Exploring history 1400–1900: An anthology of primary sources

List of illustrations

1.1 The King in Parliament. The Royal Collection © 2005, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

1.2 Jacques Coeur’s hotel. From François Guizot, History of France from the Earliest Times, trans. R. Black, 6 vols., Boston, D. Estes & C.E. Lauriat, 1880, vol. III, p. 169. Reprinted with the permission of the British Library.

1.3 Ducal hat. From Hugo van der Velden, The Donor’s Image, Turnhout, Brepols, 2000, Burgundica II, fig. 34, p. 56. Reproduced with the permission of the Austrian National Library, picture archives, Vienna: Cod. 8614, fol. 8r.

1.4 Holy Week confession. From Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400–1580, Yale UP, 1992, plate 19, by permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library.

2.1 True vs. False Church. From Geisberg’s Einblattholzschnitt, reference CEA 5075.

2.2 Portrait of Mathis Pfarrer (1489–1568). From the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

2.3 Coronation of Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon. From Stephen Hawes, A Joyfull Medytacyon, 1509, London, by permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library.

2.4 The Church of Christ. From the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

3.1 Charles I on trial in Westminster Hall. From Pauline Gregg, King Charles I, London, J.M. Dent, 1981; plate 18. Reprinted with the permission of The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, shelfmark MO5.E12105.

3.2 Parliamentarian soldiers breaking down Laudian altar rails. From John Vicars, A Sight of the Transactions of these Latter Years Emblemised with Engraven Plates which Men may Read without Spectacles, London, 1646, p. 7. Reprinted with the permission of the British Library.

3.3 Great Chalfield Manor. Courtesy of Craig Thornber, Macclesfield.

3.4 Plan of Londonderry, 1689. From George Walker, A True Account of the Siege of London-derry, Edinburgh, 1689. Reprinted with the permission of The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, shelfmark C 9.6(1) Linc.

4.1 ‘Am I not a man and a brother?’ Wedgwood jasper medallion decorated with a slave in chains and inscribed with ‘Am I not a Man and a Brother’, 1790s (ceramic) © Wilberforce House, Hull City Museums and Art Galleries, UK / The Bridgeman Art Library.

4.2 Toussaint Breda (L’Ouverture). Portrait of Toussaint L’Ouverture (1743–1803) from the ‘Universal History of the 19th Century’ engraved by Joseph Julien Guillaume Dulompre (b. 1789) (engraving) (b/w photo), Duc (eighteenth century) (after) / Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, France, Giraudon / The Bridgeman Art Library.

4.3 Plan of a slaver’s ship. The Slave Ship ‘Brookes’, publ. by James Phillips, London, c. 1800 (wood engraving and letterpress), English School (nineteenth century) / Private Collection, © Michael Graham-Stewart / The Bridgeman Art Library.

5.1 Sovereignty of the People. ‘Vox Populi, or, A Bully that must be put down’. Cartoon by Matt Morgan in The Tomahawk, 7 December, 1867. Credit line: Mary Evans Picture Library.

5.2 Westgate Hotel, Chartist riot, 1839. Chartists Attack on the Westgate Hotel, Newport, November 4th 1840, 1893 (litho), Mullock, James Flewitt (1818–92) / © Newport Museum and Art Gallery, South Wales / The Bridgeman Art Library.

5.3 ‘La Republique Triomphante’. Document conservé au Centre historique des Archives nationales, Paris: AE/11/3584.

6.1 ‘The Rhodes Colossus’. Cecil Rhodes Statesman, financier, imperialist. Caricatured as a colossus bestriding Africa. Cartoon by Linley Sambourne in Punch, 10 December 1892. Credit line: Mary Evans Picture Library.

6.2 ‘Whites visiting a Congolese village’. René Schoentjes, ‘Schéma d’une ville congolaise’, Bulletin des Séances, Royal Belgian Colonial Institute, Brussels 1993 © Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium.

6.3 ‘Carving up China’ (‘Le Gâteau des Rois’). The Royal Cake or The Western Empires sharing China between them. L-R: Queen Victoria (1837–1901), Kaiser Wilhelm II (1859–1941), Tsar Nicholas II (1868–1941), Marianne (the common persanification of the French Republic) and Mutsuhito (1852–1912), Emperor of Japan, from ‘Le Petit Journal’, 16th January 1890, French School (nineteenth century) / Private Collection, Archives Charmet / The Bridgeman Art Library.

Acknowledgements

The editor and publisher would like to thank all the academic and support staff of the A200 Course Team for their contribution to Exploring History.

