No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Thomas Wolf c. Richard de Abingdon,1293–1295: A Case Study of Legal Argument
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2019
Abstract
This essay examines the legal arguments in Wolf c. Abingdon, a tithes dispute from 1293–5 between the rector and the vicar of Aldington, Kent. The case records contain explicit citations to written law, a surprising find in a seemingly minor case. The presence of explicit citations in particular suggests first that the litigants had access to legal assistance in the provincial court, and second that advocates and possibly judges were turning to written legal sources to resolve disputed points. This essay shows how the litigants' arguments were constructed and determines whether or not these arguments were effective in court.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019
Footnotes
I am very grateful to William Eves, Timothy Haskett, John Hudson, and Attilio Stella for their helpful comments on drafts of this essay. Any infelicities are, of course, my own. All archival sources are used with the kind permission of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury.
References
1 In general, rectors were owed the great and small tithes and the vicars, small tithes only. This dispute specifically concerns the small tithes of Aldington and Smeeth. It has been suggested by one reader that it was uncommon to have a permanent vicarage created when the rectory was not held by a religious house. If so, the irregularity of this may have factored into the dispute.
2 Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CCA-DCc-SVSB/3/188; SVSB/3/193. All manuscripts from the CCA are henceforward referred to by their shelf mark only.
3 CCA-DCc-SVSB/3/188.
4 J. R. S. Philips, ‘Richard de Abyndone’, ODNB, <https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/23524>.
5 CCA-DCc-ESRoll/134.
6 Sullivan, Thomas, Benedictine monks at the University of Paris, A.D. 1229–1500: a biographical register, Leiden 1994, no. 185Google Scholar.
7 Donahue, Charles Jr, Law, marriage and society in the later Middle Ages: arguments about marriage in five courts, Cambridge 2007, 567Google Scholar.
8 Ibid., ‘Additional texts and commentary’, no. 1183.
9 Woodcock, Brian L., Medieval ecclesiastical courts in the diocese of Canterbury, Oxford 1952, 10Google Scholar.
10 Ibid; Churchill, Irene J., Canterbury administration: the administrative machinery of the archbishopric of Canterbury illustrated from original records, ii, London 1933, 13Google Scholar.
11 Woodcock, Medieval ecclesiastical courts, 113; Churchill, Canterbury administration, ii. 13.
12 CCA-DCc-SVSB/1/170.
13 Donahue, Law, marriage and society, ‘Additional texts and commentary’, no. 1185.
14 In the Domesday entry for Aldington, it is noted that it had a particularly large number of households and tax units, indicating that it was a wealthy area even 200 years prior to the dispute over the tithes: <https://opendomesday.org/place/TR0736/aldington>.
15 Edward Hasted, ‘Parishes: Aldington’, in The history and topographical survey of the county of Kent, viii, Canterbury 1799, 314–27; British History Online, <http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol8/pp314-327>.
16 Ibid.
17 Jeff Denton and others, Taxatio, Sheffield 2014, <https://www.dhi.ac.uk/taxatio/benkey?benkey=CA.CA.LY.15>.
18 Ibid. Taxatio notes the institution of the rectory in about 1272.
19 Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, A.D. 1294–1313, ed. Rose Graham (Canterbury and York Society li, 1952), 118–20.
20 Ibid. 118; CCA-DCc-SVSB/3/194.
21 CCA-DCc-SVSB/3/191.
22 CCA-DCc-ESRoll/134.
23 CCA-DCc-SVSB/3/190. All the lands named are presumably farmland held within the hundred of Bircholt (in which Aldington is located), but any modern names have yet to be found.
24 CCA-DCc-SVSB/3/186.
25 CCA-DCc-SVSB/3/187.
26 CCA-DCc-SVSB/1/108/1.
27 CCA-DCc-SVSB/2/58/2.
28 CCA-DCc-SVSB/3/188.
29 CCA-DCc-SVSB/3/193.
30 CCA-DCc-EC/III/55.
31 CCA-DCc-SVSB/3/189. Thomas has not as yet appeared in any other records, so whether or not he had benefices elsewhere is unknown.
