This eBook is copyrightmaterial and must not becopied, reproduced,transferred, distributed,leased, licensed or publiclyperformedorusedinanywayexcept as specificallypermitted in writing by thepublishers, as allowed underthe terms and conditionsunderwhichitwaspurchasedor as strictly permitted byapplicable copyright law.Anyunauthoriseddistribution

or use of this text may be adirect infringement of theauthor’s and publisher’srights and those responsiblemay be liable in lawaccordingly.

EpubISBN:9781409070450Version1.0

www.randomhouse.co.uk

ThisbookispublishedtoaccompanythetelevisionseriesTerryJones’MedievalLivesproducedbyOxford

FilmandTelevisionforBBCTelevisionandfirstbroadcastonBBC2

in2004.

Firstpublishedinhardback2004Thispaperbackeditionpublished2005Reprinted2005,2006(twice),2007Copyright©FeggFeaturesand

SunstoneFilms2004Themoralrightsoftheauthorshave

beenasserted.

ISBN-13:9780563522751

PublishedbyBBCBooks,WorldwideLtd,Woodlands,80WoodLane,

LondonW120TT

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanyformorbyanymeanswithoutpermissionin

writingfromthepublisher,exceptbyareviewerwhomayquotebriefpassages

inareview.

Commissioningeditor:SallyPotterProjecteditors:HelenaCaldonand

SarahReeceCopyeditor:TessaClarkeDesigner:MartinHendry

Pictureresearcher:SarahHopper

SetinBemboPrintedandboundinGreatBritainby

Cox&WymanLtd,Reading

FormoreinformationaboutthisandotherBBCbooks,pleasevisitour

websiteonwww.bbcshop.comorphone08700777001.

PICTURECREDITSBBCWorldwidewouldliketothank

thefollowingforprovidingphotographsandforpermissiontoreproduce

copyrightmaterial.Whileeveryefforthasbeenmadetotraceand

acknowledgecopyrightholders,wewouldliketoapologizeshouldthere

havebeenanyerrorsoromissions.

PlateSection1P1top:Giraudon/ArtResource,NY;p1below,p2top,p5topandp7below:ArchivoIconografico,S.A./Corbis;p2below:TheArtArchive/Biblioteca

NazionaleMarciana/Venice/DagliOrti;p3top:TheArtArchive/British

Library,London;p3below:FotoarchivTirolerLandesmuseum,Innsbruck;p4.TheMastersandFellowsofCorpusChristiCollege,Cambridge;p5belowandp6:BibliothèqueNationale,Paris;p7top:BritishLibrary,London;p7left:

GianniDagliOrti/Corbis;p8top:Topfoto/Woodmansterne;p8below:

TheArtArchive/Museodi

Capodimonte,Naples/DaghOrti(A).

PlateSection2P1top:ForteanPictureLibrary;p1

below:HerefordCathedral/BridgemanArtLibrary;p2top:TheArt

Archive/DagliOrti;p2below,p3belowandp8below:BritishLibrary,London;

p3top:MuséeCondé,Chantilly/BridgemanArtLibrary;p4:TatePictureLibrary,London;p5top:Alinari/BridgemanArtLibrary;p5

below:TheArtArchive/RealBibliotecadeloEscorial/DaghOrti;p6:BritishLibrary/HIP;p7top:Withspecial

authorizationofthecityofBayeaux/BridgemanArtLibrary;p7below:TophamPicture-point;p8top:

NationalGallery,London.

CONTENTS⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Introduction

ONEPEASANT

TWOMINSTREL

THREEOUTLAW

FOURMONK

FIVEPHILOSOPHER

SIXKNIGHT

SEVENDAMSEL

EIGHTKING

Bibliography

Acknowledgements

INTRODUCTION⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

TERRY’S DAD USED THE WORD‘MEDIEVAL’ as a term ofabuse: ‘That plumbing ispositively medieval,’ he’dsay. It was one that peopleused about anything thatdidn’tworkverywellor thatwas barbaric. Even today’snewspapers talk about

‘cruelty that is trulymedieval’.

In this book we’re nottryingtoprovethattherewasnosuchthingascrueltyintheMiddle Ages or that we’velost out on some beautifulexperience by introducingflushing lavatories. But wewould like to readjust thespectacles through which weview the medieval world.Andthefirstthingyoumightnotice,whenyoutryonthese

newspectaclesofours,isthatthe ‘medieval world’ itselfstarts to vanish – or at leastbecomes remarkably blurred.Not a very good start for anewpairof specs,youmightthink...

MIDDLEAGES?WHATMIDDLEAGES?

‘Medieval’ means belongingto the Middle Ages. Of

course, nobody then thoughtof the period as the MiddleAges. For them – as foreveryone who has ever lived– they were living in themodernworld.

Theideathattherewasa‘middle time’ that separatedthat modern world fromantiquity first appears in aletter from a Renaissancebishop in 1469. GiovanniAndrea, like many of hiscontemporaries, was so

besotted with the splendoursof ancient Greece and Romethat he thought the classicalworld was the only basis forcivilization.He took pride inthe fact that his own worldwas returning to its values,andwas therefore at pains todistinguish it from themediatempesta(middletime)–thatbleak interlude between thenand ‘now’ when the worldwas deep in dirt andignorance.

Of course,we could tellhim that he was himselfliving in the Middle Ages,poordeludedchap.

The phrase ‘middleages’ first turned up inEnglish in the seventeenthcentury, and right from thestart it carried with it ajudgement–itwasneverjusta chronological expression –and that judgement is thesame today as it was in theseventeenthcentury:fromthe

fourth century AD (or was itthe fifth? or sixth?) until theRenaissance, Europe wassunk in feudal superstitiousignorance that needs to beconsigned to the dustbin ofhistory.Medieval people,weare invited to suppose, livedout their lives in a kind offairytale,unawareofscienceor real learning, under thetyrannical rule of feudaloverlords.

Nowadays we tend to

divide this epoch into the‘Dark Ages’, which inEngland apparently ended in1066,andthe‘MiddleAges’,which lasted until the crownlandedontheheadofaHenryTudor in 1485. But eventhoughthisistodayenshrinedin school and universitysyllabuses,weshouldbewareofthinkingofitasa‘fact’.Itisn’tafactatall.It’ssimplyaconvenient division – aninventionofhistorians.

Of course, historical‘periods’ can be useful.Historians argue about thesignificance and reality ofdecisive moments, turningpointsinhistory,butitseemsabsurd to deny that there arereal instances of change,when nothing will be thesame again, and which forceus to think of the past in‘periods’. The Battle ofHastings in 1066was such amoment in the history of

England.There is an entire

academic industrydevoted todemonstrating that feudalismexisted in England before1066, thatWilliamIchangedfew of the laws of England,that warfare was not so verydifferent before and after theinvasion, that infactEnglandwas little changed by theNormanConquest.Butweallknow in our bones thatsomething fundamental did

changewhenHaroldfell.At least half, and

perhaps three-quarters,of themale aristocracy of Englandperished between 1066 and1070. Their families weredispossessed, and many oftheir widows and daughtersfled to nunneries to avoidbeing forced into marriagewith William’s followers.London burned, and manyother towns were partlydemolished. The agricultural

economywaslaidwasteoverhuge areas, and in the Northrepression left nothing butfamine, reducing people tocannibalism.

This was a moment ofirrevocable change; theConquest would not beundone. England waspermanently removed fromthe Scandinavian orbit andbound to France. Thereweresome who tried to reversethis. Waltheof, Earl of

Northumbria,wasexecutedin1076 for supporting DanishplotstodriveWilliamout.Hefailed;theclockwouldnotbeturnedback.

Waltheof’s skald (bard),Thorkill, wrote a lament inOldNorse:

Williamcrossedthecoldchannelandreddened the brightswordsandnowhe has betrayed noble

EarlWaltheofIt is true that killing inEnglandwillbealongtimeending

The end of our ‘period’ ismore debatable. There is nocomparable moment ofchange400or500yearslater.ThedefeatofRichardIIIandthevictoryofHenryTudoratBosworthon22August1485certainly put an end to thelong struggle between the

housesofYorkandLancasterforthethroneofEngland,andestablished a new dynastywhich was able to rule withreinforced authority. But ithardly compares with 1066,when theentire landsufferedwholesale subjection to newmen with new ways and adifferentlanguage.

However, therewas onemoment when everythingchanged irreversibly. It camein 1536, with Henry VIII’s

suppression of the religioushouses – the monasteries. In1066, William I had givenover a quarter of the land inEngland to the Church. Hisconquest bound the countrynotonlytoFrancebutalsotoRome.

By the time of theDissolution there were about550 religious houses inEngland, and the monks inthemwere referred toas ‘thepope’sarmy’.

The whole of Europewaschangingrapidly,andthebreakup of the one universalChurch was the mostpowerful symbol of thatchange. In England, theDissolution of theMonasteries was its visibleand dramatic product. Thewhole religious infrastructurewas transformed; the Churchof England that emergedwould produce a verydifferent society from that

produced by the Church ofRome.

Western Europe wasalready well on the way todeveloping distinct nationalstates, and the break withRomeconfirmed thatprocessin England. On a politicallevel, in a country that hadbeen conquered by Williamunder a papal banner, Romewas now stripped of anyauthority. In terms oflanguage, in a countrywhere

Latin had been the languageof learning and French thelanguage of power, thevernacular had taken over.The divergence of Englishlaw and custom from that ofthe Continent, which hadbeendevelopingsteadilyovercenturies, was now finalizedby the elimination of thePope’s jurisdiction fromcanon law. For a few years,England retained a tinyfoothold on the continent of

Europe at Calais, but theEnglishChannel had becomea much broader sea than inthe past, and ‘abroad’ a farmoreforeignplacethanithadbeenbefore.

A long era had trulycometoanend.

WHOWEREMEDIEVALPEOPLE?

Having established, for the

sakeofconvenience, thatour‘Middle Ages’ (which neverexisted as an entity) was theperiodfrom1066to1536,wehavetorecognizethatwearetalkingabout470years.

This is about as long asthe time between the end ofthe Middle Ages and thepresentday.

Obviously, in such along period things change.People in the mid-eleventhcentury inhabited a very

different world from that ofthe early sixteenth, and didnot live out lives that werealways the same against anunchanging backdrop. So thevery ideaof tellingstoriesof‘medieval lives’ needs to betakenwithapinchofsalt.

But, given the rightamount of salt, we shouldfind that we can strip awaythe mythology ofmedievalism and enter aworldinwhichpeople’slives

seemremarkablyfamiliar–aworld where decisions weremade about social andpolitical issues that stillimpact profoundly on ustoday. Stripping away themythologywill alsoallowusto glimpse how much wehave lost by dumpingcenturies of art, argument,thought, literature anddiscovery into that catch-all‘medieval’ dustbin. Somewonderful things have been

truly lost, and we would bebetteroffrecoveringthem.

Of all the changesbetween 1066 and 1536perhaps the least significantwas the size of population.Therewereabouttwomillionpeople in England 1066 andabout three million in 1535.There had been four millionto five million in RomanBritain, and about 1300 thepopulation rose to some sixmillion, but famine, disease

(including the Black Death)and the changing patterns offamilies’ working liveshalved this by 1450, andrecoverywasslow.

Butwhothetwomillionorthreemillionpeopleofourperiod were, and where andhowtheylived,changedverygreatly. Snapshots of thekingdomateachofthosetwodates, 1066 and 1536, showtwoutterlydifferentworlds.

In the middle of the

eleventh century barely 10per cent of the populationlived in towns.Acommunityqualified as a ‘town’ inDomesday Book if it hadmore than 2000 inhabitants,and there were only 18 suchcommunities. Even Londonwas tiny–perhapsnobiggerthan present-daySittingbourne. England wasan entirely agriculturalcountry,and itsbishopswerebasedinvillages.

It was also a society inwhich wealth wasconcentrated in the hands ofeven fewer people than it istoday. Analysis of theDomesdaysurveyrevealsthatabout 10 per cent of theisland’s inhabitants wereslaves – people who werebought and sold and whocould not own property. Thelabouringclasses above them(cottars, bordars, villeins),whomade up 75 per cent of

the population, were unfree,obligedtoperformserviceontheir lords’ lands. Five percent of this society ownedeverything,landwise.

The Norman invasionmadethedivisionsinEnglishsociety even morepronounced than they hadbeen.

There was virtually noliteracy outside the Church,and such books as wereproduced were laboriously

hand-copied in monasteries.The ruling class had neitherlanguage nor culture incommon with those belowthem. The country livedunder a form ofmartial law,in which whole communitieswere held responsible if amember of the occupyingpowerwaskilled.

By the early sixteenthcentury,however,thiswasallancient history. Slavery waslonggone,villeinagehad,for

practical purposes,disappearedandthelandwasworked by free farmers whopaid rent. Towns were nowsignificant urban centres,with their own charters andindependent oligarchicdemocracies.Thetownswerealreadyold,andmanypeoplesaw the corporations that ranthemasossifieddefendersofancient privileges, blockingindustrialinitiative.

For there were, indeed,

new industrial developmentsthat were already makingEnglandprosperous,but theywere to be found in thecountryside or in unofficial,unincorporatedtowns.

London had become amajorcity,anditspopulationwas dominated by artisans,tradesmen and educatedprofessionals involved withthe court and the law.About60 per cent of its citizenscould read, and there was a

ready market for printedbooks.

England was a verylegalisticsociety, ready togoto court at the drop of a hat.Even the poor could use thelaw against the rich.Proceedingswere inEnglish,and trial by jury was wellestablished.

Our story is not about alongperiod inwhichnothingmuchchanged,butabouthowthe England of 1066 turned

intothatoftheearlysixteenthcentury,astoryofliveslivedin a world that was in aconstantstateofchange.

HOWTHERENAISSANCECREATED‘THEMIDDLE

AGES’

Well into the sixteenthcentury English architectswere still cheerfully refining

and developing what wasthen the modern style ofarchitecture – the soaring,lightandairyGothicthathadbeen all the rage for the lastthree or four centuries. Butmodernity was,paradoxically, somewhat outof date. On the Continent,fashion had turned the clockback to imitate the antiquestyles of ancient Greece andRome. The Renaissance wasnotanew,freshstart–itwas

backward-looking andconservative.

In the end it provedirresistible, even in thesomewhat marginalizedkingdom of England. Inrejecting the modern infavour of the antique, theRenaissance constructed amental bridge that reachedback to the Roman Empire,without having to paddle inthe swamp that lay between.That swamp became the

MiddleAges:

TheRenaissanceinventedtheMiddle Ages in order todefine itself; theEnlightenment perpetuatedtheminordertoadmireitself;and the Romantics revivedtheminorder toescape fromthemselves. In their widestramifications ‘the MiddleAges’ thus constitute one ofthe most prevalent culturalmythsofthemodernworld.

BRIAN STOCK, Listeningforthetext

TheRenaissance,itshouldbesaid, is a term almost asmeaningless as ‘medieval’,thoughitdoeshavethemeritofbeingusedbypeoplewhoactuallylivedatthetime.Theword was coined by thefourteenth-century Italianpoet Petrarch, whocondemned those who livedbetweenthefallofRomeand

his own time as theinhabitants of a Dark Age:‘Although they had nothingoftheirowntohanddowntothosewhoweretocomeafter,they robbed posterity of itsancestral heritage.’ By thetimeEngland caught upwiththe Renaissance, in the mid-sixteenth century, it wasessentially over. HistorianshaveproposedthattheItalianRenaissance came to the endof its run on 6 May 1527,

when Spanish troops lootedRome.

Buttheideaofamiddleage of darkness andignorance had been launchedon the world, and it did notgoaway.According to JacobBurckhardt’scelebratedbook,The Civilization of theRenaissance in Italy,published in 1860, medievalpeople were not evenindividual human beings, butexisted only as members of

some corporate group. Onesection is entitled ‘TheDevelopment of theIndividual’. The Englishwriter John AddingtonSymonds, whose huge workRenaissance in Italy waspublishedlaterinthecentury,thought the history of themodern world was a historyof freedom, and thatachieving this freedom hadrequired a sudden leapforward out of the darkness

and bondage of the MiddleAgesintothegloriouslightoftheRenaissance.

The Romantics of thelatenineteenthcenturybeganto be intrigued by what theysaw as the mysterious glowand gloom of the MiddleAges and, dressed ininteresting flowing robes andmocked-up suits of armour,went exploring there withcandles.Theycamebackwithtales and paintings of a

magical, fairy-tale world ofknightsinshiningarmourandwan damsels in distress, ofboldoutlaws andBadKings,of alchemists in league withthe devil and saintly holymen, of downtroddenpeasants and cunningminstrels.

Inthisfantasylandtherewas no sense of historicalchange; the medieval worldwas essentially timeless. Thelack of individual identity

whichBurkhardthadclaimedas a mark of medievalismmeant it was convenient andhelpful to understand thisplace in termsofstereotypes.And those stereotypes havebecome standardized andgeneralized to the pointwhereeveryonenow‘knows’what it was like to live inmedievalEngland.Anunholyallianceofnineteenth-centurynovelists and painters withtwentieth-century movie-

makers has created a periodofhistorythatneverexisted.

This book sets out toexamine and deconstructsome of those stereotypes,and replace them with realpeople living in a changingworld. The reality of those400-odd years is far moreinteresting, surprising,moving and disturbing thanthestereotypelandscape.

The strange ‘maps’ ofthe world – the so-called

mappae mundi – thatthirteenth-century map-makers created, carry imagesof a world populated bycreatures with their heads intheir chests or big feet overtheirheads–butthisdoesnotmean the map-makersactuallylivedinsuchaworld.Nineteenth-century imaginersof medieval England oftentook the material of the pasttoo literally and ended upconstructing their own

fantasies.Inaquitecomicalrecent

book,TheLord’sFirstNight,Alain Boureau investigatedthe truthof theoldstory thata feudal lordhad the right tosleep with the bride of avassal on herwedding night.FromTheMarriageofFigaroto Mel Gibson’s Braveheart,this has been the ultimatesymbol of feudal barbarism.Of course, it is a completefantasy – like the chastity

belts knights are supposed tohavelockedontotheirwiveswhentheywentoncrusade.

But this droit deseigneur was certainlymentioned in medievalsources. It was described asan ancient custom, in thefourteenth century whensupporters of the king raisedit as a spectre to rally publicopinionagainstlocallords.

Whichjustgoestoshow,you should not believe

everythingyoureadinbooks.

CHAPTERONE

PEASANT⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

BEING A PEASANT DURING THEMIDDLE AGES must qualify as

one of the worst jobs inhistory–but thenwe’reonlyguessingbecausethepeasantsdidn’t leave much record oftheir lives. Except once, inthe summer of 1381, whentheyleftanindeliblemarkonthehistoryofEngland.

Itwasquite astonishing.From out of nowhere, itseemed, tens of thousands of‘peasants’ converged onLondon. Two large armedbodies of ‘commoners and

persons of the lowest gradefromKentandEssex’*1burstthrough the gates of theCityof London and wreakedhavoc. They demolished thehome of John of Gaunt andsome buildings around thepriory of the Hospital of StJohn.Thenextday,therebelsin London burst into thefortress-palace of the Tower.Theydraggedoutthepriorofthe hospital, who was theRoyal Treasurer, along with

the Archbishop ofCanterbury, the ChancellorandacoupleofothernotablesandbeheadedthemonTowerHill.

It was the first and lastlarge-scale popular uprisinginEnglishhistory.

By the end of that daythere had been quite amassacre. In one place aboutfortydecapitatedbodieswerelying in a heap, ‘and hardlywas there a street in theCity

in which there were notbodieslyingofthosewhohadbeenslain’.TheArchbishop’sheadwasdisplayedonapikeon London Bridge, with hismitrenailedtohisskull.

Thiswas, of course, theso-called ‘Peasants’ Revolt’.The poet-chronicler JeanFroissart, writing shortlyafterwardsforareadershipinthecourtsofnorthernFranceand the Low Countries, feltheneededtoexplainwhothe

English peasantry were, andwhat they were complainingabout:

ItiscustomaryinEngland,asinseveralothercountries,forthe nobility to have greatpower over the commonpeople, who they keep inbondage.That is to say, theyhave a duty to plough theirlord’s lands, to harvest hisgrain and bring it in, tothresh and winnow it. They

also have to harvest his hayandcuthiswoodandbringitin. They are obliged toperform all these duties fortheir lords, and there aremoreoftheminEnglandthanin other countries. That ishow they serve the prelatesand nobles. These servicesare more oppressive in thecounties of Kent, Essex,Sussex and Bedford, thananywhere else in thekingdom.

Disaffected people inthese districts becamerestless,sayingtheyweretooseverely oppressed; that atthe beginning of the worldtherewerenoslaves,andthatno one ought to be treatedlike one unless he hadcommittedtreasonagainsthislord, as Lucifer had doneagainst God: but they werenot like that, for they wereneitherangelsnorspirits,butmen like their lords, who

treated them as beasts. Theywould no longer put upwiththis. They had determined tobe free, and if they did anywork for their lords, theywantedtobepaidforit.

The Chronicles ofFroissart,Bk.II,ch.73

Froissart had no sympathywiththeinsurrection,anddidnot think peasants hadanything to complain about.Infact,hesaidtheirliveshad

becometooeasy–thetroublewas ‘all because of the easeand riches of the commonpeople’. Nonetheless, hisdescription helps to reinforcethe stereotype of peasant lifeas being nasty, brutish andshort.

A ‘village’ was wherethelordofthemanorkepthisvilleins – men who wereboundeithertothelanditselfortohispersonalservice,andwho lived with their wives

and children in wretchedcottage hovels. They workedpartly for themselves but forup to three days a week fortheir lord (and gave him ashare of their produce) andalso had to give a tenth oftheir crop – a tithe – to theChurch.

Illiterate, uncouth, littlemore than an animal, themedieval peasant cuts awretched figure in ourimagination.Froissart’sbelief

thatitwasdangeroustoallowthissavage,servileunderclasstoo much scope fortroublemaking makes agrotesquekindofsense.

But much of what usedto be assumed about‘peasants’ is completelyuntrue.Sountrue,infact,thateven the title ‘Peasants’Revolt’isnownolongerusedby professional historians,who have lost confidence inFroissart’s description.

Froissart,itturnsout,wasnota very reliable socialcommentator.

ORDERINCHAOS

The rising was not themindless insurrection ofbrutalizedsemi-slaves.Itwashighly organized andcarefully prepared. For astart, many areas of thecountry rose virtuallysimultaneously, which

indicates that peasants hadthe capacity for organizationon a much larger scale thanthepurelylocal.Thenthereisthe interesting chroniclereport that, in order tomaintain coastal defencesagainst theFrench, therebelsin Kent decreed that: ‘nonewhodweltneartheseainanyplace for the spaceof twelveleagues, should come outwiththem,butshouldremaintodefendthecoastsofthesea

frompublicenemies...’Moreover, the rebels’

selectionoftargetsinLondondemonstrates that theviolence therewas deliberateand specific. The first target,John of Gaunt, had thwartedtheCommons’impeachmentsofunpopularmembersof thecourt, and was suspected oftrying to make himself king.The first demands made bythe Kentish rebels did noteven mention serfdom or

villeinage. They demandedallegiancetothekingandtheCommons; that there shouldbe no king named John (i.e.John of Gaunt); that thereshould be no tax but thetraditional levy of one-fifteenth of movable wealth;and that everyone should beready to revolt when calledupon.

On 14 June the rebelsmet Richard II at Mile Endjust outside the city of

London.Theretheypresenteddemands which included thehandingoverof‘traitors’;theend of serfdom; the right tohire themselves out at fairwages; and the right to rentland at a cheap rate. Peasantissueshadbecomepartofthematter, but they were nottheretobeginwith.

By the third day theagenda had developedfurther, and was nowrevolutionary. To the end of

serfdom their leader, WatTyler, now added theabolition of outlawry; therepeal of all laws except the‘law of Winchester’(traditionalcommonlaw);thecompleteabolitionofnobilityin Church and state but foronekingandonearchbishop;and the confiscation anddivisionofChurchland.

Thetargetsoftherebels’destructionwereplaceswhererecords were stored: abbeys,

priories, lawyers’ houses andthe like. ThomasWalsingham,whosechroniclecontains much malice andinvention, describes whathappenedinawaythatbringsto mind the ‘Year Zero’ ofthe Khmer Rouge inCambodia, and which musthave contained at least akerneloftruth:

They strove to burn all oldrecords; and they butchered

anyonewhomightknoworbeabletocommittomemorythecontents of old or newdocuments. Itwas dangerousenough to be known as aclerk, but especiallydangerous if an ink-potshould be found at one’selbow: such men scarcely orever escaped from the handsoftherebels.

HistoriaAnglicana

But this was not a general

attack on literacy. It wasspecifically legal records thatweredestroyedandothers, inmanyplaces,wereleft intact.Some, at least, of the rebelscouldread.

So if peasants were notilliteratemembers of a dirty,uncouth, barbarous, rural‘lumpen proletariat’, whowerethey?

ATHOMEWITHTHEPEASANT

The word ‘peasant’ was notused in English in medievaltimes. It comes from theFrenchpaysan,whichsimplymeans a country man orwoman. At the time, menwhoworkedonthelandwereeither free or were in somedegree of serfdom ascottagers, smallholders orvilleins.Itwasthelastgroup,villeins, that Froissart wasdescribing – men who werenot free to leave their land

and who owed labour dutiestotheirlords.Probably30percentofmen inEnglandwerevilleinsin1381.

It is often said thatpeasants lived in primitiveone-room ‘hovels’, but in allthe excavations of medievalvillages there seems to belittle sign of these horribledwellings. According to thehistorian Christopher Dyer,‘Mostvillagesthathavebeenexcavated seem to consist

mainlyofsubstantialhouses’.In fact, according to Dyer,‘Weshouldnotbelookingfortiny buildings, but forstructures of standard size,but distinguished from thehousesofthebetter-offbythequality and quantity of thematerials used, or thestandardofcarpentry.’

But even if the lowestsemi-slave lived in asubstantialhouse,presumablyheandhismiserableextended

familywerecrammedintherein a half-starved,overcrowded huddle –grandparents, uncles, aunts,nieces and nephews jumbledpromiscuouslytogether?

Well,maybenot.Where we do have

evidence, it tends to showthatpeasants lived innuclearfamilies like our own, andthat they liked their privacy.From as early as the twelfthcentury there were upper

rooms in quite small ruralbuildings,andcertainlythisishowmanypeoplewerelivingby the early fourteenthcentury. This suggests thatsomehouses,atanyrate,hadprivate rooms and theiroccupantsdidnothavetolivetheir lives under the wholefamily’s gaze. The sameinference – that peasantsliked their privacy – can bedrawn from archaeologicalevidence that, in the

thirteenth century at least,houses were surrounded byditches (and presumably alsohedges and fences) and hadlocked doors, and that goodswerekeptinlockedchests.

What kind of peasantswere these? What did theyhave that was worthprotecting?Excavationsshowpewter tableware, glazedpots, dice, cards, chessmen,footballs,musicalinstrumentsand ‘ninemen’s morris’

boards in these hovels. Andpeople seem to have eatenrather better than one mightsuppose.Theevidenceis thatthey didn’t simply live onbread and cheese, but atepork,lambandbeef,fruitandvegetables, and that even ininland villages they ate fish(archaeologists have foundfish bones at the desertedvillage ofWharram Percy inYorkshire).

Something seems to be

not quite right about thetraditional picture of peasantlife.

The excavations atWharram Percy are full ofsurprises.Itlookslikeaneat,planned village, andarchaeologists expected tofind traces of earlier villagesgoing back to early Anglo-Saxontimes.Thosetracesaremissing. Even thoughWharram Percy is listed inDomesday Book, the village

itselfseemstohavecomeintobeing around the end of thetwelfth century. The farmersin the area had previouslylived in scattered farms andhamlets.

It now seems as thoughthere were very few, if any,villages in that area ofEngland before the eleventhcentury. While it isimpossible to show aconnection between thiscurious fact and the Norman

Conquest, it does look asthough the creation ofvillages was linked to themanorial system. In otherwords – villages may havebeenbuiltfor thelocal lord’svilleins.

THEPEASANT’SSTATUS

At the time of the NormanConquest many in the ruralpopulationwereslaves in thefullmeaningoftheword(and

the Domesday Book showsthat thisstillappliedtoabout10 per cent of people in1086). This was not asatisfactory economicarrangement for the Normanoverlordswhomthekinghadinstalled as landholders.These lords of the manorwere military men, expectedtoprovidemilitary service tothekingas thepricefor theirlandholdings. They wantedthe English to work their

land, but did not want theresponsibility of feeding andcaringforthem–whichis,ofcourse,oneof thedrawbacksofhavingslaves.So it seemsthey preferred to groupworking families in ‘vills’(villages) and treat them astenants, who had to supportthemselves from smallparcels of landworkedwhenthey were not doing labourservice for their lord. Thislabourservicewastheirrent.

These people werevilleins.Villeinagehadbegunto develop before 1066, butthe Normans promoted itmightily and slaverydisappeared in a couple ofgenerations. Froissart wasprobably right in saying thatthe system was morewidespread in England thanintherestofwesternEurope.

Many manorial lordsheldseveralmanorsandspentmuch of their time away

fighting. They needed themanortolookafteritself–orrather, they needed theirvilleins to organize its carefor them. This was donethrough the manor court,which determined how fieldswere tobefarmedand(sincevilleins held strips of land inlargeopenfields)thedaysforplanting and harvesting, theboundaries of each person’sland and the dates on whichanimals were allowed to

graze in different fields.Although the court waspresided over by the lord’ssteward, its officials werevilleinselectedbythevillage,and its decisions were madeby a jury of villagers. Therewasthereeve,whoactedasageneral overseer, thehayward, who watched overthe crops and broughtoffenderstocourt,andsoon.Thesteward’sjobwastolookafter his lord’s interests

(paymentsandworkthatwasdue to him) not to tell thecourt how to manage itsbusiness.

In fact, themanor courthadthepowertofinethelord,andwoulddoso.Therecordsof one in Laxton inNottinghamshire show itfinedthelordforleavingsoilon the common land. Thepeasants of Albury inHertfordshire went so far astopetitionparliamentin1321

overoppressionbytheirlord,Sir John Patemore, who hadimprisoned them and seizedtheircattle.

Some villages cameclose to being totally self-governing political entitiesrun by the peasants for thepeasants. Villeins resistedauthority by quietly ignoringregulations, and manipulatedthesystembyexploitingtheirinfluence as officials andbending laws in their own

favour. Take the village ofGotham in Nottinghamshire,afforded legendary status bytheexploitsofitsinhabitants.

Inabout1200KingJohnproposed building a huntinglodge near the city ofNottingham.The residentsofGotham realized theimplications of this – hewould pass through thevillage on the way to hislodge, making it a king’shighway and thus making

themliabletonewtaxes.So what did they do?

The entire village pretendedto bemad. It is said that thevillagersbuilta fencearoundacuckoobush toprevent thecuckoo escaping, tried todrown an eel, set aboutpulling the moon out of apond with a rake and rolledcheeses down a hill to makethem round. Since madnesswas considered contagioustheideaofawholevillageof

lunatics was perfectlyfeasible, and apparently theployworked.

Villeins were notmindless and helpless, butactually ran the country. Thebarons who were theirmasters had to respect theirtraditions and ways of doingthings, and itwasnormal forthe lord of the manor todemonstrate this respect bylaying on feasts for themtwice a year – wet and dry

boon.Doesanyone’slandlordnow treat them to a slap-updinnertwiceayear?

At Wharram Percy thelord accommodated thepeasants in neat rows ofhousesbesidethechurch,andthe land was recast intoregularly planned fields. Amanor house belonging toeither the Percy or theChamberlainfamily(bothhadsomepowerover thevillage)wasbuilt in splendid style in

the twelfth century, but thiswas soon abandoned anddemolished, and its siteturnedovertopeasanthouses.

At Cosmeston in Walesthere is further evidence ofpeasants enjoying areasonablestandardofliving.Most families lived in two-roomhousessurroundedbyafence or ditch for privacy.Excavationofthehomeofthereeve– thevilleinwhoactedas general overseer for the

manor court – revealed oillamps and glazed Frenchpottery, and the discovery ofaparticularkindofjugshowsthat, far from living in dirtand squalor, he washed hishands between courses wheneating. His house had awardrobe, at least one chairandatimberfloor.Therewasa tablecloth and candle-holders.

The reeve slept on araisedbedwithasurprisingly

comfortable wooden pillow,and thediscoveryofacasketkey indicates he hadpossessions that were worthlockingup.Aherb–fleabane–kepthisbed freeof insectsandabowlofhoneywasusedas an insect trap. There wasan outdoor privy andexcrement was collectedregularly to be used, withanimalmanure,asfertilizer.

Coins found on the siteare evidence thatmoneywas

circulating, and so this wasnot entirely a subsistenceeconomy. In fact, from thethirteenth century labourservice began to be replacedby cash rents, indicating thatvilleinshad surpluscrops forsale.Andwhentheyhadpaidtheir rents they had moneyleft over to spend at stalls inthevillagerunbymerchants.

Theyalsohadmoney tospend at the tavern, whichwasinanordinaryhouse.Ale

was essential to life asmanyvillages lacked clean wateranditwasdrunkfromleathermugs lined with pitch.Brewingwasoftenviewedasan appropriate activity forwidows,whofoundithardtofarm land. But some villeinshadmorehigh-falutingtastes.The excavations atCosmeston have revealed theremains of wine jugs fromFrance – peasants weredrinking imported French

wine.This all seems so

fundamentally at odds withour picture of the life of amedieval peasant that someexplanation is needed –which involves recognizingthattheMiddleAgeswasnota static and unchangingperiod, but a time of changeanddevelopment.

DAYSOFSURVIVAL

In the eleventh centurypeasant farmers lived prettyclose to subsistence level.The year’s work began inOctober, ploughing andharrowingwhathadbeen thefallow field with wheat andrye. The aim was to havedonethisbyAllSaints’Day,1 November. A reasonablysubstantial peasant farmerwith 30 acres scattered overthree village fields wouldhave ten acres in his fallow

field. An acre was in theorytheamountoflandthatcouldbe ploughed in a day –typically, four lands (strips),each of which was coveredwith five long furrowlengths(furlongs),turningtheploughat the end of each furrow.Astripwas therefore a quarter-acre.

The farmer would needto prepare these in fiveweeks, covering 84 mileswiththeploughandthesame

again with the harrow. Andwith one day a week givenover toGod, and up to threedaystothelordofthemanor,he had 15 days to do it in.This sounds fine, except thatin practice it was notuncommontocoveronlyhalfan acre in a day (problemswith the plough, problemswith the animals drawing it,soilthatwassoddenwithrainorgroundthatwasfrozentoohardtobeworked).

At Candelmas, 2February, ploughing wouldresume.Thistime,lastyear’srye-and-wheat fieldwouldbeploughed for oats, barley,peasandbeans,and the thirdfieldploughedforfallow.Thework was supposed to befinished by Easter – ideallyby25March,but it couldgoon until the end of April. Along, hard frost could be aseriousproblem.

Intheeleventhcenturyit

is likelythat thebestyieldtobe hoped for, on good land,waseightbushelsofcornperacre. The net harvest, afterlosses during harvesting andto animals, and after thefarmer had handed over histithe to the Church andproduce to his lord,was halfthatorless–andtwobushelswouldhavetobekeptbackasseedcorn.Overall,thefarmerwouldhaveenough to feedafamily of five and there

wouldbeasmallsurplus,butonlyso longasnothingwentwrong with the ploughing,ripeningandharvestingofthecrops. And so long as nomarauding armies camealong.

But things did gohorribly wrong at times, andthereweremaraudingarmies.The Anglo-Saxon Chroniclefor the end of the eleventhcentury is a list of thingsgoingawry:

AD1077This year was the drysummer; and wildfire cameupon many shires, andburnedmanytowns;andalsomany cities were ruinedthereby.AD1082. . .and this yearalsowasagreatfamine.AD1086And the sameyear therewasa very heavy season, and aswinkful and sorrowful year

in England, in murrain ofcattle, and corn and fruitswereatastand,andsomuchuntowardness in theweather,as a man may not easilythink;so tremendouswas thethunderand lightning, that itkilled many men; and itcontinually grew worse andworsewithmen.AD1087IntheoneandtwentiethyearafterWilliambegantogovernand direct England, as God

granted him, was a veryheavyandpestilentseasoninthis land. Such a sicknesscame on men, that full nighevery other man was in theworstdisorder, that is, in thediarrhoea; and that sodreadfully, that many mendied in the disorder.Afterwardscame,throughthebadness of the weather asbeforementioned, so great afamineoverallEngland,thatmanyhundredsofmendieda

miserable death throughhunger. Alas! how wretchedand how rueful a time wasthere! When the poorwretches lay full nigh drivento death prematurely, andafterwards came sharphunger, and dispatched themwithal! Who will not bepenetratedwith grief at sucha season? or who is sohardheartedasnottoweepatsuch misfortune? Yet suchthingshappen for folk’s sins,

that they will not love Godandrighteousness.AD1098Before Michaelmas theheavenwasofsuchanhue,asif it were burning, nearly allthe night. This was a verytroublesome year throughmanifold impositions; andfromtheabundantrains, thatceased not all the year,nearly all the tilth in themarshlandsperished.

Thingswouldhavebeenevenworse without the stripsystem,which at leastmeantthat a peasant’s lands werescatteredandhedidnothaveto put all his eggs in onebasket. There was also asystemoffood-sharinginbadtimes. This was onebeneficial result of tithes –the great tithe-barns of theChurchcouldbecomecharityfood stores in times of need.It looks as though there was

virtually no chance ofstarvation for a peasantfarmingmorethan20acres.*2Unless, of course, there waswidespreadfamine.

At the start of a faminepeople would eat bad bread,oftenmadewith rye thathaddeveloped a fungus (ergot)that produced a burningsensation in the body andLSD-type hallucinations.Thencamestarvation.

Starvationkillsahealthy

humaninsixtotenweeks.Tobeginwith,apersoncanloseup to 10 per cent of theirbody weight without losingmuch strength or energy. Atthis stage they can stillworkand do other normalactivities.Then theybegin toweaken.Whentheyhavelost15 to 20 per cent of theirnormal body weight theybecome depressed andapathetic, and can no longerparticipate in day-to-day life.

Asapersoncontinuestoloseweight the stomachaccumulates abnormalamountsofwateryfluids,andballoons outwards. Fleshwastes from the face and theeyes also appear to balloonoutwards. The fleshincreasingly sags away fromthebonesandpermanentdarksplotches from glandulardisturbances may appear alloverthebody.Rackedbythepaincausedbythesechanges,

a starving person becomesmoresusceptibletodiarrhoea,choleraanddysentery.

The victim can see andfeel their body witheringaway, and becomes obsessedwith food. Indifference andapathy replace compassionfor their starving neighbours,friends and family. Mothershave been known to snatchfood from the hands of theirchildren. Cannibalism is notuncommon.Eventually,when

apersonhaslostabout40percentoftheirbodymass,deathisinevitable.*3

THINGSGETBETTER

The manorial systemdeveloped during a periodwhen England was gettingwarmer and wetter. Thismeant many years of goodharvests (which we can seetoday in the evidence of treerings) interrupted by rain-

driven famines, with all thehorrorsdescribedabove.Thisis the framework withinwhich the medieval peasantsawhislife,andtheprospectsofanafterlife.

But famine becamerarer, and the economics offarming improved steadily inthe centuries after theConquest. In the thirteenthcentury the rise intemperature was reversed,and the tempests of the

previous 200 years declined.Vineyards, an important partof the English economy fortwo centuries, disappearedcompletely by 1300 and thegrowing season shortened,but winters became milderand summers drier. From1220 to 1315 there was nofamine in England. Thiscoincidedwith improvementsin agricultural technology(primarilyfasterploughingashorse teams replacedoxen in

favourable areas) and thegrowthofmarketsandtowns.The result was a golden agefor the peasant, and aspectacular rise in thepopulation, from 2.5 millionto approaching 6 million by1315. Wasteland was takeninto cultivation, marginalland was converted intomanorial farms and thestandardoflivingrose.

There was also asignificant broadening of

people’s outlooks. Villeintenancies were inherited bythe eldest son so youngerbrothers had to find livingselsewhere, which meant aconsiderable movement ofpeople. The inevitable resultwas that a large number ofpeasant familieshadrelativesin newly growing towns andso were probably quite wellinformed about politics andtrade. They were also likelytohaverelativesinotherparts

ofthecountry,asthepressureto bringmore land under theplough meant people weremoving to new manors inareas that had never beenfarmed before. Althoughpeasants did not exactly govisiting much, they madepilgrimagestofamousshrinesand travelled tomarkets, andmay not have had muchreason to see themselves ascountrybumpkins.

In fact, at this time the

lotofapeasantfarmerwasinsome ways comparable withthat of a modern worker.Sundays, saint’s days andChurch holidays like Easterand Christmas meant he hadatleastasmuchfreetimeasamodern employee, and theamount of work required topay rent and taxes wasprobablyprettysimilartothatneeded now. Of course,provision for old age was abitofaproblem(asitisnow

for many people), butpeasants didn’t often live solong.Thetrulypoorprobablymade up about a third of thepopulation, as they do today(infact,oneoftheodditiesofEnglish society is that it hasalwayshad roughly the samepercentage of the populationlivingonthebreadline).

By1315thecountrysidewas full, busy and makingmoney. Farming wasbecoming more sophisticated

and trade-orientated; well-managed hay meadowsproduced a good flow ofcash,andeight totenmillionsheep supplied wool for theexport trade alone. Therewere also more horses thanever before, both for ridingand for draught. In the mostadvanced regions – easternNorfolk (the most crowdedcounty in England) andeasternKent–theoldsystemofcommonfieldswasalready

onitswayoutbecauseitwasinefficient.Theseareaswouldbe particularly prominent inthe‘Peasants’Revolt’.

People were notstarving. In fact, their dietwasprettyhealthy.Today,weare urged to stop eating fastfoodswithallthenutritionofcardboard and to eat fiveportions of fruit andvegetables a day. This isactually a return to thepeasantdiet–adiet thatwas

despisedbythenobility.Theyregardedfruitandvegaspoorman’s food, believing thatgreens weren’t good for youand that fruit gave youdysentery–thebloodyflux.

Peasantbreadwasmuchhealthier than our white,steam-baked, sliced bread: itwas brown, like a goodwholemeal loaf. Peas andbeansweresometimesadded,which made it even morenutritious.Inthefieldspeople

ate a kind of medieval potnoodle, a paste of driedvegetables, beans and breadto which they added ale toturn it into an instant meal.Eel pasties were anotherfavourite, and preservedfoods such as bacon, cheeseand sausages were specialtreats.

Evenforthepoorest,thecountryside was a larderteemingwithwildlife.Riverswerefulloffish–therewere

even plenty of salmon in theThames – and peasants hadelaborate nets and traps tocatch songbirds, eels andrabbits.

The countryside washealthier than the towns.When the graveyard atWharram Percy wasexcavated archaeologistsfound 687 peasant skeletons,enough for them to drawsome firm conclusions abouthealth and ageing. It is clear

that these country dwellershad suffered fewer illnessesthan their urban relatives. Alower rate of infectionshowed in their bones, andfewer cases of anaemiasuggestedfewerparasites.

It is also clear,surprisingly, that they ate areasonable amount ofseafood. This is furtherevidence that trade networkspenetrated deep into thecountryside. And there was

verylittletoothdecay–nonein any of the children’sskeletons. In fact themedieval diet, with lots ofcoarse grains and grit in thebread, was much better forhuman teeth thanourown. Itmeant they were worn downto a flat plane leaving nocrevices for food to fester.Butfossilizedplaqueinsomeskeletons’ teeth does suggestthat many of the people atWharram Percy had suffered

fromchronicbadbreath.Thiswas a bit of an issue inmedieval times; in Wales apeasantwomancoulddivorceher husband on the groundsofhishalitosis.

In both countryside andtowns, babies were breastfeduntil they were 18 monthsold,whichprotectedboth thechild (helping its immunesystem and keeping its dietfreeofgerms)andthemother(it was believed that

breastfeeding can act as anaturalcontraceptive).

One further surprise atWharram Percy was a skullwithabigholeinit,theresultof an injury caused by somekindofbluntinstrument.Thishadclearlybeenoperatedon:the skin had been foldedback, thewoundwascleanedup and then the skin wasstitched back again. Theperson had recovered fromthe injury. Even the

inhabitants of a small villagecould hope for skilled andeffectivesurgicalhelp.

Of course, the picturewas not entirely rosy.Animals were small (smallerthantheyhadbeeninRomantimes) and grains were tall,low-yielding varieties.Pastures were overused andeasily degraded. Village lifemayhavebeenhealthierthanlife in a town, butnevertheless infant mortality

was high, childbirth wasdangerous, agriculturallabourerswereoldat40.

But the kind of peasantFroissart described – theservilevilleinobligedtoworkhis lord’s land – was adiminishingclassby thestartof the fourteenth century.Mostofthelandnewlytakeninto cultivation was farmedbyfreemenwhopaidrentforit,andtheyseemtohavehadlarger families than serfs.

There were now more ofthemthantherewerevilleins.Villein duties had anywayoftenbeenreplacedbymoneyrents, so lords of the manorreceivednearly90percentoftheir income in cash. Thepower of customary lawsmeant that a villein holding15to30acresforafixedrentwasoftencomparativelywelloff, especially as land wasscarce, open-market rentswerehigh, priceswere rising

andwageswerelow.

VILLAGEANDCHURCH

Village life was centred notjust on work and home, butalsoon the church.ChurcheshadbeenfewandfarbetweeninAnglo-Saxontimes,buttheChurch was an importantelement in Normandomination, and a villagewithout a church becamealmostinconceivable.

The building was thephysical property of themanor,andthelordappointedthe priest (who would be acommoner, but not a serf).Thecoreofanychurchisthechancel with the altar, andthisbelongedtothelord.Thenave and the tower belongedto the people of the parish,whostoodinthenavetohearservices. Each person wasexpected togiveone-tenthoftheir earnings to support the

Church.Thistithewasevenlydivided between the parishpriest, the churchmaintenance fund, the poorandthelocalbishop.

Manorcourtswereoftenheld in the nave, but thechurch and churchyard werealso places for parties, plays,pageants and games such asfootball and tile- or stone-throwing.Manyparishpriestsbrewed their own ale anddrinkingwasabigpartofany

festival.Thechurchwasalso the

centre of education. By themid-twelfth century literacywas a real, and notimpossibly distant, ambitionfor large numbers of peoplein the countryside. This isshownbythefact thatoneinten boys in peasant familiesadvanced to at least thelowest levels of the clergy,which required the ability toread Latin. There were,

inevitably,traditionalistswhocomplained that the Churchhad become a meritocracy,employing ministers ‘raisedfromthedust’.Itwas,infact,a sign that the age of theConquest was over, and thattheChurchwasno longer animplementofNormanpower.

A common illusionabout the medieval period isthatsocietyconsistedofrigidfeudalorders, and that ifyouwere born a serf you would

die a serf. This is not quitetrue. For ambitious womenthere was always thepossibility ofmaking a goodmarriage or becoming a richman’s mistress, and therewere many ways for men tochangetheirstatus–livinginatownasaguildmemberfora year and a day, joining thearmy or Church, or, ofcourse, entering a life ofcrime. But it was alsopossibleforapoorboytorise

inasecularprofession.The most astonishing

example of this is the careerofWilliam ofWykeham, thechildofapeasantfamilywhotook his name from thevillagewherehewasborn in1324.Hewaseducatedatthelocal cathedral school at theexpense of the lord of themanor (a not uncommonarrangement), who then tookhim on as his own secretary.The lord, Uvedale, was

governor of WinchesterCastle and passed the youngman on to the bishop ofWinchester.

