The Ties That Bound

by Barbara A Hanawalt

  If the family and the couple chose to do the ceremony under the auspices of the Church, however, the families of the bride and groom would make the financial arrangements, and when both sides were satisfied, a betrothal took place. Next the banns were read in the parish church. After the three weeks' delay to allow for objections, the couple, their families, and friends would proceed to the church doors. At this stage, dower and dowry would be announced. The dower usually guaranteed the wife rights to a portion or the whole of her husband's property after his death, while the dowry that the wife brought to the marriage was usually money, chattel, or small pieces of land. Ritual words would solemnize their marriage. The vows have a familiar ring, but the woman's is explicit about the sexual duty of marriage:

  Man: I take the N. to my wedded wif, to haue and to holde, fro this day forwarde, for bettere for wors, for richere for pourer in sycknesse and in hele, tyl dethe us departe, if holy chyrche it woll ordeyne, and thereto y plight the my trouthe.

  Woman: I take the N to my wedded housbonde, to haue and to holde, fro this day forwarde, for better for wors, for richer for pourer in sicknesse and in hele, to be bonere and boxom, in bedde and atte bord, tyll dethe vs departhe, if holy chyrche it wol ordeyne, and therto I plight the my trouthe.

  The rings are then blessed and exchanged and the words "with this ring I thee wed and with my body I thee honor" are spoken.42 If the priest could persuade the wedding party to partake of a bit more religious ceremony to sanctify the marriage sacrament, they proceeded into the church and heard mass. But the clergy complained that peasants would 43 not take the further and unnecessary ritual.

  Marriages were festivals, and although we have no descriptions of marriage feasts and revels, contemporary moralists often provide a clue to the usual proceedings:

  Further we enjoin that marriage be decently celebrated, with reverence, not with laughter and ribaldry, not in taverns or at public drinkings and feastings. Let no man place a ring made of rushes or of any worthless or precious material on the hand of a woman in jest that he may more easily gain her favours lest in thinking to jest the bond of marriage be tied. Henceforth let no pledge of contracting marriage be given save in the presence of a priest and of three or four respectable persons summoned for that 44 purpose.

  The warning was justified, for in at least one case members of the wedding party got into a brawl during the postnuptial festivities. Among the guests at the wedding feast might be a representative of the lord as a symbol of his rights over marriages.45

  One reason wedding feasts became boisterous was that they occurred in the flush seasons or during months of revelry. The most popular months were January (the saturnalia month of fertility rites) and October and November (the harvest and butchering feasts). Summer months when the new crops were coming in were also popular. In general, agrarian communities tended to tie marriages more closely to the agricultural calendar than the woodland or pasture communities. The Church prohibited marriages during Lent, Rogationtide, and Advent through Christmas. This eliminated about eighteen to twenty weeks, or about a third of the year. Early sixteenth-century data show that both marriages and conceptions were less numerous during these weeks, indicating a fair degree of compliance.

  And so the young people are led to the marriage bed, the final stage of this rite de passage. They are probably in their twenties when they contract this first marriage, and they probably have some land, even if it is only a few acres, or they have a trade or employment as manorial servants. They have known a period of adolescence and they have had their flirtations; they may very well have had sexual experiences before marriage and might even be expecting their first child. They may have married for love, but probably not if land and property were involved. Some of their friends and siblings who participated in the celebrations might remain celibate all their lives, but probably not many if they stayed in the village community. After all, marriage was so easy to contract that lusty young people had to be careful not to make more than one marriage commitment.

