Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Vol. LXX No. 173
October 1997
J. B. Given, Society and Homicide in 13th-Century England (Stanford, Calif., 1977), pp. 3540.
Ibid., p. 40.
250
251
has been keen to define the particular role which the medieval church played
in the shaping of that society and to establish the changes which occurred in
the interaction between the two as a result of the Counter Reformation. On
the other, Robert Muchembled has sought to identify the changes wrought
on society by the development of a centralist state in France from the
sixteenth century onwards. Although ultimately pursuing different aims,
both nevertheless give a central place to the role of violence in the ordering
and defining of medieval society.
In a series of articles, and most recently in a general essay on the
contrasting natures of pre- and post-Reformation Catholicism, John Bossy
has presented a particular view of the role `traditional' Christianity played in
the ordering and functioning of medieval society.9 His views are grounded on
the premise that medieval society was in all its essentials a house divided
against itself. Ties of kin often proved stronger than those of community and
the practice of social amity had its counterpart in the form of institutionalized and socially divisive violence: the feud.10 In consequence, the wider
whole was in constant danger of being split asunder by the periodic eruptions
of the interests, jealousies and demands arising from kin-based loyalties. Into
this volatile and highly reactive mixture the Catholic church came as arbiter
and peacemaker, promoting a truly catholic unity. It sought to draw the sting
of institutionalized violence through the sacraments which possessed social as
well as sacred significance.11 The socially cohesive forces of amity and charity
were to be promoted through exogamy and the agency of the parish mass
which served to transcend the narrow self-interests of family.
Robert Muchembled too is a writer concerned with violence. Working
from a range of secondary sources which include Huizinga's study of later
medieval culture and society, Muchembled produces a psychological
explanation for the prevalence of violence within the medieval period.
Like Bossy, he stresses the centrality of the feud in any understanding of
violent behaviour, and this is used to support his view that the early modern
period marked a critical stage in the control and eventual suppression of
popular culture. Violence in the fifteenth century was, according to
Muchembled, characteristically unpremeditated and born ultimately from
emotional instability. Men were victims of extreme emotions and the
isolation and misery of their lives led to a fear of the `other' and consequently
to feuds between villages and even families.12 Underpinning this was the
9
J. Bossy, Christianity in the West, 14001700 (Oxford, 1985); idem, `The Counter-Reformation and
the people of Catholic Europe', Past and Present, xlvii (1970), 5170; idem, `Blood and baptism: kinship,
community and Christianity in western Europe from the 14th to the 17th centuries' in Sanctity and
Secularity: the Church and the World, ed. D. Baker (Studies in Church History, x, 1973), pp. 12943;
idem, `The social history of confession in the age of the Reformation', Trans. Royal Hist. Soc., 5th ser.,
xxv (1975), 2138.
10
Bossy, Christianity, p. 29f; idem, `Blood and baptism', p. 143f.
11
Idem, Christianity, pp. 6671; `Blood and baptism', pp. 13942.
12
R. Muchembled, Popular Culture and Elite Culture in France, 14001700, trans. L. Cochrane (Baton
Rouge, La., & London, 1985), pp. 302, 40, 45f.
252
anxiety born of the individual's own mortality: death walked abroad stalking
the weak. An individual could gain transitory and illusory relief from this
dreadful self-knowledge by projecting the mantle of death on to his victim:
aggression was the offspring of fear.13 With the growth of the absolutist state
in France, these aggressions were either channelled on to new scapegoats such
as witches, or were marginalized as society became better regulated and
policed.14
Various debates have therefore grown up in historical circles which focus
on the question of the nature and significance of violence in medieval society.
Most take as a basic premise that medieval society was one characterized by
violence. This premise then requires an explanation or is used as the basis for
more wide-ranging theories concerning the nature of medieval society itself.
The focus has tended to fall on England, and on certain forms of violence:
homicide and the practice of feud. However, the emphasis upon these
particular manifestations of violence begs certain questions. How representative was homicide of the everyday experience of violence? Was medieval
society, in every instance and every place, one in which a fragile peace was
threatened by the barely contained blood-lust of the feud? Indeed, on a
general level it can be argued that the preoccupation with felonies`real'
crimesand particularly violent felonies, has produced a distorted picture of
the nature of crime in the medieval and other periods. Such a narrow focus
cannot take into account the banal and mundane offences encountered
within the records of local jurisdictions, or the non-violent nature of the
majority of offences within the records of the English royal courts. Similarly
homicide rates may heighten the impression of a fundamentally violent and
disordered society, if they are isolated from the `background count' of minor
assaults, brawls, legally sanctioned violence and defamations.
