Friday, August 22, 2014

An anniversary, an overview, a break

Last week's post was the 52nd weekly post since I revived and repurposed a moribund blog. That makes this as good a time as any to take a break, as well as a look back.

For the last year, I have tried to maintain a steady “publication” rhythm of posting each Friday evening. But when I return to this blog, I expect to follow a more occasional pace. Realistically, this will not matter to most readers; experience shows that most people find posts here long after they first go up, often through forwarding by others.

Also, when I revived this blog, it was with the view of exploring material for two different books I am working on: one on early medieval French food, the other on the history of French bread. In practice, however, I have drifted more towards the medieval side, perhaps only because research on that side is more challenging. I expect my future posts to lean more towards the bread history side. But who knows?

With this of course there will always be wild cards, as there have through this last year.

With that, a look at this past year's hits – and not.



Popular posts

By far the most popular post on this blog has been the one exploring a common myth: that people in the Middle Ages drank beer and wine to avoid bad water. This is perhaps not so surprising; most people have heard some version of this claim and more than one is surprised to see it methodically demolished. What is perhaps more surprising is that for almost two months the post was barely noticed. Then, after a brief run-up, views again froze for several weeks – until, all of a sudden, a rush of forwards drove views up by the tens of thousands over several days. After that movement peaked, the trend has been more modest, but continues apace nonetheless.

Perhaps more surprising is the fact that the most popular post after that seems to have spread with virtually no public forwards and for, honestly, completely unknown reasons. This is the post on drinks other than beer, wine and water used in the Middle Ages.

Drinks in general seem to be a popular topic – the third most popular post has been on early medieval wine. But of course wine in general is increasingly popular as an interest.

This said, the most popular post after that is on early medieval cheeses. Can't have the one without the other?

It is perhaps not so surprising that the next most popular post is on recipes from medieval medical texts. For a long time, only a handful of medieval recipe books have been known. Any new possibilities are likely to interest those seeking to make more medieval dishes, and medical works are an under-used source of recipes.


No? Really?

If the success of some posts comes as a surprise, the lack of success of others shows how hard it is to predict what others will like. Not of all these were necessary unsuccessful in terms of views, just less successful than I had initially expected.

Lancelot de Casteau's Ouverture de Cuisine (1604) is a classic of early cuisine which also happens to address Belgian cuisine specifically. But Belgian cuisine in earlier centuries is rarely documented. One would think then that an earlier work on the subject would excite both those with an interest in historical food in general and Belgians in particular. Brother Leonard's fourteenth century dietetic is such a work; it includes a wealth of details not only on the food eaten in Liège in this period, but some specific regional specialties. And it is not like the four posts examining this work have been completely ignored. But certainly they have proved less exciting to my readers in general than I might have expected.

The history of Roman aqueducts which survived into the early Middle Ages would seem to be a unique and fascinating subject, as would that of snails used as funeral ornaments. But neither has attracted much attention. The story of breads which have survived in archaeology across many centuries has begun to attract some interest, but this has taken longer than I might have expected with so unique a tale.

Since horse meat has even been in the news in recent years, one would think that the long history of eating it in France would draw general interest. But that post has drawn only mediocre interest.

As a general note, it is simply very hard to predict what subjects, within this narrow and somewhat esoteric domain of medieval food, will interest the most readers.


An overview of topics

Though I have not followed any planning in choosing topics for my posts, as a practical matter, the great majority explore aspects of early medieval food. These can be grouped into larger topics, as they are here. Otherwise, a number have been either on late medieval food or on aspects of the period as a whole. Others have been on the periods before the medieval period overall. 

Just two posts have delved into little-known aspects of Roman food. This is still arguably related to early medieval food, since so much of the preparation remained essentially Roman.