32 CCA-DCc-SVSB/3/192.
33 CCA-DCc-SVSB3/196.
34 Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, 119.
35 Ibid. 120. The register of Archbishop Winchelsey mentions that the vicar of Aldington was to maintain a priest and a clerk, and later that the vicar, priests and clerks aforesaid were to swear the oath to the rector.
36 Sarah White, ‘Procedure and legal argument in the court of Canterbury, c. 1193–1300’, unpubl. PhD diss. St Andrews 2018.
37 ‘Viro veritatis et ualide circumspectationis Domino commissario Cant’ R. Qualiscumque rector ecclesie de Aldington’ prosperos semper ad vota successere quibat hesterna die usque Saltwod’ Lupus magistri Johannis Hanekyn’ ut Saulus dudum furia inuectus dirumque toto corpore virus efflabat ut vos moneret erga me accusator infelix. Heu quod in via quam ueniebat non circumfulsit eum lux de celo ut cecidisset in terra nichilque vidisset ut sic iustificatus et nomine sibi mutaretur et vita non hoc forsitan ei accidit quia non est vas electionis ut saulus expugnet impugnantem me deus Carissime domine quia uelociter currit sermo eius minus ei credatis Cum enim scieritis qualiter se habuit erga me coram parochianis hac die dominica et quantum se reddidit importunum Sic pondabitis eius querelam quod redundabit in caput Lupi qui nec propheta nec filius est prophete Et nisi veniret lator presentium ad vos ut nuncius a me missis bonum esset inquirere ab illo quid ego quoad dictam querelam merui et quid Lupus valete semper in Christo. Et valeat Magister Johannes cum fuerit segregatus a Lupo’: CCA-DCc-EC/III/54.
38 The line from Amos appears to be a misunderstanding on Richard's part. In context, Amos is denying any personal motivation to prophesy, stating that he is only doing so at God's command. The passage is usually used as a disclaimer, when an author wishes to make clear that he is not writing anything original, whereas Richard's intention here appears to be to denounce Thomas.
39 CCA-DCc-ESRoll/213.
40 White, ‘Procedure and legal argument’.
41 CCA-DCc-EC/III/55.
42 ‘Detentio’, ‘In possessione esse’ and ‘Possessio’: Berger, Adolf, Encyclopedic dictionary of Roman law (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society xliii, 1953), 433, 496, 636–7Google Scholar.
43 An actio vi bonorum raptorum was a penal action following the theft of moveable goods. If it were brought within a year of the theft, a convicted defendant had to pay four times the value of the goods: ‘Rapina’, ibid. 667. An Actio furti was an action for a private penalty, the amount of which depended on the kind of theft: ‘Furtum’, ibid. 480.
44 C. 3.116; Inst. 4.6 in the gloss which begins ‘In eodem iudicem’.
45 ‘Nec obstat quod per partem aduersam obiciatur quod libellus videatur immutatus quia in primo libello narramus nos spoliatos quibusdam decimis prouenientibus de dictis locis in parochia de Aldenton' existentibus et earundem decimarum petitur fieri restitutio [erasure] in secundo libello narratur quod omnes decime prouenientes de terris pede foffis uel etiam fofforis in parochia de Aldentone et etiam in parochia de Smethe Capelle dependentis ab eadem spectent ad vicariam de Aldentone et vicariam suam predictam et sic cum plus narretur in secundo libello quam in primo quia in primo non facta erat mentio de parochia Capelle de Smethe nisi tamen de erbagio Cimiterii de Smethe videtur quod in hoc secundo libello sit nouum factum introductum et primus libellus inmutatus Ad hoc multis modis potet bene responderi Primo quia sub appellatione vicarie de Aldentone et eius parochie parochia Capelle de Smethe contineri dicitur cum manifestum et notorium existat quod Cura Capelle de Smethe spectet ad vicarium de Aldentone et quod est Capella dependens a dicta matrice ecclesia de Aldenton' quia que religiosis adherent religiosa sunt et que spiritualibus adherent et spiritualia tententur. Preterea si legetur domus racione dependencie sub appellatione domus et ortus dependens ex ea legari videntur et hoc colliguntur ff. del. iii l. Librorum appellatione cum similibus’: CCA-DCc-ESRoll/213.
