Écrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales: espace français, espace anglais 978-2-503-57673-2, 978-2-503-56170-7

Table of contents :

Front Matter ("Sommaire", "Avant-propos"), p. i

Introduction: Formulary and literacy as keys to unlocking late-medieval law, p. 1
Delloyd J. Guth
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00532


Chancellerie et Hôtel à l'époque de Philippe le Bel, p. 13
Elisabeth Lalou
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00533


The English royal chancery in the thirteenth century, p. 25
David A. Carpenter
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00534


Accountability and collegiality: The English royal secretariat in the mid-fourteenth century, p. 55
W. Mark Ormrod
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00535


Les savoirs des notaires et secrétaires du roi et la géographie de la France d'après le manuel d'Odart Morchesne et un index de chancellerie, p. 87
Mireille Desjardins
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00536


Quelques remarques sur les langues écrites à la chancellerie royale de France, p. 99
Serge Lusignan
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00537


Super omnes thesauros rerum temporalium: les fonctions du Trésor des chartes du roi de France (XIVe-XVe siècles), p. 109
Olivier Guyotjeannin
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00538


The Scottish chancery in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, p. 133
Athol L. Murray
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00539


Les registres des lettres scellées à la chancellerie de Bretagne sous le règne du duc François II (1458-1488), p. 153
Jean Kerhervé
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00540


Qu'il plaise au roi faire bailler lettres patentes…: les états de Languedoc et la chancellerie royale française (XIVe-XVe siècles), p. 205
Sylvie Quéré
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00541


Etats de Provence et chancellerie royale aux XIVe et XVe siècles, p. 223
Michel Hébert
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00542


Le processus d'élaboration et de validation des comptes de clavaire en Provence au XIVe siècle, p. 241
Jean-Luc Bonnaud
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00543


Localism and literacy: Village chancelleries in fourteenth century Provence, p. 255
John Drendel
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00544


Local perspectives and functions of the English chancery's legal instruments in the later Middle Ages: The Anglo-Scottish border lands, p. 269
Cynthia J. Neville
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00545


Les clercs de la Chancellerie royale française et l'écriture des lettres de rémission aux XIVe et XVe siècles, p. 281
Claude Gauvard
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00546


Détecter et prouver la fausseté au Parlement de Paris à la fin du Moyen Age, p. 293
Kouky Fianu
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00547


The juridical role of the English chancery in late-medieval law and literacy, p. 313
Timothy Haskett
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00548


Conclusion, p. 333
Claude Gauvard
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00549

Citation preview

Fédération Internationale des Instituts d'Études Médiévales TEXTES ET ÉTUDES DU MOYEN ÂGE, 6

ÉCRIT ET POUVOIR DANS LES CHANCE LLERIES MÉDIÉVA LES : ESPACE FRANÇA IS, ESPACE ANGLAIS

LOUVAIN-LA -NEUVE 1997

FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DES INSTITUTS D'ÉTUDES MÉDIÉVALES

Président: L.E. BOYLE (Préfet de la Bibliothèque Vaticane)

Vice-Président : L. HOLTZ (Directeur de l'Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes, Paris)

Membres du Comité: J.K. MCCONICA (Director of the Pontifical Institut of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto) C. LEONARD! (Président de la Società Internazionale perle Studio del Medioevo Latino, Firenze) C.N.J. MANN (Director of the Warburg Institute, London) Â. RINGBOM (Institute of Medieval Studies of the Âbo Akademi, Turku) L. WENGER (The Medieval Academy, Cambrigde, MA)

Secrétaire et Editeur responsable : J. HAMESSE (Institut Supérieur de Philosophie, Louvain-la-Neuve)

Trésorier: A. SPEER (Thomas-Institut, Küln)

Fédération Internationale des Instituts d'Études Médiévales TEXTES ET ÉTUDES DU MOYEN ÂGE, 6

ÉCRIT ET POUVOIR DANS LES CHANCELLERIES MÉDIÉVALES : ESPACE FRANÇAIS, ESPACE ANGLAIS

Actes du colloque international de Montréal, 7-9 septembre 1995

édités par Kouky FIANU et DeLloyd J. GUTH

LOUVAIN-LA- NEUVE 1997

Tous droits de traduction, de reproduction et d'adaptation réservés pour tous pays. Copyright© 1997 Fédération Internationale des Instituts d'Études Médiévales Collège Cardinal Mercier Place du Cardinal Mercier, 14 B 1348 LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE D/1997/7243/l

SOMMAIRE

Avant-propos ................................................................................................... vii D.J. GUTH, Introduction: Formulary and literacy as keys to unlocking late-medieval law .................................................................................... 1 E. LALOU, Chancellerie et Hôtel à l'époque de Philippe le Bel ..................... 13 D.A. CARPENTER, The English royal chancery in the thirteenth century ....... 25 W.M. ORMROD, Accountability and collegiality: The English royal secretariat in the mid-fourteenth century .............................................. 55 M. DESJARDINS, Les savoirs des notaires et secrétaires du roi et la géographie de la France d'après le manuel d'Odart Morchesne et un index de chancellerie ....................................................................... 87 S. LUSIGNAN, Quelques remarques sur les langues écrites à la chancellerie royale de France ............................................................... 99 O. GUYOTJEANNIN, Super omnes thesauros rerum temporalium : les fonctions du Trésor des chartes du roi de France (Xrve-xve siècles) ................................................................................................ 109 A.L. MURRAY, The Scottish chancery in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries .............................................................................................. 133 J. KERHERVÉ, Les registres des lettres scellées à la chancellerie de Bretagne sous le règne du duc François II (1458-1488) ..................... 153 S. QUÉRÉ, Qu 'il plaise au roi faire bailler lettres patentes ... : les états de Languedoc et la chancellerie royale française (XIVe-xye siècles) ... 205

Vl

M. HÉBERT, Etats de Provence et chancellerie royale aux XIVe et XVe siècles .................................................................................................. 223 J.-L. BONNAUD, Le processus d'élaboration et de validation des comptes de clavaire en Provence au xrve siècle .............................................. 241 J. DRENDEL, Localism and literacy: Village chancelleries in fourteenth century Provence ................................................................................ 255

C.J. NEVILLE, Local perspectives and functions of the English chancery's legal instruments in the later Middle Ages: The AngloScottish border lands .......................................................................... 269 C. GAUVARD, Les clercs de la Chancellerie royale française et l'écriture des lettres de rémission aux xrve et xve siècles ............................... 281 K. FIANU, Détecter et prouver la fausseté au Parlement de Paris à la fin du Moyen Age .................................................................................... 293 T. HASKETT, The juridical role of the English chancery in late-medieval law and literacy ................................................................................... 313 C. GAUVARD, Conclusion ............................................................................. 333

AV ANT-PROPOS

La rencontre dont les actes sont ici publiés a eu lieu dans le cadre des activités d'une équipe de recherche basée à l'Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) et composée des professeurs M. Hébert, S. Lusignan, J. Drendel et K. Fianu. Les travaux de cette équipe, subventionnés par le fonds pour la Formation des chercheurs et l'aide à la recherche (FCAR, Québec), sont consacrés à la« Genèse de l'État dans l'espace français à la fin du Moyen Age : communications et société politique ». Le colloque luimême a été organisé conjointement par K. Fianu, D.J. Guth, M. Hébert, S. Lusignan, E. Omato et S. Quéré. L'événement, qui a profité de l'accueil et des locaux de l'UQAM, a en outre bénéficié du soutien du Centre de coopération interuniversitaire franco-québécois et de la participation de l'unité de recherche «Culture, politique et société en Europe» du Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Paris, UMR 9963). Cet ouvrage, quant à lui, n'aurait pu voir le jour sans l'aide financière de l'Université du Québec à Montréal et de la Faculté des arts de l'Université d'Ottawa dont les comités de publication ont bien voulu soutenir notre entreprise. Nous tenons également à souligner la contribution du fonds FCAR (Québec) ainsi que du Conseil de recherche en sciences humaines du Canada. Que tous ces organismes trouvent ici l'expression de notre gratitude. Enfin, nous voulons remercier Norbert Desautels qui a généreusement et efficacement partagé son temps et son expertise lors de la mise en forme finale du manuscrit.

Kouky Fianu (Université d'Ottawa) DeLloyd J. Guth (Université du Manitoba) Mars, 1997

DELLOYDJ.GUTH (University of Manitoba)

INTRODUCTION: FORMULARY AND LITERACY AS KEYS TO UNLOCKING LATE-MEDIEVAL LAW

Can a Poet doubt the Visions of Jehovah? Nature has no Outline: but Imagination has. Nature has no Tune: but Imagination has! Nature has no Supematural & dissolves: Imagination is Eternity. 1 With his usual apocalyptical aplomb, William Blake offers a revelation that destroys late-medieval certitudes about form and matter. Unless the human creates the form, by the power of imagination, matter has no outline, possesses no recognisable tune, is bereft even of a supematural location. Against this was late-medieval Aristotelian dualism, which saw form inherent in matter, essence shaping existence, nature possessing its own outlines and tunes, independent of human imagination. 2 In this way the latemedieval Christian soul was said to be the unique, immortal spirit of life, imbuing the individuated material embodiment that constituted the whole person, rent asunder only at death. In the words of the Elisabethan poet, Edmund Spenser (1552-99): For of the soul the body form doth take: For soul is form, and doth the body make. 3

1 W. BLAKE, "The Ghost of Abel," in The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake [1757-1827], ed. D.V. ERDMAN, New York, 1988, p. 270. 2 J.A.

WEISHEIPL, "The Interpretation of Aristotle's Physics and the Science of Motion," in The Cambridge His tory of Later Medieval Philosophy . .. 1100-1600, ed. N. KRETZMANN, A. KENNY, and J. P!NBORG, Cambridge, 1982, pp. 524-525; and, J. MARENBON, Later Medieval Philosophy (1150-1350), London, 1987, pp. 96.lf. 3 E. SPENSER, "An Hymne in Honour of Beautie," in The Works of Edmund Spenser, A Variorum Edition, The Minor Poems, vol. I, ed. C.G. ÜSGOOD and H.G. GIBBONS, Baltimore, 1943, p. 207, lines 132-134.

D. J. GUTH

2

No late-medieval person would allow that the soul could be a human construct. And by logical and rational extensions the Aristotelian dualism, with its presumptions of formai inherency, became the form for all that mattered to late-medieval understandings of the natural order. But did this extend to law, in particular to fifteenth-century English common law? If so, what was deemed its form, and what was its matter? The answer to the first appears to be simple. For late-medieval English common law the word 'form' was identifiable most often with 'forms of action' and with legal formularies in general: those instrumental devices, such as standard form writs, warrants, or wills, which fixed a word order that validated some specific human action as lawful. 4 But where or what was the legal matter, which such forms might be said to shape, infuse, activate? To answer this, and to find the forms, all legal and linguistic roads inexorably led into, and out of, the late-medieval royal Chancery. There the Aristotelian dualism, of form inhering in matter, did not appear to apply; and Blake's vision seemed more appropriate, that forms, in this case legal formularies, were creatures ofhuman imagination and necessity. That explicitly and emphatically was the view of the English common law's foremost contemporary commentator and apologist, Sir John Fortescue (1394-1476). In his De Laudibus Legum Anglie, he employed the standard literary device, or form, of a teacher-student dialogue. The student was fili regis, the royal son and heir, while even more significantly the authoritative teacher was the royal Chancery's highest officer, the cancellarius. Early in the treatise, at Chapter VIII, Fortescue has the chancellor assure the prince that the common law was not mysterious and in fact readily accessible. He began by quoting Aristotle (Physics, Book 1), that knowledge of anything must be based on the search for principles, causes, and elements. Principles sunt quedam universalia que in legibus Anglie docti similiter et mathematici maximas vacant, retorici paradoxas, et civilisti regulas iuris denominant [are certain universals which those leamed in the laws of England, like mathematicians, call maxims, as also rhetoricians identify paradoxes and civil lawyers rules of law]. Legal principles are objects of knowledge acquired through induction by way of sentient experience and memory [induccione via sensus et memorie adipiscuntur], not by reason, argument or logic. Only after one intuited the principles, as maxims of the law, did reason enter the epistemological process, to guide one to a knowledge of the law' s final

4 F.W. MAITLAND,

The Forms of Action at Common Law, Cambridge, 1948; and, J.H. BAKER, An Introduction ta English Legal History, 3rd ed., London, 1990, chapter 4; S.F.C. MILSOM, Historical Foundations of the Common Law, London, 1969, chapter 2.

