MOUNT ROYAL UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES

“POLICING VIOLENCE: ROYAL AND COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES IN MEDIEVAL
FRANCE”

ALLISON BAILEY

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF ARTS, DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES,
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS, HISTORY HONOURS

CALGARY, ALBERTA

31 MARCH, 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank, first and foremost, Dr. Emily Hutchison, for her guidance and
support throughout this project. Without her help and wealth of knowledge, I would not have as
successful in this endeavor. She has been a great mentor, professor, and friend.
I would also like to thank Dr. Jarett Henderson for his help in teaching me how to
properly craft an Honour’s thesis. With his direction of History 5110, I was taught the necessities
to conducting good history.
Finally, I would like to thank those medieval French people who gave their lives to make
this project so interesting.

1

ABSTRACT
Violence is, and was, a destructive interpersonal act that occurs both on the large scale
through wars, and small scale between two or several people. In medieval France, under the right
circumstances, violence was simultaneously policed, and used to police society, especially at the
interpersonal level. Men, women, the young, and old were all victims and perpetrators of
violence. However, gender and age were significant factors in the legitimization of violence.
Men would engage in interpersonal disputes in self-defense, to maintain their honour and
reputation, as well as to maintain social order. Women were more likely to be the victims of
sexual assault perpetrated by men, but the severity of their attacks was dependent on their age
and sexual maturity. These distinctions illustrate that there were some women who were more
valued in society than others, for example virgins were pure and had value for marriages.
It is the purpose of this thesis to demonstrate that there were legitimate and acceptable
forms of violence that could be used to police society. While murder/homicide and sexual
violence were deemed to be capital offences, among local communities, where dominant cultural
norms superseded “the law”, violence was sometimes considered a productive social force. It
could be used to reinforce social values and maintain power structures, especially patriarchy.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………… 4

CHAPTER 1: CONCEPTS OF VIOLENCE………………………………………… 21

CHAPTER 2: MURDER AND HOMICIDE………………………………………… 32

CHAPTER 3: GENDERED VIOLENCE……………………………………………. 47

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………....……….. 63

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………..………………………… 66

3

INTRODUCTION
Violence permeated late medieval society at all socioeconomic levels and involved all
genders; no one was excluded. However, violence was not a static or universal act of
wrongdoing. In some societies – past and present – violence could be a useful tool for
maintaining social relationships and balancing power, and more generally for maintaining the
status quo. Medieval Europe was certainly a violent place and France was no exception. In the
medieval context, violence had a specific social function and was therefore not necessarily
considered to be an egregious act to those involved or to potential witnesses. Primary source
evidence surrounding the use of violence, especially at the interpersonal level, suggested that
those who resided in cities and towns across the realm actually used violence to police each
other’s behaviours. Community and royal policing exemplified the significance of maintaining
social order and enforcing moralities. Because violence could be used to reinforce moral codes,
social order, and the status quo, it was highly structured among those who resided in the cities
and towns by a series of cultural and social norms. These norms constituted the “rules” for how
one ought to behave, especially concerning disputes, and were sometimes further reinforced by
local and customary laws. 1 This thesis explored the tensions between the community’s and the
royal authority’s views on violence as a means of controlling behaviours. These tensions arose
when disagreements surrounding the proper uses of violence were incompatible between the two
levels of society. The royal authority, in the name of the king, attempted to put an end to all
violence through the issuance and attempted punishment of laws, whereas the community had
normative uses for violence to regulate the actions of their peers.

For a discussion on the legally sanctioned use of violence through enmities, see Robert Bartlett, ‘“Mortal
Enmities’: The Legal Aspect of Hostility in the Middle Ages,” in Feud, Violence, and Practice – Essays in Medieval
Studies in Honor of Stephen D. White, eds. Belle S. Tuten and Tracey L. Billado, 197-212 (Burlington: Ashgate
Publishing Company, 2010), 198.

1

4

This thesis focused on the policing of behaviours through violence within the community
and its tense relationship with the attempts made by royal authority who wanted to control
violence. These two distinct but interrelated levels of society were in constant competition for
authority and the right to impose justice and seek order throughout society. Those who resided
in the towns and cities, who were not members of the royalty, clergy, or nobility, will henceforth
be referred to as the “community.” This demographic engaged in interpersonal violence, at the
street level; in other words they were engaging in small acts of violence with only a few people,
and therefore few witnesses. Compared to the nobility, the communities’ acts of violence were
not at the same intensity as private noble wars. The term “royal authority” will therefore refer to
the King of France, or any person of authority acting on his behalf to impose royally sanctioned
laws, especially laws against violence. In considering the two forms of policing violence
between the two levels of society this project asked: How did the royal authority and community
police violence? And, how was violence used to police members within the community?
Central to the medieval world was one’s reputation. Someone was only as good as his or
her word, and how others spoke about them. Therefore, a central theme that was prominent in the
scholarship on medieval Europe, on crime and legal recourse during this period, and which is
visible in the primary sources was the notion of fama. This word was used to designate one’s
reputation and how the community perceived an individual and their family. Fama was not only
reputation, but also how the community talked about a person; their fama was based on how
community members perceived their peers through their “collective memory.” 2 Fama could be
the only catalyst necessary to initiate a case in court, which signified the weight and gravitas

F.R.P. Akehurst, “Good Name, Reputation, and Notoriety in French Customay Law,” in Fama: The Politics of
Talk and Reputation in Medieval Europe, eds. Thelma Fenster and Daniel Lord Smail, 75-94 (Ithaca: Cornell
Univeristy Press), 81.

2

5

community talk had on community perceptions of an individual. 3 F.R.P. Akehurst’s study of
reputation and medieval France suggested that a person’s identity was interwoven with their
reputation. Reputation was the only source of credibility that a medieval French person had, and
their actions would affect their reputation either positively or negatively. If someone was of good
repute, or fama, then they had access to all of society, especially in terms of the courts. Only
those of good fama were able to bring cases to court and accuse others.
Claude Gauvard has even argued that those with good reputations could not be accused of
crimes. 4 To designate someone as a “criminal” was a most egregious label that could not be
reversed, this labeling would have destroyed the accused’s fama and they would be ostracized
from society. 5 Whereas an individual with a poor reputation became a social outcast and was
extremely limited in their ability to use the court system, even if they were the ones who were in
need of help. 6 Reputation was so significant to the medieval person that it was deemed an
extension of their corporal body, and of more value than flesh. 7 There were many factors that
influenced one’s reputation, including “gender, class, social status, wealth, connections, bribes,
friends, and community,” all of which could have negative or positive impacts. 8 Reputation and
perceptions of violence were shaped by community understandings of what was and was not
appropriate behaviour. Akehurst’s study demonstrated the importance of talk and communication
throughout French society. When most of the population was illiterate, there were few ways for

Skoda, Medieval Violence: Physical Brutality in Northern France 1270-1330 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2015), 34.
4
Gauvard, “De grace especial,”Crime, État et société à la fin du Moyen Âge, 2nd ed. (Paris: Publications de la
Sorbonne, 2010), 140.
5
Hutchison, “Defamation a Murder More Foul: The Two Murders of Louis, Duke of Orleans Reconsidered,”
Forthcoming, 15-6.
6
Akehurst, “Good Name,” 77-81.
7
Hutchison, “Defamation: a Murder More Foul,” 19.
8
Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute:’Gender and Social Control in Medieval England (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1998), 1.
3

6

common people to interact with each other. When considering violent offenses, one’s reputation
shaped the outcome of the events.
Early inquiries into violence and the use of violence had a focus on feuds, enmities,
personal wars, and were mainly believed to have been the exclusive pastimes of elites, the
noblemen/women of medieval France. Nobles who engaged in private wars and enmities were
serving to normalize violence as a form of justice outside the laws of the kings. William Ian
Miller wrote extensively on revenge in twelfth century Iceland, where the social elite, including
the kings, engaged in acts of revenge that were above the prescribed laws. 9 Supporting the
argument that feuding was limited to elites, Howard Kaminsky argued that nobles were the only
class who were allowed “the right to feud.” 10 Kaminsky and Miller’s writings demonstrated that
the use of violence through acts of revenge extended beyond the law, and that revenge was used
to attain justice that the laws could not provide. Resorting to violence in the form of revenge
became an acceptable means of arbitration for justice.
Revenge was very similar in many respects to enmities, where parties would declare an
official hatred for each other and justify any future violence between the parties. Robert Bartlett
investigated the use of enmities among nobles as a form of seeking justice beyond the law,
further normalizing the use of violence. Enmities were deemed to be their own legal category,
where those who entered into an enmity had special dispensations or “exceptions” before the
law. 11 Enmities were agreements between rivals where they could use violence as a form of
revenge for a perceived wrong. Bartlett and Miller both investigated the use of violence among
the nobility and upper classes. Nobles normalized violence as a means of arbitration,

William Ian Miller, “In Defense of Revenge,” in Medieval Crime and Social Control, ed. Barbara A. Hanawalt and
David Wallace, 70-89 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998): 70-5.
10
Howard Kaminsky, “The Noble Feud in Later Middle Ages,” Past and Present no. 177 (2002): 61-2.
11
Bartlett, ‘“Mortal Enmities’”, 200.
9

7

circumventing or acting above royal laws. Violence became a significant feature to medieval
culture for arbitration and negotiation for all members of medieval society.
Despite the use of violence among nobles for their own means, they were not responsible
for maintaining the peace of the realm, nor were they charged with dispensing justice. Historians
shifted focus from noble violence, to who was actually responsible for regulating violence to
establish peace in the kingdom. The king had made attempts to control the violence, although
these attempts were ineffective to some extent. Justine Firnhaber-Baker demonstrated that it was
ultimately the king who was the “peacemaker.” 12 Between the reigns of King Louis VI (r. 11081137) through King John II (r. 1328-1350) the concept of peace within the French realm was not
well defined, it was not until the reign of King John II where he argued that his suppression of
private wars superseded customary practices because he was divinely chosen to dispense justice
on earth by God. 13 Firnhaber-Baker argued that between the reigns of Louis IX (r. 1226-1270)
and John II there was a shift in the role of the king, which was to maintain peace through the
proscription of violent acts. Hence, the concept of peace, order, and the common good became
focal points for ruling and only through the delegitimization of violence could these virtues be
achieved. 14 The kings were in charge of maintaining peace, order, and dispensing justice
throughout the realm, but there were contested ideas of royally ordained peace that nobles
actively ignored, as they continued to participate in private wars.
Firnhaber-Baker’s work reflected two major historiographical themes that had been the
topics of much discussion: first the notion that the kings were in charge of maintaining peace,
order, and justice throughout the realm; and second that there were contested ideas of royally

Justine Firnhaber-Baker, “From God’s Peace to the King’s Order: Late Medieval Limitations on Non-Royal
Warfare,” Essays in Medieval Studies 23, (2006): 19.
13
Ibid., 20-5.
14
Ibid, 26.
12

8

ordained peace that the nobles (and community) ignored or circumvented. These notions were
significant because there was an implicit notion that those engaging in private wars were
ignoring and disobeying the orders of the king to achieve their own forms of justice through
violence. For the nobles to engage in personal wars also demonstrated that there was a need to
seek out justice for a dispute, beyond the authority of the king. The studies of nobility and
violence demonstrated that although the king did impose his authority and laws on his subjects,
the subjects would often reject his legal impositions in favour of cultural and customary norms.
The laws of the French kings evolved gradually throughout the centuries, slowly
replacing the customary laws that were popular among the populace in an attempt to centralize
the power of the crown. 15 Beginning in the thirteenth century, French kings sought to consolidate
their authority by revoking regional laws and customs that had become popular throughout
French lands. Eventually, by the fourteenth century, the Parlement of Paris (the highest court of
the realm and the institution associated most closely with the king’s chancery) was attempting to
streamline legal processes and eliminate regional attempts at private law enforcement. 16 Under
this new centralized law system, medieval France was still not a coherent state; royal judges
were not placed in individual villages, and there was no police force, which resulted in
communities maintaining private remedies to violent actions. 17 The inability of the king to
enforce his laws was apparent through the use of violence among the populace to maintain peace
itself.

15
Jean-Marie Carbasse, Histoire du droit pénal et de la justice criminelle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,
2000): 159.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid., 189. Carbasse claims that there was no police force until the reign of Louis XIV. There were, however,
royally sanctioned police units, such as the Provost of Paris who was in charge of maintaining peace within the city
of Paris, and the prison of the city, the Châtelet.

