CHAPTER XI
PARISH AMUSEMENTS
Notwithstanding that the parish was instituted primarily for ecclesiastical objects, the people quickly came to understand the utility of the organization for common and social purposes. Although it was not till well into the sixteenth century that any successful attempt was made to impose by law upon the parishioners, as such, any purely secular duty, such as the care of local roads and bridges, or the repair of ditches, dykes, and sluices, the people’s wardens had long before this assumed the superintendence of all the common parochial amusements, and in some instances of works, such as brewing and baking, etc., undertaken for the common benefit or profit. These probably mostly sprang out of their necessary management of parochial property, which had a natural tendency to grow in extent, and in particular of the “Church House,” which in one form or other most parishes possessed.
The Church House.—Mr. J. M. Cowper, in his preface to the Accounts of the Churchwardens of St. Dunstan’s, Canterbury, gives a useful description of the purposes for which the Church, or, as it was sometimes called, the Parish, House existed. In the fifteenth century, and indeed before that, the church was the real centre of all parochial life, social as well as religious. “From the font to the grave the greater number of people lived within the sound of its bells. It provided them with all the consolations of religion, and linked itself with such amusements as it did not directly supply.”
CHURCH HOUSE, LINCOLN
Parish meetings not unfrequently settled local disputes. Thus at Canterbury in 1485, at St. Dunstan’s, there was some dispute between the parish and a man named Baker, and the churchwardens spent 2½d. on arbitration. Later on, two families fell out, and the vicar and four parishioners met in council, heard the parties, and put an end to the difficulty.
A parish, with all the great interests involved in its proper management, required some place where parish meetings could be held. They were sometimes, no doubt, held in the aisle of the parish church, but this arrangement was for obvious reasons inconvenient, and a Church house became a necessity. Its existence was apparently almost universal. At Hackney, for instance, the parish built a house in which to hold meetings. At Yatton, in Somerset, in 1445, the people subscribed to the building of their house; at Tintinhull, in the same county, one was completed in 1497; but in 1531, another was erected to take the place of the older one, and Thomas, Prior of Montacute, helped the parish with a donation of twenty shillings.
The Church house was sometimes let out to tenants and for various purposes, with a reservation of its use when necessary for parochial meetings. Thus, at Wigtoft, the rent of the house brought in a regular sum of money to the churchwardens. At Straton, in the county of Cornwall, it was let on occasion; as, for instance, in 1513, the accounts show a receipt of 8d. “of Richard Rowell for occupying of the Church house;” and of 12d. “of the paynters for working in the Church house.” At the annual fair time the Church house was let to wandering merchants to display their goods. At St. Mary’s, Dover, in 1537, an item of parochial receipt was, “one whole year’s farme of the churche house in Broad St., 5 shillings.”
Sometimes there was land belonging to the parish, which was let together with the house; as, for example, at Cratfield, where, in 1534, an acre of land was let with the “Church house.” Very probably this was the land on which subsequently the parish shooting-butts were erected. If there were receipts to the parish, there were, of course, also expenses for repairs to the common house, which in some accounts appear to be very frequent, and which shows probably that it was much used. In one or two instances there seems to have been two floors to the house, and in one of these instances these were let out separately, one of the two tenants being a woman.
In many cases it is clear that cooking was done on the premises for the parish meetings. In some Wiltshire accounts there is evidence of this, and of utensils of various kinds being kept in the house for parochial feasting and for ministering to the poor. The householders made merry and collected money for church purposes, and the younger people had dancing and bowls in many places, “while the ancients sat gravely by.” At St. Dunstan’s, in Canterbury, there were two dozen trenchers and spoons, and one annual dinner is mentioned.
Dr. Jessopp thus speaks of these Church houses—
“Frequently, indeed, one may say usually, there was a church house, a kind of parish club, in which the gilds held their meetings and transacted their business. Sometimes this Church-house was called the Gild hall; for you must not make the mistake of thinking that the Church houses were places of residence for the clergy. Nothing of the kind. The Church house or Gild hall grew up as an institution which had become necessary when the social life of the parish had outgrown the accommodation which the church could afford, and when, indeed, there was just a trifle too much boisterous merriment and too little seriousness and sobriety to allow of the assemblies being held in the church at all. The Church-house in many places became one of the most important buildings in a parish, and in the little town of Dereham, in Norfolk, the Church-house or Gild hall is still, I think, the largest house in the town. When the great fire took place at Dereham, in 1581, which destroyed almost the whole town, the Gild hall or Church house, from being well built of stone, was almost the only building in the place which escaped the terrible conflagration.”