INTRODUCTION: FORMULARY AND LITERACY

3

causes, that is, to an understanding of the sources and purposes of law. That forms were creatures oflegal necessities, Fortescue had no doubts. 5 But it was the manner with which Fortescue dismissed the form-matter dualism apropos law that was even more revealing, as at least one fifteenth century legal-juridical perspective. Aside from principles and causes, Fortescue deliberatelyasserted: in legibus, vero, non sunt materia et forma ut in phisicis et compositis [in the laws, indeed, there is no matter and form, as in physical things and in manufactured things]. He next confused both himself and his reader by losing his usual definitional precision, showing that he could not quite shake himself free of that late-medieval Aristotelian formmatter dualism: sed tamen sunt in eis elementa quedam unde ipse profluunt ut ex materia et forma, que sunt consuetudines, statuta, et ius nature, ex quibus sunt omnia iura regni ut ex materia et forma sunt queque naturalia et ut ex literis que eciam elementa appellantur sunt omnia que leguntur [But nevertheless there are in them, i.e., the laws, certain elements from which they proceed like matter and form, such as customs, statutes, and the law of nature, from which all laws of the realm proceed as natural things do out of matter and form, just as all that we read cornes out of letters, which are also called elements]. Fortescue's analysis next made the study of law an analogue to the study of language, by telling the prince: sufficiet tibi ut in grammatica tu profecisti eciam et in legibus tu proficias. Grammatice, vero, perfeccionem que ex Etimolegia, Ortographia, Prosodia, et Diasentestica . .. [it is sufficient for you to progress in the laws as you have in grammar. Perfection, indeed, in grammar is from etymology, spelling, metrical verse, and syntax ... ].6 Fascinating as Fortescue's analogy was, the focus here must be on what he missed, regarding form and matter in the law. If he had seen the matter of the law as existing in its maxims, or principles, such as in regards to real and persona! properties, to obligations inclusive of contracts and delicts (torts), and to procedural rules, then he might have made sense of, and found an epistemological role for, that multiplicity of formularies which his chance Il or' s Chancery produced and which gave practical, technical,

5 J. FORTESCUE,

Sir John Fortescue: De Laudibus Legum Anglie, ed. S.B. CHRIMES, Cambridge, 1942, Chapter VIII, pp. 20-21. It is tempting to suggest that we also need to explore the historical relevance for law, beyond Aristotelian rationalism, of late medieval Nominalism, with its focus on universals as mere names and constructs, when analysing legal formulary and the legal penchant for typologies, as well as the relevance of late medieval Voluntarism, with its focus on individual accountability for acts, in and out of earthly courts and at the gates of the Christian heaven. 6 Ibid.,

pp. 20-23.

4

D. J. GUTH

applicable shapes to such maxims, principles and rules. Instead, like most lawyers then and now, Fortescue operated too narrowly from a definition of law that made the substantive customs, statutes and precedential cases the matter of common law without including, or even acknowledging, the forms by which such substantive and adjectival (i.e., procedural) laws were realised. The very soul of law was in its forms, which activated the particular matter of law, allowing the litigant access to it. Fortescue did not see this and, in mitigation, few if any English common law commentators before and since have done so. If he had, he would have salvaged intact his commitment to Aristotle's dualism, while leaving the door open to Blake's human imagination and its capacity for creating an endless variety of new legal forms, insofar as the contemporary matter of the common law allowed. It is impossible to think about legal-juridical processes without formularies. They are the tools produced by reason-based systems for peaceful dispute resolution. And as the modem philosopher William James stated: "The actual universe is a thing wide open, but rationalism makes systems, and systems must be closed."7 Such was the reality of the fifteenthcentury English royal Chancery that Fortescue's chancellor presided over. So narrow was his focus for law that at no point in De Laudibus Legum Anglie, or any other ofhis writings, did Fortescue even mention the Chancery perse, much less its secretarial and juridical functions. lt offered closed systems for both functions, but only in the sense that all institutions exist within selfdefined or imposed jurisdictional limits. lt was the formularies, particularly the 'forms of action' as translated into original and judicial writs, that opened both Chancery functions to ordinary users. This in turn made both common law and equity processes, within the English royal judicial system, accessible to litigants in both civil and criminal pleadings. And there was a vital third Chancery function, the training in the formularies for future lawyers and court clerks, which enhanced its secretarial and juridical functions.

By Fortescue's life-time, then, the late-medieval Chancery was a mature and tripartite royal, central, common law institution. Its name was definitively associated with its three functions: writing, adjudicating, teaching. Whenever one needed a written (in Latin) royal intervention, be it a writ within the three common law courts, a letters patent or close, a charter, pardon, licence, inquisition, bond, indenture, etc., you went to the Chancery. For whatever petitory complaint (in the vemacular) against a defendant that one preferred to make directly to the king, outside that procedure by writ which took one into his courts of King's Bench, Common

7 W. JAMES, Pragmatism: A New Name for Sorne Old Ways of Thinking, London, 1907, p. 27.

INTRODUCTION: FORMULARY AND LITERACY

5

Pleas or Exchequer, you went to the Chancery. And for whatever training one desired in all those scribal skills associated with these two other functions, you went to the Inns of Chancery. The peoples of late-medieval England lived a memento mari culture, visited by cyclical onslaughts of plague and other epidemic diseases that made urgent the possession of written records for all of their proprietary and transferential transactions. With its communities restricted to supplying formal schooling only to those connected with religious and commercial élites, and in networks of intensely localised societies where the norm was in orally defined relationships between individuals, it was no exaggeration to locate England's fifteenth-century royal Chancery as its body and soul for literacy. In stark contrast to France, England's evidence shows no "village chanceries" 8 or local document-drafting centres outside of its royally centralised monopoly over official secular record-making, in three languages: Latin, French and English. Lacking such evidence, we can only assume that such litera! services were supplied by solo practitioners, trained locally, or in one ofLondon's Inns of Chancery. Any humanist would have cringed (reculer) at the medieval Latin that was corrupted to suit enrolment and common law conveniences. No Parisian would understand the common law's pleading language identified as Law French, which was primarily intended for a strictly oral purpose and only secondarily to be written down in the Year Books. But at least the two vemacular languages, French before the mid-fifteenth century and English after, that were used within Chancery for more persona! royal communications, (e.g., under privy seal or signet) and for juridical documents (e.g., plaintiffs petition and replication, defendant's answer and rejoinder) set a relatively high standard for orthography, grammar and syntax. Indeed, several scholars of literature put the fifteenth-century Chancery at the centre of the transition to a modem English that made possible the great flowering of poetry, prose and drama a century later. 9 The point for such contextual thoughts is to locate the centrality of formulary in all three functions of Chancery. If the matter of law is in its universalising principles, maxims and rules, that will be as true for oral customary systems as it is for written case-based common law and for strictly statutory régimes and for codified systems. Oral formulary, such as in ritual and recitation, can be even more fixed than litera! formulary, if only because 8 As

in Provence, which J. Drendel reconstructs in his essay in this book.

9 J.H. FISHER, "Chancery and the Emergence of Standard Written English in the Fifteenth Century," in Speculum, LII (1977); and, M. RICHARDSON, "Henry V, the English Chancery, and Chancery English," in Speculum, LV (1980).

6

D.J.GUTH

writing requires interpretation whereas oral declarations are just that. 10 In late-medieval mentalité, where music, poetry and Christian liturgy dictated lyrics, prayers, chants and-in William Blake's sense-tunes, each was based on fixed immutable orderings of words and cadences. If language is one prerequisite for law' s very existence, it is oral, then written, formulary that shapes language so as to give law an agenda, to transform the law's mere existence, as Aristotelian matter, into its customer controlled but preconstructed applications. Legal formularies met a full range of individuated necessities, from rights and remedies to protections provided by law. Thus, any single formulary identified the matter in law, defined its limits, categorised it, recognised the relevant rule, restricted its applicability to named parties, located the facts of time and space, implicitly proscribed certain persons from certain acts, and explicitly prescribed procedures for peaceful settlements, transfers, restorations, rewards, punishments, or recognitions. This satisfied five key needs for the formulary-user: predictability of process, prevention of arbitrariness, open access to the law' s closed system, lawful validation for actions or inactions, and-perhaps most importantly-royal record in the formulary itself and by way of its Chancery emolment or registration, or of its 'court ofrecord' certification. Central to Chancery's first function, as royal secretariat or scriptorium, were the original writs at common law, which activated the so-called 'forms of action'. Plaintiffs wishing to sue in one of the separate courts of King' s Bench, Common Pleas or Exchequer required the writ that would name the two parties and the type of complaint, before a court hearing could be assigned. All original writs de cursu were drafted in Chancery in the king's name, with the cursitor's signature in the lower right-hand corner, addressed to the county sheriff for execution and return. Having commenced the action in the proper form, all subsequent writs were known as judicial writs of mesne process, issued from and returned to the particular court, always in the king's name and addressed to the county sheriff, with the signature in the lower right-hand corner by a court filacer or its prothonotary. Both original and judicial writs were returnable legal-juridical mandates de recordo. 11

lO J. VANSINA, Oral Tradition as History, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985, for definitions, forms and types. 11 H.C. MAXWELL-LYTE, Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Sea! of England, London, 1926, pp. 330-1; T.F. TOUT, Chapters in the Administrative History of Mediaeval England. The Wardrobe, the Chamber and the Small Seals, 6 vols., Manchester, 1920-1933, vol. I, p. 133, citing "the increasing staff of scribes, clerks of the chape! and sergeants" from Remy II's reign (1154-1189), and vol. III, pp. 443-8, regarding Chancery reforms that led to

INTRODUCTION: FORMULARY AND LITERACY

7

Chancery and law courts supplied the form, aggrieved plaintiffs and judges provided the matter. There was a two-fold character and stage to the matter to be formed, or framed, by the original writ. The first matter was in the accusation that a litigitable act had occurred, which could activate the legal process. That was the jurisdictional job of the clerk, as writdrafter. The second matter was that of the law itself. While the clerk also did the initial screening, as to whether or not the law could be made to apply, it would be the judge who would make the actual application of law to the case. Formulary for original writs remained remarkably flexible, contrary to many non-archival scholars who have asserted that the slightest loss of literal exactness, in choice of words and in word-ordering, would non-suit a potential plaintiff. There certainly were requisite kinds of information (e.g., name, status, residence, date and place of alleged events) and a general ordering for their inclusion in the writ, with blatant omission a fatal flaw for the action. But anyone who has looked at and compared returned writs, skewered by cat-gut-thread and bundled in a rough parchment sheet five centuries ago, can attest to the wide variations in topical data and its ordering within the general writ formulary, that began with the royal invocation and end with the Teste. There is no evidence for any rigid fill-in-the-blank formulary, even for the most routine judicial writs; and the block printers appear to have never driven the scribes out of the early modem Chancery. The writs, even the charters and letters patent and close, were drafted from 'frame-work forms,' not from 'copy-forms.' After all, the last thing that clerks, who were paid by the number of lines written, would want was a rigid régime that might deprive them of customers. The late fifteenth century oath swom by clericis de cursu in Chancery revealed that security was the top priority in the system. All writs had to be carried unsealed into the law court by the drafting clerk himself or by a swom crown servant. The temptations for fraud, duplicity, destruction and forgery were always lurking in bureaucratie shadows. All clerical tasks were subjected to the discipline of the Chancellor or any of the Masters in Chancery. And the oath went on to prescribe careful examination of the parties by the clerk, no doubt prior to deciding which original writ was appropriate and what anecdotal information should go into its drafting. 12 By more clerks and attorneys during Richard II's reign (1377-1399); and, B. WILKINSON, The Chancery under Edward III, Manchester, 1929, pp. 74.ff., regarding classification of commanders and examiners of writs as clerks of the first grade, responsible for each writ's accuracy and appropriateness. 12 Public Record Office, London, C193/l, folio 77 verso; this 'Precedent Book,' circa 1485-1511, actually retains the oath in French, which 1 have paraphrased in English. Similar books are C193/142 and 143, while other parchment rolls offering fifteenth century original