The editor and publisher would also like to thank the following for permission to publish the enclosed documents: The Bourgeois of Paris (1968) Journal of a Citizen of Paris, ed. & trans. J. Shirley, Oxford: Clarendon Press, reprinted with the permission of the translator. R. Vaughan ([1973] 2002), Charles the Bold, with an introduction by W. Paravicini, 2nd edn., Woodbridge: Boydell, reprinted with the permission of the publisher. S. Dünnebeil (2002–3) Die Protokollbucher des Ordens vom Goldenen Vlies, Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 2 vols., vol. 1, reprinted with the permission of the publisher. N. Davis (ed.) (1999) The Paston Letters: A Selection in Modern Spelling, Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks, reprinted with the permission of the publisher. S. McSheffrey & N. Tanner (eds) (2003) Lollards of Coventry, 1486–1522, Camden 5th Series, vol. 23, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Royal Historical Society, reprinted with the permission of the Royal Historical Society and Cambridge University Press. Clive Burgess (ed.) (1995) The Pre-reformation records of All Saints Bristol, Part 1, Bristol Record Society Publications, Vol. 46, Bristol, Bristol Record Society, reprinted with the permission of the Bristol Record Society. Erasmus of Rotterdam (1971) Praise of Folly and Letter to Martin Dorp, 1515, trans. B. Radice, introd. & notes A.H.T. Levi, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Translation copyright © Betty Radice, 1971. Introduction © A.H.T. Levi, 1971. Reproduced by permission of Penguin Books Ltd. C.M. Jacobs & J. Atkinson (trans.) ‘To the Christian Nobility Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate’ reprinted from in H.T. Lehmann (ed.) Luther’s Works, vol. 44, copyright © 1966, The Christian Society, Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Used by permission of Augsburg Fortress. C. Lindberg (ed.) (2000) The European Reformation Sourcebook, Oxford: Blackwell, reprinted with the permission of the publisher. T. Scott & B. Scribner (eds. & trans.) (1991) The German Peasants’ War: A History in Documents, New Jersey: Humanities Press International, Amherst, NY, Humanity Books. Copyright © 1991 by Tom Scott and Bob Scribner. Reprinted with permission of the publisher, Prometheus Books. A. Duke, G. Lewis & A. Pettigree (eds.) (1992) Calvinism in Europe, 1540–1610: A collection of documents, Manchester: Manchester University Press, reprinted with the permission of the publisher. G.R. Elton (ed.) (1960) The Tudor Constitution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, © Cambridge University Press, reproduced with permission from the publisher and the Royal Historical Society. Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales MS 4919D; extracts published in R. O’Day & J. Berrlatsky (eds.) (1979) Camden Miscellany XXVII, London: Royal Historical Society, reproduced with the permission of the Royal Historical Society. E. Donnan (ed.) (1931) From Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America, Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institute, reprinted with the permission of the publisher. A. Smith ([1776] 1991) The Wealth of Nations, ed. & introd. D.D. Raphael, Everyman’s Library Classics, London: Everyman, JM Dent, a division of The Orion Publishing Group, reprinted with their permission. J. Breuilly (2002) Austria, Prussia and Germany 1806–1871, London: Longman, reprinted with the permission of the publisher. C. Emsley (2003) Napoleon: Conquest, Reform and Reorganisation, Harlow: Longman, reprinted with the permission of the publisher. M. Traugott (ed.) (1933) The French Worker: Autobiographies from the Early Industrial Era, Berkeley: University of California Press, reprinted with the permission of the publisher. D. Moon (2002) The Abolition of Serfdom in Russia, 1762–1907, London: Longman, reprinted with the permission of the publisher. E. Renan (1996) Qu’est ce qu’une nation/What is a nation?, introd. C. Taylor; trans. W.R. Taylor, Toronto: Tapir Press, reprinted with the permission of the publisher and translator. C. Hayes (1930) France – A Nation of Patriots, New York: Columbia University Press, reprinted with the permission of the publisher. J. Michelet ([1847–53] 1967) History of the French Revolution, trans. Charles Cocks, 7 vols., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, reprinted with the permission of the publisher. J.A. Hobson ([1902] 1988) Imperialism: A Study, 3rd edn., introd. J. Townshend, London: Unwin Hyman. Reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis Books UK. Harlow & M. Carter (eds.) (2003) Archives of Empire. Vol. II: The Scramble for Africa, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, © Duke University Press, 2003, reprinted with the permission of the publisher.

All attempts have been made to trace the correct copyright holders of the enclosed documents. Please do not hesitate to contact the publisher with any queries you have regarding the permissions and copyright of the documents.

General introduction

This Anthology has been designed and produced as a set book for the Open University course A200, Exploring History: Medieval to Modern, 1400–1900. Documents and texts have been chosen and presented primarily with the demands of this course and its assessment in mind. However, we hope that the documents will have a wider use, as sources that illuminate the development of the institutions and mentalities of western Europe and its global outlook during the five centuries covered by the Anthology. This collection will allow readers to engage in a personal and very accessible way with the past and its peoples, and to develop historical skills in the use and assessment of primary source evidence.

Providing a solid introduction to historical study through presentation of a varied collection of sources covering a wide chronological span is, then, the key aim of this Anthology. Documents have been included that were written by people who directed the events of nation states and by those affected by those decisions; by people conforming to the mores of their society and by people rejecting them. There are documents on life at court, in towns and on plantations, on gentry and on peasant life, on the experiences and opinions of men and of women. The aim is to provide a sense of cohesion between the different periods, places and subject matters covered in the six chapters by identifying three underlying historical themes and enabling readers, if they choose, to track developments in any one theme across a full five centuries. This Anthology, then, functions as a coherent collection for either political or religious/ideological or socio-economic history, as well as a means of examining six case study topics in depth.

Primary source materials have become generally more readily available than in the past, with the digitisation of printed collections such as Early English Books Online, Eighteenth Century Collections Online and the publishing on the internet of, for instance, archive newspapers and document extracts. However, for students at the beginning of their historical careers, these still can be difficult to work with, given hard-to-decipher handwriting or typefaces, and the fact that they are sometimes unpaginated, and with unfamiliar spellings, names and terminology that are never explained. Any historical account depends on the contemporary sources, so it is vital that students get the opportunity to read them for themselves. We made a conscious decision as a Course Team, therefore, to devote almost half of the Anthology to Chapters 1 and 2, and material prior to the year 1600, which remains the least accessible elsewhere, both in terms of ease of use and in the quantities of material published.

