung 1482.

PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES

Dat gotlansche Waterrecht (Osnabrück 1967, facsimile of Copenhagen 1505
(printed by Godfried von Gemen)).
KB Brussels, sign. II 28.584 A LP, Kaert vander Zee, printed by Jan Seversz
[Amsterdam 1532].

EDITED PRIMARY SOURCES

Acta Admirallatus Scotiae 1557–61, ed. T. C. Wade (Edinburgh 1937).
The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, eds T. Thomson and C. Innes, 12
volumes (Edinburgh 1814–75).
Akten der Ständetage Preussens unter der Herrschaft des Deutschen Ordens,
ed. Max Töppen, 5 volumes (Aalen 1973–4, reprint of Leipzig 1878–
86).
Das alte Lübische Recht, ed. Johann Friedrich Hach (Lübeck 1839).
Die ältesten Stadt-, Schiff- und Landrechte Hamburgs, ed. J. M. Lappenberg
(Aalen 1966, reprint of Hamburg 1845).
Ancient Laws and Customs of the Burghs of Scotland, 1124–1424 and 1424–
1707, ed. C. Innes, 2 volumes (Edinburgh 1868–1910).
Die Bilderhandschrift des hamburgischen Stadtrechts von 1497. Erläutert
von Heinrich Reincke, ed. Jürgen Bolland (Hamburg 1968).
The Black Book of the Admiralty, ed. Sir Travers Twiss, 4 volumes (London
1871–6).
Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van den handel met Frankrijk, Eerste deel 752–
1585, eds Z. W. Sneller and W. S. Unger (The Hague 1930) [RGP, vol.
70].
Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van den Oostzeehandel, vol. I, 1122–1499 eerste
stuk, ed. H. A. Poelman (The Hague 1917) [RGP, Vol. 35].
Calendar of Papal Letters to Scotland, 1394–1419, ed. F. McGurk (Scottish
History Society 1976).
Collection de Lois Maritimes antérieurs au XVIIIe siècle, ed. J. M. Pardessus,
6 volumes (Paris 1828–45).
Corpus Iuris Civilis. Text und Übersetzung, vol. III, Dig. 11–20, eds Okko
Behrends et al. (Heidelberg 1999).
Danmarks gamle Købstadlovgivning, vol. I, Sønderjylland, ed. Erik Kroman
(Copenhagen 1951).
Early Records of the Burghs of Aberdeen 1317, 1398–1407, ed. William
Croft Dickinson (Edinburgh 1957).
Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. I, Text und Übersetzung, ed. F.
Liebermann (Aalen 1960, reprint of 1903–16).
Hanserecesse 1256–1430, 8 volumes (Leipzig 1870–97).
Hanserecesse 1431–1476, ed. Goswin Freiherr von der Ropp, 6 volumes
(Leipzig 1876–90).
Hanserecesse 1477–1530, eds Dietrich Schäfer and Friedrich Techen, 10
volumes (Leipzig and Munich 1881–1913).
Hansisches Urkundenbuch, eds Konstantin Hohlbaum et al., 11 volumes
(Halle etc. 1876–1939).
Helsinge-Lagen, Kristnu-Balken af Smålands-Lagen, och Bjärköa-Rätten
(Codex Iuris Helsingici, Codicis Iuris Smalandici pars de re
ecclesiastica, et Iuris Urbici Codex Antiquor), ed. D. C. J. Schlyter
(Lund 1844).
Isländisches Recht. Die Graugans, ed. Andreas Heusler (Weimar 1937).
Kamper Schepenacten 1316–1354, ed. Johanna A. Kossmann-Putto (Zwolle
1955).
Liv-, Est- und Curländisches Urkundenbuch, ed. Friedrich Georg von Bunge,
15 volumes (Reval 1853–1914).
Lübecker Ratsurteile, ed. Wilhelm Ebel, 4 volumes (Göttingen 1955–67).
Lübeckisches Urkundenbuch, 11 volumes (Lübeck 1843–1905).
Lübecki õiguse Tallinnaa Koodeks. 1282. Der Revaler Kodex des lübischen
Rechts, ed. Tiina Kala (Tallinn 1998).
Najstarszy Tekst Prawa Morskiego w Gdańsku, ed. Bernard Janik (Gdansk
1961).
Norddeutsche Stadtrechte, vol. II, Das mittelniederdeutsche Stadtrecht von
Lübeck nach seinen ältesten Formen, ed. Gustav Korlén (Lund and
Copenhagen 1951).
Die Nowgoroder Schra in sieben Fassungen vom XIII. bis XVII. Jahrhundert,
ed. W. Schlüter (Dorpat 1911).
Het Oldermansboek of verzameling van stukken, behoorende tot het Gild-,
Water-en Stapelregt van de stad Groningen, van 1434 tot 1770, ed. H.
O. Feith (Groningen 1850).
Oorkondenboek van Overijssel. Regesten 797–1350, vol. II, 1250–1300, ed.
G. J. ter Kuile (Zwolle 1964).
Ordonnances des Roys de France de la troisième race, recueillies par ordre
chronologique, eds D.-F. Secousse et al., 21 volumes (Paris 1723–1849).
Overijsselsche Stad-, Dijk- en Markeregten, vol. I, Stadregten, eerste stuk:
Boeck van Rechten der Stad Kampen, Dat Gulden Boeck (Zwolle 1875).
Die Quellen des Revaler Stadtrechts, ed. Friedrich Georg von Bunge, 2
volumes (Reval 1844–6).
Die Quellen des rigischen Stadtrechts bis zum Jahre 1673, ed. J. G. L.
Napiersky (Riga 1876).
Quellen zur Hansegeschichte, ed. Rolf Sprandel (Darmstadt 1982).
Records of the Parliaments of Scotland, eds K. M. Brown et al. (St Andrews
2007–9).
Das Revaler Ratsurteilbuch (Register van affsproken) 1515–1554, ed.
Wilhelm Ebel (Göttingen 1952).
Seerecht im Hanseraum des 15. Jahrhunderts. Edition und Kommentar zum
Flandrischen Copiar Nr. 9, eds Carsten Jahnke and Antjekathrin
Graßmann (Lübeck 2003).
Sheriff Court Book of Fife, 1515–1522, ed. W. Croft Dickinson (Edinburgh
1928).
SIMSON, Paul, Geschichte der Danziger Willkür (Gdansk 1904).
Das Stadtrecht des Königs Magnus Hakonarson für Bergen. Bruchstücke des
Birkinselrechts und Seefahrerrecht der Jónsbók, ed. Rudolf Meissner
(Weimar 1950).
TELTING, A., Die alt-niederländischen Seerechte (The Hague 1907).
TEX, C. A. den, ‘Oud-Nederlandsch zeeregt. Kritische bewerking van den
tekst der Vlaamsche zeeregten’, BRW 5 (1830), 33–62.
VERWER, Adriaen, Nederlants See-Rechten; Avaryen; en Bodemeryen;
Begrepen in De Gemeene Custuimen vander See: de Placcaten van
Kaiser Karel den Vijfden, 1551; en Koning Filips den II, 1563: ’t
Tractaet van Mr. Quintyn Weitsen van de Nederlantsche Avaryen: Ende
Daerenboven in Eene Verhandelinge nopende het recht der Hollantsche
Bodemeryen (2nd edition, Amsterdam 1716).
Wisby Stadslag och Sjörätt (Codices Iuris Visbyensis Urbici et Maritimi), ed.
D. C. J. Schlyter (Lund 1853).

