Mr. Denton, 15 draws the conclusion that the labourer in mediæval England could only earn wages on four and a half days out of the seven; and Dr. Cunningham more than once expresses his opinion that the number of holidays must have made a considerable difference to the wage-earner. 16 Without denying some element of truth in this contention I venture to urge that the operation of the law of the Church with regard to Sundays and holidays was in many ways mitigated in practice, especially as regards the very poor. It does not appear, writes Professor Thorold Rogers, that the workmen's employment was interrupted by the necessity of keeping many Church holidays. A mason and boy are engaged in 1290 at Waleton for a year and are paid for 312 days. On the other hand the under-masons are engaged for a year of 235 days, and those days only are reckoned as the working days of the year. Similarly at Oxford in 1354 three carpenters are engaged for ten weeks, and with but one exception work six days in each of the weeks. In the sixth week, however, one of the two chief carpenters works five days only; the other two.1 . . . At Oxford one mason works for 270 days in the year on the buildings of Queen's College. Again Mr. Thorold Rogers, checking the operations of one of the masons employed on Merton Tower in 1449, finds that 'besides Sundays he does no work in twenty-nine days of the year, of which ten appear to be of voluntary absence.18 Professor Rogers's general conclusion is that the fifteenth century was the golden age of the English labourer,' and he was also of opinion that the hours of customary labour could not have been long.19 These views have been much criticised by such authorities as Mr. Seebohm and Dr. Cunningham. The controversy is one upon which I do not presume to pronounce, but there is one detail, ignored by these writers, which seems to me to make rather in Professor Rogers's favour. I refer to the great consideration which the Church, both in the text of her law and still more in the commentaries of approved canonists, showed for the interests of the poorer class of the population in all that concerned Sunday observance. The author of Piers Plowman, as is well known, was absolutely fearless in denouncing abuses, but he was a good canon lawyer and knew what he was talking about. He tells us that although individual priests might be harsh, the Church law exempted the really necessitous from such duties as the payment of tithes, and did not hold them to be rebels because they worked on holidays or vigils to earn their livelihood.20 The Church was far 15 England in the Fifteenth Century, pp. 219, 222. 15 Growth of English Industry, vol. i. pp. 390, 449 17 History of Agricultural Prices, vol. i. p. 256. (third edition). 18 lb. vol. iv. p. 756. 19 Ib. vol. iv. pp. 490, 755. He thinks that the payments for overtime point to an eight-hours' day. That the lawe yeveth leve such lowe folke to be excused, As none tythes to tythen, ne clothe the nakede, Piers Plowman, C text, xiv. 25. from wishing to impose an iron yoke upon her subjects, and many indications point to the conclusion that the observance of Sundays and festivals was all in the interest of the villein and the artisan. The legal recognition of these holidays was on the one hand a protection against the too probable exactions of their masters, who could enforce no work at such times, but on the other hand the hours so gained were not necessarily hours of compulsory idleness. They could be bestowed by the labourer upon the cultivation of his own homestead, even if he had not the option, as he probably had in many cases, of continuing to work voluntarily at his ordinary trade. Take, for example, the constitution of Simon Mepham, Archbishop of Canterbury, regarding Good Friday, included in the Provinciale (Bk. 2, Tit. 3, De Feriis). By the authority of the present council [he says] we strictly prohibit that in future anyone should occupy himself with servile work on that day, or should do anything else which is inconsistent with its devout celebration. Nevertheless, we do not by this law mean to lay a burden upon the poor, nor put any obstacle in the way of the rich, to prevent their affording the customary assistance for charity's sake to help on the tillage of their poorer neighbours. And here Lyndwood, upon the authority of whose gloss I need not insist after Professor Maitland's recent essay, makes two observations. He tells us that by 'the poor' in this constitution may be understood 'those who have not animals and beasts to plough with, and who lack means to hire the assistance of others.' And secondly he appeals, as he frequently does in all this matter, to the Summa Confessorum of John of Freiburg, and adopts his opinion that although it would not be lawful to plough a poor man's holding on the Sunday itself or on the greater festivals, nevertheless this is permissible on minor feasts wherever the relaxation is tolerated by the custom of the country. The villein, therefore, was in this position-that while he could plead exemption from rendering