9

Claude Gauvard considered the attempts to control violence, even when regional customs
remained influential in the shaping of the law or its enforcement, as a power discourse used by
the French government during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 18 The proliferation of crime
was a catalyst for the early establishment of the French State, therefore, although crime was
disordering it also served to unite and build government structure. 19 As a response to crime and
violence that was common throughout society, the crown reacted by implementing a static means
of arbitration and the system of remission letters to ensure peace throughout the realm. 20
Despite attempts by the king to stop noble wars through legislation, he was also
attempting to control violence at the street level by establishing law courts. Like the nobility, the
community decided which laws they accepted and the ones they challenged. The courts were
another means to manipulate the system. Daniel Lord Smail has argued that the citizens of
Marseilles were “consumers” of the judicial system. 21 But, despite Smail’s argument that the
courts were a forum for legal vengeance and emotional satisfaction, the citizens of the realm
continued to use of violence amongst themselves to attain personal justice. 22 Miriam Müller,
who investigated the use of the hue and cry in medieval England, made similar arguments about
the uptake by the community to regulate violence. 23 Barbara Hanawalt noted that in England a
failure to report crimes (such as through the hue and cry) was punished with fines, reinforcing
royal attempts of controlling violence. 24 Those within the community were expected to call
attention to crimes in progress as a form of community policing. The royal authority was

Gauvard, Violence et ordre publique au Moyen Age (Paris: Picard, 2005), 11.
Ibid.
20
Gauvard, De grace especial, 941.
21
Daniel Lord Smail, The Consumption of Justice: Emotions, Publicity, and Legal Culture, 1264-1423 (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 2013), 19.
22
Ibid., 11-16.
23
Miriam Müller, “Social control and the hue and cry in two fourteenth-century villages,” Journal of Medieval
History 31 (2005): 31.
24
Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute,’10.
18
19

10

implementing laws and establishing courts as a means of limiting street violence, but the
violence continued. If the courts were not reducing the amount of violence, historians questioned
whether violence actually served a purpose in medieval society.
Historians, such as Hannah Skoda and Warren C. Brown questioned the function of
violence at the street level; they argued that violence was a form of communication. Skoda used
the term “grammars” of violence, which designated the communicative structure by which
violence was understood by medieval French people. 25 Violence was intended to be a spectacle
that communicated a message that was both “performing and performative.” 26 Brown also
argued that violence in the medieval world was regulated by strict social norms, defined as
“models, standards, or patterns of social behaviour that [were] accepted or expected by members
of a group.” 27 Skoda and Brown’s studies enhanced historians’ understandings that dominant,
localized norms (or values) relating to violence were invoked and sometimes manipulated by the
king’s subjects in their community settings in order to legitimize or delegitimize their actions. In
other words, violence could be legitimized under specific circumstances and social settings, both
of which were highly influenced by prevailing cultural, social, and sometimes political values.
Historians have either focused on the royal perceptions of violence, the nobility using
violence for private feuds, or street level violence. This thesis fits into the historiography of
violence in medieval France by bringing attention to the disconnect between the royal authority’s
impositions of laws against the use of violence and the community’s continued exploitation of
violence for justice. The French crown in turn legitimized these acts of violence through the
issuance of pardon letters.

Skoda, Medieval Violence, 3.
Ibid.
27
Warren C. Brown, Violence in Medieval Europe (Toronto: Pearson, 2011), 9.
25
26

11

Pardon letters (or lettres de remission) issued by the Parlement of Paris, the king’s
highest court from 1410-1411 comprised the bulk of primary sources for this thesis. These letters
were from the JJ 165 series housed at the Archives nationales de France. Pardon letters were
granted to people who had been accused of and charged with a violent crime for which the
penalty was death. However, in these same cases there was sufficient testimony from the
community to advocate for and ultimately secure the release of the accused. These letters proved
to be useful to studies of violence because they demonstrated the types of crimes that were
deemed pardonable, crimes for which sufficient numbers of community members would rally for
a pardon, as well as intimate details of violent crimes. They can tell us a great deal about norms
relating to gender, sexuality, status, and the social value(s) placed on particular bodies (such as
youths or the aged), and what were generally deemed acceptable forms of social interaction in
public and private settings. These letters were constructed narratives, which demonstrated that
there was a way in which violence could be legitimized by the supplicant, and reinforced by the
king.
In Claude Gauvard’s influential work, De grâce especial, she described in great detail the
process of obtaining a pardon. The pardons were granted by the royal authority and absolved the
accused of all wrongdoing, and it did not matter which court was investigating the crime (ie.
ecclesiastic, royal, seigniorial, or urban). 28 The accused had their reputation restored, as well as
all their property, but the victim’s interest and enmities were still upheld. 29 Pardons did not
negate guilt, but indicated that the crime was not deemed worthy of punishment or that the guilty
party being labeled as a person of ill repute. The process of acquiring a pardon could be long,
arduous, and expensive: first, after the petition by the supplicant or their representatives, the
28
29

Gauvard, “De grace especial,” 63.
Ibid.

12

master of requests passed the plea to the royal counsel and if approved was given to the
chancellery who wrote the pardon and collected the applicable fees. 30 Once the pardon was
granted, it went to a judge to be ratified in front of the accusers who had to approve all the claims
being made in the pardon. Pardon letters were narratives of justifiable violence.
However, Natalie Zemon Davis’ groundbreaking work on pardon letters queried their
reliability. She noted that there was a process that had to be completed to ensure that the
information being used to seek a pardon was accurate. The supplicant, or those seeking the
remission letter on their behalf, had to tell the events to the royal notary who would then verify
the details with the victim’s family. After the victim’s family confirmed the events in the letter, it
was ratified and the pardon was granted to the appellant. 31 Having the family review the pardon
before it was granted to the supplicant suggested that these documents were reasonably reliable.
Davis did note that the notary who wrote the events could embellish the narratives in an attempt
to make the supplicant seem pitiful. 32 There was also little information given about those
involved, except for a few mentions of a supplicant being poor, or the victim being of ill repute
or deserving of their fate. Davis’ study of the sixteenth century remission letters had been highly
influential because these rich primary sources had not been studied in depth. Davis’ methodology
and analyses of remission letters had been of great value to this study, especially her recognition
of the letters as constructed narratives of the supplicants’ needs to justify their actions.
What the documents suggested was that the most significant use of violence was to
establish and reinforce order as well as police social behaviours and interactions. For example,
when individuals became too rowdy or disorderly in collective spaces, there was a need from the

30

Ibid.
Natalie Zemon Davis, Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and their Tellers in Sixteenth-Century France
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987), 15-7.
32
Ibid., 16.
31

13

community to restore balance by determining what was just, and what was unjust. A remission
letter from ca. 1410 that was granted to a young man, named Guillome that illustrated this point
well. The narrative in the document provided details that Guillome had, apparently, accompanied
several men, including Roucelet, Jehan Bichur de Machesain the elder and his son Jehan to a
tavern to have a meal together. 33 At the beginning of their night, the men had not thought badly
of each other, nor had they intended to cause any disturbances. After they had eaten and had
drunk heavily, however, a debate emerged between the Jehan the younger, and Roucelet;
Roucelet insulted Jehan by calling him a womanizer but immediately took back his words
because Jehan had been offended. Roucelet then apparently punched Jehan in the face, at which
point Jehan the elder pulled out a big knife he was carrying. For reasons unknown, he threw it in
the fire and took another little knife that was on the table and broke it in two. The supplicant,
Guillome, went to Roucelet and intervened because the group was causing too much of a
disturbance in the tavern. Jehan the younger argued that Guillome was equally guilty of causing
a disturbance and took the knife from his father and cut Guillome severely enough that he
thought he would die. When Guillome felt that he had been hit, he took a knife off the table and
went after the son, but struck Jehan the elder in the chest who died. Guillome was taken to the
secular prison of the archbishop of Reims and was imprisoned until the issuance of the remission
letter. Guillome claimed that he had no hate towards the Machesain family and that they were in
actuality good friends.
This remission letter served as an excellent example to the purpose of royally sanctioned
pardons. Alcohol, emotion, and reputation were significant factors that resulted in the death of a
man, and the pardon of the man who killed him. This letter also provided a strong introduction to
medieval societal values and norms. The supplicant was also sure to include in his narrative of
33

Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 63v. For this and what follows.

14

the events that he had been wounded gravely enough that he though he would perish, this was
significant because Guillome was legitimizing his retaliative violence. Violence was used as both
a negative assault, and a positive reaction – Guillome had put the rowdy Jehan the elder in his
place. As such, this pardon demonstrated the use of violence to police the behaviours of those
living in the medieval world. The lettres de rémissions were granted to many violent offenders,
like Guillome, whose actions were considered a negotiation through violence due to the dispute
that occurred at the tavern caused by Jehan the younger. The multitude of violent crimes that
were committed and subsequently pardoned demonstrated that violence had a complex social
meaning in medieval French society.
The remission letters were attempts by the French government to control the violent
behaviours of the communities, thereby reinforcing its sovereignty. The letters, however, also
demonstrated the weakness of the Crown because it was acquiescing to the demands of the
community to legitimize their use of violence. The strength of the influence the community had
over royal legal process was apparent within the very structure of the letters. Each letter opened
with a variation of the same line “Charles by the grace of god, king of France.” 34 This opening
line was intended to impart to the audience made up of the community seeking the remission that
it was only by the grace of the king that the pardon was going to be granted to the supplicant.
Following the opening line where the king was introduced, the letter continued to say that the
king has “received humble supplication of (name of supplicant).” The following portions of the
letter detail the events that resulted in the need for the granting of a pardon. The letter ends with
the supplicant being reinstated as a full member of the community. In all eleven letters it was

Paris, Archives nationales de Paris, JJ 165 fol. 13r., JJ 165 fol. 11v., JJ 165 fol. 63r., JJ 165 fol. 58r.-58v., JJ 165
96r.-96v., JJ 165 44v.-45v., JJ 165 fol. 57r.-57v., JJ 165 42r.-43r., JJ 165 fol. 52r.-52v., JJ 165 fol. 73v., JJ 165 63v.
For this and what follows.
34

15

made clear that it was only through the mercy of the king that the supplicant was being pardoned,
negating any efforts the community would have put forward for the letter.
Despite the proliferation of pardon letters, the kings attempted to pass royal ordinances to
control violence. To accomplish this, the kings of France issued specific rules surrounding the
acceptable and unacceptable forms of violence that were codified into laws for all the populace,
but which nonetheless were influenced highly by the customs of the regions in which they were
published. The pardon letters legitimized violence through the power of the king,
notwithstanding the king’s attempts to limit violence on the streets. Royal ordinances point to the
king’s endeavors to stop violence. The primary focus of royal ordinances was on the laws issued
by Charles VI (r. 1380-1422), but royal laws from other realms throughout medieval Europe
were consulted for comparisons when relevant. There were hundreds of ordinance laws passed
during Charles VI’s reign. The abundance of royal ordinances can be supported with customary
laws that were found in different regions of France. The royal authority of the king was
embodied in his law and his officers of justice. With the law and his men the king attempted to
regulate the forms of violence that could be used by the community. And yet the king engaged
indirectly in violence in different ways, such as through war. Additionally, the punishments of
capital crimes – those violent acts of disobedience to the Crown – were themselves violent by
modern standards. 35 Punishments of capital crimes had to be spectacular events in order to
reinforce the supreme authority of the king. 36 Royal authority passed several laws to try to ensure
peace throughout the towns and cities, but these laws were not always in agreement with the

Gauvard, Violence et ordre publique au Moyen Âge, 51-2.
For a discussion on punishments and spectacles to reinforce royal authority, see Michel Foucault, Discipline and
Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), Esther Cohen, The Modulate Scream: Pain in
the Late Medieval Culture (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2010), and Emily J. Hutchison “Pour le bien du roy
et son royaulme: Burgundian propaganda under John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, 1405-1418” (Diss. York, UK,
2006), 200-9.
35
36

16

cultural values that were held at the community level. From the example of Guillome and Jehan
the younger, there was a power struggle between the king’s law and community. Guillome was
arrested and imprisoned for his homicidal act, but the community responded by demanding his
release from the crown. In their eyes Guillome was merely trying to intervene in a fight that was
not his. Ultimately the Parlement de Paris acquiesced. 37 From this we can see that the
community did not agree with the punishment bestowed on Guillome and were successful in
gaining his release.
Remission letters, like the one Guillome received, were granted to supplicants who could
justify their violent acts. They were not relieved of guilt, but were restored to their former
standing within the community. In addition to the supplicant’s reputation being restored, they
also had their goods and property reinstated. Supplicants had to have a good reputation (good
fama) in order to have the support of their peers to rally for their release from imprisonment. A
good reputation also ensured that what the supplicant said was trustworthy. Community
conceptions of violence were shaped by the customs of those at the street level.
Customary laws, especially those written by Philippe de Beaumanoir were localized laws
written based on cultural and societal values and norms. Beaumanoir’s laws came from the
community of Beauvaisis and were written in the early thirteenth century. Regardless of their
local focus, these laws retained their significance because they represented some of the dominant
values, customs, and norms shared within medieval French society writ large. 38 For example,
although murder and homicide resulted in death, the circumstances surrounding the killing
determined the severity of the punishment for the attacker. Although these customary laws were
only in practice for a few years, the laws of Beauvaisis demonstrated the culturally acceptable
Ibid. In the case of Estienne, it was his “parents et amis charnelz” who petitioned for his release.
Philippe de Beaumanoir, The Coutumes de Beauvaisis of Philippe de Beaumanoir, translated by F. R. P Akehurst
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992), xiii.
37
38

17

and unacceptable forms of violence that were prevalent at the time. 39 These customary laws have
been heavily studied by modern scholars to understand the distinction between customs and
royal law, but also to get insight into social and cultural values and practices of medieval
society. 40 Beaumanoir’s laws were put in constant dialogue with other laws, both customary and
royal, and with laws from other territories across Europe throughout what follows. In so doing, I
was able to discern consistencies in perceptions of what forms of violence were deemed just and
what were unjust, by whom, and why. Thus I determined precisely where conflicts between royal
authorit(ies) and the subjects of the realm emerged in terms of how violence was practiced,
policed, and punished. The contrast between, royal ordinances, remission letters, and customary
laws demonstrated the intersecting levels of French society and the varied reactions of violence
among the populace and government.
Other forms of primary sources that were used in this thesis included customary and royal
laws from other realms throughout medieval Europe and Catholic Church sermons. These were
helpful in teasing out where community conceptions of acceptable forms of violence were
rooted. French citizens were constantly surrounded by and saturated in violence, whether it was
through daily physical violent acts and experiences, including violent assault, war, and violent
punishments, or the narratives of violence that were enshrined in various forms of literature
during the period. For example, various miracle stories that were recorded by the Church and
propagated through sermons, and other forms of popular literature such as fabliaux, were filled
with examples of violence. 41 To the diverse communities across the French realm, violence was

39

Ibid.
See Hannah Skoda, Medieval Violence: Physical Brutality in Norther France 1270-1330 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2015); Claude Gauvard, “De grace especial:” Crime, État et société à la fin du Moyen Âge (Paris:
Publications de la Sorbonne, 2010); Claude Gauvard, Violence et ordre publique au Moyen Âge (Paris: Picard,
2005); Richard W. Kaeuper, Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
41
Skoda, Medieval Violence, 19-27.
40

18

therefore more significant than merely the physical act; it permeated all facets of their culture.
The king’s subjects were acutely aware of the cultural importance of violence.
Indeed the various grammars and norms of violence, as well as the royal authority’s
construction of what constituted a violent crime demonstrated that there were competing
perceptions of violence across the French realm. Together with the primary sources describing
actual violent acts that were committed, and the legislations attempting to regulate violence, this
thesis argued that violence was simultaneously policed by royal authorities and by the
community at the street level. Moreover, this thesis demonstrated that the latter had power
enough to challenge royal authority and impose its own autonomy through the very system that
sought to deny it.
In what follows I explored the community and royal conceptions of crime and violence in
Chapter 1 where it was argued that there must be an understanding of the concepts of violence in
the medieval period to fully grasp why they used violence regularly. The next two chapters will
each focused on specific types of violence. Chapter 2 focused on the differences between
homicide and murder, and how these two forms of violence further complicated medieval
understandings of violence. In Chapter 2 it was argued that the use of a capital crime, homicide,
could be legitimized and pardoned through pressures from the community on the royal authority.
But the same was not applicable to cases of murder, which demonstrated the ambivalence of
using violence to police each other. Chapter 3 investigated gendered violence – violence against
women, including rape and domestic violence. In this chapter, the use of rape and domestic
abuse as legitimate forms of violence to police and control women was discussed. It argued that
these forms of violence were used as a means of maintaining social order and establishing the
value of women within medieval French society. Throughout these chapters, the importance of

19

reputation, honour and how the narratives of the pardon letters were shaped around the
supplicants’ character were examined.
The goal of this research project was to reshape modern perceptions of violence from the
past. To a modern western interpreter, who is invariably influenced by the dominance of a stateimposed judicial system, violent crime was rarely justifiable and always punishable. However in
medieval France violence was a critical social tool used to settle disputes between people, mend
someone’s honour, or even to send a message to a rival. Even naming categories of violence
(murder, rape, youth gangs), demonstrated acts of imposing modern values on the past. Violence
in fifteenth century France must be understood in medieval terms.

