In this defamation case, Elizabeth Hertford of Islington was accused of grievously insulting her neighbour John Call, calling him a thief, a cuckold, and various other names (accusations that tell us some interesting things about the construction of masculine gender identity). The legal basis of a defamation claim required that the witnesses testify to how those insults resulted in the loss of the plaintiff’s reputation or fame. So, as in this case, ironically the witnesses testifying at Call’s request and on his behalf must tell the court that they hold him in low opinion: that was one way the legal necessities shaped the form of the testimony. The nature of Hertford’s insults tell us some interesting things about the construction of masculine gender identity.
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065 41r-41v, 42v
Deposition of Hugh Pare, 14 Dec. 1487
On behalf of John Call c. Elizabeth Hertford
14 December in the house of the lord Official in Spencer’s presence
Hugh Pare of the parish of Islington [Middlesex], where he was born and where he has lived since his birth, literate, of free condition, twenty-five years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known John Call for seven years and Elizabeth Hertford for two years or thereabouts. To the fifth article of the libel, he says that on a certain Sunday about eight weeks ago and as he believes on the Sunday [exactly] eight weeks ago, this witness was crossing from his house towards Highbury [Middlesex] by the doorway of the house of John Call, and next to the doorway of the house he saw Elizabeth standing and looking into the doorway of the house and saying to John standing in the entry, “Thou false whoreson, thou false thief, thou maintainer of thieves, thou cockold, thou whoreson cuckold.” And many times since then, Elizabeth, in the house of Edward Tailour at Islington, said before this witness and Edward Tailour, “By God’s body, he is no better than a cuckold.” This witness deposes these things from his own sight and hearing, as he says. To the sixth article, he says that because of the saying of these words, John is held in lesser opinion and reputation among his neighbours, and this he knows because he has heard many of them saying “these words come not of nought.” And since the saying of these words, many honest people avoid his company who before the speaking of them used to converse with him frequently, according to his knowledge, as he says. To the seventh article, he says as far as he ever knew or heard its contents are true. To the eighth article, he says that the things he said above are true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning them in the parish of Islington and other neighbouring places, as he says.
Deposition of John Yon, 14 Dec. 1487
John Yon, pewterer, of the parish of St. Pancras, London, where he has lived for a year and more, literate, of free condition, twenty-three years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known John Call for seven years, and Elizabeth Hertford for two years. To the fifth article, he says that on a Sunday about six or seven weeks ago, which one he cannot certainly recall, this witness followed Thomas Walker from the house of Edmund Pokethorp of Islington across to his house situated opposite the vicarage in Islington, and while he was crossing near the Islington cemetery, this witness saw and heard Elizabeth standing at the threshold of John’s house and saying to John, at that time standing in the same entryway, “thou art a false errant thief, a tainted thief, a cockold, and a wittol[1].” And these words she frequently repeated both at the doorway and at the window of the house, when Thomas Walker and this witness were standing near the cemetery and John and a certain Richard Barbour, along with John, were in the house seeing and hearing the aforesaid words. This witness deposes these things from his own sight and hearing, as he says. To the sixth article, he agrees with the previous witness, with this added, that this witness had from the time of the saying of these words and on occasion of them, and has and will have John in lesser faith, reputation, and favour, until such time as he shows himself innocent concerning the aforesaid things, as he says. To the seventh article, he says that as far as he ever knew or heard its contents are true. To the ninth [sic] article, he says that the things he said above are true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning them in Islington, as he says.
Deposition of Richard Barton, 18 Dec. 1487
Further on behalf of John Call c. Hertford
Richard Barton of the parish of St. Martin in Ironmonger Lane, London, where he has lived for a quarter of a year, and before that in Cheap[side] for a year, literate, of free condition, thirty years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known John Call for five years, and Elizabeth Hertford for two years or thereabouts. To the fifth article, he says that on a certain Sunday around the feast of All Hallows [1 Nov.] last past, whether before or after that feast he cannot recall, and after vespers, this witness was present in the dwelling-house of John Call at Islington together with John Call, his wife, and none others as he recalls, where and when this witness [saw] Joan[2] standing first at the doorway of her own dwelling-house arguing with John Call standing in the doorway of his house, and saying to him many shameful words. And then at length she came up to the doorway of John’s house and there in the public street near the doorway, publicly and in a loud voice said, “go in, thou Cockold, thou wittol, thou thief and maintainer of thieves.” And he says that so many times did Joan repeat these words that out of shame this witness would not have left the house had he not seen Thomas Walker and John Yon and others going across the public street near the house. This witness deposes these things from his own sight and hearing, as he says. To the sixth article, he says that he agrees with the first witness, adding that yesterday he heard that the wife of a certain man named Benne rebuked certain men because they were breakfasting in John’s house, saying that “ye have got you a good house; if ye blow hard ye shall blow her down or else she is belied, for she is put up to the Consistory for such gear[3].” To the seventh article, he says that its contents are true as far as this witness ever knew or heard. 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 concerning it in the parish of Islington.
[1] Wittol: a man who is aware of complaisant about his wife’s infidelity (OED s.v.)
[2] Presumably “Joan” here and below is an error for Elizabeth.
[3] Gear: probably means here movable property, household utensils (OED, s.v. gear, 9.a.): but otherwise what this means is unclear.
Consistory 