¹ For excellent general treatments of thirteenth-century Flanders, cf. the various works of Pirenne, Henri, particularly the Histoire de Belgique, I (fifth edition, Brussels, 1929)Google Scholar, and Lestocquoy, J., Les Villes de Flandre et d'ltalie sous le gouvernement des patriciens(Paris, 1952)Google Scholar. The chapters of F. L. Ganshof and Hans Van Werveke in The Cambridge Economic History give a useful general background. The best brief account of this period for Ghent is Werveke, H.Van, Gand: Esquisse d'Histoire Sociale (Brussels, 1946)Google Scholar, and for Bruges Häpke, R., Brügges Entwicklung zum mittelalterlichen Weltmarkt (Berlin, 1908).Google Scholar

² Cf. Nowé, Henri, La Bataille des Eperons d'Or (Brussels, 1945)Google Scholar and the two sketches of Blockmans, Frans: 1302 - Voor en Na (Antwerp, 1943)Google Scholar, and Gent tot omstreeks 1336: De Voorbereiding van een Groote Tijd (Antwerp, 1942).Google Scholar

³ Pirenne, , Histoire de Belgique, I, 299 ff.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Colens, J., 1302. Le Compte Communal de la Ville de Bruges, Mai 1302 à Février 1303 (n. s.) … (Bruges, 1886). Bruges spent 917 £. 13 s. 1 d. during this period for the sustenance of the troops of the Duke of Juliers alone.Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. the summary of the events of this decade by Pirenne, , Histoire de Belgique, II (third edition, Brussels, 1922), ch. 4Google Scholar. Also good, although with a somewhat romanticized view of the rôle of the great towns, is Rogghé, P., Vlaanderen en het zevenjarig beleid van Jacop Van Artevelde (Brussels, 1942)Google Scholar. Admirable summaries can also be found in the Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden. The best modern summary of Artevelde's character and career is that of Hans Van Werveke, Jacques Van Artevelde (Brussels, 1943; Dutch translation Jacob Van Artevelde, The Hague, 1963).

⁶ Werveke, H.Van, “La banlieue primitive des villes flamandes”, Études d'histoire dédiées à la mémoire de Henri Pirenne par ses anciens élèves (Brussels, 1937), p. 401.Google Scholar

⁷ The best general study of early urban topography, expansion, and fortification remains that of Ganshof, F.L., Over Stadsontwikkeling tusschen Loire en Rijn gedurende de Middeleeuwen (second Flemish edition, Brussels, 1944)Google Scholar. For Ghent, cf. Marez, G.Des, Étude sur la propriété foncière dans les Villes du Moyen Āge et spécialement en Flandre (Ghent, 1898), pp. 189 ff.Google Scholar For Ypres, cf. Warnkönig, L.A., Histoire de la Flandre et de ses institutions civiles et politiques jusqu' à l'année 1305 …, V. Translated from the German and revised by Gheldolf, A.E. (Paris, 1864), pp. 100–101, 371–375Google Scholar; cf. also Marez, Des, op. cit., pp. 211–216Google Scholar. For Bruges, cf. deSmet, Joseph, “De evolutie van het Brugse Stadsgebied”, Annales de la Société d'Emulation de Bruges(hereafter cited as ASEB), C, p. 97.Google Scholar

⁸ Egied I. Strubbe, “Van de eerste tot de tweede omwalling van Brugge”, Ibid., C, p. 286, and especially pp. 295–300.

⁹ Pirenne, H., “Documents relatifs à Fhistoire de Flandre pendant la première moitié du XlVe siècle”, Bulletin de la Commission Royale d'Histoire (hereafter cited as BCRH), sér. 5, VII (1897), p. 28.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. the somewhat overdrawn interpretation of Pirenne, , Histoire de Belgique, I, p. 388Google Scholar, and Coornaert, Émile, Un centre industriel d'autrefois: la draperie-sayetterie d'Hondschoote (XlVe-XVllle siècles) (Paris, 1930), p. 72Google Scholar. Cf. also Vandenpeereboom, E., Ypriana. Notices, Etudes, Notes et Documents sur Ypres (Bruges, 1878–1883), IV, pp. 44–45Google Scholar. The fundamental study of the uprising at Ypres in 1280 is that of Doudelez, G., “La Revolution Communale de 1280 a Ypres”, Revue des Questions Historiques, CXXXII, no. 2 (03, 1938), pp. 58–78; CXXII, no. 3 (May-September, 1938), pp. 3–25; and CXXXIII, no. 1 (January, 1939), pp. 21–70.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid., pt. 2, p. 18 and pt. 3, p. 66. On the damage caused by the siege of 1383 to the banlieue of Ypres, cf. the charter of Charles VI of France of December 17, 1383, printed in Diegerick, I.L.A., Inventaire analytique et chronologique des chartes et documents appurtenant aux Archives de la Ville d'Ypres (hereafter cited as IAY) (Bruges, 1853–1868), II, pp. 303–305Google Scholar. On the decline of the textile industry of Ypres, cf. vanWerveke, Hans, De Omvang van de Ieperse lakenproduktie in de veertiende eeuw (Antwerp, 1947).Google Scholar

¹² Monier, R., “Le recours du chef-de-sens, au moyen age, dans les villes flamandes”, Revue du Nord, XIV (1928), pp. 6–12Google Scholar

¹³ Lyon, B., “Medieval Real Estate Developments and Freedom”, American Historical Review, LXII (1957), p. 51Google Scholar; Pirenne, Histoire de Belgique, I, pp. 304–305.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. the “Tout-Lieu” of Saint-Dizier, in Severen, L.Gilliodts-Van, Coutume de la Ville d'Ypres, II (Brussels, 1908), pp. 61–197Google Scholar, and Monier, , op. cit., p. 12.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf. Pelsmaeker, P.de, Registres aux Sentences des Échevins d'Ypres (Brussels, 1914), pp. 253 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁶ On August 16, 1357 the schepenen of Ghent ruled on a suit for usufruct on land at Wichelen, a community between Ghent and Aalst, after hearing “informatie vanden meiere ende scepenen van Wycheline, daer de hervachtechede onder gheleghen es ende die over de saken waren”. Stadsarchief te Gent (hereafter cited as SAG), Reeks 301, I, fo. 148v, no. 1.

¹⁷ Cf. infra, pp. 467–468.

¹⁸ Severen, L.Gilliodts-Van, Quartier de Bruges. Coutumes des Petites Villes et Seigneuries Enclavees (Brussels, 1890–1914), II, no. 14, pp. 259–260; no. 26, pp. 230–232; no. 20, pp. 185–186; no. 29, pp. 236–238; no. 30, pp. 238–239Google Scholar. Cf. also vanRompaey, Jan, “De Brugse Keure van 1329 en de aanvullende privileges”, Bulletin de la Commission Royale des Anciennes Lois et Ordonnances de Belgique, XXI (1965), pp. 35–105Google Scholar; Warnkönig-Gheldolf, , op. cit., IV, pp. 122, 313Google Scholar; Limburg-Stirum, T.de, Cartulaire de Louis de Male, comte de Flandre, 1348 à 1358 (Bruges, 1898–1901), I, pp. 456–457.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Severen, L. Gilliodts-Van, Coutume de la Ville de Bruges (Brussels, 1874), no. 46, pp. 422–423Google Scholar. Oostburg was fined one month later in a similar case of judgement after appeal. Severen, Gilliodts-Van, Coutumes des Petites Villes, III, no. 2, pp. 524–530.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid., IV, no. 9, pp. 528–531.