The interest in this article lies with violence other than homicide, and in
particular the patterns which emerge from the quantitative and qualitative
analysis of assault cases. For England, methodological considerations have
discouraged the study of this form of violence, at least in attempts to gauge
the levels of violence pertaining in medieval society. In both the medieval
and early modern periods the researcher is faced with not only the
incomplete nature of the records, which usually make it impossible to
follow an action through to its conclusion, but also the variety of meanings
which the term `assault' could hold in Common Law. These ranged from the
simple threat of violence at one extreme to rape and attempted murder at the
other. Furthermore those studies which have utilized data relating to assaults
from the records of local jurisdictions have done so with a different set of
questions in mind.15 Assaults and other forms of non-lethal violence,
Muchembled, pp. 32f.
Ibid, pp. 18795.
15
J. G. Bellamy, Crime and Public Order in England in the Later Middle Ages (1973), p. 37; Maddern,
pp. 22f.; J. A. Sharpe, Crime in 17th-century England: a county study (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 117f; A.
Soman, `Deviance and criminal justice in Western Europe, 13001800: an essay in structure', Criminal
Justice History: an International Annual, i (1980), 6.
13
14
253
254
255
256
257
cent of assaults and fights involved the use of a weapon, though the wide
disparity between this figure and those from later in the century tend to
make it suspect. Likewise, the figure of eight per cent for the period between
1474 and 1485 should be viewed with caution, given the small size and
incomplete nature of the sample. From 1371 until 1414, weapons were used
in a quarter of all assaults and fights. The mid fifteenth century saw an
increase to nearly forty per cent of the total.
Incidents in which weapons were employed were, as would be expected,
on the whole more serious in their consequences than those from which they
were absent. A disproportionate number of armed assaults and fights resulted
in bloodshed or serious andsometimespotentially lethal injury. One
particularly ferocious attack saw the successive use of a staff, a sword and
a dagger against the victim, in addition to the assailant's fists.29 The use of
edged weapons in particular increased the risks to a victim with seven of the
nineteen occasions on which they were employed resulting in serious injuries.
A slightly smaller proportion of blunt instruments produced similar results.
In fairness it should be noted that on several occasions weapons were used in
a restrained or purely intimidatory manner. One woman was threatened with
a knife, but its potential effects were demonstrated upon a piece of cloth
rather than on her person, while one assailant struck his victim across the
shoulders with the flat of his knife and another used his sheathed sword.30
This marked correlation between the presence of a weapon and the
severity of the injuries sustained by the victim is of interest when comparing
the types of weapons used at Cerisy with those employed in homicides in
England. In those cases where the murder weapon can be identified, edged
weapons predominate with knives being especially lethal. Staffs and other
blunt instruments come next, followed by unarmed attacks, though fists and
feet have been misleadingly placed in the category of blunt instruments by
Hanawalt.31 Within the officiality the proportions are reversed. The majority
of incidents did not involve the use of a weapon and where weapons were
used blunt instruments predominate. When added to the potentially fatal
consequences of several of the armed assaults this pattern demonstrates the
important role that the ready use of weaponsand lack of adequate medical
careplayed in increasing the probability that an armed attack would be
transformed into a homicide. The circumstances leading to the death of
Raoul le Juvencel show these factors at work. Raoul was knifed in the
stomach after he had intervened in an argument between two other men. He
was not killed outright, but died several days later, even though he had been
treated by a medicus who had sutured his lacerated bowel.32
Sexual assaults apart, gang attacks were not a typical feature of
Ibid., 408b.
Ibid., 389d, 390a, 394c.
31
Given, pp. 189f; Hammer, pp. 20f; B. A. Hanawalt, `Violent death in 14th- and early 15thcentury England', Comparative Studies in Society and History, xviii (1976), 319.
32
Registre, 308, 309c, d, e, h.
29
30
258
259
increased their share of the total and an added dimension is now present in
the significant minority of men who appear three times or more. These
changes reflect the growing preoccupation of the court with violence during
this period. In the early fourteenth century, the average recorded number of
assaults was roughly two per year. During the later period this had risen to
eight and was considerably higher in certain years. It is interesting to note
that a greater proportion of those who appear twice or more are to be found
in the early fifteenth century, when the annual increase in violence was
particularly marked. Yet even at a period of increased recording of violence
by the court, most men could expect to be involved only once in some act of
physical violence.
