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.

A Fine and Terrible Mystery – Episode 12: Horrible Accusations, a Night Escape and More

This is Episode 12 of a series of posts investigating the dramatic and contradictory record of the life of Sir Thomas Malory, author of “Le Morte d’Arthur,” the seminal book of King Arthur and his knights.  Episode 1 can be found here.

March, 1451.  Sir Thomas Malory, literary knight, an accomplished veteran of the French wars and landowner,  three times Member of Parliament, (for Warwickshire, Greater Bedwyn and, most recently Wareham in November of 1450) is married with a son.  He is around 50 and may even have begun work on his magnum opus of distilling over 34 sources in three languages into the single epic which informs  so much of our imagination and perception, of knighthood, chivalry and gentility.

On March 15^th of that year, the King’s Council suddenly issued a warrant for his arrest, along with his servant, John Appleby and 18 others, most associated with his household.  They are accused of “diverse felonies, transgressions, insurrections, extortions and oppressions.”  As far as I can make out  from “Documenting Sir Thomas Malory,” Baugh, A. C., in Speculum, A Journal of Medieval Studies, January 1933 which contains the most comprehensive quotations of the accusations against Malory, no greater detail was provided.

At this time the void in power within the King’s Council left by the exiled and assassinated Duke of Suffolk, had been filled by the Dukes of Somerset and Buckingham.  The warrant was turned over to Sir William Mountfort, High Sheriff of Warwickshire, MP for Warwickshire 7 times and its wealthiest knight, who, like Malory, was a veteran of the French wars and had served as Captain of Honfleur in 1438.  Interestingly, according to Carole Rawcliffe’s biography The Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham, Montfort had at one time been close to Buckingham.  However, eleven years before, when Sir William wished to change his will and release manors to his eldest son and heir, Buckingham required Montfort to make Buckingham himself a feofee (a kind of trustee) for the property as well and “through his greatness so terrified (Mountfort) with threats” that he was forced to disclaim his younger children from any inheritance.

In 1451, Montfort, who was also a Malory family friend, possibly in spite of some danger, took no action on the warrant.

Four months later, on July 13, 1451, a second warrant was issued, not to the Sheriff, but to the Duke of Buckingham himself.  This warrant required that Malory and Appleby “shall cause no injury or evil to the prior and convent of the Carthusian Order of the Isle of Axholme” and they’re ordered to appear before the King’s Council on October 13-14 to answer charges to be preferred against them.  Further, the arrest of Malory and Appleby is ordered wherever they’re found, not just within Warwickshire.  The priory itself was located in North Lincolnshire but one of its holdings was Monks Kirby in Warwickshire to which the warrant may have been referring.

On a Sunday morning twelve days later, Buckingham and 60 followers rode the 13 miles from his manor at Atherstone to Newbold-Revel where he executed the warrant personally.  Sir Thomas was arrested and taken the 11 miles to Coventry where he was remanded into the custody of Mountfort.   This is interesting, given Mountfort’s previous behavior.  Why didn’t Buckingham incarcerate Malory in his own castle, Maxstoke, which was 18 miles away?  Did he fear having Malory on the road for that length of time, possibly after dark?  The sequel suggests there could have been good reason to fear a rapid popular response to free Malory.  Was Buckingham asserting his authority over Mountfort?  Whatever the reason, Mountfort then chose to incarcerate Malory in his own moated manor at Coleshill, possibly because it was more comfortable than other alternatives.

Two nights later, Malory escaped.  It’s recorded that he swam the moat, which may have been no small feat given that medieval moats could be particularly foul.  He returned to Newbold-Revel where on the next day, (according to another indictment discussed below) he raised a diverse band of 100, including his cook and groom, and armed them. They then rode to neighboring Coombe Abbey which they formally assaulted using “great baulks of wood” to batter open gates and doors.  They  allegedly insulted the abbot, broke open two of the abbey‘s chests, stole £40 of silver, gold and jewels, and broke open three other corded and sealed iron chests which, provocatively, were not described as the property of the abbey.

Why?  Had Malory after 50 years of aspirational military and public service suddenly turned to a capricious life of crime?  Or, perhaps, when Malory was arrested were documents taken from Newbold-Revel which established property rights or his innocence on charges that would later be preferred against him?  What was he looking for?  What, if anything, can we deduce of his ability to raise such a force so quickly from those on his estate?  The labor shortages resulting from the Black Plague in the previous century and the decline in serfdom which began with the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 indicate many, if not all of his followers, had other alternatives than to participate in an action that just possibly could have been interpreted as treasonous and certainly was criminal.  The punishment for treason was horrific.

Where Malory went or what he did immediately afterwards is unknown.  Did he return to Newbold-Revel and prepare for a siege?  Did he and a band of followers take refuge in one of the great forests?  The next mention of Malory is in the records of a special court convened by the Duke of Buckingham at the exclusive Nun’s Priory of Nuneaton in Warwickshire on the 23^rd of August.  The Duke himself sat in judgment, accompanied by two Warwickshire lawyers and Sir William Birmingham of Birmingham.  There is no mention of Malory’s participation; it is assumed he was not present and may not even have been summoned.  The purpose of the court was to indict.  Indictments were read in Latin and a jury of fifteen local men then swore to their truthfulness.  None of Hardyment, Field or Baugh record anything of the literacy of the jury, whether or not, for example, some level of comprehension of Latin was required.

Seven accusations were made against Malory:

First, and most seriously, he was accused of attempting to assassinate Buckingham himself in Coombe Wood more than eighteen months before (the details are discussed here.)  This is the first, and, to my knowledge, only record of the event.  The conflict of interest in Buckingham’s participation as a justice goes without saying.

Next, Malory was accused of the attack on Coombe Abbey mentioned above.  Two accusations of extortion from individuals follow, one for £5 on May 31^st and another for £1 on August 31 of the previous year.

What is perhaps most discordant are two accusations of rape which come after.  It was alleged that Malory had raped Joan Smyth, wife of Hugh Smyth in Monks Kirby on the 23^rd of May and again on the 8^th of August of the previous year.  On the latter occasion, he purportedly also broke into the Smyth’s house and stole £40 of goods.  The indictment makes it clear that this was not just abduction but sex as well, “et cum ea carnaliter concubit.”  Did this indicate forcible sexual assault?  It may have.

Curiously, at that point a new jury was impaneled for the final charge:  that Malory and four others “extortionately took seven cows, two calves, a cart worth £4, and 335 sheep worth £22” from two Leicestershire men and carried them away to Newbold-Revel on June 7, 1451, which was before his first arrest.

A careful look at the 15^th Century laws for rape in England, which had been recently changed, is merited along with examination of each of the charges and their consequences.  Is it possible to ascertain Malory’s guilt or innocence?  Before attempting to do so it’s necessary to examine Buckingham’s relationships with other notable Warwickshire families, not just the Mountfort’s, but the Ferrers and Harcourts, too.  Indeed, as I’ve stated before, a careful look at the life of the Duke himself is necessary and I expect to be able to do so shortly.  Some apparent ancillary details, such as Montfort’s experience with Buckingham in 1438, lead to some important and surprising deductions. 

Episode 13 can be found here.

(The first image is a portion of “The Hearthly Paradise”; the second is “The Prince Enters the Forest.  Both are by Sir Edward Burne Jones.  The final photograph is of St. Mary’s Abbey Church, Nuneaton.)