REFERENCE WORKS
Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum, 4 volumes
(London 1808–12).
A Catalogue of the Manuscripts Preserved in the Library of the University of
Cambridge, 5 volumes (Cambridge 1856–67).
DON, J., De Archieven der Gemeente Kampen, vol. I (Kampen 1963).
HANSEN, G. von and O. Greifenhagen, Katalog des Revaler Stadtarchivs (2nd
edition, Reval 1926).
National Church Institutions Database of Manuscripts and Archives [online].
Available at http://archives.lambethpalacelibrary.org.uk:8080/archives/,
accessed on 30 August 2011.
NIJHOFF, Wouter and M. E. Kronenberg, Nederlandsche Bibliografie van
1500 tot 1540, 2 volumes (The Hague 1940).
Scotland under Jus Commune. Census of manuscript of legal literature in
Scotland, mainly between 1500 and 1660, ed. Gero Dolezalek, vol. I
(Edinburgh 2010) [Stair Society, vol. 55].

SECONDARY WORKS
AM ENDE, Bernhard, Studien zur Verfassungsgeschichte Lübecks im 12. und
13. Jahrhundert (Lübeck 1975).
ANGERMANN, Norbert, ed., Die Hanse und der deutsche Osten (Lüneburg
1990).
ANGERMANN, Norbert, ‘Die Bedeutung Livlands für die Hanse’, in
Angermann, ed., Die Hanse und der deutsche Osten, 97–115.
‘Die Stellung der livländischen Städte in der hansischen Gemeinschaft’,
HGbll 113 (1995), 111–25.
ANGERMANN, Norbert and Wilhelm Lenz, eds, Reval. Handel und Wandel
 vom 13. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Lüneburg 1997).
ARNOLD, Udo, ‘Die Hanse und Preussen’, in Angermann, ed., Die Hanse und
der deutsche Osten, 79–95.
ARNOLD, Udo, ed., Stadt und Orden. Das Verhältnis des Deutschen Ordens
zu den Städten in Livland, Preussen und im Deutschen Reich (Marburg
1993).
AUWEELE, D. van den, ‘Zeerecht’, in G. Assaert, J. van Beylen and H. P. H.
Jansen, eds, Maritieme geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. I (Bussum
1976), 220–6.
BAILLY, Marie-Charlotte Le, Recht voor de raad. Rechtspraak voor het Hof
van Holland, Zeeland en West-Friesland in het midden van de vijftiende
eeuw (Hilversum 2001).
BEHREND, Richard, ‘Das Üngefährwerk in der Geschichte des Seerechts’,
ZRG GA 19 (1898), 52–75.
BENNINGHOVEN, Friedrich, ‘Zur Entstehung und Baugeschichte der Stadt
Danzig und zur Gründung des Klosters Oliva. Ein kritischer
Forschungsbericht’, in Benninghoven, Zur Geschichte des Deutschen
Ordens, der Stadt Danzig, des Klosters Oliva und zur Eroberung
Ostpreußens 1945: Unzensierte Nachträge zur Ostforschung (Berlin
1996), 24–44.
BIBEN, J. G., ‘Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van het oud-Nederlandsche
zeeregt’, BRW 3 (1828), 232–61 and 469–510.
BIEDERSTEDT, Rudolf, ‘Eine neue Handschrift des Seerechtes von Damme im
Stadtarchiv von Greifswald’, Greifswald-Stralsunder Jahrbuch 7
(1967), 25–54.
BILL, Jan and Birthe L. Clausen, eds, Maritime Topography and the Medieval
Town (Copenhagen 1999).
BILL, Jan, ‘The cargo vessels’, in Lars Berggrev, Nils Heybel and Annette
Landen, eds, Cogs, Cargoes and Commerce: Maritime Bulk Trade in
Northern Europe, 1150–1400 (Toronto 2002), 92–112.
‘Der Schiffbau im frühen 13. Jahrhundert’, in Manfred Gläser and Doris
Mührenberg, eds, Dänen in Lübeck, 1203–2003 (Lübeck 2003), 83–7.
BISKUP, Marian, ‘Der Deutsche Orden und die Freiheiten der großen Städte in
Preußen vom 13. bis zur Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts’, in Arnold, ed.,
Stadt und Orden, 112–28.
BISKUP, Marian and Gerard Labuda, Die Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens in
Preußen (Osnabrück 2000, revised translation of Gdansk 1986).
BOOTON, Harold W., ‘Economic and social change in Later Medieval
Aberdeen’, in Smith, ed., Medieval Aberdeen, 46–57.
‘Inland trade: a study of Aberdeen in the Later Middle Ages’, in Lynch,
Spearman and Stell, eds, Scottish Medieval Town, 148–60.
BRÄCKER, Jörgen, Volker Henn and Rainer Postel, eds, Die Hanse –
Lebenswirklichkeit und Mythos. Textband zur Hamburger Hanse-
Ausstellung von 1989 (3rd edition, Lübeck 1999).
BUNGE, Friedrich Georg von, Geschichte des Gerichtswesens und
Gerichtsverfahrens in Liv-, Est- und Curland (Reval 1874).
Einleitung in die liv-, esth- und curländische Rechtsgeschichte und
Geschichte der Rechtsquellen (Amsterdam 1971, reprint of Reval 1849).
Die Revaler Rathslinie nebst Geschichte der Rathsverfassung (Hannover
1973, reprint of Reval 1874).
BURWASH, Dorothy, English Merchant Shipping (Toronto 1947).
CARSTENN, Edward, ‘Die Elbinger Handschriften des Lübischen Rechts’,
Zeitschrift des westpreussischen Geschichtsvereins 72 (1935), 143–83.
CHRISTIANSEN, Eric, The Northern Crusades. The Baltic and the Catholic
Frontier 1100–1525 (London and Basingstoke 1980).
CIEŚLAK, Edmund and Czesław Biernat, History of Gdańsk (Gdansk 1988,
translation of Gdansk 1975).
CLANCY, Thomas Owen and Barbara E. Crawford, ‘The formation of the
Scottish Kingdom’, in Houston and Knox, eds, The New Penguin
History of Scotland, 28–95.
COOPER, Lord, ‘From David I to Bruce 1124–1329. The Scoto-Norman Law’,
in An Introduction to Scottish Legal History, 3–17.
CORDES, Albrecht, ‘Auf der Suche nach der Rechtswirklichkeit der
mittelalterlichen Lex mercatoria’, ZRG GA 118 (2001), 168–84.
‘The search for a medieval Lex mercatoria’, Oxford University
Comparative Law Forum [online] 5 (2003). Available at
http://ouclf.iuscomp.org, accessed on 30 August 2011.
‘Flandrischer Copiar Nr. 9. Juristischer Kommentar’, in Jahnke and
Graßmann, eds, Seerecht im Hanseraum, 119–44.
CRUMLIN-PEDERSEN, Ole, ‘Ships as indicators of trade in Northern Europe,
600–1200’, in Bill and Clausen, eds, Maritime Topography, 11–20.
CURICKEN, Reinhold and Georg Reinhold Curicken, Der Stadt Dantzig
historische Beschreibung (Amsterdam and Gdansk 1688).
CZAJA, Roman, ‘Die Preussische Hansestädte und der Deutsche Orden. Ein
 Beitrag zu den Beziehungen zwischen Stadt und Landesherrschaft im
späten Mittelalter’, HGbll 118 (2000), 57–76.
DECKEN, Jutta v. der, Das Seearbeitsrecht im Hamburger Stadtrecht von 1301
bis 1603 (Frankfurt etc. 1995).
DENNISON, E. Patricia, ‘Introduction: Aberdeen before Aberdeen’, in
Dennison, Ditchburn and Lynch, eds, Aberdeen before 1800, 1–10.
DENNISON, E. Patricia, David Ditchburn and Michael Lynch, eds, Aberdeen
before 1800. A New History (East Linton 2002).
DENNISON, E. Patricia, Anne T. Simpson and Grant G. Simpson, ‘The growth
of the two towns’, in Dennison, Ditchburn and Lynch, eds, Aberdeen
before 1800, 13–43.
DENNISON, E. P. and J. Stones, Historic Aberdeen. The Archaeological
Implications of Development (Edinburgh 1997).
DIESTELKAMP, Bernhard, ‘Reichsweistümer als normative Quellen’, in Peter
Classen, ed., Recht und Schrift im Mittelalter (Sigmaringen 1977), 281–
301.
DILCHER, Gerhard, ‘Stadtrecht’, in Karl S. Bader and Gerhard Dilcher,
Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte. Land und Stadt – Bürger und Bauer im
alten Europa (Berlin etc. 1999), 600–82.
DITCHBURN, David, ‘Cargoes and commodities: Aberdeen’s trade with
Scandinavia and the Baltic, c.1302–c.1542’, Northern Studies 27 (1990),
12–22.
Scotland and Europe. The Medieval Kingdom and its Contacts with
Christendom (East Linton 2000).
DITCHBURN, David and Marjory Harper, ‘Aberdeen and the outside world’, in
Dennison, Ditchburn and Lynch, eds, Aberdeen before 1800, 377–407.
DITCHBURN, David and Alastair J. Macdonald, ‘Medieval Scotland, 1100–
1560’, in Houston and Knox, eds, The New Penguin History of Scotland,
96–181.
DON, Johan, ‘Das niederländische Kampen als althansische Schiffahrtsund
Reederstadt – eine Parallelfall zu Bremen’, Bremisches Jahrbuch 51
(1969), 67–83.
DUNCAN, A. A. M., ‘The Central Courts before 1532’, in An Introduction to
Scottish Legal History, 329–36.
EBEL, Friedrich, ‘Kulmer Recht – Probleme und Erkenntnise’, in Bernart
Jähnig and Peter Letkemann, eds, 750 Jahre Kulm und Marienwerder
(Münster 1983), 9–26.
EBEL, Friedrich and Renate Schelling, ‘Das lateinische lübische Recht in der