The owners of the Church house, or “Court house,” as it was sometimes called, were, of course, the churchwardens, as trustees of the parishioners, and they made all the necessary arrangements to let or lease it. At Berkhampstead “they always reserved to themselves the right of using the great loft”, which apparently occupied the whole upper story, as well at other times as when they kept the feast. It was in this common hall, evidently, that some of the property of the parish was kept ready for use. At Pilton, in Somerset, for example, there is mentioned “a slegge to break stones at the quarey;” and the “eight tabyle clothes” point to parish dinners.
One of the ways of eliciting good-will among the parishioners, and also of making a profit for the common chest, was the “church ale.” This was a parish meeting at which cakes and small beer were purchased from the churchwardens, and consumed for the good of the parish. No doubt there were amusements of various kinds during the potatio, and there was generally a collection. At Cratfield, for instance, in 1490, the chief source of income was from the “church ales.” There were about five of these parish feasts held in each year, and one of them was instituted by a parishioner, William Brews, who left nine shillings in his will for that purpose. Very commonly a collection for the expenses of the common amusements was made by the working men on the first Monday after Twelfth night—the first Monday of work after the Christmas holidays. They drew a plough round to the various houses, asking for donations, and from this the day became known as “Plough Monday.”
Mr. Peacock, in the Archæological Journal (vol. xl.), has given some interesting particulars he has been able to gather about the village “ales.” The drink itself was apparently a sweet beverage made with hops or bitter herbs. It was not the same as the more modern beer; but was less heavy, and hardly an intoxicant. The meeting was by no means devoid of the religious aspect, and to some extent its purpose and connection with the church secured this. Cups were used which were frequently dedicated, especially the general or loving cup, to saints. At Boston there was a tankard named after St. Thomas. Archbishop Scrope, of York, attached an indulgence to one such cup: “unto all them that drinks of this cope X days of pardon.” In these days, no doubt, such a curious mingling of things sacred and profane will appear incongruous; but in the Middle Ages Christian life was a much simpler organization than it became after the days of Henry VIII. Religion was before that period a part of the people’s daily life, and its influence overflowed into all the social amusements of the people. As already pointed out, the authority of the Church settled most of the minor difficulties, disputes, and quarrels of the nation without the assistance of the State. Its vitality was everywhere visible. Justices of the peace and police magistrates were then wholly unknown. The manor court and the parson in his Sunday pulpit settled everything. So, too, the “ales” were under the protection of the Church, and took place with its distinct encouragement.
Mr. Peacock thus sketches the probable appearance of one of these halls for holding the “church ale”—
“We must picture to ourselves a long, low room with an ample fireplace, or rather a big open chimney occupying one end with a vast hearth. Here the cooking would be done, and the water boiled for brewing the church ale. There would be, no doubt, a large oak table in the middle, with benches around, and a lean-to building on one side to act as a cellar.”
Just as all the churches were made beautiful by religious paintings, so probably the Church house—the people’s hall—was made gay and bright with decoration, permanent or temporary.
At these Church feasts there was an important factor—the collection. Dr. Jessopp speaks about this feature of parochial life—
“Among the most profitable sources of revenue known to the wardens were the great festive entertainments called the Church ales. They have almost their exact counterparts in our modern public dinners for charitable (?) purposes, such as the annual dinner for the literary fund, or for the Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy; and the public teas so common among the Nonconformist bodies. They were held in the Church houses, which were well furnished with all the necessary appliances for cooking, brewing, and for giving accommodation for a large company. Often a generous parishioner would provide a bullock or a sheep or two for the entertainment, and another good-natured man would offer a quarter of malt to be brewed for the occasion. The skins of the slaughtered sheep are often entered on the credit side of the accounts, and occasionally smaller contributions of spices and other condiments were offered. Of course, the inevitable collection followed; and, according to the goodness of the feast, the number of the guests, or their satisfaction with the arrangements made, the amount of donations was large or small.”