²¹ Around 1300 the magistrates of Diksmuide appealed to the schepenen of Bruges in a criminal case in which the accused defended himself as a monitory of the episcopal court of Thérouanne. Although the comital bailiff of Diksmuide had indicted him, the village schepenen did not dare to pronounce judgement for fear of offending the church. Alleging the same reason, the schepenen of Bruges also refused to rule. Ibid., II, p. 328.

²² The schepenen of Oudenburg often appealed to Bruges in the troubled years after the revolt of 1379–1385. When questioned whether the local magistrates should take action on crimes committed during the rebellion, the Bruggelingen left the matter up to the Oudenburgers, although they later told the schepenen to enforce the claims for debt. Cf. Feys, J.M.E. and deCasteele, D.Van, Histoire d'Oudenbourg (Bruges, 1873), I, pp. 97–78.Google Scholar

²³ On August 16, 1332 the schepenen Jan Walkier and Jan Coelewey were sent with Jan De Smet t o Sluis “omme acort te makene van enen beroepe”. Stadsarchief te Brugge (hereafter cited as SAB), Rekening 1332–1333, fo. 94r. O n November 19 and November 26 Cornelis Van Poeke and J an D e Smet were sent to Diksmuide “omme een beroep dat daer ghedaen was”. On December 19 Pauwels van Dudzele, Maertin Steenkijn, and Jan De Smet went to Diksmuide “omme accort te makene van 1 beroepe”. Ibid., fo. 96v, 97v. Thus under certain circumstances the parties making an appeal to the chef-de-sens did not have to come to Bruges, but could arrange to have a delegation of schepenen sent to their village. The laconic Bruges accounts give no further evidence of the practice. Whether Ghent had a system of itinerant justices in its subordinate towns before 1338 is uncertain. There are occasional references to the schepenen holding court outside the town, but these cases d o not concern chef-de-sens. Cf. Vuylsteke, J., Gentsche Stads- en Baljuwsrekeningen, 1280–1336 (Ghent, 1900), I, p. 439.Google Scholar

²⁴ E.g. Hulst in 1321; cf. Espinas, G. and Pirenne, H., Recueil de documents relatifs à l'histoire de l'Industrie drapiere en Flandre (hereafter cited as EP) (Brussels, 1906–1924), II, 707–708Google Scholar; Aalst in the time of Count Robert of Béthune, Ibid., I, p. 43; Oudenburg, Ibid., i n, pp. 65–66; Oostburg, Ibid., I, p. 527; Maldegem, Ibid., Ill, p. 45; Lembeke in the time of Robert of Béthune, Ibid., II, 350; Langemark during the reign of Countess Margaret (1244–1279), Ibid., II, pp. 5–9.

²⁵ Cf. Pauw, N.De, Ypre jeghen Poperinghe angaende den verbonden (Ghent, 1899), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid., pp. 121–122, 125, 164.

²⁷ EP, I, 305–306; II, 357–360, 354–355, 652–655; III, 50–51.

²⁸ Doudelez, , op. cit, p. 69, and EP, III, 682, 497–498; II, 393, 396.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid., III, 465. This was even true of the smaller towns, e.g. Oudenaarde, which had legally established textile industries. Ibid., I, 281.

³⁰ Ibid., i n, 745; I, 563–564; II, 396.

^3l These activities are well shown by the town accounts. Cf. Vuylsteke, , Rekeningen 1280–1336, pp. 70, 74, 75, 127, 242, 259, 247, 437–439, 451, 651, 659, 710, 782, 853Google Scholar; SAB, Rekening 1315–1316, fo. 28v; Marez, G.Des and Sagher, E.De, Comptes de la Ville d'Ypres de 1267 à 1329 (Brussels, 1909–1913), II, 530, 542, 692 ff., 727–728, 794, 796, 891 ff.Google Scholar

³² Vuylsteke, , Rekeningen 1280–1336, pp. 70, 74, and passim.Google Scholar

³³ Ibid., pp. 242, 259, 247.

³⁴ Exact data on linear measurements for fourteenth century Flanders are lacking. However, in 1357 Count Louis of Male granted a privilege in which Diksmuide and Roeselare were termed exceptions to Ypres' three-mile monopoly. These two towns are an almost equidistant 17½;–18 kilometers from Ypres. Assuming six kilometers to the mile, and disregarding the Franc as appertaining to Bruges, the only regions of Flanders outside the textile monopoly privileges of the drie steden were these two areas, neither of which was ever touched by the ministrations of the great towns. For the charter of 1357, cf. EP, III, 780.

³⁵ Cf. Heins, M., “Gand contre Termonde. Episode de l'histoire industrielle des Flandres au XlVe siècle”, Oudheidkundige Kring der Stad en des Voormaligen Lands van Dendermonde. Gedenkschriften, Reeks II, VI (1895), 67–108Google Scholar. The hostilities of Ghent against Dendermonde were initiated on October 10, 1344 when two magistrates of Ghent went to Dendermonde “omme de bederve van haren voute”. Pauw, N.De and Vuylsteke, J., De Rekeningen der stad Gent. Tijdvak van Jacob Van Artevelde, 1336–1349 (Ghent, 1874–1885), II, 393Google Scholar. The “voute” of cloth was the cut of its edges; each town had its own “voute” and was extremely jealous of its possession and maintenance. Cf. Poerck, G.De, La Draperie Médiévale en Flandre et en Artois. Technique et Terminologie (Bruges, 1951), I, 144Google Scholar. Ypres disputed the right of Poperinge to make strijpte halflakene and ghesmoutte laken. Pauw, De, Ypre jeghen Poperinghe, pp. 201–202, 204, and passim.Google Scholar

³⁶ The weavers and fullers of Oudenaarde had a two-mile monopoly on textile manufacture, and the Gentenaren actually helped them to enforce this regulation.On May 20, 1342 the guilds of Ghent sent men “met die van Houdenaerde te Ronse en daer omtrent om … tauwen ende commen te slaen ontwe die daer stonden jeghen de vriede van Audenaerde”. Pauw, De and Vuylsteke, , Rekeningen, II, 135. After the grant of this privilege to the guilds of Oudenaarde in 1338, the Gentenaren never struck unilaterally at village textile industries located within two miles of Oudenaarde, even though the entire area overlapped the Ghent five-mile monopoly.Google Scholar

³⁷ While at Ghent in 1357 a nd Ypres in the fifteenth century the members of the various textile guilds made up over half the population of the town, they scarcely constituted 30% at Bruges in 1340. Cf. Wyffels, C., “Nieuwe gegevens betreffende een XIIIde eeuwse ‘democratische’ stedelijke opstand: de Brugse ‘Moerlemaye’ (1280–1281)”, BCRH, CXXXII (1966), 46Google Scholar, after Verbruggen, J.F., Het Gemeenteleger van Brugge van 1338 tot 1340 (Brussels, 1962).Google Scholar

³⁸ Cf. the Bruges guild regulations of 1294, which are much less severe than those surviving for Ypres; supra, p. 465.