ROMAN

Beyond Apicius (2): recipes from other Roman sources

Beyond Apicius: alternate sources on Roman food



EARLY MEDIEVAL FOOD

Drink

The water highways of Gaul

Early Medieval French wine

Stumbling through history towards beer

Getting drunk in Medieval France


The great Medieval water myth

The later water myths: Old Regime water after the Middle Ages
Later water myths: early America
http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2014/07/later-water-myths-early-america.html

Beyond wine, water and beer: what else they drank in Medieval France



Specific foods

The small, tart plum of my eyes

Of peas, beans, monks and kings


The meat of the matter / The matter of meat

Killing Pegasus: a history of horse meat in France

Lamprey, fish ponds, and carp

Whaling in Medieval France


Spices in France in the Dark Ages

A soup for the Bishop of Tours

Saved by fire: breads in archeology
http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2014/01/saved-by-fire-breads-in-archeology.html


The luxury of butter

OLD REGIME CHEESE: 1. The lost cheeses of Medieval France
http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2014/03/old-regime-cheese-1-lost-cheeses-of.html

OLD REGIME CHEESE: 2. What, no Camembert?
http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2014/03/old-regime-cheese-2-what-no-camembert.html



Serving

A matter of courses

At the table in early medieval France

Tableware in early Medieval France



Commerce

Using coins in early medieval France
Fairs and markets in France from the Gauls to the Halles

Comparing prices in medieval France



Religious

Shifts in fasting in medieval France

Food in early monastic rules

Food of the early French saints

Christmas in early Medieval France



Sources

Sources on early medieval French food


Food in Frankish laws

Food in other Germanic codes



LATE MEDIEVAL

http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-doctors-blancmange-medieval-recipes.html

The early history of the Paris Halles

A FOURTEENTH CENTURY DIETETIC: 1. What is a dietetic?

A FOURTEENTH CENTURY DIETETIC: 2. Brother Leonard on diet and health

A FOURTEENTH CENTURY DIETETIC: 3. Belgian (Walloon/Liègeois) food in the fourteenth century

A FOURTEENTH CENTURY DIETETIC: 4. Brother Leonard on behavior and attitude
http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-fourteenth-century-dietetic-brother.html



GENERAL EARLY MEDIEVAL

French cities in the Dark Ages



In defense of the Franks (and other “barbarian hordes”)


The funereal snails


GENERAL MEDIEVAL FOOD

French hospital food in the Middle Ages

The doctor's blancmange: Medieval recipes from medical texts
http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-doctors-blancmange-medieval-recipes.html

Making Early Medieval food

Beyond the peacocks: what most Medieval eaters actually ate
http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2014/04/beyond-peacocks-what-most-medieval.html



BREAD

Back to one bread?


What got a rise out of French bakers?


Saved by fire: breads in archeaology


The Yeast Paradox



Friday, August 15, 2014

Comparing prices in medieval France

A common question in history is “what did X cost back then in today's money?”. Those who study such things seem to feel this question can never really be answered; there are far too many variables. To cite random examples from medieval France: the size of livestock not only was very different from today's, it varied within the period; the exact weight of the pound and the exact value of particular currencies varied; quantities are not always clearly defined; the quality of products (as today) varied by region and class. Even where one has the data to adjust for all these variables, the task approaches rocket science in its complexity; but with no such precision in the underlying data.

It is also true that what information has survived has done so fitfully, so that sometimes we have figures for one region, but in a century or two only for another, or figures for one cut of beef or pork at one moment and others at another. Simply assembling sufficient like data for comparisons is often problematic.

Still, the question persists and with it attempts to answer it. One aspect of it which is the most promising is simply getting a feel for comparative values at a given moment. Even this is uncertain. What is the price of a hamburger today – that charged in a fast food restaurant or that in a luxury hotel? Similar variations exist in earlier periods, with the painful difference that often all that survives is the mention of a product with no context around it.

What follows is certainly not intended to answer such questions in any substantial way. Rather it is an overview of some of the sources available for those who care to delve further.


