‘Gone are the days when the apprentices of Attercliffe petitioned the Crown that they be not made to eat salmon more than twice a week.’ With these words, Charles, Prince of Wales, addressed the attendees of the Second International Atlantic Salmon Symposium in Edinburgh in 1978,1 a conference devoted entirely to the decline and projected recovery of a single fish species: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). In his opening address, Prince Charles probably referred to young working-class apprentices employed in the rapidly emerging 18th- and 19th-century crafts and industry of Attercliffe, now an industrial suburb of Sheffield, England. The apprentices’ request to the Crown exudes an atmosphere of a then overwhelming abundance of salmon, such that even the lower classes of society became fed off consuming it. However, at the turn of the 20th century, the situation seems to have changed completely and in most British rivers salmon is hardly caught at all anymore. From then, consumption of salmon seems to have been reserved for the upper classes of society only. What had happened in those mere decades since the Attercliffe petition, or had nothing actually changed significantly at all?
Charles’ “rescued from oblivion” anecdote is not the only one that has gone or, for that matter, still goes around Europe.2 It is also not the case that the anecdote, or similar anecdotes, related only to industrial apprentices, or that it is only known from England; neither are stories of historical salmon abundance and its subsequent demise only set in the 19th century, nor was salmon the only subject of tales of profusion and successive demise. In what I have coined “the salmon-servant anecdote” it are mostly domestic servants and, to a lesser degree, farm hands and apprentices that are subject to alleged limitation of the number of times they had to eat salmon each week. In these anecdotes, they either complained about the large quantities of salmon they were served and which they abhorred, or they stipulated a maximum number of times of salmon consumption per week in their contracts or in city ordinances. The essential message of the anecdote – which is always set in a distant or less distant past and/or in other countries – is that there had been a time when or place where salmon was so abundant that even the lower classes could eat it as often as they wanted (a proverbial “Land of Cockaigne”, so to say), or – on the contrary and more often – had to eat it so frequently that they were disgusted with it. The anecdote was undoubtedly meant to remind one of better times when rivers teemed with salmon, but was perhaps even more reminiscent of human hubris, illustrating that exploitation and environmental destruction had led to the collapse of salmon stocks.
In this contribution, I will take a closer look at the backgrounds of the anecdote and see if there is possibly a historical-ecological truth behind the myth. I will also explore further what the reason and purpose of the anecdote may have been. Although the anecdote is also told about other species of fish (especially sturgeon, allis shad, burbot and tuna) or even features lobsters, partridges and hares in the leading role, I shall limit myself here to those anecdotes which concern salmon, if only because they far outnumber those about other species. Geographically, the search has been limited to (former) German-, English-, French- and Dutch-speaking areas in Western Europe, although I have also found an occasional reference to other countries (such as Norway). The main reason for limiting myself to the above-mentioned areas has been the accessibility of sources and my own inability to read and understand Polish, Scandinavian and Baltic texts. This probably underestimates the geographical spread of the anecdote in these areas, but I am nevertheless convinced that I have been able to cover the geographical core of the anecdote sufficiently.
Mentions of anecdotes were sought in a wide variety of historic and scientific sources, including newspaper and magazine articles, books and even parliamentary records. Search terms were formed by combining ‘salmon’ with ‘per week’ or ‘weekly’ and/or ‘servant’ in four different languages (English, French, German, Dutch).3 The information found was stored in a database where the records were formed by a specific mention of the anecdote for a specific place and time. If several sources mentioned the same anecdote, anecdotes from younger sources were only included as separate records if they had any surplus value for interpretation of data, mainly because something was added or changed to it in the course of time. If in a certain source several places or times were mentioned in the same anecdote, these have been included as separate records. The number of records is thus not equal to the number of different anecdotes found in literature. The bibliographical data of all sources consulted have been included per record. In addition, per record also the following information was noted (if stated): data concerning the original source (e.g. author and year of publication; especially when this source was not or not easily traceable), the relevant quote in the language of the source and in an English translation, the presence of evidence according to the author of the consulted source, the (maximum) number of times that a certain social group had to eat salmon according to the anecdote, a specification of that social group, information concerning the state/condition of salmon to be consumed (e.g., fresh or conserved, rotting, kelts, parr or smolts) and a specification as precise as possible of the place where and the time when the anecdote was supposed to have taken place. In the end, 229 records were collected in this way.
In total the anecdote was recorded for 13 different countries across Europe. Surprisingly, England was with 5 records (including Prince Charles’ quote) only number 5 in the ranking of countries with the most mentions. The top 4 consisted of France (107 records), Germany (48 records), The Netherlands (28 records) and Scotland (18 records). The level of geographical precision of the anecdotes varied considerably: 84 on the level of specific places (towns, villages), 53 on the level of regions (e.g., Normandy, Devon, Saxony), 35 on the level of rivers/river catchments (e.g. Rhine, Severn, Dee, Loire) and 57 on the level of countries only. The number of unique geographical locations varied from 20 regions and 20 rivers to 38 specific places [Fig. 15.1]. Temporal precision also varied: only in 7 cases was a precise year mentioned in which the event of the anecdote was supposed to have taken place; other anecdotes gave an approximate century or even spoke only in terms of “former times” and the likes. In case a century could be determined with some accuracy (171 instances), this ranged from the 12th to the 20th century. Of these, only 8 referred to the Middle Ages, 79 referred to the Early Modern Period (16th–18th century), while 76 referred to the 19th century and even still 8 to the 20th century.
