Sex, Lies, and the Church Courts of Pre-Reformation England
L. R. Poos
Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 25, No. 4. (Spring, 1995), pp. 585-607.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-1953%28199521%2925%3A4%3C585%3ASLATCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J
Journal of Interdisciplinary History is currently published by The MIT Press.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/mitpress.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Tue Aug 7 12:32:40 2007
I
Jotlriiul of lnterdisiiyiineiy Histor& xxv:4 (Spring l')')~), 585-607.
L.R. Poos
Sex, Lies, and the Church Courts of
Pre-Reformation England The regulation of sexuality in
later-medieval England found its most formal expression in the
thousands of men and women cited and punished each year by
secular and ecclesiastical courts for fornication and adultery. The
more informal means of regulation that lay behind such cases are
more difficult to discern, however. I'unishments for fornication
did not always result from such tangible proofs as extramarital
pregnancies or bastard births.'
Hehind the formal means of regulating sexuality in later-
medieval England there thus must have lain multiple networks of
informing, gossip, rumor, talebearing and, on occasion, lies about
neighbors' sex lives among community inhabitants, which brought
such cases to the attention of officials and courts. Indeed, the
formal dictates of the learned law placed prime importance upon
1.. K . Poos is Asociate Professor off Iiutory, The Catholic Uiliversity of America. He i$ the author
of A Rural Soaety &ei tile Blnrk Death: Essex i j j u - i j z j 1991); coauthor with Lloyd (Can~br~dge,
Bonfield of Faiiril), aird I'topeit~i Lari~ ill E!giisii Manorial Corirts i z j ~ - i j j o : Select Cases (I.ondou,
forthcoming)
'The author \vlshes to express thanks for conlrlient$ 'ind advice upon earlier drafts of this article by
Lloyd Bonfield, Phyllis Chock, Elaine Clark, Richard f Ielmholz, Katherine 1 lempstead. Paul
Schaff~let-, Daniel Smail, Lawrence Stone. Susan Cotts Watkins, Stephen Wright, aild Rosmmarie
Zagarri, and especially for comments and reference$, to Judith Bennett aild Kuth Ma20 Kai-1-as.
C 1995 by The ~Ma~uachusetts and the editoi-u of Tlze Joriiirnl o f I i ! t e t ~ i i s r i ~ ~ l i ~ i a i ) ~Inutitute o f ' r e c l ~ n o l o ~ ~
Ilistory,
Evidence for pregnancy as the ba$iu for charge? of fornication from early-modern Englaild 17
discussed In Lawrence K . 1'00s and Klchard M. Smith, "'1,egal Windows oilto Historical Popula-
tions'? Ilecent Keseal.ch on L1emograph)- and the Manor Court in Med~eval England," TALI: nrnl
Histoi.1~ Revie~, : I1 (1984). 148-151; Kalph 1 loulbrooke, Chrtrrh Cortrts a i d the Pcopie duriiig tire Eirzltsit
Kltnirita Elrik
prqizaws esr C. ncx.i.citur ctiiri q:to (fo. 37").
the weighing of circumstantial evidence rendered by servants,
neighbors, and other witnesses in establishing whether sexual
offenses had occurred. As one jurist put it, "Because adultery and
prohibited intercourse are usually committed secretly and in hid-
ing, they are thus difficult to prove." Hence, one should not
necessarily dismiss as merely formulaic the common notation in
ecclesiastical courts that sexual offenses were known to the "public
voice and fame" of the p a r i ~ h . ~
One way to investigate these networks of rumor, gossip, and
informing is to inspect patterns of defamation cases that were heard
in ecclesiastical courts and that dealt with sexual and other alle-
gations. This article examines several hundred cases from church-
court jurisdictions widely scattered throughout later-medieval
England. It observes that, as was common in many other historical
settings, women were more likely to be the victims of sexual
defamation in criminal defamation cases, whereas men were inore
likely to be defamed for matters such as dishonesty or secular
crimes. However, in these same cases women were most often
cited for sexually defaming others, especially other women.
One potential outcome of sexual defamation was that it
brought its victims into danger of being cited before courts for
fornication, a factor that impelled those who claimed or believed
themselves to have been slandered thus to take legal action in a
variety of ways. These tribunals, and the cases contained therein,
were a partial filter of social reality; consequently, it would be
misguided to read the pattern of cases as either an absolutely
dispassionate reflection of actual discourse, or as an unbiased
attempt to quash all modes of gossip. Instead, close inspection of
the words at issue in the cases, and the social circumstances in
which alleged sexual defamation occurred, suggests that although
sexual reputation and honor were more vulnerable for women
than for men in pre-Reformation England, and the very vocabu-
Jacobuu Mmochlus, De Praesuirlptior~ibus, Cotriectriris, S k n i s , G ltrdirfjs Corituictrtarin. (Venice,
1617), 11, Llber 5, Praesumptlo xli (666): Cicrit rlani G occielte coininitti solcant adulteria, G proltibiti
ronnebitus, sintqice ob iif dificilis probationis. . . . Jut~sts described an escalating upectrunl of circum-
utantial evldetlce for ~nferring llliclt intercourse: Il>id. Liber 5, Praesrimptio sli (666-668); Josephus
Maucardus, Cotrclicsior~es Piohatror~icrit oitrniurit, que i f , icttoque Foro versantut continens, Iuiirribics, Aduoratis,
Caicsidiris, oninihics deniqice licris Ponrijcij, Cesareiqice pt?fissotihics vtiles, ptartirabiles r~eressatias. (Vmlce,
1593) I , Conclu5ioneu lvii-lix (fou. 81r-83~). A priblished exanlple of the "voice and fj~lle ' '
tenillnology appears in Elizabeth M. Elvey (ed.), l ' i lc Courts of tile Arc/~ifencotrry of Buckirr~/~arrl
148,;-1jr3 (Welwyn Garden City, 1975), 206.