  Marriage moved young people into the adult word of childrearing and establishing a family economic unit centered on the labor of husband and wife-a marriage partnership. But in addition to these practical matters of married life, medieval people of all ranks discussed, theorized, advised, and analyzed what made good and bad marriages and what virtues and vices husbands and wives might have. No stage of life attracted so many moralizers, satirizers, misogynists, and old wives with their store of tales than did matrimony. Discussions of childhood and old age paled in comparison. The lore of marriage with all its platitudes and theological implications receives a brilliant and humorous summation in Chaucer's "Prologue to the Wife of Bath's Tale." From the wit of Alison we learn the male proverbs and diatribes against the fickleness of women, their shrewish tempers, and the bottomless pit of their lust. But the Wife of Bath also knows the women's proverbs, such as "lies, tears and spinning are the things God gives by nature to woman, while she lives," and adds some advice on how to use at least the first two to control husbands.! No doubt this vivid pulpit and folk wisdom influenced attitudes toward marriage, but it probably came to the fore in people's lives only when a shrew, a wife beater, or a faithless spouse in the village exemplified the lessons. In investigating peasants' actual experiences with marriage, both case studies and folklore will occupy us in this chapter. Most married couples, occupied with the problems of daily living, had little time to analyze the happiness of their union. To have sufficient daily bread, raise worthy children, avoid sickness, and put by a bit for retirement would make most marriage partners feel blessed.

  Two dominant traditions on marital relations emerge from the folk and ecclesiastical literature and remain with us to this day. One is the war between the sexes as described in the Wife of Bath's prologue. Women bring to the battle their abilities to intimidate and manipulate men through scolding, crying, and withholding sexual favors. Faced with the wiles of women, a husband's resource was physical brutalitywife beating:

  Other poems advocate a reversal of roles, with the wife beating the husband. The weaponry and battles in the war between the sexes always had a comic side, a recognition that such marital discords occurred but that they were neither the most desirable nor very common. Thus the carvings of wives beating their husbands that appear on misericords are meant for good fun rather than instruction.

  Admonitions to practice physical and emotional bludgeoning were amply balanced in poems and books of advice by the second tradition, recommending good judgment and mutual respect. Myrc's Instructions for a Parish Priest suggests that the priest ask his parishioner in confession if he has helped his wife and "meyne" when they have needed it and refrained from causing strife with his wife.3 Such lessons also appear in instructional poems such as "How the Wise Man Taught His Son." The father advises his son not to marry for money but to make enquiry about his prospective wife to find out if she is meek, courteous, and wise. If you find such a woman, he says, you should cherish and not burden her, for it is better to eat homely fare in peace than have a hundred fine dishes served with strife. Likewise, a husband should not anger his wife or call her bad names, but correct her faults with fairness and gentleness. He should take his wife's side when she has a complaint, but not until he has examined the matter, for if he acts too swiftly they may both regret it. The companion piece, "How the Good Wife Taught Her Daughter," echoes the advice. A woman should not scorn proposals, but should consult with her friends about the marriage. The key to a happy marriage was to love and honor one's husband above all earthly things and meet his moods with "fair" and "meek" words. Beyond these basics the good wife recommended being cheerful, faithful, respectable in public, and managing the household tasks and servants with good order and firmness. In short, the good wife would have condemned the Wife 4 of Bath's recommendations on all points except managing money well.

  A common perception of the middle ages is that men beat their wives. but the usual illustration was the rever
se of the stereotype. Medieval people found these inversions of roles amusing. [The British Library, Luttrell Psalter.]

  Literature and manuals of morality speak of both marital strife and accommodation, but if we want to know about the actual behavior, we must go to the court records. Some caution is in order when looking at court records, for the cases that tend to stand out after a casual reading are those of brutality and adultery. When a salacious reading informs researchers, we get such books as Before the Bawdy Court and Wanton Wives and Wayward Women.5 The vast majority of cases appearing in manorial courts, however, are those that show husbands and wives in cooperative activities. They are the inheritance cases that we have already observed of the husband ensuring the wife's right to his family holding by surrendering it to the lord and taking it back again in both his name and hers; or it is a case of the bridegroom paying the merchet for his new wife; of wills in which the wife is left the executor of the estate. In economic matters we have seen the husband and wife working for the family unit in house and field, and coroners' inquests have depicited husband and wife at their tasks or taking their evening meal together when a child drowns or an accident befalls them.