To take an example or two of these collections: at Walberswick, in the county of Suffolk, in 1453, the “church ales” produced 13s. 4d.; at Bishop Stortford, in 1489, two parish gatherings brought in £4 6s. 8d. to the common exchequer. At times, too, various neighbouring parishes would unite their forces and have a joint church ale. At Yatton, in Somerset, for example, the parishioners both entertained and were entertained by a neighbouring parish; and in the “Book of the accomptes of Bramley church” are entered “in expenses of the parish of Silchester—5s.”; “in expenses of the parish of Herteley—2s. 4d.” At Shire, in the county of Surrey, an ale was held at Pentecost in 18 Henry VII. which produced 56s.: of this sum Albury contributed 12s., Wotton 5s., Abinger 5s., and Ewhurst 6s. 8d. Out of this sum, 17s. 5d. was expended over the provisions for the feast, and the residue was the amount available for the common fund. In 1536, in the same place, there is an example of a private entertainment given for the benefit of the parish. Thus was “a drinking made by John Redford at his own expense, from strangers attending at his instance, £7 3s. 4d.” In the parish at Bramley there were apparently a whole series of dinners and suppers in the week of Whitsuntide. These are worth giving in full, as they have not previously been printed.
Receipts.
1531-2. Kyng ale on White Sunday, 10s. 9d.—at soppar, 20s. 7d.
On Monday at dinner, 2s.—at suppar, 10s. 7d.
On Tuesday at dinner, 6s. 9d.
On the said Tuesday of the parish of Pamber, 4s.
On the said Tuesday of the parish of Strathfieldsay, 9s.
On the said Tuesday at supper, 10s. 6d.
On the Wednesday at dinner, 13s. 6d.
Received for calf and sheep skin, 21d.
At supper on Trinity Sunday, 12s. 6d.
For tapping money, 7s. 6d.
The payments made by the wardens for the above series of entertainments are—
Towards the Kyng ale to Alys Carter 6 bushells whete, 6s. 4d.
To Mr. Vycar for 3 bushells whete, 3s.
8 barrells of bere, 13s. 8d.
To John Redyng for 2 calves, 6s. 8d.
To Richard Tyrry for 1 calf, 2s. 8d.
To William Littlework for 2 wethers, 5s. 5d.
To Henry Whyte for a barren ewe and 3 lambs, 7s.
For geese and pyg with hare, 17d.
To Hugh Carter’s wife for chekyns, 6d.
Anne Acre for butter and eggs, 6d.
For woode, 21d.
For mynstrell, 20d.
For rushes and making clene the barn, 3d.
For spices, 4d.
To Symon Redyng and his wife (and his moder above), 12d.
Hock-days.—In many parishes there was a feast celebrated, according to some, in memory of the massacre of the Danes in A.D. 1002. It was called Hock-day and Hock-tyde, and seems to have been specially the women’s feast in the parish. The second Monday and Tuesday after Easter were the Hock-tyde days, on which, with some sportive traditional customs, money was collected for parish purposes. According to an early custom, women seized and bound men and then demanded a small payment for their release. This seems to have been prohibited, and then recourse was had to stopping roadways and bridges with ropes, and demanding a toll from all men who desired to pass. For example, at Shire in Surrey in 1536, 8s. are entered in the accounts, as coming “from the collection of pennies by the married women on Hokmonday.” In the accounts of St. Mary the Great, Cambridge, in 1518, there are two entries of receipt for Hockday money: “Item Receyved of Mistres Sabyn, Mistress Butt, Mistres Halbed and other wyfys of money gathered by them on Hockmonday—20 shillings ... and Memorandum that there remayneth in the hands of Kateryn Hawes in halfpenys of the gatheryng on Hockmonday—2s. 4d.” So also in the accounts of St. Mary-at-Hill, London, for 1511-12, there is this item: “Received of the Gadryng of hok monday by the wemen 20s.: Rec. of the Gadryng on Tewysday 4s.” In the parish of SS. Edmund and Thomas, Salisbury, the women paid a composition to escape “binding” on the Tuesday of Hocktide. In the year 1499-1500, for example, there is the following entry in the accounts: “Received of divers wives and maidens to save them from binding in Hok Tuesday in all the year, 5 shillings.” In another account we learn that the “maidens” kept a bridge over which all had to pass on this Hock Monday, and that they gathered much in the way of fees for passengers. It may be here remarked that in the way of raising money for parish work, or, in particular, for the beautifying of their churches, the women-folk were in no ways behind the men. There are constant notices of gifts, etc., in the parish accounts; and such entries as one at Walberswick in Suffolk, in 1496: “By a gaderyng of the wyves in the towne for a glass wyndow, 9 shillings,” are common features in the mediæval accounts.
