The Chronscast Talks -- the Law and History

[sknox]

Pied poudre -- dusty foot. One of my more favorite medieval expressions. First read it in Henri Pirenne. Dusty foot because it describes itinerant merchants. Though, given the weather in northern Europe, muddy foot might've been more on point.

Burning has a long tradition. The one I have in mind is the burning of proclamations or papal bulls, always done in public of course, to demonstrate defiance. Brother Martin was far from the first to do that.

I wonder if anyone has tried to connect burning books with burning witches, as both seem to have similar peaks in popularity.

Good 'cast, as always!

 

[The Judge]

I'd not thought of linking the burning of books and witches. Another topic for research there for one of your former students!

Hessayon does make the point, as far as England was concerned,

In a country where the bodies of heretics were no longer consigned to the flames but the Pope and other prominent Catholics were still burned in effigy, these book burnings were akin to a Protestant Auto da Fé by proxy.​

​

and

The nineteenth-century German poet Heinrich Heine famously had a character remark in his tragedy Almansor (1820–22) that ‘where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings’. During the English Revolution and long after the Restoration, however, the contrary was the case: where they could no longer burn people they could still burn their books.​

(The burning of the Pope in effigy continued long after the Restoration, of course, and is still going on in Lewes, though at least it's Paul V, the pope at the time of the Gunpowder Plot, and not anyone more recent, but the event continues to have a reputation for provocative effigies being burnt on November 5th by the local bonfire societies.)

 

[sknox]

There's naught better fer stirrin' up local support like a good fire!

 

[The Judge]

In this month's Chronscast, which was held over from October, I've talked about the monarchy in the UK. Episode 11 - The Left Hand Of Darkness with Emily Inkpen

Something which might be of interest to historians is The King's Peace a legal concept that arose under the Anglo-Saxon kings, the background to which I found at JSTOR The King's Peace, the Royal Prerogative and Public Order by Daniel Feldman

 

[The Judge]

For the Chronscast in March I looked at John Boorman's Excalibur and legal topics arising from the film Episode 16 - Excalibur with Bryan Wigmore

The main part of my talk was about trial by combat, the judicial duel, and its use within the legal system. The most important sources I found:

• Medieval trial by combat: the real history behind The Last Duel by Hannah Skoda for History Extra. A general overview of the practice with specific reference to the Ridley Scott film. (This appears to be behind a paywall, but in fact I was able to listen to the recording of the article and subsequently was able to read it without paying or being a member, so I'm hoping it's accessible to others.)
• Iudicium Dei, iudicium fortunae: Trial by Combat in Malory’s Le Morte Darthur by Jacqueline Stuhmiller at JSTOR. A more academic work looking specifically at how it's used in Malory -- very interesting and informative
• ‘Here is my Glove’: Introductory Oathtaking and Trial by Combat in “Le Morte Darthur” by Aubrey Morris again at JSTOR. Again rather academic and again focussed on Malory, but very informative on the oaths required in real life

I also looked briefly at adultery by a Queen Consort and the issue of treason. There seems to have been an ideal source for this topic, namely Treason: Medieval and Early Modern, Adultery, Betrayal, and Shame edited by Larissa Tracy (Vol 10 of Explorations in Medieval Culture) but I wasn't able to devote the time needed to plough through the relevant chapters. Instead I relied on the sources I'd already found:

• The Treason Act 1361 and Blackstone's Commentary on it
• an article about the indictment of Anne Boleyn, including the results of the Grand Jury of Middlesex (part of a whole website on Anne, for those interested in her)
• a question-and-answer blog which raised the question but failed to consider the Treason Act

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

TJ, I enjoyed your current episode about trial by combat. Fascinating history.

 

[The Judge]

In the light of the pending celebrations in the UK, for this month's Chronscast, details here, Episode 17 - Coronation Special! Titus Groan with Toby Frost I talked about English and British coronations.

Since I was dealing with the legal aspects of the ceremony I focussed on the Coronation Oath and the Accession Oath, and my main sources for these, which I shamelessly copied, came from or via the House of Commons Library:

• Changes to the Coronation Oath by Dr David Torrance -- a clear account of the Oath from the 1688 Act onwards
• The Coronation: History and Ceremonial again by Dr Torrance -- that page is only a brief intro, but it links to a pdf, which is again very clear and well-written, but as might be expected from the title with more emphasis on the history and pageantry
• The Coronation Act 1688 itself

For those with the Latin, and the patience to go through some pretty abtruse discussions (neither of which I had...) there are a couple of articles about the Coronation Oath at JSTOR -- The English Coronation Oath and The Coronation in Medieval England: the Evolution of the Office and the Oath both by HG Richardson.

The British Library has a copy of the original Old English Coronation Oath (fortunately for my linguistic skills, with a paraphrased translation).

