-
The Transformation of Knighthood in Early Thirteenth-Century
EnglandAuthor(s): Kathryn FaulknerSource: The English Historical
Review, Vol. 111, No. 440 (Feb., 1996), pp. 1-23Published by:
Oxford University PressStable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/577859 .Accessed: 23/02/2015 04:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new
formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact [email protected].
.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The EnglishHistorical Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
English Historical Review ? Addison Wesley Longman Limited i996
oo 3-8266/96/2443/oooI/$3 .oo
The Transformation of Knighthood in Early Thirteenth-Century
England:
IT has long been accepted that the thirteenth century was a time
of great change in the nature of knighthood in England. The men of
property and standing in local society who held the title of knight
at the beginning of the fourteenth century bore little resemblance
to the professional fighting knights of Anglo-Norman England, who
were often little better off than the more affluent peasants. This
rise in the status of knights was matched by a dramatic decline in
numbers, so that by the end of the thirteenth century knighthood
was taken up only by a small and relatively affluent elite.1
Although an idea of numbers is central in seeking to understand
thirteenth-century society, no figures have yet been calculated for
the start of this period of change. The purpose of this paper is to
provide hard evidence for the number of knights in England during
the reign of King John, showing that there were considerably more
knights in early thirteenth-century England than has previously
been assumed, and to consider the implications of this evidence for
the history of knighthood during the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries.
The extensive development of royal justice which took place
under Henry II gave knights a new and important administrative role
at local level, and the stipulation that they alone were to carry
out certain duties makes legal records a gold-mine of extraordinary
size and accessibility from which the names of individual knights
can be quarried. Yet so far only one estimate of the number of
knights in thirteenth-century England has been based on this
source, and the resulting figure has only limited value owing to
methodological problems.2 The legal records from the reign of John
are especially productive, as the procedures introduced by Henry II
and described by Glanvill were still being followed remarkably
closely, and a good proportion of the rolls of the king's court
survive, together with a limited number of eyre rolls. I have used
the surviving curia regis and eyre rolls for I 199 to I 216 to
compile a
* I should like to thank Dr David Carpenter for suggesting that
I study early thirteenth-century knights and for supporting my
research with unlimited advice and enthusiasm, and Professor Peter
Coss for encouraging me to prepare for publication a paper read at
the Institute of Historical Research in March I994.
I. S. Harvey, 'The Knight and the Knight's Fee in England', Past
and Present, xlix (I970), 3-43 at I 5; D. Crouch, The Image of
Aristocracy in Britain, 1000-1300 (London, I992), p. I45,
summarizes the figures produced by Round, Keefe, Denholm-Young and
Quick for the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
2. J. Quick, 'The Number and Distribution of Knights in
Thirteenth-Century England: The Evidence of the Grand Assize
Lists', in Thirteenth Century England I, ed. P. R. Coss and S. D.
Lloyd (Woodbridge, I986), pp. I I4-23.
EHR Feb. 96
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
2 THE TRANSFORMATION OF KNIGHTHOOD February list of all those
men who carried out the various administrative duties restricted to
knights between those dates.1
Certain tasks were very clearly reserved to knights; others were
less obviously so. That grand assize electors and jurors, viewers
of sickness essoins and those bringing the record from the county
court to the king's court were intended to be knights is apparent
from Glanvill.2 The theory is clear, but was it borne out in
practice in the early thirteenth century? Unfortunately, it is
rarely possible to find any corroboratory proof that a man was a
knight. The title dominus only began to come into regular use in
charter witness-lists during the second quarter of the thirteenth
century, so while these could be used to verify lists of
administrative knights for the i230s, they are useless for the
early thirteenth century.3 In the absence of positive proof of
status it is only possible to look at the negative evidence. There
are occasional cases where the rules were broken, but they are
remarkably few. For grand assizes I have found only one, where in I
207 the electors of a grand assize jury in Dorset were amerced for
electing men who were not knights.4 Sickness views provide more
exceptions to the rule, but still only five.5 In no cases at all
was any doubt thrown on the status of those bringing the record of
the county court. Thirteenth-century legal pro- cess was
characterized by procrastination at every stage. If failure to
follow the correct form of having knights as grand assize electors
and jurors, viewers of sickness and bearers of record was at all
common, it would surely have appeared as cause for complaint and
postponement. There are also other indications that those serving
on such panels were knights. The explicit distinction between
juries of knights and juries of free men is unlikely to have been
made if it was without practical meaning. The clearest evidence
that the expectation that grand assize juries should consist of
knights was real is the disruption caused later in the thirteenth
century by a shortage of eligible knights.6 It seems safe to
I. C[uria] R[egis] R[ollsj, vols. i-vii; P[leas before the]
K[ing or his J[ustices 1198-1212], ed. D. M. Stenton (Selden Soc.,
vols. lxvii-viii, lxxxiii-iv, I948-9, I966-7); R[otuli] C[uriae]
R[egis], ed. F. Palgrave (Record Comm., 2 vols., 1835); '[The]
B[edford] E[yre, 1202]', ed. G. H. Fowler, [Publications of the]
B[edfordshire]H[istorical]R[ecord]S[ociety], i (1913), 133-248; The
Earliest Northamptonshire Assize Rolls AD I202 and I203, ed. D. M.
Stenton (Northamptonshire Record Soc., vol. v, I930); The Earliest
Lincolnshire Assize Rolls, AD I202-1209, ed. D. M. Stenton (Lincoln
Record Soc., vol. xxii, 1926); 'Staffordshire Suits Extracted from
the Plea Rolls, temp. Richard I and King John', ed. G. Wrottesley,
C[ollections for a] H[istory of] S[taffordshire], iii (William Salt
Archaeological Soc., I882), I-i63.
2. Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinis regni Anglie qui
Glanvilla vocatur, ed. G. D. G. Hall (Oxford, I965), pp. 1-2, 30-I,
33, 99, 102.
3. For the use of the title dominus in charter witness lists,
see P. R. Coss, Lordship, Knighthood and Locality: A Study in
English Society, c. 1180-i2 80 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 215-16; D.
Fleming, 'Milites as Attestors to Charters in England', Albion,
xxii (I990), 185-98.
4. CRR, v. 109. 5. Ibid., i. 203; iii. 201-2, 2I , 320; v. 327;
RCR, i. 32I. In this last case there is no indication as to the
truth of the litigant's accusation that the four viewers were
not all knights and were his mortal enemies. 6. Grand assizes were
not held in Middlesex and Staffordshire in 12 5 3 for this reason:
Cflose] R[olls],
1251-53, pp. 442-3. There were also difficulties in Westmorland:
see Quick, 'Number and Distribution of Knights', pp. I 14-15. One
of the complaints of the baronial reformers in I258 was that 'in
many
EHR Feb. 96
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
I996 IN EARLY THIRTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
conclude that lists of grand assize jurors, viewers of sickness
and recorders give the names of men who were considered, by either
local officials or other knights of the same county, to be
knights.1
Flower, in his introduction to the curia regis rolls, suggests
that two other types of panel were made up of knights: the panel of
four sent to witness the appointment of an attorney by a litigant
who had essoined, and juries of attaint.2 Unfortunately there are
no comforting contempo- rary statements from Glanvill to bear out
the impression Flower gained from the rolls. Glanvill says only
that if a party to a suit has essoined, then his attorney must have
letters of authority.3 By the beginning of the thirteenth century
it was clearly the practice to send four men to hear the
appointment of an attorney, but was the procedure considered
important enough to merit being carried out by knights alone? The
evidence suggests that in John's reign it was: at least thirty-nine
cases specify that the men sent to hear who had been appointed, or
to check the authenticity of a self-proclaimed attorney, were
knights; and analy- sis of panels where the status of the men sent
to hear the appointment was not mentioned indicates that they
normally consisted of knights.4 It appears that when a panel of
four men was sent to enquire into the appointment of an attorney
the expectation was that they would be knights. It may be that this
requirement was abandoned later in the thirteenth century, but it
remained true throughout John's reign.
At the time Glanvill was written the plea of attaint had not yet
developed. This procedure was in effect an appeal against the
decision in a grand or petty assize, where the statement of the
original jury of twelve was to be considered by a jury of
twenty-four. Where the initial plea was a grand assize, it is
clearly to be expected that the twenty-four jurors of attaint would
be knights, as were the original jurors. What is counties, for lack
of knights it is not possible to hold any grand assize, so that
pleas of this kind remain unfinished, and petitioners never obtain
justice': 'Petition of the barons', May I258, cl. 28, in Documents
of the Baronial Movement of Reform and Rebellion, I258-67, ed. I.
J. Sanders and R. F. Treharne (Oxford, 1973), pp. 88-9.
i. Quick discusses this issue in relation to knights' service on
the grand assize during the thirteenth century as a whole and also
comes to the conclusion that theory was usually reflected in
practice: Quick, 'Number and Distribution of Knights', pp. II4-I6.
Thomas found no clear example in Angevin Yorkshire of an individual
who was not a knight serving in a knightly capacity: H. M. Thomas,
Vassals, Heiresses, Crusaders, and Thugs: The Gentry of Angevin
Yorkshire, 1154-I216 (Philadelphia, I993), p. 9.
