A Fine and Terrible Mystery – Episode 14: The Two Accusations of Rape

This is the 14^th  episode in my investigation of the dramatic and difficult life of Sir Thomas Malory, author of Le Morte d’Arthur.  Episode 1 can be found here.

In August of 1451, the first set of specific charges against Sir Thomas Malory were presented in an indictment at a special court convened under the Duke of Buckingham at the Priory of Nuneaton.  Among the most serious were two counts of rape.  The indictment specifically states that on both occasions Malory had sexual relations with Joan Smyth, “felonice rapuit & cum ea carnaliter concubit.”  There is no indication the Malory was present to hear the charges read.

This is one of the most difficult issues in his life to address.  So many have written about it from so many points of view from so many different levels of understanding of the extant evidence of Malory’s life, of medieval law, of culture in 15^th century Warwickshire.  Notable, careful scholars take widely different positions, from complete acceptance of the accusations to insistence upon his innocence.  Then there is the problem that our own perception of the prevalence, severity and consequences of sexual assault in our own time is dynamic.  Is it possible for us to determine what happened almost 600 years ago?  Do we have the information and perspective to do so?

If the evolution of modern media teaches us anything it is that people will judge anyway.  It seems to me, therefore, that it’s incumbent upon anyone addressing the subject to present his or her evidence and reasoning with as much clarity and precision as possible with all pertinent context.

And context is where I want to begin.  My deductions from data in English Medieval Population:  Reconciling Time Series and Cross Sectional Evidence, by Stephen Broadbury, et al., place the population of Warwickshire in 1451 at around 44,000.  Carpenter’s study of Warwickshire landed society, indicates that in 1436 there were 55 gentlemen, 59  esquires and 18 knights residing in the county.  Given the demographic changes she discusses, I would expect that by 1451, the number of gentlemen and esquires to have increased very modestly while the number of knights would have decreased, possibly substantially.  The county itself was heterogeneous with the great proportion of farmland to be found in Feldon to the east and the greatest proportion of forest in the Arden to west.  The largest towns lay, not surprisingly, along the River Avon drainage, i.e. Coventry, Warwick, Leamington, Stratford.  Sir Thomas Malory, was one of relatively few at the top of the lesser gentry.  It is probable that he would have been commonly and easily recognized by many.

29 days after the indictment at Nuneaton, King Henry VI and Queen Margaret arrived in Warwickshire “to judge noble peacebreakers” in Coventry according to the chronicler William Worcester.  Malory’s case wasn’t among those arbitrated; instead on October 5, a writ certiorari was issued, elevating Malory’s case from Warwickshire to the Court of King’s Bench in Westminster.  Hardyment states that the reason for the writ was revealed a week later when Hugh Smyth stood personally before the Court of King’s Bench and appealed Sir Thomas Malory, William Weston, gentleman, late of Fenny Newbold, Adam Brown, weaver of Coventry and Thomas Potter, husband of Bernangle  for the rape of his wife Joan.

The accusation differs from the Nuneaton accusation:  no time(s) or place is specified and on this occasion  Malory is identified as one of four.  According to P. J. C. Field, the appeal again unambiguously states that sexual relations took place.

The Nuneaton indictment, the writ certiorari, and Hugh Smyth’s appeal together are an example of elegant 15^th century legal engineering.  The Nuneaton indictment, emanating as it did from a court, gave the accused no opportunity to appeal his accuser if he weren’t convicted, which would have been the case had the first accusation been a direct appeal by Hugh Smyth or Joan Smyth, whose voice is not present in the record.  The defendant was precluded from seeking ‘trial by combat,’ nor could he sue for damages.  However, the second personal appeal by Smyth meant that in the case of a conviction, Smyth could expect substantial financial compensation personally, both for incident and for the stolen property mentioned in the indictment.  Finally, the writ took jurisdiction from Warwickshire to London, which may have been essential for any hope of conviction.  The date for the hearing was the 20^th of January.

Malory didn’t appear.

Hardyment speculates he may have been in Warkwickshire restructuring the feofees (trustees) of his estates to insulate his property from the damages from a conviction should that come to pass.   Indeed, the Sherriff of Wawickshire who was ordered to “attach” them, i.e. confiscate all their goods and chattels as surety for their appearance, responded that “they had nothing.”  Their arrest was ordered.

Two sheriffs of London, Mathew Philip and Christopher Warton brought Malory to the bar 5 days later to answer the Nuneaton indictment.

Malory declared himself “in no wise guilty.”  Further, “for good or for ill” he put himself “upon his country.”  He was claiming the right to be tried by a jury of his own Warwickshire countrymen.  He was then returned to the custody of the sheriffs and a trial date of 9 February, 1452 was set.

Those are the events.  In subsequent posts I will be examining 15^th century English law pertaining to rape which is surprisingly interesting in its own right, both legally and culturally.  I also want to evaluate what evidence, if any, can be deduced, from Malory’s own writing in the context of the pre-eminent scholar’s opinions and the case of rape against Geoffrey Chaucer.  At that point it will be time to visit the accusations again and evaluate their meaning and veracity.

Episode 15 can be found here.