Germanic laws

Until the late medieval period, mentions of specific prices are very rare. For the early medieval period, they are virtually non-existent (unless one counts Diocletian's Edict, which established a Roman scale of comparison just before the medieval period itself.) But some very broad ideas of value can be deduced from the early Germanic laws. With a few exceptions, these did not define value directly; rather, they set a compensation to be paid for the theft or damage of various items. Often, in fact, this was in addition to the (unspecified) value of the item. Still the amounts charged as (very approximately) fines can be informative.

The richest source in this regard is the Salic law (the written law of the Salian Franks). This shows, in a general way, how important pork was to the Franks. The section on animals begins with a long series of articles on the theft of pigs, distinguishing these not only by age and use, but where the animal was when stolen, etc. The difference in importance between pigs and cattle is uncertain. Theft of either a suckling pig or calf cost 120 deniers, whereas for a suckling lamb it cost 7. Theft of a weaned pig 40, a one year old pig 120 (the same as for a one or two year old sheep) and a two year old pig, 600.

What exactly one can deduce from this is uncertain, though it seems that pigs were valued mainly as they grew bigger. Theft of a one year old calf also cost 600 deniers, but the difference in size means that a calf was not necessarily valued, pound for pound, more than a pig. Theft of a cow cost 1200, with her calf 1400; theft of an ox, 1400. Given their proportionate sizes (even if all this livestock was far smaller than today), pigs and cattle seem to have been equally valued overall.

Aside from the pronounced difference for sucklings, a difference appears for pigs and sheep when more than one was stolen. The theft of three to six pigs was fined 1400, beyond that 600; but the theft of two to three sheep up to forty cost 1400. Meaning sheep were valued more in the aggregate than pigs?

Goats clearly had a lower value (though even today they can be very small and at the time they may have been even smaller.) The fine for stealing a kid (120) was the same as for stealing up to three adults; only above that was it 600.

Male animals used for breeding always warranted a premium (in the fine). Theft of a billy goat cost 600. Theft of a bull who was head of a herd cost 1800 if he had been bred with “cows of three districts” 1800; 1400 if he had not yet been mated. (Experience counted for the Franks, apparently).

Note again that usually these costs were in addition to the actual value of the animals, as well as the costs of the pursuit.

Notes on cultivation are less informative. Going into a field of turnips, broad beans, peas or lentils (or similar) to steal cost 120 d. So did stealing a fruit tree outside an enclosure; inside cost 600 d. (This seems to have more to do with respect for private spaces than any inherent value.) Harvesting someone else's grapes cost 600 d and actually carrying the grapes (vinum) to their own place in a wagon 1800. (Vinum here has also been translated as “wine”, but it defies belief that anyone would have time to produce wine before carting the product off someone else's property.) This certainly seems to indicate that grapes (and the wine they produced) were considered more valuable than standard crops.

With hives, the issue of a protected space again appears. Stealing a hive from under a roof or in a locked enclosure cost 1800; while taking up to six among a large number outside a habitation cost 600. 

However taking seven or more, or if no more remained, cost 1800. Note that these amounts are comparable to those for larger or more valued animals. 

The other Germanic laws are less informative, but do include stray information on values

The Burgundian Code rarely mentions specific amounts. But it does require all golden solidi to be accepted so long as they have the right weight EXCEPT those of Ventinien (or possibly of Valence), of Geneva, of the Goths since Alaric's time and either the Ardarican or Armorican (that is, Breton) types. This implies that these were not considered trustworthy (which implies conversely that the authorities trusted most others). 

Where values appear in this and most other laws, they are in gold coins (solidi, or, in early French records, sous). Otherwise, this law offers a curious standard of value in the amounts to be paid to a seer to find:

- a slave, five solidi

- mare, two solidi, male horse three

- first class ox, two

- cow, sheep, pig, one

- goat, a third (that is, a triens or tremissis)

A creditor who took oxen as collateral when other options were available paid twelve solidi for, apparently, a pair; twenty four for two pair. This seems to have corresponded to at least a reasonable price for these, since he was not then obliged to return them.