Distribution of the “Salmon-Servant” anecdote in Europe on several levels of scale, 16th–21st century
Map made with free and open source QGIS
The wide spatial and temporal spread of the records indicates that it is highly unlikely that the anecdotes were real events in all cases and times. The fact that the anecdote was told from the far north of Europe (Scotland, Norway and the Baltic States) to the south of France combined with the alleged topicality of the events described in a broad temporal spectrum from the Middle Ages to the 19th and even the 20th century makes it inconceivable that we are dealing with actual events in all cases. This implausibility is enforced by the fact that if we have a fairly precise indication of the time in which the anecdote is supposed to have taken place, the spatial precision is rather coarse (on the level of regions, river basins or even countries) or that – from the eye of the beholder – the event took place somewhere abroad; on the other hand, if the geographical indication is fairly precise, the temporal indication is imprecise (‘a few hundred years ago’, ‘long ago’, ‘in the past’). In many cases, however, both the geographical and the temporal indications remain rather vague which made it difficult or even impossible to pinpoint the described events in space and time with the desired accuracy.
Of all the records in the database, almost 70% relate to an anecdote in which domestic servants are the subjects; for farm labourers and miller’s servants the figure is about 27%; and for the other social groups it ranges from about 1% each (army officers, monks and prisoners) to about 2.5% for apprentices such as those of Prince Charles’ anecdote.4 The number of times servants or others had to eat salmon varied in the anecdotes from once to even six times a week. The latter is said to have been the case in an alleged (and undated) regulation of Basel, Switzerland.5 A miller’s help living somewhere in France in an unmentioned century had the misfortune of having to eat salmon up to five times a week;6 however, convincing proof for these large numbers of times servants were forced to eat salmon is missing.
A lack of substantial evidence of the events described in the anecdotes is generally a serious concern in this regard. If we look only at domestic servants, (farm) labourers and apprentices, social groups for which we can expect written agreements to be in place, it appears – according to the sources consulted – that 77% concern individual contracts or arrangements (from the 14th to the 20th century) and just under 10% speak of municipal ordinances (16th–19th century). In the remaining cases, there are only “complaints” or “refusals to work” recorded, or it is not known what form the limitation of the number of times to eat salmon had taken. The sources consulted, however, are usually silent on whether their authors have seen any written evidence themselves or not. Although it is understandable that individual contracts have not or hardly been preserved, one may expect that city regulations are largely well-kept-up in municipal archives. Some authors specifically mention that they searched for evidence in relevant archives or otherwise, but that they failed to find any.7 The authors of three sources,8 all concerning the German city of Hamburg, assert that in their time an ordinance was still read in public twice a year, proclaiming that it was forbidden to serve salmon to servants more than twice a week. In these cases too, however, no written evidence was found in the archives despite extensive searches9 and the “evidence” is thus no more than literally hearsay.
The number of records that mention individual contracts or agreements is much larger: 145 records mention such agreements but are silent on whether there is actual written evidence for them; 16 records hint that such evidence is probably not available or even state very clearly that evidence is completely lacking. Baude for instance states:
Nous avons tous entendu qu’en Ecosse les domestiques stipulent dans leurs contrats de louages les jours de la semaine où ils seront dispensés de manger du saumon. Je n’ai lu aucun de ces contrats.10
We have all heard that in Scotland domestic servants stipulate in their contracts of lease the days of the week on which they will be exempted from eating salmon. I have not read any of these contracts.
Of the nine records of which the authors claim that they did see such contracts, most remain rather vague and no details of the agreements are given. Three remaining records relate to one and the same contract allegedly concluded on 17 June 1842 in Saint-Antoine de Breuilh, in Dordogne, France.11 I will come back to this specific case later, which is in fact the only existing “proof” substantiating the salmon-servant anecdote.
If the essence of the anecdote is true, regardless of whether there is conclusive evidence for it or not, one would expect the price of salmon to be very low during the times the anecdotes refer to. However, across Europe, this does not appear to be the case in any of these times. In 15th-century Basel, for instance, salmon cost as much as 15 sacks of rye.12 In the 17th century the average price of salmon in the Netherlands was equal to the weekly wage of a labourer.13 In the period 1777–1781 salmon cost an average of about 120 sols apiece in the Low Countries, seven to twelve times the daily wage of a labourer.14 On the fish market of Cologne (Germany) in 1550, fresh salmon cost slightly more than the highly appreciated carp and pike. Fifty years later, the price of salmon was even about twice as high as that of other valued fish.15 A similar development can be seen in Lower Normandy at the end of the Middle Ages: the price of salmon had risen by a factor of 4.5 compared to other protein rich foods (mutton, pork, partridge) over a period of 150 years (1260/1270 to 1410/1420).16 The (inflation-adjusted) prices paid for salmon in the 15th and 16th centuries were thus evidently already relatively high and rising sharply. Consequently, at least from the 17th and 18th centuries onwards, salmon was far beyond the reach of the lower social classes as an affordable food in large parts of Europe. The implicit assertion in the anecdotes that salmon was an abundant staple food in these centuries is therefore in obvious contradiction to the figures presented by historical economic statistics.
