Chapter Five
An Age of Disasters, 1300–1399
Fig. 35. Coins of Richard II. Through the twelfth century, the only coins minted in England were silver pennies. Larger denominations were introduced in the thirteenth century and became standard in the fourteenth. The groat was worth four pence; half-groats and gold coins worth 6s. 8d. (half a mark) were also used. These coins of Richard II, shown in nineteenth-century engravings, have the usual portrait of the current king on the front; the inscription on the obverse identifies the town or city where the coin was minted. The smallest is a penny minted at York; the others are a half-groat and groat minted at London.
67. Parish Life in the Diocese of Exeter
The religious lives of medieval laypeople focused on the parish church, where they attended mass with kin and neighbors, baptized their children, buried their dead, and celebrated feast days with processions and communal meals. The clergy were required to keep the church’s chancel (the east end which housed the altar) in good repair, while the parishioners maintained the nave (the west end) and churchyard, and furnished the service books, vestments, and mass implements necessary for the liturgy and sacraments. Each parish was under the authority of a bishop, who (at least in theory) sent out representatives to visit the parishes in his diocese. The following excerpts are from such a visitation to the diocese of Exeter in 1301.
Source: trans. G.G. Coulton, Social Life in Britain from the Conquest to the Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1918), pp. 260–62; revised, with additional material trans. K.A. Smith from The Register of Walter de Stapeldon, Bishop of Exeter (A.D. 1307–1326), ed. Rev. F.C. Hingestone-Randolph (London: G. Bell & Sons, 1892), pp. 107, 111.
Clyst Honiton. There is no psalter or antiphonary [a book containing chants for the divine office], the lectionary [a book of scriptural readings for the office] is badly bound, and the missal is in poor condition. There is no chalice, and the rest of what is in the church is insufficient for the service. The chancel is in terrible condition; a large portion of it has collapsed, so that the divine office cannot be celebrated properly at the high altar.
They [the parishioners] say that their parish priest is of honest life and good conversation, and has been there 22 years, honestly fulfilling his priestly office in all that pertains to a parish priest; but he is now broken with age and unable to carry out his duties in the parish. They further say a certain Alice, wife of Simon Luke, is a known adulteress, who freely gives herself to all who desire her, and that she often gave herself to a certain official on the manor of Poltimor. When this man arrived in the village there was a great uproar, so that Alice’s husband, fearing him, would not remain. Nor has the local firmarius [the official who collected rents due to the church on behalf of an ecclesiastical landlord, such as a bishop, and acted on the landlord’s behalf] corrected her, so that the parishioners fear that great harm will arise from their association with her, and appeal to the firmarius that Alice be corrected or removed.
Colyton. In the main church there is an adequate psalter, with a prayer book and capitulary [a book of readings for the office] for the use of the vicar, and another psalter for the use of the parishioners, which is old and of no value. . . . [The visitors list eight additional liturgical books in the church’s collection.] There is a large chalice, partly gilded, and another chalice of the same size for the altar of the Blessed Virgin, as well as a third, smaller one. There are five complete sets of vestments, and one which is lacking a stole, as well as one adequate cope [a cloak worn by a priest] and another that is old and in poor condition, and a tunic with a silk dalmatic. There are seven frontals [decorative cloth hangings] for the altar, as well as other ornaments: three banners, a hanging for use during Lent . . . two processional crosses made of metal, two small candelabra for processions, one worn surplice [a long tunic worn by a priest], another of no value, and a third in good condition, a lidded ivory pyx [a container for the consecrated host] missing its closure, a lead chrismarium [container for holy oil], and four ampullae. There is no lantern-tower, and the chancel lacks a proper roof.
They say that Sir Robert [Blond], their vicar, is an honest man and preaches to them as best he knows how, but not sufficiently, as they think. They say also that his predecessors were accustomed to call in the preaching friars to instruct them for the salvation of their souls; but this vicar does not care for them, and if by chance they do come, he will not receive them, nor give them any help; for which reason they beseech that he may be reprimanded. They further assert that all of the chaplains and clerks are of honest life, as well as chaste.
Dawlish. They say that the vicar, whom they hold to be a good man, does not reside personally in the parish, but has in his place Sir Adam, a chaplain, who bears himself well and honestly and teaches them excellently in spiritual things. But Randolph the Chaplain has kept his concubine for ten years or more, and though often rebuked, he persists incorrigibly. The parish clerk is continent and honest.
St. Mary’s Church. The parishioners say that, until the time of the present vicar, they were accustomed to keep the chancel in good repair and were immune from paying tithes for the restoration of the church; but the present vicar, though he does not maintain the chancel, still receives the tithe and compels them to pay. Item, they say that Agnes Bonatrix left 5 shillings in pollard coin [a coin worth half its face value] for the upkeep of St. Mary’s church, which the vicar received and still keeps. Item, Master le Roger left a certain sum of money to the same end, which the said vicar is said to have received in part. Item, they say that the vicar feeds his beasts in the churchyard, so that it is evilly trodden down and vilely defouled. Item, the said vicar takes for his own use the trees blown down in the churchyard. Item, he causes his malt to be malted in the church, where he also stores his wheat and other goods; and as a result his servants go in and out and leave the church door open, so that when it is stormy the wind blows into the church and damages the roof. They say, moreover, that he preaches well and exercises his office laudably in all things, when he is present. But often he goes to stay at Moreton-Hamptead for a week or two, so that they have no chaplain, except when Sir Walter, the archdeacon’s chaplain, is present, or some other casual chaplain is procured.
Questions: What did parishioners expect of their clergy? What tensions existed in these parishes? How different were the material conditions of wealthier churches and poorer ones? How might these differences have affected medieval parishioners’ experiences?
68. Correspondence of the Queen with London
The records of London include transcripts of many letters received, such as this one from Edward II’s queen, Isabel of France, announcing the birth of the future Edward III in 1312. The records also describe the celebrations that resulted.
Source: trans. H.T. Riley, Memorials of London and London Life in the XIIIth, XIVth, and XVth Centuries (London: Longmans, Green, & Company, 1868), pp. 105–7; revised.
“Isabel, by the grace of God, queen of England, lady of Ireland, and duchess of Aquitaine, to our well beloved, the mayor, and aldermen, and the commonalty of London, greeting. Since we believe that you would willingly hear good tidings of us, we make known to you that our Lord, of his grace, has delivered us of a son on the thirteenth day of November, with safety to ourselves, and to the child. May our Lord preserve you. Given at Windsor, on the day above-named.”
The bearer of this letter was John de Falaise, tailor to the queen; and he came on [14 November,] the Tuesday next after the feast of Saint Martin, in the sixth year of the reign of King Edward [II], son of King Edward [I]. But as the news had been brought by Robert Oliver on the Monday before, the mayor and the aldermen, and great part of the commonalty, assembled in the guildhall at the hour of Vespers [about six in the evening], and danced, and showed great joy at the news, and so passed through the city with great glare of torches, and with trumpets and other minstrelsies.
And on the Tuesday next, early in the morning, it was announced throughout all the city that there was to be no work, labor, or business in shop on that day, but that every one was to apparel himself in the most becoming manner that he could, and come to the guildhall at the hour of Prime [about six in the morning], ready to go with the mayor, together with the [other] good folks, to St. Paul’s, there to make praise and offering, to the honor of God, who had shown them such favor on earth, and to show respect for this child that had been born. And after this, they were to return all together to the guildhall, to do whatever might be enjoined.
And the mayor and the aldermen assembled at the guildhall, together with the good folks of the commonalty; and from there they went to St. Paul’s, where the bishop chanted mass with great solemnity on the same day; and there they made their offering. And after mass, they led carols in the church of St. Paul, to the sound of trumpets, and then each returned to his house.
On the Wednesday following, the mayor, by assent of the aldermen, and of others of the commonalty, gave to the said John de Falaise, bearer of the letter aforesaid, £10 sterling and a cup of silver, 4 marks in weight. And on the morrow, this same John de Falaise sent back the aforesaid present, because it seemed to him too little.
On the Monday following, the mayor was richly costumed, and the aldermen arrayed in like suits of robes; and the drapers, mercers, and vintners were in costume; and they rode on horseback from there to Westminster, and made their offering there, and then returned to the guildhall, which was excellently well tapestried and dressed out, and there they dined. And after dinner, they went out caroling throughout the city for all the rest of the day, and a great part of the night. And on the same day, the Conduit in Cheap ran with nothing but wine, for all those who chose to drink there. And at the cross just by the church of Saint Michael in West Cheap, there was a pavilion extended in the middle of the street, in which was set a tun of wine, for all passers-by to drink of, who might wish for any.
On [5 February, 1313,] the Sunday after Candlemas . . . , the fishmongers of London were costumed very richly, and they caused a boat to be fitted out like a great ship, with all manner of tackle belonging to a ship; and it sailed through Cheap as far as Westminster, where the fishmongers came, well mounted, and presented the same ship unto the queen. And on the same day, the queen set out for Canterbury, on a pilgrimage to that shrine; and the fishmongers, all thus costumed, escorted her through the city.
Questions: What kinds of activities are part of the celebrations? In what other ways is the city’s joy expressed? How are the people of London organized? Why is the celebration so large?
69. The Manner of Holding Parliament
This early fourteenth-century treatise is an interesting but not entirely accurate description of how Parliament operated. Though well informed on details of procedure, the anonymous author portrays Parliament as more standardized than it was in practice, and the first paragraph, on the origins of this thirteenth-century institution, is entirely fictitious. In an age when custom often had the force of law, claiming antiquity for current (or favored) practices was an effective way of promoting them. This author reveals himself as a supporter of broad representation and the power of Parliament as opposed to that of the king.
Source: trans. T.D. Hardy, Modus tenendi parliamentum; An Ancient Treatise on the Mode of Holding the Parliament in England (London: Eyre & Spottiswood, 1846), pp. 2–46; revised.
Here is described the way the Parliament of the king of England and his Englishmen used to be held in the time of King Edward [the Confessor], the son of King Æthelred; which method was recited by the more select men of the kingdom before William, duke of Normandy, both conqueror and king of England, the Conqueror himself commanding it, and it was approved by him and used in his own times, and also in the times of his successors, kings of England.
The Summoning of the Parliament
The summoning of the Parliament ought to precede the first day of the Parliament by forty days. . . .
Concerning Difficult Cases and Judgments
When any dispute, question, or difficult case, whether of peace or war, shall arise in or out of the kingdom, the case shall be related and recited in writing in full Parliament, and be dealt with and debated there among the peers of the Parliament, and if it be necessary it shall be enjoined by the king, or on his behalf if he is not present, to each rank of peers, that each rank proceed by itself, and the case shall be delivered in writing to its clerk, and in an appointed place they shall cause him to recite the case before them, so that they may order and consider among themselves how it may be better and more justly proceeded in as they shall be willing to answer before God for the king’s person and their own persons, and for the persons of those whom they represent; and they shall report their answers and advice in writing, so that, all their answers, counsel, and advice being heard on all sides, it may be proceeded in according to the best and soundest counsel, and where at least the major part of Parliament agrees. . . .
Concerning the Business of the Parliament
The business for which the Parliament is held ought to be deliberated on according to the calendar of Parliament, and according to the order of petitions delivered and filed, without respect to persons, but who first proposes shall first act. In the calendar of Parliament all business of the Parliament ought to be regarded in the following order: first, concerning war, if there be war, and other affairs touching the persons of the king and queen and their children; secondly, concerning the common affairs of the kingdom, such as making laws against the defects of original laws, judicial and executorial, after judgments rendered, which are chiefly common affairs; thirdly, private business ought to be considered, and this according to the order of the filing of petitions as is aforesaid.
Concerning the Days and Hours of Parliament
The Parliament ought not to be held on Sundays, but it may be held on all other days, except three, namely All Saints [1 November], All Souls [2 November], and the nativity of Saint John the Baptist [24 June]. And it ought to begin at midprime on each day, at which hour the king and all the peers of the realm are bound to be present at the Parliament; and the Parliament ought to be held in a public and not in a private or obscure place. On festival days the Parliament ought to begin at the hour of prime [the first hour of daylight] on account of divine service.
Concerning the Ranks of Peers
The king is the head, beginning, and end of Parliament, and he has no peer in his rank, and so the first rank consists of the king alone; the second rank is that of the archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priors holding by barony; the third rank is of the procurators of the clergy; the fourth is of the earls, barons, and other magnates and nobles, holding land to the value of a county or barony . . . ; the fifth is of the knights of shires; the sixth is of the citizens and burgesses. And so Parliament is composed of six ranks. But it must be known that even if any of the said ranks, below the king, is absent, if they have been summoned by reasonable summonses of Parliament, the Parliament shall nevertheless be considered complete.
Concerning the Opening of the Parliament
The lord king shall sit in the middle of the larger bench, and is bound to be present at prime, on the sixth day of the Parliament. And the chancellor, treasurer, barons of the exchequer, and justices are accustomed to record defaults made in Parliament in the following order: on the first day the burgesses and citizens of all England shall be called over, on which day if they do not come, a borough shall be amerced 100 marks and a city £100; on the second day the knights of shires of all England shall be called, on which day if they do not come, their county shall be amerced £100; on the third day of the Parliament the barons of the Cinque Ports shall be called, and afterward the barons, and afterward the earls, when, if the barons of the Cinque Ports do not come, the barony from which they were sent shall be amerced 100 marks; in the same manner a baron by himself shall be amerced 100 marks, and an earl £100; in like manner shall be done with those who are peers of earls and barons . . . ; on the fourth day the procurators of the clergy shall be called, on which day if they do not come, their bishops shall be amerced 100 marks for every archdeaconry making default; on the fifth day the deans, priors, abbots, bishops, and lastly the archbishops, shall be called, who, if they do not come, shall be amerced each archbishop £100, a bishop holding an entire barony 100 marks, and in like manner with respect to the abbots, priors, and others. On the first day proclamation ought to be made, first in the hall or monastery, or other public place where the Parliament is held, and afterward publicly in the town or village that all who wish to deliver petitions and complaints to the Parliament may deliver them from the first day of the Parliament for the next five days.
Concerning the Preaching before the Parliament
An archbishop, or bishop, or eminent, discreet, and eloquent clerk, selected by the archbishop in whose province the Parliament is held, ought to preach on one of the first five days of the Parliament in full Parliament, and in the presence of the king, and this when the greater part of the Parliament is assembled and congregated, and in his discourse he ought in due order to enjoin the Parliament that they with him should humbly beseech God and implore him for the peace and tranquility of the king and kingdom. . . .
Concerning the Declaration in Parliament
After the preaching the chancellor of England, or the chief justice of England, that is, he who holds pleas before the king, or some fit, honorable, and eloquent justice or clerk elected by the chancellor and chief justice, ought to declare the causes of the Parliament, first generally, and afterward specially, while standing. And it is to be observed that all in Parliament, whoever they are, shall stand while they speak, except the king, so that all in Parliament may be able to hear the speaker. And if he speaks obscurely or in a low voice he shall speak over again and louder, or another shall speak for him.
Concerning the King’s Speech after the Declaration
The king, after the declaration for the Parliament, ought to entreat the clergy and laity, naming all their degrees, that is, the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, archdeacons, procurators, and others of the clergy, the earls, barons, knights, citizens, burgesses, and other laymen, that they diligently, studiously, and cordially will labor to deal with and deliberate on the affairs of Parliament as they shall think and perceive how this may best and principally be done, in the first place according to God’s will, and afterward for the king’s and their own honor and welfare.
Concerning the King’s Absence from Parliament
The king is bound by all means to be personally present in Parliament, unless hindered by bodily infirmity, and then he can keep to his chamber, as long as he does not lie out of the manor or at least the town where Parliament is held, and then he ought to send for twelve of the greater and better persons who are summoned to Parliament, that is, two bishops, two earls, two barons, two knights of shires, two citizens, and two burgesses to visit him and testify about his condition. . . . The reason is that clamor and murmurs used to arise in Parliament on account of the king’s absence, because it is a hurtful and dangerous thing for the whole commonalty of Parliament, and also for the realm, when the king is absent from the Parliament. . . .
Concerning the Places and Seats in the Parliament
First, as is aforesaid, the king shall sit in the middle place of the greater bench, and on his right hand shall sit the archbishop of Canterbury, and on his left hand the archbishop of York, and immediately after them the bishops, abbots, and priors in rows, with the ranks and places always so arranged that each one sits among his peers; and the steward of England is bound to attend to this, unless the king appoint another person. At the king’s right foot shall sit the chancellor of England and the chief justice of England, and his associates, and their clerks who are of Parliament, and at his left foot shall sit the treasurer, chamberlain, barons of the Exchequer, justices of the bench, and their clerks who are of Parliament. . . .
Concerning the King’s Aid
The king is not accustomed to ask aid from his kingdom except for approaching war, or making his sons knights, or marrying his daughters, and then such aids ought to be asked in full Parliament, and delivered in writing to each rank of peers of the Parliament, and answered in writing. . . .