8

D.J.GUTH

possessing the power to ask the preliminary questions of the potential plaintiff, Chancery clerks controlled the transition point from oral to literal formularies, which meant that they also controlled the definitional application of the law itself. They did so by exercising a duty in every drafted writ to fill in the 'frame-work form,' applying their expertise, both for the law and for the ability to know how much of the plaintiffs story's needed to go into his or her particular writ. In Early Registers of Writs from the later thirteenth century, the form could be simple, direct and loaded with procedural information, as in this writ of inquisition for trespass:

The King to the sheriff, greeting. We command you diligently to inquire, by the oath of trusty and lawful men from your county by whom the truth of the matter can best be known, which evildoers and disturbers of our peace insulted A._at N._and beat, wounded and ill-treated him, and inflicted other outrages upon him, to the heavy damage of the said A._ and against our peace. And you shall send us without delay, under your seal and the seals of those by whom it was made, the inquisition clearly and openly made day, and this writ. Witness [by myself at Westminster this _ 13 etc.]. Where would any scribe, in or out of Chancery, who drafted such a text for a plaintiff, get the precise details of persons, places and alleged events? Who knew which forms for due process, step-by-step, needed to be mapped out for this particular case? that the law needed to convene sworn truth-witnesses in cases of trespass? that a physical assault qualified as a trespass? that damage must be claimed? that the sheriff must officially seal and return the results, covered by the original writ authorising the inquisition? The same writ in that same writ register (Bodleian 'R') is followed immediately by a list of no less than eleven variants to the above writ's formulary, vel sic, aliter (or thus, otherwise). The list includes adaptable textual versions that the writ-drafter can use if the evildoers are: thieving house-breakers, tree-removers, pasture-invaders, hay-stealers, swan-killers,

and judicial writ forms include E163/8/23, E163/1/27, E163/6/l 7, and E163/22/2/85 (esp. folio 46 recto and verso, offering a fascinating flow-chart for civil pleadings and requisite writs). 13 Early

Registers of Writs, ed. E. DE HAAs and G.D.G. HALL, Selden Society, LXXXVII, London, 1970, pp. 171-172. Throughout the late medieval, pre-Reformation era there was no single, basic register, growing over time; therefore, each one that survives is un official and ad hoc in terms of the order in which the writs are presented, but the generic formulary for each type of writ was certain and official.

INTRODUCTION: FORMULARY AND LITERACY

9

house-demolishers, animal-rustlers, aqueduct-destroyers, rabbit or fishpond poachers! We can imagine how a writ-drafter could use such a register. First find the generally appropriate category of writ, i.e., trespass, based on what the plaintiff alleges. With that generic text, next seek the register's further guidance to wordings that will help to frame the plaintiff s alleged particulars, given any other (aliter) variants allowable by law, e.g., cana general trespass formulary be expanded to poaching or house-breaking? If the writ-drafter's vademecum register does not supply the exact wording for the required variant of a trespass writ, past experience and even a "try it and see" wording may have to do. Finally, the writ-drafter or clerk must decide how much of the plaintiff s idiosyncratic information about his unique victimisation will fit within the writ's strictly limited textual length and strip-sized parchment. If it is the Chancery clerks, not the lawyers or judges, who controlled access to the common law, how did they inform day-to-day dozens of decisions demanded by prospective plaintiffs, a significant number of whom could probably be discouraged from proceeding? Paul Brand has recently, superbly synthesised the pre-1400 formulary literature, copies of which laterfifteenth-century clerks undoubtedly used. 14 What all such later literature revealed, and especially the numerous writ registers from Fortescue's lifetime, was that the formulary book was first and foremost not a copy-book but a "how-to" guide. For example, B.L. Lansdowne Ms. 467 (circa 1276-8) offered the texts of original writs in French, followed by examples of how to argue (count) for and against the action. Even more fascinating, registers of a later dateed offer three crucial types of references to show how technically knowledgeable in the law a writ-drafting clerk had to be: (1) a self-styled casus, being an anecdote illustrating the correct use of the specific writ, was occasionally supplied alongside the writ's text; (2) the regula, often on a line just below the writ, offering direct citation, for example, to a parliamentary statute, as authority for the legal rule appropriate to the writ; and, (3) the nota, offering any precedential point concerning the writ's usage. The well-known Brevia Placitata (circa 1260), also in French, surveyed types of actions available at common law and then offered specimen counts and defences. The Modus Componendi Brevia (circa 1286) was a simple guide as to which actions and writs were appropriate to specific problems and any exceptions. The arrival of the Natura Brevium manual, after 1285, led to a steady flow of such copied compilations of original and judicial writ texts. All such literature utilised actual actions from actual writs, not some

14 P. BRAND, "The Beginnings of English Law Reporting," in Law Reporting in Britain, ed. C. STEBBINGS, London, 1995, chapter 1, for pre-1300 literature; and, ID., "Courtroom and Schoolroom: The Education of Lawyers in England Prior to 1400," in The Making of the Common Law, London, 1992, chapter 3.

10

D.J.GUTH

concocted modular hypotheticals or any "A" blank plus "B" blank sort of generic, analogical thinking.15 Cambridge University Library has several splendid fifteenth-century writ registers, perhaps the most stunningly illuminated of all being Ms. Dd. vi. 89. Here one often finds a regula, explicating the legal rule governing usage for that particular type of writ: "And note that the aforesaid writ [de magna assisam eligenda] is a judicial writ and returnable in the King's Bench, and not in Chancery when the pleading is in the King's Bench." (j. 9 recto) 16 Often the writ were brutally abbreviated and elided, making it a difficult model for copying. At the Public Record Office, a thirteenth century roll provided texts for writs of entry, recovery, execution, etc., with initials-only for names and locations of litigants, and no regula or casus offered. But C.A.F. Meekings was able to match many of these writs with Bracton 's NoteBook, reinforcing the point that it was function that mattered most, not slavish adherence to literary structure and ordering. 17 If we move out of Chancery's scriptural function, with its writ registers and precedent books, and look briefly at its separate juridical function, as a court of equity, we see how flexible the petitions, answers, replications, and rejoinders were drafted for litigants. Here we can never be certain of how much in-house drafting occurred, if any, and only Timothy Haskett offers our best hope for an authoritative answer. 18 Whether drafted usually in French in

15 Ibid.; also in the British Library, Manuscripts Room, MS. Stowe 409 (Registrum Brevium, circa Edward !-Henry VI), MS. Harleian 400, MS. Harleian 402, and MS. Harleian 5 provide examples of the casus, regula, and nota entries. Such registers must have been available for Chancery clerks, as well as for lawyers, if only because they survive so routinely in the Chancery, Exchequer, and private collections. The Brevia Placitata (circa 1260), ed. G.J. TuRNER and T.F.T. PLUCKNETT, Selden Society, LXVI, 1951; the Modus Componendi Brevia (circa 1285), in Latin, ed..E. WOODBINE, Four 13th Century Law Tracts, New Haven, Conn., 1910; and the Natura Brevium (post 1285), is available, according to P. BRAND, "Courtroom and Schoolroom," p. 64, note 38, in varions mss. in the Harvard Law Library, British Library and Cambridge University Library. 16 Other Cambridge University Library examples are MSS. Add. 3478 and 6854, for original writs, and MSS. Add. 3129, folios 229-251 recto, 3445 and 3469, folios 112-142 recto, for judicial writs.

17 PRO, El 63/1/27, Exchequer Miscellany; the handwritten notes of Mr. Meekings, the PRO's expert medievalist and archivist, are on paper, inside the oil-cloth covering ofthis small parchment roll, initialed and dated "CAM 11/10/52;" and, Bracton 's Note Book: A Collection of Cases Decided in the King's Courts during the Reign of Henry the Third, ed. F.W. MAITLAND, 3 vols., London, 1887.

18 See his essay in this book and his several supporting articles cited there.

INTRODUCTION: FORMULARY AND LITERACY

11

the first half of the fifteenth century, or in English thereafter, those who drafted such partisan instruments clearly knew how to tell a story, no doubt when to embellish, and all within a loose petitory form. It routinely recited rational es for why the plaintiff had to proceed at equity and could not do so at common law, by way of the secretarial side of Chancery's writ system. Again, there was no contradiction in mixing the client's need for vemacular and anecdotal flexibility with the system' s need for a more universalising formulary. And beyond writs and petitions, the same had to be said for charters, licences, even pardons, where the clerk was free to adapt form to circumstance. One can only admire the intellectual substance and agility of a latemedieval Chancery clerk. They did the advisory work with potential litigants, at common law and at equity, that only gradually became the work of earlymodem solicitors. And this insight takes us back to Chancery's third function: teaching. Here we return to Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Anglie, this time at Chapter XLIX, for a reference en passant to the hms of Chancery in London. He counted ten such hms, asserting that none had less than a hundred students at any given time. These thousand and more young men trained themselves by "learning the originals [forms] and something of the elements [matter] of law" [ ... originalia et quasi legis elementa addiscentes]. That was all that he wrote about the hms of Chancery, moving directly in the next line to the four hms of Court, where the case law pleaders were trained. But Fortescue tantalised his reader once more, by writing that students in both types of hms also were taught noble manners: music appreciation and singing, dancing, reading the Bible and the chronicles. The message was clearly about character-building, as he said: to cultivate virtue and banish vice.19 And to what purposes, if not to produce the intellectual base for the sound judgments needed at the front, entry-level of the legal-juridical systems which these future clerks would control? Memorisation and copy-book tasks were not the end but only the beginning of the skills that the formulary literature demanded. One must leam the rules associated with each writ and be able to adapt an orally expressed tale of woe to a petitory form, without removing its legal significance. And who were the teachers in those hms of Chancery? Dr. Brand has already documented the roles of Chancery officiais 19 J. FORTESCUE, supra note 5; but see also the strong evidence for university training that offered "a fruitful combination of legal and practical education with the academic disciplines of granunar and rhetoric," as well as training in the ars dictaminis, literally "the art of correctly composing letters ... useful to men needing secretarial skills" for administrative employment, in The His tory of the Universi~v of Oxford: Late Medieval Oxford, vol. Il, ed. J.I. CATTO and R. EVANS, Oxford, 1992, pp. 523-526.