Someone caught stealing in a vineyard during the day paid three solidi to the owner and three as a fine. Again, this suggests a high value for vines overall.

Ripuarian law has little on goods. It does set that someone who skins a dead horse, or other animal, without the owner's consent will pay 30 solidi (a high price, suggesting skins had some value).

The Bavarian law defines widely different compensations for arson. Burning the "culmen" (the decorative peak?) of a free man's house cost 40 solidi. Burning a solidly built barn surrounded by walls, 12, but a lesser one, not surrounded by walls, 6.

Burning a granary only cost 3. The same applied to structures, like bakeries, kitchens and baths, set apart because they used fire. These also were not inhabited, while on the other hand 12 were paid (it is not clear by whom, other than a free man), when a house was burned, but all the occupants were saved. The payment was specifically for the risk of death.

The law of the Alemanni speaks specifically of a first class stallion worth around 12 solidi and of an ordinary horse, worth more or less 6; also a mare worth 3. But if she leads a herd, the owner can ask up to 12. If one is nursing, 6.

Among the items a serf was obliged to provide his lord each year was a pig worth a tremissis. This probably was the average value of a pig at this point, though it is always possible that one of superior value was intended.

Note that here these are values, not fines. Killing an ox was (apparently) fined 5 triens (tremisses) for an excellent, 4 for a mediocre one and to decide for the lesser ones.

All this of course is very thin data. But realistically it is mainly what we have for this early period. The nineteenth century writer Benjamin Guérard (1797-1854) did not hesitate (however arguably) to treat the legal compositions in these laws as prices, translating them into 1844 francs. The results are not uninteresting, but should of course be regarded with great reserve:
According to the law of the Ripuarians (XXXVI, 11), the price of a good ox intended for work was 2 sous = 180 francs; of a good cow, 3 sous=270 francs...

The price set by the Burgundian Code... for an excellent horse, 10 sous = 900 francs; for an ordinary horse, 6 sous = 540 francs; for a mare, 3 sous = 270 francs (IV, 1); for a pig, a sheep or a hive, the same amount as for a cow; for a goat, a triens or 13 deniers 1/2 = 30 frances (IV, 30)

The prices set by the law of the Allamans were: for a stallion or a marach horse, 1


The price set by the Burgundian Code... for an excellent horse, 10 sous = 900 francs; for an ordinary horse, 6 sous = 540 francs; for a mare, 3 sous = 270 francs (IV, 1); for a pig, a sheep or a hive, the same amount as for a cow; for a goat, a triens or 13 deniers 1/2 = 30 frances (IV, 30>

The prices set by the law of the Allamans were: for a stallion or a marach horse, 12 sous = 1080 francs (LXIX, 1 and 2); for an ordinary horse, 6 sous=540 france, and for a mare, 3 sous = 280 f..... for a foal, 3 sous = 270 f; for a bull, the same; for a first quality cow, 14 tremissis = 120 f. and for a second quality cow, 1 sou = 90 f (LXXV); for a first quality ox, 5 tremissis = 150 francs, and for an average ox, 4 tremissis=120f (LXXVIII)....
(Guérard continues after this into random data from various subsequent sources. Readers of French might want to follow him on this fitful path.)


Charlemagne

Charlemagne left one of the most explicit statements of comparative values for this period in his Frankfurt Capitulary of 794. First, he sets the prices for specific grains: “For a modius of oats, one denier, for a modius of barley, two, a modius of rye three, a modius of wheat four deniers”. This appears to be the first specific statement of relative grain values for the medieval period. Grains from royal domains were cheaper, implying a kind of public price subsidy: “two muids of oats or one of barley for one denier, one muid of rye for two and one of wheat for three.”