Concerning the Breaking Up of the Parliament
The Parliament ought not to disband as long as any petition remains which has not been discussed, or at least to which the answer is not determined on, and if the king permits the contrary he is perjured. And no single one of the peers of the Parliament can or ought to retire without having obtained the permission of the king and all his peers, and this in full Parliament, and a record of this permission shall be entered in the roll of the Parliament. And if any one of the peers is sick during the Parliament, so that he cannot attend, then for three days he shall send excusers to the Parliament. And if he does not come on the third day, two of his peers shall be sent to see and testify to his sickness, . . . and if it be found that he has feigned illness he shall be amerced as if for default, and if he has not feigned then he shall appoint some sufficient person before them to be present at the Parliament for him. . . .
The separation of the Parliament used to be in this manner: it ought first to be asked and publicly proclaimed in the Parliament, and within the palace of the Parliament, if there be anyone who shall have delivered a petition to the Parliament to which no answer has yet been given, or at least been answered as far as can be rightly done, and if no one shall answer, it is to be supposed that remedy has been afforded to everyone, and then, that is, when no one who at that time has exhibited his petition shall answer, [the king shall say,] “We will release our Parliament.”
Questions: What political beliefs and sympathies underlie this description? What is the balance of power between Parliament and the king? Between the different groups that make up Parliament? What practical matters are dealt with here? What role does religion play?
70. A Chronicle of the Great Famine
In the early fourteenth century a terrible natural disaster overtook northern Europe when several years of inordinately rainy weather led to repeated massive crop failures and widespread famine. Marginal farmland had to be abandoned, animals could not be fed, many people starved, and a long period of population growth came to an end. In these brief extracts from the anonymous Life of Edward the Second, the chronicler pauses in his account of wars and politics to comment on the catastrophe and its effects.
Source: trans. N. Denholm-Young, The Life of Edward the Second by the So-Called Monk of Malmesbury (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons., 1957), pp. 59, 64, 69–70, 90.
Then at the Purification of the Blessed Mary [2 February, 1315] the earls and all the barons met at London, . . . and [the meeting] dragged on almost to the end of Lent [in the middle of March].
In this Parliament, because merchants going about the country selling victuals charged excessively, the earls and barons, looking to the welfare of the state, appointed a remedy for this malady; they ordained a fixed price for oxen, pigs and sheep, for fowls, chickens, and pigeons, and for other common foods. . . . These matters were published throughout the land, and publicly proclaimed in shire courts and boroughs. . . .
By certain portents the hand of God appears to be raised against us. For in the past year there was such plentiful rain that men could scarcely harvest the corn or bring it safely to the barn. In the present year worse has happened. For the floods of rain have rotted almost all the seed, so that the prophecy of Isaiah might seem now to be fulfilled; for he says that “ten acres of vineyard shall yield one little measure and thirty bushels of seed shall yield three bushels” (Isaiah 5:10), and in many places the hay lay so long underwater that it could neither be mown nor gathered. Sheep generally died and other animals were killed in a sudden plague. It is greatly to be feared that if the Lord finds us incorrigible after these visitations, he will destroy at once both men and beasts; and I firmly believe that unless the English Church had interceded for us, we should have perished long ago. . . .
After the feast of Easter [in 1316] the dearth of corn was much increased. Such a scarcity has not been seen in our time in England, nor heard of for a hundred years. For the measure of wheat sold in London and the neighboring places for 40d., and in other less thickly populated parts of the country 30d. was a common price. Indeed, during this time of scarcity a great famine appeared, and after the famine came a severe pestilence, of which many thousands died in many places. I have even heard it said by some, that in Northumbria dogs and horses and other unclean things were eaten. For there, on account of the frequent raids of the Scots, work is more irksome, as the accursed Scots despoil the people daily of their food. Alas, poor England! You who once helped other lands from your abundance, now poor and needy are forced to beg. Fruitful land is turned into a salt marsh; the inclemency of the weather destroys the fatness of the land; corn is sown and tares are brought forth. All this comes from the wickedness of the inhabitants. Spare, O Lord, spare thy people! For we are a scorn and a derision to them around us. Yet those who are learned in astrology say that these storms in the heavens have happened naturally; for Saturn, cold and heedless, brings rough weather that is useless to the seed; in the ascendant now for three years he has completed his course, and mild Jupiter duly succeeds him. Under Jupiter these floods of rain will cease, the valleys will grow rich in corn, and the fields will be filled with abundance. For the Lord shall give that which is good and our land shall yield her increase. . . .
[In 1318] the dearth that had so long plagued us ceased, and England became fruitful with a manifold abundance of good things. A measure of wheat, which the year before was sold for 40d., was now freely offered to the buyer for 6d. . . .
Questions: What explanations for the disaster are offered? What were the effects of the poor weather? What attempts were made to limit the damage? After weather conditions returned to normal in 1318, might there have been any long-term effects for individuals and for society?
71. The Royal Response to the Famine
As indicated in the previous piece, price controls were the royal government’s response to the inflation caused by the scarcity of food.
Source: trans. C.W. Colby, Selections from the Sources of English History (New York: Longmans, Green & Company, 1913), pp. 92–93.
Edward [II], by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, and duke of Aquitaine, to the mayor and sheriffs of London, greeting. We have received a complaint of the archbishops, bishops, earls, barons, and others of the commonalty of our kingdom, presented before us and our council, that there is now a great and intolerable dearth of oxen, cows, sheep, hogs, geese, hens, capons, chickens, pigeons, and eggs, to the great damage and grievance of them and all others living within the said kingdom. For this reason, they have urgently beseeched us to provide a fit remedy for this situation. We therefore, for the common benefit of the people of the said kingdom, assenting to the aforesaid supplication, as seemed meet, have ordained, by the advice and assent of the prelates, earls, barons, and others, being of our council, in our last Parliament held at Westminster, that a good saleable fat live ox, not fed with grain, be henceforth sold for 16s. and no more; and if he have been fed with corn, and be fat, then he may be sold for 24s. at the most; and a good fat live cow for 12s. A fat hog of two years of age for 40d. A fat sheep with the wool for 20d. A fat sheep shorn for 14d. A fat goose in our city aforesaid for 3d. A good and fat capon for 2½d., . . . and three pigeons for 1d., and twenty eggs for 1d. And that if any person or persons are found unwilling to sell the said goods at the settled prices, then let the goods be forfeited to us. And since we will that the foresaid ordinance be henceforth firmly and inviolably kept in our said city and its suburbs, we strictly order and command you to have the foresaid ordinance proclaimed publicly and distinctly in our foresaid city and its suburbs, where you think fit, and to be henceforth inviolably kept, in all and each of its articles, throughout your whole liberty, under penalty of the foresaid forfeiture. By no means fail to do this if you wish to avoid our indignation and save yourselves from harm. Witness ourself at Westminster, the fourteenth day of March, in the eighth year of our reign.
Questions: What are the king’s reasons for making this proclamation? What specific effects of the poor weather are cited? What provisions are made for the enforcement of the order? How severe are the proposed penalties?
72. Manor Court Rolls
On every manor in England, the manor court enforced the lord’s rights over his tenants, dealt with disputes between residents, and tried minor criminal cases; thus the records kept of these sessions during the late Middle Ages provide a window onto medieval rural societies and economies. The extracts below come from Great Cressingham in Norfolk, in the years 1328–29.
Source: trans. H.P. Chandler, Five Court Rolls of Great Cressingham, in the County of Norfolk (privately printed, 1885), repr. in Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Series 1, vol. 3, ed. E.P. Cheyney (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Department of History, n.d.) no. 5, pp. 20-24; revised.
A Court in [Great Cressingham], on [12 September, the] Monday next after the feast of the nativity of the Blessed Mary in the year of the reign of King Edward above mentioned [1328].
Excuse. William of Glosbridge, attorney of Sir Robert de Aspale by the common excuse through W. Prat. [He came afterward.]
Order. It was ordered, as before, to distrain [seize some of his property in order to compel] Master Firmin to show by what right, etc., concerning the tenement Walwayn. Likewise to distrain Sir John Walwayn for fealty.
Amercement [a monetary penalty], 3d. From Petronilla of Mintling for leave to agree with William Attewent, concerning a plea of trespass.
Order. It was ordered to distrain Peter the Cooper for 15d. which he owed to Roger the Miller, at the suit of William Attestreet, who proved against him 4s. in court.
Fine [payment to settle a dispute], 12d. From Walter Orengil for his term of four years to hold 6 acres of land rented from Gilbert Cloveleek, for which grant the said Walter is to pay annually, at the feast of All Saints [1 November], to the said Gilbert four quarters and four bushels of barley, during the said term. Pledges Nally and John Buteneleyn.
Amercement, 2d. From John Brichtmer because he was summoned to do one boon-work [work owed to the lord by an unfree peasant] in autumn and did not come. Therefore he is to be amerced.
Amercement, 2d. From Alice, wife of Richard of Glosbridge, for the same.
Amercement, 2d. From William Robin for the same.
Order. From Walter Page and Margaret his wife, because they cannot deny that they are keeping back from John of Enston 3d., and therefore it was ordered that the said 3d. should be levied from the said Walter to the use of the said John. (Reversed, because he is poor.)
Fine, 4d. Martin the son of Basil and Alice his wife having been examined by the bailiff, surrendered into the lord’s hand one rood of land with a cottage upon it, to the use of Isabel daughter of John Fayrsay and their heirs, to hold in villeinage at the will of the lord, doing etc., all rights being saved [not making any change in basic status and obligations]. And she gives, etc.
Fine, 4d. Isabel Fayrsay surrendered into the lord’s hands one rood and one quarter of a rood of land and one rood of meadow and half of a cottage to the use of Martin Basil’s son and Alice his wife and their heirs, to hold in villeinage at the will of the lord, doing etc. All rights being saved. And he gives to the lord [etc.].
Fine, 4d. From John Pye for his term of five years to hold in three roods of land rented from Hugh Holer. The term begins at the feast of Saint Michael [29 September].
Fine, £4. It is to be remembered that the lord out of his seisin delivered and gave to Vincent of Lakenham one messuage [a dwelling], 7 acres, and 2½ roods of land of the villeinage of the lord, which had been taken into the lord’s hand after the death of William the son of Hugh because the aforesaid William was a bastard son and died without heirs, to hold of him to the aforesaid Vincent and his heirs, in villeinage at the will of the lord, doing the services and customs due for it. All rights being saved. And he gives to the lord for his entry. And saving to Alice who was the wife of Hugh the son of Lawrence half of the said tenements to hold in dower for the term of her life.
Note, 1 beast; price 10s. The jury says John Bassisson has died seized of one messuage, 16 acres and 1 rood of land in villeinage, and that John his son is his next heir, and is nine years of age. And because the said heir has not come, therefore it is ordered that seisin be in the whole villeinage until, etc.
Order. To distrain the tenants of the tenement Sowle for one boon-work withheld in autumn.
Fine, 40s. All the jury says that Thomas Ode has died seised of a cottage and 5 acres and one rood of land of the villeinage of the lord, and that they know him to have no surviving heir, and therefore the whole tenement was taken into the lord’s hand. And the lord out of his seisin delivered and gave the whole of the said tenement to a certain Simon Maning of Walton and his heirs to hold in villeinage at the will of the lord, doing the service and customs due for it. Saving all kinds of rights. And he gives to the lord to have entry.
Order. Ordered to distrain Henry Cook, John Maggard, chaplain, and John Ingel, because they withhold from the lord 3d. rent now for five years for the parcel tenement Merchant.
Likewise to distrain Richard of the River for fealty for the tenement formerly of Reyner Attechurch.
Election. The whole homage elect the tenement of Geoffrey Attechurchgate for the office of reeve this year, and the tenants are Nally, Buteneleyn, Martin, Bassisson, and others. . . .
Amercement, 12d. From William Hubbard for damage in the lord’s meadows.
Amercement, 6d. From John Aylmer for damage in the fields in autumn.
Amercement, 2d. From Hugh Holer because he did not do his boon-work in autumn, as he was summoned to do.
12d. From Isabel Syapping for license to have a fold of her own sheep.
Memorandum. Of 4 bushels of barley taken from Roger the miller, etc., by the Reaper; and let them be handed over to Thomas Pawe for a debt recovered against the said Roger.
Total £6 4s. 11d., besides a heriot [death tax] valued at 10s.
Total of all the courts for the whole year, £8 16s. 8d.
Cressingham. A court and leet [a manorial court] there on [3 July 1329, the] Monday next after the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul, in the third year of the reign of King Edward, the third from the Conquest. . . .
Fine, 18d. Gilbert de Sedgeford surrendered into the hands of the bailiff, in the presence of the whole homage, a cottage to the use of John Putneys and his heirs, to hold in villeinage at the will of the lord, doing the services and customs due for it; saving rights of all kinds. And he gives for entry, etc.
Order. It was ordered to retain in the lord’s hand one messuage and one acre of land of which John Belesson was seized when he died, because it is not known of what condition he was; and therefore the rolls of the 34th and 32nd [years] of King Edward [II] are being examined.
Amercement, 3d. From Alice, daughter of Geoffrey Attenewhouse, for marrying without leave.
Amercement, 4d. From John, son of Martin, for the same.
Postponement. A suit between Thomas Attetunsend, plaintiff, and Adam Attewater, defendant, concerning a plea of agreement, was postponed till the next court by consent of the parties on account of arbitration.
Postponement. A distraint taken from John Maggard and Henry Cook for arrears of rent was postponed till the next court. And it was ordered to distrain John Ingel, their joint-tenant, etc.
Chief Pledges: John Buteneleyn, John Hardy, William Robin, Thomas Hardy, Henry Pawe, Nicholas, son of Roger, Laurence Smith, Roger Attehallgate, Roger Gumay, William le Warde, William Attestreet, Robert Gemming. These were sworn and say:
Fine, 3d. From William Hubbard for license to put his grain, growing in the lord’s villeinage, out of villeinage.
Amercement. From Silvester Smith, for blood drawn from John Marschal. [Erased.] Because he was elsewhere.
Amercement, 6d. From John Barun for the same from William, son of Sabina.
Amercement, 3d. From Margaret Millote for the same from Agnes, daughter of Martin Skinner.
Amercement, 6d. From the rector for an encroachment on the common at Greenholm, 12 perches long and 2 feet wide.
Amercement, 6d. From the same rector for an encroachment made at Caldwell, 20 perches long and 11 feet wide.
Amercement, 3d. From Roger of Drayton because he made an encroachment at the Strete 3 perches [49½ feet] long and 1 foot wide. . . .
Amercement, 6d. From Hugh Reff and Hugh Holer for license to resign the office of ale-taster.
Election. Alan Cook and Alan Spicer were elected to the office of ale-taster, and sworn.
Amercement, 2d. From Christiana Punt because she has sold ale and bread contrary to the assize.
Amercement, 2d. From William, son of Clarissa, because he broke into the house of John son of Geoffrey Brichtmer.
Amercement, 2d. From Adam son of Matilda Thomas because he is not in the tithing.
Amercement, 2d. From John son of Thomas Brun for the same.
Amercement, 6d. From Peter Miller for a hue and cry justly raised against him by the wife of William Fuller.
Questions: What different ranks of people and their occupations appear in the record? How do women figure in these proceedings? What laws and legal obligations are mentioned? What kinds of disputes are brought to the court?
73. A Proof of Age Inquest
Beginning in the late twelfth century, heirs to lands held directly from the king could not inherit until they proved they had reached the age of majority: twenty-one for men, fourteen for women. In the absence of standardized birth records, an heir’s age was determined through an inquest overseen by a royal official called an escheator, who heard testimony by kin, servants, and neighbors who claimed to remember the birth of the young man or woman. Such testimonies are rich sources for everyday life, and demonstrate the continued value of oral traditions in a society moving toward a greater emphasis on written records.
Source: trans. J.E.E.S. Sharp, Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and Other Analogous Documents Preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. 7: Edward III (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1909), pp. 139–41; revised.
Richard Henriz, son and heir of Richard Henriz, deceased, who held of King Edward II, [as a tenant] in chief. Writ to the escheator to take the proof of age of the said Richard, whose lands are in the wardship of John de Mounteney by the said king’s commission . . . November, 2 Edward III [1329, the second year of Edward’s reign].
Proof of age inquest held Thursday next before Christmas, 2 Edward III, at Derby.
John de Brokestouwe, aged 50 years and more, says that on the morrow of Saint Leonard, 1 Edward II [1307, the first year of Edward II’s reign], the said Richard was born at Stapelford, Derbyshire, in the manor-house of the said town, in the large stone chamber by the hall, and was baptized in the church of St. Helen’s there, and that Sir Richard, then prior of Newstead in Sherwood, and William de Cobbeleye, then chaplain of the parish, lifted him from the sacred font. On the morrow of Saint Leonard last, the aforesaid Richard was 21 years of age, and this he knows because King Edward II was crowned at Westminster on Sunday next after the Purification next before the aforesaid feast of Saint Leonard.
