PERSONAL WEALTH IN HUIZSTINGSTONE HUNDRED, , 1479 - 1558: A STUDY OF CONTINUITY IN THE EARLY TUDOR COUNTRYSIDE

Michael Peter Osmann

thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto

@ Copyright by Michael Peter Osmann National Library Bibfiotheque nationale 1*1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1 A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive pennettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prster, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de rnicrofiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent &treimprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract

Personal Weal th in Hurs ticgstone Hundred, Hun tingdonshire, 1479 -

1558 : A Study of Continuity in the Early Tudor Countryside Ph- D., 1996; Michael Peter Osmann; Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto

The study examines two historiographical issues: personal wealth in the pre-industrial countryside and medieval-modem continuity. A sample area consisting of the villages and small towns of hundred, Hunts., is examined using a wide range of sources linked by prosopography. Villagers operated with a clear understanding of their economy, were fully and comfortably immersed in the market and showed considerable ingenuity in using human and material

resources -- even if contrary to existing legal and political conventions. Yet, the economy was typical of its medieval precursors though modified by historical and geographical contingency. The income accrued exhibited a series of unexpected

characteristics: 1) villagers owned an unexpectedly rich array of

consumer goods; 2) the social distribution of income was far more egalitarian than suggested by the established focus on land-

holding; and 3) settlements revealed considerable functional differentiation in which urban/rural contrasts assumed a secondary rather than a primary role. The rift between medieval and modem history is bridged at the local level through an abundant but unconventional assembly of documents to reveal an economy built upon the autonomous village community of the Middle Ages through continuous adaptation. This direct confrontation of two historiographical periods at their nexus reveals conceptual gaps and fields for further research in both.

iii Table of Contents List of Tables ...... v List of Appendices ...... vi Abbreviations ...... vii Acknowledgements ...... viii

Introduction ...... I I . Villagers and the Market Economy: Thought and Actio n...... 27 -. I1 . Sources of Wealth: Resources and Occupations ...... 55 I11 . Decision-Making: Gender and Human Resources ...... 95 IV . Consumption and Donation: Using Wealth ...... 127 The Wealth ...... 173 VI . The Spatial Dimension ...... 204 Conclusion ...... 234 Appendices ...... 245

. ography List of Tables

11.1. Frequency of Land Types in Court Roll Conveyances, Ramsey and Bury, 1500-1558 ...... ,....-...... --...... 91

11.2. Tenants and Tenements in John Stow's Anniversary Roll, Ramsey and Bury, l5O2/3 ...... 92 11.3. Frequency of Animal Species in Court Rolls, Ramsey and Bury, 1500-1558 ...... 92

11.4. Relative Frequency of Livestock in Wills with Animal Bequests, Hurstingstone Hundred, 1479-1558 ...... -.....93 11.5. Designations for Retail Trades in Court Rolls, Ramsey and Bury, lSOO-l558 ...... 93 11.6. Occupations in the Lay Subsidy Return of 1522, Eastern Hurstingstone Hundred ...... 94 111.1. Gender Distribution in the Lay Subsidies, Hurstingstone Hundred, 1522 - 1547 ...... 126 IV.1. Select Donation Types in a Sample of Wills, Hurstingstone Hundred ......

V.1. Tax Rates in the Lay Subsidies, Hurstingstone Hundred, 1522 - 1547 ...... --...... lgg

V.2. Subsidy Assessments in Plural Categories, 1523 ...... 199 V.3. Distribution of Taxpayers by Category in the Subsidies, Husrstingstone Hundred, 1522 - 1547 ...... *...... 200 V.4. Distribution of Income by Category in the Subsidies, Hurstingstone Hundred, 1522 - 1547 ...... 200 V.5 Income Distribution in Lorenz Values and in Deciles, Hurstingsone Hundred Lay Subsidies, 1522 - 1547 ...... 201

V-6. Income Distribution in Lorenz Values & Deciles over £5, Hurstingstone Hundred, 1522 - 1547 ...... 202 V.7. Numbers of Taxpayers in Income Brackets, Hurstingstone Hundred, 1522 - 1547 ...... 203

V.8. Sums of Hurstingstone Probate Inventories in Actbooks, Hurstingstone Hundred, 1543 - 1558 ...... 203

VI.1. Taxpayers in 1523 and Households in 1563, Hursingstone Hundred ...... 225

Abbreviations

AHEW Agrarian History of and Wales

AHR Agricultural History Review

BAR Bri tish Archaeological Reports

CWA Churchwardens Accounts

EcHR Economic His tory Review EHR English Historical Review

ETG J. A. Raftis, Early Tudor : Survivals and New Arrivals. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies: Toronto, 1990.

HRO Record Office, Branch JEH Journal of Economic His tory JHG Journal of Historical Geography JIH Journal of Interdisciplinary His tory JPS Journal of Peasant Studies PR Parish Register PRO Public Record Off ice Trans. Inst. Brit - Geogr. Transactions. Ins ti tute of Bri tish Geographers

VCH

vii Acknowledgements

A special debt is owed to Father J. Ambrose Raftis and the members of my supervisory committee, Dr. John Munro, Dr. Bert Hall and Dr. Joe Goering, for their help and advice in preparing this study; to Professor Mary Rogers for introducing me to both the Middle Ages and the history of women; and to Audrey Deyman for her numerous commentaries. As with all work of this nature, many others far too numerous to be listed here have made a contribution. I am also grateful to the School of Graduate Studies at the University of Toronto for its financial support.

viii Introduction

Two statements from the sixteenth century illustrate the problem of personal wealth at the village level and the place of the early Tudor period in the shifting historiography of England's rural economy. The chronicler Polydore Vergil summarised the result of the Muster Survey of 1522 with the following words: 'when he [the king] had the estimate, he readily knew that his people was not poor and he was glad." The Survey, sprung upon an unsuspecting populace as an inquiry into the realm's defence capabilities, was in fact a thinly disguised tax assessment designed to make up for failures of earlier, more open attempts to impose direct taxation.' The ploy succeeded completely for another chronicler, Edward Hall, reported that some 'avaunsed themselfes more than they were worth of pride ...'I Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey were not slow to take a share of

'...qua aestimatione habita, iLle facile nocuit populum non egentem esse, et gauisus est.' D. Hay, ed., "The Anglica Historia of Polydore Vergil, 1485 - 1537, Camden 3rd ser. 74 (1950): 300. See also J. , ed . , The County Communi ty under Henry VIII: The Military Survey, 1522, and Lay Subsidy, 1524-5, for , Rutland Record Society 1 (1980): 1-3. The context of this survey and the ensuing taxation is discussed in detail in R. Schofield, "Taxation and the political limits of the Tudor state," eds. C. Cross. D. Loades and J. J. Scarisbrick, Law and Government under the Tudors (Cambridge, 1988) : 227-55, F. C. Dietz, English Government Finance, 1485 - 1558 (1921; London, 1964) : 88-102, and Cornwall, County Community: 1-12. See also Appendix 11.

E. Hall, Chronicle: Henry VIII, v. I, ed. C. Whibley (London, 1904): 274. See also Cornwall, County Community: 1-3. the fiscal potential uncovered by reviving direct taxation of personal wealth 'for what belongs to the people, is also the prince's when it is expedient to use its goods for the benefit of the entire realma4' Yet, when William Harrison, priest of Radwinter, , wrote his ~escriptionof England fifty years later he was certain that general poverty had existed within living memory and that the material wealth of his countrymen had only increased substantially within the last one or two generations. To support his claim he relied extensively on his older parishioners as informants who 'noted three things to be marvellously altered? The first was 'the multitude of chimneys lately erected, whereas in their young days ...each one made his fire against a reredos [back of an open hearth],' the second 'the great ...amendment of lodgingr and the third 'the exchange of vessel, as of treen ...into pewter.' He was equally convinced that with the new wealth an abusive commercialism had arisen which manifested itself in declining hospitality, rack-renting and widespread usury 'now perfectly practiced almost by every Christian and so commonly that he is accounted but for a fool that doth lend his

' . . .quoniam quae populi sunt , sunt etiam principis , quando opus est bonis eius uti, pro commodo totius regmi.' Hay, "Polydore Vergil:" 300. This quote and the ones following are taken from W. Harrison, The Description of England, ed. G. Edelen (Ithaca, 1968): 195-202. Though the Description was first published in 1577, manuscripts were already in circulation among Harrison's friends in the mid-1560's: D. M. Palliser, The Age of Elizabeth (London, 1983) : 390-91. money for nothing.' Harrison's picture does not square with a people which was by no means poor fifty years earlier. Most economic historians of Tudor and Stuart England side with Harrison and agree that a new, more commercial spirit swept the land while wealth increased at least for a part, if not most, of the population as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries wore on. This study examines personal wealth in England's rural economy in the period from 1479 to 1558. Wealth is here defined as the complex of skills and possessions which generated income through market exchanges and enabled consumption and other expenditures. Emphasis lies with the means by which villagers participated in the market and the benefits they derived rather than with the function of the market or its infrastructure, both areas of research which have received considerable attention in recent yearsS6 Evidence will be presented to support Polydore

Vergilfs claim that many villagers had attained some degree of wealth in the early sixteenth century. Villagers -- the more conventional term is peasants -- were once viewed as living at the margin of the market economy but the image of simple agrarian producers attempting to meet subsistence needs and tenurial burdens has passed. The last fifteen years have seen a strong revision of scholars1 opinions of their role in the medieval English economy. Instead, they appear to have actively participated in the production of surplus not only to meet

See n. 24 for bibliographic information. obligations imposed from above but also to satisfy household demands of various types and to build personal wealth.' The

-- - ' This study will use 'villagerr as a working term since 'peasant,' though widely used in Enslish historiography, carries connotations of backwardness and subjugation which have become impossible to sustain in empirical terms but linger on at the conceptual level. The terminological problem is exacerbated by lack of differentiation between 'non-peasantr groups (gentry, craftsmen and labourers) and conventional 'peasantr groups (essentially agrarian producers: husbandmen and yeomen). On problems of defining peasants: B. Orlove, "Against a Definition of Peasantries: Agrarian Production in Andean Peru,I1 eds. R. Halperin and J. Dow, Peasant Livelihood: Studies in Economic Anthropology and Cultural Ecology (New York, 1977) : 22-35. Representative statements of the traditional view can be found in numerous works. The powers of lordship were emphasized by N. Neilson, llCustomaryRents/ Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History 2 (1910), P. Vinogradoff, Villeinage in England: Essays in English Mediaeval History (1892; Oxford, 1968) , and more recently P. R. Hyams, King, Lords and Peasants: The Common Law of Villeinage in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Oxford, 1980). Malthusians amended the concept by focusing on demography: eg. , M. M. Postan, The Medieval Economy and Society: An Economic History of Britain in the Kiddle Ages (Harmondsworth, 1972): 27-41, and Marxists followed suite by emphasizing class con£ lict : eg. , E . A. Kosminsky, Studies in the Agrarian History of England in the Thirteenth Century, ed. R. H. Hilton, trans. R. Kisch (Oxford, 1956), R. H. Hilton, Class Conflict and the Crisis of Feudalism: Essays in Medieval Social History (London, 1985) , C. Dyer, Lords and Peasants in a Changing Society (Cambridge, 1980), Z. Razi, "The struggles between the Abbots of Halesowen and Their Tenants in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries," eds. T. H. Aston, P. R. Coss, C. Dyer, J. Thirsk, Social Relations and Ideas: Essays in Honour of R. H. Hi1ton (Cambridge, 1983) : 151-67. Due to the strength of images created by serfdom in Eastern Europe and peasantries in the Developing World, the new view is far from established. Readers who wish to explore the influence of these concepts further are referred to T. H. Aston and C. H. E. Philpin, eds., The Brenner Debate: ~grarianClass Structure and Economic Development in Pre-1ndus trial Europe (Cambridge, 19 85 ) , A. V. Chayanov, The Theory of the Peasant Economy, eds . D . Thorner, B. Kerblay and R. E. F. Smith (Homewood, Ill., 1966) , P. Gatrell, IrHistorians and Peasants: Studies of Medieval English Society in a Russian C~ntext,~~ed. T. Aston, Landlords, Peasants and Politics in Medieval England (Cambridge, 1987) : 394-422, T. Shanin, ed., Peasants and Peasant societies (Hanondsworth, 1971). A question which has been raised in the literature is if gains described by Harrison and modern historians imply that personal wealth did not derive from redistribution (as did the fortunes of the gentry after the Dissolution of the monasteries) but lay solidly in commerce conducted by villagers or, at the very least, with their strong participation.

An Achilles Heel of the established historiography is the lack of consideration paid to the early Tudor period itself. W.

G. Hoskins' Age of Plunder remains the only work devoted specifically to a comprehensive view of early Tudor society and economy. The gap can be attributed to two problems, historical periodization and availability of documents. In standard historical divisions, the early Tudor period lies in a historiographical blind spot, the nexus of the medieval and early modern periods. It is both a favoured closing point for medievalists and an equally favoured starting point for early modern historians, as exemplified by Charles Phythian-Adamsf study of medieval Coventry and the work of Keith Wrightson and David Levine on early modern Terling in Essexa8 Both arrive at the year 1525 as their limit, though coming from opposite directions. By contrast, the broad scope of the few studies

utterly dependent and market avoiding peasantries are an original state or a historically late outcome of the growth of states and empires. E. W. Wolf, Types of Latin American Peasantry: A Preliminary Discussion, American Anthropologist 57 (1955) : 463.

K. Wrightson and D. Levine, Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling, 1525 - 1700 (London, 19791, C. Phythian-Adams, The Desolation of a City: Coventry and the Urban Crisis of the Late Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1979) . which traverse the period relegate the early sixteenth century to relatively minor importance by their broad scope.9 The other key problem stems from the nature of sources and compounds the effects of chronological divisions. Manorial accounts and court rolls, the mainstay for historians of the medieval countryside,

disappeared or dwindled in numbers by 1450 in many parts of the country while the preferred sources of their early modern counterparts, probate inventories and parish registers, only

appear in strength after 1550.'O Consequently, scholars have

J. A. Raftis, Early Tudor Godmanchester: Survivals and Arrivals (Toronto, 1990) is one of the few works to break this pattern. Several studies, most notably N. S. B. Gras and E. C. Gras, The Economic and Social History of an English Village (1930; New York, 1969), W. G. Hoskins, The Midland Peasant: The Economic and Social History of a Village (1957; London, 1965) and C. Howell, Land, Family and Inheritance in Transition: Kibworth Harcourt, 1280 - 1700 (Cambridge, 1983 ) traverse the period. M. K. McIntosh, Autonomy and Community: The Royal Manor of Havering, 1200 - 1500 (Cambridge, 1986) and ibid., A Cornmuni ty Transformed: The Manor and Liberty of Havering, 1500 - 1620 {Cambridge, 1991) take an intermediate position because they examine the development of a single manor over four centuries but the break between the two volumes falls on 1500.

lo A brief but useful discussion of manorial court and account rolls may be found in P. D. A. Harvey, Manorial Records (London, 1984) . E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield, The Population History of England (Cambridge, 1981) : 15-154, and A. Kussmaul, A General View of the Rural Economy of England, 1538 - 1840 (Cambridge, 1990) , passim, show the extent to which systematic analysis will yield information from parish registers, while C. Shammas, The Pre-Industrial Consumer in England and Colonial America (Oxford, 1990) and M. Spuf ford, The Great Reclothing of England: Petty Chapmen and their Wares in the Seventeenth Century (London, 1984) demonstrate uses of probate inventories. An overview of the work achieved on probate inventories may be found in M. Overton, A Bibliography of British Probate Inventories (Newcastle-upon-Tyne,1983 ) , as cited in M. Spufford, "The limitations of the probate inventory,l1 eds. J. Chartres and D. Hey, English Rural Society, l5OO-18OO: Essays in Honour of Joan Thirsk (Cambridge, 1990) : n. 6. often felt forced by their materials to glance over the early Tudor years. Yet, in perusing available documents, it was quickly discovered that a considerable volume and range of sources

exists.lL Pride of place goes to some 650 wills from the sample area, Hurst ingaltone hundred, Huntingdonshire , which are interspersed among 4,000 wills collected in the actbooks of the archdeaconry of Huntingdon and provide a rich cross section of life and thought in the period. In particular, the frequency with which personal opinion was stated added a dimension to the information not usually available to students of earlier periods.

Four lay subsidy returns from the years 1522, 1523, 1545 and 1547 provide lists of taxpayers and their income.12 The court rolls of Ramsey, Bury and Hepmangrove, recently compiled in Edwin DeWindtrs excellent edition, contribute considerable information regarding resources and occupation^.^^ Miscellaneous manuscript

information such as Abbot John Stow's anniversary roll of 1502/3, which adds information on tenure and construction, a book of rentals from , some parish registers and two bills

" Detailed discussions of sources, sampling procedures and other methods will be found in Appendices I - 111.

l2 Methodological and interpretative concerns regarding the lay subsidies are discussed extensively in Appendix IT. Strictly speaking, the first subsidy should be labelled 1522/23 but for reasons of convenience it was simply assigned to 1522. It was levied some time after the Muster Survey but before April 22, 1523, when the next subsidy was levied.

l3 E. B. DeWindt, The Court Rolls of Ramsey, Hepmangrove and Bury, 12684600 (Toronto, 1990). for expenditures help round out the picture. Unfortunately, no probate inventories could be found, but this type of document was obviously compiled in the hundred since the inventory sum was entered into the actbook immediately after the corresponding will beginning in the 1540's. This assembly of sources does not readily yield time series in the style of manorial accounts and actual probate inventories but, nevertheless, abounds with exciting information of its own and lends itself to the prosopographical approach favoured by historians of medieval village society.14 The new medium of print supplements the manuscript assembly by providing explanatory works. In the end, the chief difficulty lies in devising criteria by which to sample the available material effectively rather than a scarcity of evidence. The sampling approach pursued was to vary the geographical area analyzed within the hundred according to the information density of particular sources. In practice, this meant extending the use of the lay subsidies over the entire hundred, the wills to a sample of 230 from select villages within the hundred and court rolls to the two settlements of Ramsey and Bury cum Hepmangrove. Like most chronological markers, the opening and closing dates for this study, 1479 and 1558, are artificial: the former was given by the first wills in the first actbook of the

This approach crystallized with J. A. Raftis, Tenure and Mobility (Toronto, 1964) and ibid. , I1Social Structures in Five East Midland Villages: A Study of the Possibilities in the Use of Court Roll DataftlEcHR 2nd ser. 18 (1965): 83-100. archdeaconry of Huntingdon and the latter by the end of the eleventh actbook. Since the actbook series continues on into the seventeenth century, this volume was chosen as the last to be included because it coincides with the onset of Elizabeth's reign, which has generally been covered in more detail by historians. The dates mask uneven documentation given by an increase in the number of wills over time, the onset of churchwardens accounts in 1511 and the availability of lay subsidy returns only for the 1520's and 1540's. Information is densest in the period after 1520 and, therefore, no attempt is made to harden the chronological boundaries into serious markers for past events. Following the lead of a series of studies on the medieval countryside, the present work focuses on the local level using Kurstingstone hundred in Huntingdonshire as the sample area. This approach is deemed preferable to a broader geographical perspective since attention can be directed toward the integration of evidence around individuals and, consequently, to the interdependence of observed phenomena. The choice fell upon Hurstingstone, one of four such divisions in its county, for two reasons. First, a considerable body of research exists on the nature of this hundred's village society and economy in the Middle Ages, including work on rural commer~ialization.'~

Works concerned wholly or partially with Hurstingstone hundred include: N. Neilson, Economic Conditions on the Manors of Ramsey Abbey (Bryn Mawr, 1898) , E. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely: The Social History of an Ecclesiastical Estate Secondly, studying people under the early Tudors means above all studying the rural population, and this area's credentials as an established agrarian district are impeccable. The region survived the late medieval demographic decline with few settlement desertions and prospered subseq~ently.'~Baron Waldstein, a Moravian noble who passed through the area on July

13, 1600, on his tour of European universities, delivered an impressive testimony of agricultural prowess no further away from Hurstingstone than the opposite bank of the river 0use:17 We left Cambridge ...taking the road through the village of Godmanchester ...near to -- and in the county of -- Huntingdon. It is a good large village, famous as an agricultural centre, situated upon light soil in an open plain with a southward facing slope. There is nowhere in England, so they say, with so many hard-working farmers and so much land under the from the Tenth Century to the Early Fourteenth (Cambridge, 1951) , Kosminsky, Agrarian History, W. 0. Ault, Open-Field Fanning in Medieval England (London, 1972) but in particular the studies of J. A. Raftis, beginning with The Estates of Ramsey Abbey (Toronto, 1957) and his students: M. P. Hogan, Wistow: A Social and Economic Reconstitution in Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century England, diss . , U of Toronto, (1971), E. B. DeWindt, Land and People in Holywell-cum- (Toronto, 1972), A. R. DeWindt, Society and Change in a Fourteenth Century English Village: King's Ripton, 1275-1400, diss., U of Toronto, 1972, E. Britton, The Community of the Vill (Toronto, 1977) , E. W. Moore, The Fairs of Medieval England (Toronto, 1985) , S. Olson, Ellington: A Village at Farm 1280-1600: Local Traditions and Local Leadership in the Medieval and Early Modern Village Community, diss . , U of Toronto (1988), J. Masschaele, A Regional Economy in Medieval England diss . , U of Toronto (1990 ) .

l6 P . Bigmore, The and Hun tingdonshire Landscape (London, 1979) : 117-36.

l7 G. W. Groos, trans. , The Diary of Baron Waldstein: A Traveller in Elizabethan England (London, 1981) : 170-71. See also J. A. Raftis, A Small Town in Late Medieval England: Godmanchester, 1278-1400 (Toronto, 1982) : 185. plough, and they pride themselves on the fact that Kings of England, when travelling this way, have been greeted with a procession of one hundred and eighty ploughs by way of rural celebration. This agricultural strength remained the backbone of Hurstingstone for a considerable period. Neither 'proto-industrializationt nor enclosure affected the hundred to any significant extent until the late eighteenth or even the nineteenth century.18 It may be objected that small towns such as Ramsey and St. Ives should be excluded from a consideration of rural wealth. However, the distinction creates a false dichotomy between town and country contradicted by the movements of persons, the geographical range of their activities, the similarity of their institutions and the interdependence of their econ~mies.'~The area remained

l8 The best verification of this observation are the materials on enclosure available in the Huntingdon Record Office listed in the unpublished Handlis t of Inclosure Documents (Huntingdon, undated) of the HRO and G. H. Findlay, Guide to Hun tingdonshire Record Office (Huntingdon, 1951) . No enclosure act predates 1771. Also: Bigmore, Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire Landscape: 120 -32 (on desertions) , 172 -83 (on enclosure) . The maps published in Kussmaul, General View: 2, 12, though short on evidence from Hunts. (see her list of sample parishes, p. 186), appear to indicate that the wider region steadfastly retained agrarian marriage patterns. Evidence on the relative success of the borough of Huntingdon among English towns may be found in the maps and tables to A. Dyer, Decline and Growth in English Towns, 1400-1640 (Basingstoke, 1991) : 22, 41, 64-72.

l9 This point will be addressed in detail in Chapter VI. Raftis, Small Town: 230-40, constitutes an important empirical verification of this concept. See P. Abrams, Vntroduction," eds. P. Abrams and E. A. Wrigley, Towns in Societies: Essays in Economic History and Historical Sociology (Cambridge, 1978) : 1-8, ibid., I1Towns and Economic Growth: Some Theories and ProblemsN eds. Abrams and Wrigley, Towns in Societies: 9-33, for a discussion of the empirical failings of the dualistic model of town and country. thoroughly agrarian and provides a splendid example of rural devel~prnent.~~In this way, the current study attaches itself to earlier anthropological emphasis on the examination of societies and cultures which experienced considerable continuity.21 Concentration on this particular hundred may elicit suspicions of positivism and a teleology of economic growth and progress. The defence against these charges is provided by the documents themselves, whose content initially propelled the thrust of the study. Interest in the early modern economy quite naturally directs attention towards commercial and market- oriented aspects though it must be recognized from the outset that other forms of production and exchange existed and continue to exist to the present day in varying degrees of strength. An older generation of scholars, including Richard Tawney, spoke of the origins of commercialization during this period while Hoskins primarily saw subsistence production in the countryside and relegated markets and commerce to towns. However, no great effort need be expended to establish the existence of a strong

*O A crude guide to the relative wealth of Huntingdonshire in national terms may be derived from R. S. Schofield, "The Geographical Distribution of Wealth in Engiand, 1334 - 1649,If EcXR 2nd ser. 18 (1965): 483-510, J. Sheail, "The Distribution of Taxable Population and Wealth in England During the Early Sixteenth Century," Trans. Inst. Brit. Geogr. 55 (1972): 111-26, E. J. Buckatzsch, "The Geographical Distribution of Wealth in England, 1086 - 1843: An Experimental Study of Certain Tax Assessments, EcHR 2nd ser. 3 (1950/1) : 180-202.

21 See for example: E. W. Wolf and J. R. Cole, The Hidden Frontier: Ecology and Ethnicity in an Alpine Valley (New York, 1974) : 7. comrnercialised sector in the rural economy of the early sixteenth century. The task has already been achieved by a series of ground-breaking studies on the rural economy of the Middle Ages, although it must be kept in mind that commerce periodically weakened and strengthened over the long-term? The origins of the market economy and the end of the subsistence economy, as far as they can be reasonably traced by historians, are part of other ages.= The immediate need is to examine a specific phase in the

Some important studies among the rapidly expanding volume of works on the involvement of medieval English villagers in markets and their infrastructure are: K. Biddick, tlMissingLinks: Taxable Wealth, Markets, and Stratification among Medieval English Peasants,It JIH 18 (1987): 277-98, ibid., "Medieval English Peasants and Market Involvement,If JEH 45 (1985): 823-31, R. H. Britnell, The Commercialization of English Society, 1000- 1500 (Cambridge, 1993), R. H. Britnell and B. M. S. Campbell, eds . , The Commercialising Economy (Manchester, 1995) , B. M. S. Campbell, J. Galloway and M. Murphy, "Rural Land-Use in the Metropolitan Hinterland, 1270-1339: the Evidence of Inquisitiones Post Mortem, l1 AHR 40 (1992): 1-22, essays No. 9 - 15 in C. Dyer, ed., Everyday Life in Medieval England (London, 1994), D. L. Farmer, I1Marketing the Produce of the Countryside, 1200 - 1500," ed. E. Miller, MEW, v. 111, 1348 - 1500 (1991): 324-430, essays No. 12 - 16 in R. H. Hilton, Class Conflict, M. Mate, "Pastoral Farming in South-East England in the Fifteenth Century," EcHR 2nd ser. (1987): 523-36, Moore, Fairs, T. Unwin, "Rural Marketing in Medieval ," JHG (1981): 231-51, Raftis, ETG, M. Kowaleski , Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter (Cambridge, 1995 ) , J. Masschaele, "Market Rights in Thirteenth- Century England, I' EHR 107 (1992): 78 -89, ibid. , Regional Economy. Britnell, Commercialisation: 179-227, identifies a decline of commercialization lasting over a century in the period before 1500 - * Two good statements on the futility of such approaches may be found in M. M. Postan, ltFeudalism and its Decline: A Semantic Exercise," eds. T. H. Aston, P. R. Coss, C. Dyer, J. ~hirsk, Social Relations and Ideas: Essays in Honour of R. H. Hi1 ton (Cambridge, 1983) : 73-87, and ibid., "The Rise of a Money Economy, " ed. M. M. Postan, Essays on Medieval Agriculture and General Problems of the Medieval Economy (Cambridge, 1973): 28- 40. adaptation of England's rural economy, despite a premise which was very much conditioned by historiographical observations on the 'secular trend.24' Increasing commercialization of the early modern English economy lay at the core of Tawney's interpretation of the social and economic developments which, in turn, was heavily indebted to

Max Weberls The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of capi talis~n.~~ 130th argued that effective capitalism required a disciplined and ascetic mind-set which focused hopes of fulfilment into work and elevated the shift from Catholicism to Protestantism as the decisive moment when this prerequisite crystallized. Their construct has cast a long shadow by tying capitalism to Protestantism and making the early sixteenth century the economic point of departure-26 While the link between Protestantism and

24 F. Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th - 18th Century. v. III. The Perspective of the World, trans. S. Reynolds (1979; New York, 1984) : 71-85, 609-16. " R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (1926; New York, 195 0) , ibid. , The Agrarian Problem of the Sixteenth Century (London, 1912) , M. Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of capitalism (1904/5; New York, 1958) .

26 It is impossible to cover the debate over Weberrs influential work here. A spirited defence may be found in J. H. Munro, "The Weber Thesis Revisited -- and Revindicated?" Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 51 (1973): 381-91, and a critique in F. Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th - 18th Century. v. 11. The Wheels of Commerce, trans. S. Reynolds (1979; New York, 1982): 566-72. J. Gilchrist, The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages (Toronto, 1969) : 123-39, provides a balanced assessment of the Weber-Tamey thesis in the light of his work on the medieval church. A respectable genealogy, too extensive to be detailed here, may be developed for the belief that the demise of the medieval economic order cleared a major obstacle to prosperity: A. Smith, The Wealth of Nations, v. I capitalism is no longer perceived in such strong terms, the growth of wealth (and implicitly capitalism) after 1500 has gained considerable empirical ~alidation.'~A comprehensive discussion of this historiography would fill several volumes but only a bare sketch is needed here.

Evidence has been used to forward several themes of research. Earlier this century John U. Nef, impressed by a surge in output and productivity, proclaimed a first Industrial Revolution under the Tudors and Stuarts paving the way for the mechanised Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth century.28 Though few still evince the same enthusiasm, the documented growth in industry was considerable." Related though more recent

(1776; Chicago, 1976) : 355, 407-31, who deplores the inefficiencies of 'feudalism,' may stand in as a representative work, mainly because of widespread familiarity with his views.

'' Global perspectives are taken in F. Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th - 18th Century. v. I. The Limits of the Possible, trans. S. Reynolds (1979; New York, 1981) : 183-333, ibid., Perspective of the World: 536-56, as well as I. Wallerstein, The Modern World System, 3 vols. (London, 1974, 1980, 1989). Views specific to England may be found in D. C. Coleman, The Economy of England, 1450 - 1750 (London, 1977), G. C. Clay, Economic Eqansion and Social Change, 1500 - 1700 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1984) and L. A. Clarkson, The Pre-Industrial Economy in England, 1500 - 1750 (London, 1972).

28 Nef's views were formed to a considerable extent on the basis of his research on the coal industry: J. U. Nef, The Rise of the British Coal Industry (Hamden, 1966) .

29 Some useful surveys, apart from the works by Clay and Coleman cited in n. 29, may be found in S. Jack, Trade and Industry in Tudor and Stuart England (London, 1977) : 15-65, and D . C . Coleman, Industry in Tudor and Stuart England (London, 1975). The significance of early modern industry in the origins of the Industrial Revolution is the theme of the proto- industrialization debate, initiated by F. Mendels, "Proto- in date is the growing awareness that the distribution of consumer goods in society widened. The houses of English villagers improved in their construction while at the same time a greater array of textiles, furniture, pewter and even silver found its way into an ever widening set of household^.^^ Concurrently, the transportation system and the volume of both foreign and domestic trade grew to such an extent that Andrew Appleby credits it with the elimination of major famines from England by the seventeenth century." Likewise, attempts have

industrialization: The First Phase of the Industrialization Process, JEH 32 (1972): 241-61, and subjected to an incisive critique by L. A. Clarkson, Proto-Industrialization: The First Phase of Industrialization? (London, 1985). Perhaps of most interest in the context of this discussion is M. Zell, Industry in the Countryside: Wealden Society in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge, 1994)~which examines early industries in the Weald of south-east England and subjects the proto-industrialization theory to tests with frequently negative results.

30 Shammas, Pre-Industrial Consumer: passim, but especially 1-13, 1;. Weatherill, Consumer Behaviour and Material Culture in Britain (London, l988), Spufford, Reclothing: 1-22, W. G. Hoskins, ."TheRebuilding of Rural England, 1570 - 1640," ed. W. G. Hoskins, Provincial England: Essays in Social and Economic History (London, 1963) : 131-48, J. Thirsk, Economic Policy and Projects : The Development of a Consumer Society in Early Modem England (Oxford, 1978) : 175-80. A. Applrby "Grain Prices and Subsistence Crises in England and France, 1590-1740r11JEH 39 (1979): 865-87, ibid., Famine in Tudor and Stuart England (Stanford, 1978) : 169-81, J. Chartres, Internal Trade in England, 1500-1700 (London, 1977) : 39-46, ibid., "Road Carrying in England in the Seventeenth Century: Myth and Reality1'EcHR 2nd ser. 30 (1977): 73-94, Spufford, Reclothing, T. S . Willan, English Coasting Trade (Manchester, 1967), ibid., River Navigation in England (London, 19361, ibid., The Inland Trade (Manchester, 1976). Less is known about the medieval transportation system but interesting observations are made in: J. Masschaele, "Transport Costs in Medieval Englandrll EcHR 46 (1993): 266-79. been made to integrate the Price Revolution into the picture as a consequence of real factor (especially demographic) changes.32 The most far reaching claims regarding change and growth concern agriculture. Many historians view land as the primary anchor of wealth in pre-industrial society and, following Tawney, emphasised enclosure, engrossing and the commercialisation of tenure through leaseholds." The focus on enclosure has come under fire, partially due to chronological difficulties and

" The demographic interpretation was expounded above all in P. H. Ramsey, "Introduction," ed. P. H. Ramsey, The Price Revolution in Sixteenth Century England (London, 19 71) : 1-18. This view is challenged by D, Fisher, "The Price Revolution: A Monetary InterpretationfflJEH 49 (1989): 883-902, and by J. H. Munro, "The Central European Mining Boom, Mint Outputs, and Prices in the Low Countries and England, 1450 - 1550," ed. E. van Cauwenberghe , Money, Coins, and Commerce : Essays in the Monetary History of Asia and Europe (Leuven, 1991) : 119-83.

" Strictly speaking, the controversy over 'encl~sure,~a rather malleable term, goes back to the Tudor period itself which gave us the famous phrase of sheep having 'turned into man- eaters1 in Thomas More, Utopia, trans. P. Turner (Harmondsworth, 1965): 46. Then the controversy was mainly concerned with the destruction of communities, not with agricultural productivity. Hostile views, which focus on productivity and rental values, of the traditional open field system can be found as early as the sixteenth century in the agronomical literature of the day: Fitzherbert, The Book of Husbandry of Master Fitzherbert, ed. W. W. Skeat (1534; reprinted with an introduction, notes, and glossarial index 1882; Vaduz, 1965), T. Tusser, "Fiue Hundred Pointes of Good Husbandrie. The Edition of 1580 Collated with Those of 1573 and 1577," eds. W. Payne and S. J. Heritage, The English Dialect Society (London, 1878) . Such views fuelled parliamentary enclosure and are reflected to some degree in M. Turner, English Par1 iamen tary Enclosure : Its Historical Geography and Economic History (Folkestone, 1980) : 135 -51, and to a lesser extent in J. A. Yelling, Common Field and Enclosure in England, 1450 - 1850 (1977): 144-73. Some pessimistic views on medieval and early modern agriculture and the open field system are: A. R. H. Baker, "Evidence in the 'Nonarurn Inquisitionesf of contracting arable lands in England during the fourteenth century" EcHR 2nd ser. 19 (1966): 513-34, Postan, Medieval Economy: 45-80. partially because its supposed superior amenability to

technological advances cannot be substantiated." An alternate focus on the New Agriculture, the early modern adoption of alternative crops and methods of cultivation, developed which involved the introduction of root and leguminous fodder crops, intensified rotations and other innovation^.^^ Eric Kerridge

34 M. A. Havinden, "Agricultural Progress in Open-Field O~fordshire,~~AHR 9 (1961): 73-83. An aggressively revisionist stance may be found in R. C. Allen, Enclosure and the Yeoman (Oxford, 1992): 1-21. Also on a rational interpretation of the open fields: D. N. McCloskey, "The Persistence of English Common Fields," eds. W. N. Parker and E. L. Jones, European Peasants and Their Markets (Princeton, 1975) : 73-119, C. Dahlman, The Open Field System and Beyond (Cambridge, 1980), R. C. Allen, "The two English agricultural revolutions, 1450 - 1850," eds. Bruce M. S. Campbell and Mark Overton, Land, Labour and Livestock: Historical Studies in European ~gricultural Productivi ty (Manchester, 1991) : 236-54, M. P. Hogan, llC1ays,Cul turae, and the Cultivatorfs Wisdom: Management Efficiency at Fourteenth-Century WistowfT1AHR (1988): 17-31.

35 The following works are no more than a selection. On the New Agriculture and its Dutch origins: B. H. Slicher van Bath, The Agrarian History of Western Europe (1963): 195-261, ibid., "The rise of intensive husbandry in the Low Countries," Britain and the Netherlands 1 (1960): 130-53, J. de Vries, The Dutch Rural Economy in the Golden Age, 1500 - 1700 (London, 1960), J. Thirsk, "Farming Techniques, ed. J. Thirsk, AHEW, v. IV, 1500 - 1640 (Cambridge, 1967) : 161-99, ibid., "Agricultural Innovations and their Diffusion," ed. 17. Thirsk, AHEW, v. V, 1640 - 1750, pt. II, Agrarian Change (Cambridge, 1967) : 533 -89, several essays in ibid. , The Rural Economy of England: Collected Essays (London, 1984) and J. Chartres and D. Hey, eds., English Rural Society, 1500 - 1800: Essays in Honour of Joan Thirsk (Cambridge, 1990), R. B. Outhwaite, "Progress and Backwardness in English Agriculture, 1500 - 1650,1rEcHR 2nd ser. 38 (1986): 1-18, P. Glennie I1Continuity and Change in Agriculture, 1550-1700: I - Patterns of Productionn AHR 36 (1988): 55-75, ibid., "Continuity and Change in Hertfordshire Agriculture, 1550- 1700: I - Trends in Crop Yields and Their Determinants" AHR 36 (1988): 145-61, M. Overton "The Diffusion of Agricultural Innovations in Early-Modern England, Trans. Ins t . Bri t . Geogr. n- s. 10 (1985): 205-21. elevated it into an Agricultural Revolution, though most historians view it in a less dramatic light.36 From the medievalists' perspective, the period after the Black Death became inextricably linked to the 'Waning of the Middle Ages,' or, for the economically inclined, the late medieval crisis or depression." There can be little doubt that

A substantial literature has grown up around agrarian innovation in the Middle Ages. On technology: L. White, Medieval Technology and Social Change (Oxford, 1962), J. Langdon, Horses, Oxen and Technological Innovation: The Use of Draught Animals in English Farming from 1066 to 1500 (Cambridge, 1986), R. Holt, The Mills of Medieval England (Oxford, 1988) . Interpretations of medieval agriculture as rational practice: M. Bailey, The concept of the margin in the late medieval English economy," EcHR 2nd ser. 42 (1989): 1-17, M. Mate, "Medieval agrarian practices: the determining factor^?^^ AHR (1985): 22-31, B. M. S. Campbell, llAgriculturalprogress in medieval England: some evidence from eastern ," EcHR 2nd ser. 36 (1983): 26-46, J. N. Pretty, I1SustainableAgriculture in the Middle Ages: the English manor," AHR 38 (1990): 1-19, M. Bailey, "Sand into gold: the evolution of the foldcourse system in West , 1200 - 1600," AHR 38 (1990): 40-58, H. S. A. Fox, "The alleged transformation from two-field to three-field systems in medieval England," EcHR 2nd ser. 39 (1986): 526-48. That enclosure by agreement was an option to be taken if desired but otherwise consciously avoided is evident in: H. S. A. Fox, "The Chronology of Enclosure and Economic Development in Medieval ,I1 EcHR 2nd ser. 18 (1975): 181-202.

36 E. Kerridge, The Agricultural Revolution (London, 1967) .

'' J. Huizinga, The Waning of the Middle Ages (1924; Harmondsworth, 1976). The literature on late medieval crisis phenomena is vast and only a few representative works will be quoted: Postan, Medieval Economy, Dyer, Lords and Peasants, B. M. S. Campbell, ed., Before the Black Death: Studies in the 'Crisis' of the Early Fourteenth Century (Manchester, 1989) . Recently, an attempt to define the chronology and nature of the crisis of 1420 - 1460 in economic terms was made by B. M. S. Campbell, J. Kermode, P. Nightingale, J. Oeppen and C. Carpenter at the Fifth Anglo -Ameri can Seminar on Medieval Economy and Society (Cardiff, 1995). However, the crisis debate extends far beyond rural England: a discussion of crisis in rural western Europe may be found in G. Duby, Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval the long-term repercussions of the Black Death and other forces during the period disabled many manorial demesnes and had a transformative effect on village economy and society.38 As a result, the medievalists1 image of the early sixteenth century was as the tail end of prolonged economic decline which had made both lords and villagers in the countryside the hapless victims of forces beyond their control that drew them into an economic downward spiral in which winners were at most temporary.39 In this way, the medievalists' trend line intersected with that of their collea~esin early modern history at a low point in the mid-fifteenth century to which the late fifteenth and early

West, trans. C. Postan (Columbia, S.C., 1968): 289-357, and an attempt to explain its place in the long-term trajectory of Western history is made in K. G. Zinn, Kanonen und Pest: ~berdie Urspriinge der Neuzeit im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert (Opladen, 1989) . An interesting critique of the concept of 'crisis' is offered in N. Hybel, Crisis or Change: The Concept of Crisis in the Light of Agrarian Structural Reorganiza tion in Late Medieval England (Aarhus, 1989).

38 Postan, Medieval Economy: passim, F. R. H. Du Boulay, I1Who were Farming the English Demesne at the End of the Middle Ages?" EcHR 2nd ser. 17 (1965): 443-55, ibid., "A Rentier Economy in the Later Middle Ages: the Archbishopric of Canterbury," EcHR 2nd ser 16 (1963): 427-38, Dyer, Lords and Peasants: 264-97, B. M. S. Campbell, "A Fair Field Once Full of Folk: Agrarian Change in an Era of Population Decline, 1348 - 1500," AHR 41 (1993): 60-70. While most of these authors see 'crisis' as a destructive process, an emphasis on adaptation will be found in J. A. Raftis, Itchanges in an English Village after the Black Death," Mediaeval Studies 28 (1966): 92-118, ibid., Estates, ibid., ETG, and L. A. Gates, A Glastonbury Estate Complex in : Survival and Prosperity on the Medieval Manor, 1280 - 1380., diss., University of Toronto, 1991.

39 C. Dyer, "A Redistribution of Incomes in Fifteenth-Century England, ed. R. H. Hilton, Peasants, Xnights and Heretics (Cambridge, 1981): 192-215, argues for a late medieval income redistribution rather than general decline. sixteenth centuries delivered 'the beginning of the end.' Characteristics attributed implicitly or explicitly to this trough in economic and demographic development were a continuing demographic crisis, archaic institutions and poor technique: open fields, lack of credit, a church which diverted economic resources from effective use and inhibited rational behaviour, traditional crops, poor transportation, recurrence of disease and famine, weak industries with a lack of labour division and a paucity of consumer goods." Speaking of squalor and low population levels, W. G. Hoskins stated ~ate~orically:~' The great majority of farmers in Britain, even in the richer parts of England, were small peasant farmers living in a subsistence economy, producing small surpluses in good years which could be sold in the nearest local market town but generally only fortunate enough to be able to hold their own.

40 The lack of an explicit historiography of the period makes it difficult to cite specific works, other than W. G. Hoskins, The Age of Plunder (London, 1976) and J. Cornwall, Weal th and Society in Early Sixteenth Century England (London, 1988) but this view is axiomatic in many of the works concerned with growth cited in the previous pages (eg., Shammas, Pre-Industrial Consumer, passim) and in works which see the sixteenth century as the period in which England shook famine (eg., Appleby, "Grain prices and subsistence crises," ibid., Famine) . See also D. M. Palliser, lfTawneyrsCentury: Brave New World or Malthusian Trap?" EcHR 2nd ser. 35 (1982): 339-353, and Outhwaite, I1Progress and Back~ardness,~~on the probl-ems inherent in generalising on the nature of the period,

41 Hoskins, Age of Plunder, quote from p. 84, other statements are based on pp. 2-6. Opinions similar to Hoskinsr can be found as recently as J. Goodacre, The Transformation of a Peasant Economy: Townspeople and Villagers in the Lu t terworth area 1500 - 1700 (Aldershot, 1994): I. Scholarly opinion generally affirms the poverty of the forefathers depicted by Harrison's informants rather than the wealthy people discovered by Henry VIII. Ideally, to study the wealth of villagers in this context, a thorough budgeting of their production, their exchanges and their consumption would deliver the most rigorous evidence, but the direct observation possible to the modern ethnographer is out of the question, for even the imperfect record of household accounts, such as those kept by Robert Loder, Peter Temple and Thomas Heritage, is not available." Fortunately, there is an abundance of records providing clues in one form or another to the state of local commercialization. The approach here is to marshal evidence of wealth by identifying those phenomena in the records which indicate marketabl-1 resources, occupational specialization, rational use of labour, consumption of purchased goods, rational economic understanding and behaviour as well as the creation of wealth from commerce. The elements will

42 G, E. Fussell, ed., "Robert Loderls Farm Accounts, 1610- 1620," Camden 3rd ser. 53 (19361, N. W. Alcock, ed., " Grazier and London Skinner, 1532 - 1555: The account book of Peter Temple and Thomas Heritage,'TRecords of Social and Economic Hist0ryN.S. 4 (1981). See also the interesting comparison of his accounts with those of his Frisian near-contemporary in B. H. Slicher van Bath, "Robert Loder en Rienck Hemrnema,lred. B. H. Slicher van Bath, Bijdragen tot de Agrarische ~eschiedenis(Utrecht , 1978) : 52 - 80, Such documents, so -called Anschreibebucher, are known from the sixteenth century on the Continent. K. J. Lorenzen-Schmidt and B. Poulsen, IrBauerliche (An-) Schreibebucher als Quellen fur die Wirtschafts- und ~ozialgeschichte,"eds. K. J. Lorenzen-Schmidt and B. Poulsen, Bauerliche Anschreibebucher als Quell en zur Wirtschaf ts - geschichte (Neumunster, 1992) : 9-27. necessarily appear to be disconnected on several occasions but in their entirety they form a convincing ensemble. It is also recognized that the dividing lines between production for the market and subsistence or between market and other £oms of economic integration are blurred. Transfers in wills more closely resemble gift exchange while the tax records document redistribution." Some parts of production continued to be used for subsistence and others for reciprocal and redistributive exchanges. Money, which had to be obtained by the bulk of the population through involvement in the market, is omnipresent throughout the sources. The evidence indicates such widespread monetization that no other possibility remains than to visualize these alternative forms of consumption and exchange together with the market. In the extant literature on pre-industrial England the approach of this study is most closely represented in work by Kathleen Biddick and J. Ambrose afti is." Biddick established a correlation between the magnitude of taxable wealth in the countryside and proximity to multiple market facilities, demonstrating that villagers were both active participants in the market economy and accumulated wealth through flexible

" K. Polanyi, Vhe Economy as Instituted Pro~ess,~~ed. G. Dalton, Primi tive, Archaic and Modern Economies : Essays of Karl Polanyi, (New York, 1968) : 139-74, J. Hamig, "Ars Donandi: Zur ~konomiedes Schenkens irn fruhen Mittelalterr1Ied. R. van Dulmen, Amut, Liebe, Ehre : Studien zur historischen Kul turforschung (Frankfurt, 1988) : 11-37. Biddick, ltMissing Links," Raftis, ETG. 24 involvement. A more detailed investigation of this wealth, as it existed under the early Tudors, is at the heart of this study. Raftis' study of early Tudor Godmanchester provides valuable insights into occupational diversity, the endorsement of crafts and trades by a rural population and some correlations with wealth, but also topics such as the religiosity of the community, which cannot be fully examined here. Sol Tax's anthropological work on the Guatemalan Maya of Panajachel during the 1930's added an important conceptual stimulus through which to visualize the villagers examined in this study:" It might be argued that by selection of the same things to describe that economists select in writing about our society, I prejudge the similarity of Panajachel economy to our own ...But the significant thing is that . . .the Panajachel economy is like ours. If I tried to ask about a tribe of Australian aborigines what is its balance of payments, I should soon have to reinterpret the question so drastically that it would not be the same. Likewise, it is possible to speak of the rural economy of early Tudor Hurstingstone in modern terms because it, too, had long before begun to function in a similar manner as ours, as a complex of different forms of exchanges driven by the market and with the profit motive firmly installed. Our place within the shifting interpretation of the village economy is further illustrated by reference to two related but distinct routes pursued in research. One direction examines the system by which goods circulated in England's internal trade.

45 S. Tax, Penny Capitalism: A Guatemalan Indian Economy (Washington, 1953) : ix. Richard Britnell compiled an impressive survey of commercial activity in England between the years 1000 and 1500 A. D. that demonstrates the degree to which transactions were monetized at all levels of the economy and the state of development of market- related institution^.^^ In a similar vein, David Farmer, James Masschaele and Christopher Dyer show a well-developed infrastructure for local and regional trade in the countryside, which consisted of a multitude of trading sites, an effective transportation system and specialised producer^.^' The other direction examines standards of living attained in the medieval economy through attempts to calculate 'peasant budgetsr and, in particular, by Dyer's extensive survey of resources sustaining medieval villagers.48 While these currents address important

46 Britnell, Commercialisation: 5-28, 79-101, 155-78.

47 C. Dyer, "The Consumer and the Market in the Later Middle Ages, ed. C . Dyer, Everyday Life in Medieval England (London, 1994): 257-82, Masschaele, "Market Rights," Farmer, "Marketing the Produce," On the distribution of goods in the early modern period: Willan, Coasting Trade, ibid., River Navigation, ibid. , Inland Trade, J . Chartres , Internal Trade, Spuf f ord, Great Reclo thing.

48 C. Dyer, Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages: Social Change in England c. 1200 - 1500 (Cambridge, 1989): 109- 87. The discussion of peasant standards of living in medieval England has a long history with attempts to formulate budgets by J. E. T. Rogers, A History of Agriculture and Prices in England, v. I (Oxford, 1866) : 682-85, Gras and Gras, History of an English Village: 69-74, Kosminsky, Agrarian History: 238-42, J. Z. Titow, English Rural Society, 1200 - 1350 (London, 1969) : 78-96, and H. S. Bennet, Life on the English Manor (1937; Cambridge, 1967) : 75- 96. Similar concerns lay at the heart of H. P. Brown and S. Hopkins, A Perspective of Wages and Prices (London, 1981) though they chose builder's wages. A recent attempt to evaluate standards of living of wage earners and building craftsmen is found in D . Woodward, Men at Work : Labourers and building 26 issues, the former approach differs from the one employed here by stronger emphasis on the system rather than the participants, the latter by emphasis upon subsistence based on grain-dominated agriculture. The examination of villagersr wealth is divided into six chapters. In the first chapter economic rationality in the thoughts and actions of villagers are addressed with priority given to their own statements in the wills. The second chapter deals with the resources and skills which constituted the basis of wealth and generated income with emphasis on diversity. The discussion proceeds to the rational use of human resources by using gender roles as a focal point. A common thread in these three chapters are the means by which income is generated while the subsequent chapters are linked by a discussion of income and its use. The fourth chapter considers the uses of the surplus generated in the local economy in the form of consumer goods and donations. The final two chapters are concerned with the social and geographical distribution of income and economic activities. They are based primarily on court rolls and lay subsidies and turn from the qualitative approaches of the earlier chapters to more quantitative approaches.

craftsmen in the towns of northern England, 1450 - 1750 (Cambridge, 1995) : 209-52, which supports the general findings of earlier studies but stresses a broader approach to earnings than the comparison of real wages. Spuf ford, Reclothing: 4, introduces the term 'growth of comfort,' in an attempt to move from the strongly quantitative notion of a 'standard of livingr to a more qualitative (and implicitly more processual) concept. Chapter I Villagers and the Market Economy: Thought and Action

Assessments of peasantsr role in economic history and development have been divided between opinions which ascribe either non-rational or rational behavioural modes to pre- industrial societies.' In English historiography the balance has slowly shifted from the former to the latter view as institutions such as the open field system, once considered prime evidence of irrationality, have been reinterpreted in a functionalistic light. In the sixteenth century another source for examining this issue emerges in the large body of autographic material contained in wills composed by villagers. Their concise statements, when combined with observations in printed works and other sources, augment the indirect evidence with personal commentary and permit an impressionistic reconstruction of popular economic thought and behaviour. This chapter traces the

' One need only read Richard Tawneyrs Weberian hypothesis of the transformational effect of Puritan ideology on economic attitudes, Chayanovrs model of the market-avoiding peasant in Russia and the debate regarding moral versus political economy centred on South East Asian peasants. Tawney, Religion and Capi talism, passim, Chayanov, Peasant Economy, passim. The moral economy vs. political economy debate on Vietnamese peasants was led by J. C. Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Subsistence and Resistance in Southeast Asia (New Haven, 1976) and S. L. Popkin, The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam (Berkeley, 1979) . Moral economy refers to situations in which the economic interests of individuals are subordinated to community interests, political economy those in which individuals pursue their own interests. It is doubtful that pure types of either exist. economic awareness and rationality of Hurstingstone villagers the conduct of their affairs.

An effective accounting system is often considered an indispensable tool for efficient economic organization constituting prima facie evidence of rationalism. The development of such a system, along with other forms of the 'technical utilization of scientific knowledge,' was integral the development of capitalism in Max Weberfs classic work.' Werner Sombart also equated rational accounting with double-entv book-keeping, which he claimed was essential. to capitalism, and dismissed the older single-entry accounting as chaotic and uninformative.' Raymond de Roover took a different position when he argued that traditional accounting fulfilled its purpose sufficiently and was effective in the management of economic operations with the shift to double-entry being necessitated the growing complexity of Italian business operationsS4 By

The quoted expression is taken from Weber, Protestant Ethic: 24-25. A paper based to a significant degree on material in this chapter and chapter V will be presented at the International Medieval Congress in Leeds, July 8, 1996 : "Numeracy in the Early Tudor Countryside: A Local History Approach."

W. Sombart, Der moderne Kapi talismus. v. 11, pt . 1 (Munich, 1928) : 110-136. To Sombart (p. 111) medieval accounts are a ' wiiste [s] Durcheinander , ' and ' [dl iese Biicher waren Memoriales im primitivsten Verstande.' Any reader familiar with the degree of order in manorial accounts will reject his statements. R. de Roover, "The development of accounting prior to Luca Pacioli according to the account-books of medieval merchants," eds. A. C. Littleton and B. S. Yamey, Studies in the History of Accounting (Homewood, 1956): 114-74. On accounting see also Braudel, hkeels of Commerce: 572-75. contrast, Basil Yamey down-played the role of accounting altogether: 'The general conclusion to be dra-...is that accounting records ... could have played no more than a minor part in accentuating the pursuit of profit ..." In Hurstingstone hundred, economic records were kept during the study period in the form of churchwardens accounts, indentures and probate inventoriesm6 The two churchwardens accounts which have survived, Holywell and Ramsey, are basic records of revenues and expenditures. The handwriting is often poor and entries were at times made using what empty spaces were available without any attempt to use the sequence of pages to maintain chronological order. Usually, it is impossible to determine the true state of parish finances from either account.' On a first encounter with the apparent chaos of some sections, one is inclined to sympathize with Sombart and his early modern counterpart who wrote twice in a very clear hand in the Ramsey churchwardens accounts: 'If anyone asks for me, deny having seen

B. S. Yamey, llScientificBookkeeping and the Rise of Capitalism, EcHR 2nd ser. I (1949): 99-113, ibid., "Accounting and the rise of capitalism: further note on a theme by Sombart," Studi in Onore di bintore Fanfani . v. VI. Evo Contemporaneo (Milan, 1962) : 831-857, quote from p. 852.

Unfortunately, no more than the final sums appended to wills in the 1540's and 1550% has survived of the probate inventories.

' Holywell CWA £0. 8v, states that £5 12s 4d were in the hands of the churchwardens at the beginning of the 1556 accounting year. me. Amen, say I, Robert ~arwyke." However, churchwardens accounts were not kept to calculate surpluses and deficits but to validate expenditures and verify revenues for auditors whose presence occurs repeatedly in the churchwardens records when expenses were allowed for appearances before royal commissioners and at episcopal ~isitations.~The wardens were capable of giving a proper account of themselves and with this the accounts served their principal purpose. Ramsey parish accounts show that value was placed on the quality of record keeping when they note in 1549 that a John Balsam was paid for 'writing our book.10' The accounts may have been unrefined but they were an effective auditing tool.

Accounts may have been more widely employed than in parochial and other public affairs. If Fitzherbert is any guide, there must have been private accounts detailing the transactions of households and even their individual members during the period." Like the accountants of medieval estates and parish churches, Fitzherbert saw them above all as an aid to auditing

Ramsey CWA fo. 53v: 'Si quis me querat negate me vidisse Amen dico Robertus warwyke.'