2. C. T. Flower, Introduction to the Curia Regis Rolls (Selden
Soc., vol. lxii, I944), pp. 296, 398. 3. Glanvill, p. 13 5. If the
attorney is known to be a connection of the litigant he is to be
accepted even
without letters of authority. 4. A look at the four Surrey men
sent to hear the appointment of an attorney by Alicia Basset in
I205
illustrates the point: i) Gilbert de Abingworth occurs
frequently as both a grand assize elector and juror, and was one of
four knights who viewed land at Compton in I214 (CRR, i. 224, 300;
ii. 1 54, 202, 255; iii. 5,253,274, 283, 308; iv. 206, 253, 301; v.
273; vii. 120, 23 1, 247, 303; PKJ, lxvii, no. 3489; RCR, ii. 49,
79, 213); 2) Adam de Aldham occurs on four grand assize juries,
twice as an elector, and was another of the knights who viewed land
at Compton (CRR, ii. 202; iii. 274, 283; iv. 68, 123, I7I, 206,
207, 253; v. 113, 273; vii. I I9, 231I); 3) Gilbert de Basevill
also occurs as a grand assize elector and juror on many occasions,
and made one sickness view (CRR, ii. 202; iii. 5, 253, 274, 283;
iv. 68, 207, 253; v. 8, 191, 213, 273, 287; RCR, ii. 79, 213); 4)
William Malbanc served twice as a grand assize juror (CRR, iii.
308, iv. I8).
EHR Feb. 96
3
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
THE TRANSFORMATION OF KNIGHTHOOD February not clear is whether
the twenty-four were to be knights even if the initial case was one
of the petty assizes. This was in any event a rare procedure: I
have found only twenty-four cases of either type between i200 and
I2i6.1 In twelve of these cases there is mention at some point that
the jurors were knights, including proceedings where the original
plea was one of the petty assizes. The only instance where there is
an indication that the jurors were not knights is the second
recorded case of this type in I201, in which four knights were to
elect twenty-four men. It seems likely that the procedure was still
in the early stages of its development and subject to some
experimentation, but that within a year or two it had been decided
that the jurors should be knights. In the earlier years the status
of the jurors is commonly recorded in the rolls, but later it
survives only through chance mention. Presumably the procedure had
become sufficiently well known not to need spelling out.
It could be argued that the omission was because the use of
knights was abandoned, but there is no evidence to suggest this. On
the con- trary, in 1210 a new procedure was adopted, in which cases
of this type were scheduled to be heard by visiting justices,
presumably to overcome the difficulties involved in assembling
twenty-four knights and the twelve original jurors in one place.2 A
task which could result in the imprisonment of jurors who were
themselves either reputable free men or knights, and the
confiscation of their chattels, would surely be considered
important enough to be entrusted only to knights.
To summarize, it can reasonably be assumed that any individual
per- forming one of the following duties was perceived by his
contempor- aries to be a knight:
i. Electors of grand assize juries. 2. Grand assize jurors. 3.
Viewers of sickness essoins. 4. Those who brought the record of the
county court to the king's
court. 5. Those sent to hear the appointment of an attorney. 6.
Jurors for pleas of attaint.
In addition, knights were regularly summoned to perform an
assort- ment of ad hoc tasks, ranging from views of disputed land
to an enquiry into the extent of the damage that the market of the
bishop and monks of Ely at Lakenham was causing to the market of
the abbot of Bury (their verdict was that 'neither they nor anyone
else know, only God!).3
I. The first two of these cases, in I200 and I20I, pre-date the
Lincolnshire case of 1202 which Richardson and Sayles believed to
be the first evidence of this procedure: CRR, i. 23 5; PKJ,
lxxxiii, no. 147; H. G. Richardson and G. 0. Sayles, Select Cases
of Procedure without Writ under Henry III (Selden Soc., vol. Ix,
1940), p. lxxxvii.
2. CRR, vi. 54, 5, 59, 6o-i. 3. Ibid., ii. I36. Flower,
Introduction, pp. 436-9, gives many other examples of the various
tasks
knights were called upon to perform.
EHR Feb. 96
4
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
IN EARLY THIRTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
Using these criteria to compile a list of all those individuals
who are recorded as having served as knights in an administrative
capacity during John's reign produces the remarkably high figure of
3,636 knights. This is more than double the number calculated by
Quick, the only other historian to have attempted an estimate of
the number of knights in thirteenth-century England from legal
records.1 Although most of his data come from the first half of the
century, his total was only I, 540. The two sets of figures, broken
down county by county, are compared in Table i, with the year for
which Quick counted each county's knights given next to his
figure.
Why do these figures differ so dramatically? It appears that
Quick's calculations were affected by three methodological errors.
Firstly, and most critically, the figures Quick uses are from an
assortment of dates, ranging from i202 to I269, yet this is a
period when the number of knights was declining. To take figures
from different points during a sixty-seven-year period at a time of
rapid change is clearly going to produce a hugely distorted result.
Secondly, he uses only grand assize jury lists. While these are the
most productive source of names of administrative knights, the
other duties they performed taken together yield a significant
contribution. Thirdly, he concentrates on only one year for each
county, which means that nearly all his figures are taken from eyre
rolls, the only exceptions being the curia regis rolls for Kent in
I227, a Berkshire writ file of I248 and the Surrey bench records of
I258.2 It may appear reasonable to suppose that the vast majority
of knights in a county would attend the eyre and would serve on a
jury while they were there, but this was not necessarily the case.
Only forty knights served as grand assize electors or jurors during
the Bedfordshire eyre of I202, whereas a total of o05 served in
some capacity between 1199 and I216, the vast majority of whom
would have been active in 1202.
The main reason for the under-representation of knights in grand
assize jury lists at this eyre is the stipulation that jurors
should be knights 'from the neighbourhood (visneto)', a provision
which remained in force well into the thirteenth century.3 Analysis
of jury lists indicates that this provision was not just a matter
of form: real efforts were made to use knights with local interests
and knowledge.4 The requirement that knights should be local can
mean that grand assize jury
I. Quick, 'Number and Distribution of Knights', pp. I20-3. 2.
Ibid., p. i 8. 3. Glanvill, p. 30o; Bracton de Legibus et
Consuetudinibus Angliae, ed. G. E. Woodbine, trans. with
revisions and notes by S. E. Thorne (Cambridge, Mass., I968-77),
iv. 57. 4. The panels for two Bedfordshire grand assizes illustrate
this: all sixteen jurors and three out of
four electors for a case concerning twelve acres at Meppershall
held land within ten miles, as did thirteen out of sixteen jurors
and all four electors for a case concerning two carucates at
Sharnbrook: CRR, iii. 189, iv. 118-19. Sharnbrook and Meppershall
are in the north-west and east of the county respectively, and only
one man served on both juries. Coss carried out a similar exercise
for a Worcestershire jury with the same result: P. R. Coss, The
Knight in Medieval England, I000-I400 (Stroud, 1993), pp. 36-8.
EHR Feb. 96
I996 5
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
THE TRANSFORMATION OF KNIGHTHOOD February
County Quick [Year] 1199-II9926 99-I216 known estimated
Bedfordshire Berkshire Buckinghamshire Cambridgeshire Cheshire
Cornwall Cumberland Derbyshire Devon Dorset [bishopric of] Durham
Essex Gloucestershire Hampshire Herefordshire Hertfordshire
Huntingdonshire Kent Lancashire Leicestershire Lincolnshire
Middlesex Norfolk Northamptonshire Northumberland Nottinghamshire
Oxfordshire Rutland Shropshire Somerset Staffordshire Suffolk
Surrey Sussex Warwickshire Westmorland Wiltshire Worcestershire
Yorkshire
51 [I227] 36 [I248] 6o [I227]
43 [I269] 85 [I238]
53 [I254] 49 [I22I] 55 [I236] 28 [I255] 29 [I248]
8I [I227]
46 [I247] 138 [I202]
I08 [I257] 59 [I202] 24 [I269]
45 [I247]
48 [1203] 69 [I243] 55 [I227]
IOI [I240] 41 [I255] 33 [I248] 56 [I232]
47 [I249] 37[I255] 63 [I2I 8-9]
TOTAL I,540
105 84
I3I 136
39 58 6o 48 66 I2
I74 94 86 46
125 28
142
35 79
277 45
273 220
28 65
io8 36 77
I05
I97 75
ii9 57
83 25
I98
3,636
I26 IOI
I57 I63
50 78 70 72
I44 79 50
209 I13 I03
55 I50
84 I70
70 95
332 54
328 264
56 78
130 36 92
I26 120
236 90
I43 68 50 o00
75 238
4,755
Table I: Number of administrative knights per county
EHR Feb. 96
6
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
I996 IN EARLY THIRTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
lists produce very biased results. The i 202 Bedfordshire eyre
roll con- tains four full lists and three lists of electors only.1
All the properties at issue were located in the east or north-east
of the county. The complete absence of any cases involving property
in the north, south and west of the county means that jury lists
produce an extremely unrepresentative sample of names, especially
as the northern part of the county was the most populous and had a
higher number of independent landholders.
