Hunting Regulations in Geneva (1536-1550)

Welcome to "Really Calvin, is this an ideal life? A historical podcast." In today's episode, we're exploring the fascinating world of hunting regulations in 16th-century Geneva. Between 1536 and 1550, the city's leaders, known as the Seigneurie, implemented a complex system of ordinances to manage wildlife resources. These laws prohibited hunting certain species during specific seasons, primarily to protect game animals and ensure their reproduction.
But this wasn't just about conservation. The hunting regulations became a flashpoint for political tensions, particularly with neighboring Bernese bailiffs and nobles who challenged Geneva's authority. Despite the strict rules on paper, enforcement was often flexible, with exceptions made for special events. This nuanced approach to game management offers us a unique window into the intricate web of local politics, resource management, and social hierarchies in Calvin's Geneva. Join us as we uncover how something as seemingly simple as hunting regulations can reveal the complex dynamics of a city in the throes of religious and social transformation.

If you prefer another audio platform (Spotify, Podcast Addict, Deezer, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Overcast...), click here!

*******

Speaker #0 - Welcome back, everyone. We're diving into something a little different this time. 16th century Geneva, but not the Reformation, not clocks, but... hunting. And the whole relationship between people and animals. Actually, we've got some excerpts from this study... 

Speaker #1 - Okay. 

Speaker #0 - ... "Animaux sauvages" by Christophe Chazalon. It came out pretty recently. 

Speaker #1 - The primary source stuff. 

Speaker #0 - Yeah. And it's not what you think. I mean, it's these little glimpses of daily life, you know. 

Speaker #1 - That's always the good stuff, isn't it? More interesting than the big treaties and all that. 

Speaker #0 - Right. And even some humor in there, which is kind of wild. But the thing that really struck me was how regulated hunting was. I mean, the Geneva government. ..

Speaker #1 - The signory. 

Speaker #0 - Yeah, the signory. They had a whole system. 

Speaker #1 - They were really on top of it. And it wasn't just about keeping the good spots for the rich folks. 

Speaker #0 - You think so? 

Speaker #1 - It seems like they were genuinely concerned about managing the... game population, you know, making sure there was enough for everyone. 

Speaker #0 - So what kind of, like, give me an example. What kind of rules did they have? 

Speaker #1 - Well, in 1547, they put in this four-month hunting ban. 

Speaker #0 - A four-month ban. 

Speaker #1 - Yeah, just to protect the breeding birds. 

Speaker #0 - That's intense. 

Speaker #1 - And get this, it started right when the weather was getting nicer.

Speaker #0 - Like springtime, when everybody wants to be outside. 

Speaker #1 - Exactly. Can you imagine that today? I mean, that's some serious environmental awareness. 

Speaker #0 - Yeah, I was going to say, is that conservationism? Or were they just being practical, you know, thinking about the future food supply? 

Speaker #1 - Hard to say for sure. But, I mean, four months, that suggests they knew something about breeding cycles and, you know, how to keep things balanced. 

Speaker #0 - It's pretty impressive. So, OK, they're regulating everything. But the records mention these "grosses bêtes", like big beasts. Any idea what those were? 

Speaker #1 - Well, probably the usual suspects, deer, boar, maybe elk. But the funny thing is, it's never specific. So, you know, makes you wonder what else was out there. Like, yeah, were there bears around Geneva? Wolves? We don't know from these records. 

Speaker #0 - So a little mystery. But OK, so we've got this careful management, maybe even early conservation. But it wasn't all peaceful, was it? I mean, the records talk about some serious conflicts. 

Speaker #1 - Oh, yeah. There were clashes with officials from Bern. For one, they thought they could just hunt wherever they wanted, even on Geneva's land. 

Speaker #0 - Just waltzing in. 

Speaker #1 - Pretty much, created a lot of tension, naturally. And there's even this record of a guy, Claude Cochet.

Speaker #0 - What did he do? 

Speaker #1 - Well, the Bernese officials jailed him just for hunting.