Gerard translates all this into 1844 francs: oats, 3f 50c, barley 7f, rye, 10f 50c, wheat 14f; for the royal grains, oats, 1f 75c, with multiples implied for the rest.

What follows is the first known attempt to control bread prices: “If one wants to sell it as bread, twelve loaves of wheat, each of two pounds, must be given for one denier... fifteen of rye, of two pounds each, twenty of barley, of two pounds each, twenty five of oats, of two pounds each."

The fifth capitulary of 806, from Noyon, followed a famine and specifies lesser prices for a modius of grain: oats, two, barley or spelt, three, rye, four, "prepared" wheat, six. (Peyré) (“Prepared” probably means properly sifted, etc.) It has been suggested that this was in response to the famine, but Guérard points out that the famine in question was local and that there had also been a famine in 793. So he credits the difference in price rather to a change in the modius:
This modius was newly instituted, since Charlemagne calls it modium publicum et noviter statutum. ... what previously yielded 3 modius now will give 2; which seems to indicate a newly instituted modius and with the volume of one old modius and a half; and as it is not likely that Charlemagne changed twice, and in a fairly short time, the principal measure of grains and liquids, one must believe that it is not another modius which is in question than that of 794. This last then will have been made in making only two modius of the three old one, and the latter must have been worth two thirds of the new ones.
He then goes on to look at subsequent changes in the same measure. The details would not be helpful here; above all this shows some of the issues in trying to compare like prices across even a few years. But again, Charlemagne's prices remain valuable guides to the comparative values of these grains.

The Saxon Capitulary of 797, delivered at Aix-la-Chapelle, defined the solidus for the Saxons, setting it initially as the price of a bull or cow before fattening. A bull or a cow a year old, cost 1 Saxon solidus in Autumn, when entering the stable, more when coming out in the Spring, in function of how much it had grown. It also includes prices for grain, though comparing these to Charlemagne's earlier ones is problematic; first of all, they differ for the Bortrini and those in the north (neither clearly defined). For the Bortrini, forty measures (scapilos) of wheat cost one solidos, as did twenty of rye (strangely, since rye was typically less expensive). For those of the north (Septentrionales), thirty measures of wheat and fifteen of rye were given for a solidos. Once again, the comparative values are what are of most interest here.

Where Salic law suggests the value of honey by referencing the theft of hives, this capitulary is the first to directly refer to the product, for which the Bortrini were to give one and a half buckets (siglae) for a solidus. while those of the north gave two. (This is the first indication of a price for honey in these centuries and suggests that it was very expensive, a bucket having almost the value of a bull or a cow.) The same [measure of?] ground barley and wheat was given for a solidus. (The text then specifies that twelve deniers make a solidus.)


Leber

Guérard was not the only nineteenth century writer to try to make sense of medieval prices. M. C. Leber (Jean Michel Constant Leber, 1780-1859) analyzed a number of these as part of his study of “The Growth of Private Fortune”. He translates his figures into money of roughly the same period; more precisely, 1842. Again this is above all useful for getting a sense of the comparative values, though some readers might find it interesting to translate his 1842 prices into modern ones (with all the additional imprecision that implies).

He lists a variety of wages, starting with a quote from the Journal de Paris for 1448: "A loaf a man could live on was paid a good double, of which three are worth 4d parisis." Leber makes this 8d. or about 20 centimes of 1842. (The original document includes numerous mentions of prices, for those who care to dig.) Some others he gives are:
1307 Bakers workers made, weekly, 2 sous (11 francs, 40 centimes, 1842). A blacksmith made 4 deniers a day (1 f 90c).

1408 the great officers of the king's household (great chamberlain, great butler, etc) each had 2000 l[ivres] in wages (88,000f 1842). A king's notary got 6s (13f 20c).

1437, a grape-harvester's day was paid 2d (30c 1842); a basket carrier's, 8d (1f 22c, 1842).
This is followed by selected goods:
1312 a setier of broad beans was worth 7s 3d (29f 88c). A pig, 14s 7d (60f 10c). A sheep, 6s 8d). An ox, 4l 15s (391f 88c).

