As we spoke about manorial advice of Sir Walter Henley in today’s discussion I wondered whether or not this advice was actually put into practice throughout most manors and Abbeys during the Middle Ages. Later on when we explored further readings, most specifically Postan’s Village Livestock in the Thirteenth Century, who mentions that he based his calculations mostly upon the tax accounts and jury records and surname accounts of the manors within Hinderclay , that happens to be a part of the larger Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds I was further motivated to explore the general economic state of the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds. I had also been reading this piece of literature for a separate class and therefore I thought that this exploration would help to better my understanding of the text.
To begin in a general sense Chronicle of the Abbey of St. Edmunds was written by Jocelin of Brakehold, who was a monk there from 1173 till his apparent death in 1202. It was a meant to be a record “describing the bad deed as well as the good, to provide both warning and example” . In this sense we could perceive that this piece of writing would mostly follow that of Sir Walter Henley, in the fact that he wished to impart advice to his son on the running of his manor . Is this entirely true? As I read this chronicle I began to get the sense that it does not entirely follow the structure of Henley’s husbandry guide. Jocelin does not state implicitly within the Chronicle ways in which the abbot Samson should run his abbey. He does not list lessons that must be learned because unlike Sir Walter, who as a retired bailiff has had some prior experience with dealing with the running of his land, Jocelin himself has never been in charge of the Abbey.
In a way, the abbot Samson, around whom the majority of the chronicle centers is a man who in a sense seems to be familiar with Sir Walter’s writing. As Sir Walter mentions, it is most important that he “be prudent in your doings and be on your guard against the world, which is so wicked and deceitful.” Abbot Samson seems to have that rule inherently ingrained within him. He runs his monastery like a business, and has a very strict system that he rarely diverts from. He in one way knows that he must improve upon the past, and work with his fellow monks and tenants and knights in order to settle the debts of the previous abbot, Abbot Hugh, and yet he is always aware of the fact that he cannot allow himself to be coerced or be “bent to the will” of his “flatterers”.
In the Chronicle, we can explore the way in which the abbot ran his property and governed over his tenants in some detail. We know that just like Sir Walter, Abbot Samson thought “it more important to be feared than loved” by his fellow monks and tenants and therefore he hired clerks, men of more classic learning so that they may help him run his abbey more smoothly. We definitely see that the abbot was serious about being a good lord over his people. He declared that “Everything was to be put down in writing”. Also, we see that:
“ In his order a complete survey was made , in each hundreds of letes( obligations for the king, suits, hidages, foddercorn, renders of hens, and other customs, rents and payments which had always been largely concealed by the tenants.”
The abbot places great importance upon keeping records of everything, so that he would be able to not only settle possible disputes amongst his tenants but also that he may run a more efficient business. We see that the abbot was anxious “build barns and cowsheds “and also to “farm the land profitably”. This quote seems to allude to the fact that the abbey grew their own crops and kept livestock such as cows, most likely to eat them for themselves. The Chronicle does not do a very thorough job of delving into the issue of the use of livestock as much as I would like it to have. It seems to do a more in-depth analysis of the general jobs the abbot had, most namely the collection of all types of revenue. The Chronicle mentions that the abbot collects rent from the manors, from the tenant farmers, the market place tolls, and even from churches upon their own property. The abbot also collects fiefs or fees from the knights that are in his service, he receives homage and scutages (money given so that knights don’t have to fight), he also receives money from travelers that come to the town or the abbey since the town belongs to the abbey.
The abbey seems to get most of its profit from taxation and the collection of tolls rather than the production of livestock for sale. The only other reference that I can think of within the Chronicle that alludes to the sale of any product outside the abbey occurred upon pg. 117 when Jocelin mentions that the “ monks of Ely opened a market at Lakenheath” and the neighboring markets become enraged about that decision. Consequently, a quarrel ensues and the abbot, in order to try and keep control over the market, destroys the competition and binds and brings back any person found buying or selling.
So, it seems in general that the Abbot within Chronicles of the Abbey seems to follow Henley’s example in so far as he takes it upon himself to manage the people of his estate well and strictly in order that they may in turn help the abbey prosper. He also seems to follow Postan’s example in so far that he takes it upon himself to keep an accurate, thorough record of all that goes on in his abbey so that he may make a profit, albeit more from taxes than livestock, as far as we see within the text.
What do you think? In Postan’s eyes would this be a credible source that he could possibly use within his argument?