A great many of the documents and source extracts are published here in an accessible format for students and general readers for the first time. The majority of documents from Chapter 1 and a fair proportion of those from Chapters 2, 5 and 6 have been translated into English specifically for this Anthology by authors of the chapters or Open University translators. Several documents have been transcribed from the original manuscripts; these, and extracts from a number of sixteenth and seventeenth-century publications, have been edited into modern English and punctuated for comprehension by chapter authors.

Each chapter of the Anthology begins with a short introduction written by one or two of the members of the Course Team responsible for selecting the documents and texts of that chapter. These chapter introductions present the particular demands of the historical topic concerned, describe the kinds of documents selected for the chapter, and discuss how they relate to the three underlying themes of the Anthology as a collection. In addition to chapter introductions, each document commences with a head note, providing some background information on its creation and historical context, and is annotated as appropriate with definitions, explanation or commentary through glossing and footnoting. Where a document has been edited or extracted, omissions are marked with ellipses for short cuts and ellipses in square brackets for cuts of several sentences or more.

The choice of documents

Documents are selected to illuminate the six historical periods which we have chosen as case studies to mark the transition from medieval to modern society in Europe and the North Atlantic world, one of which forms the basis for each chapter. Within the six historical periods we have given prominence to three themes. Two further criteria have informed the selection of documents: to provide examples of a range of written sources, and to give readers the opportunity of working with many distinct kinds of evidence from both public and private spheres. Different types of sources have different potential uses, and historians therefore learn to read each of them in different ways in order to understand what individual documents are saying and, sometimes, what they are not saying.

The historical periods

The six chapters of this Anthology correspond to six blocks of A200 course material, chosen because each embodies significant features of western European history and of the influence of western Europe on the Atlantic world of the eighteenth century and of the European empires of the nineteenth century, and through which we may mark the transition from medieval to modern society. Chapters address:

1. France, Burgundy and England in the Fifteenth century;

2. The European Reformation, 1500–1600 (including the English Reformation);

3. The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, 1640–90, examining the British Isles during the period of the civil wars;

4. Slavery and Freedom, relating to trans-Atlantic slavery and the emancipation movements, c. 1760–1840;

5. Creating Nations, 1789–1871, providing a sweep of Europe in a time of revolutionary change;

6. Nations and Empire, 1870–1914, focusing on European expansion into Africa.

The themes

Three themes have been highlighted to give a sense of coherence and to measure change across the six diverse historical periods:

(i) state formation

(ii) beliefs and ideologies

(iii) consumers and producers.

Individual chapters address the themes with differing levels of emphasis, dependent of the topic and subject matter that they are addressing. For instance, Chapter 2 on the Reformation in Europe is primarily concerned with the challenge to longstanding religious structures and practices posed by Protestant evangelicalism and includes many documents and texts discussing beliefs and ideologies. However, the creation of the Dutch Republic after a revolt against their Catholic king, Philip II of Spain, demonstrates that faith and state formation were inextricably linked in this period – as does the gradual Reformation in England. Connections between beliefs and ideologies and producers and consumers are explored in Chapter 4 in documents examining the slave economy, whilst the case study of Dundee in Chapter 6 discusses the relationship between state formation and producers and consumers in the economics of empire. In each chapter, though, documents can be found on all three themes, from the conspicuous and highly political consumption at the Burgundian court in Chapter 1, to the importance of confessional differences in the breakdown of the relationship between king and people in the three kingdoms of the British Isles in Chapter 3, to the use of historical writing in nation building and state development in Chapter 5.

Studying historical documents

Whatever period of history is being studied, certain basic questions need to be asked of any primary source. Readers will want to consider questions of:

(i) creation or authorship – who wrote the document, and why?;

(ii) circumstance – when was the document written and on what basis (as an eye-witness, from gathered evidence or from hearsay)?

(iii) the nature of the evidence – does it offer fact or interpretation? What is the source’s intent, the value judgements that it presents or that we bring to it, its credibility, reliability and objectivity compared with other sources that we have of the period?

(iv) purpose – what type of source is it, and whom was its intended audience?

In this Anthology, information about the authorship and contextual circumstance of each document – the basic knowledge of names and dates – usually can be found in the title or head note. Answers to the other two sets of questions might be discovered only after careful reading of the document itself, and hence merit some additional reflection here.

A common distinction used by historians in looking at the primary evidence of the past is to ask whether it was created for public or private purposes, whether it was intended to be read by or in the domain of large numbers of people, or was generated for personal reflection or for the use of certain specified persons. This is not because one type of document invariably is more reliable than another. Governments and individuals equally can mislead, deliberately (by recording some pieces of evidence and events but not others to suit their own purposes), or innocently (through a sincere belief that something was true when, in fact, it was not). Similarly, it does not necessarily follow that documents produced by and for private individuals are less ‘neutral’ than official papers produced in the public domain and circulated widely. Extracts from King Henry VIII’s Act in Restraint of Appeals to Rome (document 2.13) and the Napoleonic Code (document 5.3) both demonstrate that partiality can enter the most formal of state documentation. These two documents also remind us of the need to separate aspiration from reality. Just because laws were imposed does not mean that people followed them, so we need to ensure not to take prescriptive evidence as the full facts, but to seek out descriptive evidence to test the actual result. A good example of how to do this is provided by Episcopal reports of the 1630s (documents 3.5(a) to (d)), when bishops or their agents inspected parishes in their dioceses to see whether the clergy and parishioners of each church were following prescribed standards and practices laid down by the governing body of the Church of England. These documents tell us what people should have been doing, from the questions they were asked, and what they actually were doing, from their answers.

