Produced by Clarity, RichardW, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net






TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE

Original small caps type is all capitals herein. Original italics is
_surrounded with underscores_. See also the ENDNOTE.




 THE GREAT PESTILENCE.




 The Great Pestilence
 (A.D. 1348-9),
 NOW COMMONLY KNOWN
 AS
 The Black Death.

 BY
 FRANCIS AIDAN GASQUET, D.D., O.S.B.


 London:
 SIMPKIN MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT & CO., LIMITED.
 1893.




 Lewes:
 SOUTH COUNTIES PRESS LIMITED.




CONTENTS.


 TO THE READER                                                      xi

 INTRODUCTION                                                     xiii

 CHAPTER I.

 THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE EPIDEMIC.

 First reports as to the sickness — General account of the
 epidemic in eastern countries — The great trade routes
 between Asia and Europe — The plague in the Crimea —
 Tartar siege of Caffa — Origin of the name "Black Death"
 — Symptoms of the disease — Constantinople is attacked;
 account of the epidemic by the Emperor Cantacuzene —
 Genoese traders carry the infection to Sicily — Effect in
 Messina and Catania                                              1-15

 CHAPTER II.

 THE EPIDEMIC IN ITALY.

 Date of the arrival of the infected ships at Genoa —
 Striking sameness in all accounts — De Mussi's account of
 the beginning of the plague in Italy, specially in Genoa
 and Piacenza — Boccaccio's description of it in Florence —
 This confirmed by the historian Villani — Progress of the
 disease in Italy — Pisa — Padua, Siena, etc. — Petrarch's
 letter on the epidemic at Parma — Venice and its doctors —
 Description of the desolation by Bohemian students              16-33

 CHAPTER III.

 PROGRESS OF THE PLAGUE IN FRANCE.

 Its arrival at Marseilles — A Parisian doctor's account
 of the epidemic at Montpellier — Avignon is attacked and
 suffers terribly — Contemporary account of its ravages by
 a Canon of the Low Countries — Gui de Chauliac, the Pope's
 physician — Spread of the infection in every direction —
 William of Nargis' description of the mortality in Paris
 — Philip VI. consults the medical faculty — Normandy —
 Amiens — Account of Gilles Le Muisis, Abbot of Tournay —
 M. Siméon Luce on the conditions of popular life in France
 in the Fourteenth century — Agrarian troubles follow the
 epidemic                                                        34-57

 CHAPTER IV.

 THE PLAGUE IN OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

 From Sicily the pestilence is carried to the Balearic
 islands — Majorca — The scourge in Spain — The shores of
 the Adriatic are visited — From Venice the wave passes
 into Austria and Hungary — It passes over the Alps into
 the Tyrol and Switzerland — Account of a Notary of Novara
 — From Avignon the epidemic is carried up the Rhone Valley
 to the Lake of Geneva — It visits Lucerne and Engelberg
 — Account of its ravages at Vienna — It goes from Basle
 up the valley of the Rhine — Frankfort — Bremen — From
 Flanders it passes into Holland — Denmark, Norway, and
 Sweden — Account of Wisby on the Island of Gotland —
 Labour difficulties consequent upon the epidemic                58-70

 CHAPTER V.

 THE PLAGUE REACHES ENGLAND.

 Jersey and Guernsey are attacked — First Rumours of the
 epidemic in England — It is brought to Melcombe Regis in
 Dorsetshire — Discussion as to the date — Difficulty in
 dealing with figures in Middle Ages — Value of episcopal
 registers in giving institutions of beneficed clergy —
 Evidence of Patent Rolls — Institutions in Dorsetshire —
 Letter of the Bishop of Bath and Wells — Difficulty of
 obtaining clergy — Institutions in Somerset — Effect of
 the disease in the religious houses — Bristol — Evidence
 of the mortality in Devon and Cornwall — Institutions in
 the diocese of Exeter — Spread of mortality — Religious
 houses of the diocese                                           71-91

 CHAPTER VI.

 PROGRESS OF THE DISEASE IN LONDON AND THE SOUTH.

 Rapidity of the spread of the epidemic — Date of its
 reaching London — The opening of new churchyards — Number
 of the dead in the capital — State of the city streets —
 Evidence of the wills of the Court of Hustings at this
 period — Westminster and other religious houses — St.
 Alban's — Institutions of clergy for Hertfordshire —
 Evidence as to the counties of Bedford, Buckingham, and
 Berks — Special value of the _Inquisitiones post-mortem_
 — State of various manors after the Plague — Institutions
 for the county of Bucks — The diocese of Canterbury
 — William Dene's account of the Rochester Diocese —
 Difficulty in finding priests — The diocese of Winchester
 — Bishop Edyndon's letter on the pestilence — Date of the
 epidemic in Hampshire — Troubles about the burying of
 the dead — Institutions for Hants — Institutions for the
 county of Surrey — Little information about Sussex             92-115

 CHAPTER VII.

 THE EPIDEMIC IN GLOUCESTER, WORCESTER, WARWICK, AND OXFORD.

 Le Baker's account of the disease — Evidence of it in
 Wales — Account by Friar Clyn of the plague in Ireland —
 Institutions for Worcester — New burial ground in the city
 — State of the county after the plague — Institutions in
 Warwickshire — The city and county of Oxford — Effect on
 the university                                                116-127

 CHAPTER VIII.

 STORY OF THE DISEASE IN THE REST OF ENGLAND.

 Dr. Jessop's account of Norfolk and Suffolk — Institutions
 in the diocese of Norwich — Evidence of the court rolls
 — Norwich and its population — Yarmouth — The diocese
 of Ely — Preparations by the bishop — Institutions in
 the diocese — Cambridge — Decay of parishes consequent
 upon the mortality — Straits of the clergy — Huntingdon
 — Institutions in the county of Northampton — Effect on
 religious house of the county — Fall in the value of land
 — Leicestershire — Knighton upon the plague in the city
 of Leicester — Fall in prices — Labour difficulties —
 Staffordshire — Institutions in the diocese of Hereford
 — Shropshire — Evidence of _Inquisitiones post-mortem_ —
 Chester — Accounts of the County Palatine — Derbyshire
 — Derby — Monasteries — Wakebridge and Drakelow —
 Nottinghamshire — Lincolnshire — Louth Park abbey —
 Yorkshire — Archbishop Zouche — Vacant livings — Deaths
 among superiors of religious houses — Meaux abbey —
 Deanery of Holderness — Doncaster — Hull — Lancashire —
 Amounderness — Westmoreland — Cumberland — Carlisle —
 Durham — Northumberland — Alnwick                             128-161

 CHAPTER IX.

 THE DESOLATION OF THE COUNTRY.

 Vacant livings in diocese of Salisbury — In Dorset and
 Wilts — Ivychurch priory — Manors ruined by plague —
 Somerset parsonages — Court roll of Gillingham, Dorset
 — Stockton, Wilts — Chedzoy, Bridgwater — Carthusians
 of Hinton and Witham — Exeter diocese — Lydford — North
 Cornwall — The Black Prince and his tenants — Essex
 benefices — Lands vacant — Rents lowered — Colchester
 wills — Talkeley priory — Chesthunt nunnery — Anglesey
 priory — Kent — Sussex — Hants — Isle of Wight — Surrey
 — Winchester cathedral priory — Hyde abbey — Nuns of St.
 Mary's abbey — of Romsey — Decrease among the mendicant
 friars of Winchester diocese — Debts at the cathedral —
 At Christchurch — Sandown hospital — Shireborne priory —
 Hayling Island — Taxation — Gloucester — Lantony priory —
 Horsleigh cell — Warwickshire — Wappenbury — Whitchurch
 — Bruerne abbey — St. Frideswide's at Oxford — Barlings       162-193

 CHAPTER X.

 SOME CONSEQUENCES OF THE GREAT MORTALITY.

 Estimate of population of England in 1377, and before the
 great pestilence — Social revolution — Dearth of labourers
 and artisans — The tenantry swept off — Rise in prices —
 State efforts to depress the working classes — A third
 of the land falls out of cultivation — Leasehold farming
 — Serfdom declines — Popular rising of 1381 practically
 emancipates the labourer — Growth of large landowners —
 English language spreads as French declines — Effects on
 architecture — Great works left unfinished — Statistics
 of clerical mortality — Effects on the Church — Old
 traditions perished — Decline of public liturgical worship
 — Young and aged, and inexperienced persons ordained
 priests — Curious examples of this — Great falling off in
 number of candidates for ordination at Winchester, Ely,
 Hereford — Decline of the universities — False views about
 the preponderance of regular clergy — After the Black
 Death their number relatively greater — Pluralities —
 Depopulation of monasteries — Instances cited — Wadding's
 explanation of Franciscan decadence — The Black Death, a
 calamity sudden, overwhelming, and of widespread effect       194-219




TO THE READER.


In publishing this story of a great and overwhelming calamity, which
fell upon England in common with the rest of Europe, in the middle
of the fourteenth century, I desire to record my grateful thanks
to those who have in any way assisted me in gathering together my
material, or in weaving it into a connected narrative. Amongst these
many kind friends I may specially name Mr. F. Bickley, of the British
Museum, Mr. F.J. Baigent, the Rev. Prebendary Hingeston-Randolph,
and, above all, Mr. Edmund Bishop, to whom I am greatly indebted
for advice, criticism, and ever-patient assistance in revising the
proof-sheets.

[p-xiii]




INTRODUCTION.


The story of the Great Pestilence of 1348-9 has never been fully
told. In fact, until comparatively recent times, little attention was
paid to an event which, nevertheless, whether viewed in the magnitude
of the catastrophe, or in regard to its far-reaching results, is
certainly one of the most important in the history of our country.

Judged by the ordinary manuals, the middle of the fourteenth century
appears as the time of England's greatest glory. Edward III. was
at the very height of his renown. The crushing defeat of France at
Crecy, in 1346, followed the next year by the taking of Calais, had
raised him to the height of his fame. When, wearing the laurels of
the most brilliant victory of the age, he landed at Sandwich, on
October 14th, 1347, the country, or at least the English courtiers,
seemed intoxicated by the success of his arms. "A new sun," says the
chronicler Walsingham, "seemed to have arisen over the people, in
the perfect peace, in the plenty of all things, and in the glory of
such victories. [p-xiv] There was hardly a woman of any name who did
not possess spoils of Caen, Calais and other French towns across the
sea;" and the English matrons proudly decked themselves with the rich
dresses and costly ornaments carried off from foreign households.
This was, moreover, the golden era of chivalry, and here and there
throughout the country tournaments celebrated with exceptional pomp
the establishment of the Order of the Garter, instituted by King
Edward to perpetuate the memory of his martial successes. It is
little wonder, then, that the Great Pestilence, now known as the
"Black Death," coming as it does between Crecy and Poitiers, and at
the very time of the creation of the first Knights of the Garter,
should seem to fall aside from the general narrative as though
something apart from, and not consonant with, the natural course of
events.

It is accordingly no matter for wonder that a classic like Hume,
in common with our older writers on English history, should have
dismissed the calamity in a few lines; but a reader may well feel
surprise at finding that the late Mr. J. R. Green, who saw deeper
into causes and effects than his predecessors, deals with the great
epidemic in a scanty notice only as a mere episode in his account
of the agricultural changes in the fourteenth century. Although he
speaks generally of the death of one-half the population through the
disease, he evidently has not realised the enormous effects, social
and religious, which are directly traceable to the catastrophe.

Excellent articles, indeed, such as those from the pen of [p-xv]
Professor Seebohm and Dr. Jessop, and chance pages in books on
political and social economy, like those of the late Professor
Thorold Rogers and Dr. Cunningham, have done much in our time to draw
attention to the importance of the subject. Still, so far as I am
aware, no writer has yet treated the plague as a whole, or, indeed,
has utilised the material available for forming a fairly accurate
estimate of its ravages. The collections for the present study had
been entirely made when a book on the _Epidemics in Britain_, by Dr.
Creighton, was announced, and, as a consequence, the work was set
aside. On the appearance of Dr. Creighton's volume, however, it was
found that, whilst treating this pestilence at considerable length
as a portion of his general subject, not merely had it not entered
into his design to utilise the great bulk of material to be found in
the various records of the period, but the author had dealt with the
matter from a wholly different point of view.

It is proper, therefore, to state why a detailed treatment of a
subject, in itself so uninviting, is here undertaken. The pestilence
of 1348-49, for its own sake, must necessarily be treated by the
professional writer as an item in the general series of epidemics;
but there are many reasons why it has never been dealt with in
detail from the mere point of view of the historian. Yet an adequate
realisation of its effects is of the first importance for the right
understanding of the history of England in the later [p-xvi]
Middle Ages. The "Black Death" inflicted what can only be called
a wound deep in the social body, and produced nothing less than a
revolution of feeling and practice, especially of religious feeling
and practice. Unless this is understood, from the very circumstances
of the case, we shall go astray in our interpretation of the later
history of England. In truth, this great pestilence was a turning
point in the national life. It formed the real close of the Mediæval
period and the beginning of our Modern age. It produced a break with
the past, and was the dawn of a new era. The sudden sweeping away of
the population and the consequent scarcity of labourers, raised, it
is well recognised, new and extravagant expectations in the minds of
the lower classes; or, to use a modern expression, labour began then
to understand its value and assert its power.

But there is another and yet more important result of the pestilence
which, it would seem, is not sufficiently recognised. To most people,
looking back into the past, the history of the Church during the
Middle Ages in England appears one continuous and stately progress.
It is much nearer to the truth to say that in 1351 the whole
ecclesiastical system was wholly disorganised, or, indeed, more than
half ruined, and that everything had to be built up anew. As regards
education, the effect of the catastrophe on the body of the clergy
was prejudicial beyond the power of calculation. To secure the most
necessary public ministrations of the rites of religion the most
inadequately-prepared subjects had to be accepted, and even [p-xvii]
these could be obtained only in insufficient numbers. The immediate
effect on the people was a religious paralysis. Instead of turning
men to God the scourge turned them to despair, and this not only in
England, but in all parts of Europe. Writers of every nation describe
the same dissoluteness of manners consequent upon the epidemic. In
time the religious sense and feeling revived, but in many respects
it took a new tone, and its manifestations ran in new channels.
If the change is to be described in brief, I should say that the
religion of Englishmen, as it now manifested itself on the recovery
of religion, and as it existed from that time to the Reformation,
was characterised by a devotional and more self-reflective cast
than previously. This is evidenced in particular by the rise of a
whole school of spiritual writers, the beginnings of which had been
already manifested in the writings of Hampole, himself a victim
of the plague. It was subsequently developed by such writers as
Walter Hilton and the authors of a mass of anonymous tracts, still
in manuscript, which, in so far as they have attracted notice at
all, have been commonly set down under the general designation of
_Wycliffite_. The reason for this misleading classification is not
difficult to understand. Finding on the one hand that these tracts
are pervaded by a deeply religious spirit, and on the other being
convinced that the religion of those days was little better than a
mere formalism, the few persons who have hitherto paid attention to
the subject have not hesitated to attribute them to the [p-xviii]
"religious revival of the Lollards," and were naturally unable to
believe them to be inspired by the teaching of "a Church shrivelled
into a self-seeking secular priesthood."[1] The reader, who has a
practical and personal experience of the tone, spirit, and teaching
of works of Catholic piety, will, however, at once recognise that
these tracts are perfect Catholic in tone, spirit, and doctrine, and
differ essentially from those of men inspired by the teaching of
Wycliffe.

The new religious spirit found outward expression in the multitude of
guilds which sprang into existence at this time, in the remarkable
and almost, as it may seem to some, extravagant development of
certain pious practices, in the singular spread of a more personal
devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, to the Blessed Virgin, to the Five
Wounds, to the Holy Name, and other such manifestations of a more
tender or more familiar piety. Even the very adornment and enrichment
of the churches, so distinctive of this period, bears witness to the
change. At the close of the fourteenth century and during the course
of the fifteenth the supply of ornaments, furniture, plate, statues
painted or in highly decked "coats," with which the churches were
literally encumbered as time went on, proved a striking contrast
to the comparative simplicity which characterised former days, as
witnessed by a comparison of inventories. Moreover, the source of all
this wealth and elaboration is [p-xvix] another indication of the
change that had come over the country. Benefactions to the Church are
no longer contributed entirely, or at least chiefly, by the great
nobles, but they are now the gifts of the burgher folk and middle
classes, and this very profusion corresponds, according to the ideas
and feelings of those days, to the abundant material comfort which
from the early years of the last century to the present has specially
characterised the English homes of modern times. In fact, the
fifteenth century witnessed the beginnings of a great middle-class
movement, which can be distinctly traced to the effect of the great
pestilence, and which, whether for good or for evil, was checked by
the change of religion in the sixteenth century.

It is sufficient here to have indicated in the most general way the
change which took place in the religious life of the English people
and the new tendencies which manifested themselves. If the later
religious history of the country is to be understood it is necessary
to take this catastrophe, social and religious, as a starting-point,
and to bring home to the mind the part the Black Death really played
in the national history.

Merely to report what is said of England would tend to raise in the
mind of the reader a certain incredulity. A short and rapid review
has accordingly been made of the progress of the pestilence from
Eastern Europe to these Western shores, and by this means the very
distressing unanimity, even to definite forms of language, of writers
[p-xx] who recorded events hundreds and even thousands of miles
apart, brings home the reality of the catastrophe with irresistible
force. The story, so far as England is concerned, is told at greater
length, and the progress of the disease is followed as it swept from
south to north and passed on to higher latitudes. The state of the
country after the pestilence was over is then briefly described, and
attention is called to some of the immediate results of the great
plague, especially as bearing upon the Church life of the country.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] Green, _Short History of the English People_, p. 216.

[p001]




THE GREAT PESTILENCE.




CHAPTER I.

THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE EPIDEMIC.


The Great Pestilence, which first reached Europe in the autumn of
1347, is said to have originated in the East some three or four years
previously. So far as actual history goes, however, the progress of
the disease can be traced only from the ports of the Black Sea and
possibly from those of the Mediterranean, to which traders along
the main roads of commerce with Asiatic countries brought their
merchandise for conveyance to the Western world. Reports at the
time spoke of great earthquakes and other physical disturbances as
having taken place in the far East, and these were said to have been
accompanied by peculiar conditions of the atmosphere, and followed by
a great mortality among the teeming populations of India and China.
Pope Clement VI. was informed that the pestilence then raging at
Avignon had had its origin in the East, and that, in the countries
included under that vague name, the infection had spread so rapidly,
and had proved to be so deadly, that the victims were calculated
at the enormous, and no doubt exaggerated, number of nearly
four-and-twenty millions.

A Prague chronicle speaks of the epidemic in the kingdoms of China,
India, and Persia, and the contemporary historian, Matteo Villani,
reports its conveyance to Europe by Italian traders, who had fled
before it from the ports on the eastern shores of the Black Sea. The
same authority [p002] corroborates, by the testimony of one who had
been an eye-witness in Asia, the reports of certain Genoese merchants
as to earthquakes devastating the continent and pestilential fogs
covering the land. "A venerable friar minor of Florence, now a
bishop, declared," so says Villani, "that he was then in that part of
the country at the city of Lamech, where by the violence of the shock
part of the temple of Mahomet was thrown down."[2]

A quotation from Hecker's "Epidemics of the Middle Ages" will be a
sufficient summary of what was reported of the plague in eastern
countries before its arrival in Europe. "Cairo lost daily, when the
plague was raging with its greatest violence, from 10 to 15,000,
being as many as, in modern times, great plagues have carried off
during their whole course. In China more than thirteen millions
are said to have died, and this is in correspondence with the
certainly exaggerated accounts from the rest of Asia. India was
depopulated. Tartary, Mesopotamia, Syria, Armenia were covered with
dead bodies; the Kurds fled in vain to the mountains. In Caramania
and Cæsarea none were left alive. On the roads, in the camps, in the
caravansaries unburied bodies were alone to be seen. . . . In Aleppo
500 died daily; 22,000 people and most of the animals were carried
off in Gaza within six weeks. Cyprus lost almost all its inhabitants;
and ships without crews were often seen in the Mediterranean, as
afterwards in the North Sea, driving about and spreading the plague
wherever they went ashore."[3]

There can be little doubt that the contagion was first spread by
means of the great trade routes of the East. The lines of commerce of
European countries with India, China, and Asiatic countries generally
are first definitely described in 1321 by Marino Sanudo, a Venetian,
in a work addressed to Pope John XXI., not thirty years before the
outbreak of [p003] the pestilence.[4] His object was to indicate
the difficulties and dangers which then beset the traffic of the
mercantile world with the East. In so doing he pointed out that the
ancient centre of all trade with the far East was Bagdad. To and from
this great depôt of Oriental merchandise all the caravan routes led;
but, at the time when Sanudo wrote, the incursion of barbarian hordes
into Central Asia had rendered trade along these roads difficult and
unsafe. Two trading tracts are in particular named by the author
as the chief lines of communication. One ran from Bagdad over the
plains of Mesopotamia and Syria to Lycia,[5] where the goods were
purchased by the Italian merchants. This, the best known route,
was the shortest by which the produce of China and India could be
conveyed to the European markets; but in the fourteenth century it
was the most perilous. The second route also started from Bagdad,
and having followed the Tigris to its sources in Armenia, passed on
either to Trebizond and other ports of the Black Sea, or taking the
road from the Caspian, upon the other side of the Caucasus, passed to
the Genoese and other flourishing Italian settlements in the Crimea.

A third route was, however, according to Sanudo, the most used in his
day because the least dangerous. By it the produce of eastern lands
was brought to Alexandria, whence, after having been heavily taxed
by the Sultan, it was transported to Europe. Merchandise coming to
Italy and other countries by this route from India was, according to
the same authority, shipped from two ports of the peninsula, which he
calls Mahabar[6] and Cambeth.[7] Thence it was conveyed to ports in
the Persian Gulf, to the river Tigris, or to Aden, at the entrance
of the Red Sea. From this last point a journey of nine days across
the desert [p004] brought the caravans to a city called Chus[8] on
the Nile. Fifteen days more of river carriage, however, was required
before the produce of the Eastern marts reached Cairo, or Babylon,
as it was called by mediæval writers. From Cairo it was conveyed to
Alexandria by canal.

These were the three chief routes by which communication between
Asiatic countries and Europe was kept up, and the markets of the
Western world supplied with the spices, gums, and silks of the East.
It is more than probable that the great pestilence was conveyed to
Europe by the trading caravans coming from the East by all these
roads and by other similar lines of commerce. In the country along
one of the trade routes, by which caravans reached the Italian
ports established on the Crimea, it is certain that the plague was
raging with great virulence in 1346, the year before its appearance
in Europe. Moreover, Gabriele de' Mussi, a notary of Piacenza, and
an eye-witness of the first outbreak of the plague in Upper Italy,
has described the way in which the infection was conveyed in the
ships of traders from Caffa,[9] a Genoese settlement in the Crimea.
This account will be found in the next chapter; and here it is only
necessary to report what he gathered from the survivors about the
outbreak of the plague among the Tartar tribes and its appearance at
Caffa.[10] [p005]

"In the year 1346," he writes, "in eastern parts an immense
number of Tartars and Saracens fell victims to a mysterious and
sudden death. In these regions vast districts, numerous provinces,
magnificent kingdoms, cities, castles, and villages, peopled by a
great multitude, were suddenly attacked by the mortality, and in
a brief space were depopulated. A place in the East called Tana,
situated in a northerly direction from Constantinople and under
the rule of the Tartars, to which Italian merchants much resorted,
was besieged by a vast horde of Tartars and was in a short time
taken."[11] The Christian merchants violently expelled from the city
were then received for the protection of their persons and property
within the walls of Caffa, which the Genoese had built in that
country.

"The Tartars followed these fugitive Italian merchants, and,
surrounding the city of Caffa, besieged it likewise.[12] Completely
encircled by this vast army of enemies, the inhabitants were hardly
able to obtain the necessaries of life, and their only hope lay in
the fleet which brought them provisions. Suddenly 'the death,' as it
was called, broke out in the Tartar host, and thousands were daily
carried off by the disease, as if "arrows from heaven were striking
at them and beating down their pride."

"At first the Tartars were paralysed with fear at the ravages of
the disease, and at the prospect that sooner or later all must fall
victims to it. Then they turned their vengeance on the besieged,
and in the hope of communicating the infection to their Christian
enemies, by the aid of the engines of war, they projected the bodies
of the [p006] dead over the walls into the city. The Christian
defenders, however, held their ground, and committed as many of these
plague-infected bodies as possible to the waters of the sea.

"Soon, as might be supposed, the air became tainted and the wells of
water poisoned, and in this way the disease spread so rapidly in the
city that few of the inhabitants had strength sufficient to fly from
it."[13]

The further account of Gabriele de' Mussi describing how a ship from
Caffa conveyed the infection to Genoa, from which it spread to other
districts and cities of Italy, must be deferred to the next chapter.
Here a short space may be usefully devoted to a consideration of the
disease itself, which proved so destructive to human life in every
European country in the years 1348-1350. And, in the first place,
it may be well to state that the name _Black Death_, by which the
great pestilence is now generally known, not only in England, but
elsewhere, is of comparatively modern origin.[14] In no contemporary
account of the epidemic is it called by that ominous title; at the
time people spoke of it as "the pestilence," "the great mortality,"
"the death," "the plague of Florence," etc., and, apparently, not
until some centuries later was it given the name of "the Black
Death." This it seems to have first received in Denmark or Sweden,
although it is doubtful whether the _atra mors_ of Pontanus is
equivalent to the English _Black Death_.[15] It is hard to resist the
impression that in England, at least, it was used as the recognised
name for the epidemic of 1349 only after the pestilence of the 17th
century had assumed to itself the title of the _Great Plague_.
Whether the name _Black Death_ was first adopted to express the
universal state of mourning to which the disease reduced the people
of all [p007] countries, or to mark the special characteristic
symptoms of this epidemic, is, under the circumstances of its late
origin, unimportant to determine.

The epidemic would appear to have been some form of the ordinary
Eastern or bubonic plague. Together, however, with the usual
characteristic marks of the common plague, there were certain
peculiar and very marked symptoms, which, although not universal, are
recorded very generally in European countries.

In its common form the disease showed itself in swellings and
carbuncles under the arm and in the groin. These were either few
and large—being at times as large as a hen's egg—or smaller and
distributed over the body of the sufferer. In this the disease does
not appear to have been different from the ordinary bubonic plague,
which ravaged Europe during many centuries, and which is perhaps best
known in England as so destructive to human life in the great plague
of London in 1665. In this ordinary form it still exists in Eastern
countries, and its origin is commonly traced to the method of burying
the dead in vogue there.

The special symptoms characteristic of the plague of 1348-9 were four
in number:—

(1) Gangrenous inflammation of the throat and lungs;

(2) Violent pains in the region of the chest;

(3) The vomiting and spitting of blood; and

(4) The pestilential odour coming from the bodies and breath of the
sick.

In almost every detailed account by contemporary writers these
characteristics are noted. And, although not all who were stricken
with the disease manifested it in this special form, it is clear
that, not only were many, and indeed vast numbers, carried off by
rapid corruption of the lungs and blood-spitting, without any signs
of swellings or carbuncles, but also that the disease was at the
time regarded as most deadly and fatal in this special form. "From
the carbuncles and glandular swellings," says a contemporary writer,
"many recovered; from the [p008] blood-spitting none."[16] Matteo
Villani, one of the most exact writers about this plague at Florence,
says that the sick "who began to vomit blood quickly died;"[17]
whilst Gui de Chauliac, the Pope's physician at Avignon, who watched
the course of the disease there and left the most valuable medical
account of his observations, says that the epidemic was of two kinds.
The first was marked by "constant fever and blood-spitting, and from
this the patient died in three days;" the second was the well-known
and less fatal bubonic plague.

The characteristic symptoms of this epidemic, noted in numerous
contemporary accounts, appear to be identical with those of the
disease known as malignant pustule of the lung; and it would appear
probable that this outbreak of the plague must be distinguished from
every other of which there is any record. "I express my profound
conviction," writes an eminent French physician, "that the Black
Death stands apart from all those which preceded or followed it. It
ought to be classed among the great and new popular maladies."[18]

Be that as it may, the disease, as will be subsequently seen in the
accounts of those who lived at the time, showed itself in various
ways. Some were struck suddenly, and died within a few hours; others
fell into a deep sleep, from [p009] which they could not be roused;
whilst others, again, were racked with a sleepless fever, and
tormented with a burning thirst. The usual course of the sickness,
when it first made its appearance, was from three to five days; but
towards the close of the epidemic the recovery of those suffering
from the carbuncular swellings was extended, as in the case of
ordinary Eastern plague, over many months.[19]

Such is a brief account of the disease which devastated the world
in the middle of the fourteenth century. Before following the
course of the epidemic in Italy, to which it was conveyed, as
De' Mussi relates, from the Crimea, some account of its ravages
in Constantinople and in Sicily may be given. From the Crimea
Constantinople lay upon the highway to the west. Italian ships
crossing the Black Sea [p010] would naturally touch at this city,
then the great centre of communication between the Eastern and
Western Worlds. From the relation of De' Mussi it appears that
Caffa, the plague-stricken Genoese city in the Crimea, besieged by
the Tartars, was in communication by ship with countries from which
it received supplies. To Constantinople, therefore, it seems not
unlikely that the dreaded disease was conveyed by a ship coming from
this plague centre in the Crimea. An account of the pestilence at the
Imperial city has come from the pen of the Emperor John Cantacuzene,
who was an eye-witness of what he reports. And although he adopted
the language of Thucydides, about the plague of Athens, to describe
his own experiences at Constantinople, he could hardly have done so
had the description not been fairly faithful to the reality. "The
epidemic which then (1347) raged in northern Scythia," he writes,
"traversed almost the entire sea-coasts, whence it was carried over
the world. For it invaded not only Pontus, Thrace, and Macedonia, but
Greece, Italy, the Islands, Egypt, Lybia, Judea, Syria, and almost
the entire universe."

The disease according to his account was incurable. Neither
regularity of life nor bodily strength was any preservation against
it. The strong and the weak were equally struck down; and death
spared not those of whom care was taken, any more than the poor,
destitute of all help. No other illness of any sort showed itself
in this year; all sickness took the form of the prevalent disease.
Medical science recognised that it was powerless before the foe.
The course of the malady was not in all cases the same. Some people
died suddenly, others during the course of a day, and some after
but an hour's suffering. In the case of those who lingered for two
or three days the attack commenced with a violent fever. Soon the
poison mounted to the brain, and the sufferer lost the use of speech,
became insensible to what was taking place about him, and appeared
sunk in a deep sleep. If by chance he came to himself and tried to
speak [p011] his tongue refused to move, and only a few inarticulate
sounds could be uttered, as the nerves had been paralysed; then he
died suddenly.

Others who fell sick under the disease were attacked first, not in
the head, but in the lungs. The organs of respiration became quickly
inflamed, sharp pains were experienced in the chest, blood was
vomited, and the breath became fetid. The throat and tongue, burnt up
by the excessive fever, became black and congested with blood. "Those
who drank copiously experienced no more relief than those who drank
but little."

Then, after describing the terrible sleeplessness and restlessness
of some sufferers, and the plague spots which broke out over the
body in most cases, the Emperor proceeds:—"The few who recovered
had no second attack, or at least not of a serious nature." Even
some of those who manifested all the symptoms recovered against
every expectation. It is certain that no efficacious remedy has been
discovered. What had been useful to one appeared a real poison to
another. People who nursed the sick took their malady, and on this
account the deaths multiplied to such an extent that many houses
remained deserted, after all who had lived in them—even the domestic
animals—had been carried off by the plague.

The profound discouragement of the sick was specially sad to behold.
On the first symptoms of the attack men lost all hope of recovery,
and gave themselves up as lost. This moral prostration quickly made
them worse and accelerated the hour of their death.

It is impossible in words to give an idea of this malady. All that
can be said is that it had nothing in common with the ills to which
man is naturally subject, and that it was a chastisement sent by God
Himself. By this belief many turned to better things and resolved
to change their lives. I do not speak only of those who were swept
away by the epidemic, but of those also who recovered and endeavoured
to correct their vicious tendencies and devote themselves [p012]
to the practice of virtue. A large number, too, before they were
attacked distributed their goods to the poor, and there were none so
insensible or hard-hearted when attacked as not to show a profound
sorrow for their faults so as to appear before the judgment seat of
God with the best chances of salvation.

"Amongst the innumerable victims of the epidemic in Constantinople
must be reckoned Andronicus, the Emperor's son, who died the third
day. This young man was not only remarkable for his personal
appearance, but was endowed in the highest degree with those
qualities which form the chief adornment of youth; and everything
about him testified that he would have followed nobly in the
footsteps of his ancestors."

From Constantinople the Italian trading ships passed on towards
their own country, everywhere spreading the terrible contagion.
Their destinations were Genoa and Venice, as De' Mussi relates;
but as the same authority says: "The sailors, as if accompanied by
evil spirits, as soon as they approached the land, were death to
those with whom they mingled." Thus the advent of the plague can
be traced in the ports of the Adriatic in the autumn of 1347, and
there can be little doubt that it was due to the arrival of ships
bound from the East to Venice. Of the islands of the ocean, and
particularly of Sicily, De' Mussi speaks as having been affected by
the ships that were bound from the Crimea to Genoa. Of the plague
in Sicily there exists a particular account by one who must have
been a contemporary of the events he describes.[20] "A most deadly
pestilence," he says, "sprang up over the entire island. It happened
that in the month of October, in the year of our Lord, 1347, about
the beginning of the month, twelve Genoese ships, flying from the
divine vengeance which our Lord for their sins had sent upon them,
put into the port of Messina, bringing with them such a sickness
clinging to their very bones [p013] that, did anyone speak to them,
he was directly struck with a mortal sickness from which there was
no escape." After detailing the terrible symptoms and describing the
rapid spread of the infection, how the mere breath of the strangers
poisoned those who conversed with them, how to touch or meddle with
anything that belonged to them was to contract the fatal malady, he
continues: "Seeing what a calamity of sudden death had come to them
by the arrival of the Genoese, the people of Messina drove them in
all haste from their city and port. But the sickness remained and
a terrible mortality ensued. The one thought in the mind of all
was how to avoid the infection. The father abandoned the sick son;
magistrates and notaries refused to come and make the wills of the
dying; even the priests to hear their confessions. The care of those
stricken fell to the Friars Minor, the Dominicans and members of
other orders, whose convents were in consequence soon emptied of
their inhabitants. Corpses were abandoned in empty houses, and there
was none to give them Christian burial. The houses of the dead were
left open and unguarded with their jewels, money, and valuables; if
anyone wished to enter, there was no one to prevent him. The great
pestilence came so suddenly that there was no time to organise any
measures of protection; from the very beginning the officials were
too few, and soon there were none. The population deserted the city
in crowds; fearing even to stay in the environs, they camped out
in the open air in the vineyards, whilst some managed to put up at
least a temporary shelter for their families. Others, again, trusting
in the protection of the virgin, blessed Agatha, sought refuge in
Catania, whither the Queen of Sicily had gone, and where she directed
her son, Don Frederick, to join her. The Messinese, in the month of
November, persuaded the Patriarch[21] Archbishop of Catania to allow
the relics of the Saint to be taken to their city, but the people
refused to [p014] permit them to leave their ancient resting place.
Processions and pilgrimages were organised to beg God's favour. Still
the pestilence raged and with greater fury. Everyone was in too great
a terror to aid his neighbour. Flight profited nothing, for the
sickness, already contracted and clinging to the fugitives, was only
carried wherever they sought refuge. Of those who fled some fell on
the roads and dragged themselves to die in the fields, the woods, or
the valleys. Those who reached Catania breathed their last in the
hospitals. At the demand of the terrified populace the Patriarch
forbade, under pain of excommunication, the burial of any of these
Messina refugees within the city, and their bodies were all thrown
into deep pits outside the walls.

"What shall I say more?" adds the historian. "So wicked and timid
were the Catanians that they refused even to speak to any from
Messina, or to have anything to do with them, but quickly fled at
their approach. Had it not been for secret shelter afforded by some
of their fellow citizens, resident in the town, the unfortunate
refugees would have been left destitute of all human aid." The
contagion, however, was already spread, and the plague soon became
rife. The same scenes were enacted at Catania as before in Messina.
The Patriarch, desiring to provide for the souls of the people, gave
to the priests, even the youngest, all the faculties he himself
possessed, both episcopal and patriarchal, for absolving sins. "The
pestilence raged in the city from October, 1347, to April, 1348, and
the Patriarch himself, Gerard Otho, of the Order of St. Francis, fell
a victim to his duty, and was one of the last to be carried off by
the disease. Duke John, who had sought security by avoiding every
infected house and person, died of the disease at the same time. The
plague was spread in the same way from Messina throughout Sicily;
Syracuse, Girgenti, Sciacca, and Trapani were successively attacked;
in particular it raged in the district of Trapani, in the extreme
west of the island, [p015] which," says the writer, "has remained
almost without population."[22]

Having briefly noticed the origin of the great pestilence which
ravaged Europe in the fourteenth century, and its progress towards
Italy, the story of Gabriel de' Mussi may again be taken up at the
point where he describes the flight of the Genoese traders from the
Crimea. The narrative has so far anticipated his account only by
giving the history of the epidemic in Constantinople and Sicily.


FOOTNOTES:

[2] Muratori, _Rerum Italicarum Scriptores_, xiv, col. 14.

[3] _The Epidemics of the Middle Ages_, translated by B. G. Babington
(Sydenham Society), p. 21.

[4] Marinus Sanutus, _Liber secretorum Fidelium crucis super Terræ
Sanctæ recuperatione et conversatione_, in Bongars, _Gesta Dei per
Francos_, vol. ii.

[5] The most southern part of Asiatic Turkey.

[6] Probably Mahe, on the Malabar coast.

[7] Now Cambay, in the Baroda Dominion to the north of Bombay.

[8] Otherwise Kus, now Koos, in Upper Egypt, not far from Thebes.

[9] Sometimes known as S. Feodosia. This port was by the beginning
of the 14th century a most important trading settlement of Genoese
merchants. In 1316 Pope John XXII issued a Bull making it the
cathedral city of an extensive diocese. By the time of the outbreak
of the great plague it had become the centre of almost all commerce
between Asia and Europe (_Cf._ M. G. Canale, _Della Crimea, del suo
commercio et dei suoi dominatori_, i, p. 208 _et seq._)

[10] The account of Gabriele de' Mussi, called _Ystoria de morbo seu
mortalitate qui fuit a. 1348_, was first printed by Henschel, in
Haeser's _Archiv für gesammte Medicin_ (Jena) ii, 26-59. The editor
claims that De' Mussi was actually present at Caffa during the Tartar
siege, and came to Europe in the plague-stricken ships which conveyed
the infection to Italy. Signor Tononi, who in 1884 reprinted the
_Ystoria_ in the _Giornale Ligustico_ (Genoa) vol. x (1883), p. 139
_seqq._, has proved by the acts of the notaries of Piacenza that
De' Mussi never quitted the city at this time, and his realistic
narrative must have been consequently derived from the accounts of
others. From the same source Tononi has shown that De' Mussi acted as
notary between A.D. 1300 and 1356, and was consequently born probably
somewhere about 1280. He died in the first half of the year 1356.

[11] Tana was the port on the north-western shore of the sea of Azor,
which was then known as the sea of Tana. The port is now Azor.

[12] De' Mussi says the siege lasted "three years." Tononi shows that
this is clearly a mistake, and adduces it as additional evidence that
the author was not himself at Caffa.

[13] Gabriele de' Mussi, _Ystoria de Morbo_, in Haeser, _ut supra_.

[14] K. Lechner, _Das grosse Sterben in Deutschland_ (Innsbruck,
Wagner, 1884), p. 8.

[15] J. J. Pontanus, _Rerum Danicarum Historia_ (1631), p. 476.

[16] See Lechner, _Das grosse Sterben_, p. 15. De' Mussi gives the
same account.

[17] "Chi cominciavano a sputare sangue, morivano chi di subito."
The contemporary chronicle of Parma by the Dominican John de
Cornazano also notes the same: "Et fuit talis quod aliqui sani, si
spuebant sanguinem, subito ibi moriebantur, nec erat ullum remedium"
(_Monumenta historica ad provincias Parmensem et Placentinam
pertinentia_, vol. v, p. 386).

[18] Anglada, _Étude sur les Maladies Éteintes_ (Paris, 1869), p.
416. The idea that this peculiar malady was altogether novel in
character is confirmed by its specially malignant nature. According
to a well-recognized law new epidemics are always most violent and
fatal. The depopulation of the Fiji Islands by the measles is an
instance of the way in which a comparatively mild disease may in its
first attack upon a people prove terribly destructive. It is commonly
thought that it has been the action of some new disease whereby the
races which built the great prehistoric cities of Africa and America
have been completely swept away.

[19] The following account of an outbreak of disease somewhat similar
to the "Black Death" appeared in the _British Medical Journal_ of
5 November, 1892:—"An official report of the Governor-General of
Turkestan, which has recently been published in St. Petersburg,
states that that province has been severely visited by an epidemic
of 'Black Death,' which followed upon the footsteps of cholera. On
September 10 (22) it appeared suddenly at Askabad, and in six days
it killed 1,303 persons in a population of 30,000. 'Black Death'
has long been known in Western Asia as a scourge more deadly than
the cholera or the plague. It comes suddenly, sweeping over a whole
district like a pestilential simoon, striking down animals as well
as men, and vanishes as suddenly as it came, before there is time
to ascertain its nature or its mode of diffusion. The visit here
referred to was no exception to this rule. After raging in Askabad
for six days the epidemic ceased, leaving no trace of its presence
but the corpses of its victims. These putrified so rapidly that
no proper post-mortem could be made. The Governor-General gives
some details as to the symptoms and course of the disease, which,
though interesting as far as they go, do not throw much light on
its pathology. The attack begins with rigors of intense severity,
the patient shivering literally from head to foot; the rigors occur
every five minutes for about an hour. Next an unendurable feeling of
heat is complained of; the arteries become tense, and the pulse more
and more rapid, while the temperature steadily rises. Unfortunately
no thermometric readings or other precise data are given. Neither
diarrhœa nor vomiting has been observed. Convulsions alternate with
syncopal attacks, and the patients suffer intense pain. Suddenly
the extremities become stiff and cold, and in from 10 to 20 minutes
the patient sinks into a comatose condition, which speedily ends in
death. Immediately after he has ceased to breathe large black bullæ
form on the body, and quickly spread over its surface. Decomposition
takes place in a few minutes."

[20] A Franciscan friar, Michael Platiensis (of Piazza).

[21] The Archbishop was a member of the Order of St. Francis, and had
been created Patriarch of Antioch.

[22] Gregorio (R.), _Bibliotheca Scriptorum qui res in Sicilia gestas
retulere_, tom. i, p. 562 _seqq._ The historian wrote probably not
later than A.D. 1361.

[p016]




CHAPTER II.

THE EPIDEMIC IN ITALY.


The great sickness reached Italy in the early days of 1348. The
report at Avignon at the time was that three plague-stricken vessels
had put into the port of Genoa in January, whilst from another
source it would appear that at the same time another ship brought
the contagion from the East to Venice. From these two places the
epidemic quickly spread over the entire country. What happened in
the early days of this frightful scourge is best told in the actual
words of Gabriel de' Mussi, who possessed special means of knowledge,
and who has until quite recently been looked upon, but incorrectly,
as a passenger by one of the very vessels which brought the plague
from the Crimea to Genoa. The history of the progress of the plague
may be gathered from the pages of the detailed chronicles, which at
that time recorded the principal events in the various large and
prosperous cities of the Italian peninsula, as well as from the
well-known account of the straits to which Florence was reduced
by the sickness, given in the introduction to the "Decameron" of
Boccaccio.

On reviewing in detail the testimonies from every land relating to
this great calamity, it is impossible to overlook the sameness of
the terms in which writers the most diverse in character, and in
places far distant from one another, describe what passed before
their eyes. It has already been remarked that the imperial historian,
John Cantacuzene, in recounting the horrors of the plague in
Constantinople, has borrowed from Thucydides. But the same ideas, the
very same words, suggest themselves involuntarily to one and all.
The simple monastic annalist of the half-buried [p017] cloister in
Engelberg, the more courtly chronicler of St. Denis, the notary who
writes with the dryness and technicalities of his profession, but
displays withal a weakness for rhetoric and gossip, _littérateurs_
like Boccaccio, whose _forte_ is narrative, or like Petrarch,
delighting in a show of words, the business-like town chronicler of
an Italian city, and the author who aspires to the rank of historian,
the physician whose interest is professional, even the scribbler who
takes this strange theme as the subject for his jingling verse, all
speak with such complete oneness of expression that it would almost
seem that each had copied his neighbour, and that there is here a
fine theme for the scientific amusement known as "investigation
of sources." It is only when we come to examine the whole body of
evidence that there is borne in upon the mind a realisation of the
nature of a calamity which, spreading everywhere, was everywhere the
same in its horrors, becoming thus nothing less than a world-wide
tragedy, and it is seen that even the phrases of the rhetorician can
do no more than rise to the terrible reality of fact.

First in importance, as well as in order of time, comes the testimony
of De' Mussi, the substance of which is here given. It so happened
that when the ships left Caffa—some bound for Genoa, some for Venice,
and some to other parts of the Christian world—a few of the sailors
were already infected by the fatal disease. One sick man was enough
to infect the whole household, and the corpse as it was carried to
the grave brought death to its bearers. "Tell, O Sicily, and ye, the
many islands of the sea, the judgments of God. Confess, O Genoa, what
thou hast done, since we of Genoa and Venice are compelled to make
God's chastisement manifest. Alas! our ships enter the port, but of
a thousand sailors hardly ten are spared. We reach our homes; our
kindred and our neighbours come from all parts to visit us. Woe to
us for we cast at them the darts of death! Whilst we spoke to them,
whilst they embraced us and kissed us, we scattered [p018] the
poison from our lips. Going back to their homes, they in turn soon
infected their whole families, who in three days succumbed, and were
buried in one common grave. Priests and doctors visiting the sick
returned from their duties ill, and soon were numbered with the dead.
O, death! cruel, bitter, impious death! which thus breaks the bonds
of affection and divides father and mother, brother and sister, son
and wife.

"Lamenting our misery, we feared to fly, yet we dared not remain."
The terror increased when it was found that even the effects and
clothes of the dead were capable of communicating the disease.
This was seen in the case of four soldiers at a place near Genoa.
Returning to their camp they carried back with them a woollen
bed-covering they had found in a house at Rivarolo, on the sea-coast,
where the sickness had swept away the entire population. The night
following the four slept under the coverlet, and in the morning all
were found to be dead. At Genoa the plague spared hardly a seventh
part of the population. At Venice it is said that more than seventy
died out of every hundred, and out of four-and-twenty excellent
doctors twenty were soon carried off by the sickness.

"But as an inhabitant I am asked to write more of Piacenza so that
it may be known what happened there in the year 1348. Some Genoese
who fled from the plague raging in their city betook themselves
hither. They rested at Bobbio, and there sold the merchandise they
had brought with them. The purchaser and their host, together with
all his family and many neighbours, were quickly stricken with the
sickness and died. One of these, wishing to make his will, called
a notary, his confessor, and the necessary witnesses. The next day
all these were buried together. So greatly did the calamity increase
that nearly all the inhabitants of Bobbio soon fell a prey to the
sickness, and there remained in the town only the dead.

"In the spring of 1348 another Genoese infected with the plague came
to Piacenza. He sought out his friend Fulchino [p019] della Croce,
who took him into his house. Almost immediately afterwards he died,
and the said Fulchino was also quickly carried off with his entire
family and many of his neighbours. In a brief space the plague was
rife throughout the city. I know not where to begin; everywhere there
was weeping and mourning. So great was the mortality that men hardly
dared to breathe. The dead were without number, and those who still
lived gave themselves up as lost, and prepared for the tomb.

"The cemeteries failing, it was necessary to dig trenches to receive
the bodies of the dead. It frequently happened that a husband
and wife, a father and son, a mother and daughter—nay, whole
families—were cast together in the same pit.

"It was the same in the neighbouring towns and villages. One Oberto
di Sasso, who had come one day from an infected place to the church
of the Friars Minor to make his will, called thither a notary,
witnesses, and neighbours. All these, together with others, to the
number of more than sixty, died within a short space of time. Also
the religious man, friar Sifredo de' Bardi, of the convent and
order of Preachers, a man of prudence and great learning, who had
visited our Lord's sepulchre, died with twenty-three other members
of his order and convent. Also the learned and virtuous friar
Bertolin Coxadocha, of Piacenza, of the order of Minorites, with
four-and-twenty members of his community was carried off. So too of
the convent of Augustinian Hermits—seven; of the Carmelites—seven;
of the Servites of Mary—four, and more than sixty dignitaries and
rectors of churches in the city and district of Piacenza died. Of
nobles, too, many; of young people a vast number."

De' Mussi then proceeds to give examples of the scenes daily passing
before his eyes in the plague-stricken cities of northern Italy. The
sick man lay languishing alone in his house and no one came near
him. Those most dear to him, regardless of the ties of kindred or
affection, [p020] withdrew themselves to a distance; the doctor
did not come to him, and even the priest with fear and trembling
administered the Sacraments of the Church. Men and women, racked with
the consuming fever, pleaded—but in vain—for a draught of water, and
uselessly raved for someone to watch at their bedside. The father or
the wife would not touch the corpse of child or husband to prepare it
for the grave, or follow it thither. No prayer was said, nor solemn
office sung, nor bell tolled for the funeral of even the noblest
citizen; but by day and night the corpses were borne to the common
plague-pit without rite or ceremony. The doors of the houses now
desolate and empty remained closed, and no one cared, nor, indeed,
dared to enter.

Such is the picture of the effect of the malady and the terrible
mortality caused by it drawn by one who seems to have seen its first
introduction into Italy, and who certainly had the best opportunity
of early observing its rapid progress. It might, perhaps, be
thought that his description of the horrors of the infected cities
was over-coloured and the creation of his imagination. But in the
details it bears on the surface the stamp of truth, and in its chief
characteristics it is confirmed by too many independent witnesses in
other parts of Italy, and even in Europe generally, to leave a doubt
that it corresponded to the literal reality.

What happened at Florence is well-known through the graphic
description of Boccaccio. So terrible was the mortality in that
prosperous city that the very outbreak became for a time known in
Europe as the "Pestilence of Florence." In the spring of the previous
year (1347) a severe famine had been experienced, and some 94,000
people had been in receipt of State relief, whilst about 4,000 are
supposed to have perished of starvation in the city[23] and its
neighbourhood. The people, enfeebled by previous hardships, would
naturally fall a prey more easily [p021] to the poison of the
epidemic. In April, 1348, the dreaded infection began to show itself.
"To cure the malady," writes Boccaccio, "neither medical knowledge
nor the power of drugs was of any avail, whether because the disease
was in its own nature mortal, or that the physicians (the number
of whom—taking quacks and women pretenders into account—was grown
very great) could form no just idea of the cause, nor consequently
ground a true method of cure; of those attacked few or none escaped,
but they generally died the third day from the first appearance of
the symptoms, without a fever or other form of illness manifesting
itself. The disease was communicated by the sick to those in health
and seemed daily to gain head and increase in violence, just as fire
will do by casting fresh fuel on it. The contagion was communicated
not only by conversation with those sick, but also by approaching
them too closely, or even by merely handling their clothes or
anything they had previously touched.

"What I am going to relate is certainly marvellous, and, had I not
seen it with my own eyes, and were there not many witnesses to
attest its truth besides myself, I should not venture to recount it,
whatever the credit of persons who had informed me of it. Such, I
say, was the deadly character of the pestilential matter, that it
passed the infection not only from man to man; but, what is more
wonderful, and has been often proved, anything belonging to those
sick with the disease, if touched by any other creature, would
certainly affect and even kill it in a short space of time. One
instance of this kind I took special note of, namely, the rags of a
poor man just dead having been thrown into the street, two hogs came
by at the time and began to root amongst them, shaking them in their
jaws. In less than an hour they fell down and died on the spot.

"Strange were the devices resorted to by the survivors to secure
their safety. Divers as were the means, there was one feature common
to all, selfish and uncharitable as it [p022] was—the avoidance of
the sick, and of everything that had been near them; men thought only
of themselves.

"Some held it was best to lead a temperate life and to avoid every
excess. These making up parties together, and shutting themselves up
from the rest of the world, ate and drank moderately of the best,
diverting themselves with music and such other entertainments as they
might have at home, and never listening to news from without which
might make them uneasy. Others maintained that free living was a
better preservative, and would gratify every passion and appetite.
They would drink and revel incessantly in tavern after tavern, or in
those private houses which, frequently found deserted by the owners,
were therefore open to anyone; but they yet studiously avoided, with
all their irregularity, coming near the infected. And such at that
time was the public distress that the laws, human and divine, were
not regarded, for the officers to put them in force being either
dead, sick, or without assistants, everyone did just as he pleased."

Another class of people chose a middle course. They neither
restricted themselves to the diet of the former nor gave way to
the intemperance of the latter; but eating and drinking what their
appetites required, they went about everywhere with scents and
nosegays to smell at, since they looked upon the whole atmosphere as
tainted with the effluvia arising from the dead bodies.

"Others, again, of a more callous disposition declared, as perhaps
the safest course in the extremity, that the only remedy was
in flight. Persuaded, therefore, of this, and thinking only of
themselves, great numbers of men and women left the city, their
goods, their house, and kindred, and fled into the country parts; as
if the wrath of God had been restricted to a visitation of those only
within the city walls, and hence none should remain in the doomed
place.

"But different as were the courses pursued, the sickness fell upon
all these classes without distinction; neither did [p023] all of any
class die, nor did all escape; and they who first set the example of
forsaking others now languished themselves where there was no one
to take pity on them. I pass by the little regard that citizens and
distant relations showed one to the other, for the terror was such
that brother even fled from brother, wife from husband, nay, the
parent from her own child. The sick could obtain help only from the
few who still obeyed the law of charity, or from hired servants who
demanded extravagant wages and were fit for little else than to hand
what was asked for, and to note when the patient died. Even such
paid helpers were scarce, and their desire of gain frequently cost
them their lives. The rich passed out of this world without a single
person to aid them; few had the tears of friends at their departure.
The corpse was attended to the grave only by fellows hired for the
purpose, who would put the bier on their shoulders and hurry with it
to the nearest church, where it was consigned to the tomb without any
ceremony whatever, and wherever there was room.

"With regard to the lower classes, and, indeed, in the case of many
of the middle rank of life, the scenes enacted were sadder still.
They fell sick by thousands, and, having no one whatever to attend
them, most of them died. Some breathed their last in the streets,
others shut up in their own houses, when the effluvia which came
from their corpses was the first intimation of their deaths. An
arrangement was now made for the neighbours, assisted by such bearers
as they could get, to clear the houses, and every morning to lay the
bodies of the dead at their doors. Thence the corpses were carried
to the grave on a bier, two or three at a time. There was no one
to follow, none to shed tears, for things had come to such a pass
that men's lives were no more thought of than those of beasts. Even
friends would laugh and make themselves merry, and women had learned
to consider their own lives before everything else.

"Consecrated ground no longer sufficed, and it became [p024]
necessary to dig trenches, into which the bodies were put by
hundreds, laid in rows as goods packed in a ship; a little earth was
cast upon each successive layer until the pits were filled to the
top. The adjacent country presented the same picture as the city; the
poor distressed labourers and their families, without physicians,
and without help, languished on the highways, in the fields, in
their own cottages, dying like cattle rather than human beings. The
country people, like the citizens, grew dissolute in their manners
and careless of everything. They supposed that each day might be
their last; and they took no care nor thought how to improve their
substance, or even to utilise it for present support. The flocks and
herds, when driven from their homes, would wander unwatched through
the forsaken harvest fields, and were left to return of their own
accord, if they would, at the approach of night."

Between March and the July following it was estimated that upwards of
a hundred thousand souls had perished in the city alone.

"What magnificent dwellings," the writer continues, "what stately
palaces, were then rendered desolate, even to the last inhabitant!
How many noble families became extinct! What riches, what vast
possessions were left with no known heir to inherit them! What
numbers of both sexes, in the prime and vigour of youth, whom in
the morning Galen, Hippocrates, or Æsculapius himself, would have
declared in perfect health, after dining heartily with their friends
here, have supped with their departed friends in another world."[24]

It might perhaps be suspected that this description of Boccaccio
as to the terrible nature of the plague in Florence was either a
fancy picture of his imagination or intended merely as a rhetorical
introduction to the tales told in the "Decameron," with only a
slender foundation of fact. Unfortunately other authorities are
forthcoming to confirm [p025] the graphic relation of the Florentine
poet in all its details. Amongst others who were carried off by the
pestilence in Florence was the renowned historian, Giovanni Villani.
His work was taken up by his brother Matteo, who commences his annals
with an account of the epidemic. So terrible did the destruction of
human life appear to him that he tells his readers that no greater
catastrophe had fallen on the world since the universal Deluge.
According to his testimony, it involved the whole of the Italian
peninsula, with the exception of Milan and some Alpine districts of
northern Lombardy. In each place visited by the scourge it lasted
five months, and everywhere Christian parents abandoned their
children and kinsfolk, in as callous a way as "might perhaps be
expected from infidels and savages." As regards Florence, whilst
some few devoted themselves to the care of the sick, many fled from
the plague-stricken city. The epidemic raged there from April till
September, 1348, and it is the opinion of Villani that three out of
every five persons in the city and neighbourhood fell victims to
it. As to the effect of the scourge on the survivors, the historian
records that whilst it would naturally have been expected that men,
impressed by so terrible a chastisement, would have become better,
the very contrary was the fact. Work, too, was given over, and "men
gave themselves up to the enjoyment of the worldly riches to which
they had succeeded." Idleness, dissolute morals, sins of gluttony,
banquets, revels in taverns, unbridled luxury, fickleness in dress
and constant changes according to whim, such were the characteristic
marks of the well-to-do Italian citizens when the plague had passed.
And the poor, also, Villani states, became idle and unwilling to
work, considering that when so many had been carried off by the
pestilence there could not but be an abundance for those whom
Providence had spared.[25] [p026]

The same story is told in all the contemporary chronicles of Italian
cities. At Pisa the terrible mortality lasted till September, 1348,
and there were few families that did not reckon two or three of their
members among the dead. Many names are said to have been completely
wiped off from the roll of the living. At least a hundred each
week were carried to the grave in the city, whilst those who had
been bold enough to watch at the death-bed of a relation or friend
appealed in vain to passers-by to aid them to bury the corpse. "Help
us to bear this body to the pit," they cried, "so that we in our
turn may deserve to find some to carry us." The awful suddenness
of the death often inflicted by the scourge is noted by the author
of the "Chronicle of Pisa," in common with nearly every writer of
this period. Men who in the morning were apparently well had before
evening been carried to the grave.[26]

A Paduan chronicler, writing at the time, notes that one sick man as
a rule infected the house in which he lay, so that once the sickness
entered into a dwelling all were seized by it, "even the animals."
To Padua a stranger brought the sickness, and in a brief space the
whole city was suffering from it. Hardly a third of the population
was left after the scourge had passed.[27] At Siena, according to
Di Tura, a contemporary chronicler, the plague commenced in April
and lasted till October, 1348. All who could fled from the stricken
city. In May, July, and August so many died that neither position
nor money availed to procure porters to carry the dead to the public
pits. "And I, Agniolo di Tura," writes this author, "carried with my
own hands my five little sons to the pit; and what I did many others
did likewise." All expected death, and people generally said, and
believed, that the end of the world had certainly come. In Siena and
its [p027] neighbourhood, according to Di Tura, about 80,000 people
were thought to have died in these seven months.[28]

At Orvieto the plague began in May. Some 500 died in a very short
space of time, many of them suddenly; the shops remained closed,
and business and work was at a standstill. Here it ran its usual
five months' course, and finished in September, when many families
were found to have become extinct.[29] At Rimini it was noticed that
the poor were the first to be attacked and the chief sufferers. The
sickness first showed itself on May 15th, 1348, and only died out
in the following December, when, according to the computation of
the chronicler, two out of three of the inhabitants had been swept
away.[30]

An anonymous contemporary Italian writer describes the sickness as a
"swift and sharp fever, with blood-spitting, carbuncle or fistula."
Only the few, he says, recovered when once stricken with the disease.
The sick visibly infected with their corruption the healthy, even by
talking with them; for from this mere conversing with the sick an
infinite number of men and women died and are buried. "And here,"
says the writer, "I can give my testimony. A certain man bled me, and
the blood flowing touched his face. On that same day he was taken
ill, and the next he died; and by the mercy of God I have escaped.
I note this because, as by mere communication with the sick the
plague infected mortally the healthy, the father afterwards avoided
his stricken son, the brother his brother, the wife her husband,
and so in each case the man in health studiously avoided the sick.
Priests and doctors even fled in fear from those ill, and all
avoided the dead. In many places and houses [p028] when an inmate
died the rest quickly, one after another, expired. And so great was
the overwhelming number of the dead that it was necessary to open
new cemeteries in every place. In Venice there were almost 100,000
dead, and so great was the multitude of corpses everywhere that few
attended any funeral or dirge. . . . This pestilence did not cease in
the land from February till the feast of All Saints (November 1st,
1348), and the offices of the dead were chanted only by the voices
of boys; which boys, without learning, and by rote only, sang the
office walking through the streets." The writer then notices the
general dissoluteness which ensued after the disease, and its effect
in lowering the standard of probity and morals.[31]

To the terrible accounts given by De' Mussi of the state of
plague-stricken Genoa and Piacenza, and that of Boccaccio, of the
ravages of the pestilence in the city of Florence, may be well added
the eloquent letters of the poet Petrarch, in which he laments the
overwhelming catastrophe, as he experienced it in the town of Parma.
Here, as in so many other places, the inhabitants vainly endeavoured
to prevent the entry of the disease by forbidding all intercourse
with the suffering cities of Florence, Venice, Genoa and Pisa. The
measures taken to isolate Parma appear to have been, at least, for
a time, successful, as the dreaded plague apparently did not make
its appearance till the beginning of June, 1348.[32] But in the six
months during which it lasted it desolated the entire neighbourhood.
In Parma and Reggio many thousands, estimated roundly at 40,000,
were carried off by it.[33] Petrarch was at this period a canon of
the cathedral of Parma, and had made the acquaintance at Avignon of
Laura, who quickly became the object of his admiration as a typical
Christian mother of a family, and as a fitting subject to inspire
his poetic muse. Laura died at Avignon, one of the [p029] many who
fell victims to the great pestilence which was then raging in that
city. The letter written by a friend named Louis to inform Petrarch
of this death found him at Parma on May 19th, 1348.[34] A month later
the poet wrote to Avignon in the most heart-broken language to his
brother, a religious at Monrieux, and the only survivor of a convent
of five-and-thirty.[35] "My brother! my brother! my brother," he
wrote. "A new beginning to a letter, though used by Marcus Tullius
fourteen hundred years ago. Alas! my beloved brother, what shall I
say? How shall I begin? Whither shall I turn? On all sides is sorrow;
everywhere is fear. I would, my brother, that I had never been born,
or, at least, had died before these times. How will posterity believe
that there has been a time when without the lightnings of heaven or
the fires of earth, without wars or other visible slaughter, not
this or that part of the earth, but well-nigh the whole globe, has
remained without inhabitants.

"When has any such thing been ever heard or seen; in what annals has
it ever been read that houses were left vacant, cities deserted, the
country neglected, the fields too small for the dead, and a fearful
and universal solitude over the whole earth? Consult your historians,
they are silent; question your doctors, they are dumb; seek an answer
from your philosophers, they shrug their shoulders and frown, and
with their fingers to their lips bid you be silent.

"Will posterity ever believe these things when we, who see, can
scarcely credit them? We should think we were dreaming if we did not
with our eyes, when we walk abroad, see the city in mourning with
funerals, and returning to our home, find it empty, and thus know
that what we lament is real.

"Oh, happy people of the future, who have not known these miseries
and perchance will class our testimony with [p030] the fables. We
have, indeed, deserved these (punishments) and even greater; but our
forefathers also have deserved them, and may our posterity not also
merit the same."

Then, after saying that the universal misery is enough to make one
think that God has ceased to have a care for His creatures, and
putting this thought aside as blasphemy, the writer continues: "But
whatever the causes and however hidden, the effects are manifest. To
turn from public to private sorrows; the first part of the second
year is passed since I returned to Italy. I do not ask you to look
back any further; count these few days, and think what we were and
what we are. Where are now our pleasant friends? Where the loved
faces? Where their cheering words? Where their sweet and gentle
conversation? We were surrounded by a crowd of intimates, now we are
almost alone."

Speaking of one special friend, Paganinus of Milan, Petrarch writes:
"He was suddenly seized in the evening by the pestilential sickness.
After supping with friends he spent some time in conversation with
me, in the enjoyment of our common friendship and in talking over our
affairs. He passed the night bravely in the last agony, and in the
morning was carried off by a swift death. And, that no horror should
be wanting, in three days his sons and all his family had followed
him to the tomb."[36]

In other towns of Italy the same tragedy, as told in the words of
Boccaccio and Petrarch, was being enacted during the early spring and
the summer months of 1348. At Venice, where the pestilence obtained
an early foothold, and the position of which rendered it particularly
susceptible to infection, the mortality was so great that it was
represented by the round numbers of 100,000 souls.[37]

Signor Cecchetti's researches into the history of the medical faculty
at Venice at this period furnish many [p031] interesting details
as to the spread of the sickness.[38] Although surgeons were not
allowed by law to practise medicine, so great was the need during
the prevalence of the dread mortality that one surgeon, Andrea di
Padova, was allowed to have saved the lives of more than a hundred
people by his timely assistance.[39] In the 14th century Venice was
troubled by the plague some fifteen times, but that of 1348 was
"the great epidemic"—"the horrible mortality"—to the chroniclers of
the time. For a long period after, public and other documents make
it the excuse for all kinds of irregularities.[40] The diplomas of
merit bestowed upon doctors who remained faithful to their posts by
the authorities of Venice speak of death following upon the first
infection within a very short space of time. So depopulated was the
city that it might be said no one was left in it. Many doctors fled,
others shut themselves in their houses. Artisans and even youths
undertook the duties of physicians, and helped numbers to recover.[41]

On Sunday, March 30th, 1348, the Great Council of Venice chose a
commission of three to watch over the public safety. These a few days
later ordered deep pits to be made in one of the islands to receive
the bodies of those who died in the hospitals and of the poor, and to
convey them thither, ships were appointed to be always in waiting.

The rich fled from the place; officials could not be found, and the
Great Council was so reduced that the legal number for transacting
business could not be got together. Notaries died in great numbers,
and the prisons were thrown open.[42] When the epidemic had ceased
the Senate had great difficulty in finding three doctors for the
city. On January 12th, 1349, Marco Leon, a capable physician, and a
native of Venice, who was in practice at Perugia, offered to return
to his own city "since," as he says, "it has pleased God by the
terrible mortality to leave our native [p032] place so destitute
of upright and capable doctors that it may be said not one has been
left."[43]

Details of a similar nature might be multiplied from the contemporary
Italian records. What has been here given, however, will enable the
reader to form some estimate of the nature of the terrible disease
and of the extent of the universal devastation of the Italian
peninsula. The annals relate that in every city, castle, and town
death and desolation reigned supreme. In most places, as in Pisa, for
example, law and order became things of the past; the administration
of justice was impossible; criminals of every kind did what they
best pleased,[44] and for a considerable time after the plague
had passed the Courts of Law were occupied in disputes over the
possessions of the dead. When the wave of pestilence had rolled on
to other lands there came in its wake famine and general distress
in Italy, but strangely accompanied with the lavish expenditure of
those who considered that, where so many had died, there should be
enough and to spare of worldly goods for such as were left. The
land lay uncultivated and the harvest was unreaped. Provisions and
other necessaries of life became dear. Markets ceased to be held,
and cities and towns devoid of inhabitants were spectacles of decay
and desolation. It is said, and there does not appear to be reason
to doubt the statement, in view of the many contemporary accounts of
the disaster, that at least one half of the general population of
Italy were swept away by the scourge. This relation of the horrors
of the year 1348 in Italy may be closed by the account left us of
some students from Bohemia, who at this time journeyed back to their
country from Bologna.

"At this time," says a chronicle of Prague, "some students, coming
from Bologna into Bohemia, saw that in most of the cities and castles
they passed through few remained alive, and in some all were dead.
In many houses [p033] also those who had escaped with their lives
were so weakened by the sickness that one could not give another a
draught of water, nor help him in any way, and so passed their time
in great affliction and distress. Priests, too, ministering the
sacraments, and doctors medicines, to the sick were infected by them
and died, and so many passed out of this life without confession or
the sacraments of the Church, as the priests were dead. There were
generally made great, broad and deep pits in which the bodies of the
dead were buried. In many places, too, the air was more infected and
more deadly than poisoned food, from the corruption of the corpses,
since there was no one left to bury them. Of the foresaid students,
moreover, only one returned to Bohemia, and his companions all died
on the journey."[45]


FOOTNOTES:

[23] Sismondi, _Histoire des Républiques Italiennes du Moyen Age_,
vi, p. 11.

[24] "The Decameron," Introduction.

[25] Muratori, _Scriptores_, xiv, coll. 11-15.

[26] Muratori, _Scriptores_, xv. 1021.

[27] _Ibid._, xii, 926.

[28] _Ibid._ xv, 123. At this period the population at Siena was more
than 100,000, and it had been determined to proceed with the building
of the vast Cathedral according to the designs of Lando Orefice. The
work was hardly undertaken when the plague of 1348 broke out in the
city. The operations were suspended, and the money which had been
collected for the purpose was devoted to necessary public works (G.
Gigli, _Diario Sanese_, ii, 428).

[29] Muratori, _Scriptores_ xv, 653.

[30] _Ibid._, 902.

[31] _Ibid._, xvi, 286.

[32] A. Pezzana, _Storia della città di Parma_, vol. i, p. 12.

[33] _Historiæ Parmensis Fragmenta_, in Muratori, _Scriptores_, xii,
746.

[34] T. Michelet, _Histoire de France_, iv, p. 238.

[35] A. Phillippe, _Histoire de la Peste Noire_ (Paris, 1853), p. 103.

[36] _Epistolæ Familiares_ (Ed. 1601), lib. viii, pp. 290-303.

[37] Muratori, _Scriptores_, xii, 926.

[38] See his article _La Medicina in Venezia nel 1300_ in _Archivio
Veneto_, tom. xxv, p. 361, _seqq._

[39] p. 369.

[40] _Ibid._, 377.

[41] _Ibid._

[42] _Ibid._, p. 378.

[43] _Ibid._, p. 379.

[44] Roncioni, _Istorie Pisane_ in _Archivio Storico Italiano_, iv,
808.

[45] _Chronicon Pragense_, ed. Loserth in _Fontes rerum
Austriacarum_, _Scriptores_, vol. i, p. 395.

[p034]




CHAPTER III.

PROGRESS OF THE PLAGUE IN FRANCE.


Almost simultaneously with the outbreak of the pestilence in Italy
it obtained a foothold in the South of France. According to a
contemporary account, written at Avignon in 1348, the disease was
brought into Marseilles by one of the three Genoese ships, which
had been compelled to leave the port of Genoa when the inhabitants
discovered that by their means the dreaded plague had already
commenced its ravages in their city. It would consequently appear
most likely that the mortality began in Marseilles somewhere about
the first days of January, 1348, although one account places the
commencement of the sickness as early as All Saints' Day (November
1), 1347.[46] The number of deaths in this great southern port of
France fully equalled that of the populous cities of Italy. In
a month the sickness is said to have carried off 57,000 of the
inhabitants of Marseilles and its neighbourhood.[47] One chronicle
says that "the Bishop, with the entire chapter of the cathedral,
and nearly all the friars, Preachers and Minorites, together with
two-thirds of the inhabitants, perished" at this time; and adds that
upon the sea might be seen ships, laden with merchandise, driven
about hither and thither by the waves, the steersman and every sailor
having been carried off by the disease.[48] Another, speaking of
Marseilles after the pestilence had passed, says that "so many died
that it [p035] remained like an uninhabited place."[49] It is of
interest to record that amongst the survivors there was an English
doctor, William Grisant, of Merton College, Oxford. He had studied
medicine at the then celebrated school of Montpellier, and was in
practice at Marseilles during the visitation of the great plague of
1348, dying two years later, in 1350.[50]

At Montpellier the ravages were, if possible, even greater. Of
the twelve magistrates, or consuls, ten died, and in the numerous
monasteries scarcely one religious was spared. The Dominicans here
were very numerous, numbering some 140 members, and of these seven
only are said to have been left alive.[51] Simon de Covino, a doctor,
of Paris, who probably witnessed the course of the disease at
Montpellier, wrote an account of his experiences in a poetical form
in 1350. The moral of his verse is the same as Boccaccio's, and the
chief interest lies in the fact that, like the Italian poet, Covino
was an eye-witness of what he relates, whilst his medical training
makes his testimony as to the chief characteristics of the disease
specially important. The name he gives to the malady is the _pestis
inguinaria_, or bubonic plague of the East. He describes a burning
pain, beginning under the arms, or in the groin, and extending to the
regions of the heart. A mortal fever then spread to the vital parts;
the heart, lungs, and breathing passages were chiefly affected, the
strength fell quickly, and the person so stricken was unable to fight
any length of time against the poison.

One very singular effect of the disease is noted by the author:—"The
pestilence," he asserts, "stamped itself upon [p036] the entire
population. Faces became pale, and the doom which threatened the
people was marked upon their foreheads. It was only necessary to look
into the countenances of men and women to read there recorded the
blow which was about to fall; a marked pallor announced the approach
of the enemy, and before the fatal day the sentence of death was
written unmistakably on the face of the victims. No climate appeared
to have any effect upon the strange malady. It appeared to be stayed
neither by heat nor cold. High and healthy situations were as much
subject to it as damp and low places. It spread during the colder
season of winter as rapidly as in the heat of the summer months."

About the contagious nature of the epidemic there could be no doubt.
"It has been proved," wrote Covino, "that when it once entered a
house scarcely one of those who dwelt in it escaped." The contagion
was so great that one sick person, so to speak, would "infect the
whole world." "A touch, even a breath, was sufficient to transmit
the malady." Those who were obliged to render ordinary assistance to
the sick fell victims. "It happened also that priests, those sacred
physicians of souls, were seized by the plague whilst administering
spiritual aid; and often by a single touch, or a single breath of the
plague-stricken, they perished even before the sick person they had
come to assist." Clothes were justly regarded as infected, and even
the furniture of houses attacked was suspected. At Montpellier, at
the time of the visitation, the writer says there were more doctors
than elsewhere, but hardly one escaped the infection, and this even
although it was recognised that medical skill was of little or no
avail.

According to the experience of this Montpellier doctor the mortality
was greatest among the poor, because their hard lives and their
poverty rendered them more susceptible to the deadly infection, and
their condition did not enable them to combat it with the chances
of success possessed by the well-to-do classes. As to the extent of
[p037] the mortality, he says "that the number of those swept away
was greater than those left alive; cities are now (_i.e._, 1350)
depopulated, thousands of houses are locked up, thousands stand with
their doors wide open, their owners and those who dwelt in them
having been swept away." Lastly, this writer bears testimony to the
baneful effect the scourge had upon the morals of those who had been
spared. Such visitations, he thinks, must always exercise the most
lowering influence upon the general virtue of the world.[52]

From Marseilles the epidemic quickly spread northwards up the Rhone
valley, and in a westerly direction through Languedoc. Montpellier,
too, quickly passed on the infection. It commenced at Narbonne in
the first week of Lent, 1348, and is said to have carried off 30,000
of the inhabitants. Indeed, so fearful was the visitation, that this
ancient city is reported never to have recovered from the desolation
it caused.[53]

At Arles, which was attacked very shortly after the disease
had gained a footing on French soil, most of the inhabitants
perished.[54] It reached Avignon as early as January, 1348. In this
city Pope Clement VI., then in the sixth year of his pontificate,
held his court. Before the arrival of the dreaded visitant was
publicly recognised sixty-six religious of the convent of Carmelites
had been carried off, and in the first three days 1,800 people are
reported to have died. In the seven months during which the scourge
lasted the vast roll of the dead in the territory of Avignon had
mounted up to 150,000 persons, amongst whom was the friend of
Petrarch, Laura de Noves, who died on Good Friday, March 27th,
1348.[55] Even in England at the time the excessive mortality at
Avignon [p038] was noted and remarked upon.[56] Great numbers of
Jews are said to have been carried off because of the unsanitary
conditions in which they lived, and an equally great number of
Spaniards resident in the city, whose propensity for good living
rendered them most susceptible to the infection.[57]

The alarming mortality quickly caused a panic. "For such terror,"
writes an author of the lives of the Popes at Avignon, "took
possession of nearly everyone, that as soon as the ulcer or boil
appeared on anyone he was deserted by all, no matter how nearly
they might be related to him. For the father left his son, the son
his father, on his sick bed. In any house when a person became sick
with the infirmity and died it generally happened that all others
there were attacked and quickly followed him to the grave; yea, even
the animals in the place, such as dogs, cats, cocks, and hens also
died. Hence those who had strength fled for fear of what had taken
place, and, as a consequence, many who might otherwise have recovered
perished through want of care. Many, too, who were seized with the
sickness, being considered certain to die and without any hope of
recovery, were carried off at once to the pit and buried. And in this
way many were buried alive."

The same writer notices the charity of the Pope at this terrible
time, in causing doctors to visit and assist the sick poor. "And
since the ordinary cemeteries did not suffice to hold the bodies
of the dead, the Pope purchased a large field and caused it to be
consecrated as a cemetery where anyone might be buried. And here an
infinite number of people were then interred."[58] [p039]

The most important and particular account of the pestilence at
Avignon, however, is that of a certain Canon of the Low Countries,
who wrote at the time from the city to his friends in Bruges. He
was in the train of a Cardinal on a visit to the Roman Curia when
the plague broke out. "The disease," he writes, "is threefold in
its infection; that is to say, firstly, men suffer in their lungs
and breathing, and whoever have these corrupted, or even slightly
attacked, cannot by any means escape nor live beyond two days.
Examinations have been made by doctors in many cities of Italy, and
also in Avignon, by order of the Pope, in order to discover the
origin of this disease. Many dead bodies have been thus opened and
dissected, and it is found that all who have died thus suddenly have
had their lungs infected and have spat blood. The contagious nature
of the disease is indeed the most terrible of all the terrors (of the
time), for when anyone who is infected by it dies, all who see him
in his sickness, or visit him, or do any business with him, or even
carry him to the grave, quickly follow him thither, and there is no
known means of protection.

"There is another form of the sickness, however, at present running
its course concurrently with the first; that is, certain aposthumes
appear under both arms, and by these also people quickly die. A third
form of the disease—like the two former, running its course at this
same time with them—is that from which people of both sexes suffer
from aposthumes in the groin. This, likewise, is quickly fatal. The
sickness has already grown to such proportions that, from fear of
contagion, no doctor will visit a sick man, even if the invalid would
gladly give him everything he possessed; neither does a father visit
his son, nor a mother her daughter, nor a brother his brother, nor
a son his father, nor a friend his friend, nor an acquaintance his
acquaintance, nor, in fact, does anyone go to another, no matter
how closely he may be allied to him by blood, unless he is prepared
to die with him or [p040] quickly to follow after him. Still, a
large number of persons have died merely through their affection for
others; for they might have escaped had they not, moved by piety and
Christian charity, visited the sick at the time.

"To put the matter shortly, one-half, or more than a half, of the
people at Avignon are already dead. Within the walls of the city
there are now more than 7,000 houses shut up; in these no one is
living, and all who have inhabited them are departed; the suburbs
hardly contain any people at all. A field near 'Our Lady of Miracles'
has been bought by the Pope and consecrated as a cemetery. In
this, from the 13th of March,[59] 11,000 corpses have been buried.
This number does not include those interred in the cemetery of the
hospital of St. Anthony, in cemeteries belonging to the religious
bodies, and in the many others which exist in Avignon. Nor must I be
silent about the neighbouring parts, for at Marseilles all the gates
of the city, with the exception of two small ones, are now closed,
for there four-fifths of the inhabitants are dead.

"The like account I can give of all the cities and towns of Provence.
Already the sickness has crossed the Rhone, and ravaged many cities
and villages as far as Toulouse, and it ever increases in violence
as it proceeds. On account of this great mortality there is such
a fear of death that people do not dare even to speak with anyone
whose relative has died, because it is frequently remarked that in
a family where one dies nearly all the relations follow him, and
this is commonly believed among the people. Neither are the sick now
served by their kindred, except as dogs would be; food is put near
the bed for them to eat and drink, and then those still in health fly
and leave the house. When a man dies some rough countrymen, called
_gavoti_, come to the house, and, after receiving a sufficiently
large reward, carry the corpse to the grave. Neither relatives
nor friends go to the sick, nor do priests even hear their [p041]
confessions nor give them the Sacraments; but everyone whilst still
in health looks after himself. It daily happens that some rich man
dying is borne to the grave by these ruffians without lights, and
without a soul to follow him, except these hired mourners. When
a corpse is carried by all fly through the streets and get into
their houses. Nor do these said wretched _gavoti_, strong as they
are, escape; but most of them after a time become infected by this
contagion and die. All the poor who were wont to receive bread from
the rich are dead; that is to say, briefly, where daily in ordinary
times there were distributed sixty-four measures of wheat for bread,
fifty loaves being made from each measure, now only one measure is
given away, and sometimes even a half is found to be sufficient.

"And it is said that altogether in three months—that is from January
25th to the present day (April 27th)—62,000 bodies have been buried
in Avignon. The Pope, however, about the middle of March last past,
after mature deliberation, gave plenary absolution till Easter, as
far as the keys of the Church extended, to all those who, having
confessed and being contrite, should happen to die of the sickness.
He ordered likewise devout processions, singing the Litanies, to be
made on certain days each week, and to these, it is said, people
sometimes come from the neighbouring districts to the number of
2,000; amongst them many of both sexes are barefooted, some are in
sackcloth, some with ashes, walking with tears and tearing their
hair, and beating themselves with scourges even to the drawing of
blood. The Pope was personally present at some of these processions,
but they were then within the precincts of his palace. What will
be the end, or whence all this has had its beginning, God alone
knows. . . .

"Some wretched men have been caught with certain dust, and, whether
justly or unjustly God only knows, they are accused of having
poisoned the water, and men in fear do not drink the water from
wells; for this many have been burnt and daily are burnt. [p042]

"Fish, even sea fish, is commonly not eaten, as people say they have
been infected by the bad air. Moreover, people do not eat, nor even
touch spices, which have not been kept a year, since they fear they
may have lately arrived in the aforesaid ships. And, indeed, it has
many times been observed that those who have eaten these new spices
and even some kinds of sea fish have suddenly been taken ill.

"I write this to you, my friends, that you may know the dangers in
which we live. And if you desire to preserve yourselves, the best
advice is to eat and drink temperately, to avoid cold, not to commit
excess of any kind, and, above all, to converse little with others,
at this time especially, except with the few whose breath is sweet.
But it is best to remain at home until this epidemic has passed. . . .

"Know, also, that the Pope has lately left Avignon, as is reported,
and has gone to the castle called Stella, near Valence on the
Rhone, two leagues off, to remain there till times change. The
Curia, however, preferred to remain at Avignon, (but) vacations
have been proclaimed till the feast of St. Michael. All the
auditors, advocates, and procurators have either left, intend to
leave immediately, or are dead. I am in the hands of God, to whom I
commend myself. My master will follow the Pope, so they say, and I
with him, for there are some castles near the airy mountains where
the mortality has not yet appeared, and it is thought that the best
chance is there. To choose and to do what is best may the Omnipotent
and merciful God grant us all. Amen."[60]

From another source some corroboration of the mortality, described by
the writer of this letter, can be obtained. The 11,000, stated by the
anonymous canon to have been buried in the Pope's new cemetery from
March 13th to April 27th may appear excessive; still more, the 62,000
reported to have died in the three months between the [p043] first
outbreak, on January 25th, and the date when the letter was written.
The statements of the writer are, however, so circumstantial and
given with such detail, that, allowing for the tendency in all such
catastrophes to exaggerate rather than minimise the number of the
victims, it is probable that his estimate of the terrible destruction
of life at Avignon and in the neighbourhood is substantially
accurate. Writing, as he does, on the Sunday after Easter, 1348, he
evidently points to the time of Lent as the period during which the
epidemic was at its height. This is borne out by a statement in a
German chronicle, which says: "In Venice, in the whole of Italy and
Provence, especially in cities on the sea-coast, there died countless
numbers. And at Avignon, where the Roman Curia then was, in the first
three days after mid-Lent Sunday, 1,400 people were computed to have
been buried."[61] Mid-Lent Sunday, in 1348, fell upon March 30th,
and, consequently, according to this authority, on the last day of
March and the first two days of April the death-rate was over 450 a
day.

No account of the plague at Avignon would be complete without some
notice of Gui de Chauliac, and some quotations from the work he has
left to posterity upon this particular outbreak. De Chauliac was
the medical attendant of Pope Clement VI. He devoted himself to the
service of the sick during the time of the epidemic, and, although
he himself caught the infection, his life was happily spared to the
service of others, and to enable him to write an account of the
sickness. The mortality, he says, commenced in the month of January,
1348, and lasted for the space of seven months. "It was of two kinds;
the first lasted two months, with constant fever and blood-spitting,
and of this people died in three days.

"The second lasted for the rest of the time. In this, together with
constant fever, there were external carbuncles, or buboes, under
the arm or in the groin, and the [p044] disease ran its course in
five days. The contagion was so great (especially when there was
blood-spitting) that not only by remaining (with the sick) but even
by looking (at them) people seemed to take it; so much so, that many
died without any to serve them, and were buried without priests to
pray over their graves.

"A father did not visit his son, nor the son his father. Charity was
dead. The mortality was so great that it left hardly a fourth part
of the population. Even the doctors did not dare to visit the sick
from fear of infection, and when they did visit them they attempted
nothing to heal them, and thus almost all those who were taken
ill died, except towards the end of the epidemic, when some few
recovered."

"As for me, to avoid infamy, I did not dare to absent myself, but
still I was in continual fear." Towards the end of the sickness de
Chauliac took the infection, and was in great danger for six weeks,
but in the end recovered.[62]

It was according to the advice of this same Gui de Chauliac that
Pope Clement VI. isolated himself and kept large fires always
alight in his apartments, just as Pope Nicholas IV. had done in a
previous epidemic. In the whole district of Provence the mortality
appears to have been very great. In the Lent of 1348 no fewer than
358 Dominicans are said to have died.[63] Even by the close of the
November of this year the terror of the time had not passed away
from Avignon and the Papal Court. Writing to King Louis of Hungary,
on the 23rd of that month, the Pope excused himself for not having
sent before, "as the deadly plague, which has devastated these and
other parts of the world by an unknown and terrible mortality, has
not only, by God's will, carried off some of our brethren, but caused
others to fly from the Roman Curia to avoid death."[64] [p045]

In the early summer of the same year, 1348, just as the plague was
lessening its ravages at Avignon, the Pope addressed a letter to the
General Chapter of the Friars Minor then being held at Verona. He
laments the misery into which the world has been plunged, chiefly
"by the mortal sickness which is carrying off from us old and young,
rich and poor, in one common, sudden and unforeseen death." He urges
them to unite in prayer that the plague may cease, and grants special
indulgences "to such among you as, during this Chapter, or whilst
returning to your homes, may chance to die."[65] Of these Franciscans
it is said that, in Italy alone, 30,000 died in this sickness.

From its first entry into France in the early days of 1348, the
plague was ever spreading far and wide. The letter from Avignon,
already given, speaks of the ravages of the mortality in the whole
of Provence, and of its having, before the end of April, reached
Toulouse on its journey westward. In the August of this year (1348)
Bordeaux was apparently suffering from it, since in that month the
Princess Joan, daughter of Edward III., who was on her way to be
married to Pedro, son of the King of Castille, died suddenly in that
city.

In a northerly direction the epidemic spread with equal virulence.
At Lyons evidence of the pestilence is afforded by an inscription
preserved in the town museum. It relates to the construction of a
chapel in 1352 by a citizen, "Michael Pancsus," in which Mass should
be said for the souls of several members of his family "who died in
the time of the mortality, 1348."[66] The anonymous cleric of Bruges,
who preserved the Avignon letter, writing probably at the time, gives
the following account of its progress: "In the year of our Lord 1348,
that plague, epidemic, and mortality, which we have mentioned before,
by the will of God has [p046] not ceased; but from day to day
grows and descends upon other parts. For in Burgundy, Normandy, and
elsewhere it has consumed, and is consuming, many thousands of men,
animals, and sheep."[67]

It arrived in Normandy probably about the feast of St. James (July
25th), 1348. A contemporary note in a manuscript, which certainly
came from the Abbey of Foucarmont, gives the following account: "In
the year of grace 1348, about the feast of St. James, the great
mortality entered into Normandy. And it came into Gascony, and
Poitou, and Brittany, and then passed into Picardy. And it was so
horrible that in the towns it attacked more than two-thirds of the
population died. And a father did not dare to go and visit his son,
nor a brother his sister, and people could not be found to nurse one
another, because, when the person breathed the breath of another he
could not escape. It came to such a pass that no one could be found
even to carry the corpses (to the tomb). People said that the end
of the world had come."[68] In another manuscript, M. Delisle has
found a further note, or portion of a note, referring to the terrible
nature of the malady in Normandy. It never entered a city or town
without carrying off the greater part of the inhabitants. "And in
that time the mortality was so great among the people of Normandy
that those in Picardy mocked them."[69]

Paris was, of course, visited by the disease. Apparently, it was some
time in the early summer of 1348 when it first manifested itself.
In the chronicle of St. Denis it is recorded that "in the year of
grace 1348 the said mortality commenced in the Kingdom of France and
lasted about a year and a half, more or less. In this way there died
in Paris, one day with another, 800 persons. . . . In the space of
the said year and a half, as some declare, the number of the dead
in Paris rose to more than 50,000, and [p047] in the town of St.
Denis the number was as high as 16,000."[70] The chronicle of the
Carmelites at Rheims places the total of deaths in Paris at the
larger number of 80,000,[71] amongst whom were two Queens, Joan of
Navarre, daughter of Louis X., and Joan of Burgundy, wife of King
Philip of Valois.

The most circumstantial account of the plague in France at the time
when the capital was attacked is given in the continuation of the
chronicle of William of Nangis, which was written probably before
1368. "In the same year" (1348), it says, "both in Paris in the
kingdom of France, and not less, as is reported, in different parts
of the world, and also in the following year, there was so great
a mortality of people of both sexes, and of the young rather than
the old, that they could hardly be buried. Further they were ill
scarcely more than two or three days, and some often died suddenly,
so that a man to-day in good health, to-morrow was carried a corpse
to the grave. Lumps suddenly appeared under the arm-pits or in
the groin, and the appearance of these was an infallible sign of
death. This sickness, or pestilence, was called by the doctors the
epidemic. And the multitude of people who died in the years 1348 and
1349, was so large that nothing like it was ever heard, read of,
or witnessed in past ages. And the said death and sickness often
sprung from the imagination, or from the society and (consequent)
contagion of another, for a healthy man visiting one sick hardly
ever escaped death. So that in many towns, small and great, priests
retired through fear, leaving the administration of the Sacraments to
religious, who were more bold. Briefly, in many places, there did not
remain two alive out of every twenty.

"So great was the mortality in the Hotel-Dieu of Paris that for a
long time more than fifty corpses were carried [p048] away from it
each day in carts to be buried.[72] And the devout sisters of the
Hotel-Dieu, not fearing death, worked piously and humbly, not out of
regard for any worldly honour. A great number of these said sisters
were very frequently summoned to their reward by death, and rest in
peace with Christ, as is piously believed."

After saying that the plague had passed through Gascony and Spain,
the chronicler speaks of it as going "from town to town, village
to village, from house to house, and even from person to person;
and coming into the country of France, passed into Germany, where,
however, it was less severe than amongst us."

"It lasted in France," the writer says, "the greater part of 1348
and 1349, and afterwards there were to be seen many towns, country
places, and houses in good cities remaining empty and without
inhabitants."

The writer concludes by declaring that nature soon began to make
up for losses. "But, alas! the world by this renovation is not
changed for the better. For people were afterwards more avaricious
and grasping, even when they possessed more of the goods of this
world, than before. They were more covetous, vexing themselves by
contentious quarrels, strifes, and law suits." Moreover, all things
were much dearer; furniture, food, merchandise, of all sorts doubled
in price, and servants would work only for higher wages. "Charity,
too, from that time began to grow cold, and wickedness with its
attendant, ignorance, was rampant, and few were found who could or
would teach children the rudiments of grammar in houses, cities, or
villages."[73] [p049]

Whilst the plague was at its height King Philip VI. requested the
medical faculty of Paris to consult together and to report upon the
best methods by which the deadly nature of the disease could be
combated. The result of their consultation was published, probably
in June, 1348.[74] Unfortunately, adhering closely to the text of
the question addressed to them, their reply does not furnish any
historical details. They broadly state their views as to the probable
origin of the epidemic, and confine themselves to suggestions as to
its treatment, and to the means by which contagion is to be avoided.
They are clear as to the infectious nature of the disease, and
earnest in their recommendations that all who were able should have
nothing to do with the sick. "It is chiefly the people of one house,
and above all those of the same family, who are close together," they
say, "who die, for they are always near to those who are sick. We
advise them to depart, for it is in this way that a great number have
been infected by the plague."[75]

Meanwhile the epidemic was spreading northward. At Amiens, where
17,000 are said to have been carried off by the sickness, it seems
probable that the malady was not at its height before the summer of
the following year, 1349. The wave of pestilence from Paris seems to
have divided. One stream swept on through Normandy towards the coast,
which it probably reached, in the regions round Calais, about July
or August of the year 1348. The other stream, checked probably by
the autumn and winter, made its way more slowly towards Belgium and
Holland.

In the June of 1349 the King granted a petition from the Mayor of
Amiens for a new cemetery. In the document the plague in the city
is described as having been then so terrible that the cemeteries
are full, and no more corpses could safely be buried in them.
"The mortality in the said town," says the King's letter, "is so
marvellously great [p050] that people are dying there suddenly, as
quickly, as from one evening to the following morning, and often
even quicker than that."[76] This was in June, 1349, and already
by September of the same year the authorities were called upon
to deal with a combination of workmen at a tannery to secure for
themselves excessive wages "to the great hurt of the people at
large." The promptness of the action of the Mayor, and the tone of
the proclamation establishing a rate of wages, is a sufficient proof
that the crisis was regarded as serious.[77] This trouble at Amiens
is an indication of difficulties which will be seen to have existed
elsewhere in France, in Germany, and in England, which had their
origin in the dearth of labourers after the scourge had passed.

The account of the ravages of this great pestilence in France, as
well as its course in the city of Tournay, where it commenced in
August, 1349, is well given in the chronicle of Gilles Li Muisis,
Abbot of St. Martin's, Tournay, who was a contemporary of the events
he describes. "It is impossible," he says, "to credit the mortality
throughout the whole country. Travellers, merchants, pilgrims, and
others who have passed through it declare that they have found cattle
wandering without herdsmen in fields, towns, and waste lands; that
they have seen barns and wine-cellars standing wide open, houses
empty, and few people to be found anywhere. So much so that in many
towns, cities and villages, where there had been before 20,000
people, scarcely 2,000 are left; and in many cities and country
places, where there had been 1,500 people, hardly 100 remain. And in
many different lands (_multis climatibus_), both lands and fields are
lying uncultivated. I have heard these things from a certain knight
well skilled in the law, who was one of the members of the Paris
Parliament. He was sent, together with a certain Bishop, by Philip,
the most [p051] illustrious King of France, to the King of Aragon,
and on his return journey passed through Avignon. Both there and in
Paris, as he told me, he was informed of the foresaid things by many
people worthy of credit."

After speaking of the evidence given by a pilgrim to Santiago, Li
Muisis proceeds to relate his own experiences in Tournay in the
summer of 1349. This he does in verse and prose. The poem, after
speaking of the manifestation of God's anger, describes the plague
beginning in the East and passing through France into Flanders. Like
other writers, Li Muisis declares that he hesitates to say what he
has seen and heard, because posterity will hardly credit what he
would relate.[78] The reports of all travellers and merchants as to
the terrible state of the country generally give one and the same
sad story of universal death and distress. The particulars as to the
plague in Tournay, the writer's own city, may best be given from his
prose account.

John de Pratis, the Bishop of Tournay, was one of the first to be
carried off by the sickness. He had gone away for change of air,
and on Corpus Christi Day, June 11th, 1349, he carried the blessed
Sacrament in the procession at Arras. He left that city the next
day for Cambray, but died the day after almost suddenly.[79] He was
buried at Tournay; and "time passed on," says our author, to the
beginning of August, up to which no other person of authority died
in Tournay. But after the feast of St. John the plague began in the
parish of St. Piat, in the quarter of Merdenchor, and afterwards in
other parishes. Every day the bodies of the dead were borne to the
churches, now five, now ten, now fifteen, and in the parish of St.
Brice sometimes twenty or thirty. In all parish churches the curates,
parish clerks, and sextons to get their fees, [p052] rang morning,
evening, and night the passing bells, and by this the whole people of
the city, both men and women, began to be filled with fear.

The officials of the town consequently seeing that the Dean and
Chapter, and the clerics generally, did not care to remedy this
matter, since it was in their interest it should go on, as they made
profit out of it, having taken counsel together, issued certain
orders. Men and women who, although not married, were living together
as man and wife, were commanded either to marry or forthwith to
separate. The bodies of the dead were to be buried immediately in
graves at least six feet deep. There was to be no tolling of any bell
at funerals. The corpse was not to be taken to the church, but at the
service only a pall was to be spread on the ground, whilst after the
service there was to be no gathering together at the houses of the
deceased. Further, all work after noon on Saturdays and during the
entire Sunday was prohibited, as also was the playing of dice and
making use of profane oaths.

These ordinances having lasted for a time, and the sickness still
further increasing, it was proclaimed on St. Matthew's Day (September
24th) that there should be no more ringing of bells, that not more
than two were to meet for any funeral service, and that no one was
to dress in black. This action of the city authorities, the writer
declares to have been most beneficial. In his own knowledge, he
says, many who had hitherto been living in a state of concubinage
were married, that the practice of swearing notably diminished, and
that dice were so little used that the manufacturers turned "the
square-shaped dice" into "round objects on which people told their
_Pater Nosters_."

I have tried, says our author, to write what I know, "and let future
generations believe that in Tournay there was a marvellous mortality.
I heard from many about Christmas time who professed to know it as
a fact that more than 25,000 persons had died in Tournay, and it
was strange [p053] that the mortality was especially great among
the chief people and the rich. Of those who used wine and kept away
from the tainted air and visiting the sick few or none died. But
those visiting and frequenting the houses of the sick either became
grievously ill or died. Deaths were more numerous about the market
places and in poor narrow streets than in broader and more spacious
areas. And whenever one or two people died in any house, at once, or
at least in a short space of time, the rest of the household were
carried off. So much so, that very often in one home ten or more
ended their lives together, and in many houses the dogs and even cats
died. Hence no one, whether rich, in moderate circumstances, or poor,
was secure, but everyone from day to day waited on the will of the
Lord. And certainly great was the number of curates and chaplains
hearing confessions and administering the Sacraments, and even of
parish clerks visiting the sick with them, who died."

In the parishes across the river, the mortality was as great as in
Tournay itself. Although death as a rule came so suddenly, still the
people for the most part were able to receive the Sacraments. The
rapidity of the disease, remarked upon by Petrarch and Boccaccio
in Italy, is also spoken of in the same terms by the Abbot of St.
Martin's. People that one had seen apparently well and had spoken to
one evening were reported dead next day. He specially remarks upon
the mortality among the clergy visiting the sick,[80] and speaks of
the creation of two new cemeteries outside the walls of the town.
One was in a field near the Leper House _De Valle_, the other at the
religious house of the Crutched Friars. Strange to say Li Muisis
speaks of the disfavour with which this necessary precaution of
establishing new grave-yards was regarded. People, he says, grumbled
because they were no longer [p054] allowed to be buried in their own
family vaults. The town authorities, however, were firm, and as the
pestilence increased deep pits were dug in these two common burying
places, and into them numbers of bodies were constantly being thrown
and covered up with a slight layer of earth.[81]

It has been supposed by many that the accounts given by contemporary
writers of the excessive mortality throughout the countries of Europe
must be greatly exaggerated, and that the population in the middle
of the fourteenth century was not sufficiently large to allow of the
number of deaths. On the one hand it is evident that in the majority
of cases the round figures stated can be at most nothing more than
a rough approximation of the actual deaths, and that the natural
tendency of those who have witnessed a catastrophe as great and as
universal as that of the plague of 1348 and subsequent years, is to
magnify, rather than to diminish, the disaster. On the other hand,
whilst allowing that in most cases the actual figures are little
more than guesses at the truth, and can only be taken as evidence
of the belief of the age in the magnitude of the mortality, it must
be admitted that Italy, France, and other countries of Europe were
at the time more teeming with population than is perhaps usually
understood.

M. Siméon Luce has made a special study of the conditions of French
popular life at this period,[82] and the conclusions at which he has
arrived may be here usefully stated in brief. It has been proved by
the labours of French antiquaries that the general population of
France before the great pestilence of 1348-1349, and the hundred
years' war with England, was equal to what it is in the present
century. Numerous villages were scattered over the face of the
country, every trace of which has now disappeared. The houses, or
rather huts, in which the [p055] population of rural France lived
were very seldom framed of any kind of masonry, but were for the most
part merely four mud, or clay, walls, and sometimes wickerwork lined,
and the interstices filled in, with hay and straw. As a rule there
was but one storey, although some, chiefly taverns and places of that
class, had an upper floor. The roof was thatched or covered with
wood or stone; windows were the exception, and where they did exist
they were mere slits in the clay walls closed with wooden shutters.
Even the coarse, opaque glass then made was beyond the means of the
ordinary peasant and farmer, whilst just about this time even a rich
bourgeois of Paris recommended the filling of windows with waxen
cloth or parchment. The doors were fastened with wooden latches, and
over them, according to the general arrangement, a shutter of wood
was fixed which was generally left open for air, light, and to allow
the smoke of the brushwood fire to pass out of the living room. It
will be readily understood how the condition of life in houses such
as these would not be such as to put much obstacle to the spread of
an epidemic in the rural districts; whilst if such tenements were
vacant even for a short time they would readily fall into decay and
would present the spectacle of ruin and desolation spoken of by so
many writers of the period as caused by the great pestilence.

The furniture of these houses was simple, but very much what it is
now in small country houses. The inventories of the period show that
most houses had vessels of copper, tin and glass, and that there
were few who did not possess some articles of silver. The people for
the most part lived on a soup of bread and meal; but even by the
fourteenth century white bread was by no means unknown. The principal
meat was pork fed in the forests, but most cottages possessed a spit
upon which fowls, previously larded, were occasionally roasted.
Of condiments, mustard was the chief, and it was much, if not
universally, used. Even in the humblest houses a cloth would be
spread on [p056] the table at meals. For drink there was the wine
of the country, and in Normandy cider was plentiful. With the drink,
especially in taverns, which were exceedingly numerous, a little
ginger would generally be mixed. In dress fur of various kinds was
much used, and, by the time of this pestilence, in France the use of
the linen shirt as an undergarment had become almost universal. The
sleeping places were dark, airless recesses, in which the people,
having divested themselves of all clothing, rested upon straw
mattresses, or sometimes on feather beds. Contrary to the opinion
entertained by persons of repute there is evidence to show that
bathing was common and much used especially among the lower classes,
and that even small villages had their public bath places.

This sketch of the epidemic in these regions may be concluded by one
or two instances of the agrarian difficulties which followed upon it.
On August 16th, 1349, the Emperor Charles IV. issued an order to the
tenants of the Abbey of St. Trond, in the diocese of Liège, to return
to their obedience. The document says that the holders of the Abbey
lands and other dependents are now demanding their own terms and
claiming liberty to do what they like, with the result that the Abbot
and monastery are so distressed in temporal matters that absolute
ruin is impending.[83] The second instance is that of the Abbey of
St. John at Laon. A document, addressed by the French King Charles
to the Abbot and convent, says that the monastery is so decayed in
revenues that it is impossible to keep up the fitting and proper
services of the Church. And although the letter was not written till
nearly the close of the century—1392-3—the cause assigned for this
poverty and decay is "the great mortality which took place about the
year 1349," by which the tithes and other revenues were destroyed.

And to quote but one more example: "On 5th July, [p057] 1352, relief
was granted to the inhabitants of the town of Arras because by reason
of the wars, and because of the mortality which has been universal in
the world, the said city is so greatly decayed, both as to buildings
and people, as also in revenues and temporal goods, that it is on the
high road to (absolute) desolation."[84]


FOOTNOTES:

[46] Labbe, _Nova Bibliotheca Manuscriptorum_, i, p. 343.

[47] C. Anglada, _Étude sur les Maladies Éteintes_, p. 432.

[48] Matthias Nuewenburgensis in Boehmer, _Fontes rerum
Germanicarum_, iv, p. 261.

[49] Henricus Rebdorfensis, _Ibid._, p. 560. Another account speaks
of Marseilles remaining afterwards almost "depopulated," and of
"thousands dying in the adjoining towns" (_Chronicon Pragense_, in
_Fontes rerum Austriacarum_, _Scriptores_, i, p. 395).

[50] J. Astruc, _Histoire de la Faculté de Médecine de Montpellier_
(Montpellier, 1862), p. 184.

[51] Anglada, _ut supra_, p. 432.

[52] _Opuscule relatif à la peste de 1348, composé par un
contemporain_ in _Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes_, 1e Sér., ii,
pp. 201-243.

[53] Martin, _Histoire de France_ (4th ed.), v, p. 109.

[54] Phillippe, _Histoire de la Peste Noire_, p. 103.

[55] Anglada, _Maladies Éteintes_, p. 431.

[56] Higden, _Polychronicon_ (ed. Rolls Series), viii, p. 344.

[57] L. Michon, _Documents inédits sur la grande peste de 1348_
(Paris, 1860), p. 22.

[58] Baluze, _Vitæ Paparum Avenionensium_, i, p. 254. In a second
life of Clement VII. (p. 274) it is said that vast pits were dug in
the public cemetery, where the dead were buried "ut pecora gregatim."

[59] The writer was sending his letter on April 27th, 1348, so that
the period would have been about six weeks.

[60] _Breve Chronicon clerici anonymi_, in De Smet, _Recueil des
Chroniques de Flandre_, iii, pp. 14-18.

[61] Henricus Rebdorfensis, in Boehmer, _Fontes_, iv, p. 560.

[62] Anglada, _Maladies Éteintes_, pp. 413-14.

[63] Barnes, _History of Edward III._, p. 435.

[64] Thiener, _Monumenta Historica Hungariæ_, i, p. 767.

[65] Wadding, _Annales Minorum_, viii, p. 25 (ed. 1723).

[66] Olivier de la Haye, _Poëme sur la grande peste de 1348_.
Introduction par G. Guigue, p. xviii, _note_.

[67] _Breve Chronicon_ in De Smet, _Recueil des Chroniques de
Flandre_, iii, p. 19.

[68] Delisle, _Cabinet des Manuscrits_, i, p. 532.

[69] _Ibid._ Here the note abruptly finishes.

[70] H. Martin, _Histoire de France_, v, p. 111.

[71] Marlot, _Histoire de Ville de Reims_, iv, p. 63.

[72] All copies of this chronicle give "_quingente_," and it has
usually been stated that the number so buried each day was 500. M.
Géraud, who edited the work for the Société de l'Histoire de France,
suggests that it is a mistake for 50, and quotes two MSS., in which
in the margin the following note is found: "L corps par jour a
l'Hostel-Dieu de Paris." As this reading is more probable it has been
adopted above.

[73] _Continuatio Chronici Guillelmi di Nangiaco, éd._ pour la
Société de l'Histoire de France par H. Géraud, ii, pp. 211-217.

[74] They speak in the document of "the 17th of the ensuing month of
July."

[75] Michon, _Documents inédits sur la Peste Noire_, p. 22.

[76] Thierry, _Recueil des Monuments inédits de l'Histoire du Tiers
Etat_, i, p. 544.

[77] _Ibid._, p. 546.

[78]

 "Certe dicere timeo
 Quæ vidi et quæ video
 De ista pestilentia."

[79] Gams, _Series Episcoporum_, gives 13th June, 1349, as the day of
his death.

[80]

 "Quia de sacerdotibus
 Infirmos visitantibus
 Quamplurimi defecerunt."

[81] _Chronicon majus Ægidii Li Muisis, abbatis Sti. Martini
Tornacensis_, in De Smet, _Receuil des Chroniques de Flandre_, ii,
pp. 279-281 and 361-382.

[82] S. Luce, _Bertrand du Guesclin_, i, ch. 3.

[83] Piot, _Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Trond_, i, 507.

[84] Lechner, _Das grosse Sterben in Deutschland_, p. 93.

[p058]




CHAPTER IV.

THE PLAGUE IN OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.


In following the great pestilence through Europe, according to the
historical sequence of events, its course in England should be now
described. Inasmuch, however, as the story of the ravages caused
by the disease in England will be told in greater detail, it may
conveniently be left till the last. Here a brief account may be
interposed of the mortality in other European countries, although it
will take the reader to the year 1351.

From Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica the plague was carried to the
Balearic Islands. The three streams of infection met with destructive
force at Majorca. The historian Zurita declares that in less than
a month 15,000 persons had perished on the island. Another writer
estimates the total loss of life during the epidemic at double
that number, and some ancient records have been quoted as stating
that in the island eight out of every ten people must have died, a
proportion, of course, exaggerated, but sufficient to show local
tradition as to the extent of the misfortune. In the monasteries and
convents, according to this authority, not one religious was left;
and the Dominicans are said to have been obliged to recruit their
numbers by enrolling quite young children.[85]

The scourge fell upon Spain in the early part of the year 1348. It is
supposed to have first appeared at Almeira, and in Barcelona whole
quarters of the city were depopulated and rendered desolate by it.
In May, 1348, it was already raging in Valencia, and by midsummer
300 persons a day are reported to have been buried in the city. At
[p059] Saragossa, where Pedro IV. then was, the malady was at its
height in September. The people here, as elsewhere, became hardened,
and charity died out in the presence of the terrors of death. They
fled from the sick, leaving them to die alone, and abandoned the
corpses of the dead in the streets. Most of the cities and villages
of Spain suffered more or less severely, and the sickness appears to
have lingered longer here than in most other countries. The new Queen
of Aragon had been one of the earliest victims; Alphonsus XI. was one
of the last. In March, 1350, he was laying siege to Gibraltar, when
the plague broke out suddenly with great violence amongst his troops.
He refused to retire, as his officers desired him to do, and fell a
victim to the epidemic on Good Friday, March 26th, 1350.[86]

An interesting account of Northern Spain during the plague is given
in the chronicle of Li Muisis, Abbot of St. Martin's, Tournay, from
which much was cited in the previous chapter. The writer says that
he learnt the details from "a pilgrim, who, in going to St. James'
(of Compostella), passed by Notre Dame de Roc Amadour[87] and by
Toulouse, because by reason of the wars he could not travel the
usual way." This pilgrim to Compostella, in the middle of the 14th
century, would consequently have crossed the Pyrenees by one of
the passes into Navarre, and so travelled along the north of Spain
to Santiago. Having performed his pilgrimage, Li Muisis informs us
that he returned through Galicia, and "with his companion, reached a
town named Salvaterra," probably the place now called Salvatierra,
situated below the Pyrenees, and just above the Sierra de la Pena.
This town, as the traveller reported, "was so depopulated by the
mortality that not one person out of ten had been left alive. The
city itself was fairly large. The said pilgrim related," says Li
Muisis, "that after supping with the host (who, with two daughters
and [p060] one servant, had alone so far survived of his entire
family, and who was not then conscious of any sickness upon him), he
settled with him for his entertainment, intending to start on his
journey at daybreak, and went to bed. Next morning rising and wanting
something from those with whom they had supped, the travellers could
make no one hear. Then they learnt from an old woman they found in
bed that the host, his two daughters, and servant had died in the
night. On hearing this the pilgrims made all haste to leave the
place."[88]

From North Italy the pestilence soon spread to the country across the
Adriatic, if indeed it had not already been infected independently,
as seems more than probable, by ships from the East. The port of
Ragusa, in Dalmatia, is said to have been attacked as early as
January 13th, 1348, and more than 7,000 are reported as having been
swept away by it. A letter sent in April to the authorities "condoles
with them on the terrible mortality, by which the population had been
so greatly diminished."[89] At Spalatro, on March 22nd, 1348, the
Archbishop Dominic de Lucaris died of the disease, and it is known
to have raged for some months in the city. An anonymous chronicler
of Spalatro in the 15th century, who professed to take his account
of this period from ancient records, declares that it is impossible
to picture "the terrors and miseries of these unhappy days." To
add to the horror of the situation, as he declares, wolves and
other wild animals came down from the mountains and fell upon the
plague-stricken city and boldly attacked the survivors. The same
writer notes the rapidity with which the disease carried off those it
attacked. According to him, when swellings or carbuncles appeared on
any part of the body all hope of saving the life of the patient was
abandoned. As a rule, those stricken in this way died in three or at
most four days, and so great was the general mortality that bodies
were left lying unburied [p061] in the streets because there were
none to carry them to the grave.[90]

Further north again, Sebenico, through intercourse with which, very
possibly, the plague was carried into Hungary, was attacked in
the spring of the same year, 1348. By the 8th of May the Count of
Sebenico had written a description of the wretched condition and
state of the city, by reason of the great mortality in those parts,
through which it had been left almost without inhabitants.[91]
Istria, on August 27th, 1348, was declared in a Venetian State paper
to have suffered greatly. The people left, especially in the city
of Pola, were very few, so many having been swept away "by the late
pestilence."[92]

From Venice the epidemic spread northwards into Austria and Hungary.
Attacking on its way Padua and Verona, it passed up the valley of the
Etsch and was already at Trent on June 2nd, 1348. Thence it spread
quickly through Botzen up the Brenner Pass, in the Tyrolese Alps,
and was at Muhldorf on the Inn, in Bavaria on June 29th, 1348.[93]
Here it seems to have lasted for a considerable time. One chronicler,
writing of the subsequent year, 1349, says "that from the feast of
St. Michael, 1348, there perished in Muhldorf 1,400 of the better
class of inhabitants."[94] Another, speaking of the plague generally,
says "that it raged so terribly in Carinthia, Austria, and Bavaria
that many cities were depopulated, and in some towns which it visited
many families were destroyed so completely that not a member was
found to have survived."[95]

In November of the same year, 1348, the epidemic is found in Styria,
at Neuberg, in the valley of the Mürz. [p062] The Neuberg Chronicle,
giving an account of it, says, "Since this deadly pestilence raged
everywhere, cities became desolate which up to this had been
populous. Their inhabitants were swept off in such numbers that
such as were left, with closed gates, strenuously watched that no
one should steal the property of those departed." After speaking of
Venice, it continues, "The pest in its wanderings came to Carinthia,
and then so completely took possession of Styria, that people,
rendered desperate, walked about as if mad."

"From so many sick pestilential odours proceeded, infecting those
visiting and serving them, and very frequently it happened that when
one died in a house all, one after the other, were carried off. So
certain was this that no one could be found to stop in the houses of
the sick, and relations, as if in the natural course of events, seem
to die all together. As a consequence of this overwhelming visitation
cattle were left to wander in the fields without guardians, for no
one thought of troubling himself about the future; and wolves coming
down from the mountains to attack them, against their instincts, and
as if frightened by something unseen, quickly fled into the wilds
again. Property, too, both moveable and immoveable, which sick people
leave by will, is carefully avoided by all, as if it were sure to be
infected. The sickness . . . declined about the feast of St. Martin
(November 11th), 1348, and at Neuberg it had carried off many monks
and inhabitants."[96]

It is necessary to return once again to North Italy, from
which another wave of pestilence rolled on to Switzerland. The
contemporary—but not very accurate—notary of Novara, Peter Azarius,
speaks to the fact of the plague being at Momo, Gallarete, Varese,
and Bellinzona, on[97] the great highway over the Alps through the
St. Gothard Pass, and all in the immediate neighbourhood of his
home. [p063] What Azarius says from personal experience of this
terrible time is of interest. He had left his house at Novara for
fear of the disease, and resting for a while in the town of Tortona,
he occupied himself in philosophising upon the misfortunes which had
fallen upon Lombardy, and the strange unchristian neglect of the sick
he could hardly help noticing. "I have seen," he says, "a rich man
perish, who, even by offering an immense sum of money, could get no
one to help him. Through fear of the infection I have seen a father
not caring for his son, nor a son for his father, nor a brother
for a brother, nor a friend for his friend, nor a neighbour for
his neighbour. And what was worse than this, I have seen a family,
although one of high position, miserably perish, not being able to
get any help or assistance. Medicine being useless, the strong and
the young, men and women, were struck down in a moment, and all
the infected were so shunned that none dared even to enter their
houses."[98]

From the pass of St. Gothard the epidemic passed down the Rhine
Valley, and before the close of 1348 was in the neighbourhood
of Dissentis; whilst by May, 1349, the district round about the
monastery of Pfäffers, half way between the pass of St. Gothard
and Lake Constance, had been attacked. Shortly afterwards the
country near the celebrated Abbey of St. Gall was likewise greatly
afflicted.[99]

Meanwhile another wave of pestilence passed into Switzerland from
the side of France. Avignon had been attacked, as it has been shown,
in the early part of 1348, and thence the infection was carried up
the Rhone Valley to the Lake of Geneva. Thence one stream passed in
a north-easterly direction over Switzerland, and a second followed
the course of the river Rhone. By the 17th of March, 1349, the plague
was at Ruswyl, in the neighbourhood of Lucerne, having passed through
Berne on its way.[100] At Lucerne alone 3,000 people are said to
have died of the [p064] disease. It must have remained about the
neighbourhood of this lake for some months, for it was not until
September, 1349, that it is known to have manifested its presence
in the high and healthy valley of Engelberg. "This year (1349),"
says the chronicler of the Abbey of Engelberg, "the pestilence or
mortality was great, and, indeed, most great, in this valley, so that
more than twenty houses were left empty without an inhabitant. In
the same year from the feast of Our Lady's nativity, September 8th,
to the feast of the Epiphany 116 of our nuns died in the cloister.
One of the first to die was the Superior Catherine; about the middle
(of the epidemic) the venerable Mother Beatrix, Countess of Arberg,
formerly Superior; and on the morrow of Holy Innocents, Mechtilde of
Wolfenschiessen, the new Superior likewise passed away. And of our
own numbers (there died) two priests and five scholars."[101] Basle
was attacked, and is said to have lost some 14,000 people about the
middle of the year; Zurich about September 11th; and Constance some
time during the winter.

It is unnecessary to follow the wanderings of the great mortality in
detail further through Europe. The annals of almost every country
prove incontestably that most places were in turn visited, and more
or less depopulated, by the epidemic. By April 4th, 1349, it was
reported in Venice that the pestilence was raging in Hungary, and
by June 7th the King could declare "that by Divine mercy it had now
ceased in our kingdom." It must consequently have commenced in the
country in the early part of the year, although there is evidence
that it was still to be found in some parts in October of the same
year. Poland was attacked about the same time as Hungary. Here it is
said many of the nobility died. There seemed no help for the daily
misfortunes. The sickness rendered desolate not alone numberless
houses, but even towns and villages.[102] [p065]

It has been already pointed out that the pestilence had reached
Neuberg, in Styria, by the autumn of the year 1348. It was only the
following year, about the feast of St. John the Baptist, June 24th,
1349, that such a plague as never before was either heard or seen was
raging in Vienna.

It commenced seemingly about Easter time, and lasted till St.
Michael's, and a third part of the population was carried off by
it.[103] Each day there died 500 or 600, and one day 960.[104]
The dead were buried in trenches, each of which, according to one
chronicle, contained some 6,000 corpses. The parish of St. Stephen
lost 54 ecclesiastics during the course of the epidemic, and when it
passed some 70 families were found to be entirely extinct, whilst
the property of many more had passed into the hands of very distant
relations.

Another account declares that in the city and neighbourhood barely a
third of the population survived. "Because of the odour, and horror
inspired by the dead bodies, burials in the church cemeteries were
not allowed; but as soon as life was extinct the corpses were carried
out of the city to a common burial-place (called) 'God's acre.' There
the deep and broad pits were quickly filled to the top with the dead.
And this plague lasted from Pentecost to St. Michael's; and not alone
in Vienna, but in the surrounding country it raged with great fury.
It spared not the monks and the nuns, for in (the Cistercian Abbey
of) Heiligenkreuz 53 religious at the same time passed out of this
life."[105]

In Bohemia the winter cold apparently put a stop to the sickness at
its commencement. "The mortality commenced to be severe in Bohemia,
but the recent cold and snow stayed it." However, "in the year 1350
the plague again [p066] devastated various countries, and then in
Bohemia likewise it was to be found."[106]

The wave of pestilence which passed up the Rhine Valley and attacked
Basle passed on to Colmar, and appeared in Strasburg in July,
1349.[107] At the end of the same year, about December 18th, it had
reached Cologne. "In the first year of archbishop William von Gennep
(who succeeded to the See of that city on the above date) there
was," says the chronicle, "a great pestilence in Cologne and its
neighbourhood."[108]

Meanwhile the wave had divided lower down the valley of the Rhine,
for in the summer of 1349 the plague was raging at Frankfort. "In
that year," writes Caspar Camentz, "from the feast of St. Mary
Magdalene (June 22nd) to the feast of the Purification following
(February 2nd, 1350) the universal pestilence was at Frankfort. In
the space of 72 days more than 2,000 people died. Every second hour
they were buried without bell, priest, or candle. On one day 35 were
buried at one time."[109]

During 1349 and 1350 the pestilence was rife in the towns and country
places of Prussia. In the latter year it attacked Bremen in the far
north, and in the following year the authorities of the city took a
census of the numbers that had been carried off by it. "In the year
of our Lord 1350," the account says, "the plague had gone round the
world and had visited Bremen, and the Council determined to take the
number of the dead, and it was found that of known and named people
there were (entered on the list) in the parish of St. Mary 1,816;
in that of St. Martin, 1,415; in St. Anschar's, 1,922; and in St.
Stephen's, 1,813; moreover, numberless people had died in the fields
beyond [p067] the walls and in cemeteries, the number of whom, as
known and described, reached almost 7,000."[110]

From Flanders, where the pestilence was at Tournay in December, 1349,
as before reported, the epidemic spread into Holland. Here in the
following year its progress was marked by the same great mortality,
especially among those who lived together in monasteries and
convents. "At this time," writes the chronicler, "the plague raged
in Holland as furiously as has ever been seen. People died walking
in the streets. In the Monastery of Fleurchamps 80 died, including
monks and lay brethren. In the Abbey of Foswert, which was a double
monastery for men and women, 207 died, including monks, nuns, lay
brethren, and lay sisters."[111]

This brief review of the progress of the plague in Europe will be
sufficient to show that the mortality and consequent distress were
universal. The northern countries of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden
received the infection from England. As will be seen subsequently,
the northern parts of England were troubled with the epidemic in
the late summer and autumn of 1349, and either from a port on the
eastern coast, or from London, the plague was brought over in a ship.
Lagerbring, a Swedish historian of repute, says that a ship with a
cargo of woollen cloth sailed out of the port of London early in the
summer of 1349.[112] The plague had been very great in the English
capital, and all the crew died whilst the ship was at sea. Driven
about by the winds and currents the fatal bark was cast on the shore
at Bergen, in Norway. The epidemic spread quickly over the entire
country. The Archbishop of Drontheim and all his Chapter, with one
single exception, died, and the survivor was nominated Archbishop.
Most of his suffragans were also carried [p068] off.[113] Several
families who had fled from Bergen to avoid the infection died in the
mountains to which they had retired.

Another Swedish historian states that in the country of West-Gotland
alone 466 priests were swept away by the plague. In that district
then there were about 479 churches, many of which were served by
more than one priest, so that the number given may not be altogether
improbable.[114] It is stated that in Norway there long existed what
were called _Find-dale_—wildernesses—in which were unmistakable
traces of cultivation, and after the plague there is evidence of a
state of exhaustion and a dearth of inhabitants, which lasted for
several generations, so that forests grew where there had once been
churches and villages.

Some interesting particulars may be gathered about the town of Wisby,
on the Isle of Gotland. The annals of the Franciscan convent note
that the plague raged in 1350. In the necrology of the same house
are entered the names of a great number of friars and many novices
who died in this fatal year, and the comparison of one portion of
the necrology with another, in which the names are collected into
groups, shows that the worst time at Wisby was in July, August,
and September, 1350.[115] In all twenty-four friars, a very large
proportion of the convent, appear to have been carried off by the
epidemic. In [p069] the Cathedral of Wisby five sepulchral slabs are
still preserved with the date 1350, whilst of such memorials as have
escaped destruction not more than a single one remains for any other
year.

The King of Sweden, Magnus II., in 1350 addressed letters patent
to his people, wherein he says that "God for the sins of man has
struck the world with this great punishment of sudden death. By it
most of the people in the land to the west of our country (_i.e._,
Norway) are dead. It is now ravaging in Norway and Holland, and is
approaching our kingdom of Sweden." The king therefore summons them
to abstain on every Friday from all food but bread and water, or "at
most to take only bread and ale," to walk with bare feet to their
parish churches, and to go in procession round about the cemeteries
attached to them, carrying with them the holy relics.

In the capital of Sweden, when the plague burst upon the country, it
is recorded that "the streets were strewn with corpses," and among
the victims are named Hacon and Knut, two brothers of the king.

Denmark and Sleswig Holstein suffered from the pestilence at the same
time as Norway and Sweden. In one chronicle it is called "a most
grievous plague of buboes;" in another it is recorded that in the
year 1350 "a great plague and sudden death raged both in the case of
men and in that of cattle."[116] The accounts of the Bishopric of
Roskild, on the Isle of Zealand, about the year 1370, or twenty years
after this plague had passed, show the state of universal desolation
to which the country was reduced. Lands are described as lying idle
and uncultivated, villages and houses desolate and uninhabited.
Property that formerly used to bring in four marks, or 48 "pund," now
produced only 18 "pund." The same story is repeated on almost every
page throughout these long accounts.[117]

A few words only need now be said of the desolation [p070] which
everywhere throughout Europe was naturally the consequence of the
great pestilence. Of North Italy John of Parma writes that "at the
time (1348) labourers could not be got, and the harvest remained
on the fields, since there was none to gather it in."[118] Twenty
years after the pestilence, in 1372, it is said of Mayence that
"it is indubitable and notorious that because of the terrible
character of the pestilence and mortality which suddenly swept away
labourers, copyholders (_parciarios_) and farmers, even the most
robust, labourers are to-day few and rare, for which reason many
fields remain uncultivated and deserted."[119] Again, in 1359, Henry,
Bishop of Constance, impropriated to the monastery of St. Gall, in
Switzerland, the Church of Marbach and others, to enable the abbey
"to keep up its hospitality, bestow alms, and fulfil its other
duties," and he assigns as a reason why it cannot now do this "that
by the epidemic or mortality of people, which by permission of God
has existed in these parts, the number of farmers and other retainers
of both sexes of this abbey, belonging by law of service to the said
monastery, which has passed from this life to the Lord (has been so
great) that many of the possessions of this monastery have remained,
on account of the said death, uncultivated, and no proper return
comes from them."[120]


FOOTNOTES:

[85] Phillippe, _Histoire de la Peste Noire_, p. 54.

[86] _Ibid._, pp. 54-56.

[87] This was a place of pilgrimage on the Amadour, not far from
Toulouse.

[88] _Chronicon majus Ægidii Li Muisis_, ii, 280.

[89] Lechner, _Das grosse Sterben in Deutschland_, p. 21.

[90] Farlati, _Illyricum Sacrum_, iii, p. 324.

[91] Lechner, _ut sup._, p. 22.

[92] _Ibid._

[93] _Ibid._, p. 23.

[94] _Annales Matscenses_ in _Mon. Germ._, ix, 829.

[95] _Annales Mellicenses_, _Ibid._, p. 313.

[96] _Continuatio Novimontensis_, _Ibid._, p. 675.

[97] _Chronicon_, in Muratori, xvi, 361. He places the event under
the year 1347.

[98] _Ibid._, 298.

[99] Lechner, _ut sup._, p. 27.

[100] _Ibid._

[101] _Annales Engelbergenses_, in _Mon. Germ._, xvii, 281.

[102] Dlugoss, _Historia Polonica_, in Philippe, _ut sup._, p. 94.

[103] _Kalendarium Zwetlense_, in _Mon. Germ._, ix, 692.

[104] _Annales Matscenses_, _Ibid._, 829.

[105] _Continuatio Novimontensis_, _Ibid._, 675.

[106] _Chronicon Pragense_, ed. Loserth (in _Fontes rerum
Austriacarum_, _Scriptores_, t. viii) p. 603.

[107] Lechner, _ut sup._, p. 35.

[108] _Ibid._, p. 38.

[109] Boehmer, _Fontes rerum Germ._, iv, 434.

[110] Hoeniger (R.), _Der schwarze Tod in Deutschland_ (Berlin,
1882), p. 26.

[111] Philippe, _ut sup._, p. 124.

[112] _Historia_, iii, 406.

[113] Finn Jonsson, _Hist. eccl. Islandiæ_, ii, p. 198, says that
most of the Bishops died, and that Ormus, Bishop of Holar, in
Iceland, who happened then to be in Norway, _solus fere evasit_. It
appears that the archbishopric of Nidaros, or Drontheim, at that time
comprised seven sees. Changes appear in six of these at this time,
including Drontheim and Bergen; and of Solomon, Bishop of Oslo, it
is said that "he was the only Bishop who survived the plague" (Gams,
_Series Episcoporum_, 336). The same account is given in the monastic
chronicles of Iceland (_Ftateyjarbok_, iii, p. 562).

[114] Henric Jacob Sirers, _Historisk Beskrifning om then Pesten_, p.
23.

[115] Langebeck, _Scriptores rerum Danicarum_, vi, 564. I am indebted
for much assistance in all that regards the plague in the north of
Europe to Dr. Lindstrom, of the Riksmusei, Stockholm. He kindly
examined for me the original MS. of the Franciscan Necrology at Wisby.

[116] Langebeck, _ut sup._, i, 307, 395.

[117] _Ibid._, vii, p. 2, _et seqq._

[118] Pezzana, _Storia di Parma_, i, 52.

[119] Henricus de Hervordia, _Chronicon_ ed. Potthast, 274.

[120] Lechner, _ut sup._, p. 73.

[p071]




CHAPTER V.

THE PLAGUE REACHES ENGLAND.


The plague first attacked England in the autumn of 1348. It has
already been pointed out that Northern France was suffering under the
scourge in the summer of that year, and that in August the pestilence
had visited Normandy and was found at Calais, then in possession of
the English. Probably, also, at this time, Jersey and Guernsey, with
which England was in constant communication, were decimated by the
disease. So greatly did these islands suffer that the King's taxes,
usually raised upon the fishing industries, could not be levied. "By
reason," writes the English King to John Mautravers, the Governor,
"of the mortality among the people and fishing folk of these islands,
which here as elsewhere has been so great, our rent for the fishing,
which has been yearly paid us, cannot be now obtained without the
impoverishing and excessive oppression of those fishermen still
left."[121]

Rumours of the coming scourge reached England in the early summer. On
August 17th, 1348, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, Ralph of Shrewsbury,
sent letters through his diocese ordering "processions and stations
every Friday, in each collegiate, regular, and parish church, to beg
God to protect the people from the pestilence which had come from the
East into the neighbouring kingdom," and granting an indulgence of
forty days to all who, being in a state of grace, should give alms,
fast or pray, in order, if possible, to avert God's anger.[122]

The "neighbouring kingdom" spoken of by the Bishop [p072] in his
letter may be taken almost certainly to refer to France. From
Calais it is probable that the pestilence was brought into England
in certain ships conveying some who were anxious to escape from
it. Most of the contemporary accounts agree in naming the coast of
Dorsetshire as the part first infected. Thus Galfrid le Baker, a
contemporary, says "it came first to a seaport in Dorsetshire, and
then into the country, which it almost deprived of inhabitants, and
from thence it passed into Devon and Somerset to Bristol."[123] Two
or three of the chronicles, also, more particular than the rest, name
Melcombe Regis as the memorable spot where the epidemic first showed
itself in England. "In the year of our Lord 1348, about the feast
of the Translation of St. Thomas (July 7th)," writes the author of
the chronicle known as the _Eulogium Historiarum_, who was a monk
of Malmesbury at this time, "the cruel pestilence, terrible to all
future ages, came from parts over the sea to the south coast of
England, into a port called Melcombe, in Dorsetshire. This (plague)
sweeping over the southern districts, destroyed numberless people
in Dorset, Devon, and Somerset."[124] So, too, a continuation of
Trivet's chronicle, taken down to the death of Edward III. by a
canon of Bridlington, who was thus probably a contemporary of the
event, says that "the great plague came into England to the southern
districts, beginning by some (ships) putting in from the sea into a
town called Melcombe."[125]

Melcombe Regis, or Weymouth, was at that time a port of considerable
importance. In 1347-8, for example, it furnished Edward III., for his
siege of Calais, with 20 ships and 264 mariners; whilst Bristol sent
only 22 ships and 608 sailors, and even London but 25 boats and 662
men.[126] [p073] This fact is of interest, not merely as showing the
importance of Melcombe Regis as a port on the southern coast, but
as evidence actually connecting the place at this very period with
Calais, and, doubtless, with other coast towns of France. It is not
at all improbable that by the return of some of the Melcombe boats
from Calais, the epidemic may have been conveyed into the town. No
evidence is known to exist as to the mortality in the port itself;
but an item of information as to the effect of the disease in the
neighbourhood is afforded at a subsequent period. Three years after
the plague had passed the King, by his letters patent, forbade any
of the inhabitants of the island of Portland to leave their homes
there, or, indeed, to sell any of their crops out of the district,
"because," he says, "as we have learnt, the island of Portland, in
the county of Dorset, has been so depopulated in the time of the
late pestilence that the inhabitants remaining are not sufficiently
numerous to protect it against our foreign enemies."[127]

The actual date when the pestilence first showed itself in
Dorsetshire has been considered somewhat doubtful. The earliest day
suggested is that assigned by the monk of Malmesbury in his _Eulogium
Historiarum_, who names July 7th (1348) as the time when it commenced
at Melcombe Regis. The latest date is that given by Knighton, the
sub-contemporary canon of Leicester, who mentions generally that it
began in the autumn of the year 1348. One chronicle gives July 25th,
and two others August 1st, whilst another merely names August as the
month. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that its
arrival in England was apparently unknown to the Bishop of Bath and
Wells, who was then in his diocese, in the middle of August, it seems
more than likely that the terrible scourge did not make itself felt
in the West of England until after the middle of that month and not
later than its end. [p074]

The early commencement of the disease is borne out by a document
in the archives of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury. Archbishop
Strafford died on St. Bartholomew's Eve, August 23rd, 1348, and
before the end of September the Prior of Canterbury, acting with
archiepiscopal power during the vacancy, addressed a mandate to
the Bishop of London, as the Dean of the College of Bishops, to
issue directions to the suffragans of Canterbury to hold public
processions in their respective dioceses to pray God's aid against
"the mortality" which was already assuming alarming proportions.[128]

The summer and autumn of 1348 were abnormally wet in England, and
the chronicles record that from St. John the Baptist's Day (June
24th) to Christmas it rained either by night or by day with hardly an
exception. In such a season, naturally unhealthy, the sickness, of
its own nature most deadly, found every condition suitable for its
rapid development.

Starting from Melcombe Regis, the wave of contagion spread itself
very quickly over Dorset, Devon, and Somerset, with the other
counties comprised in the dioceses of Salisbury, Exeter, and Wells.
"It passed," writes Robert of Avesbury, the contemporary Registrar
of the Court of Canterbury, "most rapidly from place to place,
swiftly killing ere mid-day many who in the morning had been well,
and without respect of persons (some few rich people excepted), not
permitting those destined to die to live more than three, or at most
four, days. On the same day twenty, forty, sixty, and very often more
corpses were committed to the same grave."[129] In fact, over the
West of England during the late autumn of 1348 and the first months
of the following year the words of the old play must have had only
too true an application—

 "One news straight came huddling on another
   Of death, and death, and death." [p075]

In dealing with a case of this kind a first object is to control
as far as possible, by means of definite statistics, the general
and vague statements of chroniclers and other contemporary writers;
whilst in the absence of such statistics lies one of the great
difficulties in dealing with the history of the Middle Ages. Owing
partly to the troublesome and intricate nature of the subject, as
well as to the poverty of the material and the inherent dryness of
such matters, modern writers have made little advance to a more
correct knowledge of the population of European countries in those
ages. Much, however, might be done. As usual, the ecclesiastical
documents form the surest basis for any calculation, and the
episcopal registers enable us to arrive at actual numbers.
Accordingly, in the present inquiry, these registers are of the
highest importance, and it is necessary constantly to recur to them,
as they furnish the only means of arriving at any adequate knowledge
of the proportion of the population swept away by the plague.
Possibly the mortality may have been greater among ecclesiastics than
among lay persons; but only from the number of the clergy carried
off by the epidemic can an estimate be formed as to the number of
lay people who died. Accordingly, in the course of this work, the
mortality of the clergy is systematically investigated.

To understand the nature and value of the evidence thus afforded
as to the extent of the mortality, a few words of explanation are
necessary. In each diocese there was kept by the Bishop's Registrar a
list of all the institutions made to vacant benefices by the Bishop.
As a rule, not only was the name of the place and of the out-going
and the incoming incumbent, together with the date expressed, but
the reason of the vacancy was stated, whether arising from death,
exchange, or resignation. These lists, then, for the fatal period, or
the autumn of 1348 and the year 1349, afford some means of gauging
the extent of the mortality among the clergy. It must, however, be
borne in mind that these registers record only the institutions of
the actual [p076] incumbents, and take no account of the larger
body of curates and chaplains, to say nothing of the monks, canons,
and friars of a diocese. It has been calculated by a recent writer
that non-beneficed clergy more than equal in numbers the holders of
benefices, and that the total number of institutions of a diocese may
fairly be doubled in estimating the deaths of the clergy during this
epidemic.[130] These Books of Institutions, moreover, by furnishing
the dates of the appointments made to various livings, afford a means
of determining, at least approximately, the time when the plague was
rife in a district, and even, making allowances for any delay in
filling up the benefice, in any given place.

Besides the special register of each diocese a series of official
state documents, called the _Patent Rolls_, contains much evidence of
the destructive powers of the disease. On these rolls, amongst every
variety of public document, are entered royal grants, licenses, and
presentations made by the Sovereign to such vacant ecclesiastical
livings as were at the time in the royal gift. These were ordinarily—

(1) Benefices of which the King was by right the patron.

(2) Those to which he presented, as guardian of the sons of tenants
_in capite_ during their minority, and

(3) Livings to which bishops and abbots of sees and monasteries, then
vacant, ordinarily presented. At this period, 1348-9, moreover, the
royal presentations were largely augmented by the patronage attached
to the alien religious houses existing in England, the possession of
which, "by reason of his war with France," as the official phrase
runs, "the King had seized into his own hands."

The evidence of the mortality among the beneficed clergy during the
great pestilence, as witnessed by the entries on the patent rolls,
may be here briefly summarised. In 1348, in the period from January
to May, the King presented to [p077] 42 livings, and to 36 during
the following four months; so that in the eight months, immediately
before the arrival of the plague in England, the average number of
presentations monthly was below ten, the previous _yearly_ average
being hardly more than a hundred. The roll, upon which are entered
the grants and presentations from September to the close of the
year, affords conclusive proof that in the last four months of the
year 1348 death had been busy among those holding royal preferments.
Eighty-one more livings had to be filled up by the Sovereign during
that period.

The patents for 1349, in the same way, occupy three parts, or rolls.
On the first part are enrolled the presentations from January 25th
to the end of May. This large roll is a curiosity, since a very
great part of the parchment record is devoted to the entry of
Royal presentations to the vacant livings, no fewer than 249 being
recorded, as against 42 during the same period of the previous year.
The second part registers the livings filled by King Edward from
June to the middle of September, 1349, when the number reaches the
extraordinary figure of 440, as against 36 in the corresponding
period of 1348.

The third period, ending on January 24th, 1350, shows a decline in
the number, although it still stands at the considerable total of
205. Altogether, therefore, from January 25th, 1349, to the same date
in 1350, the King alone presented to 894 livings, which had become
vacant. Comparing the figures thus obtained with the normal period
of 1348 it may be said roughly that out of the 1,053 presentations,
made by King Edward in the two years, at least 800 must have been due
to the mortality caused by the great plague. This will be seen to
be sufficiently terrible when it is remembered that, even allowing
for the large number of presentations then in the hands of the King,
they would form but a very small portion of the total number of
institutions to vacant livings at this period.

The whole question of statistics in their details, as also [p078]
any special indications of the effects which followed upon the
ravages of the plague, will be dealt with in subsequent chapters in
order to interfere as little as possible with the consecutive story
of the visitation itself. Among the presentations made by the King,
in the autumn of this year, frequent mention is made of vacancies in
the diocese of Sarum, in which the county of Dorset is situated. From
October 8th, 1348, to January 10th, 1349—that is, in the space of
three months—the Crown presented to no fewer than 30 livings in the
diocese. Most of these were in the county of Dorset, and Abbotsbury
Abbey, apparently the first monastery attacked, and Bincombe rectory,
to which Edward III. presented on October 8th, 1348, were both close
to Melcombe Regis, where the plague commenced its ravages.

Judged merely by the few royal presentations it is curious to observe
how closely the epidemic in this country clung to the rivers and
water-courses. The neighbourhood of Blandford, for instance, must
have suffered severely enough during the November and December
of 1348, the two Winterbournes and Spettisbury, together with
Blandford—all four close on the river Stour—losing their incumbents.
To Spettisbury, indeed, the King presented thrice in a very short
space of time. Even before John le Spencer, of Grimsby, to whom the
living was granted on December 7th, could have been installed in his
cure—in fact, probably even before the grant was made—he was dead,
for on December 10th, only three days later, another letter patent
is issued, upon the death of Spencer, to Adam de Carleton. Adam in
his turn did not hold the benefice long, and on January 4th, 1349,
Robert de Hoveden was appointed in his place. Nor are these the only
instances, even among the few presentations recorded on the patent
rolls, of Dorset incumbents following one another in rapid succession
during the last months of 1348.

Looking at the number of institutions in each month of this period,
and making due allowance for the fact that the [p079] vacancy had
probably occurred some little time before it was filled up, it is
evident that the epidemic was prevalent in the county of Dorset from
October, 1348, to February, 1349, and the mortality was highest in
December and January.[131] The existence of the epidemic begins to
be manifest in the institutions for October, 1348. Previously only
twelve institutions are recorded during that year. West Chickerell,
a place close to Weymouth, received a new incumbent on October 14th,
whilst to Bincombe, close by, which was then vacant, as is proved by
the King's presentation on the 8th of the month, no new incumbent
was inducted till November 4th. Warmwell and Combe Kaynes, a little
to the eastward, received new parish priests on October the 9th and
19th, and Dorchester, the capital, was attacked apparently about the
same time.

Following the indications afforded by the Bishop's registers the
ravages of the pestilence are apparent on the coast early in
November, when many vacancies begin to be noted in the coast towns.
Bridport, East Lulworth, Tynham, Langton, and Wareham had all been
visited by this time, whilst before the end of the month the epidemic
had crossed the county and appeared at Shaftesbury. On December 3rd
two vicarages in the south, quite close together, Abbotsbury and
Portesham, received new incumbents.

At Shaftesbury appointments were made to St. Laurence's on the 29th
of November, to St. Martin's on the 10th of December, to St. John's
on the 6th of January, 1349, and to [p080] St. Laurence's again on
the 12th of May. At Wareham, the small alien priory became vacant
before November 4th, for on that day the King appointed a successor
to Michael de Molis, lately dead,[132] and appointments were made
to St. Martin's, Wareham, on the 8th of December, to St. Peter's
on the 22nd of December, to St. John's on the 29th of May, and to
St. Michael's on the 17th of June. Three changes were registered as
having taken place at Winterbourne St. Nicholas, between December
27th and May 3rd. As far as can be judged by the dates of these
institutions it would appear as if a fresh outbreak of peculiar
violence occurred towards the end of April.

The Bridport Corporation records show that four bailiffs held
office in 1349, in place of the usual two, on account of the
pestilence.[133] In common with most places in the land, Poole, which
was then of sufficient importance to be called upon to furnish four
ships and 94 men for the siege of Calais, suffered greatly from the
pestilence, and received a considerable check to its prosperity. "At
Poole," writes Hutchins, "a spot on the projecting slip of land,
known as the _Baiter_, is still pointed out as the burial-place of
its victims."[134] And the same writer adds that the country did not
entirely recover for the next 150 years; since, in the reign of Henry
VIII., "Poole and other towns in Dorsetshire" were included in that
numerous list of places whose desolated buildings were ordered to be
restored.

Before the close of the year 1348 the pestilence had spread itself
far and wide in the western counties of England. The diocese of Bath
and Wells, and that of Exeter, the former conterminous with the
county of Somerset, and the latter comprising those of Devon and
Cornwall, were infected in the late autumn of that year, and all over
the west, as the old chronicle relates, the sickness "most pitifully
destroyed people innumerable." [p081]

Indeed, so terrible had been the effect of the scourge among the
clergy of Somerset that, as early as January 17th, 1349, the Bishop
of Bath and Wells felt himself constrained to address a letter of
advice to his flock. The document is of such interest, both as
evidence of the straits to which at that early date the diocese had
been reduced by the excessive mortality, and for the advice that it
contains, that it is here quoted at considerable length, since it
proves the depth of degradation to which the whole religious life was
reduced by the terror inspired by the disease. Every bond was loosed,
and every ordinary ecclesiastical regulation and provision set aside,
because none could now be enforced, or, indeed, observed. "The
contagious nature of the present pestilence, which is ever spreading
itself far and wide," writes the Bishop, "has left many parish
churches and other cures, and consequently the people of our diocese,
destitute of curates[135] and priests. And inasmuch as priests cannot
be found who are willing out of zeal, devotion, or for a stipend to
undertake the care of the foresaid places, and to visit the sick
and administer to them the Sacraments of the Church (perchance for
dread of the infection and contagion), many, as we understand, are
dying without the Sacrament of Penance. These, too, are ignorant
of what ought to be done in such necessity, and believe that no
confession of their sins, even in a case of such need, is useful or
meritorious, unless made to a priest having the keys of the Church.
Therefore, desiring, as we are bound to do, the salvation of souls,
and ever watching to bring back the wandering from the crooked paths
of error, we, on the obedience you have sworn to us, urgently enjoin
upon you and command you—rectors, vicars, and parish priests—in all
your churches, and you deans, in such places of your deaneries as
are destitute of the consolation of priests, that you at once and
publicly instruct and induce, yourselves or by some other, all who
are sick of the present [p082] malady, or who shall happen to be
taken ill, that _in articulo mortis_, if they are not able to obtain
any priest, they should make confession of their sins (according to
the teaching of the apostle) even to a layman, and, if a man is not
at hand, then to a woman. We exhort you, by the present letters, in
the bowels of Jesus Christ, to do this, and to proclaim publicly
in the aforesaid places that such confession made to a layman in
the presumed case can be most salutary and profitable to them for
the remission of their sins, according to the teaching and the
sacred canons of the Church. And for fear any, imagining that these
lay confessors may make known confessions so made to them, shall
hesitate thus to confess in case of necessity, we make known to all
in general, and to those in particular who have already heard these
confessions, or who may in future hear them, that they are bound by
the precepts of the Church to conceal and keep them secret; and that,
by a decree of the sacred canons, they are forbidden to betray such
confession by word, sign, and by any other means whatever, unless
those confessing so desire. And (further) should they do otherwise,
let such betrayers know that they sin most gravely, and incur the
indignation of Almighty God and of the whole Church." And further to
stir up the zeal of both clergy and laity to this work the Bishop
grants ample indulgences to such as follow the advice here given them.

"And since late repentance," he says "(when, for example, sickness
compels and the fear of punishment terrifies) often deceives many,
we grant to all our subjects, who in the time of the pestilence
shall come to confession to priests having the keys of the Church
and power to bind and to loose, before they are taken sick, and who
do not delay till the day of necessity, forty days of indulgence.
To every priest also who shall induce people to do this, and hear
the confessions of those thus brought to confess whilst in health,
we grant the same by the mercy of God Almighty, and trusting to the
merits and prayers of [p083] his glorious Mother, of the Blessed
Peter, Paul, and Andrew the Apostles, our patrons, and of all the
Saints."

"You shall further declare," he adds, "to all thus confessing to lay
people in case of necessity, that if they recover they are bound to
confess the same sins again to their own parish priest. The Sacrament
of the Eucharist, when no priest can be obtained, may be administered
by a deacon. If, however, there be no priest to administer the
Sacrament of Extreme Unction, faith must, as in other matters,
suffice for the Sacrament."[136]

These large derogations from the usual ecclesiastical practice,
though consonant alike with Christian charity and the teaching of
the Church, are resorted to only in cases of the direst need, and
the circular letter of the Bishop of Bath and Wells witnesses to the
extreme gravity of the situation throughout the diocese, as early as
the month of January, 1349. Already, as is certain from the Bishop's
words, the dearth of clergy had made itself felt, and people were
dying in the county of Somerset without the possibility of obtaining
spiritual aid in their last hours, and no priests could be found
to take the places of those who had already fallen victims to the
disease. The list of institutions given in the register of Bishop
Ralph of Shrewsbury shows that the mortality in that county was
considerable as early as the November of the previous year, 1348.

Taking the institutions of the diocese as a guide to the time when
the plague was most violent, and bearing in mind that the death
would have occurred some little time before the institution, and
that according to the Bishop's letter some delay had been inevitable
in the filling up of benefices, the months when the pestilence
was at its height in the county of Somerset would appear to be
December, 1348, and January and February, 1349, although the number
of institutions each month remains high until June. The [p084]
mortality was apparently highest about Christmastide, 1348.[137]

The Bishop of Bath and Wells remained at his manor of Wiveliscombe
till the worst was past in May of 1349. Thither came the long
procession of priests to receive their letters of institution to
vacant benefices. Day after day for nearly six months the work went
on with hardly any cessation. Singly, or in twos and threes, often
four and five, once, at least, ten together, the clergy came to be
instituted to cures which the disease had left without a priest.

How the epidemic entered into the county, and the course it pursued,
it would be now impossible, even if it were profitable, to discover.
In December it would seem to have gained a foothold in most parts
of the county. It was at Evercreech about November 19th, and
about a fortnight later at Castlecary and Almsford, in the same
neighbourhood. The fact that Bridgwater, Clevedon, Weston-super-mare,
Portishead, and Bristol were amongst the earliest places in the
county to be attacked would almost make it appear that the contagion
was carried to these coast towns by a boat passing up the Bristol
Channel. This supposition, moreover, is somewhat confirmed, as will
be seen subsequently, by the fact that the towns of North Devon were
attacked by the disease almost simultaneously with those on the south
coast, and very much about the same time as those of North Somerset.

Bath suffered under the scourge in the early part of January, 1349.
On the 9th and 10th of that month several [p085] institutions to
livings, either in the city or the neighbourhood, being recorded. In
the same month it had spread to the abbey of Keynsham, on the road
between Bath and Bristol, and its path can almost be traced along
the line of communication between Bath and Wells. Thus the villages
of Freshford, Twerton, Hardington, Holcombe, Cloford, Kilmersdon,
Babington, Compton, and Doulting, as well as several benefices in
Wells itself, all fell vacant at this time.

It may be said with considerable certainty that fully half the number
of beneficed clergy fell victims to the disease in this diocese. Many
livings were rendered vacant two and three times during its course;
whilst a not inconsiderable number had four changes of incumbents
within these few months. Bathampton, for example, had four parsons
appointed in this period. At Hardington, not far from Frome, from
January, 1349, to the middle of March, there were certainly three and
perhaps four changes due to the disease; and at Yeovil, from the 15th
December, 1348, to the 4th February, 1349, three priests held the
living, one after the other.

Little or no information is forthcoming as to the religious houses
of the county at this time. Both Athelney and Muchelney lost their
abbots, and probably also many of their members. The fact that the
great abbey of Glastonbury, which previously contained within its
walls a community of some 80 monks, is found in A.D. 1377 to have
44, seems to indicate that it must have suffered very severe losses
through the epidemic.

At Bath, in 1344, only five years before the outbreak of the disease,
the community at the Priory consisted of thirty professed monks
under Prior John de Ford.[138] A list on the roll of the Somerset
clergy, on whom a clerical subsidy was levied at the close of Edward
the Third's reign, in 1377, shows that the number had been reduced
to sixteen,[139] [p086] and at this number it apparently remained
to the time of the final dissolution of the house in the sixteenth
century.[140]

It is not difficult to understand that the plague must have raged
with great virulence in the larger cities, where in those days the
most elementary notions of sanitation were almost unknown. In the
west, Bristol, of course, suffered severely. "There," says the
sub-contemporary writer, Knighton, "died, suddenly overwhelmed by
death, almost the whole strength of the town, for few were sick more
than three days, or two days, or even half a day." Nor need this be
a subject of wonder when, according to the description of a modern
writer, speaking of the city at this very period, the streets were
very narrow; in the busier parts the ground was honeycombed with
cellars for storing wine, salt, and other merchandise, whilst refuse
streamed down the centre ditch. So small was the distance between the
houses that no vehicle was allowed to be used in the streets, and all
goods were carried on pack-horses or porters, a custom which even in
the 17th century excited the wonder of Samuel Pepys.[141]

"Here in Bristol," says the local historian Seyer, quoting an old
calendar of the town, "in 1348 the plague raged to such a degree that
the living were scarce able to bury the dead. The Gloucestershire men
would not suffer the Bristol men to have access to them. At last it
reached Gloucester, Oxford, and London; scarce the tenth person was
left alive, male or female. At this period the grass grew several
inches high in High Street and Broad Street; it raged at first
chiefly in the centre of the city. This pestilence came from abroad,
and the people near the sea-coast in Dorsetshire and Devonshire were
first affected."[142] By the wholesale destruction of the population
of this western port the same authority accounts for the reduction of
the King's taxation of the city from £245 to £158. [p087]

Lastly, in Bristol, as indeed without doubt in most places, the
cemeteries did not long suffice for the multitude of the dead.
Of this there is an example upon the Patent Rolls. The parson of
Holy Cross de la Temple soon found the necessity of enlarging his
graveyard. For this purpose he obtained half-an-acre adjoining the
old cemetery, and so great and pressing was the need of this fresh
accommodation that it was done without the required royal license,
for which subsequently a pardon had to be sued from the King.[143]

The diocese of Exeter, comprising the two counties of Devon and
Cornwall, was stricken by the disease apparently about the same time
as the county of Somerset.[144] For eight years before 1348 the
average number of livings annually rendered vacant in the diocese
was thirty-six,[145] whilst in the single month of January 1349, the
Bishop instituted to some thirty livings, which shows that death had
already been busy among the clergy.

The number of institutions in each month of the year points to
the conclusion that the disease lingered somewhat longer in these
counties than elsewhere. It is not till the close of September that
any great decrease in the number of vacancies is seen, and although
probably beginning in December, the height of the plague was not
reached till March, April, and May.[146] [p088]

Prebendary Hingeston-Randolph thus describes the state of the Exeter
episcopal registers at this period:—"There is very little direct
information about the Black Death in Bishop Grandisson's register;
but there is a great deal of indirect information. The _Registrum
Commune_, which is wonderfully full before and after the fatal year,
records scarcely anything during the year itself. The ordinary work
of the diocese seems to have been all suspended, with a single
exception. The register of institutions—a separate volume—is a record
of incessant and most distressing work. Its very outward aspect for
this period tells a tale of woe. The entries are made hurriedly and
roughly, in striking contrast with the neatness and regularity of
the rest of the Register. They are no longer grouped, as before,
in years, but in months, and the changes in each month exceed the
changes of a whole ordinary year, when there was no pestilence.
The scribe leaves off the customary 'vacant _per mortem_,' as if
he dreaded to write the fatal word. The clergy must have fallen by
wholesale; evidently they were faithful, and, for their flocks' sake,
faced the foe without flinching. And, as each of them fell, another
was ready at his Bishop's call fearlessly to fill the vacant place.
Some incumbencies lasted but a few weeks. And, when all was over,
the survivors were, comparatively, so few that there was no small
difficulty in filling many a subsequent vacant benefice; this result
of the sickness is to be traced for some time after the mortality had
ceased.

"The Bishop never left his diocese, and the continuous presence
of so strong, so earnest, and devoted a prelate must have been an
unspeakable consolation and help to his grievously afflicted flock."

An examination of the institutions of the diocese, in relation to the
time when the plague visited the various parts of it, appears to show
that it commenced almost simultaneously in both north and south. In
North Devon it is found at both Northam and Alverdiscott on the 7th
of [p089] November, at Fremington in the same district on the 8th,
and at Barnstaple on December the 23rd. It is found in November at
villages on the Exe, and had possibly also reached Exeter before the
close of the month. In the South, the fact of the close proximity of
the part first infected to Dorsetshire explains the course of the
epidemic; but the early outbreak in the coast villages at the mouth
of the estuary leading to Barnstaple points to the conclusion that
the infection was brought by a ship passing up the Bristol Channel,
which subsequently infected other towns further up on the Somerset
shore of the passage.

It is of interest also to note how greatly the coast towns generally
appear to have suffered, as the contagion was very probably carried
from one place to another by the fishing boats. Up some of the
estuaries it would seem as if the passage of the disease could be
traced by the dates of the institutions. Thus, to take one example,
in March, 1349, there is an institution to a living at the mouth of
the Fowey in Cornwall; a week later there is another at St. Winnow's
Vicarage higher up, and on March 22nd the sickness had reached
Bodmin, at no great distance from the river, and a place with which,
in all probability, the passage up the estuary of the Fowey would be
an ordinary and usual means of communication.

As to the result of the sickness in the religious houses of the
diocese some few details are known. At St. Nicholas', Exeter, the
Prior died in March, 1349; his successor, John de Wye, was admitted
on the 26th of that month, but died almost immediately. The next
Prior was not installed until June 7th, and the house was found to be
in a deplorable state.[147] So also at Pilton Priory two superiors
died within a few weeks one of the other. At the alien priory of
Minster, Cornwall, William de Huma, the Prior, was carried off by the
sickness on 26th of April, 1349, and the house was so impoverished by
the death of tenants [p090] and labourers that it could not support
both its members, and the chaplain they were bound to find to do the
parish work, as neither the prior nor his brethren spoke English, "or
rather Cornish."[148]

At the Cistercian abbey of Newenham the register records that "in the
time of this mortality or pestilence there died in this house twenty
monks and three lay-brothers, whose names are entered in other books.
And Walter, the abbot, and two monks were left alive there after the
sickness."[149]

At the Augustinian abbey of Hartland, Roger de Raleghe, the abbot,
died, and the proclamation of the election of his successor is dated
18th March, 1349. At Benedictine Tavistock also the abbot died, and
his successor, Richard de Esse, was taken ill after his confirmation,
and, "detained by so grave a sickness," could not go to the King,
who, on October 17th, commissioned Bishop Grandisson to receive his
fealty.[150]

At Bodmin, according to a note taken by William of Worcester from a
register in the Church of the Friars Minor there, it was estimated
that 1,500 persons died of this sickness.[151] Amongst these was
the Vicar, whose successor was appointed on April 8th, 1349. The
Augustinian priory in the town was almost depopulated. The prior,
John de Kilkhampton, and all his brethren but two were carried off by
the sickness. The two survivors, on March 17th, wrote to the Bishop
saying that they "were left like orphans," and begging that he would
provide a superior [p091] for their house at once. The next day,
March the 18th, 1349, an inquisition was held under a writ of the
Prince of Wales. The jury found that the priory was free, and that
the last prior had died "on Friday, next after the feast of St. Peter
in Cathedra then last past" (February 27th).[152]

On March 19th Bishop Grandisson wrote to the prior of Launceston
setting forth the facts, and appointing a member of that house to the
office. Three days later the mandate for his induction was issued,
in the hopes that "by his careful watchfulness the said priory may
recover from the calamity."[153]

The plight to which the Augustinians of Bodmin were reduced by the
disease is, after all, typical of that of many religious houses
throughout the country. Meantime, however, the epidemic had not
confined its ravages to the western counties, but continued to spread
the same desolation in every direction, as the wave of pestilence
rolled onward over the length and breadth of the land.


FOOTNOTES:

[121] Originalia Roll, 24 Ed. III., m. 2.

[122] B. Mus., Harl. MS. 6965, f. 132.

[123] _Chronicon Galfridi le Baker_, ed. E. M. Thompson, p. 98.

[124] _Eulogium Historiarum_ (ed. Rolls series), iii, p. 213. It
seems not at all improbable that this account was written whilst the
plague was still confined to the west of England.

[125] Harl. MS. 688, f. 361.

[126] Hutchins, _History of Dorset_ (3rd ed.), ii, p. 422.

[127] Rot. Pat., 26 Ed. III., pars 3, m. 5.

[128] _Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eighth Report_, App., p.
338.

[129] _De Gestis Edwardi III._ (ed. Rolls series), p. 406.

[130] As will be seen subsequently, this estimate of Dr. Jessopp is
certainly too low, and it is probably more correct to suppose that
the non-beneficed clergy, including under that head the religious,
were four times as numerous as those holding benefices.

[131] The following table will show the actual number of institutions
in Dorsetshire for some months:—

 +-------------------+-------------------------------+
 |       1348.       |           1349.               |
 +-----+------+------+------+------+--------+--------+
 |Oct. | Nov. | Dec. | Jan. | Feb. | March. | April. |
 +-----+------+------+------+------+--------+--------|
 | 5   | 15   |  17  |  16  |  14  |  10    |   4    |
 +-----+------+------+------+------+--------+--------+

[132] Originalia Roll, 22 Ed. III., m. 4.

[133] _Hist. MSS. Comm., Sixth Report_, p. 475.

[134] _History of Dorset_, i, p. 5.

[135] _Curates_ here and elsewhere is used for Rectors or Vicars, who
had the actual cure of souls.

[136] Wilkins, _Concilia_, ii, pp. 735-6.

[137] The following is a table of the institutions in Somersetshire
for some months:—

 +--------------+-------------------------------------------------+
 |     1348.    |                       1349.                     |
 +------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
 | Nov. | Dec.  | Jan.  | Feb.  | March. | April. | May.  | June. |
 +------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
 |   9  |   32  |  47   |  43   |   36   |   40   |  21   |   7   |
 +------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-------+-------+

[138] Bath Chartulary (Lincoln's Inn MS.), p. 119. This is now being
edited for the _Somerset Record Society_, and the list is given at p.
73 of Mr. Hunt's edition.

[139] R. O. Clerical Subsidy (Somerset), 4/2.

[140] See list given in _Deputy Keeper's Report_, vii, p. 280.

[141] W. Hunt, _Historic Towns_, _Bristol_, p. 77.

[142] S. Seyer, _Memoirs of Bristol_ (Bristol, 1823) ii, p. 143.

[143] Rot. Pat., 23 Ed. III., pars 3, m. 4.

[144] For information about the institutions of this diocese and
other matters concerning Devon and Cornwall, I am indebted to the
kindness of the Rev. Prebendary Hingeston-Randolph.

[145] Curiously enough the number of institutions in 1891 was 36.

[146] The following table will give the number of institutions in
Devon and Cornwall in each month:—

 +-----------+---------------------------------------------------------+
 |   1348.   |                          1349.                          |
 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-----+------+------+-----+-----+
 |Nov. |Dec. |Jan. |Feb. |Mar. |April. |May. |June. |July. |Aug. |Sept.|
 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-----+------+------+-----+-----+
 | 10  | 6   | 30  | 34  | 60  |  53   | 47  | 45   | 37   | 16  | 23  |
 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-----+------+------+-----+-----+

[147] The Prior of St. James', Exeter, also died: "postea tempore
pestilencie subito mortuus est." (Reg. Grand., i, fol. 27b).

[148] Rot. Pat., 29 Ed. III., pars 2, m. 19.

[149] B. Mus., Arund. MS. 17, fol. 55b. Oliver (_Monasticon Dioecesis
Exoniensis_, p. 359) adds: "And no fewer than 88 persons living
within the Abbey gates." In Noakes' _History of the Monastery and
Cathedral of Worcester_, p. 94, it is said that the virulence of
the plague of 1349 may be judged "from the fact that in the Abbey
of Newenham, in the West of England, out of a hundred and eleven
inmates, only the Abbot and two monks survived." No authority is
cited by these writers.

[150] Reg. Grandisson, i, 26b.

[151] _Itinerarum_, ed. J. Nasmith, p. 112.

[152] Sir J. Maclean, _Deanery of Trigg Minor_, i, p. 128.

[153] Reg. Grandisson, i, 26b.

[p092]




CHAPTER VI.

PROGRESS OF THE DISEASE IN LONDON AND THE SOUTH.


For a time the people of Gloucester strove, but in vain, to protect
their city by prohibiting all intercourse with plague-stricken
Bristol. The contagion passed from one district to another, from
town to town, and village to village, soon involving the entire land
in one common misfortune. "There was no city, nor town, nor hamlet,
nor even, save in rare instances, any house," writes an English
contemporary, "in which this plague did not carry off the whole,
or the greater portion, of the inhabitants." And so great was the
destruction of life "that the living scarcely sufficed to tend the
sick and bury the dead." . . . In some places, on account of the
deficiency of cemeteries, the Bishop consecrated new burial grounds.

"In that time there was sold a quarter of wheat for 12d., a quarter
of barley for 9d., a quarter of beans for 8d., a quarter of oats
for 6d., a large ox for 40d., a good horse for six shillings, which
formerly was worth 40 shillings, a good cow for two shillings, and
even for eighteen-pence. And even at this price buyers were only
rarely to be found. And this pestilence lasted for two years and more
before England was freed from it."

"When, by God's mercy it ceased, there was such a scarcity of
labourers that none could be had for agricultural purposes. On
account of this scarcity, women, and even small children, were to be
seen with the plough and leading the waggons."[154]

The rapidity with which the contagion spread from place to place
makes it now impossible to follow its course with [p093] any
certainty; the more so because it seems likely that many towns on
the southern and western coasts became fresh starting points for
the disease. London, in constant communication with other ports, is
said by one contemporary to have been attacked as early as September
29th, 1348,[155] whilst other authorities fix, at latest, All Saints'
day—November 1st—as the date when the epidemic declared itself in
London. It lasted in the city and its neighbourhood till about the
feast of Pentecost next following, and according to the contemporary
Robert of Avesbury, it was most severe in the two months from
February 2nd to Easter. During the time, he says, "almost every day
there were buried in the new cemetery, then made at Smithfield, more
than 200 bodies of the dead, over and above those buried in other
cemeteries of the city."[156]

Parliament, which was to have assembled at Westminster in January,
1349, was at the beginning of the month prorogued, because, as the
King says, "the plague of deadly pestilence had suddenly broken out
in the said place and the neighbourhood, and daily increased in
severity so that grave fears were entertained for the safety of those
coming there at that time."[157] The churchyards of the city were
quickly found to be insufficient, and two, if not three, cemeteries
were opened. Of the one in Smithfield referred to in the quotation
already given from Robert of Avesbury, the historian Stowe gives the
following account:—"In the year 1348 (23 Edward III.) the first great
pestilence in his time began, and increased so sore that from want of
room in churchyards to bury the dead of the city and of the suburbs,
one John Corey, clerk, procured of Nicholas, prior of the Holy
Trinity within Aldgate, one toft of ground near unto East Smithfield
for the burial of them that died, with condition that it might be
called 'the churchyard of the Holy Trinity;' which ground he caused,
by the aid of [p094] divers devout citizens, to be enclosed with a
wall of stone. Robert Elsing, son of William Elsing, gave five pounds
thereunto; and the same was dedicated by Ralph Stratford, Bishop
of London, where innumerable bodies of the dead were afterwards
buried, and a chapel built in the same place, to the honour of God."
Subsequently Edward III. founded there a monastery of Cistercian
monks dedicated to our Lady of Graces.[158]

The same author also relates the establishment of the better-known
new cemetery, where subsequently the Charterhouse was founded.
"The churchyards," he writes of this time, "were not sufficient to
receive the dead, but men were forced to choose out certain fields
for burials. Whereupon Ralph Stratford, Bishop of London, in the
year 1348, bought a piece of ground, called 'No man's land,' which
he enclosed with a wall of brick and dedicated for the burial of the
dead, building thereupon a proper chapel, which is now (_i.e._, 1598)
enlarged and made a dwelling-house; and this burying plot is become a
fair garden, retaining the old name of 'Pardon Churchyard.'

"After this, in the year 1349, the said Sir Walter Manny, in respect
of the danger that might befal in this time of so great a plague and
infection, purchased thirteen acres and a rood of ground, adjoining
to the said 'No man's land,' and lying in a place called 'Spittle
Croft,' because it belonged to St. Bartholomew's Hospital (since that
called 'New Church Haw'), and caused it to be consecrated by the said
Bishop of London to the use of burials.

"In this plot of ground there were (in that year) more than 50,000
persons buried, as I have read in the Charters of Edward the Third.

"Also I have seen and read an inscription, fixed on a stone cross
sometime standing in the same churchyard, and having these words:
_Anno Domini 1349._ _Regnante_, &c. That is in English, 'A great
plague raging in the year of [p095] our Lord 1349, this churchyard
was consecrated; wherein, and within the bounds of the present
monastery, were buried more than 50,000 bodies of the dead, besides
many others from thence to the present time, whose souls God have
mercy upon. Amen."[159]

Whilst it is perfectly possible, and even probable, that the
number 50,000, named by Stowe as buried in one churchyard, is an
exaggerated estimate, it is on the other hand more than likely that
the pestilence found the sanitary condition of the London of that
period very favourable for its rapid development. The narrow and
ill-cleansed streets, the low, unventilated and undrained houses,
and the general condition of living at the time would all favour the
growth of so contagious a disease as that which visited the city in
the middle of the fourteenth century. One slight glimpse of the state
of the streets about this time is afforded in a document issued by
the King to the Mayor and Sheriffs, when in 1361 a second visitation
threatened to become as destructive to human life as that of 1349.
"Because," says the royal letter, "by the killing of great beasts,
from whose putrid blood running down the streets and the bowels cast
into the Thames, the air in the city is very much corrupted and
infected, whence abominable and most filthy stench proceeds, sickness
and many other evils have happened to such as have abode in the said
city, or have resorted to it; and great dangers are feared to fall
out for the time to come, unless remedy be presently made against
it; we, willing to prevent such dangers, ordain, by consent of the
present Parliament, that all 'bulls, oxen, hogs, and other gross
creatures' be killed at either Stratford or Knightsbridge."[160]
[p096]

There are indeed many indications that the number of those who
died in the city was very great.[161] The extraordinary increase in
the number of wills proved in the "Court of Hustings" affords some
indication of this. During the three previous years the average
number in that Court was twenty-two. In 1349 they reached the number
of 222; and the wills themselves afford further evidence of the
rapidity with which members of the same family followed each other
to the grave. In one instance a son, who was appointed executor to
his father's will, died before probate could be obtained, and his
own will was passed through the Court together with that of his
father.[162] The number of probates granted in each month is some
indication of the time when the mortality was highest. May, with a
total of 121, and July, with 51, are the largest numbers, whilst it
is curious to observe that the large number in May is accounted for
by the fact that none were proved in April.[163] It may be surmised
that this was brought about by the complete paralysis of all business
about the month of April in consequence of the sickness; [p097] this
view being strengthened by the fact that no Easter sittings of the
Courts of Justices were held.

Westminster was grievously visited by the sickness. On March 10th,
1349, in proroguing the Parliament for the second time, the King
declared that the plague had increased in Westminster and London more
seriously than ever.[164] Some weeks later the great monastery was
attacked; early in May abbot Bircheston died, and at the same time 27
of his monks were committed to a common grave in the southern walk
of the cloister. To relieve the urgent necessities of the house and
those about it jewels and other ornaments to the value of £315 13s.
8d.—a large sum in those days—were sold during the visitation out of
the monastic treasury.[165]

At Westminster, too, the Hospital of St. James was left without
inmates. "The then guardian and all the other brethren and sisters,
except one," had died; and in May, 1349, William de Weston, the
survivor, was appointed guardian. Charged with dilapidation, he
was deposed in 1351, but in 1353 the house still remained without
inmates.[166]

What happened at St. Albans has been recorded by Walsingham in the
_Gesta Abbatum_. Speaking of abbot Michael Mentmore, he writes: "The
pestilence, which carried off well-nigh half of all mankind, coming
to St. Albans he was struck by a premature death, being touched by
the common misery amongst the first of his monks, who were carried
off by the deadly disease. And although on Maundy Thursday (_i.e._,
Thursday in Holy Week) he felt the beginning of the ailment, still
out of devotion to the feast, and in memory of our Lord's humility,
he celebrated solemnly the High Mass, and after that, before dinner,
humbly and reverently washed the feet of the poor. Then, after
partaking of food, he washed and kissed the [p098] feet of all the
brethren. And all the offices of that day he performed alone and
without assistance.

"On the morrow, the sickness increasing, he betook himself to bed,
and like a true catholic, having made, with contrite heart, a sincere
confession, he received the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. And so in
sorrow and sadness he lasted till noon of Easter-Day.

"And because the plague was then raging, and the air was corrupt,
and the monks were dying day by day," he was buried as quickly as
possible. "And there died at that time, forty-seven monks" over
and above those who were carried off in great numbers, in (the
monasteries which are) the cells (of St. Albans)."[167]

In another place the same writer adds: "By God's permission came the
pestilence which swept away such numbers. Amongst the abbots was Dom
Michael of pious memory, abbot of St. Albans. At that same time the
prior of the monastery, Nicholas, and the sub-prior of the place
also died. By the advice, therefore, of those learned in the law the
convent chose Dom Thomas de Risburgh, professor of Holy Scripture, as
prior of the Monastery."[168]

From the date of the death of the abbot of St. Albans, on April the
12th, 1349, it would appear that the epidemic was then at its height
in that part of Hertfordshire. The institutions for the portion of
the county in the diocese of Lincoln, however, show that it must
have lingered on, at any rate in the northern part, till the late
summer.[169]

"In Hertfordshire Manors," writes Mr. Thorold Rogers, "where it
(_i.e._, the great plague of 1349) was specially [p099] destructive,
it was the practice, for thirty years, to head the schedule of
expenditure with an enumeration of the lives which were lost and the
tenancies which were vacated after 1348."[170]

The neighbouring counties of Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and
Berkshire suffered in the same way. Although the chronicles make no
special mention of the ravages of the epidemic in them, it would,
indeed, from other sources of information, appear that during the
first half of 1349 the mortality in this district was as great as
in most other parts of the country. Thus, the general state of the
country after the plague had passed may be illustrated from a class
of documents known as _Inquisitiones post mortem_. Theoretically,
at least, the whole country belonged to the Sovereign; the actual
possessors holding as tenants of the Crown, just as the smaller
farmers and peasants held from the tenant _in capite_. On the death
of landowners, therefore, the Crown exercised certain rights and
claimed certain dues, which it levied on the estates, the King's
officers holding them until the rights of the Sovereign over the
in-coming heir were satisfied. To secure these in each county, an
official was appointed known as the Escheator, whose duty it was on
the death of any landowner, in response to the King's writ, to summon
a jury bound by oath to inquire into, and testify to, the extent and
value of the land held by the deceased person. The record of their
sworn verdict is known as the _Inquisitio post mortem_.

These returns made into the King's Court of Chancery, even as
they now exist—many of them having been lost, or having otherwise
disappeared—show a great increase in number in the year 1349. The
average number of these inquisitions for the two years 1346 and 1347
is less than 120; in 1348 there are 130, whilst in 1349 there still
exist 311 such records. That the number was very considerably [p100]
more than this appears from the entry of the writs to the various
Escheators upon the "Originalia Roll" for 1349. From this source it
may be gathered that the number of writs issued by the King upon
information of the death of landed proprietors was 619. Sometimes
several such writs are addressed at one time to the Escheator to
inquire into many deaths in the same place.[171]

These records afford evidence of the numbers of landowners swept off
by the scourge, but their special value lies in the testimony they
afford to the state of various manors and holdings examined in regard
to their value after the plague had abated. The smaller tenants
paying rent or performing land services were, of course, the chief
element in the value of an estate, and especially where the land was
in common, as was generally the case, empty farmsteads and cottages
meant a proportional decrease in the yearly value.

Thus, to take some examples of the evidence of the epidemic in this
district. Of the manor of Sladen in Buckinghamshire, not far from
Berkhampstead, a jury, about the beginning of August, 1349, declared
upon oath that the mill was of no value, since the miller was dead
and there were no tenants left to want any corn ground, "because of
the mortality." The rents derived hitherto from the free tenants,
natives of the soil and cottagers, had been £12 a year, now it is
declared that there are no tenants at all, and that the land is
lying untilled and useless. On the whole manor one little cottage,
with a strip of land, held by one John Robyns on a service rent
worth seven shillings a year, was apparently all that was considered
to be worth anything. At another place on the same estate all the
tenants and cottars except one were dead, and at a third not one had
survived.[172]

[p101] In Bedfordshire, by the end of May, 1349, the same tale is
told. A cloth mill on the manor of Storington is said to be idle and
worthless, and the reason assigned is that "it stands empty through
the mortality of the plague, and there is no one who wishes to use
it or rent it for the same reason." Land, too, is described as lying
uncultivated, and woods cannot be sold because there is no one to
buy.[173]

In Berkshire, in July, 1349, on a manor belonging to the Husee family
the rents and services of the natives of the soil, "now dead," which
were formerly worth thirty-two shillings a year, are declared to be
without any value at all, because, as the Inquisition says, "there is
no one willing to buy or to hire the land of the said dead tenants,"
and since the land lay all in common it could not be cultivated, and
was thus useless.[174] In the same way, on the manor of Crokham,
which had belonged to Catherine, wife of the Earl of Salisbury,
even as early as April 23rd of this year the free tenants and other
holders, who had paid yearly £13, were all dead, and no tenants could
be got to take up their lands.[175] In other places there are no
Court fees, no services performed, and no mills used, because all
on the land are dead; houses and tenements also are in hand, and
rents everywhere are either reduced or are nothing at all, because
some or all of those who held the lands and cottages have been swept
away.[176]

The institutions for the county of Buckingham show that in the
year 1349[177] there were eighty-three appointments made to vacant
livings. This is slightly less than half the total number of
benefices in the county, which appears to have been 180. From the
appointments that are dated it [p102] appears probable that the
sickness was at its worst in the county in the months from May till
September, 1349.[178]

On the other side of London, the dioceses of Canterbury and
Rochester divide between them the county of Kent. The Archbishop had
jurisdiction over the south-eastern portion with its long line of
coast stretching from the Medway to the boundaries of Sussex. The
diocese of Rochester included the western portion of Kent, which lies
on the southern bank of the Thames from London to Sheerness. The
diocese of Canterbury was in many respects peculiarly exposed to the
chances of contagion. In it were situated both Dover and Sandwich,
the two chief points of communication with the ports of France, and
through the city of Canterbury passed the main line of road between
the coast and London.

Thrice, within a few months, the Archiepiscopal See was deprived by
death of its ruler; and one, at least, of these, and very probably
two, died of the prevailing sickness. The register of the prior
and convent of Christchurch, Canterbury, during the vacancy, shows
that institutions to livings in the diocese followed one another
in rapid succession, and that deaths must have occurred in a large
proportion of the benefices of this part of England.[179] "In the
year of our Lord, 1348, immediately after the close of the Nativity,"
writes Stephen Birchington, in his history of the Archbishops of
Canterbury, "arrived the common death of all people; and it lasted
continuously till the end of the month of May, in the year 1349.
By this pestilence barely a third part of mankind were left alive.
Then, also, there was such a scarcity and dearth of priests that
the [p103] parish churches remained almost unserved, and beneficed
persons, through fear of death, left the care of the benefices, not
knowing where to go."[180]

At Canterbury itself there is some evidence of the epidemic. The
abbot of St. Augustine's had died of the disease at Avignon; but no
information has been preserved of what took place at the monastery
itself, although the fact that abbot Thomas asked for and obtained
from Pope Clement VI dispensations, "on account of defect of birth,"
for six monks, whom he desired to have ordained at this time, makes
it more than probable that the pestilence had carried off many
members of the community, whose places it was necessary to fill.

At Christchurch only four of the community died at the time, and
this comparative immunity has been ascribed to the excellent
water supply obtained a century before for the monastery from the
hills.[181] Later on in the summer, however, when the new abbot of
St. Albans rested at Canterbury, on his way to the Pope at Avignon,
one of the two companions whom he had with him died of the sickness
there.[182] In the city, also, two masters were appointed to the
Hospital of Eastbridge, one quickly after the other. The prioress of
St. Sepulchre's and the prior of St. Gregory's both died; but we can
only suspect what happened in the communities at this anxious time,
and among the people at large. At Sandwich, in the June of 1349, the
plague was still raging. The old cemetery was full to overflowing,
and the suffragan bishop was commissioned to proceed thither and
consecrate a new piece of ground, given for the purpose by the Earl
of Huntingdon.[183]

One example may be given here of the rapidity with which during the
great sickness members of a family [p104] followed one another
to the grave. Sir Thomas Dene, of Ospring, about three miles from
Faversham, in the northern part of the diocese of Rochester,
died on May the 18th, 1349. At the time of his death he had four
daughters—Benedicta, five years old, Margaret, four years, and Martha
and Joan, younger still. By July the 8th Martha, the wife of Sir
Thomas, had also died, and from the inquisition, taken on Monday, the
3rd of August, 1349, it appears that of the children the two youngest
were now also dead. Thus, out of a family of six, the father, mother,
and two children had been carried off by the disease.[184]

In this second half of the county of Kent, which forms the diocese
of Rochester, the sickness was felt as severely as in the Canterbury
diocese. What happened here is told in the account of William Dene,
a monk of Rochester, and a contemporary of the events he describes.
"A plague such as never before had been heard of," he writes,
"ravaged England in this year. The Bishop of Rochester out of his
small household lost four priests, five gentlemen, ten serving men,
seven young clerks, and six pages, so that not a soul remained who
might serve him in any office. At Malling (a Benedictine nunnery)
he blessed two abbesses, and both quickly died, and there were left
there only four professed nuns and four novices. To one of these the
Bishop committed the charge of the temporals, to another that of the
spirituals, because no proper person for abbess could be found."

"The whole of this time," says the writer in another place, "the
Bishop of Rochester remained at Halling[185] and Trotterscliff,[186]
and he conferred orders in both places at certain intervals. Alas,
for our sorrow! this mortality swept away so vast a multitude of both
sexes that none could be found to carry the corpses to the grave. Men
and women bore their own offspring on their shoulders to the church
[p105] and cast them into a common pit. From these there proceeded
so great a stench that hardly anyone dared to cross the cemeteries."

The chronicler calls attention, in the most distinct terms, to a
fact mentioned by Birchington of Canterbury, and touched on by the
Bishop of Bath and Wells (p. 81), namely, that dread of the contagion
interfered even with the exercise of priestly functions. These are,
perhaps, the only cases in England which recall the terrible and
uncontrollable fear which in Italy issued in an abandonment of all
principle.

Again, he says: "In this pestilence many chaplains and paid clerics
refused to serve, except at excessive salaries. The Bishop of
Rochester, by a mandate addressed to the archdeacon of Rochester,
on the 27th of June, 1349, orders all these, on pain of suspension,
to serve such cures;"[187] "and some priests and clerics refuse
livings, now vacant in law and fact," writes the Bishop, "because
they are slenderly provided for; and some, having poor livings, which
they had long ago obtained, are now unwilling to keep them, because
their stipend, on account of the death of their parishioners, is so
notoriously diminished that they cannot get a living and bear the
burden of their cure. It has accordingly happened that parishes have
remained unserved for a long time, and the cure attached to them has
been abandoned to the great danger of souls. We, desiring to remedy
this as soon as possible, by the present letters permit and grant
special leave to all rectors and vicars of our city and diocese
instituted, or hereafter to be instituted, to such slender benefices
as do not produce a true revenue of ten marks sterling a year, to
receive during their poverty an anniversary mass, or such a number of
masses as may bring their stipends to this annual sum."[188] [p106]

Then after noting that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas
Bradwardine, had died in the Bishop of Rochester's palace in London,
William Dene continues: "So great was the deficiency of labourers
and workmen of every kind in those days that more than a third of
the land over the whole kingdom remained uncultivated. The labourers
and skilled workmen were imbued with such a spirit of rebellion that
neither king, law, nor justice could curb them. The whole people for
the greater part ever became more depraved, more prone to every vice,
and more inclined than before to evil and wickedness, not thinking
of death, nor of the past plague, nor of their own salvation. . . .
And priests, little weighing the sacrifice of a contrite spirit,
betook themselves to places where they could get larger stipends than
in their own benefices. On which account many benefices remained
unserved, whose holders would not be stayed by the rule of their
Ordinary. Thus, day by day, the dangers to soul both in clergy and in
people multiplied."

"Throughout the whole of that winter and spring the Bishop of
Rochester, an old and decrepid man, remained at Trotterscliff,
saddened and grieving over the sudden change of the age. And in
every manor of the Bishopric buildings and walls fell to ruins, and
that year there was hardly a manor which returned a hundred pounds.
In the monastery of Rochester, also, there was such a scarcity of
provisions that the community were troubled with great want of food;
so much so that the monks were obliged to grind their own bread."
The prior, however, adds the writer, always lived well. William Dene
also relates much that will come under consideration when the results
of the great pestilence are dealt with. Here, however, it may be
noted that he speaks of "the Bishop visiting the abbey of Malling
and the monastery of Lesnes," when he found them so poor "that, as
is thought, from the present age to the Day of Judgment they can
never recover." Moreover, he notes that Simon Islep, on the day of
his enthronisation [p107] as Archbishop of Canterbury, did not keep
the feast, as was usual, with great display, but to avoid all expense
kept it simply with the monks in their refectory at Christchurch.[189]

To this account of the state of the diocese of Rochester, written at
the time, it is only necessary to add that the number of benefices
in this portion of Kent was some 230, which will serve as some
indication of the number of clergy carried off by the prevailing
sickness.

The diocese of Winchester includes the two counties of Surrey and
Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. On the 24th of October, 1348, Bishop
Edyndon, the occupant of the see, addressed a letter to his clergy
ordering prayers.[190] It bears upon it the stamp of the horror which
had seized upon the minds of all by reason of the reports now coming
to hand of what had taken place in other countries. "William, by
Divine providence, Bishop," he writes, "to the prior and chapter of
our Church of Winchester, health, grace, and benediction. A voice in
Rama has been heard; much weeping and crying has sounded throughout
the various countries of the globe. Nations, deprived of their
children in the abyss of an unheard plague, refuse to be consoled
because, as is terrible to hear of, cities, towns, castles, and
villages, adorned with noble and handsome buildings, and wont up to
the present to rejoice in an illustrious people, in their wisdom and
counsel, in their strength, and in the beauty of their matrons and
virgins; wherein, too, every joy abounded, and whither multitudes
of people flocked from afar for relief; all these have already been
stripped of their population by the calamity of the said pestilence,
more cruel than any two-edged sword. And into these said places now
none dare enter, but fly far from them as from the dens of wild
beasts. Every joy has ceased in them; pleasant [p108] sounds are
hushed, and every note of gladness is banished. They have become
abodes of horror and a very wilderness; fruitful country places,
without the tillers, thus carried off, are deserts and abandoned to
barrenness. And, news most grave which we report with the deepest
anxiety, this cruel plague, as we have heard, has already begun to
singularly afflict the various coasts of the realm of England. We
are struck with the greatest fear lest, which God forbid, the fell
disease ravage any part of our city and diocese. And although God,
to prove our patience, and justly to punish our sins, often afflicts
us, it is not in man's power to judge the Divine counsels. Still, it
is much to be feared that man's sensuality, which, propagated by the
tendency of the old sin of Adam, from youth inclines all to evil, has
now fallen into deeper malice and justly provoked the Divine wrath by
a multitude of sins to this chastisement.

"But because God is loving and merciful, patient, and above all
hatred, we earnestly beg that by your devotion He may ward off
from us the scourge we have so justly deserved, if we now turn to
Him humbly with our whole heart. We exhort you in the Lord, and in
virtue of obedience we strictly enjoin you to come before the face
of God, with contrition and confession of all your sins, together
with the consequent due satisfaction through the efficacious works of
salutary penance. We order further that every Sunday and Wednesday
all of you, assembled together in the choir of your monastery, say
the seven Penitential psalms, and the fifteen gradual psalms, on
your knees, humbly and devoutly. Also on every Friday, together with
these Psalms, we direct that you chant the long litany, instituted
against pestilences of this kind by the holy Fathers, through the
market-place of our city of Winchester, walking in procession,
together with the clergy and people of the said city. We desire that
all should be summoned to these solemn processions and urged to
make use of other devout exercises, and [p109] directed to follow
these processions in such a way that during their course they walk
with heads bent down, with feet bare, and fasting; whilst with pious
hearts they repeat their prayers and, putting away vain conversation,
say, as often as possible, the Lord's Prayer and Hail Mary. Also
that they should remain in earnest prayer to the close of the Mass,
which at the end of the procession we desire you to celebrate in your
church." The Bishop then concludes by granting indulgences to those
who approach the Sacrament of Confession, and shall in these public
devotions pray that God "may cause the severity of the plague to be
stayed."[191]

On the same day, October 24th, 1348, Bishop Edyndon issued other
mandates to his clergy generally, and to the archdeacon of
Surrey in particular. He charges them to see that, in view of
the terrible plague which was approaching, all are exhorted to
frequent the Sacrament of Penance and to join in the public prayers
and processions to be made with bare feet in towns through the
market-places, and in villages in the cemeteries round about the
churches.

On November 17th, on the nearer approach of the epidemic, the Bishop
granted faculties to absolve from all reserved cases, reminding his
people of "the approved teaching of the holy Fathers, that sickness
and premature death often come from sin; and that by the healing of
souls this kind of sickness is known to cease." To guard against any
possible danger of cloistered nuns being left by the death of their
chaplains without confessors, he at the same time sent to every
abbess and superior of religious women in his diocese permission to
appoint two or three fit priests, to whom he gave faculties to hear
the confessions of the nuns.[192]

Before Christmas time the sickness was already in the diocese,
although it was only beginning. On the 19th of [p110] January, 1349,
Bishop Edyndon wrote to his official that he had good tidings to
announce—tidings which he had received with joy—that "the most holy
father in Christ, our lord the Supreme Pontiff, had in response to
the petition of himself and his subjects, on account of the imminent
great mortality, granted to all the people of the diocese, religious
and secular, ecclesiastic and lay, who should confess their sins
with sincere repentance to any priest they might choose—a plenary
indulgence at the hour of death if they departed in the true faith,
in unity with the holy Roman Church, and obedience and devotion to
our lord the Supreme Pontiff and his successors the Roman Bishops."
The Bishop consequently ordered that this privilege should be made
known to all as quickly as possible.[193]

At Winchester, as at this time in other places, difficulties about
the burial of the dead who were carried off by the pestilence soon
arose. By January many benefices in the city had been rendered
vacant, and without doubt the daily death-roll was becoming alarming.
The clergy for many reasons were desirous of restricting burials
to the consecrated cemeteries, but a party of the citizens had
clearly made up their minds that in such an emergency as the present
the ordinary rules and laws should be, and must be, set aside. In
order, apparently, the better to enforce their views they set upon
and seriously wounded a monk of St. Swithun's, who was conducting
a funeral in the usual burial place. The Bishop took a serious
view of the offence. On January the 21st, 1349, he addressed an
order to the prior of Winchester and the abbot of Hyde ordering
sermons to be preached on the Catholic doctrine of the resurrection
of the flesh, and excommunication to be denounced against [p111]
those who had laid violent hands upon brother Ralph de Staunton,
monk of Winchester. "The Catholic Church spread over the world,"
he says, "believes in the resurrection of the bodies of the dead.
These have been sanctified by the reception of the Sacraments, and
are hence buried, not in profane places, but in specially enclosed
and consecrated cemeteries, or churches, where with due reverence
they are kept, like the relics of the Saints, till the day of the
resurrection." Winchester, he continues, should set an example to
the whole diocese, and above other places ought to reflect the
brightness of the Catholic Faith. Some people there, however, not,
he thanks God, citizens, or even those born in the city (who are
wont to be conspicuous in their upright lives and in their devotion
to the Faith), but low class strangers and degenerate sons of the
Church, lately attacked brother Ralph de Staunton whilst burying in
the appointed place, and when by his habit and tonsure they knew him
to be a monk, beat him and prevented him from continuing to bury the
dead amongst those there waiting for the resurrection. Thinking,
therefore, that mischief was likely to ensue in regard to the true
Catholic belief in the resurrection of the dead, he orders the
doctrine to be preached in the churches of Winchester. From all this
it is quite evident that the crisis had brought to the surface, as it
had previously done in Italy, a denial of the first principles of the
Catholic Faith.

Bishop Edyndon further adds that seeing that "at this time" the
multitude of the faithful who are dying is greater than ever before,
provision should be made "that the people of the various parishes
may have prompt opportunity for speedy burial," and that the old
cemeteries should be enlarged and new ones dedicated.[194]

This, however, did not end the difficulties. On the 13th of February,
1349, letters were directed by the King to the abbot of Hyde, John
de Hampton, Robert de Popham, [p112] and William de Fyfhide,[195]
ordering them to hear and determine a complaint made by the Venerable
Father, William de Edyndon, Bishop of Winchester, concerning the
breaking down of walls and other boundaries of the enclosure, whereon
the abbey of Hyde formerly stood, adjoining the cemetery of the
Cathedral church of St. Swithun's, Winchester, which had been granted
to the priory by the King, Henry I., on the removal of the abbey. It
appears from the document that "the Mayor, bailiffs, and citizens
had entered upon the usurped portions of the said land, and employed
the site thereof to hold a market twice in the week and a fair twice
in the year." By this "the bodies of the dead had been iniquitously
disturbed because, owing to the great mortality and pestilence of
late, and the smallness of the parochial burial grounds, the Bishop
in the exercise of his office had consecrated the said ground, and
many interments had taken place in it." The Commissioners, or two or
three of them, are directed to view the said area, cemeteries, and
closes, "to empanel a jury, and to examine evidence and generally to
try the case."[196]

Taking the dates of the institutions to livings in the county of
Hampshire[197] as some indication of the period [p113] when the
deaths were most frequent, it would appear that the height of the
plague was reached in the months of February, March, and April, 1349.
In one month, May, indeed, the number of benefices filled was more
than double the average of the whole twelve months of any of the
three previous years.

In the county of Surrey, March, April, and May were apparently the
worst months; and in the last named the number of clergy instituted
to vacant livings was double that of the previous yearly average.[198]

Some districts were affected more than others. Thus in the deanery
of Basingstoke, in the north of Hampshire, at one time or other,
and chiefly in the month of March, by far the greater proportion of
benefices fell vacant. On the western side of the county several
institutions are made in February, and a considerable number in
March. Ivychurch priory, in Wiltshire, where the prior died on
February 2nd, and all the rest of the community but one quickly
followed him to the grave, is situated close to the boundaries of
Hampshire, and an institution was made to a living not far distant
on February the 7th. One of the earliest vacancies was Fordingbridge
vicarage, also not far from Wiltshire, which appointment was made on
the 21st of December, 1348. Only two days later there was apparently
the first beginning of the plague at Southampton. The southern coast
of the county generally round about Portsmouth and Hayling island
suffered chiefly in April and March, and in the later month are
recorded numerous institutions to livings in the Isle of [p114]
Wight and in the country between the southdowns and the sea. On
January the 14th, 1349, a new vicar was appointed to Wandsworth by
Bishop Edyndon, "because to our pastoral office it belongs," he says,
"to have charge of the churches, and to provide for the needs and
wants, especially whilst the present mortality among men continues to
rage."[199]

Mr. F. J. Baigent, who for many years has made the episcopal
registers and other muniments of the diocese of Winchester his
special study, writing of the effects of this great epidemic, says:
"We have no means of ascertaining the actual havoc occasioned among
the religious houses of this diocese . . . but in the hospital of
Sandown, in Surrey, there existed not a single survivor, and of other
religious houses in the diocese (which comprises only two counties)
there perished no fewer than 28 superiors, abbots, abbesses, and
priors."

Of Sussex, the adjoining county to Hampshire, which is conterminous
with the diocese of Chichester, the loss of the episcopal registers
makes it difficult to speak with certainty as to the number of clergy
swept off by the pestilence or as to its effect upon the religious
houses. It is certain, however, that the disease was not less
virulent here than in other places about which definite information
is obtainable.

At Winchelsea the King, in the year of the plague, 1349, granted to
John de Scarle, the parson, a messuage to the east of the cemetery of
the church, which formerly belonged to Matilda Lycotin, who had died
without leaving any heirs. "Out of devotion to St. Thomas," the King
gives this house to the church for a rectory house for ever.[200]
That the town suffered considerably seems clear from the fact that in
this year, 1349, "ninety-four places in the said town lie altogether
deserted and uninhabited."[201] [p115] And both here and at Rye the
bailiffs claim that in 1354 they have not received £8 1s. out of £11.
17s. 5d., supposed to be due from them, for taxes on these towns,
because so many houses are destroyed and lie desolate there."[202]

Incidentally it is known that John de Waring, abbot of Boxgrove, died
some time before May 20th, on which day the monks had leave to elect
another superior. Also from a chance entry in the Ely registers it
appears that on July the 25th, 1349, a new vicar was instituted to
Whaddon, in Cambridgeshire, on the presentation of the fourth prior
of the Monastery of Lewes, to which the living was appropriated. It
is explained that the reason why the fourth superior in the house had
presented was because "the prior, sub-prior, and third prior were
all dead."[203] Lastly, a year or two after the epidemic had passed,
even Battle abbey is said to be in great straits, and "in many ways
dilapidated" (_multipliciter dilapidatur_), about which the King
orders an inquiry.[204]


FOOTNOTES:

[154] _Eulogium Historiarum_ (Rolls series), iii, p. 213.

[155] _Annales de Bermundeseia_ in _Annales Monastici_ (Rolls
series), iii, p. 475.

[156] _De gestis Edwardi III_ (Rolls series), p. 406.

[157] Rymer, _Fœdera_, v, p. 655.

[158] _Survey of London_ (ed. Strype), ii, p. 13.

[159] Dr. Creighton, _History of Epidemics in Britain_, p. 128,
quotes Rickman, _Abstract of the Population Returns of 1831_, as
estimating the total deaths in London at 100,000, and considers even
the 50,000 as altogether impossible. In fact, he is inclined to think
that in 1349 the population of London "was probably not far from"
44,770 only.

[160] Brooke Lambert, _London_, i, p. 241.

[161] Dr. Creighton (_ut sup._, p. 129) mentions that "in the charter
of incorporation of the Company of Cutlers, granted in 1344, eight
persons are named as wardens, and these are stated in a note to have
been all dead five years after, that is to say, in the year of the
Black Death, 1349, although their deaths are not set down to the
plague. Again, in the articles of the Hatters' Company, which were
drawn up only a year before the plague began (December 13, 1347) six
persons are named as wardens, and these according to a note of the
time were all dead before the 7th of July, 1350, the cause of the
mortality being again unmentioned, probably because it was familiar
knowledge to those then living. It is known also that four wardens of
the Goldsmiths' Company died in the year of the Black Death."

[162] _Calendar of Wills in the Court of Hustings, London_, ed. R. R.
Sharpe, i, p. xxvii.

[163] The following is a table of the numbers:—

 +----+-----+-------+-------+-----+------+-------+
 |Jan.| Feb.| March.| April.| May.| June.| July. |
 +---+------+-------+-------+-----+------+-------+
 | 18 | 42  |  41   |   0   | 121 |  31  |  51   |
 +----+-----+-------+-------+-----+------+-------+

[164] Rymer, _Fœdera_, v, p. 658.

[165] B. Mus. Cotton MS. Vitell. E. xiv, f. 129b.

[166] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 25 Ed. III., m. 26.

[167] _Gesta Abbatum S. Albani_ (Rolls series), ii, p. 369.