In the small world ofEnglish government Williamwas noticed by Edward III,andwhenhewasinhisearlytwenties the king took himinto service. He wasobviously clever and careful,had an interest in and talentfor construction and design,and could be trusted as a

manager. In his early thirtieshe was clerk of the king’sworks in two manors, andwas made surveyor ofWindsor Castle. It seems tohave been his idea thatEdward should express hisArthurian fantasies byrebuilding the castle, andfrom then on his rise wasirresistible.

By 1364 William hadbeen made keeper of theprivy seal and was so

powerful that, according toFroissart, he ‘reigned inEngland, and without himtheydidnothing’.Hewastheultimate self-made man, andfully understood thesignificanceof education.Hefounded a free school, tooffer 70 boys from poorer,rural backgrounds – peasants–apropereducation,andalsoa university college towhichtheycouldgowhentheywereready.Both have survived to

this day:Winchester Collegeand New College, Oxford.William’s own motto,‘manners mayketh man’,became the motto of bothinstitutions; ‘manners’meansnot simply politeness, butbeing a capable and reliablemember of society. Thiswasa peasant attitude rather thananaristocraticone.

William of Wykehamwould have been unique inany age. However, by the

mid-fourteenth century mostpeasants knew their ABC,could sound out, andtherefore recognize, theirnamesandwerefamiliarwiththe English equivalents ofperhaps10or20Latinwords.This allowed them to locateand recognize references totheir land in court rolls, andtobeawareofandtalkaboutthecontentsofcharters.

THEFOURTEENTH-

CENTURYCATASTROPHE

The busy, prosperous andsuccessfulruralsocietyofthestartofthefourteenthcenturydid not last.Within 15 yearsnaturehaddealt itacrushingblow:

IntheyearofourLord1315,apart from the otherhardships with whichEnglandwasafflicted,hunger

grewintheland...Meatandeggsbegantorunout,caponsand fowl could hardly befound, animals died of pest,swine could not be fedbecauseoftheexcessivepriceoffodder.Aquarterofwheator beans or peas sold fortwenty shillings [in 1313 aquarterofwheatsoldforfiveshillings], barley for amark,oats for ten shillings. Aquarterofsaltwascommonlysold for thirty-five shillings,

which informer times wasquite unheard of. The landwas so oppressed with wantthatwhenthekingcametoSt.Albans on the feast of St.Laurence [10 August] it washardly possible to findbreadon sale to supply hisimmediatehousehold...

JOHANNES DETROKELOWE,Annales

This dearth had begun inMay. Then came heavy

summer rains and the corndid not ripen – the start of aseries of agriculturaldisasters. Villages built ondried-out marshlands sankback into the mud and therewas not enough food for thegreatlyswollenpopulace.Theannals are full of misery.Then, when the famines hadrun their course, the BlackDeathcame.

Having spread acrossEurope from the east, it

arrivedatWeymouth in June1348. In less than a year thewhole country was stricken.No-one could haveunderstood what washappening. Once a personwas infected large, foul-smelling swellingsdevelopedin their groin, neck andarmpits. Death followedwithintwoorthreedays.Thedisease killed more than athird of the people and by1350 the population of

Englandwashalfwhat ithadbeenin1315.Villagesshrankin size or were simplyabandoned. The land wascovered in images of death.Church walls were paintedwithdepictionsof the ‘ThreeLiving and the Three Dead’and scenes of the ‘Dance ofDeath’.

The effect of the BlackDeath was immediatelycatastrophic for everyone;curiously,thosepeasantswho

survived it found their livesimmeasurably improved.Labour became scarce andmore valuable than abundantland. Landless people wereable to take over abandonedholdings, and those whocould handle more landsimply took it. Wagesroughly doubled, while thefall in the population led tosomething like a halving ofthepriceofwheat.

Villeinage seemed

seriously out of date. Thewhole basis of economicpowerinEnglandhadshifted.The Statute of Labourers in1351complainedthatexistinglawswereineffective:

...servantshavingnoregardto the said ordinance, but totheir ease and singularcovetise, do withdrawthemselvestoservegreatmenand other, unless they havelivery and wages to the

double or treble of that theywerewont to take . . . to thegreat damage of the greatmen,andimpoverishingofallthesaidcommonalty.

As the country recovered inthe decades following theBlackDeathlandownerstriedto restore the old systems,rediscovering old laws ofcompulsory service that hadbeen forgotten in the goodtimes when England was

increasingly moving to amoneyeconomy.

It was this growingpressure to turn back theclock that eventuallyproduced the so-called‘Peasants’ Revolt’ – anuprising of people whowerewell used to running theirown affairs, in manorialcourts and militias and inminorpublicoffice, andwhohad stopped believing in theentire structure of feudal

authority.‘WhenAdamdelvedand

Eve span/Who was then theGentleman?’ demanded JohnBall,oneoftheleadersoftherebellion. A question towhich, after the insurrectionhad been put down, therecamethefirmreply:‘Villeinsye are, and villeins ye shallremain.’

But, of course, they didnot.

Although Wharram

Percy, like many desertedmedieval villages, wasbelieved to have lost itspopulation at the time of theBlack Death, excavationshave shown this was not thecase. It remained inhabiteduntil the fifteenth century,anditwashumanbeings,notbacteria, that determined itsfate.

The old feudalconsensus had broken down,and the lords realized that if

the peasants were now freefrom any obligation to them,they were equally free fromanyobligationstocareforthepeasants.Thusitwasthatthepeasants came face to facewith their greatest naturalenemy–sheep.

Labour had becomeexpensive and your averagelord could now make moremoney out of sheep than hecould out of his peasants.There was more wool on

sheep, for a start, and youcould also eat them – whichis possible with peasants butsocially taboo – so the lordsstarted to throw theexpensive, troublesome anduneatable peasants off theirland and replace them withsheep.

The few remainingvilleins, at Wharram Percyandinmuchoftherestofthecountry, were maderedundant. They were

doubtless given encouragingtalksaboutthefactthatitwastime to move on, that theyshouldviewthischallengeasan exciting opportunity, andthat a gentleman from theCistercianswould be cominground to see themindividually to discussopeningsintheleadmines.

Being a peasant in themiddle ages wasn’tnecessarilya terrible life,butitdeterioratedwhenthelords

fencedthelandoffforsheep.It got even worse in theIndustrial Revolution, andnowadays small farmers arestillgoingtothewall.

The life of the peasantdependsonthesortofsocietyhe lives in – and comparedwith a lot of people’s livestoday,thereweretimeswhenthe medieval peasant had itprettygood.

CHAPTERTWO

MINSTREL⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

THE STORY OF NORMANENGLAND began with a song.

At about nine o’clock on themorning of Saturday 14October 1066, the minstrelTailleferrodeoutonhishorseand began to juggle with hissword.Ashejuggled,hesangtheSongofRoland.

He was at the foot ofSenlac ridge, a few milesfromHastings.Abovehimonthe ridge, stretching fornearlythree-quartersofamileandsevenlinesdeep,wastheentire army of Harold, King

ofEngland,inbattleorder.Asolid wall of shields waspunctuated only by bristlingspears and great double-headedbattleaxes.

Tailleferwastheenemy.This was a gig to beremembered.

The minstrel was aNorman, part of DukeWilliam of Normandy’sinvading force. The rest ofthat forcewas behind him, alittleover100yardsfromthe

Anglo-Saxons. The archerswere in front, then theinfantry,andatthebackwerethe knights on their smallstallions.

All through the summerHarold had been expectingtheNormanstoinvadebutbymid-September he hadfigured itwas too late in theseason and stood down hiscoastal defences. Then hiskingdom was attacked inYorkshire by Harald

Hardrada, King of Norway,and he hadmarched north todealwiththethreat.

That was when theNormansmadetheircrossing.Theyhad landedatPevenseyon 28 September and sincethen they had beenconsolidating their hold onthe area around Hastings.They had not expected to bechallenged for quite a whileyet, and were busy foragingandlooting.WhentheAnglo-

Saxon army arrived late theprevious afternoon Williamwastakenbysurprise.Haroldwassupposedtobefullytiedup in the North and perhapsevendefeated.Instead,hehadcrushedHardradaa full threedaysbeforeWilliaminvaded,and he then made anastonishingly swift marchsouth, first to London andthen onwards to the Normaninvasionsite.

Harold’s arrival was

most alarming for theNormans. They were notgoing to have as easy a timeas they had supposed.Williamdecidedhehadbetternot leavehis troopswithanytime to thinkaboutwhatwashappening, and spent thenight gathering up hisforagingpartiesandpreparingthem for battle. In the earlydawntheybeganthesix-milemarch to meet the Anglo-Saxons.

When the Normansarrived at Senlac they werepresentedwithadiscouragingsight.Theyweregeareduptoface an army like their own,witharchersinfront,thentheinfantry, and perhaps cavalrybehind. Instead they saw along wall of wooden shieldsthat would be impervious totheir arrows. Even worse,there were no Anglo-Saxonarcherstoshootbackatthem– Normans did not carry

many arrows and relied onpicking up their enemy’sspent ones after the firstbarrage.

Their infantry wouldhave to attack with theundamaged enemy rainingdown deadly missiles fromabove themas theystruggleduptheslope.Thentheknightswould also have to launchthemselves uphill, having topush their horses’ fleshagainst a solid and heavily

spikedwallofshields.It would be a suicide

assault.It appears that the

Norman resolve to fight wassomewhat uncertain. TheAnglo-Saxons would nothave helped matters bychanting their prebattle warcry: ‘Ut! Ut!’ (Out! Out!).Simple, and intimidatingwhen shouted by 7000 or8000men armedwith spearsandaxes.

It was at this uncertainpoint thatWilliam’sminstrelTailleferaskedforpermissiontogivealittleperformance.*1

According to oneaccount,herodeforwardandjuggled with his sword. Aminstrel was a ‘jongleur’, ajester, a general entertainer,but if juggling was allTaillefer did it would havebeen very odd. Anotherchronicle, presumably basedon an account by someone

nearer the performance,describes him singing theSongofRoland.

The version we haverunsto291verses,whichisalittlelongfortheevent.Sinceit is clear from internalreferences that it dates fromsomewhatlaterthan1066,wecanassumethatTailleferwasworking from an earlier andprobably shorterversion; andthat even then, under thecircumstances, he probably

wentfortheeditedhighlights.The song he sang told afamousstory,ofbattleagainstimpossible odds and heroicdeath that would never beforgotten.

AndthenheattackedtheAnglo-Saxon line, all byhimself.Andhewaskilled.

There have been otherbattles, even in recent years,when soldiers who wererequired to attack but werefrightened to advance have

watched a volunteer fromtheirownranksgoforwardtocertain death. The resultalwaysseemstobethesame.The death creates a moralcertainty; the survival of themen watching seems not tomatter to them any more.Now they will advance withabsolute resolution,irrespectiveoftheodds.Theydo this not to exact revengeor even because they feelhatred for the enemy – they

advance because they aretotally bonded to the mantheysawdie. In thismomentthey do not have homes oreven lives to return to. Thismomentisallthereis,andthespinning world revolvesaroundwhattheymustdo.

This is why thebattlefield can be a place ofmusic, of song, of poetry.Taillefer’s death-song shapedthe history of England,Europeandthewholeworld.

The Normans charged.The initial attackwas indeedsuicidal, but theirdetermination tosucceedwasnow unbreakable. The firstassault was followed byanother, and then another.The battle continued all daylong until eventually, as itbegan to grow dark, theEnglish defence crumbled,dissolvedanddisappeared.Anew history of England hadbegun.

The Norman survivorsdidnotseethiswonderfultaleas being all that heroic. TheBayeux tapestry, a strip-cartoon account of the highpoints of the conquest ofEngland, leavesTailleferout.The hint of cowardice, theleadership of a low-bornentertainer – these do notseem to have been themesthat attracted Odo, bishop ofBayeux, the man whocommissionedthetapestry.

THEPUBLICRELATIONSMINSTREL

An eleventh-century jongleurwas pretty low down in thesocial order. Taillefer was a‘jongleur des gestes’, a manwho entertained the mightywith the heroic epics thatfired their blood. Theemphasis was entirely onmilitary virtues; womenbarely figure in the epics oftheperiod.Thesepoemswere

a validation of the militaryethos, placing the listenersinside the world of heroicaction and, in effect, invitingthemtoseetheirownwarfareas participation in a cosmicdrama of masculine sacrificeandloyalty.

The role of minstrelsnaturallydevelopedfurtherasthe concept of chivalrybecame more elaborated;eventually they wereexpected to act as heralds,

turning acts of bravery andprowess during battles andtournaments into songs –chansons de geste – thatserved as celebrations andscorecards. They became PRmen and were paid by thehero whose bravery theycelebrated. One of the firstexamples is the speciallycommissionedlifeinverseofWilliamMarshal, ‘the flowerofchivalry’–paidforbyhisson in 1219, the year of

William’sdeath.The teller of this

biographicalchansondegestewas probably William’ssquire. In this rough-and-ready military culture littledistinctionwasmadebetweenthoseservantswhocouldsingor recite poetry and thosewho could cook or do otherchores. Jongleurs wereexpected tomake themselvesuseful in all sorts of ways.They had instruments and

loud voices? Fine, let themact as night watchmen,sounding the alarm in thecaseofattackorfire.

In 1306, a minstrelcalledRichard (the Prince ofWales’s watchman), raisedthe alarm at Windsor Castlewhenafirestarted.Thankstohim, the castle was saved.Whether he used it as anopportunity to practise hisownart, as akindof singingtelegram (‘Windsor Castle’s

burning down/burningdown/burning down/WindsorCastle’s burning down/Myfairlady!’)isnotrecorded.

The jongleur who couldblowatrumpet,playafifeorbangadrumhadobvioususesin the cacophony of thebattlefield – to rally thetroops or cheer themon, andalsotogivesignals.

The Taillefers of theeleventh century were theguardiansandpromotersofa

culturebasedonsimplepietyand violent death, and theyweretreatedexactlyassuchaculture demands. It cannothave been very rewarding tomake a living by recitingpoetrytophilistines.

Yet out of this strangebeginning emerged a literaryculturethat,bytheendoftheMiddle Ages, was to be oneof the greatest achievementsof civilization. In mostcultures literature is the

refined interest of a veryrestricted group of people.The classical period hadproduced great epics,histories and the marvellouspoetry of an educated andwealthy elite, but its popularculture was profoundlydifferent – it was basedaround the enjoyment ofviolent death in theamphitheatre and horse-racing in the hippodrome.Oriental civilizations

produced magnificentreligious epics, histories, andthe subtle poetry and dramaof highly sophisticated courtelites, while their popularculture tended to existseparately and far moretraditionally, based aroundreligious and communityrituals. Medieval Europe,most surprisingly, developedforms of story-telling thatreached right across thewholeofsociety,withthewit

and energy to appeal to anilliterate or semi-literateaudience and, at the sametime, the subtlety andcomplexity to satisfy theaesthetes of aristocratic androyalcourts.

This was to beintimately bound upwith thedevelopment of regional(ultimately national)languages which gave anentire society within alanguage-territory a shared

culture. It was, in fact, thesingers and story-tellers, thepoets and minstrels, whoultimately shaped the historyofEurope.

THEBASICENTERTAINER

This is hardly what anyonelookingateleventh-andearlytwelfth-century minstrelswouldhaveexpected.Alotoftheoutputofthoseattachedto

lords and kings, andwearingtheirlivery,consistedofjokesabout farting and copulation,and drinking songs. Theywere turning into generalentertainers rather thancarriersoffameandmemory.Wandering minstrels wererustic showmen, juggling,doing magic, tumbling andmoving from door to doortryingtoscratchaliving.Thebest seem to have beenemployed mainly to provide

background music at feasts,ceremonies and religiousrituals.Thestatusofminstrelswas low; the language ofliteracy was Latin but theirperformances were almostentirely vernacular, and theyprobablydidnotlooklikethecutting edge of Europeancivilization.

The direction they wereapparently heading in waswellillustratedin1212,whenRandulf,EarlofChester,was

besiegedby theWelsh inhiscastle of Rhuddlan inFlintshire. He sent an appealfor help to Roger de Lacy,justiciar and constable ofChester,affectionatelyknownin the local dungeons as‘RogerofHell’.

Roger, casting aroundforthemosteffective,viciousand altogether intimidatingrelief force he could find,realized thatChesterwasfullof jongleurs who had come

for the annual fair. Hegathered them up andmarched them off under hisson-in-law Dutton. TheWelsh, seeing this fearsomebody of determinedmusicians, singers andprestidigitators bearing downon them ready to launch intoan immediateperformanceoftheirterrifyingarts,fled.

Who but Roger of Hellwouldhavebeensoruthless?Theeventgaverisetotheold

English oath, now sadlyforgotten but well worthreviving if someone wouldlike to make a start: ‘Roger,and by all the fiddlers ofChester!’

This rag-tag army werewandering minstrels, notbound to a lord and wearinghislivery.Aminstrelwithoutaliverywasabit likeabandwithout a record contract.Livery indicated that aminstrelhadbothstatusanda

regular income, and made iteasier forhim tobeacceptedintherightcastlesandearnadecent reward. But he stillneeded a full range ofentertainmentskills.

One thirteenth-centurypoem defines a true minstrelas one who can ‘speak andrhyme well, be witty, knowthe story of Troy, balanceapplesonthepointofknives,juggle, jump through hoops,play the citole, mandora,

harp,fiddle,andpsaltery’.Heis further advised, for goodmeasure, to learn the arts ofimitating birds, puttingperforming asses and dogsthrough their paces andoperatingmarionettes.

Acertainrobustnesswasneeded to survive in anenvironment where goodmanners was often just aquestion of not picking yournose in public. A medievalguide to etiquette warns:

don’tscratchyourselforlookfor fleas in your breeches oron your chest; don’t snapyourfingers;don’tcombyourhair, clean your nails or takeyourshoesoffinthepresenceof lords and ladies.Messengers arriving at ahouse removed theirweapons, gloves and capsbeforeentering–thoughtheywere permitted to keep theircapsoniftheywerebald.Theguide also recommends not

urinating in the hall – unlessyouhappentobetheheadofthe household. Whichminstrelswerenot.

Theguidealsogoesintothe details about the politeways to belch, fart and –interestingly enough –defecate.

And the entertainmentdemanded by early medievalmonarchs was reassuringlydownmarket. For example,Henry II’s favourite minstrel

was Roland Le Pettour. Theking rewarded him with 30acres of land for hismasterwork, described as ‘aleap, a whistle and a fart’.Roland’sgreatmusicaltalent,it seems, was that he couldfart tunes. The land wassolemnly passed down fromfather to son for manygenerations, on the conditionthat the incumbent turnupatcourt each Christmas Day toperform the leap, thewhistle

andthefart!Another act that was

apparently popular withEnglishroyaltywasaversionof putting your head in alion’s mouth, although thisone involved a minstrel whospread honey on hismemberand then brought in aperforming bear. Whathappened next isn’t actuallyexplained, but whatever itwas probably doesn’t figureinWinnie-the-Pooh.

Not everyone approved.John of Salisbury, bishop ofChartres, a historian andelegant Latin stylist of thetwelfth century, thoughtjongleurs were quite simplyappalling:

Even they whose exposuresare so indecent they make acynic blusharenot debarredfromdistinguishedhouses...they are not even turned outwhen with more hellish

tumult theydefile theairandmore shamelessly disclosethatwhichinshametheyhadconcealed.Doesheappearaman of wisdom who has eyeorearforsuchasthese?

Policraticus

RAHERE

There were, of course, manydifferent kinds of minstrelsand entertainers, some ofwhom the Church had no

problemwith–afterall,therewere said to be minstrels inheaven. Other performers,though, who encourageddancing and ribaldry, wereplainly servants of the devil.Andsomeminstrelsevidentlyhad career paths that led tohigher things, the mostfamous of these being oneRahere.

According to his ownaccount,*2Raherewasalow-born character whomanaged

to infiltrate himself into thecourtofHenry Ion thebasisof his entertainment value.Whileitisnotclearwhatthismeans, and it has beensuggested that he may haveheld a clerical position, thelanguage he uses suggeststhat he performed as ajongleur or jester. Heevidently made a significantsum of money – given therewardsavailable someyearslaterforaleap,awhistleand

a fart, it is likely thatminstrelsy was the best wayforapoorboytodothis.Butthere was obviously more tohim than that; a ‘Rahere’ islisted at the time as a canonofStPaul’sCathedral.

For some reason hemadeapenance-pilgrimagetoRomewherehefellseriouslyill, and vowed that if herecovered he would build ahospital for the poor. On hisreturn journey he had a

delirious vision of hell, thenone of St Bartholomew whoinstructed him to build achurch in theLondon suburbofSmoothField(Smithfield),where there were horse andcattlemarkets.

Henry I gave Rahere alicence tobuildachurchandhospitalonlandtotheeastofthe market; most of it wasmarshbut therewas a firmerpiece of rising ground usedfor public executions, and

Rahere had the gallowsmoved so that he couldconstruct a large priory and,nearby, a hospital. A charterof 1147 defines the purposeofStBartholomew’sHospitalastoprovideshelterandcarefor the poor, the sick, thehomelessandorphans.

Thesitewasconsecratedby the end of 1129 andRaherebecamethefirstprior.Crowds of pilgrims, the sickand people who had been

curedinthehospitalgatheredat the church on StBartholomew’sfeastday,andin 1133 Rahere was given aroyalcharterwhichlicensedathree-day St Bartholomew’sFair, one curious feature ofwhichwas that no outlaw orcriminal could be arrestedwhile attending it. Thehospital and fair becameenduring features of Londonlife, and the choir of thepriory is one of the few

medieval structures stillstanding in London. Raherehimself, like DickWhittington, became amythologized figure of poor-boy-made-good.

EDWARDII’SMINSTRELS

The fortunes of Englishminstrels probably reachedtheir zenith during the reignof Edward II, who was aminstrel fanatic. His father

wasawaya lotand thenursewho brought him up was aminstrel, which may explainwhyhewassofondof them.So fond, in fact, that thetreasury rolls showing theexpenditureforhiscoronationlist154musicians.Theyalsoshow that on the anniversaryofthedeathofhislover,PiersGaveston, Edward cheeredhimself up by travelling toFrance and being entertainedby Bernard the Fool and 54

nakeddancers.Edward seems to have

been in thehabitof throwingmoney at anyone who madehim laugh – and it evidentlydidn’ttakemuchtomakehimlaugh. JackofStAlbanswaspaid 50 shillings because ‘hedanced before the king on atable and made him laughvery greatly’. And heawarded the princely sum of20 shillings to one of hiscooks ‘because he rode

beforetheKing...andoftenfell from his horse, at whichthe King laughed verygreatly’.

The barons tried torestrict Edward’s extravagantentertainment budget bycreating exact jobdescriptions for everymember of the household.This meant an end tomultitaskingminstrels – nowtheyhadtobeeither jugglersor flute players or whatever,

andtheirnumbersweretobestrictly limited: ‘There shallbe trumpeters and 2 otherminstrels, and sometimesmore and sometimes less,who shall play before thekinganditshallpleasehim.’

Thebaronswerenot theonly peoplewhowere tryingto limit the number ofminstrels. The minstrelsthemselves were trying toprotecttheirprofessionandtomake it more exclusive.

Fraternities or guilds ofmusicians seem tohavebeenformed inLondon at least asearly as 1350. One of theirmain objectives was theexclusion of ‘foreign’musicians (those who werenotLondoners).Anotherwasto stop amateurs fromperforming in taverns, innsandatweddings.Theroutetominstrelsy was now throughapprenticeship,andtheguildsin London, York, Beverley

and Canterbury were carefulto restrict the number oftrainees.

If this seems to be anindustry under threatattempting to protect itself,that is about right. TheEnglish music and story-telling business was taking anew turn, evidenced by theappearance in the fourteenthcentury of a new vernacularliterature in the form ofromantic poetry. The poems

were mostly translations ofFrenchromances.

ROMANCINGTHEEPIC

InFrance(andtosomeextentItalyandGermany)achangehad been taking place in thecontent of chansons de gestesince the middle of thetwelfth century. Like theearlier ones, they were stillusually stories of conflictbetween Christians and

Saracens; but magical andromanticthemeshadbeguntotake over, with evil knights,the rescue of ladies and thefrequentappearanceofmagicrings, belts and swords. Aheroic tradition is convertedinto a romanticone.There isan emphasis on describingIslam as idolatrous, andMuslims as superstitious,treacherous and polygamous;theSaracenworldisasexoticas it is dangerous, and

Muslimwomenarepresentedas lascivious and seductive,irresistibly attracted toChristian knights and, afterwilling conversion, faithfulonlytothem.Somehistoriansof the literature havesuggestedthatalittlewishfulthinking might have beeninvolved, but this seemsmean-minded. All adventurestories involve wishfulthinking; the interestingquestion is the nature of the

wish.One of the most

significant examples of thenew mood in Europeanpoetry isLeRomand’Eneas,a French version of Virgil’sAeneid which appearedanonymously in about 1160.The emphasis is on storyelements that were new toVirgil as well as to Frenchpoetry – the feelings of twowomen, Dido and Lavinia,whoareinlovewithAeneas.

A new literary principle hadappeared: the principle ofoverpoweringlove.

This,ofcourse,indicatesthat the whole world ofperformance must havechanged. The audience andthe location for theentertainment are different.This is not material for thebattlefield or for a hall ofwarriors. And it assumes anewkindofperformer.

This new performer had

first appeared in southernFranceinthetwelfthcentury.Hewascalledatroubadour.

INVENTINGTROUBADOURS

Thepioneer of the new styleof poetry was not aprofessional musician but anaristocrat – the gloriouslyrandy Duke William IX ofAquitaine, whose court wasin Poitiers. According to his

thirteenth-century Provençalbiographer:

The Count of Poitiers wasone of the most courtly menin the world and one of thegreatest deceivers of women.Hewasafineknightatarms,liberal in his attentions toladies, and an accomplishedcomposer and singer ofsongs. For a long time heroved the world, bent on thedeceptionofladies.

According to the chroniclerWilliamofMalmesbury,aftera disastrous crusade of hisown devising in 1101, DukeWilliam plungedenthusiastically into a life ofsexual entertainment andfrivolousversifying to amusehis companions. He wasobviouslystronglyinfluencedby his travels; half hissurviving songs draw on aparticular form of Arabmysticalpoetry(thezajel)for

their detailed metricalstructure and conventionalexpressions.

The word ‘troubadour’meantanauthororcomposerwho discovered somethingnew–literallythe‘finder’ofsomething that had not beenknownbefore.DukeWilliamwasplayingwithnovelty,anddemonstratingthatpoetryandsong could be aboutabsolutely anything – oraboutnothingatall.

I made this verse onsweetF.A.There is no person toportrayNo talkof loveor youthatplay–Nothing,ofcourse.Composed whilesleepingyesterdaySatonmyhorse

Duke William was withoutdoubta trueoriginal.Hewasexcommunicated twice. On

the first occasion, in 1114,when the bishop of Poitiersimposedthepenaltyforsomeunknownoffence,heheldthebishop at sword point in thecathedral and demandedabsolution. He didn’t get it,whichsayssomethingforthebishop’scourageandpossiblyexplains why the duke’scrusade hadn’t achievedanything. The secondexcommunicationwascausedby William’s affair with the

Viscountess of Chatellerault,alarmingly known asDangerosa. It was said hekidnapped this mother ofthree and installed her in atowerinhispalaceatPoitiers.William ofMalmesbury sayshe even had her portraitpainted on his shield, so ‘Icould bear her into battle asshe had borne me into bed’.The duke’s wife was nothappyatallaboutthis.

William also fantasized

about establishing a conventof prostitutes, and his verseincludesagreatdealofcrudesexual joking, with womenportrayedasfinehorsestobemounted, or as captives, andhe jokingly records hisseduction by two ladieswhose only concern was toavoiddisclosure.

But he also wrote someverses that conveyed amuchmore reverent attitude towomen,whichwouldbecome

the basis of what is called‘courtlylove’.Inthesepoemshis lady isamarriedwoman,and is as aloof as she isdesirable.There is a frequenttheme that the lovermust bepatient and, as he waits forthe lady’s favours, behavewith courtesy to all abouthim.Forthecourtlylover,thelady alone has the power tokill or cure; in her handsalonelieshissalvation.

The language of Duke

William’s compositions wasthe southern Frenchvernacular,Occitan.Thiswasitselfaradicalmove,asuptothis time the language of allintellectual life had beenLatin. But it was no morerevolutionarythantheideaofa lover addressing his lovesong to a married woman.This was conventionallyliable to bring the deathpenalty and was regarded asthe equivalent of casting a

spellonher.This courtly

romanticism flourishedunderWilliam’s son, and then hisgranddaughter, theredoubtable Eleanor ofAquitaine. She establishedher own court in Poitiers,which was dominated by theidea of courtly love and,supposedlyatleast,runbyitsrules.The court culture therewasinthevernaculartongue,and the old, heroic warrior

entertainments were deeplyoutofdate.

ShortlybeforeChristmas1182 the Limousintroubadour Bertran de BornspenttimeatHenryII’scourtat Argentan in Normandy,and complained about theboorishnessoftheoldwarriorculture: ‘A court where noone laughs or jokes is nevercomplete; a court withoutgifts is justapaddock-fullofbarons. The boredom andvulgarity of Argentan nearlykilledme.’

Troubadours were oftengreat lords themselves, butless boorish than those ofArgentan. They performedtheir own songs andemployed jongleurs orminstrels as theiraccompanists. Aristocratictroubadourseventookpartinsingingcompetitions.

Not that these menweren’t warriors. Eleanor’ssonsRichardIandKingJohnwere both tough and violent.

But Richard ‘the Lionheart’,whoseideaofasatisfyinglifeinvolved the use of extremeforce on a face-to-face, oreven a nose-to-nose basis,wasalsoamanwhohadbeenraisedinatroubadourculture.He wrote and performedelegant songs, both at courtandwhileoncampaign.Twoof his poems have survived,onewiththemusic.

BLONDEL

It was because of Richard’spoetic inclinations that thestory of his rescue by hisminstrel, Blondel, had suchwide currency. In 1192Richard was captured byLeopold of Austria whilereturning from the ThirdCrusade. (He was alone andin disguise – typical ofRichard, no other Englishkingwouldhavecreatedsuchan adventure.) He simplyvanished,anditwassaidthat

Blondel set out to find him.The minstrel wandered fromcastle to castle, and outsideeach he sang part of a songthey had composed together.At the castleofDurnsteinheheard Richard answer hissong by completing it. Theking, having been found,couldnowberansomed.

Thisisagoodpoetictalein itself, but probablyapocryphal.BlondeldeNeslewas certainly a well-known

troubadour, the composer ofmanylovesongs.Buthewasnot Richard’s minstrel, asupporter of the English; hewas actually from northernFrance and wrote in thePicardy dialect. The tale isprobably a minstrel’sinvention – the minstrel inquestion being the unknownauthor of Récits d’unménestrel de Reims, whichappeared in about 1260.Presumably he wanted to

convey a clear moral: ‘Lookafter your minstrel and he’lllookafteryou.’

ThecareerofBlondeldeNesle isan illustrationof theway inwhich the troubadourinfluencehadspreadnorth totheLoire and beyond, out ofthe Langue-d’oc. (Dantedistinguished three culturalregions that were defined bytheirwordfor ‘yes’:si in thesouth, oc in the middle andoïlinthenorth.)

Although theromanticization of song andpoetry spread into northernFrance,where thepoetswerecalled‘trouvères’,troubadourpoetrywasuniquelylinkedtothe culture of Provence,shaped by the experiences ofProvençal crusaders in theMiddle East. It was withinthisframeworkthattheworldof courtly love flourished,chivalry became concernedwith courtesy and the

adoration of noblewomen,and a new kind of literaturearose: the poetic, epicromances of heroes likeArthurandhisknights.

CATHARS

At the same time, Provençalreligious beliefs werechanging significantly.Hostility to the worldlinessandgreedof theChurchwaswidespread throughout

Europe, but in Provence thebeliefthatitwasafraudulentand pompous organizationthat had misunderstoodChristianity mutated into anew form: Catharism. TheCathars believed the worldwas seized in a combatbetween two divinities, Godand the devil, and that thematerial world was theterritoryofevilandthedevil.They understood the Biblenot as a historical document

but as an allegory, and sawJesus not as amanbut as anangel.

They maintained thathumanscouldfreethemselvesfrom the evilworldbybeinggood. The perfecti, ‘pureones’,wereidealistic,pacifistvegetarians. Many membersof the Languedoc nobilitysupported and weresympathetictotheCathars.

There was an obviouscontradiction between the

earthy enthusiasm of DukeWilliam’s poetry and theflesh-denying asceticism ofthe Cathars. To some extentthis was moderated asCatharism came to dominateProvençalcourts.Troubadourmusic and poetry becamemore high-flown, rhetoricaland allegorical. Just as someofthemusicofthe1960swasthevoiceofprotestandhippyidealism, some of thetroubadours of the thirteenth

century were the voice ofCathar protest. Even the useof their own language ratherthan Latin had an anti-Romeflavourtoit.

Pope Innocent III wasdeeply hostile to themovement. Recognizing thatits appeal was largely areaction against the venalityand corruption of hisChurch(a criticism with which hethoroughly agreed), he triedto win people back by

sendingpoorpreaching friarsinto the region, including agroup led by St Dominic in1205. They failed to attractCatharsbacktothefold.

In1208,afterthemurderofapapallegate,InnocentIIIchanged tack and invited thechivalry of Europe to stopkilling Saracens and startkilling Cathars – a worthydeedforwhichtheywouldbegranted absolution from sin.This holy war, the first

crusadedeliberately launchedagainst Christian ‘heretics’,lasted until 1229 anddecimated the Languedoc. Itwas called the AlbigensianCrusade as the Cathars wereidentified with the town ofAlbi and known by thenorthern French asAlbigensians.

Itwasruthlesslysavage.Arnold Aimery, the papallegateatthesiegeofBéziers,ordered his men: ‘Show

mercyneithertoorder,nortoage,nor tosex . . .CatharorCatholic, Kill them all . . .Godwillknowhisown.’Theattackers were Anglo-FrenchNormans eager to seizeproperty in the Dordogne(nice farmhouse, needs somerepairs . . .) This was howSimon de Montfort wasgranted control of the areaencompassing Carcassonne,AlbiandBéziers.

The troubadours had to

fleeorbekilled.Theysoughtrefuge in northern Italy, theIberian Peninsula and thenorth,producingnewmusicalmovementsacrossEurope.Infact,theonlyrealsurvivorofthe slaughter was thetroubadour sensibility; anoutflow of poetic refugeeshad an impact on the rest ofEurope comparable to theflight of intellectuals fromNazi Germany. Thecomparisonisnotfar-fetched.

TheAlbigensianCrusadewastruly genocidal in intent, andit has been estimated that amillion people wereslaughtered.

TRIUMPHOFTHEVERNACULAR

One example of thetroubadourinfluenceisinthework of Wolfram vonEschenbach, a Bavarian whois remembered as the most

brilliant of Germany’snarrative poets and whowrote the epic Parzival,which was clearly based onChrétien de Troyes’Arthurianromance,Perceval.Wolfram said he used extramaterialgivenhimatthetimeof the Albigensian Crusadeby one Kyot of Provence;apparently Kyot had takenrefuge in Spain, like manyProvençaltroubadours,beforegoingtoGermany.

The legacy of thetroubadoursfaroutlastedtheirown shattered culture. Theimpact on writers in otherlands was profound, evenwhen they had no sympathyfortheideologyofCatharism.The most important andinfluential of these admirerswas the Italian DanteAlighieri, who at the verybeginning of the fourteenthcentury wrote a Latin essay,‘De Vulgari Eloquentia’ (On

Vernacular Language), inwhich he extolled spokenlanguage (as opposed toLatin) as a suitable vehicleforliterature.Heidentifiedasexemplars three greattroubadours, one of whom,Arnaut Daniel, he quoted inOccitan and immortalized inhisDivineComedy.

Arnaut’s poetry is quiteastonishing. He writes withan unforced lightness oftouch, constructing rhyme-

schemesandscansionthatarebeautifully calculated andprecise. Themore you recitehis verses the morecomplexity is revealedbeneath a surface that isentirelynaturalandopen,onehuman being speaking toanother.Itfeelsasthoughthelanguage has been bornealong with the poem. Thismakes it quiteuntranslatable;it is impossible tomimic therhyme, scansion and spirit

whiletranslatingthemeaninginto another tongue. The joyof the poetry and thelanguagethatexpressesitareinseparable.

No vuelh de Romal’emperi

I don’t want theEmpireofRomeni qu’om m’en fassapostoli

orforsomeonetomakemethePope

qu’en lieis non aiarevert

if I can’t find aplacebyherpercuim’artlocorse’mrima;

by whom myheart is burned andscorchede si’l maltrait no’mrestaura

and if she doesnotcurethisinjuryab un baizar anz

d’annueu,withakisswithin

ayearmiauciesienferna.

I die and to hellwithher

A great deal of effort wentintomaking troubadourverseseem respectable, andcollections of poems wereproducedwithbiographiesofthe poets attached to theverses attributed to them.

(Usually no-one was quitesure who had written what,and the biographies were tosomeextentderivedfromthecontent of whatever poemswere attributed to thetroubadoursbythecollator.)

The new emphasis onthevalidityandimportanceofvernacular languagebegan toimpactonthecourtsandeventhe politics of westernEurope. It became importantfor monarchs to stake out

their intellectual territory asclearly as they did thegeographical boundaries oftheir power. So to this endthey started employingintellectuals as court poetsandwriters.

These new poets weredecidedlysniffyabouttheoldminstrels.InFrance,EustacheDeschamps said, ‘Theartificial music of theminstrels could be learnt by“le plus rude homme du

monde” (the most uncouthman in the world).’Deschampswasagentleman-usher toCharlesVofFranceinthe1370s,androseandfellasacourtierwhileproducinga quantity of poetry whichcouldhardlyhavebeenlearntby the most couth andstudious man in the world –some 82,000 verses –virtually a courtly poeticdiary.

The danger faced by a

court poet was not the riskfaced by Taillefer, of deathonabattlefield,orbyacrudejongleur, of dying of penuryand cold in a ditch, but thedangerofhisversebeingseenas subversive or dangerous.Deschamps could not resistsatirizing those he despised,including members of thenobility, the government andthe Church, and financiers,lawyersandevenwomen.

His parody of a pert

young lady demandingattentionseems,atadistance,entertainingandnicelyironic:

I would say that in myviewI have good looks, asweetfacetooAndmymouthredlikearose.TellmeifIamfair

My smile is sweet, myeyeslikedew

A lovely nose, hairblonderightthrough,Nice chin, my whitethroatshowsAm I, am I, am Ifair?...

Bothcourteousandkind,that’swhoIf strong and bold andhandsome,tooWill win this prize sorare.TellmeifIamfair...

Now discuss it betweenyouThink of what I’ve toldyoutrueSoendsmylittlesong.AmI,amI,amIfair?

Ofcourse,suchapoemmightbe satirizing some silly littlegirl.Butitmightequallywellbe read as an allegory inwhichthefairyounggirl isasatiricalimageofanoblemanfluttering his eyelashes at

potential co-conspirators. Orsuch a nobleman, sensitizedto the new delicacy ofvernacular poetry, mightinterpretitthatway.

Deschamps ended uplosingallhispositionsandhisincome.

THEVERNACULARINENGLAND

The new, courtly vernacularcame rather later to England

than to the rest of Europe.This was because, until themid-fourteenth century,England’s aristocracy had itsown vernacular, which wasdifferent from that of thecommonpeople.Thistongue,Norman French, was asurvival of the Conquest.Although it becameincreasingly anglicized fromthe early thirteenth century,the linguistic divisionbetween nobility and

commoners remained a realdivide until about 1360. Itwasnotuntil1362,when theStatute of Pleading waspassed, that English becamethe language of the lawcourts. But then the oldAnglo-NormanFrench seemsto have faded away quiterapidly.

The English court in1350hadbeenhappytolistentovernacularpoetrybutitdidnot regard any particular

regional languageas itsown.In that year Edward IIIdecided to deal once and forall with the piraticaldepredations of a well-connectedSpanishfreebooter,DonCarlosdelaCerda,whohad been busy loadingtreasure, supplies and loot atSluis in Flanders to beshipped back to the Basquecoast. Edward obviously feltthat the very survival of hiskingdom depended on

asserting control over theEnglishChannel,anddecidedon a do-or-die challenge toDonCarlos.

HeassembledhisfleetatWinchelsea, with himself ononeflagship,theThomas,andthe Black Prince on another.The entire royal lineage wasthere, even the king’syoungerson, the ten-year-oldJohn of Gaunt. The royalladies were lodged in aconvent, from which they

would be able to watch thebattle.

Waiting for theencounter, Edward preparedhimself and his troops bywatching his minstrelsperformaGermandance,andlisteningtoaknight,SirJohnChandos, singing in Frenchwith his minstrels.*3 Theywere entering as fullparticipants into theworldofheroic epic battle, but thisKing did not see himself as

particularlyEnglish.The battle was indeed

heroic. The Thomas went tothe bottom, as did the BlackPrince’s ship, but the heroessurvivedandtheSpanishlost14oftheir40ships.Thiswas,in fact, a more dramatic andbloody victory than thebetter-known struggle of1588 against the SpanishArmada. But the poem thatrecorded what had happenedwasnotinGermanorFrench.

It was in strikingly powerfulEnglish:

I shall not hold backfromtelling,andhopetosucceedinthetask,Ofmenwhowerebravewith weapons andadmirableinarmourThat now are driven tothe grave, and deaddespitealltheirdeedsTheysailontheseabed,fishestofeed

Many fishes they feed,for all their greatvauntingTheycameatthewaningofthemoon...*4

A new literature wasemerging in England, inwhich the English languagewasbeingused in innovativeways, andwhich bridged thegapbetweenthecourtandthegeneral population in themost extraordinary way.

William Langland’s poemPiers Plowman, a hugeallegorical work on theChristian concept of a goodlife, which first appearedaround1360,wascopiedandrecopied endlessly and wasevidently well known by allclassesofpeople–linesfromit were used as slogans andsignals in the so-called‘Peasants’ Revolt’ of 1381.Poetry was alive anddangerous.

Something similar washappeninginWales,whereatthebeginningof thefifteenthcentury there was a decreethat said: ‘. . . no rimers,minstrels or vagabonds, bemaintained in Wales whomby their divinations, lies andexhortations are partly causefor insurrection and rebellionnowinWales.’

But the Welsh bardic‘rimers’ were reaching backinto old heroic tradition,

finding subversivenationalistic matter in theWelsh versions of Arthurianlegends, and using them assustenance for the nationalrebellion led by OwenGlendower. In England, thedangerous poets were newmencreatinganewliteraturein their own tongue. The oldminstrels looked shabby andoutdated. The situation wasrather like that of the mid-twentieth century, when the

old vaudeville comedians –with their distinctiverepertoire of hand-me-downmaterial culled from manyyearsoftouringmusichalls–found themselves displacedby the university-educatedsatirists of the television agewho wrote their own freshmaterialeveryweek.

ADANGEROUSGAME

Towards the end of the

fourteenth centuryRichard IIclearly saw literature asterritorytobeoccupiedbythecrown as firmly as anyphysical territoryand,havinginherited a court poet fromhis grandfather, gave himevery assistance andencouragement. His namewas Geoffrey Chaucer, andhe was destined to becomeone of the major figures inEnglish literature – secondonlytoShakespeare.

Richard’scourt,likethatof Charles V in France,toleratedarelaxedeasy-goingintellectual atmosphere inwhich satire and lampoonswere allowed to flourish.Chaucer took advantage ofthis to satirize the way theChurchhadbecomecorruptedand commercialized. Forexample,hetoldthetaleofafriarwhowas taken down tohell by an angel and happilyobserved thathecouldn’tsee

any friars there. He assumedthis meant they were all inheaven.Ohno,saidtheangel,there are plenty of friarsdown here; and he accostsSatan.

‘Hold up thy tail thySatanas’saidhe‘Show forth thine arseandletthefriarseeWhere is the nest offriarsinthisplace!’And ere that half a

furlongwayofspaceRight so as bees comeswarmingfromthehive,Out of the devil’s arsebegantodriveTwenty thousand friarsinaroute.AndthroughouthelltheyswarmedallaboutAnd came again as fastastheymaygoneAnd in his arse theycreptineveryJohn!

The Summoner’s

Prologue

To offer satire at court is adangerous game, especiallywhenoneyear’spatronisthenextyear’soutcast.RichardIIwas violently overthrown.His usurper, who becameHenry IV, was helped to thethrone by Thomas Arundel,an archbishop of Canterburywho had been exiled byRichard, and who wasdetermined to stamp out any

criticism of the Church,especially criticisms inEnglish, which any Tom,Dick or Harriet could readand understand. Within ayear, Arundel began burning‘heretics’ at the stake, andeven banned the use ofEnglish to discuss religion.Chaucer’swriting, filledas itis with criticism of theChurchinthevernacular,wasexactly the sort of thing thatwasbeingstampedout.

Which may be theexplanation for one of theunnoticed mysteries ofhistory.Chaucer,thefatherofEnglish literature,disappeared without trace atabout the same time thatArundel was trying to limitthe use of English inliterature.

Chaucer was probablythe most famous commonerin the kingdom, yet there isnorecordofhisdeath,hedid

notleaveawillandwedonotevenknowwhenhedied.Allwe have is an illegibleinscriptiononatomb,erecteda century and a half after hedisappeared, which does notmarkthesiteofhisburialandasfarasweknowneverevencontained his remains. Heundoubtedly vanished quitemysteriously. It may be thathewasdeliberatelyremoved.

DECLINEOFTHE

MINSTREL

There was no possibility ofundoing thechanges thathadbegun. Traditional minstrels,theoldjongleurs,wereoutoffashion. They wentdownmarket and becameitinerant entertainersperforming at fairs and onstreet corners. Unemployed,theywereoutside thecontrolof rich patrons and couldpretend to belong to

whomever they wanted –eventheking.

It got sobad thatHenryVI instigatedan investigationboard to clamp down onthem.Anyminstrelconvictedof falsely claiming to haveroyal patronage would befined and forced to pray fortheking’ssoul.

The luckier minstrelswere hired as civil servantsby towns, to bolster citizens’self-importance in civic

ceremonies. In the fourteenthcentury towns had givenshort-term contracts tominstrels in the service ofaristocrats when they neededaperformanceona feastdayor for an armed muster, butbythefifteenthitseemedthesupply was drying up. Forexample, York Corporationhadatrio–the‘citywaits’–on retainer from the time ofHenry VI. They wereprovided with uniforms each

Christmas and performed atEaster, Corpus Christi,Christmasandonacoupleofsaint’sdays.

There were still courtmusicians, but few of themwere minstrels in the oldsense of being generalentertainers. And in courtswhere sovereignsincreasinglywrotepoetryandperformed their own songs,musicianswereaccepted intovery polite company. This

wasobviouslythecasewithayoungdancerandharpsichordplayer, Mark Smeaton,minstrel to Henry VIII andhisqueen,AnneBoleyn.Onespring day in 1536 he wasinvited to the home ofThomas Cromwell, Henry’schief minister. There, almostcertainly under torture andwith a promise of immunity,he ‘made revelations’ aboutthe queen, confessing tobeing her lover. It can be

deduced from the generalincredulity at the confession(‘How could she stoop solow?’) that Smeaton did notcomefromanoblefamily.

He named several othermen, including Anne’sbrother George, Sir HenryNorris,SirWilliamBrereton,Sir Francis Weston and SirThomasWyatt.Wyatt,apoetandsongwriterwhoseworkisas fresh today as it was 500years ago, had told Henry

before the marriage that hehadbeenAnne’slover.