Much the same overall pattern is apparent amongst the victims. In the
earliest period, only nine per cent of victims were attacked more than once,
but between c.1369 to 1414 this figure had doubled. Similarly, a greater
proportion of those who fell victim to two or more assaults in this period
were otherwise involved in violence. Only one of the twenty-seven victims
recorded between 1451 and 1458 was attacked twice.42
Something too may be learned about attitudes to violence, principally on
the part of the court, but also occasionally as expressed by individuals. The
severity of an attack was one of the criteria on which the court based its
judgement, and fines tended to increase in relation to the number of blows
struck or the potentially fatal or debilitating effects of the violence. Thus, if a
victim was incapacitated, placed in danger of his life or suffered mutilating
injuries, the appropriate fine would be in the region of forty sous.43 The
effect which different degrees of violence could have upon the sums levied is
shown by three examples from the last decade of the fourteenth century. In
each of these the victims were thrown into the gutter, but the first victim
was taken by his chin as he lay on the ground, the second had his clothes torn
and the third was struck on the head with a staff. The fines imposed on the
That is Guillaume le Secourable (Registre, 410g, 416c). There are no examples between 1474 and
1485. The incidence of assaults on male victims between c.1369 and 1414 was: assaulted once, 123
(79%); assaulted twice, 25 (16%); assaulted 3 times, 5 (3%); assaulted 4 or more times, 3 (2%). Victims
otherwise involved in violence according to the frequency with which they were subjected to assault:
assaulted once, 35; assaulted twice, 14; assaulted 3 times, 4; assaulted 4 or more times, 3.
43
Fines in the Registre are in livres or livres tournois (l./l.t.), sous or sous tournois (s./s.t.), and
deniers (d.). 12 deniers were equivalent to 1 sou, and 20 sous to one livre. 1 franc d'or had an official
value of 20 sous tournois, but the rate varied sharply between 20s. and 36s. over the period 13601423
(P. Spufford, Handbook of Medieval Exchange (1986), pp. 191f.). One man, hired `pro serviendo', was to
receive 6l. for a whole year; another hired out his unspecified services for 15 l.t. for 1 year; a third
apprenticed himself out for 14 months as a wheelwright on condition of receiving 9 francs d'or, a
`good' woollen tunic and a pair of shoes (Registre, 236, 335, 253). For examples of fines for serious
violence see ibid., 363c (30s.: `percussit . . . usque et citra sanguinis effusionem, de quodam ferro equi
in supercillio occulti, taliter [quod] vulnus insecutum fuit'), 366p (40s.: `attroci verberatione et
enormi verberaverat de pedibus et punis super caput et aliis membris, ipsum ad terram
prosternendo, et cutellum suum super ipsum trahendo'), 392g (40s.: `percussit eum pluries de
pugno supra capud, et fecit eum cadere de supra suum equum'), 392p (40s.: `animo malivolo et
crudeliter percussit Johannem l'Escuier de quodam poto stanni semel per capud in gena vel torca
usque ad effusionem sanguinis').
42
260
assailants differed accordingly with ten sous being levied against the first,
fifteen sous against the second and twenty sous against the third.44 The
presence of blood was also important since the court was careful to note its
absence as well as its presence.45 Attacks in which it was shed were often, but
not invariably, met with a double fine. However, in a significant number, its
presence appears to have had no visible effect on the final outcome. A group
of fines which were imposed on a series of mild assaults in the second decade
of the fifteenth century illustrate these points. At that time, a slap to the face
(`alapa') was usually punished with a fine of five sous, or sometimes less,
while the striking of two blows of this nature raised the fine to 12s. 6d.46 On
one occasion when an alapa resulted in bloodshed, the assailant was punished
with a double fine, but on another, similar occasion, only the standard fine of
five sous was levied.47
The other important criterion which the court emphasized as lending
gravity to an offence was the ecclesiastical status of those involved. Attacks on
priests and other ecclesiastics were met with unusually large fines, which
appear to be out of proportion to the severity of violence involved: a failed
attempt to stab a priest brought the culprit a fine of sixty sous tournois; a man
who drew blood in an assault upon a priest was fined 100 sous tournois at a
period when a similar assault on a clerk brought at most twenty. Another man
was fined twenty sous for throwing a cup of wine in the face of the cantor of
the monastery, but a woman was fined only half this amount for breaking a jar
over a man's head.48 At the beginning of the fifteenth century a man who
struck the clerk of the priest of Deux-Jumeaux in the face by way of retaliation
was fined twenty sous. This was not only substantially more than the usual
penalty, but was five sous more than the fine imposed on the clerk.49 It is
unclear whether acts of violence committed against officers of the court
incurred similar consequences. Most of the examples of this kind are to be
found within the early fourteenth century sections of the register, where the
detail is less complete. They are, however, less than those other fines which
have survived from the same period. The court also punished priestly
delinquencies in this area with considerable severity, though the penalties
were never as severe as was the case when priests were the victims. In the late
fourteenth century a priest was fined twenty sous tournois and twenty sous for
Registre, 363b, 365i, k.