The distinction between public and private evidence can appear more blurred in the medieval and early modern periods when, with less of a permanent civil-service framework, ministers of state frequently regarded their official papers as personal property. We should also take into account the tone and purpose of official correspondences intended originally as confidential and private that were deposited as public records. The letters of Major-General Thomas Kelsey (documents 3.19(a) and (b)) and General Leclerc (document 4.7) are good examples of primary sources that seem to be both public and private evidence, written in a public (official) capacity but for a limited (private) audience. Amongst the documents reproduced in this Anthology, however, incontestably public documents are proceedings of courts of law (the trial of the Coventry Lollards in 1511–12 before an ecclesiastical court (document 1.28), for instance), of state assemblies (decrees of the French Provincial government (document 5.17)), and speeches by heads of state and public figures (speeches of Leopold II, king of the Belgians (documents 6.12(a) and (b)). Sources such as the diaries of Isabella and Roger Twysden (documents 3.16(a) and (b)) and personal letters between members of the Stonor family (documents 1.25(a) to (e)) clearly are private evidence.

Several categories of evidence and kinds of document have already been mentioned – legal proceedings, Acts of Parliament, official ‘public’ letters, family ‘private’ letters, and diaries. A further distinction for historians to make when considering different types of evidence is between documents of record and discursive sources. A document of record is one that, in itself, proves that an event took place – it embodies the event or, even, is it. Prime examples are the Treaty of Troyes between England and France (document 1.2) and the Scottish National Covenant (document 3.6). Discursive sources – somebody’s description of an event or a discussion of its merits, faults or consequences – also have a place in enabling historians to build up a fuller picture. Accounts of the Weavers’ Rising in Silesia (document 5.11) or the British acquisition of Egypt (document 6.4) are good examples of this kind of primary source, and both also illustrate the importance of knowing about and taking into account the attitude of the document’s creator to events that he or she is describing. Questions of bias (positive or negative) or objectivity are important in all kinds of texts, particularly those produced with an expectation of reaching a large audience, such as popular ballads (document 5.8(b)), historical chronicles (document 1.4(b)), newspapers (documents 3.11(a) to (c)), academic publishing (document 6.1), religious treatises (document 2.2), political pamphleteering (document 4.9) or published memoirs (documents 6.16(a) to (c)).

This leads discussion neatly onto questions about the nature of evidence, and how it is used by historians in their work. It is a rare primary source that can be used totally in isolation, without a considerable understanding of its context – the historical events of the time that it is describing and in which it is being written, but also the society and cultural mores surrounding the source’s creator, and what he or she is intending to communicate thorough it. Certainly when a source is describing events which were contentious or might encourage a partisan account, it is important, if possible, to weigh it up against others of the same period. For instance, one might compare the opinions of the Bourgeois of Paris (document 1.1) and Thomas Basin (document 1.4(a)) on whom was most to blame for the violence and instability in fifteenth-century France. Similarly, the fact that both John Rushworth (document 3.1) and John Nalson (document 3.2) state such strong opinions in the preface to their histories of the civil wars might cause a modern reader to question, at least in part, the credibility of both.

It is not always the veracity of documents and texts that is important – in some cases, historians might never prove whether or not they are accurate or reliable – but the use to which the individual historian puts them. A good example of this is the selection of extracts from nineteenth-century French schoolbooks reproduced in this Anthology (documents 5.24(a), (b) and (c)) which, arguably, do not present a wholly truthful historical account of French history, but are important sources of how the government of the Third Republic would like to imagine France’s past and, therefore, how the government regarded her present and future. What primary sources do not say, therefore, can sometimes be as important for historians to know as what they do say. For instance, the brief mention of Calcutta in the extract from the report of the British Tariff Commission (document 6.6) does not really communicate the nature and extent of the perceived threat from the subcontinent to Dundee textile merchants. Equally, the absence of previously common rituals from the 1552 edition of the Book of Common Prayer (document 2.22(b)) suggests to historians that the Anglican Church was becoming increasingly removed from Catholic practice.

The example of the prayer book also serves as a reminder that historians commonly use texts and documents for purposes other than those for which they were originally intended. This might be in terms of philosophy, such as John Matthews’ letters (document 4.2), which present almost an apologist case for the slave trade but tend to be used by historians to argue the complete opposite, or in terms of purpose. A good example is the use made in this Anthology of the accounts and inventories of late medieval churchwardens (documents 1.30(a) to (d)) to glean information about the involvement of ordinary parishioners in the upkeep and supply of their local church. Statistical records can appear quite complicated, but provide historians with a wealth of information, such as, to take another example, the accounts of the Parliamentarian garrison at Great Chalfield (document 3.15), so it is worth taking the time to gain confidence in using them – or even in creating them from raw data. Statistics do not always appear in neat tables or accounts sheets in primary sources: sometimes information occurs in narrative form from which the historian themselves has to extract the data, put it into a table and compile results to draw a conclusion on the evidence, such as in document 6.8.