The cumulative effect of these three factors explains Quick's
under- estimate of the number of knights who performed
administrative ser- vice: but how accurate are my own figures?
Certain adjustments and qualifications have to be made. The total
of 3,636 is an overstatement inasmuch as a number of knights appear
in more than one county. To positively identify the owners of all
names which occur more than once, in order to establish whether
they were single individuals who served in two or more counties, or
were different men sharing the same name, would be prohibitively
time-consuming. I have therefore applied a rule of thumb. If two
knights with the same name occur in adjacent counties I have
assumed them to be one person; if they occur in counties which are
geographically separated I have assumed them to be different. There
will inevitably be errors in both directions, but they can
reasonably be expected to cancel each other out. This adjustment
produces a revised total of 3,453 knights.
In one respect my figure will still be an overstatement: some of
these men were not contemporaries. Between I I99 and 1216 some
would have died and been succeeded by their sons or other heirs.
The extent to which this inflates my figures is in practice
limited. The nature of the records for John's reign means that the
majority of names are gathered from the earlier years of the reign.
Eyre rolls only survive for 202/3 and I208/9; the decision to
abandon the bench at Westminster in I209 reduced the level of
business for some time, and by 1215 the system had ground to a halt
with the outbreak of rebellion. The great majority of
administrative knights are therefore found in the first ten years
of the reign. The number of cases where both father and son (or
other heir) appear are likely to be very small, if not negligible.
Of the io5 knights in Bedfordshire there are several who share a
name and might be thought to be father and son. The evidence shows
that this was so in only two cases: Roger de Bray and his son
Miles, and Odo and Roger Burnard. The others all prove to be
related in other ways - brothers, cousins, members of main and
collateral family branches - or to have no ascer- tainable
connection whatsoever. I found no cases in Bedfordshire where both
an individual and his heir bearing a different name appeared in the
list.
i. 'BE', nos. 101, I I5, 116-17, I19, 126-7.
EHR Feb. 96
7
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
THE TRANSFORMATION OF KNIGHTHOOD February The evidence from
Bedfordshire suggests that my list will include
very few knights who were not contemporaries.1 The slight
overstate- ment of numbers this produces is more than offset by
those who might be expected to appear in the records as
administrative knights, but for some reason slip through the net:
some records have been lost, especially eyre rolls, which survive
only for a few counties; some eligible knights may have failed to
serve in any administrative capacity, perhaps because there were no
grand assize cases in their immediate locality. For these reasons
my figure of 3,453 administrative knights significantly under-
estimates the true number for the early thirteenth century. If we
look at Bedfordshire again, a list of knights who carried out
administrative tasks in the early part of Henry III's reign gives a
clue to some of the names which might have been expected to appear
on the list for John's reign. Thirty-five men who served in an
administrative capacity between I 216 and I230 had not performed
such duties during John's reign. Of these, eighteen are from
families which do not occur on the earlier list. Some of these were
clearly of knightly status in the early years of the thirteenth
century: Henry of Northwood appears as the overlord of another
knight, Walter Hacun, in 1g99 when he received ios. relief for land
in Silsoe; Ralf Ridel and John of Salford were among six 'knights'
who inquired into the holdings of the former secular canons of
Bedford in 1207; two others, Walter Ledet and Guy Wake, were the
younger sons of minor baronial families.2 It seems reasonable to
assume that most, if not all, of these eighteen were either of
knightly status twenty years earlier, or were the heirs of
knights.
There are several other individuals whose names might be
expected to appear on the lists of knights but do not. The
Pateshalls and Mepper- shalls were prominent in Bedfordshire
throughout the thirteenth cen- tury: Walter of Pateshall was
another of the six knights who inquired into the holdings of the
canons of Bedford in 1207; Gilbert of Mepper- shall held the vill
of Meppershall from the king by serjeantry (as royal larderer) and
from the honor of Huntingdon. Half a fee each was held from him by
two men, Amaury de Landres and Richard de Peincourt: Amaury appears
on the administrative list for John's reign, Richard de Peincourt
does not.3 Henry Bunion was the overlord of another knight,
I. Thomas in his study of Yorkshire reached the same conclusion,
finding that very few of the knights named between the i 90os and
12 8/9 came from the same family: Vassals, Heiresses, Crusaders and
Thugs, p. Io.
2. RCR, ii. 84. The inquiry into the canons' holdings is
recorded only in a monastic cartulary, not in any of the legal
records: The Cartulary of Newnham Priory, ed. J. Godber (BHRS, vol.
xliii, I953-4 [hereafter Newnham Cartulary]), no. 83. Walter was
the younger son of Wischard Ledet I and brother of Wischard Ledet
II, holders of the honour of Wardon: Cartulary of the Abbey of Old
Wardon, ed. G. H. Fowler (BHRS, vol. xiii, 1930), no. I I 5, P/ ;
Guy, who served as a grand assize juror in Rutland in 121 I, is
difficult to place in the Wake family tree, but he is most likely
to be a younger son of Baldwin Wake II, baron of Bourne: CRR, vi.
132, I65.
3. Newnham Cartulary, no. 83; R[otuli de] O[blatis etJF[inibus
in Turri Londinensiasservati], ed. T. Duffus Hardy (Record Comm.,
I835), p. i6; P[edes] F[inium], i. 6o-i, 63; [The] B[ook of] F[ees]
(London, I920-31), ii. 866; F[eudal] A[ids], i. 4.
EHR Feb. 96
8
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
I996 IN EARLY THIRTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
Simon de Faldho, for land in Pulloxhill, and was said to have
owed Robert de Albini fifty marks relief after the death of his
father.1 Some families are represented in the list of knights, but
not by their senior members: Miles of Eversholt held one and a half
knight's fees, but only his younger brother William, and Richard of
Eversholt, probably either another brother or an uncle, are
recorded as having carried out adminis- trative service;2 William
of Gatesden, who held Stanbridge from the king by serjeantry of
falconer, does not appear on the list, but his younger brother
Aldulf does.3 Clearly the number of those perceived by
contemporaries to be knights in early thirteenth-century Bedford-
shire would be greater than the I05 included in my original list.
If allowance is made for those families which performed
administrative service in the early years of Henry III's reign but
not in John's, and other families and individuals who were clearly
of sufficient status to be eligible to serve as administrative
knights, a figure of I25 knights in Bedfordshire in the first
decade of the thirteenth century would prob- ably be a reasonable
estimate of the true total.
Bedfordshire is likely to produce more accurate figures than
many other counties. Its position in the Home Counties within easy
reach of the Bench at Westminster, and the survival of the 1202
eyre roll, helped to ensure that the great majority of knights both
served in an adminis- trative capacity and are recorded as having
done so. Despite these advantages it still appears that my original
figure is around 20 per cent too low. A quick check of another
county suggests a slightly larger underestimate, but one of similar
magnitude. When those families from Staffordshire which appear to
have been of knightly status in the early thirteenth century are
added to the I oo00 who appear on my list for 199 to 1216, and
allowance is made for those cases where both father and son appear
on that list, a revised figure of around i 25 knights is produced -
an increase of 25 per cent.4
I. CRR, iii. 151-2. 2. Ibid., vii. 232; 'Roll of the Justices in
Eyre at Bedford, I227', ed. G. H. Fowler, BHRS, iii (1916),
I-2o6, no. 222. 3. There is considerable confusion over which
member of the family was granted Stanbridge; the
hundred rolls say it was 'Audusus', and a letter patent of Henry
III that it was William: 'The Hundred Rolls of I274 and 1279', ed.
J. S. Thompson, in Hundreds, Manors, Parishes and the Church, ed.
Thompson (BHRS, vol. Ixix, i990), pp. 3-63, at p. 6; C[alendar oft
P[atent] R[olls], 1247-58, p. I49. Although there is no
indisputable evidence that William held Stanbridge, and it was
certainly held by Aldulf's son John, the most likely scenario is
that William was the elder brother of Aldulf and as such held the
serjeantry, but died without progeny and was succeeded by his
nephew. He certainly carried out the duties of falconer: P[ipe]
R[oll] 8 Richard I, pp. i8, 60; R[otuli] L[itterarum] C[lausarum in
Turri Londinensi asservati], ed. T. Duffus Hardy (Record Comm.,
1833-44), i. I9Ib. He also held the manor of Lifton in Devon, which
was given to his wife Agatha by Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, and in
I204 had to pay 6om. to be allowed to hold it from Queen Isabella
as part of her dower: R[otuli] C[hartarum], ed. T. Duffus Hardy
(Record Comm., 1827), pp. 128, 213b; ROF, p. 218; PR 6 John, pp.
32, 36.