According to several city accounts, Dutch, Belgian and German river towns bought salmon for their own dignitaries (mayors and aldermen) but also for their local lords. In 1511, the city of Dordrecht donated a salmon to its landlady at a banquet.17 Earlier, the town of Deventer had donated salmon to various of its relations, such as the Bishop of Munster, the Lord of Ghemen at Bredervoerd and the ‘richter’ (bailiff) of Arnhem.18 Salmon was also given by the city of Worms (Germany) to King Sigismund in 1414 and to Emperor Maximilian and his consort in 1494; Bern gave salmon to Pope Martin V in 1418 and Basel to Archduke Matthias of Austria in 1596.19 In 15th century France, freshly caught salmon from Normandy was even sent on horseback express to the royal court in Paris.20 Scarcity and value of salmon in Early Modern Times also becomes apparent from the following story. When in 1586 the town of Doesburg (The Netherlands) wanted to serve salmon during the annual banquet for the local dignitaries, organised since 1389, it appeared to be impossible to get hold of salmon from the nearby IJssel river. A courier sent to neighbouring town of Deventer, instructed to buy salmon there, returned empty-handed.21 Salmon was therefore not only expensive, but also at times difficult to obtain. At the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Early Modern Era, salmon was – as Leonard Baldner, a fisherman from Strasbourg, aptly put it in 1666 – ‘Herrenfisch und köstlich in der speiß’ (Fish for the Lords and delicious to eat)22 [Fig. 15.2] and by no means the “cat food” as salmon was termed according to an anonymous source from 1770 by the inhabitants of Lekkerkerk, the Netherlands.23
Baldner Leonard, Salmon. Coloured drawing. In Baldner Leonard, Vogel-, Fisch- und Thierbuch. (British Library, Add MS 6485)
In other ways, too, it appears that salmon was generally not intended for the lower classes but rather for the higher ones, as is evident, for example, from the established medieval fishing rights on salmon (and sturgeon) in the Low Countries. In the Groot Charterboek of Van Mieris (1753–1756) we read:
Voirt alle, die zalmen en die stoeren, die ghevanghen worden […] vinden wi den Grave, het en sy of yemand betoghen mach, dat sine is mitten rechte.24
Further, all, salmon and sturgeon, that are caught […] belong to the count we judge, unless someone can make it plausible that it rightfully belongs to him.
In other words, the count of Holland was allowed (in 1306) to include the revenues from salmon and sturgeon fishing in his income. Also in later times, the higher social classes retained their rights to salmon fishing or the proceeds of fisheries. A document from 1730, regulating the fishing rights on the rivers Rupel, Dijle, Nete and Zenne (Belgium), stated that if salmon was caught on these rivers, it had to be offered at a cheap price to the Court of Rumst.25
The high market price of salmon also invited unlawful activities. In the 15th and 16th centuries, Flemish sailors with so-called water vessels (kaerschepen), suitable for transporting live fish, increasingly tried to buy salmon illegally from local fishermen in the Biesbosch before they delivered the catch at the fish auctions, sometimes even before they were moored in the harbour.26 In this way, the official fish auctions were side-lined. In 1574 King Philip II intervened; he promulgated a decree which stated:
dat van nu voortaen alle versschen Visch, ende namentlyck Salm, Steur ende Elft, binnen Hollandt gevangen, ghebracht ende verkocht zullen worden ter Plaetse van haren behoorlycken ende ghewoonlycken afslagh, ende nerghens anders.
that from now on all fresh fish, and in particular salmon, sturgeon and shad, caught within Holland, shall be presented and sold at the appropriate and customary fish auction, and nowhere else.
An explanation sometimes given for the striking discrepancy between what the hard economic figures and legal regulations show and the “salmon-servant” anecdote is that the anecdotes could be about temporary large numbers of salmon being caught and marketed, or about salmon of questionable quality. The latter could be so-called kelts or parr and smolts.27 The sources are not very conclusive about this. Of the 22 records from which something can be deduced about the condition of the salmon to be consumed, 18 (approximately 8% of the total number of records) refer to “fresh” salmon. However, this could also be the aforementioned kelts, or parr or smolt, which the authors of the sources considered possible for 4 and 2 of these cases of “fresh” salmon, respectively. The texts of the cited anecdotes themselves, however, do not always lead to the conclusion that these would concern inferior salmon; it is obviously the authors of these sources who interpret it as such.
The other cases of fresh salmon mentioned in the anecdotes could involve large numbers of salmon which became temporarily available during the fishing season and which could not all be consumed or processed immediately due to “overwhelming catches”. The local population would therefore have been forced to consume the almost rotting salmon themselves at the end of the fishing season. The contracts and ordinances would only have been in force during this part of the year. The fact that most of the anecdotes are set in towns and regions that were renowned for their salmon fishing could support such an explanation. Some authors claim that it was therefore primarily a problem of poor transport facilities. When rail transport became available, the “problem” of salmon abundance would have solved itself. The famous Charles Dickens wrote in 1865:
Why, in the old days, before railways established a ready and rapid communication with the London markets, the servants of country gentlemen residing on the banks of the Severn, the Tay, the Dee, and the Spey, made a stipulation in their terms of engagement that they were not to be fed upon salmon more than three times a week.28
Others are of the opinion that it is largely about lack of appropriate preservation methods. The Saturday Magazine of May 1, 1841, for instance, writes about late 18th century Scottish salmon fisheries:
Forty or fifty years ago, the art of packing salmon in ice for the London markets was brought to perfection, and since that period the value of the fisheries has risen incalculably; the salmon have become dear in proportion.29
According to the anonymous author of the article, salmon had since the late 1700s become unaffordable for the common people, while previously domestics made agreements with their masters on the maximum number of times a week they would be fed on salmon. However, such explanations ignore the fact that methods of preserving salmon had been known since the Middle Ages and that preserved salmon was a popular product. Fresh as well as preserved salmon (especially salted) was regularly purchased by the kitchens of English manors and colleges (1293–1691).30 The prices for both did not differ much. At the end of the 16th century, the price of ‘geräucherter Salm’ (smoked salmon) on the Cologne fish market was as high as or even slightly higher than that of ‘Krimpsalm’ (fresh salmon).31 The export of barrelled salmon from Scotland (1311–1541)32 to, among others, Yerseke in the Netherlands33 (certainly from 1499 onwards, but probably from 1472 until 1570) shows that conserved salmon was a valuable trading product. Therefore, those fisheries that had specialised in salmon fishing in particular would have quickly mastered available conservation methods and adopted them instead of dumping the salmon on local markets or distributing it to the local population in a half rotten state. In seven cases (3% of the records), the authors state that the quality of preserved salmon did not match that of fresh salmon. In these cases, however, it seems that the authors were seeking an explanation for an anecdote they found difficult to believe. They assumed that the anecdote concerned preserved salmon of bad quality, rather than there being evidence that this was actually the case. They could not interpret the “salmon-servant” anecdote in any other plausible way, knowing that fresh salmon was already in short supply at the time the anecdote was set.
