In 1494 a London woman named Cecily Clerk sued William Huntingfeld for defamation. Four men who came forth as witnesses detailed Huntingfeld’s campaign of harassment against Clerk conducted across a multitude of venues, stemming perhaps (as one witness suggested) from a quarrel between Huntingfeld and Cecily’s husband John over the election of ward officials. Huntingfeld uttered calumnies against Cecily Clerk on multiple occasions; fitting the usual pattern when the object of insult was a woman, the invective was sexual in nature. He told neighbours that she was a “strong whore” and a “brothel” (a term for a prostitute as well as a house of prostitution). He insinuated publicly at the annual election of jurors for the ward mote inquest – the local ward-level court that dealt with issues of civic disorder – that Cecily Clerke should be summoned before them to answer to accusations of sexual misconduct. Huntingfeld’s words, the witnesses agreed, incited a “great rumour” about Cecily Clerk to fly throughout the parishes of St Mary Abchurch and St Swithin. This directly or indirectly prompted her summons before the bishop of London’s Commissary church court on a charge of adultery. She was successfully able to fend off that accusation by undergoing compurgation, a process by which several fellow parishioners cleared or purged her of a charge by swearing to her good reputation. A further measure to win back her good name was this defamation suit. If successful, this would result in an official declaration by the bishop’s official that her reputation had been maliciously and incorrectly impugned by Huntingfeld’s words and, in theory at least, her fame would be restored intact (see here for more on how defamation cases worked). As the testimony was clear and uncontested, Cecily Clerk presumably won her suit; whether that sufficed to counter the rumours is impossible to say.
It is hard to tell whether reputations were as dramatically susceptible to rumour as the testimony here suggests, or if that is an effect of the legal requirements for a defamation suit. There is no doubt, however, that rumour and reputation were powerful forces in social, economic, and political life: aspersions cast against Cecily’s sexual chastity affected not only her own social interactions but the participation of her husband in local politics. The testimony here also reveals how women were excluded from explicitly political spaces such as the annual meeting of the men of the ward; a woman would only be present at such a gathering if she were accused of a sexual offence. The gendering of reputation thus worked powerfully to hinder women’s formal political participation.
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 182r-183v
Testimony of William Brownyng, witness for plaintiff, 3 Feb. 1494
On behalf of Cecily Clerk c. William Huntingfeld
3 February, by the lord Official in the vestry of the Cathedral church of London.
William Brownyng of the parish of [St. Mary] Abchurch of the City of London, where he has lived for twenty-five years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty-two years old or thereabouts as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Cecily Clerk for fourteen or fifteen years, William Huntingfeld for twenty years. To the first, second, and third articles, he says that their contents are true, regarding which he refers himself to the laws. To the fourth article, he says that on Thursday a week ago William Huntingfeld, sitting on a bench next to the house at the sign of the White Horse on Lombard Street, spoke to this witness who was passing by, asking him what he was doing at the Consistory before the commissary of London. He answered that he had been doing some business there against bad debtors, and William said, “I thought you had gone there because of that huswif[1] who lives opposite you, Cecily Clerk.” And this witness said, “I wish for peace and good faith between you,” and William, with an angry and malicious spirit as it appeared to this witness, said about Cecily, “She is a strong whore and so shall I prove her.” And, this witness asserting the contrary and saying that she was a woman of good rule, William responded, “I say she is a strong whore of her tongue and so shall I prove her if it cost me a hundred pounds.” There were present at the time and hearing this, this witness and a certain man named Bales, the landlord of the house at the sign of the Saracen’s Head in Gracechurch Street. This deponent testifies to these things from his own hearing and knowledge, as he says. And William said these words and similar ones about Cecily to the jurors in the jury called the Wardmote inquest as this witness heard. To the fifth article, he says that on account of the speaking of those words about Cecily by William both in the presence of this witness and beforehand before the Wardmote inquest and elsewhere as he heard, the standing and good fame of Cecily lessened and fell among many people, and this he knows because this witness has her in less favour and he knows that his other neighbours (the wife of John […])[2] who used to hold her in great familiarity before those words were spoken against her have avoided her company and still avoid it. And moreover he says that he was present at Paul’s Chain before the commissary there on a certain day about a fortnight ago and there he saw and heard when Cecily purged herself of a charge of adultery with her neighbours before the commissary there. To the sixth article, he says that its contents are true as far as this witness knew, understood, or heard as he says. To the seventh article, he says that its contents are true, and that [he or she[3]] lived there for twelve years and lives there at present. To the eighth article, he says that its contents are true. To the ninth article, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate in the parishes of St. Swithin, Abchurch, and other neighbouring places.