service upon the estate of his lord (1st) on the Sunday, (2nd) on the afternoon of Saturday, (3rd) on the feasts recognised by the law, which Mr. Denton correctly estimates as averaging more than one a week, and (4th) on the vigils of the greater of these feasts in the afternoon, he was practically free to spend all this time, except the actual Sunday and five or six other days in the year, upon the cultivation of his own holding. It would be seriously misleading, then, to say without qualification that the labourer was not free to work upon his ground on the festivals of the Church. Similarly Lyndwood, in commenting upon the constitution of Archbishop Islepe regarding the days 'on which as a rule (regulariter) servile work is not to be done,' points out that the regulariter admits of many exceptions. The exigencies of a time of war, the need of saving the crops when threatened by foul weather, the opportunity afforded by the appearance of a shoal of herrings, the preven a tion of a catastrophe from floods and inundations, all these are causes formally recognised by the canon law as legitimising a dispensation even on the Sunday itself. So again John of Freiburg throughout shows himself far from narrow-minded in his interpretation of Sunday observance. It is impossible, he says, to lay down any hard-and-fast rule as to what may or may not be permitted on a Sunday. When a doubtful case arises, the difficulty had best be referred to some conscientious adviser. He thinks that when real necessity exists, butchers and tavern-keepers are excusable who prepare their wares Sunday for the next day, also servants who are compelled to work through fear of their masters, also traders who have to transport their merchandise from one place to another on account of the markets, also farriers and barbers who may undertake a job on Sunday, not from greed of gain, but to do a kindness. The mere mechanical copying or correcting of books, especially if done for gain, he does not think lawful on Sunday, but he raises no objection to transscribing lecture notes or to intellectual work like the composing of sermons. With Lyndwood he thinks it lawful to help the poor in tilling their fields on all days save Sundays and the principal feasts. Again he is by no means severe in the matter of Sunday fairs and markets, where there is no very rigorous and explicit prohibition of the bishop. He does not consider it sinful to attend such markets, if it is not made a regular practice nor done through greed, and if religious duties are not neglected. He even allows the sale of necessary provisions on any Sunday or holiday of the year, provided it can be reconciled with a proper attendance at Mass and the offices of the Church.21 To judge from the episcopal registers it would not seem that the bishops ever carried on any very active crusade against Sabbath-breakers, much less against those who worked on holidays. There are some strongly worded synodal decrees on the subject of Sunday fairs, 22 and Archbishop Islepe 23 threatens to use canonical censures to compel the attendance on Sundays at their parish church of all who have come to years of discretion, but it was not until 27 Henry the Sixth (A.D. 1448) that any direct legislation was aimed at these abuses in Parliament. Even Archbishop Thomas Arundel, when issuing in 1401 an ordinance to abolish the Sunday fairs held in the churchyard at Harrow-on-the-Hill, mitigated his own decree by making an exception for the four Sundays during the harvest. The same prelate is responsible for one of the few episcopal acts of which we have record directed against these abuses in detail. In 1413 he 21 Mercata tamen que fiunt de victualibus necessariis ad diem quantumcunque solemnem de pane, vino, carnibus, gallinis, anseribus et hujusmodi, non credo esseillicita aut facile prohibenda, dummodo tamen propter hoc non se retrahant a Divinisofficiis.'-Summa Confessorum, fol. 36, Bk. 1, tit. 12. 22 Wilkins, ii. 175; iii. 266. 23 From the MS. register of Bishop Edyndon of Winchester quoted in Fr Bridgett's History of the Holy Eucharist, vol. ii. p. 233. addressed a letter of remonstrance to the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London complaining that the barbers of the said City over the governance of which city you preside, being without zeal for the law of God, and not perceiving how that the Lord hath blessed the seventh day and made it holy, and hath commanded that it shall be observed by no abusive pursuit of any servile occupations, but rather by a disuse thereof, in their blindness do keep their houses and shops open on the seventh day, the Lord's Day, namely, and do follow their craft on the same, just as busily and just in the same way as on any day in the week customary for such work.24 Arundel threatens the offenders with excommunication, and suggests to the City magnates that they should back up his decree by enforcing a heavy penalty in money against delinquents. It is curious that the Archbishop took the matter so much to heart that he wrote to the Pope and besought him to confirm his