BlamenotmyLute!Farewell! unknown; forthoughthoubreakMy strings in spite withgreatdisdain,Yethave I foundout forthysake,Strings for to string myLuteagain:And if, perchance, this

selyrhymeDo make thee blush, atanytime,

BlamenotmyLute!

The men named werearrested,providingthepretextthatallowedHenrytodisposeof Anne Boleyn and replaceher with Jane Seymour.Wyattwasreleased;itmaybethatHenryhadasoftspotforsongwriters. He was onehimself, and wrote a new

arrangementandlyricsforanold tune, which he called‘Greensleeves’.

Alas,mylove,youdomewrong,To cast me offdiscourteously.For I have loved youwellandlong,Delighting in yourcompany.

Any affection Henry might

have felt for fellow-performers did not extend toSmeaton, who was tried fortreason on 12May 1536.Hewas not allowed to defendhimself. He was hanged, cutdown while still alive, hisstomachwascutopenandhisintestines were pulled out infront of his still-consciouseyes. Then his body wasbutchered.

The revels were ended,the Middle Ages had given

waytotheruthlesscrueltyofRenaissancepower.

Andwhatwasleftoftheminstrels? Quite a lot; theyhad vanished as a class, butmutated into something farbroader.Theliterature,poetryand drama of England nowembracedandentertained thewhole nation; and couldweave together the mostsublime and powerfulemotions and delicatelanguage, with the lowest

comedy, to create a single,extraordinary experience.This was made evident laterin the century, whenShakespeare’s workappeared. His colleagues inthehigh-mindedenterpriseofpresenting high tragedy andsophisticated comedyincluded Will Kemp, afellow-shareholder in theGlobe Theatre – clown,dancer,singer,instrumentalistand a man who fully

appreciated the audienceappealofaleap,awhistleandafart.

And the queen underwhose rule they flourished,thedaughterofAnneBoleyn,was said (very quietly) tobear more than a passingresemblance to MarkSmeaton.

CHAPTERTHREE

OUTLAW⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

THE OUTLAWS OF MEDIEVALENGLAND are still the stuff of

legend.Heroeswho bestrodethe greenwood, fearlesslywearing only tights and littleshort tunics that hardlycovered their bottoms – thefigureofthemedievaloutlawhas come to representfreedom and justice for thecommonman.

Outlaws inhabit a kindof border territory in ourmedievalmyth,crossingbackand forth between thepantomime vision of a jolly

and well-ordered medievalkingdom and the dark imageof horribly violent andbarbaric lawlessness. Takingacoollookatrealitynotonlyreveals the truth andfalsehood in both theseimages, but also clarifieswhathasemergedasacentralthemeofthiswholebook;theway in whichmedieval livesin England became differentfrom those in the rest ofEurope, as a distinct national

societyemerged.Perhaps the most

surprising example of thatdistinctiveness is that inEngland,uniquely inEurope,bold robber outlaws werenecessary for the effectivefunctioningofthekingdom.

This will all beexplained as we investigatewhether bandits like RobinHood really existed, whethertheforestwastrulyaplaceoffreedom and escape, and, of

course, the key question, didoutlawsneverweartrousers?

There certainly wereplenty of outlaws in theMiddle Ages, in fact, morethan one might imagine. Bythe end of the period,historians tell us, practicallyeveryone got outlawed atsome stage of their lives. Ithad become a minorinconvenience – a bit likehaving your credit cardstopped.

It is true that thereweresome other outlaws whoseviolenceblightedsociety,buteven there things are oftennot quite what one mightexpect.

Take the drama thatengulfed the little village ofTeigh, in Rutland, oneafternoonin1340.

AREAL-LIFEOUTLAWGANG

A gang of armedmen brokeinto the church, and therector, whose place ofworship it had been fortwenty years, was draggedoutside into the street andbeheaded. The twist,however, is that the gang ofarmedmenwhoslewthemanofGodweren’ttheoutlaws.Itwas the rector who was theoutlaw. His name wasRichard Folville and he wasoneofsixbrotherswhomade

up the notorious FolvilleGang.

A generation after theirdeaths, the Folvilles werecelebrated as the kind ofoutlawswho rightedwrongs.Onechronicletellshowthey:‘took the law in to theirownhands’ and rode out to rightinjustice with the force ofarms. ‘Folville’s Laws’became a synonym for‘justified robbery’. Theykilledawidely-hatedjudgein

the court of the Exchequer,andkidnappedajusticeoftheKing’s Bench whom acontemporary poem indictedascorrupt.

SoweretheFolvillesthereal-life Robin Hoods? Itwould be exciting to reportthat they were, but theyweren’t.

The Folvilles were theyounger sons of minoraristocracy,whodriftedintoalife of crime to support

themselves in the style towhichtheywereaccustomed.They weren’t robbing fromthe rich to give to the poor,they were simply robbing,raping, beating, kidnappingandkillingasalivelihood.

And yet they were stillheld in some esteem in lateryears.Theywereacquittedoncharges of murder whenbroughttotrialandthejusticeof the peace who rid theworldofRichardFolville,the

rector, was forced to dopenance – touring the localparishes and being beaten ateachchurch.

It seems that people inthe Middle Ages may havehad an ambivalent attitudenotsimplytotheFolvillesbutto outlaws in general and tothe very question of boldrobbers. Maybe that’s howone of our most popularlegendscameabout.

THEREALROBINHOOD?

IfthereeverwasarealRobinHood, he’s surprisingly hardto pin down. There isconfusion over where helived (Nottinghamshire?Yorkshire?), when he lived(the twelfth century, in theage of Bad King John andGood King Richard? Thefourteenthcentury?)andevenwhether he lived (theoccasional recordreferring to

acriminalcalledRobinHodeorHoodmaybetheoriginofthe story or the perpetuationofalegend).

But the medievallandscape would clearly beincomplete without him.Robin Hood somehowrepresents a fundamentalimage of English identity.Partly, of course, this is thebizarre English pantomime-identity of innocenttransvestitejollity,buthealso

carriesamessageofpoliticalmorality. A victim ofinjustice and of a corrupt,self-seeking sheriff, hidingout in the forest with hiscompany of rogues, he is asymbol of natural justice,admired by the poor andhated by the fat cats ofmedievalEngland.

PRIDEINROBBERS

The strange fact is that the

English always have been,and still are, proud of theiroutlaw robbers – not justfictional ones, but realrobbers like the Folvilles.They regarded them asunique. Outlaws in othercountriesmayhavehadcodesofhonouramongthemselves,buttheywerenotregardedasstout bold fellows as theyclearly were in England.Therewasfelttobetheworldof difference between an

honourable robber and themugger who makes a sneakattack. In much medievalwritingaboutoutlawsthereisa presumption that theiractivities are honourable ifrobbery is performed boldly,face to face. In fact, it seemsto be treated much like trialbyordeal:ifGodwerenotontherobber’ssidehewouldbedefeatedbyhisvictim.

This admiration foroutlawscouldbefoundinthe

Middle Ages even amongthose whose job it was tohang them. In 1470 Sir JohnFortescue, who had beenchief justice of the King’sBench from 1442 to 1461,waseducatingtheLancastrianPrinceEdward, sonofHenryVI, who he expected wouldreplace the Yorkist EdwardIV as king. The prince, hismother Queen Margaret andFortescue were in exile inFlanders at the time, and

Fortescue wanted the princetounderstandthattheEnglishwere a more courageouspeople than the French. Heknew this, he explained,because theymadesuchboldoutlaws:

. . . Frenchmen are seldomhanged for robbery, for theyhave no heart to do such aterrible act. There aretherefore more men hangedforrobberyandmanslaughter

inEnglandinayearthanarehanged in France in sevenyears for such crimes . . . If[anEnglishman] ispoorandsees another man havingriches which may be takenfromhimbymight,hewillnotspare to do so, unless thatpoormanshouldbeverylaw-abiding.

Could it be true that themedieval outlaw wasfundamental to the

development of a uniqueEnglish identity? If so, thestory is very different fromthat of the Robin Hood ofpantomime. We imagine theoutlaw as essentially non-violent and honourable; thisis what makes him deserveour sympathy and affection.But just takea closer lookatthe actual medieval RobinHood.

ROBINHOOD’S

BRUTALITY

Robin and his men aredepicted as being from theyeoman class, and as a bandof ruthless killers. But thisdoesnotaffect theirstatusasthe heroes of these medievaltales. Robin Hood’s virtueapparently lies less in hissenseofsocialjusticethaninhisdevotiontotheVirginandhis hostility to sheriffs andmonks.

Theoldestofthestories,‘RobinHoodand theMonk’,is believed to date fromaround the time of theFolvilles. Right at the start,Robin is determined to taketheriskofprayingatashrine.Onthewaytherehegambleswith, and tries to swindle,Little John, whom he thenstrikes. They fight and Johnabandons him. Robin is thenspotted by amonkwhom hehas robbed. Themonk raises

ahueandcryand the sheriffof Nottingham and his mentrytocatchRobin:

But Robin took out atwo-handedsword,Thathangeddownbyhisknee;There as the sheriff andhismenstoodthickestTowardsthemwenthe.

Thrice he ran rightthroughthem,

IntruthItoyousay,And wounded many amother’sson,And twelve he slew thatday.

Robin Hood is eventuallycaptured. Little John andanother outlaw, Much, thencome across the monktravelling with his page, anddiscover what has happened.Without a second thought,Johnkillsthemonkand:

Muchdidthesametothelittlepage,For fear that he wouldtell.

Little John and Much havekilled a man who has actedlawfullythroughout;andtheyhave also murdered a childwitness.This isnotsupposedto show them in a bad light.On thecontrary, it shows theexcellence of their loyalty toRobin. A gangster who

casually kills a child witnessis, to a modern reader, anirredeemable monster and avery long way from thepantomimeversion.

ANGLO-SAXONOUTLAWS

Outlawry was an importantpartofAnglo-Saxon law,butits meaning was changed bytheNormanConquest.

Our concept of the

‘outlaw’ is shaped by ourvery strong notions ofpersonal liberty. We seefeudal society with its strictdefinitions of status, wherepeople were legally attachedto the land and work wascompulsory, as oppressive.TheRobin-Hood-typeoutlawappealstousassomeonewholives free of that oppression.But in the world of theeleventh century, ‘freedom’wastheveryoppositeofwhat

we take it to mean today.Everyone was bonded into aplace in society; every manand woman belonged, quiteliterally, to someone else.This was the basis of theirexistence. Outlaws werepeople who had abandonedthisbondtoliveas,ineffect,wildcreatures.

At the time of theNorman Conquest, Englandwas a very highly structuredsociety. Everyone had to be

bound to a lord and to theirownfamily.A‘lordlessman’was a suspect, if notdangerous, person; if he didnot have a lord who wouldtake responsibility for him,his family had to find himone;iftheyfailedhecouldbedealt with as a rogue andvagabond. Law wasunderstood to be traditional,the property of thepopulation. Royaldeclarations of law were not

intended as new legislation,but as restatements by kingsof the laws of theirpredecessors, and the legalprocesswasentirelyatalocallevel. Courts were held inshires (counties) andhundreds (a division of ashire).

Therewasnodistinctionbetween civil and criminallaw.Alllegalprocessescamedown to one person makinganaccusationagainst another

and demanding retribution.Criminal law, in which thestate detects the offence,takestheaccusedtocourtanddemands and imposespunishment, simply did notexist in early medievalsociety. Every householderhad his own ‘peace’, and abreach of this (a theft or actofviolence)wasfollowedbyan appeal to the local court,demanding cash payment inrecompense.

The accused wasrequired either to produce aset number of people, ‘oath-helpers’, who would swearhis innocence on oath or topay the cash price associatedwiththeoffence.Thevalueofaman’soathdependedonhissocial status. This weightingalso determined the numberof oaths an accused manneeded to clear himself incourt and the size of thepayment, if onewasmade in

recompense for his offence.Every life had a cash value(thewergild,or ‘manprice’).An aristocrat’s (thegn’s) life,and his oath, were worth sixtimes that of a commonman(1200 shillings as against200).

Anglo-Saxon law codesread like modern insurancepolicies.Forexample,thelistofcompensationpaymentssetout in the laws of Ethelbert,King of Kent from 560 to

616,include:

If an ear be struck off,twelveshillings.Iftheotherearhearnot,twenty-fiveshillings.If an ear be pierced,threeshillings.If an ear be mutilated,sixshillings.Ifaneyebe(struck)out,fiftyshillings.Ifthemouthoraneyebeinjured,twelveshillings.

If the nose be pierced,nineshillings.If the nose be otherwisemutilated, for each sixshillings.Let him who breaks thechin-bonepayforitwithtwentyshillings.For each of the fourfront teeth, six shillings;forthetoothwhichstandsnext to them fourshillings; for that whichstandsnextto

that,threeshillings;andthen afterwards, foreachashilling.

And so the list went on,painstakingly costing fingersand toes, nails and skin,bruises and bones. This,naturally, gave everyone agreatinterestinthelaw.Iftheoffenderrefusedtopayupthevictimwasentitledtoconducta private war, with thesupport of his hundred (local

district).Oath-taking was a

religiousritual–onemistakein the recitation of theformula, and the oath wasdiscarded. If the accusedcould not find enough oath-takers, but maintained theirinnocence,theyweretriedbyordeal. If God brought themsafelythroughthetrialofhotiron or hot water, orimmersionincoldwater,theywerejudgedinnocent.

Outlaws were men andwomen who had decided tohide rather than face trial.(Actually, women could notbe outlawed but became‘waifs’,whichwasmuch thesame.) Such a person waspartofnocommunityandsowas regardedwith deep fear.Outlaws had no oath valueand therefore no price couldbe attached to their lives.They could be killed withimpunity.Itwasanoffenceto

feed, shelter or communicatewiththem.

It would take realdesperation for a man orwoman to choose to liveoutsidesociety,tovoluntarilyforfeit all their goods, tobecome a ‘wolf’s head’ whocould be legally slain byanyone. It would be anunlikelystepunlesstheywerewithouthopeoffindingoath-helpers and were terrified ofthe ordeal – in other words,

were already virtuallyexcludedfromsociety.

But in 1066 thiselaborate structure suffered ashattering blow whenWilliam the Conqueror andhis Normans took overEngland.

CONQUEST

In 1066 England became anoccupiedcountry,whosenewmasters knew nothing about

the land they held or thepeople they ruled, and whodid not even speak thelanguage.AndNormanskeptturningupdead,murdered,infields, woods and lanes.Although William decreedthat the shire- and hundred-courts should carry onworking, the legal systemdepended, obviously, on thevictims of crime or theirrelatives naming thecriminals. It depended, in

fact, on a close-knitcommunity. The Normanswere not part of thatcommunity. They needed toforce it to hand over anyculprits.

William demanded anoath of fealty from everyfreeman, and that each man(unless he was part of thehousehold of a lord) shouldbe enrolled in a ‘tithing’, agroupoftenpeoplewhowereobliged to produce him in

court if necessary.Proceedingswere held at thecourt of the local lord. Thissystem was administered bythe sheriff (shire reeve), andifanaccusedfailedtoturnupwhen summoned the tithingwas fined. The penalty foroutlawrywasnowexactedonthe community from whichthe outlaw had fled,reinforcingthesenseoflivingunderanalienoccupation.

When a Norman was

killedWilliamimposedafineonthedistrictwherethebodyhad been found, unless thekillerwaspromptlyproducedby the community. Thesystemwaschangedfromoneof community lawenforcement into one ofcollectivepunishment,similarto the regime imposed inFrance by the Nazis duringtheir occupation in the early1940s.

TheNormansystemwas

totally based on violence; ithad come to England as aresult of violence and itrequired all landholders topay for their land by doingmilitary service. Oath-takingsurvived, but the Normansfound it unsatisfactory andinsistedthatincasesbetweenthemselvestheywereentitledto trialbybattle.Avictimofviolence, appealing to thelocal lord for justice againstthe wrongdoer, could (if

denouncer and denouncedwerebothofnobleblood)berequired to fight the persontheynamed.

This was supposedly afighting man’s equivalent oftrialbyordeal;Godwould,intheory, ensure that in a fairfight victory went to therighteous. In reality, ofcourse, it was a recognitionanddirectenforcementofthefact that for the Normansmightwasright.

An Englishman accusedby a Frenchman was notallowed to defend himselfwith oath-takers, but insteadhad to choose between battleand ordeal. And if the roleswere reversed an Englishaccuser faced a similarproblem. So if you were anelderly freeman whose sonhad beenmurdered by a big,young,vigorousNormanyoucould go to a lord’s court,name the killer and find that

he demanded the right to dobattlewithyou.Oh,good.

Theinevitableresultwasthedeepreluctanceofvictimsto accuse the perpetrators ofcrimes. In fact, in the twelfthcentury half of all appealsagainst murderers in localcourts were brought bywomen, who could not bemade to do battle. The lawhad become something to beavoided, to theextent that,atleast in private appeals

involvingmurder,almostonein five was ignored by thedefendant. After beingsummoned four times andfailing to appear he wasdeclaredtobeanoutlaw.

After the conquestWilliam,thenewownerofalllandinEngland,alsoreplacedthe system of cashcompensation with one offines and confiscations tohimself, along with corporalpunishment.

Peoplewere reluctant todenounce aggressors to thesheriff not only because theymight have to face a battlechallenge, but because theaccusedmightpassanordealand be declared innocent, inwhich case the plaintiffwould be heavily fined forfalse accusation.Claimsoverland were also normallysettledthroughtrialbybattle,and that, too, was anuninvitingprospect.

The bulk of thepopulation had much lessinterestinusingthelaw.Andoutlawry – escaping theclutchesofthelaw–changeditsmoralcategory. Insteadofsimply being fugitives fromdecent society, outlaws werenow rebels, even guerrillas,hiding from a legal systemthatlackedmoralauthority.

According to MatthewParis, writing nearly 200years after the Norman

Conquest and the traumaticeventsthatfollowedit:

The English nobility andgentry were driven out fromtheirpossessions.Ashamedtobeg, ignorant of how to dig,they and their sons andbrothers took refuge in thewoods.Theyrobbedandtheyraided rapaciously, but onlywhen they were lacking ingameandothervictuals.*1

In other words, nobleoutlawry had come intobeing. In the chaos of theearly twelfth century, aftertheConqueror’s death,manyof the hundred-courts ceasedfunctioningaltogether.

THEJURY

BythetimeHenryIIcametothethronein1154thesystemof law enforcement hadcollapsed and he needed to

establish a new one. Theoriginality, in fact the sheerbrilliance, of what he didalmost beggars belief. Heinvented new forms of law,new forms of court and newforms of legal process fromthe ground up, creating alegal culture in England thatwas totally distinct from anyother.

Offences committed onhighwaysorduringfeastsandfairs had been treated as

injuries to the King himself,breaches of ‘the King’sPeace’. This was nowextended to all acts of theftand violence; theywere now‘crimes’ and prosecution nolonger depended on victimsappealing to their local courtfor recompense.Crimesweredealtwithby the royalcourt,and thismeant that the royalcourt (or at any rate itsjudges) would from now onturnuponpeople’sdoorsteps

andholdtrials.Obviously,Henryhadto

force people to reportcriminals rather than relyingon victims to do so. In theAssize of Clarendon (1166)he demanded that 12men ineach hundred, and four ineach vill (village), swearbefore the king’s sheriff or ajustice of the peace, uponoath, whether or not therewas anyone charged as acriminal in their district.

Anyonetheynamedwouldbearrested and held in gaol(another novelty) until theking’s own travelling judges– the ‘justices of the generaleyre’–arrived.

Thisreportingpanelwascalleda jurybut itwasnot ajury as we know it, there tohear evidence of events ofwhich they knew nothing. Itwas there because itsmembers already knew whathadhappened,and theywere

described at the time aswitnesses. In fact, for anindependent witness to giveevidence to themwas itselfacriminal offence, called‘maintenance’. The jury wasintimately connected withroyal justice; it had no placein local customary courts.When the king’s judgesarrived they might ask allmanner of questions of thejurors, such as what localcustoms existed, who the

landowners were, whether XhadthrownYoffhislandandsoonandsoforth.

When the jurynominated someone for trialthere was no weighing ofevidenceforandagainsthim.Nor was trial by battle anoption in the royal courts. Ifthere was plain evidenceagainst the accused (such aspossessionofstolengoods)or‘if he bear an ill name andhave a notoriously bad

reputation’ hewould be heldto be guilty, otherwise hewouldbetriedbyordeal(‘thejudgement of water’). Aconfession,oncemade,couldnotberetracted.

The ordeal of waterinvolvedbeingtrussedupandthrown into it. If the accusedfloated, the water wasrejecting him on account ofhis guilt. If he sank, he washauled out legally innocent,but:

. . . if they have a very badreputation and are publiclyand scandalously decried onthe testimony ofmany lawfulmen,shallforsweartheking’slands,totheeffectthatwithineightdaystheyshallcrossthesea unless the wind detainthem;andwith the firstwindwhich they have thereafterthey shall cross the sea, andthey shall never return toEngland unless by the graceofthelordking;andtherelet

them be outlaws, and if theyreturn let them be taken asoutlaws.

Theordealwassoonseenasarather pointless formality;people did not trust it andanyonewhowasaccusedwasusually damned whether hepassed or failed. In 1215 itwas dropped (the churchforbade priests to take part,putting an end to the notionthat God was judging the

case) anda secondor ‘petty’jury took over to judge thefacts in criminal trials. Itsmembers still did not hearevidence; their job was toknowwhathadhappenedandreport accordingly. Thepenalty for most crimes washanging.

Since the petty jury hadno authority throughcustomary law the accusedcouldrefusetobetriedbyit;and as the trial jury might

well include members of thepanelwhohadnamedhimasa criminal in the first place,this might be quite sensible.He was then held in gaol‘peine et dur’ (which itcertainlywas)untilheagreedto be tried. In the fifteenthcentury this was felt to beinadequate, so even moreseverepressurewasapplied:

The prisoner shall sit on thecold,barefloor,dressedonly

in the thinnest of shirts, andpressed with as great aweightofironashiswretchedbodycanbear.Hisfoodshallbe a little rotten bread, andhisdrinkcloudyandstinkingwater. The day on which heeats he shall not drink, andthe day on which he hasdrunk he shall not tastebread. Only superhumanstrength survives thispunishment beyond the fifthorsixthday.*2

Somepeoplewerepressed todeath in this way. Theadvantageof thiswas that asthe accusedhadnotyetbeenconvicted his property stillpassed on to his next of kin.The crown seized theproperty and land of aconvictedfelon.

JUDGEMENT

Bythemid-thirteenthcenturythe travelling judges of the

general eyre were sooverwhelmed with work thattheyonlyvisitedeachcountyevery seven years. If anaccusedpersoncouldnotfindguarantors for his courtappearance(theequivalentofbail),hecouldbeheldingaolfor a very long time whichcould prove to be a deathsentenceinitself.

The problem was easedby establishing a moreregular circuit of judges: the

assizecourt,whichtriedcasestwiceayear.The functionofthe royal court had changed.It was no longer anextraordinarytribunal,acourtfor great men, for greatcauses, for matters thatconcerned the king; it hadbecome an ordinary tribunalforthewholerealm.

England now had anextraordinary and uniquelegal structure, entirelyinventedbyaningeniousand

desperatemonarchy. Itsmostremarkable feature was theamount of power, howevermessily administered, itplaced in the hands of thelocalcommunity.Englishlawwas quite unlike that on theContinent. There, law wasrun from above and wasbased on Church law (canonlaw) and Roman law. InEngland, it was totallydependent on a popularunderstandingoflaw,andthe

job of the courts was toenforce ‘common law’. Thejuries who laid accusationsandtriedcasesweremadeupof people who supposedlyknew what had happened.This meant they consistedvery largely of people whowere legally in variousdegrees of servitude. Thiswould have a very strikingeffect on the development ofthe law. It meant that theordinary Englishman, even

though he was a villein orevenaserf,wasfamiliarwiththelawandthecourts,notasa victim but as a participantinthelegalprocess.

Italsomeantthatpeoplemight not be convicted, evenin the face of the plainestevidence, if a jurybelievedahangingwouldbeunjust.Onejury claimed that ‘whenplaying ball the ball had hitan unseen barbers hand sothat he cut his customers

throat’. Another declared,apparently with a straightface, that ‘the deceasedwalked backwards into thepathofanarrow’.

BOROUGHCOURTS

Each town had its own lawsand borough courts, so theretoo the ‘common people’became used to using theprocesses of the law anddeveloping their own notions

oflegalfairness.Thesecourtsusually dealt with offencessuch as trespass, propertydisputes, assault, petty theftanddebt–minormattersthatthe royal courts at firstpreferred to avoid, if theycould.

However, the fourteenthcentury saw an increase inlitigiousness as avenuesopened up for people tocomplainaboutanyperceivedwrong,andastheroyalcourts

opened themselves up toappeals of even minor casesfrom lower courts. Thejurisdiction of the boroughs,basedoncustomary law,wasthusundermined.

The borough courts,though,werebusywithmuchmore specific matters.Certainly, from the time ofthe Black Death between1348 and 1349 and theStatuteofLabourers in1351,which attempted to control

wages, local authoritiesregulated the price of allbread and ale that was sold.The courts used the law toenforcetheseregulations,andimposedtheirownsystemsofpunishment (town courtscould not outlaw criminals),whichrangedfrommutilationto forcing traders in badgoods to eat their produce inpublic, or have their baddrink poured over them. Aswith rural juries,maintaining

the law was a matter ofshameandreputation.

Haggling over basiccommoditieswas illegal, andin most food marketsbargainingwaspunishablebyafineandholdinganauctionwas seen as a criminal act,held in secret. The ‘law ofsupply and demand’, thatinsistsonhigherpriceswhengoods are in short supply,was regarded as anathemaand therefore not allowed to

operate in these medievalmarkets.

Itcanbearguedthat thetrue end of theMiddle Agescame in the seventeenthcentury, when prices wereallowed to rise in times ofdearth,andthelawsofsupplyanddemandtookover.

OUTLAWEDBYGOSSIP

Thegreatachievementof therevolutioninEnglishlawwas

that it did not dilute theeffectiveness of law as aninstrument of royal power,but allied it to the moralityand gossip of localcommunities. This had theparadoxical effect of drivingquite a lot of people intooutlawry while makingoutlaws into symbols ofrighteousdisaffection.

Thisrhymewasmadeinthewood,underalaurel

tree.Theresingblackbirdandnightingale, and thehawkranges.It was written onparchment to be betterremembered,And thrown into thehighwaysothatsomeoneshouldfindit.*3

Thisisfromapoemofabout1306,whichpurports tohavebeenwrittenbyanoutlaw. It

gives a fairly clear insightinto what might make somemenbecomeoutlaws.

Accordingtothisoutlawpoet, living in medievalEngland was like living in aneighbourhood-watch policestate. Getting on badly withthe neighbours was likely toend in indictment,with thoseneighboursformingthejury:

Ill-disposedpeople,fromwhomGodkeephispity,

outoftheirlyingmouthshaveindictedmeof wicked robberies andothercrimes,so that I do not dare tovisitmyfriends...

If these wicked jurorsrefuse to mend theirwaysso that I may go ridingtomycountry,ifIcancapturethem,I’llmaketheirheadsflyoff.

I’ll notgiveapenny forall their threateningwords.

Even your own servantscoulddenounceyou:

Sir, if I wish to punishmyserving-boywith a thump or two, tomendhisways,he will lay informationandhavemedetained,andbefore I leave jail I

must pay a largeransom.

The gossip of the poet’sneighbours and servantshanded power to the localofficer of the crown, a manwhose main duties hadnothing to do with lawenforcement but who wouldnaturally seek to make whathecouldoutofhisposition:

Forty shillings they take

formyransom,and the sheriff turns upforhisbribefor not putting me in adeepdungeon.Now, lords, consider, isthisfair?

In the mid-thirteenth centurymany poor people refused toattend their trials and weretherefore labelled ‘outlaws’.Thewealthycouldhandlethelegalsystembypayingbribes

– it was said they werehanged by the purse, as apoor man would be hangedby the neck. The literate hadtheir own way of escape bypleading‘benefitofclergy’–anyonewhocouldreadalineof scripture in Latin wastaken to be in holy orders,and was therefore entitled tobe turned over to anecclesiastical courtwhere theseverest sentences wereusually degradation and the

impositionofpenances.ButapoormanwhoknewnoLatin,and was disliked by hisneighbours, needed to hidefromasystemthatwouldkillhim for sure. And then hewouldhideasarobber:

I have not the goods toarrangearansom,but if I were in theirbailiwick, I’d be givenovertodeath

[I would die in

prison]

Whoever began thisbusinesswill never amend in hislife.Itellyouthetruth,thereistoomuchsininit,because for fear ofprison many will turnrobber.

Some will becomerobbers who never used

tobe,who dare not lead apeaceful life for fear ofjail;theylackwhatittakestokeep them alive eachday.Whoever began thisbusiness embarked on agreattask.

SANCTUARY

One alternative was to run

like hell for the nearestchurch and claim sanctuary.Almostanyreligiousbuildingcould offer immunity fromarrestfor40days;oneortwoselectestablishments(suchasWestminster Abbey andBeverleyMinster)couldevenofferperpetualsanctuary.

The whole system ofsanctuary may seemextraordinary to us. Why onearth should the Church beprepared to harbour thieves

and murderers and protectthem from the law?Actuallythesame thought strucka lotofpeopleatthetime.

In 1402 the Commonscomplainedthatthesanctuaryassociated with the Londonchurch and college of StMartins le Grand, just northof St Paul’s nearAldersgate,was being abused by‘murderers, traitors anddisturbers of the King’speace’who ‘hide out by day

and at night go forth tocommit their murders,treasons, larcenies, robberiesand felonies’.*4 And acentury later a Venetiantraveller, visiting England inthe time of Henry VII,recorded his amazement thatso many villains werepermitted to conductorganized criminal activitiesunder the shelter of theChurch.*5

The idea of sanctuary

dates back to ancient times,andwas vigorously defendedby Saxon kings. It may bethat in the days of vendetta,when lawwasamatter tobesettledbyindividualfamilies,the church could offer acooling-off period duringwhich some accommodationcouldbearrivedat.However,as the law developed suchconsiderations began toappearoutdated.

But for much of the

MiddleAges,sanctuarywasahotly disputed subject. Insome places the area ofsanctuary around a givenreligious building wasenormous – the boundariesbeing clearly marked byspecial ‘sanctuaryposts’.Forinstance, around bothHexhamAbbeyandBeverleyMinster,crosseswereerectedin a radius of one mile toindicatetheareaofsanctuary.

To qualify for a

permanent position as aSanctuaryman in Beverley,the accused had to make afull confession of his crime,whichwasthendulyrecordedin a register thatwas kept inthe Minster and which stillexists. The Beverley recordsshow that the most commonperpetrators of crimes ofviolencewerebutchers,whilethe most frequent debtorswere builders. Plus çachange...

Most sanctuaries,however, could only offer ashort-term solution to theaveragecriminal’swoes.Ifherefusedto leaveat theendofthefortydays,hewasasgoodas dead. Any layman whoevencommunicatedwithhimafter the forty days were upwould be hanged. When hefinallyemerged,hewouldbeimmediately seized andexecuted on the spot, unlesshe swore on the Gospels to

‘abjure the realm’. In whichcasehewouldbeissuedwitha crude sackcloth garment,withoutabelt, andawoodencross to carry and he wouldhave tomake for the nearestport.Therehewouldhave totake the first ship out ofEngland,andforeverydayhefailed to find a passage, hewould have to wade into theseauptohisknees.

It’s probably the onlytime that paddling has been

usedasaformofpunishment.If thecriminalcouldnot

leavewithinfortydaysduetobadweather, then, in theory,they could seek newsanctuary in another localchurch and start the wholebusiness all over again.However, there is no recordof this ever happening. Themajority of them just threwawaytheirwoodencrossesona lonely stretch of road andmelted away into the woods

to take up a new identity orjoin the many bands ofoutlaws that plagued thecountry.

THEGREENWOODREFUGE

Theoutlawpoetcontraststhe‘false dealing’ and ‘bad law’fromwhichheisfleeingwiththefairnessofnature:

For this reason I shall

stayinthewoods,inthepleasantshade;there isno falsedealingthere,noranybadlaw,in the wood ofBelregard, where fliesthejay,andthenightingalesingsdailywithoutceasing.

‘Robin Hood and theMonk’begins with a strikinglysimilar evocation of thewoodlandidyll:

In summer, when thewoodsdoshine,Andleavesbe largeandlong,It is full merry in fairforestTohearthebirdiessong,

To see the deer draw tothedale,And leave the hills sohigh,Andshelterintheleavessogreen,

Under the green woodtree.

The notion of the‘greenwood’ as an Arcadianidyll runs through theoutlawlegends. Today we associateit with forests, but ‘forest’was a technical term in theMiddle Ages and stood forsomething that was far fromidyllic.Itisnotatallobviouswhythe‘greenwood’shouldhave been described as a

place of sanctuary from thelaw.

FORESTLAW

OneofWilliam’sfirstactsasconqueror ofEnglandwas tocreate‘TheNewForest’.Thisdidn’t mean he planted a lotof nice trees so people couldenjoy a picnic in the shade.What he was doingwas ear-markingavasttractoflandashis own personal hunting-

ground. This is what theNormanword ‘forest’meant.Whether there were trees ornot wasn’t really the point.The ‘forest’ was wherever‘Forest Law’ applied, and‘Forest Law’ was notsomething anyone wanted toliveunder.

Towns and villagescould be, and were,destroyed, and every animaland tree became royalproperty. The forest was

administered by royalofficials with draconianpowers, who replaced thecommunity as denouncersbeforethecourt.

The Anglo-SaxonChroniclesaysofWilliam:

He made many deer-parks,and he established lawstherewith; so that whosoeverslewahart,orahind,shouldbe deprived of his eyesight.As he forbad men to kill the

harts, so also the boars; andhelovedthetalldeerasifheweretheirfather.Likewisehedecreed respecting the haresthat they should go free.Hisrich men bemoaned it, andthepoormenshudderedatit.

Thepoormenshudderedatitbecausetheywerenowunderasetoflawsthathadnothingto do with common law,under which Williamdestroyed their towns,

villagesandchurches.Hunting was an activity

reserved by law for thenobility. It was, of course,their main occupation apartfrom warfare. Nevertheless,no king needed all thedesignated land for hunting;therewassimplytoomuchofit. It formed an alternativekingdom, from which hedrew revenues and profitsdirectly.EverymonarchfromWilliam I to Edward I was

denounced at one time oranother for extending theroyal forest and the abuse ofthepowerassociatedwiththelaw.Thisbecameaperpetualgrievance, with kings forcedto back off betweenbouts ofafforestationofopencountry.

Forest law was deeplyresentedasaformoftyranny,and records show that entirepeasantcommunitieslivinginroyal forests were oftenbroughttotrialforconcealing

offenders, protecting them,and refusing to help catchthem or take part ininvestigations. Thegreenwood of the poemsappears to represent anotional, pre-Norman landwhere officers of theChurchand king were, in effect,foreignersatthemercyoftheEnglish, who lived by theirown ancient codes. It is anostalgic fiction, whichservesasastandingreproach

tothoseinpower.Theoutlawpoetagain:

You who are indicted, Iadviseyou,cometome,to the green wood ofBelregard, where thereisnoentanglement,just wild animals andpleasantshade;for the common law istoounreliable.

This nostalgia did not mean

that outlaws were non-violent. The earliest RobinHood poetry is verycomfortable with violence,and theoutlawpoet ishardlya pacifist (he says, ‘I wasnever a killer, of my ownwill,at least’).Butcomparedwith the evil of the corruptworld of publicadministration, symbolizedbythesheriff,theoutlawwasamodelofpropriety.

SHERIFFS

The real sheriffs ofNottingham lived up to theone immortalized in theRobinHoodtalesprettywell.Philip Mark, sheriff from1209 to1224,wascelebratedfor robbery, false arrest,unjustly throwing people offtheir property and persistentattacks on local landedinterests, both secular andecclesiastical. Henry de

Faucemberg, sheriff fromNovember1318toNovember1319, and again between1323 and 1325, was so indebt that he owed over £285to the king and had to facechargesof extortion. JohndeOxenford, sheriff from 1334to1339,wasaccusedin1341of ‘illegal purveyance,abusing his authority inregardtothecountygaolandits prisoners, as well asvariousextortions’.Hedidn’t

show up in court and washimselfoutlawed.

Another sheriff, SirRobertIngram,wasanallyofthe Coterel gang, notoriousfourteenth-century banditswho terrorized Derbyshireand Nottinghamshire,including Sherwood Forest,from 1328 to 1332. Thesewere no common criminals.They were ‘gentlemen’ likethe Folvilles, probably theyounger sons of landed

gentry,who,when theywerenot committing crimes suchas robbery, extortion andmurder, often for money,were serving in Edward III’swars in Scotland and FrancewhileholdingpublicofficeasbailiffsandevenMembersofParliament. The Coterelscreated their own frameworkof social roles, withlieutenants, recruits,organization, division oflabour,maintainersand laws;

one of their lieutenants,RogerdeSauvage,referredtothe gang as ‘la compagniesauvage’. James Coterel wasaccused in one indictment ofrecruiting 20members in thePeak District and SherwoodForest.

NOBLEOUTLAWS

The Coterel gang indicatesthe existence of a differentkind of outlaw. There were

many robber gangs thatconsisted largely of men ofgoodbirthwhohadnowayofmakingalivingexceptduringwars. This was, to someextent, the consequence of asystem of inheritance thatpassed everything to theeldest son. Outlaws werethereforeoftenlinkeddirectlyinto thegoverningclass.Oneof the accomplices in theFolvilles’ kidnapping ofRichard de Willoughby was

SirRobertdeVere,constableof Rockingham Castle inNorthamptonshire.Thecastlewas a base for armed gangswho came and went afterdark. No-one bringingprovisions to it was allowedto enter, to prevent themknowingwhowasthere.

Some of these outlawsthreatened to use violence toright the evils of badgovernment,underthebannerof some kind of alternative

rule. A letter from one gangleader has survived from thetime of Edward III.Addressed to Richard deSnaweshill, parson of thechurch at Huntington inYorkshire, and written inFrench in1336, itcommandsin the nameof ‘Lionel,KingoftheRoutofRaveners’ thathe remove a priest from hisoffice in the vicarage ofBurton Agnes (evidently arelativeofdeSnaweshill)and

then replace him with themanchosenforthejobbytheabbotofStMary’s:

Andifyoudonotdothis,wemake our avow, first to Godand then to the King ofEngland and to our owncrownthat . . .weshallhuntyoudown,evenifwehavetocometoConeyStreetinYorkto do it . . . Given at ourCastle of the NorthWind, intheGreen Tower, in the first

yearofourreign.*6There are plenty of

examples of robbers comingfrom noble and semi-noblefamilies. It appears that thecareerofoutlawwasperhapsseenasalegitimateoneforawell-born, high-spiritedyounger son – or a cast-offserving man of ambition.Ballads about outlaws implyit was not fair that death onthe gallows should be thereward for intrepid and

sometimes prankish feats –especiallyif thevictimsweremere usurers, monks or tax-gatherers.

This may be linked toanother unique feature ofEngland in theMiddleAges:the fact that knighthood wasnot hereditary. Primogeniturehad become established overmuch of western Europe inthe eleventh and twelfthcenturies, and from thethirteenthcenturyknightshad

tooffer‘proofsofnobility’–showtheyweretheeldersonsof knights. This meant therewas a universal younger sonproblem,butonlyinEnglandcould those younger sonsearnaknighthood.

Moreover, only inEngland was knighthood apotentialcareerforallcomers– only there could a servantorthesonofatradesmanwinthe spurs of militarycommand.

This was possiblebecause the feudal levy onlyproduced a militia whoserved for a limited numberof days a year and did nothave to travel overseas. ButEngland was an islandkingdom fighting longcampaigns overseas. This iswhy landowners wereallowed to pay a tax ratherthan serve.Their servicewasnotveryuseful.Itmademoresense to create knights from

the ranks of landless menwhoneededpay.SoEngland,more than anywhere else,offered wartime careers ofstatustolandlessmen.

Butwhatwas tohappentotheseknights,esquiresandhopefulsbetweenwars?Theyhadnolandtogoto.Alifeofbold robbery became, inpractice, a necessity formenwho had no living of theirown, and who had failed tomake much out of the last

war but were hopeful ofdoingsofromthenext.

At least until the mid-fifteenthcentury(andtheendof the Hundred Years War),outlaw robbers were, in fact,anational resourceandkingsdepended on them. Thisexplains some of the ideasbehind the outlaw ballads,including the fact that RobinHood stories often end‘happily’ with him beingreleasedfromoutlawrybythe

king. This is not particularlyfanciful. Many outlaws werepardoned, usually in returnfor fighting in the army orhelping the king in someother way. These acts ofamnesty were necessary tostop the number of outlawsincreasingendlessly.And themen involvedwere importantrecruits to the army andadministration. Englandneeded its bold outlaws. Itneeded them so much that

theycouldbuy theirpardons,and be recruited intorespectability.

Notallofthemremainedrespectable. In 1335, theoutlaw gangster NicholasCoterelwasmadethequeen’sbailiff for the High PeakDistrictofDerbyshire.Withintwo years hewas accused ofinterferingwithtaxcollectionand ‘having been guilty ofmany other oppressions bythe pretext of his office’, but

that is hardly surprising.Similarly,whentwooutlawedassociatesoftheCoterels,SirWilliamdeChetultonandSirJohndeLegh,werepardonedand then commissioned,togetherwithJamesStafford,awell-knowngang leader, tocapture two other robbers itwas only amatter ofmonthsbefore they were in aNottingham gaol accused ofattemptedrape.Bothof themsubsequently served their

king in his Scottish wars: in1336 they were instructed torecruit archers in Cheshireand lead them north intoBerwickshire.

It was the same storywith the surviving Folvillebrothers. After 16 years ofcriminalactivitytheywereallpardoned. One of them,Eustace, was even knightedforhis ‘good services’ to theking. But in the course ofonlysixyearshereceivedno

less than threemore pardons–twoofthembecausehehadfought against the king’senemies – for crimes thatincluded murder, rape andarmedrobbery.

Englanddependedonitsbold outlaws. And itsadmiration of these menwould echo throughout itshistory, with the forestultimately transferred tocolonial frontierswhereBillythe Kid, Ned Kelly and a

hundred other lawless menwould inherit this strangetradition.

CHAPTERFOUR

MONK⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

THE MEDIEVAL MONK is anemblem of unworldiness.Shut away in his cloister, he

dedicatedhimself to a lifeofprayer, hard work, poverty,self-denialandsilence.Hecuthimself off from thetemptations of the ordinaryworldinordertogivehimselftoGod.Thelifeofamedievalmonkwasliterally‘outofthisworld’. The story of themonastic life should beuneventful frombeginning toend. But of course it isn’t.Monks couldn’t totally cutthemselves off from the

material world, even whentheywantedto.

And there were timeswhentheydidn’twantto.Onthe morning of Sunday 18October 1327, for example,the monks in the abbey ofBuryStEdmundsendedtheirprayers, filedout through theabbey’s crenellated gate andproceeded to the parishchurch.Thiswasfullofmen,women and children. Themonksthrewofftheirhabits–

revealing that some of themwore armour under theirrobes – and burst into thechurch.Theyseizedanumberof citizens by force anddragged them back to theabbeyasprisoners.

Sometime later thetownsfolk assembled at theabbey to demand theprisoners’release.Themonksrepliedwithahailofmissiles,killing a large number ofpeople. Later in the day the

townbellssummonedalargerpartyofarmedmenincludingaldermen,burgesses,aparsonand 28 chaplains, who alltooka solemnoath to liveordie together. They then setfire to the gates and stormedtheabbey.

Obviously no-one inBury St Edmunds associatedthese monks with thecontemplative life. Monkswere the constant target ofsatire and lampoon in

fourteenth-century England.To appreciatewhat had goneso badly wrong at Bury, wemust understand what hadhappened to the monasticideal.

THESTARTOFMONASTICISM

The idea of living in acommunitycutofffromyourfellow men in order toworshipGoddidn’treallyget

going in the West untilaround AD 500, when aRoman nobleman by thename ofBenedict got fed upwithlifeinthebigcity.Romewas far too full of peopleenjoying good food, drinkand sex for his taste. So hetook a servant and settled inthe countryside where,unfortunately, his reputationforbeingablemiraculouslytomend broken pottery startedtoattractthecrowds.

So he sought out areasonably inaccessible cavehalfway up a cliff face, withnomodern conveniences andno plumbing. A monk fromone of the nearby religiousestablishments came everydaytolowerabasketoffooddown to him. And Benedictmadesuretherewasnooystersauce or deep-fried wontonsin his daily picnic – indeed,he didn’t want anything hecould actually enjoy. As far

as Benedict was concerned,Godplacedusinthisworldtogive us the opportunity torefrain from enjoying ourbrief time here, in order toconcentrate on thanking himforplacingusinthisworld.

Itwas a philosophy thatseems to have appealed to asurprising number of people,and news of Benedict’ssanctityspreadthroughouttheregion.Heendedupfoundinghis ownmonastery.Therehe

wrotehisfamousRule(orsetofregulations)whichbecamethe foundation stone of themonastic movement in theMiddleAges.

As far as he wasconcerned,hewasfoundingacommunity where menworked and prayed ‘for theservice of the Lord’, and hedidn’twantittobetoostrict.TheRulestates:‘Wehopetointroduce nothing harsh orburdensome.’ However,

Benedict was a Romanpatriarch, and he put a greatemphasis on obedience. Andnotjustanyoldobedience–ithad to be instantaneous,unquestioning and done withagoodgrace.

And don’t think youcould get away with justputtingagoodfaceonit:

Forif thediscipleobeyswithan ill will and murmurs, notnecessarily with his lips but

simplyinhisheart,theneventhoughhefulfil thecommandyet his work will not beacceptable to God, who seesthat his heart is murmuring.And, far from gaining arewardforsuchworkasthis,he will incur the punishmentduetomurmurers...

As well as disliking‘murmuring’Benedictwasn’ta fan of laughter: ‘As forcoarse jests, and idle words,

or words that move tolaughter, these we condemneverywhere with a perpetualban.’ He also laid down thatmonks should not speakexcept when givenpermission to do so by theirsuperior. And to avoid whathe called ‘the vice of privateownership’, they should ownnothing, have no privatepossessions,andbedsweretobe examined frequently bythe abbot to make sure they

hadn’thiddenanything.Otherwise, Benedict’s

Rule gives detailedinstructions for the monasticcommunity – the number,order and choice of psalmsand the hours of offices, thecorrectionandpunishmentofmonks, the way they are tosleep, what and how muchthey should eat (no meatunlesstheywereveryill)andevenwhat sort of person thecellarer shouldbe. If amonk

went on a journey he wasforbidden to relate what hemight have seen or heardoutside themonastery,whichBenedict saw as ahermetically sealed, self-containedunit.

ThemainwaysinwhichtheRulecanbesaidtoavoidanything ‘harsh orburdensome’ is that, unlikesome regimes, it did notprescribe a starvation diet ordemand sleep deprivation. It

also allowed monks to wearclothes appropriate to theclimate – though nomentionis made of underpants, animportant omission, as weshallseelater.

For the next halfmillennium, Benedict’s Rulewas disseminated throughoutthe monasteries of westernEurope–firstundertheaegisof Pope Gregory the Greatand thenunderCharlemagne.By the eleventh century his

form of monasticism had avirtualmonopolyof religioushouses,butwhetherhewouldhaveapprovedofthewayhisRulewasbeing interpreted isquite another matter, as awould-bemonk by the nameofHerluinfoundout.

HERLUINBECOMESAMONK

Herluin was a Normanwarriorwho,attheageof40,

decided he was getting tooold for the business andbecame a conscientiousobjector. Besides, he hadbeentoldthathewouldgotohell if he killed people. Hedetermined to trade in hissword for a prayer book andbecomeamonk,and in1031hewalkedintoamonasterytosee what it was like. As hisbiographer, Gilbert Crispin,records, he got quite asurprise.