4. Members of twenty-three families which do not appear on my
list for 1199 to I216 performed administrative service as knights
between 1216 and 1230. Four other men, Walter de Bradeley, Robert
Maunsel, Walter fitzRalf and Ralf de Longok were among those
'knights' said to have been removed
EHR Feb. 96
9
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
10 THE TRANSFORMATION OF KNIGHTHOOD February If significant
numbers of knights are missing from my list, even for
well-recorded counties, the total figure of 3,453 for the
country as a whole must be an understatement of the true figure;
but by how much? While it is clearly impossible to produce an
accurate and definitive figure, informed guesswork should produce a
reasonable approxi- mation. Ideally, county size, density of
population and social structure should be considered to check for
each county whether the known number of knights appears to be too
low when measured against other comparable shires. Unfortunately,
population figures are available only at rare (and for my purpose
inconvenient) chronological points, and county size alone can only
serve as a very rough guide: a large but sparsely populated county
may have fewer knights than a small, heavily populated one.
Russell's figures for population density in 1086 and 1377 show the
scale of variation between counties, but the nature of demo-
graphic change between these two dates, with rapid population
growth followed by cataclysmic decline in the fourteenth century,
makes it impossible to obtain any meaningful figures for I200 by
interpolation.1 Even if reasonable estimates of population density
were available for the beginning of the thirteenth century it would
still be extremely difficult to judge the accuracy of my figures,
as the proportion of knights within the population is unlikely to
be constant across the country, and could vary very considerably
between counties. Calculating numbers of knights from county size
would therefore require an equation with three variables, two of
which could only be obtained very approximately, and then only by
making several dubious assumptions. The end result of such a
calculation would be virtually meaningless - a case of lies, damned
lies and statistics.
For the majority of counties the original figures seem plausible
by comparison with those for Bedfordshire and Staffordshire. I have
there- fore assumed that the underestimate of the numbers of
knights will be of a similar magnitude, and have increased the
figures across the board by 20 per cent.2 These estimated numbers
are still inherently conserva- tive as early eyre rolls survive for
both Bedfordshire and Staffordshire, whereas for the majority of
counties no eyre rolls survive from John's
by the serjeants of the hundred from the jury for an assize of
last presentment for money: CHS, iv (I 883), 37. The families of
Caverswall, Coppenhall, Purcel and Wasteneys all seem to have
provided knights at intervals during the later twelfth and
thirteenth centuries. However the five or six father/son
combinations (William fitzGuy and Richard fitzWilliam, Henry and
Robert de Lega, Nicholas de Mutton and John of Salt, Robert and Ivo
of Walton, Nicholas and Robert of Maer, and possibly Peter and
Simon of Norton) which appear on my original list of Ioo knights
need to be offset against these additions.
i. J. C. Russell, British Medieval Population (Albuquerque,
1948), p. 313. 2. Using the lower Bedfordshire figure rather than
the higher Staffordshire figure of 25 per cent. I
have not increased the figure for Rutland, which is particularly
well represented in the records. Thirty-six knights already looks a
large number for such a small county.
EHR Feb. 96
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
I996 IN EARLY THIRTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
reign, and many knights who served on grand assize juries during
an eyre may not appear among the administrative knights named by
the curia regis rolls. A clear example of the distortion of
knightly numbers which can be caused by the patchy survival of eyre
rolls is to be found in Warwickshire. Coss lists ninety-seven
administrative knights who served between I220 and I232, during
which period rolls for two separate eyres survive, but only
forty-one between I200 and 1214, where he had to rely on the curia
regis rolls alone.1
There are a few counties for which the number of knights seems
remarkably low, especially those on the periphery of the country.
Distance from the centre and their character as border societies
may well have meant that royal justice did not penetrate in the
same way as in the heartland of the country. The figures for Devon
(48) and Cornwall (39), two relatively populous counties, look
suspiciously low, especially as Quick found eighty-five knights in
Devon in 1238, when for every other county his figures are a great
deal lower than mine. In the far north, Northumberland (28),
although a more sparsely populated county, appears to be
underestimated in comparison with neighbouring Cum- berland (58).
The exclusion of Westmorland from the shrieval system and the
franchise of the earl of Chester mean that there are no records for
either Westmorland or Cheshire. The status of Durham as a county
palatine also means that in the normal course of events no knights
are recorded, although twelve knights of the bishopric are
mentioned in one law suit. Lancashire, another administrative
oddity, records only thirty- five. Even some more central counties
yield apparently anomalous figures, with Worcestershire (25)
producing far fewer knights than neighbouring counties of similar
size, and Huntingdonshire (28) very low in comparison with
neighbouring Bedfordshire. Doubling the figures for the peripheral
counties Cornwall, Lancashire and North- umberland, and trebling
them for the more populous Devon, Worces- tershire and
Huntingdonshire would seem to be reasonable guesswork, as would
figures of fifty apiece for Cheshire, Westmorland and Durham.
The outcome of applying these rules of thumb is a revised total
of 4,75 5, as shown in the final column of Table i. As this
estimated figure was obtained by adjusting the numbers separately
for individual coun- ties, allowance must again be made for those
knights who performed administrative service in more than one
county. If the total is reduced in the same proportion as before
the revised figure becomes 4,515. As my estimation has been
conservative throughout, I think it is reasonable to
I. Coss, Lordship, Knighthood and Locality, pp. 258-62. The
difference between his figure of forty-one knights for 1200 to I
214 and my figure of fifty-seven for i 199 and I 1216 is explained
primarily by his omission of those knights who heard the
appointment of an attorney and a jury of attaint. To the references
cited ibid., p. 262, should be added RCR, ii. 211 I; CRR, i. 172,
358; vi. 6o-i; vii. 134, 286-7.
EHR Feb. 96
II
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
THE TRANSFORMATION OF KNIGHTHOOD February conclude that the
number of men in England who were considered by their
contemporaries to be knights capable of serving as such on grand
assize juries and other commissions in the first decade of the
thirteenth century was of the order of 4,500-5,000. This seems an
astonishingly high figure when it is remembered that the present
discussion is limited to knights who were eligible for
administrative service: landless knights were not. If knights who
earned their living through the profession of arms, as household
knights or mercenaries, were to be included as well as knights
available for administrative service, then the total number of
knights in England must surely have been well in excess of
5,ooo.1
The distinction between a man who was perceived to be a knight
for administrative purposes and a law-worthy free man was a very
real one, but what was meant by it? What gave these men knightly
status? Was it a natural consequence of birth, the possession of a
certain amount of property, or a level of military capability; or
was it only acquired through a formal ceremony? No legal records
survive from Henry II's reign, and very few from Richard's, so it
is rarely possible to prove that those who were knights in John's
reign were the sons of men who had themselves been knights, and
impossible to show that their fathers were not of knightly status.
What evidence there is usually comes from the higher echelons of
knightly society.2 Knighthood was clearly not re- stricted only to
the eldest son of a knight: in 118 5 Alicia, widow of Fulk Lisures,
had two sons who were knights and two other sons (in addition to
her six married and three marriageable daughters!).3 It stretches
credibility to imagine that all a knight's sons automatically
inherited his status, but it is not impossible. Finding the
wherewithal to support four or five sons in one family would have
been prohibitive, but the younger sons may well have been able to
use their professional military skills to find employment.
There was no simple link between landholding and knighthood:
clearly there could not be when many knights had no lands of their
own. Tenure of less than one knight's fee by no means precluded
knightly status: many men clearly held far less than one fee, but
still chose to take up knighthood, or were perceived as knights. A
survey of fifty adminis- trative knights from Bedfordshire shows
that the great majority had small to moderate amounts of land: only
seven possessed more than two
I. Coss has rightly pointed out that the distinction between
landless household knights and enfeoffed knights has been
overstated. Many knights who served in baronial (or even knightly)
households also held some land and were therefore eligible for
administrative service: Lordship, Knighthood and Locality, pp.
225-6.
2. An example is Richard de Beauchamp, younger son of Hugh II de
Beauchamp, baron of Eaton Socon, who served on two grand assize
juries; Wardon Cartulary, no. 326; The Memoranda Rollfor the Tenth
Year of the Reign of KingJohn (I207-8) Together with the Curia
Regis Rolls of Hilary 7 Richard I (1196) and Easter 9 Richard I
(1198), ed. R. A. Brown (Pipe Roll Soc., NS, vol. xxxi, I957), pp.
8 5-6; PKJ, lxvii, no. 2262.
3. Rotuli de Dominabus et Pueris et Puellis de XII Comitatibus,
ed. J. H. Round (Pipe Roll Soc., vol. xxxv, I913), p. 24.