20

CHAPTER 1
CONCEPTS OF VIOLENCE
The people of medieval Europe had different conceptions about violence than the modern
day West, which shaped their ambivalence towards physical acts of aggression. In fact, the term
“violence” was problematic because those in the medieval period used different terminology,
which also shaped their perceptions about what constituted legitimate versus illegitimate
aggressive acts. 42 To comprehend how and why medieval people engaged in violence, there must
be an understanding of how they perceived violence, especially through language and social
norms. In this chapter, ideological conceptions of violence, peace, and justice will be explored to
establish the framework for how violence was sometimes deemed legally or extra-legally
acceptable, and other times it was not. In the remission letters “violence” was never expressly
stated; rather the supplicants were typically described as reacting to aggressors who were
behaving in excessive or shameful ways. Narratives within the remission letters used different
descriptors for violent acts. Because remission letters were granted to supplicants who had
engaged in legitimized violence, certain acts were permissible, and sometimes these acts were an
indirect way of policing the violence of others. The community policing we observe within the
documents may not have been lawful according to royal law, but the justifications given and the
pressure from below to pardon suggest that the community had its own ideas about what was just
and unjust. Many of these notions seemed to have triumphed over royal justice regularly.
The royal government framed physical acts of violence as both socially disruptive, and
acts that broke the King’s Peace. Equally significant was the actual disruption that violent crimes
could make within the community as a whole, which went against the common good of the
For a discussion on what constituted legitimate versus illegitimate violence, see Gauvard, ‘De grace especial,’
2010; Skoda, Medieval Violence, 2015; Brown, Violence in Medieval Europe, 2011.
42

21

realm. Everyone shared the realm, and it was everyone’s responsibility to maintain the peace
under the guidance of the king. Kings imposed their power on their subjects as a means of
controlling crime. Kings were to set the precedent of moral and just behaviour. Crime itself was
compared to a contagious disease, if the kings were to engage in criminal acts, his subjects would
become infected and the realm would fall into chaos and ruin. 43 Kings embodied the ideal of a
father; they were expected to provide safety and security to the realm. 44 This notion was formally
articulated through the body politic theory, a dominant political theory that envisioned the realm
as a body where each socio-economic category of society constituted a particular body part, led
by the king, its head. Influenced by Aristotelian theory, the body politic worked toward one end,
and one end alone: the common good. 45 As Skoda has shown, such ideas also circulated in the
streets in more general terms. 46 Hence, those who were victims of violence would also seek
justice through royally established courts that were designed to limit violence. However,
violence could and was used as a just method for engaging in communication with other
people. 47 Violence as a form communication was highly significant, the terms that were used to
designate violence were also equally important. The king’s ability to police his subjects was
contentious, and the community often resorted to policing itself.
Under Philip IV’s reign was a shifting conception of the notion of peace among the
people. Philip IV’s conception of peace moved away from God, his ordinances were concerned

Gauvard, ‘De grace especial,’ 224.
Ibid., 236.
45
For a succinct discussion of the body politic theory and its relationship to political culture more broadly it is
related to politics, see Emily J. Hutchison “Pour le bien du roy et son royaulme: Burgundian propaganda under John
the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, 1405-1418” (Diss. York, UK, 2006), 23-31. See also Matthew Sean Kempshall,
The Common Good in Late Medieval Political Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). For and for its
utility in civil war propaganda (and hence, to its uptake by both scholars and ), see Hutchison, “Winning Hearts and
Minds in Early Fifteenth-century France: Burgundian Propaganda in Perspective,” French Historical Studies 35, no.
1 (2012), 8-10.
46
Skoda, Medieval Violence, 53.
47
Ibid., 3.
43
44

22

with maintaining peace as human nature with the complete “absence of violence.” 48 Philip IV
started another ideological shift over the course of his reign, and that was the designation of the
people’s actions having a direct effect on the common good. 49 The concept of the common good
was originally discussed by Aristotle, and was used to describe an ideal community’s goal of
working towards “a high degree of universal morality.” 50 The idea of the common good was
carried through the centuries with the implementation of Roman law, which claimed that the
good of the community was greater than the individual. 51 By the late medieval period all acts of
violence as being an act of aggression within the community could be framed as an attack on the
whole. Royal customs argued that God entrusted maintenance of the common good to the kings
and therefore it was the duty of the kings to maintain peace. 52 These concepts of peacekeeping
and the common good were intended not only to persuade the people of France to limit their
violence, but the kings were also attempting to delegitimize violent acts that were deemed to be
damaging to the realm as a whole. The constantly changing conceptions of peace within the
French realm directly correlated to the shifting conceptions of violence.
The French kings increasingly limited the legitimate acts of violence within the realm,
while also making “peace” something that could be observable and attainable. Although violence
at the community level served a purpose of communicating a message, it was also disruptive to
the greater fabric of society. The King’s Peace was a concept that was meant to ensure that the
people of the realm would behave according to royal and ecclesiastical rules. Philip IV of France
(r. 1285-1314) saw the need to limit violence among his people who he had been divinely

Firnhaber-Baker, “From God’s Peace to the King’s Order,” 22.
Ibid.
50
Hutchison, “Pour le bien du roy et son royaulme,” 26.
51
Ibid., 27.
52
Firnhaber-Baker, “From God’s Peace to the King’s Order,” 23.
48
49

23

ordained to protect. 53 Parts of his decrees were an attempt to limit private wars, so that if the
King was at war, no private wars could be started. Philip also made violence against other
individuals including “homicides, arson, and attacks on farmers and plowmen” forbidden. 54
It can be argued that the people of France were engaging in self-help justice through
private wars, but the same justification was applied to those who killed under the guise of
vengeance. A distinct shift in the rhetoric of the pardon letters occurred during the fourteenth
century where the narrative shifted to an affective, emotional, tone that legitimized the use of
violence in vindictive acts. 55 The Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453) served to diminish the power
of the king and therefore the royal authority. After the English captured King John II of France,
the realm turned away from the crown and began to settle disputes without royal intervention. 56
Justine Firnhaber-Baker argues that the significant rise of pardon letters being granted during the
War, and that they remained high through to the reign of Charles VI (1380-1422) showed that
the populace was respecting the rules of the realm, but they did not fear the outcome of their
actions. 57 However, several of the pardon letters studied for this thesis noted that the supplicant
had fled the county for fears of the rigors of justice. 58
As notions of the importance of peace to protecting the common good began to take root
in late medieval France, there needed to be legitimate ways of attaining justice for perceived
wrongs. The term “just” can be defined as “acting or done in accordance with what is morally
right or fair.” 59 As such, “justice” referred to the attainability of what was just, the need to right a
wrong if it was done justly. The French people needed and outlet where they could attain
Brown, Violence in Medieval Europe, 259.
Ibid.
55
Firnhaber-Baker, “From God’s Peace to the King’s Order,” 139-40.
56
Ibid., 148-9.
57
Ibid., 149.
58
See, Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 58r.-58v., JJ 165 fol. 42r.-43r., JJ 165 fol. 73v.
59
Katherine Barber, ed., The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (Don Mills: Oxford University Press, 1998), 767.
53
54

24

justification for violent attacks against their bodies and their kin. Justice was a public spectacle,
just as violence was. Punishments imposed by the courts were meted out in the public sphere for
all to witness. 60 Royal authorities’ attempts at controlling violence provided different venues for
pursuing justice; this ultimately, but slowly, led to an increase of the use of the court system to
settle disputes among rivaling parties. 61 Justice, then, was highly significant to the study of the
pardon letters because the supplicant had to defend why their violent actions were a form of
“justice,” rather than a crime.
Violence as a word was not commonly used, rather the term violentia was applied to
“disordering brutality,” whereas the word vis was used to describe “physical force … to reinforce
social order.” 62 The subtle and nuanced differences between violentia and vis demonstrated the
ambivalence medieval people had towards violence. Violentia was a disordering mechanism that
could be ordered and rectified through vis. This trend was apparent in the pardon letters where an
aggressor was acting with violentia and the supplicant used vis to regain control of the situation.
These words also showed that in some cases violence was actually a useful tool. Some terms
associated with violence were only used to designate upper class or governmental violence, such
as the term “cruel” which was used in the context of discussing tyranny. 63 The ideal king was the
embodiment of peace, justice, and the common good, his role was not only to govern the realm
according to these ideals but to also ensure that his subjects behaved accordingly. 64 The legal
definitions for many laws surrounding violence did not conform to laymen’s understandings of
the physical act; for example there was a law against cutting the hair of prostitutes because it was

Smail, The Consumption of Justice, 22.
Ibid., 5.
62
Ibid.
63
Gauvard, Violence et ordre publique, 12.
64
Hutchison, “Pour le bien du roy et son royaulme,” 26.
60
61

25

deemed excessively cruel. However those who engaged in this violent act, usually university
students, did so because they believed it was “a form of moral policing.” 65
Labels not only served to name and categorize different forms of violent acts, they were
also used to denigrate. To be labeled a criminal would destroy an individual’s reputation beyond
repair and ostracized them from the community. 66 Labels were used to spread a fear of crime
among the communities of France, a tactic employed by the king in an attempt to diminish the
number of violent crimes occurring. This propaganda tool served to spread a fear of crime and
minor transgression came to be associated with the most heinous acts. 67 The use of labeling
crimes and violence served to shape public opinion of not only what constituted a violent and
egregious act, but also who were the most likely suspects of committing crimes.
There were very small differences in the words used to designate specific forms of
violence, again leading to more complicated understanding of what were legitimate and
illegitimate uses of physical acts of aggression, also reinforcing medieval ambivalence. In
Beaumanoir’s text there were nuanced differences, such as the word ferir, which meant to hit
someone once, but battre was to punch several times. 68 Terms related to death (homicide) were
often used to designate the severity of the injury, such as causing bloodshed. Examples taken
from Beaumanoir’s work included navrer where there was a wound, or the term afoler, which
meant that the damage caused in a physical altercation needed the attention of a doctor. 69
The subtle differences in language also shaped the narrative of the pardon letters. When
policing each other with violence, medieval people had to ensure their actions could be
Skoda, Medieval Violence, 43.
This was the case in the trial fro the murder of the Duke of Orleans – he was labeled a criminal post-mortem and
his character was destroyed. See Hutchison, “Defamation: a Murder more Foul” (forthcoming).
67
Gauvard, “Fear of Crime in Late Medieval France,” in Medieval Crime and Social Control, eds. Barbara
Hanawalt and David Wallace, 1-48 (Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 1999), 17.
68
Skoda, Medieval Violence, 29.
69
Ibid.
65
66

26

legitimized through the appropriate terms such that it was deemed just in the eyes of the
community and royal authority. In one remission letter the aggressors were accused of
“mutilating,” “beating,” and inflicting blood wounds on their victim. 70 After the initial attack, the
aggressor was killed with an axe to the head upon leaving church by the supplicant. The latter
fled the country for fears of the rigors of justice. 71 This pardon demonstrated violence through
retaliation that was validated in the remission letter. The message being communicated to the
community through the act of granting this pardon was that policing violence with violence
could be acceptable under the right circumstances. However, it was up to members of the
community to clamor for a pardon in the first place. Moreover, it should be noted from this
particular letter that the king’s justice was “rigorous” enough to strike fear into transgressors.
This demonstrated that there was at least an appreciation for the power of royal justice even if
the communities across France frequently ignored it in the first place, or attempted to override it
in remission cases.
The Coutumes de Beauvasisis were not limited to violent acts that only resulted in death.
Beaumanoir specifies various acts of violence and whether they were deemed acceptable forms
of mediation for disputes. Bloodshed determined the severity of the violence that may have been
inflicted. For example, if one person struck a blow against another and there was no blood a
monetary fine was to be paid to the victim, depending on the status of the abuser. Where the
attack took place also factored into the fine that was to be paid, if the attack occurred at or on
route to the market the fine was much higher because these were believed to be safe areas of
passage. 72 Not only was Beaumanoir describing the monetary fines that were to be paid for those
involved in physical disputes, but also unintentionally outlining where violence was not
Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 42r. – 43r.
Ibid.
72
Philippe de Beaumanoir, The Coutumes de Beauvaisis, 304-305.
70
71