Holywell CWA fo. 3d, 5d, 6d; Ramsey CWA fo. 18v, 18d.

lo Ramsey CWA fo. 15d. " Fitzherbert, Boke of Husbandry, quoted in full in chapter 111, p.. Documents of this nature appear to have been lost from the period before the seventeenth century so it is impossible to make any statements on their nature and quality. See also n. and expenditure control rather than profit cal~ulation.'~ Hurstingstone villagers considered the necessity of proper record keeping in their private affairs in a similar spirit. Robert Nelson's will (Ramsey 1555) specifically states that Robert Rowley of Needingworth wrote the will.13 A greater degree of formalization in personal matters can be observed in Thomas

Stewkysr will ( 1537) :I4 And wher as I have sollide to my some John all my croppes both sown and unsown and all the hole tilthe to the same belonginge and all my horss and ther gerys to them belonginge and w[ my plughe and ploowe gerys according as it doith appere in a pyre of indentures to hym made beringe beringe [sic] date the xxviij day of Februarye in the xxviij Xere of oure most soveraigne lorde Kynge Henrie the viij . . . Another use of an indenture in intra-familial exchange occurs in the will of Henry Plume (King's Ripton 1543) who, after outlining

The intention to enable auditing procedures is clearly evident in Walter of Henley's continual distrust of cheating: D. Oschinsky, ed. , Walter: The Husbandry of Walter of Henley," ed. and trans. D. Oschinsky, Walter of Henley and Other Treatises on Estate Management and Accounting (Oxford, 1971) : 307-43, ibid. , "Medieval Treatises on Estate Management," EcHR 2nd ser. 8 (1955/6) : 296-309. Also: N. R. Holt, The Pipe Roll of the Bishopric of Winchester, 1210-1211 (Manchester, 1964) : xvi-xvii, E. Stone, "Profit and Loss Accountancy at Cathedral Priory,If TRHS 5th ser. 12 (1962): 25-48, N. Denholm-Young, Seigneurial Administration in England (London, 1963) : 126-130, P. D. A. Harvey, ed. Manorial Records of Cuxham, , circa 1200-1359, Historical Manuscript Commission JP 23 (1976): 12-71.

l3 Wills, unless directly quoted, will be cited in the text by the name of the testator with the location and the year of the will given in brackets. For closer identification compare with W. M Wise, Calendars of Huntingdonshire Wills, 1479 - 1652. Index Library 42 (1910; repr. 1968) 1-125. Wills directly quoted will be cited by giving the actbook's volume in Roman numerals and the page in Arabic numerals.

l4 Huntingdonshire Wills V.59. the terms under which his brother was to manage his tenement until his son had reached the age of majority specified 'and thus he shall have it by indenture of [covenantes?] . 15' Equally interesting is the provision in John Kyldarers will (Broughton 1554) which allowed his wife access to property after remarriage on the following termd6

Item 1 will that if my wiff shall fortune to marye that he who shall marye with hir with his frendis before the mariage shall be bounde in oblygacon for assuerance of the childrens partes. Though no written instrument was specified it is almost certain that an indenture would have preceded remarriage. The presence of written instruments as guarantors of economic fidelity had become pervasive, even to the point of invading the sphere of kinship. The use of documents does not equate with literacy but,

to use Michael Clanchyrs words, the transition 'from memory to written recordf was well advanced by this time in England and used to good effect in rural society." The events recorded in inventories, accounts and other documents found their real basis in a multitude of transactions

l5 Huntingdonshire Wills VII .7l.

l6 Huntingdonshire Wills X.18.

l7 M. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record: England 1066- 1307 (Oxford, 1993). That the use of documents does not equal literacy is also evident in Spuf ford, Contrasting Communities: 320-23. The eagerness of presumably illiterate parents in to send children to school may be related to the need to use written instruments (loc cit.: 192-94). However, as the frequent mention of tallies in Godmanchester documents proves, more archaic records persisted (Raftis, ETG: 94, 189). for which an array of marketing institutions formed the backdrop. According to Harrison five regular markets existed in Huntingdonshire in the 1570rs.18Alan Everitt identified eight markets in the county: Ramsey, and the medieval fair town of St. Ives within Hurstingstone hundred; Huntingdon, Godmanchester, St. Neots, Yaxley and Kimbolton in other parts of the county.Ig With a density of one market to less than every forty-seven square miles, the county ranked among the seven with the greatest concentration of markets in England and Wales faring better than most surrounding areas (especially Cambridgeshire) . Markets were not the only occasions on which buying and selling occurred: itinerant chapmen, whom Margaret Spufford has researched in great detail, distributed goods, and the existence of shops is evident from licensing fines in the Ramsey court rolls.20 Private sales, another important means of exchange, appear on occasion in the wills: Robert Burnby (Broughton 1541)

l8 Harrison, Description: 129. Unfortunately, Harrison does not name locations. Market towns had been declining in numbers since the later Middle Ages and experienced a severe shrinkage in the early modern period. A. Everitt, "The Marketing of Agricultural Produce," Thirsk, AHEW, v.IV: 467-75, Clay, Expansion and Change, v. I: 467-75, Chartres, Internal Trade: 48.

l9 Everitt, "Marketing of Produce:" 473-74, 497. However, Masschaele, Regional Economy: 150-53, notes that the grant of market rights did not necessarily result in the establishment of a market and that counting charters alone will lead to overenumeration.

'O Spufford, Reclothing: 15. Some chapmen were licensed in Huntingdonshire in the late seventeenth century but none can be were found in the documents considered here. Willan, Inland Trade: 76-106, provides a unique study of provincial shops in the seventeenth century. willed his wife a bacon hog he had bought from Henry Plumrner and

Agnes Pulter (Broughton 1545) referred to a horse bought in Bury.*' Undoubtedly, private sales were also behind many purchases entered into the churchwardens accounts. The activities of village recorded in court rolls provide a measure of the intensity of local commerce.r In Ramse:~and Bury the four assizes of ale, meat and fish, bread and cloth presented cases which covered transgressions in both private and market sales. Together they constituted 27.8% of all cases dealt with in the manorial courts of Ramsey and Bury, which is an impressive comment on the significance of local trade. Instructions which imply or require sales are frequently encountered in wills. Testators considered liquidations a routine matter and sales of property were a common means of raising cash. Alice Haliday ( 1556) willed her house to be sold to the highest bidder to raise money for the poor and

William Greyke (Broughton 1503) commanded that if no son survived his land was to be sold to raise money for his daughters and a priest. Livestock and other movables were also liquidated:

Reginald Hogge (Broughton 1541) left a red cow to his parents but after their demise it was to be sold to endow prayers for his and his first wife's souls. John Taillard ( 1528) wished £8 worth of goods to be sold to the benefit of Richard and William

21 Everitt, llMarketing: 531-63.

'Z Based on DeWindt, Court Rolls: 888-1024. This material will be discussed further in Chapter I1 and Appendix I. Ibottefs souls and Anne Ward (St. Ives 1535) required that her great brass pot be sold to provide money for the poor. Covering debts was another reason to sell possessions. Elene Eton

(Abbots ~ipton1538) was forced to sell a brass pot, a pair of beads, a pewter charger, a cape coat and a wether while Henry

Plume (King's Ripton 1543) wanted his goods sold to pay for his house and other debts.

Debts were also a source of conferrable money. John Aspelonde (Holywell 1538) bequeathed 20s to each of his three daughters from money owed by another Holywell man. Another means of raising money other than by outright sale was to require the recipient of land or goods to pay cash to designated parties. A graphic example of this procedure may be found in the will of

Robert Wauker (King's Ripton 1554) :" Also I will that my eldeste sonne paye furthe of my house at the Brigge after the decesse of my wiff when he shall entere in to yt vij nobills after this manere, the first yere ij nobills unto my yongeste sonne and the other to my ij doughterys and so to contynue the space of thre yeres and the fourte yere a nobill to my yongest sonne Thomas.

The will of John Kynge of Holywell (1556) created a limited stipend for his cousin:=

I geve to Margarett my wyffe all the fyshe in my pondes allowinge my cosin Robert Kinge xx s at iiij severall

on the use of goods as collateral, see E. Clark, "Debt Litigation in a late Medieval English Vill,' ed. J.A. Raftis, Pathways to Medieval Peasants (Toronto, 1981) : 266-67.

24 Huntingdonshire Wills X.44.

25 Huntingdonshire Wills XI.12. times by even porcion when saile of the same fyshe shalbe made. Despite the complexity of these examples, most provisions of this kind were simple affairs as in the case of a bequest of 40s by

John Luff (Upwood 1551) to his son Thomas which his other son William was to pay out of the house he had inherited- A common occurrence in many wills is a brief admonition to executors to pay debts :26 The residue of my goodis after my dettes paid and this my last will fulfilled I geve to Elene my wiff and William my sonne ... The Church, whose courts dealt with probate, required the repayment of debts by testators and it is difficult to say if this recurring phrase referred to actual debts or was merely a formulaic inclusion. Fortunately, there are some wills with unambiguous information, among them that of the aforementioned Elene Eton. Most wills which detail credit information only cite one or two creditors or debtors but on occasion more complex situations are found. William Tolde (Wennington 1528) owed 58s 8d to ten creditors:" Thomas Wynwicke of William Stokes John Walgate of Little Raveley William Horwoode draper of Huntingdon Lawrence my servant Lawrence Martyn Richard Smyth John Byrd

'6 '6 The example is taken from the will of William Duckett (Little Raveley 1541): Huntingdonshire Wills VI.180. '' Huntingdonshire Wills 111.47. John Grene of King's Ripton Thomas Slowgrade At the same time he was owed 5s by Henry Hull of Connington. A similar list of debts may be found in the will of James Wynwike of Abbots Ripton (1527) :28 parish church 7s 6d my lord of Ramsey 6s 8d Erne Roberts 20d Cuthbert Bagley 1 q barley John Foster 4s Wynwike was also owed money: 2s by John Segefeld of and 8s by Richard Barege, baker, of Huntingdon. The reason for incurring debts is usually not noted but the fact that Tolde and Wynwike were creditors and debtors at the same time suggests that the practice of daying or delayed payment was inv~lved.'~Tolders servant (not the only one of his occupation to appear as a creditor) was probably owed back wages, the abbot a rental payment, the church one of its regular levies and others, among them the draper, were probably waiting for payments arising from their trades. Daying is clearly the reason for the debts of 3s

4d for carriage owed by Thomas Laslen to John Dawes (Bury 1555) and 10s owed in partial payment for grease to Mr. Middleton of

- -- '' Huntingdonshire Wills 111.15.

" This practice was also found in late medieval Writtle, Essex, by Clark, "Debt Litigation:ll 255-58, but no evidence of purchase price advances (pp. 259-61) was found. E. Kerridge, Trade and Banking in Early Modern England (Manchester, 19 88 ) : 3 3, states that buying on credit against expected sales (daying) was common by 1600 and discounts were given for prompt and immediate payment. Such was certainly the practice of many chapmen studied by Margaret Spufford whose goods on occasion only exceeded their debts in value by a small margin. Spuf ford, Reclothing: 37-41. Bury by Richard Pulter (Broughton 1545) . Sometimes the actual schedule under which payments were delayed are apparent as well.

Cuthbert Stevens (Holywell 1532) wished his son Nicholas to pay 40s within six years from the house he was to inherit and Robert

Wauker (King's Ripton 1554) willed a house to his wife for which he had not yet paid the full price:30 Also I will that my wife pay the rest of monye that is to pay for my housse of the hill. That is to sey for iij yerys space every yere xx s to Sir John Laide or to his depute. The agricultural writer Thomas Tusser expressed his disapproval of this practice because a premium was exacted from the debtor for the delay:)' 111 husbandrie daieth, or letteth it lie: Good husbandrie paieth, the cheaper to bie. His considerations did not deter Hurstingstone villagers from the expedient conduct of their business. The penalty, if it was exacted, was quietly accepted. Evidence of loans against interest is less apparent although it is easily observed in the records of nearby Godmanchester.)'

30 Huntingdonshire Wills X, 44.

31 T. Tusser, "Fiue Hundred Pointes of Good Husbandrie," English Dialect Society (London, 1878) : 139.

32 Raftis, ETG: 170-193. Two Godmanchester peculiarities stand out: the use of court rolls to enter pleas of debt and the use of tallies in the reckoning. Some debts there (eg., the Wylde family) reflect similar patterns as in Hurstingstone villages (pp. 179-181). Pleas of debts were also common in Writtle: Clark, "Debt Litigation:" 250-55. Neither were found in Hurstingstone. DeWindt, King's Ripton: 136-41, discusses debts Two cases which almost certainly involved a proper loan are Agnes Karner, who willed the sale of her house to cover her husband's debts, and John Bedford (Sapley and King's ~ipton1558), who instructed his executors as Item where as I am indettede to Mr. Savington ten pounde xviijs I will that he have my interest in Celldes closis and then to have by a resonable rente by the discression of my supervisores to be ratide unto such tyme as the seid x li xviijs be fullie paide. Was Savington a lender at interest? No specific details about reasons and terms can be extracted from the entry but the debt's large size gives credence to the belief that more than daying was at stake. Undoubtedly, the ideological climate of the period prevented Bedford from stating the fact. The relaxed legislation on interest enacted under Henry VIII had been repealed by Mary.

When Elizabeth reversed her sister's actions in 1571, Harrison expressed his hostility to this perceived increase in usury:34 The third [grievous] thing they talk of is usury, a trade brought in by the Jews, now perfectly practiced almost by every Christian and so commonly that he is accounted but for a fool that doth lend his money for nothing. In time past it was sors pro sorte, that is, the principal only for the principal; but now, beside

which also seem to have been consumer debts and delayed payments but were more frequently stated in goods. Also: R. H. Tawney and E. Power, Tudor Economic Documents (1924; New York, 1961). v. 11: 133-75, V. 111: 305-404.

33 Huntingdonshire Wills XI.224.

34 Harrison, Description: 202-3. On the persistence of this ambivalency in the early modern period: Kerridge, Trade and Banking, W. R. D. Jones, The Tudor Commonwealth, 1529-1559 (London, 1970): 151-55. On usury and interest in the Middle Ages : Gilchrist, Church and Economic Activity: 62-70, 104-15. that which is above the principal, properly called usura, we challenge fenus [interest] . . . It is not surprising that the evidence of loans against interest is ambiguous in this climate. By comparison, the openness of the practice in Godmanchester is a~tonishing.~' The need to assess goods for taxation, the division of possessions amongst heirs, the business of the parish church and many other matters continually called upon villagers to demonstrate their knowledge of the current state of the market. It was one of the functions of executors and supervisors of wills, occasionally even of other neighbours ('the sight of iij indifferent menr in the 1557 will of John Pulter of rought ton^^), to ensure that the specifications of the testator were carried out properly. In simple cases, this involved the assignment of an item described by quality (best, second, etc. ) which required a shared sense of values among testators, executors and heirs to enable ranking but did not necessarily require sophisticated

" It is not possible to identify a specific money-lending segment of the population in Hurstingstone hundred as suggested by B. A. Holderness, lWidows in pre-industrial society: an essay upon their economic functions, ed. R. M. Smith. Land, Kinship and Life-Cycle (Cambridge, 1984) : 423-442, W. C. Jordan, Women and Credit in Pre-Indus trial Developing Societies (Philadelphia, 1993): 11-82, Raftis, ETG: 170-93. The same conclusion was reached by Clark, "Debt Litigation:" 262-68. Wealthy Londoners who became prominent in Godmanchester and virtually assumed control over Havering do not seem to have penetrated rural Hurstingstone: Raftis, ETG: 162-67, 213-16, McIntosh, Autonomy and Community: 221-63. The links of the hundred to the outside world are explored in Chapter VI.

36 Huntingdonshire Wills XI.185. knowledge of market values.37 Similar abilities had to be available to fulfil John Taillard's request (Upwood 1528) that £8 worth of his goods be sold. On occasion more complex procedures were required. William Greyke (Broughton 1503) willed his land to his sons but instructed his executors :38 ...and if all my sonnes decesse withowth essews than I will y' it be solde and the mony theroff comyng and take[n] I bequethe to every of my daughteres in maryage xx li and the resydew of the same mony to fynde a honeste preste synging in y' same parish churche ... The role of persons officiating over wills extended further when the whole of a testator's possessions had to be assessed to be divided or sold. William Duckett (Little Raveley 1542) bequeathed the residue of his goods to his wife and son 'and them ij to departe the good in ij partes at the oversight of ij or iij honeste men when they departe housholde and every one to have his parte without stryf f .39f William Tame (Wennington 1546) ordained that his son George was to have his dwelling and appurtenances together with 'all such goodes belonginge to the same as shalbe thought necessare bye the sight of honest men."' Since villagers were equally aware of the importance of maintaining asset values,

" Examples will be cited in Chapter IV.

38 Huntingdonshire Wills 11.38.

39 Huntingdonshire Wills V1.180.

40 Huntingdonshire Wills VIII.40. their concern extended beyond fixing a monetary figure on possessions. Robert Qwene (Wemington 1552 ) required:41 ...my wiff shall at the ende of the seid xvj yeris leave unto my seid sonnes William and Thomas fyve marys such as the best be that I have now at the sight of my supervisors and neighbouris. Qwene, in effect, recognised depreciation as did Robert Loder over half a century later." The same concern is expressed in wills which secure holdings against mismanagement or as John

Aspelonde (Holywell 1538) phrased his instructions to an executor: his wife was to 'make stryppe ne waste on the grounder or else to be relieved of her guardianship of the land.43 Economic advantage as the motive in pricing land, livestock and other goods is clearly apparent. William Dande (

1557) requested that his copyhold 'be sold at the best prec by the discresson of my executor^.^^ Simon King (Holywell 1545) granted that 'Johanne my wiff shall have the usage of my housse and my land and all my householde stuffe and catall and the prof ight therof duringe her lif fe ."' Cuthbert Stevens (Holywell

1532) willed his wife to have the profits and rents of his house of the 'priores holder until his daughter was sixteen. John

41 Huntingdonshire Wills IX. 97.

" Fussell, "L~der:~~22. Loder, too, referred to the quality of his horses.

" Huntingdonshire Wills VI .19.

@ Huntingdonshire Wills XI.171.

" Huntingdonshire Wills VII.233. Brown (Abbots Ripton 1528) willed 'that John Brown my sonne have my blake cowe with all the profite of the same on this condicon

that he or other for hym paye yerely for my obitte ij~.~~'The will of John King (Holywell 1556) , quoted above, makes it clear that his fisheries were intended to provide income on the market. Clearly, capital was considered separately from the gains it generated. The word \profitr almost certainly signified actual gains after costs rather than gross revenue. Several wills considered costs and factored expenditures into their calculations. William Patryke (Upwood 1527) gave his son and wife each a half share in his house and land and required each to pay half the rent and other charges. John Grene (King's Ripton 1538) provided his wife with three acres of land in every field 'well tyllide dungyde sown mown and caryede at the xpence coastes and chargis of

Regnalde and Robert my sonnys.' John Carter (Warboys 1553) left particularly telling instructions concerning the portion of land willed to Thomas Catlyn once the latter would reach twenty years of age :47

...and yf he will continue wL my wiff and pay and bere half the rentes tilth of land and half of all other charges that belong to housekepynge then he to have the increase and profight that ryseth and cumyth of his parte... [if he will not] then he to have his parte wt out everye increase ...

46 Huntingdonshire Wills 111.78.

47 Huntingdonshire Wills IX.177. 44 Clearly, Carter was not only considering expenditures but also a reward for his wife's managerial and other labour inputs if Catlyn should diminish her base of operation by striking out on his own. Instructive as the above examples are of the villagersr awareness of market prices, profits and costs, an even more impressive affirmation of the ability to calculate economically is provided at the end of a Ramsey abbey account:48 In [illegible] sold to John Knight iij quarters & vj busshelles of barley [pro] le quarter iijs viijd xiij s ixd Sm Item for the strawe & chaffe therof -- iijs iiijd Srn -- xvijs id therof pd for mowynge & rekynge xijd Item for carynge therof -- xijd Item for thresshynge therof -- xixd Summa iijs vijd and so remayneth xiijs vjd xxii jd by yer endid a A xxvii j Hviij [sic]49 Wherof pd [to?] Mr. Denlif for iij yeres quite rent vs ixd and so remayneth vijs ixd This calculation, appended in English to a Latin account, appears to have been the statement of a local official drawn from the ranks of the rural population. It clearly separates barley into its marketable components of grain, chaff and straw and then subtracts monetary expenditures incurred during harvest though inputs. Seed, sowing, tillage, possibly fertilisation and weeding were not costed unless they were included in the quit

48 PRO/SC~/H~~.~I11/1660. Medieval instructions for calculations of this sort may be found in Oschinsky, Walter: 219- 57, 459-78.

49 Line is interpolated. 45 rent. A better illustration of the ability to factor costs and gains in early sixteenth century agriculture could not have been found . Closely related to knowledge of prices and profits is awareness of capital and capital formation. Long-term investments such as closes and fishponds could require considerable investment of material and labour.50 Fitzherbertrs Book of Husbandry provides a virtual science of hedge making for closes :" Thou muste gette the stakes of harte of oke, for those be best; ...And set thy stakes within .ii. foote and a halfe together, excepte thou have very good edderynge, and longe, to bynde with. And if it be double eddered, it is moch the better, and gret strength to the hedge, and moche lenger it wil last. And lay thy small trouse or thornes, that thou hedgeste withall, over thy quickesettes, that shepe do not eate the sprynge nor buddes of thy settes.

The Whitham-Ouse region has emerged as a distinct region in the archaeology of medieval fisheries: J. M. Steane and M. Foreman, "Medieval Fishing Tackle, ed. M. Aston, Medieval Fish, Fisheries and Fishponds in England, v. I. BAR British ser. 182 (1988): 137-86. On the costs of ponds: M. Aston, I1Aspects of Fishpond Construction and Maintenance in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries," Aston, Medieval Fish, v. I. : 187-202, C. Dyer, "The Consumption of Freshwater Fish in Medieval England,11 ed. C. Dyer, Everyday Life in Medieval England (London, 1994) : 101-2, cites substantial expenditures (as high as £7 14s lld at Knowle, Warwickshire, in 1294/5), the need for quality stock, specialised labour and managerial skills to establish and maintain dernesnial fishponds. He concludes that 'peasants could not afford such investments,..' This calculation is only correct in the improbable case that peasants relied on cash expenditures for every step in the construction and maintenance of the ponds. Nevertheless, his medieval evidence illustrates that a considerable capital investment occurred when a pond fishery was established, See also next chapter.

Fitzherbert, Husbandry: 79. The entire hedge-making sequence is covered on pp. 78-81. Omitted from this quote are his lengthy discussions of making 'quicksets,' other woods suitable for stakes, stabilising the

ethering and the rejuvenation (pleaching) of the hedge. Making closes, a prominent feature of the local landscape, was not a simple matter but involved planning and repeated labour inputs over the years for maintenance and diverting of resources from other purposes. This use of men and materials was justified by Fitzherbert with a shrewd calculus Than reken meate, drinke, wages for his shepeherde, the herdmans hyre, the sw-yneherdes hyre, these charges wyll double his rent or nyghe it, excepte his farme be aboue .xl. s. by yere. Nowe see what his charges be in .iii. yeres, lette hym ware as moche money in quickesettynge, dychynge, and hedgynge, and in thre yeres he shallbe discharged for euermore, and moche of this labour he and his seruauntes maye do with theyr owne handes, and saue moche money. Here is clear recognition that a farmer could benefit by investing the equivalent of three years in operating costs into capital expenditure. Fitzherbert, though actually speaking of livestock in this section, goes on to promise that if all fields are enclosed and the holding consolidated 'than shall his farme

5Z Fitzherbert, Husbandry: 77. See also Fox, "Chronology of Enclosure," which indicates that medieval villagers were willing to undertake the investment of enclosure on a large scale when appropriate. However, it is important to note that unenclosed and enclosed land coexisted in close proximity of each other, even within the lands of the same village. They are best viewed as complementary rather than rival forms of land usage. The decision to manage land in one or another fashion depended, among other factors, on the uses to which the landholders intended to put them and on their economic means to realise their plans. 47 be twyse so good in profytte ...as it was before.53r An economic recognition of capital expenditure can also be found in the court rolls which allowed a daily wage three times larger for labourers using their own boats in (12d) than for those without (4d)." Similar considerations could be applied to the presence of carts, ploughs and livestock but the examples cited suffice to illustrate recognition of capital and the value placed on its creation and maintenance by villagers. Provisions in Hurstingstone wills to create wealth for heirs and permanent endowments for obituaries provide direct evidence of strategic thinking involved in capital formation. In the simplest and clearest expression of intent John Mayhewe (Warboys

1557) gave a young cow to the causeway 'to endure for ever."'

John Gerys (Holywell 1527) allowed 'to the churche of Eton xiijs iiijd to bye an acre off lande to the use of profight off the seide churche for to have me and my fryndes ther prayd for.S6'

Thomas Dymbilbie (Bury 1539) bequeathed to 'the bellis a bullock and that my executores shall leate the same bulloke for ijs a

53 Fitzherbert, Husbandry: 77. This and the previous quote were taken from a section entitled 'Howe to kepe beastes and other cattell.' Tusser, Fiue Hundred Pointes: 139, joins in: 'Ill husbandrie loseth,/ for lack of good fence:/ Good husbandrie closeth,/ and gaineth the pence.'

54 DeWindt, Court Rolls: 900, quoted in full in Chapter TI. " Huntingdonshire Wills XI.127. Huntingdonshire Wills yere to the behufe of the churche of BU ry...'" Richard Maxe

(King's Ripton 1538) ordained?' ...that Agnes my wife bye a coowe by hir liffe tyme the which bowght shalbe deliveryde to the Churchwardens of Ripton aforeseid and they to lette hir and the rente of the same cowe to meynteyn the yerelie obitte aforeseid. These examples show quite plainly that the villagers were capable of considering the permanence of endowments with land or livestock as opposed to donations in a fixed sum of money which would eventually be used up. The same thoughtfulness can be found in instructions for the provision of children. Margaret Collynge (Broughton 1546) gave:" to William Hogge all thois thinges above writen to keape my sonne w'all and also the increase of iiij bullockes to keape my sonne w'all till he cume to the age of xv yeres and then he to deliver to my sonne iiij bullocks of as good value as myn be now...

Thomas Danyel (Little Raveley 1548) instructed '...Richard Danyell [a brother?] have the oversight of my children stock to put furth to the most profight that he can till they cum to the age of xviij yeres?' Particularly strong directions for capital formation were issued by Henry Plume (King's Ripton 1543) that the rent from the land willed to his son, and on which his

Huntingdonshire Wills VI.85. '* Huntingdonshire Wills V.126.

59 Huntingdonshire Wills VIII.56.

60 Huntingdonshire Wills VIII.141. 49 brother was to be a tenant, be used to construct a 'bakehouse, a bultynghouse and a chasseh~use.~'~ The use of livestock appears as a particularly popular device by which children and adolescents were endowed with resources from which to generate an income, though few were as

explicit as Laurence Carter (Abbots Ripton 1543) who bequeathed to his sons 'a rede steyre cowe iiij yeres olde a wenynge calfe to brede them a ~tocke.~'' The potential to be realised from effective management of this resource is evident in Thomas

Aunsellfs bequest (Upwood 1557) of a heifer to Robert Chapell: the first and third calves were to be given to Agnes, daughter of a Roland Aunsell and presumably a niece, but the second and fourth calves to Robert himself. Only then was Thomasf wife to

surrender the cow. Robert Nelson (Ramsey 1555) transferred ten

ewes to Edmund Vliar (?) but left their offspring under the control of his father Robert. The numerous bequests of livestock (often a ewe and her lamb or a weaning calf to children, grandchildren and godchildren) transferred starter capital into the hands of a new generation and allowed it to acquire essential managerial skills required to prosper in its turn. The existence of a rental market recognised the value of capital as the means to wealth and required a willingness by one set of participants to create capital goods and to access them

61 Huntingdonshire Wills VII.71.

62 See also Raftis, ETG: 82-100. through the rental short-cut by the other. Some testators recognised that working land directly or letting it out were viable economic alternatives. Thus, John MorLey (Broughton 1541) willed two copyholds to his son which he was to occupy at the age of sixteen 'or to leate them wher he Given the potential for deri-ring wealth from livestock, already apparent in the endowments of 'stocks' for familial and pious purposes discussed above, a rental market for animals comes as no surprise. Private rentals were less prominent but at least the final gesture of

William Stockley (Great Raveley 1551) to William Yewile, whom he permitted to keep 'the cowe that he hathe and the bullocke that he hath to hyere,' can be cited as definite e~idence.~Villagers were eager to expand their resource basis quickly through rentals. The pragmatic sense evident in all their affairs was also applied by villagers to work. Thomas Danyel (Little Raveley

1548) required? The residue of my goodis nat bequethed I geve and bequeth unto Alice my wiff to bring up my children wtall till they cum to age sufficient to lerne to worke for ther lyvyng and the Richard Danyell to see that they be nat brought up in ydilnesse. One may add to this the evidence already discussed: requirements that land cot be despoiled, that livestock not be devalued, the

63 Huntingdonshire Wills VI.207.

a Huntingdonshire Wills IX.66.

65 Huntingdonshire Wills VIII .l4l. care taken to provide executors and supervisors for wills and concern for providing the younger generation with a basic stock. These sentiments were echoed by Tusser in the sixteenth verse of his chapter 'Comparing good husband with vnthrift his brother, The better discerneth the tone from the tother? Ill husbandrie lurketh, and stealeth a sleepe: Good husbandrie worketh, his houshold to kgepe.

An extension of the aversion to idleness was the disapproval of begging. In a later chapter it will be noted that Ramsey villagers were occasionally fined for harbouring beggars and a by-law of 1537 instructed Ramsey and Bury villagers not to offer hospitality to wanderers :67 Order that anyone keeping a hospice shall not receive any stranger called Vevfarvns Folke unless they have a sign from the Constable, under a penalty of 6 s. 8 d. Once again the wills express the villagersf sentiments with considerable conviction. The famed work ethic of the Puritans was based on a much older village ethic.68

tx Tusser, Fiue Hundred Pointes: 139-40.

67 DeWindt, Court Rolls: 940, also issued in 1538 (p. 951).

68 Such an attitude is already clearly evident in W. Langland, The Vision of Piers Plowman: A Complete Edition of the B-Text, ed. A. V. C. Schmidt (London, 1978): Passus VI. It is probably much more widespread than just in cultures of a classically capitalist bent: see J. C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven, 1985) : 1- 13, for an example of a notoriously 'idle' villager used to reproach others in the context of a Malaysian village. The words and actions of Hurstingstone villagers support the notion of the 'rational peasantf with considerable effect. One of the most impressive cases cited was the indenture used by

Thomas Stewkys (Abbots Ripton 1537) for the sale of his arable to his son but this material should not lead a modern observer to neglect the elements of a moral economy apparent in the villagersf behaviour. Some testators required their heirs to sell cheaply to a relative rather than at full market value.

John Pulter, jun., (Broughton 1556) required with respect to his copyholds in Broughton, Warboys and ~omersharn:~' . . .and yf so be that any of them [his heirs] be constrained to sell any of the said copies that their they shall sell them to John Pulter and Leonard Pulter ther unkles better chepe be xls then to any other. Evidently, even economically successful families such as the Pulters of Broughton would exhibit a strong moral economy streak when confronting the prospects of their soul and Some scholarly views consider moral and rational economies as all but

69 Huntingdonshire Wills XI.20. The price of 40s is not coincidental: contemporary opinion defined a yeoman as the owner of a freehold of that value and it conferred the right to vote in parliamentary elections. The land in the will is clearly not freehold but the distinction often carried little practical value. K. Wrightson, English Society, 1580 - 1680 (London, 1982) : 31-32.

2. Razi, uThe Erosion of the Family - Land Bond in the Late Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,ll ed. R. M. Smith, Land, Kinship and Life-Cycle (Cambridge, 1984) : 304, argues that the purported weakening of the family-land bond in the late Middle Ages is a mistaken impression caused by the constraints of the demographic crisis. Families involved a wider range of relatives in transfer processes to compensate for the increased mortality of the period but sought to retain land in the kinship group. mutually exclusive and evidence of their coexistence as signs of societal tensions. However, in the practice of Hurstingstone villagers, the two meshed with each other to function in a complementary, rather than contradictory form, in the village economy.'l An illustration of the interweaving of the two behavioural modes is found in a complex provision in the will of Alice Mayhewe (Warboys 1557). The poor were to benefit from capital resarved for them at a favourable rate but there is also insistence upon a work ethic expressed by aversion to malpractice as well as the concern with building wealth by requiring a weaning calf to be reared every other year rather than accepting quick and simple profit from an early sale or slaughter of the calf: Item I geve to the poure people in Warboyse a red brokede heckfore which cam from Burye to be lette for the profight of the same poure people in manere and forme folowinge. I will that the seid heckfore shalbe deliveride to the churchwardens after my buryall and they to lette the seide heckfore at the discression when they shall think neade nat above xvjd by the yere and yf the partie that shall have the seid cowe be an evyll husbond and use it nat well then to remove the same and lette it to some othere and who so evere shall have the seid cowe shall every ij yeres wene one calfe and the seid calf to be reride for the same and no parsone shall have any profitte of the seid increase nor of the seid cowe but such as shall neade thereof ...

Polanyi, IrEconomyas Instituted Process : 156, writes : ...forms of integration do not represent "stagesI1 of development. No sequence in time is implied. Several subordinate forms may be present alongside of the dominant one... Traditional piety is evident in these words; it is expressed in a dispassionate tone, but cannot be accused of 'fetishizing' money or economic processes by any stretch of imagination. Fitzherbert and Thomas Tusser, the two major agricultural writers of the period, both incorporated into their technical advice on crop and livestock production admonitions to a proper observation of religious duties and against idleness. Perhaps nothing is more telling than a chapter in FitzherbertJs Book of

Husbandry entitled 'A mean to put away ydle thoughtes in prayenge."' The interrelationship of religion and economics did not separate into exclusive behavioural modes nor did it obstruct clear awareness of essential requirements of the economy. Moral and rational economy combined into a sound synthesis which accorded recognition to family, community and faith along with personal gain.73

72 Fitzherbert, Book of Husbandry: 115-6.

73 Naturally, one is reminded of Weberfs comparison of Jakob Fugger and Benjamin Franklin in Protestant Ethic: 48-52. His notion of a quantum leap in economic awareness arouad the Reformation appears exaggerated. One is also reminded of Tax's claim (Penny Capitalism: ix) that the ' irrationalf cosmology and 'rational' economic behaviour of Mayan peasants were unrelated. J. B. Greenberg, "Capital, Ritual and the Boundaries of the Closed Corporate Community," eds. J. Schneider and R. Rapp, Articulating Hidden Histories : Exploring the Influence of Eric R. Wolf (Berkeley, 1995) : 67-81, following Marx, considers fetishism a characteristic of the interaction of moral and economic frames, which again forms an excessively materialistic view in the light of this research. The gradualistic models of feedback between moral and economic spheres related in J. Le Goff, Your Money or Your Life: Economy and Religion in the Middle Ages, trans. P. Danum (New York, 1988) : 85-93, Gilchrist, Church and Economic Ac tivi ty, and S . Gudeman , Economics as Cul ture : Models and Metaphors of Livelihood (London, 1986) , are more satisfactory. Chapter I1 Sources of Wealth: Resources and Occupations

The economy of Hurstingstone hundred as a whole and the opportunities available to individuals depended upon a combination of primary resources with skills necessary to exploit and process them.' Access to land is one of the most important determinants of wealth in pre-industrial economies and Hurstingstone hundred poses no exception.' Although the early sixteenth century is generally considered a period in which a low ratio of people to land diminished the value of land, an

eagerness to occupy, even crowd, available parcels is evident in the records.) The discussion proceeds to the primary products

' As the chapter develops, the interested reader will discover many parallels in earlier work on medieval communities, but in particular in M. Patricia Hogan's study of medieval Wistow and J. A. Raftis' studies of Godmanchester. Hogan, Wistow, Raftis, Small Town, ibid., ETG. This view was particularly strong in neo-Malthusian thought : Postan, Msdieval Economy and Society: passim. ' Three minor episodes illustrate the level of demand for land. The rental list of the anniversary roll of 1502/3 (PRO SC 6/Henry VII/1706) includes a tenement formerly held by Thomas Barron for 40s but which had been divided among four tenants (John Grene, Robert Hunte, John Skylman and Adam Heppyng); in 1556 John Bateman, George Came and William Pylgryme, all of Ramsey, were fined for letting cotagia to more than one tenant (1556, DeWindt, Court Rolls: 1017); and in 1553 fines were levied on Robert Nelson, one of the wealthiest men in the hundred and owner of extensive lands. for encroaching on land off-limits to the plough (DeWindt, Court Rolls: 999, for prosopographical information on Nelson see Appendix IV). On tenure in nearby Godmanchester: Raftis, ETG: 35-44. On tenure in medieval Hurstingstone: Raftis, Warboys: 155-92, Britton, Community of the Vill: 77-86, DeWindt, Holywell-c-m-Needingworth: 25-161, Hogan, derived from various land types, the trades involved in their processing and the local retail and service sectors, concluding with the occupational structure denoted by the materials. Emphasis will be placed on the richness and diversity of local records. Major means of acquiring land were purchase and inheritance, which were frequently supplemented by temporary forms of access. The land market has left an extensive record in court rolls and wills. Ramsey and Bury recorded eighty-six conveyances involving almost one hundred persons which, technically, transferred land from the lord to particular individuals against a fine; in practice, this constituted sales of land-holding rights among tenant^.^ Conditions were repeatedly attached to sales in the wills. Margaret Crouche (Abbots Ripton 1503) willed her husband a use but after his death decreed liquidation with the proceeds to be used for the benefit of her soul. Robert Skotte

Wistow: 142-49, Moore, Fairs: 229-48. On population in general: E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield, The Population History of England (Cambridge, 1981), P. Lindert, "English Population, Wages, and Prices: 1541 - 1913," JIH 15 (1985): 609-34, R. M. Smith, "Demographic Developments in Rural England, 1300-48: A S~rvey,~~ed. B. M. S. Campbell, Before the Black Death (Manchester, 1991) : 25-77, Clay, Expansion and Change. v. I: 25-79, J. Hatcher, Plague Population and the English Economy, 1348-1530 (London, 1977). Based on DeWindt, Court Rolls: 910-1018. Raftis, ETG: 44- 50, was able to document a very active land-market in Godmanchester. Also, Hogan, Wistow: 247-51. Beginning in the thirteenth century the rural land market grew tremendously: P. D. A. Harvey, ed . , Peasant Land Market in Medieval England (Oxford, 1984), C. N. L. Brooke and M. M. Postan, ed., Carte Nativorum: A Peterborough Abbey Cartulary of the Fourteenth Century. Record Society 20 (1960). (Needingworth 1539) permitted his wife to sell the house if there was need. John Grerys (Holywell 1527) bequeathed 13s 6d to buy one acre of land for the use and profit of the church of Eton in return for prayers. The transfer of land among generations was an essential function of wills, usually to the benefit of surviving children or spouses but on occasion also for piety or the benefit of other family members. Conditions were often attached to the inheritance of land which either diverted its use or proceeds into other channels. Obtaining access to a landholding was not exhausted by inheritance or purchase but augmented by subletting, uses and rights to crops.' Subletting was usually recorded from the rentiers point of view. John Tailard (Upwood 1528) granted tenants several years of rents for messuages in Hailweston and tenements in St. Ives; John Aspelonde (Holywell 1538) provided an income for his daughters from rents for a house he owned6 and the terms of John Hadynrs will (King's Ripton 1528) required his widow to pay rent for the house she still occupied. Institutions were also involved in the rental market: the parish church in Holywell drew a regular set of revenues from several pieces of agricultural land it rented.7 Subletting is indicated in the

On rental income see Chapter V.

Aspelonders three daughters were to be given 20s each of the money which a Richard B...[name partly illegible] owed for being at this house.

Holywell CWA £0. 3v, Sv, Sd, 6v and 6d. anniversary roll for the four holdings held by Philip Alyn, Thomas Toby, the widow Margaret Trott and Richard Ballerd which are described by the formula 'unum tenementurn nuper in terram [name] . Uses, an early form of the trust, were usually created to provide for wives and rnin~rs.~In such cases supervisors or trustees were granted extensive powers. Robert Pickardrs wife Annes (Ramsey 1555) was executor of the will but the copy of each property had been surrendered to a different trustee on behalf of each of his three sons until they turned twenty-one. Thomas Byrte (Abbots Ripton 1540) willed the use of his house to his wife for her life and then possession to his sons. John Hadyn (King's Ripton 1528), who had sold his house and land to Reginald Grene for 53s 4dr had arranged that his wife could have the house except for a cellar, which was Greners to use, during her life against 40s. Some arrangements were limited either for certain

On uses: R. H. Helmholz, "Married Women's Wills in Later Medieval England, " ed. S . S . Walker, Wife and Widow in Medieval England (Ann Arbor, 1993): 165-82. Uses are discussed further in the next chapter. Bonfield criticises Spufford for identifying provisions for underage children as the mainstay of wills but the picture drawn in her book is far more complex. The wills examined in this study suggest that minors were an important consideration in their formulation but that long-term provisions for spouses, the absence of direct heirs, charity and a number of other personal concerns were involved. L. Bonfield, "Normative Rules and Property Transmission: Reflections on the Link between Marriage and Inheritance in Early Modern England," eds. L. Bonfield, R. M. Smith and K. Wrightson, The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure : Essays Presented to Peter Laslett on His Seventieth Birthday (Oxford, 1986) : 155-176, M. Spuf ford, Contrasting Communities : English Villagers in the Sixteenth and Sevezzteenth Centuries (Cambridge, 1974) : 85 - 90, 104-18, 134-64. See Chapter 111 for more on uses. periods of time, until the minor had reached a certain age or the wife's widowhood. Robert Nursse of King's Ripton willed the copy of Albartons to his son Robert in 1547. His wife Eme was to live there with Robert and his other son Thomas until the former was eighteen years of age, then she and Thomas were to move to another house which would eventually devolve to the latter. Her own use of either house was terminated if she should remarry. Robert Marten, also of King's Ripton, willed a holding to each of his three sons in 1549 but put his wife in control until they had reached the age of twenty-one years.9 Reginald Grene, jun., (King's Ripton 1550) transferred his lands and tenements to his son Robert but provided that his daughter Christian could live in the house and use the yard, barns and commons for her animals for one and a half years. Bequests of standing crops separate from land, as desired by Reginald Grene, sen. (King's Ripton 15381, who transferred crops standing on numerous small parcels to his heirs, constitute a short-term variation on the theme of the use. Attempts to ensure provisions for a spouse or off-spring could be jeopardized when children decided to strike out on their own but incentives for filial co-operation could be provided.

John Carter (Warboys 1553) divided the use of his land equally between his wife and his son Thomas until the latter reached twenty years of age -- but the son only received the increase from his half if he bore his share of costs and work. John

The age at which control was transferred varied between 15 and 26 years according to the wills. Luffers holding (Upwood 1551) devolved upon his son William but, for the time being, only half the holding on condition that he agreed to be 'ruled' by his mother and godfather John Richardson. Otherwise William Luffe had to content himself with a mere three acres of standing crops. Other wills guarded against abuse of a trust by guardians. In some cases the wife's use was to be terminated by the supervisors of the will if she did not maintain the property properly. Such was the provision of Robert

Quitkakers will (Little Raveley 1538) : his wife was not to make 'strype ne wast of grounde' or John Boseley, John Silke and John Apurley, jun., were to discharge her. Wills were only part of the story in intergenerational transfers. Land could devolve by customary rules at death or by transfers inter vivos. lo Not all property owners made wills and some evidence of transfers among the living exists. According to his will, Thomas Stewkys (Abbots Ripton 1536) had already effected much of the transfer of property to his son John by indenture. Richard Pulter (Broughton 1545) provides another illuminating example of the possibilities in property transfer.

Neither his father Henry (Broughton 1543) nor his mother Agnes

(Broughton 1545) willed land to him though they did to his three younger brothers. In his own will Richard bequeathed four copyholds of which three lay in other villages and had been purchased (they were identified by their previous owners John

lo Bonf ield, llNorrnativeRules, passim, Raf tis , Small Town: 201-29. 61 Mayne and John Tyrkill) but the fourth copyhold in Broughton bore no name and, therefore, had probably been transferred within the family inter vivos. Three of these copyholds, including the one in Broughton, were given to his son John and one to his other son Hugh. The magnitude of Richard's holdings strongly suggests that the older generation of Pulters had helped him considerably in acquiring his lands. Transfers by custom were probably involved in the wills of John Dawes (Bury 1555) and Reginald Grene, sen.,

(King's Ripton 1538). The former admonishes his wife to take care of the house and the latter transfers standing crops on his land but neither states how the land itself was to devolve. The final result of this welter of direct holdings, uses and their conditions, rentals, rights to standing crops and profits, means of transfer among individuals, etc., must have been a situation which modern observers, already sceptical of the efficacy of open fields, would consider hopelessly entangled and encumbered. However, the villagers themselves certainly felt at ease with this state of affairs: no related disputes were recorded in the manorial courts. More importantly, these devices incorporated a tremendous degree of flexibility which spread the resource base among members of the community and served to ease periods of transition after the demise of key family members without jeopardizing a family's landed wealth. Mixed agriculture of grain and livestock formed the foundation of Hurstingstoners economy as reflected in the high frequency of closes (enclosed land of indeterminate use), pieces of open field arable (so-called lands), meadows and pastures transferred in conveyances and wills." By and large, the old vocabulary of virgates and hides had become inappropriate to the land exchanged. When size was specified, mostly small parcels measured in acres or, less precisely, as selions and pightles were transf erred. l2 Katherine Grene (Abbots Ripton 15 3 3 ) mentioned nine acres of arable as belonging to her close; John Aspelonde (Holywell 1538) made arrangements for the devolution of a half yard (nine acres) belonging to his mother-in-law and

Robert Nursse (King's Ripton 1547) gave his son Thomas a small close with one acre land. One of the few occasions on which larger acreages were found is the bequest of seventy acres by John Lord (King's Ripton 1522) to his wife Alice. Only one holding was normally transferred but a number of wills specified several holdings. Prime examples are the wills of the Pulter family of Broughton: the father Henry distributed three holdings

l1 Meadows and pastures : Robert Nelson (Ramsey 1555) , John Grene (King's Ripton 1538), William Ivgyn (Needingworth 1546). An example of a transfer of arable land which makes the organisation in open fields explicit is found in the will of Robert Qwene (Wennington 1552) who required six acres to be sown with grain in each field in the year before his sons entered into their land. See Hogan, Wistow: 176-82, DeWindt, Holywell-cum- Needingworth: 60-63. On closes: Hogan, Wistow: 149-53. On fen pasture: Hogan, Wistow: 186-88, Raftis, Warboys: 222-24, DeWindt, Holywell-cum-Needingworth: 60-63. On wood pasture and mast: Hogan, Wistow: 182-86, 192-93.

l2 This observation closely parallels the profile of the land market in Raftis, Small Town: 44-50, and B. M. S. Campbell, "Population pressure, inheritance and the land market in a f ourteenth-century peasant community, ed. R. M. Smith, Land, Kinship and Life-Cycle (Cambridgeshire, 1984) : 87-134. among his sons in 1543 and his oldest son Richard distributed copyholds in Fenton, Broughton, Warboys and Somersham in 1545. Wills frequently record field crops as either standing or harvested." Barley dominates harvested crops as the sole crop in 81% of bequests and in combination with wheat, peas, oats or rye

in another 16%. Among bequests of standing crops wheat almost equals barley in significance with each occurring alone in 15% of the bequests; barley only gains a slight edge among the remaining

70% which consist of combinations of these two crops to which rye or peas could be added. The predominance of the two grains as the most important staples with commercial potential for baking and brewing is no surprise. The infrequency of other grains and peas combined with the absence of beans reflects a low value placed upon these commodities, perhaps due to their primary use as fodder crops. In particular, the frequent bequests of barley (and malt) suggest that they were provided to heirs as an inexpensive means to boost their income. Some lesser field crops may be added to the staples. Flax and hemp were grown as fibre crops. Joh Grene of King's Ripton

mentions flax in the fields in 1538, Isabelle Harbagh of Holywell

l3 he ffigres do not take account of malt. Strictly speaking, malt was not necessarily barley though it is unlikely that significant quantities of other grains were used. The volumes of harvested grain and the acreages of standing grain were not considered because many wills did not state specific measures. Hogan, Wistow: 156-70, on open fields and grain production. G. Markham, The English Housewife, ed. M. Best (1615; Kingston, 1986): 180-82, 197-98, on grains suitable for malt, pp. 209 on bread grains and horses. willed two acres of standing flax to a Thomas Myllsone in 1551 and John Fyley of the same village willed his entire flax crop to his wife Elizabeth and two other women three years later. ~ohn

Inge (1549 and 1556), Thomas Rede (1556) and ~illiamBenet (1550) were fined for soaking hemp in the common watercourse in Ramsey, a practice harmful to fish.l4 While it is clear that flax was a field crop, the integration of hemp into the cultivation system is not apparent. Harbagh's will also mentioned the dye crop woad, another raw material of the textile industry, of which she willed two acres standing to Myllsone. The fourth crop, onions, were the subject of a langthy entry in a Ramsey court roll of

12. 2 s. from Margaret Metcalf for digging up the onions of the lord's tenants, against the ordinance previously established.

13. 2 s. each from Helen Moorton, the wife of William More, the wife of John Bawys, Margaret Huter, Beatrice Thomson, the wife of John Alp, the wife of John Deye, the wife of John Merstede, the wife of Roger Buntyng, the wife of George Mawdley, the wife of Robert Fawpys, the wife of [Blank] Bernard, and the wife of John Elyng for the same. Onions had a long history in England as a horticultural crop but, the reference to unspecified tenants suggests that in this case they were cultivated as a field crop, a practice suggestive of the extensive introduction of root crops during the New

l4 A contemporary account of hemp cultivation and processing may be found in Markham, English Housewife: 153-62, as well as a warning against the noxious effect of soaking this crop in fish waters.

l5 DeWindt, Court Rolls: 966-67. Agriculture.16 The effectiveness of open fields as an agricultural institution, especially since its cultivators were familiar with enclosed land through centuries of experience with closes and repeatedly reorganised holdings, becomes apparent through their long duration in the region and adaptations of this

nature. l7 The concurrent layout of land in both closes ar-d unenclosed open fields permitted considerable flexibility in the choice of cropping regimes and almost certainly contributed to the late implementation of enclosure in the hundred. Livestock was even more frequently the subject of bequests than crops and left an extensive record due to the regulatory

l6 The shift from horticultural to field crop is more than a problem of linear scaling for acreage: it often requires several years in which a crop cannot be consumed because it is needed for seed production, changes in the resource-intensity of cultivation techniques per unit produced, and the availability of sufficient demand. On cropping innovations in general: Kerridge, Agricul turd Revolution: 268 -310, and Overton, "Diffusion." Compare also F. J. Fisher, "The development of the London food market," EcHR 1st ser. 5.2 (1935): 54. The precocious presence of a root crop in Ramsey fields supports the revisionist views of M. Havinden and others on the potential for innovation in open fields: Havinden, llAgriculturalProgress.I1 See introduction for a more detailed bibliography of open fields and agricultural innovation. On medieval onion cultivation: A. G. Rigg, ed. "The Feat of Gardeninge, ed. A. G. Rigg, A Glastonbury Miscellany of the Fifteenth Century: A Descriptive Index of Trinity College, Cambridge, MS. 0.9.38 (Oxford, 1968) : 105-06 (lines 67-98). The poem instructed readers 'to set oynyns to make the sede (1. 75).' That the process could not be easily duplicated in field cultivation is readily apparent (11. 81-84): Under ham [the stalk] than put thu shall,/ That none of hem down noui3t fall,/ Yf thu wyl that hy the,/ Forkys made of aschetre.

l7 On the reorganization of holdings in Hurstingstone during the late Middle Ages: J. A. Raftis, Peasant Economic Development within the English Manorial Sys tem (Montreal, 1996 forthcoming), chapter v. 66 efforts of manorial courts.l8 The court rolls recorded fines on a variety of offences among which the most common were letting animals wander or graze in fields, lanes and other inappropriate places, breaking the rules of the pasturing routine and overburdening the commons. Cows predominated in the assortment of species, summarised in Tables 11.3 and 11.4, both in wills and court rolls. The conveyance of the 'vachery' Beaupre to William

Sawman of Ramsey in 1538 indicates the existence of large cattle operations. Horses assumed a position of intermediate frequency in both types of documents but the evidence for sheep and pigs is at odds.'' While sheep were only second to cows in wills, they fell surprisingly behind in the court rolls despite their versatility in textile, dairy and meat production and the notorious ability of sheep in our times to slip through fences.2o

l8 Hogan, Wistow: 170-76, DeWindt, Holywell-cum-Needingworth: 64, 136-38; many of the by-laws in DeWindt, King's Ripton: 99- 103, also deal with pastoral issues and livestock was traded at the fair in St. Ives: Moore, Fairs: 56-57. On the importance of livestock in medieval agriculture: M. M. Postan, "Village Livestock in the Thirteenth Century," ed. M. M. Postan, Essays on Medieval Agriculture and General Problems of the Medieval Economy (Cambridge, 1973) : 214-48, K. Biddick, The Other Economy: Pastoral Husbandry on a Medieval Estate (Berkeley, 1989) .

l9 As with crops, the problem of incorporating bequests of unspecified numbers of animals has lead to the decision to quantify only frequency of occurrence and not actual numbers. For example, the will of Richard Pulter (Broughton 1545) bequeathed 165 sheep, thirty-two cattle and six horses. These will only count as one occurrence for each species though they contain unusually large numbers. His will is typical of the situation which would result from a count of actual numbers.

'' Fox, llChronologyof Enclosure, J . Mart in, It Sheep and Enclosure in Sixteenth-Century Northamptonshire," AHR 36 (1988): 39-54. 67 Pigs, by contrast, were common in the court rolls but rare in the The relative infrequency of sheep may be due to the location of both Ramsey and Bury by the wet grounds of the Fenland, an environment hazardous for sheep but rich for pigs, or alternatively in the greater usefulness of sheep as starter capital for a younger generation. The abundance of terms used in describing cattle (bull, bullock, milch bullock. kine, milch kine, cow, calf, weaning calf, ox, heifer, steerkin, steer, steerling), sheep (ewe, lamb, ewe lamb, ewe hogge, hogge, wether) and horses (horse, colt, filly, foal, mare, gelding, ambling mare, trotting foal) gives ample testimony to the complexity of stock raising in the region. Uses for livestock were typical for the agriculture of the period. Sheep were used for wool production: William Ivgyn (Needingworth 1546) willed forty wool sheep, Thomas Warde (Needingworth 1553) willed that his lambs be delivered on the next shearing day to their recipient and Elene Eton (Abbots

Ripton 1538) specified the age of her ewes as two shearings. Almost certainly sheep were also used for meat (a fine was levied on four butchers in 1519 because their lambs were a nuissance) and dairy production but this is not apparent in the records. Cattle were used as draught animals (eg., the great oxen of Thomas Hoghe of Broughton, 1546, the 'beastst mentioned in

The ten \cattlei in this paper refers to bovines, in the sources it often refers to sheep while bovines are also referred to as 'beasts1 in the sources. connection with a plough and cart by William Collen of Needingworth, 1556) and dairy production (the milch kine of Jo-h Grene of King' s Ripton, 1538, and many others) . Horses were used as draught animals (see the examples cited in the discussion of ploughs and carts) and as riding animals (the ambling mares of William Yerle of Upwood, 1553, and others). Pigs were kept for meat as in the case Richard Burnby's bacon and store hogs (Broughton 1541) . Field crops and livestock were augmented by horticulture, fisheries and materials gathered from common lands. Gardens and orchards were willed or sold on a few occasions? Richard Looremore acquired a garden in 1549 and a person with the surname Fyssher acquired a holding with garden in 1555. Robert Pikerd acquired a garden and an apple orchard in 1551 which apparently passed to Edmund Pykerd in 1555 (apples were specified in the earlier but not the later transaction). In the wills only Robert Nelson (Ramsey 1555), Robert Kyng (Holywell 1544) and Roger Aspelonde (Holywell 1538) spoke of orchards (ortyards) as part of their landholdings. However, the most unusual record of a crop are three vineyards recorded in the same conveyance by which Fyssher acquired his garden. By common consent, medieval English viticulture is thought to have faded away before this time under

" Hogan, Wistow: 148-49. 69 the pressures of climate or foreign competition.* The meagreness of horticultural records in Hurstingstone is discordant with prolific printed literature on the subject but surely reflects the fact that gardens and orchards were considered part and parcel of messuages and other holdings from which they could not be separated.24

The wealth of aquatic environments along the Ouse and in the Fens made Hurstingstone hundred an excellent region for fisheries. Fish as a food rich in protein and fat would have

23 It is well known that a considerable number of vineyards were maintained at the time of Dornesday Book but it was assumed that they disappeared after the late thirteenth century either under competitive pressure from Gascon wines or as a consequence of climatic deterioration. PI T. A. Unwin, Wine and the Vine: An Historical Geography of Vi ticul ture and the Wine Trade (London, 1991) : 175 and 184, takes the former view, H. H. Lamb, "The early medieval warm epoch and its Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology and Palaeoecology I (1965): 13-37, the latter. Wine was actively traded in St. Ives in the Middle Ages: Moore, Fairs: 54-55. Wine was produced beyond a doubt in medieval Huntingdonshire. The possibility exists that 'vineyard' was no more than a field name preserving memory of a past use (as is clearly the case with a pasture belonging to Hinchinbrook priory: Firmr pastur' vocf Vyneyard. Great Britain Records Commission. Valor Ecclesiasticus. v. IV. Publications 9 (1821): 255) . However, if instances of a late survival of vineyards in England should be found, a revision of current hypotheses will become necessary. It may well be that only dernesnial vineyards disappeared while those run by manorial tenants continued as viable enterprises.

