A note on money terms: The French system had the denier as its base. Twelve deniers were equivalent to one sou and twenty sous to one livre. It was a so-called ‘money of account’: a measure of value - often linked to an actual system of coinage - used for accounting purposes. Such a system was necessary in situations where a wide variety of coins were in circulation. Accounts would be kept in the money of account while actual transactions would be made in coin, such as the franc d'or. This had a value of 20 sous tournois (see P. Spufford, ‘Coinage and currency’, in The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, vol. 3 (Cambridge, 1965), 593–5, and M. G. A. Vale, Charles VII (London, 1974), 241f.). See also n. 88, below.

1 Helmholz, R. H., Marriage litigation in medieval England (Cambridge, 1974)Google Scholar. For other works on the medieval period see Brundage, J. A., Law, sex and Christian society in medieval Europe (Chicago and London, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cosgrove, A., ‘Marriage in medieval Ireland’ in Cosgrove, A. ed., Marriage in Ireland (Dublin, 1984), 25–50Google Scholar; Donahue, C., ‘The canon law on the formation of marriage and social practice in the later middle ages’, Journal of Family History 8 (1983), 144–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Duby, G., The knight, the lady and the priest: the making of modem marriage in medieval France, trans. Bray, B. (London, 1984)Google Scholar; Sheehan, M. M., ‘The formation and stability of marriage in fourteenth-century England: evidence of an Ely register’, Mediaeval Studies 33 (1973), 228–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sheehan, M. M., ‘Choice of marriage partner in the middle ages: development and mode of application of a theory of marriage, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History n.s. 1 (1978), 3–33Google Scholar. On the early modern period see in particular Houlbrooke, R. A., Church courts and the people on the eve of the Reformation (Oxford, 1979)Google Scholar and Ingram, M., Church courts, sex and marriage, 1570–1640 (Cambridge, 1990).Google Scholar

2 Cosgrove, , ‘Medieval Ireland’, 39f.Google Scholar; Day, J., ‘On the status of women in medieval Sardinia’, in Kirshner, J. and Wemple, S. F. eds., Women of the medieval world: essays in honor of John H. Mundy (Oxford, 1985), 212f.Google Scholar; Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 4f, 30–3, 59, 72f., 189Google Scholar; Sheehan, , ‘Formation and stability’, 263Google Scholar; Smith, R. M., ‘Some reflections on the evidence for the origins of the “European marriage pattern” in England’, in Harris, C. C. ed., The sociology of the family: new directions for Britain, Sociological Review Monograph, 28 (Keele, 1979), 88f.Google Scholar

3 Poos, L. R., A rural society after the Black Death: Essex 1350–1525 (Cambridge, 1991), 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 76–107.Google Scholar

5 Sheehan, M. M., ‘Marriage theory and practice in the conciliar legislation and diocesan statutes of medieval England’, Mediaeval Studies 40 (1978), 457CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Statutes of I Winchester (1224) insisted that decisions concerning both the formation and dissolution of marriages were made by the courts and not the couples concerned (Powicke, F. W. and Cheney, C. R. eds., Councils and synods with other documents relating to the English Church, vol. II: A.D. 1205–1313 (Oxford, 1964), part 1, 135)Google Scholar. Helmholz suggests that the scarcity of suits for separations quoad mensa et thoro may be due to couples simply agreeing between themselves to part (Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 101).Google Scholar

6 Poos, , A rural society, 140f.Google Scholar; Smith, , ‘Some reflections’, 88Google Scholar. For a more pessimistic view of the durability of peasant marriages, see Bennett, J. M., Women in the medieval English countryside: gender and household in Brigstock before the Plague (New York, 1987), 100.Google Scholar

7 Bannister, A. T. ed., ‘Visitation returns of the diocese of Hereford in 1397’, English Historical Review 44 (1929), 279–89, 444–53Google Scholar; 45 (1930), 92–101,444–63; Cacheux, J. Le ed., ‘Un fragment du registre de l'officialité de Cerisy (1474–1480/85)’, Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie 43 (1935), 291–315Google Scholar; Dupont, M. G. ed., Le registre de l’officialité de Cerisy, Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, 3^e série, 10 (Caen, 1880)Google Scholar. Bannister's edition of the Hereford visitation returns is incomplete and any study should be undertaken with reference to the original manuscript (Bishop Trefnant's visitation return for 1397, Hereford Cathedral Library, A1779).