12

D.J.GUTH

before 1400 in numerous training exercises. But we thus far lack any records from these Inns of Chancery, unlike the relative wealth of Inns of Court records. Even without such extant evidence, and even allowing for exaggeration by Fortescue about thousands of Inns of Chancery students, presumably most of whom went out or returned home to England's cities, boroughs and countryside, we must at least attempt to account for what new skills they could apply, regardless of how much or how little time they

actually spent at such an Inn. The short answer must be that, at the very least, they could thereafter fill in the 'framework forms,' whether for Latin writs or vernacular petitions. That required a relative and extraordinarily high level of literate sophistication. By recognising this reality we begin to see that studying the actual formularies may well provide the basic key for unlocking the Chancery's door, to better understand its three functional tasks. Having begun this Introduction with a quote from William Blake, a more modern poet having a medieval temperament, allow me to end with an even more modern writer who possesses an equally prophetic vision concerning form and matter. The basis for the grinding horror of Franz Kafka's The Trial, 1 now realise, is that the legal-juridical process that ultimately executes K. is one utterly devoid offorms. Kafka's nightmare cornes from confronting a system that allows no forms, hence no definable due process of law: only an endlessly shapeless, unpredictable, inaccessible world of unarticulated charges. The Trial takes place in several private residences, there are no public records, and all that matters are one's personal connections with court officials. They reject the need to read the "Latin-crammed" law or to submit any evidence, because the judge's individual experience is the only source for judgment. No writs, no charters, no laws! No form, no matter! Kafka makes legal form-less-ness turn the power of Blake's human imagination upsidedown and inside-out. 20 lt is all the more reason for us to celebrate latemedieval chanceries and the integrity of form and matter by which they have secured 'due process' for our modern Anglo-French legal traditions in Canada.

°

2 F. KAFKA, The Trial, New York, 1968.

ELISABETH LALOU

(C.N.R.S., Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes, Paris)

CHANCELLERIE ET HÔTEL À L'ÉPOQUE DE PHILIPPE LE BEL

Je souhaite ici m'interroger sur la place de la chancellerie dans sa relation à l'Hôtel sous le règne de Philippe le Bel (1285-1314), donc à la fin du XIIIe siècle et au début du xrve siècle. La chancellerie fait-elle partie de l'Hôtel ? Si c'est le cas, dans quelle mesure participe-t-elle à la vie de !'Hôtel, ou à ses dépenses. Prend-elle une forme d'indépendance ? Quelles en sont les raisons ? Voici quelques-unes des questions de départ. Toutes ces questions sont loin de ressortir de la simple et abstraite histoire administrative: au contraire les réponses que l'on peut trouver sousentendent la façon dont on «voit» l'Hôtel, c'est-à-dire la vie de la cour royale et du gouvernement royal, en cette période où les institutions sont encore très mouvantes et peu stabilisées. A l'époque carolingienne, «la chancellerie et l'archichancelier lui-même étaient vis-à-vis de l'archichapelain dans une position de subordination » 1. L'archichapelain était le supérieur hiérarchique du personnel de la chancellerie, clercs recrutés parmi les chapelains. Même lorsque l'archichancelier se fut émancipé de la chapelle, «le caractère ecclésiastique des notaires et du personnel de la chancellerie entraînait une union intime entre les deux services ». Ce qui explique qu'Hincmar souligne la subordination de l'archichancelier au chapelain cui sociabatur summus cancellarius 2 • Cette situation explique que dans le Palais des Carolingiens germaniques, le même homme fut longtemps chancelier et chapelain, situation qui, nous l'avons vu, existe encore à la chancellerie écossaise.

1 G. TESSIER,

Diplomatique royale française, Paris, 1962, p.56; J. FLECKENSTEIN, Die Hopkape/le der deutschen Konige, Stuttgart, 1959 (Schrifien des Monumenta Germaniae historica, 16). 2 De

ordine pa/atii, éd. M. PROU, ch. 16, p. 42.

E.LALOU

14

Nous ne nous trouvons plus évidemment dans le même cas de figure à la fin du xme siècle. Bien que manque une histoire de la chapelle royale 3 , les liens entre la chapelle et la chancellerie ne sont plus si intimes que sous les Carolingiens. Reste toutefois un lien ténu, mais très matériel : le trésorier de la chapelle du Palais à Paris fournit le parchemin pour le service de l'Hôtel et des diverses chambres (dont la Chambre des comptes) ainsi qu'au Parlement4 • Il a d'ailleurs des problèmes pour obtenir l'argent des trésoriers à qui l' audiencier de la Chancellerie versa, à partir de 1317, la somme de 400 f parisis par an destinées précisément à l'achat du parchemin. Un acte plus tardif de 1317 nous intéresse ici spécialement dans l'énumération qui est faite des destinataires du parchemin :

dilectus noster thesaurarius capelle nostre domus regalis Parisius qui de pergameno quod in Parlamento, Camera compotorum nostrorum Parisius, Camera quoque denariorum Hospitii nostri ac eciam in eodem Hospicio et alibi per notarios et alios clericos nostros annuatim expenditur, habet annis singulis providere. La Chancellerie n'est pas citée de façon explicite mais est donc incluse dans Hospicium, du moins c'est mon hypothèse 5• Dans l'ordonnance un peu plus tardive de Philippe V prise pour le profit du roi et le gouvernement de son hôtel6 il est précisé que ledit chancelier comptera en la Chambre des comptes des emolumenz de la chancelerie et en marge est ajouté : Item soit ce fait du tresorier de la chapelle du parchemin, ou il soit delivré et acheté, par les genz des comptes. 7 La Chancellerie a donc depuis longtemps pris son indépendance de la Chapelle. Les relations entre les différents services de la cour du roi se posent à vrai dire sous Philippe le Bel en termes entièrement nouveaux. Le XIIIe siècle a été un creuset dont les métaux en fusion n'ont laissé malheureusement que peu de traces - pour l'organisation du gouvernement

3 C. BILLOT prépare actuellement une histoire de la sainte chapelle parisienne. 4 O. MOREL,

La grande chancellerie royale et /'expédition des lettres royaux de /'avènement de Philippe de Valois à /afin du XIV" siècle (1328-1400), Paris, 1900, p.j. p. 485. 5 Paris, A. N., V2 1. Copie du XVI0 siècle portant extraict des registres de la Chambre des comptes en vertu de la requeste presentee a maistres Martin Boyer et ... notaires et secretaires du roy et procureurs du co/lege desdiz notaires et secretaires. Debaugy (éd. par O. MOREL, ibid).

6 Paris, 7

A. N., K 40, n° 23 : Pontoise, 18 juillet 1318 et Longchamp, 10 juillet 1319.

Et à la suite Item le mestre escuyer le roy compte ausi di sejour et montre delivrance des chevaux que il achete.

CHANCELLERIE ET HÔTEL À L'ÉPOQUE DE PHILIPPE LE BEL

15

royal et de !'Hôtel du roi. Sous Philippe le Bel, de plus en plus nettement au cours du règne, émerge une nouvelle organisation de la Cour du roi. A la fin XIIIe siècle, la Curia regis s'effiloche, si j'ose dire. Elle n'est plus le gouvernement «resserré» qu'a étudié par exemple Bournazel 8 . Les différents services, le Conseil, le Parlement, le Trésor, prennent leur indépendance. Dans ce mouvement général de « séparation » des différentes institutions, il est intéressant de situer avec précision la Chancellerie et de savoir quelle était sa place au début du XIVe siècle. Georges Tessier donne à vrai dire une réponse simple et limpide à la question que je viens de poser : «Le chancelier et ses auxiliaires vivent dans l'intimité du roi, l'accompagnent dans ses déplacements, font partie de l'Hôtel royal (hospitium). Ce caractère d'officiers domestiques, ils le garderont après que la section judiciaire et la section financière de la Curia regis auront conquis leur autonomie et jusqu'à la fin de l'Ancien régime. »9 Je pourrais clore ici ma communication, ayant semble-t-il trouvé la conclusion dès le départ. Mais je souhaite nuancer cette affirmation ou plutôt l'expliciter. La chancellerie est « le service du sceau et le service des écritures royales » 10 • Elle est constituée du chancelier et des notaires, sans oublier le chauffe-cire. On voit dans les ordonnances de !'Hôtel par le détail l'organigramme de la chancellerie, ou au moins d'une partie de la chancellerie. Puisqu'ils apparaissent dans les ordonnances de !'Hôtel, garde du sceau et notaires appartiennent donc bien à l 'Hôtel. Dans la première ordonnance conservée, celle de ! 'Hôtel de saint Louis (datée de 1261), le garde du sceau n'est toutefois pas mentionné 11 • Peut-être est-ce le signe de son « humble » position : le titre de chancelier ayant disparu depuis la mort de Hugues du Puiset, chancelier de Philippe Auguste en 1185,

8 E. BOURNAZEL, Le gouvernement capétien au XII" siècle. 1108-1180. Structures sociales et mutations institutionnelles, Paris, 1975. 9 G. TESSIER, IO

op. cit., p. 127.

ID., Ibid.

11 Paris, B. N.F., fr. 7852, f. 2. et A. N., JI 57, f. 20. Sont seulement mentionnés parmi les clercs conseillers : le trésorier de Tours, 5 s. per diem ou le doyen de Saint-Aignan 4 s. par jour, mentionnés tous deux aussitôt après les chapelains et clercs de la chapelle. L'édition des ordonnances de ! 'Hôtel est en préparation par mes soins.

E.LALOU

16

et n'ayant été que temporairement porté par fr. Guérin, évêque de Senlis sous Louis VIIl 12 . Au contraire, dans l'ordonnance de l'Hôtel du 23 janvier 1286 13, au tout début du règne de Philippe le Bel, la chancellerie bénéficie d'un paragraphe autonome. L'ordonnance classe parmi les clercs cil qui porte le seel qui touche 7 s. de gages par jour. Dix notaires sont cités dans cette ordonnance. (Nicolas de Chartres, Robert de la Marche, Geoffroy Gorjut, Jean de Dijon, Jean Bequet, etc.). Ils sont cités deux par deux, cette énumération collant probablement au calendrier selon lequel ils étaient de service. S'il n'est pas douteux que les notaires et le chancelier sont alors étroitement liés à l'Hôtel, il ne faut pas oublier qu'apparaissent dans cette ordonnance de l'Hôtel, à côté des maîtres des plaids de la porte (ce qui est logique puisqu'ils sont rattachés eux aussi intimement à l'Hôtel), les clers de consei/ 14 ainsi que les portiers du Parlement. Dans cette ordonnance, il n'y a pas encore de coupure nette entre les institutions, ou plutôt la coupure est faite mais on traite encore la Curia regis comme un tout régi par la même ordonnance. Dans l'ordonnance de 1291 15 , est cité Li archediacres de Flandres qui porte le seel. Il est intéressant de noter que, comme Guillaume de Crépy, il mengera en son hotel quand il se trouve à Paris. Mais il est logique que dans ces textes où le souci primordial est de limiter le nombre de personnes mangeant à la cour et de faire des économies, le garde du sceau s'en aille chez lui quand il est proche de son domicile. Dans la liste des notaires qui suit, une distinction est faite entre ceux qui iront avec le roi (Guillaume d'Ercuis, Guillaume de Nongent, Jehan le Picart, clercs de sang16), ceux qui seront a Paris pour les registres et le Parlement (Nicolas de Chartres, Robert de la Marche), ceux qui seront avec le chancelier (Gieffroy Le Gorjut, Jehan Clersens, Jehan de Dyjon, maistre 12 C. PETIT-DUTAILLIS, Etude sur la vie et le règne de Louis VIII (1187-1226), Paris, 1894, p. 335. 13 Paris, A. N., JJ 57, f. 1. 14 Paris, A. N., JJ 57, f. 1: Maistre Gautier de Chambly, Mestre Guillaume de Poully, Maistre Jehan de Puiseus, Maistre Jehan de Morenciees, Maistre Gile Came/in, Mestre Jaque de Bou/oigne, Mestre Gui de Boy, Maistre Robert de Harecourt, Maistre Laurens Voisin, Maistre Jehan Le Duc, Maistre Ph. Suart, Maistre Gile Lambert, Mons. Robert de Senlis, fuit cil ne mengeront point a court et prendront chascuns 5 s. de gaiges quant il sont a court ou en Parlement, et leurs manteaus quant il seront aus /estes. Maistre Estiene de Lorris prendra ses manteaus quant il sera aus /estes. 15

Paris, A. N., JJ 57, f. lûv.

