|
|
Ryan Renfro
Since the decline of cities, where present, following the Roman era, much of Western Europe was populated by small villages in which a mainly peasant population maintained a meager existence. By the eleventh century, however, people were beginning to form more complex settlements in towns or surrounding castles. Apart from its obvious military role, the medieval castle served in addition as the chief residence for a lord and his household. As time progressed technology improved and the warrior aristocracy began to settle down into a more stable existence, constructing castles to fit their growing wealth and sedimentary life. By the later Middle Ages, Magnates employed a large range of servants not only to live in a manner befitting their social status but in order to display that eminence as a means of furthering their power and prestige as well. Servants benefited reciprocally, receiving in turn compensation ranging from food and shelter or wages to lands and titles.
The lord’s household played a role as one of the primary social and political organizations of the later Middle Ages. Although a degree of urbanization occurred in towns centered around castles or markets, many functions of government took place at nobles’ residences. Medieval magnates were politicians and businessmen in addition to warriors and as a result of the decline of itinerate, or mobile, lordship much of a lord’s work took place at his residence. The size of one’s household was representative of one’s position; thus any man able to take servants did so. The Black Book of Edward IV provides a rough guide to the size of noble households. It suggests: ten for an esquire, sixteen for a knight, twenty-four for a banneret, forty for a baron, eighty for a viscount, 140 for an earl, 200 for a marquis and as many as 240 for a duke.[1] This approaches even the royal household, which in thirteenth-century England was a whopping 400 to 700 strong.[2]
The latter medieval household was so large that it consumed an estimated half of all a lord’s disposable income, with half to two thirds of that going toward food and drink.[3] Why would the medieval magnate maintain a household at such an enormous cost to himself? Could these funds not be better used to raise armies to protect and extend his lordship? Political and territorial gains were not always or even normally won on the battlefield, and to that extent the household was every bit as effective to those ends than a host of soldiers, if not more so. Woolgar writes that the principal function of the household was “to maintain the honour, status, profit and well-being of the lord. Everything was organized to those ends.”[4] Lords employed a large range of servants because it was through their household that they could consolidate their power, impress their peers and superior and enjoy their wealth.
As castle construction evolved from the simple wooden motte and bailey to the great residential fortress palaces of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, nobles began to introduce more and more ceremony into their daily lives as a display of their authority. Household ceremonies ranged from daily mass to ewerers carrying washing bowels around the table following meals to trumpeters- all meant to impress, and display has always played a key role in the political power game. Peasants and lesser nobles saw the lord in his own chapel every morning; his peers heard the trumpets when they were announced to him, sitting by his mounted henchmen. This gave the image of a powerful lord - of a force with which to be reckoned. Lords also stood to gain by granting vassals a place in their households, thus strengthening ties of loyalty and consolidating their power. Furthermore, a lord’s most trusted vassals and advisors provided a lord with council. Although characterized by minimal formal structure, councils were comprised of the greatest household servants, independent landowners and lawyers, not only advising the lord but acting as “executors, trustees, guarantors, ambassadors and so forth.”[5]
The lord could draw the highest members of his household staff to be part of his council because they were of nearly the same status as himself. The Black Prince’s council included the earl of Suffolk, it being an honor and a privilege to serve a greater lord rather than the opposite. Upon entering a lord’s household, a servant would swear loyalty to the lord before the household. Contemporary Robert Grosseteste wrote that servants should be “loyal, diligent, chaste, clean, honest and useful.”[6] Useful they were. Brown writes of the Black Douglases: “It was with the backing of their deputies, keepers, stewards and bailies that the earls exerted influence across the south, both in terms of formal relationships and by maintaining more personal contacts.”[7] One way, besides marriage, to generate such personal contacts is through services. Brown again writes: “The lords and earls of Douglas sought [the knight’s and baron’s] services as councilors, agents and allies in war and politics.”[8] By bringing their vassals into their household service, the barons encouraged loyalty and got to know their vassals and their opinions intimately.
The higher household servants can be divided into two tiers. The first tier was inhabited by the steward, a laymen, at least an esquire in rank for the magnates, who ran the household. He was accompanied by, or sometime was also, the treasurer. The third upper officer was the chamberlain, whose job of running the inner household grew in importance as the lords gradually withdrew from the public life of the rest of the household. These were the most important servants- the ones likely to be rewarded the greatest. The second tier consisted of: the marshals, head of the stables and hunting activities; the butler, supplier of wine and ale; the clerk of the kitchen, in charge of food; and chief clerk of the chapel, whose oversight of religious observation also included the distribution of alms, and the lord’s remaining councilors. Not only did these men provide the management of the lords estate, but they could also expect in some cases handsome rewards for their service, providing the lord with additional local support.
The second group of servants were the menials, those who did the normal, everyday manual labor needed to keep the household in motion. They were organized according to department, e.g. kitchen or stables, and probably received the majority of their orders from the greater servants such as the steward as opposed to the lord himself. Because the household was a miniature community, especially in the cases of greater lords or kings, these servants performed a wide variety of tasks, each essential to the community. Woolgar writes that the three definitive traits of status are “rank, precedence… and the possession of gentility, a quality which characterized a group of ranks.”[9] Although the menials often found themselves at the bottom of all of these categories, it is surprising to find gentle servants performing tasks that would in later times be deemed unfitting for the socially elevated. An example of this is the body service, performed in the houses of great lords by servants of high social status. This includes washing and aid in dressing and in the lavatory.[10] One wonders how this custom could have began in circumstances other than those to shame servants, yet it was still considered prestigious work. In summary, the menials were employed by the lord both to make his home life a comfortable one and to perform day-to-day tasks necessary to the community.