schlesisch-polnischen Fassung’, ZRG GA 110 (1993), 93–148.
EBEL, Wilhelm, Lübisches Kaufmannsrecht vornehmlich nach Lübecker
Ratsurteilen des 15./16. Jahrhunderts ([Göttingen 1952]).
‘Der Rechtszug nach Lübeck’, HGbll 85 (1967), 1–37.
Lübisches Recht, vol. I (Lübeck 1971).
‘Über skandinavisch-deutsche Stadtrechtsbeziehungen im Mittelalter’, in
Ebel, Rechtsgeschichtliches aus Niederdeutschland (Göttingen 1978),
325–35.
Geschichte der Gesetzgebung in Deutschland (2nd edition extended by
Friedrich Ebel, Göttingen 1988).
EWAN, Elizabeth, ‘The Age of Bon-Accord: Aberdeen in the fourteenth
century’, in Smith, ed., Medieval Aberdeen, 32–44.
FINLAY, John, ‘Foreign litigants before the College of Justice in the sixteenth
century’, in Hector L. MacQueen, ed., Miscellany IV (Stair Society Vol.
49) (Edinburgh 2002), 37–50.
FORTE, Angelo, ‘ “Kenning be kenning and course be course”: maritime
jurimetrics in Scotland and northern Europe 1400–1600’, Edinburgh
Law Review 2 (1998), 56–88.
FRANKOT, Edda, ‘The practice of maritime law in the town courts of fifteenth-
century northern Europe: a comparison’, in Hanno Brand, Poul Holm
and Leos Muller, eds, The Dynamics of Economic Culture in the North
Sea and Baltic Region (ca. 1250–1700) (Hilversum 2007), 136–52.
‘Medieval maritime law from Oléron to Wisby: jurisdictions in the law of
the sea’, in J. Pan-Montojo and F. Pedersen, eds, Communities in
European History: Representations, Jurisdictions, Conflicts (Pisa 2007),
151–72.
‘Maritime law and practice in late medieval Aberdeen’, SHR 89 (2010),
136–52.
‘De “Ordinancie van Staveren” en het Hanzeatisch zeerecht’, in H. Brand
and R. Wegener Sleeswyk, eds, Fryslân in de Hanze. Bijdragen van het
tweede congres van de werkgroep Maritieme Geschiedenis van de
Fryske Akademy (2010) [It Beaken 2012] (forthcoming).
‘ “Der ehrbare Hanse-Städte See-Recht”: diversity and unity in Hanseatic
maritime law’, in Justyna Wubs-Mrozewicz and Stuart Jenks, eds, The
Hanse in Late Medieval Europe (forthcoming).
FRENSDORFF, Ferdinand, Das lübische Recht nach seinen ältesten Formen
 (Leipzig 1872).
‘Das Stadtrecht von Wisby’, HGbll 22 (1916), 1–85.
FRIEDLAND, Klaus, ‘Maritime law and piracy: advantages and inconveniences
of shipping in the Baltic’, in A. I. Macinnes, T. Riis and F. G. Pedersen,
eds, Ships, Guns and Bibles in the North Sea and the Baltic States,
c.1350–c.1700 (East Linton 2000), 30–8.
FYLLINGSNES, Frode, ‘Notow – hanseatane si hamn på Avaldsnes’, Heimen 41
(2004), 3–21.
GILISSEN, J., La Coutume (Turnhout 1982) [Typologie des sources du Moyen
Âge occidental, vol. 41].
GLÄSER, Manfred, Rolf Hammel and Michael Schefter, ‘Das Haupt der
Hanse: Lübeck’, in Bräcker, Henn and Postel, eds, Die Hanse, 248–68.
GODDING, Philippe, La Jurisprudence (Turnhout 1973) [Typologie des
sources du Moyen Âge occidental, vol. 6].
GODFREY, Mark, Civil Justice in Renaissance Scotland. The Origins of a
Central Court (Leiden and Boston 2009).
GOETZE, Jochen, ‘Der Anteil Lübecks an der Entwicklung des Seerechts I,
Das Mittelalter bis 1530’, ZVLGA 63 (1983), 129–43.
GOLDSCHMIDT, L., ‘Danziger Seerechtsquellen aus dem 15. und 16.
Jahrhundert’, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht 1 (1858), 295–9.
‘Lex Rhodia und Agermanament. Der Schiffsrath. Studie zur Geschichte
und Dogmatik des europäischen Seerechts’, Zeitschrift für das Gesamte
Handelsrecht 35 (Neue Folge 20, 1889), 37–90 and 321–95.
GOUDSMIT, M. Th., Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeerecht (The
Hague 1882).
GRASSMANN, Antjekathrin, ed., Lübeckische Geschichte (3rd edition, Lübeck
1997).
Habakkuk Bisset’s Rolment of Courtis, vol. II, ed. P. J. Hamilton Grierson
(Edinburgh 1920–1).
HAMMEL-KIESOW, Rolf, ‘Die Anfänge Lübecks: von der abotritischen
Landnahme bis zur Eingliederung in die Grafschaft Holstein-Stormarn’,
in Graßmann, ed., Lübeckische Geschichte, 6–49.
Die Hanse (Lübeck 2000).
HASSELBERG, Gösta, Studier rörande Visby stadslag och des källor (Uppsala
1953).
HENN, Volker, ‘Was war die Hanse?’, in Bräcker, Henn and Postel, eds, Die
Hanse, 14–23.
HERWAARDEN, J. van, Opgelegde bedevaarten, een studie over de praktijk van
het opleggen van bedevaarten (m.n. in de stedelijke rechtspraak) in de
Nederlanden gedurende de middeleeuwen (ca. 1300–ca. 1500) (Assen
and Amsterdam 1978).
HIRSCH, Theodor, Danzigs Handels- und Gewerbsgeschichte unter der
Herrschaft des Deutschen Ordens (Wiesbaden 1969, reprint of Leipzig
1858).
HIRTE, Christian and Thomas Wolf, ‘Kogge, Holk, Kraweel: die Schiffe’, in
Bräcker, Henn and Postel, eds, Die Hanse, 762–75.
HOCKER, Frederick M., ‘Technical and organizational development in
European shipyards, 1400–1600’, in Bill and Clausen, eds, Maritime
Topography, 21–32.
HOFFMANN, Erich, ‘Lübeck im Hoch- und Spätmittelalter: die große Zeit
Lübecks’, in Graßmann, ed., Lübeckische Geschichte, 79–339.
HOLTIUS, A. C., ‘Over Wisby en het Wisbysche zeeregt’, in Holtius,
Geschieden Regtskundige Verhandelingen (Utrecht 1851), 215–70.
‘Oude zeeregten in Dantzig’, Nieuwe BRW 3 (1853), 5–25.
‘Het Wisbysch zeeregt, en de kritische uitgave daarvan in het “. . . Wisby
Stadslag och Sjörätt utgifvne af Dr. D. C. J. Schlyter. Lund 1853 ” ’,
Nieuwe BRW 4 (1854), 417–31.
HOUSTON, R. A. and W. W. J. Knox, eds, The New Penguin History of
Scotland. From the Earliest Times to the Present Day (London 2001).
An Introduction to Scottish Legal History (Edinburgh 1958) [Stair Society,
vol. 20].
An Introductory Survey of the Sources and Literature of Scots Law
(Edinburgh 1936) [Stair Society, vol. 1].
JACKSON, Gordon, ‘The economy: Aberdeen and the sea’, in Dennison,
Ditchburn and Lynch, eds, Aberdeen before 1800, 159–80.
JAHNKE, Carsten, Das Silber des Meeres. Fang und Vertrieb von
Ostseehering zwischen Norwegen und Italien (12.–16. Jahrhundert)
(Cologne etc. 2000).
‘Hansisches und anderes Seerecht’, in Albrecht Cordes, ed., Hansisches
und hansestädtisches Recht (Trier 2007), 41–67.
JAHNKE, Carsten and Antjekathrin Graßmann, eds, Das Seerecht im
Hanseraum des 15. Jahrhunderts. Edition und Kommentar zum
Flandrischen Copiar Nr. 9 (Lübeck 2003).
JANIK, Bernard, ‘Übersicht über die wichtigsten Probeme der
 Seerechtsgeschichte in der polnischen Literatur 1939–1961’,
Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Ernst–Moritz–Arndt–Universität
Greifswald 12 (1963), 597–609.
JAPPE ALBERTS, W., ‘De economische betrekkingen van Overijssel met de
aangrenzende territoria in de 14e en 15e eeuw’, Verslagen en
Mededeelingen [Vereniging tot beoefening van Overijsselsch regt en
geschiedenis] 71 (1956), 27–46.
JOHANSEN, Paul, ‘Die Bedeutung der Hanse für Livland’, HGbll 65–6 (1940–
1), 1–55.
Nordische Mission. Revals Gründung und die Schwedensiedlung in
Estland (Stockholm 1951).
JOHANSEN, Paul and Heinz von zur Mühlen, Deutsch und Undeutsch im
mittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Reval (Cologne and Vienna
1973).
KALA, Tiina, Lübeck Law and Tallinn (Tallinn 1998).
KALISCH, Johannes, ‘Vorwort’, in Maria Bogucka, Das alte Danzig.
Alltagsleben vom 15. bis 17. Jahrhundert (Leipzig 1980, translation of
Warsaw 1967), 7–8.
KEYSER, Erich, ‘Das Stadtrecht Danzigs im 13. Jahrhundert’, Altpreußische
Forschungen 1 (1924), 81–95.
KIESSELBACH, Theodor, ‘Grundlage und Bestandteile des ältesten
hamburgischen Schiffrechts. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des
norddeutschen Seehandels und Seerechts’, HGbll 10 (1900–2), 49–93.
‘Der Ursprung der Rôles d’Oléron und des Seerechts von Damme’, HGbll
12 (1906), 1–60.
KIVIMÄE, Jüri, ‘Das Lübische Recht und die Entstehung der Stadt Tallinn:
zehn Thesen’, in Schweitzer and Bastman-Bühner, eds, Die Stadt im
europäischen Nordosten, 29–31.
KORTHALS ALTES, A., Ons oudste zeerecht (Zwolle 1976).
KOSSMANN, F. J. and J. A. Kossmann-Putto, ‘Kampen en Essen’, Kamper
Almanak (1991), 124–62.