³⁹ The Bruges textile monopoly of 1322, covering the entire Franc, was not an absolute monopoly, but merely forbade “dat men buten der vors. stede van Brucghe niewer binnen der vors. castelrie gherehande lakene vercopen moet, no sticken van lakenen, zie en zijn in de zelve stede ghemaect ende ghedrapierd daer men se vercoept, het en zij in vrien jaermaercten van ouden tiden gheuseerd”, EP, I, 563–564. Bruges thus allowed textiles to be made in “vrien porten van wetten” in the countryside as long as they were to be sold on the Bruges market or at the “free fairs”. Barring that, they were to be sold in severely localized commerce. Bruges' interior market had to be protected, but as a town of basically more mercantile than textile–industrial interests, it did not view the suppression of anything destined for its market as good business. - In 1342 a further settlement was made between Bruges and the Franc; this agreement is little more than an elaboration of the terms of that of 1322. The settlement of 1342 continued to allow the manufacture of cloth in the villages, but placed more restrictions on its sale. Ibid., I, 571–573.

⁴⁰ Cloth of the village of Diksmuide was on the Bruges market by 1285. Ibid., pp. 461–462, 458. The account of 1333–1334 shows the Bruges magistrates purchasing four types of cloth of Diksmuide. The textiles were of reasonably high quality for, although used for the uniforms of the nightwatchmen, it was also bought for the use of the burgemeesters and the captain of the watchmen. Despite the relatively high price paid for it, however, it was found on inspection by the Bruggelingen to be inferior to its alleged specifications - the common complaint of the large towns against rural textiles - and part of the purchase price had to be subtracted. A similar situation is shown in the accounts of 1335–1336 and 1338–1339. From 1363 the textiles of the villages of Wervik and Dendermonde, which had quarreled with Ypres and Ghent respectively, were also purchased by the municipal administration of Bruges. SAB, Rekeningen 1333–1334, fo. 59r, 60v; 1335–1336, fo. 59r; 1338–1339, fo. 66v, 115r; 1363–1364, fo. 44v; 1366–1367, fo. 34r; 1367–1368, fo. 32r, ff.

⁴¹ The only exceptions were in wartime emergencies. The magistrates of Ghent bought cloth at Poperinge for soldiers in 1338, and Ypres for the same purpose in 1312. Pauw, De and Vuylsteke, , Rekeningen, I, 260Google Scholar; Marez, Des and Sagher, De, Comptes, I, 383, 392.Google Scholar

⁴² Pauw, De and Vuylsteke, , Rekeningen, II, 210Google Scholar. For the expedition of 1345, Ibid., pp. 389–390 and SAB, Rekening 1345–1346, fo. 134r. A note of sarcasm can be detected as the Gentenaren proceed to the village of Eeklo “tote den goeden lieden van Brugghe riders die daer laghen omme hemlieden te dankene dat sij daer commen waren”.

⁴³ Bigwood, G., “Gand et la circulation des grains en Flandre“, Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, IV (1906), 397–460Google Scholar; documents printed in Pauw, N.De, De Voorgeboden der stad Gent in de XIVe eeuw (1337–1382) (Ghent, 1885).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cf. Smet, A.De, “L'origine des ports du Zwin: Damme, Mude, Monikerede, Hoeke et Sluis”, Etudes d'histoire dédiées à la mémoire de Henri Pirenne, p. 132Google Scholar. On June 20, 1351 and June 29, 1377 Damme had to promise to demolish at any time that Bruges so demanded the bridge which the Bruggelingen had allowed the village to build over a new canal. They made a similar promise concerning a sluice leading off this canal.Severen, L.Gilliodts-Van, Inventaire des Archives de la Ville de Bruges, Section Premiere: Inventaire des chartes (cited henceforth as 1AB) (Bruges, 1871–1885), II, no. 496, p. 8; no. 539, p. 75; and no. 633, p. 292Google Scholar. The activities of Bruges on the sluices of Damme are first clearly shown in the earliest surviving accounts of Bruges. Bruges also owned a polder east of Damme by 1294, a fact which must be considered in connection with new construction on the Reie in this year. Cf. Wyffels, C. and Smet, J.De, De Rekeningen der Stad Brugge … 1280–1302 (Brussels, 1965), pp. 436, 458Google Scholar. From 1337 the accounts show the rental of this land, a large plot of 8 gemeten, by the town to a local bourgeois. SAB, Rekeningen, 1337–1338, fo. 14r, 1369–1370, fo. lOr, and passim.

⁴⁵ Bruges and Damme often acted jointly on staple questions. A complaint of Damme against Sluis, undated but almost certainly from the early fourteenth century, shows the measures which were eventually at issue in the formal formation of the compulsory staple of Bruges and shows that Damme already had a definite identity of interest with Bruges against Sluis. Damme claimed that its measures had been used along the entire Zwin since the time when Sluis was an insignificant village; although Sluis was now a poort, it was still bound by this. Sluis was also accused of having interrupted ships proceeding along the Zwin. Damme also accused the Count of Namur, lord of Sluis and brother of the Count of Flanders, of deliberately trying to silt up the harbors ofc other towns along the upper Zwin, end their trade and that of Bruges, and thereby promote that of Sluis. Rijksarchief te Gent (henceforth cited as RAG), Oorkonden der Graven van Vlaanderen, Fonds Chronologisch Gerangschikt Supplement, no. 384.