24 See also Fisher, "London food market : 54, which quotes a London aldermannic report of 1635 on the agriculture of neighbouring settlements: ...some of them have belonging to their houses one two or three acres of ground in orchards and gardens which they ymploy and husband in setting forth and planting of Roses, Raspesses, strawberries, gooseberries, herbes for foode and Phisicks which ...they bring to the Marketts ... 70 been eagerly sought even without the stimulus of fasting. The presence of Ramsey abbey and other religious houses in the wider region added significantly to its value but the Reformation obviously did not destroy this market since much information postdates the Dissolution. The most convincing testimony to the involvement of local residents in the fisheries as a commercial opportunity comes from John Taverner, one of the few English authors on commercial fishponds in print before the Revolution, who states he sought the advice of 'the common people of the feme Countrie~.'~~ Ramsey and Holywell yield substantial evidence about fisheries. Two Ramsey residents, William Palmer and William Smythe, were named as fishermen in the record but other residents had an interest in this resource.26 Ramsey courts levied fines on persons fishing in the wrong season (le ~helderoddetpe), at prohibited times (before sunrise) or in off-limit waters and even

25 J. Taverner, Certaine Experiments Concerning Fish and Fruite (London, 1600): 14-15, did not accept the views of the Fen people though they were the only source specified. It has been suggested that the anonymous Arte of Angling, published in 1577, was written by William Samuel, a vicar of Godmanchester. T. P. Harrison, Notes and Queries NS 7 (1960), as quoted in John Buchan, "PublisherrsNotelf1 ed. J. Buchan, The Arte of Angling (1577). I. Walton and C. Cotton, The Compleat Angler. ed. John Buchan (London, 1960): 326 (I am indebted for this reference to Dr. Richard Hof fmann) . Hogan, Wistow: 195, 212, and Moore, Fairs: 266-67, found a fishery or fish sales but, surprisingly, DeWindt , Holywell -cum-Needingworth, did not. *' DeWindt, Court Rolls: 988-1017; PRO E 179/122/91, PRO E 179/122/95, PRO E 179/122/111. for stealing spawnes and nets .27 Sophistication in technique is evident in the three types of nets distinguished: brownets, drawnets and dragnets. 28 A clearly commercial concern with fisheries emerges in twelve Ramsey conveyances involving one or more fish ponds each.29 Robert Nelson is an example of a wealthy person investing in fisheries but most other owners of fisheries and ponds fall roughly into a middle range in the lay subsidies.

Named ponds such as Long Beach and Hilke Dyke indicate that some fisheries were indeed well established.-'' Another fishery of note emerges in wills from Holywell on the river Ouse. John Love, sen. (1554), willed his new boat and hives3' to his son Robert and his 'waters,' nets and the fish in the pond to be divided between

Robert and his other son Thomas. William Love (1556) allowed his wife a use of his farm of the water, his boat, his hives and 'all other instruments therto belongyngf until their son was twenty- four years old. A similar use of 'all the fyshe in my pondes'

--

" Taverner, Certaine Experiments: 17, and J. Dubravius, A New Booke of good Husbandry, . . . Conteining, The Order and maner of making Fish-pondes, . . . trans. G. Churchey (London, 1599) : 20, define spawnes as fish used to stock ponds.

28 The exact meaning of these terms cannot be determined from Taverner and Dubravius though the former speaks of using bownets for tench and handnets for trout. Taverner, Certaine Experimen ts : 2 1, 23 .

29 DeWindt, Court Rolls: 937-1018.

'O Long Beach was conveyed to Robert Baternan in 1548, Hilke Dyke to Henry Woodward in 1555. DeWindt, Court Rolls: 981, 1009.

Hives = fish traps. Edward Canne (Ramsey 1557) willed forty hives to Thomas Snasdall of Holme without specifying if they were fish or bee hives. was granted by John Kynge (1556) to his wife. John Thressher, sen. , disposed of a dragge, fyshing hives and bownets in his will of 1555. The exploitation of the commons is best described as a foraging economy.32 In the manorial documents of the sixteenth century it is usually represented through the collection of fuel and building materials." Sedges, the most frequently named fen resource, provided the essential material for thatching and was carefully differentiated according to types;34willows and clay were the basic materials in wattle-and-daub constru~tion;~~alder

32 An extensive discussion of potential resources from an early modem viewpoint can be found in J. Norden, The surveiors dialogue (London, 1610). Hogan, Wistow: 142-98, provides one of the best surveys of village resources published in scholarly literature.

33 To this may be added the presence of one or more fowlers. Richard Drewry of Rarnsey was described as a fowler in two entries unrelated to his trade in the court roll of 1519 and again in the lay subsidies of Ramsey. While catching wild birds was an important part of Drewryfs livelihood, the situation is less clear in the wills of Simon King (Holywell 1540) who bequeathed fowling nets to John Howe and of Christopher Parsall (Upwood 1553) who bequeathed a wicker bow and a 'strongerr bow. Hogan, Wistow: 193-95. For an interesting note on the persistence of fowling see K. Spindler, The Man in the Ice (London, 1994) : 118- 19.

34 For example, reeds were bought by Ramsey parish church from Robert Draper and Thomas Lowe who provided them to a man by the name of Nuttyng to roof over the bell. Ramsey CWA fo. lld. The anniversary role of 1502/3 (PRO SC6/Henry VII/1706) repeatedly lists payments for reeds of various descriptions (harundo, le lefe rede, roscus, sheffys) to a number of individuals. See Hogan, Wistow: 186-88, 257-59, Raftis, Warboys: 216-18.

" The rods for which Stephen Tomson received payment in the anniversary roll were presumably made of this material. Payments for carting clay and daubing during tenement repairs occur on wood was used in tool making; peat (or turves) and fire wood provided essential fuel ;36 and, finally, timber was used for constr~ction.~'These resources were carefully regulated by communities and villages near the Fenland who elected fen reeves to safeguard them. Fines were levied against going to the fens

several occasions in the anniversary roll and a payment to Richard Hert for digging clay and to Robert Grey for 'temperingt it (temperando) occur once each. Willows could be owned by individuals and institutions. In the Ramsey conveyances, William Elyott received a willow row, formerly held by John Campion, by Swan House Brow in 1538. John Thressher acquired a willow row with two ditches in 1549 and it appears the same tenement passed to William Pykerd in 1555. The parish church of Ramsey received a rent of 16d in 1515 from Thomas Dalby for willows. DeWindt, Court Rolls: 955, 984, 1009; Ramsey CWA £0. 22d. Raftis, ETG: 250, shows the extent of willow ownership in Godmanchester .

36 Fines against cutting alders were levied in 1552 and 1554 and in 1553 five Ramsey men were fined for digging turves in the marsh: DeWindt, Court Rolls: 994, 999, 1007. An interesting discussion of the importance of peat in the Dutch economy may be found in J. de Vries, "Histoire du climat et 5conomie: des faits nouveau, une interpretation dif ferente, l1 males: Economies, Socigtes, Civilisations 32 (1977): 198-227, ibid., "Measuring the impact of climate on history: the search for appropriate methodologies, " JIH 10 (1980): 599-603. A fine was levied against Robert Prest of Bury in 1544 for not having two loads of wood by his home. Robert Nursse (King's Ripton 1547) left an unspecified amount of 'burningt wood in his will and Reginald Hogge (Broughton 1532) left his wife five loads of fire wood. Hogan, Wistow: 189-92. On loads of wood, compare Ault, Open-Field Farming: 141. As a note of related interest, the pension of the last abbot of Ramsey included one hundred loads of firewood when the monastery was dissolved. J. Gairdner and R. H. Brodie, eds . , Calendar of State Papers : Henry VIII. v. XIV (London, 1896) : 199. no. 565.

" Heirs were on occasion required to use bequests of timber for house repairs (Robert Mayhewe, Warboys 1553 ; Thomas Mease , Ramsey 1555). The parish church of Ramsey repeatedly required timbers for repairs of the church structure. Ramsey CWA fo. 10v, 10d, llv, 15d, 18d. A market in timber is indicated when Thomas Banaster (Warboys 1554) specified his timber was bought. before sunrise, removing sedge without licence, selling sedge outside the vill, cutting trees without licence and digging turves without licence. The work of these officials did not always go unchallenged: in 1538 John Atstone of Ramsey was fined for resisting a confiscation, presumably of materials he had appropriated, by the fen reeve. Most of the trades which can be identified in the records of Hurstingstone hundred were related to primary production. Grain provided the basis for two of the villagers' most important products, bread and ale. The single most prominent trade in the records were bakers (10.1% of all court roll entries) among whom a significant number of women and several outsiders were found.38 Next in importance to bakers were brewers (9.5% of entries) , again with a strong female presence though no outsiders were noted.39 Bakers and brewers were fined for selling falsely

38 In some years (1533, 1534, 1536, 1537, 1538, 1542, 1553) the court rolls stated if husband or wife was fined though only the name of the former was given. In most years no differentiation occurred. A more detailed discussion of the role of women is reserved for the next chapter. DeWindt, Court Rolls: 910-999. More on bakers in the area and period can be found in Raftis, ETG: 50-53, 148-49, but virtually nothing in studies of medieval Hurstingstone hundred except Moore, Fairs: 262-66, and Britton, Community of the Vill: 90.

39 The wide dissemination of formal and informal brewing activities in the surrounding countryside is evident in frequent bequests of malt. Outstanding quantities were forty quarters willed by Thomas Baker (Upwood 1541), sixteen quarters by William Owtie to his bride-to-be Annes Smyth and two lots of ten quarters by John Fyley (1554) and John Scotte (Needingworth 1546) towards the building of the church steeple in Holywell. Raftis, ETG: 50- 53, 147-48, illustrates the role of brewing in Godmanchester. Hogan, Wistow: 23 9-42, DeWindt , Holywell -cum-Needingworth: 235- 39, Raftis, Warboys: 236-40, Moore, Fairs: 256-62, Britton, measured quantities, overcharging, receiving and selling contrary to the ordinance and poor quality. A series of trades specialised in processing animal products: butchers, cobblers, tanners, candle-makers and the textile trades. The highest profile was kept by butchers (3% of all entrie~).~Specifically appointed inspectors of meat and fish ovsrsaw the trade and fined butchers for overcharging and selling unhealthy, corrupt or disguised meats.'I Leather-working, represented by tanners and cobblers, kept a comparatively low profile (1.7% of entries) .42 Fines were usually levied against poor quality work and overcharging. An interesting variation is the order levied against the Ramsey tanner Thomas Mease which instructed him not

Community of the Vill: 87-88. Also, Olson, Ellington: 130-32. Bennett, Women in the Countryside, 120-29.

40 On butchers: Raftis, ETG: 51-53, 145-49, ibid., Warboys: 235-36, Hogan, Wistow: 251, Moore, Fairs: 268, Britton, Community of the Vill: 89-90.

41 A rather graphic illustration of the quality problems associated with this trade is the fine levied against Christopher Thomas for killing a barely healthy pig in his house and selling parts to his neighbours (1554). DeWindt, Court Rolls: 1006.

42 Raftis, ETG: 51, 138, 149, 152, FIogan, Wistow: 244, 249, Moore, Fairs: 269, Britton, Communityof the Vill: 90. It is interesting to note that there is little mention of tanners or leather-working in these works . More can be found in Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade: 128, 156-61, and R. Thornson, "Leather Manufacture in the Post-Medieval Period with Special reference to N~rthamptonshire,~~Post-Medieval Archaeology 15 (1981): 161-75. Richard Higgyns deserves mention in a related capacity: in 1554 he was fined for soaking pelts in the common lode at Rarnsey. Furs were traded at St. Ives in the Middle Ages: Moore, Fairs: 58-59. to sell horse to the cobblers.43 The candle-maker Thomas Colles, also described as a tallow-handler, was cited for using poor tallow for his lamps and candles but was not recorded as using wax. Nevertheless, wax was used for candles on a significant scale by the parish churches: John Lawrence sold quantities of sixty pounds or more on three occasions to the church of Ramsey." Textile trades in the court rolls comprised a number of occupations typical of the high degree of specialisation in this industry (4.4% of entries): fullers (also described as cloth-cutters), weavers, tailors, drapers, a dyer and a collar-maker.45 Most fines were levied against fullers,

43 The instruction not to sell horse hide to cobblers is something of a puzzle since it is used for shoe-making and leather-working today. The quantities add up to 185 lb. This is indicative of a large operation even under the destructive harvesting regime of the period. Ramsey CWA £0. 6v and 7d. Other bee keepers appear in a more modest light. William Duckett (Little Raveley 1541) willed one and a half pounds of wax for two tapers to the sepulchre light of the parish church and a similar intention was undoubtedly behind John Jurden's bequest of two beehives to the sepulchre light of Abbots Ripton in 1543. Perhaps it was the same two hives his wife Alice had in mind when she willed to the sepulchre light two bee hives 'yf it please god they do stande and prosperef in the next year. Other beekeepers were John Thressher, sen., of Ramsey (1555) who only spoke of a swarm of bees, Reginald Grene of King's Ripton (1550) who bequeathed six hives but obviously had more at his disposal, and Robert Fabyson of the same village who willed ten hives in 1507. On the significance of candles in popular piety: E. Duffy, The Stripping of the A1 tars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580 (New Haven, 1992): 15-22, 281, 330, 361-62, 589.

45 By comparison, the textile trades appear scantily represented in Raftis, ETG: 66-67, 138, 141-42, and other community studies in Hunts. but can be found in the county in Masschaele, Regional Economy: 172-76, and Moore, Fairs: 24-50. Also: Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade: 147-56, R. H. weavers and tailors for 'not practicing their art wellf while drapers were fined for overcharging. Trades were elevated above the level of cottage industries through investment in capital equipment. The most diversified and capital intensive operation identifiable belonged to Robert Nelson, a dyer and one of the wealthiest men in Ramsey: a dye house represented investment in his primary trade and his brewing enterprise consisted of a brew house which included a mill, a brewing lead and other implement^.^^ In most communities, mills constituted the largest and most important investment in equipment which is underscored by the fact that they were owned communally in a number of cases.47 A particularly well documented

Hilton, A Medieval Society: The West Midlands at the End of the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1966) : 207-13, Britnell, Colchester: 53-71, 163-80-

46 Most other equipment in the textile industry was less impressive. Robert Fabyson (King's Ripton 1507) bequeathed a spinning wheel, all his yarn and four yards of russets; William Tame (Wennington 1546) left his wife half the linen and woolens she helped make; Margaret Collyng (Broughton 1546) bequeathed six pounds of wool to William Hogge; and Isabel1 Harbaghe (Holywell 1551) also bequeathed a spinning wheel. The churchwardens accounts (Ramsey CWA £0. 3d) add their small share of information when they record purchases of cloth such as the thirty ells bought from William Eynesworth and Margere Walchesse. The products of the textile trade (sheets, bordcloths, clothing, etc.) will be discussed in Chapter IV.

47 Nelsonfs acquisition of the brewing operation was recorded in the Ramsey court roll of 1537. As any reader of Margery Kempe's account of her failures knows, these operations were not without risk. On small-scale brewing: Markham, Housewife: 205, 287 (n. 6). The history of mills in the Middle Ages has become a well- worn topic. Good surveys may be found in R. Holt, Mills, and E. J. Kealey, Harvesting the Air: Windmill Pioneers in the Twelfth- Century England (Berkeley, 1987). Discussions of mills in later 78 mi11 existed in Godmanchester and a bequest in the will of William Leiche of Upwood (1553) for repairs on the baker's mill indicate communal ownership in his village as well." Thomas

Banaster (Warboys 1554) willed a mill with four horses to his wife and son indicating that private ownership or leasing of mills also existed in the region. In Ramsey horses, water and wind were harnessed as power sources and are tokens of the demand for mechanical powedg However, the availability of mills did not displace simpler practices: Agnes Pulter (Broughton 1545) willed a malt mill consisting of a pair of querns and a 'gryndillstonef to her daughter Joan." Interestingly, the Pulters were a well-to-do family with extensive property holdings who undoubtedly only persisted in home milling as a measure to offset costs.

periods, from which most surviving historical mills stem, tend to be more antiquarian in character. There were other uses for mills such as fulling and sawing but these generally involved water mills. wind mills and horse mills appear to have been used for grain and malt only.

48 Detailed information on this mill may be found in the accounts edited in Raftis, ETG: 423-30. Communal ownership of another kind is also indicated in Robert Kyngrs bequest (~olywell 1544) to the bake house which, significantly, is accompanied by a donation towards road repairs. See also Britton, ~ommunityof the Vill: 90.

49 In 1531, an unnamed miller of a windmill was ordered to keep his animals out of sown fields; a horse mill was conveyed to Agnes C... in 1555 and a water mill to Robert Nelsone in 1537. DeWindt, Court Rolls: 905-06, 942, 1009.

50 Margery Kempe , The Book of Margery Kempe, trans. B . A. Windeatt (Harmondsworth, 1985) : 44-45. Transportation featured regularly in the sources and involved carts as another form of capital eq~ipment.~' Essentially, four types of carts depending on function and make were specified: bare, iron-bound, shod and dung carts. Dung

carts (eg., Reginald Grene, King's Ripton 1538) obviously would have tainted other loads. Iron-bound carts (eg., John Brekefelde, Upwood 1544) had braced bodies, shod carts (eg., John Kydare, Broughton 1554) had wheels with iron bands (tires) whereas bare carts (eg.,Thomas Bullian, Warboys 1556) were a simple version without major metal components. The ability to disassemble and reassemble carts according to need stands out in the record. Several bequests of cart bodies (eg., William

Freman, Holywell 1554), wheels (eg., John Fyley, Holywell 1554) and tires (eg., Reginald Hogge, Broughton 1541) can be found. In most cases accessories to the cart remained undefined but the will of Thomas Bullian (Warboys 1556) specified gear for four horses and that of John Inglyshe, sen. (Needingworth 1557), called for harnessing for five horses, indicating that loads of considerable weight were pulled. Glimpses of carts at work can be found. John Bentley (1527) made his cart available for two days of repair work on the way by the bridge in Wistow. Presumably, a similar concern was involved in William Haynesr bequest of two loads of gravel to the causeway

On carts : Langdon, Horses, Oxen and Technological Innovation, Masshaele, Regional Economy: 105 -44. Carriage does not feature in Raftis, ETG, or studies of medieval communities in Hurstingstone hundred. of Wistow (1540). The use of carts in field work is evident in bequests of hay and fodder which were measured by the cart load.'' The commercial nature of some carriage work can be adduced from the churchwardens accounts of Ramsey and the anniversary roll which record numerous small payments for carriage. Thomas and

John Wars received 8d for carrying timber; in 1511 William Gynge was paid for carting away earth and in 1534 Robert Emmette carried four loads of clay and two of sand during church repairs.53 Richard Herte and Thomas Skylman were repeatedly paid for carting clay and John Pope on one occasion for transporting wood for tenement repairs. It is interesting to note that the will of John Dawes, a Bury labourer (1555), stated that he was owed 3s 4d by Thomas Laslen for carriage. In comparison with carts, other types of equipment appear less often in the record. Though the waterways of the Fen and the river Ouse provided considerable opportunity for traffic, evidence of boats (including the few instances in which fishery owners willed boats) is sparse. The court rolls of Ramsey allowed labourers a higher rate of pay if they used their own boats (12d as opposed to 4d) and its churchwardens accounts recorded one instance of the use of a boat in transportation:

52 Fodder, hay and straw were infrequently mentioned in the wills. James Dawes (Bury 1555) and Thomas Mease (Ramsey 1555) bequeathed hay and feed, John Redman (Bury 1557) bequeathed hay and Reginald Hogge (Broughton 1541) specified that his wife was to have straw for her animals. Despite frequent bequests of animals, provisions for their feed were rare. Apparently, it was expected that the commons or shares in familial resources would provide sustenance for the animals.

" Ramsey CWA fo. 8d, 10v and ilv. 81 John Metcalf was paid 5d for digging sand and the use of his boat for one and a half days." Likewise, when one considers the proud displays of ploughs in Godmanchester, the few occurrences of ploughs disappoint in their lack of detail. On occasion instructions occur for gear to remain with the plough (eg.,

Reginald Hogge, Broughton 1541; Robert Nursse, King's Ripton

1547) or to be divided (eg., Robert May, Warboys 1527; Robert

Mayhewe, Warboys 1547) accompany a bequest. The only other

detail was provided by Thomas Bullian (Warboys 1556) who

specified plough gear for four horses to go with the plough. Other than ploughs, the only genuine instrument of field work willed was a draught rake given by Reginald Grene, jun. (King's

Ripton 1550) , to his daughter Christian. A number of trades appear in relation to construction and repair work on tenements and parish churches.s5 The record of metal work gave promipence to blacksmi~hswho repaired locks,

- -

54 Rarnsey CWA £0. 6d.

55 A large part of the record in the churchwardens accounts and the anniversary roll of 1502/3 (PRO SC 6/Henry VII/1708) concerned small repairs for which there seems to have been continued need. However, on occasion, the work amounted to larger projects as on the parish church tower in Holywell (see chapter IV). It is not evident if this work was as seasonal as observed by Woodward, Men at Work: 135-42, in northern England. There is no sign of division into apprentices, journeymen and masters as described in ibid., Work: 53-92. Little may be found on construction trades in Raftis, ETG: 66, 138. Most references are to carpenters but a mason and a turner are also added to the list. Also, Hogan, Wistow: 257-59 on thatching. A more extensive record was observed by Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade: 167-75. 82 gates and bells, made nails and did other ironwork? On several occasions Ramsey parish church also sought the services of an unnamed plumber who was not resident since George Mawdesley had to fetch him from Ely in 1544.'~ The churchwardens accounts yield up a lengthy list of miscellaneous tasks and purchases involved in maintenance, all of which required the hiring of labour and the purchase of materials. Holywell employed a mason from Ramsey in the construction of its steeple.58 They also include the work of an unnamed sawyer, payments for waynscot, for cutting a tree, dressing timber, painting and liming walls, thatching, making bell trusses, and glazing windows." Likewise, the anniversary roll of 1502/3 records expenditures incurred during the repair of tenements consisting mostly of roof work but also carpentry and wattle-and-daub work. A carpenter, John Drury, was identified in

56 Ramsey CWA fo. 3v, 6 - 8, 10d, 15d, 26v, 31 - 38 and 47d; Holywell CWA fo. Id. Anniversary roll: PRO SC 6/~enryVII/1708. A doubtful case is Theobald le Cuperius, who was sworn in as a tithingman in the Ramsey court roll of 1519 and provides the only though uncertain evidence of a cooper (DeWindt, Court Rolls: 894. Metal trades are also scantily represented in Raftis, ETG: 66-67, 75, 138, 143, but the list is extended by pewterers (p. 75) and goldsmiths (pp. 138, 143). See also Moore, Fairs: 55-56, Britton, Community of the Vill: 91.

57 On the plumber, eg., Ramsey CWA fo. 2v, 3v, 8d. Mawdsleyfs remuneration was entered in Ramsey CWA fo. 38v. A further entry on £0. 38d shows that the plumber's job was considerable: he was paid 33s 4d compared to more usual payments of less than 3s recorded elsewhere.

S8 Holywell CWA fo. lv. See also Chapter IV on the construction of the steeple.

59 Ramsey CWA £0. 2d, 3v, 6d, 10v, 10d, llv, lld, 12d, 16v, 22d, 23v and 26v. 83 Ramsey in the lay subsidies of 1522 and 1523? Taken together, it is clear that none of these tasks amounted to regular employment and that particular individuals were rarely contracted for longer periods. However, the flurry of small jobs appears to have added up to sustained work for labourers. Retail activities, which appear under a variety of terms, were the most significant sector of the economy in Ramsey and

Bury according to their presence in court rolls (16% of all entries ) . The frequent occurrence of compound designat ions and the chronological sequence of terms outlined in Table 11.5 indicates that no clear distinctions existed between these categories: specific designations probably owed more to the preferences of the compilers of court rolls than to real distinctions. Compound terms further demonstrate that boundaries to the crafts and trades discussed above were fluid at best. Fines were levied against overcharging, selling ale in illicit or unsealed measures, keeping shop without a licence and selling without a licence. Finally, in the 1540'9, individuals were identifiable in unspecified retail functions by paying small

" The carpenter was James Afeer (1522) or Feer (1523) who was assessed on £10 in goods and cattle in the first subsidy and £6 in goods in the next subsidy.

6L The few references to cooks, gannekers (inn keepers) and hostelers (c -5% of all entries) were added to the count. Raftis, ETG: 52-53, 91, 135-43, 335-45, and Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade: 126-47, abound with evidence of retailing, especially victualling. Also, Moore, Fairs: 265-68, A service trade, barbers, were also to be found in Ramsey. Richard Drury, a piper found in the lay subsidies of the 15201s, represents the entertainment sector. See Moore, Fairs: 254-56. fines for permission to keep shop.62 The bulk of their trade seems to have concerned ale, bread, meat and other foods but also some cloth or clothing. The sheer number of persons involved in trades related to victualling, especially if bakers, brewers and butchers are taken into account, provide one of the strongest measures of the extent to which food production for auto-consumption had diminished during the medieval period and given way to marketing of agricultural goods. The discussion of occupations closes with wage earners who fall into two major categories in the lay subsidies -- servants and labourers.63 The difference may have been one of life-cycle as the muster roll entry for Tixover, Rutland, suggests by describing servants as young men and labourers as old menmM It may also reflect integration into the employer's household with servants boarding and labourers living on their own. A typical example of the arrangements by which labour was hired and paid is

This is probably an attempt by the Cromwells to extract as much profit as possible from their newly acquired possessions.

63 An extensive assembly of evidence on labourers and servants can be found in Raftis, ETG: 54-58, 123-35, and Hogan, Wistow: 267-78, and somewhat less in DeWindt, Holywell -cum- Needingworth: 91-95, and with a different accent in Raftis, Warboys: 193-210. Woodward, Work, is an excellent synthesis of of early modern evidence on labourers and building craftsmen with far wider relevance than his northern study area. The discussion of women as wage earners will be left to the next chapter.

J. Cornwall, Wealth and Society in Early Sixteenth Century England (London, 1988) : 3. Also, on labour life-cycles Woodward, Work: 53-92. found in a bill dated to 1534 for expenditures incurred by Houghton mill in cleaning the river course of plant growth? Item that I Cutbert Molle payde to John Dawntre for cuttynge owt of the ryvere yn the Weke after Corpus Christi daye ij [sl . Item payde to ij of his servants the same Weke iijs. Item payde for the bordynge of the thre the same Weke iiijs. Item payde to thre men of Hemyngforde whyche wroght with John Dawntre the same Weke eche of them vd a daye & borde themsalfe? The sum of 7s 6d entered in the margin as the sum paid to the men from Hemmingford indicates a work week of six days.67 The work was carried out by six men: the employer who contracted with the mill, his two regular employees who appear to have been accustomed to receiving board and three casual labourers from across the river. Not surprisingly, at 7d/day Dawntrefs servants fared better than the casual workers at 5d/day but the low rate of 4d/day allowed to Dawntre himself is something of a surprise. Perhaps it is indicative of the relative strength of labour's bargaining position at the time or perhaps it is a sign of pressures acting upon small 'contractorsf competing for A more diversified picture of payment schedules appears in the court rolls on two occasions:

65 PRo/SC6/~enry~111/1657 fo. 81.

66 Entered in margin to the left of this line: vijs vjd.

Woodward, Work: 122 - 3 1.

68 On wage rates, perquisites and differentials: Woodward, Work: 107-08, 142-62, 169-208. [Ramsey, 15301~~13. Memorandum that John Smyth, Nicholas Chamber, Thomas Pulter, Thomas Fennell, Richard Druere, Robert Neweman, Robert Juddson, Jacob Willson, Robert Day and William Wright are admitted as common labourers, who receive 12 d. as their daily wages for the whole year when they use their own boats, 4 s. [sic] for the work of one day [when they work] in anyone's pond, 3 d. for digging, 4 d. daily for making a hurdle, and 4 d. daily for digging or making tunes. Further, each of the above shall be prepared to work when requested by any parishioner, under an individual penalty of 6 s. 8 d.

[Bury, 15381~' 40. The following are registered as common labourers by the homage: Thomas Skynner, John [?Bundy], Hugh [?Charitel , William Prowde, Thomas Chaplyn, Robert Myhele, Thomas Poolter, John Hewytt, who shall work for 4 d. per day without a meal but for 2 d. a day with a meal from the feast of St. Michael up to the feast of the Purification, [. . . . I At Houghton mill, at least, better rates could be obtained. Most entries for wage payments in thz churchwardens accounts amounted to 4d/day or more but Harry Tyler's servant was only paid 9d for three days while Tyler himself was paid 15d for the same period.71 Some scope for flexibility existed but the evidence generally indicates that the standard rate of 4d established for the period by H. Phelps Brown and Sheila Hopkins held true.72 Implicit in the citations is also the difference between servants and labourers as boarding and non-boarding employees. The occurrence

69 DeWindt, Court Rolls: 900.

DeWindt, Court Rolls: 952-53. The term cited runs from September 29 to February 2. The rest of the entry is unfortunately damaged.

71 Ramsey CWA fo. 26v.

" H. P. Brown and S. Hopkins, l1Seven Centuries of Building Wages," A Perspective of Wages and Prices (London, 1981) : 9-11. of Thomas Poolter/Pulter in both entries indicates that the admission process did not involve the acceptance of new arrivals into the villages but registered labourers with the community in their own right. The actbooks contain a few wills of labourers, most notably the previously cited will of John Dawes of Bury (1555). It is the only will which provides more information on a labourer's activities by referring to an outstanding debt for carriage. By contrast, the churchwardens accounts are full of references to wage labour which record small payments for work which usually only lasted a few days. The employment of Thomas Blome for eight days (a low 2s 7d in wages), Thomas Scharpe for nine and a half days (6s 4d in wages) and Edmund Gostelowe for nine and ten and a half days (3s 9d and 5s 2d in wages) were unusually long." The type of work was only specified in a few cases. Thus, the bellman was paid for digging sand, Richard Bers for making the church ways, John May for helping to mend the church wall and washing the sepulchre light, and John Wynder for hedging and digging.74 The roofers Thomas Denys and John Cony both employed servants according to the anniversary roll of 1502/3. Most employment which involved wage labour was short-term and individual labourers undoubtedly had to string together a series of opportunities in different locations and under different

--

73 Ramsey CWA fo. llv.

74 Ramsey CWA fo. 3v, 26v, 3lv, 38v. employers to make ends meet in the course of the year. However, the occurrence of servants also indicates the availability of more permanent employment. The overall occupational structure of a part of Hurstingstone society can be established from a lay subsidy return which recorded assessments for , Earith, Colne, cum Fenton, , and Somersham in the eastern part of the hundred in 1522 and has been summarised in

Table 11.6." The names of most taxpayers are followed by ' h,' a, \sfror 'yo,' indicating the status of the person as husbandman, labourer, servant or yeoman, while others are described by their craft. Wage earners (labourers and servants) were the most prominent group comprising 44% of all persons but agrarian occupations were virtually tied with 43.6% (husbandmen:

41.5%, yeomen: 2.1%). The agrarian character of the list, despite the inclusion of two market towns, is beyond doubt but the significance of other occupations is equally apparent: over half of all taxpayers did not identify themselves as primary producers.

The percentage of craftsmen is low (12-5%) compared to those dependent on agriculture or wages but their diversity is marked: thirty-seven persons were spread over sixteen trades. The trades themselves, except for the tinker and glover, are already familiar but their numerical distribution is at odds with the

'' A discussion on the geographical dimension in this material may be found in Chapter VI. 89

observations made in the court rolls and wills. No carter is on record while victuallers, brewers, bakers, butchers and even the textile trades appear under-represented in the light of the above evidence. The lay subsidy itself provides part of the solution to this problem: variations in the combination of occupational designations and assessment types (eg., labourers and servants assessed on goods or wages, tailors and thatchers assessed on

goods or on the El figure typical of wages) indicate that occupational designations conceal some heterogeneity. This point is brought out fully in a prosopographical treatment of Ramsey and Bury residents (detailed in Appendix IV), which indicates frequent combination of different types of occupations in one person or, through the involvement of wives, in one ho~sehold.'~ Raftis, in his study of the Godmanchester evidence, observes that many primary occupations did not suffice as a basis for sustenance by themselves and required diversification. This is born out on a number of occasions in which individuals or couples in lower income groups were involved in different activities and persons in the middle range were not. The endorsement of diversity by the wealthy Robert Nelson and in the economic advance of Oliver Silcock suggest that the combination of activities not only served as a defence against necessity but was

76 See also the discussions of the prosopographical material in Appendix IV. 90 a useful strategy in the accumulation of wealth." The evidence strongly suggests that occupational designations, as they are found in the records of the period should be treated with caution. They may state no more than the public image or the self-identification the individual question.

77 Detailed prosopographic information on Silcock and Nelson is provided in Appendix IV. Chapter 11. Tables Table. 11.1. Frequency of Land Types in Court Roll Conveyances, Ramsey and Bury, 1500-1~58'~ Land Type Number of Conveyances

Ramsey Total Habitations 31 47 Closes 26 29 Arable 14 24 Meadows 4 8 Pastures 1 3 Marshes 0 2 Gardens 5 6 Leasows 0 4 Fishponds 12 12 Woods 1 1 Willow Rows 3 3 Orchards 2 2 Milf s 2 2 Vineyards 1 1

Since many properties consist of an amalgam of land types, most conveyances are enumerated several times in this table. Table 11.2- Tenants and Tenements in John Stow's Anniversary Roll, Ramsey and Bury, 1502/3 Name Location Tenement Value Alyn, Philip Ramsey Alyn, John, sen. Ramsey Ballerd, Richard Ramsey Bartlet, Richard Ramsey Bentley, William Hepmangrove Camp, Robert Hepmangrove Cokke, John Bury Denys , Thomas Ramsey Elys, John Ramsey Grene, John Ramsey Gyllam, Agnes Ramsey Hasket , Thomas Ramsey Heppyng, Adam Bury (1 a) Heppyng, Adam Ramsey

Heppyng I Adam Bury (3 a) Hunte, Robert Ramsey Miller, John Ramsey Newman, John Ramsey Skylman, John Ramsey Stone, John, jun. Ramsey Sutton, Thomas Ramsey Swasey, William Bury Toby, Thomas Ramsey Trot t , Margaret Ramsey Wright, John Ramsey Wynde, John Hepmangrove

Table II-3.

Frequency of Animal Species in Court Rolls, Ramsey and Bury, 1500-1558 Species Ramsey Bury Total Cows Pigs Horses Sheep Cattle

Table II. 4. Relative Frequency of Livestock in Wills with Animal Bequests, Hurs tingstone Hundred, 1479 -1558

Species Frequency Frequency Frequency Combination Alone Overall Cattle Sheep Horses Pigs

Table II.5.

Designations for Retail Trades in Court Rolls, Ramsey and Bury, 1500-1558 Designation Year ale retailer 1534, ale retailer and baker ale and bread retailer ale retailer and brewer ale and wine retailer mercer shop-keeper tailer and store-keeper victualler victualler and ale retailer 1556 victualler and baker 1553 victualler and brewer 1551, Table 11.6. Occupations in the Lay Subsidy Return of 1522, Eastern Hurs tingstone Hundred

Occupation Number Assessment Wealth (d) of Persons Average Max Min baker goods butcher goods carpenter goods dyer goods fisher goods fuller goods glover goods miller goods sawyer goods smith goods tailor goods tailor tanner goods thatcher goods thatcher tinker goods weaver victualler goods husbandman husbandman goods labourer labourer goods servant servant goods yeoman goods Chapter 1x1 Decision-Making:

Gender and Human ~esources'

This chapter begins with two simple observations on women in Hurstingstone under the first four Tudors. To begin with, society's position on the access of married women to property appears contradictory. While literature, theological tracts and laws expressed notions of gender roles and rights which limited married women's economic activity and access to property, in practice they were given active roles in the economy which implicitly necessitated decision-making and control over pr~perty.~Since the content of wills dealt to a considerable extent with transfers of property the question arises if specifically female though informal claims to possessions can be

This chapter was presented in part as a paper entitled Tossessions and Women's Power To Will in Early Tudor England, 1479-1558: the Evidence of Hurstingstone Wills," at the International Medieval Congress, Leeds, 1994. ' Discussions of 'patriarchal' ideology and practice in Tudor England include: P. Hogrefe, Tudor Women: Commoners and Queens (Ames, 1975), M. Levine, "The place of women in Tudor government, eds . D . J. Guth and J. W . McKenna, Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for G. R. Elton from his American friends (Cambridge, 1982) : 109-23, 9. D. Amussen, "Gender, Family and the Social Order, 1560-1725," eds. A. Fletcher and J. Stevenson, Order and Disorder in Early Modem England (Cambridge, 1985 ) : 196 -217, ibid., An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modem England (Oxford, 1988) . identified in patterns of beq~ests.~Secondly, in the study area

women constituted 14% or ninety-two of 658 will-makers. This may seem a low figure given that women comprise about half the population but, compared to other documents of the period, it was a strong presence: in the lay subsidies of the 1520's women

constituted 2% of all taxpayers and in later subsidies and the court rolls their presence did not exceed 8%. The question arises why women made their presence more strongly felt in wills than el~ewhere.~These questions are not only pertinent to the growing field of gender-related studies but they also provide insight into the ways in which rural England utilised human resources. Before we turn to the sources themselves, a brief review of the legal aspects of womenfs rights to property and making of wills is in order.' Generally, common law held that married

A debt is owed to contextual archaeologists, especially to I. Hodder, "Gender Representation and Social Reality," eds. D. Walde and N. D . Williams, The Archaeology of Gender. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary (Calgary, 1991) : 11-16. Interesting discussions were also found in B. Maurer, "Feminist Challenges to Archaeology: Avoiding an Epistemology of the Walde and Williams, Archaeology of Gender: 414-19, and M. L. Stig Ssrensen. "The Construction of Gender Through Appearance," Walde and Williams, Archaeology of Gender: 121-29. R. H. Helmholz. "Married Women's Wills in Later Medieval England," ed. S. S. Walker, Wife and Widow in Medieval England (Ann Arbor, 1993) : 165-82. indicates that this figure falls into the normal range for the period. This section on laws of property and wills as they affected women is based on: M. M. Sheehan, "The Influence of Canon Law on the Property Rights of Married Women in England," Mediaeval Studies 25 (1963): 109-24, K. E. Lacey, IrWomen and Work women were covered by their husbands (femes covertes) and had no property of their own. Consequently, it denied them the right to make a will without permission because they simply ha6 nothing to will. What rights they did have mostly became operative upon the husband's death. In particular, common law recognized the right of widows to inherit a dower consisting of a third of their husbands' lands and all land held in jointure but granted no rights in movable property. The situation was different under canon and customary law. Canon law also put the property of married women under their husbands' control but granted wives the right to make wills of their own which entitled them to dispose of such property as would have come to them as a dower. Canon law further recognized claims to movables: husbands should allow wives to dispose of the legitim, a third of a couplest movables and a rough extension of the dower. Customary law added a further dimension to the legal situation by adding a variety of local rules to property laws. The legitim was officially recognized in the province of York in Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century London,I1 eds. L. Charles and L . Duff in, Women and Work in Pre-Industrial England (London, 1985) : 24-82, Helmholz, "Married Women's Wills, A. Kettle, 'My Wife Shall Have It': Marriage and Property in the Wills and Testaments of Later Medieval England,I1 ed. E. J. Craik, Marriage and Property (Aberdeen, 1984) : 89-104, M. Prior, "Wives and Wills, 1558 - 1700,11eds. J. Chartres and D. Hey, English Rural Society, 1500 - 1800: Essays in Honour of Joan Thirsk (Cambridge, 1990): 201-25, B. Todd, "Freebench and free enterprise: widows and their property in two villages,11Chartres and Hey. English Rural Society: 175-200. Illuminating Elizabethan sources on the topic are Henry Swinburne, A Briefe Treatise of Testaments and Last Wills (1635; Amsterdam, 1979) , Second Part, I ix. pp. 80-89, and T. E., The Lawes Resolutions of Womens Rights (1632; Amsterdam, 1979) . and, in a number of cases, local customs of boroughs, villages and manors modified women's rights of inheritance to movable and unmovable possessions but claims to paraphernalia or movables brought by women into the marriage were extinct in legal practice. The views of canon law were of immediate importance since probate was mostly handled in ecclesiastical courts. Thus, wills by married women were recognized as long as the jurisdiction of these courts was respected. Unlike wives, unmarried women and widows (femes soles) held full rights to property and consequently to will-making under both canon and common law. The legal situation was further complicated by other factors. First, in the fifteenth century the development of the use as a precursor of the trust granted women the enjoyment of property, especially land, for the widow's life or a more limited period without giving her ownership.' This device prevented fragmentation of property and alienation from the family without

C. Haigh, l%nti-Clericalismand the English Reformation," ed. C. Haigh, The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge, 1987) : 65, pinpoints common law practitioners as fomentors of a~ticlericalismin the period leading up to the Reformation precisely because of jealousy over probate jurisdiction. ' Uses were encountered in the discussion of land in the previous chapter. On the development of uses and trusts: Helmholz, "Married Women's Wills:Ir 172-74, attributes the decline of will-making by women from the fourteenth to the fifteenth century in part to the use. Also, Prior, Wives and Wills:" 205- 06, L. Bonfield, Marriage Settlements, 1601 - 1740 (Cambridge, 1983): 1-10, J. M. W. Bean, The Decline of English Feudalism, 1215-1540 (Manchester, 1968) : 104-79, Spuf ford, Contrasting Communi ties : passim. depriving the widow of support. Second, the customs of many localities granted a widow freebench, the use of all her husband's lands for as long as she remained unmarried but in some cases even after remarriage.' In fact, the use and freebench tended to give widows more generous access to property than the dower. Third, wills were not the only device by which property was transferred among generations but merely the one most visible to the historian. Lloyd Bonfield cautions that inter- generational devolution of property should be viewed as a life- long process in which inter vivos arrangements, customary mechanisms and wills were ~ombined.~ It is tempting to view the greater acceptance of women's property rights by the church as the cause of greater female presence among will-makers. However, this distinction primarily applied to married women who only contributed four wills in Hurstingstone. Margaret Hall of Somersham produced two wills, one in 1498 and the other in 1518. Both mention her husband Gilbert and a son from a previous marriage, John Aleyn, but no children from the second marriage. In the earlier will, Gilbert received a use of Margaret's tenement for life after which it was

Lacey, IrWomen and Work in London: 36 -40, Todd, "Freebench and free enterprise," passim. L. Bonfield, I1NormativeRules and Property Transmission: Reflections on the Link between Marriage and Inheritance in Early Modern England," eds. L. Bonfield, R. M. Smith and K. Wrightson, The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure: Essays Presented to Peter Laslett on His Seventieth Birthday (Oxford, 1986) : 155-76. 100 to be sold with 40s to be paid to John and the remainder to be used for the benefit of their souls; the later will granted him the tenement outright. Margaret probably changed her mind because her son had come of age and established a living for himself. In a similar manner, Margaret Crouche (Abbots Ripton 1503) gave use of her land to her husband but reserved final ownership to endow prayers. Joan Bustard (Hartford 1552)' who stated she had the 'consent and agremente' of her husband, also reserved use for him but bequeathed ownership to her brother

William Henstaede.lo No a priori reason appears why the percentage of women among will-makers should be significantly higher than among taxpayers or in manorial courts. The law's view of married women's claim to possessions was limiting. This is perhaps most evident in the small numbers of women listed in subsidy returns and the large proportion of women merely cited under their husband's name in court rolls and churchwardens accounts. Nevertheless, these documents leave no doubt that women were quite active in the economy. Married or not, to conduct brewing and baking ventures and to be involved in retail activities, they must have had capital at their discretion and the regularity with which they appear in court to pay their

lo The brother' s surname is poorly legible. More on statements of spousal consent in Prior, "Wives and Wills:" 202- 04; see also Bean, Decline of Feudalism: 270-301, on the Statutes of Uses (1536) and Wills (1540). 101 fines indicates that considerable income was generated." Society clearly recognized informal control over property by women without creating a formal basis in the law. The existence of such informal division of property is further suggested by the high concentration of certain activities in women's hands, notably baking and brewing in court rolls and dairying and textile making in treatises on agric~lture.'~ The wills of several couples such as William and Isabelle Justice (Somersham 1556) suggest gender division of possessions. William's will, entered first, made bequests in money to the church, the poor, his godchildren and other villagers of unspecified relationship, his daughter Elizabeth and the children of his five daughters. Apart from money, he distributed lands to his daughters Alice Cranwell and Margaret Darward and two men of unknown relationship but reserved rights of use over significant portions for his wife. The only non-monetary bequests were unspecified goods previously lent to a needy neighbour, Harry

" Some works of interest on the economic role of women in medieval and early modern England are: Bennett, Women in the Countryside, L. Charles and L. Duff in, eds . Women and Work in Pre-Industrial England (London, 1985) , M. Prior, ed. Women in English Society, 1500-1800 (London, 1985) , P. J. P. Goldberg, ed. Woman is a Worthy Wight: Women in English Society, c. 1200- 1500 (Stroud, 1992) . Of particular use are Bennett's book and the introductory essays by Joan Thirsk to Prior's volume (pp. 1- 21) and by Goldberg to Woman is a Worthy Wight (pp. ix-xvii).

l2 M. Prior, llWomenand the urban economy: Oxford 1500- 180OIf1ed. M. Prior, Women in English Society, 1500-1800 (London, 1985): 93-117, traces the inter-generational turnover in trades from wills and also demonstrates that the process was by no means uniform over time. 102 Smith, and a colt to a John Silby. William Justice may have had little cash on hand: the £18 necessary to cover most monetary bequests were to be raised from the half yardland he had willed to Margaret. She was granted a term of three years to pay the money, apparently sufficient time to generate this sum from commercial activities. Money to provide Smith with good clothing was to be generated from SilbyJs colt through fictitious sales. Isabelle was made full executrix and received all unbequeathed goods. Unfortunately, it is not clear if cash was included and using the revenue potential of the land and colt was merely a way of extending Justice's options as testator. Isabelle Justice in turn did not dispose of land and only made one small monetary donation to the parish church. Her daughters only received sheets and, in the case of Margaret, a frock. Her other bequests consisted of livestock (cattle and horses), grain, brass pots and pewter ware, sheets and clothing mostly to legatees of unknown relationship to her. The resonances between the wills of Henry and Agnes Pulter of Broughton and those of the Justices are striking. In 1543 Henry left several pious bequests in money but most of his will distributed lands among the three younger of his four sons and gave his wife a life-long use of the house and land which was to eventually fall to his youngest son John. Two years later Agnes made pious bequests in money and grain, bestowed livestock, furniture and clothing upon her youngest son John, her two daughters, several grandchildren and a servant. The three older sons were made her executors and all four received goods unbequeathed. These wills imply a pattern of husbands making bequests in money and land while wives bequeathed movables and livestock, suggesting that control over property during the couplesr marriage may have resulted in a similar division.13 However, other wills, such as that of Richard Pulter, the eldest son of Agnes and Henry, tell a different story. Richard appears to have been left out, receiving only a share in the unbequeathed goods of his mother and the land willed to his youngest brother if the latter should die without male heirs. Richard's will, dated only a few months after his mother's, shows that he possessed over 160 sheep as well as twenty-eight bullocks, other livestock and four copyholds. Richard bequeathed lands, money, livestock and household goods to his wife Joan, his sons John and Hugh and his daughters Anne and Alice. Of interest is the lack of recognition for his wife Joan, who received no land other than the use of the copyhold willed to Hugh until he was eighteen years old. Joan received significant numbers of livestock (forty sheep, three horses, eight bullocks and two steers) but little in household goods other than those she brought to the marriage. Unlike her mother-in-law, Joan was not made executor. The will seems unduly generous to John who received three copyholds and half the sheep among other items.

l3 C. Burgess, "'By Quick and by Deadr: wills and pious provision in late medieval Bristol,l1 EHR 102 (1987): 837-58, suggests a similar sequential pattern among spouses in fifteenth century Bristol. This last will clearly demonstrates the individuality of will- making: father and son followed very different strategies and treated their wives quite differently- Richard Pulterfs recognition of his wife's contribution finds parallels in other wills. Thomas Mease (Ramsey 1555) specified that his wife was entitled to all goods she brought on the day of their marriage. Reginald Hogge granted his second wife Margaret 'hir chamber that she brought with hirl but she was neither made executor nor did she receive the residue of goods unbequeathed.14 Undoubtedly, the personal goods willed by her less than a month later were comprised in this single bequest by her husband." It is indeed a pity that a will of her first husband cannot be identified but when Margaret married Reginald she was well provided. A variation on this theme may be contained in the will of John Thresher (Ramsey 1555) who willed his first wife's clothing to his second wife.16 This does not constitute paraphernalia in a technical sense but may represent a similar respect for a woman's possessions. These instances point to a popular notion of equity distinct from the current law's.

l4 Huntingdonshire Wills VI.254. " These included a folding table, a chair, several painted cloths, three pots, three pans, two spits, a great coffer, a big basin, a great candlestick, ten pairs of sheets, two half sheets, two bordcloths, six coverlets, two towels, an unspecified quantity of brass and pewter (Reginald specifically bequeathed his own brass and pewter to his daughters!), a gown and three girdles apart from an unspecified residue.

l6 Unfortunately, it cannot be determined if his wife had been using the clothes during their marriage. 105 This is particularly interesting in a period in which an earlier recognition of the concept had lapsed and the later establishment of separate estate, spear-headed by the Elizabethan court of chancery, still lay in the future." Such continuity at the informal level cautions against studies of social processes which focus too rigidly on official law. The source of the obsenred differences in willing strategy probably lay with arrangements within individual families.l8 Some families divided their tasks into relatively autonomous spheres while others centred control on a more autocratic model. Division did not necessarily marginalize the wife: Agnes Pulterrs role as her husband's executor and her precise statements reveal a woman with an acute knowledge of her family's affairs. Other couples, exemplified by Richard and Joan Pulter, adopted a more autocratic style in which the husband took control of all matters. Even here limits to the authority assumed by men are detected: Richard recognized his wife's possessions and provided generously for his two daughters who received twenty sheep, four bullocks and half of the remaining household goods each. Recognition of women's rights in property and their ability to

I7 M. L. Cioni, Women and Law in Elizabethan England with Particular Reference to the Court of Chancery (New York, 1985) , ibid., "The Elizabethan Chancery and Women's Rights," eds. D. J. Guth and J. W. McKenna, Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for G. R. El ton from his American friends (Cambridge, 1982) : 159-82.

Bennett, Women in the Countryside: 100-41. manage it existed on an informal level but were neither binding nor did they result in normative rules. The evidence is testimony to the degree of flexibility and pragmatism inherent in family relationships despite the confines of law and ideology. In wills, the well-defined gender spheres of contemporary legal thought did not relate directly into practice. Parallels can be found in the discussions of housewivest occupations in two contemporary agricultural treatises, the Book of Husbandry by Fitzherbert of 1534 and the

Five Huzzdred Poin tes of Husbandrie by Thomas Tusser of 1573 . Both authors assert the necessity of the wife's endeavour to the couple's prosperity for '... seldom doth the housbande thryue, withoute the leue of his wyfe20r as well as the amount of her work: 'Some respit to husbands the weather may send,/ But huswiues affaires haue neuer an end.2" Both authors couched their advice in religious terms and admonished thrift but their ways parted when it came to the strength of their own authority

Fitzherbert , The Book of Husbandry of Master Fi tzherbert . ed. W. W. Skeat, (1534; reprinted with an introduction, notes, and glossarial index 1882; Vaduz, 1965). On wives fo. lxv-lxvi. T. Tusser, IrFiue Hundred Pointes of Good Husbandrie. The Edition of 1580 Collated with Those of 1573 and 1577," eds. W. Eayne and 9. J. Heritage, The English Dialect Society (London, 1878), on wives: pp. 159-87. Tusser began his work on agricultural advice in 1557 with I1A Hundreth Good Pointes of Husbandrie," edited in the same volume, pp. 218 - 234, but this earlier work contains only three paragraphs (72 a - c) on 'huswifrie' with various other scattered comments. Fitzherbert will be quoted by chapter and line, Tusser by chapter and verse.

'O 'O Fitzherbert, 143. 6-7.

21 Tusser, 70.4 regarding women's work and the wife's range of activities. Fitzherbert's approach to the topic was restrained and

And howe be that I haue not experyence of a1 theyr occupations and warkes, as I haue of husbandry, yet a lyttell wyl I speke what they ought to do, though I tel them nat howe they shulde doo and exercyse theyr labours and occupations. By contrast, Thomas Tusser instantly assumed expertise though still gave credit to women by paralleling his claim to knowledge to that of widows:= If widow, both huswife and husband may be, what cause hath a widower lesser than she? Tis needful1 that both of them looke well: too careles within, and too fasie without. Now therefore, if well ye consider of this, what losses and crosses comes dailie arnis. Then beare with a widowers pen as ye may: though husband of huswiferie somewhat doth say. Both authors assumed a female sphere in the family economy but Fitzherbert granted far greater autonomy. This difference in tone pervaded the remainder of their discussions. Tusser assigned malting and brewing, baking, dairying, washing, scouring, raising children, keeping the family pharmacy and looking after the house to wives and expended considerable energy on cooking and setting the table in his list of tasks. Fitzherbertrs list overlapped Tusser's on ordering the house, raising children, dairying and brewing but also included

Fitzherbert, 143. 9-13.

Tusser, 69. 5-6. gardening, poultry and making textiles. However, in his work the sphere of the wife was extended beyond the house: she was in charge of sending grain to the mill, receiving the flour back, checking the miller's honesty, assisting her husband in the fields as need arose, growing flax and hemp, and:'4 ...to go or ride to the market, to sel butter, chese, mylke, egges, chekyns, capons, hennes, pygges, gese, and all maner of cornes [alnd to bye all maner of necessarye thynges belongynge to houssholde ... Nowhere was the contrast between the two authors' attitude towards women more apparent than in Tusser's repeated admonitions to lock up the house and in Fitzherbert's insistence on mutual

...to make a trewe rekenynge and a-compte to her housbande, what she hath payed. And yf the housbande go to the market, to bye and sell, as they ofte do, he than to shewe his wyfe in lyke maner. For yf one of them shoulde use to deceyue the other, he deceyueth hym-selfe, and he is not lyke to thryue. In Fitzherbert's model household, the wife was directly active in the market economy, in Tusser's 'husbandrie seemeth to bring in the gaines' though her labours 'seeme equal1 in paines?" Agnes Pulter, demonstrating her ability in accounting when she recounted places and prices of purchases in the face of death, fits Fitzherbert's ideal wife. Her daughter-in-law Joan,

24 Fitzherbert, 146. 88-91. Note the strong emphasis on poultry which stands in apparent contradiction to its absence in most of the local sources examined here. Fitzherbert,

26 Tusser, 70. 3. restricted in power and inheritance, fits Tusserfs more closely. The female and domestic spheres in late medieval and early modern England were clearly not separated by iron-clad dividers from the male and public spheres." Rather, the ideal of women as domestic and passive was open to modification in individual families. Some women clearly maintained control of a considerable range of affairs even while married and were not restricted to the private sphere with the open approval of husbands like Fitzherbert. If the separation into male and female spheres was fluid during marriage, it became untenable in the pre-marital state and in widowhood. The existence of sharply distinct gender spheres in some wills and texts does not come as a surprise but they were optional rather than mandatory in marital relationships." The second question raised at the outset of this chapter asked why a stronger female presence was realised in wills than in other contemporary documents from Hurstingstone. The major purpose of wills was to fulfill certain religious needs and to distribute a limited set of possessions in ways which were not or

27 This is also the conclusion of Bennett, Women in the Countryside: 178.

28 The contradiction between perceived gender roles and actual gender activities was noted elsewhere: K. 0. Bruhns, llSexualActivities: Some Thoughts on the Sexual Division of Labor and Archaeological Interpretati~n:~~420-29, Brumfiel, Ifweaving and Cooking:" 224-51, L. F. Stine, "Early Twentieth Century Gender Roles: Perceptions from the Farm:I1 496-501, all in Walde and Williams, The Archaeology of Gender; M. Erler and M. Kowaleski, llIntroduction, eds . M. Erler and M. Kowaleski, Women and Power in the Middle Ages (Athens, Ga., 1988) : 1-17, N. F. Partner, "Studying Medieval Women: Sex, Gender, Feminism. Introduction, Speculum 68 (1993): 305-8. could not be provided by inter vivos and customary arrangements. While the bulk of women's bequests simply distributed livestock and household goods among relatives, friends, neighbours and charitable causes in rather repetitive links of goods and persons, a significant number of wills made arrangements which set them apart. In the case of women's wills these arrangements do not amount to normative procedures but the material adds up to a series of individual expressions of intent as persons and

issues are addressed.29 women appear in small numbers in the lay subsidies where they invariably constitute less than 10% of the taxpayers as demonstrated in Table 111.1. The effects of legal opinions are particularly obvious in the 1520fs when almost all women recorded were described as widows. Furthermore, no woman was assessed on wages though female servants can be identified in wills and other female wage earners in churchwardens accounts. The relative importance of other assessment categories was similar between genders with most women being assessed on goods but only a few on land. The distribution of wealth was also virtually identical with modes lying at the exemption limit and frequencies

" The point raised by C. Cross, "Wills as Evidence of Popular Piety in the Reformation Period: Leeds and Hull," ed. D. M. Loades, The End of Strife (Edinburgh, 1984) : 44-51, M. Spuff ord, Contrasting Communities: 319-44, about the role of scriveners and formulas in the making of wills is well taken but it must be noted that their comments primarily refer to the phrasing of the preamble. One may note in this connection the graphic expression of distaste by a clerk for a wife's will described in Prior, "Wives and Wills:" 221-22, which, nevertheless, remained ineffective. diminishing up the scale. The highest assessments on men were significantly higher than those on women but the frequency of

women in the range of assessments above the £20 mark was as

expected. The situation of women in the 1540's differed in several ways. In the first place women were more frequent than

in the earlier subsidies .30 Status designations for women were not recorded in the later returns except in the case of Margaret

Dunholt of Broughton, who was described as a widow in 1545. The

commissioners may have felt that her large assessment of £40 required some explanation. The distribution of wealth both in terms of amounts and assessment categories was again very similar between genders and maximum assessments were even more alike. However, average assessments appear further apart and in men's favour, all assessments on landed revenues of women fell into the range below f5. Averages adjusted to eliminate assessments below £5 did not differ at a statistically significant level. The lay subsidies demonstrate that women were able to control similar amounts of wealth in goods as men when they met legal requirements . The court rolls of Ramsey and Bury cum Hepmangrove attest to a strong presence of women in baking, brewing and retailing. A woman is even noted as acquiring a horse mill (Agnes Bosworthe 1555). The involvement of women in other trades is less evident.

