"The Black Death brought about a ‘revolution’ in the lifestyle of the peasantry in medieval England": A Reassessment
"The Black Death brought about a
‘revolution’ in the lifestyle of the peasantry in medieval England": A
Reassessment
Writer: Darcy R. Keim, MA
In his article, The
Black Death, medievalist and economic historian, Anthony R. Bridbury opened
with a proclamation; asserting that “The fourteenth century was a century of
violent contrasts.”[1] It
may be confidently established that Bridbury’s statement is echoed within late
medieval historiography. The Black Death is considered to have produced the
highest continent-wide mortality rate in a year.[2] An
estimation constructed from demographic data proposed a mortality rate of
one-quarter to one-third of Europe’s total population.[3] For
historians, addressing the short and long-term effects the Black Death had on
English legal foundations, economic
fluctuations, and population figures provides an insight
into late medieval social mobility and labour history. Undoubtedly,
it is imperative to acknowledge widespread social alterations formed as a result
of political and economic factors. Furthermore, the
level of impact this would have had on the lives and wellbeing of
‘ordinary’ people. In response to the overwhelming decline in population and
the subsequent shortage of labourers, the fourteenth-century saw a succession
of legislations enacted in England. Primarily, the content of these largely
concerned the nature of serfdom, labour, and wage-rates. Arguably, the
establishing of the Ordinance of Labourers (1349) and Statute of Labourers
(1351)[4]
was motivated by the threat of economic inflation within post-plague society. A
supplementary component to the Ordinance and the Statute is the overarching
intent to control employment conditions among labouring communities.[5]
What this paper seeks to resolve is whether the Black Death
catalysed a ‘revolution’ in the lifestyle of peasantry in late medieval
England. For the purpose – and efficiency – of engaging in detailed analysis,
the aim is to focus predominantly on the livelihood of peasantry in England.
The method of approach will look to examine three key canonical facets proposed
in the Ordinance of 1349: (1) The regulation of
employment conditions and lengths of term contracts, [6] (2)
The restriction of occupational and geographical mobility,[7] and
(3) The fixture of a maximum wage-rate.[8] An additional approach will be to investigate
the ‘golden age’ of women; a concept that has emerged within post-plague
historiography. Medieval demography within the twentieth century saw a
rise in analyses regarding the influence the Black Death had on the status of
women in England.[9] From
these emerged two divisive academic approaches; disputing
as to whether women experienced a socio-economic ‘liberation’ throughout the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The first
of these was headlined by medievalists, Caroline M. Barron and Jeremy Goldberg.
Barron and Goldberg contended that women’s societal position had remained
consistent; noting that women’s liberties had minimally shifted after the Black
Death.[10] In contrast,
Peter Franklin proposed that peasant women were advantaged by the decreased population; affirming
that – as a result – women had gained greater economic, social, and political
autonomy.[11] Nonetheless, it has
yet to be determined whether the Black Death catalysed a revolution in the
lifestyle of women. Albeit this, the extent to which the Black Death altered
the livelihood of low-status women ought to be investigated; through an
assessment of women’s access to labour and rate of income and the nature of
widowhood.
Firstly, the Ordinance and the Statute enforced changes to
the livelihood of peasantry. A prime example of this is the introduction of
mandatory labour. The Ordinance decreed that “Every man or woman, free or
unfree, aged sixty years or younger and without land or a craft sufficient for
self-support, must serve whoever required his labour.”[12] To
summarise, compulsory labour required able-bodied members of rural and urban
communities to enter manorial work. With further elaboration, the Ordinance
pressed upon jurisdiction that authorised manorial lords, as well as the legal
implications of refusing employment:
A lord has the preferential claim to
the labour of his own tenants or villeins, but may retain only as much labour
for himself as is necessary. Imprisonment, until sureties were given for their
future observance, was the prescribed penalty for refusal to serve under these
conditions. Any servant or labourer who, already in another's service, left
that service before the end of his agreed term was also liable to imprisonment.[13]
Certainly, the enactment of mandatory labour produced
further opposition between gentry and peasantry in post-plague England. This is
discernible within fourteenth-century Court Rolls and Peace Sessions. Alongside
the succession of legislations, the Justices of the Peace and the Justices of the Labourers[14]
were tasked with overseeing legal enforcements within urban and rural
localities.[15]
Peace sessions designated shires with the judicial authority to process
criminal activity within their area; as opposed to being dealt with in the
local leet courts.[16]
Records from these sessions catalogued the type –
as well as consistency – of offences found within labouring communities. More
importantly, these sources impart an understanding as to the impact
legislations had on peasant livelihood; as cases within Peace Sessions
recurrently featured broken contracts and illegal
emigration.[17]
Comparatively, the Statute of 1351 expanded upon
the Ordinance; providing further detail as to the setting of wages within a
variety of occupations and specifying details as to employment discipline.[18]
This is exemplified by the installment of oath-taking; which required servants
and labourers to swear before constables, bailiffs, stewards or lords at a
minimum of twice a year.[19]
The
implementation of oath-swearing, data accumulated from Peace Sessions indicate
that this practice was broadly incorporated within manorial communities. The
purpose of oath-swearing acted as a legal formality; in which the lord received
fealty from their villeins. Conversely, the process also functioned as a method
by which shire-knights were able to monitor desertions. For example, within the
Lincolnshire Peace Sessions, a ‘common
labourer’ – John Carter – was listed as having
sworn an oath on Sunday 19th of June in 1373 before the constables[20] in
Apley.[21] The
content of the oath required Carter to commit to manorial labour through the
following summer and autumn.[22]
However, Carter was charged with abandoning his post a week after this oath was
taken.[23] In
addition to incidents of desertion, Peace Sessions showcase examples of
peasantry refusing the oath-swearing process altogether. An event listed within
the Yorkshire Peace Sessions detailed
the case of two offenders, Simon Smith and his wife, Johanna in 1363. Smith and
his wife had objected to being sworn before constables.[24] It may be
argued that the case of Smith and his wife is demonstrative of increased
hostility between peasantry and gentry; the escalation of which rose in
visibility due to the application of compulsory labour.