16 Ils

sont laïcs et ont la signature des lettres de sang dans les affaires criminelles.

CHANCELLERIE ET HÔTEL À L'ÉPOQUE DE PHILIPPE LE BEL

17

P. de Bourges, Nichole de Loncpré, Richart de Montdidier) qui ont des gages identiques a court et dehors et enfin Maistre Jehan Bequet, maistre Robert de Senlis, qui sont du Conseil aus Parlemens et ne prenront riens a court. Il existe donc dès cette époque une distinction assez nette pour le rédacteur de l'ordonnance, entre le notaire au service du roi (donc appartenant à l'Hôtel et recevant des gages ou des prestations en nature spécialement pour les chevaux) et les notaires servant dans les services déjà détachés de la Curia regis, en fait au Parlement, qui sont à part et ne grèvent pas le budget de l'Hôtel. Cette distinction est parfaitement visible dans les comptes de l'Hôtel sur tablettes de cire dans lesquels ne sont comptabilisés dès 1302-1303 que les notaires au service du roi ou ceux qui sont avec le garde du sceau17. L'ordonnance non datée mais qui est datable d'environ 1292 18 montre le premier état d'un paragraphe promis à une longue réutilisation. Dans cette courte ordonnance qui vise essentiellement à limiter certairls gages, le chancelier n'apparaît pas (ses gages ne sont pas modifiés) mais apparaît seulement le seel, donc la chancellerie qui aura chambre en l'hôtel du roi à côté des maîtres d'Hôtel, de la chambre aux deniers, des chapelains, du confesseur et de l'aumônier. Voici donc les six chambres de l'Hôtel telles qu'elles furent définies jusqu'en 1350. Cependant, en 1291-1292, de même qu'en 1306 19 , dans l'ordonnance suivante, le mot chambre a encore un sens matériel. L'ordonnance de 1306 reprend le même paragraphe et l'ordonnance de l'Hôtel de 131620 , du règne de Philippe V officialise cette nouvelle distirlction à l'intérieur même de l'Hôtel: les Métiers de l'Hôtel sont distincts des six chambres, dans un sens déjà à demi institutionnel. Ces six chambres sont donc toujours le confesseur, l'aumônier, la chapelle, les maîtres de l'Hôtel, la chambre aux deniers et la chancellerie. Cette distinction se retrouve dans les ordonnances postérieures en 1317, 1322 et 13 50 (le paragraphe répété avec de très faibles modifications dans ces trois ordonnances ne se trouvant pas

17 E. LALOU, Les comptes sur tablettes de cire de la chambre aux deniers de Philippe III le Hardi et de Philippe IV le Bel, 1282-1309, Paris, 1994. 18

Paris, B.n.F., lat. 12814, f. 67v.

19

Paris, A. N., JJ 57, f. 49-55v.

20

Paris, A. N., JJ 57, f. 57.

18

E.LALOU

dans l'ordonnance de 1328, qui doit le considérer comme connu)21 • Ces six chambres seront hebergiees par les fourriers le roy et n'auront nul autre fourrier pour eulz. Et leur sera livré par devers la fourriere ce qui leur appartendra a leurs chambres si comme il est devisé ci dessous sus chascun office22.

Chaque chambre a droit, à partir de ce moment, à un paragraphe particulier énumérant les droits et les gages de chacun. La chancellerie a alors son propre paragraphe : Le chancelier se il est prelat ne prendra riens a court et se il est simple clerc, il sera en l'estat que mons Guillaume de Nogaret estoit23 . Sont mentionnés ensuite les clercs des requêtes (de l 'Hôtel) puis les notaires. Ne sont mentionnés ici que les notaires suivanz le roy à savoir : un secretaire et deux autres dont l'un sera de sanc, et non plus que ses trois. Encore le secrétaire est-il hébergé à la cour, au plus près du roi, tandis que les autres deux notaires seront herbergiez devers ceus des requestes. Les notaires du Parlement ne sont plus mentionnés. L'ordonnance de 1306 mentionnait déjà le notaire du roy, Jehan Maillart, qui avait donc une charge identique à celle des secretaires de 1316 mais sans le nom. L'ordonnance de 1322 et encore celle de 1350 répètent ces même rubriques, à quelques changements près. De ce survol des ordonnances, on voit donc que le chancelier constitue une chambre à part avec ses notaires ou tout au moins une partie des notaires, ceux qui sont au service du roi et de l'Hôtel. Je sais bien que mon propos n'a rien de très neuf puisque Octave Morel indiquait déjà en 1900, que:

« Au début du XIVe siècle, se produit la grande réforme administrative : la Cour du roi se sectionne en plusieurs services distincts. Dès lors, les notaires ne sont plus employés seulement dans la Curia regis : les uns sont à la suite du roi, les autres en chancellerie, au Conseil, à la Chambre des comptes, au Parlement » 24 •

21 Ordonnance de 1317: Paris, B.n.F., fr. 7855, p. 225-242 et fr. 16 600, f. 237; ordonnance de 1322: Paris, B.n.F., coll. Clairambault 833, f. 661-709; ordonnance de 1328: Paris, B.n.F., fr. 7855, p. 433-445 ; ordonnance de 1350 : Paris, B.n.F., fr. 7855, p. 449. 22

Ordonnance de 1316: Paris, A. N., JJ 57, f. 57.

23

Idem.

24 O. MOREL,

op. cit., p. 385.

CHANCELLERIE ET HÔTEL À L'ÉPOQUE DE PHILIPPE LE BEL

19

Mais cette situation me semble engendrer une curieuse situation pour la personne du chancelier et la chancellerie. La chancellerie appartient donc à l'Hôtel mais finalement seulement en partie. C'est le chancelier qui (en 1320 par exemple) reçoit l'ordre de payer les gages des notaires. Les paiements sont faits per lifteras aut cedulas magistri Camere denariorum hospitii nostri : donc, la Chambre aux deniers qui gère l'Hôtel. On trouve encore en 1343 cet ordre de faire compte de leurs gaiges et manteaulx en nostre Chambre aux deniers tant du temps passé comme de celuy à venir25 • Donc les paiements de tous les notaires sont opérés par la chambre aux deniers - gestionnaire propre de l 'Hôtel - sous la férule du chancelier. Les gages et prestations touchés par le chancelier et les notaires suivent l'évolution des gages des gens de l'Hôtel. J'ai mentionné tout à l'heure le souci d'économie qui taraude les rédacteurs des ordonnances. Ce souci se reflète aussi dans la façon dont sont rétribués les officiers de la chancellerie. Avant 1321, le chancelier touche une bourse en chancellerie, des gages fixes en espèces et des prestations en nature. Lors de la réforme de 1321, la bourse et les prestations en nature sont supprimées, ses gages annuels passent de 3001360 f à 1000 f puis 2000 f quelques années après. Au xme siècle, les notaires reçoivent en espèces quelques deniers par jour et sont défrayés à l'Hôtel du roi. Au début du XIVe siècle, ce mode de rétribution subsiste : mais lorsqu'ils ne sont pas à la cour, ils reçoivent des gages plus forts en espèces, et les prestations en nature sont supprimées. Les notaires finissent par toucher 6 s. par. par jour. Le chauffe cire touche 13 d. par jour et est nourri à l'Hôtel. Plus tard, il touche 2 s. 6 d. par jour sans aucune prestation en nature. Il faut ajouter aux gages les droits de manteaux. Les notaires ont droit à deux manteaux d'une valeur de 100 s. chacun ; les chauffe-cire à deux robes de 50 s. chacune. Après 1321, probablement, le chancelier n'eut plus droit de manteaux 26 . Donc le Chancelier et quelques notaires appartiennent en propre à l'Hôtel : la chancellerie est une des chambres de l'Hôtel. Mais un nombre croissant de notaires échappent à l'Hôtel, vers le Parlement ou la Chambre des comptes. Mais de même qu'il se produit une différenciation dans le corps des notaires du roi, on peut voir déjà s'esquisser sous le règne de Philippe le Bel, une différence de nature dans le travail même du chancelier ou garde du sceau. Mon idée est que l'on peut mettre en regard l'apparition du 2 5 0. MOREL,

26

0.

MOREL,

op. cit., p. 487. op. cit., p. 487.

20

E.LALOU

«commun» au xme siècle au sein de !'Hôtel (désormais on est en présence au sein même de l'Hôtel, du roi et du commun, avec une partie «privée» de ! 'Hôtel et une partie « commune » ou publique) avec le scellement de certains actes de nature« privée» et d'autres - les actes du gouvernement scellés du grand sceau - de nature universelle ou publique. La chancellerie, parce qu'elle scelle un nombre d'actes de plus en plus nombreux qui sont du ressort des nouvelles institutions, se met à travailler de façon autonome et prend un part d'indépendance de l'Hôtel. Dès le règne de Philippe le Bel, existent à côté du grand sceau deux autres sceaux dont l'usage donne des indications intéressantes sur la nature même du pouvoir qui se joue dans l'écriture et le scellement des lettres : le sceau du secret et le signet. Philippe le Bel disposait à côté du grand sceau d'un sceau du secret, son sigillum secreti. Ce sceau de type armorial plus petit que le grand sceau servait à sceller de cire rouge. Il est utilisé au début pour sceller des lettres en l'absence du grand sceau, spécialement lorsque le roi est en voyage ou dans un lieu différent du garde du sceau. Le roi reste donc alors entouré d'un «secrétariat royal», de quelques notaires qui portent d'ailleurs bientôt le titre de clercs du secret - les futurs secrétaires - qui scellent les lettres qu'ils rédigent du sceau du secret27 • Il était utilisé aussi à côté du grand sceau pour ôter tout soupçon à propos du contenu de la lettre. Le sceau du secret sert aussi plus tard, sous Philippe VI, à expédier les lettres closes du roi, missives de caractère personnel ou de nature diplomatique. Enfin, il était utilisé spécialement (et on pourrait dire naturellement) pour les lettres qui concernaient l'Hôtel. Ce sceau était véritablement lié à l'Hôtel puisque en cette fin du XIne siècle, il était porté par le chambellan. Ce sceau fut, sous le règne de Philippe VI, spécialement utilisé en l'absence du grand sceau. Il était tant et si bien utilisé qu'une chancellerie du sceau du secret, comme en Angleterre, existait en 133728 • En 1332-1333, de la cire est achetée par la chancellerie pour le scellement des actes avec le grand sceau mais !'Hôtel, c'est-à-dire la Chambre aux deniers, achète aussi de son côté de la cire, destinée au scellement des actes par le sceau du secret29 . Sous Philippe VI étaient expédiées sous ce sceau du secret toutes les affaires touchant à la guerre et à la politique générale et tout ce en quoi le roi souhaitait échapper au contrôle de l'audience du sceau et du chancelier ainsi qu'aux gens des comptes. Ce sceau du secret et sa chancellerie, même si son 27

R.-H. BAUTIER, «Recherches sur la chancellerie royale au temps de Philippe VI», dans Bibliothèque de/ 'Ecole des Chartes, t. 122 (1964), p. 89-176 et t. 123 (1965), p. 313-459. 28 ID., 29 Pro

R.-H.

ibid. parvo sigillo secreti regis, 44 livres ou 21 kg 500 en six mois d'après soit suffisamment pour sceller 15000 actes par an.