Testimony of Thomas Dod, Witness for plaintiff, 3 Feb. 1494
Thomas Dod of the parish of St. Swithin [London] aforesaid, where he has lived for two years and more, literate,[4] of free condition, thirty-eight years old or thereabouts as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Cecily Clerk for a year and more, William Huntingfeld for two years and more. To the first, second, and third articles, he says that their contents are true. To the fourth article, he says that on a certain day falling within the fortnight following the feast of All Hallows last past, which day he cannot otherwise specify, William, standing near his dwelling house, asked this witness how things were with his neighbours living around him, and he said things were good, and William said to him, “if it happens in the future that you or your wife has any reason to be angry with Cecily Clerk, bid her go to St. Savior’s[5] like a brothel from whence she came.” And he says moreover that on the feast of St. Thomas [21 Dec.] last past,[6] in Draper’s Hall before Master Capel, alderman,[7] and the other constables of the said ward and many others gathered together to elect the jury called the Wardmote Inquest, William Huntingfeld said publicly about Cecily Clerk, who was not present, in English, “She is nought[8].” This witness testifies these things from his own sight and hearing. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fifth article, he says that its contents are true and he knows this because on account of those words spoken about Cecily, this witness has her in lower opinion and favour, and similarly do others of her neighbours, because a great rumour circulated in the parish and still circulates against Cecily over the speaking of those words. To the sixth article, he says that its contents are true as far as this witness ever knew, understood, or heard. To the seventh and eighth articles, he says that their contents are true. To the ninth article, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the parish of St. Swithin and other neighbouring parishes.
Testimony of William Rubton, Witness for plaintiff, 3 Feb. 1494
William Rubton of the parish of Abchurch, City of London, where he has lived for thirteen years or thereabouts, illiterate, of free condition, twenty-six years old or thereabouts. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Cecily Clerk for twelve years, William Huntingfeld for the same time. To the first, second, and third articles, he says that its contents are true. To the fourth article, he says that on the feast of St. Thomas [21 Dec.] last past, this witness was at Draper’s Hall situated within the parish of St. Swithin, that is in the hall, at the time of the discussion about electing the jury, together with the alderman and the constables of the ward, William Huntingfeld, Thomas Dod, John Clerk the husband of the said Cecily, and others. There and then he heard John Clerk and William Huntingfeld having quarrelsome words and arguing with one another. And at length William said to John Clerk, “Call hither thy wife,” and John answered that it was not suitable for her to be present there and said, “What meanest thou thereby, she is as good a woman as thy wife.” And William answered him, “Nay, I had liefer thy skin were pulled over thy eyes. She is nought.” This witness testifies to these things from his own sight and hearing. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fifth article, he believes in his conscience that Cecily’s fame fell amongst many of her neighbours and parishioners of the said parish because a great rumour circulated in the parish and also in the parish of Abchurch concerning the words that were spoken by William against Cecily, both in the said hall and elsewhere as he has heard. To the sixth article, he says that its contents are true as far as this witness ever knew or understood. To the seventh and eighth articles, he says that their contents are true. To the ninth article, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the parishes of Abchurch and St. Swithin.
Testimony of John Davy, Witness for plaintiff, 3 Feb. 1494
John Davy of the parish of St. Swithin aforesaid, where he has lived for seven years, illiterate, of free condition, forty years old or thereabouts, as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Cecily Clerk for twelve years, William Huntingfeld for seven years. To the first, second, and third articles, he says that its contents are true. To the fourth article, he agrees with William Rubton examined above, adding that he says that the arguments began because the said Clerk gave his voice to a certain Coton for election as constable, and this fact displeased William and he said, “Ye shall have no voice here, send your wife hither, she can speak well enough.” And John, asking him what he meant by those words, William answered, “She is nought.” And in other things he agrees with William Robton examined above. To the fifth article, he agrees with William the previous witness examined above. To the sixth article he says that its contents are true as far as this witness ever knew or believed. To the seventh and eighth articles, he says that their contents are true. To the ninth article, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate in the said parish and other neighbouring places.
[1] Huswif or housewife meant the woman who, under her husband, managed a household. It generally had a positive or neutral valence, but the word was also the root of “hussy,” a word that by the early sixteenth century meant an unchaste woman. This may be an early use of that more negative sense.
[2] wife of John […]: interlined, perhaps as an example of the neighbours?
[3] It is not clear if the subject of the verb is the witness or Cecily.
[4] Il- deleted, i.e. originally was recorded as illiterate.
[5] Presumably the precinct of the priory of St. Saviour’s in Bermondsey, Surrey.
[6] This was the customary day for election of ward officials.
[7] Sir William Capel, Draper, alderman of Walbrook ward 1485-1515 and later twice mayor of London (Beaven, Aldermen of the City of London, at British History Online: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=67215).
[8] “nought” not only meant “nothing” or “of no account,” but also could indicate sexual promiscuity, which is presumably the meaning here. See OED, s.v. “nought,” a., 1c.
Consistory 