With regard to the case of John Carter, instances of labour
desertion were not atypical within local Peace Sessions. Moreover -- in
assessing these sources -- historians found visible patterns emerging within
specific localities; namely that particular areas had experienced higher rates
of desertion over others. Examples of manorial neglect present within the
labouring community of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire reveal a pervasive
characteristic of habitual restlessness.[25] This is particularly discernible in the case of Adam
Godwyn from Upton in Norfolk. The Yorkshire
Peace Sessions disclose that Godwyn – who laboured as a ploughman – had
been employed by three separate lords over a period of three years in the
1370s.[26]
An observation proposed by social historians,
Christopher Dyer and Simon A. C. Penn, is that these instances exhibited by
Godwyn – as well as two other cases in Lincolnshire during the years 1379/80
and 1393/4[27]
– demonstrate why famuli rarely
committed to the whole of their term.[28]
Likewise, these cases stress a customary need to regularly alter employment.
This occupational model is further exemplified in
Somerset in 1358; by which forty-seven offenders in Axbridge, Bath, Bridgwater,
Langport, and Wells were discovered to have held eight occupations – as well as
a number of trades – over the course of a few years.[29]
An added issue concerning desertion was the development of
“middle men”. According to Dyer and Penn, these
individuals aimed “[…] to have secured a monopoly on a section of the
workforce.” [30]
One example listed within the Yorkshire
Peace Sessions detailed the case of a male labourer; ordered by the
constable’s assignment to the role of plough-driver from the period of
Whitsunday[31] to
St. Martin’s day[32] in
1361. Nevertheless, it was found that the aforementioned male had left this
post and was employed by a third party.[33] The
threat of employment agents was a widespread concern within rural and urban
settlements. A key example of this regards Robert
Archer of Forncett in Norfolk. In 1378, Archer had been charged with enticing a
majority of labourers to breaking their contracts during harvest.[34]
As a result of this, Forncett suffered a shortage of workers; thus leading to
an inflation of wages.[35]
Due to the escalating frequency of manorial abandonment, peasantry faced
harsher penalties as the fourteenth-century progressed. In 1361, a legislation
passed that replaced the monetary fine[36] with
imprisonment if a labourer broke – or attempted to break – their term contract.[37] Additionally,
it was determined that the penalty of imprisonment would be decreed by local
authorities; stating that “[…] the parties shall be imprisoned in cases in
which it is granted at law, notwithstanding the pardons of fines and ransom, as
is aforesaid.”[38] A
disputed consequence of desertion was the act of branding labourers on the
forehead with the letter ‘F’ for Falsity.[39] As yet,
there is no evidence within Court Rolls or Peace Sessions to verify that this
sentence had ever been performed.[40]
Nonetheless, the statistical consistency of desertions signified profound
dissatisfaction and unease within livelihoods of peasantry.