27

acceptable, implying that there were other areas of a city where physical acts were more
tolerable.
In cases of domestic abuse, there was a fine line between what was considered to be
violent, and what was deemed to be ordering. Domestic violence was legitimate and used to
maintain the ordering of the household, as an extension of the patriarchy that had been
established and reinforced in the medieval period. The most significant feature of acceptable
domestic abuse was that it was conducted primarily in the intimate spaces of society, rather than
the collective spaces. 73 In an early Norman legal text, the definition of domestic abuse was only
when the husband struck his wife in excess or without provocation; otherwise, husbands could
legitimately strike their wives in order to correct behaviour. 74
In other legal writings of domestic violence, specifically Beaumanoir’s writings, there
were varying degrees of acceptable and unacceptable forms of violence that a husband could
engage in. When beatings involved no hands, no foreign objects, and did not result in serious
injury, bloodshed, or death they were deemed to be acceptable and women were expected to take
them without complaint. 75 This definition used by Beaumanoir only served to further prove the
ambivalence medieval French people had towards violence. To beat a woman (battre) was
acceptable, as long as the beating did not cause death or beating to near death (mort ou mehaing).
However, there was no set rule or indication of what constituted mutilation as opposed to a
severe beating. 76 In court proceedings, to designate an act as violent was contingent on several

Skoda, Medieval Violence, 195.
Ibid., 205.
75
Ibid., 204.
76
Ibid.
73
74

28

factors, namely whether there were weapons used and the specific physical actions that had
occurred during the event. 77
The language used in the remission letters was also highly significant. The supplicant had
to plead their case to ensure that their recollection and action during the violent event was
legitimized. Emotions were part of this constructed narrative. Although both secular and
religious laws condemned the sudden eruption of anger, in some remission letters the victim was
often enraged and acting aggressively towards the supplicant resulting in a justifiable
homicide. 78 In one remission letter a father was simply protecting his son from an assailant who
was arguing and being aggressive to the supplicant. 79 The father attempted to deescalate the
situation but only enraged the aggressor further. Therefore, the aggressor ultimately “deserved
what was coming to him.” 80 Aggressors were also labeled as villainous in the pardon letters, and
by classifying them this way meant that there was further justification for the homicide. 81 Of
eleven remission letters studied for this project, five of the letters made reference of villainous
acts. 82 However, of the five letters, four of the supplicants were granted the pardon because they
had not committed any villainous acts before their act of aggression that led to a death requiring
the pardon. 83
Manipulation of the court system and the issuing of pardons were commonly employed
methods for attaining some semblance of justice. However, the community also overtly rejected
the royal authority’s attempts to control violence. An ordinance issued by Charles VI in 1388,

Ibid., 220.
Ibid., 33.
79
Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 58r. – 58v.
80
Ibid.
81
Gauvard, Violence et ordre publique, 12.
82
See: Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 13r., JJ 165 fol. 11v., JJ 165 fol. 58r. – 58v., JJ 165 fol. 44v.
– 45v., JJ 165 fol. 42r. – 43r.
83
Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 13r., JJ 165 fol. 11v., JJ 165 fol. 58r. – 58v., JJ 165 fol. 44v. –
45v.
77
78

29

described rebellions and challenges to royal authority by people at the community level. 84 The
community had been attempting to thwart the authority of the royally sanctioned officers who
were charged with arresting and bringing to justice criminals from the community. Charles VI
stated that upon attempting to arrest criminals, many of his officers were gravely injured, beaten
severely, mutilated, injured, some even killed and slain. 85 These acts were deemed to be acts
against the king, as a personal insult to his authority as the divinely ordained ruler of the French
people. In the ordinance he stated that when the subjects attempted to react violently to the
Justices’ attempts to arrest wrong doers that it was a great “wrongdoing to Us in body and in
goods.” 86 The language of this ordinance was extremely significant because the king understood
the violence used by the subjects as a direct attack to his body, and his realm. The nobles and
commoners alike were commanded through the letter to behave and accept their punishments
should they be arrested, otherwise they would suffer severe punishments – punishments that
would be so severe that they would stand as an example to all. 87 Although attempts by the Crown
to centralize power from Paris, with the Parlement de Paris had been occurring since the
fourteenth century, this royal letter indicated that the process was not widely accepted throughout
all levels of the community. The populace reacted with violence to the overt attempts of the royal
officers to arrest, punish, or execute criminals.
However, while the community accepted certain forms of violence, homicide for
example, they also actively rejected and feared other forms of violence. Murders, among other
egregious crimes such as incest, arson, or robbery, were seen as destroying social order to the

Ordonnances des Rois de France de la troisième race recueillies par ordre chronologique, vol. 7 (Paris:
L’imprimerie royale, 1755), 197.
85
Ibid., 197. The letter describes the sergeants and officers as “ont esté grandement injuriez & villenez, & trèsénormement batus, mutilez & navrez, & les aucuns mors & occis.”
86
Ibid., 198. “sur quanques ilz se pevent meffaire envers Nous en corps & en biens.”
87
Ibid., 198-9. “punissiez tellement, corporelment ou autrement, que autres y prengnent exemple.”
84

30

medieval people, and there was an increased demand for royal authority to intervene. 88 The
community claimed to be fearful of violence, but their rebellions against the king’s attempts to
impose justice through his arresting officers demonstrated the ambivalence towards violence
held by the people of France. Royal pardons provided another example of the inconsistencies in
the royal attempts to impose punishments for violent crimes. Those accused of crimes could
request pardons on the grounds that the king was impotent in his duties to keep his subjects safe
and therefore the people had to resort to other means of protection. 89
Violence and language were extremely significant to how the populace of France
understood violent acts. The subtle nuances of different words that described aggression only
served to enhance the ambivalence of the people. The king, for his part, actively attempted to
eradicate violence at the street level, however, his attempts were often inconsistent with
community conceptions of justice. The narratives of the pardon letters highlight the importance
of language, and how the community could legitimize their violence with the approval of the
king.

Claude Gauvard, “Fear of Crime,” 1.
Justine Firnhaber-Baker, Violence and the State in Languedoc, 1250-1400 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2014), 139.
88
89

31

CHAPTER 2
MURDER AND HOMICIDE
Violent acts took many forms and had many different results. As noted in the previous
chapter, a physical assault could result in a range of injuries, from minor to severe, and the
gradient of severity had an impact on how the acts of violence were perceived, policed, and
punished. Some violent outbursts could have had serious ramifications, including death. In this
case, the act of violence was deemed by royal authority to be a capital offense, punishable by
execution. 90 In this chapter, homicide as a form of policing violence with violence was
investigated. Medieval French people condoned the use of violence, even when it resulted in
death, when the aggressor was acting against societal norms, or was of ill repute, despite any
damage to the common good. Homicide was used as a form of policing the violent, aggressive,
acts of others. Often, homicides occurred as the result of someone questioning someone else’s
honour requiring that that person redeem themselves. Homicide, therefore, was integral to
policing the socially unacceptable violence of others. While murder and homicide may seem to
be synonymous, they held very different meanings for those of the medieval world. The
distinction between homicide and murder required cooperation between the royal government
and the community to regulate the seemingly similar acts of violence. However, the French
Crown attempted to limit the predominance of violence in the streets by imposing royal law and
the court system in which to try such cases, the communities of the French realm did not readily
abandon their customary and cultural practices of violence as a form of negotiation. This
produced some grey areas for the punishment of homicide and murder, mainly because there was
much ambivalence from within the communities about the killings they witnessed within their
local communities.
90

Hutchison, “Defamation a Murder More Foul,” 5.

32

Furthermore, there were loopholes in the king’s law, which also suggested a great deal of
uncertainty regarding homicide/murder. As the letters of remission illustrated, there were plenty
of ways by which pressure from below (the community) could lead to a pardon of what was
initially deemed by the crown to be murder. For these reasons, the royal government and the
community appeared to have been in constant negotiation. Indeed the lettres de rémissions were
one example of this process; the pardons demonstrated a balance between community values and
legal recourse.
The significance of community talk and the relationship between royal authority and
community perceptions of violence were exemplified in a remission letter granted to a wife after
her lover slayed her husband. The letter (1410), presented the case of a man named Rebel de
Boure had pursued Jehanne du Hamel, the wife of Jehan de Saint Ligier. 91 Apparently, Jehanne
du Hamel eventually succumbed to Rebel’s advances, due to his persistency, and Rebel “knew
her carnally.” Jehan de Saint Ligier had become suspicious of his wife’s activities and beat her
severely. In November, Jehanne ran into Rebel and told him about the beating. Possibly angry at
the beating, he asked where the husband was and if he was alone; Jehanne told him her husband
was alone at the mill, but she noted in her supplication that she did not know Rebel intended to
kill her husband. Jehanne left Rebel by taking “a different path home” to begin her chores. That
same day when Jehan de Saint Ligier was found killed the neighbours gathered and among them
was Rebel. 92 Jehanne was brought to the scene and was hurt and grieving when she saw her
husband. A lieutenant was called to investigate, as per the law, and the community told him that
Rebel and Jehanne were suspected of killing the husband. For the community to successfully
implicate Jehanne and Rebel in the murder of the husband served to demonstrate the weight, or
91
92

Paris, Archives nationles de Paris, JJ 165 fol. 58 r. – 58 v. For this and what follows.
Ibid., “tue et murdry.”

33

gravitas, that was placed on the value of community talk. The fama that was circulating as a
result of this killing was enough to have Rebel and Jehanne taken to prison. Later Jehanne was
moved to another prison. Eventually friends were able to intervene with the royal authority,
Jehanne was pardoned, and had her reputation restored, and her property, and goods returned.
This pardon was significant because of the unique circumstances surrounding the case,
but like all letters it was frustrating because of what it omitted from the record. Whoever brought
the information to the lieutenant remained a mystery. Jehanne had been accused by witnesses as
having been involved in the murder of her husband, however her pardon demonstrated that there
were enough people who could argue that she was innocent and secure her release. This in itself
was indicative of the ambivalence a community had toward acts of violence. Jehanne had been
adulterous in her marriage, which it could typically be assumed that it would have adversely
affected her reputation. Perhaps this was why those who informed the king’s lieutenant chose to
do so rather than leaving her out all together. However, she had her reputation formally restored
by royal decree, and was cleared of the charges laid against her. This was a confusing situation.
Does this suggest that her adultery was less important than the beating she received? It seems
unlikely given that beating wives was justifiable in contexts like maintaining patriarchy when
masculinity was questioned. Historians were left to wonder whether Jehanne’s reputation as an
adulteress was ever truly repaired when she returned to her community. Furthermore, there was
no mention of what happened to Rebel de Boure. It is most likely that he remained in prison
because he would have committed murder, if in fact he were found guilty.
This lettre de rémission was evidence of the ambivalence towards violence held within
the community and royal authority. Community policing was evident in several areas of this
remission letter. First, Rebel felt it necessary to inflict harm on the husband in retaliation for his

34

lover’s husband beating her so severely. Was the husband’s beating deemed excessive by those
who advocated for her? Can this explain why Jehanne was ultimately pardoned? There was a
fine line between excessive domestic violence and disciplinary violence. But there were
thresholds on what could be deemed acceptable physical punishment of wives – weapons were
not to be used. 93 The ambiguity in this case begs the question, was her husband disliked within
the community, and was it because of the severity of his ordering violence? Rebel’s vengeful act
of violence not only resulted in the death of the husband, but also communicated that at least he
felt it necessary to police excessive domestic abuse. Perhaps Jehanne’s pardon suggested the
community agreed. However, on the other hand, the community initially denounced Jehanne and
Rebel, demonstrating that her peers either believed this homicide to be illegitimate or, were at
the very least acquiescing to the rigours of royal justice. And yet Jehanne had enough people
who rallied in support of her release that eventually she was pardoned. This was in keeping with
other cases: women tended to have low conviction rates, their crimes were not as feared by the
community. 94 Perhaps she was arrested in the first place because the community felt compelled
by the law to denounce her, knowing she would be either acquitted or pardoned. Villagers in
England, for example, were also subject to fines if they did not report a crime, while knowing
that their peers would be acquitted of any charges if they were of good repute. 95
Philippe de Beaumanoir’s work outlined gross societal ambivalence towards homicide
and murder that was held by the community and royal authority. According to Beaumanoir,
murder was “when someone [killed] someone else (or [had] them killed) premeditatedly between
sunset and sunrise, or when he [killed] someone or has them killed during a truce or a guaranteed

Skoda, Medieval Violence, 200-221.
Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute,’ 7.
95
Ibid., 10.
93
94

35

peace.” 96 Murder, therefore, was under the cover of darkness where there could be no witnesses
to the crime. It also necessitated premeditation, organization, and preparation like in cases of
poisoning or an ambush. 97 There would have been no opportunities for the victim or witnesses to
raise the hue and cry, nor could there be anyone to defend the victim.
While both homicide and murder were thought of being equally reprehensible, homicide
could be justified under the right circumstances, otherwise they were both punished with death.
According to Beaumanoir, homicide “[was] when someone [killed] someone else in a fight, for
example, it [happened] that a disagreement [arose], and from the disagreement [came] harsh
words, and from the harsh words the fight in which people often get killed.” 98 At the core of
disagreements was honour. One’s honour was integral to their identity, and when one’s honour
was questioned or diminished, especially in public, this was deemed a great insult. 99 Murder and
homicide, although seemingly the same, held very different consequences for all those involved.
In the case of Jehanne and Rebel, Jehanne’s pardon letter was essentially her narrative of the
homicide. She had to ensure that she appeared to be a victim of excessive domestic violence, but
also that she had nothing to do with her husband’s death. It seems to have worked for her, for
despite the fact that she had been having an affair and it was her lover who allegedly killed her
husband, she was granted a pardon.
Past historical interpretations of women committing violent crimes was that they were
acting in abnormal ways against the social construct of feminine behaviour, but recently Trevor
Dean has argued that women took part in violent crimes under the principles “of honour and