8 Ingram, , Church courts, 147–50, 185–8Google Scholar; Stone, L., Road to divorce: England 1530–1987 (Oxford, 1990), 141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Brundage, , Law, sex and Christian society, 453, 514Google Scholar; Brundage, J. A., ‘Carnal delight: canonistic theories of sexuality’, Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (Vatican City, 1980), 380f.Google Scholar; Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 59–64, 67–9Google Scholar; Esmein, A., Le mariage en droit canonique, 2 vols. (Paris 1891; reprinted New York, 1968)Google Scholar; Makowski, E. M., ‘The conjugal debt and medieval canon law’, Journal of Medieval History 3 (1977), 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Esmein draws upon the following presentments from the Cerisy register: Jean la Pie; Jean le Scellé; Thomas la Pie; Thoroudus Rigal; Jean Pomier; Henri le Portier; Colin le Coq (Esmein, , Le mariage, vol. 2, 10 nn. 1–2)Google Scholar. Brundage uses the case of Jean Pomier and his wife to provide an example of a restitution suit. Makowski makes a similar claim for the case of Jean le Scelé. As will be seen, neither of these examples is a civil restitution suit. As Esmein recognized, both are in fact ex officio prosecutions brought by the court following inquiries made at visitation. The circumstances surrounding the separations make it unlikely that any of those involved would have wished or been legally entitled to initiate a civil action (see below, 10f.; Esmein, , Le mariage, vol. 2, 10).Google Scholar

10 The records of visitations at Littry survive for twenty-three years between 1314 and 1346, at Cerisy eighteen years between 1315 and 1341, and at Deux Jumeaux nine years between 1315 and 1333.

11 Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 96, 451.Google Scholar

12 The registrar is recorded as conducting the visitation at Colewall while Trefnant was to be consulted personally about a particular case from Ledbury. The bishop's personal register contains two references to business conducted at Ledbury and Pembridge ‘coram nobis visitacionem actualiter exercentibus’ (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 92f.Google Scholar; Cole, W. W. ed., Registrum Johannis Trefnant, episcopi Herefordensis, Canterbury and York Society, 20 (London, 1916), 138f.).Google Scholar

13 Leintwardine to Diddlebury; Bromfield to Lydbury North.

14 Markets (Dupont, Registre, 62a, 416i and k); fulling mill (ibid., 259a and b, 375e); livestock (ibid., 26b, 50c, 55, 392k, 393d); cereals (ibid., 44, 147, 173d, 366h, 387b, 390a, 392a).

15 Markets: Monmouth (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 445)Google Scholar; Ross (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 92)Google Scholar; Leominster (ibid., 99); Ludlow (ibid., 452). Agriculture and stock-keeping: horses, cows and geese (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 285)Google Scholar; pigs in cemeteries (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 93, 96)Google Scholar; hay and other produce kept in church tower (ibid., 94); rector winnowing wheatcorn in cemetery (ibid., 96); cows kept by vicar in cemetery (ibid., 99). See Elrington, C. R. ed., A history of Shropshire, vol. 4 (The Victoria History of the Counties of England; The University of London Institute of Historical Research, 1989), 66, for other markets and fairs in Shropshire.Google Scholar

16 The figures on which this calculation is based were taken from Dobson, R. B., The Peasants' Revolt of 1381, 2nd ed. (London, 1983), 54–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Russell, J. C., British medieval population (Albuquerque, 1948), 131Google Scholar. The calculations for the diocese of Hereford are further complicated by the ecclesiastical organization of Shropshire. The county was divided principally between the dioceses of Hereford and Lichfield, but a number of the north-western parishes lay in St Asaph diocese. A rough estimate of the population of that part of the county which lay within Hereford diocese was calculated by dividing the figure for Shropshire by two and then subtracting the figure for Shrewsbury since the town was in Lichfield diocese.