⁴⁶ Limburg-Stirum, , Cartulaire de Louis de Male, II, no. 885, pp. 156–158, and I, no. 676, pp. 641–642Google Scholar; Gilliodts-Van Severen, , Coutumes des Petites Villes, IV, no. 8–9, pp. 526 ff.Google Scholar; Janssen, H.Q. and Dale, J.H.Van, Bijdragen tot de Oudheidkunde en Geschiedenis, inzonderheid van Zeeuwsch–Vlaanderen (Middelburg, 1859), IV, 82–89.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ For this and what follows, cf. Prevenier, Walter, De Leden en de Staten van Vlaanderen (Brussels, 1961).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Pauw, N.De, Conspiration d'Audenarde sous Jacques Van Artevelde (1342) (Ghent, 1878), p. 23Google Scholar; cf. also the summary Audenarde sous Artevelde (Oudenaarde, 1916).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Pauw, N.De, “Un texte inedit de la Chronique de Flandre concemant Artevelde”, BCRH, LXXXII (1913), 341.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ In 1360 Bruges made a general levy on its quarter, based on the Transport assessment of 1309 (cf. Limburg-Stirum, T.de, Codex Diplomaticus Flandriae …(Bruges, 1879–1889), II, no. 253, pp. 141–153)Google Scholar. SAB, Rekening 1360–1361, fo. 27v. In 1370, however, a tax was levied by the count and the drie steden on the rest of the county to pay the cost of messengers sent to the kings of England and France. Only a few villages in the Franc were taxed on this occasion, and the Transport assessment was not used. Ibid., 1370–1371, fo. 22r. The tax figures of 1360 also show Bruges collecting taxes in areas where Ypres would normally be expected to perform the function: Veurne and Bergues and their castellanies. Much of the military activity of the 1340's centered in this area, termed Westland in the documents. Bruges and Ghent sent armies, held inquests, and installed captains there during this decade; the position of Ypres was sufficiently eroded that a power vacuum was evidently created which Bruges filled. - Such taxation did not recur on a regular basis. Although Bruges taxed the villages of the Franc in 1361, it did not levy the assessment in the castellany of Veurne. After this year Bruges levied no more taxes on the areas outside the town until 1370. The account of 1379 shows Bruges taking preste, or forced loans, from Nieuwpoort, Veurne, and several towns of the Franc, but this was not a tax and would presumably be repaid. IAB, II, 353.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Werveke, H.Van, De Gentsche Stadsfinanciën in de Middeleeuwen (Brussels, 1934), p. 104Google Scholar. The Gentenaren made frequent levies during the revolt of 1323–1328, but they were generally careful to preserve the legal formalities. On May 20, 1324 they sent emissaries to the count “omme te wetene of die van Haelst, van Denremonde ende dat daertoe behord, sullen met ons gelden van skonings gelden”. Vuylsteke, , Rekeningen 1280–1336, p. 343Google Scholar. In 1332–1333 Ghent received a payment of 10 lb. from the castellany of Oudenaarde “van haren deel van den coste, die de stede van Ghent uteleide over hemlieden eerveriare te Parijs inde bederve vanden ghemenen lande”. Ibid., p. 812. Ghent, as Bruges, kept rights of taxation on behalf of the ghemeene land even after 1349. The Ghent account of 1357–1358 contains the rubric “Dit es ontfaen es [sic] binnen desen jare van dat men der stede tachter was in de castelrien van der stede van den costen, die de stede ute leide en de boden vander stede die ghesendt waren inInghelant verjare van tween vaerden omme tprofijt van den lande”. Those areas paying were the castellany and town of Aalst, the Vier Ambachten region, the castellany of the Oudburg of Ghent, the town and castellany of Oudenaarde, the town of Geraardsbergen, and Waasland. SAG, Reeks 400, no. 8, fo. 246v.

⁵² Cf. the reaction against Artevelde at Ghent, culminating in his assassination, when rumor spread that he intended to recognize the Prince of Wales as Count of Flanders. Rogghe, , Zevenjarig Beleid, II, 34.Google Scholar

⁵³ In February, 1339 the Gentenaren sent a military expedition t o West Flanders, the purpose of which was allegedly “omme de goede liede te settene in paise ende in rusten ende de mesdadeghe te corrigierne ter eeren ende profite van minen heere van Vlaendren ende van den ghemeenen lande”. Pauw, De and Vuylsteke, , Rekeningen, I, 353.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The most completely documented example is the Vaernewijc family of Ghent, whose seigneurie of 28 bunderen of land was an enclave within the territory owned by the town in the later thirteenth century. The Vaernewijcs continued to serve as comital functionaries, but they also acquired large properties in the town and often served on the municipal magistracy. The relevant documents for the Vaernewijc family have been collected by Vaernewyck, Ghellinck d'Elseghem, Chartes et documents concernant la jamille Van Vaernewijck, Première partie: Xe siècle à 1400 (Ghent, 1899).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Liedekerke, Comte R.de, La Maison de Gavre et de Liedekerke. Histoire de saligne directe depuis Vorigine jusqu'a nos jours. Les Rasse (n.p., 1961).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ A striking example is the family of Jacques Van Artevelde, which became affiliated with numerous knights and with the seigneurs of Drongen and Erpe. Pauw, N.De, Cartulaire historique et généalogique des Artevelde (Brussels, 1920), pp. 268–269Google Scholar. The daughter of Jacob Willebaerd of Ghent married the “edelen ende wizen mer Symoene vander Couderborch, here van Uplintere”. RAG, Fonds St. Pietersabdij, Reeks I, no. 462, fo. 12v; cf. also Gysseling, M., “Een Rentemeestersrekening voor een Gents patricier uit de eerste helft van de 14e eeuw”, BCRH, CXVI (1951), 263Google Scholar. Clais Alverdoe of Bruges was married in 1354 to Agnes Van Brakele, mistress of Zonnemare, in West Flanders. Whether he established a dynasty is uncertain, but he was his wife's legal representative. SAG, Reeks 301, I, fo. 153r, no. 4. A few prominent Gentenaren even managed to marry into the nobility during the thirteenth century. Cf. Blockmans, F., Het Gentsche Stadspatriciaat tot omstreks 1302 (Antwerp and The Hague, 1938), pp. 345–346.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ This was true at Bruges as early as 1328. Pauw, N.De, “L'enquête de Bruges apres la bataille de Cassel”, BCRH, sér. 3, IX (1899), 673 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. especially Gailliard, J., Bruges et le Franc, ou leur magistrature et leur noblesse (Bruges, 1857–1864), passim.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. the excellent summary of the nature of these records in Vos, A.De, Inventaris der landbouwpachten in de Gentse Jaarregisters van de Keure (Ghent, 1958), p. 3.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ On the nouveaux riches, cf. the classic portrayal of Weitin de la Meire of Ghent by Blockmans, F., “Peilingen nopens de bezittende klasse te Gent omstreeks 1300. I. Twee Typen: Gilbert Utenhove en Wouter van der Meere”, Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire, XV (1936), 505–516Google Scholar.- As the Flemish textile industry began to sustain setbacks, land investment by the older patrician families increased and became an important factor in the survival of some of the older families. Blockmans draws the striking parallel between the family of Alexander Ser Braemszoon, a wealthy textile merchant who invested heavily in agricultural land and moor and retained his prosperity, and that of Wasselin Haec, who relied solely on the textile industry. The prosperity of the Haecs thus diminished considerably, although they remained prominent within the town. Ibid., II: “Twee patriciërs: een klassieke en een uitwijkeling”, Ibid., XVI (1937), 632–665.

⁶⁰ On October 19, 1287 the shoemaker Gillis Van Gheroudsberghe, bourgeois of Bruges, sold to Wouter Krocken of Bruges a portion of land in the parish of St. Andries, near Bruges. He had acquired this property through his wife, who had inherited it from her parents. Commissie voor Openbare Onderstand te Brugge (henceforth cited as COOB), Fonds Potterie, Oorkonden, no. 80.