EHR Feb. 96
I2
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
1996 IN EARLY THIRTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
knight's fees; twelve almost certainly, and another four
possibly, held between one and two fees; whereas twenty-seven
probably held less than one fee, including two for whom I was
unable to find any record of their lands.1 Interestingly, there
does seem to have been a level below which few men were knights,
with the great majority holding at least one-third of a knight's
fee. Sally Harvey found the mean holding of Domesday knights to be
one and a half hides, or approximately one- third of a knight's
fee, assuming a 'normal' fee to be five hides: the average landed
endowment has therefore become the minimum, which suggests that the
financial status of knights had improved significantly during the
twelfth century.2
Family pedigree and landed wealth made a man more eligible for
knighthood than a man who had neither, but they did not in
themselves make him a knight. Throughout the twelfth century the
main qualifi- cation for knighthood in northern Europe remained a
military one. As Flori says: 'The word knight meant principally a
profession.'3 However, the later part of the century saw an
evolution in the means of definition of status from functional to
ceremonial. Analysis of twelfth-century chansons de geste has shown
that before c. I i 80o the words adouber and armer are virtually
synonymous, but from this point onwards 'to dub' rapidly comes to
mean something quite different from 'to arm', taking on ceremonial
and promotional connotations.4 Before this, it seems that the
function defined the status: in Aliscans, Rainouart says that it is
enough to be on a horse to be a knight.5 No doubt this is an
exaggeration, but one which illustrates a mode of thought: to bear
the arms of a knight was to be a knight. Yet this perception was
not general. References to knighting ceremonies, such as that of
the archetypal knight of the later twelfth century, William
Marshal, show that knighthood was not simply a matter of possessing
a sword and a horse and knowing what to do with them. Literary
examples suggest that men could became renowned for their military
prowess long before they became knights: Horn, hero of an English
chanson de geste written in the I I7os, established his repu-
tation through feats of arms while still a bachelor.6
I. The vagaries of the records mean that these figures can only
be a reasonable approximation: evidence of some landholdings may
not survive, and often the amount of land held is not mentioned. It
is, however, unlikely that any of these would be more than minor
interests. The proportion of knights with less than one fee is in
line with Coss's figures for Warwickshire, where he found that 44
per cent of administrative knights between 1200 and 1214 had only
minor landed interests: Lordship, Knighthood and Locality, p.
247.
2. Harvey, 'The Knight and the Knight's Fee', I 5. 3. J. Flori,
'La notion de chevalerie dans les chansons de geste du XIIe siecle.
Etude historique de
vocabulaire', Moyen Age, lxxxi (I975), 2i 1-44, 407-45, at 230.
4. Id., 'Pour une histoire de la chevalerie: l'adoubement dans les
romans de Chretien de Troyes',
Romania, c (I979), 21-53, at 25. 5. Id., 'La notion de
chevalerie', 223. 6. T. Hunt, 'The Emergence of the Knight in
France and England, 1000-I200', in Knighthood in
Medieval Literature, ed. W. H. Jackson (Bury St Edmunds, I981),
pp. 1-22, at p. I2.
EHR Feb. 96
I3
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
THE TRANSFORMATION OF KNIGHTHOOD February It is likely that for
much of the twelfth century the definition of
knighthood was ambiguous and contradictory. The profession and
the status were probably both interlinked and interchangeable, as
was the terminology. It may have been usual for a new knight to
achieve that status through formally taking up arms, or through
being 'belted' as a knight, but in practice appearance alone could
be enough for a man to be perceived as a knight. Possibly only
those men described as 'belted knights' had gone through any sort
of ceremony, while those described by terms such as milites
gregarii were knights simply by profession.1 What is important is
that their contemporaries knew who was a knight and who was not. It
is tempting, but anachronistic, for historians to try to impose on
to the twelfth century a clarity of definition. The difficulty of
defining status is by no means confined to knighthood. Similar
ambiguity is found in monasticism, where formal entry ceremonies
involving consecration and profession grew in importance during the
eleventh and twelfth centuries, but where the monastic habit alone
could still be enough to define its wearer as a monk or nun.2
Clarity of definition developed about fifty years earlier in the
monastic world, but the period of ambiguity in defining status
parallels remarkably closely that which continued to affect
knighthood. By the early thirteenth century a formal rite of
passage by which a man was made a knight had probably either become
general, as was the case in northern France, or was at least well
along the road to becoming so. I think it is likely that the
majority of the knights who served in an administrative capacity
during John's reign would have been 'knighted' in some way,
although some would have reached their majority during the i i6os
or i 170s, at a time when the assumption of knighthood could still
mean simply the assumption of arms.
The difficulty of understanding what was meant when someone was
described as a 'knight' at the beginning of the thirteenth century
is indicative of a process of change affecting both the theory and
reality of knighthood. The clearest indication of fundamental
change is the dra- matic decline in the number of knights in
England. Denholm-Young's figure of c. 1,250 for the later
thirteenth century has been generally accepted by historians as a
reasonable estimate, and is given substance by the evidence of the
'Parliamentary Roll' of 1312 which records the arms of I,I I o
knights.3 It therefore appears that the number of knights fell
during the course of the century to between one-quarter and
one-third
I. See Coss, Lordship, Knighthood and Locality, p. 212. 2. G.
Constable, 'Ceremonies and Symbolism of Entering Religious Life and
Taking the Monastic
Habit from the Fourth to the Twelfth Century', Segni e riti
nella chiesa alto medievale occidentale (Spoleto, I987), ii.
771-834 (I should like to thank Sarah Hamilton for this reference).
Archbishop Anselm ordered King Harold's daughter Gunnilda to return
to her convent, although she had never been consecrated or
professed as a nun, because 'the fact that you publicly and
privately wore the habit of the holy way of life ... is in itself a
manifest and undeniable profession': ibid. 803.
3. N. Denholm-Young, 'Feudal Society in the Thirteenth Century:
The Knights', History, xxix (I944), 107-19, at I Io-II.
EHR Feb. 96
I4
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
I996 IN EARLY THIRTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
of the earlier figure. What was the dynamic and causation of
this change?
It has generally been assumed that the transformation of
knighthood was a gradual process, with the number of knights
already declining steadily by the final quarter of the twelfth
century.1 The paucity of sources for the twelfth century makes it
difficult, if not impossible, to establish whether knighthood did
or did not begin to decline before 1200, but the large numbers of
knights in the early thirteenth century appear consistent with
rough estimates for the twelfth century. Round, using the
incomplete returns of the Cartae Baronum, estimated the number of
knight's fees in i i66 as no more than 5,ooo, and Keefe found that
6,500 fees were assessed for scutage between i190 and 12io.2
However, as we have seen, there is only limited correlation between
numbers of knight's fees and numbers of knights. Many of these fees
would have been held in plurality, and the military service
performed (if it was performed at all) by landless knights employed
for the purpose; others would have been divided between two, three
or even more knights. Nevertheless, a figure of 5,ooo-6,ooo
professional knights would probably not be far off the mark for the
twelfth century as a whole, although the balance between enfeoffed
and household knights would have changed as the century progressed.
If this supposition is correct, then any decline in numbers of
knights during the latter part of the twelfth century can only have
been minimal.
I would suggest that rather than a gradual decline in the
numbers of knights during the last twenty years of the twelfth
century and the first thirty years of the thirteenth, knighthood in
England underwent a fundamental change within a single generation.
The critical point appears to have been reached between 1215 and
1230. Of a sample of fifty knights who served in Bedfordshire
during John's reign, there are twenty-four for whom I have been
unable to find any evidence that their heirs (direct or indirect)
were knights.3 For nine of these twenty-four I was unable to
identify any heirs at all: if they existed, it is most unlikely
that they would have left no trace if they continued their fathers'
knightly status. A similar-sized sample for Staffordshire also
shows a high proportion of families dropping out of knighthood in
this same period, with twenty-one out of fifty apparently failing
to maintain that
I. Crouch, Image of Aristocracy, p. I47; Coss, Lordship,
Knighthood and Locality, p. 248. 2. J. H. Round, Feudal England
(London, I895), p. 292; T. K. Keefe, Feudal Assessments and the
Political Community under Henry II and his Sons (Berkeley,
i987), pp. 57-9. 3. The heirs of the following do not appear to
have been knights: Henry Blancfrunt, Walter
Blancfrunt, William de Bretevill of Barford, Simon le Chanu,
Thomas of Chawston, Simon of Chicksands, Jordan of Colesden,
Richard of Eversholt, Hugh of Eyworth, Adam fitzDrogo, Ralf
fitzGeoffrey, Richard de Glanvill, Almaric de Landres, David
Loring. I have been unable to trace heirs for Benedict de Ailesham,
John of Astwick, Robert de Bidun, Hugh de Bray, Simon fitzGodwin,
Walter fitzWalter, Simon of Faldho,John Fleming or Nigel Malherbe.
Miles de Bray was succeeded by two daughters, neither of whom seems
to have married knights or had knightly heirs.
EHR Feb. 96
I 5
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
THE TRANSFORMATION OF KNIGHTHOOD February rank.1 The implication
is that within the course of one generation at least one-third, and
possibly as many as one-half, of the families whose members
provided administrative knights during John's reign aban- doned
their knightly status. As there is no indication that any
significant number of new families replaced them, the number of
knights in England must have dropped dramatically.
Ideally, this conclusion should be tested by a complete count of
those men serving as knights during the i23os, but by this point
the nature of the evidence has changed. The declining popularity of
the grand assize, a tendency for jury lists to be omitted from the
reports of those grand assizes which were held, and missing records
mean that a head count of administrative knights no longer produces
sensible results.2 A check of a few sample counties shows the
random nature of the exercise at this date: Somerset provides
sixty-two knights and Nottinghamshire forty- one, but
Leicestershire only twelve and Sussex thirteen. The most eccentric
result comes from Cambridgeshire, where only seven adminis- trative
knights can be found between I227 and I242, compared with 136 for i
199 to I 216. The only way to obtain a realistic figure for the
number of knights during the i230os would be to count those given
the title in charters, which would be virtually impossible.