17 These are partly based on the figures used by Dufresne to calculate the number of households within the peculiar rather than its total population (Dufresne, J.-L., ‘Les comportements amoureux d'après les registres de l'officialité de Cerisy (xiv^e-xv^e s.)’, Bulletin philologique et historique du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques for 1973 (1976), 131f., 132 n. 5)Google Scholar. On the basis of his calculations Cerisy would have had 212 hearths, Littry 160 and Deux Jumeaux 50. If a multiplier of 4.5 is used then their populations would have been 954, 720 and 225 respectively. The populations of Couvains and St.-Laurent-sur-Mer can also be calculated at 810 for the former and 131 for the latter. Other figures were calculated from monnéage (hearth tax) returns which survive between 1368 and 1419. The following places were identified within the officiality and a rough estimate made of their populations (the dates of the surviving rolls and the numbers of hearths appear in brackets): Crouay (1392; 100), 450; Formigny (1401/7; 87), 392; La Folie (1401; 59), 266; Neuilly (1401; 214), 963; St. Pierre (1389; 36), 162; St. Servais (1395; 90), 200; Surrain (1401; 69), 311; Tournières (1389; 89), 401; La Vacquerie (1404; 63), 284 (‘Contribution à l’étude de la population de la Normandie au bas Moyen-Age (XIVe-XVIe siècles): Inventaire des rôles de fouage et d'aide. Première série: Rôles de fouage paroissiaux de 1369 à 1419’, Cahiers Léopold Delisle 19 (1970), 1–92)Google Scholar. For a fuller discussion of this topic see Finch, A. J., ‘Crime and marriage in three late medieval ecclesiastical jurisdictions: Cerisy, Rochester and Hereford’ (unpublished D.Phil, thesis, University of York, 1988), 3–5, and below, note 109.Google Scholar

18 At Garway, the parish priest was unable to fulfil his pastoral duties adequately because he spoke no Welsh and most of his parishioners spoke no English (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’, (1929), 289).Google Scholar

19 A visitation in the officiality in 1315 was to make a general inquiry into heresy, usury, leprosy, sexual morality (de fornicationibus), rapine and ‘other crimes’ (Dupont, Registre, 25a). The sworn men through whom such inquiries were made are described as ‘bonos homines et fideles’ on one occasion and as ‘probos homines’ on another (ibid., 9d, 419). The presentments at Hereford were made on a similar range of topics - which correspond to the questions of a general inquiry made in England during 1253. The parishioners who were questioned on these matters are named at the visitation of Newland (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 280, 448)Google Scholar. See also Hill, R. M. T., The labourer in the vineyard: the visitations of Archbishop Melton in the Archdeaconry of Richmond, Borthwick Paper, 35 (St Anthony's Press, York, 1968)Google Scholar and Pantin, W. A., ‘Grosseteste's relations with the papacy and the Crown’ in Callus, D. ed., Robert Grosseteste scholar and bishop: essays in commemoration of the seventh centenary of his death (Oxford, 1955; reprinted 1969), 179f., 201f.Google Scholar

20 See for example: Chevalier, U. ed., Visites pastorales et ordinations des évêques de Grenoble de la maison de Chissé (Lyon, 1874)Google Scholar; Coulton, G. G. ed., ‘A visitation return of the archdeaconry of Totnes in 1342’, English Historical Review 26 (1911), 108–24Google Scholar; Guilleré, C., ‘Les visites pastorales en Tarraconaise à la fin du moyen âge - l'exemple du diocèse de Gerone’, Melanges de la Casa de Velasquez 14 (1983), 125–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harper-Bill, C., ‘A late medieval visitation - the diocese of Norwich in 1499’, Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History 34 (1977), 35–47Google Scholar; Martí i Bonet, J. M. ed., ‘Els processes de les Visites Pastorals del primer any del pontifical de Ponç de Gualba (a. 1303)’, Processes de l'Arxiu Diocesà de Barcelona (Barcelona, 1984), 23–121Google Scholar; Merle, M. ed., ‘Visite pastorale du diocèse de Lyon (1378–1379)’, Bulletin de la Diána 26 (1937–1939), 217–356Google Scholar; Woodruff, C. E. ed., ‘Some early visitation rolls preserved at Canterbury’, Archaeologia Cantiana 32 (1917), 143–80Google Scholar; Woodruff, C. E. ed., ‘An archidiaconal visilalion of 1501’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 47 (1935), 13–54.Google Scholar

21 Duponl, Registre, 10a and b, 17a, 30a and b, 33a, 40b, 50b, 58, 66, 67a and c, 68, 69, 78. Individual marriage suits also survive from 1314 and 1321 and a further two from 1322 (ibid., 4a, 90, 103, 108).

22 ibid., 32b, 46.

23 For a fuller description of this form of abjuration see Esmein, , Le mariage, vol. 1, 145Google Scholar (who characterises it as a ‘manière ingénieuse, pour transformer fréquemment, et à coup sûr, les unions irrégulières en manage’), and Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 172–81.Google Scholar

24 Dupont, Registre, 25b. This abjuration had been made in October 1314 after Henri had denied breaking an identical pledge (ibid., 11a). This has been cited in extenso in Esmein, , Le mariage, vol. 1, 145 n. 3. At this time he had two children by Thomassia.Google Scholar

25 The reference is contained in a presentment at visitation. It reads as follows: ‘Henricus le Portier, clericus, diffamatur ut alias de Thomasssia filia Ricardi le Guileor. Excommunicationis pendet causa’ (Dupont, Registre, 43b, 46).