After offering a prayer heapproached the door of thecloister with great reverenceandnervousness,asifitwerethe gate ofParadise: hewasvery eager to find out whatwas the way of life of themonks, and what were theircustoms. He saw that theywere all far from observingthe seriousway of lifewhichthemonkish lifedemands;hewas distressed, nowcompletely uncertain what

kindoflifeheshouldchoose.At this point the warden ofthe monastery saw himenteringand, thinkinghim tobea thief,hithimashardashe could on the neck anddragged him out of the doorbyhishair...

VitaHerluini

Herluin had gone to thetroubleofteachinghimselftoreadandwrite,andwasnottobeputoff soeasily.He tried

again:

Next Christmas he went forthe samepurpose toanother,better-known monastery. Asthe brethren went out infestive procession on thissolemn day, Herluin saw themonkssmileatthelayfolkallaround with unbecomingfamiliarity, delighting inshowing off their lavishornamentation, and as theygot to the door, quarrelling

noisily as to who should gofirst. One monk punched hisfellowwhowasjostlingtogetin, and then laid him flat onhisbackontheground.Such,aswehavesaid,werestillthebarbaricmannerswhichwerecommon throughoutNormandy.

VitaHerluini

Herluinendedupbuildinghisown small monastery. Thelocal bishop ordained him as

amonkandmadehimabbot,so his monastic career wasobviously off to an excellentstart.Helivedashethoughtamonk ought, eating one lightmeal a day, wearing old,black woollen robes andcombining hard physicalwork with regular prayeraccording to the monasticrules laid down by StBenedict. He soon attractedan enthusiastic littlecommunity, and had to build

a bigger monastery at thevillage of Le Bec-Hellouin,southwest of Rouen inNormandy, to accommodateit.

It may seem surprisingthat an ex-warrior likeHerluin should take the strictobservance of Benedict’sprecepts so seriously. But,strange though it may seem,the activities of monks –cloistered and cut off fromthe world though they may

havebeen–wereregardedasan essential back-up to theNormanmilitarymachine.

SAVINGTHESOULSOFFIGHTINGMEN

The problem goes back tothat inconvenientCommandment: ‘Thou shaltnot kill.’ In the eleventhcentury this was taken tomeanwhatitsaid:Thoushaltnotkill.Andjustbecauseyou

were having a war was noexcuse. This was a bitawkward if you happened tobe a fighting man,professionally engaged in thebusiness of breaking thatcommandment in particular(amongstmanyothers).

Like most people,however, warriors had everyconfidence in the power ofprayer. They were alsoconvinced that the purer andsimpler a person’s life was,

the more likely God was tolisten favourably to them.Since monks were supposedtolivethepurestandsimplestof lives their prayers wereseenasahotlinetoGod,andthey provided an essentialservice for the Normanarmies – saving warriors’souls once the fighting wasover.

The soul of a tenth- oreleventh-century fightingman would not be easy to

save.Itrequiredthestrenuouseffortofasignificantnumberofmonks to pray him out ofdamnation. Homicide in apublic war, even at thecommand of a legitimateruler, requireddoingpenancefor 40 days and abstentionfrom church. William theConqueror, with overallresponsibility for some10,000 deaths, needed (ifanyone were ever to do thearithmetic, which they did

not) about 1100 years ofserious religious effort. Hewouldnothavefinishedyet–notuntil2162.

After the Battle ofHastingseachNormansoldierwas told to do 120 days’penanceforeverymanhehadkilled, which would havecreated even greaterproblems. But of course theChurch was ever willing tosubcontract the work, at aprice. If William’s penance

wassplitbetweenacoupleofhundred monks, his soulcouldbecleansedinlessthansix years. He founded anabbeyatthesiteofthebattle.He founded another atBarkinginEssex;andanotheratSelbyinYorkshire(hehadto kill a lot of people inYorkshire). And he and hiswife and sons, perhapsfeeling insecure,gaveagreatdealmoremoneyandlandtoa great many other churches

andabbeys.In fact, by the time

William died, 26 per cent ofall the land in EnglandbelongedtotheChurch.

THEMONASTICCATCH-22

Itbecamethecustomforrichpeople and fightingmen likethe Norman soldiers, whosewaysoflifeputtheirsoulsinsuch great jeopardy, to pay

monkstodotheprayingtheywere too busy to do forthemselves. This had oneprofound effect: prayerbecame a commodity. Itgained a commercial valueand this was eventually toprove the undoing of thewholesystem.

Theessentialthingaboutmonks was their religiouswayoflife–thefactthattheylived lives of poverty,simplicity and devotion. The

snag was that the poorer,simpler and more devout aparticular institutionwas, thekeener the rich and violentwere to shower money andland on it to assuage theirconsciences.

Thusthepoorer,simplerandmoredevoutamonasterywas in its beginnings, themore likely itwas toget richand powerful quickly. Andonce it became rich andpowerfulitwasnolonger,by

definition, poor and wasthereforelesslikelytoremainsimpleanddevout.

MONASTERIESANDPOWER

There was also a built-intendency for the monasticmovement to accumulatepower. Evenwhen the rulersof monasteries wereostensibly confronting theworldliness of their

institutions, they simplycouldn’t help becomingpowersintheirownright...

When Herluin wasbuilding his monastery atBec, for example, a rathercelebrated Italian scholar, bythenameofLanfranc, turnedup. Lanfranc had initiallycome to Normandy becausehehadheardthattherewasadearth of learning in theregion and thought hewouldbe able to ‘gain wealth and

honour’ there. He thendecidedtomoveintotheareaof religion. Perhaps still inpursuitofwealthandhonour,he decided to seek out thepoorest and most despisedmonastery he could find –whichhappenedtobetheex-soldier’s humbleestablishmentatBec.

Herluin, as someonewith plenty of fightingexperience but no booklearning, welcomed the

famous scholar with openarms, and gave him specialtreatment in the monastery.This bred envy amongst theother monks, and Lanfrancsoon announced that he wasoff to become a hermit.Herluin dissuaded him byofferinghimthepostofprior.

Lanfranc now startedrebuilding the monastery’sabbey in a more substantialmanner, and became lessinterested in hermetic ways

and rathermore interested inhis developing friendshipwith William, Duke ofNormandy – the futureWilliamtheConqueror.

Lanfranc seems to havehelped to persuade the popetobacktheduke’sinvasionofEngland, and after theConquestWilliamrepaidhimby installing him asarchbishop of Canterbury.The 70-year-old Lanfrancwas the spiritual edge of the

Conqueror’s sword. Heimposed Norman abbots,bishopsandformsofworshiponAnglo-Saxonchurchesandabbeys. His aim was toobliterate the distinct Anglo-Saxonreligioustradition,andhe removed all but two ofEngland’s saints from theEnglishChurch’scalendar.

Thismeant their shrineswere no longer in operation.English saints were replacedby foreign ones who took

overplacesofworshipjustasforeign secular lords hadtakenoverland.TheshrineofSt Cuthbert at Durham, forexample, was eliminated in1072 (his remains havingbeen evacuated by fleeingmonks in1066)and replacedwith a Benedictine priorystaffedbyreliablemonks,anda new Norman castle. Thenew Norman bishop ofDurham was Walcher ofLorraine, who paid William

£400 to be made Earl ofBamborough.He lived in thecastle as prince-bishop, withtherighttoraiseanarmyandlevytaxes,andwasprotectedby a gang of thugs. Thebishop and his cronies werekilledinapopularuprisingin1080.

All the while Lanfranc,an Italian archbishop in theserviceofaNormanwarlord,wrote letters about ‘weEnglish’ and ‘our island’. It

waspresumablyintheroleofproprietorthathestrippedtheEnglish Church of itsvaluables, sending its greatworks of art and books toFrance,NormandyandRome,and melting down its goldandsilver.

Of course, all this wasdoneinthenameof‘reform’.Lanfranc was able to accusethe English Church of beingas sloppy in its ways asHerluinhadfoundtheChurch

in Normandy to be. Therewere only about a thousandmonks in all England, andmeninholyorderswereevenallowed to marry. That, ofcourse, was stopped quiteabruptly. The archbishopimposed more discipline onhis monks, and encouragedtheNormanvictorstopayfornewabbeys–whichwerefarmore glamorous than Anglo-Saxonones.

The reality was that the

Churchwassynonymouswithpower, and Lanfranc set anexampleofprelatepowerthatwould retain its force forcenturies. Even Williambowedtoit.HeconcededthattheChurch shouldbe able tohold its own courts for itsown people, and that monksand priests would not besubjecttoroyaljurisdiction.

It was an act of power,not piety, for Lanfranc toappoint the totally illiterate

Herfast as bishop of EastAnglia. The man was astanding joke in Normandy,butauseful thug inEngland.An even more useful thugwas Tousain, the manLanfrancinstalledasabbotofGlastonbury. The monksthere sang Gregorian chantsthat had been introduced bySt Augustine when heevangelized the southernEnglish, but Tousain toldthem to use new ones

approved by Rome. Hestationed archers inside theabbey to ensure obedience.When the monks began tosingtheirbeautifuloldchant,and it swelled to echo fromthe vaulted ceiling, thearchersshot21ofthem.

But, although Lanfrancwas clearly a man deeplyinterested in power, healways accepted theoverlordshipofDukeWilliam– now King of England. He

never challenged the king’srighttoappointarchbishops.

There was anothermonastic movement,however, that was notpreparedtosubmittoanylaypower.

THECLUNIACSANDPOWER

In 940, Duke William ofAquitaine decided that bypaying formonks to do their

monkish thing in his oldhunting lodge at Cluny inBurgundy he would buyhimself a place in heaven.The duke noted withengaging candour: ‘AlthoughImyselfamunabletodespiseall things, nevertheless byreceiving despisers of thisworld, whom I believe to berighteous, I may receive therewardoftherighteous.’

The problem was, asDuke William saw it, that

evenwhenpropergodlymenhad been selected theyneeded to be protected fromviolent men like himselfwhile they were quietlypraying for his soul. Hedecided that thebestsolutionwasaheartycurseonanyonewhomessedwith themonks.They should know theywould go to hell: ‘Let himincur the wrath of almightyGod;andletGodremovehimfrom the land of the living

and wipe out his name fromthe book of life . . . let himincureverlastingdamnation.’

Well, that was a start.But,onreflection,abitmoredeterrence might be needed.There should also be someimmediately obviouspunishment:‘Incaseitseemsto human eyes that he ispassing through the presentworldwith impunity, let himactually experience in hisown body the torments of

future damnation . . . hismembers putrefying andswarmingwithvermin...’

Yes, that’s better. Butperhapsstillnotquiteenoughto keep these poor helplessmonks safe. How aboutcalling on the pope to inflictsome additional punishment:‘Andlethim,unlesshecometo his senses, have the key-keeperofthewholehierarchyof the Church as an enemyandonewhowill refuse him

entrance to the blessedparadise.’

Oh, sod it. When youcome down to it, there’sprobably no substitute forearthly power: ‘But as far astheworldlylawisconcerned,he shall be required, thejudicial power compellinghimtopayahundredpoundsof gold to those he hasharmed; and his attemptedattack, being frustrated, shallhavenoeffectatall.’

There,thatshoulddothetrick.

WILLIAM OF AQUITAINE HADMADE his abbey at Clunycompletely independent ofany landowner, thusensuringthatnofeudaloverlordwasinapositiontoinstalltheirownchapasabbot.Thishadbeena very deliberate move, andwas the reason for all theseprotective curses. When theabbots of Cluny later began

setting up other ‘Cluniac’houses they decided to scrapthe Benedictine rule thatprovided for theindependence of each abbot.Instead, abbots of Clunyexercised absolute authorityover all the houses, whoseregimes were subject toinspection by the mothermonastery.

Of course, the abbotsclaimed this centralizationwassimplyinordertocontrol

standards of monastic piety,but it also created aconvenient power base foranyone interested inwieldingpower...andwhathappenednext was inevitable. When aCluniac monk calledHildebrand became pope in1073, it became an article offaith that Cluny’sindependence from secularpower should apply to thewholeChurch. Thiswas not,of course, a two-way street.

The Church, in the Pope’sview, for its part should beable to tell Lords,Kings andEmperorshowtobehave.

Lanfranc’s successor,Anseim(whohadbeenoneofHerluin’s monks at Bec),flatly refused to be investedas archbishop of Canterburyby anyone except the pope,and then refused to acceptbishopsandabbotsnominatedbyHenryI.

Eventuallyanagreement

was signed between the kingand the pope, according towhich Henry and all othersecular overlords lost thepowertoappointbishopsandabbots. The English Churchwasnowadepartmentof theuniversal or Roman Church,which was no longer just anexpression or an idea but areal working organizationwith its own law, courts andrights over property. It wasalso growing: the number of

monks in England rose fromabout1000in1066to13,000by 1215. The church wasassertive, confident andpersuasive. It would be hardto distinguish how much ofthis growth came fromidealism and commitment,and how much from theopportunities the Churchoffered for careeradvancement and analternative life from farmingandfighting.

The new power of theChurch inevitably wenttogether with increasedsplendour, wealth andpolitical authority. Monkswere now part of a visiblypowerful apparatus that wasvery much in the world.Which, of course, was theexact opposite of whatLanfranc’s original reformwasmeanttoachieve.

MONKSWITHOUT

UNDERPANTS

Even at the end of theeleventh century the alreadyincreasing worldliness of theCluniacsandotherordershadbegun to leaveaniche in themarket for another ‘back tobasics’formofmonasticism.

In 1098 a 70-year-oldmonk, Robert of Molesme,founded an abbey at Citeauxin Burgundy, a fewkilometres east of the great

wine-producing village ofNuits-Saint-Georges. TheCistercian order that heestablished was intended tobe a form of Benedictinismthat was stricter and moreprimitive than anything thenexisting.Afewyearslatertheabbey was invaded by afanatical 22-year-old calledBernard, and 30 of hisrelatives (many of whomweresoldiers,somemarried),whoeffectivelytookover.

Bernard believed infasting,sleepdeprivationanda life of physical suffering.The abbot (then anEnglishman) put up with itfor two years and then, in1115, dispatched Bernard toset up a monastery in themost desolate spot he could.Bernard came close toperishing but Clairvaux, theabbey he founded inChampagne,becamethemostinfluentialinEurope.

Bernard was veryscathing about the Cluniacs.He didn’t like theirarchitecture: ‘The immenseheightoftheirchurches,theirimmoderate length, theirsuperfluous breadth, costlypolishings and strangedesigns that, while theyattract the eye of theworshipper, hinder hisattention.’Andhedidn’t liketheir leader, Peter theVenerable: ‘He commends

gluttonousfeasting;hedamnsfrugality; voluntary povertyhe calls misery; fasts, vigils,silence, andmanual work hecallsmadness.’

And he didn’t like theirdiet:

Course after course isbrought in. Only meat islacking and to compensatefor this two huge servingsoffish are given. You mighthave thought that the first

was sufficient, but even therecollection of it vanishesonce you have set to on thesecond. The cooks prepareeverythingwithsuchskillandcunning that the four or fivedishes already consumed areno hindrance to what is tofollowandtheappetite isnotchecked by satiety . . . Theselection of dishes is soexciting that the stomachdoes not realize that it isbeingover-taxed.

The Cistercians’ strictdiscipline emphasized fastsandvigils,manuallabouranda vegetarian diet. Bernardhimself was so austere thathisexcessivefastingcreatedadreadful stomach condition,with the result that he smeltsobadthatpeopleoftencouldnot bear to be in hiscompany; there was even aspecial placewhere he couldbe sick during monasticservices.

Unlike other monks,Cistercians wore plain,undyed wool – for whichreason they were known asthe ‘White Monks’. Thereturn to heroic monasticismmeant that they ate only thecoarsest wheat bread, andwere ordered to avoidcolouredglassintheirchapel,and gold and silver on thealtar.

And they were notallowed to wear underpants.

St Benedict had notmentioned them inhis list ofpermittedclothingformonks,sotheCistercianswouldhavenotruckwiththeevilthings–much to the amusement of anumber of theircontemporaries. Some calledit ‘bare-bottomed piety’ andWalter Map, the twelfth-centuryauthor,witandfoeofCistercians, suggested theyshunned underpants ‘topreservecoolness in thatpart

ofthebody,lestsuddenheatsprovokeunchastity’.

The Cistercians alsoinsisted on a plain liturgy –whichallowedmore time forthings like manual labour.Aelred,theabbotofRievaulxin Yorkshire, mocked theCluniac monks fordeliberately making theirservices attractive andinviting a lay audience toattendthem:

Towhatpurpose,Iaskyou,isthe terrible snorting ofbellows,moreliketheclapofthunderthanthesweetnessofa voice? Why that swellingand swooping of thevoice?...Sometimesyouseeamanwithhismouthopenasif he were breathing his lastbreath, not singing butthreatening silence, as itwere, by ridiculousinterpretation of the melodyinto snatches. Now he

imitates the agony of thedying or the swooning ofpersons in pain. In themeantime his whole body isviolently agitated byhistrionic gesticulations –contorted lips, rolling eyes,hunching shoulders – anddrumming fingers keep intime with every single note.And this ridiculousdissipation iscalledreligiousobservance . . . Meanwhileordinary folk stand there

awe-struck, stupefied,marvelling at the din ofbellows, the humming ofchimes and the harmony ofpipes. But they regard thesaucy gestures of the singersand the alluring variationand dropping of the voiceswithconsiderablejeeringandsnickering, until you wouldthinktheyhadcome,not intoan oratory, but to a theatre,nottopraybuttogawk...

AELRED, Mirror of

Charity*1

MCMONASTICISM

Curiously for a movementthat was formed specificallyto get back to the basics ofthe Benedictine vision, theCistercians soon did awaywith that awkward principleofStBenedict’sregardingtheindependence of each abbey.The Cistercian order becamethe most centrally controlled

ofallthemonasticorders.Conformity was the

name of the game. UnderBernard’s eagle eyeCisterciansallworethesameclothes, ate the same food,readthesamebooksandlivedin architecturally identicalbuildings. It was said that ablind monk from Scotlandcould easily find his wayaround a Cistercianmonastery in Scandinavia.There was also an ‘annual

general meeting’, whichevery Cistercian abbot wasobligedtoattend.

This was less amovement than a successfulfranchise – a sort ofMcMonasticism. In their first11 years, the founders ofMcDonald’s saw their chainexpand to over 100restaurants. By the timeBernard died in 1153, theCistercian order had founded343 abbeys in western

Europe. As Conrad ofEberbarchputit:‘Likeagreatlake whose waters pour outthrough a thousand streams,gathering impetus from theirrapids, the new monks wentforth fromCiteaux to peopletheWest.’

Bernard himselfenvisaged the order as anarmy. He saw his monks as‘soldiers of Christ’, thespiritual equivalent ofCrusaders. Bernard of

Clairvaux was himself themost effective pro-crusadepreacherofhisgeneration.

In 1131 he wrote toHenryIIofEngland:

In your land there is anoutpost ofmyLord and yourLord, an outpost he haspreferred to die for than tolose. I have proposed tooccupy it and am sendingmen frommyarmywhowill,if it isnotdispleasingtoyou,

claim it, recover it andrestoreitwithastronghand.

THECISTERCIANSINENGLAND

In 1132, twelve monks fromClairvaux arrived in adesolate part of Yorkshire –‘thick-set with thorns, fitrather to be the lair of wildbeaststhanthehomeofmen’.Tobeginwiththemonkshadto live in wooden huts and

sufferedterriblehardship.Butwhether or not they weremotivated by the desire topractise heroic monasticism,they were actually part of adeliberately structuredbusinessplan.

The choice of Rievaulxhad been carefully made.There had been areconnaissanceparty,seekingout somewhere ‘far from theconcourse of man’, in partbecause this fulfilled the

Cistercian quest for the‘desert’ but also because theCistercians were experts atexploiting land, both forsheep farming and formineral resources such asiron and lead. All this wasenvisaged right from theoutset.Theabbeyalsohadtobe near water, a plentifulsupplyoftimberandaquarryfor stone. Rievaulx wasperfect: the river Rye ranthrough the valley, and was

even diverted in order tocreate enough space forbuildings;stonequarrieswerejustfourmilesaway.

This was the first ofmany Cistercian houses.Within20yearstherewereanastonishing 50 Cistercianabbeys in Britain. Theoriginal, small woodenstructures at Rievaulx werejust phase one of a businessplan that looked forwardyears, and envisaged the

transformation of landscape,the acquisition of land,deforestation and theexploitation of mineralresources.

The great critic of theCistercians,WalterMap,tooka cynical view of theirentrepreneurship:

It is prescribed to them thatthey are to dwell in desertplaces,anddesertplacestheydo assuredly either find or

make . . . Because their ruledoesnotallowthemtogovernparishioners, theyproceed toraze villages, they overthrowchurches, and turn outparishioners . . . Those uponwhom comes an invasion ofCistercians may be doomedtoalastingexile.

Walter was an itinerantjustice, and he alwaysexempted Cistercians fromhis oath to do justice to all

men since, he said, ‘It wasabsurd to do justice to thosewho are just to none’. Thiswasnotajoke;Map’sreportsof Cistercian atrocities areextraordinary. For example,he says that the monks ofByland once wanted landbelonging to a knight whowouldnotgiveituptothem.One night they entered hishouse,‘muffledupandarmedwith swords and spears’, andmurderedhimandhisfamily.

A relative, hearing of thedeaths, arrived three dayslater to find that all thebuildings and enclosures haddisappearedandintheirplacewasawell-ploughedfield.*2

The Cistercians refusedto accept land on normalfeudal terms. They insistedthey could only accept it as‘fee alms’, whichmeant thatinstead of having to providelordsandkingswithlabourorfightingmentheyhadtopray

forthem.Pretty soon the

Cistercians owned so muchland they simply could notthroweveryoneoffit,sotheystarted collecting rents andtithes(Churchtaxes)fromthelay folk around, and beforelong they were rolling inmoney. Their abbeys werehugecommercialenterprises.

The Cistercians werenatural businessmen. AtFountains Abbey in

Yorkshire they turned woolproduction into a majormoney-spinner, breeding asuper-sheepthatproducedthehighest-quality wool inEurope. By the end of thecenturytheywereresponsibleformostofthewoolexportedfromEngland.Meanwhile, atneighbouring Rievaulx themonks moved into heavyindustry, developing miningand iron-smelting technologythat put them way ahead of

theirtime.Of course there was a

problem with thisengagementwiththebusinessworld. It wasn’twhatmonkswere supposed to do.Benedict’s Rule instructedthem‘tobecomeastrangertotheworld’sways’.Theyweresupposed to be busy prayingfor the souls of the peoplewho had endowed them, andworking at modest self-sufficiency,not runningblast

furnaces or moving into thewooltrade.

Moreover, according tothe Rule of St Benedict,monks were supposed to doall their own chores and notemploy servants. But theCistercians had a genius forinterpreting the Rule. Theysimply invented a new classof monks, whom they called‘laybrothers’.

These were usuallyilliterate peasants who

worked as servants.Sometimes they were thevery peasants the Cistercianshad turned off the land theynow occupied. In everyrespect lay brothers weresecond-class citizens. Theyweren’t reallymonks at all –it was a convenient fiction.They weren’t allowed to eatwith the other – ‘choir’ –monks,orpraywiththechoirmonks, or evenmixwith thechoirmonks.Theywerethere

simply to do the menialchoresthechoirmonksoughtto have been doing butwantedtoavoid.InFountainsAbbey, for example, a wallkept the lay brothers andmonksseparate.

TURNINGFAITHINTOMONEY

Abbeyssimplycouldnothelpbut become huge financialmachines. Abbeys never

married and never died, sothat their land never cameonto the market, and wereoutside the medieval merry-go-round of landredistribution through violentdeath and confiscation ofestates. There wereoccasional exceptions, suchas Rievaulx being plunderedby the Scots after theydefeatedEdwardII’sarmyin1322, but such misfortuneswererare.

Given the naturalprocesses that pouredmoneytowards abbeys like rainrunningdowngulleys,ittooksome kind of special geniusfor an abbot to run intofinancial trouble, but ithappened with impressivefrequency. There was atendency to spend evermorelavishly, to invest ever moregrandly, and to finance thesenobleactivitiesbyborrowingmoneyagainstfutureincome,

for example, selling woolfrom their sheep years inadvance at adiscount. Itwasa form of gambling, ofcourse,butwithGodontheirside what could go wrong?Sheepmurrain for a start. Inthe 1280s, Rievaulx wasunable to deliver the wool ithad pre-sold and was driveninto the medieval equivalentof bankruptcy. It was takeninto Royal protection, underthesupervisionoftheBishop

ofDurham.With forward contracts

concentrating their minds,many abbots became moreconcerned with the activitiesof the large numbers of laybrothers than anything else.They became in effectManaging Directors whotended to regard the ‘choirmonks’asratheraburdenonthe place, even if they werefrommoresociallyacceptablefamilies.

They needed to findways to improve their cashflow, and that was theattraction of the pilgrimbusiness. In the eleventhcentury, sinners wereinstructed that a visit to aparticular church, and thebestowal of pious gifts uponit,wouldmeantheywouldbelet off their penance. Thenumber of qualifyingchurches steadily grew untilthere were thousands of

pilgrimagechurches.Andthereward changed, in thethirteenth century, from aremission of penance to arelease from God’spunishment, whether in thislife or in purgatory. In thefourteenth century pilgrimindulgencies were extendedeven further, negating guiltitself and giving theopportunity of acquiring anindulgence for the souls ofthosealreadyinpurgatory.

What’s more, if youdecided not to take thepilgrimageyoucouldachievethesameresultbypayingtheChurchthemoneyyouwouldhave spent if you had gone.TheHolyGrail of the touristtradehadbeen found: ‘Don’tbothertovisit,justsendyourmoney!’

The system meant thatabbeys, cathedrals andchurcheswere incompetitionwith each other to attract the

mostpilgrims,andtherewereseveral ways of doing this.The first was to offerindulgences and pardons forpilgrims. Some churches ran‘bargains of themonth’. Themonastery at Shene, inSurrey, for example, offeredthe following in the fifteenthcentury:

ITEM:OntheFeastofStJohntheBaptistwhoevercomestothe monastery and devoutly

says a Pater-noster shallhave ninety days ofpardon...ITEM:Whoever comes to thesaid monastery on the Feastof St Paul the Apostle, saysonePater-nosterandoneAveMaria, shall have onehundreddaysofpardon...ITEM:On the Feast of MaryMagdalenewhoevercomestothesaidmonasteryshallhaveone hundred days of pardongranted by Bishop Stafford,

ArchbishopofCanterbury...ITEM: On the feast of StThomas the Apostle and inthe Feast of St Michael theArchangel they shall havethree yearsand fortydaysofpardon...

But the chief way to attractholytourismwastopossessafamous relic. This could beanything from an objectbelonging to a saint, ortouched by them, to a bit of

theirskeleton.Suchanobjectwas regarded as a contactpoint between earth andheaven that radiatedmiraculous power. Churchesand abbeys did everythingpossibletogetholdofsacredrelicsforpeopletovisit.

Saints’ relics were asufficiently important sourceof revenue for Anselm,Lanfranc’s successor asarchbishop of Canterbury, toreinstate the English saints;

theywere, after all, farmorelikely todrawagoodcrowd.Anewshrinewasconstructedfor Cuthbert at Durham, andhis remains were restoredthere.

At Canterbury, StThomasBecket’stombinthecathedralwasalsotobecomea major draw – moreparticularly, the saint’s head.You could see where thesword had split his skull intwo! Visitors could also

marvel at the sight of‘Aaron’s rod’, ‘some of thestone upon which the LordstoodjustbeforeHeascendedinto heaven’, ‘some of theLord’s table on which theLast Supper was eaten’, andeven ‘some of the very clayout of which God fashionedAdam’.Therewasalso someof theVirginMary’sknitting–well,weavingtobeexact.

THECHURCH

COMMERCIALS

Monasteries were tradingoperations, and communitieseven founded their owntowns to handle the trade.This brings us back to BurySt Edmunds and its warbetween the monks and thetownspeople. The townbelongedtotheabbey,whichhad benefited so much fromvarious kings that it alsoowned the entire county of

West Suffolk. The abbotsbuiltorexpandedthetownofBury St Edmunds, andcontrolleditscommerciallife.Every business transactioninvolveda cut for themonks– whether a tradesman ran abarge on the river, a stall inthe market, sold fish orsupplied building materials.The abbey administeredjusticeandpocketedthefinesittook.Itrantheroyalmint–being abbot of Bury St

Edmunds was literally alicence to print money. Theabbey even owned the horsedroppingson thestreet–andof course the monks tooktheircut.

Whether it wascollectingmanureorgrindingcorn,everyabbotguardedhismonopolyjealously.

TakeAdamSamson, forexample, who ran Bury witha rod of iron in the latertwelfth century. One day he

learnt that the dean, Herbert,had built a windmill withoutpermission. Samson ‘boiledwithfuryandcouldhardlyeator sleep.’ He summonedHerbertandtoldhim:‘Ithankyouasmuchasifyouhadcutoffbothmyfeet!BythefaceofGod!Iwillnevereatbreaduntil that building isdestroyed!’

Itwas a subtle hint, butHerbert tookitanddestroyedthemillimmediately.*3

By 1327 thetownspeoplehadhadenough.In January they stormed andplundered the abbeydemanding a charter ofliberties. When they werecheated of this they attackedagain in February, and thenagain in May. The monks’raid on the parish church, on18 October, was reprisal fortheseattacks.

Some years later, in1345, a special commission

investigated the abbey forother reasons, and found thatthemonkslivedawayfromit,dressed like everyone elseandwere up to anything andeverything.

Throughoutthemonasticmovement, austerity provedtobequiteincompatiblewithmonasticwealth.Oneofthemhad to go. Unfortunately,even acknowledging thefinancial incompetence ofmanyabbots,itwasnotgoing

tobethewealth.

THEHYPOCRISYOFMONKS

Fortunately for theconsciences of the monasticcommunity, monks of allorders proved to have ageniusforfindingavarietyofways of living within theletter of Benedict’s Rule,while leaving it dead on thecloisterpavement.

Forexample,nowell-to-domonkwantedtosleepinacold dormitory with all theother monks, so, since theinfirmary was the only placewhere a fire was allowed,monks with money began tomove in there, establishingindividual ‘bachelor pads’ –each a private room with itsown fireplace, and with abedroom above completewithen-suitelavatory.

Benedict had prohibited

‘eating the flesh of four-footed animals’, but anexception was made for thesick.Someatwasavailableinthe infirmary–ormisericord(‘compassionate heart’) –where dietary regulationsweresuspendedfortheinfirmor elderly. And guess what?Prettysoon thebrothersgaveupeatingintherefectoryandate in themisericord instead.Monkishlogic.

Another snag about

eatingmealsunderBenedict’sRulewasthatthemonkswerenot allowed to talk whiledining.Buttheycouldsignifthey wanted something . . .like the salt. (Benedictactually says they cancommunicate sonitu signi –‘bysoundofasign’.)Sotheycompiled an entire signlanguage. They would alsowhistletoeachother.

Gerald of Walesdescribes a visit to Christ

Church, Canterbury, in thetwelfthcentury,duringwhichhe was appalled at the waythe monks behaved duringmeals. It was, he claimed,‘more appropriate tojesters . . . all of themgesticulating with fingers,hands and arms, andwhistling to one another inlieuofspeaking’.

The same signs wereused in monasteries all overEurope – a sort of dumb

Esperanto. So whatevercountry a monk foundhimself eating in he couldalways convey exactly whathewanted to a fellowmonk.Mostof thesignswereaboutfood–which isn’t surprisingbecause in amonastery therewas an awful lot of food totalkabout...

DININGWITHMONKS

Benedicthadinmindafrugal

diet for monks. He advisedonly two cooked dishes at ameal,andonepoundofbreadpermonk per day. However,mostmonks took this advicewith a pinch of salt – and alotmore.

Food was of absorbinginterest to medieval monks.For example, one chaptermeeting of the monks ofWestminsterwaspreoccupiedwith the question of whethera particular dish should

include four herrings or five.At Bury St Edmunds, thethirteenth-century book ofrules and customs records animportant discussion abouthowlongapikeshouldbeforthe Feast of Relics. It waseventually decided that itshould be 22 inches longfromheadtotail.

Everyweekcontainedatleast one feast day onwhichtheunfortunatemonkswouldhave to deal with something

like16dishes.Butevenonanormalworkingdaythemenuavailable to them was onethatmost lay folkcouldonlyhave dreamt about. Therecords for WestminsterAbbey, for example, showthat on a typical day beef,boiledmutton,roastporkandroast mutton were served atdinner in the misericord,while meat fritters and deerentrails were served in therefectory. Later, at supper,

therewas tongue andmutton–withsauce.

One historian, BarbaraHarvey, has calculated thatthe daily allowance for themonks ofWestminster couldhave been as much as 7000calories–overtwicethedailyrequirement of an averageman today. Of course, it isnotinevitablethattheyateallthis–what theyleftwouldbegiven to servants or the poorat the monastery door. But

monks were habitually madefun of in literature as beingfat, and now thearchaeological evidenceseems to be bearing out thecaricature.

Excavation of themedieval hospital and prioryof StMary Spital in Londonhas produced the bones ofthousandsofmonksandtheirpatients. It is clear that themonksweretallerthanthelaypeople (suggesting theywere

better nourished all theirlives) and had much worseteeth (indicating a sweeterdiet).

Monks were equallyserious about drink. In hisRule, Benedict admits tosome misgivings aboutrecommending how muchanyone ought to drink, butbearing in mind ‘thestandards of the weak’ herecommendsahemina(halfapint)ofwineaday.Markyou

– it was only arecommendation, and themonkstreateditwithcaution.Recent studies have shownthat alcohol seems to haveaccounted for something like19percentofmonks’energyintake (it provides5per centofours).

Gluttony was not theonly sin monks fell prey to.Records for 1447 note abrothel inWestminstercalledthe ‘Maidenshead’, which

was much frequented byBenedictines.Withup to£12pocket money a year, themonks could afford to gothere.Andchurchmendidnotjustusebrothels; theyownedthem. The bishop ofWinchesterwas theownerofone of the brothels inBorough High Street inLondon – the girls wereknown affectionately as‘Winchestergeese’.

RESISTINGTHEMONKS

In 1348 the whole monasticsysteminEnglandcamecloseto collapse when the BlackDeath killed off somethinglike two-thirds of all peoplein holy orders. In enclosedmonastic communities itspread like the plague – youmightsay.

Many of thecommunitiesneverrecovered.At the Cistercian abbey of

Rievaulx, for instance, apopulation that had oncenumbered400wasreducedtojust18peopleby1381.Onlythree of them were laybrothers. The situation atFountainsAbbeywassimilar.Since the Cistercian systemdepended on these workingpseudo-monks it had ceasedfunctioning.

Butwhile their religiouscommunities declined,monasteries lost nothing of

their wealth. They retainedtheir lands, their riches, theirpolitical power. This mayhave made little sensepreviously, but now thedisproportion between suchwealth and so few monksbecame a public scandal.Popular hostility to the‘private religions’, as theywerecalled,inevitablygrew.

People once morelookedbacktoa‘goldenage’in which monks had lived

lives of simple poverty andwork, but those lives weretotally incompatible with thehuge properties that theabbotswere supposed to run.In fact, something quiteextraordinarywashappening.The Church itself was thegreat teacher of morality,insisting that power andprivilege were justified onlyin relation to theresponsibilitiesthatwentwiththem. Churchmen had, since

the twelfth century at least,emphasisedthemoralfailingsofeverylevelofsociety,withparticular emphasis on thefailings of churchmenthemselves. In the thirteenthcenturytheChurchhadbegunto encourage the use ofEnglish for prayer and studyby ordinary people. Butwithin100yearsthisfreedomofexpressionwasbeingusedby the lay population tocriticise abuses within the

church, and that was a verydifferentkettleoffish.

A mass of materialsfrom the fourteenth centurytell this story. It is there inpopular ballads, such as theearly ones of Robin Hood,which treated monks andabbots with contempt, anddepict a powerful contrastbetween themandwanderingfriars and preachers, whoseChristianitywasnotpractisedwithin a wealthy and

politically well-connectedinstitution. It shows inpopular religion too, forexample in The Book ofMargery Kempe, where anilliterate bourgeois womandescribes her religiousexperiences, and has nohesitation in dealing directlywith her maker, without theChurch acting as herintermediary.This is also thecore theme of PiersPlowman, in which the only

‘indulgence’ on offer is apaper saying ‘Do well, dobetter,dobest’,andinwhichthe ploughman himself isidentified with Christ andmust save the world,includingtheChurch.

The intellectual core ofcriticismwasprovidedbytheforemostacademicofhisday,JohnWyclif.Fromhisbaseatthe University of Oxford, heissued a devastatingdeconstruction of

ecclesiastical corruption andhypocrisy. This powerfullymoral attack on the Churcherupted in the nationaluprising of 1381. Modernhistorians tell us that thecauses of the revolt wereeconomicandpolitical,butin1381theChurchitselfhadnodoubt that the chiefinstigators were JohnWyclifand his followers who hadbeenbusyfor the lastdecadestirring up criticism of the

ecclesiastical hierarchy forthe precise reason that thechurchnowlayattheheartofthe economy and of politics.The rebels beheaded theArchbishop of Canterburyandmanyabbeyscameunderattack.

AtBuryStEdmundstheabbeywasonceagainsackedand looted. The prior wasexecuted and his severedhead stuck on a pike in theGreatMarket.AtNorwichthe

rebels were unfortunateenough to run into a fightingbishop, Henry Despenser,who formost of his ill-spentyouth had been one of thepope’s military commanders.The bishop happened to befullyarmedandarmoured.Hepersonally executed theleaderoftheparty.

The uprising wascrushed, but the Church’scritics were not. Wyclifcontinued to insist that the

clergy ought not to ownproperty, and that the kingcould legally confiscate anyheldbytheChurch.Itwasaninteresting proposition towhich many theologians felttheycould subscribe.But themenwhothenrantheChurchwere not theologians. Themost powerful bishops andarchbishops were careerpoliticians, with little or notheologicaltraining.Forthemthe Church was a political

and economic power base.There was no way theseproud and wealthy prelatesweregoing toheedacall fora return tobiblical simplicityand poverty. They would dowhatever they could to holdontotheirwealthandpower.

THECHURCHDEFENDSITSELFWITHFIRE

Theirtacticwasnottodefendthe indefensible but to go on

the attack. Luckily for them,Wyclif had challenged theofficial Church position ontheEucharist–thepartoftheMass where the bread andwineareblessedandbecomethebodyandbloodofChrist.Since1215,thelinehadbeenthatamiracletakesplace,andafter the blessing there is nobreadandnowineleft–theybecome, despite what oursenses tell us, flesh andblood.

However, theChurch inEngland had never pressedthis point and people werelefttointerpretthemiracleasthey liked. Wyclif proposedthat the bread and winebecamethebodyandbloodofChrist in a spiritual orsymbolic sense. It was aproposition that would haveroused little controversy inthe past, but after 1381 theworldly bishops, headed bythe aristocratic and powerful

William Courtenay,archbishop of Canterbury,saw the issue as a block onwhich to lay theheadsof theChurch’s critics. From 1401archbishops were able toenjoytheprivilegeofhandingover anyone who suggestedthat thebreadandwinewerenot literally the body andbloodofChristtobeburntatthestake–abrutallyeffectiveway of retaining the statusquo.

Nonetheless, oppositionto corruption in the Churchstruggled on. In 1410 therewasanattempt topassaBillin Parliament to strip theChurch and the monasteriesof their assets.ButHenry IVhadbeenhelpedtothethroneby the then archbishop ofCanterbury,ThomasArundel,and the Bill was indignantlyrejected. In fact, an abjectCommonshadtobegforittobestruckfromtherecord.

THEENDOFTHEMONASTERIES

The unpopularity of themonasteries simmered underthe surface. When religioushouses were founded aspenance for the murder ofRichard II, it was verydifficult to find anyone toinhabitthem.Syonmonasterynear London, for instance,was occupied by a Swedishorderofnuns,wholater took

over another of the newfoundationsatBrentford,alsonear London, which hadremained empty since beingestablished.

Nuns had, in fact,replaced monks in people’sminds as being value formoney. The classic idea of anunnery had been a place ofretreatforwell-offladieswithnowhereelsetogo;butinthedecades that followed theBlack Death the attitude to

women in religious lifechangedratherdramatically.

Nuns evidently chose tolive by different standardsfrom those of monks withtheir rich endowments andglorious buildings. Peopleseem to have been muchmoreconsciousofthisbythefifteenth century, and also tohave become aware that iftheywere donating funds foranniversaries, for pittances,forregularprayers,forburial,

women were more likely todeliver the goods. Wealthymen and women frequentlymade bequests to ‘the poornuns who will pray for theirsouls’, and increasingnumbers of women’sreligious houses werefounded. This suggests thatwomen’s prayers wereperceived to have moreefficacy thanmen’s, and thatdonors and patrons thoughtnunneriesweredoingabetter

jobthanmonasteries.Monks and nuns were

bothfinallysweptawayintheyears following 1535, whenHenry VIII dissolved themonasteries and redistributedtheir phenomenal wealthamong his cronies. TheinquirybyThomasCromwellwhichleduptothisproduceda spectacular list of abusesand scandals, none of whichrepresentedanythingnew,butwhich were now being

exposed in a world in whichreform, rather than abolition,hardly seemed an option anymore.

Andallwehave leftarebeautiful fairy ruins . . . thatwhisperofalifeofdedicationand piety and simplicity thatbecame corrupted on amagnificentscale.

Perhaps money is therootofallevil.

Of course, there werealways sincere and dedicated

monks who devotedthemselvestoa lifeofprayerand religious contemplation.Butlookingbackthroughthestory of the monasteries it’spossibletoconcludethatonceprayer had acquired amonetary value, the gamewas up. The monasteries –theprayerfactories–becamecommercial enterprises; andsubsequently there was justnowaytheycouldfulfiltheiroriginalfunction.

Monks couldn’t reallycut themselves off for everfrom the wicked world, nomatter how hard they tried.Theywerepartofthewickedworldand,what’smore,alotof the time they ran it. Butthey were never allowed toget away with it unscathed.Criticism and condemnationwas constant; it was themotor that drove one newmonastic movement afteranother,andultimatelypulled

down the entire edifice. Thetrue legacy of the medievalchurch in England, and allthose fat monks, is thepowerful sense of socialjustice that the monasticmovementitselftaught,thatitused to speak out against itsown corruption, and that inthe end became the weaponthatdestroyedit.

And that has shapedpolitical debate in Englandeversince.

CHAPTERFIVE

PHILOSOPHER⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Nature, and Nature’slawslayhidinnight.God said, Let Newton

be!andallwaslight.

ALEXANDER POPE’S EPITAPHforSir IsaacNewton,writtenin1730 (threeyearsafter thegreat man’s death), seems totell us all we need to knowabout medieval science. Thenatural philosophers of theMiddle Ages floundered inignorance and superstitionuntil Newton changed thestudyof theworld by basing

his investigations onexperimentandmathematics.

The typical medievalexperimental philosopherwas, supposedly, a man likethe thirteenth-centuryFranciscanfriarRogerBacon,hunting for the philosopher’sstone. Bacon was analchemist who tried to turnbase metals into gold,pursuing delusions, and whowas then forbidden by hisown order to continue his

strangeexperiments.Odd, then, that it should

be Bacon who said‘Mathematics is thedoorandthe key to the sciences’ andwrote an explanation ofexperimental science for thepope. Odder still that IsaacNewtonwas also actually analchemist,andthatbyfar thegreater part of his writingswas devoted to alchemy andinterpreting the Book ofRevelation. We choose to

ignore the truth about thehistoryofnaturalphilosophy.Itdoesn’tfit intothestoryofhumanprogressasweliketotellit.

THEALCHEMISTSANDTHESEARCHFORGOLD

Roots of science lie inalchemy – the study of howonesubstancecanbechangedintoanother.Alchemistswereexploring a world whose

nature, in their eyes, derivednotfrommechanicallawsbutfromthemindofGod.

The word ‘alchemy’comes from Arabic andEgyptian roots (al-khimiarefers to theblacksoilof theNile); the study was said tohavebeendevisedbythegodHermes, creator of the artsandsciences.ItwascalledtheHermetic art and wascertainly explored by Greeksin Alexandria in the third

century AD. Much of theEastern Roman Empire,including Egypt, wasultimately conquered byIslam in the seventh century,and Arab inquirers pursued,and elaborated on, the ideasandknowledge thathadbeendeveloped there. Eventuallythe secrets of alchemy werepassedontomedievalEuropethroughArabsinSpain.

Roger Bacon explainedthat, ‘Alchemy is a Science,

teaching how to transformany kind of metal intoanother:and thatbyapropermedicine, as it appeared bymany Philosophers’ Books.’And alchemy certainly hadthe transmutation of basemetals intogoldat the topofits priorities. Gold wasspecialbutthatwasbecauseitwas so very different fromany other substance – thiswas its significance foralchemists.Gold cannot rust.

No natural process damagesit. Heat it to white-hot andwhenitcoolsoffitwillbethesamemetal as it was before.It can be hammered to one-thousandthofthethicknessofa sheet of newsprint, anddrawnintoawirefinerthanahuman hair, and remainsquite unchanged. In amortalworld,goldisincorruptible.

To thealchemists itwasperfection. The basis ofalchemy was the belief that

the world contained thepossibility of perfectibility,and it was the duty of theinquirertostrivetowardsthat.Once,intheGardenofEden,everything had been perfect.Thensinhadbeenintroduced,menandwomenwerebarredfrom the garden and theworld was now corrupt. Buteverything – animate andinanimate – was slowlystriving to restore itself, andthe existence of gold, rare as

itwas,demonstratedthatsucha restoration to perfectionwasrealanddidhappen.

And because everythingwastendingtowardsastateofperfection, all metals thatwere still underground mustbe gradually changingthemselves into gold. Thealchemists were simplyhelping a natural process.GivingGodahand.

Before we scoff, weshouldbearinmindthateven

in the twentieth centuryminers have argued thatmetalsgrowintheground.Ina sense, theyare correct.Forexample, if you leave scrapiron in a wet place in aworked-outcoppermine,andseal the mine, a few yearslateryouwillfindthatcopperhas grown. It has migratedinto the scrap iron from themoisture, copper atomsreplacingironones.

To the alchemists it

seemed to follow that, ifmetals grow, those that areleft in the ground for thelongesttimewillgrowclosestto perfection. That explainedwhytherewassolittlegoldintheworld – in the fourteenthcenturyallthegoldinEuropewould have filled amedium-sized room. Most metal, itwas deduced, is brought tothe surface too soon. Thepurposeofalchemy,asBaconwrote, was to provide the

solutiontothisproblem:

Alchemy therefore is ascienceteachinghowtomakeand compound a certainmedicine, which is calledElixir, the which when it iscastuponmetalsorimperfectbodies, does fully perfectthem.

This was the basis for thehunt for the philosopher’sstone (or elixir). Alchemy

required that an inquirershould study all knowledge.Human beings, the heavensand theearthwere intimatelylinked, having been createdtogetherinthemindofGod.