As mentioned earlier, there is only one physical piece of “proof” that the anecdote has some basis in truth [Fig. 15.3]. It concerns an employment contract dated 17 June 1842 between Henri Benoist de Fonroque, landowner in the Laroques-Vigneron municipality of Saint-Antoine-de-Breuilh, situated on the Dordogne (France), and the spouses Vigouroux who were hired as coachman and cook. In the conditions of entry into service, it is stated:
Il est stipulé que selon les usages locaux et constants, il ne sera pas donné à la cuisine de saumon frais plus de trois fois par semaine de février à l’Assomption d’août.34
It is stipulated that according to local and customary practice, fresh salmon will not be given to the kitchen more than three times a week from February to the Assumption of August.
Labour contract, dated 17 June 1842, containing a stipulated number of times that fresh salmon could be served to the employees (passage indicated by a bar with a dot)
Source: Thibault – Garçon, “Le Saumon dans les Contrats de Louage”
It is clear from the quote that in this case it was indeed fresh salmon being served for about six months of the year and that the working conditions imposed, which limited the number of times salmon to be consumed, were according to local custom. Most historical-ecological sources now agree that salmon catches were already declining in large parts of Europe well before the mid-19th century.35 Whether this was also the case for the Dordogne is unknown, but highly probable. Also, the included labour condition could be a relic from earlier times when there was indeed an abundance of salmon. It is known that some clauses were still included in employment contracts for a long time, even though they were no longer applicable.36 However, it should also not be entirely excluded that the contract is a 20th-century forgery and therefore not authentic. In that case, it may have been an instrument to create social and political interest in the recovery of decimated salmon stocks. Pustelnik et al. (1987) themselves have doubts about the significance of the contract for the interpretation of salmon abundance in earlier times: ‘Son interprétation quant à l’abondance passée du saumon reste toute hypothèse’37 (Its interpretation of past salmon abundance remains speculative).
In any case, authentic or not, the contract is by no means the oldest mention of the anecdote. When older versions of the same or similar stories exist, it is likely that authors of the younger versions were inspired by or simply copied older versions. The challenge, therefore, is to track down the oldest version, as that may be the “mother of all anecdotes”, from which all other anecdotes ultimately stemmed. For the oldest version of our anecdote, dealing unmistakably with salmon, and traced so far, we have to go back to 17th-century Holland, at the time of the Dutch Republic. In his book Out-Hollandt, Nu Zuyt-Hollandt, dated 1654, Jacob van Oudenhoven tells about the cities of Dordrecht, Geertruidenberg, Rotterdam, Schoonhoven, Lekkerkerk and Krimpen, then renowned for their fisheries and fish auctions. One of the passages deals with domestic servants and the abundance of salmon and reads:
Ende wort geseyt, dat de Dienstboden in haer Huyr plachten te bedingen, datse maer tweemael in de Weeck Salm wilden eten.38
And it is said, that the domestic servants used to let take up in their contracts of lease, that they wanted to eat salmon no more than twice a week.
With this quote, Van Oudenhoven wanted to make clear that the salmon catches in the Dutch delta, where Rhine and Meuse confluence, had strongly decreased, already in his time. Again, it is striking that the anecdote is situated in a vague past; the exact time is unclear, but it must have been well before 1654, possibly as early as the 16th century, because Van Oudenhoven did not know it from his own experience, as evidenced by his “hearsay” formulation. This “Van Oudenhoven” version of the anecdote is probably the source of two of the oldest non-Dutch anecdotes, which, remarkably, still concern (domestic) servants in the Netherlands. The French biographer Bouquet (1878) cites from the memoires of Pierre Thomas, sieur du Fossé, written down in approximately 1667 about a visit at the Nantes market which surprised him by the prodigious quantity of fresh salmon:
je compris alors très facilement ce qui se dit d’un certain canton des Flandres ou d’Hollande, que les servantes, en se louant, mettent à leur marché qu’on ne leur fera manger de saumon frais qu’un certain nombre de jours de chaque semaine.39
I then understood very easily what is said of a certain canton of Flanders or Holland, that the maids, in hiring themselves out, put in their contract that they will only be made to eat fresh salmon on a certain number of days of each week.
The oldest known source referring to France itself – apart from the contract mentioned above – dates back to only 1862 and refers to an unknown time and unknown places which seems to emphasise that the author himself was also not very convinced of the truthfulness of the anecdote. If salmon was still abundant in France only twenty years earlier, as the 1842 contract suggests, this author would most probably have been aware of this and he would not have formulated his concern as follows:
L’abondance était telle que, dans les ferme [sic] et les habitations voisines de quelques-unes de nos rivières, les domestiques, en entrant en gages, stipulaient qu’ils ne mangeraient du saumon qu’une ou deux fois par semaine.40
Such was the abundance that, in the farms and dwellings adjacent to some of our rivers, the servants, on taking up employment, stipulated that they would eat salmon only once or twice a week.