46 D. 6.1.43.
47 D. 32.52 pr.
48 C. 2.4.3.
49 D. 10.3.18; X 2.10.2.
50 ‘Hinc est quod queritur per modernos doctores quare admissus fuit ille libellus ita generalis in illo c. extra. de. ord. cong. cum dilectus Quia ibi Abas de Ferentillo conquestus fuit de quibusdam nobilibus quod Manu armata et cum excercitu ad castra monasterrii venientes in predis animalium et aliis dictum Monasterium dampnificare presumpserunt de quibus sibi iustitiam fieri postulauit iste fuit petitio Abbatis et videtur quod non procedere deberet tanquam in multis nimis generaliter et obscurus primo vbi dicit in predictis animalia non specificando animalia preterea cum subsequatur et aliis non specificando in quibus aliis et respondent Doctores quod ideo admittitur contra spoliatorem ita generalis libellus quia probata violencia super aliis statur iuramento spoliati articulo pre aliis legis si quo cum similibus’: CCA-DCc-ESRoll/213.
51 See X 2.10.2 and the gloss.
52 X 2.13.7.
53 C. 8.4.7.
54 ‘Non obstat quod tertio opponitur quod in libello agebeatur mere possessorio in isto secundo libello inseritur in fine quedam clausula que mere sapit naturam petitorii ibi cum dicat ipsum que dominum Ricardum quo minus dicto vicario dictas decimas oblationes et erbagium libere inperpetuum percipere liceat per vos domine Iudex cohiberi quod pars aduersa nitebatur probare hoc modo video quod si ago contra te actione iurem negatoria ne liceat transmittere tigna inparietem meum et quod caueas mihi ne infuturum mittas ut dicitur in lex illa egi ff. si seruitus vendi Item si ago contra te confessoria ut reficias parietem visiosum in quo habeo seruientem in mittendi tigna ad sustentationem domus mee et quo caueas infuturum de reficiendo parietem ut est videre in casu illius L. harum. e. ti. in vtroque casu ista cancione ne infuturum in mittat uel in parietem visiosum in futurum reficiat sapit naturam petitorii’: CCA-DCc-ESRoll/213.
55 ‘Actio negatoria’: Berger, Encyclopedic dictionary, 343; D. 8.5.12.
56 ‘Actio confessoria’ and ‘Vindicatio servitutis’: Berger, Encyclopedic dictionary, 342, 766; D. 8.5.7.
57 See Inst. 2.1 and the gloss.
58 D. 43.4.1pr.
59 CCA-DCc-ESRoll/213.
60 Duggan, Charles, Twelfth-century decretal collections and their importance in English history, London 1963, 118–21Google Scholar.
61 For further discussion of this see White, ‘Procedure and legal argument’.
62 Logan, F. Donald, The medieval Court of Arches (Canterbury and York Society xcv, 2005), 5–20, esp. p. 7Google Scholar.
63 Richard was particularly intent on what Donahue has referred to as his ‘campaign against incest’, although the success of his efforts is debatable: Donahue, Law, marriage and society, 567–9.
64 Ibid., ‘Additional texts and commentary’, no. 1185.
65 Idem, The records of the medieval ecclesiastical courts, II: England, Berlin 1994, 37; Select cases from the ecclesiastical courts of the Province of Canterbury, c. 1200–1301, ed. Norma Adams and Charles Donahue Jr (Selden Society xcv, 1981), 35.
66 Select cases, 35–6.