THEPURPOSEOF‘PHILOSOPHY’

Philosophers like RogerBacondidnotseethemselvesas challenging biblicalorthodoxy. Their credo was

‘asabove,sobelow’.Inotherwords,theworlditselfispartof creation, so studying itssecrets can help you tounderstand the Bible. Baconargued that scientific studywas essential to perceivingthe hidden meaning ofreligious texts – only whenyou know about the worldcan you see what is beingsaid.Alchemywasareligiousinquiry that happens to looklike bad science to our

uncomprehendingeyes.For example, Bacon

described the vastness of theuniverseinawaythatsoundssurprisinglymodern:

Eventhesmallestofthestarsvisible to our sight is biggerthantheearth;but,comparedtotheheavensasawhole,thesmallest star has no effectivemagnitudeatall . . .Thesunis about 170 times as big asthe whole earth, as Ptolemy

proves(Almagest5) . . .Onecouldwalkall thewayroundthe earth in less than threeyears. So we see that themagnitude of things below issimplyincommensurablewiththatoftheheavenlybodies.

BACON,OperisMajoris

Just as we assume thatNewton transformed physicsby ‘introducing’ theimportance of mathematics,we are taught that Galileo

transformed cosmology byinventing the astronomicaltelescope. But Bacondescribes how to use lenses,andhisownuseoftheminaninstrument that must havebeena telescope.Heclaimeditcouldmakethemostdistantobjectappearnear,andthatitcould make stars appear atwill.Buteverytimewethinkan alchemist is talkingmodern science, we aremistaken.Bacongoeson...

...weseethatthemagnitudeof things below is simplyincommensurablewiththatoftheheavenlybodies.Norcantheir effectiveness becompared, since theeffectiveness of things belowis caused by that of thingsabove. The combinedinfluenceofthesunbelowtheslantingcourseoftheecliptic,andtheaspectsoftheplanetsabove,isthecauseofallthathappens here below them on

theearth.

Since all things must beconnected Bacon, like otherphilosophers, was also anastrologer. It followed, ofcourse, that he believed histelescopegavehimthepowerto see into the future. Wehave a different view of theworld. Any modernastronomer knows that atelescopeisawayof lookingbackwards in time, not

forwards–sinceittakestimefor light to pass from distantobjects to earth, the furtheraway the object, the longeragotheimagewascreated.

Bacon’s inquiries wereessentially inspired byreligion; the pope supportedhis work and was eager toread what he wrote. He wasalso doing what we think ofas real science, and alarmedhis students by breakingwhite light up into the

spectrum of colours: ‘Theexperimenter considerswhetheramongvisiblethings,he can find colours formedand arranged as given in therainbow.’

When Bacon created arainbow by passing lightthrough some glass beads hewas500yearsaheadofIsaacNewton–especiallywhenhemeasured the angle ofdisplacement of the beamcorrectly. He was

demonstrating thatexperiment is a form ofknowledge that can clarifythestudyoftheBible.

THEALCHEMISTSWERE(ALMOST)RIGHT!

Our contempt for the theoryof transmutation is rooted inthe work of the FrenchchemistAntoine Lavoisier inthe 1770s. He produced atheory of matter that said

metals like iron, lead andgold are chemical elementsthat are fixed andunchanging.This new ‘truth’becamethebasisofscientificunderstanding for nearly 200years, and helps us to forgetthat the transmutation of onemetal into another is nowusedall the time. It ishowanuclear reactor works. Onemetal – uranium – turns intoothers, including plutoniumand thorium. We call the

process radioactivity, butthat’s just our word fortransmutation.

The alchemists wereright in thinking that naturetransmutes metals very, veryslowly – though somewhatmore slowly than theyassumed. It takes 4.5 billionyears (about the age of theuniverse) for half a lump ofuranium-238 to turn intothorium. Obviously, sometrick is needed to speed the

process up, which is whatnuclearphysicsisallabout.

As for the transmutationof leadintogold– in1972itwas reported that Sovietphysicists at a nuclearresearch facility near LakeBaikal, in Siberia, found thatthe lead shielding of anexperimental reactor haddoneexactlythataftera timeunder continuous nuclearbombardment! However, justin case you think this is an

experiment worth repeating,please be advised that thegoldmust have been heavierthan lead (which it normallyisn’t) and intenselyradioactive,andthatitrapidly‘decayed’backtolead.

Of course, alchemistswere not pursuingradioactivity. Their theorywas that they were trying topurify matter. So, theyreasoned, the first step mustbe to produce pure

substances. They did this bydistillation – heatingsomethinguntil itproducedavapour, then collecting thecondensation. The processescould be unbelievablycomplicated: the Islamicalchemist Jabir ibn Hayyanrecommended one particularprocedure that involved 700distillations.

In their attempts topurify matter alchemistsproduced entirely new

substanceswithextraordinaryproperties. Distilling acombination of saltpetre andalumproducednitricacid–aliquid that would completelydissolvesilver. It took longerto learn how to distil alumalone as the condensationdestroyed metal vessels.Eventually alchemists beganusing containers made ofglass,which the acid did noteat away. And the liquidproducedwoulddissolveiron

and copper. It was sulphuricacid. Then they discoveredthat distilling salt and alum,and passing the vapourthrough water, producedsomething even stronger:hydrochloric acid which,whenmixedwith nitric acid,wouldevendissolvegold.

These discoveriesliterally changed the world,by transforming Europeantechnology. Until thealchemists got to work the

strongest acid known hadbeenvinegar.

In addition, alchemistsactually had reason tosuppose they were on tosomething, because theyfoundthat theycouldmakeasubstance that seemed to begold.Addingalittlegolddustto a flask of mercury andpowdered silver resulted in agolden liquid.When thiswasheated and boiled away itproduced (in addition to

highly noxious fumes) whatlooked like a lumpof gold–it’s called ‘butter of gold’.Nowadays, there are tests toshow it isn’t the real thing,buttheseweren’tavailabletothe old alchemists. So it ispossible they thought theywerecloser totheirgoal thantheywere.

FRAUDSTERSANDCHEATS

Perhapsit’snotsurprising, inan enterprise involvingcomparatively largequantities of gold, that somepractitioners were in thebusiness of extracting asmuch of it as they could forthemselves. In TheCanterbury Tales, written inthe fourteenth century,Geoffrey Chaucer’salchemist’s assistant callsalchemy‘thiscursedcraft’:

This cursed craft –whoevertriesitonWill nevermake a thingtoliveuponFor all the cash on itthatheforksoutHe’lllose;ofthatIhavenodoubt.CHAUCER, The Canon’sYeoman’sTale,830–3

The assistant goes on to tellhow a fraudulent alchemisttricks a priest into believing

there is a process that turnsmercury into silver, andcons£40(afortune)outofhimforthe secret.Of course, it doesnotworkandthepriestneverseesthealchemistagain.

Chaucer was clearlywriting with first-handknowledge of thesecharlatans. There must havebeenplentyofthem.

One of the earliest wasArtephius, who appeared inthe twelfth century claiming

he was 1025 years old. Soold, he claimed in a book,that he was now ready toreveal the secret of the elixiroflife:

I, Artephius, after I becameanadept,andhadattainedtothe true and completewisdom . . . was sometimesobscure also as others were.ButwhenIhad for thespaceof a thousand years, orthereabouts, which has now

passed over my head, sincethe time I was born to thisday . . . by the use of thiswonderful quintessence –when,Isay,forsoverylongatime, I found no man hadfound out or obtained thishermetic secret, because ofthe obscurity of thephilosophers’ words, beingmovedwithagenerousmind,and the integrity of a goodman, I have determined intheselatterdaysofmylife to

declare all things truly andsincerely, that you may notwant anything for theperfectingof thisstoneof thephilosophers.

The Secret Book ofArtephius

Tragically for all would-beimmortals, no-one can makehead or tail of hisinstructions. Which is ashame, because by his ownaccount he clearly went to

literally fantastic lengths togain his knowledge. He hadnot simply ‘gone the extramile’ in search of the recipe,but had (he said) descendedinto hell, where the devil saton a throne of gold,surrounded by imps andfiends.

Perhaps, though, this isan experience shared by allpioneering investigators inonewayoranother.

However,alotofpeople

desperately wanted thealchemists’ experiments towork.HenryIV,forexample,exhorted learned men tostudyalchemyinordertopayoffEngland’sdebts– andhewanted illicit alchemistsimprisoned to stop themundermining the currency. Inthe sixteenth centuryElizabeth I sent an envoy tobeg the English alchemistEdward Kelly to return fromPrague and help her pay for

herdefenceagainstSpain.These rulers understood

that the existence of fraudsdid not mean the theory ofalchemy was rubbish. If thisseems gullible, just considerthe extent of fraud incontemporary research.Today’s equivalents of thephilosopher’s stone includethe nanocomputer – a full-scale computer too smalleven to be seen with anordinary microscope. Dr

Hendrik Schon, of BellLaboratories, published 25papers in three years on hisbreakthrough work on thisand was considered to be aserious candidate for theNobel Prize. But in October2002 16 of the papers weredeclaredtobefraudulent.Thejournal Science withdreweight they had published andSchon was fired.*1 In 1999alone, the US Public HealthService received reports of

‘misconduct’ (fraudulentpublication), in biomedicalscience alone, from 72institutions.*2 But no-onejumps to the conclusion thatmodernscienceisworthless.

Medieval critics ofresearch tended to be ratherless tolerant of scientificfraud than we are. In 1350,Edward III threw analchemist by the name ofJohn de Walden into theTower of London – he had

been given 5000 crowns oftheking’sgoldand20poundsof silver ‘towork thereonbythe art of alchemy for thebenefit of the king’.Obviously not verysuccessfully. Hendrik Schon,on the other hand, remains afree man at the time ofwriting.

Inthefourteenthcenturythe Dominicans andCistercians banned alchemyfollowingapapalbullagainst

alchemical fraud. But thesame pope who issued thatedict in 1317 gave funds tohis physician in 1330 for‘certainsecretwork’.

THESECRECYOFTHEALCHEMISTS

Mark you, the alchemistswere a pretty secretive lot.They operated in a world ofelliptical allusions andallegory. And a lot of what

they wrote was designed notto elucidate but to confuse.As the 1025-year-oldArtephiusput it: ‘Is it not anart full of secrets? Andbelievest thouOfool thatweplainly teach this secret ofsecrets, taking our wordsaccording to their literalsignification?’

The Hermetic art wasnever to lose itsemphasisonmystery. George Ripley, afifteenth-centurycanonofthe

Augustinian priory ofBridlington in Yorkshire,explainedthatalchemywasa‘holy science’ reserved forthe few,and thathewrote incode:

. . . to discourage the fools,for although we writeprimarily for the edificationof thedisciplesof theart,wealso write for themystification of those owlsand bats which can neither

bearthesplendourofthesun,northelightofthemoon.

GEORGE RIPLEY, TheCompound of AlchymieconteiningTwelve

Gates,1475

Asithappened,Ripley’scodeinvolved pictographs and hisresulting book, known as theRipley Scrolls, is among themost attractive of medievalmanuscripts.Inhistextakingcladinredisgold, thequeen

in white is silver, asalamander is fire, and adragon being killed by thesun and moon is mercurybeing combined with goldandsilver.

BACONTHEBLACKMAGICIAN

The mystery surroundingalchemy encouraged thesuspicion that alchemistswere devotees of the black

arts. The 1279 edition of theFranciscans’ ConstitutionesGenerales Antiquae forbidsalchemy along with magic,sorcery and the summoningof demons; and in the latesixteenth century RogerBacon was portrayed as afigure like Faust, whoengaged in a devilish pact toworkmagic.Apopulardramaaround 1580 showed himconstructingabrassheadthatcould speak, and whose

incantationwould (had it notbeen destroyed) havesurrounded England with aprotectivebrasswall.But theChurch did not generally seenatural philosophy as achallengetoChristianity.

Bacon was certainlyviewed with considerableanxiety by his Franciscanbrotherhood, but that hadmore to do with hisoutspokenviewsontheorderitself than with his scientific

interests. A ferocious debatewas going on in Franciscantheology,withonegroup,the‘Spirituals’, demanding totalcommitment to a life ofpoverty and the otherjustifyinga compromisewithsomethingmore comfortable.Bacon sympathized with thespiritualand,likeanumberofother Franciscans, wasvirtually imprisoned by theorder. Early in the nextcentury Spirituals would be

condemned as heretics andburned. But the Church’sattitude to scientific inquirywas complex, and not ascondemnatory as has oftenbeenassumed.

Bacon was based inParis, and thirteenth-centuryPariswasthrobbingwithnewideas about philosophy andtheology. At the heart of theferment was the study ofAristotle’s writings, and theway his ideas were being

handledinaChristiancontextby scholars like ThomasAquinas. One establishmentresponse was the so-called‘General Condemnation ofPhilosophyand theSciences’by the bishop of Paris in1277. This has traditionallybeen described as an attackon reason – which is rathermisleading. The Church wastrying to resist a newdogmatism of rationalcertainty which seemed to

challenge theomnipotenceofGod and the value oftheology. The bishopparticularly condemned thepropositionsthat:

Theological discussionsarebasedonfables.Nothing is known betterbecause of knowingtheology.Theonlywisemenoftheworldarephilosophers.

In fact, the condemnationrejected a number ofpropositions which, if theyhad been accepted asorthodoxy, would havedramaticallylimitedscientificdebate and made heretics ofmany theories and theorists.Some of these condemnedpropositionswere:

Therewas no firstman,norwill therebea last: therealways was and always willbe a generation ofman from

man. Nothing happens bychance. The first cause [thatis, God] could not makeseveralworlds.Godcouldnotmovetheheavens[thatis,thesky and therefore the world]with rectilinear motion; andthe reason is that a vacuumwouldremain.Godcannotbethe cause of a new act [orthing] nor can he produceanything new. God cannotmake more (than three)dimensions exist

simultaneously.These propositions

wouldhavemadeDarwinandNewton heretics, andquantum probability, thetheoryofcontinuouscreation,ideas of multiple universesand dimensions would allhave been heresies. TheBishop insisted that thesepossibilities must remainopen because human reasoncannot limit God’somnipotence. By rejecting

these propositions the bishopmade it an offence to denythe possibility of evolution,quantum probability,Newtonian motion, themultiverse, continuouscreation and multipledimensions!

THEYTHOUGHTTHEEARTHWASFLAT

It does look as thoughmodern people are as likely

as those of theMiddle Agesto hold false certainties.Oneof the oddest of these is thewidespread conviction thatmedieval people thought theearth was flat. This is amodern mistake – there wasno such belief in theMiddleAges. Perhaps ‘mistake’ istookindaword.Itisaliethathasbeenelevatedintoafact.

The lie was concoctedby two writers at around thesame time: a French

antireligious academic,Antoine-JeanLetronne,inhisOntheCosmographicalIdeasoftheChurchFathers(1834),and the American novelist,Washington Irving. Irvingwas the author of suchreliable historical texts as‘The Legend of SleepyHollow’ and ‘Rip VanWinkle’.In1828hewroteanequally reliable biography ofChristopher Columbus. Thisincludesasceneinwhichthe

great navigator, about to setoffwestwardstotheIndies,isconfronted by the Churchauthorities at Salamanca inSpain. They accuse our heroofheresybecausehesaystheworldisround.It’sagrippingscene and one that has heldimaginationsinthrallthroughtheensuingyears.

The only snag is thatWashington Irving simplymadethewholethingup.TheChurchhadnever taught that

the world was flat. It’snonsense.

But it was a great ideawith which to attack theChurch,evenifitwasn’ttrue.Ledronne was an anti-Christian polemicist and theDarwinists, when they wereattacked by the Churchauthorities for saying thathumansweredescendedfromother animals, connected hisfalsehoods with Irving’sfantasy and called religious

zealots‘flatearthers’.Irving’snonsense was repeated by asuccession of lazy authors*3andendedup inanumberofwell-respected histories ofscience,and in theNew YorkTimes editorial that usheredin the first day of the newmillennium.

There is no doubt thatintelligent people in theMiddle Ages knew perfectlywell that the earth was aglobe. Aquinas, in the

thirteenthcentury,wrotethat,‘the astronomer and thenatural philosopher bothdemonstrate the sameconclusion, such as that theworld is round; yet theastronomer does so throughmathematics, while thenaturalphilosopherdoessoina way that takes matter intoaccount.’

Roger Bacon, living atthe same time as Aquinas,had been taught that Greek

mathematicianshadmeasuredthe earth’s circumference. Itwasobviousthatitwasround– for how else did thingsdisappear beyond thehorizon? As he wrote:‘The . . . curvature of theearth explains why we cansee further from higherelevations.’

What is more, medievalscholars were activelyconsidering the possibleexistence of America. They

realizedthatthepeopleoftheworld they knew inhabitedonly one hemisphere, anddevotedalotofdiscussiontowhat happened on the otherside. Some said it was allwater. But some postulatedthe existence of another landmass, the antipodes, ‘on theopposite side of the earth,where the sun rises when itsets to us’ (that is, in the farwest). And whether or notthese ‘antipodes’ were

inhabited was a matter ofintensespeculation.Thefifth-century theologian StAugustine had thought not,on the very rational groundsthat all humans must bedescended from a commonancestor and such lands, ifthey existed, were too farawaytohavebeensettled.

Columbus had noproblem with the Church’sgeography. He found theantipodes.

MAPPAEMUNDI

Surely, though, the maps oftheMiddleAgesdemonstratebeyond doubt that medievalpeople had no idea of theshape,size,look,nature,plan,organizationorconceptoftheearthasitreallyis?

The standard medievalimageoftheearth–describedasaT-Omap–wasacirculardisc divided by bodies ofwater in the shape of the

letterT.TheareaabovetheTrepresentsAsia;thelowerleftquadrant (separated fromAsia by the Black Sea)represents Europe and thelower right (separated fromAsia by the Red Sea)representsAfrica.Theuprightof the T, separating Europeand Africa, is theMediterranean,andJerusalemisinthecentreofthemap.

Well, it’s reassuring tobe able to laugh at the

ignorance of our forebears,butthetroubleisthatlaughteroften betrays our ownignorance. It’s unlikely thatanybodywho looked at sucha ‘map’ in the Middle Agesthought it portrayed ageographical representationof theearth.TheT-Omap ismorelikeanacronym,anaidto help people remember thesignificantpointsofthethen-known world: the threecontinents and the waters in

between.And what of the

wonderful and elaboratemappaemundi – such as theone in Hereford cathedral –that show strange and idioticdistortionsoftheearth?Theyaresoobviouslytheproductsofamap-makerwithlessofaclue than the averageprimary-school student oftoday that it’s hard to takethem seriously. And it’scertainlytruethatifyoutried

to use one to get fromLondon to Stuttgart youprobably wouldn’t get as faras Noah’s Ark – whichusuallyfiguresprominentlyinsuch maps, along with theTower of Babel, the dog-headed people converted byThomasAquinas,peoplewithheads in their chests andpeople who protectedthemselves from the sun byholding their single giganticfoot over their heads like a

parasol.But once again we’re

mistaking the purpose of thebeast. These were not maps.Mappa simply means ‘cloth’and amappamundi is not a‘map of the world’ but a‘clothof theworld’.Thefactthat we have derived ourword‘map’fromtheseclothsis not the fault of the peopleoftheMiddleAges.Ifthere’sany blame to be apportionedit’s our fault for forgetting

wherethewordcomesfrom.Andaclothoftheworld

had an entirely differentpurpose from an atlas (aseventeenth-century idea). Amappa mundi is a depictionof the world as a place ofexperiences, of humanhistory, of notions andknowledge. It’smore like anencyclopaedia. It’s certainlynot–andwasneverintendedtobe–acharttobefollowedbytravellers.

More than likely, amappa mundi would havebeenaconversationpieceinarich man’s house. Afashionable–andexpensive–ornament to prompt after-dinner discussion. Forjourneys people needed notmaps but travel itineraries,andthatiswhattheyhad.Themost famous of the Englishones was drawn byMatthewParis,amonkofStAlbans,inthe thirteenth century. It

shows the roads of England,and towns and villages andthe time it takes to walkbetween them. The word‘journey’ comes from thewalking times on itinerariesof this kind; ‘journée’referredtoaday’stravel.

THEGREATESTEXPERIMENTSOFTHE

MIDDLEAGES

Themedieval churchwas by

no means opposed to thepursuitofknowledge.On thecontrary, it was churchmenwho were responsible formanyofthediscoveriesoftheage. And the fabulouscathedrals, churches andabbeys that were constructedthroughout the Middle Ageswere the result of technicalexperimentation on amonumentalscale.

The style of religiousbuilding that immediately

followed the Conquest wasessentially connected withfortification:thickstonewallswith small windows weresurmounted by barrel vaultssupportedonsturdypillars.

The architecture offortification was a naturalfield for innovation andexperiment. By the latethirteenth century Edward Iwas building castles in arevolutionary new formcreated by a European

master-mason, James of StGeorge. In place of the olddesign, in which everythinghelped to defend a massivecorecalledtheKeep,Edwardwas dominating Wales withcastles of concentric rings ofwall, each wall protected bycovering fire from towers.The gloomy, thick-walledKeep had been, in effect, aprisonforthecastle’smaster;Edward’s castles were notonlystrongerbuthadat their

heart an open space where aKing or his lieutenant couldlive inmorepalatialcomfort.But Church architecture hadgoneoffonatotallydifferenttack.

TheChurchhadfoundanewconfidenceanditwantedto demonstrate thatconfidence. In fact, it nowwanted to dominate thelandscape. Abbots andarchbishops becameinterested in constructing

buildings with high towers,that would celebrate ratherthandefendtheirpower.

We are so familiar withthese enduring constructionsthatitiseasytoforgetthatatthe time they were builtarchitectswereexperimentingat the limits of theirtechnologyandbeyond–andall toooften they learntwhatthose limits were the hardway: Winchester cathedral’stower collapsed in 1107,

during the buildingwork.AtGloucester Abbey, built in1100, the southern tower ofthe west front fell over in1170.

But these minordrawbacks did not createarchitectural conservatism.On the contrary, theologysaidthatGodislight,andtheChurch wanted to get awayfrom the dark, introspectivearchitectureofthepastandletthe light of God shine in on

worshippers.So, when the choir of

Canterbury cathedral burneddown in 1174, the monksdecided to build somethingaltogether more ambitious inplace of the previous heavy,rough-hewn pillars, roundedarches and wooden ceiling.And they allowed a Frencharchitect,WilliamofSens, totalkthemintoanentirelynewarchitecture – far taller andlighter, finely chiselled and

with its pointed archescoming together in gracefulvaults,soaringtothegloryofGodandtheChurch.Nothinglike it had been seen inEnglandbefore.

In fact, William hadconned themonks into it.Hewonthecontractagainstotherbidders by sayinghe thoughtthey had overestimated theamount of work that neededdoing, and then ‘for sometimeconcealedwhathefound

necessarytobedone,lessthetruthshouldkillthem’.Ithasoftenbeensaidthatmedievalcathedrals were built byanonymous communities ofdedicated men. The truth isthey were built byinternationally famousarchitects like William, whotook advantage of ambitiouschurchmen to put up hugelyexpensivemonumentstotheirowngenius.

The problem of

preventing the sides of abuilding being pushedoutwardsbytheweightofthestone roof was solved bypropping them up. AtCanterbury the propsdevelopedinthecourseofthework from solid, triangularbuttresses into flyingbuttresses – a new inventionthat would be the mark of‘Gothic’architecture.

This was a wildlyexperimental architecture, as

was the process of putting itup. William was five yearsinto theproject, and about tostartinstallingthegreatvault,when the scaffoldingcollapsed and timber, stoneandWilliam fell 50 feet. Hesurvived,andtriedtocarryondirecting the work from hisbed,but in theendhehad toreturn to France. It wasanother William, anEnglishman, who came upwith the design of the flying

buttresses.But the odd setback

wasn’t going to stop theChurch. Encouraged byhugelyambitiousarchitects,itlaunched an unprecedentedbuilding programme,covering Britain and Francewith innovative and untrieddesigns.

The nave of Lincolncathedral collapsed in 1185andthecentraltowerin1237(duringasermon,buryingthe

congregation). The tower ofSt David’s Cathedral felldown in 1220, as did Elycathedral tower in 1322 (andpart of the west front in thenext century).York cathedraltower collapsed in 1407, andthe tower of Ripon cathedralin1450.

But by then the attemptto build ever-higher vaultswaswell and truly over.Thetechnology had finally beenrecognized as being too

dangerous in 1284, when agreat chunk of Beauvaiscathedral crashed to theground. It was still underconstruction. Its choir wasalready the tallestbuilding inEurope; its main section, thenave, was never built at all.Beauvaiscathedralstillstands– just – a massive stonefantasy of layered buttresses,attached to the stump of thesquatbuildingitwasmeanttoreplace and kept up by

immense, modern woodenstrutsthataretestamenttotheglorious incompetence of itsdesign.

ELMERTHEFLYINGMONK

The Middle Ages wereactually a hotbed ofexperimentation; and somepeople were prepared to testtheir theories inpracticalandvery dangerous ways, even

tryingoutflyingmachines.AtMalmesbury Abbey, in theeleventh century, a monk bythe name of Elmer builthimself wings and took offfromthetopofthetower.Thewings took him a full 200yardsbeforehecrash-landed,breakingbothlegs.

When he was in bedrecovering he told his abbothe knew what had gonewrong: his flying machineneeded a tail. The abbot

forbade him to take theexperiment any further,setting back the developmentof flight by 900 years. Buteven though Elmer wascrippledfor lifehenever losthis interest in the sky. TheBayeux tapestry showsHalley’s comet, which wasseen in 1066 and washeralded as a portent ofdisaster for England. It wasreputedly Elmer who spottedit in the sky and gloomily

identifieditsmeaning.

RICHARDOFWALLINGFORD’SCLOCK

Everywhere we look in theMiddle Ages we findchurchmen experimentingand testing, exploring newboundaries of knowledge.Ofcourse, much of this wasn’tpure ‘blue skies’ research.Just like a lot of modernscience there were often

economic or politicalimperatives behind thepursuitofknowledge.

Take Richard ofWallingford, who becameabbot of St Albans in 1327.Heundertookoneofthemostambitious engineeringprojectsofhisdayforreasonsthatweremoretodowiththeexercise of power than withpureresearch.

It was said that Richardhad neglected theology as a

student at Oxford, preferringto concentrate onmathematics and astronomy;but he was particularlyinterested in astrology.According to his fellowmonks, he predicted byastrological means the oldabbot’s death and his ownelection to the post. Richardwas clearly attracted toscience that had practicalapplications.

The abbey of St Albans

had been built in the earlytwelfthcentury,andformanyyears dominated thecommerciallifeofnotjustthetownbutalsothesurroundingdistrict. In recent years,however, its grip had beenallowedtoslip.In1323somepillars in the south nave hadcollapsed, bringing down theroof andwall. To add to themonks’ woes, thetownspeople and tenants hadrebelled against the abbey,

demandingacharterofrightswith representation inParliament and an end tobeing forced to have theirgrain ground (at what theyconsideredexorbitantcost)inthe abbey’s mills. The oldabbot,Hughwasa sickman,andconceded thecharterandgaveupimposingtheabbey’smonopoly on milling. As aresult the abbey lost controlofthetown,andwasbroke.

Richard set about

restoring its fortunes with adegree of ruthlessness. Heconfiscated the hand flour-millsthetownsfolkwerenowusing to grind their corn andhad them set into the abbeyfloor.Fromthenontheywereonce again forced to use theabbey’smill and – of course–payfortheprivilege.Atonestroke Richard hadmade theabbeysolvent.But insteadofusing the money to rebuildthe collapsed nave, he

decided he would makesomething that woulddominate thecommercial lifeofStAlbans.

He decided to build aclock.

The Church hadoriginally established whatwerecalled‘canonicalhours’.These marked the times forpraying and there were onlyfour such hours duringdaylight and four for thenight. The intervals between

thehoursvariedaccording tothe season. In summer thedaylight ones were long andthe night-time ones wereshort, and vice versa inwinter. This was time asphysically experienced onearth.

Economic growth hadbrought pressure frommerchants andemployees formoreaccuratetimekeeping.Itappears thatby the thirteenthcentury the intervalsbetween

canonical hours no longervaried according to theseasons – many monasterieshad moved over to fixedlengths.Oneof theeffectsofthis change was that None –thehourforprayersoriginallysaid at the ninth hour of theday (mid-afternoon) – wasdisplaced to midday, givingthe English language theword‘noon’.

However, laypeoplewerebeginningtousetimeas

measured by astronomers,who divided a day into 24equal and unvarying hours.BythefourteenthcenturytheChurch found that itsmonopolyon timewasbeingappropriated by townspeoplewhobegantoerectclocksonpublic buildings and in citysquares. Control oftimekeeping was passingfrom the Church to themerchantclasses.

Richardintendedtokeep

theChurch in control– inStAlbans anyway. And as hewasmoreconcernedwiththelife of the town than the lifeof the abbey, his clock usedthe lay system – not thecanonical hours. It did notjust give the time, but linkedit into the whole of thecosmos;ontheclockcouldbeseen the phases of the moonandthetimesofeclipses.

Theclockusedthesamegeared mechanism as the

much-hated abbey mill,showing that the mill waslinked to the mechanisms ofthe heavens. By chimingeveryhour,insteadofjustforprayers,ittookcontroloftheworking day of the town.From now on, it was theChurch that would issue thetime for town councilmeetings,fortheopeningandclosing of markets, for thestartand theendofeachandeverydayofwork.*4

Richard’s aim seems tohavebeen todemonstrate theintellectual and technicalsuperiorityoftheChurch,andits scientific understanding,over mere commercialtradesmen.Youcouldsayhispurpose was political. Andyet he would doubtless haveclaimed it was religious. Hewas making God’s universevisible.

We assume that scienceand religion are poles apart.

But for the philosophers ofthe Middle Ages ‘science’would have no meaningunless it led to anunderstanding of God. Thisreligious agenda applied toeverybranchofphilosophyorlearning.Evenmedicine.

WHATWEREMEDIEVALDOCTORSUPTO?

Today we expect but onething from our doctors: to

makeusbetter.Themedievaldoctorwas trying to do a lotmorethanthat.Hewastakingcareofthesoulaswellasthebody.Unlikemoderndoctorshedidnottrytostopapatientdyingatallcosts...rather,ifdeath seemed inevitable, hewas duty-bound to try andhelphimorherdieinthebestpossible way for theirimmortalsoul.

But doctors of theMiddle Ages had an even

higher goal. It was no lessthantoreturnthehumanbodyto the state of perfection ithadenjoyedintheGardenofEden. And the means bywhichtheywoulddothiswasthrough their version of thephilosopher’sstone:theelixiroflife.

For us, medicine ismechanical chemistry, onechemical interacting withanother,withthepatientasananonymousvessel–theretort

within which this interactiontakesplace.Fromamedievalperspective, this is a recipefor disaster. The basicquestion a medieval patientneededtoaskwas‘Whyme?Whynow?’;and thecure forthe illness, if there was one,woulddependontheanswer.

Just as naturalphilosophers relied onAristotle for a basicunderstandingof thephysicalworld, medieval doctors

looked to another ancientGreek – Galen – for ideasabout the human body. Inboth cases the connection toclassical philosophy camethrough Islamic scholars andwas eagerly taken up byenquiring Christianresearchers.

At thecentreofGalen’smedicine was a belief thathealth depended on thedelicate balance of four vitalfluids or humours: blood

produced by the heart,phlegmproducedinthebrain,black bile from the liver andyellow bile from the gallbladder. It was believed thatthe individual mixture ofthesehumoursineachpersondetermined their characters.This implied the need fordifferent treatments fordifferent sorts of people –evenatdifferent timesof theday (an idea which has hadsome renewed life with the

studyofbiorhythms).Within this framework

therewasacomplexworldofplant knowledge, much of itusedverysuccessfullywithinitslimits,comparabletowhatthe Amazonian Indians, forexample,knowtoday.Infact,a considerable amount ofmedical knowledge that wasdismissed as oldwives’ talesin later,more ‘rational’, ageshas subsequently been foundto be extremely useful. One

ofthemostfamousexamplesis the use ofwillowbark forpatients with fever, whichwasthoughttobeunscientificformanyyearsbutresultedinthe development ofaspirin...

The old word for ahealer was ‘leech’, and thesamewordwasappliedtothebloodsucking worm doctorsused to take blood frompatientswhoweredeemed tobe ‘too sanguine’. The

common medicinal leech,Hirudomedicinalis,remaineda popular instrument oftreatment until the latenineteenth century – in fact,Frenchdoctorsimported41.5millionleechesin1833alone,and the poor little thingbecame an endangeredspecies. The medicalprofession lost interest inbleedingasacureforillness,but has recently realized theusefulness of a creature that

produces naturalanticoagulants andanaesthetics in its saliva, sothatpatientsbleedreadilyandgenerallyfeelnothing.Today,doctors have begun to useleeches again, particularlyafter microsurgery, and theyare even being farmedcommercially for use inmedicine. It is likely thatthere is more to be learntfromthemedicalpractitionersofthepast.

MEDIEVALMEDICALEXPERIMENTS

During the Middle Agesmedical science was, likeotherbranchesofknowledge,experimental. At the site ofan old monastery at SoutraAisle, south of Edinburgh inScotland, some remarkabledetectiveworkhasuncoverednew evidence of just howskilled some of themedievalpractitionerswere.

Dredging through the‘blood and shit’ pits on site,archaeologists havediscoveredsetsofseedsusedin herbal preparations. Thesereveal a wealth of medicalknowledge that has been lostto us. For example, a plantcalled tormentil was used totreat intestinal worms; itcontains tannic acid, onwhich current treatments forwormsarebased.Andjuniperwas used to promote

contractions when givingbirth.

Our belief thatanaesthetics are a moderninventionisshowntobequitewrong. Among the finds areseveral natural anaesthetics,suchasopium,blackhenbaneand hemlock. It had beenthoughtthatitwasimpossibleto grow opium in Britain’sclimate – but the monksclearly found a way. One ofthe major discoveries was a

heel bone with deep ridgesthat look like evidence of aclub foot. It is believed thatthe foot must have beenamputated – and ananaesthetic compound wasfoundonly3inchesaway.

Weliketobelieveintheideaofprogress–andithelpsto think that we know morethan people did in the past.But, arguably, we have astrange form of medicinewhichseemstoextendhuman

life while creating its ownwreckage. Hospitals actuallycausediseasewhilecuring it.In1997 theLancetpublisheda study*5 showing that justunder20per centofhospitalpatients in the UnitedKingdom experience someadverse event because ofbeing in hospital. It foundthat the likelihood of thisincreased by 6 per cent foreach day of hospitalization.Hospital-acquired infections

alone kill nearly twice asmanypeopleintheUKasdieontheroads.*6

In the United Statesmedical treatmentis thethirdhighest cause of death(iatrogenicdeath)aftercancerandheartdisease.So,despiteour undoubted progress inunderstanding the chemistryandbiologicalstructureofthebody, and great advances inthe techniques of medicalintervention, we are not

exceeding the achievementsofmedieval doctors asmuchas we might expect. In theirterms we are doing worse,becausetheobjectiveoftheircare was not necessarily tosave the body (whichwould,of course, be wonderful) butto help save the soul byallowingpatientstoknowthehour of their death, andprepare for it.Thiswas itselfa genuine medical skill and,again, one that depended on

seeingthepatientasahumanbeing.

No-one ever found thephilosopher’s stone or theelixir of life – otherwisethey’d still be here to tell usabout it – but this doesn’tmean we can dismiss theMiddle Ages as a period ofsuperstitious ignorance. Thedetermination to insist on amajorshift inthoughtaroundthe timeofNewtonhasdonea great disservice to our

understandingofthepast.It was medieval

philosopherswhoargued thatrevelation was to be foundhidden in nature, anduncovered by experiment.This was the true scientificrevolution. And it wasNewton’s age that was thegreat age of superstition. Itwas in the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries thatpeople started to believe thathuman beings could make a

pact with the Devil andthereby gain supernaturalpowers.

When Roger Baconthought about the future hebelieved it was easilypossiblethattheworldwouldvery soon be completelytransformed. He foresawships guided by one man,moving ‘with greaterswiftness than if they werefull of oarsmen . . .’;mechanical lifts and cranes;

devices ‘whereby, withoutbodily danger, a man maywalkonthebottomoftheseaor of a river . . .’; high-powered magnification;artificialflight;andthat‘acarshall be made which willmovewithinestimablespeed,and the motion will bewithoutthehelpofanylivingcreature...’.

Thatwas750yearsago.Whattookussolong?

Partly, our ignorance

aboutourownpast.

CHAPTERSIX

KNIGHT⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

THE YEAR: 1278. THE PLACE:opencountrynearLeHem,in

Picardy. A court isassembled; the field is laidout for a tournament andsplendidly bedecked ladiesarewatchingfromaplatform.At their centre is a queen,none other than KingArthur’s wife, the ladyGuinevere. Alongside her isan even more surprisingfigure:theLadyofCourtesy.

A herald in full fineryhas proclaimed that QueenGuinevere requires all who

want to pursue love in armsto appear before her; andbeforetheycanjoinhercourtthey must joust. Now sevenidentically dressed knightsappear and surrenderthemselves to the queen,saying they have beendefeatedbytheknightwithalion. The knight in questionthenarriveswithhis lionandseven damsels, Guinevere’sladies, whom he has rescuedfrom the seven knights in a

week-longquest.Thedramaof theknight

errant, riding around thecountrysideinshiningarmourrescuing damsels in distress,was being played out ascourtly theatre – by realknights. Was chivalry everanything more than anentertainment? Was anyoneever motivated by such pureand noble sentiments thatthey set off every morninglooking for distressed

damsels and dragons in needof killing? How did theymakealiving?

Howdidthelivesof theknights play-acting at LeHem relate to the kind ofchivalric story they wereperforming?

The reality ofknighthood – like reality forall people living medievallives–wasinaconstantstateoffluxthroughouttheMiddleAges. Concepts of

knighthood changed and theperception of what knightswere, and what they shouldbe doing, also changed. Theonly thing that remainedconstantwas that the idea ofchivalry was never what wemeanbythewordtoday.

Behind the fantasy is astory of violence: of thedesire of young men toexperience, and get rich andfamous through, its practice;andtheattemptsofsocietyto

construct a context in whichthat violence could bechannelledorcontained.

Itwasaneffort thatwasdoomedtofailure.Bytheendof the Middle Ages writerslooked back and lamentedthat the golden age ofchivalry had passed. In 1385aFrenchmonkwrote:

. . . these days all wars aredirected against the poorlabouringpeopleandagainst

theirgoodsandchattels.Idonot call that war, but . . .pillage and robbery . . .warfare does not follow therules of chivalry or of theancient custom of noblewarriors who upheld justice,the widow, the orphan andthe poor . . . And for thesereasons the knights of to-dayhave not the glory and thepraise of the old championsofformertimes...

TreeofBattles

But had the golden age ofchivalryeverexistedatall?

WHATWASAKNIGHT?

Anglo-Saxon knights did notfight on horseback. ButEurope’s nobility did andafter theNormanconquest inEngland the word ‘knight’was also understood tomeanahorse-warrior.

William the Conquerorrewarded his victorious

followers with grants of thelandtheyhadjustconquered.They did not own the land –the ownership was still inWilliam’s hot and stickyhands. Every one of thosewhom he rewarded simplyheld their land directly orindirectly from him, and theprice they paid was militaryservice. His immediatecompanions becamehereditary ‘tenants-in-chief’;eight of them held half the

land in England. They wereobliged to provide a total ofabout 5000 warriors whencalled on by the king, andthese warriors were men‘enfoeffed’ as their sub-tenants.

Sub-tenants held theirland as a ‘knight’s fee’ andhad to serve on campaignundertheirfeudalsuperiorfora fixed term each year. Aknight was ‘dubbed’ – madeinto a knight – by being

presented with his weaponand baring his neck to hisfeudalsuperior,whodeclinedto behead him and insteadbriefly rested a sword on hisshoulder. As in the rest ofwestern Europe, the knightsformed a military caste,whoserightsoflordshipwerepaid for with the duty ofmilitary service. They wererequiredtofinancethecostofthe horses, armour andentourage for that service,

conventionally understood tobe for forty days a year.William’s particularcontributiontothepracticeoffeudalism was to ensure thatall landholders swore fealtydirectly to him, rather thanjust to their immediateoverlord.ThisputtheKingofEngland directly at the headof all the military tenants oftheland.

It took two moregenerations for ‘knighthood’

to signify the profession ofarms. The Anglo-SaxonChroniclesayswhenWilliamwanted todubhis sonHenrya chevalier, horse-warrior, in1085 he made him a ridere.Henry’s coronation charterspeaks of tenants holdingland not as knights but ‘perloricam’, aswearersofchainmail.

This was a kingdomdesigned as a machine forwar, itswarriorssustainedby

the obligatory service of thepeasantry.

The main thing knightshad to have in common wastheabilitytofight.Theywerewarriors first and foremost,andviolencewas,forthem,away of life. They listened tostoriesofexcitingbrutality,agenre that continued forcenturies in tales like thethirteenth-century romanceHaveloktheDane:

There might men wellseeboysallbeatenAnd the ribs broken intheirsidesAnd Havelock on themwellavenged.He broke their arms, hebroketheirknees,

He broke their shanks,hebroketheirthighs.HemadethebloodcomerunningdownTothefeetrightfromthe

crown;Fortherewasnotaheadhespared

The ability to beat anotherman to a pulp or cut him tobloodypieceswasnotonlyarequirement of knighthood –it was one of its ideals.Richard the Lionheart, forexample, was celebratedamongsttheknightlyclassforhis ability to chop hisvictims’ skulls down to the

teeth. For everyonewhowasnotaknight,thiswasabitofa problem. How could youcontrol these dangerousyoungmen – especially nowthey were in charge? Howcould you channel theirtestosteronecultureintoareasthat were less destructive tosociety? The answer thatemergedwas to try to inventacodeofbehaviourbywhichthe knightly class mustgovern themselves – or,

rather, to adapt the code ofbehaviour that the knightsthemselves were alreadydeveloping.

Men on horseback,chevaliers, now dominatedmuch of Europe. And thecodeofconductofthesemen– and indeed their wholeculture – became known as‘chivalry’.

The snag was thatchivalry meant differentthingstodifferentpeople.

KNIGHTS’CHIVALRY

Knights themselves had nodoubts what chivalry meant.It meant learning how tofight, making money, andwinning fame and honour.ForAnglo-Normanknightsofthe twelfth and thirteenthcenturies the perfect role-modelwasWilliamMarshal.He was the first medievallayman(other thanaking) tobethesubjectofabiography,

which was completed somesevenyearsafterhisdeath in1219.Unlike the biographiesof saints, it was not in Latinbut in French, to beunderstood by men likehimself.

William becamehardened to the perils ofbattle at the ripe old age offive. His father, John theMarshal,hadrebelledagainstKing Stephen in 1152, andthekinghad laidsiege tohis

castle. During the siegeWilliam’s father handed himover as a hostage. Stephenhad no scruples about usingfive-year-oldhostages,andatone point put the boy into asiege catapult and threatenedto shoot him over the castlewalls, unless John theMarshalgavehimselfup.

William’s father isreportedtohaveshoutedbackthat he didn’t give a hootabout the boy since he

possessed ‘the hammer andthe anvils tomakemore andbetter sons’. William clearlyknew what it was to have atender, loving man as afather. Stephen, his bluffcalled,lettheboylive.

JohndiedwhenWilliamwas about 16, and didn’tleave him a penny. Williamwas thus faced with thefamiliar dilemma of everyyounger son from a landedEnglish family: join the

Church or learn to become aknight.

We do not know howlong William struggled withhis problem, but the timecould probably have beenmeasured in seconds ratherthan hours. He had a cousinin the townofTancarville inNormandywho ran a sort ofmilitary academy. Theprospect of free tuition andboard and lodging was toogood to resist. William

removed to Normandy andspent the next three yearstraining for the military life.Horsemanship, handlingweapons, getting fit, learninghow to kill andmakemoney– it was all part of thesoldier’scalling.

William was eventuallydubbed a knight by hiscousin, and was at lastequipped to earn a bit ofready cash. The neat thingwas that he didn’t even have

togotowartodothis.Therewas plenty of money to bemade on the tournamentcircuit.

He teamed up with abusiness partner, Roger deCaugie, and together theyembarked on the tourneyingcircuit, agreeing to split theproceedsbetweenthem.Theywerespectacularlysuccessful.In one ten-month period theMarshal-Caugie teamcaptured and put to ransom

103 knights. This was, ofcourse, education in theschoolofhardknocks–afterone tournament William’shelmet was so battered hecouldn’t take it off. He wasawarded theprizebutno-onecouldfindhim.Eventuallyhewasdiscoveredwithhisheadon the blacksmith’s anvilhaving the dents hammeredoutofhishelmet,andthereawoman of noble birthpresentedhimwithhisprize:

awondrousfish–apikeover6feetlong!

William Marshal didn’tjustgetrich;healsoachievedthat other aim of chivalry:fame. In fact, he went aboutthis quite methodically andemployed a servant by thenameofHenryNorreis togoaround promoting hiscelebrity. Indeed, it has beensuggested that William’sbiography itself was all partof what became a family

programme of self-aggrandizement. The cost ofthe biography wasunderwritten by William’seldest son, and the author (acertain ‘John’) ‘might wellhave been one of thoseheralds-of-armswhoarrangedthe jousts on the tournamentgrounds, identified theprotagonistsbytheirinsignia,and by singing their exploitsboosted the reputation of thechampions.’*1William’sown

skill at self-promotion wasclearly considerable. Likemany a young knight hecaught the attention ofEleanor of Aquitaine, whowas generous enough toransom him when he wascapturedandimprisonedbyanoblemanwho had killed hisuncle. William then servedEleanor’shusband,HenryII.

His biographer stressesfirst and foremost William’sdedication to ‘prowess’, skill

and courage in fighting.Secondly he emphasizesWilliam’s loyalty – dutifullyservingHenryII,RichardtheLionheart,KingJohnand thechild-kingHenryIII.

AsayoungmanWilliamdid the proper knightly thingand went on crusade, duringwhich he somehowmanagedto greatly magnify hisreputation – even though inJuly1187, about twomonthsbefore William came back

from Palestine, Saladindestroyed the entire fightingforce of the kingdom ofJerusalem.

He then returned toHenry’s service, and hisloyaltycertainlypaidoff.Theking rewarded him with thehandofIsabelledeClare,themost eligible heiress in thecountry with oodles of landand her very own castle!William generously took itover for her – nowadays it’s

calledChepstow.The landless William

had become a man ofproperty. It was everyknight’sdreamcometrue.Hewas famous as awarrior andwasoneoftherichestmeninEngland. At his funeral, thearchbishop of Canterburyhimselfdescribedhimas‘thebest knight in the world’.Fame, money and God’sapproval–chivalrycouldnotget better than that if you

wereaknight.However,wemustnever

forget that what medievalknights meant by chivalrywasnotwhatwemightmean.For them, the key thing wasthat it ennobled the cult ofviolence that they pursued.Chivalry introduced anetiquette for violent contactbetween knights that isreflected in the stories theyloved to listen to in thetwelfthcentury.

In one of these, Yvain,thereisadescriptionofaset-tobetweentwoknights:

Neverweretheretwoknightsso intent upon each other’sdeath . . . they drive thesword-point at the face . . .both are possessed of suchcourage that one would notforaughtretreatafootbeforehis adversary until he hadwoundedhimtodeath.

But the tale stresses that thiswas honourable, elegantmurderousviolence:

Theywereveryhonourableinnot trying or deigning tostrikeorharmtheirsteeds inanyway;but they satastridetheir steeds without puttingfoottoearth,whichmadethefightmoreelegant.AtlastmylordYvaincrushedthehelmetof theknight . . .Beneathhiskerchiefhisheadwassplit to

theverybrains.

Elegantindeed.Knights saw chivalry in

terms of fighting, gaininghonour and getting rich. Butthere were others who weretryingtodefinetheconceptofchivalry in their owninterests.

THECHURCH’SCHIVALRY

Therewas obviously a bit ofa contradiction between thedemandsofChristianityandaknight’s job – which wasbasedonprofessionalkilling.Meekness, turning the othercheek, regarding killing as asin, weren’t really subjectsthatweretakenveryseriouslyat knight school. This was aproblem at the very heart offeudallife.