Ibid., 373f, 393i, 404a, 404c, 410a (`absque sanguinis effusione'), 392l (`usque ad effusionem
modicam'), 319, 350 (`ad magnam effusionem sanguinis). At Avignon the presence of blood increased
the gravity of an offence and the severity of its punishment while at Manosques a distinction was
made between its presence or absence when civil damages were awarded (J. Chiffoleau, `La violence
au quotidien Avignon au xive sie cle d'apre s les registres de la cour temporelle', Me langes de l'Ecole
Franc ais de Rome. Moyen Age-temps modernes, xcii (1980), p. 354; R. Gosselin, `Honneur et violence a
Manosque' in Vie prive e et ordre public a la fin de Moyen-Age: Etudes sur Manosque, la Provence et le
Pie mont (12501450), ed. M. He bert (Aix-en-Provence, 1987), p. 55).
46
Registre, 392d, e, h, l (2s. 6d.), 394p (`duas alapas in gena').
47
Ibid., 392i (10s.: `de naso exivit sanguinis'), k (5s.: `naso exivit sanguinis in dentibus').
48
Ibid., 302a, 325 (see for example: 278 (20s.), 279 (20s.t.), 304 (10s.t.), 363q, 375d).
49
Ibid., 370b, c.
44
45
261
laying hands on a man and a woman in two separate incidents.50 A clerk might
have expected to receive a penalty of five or ten sous under the circumstances.
In the later half of the next century a fine of fifteen sous was imposed on a
priest.51
The location of an incident could also contribute to its perceived gravity.
A priest who violated his own church in 1485 through an act of bloodshed
had to pay ten livres tournois, and a clerk who laid hands on one of his
fellows within the confines of the abbey was fined 100 sous tournois
considerably more than if the attack had taken place in the street.52 This
attack also took place on a market day which could itself have been an
aggravating factor. A man who struck another lightly on the chest while in
court (`infra metas jurisdictionis nostre') was fined ten sous.53 Other factors
could play a role. The nocturnal nature of an attack was likely to have been
of significance: a single blow to the head at night warranted a fine of twenty
sous, whereas similar attacks in the daytime were met with fines of a quarter
or a half of this.54 A man was imprisonedan unusual occurrence in the
context of crimes against the personafter he had assaulted a man to whom
he had given pledges of peace.55
Though of secondary importance to the actual fact of an act of violence by
or against a clerk, the underlying motive may still have had an effect on the
final punishment. An attack was likely to attract a stiffer penalty if it had
been premeditated. This was one of the factors which ensured that Yves
Anglici was fined sixty sous for ambushing Pierre Siart and striking him on
the head with a stone. The others had been the nocturnal nature of the
assault and Yves's initial perjury.56 However, if an aggressor acted under
undue provocation, or if his actions could in some way be justified, then the
fine might be reduced accordingly. A woman was fined two sous for slapping
a man who called her a whore; her victim retaliated in kind, but had to pay
five sous. Yves de Landes struck Yves Jamez with a tankard because Jamez
had slapped him. He succeeded in drawing blood but was fined the same
amount as Jamez.57 The disparity in the fines imposed on the participants in
other fights would suggest that the court recognized that different degrees of
culpability were involved. A man who threw a suspected thief out of a mill
was fined 2s. 6d., and another man who intervened to prevent a husband
Ibid., 332c, 333a.
`Fragment', p. 303. Other fines from this period were only higher if bloodshed had occurred,
and could be as low as 12d.
52
Registre, 270; `Fragment', pp. 310f. See for example Registre, 363b (10s.), 365i (20s.), 365k (15s.), 366f
(5s.). The abbey church at Cerisy was violated twice during the early 14th century, but the fines
involved were not recorded (ibid., 140b, 212a).