26 Dupont, Registre, 71, 110d, 118bis. When the couple had first appeared, in October 1314, it had been Thomassia who had alleged that a prior abjuration sub pena nubendi had been broken. Henri for his part admitted intercourse with her, but denied the existence of such an abjuration (see n. 24 above).

27 Brundage, , Law, sex and Christian society, 457.Google Scholar

28 Ibid., 54a. See also Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 87–90Google Scholar and Esmein, , Le mariage, vol. 1, 232–67Google Scholar. Esmein cites this particular case in order to demonstrate the problems of proof associated with impotence suits (Esmein, , Le mariage, vol. 1, 263 n. 3).Google Scholar

29 Dupont, Registre, 56c.

30 Ibid., 81b.

31 The Latin text reads ‘Johannem in legem matrimonii predicti pecasse contra [naturam ?], talem carnaliter cognoscendo.’ The omission may have been an editorial decision, but it is impossible to tell without reference to the manuscript which itself is probably no longer extant (ibid., 428).

32 Cacheux, Le, ‘Un fragment’, 307.Google Scholar

33 Goldberg, P. J. P., ‘Marriage, migration, servanthood and life-cycle in Yorkshire towns of the later middle ages: some York cause paper evidence’, Continuity and Change 1 (1986), 143 (Table 1), 157 (Table 5)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 72Google Scholar; Sheehan, , ‘Formation and stability’, 258f., 262f.Google Scholar

34 For a fuller description of the meaning of the term within canon law see Brundage, , ‘Carnal delight’, 380f.Google Scholar; Thomas of Chobham, Summa Confessorum, ed. Broomfield, F., Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia, 25 (Louvain, 1968), 333f., 337–9, 365f., 388f.Google Scholar, Makowski, , ‘Conjugal debt’, 99–114Google Scholar; Tentler, T. N., Sin and confession on the eve of the Reformation (Princeton, 1977), 170–4.Google Scholar

35 ‘Johannes la Pie et Johanna ejus uxor male se tractant, nec jacuerant simul a decem et septem annis’ (Dupont, Registre, 9e).

36 ‘Th. Bequet uxoratus [et] Agnes ejus uxor … seorsum habitant et mulier de incontinentia diffamatur; nesciunt de quo’ (ibid., 64b).

37 ‘Thomas la Pie, junior, [et] Dyonisia, ejus uxor, diffamantur pro eo quod non simul morantur quinque annis elapsis’ (ibid., 124b); ‘Th. La Pie juravit per ejus juramentum quod bene tractabit suam uxorem et eisdem injunximus ad penam scale quod unus facial alteri quod debet facere’ (ibid., 127b).

38 ‘Thomas la Pie et ejus uxor male se habent et per factum uxoris’ (ibid., 137b); ‘Thomas la Pie et ejus uxor similiter male se habent’ (ibid., 144a).

39 ‘Coqueta et Thouroudus Rigal ejusdem maritus male se habent invicem et sunt infideles in suo matrimonio’ (ibid., 127b).

40 Ibid., 132b, 144b, 177b, 215b. In the context of informal separations it is interesting to note that Thoroudus' affair with the wife au Haleor was known to her husband who nevertheless consented to it (ibid., 167c, 183b). A similar case appears among the Hereford visitation returns, though it does not seem to have led to separation (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 444).Google Scholar

41 Dupont, Registre, 137c.

42 ‘Laurentius Mauger, alias le Peil, habet uxorem et non sunt insimul per dictum Laurentii’ (ibid., 136c).

43 ‘Johannes Groullard et ejus uxor male se habent et non sunt insimul et dicunt quod est per culpam mariti’ (ibid., 136c); ‘Johannes Groullart accusatus de uxore sua quod se male habent ad invicem et non sunt insimul; sed dictus Johannes dixit quod per se non, stat imo per dictam uxorem, et dicta uxor de contrario, et petiit quod nos super hoc informaremus’ (ibid., 161b).

44 ‘Item Robertus Bellisent uxoratus est et aliam uxorem penes se habet’ (ibid., 146).