  The very routine nature of these cases, revealing a mundane life for husbands and wives, lulls the reader into ignoring them; thus the relatively few cases of marital discord tend to stand out. In the criminal court cases, however, only 0.7 percent of all felonies involved indictments of one family member committing a crime against another. In homicides alone in the coroners' inquests, family was suspected in only 8 percent of the cases. Husbands and wives were the most common familial relations cited in such cases and accounted for half of the intrafamilial cases, or only 4 percent of all cases. Husbands predominated as the killers in such cases. Even the argument that familial disputes were more likely to stop short of criminal actions does not find support in court records, for in manorial courts family accounted for a low percentage (2 percent) of recorded discord. While assault predominated over debt and trespass as charges against members of the same family, it was brothers rather than spouses who tended to come to blows or litigation.6

  Communities tried to exert pressure on the wife abuser and the scold, because they disturbed the peace of the village. Thus, in Wakefield in 1332, the jury directed Richard Childe to find pledges that he would "receive his wife in his house and treat her agreeably and provide for her faithfully and courteously to the best of his ability." Other times it was the family of the wife that intervened. Thomas Assholff sued John de Scoles, saying that they had agreed for half a mark of silver that John would find Thomas's daughter Ellen food and clothing. But John drove her out of the house and beat her, so that she could not remain. John countersued, saying that she had taken all the goods and chattels with her. In a coroner's case a battered wife called out to her brother to stop her husband from beating her. The brother rushed into the house and permanently stilled her husband's upraised fist with a blow from a hatchet. Help was not always so forthcoming for the battered woman. One man beat his wife severely with a staff on the arms, legs, back, and head. He waited to see if she would die from the beating, and when she did he fled to his father's house in Salisbury.7

  Jealousy and infidelity also brought discord to family and community. Robert Mannyng urged men and women not to indulge in jealousy, for it was sure to cause strife. But adulterers had to be punished. The Wakefield manor court summoned John Kenward of Hepworth to account for living adulterously with Alice, daughter of Simon de Hepworth, and driving his wife from his house. The matter was obviously one demanding severe community sanction, for he paid a heavy fine of 6s. 8d. for not appearing in court. Another man accused of living with a harlot paid 40s. Women as well as men were cited for their wayward lives. The wife of Thomas de Langsfeld not only committed adultery with John del Risseleye but also fled the village with goods belonging to her husband.8

  Sexual infidelities are a classic scenario for murder. John Edwyne of Weld and Emma, the former wife of William le Carpenter and concubine of John, were convicted in Huntingdonshire of murdering William. They were not poor, for the crown confiscated 13s. 6d. in chattels from him and 27s. 5d. from her. It was more common, however, for the husband to kill the wife and/or the lover. Robert le Bauserman killed John Doghty when John came to his house at night while Robert was asleep and had a secret rendezvous with Robert's wife. When Robert awakened and found his wife was not at his side but with John in the other room, an argument ensued in which John was killed.

  Long-standing incompatibility and the problems of separation and child support entered into homicide cases as well. Often when records mention separate residences for husband and wife, it is an indication that they had been living apart before the murder. In a few cases the problems were more explicitly spelled out, as in this argument over child support:

  On the night of 29 March 1271 Walter le Bedel of Renhold came to the house of his wife, Isabel daughter of Reynold, in Ravesden and asked her to come with him to Renhold to get a bushel of wheat which he wished to give her for her boys, and she went with him. When they reached "Longmead" meadow, he immediately struck her over the left ear apparently with a knife, giving her a wound three inches long and in depth to the brain.