KOSSMANN-PUTTO, J. A. and F. J. Kossmann, ‘Het ontstaan van Kampen’,
Historisch-geografisch Tijdschrift 7 (1989), 1–9.
KREEM, Juhan, The Town and its Lord. Reval and the Teutonic Order (in the
Fifteenth Century) (Tallinn 2002).
KRIEGER, Karl-Friedrich, Ursprung und Wurzeln der Rôles d’Oléron
(Cologne and Vienna 1970).
 ‘Die rechtlichen Voraussetzungen des Seeverkehrs in Bergen zur frühen
Hansezeit’, in Klaus Friedland, ed., Bergen. Handelszentrum des
beginnenden Spätmittelalters (Cologne and Vienna 1971), 1–20.
LANDWEHR, Götz, Die Haverei in den mittelalterlichen deutschen
Seerechtsquellen (Hamburg 1985).
‘Seerecht (Seehandelsrecht)’, in Handwörterbuch zur deutschen
Rechtsgeschichte, vol. IV (Berlin 1990), cols 1,596–614.
‘Prinzipien der Risikotragung beim Seefrachtvertrag – Rechtsverhältnisse
bei Haverei und Schiffbruch in der Nord- und Ostseeschiffahrt vom 13.
bis zum 17. Jahrhundert’, in Gerhard Köbler and Hermann Nehlsen, eds,
Wirkungen europäischer Rechtskultur. Festschrift für Karl Kroeschell
(Munich 1997), 595–615.
‘Das Seerecht im Ostseeraum vom Mittelalter bis zum Ausgang des 18.
Jahrhunderts’, in Jörn Eckert and Kjell Å. Modéer, eds, Geschichte und
Perspektiven des Rechts im Ostseeraum (Frankfurt am Main 2002),
275–304.
‘Seerecht im Hanseraum im 15. Jahrhundert’, in Jahnke and Graßmann,
eds, Seerecht im Hanseraum, 95–117.
Das Seerecht der Hanse (1365–1614) (Hamburg 2003).
LINGENBERG, Heinz, Die Anfänge des Klosters Oliva und die Entwicklung der
deutschen Stadt Danzig. Die frühe Geschichte der beiden Gemeinwesen
bis 1308/10 (Stuttgart 1982).
‘Danzig’, in Bräcker, Henn and Postel, eds, Die Hanse, 370–87.
LYNCH, Michael, ‘Towns and townspeople in fifteenth-century Scotland’, in
John A. F. Thomson, ed., Towns and Townspeople in the Fifteenth
Century (Gloucester 1988), 173–89.
LYNCH, Michael, Michael Spearman and Geoffrey Stell, eds, The Scottish
Medieval Town (Edinburgh 1988).
MACDONALD, Alan R., The Burghs and Parliament in Scotland, c. 1550–
1651 (Aldershot 2007).
MCMILLAN, A. R. G., ‘The Admiral of Scotland’, SHR 20 (1923), 11–18.
MACQUEEN, Hector L. and William J. Windram, ‘Laws and courts in the
burghs’, in Lynch, Spearman and Stell, eds, Scottish Medieval Town,
208–27.
MEILINK, P. A., De Nederlandsche Hanzesteden tot het laatste kwartaal der
XIVe eeuw (The Hague 1912).
MISĀNS, Ilgvar, ‘Zusammenarbeit und Konkurrenz: Riga, Dorpat und Reval
 auf den livländischen Städtetagen’, in Nils Jörn, Deltlef Kattinger and
Horst Wernicke, eds, Genossenschaftliche Strukturen in der Hanse
(Cologne etc. 1999), 273–86.
MÜLLER-BOYSEN, Carsten, Kaufmannsschutz und Handelsrecht im
frühmittelalterlichen Nordeuropa (Neumünster 1990).
MURDOCH, Steve, The Terror of the Seas? Scottish Maritime Warfare 1513–
1713 (Leiden and Boston 2010).
NIITEMAA, Vilho, Das Strandrecht in Nordeuropa (Helsinki 1955).
‘NOTES on the sources for the Parliaments of Scotland, 1424–1466’, Scottish
Parliament Project (University of St Andrews 2007–11) [online].
Available at http://www.rps.ac.uk/static/notesonsources.html, accessed
on 30 August 2011.
O’SULLIVAN, Carolin, Die Ahndung von Rechtsbrüchen der Seeleute im
mitteralterlichen hamburgischen und hansischen Seerecht (1301–1482)
(Frankfurt am Main, etc. 2005).
PAGAN, Theodora, The Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland (Glasgow
1926).
PETRI, Franz, ‘Die Stellung der Südersee- und IJsselstädte im
flandrischhansischen Raum’, HGbll 79 (1961), 34–57.
PICHIERRI, Angelo, Die Hanse – Staat der Städte. Ein ökonomisches und
politisches Modell der Städtevernetzung (Opladen 2000, translation of
Venice 1997).
PITZ, Ernst, Schrift- und Aktenwesen der städtischen Verwaltung im
Spätmittelalter. Köln – Nürnberg – Lübeck. Beitrag zur vergleichenden
Städteforschung und zur spätmittelalterlichen Aktenkunde (Cologne
1959).
Bürgereinung und Städteeinung. Studien zur Verfassungsgeschichte der
Hansestädte und der deutschen Hanse (Cologne etc. 2001).
POHLMANN, Hans-Jörg, ‘Die Quellen des Handelsrechts’, in H. Coing, ed.,
Handbuch der Quellen und Literatur der neueren europäischen
Privatrechtsgeschichte, vol. I, Mittelalter (1100–1500). Die gelehrten
Rechte und die Gesetzgebung (Munich 1973), 801–34.
The Practicks of Sir James Balfour of Pittendreich, vol. II, ed. Peter G. B.
McNeill (Edinburgh 1963).
REINCKE, Heinrich, ‘Die ältesten hamburgischen Stadtrechte und ihre
Quellen’, Zeitschrift des Vereins für hamburgische Geschichte 25
(1925), 1–4.
 ‘Das hamburgische Ordeelbook von 1270 und sein Verfasser’, ZRG GA 72
(1955), 83–110.
ROBINSON, O. F., T. D. Fergus, and W. M. Gordon, An Introduction to
European Legal History (Abingdon 1985).
RUNYAN, Timothy, ‘The Rolls of Oleron and the Admiralty Court in
fourteenth-century England’, American Journal of Legal History 19
(1975), 95–117.
SCHWEITZER, Julia, Schiffer und Schiffsmann in den Rôles d’Oléron und im
Llibre del Consolat de Mar. Ein Vergleich zweier mittelalterlicher
Seerechtsquellen (Frankfurt am Main etc. 2007).
SCHWEITZER, Robert and Waltraud Bastman-Bühner, eds, Die Stadt im
europäischen Nordosten. Kulturbeziehungen von der Ausbreitung des
Lübischen Rechts bis zur Aufklärung (Helsinki and Lübeck 2001).
SELLAR, W. David H., ‘A historical perspective’, in Michael C. Meston, W.
David H. Sellar and Lord Cooper, The Scottish Legal Tradition. New
enlarged edition (Edinburgh 1991), 29–64.
SIMON, Ulrich, ‘Appellationen von Reval nach Lübeck. Aus zurückgekehrten
Akten des Archivs der Hansestadt Lübeck’, in Schweitzer and Bastman-
Bühner, eds, Die Stadt im europäischen Nordosten, 47–63.
SIMSON, Paul, Geschichte der Danziger Willkür (Danzig 1904).
Geschichte der Stadt Danzig, 4 volumes (Aalen 1967 (in 3 volumes),
reprint of Gdansk 1913–18).
SMITH, J. S., ed., New Light on Medieval Aberdeen (Aberdeen 1985).
STARK, Walter, Lübeck und Danzig in der zweiten Hälfte des 15.
Jahrhunderts. Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis der wendischen und
preußischen Hansestädte in der Zeit des Niedergangs der Hanse
(Weimar 1973).
STEVENSON, Alexander, ‘Trade with the South, 1070–1513’, in Lynch,
Spearman and Stell, Scottish Medieval Town, 180–207.
‘Medieval Scottish associations with Bruges’, in Terry Brotherstone and
David Ditchburn, eds, Freedom and Authority. Scotland, c.1150–c.1650:
Historical and Historiographical Essays Presented to Grant G. Simpson
(East Linton 2000), 93–107.
STOOB, Heinz, Die Hanse (Graz etc. 1995).
TELTING, A., Die alt-niederländische Seerechte (The Hague 1907).
TEX, C. A. den, ‘Over handschriften van oud-Nederlandsch Zeeregt’, BRW 3
(1828), 510–19.
TIELHOF, M. van, De Hollandse graanhandel 1470–1570. Koren op de
Amsterdamse molen (The Hague 1995).
VOGEL, W., Geschichte der deutschen Seeschiffahrt, vol. I (Berlin 1905).
VOGELSANG, Reinhard, ‘Reval und der Deutsche Orden: Zwischen städtischer
Autonomie und landsherrlicher Gewalt’, in Arnold, ed., Stadt und
Orden, 34–58.
WAGNER, Rudolf, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte des Seerechts und der
Seerechtsquellen I, Zur Geschichte der Quellen des Wisby’schen
Seerechts’, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht 27 (1882), 393–
416.
Handbuch des Seerechts, vol. I (Leipzig 1906).
WARD, Robin, The World of the Medieval Shipmaster. Law, Business and the
Sea, c. 1350–1450 (Woodbridge 2009).
WEITZEL, Jürgen, Über Oberhöfe, Recht und Rechtszug. Eine Skizze
(Göttingen 1981).
WELWOD, William, An Abridgement of All Sea-Lawes (London 1613).
WITTRAM, Reinhardt, Baltische Geschichte. Die Ostseelande Livland,
Estland, Kurland 1180–1918. Grundzüge und Durchblick (Darmstadt
1973).
WOLTER, Klaus, Die Schiffrechte der Hansestädte Lübeck und Hamburg und
die Entwicklung des Hansischen Seerechts – unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der rechtlichen Bestimmungen über Reisenotlagen und
Schiffskollisionen (Hamburg 1975).

