Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Destaque
Destaque (20)
Semelhante a 10. S2013 13th Century England
Semelhante a 10. S2013 13th Century England (20)
Mais de Robert Ehrlich
Mais de Robert Ehrlich (20)
Último
Último (20)
10. S2013 13th Century England
- 1. Life in the 13th Century
- 2. Sumer is icomen in Cuckoo Song • Oldest song in Middle English • Round or rota for 4 voices • Religious text and secular text • Instructions in Latin
- 4. January Feasting 13th Century: Aspects of Life
- 8. May, Hawking
- 10. July, Mowing
- 11. August, Reaping
- 16. Aspects of Life in the 13th Century • Population rise • Village – manor also towns • Disconnect between social and economic status • Importance of parish church • Commerce – Money supply – Markets and fairs
- 18. Urbanization by 1300 • Total population 6-7 million: other estimates closer to 3 million • London <75,000 • Norwich 10,000 • Small towns ~10% of population
- 19. St. Ives As I was going to St Ives I met a man with seven wives And every wife had seven sacks And every sack had seven cats And every cat had seven kits Kits, cats, sacks, wives How many were going to St Ives? Why were they going to St. Ives?
- 20. St. Ives Fair 1110 Granted to abbey for a week – ‘Tolls’ for fair – Administrative court 1213 King John spends £843 on blanket cloth 1252 Attempt by Henry III to add a three week extension under his own jurisdiction – 1255 King’s rights sold to abbey Ellen Wedemeyer Moore The fairs of medieval England : an introductory study Toronto, Ont., Canada : Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1985
- 21. Population ~800 Who was going to St. Ives, Huntingdonshire?
- 22. St. Ives - Sales • Cloth • Stalls grouped by origin of vendors • Wholesalers in front of permanent dwellings or rows of stalls • Foreign merchants sell luxury goods; buy commodities
- 23. St. Ives - Locals • Ale – ~ 30 brewers in St. Ives – ~ 15 sold at fair (four alewives) • Baked goods • Butchers • Crafts and craft services
- 24. MARKETS 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350 1360 1370 1380 1390 1400 1410 1420 1430 1440 1450 1460 1470 1480 1490 1500 1510 FAIRS 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350 1360 1370 1380 1390 1400 1410 1420 1430 1440 1450 1460 1470 1480 1490 1500 1510 Fig. 5. Numbers of markets and fairs granted in England, 1200–1516 Growth of markets and fairs
- 25. Growth of Fairs and Markets in SE England
- 26. Value of fairs to abbey Bury St. Edmunds 1286-7 • Stall and shop rentals £126 • Fines £8 9s Stephen Edward Sachs “The ‘Law Merchant’ and the Fair Court of St. Ives, 1270-1324” B.A. thesis Harvard published w. revision in Am. U Intl. Law Review £1 = £714 (2010) http://www.measuringworth.com
- 27. (Possible) Social Consequences of Fairs (& Markets) • Need to bridge regional language differences • Acquisition of some commercial French • Appreciation for written records, even by the non-literate • Growth of money economy • Competition
- 28. Decline of fairs Wool trade • Middlemen purchase from producers • Warehouses • Supply to exporters Food products • Obtained by contract
- 29. Video Daily Life in the 13th Century Dr. Jennifer Paxton
- 30. Kilpeck Parish Church of St Mary and St David ~1140 6/22009/
- 34. Kilpeck, South Entrance http://www.sacred-destinations.com/england/kilpeck-church-photos/index.htm
- 35. Trends –Increasing use of credit • At the top – To finance wars – To finance increased consumption • For the peasant – To obtain suitable sized farms – To buy livestock and seed which would be recouped from production
- 36. Estimate of coinage in circulation Allen, Martin. "The volume and composition of the English silver currency, 1279-1351." Agricultural History Review 35 (1987): 121-32. Allen, Martin. "The volume of the English currency, 1158–1470." The Economic History Review 54.4 (2001): 595-611.