" The phenomenon is statistically significant at the 0.1% level and is not the product of the raised exemption limit. Women assessed above £5 in the 1520's constituted only c. 3% of tax payers. The only woman cited among butchers was Emma Pope, who appeared twice in 1519, while Joan Wright, a tamer, was fined in 1531, but the absence of women, even widows, in the textile trades is remarkable because they traditionally involved a strong female component in the work force." Despite its striking absence in the lay subsidies, female wage labour can be identified in wills and churchwardens accounts. Servants of both genders appear in several wills as recipients of minor bequests and, in a few cases (eg., Marion Afforthe, Bluntisham 1533), which will be discussed below, as principal beneficiaries. Another employment opportunity was offered by the parish church of Ramsey, which repeatedly hired women to wash church vestments.32 The absence of wives as wage earners in the subsidies is readily explained in the light of common law, while female servants, surely many of whom were unmarried, were omitted because they were viewed as their employersr dependants and not assessed independently. Wills composed by women extend knowledge of their activities and concerns significantly in several directions. Apart from the preamble, religious feelings were expressed in pious bequests.

" On the methodological problems of linking women with textile production see Brumfiel, "Weaving and Cooking," F. M. Biscoglio, lg'Unspunfheroes: iconography of the spinning woman in the Middle Ages," Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 25 (1995): 163-77.

32 Ramsey CWA £0. 7d, 8d, 9v. Rates paid: In 1534 the wife of Chamber received 10d for washing and mending vestments. For washing alone 6d were paid to Teboldefs wife in 1528, to Chamber's wife in 1534 and to William Baker's wife in 1538. On female labour see Woodward, Work: 108-15. 113 Before the new religious order of the Reformation was established, there was an abundance of options to consider.))

Katherine Debb (Broughton 1508) made no bequests to persons but distributed her wealth in grain and money for piety in fourteen bequests over three communities and appointed an executor from each location." Agnes Bell (Somersham 1527) left money for pious purposes, including the roads, in seven bequest^.^' Amye Cosynrs

donations (St. Ives 1529) were more physical, consisting of barley, malt and sheep but also of 35s 6d in money.36 Several other wills containing almost nothing but pious bequests may be added to the list including a varied collection of donations and recipients: money was most commonly given while prayers and the

33 More on the topic of donations in Chapter IV.

34 The bequests were made to the diocesan church in Lincoln (4d), the high altar (2 bushels of barley) , three lights (f6) , the bells (4d), torches (4d) and the parish church (6s ad) of Broughton, the parish church (I? quarter of grain, not entirely legible) and guild (1 quarter of wheat) of Connington, the abbey chapel (8d) every nun (4d) and the church of Sawtre St. Andrew (£2) as well as the purchase of saintst images (2s) for it.

" Money was given to the church in Lincoln (4d), the church of Somersham (3s 4d), its bells (3s 4d), the maintenance (4d) and gilding (20s) of its high altar and the gilding of the Sepulchre (20s) as well as the mending of the highway between her house and the church (3s 4d).

36 The bequests in goods were a comb of barley to the high altar, a ewe, a lamb and a bushel of wheat to Our Lady's image and a comb of barley to the rood light in St. Ives and a comb of barley to the high altar, a bushel of malt to the bells, a ewe and a lamb to Our Lady's light in the church of Graveley; the monetary bequests were directed towards the church in Lincoln (zd), buying a couch (12d) and money for mass lights in St. Ives (12d), the purchase of a mass book (6s 8d) and a vestment (26s 8d) for Graveley. parish church were the most prominent causes." Wills consisting largely of charitable bequests were for most part formulated by women, probably made on behalf of both the widow and her pre- deceased husband as a culmination of their livesr work in the manner described by Clive Burgess from fifteenth century Bristol.'* The focus on piety in these wills was conditioned by

the fact that inter vivos transfers and custom had provided for heirs while belief in Purgatory required charity and intercession. In most cases in which a relationship between testator and legatee was stated, the latter were part of the nuclear family and an immediate circle of relative^.'^ A common occurrence was a small bequest of money (usually only a few pence) to

37 These wills and their bequests are: Katherine Grene (Abbots Ripton 1533) made bequests to the church in Lincoln (4d), the high altar (4d), the gilding of the rood loft, Our Lady's image (her best brass pot), Our Ladyrs light (2 bushels of barley) in the parish church and donated an altar cloth and a light to it. Alice Jurden (Ripton St. John 1544) gave money to the church in Lincoln (2d), the high altar (a bushel barley), church (2s) and bell repairs (8d), the sepulchre light (2 hives of bees), the highways (2s) in Ripton, an honest priest to say a trental for her and her husband in the month after her burial (lOs), alms for the poor on her burial day (lOs), the seventh day (5s), and the thirtieth day (5s) and, for the term of her lease, money for an annual obituary (3s), the priest for dirges and mass (6d),the singers (6d) and bread and ale for the poor. Agnes Becham (Somersham 1544) left money to the church in ~incoln(ld), the high altar in Somersham (12d), and the highway by her house (20s), the poor and 'an honest dirger (2s each yearly). She also left two cows to be rented out under the oversight of the parson and three other men to provide for an obit.

38 Burgess, "By Quick and by Dead:" 837-58.

39 The will of John Ematson (St. Ives 15561, which makes provisions for an unborn child, is particularly touching. godchildren." Bequests to stepchildren were not common but it is possible that they were not always ~pecified.~'A somewhat unusual bequest is found in Alice Hill's will (Little Stuckeley 1535)' who gave her midwife her best kerchief. A group who merit particular attention were servants who occur as recipients of bequests in several wills. The extremes of testators' concerns for them are represented by the wills of William Greyke

(Broughton 1503) and Marion Afforthe (Bluntisham 1533). Greyke willed his servants a ewe and a lamb each but did not mention their names nor even the number of personnel he employed. By contrast, A£ f orthe was far more generous :" I bequathe to Katheryne my servant my beste panne and my best pote and a coffare and my best coverlight and ij peire of flaxen sheates and ij pyre of hardyn sheatis and iij pewtere platerys and iij pewtere dishes and a candlesticke and a potte and my best towel1 and a bulloke . Two features deserve notice: all wills particularly generous to servants were formulated by women and the bequests resemble those

Usually neither names nor numbers are mentioned (eg., Elizabeth Scotte, Broughton 1542, bequeathed 2d to each godchild) but a few wills are more specific (eg., Agnes Bell, Somersham 1527, bestowed 3s 4d upon her godson Robert Tayler).

41 Reginald Hogge (Broughton 1541) made a bequest to an Elizabeth who was described as his wife's daughter. However, it is only from Margaret Hogge's will that we learn that two other legatees in his will, Oliver and John Colyns, were also children from her first marriage. A third child from her first marriage, William, was not considered in Reginald's will, presumably because he had reached the age of majority by then. Margaret Hogge, despite problems with her stepson, obviously was on cordial terms with her mother-in-law to whom she willed a girdle.

" Huntingdonshire Wills V.4. made to children. A ewe and her lamb were often given to children (daughters in particular) who were not principal heirs.43 The pattern may be identified in Greyke's will to an extent: he was succeeded by his wife Joan and his son John, who inherited the lands after his mother's life use had terminated. Furthermore, Greyke willed to his children twenty sheep and a bullock each to be delivered at age sixteen though again neither stated their name nor number. The household items willed by Marion Afforthe to her servant Katherine were common bequests in the wills examined but, again, the assembly is reminiscent of those given to children. Afforthe may never have been married and she mentioned no children in her will. The only other recipient of a bequest from her was Richard, the son of her executor Robert Stambrige, who received a pot and a pair of sheets. It appears that Katherine may have taken the place of a daughter and was equipped with a kind of dowryaM The similarity in bequests between servants and children is suggestive of the position of servants in households. The servants simply appear as lesser heirs.

43 Good examples of bequests of ewe and lamb are the wills of Joan Byrd (Ripton St. John 1541) and Robert Pyrgney (Broughton 1532). More in chapter V. " A particularly impressive example of a couple's affection for a female servant is provided in Bennet, Women in the Countryside: 83. 117 The generosity of the wills of Marion Afforthe, Anne Ward and Alice Nicholas found no contender among male wills." The widow Alice Nicholas (St. Ives 1539) bequeathed to Christian Tryche, her maid and servant, a mattress, a pair of linen sheets, a coverlet, a bolster and a brass pot and pan. Despite the mention of three deceased husbands by name, Nicholas did not mention children in her will. Anne Ward (St- Ives 1555) bequeathed a particularly extensive list of items to her servant William Legs consisting of grain, brass, pewter and silver ware, bedding, livestock (including 2 ewes and 2 lambs], furniture, cloth and money. One legatee of unknown relationship, John Tyfford, received a similar assembly of bequests but others, including two sisters and a niece, received far less. Anne Ward may never have been married and again no children were mentioned but it is unlikely that they would not have been considered if there were any. This generosity to servants was not universal as is evident from the will of Margaret Chevers (Pidley 1545) who left their reward to the discretion of her executors. The presence of four children combined with the vagueness of the bequest to the servants provide a strong contrast to other examples discussed.

45 The findings of J. Beauroy, "Family Patterns and Relations of Bishop's Lynn Will-makers in the Fourteenth Century," eds. L. Bonfield, R. M. Smith and K. Wrightson, The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure (Oxford, 1986) : 23 - 42, differ with regard to servants: women there did not show greater concern for them and many of the bequests were in cash. B. A. Holdemess postulates that extending credit was a major function of widows in early modern society but, despite explicit inclusion of the sixteenth century into the time frame of his discussion, his evidence pertains mostly to the eighteenth century.46 There is little evidence of money-lending by widows in the early Tudor wills of Hurstingstone hundred. An exception was

Anne Ward who was owed 23s 4d by Nicholas Heard, a man of unknown relationship, but her debts to her servant and another legatee were larger, consisting of 20s and 23s 3d respectively. Anne

London (Somersham 1544) was owed 4 marks by her daughter Margaret as the remainder of the purchase price of a house. However, in most other cases widows were debtors rather than creditors. Alice Hill (Little Stuckeley 1535) listed three creditors and the sums owing, Elene Eton (Abbots Ripton 1538) specified household goods which were to be sold for debts and charges while Katherine Grene (Abbots Ripton 1533) willed 15s 6d to her son-in-law for debts and dues related to her funeral and the execution of her will. More serious financial situations are indicated in the wills of Marion Mody (Bluntisham 1529) and Agnes Karner (Bluntisham 1539) who willed that their houses be sold to pay debts. The problems which women might face upon the death of their husbands are dramatically exemplified by Karner's will, which specified that the debts were her husband's. The will of

Margaret Chevers (Pidley 1545) specified another type of debt:

46 Holderness, I1Widows in pre-industrial society.I1 119 her will requested that two houses which her husband had acquired for his family at a recent court be paid for. Debts indicate involvement in a small-scale credit network in which money was occasionally lent outright but more often that payments for lands, goods and service were delayed or spread over a period of time* The involvement of widows appears to have been less extensive than Holderness found two centuries later,47 Instructions for the liquidation of possessions shed light on the economic circumstances of some women. In the wills of Agnes Karner, Marion Mody and Elene Eton houses and household goods were liquidated to pay debts while Alice Nicholas (St. Ives

1538) and Alice Haliday (Somersham 1556) ordered liquidations for charitable bequests. Nicholas ordered a silver salter and a half dozen silver spoons sold to endow road repairs and Haliday ordered : Also I will my howse shalbe sold to them that will geve most for hit. And I will that the one halfe shalbe bestowed among the poore irnmediatlye after the sale of the howse. And I will the other halfe shall remayn with a stocke for the relefe of the poore forever.

The contrast between the drastic financial situations of Karner, Eton and Mody on one hand and the business acumen of Haliday on the other cannot be more pronounced* Another telling example of a wife's predicament upon her husband's death may be recounted from the wills of Reginald and

" This agrees with the findings of Bennett, Women in the Countryside: 160. 120 Margaret Hogge of Broughton. When Reginald Hogge made his will on December 14, 1541, he bequeathed his two copyholds to Harry, his son by his first wife Elene, but reserved the use of one for Margaret until St. Michaelrs (September 29) , the traditional start of the agricultural year. Apart from this use she received seed to sow the land (but was required to pay for the sowing from her own money), her chamber, cattle and pigs including a 'lesser hog for store,' twenty sheep, all his rye, a comb of peas, straw for the animals and five loads of firewood. The plough was specifically given to Harry. Indicative of friction between Margaret and her stepson Harry were the bequests of plough, straw and firewood: the former was likely to be disputed in the cultivation of the copyholds and it appears that Reginald suspected that such basic provisions as fuel and straw might be denied to his wife. As executors neither wife nor son were chosen but his brother Thomas and a neighbour, Thomas Pulter. Reginald clearly wanted to secure Margaret by giving her provisions for the winter and setting her up with livestock to generate an income in a place of her choosing. He was dead by

January 8 when Margaret made her will and described herself as a widow. Apparently, Margaret had decided not to exercise her use directly for she resided in Huntingdon then. She made her brother-in-law Thomas and her son of her first marriage ~illiarn Colyns her executors. Despite her hostile relationship with Reginald's only son, the remainder of the evidence speaks of good will in the family: Reginald made bequests to three of his four stepchildren while Margaret made her mother-in-law a beneficiary in her own will and placed considerable trust in her brother-in- law. The patterns observed in the wills speak of 'individualism' rather than normative behavio~r.~~Individualism suggests the exceptional but it is important to note that almost a third of the female wills extant from Hurstingstone had a unique quality and have been cited because they form a pattern of their own: their collective weight reveals the importance of wills in making personal statements. Wills were used by women and others to address issues of importance to them at the moment of their death. Specifically female dimensions were not developed but women extended themselves further in directions such as charity, piety and the consideration of servants. In the end, the answer to the question of why the presence of women was higher in the actbooks than in other contemporary documents is simple: the will gave women a forum in which they could state and act upon specific personal concerns with relative independence in a legal system which geared its default procedures towards men. Tudor society had well defined gender roles inherited from an earlier age and passed on in developing forms to later ages. The limits for women are made particularly visible through the distinction between authority and power -- formal holding of

48 The criticism of individualism in Bennett, Women in the Countryside: 177-78, is accepted. Individualism is used here to characterize the wills under discussion in relationship to the overall sample. 122 offices as opposed to informal but constructive participation in societal affairs.49 Women in Hurstingstone hundred held no manorial offices, did not become royal commissioners or witness wills. The only exception was their frequent appearance as executors, an exception which must have even satisfied John mox who mainly objected to women ruling over men but not over objects? Yet, in the court rolls we find women active in crafts and trades and even dominating some occupations while women of considerable wealth appeared in the lay subsidies. In their wills they availed themselves effectively of the ars donandi to make personal statements and, in the case of a few married women, exploited the differences between canon and common law to their

49 Erler and Kowaleski, lrIntroduction: 2, draw attention to the authority/power distinction. The concept is used with respect to rural women in J. Bennett, "Public Power and Authority in the Medieval English Countryside," eds. M. Erler and M. Kowaleski, Women and Power in the Middle Ages (Athens, Ga. , 1988) : 18-36-

J. Knox, The First Blast of the Trmpet Against the Monstrvovs Regiment of Women (1558; repr. Amsterdam, 1972) : 47, states: '...it is not onlie laufull that women possesse their inheritance, but I affirme also that iustice and equitie require, that so they do. But therwith I adde that whiche gladlie they list not vnderstan: that to beare rule or authoritie ouer man, can neuer be right nor inheritance to woman. For that can neuer be iust inheritance to any person which God by his word hath plainlie denied unto them: but to all women hath God denied authoritie aboue man, as moste manifestlie is before declared ...' On p. 52: 'But the authoritie of a womZ is a corrupted fountein, ad therfore from her can neuer spring any lauful officer.' See Arnussen, Ordered Society, for an interesting but incomplete discussion of tensions caused by the pragmatic implications of such views. 123 benefit. In particular, the wills demonstrate that women were eager to use power constructively. Marital status largely determines the visibility of women. As Judith Bennett observed, gender roles define the relationship of husband and wife more strongiy than that of man and woman.51 Her distinction stands: married women are much harder to find in the sources than widows. This does not mean that they were inactive since the skills which gave them independence in widowhood had to be accpiired and practiced beforehand. In a sense, if one can identify the power of married women, one has identified the very basis of women's power under the Tudors. Wills and agricultural treatises suggest that family arrangements could open considerable options to women. Agnes Pulter certainly exemplified one source of power, skill, and perhaps, charisma. Skills become apparent in a variety of ways. They were important in the performance of trades them~elves.~'They also played a role in the choice of marriage partner as exemplified in Thomas

Bennett, "Public Power and Authority:" 21-24. As any reader of Margery Kempe knows, such entreprises were not guaranteed success. Kempe, Book: 44. Deloneyrs tale of John Winchc~mb.~~Force of personality was another source of power though more difficult to identify." The third source of power was perhaps in many respects the most important: family. This was the age when England was ruled by queens in their own right. Knox railed against women ruling men and denied them the right to inherit offices but other writers were far less certain and accepted blood and marriage as valid bases to lay claims to office.55 A dilemma was likely to arise in a society which privileged the right of men in families through patrilineal descent but was as subject to the accidents of mortality and birth as early modern England. Sooner or later a moment would arrive in which the male head of the household would die without an adult male heir or no male heir at all. The two solutions available were either to insist on male prerogative and to let the family wealth slip away from the closer circle or to let blood override gender. Thus, women inherited property as wives and daughters and saw to the fulfilment of wl111s as executrices. After all, who was better suited than those who had

53 T. Deloney, The pleasant Historie of John Winchcomb, in his yonguer yeares called Jack of Newberry ...,I1ed. G. Saintsbury, Shorter Elizabethan Novels (London, 1929) : 5 -27. Upon his master's death, John was placed in charge of the clothier's business he had worked in and, in due time, married the widow. Upon her death he himself choose one of his more diligent employees as his new wife. " Mary Prior, availing herself of the greater wealth of information available for her subjects, identified force of personality as a common factor among wives who wrote wills in a somewhat later period. Prior, l1Wives and Wi.11~:~~210-8. " Hogrefe, Tudor Women: 27-36. 125 intimate knowledge of the family's affairs and many of the skills to continue the family economy? Widowhood represented the culmination of a couplers life in which women had acquired skills, shouldered responsibility, contributed to the family economy and made provisions for their souls. If a small criticism of Bennett's excellent case study of women in pre- plague Brigstock may be offered, then it is that she underestimates the ground which women could reclaim through informal arrangements.56 Women have been shown to have creative and active roles in agriculture, crafts, exchanges and the control of property but could also be marginalized and forced into passive roles. The most important contribution the consideration of gender makes to a study of rural wealth is the clear demonstration that many villagers of Hurstingstone hundred were willing to use the human resources available to them in an effective manner regardless of conventions expounded by administrators, lawyers and theologians. To this effect villagers improvised and instituted their own conventions. The special status of widows, so often described in scholarly literature, implied that women's practical competence and ability in decision-making was recognized before widowhood and the only way in which widows could have lived up to their

56 Bennett, Women in the Countryside: 178-80. Her assessment recognizes variability but the strong emphasis on the aspect of public disabilities leads her to a somewhat pessimistic overall evaluation. Nevertheless, in broad terms considerable agreement must be voiced with her conclusion. responsibilities was by acquiring the necessary skills earlier in their lives. In practice, this required active participation in as large a part of the family's affairs as possible. Ideological factors contributed to the variations encountered and certainly influenced the documentary profile, but it is indisputable that women contributed significantly to the creation and maintenance of wealth in the countryside at all stages of their lives.

Chapter III. Table

Table III.1. Gender Distribution in the Lay Subsidies, Hurstings tone Hundred, 1522 - 1547

Year Gender Number Percent Average Maximum Wealth Assessment

% fsd sd

1522 Men 804 Women 19

1523 Men 1243 Women 27

1545 Men 343 Women 3 0

1547 Men 292 Women 20 Chapter IV

Consumption and Donation: Using Wealth

The availability of consumer goods in the pre-industrial period plays an important role in the historiographical debate surrounding England's development towards the Industrial Revolution. Scholarly consensus sees an increase in both diversity and quantity of goods owned together with a widening social dissemination in the two centuries between 1500 and 1700, but particularly in the latter part of the seventeenth century.' Probate inventories compiled between c. 1550 and 1725 are the most widely used source on consumption and ownership of goods

See Shammas, Pre-Industrial Consumer, and with reference to the decades around 1700, see Weatherill, Consumer Behaviour. The same point is made by Spufford, Reclothing, though she focuses on the distribution of goods by chapmen. Conceptually, Spuffordfs work owes a debt to Hoskins, I1Rebuilding,"and related work on housing (see below, this chapter). The position taken in Thirsk, Policy and Projects, is similar though the emphasis rests on government sponsored schemes. The term consumer goods in this discussion incorporates a wide array of items which are not restricted to movables (eg., improvements to houses), may not always be purchased (eg., homespun textiles) or manufactured in quantity (eg., some furniture) and may not be expendible (eg., cooking gear). The term comprises material objects which may have been purchased and which improved life without having an obligatory purpose in generating income. It is realised that the separation between domestic and income-generating functions is not absolute nor always possible given the sources. Criticisms have been raised by students of household production and feminist scholars regarding the inadequacy of the private/public and paid/unpaid dichotomies: eg. F. Bartlett, llIntroduction,"The Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production (Boulder, 1989): 3-10. The reason for proceeding along these lines lies with the analytical facility of employing the term in this manner given uncertainties in the record. because they combine an abundance of records, wealth of detail and monetary values which lend themselves to quantitative analy~is.~However, the examination of wills in this study uncovered a significant amount of information on housing, metal wares, clothing and other consumer goods in categories relevant to the wider discussion. This material reflects both upon the surplus wealth generated locally and the chronology of consumption, thereby adding a new dimension to the economic analysis of English rural society which was for most part not open to students of earlier period^.^ This chapter presents the assembly in detail to provide a basis of comparison for further studies in the development of consumption. Added to this discussion is a brief consideration of donations which have been seen by some as a diversion from the accumulation of wealth and consumption. A recent speculative article by Jan de Vries attempts to resolve the apparent conundrum of increasing possession of consumer goods but decreasing real wages in the period

Some difficulties in the use of probate inventories are discussed by Spufford, "Limitations:" 139-74.

G. Duby, Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West, trans. C. Postan (1962; Columbia, S.C., 1968) : 348, suggested the use of material culture as an indicator of peasant wealth but mainly had archaeological evidence in mind. This challenge was taken up in preliminary fashion by S. M. MacKinnon, "The Peasant House: The Evidence of Manuscript Ill~mination,~~ed. J. A. Raftis, Pathwzys to Medieval Peasants (Toronto, 1981) : 301- 09, using pictoral evidence. approaching the Industrial evolution.^ A solution is proposed in which seventeenth century households shifted their allocation of labour and other resources away from leisure and home provision towards the supply of marketable commodities to be exchanged for consumer goods:' This industrious revolution, a change in household behaviour with important demand-side features, began in advance of the Industrial Revolution, a fundamentally supply-side phenomenon. The early sixteenth century plays no particular role in de Vries' argument and lies well within the traditionalistic consumption of home-produced goods and extensive enj oyment of leisure. Yet, as we shall see, the chronological scheme proposed is too strongly weighted towards the later years. Houses were the single most substantial possession of villagers. Timber was at least used to make frames while walls were made of wattle-and-daub, which Harrison considered the most

J. de Vries, "The Industrial Revolution and the Industrious Revolution," JEH 54 (1994): 249-70, the problem stated on pp. 253-5. R. Phillips, uGrassroots Change in an Early Modern Economy: The Emergence of a Rural Consumer Society in Berkshire," Southern History 11 (1989): 23-39, provides a similarly late starting point (after 1650) based on observations on rural industry.

de Vries, "'The Industrial revolution:^ 256. This treatment is contradicted in part by the chronology developed in J. de Vries, "Peasant Demand Patterns and Economic Development: Friesland 1550 - 1750," eds. W. N. Parker and E. L. Jones, European Peasants and Their Markets (Princeton, 1975) : 205-66. important building material in open field country.' Building stone and brick, the latter being produced by Ramsey abbey, were only mentioned in connection with the construction of parish churches.* The presence of Bartholomew [the] Glazer, whose services were employed by the parish church of Ramsey on several occasions, cannot be matched with evidence of glass use by villagers. Perhaps, as Harrison claims, lattice was still widely used in windows though it, too, cannot be documented.1° References to parts of houses, which occur in a few wills, served to locate items willed." The hall, usually the central area and most prominent room of the house, was most frequently cited.12

On construction types: J. G. Hurst, '!The Changing Medieval Village," ed. J. A. Raftis, Pathways to Medieval Peasants, (Toronto, 1981) : 34-43, Harrison, Description: 195, MacKinnon, "Peasant House:I1 303-05. * N. Pevsner, The Buildings af England: Bedfordshire and the County of Hun tingdon and Pe terborough (Harmondsworth , 19 68 ) : passim. On Ramsey's brickwork: PRO SC 6/~enry~1II/1658. The document is an account of 1516/7 which records sales of three types of bricks : brikke, thacketile and cornertile pro crestes.

Ramsey CWA fo. 6d, 12d.

loHarrison, Description: 197. The following discussion is based on definitions provided in M. Barley I1A Glossary of Names for Rooms in Houses of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Cent~ries,~~eds. I. L1. Foster and L. Alcock,Cul ture and Environment : Essays in Honour of Sir Cyril Fox (London, 1963): 479-501. The deficiency of wills compared to probate inventories with regard to housing is illustrated by M. Havinden, Household and Farm Inventories in Oxfordshire, 1550 - 1590 (London, 1965) : 15-27.

l2 Barley I1Names for Roorns:I1 490-92. Examples in the wills of Thomas Baker (Upwood 1542) , John Love, sen. (Holywell 1554) , Thomas Bullian (Warboys 1556) and others. The anniversary roll of 1502/3 states that the hall of William Dixon's tenement was Next in frequency was the cellar which functioned as a storage area." The occasional reference to a 'chamber,' denoting a bedroom, or to a 'parlour' indicates some differentiation of house interiors.l4 Joan Ashton (Ramsey 1558) also refers to a 'lentryf in which pewter and latten were stored.'' The construction of houses in the region employed local materials and conformed to patterns found elsewhere in late

roofed with reeds. The term 'house' denoted in all occurences the actual building and no evidence of its use for 'hall' was found .

l3 id:484. Barley writes: 'Cellar indicates always a storage room, and the problem is only to distinguish between a cellar at ground level and one below ground.' This problem is certainly beyond the reach of the evidence available to this study. Examples in the wills of Elenore Christmas (Warboys 1548) and Edward Siston (Warboys 1557).

l4 Chamber: ibid.: 484-86. Barley (p. 484) calls this the 'most complex of all those used of parts of the house ....In the south, itpmeant primarily a ground-floor room used for sleeping../ The mention of beds in some of the few specific uses of "chamber' for rooms is consistent with this meaning. Examples in the wills of John Heynes (Ramsey 1558)' William Golere (Upwood 1558), Thomas Bullian (Warboys 1556) . Parlour: ibid.: 496-98. The parlour was initially located at 'the superior end of the hallf and originated in a store room. This transition is perhaps occurring in the will of Joan Ashton who speaks of a 'parlore wher I lye' but mentions it only to locate some pewter and latten standing on a shelf. Examples in the wills of Agnes Pulter and her son Richard (the evidence indicates that they were not living in the same dwelling; both Broughton 1545) , Joan Ashton (~amsey1558) and Alice Mayhewe (Warboys 1558).

l5 The term lentry is not clear but a store room is perhaps indicated. Perhaps the term is a form of 'lean-to' (ibid.: 493- 94)' which denoted a kitchen or buttery in a few Leicestershire and terriers. This meaning is consistent with the gender of the testator. medieval and early modern ~ngland.l6 The interior was also typical of houses in the period, consisting of a hall as the principal room to which were adjoined one or several storage

rooms but no mention of upper stories was found.l7 The displacement of the hall from its place of prominence (it eventually declined to an entry area) by parlour and chamber had begun but the process was still incomplete. The purported investment in house construction during the so-called 'Great Rebuildingf still lay two generations or more in the future for the yeomanry and even a century further for the general population but, as Christopher Dyer has shown, earlier phases of investment in construction had preceded it in the Middle Ages? Dyer identified the medieval East Midlands as an area of less intensive improvement of housing, but his study dealt with the

l6 P. Eden, "Smaller Post-Medieval Houses in Eastern England,I1 ed. L. Munby, East Anglian Studies (Cambridge, 1968) : 71-93, discusses essential house patterns and construction dates in western Cambridgeshire. Broader discussions may be found in M. W. Barley, The English Farmhouse and Cottage (London, 1961), ibid. , lfRuralHousing in England" ed. J. Thirsk, MEW, v. IV: 696-766. A global perspective is found in Braudel, Everyday Life: 266-82.

l7 Compare Hoskins , "Rebuilding: " 133, and Havinden, "Household and Farm In~entories:~~20-21, on upper stories.

l8 W. G. Hoskins ilRebuilding," C. Dyer, "English Peasant Buildings in the Later Middle Ages (1200 - 1500)," ed. C. Dyer, Everyday Life in Medieval England (London, 1994) : 133-65, P. Hughes, I1Property and Prosperity: The Relationship of the Buildings and Fortunes of Worcester, 1500 - 1660,11Midland History 17 (1981): 39-58. 13 3 structure as such and not its interior outlay.19 To date, the investment preferences between construction and renovation in the history of housing have not been considered in detail so that it is possible that the sixteenth century was primarily a phase of interior but not exterior modification.20 The most frequently recorded furnishings of houses were beds and their accessories. They constituted the most complex part of a house's contents and give credence to Shammasr tongue-in-cheek label of the early modern period as an 'Age of the Bed.'" At its simplest, there is only mention of the bed itself, undifferentiated in its components or by its type but, more frequently, wills specify featherbeds and occasionally a testator bequeathed bed and bedstead (i.e., the frame and posts of the

19 Dyer, "Peasant Buildings." Shammas observed that colonial America invested far less into the quality of housing than England though Americans enjoyed better diets. It would be of interest to observe why some regions invested less than others in home improvement. Houses were only willed as a whole (uses in parts of houses still lay in the future) so that different courses of investment may well be hidden in the evidence. On uses in parts of houses: Shammas, Pre-Industrial Consumer: 158- 69.

'O 'O This may be the implication of C. A. Hewett, "The Development of the Post-Medieval House," Post-Medieval Archaeology 7 (1973): 60-78, which notes an innovative change in the arrangement of houses in the period. See also Hoskins, "Rebuilding:" 133-37.

Shammas, Pre-Industrial Consumer: 169. On beds in the sixteenth century see also P. MacQuoid and R. Edwards, The Dictionary of English Furniture, v. I (London, 1954) : 36-40. 134 bed) separately." Although testamentary formula often refered to the 'bed and all things thereto,' bedding was frequently the subject of individual bequests? Sheets made of flax or hemp fibres were by far the most common type of bedding bequeathed." Coverlets were the next most common bedding followed by mattresses, bolsters, pillows and their bears, a quilt and occasional hangings.= Despite the prominence of beds and bedding few specific details on quality, colour and, with the exception of sheets, material were provided.26

" Examples of beds in the wills of John Lambert (Holywell 1528), Thomas Patricke (Great Raveley 1557), Thomas Bullian (Warboys 1556), Edward Siston (Warboys 1557). Isabel1 Harbaghe (Holywell 1551) and Robert Mayhewe (Warboys 1553, willed two featherbeds). An example of separation into bed and bedstead: John Mayhewe (Warboys 1557) .

z3 Quote from Thomas Patricke (Great Raveley 1557) : Huntingdonshire Wills XI. 162.

24 Cuthbert Steven (Holywell 1531) willed seven pairs of sheets and Margaret Hogge (Broughton 1542) ten pairs. Steven willed two pairs of flaxen (linen) and four pair of harden (hemp) sheets and Henry Randall (Warboys 1552) willed each of his four daughters a pair of flaxen and a pair of harden sheets.

25 Examples: Coverlets: John Grene (King's Ripton 15381, John Honyter (Warboys 1541) and Robert Kyng (Holywell 1544). Matresses: Margaret Collyng (Broughton 1546), Harry Randall (Warboys 1552). Bolsters: John Fyley (Holywell 1554) and Richard Chappell (Great Raveley 1556). Pillows: Richard Chappell (Great Raveley 1556) and Edward Siston (Warboys 1557, who bequeathed three pillows and 2 bears). Quilt: Elizabeth Scotte (Broughton 1542). Hangings: John King (Holywell 1556); John Taillard (Upwood 1528) was particularly specific: apart from the hangings it included the spanner which held them and the curtains.

26 The wills of Margaret Bedforth (Warboys 1540) and Margaret Hogge (Broughton 1542) specified the yellow coverlets and Margerie Germyn (KinglsRipton 1551) willed the best bed to her son Benry but the 'worsef bed to her other son Thomas. 135

In an age when thorough heating of homes was still uneven beds were accorded a preferred place in the search for increased comfort. The material importance of beds was probably enhanced because they were often the site of will-making and subsequent death. The personal quality attached to beds is exemplified by

Elenore Christmas (Warboys 1548) who willed the 'fetherbed I lye on w' all thinges thereto belonginger and Thomas Bullian (Warboys

1556) who gave William Mugglington the 'bed in the chamber wh his grandfather dyd lye on.' Harrison singled them out as a mark of the progress made in his day:27

. - . for (said they [old men in his parish] ) our fathers, yea, and we ourselves also, lien full oft on straw pallets, on rough mats covered only wih a sheet, under coverlets made of dagswain and hap-harlots (I use their own terms), and a good round log under their heads instead of a bolster or pillow. If it were so that our fathers or the goodman of the house had within seven years after his marriage purchased a mattress or flock- bed, and thereto a sack of chaff to rest his head upon, he thought himself to be as well lodged as the lord of the town, that peradventure lay seldom in a bed of down or whole feathers, so well were they contented and with such base kind of furniture, which also is not very much amended as yet in some parts of Bedfordshire and elsewhere further off from our southern parts. Pillows (said they) were thought meet only for women in childbed. As for servants, if they had any sheet above them it was well, for seldom had they any under their bodies to keep them from the pricking straws that ran oft through the canvas of the pallet and rased their hardened hides.

27 Harrison, Description: 201. Dagswain and hap-harlot were coarse materials (ibid., chapter XII, n. 15) , a flock-bed 'a mattress stuffed with coarse tufts of wool or cotton (ibid., chapter XII, n. 16) . These terms were not found in the Hurstingstone wills. Changes of this nature probably did not proceed at the same pace in all regions or social strata but these claims to the simple lifestyles of forefathers and even manorial lords in the past stretch credibility. Huntingdonshire lay little 'further off' from Harrison's Essex than Bedfordshire, but by mid-century, if not earlier, a number of its residents had acquired far better beds than those attributed by Harrison's parishioners to their fathers though they must have been the contemporaries of our Hurstingstone testators.28 The bed had acquired a place of significant material and emotional importance in the early modern household and it is perhaps no surprise that in the differentiation of space within the house it was at an early point accorded a separate room.29 After beds the most common furnishings were coffers and chests which functioned as universal storage furniture for clothing, linen and other textiles, household utensils and even doc~ments.~~nfortunatel~,the wills provide no description of their contents and rarely describe the coffers themselves. Differentiation was concerned with location, quality, size, colour and, in one case, material. John Heynes (Ramsey 1558)

28 The comments about the log pillow and Bedfordshire have the quality of tongue-in-cheek jibes and one wonders how serious Harrison and his informants are to be taken.

29 0. Lewis, "The Possessions of the Poor, ed. 0. Lewis, Anthroplogical Essays (New York, 1970) : 441-60, using the example of households in Mexico City, demonstrates that beddings form a prominent item in the possessions of the poor.

30 MacQuoid and Edwards, English Furniture, v. I1 : 7-16. kept a great chest in the hall, a coffer and chest in his chamber, another chest 'of my beddis seate1 and, most notably,

three painted coffers. Alice Mayhewe (Warboys 1558) bequeathed a red chest, John Grene (King's Ripton 1538) two great coffers to his wife and Thomas Aunsell (Upwood 1558) bequeathed a low coffer- Edward Siston (Warboys 1557) considered quality by giving his son Thomas two coffers of the best and another. The leather coffer willed by Thomas Mease (Ramsey 1555) to his servant Thomas Wright is the only case in which the material was given. Siston, Heynes and several other testators had several coffers in their homes and, in some cases, it is apparent that family members used them to keep their belongings apart. Thomas

Pope (Warboys 1556) willed his 'own' best coffer to his son

Robert and John Lambert (Holywell 1538) willed his wife her two coffers. Though chests became increasingly sophisticated in the sixteenth century, drawers and other refinements could not be detected in Hurstingstone document^.^' Tables were willed almost as often as coffers and, if the record of table cloths is included, were as common." The only type of table identified with frequency is the folding table.33 Other designations only occurred once or twice: Agnes Parette willed a standing table (Needingworth 1554), John Fyley (~olywell

and Edwards, Furni ture,

33 Examples in the wills of John Grene (King's Ripton 1538) and Thomas Banaster (Warboys 1554 ) . 138 1554) spoke of a great table in the hall, Robert Mayhewe (Warboys 1553) described the shape of his table as round and John Love, sen. (Holywell 1554) , merely mentioned a table board.34 Some wills indicate ownership of several tables: Thomas Baysley (Wistow 1554) spoke of his best table, Edward Siston (Warboys 1557) willed a table in the cellar and, explicitly, William Yerle (Upwood 1553), John Heynes (Ramsey 1558) and Robert Elington [Warboys 1558) willed two tables each. The record of tables can be extended by considering table and bord cloths willed. These were often willed together with tables but also occur by themselves, indicating the presence of a table.35 Counters were a special type of table with a commercial function and often

34 G. Chaucer, "The Canterbury Tales," ed. A. C. Baugh, Chaucer's Major Poetry (Englewood Cliff s, 1963) : 245, glosses the table dormant of the franklin as follows: 'Its distinctive feature would seem to be that it remained standing, whereas the tables on which people dined consisted of boards on trestles and were removed after meals.' The implication of this piece of furniture is that the franklin's 'hallef was spacious and the table did not conflict with other activities. In the context of the wills the occurence of 'foldingr tables suggests that 'standingf tables may have become common enough to require specification of table type and that the former were probably willed because they were more readily transported.

35 Example of table and table cloth in same will: John Heynes (Ramsey 1558). Examples of table cloths willed separately: Edward Bedf ord (Warboys 1558), Cuthbert Steven (Holywell 153 1) ; Richard Chappell (Great Raveley 1556) and Henry Randall (Warboys 1552) each willed four table cloths. Bord cloths were mentioned in the wills of Margaret Hogge (Broughton 1542), Elene Eton (Abbots Ripton 1538) and John Love, sen. (Holywell 1554) . Three wills also stated materials: Edward Siston (Warboys 1557) owned a harden table cloth, John Love, sen. (Holywell 1554) a flaxen bord cloth and Elizabeth Carter (Abbots Ripton 1537) willed a table cloth of diaper to the parish church of Broughton. 13 9 combined with a chest under the board which could be locked.36 Up to the sixteenth century the top was usually marked with a pattern to facilitate money counting. Along with tables, seating furniture was often willed as a necessary accessory. The two most common types were forms and chairs.37 However, an unusual item, painted bench boards- was found in the will of Thomas Pope (Warboys 1556). Some attention to quality was lavished on chairs as can be seen from the turned chairs and buffet stools.38 By comparison, other types of furniture were infrequent, supporting the notion of sparse interiors in this age.39 Almost all items were storage furniture with the remainder comprised of a few luxury items. The simplest type were the shelves found in

Alice Mayhewers home (Warboys 1558) and in two separate rooms of Joan Ashton' s house (Ramsey 1558) . Shelves were probably found in many houses but, as attached furniture, were not willed

36 MacQuoid and Edwards, English Furniture, v. 11: 146-48. Examples : Thomas Baker (Upwood 1542) , Agnes Penye (Upwood 1558) , John Heynes (Ramsey 1558), Robert Baker (Wistow 1554) and Reginald Hogge (Broughton 1541).

37 MacQuoid and Edwards, English Furniture, v. I : 70-2. Examples of wills with forms: Joan Ashton (Ramsey 1558) and Elizabeth Scotte (Broughton 1542). Examples of wills with chairs: Robert lingt ton (Warboys 1558) and Margaret Hogge (Broughton 1542) .

38 MacQuoid and Edwards, English Furniture, v. I : 122. Buffet = buffed, Le., stuffed chairs. Examples: Joan Ashton, (Ramsey 1558 ) , Robert Elington (Warboys 1558 ) and Robert Mayhewe (Warboys 1553 ) . Turned chairs : Robert Mayhewe (Warboys 1553 ) , John Love, sen., (Holywell 1554).

39 Weatherill, Consumer Behaviour: 6, and Braudel, Everyday Life: 283-5, 306-11. separately. Ashton's will mentions them to locate the pewter and latten she bequeathed. A step more developed were cupboards which in the period usually contained shelves but did not have doors." Aumbries were more sophisticated storage furniture with doors and openings for ~entilation.~'Originally they were used to store left-overs from a feast so they might be given away in charity but in the fifteenth century their use was broadened to storage space for personal belongings much in the same way as cupboards." Luxury furnishings consisted of four chessboards hanging in the hall of John King (Holywell 1557), the painted cloths owned by William Golere (Upwood 1558), Isabel1 Harbaghe

(two cloths, Holywell 155 1) and Margaret Hogge (Broughton 1542 ) and a carpet (probably also a wall-hanging) in the possession of

John Fyley (Holywell 1554) .43 Harrison's claim that widespread ownership of tapestry was a new phenomenon appears credible but

40 MacQuoid and Edwards, English Furniture, v . II : 183 - 88 . Examples: Richard Burnby roughto ton), Elenore Christmas (Warboys), Agnes Penye (Upwood 1558 ) .

4' MacQuoid and Edwards, English Furniture, v. I : 23 -24.

" loc. cit. It appears that aumbries were of ten used to store books but this cannot be discerned in the sources examined. Books were rare in Hurstingstone hundred and the few examples found all relate to parish churches. Aumbries were willed by Elizabeth Carter (Abbots Ripton 1537), Thomas Bullian (Warboys 1557) , Robert Elington (Warboys 1558) , John Heynes and John Denys (both Ramsey 1558) .

43 On game boards: MacQuoid and Edwards, English Furniture, v. I: 25-26. In 1518 the Ramsey court fined 'Nicholas Eton and John Metcalf ...for keeping gaming-boards.' On hangings: MacQuoid and Edwards, English Furniture, v. 11: 253-58, Spufford, Reclothing: 114, Weatherill, Consumer Behaviour: 7. must be treated with caution because there may have been a reluctance to will hangings separately from the walls to which they were attached." The essential nature of most furniture by association with sleep, food and storage combined with the near absence of decorative pieces is striking to the modern observer. Basic cooking utensils such as pots, pans and kettles were owned by many, if not all, households." Distinctions were mostly made on the basis of quality and size. Cuthbert Steven (Holywell

1531) described one of his three pans as the best and bequeathed to his daughter her mother's best pan, Margerie Germyn (King's

Ripton 1551) willed a best pot and her two best pans and William Yerle (Upwood 1553) willed the two best kettles. Richard

Chappell (Great Raveley 1556) owned a big and a little kettle and two more of presumably intermediate size, John Heynes (Ramsey

1558) a pot of three gallons and another of one and a half gallons, Robert Kyng (Holywell 1544) a pan of four gallons and another of two quarts and Joan Ashton (Ramsey 1558) a kettle of three gallons and a pan of a gallon. Occasionally, pans for frying were ~pecified.~'Other cooking gear mentioned in wills are spits, the cob-irons which held the spit in place, posnets, podgers, a 'girdiron' (sic, also Robert will), a pair

44 Harrison, Description: 202.

45 J. S . Lindsay, Iron and Brass Imp1 emen ts of the English House (London, 1927): 49-97, has helpful illustrations of objects.

46 Examples : Margaret Hogge (Broughton 1542) and John Grene (King's Ripton 1538) . cauldrons, a 'great ironr and a ~annekin.~'The skimmer willed by Michael Ebott (Upwood 1558) was probably used for dairying. Table ware can also be found in fair numbers. Most frequent were basic platters.48 Other items were masers (a type of drinking vessel), saucers (then still a container for sauces) and a bowl.4g Salts, large containers for salt, possessed considerable display value and were usually positioned at the head of the table where proximity in the seating denoted respect and status.50 ~ohnTaillard (Upwood 1528), a commissioner of the king who participated in the subsidy assessments of the 1520's and one of the few persons described as a gentleman, willed a

47 Some examples of wills with utensils: spits: Thomas Baysley (Wistow 1544) and John King (Holywell 1557) ; cobirons: John Lambert (Holywell 1537) and William Scotte (Needingworth 1552) ; posnets (=pot, vase, cup) : Margaret Colly~lg (Broughton 1546) and John Grene (King's Ripton 1538) ; podgers (various tools having the form of a short bar) and girdiron: Robert Kpg (Holywell 1544); cauldrons : John Heynes (Ramsey 1558) ; 'great iron:' Joan Ashton (Ramsey 1558) ; and pannekin (=cup): ~ichael Ebott (Upwood 1558) .

48 Examples: Elenore Christmas (Warboys 1548) and Richard Chappell (Great Raveley 1556). 49 Useful descriptions of the functions of these objects can be found in E. Wenhaus, Domestic Silver of Great Britain and Ireland (New York, 1931) and superb illustrations in E. M. Alcom, English Silver in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. I. Silver before 1697 (Boston, 1993) . Examples in wills : masers (compare Wenhaus, Domestic Silver: 49-54): John Taillard (Upwood 1528) and William Ivgyn (Needingworth 1546); saucers (compare ibid. : 57-9): Margaret Collyng (Broughton 1546) and Robert Elington (Warboys 1558); bowl (ibid.: 49-54): Isabel1 Harbaghe (Holywell 1551).

Wenhaus, Domestic Silver: 42-46. The honorific nature of salts is best illustrated by the expression that 'someone is below the saltr to denote a person seated down the table, i. e., in an inferior position to the host and honoured guests and household members. 143 'salter with its cover. A salt-celler, a less prestigious salt container, is found in the will of Edward Siston (1557).'' The will of John Grene (Kingfs Ripton 1538) contains a great tub and three drinking tubs. The principal purpose of basins and lavers was to permit diners to clean their hands.52 They became obsolete with the widespread adoption of forks as table ware in the next century." Cuthbert Steven willed three sets of basins and lavers

(Holywell 1531), Elizabeth Scotte (Broughton 1542) specified a washing laver and willed the basin together with its table, John

Fyley (Holywell 1554) willed a basin and an ewer but Margaret

Hogge (Broughton 1542) merely passed on a great basin and William Yerle (Upwood 1553) a laver alone. The materials of the implements discussed are unknown though one suspects that iron was used for pots and pans, wood for platters but pewter, brass

51 ibid. : 42-46.

52 ibid. : 46-48. " Closely related to washing at the table is the presence of towels for drying hands. D. M. Mitchell, "'By Your Leave my Mastersf: British Taste in Table Linen in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, " Textile History 20 (1989) : 49-77, describes the formal dining ceremony and notes that it changed little within his study period (pp. 53-57). Examples: Margaret Collyng (Broughton 1546) , Edward Bedford (Warboys 1558) and Henry Randall (Warboys 1552). Katherine Grene (Abbots Ripton 1533) gave an altar cloth and a towel of diaper (a type of linen used mostly for household purposes) to her parish church. Diaper was also owned by Margaret Bedforth (Warboys 1539) and Isabelle Harbaghe (Holywell 1551). On diaper: C. Willett and P. Cunnington, Handbook of English Costume in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1954) : 1%. Mitchell, "By Your leave: 69-71, describes the acceptance of diaper in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and the emerging differentiation of damask in the record after 1520. and rarely silver ware may have also been permanent among them.54 However, since items made of these materials were frequently specified, baser materials are implied. Brass occurs with considerable frequency and was used for pots, pans, basins and candlesticks." Pots were the most common object made of brass, followed by pans. Most distinctions made were not specific and concerned size: Isabel1 Harbaghe (Holywell 1551), Edward Siston (Warboys 1557), William Scotte (Needingworth 1552) and others willed great brass pots, Robert Fabysox (King's Ripton 1507) even spoke of the greatest pot, Thomas Bullian (Warboys 1557) had a middle pot and Thomas Baysley (Wistow 1554)

willed a small pot but only John Grene (King's Ripton 1538) provided the specific pot dimension of three gallons. Other differences concerned quality: James Wynwicke (Abbots Ripton

Raveley 1557) each willed their best brass pot and John Mayhewe (Warboys 1557) ranked the pot bequeathed by him as his third. A particularly elaborate piece seems to have been in the possession

" Tinplate, earthenware, china and glass were not yet common. Shammas, Pre-Industrial Consumer: 172, and J. Hatcher and F. C. Barker, A History of British Pewter (London, 1974) : 81- 141, but especially 132-38. Harrison claims that the replacement of treen (wood) by metal as the most important table ware occurred within living memory. Harrison, Description: 201-02.

55 The terms brass and latten refer to alloys of copper tin or zinc and occasionally other combinations. The discussion follows the trerminolgy in the documents but a precise determination cannot be made. See "Brass" and "Latten" Oxford English Dictionary 2nd ed. (1989). I am grateful to Dr. Bert Hall for drawing my attention to this problem. 145 of John Taillard (Upwood 1528) who bequeathed 'oone greate brasse potte with large feyte.' Brass pans which were also ranked by size and quality. Rose Wilson (Upwood 1534), Isabel1 Harbaghe (Holywell) and others each willed a great pan and Thomas Baysley (Wistow) willed a great and a little pan. Thomas Pope (Warboys) and Robert Elington (Warboys 1558) each willed their best pan, Margaret Crouche (Abbots Ripton 1503) willed the brass pan 'next the bestr and John Mayhewe (Warboys 1557) bequeathed the pan he ranked as his second. Basins occur only in the wills of Robert Elington (Warboys 1558), John Heynes (Ramsey 1558) and Edward Siston (Warboys 1557), who willed two of his best. Latten, an alloy similar to brass, is comparatively uncommon and only found in a few unspecified objects owned by Alice Mayhewe (Warboys 1558), a candlestick willed by Robert Pickard (Ramsey 1555) and another which Robert Wynwike (Abbots Ripton 1532) instructed to be purchased with money he donated to the parish church. The material of other candlesticks was usually not ~pecified.'~ Styles are indicated by the bell candlesticks in the wills of Richard Chappell (Great Raveley 1556) and Margaret Bedforth (Warboys 1539) but the stylistic elaboration of candlesticks in later periods is not yet evident.

" Examples : Roger Aspelonde (Holywell 153 2 ) and Thomas Stewkys (Abbots Ripton 1536). Usually only one candlestick was willed but Elene Eton (Abbots Ripton 1538) owned three and Elizabeth Carter (Abbots Ripton 1537) two. Elizabeth Scotte (Broughton 1542) willed a little and a best candlestick while Margaret Hogge (Broughton 1542) willed a great candlestick. Pewter was a popular material for table ware. It was eventually replaced by china, pottery and silver later in the sixteenth century but in the study period its major competitor was wood. Greater numbers of pewter pieces were cited than of any other metal: John Grene (King's Ripton 1538) willed two dozen pieces of unspecified pewter and Elene Butcher (Raveley 1554) willed a dozen pieces. Joan Ashton (Ramsey 1558) bequeathed three platters and three dishes to each of three heirs and Edward

Siston (Warboys 1557) willed ten platters and eight dishes." The diversity of pewter is evident from a charger (Elene Eton, Abbots

Ripton), a saucer (John Heynes, Ramsey 1558) and a set composed of a 'garnesse [garnishs8]' of new pewter consisting of a vessel with a charger and 'other things thereto belongingf (Agnes

Rowley, Broughton 1528). It appears likely that most unspecified pewter was comprised of platters and dishes.s9 Harrison reported the increase in the quantity of pewter as one of the 'three things to be marvellously altered in England within ...sound rernembran~e'.~~In the past 'a man should hardly find four pieces of pewter (of which one was peradventure a salt) in a good

j7 See R. Brownsword and E. E. H. Pitt, "Some Examples of Medieval Domestic Pewter Flatwaret1IMedieval Archaeology 29 (1985): 152-53, for illustrations of tableware.

58 Harrison, Description: 202.

s9 Yet, there are other possibilities such as the pewter spoons described on pp. 37-38 in S. Moorhouse, I1Finds from Basing House, (c. 1540 - 1645) : Part Two, Post-Medieval Archaeology 5 (1971): 35-76.

Harrison, Description: 200. 147

farmer's house ...I whereas the wills examined here indicate that its rarity was not quite as great as he suggest^.^' The degree of wealth attained by some households is best attested by the presence of precious metal (other than coins) and jewellery in a handful of wills. With respect to silver and gold Harrison's claims to its former scarcity stand on more solid ground.62 The most common objects made of silver were spoons of which Robert Rowley (Needingworth 1558) willed sixteen but Robert Qwytkake

(Little Raveley 1539) and John King (Holywell 1557) each only bequeathed one.63 John Fyley (Holywell 1554) bequeathed a particularly distinctive piece described as a silver spoon with a 'knoppel." Other silver consisted mostly of table ware: a goblet and a standing cup of silver and gilt, both with their covers, willed by Agnes Rowley (Broughton 1528), a 'salterr owned by Robert Nelson (Ramsey 1555), two girdles, one with a silver buckle and pendant and the other with silver bars, passed on by Elizabeth Scotte (Broughton 1542) and some unspecified silver in

Shammas, Pre-Industrial Consumer: 130-32, came to a similar conclusion. On the other hand Hatcher and Barker, Pewter: 81-141, speak of a tremendous expansion of the pewter industry though detect a slow-down c. 1550-1650.

" Harrison, Description: 202.

63 Others who willed spoons were John Taillard (Upwood 1528, nine silver spoons to be sold for the benefit of his soul), William Ivgyn (Needingworth 1546, six spoons), Robert Nelson (Ramsey 1555, thirteen spoons) and Simon King (Holywell 1545, four spoons ) . " Wenhaus, Domestic Silver: 37-40. Knops were the major form of spoon ornamentation in the sixteenth century. the will of Robert Rowley (Needing-worth 1558). What little gold there was consisted of two rings owned by Agnes Rowley and unspecified gold owned by Robert RowLey. The material of a

wedding ring owned by Joan Ashton (Ramsey 1558) is unknown. Other jewellery usually consisted of beads? The beads of Agnes Rowley were made of amber and those of Elizabeth Scotte of black 'jette.' ~arrison's assertions of scarcity of silver in the early sixteenth century appear credible when one considers, for example, the high price of silver: one ounce could cost as much as six pounds of pewter? Yet, those instances which were found attest to a segment of society which had acquired the wealth to afford costly display pieces. Clothing formed one of the most important categories of consumer goods in the wills? Since men predominated as testators most items observed belonged to their wardrobe? The lower layer of men's clothing consisted of a shirt or petticoat,

65 Joan Purquis (Broughton 1557) , John Gyllot (Needingworth 1546) , Agnes Barnwell (Abbots Ripton 1539) . Hatcher and Barker, Pewter: 107-08, Harrison, Description: 201-02.

67 The following section on costume is heavily indebted to Willett and Cunnington, Handbook of English Costume. An important indicator of the importance of clothing in medival perception see the anonymous poem Cleanness: A. C. Cawley and J. J. Anderson, ed. , Pearl, Cleanness, Patience, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (London, 1976), 1.29-38: Forthy hyy not to heven in hateres totornel/ Ne in harlates hod, and handes unwaschen-/ For what urthly hathel that hygh honour haldes/ Wolde lyke if a ladde corn lytherly attyred,/ Whan he were sette solernpnely in a sete ryche,/ Above dukes on dece, with dayntes served?