Speaker #0 - Seriously. 

Speaker #1 - And Geneva's response, well, let's just say they were being very caushes. Lots of political stuff going on, you know. 

Speaker #0 - Ah, politics, always mucking things up. And wasn't there also tension closer to home, like between the nobles and everyone else? 

Speaker #1 - Oh, absolutely. We see nobles pulling rank, even getting violent with peasants who, you know, dared to question them. Oh, yeah. Yeah. There's this one guy, Marin de Saconnex, who called himself the "Grand Veneur", the great huntsman of Gex. He and his buddies caused quite a ruckus. Shows you social class played a big role in all this, especially when you're talking about something as valuable as hunting. 

Speaker #0 - Yeah, makes sense. So it's not just the rules, but also the people, right? Like their lives, their conflicts. 

Speaker #1 - Exactly. And sometimes those little stories are surprisingly relatable, like there's this one about a guy who asks to hunt venison. 

Speaker #0 - For what? 

Speaker #1 - For his wedding feast and the signore. They say yes. 

Speaker #0 - Oh, nice. 

Speaker #1 - But get this. They say, OK, but no musicians. 

Speaker #0 - No musicians at a wedding? What? 

Speaker #1 - It's bizarre, right? Who knows what their logic was? Maybe they thought musicians would get too rowdy. 

Speaker #0 - Anti-party Geneva. 

Speaker #1 - Maybe. But it's just it's so human, you know, makes you think about how things have changed, what people valued back then. 

Speaker #0 - Speaking of interesting figures, there's this guy in the records, Denis Hughes, the "Grand Gruyer". 

Speaker #1 - Ah, yes. Appointed in 1549. Basically a forest warden. He enforced all those rules. But his pay, all from the fines he collected. 

Speaker #0 - Wait, so he got paid from the fines? 

Speaker #1 - Yep. Kind of a conflict of interest, maybe? 

Speaker #0 - I was going to say, talk about an incentive to be strict. 

Speaker #1 - Right. The records don't mention if anyone was watching him, so who knows? Makes you wonder if he was, you know, always by the book or if you look the other way sometimes. 

Speaker #0 - That's a great point. It's amazing how these records... which seem so, you know, official and dry, can spark these really interesting conversations. 

Speaker #1 - It really is. History's full of these little details that when you look closer, they tell you so much about the time and place. 

Speaker #0 - It really makes you think, doesn't it? I mean, about those little details, those everyday things that we usually don't even think about. 

Speaker #1 - Right. And how they can completely change our understanding of the past. 

Speaker #0 - Okay. So we've been talking a lot about the regulations and the people, but what about the animals themselves? What do these records actually tell us about the wildlife in 16th century Geneva? 

Speaker #1 - Well, we know they had the bigger animals like the deer and boar. There's also mention of birds being hunted, thrushes, quail, even pigeons. 

Speaker #0 - Oh, yeah. The pigeons. I remember that part. They were really concerned about protecting pigeons in their nests. Why was that? Were pigeons like some kind of fancy food back then? 

Speaker #1 - Probably more of a staple, really. Don't forget, this was long before factory farms and all that. So a dovecote, you know, a place to raise pigeons would have been pretty valuable, whether you lived in the city or out in the country. 

Speaker #0 - Basically like a 16th century chicken coop. 

Speaker #1 - Pretty much. But what's interesting is what's not mentioned.

Speaker #0 - Like what?

Speaker #1 - No bears. No wolves. 

Speaker #0 - So does that mean they were already gone by the 16th century? 

Speaker #1 - It's possible. Maybe habitat loss. Or too much hunting. Or maybe encounters were just so rare they didn't bother writing them down. 

Speaker #0 - So another little mystery. 

Speaker #1 - Exactly. And that just leads to more questions. Like the records mention hunting with these "filets" and "perches". 

Speaker #0 - "Filets" and "perches". 

Speaker #1 - It means they were using nets. 