At first the Church hadseenitsroleasoneofsimple

restraint. In 1023 it declareditwouldnotgivewarriors itsprotection if they foughtduring Lent. In 1027 acouncil at Toulouges, insouth-westFrance,imposedageneral truce on Sundays.Soon the Truce of God wasextended to run fromThursdaymorningtoMondaymorning. Then the Churchadded the more importantsaint’sdaysandAdventtoitslist. And at a church council

in Narbonne in 1054 it wasdeclared that ‘no Christianshould kill anotherChristian,for whoever kills a Christianundoubtedly sheds the bloodofChrist’.

William the ConquerorhadinvadedEnglandwiththeblessing of the Pope, andflying a Papal banner, butwasobligedtodopenanceforthesinofkillingpeopleattheBattleofHastings.

For knights, this raised

the obvious question: ‘Well,given that killing iswhatwedo,whoshouldwebekilling,then?’

The Church had thesensible idea of divertingtheir energies. In 1095, PopeUrban II called for the FirstCrusade and reversedcenturies of Christiandoctrinebyannouncingthatitwas fine for violent youngmen to butcher people, solongas thevictimswerefolk

of whom the Churchdisapproved (morespecifically, those of whomthe pope disapproved).Hitherto knights had had todo penance for those whomthey killed in battle. Butcrusadingwasnowdefinedasa penance in itself: a knightcould save his soul byslaughter.

Crusaders, the supposeddefenders of pilgrims,scourge of the heathen

Saracens, were the Church’sownwarriors. In this contexttheChristianknightneededtoshowvery little restraint,andall over Europe warriorscommitted themselves tocrusading with enthusiasm.They flocked to the cause,and at the capture ofJerusalem in 1099 they wereable to boast of wading in‘infidel’ blood up to theirknees. It is true that therewerelimitstothepermissible

violence, even on crusade,but these were at the outerlimits of savagery – someknights who took part in theFirstCrusadedidhavetoseekpapal forgiveness for eatingthebodiesoftheirenemies.Itwasgranted.

Christian chivalry –fighting at the behest of theChurch–becameasystemofsanctified slaughter. Thepope’s enemies, after all,were not restricted to

Muslims in faraway lands.Popes had enemies all overthe place, and they wereprepared to hurl crusadesagainst them whenever thislooked like a practicalproposition.

When Pope Innocent IIIdeclaredacrusadeagainstthe‘heretics’oftheLanguedocin1208 he handed out theirlands to men from northernFrance;alltheyhadtodowastakethem.SimondeMontfort

was granted control of thearea encompassingCarcassonne, Albi andBéziers, and set aboutslaughtering its inhabitants.He and his troops butcheredaround 18,000 people inBéziers without a secondthought.Whensoldiersaskedthe pope’s representative atthe slaughter whether theyshould separate believersfromhereticshetoldthemnotto bother: when the souls of

the slaughtered came to bejudged, ‘God will know hisown’.

Christian chivalry wasnot particularly lovely but itwas the Church’s attempt toharnessthedestructivepowerofknight-hood,toadvanceitsown ends and at the sametimeintroduceamorebenigncode of behaviour amongstthewarriorclass.

In 1276, the Catalanknight-turned-ecclesiastic-

and-philosopher,RamonLull,laid down some ethicalguidelines for knights in hisBook on the Order ofChivalry.It’sacuriouslist.

The first duty of theproper chivalric knight,accordingtoLull,istodefend‘theHolyCatholicFaith’.Hissecond is to maintain anddefendhis temporal lord.Histhirdduty(moresurprisingly)is to go hunting, give lavishdinners and fight in

tournaments: ‘Knights oughtto takehorses to joustand togo tourneying, to hold opentable and to hunt at harts, atbores and other wildbeasts.’*2

Rather more ominously,the knight’s fourth duty,according toLull, is to scarethe peasantry into workingthe land: ‘For because of thedread that the commonpeople have of the knights,they labour and cultivate the

earth, for fear lest they bedestroyed.’ Slightlycontrarily, hisnextduty is todefend ‘women, widows andorphans and diseased menandtheweak’and‘thosethatlabour the land’. He shouldfound cities and punishthieves and robbers, andshouldavoidswearing...

For Lull, even theknight’s equipment was fullof religious significance.Thesword is made in the

semblance of the cross tosignify that ‘our lordvanquished death upon thecross’.Thespear is truth, thehelmetisthedreadofshame,thecoatofmailrepresentshisdefence against vice.His legharness is tokeephis feetonthe straight and narrow, hisspurs signify diligence andswiftness. The gorget thatprotects his throat representsobedience, the mace:strength, the dagger: trust in

God,andsoonandsoforth.The Church provided

knights with a religiousvocabulary for violence and,at the same time, importedknightly terms into its ownusage: ‘Soldiers of Christ’couldmean either knights ormonks.

Italsodiditsbesttotakeover the ceremonies ofknighthood – in particular,theritualinvolvedindubbinga knight. A fourteenth-

century book describing theceremonies to be performedbyabishop records the formtheChurchwould have likedthis to take. The would-beknightisbathedinrosewaterontheeveofhisknighthood.Hespendsthenightinvigilina church and hearsMass thenextmorning.Thepriestthengiveshimthecollée(thelightblow on the shoulder that‘dubs’ himknight).Theonlyrole allowed the laity in all

this is that a nobleman givestheknighthisspurs.

But in general this waswishful thinking on the partoftheChurch–howitwouldhave liked to run things.Theceremonyofdubbingaknightremainedpredominantlynon-religious. Lords were notgoingtogiveupthepowerofcreating their own followers,and dubbing remained asecular event with enoughsacerdotal overtones to

provide religiouslegitimatization – but notenough to allow for priestlycontrol.

In the long run, knightstook from the Church whatthey needed to justifythemselves and their way oflife, without letting theChurch take over in the wayitwouldhaveliked.

ROYALCHIVALRY

Royalty also wanted tocontrol chivalry. Kings andprinces naturally wanted toharness the aggressiveinstinctsofknights to furthertheir own interests. If theChurchencouragedthesemento wrap their violent way oflifeinrobesofpiety,thekingprovided them with robes ofan altogether more tangiblevariety.

The Arthurian fantasythatwasactedoutatLeHem

(as interval entertainmentbetween jousts) was adeliberate response to therevivalofanArthuriancultatthecourtofEdwardI–ithadbeen expected that theEnglishkingandsomeofhisknights would attend, buttheyfailedtoshowup.Intheaccount of what happened,the Lady of Courtesyspecifically associated theheroes of Camelot withEnglish knights, and with

KingEdward.*3Romantic fantasy was a

usefulwayofensuringmen’sallegiance.Once theNormanhelmet (an iron hat with anosecovering)hadgivenwayto one that covered the fullface,knighthoodcouldeasilybe turned into a dressing-upgame, and royalty played onthat.

Nowadayswe recognizefamous people by their facesbecause we have seen

countless pictures of them.Butback in theMiddleAgesyou would not know whatanyone looked like unlessyou had met them. Mostpeople living in the twelfthcentury would have had aslittleideaofwhatRichardtheLionheart looked like as wehave now. They would havehad even less idea when hisheadwasinsideabucketwitheye-slits.

So the rich and famous

needed a way of announcingwho they were. That is whytheyhadcoatsofarms.

Going into battle withyour coat of armsemblazoned on your shield,your surcoat and your horsecloth, and with a crest onyour helmet that wouldidentify you in the thick ofthe fighting, was a kind ofdare. A well-marked knightwas fighting for his familyhonour as well for his own

life: if he ran awayeveryonewouldknow.Butthefactthathe could be recognized wasalsoapotentiallife-saver.Hiscoat of arms and equipmentsignalledthathewaswealthyand therefore worth keepingalive in order to be heldhostage.

One mercenary captaintook this to its logicalextreme. It’s said that SirRobert Knolles used to rideintobattlewithaninscription

on his helmet that read:‘WhoevercapturesSirRobertKnolles will gain 100,000moutons.’ (The mouton d’orwas a gold coin worth one-thirdofapoundofsilver.)

But coats of arms andother heraldic symbols alsohad a ceremonial side, andlent themselves to pageantryat tournaments. Arthurianthemes, fictitious but wellknown from the romances ofthe time, provided a

wonderfulwayof identifyingchivalric valour with loyaltyto the king, and the EnglishCrownlatchedontothiswithenthusiasm.

St George’s Chapel, inWindsor, is the physicalarchitectureofChivalry.Thismagnificent Gothic buildingis hung with the banners ofthe knights of the Order oftheGarter.ThisisthehighestorderofChivalryinEngland,a reincarnation of knights of

theRoundTable,dedicatedtoSt George the dragon slayer.TheOrder of theGarter is atrue medieval chivalricinvention.

The top of a ‘RoundTable’, supposedly Arthur’s,had hung in Windsor Castlesince the timeofEdward I –itnowhangsintheGreatHallof Winchester Castle. Itseems that Edward III had anewversion constructed, andbuilt the Round Tower at

Windsor to house it. In 1344he held a tournament afterwhich the knights feastedaroundthetable,thefirstofaseries of Round Tablegatherings in the castle.Between October 1347 andthe end of 1348, followingmilitary successes in theHundred Years War withFrance,Edwardheldafurtherseries of tournaments, and inJune1348 the first ceremonyoftheOrderoftheGarterwas

held at Windsor. The castlewastobethenewCamelot.

On 10 August 1348,while the Black Deathravaged England, the 26founder knights, includingEdward III and his son theBlack Prince, filed into StGeorge’s Chapel in pairs fortheir first investiture. Thelines parted as they satthemselves opposite eachother,thekingand12knightson one side and the prince

and 12 knights on the other.Theyfacedeachotherastwoopposing tournament teams,the very soul of Christianchivalryattheroyalcourt.

This was chivalry aspure pageantry. Nowhere inthe code of the Order of theGarter was there anythingabout protecting the weak orvulnerable.

In 1356, after theBattleof Poitiers, the Black Princehosted a banquet of his own.

He was 26 years old. Theguestofhonourwashismostimportant prisoner, the Kingof France. Jean Froissart, acontemporary chronicler,describedthescene:

Thesamedayof thebattleatnight the prince made asupper in his lodging to theFrench king and to the mostpart of the great lords thatwereprisoners...theprinceserved before the king as

humbly as he could, andwould not sit at the king’sboard foranydesire that theking couldmake, but he saidhewasnot sufficient to sitatthe table with so great aprince as the king was. Butthenhe said to the king: . . .‘sir, methinks ye ought torejoice,thoughthedaybenotas ye would have had it, forthisdayyehavewonthehighrenown of prowess and havepassedthisdayinvaliantness

allotherof yourparty.Sir, Isaynot this tomock you, forall thatbeonourparty, thatsaw every man’s deeds, areplainly accorded by truesentence to give you theprize.’*4

The Chronicles ofFroissart

That was royal chivalry inaction – the honour due to aman was related to his rank.Fourteen years later, at

Limoges, the Black Princeprovided an object lesson inwhatthatmeant.

LIMOGES

In 1370, Limoges was abordertown,ontheuncertainfrontier between the King ofEngland’s possessions andthe lands of the King ofFrance. It was an old town,with Roman roots; its bridgewas ancient, but its cathedral

was new, a tribute to thetown’s wealth. That wealthwasbasedonthesecretskillsof its artisans,who producedfabulous enamelled objectsthat could not be imitatedanywhereelseintheworld.

Enamelisathinlayerofcoloured glass that has beenmelted and fused on to ametal surface. Normally,small enamel panels weresurroundedbycopperwiretopreventthegolds,deepblues,

richredsandprofoundgreensfromrunningintoeachother,and to hold each piece ofenamel in place as theunderlying metal expandedandcontracted.Otherwise,asthepiecewarmedandcooledover the course of a day, theenamelwouldsimplyfalloff.But in Limoges, uniquely,artisans had discovered howto produce enamel thatexpanded at the same rate ascopper, and could butt

different enamels againsteach other. This producedwork of astonishing clarityanddetail.Theenamelswereenormously prizedthroughoutEurope,andsmallenamelled Limoges cofferswere precisely the equivalentof the Fabergé Easter eggsthat later delightednineteenth-centuryEurope.

The enamel works werefactories that employed adozen or more experts in a

rangeofhighlyskilledcrafts.Eachonewasthehomeoftherather wealthy family whodirected and controlled thework.Itwasalso,ofcourse,ashowroom and shop. Thispart of the building wasimpressive and elegant ascustomers for Limogesenamels came from all overEurope, andwere themselveswealthy connoisseurs. Theworks were in vigorouscompetition with each other

and, although most pieceswere unsigned, those in theknow would have had littleproblem identifying theworkofindividualmasters.

Thefactoriesweredownby the river Charente as itsstrongly acidwaterwas usedto purify the coloured glassbeforeitwaslaidinplaceforfusing. They were shelteredwithin a strong citywall andthetowncitadeltoweredoverthem.

LIMOGESUNDERSIEGE

The English territory ofAquitaine expanded andcontracted with the changingfortunes ofwar. In 1369, theFrench king, Charles V,announced that he wasconfiscating it. When hisforces reached Limoges andbesiegedit,itsbishopdecidedit was clear which way thewind was blowing andsurrendered. The Black

Prince,therulerofAquitaine,was enraged. He marched toLimogesbentonrevenge,andarrived outside itswallswith1200 knights, squires andmen carrying long lances,1000 archers and 1000 footsoldiers.

The prince was not aman to mess with. He wasnow 40 years old, and wasone of the most experiencedand capable warriors inEurope. His father had

knighted him when he was15, just before the Battle ofCrécy and, according tolegend, he had dressed inblack armour for the battle.Thisseemstobewhyhewasknown as the Black Prince.He had spent his time sincethenengagedinwarinFranceon King Edward’s behalf,devoting himself in the fewyears of peace to the war-sportoftournament.

The prince was a sick

man, who had to travel in alitter,buthestillknewhowtoconductawar.ThebishopofLimoges, pressed by thefrightenedbusinessmenofthetown,realizedhehadmadeaserious mistake insurrendering,but controlwasno longer in his hands.Limoges was now ruled byCharles’s men, from thecitadel.

SirJohndeVillemur,SirHugode laRocheandRoger

deBeaufort,whocommandedin it, did all they could tocomfort them by saying,‘Gentlemen, do not bealarmed: we are sufficientlystrongtoholdoutagainst thearmyoftheprince:hecannottakeusbyassault,norgreatlyhurt us, for we are wellsupplied with artillery.’(Froissart)

The siege was a prettything, seen from a distance.The besieging army, with its

coloured tents and attractivebanners, was commanded byknights in literally shiningarmour, astride horsescaparisoned in the heraldicsymbols of their riders.Withnothing to do all day exceptwait, the knights spent theirtime practising their skills,engaging in play-fights orhappily plundering andburning the farms thatdottedthe charming Limousincountryside.

Thewhitestonewallsofthe town and citadel weretopped with wooden roofs,from which fluttered thepennants of the defendingknights.This attractive scenewasunspoiledbythesmallesttaint of blood, because thereal struggle was beingfought underground. TheBlack Prince had a team ofminersdiggingunderthecitywalls. Eventually they wereready and, setting the mines

on fire, they brought a largepart of the walls crashingdown. In a few minutes,Limogeswaswideopen.

THECHIVALRICLEADERSOFLIMOGES

Thethreecommandersofthecitadelrealizedthat thegamewasoverandtherefollowedaseries of scenes thatepitomizetheveryessenceoflate fourteenth-century

chivalry.Knowing theywereabout to engage in a famousbattle, their first concernwasthat only two of them hadactuallybeendubbedknights.Sir John de Villemurimmediately proposed thatthey should knight Roger deBeaufort (who was a meregentleman).Hereplied,‘Sir,Ihave not as yet distinguishedmyself sufficiently for thathonour, but I thank you foryour good opinion in

suggestingittome.’There was no time to

continue this elegantdiscussion, as it was time tofight.

What mattered toFroissart, the chronicler ofthese scenes, was how thethree principal charactersacquittedthemselvesinsinglecombat against suitableopponents under the rules ofchivalry:

The Duke of Lancaster wasengaged fora long timewithSir John de Villemur, whowas a hardy knight, strongand well made. The Earl ofCambridge singled out SirHugo de la Roche, and theEarl of Pembroke Roger deBeaufort, who was but asimple esquire. These threeFrenchmen did manyvalorousdeedsofarms,asallallowed, and ill did it betidethose who approached too

near.ThePrince, coming that

way in his carriage, lookedon the combat with greatpleasure, and enjoyed it somuch that his heart wassoftened and his angerappeased. After the combathad lasted a considerabletime, the Frenchmen, withone accord, viewing theirswords, said, ‘My lords, weare yours: you havevanquished us: therefore act

according to the law ofarms.’ ‘By God,’ replied thedukeofLancaster, ‘SirJohn,we do not intend otherwise,and we accept you for ourprisoners.’ Thus, as I havebeen informed, were thesethreeknightstaken.

The Chronicles ofFroissart

Roger, in Froissart’s eyes,was now a knight after all.Thiswastheclassicchivalric

encounter:war as combat, tobeadmiredandenjoyed.

THEREALITYBEHINDTHECHIVALRY

All was gentility andchivalry, unless youhappened to be outside thecharmed circle of men inarmour. The Black Prince’sorders had been simple andbrutal, as reported byFroissart:

You would then have seenpillagers, active to domischief,runningthroughthetown, slaying men, women,and children, according totheir orders. It was a mostmelancholy business; for allranks, ages and sexes castthemselves on their kneesbeforetheprince,beggingformercy; but he was soinflamed with passion andrevenge that he listened tonone, but all were put to the

sword, wherever they couldbe found, even those whowere not guilty: for I knownot why the poor were notspared, who could not havehadany part in this treason;but they suffered for it, andindeed more than those whohad been the leaders of thetreachery.

There was not that dayin the city of Limoges anyheart so hardened, or thathad any sense of religion,

whodidnotdeeplybewailtheunfortunate events passingbefore their eyes; forupwards of three thousandmen, women and childrenwere put to death that day.God have mercy on theirsouls! fortheywereveritablemartyrs.

The Chronicles ofFroissart

Thewholetownwaspillaged,burnt,andtotallydestroyed.

Froissart listed manyother instances of the BlackPrince’s savagery, from his‘right good beginning’burning and ravaging innorthernFranceasateenager,through the slaughter ofwomen and children atMontGiscar the year before Crécyto the systematic looting andkillingofpeoplewhosecrimewas tobe ‘good, simple, andignorant ofwar’, but nothingsomoved him to pity as the

slaughteratLimoges.Perhapsitwasbecauseheunderstoodwhat was being destroyed.Froissart was a high-levelcourtier, a man of educationand taste, who knew thatwhat was being lost was notjust human life. The BlackPrince was eliminating thebrilliant colours of Limoges,killing the master craftsmenand skilled artisans alongwiththeirwivesandchildren,and looting and destroying

theirfactories.One of the great

treasures of the world waswipedaway.

Limoges did eventuallyrecover, and went on toachieve perhaps even greaterheights of artistry in othercrafts. But the expertise thathad produced the brilliant,jewel-like enamels of thethirteenth and fourteenthcenturies was gone, thekeepers of its secrets dead,

and that work was not seenagain.

Froissart did not regardthe Black Prince asbarbarous, or as a criminal.Onthecontrary,hedescribedhimas‘theperfectrootofallhonour and nobleness, ofwisdom,valourandlargesse’.The prince was a man whoplayed out the role ofchivalric hero, and if we seean incomprehensiblecontradiction here it is

because we have developedour own unhistorical idea ofchivalry.

Froissart’s view ofchivalrywas theoneheldbythe court, not the religiousone.

EdwardIIIsetupacourtof chivalry to deal withchivalricdisputes.Butit’snogood thinking of knights ontrial for failing to open thedrawbridge for a damsel orfor slaughtering thepoorand

weak.The main preoccupation

of the court was money –knights squabbling over theloot from some unfortunatetown,orarguingoverhowtosplittheprofitsofransom,orclaiming toown the rights toa particular prisoner. Theother major concern wasquarrelsaboutwhoownedtherights to a particular coat ofarms.

The court of chivalry

was simply another way inwhich the king tried to exertsomesortofcontrolover thebusinessofwarfare.

CRÉCYANDTHEDEMISEOFCHIVALRY

Edward III may have beenbusy helping to glamorizechivalry, but this does notmean he used it as the basisfor war. Elegance was forromances and for

tournaments. But battles hadto be won, and knights inarmour were vulnerable toinelegantnewweapons.

By the fourteenthcentury it was shatteringlyexpensive to get a knight onto the battlefield. SinceRoman times the standardpieceoffightingkithadbeenthe chain-mail coat, butdevelopments in missiletechnology had brought anewkindofarrowthatcould

passthroughmail.Soknightsstarted wearing heavierarmour–likeacoatofmetalplates. Then a crossbowwasdeveloped that couldpenetrate the plates, and soon. As the kit become moreexpensive it took more landtosustainaknight,sothelinkbetween landholding andmilitary duty began tocollapse.

Infact,within100yearsof the Norman Conquest

peoplewereoptingoutofthesystem in serious numbers.As the age of the Conquestcame to an end, fewer andfewer landholders sawthemselves as warriors.Widowscouldanddidinherittheirhusband’sestates,youngmenturnedintooldmenand,anyway, there were a lotbetter things to dowith yourmoney than spend it onelaborate handmade armourjustso thatyoucouldgoand

be frightened to death bysome professional lout. Thesystem of land tenure bymilitaryservicebegantogiveway tomoneypayments,andit soon became common fortheholderofaknight’sfeetofail to get himself knighted.(Knighthood in England wasneverhereditary.)

The Battle of Crécy,where the Black Prince hadbegunhismilitarycareer,wasno chivalric battlefield

tournament. By 1346, theEnglish had lost interest inchivalry as a militaryoccupation.

They were massivelyoutnumbered, and theFrenchhad assumed that the knightson both sides would battle itoutonhorseback,andthatthesmaller English force wouldbe overwhelmed, ransomedand go home ruined.But theEnglish were playing by anew rule-book. When they

arrivedatthebattlefieldmostof the knights got off theirhorses. This wasn’t at allwhat they were supposed todo. But then they weren’tplanning to go through theusual chivalric routine. Theywererelyingonthesupportoftheirnon-noblelongbowmen.

TheEnglishlongbow(asit is now called) was not anobleweapon,anditwasnotwielded by rich young menwhosekit cost theequivalent

of a Ferrari. Thousands ofFrench noblemen charged infullpageantry.Inthefirstfiveminutes, the English loosedmore than 3000 arrows. TheflowerofFrenchchivalrywascut down by archers onsixpenceaday.

The French lost over5000men; theEnglish a fewhundred. Using archers toshift the balance of power inabattlewasnotinitselfnew;what was newwas the sheer

scale on which the Englishemployed them. If armies ofthe future were going tobehavelikethis, themountedknightwasprettymuchoutofbusiness.

And somethingelsewaseating away at the shaky(perhaps even non-existent)edificeofchivalry:thefeudalhostwasitselfbeingreplacedby a modern regular armyconsisting of professionalsoldiers.

THERISEOFTHEMERCENARIES

The feudal levy of landedknights had never been thesole military force used bykings. They relied at least asmuch on the military forcesof their own household and,from the twelfth century, onlandless knights who neededto be paid. Henry I, forexample,couldonlycallonalevy of some 5000 knights

from the whole country, andhired bands of 1000 knightsat a time. The coins used topay them, called solidi, gaverise to the English word‘soldiers’. At the time whenLull’shandbookonChristianchivalry was becomingwidely translated andimitated, the militarysignificance of the feudalknight was fading intohistory.

The armies of kings

became professionalized,mercenary forces; more andmore, courtly knights stayedhome jousting prettily atcourt and feastingwith othermembers of their orders ofchivalry, and paid a taxinstead of performing theirmilitaryduty.Increasinglyonthe battlefield, knights werepaid professionals whopreferred to do the businessagainstmenwhowerepoorlyequipped and untrained.

When Edward III landed inFrancein1337,atthestartofthe Hundred Years War, hisarmy included only about1500feudalknights.Therest,whether armoured men onhorseback or pikemen onfoot,werepaidwages.

This new class ofprofessional soldier did notliveoffhisestates,forhehadnone;warwas how hemadehis living. If the king wouldnot employ him, someone

else must. Nobody hadenvisaged the disaster thiswastobringonEurope.

In1360Edwardsignedapeace treaty – the treaty ofBrétigny–withtheFrench.Itwas the kind of thing kingshad done countless timesbefore, but this time therewas a difference. Lots of theEnglish (and many of theFrench) had no homes to goto.SomehadbeenfightinginFrance for up to 20 years.

They might have captured anice chateau, and there theywere living like lords – whyshould they go back toEnglandwhere,aslikeasnot,they’d end up in jail orslavingforsomeoneelse?

The result was thatFrance and Italy wereinfestedbyhardmen inhardarmour, hired to do othermen’sdirtywork.

They started withfreelance pillaging in

northernFrance.Edwardsentroyal officers to try to forcehismentostop,buthehadnopower to bring them undercontrol. Gradually Englishmercenaries, together withmen from other countries,started forming themselvesinto freelance armies, whicheventually coalesced into asingle force that wasreckoned tobe16,000strong– bigger than Edward’s ownarmy!

The mercenaries calledthemselves free companies.They were bands of robberson a nightmare scale, whoswept down through Francecausing havoc anddestruction. And thereseemed to be no way ofstoppingthem.Everyattemptto crush them backfired.Mankind had opened aPandora’s box, andcivilization itself had brokendown.

Eventually the freecompanies descended onAvignon,whichinthosedayshappened to be the residenceofthepope.(Thepapacyhadmoved there fifty yearsearlier; Rome had been aviolentanddangerouscityforaPopewhowas,unusually,aFrenchman.) They burnt thesurrounding countryside andthreatened to attack God’srepresentativeonearthunlesshe handed over a spiritually

upliftingsumofmoney.The pope tried to

organize a crusade againstthem but, as the freecompanies had no land forcrusaders to seize, hiswarriors would have to relyon him for payment.However, paying crusaderswith anything other thanindulgences was not on thepope’s agenda – so most ofthem packed up and wenthome. In fact, quite a fewof

the crusaders joined thecompanies.Thepopehadjustmade his problem worse. Inthe end, he paid themercenaries 100,000 florinsand also threw in a generalpardon for all the sins theyhadcommittedsofar.

Having successfullybought off themarauders, hepersuaded the majority ofthem to move on into Italy,which was full of careeropportunities for mercenary

soldierswithnowheretogo.‘Italy’ in those days

consisted of a lot of city-stateslikePisa,Milan,Rome,Florence andMantua – eachone almost a mini-nation initself. For several centuriestheyhadbeenateachother’sthroats in the time-honouredmanner of neighbours. Theircitizens, however, hadn’tbeen all that attracted tofighting,andhadgot intothehabitofemployingmercenary

companiestofightforthem.Italy had thus become

the cradle of mercenarywarfare. And once the freecompanies moved on fromAvignon the north Italiansfound that employingmercenarycompanieswasnolonger a matter of choice –they either paid up or paidwiththeirlives.

The mercenaries camefrom all over Europe, butnow a sizeable proportion of

them were Englishmen. Onecontemporary Italianchronicler, Pietro Azario,recorded how ‘some menimprisoned themselves intheir own dungeons andlockedthemselvesupatnightwhen they [theEnglish] rodeforth...’*5

Of all the Englishsoldiers who arrived in Italynone was to make a greaterimpression than Sir JohnHawkwood – Giovanni

Acuto,theItalianscalledhim– ‘Sharp John’. He soonestablished himself as leaderof one of the companies, theWhite Company. Theyounger son of a well-to-doEssextanner,hehadmadehisway up through the ranksduring the Hundred YearsWar.

In Italy he establishedhisownmercenarycompany,and for 40 years he made agood living offering his

services to whomever wouldpay for them, often usingintimidation to gainemployment: ‘Youhadbetteremploy my army now it’shere on your border,otherwiseIcan’tguarantee itwon’tdoa lotofdamage.’ Itwas the old protection racketwritlarge.

Another contemporaryItalian chronicler, MatteoVillani,leftavividaccountofthe kind of men Hawkwood

wasleading:

These people, all young, andfor the most part born andraised during the long warsbetween the French and theEnglish, hot and wilful, usedtoslaughterandrapine,wereskilledintheuseofcoldsteel,and had no thought for theirownsafety.*6

This was the army of thefuture. It was numbered in

‘lances’, each lanceconsisting of a knight on acharger, sheathed in iron andsteel from head to foot, asquire, also on a charger butless heavily armed, and apageonapalfrey.Therewere1000 teams of ‘lances’, socalled because their principalweaponwasalongandheavylance.This required twomentowielditandwasusedonlyon foot, inamass formation.The teamsalsocarriedheavy

swords and daggers, andbows slung across theirbacks.

Theywerebackedupbyinfantry, who were armedwith longbows and carriedswordsanddaggers,andalsosome light ladders that couldbe fixed together to scaletowers.Theywere toughanddisciplinedprofessionals,fivelances to a company, fivecompanies to a troop, andwerecommandedbyeffective

officers.They specialized in

surprisenightraidsontowns,when they would massacrethe men, rape the women,carryoffwhateverwasworthtakingandburntherest.

This was not in anysensechivalricwarfare;itwasa job. Hawkwood did notfight forgloryorhonour.Hewas simply a down-to-earthbusinessman – whosebusinesshappened tobewar.

Thereisastorythattwofriarsonce greeted him with theusual ‘May God grant youpeace’. Whereupon Sir Johnretorted:‘MayGodtakefromyou your alms.’ When thefriars asked why, he replied:‘Why not? You come to meand say that God should letme die of hunger.Don’t youknow that I live bywar, andpeacewoulddestroyme?’

CESENA

In 1377 Sir JohnHawkwoodwas under contract toCardinal Roberto, Count ofGeneva,when the citizensofCesena killed some of hissoldiers. Roberto offeredthem an amnesty if theywould surrender their arms,which the citizens did,foolishlytrustingthewordofa cardinal-priest of the orderofthe‘HolyApostles’.

Then Cardinal Robertosummoned Hawkwood from

nearby Faenza, where he’dbeen busy coordinating therape of all the femaleinhabitants, and told him togo to Cesena and killeveryone. To do Sir Johnjustice, it is reported that heprotested this was not reallyplaying the game, but thecardinal said he wanted‘justice’, and by ‘justice’ hemeant ‘blood and moreblood’. The resultingmassacreshockedEurope.

Hawkwood’s troop‘burned and slaughtered allthe town. The river wascoloured with blood. Andamongthesmokingruins,therapes, the killings was apitiful episode. Twenty-fourfriars were killed in front ofthe main altar, together withthe congregation.’ Accordingto hostile chroniclers, asmany as 8000 people died.Up to 16,000 fled andHawkwood, ‘not to be held

entirely infamous, sent abouta thousand of the women toRimini’.*7

Every building wasdestroyed and the town wascompletely rebuilt followingthe destruction. Only a fewpieces of the original wallssurvive.

But the action did noharm to Hawkwood’sreputation. Maybe it evenhelped by showing howcarefully he carried out

orders.Overthenext20yearshe continued to flourish. HeboughtcastlesandpropertyinItaly and estates in England.For the last 15 years of hislifehewasundermoreorlesspermanentcontracttothecityof Florence, and before hedied in 1395 the citypromised him a magnificentmarble tomb in the greatcathedral – the Duomo – intheheartofFlorence.

However, the

Florentineswerebusinessmenand they never lost theirbusiness sense. When theKing of England requestedthat Hawkwood’s body bereturned to his native land,they felt there were betterthings to do with their cashthanbuildanemptytomb,sothey got an artist to paint apicture of what the tombwould have looked like iftheyhadbuiltit.

The non-aristocratic son

of a tanner had becomevirtually a nobleman, byturning warfare into abusiness. Meanwhile,chivalrydevelopedasagameof social status, ever furtherremoved from the reality ofwar. And the knights ofEngland became countrygentlemen, the backbone ofcountyadministration.

Chivalry was a fantasy,used to put a respectableglossonthehorrorsofwar.It

would be hard to argue thatNorman knights were moreviolent or bloodthirsty thanother warriors throughouthuman history, or thatchivalricknightslikeWilliamMarshal or the Black Princewere less bloodthirsty thanmercenary captains like SirJohn Hawkwood. But in thefourteenthcenturypeoplefeltsomething had changed withthe commercialization ofwarfare.

Thechivalrousknight inshining armour never reallydid exist. All that rescuingdamselsandhelpingtheweakwas justwishful thinking–aconstruct of the medievalmind, taken up withenthusiasm by theVictoriansand passed on to Hollywoodfilm-makersoftoday.

Butmaybewearebetteroff without chivalry. Its fineidealswerealltoooftenusedto perpetuate war – which is

what those who live by warwant. Francho Sacchetti, oneof Hawkwood’scontemporaries, said of him:‘He managed his affairs sowell that there was littlepeace in Italy in his time.’*8And it is still true that thosewhopromotewarareusuallythose who stand to benefitfrom it – be they armsmanufacturers, politicians orknightsinshiningarmour.

CHAPTERSEVEN

DAMSEL⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

HELPLESS, THREATENED ANDFOREVER IN NEED OF RESCUE,

the medieval damsel-in-distress is an archetypedeeply bound up with theimage of the chivalrousknightinshiningarmour.It’seasyforustounderstandthatback in the brutal world ofthe Middle Ages womenshould be at the mercy offorces beyond their control,and that they should needrescuingbyheroicmales.

William Maw Egley’s1858paintingof theLadyof

Shalott and her distant hero,Sir Lancelot, seems toconvey, in its antiquariandetail, an authentic medievalvision (at least if oneoverlooks the verynineteenth-centuryappearance of Mrs Egley):thehelplessladysealedinherchamber, the armoured manemblematic of freedom andcourage. But the pictureevokes a world that wouldhave been incomprehensible

in the age it is meant torepresent.

Not that noble ladiesdidn’t need rescuing onoccasion.Butwhen theydid,they infuriatingly failed toliveuptoourstereotype.

DAMSELS-AT-WAR

TakeNicola de la Haye: shewascertainlytrappedinatalltower and in need of rescue.But it was all a bit different

fromthefairytale.For a start, the tower in

whichshewastrappeddidn’tbelong to a wicked uncle,stepfather or some othermalign relative – it belongedtoher. ItwaspartofLincolnCastle, and Nicola was thehereditary constable –governor – of the castle.What’s more, she wasn’t atallahelplessdamsel;shewasa military commander in herown right. As well as

governing the castle she wasalso co-sheriff ofLincolnshire. She wasobliged to provide knights’service at the castle andexercisedjurisdictionovertheroyal portion of the city ofLincoln.

ShewastrappedbecauseaninvadingFrencharmyhadoccupied Lincoln and waslayingsiegetothecastle.

Mindyou,Nicolawas abitmatureforadamsel–she

was pushing 70. But thenagain, her knight in shiningarmour was also an old-agepensioner.Hewasnoneotherthan William Marshal, andalthough he was now wellinto his seventies hewas theregent of England and wasstillgenerallyregardedastheepitome of chivalry.Williamdrove the French off, savingNicola, Lincoln and thewhole of England for theyoung Henry III. Ever the

perfect knight, he thencelebrated his and Nicola’sjoint victory by taking hercastle away from her andhandingitover to theEarlofSalisbury.

Nicola, however,wasn’tgoingtoputupwiththatsortof behaviour from a geriatriclike William. She stormeddown to London, had thecastle restored to her controland kept going as constableuntil she was well into her

eighties. ‘What, then, ischivalry? Such a difficult,tough, and very costly thingto learn that no cowardventurestotakeiton.’*1

Onthedownside,Nicoladidnotgetthejobofsheriffback.It is one of the oddities ofsocial change that there aretimes when women are justnot considered the rightpeopletobesheriffs.Englandhad to wait nearly 400 years

forthenextone–whenLadyAnn Clifford was appointedsheriff of Westmoreland onthe basis that not only wasshe one of the wealthiestwomen in the country, butshe was also a recognizedexpertwithacrossbow.BothJames I andCromwell foundherhardtodealwith,andthatwas the end of the story forwoman sheriffs until theVictorianera.

WOMENASPROPERTY

Therolesofmenandwomenin society, and therelationship between thesexes,were forever changingthroughouttheperiodthatweconveniently (if mistakenly)refertoasthe‘MiddleAges’.There was no one set ofattitudes. It was a constantlyvaryingdynamic–justasitistoday.

It would probably be

wrong to talk of any steadyadvance in women’s rightsand privileges through the500 years after the NormanConquest,butitispossibletosay that towards the end ofthe period women wereenjoyingamoreequalroleinsociety, and more respectthantheyhadpreviouslybeengiven–and then thingswerereversed.

Of course, they lived ina man’s world – particularly

at the start of the MiddleAges. The Conquest meantthat William ‘owned’ thecountry. It became hispersonalproperty,andhehadno intention of giving itaway. Instead he allowed hisfollowers the use of lands inreturn for their militaryservice. This link betweenpropertyandtheprofessionofarms meant landholdingbecameamalepreserve.Menruledtheroost,andwivesand

daughters were supposed todo what they were told bytheirhusbandsandfathers.

Many of the newNorman overlords expectedto find wives among thewidows and daughters of theEnglishmen they hadsupplanted,and thenewkingencouraged this as a way ofconsolidating the Conquest.Not surprisingly, many ofthese women resisted. Someretreated to nunneries for

self-protection. Howeverothers, like Christina ofMarkyate, resisted in otherways.

CHRISTINADEMARKYATE

The Conquest meant aproperty windfall for theNormans, but this wasnaturallyattheexpenseoftheformer owner-occupiers.Anglo-Saxons found

themselves bothdispossessedandunabletoenterthepowerstructure. Many an unhappycouple fell backon the time-honoured tradition of tradingin their daughter’s flesh:marriage to a wealthymember of the newestablishment could put anentire family back on thesocialladder.

ThisisthefatethatAuttiand Beatrix de Markyateresolved on for their young

daughter, Christina, some 30years after the Battle ofHastings.

Autti was an ambitiousAnglo-Saxonmerchant in thevillage of Markyate inHertfordshire who seems tohave decided to achieveNorman respectability byoffering his family’s sexualfavourstotheconquerors.Hissister Alveva became themistress of the notoriousRanulf Flambard – a man

who was universally fearedand infamous for his greedandambition.Theliaisonwaspotentially attractive asRanulf had been WilliamRufus’s chief minister, andbecame bishop of Durham.However, Rufus was killedand the hated Ranulf wasimprisoned in the Tower ofLondon. He escaped toNormandy with the help ofhismother(apparentlyaone-eyedwitch).

When Christina wasabout ten years old Ranulfreturned to England and hisbishopric was restored. Thebishopdroppedinonhiswayto London, Alveva laid on afamily feast and Ranulf sawChristina. He liked what hesaw.

Christina’s parents wereonly too happy to oblige thebishop with theirdaughter’s . . . well ‘hand’wasn’t perhaps what Ranulf

hadinmind.Intermarriage may have

been encouraged by theConqueror as a way ofembedding his men in theirnew country, but Christinahad no intention of gettingembedded with anyone. Shehadmade a pilgrimage to StAlbansAbbeywhen shewasyounger, and it had made abigimpressiononher.Itmusthave been by far the largestbuilding she had ever seen,

and here she had made asecret vow of virginity,scratchingacrossonthewallof the abbey to signify hercommitmenttoChrist.

After the feast Christinawas left in Ranulf’s roomwith him, and he began tointroduce her to his wickedways.Knowingperfectlywellwhat all this was about,Christina suggested that sheshould lock the door – andpromptly did so from the

outside.The enraged bishop

determined to have the girlbroken, and arranged for ayoungnobleman,Burthred,toask forherhand inmarriage.Her parents were delighted.Christina was going toachieve more for the familythan Aunt Alveva ever had:their grandchildren would belegitimate members of thenobility.

The problem was that

Christina refused to bemarried, pleading that shewas promised to Christ. Herparentsspentayear trying toget her to see sense, buyingher presents, makingpromises.Eventuallyshewasbrowbeatenintoagreeingtoabetrothal – but betrothal wasone thing, consummating themarriagewas another.And amarriagedidnotcountuntilitwasconsummated.

Herparentsembarkedon

a desperate series ofstratagems, surrounding thegirl with entertainers, takingher tobanquets, trying together toloosenup.WhenthesefailedtheyshovedthehaplessBurthredintoherbedroomtodo what he could. Christinasattheladdownandlecturedhim on the attractions ofchastity for both sexes. Heleft somewhat confused, butwas hectored into making amorerobusteffort.

Christina’s parentspushed him into her roomagain and told him to stiffenup, be a man and take theirdaughter by force. This hadher climbing up the wall –literally. She ‘hastily sprangout of bed and clingingwithboth hands to a nail whichwas fixed in the wall, shehung trembling between thewall and the hangings.’Burthred could not find herand gave up his attempt at

rape-within-marriage.Eventually Autti carted

his daughter off to theAugustinian canons of StMary’sPrioryinHuntingdon:‘Why must she depart fromtradition? Why should shebring this dishonour on herfather? Her life of povertywill bring the whole of thenobility into disrepute!’ Thepriorwasmore impressedbythe daughter than he was byher father, and so was the

bishopuntilAuttibribedhimto order her to marry.Christina, though, wasunmoved.

Beatrix decided that theproblem was that herdaughterwasfrigid.Shehiredcrones to slip Christina lovepotionsandsentmenintoherroomatnight,and‘intheendsworethatshewouldnotcarewhodefloweredherdaughter,provided that some way ofdeflowering her could be

found’.Theonly thingChristina

could do was escape. Shewent first to the cell ofAlfwen, an old anchoress inthe nearby village ofFlamstead,whereshehidinasmall dark chamber.Burthred, doing the fullknightly quest thing, showedup at the cell and asked ifChristina was hiding there.Alfwen replied: ‘Stop, myson, stop imagining that she

is here with us. It is not ourcustom to give shelter towiveswho are running awayfrom their husbands.’ Thebiographer adds: ‘The man,deludedinthisway,departed,resolvedneveragaintogoonsuchanerrand.’

Christina eventuallymoved to a hut belonging toRoger, a monk of St Albanswhowaslivingasahermitinthe village of Markyate.There she continued to hide,

silently concealed in thecorner of the hut behind awooden plank and a log thatwas tooheavy forher to lift.Burthred finally had thebetrothal annulled, and shewas able to leave herconfinement. To make herhappiness complete, Rogerdied and bequeathed his huttoher.

Eventuallyshebecameacelebrated holy woman at StAlbans Abbey, making

slippers for the pope andembroidering the abbot’sunderwear.That’swhatreallyhappened to damsels indistress. They had to betough-minded and look outforthemselves.

THEDANGERS(ANDADVANTAGES)OF

ABDUCTION

There are, of course, storiesof damsels being abducted

and forcibly married byfortune-hunters,but thesearenot necessarily what theyappeartobe.

The inheritance of awealthy widow or an unwednoblewoman would becomethe property of whoevermarried her, but in neithercase was the woman a freeagent.Shewasawardof theking. He regarded her estateas entirely within his gift togiveaway towhomsoeverhe

wished.But the king had a

problem. It was a legalprinciplethat ifanunmarriedcouple spent the night underthesamerooftheyweretakento have slept together andwere therefore married –marriage, after all, wassimply a social compact. Itdid not require theinvolvement of a priest.However, such anunauthorizedmarriage was –

in theking’sview–virtuallystealing from him, and themarriagewaslegallyregardedas abduction. The marriedcouple could expect to havetopayaconsiderablefine.

Obviously, these‘abductions’werequiteoftencarried out with the fullparticipationof theheiress inquestionasitwasonewayofgetting to choose her ownhusband. Marjorie, Countessof Carrick, even went to the

extreme of doing theabducting herself. She hadheldher title sinceher fatherdied in 1255, when she wasthree. As the holder of amajor Scottish fortune, hermarriage was controlled bythe King of Scotland,Alexander III, andbefore theageof15shewasmarried toa suitable lord 20 years hersenior:AdamdeKilconcath.

Part of Adam’ssuitabilitylayinhiscloseness

to the future Edward I ofEngland, and when Edwardset off on his long-awaitedcrusade to the Holy Land in1270 Adam went with him.The crusader kingdom ofJerusalem had been reducedto just an urban rump at theport of Acre, filled withinternecine squabbles andkillings, and the crusadewasa hopeless gesture that costAdamhislife.

Thebadnewsarrived in

1271. It was brought to the19-year-old Marjorie by an18-year-old who had alsobeen on the crusade: RobertBruce,thesonoftheLordofAnnandale and Cleveland.Robert found Marjorie outhunting.Shedoesnotseemtohave been devastated by thenews; her marriage hadhardlybeenalovematch.Butshe was immediately awareof a very depressing fact –she was back once more on

King Alexander’s list ofuseful assets, to be marriedoff to some, probably ratherelderly, supporter whoneededherestate.

What happened next isunclear.AccordingtoRobert,Marjorie simply decided thathe was the most gorgeoushunk she had ever seen andseized the young crusader.Shedraggedhimkickingandscreaming,‘veryloath,tohercastleofTurnberry’.After15

days the poor boy emerged,married.

Some historians aresuspicious of the chronicleaccount, and suspect Robertofsomecomplicityinallthis.But by putting the blame onto Marjorie he avoidedoffending the king, who hadtobecontentwithseizinghercastleandlandsuntilshepaida fine. Itwas not necessarilythe dynastic union he wouldhave preferred, because the

Bruces were competitors forthe throne and Marjorie’swealth strengthened them. Infact, Marjorie’s son, anotherRobert Bruce, became KingofScotland.

The significance of thestory, though, lies not inexactly what was going on,butinthefactthatitwasseenas entirely credible that ayoung noblewoman wouldabductaman,bedhimandsoforcehim intomarriage. It is

not just thatwomenwerenotseen as weak and helpless.They could also be seen assexualpredators.

The Victorian idea thatwomen were somehow lesssexual than men would havebeen baffling in the MiddleAges–especiallytowomen.

CONSTRUCTINGTHEDAMSEL-IN-DISTRESS

The story of the Lady of

Shalott created anextraordinarily resonant echoin the Victorian andEdwardian imagination; Pre-Raphaeliteartists,lookingforimages that expressed whatthey saw as a trulymedievalperspective, returned to ittime and time again.Tennysonprovidedthemwiththenarrative,astoryinwhichtheladyiscursedonlytoseethe world through a mirror.When she spiesLancelot she

is smitten and looks directlyathim:themirrorshattersandshe is doomed. She sets outon a pathetic boat trip toCamelot, butby the time shearrives the curse has had itseffectandsheisdead.

It is an image ofwomanhood as essentiallyconfined and restricted; fullparticipation in the world isforbidden and fatal. This issentimentally regretted, buttragicallyunalterable.

Tennysonwasretellingagenuinemedievaltale,buthetransformed it utterly. In theoriginal story the lady wasnot weak and helpless at all,and she was not under anycurse. Nor was she passiveand pathetic. She was awilful, stubborn woman whoboldly declared herpassionate love for Lancelot.Her tragedy was that it wasnot returned. The story wasretold in Malory’s Morte

d’Arthur in the fifteenthcentury, and there too theLady of Shalott wasportrayedas a real, flesh andblood woman whosedeclaration of love wasunashamed (‘Why should Ileave such thoughts? Am Inot an earthlywoman?’) andwhowrote to Lancelot as anequal.

Infact,prettywelleverytime we find an apparentlyhelpless woman in medieval

literature she turns out to benot quite what we werelooking for. Take thedistresseddamsel inChrétiende Troyes’ romance Yvain.The heroic knight Yvain isfeeling sorry forhimself in awoodland chapel, when hebecomes aware of ‘a lorndamsel in sorry plight’. Shesays she is about to becondemned todeath, andcanonly be saved by someonebrave enough to fight her

three accusers. Yvain, ofcourse,isthenecessaryhero.