- 37. Land and Labor • 1300 20-25% of labor is wage labor – Poor have small families (generally absent from any records) – Better off have larger families which contribute to later generations of poor (landless) • Use of private contracts at manorial courts to convey small amounts of land. – Importance of common law protections
- 38. Change in Land Distribution Largeholder >1 virgate Middleholder 0.5.-1 virgate Smallholder <0.5 virgate 1 virgate = ~ 15 acres Unfree Source (Date) Largeholders Middleholders Smallholders Domesday (1086) 19% 37% 44% Hundred Rolls (1279- 22% 31% 47% 80) Free Source (Date) Largeholders Middleholders Smallholders Domesday (1086) 50% 40% 10% Hundred Rolls 18% 12% 70% (1279-80)
- 39. Wheat Yields Bruce M. S. Campbell (2007), Three centuries of English crops yields, 1211-1491 [WWW document]. URL http://www.cropyields.ac.uk [accessed on 14/04/2013]
- 40. Magor Pill Shipwreck – Detail Example of a 15 m coastal boat used to carry iron ore/
- 41. Guilds • Generally chartered – 1155 London weavers – 1175 Oxford shoemakers • Quality control; Fixed prices in some areas • No – Monopoly, restraint of trade. exclusive rights to sell, barriers to entry Gary Richardson “Guilds, laws, and markets for manufactured merchandise in late- medieval England” Explorations in Economic History 41 (2004) 1–25
- 42. Peasant Houses – 13th Century
- 48. Development of medieval housing
- 49. Manorial or sub-manorial: Addition of aisles
- 50. Nick Hill and Daniel Miles “The Royal George, Cottingham, Northamptonshire: An Early Cruck Building” Vernacular Architecture, 32 (2001), 62-67 Is this a 'peasant' building built by carpenters used to working on higher-status buildings? Or, despite its small size, was it built for a patron of high status?
- 51. Cruck truss, Royal George, 1262
- 52. Lacock, Wiltshire Cruck house, 14th C.
- 53. London 1212 regulations • Roofs – New houses with tile only, or shingle, or boards, – Whitewash thatched roofs of existing houses • Demolish wood houses that threaten stone ones • Businesses – Cookshops plastered inside and out – Alehouses built of stone
- 54. Medieval Merchant's House, Southampton, ~129 0
Notas do Editor
- The Sumer canon is found only in British Library, Harleian MS 978 (here- after LoHa), fol. llv. Study of the manuscript reveals that the melody as originally written was subsequently altered. These changes were apparently made soon after the manuscript was written (ca. 1250),2 although just how early is still an open question. Since the original copy can still be read, despite the later changes, the manuscript in effect records two versions of the melody, the one that was originally written and the altered version.Sumer is icumen in' is a composition for several voices, probably written at Reading Abbey in the mid-13th century. This piece is one of the most celebrated of all medieval musical compositions. Its form is that of an infinite canon at the unison for a possible four voices, accompanied by two lower voices who sing a short phrase in interchange.The melody is one of the oldest known examples of what is now known as the major mode and the oldest example of ground-bass. Its effect is fresh and dance-like. Besides the English secular words, 'Sumer is icumen in', the canon (though not the bass) is also provided with a sacred Latin text, 'PerspiceChristicola'. The manuscript is in fact the earliest known in which both secular and sacred words are written to the same piece of music. Although not as exceptional as was once thought, this composition remains far more ambitious than contemporary French or Italian canons.'Sumer is icumen in' is known only from this manuscript. The text inset to the right of the pages gives instructions in Latin for its performance as a round. The cross above the first line marks the point at which each of the four main voices enters. The parts for the lower voices, or the 'pes', are written on the bottom two lines.
- The Hunterian Psalter is regarded as the greatest treasure of William Hunter's (1718-83) magnificent library of books and manuscripts. It is a 12th century beautifully illuminated manuscript, thought to have been produced in England c. 1170. University of Glasgow
- Other estimates are much lower with 4-4.5 million in 1290
- In 1252, the abbot of Ramsey sued several royal bailiffs for extending the term of the royal peace for three weeks after the end of the fair. In other words, the king had added his own three-week-long fair at St. Ives, leading many merchants to delay their arrival until after the abbot’s fair had ended. The abbot and monks claimed that these actions were “contrary to their charter and contrary to the will of the king who had that charter made for their benefit”; the fair had been given “as an appurtenance to Ramsey abbey in free and perpetual alms,” so that the abbots had possession of it “as of their own soil, with which they could do as they pleased.”[26] The plaintiffs repeatedly invoked the argument that the St. Ives fair was held on “their own soil,” and they protested that the king’s bailiffs had collected tolls and rent even from “the abbot’s houses, stalls, and booths and from the boats and ships which were moored to the abbot’s own soil.” The abbot also represented the fair court of St. Ives as a private hundred, saying that “Hurstingstone hundred belongs to the abbot, and he has and always ought to have the attachments which arise from plaints within the fair and outside it, and [the right] to hear those plaints at his pleasure where he may wish. . . .”