UNPUBLISHED THESES
DITCHBURN, David, ‘Merchants, Pedlars and Pirates. A History of Scotland’s
Relations with Northern Germany and the Baltic in the Later Middle
Ages’ (Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh 1988).
STEVENSON, Alexander William Kerr, ‘Trade between Scotland and the Low
Countries in the Later Middle Ages’ (Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Aberdeen 1982).
 Index

Aachen, ref1
abandon, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8
Abel of Denmark, ref1
Åbenra, ref1
Aberdeen, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17, ref18
alderman, ref1
arbitration, ref1
assize, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7
bailie court, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10
bailies, ref1, ref2, ref3
burgh court, ref1, ref2, ref3
council, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
dean of guild, ref1, ref2
guild, ref1, ref2
guild court, ref1, ref2
head court, ref1
provost see alderman
sheriff, ref1
statutory rights, ref1
town community, ref1
see also Old Aberdeen
Adolf II of Schauenburg, count of Holstein, ref1
Adolf III, count of Holstein, ref1n
Albert I, bishop of Riga, ref1
Alt-Lübeck, ref1; see also Lübeck
Alt-Stettin, ref1, ref2, ref3; see also Stettin
Amsterdam, ref1, ref2n, ref3n, ref4, ref5
anchor, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9
Anklam, ref1
Antwerp, ref1
Aquitaine, ref1
Arnemuiden, ref1, ref2
average
general, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9; see also cutting of mast, jettison
particular, ref1, ref2
petty, ref1, ref2