The women-folk also had their feast at the Church house on certain days when the parish came together for the purpose of dancing. In 1538, at Salisbury, there is a receipt from the “wyves daunce.” At St. Ewen’s, Bristol, there was special “dancing money,” and at Croscombe in Somerset an item of receipt of 6s. in 1483 is said to be collected “of the wives’ dancing.” Another form of collection by women in some places was called “Robin Hood penny.”
In some parishes the supplying of the ale, etc., for the parish entertainments no doubt led to the churchwardens becoming purveyors of ale, etc., at other times, the profits obtained by this trading going to swell the parish receipts. Bishop Hobhouse remarks upon this in the case of Tintinhull, a Somerset parish. The church house was the focus of the social life in this neighbourhood. There was, at first, a small place for making the sacred wafer and the “blessed bread.” It grew by degrees into a bakery to supply all. Then brewing was added, and the sale of ale to those who wanted it. Apparently the bakery and the brewing utensils were let out to those who wanted to make their own bread and beer; but in the reign of Henry VII. a proper house was procured by the parish, and a woman, “Agnes Cook,” was placed in it to manage the increasing business.
At Bishop Stortford and elsewhere, also, there is evidence in the accounts of brewing being carried on for the benefit of the parish. In some cases, the purchases of malt are considerable, and suggests that the production of ale was for sale generally to any in the parish.
Probably no single book gives such a vivid picture of the social side of mediæval parochial life as the Durham Halmote Rolls, published by the “Surtees Society.”
“It is hardly a figure of speech,” writes Mr. Booth, in the preface to this volume, “to say we have in (these rolls) village life photographed. The dry record of tenures is peopled by men and women who occupied them, whose acquaintance we make in these records under the various phases of village life. We see them in their tofts surrounded by their crofts, with their gardens of pot-herbs. We see how they ordered the affairs of the village, when summoned by the bailiff to the vill to consider matters which affected the common weal of the community. We hear of their trespasses and wrongdoings, and how they were remedied or punished; of their strifes and contentions, and how they were repressed; of their attempts, not always ineffective, to grasp the principle of co-operation as shown by their by-laws; of their relations with the Prior, who represented the convent, and alone stood in relation of lord. He appears always to have dealt with his tenants, either in person or through his officers, with much consideration; and in the imposition of fines we find them invariably tempering justice with mercy.”
In fact, as the picture of mediæval village life among the tenants of the Durham monastery is displayed in the pages of this interesting volume, it would seem almost as if one was reading of some Utopia of dreamland. Many of the things that in these days advanced politicians would desire to see introduced into the village communities of modern England, to relieve the deadly dulness of country life, were seen in Durham and Cumberland in full working order in pre-Reformation days. Local provisions for public health and general convenience are evidenced by the watchful vigilance of the village officials over the water supplies, the care taken to prevent the fouling of useful streams, and stringent by-laws as to the common place for clothes-washing, and the times for emptying and cleansing ponds and mill-dams. Labour was lightened and the burdens of life eased by co-operation on an extensive scale. A common mill ground the corn, and the flour was baked into bread at a common oven. A common smith worked at a common forge, and common shepherds and herdsmen watched the sheep and cattle of various tenants, which were pastured on the fields common to the whole village community. The pages of the volume contain numerous instances of the kindly consideration for their tenants which characterized the monastic proprietors, and the relation between them was rather that of rentchargers than of men claiming absolute ownership. In fact, as the editor of the volume says—
“Notwithstanding the rents, duties, and services, and the fine paid on entering, the inferior tenants of the Prior had a beneficial interest in their holdings, which gave rise to a recognized system of tenant-right, which we may see growing into a customary right; the only limitation of the tenant’s right being inability, from poverty or other cause, to pay rent or perform the accustomed services.”