However, there is no reason to assume that Bedfordshire and
Staffordshire are not repre- sentative of the situation
country-wide. Also, the timing of the drop in numbers is supported
by the chronology of distraint of knighthood and the appearance of
respites and exemptions from administrative service. In I200 there
was almost a glut of knights available for administrative duties
and, in theory at least, to provide military service. In I224 Henry
III tried for the first time to distrain men to become knights, and
distraint reached a peak during the I 24os and 25 os; by the I 23
os grants of respite from knighthood and exemptions from
administrative service were becoming widespread.3 By the i25os the
impact was such that it
I. I was unable to identify the heirs of Robert of Barr, Ralf
fitzJordan and William fitzWarin, and Ralf of Blore, William de
Bray and Robert fitzPayn left only heiresses. The successors of
William Buffery and Richard of Enville were amerced in 1272 for
failing to become knights despite being of age and holding full
fees, but neither they nor their heirs seem to have taken up
knighthood; CHS, iv. 209. I could find no evidence that the heirs
of William of Adbaston, Thomas of Biddulph, Richard of Billington,
Henry del Broc, Nicholas of Burston, Walter Coyne, Henry of
Denstone, Philip of Fernlaw, Richard fitzWilliam, Ralf of Hints,
Ranulf of Knotton, Philip of Lutley or Richard Marescal either were
or should have been knights.
2. In the early part of the thirteenth century the jurors who
defaulted and essoined were often listed when a suit was held over
because insufficient jurors appeared in court, but by the 1230os
this was rarely the case. Michaelmas 1233, Trinity I234, Easter
1236, Hilary 1238 and Trinity I239 are the only curia regis rolls
to survive between Easter 1233 and Easter I242, and eyre roll
survival is still very patchy (see CRR, vols. xiv-xvi).
3. For a discussion of respites and exemptions, see S. L. Waugh,
'Reluctant Knights and Jurors: Respites, Exemptions and Public
Obligations in the Reign of Henry III', Speculum, lviii (I983),
937-86. For distraint, see M. Powicke, 'Distraint of Knighthood and
Military Obligation under Henry III', ibid. xxv (1950), 457-70.
EHR Feb. 96
i6
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
i996 IN EARLY THIRTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
could prove impossible to get a panel of knights together for
the grand assize.1
Four possible explanations present themselves for this rapid
change in the number of knights, none of which are mutually
exclusive: knights were administratively overburdened and their
heirs abandoned knightly status to avoid this work; families
dropped out of knighthood as a result of economic pressure; the
nature of knighthood itself altered; the attitude of lords changed.
The first suggestion seems to be the least tenable. In John's reign
amercements for failure to take up knighthood, respites and
exemptions were non-existent. Avoidance of service on juries and
panels of knights by simply failing to turn up was widespread, with
cases postponed time after time because the jurors had defaulted;
but unless they were conspicuously negligent, jurors could usually
do so with impunity. On one occasion it is possible to see a jury
making serious efforts to get out of the administrative trap in
which it was caught. In 1208 a jury of twenty-four knights summoned
to attaint the original jury for an assize of mort d'ancestor
contributed eight marks of a twenty-mark proffer to have the case
settled by a final concord, the other twelve marks being shared
between the parties to the suit.2Pleas of attaint were notably
difficult cases to conclude because of the problem of getting
twenty-four knights, and the original jury of twelve, together in
the right place at the right time, which may explain the eagerness
of the jurors to escape from this obligation.
The sheer number of available knights meant that for the
majority administrative service was not particularly onerous. In
Surrey, for example, seventy-five knights performed administrative
service during John's reign: fifty-one of them served five times or
less, with the greater part of these, thirty-one, serving only
once. There was, however, a small group of knights whose
involvement in administrative tasks was far heavier: men like Elias
de Edinton, who appeared on six grand assize juries, six panels of
electors, three panels for sickness views, and once brought the
record from the county court; and William de Bures, who served on
only two grand assize juries, but was an elector nine times, viewed
two sickness essoins and also brought the county court record.3 It
is not possible to do more than speculate as to why such men took
on so much more than their fair share of administrative duties.
Perhaps they had a taste for bureaucracy, or found it profitable.
Maybe they were known as honest and 'more law-worthy' knights.
Perhaps they had other business which took them often to
Westminster. Or were they men who could conveniently be bribed to
produce desired results? Men
I. See supra, p. 2, n. 6. 2. CRR, v. i63. 3. Elias de Edington:
ibid. i. i66, I83,223, 3 10,466; ii. 73, r54,303; iii. 253, 283,
308; iv. 68, 207, 302; v.
8,20, i3, I9I, 273; vii. 120, i83; RCR, ii. 49, 79,134. William
de Bures: CRR, i. I66, 183, 223, 310,466; ii. 73, 202, 303; iii. 4;
v. 8, 20, 113, 273; vii. 119, 322; PKJ, lxvii, nos. 2386, 3489;
RCR, ii. 49, 79.
EHR Feb. 96
I7
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
THE TRANSFORMATION OF KNIGHTHOOD February such as these were the
exceptions. With relatively large numbers of knights to call on,
administrative service was spread quite thinly. The most important
knights of a county were often not summoned at all, or only for a
particularly important case.1 Pressure of work was a conse- quence,
not a cause, of the decline in the number of knights. The
appearance exemptions came after the pool from which knights could
be chosen for administrative duties had shrunk to the point where
adminis- trative demands had become onerous, perhaps especially so
to those more affluent men who still retained their knightly
status, but had previously been able to escape the obligations of
that status.
Did economic difficulties cause families to abandon knighthood
on a massive scale? The hypothesis that the thirteenth century saw
a crisis in the economic fortunes of the knightly class, meaning
here both those who had been knighted and those whose economic
status made them eligible for that honour, has prompted a great
deal of discussion.2 It is not my intention to add to that debate
at this point, but simply to comment on the possibility that such a
crisis may have led to a sudden decline in the number of knights.
Any thirteenth-century crisis would have to have been both early
and dramatic if it were to be responsible for a widespread drop in
numbers in the i 220. There are indications that the knightly class
was already facing serious financial difficulties by the later part
of Henry II's reign, which foreshadowed, or possibly even eclipsed,
those of the thirteenth century. As early as i i 80 Walter Map
could speak of 'knights ... who either eat up their patrimony or
are shackled by debts'.3 Such difficulties do not, however, seem to
have caused any noticeable reduction in the number of knights by
the first decade of the thirteenth century; they would, in any
case, lead one to expect a steady decline as families gradually
gave up the struggle, rather than the dramatic change which
actually took place. The decline of the I220s was surely too late
to be a direct consequence of economic difficulties experienced
forty or more years earlier.
The 'crisis of the knightly class' has normally been seen as the
result of the high inflation experienced during the late twelfth
and early thirteenth centuries. Although the extent of that
inflation is now being questioned, the timing of the drop in
knightly numbers does suggest
I. Examples are Thurstan Basset and Geoffrey Chamberlain, both
of whom held several fees in three or more counties, but served as
administrative knights only once, as elector and juror respectively
for the grand assize between Hugh de Beauchamp and William de
Lanvaley, in which the barony of Eaton Socon was at stake: CRR, i.
401, ii. 4-5.
2. P. R. Coss, 'Sir Geoffrey de Langley and the Crisis of the
Knightly Class in Thirteenth-Century England', Past and Present,
lxviii (i975), 3-37; D. A. Carpenter, 'Was there a Crisis of the
Knightly Class in the Thirteenth Century? The Oxfordshire
Evidence', ante, xcv (i 980), 72 I-52; Coss, Lordship, Knighthood
and Locality, pp. 264-304; Thomas, Vassals, Heiresses, Crusaders
and Thugs, pp. I 56-67.
3. Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, trans. M. R. James, rev. C.
N. L. Brooke and R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, i983), p. 8; see Crouch,
Image of Aristocracy, pp. I47-8; see also Thomas, loc. cit.
EHR Feb. 96
i8
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
I996 IN EARLY THIRTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
that financial pressures may have played a part.1 Could it be
that failure to adjust to the demands of an inflationary economy
forced many knights to slide down the social scale? The experience
of the fifty Bedfordshire knights who were considered earlier
suggests that there was in reality very little correlation between
financial strain and failure to take up knighthood. Eleven of these
men either sold lands, or were in debt at some point during their
career, yet no less than nine of them had descendants who were
knights.2 One of the others, Miles de Bray, died leaving two
under-age daughters, Mabel and Agnes. His property was apparently
still an attractive proposition: when custody of Agnes was
contested in 1223, Godfrey de Limholt, husband of Mabel, was
accused of putting his sister-in-law into Elstow Abbey.3 In only
one case was there a male heir who failed to become a knight: the
junior branch of the Loring family continued to hold land in
Wootton after the death of David Loring, but none of its
representatives ever took up knighthood.4 The lack of correlation
between economic difficulty and knighthood is further illustrated
by the experience of two other families. Both Robert de Jumieges
and David of Flitwick appear to have had financial problems; both
had sons who were knights but grandsons who failed to take up
knighthood, although they still possessed substantial property.