A final general point to consider on the nature of primary source evidence is the question of presupposition, and what twenty-first-century values and preconceptions a modern reader might bring to bear on a document. In the same way that there is rarely a neutral document, historians cannot be expected to be completely neutral either: our own life experiences, values and beliefs are likely to be brought to what we read and study. The important thing is not to try to suppress this or pretend that subjectivity does not exist, but to be aware of it when approaching a document emanating from a society with, potentially, very different social norms and prejudices, and to take into account that such a disparity may influence the way in which one is able to use and interpret the source. Material in Chapter 4 provides several examples towards which readers need to bear in mind that what is now abhorrent was once considered acceptable, with a good example being Edward Long’s History of Jamaica (document 4.1) in which he argues that black Africans were fit only for slavery. However, this Anthology also includes examples of nineteenth-century colonial aggressive ‘paternalism’ (document 6.18(c)) and seventeenth-century anti-Irish prejudice (document 3.8) around which modern readers need to be prepared to work when using these sources in order to broaden their understanding of periods in history separated from today’s society by more than mere time.

Note on dates and money

Dates

In the later Middle Ages, the first day of a new calendar year was most commonly taken as 25 March, the Feast Day of the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary, technically Christ’s first appearance in the world with the announcement of his conception. With the introduction of a new calendar by Pope Gregory XIII (the Gregorian calendar in use in the West today) in 1582, miscalculations between solar years and calendar years were corrected by skipping ten days, and the first day of the year was set at 1 January. However, states adopted the Gregorian calendar in a piecemeal fashion, broadly speaking, with Catholic states doing so in the sixteenth century, Protestant states gradually over the eighteenth century (with England not doing so until 1752), and Greek and Russian Orthodox states not until the twentieth century. Therefore, for documents created between 1582 and the late eighteenth century, dates occurring between 1 January and 25 March may be expressed in the form 1560/1 or 1732/3. For documents using the French Revolutionary calendar (Chapters 4 and 5), the date in modern Gregorian calendar reckoning is provided as part of the annotation.

Money

Prior to the nineteenth century, the majority of European states used Roman methods of accountancy. Sums of money were recorded as pounds, shillings and pence (£, s, d). Documents 1.30 and 3.15 are good examples of record-keeping under such a system, with 12d to a shilling and 20s to the pound, even if there was not, at that point, any £1 or one shilling coinage in circulation. The actual coins minted in each country had their own names, as was the case in the United Kingdom prior to ‘decimal day’ in 1971, and, where any specific coins are mentioned in the text, they have been footnoted.

* * *

Production of this Anthology has been very much a team effort, and thanks are due to a great number of people. First and foremost, to the A200 Course Team for searching out such a wide and thought-provoking selection of sources, and responding swiftly to any additional demands of mine – in chronological chapter order, Kathleen Daly, Rosemary O’Day, Ole Peter Grell, Anne Laurence, Bernard Waites, Clive Emsley, Paul Lawrence, Donna Loftus, Robin Mackie and Annika Mombauer. For assisting with translating work, we would all like to thank Dario Tessicini, Susanne Meurer, Fabienne Evans, Tim Benton and John Breuilly. Margrit Bass in the Open University’s Co-Publishing unit has been invaluable as a point of liaison between production and publication, and the support provided by both her and Alison Welsby and her team at Manchester University Press has been much appreciated. From the Course Management Team of A200, Jackie Rossi and Marion Wildey have been efficient and cheerful in provision of administrative and secretarial support, whilst my greatest debt of thanks is to Roberta Wood, for her expertise and endless patience in the tasks of copy editing and assisting me with the collection of material and preparation of the final manuscript.

Rachel C. Gibbons

Chapter 1

England, France and Burgundy in the fifteenth century

Introduction

Historians of Europe in the later Middle Ages use a wide variety of sources, ranging from the visual, such as paintings, stained glass, illuminated manuscripts and both ecclesiastical and secular architecture, to the written, both official and unofficial. The documents in this chapter have been chosen to give some flavour of the range of written sources available to the historian of fifteenth-century Burgundy, France and England. The choice of documents has been further informed by the themes of state formation; beliefs and ideologies; and producers and consumers.

Prominent in the collection are documents pertaining to state formation and the political crisis in France, c. 1415–61. These sources range from the Treaty of Troyes of 1420 (document 1.2), designed to repair the ‘great and irreparable evils’ caused by the dissensions between England and France, through a contemporary description of the jubilant entry of King Henry VI into Paris in 1431 (1.3), and several documents concerning English rule in Normandy, to a further group dealing with French resistance to this situation.

The nature of the Burgundian state, c. 1440–70, forms the basis of a further group of documents. The Treaty of Arras in 1435 (1.12) indicates the nature of the official relationship between the duke of Burgundy and the French king. Other documents supply descriptions of the Burgundian court and the household, which imply the development of Burgundy as an independent state. Especially illuminating are the writings of Georges Chastelain, and the statutes of the Order of the Golden Fleece.

1.1 Depiction of the State Opening of Parliament, 1523, by Henry VIII, in a ceremony unchanged since medieval times. Seated on the left of the picture are the clergy (Wolsey under the red cardinal’s hat), to the centre and right, the Lords and, standing, behind the king’s dais, are members of the Commons.

The writings of the lawyer Sir John Fortescue, the premier fifteenth-century English political theorist, are represented here by 1.22. They provide a penetrating contemporary diagnosis of the nature of the English crisis in government. Considerable runs of English family correspondence (as opposed to stray letters) survive for the first time in the fifteenth century. Extracts from the Paston and Stonor correspondence (1.24 and 1.25) throw some light on the society of hierarchy and deference. Indentures of life service (1.23) and descriptions of dining and seating arrangements at the funeral of Thomas Stonor (1.27) further illuminate divisions within society and relationships between lords, clergy and servants. The Stonor and Paston letters also indicate the variable effect that the Wars of the Roses had upon gentry families.