Balfour, James, ref1n, ref2

Bannatyne, John, ref1
Bardewik, Albrecht von, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8
beach robbery, ref1n
Belt, Little or Great, ref1
Bergen, ref1, ref2, ref3
Bergen op Zoom, ref1
Bergen Town Law, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6
Berwick, ref1
bills of exchange, ref1
Bjarkeyjar réttr, ref1
Bjärköarätten, ref1, ref2, ref3
Bohemia, ref1, ref2
Boizenburg, Jordan von, ref1
Bolsward, ref1
Bordeaux, ref1, ref2
Borgarthing, ref1
Bornholm, ref1
bottomry, ref1
Bourgneuf, Bay of, ref1
Braunsberg, ref1
Braunschweig, ref1
Bremen, ref1, ref2n, ref3n
Brielle, ref1n
Brittany, ref1
Bruges, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9
Burgundy, duke of, ref1
Byczyna, Konrad of, ref1

carelessness, ref1, ref2n, ref3, ref4

Charles V, emperor, ref1
ordinance of (1551), ref1n
Charles V of France, ref1n
charter party, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7
Christopher I of Denmark, ref1, ref2
Codex Hammurabi, ref1n
collision see ship collision
Cologne, ref1, ref2
contract
breach of, ref1, ref2
carriage see charter party
freight see charter party
convoy, ref1
Copenhagen, ref1
custom, ref1n, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5n, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27, ref28, ref29, ref30
customary sea laws, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5
Custuma Portuum, ref1, ref2, ref3

Damme, ref1, ref2

Danzig, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7n, ref8n, ref9n, ref10, ref11n, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15,
ref16, ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27, ref28, ref29, ref30,
ref31, ref32, ref33
alderman, ref1
 Altstadt, ref1, ref2, ref3
Artushof, ref1
bailiff see Schultheißen
by-laws, ref1, ref2, ref3
council, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17, ref18, ref19
court see council
Hakelwerk, ref1
Hauskomtur, ref1
judgements, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15,
ref16, ref17
Jungstadt, ref1, ref2
Komtur, ref1, ref2, ref3
maritime court, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11
Neustadt, ref1
Rechtsstadt, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
Schöffengericht, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6
Schultheißen, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
statutory rights, ref1, ref2, ref3
David I of Scotland, ref1
Dee, river, ref1, ref2
Denmark, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8
Deventer, ref1n, ref2
Dieppe, ref1
Dirschau, ref1
discipline, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
disputes, settling of, ref1
Don, river, ref1
Dordrecht, ref1, ref2n
Dorpat, ref1, ref2
Drenthe, ref1, ref2
Dreyer, J. C. H., ref1
drunkenness, ref1
Dundee, ref1, ref2
duties
of crew, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8
of freighters/merchants, ref1, ref2
of pilots, ref1, ref2
of shipowners, ref1, ref2
of skippers, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5

Edinburgh, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8

Edward III of England, ref1
Eidsivathing, ref1
Elbing, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7
Elburg, ref1n
Eleanor of Aquitaine, ref1
England, ref1, ref2, ref3n, ref4n, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10n, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15,
ref16, ref17, ref18, ref19n, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27, ref28
admiral, ref1
Eric Glipping of Denmark, ref1
Eric Plogpenning of Denmark, ref1, ref2
Estonia, ref1, ref2, ref3

Falsterbo, ref1
félagh, ref1n
felony, ref1
Finland, ref1
Finnish Gulf, ref1
Flanders, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4n, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14n, ref15,
ref16, ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27, ref28; see also Low
Countries
Flandrischer Copiar Nr. 9, ref1
Flensburg, ref1
Forth, Firth of, ref1
France, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9n, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17
Frederik I, emperor, ref1, ref2
Frederik II, emperor, ref1, ref2
freight see freightage
freightage, ref1, ref2, ref3n, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15,
ref16
payment of, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15,
ref16, ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24
pro rata itineris, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9
Frostothing, ref1