This seems to be thefairy-tale archetype; thehelpless damsel and theknightinshiningarmour.Butthis young lady is not somepassive shrinking violet.Yvainknowsher.Acoupleofthousandlinesearliershehadsaved his life, rescuing himfrom certain death by givinghim a magic ring ofinvisibility at the risk of her

ownlife.Thedamselandtheknight are equals in courageanddaring.

Thefactis,thereislittlereference to genuinelyhelplesshigh-bornmaidensinmedieval literature. Perhapsthis is not too surprising asthe stories were oftencommissioned bynoblewomen, to be read totheirfriendsandfamily.

We do not haveenormousknowledgeof their

lives, but there is enough toshow that the lady’sbedchamber was, in manycases, more like a salon,elegantly decorated, whereshe amused herselfentertaining her womenfriends (generally herretainers, ‘damsels’ marriedto men of status in herhusband’s service) and malevisitors, and where theywould‘drinkwine,playchessandlistentotheharp’.*2They

would also read and be readto – silent reading wasregarded as highly suspect, asign of being antisocial ormelancholy, suitableonly forscholars.

By the fourteenthcentury wills show that thewomen who could affordexpensive books were asinterested as men in thederring-do of storybookknights. A recent historianwrites: ‘The evidence of

women’s wills in Chaucer’sday . . . revealsanetworkofwomen readers whobequeathed books from onegeneration to another. Theseincluded, along withdevotional books, the worksof romance which Chaucerdepicted women reading tooneanother.Suchbookswerefrequently passed frommother to daughter, sister tosister, godmother to god-daughter, but it was not

considered essential to keepthem in the female line;women’s reading tastes werecatholicandtheysharedthemwithmen.’*3

Thus, in 1380 Elizabethla Zouche leaves Lancelotand Tristam to her husband.The Count of Devon leavesbookstohisdaughtersbutnotto his sons. His widow,Margaret Courtenay, thenleavesher ownbooks,whichincludeMerlin andArthur of

Brittany, to the girls and awomanfriend.

The women in thesetales are light years awayfromtheVictorianstereotype.Far frombeinghelpless, theyare resourceful and oftenscheming. And as for beingsexually passive – medievalwomenwouldn’thaveknownwhatyoumeant.Thedamselsinthestoriesarealltoooftensexual predators. Take theLadyof theCastlewhotakes

suchashinetoGawaininSirGawain and the GreenKnight.

Thestorysofar:Gawainis on a quest. He sleeps thenightinastrangecastle.He’swoken up very early in themorning, shortly after theLord of the Castle and hismenhave riddenoffhunting.The door of his chamberopenscautiouslyandtheladyslipsintohisroom.Shelocksthedoor, creepsacross tohis

bed and sits down upon it.Gawain lies doggo for sometime but eventually showssomesignof life,whereupontheladyspeakstohimthus:

MylordandhismenarealongwayoffThe other men are stillintheirbeds,andsoaremymaidsThe door is closed andfastened with a stronglock.

You are welcome to mybody,Yourpleasuretotake.I am driven by forcesbeyondmycontrolTo be your servant andsoIshall.

In these stories marriedwomen were free to takelovers, and if their husbandscomplained they could besilenced by the wifeexplaining that the loverwas

a valiant and famous knight.Inreallifethingswerenotsodifferent.What didMarie deSaintHilairehaveincommonwith Katherine Swyneford,apart from the fact that theywere both damsels (marriedwomenintheserviceofgreatladies)? The fact that theyboth bedded John of Gauntwhile he was married toBlanche, and didn’t make asecretofit.

In one of the most

celebrated love affairs of thetwelfth century a youngstudent, Héloïse, fellpassionately in lovewith herteacherAbelard.Abelardwasa phenomenon: a great andcontroversial theologian, acelebrated poet and singer,and a captivating teacherwhose lectures virtuallycreated the University ofParis. Héloïse set out toseduce him and shesucceeded. The affair was a

disaster: Abelard insisted onmarrying her, and when herfamily found out theycastratedhim

and locked her in a nunnery.In her letters to Abelard,which she wrote from thenunnery,shere-examinedandcelebratedherpassion:

Never,Godknows,didIseekanything in you exceptyourself; I wanted only you,nothingofyours.Ilookedforno marriage-bond, nomarriage portion, and itwasnot my own pleasures and

wishes I sought togratify, asyouwellknow,butyours.Thenameofwifemayseemmoresacred or more worthy butsweeter tomewill alwaysbethewordlover,or,ifyouwillpermitme, that of concubineorwhore. I believed that themore I humbled myself onyour account, the more Iwould please you, and alsothe less damage I should doto the brightness of yourreputation.

Prudery was not a virtue.Women were expected to besexually active and todemand the same from theirhusbands.Ifthemanfailedtoperform in themarriage bed,the wife was perfectly atliberty to go public about it.A twelfth-century manualadvocates a physicalexamination of the man’sgenitals by ‘wise matrons’who – presumably – knewhow these things worked.

Witnesses were thensummoned to observe a full-blownroad testof theunder-performingmember:

Amanandawomanaretobeplaced together in one bedand wise women are to besummonedaroundthebedformanynights.Andiftheman’smember is always founduseless and as if dead, thecouple are well able to beseparated.

That is, sadly, howweknowabout Walter de Fonte, acitizen of Canterbury in thethirteenth century. In 1292,his wife complained he wasimpotent. He was dulyexamined by 12 worthywomen ‘of good reputationandhonest life’who testifiedthat his ‘virile member’ was‘useless’.Whatawaytoenterhistory.

Inasimilarcasein1433one conscientious witness

seems to have been soanxious to fulfil her civicduty that she got rathercarried away; she ‘exposedher naked breasts and withherhandswarmedat thesaidfire, she held and rubbed thepenisandtesticlesofthesaidJohn.And she embraced andfrequently kissed the saidJohn...’

Butitwasalltonoavail.Whereupon ‘with one voice’the assembledwomen cursed

the said John for not being‘better able to serve andplease’hiswife.

THEDAMSELANDTHECHURCH

The view that women weremore sexually assertive thanmen was, of course, firmlyendorsedbytheChurch.Initslong war against thetemptations of the fleshwomen were enthusiastically

castastheseducers.Of course, the Church

did not disapprove of sex assuch–afterall,Godhadsaid‘Go forth and multiply’. Butthe tendency for people toenjoyitwasseenasabitofaproblem. Having sex – letalone enjoying it – wascertainly damnable outsidemarriage. However, as thiswas not a view that waswidely held outside theChurch,preachersoftenwent

to extremes to impress thegravity of the sin on thereluctantpopulace.

It was argued thatwomenwere the cause of allevil because they temptedmen, who would otherwisehave remained pure. Aneleventh-century cardinal,PeterDamian,taughtthat‘thewickedness of women isgreater than all the otherwickedness of theworld . . .the poison of asps and

dragons is more curable andless dangerous to men thanthe familiarity of women.’Havingmade a careful studyof the story of Eve and theforbiddenfruit,hewasabletoexplain to the clergy that‘Women are: “Satan’s bait,poisonformen’ssouls”.’Hisopinions were absolutelynormal for a monk of theperiod.TheChurchcallshimasaint.

The Church had been

blamingallwomenforEve’stemptation of Adam for atleast 800 years beforeDamian picked up the batonandranwithit.Inthesecondcentury, St Tertullianaccosted women and askedthem:‘Doyounotknowthatyou are Eve?’ He then wenton to inform them that:‘God’s sentence hangs stillover all your sex and Hispunishment weighs downupon you’ and that ‘You are

thedevil’sgateway’.The significant change

sinceTertullian’sdaywas,ofcourse, that the medievalChurch encompassed allsociety, and had its owncourts of law. Sexualoffences, includingfornication, were almostentirely a matter for theecclesiasticalcourtsandwereoften dealt with in bizarreways. For example, in 1308thearchbishopofCanterbury,

Robert of Winchelsey,decided that unmarriedfornicators should have tosign a contract of marriagethat dated from their offencebut would only come intoeffect if they offended twicemore. And accusations offornicationwereoftenusedasa device to strip singlewomen of their land: on thebishop of Winchester’sestates,forexample,aquarterof all recorded forfeitures

between1286and1350werepunishments for fornication,imposedonlyonwomen.*4

At the same time as itcastigated women for beingthe daughters of Eve, theChurch promoted an ideal ofchaste womanhood that didnot lure men to sin. Ofcourse, this wasn’t exactlyeasytoachieveasitinvolvedbecoming a mother while atthe same time remaining avirgin. But all the female

rolespresentedbytheChurch– temptress, mother, servantand nun – rather missed therealityof life inafamilythatownedproperty.

THEDAMSELASMANAGER

Thewoman often had to runthe show. Quite apart fromwomenwhoheldauthorityintheirownright,likeNicoladela Haye, there were others

whose power came withmarriage. A noble lady wasinevitably responsible forrunningthehouseholdand,toalargeextent,thebusinessofthe estate (which wouldinclude the bakery, thebrewery, thedairy,managingthe horses and gardens, andsoon).

Inherownterritory,shewas the equivalent of aqueen.Thishadtheinevitableeffect of thrusting women

into very masculine roleswhen the men were notaround. Well-to-do medievalwives found that theirhusbands spent a lot of timeaway on business . . . veryoften the sort that involvedbeing heavily armed andtaking all the fit and ablemale members of thehousehold with them. Thisleft the lady of themanor tofill her absent husband’sshoes, including running the

manor court and defendingthe family property andhonour.

We have anextraordinarily clear pictureoftheproblemsdealtwithbyafifteenth-centuryladyofthemanor from the lettersbetween Margaret and JohnPaston,ofOxnead,Norfolk.

Margaret was thedaughter of a wealthy manand inherited his land. Inabout 1440 shemarried John

Paston, the son of a judge,who had legal chambers inLondon. His father hadboughtamanornearCromer,but John’s ownership wasdisputedbyanotherpowerfullocal family. While he wasaway in London defendingthe property at law, his wifewas at home organizingbattles of a more physicalsort:

Right worshipful husband, I

recommend myself to you,and pray you to get somecrossbows and arrows. Yourhouse here is so low that noman can shoot out with acrossbow, though we havenever had such need. Also Iwould ask you to get two orthree short poll-axes todefend thedoorswithandasmany padded jackets . . .Partridgeandhis friendsaresoreafraidthatyouwillenteragain on them. They have

greatly defended the house,so I’m told. They havemadebarstobarthedoorandtheyhave made loopholes oneverysidetoshootoutatwithbows and handguns . . . Ipray you to buy me 1lb ofalmondsandlibofsugarandthat you will get somewoollen cloth for yourchildren’sgowns.*5

The Pastons had a richrelative,SirJohnFastolf,who

built a castle at Caister inNorfolk.JohnPastonwashislawyer. Fastolf had nochildren and the Duke ofNorfolk hoped to inherit theestate, butwhen the oldmandied John Paston suddenlyproducedanewwillinwhichFastolf left his huge estate,includingCaisterCastle, to acertain John Paston. Thedisappointed heirs accusedPastonofforgingthewillandlaidsiegetothecastle.

In 1469, Margaret onceagain had to organize thedefence of family property.Her husband was now deadandshewroteachidingletterto her perhaps feckless son,John Paston II, who she feltwaswastinghisfortunelivingitupatcourt:

Your brother and hisfellowship stand in greatjeopardy at Caister . . .Daubney and Berney are

dead and others badlyhurt . . . Unless they havehasty help, they are likely tolose both their lives and theplace, which will be thegreatest rebuke to you thatever came to any gentleman.Foreverymaninthiscountrymarvels greatly that yousuffer them to be for so longin great jeopardy withouthelporotherremedy...

THEDAMSELANDTHE

BUTTON

Althoughwomenhad to takeon male roles, sawthemselves as sexually boldand (within a generation ortwo of the Conquest)undertook what amounted tomilitary duties, they did notbecomelessfeminine.Onthecontrary,themorepowertheyexercised, the more theydressed to emphasize theirfemininity.Within 100 years

of theConquest,noble ladieshad moved from wearingsimple gowns to ones withelaborate embroidery, and toeven more elaboratehairstyles.

One of the mostinfluential imports thatEuropeansbroughtbackfromthe crusades was the humblebutton. This transformedwomen’s fashion as clothesno longer had to be looseenoughtobepulledovertheir

heads. Fashionable womenwere able to emphasize theirfigures, combining tightcorsetry with long, flowingskirts and sleeves.Femininity, of course, wasalso a weapon that could beused to controlmen, and thepower of noblewomen in thegameofcourtlychivalrywasgreaterthanthatofanyman.

The crusades alsointroducedEuropeans to newfabrics – silks, satins,

damasks, brocades, andvelvets – and to new brightcoloursandelaborateweaves.And as trade increased, andthevarietyofcolouredclothsgrew, women began makingstrong statements about whotheywerebywhattheywore.In the thirteenth andfourteenth centuries thestylish look was long andslim, the tightness of the cutemphasizing a boyish body-shape – in fact, boys were

oftenreferredtoas‘damsels’,a word that was used todescribe the young RichardII.

DAMSELSONTOP

Bythelatefourteenthcenturymany women were inpositions of considerablepower, andcourtly society inEngland had becomeincreasinglysophisticatedand– naturally – feminized.

Richard II certainly heldjousts, as his predecessorshad,buttheyweremoreofanentertainment than a trainingfor war, and they werefollowed by music anddancing. The emphasis atcourt was on the arts: onpoetry, music, fashion andhaute cuisine. It was enoughto turn the stomach of onerednecked chronicler,Thomas Walsingham, whowrote: ‘The King surrounds

himself with “Knights ofVenus” more valiant in thebedchamber than on thebattlefield.’

Women also took onimportant roles ingovernment;andRichardII’squeen,AnneofBohemia,wasseen as a crucial restraininghand on the implacablejustice of the king. As theVirgin Mary interceded withGodonbehalfofmankind,soit was thought right and

proper for the queen tointercede with the king onbehalf of his erring subjects.After thePeasants’Revoltof1381 the official rollsincluded many pardons likethisone:

Pardon,atthesupplicationofthe queen, with the assent ofdivers prelates, earls andlords of Parliament . . . toThomasdeFaryngdonfortheoffences in the late

insurrectionofLondon...*6

Richard travelled everywherewith his beloved QueenAnne, and there is no doubtthat there was a genuineaffection between them. Shewas intellectual and liberal.For instance, she owned acopyoftheWyclifBible,thefirst translation of the Bibleinto English, and perhapsthrough her it was circulatedin her native Bohemia. It

seems likely that she had apowerful influence over herhusband and perhaps,although we do not knowthis, was instrumental inraising the profile of womenin his court. Richard wascertainly the first king tocreate a woman duchess inher own right: MargaretMarshallin1397.

THEDAMSELASBUSINESSWOMAN

Women’s roles werechanging over a much widerswatheofsocietythanjustthehigh nobility. The BlackDeath, oddly enough,contributed significantly tothis:itcreatedsuchashortageof people thatwomenhad totakeontasksinmanyspheresthat had previously beenrestricted tomen. Theywereincreasingly able to supportthemselves as traders (astatuteof1363 lifted theban

on women being limited toonetradeorcraft)*7andseemtohavebeenable toexercisemorechoiceoverwhomtheymarried.

The best-known femalebusinesswoman was theextraordinary MargeryKempe, born in Lynn inNorfolk in 1373, who wrotewhatisoftendescribedasthefirst English autobiography:TheBookofMargeryKempe.Herfather,JohndeBrunham,

was a prominent merchant,five times mayor of Lynn,and the book describes howMargerygrewupaccustomedtoaffluence.

She describes herself asa fashion victim. She woregoldthreadsonherhead,andher hoods with long ribbonswerefashionablyslashed.Hercloaks were also modishlyslashed, and underlaid withvarious colours between theslashes. When her husband

finally refused to fund herextravagant lifestyle shedecidedtofindthemoneyforherself. Since women werenowlegallyabletooperateassole traders, she didn’t needher husband’s permission,and could keep any profitsshemade for herself. So shesetherselfupasabrewer...intending to be ‘the greatestin the town of Lynne’. Butalasitwasnottobe.

The beer simply would

notfermentproperlyforher.But Margery wasn’t to

be beaten. She bought twohorses and a mill, and setherself up as a corn-grinder.But that, too, was a disaster.It was said that the veryhorses that turned the millstarted to go backwardsinsteadofforwards.Thenthemillerranaway.‘AndthenitwasnoisedaboutthetownofLynn that neither man norbeastwouldworkforher...’

Margery took this as asignfromGodthatshewasn’tcut out for commerce andlooked around for anothercareer.Sherelaunchedherselfas a visionary andprofessionalhysteric.

Full-time professionalreligious weeping may notsoundlikeanobviousmoney-spinner,butthereisnodoubtthat Margery was head andshoulders above thecompetition.Shewas,infact,

a world-championship-classweeper. Show her a crucifixand she would faint; and ifshe thought she was in thepresence of God she wouldstart to screamuncontrollably. She wept inpublic. She wept throughsermons.Sheweptatmeals–loudly and incessantly. AholywomantoldMargeryherweeping was a gift of theHoly Spirit, but most peoplethought itwas just adamned

nuisance. After meeting herthe archbishop of York isreported to have given hisstaff five shillings to get heras far away from him aspossible.

And when she went onpilgrimage to Jerusalem herfellow-pilgrims just couldn’tstand the way she wept andlamentedduringdinner.Theyaskedherpolitelytostop,butshe couldn’t do it. Beforethey were a quarter of the

way to the Holy Land, theydumpedherandtoldhertogoonalone.

Margery clearly wasn’tyouraveragebusinesswoman,but at least she finallyregainedherpositioninLynnand even became a memberof the guild. The role ofwomen had obviouslychangedaverygreatdeal.

Writers and thinkersbegan to re-examine thetraditional male attitude that

the role of women wasmerely to be their servants;and to question theChurch’steaching that this was aninevitableconsequenceofthefact that women werenaturally corrupters of men,and were morally andintellectually weak and unfitto participate in public life.Women even began toquestionthisoutloud:

NomatterwhichwayIlooked

atitandnomatterhowmuchIturnedthematteroverinmymind, I could find noevidence from my ownexperiencetobearoutsuchanegative view of femalenature and habits. Even so,given that I could scarcelyfind a moral work by anyauthor which didn’t devotesomechapterorparagraphtoattacking the female sex, Ihad to accept theirunfavourable opinion of

women since it was unlikelythat so many learned men,who seemed to be endowedwith such great intelligenceand insight into all things,couldpossiblehaveliedonsomanydifferentoccasions...

CHRISTINE DE PISAN, TheBookoftheCityofLadies

ChristinedePisan,whowrotethis nicely ironic piece inabout 1404, had serioustrouble with the learned

attitudetowomenandwantedtodosomethingaboutit.ShehadgrownupinParis,whereher father was a scholar andphysician at the royal court,andmarriedaroyalsecretary.When shewas 25 everythingwent wrong. Her husbanddied, leaving her with threechildren and her mother tocare for.Her father,whohadlosthisposition,haddiedtwoyearsearlier.

To supplement her

income she began to writelyric poems. There wereplenty of men who made aliving this way, findingpatrons who would accepttheirworkasgiftsandrewardthem. Christine had decidedto break into this malemarket.Shebecameacceptedas a poet at the French courtand began to receivecommissions. At the sametime,shereadwidelyandshebegan to join in the

intellectuallifeofParis.She had strong opinions

about what she read, anddecided it was necessary tochallenge the way men werewriting about women. Shewas as alarmed by popularromances as she was by theworks of ‘learned men’. Inparticular,sheobjectedtothemost celebrated romance ofthe age, Jean de Meun’spoem The Romance of theRose.Shepublished‘Cupid’s

Letter’, deploringhis attitudetowardswomenandwhatshecalled his bad influence onmany contemporary menwhichencouragedthemtobeshallowseducersandrevelintheirconquests.

When a royal secretarywrote saying that she was apresumptuouswoman,daringto attack a man of ‘highunderstanding’, she hit backanddidn’tpullherpunches:

...sinceyouareangryatmewithoutreason,youattackmeharshlywith, ‘Ohoutrageouspresumption! Oh excessivelyfoolish pride! Oh opinionuttered too quickly andthoughtlesslybythemouthofa woman! A woman whocondemns a man of highunderstanding and dedicatedstudy...’

My answer: Oh mandeceived by wilfulopinion! . . . A simple little

housewife sustained by thedoctrine of Holy Churchcouldcriticizeyourerror!*8

THEMALEBACKLASH

However, this age of semi-emancipation was not goingto last. Aswhat we call ‘theMiddle Ages’ mergedseamlessly into what we call‘the Renaissance’ Europeseems to have beendominatedbytyranniesanda

new wave of militarism andbarbarism. Perhaps as acorollary,manymenresentedand feared women playingprominent roles in society.The restraining hand of thequeen as mediatrix was nolonger seen as a politicalideal. Men sought to pushwomen back into thebackground.

As the economyrecovered from the BlackDeath during the second half

of the fourteenth century, amale backlash had begun tobe tangible. In 1400 anordinancefromYorkdeclaredthat‘henceforthnowomanofwhatever status or conditionshall be put among us toweave . . . unless they havebeen taught the craft’. Aswomencouldnot joinguilds,that meant never. Othersimilarrulesbegantoappear.

But,asusual,menfoundthat the handiest weapon

against women was religionand the clearest example ofthis came with the strangehistory of Joan of Arc. In1429ChristinedePisanwrotea poem of sheer delight asthisremarkablewomanledanarmy of national liberationthrough France (that wascertainly how Christine sawit). But two years later JoanwasinanEnglishprison.

Shehadgone intobattlewearing male costume; she

keptitoninprison,thepantsand tunic ‘firmly laced andtiedtogether’,apparentlyasadefence against being rapedby the soldiers guarding her.Although there were effortsto charge herwithwitchcraftand heresy these collapsed,andshewasconvictedforthecrime of cross-dressing andnothing else. She had finallyconsentedtowearadress,buther jailers had taken it awayand thrown her the old,

forbiddenmale clothing. Sheeventuallyput it on, andwaspromptly declared to be a‘relapsed heretic’ andcondemnedtodeath.

The fire in which Joanburnedwasjustthebeginningofalongprocessofchangingnot just the position ofwomen, but the veryperception of a woman’snature. There was also astriking change in hownoblewomen dressed. Instead

ofshowingoffaslim,boyishfigure, fifteenth-centuryfashion was concerned withoccupying space andmovingsedately.Anewkindofdress,a ‘houppeland’, with a deepV-neck,baggysleevesandanenormous skirt seriouslyrestricted women’smovements. Noblemen alsowore houppelands as theirbagginess was ademonstration of wealth andextravagance, but the male

versionwasnothinglikesuchanimpediment.

Women had started towear clothes that reducedthem to rather helplessornaments.

THEDRAGONBECOMESFEMALE

Oneextraordinaryinsightintothepsychologicalbackgroundof these developments isprovided by Dr Samantha

Riches’s study of dragonpictures.*9

The story of St Georgeand the dragon had beenaround since the twelfthcentury. It was said that thisterrible beast had ravaged allthe countryside around atown. It had such bad breaththat it caused pestilencewhenever it approached thetown, so the people gave ittwosheepeverydaytosatisfyits hunger; and when they

eventually ran out of sheeptheydecidedtoofferithumanvictims, chosen by drawinglots. Eventually the chosenvictim was the king’sdaughter. So the maiden,dressed as a bride, was ledout and left to wait for themonster.StGeorgehappenedto find her, bravely attackedthedragonanddefeatedit.

This tale became verypopular in the fifteenthcentury. But something

sinister was appearing in thestory.

DrRiches lookedat latefifteenth-andearlysixteenth-centurypicturesdepictingthetaleandrealizedthatinmanyof them dragons had femalegenitalia. This portrayal ofthe dragon as female andsexual is probably connectedto fears about women’ssexuality during this time.The ‘damsel’ in the picturesis‘saved’byStGeorge,who

symbolizeschastity, fromthedragon who symbolizes herown uncontrolled sexuality.Women’ssexualitywasbeingassociated with a monster,suggesting that this sexualitywas seen as evil andthreatening. St George wasthepatronsaintoftowns,andin towns that were activelylegislating against womentraders this view seemsentirelypossible.

What began in towns

ended by dominating thecountry. When religiousdissent developed it was thecraftsmen and tradesmen ofthe towns who led it, andurban Protestantism wouldeventuallytakeoverEngland.Built into that Protestantismwas a viewofwoman as thehelpmeet, the obedientdomesticcreaturewhowouldnow have to vow at herwedding to love, honour andOBEY. Women were not to

be encouraged to playqueenly roles, as John Knoxmade clear in 1558 in hisFirst Blast of the Trumpetagainst the MonstrousRegiment of Women, anattack on the very idea ofwomen at the head of states.(‘Regiment’ meaning‘government’.)

Thingschangedsomuchthat in theeighteenthcenturythe great English legalcommentator Sir William

Blackstonewrote:

The very being or legalexistence of the woman issuspended during themarriage...forthisreasonamancannotgrantanythingtohis wife or enter into anycovenant with her: for thegrantwouldbetopresupposeherseparateexistence,andtocovenant with her would beonlytocovenantwithhimself.

All this was furthercompounded through theEnlightenment and theIndustrial Revolution, by abelief that women wereornamental and men active,and then that women reallyhadverylittlesexdrive–thatwas a man thing. It wouldhavebeen toofrighteningforahusbandtoleavehiswifeathome while he went off towork if she was actuallythought to be randier than

him. In fact, less than 100years ago any woman whowas ‘excessively’ interestedinsexwasdeemedtobesickor mad, and in need oftreatment.A largeproportionof the women in mentalasylums were there becausethey had had illegitimatebabies; or simply becausethey enjoyed sex more thanwasthoughtproper.

And so we come to theLadyofShalott, and thePre-

Raphaelites, and the damsel-in-distress. A Victorianinvention, projected back intime, to hinder ourunderstanding of the MiddleAges. Modern (male)scholars have argued thatHéloïse’sletterstoAbelard–‘sweetertomewillalwaysbethewordlover,or,ifyouwillpermitme, that of concubineor whore’ – must be maleforgeries. No real woman, itcame to be believed, could

everwrite,oreventhink,likethat.

CHAPTEREIGHT

KING⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

KINGS OF ENGLAND CAN BEDIVIDED into three types: the

Good, theBadand theUgly.That,youcantakeitfromus,isareliablefact.Butwhichiswhichisanothermatter.

Take all the kings ofEngland called Richard:there’s GoodKing Richard I– Richard the Lionheart, theidealistic crusader andchampion of England – orwashe?BadKingRichardII– the vain, megalomaniactyrant–orhashisnamebeentraduced by those who

wished him ill? And UglyKing Richard III – thedeformed monster ofShakespeare’s imagination –or is he nothing more thanthat: the product of ourgreatest playwright’simagination?

History consists of thetalesweliketotelleachotherabout our predecessors. Andevery generation constructsits stories to suit its ownoutlook and agenda. In such

shifting ground we can takenothing for granted. Evenfacts that seem to be set instone–suchastheroll-callofthe kings of England or the‘fact’thatthelastinvasionofEnglandwasin1066–arebyno means as certain as weliketopretend.

THEUNMENTIONABLEKINGSOFENGLAND

Take the kings nobody

mentions;youmightnothaveheard much about Osric andEanfrith. In AD 633 theyruled two kingdoms thatbecame Northumbria beforethey were killed by KingCaedwallaofNorthWales.

The only reason weknow anything at all aboutthese twokings is thatBede,writing his EcclesiasticalHistoryoftheEnglishNationa hundred years later,mentions that no king-list

recordsthem:

To this day, that year islookeduponasunhappy,andhateful to all good men . . .Hence it has been agreed byall who have written aboutthe reigns of the kings, toabolish the memory of thoseperfidious monarchs, and toassign that year to the reignofthefollowingking,Oswald,amanbelovedbyGod.

The same fate seems tohaveovertaken King Louis theFirst(andLast).

KINGLOUISTHEFIRST(ANDLAST?)

Louis invaded England in1216 with a fleet almost aslargeastheConqueror’s,anda considerably larger army.He landed unopposed andwas hailed as king when hereached London. On 2 June

the new ruler, heir to thecrown of France, waswelcomed by a magnificentMass in St Paul’sCathedral.*1 He received thehomage of the citizens ofLondon, of most of thebarons and of the King ofScotland,*2 and began theconquest of the rest of thecountry as well as thegovernmentofthepartwhichwasunderhiscontrol.

Louis ruled much of

England with his ownchancellor (thebrotherof thearchbishop of Canterbury),andelevatedatleastonemanto the nobility, creatingGilbert de Gant (or Gaunt)Earl of Lincoln. He wasrecognized as king by thebarons andby the citizensofLondon, the Welsh noblesand the Scottish king. Thefactthathedoesn’tfeatureinthe official king-lists raisessomedifficultquestionsabout

what exactly ismeant by theexpression ‘King ofEngland’.

Louis had come toEngland because the baronshad invited him to take thecrown.KingJohnhadalong-standing feud with theChurch over the appointmentof Stephen Langton asarchbishop of Canterbury,which had led to him beingexcommunicated and aninterdict – a ban on church

services–beingplacedonthewholekingdom.In1213PopeInnocentIIIauthorizedPhilipII of France to invadeEngland and deprive John ofhis kingdom. John had notbeennextinlinetothethroneafterRichard’s death: he hadbeencrownedbythepreviousarchbishop on the groundsthat he was chosen by thenation,achoiceconfirmedbypublicacclamation.

Philip of France

summonedacouncilandtheyalldecidedthathissonLouisshould lead the invasion andtake over theEnglish throne.Louis was married to John’sniece, which gave him somekindofclaim.

The invasion did nottake place for another threeyears, by which time Johnhad first agreed to, and thenrenegedon,theMagnaCarta,and the English barons andthe archbishop had called on

Louis to get onwith it. Johnhad taken the precaution ofhanding his kingdom over tothe pope, which meant thathis excommunicationand theinterdict were lifted and itwas the barons and bishopswho found themselvesexcommunicated forattackingthepope’skingdomof England. They were nothugely bothered; so far asthey were concerned, Johnhadlosthisrighttothethrone

by surrendering the countrytoanotherruler.

Louis and his armylandedinEngland,ontheIsleof Thanet, on 21May 1216.He claimed the thronethrough his wife and by thechoiceofthebarons.

This is how Louis theFirst and Last came to beacclaimed as King ofEngland. It is true that nobishopcrownedhim,andthatmeant he was in an unusual

position,buthewascertainlyrulingasking.John’sattemptto win his country backinvolved wide-ranging war.In October he set offnorthwards from Lynn inNorfolk and lost all hisbaggage,includingtheCrownjewels, when his entouragetook a short cut across theriverWellandjustasthetidecame in. No-one would eversee it again. John wasdevastated and went to the

Cistercian abbey ofSwineshead in Lincolnshireto be consoled. The originalausterity of the Cistercianshad obviously alreadyevaporated; John surfeitedhimself with peaches and akind of new beer, caughtdysenteryanddied.

That left Louis the onlyking in England. He alsohappenedtobetheonlyadultmalewithanyclaimtoinheritthe throne (though only

through his marriage). Johnhadleftanine-year-oldson–the futureHenry III–butnochild had ever been allowedto become the ruler ofEngland. This did not worrythe papal legate, whoinventedanentirelynewruleof succession. He whistledHenry down to Gloucester,where the few barons whohadstuckbyJohnattendedamakeshift coronationperformed by the bishop of

Winchester – the archbishopofCanterburyand thebishopof London had priorengagements. A circlet ofgoldwashurriedlyfoundandplonked on the boy’s head.GodSavetheKing.

However, as it turnedout Louis did not endearhimself totheEnglishbaronsas he evidently preferred togovern with the help ofFrenchmen.WilliamMarshal,the doughty hero of

tournaments long ago, nowaged75andtitledtheEarlofPembroke, took the job ofregent and set about gettingrid of Louis – which heevidently did with hiscustomary efficiency. Thegreat battle came at Lincolnon 20 May 1217; Louis lostand his troops began to driftaway.A fewmonths laterhegaveup.InSeptember1217atreatywassignedbywhichhesurrendered his castles,

released his subjects fromtheiroathstohimandtoldhisallies tolaydowntheirarms.Everyone who had been onLouis’ side swore fealty toHenry III, and Louis wenthometosucceedtothecrownof France, a much moresecure job with betterprospects – though he diedthreeyearsafterinheritingit.

KINGWHO?

Eventually, in 1220, Henrywas given a propercoronation at Westminster.And, in order to make itpossible for the kingdom tocarry on functioning,everyone who had swornfealty to Louis realized thattheyhadnotreallydonesoatall. It had never happened.TherehadneverbeenaKingLouisofEngland.

Thehistorybookswouldsaywhatthenewgovernment

wantedthemtosay,justifyingrebellion against the tyrantJohnwhile glossing over thebarons’briefimportationofaFrench king. They still do.Whichmeans,ofcourse, thathistory books need to beregarded with a veryjaundiced eye.Most of whatwe now know of King Johncomes from a handful ofaccountsofhis reign,writtenby churchmen who wereeither outraged by his

excommunication or livingunder the post-Louisgovernment;*3 they wereenthusiasts for trying toweaken royal power. Laterhistorians simply copied andembellished theirmanuscripts.

THEPOWEROFKINGS

This pattern, of chroniclersunder new regimesblackeningthememoryofthe

old, created an image ofmedievalkingshipthatwastoresonate through Englishhistory,inwhichthekingwasatyrantwhosewhimsicalandself-serving power needed tobetamed.BadKingJohnwasthefirstofthesetyrantkings,and centuries later this viewof royal authority wasenshrinedbyhistoriansintheservice of Britain’sconstitutional revolution ofthe seventeenth century and

the American War ofIndependence. This is whytheMagnaCarta,adocumentthat dealt with the veryspecific grievances of John’stenants-in-chief, wasmythologized into thefoundation stone of EnglishandAmericangovernment.

Sir Edward Coke,England’s most prominentseventeenth-century lawyerand one of Parliament’sleaders in the run-up to the

Civil War, used areinterpretedMagnaCarta asa weapon against Charles I,arguing that even kingsmustcomply with common law.He stated in Parliament that‘Magna Carta . . . will havenosovereign’.Hisargumentswere later to be used byThomas Jefferson, in settingout the idea of Englishliberties.

It was easy forseventeenth- and eighteenth-

century writers, enthusiastsfor ‘constitutionalmonarchy’orarepublic,tominetheoldhistories and find materialthat allowed them to depictkings as tyrants.Each time aregime changed it wasnecessary for the newauthorities to show howgrateful everyone should bethat they had removed theprevious incumbent. Thisinvolved replacing historicalfigures with caricatures of

wickedness.Perhaps royal power,

and its use or misuse, wasmore of an issue in Englandthan in other countriesbecause an English kingwasin a very different positionfrom, for example, a king ofFrance. In France, themonarchy was relativelyweakandthegreataristocratsruled their own territories ontheir own terms. Thesearistocrats included kings of

England, who held land inFrance not by virtue of theirEnglishcrownbutasdukesofFrench provinces, such asNormandy and Anjou –whichiswhytheFrenchwereconstantly fighting theEnglish. Such powerful,independent nobles simplydidnotexistinEngland.

There had always beenan elective character toEuropean kingship (the ideathat the eldest son

automatically inherits thecrown started in England, aspart of the politicssurroundingtheinstallationofthe young Henry III). Evenconquering rulers like Cnut(Canute,theDanishkingwhoruled England from 1017 to1035)wereelected,inCnut’scase first by theDanish fleetandeventuallyby theAnglo-SaxonWitan (great council).Thismeantthatkingshipwassomething given by others

and could, at least in theory,bewithdrawn.

1066 changed all that.The terms of Englishkingshipwere set, inevitably,by William the Conqueror,and it was a new kind ofkingship–authoritybasedonmight alone. His coronationdid not require the approvalof his subjects. Williamachieved what no otherEuropean ruler could: theeffective conquest of his

whole kingdom. WhatmatteredwasnottheBattleofHastings but thewarfare thatfollowed. He enforced hisauthority at Exeter, at York,carried out the savage‘harrying of the North’,ravagedCheshire,Shropshire,Staffordshire and Derbyshireand crushed revolt in theFens.Havingestablishedtotalmastery, and installed hisown men as tenantsthroughout the country, he

carriedoutacompletesurveyofthewholepackagedowntothe last slave and plough –Domesday Book – andinsisted that every tenant, allthe way down the feudalchain, swear an oath ofpersonalallegiancetohim.

No king could morecompletely own his kingdomthanWilliamownedEngland.And it was his to give towhichever son he fancied.That, of course, became the

problem as soon as he died.William Rufus, to whom hebequeathed the country, wassoonkilledastheresultofan‘accident’ that put hisyoungerbrotherHenryonthethrone.

Uneasyliestheheadthatwears a crown. John ofWorcester’s chronicle,written in about 1140, soonafter Henry I’s death,describes the king havingnightmares about

complaining peasants andviolentbarons.Itwas,infact,all falling apart. And then itdid.

Henry approached hisdeathbed with no livinglegitimate son (he did notregard any of his 25 or soillegitimate children as kingmaterial). He willed thekingdom to his daughterMatilda, and forced hisbarons to swearallegiance toher,butoncehewasdeadhis

nephew Stephen claimed thecrown and England wasplunged into anarchic civilwar. It was a time when, asone chronicler described it,‘Christandhisangelsslept’.

The war ended whenboth sides agreed thatStephen should rule butMatilda’s son should inheritthe throne. That son, HenryII, then had the job of tryingto stick the broken crockerytogether again. English

kingship demanded totalauthority,whichmeantHenryhad to re-create a distancebetweenhispowerandthatofthe great lords. Since theConqueror option (militarycrushing of enemies andhandingoutofspoils)wasnolonger open, he had to carrythe country with him. Theonly way out of thenightmaresofHenryIwastoencourage people to believetheyapprovedofwhathewas

doing. Above all, this meantcreating a sense that he wasacting with lawful authority.Every landholding man heldcourt in his own estates –Henry, lord of all England,was also the judge of thewholeland,andhishomewastheroyalcourt.

Thiswashistrumpcard,andheusediteffectively.Heestablished courts in variousparts of the country andwasthe first king to grant

magistrates the power tojudge civil matters in thename of the crown. This iswhen the first written legaltextbook was produced, thebasisofEnglishcommonlaw.Henryalsointroducedtrialbyjury, making the populationparticipate in his own legalauthority.

He extended this legalauthorityintothelandsofhismagnates and over theChurch–achallengethatthe

Church was determined toresist and which led toHenry’s terrible conflictwithThomas Becket, archbishopof Canterbury. He used theauthority of the law todemolish castles that hadbeen built without royalpermission during the civilwar. And, as he preferred tohiretroopsratherthanrelyonthe ‘loyalty’ of barons, hesubstituted a tax – scutage –for thenobles’obligationsof

militaryservice.Tomakethiswork,heestablishedeffectiverecord-keeping.

Kingship was now notquite so personal.Henry hadcreated a legal andadministrative structure thatwas probably more effectivethan armed force in holdinghiskingdomtogether. Itwas,inmanyways,areturntothekind of rule that had existedbefore the Conquest: rule byconsent of thepeople,within

a framework of recognizedtraditional law. (Actually itwas rule by consent of thefreepeople.Villeinswerenotpartofthisdeal;beingunfree,they had very limited legalrights,justasinAnglo-Saxontimes the slavesdidnothaverightsorpower.)

But although this wasnotionally kingship underlaw,therewasnoinstitutionalcheckon royalpower.Henrywas simply a consummate

politician,dealingwiththeartof the possible. The crownwas still his personalproperty, and he was free tochoose which of his heirsshould succeed him. Hiseldestsurvivingson,Richard,wasnothisfirstchoice.

Which brings us to theGood,theBadandtheUgly.

GOODKINGRICHARDI

Richard was born in Oxford

buthewasessentiallyFrench,broughtupinAquitaineatthecourt of hismother, Eleanor.HenrygaveAquitainetohim,but intended to make hisyounger brother, John, Kingof England. This may havebeen because of Richard’squite appalling reputation inAquitaine, where hecommitted rapes andmurders. That was how theyjustified a major uprisingagainst his rule: ‘He seized

and raped the wives,daughters and relatives offree men, and when theviolence of his lust had beenquenched,handedthemtohissoldierstouse.’*4

However, Richardwasn’tgoingtoletJohnhaveEnglandand,withthehelpofPhilip II of France, hedefeated his father in 1189.Henry, a broken man, diedshortly afterwards andRichard took possession of

theEnglishcrown.Itisnotreallyclearwhy

he bothered. He arrived forhis coronation with the ideaofpickingupasmuchmoneyas he could to finance acrusade, but unable to speakany English. The leaders ofLondon’s Jews came to hiscourt bearing valuable gifts,butasJewswerenotallowedtheretheywerebeatenupandthere were general anti-Jewish riots. Richard,

profoundly disturbed at theidiocyofattackingthepeoplewho could give himwhat heneeded, left the country soonafterwards and was not seenagain in England for years.He detested the place anddeclared he would sell it offto anyone whowas preparedtobuyit.

Thepassiontowagewarin the Holy Land wassweepingEuropelikeavirus.Menwho resisted joining up

were humiliated and givengifts ofwool as if theywerewomen. Priests stirred upanti-Muslim hysteria. Apersuasive visual aid was apictureofamountedSaracenknight trampling on theMessiah’s tomb in Jerusalemwhilehishorseurinatedonit.

It was Richard’s role asa crusadingChristianwarriorthatmade him a hero duringhis reign and a legend forcenturiesafterwards.

The Great Warrior,however, failed to recaptureJerusalem from the ‘infidel’Saladin.Travellingbackfromhiscrusade throughGermany(alone and in disguise),Richard was captured andspent two years in prison.Having the IQ of a GoodKing, he was apparentlyunable to figureoutwhy thiswashappening:

No one will tell me the

causeofmysorrowWhy theyhavemademeaprisonerhere.Whereforewith dolour Inowmakemymoan;Friends had I many buthelphaveInone.Shameful it is that theyleavemetoransom,To languish here twowinterslong.

His mother eventuallymanaged to prise the money

for his ransom out of theloyalEnglish,whose countrywas impoverished for yearsas a result, and in 1194Richard returned to Englandtotryanothercoronation–heleft again straight afterwards,nevertoreturn.Hespentevenmore of his overtaxedcountry’srevenueonbuildinga state-of-the-art castle northof Paris:ChateauGaillard. Itcost £12,000, more than anyother defensive building for

centuries. It was underminedand captured by Philip II ofFrance six years after beingcompleted.

By that time Richardwas dead. He was killed in1199while attacking a smallfortified building in Chalus,whichwasdefendedbyafewmen who had no hope ofholding out. Richard, havingforgotten to put his armouron, rode up to its wall andwas promptly shot with a

crossbow.Duringhisten-yearreign he had spent a grandtotal of six months inEngland.

Now how does a manlikethatendupbeingaGoodKing, except through thepowerofpropaganda?

MEDIEVALSPINDOCTORS

We can clearly see the waychroniclers adjusted their

view of the past in themanuscript of Ralph ofCoggeshall’s chronicle,whichwaswrittenduring thereigns of Richard and hissuccessor, John. The firstsection dates from around1195, when Richard wasalive, and praises him withenthusiasm. The man is the‘uniquemirrorofallthekingsof the Norman race’. Thenext sectionwaswritten in adifferent ink after John had

come to the throne. NowRichard has become a quitedifferent kind of king –grasping (Coggeshall saysnoprevious king had imposedsuchheavyfinancialdemandson his kingdom), menacing,threatening his ownpetitioners, ferocious towardseveryone.

No age can remember, nohistory can record anypreceding king, even those

who reigned for a long time,who exacted and received somuch money from hiskingdomas thatkingexactedandamassedinthefiveyearsafter he returned fromcaptivity.

John, the new king, was avery different figure, a kingwhose ‘heart was full of thespirit of counsel and piety’.During Richard’s lifetime,Coggeshall had been writing

verycriticallyaboutJohn,butthose criticismsarenot tobefoundinthemanuscriptofhischroniclenow.Weonlyknowthat he wrote them becauseanother chronicler, Roger ofWendover, copied them outbeforeRalphhadachancetocover his tracks. Once Johnwas on the throne, Ralphcarefullyerasedhiscriticismsof thenewking and filled inthe blank space with newhistorical details – the

sacking of a chancellor, theconsecrationofabishop.*5

Of course, once JohnwasoutofthewayhebecameaBadKing and, by contrast,Richard was restored as aGoodKing.

LIMITINGROYALPOWER

The Magna Carta, whichdominated the later years ofJohn’s reign, did not andcould not create any new

institutional check on royalpower. It was essentially asupplement to the coronationoath, stating the king’sintention to uphold goodlaws,andspeltoutwhatsomeofthosegoodlawswere.

Theissuethatstirredthebarons to demand thisdocument was the sheer costof maintaining the royalmachine, especially the royalmachine at war. John andRichard had both tried to

meet this by massiveincreases in feudal dues andlegalcharges,andmostoftheMagna Carta is an effort toreverse these. When therebellious barons complainedofJohn’s‘tyranny’–inotherwords, that he was rulingwithout paying attention tothe law – they were notnecessarilyreferringtolawaswe understand it. They heldprivileges, literally ‘privatelaws’, that were granted by

the king, and the royaladministration had vastlyincreased the cost of these.The price of relief from anobligation to the crown hadrisenfrom£100to£6666.

Butotherclauses–suchas,‘Infuturenoofficialshallplaceamanontrialuponhisown unsupported statement,without producing crediblewitnesses to the truth of it’and ‘We will appoint asjustices, constables, sheriffs,

or other officials, only menthat know the law of therealmandaremindedtokeepit well’ – show that thebarons firmly held the viewthat the kingdom operatedunder laws that bound theking himself as well aseveryoneelse.

There was, in short, anotion of proper kingship,and theMagnaCarta tried tospelloutwhatthismeant.

The core problem of

kingshipwas to establish themechanism by which goodrule could be enforced. Tosome extent, this wassupposedly the role of theChurch. Certainly, from theeleventh to the thirteenthcentury it could occasionallybringamonarchtohisknees,and lower. Henry II had toprostrate himself at the altarin Canterbury cathedral andaccept flogging as penancefor the killing ofArchbishop

Becket. There was also thedanger of unleashingrebellion, and ultimately ofbeingdeposedandkilled.Butintheendallthiscamedowntoamechanismofpopular(oratleastbaronial)consent.

THEDANGERSOFDEMOCRACY

The idea that such consentshould be formalizeddemocratically was regarded

as quite simply wrong. Weseemtobelievethatregularlyoffering the adult populationthechancetoelectapoliticalparty to govern them is self-evidently the ideal politicalsystem.This is a very recentopinion. Even John StuartMill,sooftentakentobethephilosopher of democracy,warned against ‘the tyrannyof the majority’. This was adanger that was wellunderstood in the Middle

Ages. This is why Danteincludeddemocracyasoneofthe despotic systems fromwhichmonarchy protects thepeople:

It is onlywhenamonarch isreigning that thehumanraceexists for its own sake, andnot for thesakeofsomethingelse. For it is only then thatperverted forms ofgovernment are madestraight, towit, democracies,

oligarchies, and tyrannies,which force the human raceinto slavery (as is obvious towhosoeverrunsthroughthemall)...

The same arguments against‘democracy’ are echoed inChaucer:

For the truth of things andthe benefit thereof are betterfound by a few folk who arewise and full of reason,

rather than by a greatmultitude of people in whichevery man shouts out andprattlesonaboutwhateverhewants.