ordinance ex certa scientia.25 With regard to the general question of Sunday observance the impression I have derived from such sources of information as were open to me is that while there were grave abuses in the way of fairs and markets, together with a good deal of drinking and neglect of Church services, the obligation of rest from work was strictly observed by the bulk of the population, and especially by the artisan and trading classes in the towns. The guild ordinances in this matter constituted a very potent instrument against lawlessness by creating a healthy public opinion, and it would be hard to over-estimate the numerical strength and influence of these associations, or the strongly religious colouring which they introduced into every detail of mediæval life. In the more rural districts there was probably a good deal of agricultural work done on Sundays and holidays. John Bromyard, the Dominican, writes in the fourteenth century: Nowadays there are very few who give up bodily labour. Either they gather the harvest or store it, or drive carts or lend them to others when they ought to serve God and not their neighbours. And if perhaps a few cease from labour, there are very few who do not either go themselves or send their servants with loaded mules to fairs and markets.26 These words occur in a somewhat rhetorical passage, and it is also probable that the preacher is speaking rather of the feasts than of the Sundays. But in any case the conduct so stigmatised was such as the canonists themselves were prepared to find excuses for when poverty or reasonable necessity could be pleaded in its favour. It is curious how little we find recorded about the observance of Sundays at the universities. By some it would appear that the time was utilised for lectures and disputations, but this would seem to have been the exception rather than the rule. In general,' says 24 Annals of the Barber Surgeons, pp. 48, 49. 25 Cott. MS. Cleop. c. 4, fol. 216, contains a copy of this letter. 27 < 28 Mr. Rashdall, the Sunday was free for worship and rest, and seems to have been rarely abused by the outrages or disturbances so common on other festivals.' Lectures, however, were often delivered on the feast days. At Toulouse,' we are told by the canonist Rebuffi,2 'lectures are given on all feast days except the Sundays and those of Our Lady and the Apostles, especially on the volume of the Authentica. . . . This volume they begin on the Vigil of St. Catharine, and continue it until the gaudy days which they call the carnival (ad hilaria 29 quae dicunt carnisprivium), as I myself have done when lecturing there.' Rebuffi further defends the proposition that it is unquestionably lawful to deliver lectures on Sunday. With regard to the hours, it seems always to have been perfectly clear that the obligation of rest did not begin before the evening of the Saturday. Dr. Brentano writes indeed : The same considerations (the desire to give leisure to members of the guilds) supported by religious motives caused the strict prohibition of work on Sundays and festivals, and on Saturdays or the eve of a double feast after noon has been rung. This last ordinance forbidding work on the last-mentioned afternoons was common to all countries and had its origin in a custom of the Roman Catholic Church to solemnise the eve of festivals and Sundays by religious services.30 Dr. Brentano, it seems to me, is here decidedly exaggerating the universality of the Saturday half-holiday, especially if we suppose him to be speaking of the fifteenth century. In the Liber Albus of the London Guildhall it is ruled that carpenters and plasterers are to work until evening on Saturdays and vigils, receiving wages for a full day's work; 31 and much other similar evidence might be quoted. Thus in an interesting fifteenth-century dialogue on religious topics, called Dives and Pauper, we read as follows: [Dives asks Pauper: 32] How long ought the holy day to be kept and halowed? Pauper: From even to even; never the lesse some begynne sooner to halowe after that the feaste is (i.e. according to the rank of the feast), and after use of the countreye. But that men use in Satyrdayes and vygylles to ryng holy even at mydday compelleth not men anone to halowe, but warneth them of the holy daye following, that they shuld thynke thereon and spede them, and so dyspose them and their occupations, that they myght halowe in dewe tyme. So far as the English Sunday in the Middle Ages was open to reproach, the fault might seem to lie rather on the side of its amusements than in the neglect of the observances proper to the day. "Rashdall, Universities of Europe, vol. ii. part ii. pp. 674, 675. 23 Rebuffi, De Privilegiis Scholarium, chap. i. § 18. "I am tempted, despite the authority of Dr. Skeat and Dr. Murray, to suggest that the name Hilary Term ' may have its origin in these Hilaria. It would have been a very natural arrangement under medieval conditions to make Lent the beginning of a new term, and it obviously was so at Toulouse. 30 Old English Gilds (E.E.T.S.), p. cxxxi. |