1375-76 a wagonload of logs 14s (38f 50c). A pint of wine 2d 1/2 (57c). A pig, 2l 7s 1d (129f 48c). A sheep, 11s 6d 1/2 (31f 74c).

1406-15 a pig 2l (97f 80c). A sheep 10s 5d (21f 48c). A setier of peas, 1l 12s (66f). A pint of good wine 2d (34c).

1470-72 100 eggs 3s (4f 50c). A calf 15s (22f 50c).

1492-98, pint of ordinary wine, 2d 1/2 (29c). A pint of Beaune wine, 1s (1f 38c). A capon, 3s 9d (5f 15c). A pair of pigeons, 1s (1f 38c). A setier of oats, 16c (22f).
He also adds this piquant note: "In the same period, wine costing 2d 1/2 the pint, a low mass was paid 1s 3d. There were then six pints of wine to drink in the price of a XVth century mass."


Avenel

Perhaps the most extensive, if widely criticized, effort in this regard comes from Georges, viscount d'Avenel (1855-1939). Avenel relentlessly inventoried prices from all manner of sources and assembled price and wage lists across centuries, translating these along the way into francs of his time. A number of criticisms have been made of his work; that in using “authentic” documents, he treated these as accurate (which of course is not the same thing); that he took the values given for products provided as rents when the standard sale prices were probably lower; etc. Presumably no serious student of the subject will proceed without seeking out the most recent work on this subject and doing all the necessary calculations to approach a meaningful result. But for the casual reader, Avenel's manically thorough lists provide a suggestive overview of comparative values. It is especially helpful in his case that he tries to convert period prices into unit prices of his own time, since the quantities in the original records vary so widely (though another critique of Avenel might be that he boldly assigns quantities to measures, like the muid/modius for instance, whose size some consider uncertain).

Below are just a few extracts from the hundreds of pages of Avenel's fourth volume which contains a whole series of tables of prices for various goods. Where possible these have been grouped by region or locality, since that is often a key variable in these costs. The period prices are indicated to give an idea of the ranges of amounts which applied for different periods, but these of course have to be related to the widely varying quantities (which can be seen in the original tables). Avenel's 1894 equivalents of the prices are probably very approximate, but have the advantage of being calculated by unit and so make comparisons across years that much simpler.

Strangely, Avenel lists prices for various pastries, but does not include prices for bread (which are easy to obtain, since they were often set by municipalities.) Otherwise, among some of the more common items, it is interesting to see the prices of pigs (long a favored food) and cattle (becoming more popular among the elite as the Middle Ages ended), as well as bacon, a staple across the centuries. Pepper had been the most expensive spice in previous centuries; salt became more expensive as more taxes applied to it. Prices for both are of interest (Avenel also includes those for a variety of spices). General prices for wine are of course of interest, but is also interesting to see those for specific wines, especially the wine of Beaune, which would be an elite favorite for centuries. Its price seems to have varied widely. Hypocras, the spiced wine which was the favored digestif for centuries, seems to have consistently been expensive relative to plain wine, even the better wines.

These are just samples of the kinds of comparisons which can be found in Avenel's data. At the same time, one should not be fooled by its apparent precision. For a modern researcher, it is one of several starting points, but not by any means definitive.