Geoffrey de Brinsley, aged 48 years, says the same, and knows it because, on Sunday next after the Purification, 1 Edward II, before the said feast of Saint Leonard, the same king married Isabella, queen of England, at Westminster, and the witness passed the night before the celebration of the said nuptials at the Tower of London.
Roger de Manchester, aged 50 years and more, says the like, and knows it because on Saturday next after the feast of Saint Mark in the same year, Roger Hare slew Robert Daubeney in Stapelford, and on Saturday next before the feast of Saint Mark last 21 years will have elapsed.
John de Burton, aged 42 years, says the same, and knows it because on Wednesday the next before Saint Nicholas, 1 Edward II, he left the school of Nottingham by the advice of Thomas de Stapelford, rector of the church of Trowell, and became clerk with the said Thomas from the aforesaid day to the same day 7 years later, on which day he married Joan, daughter of Nicholas de Sandiacre, with whom he has now lived for 14 years.
John de Strelley, aged 60 years, agrees, and knows it because at that time he was bailiff for Robert de Strelley, knight, of the manor of Shipley, Derbyshire, and on Thursday next before the feast of Saint Edmund, king and martyr, 1 Edward II, there came robbers by night to the said manor, and made assault, and while he was defending the manor one of the robbers struck him through the middle of the arm with an arrow.
Hugh Abbot, aged 50 years, agrees, and knows it because on Sunday next after the feast of Saint Leonard, 1 Edward II, he had a son, Robert, born and baptized and dead on the same day, 21 years ago.
William Torcard, aged 60 years, agrees with the said Hugh, and knows it because his mother Margery died on Saint Swithun’s day in the year following, and on the same feast it will be 22 years ago.
William Esthwaite, aged 40 years, agrees with the same William Torcard, and knows it because on the day after the feast of Saint Andrew, 1 Edward II, his daughter Alice was espoused to Robert de Bilburgh, and at the feast of Saint Andrew last 21 years had elapsed since then.
Geoffrey, son of Richard, aged 50 years, agrees with the said William Esthwaite, and knows it because on the day on which the said Richard Henriz was born, namely on the morrow of Saint Leonard, 1 Edward II, the said Geoffrey had a son named Richard, who celebrated his first mass in the parish church of Stapelford on the same day.
John Gerveys, of Chilwell, aged 40 years, agrees with Geoffrey, son of Richard, and knows it because on the third day after the birth of the said Richard, viz., on the fourth day after the feast of Saint Leonard, 1 Edward II, his wife Cecily was engaged for the nourishment of the aforesaid Richard, and stayed three days as his wet-nurse. But the stay did not please her, for on the fourth day she withdrew from her service and returned home to her husband.
Robert, son of Thomas of Bramcote, aged 52 years, agrees with the said John, and knows it because on the Sunday before Saint Leonard, 1 Edward II, his firstborn son Roger was born, and on Sunday before the said feast last past the said Roger was 21 years of age.
Stephen Paule, aged 43 years, agrees with the said Robert, and knows it because on the morrow of Saint Leonard, 1 Edward II, he received the office of bailiff of the honor of Peverell, by the demise of Richard Martel, and by the date of his commission he has knowledge of the age of the said Richard.
John de Mounteney, being warned to be present at the taking of this proof, did not appear, nor did any one on his behalf, to show cause why the said lands and tenements should not be restored to the aforesaid Richard Henriz, as of full age.
Questions: How were witnesses able to recall dates over two decades in the past? What role did written records play in the inquest? What do we learn about how medieval people situated themselves in time?
74. London Craft Guild Ordinances
In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, urban practitioners of each craft or industry banded together in craft guilds that regulated their businesses, set quality standards and prices, and determined who was eligible to work in the craft.
Source: trans. H.T. Riley, Memorials of London and London Life in the XIIIth, XIVth, and XVth Centuries (London: Longmans, Green, & Company, 1868), pp. 226–28, 372–73; revised.
Articles of the Spurriers, 1345
In the first place, that no one of the trade of spurriers shall work longer than from the beginning of the day until curfew is rung out at the church of St. Sepulcher [at nine or ten at night], outside Newgate, by reason that no man can work so neatly by night as by day. And many persons of the said trade, who know how to practice deception in their work, desire to work by night rather than by day: and then they introduce false iron, and iron that has been cracked, for tin, and also, they put gilt on false copper, and cracked. And further, many of the said trade are wandering about all day, without working at all at their trade; and then, when they have become drunk and frantic, they take to their work, to the annoyance of the sick and of all their neighborhood, as well by reason of the fights that arise between them and the strange folk who are dwelling among them. And then they blow up their fires so vigorously, that their forges begin all at once to blaze, to the great peril of themselves and of all the neighborhood around. And then too, all the neighbors are much in dread of the sparks, which so vigorously issue forth in all directions from the mouths of the chimneys in their forges. By reason whereof, it seems unto them that working by night [should be ended,] in order to avoid such false work and such perils. . . . And if any person shall be found in the said trade to do to the contrary, let him be amerced, the first time for 40d., one half thereof to go to the use of the chamber of the guildhall of London, and the other half to the use of the said trade; the second time, in half a mark, and the third time, for 10s., to the use of the same chamber and trade; and the fourth time, let him forswear the trade forever.
Also, that no one of the said trade shall keep a house or shop to carry on his business, unless he is free of the city; and that no one shall cause to be sold, or exposed for sale, any manner of old spurs for new ones; or shall garnish them, or change them for new ones.
Also, that no one of the said trade shall take an apprentice for a term of less than seven years; and such apprentice shall be enrolled, according to the usages of the said city. . . .
Also, that no one of the said trade shall receive the apprentice, serving-man, or journeyman of another in the same trade, during the term agreed between his master and him, on the pain aforesaid.
Also, that no alien of another country, or foreigner of this country, shall follow or use the said trade, unless he is enfranchised before the mayor, aldermen, and chamberlain; and that, by witness and surety of the good folks of the said trade, who will undertake for him as to his loyalty and his good behavior.
Also, that no one of the said trade shall work on Saturdays, after Nones has been rung out in the city; and not from that hour until the Monday morning following.
Ordinances of the Court-Hand Writers, or Scriveners, 1373
Unto the honorable lords, the mayor and aldermen of the city of London, the writers of court-hand of the same city pray that, whereas their craft is very much in demand in the city, and as it is especially necessary that it should be ruled and followed lawfully and wisely and by persons instructed therein, and seeing that, for lack of good rule, many mischiefs and defaults are, and have often been committed in the said craft, by those who hailing from various countries, both chaplains and others, have no knowledge of the customs, franchises, and usages of the city, and who cause themselves to be called “scriveners,” and undertake to make wills, deeds, and all other things touching the said craft; the fact being that they are foreigners and unknown, and also are less skilled than the aforesaid scriveners who are free of the said city, and who for long have been versed in their craft, and have largely given of their means for their instruction and freedom therein: to the great damage and disinheritance of many persons, as well of the said city as of many countries of the realm, and to the great damage and scandal of all the good and lawful men of the said craft—therefore the good scriveners pray that it may please your honorable and discreet lordships, to grant to them, and to establish for the common profit of the said city, and of many other countries, and for the well-being and amendment of their condition, that they, and their successors for all time, may be ruled and may enjoy their franchise in their degree in manner as other folks of diverse trades of the said city are ruled and do enjoy their franchise, in their degree; according to the following points.
In the first place, they pray that no person shall be suffered to keep shop of the said craft in the city, or in the suburb thereof, if he be not free of the city, made free in the same craft, and that, by men of the craft.
Also, that no one shall be admitted to such freedom, if he be not first examined and found able by those of the same craft who shall, for the time being, by you and your successors be assigned and deputed to do the same, and to be wardens of the said craft.
Also, that every scrivener of the said city, and of its suburbs, shall put his name to the deeds which he makes, so that it may be known who has made the same.
Also, that every one who shall act against this ordinance and enactment, shall pay to the chamber the first time 40d.; the second time, half a mark; and the third time, 10s.
Also, that these articles shall be enrolled in the said chamber, as being firm and established forever.
Questions: What do we learn about the London economy and the functions of craft guilds? How did the crafts present themselves? In what ways did the guilds both support and restrict their members?
75. Urban Environmental Problems and Regulations
Crowded conditions and industrial processes led to serious environmental problems in medieval English towns like London. The concentration of human and industrial wastes caused particular problems for both inhabitants and authorities, who had to balance economic, safety, and quality-of-life concerns through legislation, litigation, and other means.
Source: trans. H.T. Riley, Memorials of London and London Life in the XIIIth, XIVth, and XVth Centuries (London: Longmans, Green, & Company, 1868), pp. 171–72, 225–26, 295–96, 339–40; revised.
Unlawful Nets Condemned to Be Burned, 1329
. . . [On 19 April], in the third year of the reign of King Edward III, there came Estmar Coker and John Wychard, citizens of London, together with Ralph Bourghard, serjeant of the chamber of guildhall, and brought before the mayor and aldermen at the guildhall, John Jacob of Rith [and seven other] fishermen, because they had been found fishing in the water of Thames with twelve nets which are known as “tromkeresnet,” and are a kind of kidel: the meshes of which nets—which are called mascles—ought to be one inch and a half in size, whereas these were hardly half an inch; and with which nets the said fishermen caught every fish, and even every little fish that entered such nets. Thus the small fish, which are called fry, were unable to escape from the said nets, to the great damage of all the people of the city, and also, of others resorting to the same city.
And the said John Jacob and others, being questioned as to this, did not deny it, nor could they deny that they had done as before stated. . . . It was therefore ordered by the mayor and aldermen that the said nets should be burned at the cross in Cheap, and the said fishermen committed to prison, until they should have paid a fine. . . . And they were accordingly delivered to the sheriff . . . and taken to Newgate.
Afterward, on [19 May], they were brought to the guildhall, before the mayor and aldermen, and by special favor and for charity’s sake, seeing that they were but poor men, the fines were remitted to them for the present, on the understanding that they should behave themselves well for the future, and no longer presume to fish with such nets.
Ordinance That Brewers Shall Not Waste the Water of the Conduit in Cheap, 1345
At a husting of pleas of land, held on [20 July] in the nineteenth year of the reign of King Edward III . . . it was shown by William de Iford, the common serjeant, on behalf of the commonalty, that whereas of old a certain conduit was built in the midst of the city of London, that so the rich and middling persons living there might have water for preparing their food, and the poor have water to drink, the aforesaid water was now so wasted by brewers, and persons keeping brewhouses, and making malt, that in these modern times it will no longer suffice for the rich and middling, or for the poor, to the common loss of the whole community.
And in order to avoid such common loss, it was agreed by the mayor and aldermen, with the assent of the commonalty, that such brewers, or keepers of brewhouses, or makers of malt, shall in future no longer presume to brew or make malt with the water of the conduit. And if anyone shall hereafter presume to make ale with the water of the conduit, or to make malt with the same, he is to lose the tankard or tyne with which he shall have carried the water from the conduit, as well as pay 40d., the first time, for the use of the commonalty; he shall lose the tankard or tyne, and pay half a mark, the second time; and the third time, he is to lose the tankard or tyne, and pay 10s., and further, he is to be committed to prison, to remain there at the discretion of the mayor and aldermen.
It was also agreed at the same husting, that the fishmongers at the stocks, who wash their fish [with that water], shall incur the same penalty.
Royal Order for Cleaning the Streets of the City, and the Banks of the Thames, 1357
The king to the mayor and sheriffs of our city of London, greeting. Considering how the streets, and lanes, and other places in the aforesaid city and its suburbs, in the times of our forefathers and our own, were accustomed to be cleansed from dung, refuse heaps, and other filth, and . . . to be protected from the corruption arising from this waste, from which practice much honor accrued to the said city and its residents; and whereas now, when passing along the water of the Thames, we have beheld dung, and refuse heaps, and other filth accumulated in various places in the said city, upon the bank of the river, and have also perceived the fumes and other abominable stenches arising from these; from the corruption of which, if tolerated, great peril, both to the persons dwelling within the said city and to the nobles and others passing along the said river, will, it is feared, ensue, unless indeed some fitting remedy be speedily provided for the same. . . .
We, wishing to take due precaution against such perils, and to preserve the honor and decency of the same city, in so far as we may, command you to cause both the banks of the said river, and the streets and lanes of the same city, and the suburbs thereof, to be cleansed of dung, refuse heaps, and other filth, without delay, and to keep them clean afterward; further, we command that a public proclamation be made in the aforesaid city and its suburbs, and it to be strictly forbidden on our behalf, that anyone shall, on pain of heavy forfeiture to us, place or cause to be placed dung or other filth . . . in the same. And if you find any persons doing to the contrary, after the proclamation and prohibition are so made, then you are to cause them so to be chastised and punished, that such penalty and chastisement may cause fear and dread unto others and deter them from perpetrating the like. . . .
Royal Order for the Removal of Butchers’ Bridge and the Prevention of the Slaughtering of Beasts at St. Nicholas Shambles, 1369
Edward, by the grace of God etc., to the mayor, recorder, aldermen, and sheriffs of London, greeting. Whereas of late, upon the grievous complaint of various prelates, nobles, and other persons of the aforesaid city, who have houses and buildings in the streets, lanes, and other places, between the Shambles of the butchers of St. Nicholas, near to the mansion of the friars minor of London, and the banks of the Thames near Baynard’s Castle, in the same city, shown by their petition before us and our council in our last Parliament, held at Westminster, we had heard that by reason of the slaughtering of beasts in the said shambles, and the carrying of the entrails and offal of the said beasts through the aforesaid streets, lanes, and places to the said banks of the river, at the place called “Butchers’ Bridge,” where the same entrails and offal are thrown into the water, and the dropping of the blood of such beasts between the said shambles and the waterside, the same running along the middle of the said streets and lanes, grievous corruption and filth have been generated, both in the water and in the aforesaid streets, lanes, and places, and adjacent parts in the said city; so that no one, by reason of such corruption and filth, could hardly venture to abide in his house there: and we . . . had determined, with the assent of all our Parliament, that the said bridge should be pulled down and wholly removed, before [1 August] last past, . . . and did accordingly give you our commands, that . . . you would cause some more fitting place to be ordained outside the said city, where such slaughtering might be done with the least possible nuisance and grievance of the city, . . . but you have not hitherto cared to do anything, in manifest contempt of ourselves, . . . and to the no small damage and grievance of the same prelates, nobles, and people of the city aforesaid, by which we are greatly moved—
We do therefore again command you, as distinctly as we may, and do enjoin, that you will cause some certain place outside the said city to be ordained, where the slaughtering of such beasts, to the least nuisance and grievance of the commonalty of the city aforesaid, may be done, by [15 August] next ensuing, and the bridge aforesaid in the meantime to be pulled down and wholly removed; or else you will explain to us why you have not obeyed our command aforesaid. . . . And this, on pain of paying £100, you must in no manner fail to do. . . .
Questions: What environmental problems and concerns did fourteenth-century Londoners have? How did they respond to these problems? Who had the authority to order changes, and on what grounds? What attitudes and assumptions about the urban environment underlie their actions?
76. Articles of Accusation against Edward II
Edward II (r. 1307–27) alienated many of his barons by his expensive military failures in Scotland, his deference to royal favorites, and his vindictiveness toward magnates who sought to restrain him. A rebellion led by Edward’s estranged wife Isabella of France and marcher lord Roger Mortimer succeeded in capturing and imprisoning the king, and in January 1327 Parliament convened at Westminster to approve an unprecedented proposal for Edward’s deposition. After approving the king’s deposition, parliamentary representatives offered Edward II the choice of abdication in favor of his son Edward or forcible deposition in favor of a new king selected by his enemies; he chose the former option. Thirteen-year-old Edward III was hastily crowned, and by September Edward II had died (probably murdered) in prison. The following articles show how Edward II’s enemies condemned his shortcomings as king and justified his removal to an initially divided Parliament.
Source: trans. G. Burton Adams and H. Morse Stephens, Select Documents of English Constitutional History (New York: Macmillan, 1901), p. 99; revised.
It has been decided that Prince Edward, the eldest son of the king, shall have the government of the realm and shall be crowned king, for the following reasons:
1. First, because the king is incompetent to govern in person. For throughout his reign he has been controlled and governed by others who have given him evil counsel, to his own dishonor and to the destruction of holy Church and of all his people, without his being willing to see or understand what is good or evil or to make amendment, or his being willing to do as was required by the great and wise men of his realm, or to allow amendment to be made.
2. Item, throughout his reign he has not been willing to listen to good counsel nor to adopt it, nor to give himself to the good government of his realm, but he has always given himself up to unseemly works and occupations, neglecting to satisfy the needs of his realm.
3. Item, through the lack of good government he has lost the realm of Scotland and other territories and lordships in Gascony and Ireland which his father left him in peace, and he has lost the friendship of the king of France and of many other great men.
4. Item, by his pride and obstinacy and by evil counsel he has destroyed holy Church and imprisoned some of the persons of holy Church, and brought distress upon others, and he has also put to a shameful death, imprisoned, exiled, and disinherited many great and noble men.