For monarchy to functionwell itwas necessary for themonarch to internalize thelaw–hehad tobeassternajudge of his own acts as hewasoftheactsofothers.Thiswas thedifferencebetweenastrong, all-powerful monarch

andatyrant.Ifakingruledintheinterestsofhispeople,hewas a rightful ruler. If heruled in his own interests,however, he was a tyrant. Inthe fourteenth centuryMarsilius of Padua, the one-time rector of the UniversityofParis,wrote:

Akinglymonarchy, then is atemperate governmentwherein the ruler is a singleman who rules for the

common benefit, and inaccordance with the will orconsent of the subjects.Tyranny, its opposite, is adiseasedgovernmentwhereintherulerisasinglemanwhorules for his own privatebenefitapart from thewillofhissubjects.

At the heart of governmentwas thedutyofobedience totheking.Thiswasseenasthesource of all peace, honour

and prosperity in the realm,and it was the king’s job toensure that obedience to himwould be rewarded. Theprimary function ofgovernment was to enablepeople to lead peaceful andsecure lives, and a strongcentral monarchy wasunderstood to be essential tothat as individual barons hadno commitment to thecommon good and wouldplainly, if left alone, tear the

countrytopieces.Thedangerto good government camelessfromakingwhowastoopowerful than from one whowas too weak and could notdominate the barons or wintheirsupport.

Henry III and his sonEdward I managed to ruleeffectively, but the nextinheritor of the throne,Edward II, failedcompletely.Hewasdeposedfinallybythebarons,and thekingdomwas

taken over by his wife andher lover in the name of hisson, the 15-year-old EdwardIII. This was not a rebellionagainst tyranny; it wasagainst incompetence.Edward II alienated all hispotential supporters by hispassionate commitment tounpopular favourites and hiscomplete failure as a warleader.

Edward III grew tomanhood with a clear

understanding of thedifficultiesfacedbyanunder-age king, and celebrated hisemergence as an adult byseizing and then hanging hismother’s lover. But by thetimehecametohisdeathbedhisson,theBlackPrince,wasdead and the successionpassed to another child: histen-year-old grandsonRichard.

BADKING–RICHARDII

Historians mostly agree thatRichard II was a bad lot.‘Vain’, ‘megalomaniacal’‘narcissistic’, ‘treacherous’,‘vindictive’, and ‘tyrannical’areamong themostcommonepithetsappliedtohim.Quitea few historians – for goodmeasure – also mark himdownas‘mad’.

ThustheOxfordHistoryofEnglanddescribeshowhisactions after 1397 ‘suggest asudden loss of control, the

onset of amentalmalaise. IfRichard was sane from 1397onwards, it was with thesanityofamanwhopullshisown house down about hisears.’*6

Hemusthavebeenvain–afterall,wasn’thethefirstEnglish monarch tocommissiona lifelikeportraitof himself?And talk about amegalomaniac – why, hemade everyone call him‘Your Majesty’ instead of

plain old ‘sire’ and forcedpeople to bow the knee tohim.

As for his vengefulstreak,historianshaveonlytopoint out how he suddenlyturnedonthreeofthegreatestnobles in the land in 1397 –he exiled the Duke ofWarwick, executed RichardEarl of Arundel and hadThomasofWoodstock,DukeofGloucester,murdered.

But it may be that

modern historians have beentoo ready to believeeverythingbadaboutRichard– even things that neverhappened. For example, partof theevidenceforRichard’sinsanityalwaysusedtobeanincidentinwhichafriarcamebefore the King and accusedJohn of Gaunt, the Duke ofLancaster, of plotting againsttheKing’slife.Thefriarwasso insistent that RichardorderedtheDuketobeputto

death straight away. Butwiser counsels stayed hishand, whereupon Richardthrew a tantrum, tossing hiscape and shoes out of thewindowandbegantoactlikeamadman.

This storywas solemnlyreiterated by historians asproof positive of Richard’sincipient madness – until1953,whenascholarpointedout that the Victorian editoroftheparticularchroniclehad

misplaced the sentence aboutthecapeandshoes,andthatitwasactuallythefriarwhohadpretended to be mad onrealizing that his falseaccusationswere about to beexposed. Richard, in fact,listened to his counsel and,according to the chronicle,‘wisely undertook to act . . .in conformity with theiradvice’.*7

But the readiness withwhichthistotallynonsensical

story about Richard wasbelieved tells us somethingabout the historical attitudestohim.

RICHARDTHEVINDICTIVE?

Warwick, Arundel andGloucester had been aconstant thorn in Richard’sside since he inherited thethrone in 1377. In 1387 theyopenly rebelled against him.

Theydefeatedtheroyalarmyand set about destroyingRichard’s circle of influence.They tortured and executedsomething like 18 of hisclosestfriendsandadvisers.

In contrast, whenRichard took the reins ofpowerback intohishands in1389, he didn’t executeanyone. And when he didmake his move, eight yearslater, he kept it to a surgicalstrike – he took no revenge

ontheirhangers-on.Hedidn’ttorture anyone. He simplyremoved those threetroublemakers who hadbetrayed him and workedagainsthisinterestthroughouthisreign.

Not exactly a vindictivenature, one would havethought.

RICHARDTHEMEGALOMANIAC?

It is true that Richard seemsto have cultivated thetrappingsof royalpower toagreater degree than hisEnglish predecessors. Butwas it a sign ofmegalomania?

In fact, in adoptinghigher termsofaddress,suchas ‘Your Majesty’ andintroducingcourtesiessuchasbowing, Richard was doingno more than importing thefashionsthathadbeencurrent

in the courts of Europe formostofthecentury.

In any case, a strongcentralized monarchy wasseen by the political thinkersof the fourteenth century notas tyrannybut as a civilizinginfluence.Thealternativewasa continually warringbaronage, disrupting therealm.

The idea of absolutepower in the hands of theKing was, in fact, seen as a

protection for liberties, not athreat to them. When WatTyler, at the height of the1381revolt,proposedthatthearistocracy should be doneaway with and the Kingshould rule his peopledirectly, he was not talkingoffthetopofhishead;hewasvoicing an idea that wascurrent amongst the politicalthinkersoftheday.

One of the few booksthatweknowforcertain that

Richard owned was one thatwas presented to him byPhilippedeMézières, theex-Chancellor of Cyprus. In itPhilippe describes the idealkingdom,anditmaycomeasashockforthemodernreaderto discover how monarchyand socialist are combined;with the abolition of privateproperty and the distributionof wealth ‘to each accordingtohisneed’.

All fruits were held incommonbytheinhabitants,toeach according to his need,andthewords‘myown’werenever heard . . . All tyrannyandharsh rulewasbanishedfromthegarden,thoughtherewas a king, who stood forauthority and the commongood, and he was so lovedand looked up to that hemighthavebeenthefatherofeachandall.Andnowonder,for he had such concern for

the welfare of his subjects,dwellers in the garden, thatneither he nor his childrenownedanything.*8

TheWilton Diptych portraysRichard with hands openready to receive the flag ofEngland from the hands ofthe baby Jesus . . . in otherwordsthecountryisasacredtrustandnotamilchcow.

So what happened toRichard’sreputation?

HENRYIV’SPROPAGANDAMACHINE

It’s the old story. HenryBolingbroke was an illegalusurper who treacherouslywent against all his vows ofloyalty as a chivalric knight,stole the throne from hiscousin and then had himmurdered. The usurperneeded to assuage not onlyhisguiltyconsciencebutalsothe considerable body of

contemporary public opinionthat regarded him as thetraitorthathewas.

Despite theassertionsofthechroniclersofHenryIV’sreign, it is clear thatBolingbroke’s return toEnglandwasnotgreetedwithpopular relief or a sense ofliberation. He had troubleeven finding a safe place toland, ‘taking his ships backand forthalong thecoastline,approachingdifferentpartsof

the kingdom in turn’. Hefinally chose to land as farnorth as Yorkshire. Themayor and aldermen ofLondon did not desertRichard until he had beentakenprisoner,andeventhenthey probably drove a hardbargain. But that is not theway the story gets told.Bolingbroke took good careofthat.

Assoonashehadseizedpowerhesentletterstoallthe

abbeys and major churches‘instructingtheheadsofthesereligious houses to makeavailable for examination allof their chronicles whichtouched upon the state andgovernanceofthekingdomofEngland from the time ofWilliam the Conqueror upuntilthepresentday...’Theerasures and revisions stillvisible in these manuscripts,the removal of criticisms ofBolingbroke and his father,

and the addition of anti-Richard material show thatmonks understood perfectlywell what that meant. TherecordsoftheCityofLondonwere simply attacked with aknife; two and a half folioscovering the period of theusurpationhavebeencutout.

We can also see thesignsofpressurebeingputonother writers to conform tothe newpolitical correctness.John Gower, ten years

Chaucer’sseniorandperhapsalreadygoingblind,painfullypullsintolinewiththecurrentpolitical orthodoxy as manymanuscripts as he can of hispoemConfessio Amantis. Hehad originally dedicated thepoem to Richard; but in theclimate of fear and paranoiathat accompanied theusurpation he rededicated itto Henry. John Gower evengoes to great lengths topretend that he made such

changes long before theusurpation.

Henry’s heavy handmust have been leaning onthe poet’s shoulder as hewroteeveryword.

Richard II saw thebasisof his power not inoverwhelming military forceorpoliticalintrigue,butinthespecial authority ofsovereignty. His court was afountnotofmilitaryauthoritybut of magical power, in

which the majesty of royaljustice was tempered by themercy of queenlyintercession;itwasacourtofmannersandofceremony.

None ofwhich enrichedthe barons or increased theirinfluence and power. Theyneededwar.Thechroniclerofthe Vita Ricardi Secundicomplained that Richardwas‘timid and unsuccessful inforeignwar’. Insteadofwarshe offered tournaments,

accompanied by music, anddancingwiththeladiesofthecourt. Walsingham made ahostile assessment ofRichard’scourtiers:

These fellows, who are inclose association with theKing,carenothingforwhataknight ought to know – I amspeaking not only about theuse of arms but also aboutthose matters with which anoble king should be

concerned in times of peace,suchashuntingandhawkingand the like – activities thatserve to enhance the honourofaking.

HistoriaAnglicana

The fact is that Richard hadcreated a new vision ofroyalty in England, in whichthekingwasamajesticfigurein a court that was asconcerned with the arts ofpeace as those of war. The

function of majesty was tocreate a focus of authoritythat would be as effective intimes of peace as of war.Henry IV and eachsucceeding sovereign would,in fact, attempt to build onwhatRichardhaddone.

ThethirdandfinalKingRichard was no exception tothis, but once again thepropaganda of his detractorshasnobbledhim.

BADKING

Ofcoursewealldoknowthatthere was a king calledRichard III, but the characterwe know about is acompletely different manfrom the one that sat on thethrone. The real man hasdisappeared, and in his placewe have a cardboard cut-outvillain, to be booed andhissedwhenever he appearedon stage – this is

Shakespeare’s character, themagnificent, deformedmonster king, which wasdirectly based on theextremely biased sourcesavailable to him. LaurenceOlivier’s magnificent screenperformance does completejustice to Shakespeare’screation, a reptilian,insinuating smile on the faceofamanwhounderstandshisown psychotic character,driven by his hunger for

revenge on the world for hishunchedandtwistedspine.

I,thatamnotshapedforsportivetricks,Nor made to court anamorouslooking-glass;I, that am rudelystamp’d,andwantlove’smajestyTostrutbeforeawantonamblingnymph;I, that am curtail’d ofthisfairproportion,

Cheated of feature bydissemblingnature,Deformed, unfinish’d,sentbeforemytimeInto this breathingworld, scarce halfmadeup,

Since I cannot prove alover,To entertain these fairwell-spokendays,I am determined toproveavillain

And hate the idlepleasuresofthesedays.Plots have I laid,inductionsdangerous

Ofcourse,Englandneverhada king like that and Richarddid not even have ahunchback.Thereisaportraitof him in the RoyalCollection, probably datingfromthereignofhisusurper,which, some experts claim,has ben altered to show him

with a hunched back.Whetherthisclaimisjustifiedor not, it is clear that theamount of work that wentinto creating the story thatRichard plotted to seize thethrone of England and thenruled as a brutal tyrant isreallyquiteextraordinary.

Medievalkings ruledbyconsent, no other way waspossible. For virtually everyking of England, thisessentiallymeant the consent

of the nobility of southernandcentralEngland,withtheearls in the north beingsteadily marginalized. Thathad eventually led to civilwar, the Wars of the Roses,which had ended withEdward IV defeating thenorthernnobility.

Edward then gave hisbrother Richard the job ofwinning hearts and minds inthe north. While the kingruled from London, Richard,

DukeofGloucester,wassenttoYork to be a sort of vice-regent. He arrived in 1476,backedupby5000men.Butaccording to the Yorkrecords, he had not come toimpose himself by force:‘After greetings wereexchanged, the dukeaddressed the civic officialswithin Bootham Bar, sayingthat hewas sent by the kingtosupporttheruleoflawandpeace.’

In fact,Richard devotedhimself to the minutiae ofgovernment and justice, andthe pleas put to him indicatethat he became fullyimmersed in the life of theregion.

Right andmighty prince andour full tender and especialgood lord, we your humbleservants, havyng a singlerconfidence in your high andnoble lordship afore any

other, besecheth yourhighnesse. . .concerningthereformation of certanfishtraps.

In 1482 the City of Yorkpresentedhimwithgifts, ‘forthe great labour, good andbenevolent lordship that theright, high and might princehaveatalltymesdoneforthewell of the city’. Out of thecouncil goody bag came fish–‘6pike,6tenches,6breme,

6 eels and 1 barrel ofsturgeon’,alocalspecialityofspiced bread, and fourteengallonsofwinetowashitalldown.

At the dark heart of thelegend of evil King Richardliethebodiesoftwochildren,the sons of Edward IV – theprinces in the Tower. WhenEdwardapproachedhisdeathin 1483 he named his 12-year-old son Edward as hissuccessor.Richardwas to be

lord protector until the boygrew up. But when the kingdied on 9 April Richardwasin the north of England andtheprincewasinthehandsofhis mother’s family, theWoodvilles.

They tried to hurry thechild to London beforeRichard knew about thedeath, and crown him on 4May – a coup that wouldhave given them control ofthe king and the country.

Richardmanaged to interceptthemandescorted theboy toLondon, placing him in theroyalapartment in theTowerand rescheduling thecoronation for 22 June. Onthe thirteenth, evidencecameto light of an extensive plotagainst Richard, and youngEdward’s brother (littleRichard)wasalsoinstalledinthe Tower. Edward’scoronationwasdeferreduntilNovember.

On 22 June Dr EdwardShaa,brotherofthemayorofLondon, convenientlydeclared to the citizens ofLondon that Edward IV’smarriage to ElizabethWoodville, which had takenplace in secret, had beenillegalbecausethekinghadaprecontract of marriage withLadyEleanorButler.Richardhad been a dutiful and loyalassistant to his brotherEdward IV, and had spent

mostofhislifeinthenorthofEngland. He was popular,widely trusted, kneweveryone and was a capableadministrator. Now thelegitimacy of the successionhadbeenunderminedandthecountry was on the edge ofplunging back into theterriblecivilwarsfromwhichit had so recently emerged.Taking thebullby thehorns,Richard announced that ifEdward IV’s children were

illegitimate, then he himself,brotherofthedeadking,mustbe his successor. He wasacclaimed king on 26 Juneand crowned on 6 July. Theprinces vanished, and theofficial Tudor view was thatRichardhadthemkilled.

When historians debateKingLouistheFirstandLast,theygenerallyobservethatheshouldnotbecountedasoneofthekingsofEnglandashedid not have a coronation.

However,thechildEdwardiscountedasEdwardV,despitethe fact that not onlywas henever crowned, but he neverruled at all. The reason forthisisthatHenryTudor,whohad no meaningful claim tothe throne, seized the crownin 1485 and found it veryhelpful to have Richarddesignated as a regicide – sothe boy was recognized as aking.

Infact,ifanyonehadan

interest in killing the boys itwasHenryTudor.

The bones of twochildren are still on show attheTower,proofofRichard’swicked deed. They werediscovered in theseventeenthcentury, and examined in1933,whentheyweresaidtobe the vital evidence of thecrime. But no-one knowswhentheydatefrom.

All the evidence fromRichard’sownlifetimeshows

that he was not a tyrant.Almost the first thing he didonbecomingkingwastopayoff £200 he owed to Yorkwinemerchants.Now there’satyrantforyou!Andthenhebroughtthewholecourtnorthto the city, to stage a secondcoronation – his secretaryadvised itscorporation toputon a heck of a show. It wasalso a great opportunity toshowoffYorkshirewool:

Hang the streets thoroughwhich the king’s grace shallcome with clothes of arras,tapestry work and other, fortherecommenmanysouthernlords and men of worshipwiththem.

The city did put on anincredible spectacle, andmany citizens contributedhandsomely to it. Themayorand aldermen, all dressed inscarlet, rode with the king

and queen through a citymade of cloth, stopping forelaborate shows and displaysastheywent.Theyturnedtheplace into a woollenDisneyland.

Tomanysouthern lords,it lookedas though theWarsof the Roses had beenreferred back to the referee,and the north had won afterall, especially when Richardfilled his court with friendsfrom the region. They were

not at all happy, so theybacked Henry Tudor to takeover. Richard III became thelastkingofEnglandtodieinbattle.Butwhen news of hisdeath at the Battle ofBosworth reached the Yorkcouncil chamber, thecouncillors did not declaretheir joy that England hadbeenliberatedfromatyrant:

King Richard late mercifullyreigninguponuswasthrough

great treason of the Duke ofNorthfolk and many othresthat turned ayenst him, withmanyothrelordesandnoblesofthesenorthparts,pitiouslyslain and murdred to thegreatheavinesseofthiscity.

That was a very dangerousthing to write in the cityrecords; and it must havebeendeeplyheartfelt.Sowhyhave we ended up with apicture of Richard the cruel

andtwistedtyrant?

Imustbemarried tomybrother’sdaughter,Or else my kingdomstandsonbrittleglass.Murder her brothers,andthenmarryher!The uncertain way ofgain!ButIaminSo far in blood that sinwillpluckonsin:Tear-falling pity dwellsnotinthiseye.

RichardIII

The answer is the mightypower of Tudor propaganda.Henry VII – Henry Tudor –hadseizedthecrown,andhisdynasty rested on that shakyfoundation. It was necessaryto invent a Richardwho hadneverexisted,abogeyman,tojustifytheusurpation.

While Richard was stillalive, writer John Rousdescribed him as ‘a mighty

prince and especial goodLord.’WhentheTudorstookpower,Rousportrayedhimasakin to the Antichrist:‘Richard spent two wholeyears in his mother’s womband came out with a full setof teeth.’ Shakespeare,writing a century later, washimself serving a Tudormonarch. His main sourceswere Tudor documentswritten by men in theirsovereigns’service.

Medievalkingswerenotall striving for tyranny; inmany ways, they were lessfree than their subjects(though, of course, muchricher).The Good King/BadKing stories are thepropaganda of theirsuccessors. And even thequestionofwhowasandwasnot a king of England wasdecided after the menthemselves were dead – bythechroniclers.

Propaganda,thynameisHistory.

BIBLIOGRAPHY⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

WEBRESOURCESThebestwayoffindingquality-controlledwwwresourcesisthroughamajormedievalists’website;twoofthebestareORB,theOn-LineReferenceBookforMedievalStudies,atwww.the-orb.net,which

alsoreferstoothersitesonits‘labyrinth’–http://labyrinth.georgetown.edu/.Searchingforbooksinotherlibraries,orcheckingreferences,canbedonethroughtheCambridgeUniversityLibrarywebsiteatwww.lib.cam.ac.uk/(goto‘Catalogues’fromthehomepage).

GENERAL

Bolton,J.L.,TheMedievalEnglishEconomy,1150–1500(Everyman,1980)

Boureau,A.,TheLord’sFirstNight:TheMythoftheDroitdeCuissage,tr.LydiaG.Cochrane(UniversityofChicagoPress,1998)

Britnell,R.,TheClosingoftheMiddleAges:England,1471–1529

(Blackwell,1997)Campbell,J.,TheAnglo-Saxons(Cornell,1982)

DeVries,K.,MedievalMilitaryTechnology(Broadview,1992)

Dyer,C.,StandardsofLivingintheLaterMiddleAges:SocialChangeinEnglandc.1200–1520(CambridgeUniversityPress,

1989)Gimpel,J.,TheMedievalMachine:TheIndustrialRevolutionoftheMiddleAges(Holt,1976)

Hanawalt,B.,GrowingUpinMedievalLondon:TheExperienceofChildhoodinHistory(OxfordUniversityPress,1993)

Horrox,R.E.(ed.),Fifteenth-CenturyAttitudes(CambridgeUniversityPress,1994)

Keen,M.,EnglishSocietyintheLaterMiddleAges,1348–1500(Penguin,1990)

LeGoff,J.,MedievalCivilization,400–1500(Blackwell,1989)

LeGoff,J.,Time,Work,

andCultureintheMiddleAges(UniversityofChicagoPress,1980)

Pollard,A.J.,LateMedievalEngland,1399–1509

Prestwich,M.,ArmiesandWarfareintheMidleAges:TheEnglishExperience(YaleUniversityPress,1996)

Rigby,S.H.,English

SocietyintheLaterMiddleAges:Class,StatusandGender(Macmillan,1995)

Stenton,E,WilliamtheConquerorandtheRuleoftheNormans(Barnes&Noble,1966)

Stock,B.,ListeningfortheText:OntheUsesofthePast(UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1997)

Thomson,J.A.F,TheTransformationofMedievalEngland1370–1529(Longman,1983)

Tuck,A.,CrownandNobility(1272–1461)(Fontana,1985)

Platt,C.,MedievalEngland:ASocialHistoryandArchaeologyfromtheConquestto1600AD(Routledge,1988)

PEASANTAllison,K.,WharramPercy:DesertedMedievalVillage(EnglishHeritagePublications,1999)

Beresford,M.&Hurst,J.,WharramPercy–DesertedMedievalVillage(Batsford,1990)

Coulton,G.G.,TheMedievalVillage(DoverPublications,

1989)Dobson,R.B.(ed.),ThePeasants’Revoltof1381(Macmillan,1983)

Dyer,A.,DeclineandGrowthinEnglishTowns,1400–1640(Macmillan,1991)

Hanawalt,B.,TheTiesthatBound:PeasantFamiliesinMedievalEngland(OxfordUniversityPress,

1986)Hatcher,J.,Plague,PopulationandtheEnglishEconomy,1348–1530(Macmillan,1977)

Henisch,B.A.,FastandFeast:FoodinMedievalSociety(PennStateUP,1976)

Herlihy,D.,MedievalHousholds(HarvardUniversityPress,1985)

HiltonR.H.andAstonT.H.(eds.),TheEnglishRisingof1381(1984)

Jordan,W.C.,TheGreatFamine:NorthernEuropeintheEarlyFourteenthCentury(PrincetonUniversityPress,1998)

Mollat,M.,ThePoorintheMiddleAges:AnEssayinSocial

History(YaleUniversityPress,1986)

Newman,R.,CosmestonMediaevalVillage(Glamorgan–GwentArchaeologicalTrust,1988)

Platt,C.,KingDeath:TheBlackDeathanditsAftermathinLate-medievalEngland(UCL,1996)

Poos,L.,ARuralSociety

aftertheBlackDeath:Essex,1350–1525(CambridgeUniversityPress,1991)

Rösener,W.,PeasantsintheMiddleAges(UniversityofIllinois,1992)

Schmidt,A.V.C.(ed.),WilliamLangland:TheVisionofPiersPlowman:ACompleteEditionof

theB-Text(EverymanClassics,1987)

SchofieldP.R.,PeasantandCommunityinMedievalEngland,1200–1500(Macmillan,2002)

Spufford,P.,MoneyanditsuseinMedievalEurope(CambridgeUniversityPress,1988)

Webber,R.,Peasants’Revolt:TheUprising

inKent,Essex,EastAngliaandLondonDuringtheReignofKingRichardII(T.Dalton,1980)

MINSTRELAubrey,E.,TheMusicoftheTroubadours(IndianaUniversityPress,1996)

Coleman,J.,PublicReadingandtheReadingPublicin

LateMedievalEnglandandFrance(CambridgeUniversityPress,1996)

Daniel,A.,Pound’sTranslationsofArnautDaniel:AVariorumEditionwithCommentaryfromUnpublishedLetters(GarlandScience,1991)

Egan,M.,TheVidasof

theTroubadours(Taylor&Francis,1984)

Gaunt,S.&Kay,S.(eds.),TheTroubadours:AnIntroduction(CambridgeUniversityPress,1999)

Green,R.F.,PoetsandPrincepleasers:LiteratureandtheEnglishCourtinthe

LateMiddleAges(UniversityofTorontoPress,1980)

Hueffer,F.,TheTroubadours:AHistoryofProvençalLifeandLiteratureintheMiddleAges(AmsPress,1977)

Jensen,F.,TroubadourLyrics:ABilingualAnthology,StudiesintheHumanities,Vol39(PeterLangPub.

Inc.,1998)Paden,WD.,TheVoiceoftheTrobairitz:PerspectivesontheWomenTroubadours(UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1989)

PageC.,DiscardingImages:ReflectionsonMusicandCultureinMedievalFrance(OxfordUniversityPress,1993)

PageC.,TheOwlandtheNightingale:MusicalLifeandIdeasinFrance1100-1300(UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1989)

Paterson,L.(ed.),TheWorldoftheTroubadours:MedievalOccitanSociety,c.1100–1300(CambridgeUniversityPress,

1995)Putter,A.&Gilbert,J.(eds.),TheSpiritofMedievalPopularRomance(Longman,2000)

Schulman,N.M.,WhereTroubadoursWereBishops:TheOccitaniaofFolcofMarseille,1150–1231(Routledge,2001)

Southworth,J.,TheEnglishMedieval

Minstrel(BoydellPress,1989)

Topsfield,L.T.,TroubadoursandLove(CambridgeUniversityPress,1975)

Wilkins,N.,MusicintheAgeofChaucer(Rowman&Littlefield,1979)

OUTLAWBellamy,J.G.,‘The

CoterelGang:anAnatomyofaBandofFourteenth-centuryCriminals’,EnglishHistoricalReview,vol.79,(1964),pp.698–717

Bellamy,J.G.,CrimeandPublicOrderinEnglandintheLaterMiddleAges(Routledge,1973)

Chrimes,S.B.,Introductiontothe

AdministrativeHistoryofMedievalEngland(Blackwell,1966)

Hanawalt,B.A.,’BalladsandBandits.Fourteenth-CenturyOutlawsandtheRobinHoodPoems’inChaucer’sEngland,ed.BarbaraA.Hanawalt(UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1992)

Hanawalt,B.A.,CrimeandConflictinEnglishCommunities1300–1348(HarvardUniversityPress,1979)

Holt,J.C.,RobinHood,revisededn.(ThamesandHudson,1989)

Johnston,A.F.,‘TheRobinHoodoftheRecords’inPlayingRobinHood.TheLegendas

PerformanceinFiveCenturies,ed.LoisPotter(UniversityofDelaware,1998)

Jusserand,J.J.,EnglishWayfaringLifeintheMiddleAges,(Methuen,1961)PartI,ch.in;PartII,ch.in

Keen,M.,TheOutlawsofMedievalLegend,revisedpaperbackedn.(Roudedge&KeganPaul,1987)

Knight,S.,RobinHood.ACompleteStudyoftheEnglishOutlaw(Blackwell,1994)

Musson,A.,MedievalLawinContext:TheGrowthofLegalConsciousnessfromMagnaCartatothePeasants’Revolt(ManchesterUniversityPress,2001)

Powell,E.,Kingship,

LawandSociety:CriminalJusticeintheReignofHenryV(ClarendonPress,1989)

Seal,G.,TheOutlawLegend.ACulturalTraditioninBritain,AmericaandAustralia(CambridgeUniversityPress,1996)

Spraggs,G.,OutlawsandHighway-men.

TheCultoftheRobberinEnglandfromtheMiddleAgestotheNineteenthCentury(Pimlico,2001)

Stones,E.L.G.,‘TheFolvillesofAshby-Folville,Leicestershire,andtheirassociatesincrime,1326–1347’,TransactionsoftheRoyalHistorical

Society,5thseries,vol.7(1957),pp.117–36

Summerson,H.,‘TheCriminalUnderworldofMedievalEngland’,JournalofLegalHistory,vol.17,no.3(December,1996),pp.197–224

Wiles,TheEarlyPlaysofRobinHood(Brewer,1981)

Wilkinson,B.,

ConstitutionalHistoryofEnglandintheFifteenthCentury(1964)

MONKBrown,P.,TheCultoftheSaints:ItsRiseandFunctioninLatinChristianity(ChicagoUniversityPress,1981)

Burton,J.,MonasticandReligiousOrdersin

Britain1000–1300(CambridgeUniversityPress,1994)

Burton,J.,TheMonasticOrderinYorkshire,1069–1215(CambridgeUniversityPress,1999)

Butler,L.&Given-Wilson,C.,MedievalMonasteriesofGreatBritain(Michael

Joseph,1979)Daly,J.,BenedictineMonasticism:ItsFormationandDevelopmentThroughthe12thCentury(SheedandWard,Inc.,1965)

Evans,J.,MonasticLifeatCluny910–1157(OxfordUniversityPress,1968)

Greene,J.P.,MedievalMonasteries

(LeicesterUniversityPress,1992)

Grundmann,H.,ReligiousMovementsintheMiddleAges:TheHistoricalLinksbetweenHeresy,theMendicantOrders,andtheWomen’sReligiousMovementintheTwelfthandThirteenthCentury(NotreDame,1995)

Haigh.C.A.,English

Reformations(ClarendonPress,1993)

Hill,B.D.,EnglishCistercianMonasteriesandTheirPatronsintheTwelfthCentury(UniversityofIllinoisPress,1968)

Hill,R.,‘FromtheConquesttotheBlackDeath’,AHistoryofReligioninBritain,

ed.SheridanGilleyandW.J.Sheils(Blackwell,1994)

Hudson,A.,ThePrematureReformation:WycliffiteTextsandLollardHistory(ClarendonPress,1989)

Knowles,D.,TheMonasticOrdersofEngland(Cambridge,1963)

Lawrence,C.H.,MedievalMonasticism:FormsofMedievalReligiousLifeinWesternEuropeintheMiddleAges(Longman,1989)

Leclercq,J.,TheLoveofLearningandtheDesireforGod:AStudyofMonasticCulture(Fordham,1961)

PHILOSOPHERAlington,G.,TheHerefordMappaMundi:AMedievalViewoftheWorld(Gracewing,1996)

Burckhardt,T.,Alchem:ScienceoftheCosmos,ScienceoftheSoul(FonsVitae,1997)

Burland,C.,TheArtsoftheAlchemists(AmsPress,1989)

Coudert,A.,Alchemy:thePhilosopher’sStone(WildwoodHo.,1980)

Erlande-Brandenburg,A.,TheCathedralBuildersoftheMiddleAges(ThamesandHudson,1995)

Getz,F.,MedicineintheEnglishMiddleAges(PrincetonUniversityPress,1998)

Henwood,G.,Abbot

RichardofWallingford:FourteenthCenturyScholar,AstronomerandInstrumentMaker(PiePowderPress,1988)

KlossowskideRola,S.,Alchemy:thesecretart(HarperCollins,1973)

Moffat,B.,Thesixthreportonresearchesintothemedieval

hospitalatSoutra,ScottishBorders/Lothian,Scotland(SHARP)

Read,J.,PreludetoChemistry(MITPress,1966)

Russell,J.B.,InventingtheFlatEarth:ColumbusandModernHistorians(GreenwoodPress,1997)

White,L.Jr.,Medieval

TechnologyandSocialChange(OxfordUniversityPress,1966)

KNIGHTAnglo,S.(ed.),ChivalryintheRenaissance(Boydell,1990)

Barber,R.andBarker,J.,Tournaments:Jousts,ChivalryandPageantsinthe

MiddleAges(BoydellPress,1989)

Barker,J.,TheTournamentinEngland1100–1400(BoydellPress,1986)

Barron,WR.J.,EnglishMedievalRomance(Longman,1987)

Benson,L.D.,‘CourtlyLoveandChivalryintheLaterMiddleAges’,Fifteenth-CenturyStudies:

RecentEssays,ed.RobertF.Yeager(Connecticut,1984)

Benson,L.D.andLeyerleJ.(ed.),ChivalricLiterature:EssaysonrelationsbetweenliteratureandlifeinthelaterMiddleAges(Kalamazoo:Institute,1980)

Burnley,D.,CourtlinessandLiteratureinMedievalEngland

(Longman,1998)Chickering,H.andSeilerT.H.,(eds.),TheStudyofChivalry:ResourcesandApproaches(KalamazooInstitute,1988)

Contamine,P.,WarintheMiddleAges,tr.MichaelJones(Blackwell,1984)

Donaldson,E.T.,‘TheMythofCourtly

Love’(1965).ReprintedinSpeakingofChaucer(Athlone,1970)

Gies,F.,TheKnightinHistory(RobertHale,1984)

Girouard,M.,TheReturntoCamelot:ChivalryandtheEnglishGentleman(YaleUniversityPress,1981)

Jones,T.andEreira,A.,

Crusades(BBCBooks,1994)

Jones,T.,Chaucer’sKnight:ThePortraitofaMedievalMercenary(BatonRouge,1980)

Keen,M.,‘Chaucer’sKnight,theEnglishAristocracyandtheCrusade’,EnglishCourtCultureintheLaterMiddleAges,ed.V.J.Scattergood

andJ.WSherborne(Macmillan,1983)

Keen,M.,Chivalry(YaleUniversityPress,1984)

Lester,G.A.,‘Chaucer’sKnightandtheMedievalTournament’,Neophilologus66(1982):460–8

Lewis,C.S.,TheAllegoryofLove:AStudyinMedieval

Tradition(OxfordUniversityPress,1936)

Loomis,R.S.(ed.),ArthurianLiteratureintheMiddleAges(Clarendon,1965)

Lull,R.,TheBookoftheOrdreofChyualry,tr.WilliamCaxton,ed.AlfredT.P.Byles,EETSo.s.168(London,1926)

Mayer,H.E.,The

Crusades,tr.JohnGillingham,2ndedn(OxfordUniversityPress,1988)

Prestwich,M.,ArmiesandWarfareintheMiddleAges:TheEnglishExperience(YaleUniversityPress,1996)

Riley-Smith,J.(ed.),TheOxfordIllustratedHistoryoftheCrusades(Oxford

UniversityPress,1995)

Riley-Smith,L.andJ.(eds.),TheCrusades:IdeaandReality,1095–1274,DocumentsofMedievalHistory4(EdwardArnold,1981)

Russell,F.H.,TheJustWarintheMiddleAges(CambridgeUniversityPress,

1975)Tyerman,C.,EnglandandtheCrusades1095–1588(UniversityofChicagoPress,1988)

Vale,J.,EdwardIIIandChivalry:ChivalricSocietyanditsContext,1270–1350(Brewer,1982)

Vale,M.,WarandChivalry:WarfareandAristocratic

CultureinEngland,France,andBurgundyattheEndoftheMiddleAges(UniversityofGeorgiaPress,1981)

Wilson,D.,TheBayeuxTapestry:TheCompleteTapestryinColourwithIntroduction,Description,andCommentary(ThamesandHudson,1984)

DAMSELBarratt,A.(ed.),Women’sWritinginMiddleEnglish(Longman,1992)

Collis,L.,MemoirsofaMedievalWoman:TheLifeandtheTimesofMargeryKempe(HarperColophonBooks,1983)

Delany,S.,WritingWoman:Woman

WritersandWomeninLiterature,MedievaltoModern(SchockenBooks,1983)

Ennen,E.,TheMedievalWoman(Blackwell,1989)

Gies,EandJ.,WomenintheMiddleAges(BarnesandNoble,1980)

Gilson,E.,HeloiseandAbelard(Regnery,1951)

Goldberg,P.J.P.,Women,WorkandLife-CycleinaMedievalEconomy:WomeninYorkandYorkshirec.1300–1520(Oxford,1992)

Harksen,S.,WomenintheMiddleAges,tr.MarianneHerzfeld(A.Schram,1975)

Harris,C.&Johnson,M.,FigleafingthroughHistory:The

DynamicsofDress(Atheneum,1979)

Houston,M.G.,MedievalCostumeinEnglandandFrance(A&CBlack,1979)

Irigaray,L.,ThisSexWhichisNotOne(Cornell,1985)

Jewell,H.,WomeninMedievalEngland(ManchesterUniversityPress,1996)

Kamuf,P.,FictionsofFeminineDesire:DisclosuresofHeloise(UniversityofNebraskaPress,1982)

Kelly,A.,EleanorofAquitaineandtheFourKings(Harvard,1950)

Kors,A.andPetersE.(eds.),WitchcraftinEurope,1100–1700:ADocumentaryHistory

(Pennsylvania,1972)Labarge,M.W,WomeninMedievalLife:ASmallSoundoftheTrumpet(Hamilton,1986)

Leyser,H.,MedievalWomen:ASocialHistoryofWomeninEngland450–1500(St.Martin’sPress,1995)

Lucas,A.M.,WomenintheMiddleAges:

Religion,Marriage,andLetters(HarvesterPress,1983)

Meale,C.M.(ed.),WomenandLiteratureinBritain,1150–1500(CambridgeUniversityPress,1993)

Painter,S.,WilliamMarshall:Knight-Errant,Baron&RegentofEngland(Toronto/MART

Series,1982)Pernoud,R.andClin,M-V.,JoanofArc:HerStory(St.Martin’sPress,1999)

Prior,M.(ed.),WomeninEnglishSociety,1500–1800(Methuen,1985)

Richards,E.J.(ed.),ReinterpretingChristinedePizan(UniversityofGeorgiaPress,1992)

Rose,M.B.(ed.),WomenintheMiddleAgesandtheRenaissance:LiteraryandHistoricalPerspectives(SyracuseUniversityPress,1986)

Shulamith,S.,TheFourthEstate:AHistoryofWomenintheMiddleAges(Methuen,1983)

Thiebaux,M.(ed.),The

WritingsofMedievalWomen(Garland,1987)

Ward,J.(ed.andtr.),WomenoftheEnglishNobilityandGentry1066–1500(ManchesterUniversityPress,1995)

Wilson,KatharinaM.(ed.),MedievalWomenWriters(Universityof

GeorgiaPress,1984)

KINGBrown,A.L.,TheGovernanceofLateMedievalEngland,1272–1461(London,1989)

Carpenter,C.,TheWarsoftheRoses:PoliticsandtheConstitutioninEngland,c.1437–1509(Cambridge,1997)

Condon,M.M.,‘RulingelitesinthereignofHenryVII’inPatronage,PedigreeandPowerinLaterMedievalEngland,ed.C.D.Ross(Gloucester,1979)

Gillingham, J., Richard I(YaleUniversityPress,1999)Given-Wilson,C.,The RoyalHousehold and the King’sAffinity:Service,PoliticsandFinance in England, 1360–

1413 (Yale University Press,1986)Goodman, A. and Gillespie,J. (eds.),Richard II: The Artof Kingship (OxfordUniversityPress,1999)Harriss, G. L., ‘PoliticalSociety and the Growth ofGovernmentinLateMedievalEngland’,P&P,138(1993)Harriss,G.L.(ed.),HenryV:the Practice of Kingship(Oxford,1985)Horrox, R., Richard III: a

Study of Service (CambridgeUniversityPress,1989)McFarlane, K. B.,Lancastrian Kings andLollard Knights (OxfordUniversityPress,1972)Ormrod,W.M.,PoliticalLifein Medieval England, 1300–1450(Macmillan,1995)Ormrod,W.M.,TheReignofEdward III (Yale UniversityPress,1990)Ross,C.D.,EdwardIV(YaleUniversityPress,1974)

Saul, N., Richard II (YaleUniversityPress,1997)Scattergood, V.J. &Sherborne, J. W. (eds.),English Court Culture in theLater Middle Ages(DuckworthPress,1983)Watts,J.L.,HenryVIandthePolitics of Kingship(CambridgeUniversityPress,1996)Waugh,S.L.,England in theReign of Edward III(CambridgeUniversityPress,

1991)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Wewould like to thankPaulBradshaw,who produced thetelevision series and directedthe first two programmes,NigelMillerandLucyCookewho directed and producedthe rest of the shows, NickAngel, Clare Mottersead andKate Smith for all their

research, Annabel Lee forgetting everything to work,and Alixe Bovey, Josh Key,Marc Tiley, CatherineCooper, Rachel Shadick,Jacqui Loton, Claire Mills,CathyFeatherstone,andKateHarding,andeveryoneelseatOxford Film and Television.Notforgetting,ofcourse,ourexecutive producers NicolasKent and Vanessa Phillips.We would also like to thankourhistoricaladvisersforthe

series: Richard Firth Green,DrAnthonyMusson,DrGlynCoppack,CarolineBarron,DrBrenda Bolton, DrChristopher Tyerman, DrFaye Getz, Henrietta Leyser,Professor Andrew Prescott.AndthankstoProfessorJanetNelson for her invaluableassistanceonthisbook.

TERRY JONES AND ALANEREIRA

Footnotes

To return to thecorresponding text, click onthe asterisk and referencenumber.

CHAPTERONE:PEASANT

*1 Sir Michael de la Pole, 1383 Rot.Parl.,III150

*2 Chff Bekar, Income SharingAmongst Medieval Peasants: UsuryProhibitions and the Non-MarketProvision of Insurance (Lewis andClarkCollege,Oregon,USA).

*3 M.Treitez, The Great Hunger of1044:The Progress of a MedievalFamine, in Serve it Forth 11 (June1999)and12(Oct1999).

CHAPTERTWO:MINSTREL

*1 Guido, bishop of Amiens,Carmende hello Hastingensi, v 931–44 (in

Mon. Hist. Brit., 1848); Henry ofHuntingdon, Historia Anglorum (inRer. Brit. med. aevi script., p.763, ed.Arnold, London, 1879);Wace,Romande Rou, 3rd part, v. 8035–62, ed.Andresen(Heilbronn,1879)

*2NormanMoore,ed.TheBookoftheFoundation of St Bartholomew’sChurch in London, Early English TextSociety,no.163(1923)

*3 Froissart describes themoment.Hedoes not say that Sir John sang inFrench, but when Chandos’ heraldcomposed a poem-chromcle life of theBlackPrince,thatwasinFrench,soitisunlikelythathewouldsinginEnglish.

*4HowkingEdward&hismenyemetwith the Spaniardes in the see, ThePoems of Laurence Minot 1333–1352.Originally published in The Poems ofLaurenceMinot 1333–1352, edited byRichard H. Osberg, trans A. Ereira(M.I. Kalamazoo: Western MichiganUniversityforTEAMS,1997).

CHAPTERTHREE:OUTLAW

*1G.Spraggs,Outlaws&Highwaymen(Pimlico2001),p.24.

*2H.Rothwel, ed.,EnglishHistorical

Documents 1189–1327 (New York:OxfordUniversityPress,1975),III,pp.566–7.

*3 Translated by G. Spraggs from‘Trailbaston’,ed.I.S.T.AspininAnglo-Norman Political Songs (Oxford,Blackwell for the Anglo-Norman TextSociety,1953),pp.67–78.

*4Rot.Parl.III504.

*5ARelationof theIslandofEnglandabout the year 1500 (Camden Soc.,1847),pp.34–5

*6M.Keen,TheOutlaws ofMedievalLegend,Routledge,p.200.

CHAPTERFOUR:MONK

*1Aelred,MirrorofCharity,bk.II,ch23,transE.Connor,citedbyJulieKerrin ‘An Essay on Cistercian Liturgy inYorkshire’ in the University ofSheffield’s Cistercians in Yorkshireproject

*2 Edward Coleman, ‘Nasty Habits –SatireandtheMedievalMonk’,HistoryToday, volume 43, issue 6, June 1993,pp.36–42.

*3 Jocelin of Brakelond,Chronicle of

theAbbeyofStEdmund’s.

CHAPTERFIVE:PHILOSOPHER

*1 ‘Breakdown of the Year: PhysicsFraud’,Science,Vol 298, 20 December2002,p.2303.

*2OfficeofResearchIntegrity,AnnualReport2001

*3JeffreyBurtonRussell,InventingtheFlat Earth: Columbus and ModernHistorians(GreenwoodPress,1997).

*4 See http://explorers whyte.com/rowhtm,foranessaybyNicholasWhyte.

*5Vol.349,Feb1,1997

*6 The Management and Control ofHospital Acquired Infection in AcuteNHS Trusts in England estimated thathospital-acquiredinfectioncauses5000deaths annually. Three thousand twohundred people died in road accidentsin England andWales in 2002. OfficeofNationalStatisticsHSQ10DT2.

CHAPTERSIX:KNIGHT

*1 Georges Duby, Guillame leMarechal, ou le meilleur chevalier dumonde (Paris,1984), trans.R.Howard,William Marshal, Flower of Chivalry(New York, 1986), p. 33 – quoted inKaeuper,p.280

*2TheBookof theOrdreofChyvalry,trans. W Caxton, ed. A.T.P. Byles(EETS, 1926 rep. 1971) p. 31.Followingquotations:pp.32,38

*3Sarrasin,LeRomanduHem,ed.A.Henry (Brussels, 1939), discussed inJuliet Vale, Edward III and Chivalry:ChivalricSocietyanditsContext1270–1350(BoydellPress,1982).

*4 Jean Froissart, The Chronicles ofFroissart, trans, by John Bourchier,LordBerners,ed.GCMacaulay(NewYork,1910).

*5 Pietro Azario, ‘Liber gestorum inLombardia’, in L.A. Muratori RerumItalicarum Scriptures – Storici Italiani(Bologna,1939),XVI,IV,p128.

*6 Matteo Villani, Cronica (Florence,1825–6)v.259–260.

*7 J Temple-Leader and G. Marcetti,SirJohnHawkwood(London,1889)

*8FranchoSacchetti,Iltrecentonovelleed. V. Pernicone (Florence, 1946), pp.

448–9.

CHAPTERSEVEN:DAMSEL

*1HistoryofWilliamMarshal.

*2HLeyser,MedievalWomenaSocialHistory of Women in England 450–1500 (Palgrave Macmillan, 1995), p.241

*3Ibid.,p.247.

*4 The Peasant Land Market inSouthern England, 1260–1350, Dr

MarkPage,UniversityofDurham.

*5 Letter of 1448, Paston Letters andPapers of the Fifteenth Century, ed.Norman Davis (Clarendon Press,Oxford,1971).

*6CalendarofPatentRolls,RichardII,2,103.

*7Leyser,p161

*8La Querelle de la Rose letters anddocuments, compiled and edited byJoseph L. Baird and John R Kane,NorthCarolinastudies in theRomancelanguages and literatures; no. 199(Chapel Hill: UNC Dept. of Romance

languages [distributedbyUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress],1978),pp.129–30.

*9 Samantha Riches, St George Hero,Martyr and Myth (Sutton Publishing,2001).

CHAPTEREIGHT:KING

*1G.H.Cook,OldStPaul’sCathedral,1955, p. 92: Henry Hart Milman,Annals of StPaul’s, 2nd ed, 1869, pp.43–4.

*2 Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora,pp.654,666.

*3Ralph of Coggeshall,TheBarnwellChronicle, Roger of Wendover,GervaseofCanterbury,and theAnnalsofMargamandTewkesbury.

*4 William Stubbs (ed.), Gesta RegisHennaSecundi(RogerofHowden)I,p292.

*5 D. A. Carpenter, Abbot Ralph ofCoggeshallsAccountoftheLastYearsofKingRichardandtheFirstYearsofKing John,English Historical Review,Nov.1998.

*6 McKisack M., The FourteenthCentury(Oxford,1959),498.

*7LC.Hector,‘ChronicleoftheMonkof Westminster’, English HistoricalReview,68(1953),pp.62–5

*8PhilippedeMézières,LettertoKingRichard II, trans. G.W. Coopland(Liverpool,1975),p.54