The collection concludes with a group of documents relating to beliefs and ideologies current in fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Catholic Europe. These include a contemporary creed (statement of belief) in 1.26. Churchwardens’ accounts and inventories of church goods provide evidence of styles of worship and of community involvement in the life of the church (1.30). Depositions from the Coventry Lollards may be used to indicate their beliefs but also suggest the socio-economic reach and vigour of this heretical movement in the English Midlands prior to the Reformations (1.28 and 1.29).

Rosemary O’Day

1.1 The Armagnac-Burgundian dispute (Journal of a Citizen of Paris)

The Bourgeois of Paris (1968) Journal of a Citizen of Paris, ed. & trans. J. Shirley, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 146–7.

This work is a major source on events in Paris between 1405 and 1449. The anonymous author was probably a cleric, shown by his interest in ecclesiastical affairs, church processions and his grasp of the complex calendar of feasts in the liturgical year. A few references in the text suggest that he may have been a member of the University of Paris, with connections to the cathedral chapter of Notre-Dame, but the evidence is inconclusive. In this extract, the author gives his views on the impact on France of the conflict between the Armagnacs and Burgundians, the rival factions that were competing to control royal government.

[1419] … I do not think that anyone, not the most brilliant, could enumerate all the unhappy, appalling, monstrous and damnable sins that have been committed since the disastrous and damnable appearance in France of Bernard, Count of Armagnac, Constable of France [1360–1418]. Ever since France first heard the names of ‘Burgundian’ and ‘Armagnac’, every crime that can be thought or spoken of has been done in the kingdom of France, so that innocent blood cries for vengeance before God. It is my sincere opinion that this Count of Armagnac was a devil in the shape of a man, because I cannot see that anyone who belongs to him or who holds by him or who wears his sash¹ ever obeys the law or the Christian faith. On the contrary, they behave towards all those over whom they have power like men who have denied their creator, as is perfectly plain throughout the kingdom of France. I am sure that the King of England [Henry V]² would never have dared to set foot in France in the way of war but for the dissensions which sprang from this unhappy name. Normandy would still have been French, the noble blood of France would not have been spilt nor the lords of the kingdom taken away into exile, nor the battle lost, nor would so many good men have been killed on that dreadful day of Agincourt³ when the king [Charles VI]⁴ lost so many of his true and loyal friends, had it not been for the pride of this wretched name, Armagnac. Alas! Nothing will be left to them of all their wickedness except the guilt. If they do not amend during this poor bodily life they will be for ever damned in great pain and grief, for certainly no one can hide anything from God. He, full of mercy, knows everything, so let no one put his trust in that nor in long life nor any other foolish hope or vainglory. He will indeed render to everyone according to his deserts. Alas, never, I think, since the days of Clovis the first Christian King,⁵ has France been as desolate and divided as it is today. The Dauphin⁶ and his people do nothing day or night but lay waste all his father’s land with fire and sword and the English on the other side do as much harm as Saracens.⁷ (It is better, though, much better, to be captured by the English than by the Dauphin or his people who call themselves the Armagnacs.) And the poor King and Queen have not moved from Troyes since Pontoise was taken,⁸ where they are with their poor retinue like fugitives, exiled by their own child, a dreadful thought for any right-minded person.

Notes

1 To show their political allegiance, supporters of the Armagnac party wore a white sash: their Burgundian opponents wore a St Andrew’s cross (like an X).

2 Henry V (1386/7–1422), king of England (1413–22).

3 The battle of Agincourt took place on 25 October 1415 on Henry V’s first expedition to France. Many leading French nobles were killed, others were taken prisoner by the English. Henry V took Normandy on his second expedition to France, between 1417 and 1419.

4 Charles VI (1368–1422), king of France (1380–1422).

5 Clovis (c. 466–511), king of the Franks, who was converted following a battlefield vision in 496 CE and came to be seen as the first Christian king of France.

6 The future Charles VII (1403–61).

7 That is, Moslems, regarded as mortal enemies of Christendom.

8 Pontoise, a key strategic point between Paris and Rouen, fell to the English at the end of July 1419.

1.2 The Treaty of Troyes, 21 May 1420

E. Cosneau (ed.) (1889) Les Grands Traités de la Guerre de Cent Ans, Paris: Picard, pp. 102–15. Translation from French by Kathleen Daly.

The Treaty marks a major new departure in Anglo-French relations. It was intended to bring peace to the two countries by uniting them under a single ruler. The Treaty maintained the independence of each kingdom. It made provisions for them to keep their separate customs and laws, and for Charles VI, king of France, to keep his throne until his death. However, it was also the outcome of French weakness and Henry V’s military and diplomatic success. It was not accepted south of the Loire, which was largely loyal to Charles VI’s son, the dauphin. These extracts are taken from the French version of the Treaty (the corresponding copy for the English was written in Latin).

Charles by the grace of God, king of France, in perpetual memory. Whereas several notable and divers treaties … have been made in time past between our noble [p]rogenitors of good memory and those of the very noble prince our very dear son Henry king of England, heir of France, and between us and our said son, in order to restore peace and remove dissensions between the kingdoms of France and England, but which have not brought the desired fruit of peace: Let it be known to everyone now and in future, that having considered and weighed in our heart how many great and irreparable evils, what enormities and what a pitiful universal and incurable wound the aforesaid division of the two kingdoms has brought, not just to those kingdoms, but to the whole Church Militant, we have recently made a treaty of peace with our said son Henry once again, which … is concluded and agreed in the following manner.

