Notes

Notes to Introduction

1. For example, Cassard in L’age d’or capétien, p. 5.

2. Matthew, English and the Community of Europe, pp. 13–14. Littérature latine et histoire du moyen âge, p. 38 no. 19 (“privilege accordé par Louis VII à deux étrangers [anglais de Londres et Colchester] établis en France [1175]”).

3. The literature on these subjects is scattered, but works of relevance laying their stress on England and France and occasionally putting their findings in broader contexts include the following: Gabriel, Garlandia, pp. 1–26, and Verger, “L’Université [de Paris],” pp. 10–11, on English students and teachers in Paris; Slivinski and Sussman, “Taxation Mechanisms and Growth,” p. 29, with information on wealthy English residents of Paris ca. 1300; Lloyd, English Wool Trade, pp. 14, 19, 21, with references to English merchants in France and their precarious situation during diplomatic crises; Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, index, s.v. “envoys,” cataloguing English diplomatic missions to France; and Williams, Cistercians in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 31–40, on attending the General Chapter.

4. Sumption, Pilgrimage, pp. 182, 198–203; Sigal, Les Marcheurs de Dieu, pp. 58–67. See also Vincent, “Pilgrimages of the Angevin Kings,” pp. 12–45.

5. Reyerson, “Medieval Hospitality,” pp. 40–43; Williams, Cistercians in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 36–38; Gabriel, Garlandia, pp. 5, 42.

6. Trotter, “(Socio)linguistic Realities,” pp. 117–31.

7. Lodge, “Language Attitudes and Linguistic Norms,” pp. 73–83; Iglesias-Rábade, “The Multi-Lingual Pulpit,” pp. 479–92. See also Trotter, “Not as Eccentric as It Looks,” pp. 427–38.

8. Labarge, Medieval Travellers, p. 24.

9. Hunt and Murray, A History of Business, p. 104, and Kaeuper, Bankers to the Crown, pp. 209–10, 226–27.

10. F. Donald Logan, A History of the Church, p. 1.

11. Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 3, pp. 374–75, See also Schwinges, “Student Education, Student Life,” p. 227.

12. Coulet, “Inns and Taverns,” pp. 468–77; Reyerson, “Medieval Hospitality,” pp. 40–43.

13. Hunt and Murray, A History of Business, pp. 67–69. See also Kunera—Database for Late Medieval Badges and Ampullae (also referenced in Gaposchkin, “From Pilgrimage to Crusade,” pp. 58–59 n. 73); and Koldeweij, “Notes on the Historiography and Iconography of Pilgrim Souvenirs,” pp. 194–216. Cf. Exhibition Catalog: Medieval English Pilgrim Badges, pp. 1–18.

14. Cohen, “Roads and Pilgrimage,” pp. 321–41.

15. For an excellent sense of these necessities (and for further references to pursue the subject), see Rouse and Rouse, “Expenses of a Mid Thirteenth-Century Paris Scholar,” pp. 207–26.

16. The bibliography on prostitution in medieval France and elsewhere is now extensive. Most relevant here are Rossiaud, Medieval Prostitution, and Otis[Cour], Prostitution in Medieval Society. See also Bullough and Bullough, Women and Prostitution, and Karras, Common Women.

17. Power, “Terra regis Anglie,” pp. 189–209.

18. Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 4, p. 45; the quoted phrase is from Tyerman, England and the Crusades, p. 104.

19. Cf. Treharne, The Baronial Plan of Reform, pp. 78–79.

20. New Cambridge Medieval History, 5, pp. 279–305.

21. See Géraud, “Les routiers au douzième siècle,” pp. 125–47; Géraud, “Mercadier. Les routiers au treizième siècle,” pp. 417–47; and Seward’s The Hundred Years’ War, which, although written for a popular audience, is dependable and, as its subtitle The English in France indicates, has this theme as one of its motifs for the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries.

22. Bell, Brooks, and Moore, “Credit Finance,” p. 111.

23. Kaeuper, Bankers to the Crown, pp. 227–48.

24. Gonthier, Cris de haine et rites d’unité, pp. 69–70.

25. Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution; Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, pp. 183–84; Jordan, “Administering Expulsion,” pp. 241–43.

Notes to Chapter 1
ABJURING THE REALM

1. Peters, “Prison before the Prison,” p. 11.

2. Mellinkoff, The Mark of Cain; idem, “Cain and the Jews,” pp. 16–38; idem, Outcasts, 1, index, s.vv. “Cain and Abel.”

3. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 135; Stewart, “Outlawry as an Instrument of Justice in the Thirteenth Century,” pp. 49–51. Lacey, The Royal Pardon, pp. 12–13, 37, has only a few words to say on abjuration of the realm and, in my opinion, wrongly assesses its importance.

4. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, pp. 173–74, notes these other forms of mitigation. See also Dean, Crime in Medieval Europe, pp. 134–35.

5. In the texts I am exploiting, abjurare almost always refers to legal foreswearing of the realm or of another jurisdiction, although it could be used more loosely in political contexts (p. 137), to describe the promises made by couples to refrain from inappropriate sexual commerce (Registre de l’officialité de l’abbaye de Cerisy, p. 110 no. 138b; “Visites pastorales de maître Henri de Vezelai,” p. 466), and to define the vows made to eschew heresy. Extrajurare and ejurare are fairly common alternatives but appear with less frequency than abjurare over the course of the thirteenth century. For some examples, see Calendar of Documents Preserved in France, 1: A.D. 918–1206, pp. 478 no. 1318; Curia Regis Rolls, 3: 5–7 John, p. 145; Curia Regis Rolls, 6: 11–14 John, pp. 214, 256, 350; Curia Regis Rolls, 7: 15–16 John, pp. 241, 244, 247; Curia Regis Rolls, 11: 7–9 Henry III, p. 574 no. 2861. Extrajurare had an important second meaning: namely, to renounce or cede one’s rights in land. See Calendar of Documents Preserved in France, 1: A.D. 918–1206, p. 186 no. 528.

6. See, for example, Close Rolls, 1259–1261, pp. 119, 210.

7. See p. 2.

8. For outlawry and waiving and the general background on and practice of licit slaying of outlaws, see Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, pp. 89–92; Stewart, “Outlawry as an Instrument of Justice in the Thirteenth Century,” pp. 41–42, 46. See also Sartore, Outlawry, Governance, and Law, and Timothy Jones, Outlawry in Medieval Literature.

9. Sartore, Outlawry, Governance, and Law, p. 11; Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, pp. 40–42; Jacob, “Bannissement,” p. 1044.

10. Pugh, “Early Registers of English Outlaws,” pp. 319–29. For the snippet of mid–thirteenth century verse, see The Treatise (Le Tretiz) of Walter of Bibbesworth, pp. 88–89.

11. Stones, “The Folvilles of Ashby-Folville,” pp. 117–36; Bellamy, “The Coterel Gang,” pp. 698–717. In general on the Robin Hood legends, certain versions of which represent the outlaw leader as aristocratic, see Keen, The Outlaws of Medieval Legend.

12. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 298 no. 1108; London Eyre of 1276, nos. 84 and 97. These cases (dated respectively, 1243, 1257–58, and 1258–59) represent both men and a woman as fugitives and, insofar as one can tell, poor, although the phrase “no chattels,” used in these cases, is not an invariable marker of poverty (cf. pp. 36–37).

13. For a few examples of such people—fugitives abroad—showing up in the records, see Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, p. 385 no. 1331; Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 60 no. 280.

14. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp numbers 1330.291ss and 1353.179ass.; Trenholme, The Right of Sanctuary, p. 42; Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” p. 20.

15. See the sources adduced below at nn. 116–17.

16. Central Law Journal, 55, pp. 404–05.

17. Mandery, Capital Punishment, p. 560.

18. On the fully probative nature of the judicial ordeal I follow Langbein, Torture and the Law of Proof, p. 7, but note the (in my view) unpersuasive criticisms in Whitman, The Origins of Reasonable Doubt, pp. 101–02.

19. Cf. Forrest, “The Transformation of Visitation,” pp. 24–27.

20. Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” p. 10; Ireland, “The Presumption of Guilt,” pp. 243–55; Jenks, “Die ‘Assize of Clarendon’,” pp. 27–43; Taylor, “Judicium Dei,” p. 116; Lambert, “The Evolution of Sanctuary,” p. 133; Masschaele, Jury, State, and Society, pp. 47–48.

21. Hyams, Rancor and Reconciliation; see also Lambert, “The Evolution of Sanctuary,” p. 136.

22. For this percentage, see Taylor, “Judicium Dei,” p. 116, and Ireland, “Theory and Practice,” pp. 62–67. Comparative figures show continental judges acquitting more than 50 percent of those who went to the ordeal. Among the most important works in the huge and exciting literature on the ordeal are Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water; Hyams, “Trial by Ordeal,” pp. 90–126; and Peter Brown, “Society and the Supernatural,” pp. 302–32.

23. Cf. Baldwin, Masters, Princes and Merchants, 1, pp. 323–32.

24. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 117.

25. Sartore, Outlawry, Governance, and Law, pp. 88–90. For examples, see Curia Regis Rolls, 6: 11–14 John, p. 256 (dated 1212); Curia Regis Rolls, 7: 15– 16 John, pp. 241, 247.

26. Curia Regis Rolls, 6: 11–14 John, p. 256.

27. Taylor, “Judicium Dei,” pp. 114–15.

28. Groot, “The Early Thirteenth-Century Criminal Jury,” pp. 3–35; idem, “The Jury in Private Criminal Prosecutions,” pp. 113–41; Masschaele, Jury, State, and Society, pp. 74–75.

29. S. L. E., “Papal Elections,” p. 428; Watt, “The Papacy,” p. 112. For alternative views, see Ryan, “Less than Unanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Trials,” pp. 212–13.

30. Ryan, “Less than Unanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Trials,” p. 212. See also Caviness, “Giving ‘the Middle Ages’ a Bad Name,” pp. 177–78.

31. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 119; Ireland, “Theory and Practice,” pp. 56–67; Masschaele, Jury, State, and Society, p. 7.

32. Bureau of Justice Statistics, online at http://www.bjs.gov; and Friedman, “Making Sense of English Law Enforcement,” n. 16.

33. Dean, Crime in Medieval Europe, pp. 10–11.

34. Summerson, “Attitudes to Capital Punishment,” p. 125; Dean, Crime in Medieval Europe, pp. 10–11; Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, p. 72; Gauvard, “Les oppositions à la peine de mort,” pp. 134–66; idem, “Justification and Theory of the Death Penalty,” pp. 190–208; Morel, “De l’exclusion à la redemption,” p. 259.

35. Summerson, “The Early Development of the Peine Forte et Dure,” pp. 116–25; Hostettler, The Criminal Jury, pp. 25–26; Musson, Public Order, pp. 196, 202; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 279–80.

36. Jordan, “A Fresh Look at Medieval Sanctuary,” pp. 17–32, with references to earlier literature. Although more than a century and one-half old, Beaurepaire’s Essai sur l’asile religieux was unknown to me at the time I wrote my article on sanctuary and should be consulted. It is a splendid piece of work, informed not only by the author’s own considerable intelligence and research but also by a cache of information supplied to him by the great scholar, Léopold Delisle (p. 57 n. 2). See also Sartore, Outlawry, Governance, and Law, p. 74.

37. See, for example, Barmash, Homicide in the Biblical World, pp. 71–93.

38. Trenholme, The Right of Sanctuary, pp. 2–9. See also Lambert, “The Evolution of Sanctuary,” pp. 123–24.

39. Boutillier, Somme rural, p. 17; Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, pp. 95–108; Trenholme, The Right of Sanctuary, pp. 23, 26, 44; Lambert, “The Evolution of Sanctuary,” p. 129.

40. Lambert, “The Evolution of Sanctuary,” p. 116 and passim.

41. See, for example, Administrative Korrespondenz der französischen Könige um 1300, pp. 384–85 and 490 nos. 298 and 464. Sometimes such venues were described as places of ecclesiastical immunity (immunitas), such as at pp. 210–11 no. 44.

42. Jordan, “A Fresh Look at Medieval Sanctuary,” pp. 17–32. Also, Lambert, “The Evolution of Sanctuary,” pp. 115–44.

43. Jordan, “A Fresh Look at Medieval Sanctuary,” p. 18, and Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, pp. 145–50. And see chapter 6, pp. 142–45.

44. Frampton, A Glance at the Hundred of Wrotham, pp. 47–50. Here and elsewhere I have, whenever possible, converted the historical toponyms found in the documents (in this instance Hynton’) to their modern equivalents, using the Historical Gazetteer of England’s Place-Names and the Henry III Fine Rolls Project and other standard sources. When identification remains uncertain, I have used italics for the original.

45. Patent Rolls, 1292–1301, p. 6.

46. Patent Rolls, 1307–1313, p. 425.

47. Toureille, “Larrons incorrigibles,” p. 44.

48. Turning, Municipal Officials, p. 31; Jordan, “A Fresh Look at Medieval Sanctuary,” p. 246 n. 13; Lambert, “The Evolution of Sanctuary,” p. 118.

49. Petitions to the Crown from English Religious Houses, pp. 245–46 no. 193.

50. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 134, also discusses this case.

51. Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” p. 31–32.

52. The case is treated in some detail by Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, pp. 138–39.

53. For such cases, see Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, pp. 34–47, and Trenholme, The Right of Sanctuary, pp. 75–78; Sartore, Outlawry, Governance, and Law, pp. 137–40.

54. For additional cases, see also Trenholme, The Right of Sanctuary, pp. 80–81; Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” pp. 29–31.

55. Patent Rolls, 1281–1292, p. 143. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, p. 229.

56. Close Rolls, 1307–1313, p. 107. For additional examples of breaches of sanctuary, see Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, pp. 139–42.

57. Thus, Curia Regis Rolls, 8: 3–4 Henry III, p. 279.

58. Curia Regis Rolls, 13: 11–14 Henry III, p. 212 no. 986. On the general point, Trenholme, The Right of Sanctuary, p. 40.

59. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, p. 18.

60. For an estimate of how many thousands, see pp. 25–26.

61. The ten-percent estimate of female asylum seekers is my own, but on the general point, see Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 124, and Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” pp. 25–26. For women as a proportion of accused felons, ten percent or a little more, see Dean, Crime in Medieval Europe, p. 77; Bresc, “Justice et société,” p. 31.

62. Eyre of Northamptonshire, 3–4 Edward III, vol. 1, p. 208 (summarized in Legal History: The Year Books [online], Seipp number 1330.406ss). For a similar case where the injured man escaped after seeking sanctuary, see Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, p. 237.

63. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1324.037.

64. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 134, and pp. 64, 120–22 of the current work.

65. Woolgar, The Senses in Late Medieval England, pp. 180–81. Many scholars refer to these artifacts, but in words which are not always consistent with the best evidence—and it is not always clear where their ideas, some quite weird, come from. See, for example, Roth, Crime and Punishment, p. 28; Sokol and Sokol, Shakespeare’s Legal Language, p. 334; Rabben, Give Refuge to the Stranger, p. 63; Jones and Johnstone, History of Criminal Justice, p. 38; etc., etc., etc.

66. Eyre of Northamptonshire, 3–4 Edward III, vol. 1, p.189 (summarized in Legal History: The Year Books [online], Seipp number 1330.364ss).

67. Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England, 2, p. 383. Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law, 2, 590–91.

68. Cf. Trenholme, The Right of Sanctuary, pp. 38–39; Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” p. 16.

69. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, pp. 144–45, on Hubert de Burgh; and Brand, “Chief Justice and Felon,” p. 46, on Thomas Weyland.

70. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 86–87. (The case dates from December 1377.)