Speaker #0 - Nets. So like... trapping the birds. 

Speaker #1 - Seems like it. But unfortunately, no details on exactly how they did it. So we get this little glimpse, but not the full picture. 

Speaker #0 - Again, more mystery. 

Speaker #1 - Always. 

Speaker #0 - Okay. So putting it all together, what do you think this tells us about the relationship between people and animals back then? Seems kind of complicated. 

Speaker #1 - That's a fair assessment. I mean, on one hand, you've got this effort to manage things, make sure there's enough for everyone, which I think shows some level of respect. 

Speaker #0 - Yeah, that's true. But then you also have the conflicts, the power struggles. And let's be real, they were exploiting these animals for food, for sport. 

Speaker #1 - That's true. And it's important to remember, we're only seeing one side of the story here. 

Speaker #0 - What do you mean? 

Speaker #1 - Well, these are the human records, right? They reflect the priorities of the government, the people in charge. We don't know what the animals thought about all this. 

Speaker #0 - That's such a good point. Like we can read about the rules and the arguments, but what was it like to be a deer? Or a thrush. Just trying to survive in that world. 

Speaker #1 - Exactly. It makes you think about the bigger picture, you know, how humans were impacting the environment. 

Speaker #0 - It's almost like... I don't know, it makes me wonder if things have really changed that much, you know, in all these centuries. I'm definitely feeling, I want to learn more, for sure. 

Speaker #1 - Well, sadly, we can't get firsthand accounts from the animals themselves. 

Speaker #0 - Yeah, that's true. 

Speaker #1 - But we could look at other things, maybe folklore, stories that were passed down, those might offer a different perspective. 

Speaker #0 - Ooh, like what kind of stories did people tell about the animals? That's interesting. 

Speaker #1 - Right. Or even artwork, literature. How did they depict animals? What role did they play in, you know, the culture's imagination? 

Speaker #0 - I can just picture it like some medieval tapestry with a hunting scene and all the little rabbits in the background looking worried. 

Speaker #1 - I love it. But really, looking at those other sources, it could add so much more nuance to what we know. 

Speaker #0 - It's like filling in more pieces of the puzzle, right? 

Speaker #1 - Exactly. 

Speaker #0 - Well, I'll tell you, after this deep dive, I'm never going to look at a pigeon the same way again. 

Speaker #1 - That's the goal, to make you think differently. 

Speaker #0 - You know what's funny? It's like, I always see pigeons. But I never really see them. Not until we started talking about all this. 

Speaker #1 - It's amazing what a little historical perspective can do. 

Speaker #0 - Right. Okay, so... before we get too sidetracked, no pun intended, with the whole rabbit thing earlier, I think it's time to... try to sum up what we've learned for our listeners. What are some of the big takeaways here? 

Speaker #1 - Well, I think the most important thing is just recognizing how complex the relationship between humans and wildlife has always been. 

Speaker #0 - It's definitely not simple. 

Speaker #1 - Not at all. I mean, even back in the 16th century, you see these glimmers of awareness about the environment, political tensions, even a sense of compassion. It's all mixed together. 

Speaker #0 - You know, it's interesting you say that because it reminds me of that story about the wedding feast. 

Speaker #1 - The one with the no musicians rule. 

Speaker #0 - Yeah. It would have been so easy for the scenery to just say yes or no to the hunting request. But they added that extra layer, like trying to find a balance between celebrating and, I don't know, respecting the animals or something. 

Speaker #1 - It's a great example of how these historical records, they're full of these little surprises, things that make the past feel more real. If we only focused on the big stuff, we'd miss all that, the human side of things. 

Speaker #0 - Yeah, it's not just the what. but the how and the why, right? 

Speaker #1 - Absolutely. And that's what makes history so fascinating. 

Speaker #0 - Totally agree. So big takeaway, history is full of layers, always more to uncover. Any other final thoughts before we wrap things up? 