Beaumanoir, The Coutumes de Beauvaisis 303.
Carbasse, Histoire du droit, 370.
98
Philippe de Beaumanoir, The Coutumes de Beauvaisis, 303.
99
Gauvard, ‘De grace especial,’ 734.
96
97

36

shame,” the same as their male counterparts. 100 Crime rates among women were relatively low,
compared to men. Over the course of the reign of Charles VI (1380-1422), only four percent of
royal pardons were granted to women for “serious crimes” committed in Paris. In other areas of
France, including Lyons and Manosque women committed about twenty percent of the crimes. 101
Men and women committed crimes differently. Women were believed to tend more
towards non-violent crimes, mostly theft of minor items, such as food and clothing. 102 When
women were accused of capital crimes, they were not for homicide, but arson, witchcraft, and
treason. 103 When women did participate as aggressors in violent crimes, they had fewer homicide
convictions because although they did take part in violent brawls, women usually did not
incorporate weapons, relying on their hands, feet, and teeth resulting in relatively minor
injuries. 104 Although men and women were engaging in violence differently, honour and
reputation were at the core of their acts. Women, like men, would defend their honour through
violence, when necessary. One case of a fight between two eighty-year-old women resulted in a
pardon letter being granted after one of the women died illustrated this point well. This was a
conflict over personal honour. In February 1410 Jehanne de Quesne, who had been residing in
the house of an abbot with her husband for about seven years, got into a verbal altercation with
another woman named Jehanne de Phart. 105 According to the document, Jehanne de Quesne had
no prior disturbances, debates, or riots in the home. One morning Jehanne de Quesne was doing
something around the house (though we do not know exactly what) when she was approached by
Phart and was told that she was doing it wrong. Quesne answered that she was unaware of any

Trevor Dean, Crime in Medieval Europe (London: Pearson Education, 2011), 77.
Ibid.
102
Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute,’ 7.
103
Gauvard, ‘De grace especial,’ 300-1.
104
Ibid.
105
Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 44 v. – 45 v. For this and what follows.
100
101

37

issues, but Phart continued the verbal altercation accusing Quesne of having carnal knowledge of
the abbot of the house, calling her a fausse macquerelle, which translates into a prostitute. 106
Phart continued to hurl insults at Quesne, to the point where the latter was so infuriated by the
injuries and insults that she grabbed Phart by the neck and attempted to strangle her very hard
and beat her with her hand several times. Quesne chose to react with violence, which would have
been deemed legitimate, because her honour had been attacked through verbal violence from
Phart. This use of physical violence was in the heat of the moment and intended to communicate
to Phart that her insults were inappropriate and unfounded. Quesne’s husband, Guillaume,
arrived during the altercation, but notwithstanding the physical attack or his arrival, apparently
Phart continued her barrage of insults. According to the document, the physical assault also
continued. Phart attempted to raise the hue and cry that she was being “murdered and killed,”
and the reader of the pardon was led to believe that this was what led to the end of the physical
attack by the married couple. Phart fell ill and died in her bed eight days later. The supplicants
left the country because they did not feel they would get justice. Phart was very weak and her
death could not be proven to have been the result of the beating, so Quesne and her husband
were pardoned. While Beaumanoir wrote that physical and verbal altercations were to incur a
monetary fines, Jehanne de Quesne and her husband fled the country because they feared that
they would be punished to the fullest extent of the law. 107 Quesne had been insulted, and in a
moment of anger attacked Phart. But because the attack could not be directly attributed to the
death, the Quesnes were pardoned for the violence. Whether the death was a direct result of the
attack, illness, or age, the rhetoric of the remission letter suggests that the courts were passing

Edna Ruth Yahil, “A Rape Trial in Saint Eloi: Sex, Seduction, and Justice in the Seignurial Court of Medieval
Paris,” in Voices from the Bench: The Narratives of Lesser Fold in Medieval Trials, ed. Michael Goodich, 251-271
(Gordonsville: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 259: translates “macquerelle” as a procuress, or prostitute.
107
Beaumanoir, Coutumes de Beauvaisis, 305-6.
106

38

responsibility of the death to causes that could not be proven. This letter also served as an
example of the unwillingness of courts to charge potential criminals to capital crimes.
Furthermore it demonstrates how central honour and reputation was to community members.
Jehanne Quesnes attacked Jehanne Phart out of a desire to protect herself from such harmful
insults to her reputation. To be accused of sexual indiscretions at any age was, for a woman,
social anathema. 108
Within the densely populated urban setting, streets were the veins of the city; people were
traveling around through the streets to markets, or to run errands, and there was constant
communication, both verbal and physical. 109 Streets as an arena of communication also meant
that there would be high rates of violence because it was thought to communicate specific
messages to those involved but also to witnesses. 110 For example, in a pardon letter granted to
Huguet Brachet, the scene of the homicide occurred in the streets. 111 Huguet was apparently “a
poor man who had a wife and children”. 112 The hue and cry was raised and he was alerted by
some of his friends that his son was being beaten. When Huguet and his friends arrived to where
his son was being beaten, Cauchon (a teenage boy) ran at Huguet with sword drawn and accused
Huguet of denying God, a great insult to Huguet’s honour. Huguet Brachet said that was not true
and that it gave him great displeasure. Cauchon had said such things. Yet Cauchon continued to
argue and approached with his sword. Huguet was attempting to deescalate the situation but
Cauchon did not stop being aggressive so, according to the pardon, he deserved what was
coming to him. Huguet and his friend Neron had clubs that they used to beat Cauchon. Huguet
hit him twice in the head, and Neron hit him at the nape of the neck and in the head. One of the
This is illustrated particularly well below in Chapter 3 “Gendered Violence.”
Skoda, Medieval Violence, 51.
110
Ibid., 53, 3.
111
Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 58r. – 58v. For this and what follows.
112
Ibid., “pauvre home… charger avec femme et enfants.”
108
109

39

defenders took the sword away from Cauchon so he could not use it against Huguet. There was
no visible harm done to Cauchon and he went home, but the next day he died. Huguet fled the
country, when asked about his departure he said that he doubted he would gain justice. Huguet
was pardoned because he was an honest man who and had a good reputation, and it was just by
fortune that Cauchon had died. 113 Cauchon was also the aggressor, and he and Huguet had never
had conflict before, there had only been an incident because Huguet’s son was being beaten.
This pardon made mention of Huguet Brachet being a poor man. The inclusion of his
socioeconomic status was unique for the sample of pardon letters scrutinized for this thesis. It
could also have been a method of embellishment the notaries used to make the supplicant sound
like a victim. Huguet was using violence in self-defense; Cauchon had been attempting to
physically harm Huguet and his son. Cauchon had instigated a violent attack, not only against
Huguet, but also partaking in an assault against Huguet’s son. Huguet was put in the position of
having to defend his son, himself, and his honour after Cauchon had questioned Huguet’s piety –
a significant insult to the character of Huguet. Cauchon was depicted as being in a state of rage,
where the only way to stop his violence was through further violence. Cauchon’s aggression was
policed to establish that his actions were unacceptable. He was warned several times in an
attempt to stop his rampage, which ultimately resulted in his death. Honour and reputation also
lay at the heart of this justifiable homicide. This was a legitimate killing, even if the rigors of the
law demanded it be prosecuted.
In Beaumanoir’s writing murder and homicide were clearly defined, however, beatings
were more fluid, especially whether blood had been shed. He suggested that if the victim bled
from broken skin (not a mere nosebleed which was deemed to be insignificant) and the attacker
had something in their hand then the attacker was to be arrested and held until officers were
113

Ibid., “aucun villain cas ou blasmes ou reprouche.”

40

certain that the victim would survive the attack. 114 Should the victim survive the penalty imposed
on the aggressor was a monetary fine. But, if the victim were to die as the result of the attack, the
transgressors were to be charged and punished under the auspices of homicide. 115 Although
Beaumanoir did not specify the time of day of an attack leading to death, the designation of the
death as homicide would suggest that these beatings were often the result of brawls and therefore
not murder. The Coroner’s Rolls in England contained one case of two men where “strife arose
between them,” and one of the men slit the throat of the other man with a knife. 116 The aggressor
confessed his guilt and was given the option of leaving the country rather than being charged as a
felon. 117 Similar to the Rolls the French remission letters were granted to many instances of those
who killed others in physical altercations, for example the case of Jehanne de Quesne and Phart,
the 80 years olds who got into a verbal and then physical brawl. 118
Descriptions of homicide throughout Europe were relatively homogeneous,
demonstrating that there were common sentiments towards violence and death in various
medieval realms. In Marseilles there were punishments outlined specifically for “homicides
committed illicitly.” 119 The inclusion of the word “illicitly” suggested that there were homicides
that could be committed licitly. The term “homicide” used in the law was an all-encompassing
violent act to designate “anyone [who] shall have assaulted or wounded or mortally injured
anyone else in Marseille.” 120 Homicide in Marseilles meant something very different than it did
in Beauvaisis, but both descriptions of homicide demonstrated that it was a violent act that
resulted in injury and in some cases death. Those criminals who fled the region were not
Philippe de Beaumanoir, The Coutumes de Beauvaisis, 305.
Ibid.
116
Daniel Lord Smail and Kelly Gibson, eds. Vengeance in Medieval Europe: A Reader (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2009), 414.
117
Ibid.
118
Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 44v.-45v.
119
Smail and Gibson, Vengeance in Medieval Europe, 348.
120
Ibid.
114
115

41

permitted to return until they had paid the associated fine to the family, those who stayed in
Marseilles and were captured by authorities, or those acting on behalf of the authorities, were
punished according to the crimes committed. 121 In other regions of France, including Touraine
and Anjou similar laws pardoning violence existed, for example if a man killed another in the
fight, but before the victim died he inflicted harm on the living man, the living man was not to be
hanged. 122 But, if the family of the dead man contested the judgment and the injury, then there
would be further investigations and could lead to a battle where the loser would be hanged.
A pardon letter granted to Jehan Fregier, a young man of 22 years old who was out
drinking with his friends around nightfall, can be directly correlated to the customary laws of
Tourraine and Anjou. 123 Jehan was not in the mood to drink, but his friend Cybeust forced him to
through insults and peer pressure. After Cybeust had had enough to drink, the bar matron, Mme.
Gaillaud cut them off. At this point Cybeust drew a sword and threatened to beat the woman with
Badelair (the sword’s name). When Jehan saw that Cybeust wanted to beat Mme. Gaillaud he
took the blade by his hand and received a cut to his palm. Jehan successfully stopped Cybeust
from harming the woman, but Cybeust then turned his anger towards Jehan and threatened to kill
him. Jehan was put in a room and separated from Cybeust, and several tavern patrons restrained
Cybeust so Jehan could leave. But Cybeust followed Jehan out of the hostel and hit Jehan twice
with Badelair, once on the head and once on his arm. The second blow did no damage. Jehan
attempted to retreat from Cybeust by going to his brother’s house, but Cybeust followed him
with Badelair in hand. At this point Jehan grabbed a stick and beat Cybeust on his hand and
head. Cybeust died. Not only had Cybeust started the physical attack twice, but he had also
harmed Jehan when he was attempting to protect the woman in the tavern. Following the
121

Ibid.
Ibid., 331.
123
Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 96r. – 96v. For this and what follows.
122

42

customary laws of Touraine and Anjou, this homicide would have been justifiable. This
applicability of regional laws to other areas of the realm demonstrated that France, while not a
unified country at this time, had relatively homogenous laws concerning violence.
Other regions throughout medieval Europe, such as England, had specific laws
surrounding homicide. Similarly to rules of homicide and murder in France, England also made
distinctions between the two acts. Royal laws in England had been established in the 1220s and
revised several times by royal advisors. 124 These laws were intended to supersede all customs
and regional laws bringing all jurisprudence under the English crown. Homicide was designated
for those acts where someone was killed in self-defense, or through negligent actions in daily
tasks. 125 For example, if a tree was cut down and fell on someone, this case may have been
deemed a homicide if the person accountable had not taken the necessary precautions.
Punishments for homicide in England varied depending on liability and whether the slaying was
deemed just. A significant characteristic to English law was that those who were guilty of
homicide were not only punished corporally, but also spiritually and had to repent through
penance. 126 Even though homicide was deemed an act that involved breaking the king’s peace,
there were still exceptions made for those who could justify their acts. 127 There was a special
mention of the use of homicide to attain justice: “for homicide committed in doing justice, with a
proper and lawful intention, no punishment [was] to be inflicted.” 128 Homicide in England, like
France, could be justified and acceptable under certain circumstances. These loosely defined
structures surrounding homicide exemplified the uncertain nature of violence within society.