Robert de Jumieges II was granted respite from arms in i 242, and
in I2 5 5 both Robert and David of Flitwick III held land worth ?I
5 - but were not knights.5
The existence of debt does not in any case necessarily imply
financial difficulty, nor need the existence of inflation mean
economic crisis. The price increases of the late twelfth and early
thirteenth centuries were not an isolated phenomenon, but part of a
true monetary inflation in which prices and wages both rose as new
silver reached western Europe and increased the money supply.6
Bolton suggests that the greater avail- ability of coin fuelled
economic expansion and increased expectations, especially for those
at the more affluent end of society.7 When money is readily
available it becomes relatively easy to borrow in order to meet
I. P. D. A. Harvey, 'The English Inflation of 1180-1220', Past
and Present, lxi (1973), 3-30. For more recent interpretations of
this period of inflation, see J. L. Bolton, 'Inflation, Economics
and Politics in Thirteenth Century England', in Thirteenth Century
England IV, ed. P. R. Coss and S. D. Lloyd (Woodbridge, 1992), pp.
i-i4, at 4-5; A. R. Bridbury, 'Thirteenth Century Prices and the
Money Supply', Agricultural History Review, xxxiii (1985), 1-2I, at
9.
2. Hugh de Alno, Roger de Bray, Robert Butevilein, Geoffrey
Chamberlain, David of Flitwick, Richard Gobion, Hugh de Hottot,
Robert de Jumieges and Hugh de Kahaignes.
3. Bracton's Note Book, ed. F. W. Maitland (London, I887), iii,
no. i6o8. 4. Newnham Cartulary, nos. 476, 524, 543. 5. Close Rolls,
1237-42, p. 43 5; G. H. Fowler, 'Records of Knight Service in
Bedfordshire', BHRS, ii
(1914), 245-63 at 250-I. I have not found any evidence that
Robert or his heirs ever became knights, but both David and his son
(David of Flitwick IV) did: id., 'Calendar of Inquisitions Post
Mortem, no. II, 1272-I286', BHRS, xix (I937), 1 I-70, at 133;
Records of Harrold Priory, ed. Fowler (BHRS, vol. xvii, 1935), no.
i5x; FA, i. 3i.
6. Bolton, 'Inflation, Economics and Politics', p. 3; P.
Spufford, Money and its Use in Medieval Europe (Cambridge, i988),
pp. I 09-3 i.
7. Bolton, 'Inflation, Economics and Politics', pp. 5, I
i-i2.
EHR Feb. 96
I9
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
THE TRANSFORMATION OF KNIGHTHOOD February new aspirations. Debt
may therefore be a consequence of affluence rather than economic
difficulty. The parallel with recent experience is striking: high
inflation in the I970os and i98os was accompanied by rising
standards of living and extensive borrowing fuelled by the
expectation of continuing affluence, which dropped back during the
recession of the 1990s.
Rather than being the result of economic crisis, the decline in
the number of knights is more likely to be the result of the
changing nature of knighthood, which may in itself have been a
consequence of econ- omic expansion. The work of Duby and Flori on
the development of knighthood in France has shown that a dramatic
rise in the status of knights, accompanied by the adoption of the
chivalric trappings of knighthood, took place during the last
quarter of the twelfth century and the first quarter of the
thirteenth.1 The close links between Angevin England and northern
France made it inevitable that these changes would be rapidly
imitated in England. Although price evidence for the late twelfth
and early thirteenth centuries is scanty, the pipe rolls suggest
that the cost of knights and their trappings was rising rapidly.
The pipe roll of 1162 gives a price of 8d. a day for a knight; the
standard price of knights between i i90 and 12I0 seems to have been
I2d. a day, but by 1220 it had risen as high as 2s. a day, after
which the price stabilized at a level of i 8d. to 2S. a day by
1240. There is very little evidence for prices of armour, but the
price of a palfrey rose dramatically, from one pound in I i 6o and
i i 80, to five marks in the early thirteenth century and five
pounds in the I240S and I25 os.2 It is hard to tell how far these
exchequer prices reflect reality, but it is clear that the cost of
maintaining knight- hood must have increased very considerably. If
the late twelfth century did indeed see the beginning of a period
of economic growth, this would tie in remarkably well with the
chronology of the upgrading of knight- hood to a new social and
economic status, allowing the better off to afford more expensive
ceremonial and a more extravagant 'noble' life-style.
It therefore seems likely that the sudden trend away from
knighthood was a reflection, not of any reduction in economic or
military capacity among the families whose male members had
previously been knights, but of the fact that the condition of
knighthood had become a rank, and a costly one, instead of a
profession. At the beginning of the thirteenth
1. G. Duby, The Chivalrous Society, trans. C. Postan (London,
I979), pp. 178-85;J. Flori, L'Essorde la chevalerie XIe-XIIe
siecles (Geneva, I986), pp. 336-7.
2. Forprices of knights, seePR 8HenryII,p. 53;2 RichardI,p. 75;3
Richard I,p. I 12;2John,p. 250; i IJohn, p. 173; 4 Henry III, p.
25; Public Record Office, E372/83 rot. ld, m. i;
C[alendarof]L[iberate] R[olls], 1226-40, p. 394; I240-5, p. 94. The
1 I91 pipe roll gives a price of ?o 20for thirty knights for forty
days, i.e. 2s. per knight per day, but this also includes
unspecified gifts: PR 3 Richard I, p. I. For prices of palfreys,
see PR 9 Henry II, p. 7I; 26 Henry II, p. i 5o; CLR, I240-5, p. 3;
1245-5I, p. 22o. There are numerous references to palfreys valued
at 5 marks between I 200 and 1230. I am extremely grateful to
Nicholas Barrett for providing me with this information.
EHR Feb. 96
20
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
I996 IN EARLY THIRTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
century it may still have been possible for a man to be a knight
simply because his contemporaries perceived him to be so, but by
the I 220s it required an expensive formal ceremony.1 Where I have
been able to trace the families and property of knights whose
descendants failed to take up knighthood, it seems that they
continued to hold the same lands, the only fundamental change being
their status. The sons of knightly fam- ilies resembled their
fathers in every other respect, but knighthood itself had moved
above them. In many cases such families would have con- tinued to
enjoy the same local status, and the more dynastically tena- cious
would have emerged as esquires in the fourteenth century or
gentlemen in the fifteenth. The knights of the late twelfth and
early thirteenth centuries were in a very real sense the gentry,
and the drop in the number of knights which took place in the i220s
was the first dramatic phase in the stratification of the gentry,
in which the lower layers retained their position but lost their
title.
If this hypothesis is correct, one would expect to find that it
was the families lower down the social and economic scale which
abandoned knighthood, and such does appear to be the case. Of the
twenty-four Bedfordshire knights for whom there is no evidence that
their heirs ever became knights, seventeen held less than one
knight's fee, and three others between one and two fees. The only
knight with a large amount of property was Ralf fitzGeoffrey, who
held five fees, but for whom I have been unable to trace any heir.
Two men can have had only very minor landed interests, of which no
trace remains in the records. Robert de Bidun, younger son of a
baronial younger son, held only a life interest in mortgaged land,
and does not appear to have left an heir. The last of the
twenty-four is Richard de Glanvill, whose main lands appear to have
been in Normandy, and whose nephew and heir, another Richard, was
banished to Normandy in I227 for returning to England without the
king's permission: in the circumstances he could not be expected to
appear as a knight in England.2 In Staffordshire, it seems that
only three of the twenty-one men whose heirs do not appear to have
been knights held more than one fee. The lands of two of these were
divided between co-heiresses: Ralf of Blore, the holder of one fee
and a share in another from the barony of Stafford, left a son
William who was dead early in Henry III's reign leaving only two
daughters; and Robert fitzPayn, who held two fees, was succeeded by
two daughters. The most substantial of these three men, Richard
fitzWilliam, held three and a half fees plus various other minor
interests. His daughter Matilda was succeeded by her uncle,
Richard's brother William. By the late thirteenth century his lands
had passed to William's granddaughters Sarah and Margaret, but I
can find no record of William or his son Richard fitzWilliam II
ever being described as knights. In contrast to those knightly
families which
I. See supra, p. I4. 2. CR, I227-3 I, p. 9.
EHR Feb. 96
2I
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
22 THE TRANSFORMATION OF KNIGHTHOOD February
dropped out, the twenty-nine men whose heirs maintained that
status almost without exception held at least a whole fee.1
With knighthood becoming an ever more expensive proposition, it
is hardly surprising that the majority of men with less than one
knight's fee simply abandoned it. Most probably did so without
regret: the higher social rank of the thirteenth-century knight was
one to which they had never aspired; and they avoided the
inconveniences, minor or major, which attached to knighthood. The
status they 'lost' was one their ancestors had never really
possessed in its new sense. There is no reason to think that
economic difficulties meant they were no longer able to maintain
the 'traditional' style of knighthood; but they may have been
unwilling, or unable, to take on the additional costs of
'aristocratic' knighthood. Those knights at the more prosperous end
of the class may have benefited more than their less well-endowed
brethren from econ- omic expansion, and their aspirations probably
increased both further and faster. Taking this argument to its
logical conclusion, it is possible to suggest that far from being
the result of any 'crisis of the knightly class' in the early
thirteenth century, the decline in knighthood was a conse- quence
of increased prosperity.