45 ‘Johannes le Scellé diffamatur de eo quod non reddit debitum uxori sue … Injunximus dicto Johanni sub pena X librarum turonensium ut de nocte in noctem jaceat cum uxore sua semper de cetero et ut tractat earn de legali matrimonio’ (ibid., 95c).

46 ‘Johannes le Seeley non tenet injunctionem quam ei fecimus alias… (ibid., 119b); Nos injunximus Johanni le Seeley ut de nocte in noctem jaceat cum uxore sua usque ad Ascensionem, et quod secundum posse suum facial dicte uxori quod debel facere’ (ibid., 124b).

47 ‘Johannes le Seeley el ejus uxor non se gerunl lanquam vir el uxor’ (ibid., 127b).

48 ‘… injunximus Colino le Coq, ad penam XL librarum el scale quod de cetero tractel fideliler uxorem suam sicul bonus et probus homo, et eidem uxori simililer ad dictam penam quod eat cum dicto Colino, et quod ei facial sicut bona uxor debet facere marito suo, cui injunclioni ipsi sponte acquieverunt’ (ibid., 182).

49 ‘Colinus le Coq et ejus uxor non bene se habent inter se’ (ibid., 206b).

50 The phrase used is ‘non bene se habent ad letum’ (ibid., 261b). Esmein corrects ‘letum’ to ‘lectum’ (Esmein, , Le mariage, vol. 2, 10 n. 2).Google Scholar

51 ‘Alicia fllia Ricardi Daniel diffamatur de communi et male se habet cum marito suo’ (Dupont, Registre, 261c).

52 Ibid., 366k.

53 Ibid., 3701.

54 Ibid., 363f.

55 ‘…nobis gagiavit emendam eo quod dimiserat dictum Johannem du Hamel maritum suum, et fuerat cum Guillermo Fortin in villa de Leigle gallice, et fuit secum per magnum spacium temporis…’ (ibid., 390h).

56 Ibid., 390k.

57 Ibid., 390b. During her previous marriage to Gaufrid de Cantilley, Phillipota had been prosecuted for adultery with a priest in 1393 and with three men in 1396. In October 1406, she was ordered not to cohabit with Thomas Benart. At some date close to this she was also fined for fornication with Guillaume Agolant, who later became her second husband (ibid., 366m, 370f, 384i, q).

58 Ibid., 390o.

59 Ibid., 391.

60 Geremek, B., The margins of society in late medieval Paris, trans. Birrell, J. (Cambridge, 1987), 234Google Scholar; Ruggiero, G., The boundaries of Eros: sex, crime and society in Renaissance Venice (Oxford, 1985), 41f.Google Scholar

61 For a fuller description of the term and its significance, see Noonan, J. T., ‘Marital affection in the canonists’, Studia Gratiana 12 (1967), 479–509.Google Scholar

62 Six presentments were for showing a lack of marital affect (3); five for ill-treatment (‘male tractat’) (4); three for ill-treatment combined with a lack of marital affect and denial of marital dues (2); and one for showing a lack of marital affect and denying food and clothing. (The figures in brackets refer to the numbers of presentments in which adultery was present.) A man was also ordered ‘quod tractat uxorem debite sub pena extrema in futurum’. He was committing adultery with three women.

63 Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 449Google Scholar; Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 94, 100, 455f.Google Scholar

64 Five couples were found to be living separately and not as man and wife (‘non cohabitant simul, ut vir et uxor’) while in another case both parties had taken lovers. (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 99, 450, 459f., 462Google Scholar; Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fo. 25b.)

66 ‘Item quod Thomas Monse et Maiota, uxor sua, non cohabitant simul, ut vir [et uxor]… parentes dicte Maiote impediunt eandem ad cohabitandum cum eodem’ (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 445Google Scholar; Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fo. 15b).

67 ‘Item quod Walterus Kadyle male tractat Ivel, uxorem suam legitimam, expellendo eandem a commoracione sua et denegando eidem victum et vestitum et alia debita conjugalia, de qua procreavit unum filium quam recusat sustenare… Item quod Symond Acherhulle male tractat uxorem suam, ut supra’ (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 451).Google Scholar

68 Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 450, 454Google Scholar; Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fo. 19a.

69 Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fo. 19a.

70 Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 448, 459Google Scholar; Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fo. 25a.