The other early-modern source probably derived from the “Van Oudenhoven” anecdote version concerns a quote from the Swiss author König (1682), who mentioned the anecdote while writing about the (natural) scarcity of salmon in Switzerland:41
im entlegenen Mündungsgebiet des Stromes in Holland machten die Knechte mit ihren Herrschaften aus, daß sie nicht zu oft in einer Woche Lachs essen müßten.
in the remote estuary of the river in Holland, the servants agreed with their masters that they would not have to eat salmon too often in a week.
Does this make the “Van Oudenhoven” version the “mother of all anecdotes”? Most probably not. In fact, a slightly older version of a similar anecdote, to which Van Oldenhoven is clearly indebted, was already circulating in Holland. It concerns a passage from the book ’t Begin van Hollant in Dordrecht by Johan van Beverwijck from 1640, dealing with the history of the city of Dordrecht. In this work, van Beverwijck states:
Daer van noch vertelt vvert, dat de Dienstmaeghden in ouden tijden, eer sy in haer huyre quamen, plachte te bedingen, datse maer tvveemael ’s vveecks roode visch zouden eten.42
It was also said that in ancient times, before being hired, the maids used to stipulate that they would only have to eat red fish twice a week.
‘Roode visch’ (red fish) probably refers to salmon, but that is not entirely certain. According to Burgersdijk (1873), Van Beverwijck referred to ‘roode visch’ not (only) as salmon but also as sturgeon and shad.43 It would, however, not change the reasoning about the origin of the anecdote very much, because dating and geographical location hardly differ. Again, even in this oldest of all investigated anecdotes, we see a reference to ‘ouden tijden’ (ancient times), which most likely places the perceived lost abundance of salmon in the 16th century or even earlier. Geographically, the oldest traceable version of the anecdote seems to be situated in the Netherlands. From there, the anecdote may have spread to the rest of Europe. The oldest references not relating to the Rhine-Meuse delta in the Netherlands are dated about half a century later than the “Van Oudenhoven” anecdote, and are located in the German city of Hamburg, situated on the river Elbe.44 On the way to further dissemination, the anecdote was sometimes exaggerated (especially with regard to the maximum number of salmon consumed per week) or adapted to local conditions.
In 1995 Daniel Pauly published his idea of the shifting baseline syndrome.45 The essence of this concept is that each generation of fisheries biologists implicitly uses a reference of fish stock composition and volume that goes back to their own youth but no further. Over time, this gives us an increasingly distorted picture of fish stocks in the past, especially of those before human impacts. In this context, there is also talk of so-called “generational amnesia”, each generation forgetting what its predecessors’ reference was. The “salmon-servant” anecdote fits seamlessly with this, although the time span in the anecdotes often exceeds that of a single generation. The salmon stocks were, according to the anecdotes, much larger “in ancient times”, “in the past”, “in the last century”, regardless of the year in which the anecdote was written down. The advantage over the largely lost references of early fisheries biologists is that many anecdotes, probably because of their appealing story-telling nature, are during their time recorded in written sources dating back to as early as the 17th century. Collectively, the consecutive anecdotes portray a scenario of continuously dwindling salmon populations in large parts of Europe, although the “reference”, the “salmon-servant” anecdote, is sometimes grossly exaggerated, probably to convince the reader that there was something seriously wrong with salmon stocks. Thus, for centuries, people have been aware of the decline in salmon stocks, but they did not realise that their “reference” was a reflection of already decimated salmon stocks. The reconstruction of salmon abundance in North-western Europe on the basis of quantitative and qualitative historical data demonstrates this.46 Presently, it is almost inconceivable that the hundreds of thousands of salmon fished annually in the Rhine at the end of the 19th century represented less than 1% of medieval stocks. Europe’s rivers must have been teeming with salmon before water mills, dams and weirs, river regulation and overfishing took their toll. In the early Middle Ages, one might have witnessed, year after year, the migration of millions and millions of salmon on their way to their spawning grounds in the upper reaches of many European rivers. Our capacity of imagination cannot cope with such numbers of salmon anymore, but a distant memory of it remains in the dozens of anecdotes about the “salmon and the servant” handed down to us from generation to generation.
Bibliography
Adelungk Wolffgang Henrich, Kurtze Historische Beschreibung der Uhr-Alten Kayserlichen und des Heiligen Römischen Reichs Freyen-Ansee-Kauff- und Handels-Stadt Hamburg (Hamburg, Conrad Neumann: 1696).
Anonymous, De Koopman of Bydragen ten Opbouw van Neêrlands Koophandel en Zeevaard. Tweede Deel (Amsterdam, Gerrit Bom: 1770).
Anonymous, Hamburgische Burspracken vom Jahre 1594. Nach dem Alten Originale, wornach dieselben Jährlich Abgelesen worden, mit Anmerkungen (Hamburg: 1810).
Anonymous, “No title”, Abendzeitung, January 29, 1824.
Baldner Leonard, Vogel-, Fisch- und Thierbuch. British Library, Add MS 6485.
Baude J.-J., “L’empoissonnement des eaux douces”, Revue des Deux Mondes 31 (1861) 293–344.
Beverwijck Johan van, ’t Begin van Hollant in Dordrecht. Mitsgaders der Eerster Stede Beschrijvinge, Regeringe, ende Regeerders: als oock de Gedenckvvaerdige Geschiedenißen aldaer Gevallen (Jasper Gorissz., Dordrecht: 1640).
Bouquet F., Mémoires de Pierre Thomas, sieur du Fossé, publiés en entier, pour la première fois d’après le manuscrit original avec une introduction et des notes (Rouen: 1878).
Breuers D., Colonia im Mittelalter. Über das Leben in der Stadt (Cologne: 2013).
Burema L., De Voeding in Nederland van de Middeleeuwen tot de Twintigste Eeuw (Assen: 1953).