When the monastery of Durham was suppressed and its place of the Cathedral Prior and Monks taken by a Dean and Chapter, it was found, by the middle of Elizabeth’s reign, that the change was gravely detrimental to the interests of the tenants, and the new body soon made it plain that they had no intention of respecting prescriptive rights. This appears clearly in a document printed in the same volume, about which the editor says—
“A review of the Halmote Rolls leaves no room for doubt that the tenants, other than those of the demesne lands, during the period covered by the text, had a recognized tenant-right in their holdings, which was ripening into a customary freehold estate; and we might have expected to find, in the vills or townships in which the Dean and Chapter possessed manorial rights, the natural outcome of this tenant-right in the existence of copyhold or customary freehold estates at the present time, as we find in the manors of the see of Durham. It is a well-known fact, however, that there are none. The reason is, that soon after the foundation of the Cathedral body, the Dean and Chapter refused to recognize a customary estate in their tenants.”
The presence of “minstrels” at parish dinners and feasts has already been noticed. It is probable that these musicians were more frequently employed to enliven “the deadly dulness of village life” than might now be supposed. At Tatton, from which many of these illustrations have been taken, the payments for “minstrels” in the sixteenth century come very regularly into the parish accounts; and it seems hardly very far-fetched to suggest that these musicians probably went from one parish feast-day to another, as at the present day the brass band goes from one village club-day celebration to another.
A word may be usefully said about the effect of religion on the family life generally. Regularity of attendance at all religious celebrations in the church was universal, or practically so. This was the case, not on account of any ecclesiastical compulsion—although, in case of need, it could be, and no doubt was exerted—but, as far as it is possible to judge, the church services were attended and religious duties fulfilled, as part of the Christian life which all desired to follow, and in deference to a healthy public opinion which, in these matters, did not admit of backsliding.
The father’s and the mother’s duty of bringing up their children to know God’s law and to keep it, was fully understood.
“Every man and woman,” says the author of Dives and Pauper, “after his degree, is bound to do his business to know God’s law that he is bound to keep. And fathers, mothers, godfathers and godmothers be bound to teach their children God’s law or else do them to be taught.
“St. Austin saith that each man in his own household should do the office of bishop in teaching and correcting of common things, and therefore saith the law that the office of teaching and chastising belongeth not only to the bishop but to every governor after his manner and his degree: to the poor man governing his poor household; to the rich man governing his folk; to the husband governing his wife; to the father and mother governing their children.”
Filial affection was strongly inculcated in the common teachings. In a will of one John Sothil of Dewsbury, in 1500, is expressed the last wish of one who had evidently been brought up to reverence his own parents. “Also I pray, Thomas my son, in my name and for the love of God, that he never strive with his moder, as he will have my blessing, for he shall find her curtous to del with.”
Grace with meals—before and after—was not only the law, but the practice. To ask God’s blessing over what His bounty had provided, and to thank Him afterwards, was an elementary duty of all living the Christian life. Children were taught the importance of associating God and His providence with their meals, and, as in so many other matters, instruction was conveyed in some simple rhymes like—
“He that without grace sitteth down to eate
Forgetting to give God thanks for his meate
And riseth againe letting Grace overpasse
Sittes down like an oxe and riseth like an asse.”
Children were taught to rise early, as the Babe of Nurture says—
“Ryse you early in the morning
For it hath propertyes three
Holynesse, health and happy welth,
As my father taught mee.
At syxe of the clocke, without delay
Use commonly to ryse
And give God thanks for thy good rest
When thou openest thy eyes.”
The young were taught also to pay respect to their elders, and in particular to their parents. They were to be reverential in their manner and to avoid giving them displeasure. The parent, on his part, was to refrain from setting a bad example, but was to see that, the first thing in the morning,—
“Or he do eny worldli deede,”
his son was to lift up his heart to God, and pray that God may lead him through the day without sin. At the close of the day, after prayers, the child was to be taught to fall asleep thinking of heavenly things: with some such thought as—
“Upon my ryght syde y me laye
Blesid lady to the y prey
For the teres that ye lete
Upon your swete sonnys feete
Send me grace for to slepe
And good dremys for to mete
Slepyng wakyng til morowe daye bee
Our Lorde is the frute, Our Ladye the tree
Blessid be the blossom that sprange lady of thee.