[27]The royal bailiffs replied by asserting the king’s power over the fair: once the term of the abbot’s fair ended, the fair “came into the king’s hand,” and “the abbot can in fact claim no rights in either fair or market after the time of this fair is past.”[28] Furthermore, the booths and stalls from which they took rent “stand [on] the king’s highway and no one can or ought to meddle with it except the king”—and in any case, whatever the bailiffs did, they did “for the king’s benefit.”[29] However, the bailiffs did not contest the abbot’s lordship over the fair during the period of the king’s one-week grant. The resolution of the case is not preserved; the record of this case ends with the commissioning of a jury, consisting of twelve knights and twelve merchants, to investigate the customary rights of the abbot over the St. Ives fair. Three years later, if it were still continuing, the case was rendered moot, as Henry III sold to the abbot all the revenues and jurisdiction of the fair however long it might last—establishing abbatial control over the fair for the entire period of the extant court rolls
- Brabant east of Flanders – Brussels Antwerp St. Ives pop
- St. Ives saw reduced income in late 13th century
- This decline in the institutional structure of trade is not definite evidence for a general contraction of intemal commerce. Even in the food trades, as in the past, a considerable share of the total volume of business was conducted away from market places. The practice of giving a discount of 5 per cent on such sales remained common all through the late Middle Ages.” Some of the grain acquired in bulk would even-tually pass through urban markets." A lot of grain nevertheless bypassed formal institutions altogether. Such were the large quantities purchased for consumption by large households.” Wheat, malt and barley were obtained by King’s Hall, Cambridge, on contract from producers and dealers in over forty parishes in Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely. Some of these contracts represented long-standing arrangements extending for up to fifteen years. Informal though the system was, it was clearly reliable. In spite of the large volume of business transacted by King’s Hall there is no recorded example of a contract having been broken.Wool exporters bough directly form growers of from brokers. The Cely family acquired most of theirs from Cotswold middlemen, who in tum had purchased it from local producers after sheep-shearing in june. Growers sold their wool to these brokers directly from manor houses and substantial tenant farms rather than through any formal marketing organisation. Sometimes wool was sold on approval in advance of shearing. Having purchased their wool, the brokers stored it in warehouses at Northleach (Glos.), Chipping Camp-den (G1os.), Chipping Norton (Oxon.) and elswhere, until the export merchants came to buy On some occasions however brokers con tracted to supply wool to exporters and to transport it to London 52 Though Cotswold trade between brokers and merchants was centred in market towns it did not make use of market places All over the country abbeys and prioneseonunued to sell wool to wholesale buyers In 1363-4 Sibton Abbey sold the wool from its manors of Stbton (Sufi ) and Croxton (Norf ) to Robert Gaude, and the lambs wool of the previous year to John Hardyng 53
- Parish Church of St Mary and St David i
- Corbel 40 center of apse
- Tree of life
- In1317, for example, Agnes of Holme of the manor of Hakeford Hall inNorfolk conveyed just over half a hectare of villein land to Robert ofDokingges, her affianced husband, with reversion to herself if Robertpredeceased her and the marriage proved childless.87 In the same year onthe same manor, Agnes wife of William Snoudoun successfully sued herhusband for having sold without her consent 0.21 hectare held by them injointure.88 These two cases demonstrate that even peasant women by thisdate enjoyed clearly defined property rights in land and were far fromreticent in asserting those rights.At Coltishall, in fertile and densely populated east Norfolk,the purchase price of even an acre of land could be the equivalent of halfa year’s earnings from labouring. Many tenants can only have raisedsuch substantial sums by selling grain and livestock but, to judge fromthe numbers of debt cases recorded in the court rolls, many must alsohave contracted loans in order to finance these land purchases
- Detail of the clinker planking and the floor timbers, each individual shaped/rebated to allow for the overlapping of the outer planks. .A Cadw funded preliminary survey by the Trust noted 4-5 floor timbers or ribs, and evidence of at least 7 metres of survivng boat. In 1995 a full examination was carried out, and this revealed the vessel to be clinker-built in the North European tradition, with the remains comprising 7 metres of the incomplete forward section of a 15-20m boat. Split oak planks were attached to a solid oak keel, and to one another, with iron nails. The cargo remains comprised a mound of iron ore piled onto a hazel hurdle.