A secondary aspect that shifted sources of revenue in
post-plague England was the constraints placed on emigration. A primary characteristic
of the late medieval wage earner was their accessibility to occupational and
geographical mobility.[41] This is particularly identifiable in pre-Black
Death Court Rolls and poll tax records; which detailed the patterns of
immigration and emigration. As such, this is heavily
evidenced by the pursuit of occupations throughout the eastern and northern
counties of Essex, Suffolk, and Yorkshire.[42] It
may be confidently ascertained that the mass migration from rural areas to
urban settlements represents the attraction towns – and their opportunities –
had on late medieval peasantry.[43]
The introduction of new labour laws in the years 1360-1, 1388, and 1406
tightened regulations over rural labourers with harsher penalties, as well as
restricted mobility to ensure peasantry could not seek work elsewhere.[44]
Undeniably, the restriction of occupational and geographical mobility
correlated alongside the push for compulsory labour. The records of enforcement
provided information as to the distances travelled by labourers; as these had
been written in the charges made against them over broken contracts.[45]
As emphasised by primary documentation, the control of
migrant workers manifested through two campaigns: (1) The requirement for
workers to remain within the environment they were currently stationed in, or
(2) To forcibly remove migrant servants and labourers from the community and
return them to their home villages.[46]
For this, the Statute of Labourers required workers to remain within a term for
a minimum of a year.[47] This
particular edict had been imposed to prevent labourers migrating to other rural
or urban settlements in search for higher wages. Moreover, restricting peasant
mobility meant that landlords now held statutory authority over their
workforce.[48]
This may be demonstrated by the case of Thomas Wayte in Lincolnshire. In 1373,
after attempting to abandon his post, Wayte was ordered to remain in the
village of Hameringham; within the role of “[…] mowing hay and other suitable
jobs.”[49]
Although migration laws had excessively limited peasant liberties within
post-plague society, these were seen to relax toward the latter half of the
fourteenth-century. In 1388, the Statute of Cambridge established that peasants
would be able to settle elsewhere if granted a letter of permission bearing the
king’s seal.[50] However, the Statute of Cambridge also implemented a
clause; by which peasantry were unable “[…] to cross hundred or wapentake
boundaries without authorisation” from their current location.[51]
A third constriction placed on the income of peasantry had
been the unconditional regulation of wage-rates. As a result of depopulation,
the English economy (post-Black Death) had faced financial instability and wage
inflation. In their analysis of monetary value in late medieval England,
economic historians, Phelps Brown and Hopkins[52]
calculated the figures of daily wages received by villeins and labourers
throughout the fourteenth-century. In this, Phelps Brown and Hopkins observed
the unsteady increase of payments made between the 1340s to the 1390s.[53] The
degree of this instability is highlighted by the remuneration of skilled
building workers; whose wages had risen from 3d. to 5d. per day throughout this
period.[54] In
conjunction with this, wage-rates of unskilled building workers had expanded
from 1.5d. to 3d. per day.[55] An additional example from Brown and Hopkins
references payment received by craftsmen within the 1390s; which had
experienced a 45 per cent increase over half a century.[56]
Consequently, the Justices of the Peace and the Justices of the Labourers had
been authorised to determine a maximum income for each respective occupation.[57] An
outcome of localising income regulation had been the variation in rates of pay
featured within manorial accounts; despite the intention of parliament to
employ a unanimous wage regulation in the aim to discourage migration. Even so,
the rate of remuneration did not solely depend on location. Wage-rates were
found to be contingent with external factors; such as local demand and seasonal
changes.[58]
Evidence from court proceedings suggest that the reception of payment had
varied considerably as well. This is illustrated by the fact that labourers
were recorded to receive wages per diem,
per week, per each task, per season, in cash and food.[59] The incentive of food remuneration – as an
additional form of payment – had been chiefly applied to harvest workers.
Examples of this are distinguishable within the East
Riding Rolls (Yorkshire); to which it has been logged that harvest
workers received 3d., 4d., and 6d., per day with food.[60] It is
imperative to acknowledge that the amount received by labourers had been
dependent on the role that they played within manorial service. For instance,
remuneration received for threshing in East Riding had been 1d. to 4d. per day,
with food; contrastingly lower than the payment received by harvesters.[61]
An argument that has persisted from nineteenth-century
historiography to present-day demographic studies proposed that population
decline – and subsequently, the shortage of labour – acted as a catalyst toward a
‘golden age’ for women within the late medieval period.[62] This conceptualisation of a ‘golden age’ for late
medieval women has remained a divisive topic.
With regard to women’s roles within manorial labour, two core arguments have
formulated. Firstly, that women (of lower status) would have been permitted a wider degree of access into manorial work than
previously. Secondly, that wage disparity between men and women had decreased. Incidentally, it was hardly anomalous for women to
be enrolled in positions of labour before the Black Death. The families of
tenants were often expected to work for their lords; tending to seasonal needs,
such as harvesting and stacking grain.[63] As previously detailed, the post-Black Death economic
landscape saw a requirement to enter compulsory
work due to the shortage of labour; a characteristic exemplified within the
Ordinance of 1349:
That each man and woman (homo et femina) of our realm of England
- of whatever condition, free or bond; able in body; under 60 years of age; not
living by trade; nor exercising a particular craft; nor having assets with
which to live or land to cultivate; nor serving another - shall be found to
serve anyone who requires his/her service as the service is appropriate to
his/her estate.[64]
In his long-term research concerning agriculture and prices
from the thirteenth-century to the eighteenth-century[65], James E.
Thorold Rogers found that “[…] a scarcity of labour affects the cheaper kinds
of labour more fully than it does those which are most expensive.”[66]
From this, it may be deduced that peasant women would have been able to easily source
positions in manorial work after the Black Death.
