Trial by Battle in France and England
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Trial by Battle in France and England by Ariella Elema A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto (c) Ariella Elema, 2012 Trial by Battle in France and England Ariella Elema Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto 2012 Abstract Trial by battle was a medieval European form of legal proof in which difficult lawsuits were decided by a single combat between two duellists before a judge. This dissertation surveys the history of trial by battle in the French-speaking regions of the European continent and England, concentrating on the period between roughly 1050 and 1350 when it was most practiced. Chapter One examines the origins of the procedure and the earliest references to it in the legal codes of the early Middle Ages. The second chapter discusses the courts in which it could be used and the gradual process by which higher courts reserved the privilege of holding judicial duels. Chapter Three examines the nature of the suits in which trial by battle could be used, while Chapter Four looks at the litigants who participated in it, finding that not only knights, but also poor men, could fight judicial duels, while women, clergy, Jews, the young, the elderly, the disabled and certain kinds of kin enjoyed varying forms and levels of ii exemption from them. The fifth chapter traces the steps involved in a lawsuit leading to proof by battle, while the sixth one describes the procedures on the duelling field and the consequences of winning and losing a judicial duel. Chapter Seven traces the history of opposition to trial by battle and concludes with its gradual decline and disappearance. The honour and shame of medieval litigants, and the reputations which both upheld these conditions and resulted from them, form an ongoing theme in this discussion. Trials by battle, both actual and threatened, were above all events that challenged and re-established their participants’ status and reputation in their communities. iii For my mother iv Acknowledgements Dissertations, like opponents in judicial duels, must ultimately be tackled alone; however, without the advice of many helpful people, I would not have wrestled this one into submission. First, I owe a debt of gratitude to my supervisor, Michael Gervers, for his years of patient guidance and suggestions. I would also like to thank my committee members, Isabelle Cochelin and Mark Meyerson, for their many useful comments on the drafts of these chapters. In addition, many people have taken time to share information with me and pose thought- provoking questions. Thank you to Jean Chandler, Fabrice Cognot, Matt Easton, Laura Erickson, Ilana Krug, Peter Leeson, Will McLean, Steven Muhlberger, Payson Muller, Jasonne Grabher O’Brien, Kel Rekuta, Dan Sellars, Aldo Valente and William Voelkle. I would also like to thank the regulars at the Academy of European Medieval Martial Arts, who keep me sane. Finally, I would like to thank my mother, Rie Elema-Olie, without whose encouragement and support this doctorate would not have been possible. I dedicate this dissertation to her. v Table of Contents Introduction ...1 Chapter One: The Origins of Trial by Battle ...23 Chapter Two: The Courts ...57 Chapter Three: The Suits ...83 Chapter Four: The Participants ...133 Chapter Five: Procedure in the Court ...186 Chapter Six: On the Field ...232 Chapter Seven: Scepticism and Decline ...281 Conclusion ...324 Bibliography ...327 vi Introduction Mathieu d’Escouchy and Olivier de La Marche were not afraid to see blood. The former was a fifteenth-century Picard chronicler who had personally fought at the battle of Montlhéry in 1465. The latter was a courtier of the duke of Burgundy; in his memoirs he recounted many of the major battles and tournaments he had seen in his day. Nevertheless, amidst their tales of shattered lances, flowing wounds, and armoured men colliding with a crunch, one incident left both chroniclers taken aback. It had occurred in 1455. La Marche, a young man at the time, had witnessed it in person, and Escouchy was clearly familiar with the details of the event.1 In the town of Valenciennes, in the duchy of Hainault, two men had fought a judicial duel in the centre of the marketplace. Neither of them was a knight. Jacotin Plouvier was a commoner from the town, while Mahiot Coquel was a tailor from Tournai. In the street one day, Plouvier had accused Coquel of murdering his kinsman in an ambush, a particularly 1 Chronique de Mathieu d’Escouchy, ed. G. du Fresne de Beaucourt, vol. 2 (Paris: Jules Renouard & Co., 1863), c. CXXXIII, pp. 297-305. Collection complète des mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France, vol. 10: Les mémoires de messire Olivier de La Marche, vol. 2, ed. M. Petitot (Paris: Foucault, 1825), c. XXXII, pp. 213-8. The two accounts are so similar that Escouchy may have based his version in part on La Marche. See also the account of Georges Chastellain in his Chronique, in Œuvres de Georges Chastellain, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, vol. 3 (Brussels: F. Heussner, 1864), pp. 41-9. 