BAUTIER,

CHANCELLERIE ET HÔTEL À L'ÉPOQUE DE PHILIPPE LE BEL

21

existence a été provisoire, était donc lié à la personne royale et à la Chambre aux deniers, donc à l'Hôtel. Il faut parler aussi du signet du roi, qui apparaît aussi sous Philippe le Bel. Il sert à sceller certaines lettres au contenu spécialement cher au roi ou pouvant provoquer fles problèmes, dons à des familiers, dérogations de paiement, etc. On en connaît à vrai dire bien peu d'exemples encore conservés. Ce signet, au début du xrve siècle, était porté par le roi en personne: il constituait l'émanation même de son pouvoir« personnel »30. On ne connaît qu'un seul acte scellé du signet sur lequel celui-ci soit encore entier. Il s'agit de la quittance générale à Charles de Valois, frère du roi, de tout ce qu'il pouvait devoir au roi, datée du 2 août 1312. L'acte est scellé du signet de cire rouge au lion rampant plaqué et pendant31 . La Chronique de Bardin 32 indique un acte de 1312, supprimant le Parlement de Toulouse, qui était scellé scilicet magna sigillo quo cancellarius sigillare consueverat, parvo sigillo quod rex ferre solebat, et sigillo secreto cujus custodiam habebat cambellanus. L'acte en faveur de Charles de Valois est donc la seule trace encore entière du signet royal. Pourtant le signet dut être utilisé de même que le sceau du Chatelet33 à la place du sceau du secret en 1310-1312. En effet, d'après l'ordonnance du Trésor du 19 janvier 1314, l'argent ne serait délivré par les Trésoriers du Louvre que selon le mandement qui leur sera fais par lettres du roy signees du seignet au lyon ou du petit seignet monseigneur de Marraigny, ou par cedule signee de ! 'un de ces Il signez, et non autrement34 • Il est à vrai dire assez difficile de distinguer, sur la dizaine d'originaux conservés, entre les traces de cire ou de scellement qui demeurent seulement aujourd'hui, ce qui était sceau du secret ou signet. Il existe en effet d'assez nombreux actes portant encore le sceau du secret ou des traces du sceau du secret35 .

30 M. DALAS-GARRIGUES, Les sceaux des rois et de régence, Paris, 1991 (Corpus des sceaux frauçais du Moyen Age, t. II); L. PERRICHET, La grande chancellerie de France des origines à 1328, Paris, 1912. 31 Paris, A. N., J 614, n° 25. 320.MOREL, op. cit., p. 258; Cl. DEVIC et J. VAISSETE, Histoire générale de Languedoc, Toulouse, 1872, t. X, col. 30. 33 Actes scellés sub sigillo Castelleti in absentia magni: 11 avril 1312 (Paris, A. N., J 559, n° 16) et 27 avril 1312 (Paris, A. N., J 559, n° 162). 34 Paris, A. N., JJ 57, f. 18. 35 Paris, B.n.F., n.a.fr. 3637, n° 25, 3 février 1300 : acte per cameram compotorum, ordre de payer des gages à un sergent de la guerre de Gascogne. Trace de cire rouge (plutôt sceau

22

E. LALOU

De la même façon, suivant les stipulations de l'ordonnance du Trésor de 1314, on trouve trace de l'utilisation du sceau du chambellan : Enguerran de Marigny bien sûr mais aussi précédemment Pierre de Chambly. Il semble en effet que les mandements aux trésoriers royaux de délivrer des sommes d'argent soient revêtus dès 1297 d'un sceau de cire brune qui pourrait fort bien être celui du chambellan36 , à moins qu'il ne s'agisse de traces de signets des trésoriers qui délivraient les sommes. Les chambellans qui ont été en charge, successivement Hugues de Bouville, Pierre de Chambly puis Marigny ont tous usé en même temps d'un sceau et d'un signetpersonnel37 . Si la chancellerie prend donc rapidement son indépendance de la Chambre aux deniers et de l'Hôtel, le sceau du secret ou plus encore le signet restent dans l'espace de l'Hôtel du roi, très proches de la personne royale. A la manière du privy seal anglais, le sceau du secret fait le lien entre Chambre aux deniers et institutions administratives indépendantes, Chancellerie, Conseil, Chambre des comptes ou Parlement. Par le biais des sceaux différents se pose la question un peu plus vaste de la relation existant entre le roi - en personne - (donc l'Hôtel) le garde du sceau (la chancellerie) et le chambellan (donc la Chambre) qui sont finalement les trois centres d'exercice du pouvoir se trouvant tous les trois au sein de l'Hôtel du roi et étant tous les trois en possession d'un des sceaux: le garde du sceau portant le grand sceau, le chambellan portant le sceau du

d'un des conseillers de la chambre des comptes que sceau du roi); Paris, A. N., J 396, n° 15, 5 mars 1305 : don de 300 f. p. de rente viagère à Simon Festu, clerc du roi. J de Crispeyo ; Paris, B.n.F., fr. 25697, n° 47, 5 juin 1309: payer ses gages à l'ost de Gascogne à Guill. de Pezens.Perd. G. de Cortona. R. de Perel/is. Paris, A. N., J 384, n° 3, 13 juillet 1313: non préjudice pour Charles de Valois qui a laissé lever sur ses terres le subside. P. Barr. Trace de sceau rouge. 36 Paris, B.n.F., fr. 25697 n° 6 (17 mai 1297), 7 (1 juin 1297), 8 (18 juin 1297), 12 (6 mai 1298), 13 (7 mai 1298), 21 (8 oct. 1298), 22 (15 janv. 1300), 23 (15 janv. 1300) et Paris, B.n.F., ms Clairambault 210, n° 21 (18 juin 1297), ms Clairambault 6, n° 151 (27 janv. 1299), ms Clairambault 37, n° 189 (3 mars 1299), ms Clairambault 33, n° 12 (30 mars 1299), ms Clairambault 3, n° 74 (1 juin 1299). Et ms Clairambault 70, n° 137 (acte de Marigny du 27 mai 1299 revêtu du signet de Marigny) J. FAVIER, éd., Cartulaire d'Enguerran de Marigny, Paris, 1965, p. 277.

37

H. de Bouville: Paris, A. N., coll. Douët d'Arcq, n° 243 (47 mm, J 151, n° 26) et n° 244 (27 mm, J 151, n° 33). Pierre de Chambly: Ibid., n° 245 (58 mm et signet de 48 mm) et n° 247 (13 mm, J 633, n° 8). Eng. de Marigny: Ibid., n° 248 (60 mm, J 225, n° 6) et signet 19 mm (Paris, B.n.F., coll. Clairambault n° 5740.) Les chambellans de Philippe le Bel furent Hugues de Bouville (+1304), Pierre de Chambly, le père (+1309) et le fils, puis Jean de Bouville, sire de Milly (+1308). Avec Enguerran de Marigny (1305-1314) étaient chambellans Pierre de Chambly le fils et Hugues de Bouville, le fils.

CHANCELLERIE ET HÔTEL À L'ÉPOQUE DE PHILIPPE LE BEL

23

secret et le roi en personne étant maître de son petit sceau ou signet, le signet au lion. Ces relations sont fonction évidemment des personnalités qui se trouvaient face à la personne royale. Parmi les gardes du sceau de Philippe le Bel3 8 , on pense bien sûr à Pierre Flote (1301-1302) puis Guillaume de Nogaret (1307-1313). Quand ces deux personnages étaient gardes du sceau, ils participaient entièrement au gouvernement, intervenant au conseil et remplissant missions et ambassades. De même quand Enguerran de Marigny était au pouvoir, la Chambre jouissait d'un grand pouvoir ou tout au moins le chambellan39 . Il semble qu'on ne puisse pas encore parler de conflit entre les différents porteurs de sceaux. Les actes scellés du sceau du secret, sous Philippe le Bel, sont scellés en l'absence du grand sceau donc pour une raison matérielle ou bien parce que ce sont des actes concernant l'Hôtel. Les actes scellés du signet à côté du grand sceau indiquent toutefois que leur contenu pouvait prêter à questions sinon à des critiques, de la part du chancelier peut-être ou plus encore du chambellan qui avait l'oeil sur les revenus du roi comme dans le cas de l'acte en faveur de Charles de Valois. Mais on n'est pas encore en un temps où le chancelier arrête le scellement de certains actes royaux, sauf dans des cas de fautes matérielles dans la rédaction de l'acte. La chancellerie, en conclusion, appartient donc bien à l'Hôtel. Quand le chancelier est présent, il est défrayé par l'Hôtel. Mais il jouit d'une marge certaine de manoeuvre : il part en voyage, remplit des fonctions de diplomate et d'ambassadeur avant que le mot même ne soit employé. Il a une forme d'autonomie, puisqu'il existe en certains endroits un hôtel (ou manoir) spécial pour la chancellerie. Autonomie aussi parce que la chancellerie en tant que telle n'apparaît pas dans les comptes de l'Hôtel. Les notaires au service exclusif de l'Hôtel sont payés lors du règlement des gages des gens du 38 Gardes du sceau: Pierre Chalon (1282-10 juillet 1290, évêque de Senlis en avril 1290), Jean de Vassogne Guillet 1290-fin 1292, évêque de Tournai en 1292), Guillaume de Crépy (début 1293, appelé chancelier par des ambassadeurs le 10 avril 1293-1298), Thibaut de Pouancé (évêque de Dol, garde du sceau temporaire du printemps 1296 à fin 1297 et d'octobre 1298 à août 1301), Pierre Flote Guillet 1301-11 juillet 1302), Etienne de Suzy (1302-avril 1306, cardinal le 15 décembre 1305), Pierre de Belleperche (octobre 1306-fin 1307, évêque d'Auxerre le 27 août 1306), Guillaume de Nogaret (22 septembre 1307-11 avril 1313), Gilles Aycelin (temporairement lors des absences de Nogaret), Pierre de Latilly (26 avril 1313décembre 1314), Etienne de Mornay (1er janvier 1315-1316: doyen de St Martin de Tours, +31 août 1332), Pierre d'Arrabloy (22 juillet 1316-fin 1316, cardinal de Ste Suzanne, évêque de Porto), Pierre de Chappes (1316-1320), Jean de Cherchemont (1320-1328 + 25 octobre 1328). Cf. A. TESSEREAU, Histoire chronologique de la grande chancellerie de France, 1710, p. 9. 39 J.

105.

FA VIER, Un conseiller de Philippe le Bel: Enguerran de Marigny, Paris, 1963, p. 104-

24

E.LALOU

roi mais le chancelier beaucoup plus épisodiquement. Les comptes propres de la chancellerie sont tenus à part, comme ceux d'ailleurs de l'aumônerie ou de la chapelle. Il y a donc une différence de nature entre les différentes chambres : confesseur, aumônier, chancelier, maîtres de l'Hôtel, chambre aux deniers, et chapelle. Maîtres de l'Hôtel et chambre aux deniers sont dévolus à l'administration de l'Hôtel. Confesseur, aumônier et chapelain ont la charge des âmes à la cour. Reste le chancelier qui exerce le pouvoir aux côtés du roi, avec lui, sur des notaires qui sont pour une part à l'Hôtel du roi (les futurs secrétaires du roi) mais aussi par ailleurs à la Chambre des comptes, au Parlement et dans les institutions nouvelles. Le chancelier scelle donc encore sous Philippe IV toutes les lettres émanant de toutes les institutions : il chapeaute donc tout ce qui est issu de l'ancienne Curia regis. Personnellement il appartient à l'Hôtel, parce qu'il est indispensable à la mise en action des décisions royales. Mais il n'est pas seulement de l'Hôtel, dans la mesure où le Parlement n'appartient plus à l'Hôtel et où il régit, dirige et paye des notaires qui travaillent exclusivement pour lui. Le chancelier m'apparaît donc comme le relais de la décision royale, qui voit tout ce qui émane du roi - à tous les niveaux de la Curia émiettée - et qui remplit aussi dans l'Hôtel, à côté des conseillers, une fonction de gouvernement.