1. First, because by the marriage alliance, for the good of the said peace, between our said son King Henry and our dear and much loved daughter Katherine, he has become our son and that of our most dear and most beloved wife, the queen, our son will hold and honour us and our said queen like a father and mother, and as such a great prince and princess should be honoured, before all lay persons in the world.

2. Item, that our said son, King Henry, will not disturb or prevent us, as long as we shall live, from holding, as we hold at present, the crown and royal dignity of France and its revenues, fruits and provisions, to support our royal state and the burdens of the kingdom, and that during her lifetime, our wife shall also keep her state and dignity, according to the custom of the kingdom, with an appropriate part of the rents and income.

[…]

6. Item, it is agreed that immediately after our death and from that time forward, the crown and kingdom of France, with all their rights and possessions, will belong forever to our son King Henry and his heirs.

7. Item, as we are frequently prevented from understanding and dealing with the affairs of our kingdom, the power and practice of governing and ordering the government of our kingdom shall be and remain with our said son Henry during our lifetime, with the counsel of noble, wise men obedient to us, who desire the profit and honour of the kingdom, so that from now onwards, he may rule and govern by himself and through others whom he deputes.

[…]

12. Item, that our son will work with all his power, and as soon as he can, to bring into our obedience all and every city, town, castle, place and person in our kingdom that disobeys and rebels against us, following, or being in what is commonly called the dauphin’s or Armagnac’s party.

13. Item, in order for our son to carry out and accomplish these things effectively, surely and freely, it is agreed that the great lords, barons and nobles and the Estates of the kingdom, spiritual and temporal, the cities and major communities, citizens and burgesses in the towns in the kingdom currently obedient to us, will swear the oaths which follow:

First they will humbly obey our son King Henry […] in all things concerning the government of the kingdom.

[…]

Item, that from the time of our death, they will be faithful liege men to our son and his heirs, and will receive our said son for their liege lord and sovereign and true king of France, with no opposition, contradiction or difficulty, and obey him as such, and that after these things, they will never obey another apart from us, except our son Henry and his heirs, as king or regent of the kingdom of France …

14. Item, it is agreed that all and every one of the conquests which will be made by our said son, King Henry, in the kingdom of France outside the duchy of Normandy, against the rebels mentioned above, will be for our profit, and that our said son on his authority will restore all and every land and lordship in the places which are to be conquered to those owners who are currently in our obedience, and who swear to keep this [treaty].

15. Item, it is agreed that every cleric with a benefice in the duchy of Normandy or elsewhere in the kingdom of France, in places subject to our said son, obedient to us and favouring the party of our said very dear and very beloved son the duke of Burgundy, who swear to keep this treaty, will have peaceful enjoyment of their ecclesiastical benefices in the said duchy of Normandy or elsewhere as specified above.

[…]

18. Item, and when our said son King Henry succeeds to the crown of France, the duchy of Normandy and each and every other place conquered by him, will be under the jurisdiction, obedience and monarchy of the said crown of France.

19. Item, it is agreed that our said son King Henry, by his power will strive and see that those who are obedient to us or to the party known as the Burgundians, and to whom various lordships, lands revenues, or possessions in the duchy of Normandy or elsewhere in the kingdom of France, and which have been conquered and given away by our said son King Henry, shall be compensated by us, without diminishing the Crown, in those lands which have been, or will be, taken from the rebels who are disobedient to us. And if within our lifetime these [obedient persons] have not been recompensed, our said son Henry will do this from the lands and possessions [conquered from the rebels] when he succeeds to the crown of France. But if the said lands, lordships, rents or possessions belonging to those [obedient] persons in the said duchy or elsewhere, have not been granted out [to others] by our said son, they shall be restored to those [obedient] persons without delay.

[…]

21. Item, that during our lifetime, our said son, King Henry, will not call himself or write of himself, or cause himself to be called or written of, as King of France, but will abstain from using this title in every point, as long as we live.

22. Item, it is agreed that in our lifetime, we shall name, call and write of our son King Henry, in the French language as ‘Our very dear son Henry, King of England, heir of France’ and in the Latin Language in [the same] manner … [the Latin title is given here].

23. Item, that our said son will not impose or have imposed, any imposition or exaction [tax] on our subjects, without necessity and good reason, nor otherwise than for the good of our kingdom and as ordained and required by the reasonable and approved customs of the kingdom.

24. Item, so that concord, peace and tranquillity may be observed for all time between the kingdoms of France and England … it is agreed that our said son will use his power, with the advice and agreement of the Three Estates of both kingdoms¹ […] so that it shall be agreed that when our said son, or one of his heirs, succeeds to the crown of France, the two crowns of England and France shall be perpetually joined together in the same person, that is to say, in the person of our son, King Henry while he lives, and thereafter in the persons of his heirs who will rule successively one after another, and from the time of our son or one of his heirs the said two kingdoms shall not be governed separately under different Kings, at the same time, but under the same person, who will be King and sovereign lord of one and the other kingdom [i.e. both], as we have said, nonetheless, maintaining in each kingdom its rights, liberties or customs, usages and laws in every other thing, not in any way submitting one kingdom to the other, nor its laws, rights, customs or usages to those of the other [kingdom].

[…]

27. Item, it is agreed that our son King Henry with the advice of our very dear son, Philip, duke of Burgundy,² and other nobles in the kingdom who shall be summoned for this purpose, will provide for the guard of our person, honestly and appropriately, according to the requirements of our status and royal dignity, in such a way that it will honour God and ourself, and the kingdom of France and its subjects; and that all persons, nobles or otherwise, in our personal and domestic service, both in offices and other functions, shall be born in the kingdom of France, or French-speaking areas, and be good, wise, loyal and qualified for such service.