Speaker #1 - How about this? Next time you're out and about, take a moment to really look at the wildlife around you, even the pigeons. 

Speaker #0 - Ah, okay, I will. 

Speaker #1 - And remember, our relationship with the natural world, it has this incredibly long, complicated past, and it's up to us to decide what's that relationship will look like in the future. 

Speaker #0 - That's a great point. Well, thanks for joining me on this deep dive. Always a pleasure. 

Speaker #1 - Thanks for having me. 

Speaker #0 - And to all our listeners, until next time. Keep exploring.

********

Wild animals and hunting in Geneva between 1536 and 1550

By Dr. Christophe Chazalon (2025/01)

The last source of mentions of animals in the Council registers concerns wild animals. While on November 20, 1544, the watchman Thomas Regis received 1 écu from the Seigneury as a reward for the she-wolf he killed[01], most of the time, the decrees rather notify the prohibition of hunting, not so much to preserve the right of the rich and wealthy, as is too often read in books on the Middle Ages, but rather to regulate game. Thus, as soon as the Seigneury came to power, on October 13, 1536, it ordered cries to be made in Jussy « que nulz ne chasse aux grosses bestes » ("that no one hunts large animals"). It remains to be known what the « grosses bestes » ("large animals") are. Probably wild boars, piglets, deer, does, fallow deer, fawns... Today's big game. What about bears or wolves, or even foxes or badgers? We do not know. For other animals, the registers are more precise. Following a decision taken in December 1539 by the Bernese bailiff of Ternier to prohibit the inhabitants of Saint-Victor from hunting thrush, the Council replied « de luy fere les remonstrances coment nousditz subjectz, de tous temps, ont esté en coustume de chasser aut grives sans contredicte » ("to make remonstrances to him how our said subjects, at all times, have been accustomed to hunt thrushes without contradiction"), and this, with « filès et perches »[02] ("nets and poles").

The preservation of game, and more particularly birds, seems to be an important element for the Seigneury. On March 17, 1547, it was decided that « pource que les saulvagines et volaltallies qui à present coment et sont en rut, soyent preservés et puyssent venyr à perfection, a esté ordonné de fere cryes, tant en Geneve que à Pigney, Jussiez, Cillignin, Gento, Sainct-Victeur et Chapitre, que entre cy et la Sainct-Jaques, en julliet, ce ayent à desporter de chasser »[03] ("because the game and poultry which are now coming and are in rut, be preserved and may come to perfection, it has been ordered to make cries, both in Geneva and in Pigney, Jussiez, Cillignin, Gento, Sainct-Victeur and Chapitre, that between now and Saint-Jaques, in July, they abstain from hunting"). Saint-Jacques-de-Compostelle being July 25, this makes 4 months of total prohibition on all Genevan lands, while the beautiful days reappear. However, the preservation of birds regularly reappears in the Council registers. In February 1548, following a conflict with the bailiff of Ternier, the Seigneury reiterated the previous decision.[04] In March 1549, the decree is more vague: « Resoluz que cries soyent fayctes de ne chasser à bestes deffendues pour la preservation des petits jusque la liberté et licence soyt oultroyé »[05] ("Resolved that cries be made not to hunt forbidden animals for the preservation of the young until freedom and license be granted"). Less than a week later, however, the Council ordered new cries prohibiting this time « chasser ny tirer aux pingeons des collombiers pour la preservacion des petits » ("hunting or shooting pigeons from dovecotes for the preservation of the young"), under penalty of 60 sous fine.[06]