Pigs

Year
Period price
Region
1894 price by head
852
8 deniers
Brittany
2f 69c
1146
3 sous
Normandy
3f 66c
1180
2 sous 6 deniers
Normandy
3f 06c
1203
3 sous
Normandy
3f 25c
1307
10 sous
Normandy
6f 70c
1328
1 livre 5 sous
Normandy
15f 31c
1442
21 sous
Normandy
6f 82c
1465
30 to 18 sous
Normandy
6f 27c
1312
14 sous
Paris
9f 38c
1322
21 sous 6 deniers
Paris
13f 16c
1372
2 livres 15 sous
Paris
24f 48c
1397
2 livres
Paris
15f 06c
1413
1 livre 18 sous
Paris
13f 02c
1440
5 sous 6 deniers
Paris
1f 80c
1468
17 sous
Paris
4f 50c
1542
2 livres
Paris
6f 68c


Bacon

Year
Period price
Region
1894 price by kilogram
1342
2 livres
Franche-Comte
57c
1354
2 sous 6 deniers
Lorraine
1f 80c
1384
7 deniers 1/2
Arras
56c
1404
1 livres 10 sous to 2 livres
Orleans
88c
1510
1 sous 6 deniers
Nevers
70c
1560
3 sous
Orelans
1f


Oxen

Year
Period price
Region
1894 price by head
834
3 sous
Brittany
12f 15c
840
8 sous 6 deniers
Paris region
34f 43c
1190
15 sous
Normandy
16f 30c
1249
70 sous
Provence
65f 52c
1255
1 livre 15 sous
Normandy
35f
1264
20 sous
Provence
18f 72c
1273
386 livres 109 sous
Brittany
59f
1314
36 sous
Artois
24f 12c
1322
3 l 2 sous 6 deniers
Paris
38f 27c
1340
7 livres 13 sous
Paris
93f 71c
1426
7 livres
Paris
39f 83c
1465
16 livres
Paris
84f 64c
1542
8 livres
Paris
26f 72c


Pepper

Year
Period price
Region
1894 francs per kilogram
1264
4 sous
Paris
5f 36c
1318
4 sous
Paris
5f 40c
1341
8 sous
Paris
14f 70c
1450
4 sous 4 deniers
near Paris
2f 46c


Salt

Year
Period price
Region
1894 francs per kilogram
1202
1 sous 9 deniers
Paris
0 04c
1287
1 sous 5 deniers
Paris
0 03c
1295
4 sous
Paris
0 08c
1375
1 livre 5 sous 3 deniers
Paris
0 34c
1390
1 livre 4 sous 8 deniers
Paris
0 28c
1413
1 livre 4 sous
Near Paris
0 19c
1426
1 livre 13 sous
Near Paris
0 24c
1470
11 sous 8 derniers
Paris
0 09c


Wine

Year
Period price
Region
1894 francs per hectoliter
1180
16 livres
Manche
7f 62c
1180
100 livres
Rouen
5f 10c
1195
5 1ivres 8 sous
Rouen
13f 11c
1202
15 sous
Paris
4f 86c
1268
4-12 deniers parisis
Paris
89f
1287
3 livres 8 sous
Paris
25f 36c
1312
3 livres 4 sous
Paris
16f
1328
6-4 livres
Paris
15f 30c
1390
6 livres
Paris
11f 23c
1418
5 deniers
Paris
15f 5c



White Burgundy wine


Year
Period price
Region
1894 francs per hectoliter
1317
13 livres
Paris
43f 33c


Champigny wine

Year
Period price
Region
1894 francs per hectoliter
1317
13 – 16 livres
Paris
21f


Saint-Pourçain wine

Year
Period price
Region
1894 francs per hectoliter
1316
12 livres 10 sous
Paris
41f 65c
1328
12 livres
Paris
36f 54c


Beaune wine

Year
Period price
Region
1894 francs per hectoliter
1322
11 livres 15 sous
Paris
35f 78s
1372
3 sous 9 deniers
Paris
166f
1380
6 livres 5 sous
Paris
16f 60c
1388
3 livres
Paris
9f 95c
1421
1 sous
Paris
36f 56c


Hyprocras

Year
Period price
Region
1894 francs per hectoliter
1393
10 sous
Paris
201f
1417
15 sous
Orleans
229f
1469
2 livres, 5 sous to 15 sous
Orleans
353f 70c
1551
7 sous 6 deniers
Orleans
110f 80c




FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: