COERCION ON HOLY DAYS IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Abstract

The Middle Ages are not usually considered an era when the law was friendly to laborers. Numerous regulations in medieval England were very unfriendly to them. However, religious laws—that is, canon law—did act to protect laborers when it came to working on holy days. Examining cases in the ecclesiastical courts, this article traces discussions concerning who was to blame, from theory into practice, when masters compelled their subordinates to work on holy days. Differing ideas on how to assign blame were ultimately reflected in the ecclesiastical courts. Some courts prosecuted only masters, while others prosecuted both masters and subordinates.

The villeins of Todenham were upset. Their seignorial lords, the abbots of Westminster, had refused to allow them any work remittance on holy days, even the major holy days of the year. This rather strict policy had been instituted by Abbot Richard de Kedyngton (r. 1308–1315) and was continued by his successor, William de Curtlington (r. 1315–1333). Despite the commands of their lord, many villeins refused to work on holy days, incurring a series of fines. Curtlington eventually relaxed this policy in 1321 to allow the villeins two days’ work remittance at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsun. Apparently, the villeins were unimpressed. The reeve of Todenham, Henry Melksop, refused to show gratitude and was “surly” toward Curtlington, causing the abbot to withdraw the offer.¹

The dispute between the villeins of Todenham and the abbots of Westminster demonstrates how holy days could become an issue between lords and their workers. It was an issue not only for villeins on estates but also for employees working for payment; both groups were considered servants (servi) by canonists.² Ideally, medieval masters should have allowed servants to abstain from labor on holy days and go to church. In reality, some masters made their servants work on holy days—as the villeins of Todenham knew very well. One of the major grievances noted by Geoffrey Chaucer (ca. 1343–1400) was masters who forced their servants to work on holy days.³ Without the intervention of the ecclesiastical courts, servants would be at the mercy of their lords. Fortunately for servants, some—but not all—ecclesiastical courts did prosecute masters for ordering their subordinates to work. The disparate stances of the courts reflected the differing positions put forth by various writers. Some believed that servants had a duty to disregard the orders of their masters to work on holy days. They believed that servants who worked could be equitably punished because they chose to follow impious commands. Others believed that servants should not be punished when they worked at the behest of their lord; it was, rather, their master who was to blame. These two opposing ideas remained unsettled throughout the Middle Ages and into the early modern era. It was an important question because it had practical consequences.

This article is not merely about masters and servants, however. Rather, it is about the role of coercion in unequal relationships recognized by canon law. Servants were not the only ones who could be forced to work or miss church on holy days. Wives and children also could be coerced by a demanding husband and father. Under canon law, wives⁴ and children were like servants—they were not sui iuris and thus not in complete control of their affairs, according to the law.⁵ Just like servants, they owed obedience to the head of the household. This legal reality was recognized by the ecclesiastical courts. Rather than prosecuting wives or children who broke holy days, the courts prosecuted the husbands and fathers who forced them to do so. The courts seem to have folded different types of social relationships involving holy-day coercion into the same legal framework. The courts prosecuted husbands for making their wives work on holy days and fathers for making their children miss church. The unequal nature of these relationship seems to have been key: coercion was an inherent component.

In this article, I shed light upon the relationship between legal theories debated in the ivory towers of the medieval universities and the practices of the ecclesiastical courts. As the late legal historian R. C. van Caenegem noted, “imaginary speculation in imaginary cases might lead to heated disputations in the universities, but it all remained a bit unreal and theoretical. . . . We come down to earth with the ecclesiastical courts: here the canon law, full of Roman law terms and norms, was applied to everyday life.”⁶ Law students and professors in medieval universities may have had the luxury to argue multiple sides of an issue,⁷ but medieval ecclesiastical judges were forced to apply these abstract concepts in reality. They had to choose which legal theory to implement in their courtrooms. The multiple positions offered by writers directly affected the practices of the ecclesiastical courts. Without a firm consensus on how to assign blame, the courts implemented the law differently.

In what follows, I first provide a brief overview of canon law's treatment of holy days and coercion, then examine the historical and legal basis for prohibiting masters from forcing their servants to labor on holy days. I then look at how confessors’ manuals and other works treated the issue, focusing on subtle differences accentuated by different writers. Last, I use ecclesiastical cases from England as a case study of how these canonistic ideas were applied in one particular region of Christendom. Whether the English courts were unique in this regard is unknown. Based on my analysis of these sources, I argue that medieval writers did not agree on how to allocate blame when masters compelled their subordinates to work or miss church on holy days, and that this disagreement was reflected in the practices of the ecclesiastical courts.

Canon Law

Most of the canons concerning holy days in the Corpus Iuris Canonici ⁸ were prohibitions. Christians were supposed to attend their parish church on holy days (X 3.29.2). Labors, markets, and most court proceedings were banned from “evening to evening” (X 2.9.1). Certain legal actions were permitted, like manumissions⁹ or reconciliations for peace (X 2.9.5). Weddings were banned during certain holy periods of the year, such as Lent and Advent (X 2.9.4). Local custom was granted a role in shaping the universal canon law to fit communities. It could determine the duration of a given holy day and how it was celebrated (X 2.9.2). Necessity and piety could trump holy-day prohibitions, allowing the illicit to become licit (X 5.41.4). For instance, communities that relied on fishing for their survival were allowed to fish on holy days, provided that the fishermen donated a portion of their catch to the church as alms (X 2.9.3). Overall, the canon law was fairly strict about how to properly observe holy days, yet it recognized that certain situations might require prohibited activities to be carried out.

The canon law recognized that compulsion could affect one's actions and culpability. Freely given consent was required for marriage (X 4.1.17), conversion to Christianity (X 3.42.4), and monastic vows (X 1.40.1). In determining responsibility in the face of compulsion, the canon law took several issues into account. It differentiated between those physically forced to do something and those motivated by fear of what might happen if they did not comply (X 1.40.5). Fear of consequences did not excuse mortal sins,¹⁰ it merely diminished guilt (X 1.40.5).¹¹ Canonists urged judges to take fear into account when issuing sentences.¹² Oaths could be invalidated, at the behest of the coerced party (X 1.40.6), if there was a strong and real fear to shake the resolve of a “constant man” (X 1.40.4). In an attempt to define degrees of compulsion, canonists adopted the concept of the constant man from Roman jurists. The constant man was courageous and steadfast, capable of withstanding empty threats or bullying.¹³ He would be coerced only when facing a real and serious threat. Torture or the threat of death could coerce him (X 1.40.6), but so could threats of disinheritance. It was left to the judge to determine whether the criteria of “just fear” (iustus metus) was enough to shake a constant man.¹⁴

Despite the legal effects of coercion, canon law was clear that evil, impious commands from superiors that contravened God's commandments had to be disobeyed.¹⁵ The Decretum spelled out this rule in multiple chapters.¹⁶ Using an excerpt from Jerome's commentary on Paul's Epistle to Titus¹⁷ and excerpts from Ambrosius,¹⁸ the Decretum showed that Christians were obliged to disobey commands that were contrary to God's word, even if the commands originated from a bishop or judge. The Ordinary Gloss of the Decretum said that in cases of evil commands, obedience was owed “to the Lord of heaven rather than the earthly lord.”¹⁹

Canon law did not explicitly discuss the issue of masters forcing their servants to work on holy days. Judges in the ecclesiastical courts were left to their own devices when faced with such cases. They had to answer several important questions when dealing with cases involving coercion on holy days. Did the master coerce the servant? Did the servant have an overriding imperative to disregard the master's order? Did the servant face a “just fear”? If so, how should blame be allocated? Was the master guilty of nonobservance? Were both the master and servant guilty of nonobservance? The answers to these questions would dictate how the law was implemented.

The Historical Basis

The Corpus Iuris Canonici may not have specifically addressed the issue of masters who forced their servants to work on holy days, but other texts did. Abstention from labor on holy days was enjoined by the Bible. The Third Commandment was directed primarily to the (male) heads of households. Exodus mandated that, regarding the Sabbath, “thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.”²⁰ Deuteronomy reiterates the main points, adding “that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest, even as thyself.”²¹ The head of the household was responsible for the actions of his familia: wife, children, servants, animals, and guests. The master was, by definition, in a position of power over his servants. His orders had real weight.

As was true in ancient Israel, so in medieval Europe: the commandment attempted to regulate some aspect of relations between master and servant. In early medieval Europe, the version of the commandment in Deuteronomy seems to have been more influential than the version in Exodus.²² This had ramifications, because Deuteronomy made the Sabbath a memorial to the Israelites’ time of slavery in Egypt, while Exodus made it a memorial to Yahweh's rest on the seventh day. The aspect of rest from servile labor on the Sabbath was further emphasized when Leviticus 23:7 was used as a guide on how to sanctify the day. That verse orders that “The first day shall be most solemn unto you, and holy: you shall do no servile work therein.”²³ For Christians, then, the Third Commandment was closely associated with servants and the abstention from servile work.²⁴

Roman law also prohibited servile work on holy days²⁵ and made the head of the household (the paterfamilias) legally responsible for all his dependents, but it did not directly address whether masters were responsible for making their servants work on holy days. Laws from the Early Middle Ages took differing positions on whether masters were to blame when they forced their servants to work on holy days. Most of these laws assumed that masters would permit their slaves or servants some freedom on those days. The Visigothic Code (ca. 640s) ordered that slaves who worked on holy days should have their head shaved and should receive a hundred lashes. Masters “who permit them to labor” were to pay a hundred solidi to the king.²⁶ Sometimes nothing was said about the master. The Laws of the Salian Franks (ca. 500) mandated that a slave who performed servile work on Sunday pay three solidi or be whipped.²⁷ The laws of the Alamans (ca. 717–719) ordered that slaves who worked on Sunday be beaten with sticks.²⁸ The Bavarian laws (ca. 744–748) punished freemen and slaves who worked on Sundays, but did not address masters.²⁹

Even Old English laws fluctuated.³⁰ The first extant law code from Britain, issued by King Ine of Wessex (r. 688–726), mandated that slaves who worked at the behest of their masters on Sunday were to be freed, while the master was forced to pay a fine of thirty shillings.³¹ The law code of Wihtred of Kent (r. 690–725) prescribed punishment only for servants.³² Wihtred's law seems to have assumed that masters would desist from ordering their servants to work, but it is not clear who was to blame when masters made their servants work. This ambiguity was a recurring feature in many sabbatarian laws throughout the Middle Ages.

Several English law codes avoided the master-servant issue. The law codes of Alfred, Æthelstan (r. 924–939), Edgar (r. 959–975), and Æthelred II, the Unready (r. 978–1016), dealt with holy days but did not discuss masters who forced their servants to work.³³ There appears to have been no further legislation on the issue until Archbishop Wulfstan of York (r. 1002–1023) attempted to reform the English church. He resorted to forging a series of laws called “The Laws of Edward and Guthrum.”³⁴ Wulfstan included a law that said, “If a slave is compelled to work by his lord during a church festival, he [the lord] shall pay lahslit [a fine] within the Danelagh, and a fine in an English district.”³⁵ As with Ine's law, Wulfstan's law made masters wholly responsible if they required their slaves to work on a holy day. The law clearly sought to ensure that masters would not profane holy days by forcing their inferiors to work, even if the punishment was not as severe as in Ine's law, which freed the slave.³⁶ Just like Ine's law, Wulfstan's sought to dissuade masters with a monetary penalty.

Wulfstan was also behind the creation of laws under Cnut (r. 1018–1035). These included a law that said, “If a slave works [during a church festival], he shall undergo the lash or pay the fine in lieu thereof, according to the nature of the offence. If a lord compels his slave to work during a church festival, he shall lose the slave, who shall henceforth obtain the rights of a freeman, and the lord shall pay lahslit in a Danish district and a fine in an English one, according to the nature of the offence, or else he shall clear himself.”³⁷ Cnut's law was similar in many regards to Ine's in that it freed the slave and assigned a monetary penalty to the master.

The Norwegian Frostathing law dealt with the master-servant issue. The Frostathing law, which derives its name from the court at Frostating, was created in the Trondelaw region of Norway around 1260. It was not as clear as Cnut's law, but it seems to have made the master responsible. It said that the fine for a bondman who worked on a holy day was six oras. If he worked without the command of his master, the master was to pay three oras or have the bondman flogged.³⁸ The law implied that slaves had some agency on holy days, but it still held masters responsible.³⁹ If the master chose to have his bondman flogged, he still would likely lose some production from his bondman, thereby impacting the master's wealth.

Theological and pastoral texts produced in the High and Late Middle Ages weighed in on the issue of holy days. Two questions needed to be answered: Who was responsible when masters ordered their servants to work on holy days? And could servants disobey their master's demands to work on a holy day? It is unclear whether the early medieval holy-day laws provoked this debate, or whether it was a result of reflections on holy days among university professors and students. Regardless, the debate did not result in lengthy treatises about feria, or holy days. Most of the debate that survives in these documents is limited to a few lines. However, the issue had great importance. At its heart lay the question of how to assign blame—an especially important issue for confessors and ecclesiastical courts who had to deal with the issue “on the ground.”

Discourse concerning holy days followed the trajectory of debate over just wars. Theologians and canonists accepted that some wars were just while others were unjust. One of the issues they discussed was whether vassals were obliged to obey their lords in unjust wars. The Decretum was unclear. It absolved warriors of all blame when they followed evil commands, while placing all the blame on the prince, but it did not state whether vassals could refuse their lords.⁴⁰ Many writers, including Johannes Teutonicus (ca. 1170–1245) in the Ordinary Gloss of the Decretum, argued that vassals were not bound to follow the commands of their lords waging unjust wars, because obedience would lead to sinful acts.⁴¹ Robert of Courçon (ca. 1158–1219) said that soldiers were not bound to obey their earthly lords in unjust wars.⁴² Odofredus (d. 1265) argued that a vassal was not bound to fight in a clearly unjust war or when obedience to his lord would result in sin.⁴³ These ideas concerning obedience in unjust wars remained influential in the fourteenth century. Ranulph Higden (ca. 1280–1364) agreed that a soldier should not obey his lord when he knew the war was unjust. In essence, this constituted a duty to refuse unjust orders. Authorities were absolved of guilt only if they knew the war to be just.⁴⁴

It was an important step when ideas concerning obedience and just wars were applied to holy days. Holy days occupied a far larger place in everyday life than just wars, which occurred far less frequently than holy days. Just wars also omitted noncombatants like women, children, the elderly, the disabled, and the clergy, while holy days encompassed all groups of society. There were real implications for everyday relations between masters and servants over the issue of obedience on holy days.

Hagiographical tales occasionally dealt with the issue. They demonstrate that there was a long tradition that attributed wrongdoing to the servant, even when the servant had been ordered to work. Gregory of Tours (ca. 538–594) told a couple of tales about slaves who were punished for working on holy days.⁴⁵ One slave in Tours, a man named Ursulf, was “ordered by his master” to walk around a field during Easter week. On discovering a breach in the fence, he closed it. He was subsequently blinded by divine vengeance and healed only when he made a pilgrimage to the tomb of Saint Martin, the bishop of Tours.⁴⁶ When another slave in Tours repaired a fence on Sunday, the wooden mallet he was using began sticking to his hand. After letting go of the mallet, his hand painfully contracted, causing his nails to dig into his palm. His hand remained in this condition for four years, healing only after he prayed at the basilica of Saint Martin of Tours.⁴⁷

The hagiographic tradition around labor on holy days continued into the High Middle Ages. A hagiographical tale in the Liber Eliensis (ca. twelfth century) portrayed one servant's divine punishment for working on a holy day. A priest staying at the monastery of Ely “compelled” his servant girl to gather vegetables from the garden before the third hour on a Sunday. The girl took a huge stake to gather the vegetables. Suddenly, her hand stuck to the wood she was holding. The stake was so firmly stuck onto her hand that “no one of the human race” was able to pull it off. The stake caused the girl great pain and remained fastened to her hand for five years. Not until the girl was taken to church, and prayers to God and Saint Æthelthryth were said, did the girl's hand open and allow the stake to fall to the ground. The flesh on her hand had rotted away; only the bone remained.⁴⁸ This story had multiple moral components. The author attempted to prove the holiness of Saint Æthelthryth, but he simultaneously demonstrated his opinion on holy-day offenses. The entire guilt and punishment for working on the holy day fell on the servant, even though she had been compelled. Apparently, the author of the tale did not believe that compulsion was a satisfactory excuse to God. The servant was punished, not the master. The author seems to imply that the servant girl should have refused her master's commands; her life might have been better off if she had.

A century later, in his Treatise on the Miracles of Saint Francis (ca. 1250), the Franciscan friar Thomas of Celano (ca. 1185–1265) blamed servants for working on holy days. The story was propaganda meant to confirm the sanctity of Francis and the validity of his feast day. It also suggested that servants should observe holy days despite the orders of their masters. Thomas wrote that in Le Mans, a noblewoman forced her female servant to do servile work on the feast of Saint Francis. The servant initially refused. “Human fear, however, prevailed over fear of God, and the girl did as she was told, even if unwillingly.” As soon as she began to use a spindle, her hands froze, and her fingers burned. She ran to the Franciscan friars and told them of her impious deeds, begging forgiveness. The brothers marched to the church and prayed to Saint Francis that he would show mercy and heal the girl. He did; her hands were healed with only a trace of the burn remaining.⁴⁹ The story implies that the duty of servants to observe holy days superseded the obedience they owed their masters. The girl should have observed the feast despite the commands (and potential beatings) of her mistress. The girl was punished by the divine not when she initially refused the commands of her mistress, but only when she began to work.

Whether or not the story is true, it shows that in the thirteenth century, some believed that servants had the duty to observe holy days and could refuse the demands of their masters. Thomas was writing propaganda, which meant that the inclusion and exclusion of sources was a deliberate choice. He could have left the story out. He had plenty of stories that showed Saint Francis's feast was a valid holy day. But he included the story, which had a moral component, seemingly for servants: it is better to observe holy days than to obey impious orders. The noblewoman was not punished, even though, as is demonstrated below, confessors’ manuals maintained that masters are guilty of sin for making their servants work.

Other hagiographical tales and exempla place the blame on masters. A story in British Library MS Cleopatra D. VIII tells how a man was killed after forcing his servant to cut a tree branch on Sunday. The branch the servant was ordered to cut fell on the master's head, killing him.⁵⁰ The Life of Saint Kenelm places the blame on masters. A priest in Pailton directed that the feast of the saint should be celebrated by a cessation of work. The lady who presided over the village refused to allow villagers to observe the holy day. As a result, her eyes fell out of her head. Furthermore, her oxen, which were yoked to carts, shook off their yokes and ran off, never to be found. The story clearly attempts to show that masters were in danger when they refused to let their servants observe holy days, specifically the feast of Saint Kenelm.⁵¹

A Dominican tale from the vita of Saint Peter of Verona (1206–1252) also includes an example of a servant forced to work on the saint's feast day. A “heretical” master ordered his servant boy to burn down the woods of Milan. The boy feared his lord and obeyed his command. When the boy began to chop up an oak tree to start the fire, blood poured forth from the tree. The boy subsequently told everyone what had happened, and his lord was converted by the miracle.⁵² The vita notes that the boy had gone to do his task because he feared his lord. This was an important inclusion, because discourses on whether servants sinned by working on holy days centered on whether they worked out of “just fear” of their lords. The author of Saint Peter of Verona's hagiography seems to have been familiar with the concept of “just fear” and used his knowledge to explain why the pious boy followed the impious commands of his lord. The story also helps explain why the boy did not receive divine punishment. The boy was not guilty of sinning, because he worked out of just fear. His heretical lord was responsible.

There were English versions of this exempla. A thirteenth-century exempla collection compiled by an English friar describes a similar miracle told by a Yorkshireman, with a few additions. This time, the Cistercian lay brothers of Kilnsey, in Yorkshire, had sent a young man and one of the servants to cut down a tree on Sunday. When the man began cutting the tree, blood poured forth. He was blinded and fell down. The servant tried to pick up the ax, but failed. Instead, he made the sign of the cross on the blinded man's eyes, allowing him to regain his sight. Undismayed, the man continued to cut down the tree. This time, a voice ordered him three times to leave. After the third time, the voice said, “Cursed be he that sent you here!” A few days later the man was killed by either the lay brother who had sent him or another lay brother—the scribe was unsure of which. The scribe also mentioned that he did not know what happened to the lay-brother, or whether he even faced trial.⁵³

This tale demonstrates from an English point of view who was responsible when servants were ordered to work on holy days, although the tale seemingly confuses different stories and ideas. The young man sent with the servant could be considered a servant himself, since he was ordered to work on Sunday. The friar was not hung up on this fact, but he seems to have questioned some of the events of the story. The story suggests that the man ordered to cut down the tree was guilty of sin. He was, after all, blinded and eventually murdered. However, the story also suggests that the one who ordered him to work—the lay brother(s)—was responsible. The tree specifically cursed the one who gave the orders. The storytelling friar seems puzzled by this as well. He and his intended audience are curious about what became of the lay brother. Their curiosity—as well as part of the tale—assumes that some of the sin lay with the lay brother(s) for ordering a tree to be cut down on a Sunday. The implicit assumption is that the one who gave the orders and the one who carried them out both sinned, and both should be punished.

Some writers believed that servants sinned when they worked on holy days, regardless of whether their master commanded them. Humbert of Romans (ca. 1190–1277) noted that servants rarely went to church, many under the influence of their masters. They offended the Lord of lords on account of their earthly lord.⁵⁴ Johannes Herolt (d. 1468) concurred.⁵⁵ Other writers disagreed. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) argued that servants could licitly do servile work on holy days when commanded by their superiors.⁵⁶ Berthold of Regensburg (ca. 1210–1272) preached that masters abused their servants when they forced them to perform unnecessary works on Sunday.⁵⁷ There were clearly differing opinions about who sinned when masters compelled their servants to work on holy days.

Confessors’ Manuals

Though multiple hagiographies imply that servants should abstain from work on holy days despite the injunctions of their masters, most of these tales are vague. Manuals for confessors—works intended to provide confessors with the information needed to assign penance for sins⁵⁸—discuss the issue directly. One of the main sources that engendered discussion about servants forced to work on holy days was a gloss composed around 1241 by William of Rennes on Raymond of Peñafort's Summa de poenitentia et matrimonio.⁵⁹ Raymond divided his chapter on holy days and fasts into seven sections, which defined holy days, listed the major universal feasts, and discussed how they should be observed along with prohibitions. In a long commentary on Raymond's seventh section, which argues that necessary things could be done on holy days, William of Rennes asks whether it is a sin for servants to work on holy days when their masters compel them. His conclusion is that servants do not sin as long as they are induced by “just fear” (iusto metu) since this falls under the category of necessity.⁶⁰ He does not explicitly say whether servants can refuse to obey their master's demands on holy days, but he seems to imply it. He implies that without just fear, servants are responsible for working. If a master simply asks a servant to work without the threat of harsh consequences, then the servant is not excused: there is no just fear. William notes that servants are not excused if they choose to do the boon works they owe their lord on feasts so that they can have a regular day off—unless strong necessity compels them. He also notes that Raymond did not include any of this in his discussion. This is an important inclusion by William. When the Summa de poenitentia et matrimonio became a popular and widespread manual for confessors, William's gloss went with it. William's discussion is not very long. He placed it between a discussion on whether butchers, cupbearers (pincernae), and others commit a mortal sin by preparing victuals on holy days (no, if they have no other time to do so) and a discussion on whether scholars may transcribe their notes (yes, if they need to do so to remember them). This organization is followed by several other writers in their own texts over the next three hundred years.⁶¹

Writers throughout the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries copied William of Rennes's ambiguous statement that servants were not guilty of working on holy days if they were compelled by their masters. Vincent of Beauvais (ca. 1190–1264),⁶² John of Freiburg (d. 1314),⁶³ John of Erfurt (ca. 1250–1325),⁶⁴ Astesanus of Asti (d. 1330),⁶⁵ William of Pagula (d. 1332),⁶⁶ Denis the Carthusian (1402–1471),⁶⁷ and Angelo Carletti di Chivasso (1411–1495)⁶⁸ included William's statement in their own works, though without adding much. They all agreed that servants compelled by their masters to work on holy days were excused if they were induced by just fear; however, none of them explicitly stated whether servants had an imperative to disregard orders made on holy days.

Without a definite statement that servants could refuse the commands of their masters on holy days, people could argue that servants had to obey. The anonymous author of Dives and Pauper, a Middle English treatise on the Decalogue composed around 1405–10, appears to have argued that servants were still bound to follow orders on holy days. His work appears to have relied mainly on the Summa confessorum by John of Freiburg. Dives and Pauper is written in the form of a dialogue between an ignorant rich man and a knowledgeable poor man. Dives asks whether servants who travail on Sunday by compulsion of their “souereynys” are excused.⁶⁹ Pauper explains that they are excused if they principally work because of the “dred and obedience” that they owe their sovereign, so long as the type of work is lawful in itself. Pauper backs up his statement by paraphrasing 1 Samuel 15:22, saying “God louyth mor obedience þan sacrifice.”⁷⁰ He then adds a warning to sovereigns (masters) that the Third Commandment is bidden principally to them.

Some writers after the 1330s explicitly stated that servants were not bound to obey their masters, using the phrase “non tenentur obedire nisi in licitis et honestis.” There must have been some discussion about the ambiguities posed by the previous statements that servants did not sin on holy days when compelled to work by their masters. The Dominican friar and legist Bartholomew of San Concordio (1260–1347) included it in his Summa casibus conscientiae (ca. 1338)—also known as Pisanella. He sought to update John of Freiburg's Summa confessorum.⁷¹ He is a bit more original with word choice, but the central idea remains the same: servants do not sin if they work under their master's orders. He departs from the standard explanation offered by William of Rennes, Vincent of Beauvais, John of Freiburg, and John of Erfurt by adding, “If they do this having been induced by just fear, they are considered to be excused because of necessity, otherwise they are not bound to obey unless in lawful and honest [works].”⁷² It seems that Bartholomew is trying to say that servants do not have to obey their masters on holy days unless necessity compels them. The same statement is quoted verbatim by Nicholas de Ausimo (d. 1453) in his supplement to the Pisanella. ⁷³ Baptista de Salis (late fifteenth century), relying heavily on Nicholas de Ausimo, also includes it in his casuistic manual, known both as the Summa baptistiniana and as the Summa rosella.⁷⁴ The legist Albericus de Rosate Bergomensis includes the same statement in his Dictionarium Iuris tam Ciuilis, quam Canonici (after 1350).⁷⁵ Notably, Albericus de Rosate's definition cites John of Freiburg, even though the Summa confessorum does not state that servants are not bound to obey. It seems that by Albericus's day, the statement about servants not being bound to obey was an important part of the idea being presented. The phrases used by Bartholomew and Albericus differ from that used by John of Freiburg, perhaps indicating that Bartholomew and Albericus were not mindlessly copying what they found in the confessors’ manuals but were absorbing the ideas and reformulating them into their own words. It appears that they were trying to clarify what they thought John of Freiburg had meant.

From Pisanella onward, confessors’ manuals tended to place the discussion of masters and servants on holy days in its own rubricated section. Previously, the statement had occurred in the midst of a long chapter concerning a variety of works permitted because they were necessary. It seems that by placing the discussion in its own section, writers sought to draw attention to it. They did not, however, agree whether the next discussion (concerning those who owed carriage duties to their lords) was a logical part of the discussion. John of Freiburg did not place it in its own section, but John de Burgh did. By placing it in its own section, writers seem to have suggested that the idea could be applied to servants who labored for money, not just unfree villeins.

Like their peers on the Continent, English writers drew on confessors’ manuals in explicitly stating that servants did not have to follow the orders of their masters on holy days. England was not insulated from the Continent in this regard. John de Burgh (fl. 1370–1398) wrote a practical guide for priests called the Pupilla oculi, based on William of Pagula's Oculus sacerdotis. ⁷⁶ John de Burgh says that servants who work out of just fear are excused, but not those who work without compulsion, because they are not bound to obey their lords except in lawful and honest works. On holy days, only those works required by necessity are lawful. After excusing servants induced to work by just fear, John de Burgh declares that “otherwise [they are] not, because they are not bound to obey them [their lords] unless in lawful and honest [works].”⁷⁷ His statement differs from that of Albericus de Rosate on one important word: “because” (quia).⁷⁸ Albericus de Rosate had said “otherwise, they are not bound to obey unless in lawful and honest [works].”⁷⁹ John de Burgh's statement, though incorporating the phrase found in Albericus's Dictionarium, seems to have departed from his predecessor's meaning. Albericus de Rosate merely said servants were not bound to obey their masters’ orders to work on holy days. He did not definitively say whether servants sinned if they followed orders from their masters that were not backed up by threats. Perhaps the implication is that they did sin; having a choice to follow orders may imply that they are solely responsible for actions and any resulting sin. Or maybe some or all of the blame lies with the masters for asking them to work. But without a clear statement, it is uncertain how blame is to be assigned. In contrast, John de Burgh explicitly refuses to excuse servants who work without just fear. For de Burgh, servants can be excused only when they fear the consequence of saying no. They have a duty to refuse their lord's commands on a holy day if they are not afraid of what their lord might do.

Some writers from the mid-fourteenth century onward argued that servants had an overriding imperative to disobey the commands of their temporal masters on holy days, just as their European counterparts did. Dives and Pauper seems to have been unusual in implying servants had to obey masters on holy days. One of the earliest writers to explicitly argue this point was the English Dominican friar John Bromyard (d. 1352?) in his handbook for preachers. He supports his position by citing the Bible instead of confessors’ manuals.⁸⁰ Bromyard argues that servants do not have to obey orders to work on holy days. He encourages masters to realize that everyone is a servant to God on days ordained for the reverence of God.⁸¹ A servant on “the days of God are bound to the servitude of God. . . . Therefore, reason says, that because they are held in servitude . . . by two lords for different days . . . one of those lords does not have that servant . . . for the day . . . nor is the servant bound to obey him.”⁸² Bromyard's comments were likely inspired by Matthew 6:24.⁸³ Bromyard states that servants do not have to obey their masters with the phrase nec seruus tenetur ei obedire. It seems as if Bromyard modified the phrase “otherwise they are not bound to obey” (alias non tenentur obedire) to clarify his position on the matter. Bromyard argues a related point in his treatise Opus trivium, which discusses divine, canon, and civil law.⁸⁴ He applies legal theories about guilt to holy days. Masters who order their servants to kill others are guilty of murder, just as masters who force their servants to work on holy days are guilty of nonobservance.⁸⁵

Fifteenth-century writers were even more explicit that servants were innocent if forced to work by their masters. The Franciscan Saint Bernardino of Siena (1380–1444), citing William of Rennes, absolves servants from blame, placing all the guilt solely on masters. He includes city officials with masters as part of his discussion. He says, “However if they [masters] ordered it [servile work] without just cause . . . all the guilt belongs to the ones ordering, and not to the ones obeying.”⁸⁶ He uses war as an example of a just cause. If a just cause exists, then both the ones ordering and the ones obeying are excusable. Saint Antoninus of Florence (1389–1459), a Dominican, also includes the discussion in his Summa Theologica.⁸⁷ He says that servants compelled by their lords to labor in their fields, carry wood⁸⁸ or stones, make edifices, and dig pits may be excused because they might be damned in person or matters if they did not. Presumably, he is referring to beatings or fines. These threats, apparently justifiable fears, constitute necessity for the servants. The type of work does not constitute necessity, which is interpreted on an individual basis. None of the previous writers were clear whether necessity applied to the health and well-being of the servant. Their ambiguous answers could be interpreted as pertaining to collective threats, such as war or famine. Antoninus further remarks that it is“good they were not made to obey.” His discussion takes the issue of necessity in a new direction.

In fifteenth-century England, socioeconomic developments may have had an effect on how writers interpreted the issue. The English canonist William Lyndwood (ca. 1375–1446) cites John of Freiburg in his commentary on an ordinance from Henry Chichele, the archbishop of Canterbury (r. 1414–1443), mandating the observance of the feast of Saint George the Martyr.⁸⁹ Lyndwood reports that John of Freiburg believes just fear excused laborers for working on festival days; however, they are not excused if they carry (vehere) for the profit of others. Lyndwood's understanding of John of Freiburg appears to differ from what the Summa confessorum actually says. Lyndwood does not explicitly make a connection between necessity and servants who worked on holy days; he simply notes that servants induced by just fear are excused. Additionally, servants are not excused if their master or employer profits from their endeavors, regardless of necessity or fear. He also does not mention whether lords are guilty of sin for making their servants work. Lyndwood's understanding seems to presuppose that servants have a duty to avoid working for a profit on holy days, even if they have just fears. He uses language that potentially portrays servants on holy days as free men. He says that on holy days they are like a free man (liberius) to be idle (vacare), unless dire necessity causes them to work.

Fifteenth-century interpretations of the English common law seem to depart from works influenced by canon law. The common law held that servants were always bound to obey their masters as long as they were in service, even on holy days. A 1443 case in the court of common pleas specified that servants were always in their master's service, even on holy days. The chief justice of the court, Richard Newton, reasoned that since the common law adjudges servants to be always in the lord's service, a master could coerce his servant to serve him at his will, whenever he pleased. Even when the servant went to church to serve God on the holy day, the common law still maintained that he was in service to his temporal lord.⁹⁰

Ecclesiastical Courts and Coercion

The ecclesiastical courts cited masters for compelling their servants or dependents to work or miss church on holy days. They do not appear to have implemented a uniform policy regarding whether servants were to blame for being forced to work on holy days. The ambiguity of the confessors’ manuals meant that the courts adopted different policies. The ecclesiastical court of Wisbech tended to cite both the master and servant. The servant was cited for working on a holy day, while the master was cited for compelling the servant to work. Even within the Wisbech court, however, there were contradictory cases when masters could have been cited but were not. The ecclesiastical court of Hartlebury seems to have preferred to cite masters rather than servants. The Salisbury visitation of 1394 cited both servants and masters. The London commissary court tended to cite just the master. Judges appear to have held different views about who was to blame, just as the authors of the confessors’ manuals did.

Confessors’ manuals used the terms master (dominus) and servant (servus) in their discussion concerning those who forced their subordinates to labor on holy days. Embedded in the discourse was the underlying principle that coercion in unequal relationships could influence culpability. Several courts seem to have applied this concept to other unequal relationships, especially those involving the head of the household—spousal and paternal relationships. Husbands were cited for making their wives work on holy days and fathers for making their children miss church. In essence, the courts adopted a legal framework based upon coercion in unequal relationships instead of simply focusing on the master-servant dynamic. This framework was probably well suited to practice in the courts. The real world was messy. Judges would come across men who forced their wives and children to break holy days, and they needed guiding principles to help them judge such cases. To shed more light on how the courts dealt with cases involving coercion, this article includes cases where husbands or fathers prevented family members from observing holy days.

Roger de Marlowe, the priest of Harwell (r. 1292–1310), believed that ecclesiastical courts should punish servants who obeyed orders to work on holy days, as well as masters who ordered their servants to work on holy days. Marlowe asked the archdeacon of Berkshire to act against some people who worked on a Sunday.⁹¹ Marlowe was upset that the harvester in Harwell ordered the tenants of the manor to cart hay on a Sunday. He sent the chaplain of the parish to prevent them from working, but they refused to heed his repeated threats. The harvester refused to allow others to stop working. Marlowe summoned the offenders separately to appear before the archdeacon's court. He encouraged the archdeacon to punish the harvester for “habitually working on holy days and encouraging others to do the same.” Apparently, Marlowe believed that encouraging others to work on holy days was an actionable offense. Additionally, he seems to have believed that servants should disobey their masters’ orders to work on holy days. Their master, the harvester, made it clear that he would not allow them to stop working—Marlowe even noted that the harvester was a powerful man. The tenants might face serious repercussions for disobeying him. Regardless of the repercussions, Marlowe clearly believed that the tenants were obligated to refrain from work. He asked the archdeacon to punish them in order to deter others from following their example.

Marlowe's belief that it was illicit to force others to work on holy days was realized in Salisbury. In 1394 there was a “purge” against Salisbury tradesmen involved in the cloth industry by an ecclesiastical court, which cited both masters and servants. It cited servants for working on holy days and masters for compelling their servants to work. Thomas the servant of George Joice, John the servant of Nicholas Joyce, James the servant of Edward Passewell, and Hugh the servant of Roger Sherman were cited for working on holy days. Walter Cokke, John Tukke, Edward Passewell, John Bayly, Robert Colyn, Edward att Nasse, John Tuddeworth, and John Kendale were cited for working on holy days and compelling their servants to work.⁹² It appears that the court may have differentiated between servants who worked from their own volition and those who were coerced to work. George Joice and Roger Sherman were not cited, even though their servants were. Regardless, the records indicate that the Salisbury visitation of 1394 cited masters for compelling their servants to work on holy days. The court seems to have punished both master and servant.

John Bromyard had declared that when masters compelled their servants to work on holy days, both parties were guilty of nonobservance. Thus, masters had some degree of liability. The Salisbury court rejected this view, instead adopting the view that masters were not accessories to their servants’ crime of nonobservance. By prosecuting both servants for working on holy days and masters for compelling their servants to work, the Salisbury court effectively declared that two crimes were committed when servants followed orders to work on holy days. The servants were completely and solely responsible for their sin. Masters were guilty only of compelling their servants to work on the holy day, which was ultimately different than being an accessory to nonobservance.

The Salisbury court also prosecuted powerful men who prevented people from attending church. The 1391 visitation by Bishop Waltham resulted in the citation of John Prat of Porton for preventing the residents of Porton and Gomeldon from attending church in Idmiston; John Prat was probably related to Thomas Prat, the lord of Porton manor in 1349.⁹³ By the late fourteenth century, the courts cited masters not only for forcing their servants to work but also for preventing others from attending church.

A case from Haynton in Lincolnshire suggests that its ecclesiastical court considered whether servants worked with the consent of their masters on holy days. In 1339, John of Gayton was charged with carrying grain cum duabus carectis (with two carts) on the feast of the Assumption of Mary.⁹⁴ The court specifically noted that he did it “contrary to the license of his lord.” This was important because confessors’ manuals specifically noted that serfs who owed their lord grain-carriage boon works were not permitted to work on holy days (unless necessity compelled).⁹⁵ In effect, the declaration that Gayton labored without the consent of the lord amounted to an eschewal of liability on the part of the lord. Whether a serf worked with or without the consent of the lord seems to have mattered to the court; the answer determined liability.

The Hartlebury court appears to have been inconsistent in citing masters and servants. In 1413, it cited both William Stone and his servant Thomas for carting hay on the feast of Saint Anne. At the same session, the court cited John atte Thorne, but not his workers, for binding barley with his workers on Sunday.⁹⁶ William Stone and John atte Thorne probably compelled or at least encouraged their servants to work on holy days since they were caught working with them. However, the court charged them only with working on a holy day, not with compelling their servants to work. The issue is further complicated by a case several decades later. In 1453, Thomas Holmer was cited for preventing his adult sons from attending church;⁹⁷ they do not appear to have been cited. The 1453 case clearly considered compelling others to break the law to be an illegal and a prosecutable offense, whereas neither of the 1413 cases did. As in atte Thorne's case, the court considered the coerced parties innocent. Overall, the Hartlebury court appears to have been inconsistent in how it dealt with masters who encouraged their subordinates to work or miss church on holy days.

The Wisbech court tended to cite both servant and master in cases of nonobservance. The servant was cited for working, while the master was cited for encouraging the servant to labor on the holy day. The court seems to have been careful about the language it used. William Mannyng of Emneth was charged with carrying peat on the feast of Saint Ætheldrede (June 23).⁹⁸ At the same session of the court, John Awsten was cited for causing his servant, one William Mannyng, to labor.⁹⁹ The court also extended its reach to familial relationships. It cited John Reynold of Leverington for soliciting his son Robert to tear down a house on the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, before citing Robert for nonobservance.¹⁰⁰ It cited Thomas Nicholasson for failing to attend church and for causing and compelling his wife to absent herself from mass.¹⁰¹ His wife does not seem to have been directly cited for missing church, but the records indicate that she appeared with her husband before the court, and that they purged themselves. The fact that she purged herself suggests that she may have been held responsible for missing church.

The London commissary court tended to cite just the master. It appears that the court believed that servants had an overriding duty to obey the commands of the master, otherwise they would have been responsible for working on holy days. The court seems to have agreed with William of Rennes. Randulphus Carpynter was cited for working with all his servants and disregarding the injunctions of the rector; none of his servants were cited.¹⁰² William Hobbard of Saint Alban's Woodstreet was cited for making certain men thresh hay on the feast of the Holy Trinity.¹⁰³ The court also cited mistresses of the household. Agnes Buckaley was cited for violating the Sabbath by engaging in secular occupations with her famulis on the feast of Saint Martin and the Ascension of the Lord.¹⁰⁴ William Steward's wife was also cited for working with her servants.¹⁰⁵ The court also prosecuted masters who kept their dependents from attending church. The court cited Godfrey Sperynth and Paul Godfrey for not hearing mass in their parish church with their respective households.¹⁰⁶

The Canterbury ecclesiastical court prosecuted masters. Clement Rolf was cited for causing his servant to labor on the feast of Saint Edward.¹⁰⁷ Richard Arthe of Charring was cited on the feast of Saint Matthew for collecting seeds with his servant the whole day.¹⁰⁸ John English of Saint Dunstan's parish in Canterbury was cited in 1500 for selling his merchandise “in one place and his servants in other places”—his servants were not cited.¹⁰⁹ Alicia Marten of Saint Margaret in Canterbury was cited for not honoring the Sabbath one Sunday in 1499. Instead of appearing before the court at the appointed date, her husband appeared in her place. He admitted that he had forced his wife to sell goods in the marketplace. The court seems to have accepted his confession and absolved Alicia.¹¹⁰ These cases were not very common, though. In fact, it seems that London's commissary court dealt with a larger proportion than Canterbury's court.

The Lichfield court appears to have at least prosecuted the heads of households for forcing dependents to work on holy days. It cited John Holmon for treating his wife badly, denying her food and rest from work on holy days.¹¹¹

The English ecclesiastical courts do not appear to have been alone in prosecuting people for compelling others to labor on holy days. The ecclesiastical court of Carpentras, in southern France, pursued two coercion cases in 1487. Jacomo Regis of Villas was prosecuted for ordering two servants to work on the feast of Saint Mark, while Johan Grimaud was held responsible when his son sold merchandise on the feast of All Saints.¹¹² The Tournai ecclesiastical court prosecuted Johannes van den Bulcke in 1528 for causing his servants to work on the feast of Corpus Christi.¹¹³ England was part of a much larger tradition in Western Europe that held masters responsible for the actions of their servants on holy days.

In the thirteenth century, when William of Rennes briefly discussed lords who compelled their servants to labor on holy days, he likely had in mind serfs who were compelled by their lords to perform boon works on holy days. The economy was still based on feudal obligations. By the fifteenth century, the economy had changed. Instead of providing labor services for their lands, many servants were more akin to employees. They received wages for their labors. Fifteenth-century courts were forced to deal with people who worked for wages on holy days. This presented a challenge to the confessors’ manuals. Was it possible for servants who accepted wages for working on holy days to be coerced? Were they still considered servants? The ecclesiastical courts seem to have taken wage labor into consideration. The Wisbech court seems to have occasionally noted when there was wage labor on holy days. It cited Thomas Wrag of Whittlesey for driving steers of other men during the time of the divine and receiving six pence;¹¹⁴ the court did not cite his employers. The London commissary court seems to have made the same distinction. Hugo Pareser was cited for working his hay on the feast of Saint Paul. He denied the allegations, explaining that the workers he hired to work the hay had done it on the holy day without his knowledge. This was, apparently, an acceptable argument, because the judge dismissed the charges.¹¹⁵ The court seems to have considered wage-laborers to be their own masters and, therefore, responsible if they worked on holy days.

Conclusion

Overall, divergent opinions could have an effect on the practice of medieval ecclesiastical courts. The medieval English ecclesiastical courts were willing to prosecute masters who forced their subordinates to work on holy days. They pursued different policies regarding how to assign blame. This was likely because the confessors’ manuals were ambiguous. Masters clearly were to blame if they coerced servants. Could servants be held legally responsible if they were coerced? The uncertainty of this question was reflected in the practices of the courts. The Wisbech court seems to have thought so. It prosecuted masters specifically because they coerced their servants to work on holy days. Servants were apparently prosecuted because they could have refused the demands of their masters. Other courts disagreed. Both the Hartlebury courts and the London commissary court prosecuted only masters, implying that servants could not disregard their masters’ orders.

Dissension regarding whether servants had to obey their temporal lords on holy days lasted into the early modern era.¹¹⁶ Richard Byfield (ca. 1598–1664) and Edward Brerewood (ca. 1565–1613) became embroiled in a dispute over whether a servant had the prerogative to disobey the orders of the master to work on a Sunday.¹¹⁷ Richard Byfield argued that the Third Commandment was given as much to servants as to their masters, thereby allowing servants to refuse orders to work on Sunday, while Brerewood argued that the commandment applied only to masters, and thus the only duty of servants was to follow the order of their masters.¹¹⁸ This dispute revolved around the issue of whether servants were obligated to disobey their temporal lord in obedience of their heavenly lord, and both authors heavily drew upon medieval thought about holy days to construct their arguments. The argument expounded by Byfield blatantly affirmed that the right to holy days existed for all, as he said of servants: “As thy servant, he is not thine in thy workes or servile workes that day, but the Lords freeman . . . they are not void of liberty to refuse such workes on that day.”¹¹⁹ Brerewood argued that because servants had a duty to obey the orders of their masters even on holy days, bad masters who ordered their servants to work on holy days were solely guilty of sin.

Ecclesiastical courts continued to prosecute masters for making their laborers work on holy days in Tudor and Stuart England. Courts in Yorkshire, Oxfordshire, Somerset, and Norfolk prosecuted masters for making servants work on holy days.¹²⁰ In 1594, William Drew of Newton in the diocese of Ely was forced to beg the forgiveness of God for making his servant “to carrie a sheeperacke to the pasture on the Sabboth daie.”¹²¹ Thus, the issue survived well past the end of the Middle Ages.