⁶¹ Jan Beecman, furrier of Ghent, purchased a manor called te Beveren in the parish of Steenhuuse from the seigneur of Zwevegem. The manor contained 18 bunderen, 3 dagwanden, 47 roeden of land (these measurements are henceforth abbreviated as “b”, “dw”, and “r”). SAG, Reeks 301, II, II, fo. 28r, no. 3. Shortly before 1375 the carpenter Jan De Backere, resident of the Savaanstraat in the village of St. Pieter's, bought property at St. Pieters-Aalst for a local peasant totalling 3 b. RAG, Fonds St. Pietersabdij, Reeks I, no. 462, fo. lOr. Prosperous artisans of Bruges also owned large and compact properties outside the town. On May 13, 1356 “Meester Pieter van Gheets”, bourgeois of Bruges, sold 21 gemeten (henceforth “g”) 98 r. of land; most of the land was contiguous. COOB, Fonds St. Janshospitaal, Oorkonden, no. 665.

⁶² Warnkönig, L., Flandrische Staats– und Rechtsgeschichte bis zum Jahre 1305 (Tübingen, 1835–1837), II, 1, 200Google Scholar; Gheldolf, A.E., Coutume de la Ville de Gand (Brussels, 1868), no. 24, p. 496.Google Scholar

⁶³ Cf. inter aliaGoogle ScholarMarez, Des, Proprtété Foncière, p. 180Google Scholar, and Gheldolf, , Coutume de la Ville de Gand, no. 53, pp. 562–564Google Scholar. An excellent example of how bourgeois status might allow fiefholders to circumvent their obligations is shown in a division of property made by Symoen De Grutere of Ghent and his wife. The couple registered a charter before the schepenen of Ghent, in which they stated that their most valuable properties were fiefs. However, according to the “ghemeene wet van den lande”, all fiefs were to pass to the eldest son, except for such lands as the parents passed out during their lifetimes to their other children before the proper feudal court. However, if Symoen and his wife “ordineiren binnen harer beeder live bi sonderlingher ghifte ende goedinghen up seker sticken ende plecken ghelijc dat de wet, costumen ende usagen naer trecht van der herfsceden van der poort van Ghend wel vermach ende men ghecostumeert heeft tote hare, dat es dat men ende wijf elc kind zonderlinghe alst hem ghelieft … [ende] bewisen als zij willen … niet wieder staende enight wette, costumen ende usagen die de heeren van buten costumeren daer men de leene, erve of andre goede af houdende es bi also dat men ter doot van vader ofte moeder vermet van haren heerscepe van den ghenen die ute den leene ofte erven versteerft waromme, ghi heeren scepenen, zijt ic Symoen de Grutere …”; Symoen then gave a large manor to his daughter, which was held in fief of the burggrave of Ghent. This extremely important case shows conclusively that bourgeois could circumvent the restrictions placed by feudal law on the posthumous division of their estates by disposing of the fiefs in advance in the town court according to a provision of urban law permitting such assignments before death. SAG, Reeks 301, II, II, fo. 34v–35r.

⁶⁴ Smet, J.De, “Le plus ancien livre de fiefs du Bourg de Bruges, vers 1325”, Tablettes des Flandres, III (1950), 69–87.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Cf. deTervarent, A.Schoutheete, Livre des feudataires des Comtes au Pays de Waes … ( = Buitengewone Uitgaven van den Oudheidkundige Kring van het Land van Waas, IX) (1873), passim. Numerous Gentenaren are here shown holding fiefs of the count.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Limburg-Stirum, , Cartulaire de Louis de Male, II, no. 1034, p. 240; I, no. 189, p. 184; II, no. 1081, p. 268; I, no. 190, p. 185, and passim.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ In 1390 Jacob Bruusch of Ghent held several pieces of land at quitrent of St. Pieter's abbey in St. Pieters-Aalst and Aaigem, including three segments of 200 r. apiece. He had acquired these plots recently, for he appears in the register as paying rent instead of the persons who held them when the record was originally composed. The three were placed together in the register, and St. Pieter's evidently regarded them as a unit. RAG, Fonds St. Pietersabdij, Reeks I, no. 171, fo. 18r. At some point after 1280 the Gentenaar Diederic Van Leyns took in fief from St. Bavon's abbey two plots of meadow, of 68 r. and 64 r., in the parish of Vlierzele; the former was located “retro domistagio” of Diederic. Diederic was apparently trying to unify his estate under one type of tenure, for the plot of 64 r. was an allod which had been converted into a fief. RAG, Fonds St. Baafsabdij, R31a, fo. 24v.

⁶⁸ Cf. Verhulst, A.E., Histoire du Paysage Rural en Flandre (Brussels, 1966), pp. 133 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ On October 10, 1362 Ghiselbrecht De Grutere divided what was apparently a unitary estate in the parish of Zaamslag between two peasants, who leased segments of 6 g. 20 r. and 7 g. 80 r. for six years. With the estate thus divided into two separate agricultural exploitations, the segments would probably be treated separately in any future sale or transfer. SAG, Reeks 301, II, I, fo. 4r, no. 2.

⁷⁰ The manner in which an attempt to consolidate countryside estates could founder on inheritance customs is well shown by the settlement of the estate of Pieter Meyer of Ghent. His wife received half of their common property outside the town, their two children the other half. The property included segments in the parishes of Sleidinge and Evergem, and on the seigneurie of Vinderhoute. These areas are contiguous; Pieter Meyer was thus attempting to consolidate an estate northwest of Ghent. But when his children reached their majority, they would divide their share, thus making fourths of their father's estate. The possibility of a compact holding was thus very slight. SAG, Reeks 330, II, I, fo. 28v, no. 1.

⁷¹ Although most bourgeois inheritance divisions were methodical only insofar as the securing of segments of equal value for all heirs was concerned, a fairly common manner of accomplishing this while maintaining parcels undivided was to give property within the town to one heir, property outside to another; cf. the division of the estate of Jan Van Coudenberghe on November 3, 1350. SAG, Reeks 330, I, II, fo. 45r, no. 2. Occasionally one party to an inheritance protested against this manner of division, however, and in such cases the schepenen decreed an equal division of each individual piece of property; cf. the quarrel over the inheritance of Pieter and Jan Briever, Ibid., III, IV, fo. 52r, no. 5.

⁷² The Borluuts of Ghent held the manor Ten Broeke at Evergem, perhaps as early as the thirteenth century, although definite references are lacking before 1351. The family was able to arrange inheritance divisions in such a manner as t o keep the estate undivided into the sixteenth century. The Borluuts acquired other large estates outside the town; during the 135O's Jan Borluut acquired the fief Wiendekin Gavere at Langerbrugge from the Gentenaar Margriet vander Spieghele. Cf. deVos, A., “Het Goed Ten Broeke te Evergem”, Appeltjes van het Meetjesland, X (1959), 87–89. Willem Bette up de Hoghe Port held an estate of 4 0 b., called Ter Heyden, in the parish of Melle; in 1360 it was divided equally among his three children. SAG, Reeks 330, II, V, fo. 22r, no. 1. Such examples could be multiplied.Google Scholar

⁷³ The most clearly documented case of a bourgeois operating directly the land which he held at leasehold is that of Gillis vanden Hole, schepen of Ghent in 1358–1359, 1363–1364, and 1366–1367 (cf. Meersch, P.C.Vander, Memorieboek der stad Gent (Ghent, 1852), I, 80, 86, 90)Google Scholar. On June 18, 1367, St. Pieter's abbey leased to Gillis and his wife, Marie Van Artevelde, a farm of 57½ b. at Wilegem. The pair were obligated “al haren pacht lane te woenne int voers. hof”. Pauw, De, Cartulaire des Artevelde, pp. 449–450. Gillis vanden Hole was thus obviously retiring from his concerns in the town, at the conclusion of his last term as schepen (he does not appear again in the town magistracy), to live in the countryside.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Landlords normally expected bourgeois tenants to be absentee. In 1396 Doedin De Voes, who was succeeded as tenant by Willem De Vos, bourgeois of Bruges, held 4 g. of land at Zuienkerke at quitrent from the church of St. Donaas of Bruges. The following tenant was qualified as “Walterus Carnifex, moratur supra terras”. Bisdom van Brugge (hereafter cited as BB), Reeks A, no. 187, fo. 48r.