Burgersdijk L.A.J., De Dieren Afgebeeld, Beschreven en in hun Levenswijze Geschetst. Derde deel: Kruipende Dieren, Visschen, Ongewervelde Dieren (Leiden: 1873).
Büsch J.G., “Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft über den Verfall der Fischereien unserer Gegend, besonders in der Elbe, und über die Mittel zur Verbesserung derselben”, Verhandlungen und Schriften der Hamburgischen Gesellschaft zur Beförderung der Künste und nützlichen Gewerbe 4 (1797) 1–48.
Buyten L. van, “Données historiques sur le commerce de poissons à Louvain (Brabant, Belgique) au 18ème siècle et leur apport à l’archéozoologie”, in Van Neer W. (ed.), Fish Exploitation in the Past. Annales de Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques 274 (Tervuren: 1994) 151–161.
Dam P.J.E.M. van, “Feestvissen en Vastenvissen. Culturele, Ecologische en Economische Aspecten van de Visconsumptie in de Nederlanden in de Late Middeleeuwen”, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis 29 (2003) 467–496.
Danker-Carstensen P., “Stör oder Lachs – aber auf Keinen Fall mehr als Zweimal in der Woche? Legendenbildung und Erzähltradition in einem Kapitel Deutscher Fischereigeschichte”, in Pelc O. (ed.), Mythen der Vergangenheit. Realität und Fiktion in der Geschichte (Göttingen: 2012) 265–285.
Deelden C.L., “De Overvloedige Zalmvangsten”, Visserij 35 (1982) 60–62.
Dickens C., “Concerning the Cheapness of Pleasure”, All the Year Round (May 6, 1865).
Gemmil, E. – Mayhew, N., Changing Values in Medieval Scotland. A Study of Prices, Money, and Weights and Measures (Cambridge: 1995).
Halard X., “La pêche du saumon en Normandie de XIe au XVe siècle”, Journal of Medieval History 9 (1983) 173–178.
Hoffmann R.C., “Economic Development and Aquatic Ecosystems in Medieval Europe”, American Historical Review 101 (1996) 631–669.
Kuhn G., Die Fischerei am Oberrhein (Stuttgart: 1976).
Kuske B., “Der Kölner Fischhandel vom 14.–17. Jahrhundert”, Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kunst 24 (1905) 227–313.
Lenders H.J.R., “Fish and Fisheries in the Lower Rhine 1550–1950: A Historical-ecological Perspective”, Journal of Environmental Management 202.2 (2017) 403–411.
Lenders H.J.R. – Verberk W.C.E.P., “‘Dar enkan noch Laeis noch Vijsch up gegayn’. De Atlantische Zalm in Noordwest-Europa in de Middeleeuwen en Vroegmoderne Tijd”, RAVON 69 (2018) 26–29.
Lenders H.J.R. – Chamuleau T.P.M. – Hendriks A.J. – Lauwerier R.C.G.M. – Leuven R.S.E.W. – Verberk W.C.E.P., “Historical Rise of Waterpower Initiated the Collapse of Salmon Stocks”, Scientific Reports 6 (2016) no. 29269.
Lobregt P. – Os J. van, De Laatste Riviervissers (Heerewaarden: 1977).
Martens P.J.M., De Zalmvissers van de Biesbosch. Een Onderzoek naar de Visserij op het Bergse Veld 1421–1869 (Tilburg: 1992).
Meier E.A., z’Basel an mym Rhy. Von Fähren und Fischergalgen (Basel: 2013).
Mieris Frans van, Groot Charterboek der Graaven van Holland, van Zeeland, en de Heeren van Vriesland (Leiden, Pieter van der Eyk: 1753–1756).
Oudenhoven Jacob van, Out-Hollandt, nu Zuyt-Hollandt (Dordrecht, Andriesz.: 1654).
Pauly D., “Anecdotes and the Shifting Baseline Syndrome of Fisheries”, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10 (1995) 430.
Pustelnik, G., Les Saumons de la Rivière Dordogne. 1189–1981 (Paris – Sarlat: 1982).
Pustelnik G. – Roguet M. – Tinel C. – Soumastre J. – Roux M. – Simonet F., “Historique, cartographie écologique de la rivière Dordogne et évaluation de son potentiel d’accueil pour le saumon atlantique”, in Thibault M. – Billard R. (eds.), Restauration de rivières à saumons (Paris: 1987) 53–64.
Rambach J.J., Versuch einer Physisch-Medizinischen Beschreibung von Hamburg (Hamburg: 1801).
Schwarz K., “Der Weserlachs und die Bremischen Dienstboten. Zur Geschichte des Fischverbrauchs in Norddeutschland”, in Elmshäuser K. (ed.), Bremisches Jahrbuch 74/75 (Bremen: 1995–1996) 134–173.
Schwarz K., “Nochmals: der Lachs und die Dienstboten. Eine Nachlese”, in Elmshäuser K. (ed.), Bremisches Jahrbuch 77 (Bremen: 1998) 277–283.
Storck A., Ansichten der Freien Hansestadt Bremen und ihrer Umgebungen (Frankfurt am Main: 1822).
Thibault M. – Garçon A.-F., “Un problème d’écohistoire: le saumon dans les contrats de louage, une origine médiévale?”, in Benoit P. – Loridant F. – Mattéoni O. (eds.), Actes des Premières Rencontres Internationales de Liessies ‘Pêche et pisciculture en eau douce: la rivière et l’étang au Moyen-Age, 27, 28 et 29 avril 1998’ (Lille: 2004).
Thorold Rogers J.E., A History of Agriculture and Prices in England from the Year after the Oxford Parliament (1259) to the Commencement of the Continental War (1793), volumes 2–4 (London: 1866–1882).
Unger W.S., De Tol van Iersekeroord. Documenten en Rekeningen 1321–1572 (The Hague: 1939).