DAVID A. CARPENTER (King's College, London)

THE ENGLISH ROYAL CHANCERY IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

The English Royal Chancery was the greatest of all the medieval chanceries and the thirteenth century its greatest age. English royal govemment was "document driven." The Chancery in the thirteenth century wrote, and authenticated with the great seal, the instruments through which the king spent and controlled his revenues, dispensed justice, distributed patronage and expressed in myriad other ways his personal will. No wonder control over the Chancery was a major ambition of the reformers in 1258. 1 For the Chancery the thirteenth century stands as a peak between the valleys of the twelfth and fourteenth centuries either side. Compared to the twelfth century, its work had vastly increased. First, it steadily produced more documents. Michael Clanchy has ingeniously revealed one index of that, namely the amount of wax used by the Chancery to seal its documents. In the late 1220s, a little over 3 lbs. of wax each week was needed; in the twelfth century the figure was almost certainly much smaller; but by the late 1260s the requirement had reached over 30 lbs. a

1 Documents of the Baronial Movement of Reform and Rebellion, ed. R.F. TREHARNE and I.J SANDERS, Oxford, 1973, pp.102-3, 106-7, 260-3. There is no single systematic study of the English medieval Chancery but H.C. MAXWELL-LYTE, Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Sea/ of England, London, 1926, contains a fund of information culled from primary sources. There is also a great deal about the Chancery in T.F. TOUT, Chapters in the

Administrative History of Mediaeval England. The Wardrobe, the Chamber and the Small Seals, 6 vols., Manchester, 1920-1933; P. CHAPLAIS, English Royal Documents: King JohnHenry VI, 1199-1461, Oxford, 1971, is likewise invaluable. I have written short studies oftwo thirteenth-century chancellors: D.A. CARPENTER, "St Thomas Cantilupe: his Political Career," in St Thomas Cantilupe, Bishop of Hereford: Essays in his Honour, ed. M. JANCEY, Hereford, 1982, pp. 57-72; and "Chancellor Ralph de Neville and Plans of Political Reform, 1215-1258," in Thirteenth Century England 11 Proceedings of the Newcastle upon Tyne Coriference 1987, ed. P.R. Coss and S.D. LLOYD, Woodbridge, 1988, pp. 69-80. These are now reprinted as chapters 4 and 16 ofD.A. CARPENTER, The Reign ofHenry Ill, London, 1996.

26

D.A. CARPENTER

week.2 Second, from the 1200s onwards, the Chancery began to record the charters and letters which it issued on a series of rolls. For the thirteenth century nearly all these rolls are in print. 3 Between 1200 and 1307 they fill some forty-six volumes, containing around 23,000 pages. Even that, however, gives but a partial impression of Chancery activity because only twenty-one of the volumes printed the rolls in extenso. In nearly all the rest they were reduced to an English calendar, sometimes with important omissions. Moreover, the rolls themselves only reveal part of the chancery's labours since large numbers of documents, most notably the routine writs de cursu ("of course"), which originated legal actions, were never enrolled. 4 In the thirteenth century the Chancery was at the centre of the king's personal rule. In the fourteenth century it was not. The essential reason for the change was the way the Chancery became separated from the king or, as historians sometimes put it, 'went out of court.' From having been almost permanently together, from the late thirteenth century onwards king and Chancery spent increasing time apart. Ultimately, in the fourteenth century, the Chancery took up near permanent residence at Westminster. 5 Inevitably, therefore, the king looked for other ways to express his personal will and found them in letters written by his household clerks and authenticated with a seal which still followed his person: the privy seal. Another department which followed the king, namely the wardrobe, likewise replaced Chancery letters with letters and bills of its own. 6 In part, the Chancery was reduced to simply issuing, on orders from the privy seal and the wardrobe, the formal documentation for the dispensing of money, the making of appointments and the giving of patronage. The great seal was becoming a very grand rubber stamp. This essay will try to illustrate and explain some features of this transition. It will also consider their consequences and whether they could

2 M.T. CLANCHY, From Memory ta Written Record, England 1066-1307, London, 1979, pp. 43-4. 3 The

liberate rolls are not in print after 1272.

4 The increase in the de cursu writ business would not be reflected in Clanchy's sealing wax test: see below, note 36. 5 For this process, see B. WILKINSON, The Chancery under Edward !IL Manchester, 1929, pp. 95-7.

6 For

the privy seal, see T.F. TOUT, Chapters, vol. I, pp. 151-7, 289-90; vol. II, pp. 78-82; B. WILKINSON, Chancery under Edward 111, pp. 13-14. The king had possessed a privy seal since at least the 1200s but used it comparatively rarely before the last part of the century, since the great seal was under his direct control. For wardrobe bills and letters, see below, note 50.

THE ENGLISH CHANCERY IN THE xmth CENTURY

27

have been avoided. One theme of this Colloque, as Michel Hébert has put it, is the way the central middle ages saw the development of administrative institutions "qui toutes recourent largement à l'écrit pour le bon fonctionnement." That is obviously right. Yet we also need to consider whether writing, or at least too much writing, could lead to delay, unnecessary duplication and general inefficiency, could lead, in short, not to "bon fonctionnement" but to "mal fonctionnement." Was that indeed the fate of the English Chancery, at least in some areas of its activity, in the later middle ages? In the reign of King John at the start of the thirteenth century five main sets of rolls emerged to record the chancery's business. Charters were enrolled on the charter rolls; letters patent on the patent rolls and letters close on the close rolls.7 In addition, the Chancery, from an earlier date, had kept fine rolls, which recorded the fines or financial proffers made by individuals and institutions to the crown in return for a whole variety of concessions and favours. The Chancery informed the Exchequer of the money it thus needed to levy, by sending it copies of the fine rolls, known as originalia rolls, usually in several instalments each year. 8 On the close rolls a high proportion of the letters dealt with royal expenditure and eventually, in 1226, these letters were hived off and recorded on a separate series of rolls, known as the liberate rolls. 9 From 1226, therefore, the Chancery was drawing up charter, patent, close, fine, originalia and liberate rolls, beginning a new set with the start of each new regnal year. We will commence our discussion by looking at the liberate rolls since it is there that one sees most clearly the absolutely central role played by the Chancery in controlling the financial administration

7 Rotuli

Chartarum in Turri Londinensi asservati, ed. T. DUFFUS HARDY, Record Commission, 1837; Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londinensi asservati, ed. T. DUFFUS HARDY, Record Commission, 1835. The earliest of the series of close rolls are to be found in Rotuli de Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis, ed. T. DUFFUS HARDY, Record Commission, 1844, pp.1-108, and Memoranda Roll 1 John ... , ed. H.G. RICHARDSON, Pipe Roll Soc., new ser., xxi, 1943, pp. 88-97. For the close rolls from 1204: Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londinensi asservati, ed. T. DUFFUS HARDY, 2 vols., Record Commission, 1833-4. A large proportion of the writs on the first rolls were those of liberate and computate, and these rolls have thus sometimes been described as liberate rolls. However, they contain miscellaneous letters close as well and for that reason can be seen, to quote H.G. RICHARDSON, Ibid., p. 89, xxxiii as "the precursors or, strictly speaking, the earliest members, of the series of close rolls." The beginnings of the liberate rolls are discussed below. 8 Memoranda

asservati, ed. T. 9

Roll 1 John, pp.85-8; Rotuli de Oblatis et Finibus in Turri Londinensi Record Commission, 1835.

DUFFUS HARDY,

Ca/endar of the Liberate Rolls 1226-1240, London, HMSO, 1916, pp. v-vi; Memoranda Ro/11 John, p. xxxiv.

28

D.A. CARPENTER

of the country and expressing the royal will. lt is likewise by examining the liberate rolls of the early fourteenth century that one sees most clearly the way the Chancery had left the centre stage and how its letters, which once galvanised the finances of the country, had become peripheral. The great institution responsible for exacting and storing the king's revenues and auditing the accounts was, of course, the Exchequer. Yet in the thirteenth century it was through the Chancery that the Exchequer was controlled by the king. In the first place the Exchequer could not spend its monies unless ordered to do so by Chancery writs of liberate. These were simply letters close, that is letters folded and with the great seal applied over the fold, which ordered the treasurer and chamberlains of the Exchequer to dispense (liberate) money for specified purposes. 1° For example: Rex Thesaurario & camerariis suis salutem. Liberate de Thesauro nostro quinque milia marcarum ad operaciones nostras Westm' ita quod pecunia il/a liberetur citrafestum Natalis Domini. Teste Rege apud Geudef' xx die Junii [20 June 1256). 11 Likewise expenditure by local officials was authorised by letters close of computate, which were also emolled on the liberate rolls. These instructed the official to spend money on some specified purpose and promised that the sum involved would be allowed him (computabitur tibi) when he came to account at the Exchequer. For example: Rex Vicecomite Ebor' salutem. Precipimus tibi quod pontem et domos castri nos tri Ebor' et breccas palicii eiusdem cas tri sine dilacione reperari et emendari facias et custum quod ad hoc posueritis per visum et testimonium legalium hominum computabitur tibi ad scaccarium. Teste Rege apud Wudestok, xi die Septembris anno etc nono [1225}. contrabreve 12

10 For the way writs were folded, see H.C. MAXWELL-LYTE, The Great Sea/, front piece and 303; Pleas Be/ore the King or his Justices 1198-1212, ed. D.M. STENTON, 4 vols., Selden Society; LXVII, LXVIII, LXXXIII, LXXXIV; 1948, 1949, 1966, 1967, vol. I, pp. 28-9; P. CHAPLAIS, English Royal Documents, plate 25d and 10; The Roll and Writ File of the Berkshire Eyre of 1248, ed. M.T. CLANCHY, Selden Society, XC, 1972-3, p. lxiii.

11 Building Accounts of King Henry III, ed. H.M. COLVIN, Oxford, 1971, pp. 194-5; and, Calendar of the Liberate Rails 1251-1260, London, 1959, p. 305. This writ (and those

subsequently quoted) was recorded in surnmary form. The original would have been in the first person beginning Henricus rex Anglie with the king's full titles and ending Teste me ipso. 12 Rot. Litt. Claus., vol. II, 61b. The term computate was gradually replaced by that of a/locale and the writs became know as writs of allocate.

THE ENGLISH CHANCERY IN THE xmth CENTURY

29

The note contrabreve after the letter indicated that a copy of the writ was to be sent to the Exchequer so that it would know independently what expenditure the sheriff of Yorkshire had been authorised to carry out. When the sheriff came to account he would produce his writ of computate, the Exchequer would check it against its copy and grant the appropriate allowance. 13 Alongside the Exchequer the other centre of financial activity was the king's household, and in particular the wardrobe which was responsible for funding the king's day to day living expenses and much else besides. Indeed it frequently took over the whole running of military campaigns. A good proportion of the debts the wardrobe ran up, for example to merchants and soldiers, the king ordered the Exchequer to discharge by issuing writs of liberate in favour of the individuals concemed. But the wardrobe also spent a great deal of money itself. The "getting" of this money was again controlled by writs of liberate and computate. The former were sent to the Exchequer ordering it to send money, while the latter were used to secure money from local officiais. For example: Rex E. Thesaurario et camarariis salutem. Liberate de thesaurario nostro Waltero de Kirkeham at Waltero de Brackel' [clerks of the wardrobe] CCC libras ad expensas nostras acquietendas. Teste Rege apud Novum Templum xxv die Februarii [1225]. 14 Rex Waleramo Teutonico salutem. Mandamus vobis quod centum marcas quas nabis debetis de termina Beati Petri ad Vincula anno regni nostri vi de stagnaria nostra Devon', liberetis Godefrido de 13 For the procedure, see Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. C. JOHNSON, London, 1950, pp. 89-91, 34; Memoranda Roll 1 John, p. xxxv. Every so often in the close rolls, and after 1226 in the /iberate rolls, one will find such entries as "from here the counterwrits are to be sent and before they have been sent by the haud of R. bishop of Chichester [the chancellor] to the king's Exchequer" (Hinc mittenda est contrabrevia et prius liberata per manum R. Cicestr' Episcopi ad scaccarium domini regis): Rot. Litt. Claus., vol. II, 64b. The term contrabreve implied that the Exchequer was sent simply copies of the writs to the local agents, either in a file or on a roll. On the other hand, the Exchequer was often written to directly with instructions to grant appropriate allowances (usually when the size of the allowance was already known) and this was the letter enrolled rather than the corresponding letter to the local agent. For the two methods see the allowance to the bailiffs of Wilton in Cal. Liberate Rails 1226-40, pp. 34, 36. In the English calendar of close rolls the writs of computate to local agents are printed in the following form: "To the sheriff of Oxfordshire. Contrabreve to cause the king's houses at Woodstock to be repaired." This strikes me as misleading because the contrabreve was not the writ sent to the sheriffbut the copy sent to the Exchequer.

l4 Rot.