5. Item, wherein he was bound by his oath to do justice to all, he has not willed to do it, for his own profit and his greed and that of the evil councilors who had been about him, nor has he kept the other points of his oath which he made at his coronation, as he was bound to do.
6. Item, he has abandoned his realm, and left it without a ruler, by going out of the realm with notorious enemies, and doing all that he could to ruin his realm and his people, and what is worse, by his cruelty and lack of character, he has shown himself incorrigible without hope of amendment, which things are so notorious that they cannot be denied.
Questions: What are the main charges against Edward? How do these compare with those made against his grandfather (doc. 56)? Judging from this denunciation, how did Edward II’s contemporaries expect a capable king to rule? Why did the magnates and prelates wish to have Edward’s deposition approved by Parliament?
77. Dispute between an Englishman and a Frenchman
After the loss of Normandy in 1204, most English elites gradually lost the familial and territorial ties that had bound them to the continent; a century and a half later, many had come to regard the French as foreigners and to define their own Englishness in part as a rejection of and assertion of superiority to the French. The Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) encouraged nationalistic sentiment among all social classes. This anonymous work from the 1340s is an excellent example of the anti-French propaganda intended to encourage English support for the war in its early stages.
Source: trans. T.B. James and J. Simons, The Poems of Laurence Minot, 1333–1352 (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1989), pp. 97–99.
The Frenchman Speaks
You reproach me with well-dressed hair, pale cheeks, soft speech, and a controlled, civilized gait. If a sense of order controls the hair and insists that it be neatly dressed, a shambling step would be an abandonment of principles. If my face is pale, it is Pallas [Athena, the goddess of wisdom] who spreads the pallor over my features; this complexion does not come from Venus [goddess of love and sex]. If I utter soft sounds, it is because what was at first a harsh sound to the ears makes the words acceptable when softened in the mouth. If I walk with delicate steps, this is because my outward restraint also controls my inner self. . . .
You also charge us with meanness because we show restraint and refuse to be slaves to our gullets and nothing else. What creatures does England rear except cattle? Their bellies are their god and it is to the belly that they [Englishmen] gladly offer sacrifice. The wasteful glutton fills his gullet and stretches his stomach. He swells up and is more beast than man. To provide him with drink the very ponds are planted with crops: from the union of these two different elements nothing is produced. We drink the liquor of the vine: only the lees [dregs from the bottoms of wine barrels] are sold to England. . . .
The Englishman Speaks
I should like to know why the Frenchman presses me to fight and what effrontery prompts you to speak, Frenchman? What menaces lower from your brow? What threats rumble in your chest? What are your lips up to with their smooth utterance? Leave the men alone, let woman strive with woman: a man’s struggle with a woman is unequal. Whatever posture you take, wherever you go, there is always some element to bring you reproach. Should you look at her head while she preens herself with her neat hair, she involves all the other men on some pretext or another. If she turns her head now to one side, now to the other, you will run off thinking she does not fancy you. If the vice of Venus robs your face of its color, your fault is loudly proclaimed by your paleness. If your tongue softens its force so that your palate does not sound too loud, then it is a woman talking through a man’s lips. If your feet are swollen from walking, you hold them in the air, scarce touching the road with the forward foot. If you surrender other parts to be used like a woman, you act like a woman and pretend not to be a man. If it is because a Frenchwoman is a castrated effeminate Frenchman, then, Frenchman, take the name of French hen and the luck that goes with it.
Lest the only claim on Frenchmen is Venus and her ways, blind avarice has curved their grasping fingers. . . . Be convinced by the evidence of a poor man’s table. Bacchus [the god of wine] saves some of the lees for the servants’ table and the poor man’s table is set with poor food. France harvests the chaff from the vine, England the grain [to make beer]. We drink off the liquor, the Frenchman keeps the rest. Since such French depravity stains the soul of the Frenchman, then, Frenchman, silence is best. Shut up!
Here ends a dispute between an Englishman and a Frenchman.
Questions: What stereotypes were associated with the English by the French, and with the French by the English? How might such a piece have encouraged English support for the war against France?
78. Jean Froissart on the Battle of Crécy
Under Edward III (r. 1327–77), England became involved in the Hundred Years’ War, a protracted but intermittent conflict with France, over a range of issues including English claims to lands in France, the succession to the French throne, and Flemish politics. In August 1346 the English army won its first major victory of the conflict when it defeated a significantly larger French force at Crécy in northern France. The story of the battle is told by the great French chronicler Froissart in his long chronicle of the war.
Source: trans. T. Johnes, Froissart’s Chronicles (London, 1803); repr. in F.A. Ogg, A Source Book of Mediaeval History: Documents Illustrative of European Life and Institutions from the German Invasions to the Renaissance (New York: American Book Company, 1908), pp. 428–36; revised.
The king of England, as I have mentioned before, encamped this Friday in the plain [east of the village of Crécy], for he found the country abounding in provisions; but if they should have failed, he had an abundance in the carriages which attended him. The army set about cleaning and repairing their armor; and the king gave a supper that evening to the earls and barons of his army, where they made good cheer. On their taking leave, the king remained alone with the lord of his bedchamber. He retired into his oratory and, falling on his knees before the altar, prayed to God that if he should fight his enemies on the morrow he might come off with honor. About midnight he went to his bed and, rising early the next day, he and the prince of Wales [Edward, the Black Prince] heard mass and took communion. The greater part of his army did the same. . . .
After mass the king ordered his men to arm themselves and assemble on the ground he had chosen beforehand. He had enclosed a large park near a wood, at the rear of his army, in which he placed all his baggage-wagons and horses, and this park had but one entrance. His men-at-arms and archers remained on foot. The king afterward ordered, through his constable and his two marshals, that the army should be divided into three battalions. . . .
The king then mounted a small palfrey, having a white wand in his hand, and, attended by his two marshals on each side of him, he rode through all the ranks, encouraging and entreating the army to guard his honor. He spoke this so gently, and with such a cheerful countenance, that all who had been dejected were immediately comforted by seeing and hearing him.
When he had thus visited all the battalions, it was near ten o’clock. He retired to his own division and ordered them all to eat heartily afterward and drink a glass. They ate and drank at their ease; and, having packed up pots, barrels, etc., in the carts, they returned to their battalions, according to the marshals’ orders, and seated themselves on the ground, placing their helmets and bows before them, so that they might be the fresher when their enemies should arrive.
That same Saturday, the king of France [Philip VI] arose early and heard mass in the monastery of St. Peter’s in Abbeville, where he was lodged. Having ordered his army to do the same, he left that town after sunrise. When he had marched about two leagues from Abbeville and was approaching the enemy, he was advised to form his army in order of battle, and to let those on foot march forward, so that they would not be trampled by the horses. The king then sent off four knights—the lord Moyne of Bastleberg, the lord of Noyers, the lord of Beaujeu, and the lord of Aubigny—who rode so near to the English that they could clearly distinguish their position. The English plainly perceived that they were come to reconnoiter. However, they took no notice of it, but allowed them to return unmolested. When the king of France saw them coming back, he halted his army, and the knights, pushing through the crowds, came near the king, who asked them, “My lords, what news?” They looked at each other, without opening their mouths, for no one chose to speak first. At last the king addressed the lord Moyne, who was attached to the king of Bohemia, and had performed very many gallant deeds, so that he was esteemed one of the most valiant knights in Christendom. The lord Moyne said, “Sir, I will speak, since it pleases you to order me, but with the assistance of my companions. We have advanced far enough to reconnoiter your enemies. Know, then, that they are drawn up in three battalions and are awaiting you. I would advise, for my part (submitting, however, to better counsel), that you halt your army here and quarter them for the night, for before the rear shall come up and the army be properly drawn out, it will be very late. Your men will be tired and in disorder, while they will find your enemies fresh and properly arrayed. On the morrow, you may draw up your army more at your ease and may reconnoiter at leisure to determine where will be most advantageous to begin the attack; for, be assured, they will wait for you.”
The king commanded that it should be so done; and the two marshals rode, one toward the front, and the other to the rear, crying out, “Halt banners, in the name of God and Saint Denis.” Those that were in the front halted, but those behind said they would not halt until they were as far forward as the front rank. When the front perceived the rear pushing on, they pushed forward; and neither the king nor the marshals could stop them, but they marched on without any order until they came in sight of their enemies. As soon as the foremost rank saw them, they fell back at once in great disorder, which alarmed those in the rear, who thought the fighting had begun. There was then space and room enough for them to have passed forward, had they been willing to do so. Some did so, but others remained behind.
All the roads between Abbeville and Crécy were covered with common people, who, when they had come within three leagues of their enemies, drew their swords, crying out, “Kill, kill;” and with them were many great lords who were eager to display their courage. No man who was not present can imagine, or describe truly, the confusion of that day, especially the bad management and disorder of the French, whose troops were beyond number.
Upon seeing their enemies advance, the English, who were drawn up in three divisions and seated on the ground, arose boldly and fell into their ranks. That of the prince was the first to do so, whose archers were formed in the manner of a portcullis, or harrow, and the men-at-arms in the rear. The earls of Northampton and Arundel, who commanded the second division, had posted themselves in good order on his wing to assist and succor the prince if necessary.
You must know that these kings, dukes, earls, barons, and lords of France did not advance in any regular order, but one after the other, or in any way most pleasing to themselves. As soon as the king of France came in sight of the English his blood began to boil, and he cried out to his marshals, “Order the Genoese forward, and begin the battle, in the name of God and Saint Denis.”
There were about fifteen thousand Genoese crossbowmen; but they were quite fatigued, having marched on foot that day six leagues, completely armed, and with their crossbows. They told the constable that they were not in a fit condition to do any great things that day in battle. The earl of Alençon, hearing this, said, “This is what one gets for employing such scoundrels, who fail when there is any need for them.”
During this time a heavy rain fell, accompanied by thunder and a very terrible eclipse of the sun; and before this rain a great flight of crows hovered in the air over all those battalions, making a loud noise. Shortly afterward it cleared up and the sun shone very brightly, but the Frenchmen had the sun in their faces, and the English at their backs.
When the Genoese were somewhat in order they approached the English and set up a loud shout in order to frighten them, but the latter remained quite still and did not seem to hear it. They then set up a second shout and advanced forward a little, but the English did not move. They hooted a third time, advancing with their crossbows presented, and began to shoot. The English archers then advanced one step forward and shot their arrows with such force and quickness that it seemed as if it snowed.
When the Genoese felt these arrows, which pierced their arms, heads, and through their armor, some of them cut the strings of their crossbows, others flung them on the ground, and all turned about and retreated, quite discomfited. The French had a large body of men-at-arms on horseback, richly dressed, to support the Genoese. The king of France, seeing them fall back, cried out, “Kill those scoundrels for me, for they stop up our road without any reason.” You would then have seen the above-mentioned men-at-arms lay about them, killing as many of these runaways as they could.
The English continued shooting as vigorously and quickly as before. Some of their arrows fell among the horsemen, who were sumptuously equipped, and, killing and wounding many, made them caper and fall among the Genoese, so that they were in such confusion they could never rally again. In the English army there were some Cornish and Welshmen on foot who had armed themselves with large knives. These, advancing through the ranks of the men-at-arms and archers, who made way for them, came upon the French when they were in this danger and, falling upon earls, barons, knights and squires, slew many, at which the king of England was afterward much exasperated.
The valiant king of Bohemia was slain there. He was called Charles of Luxemburg, for he was the son of the gallant king and emperor Henry of Luxemburg. Having heard the order of the battle, he inquired where his son, the lord Charles, was. His attendants answered that they did not know, but believed that he was fighting. The king said to them: “Sirs, you are all my people, my friends and brothers in arms this day; therefore, as I am blind, I ask you to lead me so far into the engagement that I may strike one stroke with my sword.” The knights replied that they would lead him forward immediately; and, in order that they might not lose him in the crowd, they fastened the reins of all their horses together, and put the king at their head, that he might gratify his wish, and advanced toward the enemy. The king rode in among the enemy, and made good use of his sword, for he and his companions fought most gallantly. They advanced so far that they were all slain; on the morrow they were found on the ground, with their horses still tied together.
Early in the day, some French, Germans, and Savoyards had broken through the archers of the prince’s battalion, and had engaged with the men-at-arms, upon which the second battalion came to his aid; they arrived in good time, for otherwise he would have been hard pressed. The first division, seeing the danger they were in, sent a knight [Sir Thomas Norwich] in great haste to the king of England, who was posted upon a promontory, near a windmill. On the knight’s arrival, he said, “Sir, the earl of Warwick, the lord Stafford, the lord Reginald Cobham, and the others who are with your son are being vigorously attacked by the French, and they entreat you to come to their assistance with your battalion for, if the number of the French should increase, they fear he will have too much to do.”
The king replied, “Is my son dead, unhorsed, or so badly wounded that he cannot support himself?” “Nothing of the sort, thank God,” rejoined the knight; “but he is in so hot an engagement that he has great need of your help.” The king answered, “Now, Sir Thomas, return to those who sent you and tell them not to send for me again this day, or expect that I shall come, whatever may happen, as long as my son lives, and say that I command them to let the boy win his spurs. For I am determined that, if it pleases God, all the glory and honor of this day shall be given to him, and to those into whose care I have entrusted him.” The knight returned to his lords and related the king’s answer, which greatly encouraged them and made them regret that they had ever sent such a message.
Late after vespers, the king of France had not more than sixty men about him. Sir John of Hainault, who was of the number, had once remounted the king, for the latter’s horse had been killed under him by an arrow. He said to the king, “Sir, retreat while you have an opportunity, and do not expose yourself so needlessly. If you have lost this battle, another time you will be the conqueror.” After he had said this, he took the bridle of the king’s horse and led him off by force; for he had before entreated him to retire.
The king rode on until he came to the castle of La Broyes, where he found the gates shut, for it was very dark. The king ordered the castle’s governor to be summoned. He came upon the battlements and asked who it was that called at such an hour. The king answered, “Open, open, governor: it is the fortune of France.” The governor, hearing the king’s voice, immediately descended, opened the gate, and let down the drawbridge. The king and his company entered the castle; he had with him only five barons—Sir John Hainault, the lord Charles of Montmorency, the lord of Beaujeu, the lord of Aubigny, and the lord of Montfort. The king would not bury himself in such a place as that, but, having taken some refreshment, set out again with his attendants about midnight, and rode on, under the direction of guides who were well acquainted with the country, until, at about daybreak, he came to Amiens, where he halted.
This Saturday the English never quitted their ranks in pursuit of anyone, but remained on the field, guarding their positions and defending themselves against all who attacked them. The battle was ended at the hour of vespers. . . .
They made great fires and lighted torches because of the darkness of the night. King Edward then came down from his post, who all that day had not put on his helmet, and, with his whole battalion, advanced to the prince of Wales, whom he embraced in his arms and kissed, and said, “Sweet son, God give you good preference. You are my son, for most loyally have you acquitted yourself this day. You are worthy to be a sovereign.” The prince bowed down very low and humbled himself, giving all honor to the king his father.
The English, during the night, made frequent thanksgivings to the Lord for the happy outcome of the day, and without rioting; for the king had forbidden all riot or noise.
Questions: What chivalric values are evident in this text? What is the author’s attitude toward the two sides? What factors influenced the battle’s outcome?
79. Thomas Bradwardine’s Victory Sermon after Crécy
Two months after their victory at Crécy, Edward III and his army were besieging the French port of Calais when news reached them of another great English military triumph over the Scots at Neville’s Cross. To celebrate both victories, King Edward commissioned his chaplain, the theologian Thomas Bradwardine, to preach a sermon to the army. The result was a masterful piece of propaganda in support of English foreign policy.
Source: trans. K.A. Smith, from H.S. Offler, ed., “Thomas Bradwardine’s ‘Victory Sermon’ in 1346,” in Church and Crown in the Fourteenth Century, ed. A.I. Doyle (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2000), pp. 16–18, 25–27.
Thanks be to God, who always brings us victory (2 Corinthians 2:14). Dearest ones, our lord king has many fine clerics, as befits his royal majesty, but nevertheless it has pleased him, in his royal prudence, that I, least among them, preach a sermon to you. How truly just and proper it is that we give thanks to the lord our God, for he has made us first among the many peoples of the world and freely bestowed great favors upon us. But so that he will continue to do such things for us freely and gladly, we must collectively make ourselves worthy of more special favors yet to come, when he will bring out our graces and our pleasing works. Therefore, at the beginning of this present sermon, let us humbly say the “Our Father” and “Ave Maria” to show our gratitude to God for the favors we have received.