Smail and Gibson, Vengeance in Medieval Europe, 317.
Ibid., 318-9.
126
Ibid. Corporal punishments were not listed.
127
Ibid., 317.
128
Ibid., 319.
124
125

43

German customary laws from the early thirteenth century mirrored those of France, as
well as the royal laws of England. In violent crimes where someone was beaten, the aggressor
had to appear to the court and confess their crime before being designated an outlaw. 129 If
someone were to receive the title of outlaw, then they were to be punished with death upon
capture. But those who were outlaws and not captured, but forfeited themselves to the authorities
were granted pardon and their former rights restored. Killing was also deemed appropriate if a
challenge had been requested and accepted by both parties. But death was only allowable under
the condition that skin was not broken. 130 This rule surrounding bloodshed can be related back to
Beaumanoir’s description of the severity of assaults that were determined if blood had been
spilled. Germany had explicit and severe punishments for those who were charged with violent
crimes. Criminals who engaged in “murderous arson” were the be “broken on the wheel.” 131 This
meant that the criminal was bound to a cartwheel, and with an iron bar was beaten with the intent
of breaking the bones. 132 German customary laws also required that those who were guilty of
rape, abductions, assault, or violated the peace were to be beheaded. 133 In cases where the person
was acting in self-defense and slayed someone, they were to go right to the courthouse and
explain their actions. 134 Upon their confession, a monetary fine was paid by the confessor and
the kin of the slain man had to claim the money. 135 Much like France and England, Germany
further exemplified the distinctions between the slaying of a person and under what conditions it
was acceptable.
Ibid., 326.
Ibid.
131
Ibid., 327.
132
Alexander M. Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary, vol. 2, 2nd ed. (New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co., Law
Publishers, 1870), 620. The authors also argue that this punishment was used in France until the French Revolution
in 1789.
133
Smail and Gibson, Vengeance in Medieval Europe, 327.
134
This was not unlike the case of Estienne who had attempted to rape Jehanne but failed, went to the court after
Jehanne had attacked him and in retaliation he killed her (Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 11v.).
135
Smail and Gibson, Vengeance in Medieval Europe, 327.
129
130

44

These laws from throughout France and other regions demonstrated the overt attempts by
those in position of royal authority attempting to police the violent behaviours of the members of
local communities. The efficiency of these laws and the process of enforcement, or punishment,
was however, questionable. Doubt in the royal government’s efficiency arose in part from the
great number of pardon letters granted by the French throne to those who had committed violent
crimes. Moreover, as Hanawalt and Smail have both shown in their respective works, it was
possible and common for local communities to take some control in whether they would
persecute transgressors, and how by using the judicial system to their advantage. 136 Jehanne and
Rebel’s case demonstrated the ambivalence towards the use of judicial processes. Although the
community denounced Jehanne du Hamel initially, they also defended her and urged for her
release from prison resulting in her royal pardon.
Additionally, in late medieval Europe, killings were not uncommon features of day-today life. In densely populated urban settings, street violence was fairly regular. Violence was
supported and encouraged in urban settings because of the easy access to alcohol and the very
close quarters of those involved in the disputes doubtless nurtured tension in the streets. In the
pardon letter granted to Jehan Fregier, he and Cybeust had been at a tavern, and Cybeust had
been cut off due to his overindulgence in alcohol. This consumption would have been a major
factor in his violent temperament and eventual death. The alcohol consumed by Jehan and
Cybeust was done so on a whim and not through an already agreed upon arrangement. Disputes
resulting in beating and then death were often impulsive with no prior planning, resulting in

Hanawalt argues that juries made up of locals were able to manipulate the courts for verdicts that were favourable
to the community, see Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute,’ 11, and Smail argues that locals of Marseilles would use
the courts to further enmities or to insight violence with their enemies, see Smail, The Consumption of Justice, 26-7.
136

45

homicide charges to be laid and usually dropped. 137 Although Jehan should have been charged
with homicide immediately, he fled the country “for fear of the rigors of justice” before that was
possible. 138 The fear of the rigors of justice was a commonly used narrative technique employed
in the pardon letters. Of the eleven letters studied, six argued that the supplicant had fled the
country out of fear. 139 This tactic could possibly have been used as a means of questioning the
fairness and leniency of the crown. The granting of pardon letters implied that any criminal
charges against Jehan were dropped and he was permitted full access to his goods and
community standing.
Although communities rebelled physically and violently towards the royal government’s
attempts to impose justice on them, the populace also resorted to legal means of subverting royal
laws towards violence. The punishments surrounding cases of homicides were rarely invoked,
alternatively community members were able to justify their actions in a manner that satisfied the
court and their peers. That the laws throughout Europe were relatively the same demonstrated
that the cultural values towards homicide and murder were commonly held. Men and women
also engaged in homicides and violence, although women were more likely the victims than the
aggressors.

137
Skoda, Medieval Violence, 77-8. Skoda uses the term “murder” to describe all acts of killing, but according the
de Beaumanoir, many of these acts of murder could, and should, be designated as “homicide.”
138
Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 96v. – 96r.
139
Paris, Archives nationles de France, JJ 165 fol. 96r.-96v, JJ 165 fol. 42r.-43r., JJ 165 52r.-52v., JJ 165 fol. 73v.,
JJ 165 fol. 58r.-58v., JJ 165 42r.-43r.

46

CHAPTER 3
GENDERED VIOLENCE
Violence between genders, especially violence against women by men, was an ongoing
issue for the people of medieval France. Similar to the ambivalence and minute contrasts
between homicide and murder, sexual and domestic violence were ostensibly considered
reprehensible by the royal authorities, but acceptable within very ambiguous limits within the
community. Men used violence to police the behaviours of women and also their bodies –
especially when the established patriarchy was being challenged. Violence against women
perpetrated by men was strongly linked to two different factors: to sex and marriage. There were
many factors that determined the validity of the use of violence against women; violence was
especially prevalent when women challenged masculinity. Medieval people were especially
ambivalent towards cases of rape, which were often related to bodies of worth. Indeed a
woman’s reputation, her age, her sexual activity, and whether she had “provoked” a male by
challenging him all influenced how royal authorities and the community understood (and
constructed) the legitimacy sexual and domestic violence. Royal and ecclesiastical laws
concerning rape, marriage, and domestic violence only complicated medieval perceptions of its
legitimate use. In the pardon letters under review here, there were several cases where rape and
domestic abuse were at the forefront of the criminal actions, but that the pardon letter exists
demonstrated that there were acceptable uses of violence against women to maintain social
equilibrium in the form of medieval patriarchy. Customary and regional laws supported the
maintenance of patriarchy through the low conviction rates of rapists and the legitimate forms of
domestic violence that were permissible to husbands.

47

One pardon letter detailed the attempted rape of an elderly woman that resulted in her
death. In 1411 the friends and family (des parents et amis charnelz) of Estienne Blancour
successfully petitioned for his pardon from the French Crown for his actions that led to the death
a woman named Jehanne. 140 Estienne had gone to a tavern, where he drank a little too much
wine. Estienne went to Jehanne’s room and attempted to force himself on her, she resisted his
advances and as a result damaged his penis. In extreme pain he took Jehanne by the head and
slammed her against something. Jehanne died several days later. Estienne was imprisoned, but
his friends and family rallied for his release. Estienne’s good reputation was restored and his
goods returned. Estienne’s release was justified by the crown because of his already good
reputation (home de bonne nom renomee) and because he had not committed any other villainous
crimes (ne [commis] d’autre villain cas). The homicide was also justifiable because Jehanne was
of ill repute within the community, her sexual activity after her husband’s death (date unknown)
was scrutinized, she was old (70-80 years old), and ill.
This remission letter provided several details about the French legal system as well as
community values during the fifteenth century. It also provided insight into the various factors
that were taken into account for legitimizing violence: reputation, honour, gender, and policing.
There was a delicate balance between the community and royal authority when cases of violence
were being contested. Jehanne had literally and figuratively damaged Estienne’s manliness, and
in so doing she also damaged his honour and reputation. Estienne’s violent retaliation against
Jehanne was in response to extreme emotions he was feeling at the moment that she damaged his
penis. Emotions were an acceptable means of legitimizing violence. Not only were Estienne’s
actions justifiable to the royal authority, but also to the community; Jehanne had been deemed of
ill repute and was therefore a nuisance to the community. Jehanne’s age would have played a
140

Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 11v. For this and what follows.

48

significant roll in the issuing of a pardon for the attempted rape. She was an old widow of ill
repute because she had, ostensibly, engaged in sexual activity after her husband had died. For all
these reasons therefore, this particular body was deemed of very little value in her society.
Jehanne had also been a stranger to Estienne, similar to many of the other cases of rape
investigated in this chapter. To legitimately rape a stranger would demonstrate that there were
opportunities for men to police and further oppress women who were deemed to be of ill repute,
or who held low social standing. Alternatively, rapes in marriages were not a legal category at
all; women owed their husbands the marital debt, however, the violence that appears between
spouses was just as violent.
The possibilities to legitimize rape were curious given that, although sex in the medieval
world was supposed to be limited to marriage (especially for women), in reality both men and
women engaged in extramarital affairs. However, women’s sexuality was constantly under
scrutiny and suspicion, mainly as a result of many centuries of attacks by Church canonists and
theologians. These men consistently argued that women, being daughters of Eve, had higher sex
drives and enjoyed sexual intercourse more than their male counterparts. 141 Women were
hypersexualized. This was evinced in the case of Jehanne described above. For a woman in her
seventies to be disregarded because of her earlier sexual encounters speaks volumes.
Women were also in danger of being associated with prostitution based on the spaces
they occupied. Women who worked in, or frequented taverns were of suspect character and often
associated with prostitution. 142 Barbara Hanawalt has argued that taverns were ambiguous
spaces, occupied by both men and women, but she argued that women who frequented them

James A. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1990), 492.
142
Ruth Mazo Karras, “Women’s Labours: Reproduction and Sex Work in Medieval Europe,” Indiana University
Press 15, no. 4 (Winter): 153.
141

49

nonetheless put themselves at risk, according to medieval patriarchal perceptions. 143 This might
be explained in part because even if women populated these spaces, the tavern was essentially a
male space; women who were there were thought to be prostitutes, or at least sexually lascivious
women, no matter their actual socioeconomic position within the society. 144 This assumption
about women’s sexual availability may have been a reason Estienne attempted to rape Jehanne in
her hostel room, which was in a tavern.
Women who worked as laundresses were also suspected prostitutes because they had the
opportunity to enter male spaces, such as monasteries, and they dealt with intimate garments of
their male customers. 145 Female servants in a household with men were expected to be at the
disposal of the male inhabitants, and although this behaviour went against social norms, there
was ambivalence towards having sex with servant girls. No one really questioned this
behaviour. 146 Chambermaids’ roles within the home were also questionable. St. Bernardino of
Siena wrote that men could have mistresses who looked after the home, and that the man could
“profit [from] the pleasure of the flesh” of his mistress. 147 In the example by St. Bernardino,
mistresses served the same function as chambermaids or domestic servants. Due to this
expectation of “pleasure of the flesh” chambermaids were often equated with prostitutes, which
was not necessarily untrue; many chambermaids would earn extra income through selling sex. 148
Women’s social status also factored into their ability to bring cases of rape forward, this would
prove to be problematic for lower class women who may have attempted to bring cases forward

Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute,’ 105.
Ibid.
145
Karras, “Women’s Labours,” 153.
146
Ibid., 153-4.
147
St. Bernardino of Siena, “Two Sermons on Wives and Widows,” para. 9, last modified 1999,
https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/bernardino-2sermons.asp
148
Yahil, “A Rape Trial in Saint Eloi,” 259.
143
144

50

against their higher class male attackers. 149 Women being available to men served as one
example of how men used sex to control women’s bodies, policing their behaviour through a
patriarchal society,
Due to women’s perceived sexual deviancy, they were not considered as equals to their
male counterparts, but they were also seen as objects making sexual attacks more frequent and
excessively brutal. 150 A woman who was raped might have little choice but to chose to fall into
prostitution, considering her reputation was already compromised. A young girl in Dijon would
turn to prostitution after her rape in 1492. 151 Jehanne was a young girl who was sent from her
rural home to work in a Dijon rôtisserie. One evening, when she had stepped out to run an errand
for her mistress, Jehanne was dragged against her will to a shop front and her assailant “knew her
carnally”. Jehanne had attempted to scream but the assailant covered her mouth with some fabric
from his apron. After this event, Jehanne fell into prostitution and moved into a house that was
probably a brothel. 152 Jehanne had resorted to prostitution because she had garnered a bad
reputation in Dijon through no actual fault of her own, but simply because her value as a virgin
was gone. Apparently “she was immediately hunted by the young men of the city, who pursued
her so that she began to give them pleasure of her body.” 153 Rapes were frequent and usually
went unpunished, even though the penalty for rape was death. Rape convictions were rare
because there were almost never any witnesses, therefore it was the female victim’s testimony
against the male attacker – the woman’s testimony was often called into question and was
believed to be of lesser value. 154 Medical understandings of the human body also factored into
Caroline Dunn, Stolen Women in Medieval England: Rape, Abduction, and Adultery, 1100-1500 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2012), 53.
150
Gauvard, De grace especial, 331.
151
Maryanne Kowaleski, ed., Medieval Towns: A Reader (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), 346-7.
152
Ibid.
153
Ibid., 347.
154
Dean, Crime in Medieval Europe, 85.
149

51

the prosecution of rapists. It was believed by medieval doctors that women could not conceive if
they did not consent to sexual intercourse, if a woman who was the victim of rape was
impregnated then her rapist would not be guilty of any wrongdoing because the woman would
have had to sanction the intercourse. 155
According to Beaumanoir, rape occurred when someone had “carnal intercourse by force
with a woman against her will, and when she does what she can to defend herself.” 156 This last
provision was crucial; the woman had to have made an attempt to defend herself against the
attacker. If a woman made a claim of rape against a man that was decided by the court as being
unfounded, the woman ran the risk of judicial punishment or imprisonment. 157 The courts
worked in the favour of the male assailants, and therefore against the female victim.
In English law, there were degrees in the severity of rape depending on the sexual activity
of the woman. The rape of a virgin was the most egregious form of rape and was the only
instance a man would be charged to the fullest extent of the law. Rapes of married women or
widows would be punished with a monetary fine. 158 It certainly did not help matters that men
were responsible for writing and implementing laws at this time. 159 In the case of Estienne and
Jehanne, his pardon was only strengthened and legitimized because his victim was an elderly
widow who held little value within the community. The hierarchy of female bodies based on
their sexual activity signified that there was a higher value placed on chastity. Women who were
considered to be loose or had lost their reproductive abilities due to menopause were of little
value to the community.

Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute,’ 127.
Philippe de Beaumanoir, The Coutumes de Beauvaisis, 303.
157
Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute,’ 127.
158
Ibid.
159
Ibid.
155
156

52

Rapes, like murders, theoretically carried severe punishments in the region of Beauvaisis.
Beaumanoir wrote that in the French region of Beauvaisis that all those who were convicted of
rape were to be “drawn and hanged” and that all the perpetrators possessions were forfeited to
the feudal lord on whose land the perpetrator lived on. 160 However, as Hanawalt showed for
English society, convictions were rare. 161 We do not have similar statistics for Beauvaisis, but
given the laws described above and the burden victims faced, it was likely a similar situation.
Abductions could have also resulted in rape, but in these cases, Beaumanoir explicitly
argued that the reputation of the woman was in question when charges of abduction were
brought forward. Beaumanoir wrote that a valid charge of abduction was contingent on “the
admission of the woman and her reputation, for if she admits she went off with him at her own
free will and without force,” the charges could not be laid against the perpetrator. 162 Conversely,
“if she said she was forced, and she told what force, and how it was used, and that for fear of
death she did what he wanted, but as soon as she could she escaped from him to be in safety,
then there would be a wager because of the rape.” 163 Whereas rapes were not often persecuted
through the courts, families sought abduction charges when a rape had occurred seeking
retribution for the loss of a maiden’s marriage value. Abductions were classified as being
damage to the property of a family, as such women’s virginities were considered the property of
a family to be sold at marriage through a dowry. 164 In canon law, marriages that were forced
through abduction were unfounded and could be nullified. One marriage from 1478 was nullified
by the Church because the woman had been abducted against her will, raped, forced into

Philippe de Beaumanoir, The Coutumes de Beauvaisis, 302-3.
Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute,’ 127.
162
Philippe de Beaumanoir, The Coutumes de Beauvaisis, , 327.
163
Ibid.
164
Dean, Crime in Medieval Europe, 85.
160
161

53

marriage, and only after several days was she able to escape. 165 The Church in this case was able
to negate the marriage because the woman had not consented to the marriage vows or the
consummation. She had, moreover, tried to raise the hue and cry, and she fled as soon as she was
able.
Not only was the reputation of the victim always questioned, but she was also made the
re-live and rehearse the events exactly as they occurred in order to be believed. The onus of the
abduction was on the woman; it was her responsibility to escape her assailant. As a general rule,
women who brought complaints against an abductor were “not [to] be believed.” 166 Men were
able to justify their violent actions towards each other by blaming their emotions or having been
insulted. However, women were not to be believed unless they could prove that they had been
the victims of an assault. A woman’s reputation was also questioned and the results of her
accusations were dependent on her repute. Reputation and accusations against rapists were
inextricably linked; women had great difficulty proving their cases in the courts. The laws were
designed by men to favour men.
In other areas of France, the laws surrounding violence towards women were similar to
those of Beauvaisis. In Normandy, a French Duchy, over the course of the thirteenth century the
laws concerning rape were conditional on the age and sexual maturity of the female victims. For
example, if an assailant raped a maiden (a virgin), she had to raise the hue and cry during the
attack, and then after she had to go directly to the chief justice who would order the girl to be
examined by matrons, experts in determining the “signs” of rape. 167 The “signs” of rape that
were required for a conviction depended on the sexual maturity of the victim; for virgins, there

Oldradus de Ponte, “Oldradus’s No. 35 (Consilium),” Internet Medieval Source Book, last modified 1998,
https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/oldradus35.asp.
166
Philippe de Beaumanoir, The Coutumes de Beauvaisis, 328.
167
Emilie Amt, ed., Women’s Lives in Medieval Europe: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1993), 56.
165

54

had to be blood to indicate the tearing of the hymen, as well as other physical wounds or torn
clothes. 168 Other women were also expected to raise the hue and cry, and immediately after the
event had to proceed to an authority and show any wounds or torn clothing. 169 In this case where
the girl raised the hue and cry, and her injuries were consistent with a rape, then the rapist has
several options to refute the claims. The rapist could have gone to a trial by water, where if he
were to fail the trial he was to be mutilated. Or he could offer to marry the victim on the
condition that the girl’s parents and the girl were in agreement. 170
Women who were accused of faking rape a accusation in the hopes of securing a
marriage proposal were to be whipped as a punishment. Married women were also to be whipped
if there had been an accusation of abduction, which was to be decided through a duel between
the husband and the abductor. If the husband lost the duel he had to pay a fine to the accused and
the wife was to be punished. 171 The same procedural formula was followed for widows. Unless
they had no men to represent them in a dual, the assailant was to be held in prison until a pardon
was secured or until a trial was conducted. 172
Prostitutes, women considered to be of ill repute, who were taken by force and were not
paid for their services could take their case to the Duke. The assailant and his chattels would be
seized by the Duke until the prostitute’s price was paid, as well as any damages that were done to
her clothes. 173 Damage to the clothes of a prostitute would indicate that there had been a
struggle, and the assault could therefore be considered a rape. But the only restitution that the
prostitute was owed was her fee and some money to repair or replace her clothing. The

Dunn, Stolen Women in Medieval England, 56.
Ibid., 68.
170
Amt, Women’s Lives in Medieval Europe, 56-7.
171
Ibid., 57.
172
Ibid.
173
Ibid.
168
169

55

distinction between maidens, matrons, widows, and prostitutes demonstrated that the reputation
was highly significant for determining the severity of the punishment towards the attacker.
Similarly to cases of homicide, the victim who had been responsible for provoking the supplicant
had a bad reputation and that was justification for their death, in the case of rapes against
women, where they were the victim, it was their reputation being questioned, not that of the
attacker. Women’s reputations being questionable ensured men could police their behaviour with
more ease than that of other men. The gang rape of a prostitute served to illustrate this point:
Jehanne Boisonne was known as a “public whore” who was sought out by a group of youths who
ascribed themselves “to police the morals” of their town. 174 The young men took this woman to a
home and “enjoyed her.” 175 The actions of these youths were meant to police the body of the
prostitute to assert their dominance over her, as she was known to be of ill repute.
Beyond Beauvasis and the Duchy of Normandy, into the Kingdom of Sicily royal laws
against rape were quite similar to those in France. The laws in Sicily were more explicit in sexual
attacks. For example, the punishment for raping nuns or novices was death. 176 In the laws of
Beauvaisis and Normandy there were no mentions of the rape of nuns or novices. Prostitutes
were deemed safe under the rule of the King of Sicily, and those perpetrators who made
prostitutes perform against their will were to be punished by death. 177 As in France, the rape of
widows, maidens, matrons, or even girls engaged with the intention of marrying were to be
punished by death. However, Jehanne who had been attacked by Estienne was a widow, and
although Estienne attempted to rape her and subsequently attacked her, he was pardoned for her

174
Robert Muchembled, A History Of Violence: From the End of the Middle Ages to the Present, trans. Jean Birrell
(Cambrdige: Polity Press, 2012), 65. This example comes from the sixteenth century, however it is still relevant to
the discussion of gang rapes that were occurring in the fifteenth century.
175
Ibid.
176
Amt, Women’s Live in Medieval Europe, 60.
177
Ibid.

56

death. This pardon shows the distinct differences between the proscription and practice of the
laws. A distinct difference between Sicily and France was that those who were guilty of rape
were not given the option of marrying their victims. 178 A law that was unique to Sicily, not
mentioned in the French codices, described that those who heard a woman raising the hue and
cry but ignored it were to be punished with a monetary fine. 179
Women in Sicily who made false accusations were to be killed. If she was with child,
then the child would be born, reared and weaned after forty days of the birth and then the woman
would be put to death. 180 The laws in Sicily, as compared to France, were that punishments were
more severe for rapists and women who made false accusations – both being put to death. There
were also fewer options for an accused rapist to defend himself in the courts or through battles.
Sexual violence was not only regulated through royal and customary laws but there were
other more overt and public attempts to control violence towards women throughout the realm.
Gauvard argues that violence was a masculine act, that when a woman’s reputation was
damaged, it was the expectation that a man defend her rather than her defending herself. 181 But
the ambivalence towards sexual violence was only complicated further with the use of royally
issued propaganda feeding the hype towards violent crimes to the populace. 182 The royal
authority attempted to strengthen their jurisdiction and their power by equating sexual offenses
to political crimes. 183 Political crimes included “broken safeguard, illegal transporting of arms,
and assault on a public road.” 184 By putting the two categories of crimes together, not only was

Ibid., 61.
Ibid., 62.
180
Ibid.
181
Gauvard, Violence et Ordre publique, 15.
182
Gauvard, “Fear of Crime,” 2-4.
183
Ibid., 11.
184
Ibid.
178
179

57

the Crown attempting to demonstrate that sexual assaults were egregious, but also that they were
an act against the King’s Peace by being of the same magnitude of politically charged crimes.
Sexual violence, while severely punished and with the royal authority attempting to stop
all attempts at rape through propaganda, was still rampant throughout the medieval world. One
case from the French pardon letters in the fifteenth century described a group of young men who
raped an alleged prostitute. The remission letter detailed the events of the night of 26 January
1410 when a young, “ignorant and simple” man named Colin Ymbaut was taken with a few of
his friends to a woman’s house who was known in the community as being an prostitute. 185
Upon arriving at the house of the woman, one of the friends said that he had permission to enter
the abode and that he knew the woman’s husband had been out of the country for over eight
years. As all the youths entered the bedroom, the woman was found with another man with
whom, the document claimed, she said had known her carnally “against her will”. The youths
chased the man away, but several of them went back to the bedroom after. The youths felt that
they had done the woman a service and were pleased that they had chased away this alleged
rapist. By chasing the man away with the threat of violence, they had protected, and defended the
woman while policing the behaviour of the rapist. Colin stayed behind and knew the woman
carnally against her will, but only one time. The supplicant went to his companions the next day
to boast about what he had done, and his friend beat him. Colin had promised the woman that he
would return to her and when he did, he was arrested and imprisoned in the Châtelet. Colin’s
actions were not only policing the alleged rapist who he had chased away, but was also policed
by his companions for his actions with the prostitute. The companions beat him as a means of
communicating that his rape of the prostitute was not justifiable among his peers. However,
Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 57r – 57v. For this and what follows. “Colin Ymbaut pauvre jeune
homme simple et ignorant… 26ieme jour de janvier passé à l’instigation et… de deux autre companions jeunes…
supplicant sesoit transpoté avec eux en certain hostel ou porche ou il [a plusieurs] [rentable] en Paris.”
185

58

Colin was issued a pardon, suggesting that his actions, although worthy of a beating, were not
worthy of a capital punishment. This pardon, as well as the gang rape of the prostitute mentioned
above, and the rape of the young girl in Dijon, served to illuminate that prostitutes in medieval
French society were of little worth. Prostitutes could be policed through forced sex in order to
maintain their marginalized position in society.
Sex for medieval people was only legally and ecclesiastically sanctioned through
marriage. Copulation was for reproduction, and the Church prohibited other sexual intercourse
for any reason other than producing progeny. However, women were expected to be available for
their husbands. There were no laws protecting women from forced sex with their husbands; sex
was deemed to be a marital debt that the woman owed the husband. 186 Early Roman legal
experts, most importantly Gratian who wrote in the 12th century, weighed in to support the notion
of marital debt as being acceptable grounds for coition. Gratian’s writings on marriage
pronounce “if for offspring, then coition is not sin… the same is true when copulation is to pay
the debt”. 187 Marital debt was not a sin, as long as it was not for pleasure. But the question arises,
pleasure for whom? The wife owed the husband a debt in the marriage to be paid when asked,
however women could not in return ask for the same from their husbands. The marital debt was
also a means of maintaining patriarchy within the private sphere, while also policing the bodies
of their wives. To pay the debt, wives were at the disposal of their husbands, leaving little
autonomy to women in the marriage.
Women, who were not able to seek sex within the marriage, would step outside the
marital vows to have affairs. In one pardon from around 1411, marriage, sex, infidelity, domestic

Steven Bednsarki, A Poisoned Past: The Life and Times of Margarida de Portu, a Fourteenth-Century Accused
Poisoner (North York: University of Toronto Press, 2014), 38.
187
Gratian, “On Marriage,” para. 6, Internet Medieval Source Book, last modified 1999,
https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gratian1.asp.
186

59

violence, and patriarchy all appeared within the letter and the narrative culminates in the death of
a wife at the hands of her husband. Jehanne had been having an affair with Vian, and allegedly
confessed to her husband about her illicit extramarital behaviour. 188 She told her husband that
she had gone to see her lover who had persuaded and seduced her to become his physical
companion. Vian, the lover, had a reputation in the community for being a seducer. According to
the document the husband took back his wife and told her to stop the affair and pardoned her,
thinking she would abstain from such activities, and insisted that she stop living a dissolute
(dissolu) life. 189 Nevertheless, she continued to meet Vian, a fact that was apparently well known
to the community. The document claimed it was of “commune renommée” in their town of
Champaigny. On the 18th of November, Jehanne left her hostel and was gone for a long time.
The husband saw that she and Vian were going somewhere and became upset. The husband
made a move against Jehanne because he was mad that she had not abstained from her dissolute
life, and stabbed her multiple times with a small knife. After this attack, the husband fled the
area. Eventually he was pardoned for the crime, but details about his possible arrest were not
recorded. His pardon described that he was a calm and peaceful man, of good repute, honest, and
had never committed any other crimes. 190 The husband was pardoned, and returned to good
reputation and had all his good restored.
In this remission letter, the husband was pardoned for the killing of his wife who had
dishonoured him; he had to police her behaviour to regain his masculinity and his repute among
the community. However, in the remission letter that detailed the slaying of a husband by an
angry lover mentioned in Chapter 2, the wife who had been disloyal through an affair, abused by
her husband, and subsequently implicated in the murder of her husband was pardoned for her
Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 44. For this and what follows.
Ibid., “absterner de mener telle … vie.”
190
Ibid., “homme paisible… de bon vie renommé et… honneste… reprins d’autres villain cas.”
188
189

60

actions. 191 In this remission, the wife had been beaten by her husband, his attempt of policing her
illicit affair, however, the lover in return had to police the excessive beating of the husband by
killing him.
It was curious that a husband was legally permitted to beat his wife to maintain the
established patriarchy, but bar brawls were seen as disruptive and damaging to society. 192 The
example Skoda offeredof a “justifiable homicide” (in the medieval context) was when a husband
beat his wife to death with a pool cue; they had gotten into a fight at their home, he left to go to
the pub to play pool, but his wife followed him and continued the fight in a public space. As
Skoda pointed out, the husband was being emasculated and his reputation was publicly
compromised, so he beat her to death with his pool cue to restore his honour and to teach his
wife a lesson. 193 The husband killed his wife to communicate a message to several parties. First,
he was communicating to his wife that her actions were unacceptable. Second, he was
performing an act that reasserted his masculinity and reputation towards his peers. The wife
brought a private affair and made it a public spectacle, and she paid for that action with her life.
This pardon of the husband who killed his wife Jehanne, and the husband who killed his
wife in the tavern served to exemplify some of the many cases where domestic violence was
deemed an acceptable act between a man and his wife. Marriage not only bound a man and
woman legally, but also in the eyes of the Church. There were specific roles that the ideal
woman was supposed to portray and these ideals were supported through Church writing. Going
back to the twelfth century, Jacques de Vitry, a preacher, gathered exempla for his congregations.