For the rest, the Seigneury wants to warn hunters who, often carried away in their momentum, tend not to respect the property of others too much and do not hesitate to destroy what bothers them: crops, fences, etc. On June 6, 1544, it therefore decided that « nul n’aye à gaster, en chasse ny aultrement, les biens de terre sus poienne de soyxante solz »[07] ("no one should spoil, in hunting or otherwise, the goods of the land under penalty of sixty sous"). This decision does not seem to be sufficient since on August 1, 1547, the Council again focuses on the problem. « Pource que plussieurs ce sont venuz lamentés des chasseurs que vont chasser par les vignes aux lyvres [lièvres ?], rompant les sisses et gastant les raysins, sur quoy a esté ordonné de deffendre esd. chasseurs qui n'ayent à chasser par les vignes pendant la prise [la récolte], sus poienne de soyxante solz et de poyé le domage, et ausy qui n'allent à la chasse pendant le sermon »[08] ("Because several have come to complain about the hunters who go hunting in the vineyards for hares(?)], breaking the shoots and spoiling the grapes, on which it has been ordered to forbid said hunters to hunt in the vineyards during the harvest, under penalty of sixty sous and to pay the damage, and also that they do not go hunting during the sermon").

Hunting is therefore strongly regulated. And if the Seigneury grants the right to hunt in Jussy to the gentleman of said place « jouxte l’ancienneté »[09] ("according to ancient custom") or, exceptionally, to a gentleman staying at Jean Goulaz's[10], it categorically refuses, a few months later, this right to the noble Marin de Sacconex who nevertheless alleges « estre le grand veneur de la terre de Gex » ("to be the grand huntsman of the land of Gex"). The conflict dates from December 1546. Indeed, the peasants of Peney came to complain before the Petit Conseil that « Marin de Sacconex et quattre avec luy que sont venuz chasser riere Pigney et hont assailly les payssans à espee et copt de pierre, requerant il avoyer esgard » ("Marin de Sacconex and four with him who came to hunt behind Pigney and attacked the peasants with swords and stone blows, requesting that they be taken into account"). The Seigneury then ordered the castellan of Peney to take the necessary information and charged the peasants to imprison the said belligerent hunters if they returned to the lands of Peney.[11] It should be noted that the phenomenon is not new. In 1542-1543, Amblard de Lucinge, lord of Saint-Cergues, was already hunting behind Jussy « sans obtenyr licence » ("without obtaining a license"). However, failing to be able to punish the noble character, the Seigneury, through the castellan of Jussy, imprisons, for six days on bread and water, Claude Pitard for having « charryé, jusque à Sainct-Cergue, ung cer que le seigneur de Sainct-Cergues havoyt ferus aut boes de Jussiez »[12] ("carried, up to Sainct-Cergue, a deer that the lord of Sainct-Cergues had struck in the woods of Jussiez"). Another similar case: on April 26, 1547, it was Claude d’Aglié, lord of the Rosey and La Corbière, a recalcitrant feudal lord and « ennemi » ("enemy") of Geneva, his son and his servants who hunted « à tous propos » ("at every opportunity"), without authorization, on the lands of the mandement of Peney, for which they are denounced before the Petit Conseil.[13]

The Bernese officers pose just as many problems. Thus, when the Bernese bailiffs decide to go hunting on the side of Jussy, the Seigneury sends its officers so that they « se donnent garde s’il entreront sus Jussie et qu’il le raportent »[14] ("be careful if they enter Jussie and report it"). The delicate political situation with the co-burgesses of Bern and more particularly with their bailiffs, often arrogant and provocative, is the cause of many disputes, including that of hunting on the lands of Saint-Victor and Chapitre, with shared jurisdiction. One could take the case of the Genevan Claude Cochet imprisoned, in 1543, by the bailiff of Ternier, for having hunted on the lands of Gaillard. Learning the news, the Petit Conseil then decided « de escripre aut balliffz de Ternyer qu’il l’aye à liberé si n’est detenu que pour la chasse, pour ce que sumes en liberté de chasser par tout » ("to write to the bailiffs of Ternyer that he should be released if he is only detained for hunting, because we are free to hunt everywhere"). But the bailiff does not care and has even sequestered Cochet's nets and his dog, while saying « que tous cieulx qu’il trouveroy de Geneve chassant, que il les prendroy prisonyers et auroyent perdus leur bastons » ("that all those whom he finds hunting from Geneva, that he will take them prisoner and they will have lost their sticks"). This affront should be punished, but the Seigneury is in the midst of negotiations with the Bernese authorities for the Départ de Bale, so it defers any retaliatory action.[15]