Litt. Claus., vol. Il, 20.

30

D.A. CARPENTER

Craucumb [steward of the royal household] no bis deferendas ad expensas nostras acquietendas et computabitur vobis ad scacarium. Teste H de Burgo etc apud Norwic xiiii die Septembris anno regno nostri vi [1222] per eundem [H de Burgo] contrabeve. 15 A similar writ of computate would be issued to get supplies for the household from local officiais.

Rex vicecomiti Glouc' salutem. Precipimus tibi quod emi facias ad opus nostrum lx salmones tam recentes quam salsas et xx lampredas tam recentes quam salsas et eos salvo mittas usque Londinium ita quod eos habemus ibidem die Dominica proxima post diem Cinerum. Et custum quod ad hoc posueritis computabitur tibi ad scaccarium. Teste me ipso apud Westmonasterium xxiiii die Februarii [1226]. contrabreve. 16 Large numbers of these writs of computate and liberate were issued each year. In the first of the separate liberate rolls, that for the regnal year 1226-7, for example, there were some 165 of the former and 250 of the latter, of which fifteen ordered the sending of money to the wardrobe. 17 Just how far the king's entire revenue was thus controlled is shown by the close match between the revenue disposed of on the liberate rolls and the king's annual revenue as calculated from pipe rolls and receipt rolls. 18 The intimate relationship between the Chancery and the king is also shown by the highly persona! nature of some of the expenditure involved. Indeed, it is through the writs of liberate and computate and some other letters close that we corne closest to the personality and predilections of King Henry ill. It is here that we see the kings' piety in full flow with expansive orders for vestments, tapers and alms-giving; here that we see the detail in which he supervised the embellishment of his palaces and the building of Westminster Abbey; and here too that we see his affection for his queen:

Mandatum est Edwardo filio Odonis quod sub omni festinatione de consilio thesaurarii regis fieri faciat tam de die quam de nocte unum ciphum auri cum pede ad opus regine qui sit ponderis duarum 15

Ibid., vol. II, 511. This writ was attested by Hubert de Burgh during the king's minority.

16 Ibid.,

vol. Il, lOOb. Local officiais might also be ordered to pay off debts incurred by the wardrobe, for exarnple for the purchases of wine and cloth, Cal. Liberate Rolls 1251-60, p. 366. 17

Cal. Liberate Rolls 1226-40, pp. 1-56.

18

D.A.

R.C.

The Minority of Henry Ill, London, 1990, pp. 412-3, 416-7; Politics, Policy and Finance under Henry Ill, 1216-1245, Oxford, 1987.

CARPENTER,

STACEY,

THE ENGLISH CHANCERY IN THE xmth CENTURY

31

marcarum vel amplius et precii xx. marcarum, ita quod promptus sit contra instans Natale Domini, et quod predicta regina bibere passif in predicto festo: at quod provideat quod intus sit excellentatus aimallo et aliter modis quibus poterit decentius et pulcrius apparatus, et quod tam rex quam regina inde possint esse contenti. Teste rege apud Windles ', xix die Decembris [1240]. 19 Ifwe turn to the early fourteenth century, and look at the liberate rolls, the picture is completely different. From having been centre stage in managing the king's revenues, the Chancery is in the wings. Take the liberate roll for 1304-5. 20 The first thing that strikes one is its size, a mere six membranes, some thirteen or fourteen fewer than the liberate rolls in their pomp in the 1240s and 1250s. It has, moreover, some fifty writs of liberate, as opposed to 250 in 1226-7, and these, together with an even smaller number of writs of computate, command but a fraction of the king's revenue. The fact was that in managing the revenue the chancery's writs had largely been replaced by the wardrobe's bills and letters. In saying this we are, admittedly, omitting three exceptional Chancery writs, yet they were the exceptions which proved the rule. 21 These writs ordered the treasurer and chamberlains of the Exchequer to give the keeper of the wardrobe two sums of f20,000 and one of f5 831, this money being needed for the expenses of the royal household. At first sight, then, Chancery writs were still the means of securing money for the wardrobe. The impression is misleading. In issuing the writs, the Chancery was simply obeying the orders of the wardrobe: all three were authorised "by bill of the wardrobe." It was also not so much securing money for the wardrobe (as it had done with the old writs of liberate) as providing forma! authorisation for numerous individual financial transactions by the wardrobe, which had already taken place.2 2 One reason for this situation was the way the Chancery had gone out of court. Edward 1 was said to have attested the first of the f20,000 writs of 19 Close Rails 1237-1242, London, 1911, p. 258. And see, The History of the King's Works. The Middle Ages, ed. H.M. COLVlN, 2 vols., London, 1963, vol. I, pp. 93-5.

20 Public Record Office, London (from which al! manuscript references corne), C 62/81. 21

I am also omitting one other exceptional item, namely a group of 52 writs of liberate which attempted to clear varions debts incurred in Gascony.

22 C 621 81, 1mn. 6,3,2. For fuller discussion of ail this see below, pp. 35-40. Thus Michael Prestwich's concise comment: "The issue of the liberate writs was little more than an empty fonnality, for by Edward's closing years they were made out at the request of the wardrobe officials long after that the expenditure that they were meant to cover had been incurred": M. PRESTWICH, "Exchequer and Wardrobe in the Later Years of Edward I," in Bulletin of the Jnstitute ofHistorical Research, XLVI (1973), p. 3.

32

D.A. CARPENTER

liberate at Burstwick on 21 November 1304, but this did not mean that the Chancery was with him there on that day. In fact it was almost certainly forty-five miles away at York. 23 The Chancery, in drawing up the writ at York, presumably some time later than 21 November, had simply assigned to the writ the date and place on the wardrobe bill which authorised it. Given the king's separation from the Chancery it was inevitable that he should use such wardrobe instruments as well as privy seal letters to secure money, goods and services for his household.

We move now from the liberate rolls to the fine rolls which underwent equally illuminating changes in the course of the thirteenth century. The fine rolls for 1204-5 recorded around f.14,000 offered the king by some 300 individuals or institutions for various concessions and favours. f.8700 of this money came from offers connected with relief, wardships and marriages; another f.3160 came from miscellaneous offers for land. 24 There can be no doubt that John himself was very personally involved in the processes of bargain and extortion which lay behind these proffers. lndeed this very fine roll, that for 1204-5, revealed its intimate connection with the king in another way, by recording his cruel joke at the expense of his minister Hugh de Neville: Uxor Hugonis de Nevill [presumably John's mistress] dat domino Rege CC gallinas eo quod possit jacere una nocte cum domino suo Hugonis de Nevm.2s

As though 200 chickens was all that a night with Hugh was worth! A hundred years later things were very different, and not simply in respect of the king's sexual morality and sense of humour. In the fine roll of 1304-5 the total amount offered Edward l was f.1121 (of which f.500 effectively were pardoned), together with 38 "reasonable reliefs." 26 This contrast between the moneys on the fine rolls reflects changes

23

Calendar of Chancery Warrants 1244-1326, London, 1927, p. 239.

24 Rot.

de Oblatis et Finibus, pp. 196-286.

25

Ibid, p. 275. For discussion, see S. PAINTER, The Reign of King John, Baltimore, 1949, pp. 231-2; J.C. HOLT, "King John," in Magna Carla and Medieval Government, London, 1985, p. 88. 26

C 60/103. The "reasonable reliefs" were probably levied in accordance with Magna Carta, that is f1 OO or 1OO marks for an earldom or barony and :E5 for a knight' s fee. For the change from f1 OO to 1OO marks and relief more generally in the thirteenth century, see S. REYNOLDS, "Magna Carta 1297 and the Legal Use ofLiteracy," in Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, LXII (1989), pp. 233-44, reprinted as chapter V of her Ideas and

THE ENGLISH CHANCERY IN THE xrnth CENTURY

33

beyond the scope of this essay. The vis et voluntas of Angevin kingship, its power to extract enormous sums of money from individuals, had been fundamentally limited by Magna Carta and the political climate which it introduced. 27 Another change was more relevant since it suggested the principle reason why the Chancery moved out of court. This was the huge increase in the number of offers, usually of half a mark, sometimes more, for writs which initiated or furthered litigation. In the roll of 1204-5 there were about 100 ofthese offers; 28 in that of 1304-5 some 900. 29 The multiplication of such writs reflected but in no way full y revealed the expansion of litigation which took place in the thirteenth century, an expansion which meant a corresponding increase in the work of the Chancery since the processes of such litigation were almost wholly dependent on writs which the Chancery provided. 1 say reflect but not reveal because the writs for which half a mark or more was proffered in the fine rolls were ones which in some ways secured the litigants special favour; they were not the original writs "of course," de cursu, with which litigation most normally commenced. lt was above all the inexorably rising numbers of these de cursu writs which wore down the Chancery and ultimately forced it from the ambulatory court into some fixed place; that and the convenience of the litigants for whom the writs were provided. Sorne idea of the increasing amount of litigation in the thirteenth century can be gauged from the fact that in the year 1225-6 less than 2500 cases came before the justices of the bench; 30 a hundred years later, in 1327-8, according to the figures of Robert Palmer, the number was over 6500; by the early

Solidarities of the Medieval Laity. England and Western Europe, Aldershot and Vermont, 1995. 27 For

a particularly striking examination of how the sums exacted from widows declined after 1215 see, S.L. WAUGH, The Lordship of England. Royal Wardships and Marriages in English Society and Politics 1217-1327, Princeton, 1988, pp. 158-61. 28 I have included here offers pro habendo quodam pane (often coram rege), although the writ is not specifically mentioned. 29 There were 37 offers to have a "place" (see note above); 163 proffers for commissions to particular judges to hear assizes; and 702 proffers for various writs of which perhaps two thirds were for the writ ad terminum, a writ retumable at a specified time in the king's court (the form of action not being stated in the fine rolls). See R.C. PALMER, The County Courts of Medieval England 1150-1350, Princeton, 1982, pp. 237 and 318, for an analysis of offers for writs in the fine rolls between 1250 and 1326.

30 Curia Regis Rolls, 17 vols., London, 1922-1991, vol. XII, nos. 407-2674. This is Trinity 1225 to Easter 1226, dates chosen so as to get a run ofrolls for a whole year.

D.A. CARPENTER

34

1330s it probably approached 8700. 31 This, moreover, only told part of the story because in 1327-8 (as was much less the case in 1225-6), cases were also heard by justices in the localities. 32 Tue number ofwrits de cursu which the Chancery was having to issue in order to service this litigation was absolutely colossal. Tue evidence cornes from the accounts of the keeper of the hanaper, the office responsible for the chancery's receipts and expenses. Tuese accounts, which first survive from the 1320s, recorded the amount of money received each day throughout the year for the sealing of letters patent and writs, the great bulk of the latter being almost certainly writs de cursu. The rolls do not say how much one had to pay for a writ de cursu. Later in the fourteenth century, however, it was 6d. and, save on a handful of occasions, 6d.