71 (Burghill) ‘…Harry Daundevyl, tylarius, recusat cohabitare cum uxore sua legitima, nee tractat earn affectu maritali, et adulterat cum Matilda, quam tenet in domo sua apud Pyoniam’; (Vowchurch) ‘… Willelmus Tumor, conjugatus, adulterat cum Johanna Zyfler, et tenet earn in domo sua, nec habitat cum uxore sua, ymmo eamomnino affectu nupciali tractare recusat’; (Staunton-on-Wye) ‘…Johannes Gomond, conjugatus, committit adulterium cum Johanna Smyth et Lucia, quas tenet in domo sua, uxore legitima repulsa’; (Kington) ‘…Gwiliam de Clonne, qui moratur apud Astone, adulterat cum Agnete Clerke, quam tenet pro uxore, superstite alia uxore, cum qua precontraxit apud Clonne, cujus nomen ignorant’; (Pembridge) ‘…Johannes Scheppert adulterat cum Alson, quam tenet in domo sua, repulsa uxore sua’; (Titley) ‘’; (Norton)‘… Jevan Bola adulterat cum Elena Lippa, repulsa uxore legitima’ (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 281, 283, 285Google Scholar; Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 445, 446, 450Google Scholar; Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fo. 3a).

72 Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fo. 12a; Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 95.Google Scholar

73 ‘…Willelmus ffox, committit adulterium cum Johanna Hardynge, quam tenet in concubinam, et male tractat uxorem suam, subtrahendo victualia et alia sibi debita de jure. Item idem confessus est publice coram intimis suis quod ipse precognovit Luciam Wasmar, sororem uxoris sue’ (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 444)Google Scholar. The manuscript appears to read ‘conjugatus, adulterat’ rather than ‘committit adulterium’ (Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fo. 5b).

74 Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 452Google Scholar; Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 94, 100Google Scholar; Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fo. 12a.

75 Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 288f.Google Scholar; Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 460.Google Scholar

76 In these cases, the men were also said to have ‘repelled’ (‘repulsa’) their wives, though no violence is mentioned (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 285Google Scholar; Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 446, 447, 448, 450, 452, 460).Google Scholar

77 Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fos. 19a, 22a, 26b.

78 ibid., fo. 20b.

79 ibid., fos. 17a, 19a, 19b, 25a.

80 Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fos. 12a, 16a. Where details are given of the conditions of penance enjoined on men found guilty of adultery these are almost always of greater severity. On seven occasions the man was to be beaten six times round his local market and parish church; in one case he was also to carry a candle (ibid., fos. 6b, 14b, 15b, 16a, 22b, 25a, 25b). On two occasions the penance assigned was three fustigations around the church and market (ibid., fos. 18b, 19a), and in three others, three fustigations around the market (ibid., 5b, 11b, 24a). The most severe penance was enjoined on a Molynton man who was to be beaten six times round Hereford market, parish church and before the procession at Hereford Cathedral (ibid., fo. 3a).

81 Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 95Google Scholar; Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fo. 16a.

82 Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 282, 451Google Scholar; Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 454.Google Scholar

83 Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 451Google Scholar; Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fo. 19a.

84 Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fos. 15b, 16b.

85 ibid., fo. 5b.

86 Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 102Google Scholar; Powicke, and Cheney, , Councils and synods, vol. 2, part 2, 999.Google Scholar

87 Dupont, Registre, 127b, 137c, 182, 261b.

88 ibid., 95c, 366k, 390h. Details of work contracts contained within the late-fourteenth-century sections of the Cerisy register can be used to give some indication of the financial severity of such fines if levied in full. One man who was hired pro serviendo was to receive six livres for a whole year. Another man hired out his unspecified services for 15 livres tournois. The period of this contract was again for one year. Finally a man who apprenticed himself out as a wheelwright did so on condition that he would receive nine francs d'or, a ‘good’ woollen tunic and a pair of shoes. In this case the contract was for fourteen months. One franc d'or was worth 20 sous tournois (ibid., 236, 335, 253).

89 Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 101.Google Scholar

90 The ability of the Church to enforce payment of the debt was envisaged by II Exeter (cited in Powicke and Cheney as in n. 86 above) and was routinely applied by church courts to end informal separations and de facto divorces. It has a legal parallel in the civil action for the restitution of conjugal rights (Brundage, , Law, sex and Christian society, 505f.Google Scholar; Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 67–9).Google Scholar

91 Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 285–7, 445, 450Google Scholar; Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 94, 97, 99f., 450, 452, 455, 460.Google Scholar

92 Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 447Google Scholar; Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 97.Google Scholar

93 Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 284, 446, 448Google Scholar; Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fo. 6b.