Thanks be to God, who always brings us victory. Dearest ones, it is customary to give thanks in wartime. You have recently accomplished various great feats of arms in several places: in France, in Gascony, in Flanders and Brittany, and most recently in Ireland and England, as you know. Now recently in Ireland our most ferocious enemies—four kings, as is reported, of the sort they have there—were defeated, gave hostages, and submitted to the authority of the English king. And indeed in England, on 17 October of this last year, the king of Scotland invaded the northern regions of England with 60,000 soldiers, and was met by about 20,000 soldiers from those parts near Durham; in that very bitter battle [the Battle of Neville’s Cross], the Scottish king was defeated and captured and, freed from prudent custody . . . [the manuscript is illegible here] the entire flower of the Scottish people perished. For almost all of Scotland’s nobles were slain in this dishonorable defeat, and the survivors were captured and imprisoned. It behooves us, then, to give thanks for our victories in arms, according to the approved custom.
Indeed, dearest ones, behold a true prediction, one which can never be doubted: Whatever God wishes to be done, will be done; whoever God wishes to win, will win; and whoever God wishes to rule, will rule. . . . And likewise, if all heaven and earth contained within the bounds of heaven (Esther 3:10) favors you, but God opposes you, how can you prevail? Whence it is manifestly clear that those who sin and thus provoke divine wrath will never equal those who give thanks, as they ought, to the creator for their victories. . . .
In that last battle near Durham there were around 60,000 Scots, men renowned among nations for their strong bodies and ferocious spirits, who were well armed and trained for war—in brief, most noble warriors. Opposing them were around 20,000 Englishmen, as is commonly reported, and the battle resulted in a glorious English victory, as I have said above. At the Battle of Crécy, too, our adversaries greatly outnumbered us and their army was stronger in many respects.
Let me make even clearer, my dear listeners, what portion of the English army was present at Crécy at that battle. For truly, there are various divisions of the English army mustered for battle in nine different regions, since the army was long ago divided into nine divisions or orders, which correspond to the number of the angelic orders in heaven. Among those four divisions remaining in England, the first—following the order of heaven, and the procedure of celestial matters—is assigned to guard the eastern shore against the Danish threat, or against other enemies. Another division patrols the southern coast to protect it from enemies, that is, from demons from the south and the many other dangers that constantly menace that seashore, as late events attest (for some enemies who came ashore at the ports guarded by that division of the army were at once driven back by its strong hand). The third division is stationed in the west, to repress the audacity of the Welsh, the craftiness of the Irish, the insolence of the Scots, and any other peoples dwelling in those parts or who might come there with wicked intent. The fourth division remains on the northern boundary on account of the raids the Scots inflict on those regions; for those people are like a boiling cauldron from the face of the north (Jeremiah 1:13) burning up England’s borders, since from the north an evil spreading over all the inhabitants (Jeremiah 1:14) of that part of England is greatly to be feared. The fifth division of the army was stationed in Ireland to restrain that people; the sixth division was in Gascony; the illustrious seventh division in Britanny; the energetic eighth division in Flanders; and the ninth division with our lord king at Crécy.
What chance had this little division of the English against the gathered might of the French? For they were like the sands of the sea (Hosea 1:10), so greatly did they outnumber us in men, arms, horses, wagons, and all the trappings of war. . . . Just as it was once, so was it again: The kings of the earth rose up, and came together against the Lord and against Christ (Psalms 2:2), and against our lord king, who was anointed with the oil of gladness (Psalms 44:8). . . . Very few foreigners fought on the side of the English; I heard an estimate that there were only twenty or thirty in the entire army. What chance did this small division of the English army have against such a multitude of Frenchmen and their companies of mercenaries?
. . . There fell in battle on the French side the most courageous king of Bohemia, as well as the duke of Lorraine and the count of Alençon, who was the French king’s brother, and great numbers of counts, barons, knights and nobles, and quite a few were captured besides. Finally, the English saw the last remnant of the army take flight, just as the great multitude of Philistines was driven from their outpost by Jonathan, son of King Saul, and his armsbearer (1 Samuel 14:1–10). On our side, not a single lord, knight, or squire fell or was gravely wounded, and only a very few that I know of were captured. Is it possible that this was accomplished wholly through the power of the English king? No! God forbid that anyone should say so or even think so.
Behold, when once one pursued one thousand and two put to flight ten thousand, it was credited to Moses. Because, it is said, God sold them and shut them away (Deuteronomy 32:30). Therefore he warned the people lest any should say in his heart, ‘My own strength and the strength of my hand have achieved all this for me.’ But remember, it is said, the Lord your God, who has given you strength (Deuteronomy 8:17–18). On this account that most famous king and prophet David, who achieved wonderful victories when he killed the lion and the bear and Goliath, strongest of all, said, The king is not saved by a great army, nor shall the giant be saved by his own strength. Vain is the horse for safety, nor shall he be saved by his own strength (Psalms 32:16–19). . . .
Nor have such miraculous events ceased to occur in modern times. For I heard that when the general of the English army who lately fought against the Scots received word that a certain lord was expected to come at any moment with 10,000 reinforcements, he replied, “What need is there for such an effort, given the justness of our cause and the nature of our enemies? I know that victory never lies in the numbers of men, but in the hand of God alone (cf. 1 Maccabees 3:19). If God wished to punish us with defeat on account of our sins, he would do so even if we had twice as many troops, or even more, and if he wishes to aid us, we already have more than enough men. And, placing his hope in God, he engaged the enemy beside the glorious king who is strong and mighty in battle (Psalms 23:8), and he joyfully triumphed. I have also heard with my own ears from certain experienced soldiers present here in our midst, who assert they have never witnessed anything so impossible-seeming in any battle in which the English army has taken part during the past sixty years or so, when a smaller, weaker force has gained the victory over one so much larger and stronger. Therefore, let no one diminish such a victory by attributing it to his own power.
Questions: How does Bradwardine account for the English victory at Crécy? How does his description of the battle compare with Froissart’s (doc. 78)? How does Bradwardine connect the battles of Crécy and Neville’s Cross? How might English soldiers have responded to such a sermon?
80. The Black Death
While the Great Famine had already brought population growth to a halt, it was the Black Death that had a truly long-term catastrophic impact on the population and structures of medieval Europe. The bubonic plague arrived in southern Europe from the east in 1347 and quickly spread northward; by the end of 1349, according to modern estimates, some two-fifths of Europe’s population had died from it. Henry Knighton’s chronicle conveys the fear and helplessness many contemporaries felt as the Black Death swept across England, while the valuation of Wood Eaton is suggestive of how the plague threatened the established order in the countryside.
Source: Knighton’s chronicle, trans. Dorothy Hughes, Illustrations of Chaucer’s England (London: Longmans, Green, & Company, 1918), pp. 145–49; revised; Valuation of the manor of Wood Eaton, trans. E. Amt from Eynsham Cartulary, ed. H.E. Salter (Oxford: Oxford Historical Society, 1908), vol. 2, pp. 19–20.
Henry Knighton’s Chronicle
In this year there was a general mortality among men throughout the whole world. It broke out first in India, and spread from there to Tarsus, then to the Saracens, and at last reached the Christians and Jews; so that in the space of a single year, namely, from Easter to Easter, as was rumored in the papal court at Rome, 8,000 legions of men [some 23,000,000] perished in those distant regions, besides Christians. . . .
Then the dreadful pestilence made its way through the coast by Southampton, and reached Bristol, where almost the whole of the town perished, surprised, as it were, by sudden death; for few languished in their beds more than two or three days, or even half a day. Then this cruel death spread on all sides, following the course of the sun [from east to west]. And there died in the small parish of St. Leonard at Leicester more than 380 persons; 400 in the parish of Holy Cross; 700 in the parish of St. Margaret’s, Leicester; and so on, a great multitude in every parish.
Then the bishop of Lincoln sent notice throughout the whole diocese, giving power to all priests, regular as well as secular clergy, to hear confessions and give absolution to all persons with full episcopal authority, except only in case of debtors. And in these cases, the debtor was to pay the debt, if he could, while he lived, or others were to be appointed to do so from his property after his death. In the same way, the pope gave full remission of all sins to all who received absolution on their deathbeds, and granted that this power should last until the next Easter, and that everyone might choose his own confessor.
In the same year there was a great murrain of sheep everywhere in the kingdom, so that in one place more than 5,000 sheep died in a single pasture; and they rotted so that neither bird nor beast would go near them. All things were very cheap, owing to the general fear of death, since very few people paid any heed to riches or property of any kind. A horse that was formerly worth 40s. could be bought for half a mark, a fat ox for 4s., a cow for 12d., a heifer for 6d., a fat wether [a castrated ram] for 4d., a sheep for 3d., a lamb for 2d., a large pig for 5d., and a stone [12.5 lbs] of wool was worth 9d. Sheep and oxen strayed at large through the fields and among the crops, and as there were none to drive them off or herd them, they perished in remote by-ways and hedges in inestimable numbers in every district, because there was such scarcity of servants that no one knew what to do. For there was no memory of such a great and terrible mortality since the time of Vortigern, king of the Britons, in whose day, as Bede testifies, there were not enough survivors to bury the dead.
In the following autumn a reaper could not be hired for less than 8d. with his food, nor a mower for less than 10d. with his food. Because of this, many crops rotted in the fields for lack of men to harvest them. But in the year of the pestilence, as has been said above, there was such a great abundance of all kinds of corn that they had scarcely any value.
When they heard of the dreadful pestilence in England, the Scots concluded that it had come about at the hand of an avenging God, and it was rumored that they would swear “by the foul death of England.” Thus, believing a terrible vengeance had overtaken the English, they gathered in the forest at Selkirk with the intention of invading the realm of England, when the fierce mortality overtook them and thinned their numbers by sudden and terrible death, so that 5,000 perished within a short time. As for the rest, the strong and feeble alike were preparing to return to their own country when they were surprised by the English, who killed a very great number of them.
Master Thomas Bradwardine was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury by the pope, and when he returned to England he came to London and died within two days. He was renowned above all other clerks in Christendom, especially in theology and the other liberal arts. At this time there was such a shortage of priests everywhere that many churches were left destitute, without divine services, masses, matins, vespers, or sacraments. A chaplain could scarcely be had for less than £10 or 10 marks, and whereas when there was an abundance of priests before the pestilence a chaplain could be had for 4, 5, or 11 marks, with his board, at this time there was scarcely one willing to accept a vicarage at £20 or 20 marks. Within a short time, however, vast numbers of men whose wives had died in the pestilence flocked to take holy orders, but many of them were illiterate and, as it were, mere laymen, able to read only a little, and that without understanding.
Meanwhile, the king sent notice into all the counties of the realm that reapers and other laborers should not be paid more than they had been accustomed to receive, under a penalty defined by statute, and he introduced a statute for this purpose. But the laborers were so arrogant and hostile that they paid no heed to the king’s order, and if anyone wanted to hire them he was obliged to pay them whatever they asked, and so either lose his fruits and crops or satisfy their greed and arrogance. But the king levied heavy fines upon abbots, priors, knights of greater and lesser degree, and others of all ranks throughout the countryside when it became known to him that they did not observe his ordinance, and gave higher wages to their laborers contrary to the law. He fined some 100s., others 40s. or 20s., according as they were able to pay. Moreover, he took 20s. from each ploughland in the kingdom, thus raising an additional “fifteenth” [a customary form of taxation].
Then the king ordered many laborers to be arrested and imprisoned, but many escaped to the forests and woods for a time, while those who were caught were fined heavily. Others were released from prison on condition that they swore that they would not take wages higher than had formerly been the custom. . . . After the pestilence, many buildings of all sizes fell into ruin in cities, towns, and borough for lack of inhabitants, and in the countryside many villages and hamlets were left deserted, and all their houses empty, for all who had lived in them were dead; and it seemed likely that these hamlets would never again be inhabited. In the following winter there was such a shortage of servants of every kind as had never been seen before. For the sheep and cattle wandered in all directions without herdsman, and all manner of things were left uncared for. Thus necessities became so expensive that what had previously been worth 1d. was now worth 4d. or 5d. Besides, the great men of the land, and lesser lords who had tenants, remitted the payment of their rents out of fear the tenants should otherwise depart, on account of the scarcity of servants and the high price of everything. Some remitted half their rents, some more or less, some for one, two, or three years depending on the agreements they were able to make. Similarly, those who had leased lands to tenants in return for labor, as is the custom with villeins, were obliged to relieve and remit them on easier terms, in the form of small rents, lest their houses should be ruined beyond repair and their lands remain uncultivated.
Valuation of the Manor of Wood Eaton, Oxfordshire
Walter Dolle, a virgater, holds a messuage, consisting of 18 acres of arable and 2 acres of meadow as one virgate [a variable measure of 20 to 30 acres, depending on the quality of land]. He used to pay, if the messuage was at farm [if he received the profits of the land for a fixed annual payment] 5s. in rent; do one plowing, with food provided by the lord; supply one hen; supply eggs at Easter; pay pannage [a fee to pasture pigs in woodland]; harrow for one day, harrowing 3 rods of land [a rod equaled 16.5 feet] as a day’s work; hoe for one day with one man; cart hay for a day; and perform three boon-works [days of work at the lord’s request] with three men in autumn, with no food provided by the lord, and a fourth boon-work with the same number of men, with a meal provided by the lord.
But when it was not at farm he would work for five days any week from Michaelmas [29 September] to the feast of Saint Martin [11 November]; and for four days any week from Martinmas to the feast of Saint John the Baptist [24 June]; and do carrying service on Sundays, if necessary, as far as Eynsham [a distance of seven miles]. He also paid pannage; he paid aid [a portion of his produce]; he paid toll when he brewed [ale] for resale. He could not sell any ox, male or female foal, or let his daughter marry, without his lord’s permission. For one day-work, he threshed one measure of wheat—four of which make seven bushels—two measures of barley, three measures of oats, or one measure of beans and peas; or, when he was digging a ditch, a day-work was one perch [5.5 yards] long and as deep as two bushels; or, when he was making hedges, a day-work was two perches long.
If the messuage was at farm without the customary services, he collected nuts [for the lord] in the lord’s wood for one day, and he took two loads or four bundles of wood to court at Christmas.
At the time of the mortality of men, known as the pestilence, which was in A.D. 1349, scarcely two tenants remained in the said manor [of Wood Eaton], and they wanted to leave, unless Brother Nicholas of Upton, who was at that time abbot [and lord] of the manor, would renegotiate with them and other new tenants who were arriving. He made the following agreement with them:
That Walter and the other tenants of this manor who have the same status would pay a fee to the lord to take possession of their tenements, for the lord’s benefit; and they would come to all the [lord’s] courts; they would give their best animal as heriot; they would not let their daughters marry, or sell an ox or a male or female foal, without the lord’s permission. At each of the two sowings, they would do three boon-works or plowings, using their own ploughs if they had them, with a meal provided by the lord. Each would do three harvest boon-works with two men, with no meal from the lord, and a fourth harvest boon-work with the same number of men and a meal provided by the lord. And each would reap the lord’s meadow or grain for twelve days with no meal provided. And each would pay an annual rent of 12s. and 4d., as long as it pleases the lord, and may it please the lord forever, because the previous services were not worth as much. But let the lords in the future do as seems most suitable to them.
Questions: How, according to Knighton, did the Black Death impact the society, religious life, and economy of fourteenth-century England?Why might both the tenants and the lord of Wood Eaton feel they had made a better deal after the plague?
81. Post-Plague Wage and Price Regulations
As working people found themselves in demand and able to earn higher wages, as they moved around and negotiated for better terms of employment, and as land became a glut on the market and rents fell, the response of the authorities was to try to legislate their way back to pre-plague conditions.
Source: Ordinance of laborers, trans. G.C. Lee, Source-Book of English History: Leading Documents (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1900), pp. 206–8, revised; London regulations, trans. H.T. Riley, Memorials of London and London Life in the XIIIth, XIVth, and XVth Centuries (London: Longmans, Green, & Company, 1868), pp. 250–51, 253–58; revised.
The Ordinance of Laborers, 1349
Because a great part of the people, and especially of workmen and servants, have lately died in the pestilence, many, seeing the necessities of masters and great scarcity of servants, will not serve unless they receive excessive wages, and others, preferring to beg in idleness rather than by labor to get their living; we, considering the grievous incommodities which may result from the lack, especially of plowmen and such laborers, have, upon deliberation and treaty with the prelates and the nobles and learned men assisting us, with their unanimous counsel ordained the following:
That every man and woman of our realm of England, of whatever condition he be, free or bond, able in body, and under the age of sixty years, not living by trade, nor exercising any craft, nor having anything of his own upon which he may live, nor land of his own to till, and not serving any other, if he be required to serve in suitable service, his estate considered, he shall be bound to serve anyone who shall require him to do so. And he shall take only the wages, livery, reward, or salary which were accustomed to be given in the places where he is obliged to serve, during the twentieth year of our reign in England [1347], or five or six other common years next before. Provided always, that the lords be preferred before others in their bondmen or their land tenants, so in their service to be retained; so that, nevertheless, the said lords shall retain no more workers than they need. And if any such man or woman being so required to serve will not do the same, and if that be proved by two true men before the sheriff, bailiff, lord, or constable of the town where this shall be done, he shall immediately be taken by them and committed to the nearest jail, there to remain under strait keeping, till he find surety to serve in the form aforesaid.