In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.”
The inventories of parish churches and the churchwardens’ accounts show how very common a feature the religious plays—“miracle or mystery plays,” as they were generally called—were in the village life of the fifteenth century. It requires very little examination of the “books” of those plays that have come down to us to see that these sacred dramas must have been most powerful aids to the religious teaching of the Church among the simple and unlettered villagers of England, and even among the crowds which thronged great cities like Coventry, Chester, and York to witness the traditional acting of the more elaborate performances.
As to their popularity there can be no question. Dramatic representations of the chief events in the life of our Lord, etc., were intimately associated with the religious purposes for which they were originally produced. They were played on Sundays and feast-days, sometimes in the aisles of the churches, in church porches and churchyards. The author of Dives and Pauper says—
“Spectacles, plays, and dances that are used on great feasts, as they are done principally for devotion and honest mirth, and to teach men to love God the more, are lawful if the people be not thereby hindered from God’s service, nor from hearing God’s word, and provided that in such spectacles and plays there is mingled no error against the faith of Holy Church and good living. All other plays are prohibited, both on holidays and work-days (according to the law), upon which the gloss saith that the representation in plays at Christmas of Herod and the Three Kings, and other pieces of the Gospel, both then and at Easter and other times, is lawful and commendable.”
There can be no reasonable doubt that such simple dramatic representations of the chief mysteries of religion and the principal events in our Lord’s life, or of some incidents in the lives of the saints, served to impress these truths and fix these events upon the imaginations of the audiences that witnessed them, and to make them in the true sense of the words “vivid realities.” The religious drama was the handmaiden of the Church, and it helped to instruct the people at large and, quite as much as the painted wall or pictured window, formed a “book” ever open and easily understood, graphically setting forth and illustrating truths which formed the groundwork of the formal instruction in the Sunday sermon.
Whatever we may in these days be inclined to think of these simple stories as literary works, or however we may be inclined now to smile at some of the “stage situations” and odd characters, there can be no doubt what the people for whom they were written and acted thought. “In great devotion and discretion,” says the chronicler, “Higden published the story of the Bible, that the simple people might understand in their own language.”
The subjects treated of in these plays were very varied, although those that were acted on the great festivals of Christmas, Easter, the Ascension, etc., generally had some relation to the mystery then celebrated. In such a collection of plays as that known as the Towneley Mysteries, we have examples of the subjects treated of in the religious plays of the period. The collection makes no pretence of being complete, and yet it contains some three and thirty plays, including the Creation, the death of Abel, the story of Noah, the sacrifice of Isaac, and other Old Testament histories; a great number of scenes from the New Testament, such as the Annunciation, the Visitation, Cæsar Augustus, scenes from the Nativity, the Shepherds, the Magi, etc., as well as various scenes from the Passion and Crucifixion, the Parable of the Talents, etc.
Any one who will take the trouble to read—not skim—the plays as printed in this volume cannot fail to be impressed not only with the vivid picture of the special scenes, but by the extensive knowledge of the Bible which the production of these plays must have imparted to those who listened to them, and by the way that, incidentally, the most important religious truths are conveyed in the crude and rugged verse. Again and again, for instance, the entire dependence of all created things upon the providence of God Almighty is asserted and illustrated. Thus, the confession of God’s Omnipotence, put into the mouth of Noah at the beginning of the play of “Noah and his Sons,” contains a profession of belief in the Holy Trinity, and a declaration concerning the work of the Three Persons in the world. It describes the creation of the world; the fall of Lucifer; the sin of our first parents, and their expulsion from Paradise. In the story of Abraham, too, the prayer of the patriarch, with which it begins—
“Adonai, thou God very,
Thou hear us when to Thee we call,
As Thou are He that bset may,
Thou art most succour and help of all,”
gives a complete résumé of the Bible history before the days of Abraham, with the purpose of showing that all things are in God’s hands, and that the complete obedience of all creatures whom He has made is due to Him.
Whatever we may think of these religious dramas now, there can be no doubt that the people in the pre-Reformation days delighted in them, and that they formed one of the most popular features in mediæval parochial life.