  He threw her body into a ditch afterward.10

  Although economic necessity forced many a man and woman to put up with an ill-tempered spouse, there were, in fact, few ways to rid oneself of a lazy or disloyal mate. The Church courts regulated divorce within a very narrow interpretation of the law. The bond of matrimony, while less valued than virginity and celibacy among the ecclesiastical theorists, was not easy to break. As Helmholz observes in his discussion of divorce, "the most striking fact about divorce litigation is how little there was." Only six grounds for divorce appear in the English ecclesiastical court records. We have already seen that marriage among children and marriages in which one party claimed force and fear as a reason for dissolution of marriage were rare, probably a sign that the society shared the Church's repugnance for such alliances. The difficulties of proving consanguinity and affinity discouraged people from using them as grounds for divorce. A man and woman who lived adulterously while one or both had a living spouse could not marry, and if they did so, the Church divorced them. Such cases, however, rarely appeared in the church court records. But the possibility of bigamy and precontract, when consent was the only requirement for a valid marriage, led to considerable confusion and grounds for divorce.

  Precontract was by far the most frequent ground for divorce or investigation of the legality of a marriage. The ecclesiastical court carefully investigated such cases, because opportunities for collusion were obvious. One party would enlist the help of a third party to swear to prior contract in order to get the marriage dissolved. In one blatant case in Ely, William Chilterne, who had been married to Amicia Nene at the church door two years before, claimed that he was already married and his marriage to Amicia was not valid and had been inspired "from malice towards her that had grown in him." Joan Squire colluded with him in the archdeacon's court, claiming both precontract and children from the union, and the court annulled the marriage between William and Amicia. As it later came out, however, Joan soon married another man. The court then reversed itself and declared the marriage of William and Amicia valid from the first.12

  Consent made a marriage valid, but if the parties could not consummate a marriage, divorce could be granted. After three years of marriage, one of the couple could bring suit. Because of the possibility of deceit, the court might require a physical examination of the woman by "honest women" to see if she was a virgin. In York and Canterbury records, seven "honest women" were instructed to test the man in the suit. One witness "exposed her naked breasts, and with her hands warmed at the same fire, she held and rubbed the penis and testicles of the said John." She embraced and kissed him in an attempt to arouse him and admonished him that he "should then and there prove and render himself a man." But she told the court that t
he whole time the penis remained a mere three inches long. She and her six female companions then left, after cursing the man for his failure.13

  The Church, for the most part, tried to preserve marriages and ensure marital validity of sexual unions between a man and a woman. In the matter of prostitution, however, the Church could only condemn. Robert Mannyng admonished men to take only one woman and not a woman who takes many men. A curious practical warning accompanies this advice, that one can get "meseles" (in the original French version it was leprosy) from prostitutes.14 In view of the controversy over the Old or New World origins of venereal diseases, one wonders exactly what these sex-linked diseases were, but perhaps the moralist was simply threatening sinners with a pox.

  In cases of concubinage, the Church acted to legitimate the union if there were no impediments. Usually such cases were decided in court and the couple were either declared married already or they were told to make suitable arrangements. But the parties could be recalcitrant. In March 1376 Thomas Barbo and Joan Seustere, his mistress, were summoned to Ely for an inquiry about consent to marriage and subsequent intercourse. Joan claimed that they were married the previous year at Stourbridge Fair and asked that Thomas be declared her husband. Thomas disputed her story. He said that before the feast of the Exaltation of Holy Cross at the fair, he had told her that their affair was over. When he learned that she was going away, however, he was so depressed that he wanted to kill himself. He came in tears to Joan and the court recorded his version of the conversation. "Joan, if you will stay here, I will be true to you," he declared, and Joan replied that she wanted to stay. Then Thomas said, "Joan, I give you my word that I wish to have you," and Joan replied that she was content. They then had intercourse as before. But Thomas maintained that he did not intend a contract of marriage, but only to have her as a mistress. The court arranged a compromise, getting Thomas to swear that if he had intercourse with her again he would have her as a wife. Twenty-five months later, Joan won her case. Thomas apparently could not live 1 without her.