⁷⁵ On March 27, 1331 Gillis Van Artrike of Bruges gave to the hospital of St. Jan 9 s. 3 poitevins in annuities on properties within Bruges in exchange for ½ g. 14 r. of land at St. Andries, near Bruges but in the Franc, “ … streckende nortwaerd tote Gillis lande van Artrike vors”. Two years later Gillis gave 38 s. 2 d. 10 to St. Jan's on two houses in Bruges in return for 7 s. 6 d. in annuities on properties within the town, together with 20 r. of land bordering a fief of Jan Van Hertsberghe on the West - the segment of ½ g. 14 r. had also bordered Jan Van Hertsberghe on the West - and 58 r. “an de westzide van Ser Gillis lande van Aertrike … ” COOB, Fonds St. Janshospitaal, Oorkonden, nos. 443, 458. Gillis was thus using his liquid assets within the town to consolidate an estate near the town, but outside the banlieue.

⁷⁸ On October 6, 1336 the Carthusians of Bruges surrendered to Bernard Van Artrike a lien of 27 s. gro. tor. on the house at Bruges where Bernard lived; he gave them in exchange annuities of 16 lb. 4 s. on lands at Klemskerke and Vlissegem, and 4 lb. 12 s. 5 d. on property at Bruges. Rijksarchief te Brugge (hereafter cited as RAB), Oorkonden Blauw, no. 4555. Bernard Van Artrike was so anxious to clear his town residence of debt that he made an extremely unfavorable bargain with the Church at the expense of his property in the countryside.

⁷⁷ The manner in which a peasant might acquire a complete farm from bourgeois owners is well illustrated by a case of July 1, 1363. Jan Pieters leased from Jacob De Pape of Ghent and his two brothers their property at Lede, with all appurtenances and buildings, for a nine-year term. He also leased from Jacob, acting as agent of St. Pieter's abbey, two small pieces of land adjoining the De Pape property. He simultaneously leased a small plot from Jan De Grutere of Ghent. The estate leased from the brothers De Pape consisted of 2 g., one sown in oats, the other in barley. The land held of St. Pieter's consisted of a rye field now lying fallow and marled, and a field sown in oats. That held of Jan De Grutere was sown in oats. Thus Jan Pieters obtained a complete three-field farm, albeit small, by leasing lands from several bourgeois with property in the same vicinity. SAG, Reeks 301, II, I, fo. 28r, no. 2.

⁷⁸ Exceptions to this generalization are very rare. In 1368 Juris Ute Merham of Ghent was leasing 5 b. of land at Gentbrugge and simultaneously “ramen up de veste buten Sente Liuyns poerte”, but whether there was any connection between these properties is uncertain. At his death both passed out of his family, to separate parties. RAG, Fonds St. Pietersabdij, Reeks II, no. 1667, fo. 40v. St. Bavon's maintained some sheep for wool on its estates: “Item de lana vendita que venit de Lo, 2 lichtelaer, 5 £ 14 s. 4 d. gro. 8 miten”. RAG, Fonds St. Baafsabdij, K9319, fo. 16r. The confiscations of 1302 at Bruges show Pieter Heldebolle maintaining a large herd of sheep; Colens, ,Compte Communal, p. 77Google Scholar; cf. also comment by Häpke, , Brügges Entwicklung, p. 190.Google Scholar The utter chaos which the English wool embargoes caused in Flanders is proof in itself that Flemish textile magnates were producing only an infinitesimal amount of their own wool.

⁷⁹ Around 1390 Jacob Braem in de Bennesteghe, Gillis Van Crombrugghe, and Jacob and Marie, children of Symoen De Dievel, made kind payments to St. Pieter's abbey “van harer lieder ghoede ten Abeele, 33 bunre groet circiter”. The same parties held 6 b. of land “ant hemelrike an doest zide ligghende”. This segment was leased to Hendrik De Droeghe. RAG, Fonds St. Pietersabdij, Reeks I, no. 437, fo. 7r-v.

⁸⁰ Cf. De Vos, Inventaris, passim. These forms were fairly standardized. Most of the contracts took great care to insure the maintenance of the field system in use. On June 20, 1344 Clais Uten Hove leased to Diedric Van Averthun an estate of lOi b. at Velzeke-Rudderhove. Approximately 3 b. were in spring grain, 11 dw. fallow, 3 b. in spring grain, and 3 dw. in meadow. “Ende dit land zal hi laten ten hende van sinen pachte in al der manieren ghelijc dat hijt vindt, dats te wetene drie bunre ende lxxxix roeden … met somer vruchten … [etc.].” In case Diederic failed to abide by these terms, his pledge was to go to the property and maintain it himself. SAG, Reeks 301, I, II, fo. 7r. Such contracts show that although the bourgeois may have had little interest in the calibre of agriculture practiced for its own sake, they definitely intended that their lands be kept in sufficiently good repair to enable them to attract new leaseholders.

⁸¹ On September 28, 1363 arbitrators were appointed to settle the claim of Boudin Rijm of Ghent that he had a right t o maintain a road across the property of Jan De Jonghe at Afsnee, south of Ghent, to a meadow which Boudin owned enclaved within Jan's estate. SAG, Reeks 330, III, IV, Zoendincboek, fo. l r, no. 2. Jacques Van Artevelde is known to have carried on extensive diking operations along the Scheldt in the parish of Bardonc, on estates which he held from St. Bavon's abbey. Pauw, De, Cartulaire des Artevelde, pp. 324–326, 227–229, 751.Google Scholar

⁸² This difficulty arises from the fact that Flemish charters of the fourteenth century rarely mention purchase price. One of the few cases which gives both the original purchase price and the yield of the land at quitrent, however, puts the problem into proper perspective. On February 16, 1365 Callekin Van Hazelbeke inherited liquid capital which was invested by the child's guardian in land. 6 dw. 64 r. of land, scattered and under various lords, was bought from Hendrik Van Benselhoven for 15 lb. 6 s. gro. tor. The plots owed in addition a total of 27 s. in annual quitrents to the lords. The guardians also bought from Colarde Van Benselhoven 6 dw. in the same parish for 12 lb. 2 s. 11 d. gro. tor.; this land owed 23 s. annually to lords. The two segments together were rented by the guardians for 10 s. 8 d. gro. tor. per bunder. The conversion figures show that it would take sixteen years three months for the rent of this land to recover for the boy the initial price of the land. After this, obviously, he would have great profits. But should he die in the meantime a great expenditure would have been in vain. The price of land was sufficiently high that those purchasing it had to make long range plans. There can be no question of systematic bourgeois exploitation of the peasants by land purchases. SAG, Reeks 330, III, V, fo. 33, no. 4.