Gdańsk see Danzig

Gemen, Godfried von, ref1
General Swedish Town Law, ref1
German Empire, ref1, ref2
German law, ref1, ref2
Germanynorthern, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6
Gotland, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8
Gotland Sea Law, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7n, ref8, ref9n, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13n, ref14,
ref15
Amsterdam edition (1532), ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
Copenhagen edition (1505), ref1, ref2n, ref3n, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8n
Copenhagen manuscript, ref1n, ref2n, ref3, ref4
Danzig manuscript, ref1
Lübeck manuscripts, ref1, ref2n, ref3
Gràgàs, ref1, ref2
Greifswald, ref1, ref2
Groningen, ref1
Guelders, duke of, ref1
Gulathing, ref1
Güstrow, Tideman, ref1, ref2

Haderslev, ref1
Haithabu, ref1
Hamburg, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
 ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20
council, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
law, ref1, ref2n, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7
Hamburg Ship Law, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14,
ref15, ref16, ref17
1259 letter from Hamburg to Lübeck, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5
of 1301/6, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5
of 1497, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17, ref18
Hamburg Town Law ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
revised, ref1, ref2
Stade manuscript, ref1
hanse, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5
Hanse (Hanseatic League), ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10n, ref11, ref12, ref13,
ref14, ref15
Bergen kontor, ref1n
Bruges kontor, ref1n, ref2, ref3, ref4n, ref5
Common Merchant (Bruges), ref1, ref2
Common Merchant (London), ref1
Livonian Third, ref1
Livonian towns, ref1, ref2, ref3
London kontor, ref1n
meetings (Hansetag), ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10
Netherlandish towns, ref1
Novgorod kontor, ref1, ref2, ref3n
oosterlinges, ref1, ref2, ref3n
Prussian towns, ref1, ref2
recesse, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17
Wendish towns, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
Westfalian-Prussian Third, ref1
Hanseatic Sea Law (1614), ref1n, ref2, ref3
Hanseatic statutes, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14,
ref15, ref16, ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24
Harderwijk, ref1n
Harfleur, ref1n
Harlingen, ref1n
hásetar, ref1, ref2
Henry I of England, ref1n
Henry II of England, ref1, ref2n
Henry III of England, ref1n
Henry VI, emperor, ref1n
Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony and Bavaria, ref1n, ref2
hire, ship’s, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
hiring (crew), ref1, ref2
Holland, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6
Holstein, ref1
count of, ref1n, ref2
Huisduinen, ref1
Iberian peninsula, ref1
ice, ref1, ref2
Iceland, ref1, ref2
IJssel, river, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
insurance, ref1
Inverkeithing, ref1

James I of Scotland, ref1

James III of Scotland, ref1
jettison, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27n, ref28, ref29, ref30, ref31,
ref32, ref33, ref34
of humans, ref1
see also average, general
Jónsbók, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5

Kalmar, ref1
Kampen, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27, ref28, ref29, ref30, ref31,
ref32, ref33
aldermen see schepenen
bailiff see schout
burgomasters, ref1
council, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8
councillors see raden
gemeente, ref1
higher court, ref1, ref2
raden, ref1
schepenen, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
schout, ref1
statutory rights, ref1
town community see gemeente
Kampen Town Law, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14,
ref15, ref16, ref17, ref18
Boeck van Rechte, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13
Gulden Boeck, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14
Kasimir of Poland, ref1, ref2, ref3
Kiel, ref1, ref2
Knut IV of Denmark, ref1
Kolberg, ref1
Königsberg, ref1, ref2n, ref3, ref4, ref5
Kulm, ref1n, ref2, ref3, ref4n
law, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8
Kulm Town Law, ref1, ref2

Lanark, ref1n
Landrecht (land law), ref1, ref2
Langenbeke, Hermann, ref1, ref2
La Rochelle, ref1, ref2
Latvia, ref1
Laws of the Four Burghs, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9
Leges Quatuor Burgorum see Laws of the Four Burghs
Leis Willelme, ref1, ref2
Leith see Edinburgh
lex mercatoria, ref1
Lex Rhodia de Iactu, ref1, ref2
Liber Horn, ref1n, ref2, ref3
Liber Memorandum, ref1n
lighter, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
Lindanyse, ref1; see also Reval
Linlithgow, ref1n
Livonia, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7
bishop of, ref1
loading, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9
windegelt, ref1
London, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
Low Countries, ref1, ref2; see also Flanders, Netherlands
Lübeck, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27, ref28, ref29, ref30, ref31,
ref32, ref33, ref34, ref35, ref36, ref37, ref38, ref39, ref40, ref41, ref42, ref43, ref44, ref45, ref46,
ref47
burgomasters, ref1
bursprake, ref1
communitas, ref1, ref2
council, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27
court see council
Echteding, ref1
governor see Vogt
law, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21n, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27, ref28, ref29, ref30, ref31,
ref32, ref33, ref34, ref35, ref36
Niedergericht, ref1, ref2; see also Vogtding
Oberhof, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14
statutory rights, ref1, ref2
town community see communitas
Vogt, ref1, ref2
Vogtding, ref1, ref2; see also Niedergericht
see also Alt-Lübeck
Lübeck Sea Law, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15,
ref16, ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26
Lübeck Town Law, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14,
ref15, ref16, ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27, ref28, ref29,
ref30, ref31, ref32, ref33, ref34, ref35, ref36, ref37, ref38, ref39, ref40, ref41
Danzig manuscript, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
Elbing manuscripts, ref1, ref2, ref3n
Kiel manuscript, ref1n
Kolberg manuscript, ref1n
Reval manuscripts, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7
revised (1586), ref1, ref2, ref3
Tønder manuscript, ref1
Magdeburg, ref1
law, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7
Magdeburg Town Law, ref1, ref2, ref3
Magnus Eriksson of Sweden, ref1
Magnus Hakonson of Norway, ref1, ref2
Malcolm III of Scotland, ref1, ref2
Margaret of Scotland, ref1, ref2
Margaret, Queen Dowager of Denmark, ref1, ref2
Marsdiep, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5n, ref6n
mast, ref1
cutting of, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11; see also average, general
Mediterranean, ref1, ref2
Middelburg, ref1n, ref2
Monynet, James, ref1
Mottlau, river, ref1

Narva, ref1, ref2

Netherlands, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5n, ref6n, ref7, ref8n; see also Low Countries
Normandy, ref1
North Berwick, ref1
Norway, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8n, ref9
Notow, ref1
Novgorod, ref1, ref2, ref3
Novgorod Skra, ref1n, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9