2
SEX, LIES, ANI ) THE CHUKCH COUKTS 1 587
lary of sexual insult was female-centered, women also seized upon
this gender-loaded language and turned it against others, especially
other women.
Defamation cases came before both ecclesiastical courts and
local secular tribunals, most importantly manorial or borough
courts, although the latter jurisdictions ceased to hear defamation
cases soon after 1400, for reasons as yet unknown. Church courts
were limited to imposing spiritual penalties (excommunication or
penance) upon defamers, though those convicted sometimes coni-
111uted penances with monetary payments. Defamation cases could
arise either as the result of litigation (suits brought by plaintiff
against defendant) or through quasicriminal or ex ujficio cases
(brought by the court itself against the accused) in the form of
"presentments," though this distinction may be more operative at
the level of legal theory than social reality. Reports or complaints
to officials by victims or other interested parties were undoubtedly
the source of many ostensibly ex officio actions. Litigation, with
its attendant issues concerning forms of action and jurisprudence,
is what interests most legal historians. But many defamation cases
in fifteenth-century church courts, especially those at the most
local level of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, took the form of ex officio
presentments, much like those of fornication and adultery.
This article is mainly concerned with ex officio cases of this
type. It is likely, though difficult to prove conclusively, that the
effect of this selection is to permit the observation of a broader
cross-section of local populations than would be the case with
suits brought by plaintiffs, in view of the expense attendant upon
bringing litigation. This discussion also takes most of its cases from
the lower echelons of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, typically, archdea-
conry or rural deanery courts, or the peculiar jurisdictions of
cathedral or other collegiate churches. Again, it is likely, though
impossible to prove, that ex officio defamation cases in such
jurisdictions were the numerically predominant form of defama-
tion case in the fifteenth century, though by their nature local
ecclesiastical jurisdictions have tended to leave many fewer sur-
viving court records than episcopal courts.'
When people were implicated in an offense, of whatever sort
Mout o f the dixuuuion in thiu and the preceding paragraph iu ba5ed upon the definitive R~chard
H. llelmholz, Select C~sao i l Df o ~ .3Sv, 39 (Lax c. Larigton and Langton). C;u~ldliall Llbral-j~, London
(here~n~~fter (Bulbcre c. Crayforth). The '~uthor 1s GL) MS 9o64/5. fo. 159 (~nodcm f o l ~ ~ ~ t i o n )
grateful to Ru th Maze Karras fol- t h i ~ reference. GL MS 9064/7, fo. 8 (Clerk c. Colyn): ib id. , fos.
20. 20v (C:rewe and Kyrkhani c. Colyta). Elvey (ed.), .4iclidcaconv)~ uf B i i c k i i i ~ l i a i i i ,258. 261-262
(Hcdderseth c. B'~rtl'~rd)
9 W e ~ tYorkshire Archlvc~, Lee& (herclnafter WYAL) DBzo5/7 (Hatfield C h a ~ e Inanor court,
19 October 1334): . . . iuocaiido ~ p s a i n ineretricein . per qi iod eadcin A i i r i a si i i i i inonita Ji i i f ad
vcspondciidiirii coinin judicibi is ecciniasfiris 6 ai i i is i t ib idcin ij s.; C R O 619/Mj (Abington 111at1or court
and lect. 17 May 1421): . . posi i i f diveisa a i f i a i i a i n ufficio Episropi E i i c i i r i s iqjusfc . . . per qiins
ceif(jicnfiones . . . pcrdidei ic i i t deiiavior . . . cst coini i iunis ,gani iat i ix E scai idai izntr ix . . . , WWAL
DBzo5/3 (Hatficld C:hae Inanor court, 4 March 1327): , . , Ji'rit euii? cifavi de capi i i i io ad rap i t i i i u in
qiioiesqiee,fecissei,fiiieni s i i i i i n penes se de x i sol idir . . dedit dicticin a1,qeiiiieni sed noii de si ia bona i ~ ~ l i i n t a t e
piopter iinioreni ciiniionicirr ad cicilnin Chvist iani tni is . . . ; C:ambridge Univenity LI~LITJ., queen^'
本文档为【Sex, Lies, and the Church Courts of Pre-Reformation England】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑,
图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
该文档来自用户分享,如有侵权行为请发邮件ishare@vip.sina.com联系网站客服,我们会及时删除。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。
本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。
网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。