Vibert R., “Le saumon atlantique: origine et caractéristiques essentielles”, in Gueguen J.C. – Prouzet P. (eds.), Le saumon atlantique. Biologie et gestion de la ressource (Brest: 1994) 11–25.
Vrielynck C. – Belpaire C. – Stabel A. – Breine J. – Quataert P., De Visbestanden in Vlaanderen 1840–1950 (Groenendael-Hoeilaart: 2002).
Went A.E.J., Atlantic Salmon: Its Future. The Proceedings of the Second International Atlantic Salmon Symposium, Edinburgh 1978 (Farnham: 1980).
Went A.E.J., Atlantic Salmon: Its Future. The Proceedings of the Second International Atlantic Salmon Symposium, Edinburgh 1978 (Farnham: 1980) 1.
In the most recent version of the anecdote, which is considered accurate and true by the author, Breuers tells of domestic servants in the Cologne area who, at the beginning of the 20th century, allegedly had their contracts limited to eating salmon three times a week. Breuers D., Colonia im Mittelalter. Über das Leben in der Stadt (Cologne: 2013) 279.
A few special sources that are a compilation of a similar search deserve special mention here because they formed a valuable starting point for my research. It concerns in particular the following publications: Danker-Carstensen P., “Stör oder Lachs – aber auf Keinen Fall mehr als Zweimal in der Woche? Legendenbildung und Erzähltradition in einem Kapitel Deutscher Fischereigeschichte”, in Pelc O. (ed.), Mythen der Vergangenheit. Realität und Fiktion in der Geschichte (Göttingen: 2012) 265–285; Schwarz K., “Der Weserlachs und die Bremischen Dienstboten. Zur Geschichte des Fischverbrauchs in Norddeutschland”, in Elmshäuser K. (ed.), Bremisches Jahrbuch 74/75 (Bremen: 1995/1996) 134–173; Schwarz K., “Nochmals: der Lachs und die Dienstboten. Eine Nachlese”, in Elmshäuser K. (ed.), Bremisches Jahrbuch 77 (Bremen: 1998) 277–283; Thibault M. – Garçon A.-F., “Un problème d’écohistoire: le saumon dans les contrats de louage, une origine médiévale?”, in Benoit P. – Loridant F. – Mattéoni O. (eds.), Actes des Premières Rencontres Internationales de Liessies ‘Pêche et pisciculture en eau douce: la rivière et l’étang au Moyen-Age, 27, 28 et 29 avril 1998’ (Lille : 2004).
In some cases, the anecdotes referred to more than one social group, for instance servants and apprentices. Hence, percentages can add up to more than 100%.
Schwarz, “Der Weserlachs und die Bremischen Dienstboten” 144.
Bazin 1973, cited in Thibault – Garçon, “Le saumon dans les contrats de louage”.
E.g., Paulze d’Ivoy de la Poype, 1901; Jenkins, 1825; Seguin, 1938; Chimits, 1963; Wilkins, 1989 (all cited in Thibault – Garçon, “Le saumon dans les contrats de louage”); Storck A., Ansichten der Freien Hansestadt Bremen und ihrer Umgebungen (Frankfurt am Main: 1822) 388; Burema L., De Voeding in Nederland van de Middeleeuwen tot de Twintigste Eeuw (Assen: 1953).
Büsch J.G., “Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft über den Verfall der Fischereien unserer Gegend, besonders in der Elbe, und über die Mittel zur Verbesserung derselben”, Verhandlungen und Schriften der Hamburgischen Gesellschaft zur Beförderung der Künste und nützlichen Gewerbe 4 (1797) 1–48; Rambach J.J., Versuch einer physisch-medizinischen Beschreibung von Hamburg (Hamburg: 1801) 110; Anonymous, No title. Abendzeitung, January 29, 1824.
Anonymous, Hamburgische Burspracken vom Jahre 1594. Nach dem Alten Originale, wornach dieselben Jährlich Abgelesen worden, mit Anmerkungen (Hamburg: 1810).
Baude J.-J., “L’empoissonnement des eaux douces”, Revue des Deux Mondes 31 (1861) 293–344.
The existence of this contract was first reported on by Pustelnik, G., Les saumons de la rivière Dordogne. 1189–1981 (Paris – Sarlat: 1982); copies are published in Thibault – Garçon, “Le saumon dans les contrats de louage”, and Vibert R., “Le saumon atlantique: origine et caractéristiques essentielles”, in Gueguen J.C. – Prouzet P. (eds.), Le saumon atlantique. Biologie et gestion de la ressource (Brest: 1994) 11–25.
Meier E.A., z’Basel an mym Rhy. Von Fähren und Fischergalgen (Basel: 2013).
Martens P.J.M., De Zalmvissers van de Biesbosch. Een Onderzoek naar de Visserij op het Bergse Veld 1421–1869 (Tilburg: 1992).
Van Buyten L., “Données historiques sur le commerce de poissons à Louvain (Brabant, Belgique) au 18ème siècle et leur apport à l’archéozoologie”, in Neer W. van (ed.), Fish Exploitation in the Past. Annales du Musée Royal de l’Afrique centrale, Sciences Zoologiques 274 (Tervuren: 1994) 151–161.
Kuske B., “Der Kölner Fischhandel vom 14.–17. Jahrhundert”, Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kunst 24 (1905) 227–313.
Halard X., “La pêche du saumon en Normandie du XIe au XVe siècle”, Journal of Medieval History 9 (1983) 173–178.
Dam P.J.E.M. van, “Feestvissen en Vastenvissen. Culturele, Ecologische en Economische Aspecten van de Visconsumptie in de Nederlanden in de Late Middeleeuwen”, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis 29 (2003) 467–496.