Nevertheless, the argument of a ‘golden age’ for women
is not necessarily bound by women’s accessibility to labour. An alternate
perspective contended that it stemmed from
women’s autonomic growth within labour roles. One method of approach is to
examine whether women’s wages experienced an increase in correlation with
population decline. From his investigation of wage disparity – with reference to a variety of Manorial records –
Rogers claimed that women’s wages had doubled
after the Black Death.[67] The
influence of Rogers’ conclusion led to a commonplace presumption that medieval
women obtained a
level of financial independence post-Black Death. This is evidenced by William
Beveridge’s study of the Westminster manorial records in 1950. Overall,
Beveridge’s conclusion largely supported Rogers’ statements; having surveyed accounts of the manors of Ebury, Hyde, and
Knightsbridge. In his research, Beveridge found that – on seven occasions –
women in these manors had received similar wages to their male counterparts.[68]
Five of these occurrences presented themselves before the Black Death, another
of these was in 1348, and the final result transpired
within the 1370s.[69] An
additional example utilised by Beveridge regarded Suffolk manor of Hinderclay
in 1358. In this, he observed that female labourers mowing stubble were remunerated equally to the unnamed (therefore,
presumed male[70])
stubble-mowers in the previous year.[71] Although
Rogers and Beveridge maintained confidence in their results, their respective studies continue to
be widely contested among medieval demographers. Sandy Bardsley – a figure
within medieval women’s studies – criticised Rogers’ research for its lack of
primary material; identifying that he had
failed to provide evidence that established
consistent wage-equality between female and male labourers.[72] Additionally, Bardsley
criticised the method of data accumulation utilised by Rogers; remarking that a
comparative approach – assessing individual pay-rates within manorial records
over a long-term process – could not accurately verify his hypothesis.[73]
This is made evident by the fact that Beveridge and Hilton had incorporated
only three examples of equal remuneration. The instances of equal pay occurred
in the same location, year, and occupation. Furthermore, two of the dates
utilised by Beveridge and Hilton – 1320s and 1330s – could not be argued to
strengthen their theory as these occurred prior to the outbreak of plague in
England.[74]
As such, the query persists as to whether female
labourers received equal rates to their male counterparts. English Marxist historian, R. H.
Hilton, observed that women had shared similar labour roles to men after the
Black Death. A base
assumption of this would indicate equal rates between female and male.[75] In his study, Hilton
surveyed the number of female reapers and binders at Minchinhampton
(Gloucestershire) in 1390.[76]
With regard to payment, Hilton discovered that female labourers had received
4d. per day; the same rate as male labourers.[77]
Additional statistics -- from the nearby manor of Avening -- demonstrated that
seven women (assistants to thatchers) were paid 3.5 d. a day; the same rate of
pay as two male thatchers’ assistants at Minchinhampton.[78]
Despite these findings, Hilton remained hesitant to allege that the manors of
Avening and Minchinhampton represented an overall shift in the financial status
of peasant women. However, Hilton’s observations of women’s roles in manual
labour does impart a degree of insight into gendered expectations. For example,
his case-studies concerned various estates in Leicestershire in the early
fifteenth-century; noting that countrywomen were recorded to have been
occupying the same manual jobs as male labourers, “[…] such as haymaking,
weeding, mowing, carrying corn, driving plough oxen, and breaking stones for
roadmending.” [79]
Despite this, Hilton ascertained that full-time female manorial servants would
regularly be paid less than men.[80]
Therefore, it may be regarded that the occurrences in which female workers
received the same rate of pay had been statistically anomalous. In 1987, Penn
utilised presentments made under the Statutes of Labourers as a basis of
comparison regarding employment and payment rates between female and male
labourers. [81]
In this, Penn found that – presentments made prior to the Justices of Labourers
and Justices of the Peace – demonstrate that female and male harvest labourers
often received the same rate of pay as one another.[82] Furthermore, that post-Black Death records
highlight that women had not been discriminated against in terms of their
received wages.[83]
Within the East Riding Rolls[84],
Penn found that it listed names, fines, occupations, and wage-rates of over 200
workers.[85]
114 of these workers were employed as harvesters; 68 of which were women and 46
men.[86]
Specifically, the remuneration details of thirty-three reapers were itemised
within a session held at Pocklington (23 May 1363).[87] The
results illustrate that only two men received 4d for each day and of the women,
twenty-one received 3d for each day. Penn argued that the difference in wage
payment to these specific Yorkshire reapers was not solely based on sex.[88]
A secondary assessment regarding the argument of a ‘golden
liberation’ for women concerns the nature of late medieval widowhood. The
economic and social mobility of a widow vastly contrasted that of single women.
Contextually, there is evidence to suggest that women’s legal autonomy was
limited within late medieval English society. However, it may be – and has been
-- argued that medieval widowhood provided women with a degree of accessibility
to typically ‘male’ roles within society. These included enacting as
landholders, estate administrators, and acting as the financial head of their
families.[89] A
common query pursued within demographic studies is the idea that widowhood had
altered as a result of the Black Death; either
through an increase in personal autonomy and mobility or a decrease due to
population decline. Although single women held a more active role in the labour
market, widows made up a considerable statistic of landholders.[90] A widespread supposition inferred that peasant
widows either held no interest in becoming tenants or were not legally
permitted to do so.[91]
Conversely, it was statistically conventional for
villein widows to inherit landholdings from their deceased husbands and assume
the position as tenants.