68 ibid. : 17-52, 87-148. 14 9 neither of which appear in the documents examined before the 1550's and then only infrequently." The doublet, always worn over a shirt or petticoat, was a more conspicuous item of the wardrobe and can be found as early as Cuthbert Steven's will of

1531 (Holywell).70 Quality differences were indicated by Robert

Wynwicke (Abbots Ripton 1532), who referred to his best and a worse doublet, and William Stockley (Great Raveley 1551), who willed 'the cursere of the two best.' The next layer of clothing consisted of jackets, jerkins and coats." These terms were virtual synonyms though the coat seems to have been somewhat more loose fitting and comfortable. Coats are the most frequently mentioned male garment and occurred first in the will of Robert Wynwike in 1532 (Abbots Ripton, owned two) and are subsequently mentioned in twenty-two more wills. Quality differences are

indicated among others by Peter Colin (Needingworth 1557) who referred to his best, second and third coat. The outermost layer

69 ibid.: 17-18, 26, 99, 101. Shirts: Richard Chappell (Great Raveley 1556), Joan Purquis (Broughton 1557) and Richard Abbott (Wennington 1557) . Johl Palgrave (Needingworth 1558 ) willed a red and a white petticoat while other petticoats occurred in the wills of Chappell and Margaret Collynge (Broughton 1546) . ibid.: 17-19, 88-94. ibid.: 23-26, 94-99; on coats: ibid.: 31-32, 109-10. Jackets were owned by John Fyley (Holywell 15541, Thomas Pope (Warboys 1556), William Scotte (Needingworth 1552) and a few others but only John King (Houghton 1557) used the term jerkin to describe a garment. of garments was made up of gowns." The attitude towards this garment is indicated by Thomas Pope (Warboys 1556) who willed his finest gown and by silk, velvet and fur found on other gowns. In comparison to bodice garments, other clothing is not as evident in the wills. During the study period, sleeves could be detached on most male garments except shirts and petticoat^.^) The sleeves themselves were only mentioned in the wills of John Heynes (Ramsey 1558)and Thomas Pope (Warboys 1556) while references to so-called wings, which were used to cover the area where sleeves were fastened, could not be found. Head wear was

limited to a cap owned by William Barige (Upwood 15541, another willed by Joan Purquis of (Broughton 1557) and a hat owned by George Harper (Upwood 1558) ." The only leg wear specified are hose. Foot wear is even less well represented with only two references to boots and one to shoes." No gloves were willed

72 ibid.: 26-30. Examples: John Pulter (Broughton 15571, Margaret Collynge (Broughton 1546), Reginald Hogge (Broughton 1541), Thomas Pope (Warboys 1556) and John Fyley (Holywell 1554).

73 ibid.: 19-23, 91-93. Two doublets (Thomas Pope, Warboys 1556; John Heynes, Ramsey 1558), two jackets (Thomas Bullian, Warboys 1557; John Heynes, Ramsey 1558) and several coats (Robert Wynwike, Abbots Ripton 1532; William Stockley, Great Raveley 1551; Richard Wilson, Great Raveley 1557, and others) were described as sleeveless.

74 ibid.: 40-7, 131-41.

75 Hoses: ibid.: 32-37, 114-21. Examples: Thomas Bullian (Warboys 1557) , William Scotte (Needingworth 1552) , Robert Wynwike (Abbots Ripton 1532). Foot wear: ibid.: 38-39, 127-31. Boots occur in the wills of Richard Chappell (Great Raveley 1556) while John Dawes (Bury 1555) willed both a pair of boots and of shoes. though John Ematson (Somersham 1556) described himself as a glover in his will. Finally, an unusual bequest is the girdle with silver bars which Elizabeth Scotte (1542) gave to a male heir .76 Though girdles were worn by either gender, the value of the silver rather than the garment itself may have played a greater role in deciding who would receive it. Women's wardrobes appear as diversified as men's. n According to Willett and Cunnington, the lower layer of women's clothing was the chemise but no occurrences of this word were found.78 Perhaps the 'best' shirt with four 'tayshills [tassels] ' willed by Robert King of Holywell to a female heir was an equivalent. Another equivalent may have been the waistcoats and petticoats appearing in a number of wills.79 The kirtle which consisted of a sleeved bodice and skirt, was the most essential piece of female clothing in this period and made up the next layersg Not surprisingly, it can be found in most women's wills mentioning ~lothing.~'The gown was worn over the kirtle and of

76 ibid.: 50, 145.

ibid.: 53-86, 149-89.

'' ibid. : 59-68.

79 ibid. : 171. Examples : eg., Rose Wilson (Upwood 1534) , Anne Pottner (Raveley 15411, Alice Foley (Abbots Ripton 1545).

81 Examples: Agnes Parette (Needingworth 1540), Isabelle Harbaghe (Holywell 1551) , Marion Hunt (Ramsey 1557) . 152 virtually equal irnportan~e.~~Elene Eton (Abbots Ripton 1538) and Margaret Collynge (Broughton 1546) owned capes, a wrap-around garment, and a cloak, essentially a large cape, appeared in the will of Isabelle Harbaghe (Holywell 1551) .83 Womenfs coats appeared in the wills of Anna Potter and Margaret Collynge but the nature of this garment has not been clarified.@ Accessories consisted of aprons, kerchiefs, rails, girdles, hats, caps and hose. Before the late sixteenth century aprons were domestic and work attire? Only one, the best, was found in the will of Anne Pottner (Raveley 1541). Kerchief and rails, cloths worn around the neck, were by far the most common and occurred in the wills of Alice Folbye, Joan Purquis, Joan Corbyt

(Ramsey 1556) and others .86 Though girdles appear to have been a common accessory in the period they occurred in only a few wills." While they may have been willed as part of particular outfits in most cases, their potential elaboration is amply demonstrated by the two girdles with silver ornaments found in Elizabeth Scotte's will and Agnes Pulter's insistence that her

82 ibid. : 53-59. Examples : Joan Purquis (Broughton 1557) , Alice Foley (Abbots Ripton 1545), Elenore Christmas (Warboys 1548) .

ibid. :

ibid.

85 ibid. : 86, 182.

86 ibid. : 66-68, 185.

87 ibid.: 66, 185. Agnes Barnwell (Abbots Ripton 1539), Joan Purquis (Broughton 1557) , Alice Mayhewe (Warboys 1558) . daughter Joan could only sell her girdle to a brother so it would remain 'in stock.' Hats and caps were willed by Joan Purquis, Alice Mayhewe (Warboys 1558) and Elizabeth, the wife of John

Thresher, sen. (Ramsey 1555), a cap alone by Margaret Crouche

(Abbots Ripton 1503 ) ." The hose, an undergarment, was only found in the will of Joan Corbyt (Ramsey 1558) .89 The same will also provided the only reference to detached sleeves. The garments listed were typical components of male and female wardrobes in the first half of the sixteenth century and demonstrate that the rural population of Hurstingstone satisfied their clothing requirements in fairly conventional ways. Descriptions of the tailoring were not provided, though notable exceptions were the red kirtle of Marion Hunt (Rarnsey 1557) -- 'overbodied (elthe upper or bodice component)' with tawny chamlet -- and the lining of several gowns, in particular John Fyleyfs short gown lined with silk chamlet. Unfortunately, the many forms of slashing and pinking and the state of sleeves and necklines, which were particularly subject to changing fashion, were never stated but, fortunately, a few general indicators to the reception of fashions in Eurstingstone can be found? A conservati-~eresponse to fashions is exemplified by the retention of gowns, which were supplanted by the cloak as the major outer

" ibid. : 77-80, 173-76.

89 No reference in Willet and Cunnington, Handbook of English Costume, to 'hosef worn by women.

9o ibid. : passim, but especially 13-23. garment for men after 1545, but continued in the wills until the end of the study period.gL The only exception is a cloak in the will of the labourer John Dawes of Bury (1555). A more receptive response may be ascertained in the early appearance of sleeveless garments in local wills during the 1530's and the presence of a collar-maker in Ramsey during the 1550's -- detachable sleeves only became common after 1545 and collars only after 1540." A third example are knitted sleeves and hosery in the will of Joan corbyt (Ramsey 1558). Knitting was only established in England in the second half of the sixteenth century although the nobility had been wearing imported items for almost a century earlier.93 However, it is noticeable that receptiveness was mostly restricted to small and presumably less expensive items (sleeves, hose and collars) rather than large and expensive items (cloaks). Materials were frequently ~pecified.'~Wool was mentioned as

'' ibid. : 26-30.

97- Sleeves: ibid.: 19-21. Collars: ibid.: 17-19.

93 Willet and Cunnington, Handbook of English Costume: 87-88, I. Turnau, "The History of Peasant Knitting," Textile History 17 (1986): 167-80. Knitting seems to have arrived in England and Scandinavia from Central Europe in the sixteenth century.

" The definitions used in this note are based on ibid.: 190- 205. Materials. A. Men: 1. Doublets: buckskin (Thomas Banaster, Warboys 1554), worsted (Richard Chappell, Great Raveley 1556; George Harper, Upwood 1558; John Thresher, sen. , Ramsey 1555) , chamlet (Thomas Pope, Warboys 1556), cloth (Robert Wynwike, Abbots Ripton 1532) and fustian (John Heynes, Ramsey 1558). 2. Jackets and jerkins: chamlet (John Pulter, Broughton 1557; Thomas Pope, Warboys 1556; Joan Purquis, Broughton 1557), cloth (John King, Houghton, 1557) and russet (John Inglishe, Needingworth 1557; William Golere, Upwood 1558). 3. Coats: frieze, russet (both William Barige, Upwood 1554), leather, wool (both Richard the material of women's gowns and coats. Russet, a coarse woollen homespun material, was used for jackets, coats, kirtles and women's gowns in Hurstingstone while frieze, another coarse woolen cloth, was found in coats. Cloth, made of wool and tightly regulated, was used for doublets. Worsted, another wool fabric, was found in doublets, sleeves and kirtles. Unspecified linen was used for some clothing. Fustian, a better but variable fabric made of flax and mixed either with wool or cotton, was used for doublets and kirtles. Leather and buckskin was used for doublets and coats. Chamlet, a material of high quality and made of mohair admixed with other textiles, could be found in doublets, jackets, kirtles and the lining of men's gowns. The other textile component can be identified is a gown lining of silk chamlet. Silk was an expensive import in this period and was only used by itself for particularly conspicuous pieces such as women's hatsag5 Similarly, velvet and fur were only observed nbbott, Wennington 1557) and buckskin (John Robyn, Warboys 1557). 4. Sleeves: worsted (Thomas Pope, Warboys 1556; John Heynes, Ramsey 1558). 5. Hose: kersey (Robert Wynwike, Abbots Ripton 1532). 6. Gown linings: unlined, silk chamlet (both John Fyley, Holywell 1554), B. Women: 1. Kirtles: worsted (Agnes Rowley, Broughton 1528), russet (Rose Wilson, Upwood 1534; Isabelle Harbaghe, Holywell 1551).. . overbodied chamlet (Marion Hunt, Ramsey 15571, fustian (Margaret Hogge, Broughton 1542). 2. Hats: silk (Joan Purquis, Broughton 1557; Alice Mayhewe, Warboys 1558). 3. 'Wearing gear': linen (Agnes, wife of Edward Siston, Warboys 1557). 4. Gowns: wool (Elizabeth, wife of John Thresher, sen., Ramsey 1555) , russet (Margaret Crouche, Abbots Ripton 1503), velvet lining, 'furredr (Agnes Rowley, Broughton 1528). 5. Hose: knit (Joan Corbyt , Ramsey 1558) . 6. Sleeves : knit (Joan Corbyt , Ramsey 1558).

95 Thirsk, Projects and Policy: 120-22. on gown linings. There is considerable evidence of the use of coarse material but the discriminating consumer in Hurstingstone had developed a taste for more refined materials and even expensive imports. The evidence for an appreciation of fashions is thinner than for an appreciation of quality. Several problems are encountered in considering the production and acquisition of consumer goods. First, the three categories identified by Shammas -- perishable, semi-durable and du-rable goods -- are represented unevenly and attest to considerable pre-selection of goods beq~eathed.~~The uneven chronological and social distribution of consumer goods poses a further problem. Most bequests of consumer goods stem from the 1540's and 1550's. In a sense, this pattern fits with the increased ownership of consumer goods described by Harrison and the consensus among historians which assumes an increase in quantities of goods owned and widening social distribution during the following centuries. However, during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries wills were becoming increasingly more popular in the archdeaconry of Huntingdon and elsewhere in England so that growing familiarity led to extensive elaboration within the basic format? The increased presence of consumer goods is as likely to reflect changes in document style as in

96 Shammas, Pre-Industrial Consumer: 76-7, 111-12. Perishable goods: foodstuffs and beverages; semi-durable goods: textiles and leather; durable goods: mostly metal and housing. See also Mary Prior, "Wives and Wills:" 218-19. material culture itself and may represent an increased diversion of possessions from non-testamentary to testamentary transfers. A similar problem underlies the question of social distribution-

It is not surprising that John Taillard (Upwood 1528), a gentleman, bequeathed a number of goods but the bequest of a rather novel article in men's fashions, a cloak, by John Dawes

(Bury 15551, a labourer, should give reason to pause. Dawes was better off than many other labourers but he is indicative of a willingness and ability of society at large to participate in consurnpti~n.~~Given the idiosyncracies of the will-making process, the record of consumer goods in wills is less systematic than that of probate inventories and should be considered as no more than the tip of the iceberg from which a much greater real presence needs to be extrapolated. Hurstingstone's assortment of consumer goods depended upon a mixture of home production, acquisition in local markets and imports from further afield which defy neat separation. Home production in textiles is evident in bequests of spinning wheels and untailored fabric but a demand for finished clothing supported the local presence of specialised textile trades in the hundred. Furniture making depended on a similar mixture of domestic and commercial production as Edward Siston (Warboys

1557) demonstrated when he required his son to make his daughter a cupboard 'or elles to bye her one.' Joan Ashton (Ramsey 1558)

98 On Dawes see Appendix IV. 158 bequeathed a plank from which a table was to be made but turned chairs and buffet stools in other wills indicate that services of skilled craftsmen were employed. The availability of pewter, brass and other metal wares simply transcended the ability of home production to satisfy demand since they required skilled labour and purchases of raw materials if not finished products. Thus, pewtering relied heavily on the tin mines of Cornwall and Devon for raw materials though they could be supplemented from the Continent and by melting down old pewter." Manufacture in this industry was heavily concentrated in London and Wigan, , but provincial pewterers were found in many towns.'" The means by which demand was satisfied were flexible and, as Shammas has demonstrated, the production of goods for a household could involve steps in any of the three categories.lo1 Not all consumer goods were new products when they first came into the hands of a testator. Spufford's evidence indicates a brisk trade in used articles in the seventeenth century and there is no reason, except for a lack of direct evidence, to assume that a similar market did not exist in the sixteenth

99 Hatcher and Baker, British Pewter: 228-51.

lOo No evidence of pewterers in Hurstingstone was found during the study period but at least one pewterer was present in Godmanchester in 1538 and two in St. Ives during the late seventeenth century. Raftis, ETG: 75, Hatcher and Baker, British Pewter: 251-63.

lo' Shammas, Pre-Industrial Consumer: 20 -40 . century.'" We have seen goods pass from one generation to another and, potentially, they did not represent the immediate accumulation of wealth by a testator in his life-time. The nature of the wills themselves strongly suggests this as made

explicit in the will of Thomas Bullian (Warboys 1556), who bequeathed to Thomas Mugglington the bed of his grandfather. Occasionally, a distinction between old and new is made in bequests but such instances were the exception. Thomas Bullian

(Warboys 1557) willed an old dublet and an old blue jacket while

Roger Aspelonde (Holywell 1532) willed a new pot. Agnes Pulter was even able to recall the price of some items she willed: a pan was valued at 2s 8d. Still, at a minimum, it is at least possible to state that a family's economic circumstances were sufficient to permit it to retain heirlooms. A discussion of pious and charitable donations after a discussion of consumer goods may surprise but this link has respectable precursors in historiography which assume that the demands of the Church diverted considerable surplus from other purposes, be they capital formation, public needs or consumption.

W. G. Hoskins describing the state of England in 1500 expresses this bluntly: "' Such surplus money as accrued was lavished in nearly every parish on the church: on its rebuilding and repair, or on costly plate, or the coloured images of saints, or rows of vividly coloured windows, or painted

'" Spuf ford, Reclo thing: passim.

lo3 Hoskins, Age of Pl~zder:2. rood-screens. All the colour of life lay in the church, not in the home. Monasteries still towered over and ruled many towns, or lay quietly buried in the deep green countryside ...until Henry's commissioners sought them out however remote, and interrogated them a generation later. The chronology of bequests in consumer goods delineated above could be interpreted as bearing out Hoskins' statement. Few wills with substantial bequests of consumer goods appeared before the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1536-39 (which also swept away the most powerful manorial lord in Hurstingstone hundred, Ramsey abbey) but beginning in the 1540's the number increased rapidly. The other side of this coin is an examination of the record of pious and charitable donations in willdo4 The churchwardens accounts leave little doubt that larger sums were dispensed by parish churches than received from testamentary donations. Such sources could be revenues from property and livestock willed, from church ales and similar events, from donations made on other occasions and subscriptions. In the period before the Dissolution, prominent recipients were the high altar, church lights (especially the sepulchre light), images of saints, the building and bells of the parish church itself and the 'mother church8 in Lincoln. On a more personal note many testators bequeathed money or goods to be distributed on their burial days (i.e., the day of the burial itself and the seventh and thirtieth

'" Duf fy, Stripping of the A1 tars: 504-24. 161 day after) for obits, masses and 'dirging.105'So-calledsecular concerns were the causeways which connected villages across the fen and gifts to the poor. Usually bequests to the parish church or its components amounted to little more than a few pence and rarely exceeded a shilling. The 'mother churchf of Lincoln received particularly low sums of no more than 4d. Bequests in the personal category were somewhat larger and could amount to a few shillings but they were also less frequent. The causeways, bridges and roads, which appeared on a comparatively irregular basis since the 1540fs,were subject to quite variable bequests while the poor only became the subject of donations during the Reformation due to the sweeping institutional changes of the period which saw the elimination of the guilds, traditional providers of charity, and legal requirements for the poor box and donat ions to the poor. lo' The high altar of the parish church, a cause with a long history and one of the most persistent recipients of donations in the study period, can stand as an illustrative example for pious

loS Duf fy, Stripping of the A1 tars: 368 -76, discusses prayers and supplication in the context of a chapter on Purgatory (pp. 338-68), the role of the mass in lay piety on pp. 91-130.

lo6 Duffy, Stripping of Altars: 362-66, 453, 504-11, discusses bequests to the poor extensively and notes that they were one of the few subjects of pious donations which the Tudor Reformation not only did not contest but even encouraged. Duffy discusses highways and bridges on pp. 367-68, guilds on pp. 141- 54. The presence of guilds in the documents of Hurstingstone is low. donations (Table IV.1) .l" Frequently, the testator specified that the donation was for tithes and offerings 'negligently' forgotten. Thus, up to the end of Henry VIII's reign in 1547

money was given to the high altar in 88% of all wills to atone for lapses in tithing but disappeared entirely during the reig-n

of Edward VI (1547 - 1553) as a consequence of his attack on the

altars in 1550.1°8 The churchwardens account of Holywell recorded in 1551 that its altars were taken down and a table set up.lo9 In Henryfs last year, under his son and even under Mary a few wills appeared which used other means to repay for incorrect tithing.

John Scotte (Holywell 1556) stated: \I bequeth to the blissde sacramente for tithes forgottine vjd.' Others contributed to the priest's wages or simply stated the purpose without naming a recipient.lI0 When Mary came to power, altars were set up again,

lQ7 Duffy, Stripping of the Altars: 356-57. An illustrative example of the history of this practice is provided ir, P. G. Schmidt, ed. , Visio Thurkili relatore, ut videtvr, Radvlpho de Coggeshall. Bibliotheca Tevbneriana (Leipzig, 1978) : 11-12. In a vision on All Hallows' Day in 1206, the Essex peasant Thurkill was confronted with the fate of those who cheated in tithing and were forced to inhale noxious fumes in Hell. Thurkill himself did not prove immune because he, too, had cheated and his guide in the Other World, St. Julian, explained that not only did he risk torments in the Afterlife but that even in his present life poverty resulted from dishonesty. This vision is particularly interesting because it contains an early description of Purgatory in an as yet disjointed form and links religion and economy in a very immediate form.

lo* Duff y, The Stripping of the Al tars : 472 .

log Holywell CWA, £0. 5d. Donations to priest: John Aperley (Little Raveley 1548), Isabelle Harbaghe (Holywell 1551), William Freman (Holywell 1554). Donations for tithes without recipient: George Dyme in Ramsey already in 1553 but in Holywell only in 1556.l" The recovery in donations was incomplete under Mary and in the first year of Elizabeth (1553 - 1558) only 49% of wills gave donations to the high altar. The pattern of strong support up to the final years of Henry VIII, a strong disruption under Edward VI and no more than a partial recovery under Mary was typical for all pious donations of the period.li2 Donations for the new steeple of the parish church of Holywell St. John Baptist are instructive because it received rather large donations at a date when the Reformation was in full swing.ll3 In the years 1508 - 1542 some thirteen wills of

(Warboys 1550) , William Scotte (Needingworth 1552) , Robert Nelson (Ramsey 1555) . B . Kiimin, "Parish finance and the early Tudor clergy, ed. A. Pettegree, The Reformation of the Parishes: The Ministry and the Reformation in Towns and Country (Manchester, 1993): 43-62, observes that expenditures to support the clergy increased in this period.

Holywell CWA, £0. 8v; Ramsey CWA, £0. 18v. Duffy, Stripping of the Altars: 556-57, on the temporary Marian restoration of altars. A. G. Dickens, "The Early Expansion of Protestantism in England, 1520 - 1558,11 Archiv fur Refomationsgeschichte (1987): 187-222, Duffy, Stripping of the Altars: 504-23. The evidence viewed for this study conforms strongly with revisionist views of the Reformation as formulated by Duffy in the works cited, Haigh, The Reformation Revised, passim, J. Scarisbrick, The Refomation and the English People (Oxford, 1984) , R. Whiting, The Blind Devotion of the Common People: Popular Religion and the English Refomation (Cambridge, 1989), ibid., 'l'For the Health of My Soulf: Prayers for the Dead in the Tudor South-West," Southern History 5 (1983): 68-94, and M. Bowker, The Henrician Reformation: The under John Longland, 1521 - 1547 (Cambridge, 1981) .

'I3 Duffy, Stripping of the Altars: 131-32, notes that the 150 years before the Reformation saw a tremendous burst in parochial construction which may have affected as many as two 164 Holywell and Needingworth testators were recorded but, despite many gifts to the church and the chapel in Needingworth, the steeple was not mentioned. Apparently, resolve to build a new one was growing by 1544 because Robert Kyng of Holywell bequeathed 'to the makinge of the steple of Haliwell yf they goo abowte it vjs viijd.' Uncertainty continued to be expressed by several testators: William Ivgyn of Needingworth (1546) willed 'to the making of the steple of Haliwell yf they goo abowght it wLin the space of thre yeres xls orells nat.'14' Altogether, eight of eleven testators in the years 1544 - 1546 contributed to the steeple a combined sum of £4 3s 10d and ten quarters of malt. In

1547 the churchwardens accounts of Holywell recorded extensive construction work beginning with digging for the foundation^."^ The churchwardens accounts recorded a payment of 2d to Michael

Craghe for thatching it in 1551 but no further wills appear from the parish until 1550.L16 In the next eight years only two of twenty wills considered the steeple: John Fyley (Holywell 1554) gave another ten quarters of malt and Richard Brampton (Holywell

1558) left a mere 20d to the 'buyldinge up of the steple.'

thirds of England's parish churches. For once his discussion stops short by considering the Reformation as the terminal point of this process.

'I4 A similar provision was made by Simon King (Holywell 1545) while Henry Thurbarn (Needingworth 1545) only wanted his money issued 'when it is in making.,

lL6 Holywell CWA fo. 5d. 165 Since Brampton also made a donation towards the repair of a broken bell, his gift may have been for repairs to the new steeple. The effect of the Reformation was strong and immediate. Villagers became suspicious of the future intentions of the Crown and doubted if their money would reach the intended destination after they witnessed the destruction of Ramsey abbey and other local monastic houses as well as the attack on chantries, free chapels, guilds and similar institutions."' The inquiry into the parish churches must have caused unease.lL8 Whatever difficulties were experienced in the period of its construction, the steeple was eventually finished and, in the end, villagers were not deterred.

"7 Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England), An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in Hun tingdonshire (London, 1926) : 140, is almost certain that the steeple of Holywell St. John Baptist is made of Ramsey material but a less affirmative tone is struck by Pevsner, Bedfordshire, Huntingdon and Peterborough: 266, who writes: 'The W tower is a mystery. It is said to date from 1547 and to be built of stone from Ramsey abbey.' He then casts doubt on this dating because several elements of decorated Gothic (bell-opening, arch towards nave and some thin blank arches on the north and south walls) can be found. He asks 'Is it then all re-used Ramsey material?' The date of construction is certain but not the use of Ramsey stone. However, Holywell CWA, £0. ld, records a payment 'to Thomas Roper mason/& Ramsey after the labores 12d/ but this does not prove the use of Ramsey stone. If it was material from the abbey, it attests to the speed with which the new owners of monastic properties went about retrieving their investment and ensuring that there would be no return to the old order-

118 S . C . Lomas, ed. , The Edwardian Inventories for Huntingdonshire from Transcripts by T. Craib. Alcuin Club Collections 7 (1906). Holywell CWA fo. 3d, records four appearances of the churchwardens before commissioners at St. Ives in 1548. 166 In the same period, the fortunes of the two chief targets of so-called secular donations, roads and the poor, gained prominence.llg Roads, primarily the causeways which crossed the fens, had received donations since the 1520's and increased their share among wills during the next two decades whereas the poor really only emerged in the 1540's as an explicit subject of charity in wills. Bequests to the 'poor men's box,' usually amounting to no more than a few pence, were common in the later part of the study period. Two of the largest bequests of this kind were the gifts of l6d by George Dyme (Warboys 1550) and 13s 4d by Robert Mayhewe (Warboys 1553). Likewise, moneys were at times distributed to the poor on the days associated with the burial to obtain prayers for the soul of the deceased. These bequests were slightly less frequent but usually consisted of a shilling or more. Thus, in 1548 Elinor Christmas of Warboys had 13s 4d distributed on her burial and seventh day each and left

'I9 So-called 'secular' donations became a historiographical issue with W. K. Jordan, Philanthropy in England, 1480 - 1660: A Study of the Changing Pattern of English Social Aspirations (London, 1959) : 355-65, who saw secularization in the decline of pious bequests. Though impressive in its archival work, his interpretations have largely been discredited. The attack on many aspects of popular belief engendered a strong suspicion of future royal measures rather than a decline in religiosity per se. For a direct response to Jordan,see for example: J. M. Jennings, "The distribution of landed wealth in the wills of London merchants 1400 - 1450," Mediaeval Studies 39 (1977): 261- 80. The most recent and most satisfactory discussion of changes in bequests may be found in Duf fy, Stripping of the A1 tars, passim. A more satisfactory discussion of 'secularisationr may be found in C. J. Sommerville, The Secularization of Early Modern Erqland: From Religious Culture to Religious Faith (Oxford, 1992). the amount for the thirtieth day to the discretion of her executors; and in 1551 William Stockley of Great Raveley gave 20s to the poor on his burial day. The wills of William Ducket of

Little Raveley (1552) and Robert Nelson of Ramsey (1555), apart from giving to the poor of their own villages, also gave money to the poor of several other villages. In both the case of roads and the poor, a shift in the subject of bequests was used to do charitable work presumably for the 'wealth of the soulf that had little to do with '~ecularisation.~One is left to wonder if these subjects were deliberately singled out because reclaiming the money, once spent, would have been virtually impossible for the Crown. The focus on charitable donations to the poor is particularly tied to the Reformation as a response to the loss of charity provided by the Church and, in particular, the monasteries.120 The shift in the subject of donations is consistent with observations made elsewhere and contradicts Hoskins' implicit claim that the Reformation freed up resources- Many testators simply employed creative measures or shifted to alternative subjects in the attempt to benefit their souls. The simple formula that fewer donations to the church equals more disposible income for the villager and, therefore, more consumption does not

120 C. Haigh, Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire (Cambridge, 1975): 120-21, points out that one of the key demands of the rebels participating in the Pilgrimage of Grace was the reestablishment of the monasteries which provided charity for the poor. follow. The income bestowed upon the church before the Reformation did not all leave the local economy to be used at a few centres as soon as it had passed from villagers to religious institutions. The parish church did not merely live on gifts but was required to pay like any other buyer of goods and services. Another objection to the juxtaposition of wealth directed at spiritual and secular concerns must be raised. A strict separation of economic, spiritual and other spheres -- difficult to maintain in practice in any case -- would have baffled the villagers studied here. The belief in Heaven, Hell and Purgatory is manifestly evident in the wills and linked economic and other behaviour directly to spiritual health. The 'state of comfort,' to modify Margaret Spuffordrs expression, cannot be described properly without a recognition that contemporary piety made its own contribution to the comfort of both donors and recipients alike. The bundle of consumer goods available in Hurstingstone hundred could be dismissed as primitive because it was composed for most part of functional pieces of largely domestic and local manufacture while definite evidence of involvement with larger national and international economic spheres is by and large restricted to raw materials. This simplistic view is unwarranted because it underrates the diversity of the bundle as a whole which consisted of changing house outlays, furniture, table ware, kitchen implements, clothing and other textiles to which must be added options in quality and material including expensive imports such as silk. Consumers certainly could avail themselves of a series of choices when disposing of their surplus income to acquire amenities. It would be interesting to determine if definite preferences and a schedule of achievement over the life- cycle existed but no serious evidence can be proffered on this point. Harrison's informants provide a meagre clue when they stated that their fathers considered themselves fortunate if they could improve their beds within seven years of marriage. Their wealth allowed some to acquire status symbols, such as salts, jewellery, silver spoons, innovations in fashions, and a host of less expensive and more functional pieces which not only made them subject to the king's sumptuary legisla-tionand taxation but also constituted part of their contribution to the dynamic of the English economy as a whole.'2L Quantity and variety increased in the two centuries following the study period but, in assessing the evidence of consumer goods available to this study, gains the feeling that the growth in their availability was not as strong as described by Harrison or modern scholars. The variety and distribution detected even under the first Tudors was considerable and consisted to a significant part of items which required skilled labour and had to be purchased. Not only is it necessary to assume an earlier shift of household production towards consumption than the seventeenth

12' N. B. Harte, "State Control of Dress and Social Change in Pre-Industrial England, eds. D. C. Coleman and A. H. John, Trade, Government and Economy in Pre-Industrial England: Essays presented to F. J. Fisher (London, 1976) : 132-65. century, but revisions in the chronology of rural commercialisation require a much earlier point of origin than the Tudor period.'" Did medieval peasants invest in consumer goods and, if they did, in what goods? Earlier studies of Hurstingstone hundred could not address these problems for lack of sources but the growing evidence of accumulation by medieval peasants puts them squarely on the agenda. If the evidence of the excavations at Wharram Percy, , is representative, the answer to the first part must of the question is clearly affirmative.lu The second part of the question must remain ambiguous at present. Resort to archaeology raises further problems because the assembly of goods it produces is in places sharply at variance with the goods found in wills and

The conclusion of MacKinnon, Veasant House:" 308, that 'where peasants are busily engaged in the work of production, their houses and shed are depicted as carefully maintained, sturdily built and efficiently furnished" strongly resonates in this study. The assembly of goods found in N. Davis, ed., "Letter 195: Inventory of Goods Stolen Soon After 1465, 10, 17" ed. N. Davis and M. Bernhard, Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, pt. I. (1971; Charlottesville, 1994) : 325-29, bears strong resemblance to the one described here though it consists of more items and contains objects peculiar to the elevated status of the Pastons. '= J. G. Hurst, "The Wharram Percy Project: Results to 1983, Medieval Archaeology 28 (1984): 77-111. Peasant houses yielded evidence of furniture (casket and box keys), candle holders, pottery (especially cooking pots and dairy bowls), clothing (brooches, buckles, strap ends, dress fasteners) , pins, sewing needles, scissors and bone dice. Of particular interest is the evidence of extensive trade links: pottery from fiearby Malton, sea fish (brought over 30 km) , coal (brought over 60 km) , Mayan lava cperns (Rhineland), polychrome pottery (southwest France), rnaiolica (Mediterranean) and significant quantities of stoneware (two Rhineland locat ions) . inventories, Where is the pottery of Hurstingstone hundred which archaeology requires to have existed?'" Precise answers to the issues raised here will be provided by future studies but it is already clear that we can expect revisions of our present opinion of the material culture of medieval villagers. The splendor of Chaucerrs franklin with his taste for fine food ('he was Epicurus owene sone), ' table dormant' and 'gipser [purse] a1 of silk ...whit as morne milkr may be a mocking critique of rural ambitions in the fourteenth century but it does not appear as a gross exaggeration anymore.'=

'24 Even brief browsing in the journal Post-Medieval Archaeology will quickly reveal that pottery is one of the components of material culture most frequently discussed by its contributors. See for example: P. Brears, llExcavationsat Potovens, near Wakef ield, Post-Medieval Archaeology 1 (1967): 3 - 43, describes an extensive local pottery industry on the margins of the settlement's commons. In Hurstingstone pottery is only in evidence through the person of Thomas Stewkys alias Potter (Abbots Ripton 1537), who willed his wheel to his younger son. S. Felgenbauer-Schmidt, Die Sachkultur des Mittelalters im Lichte der archaologischen Funde (Frankfurt am M., 1993) : 105, describes the situation accurately: 'Insgesamt kann man sagen, daB eine intensive Auseinandersetzung mit der Beziehung von archaologischen Fundgegenstanden und der Nennung von Realien in schriftlichen Quellen noch nicht stattgefunden hat."

12' 12' Chaucer , !!The Canterbury Tales : 245-46. The f ranklinrs pretensions are rudely interrupted at a later point by the company's host (p. 470) : Itstraw for youre gentillesse! Yet, here a play on meaning may also be suspected. Chapter IV. Table

Table IV.I. Select Donation Types in a Sample of Wills, Hurstings tone Hundred (21

Year High Tithes Causeways Poor No Altar Related etc, Donations

Sum 63 Chapter V The Distribution of Wealth

The essential purpose of the lay subsidy returns was to record an evaluation of the income of every independent person of sufficient means and assess the amount of taxes owed according to the progressive schedule outlined in Table V.1. Therefore, they provide an overview of the distribution of surplus in society. Four early Tudor subsidies are preserved from Hurstingstone hundred which fall into two groups.' The first two date from 1522 and 1523 respectively and, because of their low exempt income level of El, include a broad segment of society consisting of up to 1200 tax payers. The later subsidies, which date from

1545 and 1547, because of their high exempt income level of £5 cover a more limited portion of the population consisting of c.

360 tax payers. As part of the assessment process, an individual's income was classified into three categories: rents, goods and wages. The nature and value of the largest category was entered into the returns as the basis for taxation. This procedure limits the extent to which total income may be identified from subsidy returns. A set of evaluations in two categories was recorded in 1523 (listed in Table V. 2) and indicates that this deficiency should not be accorded too much

PRO E 179/122/91, E 179/122/95, E 179/122/111, E 179/122/133, E 179/122/137, E 179/122/142, E 179/122/137. A detailed discussion of the interpretation of the subsidies is provided in Appendix 11. weight. The preponderance of the larger category, which

constituted between 62% (Thomas Stiveckley) and 96% (Richard Vernam) of combined wealth, is clear in all cases. Since the reason for recording two categories must have been the absolute or relative size of the lesser category, these entries provide assurance that little wealth was missed by the idiosyncracies of assessment. Another point which deserves note regarding dual assessments is that goods were the larger and rents the smaller item in all but one case. This mirrors the overall importance of goods as the basis for taxable wealth and, in fact, they may virtually be equated with wealth above £5 (Table V.3). During the 1520's this category was subdivided into persons assessed on 'goods' alone and persons assessed on 'goods and cattle.' Persons assessed on 'goods and cattlef comprised 41% of all assessments in the two categories in 1522 and 21.1% in 1523 with the difference being due to recording practices and the absence of returns from several villages in 1522. The greater wealth of owners of livestock fully bears out the importance of the pastoral economy to rural wealthm2 Wealth assessed in goods and cattle averaged

£8 7s 7d in 1522 and £7 16s 3d in 1523 while in the same years wealth in goods alone averaged £5 5s 2d and £6 0s 7d

' Also see Biddick, Other Economy: 1-6, Braudel, Everyday Life: 190-94, and, on the brisk trade in livestock in the : Mate, Vastoral Farming." Interestingly, the villagers of Kent sold horses for meat to France though Englishmen do not seem to have eaten horses. 175 respectively. The highest assessments lay at £60 in 1522 (Thomas [Payne?] , Colne) and £71 13s 4d in 1523 (Richard Smythe, Abbots Ripton) for goods and at £76 for goods and cattle in both years (Richard Vernam, Little Stuckeley) . However, the difference in the composition of possessions was by no means decisive in giving an individual the economic edge since the mode in both assessment divisions was identical at £2. Rents were a comparatively rare category of income in the returns but this does not support the cla.irn that they were favoured by the assessment process.' In the 1520's no difference existed between tax rates on various categories of wealth and in the 1540's the assessment schedule was weighted against them (Table V.1). They were subjected to a high rate of 2s/f (10%) while taxes on goods and wages ranged from 8d/f to 12d/f (3.3-5%) and, in addition, the basic exemption on rents in the later returns was only £1 -- not the £5 allowed on goods. The relative value and importance of rents may have increased towards the 1540'~.~In 1522 only two persons were assessed on rents and in 1523 eight persons were assessed on rents though five were double

. . Schofield, "Taxation and Political Limits,I1 n. 28. An interesting reflection on the level of awareness of rental values in early modern England may be found in T. Clay, A chorologicall discourse of the well ordering, of an honorable estate or revennue (London, 1618): passim. Also see Moore, Fairs: 250-54, on the rental of lodging at St. Ives fair. The growing importance of the use of land over mere access to it in determining wealth is also reflected in a shift from works on rental matters to an increasingly specialised literature on production methods in printed works of the period 1475 - 1640. A publication on this topic is planned. assessment^.^ The average assessment on rents amounted to £6 1s 6d with the highest assessment being John Taillard's £15. However, in the returns of 1545 and 1547 the number of assessments on rents rose to twelve and eleven persons respectively with averages of £14 1s 8d and £15 12s 7d respectively. William Lawrence of Slepe was recorded in both years as possessing the highest revenue in rents with f55 and f50 respectively. Rents were a source of considerable wealth to some and underpinned their status in the community: Taillard and Burton were accorded the label of gentleman, the former was a commissioner for the subsidy in the 1520's and William Lawrence held that office in the 1540'~.~Rental income could also be as low as £1 which provided recipients a relatively meagre livelihood, perhaps for old age or widowhood.'

The category 'wages,, as presented in Tables V.3 and V.4, is an amalgam of four subcategories: persons assessed in wages, on 'profits, as labourers and as servants. Servants worked in agriculture and lived with their employers. The studies of Ann

In 1522 the widow Anne Robson of Abbots Ripton and Thomas Stiveckley of Little Stuckeley were taxed on rents. In 1523 Robson was still assessed with £6 while William Grace of Ramsey (€8) and John Burton of Abbots Ripton (£4) were added to the list. Burton was assessed on £4 in goods in 1522. The names of other rentiers are listed in Table V.2. Taillard forgave rents in his will (Upwood 1528) . Examples: Katherine Chery (Colne 1545), Alice Mathew (Somersham 1545) and John Consten (Abbots ~ipton1547). This may also have been the case with Thomas Cranwell of Somersham who dropped from £7 in goods in 1545 to E2 13s 4d in rents in 1547. 177 Kussmaul and others have demonstrated that, as a group, they were a highly important part of the rural labour force and that agricultural service was an important part of the rural life cycle in pre-industrial England.* The other three terms probably describe persons who did not live with their employers .9 he range of assessments in goods and rents included both high and low ends of the spectrum but wages were exclusively concentrated at the lower end where they carried considerable numerical

A. Kussmaul, Servants in Husbandry in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1981) : passim, P. J. P. Goldberg, "Marriage, Migration, and Servanthood: The York Cause Paper Evidence," ed. P. J. P. Goldberg, Woman is a Worthy Wight: Women in English Society, c. 1200 - 1500 (Stroud, 1992) : 1-15, R. M. Smith, "Geographical Diversity in the Resort to ~arriagein Late Medieval Europe: Work, Reputation, and unmarried Females in the Household Formation Systems of Northern and Southern Europe,Ir Goldberg, Woman is a Worthy Wight: 16-59, g aft is, ETG: 55-8, Bennett, Women in the Countryside: 55-57, 62-63, 84. L. Poos, A Rural Society after the Black Death: Essex 1350 - 1525 (Cambridge, 1991) : 183-206. Length of employment was not the decisive distinguishing factor since some individuals in either group were described as paid by the year. The fact that some individuals were described as labourers, servants or, in one case, a shepherd assessed on wages indicates that the terms were not mutually exclusive. The so-called profit (proficuus) assessed on 100 individuals does not mean profit in the modern sense. They only appear in the circuit of one commissioner -- an elegant example of the way in which a single commissioner left their stamp on the survey -- in the year 1523 when they constituted 25.9% of that circuit's assessed population. Almost all of those assessed on profits (96%) had only £1, the remainder £2. Fortunately, the 1522 returns for the locations in this circuit are quite detailed. Occupational designations can be identified for forty-five of the persons assessed on profits: thirty-six labourers, four craftsmen (one sawyer, one smith, two thatchers), three husbandmen and two servants. Proficuus must be taken as a tern for surplus wage earnings in the eastern circuit in 1523, especially since the term labourer (though not the term wages) is absent in the return of 1522. See Chapter VI. significance. Wage earners of various types formed 44.5% of the tax population below £5 in 1522 and 35% in 1523. In most cases

(95.1%) wage earners were assessed at £1 even if the return states they were paid by the year. The elevated minimum assessment of €5 precluded their reappearance in the 1540's. The wage data of Brown and Hopkins indicates their assessments were the equivalent of sixty days of work and that the tax of 4d to

6d/f (1.7 - 2.5%) was equivalent to one or one and a half days of work.'' -+The penalty for not working (6s 8d or twenty days of work) imposed by manorial courts far exceeded the royal tax levy but amounted to less than the wage income which the Crown considered taxable." The manorial court must have considered the penalty payable in some way despite its obvious nature as a deterrent, so it should be a truer reflection of the limits that wage income could produce in surplus. The lay subsidies represent a differentiated society in terms of the possession of wealth. The degree of differentiation is outlined in Tables V.5 to V.7 using the Lorenz curve, deciles and real figures." Deciles divide tax payers into ten groups of equal size, calculate their share of wealth and then derive a coefficient of inequality (I). The Lorenz curve uses classes

lo Brown and Hopkins, Wages and Prices: 9, 11, Cornwall, County Community: 12.

" DeWindt, Court Rolls, 900, 952-53.

l2 The mathematical procedures of calculating with the Lorenz curve and deciles as well as some historiographical considerations are outlined in Appendix 111. 179 preferably predetermined by historical sources, relativises each category's share in population and wealth and calculates a

coefficient of concentration (K) . As will become apparent each method has strengths and weaknesses in analytical terms. In the

more comprehensive returns of the 1520's the wealthiest 10% of

the population -- equivalent to the assessment range above £10 -- possessed almost half of the assessed wealth while the bottom

four deciles, concentrated entirely in the £1 to £2 range, owned

less than 10%. The later subsidies also present a picture of significant differentiation though softened by a higher level of exemption. All presentation methods share a problem in the creation of seemingly well-defined economic layers. In reality, distribution forms a seamless gradient which is distorted by arbitrary divisions of modern researchers and Tudor administrators each with their preference for round figures. This is also very different in appearance from the staggered image of society created by standardized tenurial units in medieval manorial accounts.l3

The shift in the basic exemption from El to £5 combined with the absence of several villages in the subsidies of 1522 and 1547 limits the analysis of dynamic processes, surnrnarised in Tables

V.5 and V.6, to the subsidies of 1523 and 1545 and to the

l3 See Raftis, Peasant Economic Development: chapter i, on the disjunction between lay subsidy assessments and standard tenurial divisions before 1334. assessment range above £5. l4 However, three features can be observed with some clarity. First, there is a downward shift over time in the share of wealth from the upper to the lower divisions reflected by reduced values for the coefficients I and K, the decrease of wealth held by the top decile and increases in that of the four lowest deciles. Changes in Lorenz curves are even more striking: the share of wealth increased in both lower divisions and decreased in the upper one. Secondly, there is a decline in the overall value of assessments. This is evident from changes in Lorenz values which shift population shares from the two upper divisons to the lowest one. Since the Price Revolution was alrea6y in progress at this time and its Americanization was beginning with the conquests of Mexico and Peru, the decline in absolute value masks a further decline in real value. The observed losses are too consistent to be the result of opportunistic fraud: it is improbable that royal administrators would have overlooked these losses since the effectiveness of taxation by lay subsidy was only criticised several decades later with no reaction noticed under Henry VIII.lS Instead, the assessment process must have changed to a more restrictive definition of taxable wealth to allow for the decline

l4 In effect c. 75% of the tax population of the 1520's must be omitted from consideration. Schofield, "Taxation and political limits:" 238-40. in real value and avoid the cost of collecting trifling sums.16 The third observation is the most important: despite shifts in assessment value and some redistribution of wealth, the overall structure of the societal distribution of wealth was remarkably stable. Declines of c. 5% for I and .05 for K are minor given the potential range within which they take place while devaluation is effective across the entire spectrum except near the £5 mark. Again, the dynamic element is likely to be the result of administrative changes rather than the product of genuine social processes. The distribution of income in real values is outlined in Table V.7. The findings are consistent with those generated by other methods. In the 1520's assessed wealth ranged from El to f76, in the 1540's from £5 to f50 (excluding some low values for rents). Most taxpayers were concentrated at the bottom of the assessment scale in all subsidies. Invariably, the mode lies on the exemption limit of £1 in the 1520's and €5 in the 1540's. Crowding at the bottom contrasts with the rarefied atmosphere at the top of the assessment scale. Here a small elite of less than

4% of the population in the 1520's and less than 7% in the 1540's controlled the substantial income over £20. This group dwindled

l6 Schofield, "Taxation and political limits:If 238-40. 9. Jenks, The Lay Subsidies (1275 - 1334) Lecture, University of Toronto, 1995, in his analysis of the medieval subsidies has rejected the notion of extensive fraud as well. Duffy, Stripping of the Altars: 478, notes: "Any theory of the weakness of Tudor government must somehow explain the astonishing degree of conformity achieved in thousands of communities, great and small, throughout the country."

183

lower part of the possible range of 0 - 90% for I and .O - 1.0

for K supports this claim from a mathematical point of view as well. Its society was not one of equals but neither was it the worst offender against distributional justice in its own time.

Another indicator of wealth are the 242 sums of probate inventories (summarised in Table V.8) found at the end of most wills recorded in the years 1543 to 1558. The inventories,

unlike the lay subsidies of the 1540ts,extend below £5 and, in

one case, even below £1. However, it is immediately noticeable that the real distribution of taxpayers is concentrated in the upper part of the assessment range and, consequently, appears inverted in comparison to the subsidies. The majority of inventories lie in the upper assessment range above €10 and even £20, figures rarely ever achieved in subsidy evaluations. The outstanding case was John Dorant of Houghton whose probate inventory amounted to over £242 in 1555 but whose subsidy assessments in 1545 and 1547 only amounted to c. £40. Inventories used a more comprehensive definition of wealth than the subsidies despite their exclusion of land, goods specifically

contained in the Huntingdon actbooks, it was tempting to use this data. Unfortunately, Hurstingstone donations were relatively standardised and undifferentiated and, moreover, the practice is cut short by the Reformation. Lorenz values for English toms are Bury St. Edmunds: .55, : .62; St. Albans: .64; Norwich: -77. The values for German towns in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries range from .515 to -847 for K and from 47.5 to 72.5 for I. willed and other select items.18 The difference between the two types of evaluation is, in essence, the contrast between annual income and Life-time accumulation; the inevitable conclusion is that many villagers were able to accumulate over their lifetime a share of their income and convert it into assets.lg The relatively egalitarian nature of income distribution under the early Tudors is decidedly surprising. The concentration of land in the hands of the yeomanry, 'whose appearance had been one of the most significant social developments of the later Middle Ages,' is deemed to have skewed the distribution of wealth towards a village elite.20 In Hurstingstone hundred yeomen, agriculturalists with large and multiple holdings, emerged in the late Middle Ages." The Pulter family of Broughton, which has been noted on several occasions, presents a classical example of the type during the study period.

Henry Pulter (1543) distributed three copyholds among his younger

l8 Spuf ford, "Limitations: 139-74. Real estate, trees and their fruit, standing hay, root crops, goods of very small value, debts payable and -- most important to this study -- goods bequeathed were not listed in the inventory.

l9 More on the contrast of probate inventory values and lay subsidy assessments in Appendix 11.

20 Clay, Economic Expansion and Social Change, v. I: 57. See also: Wrightson, English Society: 31-33, Allen, Enclosure, passim, C. Dyer, "Were there any Capitalists in Fifteenth Century England? " ed. C. Dyer, Everyday Life in Medieval England (London, 1994) : 305-27.

21 Raftis, Peasant Economic Development: chapter vi, on the medieval emergence of the yeomanry on a group of Ramsey abbey estates; DeWindt, Holywell-cum-Needingworth: 107-61, notes the formation of a prototypical yeomanry. sons and his eldest son Richard bequeathed four to his sons John and Hugh. In the lay subsidy assessments Henry stands out with

over £40 in 1523 but in the 1540's male members of the family

only mustered c. £10 in income, significant but not exceptional. Income was derived from the accumulation of landholdings but, broadly speaking, it does not appear to have resulted in an equivalent concentration in income distribution. What were the practical implications of social differentiation, income and accumulation to individual economies? Several identifiable social groups will be outlined using the example of select persons from Ramsey and Bury based on detailed prosopographic information provided in Appendix IV? However, first, there is the problem of unassessed persons and the poor in particular. Two categories may be distinguished: those legally without property (mostly minors and married women) and those with insufficient means to be taxed. Once again, the property of minors and married women was regarded as belonging to (usually male) guardians, while that of single women and widows was considered as belonging to them outright. The other category, those with income below the exemption limit, varied considerably in number from place to place: 10% in rural Norfolk, about a

" The scheme is taken in part from Raftis, ETG: 123 -70, but differs in the treatment of pure agriculturalists as a distinct group and the absence of capitalists. third in Exeter and Leicester and 47% in Coventry." Julian Cornwall states that 10% of the population recorded in the muster rolls were described as possessing nothing.24 Since the majority of individuals cluster at the very bottom of the assessment range, a simplistic extrapolation suggests a very large number of unassessed persons below the £1 level. On the other hand, Campbell's study of muster rolls and lay subsidies in Norfolk and Cornwall's wider study of the former suggest that exemption rates from the lay subsidy in rural areas may have been low and certainly were much lower than in urban localities. What is certain is that the poor did exist in Hurstingstone hundred. Gifts to the poor and the poor men's box appeared increasingly among charitable bequests as the implications of the Reformation sank in during the late 1540's and gifts to traditional targets such as the high altar, bells, church lights and masses became difficult or even impossible. Names and numbers cannot be derived from these entries but occasionally further insights are possible. In 1540 the parish register of Hartford described Gurt Hubort as 'a poore woman' among its

23 Schof ield, "Taxation and political limits : 233, Sheail "Distribution of taxable population and wealth:" 14, C. Phythian- Adams, Desolation of a City: Coventry and the Crisis of the Late Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1979): 188-90, B. M. S. Campbell, "The Population of Early Tudor England: A Re-evaluation of the 1522 Muster Returns and 1524 and 1525 Lay SubsidiesIf JHG 7 (1981): 145-54.

24 Cornwall, Wealth and Society: 3. 187 b~rials.'~ In 1550, John Hadlyn had a peck of malt distributed to the ten poorest of Ripton St. John (Abbots Ripton), suggesting that more than ten of his neighbours were poor. A more concrete estimate is provided by Richard Maxe of King's Ripton (1538) who had Id worth of bread distributed to each cottager in his village. Since the bequest amounted to 15d, it suggests that fifteen cottagers lived there. The Bishop's Census of 1563 lists fifty households for Abbots Ripton and twenty for King's Ripton, suggesting that over a fifth in the former and as many as three quarters in the latter village may have been needy in the eyes of the community. While the former figure appears credible in the light of other work, it is difficult to accept the latter and one wonders if varying definitions of need (Does cottager necessarily imply poor?) or time play a role. A definition of poverty may be found in the wills of Rose Wood (Somersham 1556) and John

Elington (Bury 1557) who gave 4d and 2d respectively to every house without a plough in their native villages. Richard Abbot

(Wennington 1556) used another criterion: he willed to 'everye poore howseholde that have no beast of ther owne vjd' but also recognized that cattle ownership did not preclude poverty by allowing 'unto everye poore howseholde that have beast of ther owne ijd.26t There is a theme to all these definitions: the absence of basic agricultural resources such as a piece of arable

25 Huntingdonshire PR 2523/1.

26 Huntingdonshire Wills X1.15. (the implication of cottager), a plough or a draft animal (the implication of the word 'beast') denoted poverty in a rural economy and, if it did not translate into an immediately destitute state, then it was a sign of future vulnerability. The 'poor' of the wills and manorial documents and the 'unassessed' of the lay subsidies cannot be considered as identical but only as broadly overlapping categories. The topic of the poor is not exhausted with the consideration of the villages' resident poor. There is the further problem of an indigent and migratory population which may have been numerically and even economically important by filling in short-term labour needs.27 In the records of Hurstingstone hundred they usually remain nameless as exemplified by the Bluntisham cum Earith parish register, which recorded three burials in 1556 and 1557 only as 'a poor manr together with sixty named villagers .28 In Hartford John Wood, described as a stranger among the burials of 1539, probably fell into this categ~ry.~' Under the Tudors vagrants and beggars became increasingly subject to royal regulation and local suspicion was reflected in the court rolls of Ramsey when William Aynsworth and William More

- *' P . Slack, Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England (London, 1988): passim. A fascinating glimpse of the migratory life on the Continent is provided by the nightmarish tale recorded in M. Kunze, High Road to the Stake: A Tale of Witchcraft (1982; Chicago, 1987).

28 Huntingdonshire PR 2611/1/1.

29 Huntingdonshire PR 2535/1. were fined in 1518 for keeping and comforting beggars.'O This volatile component of the population is difficult to capture even with modern census procedures, and would have been almost impossible to assess under the Tudors. The group most readily identified either by designation or by assessment category in the subsidy returns to appear close to poverty are wage earners. Their assessments lay at the £1 minimum and the muster roll of Tixover, Rutland, recorded three labourers and six servants whom it defined as poor men." Yet, the probate inventory of the labourer John Dawes (Bury 1555) added up to £6 9s 2d to which may be added receivable debts of 38s 4d, bequests of goods and over £12 in money even though the subsidies yield no more than a basic assessment as a servant in

1522. Likewise, Hugh Charyte (Rarnsey 1557), registered as a labourer in Bury in 1538, never appeared in the subsidies despite a probate inventory valuation of Ell 16s 4d. Both were able to extend their economies: Dawes was active in the carriage trade while Charyte owned livestock and his wife brewed ale. Seventeen individuals registered as labourers in the court rolls extend the record of labourers.32 Common to all was that they kept a low

30 DeWindt, Court Rolls: 892; see also Chapter I, p. 51.

3' Cornwall, Weal th and Society: 3 .

32 These are Nicholas Chamber, Robert Day, Richard Drury, Thomas Fennell, Robert Judson, Robert Neweman, Thomas Pulter, John Smith, James Wilson and William Wright in Ramsey in 1530; John Bundy ? ) , Thomas Chaplyn, Hugh Charyte (?1 , ~ohnHewyt , Robert Myhele, Thomas Pulter, William Proude and Thomas Skynner in Bury in 1538. profile in the courts, with the number of occurrences ranging from one (the registration itself) to seven times and an average of barely above three. An appearance of transience is given by the fact that six labourers were mentioned only once and three were the only bearers of their surname over several centuries.33 In the earlier subsidies the few certain identifications were

assessed on El or £2 with an upper limit of £3 if some tenuous cases are included. However, labourers with multiple occurrences in the court rolls were involved in a number of activities other than wage labour. Three or four can be shown to have participated in the ale trade, at least three but more probably five kept livestock, and four took sedge for sale or exploited the commons in other ways. Some even acquired land through conveyances: William

Proude came into the possession of two fishponds in 1554 (he had been fined for casting his nets at the wrong time three years earlier) and William Wright acquired a close and a cotagium with arable and meadows in 1542 in two conveyances. Nor were these men denied public recognition, as the elections of Robert Judson

(Ramsey fen reeve in 1531 and 1536) and Thomas Skynner (Bury ale taster in 1533, juror in 1533 and 1534) to offices demonstrate.

The fact that none of the individuals listed in 1530 and 1538 were included in the subsidies of the 1540's shows that their economic prospects were indeed limited and some were entirely

33 This statement is based on the Index Personarum in DeWindt, Court Rolls: 99-230. 191 unsuccessful in diversifying their income though it is impossible to identify what obscured them in the record. The other side of the coin is that some individuals availed themselves of pasture and fen resources or took up trades to extend their income beyond their labour. As a result, some wage earners were granted public recognition by election to offices and acquired assets in the form of land and goods. Labourers may have been at the bottom of the income scale in the hundred but were neither incapable of improving their lot nor, in all likelihood, destitute if they secured a foothold in the community. Agriculturists are defined either by an exclusive record of agrarian pursuits or self-designation as husbandman and yeoman.

Members of the Redman family of Bury were assessed on £13 to £19 in goods and £5 to £6 in rents. The fact that one of their number appeared as a juror in 1519, 1531 and 1540 demonstrates their social prestige. The John Redman who left a will in 1556 bequeathed only €1 4d in money (mostly donations) and a probate inventory evaluation of €10 4s 8d. The wealth of Thomas Chicheley, a yeoman, also appeared modest with only £5 in his sole appearance in a lay subsidy but his probate inventory valuation of £23 4s 6d was not trifling. Another husbandman, John Elington of Bury, was assessed on €7 in the 1540's while his probate inventory amounted to £31 15s 10d in 1557 apart from at least El 18s 8d in bequests, another 20d in debts forgiven, livestock, brass, pewter, a bed and clothing. William Benet, apparently the son of a small retailer in Ramsey, left a house 192

(which was to yield the value of a cow and £4 as well), 3s 4d in money, livestock, crops, pewter and brass. Though he appeared in none of the subsidies his probate inventory amounted to £10 4s Id. This group appears most variable in terms of income and assets but tends to occupy a broad middle to almost upper range with subsidy assessments above £5, probate inventories up to c.