71. Sartore, Outlawry, Governance, and Law, p. 150.

72. Trenholme, The Right of Sanctuary, p. 43; Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” p. 20.

73. Curia Regis Rolls, 6: 11–14 John, p. 350.

74. See, for example, the collusion alleged between the coroner’s jurors and one William Jurday, who abjured Somersetshire for theft. He was spirited away and hidden in the village of Crandon: Somersetshire Pleas . . . (12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 306 no. 1153. The jurors and the township of Crandon incurred the crown’s wrath and were fined for the offense.

75. Summerson, “Peacekeepers and Lawbreakers,” pp. 56–76, is partly motivated by this question, even though much of his evidence postdates the period of central concern in the present study.

76. Schubert, Räuber, Henker, arme Sünder, p. 100; Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, p. 84, also notes the near-ubiquity of individuals being legally marqué[s] au fer.

77. In general on French branding practices, see Gomart, “De la peine du bannissement,” p. 451; Janin, “Documents relatifs à la peine du bannissement,” pp. 420–21; Jusserand, Les Anglais au moyen âge, p. 149 n.1; Gonthier, Le châtiment du crime, pp. 140–41. Purchases of royal fleur-de-lysé branding irons are recorded in the fiscal accounts; see “Un compte de menues dépenses,” pp. 24 and 26 nos.174 and 194.

78. Documents recording the purchase and repair of branding irons with crosses in 1280–81, 1293, 1298, etc. are published in Actes et comptes de la commune de Provins, pp. 49, 90, 166. See also Bourquelot, “Notice sur le manuscrit intitulé Cartulaire de la ville de Provins,” p. 447.

79. Medieval Popular Religion, p. 171, excerpting the Materials for the History of Thomas Becket.

80. For the case, see Registre criminel de Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, p. 322. On the custom of burying women alive, see Gonthier, Le châtiment du crime, pp. 161–62.

81. Établissements de Rouen, 1, p. 19, and 2, pp. 16–19, article 10.

82. In particular on work-related accidents, see Leguay, Pauvres et marginaux, pp. 184–85.

83. Bellamy, Crime and Public Order, pp. 67, 181; Woolgar, The Senses in Late Medieval England, p. 56.

84. See the early modern annotations to Boutillier’s fourteenth-century Somme rural, p. 871.

85. For a contemporary articulation of the sentiment, see Coutume d’Agen, pp. 58–59, 300. The reference to Bentham is to his Théorie des peines et des récompenses, 3, pp. 91–92. See also Bimbenet, “Examen,” p. 9, “la marque au fer chaud était un signe caché qui ne se révélait qu’aux yeux du fonctionnaire chargé de le rechercher.”

86. Laingui and Lebigre, Histoire du droit pénal, 1, pp. 127 and 185 n. 10.

87. C.P. Jones, “Stigma: Tattooing and Branding in Graeco-Roman Antiquity,” pp. 139–55.

88. 1235 Surrey Eyre, 2, p. 434 no. 567.

89. Sharpe, Judicial Punishment in England, p. 23; Bellamy, Crime and Public Order, p. 181.

90. See pp. 126–27, 142–44.

91. Statutes of the Realm, 1, p. 88. I have modified the translation. This class of exiles was brought to my attention in Caroline Dunn’s as-yet unpublished paper “Prosecuting Ravishment in Thirteenth Century England.”

92. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1334.147.

93. For the information on approvers which follows, see Musson, Public Order, pp. 172–74 and 213–14; Sartore, Outlawry, Governance, and Law, pp. 74 and 145–46; Röhrkasten, “Some Problems of the Evidence of Fourteenth Century Approvers,” pp. 14–22, and, more comprehensively, Hamil, “The King’s Approvers,” pp. 238–58, and now especially, Röhrkasten, Die englischen Kronzeugen.

94. Hamil, “The King’s Approvers,” p. 248. For a glimpse into the operation of the process, see Clanchy, “Highway Robbery and Trial by Battle,” pp. 25–61.

95. For a possible late and eccentric use of combat, see Neilson, Trial by Combat, pp. 154–58. See also Hamil, “The King’s Approvers,” pp. 256–57.

96. Groot, “The Early Thirteenth-Century Criminal Jury,” p. 18.

97. Musson, Public Order, pp. 243–46; Hamil, “The King’s Approvers,” pp. 247–51; Röhrkasten, “Some Problems of the Evidence of Fourteenth Century Approvers,” pp. 14–22; idem, Die englischen Kronzeugen, p. 192.

98. Hamil, “The King’s Approvers,” pp. 250–51.

99. The 1258–9 Special Eyre of Surrey and Kent, pp. 35–36 no. 54. See also Sartore, Outlawry, Governance, and Law, pp. 161–63. A major collection of documents relevant to Hugh Bigod’s justiciarship will appear from the Seldon Society as The Court of the Justiciar of England (1258–60), edited by Andrew Hershey. (I owe this information to Nicholas Vincent.) Here is the advance description of the contents of the volume: “In the Provisions of Oxford the rebel barons appointed Hugh Bigod ‘to right the wrongs done by all the other justices, bailiffs, earls, barons, and all other persons’. His court’s unpublished records, with over a thousand entries, show Bigod taking such action against the worst excesses of royal bureaucracy . . . including against the king himself. The introduction will address the barons’ ideal of justice and law as simple, immediate, and personal, as well as new procedures and the interest of the cases.” See http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/selden_society/pub.html.

100. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 127–32.

101. Close Rolls, 1237–1242, p. 5.

102. Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 130–31. The other approvers, whose fate is unknown, were named Richard of Leicester, William of Codenorde, and Adam Waleys. Despite the editorial note at p. xvii, none of these men is said to have abjured the realm.

103. On conviction rates, see Stones, “The Folvilles of Ashby-Folville,” pp. 130–31 (also citing Bertha Putnam in J. F. Willard, English Government at Work, 3). On the passion for depicting executions, see Morel, “De l’exclusion à la redemption,” pp. 259–72 and plates, and Caviness’s complex arguments on the representation of spectacular punishments, “Giving ‘the Middle Ages’ a Bad Name,” pp. 175–235.

104. Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, p. 137. Sartore, Outlawry, Governance, and Law, pp. 131 and 150–52, makes a similar observation.

105. For the discussion in this and the next paragraph, see Jordan, “Fresh Look at Medieval Sanctuary,” pp. 26–27.

106. In addition to Jordan (above, n. 105), see Wright, “The High Seas and the Church,” p. 31; Trenholme, The Right of Sanctuary, p. 25; Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, p. 31.

107. See pp. 69–70. See also Wright, “The High Seas and the Church,” p. 31.

108. Kitsikopoulos, “England,” p. 35, accepting the conclusions of Bruce Campbell.

109. For a variety of estimates, some even higher, see Jordan, The Great Famine, p. 191 n. 29.

110. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, pp. 95–108.

111. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 3, p. 103 no. 298, dated 1358.

112. In Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, p. 58 n. 4, Charles Gross made reference to a roll with eleven membranes, dating from 27 Edward I to 20 Edward II (1299–1327), with twenty-three cases of abjuration in the county of Northamptonshire, which he did not edit.

113. Whitley, “Sanctuary in Devon,” pp. 302–13.

114. Bresc, “Justice et société,” p. 33, un monde de bannis.

115. Gonthier, Le châtiment du crime, pp. 134–40.

116. Cf. Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, pp. 25–40.

117. Naessens, “Judicial Authorities’ Views of Women’s Roles in Late Medieval Flanders,” pp. 52 (on population) and 59 and 74 (on the Book of Exiles). The ballincboek records cases starting only in 1472 and running to 1537, so no coeval comparisons of the system it reflects can be made with thirteenth-and fourteenth-century English and French exile for felony.

118. The French royal formulary, circa 1300, edited by Hans-Günter Schmidt, is replete with models, taken from genuine charters, addressing the complexities of exile for felony. Administrative Korrespondenz der französischen Könige um 1300, pp. 198–99, 210–11, 230–31, 290, 322, 324–25, 348, 367–68, 377–78, 384–85, 423, 433–34, 490, 502–03, 525, and 528–29 nos. 25, 44–45, 74, 159, 207, 211, 246, 272, 287, 298, 359, 373, 464, 484, 517, and 523. The Actes et comptes de la commune de Provins, pp. 22–23, includes a list of bannis for 1296 and court cases demonstrating the application of the process in 1304–05, among other years (pp. 201–02). Brochon, Essai sur l’histoire de la justice criminelle à Bordeaux, pp. 51–52 n. 5, catalogues references to numerous registers, now disappeared, for the Bordelais. Dehaisnes notes references to the once-existing fourteenth-century rolls of banishments for the county of Flanders, “État général des registres de la Chambre des comptes de Lille relatifs à la Flandre,” p. 300 n. 1; see also Warnkönig, Flandrische Staats-und Rechtsgeschichte, 3, part 1, pp. 177–78. Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, pp. 125–54, uses surviving registers from Central Europe as the main evidence in her study; and Caviness makes reference to German equivalents, “Giving ‘the Middle Ages’ a Bad Name,” p. 198.

119. Various documents of procedure and practice are either edited, quoted, or cited as well as commented upon in Ducoudray, Les Origines du Parlement de Paris, pp. 897–98; Gomart, “De la peine du bannissement,” pp. 449–64; Mémoires historiques . . . Valenciennes, 3, pp. 181–82; “Bannis de Douais,” pp. 3–9; Janin, “Documents relatifs à la peine du bannissement,” p. 419; Curveiller, “L’étranger à Dunkerque,” pp. 28 and 34 n. 30; idem, Dunkerque, ville et port, p. 90; Recueil des monuments inédits du Tiers-État, 1, pp. 46, 127–28, 132; 3, p. 482; and 4, pp. 174–78, 195–203, 651; Droit coutumier de Cambrai, pp. 10–11 nos. xxxvii, xl, xlii–xliii; Coutumes de Beauvaisis, p. 736 s.vv. “Banish, banishment”; Le livre Roisin: coutumier lillois, pp. 42, 64, 69, 73, 87–90, 96, 100–01 nos. 55, 92, 98, 106, 130–01, 134–35, 146, 151–52; Lois, enquêtes et jugements des pairs du Castel de Lille, p. 136 no. 217; Warnkönig, Flandrische Staats-und Rechtsgeschichte, 3, part 1, pp. 173–81; idem, Histoire consitutionelle et administrative de la ville de Bruges, pp. 365–66, 372 nos. 5, 11, 36, etc.; Cardevacque, “Le bourreau à Arras,” pp. 164–65; Pagart d’Hermansart, Histoire du bailliage de Saint-Omer, 1, p. 153 (also, Monteil, Traité de matériaux manuscrits, 2, p. 214); Établissements de Rouen, 2, p. 187, s.v. “bannissement”; Bourquelot, Histoire de Provins, 2, pp. 417, 435; Coutume de Saint-Sever, pp. 38–40; Très ancienne coutume de Bretagne, pp. 149–53 nos. 108–11; Grand, “Justice criminelle,” pp. 93, 104–05 (Auvergne and its environs); Fors de Béarn, pp. 66, 121 articles 178, 36; Archives de la ville de Lectoure, p. 52 no. 84; Turning, Municipal Officials, p. 24. More generally, Carbonnières, “Le privilège de bannissement,” pp. 315–17; Beaurepaire, Essai sur l’asile religieux, p. 63; Coy, Strangers and Misfits; Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, pp. 74–75.

120. Halba, “Le vocabulaire du bannissement,” pp. 347–72.

121. McCune, “Justice, Mercy, and Late Medieval Governance,” pp. 1671–77. For the “triumph” of this sentiment in France as well, see Gauvard, De grace especial, 2, p. 908.

122. The system of exile for felony in France was equally harsh; see Geremek’s description in Les marginaux parisiens, pp. 22–23. He does not use the word “mercy.”

123. Hoffmann, Kahn, and Fisher, “Plea Bargaining in the Shadow of Death,” pp. 2313–92.

124. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 119.

125. Giles Jacob, The Law-Dictionary, 5, p. 31.

126. Giles Jacob, The Law-Dictionary, 5, p. 31. See chapter 4, pp. 100–12 of the current work for a fuller discussion of gangs.

127. Prestwich, Plantagenet England, p. 524.

128. An exquisite case illustrates the disdain for such men. Two hundred and seven prisoners awaiting final disposition of their fates in an overcrowded Nottingham jail ca. 1330 petitioned the crown for relief. The justices who were sent to deliver the jail were remarkable in their leniency. One hundred and ninety-eight people, not yet tried, were released outright. They had suffered enough through the pretrial imprisonment. Of the remaining nine, four more, already convicted, were permitted to purchase royal pardons. That left five, all of whom were condemned to death by hanging. One of these avoided his fate by proving benefit of clergy. The other four were indeed hanged. Who were these people? Whatever the crimes for which they had been incarcerated, what marked them and them alone as detritus was that three were failed approvers and the fourth, Agnes, was the accomplice wife of a failed approver who had already been hanged. What may have been the most lenient panel of justices ever at work in medieval England could not have cared less about saving an approver’s life. Crook, “A Petition from the Prisoners in Nottingham Gaol,” pp. 212–13, 218.

129. Pleas before the King or His Justices, 1198–1212, pp. 81–82 no. 739.

130. Flower, Introduction to the Curia Regis Rolls, pp. 323–24, 444–45.

131. Flower, Introduction to the Curia Regis Rolls, p. 323.

132. For the possibility of pardon, however, see chapter 5, pp. 119–33.

133. OED, s.vv. “rough music.” I owe this observation to Nicholas Vincent.

134. In the preface to Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, p. 16. See also Gonthier, Cris de haine et rites d’unité, pp. 175–78.

135. See chapter 4, pp. 90–91.

136. One should note here the way in recent years a concentration of possible refugees from France to England at the infamous Sangatte camp, also on the Channel, has produced very negative reactions in Britain.

137. I readily admit that the cases I have examined, being drawn from different kinds of data with enormously varying content, fail to meet the criteria required by quantitative social scientists for a proper sample. I believe, however, that the information I have gleaned is sufficient to make plausible statements about the nature and experience of the exile system. If we adhere to the estimate of 75,000 exiles during the period covered in this study, 2,000 cases constitute 2.67 percent of the total.

Notes to Chapter 2
THE ABJURERS, THEIR CRIMES, AND THEIR PROPERTY

1. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, pp. 270–307, with gleanings from many of these sources.

2. Brand, “Understanding Early Petitions,” p. 103. See also pp. 124–34 of the current work.

3. See pp. 145 and 162 n. 91.

4. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, pp. 242–60.

5. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, pp. 261–69, with excerpts.

6. See, for example, the “Inquisitiones post mortem,” published in the second volume of Archaeologia cantiana in 1859.

7. Murphy, “The Key of the County,” p. 67.

8. Deller, “The Texture of Literacy in the Testimonies of Late-Medieval English Proof-of-Age Jurors,” pp. 207–24; Hicks, The Fifteenth-Century Inquisitions Post Mortem; Kitsikopoulos, “England,” pp. 24, 29.

9. See Dyer’s perceptive discussion in “Poverty and Its Relief in Late Medieval England,” pp. 61–66.

10. Frampton, A Glance at the Hundred of Wrotham, p. 49.

11. London Eyre of 1276, no. 28.

12. Titow, English Rural Society, pp. 78–80.

13. See, for example, Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, pp. 173, 307, 409, 473, 492, 494–95, 580, nos. 536–37, 1011, 1437, 1695, 1777, 1788, 1793, 2177; and 2, p. 20 no. 70); Staffordshire Plea Rolls 4, p. 72.

14. Examples of messuages only noted: Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, pp. 171, 175, 339–40, 352, 373, 381, 414, 464, 505 nos. 525, 551, 1133, 1190, 1280, 1314, 1459, 1658, 1855; and 2, pp. 82, 234, nos. 328, 942. Examples of messuages, each with ten acres or less: Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, pp. 389, 463, nos. 1348, 1649.

15. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, p. 475 no. 1701.

16. Strangers and vagabonds: Somersetshire Pleas . . . (12th Century–41 Henry III), pp. 228, 243–45, 255, 257, 260, 270, 296, nos. 747, 819, 824, 827, 884, 895, 911, 960, 1094; London Eyre of 1244, nos. 49, 93, 151; London Eyre of 1276, nos. 23, 28, 38, 42, 57–58, 90, 186, 242, 263; Staffordshire Plea Rolls 4, p. 73; Staffordshire Plea Rolls 6 part 1, p. 268; Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 3, p. 315 no. 832.

17. Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” p. 159.

18. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 270 no. 960.

19. London Eyre of 1244, no. 49; Staffordshire Plea Rolls 4, p. 73.

20. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 296 no. 1094.

21. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 245 no. 827.

22. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 228 no. 747; London Eyre of 1276, no. 90; Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, p. 124.

23. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (12th Century–41 Henry III), pp. 228, 244–45, 260, nos. 747, 824, 827, 911; London Eyre of 1276, no. 38; Staffordshire Plea Rolls 6 part 1, p. 268. See also Whitley, “Sanctuary in Devon,” p. 305 no. 1, 306 no. 20, 307 no. 3, 309 no. 15, 311–12 nos. 14–15.

24. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 45 no. 185 (repeated at p. 97 no. 383) and pp. 238, 257 nos. 795, 895; Staffordshire Plea Rolls 7 part 1, p. 176.

25. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 68–69.

26. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 66–67.

27. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 67–68.

28. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, p. 68.

29. See, for example, Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265– 1413, p. 68 (pennies, a sash, a purse, three knives); Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, p. 124 (two abjurers’ goods, average worth 10d., consisting of a tunic, a hood, a sword and two knives); Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 321 no. 1244 (chattels, 12d.).

30. London Eyre of 1244, nos. 49, 93, 98, 117, 125, 127, 139–40, 151, 163; London Eyre of 1276, nos. 11, 20, 23, 28, 52, 65, 73, 81–82, 90, 97, 100, 106–10, 115, 123, 241, 262–63, 283, 316; Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” pp. 159, 163–65, 167–69, 171; Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 84, 89–90; Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), pp. 46, 55, 228, 244, 255, 260, 270, 276, 295, 298, 306, nos. 91, 250, 747–48, 824, 884, 911, 960, 987, 1087, 1108, 1153; Staffordshire Plea Rolls 4, p. 73; Staffordshire Plea Rolls 6 part 1, p. 275; etc.

31. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 3, pp. 165–66 no. 440.

32. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, p. 18 no. 58.

33. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, p. 466 no. 1667.

34. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, p. 495 no. 1791.

35. Curia Regis Rolls, 11: 7–9 Henry III, p. 574 no. 2861.

36. Fine Rolls, 1234–1242, p. 127 no. 194.

37. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, 307 no. 1011.

38. See, for instance, Curia Regis Rolls, 12: 9–10 Henry III, p. 262 no. 1284 (one-half virgate).

39. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, 427 no. 1506.

40. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 2, p. 4 no. 16.

41. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 2, p. 27 no. 119.

42. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, pp. 455–56 no. 1623, and 2, pp. 8–9 no. 34.

43. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, p. 388 no. 1342.

44. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, pp. 466–67 no. 1668.

45. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 2, p. 288 no. 1176.

46. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, pp. 464, 476 nos. 1659 and 1709.

47. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 125.

48. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 2, p. 39 no. 163.

49. Fine Rolls, 1234–1242, p. 232 no. 236.

50. London Eyre of 1244, no. 317.

51. Staffordshire Plea Rolls 4, p. 72.

52. Fine Rolls, 1234–1242, p. 413 no. 409.

53. London Eyre of 1276, no. 9.

54. For the two inquests, see Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, pp. 485–86, 494 nos. 1754 and 1790.

55. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 3, p. 167 no. 446.

56. Liberate Rolls, 1251–1260, p. 75.

57. Liberate Rolls, 1245–1251, p. 182.

58. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1319.050ss.

59. London Eyre of 1276, no. 66.

60. London Eyre of 1276, no. 186.

61. Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, p. 72.

62. Staffordshire Plea Rolls 6 part 1, p. 275; Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 137.

63. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 238 no. 795.

64. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 229 no. 755.

65. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 291 no. 1066.

66. See also cases provided in Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” pp. 160, 171, with homicides possessing no chattels and 3s. 4d.

67. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41Henry III), p. 298 no. 1108.

68. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 267 no. 942 (datable to 1243 or before).

69. London Eyre of 1244, no. 149, and London Eyre of 1276, no. 92.

70. See, for example, Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), pp. 102, 105, 236, 248, 318 nos. 384–85, 785, 849, 1221; Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, p. 103; Staffordshire Plea Rolls 4, p. 72; Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” pp. 160, 165, 168–71, 173.

71. Examples, all dating from the long thirteenth century down to the mid-fourteenth century, may be found in: Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close 12th Century–41 Henry III), pp. 52, 270, 324 nos. 231, 958, 1264; Staffordshire Plea Rolls 7, part 1, p. 176; London Eyre of 1276, nos. 172, 262; Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 3, pp. 274, 315 nos. 728 and 832.

72. London Eyre of 1276, no. 79 (abjuration in 1257–58 for theft of an ox and a horse); Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 3, p. 109 no. 315 (abjuration in 1358 for theft; the miscreant, who may have been a fence for rustled cattle and stolen goods, had cows, young oxen, yearling calves, sheep, a horse, pigs, three brass pails, a plumb line, etc.).

73. Curia Regis Rolls, 13: 11–14 Henry III, p. 107 no. 466; Fine Rolls, 1224–1234, p. 162 no. 302.

74. Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 87–89. Another case might be that of Walter Albus (Blandus), but I will address his circumstances more fully in chapter 5, p. 115.

75. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, pp. 525, 556 nos. 1933, 2074, and 2, p. 24 no. 102; Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close 12th Century–41 Henry III), pp. 41, 52, 103, 106, 298 nos. 166, 231, 383–85, 1108; Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, p. 37; London Eyre of 1276, no. 73.

76. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 2, pp. 82, 172 nos. 328, 691; Staffordshire Plea Rolls 6 part 1, p. 271.

77. Curia Regis Rolls, 6: 11–14 John, p. 350; Close Rolls, 1237–1242, p. 122; Close Rolls, 1259–1261, p. 247; Patent Rolls, 1292–1301, p. 127; Select Cases from the Coroners Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 69–70; Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 247 no. 842. See also Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 124.

78. See Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, pp. 125–26. It is also implied in a case from 1238, Close Rolls, 1237–1242, p. 122.

79. See the customs redacted in Normandy on 13 November 1205 and approved by the leading nobles: Calendar of Documents Preserved in France, vol. 1: A.D. 918–1206, pp. 476–78 no. 1318.

80. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 129.

81. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 133.

82. Six pence was declared insufficient in another case from 1241: Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 133.

83. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, 603 no. 2254. For the resolution of the case, see pp. 129–30 of the current work.

84. Brand, “Chief Justice and Felon,” pp. 27–34.

85. Brand, “Chief Justice and Felon,” p. 40.

86. Brand, “Chief Justice and Felon,” pp. 40–45.

87. Brand, “Chief Justice and Felon,” pp. 45–46. Cf. Prestwich, Edward I, p. 339.

88. Brand, “Chief Justice and Felon,” p. 46.

89. Brand, “Chief Justice and Felon,” p. 46.

90. Prestwich, Edward I, p. 339. See also Brand, “Chief Justice and Felon,” p. 46.

91. In 1356 judges made reference to another puzzling intervention by Edward I which still fascinated them fifty years after his death: Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1356.134ass.

92. Stewart, “Outlawry as an Instrument of Justice in the Thirteenth Century,” p. 45.

93. Curia Regis Rolls, 3: 5–7 John, p. 145.

94. London Eyre of 1276, no. 28; the case is dated 1252–53.

95. Close Rolls, 1251–1253, p. 137.

96. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, p. 385 no. 1331. For further on this case, see pp. 130–31 of the current work.

97. Curia Regis Rolls, 8: 3–4 Henry III, p. 279; Curia Regis Rolls, 9: 4–5 Henry III, p. 309; Patent Rolls, 1266–1272, p. 15; Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, p. 103; Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 130–31; Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), pp. 55, 236, 247, 296 nos. 250, 785, 842, 1094; London Eyre of 1276, nos. 204, 263, 316; Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” pp. 162–63; Pleas of the Crown for . . . Swineshead, p. 141; Oxford City Documents, p. 189; Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 3, pp. 51, 109 nos. 145 and 315; Frampton, A Glance at the Hundred of Wrotham, pp. 11–13, 18. See also Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 127.

98. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 323 no. 1254. In general, see Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 127.

99. Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” p. 163.

100. Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” pp. 162, 168; Pleas of the Crown for . . . Swineshead, p. 141; Oxford City Documents, p. 189.

101. Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” p. 166.

102. See, for example, Close Rolls, 1259–1261, p. 342.

103. Mémoires historiques sur l’arrondissement de Valenciennes, p. 176.

104. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 134.

105. Fine Rolls, 1224–1234, p. 468 no. 133.

106. Curia Regis Rolls, 11: 7–9 Henry III, p. 574 no. 2861.

107. Fine Rolls, 1234–1242, p. 127 no. 194.

108. A few examples: arson, Fine Rolls, 1234–1242, pp. 154–55 nos. 339–41; counterfeiting, London Eyre of 1276, no. 11; and theft, pp. 47–48 of the current work.

109. A number of instances: Curia Regis Rolls, 4: 7–8 John, p. 115; Curia Regis Rolls, 7: 15–16 John, p. 241; Curia Regis Rolls, 9: 4–5 Henry III, p. 309; Curia Regis Rolls: 14: 14–17 Henry III, p. 92 no. 464; Fine Rolls, 1234–1242, p. 122 no. 161; Liberate Rolls, 1251–1260, p. 75; London Eyre of 1244, nos. 98, 125, 127, 151; London Eyre of 1276, nos. 9, 20, 23, 42, 52, 58, 66, 106, 110, 112, 115, 172, 186, 242, 262, 283; Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” pp. 159–60, 163, 165, 167–71, 173; Whitley, “Sanctuary in Devon,” pp. 305 no. 1 and 6, 306 nos. 20, 22–30, 308 no. 19, and 312–13 nos. 17 and 24; Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), pp. 46, 104, 106, 228, 236, 243–45, 248, 255, 257, 259–60, 270, 276, 281, 306–07, 321, 323–24 nos. 91, 384–85, 747, 785, 819, 824, 827, 847, 849, 884, 895, 907, 911, 958, 987, 1008, 1153, 1158, 1244, 1255, 1264; Staffordshire Plea Rolls 4, p. 73; Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 36–37, 68–69, 75–76; Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 3, pp. 165–66 no. 440; Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, p. 7; Frampton, A Glance at the Hundred of Wrotham, pp. 19, 47–48; etc.

110. For the two abjurations referred to, see Curia Regis Rolls, 7: 15–16 John, p. 241 (dated 1214) and Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 239 no. 797 (dated 1243 or earlier).

111. See, for example, Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 298 no. 1108; London Eyre of 1276, p. 267 no. 942; London Eyre of 1244, no. 149; London Eyre of 1276, nos. 79, 82, 92, 100, 123. I could continue this list until, to coin a phrase, the rustled cows come home.

112. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 270 no. 960; London Eyre of 1276, no. 79.

113. London Eyre of 1276, nos. 20, 65.

114. London Eyre of 1276, nos. 57, 73.

115. Hale, Historia placitorum coronae, 1, p. 549.

116. Middle English Dictionary, 3, p. 376. The problem, perhaps impossibility, of differentiating surnames and nicknames in the thirteenth century is addressed in Olson, A Mute Gospel, pp. 100–10.

117. London Eyre of 1276, no. 38.

118. Whitley, “Sanctuary in Devon,” p. 305 no. 1.

119. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 68–69.

120. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, pp. 171, 175, 291, 607 nos. 525, 551, 948, 2270; Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 38, 67–70; Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 64, 84, 87–90, 124; Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), pp. 38, 41, 45, 52, 57, 97–98, 102–03, 105–06, 229, 238, 260, 291, 293, 295, 303–04, 318 nos. 148, 166, 185, 189, 231, 263, 298, 305, 383–85, 755, 795, 910, 1066, 1077, 1087, 1108, 1144, 1221; London Eyre of 1244, nos. 49, 93, 140, 163; London Eyre of 1276, nos. 90, 97, 241; Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” pp. 159–60, 163–64, 167, 171; Whitley, “Sanctuary in Devon,” pp. 305 nos. 13–14, 307 nos. 3, 8, 18, 308–09 nos. 1–2, 309 no. 15, 310–11 nos. 11–120, 311–12 nos. 13–15, 312 nos. 17–18; Pleas of the Crown for . . . Swineshead, p. 141; Staffordshire Plea Rolls 4, p. 72; Staffordshire Plea Rolls 6 part 1, p. 271; Curia Regis Rolls, 6: 11–14 John, p. 256; Curia Regis Rolls, 7: 15–16 John, pp. 241, 244; Curia Regis Rolls, 15: 17–21 Henry III, p. 326 no. 1304; Fine Rolls, 1216–1224, pp. 14, 25, 35 nos. 46, 99, 137; Fine Rolls, 1224–1234, p. 535 no. 142; Fine Rolls, 1234–1242, p. 165 no. 402; Liberate Rolls, 1226–1240, p. 467; Liberate Rolls, 1245–1251, p. 182; Close Rolls, 1259–1261, p. 256; Patent Rolls, 1292–1301, p. 127; Patent Rolls, 1317–1321, p. 38; Patent Rolls, 1321–1324, p. 38; etc.

121. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 67, 86–87; Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” pp. 163–64; Whitley, “Sanctuary in Devon,” pp. 311–12 nos. 14, 17.

122. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, p. 556 no. 2074.

123. Whitley, “Sanctuary in Devon,” p. 310 no. 15.

124. Curia Regis Rolls, 10: 5–6 Henry III, p. 293.

125. Whitley, “Sanctuary in Devon,” pp. 311–12 no. 15. Summerson, “Attitudes to Capital Punishment,” p. 27, also offers speculation on this case.

126. Whitley, “Sanctuary in Devon,” p. 313.

127. Eyre of Northamptonshire, 3–4 Edward III, 1, p. 189 (summarized in Legal History: The Year Books [online], Seipp number 1330.364ss).

128. Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” p. 159.

129. London Eyre of 1244, no. 139.

130. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 228 no. 748.

131. London Eyre of 1276, no. 81.

132. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 2, pp. 288, 317 nos. 1176 and 1296.

133. London Eyre of 1244, no. 146.

134. London Eyre of 1244, no. 117.

135. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 240 no. 804.

136. Close Rolls, 1259–1261, p. 247.

137. Close Rolls, 1264–1268, p. 329.

138. Close Rolls, 1259–1261, p. 247.

139. Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” pp. 163–64.

140. Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” p. 169.

141. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 48 no. 205.

142. Patent Rolls, 1266–1272, pp. 271, 285.

143. Cf. Whitley, “Sanctuary in Devon,” p. 306 nos. 22–30.

144. Curia Regis Rolls: 7: 15–16 John, p. 247. Sartore, Outlawry, Governance, and Law, pp. 142–43.

145. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, 173 no. 540.

146. Close Rolls, 1237–1242, pp. 522–23. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 134, appears to be referring to the same case (if so, his citation is in error) and presumes the father was pardoned from sanctuary. He acknowledges, however, that the record does not say this (p. 225 n. 128).