Therefore, when the inhabitants of Céligny, a Genevan enclave in Bernese lands, ask, in 1547, for authorization to hunt because the subjects of Bern come to hunt there without other, the Seigneury can only give them authorization, reserved for the breeding period.[16] Similarly, in July 1549, it can only pardon Claude Buffet and Jean Rolet who « ont exposé que yl est vray que eulx estans à la chasse par le commandement de monsieur de Balleyson[17] et i levarent une lyevre, dont por à suyvirent jusques sus les terres de Jussiez, et porce qui s’entend avoer mal faict si sont venus presenté, priant leur volloer pardonné et leur en faire grace, et y se offrent de non plus y retorné, mais se offrent le deservi envers la Seigniorie. Resoluz que porce qu’y si sont faictz et tenus culpables, que por ceste foys leur soit pardonné en poyant tous despens »[18] ("have stated that it is true that they, being hunting by order of Monsieur de Balleyson and raised a hare there, therefore followed it to the lands of Jussiez, and because they understand that they have done wrong they have come forward, asking to be forgiven and to be granted grace, and they offer not to return there, but they offer to serve the Seigneury. Resolved that because they have made and held themselves guilty, that for this time they be forgiven in paying all expenses").
The Seigneury is however lenient and generous with its own. On April 10, 1550, one can read in the Council register:

« Bathasard Sept a proposé que de prochain il doibt faire ses nopses, et auroit grand desir pour le festiement de la Seignorie avoir de veneyson et pour ce chasser en noz boys moyennant nostre licence, laquelle il a requys luy oultroyer. Surquoy, attendu que c’est pour ses nopces, chose honorable pour le gratiffier, l’on luy oultroye sa requeste, par ce moyeng que à cesdictes noupces il n’ay tamborins ny minestriers. »[20] ("Bathasard Sept has proposed that he should soon make his wedding, and would have great desire for the celebration of the Seigneury to have venison and for this to hunt in our woods with our license, which he has requested to grant him. Whereupon, given that it is for his wedding, an honorable thing to gratify him, his request is granted to him, by this means that at these said weddings there are no drums or minstrels.")

It should also be noted that on March 22, 1549, Denis Hugues asked to be appointed "« grand gruyer et chasseur des forès et terres de la Ville »" ("grand forester and hunter of the forests and lands of the City"). The Seigneury accepts and grants him as salary the fines he will collect, reserving however their moderation. On July 8, he is even "« permys d’aller chasser aux forest de la Ville pour trové de venayson avecque dymenche prochain, pource que l’on tirera le papeguex des aquebuttiers »[21] ("allowed to go hunting in the forests of the City to find venison with next Sunday, because the arquebusiers will shoot the popinjay").

Notes:

[01]   R.C. impr., n.s., t. IX/1, p. 739 (ad diem).

[02]   R.C. impr., n.s., t. IV/1, p. 590 (December 30, 1539).

[03]   A.E.G., R.C. 42, fol. 48v° et 191 (ad diem and July 29, 1547).

[04]   A.E.G., R.C. 43, fol. 20 and 23 (February 17 and 21, 1548).

[05]   A.E.G., R.C. 44, fol. 52v° (March 22, 1549).

[06]   A.E.G., R.C. 44, fol. 54v° (March 28, 1549). On May 10, Bernard Mollier was fined for hunting quail with nets against orders (A.E.G., R.C. 44, fol. 97 (ad diem)).

[07]   A.E.G., R.C. 38, fol. 241 (ad diem).

[08]   A.E.G., R.C. 42, fol. 194 (ad diem). 

[09]   R.C. impr., n.s., vol. VIII/1, pp. 105-106 and 115 (February 27 and March 06, 1543).

[10]   A.E.G., R.C. 42, fol. 226 (August 25, 1547).