I also had a link to the 1567 and 1689 Scottish Coronation Oaths, but the liquisearch.com link appears to be broken now -- if anyone wants the wording, I copied and pasted them for my own use and I'm happy to pass them on; meanwhile here's a link for the Scottish Oath the King swore back in September, on his accession.

 

[sknox]

The history of coronation ceremonies is way more interesting than you probably would imagine. I came to it from France and the Holy Roman Empire. It all turns on exactly when a king becomes the ruler, and what happens legally between the time the old king dies and the new king becomes legally the king. That took quite a long time to sort out. It's easy to dismiss it all as fluff (which it pretty much is in modern times), but some very serious issues attended the matter of succession and coronation in older times.

Someone should write a story that takes place in that interim between old monarch and new monarch.

 

[The Judge]

I mentioned that in this talk, as well as in the one on the monarchy last year, the new reign only beginning at the coronation. It changed in England in 1272, when Edward I was declared king while he was still abroad, only a few days after Henry III's death, though I never did find out how they managed the legalities of it, or, indeed, if they simply ignored the legal issues.

One thing that has puzzled me on this subject in England is the coronation of Henry the Young King, while Henry II was still alive. I recall reading that this crowning of the heir was common among the Capetian kings, so was this an attempt by the French to deal with the problem of the post-death interregnum, conferring immediate authority on the heir? Or was it simply done to confirm the succession?

 

[paranoid marvin]

The Plantagenet/Angevins were an irascible lot, and it wasn't long after his crowning that the Young King took up arms against his father; as did his other children, and not for the last time. Whatever reason he had for doing it was more than likely to annoy someone than for the benefit of his son or the country.

It's not inconceivable that the King had his eldest son the Young King crowned to dissuade his younger son Richard (later Richard I) whom (supposedly) he didn't get on with, and who was (also supposedly) the Queen's favourite, from attempting to usurp the Young King's position as heir apparent. Richard would now have two kings to contend with if he wanted to gain the throne.

 

[sknox]

It was an evolution (the audience may now say, "well, duh"). I'm not sure it was always a crowning; the key act was to have the greater nobles swear to recognize the son as successor. Exactly why this was done can't be documented, but my own supposition is that the legal angle didn't really get explored until the 12thc or so, when we get that convergence of legal documents recovered (e.g., Code of Justinian) plus the rise of universities. Then the succession difficulties of the 14thc really made clear the need for both a legal framework and codified ceremonies. Ernst Kantorowicz wrote about the issue with regard to the Empire. I can't recall the main historian on the French side. The Imperial side is fun because the emperor held multiple titles in places with varying traditions. The Church helped here, in that I don't know of any succession that was considered valid without it included the ceremony of anointing.

Now I think about it, I don't know of a literature that looked at non-royal succession. Naturally a count (let's keep it simple) isn't really succeeded until the king or emperor confirms the successor, but what happens with the apparatus of government in between? What's the status of taxes collected (or owed, or disputed)? What happens to in-progress court cases? Or an in-progress war with its attendant peace negotiations? And so on. We know it was an issue over on the clerical side, for there are many instances of vacant sees that struggled with exactly these problems.

Government has always been complicated.

 

[The Judge]

For June's Chronscast I followed up April's talk on trial by combat with an overall look at criminal trials in early Medieval England, including the other trials by ordeal and by compurgation, details of the podcast here Episode 18 - Watership Down with RJ Barker

Basic sources, with short easy-to-read overviews of the issue are here:

• The History of Law Blog: Oaths and Ordeals by Tessa Shepperson
• Trial by Combat? Trial by Cake! by Amelia Soth for the JSTOR newsletter which has some useful links
• and one from the BBC which arose from a debate at the University of St Andrews in 2019: Trial by Ordeal: When fire and water determined guilt

Some more detailed reviews, all at JSTOR:

• dealing with the situation pre-Conquest A Sketch of the Early Development of English Criminal Law as Displayed in Anglo-Saxon Law by Hampton L Carson
• Cold Water and Hot Iron: Trial by Ordeal in England by Margaret Kerr, Richard Forsyth and Michael Plyley -- alongside a wealth of interesting facts and information, this posits the rather counterintuitive idea that behind the use of ordeal (at least between the Assize of Clarendon in 1166 and the Lateran Council of 1215) was a wish to be merciful, to spare lives
• The Ordeal in Iceland by William Ian Miller -- very detailed, and I didn't find it the easiest of reads, but those interested in the sagas will perhaps get more out of it, and it was here I found the story about the pregnant young woman having to undertake trial by ordeal to confirm the identity of the father

And a separate look at the ordeal by water, particularly as it relates to the persecution of those alleged to be witches Sink or Swim: The Swimming Test in English Witchcraft by Veena Patel for Epoch magazine