If any reaper, mower, other workman or servant, of whatever estate or condition he be, retained in any man’s service, leaves the said service without reasonable cause or license before the term agreed, he shall have pain of imprisonment; and no one, under the same penalty, shall presume to receive or retain such a one in his service.
No one, moreover, shall pay or promise to pay to anyone more wages, liveries, meed, or salary than was accustomed, as is before said; nor shall anyone in any other manner demand or receive them, upon pain of a penalty twice that which shall have been so paid, promised, required or received, to him who thereof shall feel himself aggrieved; and if none such will sue, then the same shall be applied to any of the people that will sue; and such suit shall be made in the court of the lord of the place where such case shall happen.
And if lords of towns or manors, or their servants, presume in any point to defy this present ordinance, then suit shall be made against them in the form aforesaid, . . . for the penalty three times that which was paid or promised by them or their servants. And if any before this present ordinance has covenanted with any so to serve for higher wages [than are lawful], he shall not be bound, by reason of the said covenant, to pay more than at another time was accustomed to be paid to such a person; nor, under the same penalty, shall he presume to pay more.
Also, saddlers, skinners, white tawyers, cordwainers, tailors, smiths, carpenters, masons, tilers, shipwrights, carters, and all other artificers and workmen, shall not take for their labor and workmanship more than was accustomed to be paid to such persons in the said twentieth year, and other common years next preceding, as said above, in the place where they shall happen to work; and if any man takes more he shall be committed to the nearest jail, as said above.
Also, that butchers, fishmongers, innkeepers, brewers, bakers, poulterers, and all other sellers of all manner of victuals shall be bound to sell the same victuals for a reasonable price, having respect to the price that such victuals be sold at in the places adjoining, so that the same sellers receive moderate, and not excessive gains, as are reasonably to be required according to the distance of the place from which the said victuals were carried; and if anyone sell such victuals in any other manner, and be convicted of this, in the manner and form aforesaid, he shall pay two times what he so received to the party injured, or to any other person that will sue on his behalf. And the mayors and bailiffs of cities, boroughs, merchant towns, and others, and of the ports and maritime places, shall have power to inquire of each and all those who shall in any thing offend against this ordinance, and to levy the said penalty. . . . And if the same mayors and bailiffs are negligent in carrying out these provisions, and are so convicted before our justices, to be assigned by us, then the same mayors and bailiffs shall be compelled by the same justices to pay three times the price of the thing so sold to the injured party, or to anyone else that will sue in his place. . . .
And because many strong beggars refuse to labor as long as they may live by begging, giving themselves to idleness and vice, and sometimes resorting to theft and other abominations; no one, upon pain of imprisonment, shall, under the color of pity or alms, give anything to such beggars, or presume to favor them in their idleness, so that thereby they may be compelled to labor for their necessary living.
London Wage and Price Regulations, 1350
To amend and redress the damages and grievances which the good folks of the city, rich and poor, have suffered within the past year, by reason of masons, carpenters, plasterers, tilers, and all manner of laborers, who take immeasurably more than they have been accustomed to take, by assent of Walter Turk, mayor, the aldermen, and all the commonalty of the city, the points below are ordained to be held and firmly observed for ever; that is to say:
In the first place, that the masons, between the feasts of Easter and Saint Michael [29 September], shall take no more by the working-day than 6d., without victuals or drink; and from the feast of Saint Michael to Easter, no more than 5d. by the working-day. And upon feast days, when they do not work, they shall take nothing. And for the making or mending of their implements they shall take nothing.
Also, that the carpenters shall take, for the same time, in the same manner.
Also, that the plasterers shall take the same as the masons and carpenters take.
Also, that the tilers shall take for the working-day, from the Feast of Easter to Saint Michael 5½d., and from the feast of Saint Michael 4½d.
Also, that the laborers shall take in the first half year 3½d., and in the other half 3d.
Also, that the master daubers shall take between the Feasts of Easter and Saint Michael 5d., and in the other half year 4d.; and their laborers are to take the same as the laborers of the tilers.
Also, that the sawyers shall take in the same manner as the masons and carpenters take.
Also, that no one shall pay more to the workmen aforesaid, on pain of paying 40s. to the commonalty, without any release therefrom; and he who shall take more than the above, shall go to prison for 40 days.
Also, that the thousand of tiles shall be sold for 5s., at the very highest.
Also, that the hundred of lime shall be sold at 5s., at the very highest.
Also, that a cart with sand, and with clay, that comes from Aldgate as far as the Conduit, shall take 3d. for its hire; and if the cart shall pass the Conduit, let it take 3½d. And in the same manner, let the carts from Cripplegate to Cheap take 3d.; and if they pass that place, 3½ d. And if the cart with sand shall not enter the city, but only bring it to serve folks who live in the suburbs outside the gates, let it take 2d.: and let the carts be of capacity of one quarter, well heaped up, as they used to be.
Also, that carters, called “waterleaders,” shall take 1½d. for a cart-load brought from Dovegate to Cheap; and from Castle Baynard to Cheap, in the same manner; and if they pass beyond Cheap, they are to take one penny [more]; and if they do not come as far as Cheap, 1¼ d.
Also, that carts which bring wares coming from beyond the sea shall take 4d. for the trip from Woolwharf to Cheap.
Also, that the cart which brings [long pieces of] firewood . . . shall take for the hundred, at Cripplegate, 6d., and for the hundred of faggots [short pieces] 4d.
Also, that the tailors shall take for making a gown, garnished with fine cloth and silk, 18d.
Also, for a man’s gown, garnished with linen thread and with buckram [coarse linen cloth stiffened with paste], 14d.
Also, for a cote and hood, 10d.
Also, for a long gown for a woman, garnished with fine cloth or with silk, 2s. 6d.
Also, for a pair of sleeves, to change, 4d.
Also, that the porters of the city shall not take more for their labor than they used to take in former times, on pain of imprisonment.
Also, that no vintner shall be so daring as to sell a gallon of wine of Vernaccia for more than 2s., and wine of Crete, wine of the River, Piement, and Clare, and Malveisin, at 16d. . . .
Also, that no one shall go to meet those who are bringing victuals or other wares to sell in the city by land or by water, for the purpose of buying them or bargaining for them, before they have come to certain pre-assigned places, where they ought to be sold; on pain of forfeiture of the victuals and other wares, and of their bodies being committed to prison, until they have been sufficiently punished, at the discretion of the mayor and aldermen.
Also, that the wheat and barley which comes toward the city for sale by land or by water, shall come wholly into the markets, and shall there be sold to all folks by the hands of those who bring the same, for the support and sustenance of their households, and to the bakers for serving the people. . . .
Also, that a pair of shoes of cordovan shall be sold for 6d., and a pair of shoes of cow-leather for 6d., and a pair of boots of cordovan and of cow-leather for 3s. 6d.
Also, that a pair of spurs shall be sold for 6d., and a better pair for 8d., and the best at 10d. or 12d., at the very highest.
Also, that a pair of gloves of sheepskin shall be sold for 1d., and a better pair at 1½d., and a pair at 2d., so going on to the very highest.
Also, that the shearmen shall not take more than they were accustomed to take; that is to say, for [shearing] a short cloth 12d., and for [shearing] a long cloth 2s.; and for a cloth of striped serge, for getting rid of the stripes, and for shearing the same, 2s.
Also, that the farriers shall not take more than they were accustomed to take before the time of the pestilence, on pain of imprisonment and heavy ransom; that is to say, for a horse-shoe of six nails 1½ d., and for a horse-shoe of eight nails 2d.; and for taking off a horse-shoe of six nails or of eight, ½d.; and for the shoe of a courser 2½ d., and the shoe of a charger 3d.; and for taking off the shoe of a courser or charger, 1d.
Also, if any workman or laborer will not work or labor as is above ordained, let him be taken and kept in prison until he shall have found good surety, and sworn to do that which is so ordained. And if anyone shall absent himself, or go out of the city, because he does not wish to work and labor, as is before mentioned, and afterward by chance be found within the city, let him be imprisoned for a quarter of the year, and forfeit his chattels which he has in the city, and then let him find surety, and make oath, as before stated. And if he will not do this, let him forswear the city forever.
Also, that the servants in the houses of good folks shall not take more than they were wont to take before the time of the pestilence; on pain of imprisonment and heavy ransom, and of paying to the city double that sum which they shall have taken in excess. And he who shall pay more than he used to pay before the above-mentioned time, shall pay to the city three times what he shall have so paid in excess.
Also, that no cook shall take more for putting a capon or rabbit in a pasty than 1d., on pain of imprisonment. . . .
Also, that four good men, or two, of every ward, shall be chosen to keep all these points; and if victuals or other wares coming toward the city by land or by water shall be sold in any other manner than is before mentioned, let the same be forfeited by award of the mayor [and] aldermen; and let one part thereof be delivered to the chamberlain, to the use of the commonalty, and a second part to the sheriffs, if they or their officers have readily aided the wardens in seizing the said things; and the wardens shall have the third part for their trouble; saving always to the sheriffs what shall appertain to their farm [the royal revenues], according to the purport of the charters and liberties of the city. And he who shall contravene any above-written article . . . shall pay to the commonalty 40s. And it shall be fully lawful for the mayor, aldermen, and good folks of the wards sworn, or others in their places, if any of them have been taken by God unto himself, to increase or diminish, or make amendment in, the articles aforesaid, for the common profit, according as the times shall shape themselves.
Questions: Whose perspective do these regulations represent? What attitudes toward laborers and craftspeople are expressed? How were these regulations to be enforced? How are these regulations different from those of 1315 (doc. 71)? Were these measures likely to succeed?
82. Chronicle Accounts of the Peasants’ Revolt
The rising expectations of ordinary people in post-plague England, along with the repressive actions of their lords and employers, led to escalating tensions. In 1381 these broke out in the Peasants’ Revolt, the first rebellion of English commoners. The specific event that sparked it was a poll tax, a flat tax on every “poll” or head, which was burdensome to many (although many exemptions were given out) and the collection of which involved some notoriously ill-behaved officials. But the accounts of the rebellion, including those excerpted below, reveal more deep-seated and wide-ranging grievances. Readers should be aware that Knighton’s dating of the revolt is somewhat confused.
Source: trans. E.P. Cheyney, Readings in English History Drawn from the Original Sources (Boston: Ginn and Company, 1922), pp. 260–65; revised.
Froissart’s Account of a Sermon by John Ball
Of this imagination was a foolish priest in the county of Kent called John Ball, who, for his foolish words, had been confined three times in the archbishop of Canterbury’s prison; for on the Sundays after mass, when the people were going out of the minster, this priest often used to go into the cloister and preach, and made the people assemble about him, and would say, “Ah, ye good people, things are not going well in England, nor shall they until everything is held in common, and until there be no villeins nor gentlemen, but all be united together, and the lords be no greater masters than we be. What have we done, that we deserve to be thus kept in serfdom? We all come from one father and one mother, Adam and Eve; how, then, can they say or show that they be greater lords than we be, except that they cause us to earn and labor for what they spend? They are clothed in velvet and camlet furred with grise, while we be clothed in poor cloth; they have their wines, spices, and good bread, while we have the drawing out of the chaff to eat and water to drink; they dwell in fair houses while we have pain and travail, rain and wind in the fields; and they keep and maintain their estates by the fruit of our labors. We are called their bondmen, and unless we readily do them service, we are beaten; and we have no sovereign to whom we may complain, nor that will hear us and do right by us. Let us go to the king—he is young—and show him what serfdom we be in, and show him how we will have it otherwise, or else we will provide ourselves with some remedy, either by fairness or otherwise.” Thus John Ball preached on Sundays, when the people issued out of the churches in the villages; wherefore many of the lowly people loved him, and those who had no good intentions said how he said truth; and so they would murmur together in the fields and in the lanes as they went along together, affirming how John Ball spoke the truth.
Henry Knighton’s Chronicle
In the year 1381, the second of the reign of King Richard II, during the month of May, . . . that impious band began to assemble from Kent, from Surrey, and from many other surrounding places. Apprentices also, leaving their masters, rushed to join these. And so they gathered on Blackheath, where, forgetting themselves in their multitude, and neither contented with their former cause nor appeased by smaller crimes, they unmercifully planned greater and worse evils and determined not to desist from their wicked undertaking until they should have entirely extirpated the nobles and great men of the kingdom.
So at first they directed their course of iniquity to a certain town of the archbishop of Canterbury called Maidstone, in which there was a jail of the said archbishop, and in the said jail was a certain John Ball, a chaplain who was considered among the laity to be a very famous preacher; many times in the past he had foolishly spread abroad the word of God, by mixing tares with wheat, too pleasing to the laity and extremely dangerous to the liberty of ecclesiastical law and order, execrably introducing into the Church of Christ many errors among the clergy and laymen. For this reason he had been tried as a clerk and convicted in accordance with the law, being seized and assigned to this same jail for his permanent abiding place. On [12 June,] the Wednesday before the feast of the Consecration, they came into Surrey to the jail of the king at Marshalsea, where they broke into the jail without delay, forcing all who were imprisoned there to come with them to help them; and whomever they met, whether they were pilgrims or others of whatever condition, they forced to go with them.
On [14 June,] the Friday following the feast of the Consecration, they came over the bridge to London; here no one resisted them, although, as was said, the citizens of London knew of their approach a long time before; and so they directed their way to the Tower where the king was surrounded by a great throng of knights, esquires, and others. It was said that there were in the Tower about one hundred and fifty knights, together with one hundred and eighty others, with the mother of the king, the duchess of Britanny, and many other ladies. There was present also Henry, earl of Derby, son of John, duke of Lancaster, who was still a youth, as well as Simon of Sudbury, archbishop of Canterbury and chancellor of England, and Brother Robert de Hales, prior of the Hospital of England and treasurer of the king.
John Leg and a certain John, a Minorite, a man active in warlike deeds, skilled in natural sciences, an intimate friend of Lord John, duke of Lancaster, hastened with three others to the Tower for refuge, intending to hide themselves under the wings of the king. The people had determined to kill the archbishop and the others above mentioned with him; for this reason they came to this place, and afterward they fulfilled their vows. The king, however, desired to free the archbishop and his friends from the jaws of the wolves, so he sent to the people a command to assemble outside the city, at a place called Mile End, in order to speak with the king and to discuss their designs with him. . . .
But the king advanced to the assigned place, while many of the wicked mob kept following him. . . . More, however, remained where they were. When the others had come to the king they complained that they had been seriously oppressed by many hardships and that their condition of servitude was unbearable, and that they neither could nor would endure it any longer. The king, yielding to their petition for the sake of peace, and on account of the violence of the times, granted them a charter with the great seal, to the effect that all men in the kingdom of England should be free and of free condition, and should remain, both for themselves and their heirs, free from all kinds of servitude and villeinage forever. This charter was rejected and declared null and void by the king and the great men of the kingdom in the Parliament held at Westminster in the same year, after the feast of Saint Michael [29 September].
While these things were going on, behold those degenerate sons, who still remained, summoned their father the archbishop with his above-mentioned friends without any force or attack, without sword or arrow, or any other form of compulsion, but only with force of threats and excited outcries, inviting those men to death. But they [the archbishop and his companions] did not protest or resist, but, as sheep before the shearers, going forth barefoot and with uncovered heads, unarmed, they offered themselves freely to an undeserved death, just as if they had deserved this punishment for some murder or theft. And so, alas! before the king returned, seven were killed at Tower Hill. . . .
Whatever representatives of the law they found or whatever men served the kingdom in a judicial capacity, these they killed without delay.
On the following day, which was Saturday, they gathered in Smithfield, where there came to them in the morning the king, who although only a youth in years yet was already well versed in wisdom. Their leader, whose real name was Wat Tyler, approached him; already they were calling him by the other name of Jack Straw. He kept close to the king, addressing him on behalf of the rest. He carried in his hand an unsheathed weapon which they call a dagger, and, as if in childish play, kept tossing it from one hand to the other in order that he might seize the opportunity, if the king should refuse his requests, to strike the king suddenly (as was commonly believed); and from this thing the greatest fear arose among those about the king as to what might be the outcome.
They begged from the king that all the warrens, waters as well as park and wood, should be common to all, so that both a poor man and a rich should be able to hunt animals freely everywhere in the kingdom—in the streams, in the fish ponds, in the woods, and in the forest; and that he might be free to chase the hare in the fields, and that he might do these things and others like them without objection. When the king hesitated to grant this concession Jack Straw came nearer, and, speaking threatening words, seized with his hand the bridle of the king’s horse very daringly. When John de Walworth, a citizen of London, saw this, thinking that death threatened the king, seized a sword and pierced Jack Straw in the neck. Seeing this, another soldier, by name Radulf Standyche, pierced his side with another sword. He sank back, slowly letting go with his hands and feet, and died. A great cry and much mourning arose, as the people cried out, “Our leader is slain.” When this dead man had been meanly dragged along by the hands and feet into the church of St. Bartholomew, which was nearby, as many as ten thousand, as it is believed, withdrew from the band, and, vanishing, betook themselves to flight. . . .