Lobregt P. – Os J. van, De Laatste Riviervissers (Heerewaarden: 1977).
Kuhn G., Die Fischerei am Oberrhein (Stuttgart: 1976).
Halard, “La Pêche du Saumon en Normandie”.
Deelden C.L., “De Overvloedige Zalmvangsten”, Visserij 35 (1982) 60–62.
Baldner Leonard, Vogel-, Fisch- und Thierbuch. British Library, Add MS 6485.
Anonymous, De Koopman of Bydragen ten Opbouw van Neêrlands Koophandel en Zeevaard. Tweede Deel (Amsterdam, Gerrit Bom: 1770).
Mieris Frans van, Groot Charterboek der Graaven van Holland, van Zeeland, en de Heeren van Vriesland (Leiden, Pieter van der Eyk: 1753–1756).
Vrielynck C. – Belpaire C. – Stabel A. – Breine J. – Quataert P., De Visbestanden in Vlaanderen 1840–1950 (Groenendael – Hoeilaart: 2002).
Martens, De Zalmvissers van de Biesbosch.
Most salmon die after spawning. A small proportion of spawned salmon survive and manage to start making their way back to the sea. These are called ‘kelts’. Usually these animals are completely exhausted and covered in fungal infections, and die on their way back to sea. Parr and smolt both refer to young salmon. Parr is juvenile salmon growing up in their natal river; smolt refers to older juveniles ready to out-migrate towards their marine foraging grounds where they reach maturity.
Dickens C., “Concerning the Cheapness of Pleasure”, All the Year Round (May 6, 1865).
Anonymous, “Fresh-water fish. II The Salmon (concluded)”, The Saturday Magazine 18, May 1, 1841.
Thorold Rogers J.E., A History of Agriculture and Prices in England from the Year after the Oxford Parliament (1259) to the Commencement of the Continental War (1793), volumes 2–4 (London: 1866–1882).
Kuske, “Der Kölner Fischhandel”.
Gemmil E. – Mayhew N., Changing Values in Medieval Scotland. A Study of Prices, Money, and Weights and Measures (Cambridge: 1995).
Unger W.S., De Tol van Iersekeroord. Documenten en Rekeningen 1321–1572 (The Hague: 1939).
Pustelnik, Les saumons de la rivière Dordogne; Pustelnik G. – Roguet M. – Tinel C. – Soumastre J. – Roux M. – Simonet F., “Historique, cartographie écologique de la rivière Dordogne et évaluation de son potentiel d’accueil pour le saumon atlantique”, in Thibault M. – Billard R. (eds.), Restauration de rivières à saumons (Paris: 1987) 53–64.
Hoffmann R.C., “Economic Development and Aquatic Ecosystems in Medieval Europe”, American Historical Review 101 (1996) 631–669; Lenders H.J.R. – Chamuleau T.P.M. – Hendriks A.J. – Lauwerier R.C.G.M. – Leuven R.S.E.W. – Verberk W.C.E.P., “Historical Rise of Waterpower Initiated the Collapse of Salmon Stocks”, Scientific Reports 6 (2016) no. 29269; Lenders, H.J.R., “Fish and Fisheries in the Lower Rhine 1550–1950: A Historical-ecological Perspective”, Journal of Environmental Management 202.2 (2017) 403–411.
Thibault – Garçon, “Le saumon dans les contrats de louage”.
Pustelnik – Roguet – Tinel – Soumastre – Roux – Simonet, “Historique, cartographie écologique de la rivière Dordogne”.
Oudenhoven Jacob van, Out-Hollandt, nu Zuyt-Hollandt (Dordrecht, Andriesz.: 1654).
Bouquet F., Mémoires de Pierre Thomas, sieur du Fossé, publiés en entier, pour la première fois d’après le manuscrit original avec une introduction et des notes (Rouen: 1878).
De Saint-Prix, 1862, cited in Thibault – Garçon, “Le Saumon dans les Contrats de Louage”.
Originally in Latin; here in the translated German version by Schwarz, “Der Weserlachs und die Bremischen Dienstboten”.
Beverwijck Johan van, ’t Begin van Hollant in Dordrecht. Mitsgaders der Eerster Stede Beschrijvinge, Regeringe, ende Regeerders: als oock de Gedenckvvaerdige Geschiedenissen aldaer Gevallen (Jasper Gorissz., Dordrecht: 1640).
Burgersdijk L.A.J., De Dieren Afgebeeld, Beschreven en in hun Levenswijze Geschetst. Derde deel: Kruipende Dieren, Visschen, Ongewervelde Dieren (Leiden: 1873).
Janibal, 1695 (an unpublished chronicle, Staatsarchiv Hamburg, 731–1 Handschriftensammlung 80a), cited in Schwarz, “Der Weserlachs und die Bremischen Dienstboten”; Adelungk Wolffgang Henrich, Kurtze Historische Beschreibung der Uhr-Alten Kayserlichen und des Heiligen Römischen Reichs Freyen-Ansee-Kauff- und Handels-Stadt Hamburg (Hamburg, Conrad Neumann: 1696).
Pauly D., “Anecdotes and the Shifting Baseline Syndrome of Fisheries”, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10 (1995) 430.
Lenders – Chamuleau – Hendriks – Lauwerier – Leuven – Verberk, “Historical Rise of Waterpower”; Lenders, “Fish and Fisheries in the Lower Rhine”; Lenders H.J.R. – Verberk, W.C.E.P., “‘Dar enkan noch Laeis noch Vijsch up gegayn’. De Atlantische Zalm in Noordwest-Europa in de Middeleeuwen en Vroegmoderne Tijd”, RAVON 69 (2018) 26–29.