147. In general, see Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, pp. 124–25; Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, vol. 2, p. 590; Trenholme, Right of Sanctuary, pp. 43–44; Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” pp. 18, 27. For documents of practice—court cases and administrative records—see Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, pp. 171, 173, 175, 339–40, 373, 381, 389, 409, 414, 427, 455–56, 463–64, 466–67, 473, 475–76, 480, 484, 486, 492, 494–95, 505, 525, 580 nos. 525, 536–37, 551, 1133, 1280, 1314, 1348, 1437, 1459, 1506, 1623, 1649, 1653, 1658–59, 1667–68, 1695, 1701, 1709, 1727, 1743, 1755, 1777, 1788, 1790–91, 1855, 1933, 2177; “Inquisitiones post mortem” [Archaeologia cantiana], p. 300; Close Rolls, 1237–1242, pp. 332, 392, 419; Close Rolls, 1247–1251, p. 259; Fine Rolls, 1224–1234, p. 535 no. 142; Fine Rolls, 1234–1242, p. 339, 413 nos. 218 and 409; Liberate Rolls, 1226–1240, p. 467. This last reference illustrates the way a case can be accessed through different administrative sources, since an entry dealing with the same property occurs in the Close Rolls, 1237–1242, p. 192.

148. See, for example, Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, pp. 307, 495 nos. 1011 and 1793. For the interpretative legal history of “year, day, and waste; annus, dies, et vastum,” see Giles Jacob’s The Law-Dictionary, vol. 4, 468–70.

149. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, p. 495 no. 1793.

150. Close Rolls, 1247–1251, p. 139; Petitions to the Crown from English Religious Houses, p. 14 no. 18.

151. Curia Regis Rolls: 8: 3–4 Henry III, pp. 41–42.

152. Munimenta gildhallae londoniensis . . . 1, Liber albus, pp. 86–87.

153. Close Rolls, 1253–1254, p. 60; Close Rolls, 1256–1259, p. 356; Close Rolls, 1259–1261, pp. 296–97; Close Rolls, 1264–1268, pp. 161, 329; Fine Rolls, 1234–1242, p. 127 no. 194.

154. Close Rolls, 1247–1251, pp. 154–55, 159, 305; Close Rolls, 1259–1261, p. 432.

155. Close Rolls, 1237–1242, p. 169.

156. Fine Rolls, 1216–1224, p. 357 no. 137; Fine Rolls, 1234–1242, p. 413 no. 409.

157. Close Rolls, 1261–1264, p. 60.

158. Close Rolls, 1261–1264, p. 218.

159. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 2, p. 234 no. 942.

160. Fine Rolls, 1234–1242, p. 165 no. 402.

161. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, p. 173 no. 540.

162. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, p. 388 no. 1342.

163. See, for example, Curia Regis Rolls, 7: 15–16 John, p. 244; Curia Regis Rolls, 10: 5–6 Henry III, p. 293; Curia Regis Rolls, 11: 7–9 Henry III, p. 574 no. 2861; and Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp numbers 1315.047ss, 1332.192, 1334.028, and 1355.189ass; UK, National Archives, SC 8/87/4323, online at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9148865.

164. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1352.096ass.

165. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1334.029.

166. See pp. 54–55.

167. Curia Regis Rolls, 10: 5–6 Henry III, p. 341.

168. Curia Regis Rolls, 12: 9–10 Henry III, p. 153 no. 742.

169. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2, p. 436.

170. Curia Regis Rolls, 12: 9–10 Henry III, p. 262 no. 1284.

171. Curia Regis Rolls, 12: 9–10 Henry III, p. 506 no. 2535.

172. Hillen, History of the Borough of King’s Lynn, 2, p. 848.

Notes to Chapter 3
THE JOURNEY BEGINS

1. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, pp. 241–42.

2. Bracton, De legibus, 2, p. 382. If the abjuration was before justices, they would have been the officers mentioned.

3. Coutumiers de Normandie, 2, p. 63 (xxii, 7), “Hoc audient omnes assistentes quod tu de cetero in Normanniam non intrabis; sic Deus et sacrosancta te adjuvent.”

4. Cf. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 120, and the editorial remarks in the Eyre of Kent 6 & 7 Edward II, p. lxxiii, for variant versions of the oath.

5. Discussed in Bezemer, What Jacques Saw, p. 114, with the source transcribed at p. 118.

6. Coutumiers de Normandie. 2, p. 68 (xxii, 13). On the history and variety of cases in the legal system to which the burning of residences and other modes of destruction applied, including the Norman custom, see Gessler, “Notes sur le droit d’arsin ou d’abattis,” pp. 293–312, especially p. 299; Mémoires historiques sur l’arrondissement de Valenciennes, 3, pp. 212–13; Grand, “Justice criminelle,” p. 93; and Gomart, “De la peine du bannissement,” pp. 449–50. Such rituals occurred throughout contemporary Europe: Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, pp. 82–84; Gonthier, Le châtiment du crime, pp. 178–80. More generally on the use of fire in all aspects of legal process, see Leguay, Le feu, pp. 354–67; some of the practices seem to me to evoke theological ideas of the nature of hellfire, which is the subject of Barbezat’s “In a Corporeal Flame,” pp. 1–20.

7. Cf. Friedland, Seeing Justice Done, pp. 98–100. See more generally on the discourse and rituals of banishment, Robert Jacob, “Bannissement,” pp. 1039–67.

8. Inquisitions post mortem, 10, p. 286 no. 333.

9. Inquisitions post mortem, 10, p. 326 no. 398.

10. Jordan, “A Fresh Look at Medieval Sanctuary,” pp. 24–25; Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, pp. 120, 137; Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, pp. 24–25.

11. Examples of choice: Curia Regis Rolls, 14: 14–17 Henry III, pp. 92, 253 nos. 464 and 1190; Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, p. 9; Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 84, 87–90. Examples of assignment: Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 240 no. 804; Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 38, 66–70, 75–76, 103; Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, 64, 72, 124, 130–31.

12. Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” p. 168.

13. Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” p. 171.

14. Jordan, “Fresh Look at Medieval Sanctuary,” p. 25.

15. See Vincent, “In the Shadow of the Castle Wall” (forthcoming).

16. On the 1226 order, see Patent Rolls, 1225–1232, p. 25. On the 1389 order (Statutes of the Realm, 2, p. 68 [13 Richard II c.20]), see Sweetinburgh, “Royal Patrons and Local Benefactors,” p. 124. Timothy Jones, Outlawry in Medieval Literature, p. 174 n. 17, drawing on Ives, A History of Penal Methods, p. 100, could be read as suggesting that this was specifically linked to the crown’s desire to concentrate the abjurers, but given the date, I think that it was intended for and probably had far greater relevance to other sorts of travelers, such as the pilgrims who are explicitly mentioned in the statute.

17. There follow a few examples. Bristol: Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, p. 68; Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, p. 84. Portsmouth: Curia Regis Rolls, 14: 14–17 Henry III, pp. 92, 253 nos. 464 and 1190; Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 67–68; Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 130–31. Southampton: Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 130–31. Harwich: Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, p. 124. Bawdsey: Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, p. 103. See also Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, p. 26.

18. Trenholme, Right of Sanctuary, p. 38; and chapter 6, p. 141 of the current work.

19. London Eyre of 1276, no. 123 note.

20. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 67–68 (Dover and Portsmouth); Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 124 (Dover and Harwich) and 130–31 (Dover and Southampton).

21. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, p. 31.

22. Bracton, De legibus, 1, p. 382.

23. Coutumiers de Normandie, 2, p. 64 (xxii, 8).

24. Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 130–31. For another three-day assignment to Dover from London, see Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 89–90.

25. Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 130–31.

26. Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, p. 124.

27. Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, p. 84.

28. Hill, “The King’s Messengers 1199–1377,” p. 3.

29. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, pp. 28–30.

30. Brand, “Chief Justice and Felon,” p. 27.

31. Brand, “Chief Justice and Felon,” p. 27.

32. Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 87–89.

33. Curia Regis Rolls, 14: 14–17 Henry III, p. 92 no. 464.

34. Curia Regis Rolls, 14: 14–17 Henry III, p. 253 no. 1190.

35. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, p. 103.

36. Trenholme, Right of Sanctuary, pp. 40, 54. See also Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” p. 17.

37. His views are discussed at some length in Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, pp. 22–25.

38. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 120; Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, p. 32; Trenholme, Right of Sanctuary, p. 24; Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” p. 17. The immemorial connection between banishment and penance is discussed in Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, pp. 43–64.

39. Jordan, “A Fresh Look at Medieval Sanctuary,” p. 25.

40. Bibliothèque historique . . . de la Picardie et de l’Artois, p. 287.

41. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, pp. 120, 142; Lambert, “Evolution of Sanctuary,” p. 119.

42. Bracton, On the Laws, vol. 2, p. 382; Eyre of Kent 6 & 7 Edward II, 1, p. lxx.

43. Bracton, On the Laws, vol. 2, p. 382. See also Brand, “Chief Justice and Felon,” p. 27.

44. Coutumiers de Normandie, 2, p. 64 (xxii, 8).

45. Cf. Jordan, “A Fresh Look at Medieval Sanctuary,” pp. 25–26.

46. Curia Regis Rolls, 9: 4–5 Henry III, p. 309.

47. Calendar of Liberate Rolls, 1226–1240, p. 40.

48. See Jordan, “A Fresh Look at Medieval Sanctuary,” p. 26.

49. Bibliothèque historique . . . de la Picardie et de l’Artois, p. 287; Mémoires historiques sur l’arrondissement de Valenciennes, 3, p. 182.

50. Vincent, “In the Shadow of the Castle Wall” (forthcoming), has some good words to say about the low rate of winter travel in the late twelfth century.

51. Select Cases from the Coroners Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 86–87.

52. Calendar of Coroners Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, p. 72

53. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1, p. 607 no. 2270.

54. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, pp. 112–13. A somewhat similar case in which abjurers claimed they were dragged from the king’s highway is referenced in Musson, Public Order, p. 202.

55. Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law, vol. 2, p. 579.

56. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, pp. 112–13.

57. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, p. 9.

58. Staffordshire Plea Rolls (Staffordshire Historical Collections 10), p. 42.

59. For example, in the mid-thirteenth century a royal bailli, Étienne Tâtesaveur, conducted an inquest to find out who gave refuge to Jacquet Tartre, who had been exiled for the murder of a royal sergeant: Série J, Trésor des chartes, supplément: Inventaire. J1028 à J1034, J1034^B no. 62.

60. See, for example, Somersetshire Pleas . . . (12th Century–41 Henry III), pp. 306–07, 321 nos. 1153, 1158, 1244.

61. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, p. 37. Bolland, in the editorial preface of the Eyre of Kent 6 & 7 Edward II, p. lxx, did not conclude that William was a guard doing his job, but simply a villager who happened to witness the escape.

62. Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” p. 153.

63. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, pp. 75–76.

64. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, pp. 32, 244, 264, 275, 277, 305.

65. Calendar of London Trailbaston Trials under Commissions of 1305 and 1306, no. 275.

66. Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1224–1234, p. 509 nos. 362–63.

67. Contra Trenholme, Right of Sanctuary, p. 42.

68. Jordan, “Administering Expulsion,” pp. 242–43. For the argument with regard to Dover Castle, see pp. 71–72 of the current work.

69. See, for example, The Medieval Records of a London City Church, pp. 26–55.

70. Andrew Brown, Civic Ceremony and Religion, p. 65; Craig Wright, “The Palm Sunday Procession,” pp. 346 and 350–51.

71. Documents sur la ville de Millau, p. 16 no. 33.

72. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, p. 33; R. F. Wright, “The High Seas and the Church,” pp. 30–31.

73. Coulson, “Peaceable Power in English Castles,” pp. 69–75.

74. Coulson, “Peaceable Power in English Castles,” p. 69.

75. Clarke and others, Sandwich, p. 68.

76. See, for example, Pipe Rolls, 1199–1200, pp. 208–09; Pipe Rolls, 1200– 1201, p. 284; Pipe Rolls, 1207–1208, p. 97; Pipe Rolls, 1211–1212, p. 12.

77. For a list of the Constables of the castle and Port of Dover from the earliest known down through the mid-fourteenth century, see Lyon, History of the Town and Port of Dover, vol. 2, pp. 192–230. In general on the institutional and administrative history of Dover and the Cinque Ports, see Katherine Murray, The Constitutional History of the Cinque Ports.

78. The Pipe Rolls provide extensive evidence of the paying of guards; the entries typically read, “Et in liberationibus constitutes . . . portario et uigilibus [or uigili] de Doura [or a variant].” The wages paid were fixed at £6 20d. for regular guards. See, for example, the Pipe Rolls volumes for the following years: 1198–1199, p. 59; 1199–1200, p. 208; 1200–1201, p. 283; etc. For less-standard references to guards, the number of which may have been augmented from time to time, see Pipe Rolls, 1211–1212, p. 12 (“custodes operis castri de Doure”).

79. Graham, “An Interdict on Dover,” p. 327.

80. See, for example, the records of disputes in the years 1282–1285, edited in Statham, Dover Charters and Other Documents, pp. 16–27, nos. VIII–XIII.

81. Flight, “Dover Castle,” has details and references the sources on this matter. (I owe this reference to Professor Vincent.)

82. Pipe Rolls, 1204–1205, p. 112.

83. Food and supplies: Pipe Rolls, 1198–1199, p. 59; Pipe Rolls, 1199– 1200, pp. 208–09; Pipe Rolls, 1201–1202, p. 211; Pipe Rolls, 1202–1203, p. 23; Pipe Rolls, 1229–1230, p. 111, etc. Military equipment and related expenses: Pipe Rolls, 1199–1200, pp. 208–09; Pipe Rolls, 1205–1206, p. 47; Pipe Rolls, 1208–1209, p. 10.

84. Patent Rolls, 1216–1225, p. 129.

85. In general, see Close Rolls, 1247–1251, p. 476; Close Rolls, 1296–1302, pp. 344–45. For an example of a common prisoner, a homicide, in custody, see Close Rolls, 1296–1302, p. 582; Patent Rolls, 1301–1307, p. 44. For the incarceration of a political prisoner—in this case the lady of the Isle of Harty (now joined with the Isle of Sheppey, Kent) who was the widow of John de Champagne, the king’s enemy—see Fine Rolls, 1319–1327, p. 291.

86. During civil war: Close Rolls, 1259–1261, p. 496; Close Rolls, 1261–1264, p. 3. During foreign war: Close Rolls, 1296–1302, p. 76.

87. Nicholas Vincent, in a personal communication and with reference to the story of the Justiciar, William Longchamps, who disguised himself as a woman in order to take ship in Dover, argued vigorously against my view. I do not quite see why the story tells against my suggestion, but see Vincent, “In the Shadow of the Castle Wall.”

88. See, in general, Sweetinburgh, “Kentish Towns,” pp. 137–65, which provides a broad comparative context for Dover’s urban culture.

89. A larger and less plausible estimate is 6,000–7,000. It is based on the number of households extant in the mid-sixteenth century, that is, after the town’s recovery from the demographic impact of the plague cycle. It also takes into consideration a recent and, in my opinion, inflated estimate of the residents of Sandwich, which many scholars believe had a smaller population than Dover’s in the Middle Ages. If the new estimate, 5,000, for Sandwich is correct, then the estimate for Dover would have to be adjusted upward by as much as 2,000. On all these matters I have drawn on Lyon, The History of the Town and Port of Dover, vol. 1, p. 25; Dyer’s figures in the Cambridge Urban History of Britain, vol. 1, pp. 758–64; and Clarke and others, Sandwich, pp. 30, 56.

90. The customal, or book of rights and privileges, describes the lineaments of administration: Lyon, The History of the Town and Port of Dover, vol. 2, 267–86.