After these things had happened and quiet had been restored, the time came when the king caused the offenders to be punished. So Lord Robert Tresillian, one of the judges, was sent by order of the king to inquire into the uprisings against the peace and to punish the guilty. Wherever he came he spared no one, but caused great slaughter. And just as those evildoers plotted in hostile manner against the judges, Lord John de Candishe and any others they could find, by bringing them to capital punishment, and against all those skilled in the laws of the country whom they could reach, and not sparing any one of them, but punishing them by capital punishment, just so this judge spared no one, but demanded misfortune for misfortune. For whoever was accused before him in this said cause, whether justly or out of spite, he immediately sentenced to death. He ordered some to be beheaded, others to be hanged, still others to be dragged through the city and hanged in four different parts of it; others to be disemboweled, and the entrails to be burned before them while they were still alive, and afterward to be decapitated, quartered, and hanged in four parts of the city, according to the greatness of the crime and its punishment. John Ball was captured at Coventry and led to St. Albans, where, by order of the king, he was drawn and hanged, then quartered, and his quarters sent to four different places.
Questions: Who were the rebels? What did they want, and why? What was the attitude of the authorities toward the rebel demands? Can you detect anything of lasting significance in these events?
83. A Peasants’ Revolt Trial
After the failure of the Peasants’ Revolt, there were swift, severe retaliations not only against those suspected of involvement but also of those suspected of sympathizing with the rebels. While over three thousand people were permitted to purchase royal pardons, others were not so lucky; surviving trial records show that at least one hundred rebels were sentenced to death by hanging. One such trial transcript is printed below.
Source: trans. A.E. Bland, P.A. Brown, and R.H. Tawney, English Economic History: Select Documents (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1914), pp. 109–10.
Cambridge. John Shirle of the county of Nottingham was arrested because it was found that he was a vagabond in various counties for the duration of the disturbance, insurrection and tumult, carrying lies and worthless talk from district to district whereby the peace of the lord king could be speedily broken and the people disquieted and disturbed; and among other dangerous words, to wit, after the proclamation of the peace of the lord king made on the aforesaid day and year, the [ justices assigned by] the lord king being in the town and sitting, he said in a tavern in Bridge Street, Cambridge, where many were assembled to listen to his news and worthless talk, that the stewards of the lord king, the justices and many other officers and ministers of the king were more deserving of being drawn and hanged and suffering other lawful pains and torments, than John Ball, chaplain, a traitor and felon lawfully convicted. For he said that [John Ball] was condemned to death falsely, unjustly and for envy by the said ministers with the king’s assent, because he was a true and good man, prophesying things useful to the commons of the realm and telling of wrongs and oppressions done to the people by the king and his ministers; and his death shall not go unpunished, but within a short space he would well reward both the king and his officers and ministers; which sayings and threats redound to the prejudice of the crown of the lord the king and the contempt and manifest disquiet of the people. And as a result the aforesaid John Shirle was promptly brought by the sheriff before the aforesaid [ justices] in Cambridge Castle, and was charged touching these events and diligently examined as well touching his conversation as touching his tarrying and his estate, and the same being acknowledged by him before the aforesaid representatives [of the king], his evil behavior and condition is plainly manifest and clear. And as a result they asked for trustworthy witnesses at that time in his presence, when the aforesaid lies, evil words, threats and worthless talk were spoken by him, and the witnesses, being sworn to speak the truth concerning this matter, testify that all the aforesaid words imputed to him were truly spoken by him; and he, again examined, did not deny the charges. Therefore by the discretion of the said representatives he was hanged; and order was made to the escheator to enquire diligently into his lands and tenements, goods and chattels, and to make due execution thereof for the lord the king.
Questions: With what crimes was the defendant charged? What evidence was brought against him? What was the penalty? What does this text tell us about reactions to the Peasants’ Revolt?
84. Ordinances of the Guild of Saint Katharine at Norwich
Guilds, or societies for mutual assistance, regulated the spiritual as well as economic and social lives of late medieval townspeople. Religious guilds like that of Saint Katherine at Norwich enhanced parish life, promoted the veneration of particular saints, and provided venues for laypeople to engage in pious and charitable acts.
Source: trans. T. Smith, English Guilds: The Original Ordinances of More Than One Hundred English Gilds, ed. L.T. Smith (London, 1870), repr. in Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, ed. E.P. Cheyney, 1st ser. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of History, 1895), vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 34–35; revised.
To the most excellent prince and lord, our lord Richard [II], by the grace of God, king of England and France, and to his council in his chancery, his humble lieges, the guardians of a certain fraternity of Saint Katharine the virgin and martyr, in the church of Saints Simon and Jude in Norwich, all subjection and reverence and honor. By virtue of a certain proclamation recently made according to royal command by the sheriff of the county of Norfolk at Norwich, we certify to your excellency according to the form of the aforesaid proclamation, that our aforesaid fraternity was founded in the year 1307, by certain parishioners of the said church, and by others devoted to God, to the honor of the Holy Trinity, and of the blessed Virgin Mary, and of Saint Katharine the virgin and martyr, and of all saints, and for keeping up an increase of light in the said church, under certain ordinances made and issued with the common consent of the brothers and sisters of the aforesaid fraternity. The tenor of these ordinances follows in these words.
In the first place it is ordained with one assent that all the brothers and sisters of this guild shall come together to the parish church of Saints Simon and Jude, in Norwich, on the day of Saint Katharine [25 November], to go in procession with their candle, which is borne before them, and to hear the mass of Saint Katharine in the aforesaid church; and at that mass every brother and sister shall offer a half-penny.
And also it is ordained that if any brother or sister shall be absent at the procession aforesaid, or at mass, or at offering, he shall pay to the chattels of the guild two pounds of wax, but they may be excused reasonably.
And also it is ordained, that when a brother or a sister dies, every brother and sister shall come to the dirge and to mass; and at the mass, each shall offer a half-penny, and give a half-penny for alms, and a penny for a mass to be sung for the soul of the dead. And at the dirge, every brother and sister that is lettered [literate] shall say, for the soul of the dead, the office of the dead and the dirge, in the place where they shall come together; and every brother and sister that is not lettered shall say for the soul of the dead, twenty times, the Paternoster, with the Ave Maria; and from the chattels of the guild shall there be two candles of wax, of sixteen pounds weight, around the body of the deceased.
And also it is ordained, that if any brother or sister die outside of the city of Norwich, within eight miles, six of the brothers that have the chattels of the guild in their keeping shall go to that brother or sister that is dead; and if it be lawful, they shall carry the body to Norwich, or else it will be buried there; and if the body be buried outside of Norwich all the brothers and sisters shall be warned to come to the foresaid church of Saints Simon and Jude, and there shall be done for the soul of the dead all of the service, lights and offerings as if the body were there present. And if any brother or sister be absent at the office of the dead and the dirge, or at mass, he shall pay two pounds of wax to the chattels of the guild, unless he be reasonably excused. And nevertheless he shall do for the dead as it is said before.
And also it is ordained that, on the morrow after the guild day all the brothers and sisters shall come to the aforesaid church, and there sing a requiem mass for the souls of the brothers and sisters of this guild, and for all Christian souls. . . . And whoever is absent shall pay a pound of wax.
And also it is ordained that if any brother or sister fall into poverty, through adventure of the world, his estate shall be helped by every brother and sister of the guild, with a farthing [¼ d.] each week.
And also it is ordained by common assent that if there be any discord between brothers and sisters, that discord shall be first shown to other brothers and sisters of the guild, and by them accord shall be made, if it may be done skillfully. And if they cannot be so brought to accord, it shall be lawful for them to go to the common law. . . . And whoever acts contrary to this ordinance, he shall pay two pounds of wax to the light.
Also it is ordained, by common assent, that if any brother of this guild be chosen for office and refuse it, he shall pay two pounds of wax to the light of Saint Katharine.
Also it is ordained, by common assent, that the brothers and sisters of this guild, in the worship of Saint Katharine, shall have a livery of hoods in suit, and eat together on their guild day, at their common cost; and whoever fails to do so shall pay two pounds of wax to the light.
Also it is ordained, by common assent, that no brother or sister shall be received into this guild except by the alderman and twelve brothers of the guild.
And as to the goods and chattels of the said fraternity, we make known to your excellency, likewise, that we the aforesaid guardians have in our custody, for the use of the said fraternity, 20s. of silver.
Questions: What is the purpose of the guild? What specific benefits can its members expect? What are the members’ obligations? What concerns of medieval society are evident in this text?
85. Robert Manning of Brunne’s Handlyng Synne
This early fourteenth-century Middle English poem, composed in English by a monk who based much of it on a similar French work, offers moral instruction to a lay audience by evoking concrete examples of problem situations: tournaments, miracle plays, the care of a congregation, and the raising of children. The mention of Eli at the end of this selection refers to the story “Sir Eli and His Wicked Sons,” recounted earlier in the poem.
Source: Modernized from Robert of Brunne’s Handlyng Synne, ed. F.J. Furnivall (London: Early English Text Society, 1901), vol. 1, pp. 153–55, 160–63.
Of tournaments that are forbade
in holy Church, as men do read,
of tournaments I shall prove therein,
seven points of deadly sin:
first is pride, as thou well know’st,
vanity, pomp, and many a boast;
of rich attire there is great flaunting,
spurring her horse with much vaunting.
Know you well this is envy
when one sees another do mastery,
some in words, some in deeds;
envy most of all him leads.
Ire and wrath cannot be late;
oft are tournaments made for hate.
If all knights loved each other well,
tournaments would never be held;
And of course they fall into slothfulness,
they love it more than God or Mass;
And truly, there can be no doubt,
they spend more gold thereabout—
that is, they give it all to folly—
than on any deed of mercy.
And yet be very careful lest
you forget Dame Covetousness,
for she shall be foolish, in all ways,
to win a horse and some harness.
And a man shall also do robbery,
or beguile his host where he shall stay.
Gluttony also is them among,
delicious meats do make him strong;
and gladly he drinks wine untold,
with gluttony to make him bold.
Also is there Dame Lechery;
from here comes all her mastery.
Many times, for women’s sake,
knights these tournaments do make;
and when he goes to the tournament
she sends him some secret present,
and bids him do, if he loves her best,
all that he can at her behest
for which he gets so much the worst,
that he may not sit upon his horse,
and that peradventure, in all his life,
shall he never after thrive.
Consider whether such tournaments
should more truly be called torments? . . .
It is forbidden him, in the decree,
miracle plays for to make or see,
for, miracles if thou begin,
it is a gathering, a site of sin.
He may in the church, through this reason,
portray the resurrection—
that is to say, how God rose,
God and man in strength and loss—
to make men hold to belief good,
that he rose with flesh and blood;
and he may play, without danger,
how God was born in the manger,
to make men to believe steadfastly
that he came to us through the Virgin Mary. . . .
A parson is slothful in holy Church
who on his sheep will not work
how they should heed his own word
and please the Church and their Lord.
The high Shepherd shall him blame,
for how he lets them go to shame.
If he should see in anything
that they have a lack of chastising,
unless he teach them and chastise so
that they from henceforth better do,
for them he shall, at God’s assize,
be punished before the high Justice.
Also it behooves him to pray
that God, of grace, show him the way. . . .
Man or woman that has a child
that with bad manners grows too wild,
that will both mis-say and -do,
chastisement behooves them too;
But chastise them with all your might,
Otherwise you’ll be in their plight.
Better were the child unborn
than lack chastising, and thus be forlorn.
Thus says the wise King Solomon
to men and women every one,
“If you want your children to be good,
give them the smart end of the rod”;
and teach them good manners each one;
but take care that you break no bone. . . .
Everywhere I see this custom:
that rich men have shrews for sons—
shrews in speech and in act—
Why? They hold no one in respect.
In his youth shall he mis-say
and scorn others by the way;
then says the father, “This child’s story
doesn’t hang together—sorry!”
And if he learns guilefulness,
false words and deceitful looks,
his father shouldn’t acquit him then;
his sly wit will be his only friend.
If he injures foes in rages,
then says his father, “He shall be courageous,
he shall be hardy, and no man dread,
he begins early to be doughty in deed.”
But right so shall it him befall
as it did with Eli’s bad sons all. . . .
Questions: What moral points does the poet make? How well acquainted does he seem to be with secular life? What hints does he give of his intended audience? How effective do you think such a work would be as a means of moral instruction?
86. The Growth of Lollardy
The ideas of Oxford theologian John Wycliff (d. 1384) gave rise to a heretical movement known as Lollardy. Though his writings were condemned as unorthodox, Wycliff himself was protected by powerful friends, but in later years many of his followers were executed as heretics. As the first document shows, in towns such as Northampton Lollardy gained adherents among urban elites, who used their influence to protect heretical preachers. At the same time, open patronage of Lollardy was risky; after Richard Stormesworth complained that Northampton’s mayor, John Fox, had “made all of the townspeople into Lollards,” King Richard II removed Fox from office and imprisoned him. (Support for Fox and his heresy persisted in Northampton, however; after the king’s deposition Fox was reelected mayor in 1399.) One year after the Northampton affair, a group of Lollards presented to Parliament the summary of their beliefs contained in the second document. As both texts show, Lollard beliefs were anticlerical, challenging the need for priests as intermediaries between God and individual believers, and in many other ways, too, foreshadowing the ideas that would one day give rise to the Protestant Reformation.
Source: trans. E. Powell and G.M. Trevelyan, The Peasants’ Rising and the Lollards: A Collection of Unpublished Documents (London: Longmans, Green, & Company, 1899), pp. 45–48; Lollard Conclusions, trans. H. Gee and W.G. Hardy, Documents Illustrative of the History of the English Church (London: Macmillan, 1910), pp. 126–32; revised.
Lollards at Northampton, 1393
Richard Stormesworth of the town of Northampton makes a complaint to our sovereign lord the king [Richard II] and his council about John Fox, mayor of the said town of Northampton. That whereas it is ordained by statute and also by holy Church’s laws that Lollards should be punished, the said mayor has presumed by virtue of his office to exercise royal power in the town of Northampton, authorizing Lollards to preach in spite of the bishop of Lincoln and his curates. . . . The mayor has made all of the townspeople into Lollards so that the town is governed by them, and no one dares defy them for fear of losing their lives. All of the scoundrels infected with Lollardy that come to the said town are courteously received and maintained as if they were prophets. . . .
Last year, before the feast of Saint Hillary, the said mayor brought the parson of the church of Wynkpole, an errant Lollard, to preach at the church of All Saints in Northampton. The preacher was supported by the mayor’s retinue and a group of Lollards from the town who had assembled at the church by prior agreement. The Lollard ascended the pulpit to preach, but the vicar of the church returned to the altar, in defiance, to sing the mass, and then the mayor went up to the vicar at the altar and with great indignation seized him by his vestments to force him to cease singing the mass until the preacher had finished his sermon. The vicar protested, “I cannot.” Afterward the preacher preached errors and heresies to the people. Later that day, after dinner, the Lollard parson returned with the mayor and a great many Lollards to the church, where he preached errors and heresies disparaging the people’s devotion to holy Church, the practice of pilgrimages to images, the presence of costly ornaments in churches, the use of gold or silver chalices for divine service, and the veneration of statues, and criticized our sovereign lord the king as well as holy Church. Upon hearing this, Richard Stormesworth, who was unaware of the Lollards’ conspiracy, shouted to the preacher “Enough, enough!” to silence him, commanding him, “Come down here, you false Lollard!” but refraining from breaking the peace any further. At this, the mayor rose up, along with a great crowd of Lollards from the town as well as the countryside, and broke the peace by trying to lay hands upon the said Richard and kill him in the church. Failing to do so, certain of the Lollards armed themselves and lay in wait for Richard outside the church, intending to kill him, but when Richard came out his friends immediately rushed him back inside for fear of his enemies. Then the mayor came and arrested Richard as a peace-breaker in order to placate the Lollards. Seeing this, the crowd of Lollards was so enraged that they would have killed Richard, and he barely escaped with his life, being secretly brought to the vestry and hidden there until things calmed down. Meanwhile, all of the other people in the church who were not privy to the Lollard conspiracy fled in great doubt, fearing for their lives, and the chaplains William Broughton and Joyn Tony rang the church bells to warn the people to cease the fray. Afterward, the mayor went up into the pulpit to encourage the parson to go on with his sermon, and commanded the people to keep silent and listen to the sermon on pain of death, and the mayor remained in the pulpit next to the preacher until he had finished his sermon. When it was over, the mayor and other Lollards led the false preacher to the mayor’s house, and later on returned to the churchyard and threatened violence against anyone who would deny any part of the sermon. Now as a result the whole town has become Lollards, and no man dares to speak against them for fear of the said mayor.