⁸³ Cf. a case of May 29, 1358: the widow of Gerard Vilain pledged “de stede also meere te beterne also zoest heeft gheherghert daer up dat Simoen Damman heeft 4 lb. ende 15 s. par”; she had thus let the property fall into disrepair to the point where it was worth less than the value of the annuity. She agreed to improve it in the manner specified in the charter in which her late husband had promised the annuity to Simoen. SAG, Reeks 301, I, fo. 196r, no. 6.

⁸⁴ On March 10, 1358, for example, before the schepenen of Assenede, the peasant Lexus Lonis sold to Ghelnoot Damman of Ghent 5 s. par. annually, secured on 4½ g. of land at Zelzate. The land was part of a family estate, for Jan's segment bordered on those of his two brothers. The land was to be confiscated in case of default on the payment. RAG, Fonds Rijke Gasthuis, Oorkonden. Sales of annuities in the Franc of Bruges involved the legal transfer of title to the land upon which the annuity was to be sold. The buyer would surrender the land to the original owners for a fictive quitrent; of numerous examples, cf. RAB, Oorkonden Blauw, no. 4357 and COOB, Fonds Begijnhof, Oorkonden, no. 116. This usage was an advance over the earlier practice, still in use at this time in most of the Ghent region, of a property owner in need of money simply selling the annuity. For an excellent discussion of the annuity, cf. Génicot, L., L'économie rurale namuroise au bas moyen âge (Namur, 1943), pp. 214 ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ In 1375 the tithe of Uitbergen and Overmere, in the seigneurie of Dendermonde, was leased by St. Bavon's abbey to Lauwereins vanden Voerde of Ghent. RAG, Fonds St. Baafsabdij, R 58, fo. 18r. In 1321 Jacob Rijnvisch held a tithe of St. Pieter's abbey worth 50 lb. annually. RAG, Fonds St. Pietersabdij, Reeks I, no. 461, fo. 89v. On February 5, 1354 the Ghent patricians Boudin Van Zwijnaarde and Jan Van Leden leased the toll of Dendermonde, together with the revenues of three watermills and two windmills at Dendermonde, from Hughe Moenine, under the same terms (which are here unspecified) in which Hughe had rented them from the seigneur of Dendermonde. SAG, Reeks 301, I, fo. 121v, no. 1. Such examples could be multiplied.

⁸⁶ They were nonetheless more burdensome than their fiscal return justified, and few bourgeois actually collected the tithes. Tithes seem to have conferred social prestige, which may have been as important a motivation for the bourgeois as the economic. On November 14, 1366 Willem De Pape of Ghent leased half his tithe at Wetteren to a man of that village, but only for Willem's lifetime, so that the tithe would remain in the De Pape family. SAG, Reeks 301, II, III, fo. 9v, no. 2.

⁸⁷ Cf. the list of life annuities paid by Dendermonde in 1377–1378; Broeckaert, J., “De oudste Stadsrekening van Dendermonde (1377–1378), gevolgd van die over 1392–1393”, Oudheidkundige Kring der Stad en des Voormaligen Lands van Dendermonde. Gedenkschriften, Reeks II, XIII (1910), 189–218Google Scholar. One man holding an annuity, Hendrik De Boc, is stated to be a Gentenaar. But numerous others who were not so specified were definitely patricians of Ghent, as Lysbette Rivisch, Gheertrude Van Vaernewyc, Pieter vander Zickelen, Kateline vanden Voorde, Zwanen Van Artevelde, and others.

⁸⁸ There are exceptions to this generalization. On April 19, 1319 the schepenen of Aardenburg, in order to pay the debts of the town, gave an annuity of 4 lb. old gro tor. of France to Willem Van Orscamp of Bruges, in return for an unspecified sum of money which he loaned to them. A similar payment of 5 lb. was constituted on May 22, 1324. RAG, Oorkonden der Graven van Vlaanderen, Fonds St. Genois, nos. 1364, 1412.

⁸⁹ The possessions of Bruggelingen in the Zwin towns constitute the only major exception to this generalization. On June 6, 1350 Ser Willem De Hoedemaker of Bruges transferred a quarter interest in a house at Damme to Jan Camioene, who already held another quarter. The house was located beside another held by Ser Jan Bonin, who was probably a Bruggeling. COOB, Fonds Dissen van St. Anna binnen en St. Kruis buiten Brugge, Oorkonden, no. 267. Bruggelingen also owned property at Sluis. On October 15, 1327 the widow of Colard Bard of Bruges secured 7 lb. 15 s. on a total of thirteen small properties at Sluis for a charitable donation. RAG, Fonds St. Baafsabdij, Oorkonden.

⁹⁰ Supra, n. 82.

⁹¹ Supra, n. 56.

⁹² Ser Jan Willebaerd of Ghent held a fief of 4 b. of arable and “tria bonuaria circiter et habet sub se late et emendas usque ad tres libras”. RAG, Fonds St. Pietersabdij, Reeks I, no. 461, fo. 86r. Symoen Sersanders held the meyerie of Dikkele, including 7 b. of arable “ende late ende mesdaet boeten tote 2 s.” Ibid., no. 462, fo. 43v.

⁹³ Cf. the notarial instrument of March 23, 1349, by which Willem De Scot of Bruges gave in alms 6 g. of land to the abbey of St. Andries: “… donationes huiusmodi non valere nisi in libro scabinorum fundi aut loci seu virorum parium et hereditariorum registration habeatur …” RAB, Oorkonden Blauw, no. 7483.

⁹⁴ The schepenen of Bruges were extremely scrupulous in observing this limitation. On October 5, 1339 they certified that Zegher Waye the elder had sold to verGriele, wife of Kerstiaen Van Lisseweghe, a share of 14 g. of land held at quitrent by a peasant. The land was in the parish of St. Baaf, north of the church. Of this land 6 g. were within the jurisdictional area of Bruges, and of this Zegher made the standard guarantees. He also pledged to verGriele or her husband “halm ende wettelike ghifte te ghevene vor de wet vanden Ziesselsche vanden vorseiden lande dat ten Ziesselschen gheleghen es … ” RAB, Fonds Brugse Vrije, Oorkonden, no. 167. On February 20, 1357 Jan Van Hassenede sold to Lamsin Baven a quarter interest in 33 g. 1 lijne 44 r. of land in the parishes of St. Michiel and St. Baaf. The entire property, although fragmented, bordered on land belonging to verMarie Bernaerd. The charter was attested by the schepenen of Sijsele. On the same day the schepenen of Bruges attested a sale, involving the same parties, of a quarter interest in 32 g. 96 r., with a quarter interest in the buildings on the land. The land was in the same two parishes, but was here specified as being within the schependom of Bruges. Of this land, a segment of 4 lijnen formerly belonged to verMarie Bernaerd. Two other segments, totalling 8 g. 106 r., also bordered lands owned by verMarie. The other 22 g. bordered land owned by other persons. BB, Reeks A, Oorkonden der Rijke-Claren-Urbanisten, Box 9. Since much of the land, both inside and outside the jurisdictional area of Bruges, bordered on the Bernaerd estates, there can be no question of isolated segments acquired over a period of years. The four owners of this property probably acquired it at the same time that the Bernaerds bought their land; a compact estate was now being subdivided. But the limitations of the schepenen of Bruges to handle the transaction are shown with particular clarity.