- The Anglo Saxon word "gild" meant "payment" and the members' subscriptions raised funds which could be used for social, charitable and trade purposes. One important use of the funds was to make a contribution to the Exchequer in return for which a Charter confirming certain privileges, rights or liberties would be granted by the King.It is the recording of such a payment, the first for any guild, which establishes the Weavers as London's oldest Company.there was no clear division between the craftsmen who made the goods and the trader who sold them — both functions were performed by the same person. The customers of a master-craftsman ordered what they wanted from him, and the work was done to order. But there were also some finished articles in the workshop.Guilds from different towns sold similar versions of popularproducts. Consumers chose among the alternatives. When the choices were homogenousand markets large, as with the coarse woolen cloths sold by hundreds ofEuropean producers, guilds could not manipulate market prices. When productswere heterogeneous and markets were small, as with luxury fabric manufacturedby the foremost Flemish draperies, guilds possessed limited price-setting power.Did manufacturing guilds possess rights to be sole sellers in certain markets? No,they did not. All primary sources concur on this point. None mentions guilds withlegal control over local markets.Did the law allow sellers to manipulate prices and quantities? No. The commonlaw prohibited such acts. A series of cases established this precedent. Prominentamong them were Oursom v. Plomer (the scalding-house action in London, 1375)and Hamlyn v. More (the case of the Gloucester school, 1410), whose verdicts calcifiedthe common law principal that nothing should inhibit ‘‘drawing away customersby fair competition (Baker, 1995, p. 511, 523).’’ The government upheld thisprincipal vigorously. Courts punished forestallers, who bought up merchandise beforeit reached the market in order to drive up the price; engrossers, who hoardedmerchandise when expecting prices to rise; and regrators, who purchased productsand resold them in the same market at a higher price.Did the law permit guilds to erect barriers to trade? No. Hindering trade was explicitlyforbidden. The crown guaranteed residents of almost all chartered boroughsthe right to wholesale their wares anywhere in England; the right to retail their waresin most of the realms towns, fairs, and markets; and the right to be ‘‘free from taxand toll’’ while doing so. Londons charter from 1130 guaranteed ‘‘all men of Londonand their goods’’ freedom ‘‘from payment of toll, passage, lastage, and all otherdues throughout the whole of England and in all the seaports.’’ Liverpools charterfrom 1229 promised its citizens exemption ‘‘throughout [the] land and in all seaportsfrom payment of toll, lastage, passage, pontage, and stallage.’’Did the law permit guilds to erect barriers to entry? No, the law prohibited theerection of impermeable barriers and permitted townsmen to practice any professionthey chose.the weavers [of London] complained to the Mayor and the Aldermen that the burellers wereexercising the trade of weaving in their houses without being qualified by membership of thecraft. The burellers boldly claimed the right as freemen of the city to carry on any trade or mystery . . . The weavers attempt to establish their sole right to their craft was so little countenancedby the city authorities, that they did not venture to appear on the day appointed;and the judgement was given to the effect that it should be henceforth lawful for all freemento set up looms in their hostels and elsewhere, and to weave cloth and sell it at will . . .Could guilds use regulatory powers to circumvent the law and restrict competition?Perhaps, but not to any great extent. Authority over the quality of merchandisemade by members was unqualified and ubiquitous, but authority over merchandisemade by nonmembers was restricted and rare. Special charters permitted some guildsto inspect merchandise similar to their own and sold in their town by outsiders. Reciprocalagreements between towns permitted many guilds to send searchers to distantvenues to inspect the quality of merchandise sold in their names.Was the enforcement of laws lax? Little evidence exists on this issue, but the datathat does suggests the judicial system enforced the law vigorously. Criminal courtsprosecuted guilds for anti-competitive activity, and civil courts heard cases broughtby individuals harmed by monopolistic machinations. In both venues, judges favoredpublic over private interests (Jacob, 1993, p. 394). Economic historians seemto have assumed the opposite—that courts and the Common Law favored guilds—but this assumption is incorrect. Laws concerning individuals matured more rapidlythan those regarding corporations.failed to enforce the law could be subjectedto direct royal rule. This happened to dozens of boroughs during the 13th centuryand a smaller number during the 14th. The same was even true for aristocrats,who the king ordered to protect merchants travelling through their lands. In theStatute of Winchester (1285), the crown threatened ‘‘if a lord fails in [this] duty . . .and robberies are then committed, he shall be liable for damages (Bagley andRowley, 1966, p. 160).’’Didguildscorrupt the legal system, and thereby, acquiremonopolypower? Noevidencesuggestsguildscorrupted the legal