91. Close Rolls, 1272–1279, p. 470. Heebøll-Holm, Ports, Piracy and Maritime War, pp. 63–65.

92. Kentish hospitals, including those in Dover, are discussed extensively in Sweetinburgh, “The Hospitals of Medieval Kent,” pp. 111–36.

93. Lyon, The History of the Town and Port of Dover, vol. 1, pp. 39–51.

94. Sweetinburgh, “Royal Patrons and Local Benefactors,” pp. 112–13.

95. Petitions to the Crown from English Religious Houses, pp. 93–94 no. 75.

96. Jones, Outlawry in Medieval Literature, p. 174 n. 117; Ives, A History of Penal Methods, pp. 100–01. I do not agree with Cox that comrades of the abjurers could have readily transferred the money to them while still in Dover; cf. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, p. 31.

97. Safford, “An Account of the Expenses of Eleanor,” pp. 116, 123.

98. Cf. Vincent, “In the Shadow of the Castle Wall” (forthcoming).

99. See Sweetinburgh, “The Hospitals of Medieval Kent,” pp. 123–24, which also situates Dover’s recluses in the eremitic culture of Kent.

100. Jourjon, “Notice sur le port et la ville de Tréguier,” pp. 236–37.

101. Close Rolls, 1231–1234, p. 105; Close Rolls, 1254–1256, p. 272; Close Rolls, 1259–1261, p. 222; Close Rolls, 1261–1264, p. 52; Liberate Rolls, 1251–1260, pp. 323–24, 446, 449; Liberate Rolls, 1260–1267, p. 188. See also Clay, Hermits and Anchorites, p. 78.

102. On the not unproblematic place-name evidence, see E. A. Jones, “Hidden Lives,” pp. 28–29.

103. Licence, Hermits and Recluses in English Society, pp. 150–72; Farina, “Money, Books, and Prayers,” pp. 171–85.

104. Safford, “An Account of the Expenses of Eleanor,” pp. 116, 123.

105. On the church’s role in the culture of Dover and of other urban centers in the region, see Sweetinburgh, “Kentish Towns,” pp. 158–63.

106. Graham, “An Interdict on Dover,” pp. 326–27; Sweetinburgh, “The Hospitals of Medieval Kent,” p. 123.

107. Cf. Ives, A History of Penal Methods, p. 101.

108. Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” p. 18, is typical.

109. For a first and very preliminary attempt at an overview of English inns, see Hare, “Inns, Innkeepers and the Society of Later Medieval England,” pp. 477–97.

110. Statham, “Dover Chamberlains’ Accounts,” pp. 77, 83.

111. Summerson, “The Criminal Underworld,” pp. 197–224.

112. On the stereotype and reality of Dover-based piracy, see Heebøll-Holm, Ports, Piracy and Maritime War, pp. 67–69.

113. On the saying, see Skeat, “Dr. Pegge’s Alphabet of Kenticisms,” p. 134.

114. Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, Edward II, SC 9/21.

115. Graham, “An Interdict on Dover,” p. 327.

116. Patent Rolls, 1292–1301, p. 417.

117. Ives, A History of Penal Methods, p. 100 n. 12, and for a fuller discussion, Ruding, Annals of the Coinage of Great Britain, vol. 1, p. 211.

118. On the limbs, see Clarke and others, Sandwich, pp. 56, 61. See also Vincent, “In the Shadow of the Castle Wall” (forthcoming).

119. On the vexing questions surrounding Dover’s, the other Cinque Ports’, and their limbs’ role in military affairs, see Rodger, “The Naval Service,” pp. 636–51; Rose, “The Value of the Cinque Ports,” pp. 41–43; Heebøll-Holm, Ports, Piracy and Maritime War, p. 67.

120. Nonarum Inquisitiones, pp. 394–95. For an example of wartime service in 1297 and its consequences for Dover shipmen, see Close Rolls, 1297–1302, pp. 110–11. More generally, see Rose, “The Value of the Cinque Ports,” pp. 43–52.

121. Safford, “An Account of the Expenses of Eleanor,” pp. 117–18, 126–27, 130–33, and 136. Further on the costs incident to Eleanor’s marriage, especially the expenses, allegedly in arrears, of one of the diplomats overseeing it, see the petition, dated 1336, in Petitions to the Crown from English Religious Houses, pp. 12–13 no. 16.

122. Cf. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 120.

123. Jordan, “A Fresh Look at Medieval Sanctuary,” p. 26.

124. The classic articulation of the character of liminality is Victor Turner’s essay “Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de passage,” which first appeared in print in his Forest of Symbols, pp. 93–111, but has been reprinted numerous times. See also Turner and Turner, Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture.

125. Trenholme, Right of Sanctuary, p. 42.

126. Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England, vol. 2, p. 382.

127. Parkin, “The Ancient Cinque Port of Sandwich,” p. 199.

128. Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I. and Edward II., vol. 1, p. 307: “inter nautas de Doveria et Witsand, ita quod naves non transierunt nec passagium ibidem fuit longo tempore.”

129. Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 220–21.

130. Calendar of Coroners Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 72, 87–89, 130–31. For the same directive at Bristol and Southampton, consult pp. 84, 130–31 of this Calendar.

131. See the information compiled at the British Marine Life Study Society, online at http://www.glaucus.org.uk/Tides.htm.

132. Calendar of Coroners’ Rolls of the City of London A.D. 1300–1378, pp. 87–89.

133. See p. 77.

134. Eyre of Kent 6 & 7 Edward II, p. lxxiii.

135. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, p. 31.

136. Wright, “The High Seas and the Church,” p. 31.

137. Clark and others, Sandwich, p. 31. See also Vincent, “In the Shadow of the Castle Wall” (forthcoming).

138. Rigg, St. Anselm of Canterbury, pp. 154–55.

139. For reference to La Nicholas, see Patent Rolls, 1317–1321, p. 122 (15 March 1318).

140. Patent Rolls, 1321–1324, pp. 375–76 (various documents dated 26 September 1323 and 24 March 1324).

141. Kowaleski, “The Shipmaster as Entrepreneur,” pp. 165–82.

142. See Lambert and Ayton, “The Mariner in Fourteenth-Century England,” pp. 153–76. Note that they offer almost nothing on Dover.

143. As a crewman: Liberate Rolls, 1267–1272, p. 41 no. 367. As a baron: Close Rolls, 1272–1279, p. 470.

144. Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, Edward II, SC 9/21.

145. See the names of Dover ships in Close Rolls, 1253–1254, p. 25, and Close Rolls, 1323–1327, pp. 609–12.

Notes to Chapter 4
LIFE AMONG STRANGERS

1. A number of very sophisticated websites tout Wissant’s present-day and recent historical interest for tourists, and these are replete with excellent photographs of the town and its environs: see, for example, http://www.a-taste-of-france.com/wissant-france.html.

2. The best study of medieval Wissant remains Haigneré’s long entry, “Wissant,” in vol. 3, pp. 273–301, of the late nineteenth-century Dictionnaire historique et archéologique du Pas-de-Calais. See also his list of sources in Dictionnaire topographique . . . arrondissement de Boulogne-sur-Mer, pp. 346–49.

3. Sumption, The Hundred Years’ War, vol. 1, p. 532; Grierson, “The Relations between England and Flanders,” pp. 80–81; Holmes, Ancient Britain, p. 580. Hermansart, “Les anciennes communautés,” p. 333, refers to its appellation as the britannicus portus.

4. Comptes de la ville d’Ypres, vol. 1, pp. 248–49 (for records of communication between Ypres and Wissant in 1307–08). More generally, see Haigneré, Dictionnaire historique et archéologique du Pas-de-Calais, vol. 3, p. 281.

5. The True Chronicles of Jean le Bel, pp. 32, 35, 37, 50.

6. Close Rolls, 1256–1259, p. 484. Hermansart, “Ambassade de Raoul de Brienne,” pp. 165–68; Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 220–25.

7. See pp. 85–87.

8. Haigneré, Dictionnaire historique et archéologique du Pas-de-Calais, vol. 3, pp. 279–87.

9. Close Rolls, 1242–1247, p. 53.

10. Liberate Rolls, 1260–1267, p. 189: “Liberate to Stacius de Whitsaund 55 l. 12 s., and to John Mayor of Dover 41 l. 17 s. 8 d., both at the coming Easter Exchequer, for freight of ships provided for the king’s consort A. queen of England on her last voyage to England from beyond seas.”

11. Close Rolls, 1254–1256, p. 34. Further on the gift and the elephant’s fate, see Cassidy and Clasby, “Matthew Paris and Henry III’s Elephant,” pp. 1–6.

12. Safford, “An Account of the Expenses of Eleanor,” pp. 132, 136.

13. Hermansart, “Ambassade de Raoul de Brienne,” pp. 165–68.

14. Leguay, Pauvres et marginaux, pp. 68–70. See also Gonthier, Cris de haine et rites d’unité, pp. 97–100.

15. Kapferer, Fracas et murmures, pp. 57, 69.

16. Song of Roland, lines 1428–29. There is some dispute as to whether Sens is meant. The Chanson uses Seinz, which has been variously interpreted as Sens, Saintes, and Xanten (p. 218).

17. Inferno, Canto 15, lines 4–6.

18. Holloway, Twice-Told Tales, pp. 229–30; Isba, Gladstone and Dante, pp. 122–23.

19. Holmes, Ancient Britain, p. 306; Guest, “Julius Caesar’s Invasion of Britain,” p. 222; Lewin, The Invasion of Britain, p. 15.

20. The author of the Latin chronicle that provides information on this regional usage used the vernacular word in retelling a fantastic story about a woman in the region who suffered excruciating stomach pains in 1291 and was said, though the author acknowledged that the report was hard to believe, to have vomited up fourteen big black living spiders, nine big black frogs, and two black hairy polecats (furones, qui vulgo dicuntur wissantz) with big white teeth, long black ears, and heads as big as goose eggs. Before she died and on the same day, she also threw up two greasy fat rats that seemed to be pregnant. Yes, hard to believe. Die Kölner Weltchronik, pp. 58–59, “Circa eadem tempora [1291] accidit quoddam singulare et mirabile, ymmo difficile audientibus ad credendum. In territorio namque Gandanensi comitatus Flandrensis in villa, que lingua ipsius patrie Velske [modern: Velzeke-Ruddershove] nominatur, quedam mulier dolore intestinorum sue ventris miserabiliter cruciata unica die per os suum evomuit XIIII araneas vivas, nigras et grossas, item IX ranas similiter nigras et grossas, item duos furones, qui vulgo dicuntur wissantz, nigros, pilosos cum magnis dentibus albis et auribus longis atque nigris, quorum capita fuerunt grossa ad modum ovorum anserinorum. Item evomuit eodem die duos rattos adeo pingues et grossos, quasi viderentur esse pregnantes. Tandem eadem mulier miserabiliter cruciata vitam morte solvit. Ad quod quidem spectaculum fama percurrente tota illa patria concurrebat.”

21. Cousin, “Sur des fouilles archéologiques à Wissant,” p. 210, “un village dont l’aspect est loin d’être agréable.” Guilbert, Histoire des villes de France, vol. 2, p. 111, refers to a royal report from 1738 remarkably similar to Cousin’s.

22. Kapferer, Fracas et murmures, pp. 83–84; Grierson, “The Relations between England and Flanders,” p. 81.

23. Récits d’un bourgeois de Valenciennes (XIV siècle), p. 235.

24. Sumption, The Hundred Years’ War, vol. 1, p. 532; Hermansart, “Anciennes communautés,” pp. 331 n. 1, 520.

25. Haigneré, Dictionnaire historique et archéologique du Pas-de-Calais, vol. 3, pp. 288–89.

26. “Caesar’s Campaigns in Gaul,” p. 412.

27. Haigneré, “Fermes de la ville de Wissant,” p. 260; “Séance du 5 février 1903,” p. 52.

28. C. P. Stacey, Official History of the Canadian Army, vol. 1, p. 352 (I owe this reference to Dr. Paul Miles).

29. The quotation is from “Wissant: A Forgotten Port,” p. 304. On the capture of Calais, see Rose, Calais, pp. 7–22.

30. Haigneré, Dictionnaire historique et archéologique du Pas-de-Calais, vol. 3, pp. 285, 288; Rose, Calais, pp. 9, 23–24.

31. Grierson, “Relations between England and Flanders,” p. 81.

32. “Caesar’s Campaigns in Gaul,” p. 412.

33. Grierson, “Relations between England and Flanders,” p. 80.

34. On the iconic status of the herring in Wissant, see Kapferer, Fracas et murmures, pp. 93–119.

35. Cousin, “Sur des fouilles archéologiques à Wissant,” p. 210, “ses rues pour la plupart ensablées, ses maisons sans étage, généralement couvertes en chaume, ses quelques petits bateaux de pêche qu’on traîne péniblement sur le plage jusqu’au pied des dunes, où ils sont retenus avec leurs ancres pour ne pas être emportés à la derive.”

36. Kapferer, Fracas et murmures, pp. 81–89.

37. London, National Archives, Ancient Petitions, SC 8/10/478, p. 476 col. a, “par Whitsond pur peril de lunge mer.”

38. London, National Archives, Ancient Petitions, SC 8/10/478; SC 8/10/484. Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, Edward I, Petition 3.

39. London, National Archives, Ancient Petitions, SC 8/10/478; SC 8/10/484.

40. Or, variously, Brykun, Britun, Briton. The Old French-English Dictionary, s.vv. “bricun” and “bricon,” renders the epithet/last name as either “fool, scoundrel, rogue, rascal, poor wretch” or “snare, trap.” See also Rothwell, “From Latin to Anglo-French and Middle English,” p. 590.

41. Liberate Rolls, 1267–1272, p. 104 no. 907.

42. Patent Rolls, 1258–1266, p. 381.

43. Patent Rolls, 1258–1266, p. 210.

44. Liberate Rolls, 1260–1267, p. 95.

45. Close Rolls, 1259–1261, p. 397.

46. Liberate Rolls, 1260–1267, p. 73. The clerk who enrolled this was confused, copied Witsand as Sandwich, and compounded his error by calling Eustace the mayor. In the margin, the place name mistake is corrected.

47. “Restas des comptes des officiers du conté de Bouloigne” (1325–1326), p. 394; “Chest la revenue de la terre . . . tres haute, tres noble et pouissant Dame Marguerite d’Evreus” (1338), p. 316; and “Chest la revenue de la conté de Bouloigne” (1339–1340), pp. 349–50. Following Bernard, “L’état ancien du Boulonnais,” p. 141, the prévôt of Wissant was sometimes also called a bailli, much as the royal prévôt of Paris was sometimes referred to as a bailli because of his high official status; Jordan, Men at the Center, pp. 69–70. In 1338–40 the bailli of Wissant was Jehan de Pernes. Around the same the time the viscount was Simon Lemon. See also Dictionnaire topographique . . . arrondissement de Boulogne-sur-Mer, pp. 259, 348.

48. Canterbury Cathedral Archives possesses a large number of charters and confirmations to this effect; abstracts for several dealing with Wissant may now be accessed through the UK’s National Archives database at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/results.aspx?tab=2&Page=1&ContainAllWords=wissant. Editions of several relevant ones will appear in Norman Charters, nos. 77–96, especially 94–96 (also discussed at pp. 98–108 [according to the pagination of the proofs]).

49. Norman Charters, p. 99 (tentative proofs pagination).

50. Jordan, Louis IX, pp. 46–47.

51. On the nature of the French communes, see Vermeesch, Essai sur les origines et la signification de la commune dans le nord de France, and Jordan, “Communal Administration in France,” pp. 292–313. For an instance of the use of Wissant’s seal, its adhesion as Wissant-sur-Mer (Wissant supra Mare) on 16 August 1303 to the French protest of Pope Boniface VIII’s policies toward the French king, see Documents relatifs aux États généraux, p. 447. There is a useful description of the structure of Wissant’s municipal government in the fourteenth century in Haigneré, Dictionnaire historique et archéologique du Pas-de-Calais, vol. 3, pp. 286–87, but he was unaware of the relevant thirteenth-century evidence that proves that these structures were well in place at that time.

