The vast majority of the primary sources that bear witness to medieval
English towns and the lives of the men and women who resided in them each
focus on some particular aspect or event. General descriptions of any
individual towns are rare, as are surveys or reviews of English towns
generally. We do possess a few examples of these, however, and three
are given here. Two happen to be roughly contemporary with each other,
from the period when we are just beginning to see boroughs emerging as
distinctive entities in the social and economic fabric. Furthermore, they
present contrasting viewpoints on urban society: one pro, one con. The
third comes at the close of the Middle Ages.
For the earlier pair we have two monks to thank – not surprisingly, given
the limitations of literacy in that period. They are unlikely to have
ever had contact with one another, but each gives us a lively and
entertaining perspective on English towns of the late twelfth century.
The third description comes from an outsider, probably a member of a
diplomatic embassy sent by Venice to London.
The lesser-known of the monks, both today and in the Middle Ages, is
Richard de Devizes, a monk of St. Swithun's, the priory of Winchester's
cathedral. He was presumably born at the place from which derives his
surname, a small town in Wiltshire some 35 miles northwest of Winchester
and, again presumably as a monk at Winchester throughout his adult life,
may well not ever have travelled beyond that part of the country.
Nonetheless, Winchester was an important city at that time and attracted
visitors from all parts, and Richard doubtless heard news, rumours and
opinions about various English towns – many of his criticisms have the
tone of put-downs of the type communicated in casual conversation.
Richard's brief critique of English towns is outside of the mainstream
of the theme of his chronicle, and it reflects both a measure of scorn
for urban society that would have been echoed by many monks (except
perhaps for those of more worldly tastes) and yet an affection for his
own adopted home-town.
The better-known writer is William FitzStephen, who prefaced his
biography of Thomas Becket with a depiction of London during the reign
of Henry II. FitzStephen, according to his own claim, served Becket
both in the latter's role of chancellor, by preparing legal documents
and assisting in the hearing of petitions, and in his role of archbishop,
as a chaplain. He likewise claimed to be one of the three clerics who
did not desert Becket during his assassination (1170). Despite or
perhaps because of this, he seems to have won the favour of Henry II
(whom he avoided blaming in his account of the murder), if he is the
same William FitzStephen who in 1171 was appointed sheriff of
Gloucestershire and later (from 1176) served as an itinerant royal
justice; of that identification we cannot be certain. The biography
was written at some point in the ten or twelve years following Becket's
death.
The reason for a description of London preceding the biography of Becket was,
ostensibly, that Becket was – like FitzStephen himself – a Londoner,
being the son of Gilbert Becket, a Rouen merchant who settled in London
and became an important enough citizen to serve as a sheriff of the city.
Yet it is less Becket's association with the city and more FitzStephen's
own that comes through in the description, which could easily stand by
itself – and so, stripped of the biography, it does in some surviving
versions, including one incorporated into London's Liber Custumarum.
He provides us with a look at London through rose-tinted glasses, for
his remembrances of the city are largely those of exuberant youth, full
of wonder at metropolitan life, and eager to enjoy its pleasures.
Although he does talk in general terms about aspects of the city, he
also focuses on particular places, particular events – doubtless
calling up the features that most embedded themselves in his memory.
It is easy to be tempted today, given the relative ease and luxuries of
twenty-first century living and working conditions, to view life in
medieval towns as dirty, harsh, unpleasant, and short. We must remember
that this is only a perspective, albeit one not without some merit. It has
an advocate in Richard de Devizes, if in tongue-in-cheek fashion; his
harshest words are for London, not only because as England's sole
cosmopolitan city it was the biggest den of iniquity, but also because
its efforts to create a revolutionary commune in 1191 had filled him with
a disgust founded on fear. FitzStephen's perspective is quite different,
if naive where Devizes' is cynical; his fondness for London and his
high regard for its amenities and its joie de vivre are clear
enough. He has little bad to say of London, other than references to
its drunks and its vulnerability to fire. His account is a rhapsodic
expression of that civic pride which historians must otherwise deduce
from more formal or more impersonal echoes.
Yet for all this, and despite some minor flights of rhetoric in which the
author tries to display his knowledge of classical authors (a trait common
to writers of that time, although the knowledge was often acquired
indirectly), FitzStephen's description is credible, as indeed Devizes'
chronicle is believed to be, once the satirical elements are taken into
account. FitzStephen has not exaggerated for the sake of hyperbole,
only for literary effect or on the basis of second-hand information which
he accepts unquestioningly. Much of what he speaks about is corroborated
from other evidence; the ice jousting, for example, is depicted in a
medieval illustration. We can well imagine that he was an eye-witness to
most of what he portrays, as well as a participant in the schoolboy
debating contests he recounts with some enthusiasm. The description
ranges from the macrocosm of the quality of the citizens to the microcosm
of the cookshop on the quayside and the Smithfield horse-races, which
surely reflect fond memories of the author himself. The popularity of
fast-food and racetracks is no modern phenomenon.
This late 15th century woodcut shows skaters
engaged
in the kinds of activities
described by FitzStephen.
There is a good deal we can recognize in FitzStephen's characterization of
twelfth-century London society that rings true for city life in the
twentieth century, while Devizes' account similarly reflects many of
today's prejudices towards the urban setting. Plus ça
change...