⁹⁵ Prevenier, Walter, “Het Brugse Vrije en de Leden van Vlaanderen”, ASEB, XCVI (1959), 5–63.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ In 1358 Symoen Van Gommare sued the Carthusians of Ghent for possession of a meadow which the clerics had been given by Ser Willem Van Vaernewijc. Symoen claimed that the land belonged to his father-in-law, and that Vaernewijc had had only a leasehold tenure. The schepenen of Ghent “wiisden de zaken te bedinghene ter wet, daer de erve onder es gheleghen, mids dat grond es van erven buten den vryeden vander stede van Ghend gheleghen”. Serrure, C.P., “Oorkonden betrekkelijk het Karthuizers– Klooster bij Gent … 1308–1483“, Vaterlandsch Museum voor Nederlandsche Letterkunde, Oudheid en Geschiedenis, IV (1861), 349Google Scholar. In very exceptional cases the schepenen of Ghent might first ascertain local custom, then rule on a case in accordance therewith; cf. the case of 1358 involving land at Waasmunster disputed between Jacob vander Linden and the widow of J a n Peppercoeren. The schepenen of Ghent sent vinders to Waasmunster, who heard testimony, then reported the local custom to the Gentenaren. The schepenen then rendered judgement. SAG, Reeks 301, I, fo. 203v, no. 2.

⁹⁷ Cf. inter alia SAG, Reeks 330, III, I, fo. 9r–v.

⁹⁸ Although settlements were not necessarily made by the vinders according to urban law, fines for violation were levied and collected by the schepenen of Ghent, who occasionally appointed the arbitrators with the consent of the parties involved. Cf. SAG, Reeks 301, I, fo. 149v, no. 1. On March 15, 1363 Jan Vilain, representing his wife and Ywein Van Vaernewijc, and Hughe Braem, representing Robbrecht Brijsteste, contested the rights of Pieter De Moenc on 10 b. of arable and meadow at Doornzele, slightly north of Ghent. Apparently the nobles had bought the land, then denied Pieter's right to collect a tithe there, for the arbitrators awarded Pieter and his heirs 24 lb. par. annually in lieu of the tithe. The vinders were appointed by the parties involved in a private agreement, but fines for violation were to be assessed according to the customs of Ghent; thus the vinders were to record the judgement at Ghent and place the matter thereby under the cognizance of the schepenen. SAG, Reeks 330, II, III, fo. 23v, no. 3.

⁹⁹ On July 6, 1367 Wouter De Bastre and his former leaseholder Jan Screvel quarreled concerning the terms of their contract. Vinders were appointed, but in the capacity of fact-finders rather than arbitrators. After hearing their report, the schepenen ruled that if the property was still worth as high a rental as Jan Screvel had paid, Wouter De Bastre lost his claim for damages. SAG, Reeks 301, II, III, fo. 55r, no. 3.

¹⁰⁰ In 1365 the schepenen ordered an inquest into the property left by Jan De Grutere Van Botelaer. The inquisitors were to determine from the courts having jurisdiction over the lands what was leen, eyghin, vry erve, and vry goet, and pursue the cases where they appertained. The exception was the “goede van Houde Mersch. Dat wijsen wij [schepenen] ghedeelich ende te gane al so soe sculdech es te gane ter sijden dat commen es naer de wet van der poort, mits dat partien in beeden sijden kenden dat erve was.’ SAG, Reeks 330, III, V, fo. 23r, no. 2.

¹⁰¹ On April 20, 1360 the schepenen consented to the sale of 2 g. 400 r. of land belonging to the children of Jacob Van Overdwater; the money was to be used to pay the children's debts. Later in the year they allowed the alienation of other small properties of the Overdwaters, both inside and outside the town. SAG, Reeks 330, II, V, fo. 3 Or, no. 8 and fo. 57v, no. 2.

¹⁰² On May 24, 1368 Lauwereins vanden Voorde of Ghent leased the tithes of Overmeere and Uitbergen from St. Bavon's abbey, making a general renunciation for all matters appertaining to this charter “van bedrichnessen, van boesheiden, van crachte, van vreesen, van gratien, van privilegien, van crucen, van poerterscepe”, and all other forms of exemption. RAG, Fonds St. Baafsabdij, Oorkonden. In 1355 Heine De Jaghere received land at Eksaarde on behalf of his brother Raes, “van der welker erven hem Rase ontpoetert heft bij schepenen lettere van der stede van Ghent”. Gysseling, M. and Wyffels, C., “Het oudste register van wettelijke passeringen van Eksaarde (1349–1360)”, Handelingen van de Koninklijke Commissie voor Toponymie en Dialectologie, XXXVII (1963), 93Google Scholar. Such a clause did not indicate that the person was giving up his bourgeois status, but merely that he had no right to invoke it to escape performance of his obligations according to this particular contract.

¹⁰³ On March 15, 1358 Jan Tolvin quarreled with Lisebette vander Gracht and her party concerning the purchase from the ladies of the manor Ten Pauwe, in the parish of Lo, by Olivier Van Zinghem. Olivier immediately sold the land to Jan Tolvin, and the ladies claimed the property back on grounds of collusion. The schepenen of Ghent ruled that when Olivier bought the property he had no immediate intention of reselling nit to Tolvin and allowed the transaction to stand. SAG, Reeks 301, I, fo. 182v–183r.

¹⁰⁴ On September 3, 1322 the Gentenaren sent a delegation to the count “omme de zettinge, die die van buten maken up onser porters goedinghe”. Vuylsteke, , Rekeningen, 1280–1336, p. 246Google Scholar. On May 30, 1377 the count gave a letter of non-prejudice to Bruges for the consent of the Bruggelingen that the lands which bourgeois of Bruges owned in the Franc be taxed with others in the assessment made for new diking works in the district of IJzendike. IAB, II, no. 631, p. 263.

¹⁰⁵ Gilliodts-Van Severen, , Coutume de la Ville d'Ypres, II, no. 51, pp. 233–234Google Scholar; IAB, III, no. 856, pp. 413–414Google Scholar; Feys, and Van de Casteele, , Histoire d'Oudenbourg, I, 135–136.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Herlihy, David, Pisa in the Early Renaissance. A Study of Urban Growth (New Haven, 1958), p. 160.Google Scholar