Under Common Law, a widow’s inheritance share was typically
one-third to one-half of her husband’s land.[92] For a villein widow, this expanded to receiving “[…]
a right to life usage of the whole of the conjugal estate upon her husband's
death […]"[93] A central argument within demographic studies typically
asserts that the number of villein widows rose as a result of the Black Death. Franklin’s
findings provide a basis of comparison between the quantities of medieval
villein widows before the Black Death and
afterward. Incorporating statistics collected by J. C. Russell[94] and
J. F. Willard, it may be determined that -- although widowhood afforded women a
degree of socio-economic independence in the high medieval period -- this was furthered by the impact of
population decline after the Black Death. Surveying manorial records, Russell
proposed that ‘independent widows’ (women who did not remarry after inheriting
their deceased husband’s landholdings) formed 14.8 per cent of landholders in
the early fourteenth-century.[95]
From statistics gathered from the Lay Subsidy Rolls (before 1334), J. F.
Willard estimated that 8 out of 10 per cent of tenants were female; although
these estimations shifted to 4 to 6 per cent on border counties and in
Gloucestershire (1327), the amount of female landholding tenants was 10 per
cent.[96]
Comparatively, Jane Whittle’s study -- concerning female landholders in
north-east Norfolk, 1440-1580 – demonstrates fluctuations in female tenement
from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries.
Citing Bruce Campbell’s survey of Coltishall (south-East of Hevingham)[97],
Whittle discerned that the proportion of
female tenants featured in Coltishall increased
during the fifteenth century; with 29 per cent of landholders being women in
1406.[98]
However, it may be argued that this decrease was not a direct result of the
Black Death. Indeed, in 1349 – after the first outbreak – female tenants made
up 18 per cent of landholders in Coltishall. However, this figure drastically
decreased in 1359 to 7 per cent and in 1370 to 9 per cent.[99] A study
produced by J. Z. Titow – surveying 13 manors within southern and western
England – demonstrates a decrease in villein widows post-Black Death. Albeit
this, Titow also emphasised that the statistics differentiated between areas;
exemplified by the 6.4 per cent of female tenants seen in Taunton to the 21.6
per cent in Bishopstone.[100]
With regard to the question of a ‘golden age’
for women, there is formidable evidence to suggest that late medieval women did
not gain a degree of financial independence as a result of population decline.
Statistically, it appeared as if women received the same rate of pay as other
demographics within the late medieval community who had earned less than adult
males.[101]
In 1940, Mildred Wretts-Smith – a research assistant – asserted that women had
been paid at rates lower than their male counterparts; particularly in the
labour of planting beans, cutting and collecting stubble for thatch and serving
thatchers.[102]
This disparity meant that women’s societal roles became “[…] more confined by
patriarchal structures than it was changed by demographic crisis.”[103]
Certainly, the
level of ‘independence’ afforded to late medieval women – as claimed by Rogers
and Beveridge - had yet to be defined by financial income or wage-equality. Utilising
economic and political primary evidence, social and women’s historians
theorised that women – after the Black Death – had been better equipped with
the resources to relocate to urban areas, to delay marriages, to remain
independent widows, and to enter labour.[104] Whether
women experience an interpersonal revolution as a result of the Black Death has
yet to be fully answered. Indeed, Goldberg argued
that women had been economically enfranchised as a result of population decline;
therefore opting to decline remarriage or – in the case of single women –
remain so.[105]
The concept of a ‘revolution’ in the lifestyle of medieval peasants disregards nuances within late medieval society. For example, post-plague demographic studies have yet to settle whether economic fluctuations had been present prior to the Black Death. However, it is undeniable that the succession of legislations featured in post-plague England had a significant impact on the livelihood of rural and urban communities. It is imperative to acknowledge that one-third of the population relied on the sustainability of their livelihood either partially or entirely through wage-earning in the late medieval period.[106] The impact of the Ordinance and the Statute – as well as the introduction of heavy poll-taxes in the 1370s – led to the eruption of the Peasants Revolt in 1381. This landmark is not only demonstrative of the restrictions placed on labourers throughout the fourteenth-century but the extent to which members of the gentry and aristocracy were benefited by labour control and austerity. Fundamentally, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the demographic that faired best for the initial two decades after the Black Death were landholders.[107]
Bibliography
Primary
B. H. Putnam, ed., Yorkshire
Sessions of the Peace 1361-1364, Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record
Series 100 (1939)
Brown, P. H., and Hopkins. V. S., A Perspective of Wages and Prices, (New York, 1981)
Campbell, S. M. B., ‘Population pressure, inheritance and the land
market in a fourteenth-century peasant community’, in R. M. Smith (ed.), Land, Kinship and Life-cycle,
pp. 87-134
Cavell,
E., ‘Aristocratic Widows and the Medieval Welsh Frontier: The Shrophshire
Evidence: The Rees Davies Prize Essay’,
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 17, (Cambridge, 2007),
pp. 57-82
E. G. Kimball, ed., Records
of Some Sessions of the Peace in Lincolnshire 1360-1375, Lincoln Record
Society 30 (1936)
Gloucestershire Subsidy
Roll, I Edward III. A.D. 1327, ed. Sir T. Phillips (Middle Hill Press, n.d.)