28. Item, that we shall live and reside in an important place in our obedience, and not elsewhere.

29. Item, considering the horrible and enormous crimes carried out in the kingdom of France by Charles, calling himself the dauphin of Viennois, it is agreed that neither we, nor our son King Henry, nor our dear son Philip duke of Burgundy, will negotiate any peace or agreement with the said Charles, nor shall we, without taking counsel and agreeing amongst our three selves, and likewise with the three estates of the two kingdoms.

[…]

Notes

1 In the case of England, this would be the English Parliament (the Lords, including the bishops, and Commons); in the case of France, the Three Estates (nobility, clergy and third estate).

2 Philip was also Charles VI’s son-in-law, through his marriage to the king’s daughter, Michelle (1395–1422).

1.3 Henry VI’s entry into Paris, 2 December 1431

B. Guenée & F. Lehoux (eds.) (1968) Les entrées royales de 1328 à 1515, Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, pp. 62–70. Translation from French by Kathleen Daly.

Royal entry ceremonies provided an opportunity for the king to meet his people. According to this anonymous account of Henry VI’s entry, the procession passed some of the major landmarks of the city, and the principal royal and municipal officials came to greet the king. The themes chosen for the ‘mysteries’ or ‘scenes’ promoted the town’s interests as well as those of the ruler. The ceremony blended religious and political symbolism, but also entertained the onlookers.

The year of Grace 1431, Sunday 2 December, first day of Advent, Henry [VI (1422–71)], by the grace of God king of France and England, came and made his entry into the town of Paris. Son of the late Henry, formerly king of England, during his lifetime heir and regent of France, and of Katherine, daughter of the late Charles of Valois, during his life king of France, VIth of this name, the said Henry being ten years less five days, accompanied by my lord the cardinal of England,¹ my lord the bishop of Thérouanne, chancellor of France² … and numerous other prelates of Holy Church, and by the very great and excellent princes the duke of Bedford his uncle,³ the duke of York⁴, the earl of Warwick,⁵ … and several others, as many from the country of France as from England.

[…]

[The king first made his entry into the town of Saint Denis and the abbey, closely associated with the monarchy as most French kings were buried there, where he was met by civic officials and citizens of Paris. Then on his way to the city, he passed a scene representing the Nine Worthies.⁶ He was then escorted into Paris by groups of royal officers including the Parlement].⁷

And in the fortress of Saint Denis, above the drawbridge, there was a great coat of arms of the said town [of Paris] covering all the façade, on which, as was proper, there was a silver ship so big that there were twelve people in it, divided among the three estates, representing the three estates of the town, who held out three hearts towards the king, which opened when he looked at them; from one came two white doves, from another, flying birds, from another, violets and sweet greenery, as a sign that the hearts of the estates of the town opened with joy at the coming of their prince and lord. And under the coat of arms there was written in very large letters on a tablet:

The estates of this city

Offer you, with one accord

Their hearts, in true humility.

Receive them kindly.

And when the king had entered the town, and he had passed the said fortress, the aforesaid aldermen and clerk of the said town carried above the head of the king a canopy, which was made of a very rich cloth of gold with blue satin drapes covered in gold fleurs de lys; and the lining of that canopy was of fine blue silk cloth, on which was a moon and a gold sun, scattered with gold stars. That canopy was carried by these and other citizens of the town⁸ …

[The king passed a group of wild men and women playing in a wood, with a fountain surmounted by a fleur de lis, with three sirens, the fountain spouts wine and water. He passed a scene of the Nativity of Christ.]

And at the old gate of Saint Denis there was a stage … very richly draped with tapestry, on which there were also real people, showing by their appearance and without moving, three stories from the life of Saint Denis, that is: how he preached the [Christian] faith in France; how he was led before the provost Livius, who had him martyred; and the next how, while he was in prison, Our Lord visited him and gave him his very precious Body.⁹ And over each story there was written in large script on a tablet:

To increase our faith

Saint Denis came from Greece to France,

And wished to announce it by preaching:

Here is the proof.

[…]

If the French kings Most Christian,

Are called to protect the faith,

Protect it, young king,

As the kings of old have done.

[The king passed members of the clergy from local churches, holding crosses, holy water and reliquaries; at the church of the Holy Sepulchre, the relic of the arm of Saint George is brought out for the young king Henry to kiss.]

At the fountain of the Holy Innocents, there was a wood, with hunters and dogs; and when the king arrived there, they began to blow their horns, and the dogs began to yelp; and then a stag leapt out, running across the street towards the king, with the dogs following; and then [it] went back into the wood and was taken.

By the Châtelet in Paris,¹⁰ there were high platforms, very finely decorated and draped with rich tapestry, and there was a child, representing the king, sitting on a faldstool,¹¹ and behind and above him was a dais and backcloth of satin with the arms of France and England, and at each side of him were two shields, on the right, the arms of France, and on the left, the arms of England. And above them, two crowns in the air, and on the right were figures representing my lord the duke of Burgundy,¹² [his cousins] the counts of Nevers and Rethel, the bishop of Thérouanne, chancellor of France, my lord John of Luxembourg and several other important [Burgundian] lords, in sufficient numbers for the place; and by their stance all were supporting the coat of arms and crown of France. And on the other side were represented images of the duke of Bedford, my lord the cardinal, my lord the duke of York, the earls