[11]   A.E.G., R.C. 41, fol. 265 (December 20, 1546) and R.C. 42, fol. 324v°-325 (November 08, 1547).

[12]   R.C. impr., n.s., vol. VII/1, pp. 467-468 and 482 (September 19 and 29, 1542); R.C. impr., n.s., vol. VIII/1, p. 414 (August 22, 1543).

[13]   R.C. impr., n.s., vol. VII, p. 6, n. 19 and A.E.G., R.C. 42, fol. 94v° (ad diem)

[14]   A.E.G., R.C. 44, fol. 303 (January 15, 1550).

[15]   R.C. impr., n.s., vol. VIII/1, pp. 410 and 427 (August 20 and 28, 1543). In early November 1549, another conflict broke out between the Bailli and the Genevan authorities over hunting. The Bailli felt that “hunting belonged to him as lieutenant of Messieurs de Berne”. (A.E.G., R.C. 44, fol. 258 (between November 04 and 07, the secretary having forgotten to write the date)).

[16]   A.E.G., R.C. 42, fol. 191 (July 29, 1547). In fact, in 1543, the Seigneurie had forbidden hunting, while allowing the chatelain “puyssance de donner licence de chasser” (R.C. impr., n.s., t. VIII/1, p. 115 and 135 (March 06 and 19, 1543) and R.C. part. 1, fol. 18 (March 06, 1543)).

[17]   Possibly Charles de Chollex (R.C. impr., n.s., vol. II/2, p. 731).

[18]   Understand “pursued”.

[19]   A.E.G., R.C. part. 3, fol. 252 (July 12, 1549). On September 25, 1550, Philippe de Cortillerey, seigneur du Pont, complained to the Seigneurie “comment il estoit à la chasse aux cailles, les officiers de Gailliard le prirent, luy ostarent son chien et sa tirasse qu’il menarent à Gaillard et le y remirent, et aux quelz il bailla 3 florins et 4 solz  (how he was out quail hunting, the officers of Gailliard took him, gave him his dog and gun, which he led to Gaillard and handed over, and to whom he gave 3 florins and 4 solz)”. The Seigneurie wrote to the Bailli on his behalf once, then, in response to the Bailli's evasive reply, a second time on October 09 (A.E.G., R.C. 45, fol. 98v° and 106v (ad diem)).

[20]   A.E.G., R.C. 44, fol. 357 (ad diem).

[21]   A.E.G., R.C. 44, fol. 52 and 153v° (March 22, 1549, published in S.D.G., t. II, n° 861, p. 528, and ad diem). The “gruyer” is none other than the forest ranger.

Here are a few suggestions for exploring hunting and its regulation under the Ancien Régime:

• Exploring the medieval hunt, 2020/02, online  (web)
• Fabrice GUIZARD, "L'esprit de la chasse dans la France médiévale (haut Moyen Âge)", La revue de Téhéran: mensuel culturel iranien en langue française, n° 66, 2011/05, online  (web)
• Philippe JÉHIN, "Chiens et chasse dans l'espace rhénan (Alsace, Lorraine, Bade, Wurtembourg, Jura Suisse) du XVI^e au XVIII^e siècle", in Judith FÖRSTEL / Martine PLOUVIER (éd.), L'animal: un sujet de loisirs, s.l.: Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques,  2022, online  (web)
• Ninon MAILLARD, "Le braconnage comme droit naturel: la liberté de chasser contre le droit de le faire", Revue semestrielle de droit animalier: le braconnage, n° 2, 2017, pp. 321-347   (web)
• Kurt MÜLLER, "Chasse (en Suisse)", Dictionnaire historique de la Suisse (DHS), 2008/01, online  (web)
• Philippe SALVADORI, La chasse sous l'Ancien Régime, Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1996, 462 p.
• Henry L. SAVAGE, "Hunting in the Middle Ages", Speculum, vol. 8, n° 1, 1933/01, pp. 30-41  (web)