The less affluent knights may also, to a degree, have been
pushed out of the knightly ranks by their lords. The new ceremonial
element of knighting could prove expensive not just for the
recipient, as the lord who knighted him was expected to show
suitably chivalric largesse.2 Barons, themselves also knights,
became increasingly uncomfortable at being linked by that title
with those at the bottom of the knightly scale, and were perhaps
less keen to bestow membership of an increasingly exclusive club on
men of little social standing.3 Changes in the demands of military
tenure may also have encouraged lords to be more parsimo- nious
with their favours. In the twelfth century tenants-in-chief had
expected those who held land from them to be professional knights,
capable of, and available for, military service when required by
their lord. By the I 22os the link between military tenure and
military capacity remained in theory, but was becoming ever more
fictional in practice. The tendency towards fragmentation of
military tenures, as holdings were divided among heiresses and
reduced through provision for younger sons, daughters' marriage
portions, pious gifts and sales, must have made it increasingly
difficult for lords to compel their tenants to do anything more
strenuous than pay scutage. Royal demands for military
I. It is likely that only John of Blithfield, holder of half a
fee in Blithfield, held less. His son Henry of Blithfield (died
1234) was also a knight, but it appears that Henry's son and heir
James was not: BF, i. 542, ii. 969; CHS, NS, ix. 153. Henry of
Leigh and his son Robert did not hold by knight service, but held
the whole manor of Church Leigh from Burton Abbey for an annual
rent of ?4: CHS, ii (I881), 227-8.
2. This is regularly implied in the twelfth-century chansons de
geste: Flori, 'La notion de chevalerie', 239. Coss, Lordship,
Knighthood and Locality, pp. 249-50, gives examples of the gifts
from King Henry III to those he knighted.
3. Crouch, Image of Aristocracy, pp. I43-4.
EHR Feb. 96
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
1996 IN EARLY THIRTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
service became less effective, and quotas of knight service owed
by tenants-in-chief were reduced.1 If barons no longer needed to
produce professional knights on demand, there was little incentive
to encourage either their lesser tenants, or members of their
household, to become knights.
The existence of around 4,500 landed knights in England at the
beginning of the thirteenth century means that knighthood changed
less during the twelfth century, and more during the thirteenth,
than has previously appeared to be the case. Rather than a slow and
steady decline in number, there seems to have been a sudden and
dramatic drop in the course of a single generation, at its height
during the I 220o. The rapid decline in the number of knights took
place not because potential knights were anxious to avoid
administrative service, or because they were suffering the effects
of economic crisis, but because the status of knighthood, and the
expenses and expectations attaching to it, rose - possibly as a
consequence of economic growth. The knights of the 1230S were
clearly aware that they were members of an increasingly exclusive
club, adopting the title dominus, which appeared as a matter of
course in charter witness-lists from that time onwards. Those at
the lower end of the knightly continuum of the early thirteenth
century simply stopped becoming knights: not so much because they
opted out, but because they failed to opt in. As the pool of
knights contracted, the status of those who remained would tend to
rise, and the process would have accelerated. With fewer knights to
draw on, both military and adminis- trative service became more
onerous, causing numbers to shrink still further, and pushing men
to avoid knighthood or its consequences through respites and
exemptions. By the I 24os and I 2 5 os, when distraint of
knighthood was at its height, Henry III was fighting a desperate
rearguard action. Like Canute, in trying to turn the tide away from
knighthood he was attempting the impossible. He was already far too
late.
King's College London KATHRYN FAULKNER
i. M. Powicke, Military Obligation in Medieval England (Oxford,
i962), p. 66; Denholm-Young, 'Feudal Society in the Thirteenth
Century', i io-i i.
EHR Feb. 96
23
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015
04:31:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Article
Contentsp.[1]p.2p.3p.4p.5p.6p.7p.8p.9p.10p.11p.12p.13p.14p.15p.16p.17p.18p.19p.20p.21p.22p.23
Issue Table of ContentsThe English Historical Review, Vol. 111,
No. 440 (Feb., 1996), pp. 1-278Volume InformationFront MatterThe
Transformation of Knighthood in Early Thirteenth-Century England
[pp.1-23]The International Mercenary Market in the Sixteenth
Century: Anglo-French Competition in Germany, 1543-50
[pp.24-58]British Conservatism and Class Politics in the 1920s
[pp.59-84]Notes and DocumentsThe Count, the Bishop and the Abbot:
Armengol VI of Urgel and the Abbey of Valladolid
[pp.85-103]Colonization Activities in the Frankish East: The
Example of Castellum Regis (Mi'ilya) [pp.104-122]
Book Reviewsuntitled [pp.123-124]untitled [pp.125-128]untitled
[pp.129-130]untitled [pp.130-132]untitled [pp.132-134]
Shorter Noticesuntitled [p.135]untitled [pp.135-137]untitled
[pp.137-138]untitled [pp.138-139]untitled [p.139]untitled
[pp.139-140]untitled [pp.140-141]untitled [p.142]untitled
[pp.142-143]untitled [pp.143-144]untitled [pp.144-145]untitled
[pp.145-146]untitled [pp.146-147]untitled [p.147]untitled
[pp.147-148]untitled [pp.148-149]untitled [pp.149-150]untitled
[pp.150-151]untitled [pp.151-152]untitled [pp.152-153]untitled
[pp.153-154]untitled [pp.154-155]untitled [pp.155-156]untitled
[pp.156-157]untitled [pp.157-158]untitled [p.158]untitled
[pp.158-159]untitled [pp.159-160]untitled [p.160]untitled
[pp.160-162]untitled [p.162]untitled [pp.162-163]untitled
[pp.163-164]untitled [pp.164-165]untitled [pp.165-167]untitled
[p.167]untitled [pp.167-168]untitled [pp.168-169]untitled
[p.169]untitled [pp.169-170]untitled [pp.170-172]untitled
[pp.172-173]untitled [p.173]untitled [pp.173-174]untitled
[p.174]untitled [pp.174-175]untitled [pp.175-176]untitled
[pp.176-177]untitled [p.178]untitled [pp.178-179]untitled
[pp.179-180]untitled [pp.180-181]untitled [p.181]untitled
[pp.181-182]untitled [p.182]untitled [pp.183-184]untitled
[pp.184-185]untitled [pp.185-187]untitled [pp.187-188]untitled
[pp.188-189]untitled [pp.189-190]untitled [p.190]untitled
[p.191]untitled [pp.191-192]untitled [pp.192-193]untitled
[pp.193-194]untitled [pp.194-196]untitled [pp.196-197]untitled
[p.197]untitled [p.198]untitled [pp.198-199]untitled
[pp.199-200]untitled [pp.200-201]untitled [pp.201-202]untitled
[p.202]untitled [p.203]untitled [pp.203-204]untitled
[p.205]untitled [pp.205-206]untitled [pp.206-207]untitled
[pp.207-208]untitled [p.208]untitled [pp.208-209]untitled
[pp.209-210]untitled [pp.210-211]untitled [pp.211-212]untitled
[pp.212-213]untitled [pp.213-214]untitled [p.214]untitled
[pp.214-215]untitled [pp.215-216]untitled [p.216]untitled
[pp.216-217]untitled [p.218]untitled [pp.218-219]untitled
[pp.219-220]untitled [pp.220-221]untitled [pp.221-222]untitled
[pp.222-223]untitled [pp.223-224]untitled [pp.224-225]untitled
[pp.225-226]untitled [pp.226-227]untitled [pp.227-228]untitled
[pp.228-229]untitled [p.229]untitled [pp.229-230]untitled
[pp.230-231]untitled [pp.231-232]untitled [pp.232-233]untitled
[pp.233-234]untitled [p.234]untitled [p.235]untitled
[pp.235-236]untitled [pp.236-237]untitled [pp.237-238]untitled
[pp.238-239]untitled [pp.239-240]untitled [pp.240-241]untitled
[pp.241-242]untitled [pp.242-243]untitled [pp.243-244]untitled
[pp.244-245]untitled [pp.245-246]untitled [pp.246-247]untitled
[pp.247-248]untitled [pp.248-249]untitled [pp.249-250]untitled
[p.250]untitled [pp.250-251]untitled [pp.251-252]untitled
[pp.252-253]untitled [pp.253-255]untitled [pp.255-256]untitled
[pp.256-257]untitled [pp.257-258]untitled [pp.258-259]untitled
[pp.259-260]untitled [pp.260-261]untitled [p.261]untitled
[pp.261-262]untitled [pp.262-264]untitled [pp.264-265]untitled
[pp.265-266]untitled [p.266]untitled [pp.266-268]untitled
[pp.268-269]untitled [pp.269-270]untitled [pp.270-271]untitled
[p.271]untitled [pp.271-273]untitled [pp.273-274]untitled
[pp.274-275]untitled [pp.275-276]untitled [pp.276-277]untitled
[pp.277-278]untitled [p.278]
Back Matter