53
Ibid., 365f.
54
Ibid., 384g (5s.: `percuterat de manu per capud ipsius', 385b (`de nocte'), 392e (10s.: `semel de
pugno supra capud').
55
Ibid., 212b.
56
Ibid., 394l.
57
Ibid., 393a, l.
50
51
262
beating his wife paid only two sous. Under ordinary circumstances the nature
of their assaults, in which the victims were thrown bodily to the ground,
would probably have earned them double this amount.58
Individual attitudes too can be discerned occasionally. In 1412 a witness to
an assault felt that the assailant was doing wrong by his actions and in the
same year another bystander considered, perhaps significantly, that an
assailant deserved to be beaten for what he was doing. In both cases, these
comments provoked violent reactions. When Robert des Cageux attempted
to provoke a fight at the house of Ranulph du Bourc, he was told by Jean de
Bapaume that he did wrong to speak and act in such a fashion. These words
only prompted Robert to strike him. Ranulph du Bourc, `seeing these things
and being saddened', told Robert that he was wrong to act in this way. His
objections were also met with violence. On another occasion, when Jean des
Cageux attempted to solicit help to attack Jean de Bapaume in the house of
the curate of Littry, his request fell on deaf ears. Those present said that they
wished his intended victim no harm.59 Not every act of physical violence was
condoned, and a violent response might be considered inappropriate under
certain circumstances or in a particular place.
Motive has been touched upon as a possible factor in determining the
court's response to an incident, and it is clearly of considerable interest
when considering wider questions relating to the characteristics of violence
within medieval society. One problem faced when examining questions of
motive is that the court was principally concerned with the fact of
violence, and with the social standing of those involved, rather than
considerations of motive. This is best shown by those cases in which
victims took immediate action to avenge an assault or were instrumental in
precipitating an attack upon themselves. In these cases all parties involved
were fined for their violent behaviour. Different amounts were levied on
each, in recognition of the varying degrees of culpability and intent, but
the court wasted little time in detailing the precise motives which might
lead to violence. Nevertheless a general distinction was recognized between
violence undertaken with malicious intent (`animo malivolo') and violence
occasioned by anger (`animo irato'), and more precise information is
occasionally revealed.
A complex of factors both recorded and unrecorded would have lain
behind any act of violence and it is difficult to reduce questions of motive to
raw statistics. Certain factors can be isolated. Arguments were the most
common recorded cause, accounting for twenty-six of the incidents. In half
of these some indication is given of the precise nature of the quarrel. These
ranged from a dispute over a wife's use of her husband's goods, to arguments
over quantities of wine (on two separate occasions), a piece of land, a sum of
money, the ownership of a hatchet and an arrow.60 An attempt to lead a man
58
59
60
263
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
392d.
394e, f, p.
363d, 394l, n, q.
392e, 394i, k, m.
394p.
229bis, 392h, i.
93d, 165a, b, 235c, 241b, 365c, 393m, 394f.
87a, b.
264
who went armed to another's door were acting with a degree of pre-planning
and foresight unusual in the context of ordinary assaults. On a few occasions
men deliberately sought out their victims. Ricard de Landes left his father's
house by night to seek out his chosen victim in the village. On another
occasion Yves de Landes assaulted Jean du Buisson as he was passing before
Yves's house at night. A degree of animosity seems to have existed between
the two families.69 Jean des Cageux came to the house of the curate of Littry
in search of Jean l'Escuier, alias de Bapaume. On entering the house, he
demanded to know where l'Escuier was so that he could `batter him'. An
exchange of words followed and a fight broke out after Jean had been
insulted by l'Escuier. A little before this l'Escuier had fallen victim to one of
Jean's sons Robert, who had come by night to a house where l'Escuier was
drinking in a group. Robert entered the house and beat with his staff on the
table where Jean was drinking, saying, in a suitably timeless phrase, `If anyone
moves, he's dead' (`S'il y a qui bouge il est mort'). He then asked if anyone
wanted to wrestle with him. Jean replied that Robert was wrong to talk and
act in such a fashion; Robert then punched him on the nose. The owner of
the house, Ranulph du Bourc, intervened, saying that Robert had done ill by
this; he was thrown into the fire for his pains.70 Alcohol was at least a
contributory factor in this and a number of other assaults.71
A small number of men werelike Ranulph du Bourcdrawn into
conflicts which were not of their making. One such intervention in an
argument over a sword led to the fatal stabbing of Raoul le Juvencel. The
others had less dramatic consequences. A spreading circle of violence first
enveloped Guillaume Syret, then Sanson Guiart and finally Jean Canonville.