52. Deseille, “Communication . . . de M. J. Lecat,” p. 318.

53. See, for example, Registre criminel de Sainte-Geneviève, p. 348.

54. On the jurisdictional crazy-quilt of High Medieval Paris, see Lombard-Jourdain, “Fiefs et justices parisiens,” pp. 301–88. (This draws in good part on the pioneering work of Louis Tanon, who edited the Registre criminel de Sainte-Geneviève.)

55. Registre criminel de Sainte-Geneviève, p. 357: “misimus ad ballivum bononiensem, prepositum et majorem et scabinos communie de Wissant.”

56. For the entire case, see Registre criminel de Sainte-Geneviève, pp. 357–58.

57. Patent Rolls, 1216–1225, p. 129.

58. Dictionnaire topographique du départment du Pas-de-Calais, p. 405; Haigneré, Dictionnaire historique et archéologique du Pas-de-Calais, vol. 3, pp. 299–300.

59. For various opinions, see Héliot, “Anciennes églises gothiques du Boulonnais,” p. 105; Dufossé, http://www.mincoin.com/php1/wissb.php (accessed 29 June 2012); “L’histoire et le patrimoine” http://membres.multimania.fr/histopale/wissant.htm (accessed 29 June 2012).

60. Dictionnaire topographique du département du Pas-de-Calais, p. 405; “Notes et commentaires,” p. 378.

61. Haigneré, Dictionnaire historique et archéologique du Pas-de-Calais, vol. 3, p. 284; Grierson, “Relations between England and Flanders,” pp. 80–81; “Notes et commentaires,” p. 378.

62. Ives, A History of Penal Methods, p. 101.

63. Ultimately these claims go back to the hagiographical traditions captured by Jacobus de Voragine in the Golden Legend (pp. 21–27). See also Le Goff, In Search of Sacred Time, p. 44.

64. Ebon, Saint Nicholas, p. 60.

65. Deseille, “Les pèlerinages populaires du pays Boulonnais,” p. 378.

66. Red Book of the Exchequer, vol. 2, pp. 670, 792–93; History of the County of Bedford, vol. 1, pp. 399–400; Dictionnaire topographique du département du Pas-de-Calais, p. 405; Haigneré, Dictionnaire historique et archéologique du Pas-de-Calais, vol. 3, p. 286; Mermet and Dufossé, Saint-Inglevert, pp. 24–25.

67. For the first suggestion, see History of the County of Bedford, vol. 1, p. 400 n. 2, and Mermet and Dufossé, Saint-Inglevert, p. 43; for the second, I am indebted to Nicholas Vincent.

68. Mermet and Dufossé, Saint-Inglevert, pp. 24–33. More generally on alien priories and the breakdown of the system under the pressures of proto-nationalism during the Hundred Years’ War, see New, History of the Alien Priories. Cf. Heale, The Dependent Priories of Medieval English Monasteries.

69. Kapferer, “Boulogne devient une ville,” p. 64; Sartore, Outlawry, Governance, and Law, p. 68.

70. Kapferer, “Boulogne devient une ville,” p. 65.

71. Kapferer, “Boulogne devient une ville,” pp. 75–77.

72. Cf. Parsons, “The Beginnings of English Administration in Ponthieu,” pp. 371–403.

73. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, p. 31. “It is . . . somewhat puzzling to wonder what became of these abjurors when they landed on foreign shores.”

74. The collection of essays, Exile in the Middle Ages, treats other sorts of expatriates and thus, to some extent, provides a comparative perspective, but it is not helpful on abjurers per se.

75. For reference to the butchers of Wissant, see “Chest la revenue de la conté de Bouloigne” (1339–1340), p. 351.

76. For the use of taverns in this way, see Geremek, Les marginaux parisiens, p. 135, and for the general association of taverns and marginalized groups, see Le Person, “L’exclusion,” p. 239.

77. Reyerson, “Medieval Hospitality,” pp. 40–42.

78. On the taverns serving the University’s nations, see Geremek, Les marginaux parisiens, p. 330 n. 51. On the nations themselves, see Kibre, The Nations in the Medieval Universities.

79. The quoted word is Leff’s usage in Paris and Oxford Universities, p. 53.

80. Cf. Timothy Jones, Outlawry in Medieval Literature, p. 39.

81. Cousin, “Sur les fouilles archéologiques faites à Wissant,” pp. 210–14. See also Haigneré, Dictionnaire historique et archéologique du Pas-de-Calais, vol. 3, pp. 273–78.

82. Cousin, “Sur des fouilles archéologiques faites à Wissant,” p. 212: “j’en conclus qu’il y a eu là une cimetière d’une vaste étendue.”

83. Haigneré, Dictionnaire historique et archéologique du Pas-de-Calais, vol. 3, p. 284.

84. There is a somewhat pious history of the Virgin’s shrine in Boulogne: Montrond, Notre-Dame de Boulogne-sur-Mer. For the thirteenth-century renown of the shrine, see pp. 32–33, 35–37. The possible connection to the cemetery at Wissant is noted at p. 25. See also Kapferer, “Boulogne devient une ville,” pp. 70, 80–81.

85. Demaitre, Leprosy in Premodern Medicine, pp. 247–48. For the similar situation in England, see Rawcliffe, “Curing Bodies and Healing Souls,” p. 108, and on the intermeshing of ideas of physical and spiritual illness and the need for intervention in both spheres, see Rawcliffe, Leprosy in Medieval England, p. 64.

86. On the leprosarium of Wissant, see Haigneré, Dictionnaire historique et archéologique du Pas-de-Calais, vol. 3, p. 297. On hospices serving ideally, if not always in practice, as way stations for sick pilgrims, including lepers, see Prigent and Tichey, Le moyen âge féodal, p. 20. Such service appears to have been extended by hospices near the Virgin’s shrine in Boulogne; see Montrond, Notre-Dame de Boulogne-sur-Mer, p. 40.

87. UK, National Archives, SC 8/324/E606, online at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9682595.

88. Brand, “Chief Justice and Felon,” p. 47, and pp. 121–22 of the current work.

89. Stell, “John [John de Balliol].”

90. Small, “Grain for the Countess,” pp. 56–63.

91. Small, “Grain for the Countess,” pp. 57–59, 61.

92. Geremek, Marginaux parisiens, p. 286.

93. Cf. Langdon, “Minimum Wages and Unemployment Rates,” pp. 36–43; Van Bavel, Manors and Markets, pp. 302–03.

94. Olson, A Mute Gospel, p. 97.

95. Le Grand, “Les Maisons-Dieus et léproseries,” pp. 84–90.

96. I know of no comprehensive study of migrant labor in medieval Europe or, for that matter, northern France and Flanders, but it was a common feature of the rural, and to some extent, urban landscape; cf. Bresc, “Justice et société,” pp. 26–27, for instances in southeastern France, and Van Bavel, Manors and Markets, pp. 209, 302–03, for the later medieval Low Countries.

97. On these matters, see Bonne, “Étude sur le condition des étrangers en France,” pp. 94–95.

98. Viollet, Précis de l’histoire du droit français, pp. 311–15.

99. Fuller, “Pleas of the Crown at Bristol,” p. 167.

100. Geremek, Marginaux parisiens, pp. 238–73; James Murray, Bruges, Cradle of Capitalism, p. 343; Nowacka, “Persecution, Marginalization, or Tolerance,” pp. 182–83.

101. Thus, Grand coutumier de France, p. 182 cap. XII. More generally, see Nowacka, “Persecution, Marginalization, or Tolerance,” pp. 185–86 and in general on prostitution in Paris, pp. 181–96. See also Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, pp. 78–80.

102. Janin, “Documents relatifs à la peine du bannissement,” p. 420; Recueil des monuments inédits du Tiers-État, vol. 4, p.198; Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, p. 80.

103. Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, p. 80; Murray, Bruges, Cradle of Capitalism, p. 343; Dean, Crime in Medieval Europe, pp. 86–90.

104. For the examples of banishment for felony mentioned, see Janin, “Documents relatifs à la peine du bannissment,” p. 420–21.

105. On the population, see James Murray, Notarial Instruments in Flanders, p. 81. On the number of brothels, see James Murray, Bruges, Cradle of Capitalism, p. 336.

106. Gonthier, ‘Sanglant coupaul!’, p. 72.

107. James Murray, Bruges, Cradle of Capitalism, p. 337.

108. Rouffy, “Les viguiers d’Aurillac au XIIIe siècle,” p. 50.

109. James Murray, Bruges, Cradle of Capitalism, pp. 340–41.

110. Registre criminel de Sainte-Geneviève, p. 350. I am not certain why Nowacka conflates the case of one Alison Lenglesche (p. 348) with Margaret’s; cf. Nowacka, “Persecution, Marginalization, or Tolerance,” pp. 182–83.

111. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, p. 32.

112. Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, pp. 98, 161–71; Gonthier, Cris de haine et rites d’unité, pp. 177–78; Gonthier, Le châtiment du crime, pp. 139–40.

113. Dean, Crime in Medieval Europe, pp. 129–30.

114. Curveiller, “L’étranger à Dunkerque,” pp. 26, 29–30; Moal, “Entre méfiance et accueil,” pp. 39–40.

115. Jurades de la ville d’Agen, p. 21.

116. Verger, “L’Université [de Paris],” pp. 10–11.

117. Compte général du receveur d’Artois pour 1303–1304, p. 237 no. 3982. A comprehensive study of spies (espies, espions, insidiatores, exploratores; cf. Alban and Allmand, “Spies and Spying,” p. 74) and “listeners” (ecoutez) both private and governmental remains to be written. (But see Alban and Allmand, “Spies and Spying,” pp. 73–101, on the Hundred Years’ War.) These terms/categories appear throughout fiscal records; see, for example, the abundant information for just two small Savoyard towns, Billiat and Pont-d’Ain: Comptes de dépenses de la châtellenie de Billiat, pp. 111,129, 143; Comptes de dépenses de la châtellenie de Pont-d’Ain, part 1, pp. 147, 154, 161; Comptes de dépenses de la châtellenie de Pont-d’Ain, part 2, pp. 11, 20, 30, 43.

118. Tison, “Ordonnances de police de Calais, au XIIIe siècle,” p. 494.

119. Alban and Allmand, “Spies and Spying,” p. 85. For the typical—even stereotypical—view of minimal policing, see Gonthier, Le châtiment du crime, pp. 64–71.

120. “Restas des comptes des officiers du conté de Bouloigne” (1325–1326),” p. 394; “Chest la revenue de la terre . . . tres haute, tres noble et pouissant Dame Marguerite d’Evreus” (1338), p. 316; “Chest la revenue de la conté de Bouloigne” (1339–1340), p. 350, 374–75. See also Haigneré, Dictionnaire historique et archéologique du Pas-de-Calais, vol. 3, p. 288; Safford, “An Account of the Expenses of Eleanor,” pp. 130, 132.

121. Backhouse and de Hamel, The Becket Leaves, p. 32.

122. Cf. Timothy Jones, Outlawry in Medieval Literature, p. 40.

123. On the sources, in this case for Paris, see Geremek, Les marginaux parisiens, pp. 56–68. The Grand coutumier de France of the fourteenth century offers a comprehensive description of the varieties and limits of high justice in the kingdom: pp. 637–42 cap. VIII.

124. Administrative Korrespondenz der französischen Könige um 1300, pp. 322–23 no. 208 (see also p. 490 no. 464, which appears to refer to the same case).

125. Compte général du receveur d’Artois pour 1303–1304, p. 117 no. 1981.

126. Geremek, Les marginaux parisiens, p. 136; Gauvard, “Violence citadine et réseaux de solidarité,” p. 1124.

127. Toureille, Crime et châtiment au moyen âge, p. 124.

128. Roux, Paris, pp. 45–47.

129. Geremek, Les marginaux parisiens, p. 79; further on neighborhood patterns, see p. 89.

130. On theories of the origin of the name of the rue des Anglais, see Bouniol, Rues des Paris, vol. 3, p. 133. On the location of Master William’s residence, see Registre criminel de Sainte-Geneviève, p. 362.

131. Mason, Mission of St. Augustine, p. 94.

132. Geremek, Les marginaux parisiens, p. 140.

133. Geremek, Les marginaux parisiens, pp. 251–57; Beaurepaire, Essai sur l’asile religieux, p. 71.

134. For an example of the prohibition in the statutes of Charles II of Anjou, see Giraud, Essai sur l’histoire de droit français, vol. 2, p. 32. See also Geremek, Les marginaux parisiens, p. 158.

135. Confessions et jugements de criminels au Parlement de Paris, p. 115. This is considered in context on p. 106 of the current work.

136. See p. 106.

137. Droit coutumier de Cambrai, p. 11 no. xli.

138. On the exchange of lists, see Janin, “Documents relatifs à la peine du bannissment,” pp. 419, 426; Gomart, “De la peine du bannissement,” pp. 461–62; Hamel, “Bannis et bannissements à Saint-Quentin,” p. 128. For published examples of the lists, see “Monition et proclamation des bannis de la ville de Saint-Quentin,” pp. 259–60; “Lettre des prevost, jurés, et échevins de Valenciennes,” pp. 260–61; and the “Lettre des maire et jurés de Laon,” pp. 261–62.

139. Gonthier, Délinquance, p. 245. In chapter 5 I will address the question of the illicit and licit return of English abjurers to England. As in the English case this could only be achieved on the continent by the issuance of a formal pardon.

140. See chapter 1, p. 21.

141. Perrin’s activities are discussed in Geremek, Les marginaux parisiens, pp. 134–35. On Philippot (Little Phil) Cavillon, see pp. 106-08 and 111 of the current work.

142. Recueil des monuments inédits du Tiers-État, vol. 8, p. 53.

143. The thirteenth-century feud between the Harincs (father and son, both named William) and the Anglicus family (the brothers Hannekin and William), which led to the latter’s deaths, involved what appear to have been natives of Ghent (“Flandrisches Urkunden-Buch,” p. 75 nos. 30–31), although the Anglicus clan could possibly have been of remote English origin.

144. Registre criminel de la justice de Saint Martin des Champs, pp. 37–38. If the hyphen is misplaced in the transcription “Jehan Poule-Cras,” as Professor Vincent has suggested to me could be the case, then the proper translation of the name might be John-Paul the Fat rather than John Fat-Hen. In either case, it seems reasonable to conclude that he was a large man.

145. Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, p. 77; Gonthier, Cris de haine et rites d’unité, pp. 203–06; Gonthier, ‘Sanglant coupaul!’, p. 72; Gauvard, “Violence citadine et réseaux de solidarité,” p. 1125; Turning, Municipal Officials, p. 141.

146. Jourjon, “Notice sur le port et la ville de Tréguier,” p. 237. Part of the chant supposedly sung on the saint’s feast day was, “Sanctus Yvo erat Brito, / Advocatus et non latro, / Res miranda populo.” The word advocatus evokes Yves’ defense of the poor, but the whole phrase also plays on the stereotype of lawyers, advocati, as thieves.