Old Aberdeen, ref1; see also Aberdeen

Oldenburg, ref1, ref2n, ref3
Oléron, ref1, ref2n, ref3, ref4, ref5
ommelandvaart, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5
orality, ref1, ref2
Ordinancie, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15,
ref16, ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27, ref28, ref29, ref30,
ref31, ref32, ref33, ref34, ref35, ref36, ref37, ref38, ref39
Amsterdam manuscript, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
Groningen manuscript, ref1n, ref2, ref3
Ordnung für Schiffer und Schiffsleute, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9
Orkney, earl of, ref1, ref2n, ref3
orlop, ref1, ref2
Ösel, ref1
Oslo, ref1
Ostfriesland, ref1n
Overijssel, ref1, ref2
overloading, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5
Oversticht, ref1

peacekeeping, ref1
Perth, ref1, ref2
pilgrimage, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8
lotelghelt, ref1, ref2
pilot, ref1, ref2, ref3; see also duties
piracy, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4n, ref5, ref6, ref7n, ref8
Pittendreich, ref1n
Poland, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11
Pomerania, ref1, ref2, ref3
Pomerania, Eastern, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6
Portugal, ref1
prize, ref1
Prussia, ref1, ref2, ref3n, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17
Przemysław II, duke of Eastern Pomerania, king of Poland, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
punctuality, ref1

Queensborough, Inquisition of, ref1

Quoniam Attachiamenta, ref1, ref2

Rasaborg, ref1
Regiam Majestatem, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5
Reid, Robert, bishop of Orkney, ref1
Reval, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6n, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27
bishop, ref1
burgomasters, ref1
captain see Vogt
council, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14
court see council
Domberg, ref1
Echteding, ref1
Eddach see Echteding
Hauskomtur, ref1
Komtur, ref1
Oberstadt, ref1
town community, ref1
Unterstadt, ref1
Vogt, ref1
see also Lindanyse, Tallinn
Revele, ref1
Rhineland, ref1, ref2, ref3
Richard I of England, ref1, ref2n
Riga, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12n, ref13n, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17, ref18, ref19
flag, ref1
Riga Town Law, ref1n, ref2, ref3, ref4n, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10
revised, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7
rights
of the crew, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5
Robert the Bruce, ref1
Rocamadour, ref1
Rôles d’Oléron, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15,
ref16, ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27, ref28, ref29, ref30,
ref31, ref32, ref33, ref34, ref35, ref36, ref37, ref38n, ref39, ref40, ref41, ref42, ref43, ref44, ref45,
ref46, ref47, ref48; see also Vonnesse van Damme, Scottish ship laws
Roman Law, ref1, ref2, ref3n
Rostock, ref1, ref2, ref3
Rotterdam Insurance and Average Decree (1721), ref1
Roxburgh, ref1
Russia, ref1n, ref2, ref3, ref4

Saint Adalbert of Canaperius, ref1

sale
of cargo, ref1, ref2
of gear, ref1, ref2
of ship, ref1, ref2
salvage, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12
money, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7
of gold and silver, ref1
Santiago de Compostela, ref1, ref2
Saxon Law, ref1
Scandinavia, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8
laws, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5n, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11
Scania, ref1, ref2, ref3
Schifferordnung, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6
Schleswig, ref1, ref2
Schleswig Town Law, ref1
Schütz, Kaspar, ref1
Scotland, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20
acts of parliament, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8
admiral, ref1n, ref2
admiralty court, ref1, ref2, ref3
baron court laws, ref1
burgh court, ref1, ref2
burgh laws, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12
Chamberlaine’s Eyre, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
College of Justice, ref1
Conservator of the Scottish Privileges, ref1
Court of the Four Burghs, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5n, ref6, ref7, ref8
depute admirals, ref1, ref2
forest laws, ref1, ref2, ref3
general council, ref1
guild laws, ref1, ref2
King’s Council, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
Leges Forestarum see forest laws
Lords of Council, ref1, ref2n, ref3, ref4
parliament, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7
Practicks, ref1n, ref2
statutes, ref1, ref2, ref3
Scottish ship laws, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12
seaworthiness, ref1, ref2, ref3
securing
cargo ref1, ref2
ship, ref1
Shetland, ref1, ref2
shipbuilding, ref1, ref2, ref3n, ref4, ref5
ship collision, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15,
ref16, ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26
ship council, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
ship’s court, ref1, ref2
shipwreck, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15, ref16,
ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25, ref26, ref27, ref28, ref29n, ref30, ref31,
ref32, ref33, ref34, ref35, ref36
sickness (crew), ref1, ref2
Silesia, ref1
Skagen, ref1, ref2
Skanör, ref1
Sluys, ref1, ref2, ref3
Sound (Øresund), ref1, ref2
statutory rights, ref1; see also Aberdeen, Danzig, Kampen, Lübeck
Staveren, ref1n, ref2, ref3, ref4n, ref5, ref6
Stettin, ref1; see also Alt-Stettin
Sticht, ref1
Stirling, ref1
Stockholm, ref1, ref2
Stralsund, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9
stýrimaðr, ref1, ref2
Swantopolk, duke of Pomerania, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5
Sweden, ref1
Swedish Sea Law (1667), ref1
Sword Brothers, Order of the, ref1

Tallinn, ref1; see also Reval

Tannenberg, ref1, ref2
Terschelling, ref1
Teutonic Order, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15n,
ref16
Grand Master, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11
Livonian Master, ref1
Texel, ref1, ref2
Thorn, ref1, ref2, ref3n
Thymmo, Helmich, ref1
Tonsberg, ref1
town community, ref1; see also Aberdeen, Kampen, Lübeck, Reval
town council, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6; see also Aberdeen, Danzig, Kampen, Lübeck, Reval
town court, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5; see also Danzig, Lübeck, Reval
town law, ref1n
Trave, river, ref1
Trondheim, ref1

unloading see loading

Utrecht, ref1
bishop of, ref1
diocese, ref1
province, ref1, ref2
Veere, ref1, ref2
venture, joint or shipping, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8n, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13
Vistula, river, ref1, ref2
Vlie, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6n
Vlieland, ref1
voering, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
Vonnesse Van Damme, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14,
ref15, ref16, ref17, ref18, ref19, ref20, ref21, ref22, ref23, ref24, ref25

wages, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6

Wakenitz, river, ref1
Waldemar II of Denmark, ref1, ref2, ref3
Waterrecht, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5n, ref6, ref7n, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14, ref15,
ref16, ref17, ref18, ref19
Bruges manuscript, ref1n, ref2
Copenhagen manuscript, ref1n
Danzig manuscript, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5
Dordrecht manuscript, ref1n, ref2
Enkhuizen manuscript, ref1n, ref2n
Kampen manuscript, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6
Staveren manuscript, ref1n, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5
Stockholm manuscript, ref1n
Welwod, William, ref1
Wenzel II of Bohemia, ref1
Wenzel III of Bohemia, ref1
Wesenberg, ref1
Westfalia, ref1
Wisby, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11
Wisby Sea Law, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5n, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13, ref14
Amsterdam edition (1551), ref1n
Copenhagen edition (1545), ref1n
Danzig edition (1538), ref1n, ref2
London edition (1536), ref1n
Lübeck edition (1537), ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4
Stockholm edition (1549), ref1n
Wisby Town Law, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref12, ref13
Wismar, ref1
Wollin, ref1
wreck, law of, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8

Zeeland, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5

Zierikzee, ref1n
Zuiderzee, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9, ref10
Zutphen, ref1
Zwolle, ref1