£30 and the possession of some consumer goods. The majority of individuals for whom detailed analysis was possible engaged in an economy of partially or predominantly non- agricultural activities. John Haynes, a fuller, shop-keeper and juror, was never recorded in a subsidy despite a probate inventory value of £16 18s 2d. His will contained bequests of €3

Is 6d in money and 30s in gold, livestock and a house with a hall, chamber, cellar and yard, 'shepe gearysf and a set of shears valued at 6s, an abundance of goods including furniture, a large number of metal objects and clothing. Haynes appeared as a person of some wealth in monetary terms and was able to accumulate an impressive array of goods. Oliver Silcock of Ramsey appeared for the first time in the lay subsidy of 1523 with an assessment of f2 on goods and cattle. He appeared as a weaver, ale retailer, barber, shopkeeper, juror, churchwardens and the purchaser of a close. His fortunes had improved to a considerable extent when he was assessed on £6 in goods for the subsidies of 1545 and 1547. The Ashtons detail a case in which the family fortune was maintained after the death of the husband. John Ashton appeared in Ramsey between 1531 and 1538 as a baker, for a pasturing violation, as a mercer and for infractions of the ale assize (of which some were committed by his wife). John died without leaving a will between 1538 and 1544 because his wife paid a fine in the later year for permission to keep a shop and was assessed on £10 in 1545 and £8 in 1547. She appeared again in 1554 and

1555 as an ale retailer. In 1558 her probate inventory amounted to £22 8s 4d. Her will contained a house with a parlour and a hall, monetary bequests of a mere 3s 10d. some livestock, pots and pans (some of which were made of brass and contained considerable volume), pewter, candlesticks, furniture and what appears to be an extravagant number of beds and bedding- Finally, the most conspicuous items were two wedding rings of unspecified material. The individuals who made up this group may be defined by probate inventories under £20 and lay subsidy assessments under £10 but often possessed a fair array of consumer goods. Entrepreneurs are represented par excellence by Robert Nelson of Ramsey, a dyer, who was assessed as the wealthiest taxpayer in Ramsey in 1544 with £30 and as the second wealthiest in 1547 with £28. These figures pale compared to his probate inventory of £157 17s 6d and a further £71 14s 8d of monetary bequests in his will of 1555. The court rolls recorded him in connection with the textile trades, describing him as a fuller or cloth cutter. Capital investment in the trade is evident from a dye house mentioned in the will. However, his economic interests extended far beyond textiles. He was described as a brewer, victualler, and ale retailer. Brewing was developed through investment in a tenement equipped with a mill and a lead in 1537. Fines were levied against him for an infracticn of the meat and bread assizes. Nelson also was an eager participant in the land market, acquiring closes, the aforementioned mill, a tenement with a croft, a close and two pieces of arable land. The will makes it clear that his landed possessions were extensive: free land, meadow, pasture and dwelling house with all things pertaining which included the brew and dye houses, ponds, orchards, a copyhold, tenements with arable in two fields as well as another house, and two closes. He kept livestock including two riding horses, and owned a silver salter, a dozen silver spoons, brass and a furred gown. Nelson was an exceedingly wealthy man by the standards of his community but, despite his wealth, he may not have qualified as a gentlemen because a fine for ploughing off-limit land suggests he toiled with his own hands .34 Nelson fits the type of the 'entrepreneur1 described by

Raftis from Godmanchester but perhaps also the capitalist type.35 These individuals were wealthy as indicated here by probate inventories above £20, subsidy assessments above £10 and a

34 Laslett, World We Have Lost: 33, quotes Harrison, Description, to this effect .

35 Raftis, ETG: 162-70. However, there is no clear evidence of capitalists operating in Ramsey and Bury on the same scale as in Godmanchester. developed array of consumer goods. Their economy rested upon processing and retailing occupations such as textiles, victualling and butchery but was diversified to a significant degree including interests in agriculture, brewing and other areas. It is difficult to tell how much investment occurred and if capital was created as a result of their economic activities but, in the case of Nelson, his acquisition of possessions constituted a significant outlay. Membership in this group was probably dependent upon a family background in which wealth had already accumulated to some degree but was not dependent on a local family tradition. In England there has been limited interest in describing early modern social differentiation in mathematical terms despite extensive debates on such topics as the 'rise of the gentryr and the 'recovery of arist~cracy.'~~The nature of these discussions implies a quantitative dimension though the subject has primarily been viewed in terms of land.37 On the Continent, H. Jecht promoted the extensive analysis of tax records because he

36 J. P. Cooper, "The Social Distribution of Land and Men in England, 1436 - 1700rt1EcHR 2nd. ser. 20 (1967): 419-40, H. J. Habbakuk, "The Rise and Fall of English Landed Families, 1600 - 1800, pt. I - IIIrt1Trans. Royal Hist. Soc. 5th ser. 29 (1979) 187-207, 30 (1980): 199-221, 31 (1981) : 195-217, L. Stone, !'The Anatomy of the Elizabethan Aristocracy,I1 EcHR 18 (1951): 1-53, R. H. Tawney, "The Rise of the Gentry, 1558 - 1640," EcHEi 11 (1941): 1-38, H. £3. Trevor-Roper, "The Elizabethan Aristocracy: An Anatomy Anatomised," EcHR 2nd ser. 3 (1951): 279-98, ibid., "The Gentry, 1540 - 1640, EcHR suppl. 1 (1953).

" J. P. Cooper, "The Counting of ManorsttEcHR 2nd ser. 8 (1956): 377-89, discusses some of the problems inherent in this approach. believed they charted the material foundations of urban social structure despite other impinging factors .38 In particular, he believed that relativised tax records held out the promise of extensive comparability. The decile method appears to facilitate comparison and, in this study, provides a more detailed image with its greater number of divisions, but its strong relativisation of data also hides significant features. Despite a certain awkwardness in using the Lorenz curve for comparisons its attachment to some real values in the form of tax classes is capable of yielding additional information. However, to some extent, the supposed ease of either method's use in comparisons is a chimera because they require a high degree of uniformity in taxation procedures." Mere alteration of the basic exemption rate severely handicapped comparison but in England, at least, there was significant co-ordination on the national scale. Lateral comparisons may be more readily accomplished than on the Continent where proudly independent city states developed unique

This awareness is present in H. Jecht, "Studien zur gesellschaftlichen Struktur der mittelalterlichen Stadte," Vortrage fur Sozial- und Wirtschaf tsgeschichte (1926) : 56, Fiigedi, llSteuerlisten:"63, Weyrauch, I1Soziale S~hichtung:~~42- 46, but finds little or no application. More interesting treatments of the question may be found in K. Wrightson, "The Social Order of Early Modern England: Three Approaches," eds. L. Bonf ield, R. M. Smith and K. Wrightson, The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure : Essays Presented to Peter Laslett on His Seventieth Birthday (Oxford, 19863 : 177-202, and P. Burke, "The Language of Orders in Early Modern Europe,I1 ed. M. Bush, Social Orders and Social Classes in Europe Since 1500 (London, 1992) : 1-12.

39 Witness especially the difficulties in handling tax data from Basel: Fugedi, "Steuerlisten:" 70-71. procedures. It is vital to keep an eye on the real dimensions of the figures and, certainly, the best approach cautiously combines several analytical methods. More important than questions of methodology are conclusions regarding the criteria of social differentiation in the medieval and early modern periods. The society which emerges from the lay subsidies shows a degree of differentiation. Yet, no sharp distinctions emerged within the range of wealth and, instead, the study had to turn to categories formed by royal officials in establishing progressive tax rates because the continuous sequence of the figures contradicts this usage. In effect, the scale of wealth is a continuum without clear divisions or major interruptions. Yet, much of the discussion of social structure in England and elsewhere hinged upon status designations. Invariably the tripartite model of a society divided into nobility, clergy and commons enters the discussion and is carried into the lower orders as a further division into yeomen, husbandmen and labourers. Certainly, the model is important and effective here: both of the former groups were assessed separately and by somewhat different procedures so that they do not enter into the lay subsidies. Attempts were made then and are made now to refine the tripartite model with reference to different status groups among the commons and perhaps to assign a numerical value to each status. As Julian Cornwall has observed, such an undertaking is difficult at best." In fact, the administrators of the lay subsidies dispensed entirely with such an effort and simply classified persons according to eligible wealth in a procedure which is not remarkably different from methods applied since the Middle Ages in Italian and German city states and since the seventeenth century in the Dutch rep~blic.~' The accumulation of wealth overlaid and modified the fabric of status as early as the sixteenth century.42 Status loomed large in the minds of contemporaries, but purely economic processes of wealth formation challenged the notion on a pragmatic level and caused royal officials to dispense with it in the implementation of taxation.

40 Cornwall, Weal th and Society: 14-30.

41 P. Burke, "The language of orders in early modern Europe," ed. M. L. Bush, Social Orders and Social Classes in Europe since 1500: Studies in Social Stratification (New York, 1992) : 1-12.

42 That land holdings alone did not determine wealth as far back as the fourteenth century is noted in Raftis, Peasant Economic Development wi thin the English Manorial Systern. A1 so F . Heal and C. Holmes, The Gentry in England and Wales, 1500 - 1700 (Basingstoke, 1994) : 97-135. Chapter V. Tables

Table V. 1. Tax Rates in the Lay Subsidies, Hurs tingstone Hundred, 1522 - 1547

Wealth in Goods Tax Rate (d/f) and Wages (£1

1545 & 1547

rents as for goods

Table V.2. Subsidy Assessments in Plural Categories, Hurs tingstone Hundred, 1523 Name Locat ion Assessments 1523 rents goods

Vernam, Ric. L. Stuckeley Ridmayn, J. Bury Byrde , Wrn . Abbots Ripton Taifard, J. Upwood Stiveckley, Thos. L. Stuckeley Table V.3. Distribution of Taxpayers by Category in the Hurstings tone Hundred, 1522 - 1547

(% of individuals) A. Entire Range

goods wages rents

Income of £5 or More goods rents

Table V.4. Distribution of Income by Category in the Subsidies, Hurstings tone Hundred, 1522 - 1547

(% of assessed income) A. Entire Range

goods wages rents B. Income of £5 or More

goods rents

43 A small number of persons whose wealth was not classified or allocated in one of the major classes are excluded from the tables. It should also be noted that the 1522 and 1547 returns do not include all Hurstingstone villages. Table V.5. Income Distribution in Lorenz Values and Decil es , Hurstingstone Hundred Lay Subsidies, 1522 - 1547

A. Lorenz value#

(p = % of population, w = 5 of wealth)

(% of wealth) Decile

" p = % of total population, w = % of total wealth held by a division. Lorenz values do not include valuations on rents. Table V. 6.

Income Distribution in Lorenz Values and Deciles over f5,45 Hurstingstone Hundred, 1522 - 1547

A. Lorenz Values

B. Deciles

(% of income per decile) decile

45 Symbols as in Table V. 5. Table V. 7. Numbers of Taxpayers in Income Brackets, Kiirstingstone Hundred, 1522 - 1547

Value (f) Number of Tax payers

Table V.8.

Surns of Hurstings tone Probate Inventories in Ac tbooks, Hurstingstone Hundred, 1543 - 1558

A. Lorenz Values (K = -161) Population (% Wealth (%)

B. Deciles

Decile Share in Wealth (%) Chapter VI

The Spatial Dimension

The landscape of Hurstingstone hundred is divided into three principal zones: the Fenland in the north, low-lying fluvial gravels mostly in the south along the Ouse and its tributaries and elevated boulder clays in the centre.' Before the drainage movement of the seventeenth century the Huntingdonshire Fenland consisted of meres and flood-prone tracts of peat and silt.2 Considerable peat development delayed agricultural colonisation but offered a host of resources to the agricultural population in the vicinity: pasture, fisheries, peat and sedge were all utilized. Ramsey stood out as a high lying island in the Fens which formerly provided it with the isolation that attracted the Benedictines but, by the sixteenth century, its insular character was largely eroded through agricultural colonization. The gravels of the river beds provided fertile arable and meadows which combined with riparian resources (fish, willsws, sedge). The boulder clays provided a more difficult yet rewarding terrain

Bigmore, Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire Landscape: 21- 32, H. C. Darby, The Medieval Fenland (Cambridge, 19401, Biddick, Other Economy: 17-19, D. Hall and C. Chipindale, llSurvey,environment and excavation in the English Fenland," Antiquity 62 (1988): 305-10, D. Hall, I1Survey results in the Cambridgeshire Fenland, Ir Antiquity 62 (1988): 311-14. J. Thirsk, Fenland Farming in the Sixteenth Century. Department of English Local History. Occasional Papers 3 (1953), Spuf f ord, Contrasting Communities: 121-64. 205 for the plough as well as carrying forest and pasture resources. Most communities combined access to at least two of these zones and, thus, were able to assemble a varied bundle of resources upon which to base their economy.3 Outside the Fenland, the Hurstingstone countryside was well settled but carried higher population densities near the river Ouse than on the boulder clays. The hundred is divided into less than twenty parishes comprising approximately thirty small towns, villages and hamlets. Their relative size can be determined from the numbers of taxpayers in the lay subsidy of 1523 and the households in the bishop's census of 1563 (summarised in Table VI.l).4 Using Alan Dyer's multiplier of 4.9 persons/household in

Lincolnshire, the 1151 households in the bishop's census yield a population estimate of 5640 persons in 1563.' Since the number of tax payers on a village by village basis in 1523 closely resembles that of households in 1563 and the total figure in the former exceeds the latter by only slightly over one hundred, it is likely that most taxpayers also represent a household. The discrepancies in numbers are not surprising given that the region

W. Page, G. Proby and S. I. Ladds, eds., VCH Huntingdon, v. I1 (London, 1932) : 149-254. " PRO E 179/122/91, PRO E 179/122/95, see Appendix I for more on Dyer and Palliser, Bishop's Census: Preliminary Transcrip t . * A. Dyer, The Bishopsr Census of 1563: Its Significance and Accuracy, Local Population Studies 49 (Autumn 1992) : 25. was visited by two mortality crises in the 1540's and 1550'd On the whole, settlement sizes appear stable over the period between 1523 to 1563.? The population appears to have shifted slightly towards the south and east in these four decades with only the decline in Ramsey being exceptional: in 1523 over 200 tax payers were listed but forty years later only 122 households were left in the town. Ramsey may have been hard hit by mortality but it is more probable that the economic reversal in the north resulted from the loss of the monastery in 1539. Communities were connected by a series of links within the hundred and to the world beyond (Table VI.2). In most cases the connections were local, restricted to Hurstingstone itself or one of the other Huntingdonshire hundreds but they could extend much further. The limits of villagers1 geographical range varied with the type of activity, with different outer limits defined for bequests, personal relationships and commerce. Bequests to the poor occurred exclusively within Hurstingstone hundred. Thomas

Danyel (1548) and William Duckett (1551) of Little Raveley made donations in Bury, Upwood, Great Raveley, Abbots ~ipton, Wennington and . By comparison, beq~eststo clergy, parish churches and other ecclesiastical institutions

Huntingdonshire PR 2535/1, M. Zell, "Fisher's 'flu and Moore's probates: quantifying the mortality crisis of 1556 - 1560," EcHR 2nd ser. 47 (1994): 354-48. The correlation of settlement sizes between 1523 and 1563 is .88 and significant at the .I% level. Unfortunately, a number of significant demographic issues, such as shifts in household size, cannot be dealt with adequately with the available sources. 207 ranged a little further afield: John Fyley (Holywell 1554) made a

bequest to the vicar of Stanton and Agnes Rowley (Broughton 1528) to all the parish churches and the Austin friars in Huntingdon. Katherine Debb of Broughton made bequests to the parish churches of Broughton and Connington and the nunnery in Sawtre St. Andrew, appointing an executor from each town. Connections of family and friendship were also mostly local, primarily in the same village. For instance, Margaret Hogge

(Broughton 1542) moved to Huntingdon after her husband's death though she maintained close contact with her relatives in the

Broughton and even wished to be buried there. However, the outer limits of personal connections extended further than those of donations. Robert Nelson (Ramsey 1555) had a brother in Baynsley, Yorks., and John Fyley bequeathed money to members of

the Sander family, in Marham and Garwyk, Lincs .8 The fact that both testators felt the need to mention the counties together with the place names indicates that they did not expect their family and neighbours in Huntingdonshire to be familiar with their precise location. The links were tenuous because neither testator was sure of the circumstances of these heirs -- Fyley not even if they were alive. Commercial links extended over the largest geographical range but most connections remained within the hundred. The Pulters bought a horse in Bury and a 'mylche bullocke' in

A John Sander appeared as a witness in the will but it is not known if he was related to the Lincolnshire Sanders. Stukeley (Agnes Pulter, Broughton 1545), William Tolde (Wennington 1528) had creditors in King's Ripton and Little Raveley and Richard Pulter (Broughton 1545) held copyholds in Somersham, Fenton and Warboys. Other connections extended further. Tolde also had a creditor in Peterborough, John Selke (Little Raveley 1551) another in Dodington, Hunts., and Robert

Marten (King's Ripton 1549) held a house in , Hunts. Two impressive examples of the range of commercial activities may be cited. In 1544 the Ramsey churchwardens dispatched George Mawdsley all the way to Ely to fetch an unnamed plumber to do repair work.9 The other example stems from Yaxley in neighbouring Norman Cross hundred. In 1529 the inhabitants of this market town petitioned before the Star Chamber against Thomas Aylward of Lynn and his associate Christofer Branston, alleging that he was an 'ingroser & Forstaller of the markettes."' Residents were incensed because he had bought peas there in the previous year, shipped them to Scotland despite a shortage and was about to do the same again. The case is noteworthy because it demonstrates the interconnectedness of local Huntingdonshire markets with those of the rest of Britain

Ramsey CWA fo. 38v.

Tawney and Power, Tudor Economic Documents, v . I : 144 -4 6. A forestaller was someone who accumulated and withheld goods from the market to drive up prices or circumvent competition. On the concern of a medieval community with this offence see Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade: 181, 185-86. and even the entire North Sea trading area through shipping on the Ouse to the port of Kingrs ~ynn." The inverse of this phenomenon is that outsiders were drawn selectively into the hundred and to particular settlements. The subsidy assessment of two Dutchmen resident in Ramsey in 1522, the innkeeper Giles Elise and the servant Raymond, are further evidence of maritime links. Long distance traffic overland is less evident but in 1523 the lay subsidy returns record the presence of two Scots, Thomas Spense in Upwood and Thomas Hert in Wistow, who may have heen forerunners of the drovers who came from Scotland in the seventeenth century.12 The Ramsey court rolls reveal a strong divergence between the activities of residents of small neighbouring villages and those of the local centres of commerce (Table VI.3).13 Twenty-two outsiders from six locations were involved in economic activities. Seven men from the nearby communities of Bury, Hepmangrove, Upwood and Wistow engaged in activities directly related to primary production. Four were involved in conveyances of land while the others violated by-laws governing the commons. By contrast, the men

l1 The Hanseatic links of King's Lynn appear repeatedly in Kempe, Book.

l2 S . Porter, "The 'Livestock Trade in Huntingdonshire, 1600 - 1750,1fRecords of Huntingdonshire 2:2 (1982) :13-17, Anonymous, "How Many Miles to Hunt ingdon, Records of Huntingdonshire 2 :3 (1983):17-19, on the Scotttish connection.

l3 ~asedon evidence from DeWindt, Court Rolls: 885-1017. Bury is omitted from the discussion since there is little evidence of outsiders. from St. Ives and Huntingdon were all bakers charged with violations of the bread assize. The only exception is Francis Bass of ~untingdon,a mercer, who was fined twice for overcharging on merchandise and once without specific reason. Apparently, Huntingdon and St. Ives bakers found Ramsey an attractive market to sell their wares temporarily or, as is certain in the case of Anthony Dixson, in which to settle down. Lay subsidies were collected and ordered by village and reveal the geographical asp~sct of income distribution (summarised in Tables Vi.4-6). Consideration will be limited to the subsidy of 1523 because it is the most complete in overall coverage. Despite rather large differences in the number of tax payers from village to village, it is surprising to note that the internal distribution of wealth in most villages resembles the pattern observed at the county level. Deviations from the general pattern usually reflect no more than the comparative success of a small number of individuals within a settlement and in no way negate the strong conformity among locations.14 Bury cum Hepmangrove stands out because all indicator values are low,

l4 Values for I, K and the average show normal distributions and all individual values lie within two standard deviations of the mean (except for the K value of Wennington which lies by 0.01 outside two standard deviations below the mean). Locations with values removed by more than one standard deviation from the mean are: Holywell and Bury (low I value); (high I value); Great Raveley, Bury, Little Raveley , Wennington and Old Hurst (low K) ; Abbots Ripton, Broughton, Warboys, Little Stukeley (high K); Wennington, Great Raveley, Ramsey and Bury (lcw average); Little Raveley, Colne, Great Stukeley and Broughton (high average) . indicating a village with strong equality in distribution but also little accumulation of wealth. A similar pattern may exist in Wennington and Raveley Magna while Broughton and Great Stukeley exhibit high concentration of income by elite groups. Interestingly, the market places of Earith, Somersham, St. Ives and Ramsey developed a more egalitarian pattern. There are no distributional patterns evident and, if anything, the intermixture of villages with high, low and normal values indicates complementary structures of distribution. The distribution of wealth among villages may not have differed considerably but the effects of exchanges affected activities within villages profoundly. Ramsey and Bury will be presented for closer examination because their shared characteristics facilitate compari~on.'~Both are located within a few kilometres of each other at the southern edge of the Fenland and are surrounded by a fairly similar resource base consisting of arable, meadow, pasture and fen. Institutional similarities were equally strong. Both were Ramsey abbey manors and held court on the same days in Rarnsey until the Dissolution. Nevertheless, a distinction was made between the two manors on these occasions: Ramsey and Bury passed their by-laws, elected their officers and fined transgressions within their boundaries

lS The comparison of Ramsey and Bury cum Hepmangrove was presented as a paper entitled: Willage and Trade: Locational Differentiation of Early Tudor Villages in Huntingdonshire," at the International Medieval Congress in Leeds, July 11, 1995. 212 separately.16 Institutional and ecological factors need only be called upon to a limited extent to explain divergences. A major historical difference was given by the presence of the Benedictine monastery at Ramsey which became the centre of the surrounding area after its foundation in the late tenth century.

As a consumer of goods and services it enabled Ramsey to outgrow Bury at an early time despite its incongenial location as a traffic dead-end in the fens. Already in 1290 almost twice as many taxpayers were listed in Ramsey as in Bury, in 1523 the difference was almost six-fold with over 200 in the former but slightly less than forty in the latter. Conveniently, the ratio of person to event associations in manorial court rolls is also six to one between the two settleme~ts.'~These figures cannot be equated with actual population ratios but they provide a measure by which to compare the two locations.18 There were no overt barriers to prevent individuals from either settlement operating in the other. To provide a few

l6 Strictly speaking Bury cum Hepmangrove consists of two settlements but these cannot be differentiated with any consistency. In the following pages 'Buryf refers to both locations.

l7 The 1290 data is derived from the lay subsidy of 1290 which lists the goods on which taxes were levied and states craft occupations. Raftis and Hogan, Lay Subsidy Rolls: 42-56.

l8 The essence of this approach is to determine if there are statistically significant departures from the 6:l ratio in the relative presence of particular activities in each location. However, it should be noted that the ratio is not universal: it is merely four to one in the Bishop's Census of 1563 with 122 households in Ramsey but only thirty-two in Bury. examples: Thomas Pulter was admitted as a labourer in both locations in the 153Ors,John Cattesbie and Thomas Filby were bakers in both in the 1540's and 15SOfs,John Redman of Bury owned land in Ramsey during the 1530rs,John Campion was a juror first in Ramsey, later in Bury while John Reed was fen reeve in Bury and juror in Ramsey in 1538. William Benet, a Bury husbandman, was the son of Thomas Benet, who began as a craftsman in Ramsey but settled to farming in Bury.lg Freedom of movement seems to have extended to outsiders: Anthony Dixon of Huntingdon was recorded as a baker in both Ramsey and Bury. The function of the two villages as reasonably open economies towards each other should not come as a surprise given considerable evidence of mobility in the late medieval and early modern countryside but it cannot be taken for granted either: nearby Godmanchester used its court to cause rich Londoners considerable difficulties in their attempts to operate locally.2o A basic profile of the structure of wealth can be drawn up from the lay subsidies of the 1520's. Seventy-six percent of taxpayers in Bury and 64% in Ramsey were assessed on goods and the remainder on wages but no one was assessed on land. Wealth ranged from El in both settlements to £44 in Ramsey and £16 in Bury. Despite this sizable difference, the distribution pattern was not overly different with 78% of all taxpayers assessed below

l9 See Appendix IV.

20 Raftis, ETG: 63-5; on mobility: ibid., Tenure and Mobility: 129-82. 214

£5 in both locations and wealth per capita lying at £3 6s in Bury and £3 7s in Ramsey. These are low averages compared to most other locations in the h~ndred.~'However, a marked difference between Bury and Ramsey is found at the low end of the range

(below £2) where 43% of Ramsey taxpayers are concentrated but only 32% from Bury as a direct consequence of the higher percentage of wage earners in the former. Land was still an important factor of production. Records of conveyances in the court rolls permit an examination of land transfers. Though absolute numbers of transfers favour Ramsey, relativised figures indicate a brisker market in Bury. The other striking contrast is the difference in property types transferred: woods, willow rows, orchards, vineyards and especially fishponds were exclusive to Ramsey while gardens and closes occurred in proportionately larger numbers there. The relationship shifts when one considers the more standard rural land types: arable and pasture were proportionately more important in Bury, leasows and marshes were transferred exclusively there. Meadows also appear to have been more important in the Bury land market, though fines for illegal mowing were only levied in Ramsey. Land use patterns in Ramsey appear more involved in crop production requiring greater

This is confirmed by calculations of inequality conducted in chapter V: Bury cum Hepmangrove: I = 38.1, K = .241; Ramsey: I = 41.9, K = .287. capital; those in Bury were more pastoral and less capital intensive. Local trades in both settlements were closely linked to agriculture. The two essential trades processing agricultural products can be found in either location. No bias in favour of one or the other village could be detected in baking but bakers from third locations, mostly Huntingdon and St. Ives, preferred Ramsey. Brewers were more active in Ramsey than in Bury. Another difference may be noted in the presence of mills for grinding grain and malt which were recorded in Ramsey but not at Bury. Pronounced differences existed with regard to the processing of animal products. Trades processing slaughter products (butchers, cobblers, tanners and tallow chandlers), textiles (fullers, weavers, tailors, drapers, dyers and collar-makers) as well as fisheries were exclusive to Ramsey without a single Bury resident to be found among them. In a similar vein a number of minor crafts, service and retail trades (barber, innkeeper, cook, fowler and smith) appeared in Ramsey but not Bury. Retail activities in Ramsey and Bury were perhaps the most significant sector of the economy according to the number of cases (14% of all entries) in the court rolls. The difference between Ramsey and Bury is once again striking. In Bury only eight persons can be identified from eighteen entries while in Ramsey 132 persons can be identified in 261 entries. Bury residents fell short by two-thirds of the expected proportion of retail-related entries due to them. Apart from quantitative distinctions a qualitative difference can be detected as well: cases indicating a shop, either through a fee levied for a permit or for keeping a shop on the owner's home plot, only occurred in Ramsey and the more general terms for retail occupations (eg., mercers) tended to be more frequent there. It is readily apparent that retailing was more developed in Ramsey than in Bury and formalised to a greater degree. The contrast between a significant presence of processing and retail trades in Ramsey and their equally significant absence in Bury raises questions. The residents of the latter certainly had the resources to raise livestock, as will be demonstrated shortly, and fish. The prerequisite skills would almost certainly be present in Bury and one must assume, though one cannot prove, that they were practised on a small scale to fulfil household demand. The activities of bread and ale assizes indicate that Bury neither aspired to higher standards in quality and pricing nor that it was indifferent to economic misdemeanours of this nature. In any case. the assizes were based in part on royal statute, so it is difficult to explain their absence in Bury by any cause other than real economic differences. Ramsey appears as the more active and exciting place but Bury's true strength is revealed once one turns to livestock. It was stated in the discussion of conveyances that Bury's economy leaned towards the pastoral sector. Most of the evidence comes from fines against poorly restrained animals and violations of the pasturing routine. The greater preoccupation of Bury with

pastoralism is striking: 61% of all livestock entries come from this village. With Bury's smaller population and rights of commoning in the Fens there is no apparent reason to believe that Bury residents were tripping over each other for lack of space to pasture their animals. The pressure on pastoral resources was likely due to actual differences in animal numbers. Support for this observation is found in the lay subsidies which divided

taxpayersf wealth into land, goods and wages. According to this . criterion Bury had the lowest percentage of wage earners in the hundred, an observation consistent with reduced labour requirements in a pastoral economy. Ramsey did not have a high percentage of wage earners either when compared to other Hurstingstone locations but, its comparatively high level of population cloaks a large real figur of wage earners there which actually exceeded the total number of taxpayers in Bury and several other settlements. In the final analysis, it is fair to characterize Ramsey as more complex than Bury. Though its activities were rarely far removed from agriculture, the evidence indicates greater capital investment with orchards, fishponds, mills, closes, specialisation in the textile industry and processing animal products as well as a substantial retail sector. The more commercial character of Ramsey is emphasized by the activities of assizes: their cases comprise 30.4% of all actions emanating from Ramsey, but only 15.2% of those from Bury. Ramsey had the 218 advantage of the Benedictine abbey as a direct stimulus and was a market town so it easily outpaced its neighbour. But it appears that some Ramsey activities were fed in part by a strongly pastoral economy located in Bury. The two seem to have formed a symbiotic relationship in which the smaller supplied livestock to the larger for prccessing into value-added products to the larger." Though far less complex and smaller, Bury experienced a significant commercialization of its economy through interaction with Ramsey. In this sense, Ramsey structured the immediate countryside through commerce and determined the preferred paths by which wealth was acquired.* This relationship should not be seen as a fixed one which established itself with the foundation of the abbey but rather the product of ongoing transformations in a regional economy.

When the lay subsidy of 1290 was levied, it is not entirely surprising to find that some patterns were already established: Ramsey was larger, the site of fisheries and more commercial activity while Bury had a more pastoral character even then.24

This differential appears less pronounced in 1290 when Bury still

" Purchases in Bury are mentioned in the wills of Agnes Pulter (Broughton 1544) and John Pulter (Broughton 1545).

23 It is interesting to refer to Raftis, ETG: 50-55, 135-43, for a comparison in the occupational structures of Ramsey and Godmanchester which is more crafts-oriented than Ramsey or any of the Hurstingstone small towns.

24 Raftis and Hogan, Lay Subsidy Rolls: 42-56. The numbers of livestock per tax person, in total and broken down by species, were higher in Bury cum Hepmangrove. 219 had tanners than in the early sixteenth century." To establish how this process affected the entire countryside requires a larger study than is possible here but a tentative measure of differentiation may be derived from the lay subsidies of the 1520s by looking at assessments on wages (Table VI.7). Wage earners make a useful indicator because, by their nature, they depend on the exchange value of labour. These differences should not be confused with an index of commercialisation but may act as an indicator of its differential impact. The overall percentage of wage earners for the entire hundred was 35%, with the lowest value recorded in Bury (14.6%) and the highest in Little Stukeley

(65.9%). The precise nature of this wide spread in percentages can only be determined by detailed analysis of local circumstances but we may still speak with assurance of a countryside structured into commercial niches. Distribution of occupations across the eastern circuit provides further evidence of this nature (Table VI.8) and variations offer an interesting insight into the nature of local economies. High proportions of husbandmen and servants in the populations of Old Hurst, Pidley, Bluntisham, Colne and Woodhurst mark the decidedly rural character of these settlements. In Earith and Somersham the presence of agrarian occupations was also significant but it combined with a significant element of wage labour, crafts and trades in large tax populations to

- .-

zi ibid., : 44-45. indicate more diversified economies.26 The importance of Somersham can be attributed in part to the presence of a residence of the bishops of Ely, its manorial lords, but also to its location on a road of some significance. A market had been granted by Richard I in 1190 and a three day fair followed in

1319 which continued into the nineteenth century.27 Earith, also an Ely manor, was granted a weekly market and a three day fair in 1318. However, the village's chief advantage was its location by the river Ouse. The fishery and ferry had been important sources of revenue to its lord in the thirteenth century and its bridge was of some significance in the Middle Ages and early modern period. The presence of ten fishermen testifies to the continued importance of the river in its economy.28 The success of some Earith tradesmen is particularly impressive: five trades relating to animal products (two fishermen, a glover, a tanner and a butcher) were assessed at over £10 in income each- The contrast

26 Raftis, ETG, is concerned to a significant degree with the fifteenth century as a period in which the agrarian component lost ground (at least in relative terms) in the economy of that town. A particularly interesting observation with regard to the term 'husbandman' may be found on p. 199: 'With farming so undergirded by commerce, small wonder that the term uhusbandmanll never became common in the records of Godmanchester.' This observation appears to be supported by the data assembled for this study as well-

27 M. E. Simkins, uSomersham,~eds. W. Page, G. Proby and S. I. Ladds, ed. VCH Huntingdon v. I1 (1932; Folkestone, 1974): 224- 27.

28 E . Peake, "Bluntisham cum Earith, W. Page, G. Proby and S. I. Ladds, VCH Huntingdon v. I1 (1932; Folkestone, 1974): 153- 55. 221 of Earith and Somersham to more agrarian settlements indicates a tendency towards diversification into small centres through traffic links or an external stimulus. Ramsey, Earith and Somersham as well as St. Ives, site of an important medieval fair, fit the model of the 'small townf -- '...distinct from both the village and the town proper ...' -- sketched by J. A. Raftis on the basis of his study of medieval Godmanche~ter.~~Though his comments were primarily directed at governing institutions, they can be extended to more strictly economic phenomena as well. These locations exhibited greater occupational complexity than villages, yet retained a strong involvement in agriculture and their trades were directly dependent upon the availability of agricultural products in the immediate countryside. The concept of central place delineated by James Masschaele for Huntingdonshirefsmedieval markets provides the necessary mechanism to place these small towns and their village neighbours into the long-term process of settlement differentiati~n.~' The markets of the county were integrated into a hierarchy of importance around the borough of Huntingdon as the central place. Masschaele describes the market cycle as 'trader- orientedf but its influence on all villagers was far more

"' Raftis/ Small Town: 230-35, the quote is taken from p. 230. St. Ives could not be examined in detail in the context of this study but its inclusion is justified by its rank as the second largest settlement by population and its history as a medieval fair town (see Moore, Fairs) .

'O Masschaele, Regional Economy: 145- 88 . 222 pervasive than this statement lets on." All settlements in the hundred exhibit a specific economic profile which was developed as a result of interaction with their neighbours and placed them into a specific relationship to other communities in the hundred. The hierarchy of central place and subsidiary markets extended further into the countryside by affecting local production and social structure. Individual communities developed areas of emphasis within the possibilities offered by local resources and institutions to contribute in specific ways to the regional economy. It is clear that the abbey made a major difference to the development of Ramsey and Bury. It provided a stimulus for Ramsey to develop an order of magnitude and complexity which Bury could not. Undoubtedly, extraneous factors of this type had a 'seedingr effect in many local economies and were aided by traffic, environmental and other factors. Yet, there is no given reason why fishers, butchers, tanners, shopkeepers, textile workers and other occupations should have been altogether lacking from the economies of Bury and other villages. The thirteenth century presence of tanners in Bury shows that this state of affairs was not predetermined and, therefore, a lack of prerequisite materials, skills, attitudes or laws cannot be cited as a cause. The answer lies in the fact that the two settlements developed not parallel but in relationship to each other with

31 Masschaele, Regional Economy: 161-62. 223 Ramsey developing a complex structure while Bury focused on a more specialised agrarian niche in livestock production. Naturally, the evidence of these two settlements is too narrow to develop a full-fledged critique of the conceptual contrast of town and village but it appears as a false dichotomy herea3*The characteristics of the 'villager as small, agricultural and simple developed to some degree as a secondary feature while the 'townr acquired characteristics as large, non-agricultural and occupationally diverse. The very ability of the town to elaborate its identity rested upon surrounding villages which provided the necessary basis through the supply of provisions and demand for goods and, in turn, developed alternative identities.33 Historians of early modern England are bound to find a gradient of settlements extending from very 'rural' places (Terling in Essex and Bury cum Hepmangrove) to small towns (Ramsey, Colchester and Godmanchester), towns proper (Norwich and Bristol) and, ultimately, metropolitan London.34 Interconnected by co-

32 This has been recognized elsewhere in the literature: Abrams, NIntroduction:" 1-8, Raftis, Small Town: 1-3.

33 The contrast developed here between Ramsey and Bury finds a parallel in 'urbanr Romford, a market place, and rural Hornchurch in M. McIntosh's studies of the royal manor of Havering-atte-Bower, Essex. McIntosh, Autonomy and Community: 137-60, and Community Transformed: 94-155.

34 No exhaustive bibliography is possible here but Raftis, ETG, ibid. , Small Town, Wrightson and Levine, Piety and Poverty: 19-42, Macintosh, Community Transformed: 130-55, Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds: 1-22, Kussmaul, A General View: passim, and Abrams, l1Introduction, played a significant role in shaping this view. 224 development, they eventually transcended the regional scale to acquire defined national and even international contours. What historians will not find is a process of selective urban development in a matrix of rural stagnation. Urban and rural settlements are best conceptualised as integral parts of the same developmental process, rather than contrasts of failure and success.35

35 Hoskins, Age of Plunder: 53 -104, Outhwaite, "Progress and Backwardness. l1 Chapter VI. Tables

Table VI.I Taxpayers in 1523 and Households in 1563, Hurs tings tone ~undred~

Settlement Taxpayers, 1523 Households, 1563 Bluntisham Broughton Bury cum Hepmangrove Colne Earith Hartford Holywell cum ~eedingworth Houghton cum Wytton Pidley cum Fenton Ramsey Abbots Ripton (and Wennington) Kingrs Ripton Somersham St. Ives (and ~lepe) Great Stuckeley Little Stuckeley Upwood (and Great Raveley) Warboys Wistow (and ~ittleRaveley) Old Hurst Woodhurs t Hundred

36 The table is based on the Lay Subsidy of 1523 and the Dr. Palliserfs transcript of the Bishop's Census of 1563. Table VI.2

Links be tween Communi ties in the Wills, 1479 -1558j7

Community Community of Connection of Testator

Sornersham, Stanton, Marham (Lincs. ) , Garwyk (Lincs. ) , Drayton, Eton.

Ramsey Wistow, Warboys, Upwood, Baynsley (Yorks. ) , Godmanchester, Great Stoughton, Needingworth, Huntingdon.

Bury , Ramsey. Broughton Warboys (2), Somersham (2), Fenton, Bury (2), Huntingdon (2), Connington, Sawtre St. ~ndrew, Stuckley . Abbots Ripton Bury (2), Connington, Peterborough, Little Raveley, Huntingdon, King's Ripton, .

King's Ripton Abbots Ripton (2), Ramsey (21, Alconbury, Hartford, Huntingdon, Broughton (2), Raveley, Hemrningford, Buckworth, , Warboys.

Little Raveley Upwood (2), Wistcw (21, Bury (2) , ~ennington (2), Great Raveley, Dodington, Huntingdon, Warboys, Abbots Ripton, Little Stuckeley. Great Raveley Upwood, Wistow, Little Raveley. Warboys Ramsey . Raveley Upwood Ramsey, Bury, Wistow, Little Raveley, Walton.

37 Only wills in the select sample from Hurstingstone are considered. Bequests to the diocesan church in Lincoln, though constituting the most frequent mention of a location in the wills, are not considered here because of their formulaic nature. Figures in brackets in section A indicate the number of wills in which the location is mentioned if it occurs more than once. Table VI.3. Outsiders in Ramsey Courts, 1500-1558 Origin Name Occasion Frequency Hepmangrove John Redrnane land conveyance Upwood Thomas Baker land conveyance Wistow John Colwell land conveyance Wistow John Elmer land conveyance Wistow John Randall mowing sedge Wistow Robert Pikerd sen cutting alders Bury Thomas Fenyll cattle in commons Huntingdon Francis Bass mercer Huntingdon Anthony Dixson baker Huntingdon John Hedyngley baker Huntingdon Hugh Hutchyn baker Huntingdon Richard Banye baker Huntingdon Richard Brege baker Huntingdon Richard Coppyngs baker Huntingdon Richard Cowye baker Huntingdon Richard Croymey baker Huntingdon William Elderiche? baker St. Ives Peter Oundell baker St. Ives Richard Flemyng baker St. Ives Richard Genyn baker St. Ives Thomas Fylby baker St. Ives William Sharpe baker Table V1.4. Income Distribution in Hurstingsone Villages by Deciles, 1523~~

(% income held by population decile)

Decile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Village

Abbots & King's Ripton Blunt isharn Broughton Bury Earith HolywelI Houghton Rarnsey Sornersham St. Ives & Slepe Warboys Wistow, Upwood & Colne Pidley Old Hurst & Woodhurst L. Stuckeley Gr. Stuckeley Hart ford

Hundred 2.2

38 The small numbers of persons listed in individual returns required the amalgamation of Wistow, Upwood, Great Raveley and Little Raveley and of King's Ripton and Abbot Ripton respectively. Table V1.5.

Income ~istributionin Hurstingstone Villages by Lorenz Curve, 1523

(% income -- w - - and population - - p - - per tax category) Village £1-1.9 £2-4.9 £5-9.9 £10-19.9 £20+

Abbots Ripton p 53.8 28.2 10.3 2.6 w 11.5 19.4 13.0 6.8

Bluntisham

Broughton

Bury cum Hepmangrove p 41.5 34.1 17.1 7.3 w 11.8 25.7 31.9 30.6

Colne

Earith

Hartford

Houghton cum Wyton p 39.6 24.5 15.1 w 7.2 10.4 18.3

Old Hurst

Pidley cum Fenton p 41.0 43.6 10.3 0.0 w 10.7 34.7 13.8 0.0

Ramsey

Raveley Magna p 44.4 33 -3 16.7 5.6 0.0 w 13.1 34.4 31.1 21.3 0.0 Tab1e VI.5 continued .

Income Dis tribution in Hurs tings tone Villages by Lorenz Curve, 1523

Village £1-1.9 £2-4.9 £5-9.9 £20-19.9 £20-1-

Raveley Parva p 18.2 36.4 27.3 18.2 0.0 w 3.7 16.0 32.1 48.1 0.0

Slepe

Somersham

St. Ives

Stuckeley Magna p 45.5 20.5 18.2 11.4 4.5 w 8.4 12.2 24.4 27.7 27.3

Stuckeley Parva p 65.9 9.1 11.4 4.5 9.1 w 10.8 3.3 13.1 8.7 64.1

Warboys

Wennington

Wistow

Woodhurs t

Hundred Table VI.6.

Average Income (av.) and Coefficients of Inequality (I)

and Concentration (K) based on Tables VI. 4 and VI.5

Abbots Ripton 46.7 Bluntisham 47.7 Broughton 49.4 Bury cum Hepmangrove 38.1 Colne SO. 0 Earith 41.1 Hartford 48.3 Holywell cum Needingworth 34.5 Houghton cum Wyton 47.2 King's Ripton WA Old Hurst 39.2 Pidley cum Fenton 40.6 Ramsey 41.9 Raveley Magna N/A Raveley Parva N/A Slepe WA Somersham 47.3 St. Ives 51.3 Stuckeley Magna 45.3 Stuckeley Parva 61.6 Upwood 46.7 Warboys 46.8 Wennington N/A Wistow WA Woodhurst WA

Hundred (unweighted) 46.0 .319

Standard Deviation 6.0 .036 Table VI.7-

Hurstingstone Wage Earners by Settlement, 1523 Locat ion Taxpayers Wage Earners No..

Bluntisham 11 Broughton 16 Bury cum Hepmangrove 6 Colne 11 Earith 25 Hartford 24 Holywell cum ~eedingworth 25 Houghton cum Wyton 16 Pidley cum Fenton 15 Ramsey 56 Great Raveley 7 Little Raveley 2 Abbots Ripton 16 King's Ripton 10 Slepe 13 Somersham 34 St. Ives 38 Great Stukeley 17 Little Stukeley 29 Upwood 8 Warboys 15 Wennington 7 Wistow 12 Old Hurst 4 Woodhurs t 11 Table VI-8.

Location of Occupations in Eastern Hurstings tone, 1523 A. General Location Husbandmen Labourers Servants Crafts Bluntisham Colne Earith Pidley Somersham Old Hurst Woodhurst Total B. Crafts and Trades Craft or Trade Bluntisham Earith Somersham baker butcher carpenter dyer fisher fuller glover miller sawyer smith tailor tanner thatcher tinker weaver victualler Total

39 The tax list includes thirty-four individuals who were not designated by occupation but are included in the total. Conclusion

Two conflicting views of the state of rural wealth in early Tudor England were cited at the outset. In a commentary on the Muster Survey of 1522 Polydore Vergil noted that Henry VIII found that his people were not poor. The opposite position was taken by William Harrison, who in the reign of Elizabeth I cited his older parishioners as witnesses that prosperity was recent and general poverty lay within living memory. In support of Harrison charity for the poor, the transience of some labourers and the clustering of over 30% of tax payers at the bottom of the assessment scale can be cited. However, it has become unmistakeably clear that the bulk of the evidence supports Polydore Vergil. 'Wealthr left an abundant record in the sources. Clear economic awareness, resourcefulness and flexibility in the use of resources, accumulation over their life-cycle, capital investment, improved houses, feather beds, crafted furniture, pewter and brass, fair clothing and a new steeple combine into impressive testimony of the capacity of the local economy. These villagers were a far cry from both the poor forefathers of Harrison's parishioners who contented themselves with a log for a pillow and the subsistence cultivators of more recent scholarship whose surplus, if any, was devoured by Church, Crown and landlord: Hurstingstone villagers were deeply involved in the market under the Tudors. 235 The recognition of a commercialised countryside in medieval and early modern England has taken a long time to crystallize due to two factors. The first is the antithetical model of town and country which relegates market activities to the former and envisions the countryside as a preserve of rent-producing subsistence agriculture. The divergent but interrelated development of Ramsey and Bury demonstrates that this model cannot be retained in Tudor Hurstingstone. Indeed, as E. A. Wrigley has shown, even the economy and demography of early modern London, a classical city if there was any in England, cannot be envisioned adequately within the dualistic model.' The situation encountered is more realistically described as a rural/urban continuum in which 'urbanityf and 'rusticity' in their various forms were two sides of the same coin.2 Their relationship and the formation of their characteristics must be seen as the result of a formative process mediated by conmercial exchange as forms of integration rather than solitudes.

Raftis, Small Town: 230-35, and E. A. Wrigley, "A Simple Model of London's Importance in Changing English Economy and Society, 1650 - 1750," eds. P. Abrams and E. A. Wrigley, Towns Societies : Essavs in Economic History and Historical Sociology (cambridge, 1978) : 215-43, make this-point strongly with respect to Gohanchester and London, but it is also inherent in Rappapoxt, Worlds.

Wrigley, I1Sirnple Model : 221, makes the point that a large number of persons stayed in London for at least a phase in their life. The tastes developed and the skills acquired there had a profound effect on demand and production in the rest of the country (pp. 226-35). The other obstacle is the long-standing equation of rural wealth with land. However, land was perhaps the most unevenly distributed asset in rural society as a result of its progressive concentration in the hands of the yeomanry. The rise of this group and of the gentry demonstrate that land was important as a means to status, dignity and. power; the land acquisitions of the Benets, Nelson and others prove that Hurstingstone was no exception. By extension, the landless and smallholders were identified as the poor -- no productive land, plough or animals -

- because the means to produce minimal amounts of food were a last ditch defence against famine.3 However, there is more to \wealthfin this period than landownership or secure tenancy. The difficulties encountered in equating status and land with wealth in movables and income have been recognised by both historians and the administrators who implemented the lay s~bsidies.~Pure agriculturists enjoyed no advantage over crafts and trades and were even at a slight disadvantage according to the prosopographical profiles in Appendix IV. Rather, affluence and economic mobility -- Oliver Silcock, John Dawes and Robert Nelson serve as illustrations --

Undoubtedly, labourers like Hugh Charite acquired and held on to livestock and land for that reason alone regardless of what means provided their livelihood primarily. See Appendix IV. The yeoman Thomas Chicheley (see Appendix IV) and the gentleman John Burton (see Chapter V) are demonstrative examples of the problem in this study but the problem has been equally apparent in other work: Cornwall, Wealth and Society: 29-30. were contingent upon skills rather than land? Undoubtedly, the combinations of crafts and agriculture found in the record were due in part to the fact that particular activities could not afford individuals a living by themselves but the prosopographical material suggests that more than a defensive strategy ap~lied.~The success enjoyed by Oliver Silcock -- weaver, barber and brewer -- and the aggressive diversification of Robert Nelson -- dyer, brewer and owner of extensive lands -- demonstrate that these were also the route to economic advance. The means to acquire land and realize its economic potential lay with labour, crafts, trades and entrepreneurship. The comparatively equitable distribution of income in the lay subsidies proves the broad effectiveness of local commerce in blunting social disparities. The preoccupation with land and subsistence in historiography created an unreasonably distorted picture of social stratification.' The gross inequality inherent in the

Prosopographical evidence is provided in Appendix IV. For good measure the Cromwell family, which became the supreme landlords in the area after the Dissolution of the monasteries, may be added. Morgan Williams had moved from Wales to Putney and later Greenwich where he became an innkeeper and brewer. His marriage to Katherine Cromwell, daughter of a fuller, brewer and smith, made the family fortunes: her brother Thomas, who rose to become the chancellor of Henry VIII, was an effective patron of their son Richard, who eventually adopted the Cromwell name. J. Brownbill, ltCromwellPedigree, " VCH Huntingdon, v. I1 : 67-72.

Raftis, ETG: 137-38.

Clay, Economic Expansion and Social Change, v. I : 53 -67. Thus, Wrightson and Levine emphasize poverty in their studies of Wickham and Terling. K. Wrightson and D. Levine, The Making of distribution of land was softened in Hurstingstone by the market, entrepreneurship and sheer luck. The many low assessments in the lay subsidies magnify this impression unduly. The problem with the lay subsidies is the fact that they provide no more than a brief snapshot of the circumstances of taxpayers. The economic mobility of some villagers, among them Dawes and Silcock who first appeared at the bottom of the income scale, suggests that many low assessments in the lay subsidies reflect a phase in their life cycle but not their life-long economy. In many ways the situation is strikingly similar to the one observed by

Rappaport in London : As Phythian-Adams found in Coventry, the extreme inequality and widespread poverty suggested by sources such as the subsidies simply do not square with other evidence regarding the number of poor people living in sixteenth century London. Admittedly there is little quantitative evidence concerning the degree of poverty in the capital, but what is available does not suggest that one-third of the population was thoroughly destitute. The rags-to-riches tale of Dick Whittington, an almost failed migrant to London and later Lord Mayor, was exceptional, but the hope of economic mobility was realistic as accumulation from income, inheritance and opportunity bore fruit over the course of

an Industrial Society: Wickham, 1560 - 1765 (~xford,1991)~ ibid. , Piety and Poverty.

Rappaport, Worlds: 167.

Rappaport, Worlds: 367-68. Clearly defined distinctions need to be drawn in future discussions of wealth, poverty and inequality in pre-industrial England. It is not enough to point to readily observed phenomena such as range and concentrtation of wealth at a particular point in time. For one, the distinction between a state which is a temporary bottleneck in an individual's economic life-cycle and one which is an insurmountable condition of life is crucial because they have entirely different implications for psychological and social well-being. This must be particularly true in societies which, as early Tudor England undoubtedly was, were heavily weighted towards the young. The logic of a flat age pyramid requires that single-moment profiles are weighted towards persons who have not reached their economic prime. Only prosopography and similar comprehensive approaches hold the promise of disentangling superficially from profound similarity. Equally important is the consideration of security which loomed large in the minds of contemporaries as they decided upon charity. The social relationship between rich and poor must also be accounted for in definitions of wealth and poverty.'' In particular, the fact that a perception of mutual obligation often accompanies this relationship needs to be considered more strongly in the future without becoming entrapped in the concept

lo Slack, Poverty and Policy, offers a valuable introduction to this train of thought. Scott, Weapons of the Weak, provides a well-observed study of changing relationships between rich and poor under the impact of technological innovation in Malaysia despite the weakness of his central thesis. of social orders. Wills rather than inventories promise to yield insights in this area because they interweave economics and culture to such an extent. The sum of observations speaks strongly against the early sixteenth century as a residual age of poverty stemming from a fifteenth century crisis. This study cannot reassess the evidence of economic expansion in the sixteenth century which, in any case, must be attributed to factors beyond the horizon of Hurstingstone hundred, but future discussion needs to take into account that this process encountered a more responsive economy in the countryside than hitherto allowed. Further research is needed to assess and integrate the interaction of the rural economy with the broader developments of English and global economic history. One thing is clear: the rural economy under the Tudors can no longer be envisioned as a pre-capitalist economy waiting to be rnobilised by the disruption of its institutional fabric. It remains to be seen if this means that a flatter growth curve or a more elevated point of origin should be entered into future projections of 'growth."' The other key issue addressed in the introduction concerned the position of the early sixteenth century in the transition from the medieval to the early modern period. It was noted then that the central problem was historiographical, caused by the

One cannot help but think of de Vries, uIndustrious Revoluti~n:~~251, who speaks of revisionist attempts to 'cleanse the temple of the 'false god of the take off,' with regard to the Industrial Revolution. traditional chronological periodization as well as discontinuities in the sources. Historiography has found crossing the chro~ologicalchasm difficult for institutional reasons which assigned research in medieval and modem history to

different sets of personnel, each with its own preferences in methods, materials and problems. The division was challenged by the 'Revolt of the Medievalists,' as Jan de Vries has labelled it, but the effects have been felt unevenly over the range of thematic s~bfields.'~The reader familiar with the village economy of the Middle Ages will have found little difficulty in recognising many salient features of the economy described and to

accept that in 1550 village communities were still viable entities. Parallels can be found in other fields of history such as the study of popular religion, which has successfully demonstrated the remarkable vitality of traditional piety. Students of rural history will barely notice and have little need to pause while crossing the chronological divide between medieval and modern times. Of course, the essence of continuity lay with the villagers themselves. The wills upon which so much of the study rests captures them at the end of their lives in the process of setting their affairs in order for the next generation. Most individuals featured in prosopographic profiles belonged to families which had been in the county for generations, even over centuries.

l2 de Vries, " Industrious Revolution: 252 -53. Their numbers were periodically diminished and replenished as members left for other locations and newcomers arrived in an ongoing process of mobility but they formed the reservoir of knowledge on local fanning conditions and village customs which was indispensable to continued prosperity and order in each community. Their intergenerational efforts permitted a steady building of fortunes which improved the lot of individuals and gave prosperity to families. The strength of their achievement is evident in the informal preservation of control over movable property by women during its eclipse in the courts. On a grander scale, the survival of Catholicism and the more encompassing failure of the English Church to secure conformity after the Reformation offers a parallel in the ability of a part of the people to secure their will without official institutional support or approval.

All was not the same as in the Middle Ages but a process of adaptation is visible. Among other factors, the distribution of economic activity in the countryside was quietly changing. In practice this meant that Bury became a successful producer of livestock but lost its medieval tanners while Godmanchester and the small towns of Hurstingstone hundred endorsed crafts.13

l3 J. Patten, "Changing occupational structures in the East Anglian countryside, 1500 - 1700rfreds. H. S. A. Fox and R. A. Butlin, Change in the Countryside: Essays on Rural England, 1500 - 1700 (London, 1979): 103-21, suggests a similar endorsement of crafts in rural East Anglia during the seventeenth century from wills. He also describes some of the difficulties in using early modern occupational designations accurately (pp. 104-07) and it would have been interesting to see how much of the rise of rural 243 Undoubtedly, equally silent population movements went with these changes. In the long run this process merged with the growing division of the entire country into a pastoral and an arable zone under the influence of the metropolitan market." The presence of manorial administrations had dwindled while royal power recovered lost ground when it reimposed direct taxes on individual income. This time the Crown's presence was more permanent as the enforced retreat of the church gained its full effect and royal power reached even into the parish church. Still, the pattern of change in the villages was adaptation, not disruption. Discontinuities arising from sources were frequently encountered during the study and set much of the tone in the larger field of inquiry on the economic history of the period. The withdrawl of landlords from the demesne resulted in the demise of manorial accounts and custumals while royal intrusion into the spheres of landlord and Church created the rise of parish registers and probate inventories which, in turn, forced scholars to deal with different issues on both sides of the divide. Yet, there is no shortage of documentary material for tackling the problem. An extensive series of wills which

crafts was due to changes in actual activities and how much to self-identification of testators. Of related interest: A. J. Tawney and R. H. Tawney, "An Occupational Census of the Seventeenth Century," EcHR 5.1 (1934): 25-64.

l' Kussmaul, General View, provides an interesting account of the process after 1500. Its less well known medieval precedents are outlined in Campbell, Galloway and Murphy, I1Metropolitan HinterlandttAHR 40 (1992): 1-22. 244 provided an effective links between sources, peoples and places in this study and their place in economic and social history is far from exhausted. In particular, the ability of documents to act as primary bridging devices in this period calls for further serious consideration. Other studies may well need to use different types of sources to achieve their ends but one conclusion is clear: the local scene and the rural economy in the early sixteenth century will not be grasped with those long strands of systematic records which support so much of the work on earlier and later periods. More integrative methodologies, such as prosopography and collective biographies, applied to heterogeneous source clusters are required.'' The importance of the early sixteenth century as the nexus between both periods lies in the fact that it permits and requires an integration of old with new types of sources through prosopography. At the same time, the immediate thematic contrasts of the integrative process is bound to lead to new insights so that bridging the historiographical divide will not merely lengthen existing historical narratives but undoubtedly create new ones. The case of goods among villagers, the state of thought, knowledge and awareness, the role of written materials provide but few examples of the potential inherent in these developments. Resolutions will undoubtedly be found as further

'' Rappaport, Worlds, and Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade, provide excellent examples of the use of collective biographies. strands are woven across the historiographical chasm and underutilised sources deliver additional links towards a seamless appreciation of this period. Appendices

Appendix I: Sources

This study uses the wills, manorial court rolls, lay subsidy returns and churchwardens accounts of early sixteenth century Hurstingstone hundred as its essential sources augmented by miscellaneous documents and pertinent printed texts of the period.' Geographical coverage at the outer limit was determined by the boundaries of the hundred but frequently quantity of information or availability of sources restricted coverage to a smaller area. Generally, the procedure followed was to vary coverage with information density. Analysis of the lay subsidies, which provide important but limited items of information for given indivL3uals, covered the entire hundred but court rolls were only analysed in two parishes because of the large amounts of information contained. The wills contained in the actbooks of the archdeaconry of Huntingdon constitute the most impressive category of documents available to this study. The first eleven volumes of the actbooks, which cover the period from 1479 to early 1558, contain over 4,000 wills from Huntingdonshire and parts of Hertfordshire with slightly less than half emanating from the former and almost

' Many of these documents were analyzed using the relational database Paradox for Windows 1.0 (Borland, 1992) .