147. Registre criminel de Saint-Germain-des-Prés, p. 416.

148. Registre criminel de la justice de Saint Martin des Champs, pp. 40–43. Roux, Paris, pp. 38–39.

149. Registre criminel de la justice de Saint Martin des Champs, pp. 34–35.

150. Registre criminel de la justice de Saint Martin des Champs, p. 75.

151. Registre criminel de la justice de Saint Martin des Champs, p. 100.

152. Registre criminel de la justice de Saint Martin des Champs, p. 115.

153. See p. 103.

154. Registre criminel de la justice de Saint Martin des Champs, pp. 37–38.

155. Comptes de la ville d’Ypres, vol. 1, p. 397.

156. HF, XXIV, 455 no. 33. Michel, L’administration royale dans la sénéchaussée, p. 46.

157. Actes normands de la Chambre des comptes sous Philippe de Valois, p. 79.

158. Confessions et jugements de criminels au Parlement de Paris, pp. 114–22. A great deal of the information that fleshes out this case was assembled by the editors. See also Lanhers, “Crimes et criminels,” pp. 336–37.

159. Grand, “Justice criminelle,” p. 102; Rouffy, “Les viguiers d’Aurillac au XIIIe siècle,” p. 50.

160. Actes normands de la Chambre des comptes sous Philippe de Valois, p. 272.

161. Cf. Bull, The Miracles of Our Lady of Rocamadour.

162. For example, Bull, The Miracles of Our Lady of Rocamadour, p. 186.

163. The choice of this notoriously derogatory word (Gonthier, ‘Sanglant coupaul!’, pp. 158–60) was, I presume, that of the interrogators.

164. Confessions et jugements de criminels au Parlement de Paris, p. 118 n. 2.

165. An excellent study of the Châtelet, including its personnel, procedures, and procedural lapses, is Glasson’s “Le Châtelet de Paris,” pp. 45–92.

166. Comptes Henri de Taperel, p. 57. For an evocative description of the lowest prison, see Jager, Blood Royal, p. 24.

167. Comptes Henri de Taperel, p. 57 (en la fosse). See also Ducoudray, Origines du Parlement de Paris, p. 895; Telliez, “Geôles, fosses, cachots,” pp. 171–73. Old French-English Dictionary, p. 329 s.v. “fosse.”

168. Grand coutumier de France, pp. 183–84 cap. XIII. See also Peters, “Prison before the Prison,” p. 39.

169. L’Engle, “Justice in the Margins,” p. 147.

170. Boutillier, Somme rural, p. 870.

Notes to Chapter 5
RETURNING HOME

1. A real Philippus le Petyt, felon, who helps inspire this make-believe, appears in the Calendarium Inquisitionum post mortem sive escaetarum, vol. 1, sub anno 26 Edward I. He abjured from Herefordshire slightly before May 1298; Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, vol. 1, pp. 492 and 494 nos. 1777 and 1788.

2. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1328.031.

3. For example, Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1406.104.

4. London Eyre of 1276, no. 38.

5. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 143.

6. For cases beyond those to be discussed, see Whitley, “Sanctuary in Devon,” p. 303; Rolls of the Justices in Eyre . . . 1221, 1222, p. 375 no. 857; Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1318.090ss. See also Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, pp. 89–92.

7. Série J, Trésor des chartes, supplément: Inventaire. J1028 à J1034, J1034^B no. 52. This was rarely if ever the case in England, though informal concords may have preceded pardons; Hurnard, cf. The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 21.

8. Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, pp. 11–24, on forced pilgrimage, including the victim’s family’s prior approval in certain jurisdictions. See also Ducoudray, Les Origines du Parlement de Paris, p. 907; Kittell, “Reconciliation or Punishment,” pp. 6–7.

9. Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), p. 45 no. 189. For other cases that make clear the transformation of status from abjurer to outlaw (sicut de wavia for a woman) as a consequence of illegal return, see Somersetshire Pleas . . . (Close of 12th Century–41 Henry III), pp. 38 and 41 nos. 148 and 166.

10. Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” p. 27.

11. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls A.D. 1265–1413, p. 80.

12. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp numbers 1327.097 and 1327.130ass.

13. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1325.132.

14. Hamil, “The King’s Approvers,” p. 243.

15. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1337.154ass.

16. Cf. Toureille, Crime et châtiment au moyen âge, pp. 258–59.

17. Gomart, “De la peine du bannissement,” p. 452; Small, “Profits of Justice,” p. 160.

18. Registre criminel de Sainte-Geneviève, p. 360.

19. Coutumes de Beauvaisis, no. 1904; Établissements de saint Louis, vol. 1, p. 505 and vol. 3, p. 180. Gonthier, Délinquance, p. 245.

20. Fors de Béarn, pp. 66, 121 articles 178, 37.

21. Coutume de Saint-Sever, pp. 39, 84–85 no. 36. The law stipulated that thefts amounting to 30s. could be punished capitally. But if it reached this amount by a series of smaller thefts (the equivalent of minor shoplifting, one might say), the judges could mitigate the penalty. If a recidivist was convicted for a string of small thefts, the judges were forbidden from mitigating the penalty when the total value reached 6s. of the local money.

22. Olim, vol. 3, pp. 1498–99.

23. Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, pp. 96–97; Schubert, Räuber, Henker, arme Sünder, pp. 100–01.

24. Olim, vol. 2, p. 704.

25. Annales . . . de Colmar, p. 186.

26. Catalogue des manuscrits et documents . . . de la ville de Metz, p. 127. (Was this perhaps tailored to a crime involving shipping?)

27. See two cases dating from 1301, one for the rape of a virgin, the other for an unspecified offense, narrated in the Annales . . . de Colmar, pp. 186 and 188, as well as the information on the punishment for blasphemy in Toulouse summarized in Turning, Municipal Officials, pp. 147–48; Turning, “The Right to Punish,” p. 12. More generally, see Gonthier, Le châtiment du crime, pp. 160–61.

28. Registre criminel de Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, p. 322.

29. Many instances occur in the Registre criminel de Saint-Maur des Fossés, for example, pp. 322, 334, 338. See also Laingui and Lebigre, Histoire du droit pénal, vol. 1, pp. 116–17.

30. Le Livre Roisin: coutumier lillois, p. 112 no. 172; Summerson, “Attitudes to Capital Punishment,” p. 124; Très ancienne coutume de Bretagne, p. 153 no. 112. For the penalty as prescribed and enforced in other jurisdictions, see Mémoires historiques . . . Valenciennes, vol. 3, pp. 185–86; Compte général du receveur d’Artois pour 1303–1304, p. 191 no. 3220; Lefils, Histoire de Montreuil-sur-Mer, p. 116; Fauqueux, Beauvais, pp. 38–39; Gonthier, Le châtiment du crime, pp. 168–69.

31. Le Foyer, Exposé du droit pénal normand, p. 231.

32. Annales . . . de Colmar, p. 186. Alternatively, the use of turpiter may be a way of challenging the appropriateness of the punishment.

33. Leguay, Le feu, pp. 359–61; Curveiller, Dunkerque, ville et port, p. 90; Gonthier, Le châtiment du crime, pp. 184–90. On costs, see Jordan, “Expenses Related to Corporal Punishment.”

34. Cf. Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, pp. 174–87.

35. Janin, “Documents relatifs à la peine du bannissement,” p. 421; Gomart, “De la peine du bannissement,” p. 452; Galabert, “L’état social à Saint-Antonin,” p. 24. In the case of Saint-Antonin it is impossible, given the fragmentary nature of the municipal accounts before 1350, to determine how often such penalties were inflicted. That these accounts would have contained such details if they had survived is evident from the existing fragments which, for example, mention things like payments to men to remove and, implicitly, dispose of felons from gallows; Comptes consulaires de Saint-Antonin, vol. 1, p. 16. Presumably there would have been records of payments to those who carried out the punitive amputations. See also on the amputation of the foot in combination with a grain thief’s branding and banishment in Aurillac in the Midi: Grand, “Justice criminelle,” p. 95.

36. Friedland, Seeing Justice Done, pp. 57–60; this development persisted unevenly in time and space (pp. 89–100). For Foucault’s take, see Discipline and Punish, pp. 3–103. See also Jordan, “Expenses Related to Corporal Punishment.”

37. Janin, “Documents relatifs à la peine du bannissement,” pp. 422, 426; Gomart, “De la peine du bannissement,” pp. 452, 460–61. On the semantic field of ribaud/ribaude, see Gonthier, ‘Sanglant coupaul!’, pp. 148–49.

38. See chapter 2, p. 45.

39. See Gonthier, Délinquance, p. 245, for the evidence, not the explanation.

40. On English pardons, see Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, for the earlier part of the period covered in the present book. (Note that she limited her study to pardons for homicides, including those who abjured for homicide.) For the later part of the period covered in the present study, see Lacey, The Royal Pardon. Other jurisdictions, as remarked, offered similar opportunities. There is much fascinating information, much of it still unexcavated, in the UK National Archives: for example, on the Channel Islands. For some published records, see Patent Rolls, 1292–1301, p. 296; Patent Rolls, 1313–1317, pp. 16, 91, 275, 372, 375, 623; Patent Rolls, 1317–1321, pp. 38, 265, 330, 427, 534–35, 577–78. For Normandy and the ducal pardon, see Le Foyer, Exposé du droit pénal normand au XIIIe siècle, p. 243. For royal France and the comital pardon in the county of Clermont, see Coutumes de Beauvaisis, nos. 1536, 1731. For sub-comital pardons and their jurisdictional limitations in Clermont and mutatis mutandis elsewhere, see Coutumes de Beauvaisis, no. 1733. On municipal banishment in France and the question of whether the royal pardoning power could annul it, see Carbonnières, “Le privilège de bannissement,” pp. 316–17. For pardons in continental jurisdictions more generally, see Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, pp. 103–05. Exceptionally, Amiens selected one bannitus to return each year if he had not been exiled for murder, other homicides, sedition, or rape (Recueil des monuments inédits du Tiers-État, vol. 1, p. 114 no. 51); this was obviously in imitation of the alleged Roman custom in Judea, mentioned in the New Testament, to release one condemned man a year (notoriously, the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus in the only evidence we have of this custom).

41. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 119; Stewart, “Outlawry as an Instrument of Justice in the Thirteenth Century,” pp. 42–43; Brand, “Understanding Early Petitions,” p. 103; Lacey, The Royal Pardon, p. 25. A pardon could also forgive an outlaw’s crime: Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, pp. 32–33 (but cf. Lacey, p. 37 n. 42).

42. Sartore, Outlawry, Governance, and Law, p. 74.

43. See, for example, a case in 1278, where wives in France were permitted to stand surety for the pardons granted to their husbands, providing the latter agreed to answer the charges against them: Varin, Archives . . . de Reims [Archives administratives], vol. 1, pp. 958–59. See also pp. 126–27 of the current work.

44. But see now, Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 180 n. 4 and p. 212.

45. Fine Rolls, 1216–1224, p. 14 no. 46 (with cross reference to the abjuration).

46. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, vol. 2, p. 172 no. 691.

47. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, vol. 2, p. 82 no. 328.

48. UK, National Archives, SC 8/319/E407, online at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9529459.

49. Patent Rolls, 1321–1324, p. 38; Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, vol. 2, p. 172 no. 691.

50. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1285.005ss. Jacob, The Law-Dictionary, vol. 5, p. 32: “The effect of such Pardon by the King is to make the offender a new man . . . and not so much to restore his former, as to give him a new credit and capacity.”

51. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, vol. 2, p. 172 no. 691.

52. Lacey, The Royal Pardon, p. 76.

53. Cf. the king’s relations with his abbot of Westminster, Richard de Ware, in the late 1270s; Jordan, A Tale of Two Monasteries, pp. 176–80.

54. Prestwich, Plantagenet England, p. 177.

55. Brand, “Chief Justice and Felon,” p. 47.

56. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 32.

57. On crying outlaws’ pardons, cf. Lacey, The Royal Pardon, pp. 53–54.

58. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 34.

59. Carbonnières, “Le privilège de bannissement,” p. 315; Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, p. 95; Gonthier, ‘Sanglant coupaul!’, p. 41.

60. In such circumstances, according to Gonthier, Délinquance, p. 245, “dépaysement n’est jamais total.”

61. See chapter 4, p. 102.

62. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 34.

63. See p. 69.

64. De Hamel, “Books and Society,” p. 17.

65. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, pp. 32, 217.

66. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 218.

67. Reconstructed from: Close Rolls, 1242–1247, p. 292; Patent Rolls, 1232–1247, pp. 328, 345, 367, 394, 419–20, 429, 486, 492, 496, 500; Patent Rolls, 1247–1258, pp. 3, 28, 186, 264, 275. See also Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 217 n. 4.

68. Jordan, A Tale of Two Monasteries, p. 50, citing Maurice Powicke’s assessment of Henry’s state of mind in these days.

69. This is my best reconstruction of the laconic narrative of the case in Patent Rolls, 1247–1258, p. 388.

70. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 218 n. 2.

71. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, vol. 1, p. 617 no. 2305.

72. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 218.

73. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 34.

74. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 34; Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime, p. 143.

75. See, for one of several examples, the case of Geoffrey of Northampton, 1235–36: Fine Rolls, 1234–1242, p. 122 no. 161 (with cross reference to the abjuration).

76. Cf. Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, p. 155.

77. Patent Rolls, 1258–1266, p. 73, “Pardon to Richard de Ukynton of his abjuration of the realm, as it appears by inquisition made by the sheriff of Hereford before the coroners of that county, in full county that Warin le Chaluner of Ledebyry, of whose death he was indicted, is still alive, and the said Richard, in his simplicity and fear, fled to the church of Ledebyry as guilty, and falsely admitting that he had killed the said Warin, abjured the realm, and the said Warin, by the procurement of the friends of the said Richard, afterwards returned to those parts, and before the coroners of the county acknowledged that he had fled into hiding because of his debts for the payment of which his goods did not suffice, and not maliciously in order that the said Richard might be charged with his death.”

78. Further on Walter, see Stringer, “Some Documents Concerning a Berkshire Family,” p. 25.

79. Patent Rolls, 1266–1272, p. 15.

80. Fine Rolls, 1216–1224, p. 25 no. 99, with cross-reference to the abjuration in the Patent Rolls.

81. For the thirteenth century, see Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, pp. 230–31. For the later period, see Lacey, The Royal Pardon, p. 47, with lists in her Appendix 4 of patrons who petitioned for pardons for other people.

82. Cf. Musson, “Queenship, Lordship and Petitioning,” pp. 164–67, 168–72.

83. Fine Rolls, 1226–1240, pp. 154–55 nos. 339–41.

84. Lacey, The Royal Pardon, pp. 45–47; Musson, “Queenship, Lordship and Petitioning,” pp. 157–64, 167–68; Sneddon, “Words and Realities,” pp. 199–200.

85. For an example of the use of the language in wartime, see UK, National Archives, SC 8/9/441 (with references to supplementary records), online at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9060567. On the more general point, see Scott, “The March Laws,” p. 267. For exile in later Scottish law, see Morgan and Rushton, Banishment, pp. 29–42.

86. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, pp. 232–33.

87. Close Rolls, 1259–1261, p. 372. For the complicated undoing of an abjuration in contested territory in one of the many Anglo-Scottish wars, see Brand, “Understanding Early Petitions,” p. 103.

88. For clergy as patrons in the thirteenth century, see Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 231.

89. Lacey, The Royal Pardon, Appendix 4.

90. See pp. 127–28.

91. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, vol. 1, p. 603 no. 2254.

92. Patent Rolls, 1292–1301, p. 127.

93. Cf. Ormrod, “Murmur, Clamour and Noise,” pp. 135–55; Harris, “Taking Your Chances,” pp. 187–88. The quotation is from Sneddon, “Words and Realities,” p. 202. The key study for France is Davis, Fiction in the Archives.

94. Close Rolls, 1237–1242, pp. 522–23.

95. Close Rolls, 1259–1261, p. 256. In general on Hugh’s activity in the pardon market, see Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 217.

96. Patent Rolls, 1266–1272, pp. 271, 285.

97. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, vol. 1, p. 385 no. 1331; Patent Rolls, 1281–1292, p. 136.