Not all servants, however, were confined to the household. When a lord traveled he often took a traveling household with him, a body of men assembled both to provide protection and comfort to the lord and to impress his hosts as well. Mounted henchmen as well as knight, esquires, and others rode with their traveling lords. Other servants employed by lords were loyal men sent to garrison a castle or, in the case of the Forth Earl of Douglas’ steward, John Livingston, to collect large amounts of money from the lords customers in Edenburgh. Other men were given servants titles but could not have been present to perform all their duties, such as the politically important Sir Thomas Hungerford of Wiltshire, who was steward for both the earl of Salisbury and John of Gaunt. Employed more for his political sway – he was the Speaker of the Commons in 1377 – Sir Thomas displays the willingness of lords to grant positions in exchange for gains not necessarily of an immediate character in order to extent their influence and ties of loyalty.
This servitude was not only good for the lord but for the servant as well. The majority of free or unfree peasants would amputate a healthy limb or two for the chance to work in a lord’s household: it was considered good work. Some were paid in wages, accounting for approximately ten percent of a lord’s income in England, although considerable less in Scotland.[11] Others, known as retainers, were employed for their keep. Others got a mixture of the two: cash when away on business and food, shelter and clothing when at the household. Many servants had hopes of “sindry gratitudis proffitis and pleasouris,” profits meaning anything from a yearly pension to a grant of land. For others servants profits came in an indirect manner. Such is the case with Sir Alexander Stewart of Garlias who made a bond of manrent to John Lord Maxwell on the conditions that John marry his daughter.[12] Although this was probably the exception instead of the norm, one sees a variety of different payments rendered to servants according to their rank and agreement with the lords, most if not all of which are advantageous to both parties involved.
Perhaps the most striking example of the benefits of service, particularly household service, were the Stewarts. Brought to Scotland in 1136 to serve as steward under David I, Malcolm IV and William I, Walter Fitz Alan received lands in and around Renfrewshire in return for his service. In and odd twist of fate the Stewarts later became the ruling family of Scotland and then England. Although this, once again, is the exception, a better view of rewards for service might be gained from examining the records of one of medieval Scotland’s best known magnates, the Forth Earl of Douglas.
The Forth earl was one of the most powerful and influential magnates of medieval Scotland. Brown notes that he took with him one hundred fighting men along with clerks and other servants as he left for France in 1424, suggesting his household was every bit as large as that of a contemporary English magnate.[13] Inheriting an incredible four great provincial lordships and an additional 27 other baronies, the Forth earl possessed land enough to reward his followers.[14] Over half - 45 out of 86 – of his recorded land grants are said to have been in return for service, often “for service done and to be done.”[15] One wonders if Grant includes the earl’s donation to his mistress and her sons by “mutual intercourse”[16] in this figure! At any rate, the earl’s charters rewarded some 33 squires, whom possessed either minor baronies or significant lands, with further possessions.[17] The squires, however, were not the only servants rewarded with land; the clerk and chancellor Alexander Cairng was granted Gilkerscleuch for his service.[18] Others received lands for supporting the earl in war, such as Sir John Swinton and sir William Cranston in his taking of the Earldom of March or Sir William Crawford for his control of Edinburgh castle during the Forth earl’s captivity.[19] Thus a lord’s service meant generous payments in land for an important and loyal servant.
Medieval magnates, in Scotland as in elsewhere, desired to live in comfort in such a way that would impress their peers and vassals. It was to this end that they employed such a range of servants. Reaching its peak in numbers around 1300, the medieval household was one of the primary socio-economic units of medieval society, and their importance in the medieval world is evident in the vast residential structures incorporated into later medieval castles.
Bibliography
Brown, Michael. The Black Douglases. Phantassie, Scotland: Tuckwell Press Ltd, 1998.
Given-Wilson, Chris. The English
Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The Fourteenth-
Century
Political Community. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1987.
Grant, Alexander. “Acts of Lordship: The Records of Archibald, Forth Earl of
Douglas.” Freedom and Authority: Scotland c.1050-c.1650. Terry Brotherstone
and David Ditchburn, ed. Phantassie, Scotland: Tuckwell Press Ltd, 2000. pp 235-274.
Woolgar, Christopher M. The great household in late medieval England. New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999.
Wormald, Jenny. Lords and Men in
Scotland: Bonds of Manrent, 1442-1603.
Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd, 1985.
[1] Given-Wilson, Chris. The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The Fourteenth-Century Political Community, p. 89.
[2] Woolgar, Christopher M. The great household in late medieval England, p. 9.
[3] Given-Wilson, p. 93.
[4] Woolgar, p. 8.
[5] Given-Wilson, p. 98.
[6] Woolgar, p. 31.
[7] Brown, Michael. The Black Douglases, p. 165.
[8] Ibid, p. 175.
[9] Woolgar, pp. 18-19.
[10] Ibid, p. 42.
[11] Wormald, Jenny. Lords and Men in Scotland: Bonds of Manrent, 1442-1603, p. 91.
[12] Ibid, p. 104.
[13] Brown, p. 163.
[14] Grant, Alexander. “Acts of
Lordship: The Records of Archibald, Forth Earl of
Douglas.” P. 236.
[15] Ibid, p. 244.
[16] Ibid, p. 241.
[17] Ibid, p. 251.
[18] Ibid, p. 241.
[19] Woolgar, pp. 239-240.