246 657 wills pertaining to Hurstingstone h~ndred.~To manage this volume of materials, a smaller sample comprising over 230 wills from Holywell-cum-Needingworth,Ramsey, Bury-cum-Hepmangrove, Kingfs Ripton, Abbots Ripton, Little and Great Raveley, Warboys, Upwood, Wistow and Broughton was used. These villages and towns, all Ramsey abbey manors before the Dissolution of 1539, were chosen because many have already attracted the interest of historians associated with the study of medieval peasants in

T~ronto.~However, the discussion of women in chapter 111 covered the entire hundred because the sample consisted of only ninety-two wills formulated by female testators. A particular advantage of the actbook format is that continuous entry of wills into bound books precludes losses as may have been the case in loose leaf collection^.^ The number of

' Act books I - 11 of the archdeaconry of Huntingdon are located in the Huntingdon Record Office. Microfilm copies were obtained from Genealogical Society of Utah, Sandy, Utah. A calendar of these wills and those in later actbooks may be found in W. M. Wise, Calendars of Huntingdonshire Wills, 1479 - 1652. Index Library 42 (1910; repr. 1968) 1-125. Wills from which quotations have been excerpted will be cited by Actbook (Roman numerals) and folio (Arabic numerals). All wills were cited in the text by the name of the testator with the location of residence and the year in which they were formulated given in parenthesis. Readers who are interested in locating the wills in the actbooks are advised to cocsult Wise's Calendar which lists pages. A collection of wills contemporary to the ones examined in this study and pertaining to the same diocese has been edited in C. W. Foster, I1LincolnWills, 3. volsI1 Lincolnshire Record Society 5 (1914), 10 (1918), 24 (1930). See Introduction. Nevertheless, ommissions may have occurred: Joan Bagley of Little Stukeley (1545) referred to the wills of her husband, his mother and her first husband but only the former could be available wills suggests quantitative-statistical methods but this approach was avoided for several reasons. The first objection is provided by statistical methodology itself. The distribution of wills across many communities each with their own customs, a tendency of wills from some communities to cluster in certain decades and an uneven chronological distribution fragments and skews the sample to such a degree that an accurate distinction between variables becomes impossible. Second, the thrust of studies on medieval English peasants and feminist studies has been towards a validation of the individual experience.' Third, the content of wills containing such open categories as 'goods unbequeathed' as well as the existence of other modes of post mortem property transfer makes a direct comparison of the material difficult. The approach suggested by the wills themselves is to use a qualitative methodology which emphasizes the autographic and individualistic nature of the material. Therefore, the study emphasizes a limited set of ' telling' wills.

identified. It is possible that these wills were formulated in another ecclesiastical jurisdiction but it is also possible that the record of the actbooks may have served a more limited function than to collect all extant wills. Undoubtedly Cuthbert Bagley of Little Stukeley who also made out a will in 1545 was Joan's second husband. Since no name was given for the first husband, his will is unidentifiable. However, the will of the mother-in-law should have posed no problem providing she did not remarry after the death of Cuthbertfs father. See introduction for historiographic discussion and bibliographic information. The process by which wills were formulated is described in detail by J. A. Raftis in his study of Tudor G~dmanchester.~A few wills add procedural information because they deal with the executorial duties. Alice Jurden (Ripton St. John 1555) granted Margaret Hichecocke all that her husband had willed her: a mattress, a pair of sheets and a coverlet. Joan Bagley (Little Stuckeley 1545) had to contend with even more: she affirmed that the wills of her last husband, his mother and her previous husband were to be fulfilled when the children reached the age of

20. Agnes Bell (Somersham 1527) drew attention to a far less responsible attitude among some executor^:^ Item I bequethe to the gildynge off the highe aulter in Somersham xxs. Item I bequethe to the gildynge off the sepulcre in Somersham xxs.... Also I bequethe to John Tayler the yongare and Alice his sister to eyther of them xxd. Also I will this monye that I have gyven to the sepulcre and to the highe aulter and to my cosyn John Tayler children, I will that Richarde Tailere off Shipden doo paye this monye off that that the persone off Shipden dede bequethe me in his will. And yff yt will nat be gotten off the seide Richarde Tayler than I will that this gyfte stande voide and off non effecte. The bequests of this money were apparently a last ditch effort to shame Richard Tayler into releasing what he owed. The execution of wills was not always unproblematic. Wills have been used extensively to chart the course of the English Reformation but they have been used less frequently for studies in English social and economic history. Most English

Raftis, ETG: 83-86. ~untingdonshire111.21. historians have agreed with Margaret Spuffordrs critique that wills are less suitable to computerization than probate inventories and, implicitly, cannot yield consistent inf~rmation.~Further distrust of wills ensued when the use of preambles as indicators of the religious transformation proved too optimistic because of their formulaic nature and the influence of s~ribeners,~ There are indeed two significant difficulties attached to the use of wills for social and economic studies. First, wills were not the only means of devolution but as a significant share of possessions could be transferred before the death of their owner (evidence of this was presented earlier) or by convention after the owner's death.'' This is obvious from a comparison with the lay subsidy rolls and it is not entirely surprising that only a portion of Hurstingstone residents made wills given the widespread custom of making wills only when death was imminent."

ti Spufford, llLirnitations." Exception are: Beauroy, llBishopfsLynn Will-makers," and Mary Prior, "Wives and Wills.11

Spufford, Contrasting Communities: 320-34, Duffy, Stripping of the A1 tars : 5 04- 24 .

lo Bonfield, llNormativeRules. " '' The pattern of will-making fits the 'tame deathr described by P. Aries, The Hour of Our Death (1981; Oxford, 1991) : 5-92. A test of the assertion that only a limited number of potential testators left wills may be conducted with a crude formula, P = De/t + k, used for estimating community populations from completely excavated cemeteries (P. S. Wells, Farms, Villages, and Cities: Commerce and Urban Origins in Late Prehistoric Europe (Ithaca, 1984): 41-2). P = community population, D = number of graves found, e = average life expectancy at birth, t = years of the cemeteryfs use, k = a correction factor of 20% for missed and The other, more serious problem concerns content. The testator often granted possessions with summary formulae such as 'my house and all its contents' or the 'remainder of my possessions unbequeathed.' What was explicitly willed depended upon the intentions of testators and their state of mind. Wills also have their strengths. The formulaic parts largely only affect the preamble while the body of the will, as is clearly evident from the many idiosyncracies and unique features, shows little influence of formulae and usually reflects the wishes of the testator.12 There is a wealth of qualitative information pertinent to material culture and value judgements to be found which, though not readily suitable to quantification, provide valuable indicators of real circumstances. It is apparent that wills were quite flexible instruments. In this destroyed graves (It should be noted that the actbook format precludes wills being lost as might be postulated in bundles of loose wills). The formula was applied using D = 566 (the number of male wills) , e = 33 years (estimated from A. L. Grauer, "Life Patterns of Women from Medieval York." eds. D. Walde and N. D. Williams, The Archaeology of Gender. Proceedings of the Twenty- Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Associa tion of the University of Calgary (Calgary, 1991) : 407-131, t = 79 (1479- 1558) and k = 113.2. The result was doubled to correct for women. The estimated population figure of P = 700 falls far short of the more than 1200 taxpayers listed in the lay subsidies of the 1520rs, a list incomplete of itself because it consists almost entirely of male adults (only 2% were women!) with a taxable wealth of £1 or more.

lZ The essential formula roughly runs as follows: The opening line 'In the name of God Amen;' the date, the name and home parish of the testator; an affirmation of sound memory and mental health; bequests of soul and body; pious and charitable bequests; bequests to relatives, friends and neighbours; bequest of the remainder; the appointment of executors and, where applicable, supervisors; the naming of witnesses. respect, they may well be better guides to the past than many other documents used for social history and it is the firm belief of this author that they have been underutilised in English economic history. To the medieval historian manorial court rolls will be the most familiar type of document encountered in this study. Their wealth of detail on village life, which permits detailed study of the social interaction among individuals, has been widely used.13 In Hurstingstone hundred several series of court rolls survive into the sixteenth century at several locations (eg., Broughton and St. Ives) and, recently, Edwin DeWindt has edited the material extant from Ramsey and Bury cum Hepmangrove up to 1600.14 This edition was selected for closer consideration partially to meet the time constraints of this study and partially because they permitted an effective comparison of two separate but closely linked settlements. Under the abbots of Ramsey, one court covered the affairs of both settlements though each provided its jurors, elected its officials and presented cases

l3 See Introduction.

l4 The court rolls examined in this work fall into the range of years from 1500 to 1558 and are contained in DeWindt, Court Rolls: 888-1017. All references to the edited text of the court rolls will be made by referring to the year of the court. Only direct citations will be quoted fully. Early sixteenth century court rolls are extent from Ramsey and Bury cum Hepmangrove in the years 1501, 1518, 1519, 1530, 1531, 1533, 1534, 1535, 1536, 1537, 1538 and 1542, for Ramsey in 1540, 1543, 1544, 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554, 1555, 1556 and 1557, for Bury in 1543, 1544, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554, 1555 and 1556. 253 separately. For most part, Ramsey and Bury managed their affairs as distinct settlements in one court until a more formal separation which gave each village its own court session was established after the dissolution of the abbey when the Cromwells became lords. Taken together, their court rolls provide a rich depository of information on occupations and resources with entries associating names and events on 1880 occasions in the years from 1500 to 1558. Two sets of churchwardens accounts were available, those of

Ramsey, which cover the period 1511 to 1558 in a discontinuous series, and those of Holywell-cum-Needingworth, which begin in

1547 on the occasion of the construction of a new steeple and continues to the end of the century with gaps.I5 In essence they are simple records of money transactions as part of the parish church's business by villagers elected as churchwardens. It is apparent from the division into receipts and expenditures that they were created from other records or memory as summaries. Though occasionally the amount of money at hand was stated they were not designed to record profits and losses but to make visible what had happened to money. The hand often shows little care and the order at times seems to have been dictated more by

HRO Parish Records 2280/28 (Holywell cum Needingworth) and 2449/25 (Ramsey). These documents will be cited in notes as Ramsey CWA and Holywell CWA respectively with a folio number assigned by the author since no original numbering exists. 254 the availability of empty spaces than any other c~nsideration.'~ As a category of documents churchwardens accounts have elicited an increasing amount of interest in recent years and it is likely

that they will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.l7 To this study their entries which associate local names, activities and payments proved invaluable. Printed materials were not examined in a systematic manner but select works -- most notably William Harrison's Description of England (1570'~)~Fitzherbertts Book of Husbandry (1534),

Thomas Tusserrs Five Hundred Poin tes (1573- 8 0 ) , Henry Swinburne' s

A Briefe Treatise of Testaments and Last Wills (1635, though ik was written under ~lizabeth)"-- were consulted to clarify or expand upon certain points. Since commentaries have been provided for a number of modern editions and a body of scholarship has grown up around these works, no further

l6 Disentangling the Holywell CWA was particularly difficult because the upper portion of the page usually contained entries from the study period, the lower portion often entries from the last decades of the century which at times could only be differentiated by the colour of the ink.

l7 Insightful analysis was presented by G. G. Gibbs, ![The social function of the parish in London," and K. L. French, "Rural parishes in the diocese of Bath and Wells,If at the International Medieval Congress I, Leeds 1994. Also, Kiimin, Parish finance . If

l8 Harrison, Description, Fitzherbert , Book of Husbandry, Swinburne, Treatise of Testaments, Tusser, "Fiue Hundred Pointes.If Tusser began his work on agricultural advice in 1557 with "A Hundreth Good Pointes of Husbandrie," edited in the same volume: 218 - 234. 255 discussion will be attempted here.lg Issues relevant to their usage and interpretation have been considered in the discussion. The sudden emergence of printed materials after the 1470's adds a rich source of information to the study of local history though integration of the evidence occasionally poses difficulties. The most serious is that printed works discuss issues on an idealised level while administrative and judicial manuscript sources deal with the same issues in a more pragmatic manner. There remains a series of miscellaneous sources which although helpful only make a passing contribution here. Among

these are the Bishop's Census of 1563 which records the numbers of households in each village and provides an alternate means to the lay subsidies for gaging village size." Two early parish registers pertaining to Bluntisham-cum-Earith and Hartford-cum-

Sapley begin in 1538 but were not fully incorporated because they add little to the immediate discu~sion.~~A book of revenues and expenditures from Ramsey abbey farms added little by way of knowledge on individuals but contained a valuable bill for labour

l9 A publication on this topic, with specific reference to agronomic works, is planned.

20 I am grateful to Dr. David M. Palliser, who is in the process of producing an edition of the Census together with Dr. Alan Dyer, for making a preliminary transcript of the Huntingdon section available. The nature of the Bishop's Census is further discussed in Dyer, "Bishopsr Census."

*' HRO Parish Registers 2611/1/1 (Bluntisham cum Earith) and 2535/1 (Hartford cum Sapley) . 256 expenditures at Houghton mill.* The same may be said of a 1544 return of the Tenth and Fifteenth? The anniversary roll of abbot John Stow (d. 1468) from the year 1502/3 added some tenurial information and evidence on construction trades in Ramsey, Bury and Heprnangr~ve.~~A few demesnial accounts added little due to their incompleteness but appended to one was a calculation of the costs and revenues of producing barley was found .

" PRO/SC 6/ Henry ~111/1657 -- a book of 100 folios containing farm receipts and expenditures for the years 25 - 29 Henry VIII. The book contains a loose bill for work contracted by Houghton mill numbered as fo. 81. " PRO E 1179/122/132. 24~hedocuments in question are: PRO/SC 6/ Henry VII/1705,1707, 1708 -- Ramsey accounts from the reign of Henry VII; PRO/SC 6/ Henry V11/1706 -- a Ramsey rental for 17/18 Henry VII of considerable detail; PRO/SC 6/ Henry ~III/1657-8-- a set of fragmentary accounts from Ramsey abbey; PRO/SC 6/ Henry V11/1660 -- a fragmentary Ramsey abbey account which includes a profit calculation for three quarters and six bushels of barley dated 28 Henry VIII. Appendix I1 :

The Meaning of the Lay Subsidies

The early Tudor lay subsidies provide a sweeping coverage of England which potentially includes every adult male of the commons with sufficient means to be taxed. Only the peerage and the clergy were not included because they, a remnant of the three orders model, were assessed by different procedures. The subsidy returns hold out the promise of comprehensive synchronous comparisons of individuals and communities from which one may then sketch the broad structures of the distribution of wealth in society.' Four subsidy rolls are extant from Hurstingstone

' An idea of some of the possibilities inherent in the lay subsidy rolls and related documents as well as the difficulties in emulating their coverage from other documents may be gained from: Hoskins, Age of Plunder: 13-28, Patten, Village and Town," Schofield, "Distribution of Wealth:" 484. For further discussion of lay subsidies see Schofield, "Taxation and the political limits, I' Biddick, "Missing Links, W. M. Ormrod, "The Crown and the English Economy, 1290 - 1348," ed. B. M. S. Campbell, Before the Black Death: Studies in the 'crisis' of the early fourteenth century (Manchester, 1989) : 149-83, J. F. Hadwin, "The Medieval Lay Subsidies and Economic History,If EcHR 2nd ser. 36 (1983): 200-17, and especially J. F. Willard, Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property, 1290 to 1334: A Study in Mediaeval English Financial Administration (1934; New York, 1970), which is still the standard work on the medieval lay subsidies. S. Jenks, "The Lay Subsidies (1279-1334),"lecture, Toronto 1995, is preparing a study which discusses the accuracy of the medieval subsidies. The Tudor subsidies have been the subject of an ongoing constitutional debate in the English Historical Review to which R. Hoyle, I1Crown,Parliament and Taxation in Sixteenth-Century England, English His torical Review 109 (1994): 1175-1196, is the latest contribution. On medieval and early modern taxation in general see S. Dowell, A History of Taxes and Taxation in England from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, vol. I, (1888; London, 1965), S. K. Mitchell, Taxation in Medieval England (New Haven, 1951), hundred which preserve information of sufficient quantity and quality for useful analy~is.~Three can be dated from their certificates to April 22, 1523 (15 Henry VIII) , 1545/6 (37 Henry VIII) and March 3, 1547 (1 Edward VI) . Sequences of persons indicate that the fourth was the earliest in date, presumably compiled late in 1522 or early in 1523 after the Muster Survey-

In the study, this roll is referred to as the subsidy of 1522 for the sake of convenience only. The rolls generated in the 1520's under Wolsey are by far the most extensive and threaten to overwhelm the researcher by the sheer quantity of their contents. The essential information in each return is grouped by tax vill and consists of the name of the taxperson, the type of wealth assessed, an evaluation of wealth and the tax owing thereupon. Additional information may include the occupation or status of the person and occasionally some other note of interest. The basic exemptions define the limits of the recording process. The

Dietz , English Government Finance. Some editions and summaries of lay subsidies include Cornwall, County Communi ty, Raf tis and Hogan, Lay Subsidy Rolls, Glasscock, The Lay Subsidy of 1334 (London, 1975). HRO ~179/122/91and ~179/122/95are complementary parts of the same survey of 1523. E179/122/133 is dated to 37 Henry VIII, E179/122/137 to 1 Edward VI, E179/122/142 is a complementary part of the 1547 survey containing those villages of Norman Cross hundred missing from ~179/122/137. The text will subsequently only refer to the years of the manuscripts.

An example illustrating the earlier dating of E179/122/111 is the case of Rawman (Raymond?) who is described as a Dutchman and servant to William Crokedeke of Ramsey in this manuscript but is marked as deceased in E179/122/91. With the help of wills preserved in actbooks by the archdeaconry of Huntingdon, this subsidy can be dated more precisely to the summer of 1545. more complete of the earlier returns (1523) boasts 1288 names from twenty-five villages in Hurstingstone hundred, the other

(1522) 837 names from eighteen villages. By comparison, the later material is more limited in scope. The Hurstingstone return of 1545 consists of no more than 379 names from twenty- five villages and that of 1547 of only 313 names from twenty villages. In fact, the entire county of Huntingdon only musters c. 1200 names in the well-preserved return from Edward's reign. The most important reason for this loss of detail is the increase in the basic exemption from El to £5. Additional problems arise from gaps in preservation and recording. Thus, a number of important locations are missing from the 1522 and 1547 returns and some parts of the earlier returns are poorly legible. A brief history of the tax is appropriate. The lay subsidies of the Tudors were heir to a venerable medieval tradition. Taxes of this type were originally conceived in the thirteenth century as Parliamentary grants to cover extraordinary (i.e., military) expenses. Returns preserved from the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries provide an abundance of detail on the wealth of individuals which was never to be repeated again. Unfortunately for the historian, the lay subsidies were commuted in 1334 to fixed assessments of villages based on the 1332 returns. While the medieval subsidies survived well into the sixteenth century as the fossilized tenths and fifteenths, the fiscal administration of Henry VIII revived a directly assessed tax on individual wealth after an effective interruption of nearly two centuries. Though one may tentatively assume that the assessment process remained intact at the village level to meet the demands of the fixed levies, it is surprising that direct assessment was revived as readily since attempts to return even in part to the original format had failed in the fifteenth century. However, Henry's administration had carefully laid the groundwork with the Muster Survey of 1522 which used defence needs as an effective decoy. The lay subsidies levied during his reign must be considered an unqualified success since all but a fraction of the money due was collected within a relatively short period of It was only in the later years of Elizabeth I that the effectiveness of the system decayed and enforced abandonment of direct assessment under the Stuarts. The essential purpose of the lay subsidy returns was to record an evaluation of the wealth of every independent person of sufficient means and to assess the amount of taxes owed. This wealth, as can be seen from the predominance of goods and the monetary values assigned, was directly dependent on markets and trade.' The lay subsidies thus provide a gage by which to estimate the distribution of wealth in society. On the surface, the mechanics of taxation appear straightforward. Every adult

Schofield, "Taxation and political limits:" 237; M. L. Bush, "Tax Ref om and Rebellion in Early Tudor England, His tory 76 (1991): 379-400. On the efficacy of collecting subsidies in the Middle Ages: Ormrod, "Crown and Economy:" 153. The wealth accumulated in medieval lay subsidies was shown to be related to markets: Biddick, "Missing Links." 261 male and single woman (i.e,,widows and unmarried women who had reached the age of majority) of the commons was liable to taxation while the wealth of wives and minors was considered as belonging to a (usually male) guardian. The clergy and peerage were each assessed separately. The tax was levied on the largest component of an individual's wealth in goods, wages and rent.

Exemptions were made for a minimum which varied between El and

£10 depending on the Parliamentary grant. Progressively higher tax rates were charged at £2, £10 and €20 and, in some surveys, rents were assessed at a higher rate than goods.6 Several problems of interpretation are incorporated into this basic scheme. The most crucial concerns the definition of taxable wealth. James F. Willard, in what is still the major study on the subject, considered the assessments of medieval subsidies to be based on surplus.7 Regarding the Tudor subsidies, Roger S. Schofield agrees with him but applies a rather encompassing definition of the term 'surplusf which only

See Chapter V. ' Willard, Parliamentary Taxes: 81-85. By and large, Willard's view is accepted by Glasscock, Subsidy of 1334: xxv- xxvi, and, to a degree, Cornwall, County Community: 11-12. Typical livestock evaluations may be found in Raftis and Hogan, Lay Subsidies: passim. The livestock listed in these and similarly detailed returns from the Middle Ages could not have constituted functional herds but only animals culled for sales. Stuart Jenks has come to the conclusion in as yet unpublished work that the medieval subsidies assessed the surplus generated from domestic trade. It is highly likely that the Tudor subsidies do the same. excludes debts owed and personal clothing? From a comparison of assessed wealth with the value of probate inventories, Schofield concludes there was considerable and deliberate undervaluation of wealth and that richer members of society were more successful in evading the tax.9 Most subsidy evaluations (761% equalled only 39% or less of probate inventory values and, as a rule, the higher the probate inventory value in real terms, the lower the subsidy value expressed as a percentage of the former. These discrepancies he attributed to collusion between the commissioners, themselves drawn from the ranks of the wealthy, and their peers. 10 On a smaller scale Schofield's observation can be repeated for Hurstingstone. Sums of probate inventory were added to 242 Hurstingstone wills between 1543 and 1558 (Table Appendix 11.1) . Inventories of wills proven shortly after the surveys of 1545 and

1547 (i-e., in the years 1545 - 1548 and 1547 - 1551) were compared to the lay subsidy evaluations of testators.'' The

Schofield, "Taxation and political limits:" 233, in a similar vein Cornwall, County Community: 11-12. Schofield, "Taxation and political limits:" 244-55, but especially tables: 249-50.

lo Schofield, ItTaxation and political limits : 249. He does not suggest that the entire differential is due to fraudulent undervaluation but also that some exempt items will be incorporated into the probate inventory. Nevertheless, these items only constitute a small percentage of the probate inventory.

'I This approach is somewhat more generous than Schofield's who allowed only one year interval between subsidy and inventory. findings for Hurstingstone are largely consistent with Schofieldfs. The twenty-seven subsidy evaluations were clearly

outranked by inventory sums, with a median subsidy value of 36.8%

within a range from 12.7% to 79.8%. Generally speaking the discrepancies are larger for high inventory values. Clearly, the subsidy and the inventory valuations derive from different procedural premises both in Schofieldrs sample and in this slim Hurstingstone sample. However, the discrepancies are so consistently large as to render it doubtful that systematic undervaluation on this scale would have slipped by the government without agreement of some sort. Undoubtedly, there was some fraud but that undervaluation should have been practised in such brazen manner seems unlikely. A narrower definition of taxable wealth perhaps provides a more satisfactory explanation. The large discrepancies in value between probate inventories and subsidy returns are better explained if only goods of a commercial nature were assessed for the latter. This wealth probably consisted of goods for sale and perhaps some productive equipment as the detailed medieval returns suggested.12 Furthermore, this interpretation of taxable goods is more consistent with subsidy assessments on land and wages. Only rental revenues from land were assessed, not the

This is the implication of the detailed returns edited in Raftis and Hogan, Lay Subsidies: passim. See also Biddick, "Missing Links:I1 280-2. Unfortunately, no assessments of a similar thoroughness are extant from the Tudor period so that one word designations of the type of assessed wealth must suffice: Schofield, I1Taxation and Political Limitations," 233-7. potential value of the land itself despite the long-standing existence of a land market." Usually, only the equivalent of two months of wages was entered into the valuation column of the returns even when specified as a wage 'by the year.'14 The intention was clearly not to assess the entire wage income but only what might reasonably be expected to constitute surplus. Thus, it appears that fixed and non-commercial assets were not part of the assessment process but that only surplus revenues were. While it is likely that group solidarity offered greater scope for fraud, the progressive undervaluation of subsidies compared to probate inventories was probably not the result of an abuse of political leverage but of a greater accumulation of non- commercial assets which eventually entered into the probate inventory but not the subsidy. Problems regarding the accuracy of the returns are not entirely resolved by these considerations. There remains the question of at least some fraud, omissions, mistakes, simplifications and persons having parts of their property assessed at separate locations to achieve lower rates." It would

l3 On the assessment of land, Schofield, "Taxation and political limits:" 247-48.

l4 H. P. Brown and S. Hopkins, "Seven Centuries of Building Wages," A Perspective of Wages and Prices (London, 1981) : 9-11, Cornwall, County Community: " In principle, individuals were to be assessed at one location on their entire wealth regardless of were its constituent parts were located. Occasionally notes to this effect are found in the subsidy returns. This may have been difficult to put into practice. be foolish to deny these possibilities and, if invisible to contemporaries or ignored by them, they will be difficult to detect today. On the other hand, the commissioners who carried out the survey were prominent local residents and had knowledge of local circumstances. It is unlikely that people could have distorted their economic situation significantly when faced with conscientious commissioners and watchful neighbours. The public nature of inquiry processes, conducted in full view of fellow villagers and buttressed by records compiled on other occasions, opened the procedure to watchful eyes and jealous minds? While petty details in the record may be wrong -- even deliberately SO -- it is unlikely that rich individuals masqueraded as poor and that much wealth was hidden. Collusion among late medieval and early modern villagers was capable of warding off some interference from outside but was hardly capable of massive fraud.I7 Royal auditors would. also have provided further checks on the accuracy of the returns while support for the tax was forthcoming under Henry VIII. In the face of widespread

l6 The inclusion of Rawrnan of Ramsey in 1523, though deceased, probably resulted from reference to an earlier return (see n. 2). Cornwall, County Community: 3, quotes the instructions issued to officials in Waltham half hundred in Essex.

l7 A case is cited in J. A. Raftis, "Social Change versus Revolution: New Interpretations of the Peasants' Revolt of 1381," ed. F. X. Newman, Social Unrest in the Late Middle Ages (Binghampton, 1986): 16, of a medieval villager being brought before court for betraying information to tax collectors. The entry is proof of the difficulties involved in keeping secrets: dozens if not hundreds had to keep quiet to ensure success but only one informer could spoil all. 266 acceptance, tax fraud would have been limited. One may proceed with the analysis of the lay subsidies in the certainty that in relative terms their contents are sufficiently reliable and fraud was mostly effected piecemeal rather than wholesale.

Table Appendix 11. I.

Comparison of Probate Inventory and Lay Subsidy

Hurstings tone Hundred

Inventory Subsidy as a Percentage of Inventory Value Appendix I11 : Measures of Distributional Equality

English historians have paid particular attention to social structure in medieval and early modern towns but most detailed quantitative studies of wealth have been concerned with geographical rather than social distribution. This preference contrasts strongly with the work of Continental historians, who were forced to examine vertical structures more intensely due to of the more localized nature of their sources.' Attempts to integrate results from different localities have focused attention on appropriate statistical methodologies for comparisons. Since the publication of Erik Fugedils methodological article on urban tax data in 1980, Central European historians have shifted from using the traditional

Lorenz curve to population deciles in the presentation of the societal distribution of ~ealth.~ Deciles are formed by ranking taxpayers from wealthiest to poorest, dividing the number of taxpayers into ten groups of equal size and calculating the relativised share of wealth held by each group. A coefficient of inequality (I) can be calculated to assess the degree to which wealth is concentrated in a society

A synopsis is provided in Fiigedi, I1Steuerlisten." Fugedi, V3teuerlisten:" 58-96, see also the discussion in K. Schmuki , Steuern und Staa tsfinanzen: Die burgerliehe Vermogenssteuer in Schaffhausen im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (Zurich, 1988) : 249-63. by adding wealth exceeding ten percent from each applicable decilee3 Deciles facilitate comparison because only the share of wealth varies from division to division while the share of taxpayers remains constant. However, deciles rely on arbitrary divisions regarding social structure which can distort a social profile considerably. The use of entirely relativised figures can complicate matters further by creating false similarities between societies operating on different scales of magnitude. The Lorenz curve uses classes preferably predetermined by historical sources and then relativises each category's share in population and wealth which are plotted against as cumulative values on a graph. In this study, the data of the lay subsidies was divided into five divisions based on progressive rates of taxation and the values of basic exemptions (Table V.5.). Unfortunately, the dividing marks are not common to all four subsidies. Strictly speaking, the subsidies of the 1520's and 1540's can only be divided into three categories each if the markers applied directly by Tudor administrators were used but such strict adherence to the principle of historicity would deprive the Lorenz method of any genuine usefulness. Some justification for applying divisions across subsidies may be found in the fact that all four were levied within less than a generation and, therefore, should express a shared understanding of threshold values. Since neither population nor wealth are

Fugedi, "Steuerlisten:" 66. 269 divided into units of equal size, comparisons between divisions are rendered difficult by this method .' However, adherence to actual values in the formulation of divisions penits a better observation of the real dimensions of the data than in the completely relativised decile method. The deviation of the curve from the ideal straight line yields a coefficient of concentration (K) for more general comparisons. The coefficient of concentration (K) is an estimate of the area enclosed by the graph's diagonal and the curve as plotted from the data. The diagonal represents the line which result from an exactly even distribution of wealth in the population. Thus, a value of K = 0 represents a perfectly even distribution, a value of K = 1.0 represents the most uneven distribution of wealth. The formula used for the calculation of the coefficient is the Boldrinian approximati~n.~

As a result even studies such as Schmuki, Steuern und Staatsfinanzen: 249-63, who use both methods, lean more strongly on deciles.

Boldrinian approximation, K =. 5 - .5 Cg,(z,,+ zi) . gi is the share of taxpayers in a category, zi the cumulative share of its wealth. See Fugedi, uSteuerlisten,Hn. 4a, and the sample calculation on p. 85. K is expressed as a fraction in this study following Fugedi's example with maximum concentration at 1.0. Appendix IV: Prosopographi cal Profiles of Villagers

Select residents of Ramsey and Bury cum Hepmangrove are considered in prosopographical case studies in the following pages. Persons who have left wills were chosen in preference for closer consideration because a more complete image of their economy can be developed, but a shortcoming of this procedure lies in the fact that no wills from these settlements were recorded before 1539. Invariably, the profiles include consideration of other family members (especially wives and children) but usually the evidence centres around a male head of the household. Four economically different types -- labourers, agriculturalists, mixed and non-agricultural occupations, and entrepreneurs -- are identified in the following discussion to which the case of Robert Thomson as a marginal person was added. The scheme was inspired by Raftis' classification in his study of Tudor Godmanchester but had to be adapted considerably to meet the situation encountered: 'capitalists' were eliminated because no individual was found which matched the pattern, while agriculturalists were separated out from the crafts and trades because of their more clearly defined presence in this sample.'

Raftis, ETG: 123-70. Marginal i ty

1. Robert Thomson of Ramsey is illustrative of a person operating

at the margin of society. Thomson was assessed at £3 in 1522 and £2 in 1523 on goods and cattle. He was fined as a weaver on four

occasions between 1531 and 1537. However, he first appeared in 1530 in the court rolls when his wife was evicted from Ramsey. The next year he was fined for failing to withdraw himself and one of the persons writing the court roll scrawled on it 'Robert Thornsun is a common [last word crossed out].' However, the court in Ramsey was either not able or overly concerned with ridding itself of him despite the fact that he assaulted and rescued his goods from William Smythe in 1534. Robert Thomson was last mentioned in Ramsey in 1537. This was followed by the first appearance of a person of the same name in Bury in 1543 who had broken into the lord's park and led horses away. Thomson, if it is the same person, was last fined in 1544 for not putting his cattle before the common shepherd and for failing to appear at Bury's court when required. The conduct leads one to suspect the same perpetrator. Without a will or a subsidy assessment from the 1540rs, it is impossible to say whether Thomson was an economic failure or merely a difficult personality thcugh the earlier subsidies make it clear that he was not destitute. It appears that it was his personality rather than his economic circumstances which caused him to push the limits set by his community to the breaking point. Labourers

1. John Dawes of Bury described himself as a labourer in his will

of 1555. He is the first person of his surname in Ramsey record^.^ His case, as will become apparent, points to a problematic complexity hidden behind simple occupational designations. In the court rolls he kept a low profile with only four appearances in the 1550's consisting of two assault cases, a charge of letting his heifers wander in the fields and another of digging turves in Ramsey's fens. True to expectation he did not appear in the subsidies of the 1540's despite a probate inventory value of £6 9s 2d. Since he appeared as a servant assessed at £1 in 1522, the probate valuation suggests that he was able to accumulate some wealth during his working life. The gap between the subsidy record and his other appearances suggest that two persons may be involved but, if stints as servants were part of the adolescent phase of a life cycle, John Dawes would have died in his late forties or early fifties. Money played an unusually large part in his will. Apart from bequeathing 48s 4d immediately and £10 to be paid as his children came of age, he specified debts receivable of 38s 4d.) It has been suggested earlier that these debts probably stemmed from the practice of

All references to the antiquity of families in Ramsey and Bury in the following pages are derived from the Vndex Personarumu of DeWindt, Court Rolls: 99-230. The figures are contingent upon two godchildren and that all three children mentioned were under age. 273 daying. In any case, the fact that one of the debts was owed for carriage work adds another piece of information to his economic profile. He did not bequeath a boat, a cart or any animals which may have served as carriers. Fines on a pasturing violation and a bequest of fodder and hay prove that he raised livestock. Dawes also left a series of goods consisting of the cloak discussed earlier, a doublet, a pair of hose, a pair of boots, a pair of shoes and a £raise coat. Dawes was not rich but his possessions were substantial enough to cast doubt on the lay subsidies' exclusive identification of labourers with the poorest stratum in the assessment range.

2. Hugh Charyte of Ramsey died in 1557 leaving a will. The Charyte family was present from the late thirteenth century. Despite a probate inventory valuation of Ell 16s 4d, he was not assessed in any of the lay subsidies and only thrice in the court rolls. His first appearance actually referred to his wife who was cited as an ale and bread retailer for overcharging in 1535. In his will Hugh gave 'to Annys my wiff all such goodis as was here own before the day of oure maryage of this condicon that the saide Annys shall paye all such dettes as she owe when she was widow.' Annys was obviously economically active between marriages and entered into her marriage with some means. Unfortunately, it is not possible to confirm that the court roll citation referred to her as well. Hugh himself was registered as a labourer in Bury in 1538, the basis for including him in the 274 discussion here, and was fined in Ramsey for putting his cattle into the fields in 1548. In his will he bequeathed three cows and four sheep to his heirs. Despite the size of the probate evaluation, money played a small role in his will which left 3s 6d and five groats. Likewise, the only goods left to anyone were three pairs of harden sheets.

1. The Redman family of Bury represents a classically agrarian orientation. The name may be found as far back as the late fourteenth century but is eclipsed for a time in the fifteenth century. The name John Redrnan was passed on from one principal heir to another. In the study period three persons bearing this name can be identified, the first being assessed on £16 in goods and cattle in 1522. In 1523 he was assessed on El9 in goods and cattle as well as £5 in lands and tenements. In 1545 and 1547 two persons were again assessed under that name but differentiated by the appellations of senior and junior. The older on £14 and £13 respectively in goods, the younger on £6 in lands and tenements. It would appear that the principal heir was set up with rental revenues from which to build his fortune. As that heir matured, his income shifted from rents to goods. The Redmanst profile in the court rolls is utterly agrarian: they were fined for not ringing pigs (1548), not making fences (twice in 1551, once in 1552), permitting cattle to pasture on the lands 275 of others (1556) and not cleaning a ditch (1555). The fact that one of their number appeared as a juror in 1519, 1531 and 1540 demonstrates their social prestige in Bury though John Redman, sen., was fined for a default in court in 1548. The second John

Redman left a will in 1556 and in the same year the court of Bury sought relief from his heir, the third of this name. The will supports the agrarian image of the Redrnans: in it five cows, two horses and ten sheep as well as crops and hay were bequeathed. The crops were given to his son William and the executor, the younger John, was required to complete the transfer within two years, a rather surprising requirement given that the will was formulated shortly after the harvest in October. Monetary bequests, mostly donations, amounted to only fi 4d.' A few goods can be found as well: a featherbed, a best coat and a counter. Surprisingly, the probate inventory evaluation only amounted to

£10 4s 8d, a rather low evaluation compared to his tax assessment. The slimness of the will and inventory suggest that John Redman may have suffered a setback or simply transferred many of his possessions to John, jun., and only practised agriculture in a residual way.

2. The sequence of persons in the Reed family of Bury is simpler: John appeared in the record between 1537 to 1551 and Thomas from

1552 onwards. The Reed family was present with reasonable

Again, an unspecified number of godchildren were assumed to be two for the calculation. consistency since the late thirteenth century. John was most prominent as an office holder: he was fen reeve in 1538, juror in

1537 and 1538 and juror in Ramsey in 1540. Otherwise, he was fined on three occasions for letting his animals (pigs, colts and

heifers) wander and acquired half a close in Ramsey in 1548. His wife appeared once in the record when she was fined for overcharging on ale. Thomas cannot be found in any office but was equally 'negligent.' He was fined once each for not making fences, letting his horses wander, soaking hemp in the common river and not cleaning a watercourse. In the 1540's the Reeds were assessed at £14 but, unfortunately, they left no will.

3. Thomas Chicheley of Ramsey, identified as a yeoman in his will, is something of a puzzle for he is almost entirely silent in the record. He was fined once in 1555 by the Ramsey court for not cleaning a ditch.5 His wealth in the lay subsidy of 1547, the only one in which he is recorded, appears modest with only

£5, his bequests merely consisted of 5s 2d in money and two bullocks and a calf, though his probate inventory valuation of

£23 4s 6d was not trifling. But, as is well known, wealth alone did not make status and perhaps it was his difficulties in underpinning his self-perceived status with appropriate economic means which caused him to openly describe himself as a yeoman. This is the first and only record for Thomas, though a John

Perhaps he is identical to the Thomas Chisselby who in 1544 was fined for assault. 277 Chicheley was frequently recorded in the late sixteenth century. This John is presumably the son who inherited the residue of goods together with his sister. and was one of Thomas' executors.

4. The profile of John Elington of Bury is also slim with only two violations of pasture rules in the court rolls of 1548 and

1556. Despite his rare appearances, he obviously enjoyed economic success because he was assessed on £7 in the 1540's and his probate inventory amounted to £31 15s 10d in 1557.6 His will left a house, at least £1 18s 8d in money and forgave another 20d in debts, two cows, ten sheep, brass, pewter, a bed and some clothing to his relatives. The Elington name first appeared in the fourteenth century.

5. The circumstances of Robert Pickerd of Ramsey are more difficult to discern. His will of 1555 locates him in Ramsey where he wished to be buried. He also donated to the bells and the altar there and the family name is attested in Ramsey since the fourteenth century. However, the bequest of a copyhold in Wist~wto his eldest son Robert (which his wife Ames was permitted to occupy until their son was twenty-one) suggests that he may not have been a Ramsey native though it is possible that he used a convenient opportunity to establish an agricultural

ti It should be noted that listing the content of the Benet and Elington wills is somewhat tenuous because they contain conditional clauses. Here the list was restricted to possessions immediately conferred. holding away from his town of origin. Robert also inherited a lease with a meadow, Edmund acquired a copyhold and William received a row of willows. These bequests can be identified among Ramsey conveyances because they were both recorded in 1555. Edmundfs new holding was described as a tenement with a garden and an orchard, William's as a willow row with two ditches. Better yet, it can be determined that Robert, sen., acquired the tenement in 1551. Otherwise, Robert, sen., was fined twice for violating the bread assize, once for selling victuals without a license and once for cutting alders in the marsh between 1552 and 1554. Despite the presence of a Robert Pickerd in Ramsey around

1520, it is more likely that the Robert Pickerd discussed here must be identified with one of the men of that name in Wistow.'

Two individuals were assessed at £4 each in 1522 and 1523 while three (Robert with f 6 10s, Robert, sen. , with f 5 and Robert, jun., also with £5) appeared in 1545. Other bequests in Robert's will include 4s 6d, five cows, fourteen sheep, a cupboard, some pewter and two latten candlesticks. His probate inventory amounted to £16 8s. While there is a strong agrarian orientation in Robert Pickerd's profile, it is also evident that he was successfully operating as victualler.

' A Robert Pickerd was a Ramsey juror in 1519 and was probably identical with the man of the same name in the subsidy of 1522 whose assessment is illegible. A William Pickerd appeared in 1522 (assessment illegible) and 1523 with £8 and subsequently on four occasions in the court rolls during the early 1530's. They are probably not directly related to the Robert discussed. 6. William Benet of Bury can be discerned with some clarity in the record. Benets can be briefly identified in the early fifteenth century but then disappeared until well into the study period. William was preceded by Thomas Benet from 1531 to 1548 who appeared in the Ramsey record as an ale and wine retailer and a barber in the 1530's. In 1544 he acquired a messuage and teri acres of arable and meadow in Bury where he was subsequently fined for a pasturing violation. William, presumably a son, appeared from 1550 onwards in Bury for soaking hemp in the common river, encroaching on the lord's property and a pasturing violation.' In his will, William left a house (which was to yield the value of a cow and £4 as well), 3s 4d, four cows, two sheep, a pig, a few bushels of crops (barley, wheat, oats and peas), some pewter and a brass pot. Though he appeared in none of the subsidies his probate inventory amounted to £10 4s id. The pot hints at brewing but on the whole this is a very agrarian profile. The impression one could obtain from the evidence pertaining to the Benets is that the father, Thomas, acquired some wealth through services and sales in Ramsey which he invested in land and livestock. His son William centred his economic activities on agriculture in Bury and, proud of his family's perceived progress, labelled himself husbandman.

In 1556 a William Benet of Warboys was fined in Bury for letting his cattle wander. It is unlikely that this person is identical to the William Benet discussed here and that the place of origin was added to distinguish him from the latter. Benets can be identified in Warboys since the middle of the thirteenth century: Raf tis , Warboys: 71-72. Mixed and Non -Agri cul tural Occupa tions

1. The surname of John Haynes of Ramsey appeared in the fourteenth but not in the fifteenth century. He was cited on four occasions as a fuller during the 1530's and twice as a shop-

keeper in the 1540's. He also served as a juror over six years

from 1533 to 1540. Despite a probate inventory value of £16 18s 2d he was not recorded in the subsidy returns. Yet, Haynes has left an interesting will in which he describes himself as a

clothmaker. Bequests of £3 1s 6d in money and 30s in gold do not raise the value substantially. A cow, four sheep and 'all my aye and fodderel were given to his wife Rose. No provisions were made for his house with a hall, chamber, cellar and yard. Hayne's involvement in the textile trade is barely apparent from his bequest of 'shepe gearys' and his second-best set of shears valued at 6s. The unusual aspect of the will lies in the abundance of goods willed. Furniture specifically distributed consisted of an almer, a counter, two tables, a form, a turned chair, several coffers, chests and beds. To this are added table cloths, sheets and bedding. Even more unusual is the large number of metal objects consisting of three brass pots, a brass posnet, three pans and three kettles, eight pewter platter, a pewter saucer and two pewter pots, a latten basin and laver, two spits, a pair of cobirons and several candlesticks. Several standard items of clothing (gowns, doublets) and cloth were bequeathed. Though Haynes did not appear as a wealthy person in 281 monetary terms, he certainly accumulated an impressive array of goods. It would be interesting to establish if these were acquired out of his own income or if marriage and inheritance played a substantial role.

2. Oliver Silcock of Ramsey appeared for the first time in the lay subsidy of 1523 with an assessment of £2 on goods and cattle.

He then reappeared in the court rolls first in 1531 as a weaver and an ale retailer. He may not have continued selling beverages for he never violated the ale assize again but he was elected as ale taster in 1537 and 1538. His occupation as a weaver was maintained for some time because he was fined in that occupation four times from 1533 to 1538, on one occasion explicitly for not practising his art well. This was not his only trade since in

1535 and 1536, 1537 and 1538 as a barber, once for not practicing his art well. Again, he was fined in this function without stated cause in 1537 and 1538. In 1540 and 1543 he was on record as paying a fine for permission to keep a shop. It seems likely but cannot be confirmed that he sold goods and services related to his trades there. He enjoyed some respect in the community since he was elected as a juror in 1536 and again in 1540, as well as churchwardens in 1542.9 It is also apparent that his circumstances were improving for in 1537 he purchased Wekyn close together with John Goslowe and he was assessed on £6 in goods for

Ramsey CWA £0. 36v. 282 the subsidies of 1545 and 1547. In 1551 Oliver Silcock appeared one Last time when he transferred two pieces of land to Robert Nelson and then disappeared leaving no will. His given name and surname were unique in the record indicating that he did not have deep roots in Ramsey or even the hundred though it is impossible to infer an origin. Many questions remain about Silcock: there is no evidence to show that he was married and raised a family though a wife may have remained hidden behind his name during their marriage and predeceased him, while their children may have been daughters. In all likelihood, he represents the case of a newcomer who was capable of combining skills and engaging in the market to improve his fortune and standing in the community.

3. John Inge of Ramsey represents a similar case of economic rise. The Inge family appeared first in the early sixteenth century but continued through to the end of the century. Robert Inge, perhaps the father, was assessed on £1 in goods in 1522 and the same amount in wages the next year. Neither he nor any other person of that surname appeared in the record until 1531 when John was cited twice as a cobbler. He appeared on five other occasions in this function during the 1530rs. It is impossible to tell if he continued in this profession but he was definitely cited for violations of the baking assize on three occasions in

the 1550's and one related to brewing in 1555. He also paid

fines to keep shop in 1540, 1543 and 1556. Finally, he was fined for soaking hemp in the common river in Bury. His assessments of 283

£6 and £6 5s in the 1540's and a probate inventory valuation of

El8 in 1557 indicate that he, too, was rewarded for his efforts.

4. The Wright family of Bury and Ramsey, a group of seven or more persons, including three women, pose something of a conundrum. This surname first appeared in the middle of the fourteenth century. Though they had one of the most prominent surnames in the court rolls during the study period with forty-seven occurrences, is impossible to determine their family relationship from the record because no will or other indicator survives. The most interesting of the group is Thomas Wright, who was active as a butcher in the years 1519 to 1554 (nine citations plus one for a pasture violation) and whose unnamed wife operated as a brewer in Ramsey and Bury (six citations) . lo Originally, William may have been a resident of Bury, for a person by that name was assessed on £2 in goods there in 1522 and the same amount as a

lo The other men were Robert (one appearance in the court rolls as a Ramsey juror and assessed on £2 in Bury in 1522), John (four appearances in the court rolls for gambling, a violation of the ale assize and carrying away clay illicitly in Ramsey and twice as the injured party in trespass cases in Bury; assessed at f 18 in 1545 and 1547) and William (appeared on five occasions in Ramsey as a juror, in two conveyances, when admitted as a labourer and for selling sedge outside the vill, and once as a juror in Bury; assessed on 3 in goods in 1522 and 1523 in Bury). It is possible that the citations for John and William refer to more than one person under the same name. The nine citations referring to the women (Elizabeth, Isabelle and Joan) all involve infractions of the ale assize except for a fine levied against Joan Wright as a tanner. Joan Wright was only active in Ramsey (four occurrences), the others in Bury. Elizabeth was married according to the citation of 1538. While it is not clear who her husband was (Thomas?) it is likely that he was not a Bury resident. 284 labourer in 1523 but most of his citations (eighteen of twenty- five) were recorded in Ramsey and he held office (three years as juror and once as constable) there." He does not seem to have accumulated great wealth because he never appeared as a shop- keeper and no person by his name was recorded in the later subsidies.

5. Thomas Woodward of Ramsey essentially appeared as a participant in the land market, acquiring tenements in 1549 and

1550 and a fishpond, house and close in 1552. In his will he bequeathed a copyhold to his son Henry though no mention was made of other lands- In turn, Henry appeared in the record when he acquired the fishpond Hilke Dyke in 1555.12 Thomas appears to have made some use of the fens for in 1554 he was fined for selling sedge to outsiders and his will stated that some of his cattle were kept in the 'more.' Unfortunately, no probate inventory evaluation or lay subsidy assessment was provided. The Woodward name appeared first in the late thirteenth century but eclipsed in the mid-fifteenth century to reappear only briefly in the mid-sixteenth century.

The Bury citations include four of the five assault cases involving him, the pasture violation and two brewing infractions committed by his wife.

l2 The activities of the Bateman family of Ramsey appear to have paralleled those of the Woodwards with their strong focus on fisheries and land acquisition. The elder Bateman in the study period served repeatedly as a juror. 6. John Thressher of Rarnsey was cited for a brswing infraction in

1518. The Thressher name appeared in the late fourteenth century and can be followed with reasonable consistency to the end of the sixteenth century. John was presumably the father of John

Thressher, jun., who was cited as a tithingman in 1519 and assessed as a labourer with £1 in the 1520's. Thressher next appeared in the record when his wife was cited for three

infractions against the bread assize between 1536 and 1538 and he himself once in 1543 for the same reason. Subsequently he appeared on five occasions for infractions against the ale assize between 1543 and 1554. From a fine levied against overcharging in 1552 it is apparent that he was selling victuals. In 1550 he was cited for a fishing violation and his will indicates that he possessed two types of nets and fish traps though these may have merely been intended for personal use. Land speculation may be indicated by his acquisition of a willow row with two ditches in

1549 which found their way into the hands of the Pickerds before 1555. Finally, he also owned a swarm of bees. However, his initiative paid off: in 1545 he was assessed on £7, in 1547 on £5 and in his probate inventory of 1555 as owning £6 14s 8d. No other Ramsey or Bury will contains as many items of clothing and bedding as his, which indicates a fair level of attainment. Entrepreneurs

1. Robert Nelson of Ramsey, a dyer in his own words, represents the entrepreneur par excellence. He was assessed as the wealthiest taxpayer in Ramsey in 1544 with €30 and as second only

to Richard Hayinges in 1547 with £28. These figures may seem exalted but they pale compared to his probate inventory value of

£157 17s 6d and a further £71 14s 8d in monetary bequests (of which the largest was f40 to his wife) included in his will of

1555.') As can be expected the court rolls recorded him in connection with the textile trades every year from 1535 to 1538, describing him as a fuller or a fuller and cloth cutter. Capital investment in the trade is evident from a dye house mentioned in the will. However, his economic interests extended far beyond textiles. He was described as a brewer, victualler and brewer or ale retailer on ten occasions from 1531 to 1553. Brewing, as a major interest, was developed through investment when he acquired a tenement equipped with a mill and a brewing lead in 1537. His will mentions a brew house (probably the same tenement) in his possession. It is an interesting question to what degree his wife was involved in brewing: the roll of 1535 explicitly stated that she had violated the ale assize by overcharging. Nelson's involvement in victualling trades is less well documented but

l3 Since Nelson did not specify the number of godchildren to whom he willed 12d each, two godchildren were assumed. 287 1531 a fine was levied against an infraction of the meat assize

and in 1553 for violating the bread assize. Nelson was a participant in the land market at an early point, acquiring a share in Wekyn close in 1533, the

aforementioned tenement with mill and lead from Katherine Ellys

in 1537, a tenement with croft in 1542, a close in 1550 and two pieces of land from Oliver Silcock in 1551. The will makes it

clear that his landed possessions were extensive: his wife and a kinsman, Edward Clarkson, were to have his free land, meadow, pasture and dwelling house with all things pertaining to it which included the brew and dye houses, ponds, orchards. After a year Clarkson was to have sole use of these lands which were eventually to pass on to Nelson's brother. But Joan received copyhold tenements with arable in Ramsey and Biggin fields and a house for her life which Clarkson was later to inherit along with an immediate bequest of two closes. It would be interesting to know if he farmed all or any of his lands directly but his agricultural activities appear scanty in the court rolls. He was fined once for ploughing in a piece of land called le Harpe but never for violating pasture rules despite bequeathing twenty- seven cows of various descriptions, ten sheep and four horses. The will further completes the picture by listing some of his possessions and other indicators of status: a silver salter, a dozen silver spoons, an unspecified amount of brass, a furred gown, at least two of the horses were riding horses and the will itself breaks the usual pattern by not being formulated on 288 Nelson's death bed but four years earlier. Robert Nelson was an exceedingly wealthy man by the standards of his community. Despite his wealth he may not have qualified as a gentlemen because, if the fine for ploughing le Haxpe is taken literally, he toiled with his own hands.I4 Perhaps as remarkable as his wealth is the fact that Nelson probably was not a native of Ramsey. His name was new to Ramsey, he was not recorded in the subsidies of the 1520's and in the court rolls Nelson first appeared in 1530 as a juror, an office which he held in three subsequent years and indicates that he was held in some esteem. A Martin Nelson briefly appeared in the rolls during the 1530's but there is no indication what his relationship to Robert was and, according to the will, a brother lived in Yorkshire. Though presumably a stranger in Ramsey Robert's quick rise to prominence indicates that he possessed some means when he established himself. Nevertheless, the lack of a male heir precluded the establishment of his family on a permanent base. Joan Nelson last appeared when she acquired a tenement in Bury. The inheritance left to Edward Clarkson raised the latter to certain visibility in the court rolls after

Nelsonrs death.l5

l4 Laslett, World We Have Lost: 33, quotes Harrison, Description, to this effect .

IS According to DeWindt, Court Rolls: 129, Edward Clarkson appeared through the remainder of the sixteenth century and had a son by the same name since he was referred to as Edward, sen., towards the end of the century. 2. Another prominent resident was Thomas Mease of Ramsey who described himself as a tamer in his will of 1555. In 1522 and

1523 he was assessed on f7 in goods and cattle, in 1545 on £20 5s and in 1547 on £20 in goods. Naturally, Thomas usually appeared as a tanner in court, receiving fines in 1531, 1534, 1537 and 1538 and being prohibited from selling horse hide to cobblers in 1531. His sons Jeffrey and William inherited the tanning operation upon his death. Mease owned livestock and bequeathed eleven cows, four horses and an unspecified number of sheep but no other agricultural activities are apparent. He possessed a house which he willed to Jeffrey. Like Nelson, Mease was also involved in brewing and there is little doubt that his wife was strongly involved: she was specifically cited in this role each year from 1534 to 1537 but Thomas only in 1543. Her independence is underscored by her continued possession of 'household stuff' which she had brought to the marriage. Apart from these occupations, Mease was fined as a draper for overcharging in 1535 though no further evidence of his involvement in textiles is available. Finally, he appeared as a shop-keeper in 1543 and

1544. Mease only participated in office holding as a churchwarden and an auxiliary function in the parish.16 A few consumer and status goods were willed: a leather case, a gown described as the best, some unspecified clothing and at least one riding horse. Mease distributed £23 to his wife, 10s to his

Ramsey CWA £0. 5d (15291, 24v (1526)~40d. 290 sister in his will and his inventory value amounted to £33 17s 8d. He, too, was wealthy but not nearly as much as Robert Nelson - The Mease family was successful in establishing continuity in Ramsey though they may not have arrived before 1500. DeWindt cross-references Mease with the surname Mice which was recorded in the fourteenth century but the fifteenth century gap between the two variants may speak for discontinuity. A William Mease was assessed on goods worth £18 in the 1520rs, £6 in 1545 and £8 in 1547. The court rolls and the will of Thomas Mease demonstrate that this difference in value was the effect of a generational turnover with an elder William appearing in the court rolls as a juror in 1518, as a dyer in 1519 and in the churchwardens accounts but a younger William as a shop-keeper not until, 1556. Thomas Mease constituted the intermediate generation, with the latter presumably being the William who appeared as a son in Thomasr will. The lay subsidies suggest a pattern in which the older member of the Mease family generated income worth close to £20 from the tannery and a younger member who was established with about £7 until he would take control of the tannery. The fact that the younger William was already established with some help from his family probably explains why he did not receive property in the will of 1555 while his presumably younger brother Jeffrey was. 291 3. The Aynsworth family of Ramsey also belonged to the wealthier taxpayers. This family had not been in Ramsey for any longer period. A William Aynsworth appeared as its first member in the court rolls from 1499 to 1540. It is likely that three generations were involved, for a William, junior, was sworn into the tithing in 1519 and another William was sworn in 1540 because he was over twelve years old in then. In the years from 1537 to

1556 a Thomas Aynsworth represented the family in the record. In all likelihood four generations are represented in the record: It is presumably the oldest William who was assessed at €44 in 1522 and £43 in 1523, in effect possessing the largest income in Ramsey at that time. Thomas, presumably the third generation member in the study period, was assessed at £18 in 1545 and El9 in 1547. The reason for this drastic decline in value (that still ranked fourth and fifth respectively) may lie in assessment procedures though bequests may have dispersed part of the fortune. The wealth of the Aynsworth family rested on the food retail trade. A William was fined as a baker in 1519 (receiving contrary to the ordinance), as an ale and wine retailer in 1531 and as a mercer in six years from 1531 to 1538. Thomas was cited as a mercer in 1537 and 1538, as a shop-keeper in 1543 and 1544 and was fined for keeping a shop on his plot in 1556. Apart from bread, ale and wine the Aynsworths also sold meat as is evident from a fine in 1534. Family members can be identified as jurors on two occasions, a William in 1531 and Thomas in 1540. They held tenements since William was fined for not cleaning a ditch 292 near his close and Thomas acquired a vacant tenement with two woods and a close. Despite these indicators of involvement in agriculture, the absence of any fines strictly related to primary production is noticeable. Unfortunately, the family has left us no will to complete the picture of their activities.