98. UK, National Archives, SC 8/77/3820, online at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9107594.

99. Chronique et annales de Gilles le Muisit, p. 97.

100. See, for example, Petitions to the Crown from English Religious Houses, pp. 110–11 no. 92.

101. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 158.

102. Brand, “Understanding Early Petitions,” p. 103 (Edward I, Roll 12, item 556 [470]): “Ad peticionem Gregorii de Stradesheved’, petentis quod cum indictatus fuisset per procuracionem Bartholomei Modipyt de minutis latrociniis, ut de aucis et una gallina, tempore quo fuit infra etatem .xij. annorum, et ipse fugam fecisset ad ecclesiam et deinde abjurasset regnum coram coronatore etc., et postmodum stetit in guerra regis in Vasconia etc., quod rex velit ei pacem suam concedere etc., ita responsum est: habeat breve de cancellaria coronatoribus quod faciant venire recordum abjuracionis coram rege.”

103. Patent Rolls, 1317–1321, p. 123.

104. See the indices, s.v. “Pardons,” in the Patent Rolls, 1339–1340; Patent Rolls, 1340–1343; and Patent Rolls, 1343–1345. See also Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, pp. 218–19, 311–21.

105. Lacey, The Royal Pardon, pp. 87, 100.

106. Lacey, The Royal Pardon, pp. 2, 85–175 (on military pardons per se, pp. 73, 100–06). For military pardons to those who would serve at sea, cf. Lambert and Ayton, “The Mariner in Fourteenth-Century England,” p. 162.

107. Lacey, The Royal Pardon, pp. 105–06; Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, pp. 105–07.

108. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, pp. 273–97.

109. London Eyre of 1244, no. 221.

110. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, vol. 1, p. 320 no. 1051.

111. For the variety of such punitive mutilations, prescribed and/or carried out: Schubert, Räuber, Henker, arme Sünder, pp. 79–80, 100, 124; Laingui and Lebigre, Histoire du droit pénal, vol. 1, p. 126; Ducoudray, Origines du Parlement de Paris, pp. 904–06; Jordan, Men at the Center, pp. 90–93; idem, The Great Famine, pp. 165–66; Cardevacque, “Le bourreau à Arras,” p. 165; Théodore, “Executions des sentences criminelles à Lille,” pp. 350–51; Leguay, Vivres dans les villes bretonnes, p. 463; Grand, “Justice criminelle,” pp. 93–94; Rouffy, “Viguiers d’Aurillac au XIIIe siècle,” p. 48; Lauzun, “Le Livre juratoire des consuls d’Agen,” p. 391; Comptes de dépenses de la châtellenie de Billiat, p. 61; Pleas before the King or His Justices, 1198–1212, pp. 81–82 no. 739; Reynaud, “Statuts de la ville de Nice au XIIIe siècle,” pp. 245, 247; Turing, Municipal Officials, pp. 147–48; Friedland, Seeing Justice Done, p. 100; Gonthier, Le châtiment du crime, pp. 141–42.

112. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, pp. 55–59. Lacey cites the issuance of a letter of protection, which captures the function: The Royal Pardon, p. 71.

113. Fine Rolls, 1216–1224, p. 14 no. 46.

114. Cf. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 233.

115. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 32.

116. On these lists, see chapter 4, p. 102.

117. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 65.

118. Jacob, New Law-Dictionary, s.v. “Pardon.”

119. Mazzinghi, Sanctuaries, p. 44.

120. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 66.

121. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, pp. 304–05; Lacey, The Royal Pardon, pp. 51–52; Komornicka, “Contra signum nostrum,” p. 214; Lanhers, “Crimes et criminels,” pp. 327–29 (in part drawing on Confessions et jugements de criminels, pp. 156–58).

122. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide before A.D. 1307, p. 66. For a case detailing the suspicion, see Close Rolls, 1251–1253, pp. 504–05.

123. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1345.119rs.

Notes to Chapter 6
EPILOGUE: ATROPHY AND DISPLACEMENT

1. Naessens, “Judicial Authorities’ Views of Women’s Roles in Late Medieval Flanders,” pp. 59 and 74.

2. The English justified expulsion of heretics through creative interpretation of the statute of 1401 against dissenters from Roman Catholicism (cf. Legal History: The Year Books [online], Seipp number 1495.017), which was later applied to Catholic adherents.

3. For a history of these developments down to the early fifteenth century, see New, History of the Alien Priories in England to the Confiscation of Henry V.

4. Petitions to the Crown from English Religious Houses, pp. 206–07 no. 161, petition dated 1330.

5. Petitions to the Crown from English Religious Houses, pp. 110–11 no. 92.

6. The most comprehensive study of the war is Sumption’s The Hundred Years’ War: the second and third volumes, especially, interweave high politics, battles, and the scourge of demobilized troops and so-called routiers. See also Grantham, “France,” pp. 69–70; Geremek, Les marginaux parisiens, p. 138.

7. Alban and Allmand, “Spies and Spying,” pp. 81–82.

8. Actes normands de la Chambre des comptes sous Philippe de Valois, p. 276.

9. Sumption, The Hundred Years’ War, vol. 1, p. 447; Alban and Allmand, “Spies and Spying,” pp. 80–87.

10. Ambühl, Prisoners of War, p. 85; Alban and Allmand, “Spies and Spying,” pp. 75–80.

11. Actes normands de la Chambre des comptes sous Philippe de Valois, p. 277.

12. Ambühl, Prisoners of War, pp. 45–49.

13. For French spies and English apprehension about and measures against them, see Alban and Allmand, “Spies and Spying,” pp. 87–100.

14. For the spies at work, see Sumption, The Hundred Years’ War, vol. 1, pp. 159, 246–47, 254, 284–85, 346–413, 578.

15. Gauvard, De grace especial, vol. 1, p. 220 n. 126. Old French-English Dictionary, s.v. boe¹.

16. Gauvard, De grace especial, vol. 2, p. 744 n. 160.

17. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1346.051rs.

18. In chapter 3, reference was made on this point to Statham, “Dover Charters,” pp. 16–27, nos. VIII–XIII.

19. Katherine Murray, The Constitutional History of the Cinque Ports, p. 155.

20. Grummitt, The Calais Garrison, p. 5.

21. Cf. Alban and Allmand, “Spies and Spying,” pp. 82–83.

22. Abjuration to Calais has been little studied: Ives, A History of Penal Methods, p. 101. On French attitudes toward vagabondage in the period, see Geremek, Les marginaux parisiens, pp. 30–31. (He notes similar attitudes in Castile.) For England, too, see Bennett, “Compulsory Service,” pp. 7–51.

23. So I surmise from a case noted in Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp number 1413.084abr.

24. UK, National Archives database, Faversham Borough Custumal (Kent History and Library Centre), Fa/LC c1400– 1740, fols.15 r.–15 v. online at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=051-fa_2&cid=3–1&kw=dover%20abjure#3–1.

25. For a comprehensive survey of the individual sanctuaries, see Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, pp. 48–226. Trenholme, The Right of Sanctuary, pp. 47–60 mirrors much of Cox’s work, but also provides a sketch of the inmates of chartered sanctuary (pp. 61–71). See also Daniel Thiery, Polluting the Sacred, p. 57.

26. For a rather strange treatment of chartered sanctuaries in comparison to the family and corporations as immune communities, see Wayne Logan, “Criminal Law Sanctuaries,” pp. 321–91.

27. “THE King our Sovereign Lord considering that many of his Subjects heretofore, for their Offences and Merits, have been put to Execution of Death by the Laws of this Realm, and many other committing like Offences, for Tuition of their Lives have fled, and resorted to Churches, and other hallowed Places within this Realm, and there being, have abjured the Realm before the King’s Coroners of the same; (2) divers of which Men (so abjuring) have been known to be very expert Mariners, and many other have been seen to be very able and apt Men for the Wars, and for Defence of this Realm, so that by the one mean and the other, the Strength and Power of this Realm is greatly diminished; (3) and divers of the said Persons which heretofore have abjured this Realm, being by Reason of their Abjurations in outward Realms and Countries, have not only procured many Men of the same to the Exercise and Practice of Archery, and have instructed them in the Feat and Knowledge thereof, to the great Increase and Fortifications of the same outward Realms, and Countries, but also the same abjured Persons have disclosed their Knowledges of the Commodities and Secrets of this Realm, to no little Damage and Prejudice of the same” (Statutes made at Westminster, Anno 22 Hen. VIII and Anno Dom. 1530, c. 14, online at Justis.com).

28. The 1536 statute alludes to the earlier abolition: “Where in the last Parliament begun and holden at London the third Day of November in the one and twentieth Year of the King’s most gracious Reign, and from thence adjourned to Westminster, and there holden and continued by divers and sundry Prorogations, it was enacted, amongst other Things, That such Person and Persons which did flee or resort to any Parish Church, Cemitory or other like hallowed Place, for Tuition of his Life, by Occasion of any Murther, Robbery or other Felony by the same Person committed, and thereupon confessed any Murther, Felony or other Offence before a Coroner, for the which the same Person, by the Law of this Realm afore that Time used, should abjure and pass out of this Realm, shall be directed by the Coroner to take his Abjuration to any one Sanctuary being within this Realm, which the same Person would elect and choose, there to remain as a Sanctuary-man abjured during his natural Life” (Statutes made at Westminster, Anno 28 Hen. VIII, and Anno Dom. 1536, c. 1, online at Justis.com). See also Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” p. 35; Zaremska, Les bannis au moyen âge, p. 75; and McGlynn’s unpublished paper, “The Use and Abuse of Sanctuary in Henrician England.”

29. Shoemaker, Sanctuary and Crime in the Middle Ages, pp. 162, 167.

30. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, pp. 157, 165, 175.

31. “An Abjured Person shall be marked by the Coroner on his Thumb with a hot Iron; and if he refuse to take his Passage at the Time appointed by the Coroner, he shall lose the Benefit of Sanctuary” (Statutes made at the Parliament begun at London, and continued afterwards by Prorogation and Adjournment to Westminster, Anno 21 Hen . VIII and Anno Dom. 1529, c. 2, online at Justis.com). Bellamy, Crime and Public Order, p. 112; Trenholme, The Right of Sanctuary, p. 24.

32. The Third Parliament, holden in the Fourth Year of the Reign of King Hen. VII, Anno Dom. 1487 [1488], c. 13, online at Justis.com. Sharpe, Judicial Punishment in England, p. 23.

33. Trenholme, Right of Sanctuary, p. 29.

34. “The thumb is the most important single digit of the hand. Thumb loss, total or partial, is a disastrous injury to the manual worker. The loss of the thumb at the metacarpophalangeal joint [the second joint] decreases the effectiveness of the hand by 40%” (this according to the findings of the Committee on Medical Rating of Physical Impairment, cited in Kelly, “Subtotal Reconstruction of the Thumb,” p. 582).

35. OED, s.v. “sinister” and “dexter.4”; Middle English Dictionary, s.v. “dexter.”

36. “Un vocabulaire latin-français,” p. 38. See also, for a visual manifestation of this proverbial sentiment, Caviness, “From the Self-Invention of the Whiteman,” p. 3.

37. Corballis, “From Mouth to Hand”; see also, “Why Are More People Right-Handed?” (accessed online).

38. Très ancienne coutume de Bretagne, p. 443 no. 19.

39. Le Foyer, Exposé du droit pénal normand au XIIIe siècle, p. 243; Schubert, Räuber, Henker, arme Sünder, p. 100. Exceptionally, a sheep thief in Languedoc ca. 1309–29 was condemned to lose his left hand; perhaps his right hand was already injured—see Dumas de Rauly, “Les pénalités anciennes,” p. 227.

40. “[I]f after such Abjuration any Person so abjured came out of the same Sanctuary to the which he was assigned, and be taken without the same Sanctuary, not having the King’s special Pardon or Licence so to do; that then every such Person abjured, and after Abjuration taken without Sanctuary whereunto he was assigned, should suffer like Pain of Death, and after such like Manner should be ordered, as he should have done and biden in case he had abjured this Realm for Murther or Felony, and after such Abjuration had returned again into this Realm, contrary to the Laws of this Land” (Statutes made at Westminster, Anno 28 Hen. VIII, and Anno Dom. 1536, c.1, online at Justis.com).

41. “All Sanctuaries and Places privileged, which have been used for Sanctuary, shall be utterly extinguished, except Parish Churches and their Church-yards, Cathedral Churches, Hospitals and Churches Collegiate, and all Churches dedicated, used as Parish Churches, and the Sanctuaries to either of them belonging, and Wells in the County of Somerset, Westminster, Manchester, Northampton, Norwich, York, Derby and Lancaster. (2) None of the said Places shall give Immunity or Defence to any Person which shall commit wilful Murder, Rape, Burglary, Robbery in the High-way or in any House, or in any Church or Chapel, or which shall burn wilfully any House, or Barn with Corn. (3) He that taketh Sanctuary in any Church, Church-yard, &c. may remain there forty Days, as hath been used, unless the Coroner repair to him to take his Abjuration; in which Case he shall abjure to any of the foresaid privileged Places, not being full of the Number appointed to them, viz. above twenty Persons, there to remain during Life. (4) If a privileged Person, daily called to appear before the Governor, shall make Default three Days, or if he commit any Felony, he shall lose the Benefit of Sanctuary. (5) A privileged Person abjuring to any of the aforesaid Places, shall be conducted from Constable to Constable directly, until he be brought to the Governor of the said privileged Place; and if that Place be full of his Number, then he shall be conducted to the next privileged Place, and so to the next, &c. until, &c.” (Statutes made at Westminster, Anno 32 Hen. VIII. and Anno Dom. 1540, c. 12, online at Justis.com).

42. Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, pp. 74–77.

43. Haagen, Imprisonment for Debt, pp. 270–311. See also Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” p. 41.

44. Continuance of Acts, etc., 1623, c. 23 s. VII, online at Justis.com.

45. William Jones, “Sanctuary, Exile, and Law,” pp. 19–41.

46. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp numbers 1406.104, 1418.001, 1439.006, 1456.009, and 1491.032; UK, National Archives, SC 8/302 /15098, online at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9518302;SC8/181/9039, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9294916;SC8/183/9137, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9295014. See also Cox, Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers, pp. 319–33, and Réville, “L’Abjuratio regni,” pp. 34–40, on the decay of sanctuary.

47. Legal History: The Year Books (online), Seipp numbers 1414.054.054abr, 1416.004abr, 1421.143abr, 1442.157abr, 1449.004, 1456.009, 1469.084, 1470.086ss, 1481.068, 1482.142ss, 1487.035, 1488.005, 1495.088, and 1526.012.

48. Bush, “You’re Gonna Miss Me When I’m Gone,” pp. 1225–85.

49. Morgan and Rushton, Banishment, p. 18.

50. Langbein, “The Historical Origins of the Sanction of Imprisonment,” p. 39.

51. Cf. Emsley, “Albion’s Felonious Attractions,” pp. 67–86.

52. Sharpe, Judicial Punishment in England, pp. 30–31.

53. Cf. Shapiro, Revolutionary Justice.

54. Cf. Wahnich, In Defence of the Terror.

55. For a selected few studies of these systems, see Bamford, Fighting Ships and Prisons; idem, Slaves for the Galleys; Langbein, “The Historical Origins of the Sanction of Imprisonment,” pp. 39–44, 53–58; Morgan and Rushton, Banishment in the Early Atlantic World, pp. 9–42 and 103–25; Toth, Beyond Papillon; Bender, Angola under the Portuguese, pp. 60–63; Kennan, Siberia and the Exile System. For further bibliography, see “History of Prisons,” s.v. “Deportations/Penal Colonies/Galleys,” online at http://www.falk-bretschneider.eu/biblio/biblio-5–1.htm. (I owe this bibliographical reference to Professor Guy Geltner.)