Hilton, H. R., The English
Peasantry in the Later Middle Ages, (Oxford, 1975), 102-3
Lord Beveridge, ‘Westminster Wages in the Manorial Era’, The Economic History Review, (1955), pp.
18-35
Page, M. F., The Estates of
Crowland Abbey: A Study of Manorial Organisation, (Cambridge, 1934)
‘Parliament Rolls of Medieval England’, British History Online, accessed 04 December 2016, www.british-history-ac-uk
R. Sillem, ed., Records of
Some Sessions of the Peace in Lincolnshire 1360-1375, Lincoln
Record Society 30 (1936)
Rogers,
T. E. J., A History of Agriculture and
Prices in England: From the Year after the Oxford Parliament (1259) to
commencement of the Continental War (1793), Vol. III: 1401-1592, (Oxford,
1866)
Statutes of the Realm,
i, 307-8 (23 Edw. III), ed. Bennett, M. J. in ‘Compulsory Service in
England’, Past & Present,
No. 209, (Oxford, 2010), pp. 7-51
Willard, J. F., Parliamentary
Taxes on Personal Property, 1290-1334 (Cambridge, Mass. 1934), pp. 169-9
Yorkshire Sessions of
the Peace, 1361-1364, ed. Bertha Haven Putnam (Yorkshire Archaeol.
Soc. Record Series, c, Wakefield, 1939), 42-79
Secondary
Bardsley,
S., ‘Women's Work Reconsidered: Gender and Wage Differentiation in England’, Past
& Present, No. 165 (Oxford, 1999), pp. 3-29
Bennett,
M. J., ‘Compulsory Service in England’, Past & Present, No. 209 (Oxford,
2010), pp. 7-51
Bridbury, R. A., ‘The Black Death’, The Economic History Review, Vol. 26, No. 4 (New Jersey, 1973), pp.
577-592
Cohn, S., ‘After the Black Death: Labour Legislation and
Attitudes Towards Labour in Late-Medieval Western Europe’, The Economic History Review, Vol. 60, No. 3 (New Jersey, 2007), pp.
457-485
Dyer, C. and Penn, C. A. S., ‘Wages and Earnings in Late
Medieval England: Evidence from the Enforcement of the Labour Laws’, The Economic History Review, Vol. 43,
No. 3 (Glasgow, 1990), pp. 356-376
Franklin, P., ‘Peasant
Widows' "Liberation" and Remarriage before the Black Death’, The Economic History Review, Vol. 39,
No. 2 (Glasgow, 1986), pp. 186-204
Gates,
A. L., ‘Widows, Property, and Remarriage: Lessons from Glastonbury's Deverill
Manors’, Albion: A Quarterly Journal
Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Chicago, 1996), pp. 19-35
Haddock, D. D., and Kiesling, L.,
‘The Black Death and Property Rights’, The
Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. S2 (Chicago, 2002), pp. S545-S587
Mavis, E. M, Daughters,
Wives, and Widows After the Black Death: Women in Sussex, 1350-1535, (Woodbridge, 1998)
Penn,
C. A. S., 'Female Wage-Earners in Late Fourteenth-Century England', The Agricultural History Review, Vol.
35, No. 1 (1987), pp. 1-14
Poos,
R. L., ‘The Social Context of Labourers Enforcement’, Law and History Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1983),
pp. 27-52
Powell, E., ‘The Administration of Criminal Justice in
Late-Medieval England: Peace Sessions and Assizes’, in R. Eales and D. Sullivan
(ed.), The Political Context of Law,
(London, 1987), pp. 49-60
Ravensdale, J., ‘Population Changes and the Transfer of Customary
Land on a Cambridgeshire Manor in the Fourteenth Century’, in R. M. Smith
(ed.), Land, Kinship and Life-cycle
(Cambridge, 1984), pp. 197-226
Russell,
C. J., British Medieval Population,
(Albuquerque, 1948)
Titow,
Z. J., English Rural Society, 1200-1350,
(London, 1969)
Wilson-Given, C., ‘The Problem of Labour in the Context of English
Government, c. 1350-1450’, in J. Bothwell, P. J. P. Goldberg, W. M. Ormrod
(ed.), The Problem of Labour in
Fourteenth-Century England, , (Suffolk, 2000), pp. 85-100
Whittle, J., ‘Inheritance, marriage, widowhood and
remarriage: a comparative perspective on women and landholding in north-east
Norfolk, 1440-1580’, Continuity and
Change, Vol. 13, Iss. 01 (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 33-72
[1] A. R. Bridbury, ‘The Black Death’, The Economic History Review, Vol. 26,
No. 4, (New Jersey, 1973), p. 577
[2] D. D. Haddock, and L. Kiesling, ‘The
Black Death and Property Rights’, The
Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. S2 (Chicago, 2002), p. S545
[3] Ibid.
[4] The Ordinance of Labourers (1349) and Statute of
Labourers (1351) were passed by the council of Edward III as a result of
economic uncertainty, as well as the emergence of labour autonomy among
villeins and workers.
[5] L.