4. John Ashton of Ramsey appeared in the records between 1531 and

1538 on numerous occasions. A John Ashton briefly appeared in the court rolls in the first decades of the fifteenth century but is followed by a long gap. He was cited once as a baker and for a pasturing violation, twice as a mercer and seven times for infractions of the ale assize. The active participation of his wife is indicated by the fact that three of the ale violations went to her account. His stature in the community is indicated by his election as juror in five years, and once each as an affeeror and an unspecified official. John must have died without leaving a will shortly after his last appearance in the court rolls since his wife paid a fine for permission to keep a shop in 1544 and she was assessed on El0 in 1545 and f8 in 1547.

She appeared again in 1554 and 1555 as an ale retailer. Finally, in 1558 her probate inventory amounted to £22 8s 4d. Her will provided an abundance of detail. A house containing a parlour and a hall was mentioned but not bequeathed. Monetary bequests amounted to a mere 3s 10d and livestock involved no more than six cows. Metal objects were prominent by comparison. Six brass pots, one brass pan, two pans of one gallon volume each and two 293 kettles of which one had a volume of three gallons were probably related to her brewing activities. The set of saucers, pewter platters and pewter dishes, consisting of nine pieces each, the posnet and six candlesticks were domestic items in the strict sense. Furniture appears somewhat sparse with three 'buffetf stools, a chest, a coffer, a folding table, a plank to make a table and some table cloths. However, the number of beds and the amount of bedding in Joan Ashton's possession surprise. Three beds, two of them specified as featherbeds, were bequeathed and to each a set of bedding consisting of six pairs of sheets, a blanket, a coverlet, two pillows and a bolster was added. The bed on which she was lying as she made her will was given 'as it doth stondeft likewise two sets of bedstocks with their hangings. ~t is surprising that clothing is absent from this long list of goods bequeathed. Finally, the most conspicuous items were two wedding rings. Joan Ashton does not appear as unusually wealthy in monetary assessments but her will demonstrates affluence. Bibliography

Primary Sources a) Manuscripts i) Cambridge Record Office, Hun tingdon Branch Parish Records (Churchwardens Accounts)

Lay Subsidies Rolls

Parish Registers

Huntingdonshire Wills, Actbooks I - XI

iii) PRO, Special Collections, London

b) Printed Works

Clay, T. A chorologicall discourse of the well ordering, of an honorable estate or revennue. London, 1618. Dubravius , Jan. A New Booke of good Husbandry, . . . Conteining, The Order and maner of making Fish-pondes, ... Trans. G. Churchey. London, 1599.

F., N. The fruiterers secrets. London, 1609. Norden, John. The surveiors dialogue. London, 1610.

Taverner, J. Certaine Experiments Concerning Fish and Frui te. London, 1600.

c) Edi tions, Facsimiles and Calendars

Alcock, N. W., ed. "Warwickshire Grazier and London Skinner, 1532 - 1555: The account book of Peter Temple and Thomas Heritage. Records of Social and Economic Hisrrory n. ser . 4 (1981).

Brooke, C. N. L., and M. M. Postan, ed. Carte Nativorum: A Pe terboxough Abbey Cartulary of the Fourteenth Century- Northamptonshire Record Society 20 (1960). Cornwall, Julian, ed. The County Comuni ty under Henry VIII: The Military Survey, 1522, and Lay Subsidy, 1524-5, for Rutland. Rutland Record Society 1 (1980).

Cawley, A. C . , and J. J. Anderson, ed. Pearl, Cleamess, Patience, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. London: Dent, 1976.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales.I1 Ed. A. C. Baugh. Chaucer's Major Poetry. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,

Davis, Nigel, ed. "Letter 195: Inventory of Goods Stolen Soon After 1465, 10, 17. " Ed. N. Davis and M. Bernhard. Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, pt . I. 1971. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Electronic Text Centre, 1994. 325-29 Deloney, Thomas. "The pleasant Historie of John Winchcomb, in his yonguer yeares called Jack of Newberry ...I1 Ed. G. Saintsbury . Shorter Elizabethan Novels. London: Dent, 1929. DeWindt, Edwin B. The Court Rolls of Ransey, Hepmang-love and Bury. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1990. Dyer, Allan, and David Palliser, ed. The Bishop's Census of 1563. (forthcoming).

E., T. The Lawes Resolutions of Womens Rights. 1632. Amsterdam: Variorum, 1979-

Fitzherbert . The Book of Husbandry of Master Fitzherbert. Ed. W. W. Skeat. 1534. Reprinted with an introduction, notes, and glossarial index 1882. Vaduz: Kraus, 1965.

Foster, C. W., ed. Lincoln Wills. 3 vols. 5, 10 & 24 (1914, 1918 & 1930) .

Fussell, G. E., ed. "Robert Loder's Farm Accounts, 1610-1620." Camden 3rd ser. 53 (1936).

Gairdner, J. , and R. H. Brodie, eds . Calendar of SIate Papers : Henry VIII. v. XIV, pt . 2. London: Great Britain Public Record Office, 1896.

Glasscock, R. E., ed, The Lay Subsidy of 1334. Records of Social and Economic History n. ser. 2 (1975). Great Britain Records Commission. Valor Ecclesiasticus. v. IV. Publications 9 (1821).

Groos, G. W. , trans. The Diary of Baron Waldstein: A Traveller in Elizabethan England. London : Thames and Hudson, 19 81 .

Hall, Edward. Chronicle: Henry VIII. Vol. I. Ed. C. Whibley. London: T. C. and E. C. Jack, 1904.

Harrison, William. The Description of England. Ed. G. Edelen. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1968.

Harvey, Paul D. A. , ed. Manorial Records of Cuxharn, Oxfordshire, circa 1200-1359. Historical Manuscript Commission JP 23 (1976)- Havinden, Michael, ed . Household and Farm Inventories in Oxfordshire, 1550-1590. Historical Manuscripts Commission JP 10 (1965).

Hay, Dennis, ed. "The Anglica Historia of Polydore Vergil, 1485 - 1537. Camden 3rd ser. 74 (1950). Holt, N. R. , ed. Pipe Roll Winchester. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1964.

Knox, John. The First Blast of the Trmpet Against the Monstrvovs Regiment of Women. 1558. Amsterdam : Variorum, 1972.

Langland, William. The Vision of Piers Plowman: A Complete Edition of the B-Text. Ed. A. V. C. Schmidt. London: Dent, 1978.

Lornas, S . C . ed . The Edwardian Inventories for Hun tingdonshire from Transcripts by T. Craib. Alcuin Club Collections 7 Markham, Gervase. The English Housewife. Ed. M. Best. 1615. Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1986.

More, Thomas. Utopia. Trans. P. Turner. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1965.

Oschinsky, Dorothea, ed. "Walter: The Husbandry of Walter of Henley." Ed. and trans. D. Oschinsky. Walter of Henley and Other Treatises on Estate Management and Accounting. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971. 307-43.

Raftis, J. Ambrose, and Mary P. Hogan, ed. Early Huntingdonshire Lay Subsidy Rolls. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1976.

Rigg, A. George, ed. The Feat of Gardeninge . If Ed. A. G. Rigg . A Glastonbury Miscellany of the Fifteenth Century: A Descriptive Index of Trinity Coll ege, Cambridge, MS. 0.9.3 8 Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Samuel, William [?] . The Arte of Angling (1577). l1 I. Walton and C. Cotton. The Compleat Angler. Ed. John Buchan. London: Oxford University Press, 1960.

Schmidt, P. G. , ed. Visio Thurkili relatore, ut videtvr, Radvlpho de Coggeshall. Bibliotheca Tevbneriana (19783.

Swinburne, Henry. A Briefe Treatise of Testaments and Last Wills- 1635, Amsterdam: Variorum, 1979.

Tawney, Richard H., and Eileen Power. Tudor Economic Documents. 3 vols. 1924. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1961.

Tusser, Thomas. Fiue Hundred Pointes of Good Husbandrie. The Edition of 1580 Collated with Those of 1573 and 1577. Eds. W. Payne and S. J. Heritage. The English Dialect Society (1878).

Windeatt, B. A., trans. The Book of Margery Kempe. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985.

Wise, W. M. Calendars of Huntingdonshire Wills, 1479 - 1652. Index Library 42 (1910; repr. 1968) 1-125. Secondary Sources

Abrams, P- lfIntroduction.vEds, P. Abrams and E. A. Wrigley. Towns in Societies: Essays in Economic History and Historical Sociology. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1978. 1-8. Abrams, P. "Towns and Economic Growth: Some Theories and problem^.^^ Eds- P. Abrams and E. A. Wrigley. Towns in Societies: Essays in Econondc His tory and Historical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. 9- 33. Achilles, W. Vermogensverhdl tnisse braunschweigischer Bauernhofe im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Fischer, 1965. Alcom, E. M. English Silver in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston- I. Silver before 1697. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1993.

Allen, R. C. "The two English agricultural revolutions, 1450 - 1850.If Eds., Bruce M. S. Campbell and Mark Overton. Land, Labour and Livestock: Historical Studies in European Agricul tural Productivi ty. Manchester : Manchester University Press, 1991. 236-54. Allen, Robert C. Enclosure and the Yeoman. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.

Amussen, Susan D. "Gender, Family and the Social Order, 1560- 1725." Eds. A. Fletcher and J. Stevenson. Order and Disorder in Early Modern England. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1985. 196-217.

Amussen, Susan. An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modern England. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988. Anonymous. "How Many Miles to Huntingdon." Records of Hzmtingdonshire 2 :3 (1983): 17-19. Appleby, A. Famine in Tudor and Stuart England. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978. Appleby, A. "Grain Prices and Subsistence Crises in England and

France, 1590-1740. fl JEH 39 (1979): 865-87. AriSs, Philippe. The Hour of Our Death. Trans. H. Weaver. 1981. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Aston, Michael. "Aspects of Fishpond Construction and Maintenance in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Cent~ries.~~ Ed. M. Aston. Medieval Fish, Fisheries and Fishponds in England. v- I. BAR British ser. 182 (1988). 187-202-

Aston, T. H., and C. H. El Philpin, ed. The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre - Industrial Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Ault , Warren 0. Open-Field Farming in Medieval England. London : Allen and Unwin, 1972. Bailey, Mark. "The concept of the margin in the late medieval English economy." EcHR 2nd ser. 42 (1989): 1-17. Bailey, Mark. "Sand into Gold: The Evolution of the Foldcourse System in , 1200 - 1600.If AHR 38 (1990): 40-58. Baker, Alan R. H. "Evidence in the 'Nonarum Inquisitiones' of contracting arable lands in England duringmthe fourteenth century. " EcHR 2nd ser. 19 (1966): 513-534.

Barley, M. W. The English Farmhouse and Cottage. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961. Barley, M. W. "A Glossary of Names for Rooms in Houses of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries." Eds. I. L1. Foster and L. Alcock. Culture and Environment: Essays in Honour of Sir Cyril Fox. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963, 479-500. Barley, M. W. "Rural Housing in England." Ed. J. Thirsk- Agrarian History of England and Wales. v. IV. 2540-1.640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. 696-766.

Bartlett, F. "Introducti~n.~Ed. Richard R. Wilk. The Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production. Boulder: Westview, 1989. 3-10,

Baur, P . Testament und Burgerschaf t . Sigmaringen : Thorbecke , 1989.

Bean, John M. W. The Decline of English Feudalism, 1215-1540. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968. Beauroy, Jacques. "Family Patterns and Relations of Bishop's Lynn Will-makers in the Fourteenth Century." Eds. L. Bonf ield, R. M. Smith and K. Wrightson. The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure : Essays Presented to Peter Laslet t on His Seventieth Birthday. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. 23-42. Bennet, H. S. Life on the English Manor. 1937. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Bennett, Judith. Women in the Medieval English Countryside : Gender and Household in Brigs tock Before the Plague. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Bennett, Judith. "Public Power and Authority in the Medieval English Co~ntryside.~~Eds. M. Erler and M. Kowaleski. Women and Power in the Middle Ages. Athens, Ga. : University of Georgia, 1988: 18-36. Biddick, Kathleen. "Medieval English Peasants and Market Involvement. JEH 45 (1985): 823 -31. Biddick, Kathleen. "Missing Links: Taxable Wealth, Markets, and Stratification among Medieval English Peasants." JIH 18 (1987): 277-98.

Biddick, Kathleen. The Other Economy: Pastoral Husbandry on a Medieval Estate. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

Bigmore, P . The Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire Landscape. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1979. Biscoglio, F.. M. ll'Unspunrheroes: iconography of the spinning woman in the Middle Ages.I1 Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 25 (1995): 163-77.

Bois, Guy. The Crisis of Feudalism. Trans. Jean Birrell. 1976. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Bolton, J. L. The Medieval English Economy, 1150 - 1500. London: Dent, 1980.

Bonf ield, Lloyd. Marriage Settlements, 1601 - 1740. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1983. Bonfield, Lloyd. llNormativeR-lles and Property Transmission: Reflections on the Link between Marriage and Inheritance in Early Modern England." Eds. L. Bonfield, R. M. Smith and K. Wrightson. The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure: Essays Presented to Peter Laslett on His Seventieth Birthday. Ox£ord: Blackwell, 1986. 155-76.

Bonfield, Lloyd, Richard M. Smith and Keith Wrightson, eds. The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure. Essays Presented to Peter Laslett on His Seventieth Birthday. Oxford: Blackiell, 1986. Boserup , Esther. The Conditions of Agricul tural Growth. Chicago: Aldine, 1965.

Bowker, M. The Henrician Reformation: The Diocese of Lincoln under John Longland, 1521 - 1547. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

"Brass," Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989.

Braudel, Fernand. The Limits of the Possible. Vol. I. Civilization and Capitalism, 15th - 18th Century. 3 vols. Trans. S. Reynolds. 1979. New York: Harper and Row, 1981.

Braudel, Fernand. The Wheels of Commerce. Vol. 11. Civilization and Capitalism, 15th - 18th Century. 3 vols. Trans. S. Reynolds. 1979. New York: Harper and Row, 1982.

Braudel, Fernand. The Perspective of the World. Vol. 111. Civilization and Capitalism, 15th - 18th Century. 3 vols. Trans. S. Reynolds. 1979. New York: Harper and Row, 1984.

Brears, P. nExcavations at Potovens, near Wakefield." Post- Medieval Archaeology 1 (1967): 3-43. Britnell, Richard H. "Production for the Market on a Small Fourteenth-Century Estate." EcHR 2nd ser. 19 (1966): 380-7. Britnell, Richard H. "The Proliferation of Markets in England, 1220-1349. EcHR 2nd ser. 34 (1981): 209-21.

Britnell, Richard H. Growth and Decline in Colchester, 1300 - 1525. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Britnell , Richard H . The Commercialization of English Society, 1000-1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Britnell, Richard H., and B. M. S. Campbell, eds. A Commercialising Economy. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995.

Britton, Edward. The Community of the Vill. Toronto: MacMillan, 1977. Brown, Henry Phelps, and S. Hopkins. "Seven Centuries of Building Wages.Ir Eds. H. P. Brown and S. Hopkins. A Perspective of Wages and Prices. London: Methuen, 19 81.

Brownbill, John. I1Cromwell Pedigree. If VCH Huntingdon. v. 11. London: St. Catherine, 1932. 67-72.

Brownsword, R., and E. E. H. Pitt. l1Some Examples of Medieval Domestic Pewter Flatware.l1 Medieval Archaeology 29 (1985): Bruhns, K. 0, Y3exual Activities: Some Thoughts on the Sexual. Division of Labor and Archaeological Interpretation." Eds. D. Walde and N. D. Williams. The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the ~rchaeologi cal Associa tion of the University of Calgary. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University, 1991. 420-29. Brurnfiel, Elizabeth M. I1Weaving and Cooking: Women's Production in Aztec Mexico." Eds. D. Walde and N. D. Williams. The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twen ty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Associa tion of the University of Calgary. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University, 1991. 224-51- Buckatzsch, E. J. "The Geographical Distribution of Wealth in England, 1086 - 1843: An Experimental Study of Certain Tax Assessments." EcHR 2nd ser. 3 (1950/1): 189-202. Burgess, Clive. I1'By Quick and by Deadf: wills and pious provision in late medieval Bristol. l1 English Historical Review 102 (1987) : 837-58. Burke, Peter. "The language of orders in early modern Europe. Ed, M. L. Bush. Social Orders and Social Classes in Europe since 1500: Studies in Social Stratification. London: Longman, 1992. 1-12. Bush, Michael L. "Tax Reform and Rebellion in Early Tudor England. History 76 (1991) : 379-400. Campbell, Bruce M. S. "The Population of Early Tudor England: A ~e-evaluationof the 1522 Muster Returns and 1524 and 1525 Lay Subsidies.l1 JHG 7 (1981) : 145-54. Campbell, Bruce M. S. llAgriculturalprogress in medieval England: some evidence from eastern Norfolk." EcHR 2nd ser. 36 (1983): 26-46. Campbell, Bruce M. S. "Population pressure, inheritance and the land market in a fourteenth-century peasant community." Ed. R. M. Smith. Land, Kinship and Life-Cycle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. 87-134. Campbell, Bruce M. S. "A Fair Field Once Full of Folk: Agrarian Change in an Era of Population Decline, 1348 - 1500." ANR 41 (1993) : 60-70.

Campbell, Bruce M. S . , ed. Before the Black Death: Studies in the 'Crisis' of the Early Fourteenth Century. Manchester : Manchester University Press, 1989.

Campbell, Bruce M. S., 5. Galloway and M. Murphy. "Rural Land- Use in the Metropolitan Hinterland, 1270-1339: the Evidence of Inquisitiones Post Mortem.I1 AHR 40 (1992): 1-22.

Charles, L., and L. Duffin, eds. Women and Work in Pre- Industrial Zngland. London : Croom Helm, 19 85 .

Chartres, John. Internal Trade in England, 1500 - 1700. London: Economic History Society, 1977. Chartres, John. "Road Carrying in England in the Seventeenth Century: Myth and Reality.Ir EcHR 2nd ser. 30 (1977): 73-94.

Chartres, John, and David Hey, eds . English Rural Society, 1500 - 1800: Essays in Honour of Joan Thirsk. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Cheney, E. P. "The Disappearance of English Serfdom." EHR 15 (1900): 20-37.

Chayanov, A. V. The Theory of the Peasant Economy. Eds. D. Thorner, B. Kerblay and R. E. F. Smith. Homewood: Irwin, 1966. Cioni, Maria L. "The Elizabethan Chancery and Women's Rights." Eds. D. J. Guth and J. W. McKenna. Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for G. R. Elton from his American friends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. 159- 82.

Cioni, Maria L. Women and Law in Elizabethan England with Particular Reference to the Court of Chancery. New York: Garland, 1985.

Clanchy, Michael T. From Memory to Written Record: England 1066- 1307. Oxford: Edward Arnold, 1993. Clark, Elaine. "Debt Litigation in a Late Medieval Village.I1 Ed. J. A. Raf tis . Pathways to Medieval Peasants. Toronto : Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981. 247-79.

Clarkson, L, A. The Pre-Industrial Economy in England, 1500 - 1750. London: Batsford, 1972.

Clarkson, L . A. Proto-Indus trialization: The First Phase of Industrialization? London: Economic History Society, 198 5.

Clay, G. C. Economic Expansion and Social Change, 1500 - 1700. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Coleman, D . C. Industry in Tudor and Stuart Enfland. Basingstoke: MacMIllan, 1975.

Coleman, D. C. The Economy of England, 1450 - 1750. London: Oxford University Press, 1977. Cooper, J. P. "The Social Distribution of Land and Men in England, 1436 - 1700. EcHR 2nd. ser. 20 (1967): 419-40.

Cooper, J. P. "The Counting of Manors.'# EcHR 2nd ser. 8 (1956): 377-89. Cornwall, Julian. Weal th and Society in Early Sixteenth Century England. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988. Cross, Claire. "Wills as Evidence of Popular Piety in the Reformation Period: Leeds and Hull." Ed. D. M. Loades. The End of Strife. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1984. 44-51.

Dahlman, Carl. The Open Field System and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Darby, H. C. The Medieval Fenland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940. Denholm-Young, N . Seigneurial Administration in England. London: F. Cass, 1963. de Roover, Raymond. "The development of accounting prior to Luca Pacioli according to the account-books of medieval merchants." Eds. A. C. Littleton and B. S. Yamey. Studies in the History of Accounting. Homewood: Irwin, 1956. 114- 74. de Vries, Jan. The Dutch Rural Economy in the Golden Age, 1500 - 1700. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. de Vries, Jan. llPeasantDemand Patterns and Economic Development: Friesland 1550 - 1750.11 Eds. W. N. Parker and E . L . Jones, European Peasants and Their Markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. de Vries, Jan. I1Histoiredu climat et bconomie: des faits nouveau, une interpretation differente.I1 Annales: Bconomies, socigtes, Civilisations 32 (1977): 198-227. de Vries, Jan. "Measuring the impact of climate on history: the search for appropriate methodol~gies,~~JIH 10 (1980): 599- 603 . de Vries, Jan. "The Industrial Revolution and the Industrious Revolution. " JEN 54 (1994): 249-70. DeWindt, Ann Reiber. Society and Change in a Fourteenth Century English Village: King's Ripton, 1275-1400. Diss., U of Toronto, 1972.

DeWindt , Edwin B . Land and People in Holywe1 l -cum-Needingworth. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1972.

Dickens, A. G. Lollards and Protestants in the Diocese of York 1509 - 1558. London: Oxford University Press, 1966. Dickens, A. G. "The Early Expansion of Protestantism in England 1520 - 1558." Archiv fur Refonnationsgeschichte 78 (1987): 187-222,

Dietz, Frederick C. English Government Finance, 1485 - 1558. 2 vols. 1921. London: F. Cass, 1964.

Dowell, S . A History of Taxes and Taxation in England from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. 2 vols. 1888. London: Longman, 1965. Du Soulay, F. R. H. IIA Rentier Economy in the Later Middle Ages: the Archbishopric of Canterbury." EcHR 2nd ser 16 (1963): 427-38. Du Boulay, F. R. H. "Who were Farming the English Demesne at the End of the Middle Ages?" EcHR 2nd ser. 17 (1965): 443-55.

Duby, Georges . Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West. Trans. C. Postan- 1962. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina, 1968.

Duf fy, Eamon. The Stripping of the A1 tars : Traditional Religion in England, 1400 - 1580. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

Dyer, Alan. Decline and Growth in English Towns, 1400-1640. Basingstoke: Economic History Society, 1991.

Dyer, Alan. "The Bishopsr Census of 1563: Its Significance and Accuracy." Local Population Studies 49 (Autumn 1992): 19- 37.

Dyer, Christopher. Lords and Peasants in a Changing Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Dyer, Christopher. Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages: Social Change in England c. 1200 - 1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Dyer, Christopher. I1Appendix 3: A note on the calculation of GDP for 1086 to c. 1300.'' Eds. R. H. Britnell and B. M. S. Campbell. A Commercial ising Economy: England 1086 to c. 1300. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995. 196- 98.

Christopher. Everyday Life in Medieval England. London : Hambledon, 1994. Christopher. "The Consumption of Freshwater Fish in Medieval England. Ed. C . Dyer. Everyday Life in Medieval England. London: Haribledon, 1994. 101-112 Christopher. "English Peasant Buildings in the Later Middle Ages (1200 - 1500) .I1 Ed. C. Dyer, Everyday Life in Medieval England. London : Hambledon, 1994. 13 3 - 65. Christopher, "A Redistribution of Incomes in Fifteenth- Century England. Ir Ed. R. H. Hilton, Peasants, Knights and Heretics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 198 1. 192-215. Christopher. 'The Consumer and the Market in the Later Middle Ages. If Ed. C. Dyer. Everyday Life in Medieval England. London: Haribledon, 1994. 257-82. Christopher. "The Hidden Trade of the Middle Ages: Evidence from the West Midlands." Ed. C. Dyer. Everyday Life in Medieval England. London: Hambledon, 1994. 283- 304. Christopher. "Were there any Capitalists in Fifteenth- Century England. Ed. C . Dyer. Everyday Life in Medieval England. London: Hambledon, 1994. 305-27. P. llSrnallerPost-Medieval Houses in Eastern England." Ed. L. Munby. East Anglian Studies. Cambridge: Heffer, 1968. 71-93. Erler, M., and M. Kowaleski. uIntroduction.N Eds. M. Erler and M. Kowaleski. Women and Power in the Middle Ages. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia, 1988. 1-17. Everitt, A. "The Marketing of Agricultural Produce.I1 Ed. J. Thirsk. MEW. v. IV. 1500 - 1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. 467-75.

Farmer, David L. "Marketing the Produce of the Countryside, 1200 - 1500.11 Ed. J. Thirsk, AHEW. v. 111. 1348 - 1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. 324-430.

Felgenbauer-Schmiedt, S . Die Sachkul tur des Mit telal ters in Lichte der archaologischen Funde. Frankfurt a. M. : Peter Lang, 1993. Findlay, G. H. Guide to Huntingdonshire Record Office. Huntingdon: Huntingdonshire County Council, 1951- Fisher, D. "The Price Revolution: A Monetary Interpretation." JEH 49 (1989): 883-902.

Fisher, F. J. "The development of the London food market," EcHR 1st ser, 5.2 (1935): 46-64. Fox, Harold S. A- "The Chronology of Enclosure and Economic Development in Medieval Devon." EcHR 2nd ser. 28 (1966): 181-202. Fox, Harold S. A. "The Alleged Transformation from Two-Field to Three-Field Systems In Medieval England." EcHR 2nd. ser. 39 (1986): 526-48. Fugedi, E. "Steuerlisten, Vermogen und soziale Gruppen in mittelalterlichen Stadten." Ed. I. tori. Stadtische Gesellschaft und Reformation. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1980. 58-96.

Gates, Laura A. A Glastonbury Estate Complex in Wiltshire: Survival and Prosperity on the Medieval Manor, 1280 - 1380. Diss., University of Toronto, 1991. Gatrell, P. lfHistorians and Peasants: Studies of Medieval English Society in a Russian Context." Eds. T. Aston. Landlords, Peasants and Politics in Medieval England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 394-422.

Gilchrist, John. The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1969. Glennie, Paul. Ifcontinuity and Change in Hertfordshire Agriculture, 1550 - 1700: I - Patterns of Prod~ction.~~AHR 36 (1988): 55-75. Glennie, Paul. "Continuity and Change in Hertfordshire Agriculture, 1550 - 1700: I - Trends in Crop Yields and Their Determinants. l1 AHR 36 (1988): 145-61.

Goheen, R. B. "Peasant politics? Village community and the Crown in f if teenth-century England. American Historical Review 96 (1991): 42-62.

Goldberg, P. Jeremy P., ed. Woman is a Worthy Wight: Women in English Society, c. 1200 - 1500. Stroud: Alan Sutton, 1992.

Goldberg, P. Jeremy P. Introduction.I1 Ed. P. J. P. Goldberg. Woman is a Worthy Wight: Women in English Society, c. 1200 - 1500. Stroud: Alan Sutton, 1992.

Goldberg, P . Jeremy P. "Marriage, Migration, and Servanthood: The York Cause Paper Evidence." Ed. P. J. P. Goldberg. Woman is a Worthy Wight: Women in English Society, c. 1200 - 1500. Stroud: Alan Sutton, 1992. 1-15.

Goodacre, John. The Transformation of a Peasant Economy: Townspeople and villagers in the Lutterworth area 1500 - 1700. Aldershot : Scolar, 1994.

Gottfried, Robert S. Bury St. Edmunds and the Urban Crisis, 1290 - 1539. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982.

Gras, N, S . B. , and E. C. Gras . The Economic and Social History of an English Village. 1930. New York: Russell and Russell, 1969. Grauer, A. L. "Life Patterns of Women from Medieval York. Eds . D. Walde and N. D. Williams. The Archaeology of Gender. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Associa tion of the University of Calgary. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University, 1991. 407-13. Gray, H. L. "The Commutation of Villein Services in England before the Black Death." EHR 29 (1914): 625-56. Habbakuk, H. J. "The Rise and Fall of English Landed Families, 1600 - 1800, pt. I - III.I1 Trans. Royal Kist. Soc. 5th ser. 29 (1979) 187-207, 30 (1980): 199-221, 31 (1981): 195-217. Hadwin, J. F. The Medieval Lay Subsidies and Economic History." EcHR 2nd ser. 36 (1983): 200-17.

Haigh, Christopher. Reforma tion and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Haigh, Christopher. uAnti-Clericalism and the English Ref ormation.Ir Ed. Christopher Haigh. The English Reformation Revised. cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1987. Hall, David. HSurvey results in the Cambridgeshire Fenland." Antiquity 62 (1988): 311-14. Hall, David, and C. Chipindale. Y3urvey, environment and excavation in the English Fenland. Antiquity 62 (1988) : 305-10- Hannig, Jiirgen. "Ars Donandi: Zur ~konorniedes Schenkens im friihen Mitte1alter.l1 Ed. R. van Diilmen. Armut, Liebe, Ehre : Studien zur his torischen Kul turforschung- Frankfurt : Fischer, 1988: 11-37. Harte, N. B. "State Control of Dress and Social Change in Pre- Industrial England." Ed. D. C. Coleman and A. H. John- Trade, Government and Economy in Pre- Industrial England: Essays presented to F. J. Fisher. London: Weidenf eld and Nicholson, 1976. 132-65.

Harvey, Paul D. A. Manorial Records. London: British Record Association, 1984.

Harvey, Paul D. A., ed. Peasant Land Market in Medieval England. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984.

Hatcher, John. Plague Population and the English Economy, 1348 - 1530. London: MacMillan, 1977.

Hatcher, John, and F. C. Barker. A His tory of British Pewter. London: Longman, 1974. Havinden, Michael A. "Agricultural Progress in Open-Field Oxfordshire." AHR 9 (1961): 73-83.

Heal, Felicity, and Clive Holmes. The Gentry in England and Wales, 1500 - 1700. Basingstoke: MacMillan, 1994. Helmholz, Richard H. "Married Womenfs Wills in Later Medieval England. Ed. S . S . Walker. Wife and Widow in Medieval England. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1993. 165-82.

Hewett, C. A. The Development of the Post-Medieval House." Post-Medieval Archaeology 7 (1973): 60-78.

Hilton, Rodney H. A Medieval Society: The West Midlands at the End of the Thirteenth Century. Carnbridgs : Cambridge University Press, 1966.

Hilton, Rodney H., ed. Class Conflict and the Crisis Of Feudalism: Essays in Medieval Social History. London: Hambledon, 1985.

Hilton, Rodney H. "Peasant Movements in England before 1381." Ed. R. H. Hilton. Class Conflict and the Crisis Of Feudalism: Essays in Medieval Social History. London: Hambledon, 1985. 122-38. Hilton, Rodney H. "The Small Town and Urbanisation -- Evesham in the Middle Ages." Ed. R. H. Hilton. Class Conflict and the Crisis Of Feudal ism: Essays in Medieval Social History. London: Hambledon, 1985. 187-93. Hilton, Rodney H. "Women Traders in Medieval England." Ed. R. H. Hilton. Class Conflict and the Crisis Of Feudalism: Essays in Medieval Social History. London: Hambledon, 1985. 205-16.

Hodder, Ian. "Gender Representation and Social Reality.I1 Eds. D. Walde and N. D. Williams. The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Associa tion of the University of Calgary. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University, 1991. 11-16.

Hogan, Mary P. Wistow: A Social and Economic Reconstitution in Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century England. Diss - , U of Toronto, (1971).

Hogan, Mary P . "Clays, Cul turae, and the Cultivatorrs Wisdom: Management Efficiency at Fourteenth-Century Wistow,I1 AHR (1988) : 17-31.

Hogrefe, Pearl. Tudor Women: Commoners and Queens. Ames : Iowa State University Press, 1975. Holderness, B. A. "Widows in pre-industrial society: an essay upon their economic functions. Ed. R. M. Smith. Land, Kinship and Life-Cycl e . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1984. 423-42.

Holt, R. The Mills of Medieval England. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.

Homans , George C. English Villagers in the Thirteenth Century. 1944. New York: Russell and Russell, 1960.

Hoskins, W. G. The Midland Peasant. 1957. London: MacMillan, 1965.

Hoskins, W. G. "The Rebuilding of Rural England, 1570 - 1640.' Ed. W. G. Hoskins. Provincial England: Essays in Social and Economic History. London: MacMillan, 1963. 131-48.

Hoskins , W. G. The Age of Plunder. London: Longman, 1976.

Howell, Cecily. "Stability and Change 1300 - 1700. JPS 2 (1975) : 468-82.

Howell, Cecily. Land, Family and Inheritance in Transition: Kibworth Harcourt, 1280 - 1700. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1983. Hoyle, Richard. "Crown, Parliament and Taxation in Sixteenth- Century England." EHR 109 (1994): 1175-96. Hughes, Pat. IrPropertyand Prosperity: The Relationship of the Buildings and Fortunes of Worcester, 1500 - 1660," Midland History 17 (1981): 39-58.

Huizinga, Jan. The Waning of the Middle Ages. Trans. F. Hopman. 1924. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1965.

Hurst, J. G. "The Changing Medieval Village." Ed. J. A. Raftis. Pathways to Medieval Peasants. Toronto : Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981. 27-62.

Hurst, J. G. "The Wharram Percy Project: Results to 1983." Medieval Archaeology 28 (1984): 77-111.

Hyams, Paul R. King, Lords and Peasants: The Common Law of Villeinage in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. Oxford : Clarendon, 1980.

Hybel, Nils. Crisis or Change: The Concept of Crisis in the Light of Agrarian Structural Reorganization in Late Medieval England. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1989. Jack, Sybil M. Trade and Industry in Tudor and Stuart England. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1977. Jecht, H. "Studien zur gesellschaftlichen Struktur der mittelalterlichen Stadte." Vortrage fiir Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte (1926): 48-85 . Jennings, J. M. "The distribution of landed wealth in the wills of London merchants 1400 - 1450. Ir Mediaeval Studies 39 (1977): 261-80.

Jones, W. R. D. The Tudor Commonwealth, 1529 - 1559. London: Athlone, 1970. Jordan, W. C. Women and Credit in Pre-Industrial and Developing Societies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1993.

Jordan, W. K. Philanthropy in England, 1480 - 1660: A Study of the Changing Pat tern of English Social Aspirations. London : Allen and Unwin, 1959.

Kealey, E . J. Harvesting the Air: Windmill Pioneers in the Twelf th-Century England. Berkeley: University of California, 1987.

Kerridge, Eric. The Agricultural Revolution. London : George Allen and Unwin, 1967. Kerridge, Eric. Trade and Banking in Early Modern England. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988. Kettle, A. "'My Wife Shall Have Itf: Marriage and Property in the Wills and Testaments of Later Medieval England." Ed. E. J. Craik, Marriage and Property. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1984. 89-104.

Kosminsky, E. A. Studies in the Agrarian History of England in the Thirteenth Century. Oxford: Blackwell, 1956.

Kowaleski, Maryanne. Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Kumin, Beat, Varish finance and the early Tudor ~1erg-y.~~Ed. A. Pettegree. The Reformation of the Parishes: The Ministry and the Reformation in Towns and Country. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993. 43-62.

Kunze, Michael. High Road to the Stake: A Tale of Witchcraft. Trans. W. E. Yuill. 1982. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987

Kussmaul, Ann. Servants in Husbandry in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Kussmaul , Ann. A General View of the Rural Economy of England, 1538 - 1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Lacey, K. E. "Women and Work in Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century London." Eds. L. Charles and L. Duffin. Women and Work in Pre-Industrial England. London: Croorn Helm, 1985. 24-82. Lamb, Hubert H. "The early medieval warm epoch and its sequel.11 Palaeogeography, Palaeocl ima tology and Palaeoecology 1 (1965): 13-37.

Langdon, John. Horses, Oxen and Technological Innovation: The Use of Draught Animals in English Farming from 1066 to 1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Laslett, Peter. The World We Have Lost. 1965. New York: Scribners, 1971.

"Latten.l1 Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989.

Le Go£f , Jacques. Your Money or Your Life: Economy and Religion in the Middle Ages. Trans. P . Danum. New York : Zone, 19 88. Levine, M. "The place of women in Tudor government.I1 Eds. D. J. Guth and J. W. McKenna. Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for G. R. El ton from his American friends. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1982. 109-23. Levy, F. J. "How Information Spread Among the Gentry 1550 - 1640." Journal of British Studies 21 (1982): 11-34.

Lewis, Oscar. "The Possessions of the Poor.I1 Ed. 0. Lewis. Anthroplogical Essays. New York: Random House, 1970. 441- 60.

Lindsay, J. S. Iron and Brass Implements of the English House. London: Medici Society, 1927. 49-97.

Lorenzen-Schmidt, K. J., and B. Poulsen. "Bauerliche (An-) Schreibebucher als Quellen fur die Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte.~ Eds. K. J. Lorenzen-Schmidt and B. Poulsen. Bduerl iche Anschreibebiicher a1s Quellen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Neumiinster: Karl Wachholtz, 1992. 9-27.

MacCulloch, D. "England." Ed. A. Pettegree. The Early Reformation in Europe. Cambridge: MacCulloch, 1992. 166- 87. MacKinnon, Sarah M. 'The Peasant House: The Evidence of Manuscript Illumination.If Ed. J. A. Raf tis . Pathways to Medieval Peasants. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981. 301-09. MacQuoid, P . , and R. Edwards. The Dictionary of English Furniture. 3 vols. London: Country Life, 1954. Martin, J. "Sheep and Enclosure in Sixteenth-Century Northamptonshire. AHR 36 (1988): 39-54.

Masschaele, James. A Regional Economy in Medieval England. Diss, U of Toronto (1990). Masschaele, James. "Market Rights in Thirteenth-Century England. " EHR 107 (1992): 78-89.

Masschaele, James. IrTransport Costs in Medieval England." EcHR 2nd ser. 46 (1993): 266-79. Mate, Mavis. "Medieval agrarian practices: the determining factors?Ir AHR 30 (1985) : 22-31. Mate, Mavis. "Pastoral Farming in South-East England in the Fifteenth Century. l1 EcHR 2nd ser. (1987): 523-36. Maurer, B. "Feminist Challenges to Archaeology: Avoiding an Epistemology of the rrOther.flEds. D. Walde and N. D. Williams. The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Associa tion of the Universi ty of Calgary. Calgary : Archaeological Association of the University, 1991. 414-19.

Mayhew, G. J. "The Progress of the Reformation in East 1530 - 1559 : the evidence from wills. " Southern History 5 (1983): 38-67. Mayhew, Nicholas. "Modelling medieval monetisation." Eds. R. H. Britnell and B. M. S. Campbell. A Commercialising Economy: England 1086 to c. 1300. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995. 55-77. McCloskey, Donald N. "The Persistence of English Common Fields." Eds. W. N. Parker and E. I;. Jones. European Peasants and Their Markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. 73-119-

McIntosh, Margerie K. Autonomy and Community: The Royal Manor of Havering, 1200 - 1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

McIntosh, Margerie K. A Community Transformed: The Manor and Liberty of Havering, 1500 - 1620. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1991. Mendels, Frederick. u~roto-industrialization:The First Phase of the Industrialization Process," JEH 32 (1972): 241-61.

Miller, Edward. The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely: The Social History of an Ecclesiastical Estate from the Tenth Century to the Early Fourteenth. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1951. Mitchell, D. M. "'By Your Leave my Mastersf: British Taste in Table Linen in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries." Textile History 20 (1989): 49-77.

Mitchell, S . K . Taxation in Medieval England. New Haven : Yale University Press, 1951.

Moore, Ellen Wedemeyer. The Fairs of Medieval England. Toronto : Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1985.

Moorhouse, S. "Finds from Basing House, Hampshire (c. 1540 - 1645): Part Two." Post-Medieval Archaeology 5 (1971): 35- 76. Munro, John. "The Weber Thesis Revisited -- and Revindicated?" Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 51 (1973): 381-91. Munro, John. "The Central European Mining Boom, Mint Outputs, and Prices in the Low Countries and England, 1450 - 1550.11 Ed. E. van Cauwenberghe. Money, Coins, and Commerce: Essays

Patten, J. H. C. "Changing occupational structures in the East Anglian countryside, 1500 - 1700." Eds. H. S. A. Fox and R. A. Butlin. Change in the Countryside: Essays on Rural England, 1500 - 1700. London: Institute of British Geographers, 1979. 103-21.

Peake, E. "Bluntisham cum Earith." Eds. W. Page, G. Proby and S. I. Ladds. VCH Huntingdon. v. 11. London: St. Catherine, 1932. 153-55.

Pevsner, N. The Buildings of England: Bedfordshire and the County of Huntingdon and Peterborough. Harmondsworth : Penguin, 1968. Phillips, Richard. uGrassroots Change in an Early Modern Economy: The Emergence of a Rural Consumer Society in Berkshire. Southern History 11 (1989): 23-39.

Phythian-Adams, Charles. The Desolation of a City: Coven try and the Urban Crisis of the late Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Platt , Colin. Medieval England: A Social History and Archaeology from the Conquest to A. D. 1600. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978.

Polanyi, Karl. "The Economy as Instituted Process." Ed. G. Dalton. Prirni ti ve, Archaic and Modern Economies : Essays of Karl Polanyi- New York: Anchor, 1968. 139-74.

Poos, L. R. A Rural Society after the Black Death: Essex 1350 - 1525. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Popkin, Samuel L. The Rational Peasant. Berkeley: U of California Press, 1979.

Porter, S. "The Livestock Trade in Huntingdonshire, 1600-1750.11 Records of Huntingdonshire 2:2 (1982): 13-17.

Postan, Michael M. "The Rise of a Money Economy.' Ed. M. M. Postan. Essays on Medieval Agriculture and General Problems of the Medieval Economy. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1973. 28-40. Postan, Michael M. "Village Livestock in the Thirteenth Century. Ed. M. M. Postan. Essays on Medieval Agriculture and General Problems of the Medieval Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. 214-48.

Postan, Michael M. The Medieval Economy and Society. 1972. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1978. Postan, Michael M. "Feudalism and its Decline: A Semantic Exercise." Eds. T. H. Aston, P. R. Coss, C. Dyer and J. Thirsk. Social Relations and Ideas: Essays in Honour of R. H. Hi1ton. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1983 . 73-87.

Postan, Michael M., and Jan 2. Titow. "Heriots and Prices on Winchester Manors. Ir EcHR 2nd ser. 11 (1958/9): 392-411. Pretty, Jules N. Tustainable agriculture in the Middle Ages: the English manor. If AHR 38 (1990): 1-19. Prior, Mary, ed. Women in English Society, 1500-1800. ond don: Methuen, 1985. Prior, Mary. "Women and the urban economy: Oxford 1500-1800.11 Ed. M. Prior. Women in English Society, 1500-1800. London: Methuen, 1985. 93-117. Prior, Mary. 'Wives and Wills, 1558 - 1700.11 Eds. J. Chartres and D. Hey, English Rural Society, 1500 - 1800: Essays in Honour of Joan Thirsk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. 201-25.

Raftis, J. Ambrose. The Estates of Ramsey Abbey: A Study in Economic Growth and Organization. Toronto : Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1957.

Raftis, J. Ambrose. Tenure and Mobility: Studies in the Social History of the English Village. Toronto : Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1964. Raftis, J. Ambrose. flSocialStructures in Five East Midland Villages: A Study of the Possibilities in the Use of Court Roll Data. " EcHR 2nd ser. 18 (1965): 83-100. Raftis, J. Ambrose. "Changes in an English Village after the Black Death. If Mediaeval Studies 28 (1966): 92-118. Raftis, J. Ambrose. Warboys: 200 Years in the Life of an English Mediaeval Village. Toronto : Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974. Raftis, J. Ambrose. ffSocialChange versus Revolution: New Interpretations of the Peasantsr Revolt of 1381." Ed. F. X. Newman. Social Unrest in the Late Middle Ages. Binghamptcn: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1986. 3-27.

Raf tis , J. Ambrose, ed. Pathways to Medieval Peasants . Toronto : Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981. Raftis, J. Ambrose. A Small Town in Late Medieval England: Godmanchester, 1278-1400. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1982. Raftis, J. Ambrose. Early Tudor Godmanchester. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1990.

Raftis, J. Ambrose . Peasant Economic Development wi thin the English Manorial System. Montreal: McGill-Oueenrs University Press, 1996 (forthcoming). Ramsey, P. H. nIntroduction.trEd. P. H. Ramsey. The Price Revolution in Sixteenth Century England. London : Methuen, 1971. 1-18.

Rappaport, Steven L . Worlds wi thin Worlds : Structures of Life in Sixteenth Century London. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Razi, Zvi. "The Toronto Schoolrs Reconstitution of Medieval Peasant Society: A Critical View- Past and Present 35 (1979): 141-57. Razi, Zvi. Life, Marriage and Death in a Medieval Parish: Economy, Society and Demography in Halesowen, 1270 - 1400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Razi, Zvi. "The struggles between the Abbots of Halesowen and Their Tenants in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries." Eds. T. H. Aston, P. R. Coss, C. Dyer and J. Thirsk. Social Relations and Ideas: Essays in Honour of R. H. Hi1 ton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. 151-67. Razi, Zvi. "The Erosion of the Family - Land Bond in the Late Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries." Ed. R. M. Smith. Land, Kinship and Life-Cycle. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press 1984. Rogers, J. E. Thorold. A History of Agriculture and Prices in England. v. I. Oxford: Clarendon, 1866. Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England). An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in Huntingdonshire. London: HM Stationary Office, 1926. Scarisbrick, J. J. The Reformation and the English People. Oxford: Blackwell, 1984.

Schmuki , K. Steuern und Staa tsfinanzen: Die burger1 iche Vermogenssteuer in Schaffhausen im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert . Zurich: Chron.os, 1988. Schofield, R. S. "The Geographical Distribution of Wealth in England, 1334 - 1649. EcNR 2nd sr. 18 (1965): 483-510. Schofield, R. Taxation and the political limits of the Tudor state." Eds. C. Cross, D. Loades and J. J. Scarisbrick. Law and Government under the Tudors. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1988. 227-55.

Scott, James C. The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Subsistence and Resistance in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976.

Scott, James C - Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. Shammas, Caroline. The Pre-Indus trial Consumer in England and Colonial America. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Shanin, Theodor. ed. Peasants and Peasant Societies. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971.

Sheail, J. "The distribution of taxable population and wealth in England during the early sixteenth century." Trans. Ins t . Brit. Geogr. 55 (1972): 111-26. Sheehan, Michael M. llThe Influence of Canon Law on the Property Rights of Married Women in England. Ir Mediaeval studies 25 (1963): 109-24.

Simkins, M. E. nS~mer~ham."Eds. W. Page, G. Proby and S. I. Ladds . VCH Huntingdon . v. 11. London: St. Catherine, 1932. 224-27.

Slack, Paul. Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman, 1988. Slicher van Bath, B. H. The rise of intensive husbandry in the Low Countries. " Britain and the Netherlands 1 (1960) : 13 0 - 53.

Slicher var, Bath, B. H. The Agrarian History of Western Europe. London: Arnold, 1963. Slicher van Bath, B. H. "Robert Loder en Rienck Hemmema." Ed. B . H. Slicher van Bath. Bijdragen tot de Agrarische Geschiedenis. Utrecht: Het Spectrum, 1978.

Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. 1776. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1976. Smith, Richard M. "Demographic Developments in Rural England, 1300-48: A Survey." Ed. B. M. S. Campbell. Before the Black Death. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991. 25-77, Smith, Richard M. "Geographical Diversity in the Resort to Marriage in Late Medieval Europe: Work, Reputation, and Unmarried Females in the Household Formation Systems of Northern and Southern Europe.I1 Ed. P. J. P. Goldberg. Woman is a Worthy Wight: Women in English Society, c. 1200 - 1500. Stroud: Alan Sutton, 1992. 16-59,

Soinbart, Werner. Der moderne Kapi talismus. 2 vols . Munich : Duncker and Hurnblot, 1928.

Sommerville, C. J. The Secularization of Early Modern England: From Religious Cul ture to Re1 igious Fai th. Oxford: Ox£ord University Press, 1992. Spindler, Konrad. The Man in the Ice. Trans. E. Osers. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1994.

Spuf ford, Margaret. Contrasting Conununi ties: English Villagers in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Spuff ord , Margaret . The Great Redothing of England: Pe t ty Chapmen and their Wares in the Seventeenth Century. London: Hambledon, 1984. Spufford, Margaret. "The limitations of the probate inventory." Eds. J. Chartres and D. Hey. English Rural Society, 1500- 1800 : Essays in Honour of Joan Thirsk. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1990. 13 9-74. Steane, J. M., and M. Foreman. "Medieval Fishing Tackle.lt Ed. M. Aston. Medieval Fish, Fisheries and Fishponds in England. v. I. BAR British ser. 182 (1988)- 137-86. Stig Sarensen, M. L. "The Construction of Gender Through Appearance.I1 Eds. D. Walde and N. D. Williams. The Archaeology of Gender : Proceedings of the Twen ty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Associa tion of the University of Calgary. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University, 1991. 121-29. Stine, L. F. "Early Twentieth Century Gender Roles: Perceptions from the Farm." Eds. D. Walde andN. D. Williams. The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twen ty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeol oqical Association of the Universi ty of Calgary. Calgary : Archaeological Association of the University, 1991. 496-501. Stone, E. "Profit and Loss Accountancy at Norwich Cathedral Priory. It TRHS 5th ser. 12 (1962) : 25-48.

Tawney, Richard H. The Agrarian Problem of the Sixteenth Century. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912.

Tawney, Richard H. "The Rise of the Gentry, 1558 - 1640." EcHR 11 (1941) : 1-38. Tawney, A. J., and R. H. Tawney, "An Occupational Census of the Seventeenth Cent~ry,~~EcMi 5.1 (1934) : 25-64.

Tawney, Richard H. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. 1926. New York: New American Library, 1950.

Tax, Sol. Penny Capitalism: A Guatemalan Indian Economy. Washington: US Government Print Office, 1953.

Thirsk, Joan. Fenland Farming in the Sixteenth Century. Department of English Local History. Occasional Papers 3 (1953).

Thirsk, Joan. I1Farming Techniques. tt Ed. J. Thirsk. MEW. v. IV. 1500 - 1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. 161-99.

Thirsk, Joan. The Rural Economy of England: Collected Essays. London: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Thirsk, Joan. Economic Policy and Projects: The Development of a Consumer Society in Early Modern England. Ox£ ord : Clarendon, 1978. Thirsk, Joan. llAgriculturalInnovations and their Diffusion." Ed. J. Thirsk. MEW. v. V. ii. 1500 - 1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. 533-89.

Thirsk, Joan. Introduction.It Ed. Mary Prior. Women in English Society, 1500-1800. London: Methuen, 1985. 1-21.

Thornson, R. "Leather Manufacture in the Post-Medieval Period with Special reference to Northamptonshire. Post-Medieval Archaeology 15 (1981) : 161-75.

Titow, Jan Z. English Rural Society, 1200 - 1350. London: Allen and Unwin, 1969.

Titow, Jan 2. Winchester Yields: A Study in Medieval Agricul tural Productivi ty. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1972. Todd, Barbara. "Freebench and free enterprise: widows and their property in two Berkshire villages." Eds. J. Chartres and D. Hey, English Rural Society, 1500 - 1800: Essays in Honour of Joan Thirsk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. 175-200.

Trevor-Roper, Hugh R. "The Elizabethan Aristocracy: An Anatomy Anatomised. l1 EcHR 2nd ser. 3 (1951): 279-98.

Trevor-Roper, Hugh R. "The Gentry, 1540 - 1640." EcHR suppl. 1 (1953). Turnau, I. "The History of Peasant Knitting." Textile History 17 (1986): 167-80.

Turner, Michael. English Parliamentary Enclosure : Its His torical Geography and Economic History. Folkestone: Dawson, 1980. 135-51. Unwin, Tim. "Rural Marketing in Medieval Nottinghamshire," JHG (1981): 231-51.

Unwin, P. Timothy A. Wine and the Vine: An Historical Geography of Viticulture and the Wine Trade. London: Routledge, 1991.

Vinogradof f , P . Villainage in England: Essays in English Mediaeval History. 1892. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World System. 3 vols . London: Academic, 1974, 1980, 1989. Walter, John, and Roger Schofield, eds. Famine, Disease and the Social Order in Early Modern Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Weatherill, Lorna. Consumer Behaviour and Material Cul ture in Britain. London: Routledge, 1988.

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Trans- T. Parsons. 1904/5. New York: Charles Scribner, 1958. Wells, Peter S. Farms, Villages, and Cities: Commerce and Urban Origins in Late Prehistoric Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984. Wenhaus, E . Domestic Silver of Great Britain and Ireland. New York: Oxford University Press, 1931. Weyrauch, Erdmann. ll&er Soziale Schichtung . l1 Ed. I Bat6ri. Stadtische Gesellschaft und Reformation. Stuttgart: Klett Cotta, 1980. 5-57. White, Lynn. Medieval Technology and Social Change. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962.

Whiting, Robert. The Blind Devotion of the Common People: Popular Religion and the English Refoma tion. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1989. Whiting, Robert. "'For the Health of my Soulr:Prayers for the Dead in the Tudor South-West. Southern History 5 (1983) : 68-94.

Willan, T. S. River Navigation in England. London: F. Cass, 1936. Willan, T. S. English Coasting Trade. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967.

Willan, T. S. The Inland Trade. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976.

Willard, J. F. Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property, 1290 to 1334 : A Study in Mediaeval English Financial Administration. 1934. Cambridge, Mass.: Medieval Academy of America, 1970. Willett, C., and P. Cunnington. Handbook of English Costune in the Sixteenth Century. London: Faber and Faber, 1954. Wolf, Eric R. Types of Latin American Peasantry: A Preliminary Discussion." American Anthropologist 57 (1955) : 452-71.

Wolf, Eric R., and J. R. Cole. The Hidden Frontier: Ecology and Ethnicity in an Alpine Valley. New York: Academic, 1974. Woodward, Donald. Men at Work: Labourers and building craftsmen in the towns of northern England, 1450 - 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Wrightson, Keith. English Society, 1580 - 1680. London: Hutchinson, 1982. Wrightson, Keith. 'The Social Order of Early Modern England: Three Approaches. Eds . L. Bonfield, R. M. Smith and K. Wrightson. The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure : Essays Presented to Peter Laslett on His Seventieth Birthday. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. 177-202. Wrightson, Keith, and David Levine. Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling, 1525 - 1700. London : Academic, 1979.

Wrightson, Keith, and David Levine. The Making of an Industrial Society: Wickham, 1560 - 1765. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.

Wrigley, E. A. "A Simple Model of London's Importance in Changing English Economy and Society, 1650 - 1750.' Eds. P. Abrams and E. A. Wrigley. Towns in Societies: Essays in Economic History and Historical Sociology. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1978. 215-43.

Wrigley, E. A., and R. S. Schof ield. The Population History of England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Yamay, Basil S. "Scientific Bookkeeping and the Rise of Capitalism." EcHR 2nd ser. I (1949): 99-113. Yamay, Basil S. llAccountingand the rise of capitalism: further note on a theme by Sombart." Studi in Onore di Amintore Fanfani. v. VI. Evo Contemporaneo. Milan: Giuffre, 1962. 831-857.

Yelling, J. A. Common Field and Enclosure in England, 1450 - 1850. London: MacMillan, 1977.

Zell, Michael. Industry in the Countryside: Wealden Society in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Zell, Michael. '!Fisherrs ' flu and Moorers probates : quantifying the mortality crisis of 1556 - 1560." EcHR 2nd ser. 47 (1994): 348-54.

Zinn, K . G . Kanonen und Pest : ~berdie Urspriinge der Neuzei t im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1989.