94 Dupont, Registre, 95c, 96c, 110d, 121c, 124b, 261d, 394h.

95 These were: Yves de Crisetot and Nicola, widow of Guillaume Evrart, 1314–20 (woman is pregnant) (ibid., 13b, 25c, 75c); Laurence Symeonis and the wife of Ricard Guillet, 1319–22 (woman's husband consents) (ibid., 63, 96b); Jordan Blandin and Caterina, wife of Sanson de Landa, 1314–16 (ibid., 9e, 42c); Thomassia, wife of Ricard le Tonnierre, and German de Montfreart, 1322–3 (ibid., 95c, 112); Guillaume le Rous and the wife of Ricard Evrart, 1331–4 (ibid., 137d, 167c); Radulf Cauvin and the wife of Ranulf Longuelanche, 1315–20 (ibid., 26g, 64b, 76); Drouet le Carpentier and Mabil, wife of Jean Thaon, 1315–19 (‘tenuit in adulterio’) (ibid., 26f, 76); Thomas de Cantepie and the wife of Laurence Quenet, 1370–1 (ibid., 258, 261b); Yves de Landes and the wife of Jean Galles, 1399–1406 (ibid., 375k, 384c); Radulph Agasse and the wife of Thomas Maines, 1402–6/7 (ibid., 377a, 384b). The couples who were both committing adultery were: Roger Radulfi and his wife (ibid., 42c, 119c); Etienne Bressun and his wife (ibid., 84c, d, 144b).

96 Dupont, Registre, 217, 379, 393s.

97 The Audience court initiated ten ex officio actions against couples who were living apart. In one case, the court recognized that the couple might be unable to live together and in two others those concerned swore to treat each other with marital affect. In the seven remaining cases the husbands had either expelled, mistreated or abandoned their wives. In all but one they had taken a lover. The defendants were required to readmit their wives and treat them with marital affect. Penance was imposed in those cases where the charge of adultery could be proved. (Mills, , ‘Spiritual correction in the medieval church courts of Canterbury’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester, USA, 1980, 64f.).Google Scholar

98 Ingram, , Church courts, 148, 187f.Google Scholar

99 Dupont, Registre, 404e, 429.

100 For a fuller discussion of the evidence for the effect of war on Cerisy during this period see Finch, A. J., ‘Crime and marriage’, 11–13Google Scholar. The abbey was fortified in the later fourteenth century (Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiatiques, vol. 12 (Paris, 1953), 171.Google Scholar

101 Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 281.Google Scholar

102 Ingram, , Church courts, 150.Google Scholar

103 Brundage notes that the laity, ‘at least on the lower socio-economic levels, exercised far greater control over marriage and divorce than academic commentators acknowledged or than the Church's lawgivers were prepared to concede’ (Brundage, , Law, sex and Christian society, 454).Google Scholar

104 These couples were: Richard Goche and his wife; Jevan ap Philip and his wife; Walter Kadyle and Ivel; Thomas Hanntone and Ivel; levan Bola and his wife; Llewelyn Carwent and his wife; Johanna and Gruffuth de Ley; Jevan Gwyn and his wife; Gruffuth Hir and his wife; Rys Hergat and Eva; David Deheubarth and his wife; David ap Jevan ap lorworth and Gwenllian filia Gilliam (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 282, 445, 451Google Scholar; Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 99, 100, 448, 449f., 452, 456, 459, 461Google Scholar; Hereford Cathedral Library, A 1779, fo. 25b).

105 Davies, R. R., ‘The status of women and the practice of marriage in late medieval Wales’, in Jenkins, D. and Owen, M. E. eds., The Welsh law of women: studies presented to Professor Daniel A. Binchey on his eightieth birthday, 3 June 1980 (Cardiff, 1980), 106, 112f.Google Scholar

106 It is possible that the marriages of Walter Kadyle and Thomas Hanntone were mixed.

107 Williams, G., Recovery, reorientation and reformation: Wales c. 1415–1642 (Oxford: University of Wales Press, 1987), 94.Google Scholar

108 Walter Kadyl had expelled his wife, Ivel, from their home and was denying her food, clothing and other marital dues. He was also refusing to support their child. Thomas Hanntone and his wife were not cohabiting as man and wife (Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1929), 451Google Scholar; Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 99).Google Scholar