O. B.
FOOTNOTES
1.M. M. Postan, “Village Livestock in the Thirteenth Century,” Economic History Review n.s. 15 (1962): pg. 221- 223
2.Jocelin de Brakelond, Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury St. Edmonds, trans. Diana Greenway and Jane Sayers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)pg. 3
3.Walter of Henley, Husbandry, ed. and trans. Elizabeth Lamond (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1890)pg. 4
4.Walter of Henley, Husbandry, ed. and trans. Elizabeth Lamond (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1890)pg. 5
5.Jocelin de Brakelond, Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury St. Edmonds, trans. Diana Greenway and Jane Sayers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)pg. 7
6.Jocelin de Brakelond, Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury St. Edmonds, trans. Diana Greenway and Jane Sayers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)pg. 26
7.Jocelin de Brakelond, Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury St. Edmonds, trans. Diana Greenway and Jane Sayers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)pg. 27
8.Jocelin de Brakelond, Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury St. Edmonds, trans. Diana Greenway and Jane Sayers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)pg. 30
9.Jocelin de Brakelond, Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury St. Edmonds, trans. Diana Greenway and Jane Sayers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)pg. 57
10.Jocelin de Brakelond, Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury St. Edmonds, trans. Diana Greenway and Jane Sayers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)pg. 118
Very interesting - looks like a great source. Are the taxes itemized? If so, it could be very useful as a Postan source. After all, the head of the abbey has no reason to overstate how many cows a tenant owned, but he DOES have a vested interest in collecting the right about of taxes (after all, he wants his money, but he also wants to prevent disputes and thus won't overcharge). In this sense, it seems that this record could be even MORE credible than some of the larger surveys, where the tax collector would have been from out of town and thus could be more easily evaded by peasants and would have had little incentive not to "round up" or overcharge people he would never see again.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it doesn't sound like the specific types of wealth are listed in the taxes (from your description of the lack of animal mentions). Thus, we probably can't use it as a direct, primary source about animal husbandry or trends. However, it could still be used to corroborate other accounts (for instance, we probably have a pretty good idea of the population) or other data sources (for instance, if there was relatively little trade in and out of the abbey's territory in animal products, and we can use archeology or secondary accounts to determine the eating habits of the abbey and surrounding people, we may be able to make a rough guess of how many livestock, at least that were used for food).
I also read the Chronicles for another class last year and told myself to skim through it again when it was mentioned in our readings. Unfortunately, I've had no time to read over it.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I would think that Postan would be weary about using Brakelond's Chronicles as a reliable/accurate source but he would definitely consider it as a supplementary source. The reason is because of the different contexts from which Postan's sources and the Chronicle were written/recorded. The tax assessments, manorial documents, and etc were written down for the purpose of daily management and to preserve numbers and figures in writing for future reference. On the other hand, Brakelond's Chronicles narrates the administration of the Bury St. Edmunds from a religious context. Brakelond's occupation as a chaplain and close confidante of Samson (correct me if I'm wrong) could have skewed or biased his account of the Abbey. If I remember correctly, his style of writing was very straightforward, concise with a reverent overtone. However, it could be different if the sources were written by Abbot Samson himself, since (like you said) he was very business oriented and meticulous about book-keeping.
-S. Park
Very nice effort to bring Jocelin's Chronicle into conversation with the texts that we have read for "Animals." I am afraid that I may have given the wrong impression about Hinderclay: it is not the only manor to which Postan refers, just one of the ones that he is able to use as a check against the tax assessments. That said, yes, this is the same Bury St. Edmonds, just a hundred years earlier. What the Chronicle gives us is a sense of what the actual community that the manors were supporting was like, thus some idea of what it meant for an abbey to require so many manors in order to support itself. You are right, Jocelin was not describing the abbey's manors from the same perspective as Walter, but he does give us (as you point out) a very clear sense of how complicated and difficult administering a wealthy abbey like St. Edmonds could be. It is unfortunate that of all of the things Jocelin felt it useful to list, he did not mention the animals, but this in itself is instructive: there were animals all around, as we talked about today (Friday), including in the very parchment that Jocelin used to write his Chronicle, and yet, he does not mention them. You make a good point that the abbey does not seem to produce livestock for sale in the way, for example, that Peterborough did in the early 14th century. But perhaps Jocelin just didn't feel this worth writing about; it is hard to tell. It is interesting that he does mention the hens, however!
ReplyDeleteRLFB