R. Poos, ‘The Social Context of Labourers Enforcement’, Law and History Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1983),
p. 27
[6] C. Dyer, and S. A. C. Penn, ‘Wages
and Earnings in Late Medieval England: Evidence from the Enforcement of the
Labour Laws’, The Economic History Review,
Vol. 43, No. 3 (Glasgow, 1990), p. 357
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] S.
Bardsley, ‘Women's Work Reconsidered: Gender and Wage Differentiation in England’, Past
& Present, No. 165 (Oxford, 1999), p. 3
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] L.
R. Poos, ‘The Social Context of Labourers Enforcement’, p. 29
[13] L.
R. Poos, ‘The Social Context of Labourers Enforcement’, p. 29
[14] The formation of the Justices of the Peace was
largely motivated by shire-knights; who had been granted legal power to handle
local felonies during the early fourteenth-century.
[15] E. Powell, ‘The Administration of Criminal
Justice in Late-Medieval England: Peace Sessions and Assizes’, in R. Eales and
D. Sullivan (ed.), The Political Context
of Law, (London, 1987), p. 52
[16] L. R. Poos, ‘The Social Context of Labourers
Enforcement’, p. 34
[17] Ibid. 31
[18] Ibid. 30
[19] Ibid.
[20] Constables directed to uphold legislations
within urban and rural localities were typically substantial peasants, who were
likely to have been in manorial employment within the village as well.
[21] Sillem, ed., Lincolnshire Peace Sessions, in L. R.
Poos (ed.), ‘The Social Context of Labourers Enforcement’, p. 31
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Putnam, ed., Yorkshire
Peace Sessions, in L. R. Poos (ed.), ‘The Social Context of Labourers
Enforcement’, p. 31
[25] C. Dyer, and S. A. C. Penn, ‘Wages and Earnings
in Late Medieval England’, p. 369
[26] Ibid.
[27] Each of these examples featured broken contracts
after two months of employment.
[28] C. Dyer, and S. A. C. Penn, 'Wages and Earnings
in Late Medieval England’, p. 369
[29] C. Dyer, and S. A. C. Penn, ‘Wages and Earnings
in Late Medieval England’, p. 369
[30] Kimball, ed., Sessions of the peace in Lincolnshire, II, in C. Dyer, and S. A. C.
Penn (ed.), ‘Wages and Earnings in Late Medieval England’, p. 365
[31] Whitsunday marks the Christian Festival of
Pentecost; occurring seven weeks after Easter.
[32] St. Martin’s Day took place on November 11th.
[33] B. H. Putnam, ed., Yorkshire Sessions of the Peace 1361-1364, in
L. R. Poos (ed.), 'The
Social Context of Labourers Enforcement', Law
and History Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1983L. R. Poos,
'The Social Context of Labourers Enforcement', Law and History Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1983),
p. 32
[34] Kimball, ed., Sessions of the peace in Lincolnshire, II, Dyer, and S. A. C. Penn,
(ed.), p. 365
[35] Ibid.
[36] Pre-1361, a labourer would have been required to
pay a fine to his lord if they had neglected – or altogether abandoned – their
position on the lord’s estate.
[37] S. Cohn, ‘After the Black Death:
Labour Legislation and Attitudes Towards Labour in Late-Medieval Western
Europe’, The Economic History Review,
Vol. 60, No. 3, (New Jersey, 2007), p. 466-67
[38] Edward III: October 1362, ‘Parliament Rolls of Medieval England’, British History Online, accessed 04 December 2016,
www.british-history-ac-uk
[39] S. Cohn, ‘After the Black Death’, p.
466-67
[40] S. Cohn, ‘After the Black Death’, p.
466-67
[41] C. Dyer, and S. A. C. Penn, ‘Wages
and Earnings in Late Medieval England’, p. 363
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid.
[44] S. Cohn, ‘After the Black Death’, p.
466
[45] C. Dyer, and S. A. C. Penn, ‘Wages and Earnings
in Late Medieval England’, p. 363
[46] C. Given-Wilson, ‘The
Problem of Labour in the Context of English Government, c. 1350-1450’, in J.
Bothwell, P. J. P. Goldberg, W. M. Ormrod (ed.), The Problem of Labour in Fourteenth-Century England, (Suffolk,
2000), p. 88
[47] L. R. Poos, ‘The Social Context of Labourers
Enforcement’, p. 51
[48] L. R. Poos, 'The Social Context of Labourers
Enforcement', Law and History Review,
Vol. 1, No. 1 (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1983), p. 51
[49] Sillem, ed., Lincolnshire
Peace Sessions, in L. R. Poos (ed.), p. 31
[50] S. Cohn, ‘After the Black Death’, p.
466-67
[51] C. Dyer, and S. A. C. Penn, ‘Wages and Earnings
in Late Medieval England’, p. 363
[52] H. P. Brown, and S. V. Hopkins, A Perspective of Wages and Prices, (New
York, 1981) pp. 13-59
[53] C. Dyer, and S. A. C. Penn, ‘Wages
and Earnings in Late Medieval England’, p. 356
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid.
[57] S. Cohn, ‘After the Black Death’, p.