The Lollard Conclusions, 1394
1. That when the Church of England began to go mad after temporalities, like its great step-mother the Roman Church, and churches were authorized by appropriation in diverse places, faith, hope, and charity began to flee from our Church, because pride, with its doleful progeny of mortal sins, claimed this under title of truth. This conclusion is general, and proved by experience, custom, and manner or fashion, as you shall afterward hear.
2. That our usual priesthood which began in Rome, pretended to be of power more lofty than the angels, is not that priesthood which Christ ordained for his apostles. . . .
3. That the law of continence enjoined to priests, which was first ordained to the prejudice of women, brings sodomy into the holy Church, but we excuse ourselves by the Bible because the decree says that we should not mention it, even though it is suspected. Reason and experience prove this conclusion: reason, because the good living of ecclesiastics must have a natural outlet or worse; experience, because the secret proof of such men is that they find delight in women. . . .
4. That the pretended miracle of the sacrament of bread drives all men, except a few, to idolatry, because they think that the body of Christ which is never away from heaven could by power of the priest’s word be enclosed essentially in a little bread which they show the people; but God grant that they might be willing to believe . . . that the bread of the altar is habitually the body of Christ, for we take it that in this way any faithful man and woman can by God’s law perform the sacrament of that bread without any such miracle. . . .
5. That exorcisms and blessings performed over wine, bread, water and oil, salt, wax, and incense, the stones of the altar, and church walls, over clothing, miter, cross, and pilgrims’ staves, are the genuine performance of necromancy rather than of sacred theology. . . .
6. That king and bishop in one person, prelate and judge in temporal causes, curate and officer in secular office, puts any kingdom beyond good rule. This conclusion is clearly proved because the temporal and spiritual are two halves of the entire holy Church. And so he who has applied himself to one should not meddle with the other, for no one can serve two masters. . . .
7. That special prayers for the souls of the dead offered in our Church, preferring one before another in name, are a false foundation of alms, and for that reason all houses of alms in England have been wrongly founded. This conclusion is proved by two reasons: the one is that meritorious prayer, if it is to have any effect, ought to be a work proceeding from deep charity, and perfect charity leaves out no one, for “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” And so it is clear to us that the gift of temporal goods bestowed on the priesthood and houses of alms is a special incentive to private prayer which is not far from simony. . . .
8. That pilgrimages, prayers, and offerings made to blind crosses or roods, and to deaf images of wood or stone, are pretty well akin to idolatry and far from alms, and although those be forbidden and imaginary, a book of error to the lay folk, still the customary image of the Trinity is specially abominable. This conclusion God clearly proves, bidding alms to be given to the needy man because they are the image of God, and more like than wood and stone; for God did not say, “let us make wood or stone in our likeness and image,” but man. . . . A corollary is that the service of the cross, performed twice in any year in our Church, is full of idolatry, for if that should, so might the nails and lance be so highly honored; then would the lips of Judas be relics indeed if any were able to possess them. . . .
9. That auricular confession which is said to be so necessary to the salvation of a man, with its pretended power of absolution, exalts the arrogance of priests and gives them opportunity for other secret conversations which we will not speak of; for both lords and ladies attest that, for fear of their confessors, they dare not speak the truth. And at the time of confession there is a ready occasion for assignation, that is, for “wooing,” and other secret understandings leading to mortal sins. [Confessors] themselves say that they are God’s representatives to judge every sin, to pardon and cleanse whomever they please. They say that they have the keys of heaven and of hell, and can excommunicate and bless, bind and loose, at their will, so much so that for a drink, or twelve pence, they will sell the blessing of heaven with charter and close warrant sealed with the common seal. This conclusion is so notorious that it needs no proof. It is a corollary that the pope of Rome, who has given himself out as treasurer of the whole Church, having in charge that worthy jewel of Christ’s passion together with the merits of all saints in heaven, whereby he grants pretended indulgence from penalty and guilt, is a treasurer almost devoid of charity, in that he can set free all that are prisoners in hell at his will. . . .
10. That manslaughter in war, or by pretended law of justice for a temporal cause, without spiritual revelation, is expressly contrary to the New Testament, which indeed is the law of grace and full of mercies. This conclusion is openly proved by the examples of Christ’s preaching here on earth, for he especially taught a man to love his enemies, and to show them pity, and not to slay them. The reason is this, that for the most part, when men fight, after the first blow, charity is broken. And whoever dies without charity goes by the straight road to hell. . . .
11. That the vow of continence made in our Church by women, who are frail and imperfect in nature, is the cause of bringing in the gravest and most horrible sins possible to human nature, because, although the killing of abortive children before they are baptized and the destruction of nature by drugs are vile sins, yet connection [sexual contact] with themselves or brute beasts or any creature not having life surpasses them in foulness to such an extent as that they should be punished with the pains of hell. The corollary is that, we would wish that widows and such as take the veil and the ring [as nuns], being delicately fed, were given in marriage, because we cannot excuse them from secret sins.
12. That the abundance of unnecessary arts practiced in our realm nourishes much sin in waste, profusion, and disguise. This, experience and reason prove in some measure, because nature is sufficient for a man’s necessity with few arts. . . .
Thus our embassy, which Christ has bidden us to fulfill, is very necessary at this present time for several reasons. And although these matters are briefly noted here they are, however, set forth at large in another book, and many others besides, at length in our own language, and we wish that these were accessible to all Christian people. We ask God then of his supreme goodness to reform our Church, as being entirely out of joint with the perfection of its first beginning.
Questions: What are the Lollards’ basic beliefs? What views of human nature and gender are expressed here? What typical practices of the medieval Church are criticized? Why? How did Lollard beliefs threaten the status quo? Why might Lollardy have appealed to urban elites?
87. The Deposition of Richard II
In 1327 Edward II became the first king of England to be deposed; his great-grandson Richard II met a similar fate in 1399, after a determined effort by his cousin Henry of Lancaster (soon to be Henry IV) to force him from the throne. The following account is taken from the parliamentary rolls.
Source: trans. A.R. Myers, English Historical Documents, Vol. 4: 1327–1485 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 407–14.
Memorandum that on Monday, the feast of Saint Michael the Archangel [29 September], in the 23rd year of King Richard II, the lords spiritual and temporal and other notable persons [16 names follow] deputed for the following act, came into the presence of the said King Richard, being within the Tower of London, at nine o’clock. And the earl of Northumberland recited before the king on behalf of the aforesaid deputation, how the same king at Conwy in North Wales, being still at liberty, promised to the lord Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, and to the earl of Northumberland that he was willing to cede and renounce the crown of England and France and his royal majesty, because of the inability and insufficiency to which the same king confessed, and to do this in the best manner and form which could be done as might be best devised by the counsel of experienced men. The king, in the presence of the lords and others named above, benignly replied that he was willing to do what he had formerly promised; he desired, however, to speak with his kinsmen Henry of Lancaster and the archbishop [of Canterbury] before he fulfilled his promise. He asked for a copy of the resignation to be made by him to be given to him, so that he might deliberate upon it. . . . Later on the same day, after dinner, the king greatly desired the arrival of the duke of Lancaster, who tarried for a long time; at last the duke, the lords and persons named above and also the archbishop of Canterbury, came into the king’s presence in the Tower, the lords Roos, Willoughby, and Abergavenny and many others being present. And after the king had spoken privately with the duke and the archbishop, looking from one to the other with a cheerful countenance, as it seemed to the bystanders, at last the king, calling all those present to him, declared publicly in their presence that he was ready to make the renunciation and resignation according to his promise. And although, to save the labor of such a lengthy reading, he might, as he was told, have had the resignation and renunciation, which was drawn up in a certain parchment schedule, read by a deputy, the king willingly, as it seemed, and with a cheerful countenance, holding the same schedule in his hand, said that he would read it himself, and he did read it distinctly. And he absolved his lieges and made renunciation and cession, and swore this . . . and he signed it with his own hand. . . .
And immediately he added to the aforesaid renunciation and cession, in his own words, that if it were in his power the duke of Lancaster should succeed him in the realm. But because this was in no wise in his power, as he said, he asked the archbishop of York and bishop of Hereford, whom he appointed as his proctors to declare and intimate his renunciation and cession to all the estates of the realm, to declare his intention and wish in this matter to the people. And as a token of his intention and wish in this matter, he took from his finger the gold ring with his signet, and put it on the duke’s finger, desiring the same, as he affirmed, to be known to all the estates of the realm. And when this was done, all said farewell to him and left the Tower to return to their lodgings.
On the morrow, Tuesday, the feast of Saint Jerome [30 September], in the great hall at Westminster, in the place honorably prepared for holding Parliament, the archbishops of Canterbury and York and the duke of Lancaster, and other dukes, and lords both spiritual and temporal . . . and a great multitude of the people of the realm being gathered there on account of Parliament, the duke of Lancaster occupying his usual and proper place, and the royal throne, solemnly prepared with cloth of gold being vacant, without any president, the archbishop of York and the bishop of Hereford according to the king’s injunction publicly declared the cession and renunciation to have been made by him, with the delivery of the seal, and the royal signature, and they caused the cession and renunciation to be read, first in Latin and then in English. And at once the archbishop of Canterbury, to whom it pertains by reason of the dignity and prerogative of the metropolitan church of Canterbury to have the first voice amongst the prelates and magnates of the realm, asked the estate of the people then present, whether they wished to accept the renunciation and cession for their interests and the good of the realm. The estates and people considering, for the reasons specified by the king himself in his renunciation and cession, that it would be very expedient, each one singly, and then in common with the people, unanimously and cordially gave his consent. After this acceptance it was publicly set forth that besides the cession and renunciation which had been accepted, it would in many ways be expedient and advantageous for the kingdom, to avoid all scruple and evil suspicion, that the many crimes and defects frequently committed by the king in the bad government of the realm—on account of which, as he himself had asserted in his abdication, he deserved to be deposed—should by means of articles which had been drawn up in writing be publicly read, that they might be declared to the people. And so a large part of these articles was then publicly read. The tenor of these articles is as follows . . .
1. In the first place, the king is indicted on account of his evil rule; that is, he has given the goods and possessions which belong to the crown to unworthy persons and otherwise dissipated them indiscreetly, and therefore has imposed collections and other grave and insupportable burdens on his people without cause. And he has perpetrated innumerable other evils. By his assent and command certain prelates and other lords temporal were chosen and assigned by the whole Parliament to govern the realm; and they faithfully labored with their whole strength for the just government of the realm. Nevertheless, the king made a conventicle with his accomplices and proposed to accuse of high treason the lords spiritual and temporal who were occupied for the good of the realm; and in order to strengthen his evil design he violently forced the justices of the realm by fear of death and torture of body to destroy the said lords.
2. Also the king caused the greater part of his justices to come before him and his adherents secretly at Shrewsbury, and he induced, made and compelled them to reply singly to certain questions put to them on behalf of the king, touching the laws of the realm. This was contrary to their wishes, and other than what they would have replied if they had been free and not under compulsion. By color of these replies the king proposed to proceed later to the destruction of the duke of Gloucester, the earls of Arundel and Warwick and other lords, against whom the king was extremely indignant because they wished the king to be under good rule. But with divine help and the resistance and power of the said lords opposing him, the king could not bring his scheme into effect. . . .
7. Also, after many of these people had made fines and redemptions, they sought from the king letters patent of general pardon, concerning the above; but they could secure no advantage from these letters of pardon until they had paid new fines and redemptions to save their lives; by this they were much impoverished. On account of this the royal name and estate were brought into great disrepute. . . .
10. Also, although the crown of England and the rights of the crown, and the same realm, have been so free for all time past that neither the lord high pontiff nor anyone else outside the kingdom ought to meddle with the same, yet the king, in order to strengthen his erroneous statutes, begged the lord pope to confirm the statutes ordained in the last Parliament. On which the king sought for apostolic letters, in which grave censures were threatened against all who presumed to contravene the statutes in any way. . . .
16. Also, the king refused to keep and defend the just laws and customs of the realm, but according to the whim of his desire he wanted to do whatever appealed to his wishes. Sometimes—and often when the laws of the realm had been declared and expressed to him by the justices and others of his council and he should have done justice to those who sought it according to those laws—he said expressly, with harsh and determined looks, that the laws were in his own mouth, sometimes he said that they were in his breast, and that he alone could change or establish the laws of his realm. And deceived by this idea, he would not allow justice to be done. . . .
17. Also, after certain statutes were established in his Parliament, which should always bind until they should be specially repealed by the authority of another Parliament, the king, desiring to enjoy such liberty that no statutes should bind him, subtly procured that such a petition should be put forward in Parliament on behalf of the community of the realm, and to be granted to him in general, that he might be as free as any of his predecessors were before him. By color of this petition and concession, the king frequently did and ordered many things contrary to such statutes which had never been repealed, acting expressly and knowingly against his oath made at his coronation. . . .
19. Also, although by statute and custom of the realm, upon the summons of Parliament the people of each shire ought to be free to choose and depute knights for the shire to be present in Parliament to set forth their grievances, and sue for remedy as might seem to them expedient; yet the king, so that he might be the more free to carry out in Parliament his rash designs, frequently directed his sheriffs to see that certain persons nominated by himself should come to Parliament as knights of the shire. The knights thus favorable to him he could induce, as he frequently did, sometimes by fear and various threats, sometimes by gifts, to agree to measures prejudicial to the realm and extremely burdensome to the people. . . .
21. Also, the king, wishing to crush the people under his feet and craftily acquire their goods, that he might have a superabundance of riches, induced the people of seventeen shires to make their submission to the king as traitors, by letters under their seals; by color of which he obtained great sums of money conceded by the clergy and people of the shires, to be taken at the king’s pleasure. And although to please the people the king caused those forced letters to be restored to them, yet the king caused the proctors of the people, who had full powers conceded to them to bind themselves and their heirs to the king, to give undertakings to him under their seals in the name of the people. Thus he deceived his people, and craftily extorted their goods from them. . . .
23. Also, in many great councils of the king, when the lords of the realm, the justices, and others were charged faithfully to counsel the king in matters touching the estate of himself and the realm, often suddenly and sharply rebuked and censured the lords, justices and others when they were giving their advice to him according to their discretion, so that they did not dare to speak the truth about the state of the king and the kingdom. . . .
26. Also, although the lands and tenements, goods and chattels of every freeman, according to the laws of the realm used through all past times, ought not to be seized unless they have been lawfully forfeited; nevertheless, the king, proposing and determining to undo such laws, declared and affirmed in the presence of very many lords and others of the community of the realm that the lives of every one of his lieges and their lands, tenements, goods, and chattels are his at his pleasure, without any forfeiture, which is entirely against the laws and customs of the realm. . . .
It seemed to all the estates who were interrogated concerning these matters, both singly and in common, that those accusations of crime and defaults were sufficient and notorious enough for the deposition of the king; and they also considered his confession of inadequacy and other matters contained in the renunciation and cession, publicly announced; whereupon all the estates unanimously agreed that there was abundant reason for proceeding to deposition, for the greater security and tranquility of the realm and the good of the kingdom. Therefore the estates and communities unanimously and cordially constituted and publicly deputed certain commissioners, that is, the bishop of St. Asaph, the abbot of Glastonbury, the earl of Gloucester, Lord Berkeley, Sir Thomas Erpingham, Sir Thomas Grey, and William Thirnyng, justice, to carry out this sentence of deposition and to depose King Richard from all his royal dignity, majesty, and honor, on behalf of, in the name of, and by authority of all the estates, as has been observed in similar cases by the ancient custom of the realm. . . .
And at once, it being manifest from the foregoing transactions and by reason of them that the realm of England with its appurtenances was vacant, Henry, duke of Lancaster, rising in his place, and standing erect so that he might be seen by the people, and humbly making the sign of the cross on his forehead and his breast, and invoking the name of Christ, claimed the realm of England, vacant as aforesaid, along with the crown and all its members and appurtenances, in his mother tongue in the following words:
In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I, Henry of Lancaster, challenge this realm of England and the crown with all its members and appurtenances, as I am descended by right line of the blood coming from the good lord, King Henry III, and through that right that God of his grace has sent me, with the help of my kindred and my friends to recover it; the which realm was on the point of being undone for default of governance and undoing of good laws. . . .
When [the archbishop’s] sermon was finished, the lord king Henry, in order to set at rest the minds of his subjects, declared publicly in these words:
Sires, I thank God and you lords spiritual and temporal and all the estates of the land, and let you know that it is not my will that any man should think that by way of conquest I would disinherit any man of his heritage, franchise, or other rights that he ought to have, nor put him out of what he has and has had by the good laws and customs of the realm; except those persons who have been against the good purpose and the common profit of the realm. . . .
On Monday [13 October], the day of Saint Edward, king and confessor, King Henry [IV] was crowned at Westminster, with all fitting solemnity and honor; and certain lords and others did homage to King Henry according to their tenures, in the accustomed manner at the time of such a coronation.
Questions: How do the main characters conduct themselves? How does the king face his deposition? What is the role of Parliament? Are there any hints these events may have been stage-managed? How do the charges against Richard compare with those against Edward II (doc. 76)? Which of these ideas about kingship have been encountered in earlier documents?