system, whilesixfactssuggesttheydid not. First, English law was not arbitrary. Men could not be deprived of life, liberty,orpropertywithoutdueprocess (Baker, 1995, p. 112). Second, whenlocalauthoritiesfailed to enforce the law, individualscouldappeal to royalauthorities(Baker, 1995, p. 31, 120; Fisher and Jurica, 1977, p. 243). Third, the legal system protectedmen from falseaccusations, nuisancesuits, and similarlegalshenanigans(Bagley and Rowley, 1966, p. 50, 78, 84). Fourth, individualsdid not have to waitfor the government to protecttheirinterests. Anyoneharmed by unlawfulactscouldsue and win restitution in municipal and royalcourts. Fifth, the law forbadedeprivinganotherbusinessmen of customers by harassment, violence, threats, defamation,orotherunlawfulconduct (Baker, 1995, pp. 521–524).Sixth, legalmonopolies in markets for manufactureswere not in the interests ofthe men whomade and enforced the law. The burdens of monopolieswouldhavebeenborn by the most influential men in medievalsociety, merchants, aristocrats,and ecclesiastics, whohadvestedinterests in trade. The interest of merchantsisobvious.Trade was theirlivelihood. The interests of aristocrats and ecclesiasticsis lessreadilyapparent. Lords and priestsowned the rights to hold most of the realmsmarketsand fairs. Theseeventsyieldedlargesums from tolls, taxes, fees, and rents.Thoserevenuesrose and fell with the expansion and contraction of trade (Hilton(1995, p. 39); Zacour, 1976, p. 49). So, the men whomade and enforced the law benefitedfrom high volumes of trade. Theyalsohadvestedinterests in the price of manufacturedmerchandise.
- Speculation that some houses were turf housesWood was in short supply in medieval England so only the frame of the house was constructed of timber. There were no foundations, but the timbers were sometimes placed on stone supports to discourage damp and rot.The spaces in the walls were filled with branches and twigs, caked together with mud, and the whole surface was then coated with a limestone wash to render them waterproof. This system was called "wattle and daub."The roof was generally thatched with straw.The floor was simply earth, which was covered with straw (periodically thrown out and replaced) to reduce dust and dirt. The internal floor-plan tended to be very simple - the house was divided into a byre for livestock and supplies, and a living area for people with a central hearth. Generally, there was no chimney - smoke merely escaped through a hole in the roof.
- The earliest examples of the mature later medieval domestic plan may bedivided into three types. The first type is the unaisled hall with chamber andservices. Two virtually identical buildings are now known from the sites of Monkton(Kent) and Bishops Waltham (Hampshire). The position of the entrances toMonkton building III (Fig. 2) are not indicated by breaks in the wall-trench. Acontinuous wall-trench across the entrance is common in buildings of this type,though sometimes the position of the doors may be inferred from the presence ofdeeper post-settings. There is some hint of deeper posts in the Monkton buildings,and the locations of the doors also seem to be indicated by two posts (2787,5581)set in from the line of the wall. The houses at both sites had rooms at one end.These rooms were narrower than the main building and were off-set from thecentre to form a continuous wall line on one side. Monkton Building III is almost identical in plan and it seems very likelythat the rooms served similar function, though there is no separate evidence. Thepottery associated with the Monkton building is attributed to the period 1125-75.50Only at Monkton is there nosuggestion that the buildings were of seigneurial status
- The second type of building-plan is distinguished by the inclusion of one ortwo aisles. The plan is most dearly represented at Hutton Colswain (N. Yorkshire)where a mid- I 2th- to early 13th-century timber building was recorded in 1953-4beneath a hall with stone footings (Fig. 3). The phasing proposed by the excavatoris not followed here: it is hardly logicalHutton Colswain was set within a large enclosure which in the 13thcentury was modified and a gatehouse added.
- The greater part of the city was built of wood, the houses being roofed with straw, reeds, and similar materials. The frequent fires which took place owing to this manner of building, especially the great fire of 1135 which destroyed a great part of the City, compelled the citizens to take some precautions against the recurrence of such a calamity. Stone was used to a larger extent, and various privileges were conceded to those who used stone in the construction of their houses. This material was made compulsory in the party-walls, but the rest of the buildings might be made of anything, and was usually constructed of wood. The regulations of 1189 did not produce any great or immediate effect on the style of building, and a further ordinance was issued in 1212, after a disastrous fire had destroyed London Bridge and a large number of houses.
- The original house was designed for use by John Fortin, a prosperous wine merchant, with a vaulted cellar for holding stock, a shop at the front of the property and accommodation for the family; much of it was built in stone, but it featured a timber front, a fashionable design for the period.[5] At least sixty other houses similar to the Medieval Merchant's House were built in Southampton at around the same time