109 It must be stressed that these can be no more than rough estimates. One well-known demographic historian of late-medieval Normandy cautions against using hearth tax returns to establish population sizes rather than population densities. A series of convoluted calculations is recommended to offset the deficiencies of the source when estimating the size of population (Bois, G., The crisis of feudalism: economy and society in eastern Normandy c. 1300–1550 (Cambridge, 1984), 33–5, 37–9, 162 n. 52)Google Scholar. Further unknown variables would include the numbers of couples presented at previous visitations or, in the case of Hereford, before local ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Evidence from both areas shows that marital difficulties could drag on for considerable periods of time: within the officiality, Jean la Pie and his wife had been on bad terms since at least 1297, while an adulterous affair in the diocese of Hereford had been continuing for twelve years (see above, n. 35, and Bannister, , ‘Visitation returns’ (1930), 97)Google Scholar. The problems encountered here are similar to those which present themselves when attempts are made to set homicide rates in the medieval period: neither the figures for the base population nor for the incidence of the offence are sufficiently accurate for firm statistical conclusions to be drawn. See Maddern, P. C., Violence and social order: East Anglia, 1422–1442 (Oxford, 1992), 8f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Post, J. B., ‘Crime in later medieval England: some historiographical limitations’, Continuity and Change 2 (1987), 220f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Powell, E., ‘Social research and the use of medieval criminal records’, Michigan Law Review 79 (1980–1981), 974–6.Google Scholar

110 Smith, R. M., ‘Marriage processes in the English past: some continuities’, in Bonfield, L., Smith, R. M. and Wrightson, K. eds., The world we have gained: histories of population and social structure. Essays presented to Peter Laslett on his seventieth birthday (Oxford, 1986), 70 and n. 93Google Scholar. Elsewhere Smith sets this figure a little higher at 3 per cent (Smith, , ‘Some reflections’, 88).Google Scholar

111 It should also be borne in mind that the cases at Cerisy came to the attention of the court over a much longer time span. The register survives in a largely complete form from 1314 to 1413, but there is an almost complete break in the text between 1346 and 1371. If this period is deducted from the total number of years, then the number of marriages at risk would be 1.6 per annum before the break in the register or 0.12 per cent per annum thereafter.

112 Brundage, , Law, sex and Christian society, 505f.Google Scholar

113 See, for example, Haines, R. M. ed., Calendar of the register of Adam de Orton Bishop of Worcester 1327–1333, Worcester Historical Society, n.s 10, Historical Manuscripts Commission, Joint Publication, 27 (London, 1979), 601f., 640; and above n. 97 and below n. 114.Google Scholar

114 A couple appeared before the Bishop of Salisbury in 1321 charged with living apart. The man claimed that he could not treat his wife with ‘conjugal affection’ as she had committed adultery with all and sundry (‘cum diversis’). His actions are indicative of secular attitudes surrounding adultery since, although he himself had sinned in legam conjugali, he did not see why he should treat his wife with marital affect (Owen, D. M. ed., The Registers of Roger Martival Bishop of Salisbury, vol. 6 Canterbury and York Society, 68 (London, 1975), 134)Google Scholar. The infrequency of actions for separation on the grounds of adultery has been explained by both the sense of shame involved in reporting the offence and the fear that such a charge might bring a counter-allegation of adultery (Brundage, , Law, sex and Christian society, 513).Google Scholar

115 Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 59–64.Google Scholar

116 Scammell, J., ‘Freedom and marriage in medieval England’, Economic History Review 2nd series, 27 (1974), 532fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. In his study of rape and prostitution at Dijon during the fifteenth century, Rossiaud found among rape victims a woman who had separated from her husband with his consent (Rossiaud, J., Medieval prostitution, trans. Cochrane, L. G. (Oxford, 1988), 29, n. 4)Google Scholar. Other incidents of informal separation can be found scattered through English and continental ecclesiastical records. See, for example, Aubenas, R. ed., Recueil de lettres des officialités de Marseille et d'Aix (XIV^e-XV^e siècles, 2 vols. (Paris, 1937), vol. 1, 72Google Scholar; vol. 2, 85f.; Harper-Bill, , ‘A late medieval visitation’, 38Google Scholar; Marti i Bonet, ‘Els processes de les Visiles Pastorals’, 53, 59, 60, 68, 75, 82, 84, 88, 92.

117 Elvey, E. M. ed., The courts of the archdeaconry of Buckingham 1483–1523, Buckingham Record Society, 19 (Welwyn Garden City, 1975), 46Google Scholar. For later examples of such customs, see Menefee, S. P., Wives for sale: an ethnographic study of British popular divorce (Oxford, 1981)Google Scholar and the comments of Stone, , Road to divorce, 143–8.Google Scholar