Paris, Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 fol. 63 r.
Skoda, Medieval Violence, 219-220; 55.
193
Hannah Skoda, “Violent Discipline or Disciplining Violence? Experience and Reception of Domestic Violence in
Late Thirteenth- and Early Fourteenth-Century Paris and Picardy,” Cultural and Social History 6, no. 1 (2009): 15.
191
192

61

Exempla were cautionary tales given during sermons. 194 Vitry directly addressed women who
were adulterers claiming, “it is not easy believing a wife nor accepting the advice of an
adulterer.” 195 One exempla described a husband who beat his wife severely with a sack (it is
unknown if there were any contents in the sack), breaking her bones, her screams so loud that the
neighbours came to her aid. The wife took the husband to court but the suit was dismissed. 196
This exempla demonstrated that there were few recourses available to the wives of abusive
husbands, in the eyes of the law and the church. These exempla also demonstrated that the
Church, even as early as the twelfth century was condoning domestic violence towards wives, as
well as inherent distrust in wives that men were supposed to hold. These cautionary tales also
illuminated the justifiability of violence towards Jehanne due to her deceitful and illicit
behaviour with Vian. The husband’s killing of his wife was not only legitimated through the
courts but also through sermons that were being promulgated from very early in the medieval
period.
The exempla were canonical rules established by the Church to police and regulate
marital and sexual behaviours of Catholics. Beaumanoir’s customary laws provided details about
legal recourse that was available to husbands if their wives were having illicit affairs. According
to the laws, husbands who caught their wives having affairs had to publicly denounce the lover,
and if the wife and lover continued their forbidden liaison, the husband had the right to kill the
wife and lover without legal recourse. 197 This customary law explained why Jehanne’s husband
was ultimately pardoned for killing her when she continued her affair. It was a custom to accept
such an act of violence if he had been so disgraced.
194
Jacqueline Murray, ed., Love, Marriage, & Family in the Middle Ages: A Reader (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2010), 304.
195
Ibid., 305.
196
Ibid., 304.
197
Beaumanoir, 330-1.

62

Whether a woman was married, a widow, or a maiden, she was at risk of being sexually
and physically assaulted. Women were often the victims of violent crimes, and the laws were
rarely appealed to when these acts occurred. Royal authorities shared the ambivalence towards
gendered violence that the community held. Both these groups would either turn a blind eye to
domestic violence, or would petition for the release of their peers who perpetrated violent crimes.

63

CONCLUSION
The medieval period was violent, and this violence was not confined to geo-political
borders or regional territories; all medieval people experienced or witnessed violence daily in
some form. There was an obvious need to police it, and this was demonstrated in the large
number of remission letters that were granted to those who had committed violent actions.
Guillome who killed the father in order to stop a bar brawl was policing the disturbance that was
occurring; Estienne who killed the old, widowed Jehanne was policing her violent act of
damaging his penis; and Huguet Brachet who was attempting to calm down an aggressor in the
streets had to resort to violence to stop the attack. 198 All these supplicants had used violence to
police and control the actions of their aggressor; they were policing violence with violence. The
royal authority, for their part, had to police these acts. However, when pressured, the pardons
ultimately legitimized and validated these forms of violence. In effect, the king was perpetuating
the use of violence among the community members to police each other.
Although violence was destructive, it was also used to create and structure society. As
has been demonstrated in this thesis, pardon letters were the apparatus through which the
community could subvert the royal laws that were in place. Pardons introduced here included
homicides and rapes, two acts that are extremely damaging, both to the victim and society. And
although these acts were illegal under the royal laws, those who engaged in these forms of
violence and pardoned were able to demonstrate the fluidity of the law, and the ambivalence of
the people.

198

Archives nationales de Paris, JJ 165 fol.

64

Early studies of medieval violence focused primarily on personal wars and feuds among
the society’s elite, however, violence was also pervasive at the community level. 199 In
communities where everyone was under constant surveillance from their neighbours and peers,
as well as by the king and his representatives (to at least some extent), there was an inherent
need to ensure that all were acting according to societal norms. The constant surveillance would
also necessitate the perceived need to control and rectify the culturally inappropriate actions with
a socially accepted form of arbitration. Violence could include both the culturally inappropriate
action and the socially acceptable action, depending on the circumstances. However, more recent
analyses of interpersonal violence among communities have shown that violence was
communicative and somewhat rigidly structured through the reinforcement of cultural and social
norms. 200
There were legal and customary laws in place as an attempt to control and regulate the
violence that was permeating throughout the French realm. However, in order for laws to be
adhered to, there had to have been a communal uptake from the French subjects. The kings were
meant to embody and maintain peace throughout the realm; however, the king’s version of peace
was not necessarily aligned with what was required at the community level. The communities
did not necessarily follow the laws or the royal authority unless it suited their needs. Rather, they
appealed to their cultural norms to regulate each others’ behaviour.
While there was ambivalence towards murder and homicide, taking the life of someone
could be acceptable. Reputation was key to the justifiability of a homicide. The supplicant had to
ensure that they belayed the fact that their reputation had been tarnished, and that the repute of
the one they killed was of lesser societal value. This was especially apparent in the attempted
199
200

Bartlett, “Mortal Enmities,” 198.
Skoda, Medieval Violencem 8; Brown, Violence in Medieval Europe, 12.

65

rape of Jehanne the widow, who was of ill repute among the community, and therefore Estienne
was justified in her killing.
Gendered violence was structured around similar norms, for women’s value depended not
only on their reputation but also on their age and marriageability. The Church, custumal laws,
and royal laws sanctioned domestic abuse to some extent, however, there was a grey area
between abuse as discipline, and excess. Rapes were, in theory, capital crimes that carried the
death sentence, but as we have seen juries, made up of men, and laws written by men, were
designed to protect the assailants. Rape was also used as a means of policing women’s
behaviour, especially if they were deemed of ill repute.
To the modern Western audience, the pervasive use of violence in the medieval world to
control and police the behaviours of their peers may seem foreign, or “uncivilized”. However, as
has been demonstrated in this thesis, violence served an ordering function, legitimate forms of
violence were permissible to regain peace at an interpersonal level. There were strict norms
regulating how violence was used, and as such there were complex social rules surrounding it.
Medieval France was not an immoral, “barbaric”, or “uncivilized” society; rather it was a
complex, dynamic, and complicated society with written and unwritten laws to which the entire
community was expected to adhere.

66

Bibliography
Archival Sources
Paris. Archives nationales de France, JJ 165 (fols. 11v., 13r., 42r.-43r, 44v.-45v, 52r.-52v., 57r.57v., 58r.-58v., 63r, 63v., 73v., 96r.-96v.)
Primary Sources
Amt, Emilie, ed. Women’s Lives in Medieval Europe: A Sourcebook. New York: Routledge,
1993.
Gratian. “On Marriage.” Paragraph 6. Internet Medieval Source Book. Last Modified 1999.
https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gratian1.asp.
Kowaleski, Maryanne, ed. Medieval Towns: A Reader. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2008.
Murray, Jacqueline, ed. Love, Marriage, & Family in the Middle Ages: A Reader. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2010.
Oldradus de Ponte. “Oldradus’s No. 35 (Consilium).” Internet Medieval Source Book. Last
Modified 1998. https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/oldradus35.asp.
Philippe de Beaumanoir. The Coutumes de Beauvaisis of Philippe de Beaumanoir. Translated by
F.R.P. Akehurst. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992.
Secousse, Mr. Ordonnances des roi de France de la troisième race, recueillies par ordre
chronologique. Vol. 7. Paris: L’imprimerie royale, 1755.
St. Bernardino of Siena. “Two Sermons on Wives and Widows.” Paragraph 9. Last modified
1996. https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/bernardino-2.
Secondary Sources
Akehurst, F.R.P. “Good Name, Reputation, and Notoriety in French Customary Law.” In Fama:
The Politics of Talk and Reputation in Medieval Europe, edited by Thelma Fenster and
Daniel Lord Smail, 75-94. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Barber, Katherine, ed. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Don Mills: Oxford University Press,
1998.
Bartlett, Robert. ‘“Mortal Enmities’: The Legal Aspect of Hostility in the Middle Ages.” In
Feud, Violence and Practice – Essays in Medieval Studies in Honor of Stephen D.
White, edited by Belle S. Tuten and Tracey L. Billado, 197-212. Burlington: Ashgate,
2010.

67

Bednarski, Steven. A Poisoned Past: The Life and Times of Margarida de Porty, a FourteenthCentury Accused Poisoner. North York: University of Toronto Press, 2014.
Brown, Warren C. Violence in Medieval Europe. Toronto: Pearson, 2011.
Brundage, James A. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1990.
Burill, Alexander M. A Law Dictionary and Glossary. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. New York: Baker, Voorhis
& Co., Law Publishers, 1870.
Carbasse, Jean-Marie. Histoire du droit pénal et de la justice criminelle. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 2005.
Cohen, Esther. The Modulate Scream: Pain in the Late Medieval Culture. Chicago: Chicago
University Press, 2010.
Davis, Natalie Zemon. Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and their Tellers in SixteenthCentury France. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.
Dean, Trevor. Crime in Medieval Europe. London: Pearson Education, 2011.
Dunn, Caroline. Stolen Women in Medieval England: Rape, Abduction, and Adultery, 11001500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Firnhaber-Baker, Justine. Violence in the State of Languedoc, 1250-1400. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Firnhaber-Baker, Justine. “From God’s Peace to the King’s Order: Late Medieval Limitations on
Non-Royal Warfare.” Essays in Medieval Studies 23 (2006): 19-30.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books,
1995.
Gauvard, Claude. “De grace especial”: Crime, État et société en France à la fin du Moyen Âge.
2nd ed. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2010.
Gauvard, Claude. Violence et ordre publique au Moyen Age. Paris: Picard, 2005.
Gauvard, Claude. “Fear of Crime in Late Medieval France.” In Medieval Crime and Social
Control, edited by Barbara A. Hanawalt and David Wallace, 1-48. Minneapolis:
Minnesota University Press, 1999.
Hanawalt, Barbara A. ‘Of Good and Ill Repute’: Gender and Social Control in Medieval
England. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

68

Hutchison, Emily J. “Defamation A Murder More Foul: The Two Murders of Louis, Duke of
Orleans Reconsidered.” In Murder Most Foul. Medieval and Early Modern Homicide, ed.
Larissa Tracey. New York: Routledge (Forthcoming).
Hutchison, Emily J. “Winning Hearts and Minds in Early Fifteenth-Century France: Burgundian
Propaganda in Perspective.” French Historical Studies 35, no. 1 (2012): 3-30.
Hutchison, Emily J. “Pour le bien du roy et royaulme: Burgundian propaganda under John the
Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, 1405-1418.” PhD diss., York (UK), 2006.
Kaminsky, Howard. “The Noble Feud in Later Middle Ages.” Past and Present 177 (2002): 5583.
Kaeuper, Richard W. Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999.
Karras, Ruth Mazo. “Women’s Labours: Reproduction and Sex Work in Medieval Europe.”
Indiana University Press 15, no. 4 (Winter 2004): 153-158.
Kempshall, Matthew Sean. The Common Good in Late Medieval Political Thought. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999.
Miller, Ian William. “In Defense of Revenge.” In Medieval Crime and Social Control, edited by
Barbara A. Hanawalt, 70-89. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998.
Muchembled, Robert. A History of Violence: From the End of the Middle Ages to the Present,
trans. Jean Birrell. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012.
Müller, Miriam. “Social control and the hue and cry in two fourteenth-century villages.” Journal
of Medieval History 31 (2005): 29-53.
Skoda, Hannah. Medieval Violence: Physical Brutality in Northern France 1270-1330. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2015.
Skoda, Hannah. “Violent Discipline or Disciplining Violence? Experience and Reception of
Domestic Violence in Late Thirteenth- and Early Fourteenth-Century Paris and Picardy.”
Culture and Social History 6, no. 1 (2009): 9-27.
Smail, Daniel Lord. The Consumption of Justice: Emotions, Publicity, and Legal Culture in
Marseille, 1264-1423. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.
Smail, Daniel Lord and Kelly Gibson eds. Vengeance in Medieval Europe: A Reader. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2009.

69

Yahil, Edna Ruth. “A Rape Trial in Saint Eloi: Sex, Seduction, and Justice in the Seignurial
Court of Medieval Paris.” In Voices from the Bench: The Narratives of Lesser Fold in
Medieval Trials, ed. Michael Goodich, 251-271. Gordonsville: Palgrave Macmillan,
2006.

70