466-67
[58] C. Dyer, and S. A. C. Penn, ‘Wages and Earnings
in Late Medieval England’, p. 369
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Ibid.
[62] S.
Bardsley, ‘Women's Work Reconsidered: Gender and Wage Differentiation in England’, Past
& Present, No. 165, (Oxford, 1999), p. 3
[63] Ibid. 5
[64] J.
M. Bennett, ‘Compulsory Service in
England’, Past & Present,
No. 209, (Oxford, 2010), p. 9
[65] In the nineteenth-century, historian, James E.
Thorold Rogers’ produced a multi-volume study examining the relationship
between economic fluctuations and agriculture from the late medieval to the
early modern period in England: A History
of Agriculture and Prices in England: From the Year after the Oxford Parliament
(1259) to commencement of the Continental War (1793). Volume III covered
the years 1401-1592; in which Rogers incorporated records held by the Oxford
and Cambridge Colleges. For example, in the Oxford Colleges, Rogers looked at
Merton, New, Oriel, Magdalen, and Corpus Christi. Colleges like Magdalen,
Rogers insisted in the volumes introduction, contained rolls pertaining to Sir
John Fastolfe’s estates; supplying information regarding prices in Norfolk in
the fourteenth and fifteenth-centuries and providing insight into the
transactions of the estate. Likewise, the Corpus Christi accounts imparted a
wide-variety of information concerning prices during the reign of Edward VI.
[66] S.
Bardsley, ‘Women's Work Reconsidered’, p. 3
[67] Ibid. 5-6
[68] Ibid. 6
[69] S. Bardsley, ‘Women's Work Reconsidered’, p. 6
[70] In
her article, Women's Work Reconsidered:
Gender and Wage Differentiation in England, Sandy Bardsley noted that the
‘normal’ unit used to determine labour participants in late medieval sources
often signified a ‘healthy, adult male’. Therefore, if the records assigned
labour to sexless individuals, it is often assumed that the individual listed
was male.
[71] S. Bardsley, ‘Women's Work Reconsidered’, p. 6
[72] Ibid. 6
[73] Ibid. 8
[74] Ibid. 6
[75] Ibid. 7-8
[76] S. Bardsley, ‘Women's Work Reconsidered’, p. 7-8
[77] S. Bardsley, ‘Women's Work Reconsidered’, p. 7-8
[78] Ibid. 7-8
[79] R. H. Hilton, The English Peasantry in the Later Middle Ages, (Oxford, 1975), p.
102
[80] Ibid. 103
[81] S. Bardsley, ‘Women's Work Reconsidered’, p. 8
[82] Ibid. 9
[83] Ibid.
[84] Penn’s survey of East Riding of Yorkshire covers
the period of March 1363 to May 1364.
[85] S. Bardsley, ‘Women's Work Reconsidered’, p. 11
[86] Ibid.
[87] S. A. C. Penn, 'Female
Wage-Earners in Late Fourteenth-Century England', The Agricultural History Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, (1987), p. 9
[88] S. A. C. Penn, ‘Female
Wage-Earners in Late Fourteenth-Century England’, p. 9
[89] E,
Cavell, 'Aristocratic Widows and the Medieval Welsh Frontier: The Shrophshire
Evidence: The Rees Davies Prize Essay', Transactions
of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 17, (Cambridge, 2007), p. 59
[90] J. M. Bennett, ‘Compulsory Service in England’,
p. 34-5
[91] P. Franklin, ‘Peasant Widows'
"Liberation" and Remarriage before the Black Death', The Economic History Review, Vol. 39,
No. 2 (Glasgow, 1986), p. 186
[92] L.
A. Gates, 'Widows, Property, and Remarriage: Lessons from Glastonbury's Deverill
Manors', Albion: A Quarterly Journal
Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, (Chicago, 1996), p. 19
[93] Ibid.
[94] Sylvia
L. Thrupp, a leading figure in medieval social history, attested that Russell
was the first historian to utilise statistical methods to comparatively assess
the impact that epidemic plague had on medieval population size. (Plague Effects in Medieval Europe: Demographic
Effects of Plague: A Comment on J. C. Russell's Views, 1966)
[95] P. Franklin, ‘Peasant
Widows’, p. 188
[96] Ibid.
[97] B.
M. S. Campbell, ‘Population pressure, inheritance and
the land market in a fourteenth-century peasant community’, in R. M. Smith
(ed.), Land, Kinship and Life-cycle,
pp. 87-134
[98] J. Whittle, ‘Inheritance, marriage,
widowhood and remarriage: a comparative perspective on women and landholding in
north-east Norfolk, 1440-1580’, Continuity
and Change, Vol. 13, Iss. 01 (Cambridge, 1998), p. 36
[99] Ibid.
[100] Ibid. 37
[101] Ibid.
[102] S. Bardsley, ‘Women's Work Reconsidered’, p. 4
[103] Ibid.
[104] Ibid.
3
[105] Ibid. 9
[106] C. Dyer, and S. A. C. Penn, ‘Wages
and Earnings in Late Medieval England’, p. 356
[107] S. Cohn, ‘After the Black Death’, p.
481
Comments
Post a Comment