1 heinous form of homicide. He warned the tailor to watch himself, for vengeance would surely follow. Coquel, for his part, sought protection from the provost and justices of the town. He did not deny the killing, but insisted that it had been committed in self-defence. This argument posed a quandary for the court, for the town had by long tradition possessed the privilege of providing sanctuary to those who had killed someone, as long as their cases had since been ruled to be self-defence or at least settled with the victim’s immediate kin.2 The provost warned Plouvier that, according to the customs of the city, he must either withdraw so serious an accusation or prove it by his body: that is, he must challenge Coquel to a duel. Plouvier coldly chose the second option and Coquel accepted the challenge. The two men were placed in separate prisons, where they waited ten months for their day in the lists because the Duke of Burgundy, in whose principality the town lay, wished to witness their battle in person. On May 20, 1455, they faced one another at last. Each man was armed not with a sword, but with a baton of medlar wood and a shield carried upside- down to indicate that he was not noble. They were dressed in identical suits of tight-fitting leather, with their feet left bare and their hair clipped short. Over their clothes they applied a layer of grease to foil attempts at grappling, but they dipped their hands in basins of ashes to ensure that they could still grip their weapons. They fought before a curious multitude, in lists specially constructed for the occasion. Although Mahiot Coquel was the smaller and weaker of the two men, he gained an early advantage by throwing sand in Plouvier’s face. This tactic allowed him time to land a blow that caused Plouvier to bleed from the forehead. His opponent was not so easily defeated, 2 The two accounts differ on this point. La Marche (pp. 213-4) says only that the town provided sanctuary to those who had killed in self-defence, while Escouchy (p. 298) thought that the privilege was extended to all those who had been accused of murder but had reached a private settlement with the kin of the deceased, a practice which was still possible under some circumstances. 2 however. Jacotin Plouvier seized him about his body and threw him to the ground. Kneeling on his chest, he gouged out Coquel’s eyes. Then, before the horrified audience, he hurled his opponent from the lists, thereby winning the duel. Mahiot Coquel was dragged away and hanged. “In truth, it is an abominable thing to record,” wrote Escouchy, “and it seemed to many present that it was contrary to our faith.”3 La Marche concurred: “The whole combat seemed too base a matter for the court of Burgundy.”4 Nevertheless, trial by battle had been practiced in the region for centuries. The behaviour of Plouvier and Coquel had, in fact, been customary for more than nine hundred years. Unbeknownst to the chroniclers, this judicial duel would be one of the last trials ever concluded by combat. The story of trial by battle ranges widely in both time and space. First recorded in the Burgundian laws of 502, the procedure eventually reached regions of Europe as distant and diverse as Iceland, Iberia and Russia. Peaking in popularity around 1200 in Western Europe, it subsequently suffered a fitful decline, but was not abolished until centuries later. This dissertation traces the rise and fall of this legal practice: its origins, the courts and the people who employed it, the disputes and the strategies for dispute resolution in which it was utilized, the customs which governed it, the critics who censured it, and finally its demise. The themes are admittedly broad ones, even for so obscure a topic. To contain the subject matter somewhat, the study which follows will concentrate on a single branch of this history: the tradition of judicial duelling which developed in the western half of the Frankish Empire and subsequently engendered the law of trial by battle in both France and England. 3 “...et en verité, c’est chose abominable de le recorder, et sambloit à pluseurs y estans, que c’estoit [faire contre] nostre Foy;” Escouchy, pp. 304-5. 4 “Tout ce combat parut un chose trop ignoble à la cour de Bourgogne.” La Marche, p.