The initial argument had been between Yves Guiart and Guillaume Syret
over a sum of money, during the course of which Guillaume had been
punched in the face. Sanson Guiart then told Yves that he deserved to be
beaten for this. Yves promptly punched Sanson about the head and chest and
turned upon Jean who had been watching these events in silence.72 In a
similar occurrence, Jean l'Escuier was drawn into the conflict between Sanson
de Burgh and Potin de Moultfreart after he had told Sanson that he was
wrong to beat Potin. A further two men intervened in domestic disputes with
violent results. Another man went to his son's aid and the wife of Pierre
Martin was assaulted when she went to her mother's assistance.73
Considerations of revenge motivated only a small number of the attacks.
Four victims took immediate retaliatory action against their attackers, often
Registre, 384g, k, 385b, c.
Ibid., 394k, r.
71
Taverns were the scenes of 2 assaults, in one of which drink clearly played a part (ibid., 392m,
394p). A man was also physically ejected from a tavern by its owner (ibid., 389a). The use of tankards
or other vessels filled with ale, mead or red wine as projectiles or as bludgeons would suggest that
intoxicating drink was an important element in a further 19 acts of violence (ibid., 359b, 363q, 366b,
366m, 384l, 385o, 387a, 389c, 390d, 390l 390o, 390p, 392p, 392p, 393b, 393l, 383b, 394k).
72
Ibid., 393c.
73
Ibid., 242, 384k, 387l, 393f, s.
69
70
265
repaying with interest the blows that they had received; on another occasion
a man was fined for putting up limited resistance against his two attackers.74
In the later fifteenth century a man unwisely began a fight with two others.75
Other examples were of a more deliberate nature: Yves Anglici was not the
only man to receive a beating at the hands of an erstwhile victim. Philippe le
Pelous attacked Guillaume le Deen in May 1378 after Guillaume had
assaulted him in the previous December.76 In the middle of 1379, Jean
Riqueut and his two sons, Jean and Johennetus attacked Laurent de Alnetis.
In the following year, Jean senior and Jean junior were assaulted by Laurent.77
Ricard de Sallen took part in a gang attack in 1393 on a man who had
attacked him the year before.78 Guillaume le Guilleour threw a stone at a
man who had earlier tried to intimidate his sister and the attack by Yves
Anglici upon Cassin du Molin in 1457 may have been motivated by an
accidental injury to Yves's wife during a game.79 After his fight with Jean des
Cageux, Jean l'Escuier went out with two other men to seek revenge either
on Jean himself or any other member of his family who could be found. This
reliance upon self-help and family ties is most clearly demonstrated by the
conflict which arose between Jean de Tournie res and Jean des Cageux and his
sons during 1412. The cause of this was de Tournieres' assault on a bastard
son of Jean des Cageux. Shortly after this had taken place, Raoul and Robert
des Cageux came successively to de Tournieres seeking to avenge the injury
done to their half-brother. Jean dealt each a blow on the head with his staff.
Some time later Jean and Robert des Cageux dragged de Tournie res and
another man into their tavern. Jean des Cageux struck de Tournie res, saying
that he had done wrong to beat his sons in such a fashion. The innocent
companion received a blow from Robert.80 The court sought to discourage
such informal retaliation and generally fined all those concerned.
Other examples show that deep-seated tensions could exist between
individuals or families at certain times. Jean de Bapaume (alias l'Escuier)
was attacked twice in the same year by members of the des Cageux family. A
flurry of violence also occurred between members of the family du Buisson
and the family de Landes during 1406. Gaufrid and Sanson de Burgh both
attacked the same man during 1408 and Pierre le Guilleour was attacked by
men bearing the same surname in successive years. Gaufrid le Quoquet fell
victim to attacks by Jean Quinot in the July and August of the same year,
Etienne Hervey was also attacked twice by the same assailant.81 Most men
were unfortunate if they fell victim to two assaults in a year from different
assailants.
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
266
267
268
A. J. Finch
13141346
13701414
14511458
14711486
(13141486)
315a
132
38
8
33
33
220b
24e
2
4
8
2
30
3
35
18
2
10
3
6
(374)
(169)
(298)
(38)
(43)
(8)
85