[168] _Ibid._, p. 381.

[169] The following is a table of the Institutions given in
Clutterbuck's _Hertfordshire_:—

 +-----+------+-----+------+-----+-----+-----+
 |June.| July.| Aug.| Sept.| Oct.| Nov.| Dec.|
 +-----+------+-----+------+-----+-----+-----+
 |  6  |   8  |  4  |  4   |  0  |  2  |  1  |
 +-----+------+-----+------+-----+-----+-----+

[170] _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, i, p. 225.

[171] Thus, some eight standing on the roll together direct inquiries
into deaths of various landed proprietors at Hornseaburton, in
Holderness. R. O., Originalia Roll, 23 Ed. III., m. 17.

[172] R. O., Chancery Inq. post mortem, 23 Ed. III., No. 85.

[173] _Ibid._, No. 75.

[174] _Ibid._, No. 77.

[175] _Ibid._ (second numbers), No. 58.

[176] _Cf._ four inquisitions in this country: Escheator's Inq. post
mortem, file 103.

[177] See Lipscombe's _History of Buckinghamshire_.

[178] The following is a table of the dated institutions:—

 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
 | May.|June.|July.| Aug.|Sept.| Oct.| Nov.|
 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
 |  3  | 10  | 23  | 11  | 13  |  3  |  3  |
 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

[179] _Hist. MSS. Comm., Eighth Report_, p. 336.

[180] Wharton, _Anglia Sacra_, i, p. 42.

[181] J. E. Thorold Rogers, _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, i, p.
221.

[182] _Gesta Abbatum_ (Rolls series).

[183] _Hist. MSS. Comm., Eighth Report_, p. 336. Batteley's copy of
this commission is in B. Mus. Add. MS., 22, 665, fol. 183.

[184] Escheator's Inq. p.m., 23 Edw. III., Kent.

[185] Some six miles from Rochester.

[186] Nine miles from Maidstone.

[187] Wharton, _Anglia Sacra_, i, pp. 375-6. This is an abstract of
Dene's account in the Rochester cartulary, B. Mus. Cotton MS., Faust.
B. v, ff. 96 _et seqq._ _Cf._ also Vitell. E. xiv, ff. 375 _et seqq._

[188] B. Mus. Faust. B., v, f. 98.

[189] _Ibid._, fol. 99.

[190] For the use of his transcripts of the Bishop's Register, as
well as for assistance in all that relates to the Winchester diocese,
I am indebted to the kindness of F. J. Baigent, Esq., of Winchester.

[191] Reg. Edyndon, ii, fol. 17.

[192] _Ibid._, ff. 17b-18.

[193] _Ibid._, fol. 19. The Indulgence was to last until Easter, but
the time was subsequently extended to the feast of St. Michael. This
extension was notified from Avignon by letter dated 28th April, 1349;
the Pope here granted the extension verbally. On 25th May Bishop
Edyndon sent out the announcement of the extension, and ordered it to
be made known at once.

[194] Reg. Edyndon, i, fol. 19b.

[195] Any doubt about the pestilence to which this letter refers is
removed by the dates of the deaths of these last two named. John de
Hampton died 4th August, 1356, and William Fyfhide on 18th May, 1361.

[196] Winchester Cathedral Archives, Book ii, No. 80. In Book i, No.
120, is an "Exemplification of the record and proceedings by the
Bishop of Winchester against the Mayor and others concerning the
limits and boundaries of the churchyard, where the abbey of Hyde once
stood, called the cemetery of St. Peter," Anno 23 Ed. III. (1349).

[197] The following table will give the Institutions for Hants:—

 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                             1349.                            |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
 | Jan. | Feb. | Mar. |April.| May. |June. |July. | Aug. |Sept. |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
 |  5   |  8   |  12  |  12  |  23  |  6   |  7   |   2  |  5   |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

[198] Table of Institutions for Surrey:—

 +-----+---------------------------------------------------------+
 |1348.|                        1349.                            |
 +-----+----+-----+-----+-------+-----+------+------+-----+------+
 | Dec.|Jan.| Feb.| Mar.| April.| May.| June.| July.| Aug.| Sept.|
 +-----+----+-----+-----+-------+-----+------+------+-----+------+
 |  7  | 12 |  19 |  33 |   46  |  29 |  24  |  18  |  11 |  12  |
 +-----+----+-----+-----+-------+-----+------+------+-----+------+

[199] Reg. Edyndon, i, fol. 38.

[200] R. O., Originalia Roll, 23 Ed. III., m. 37.

[201] Pipe Roll, 23 Ed. III., m. 23.

[202] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 28 Ed. III.

[203] B. Mus. Cole MS., 5,824, p. 78 (from Reg. Lisle, fol. 24).

[204] Rot. Pat. 27 Ed. III., pars. 1, m. 4.

[p116]




CHAPTER VII.

THE EPIDEMIC IN GLOUCESTER, WORCESTER, WARWICK, AND OXFORD.


In the last two chapters an account has been given of the great
plague of 1349 in the southern portion of England. In somewhat less
detail the story of its ravages in Gloucester, Oxfordshire, and the
Midlands must be here told. First, however, the general account given
in the chronicle of Galfrid le Baker, who appears to have been a
native of this district, may here find a place.

In all these narratives there is, of course much repetition. But it
is just this absolute coincidence, even to the use of the same terms,
in writers of different countries, or even of the same country, who
could not have had any communication with one another, that brings
home to the mind the literal reality of statements which, when
read each one by itself, inevitably appear as gross and incredible
exaggeration. It so raged at Bristol, writes Le Baker, that the
people of Gloucester refused those of Bristol access to their town,
all considering that the breath of those so dying was infectious to
the living. But in the end Gloucester, and Oxford, and London, and
finally all England, were so violently attacked that hardly a tenth
part of both sexes survived. The cemeteries not being sufficient,
fields were chosen as burial-places for the dead. The Bishop of
London bought a croft, called 'No man's land,' in London, and Sir
Walter de Manny one called 'The new church-hawe' (where he has
founded a house of religious) to bury the dead. Cases in the King's
Bench and in the Common Pleas necessarily ceased. A few nobles died,
amongst whom was Sir John Montgomery, [p117] Captain of Calais and
the Lord of Clistel (?) in Calais,[205] and they were buried at the
Friars of the Blessed Mary of Carmel, in London. An innumerable
number of the common people and a multitude of religious and other
clerics passed away. The mortality attacked the young and strong
especially, and commonly spared the old and weak. Scarce anyone dared
to have contact with a sick person; the healthy fled, leaving the
goods of the dead as if infected. Swellings suddenly breaking out in
various parts of the body, racked the sick. So hard and dry were they
that, when cut, scarcely any fluid matter came from them. From this
form of the plague many, through the cutting, after much suffering,
recovered. Others had small black pustules distributed over the whole
skin of the body, from which very few, and indeed hardly anyone,
regained life and strength.

"This terrible pestilence, which began at Bristol on the Feast of the
Assumption of the Glorious Virgin, and in London about the Feast of
St. Michael, raged in England for a whole year and more so severely
that it completely emptied many country villages of every individual
of the human species. . . . The following year it devastated Wales
as well as England, and then passing over to Ireland it killed the
English inhabitants there in great numbers, but the pure-blooded
Irish, living in the mountains and high lands, it hardly touched till
A.D. 1357, when unexpectedly it destroyed them everywhere."[206]

The mention by Le Baker of Wales and Ireland suggests a brief
statement of what is recorded as to the ravages of the pestilence
in these two countries. Of Wales hardly anything is known for
certain, although the few items of information that we possess make
it tolerably certain that Le Baker's statement that it "devastated"
the country is [p118] not exaggerated. In April, 1350, Thomas de
Clopton, to whom the lands of the late Earl of Pembroke, Laurence de
Hastings, had been leased during the minority of the heir, petitioned
the King for a reduction of £140 out of the £340 he had engaged to
pay. The property was chiefly situated in the county of Pembroke, and
the petitioner urges that, "by reason of the mortal pestilence lately
so rife in those parts, the ordinary value" of the land could not be
maintained. Upon inquiry the statement was found to be true, and £60
arrears were remitted, as well as £40 a year taken off the rent.[207]
No institutions for any of the four Welsh dioceses are forthcoming;
but on the supposition that half the number of the beneficed clergy
in the Principality were carried off by the sickness, the number of
benefices in Wales being about 788, the total mortality among the
beneficed clergy would be nearly 400.

With regard to the religious houses in Wales also, little is known
as to the effect of the pestilence. The priory of Abergavenny, an
alien priory then in the King's hands, was forgiven the rent due to
the King's exchequer, as the prior found it impossible to obtain
payment at this time for his lands.[208] And seven-and-twenty years
later, the small number in some fairly large religious houses raises
the suspicion that they, like so many English monasteries at this
time, had not regained their normal strength after their losses.
Thus the Cistercian abbey of Whitland, in Carmarthen, in 1377 had
only a community of the abbot and six monks; the Augustinian priory
at Carmarthen had but five beside the prior; the Premonstratensian
abbey of Tallagh only an abbot and five canons, whilst the prior of
Kidwelly, a cell of Sherborne abbey in Dorset, had not even a socius
with him.[209]

Some account of what happened in Ireland may be [p119] gathered
from the relation of friar John Clyn, a Minorite of Kilkenny, who
himself apparently perished in the epidemic. "Also this year (_i.e._,
1349),"[210] he writes, "and particularly in the months of September
and October, bishops, prelates, ecclesiastics, religious, nobles
and others, and all of both sexes generally, came from all parts
of Ireland in bands and in great numbers to the pilgrimage and the
passage of the water of That-Molyngis. So much so, that on many
days you could see thousands of people flocking there, some through
devotion, others (and indeed most) through fear of the pestilence,
which then was very prevalent. It first commenced near Dublin, at
Howth[211] and at Drogheda. These cities—Dublin and Drogheda—it
almost destroyed and emptied of inhabitants, so that, from the
beginning of August to the Nativity of our Lord, in Dublin alone,
14,000 people died."

Then after speaking of the commencement of the plague and its ravages
at Avignon, the author continues:—"From the beginning of all time it
has not been heard that so many have died, in an equal time, from
pestilence, famine, or any sickness in the world; for earthquakes,
which were felt for long distances, cast down and swallowed up
cities, towns, and castles. The plague too almost carried off every
inhabitant from towns, cities and castles, so that there was hardly
a soul left to dwell there. This pestilence was so contagious that
those touching the dead, or those sick of it, were at once infected
and died, and both the penitent and the confessor were together borne
to the grave. Through fear and horror men hardly dared to perform
works of piety and mercy; that is, visiting the sick and burying the
dead. For many died from abscesses and from impostumes and pustules,
which appeared on the [p120] thighs and under the arm-pits; others
died from affection of the head, and, as if in frenzy; others through
vomiting of blood.

"This year was wonderful and full of prodigies in many ways; still
it was fertile and abundant, although sickly and productive of great
mortality. In the convent of the Minorites of Drogheda 25, and in
that of Dublin 23, friars died before Christmas.

"The pestilence raged in Kilkenny during Lent, for by the 6th of
March eight friars Preachers had died since Christmas. Hardly
ever did only one die in any house, but commonly husband and wife
together, with their children, passed along the same way, namely, the
way of death.

"And I, brother John Clyn, of the order of Minorites, and the convent
of Kilkenny, have written these noteworthy things, which have
happened in my time and which I have learnt as worthy of belief. And
lest notable acts should perish with time, and pass out of the memory
of future generations, seeing these many ills, and that the world is
placed in the midst of evils, I, as if amongst the dead, waiting till
death do come, have put into writing truthfully what I have heard and
verified. And that the writing may not perish with the scribe, and
the work fail with the labourer, I add parchment to continue it, if
by chance anyone may be left in the future and any child of Adam may
escape this pestilence and continue the work thus commenced."[212]

This account of friar Clyn is borne out by one or two documents on
the Patent Rolls. Thus in July, 1350, the Mayor and Bailiffs of Cork
stated in a petition for relief "that, both because of the late
pestilence in those parts, and the destruction and wasting of lands,
houses, and possessions, by our Irish enemies round about the said
city," they were unable to pay the 80 marks' tax upon the [p121]
place.[213] Also the citizens of Dublin, in begging to be allowed
to have 1,000 quarters of corn sent for their relief, state in the
petition of their Mayor "that the merchants and other inhabitants of
the city are gravely impoverished by the pestilence lately existing
in the said country, and other many misfortunes which had happened
there."[214] Lastly, the tenants of the royal manors in Ireland asked
the King for special protection. They urged that "both by reason of
the pestilence lately existing in the said country, and because of
the excessive price of provisions and other goods charged by some of
the officers of the land to the tenants, they are absolutely reduced
to a state of poverty."[215]

After this brief digression upon the plague in Wales and Ireland,
a return may be made to England. The county of Worcester suffered
from the disease chiefly in the summer months of the year 1349. The
institutions to livings in the county, show that in 67 parishes out
of 138 the incumbent changes at this time. In several instances
there are recorded more than one change, so that fully half of the
total number of benefices in the county were at one time or other
vacant during the progress of the disease. The highest number of
appointments to livings in the county in any one month was in
July, whilst each month from May to November gives indication of
some special cause at work producing the vacancies. In the first
four months of the year and in December only six institutions are
recorded.[216] As examples of benefices which fell vacant [p122]
more than once during the period there may be adduced Great Malvern,
to which priests were presented on the 10th of July and the 21st
of August; and Powick, near Worcester, to which institutions are
registered on the 15th of May and the 10th of July.

In the city of Worcester, as early as the middle of April,
difficulties as to the disposal of the bodies of the dead were
foreseen and provided against by the Bishop, Wulstan de Braunsford,
who himself, an old and infirm man, died on the 6th of August, 1349.
On the 18th of April, this year, the Bishop wrote from Hartlebury
to his officials at Worcester, to the following effect:—"Carefully
considering and not without anxiety of heart often remembering how
dangerously and excessively, alas, the burials have in these days,
to our sorrow, increased, in the cemetery of our cathedral church at
Worcester (for the great number of the dead in our days has never
been equalled); and on this account, both for our brethren in the
said church ministering devoutly to God and His most Glorious Mother,
for the citizens of the said city and others dwelling therein, and
for all others coming to the place, because of the various dangers
which may probably await them from the corruption of the bodies, we
desire, as far as God shall grant us, to provide the best remedy.
Having deliberated over this, we have ordained, and do ordain, that
a place fit and proper for the purpose, namely, the cemetery of the
hospital of St. Oswald, Worcester, be made to supply the deficiency
in the said cemetery of our cathedral church arising from the
said cause." He consequently orders that it be made known to the
sacrist that all burials may at his discretion, "in the time of this
mortality, be made in the said cemetery of St. Oswald."[217]

Leland mentions this cemetery in his Itinerary, where, speaking of
the "long and fayre suburbe by north without the foregate," he says
there was a chapel to St. Oswald [p123] afterwards a hospital;
"but of later times it was turned to a free chapel, and beareth the
name of Oswald, and here were wont corses to be buried in time of
pestilence as in a publicke cemitory for Worcester."[218]

The general state of the country parts in the county may be gauged by
the account given by the King's Escheator for Worcester at this time.
This officer, named Leo de Perton, was called upon, amongst other
duties, to account for the receipts of the Bishop of Worcester's
estates, from his death in August to the appointment of a successor
at the end of November, 1349. The picture of the county generally
which is presented in his reply is most distressing; tenants, he
says, could not be got at any price, mills were vacant, forges were
standing idle, pigeon houses were in ruins and the birds all gone,
the remnant of the people were everywhere giving up their holdings;
the harvest could not be gathered, nor, had this been possible, were
there any inhabitants left in the district to purchase the produce.

Coming to the particular case of the Bishop's temporalities, he
claims that of £140 supposed to be due, on the calculation of normal
years, so much as £84 was never received. For in that year, 1349, the
autumn works of all kinds were not performed. "On the divers manors
of the said bishoprick they did not, and could not, obtain more than
they allowed, on account of the dearth of tenants, who were wont to
pay rent, and of customary tenants, who used to perform the said
works, but who had all died in the deadly pestilence, which raged in
the lands of the said bishoprick, during and before the date of the
said account."

In the inquiry, the Escheator produced a letter from the [p124]
King,[219] saying that he had no wish that his official should
be charged more than he received. As a consequence of this, two
commissions were sent into the country to try, with a jury, the
matter at issue. The Escheator put in lists of tenants from whom
alone he had received anything, and in the end the jury came to the
conclusion that his statement was correct. The particulars disclose
some matters of considerable interest in the present inquiry. For
example, on the manor of Hartlebury there had been thirty-eight
tenants called _virgates_, because each had farmed a virgate of land;
thirteen called nokelonds, twenty-one called arkmen and four cottars,
who rendered certain services, valued at 106 shillings and 11-1/2d.
a year, including a custom called "yardsilver." Nothing could be got
of these services, "because all the tenants had died in the mortal
sickness, before the date of this account," and in the return of the
jury there are said to be only four tenants on the land paying 2s.
10d.[220]

That this was not a mere passing difficulty appears certain when,
some years later, in 1354, the same Escheator asks for relief of £57
15s. 5-1/4d., which he could not then obtain on the same estates,
once again in his hands, by the translation of the Bishop to another
See. Speaking of the work of the customary tenants, he says: "That
he has not obtained, and could not obtain any of these, because the
remnant of the said tenants had changed them into other services, and
after the plague, they were no longer bound to perform services of
this kind."[221]

The results in the neighbouring county of Warwick are naturally
similar. With the counties of Gloucester and Worcester it formed the
ancient see of Worcester. The institutions of clergy in the county,
given in Dugdale's _History of Warwickshire_, show that before April
and after October only seven of such institutions [p125] were made,
so that the pestilence was rife in the county in the summer months of
1349, the institutions in the two months of June and July being the
highest.[222]

In some instances the changes were very rapid; thus at Ditchford
Friary an incumbent came on July the 19th, and by August the 22nd
his successor was appointed. Kenilworth, too, was thrice vacant
between May and August. At Coventry, on May 10th, Jordan Shepey, the
Mayor, "who built the well called Jordan well," died.[223] In July
the archdeacon of Coventry and a chantry priest at Holy Trinity were
carried off. In August the Cathedral prior, John de Dunstable, was
elected to fill the vacancy at the priory, and shortly after Trinity
church had a new incumbent. At Pollesworth the abbess, Leticia de
Hexstall, died, and a successor was appointed on October 13th, 1349.

In Oxfordshire, which at the time of the great visitation of the
plague, formed part of the large diocese of Lincoln, the number of
benefices, exclusive of the Oxford colleges, was some 220. Half this
number consequently may be estimated as that of the deaths of the
beneficed clergy. The disease was probably prevalent in the county
about the same time as in the adjacent places—that is, in the spring
and summer months of 1349. The prioress of Godstowe, for example,
died some time before May the 20th, on which day the royal permission
was given to elect a successor, and the prior of St. Frideswide,
Oxford, very much about the same time; since on June 1st Nicholas de
Hungerford received the temporalities upon his election.

The city of Oxford, with its large population of [p126] students,
appears to have suffered terribly. "Such a pestilence," writes Wood,
"that the like was never known before in Oxon. Those that had places
and houses in the country retired (though overtaken there also),
and those that were left behind were almost totally swept away. The
school doors were shut, colleges and halls relinquished, and none
scarce left to keep possession, or make up a competent number to
bury the dead. 'Tis reported that no less than 16 bodies in one day
were carried to one churchyard to be buried, so vehemently did it
rage."[224] The celebrated FitzRalph, Archbishop of Armagh, who had
been Chancellor of the University before the event, declares that
in his time of office there were 30,000 students at Oxford.[225]
In this statement he is borne out by Gascoigne, who, writing his
_Theological Dictionary_, in the reign of Henry VI., says: "Before
the great plague in England there were few quarrels between the
people and law cases, and so there were also few lawyers in the
kingdom of England and few in Oxford, when there were 30,000 scholars
at Oxford, as I have seen on the rolls of the ancient Chancellors,
when I was Chancellor there."[226] This concourse was diverted by the
pestilence, since in 1357 FitzRalph declares that there were not a
third of the old number at the schools.

In the year of the visitation Oxford had no fewer than three Mayors.
Richard de Selwood died on the 21st April of this year, and the
burgesses then made choice of [p127] Richard de Cary. Before he
could reach London to take the oath to the King he was taken sick,
and the abbot of Osney was named as Commissioner to attend at Oxford
and administer the oath of office to him. On May 19th the abbot
certified that he had done this, but on the 16th of June, letters
dated from Oxford two days previously were received in London
announcing the Mayor's death and the election of John Dereford in his
place.[227]

Without doubt Oxford had its plague pit like other cities. The late
Professor Thorold Rogers, writing about this pestilence, says: "I
have no doubt that the principal place of burial for Oxford victims
was at some part of New College garden, for when Wykeham bought
the site it appears to have been one which had been previously
populous, but was deserted some thirty years before during the
plague and apparently made a burial ground by the survivors of the
calamity."[228]


FOOTNOTES:

[205] At p. 92 of the printed edition of this chronicle the author
describes the breaking out of the plague in France, just after the
taking of Calais by the English. He attributes the truce between the
French and the English to the epidemic.

[206] _Chronicon Galfridi Le Baker de Swynebroke_, ed. E. M.
Thompson, pp. 98-9.

[207] R. O., Originalia Roll, 24 Ed. III., m. 8.

[208] R. O., Rot. Claus., 25 Ed. III., m. 9.

[209] R. O., Clerical Subsidy, 21/1 (51 Ed. III.)

[210] The author seems to imply that the plague reached Ireland in
1348. It is, however, probable that 1349 was in reality the date,
for in that year, on July 14, Alexander de Biknor, the Archbishop of
Dublin, died, and also the Bishop of Meath in the same month (_cf._
Gams, _Series Episcoporum_, 219.)

[211] Dalkey in the margin.

[212] Friar John Clyn's _Annals of Ireland_ (ed. _Irish Archæological
Society_, 1849).

[213] Rot. Pat., 25 Ed. III., pars 2, m. 19.

[214] _Ibid._, 26 Ed. III., pars 1, m. 11.

[215] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 27 Ed. III., Hilary term, m. 7.

[216] The following is a table showing the Institutions in some
months:—

 +------------------------------------------------+
 |                       1349.                    |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
 | May. | June.| July.| Aug. | Sept.| Oct. | Nov. |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
 |  5   |   9  |  23  |  11  |  3   |  5   |  8   |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

[217] Nash, _Worcestershire_, i, p. 226.

[218] Green (_Worcester_, p. 144) speaks of the measures taken by
the Bishop for the public safety as relieving the city "from an
alarming evil," and by it the parishes of St. Alban, St. Helen, St.
Swithun, St. Martin, St. Nicholas, and All Saints, "whose churchyards
were very confined and not equal to the reception of the parochial
deceased, were permitted to partake of the same advantages of
sepulture. . . . Hence St. Oswald's burial ground has accumulated
that prodigious assemblage of tumulation which, at this time, cannot
be viewed with indifference by the most cursory beholder."

[219] Dated October 26th, 1352.

[220] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 26 Ed. III.

[221] _Ibid._, 28 Ed. III., Mich. term, m. 19.

[222] The following table gives the number of Institutions in some
months:—

 +------------------------------------------------+
 |April.| May. |June. |July. | Aug. |Sept. | Oct. |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
 |  4   |  13  | 17   | 20   |  15  |  7   |  10  |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

[223] Dugdale, _Warwickshire_, (ed. Thomas), p. 147.

[224] Wood, _History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford_
(ed. Gutch), p. 449.

[225] Harl. MS., 1900, fol. 2. Trevisa's translation of FitzRalph's
_Propositio coram Papa_: "So yt in my tyme, in ye University of
Oxenford were thrilty thousand scolers at ones, and now beth unneth
six thousand."

[226] Gascoigne, _Loci ex Libro Veritatum_, ed. J. E. Thorold Rogers,
p. 202. The editor on the passage says: "They (_i.e._ the students)
come from all parts of Europe. The number seems incredible, but
Oxfordshire was, to judge from its rating for exceptional taxation,
after Norfolk, then at the best of its industries, the wealthiest
county in England by a considerable proportion. . . . This concourse
of students was diverted by the great plague. . . . I see no reason
to doubt the statement about the exceeding populousness of Oxford in
the first half of the 14th century."

[227] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 23 Ed. III., Mich.

[228] _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, i, p. 223.

[p128]




CHAPTER VIII.

STORY OF THE DISEASE IN THE REST OF ENGLAND.


The history of the great pestilence in the diocese of Norwich which
includes the two eastern counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, has been
graphically described by Dr. Jessopp.[229] The results at which he
has arrived by a careful study of the episcopal registers of the
diocese and the court rolls of sundry manors may be very briefly
summarised here. The epidemic was at its height in the East of
England in the summer months of 1349,[230] and the deaths in the
ranks of the clergy were very alarming. The average number of
institutions in the diocese yearly for five years before the sickness
was seventy-seven. In this single year 800 parishes lost their
incumbents, 83 of them twice, and ten three times, in a few months;
and by the close of the year two-thirds of the benefices in the
diocese had become vacant.

Of the seven convents of women in this district, five lost their
superiors, and in at least twelve of the religious houses of men,
including the abbey of St. Benet's Hulme, the head died. How many of
the subjects in these 19 monastic establishments were carried off by
the sickness [p129] can never be known; but bearing in mind what was
remarked at the time, that the disease hardly ever entered a house
without claiming many victims, and what we know of other places of
which there is definite information, the suspicion may be allowed
that the roll of the dead in the religious houses of East Anglia
was very large. At Heveringland the prior and canons died to a man,
and at Hickling only one survived; neither house ever recovered. In
the college of St. Mary-in-the-Fields, at Norwich, five out of the
seven prebendaries were carried off, whilst the Friars of our Lady,
in the same city, are all said to have died. Altogether, Dr. Jessopp
calculates that some 2,000 clergy in the diocese must have been
carried off by the disease in a few months.

From the court rolls the same evidence is adduced for the terrible
mortality among the people. Dr. Jessopp had collected many striking
proofs of this, from which one or two examples may be quoted. On a
manor called Cornard Parva there were about 50 tenants. On 31st March
three men and six women are registered as having died in two months.
During the next month 15 men and women, seven without heirs, were
carried off, and by 3rd November there are 36 more deaths recorded,
and of these 13 have left no relations. Thus during the incidence of
the plague some 21 families on this one manor had disappeared. The
priest of the place had died in September.[231]

To take another example. At Hunstanton on the 16th of October,
1349, it was found that in two months 63 men and 15 women had been
carried off. In 31 instances only women and children had been left
to succeed, and in nine there were no known heirs. In this small
parish, and in only eight months, 172 persons who were tenants of the
manor had died. Of these, 74 had left no heirs male, and 19 no blood
relations at all.[232]

To these examples may be added one taken from the [p130] court
roll of the manor of Snetterton, about the centre of the county of
Norfolk. A court of the manor was held on Saturday in the feast of
St. James the Apostle, that is July 25th, 1349, and it is called
ominously the _Curia pestilencie_, the Court of the Plague. At this
meeting 39 tenants of the manor are named as having died, and in
many cases no heir is forthcoming. One tenant is specially named as
holding his house and ten acres on condition of keeping three lamps
ever burning before the Blessed Sacrament in the parish church. He is
dead and has left no other relation, but a son 16 years of age.

The larger cities of East Anglia, such as Norwich and Yarmouth,
suffered no less than the country districts from the all-pervading
plague. The historian of Norfolk has estimated the population of
Norwich before this catastrophe at 70,000.[233] It was unquestionably
one of the most flourishing cities of England, and possessed some 60
parish churches, seven conventual establishments, as well as other
churches in the suburbs; and on the authority of an ancient record in
the Guildhall, Blomefield put down the number of those carried off
by the epidemic at 57,374. Such a number has been considered by many
as altogether impossible, but that the city was reduced considerably
does not appear open to doubt in view of the fact that by 1368 ten
parishes had disappeared and fourteen more were subsequently found
to be useless. "The ruins of twenty of these," says a modern writer,
"may still be seen."[234]

Yarmouth in the middle of the fourteenth century was a most
flourishing port. When, to assist the attack of Edward on Calais,
but two years before the plague, London furnished 25 ships and
662 mariners, Yarmouth is said to have sent 43 ships and 1,950
sailors.[235] William of Worcester, in his Itinerary, after speaking
in praise of the town, says: "In the [p131] great pestilence there
died 7,000 people."[236] This statement is probably based upon the
number of persons buried in one churchyard. For in a petition of
burgesses of Yarmouth in the beginning of the sixteenth century to
Henry VII. it is asserted that the prosperous condition of the town
was destroyed by the great plagues during the reign of Edward III. In
the thirty-first year of this reign, they say,—probably mistaking the
year—7,052 people were buried in their churchyard, "by reason whereof
the most part of the dwelling-places and inhabitations of the said
town stood desolate and fell into utter ruin and decay, which at this
day are gardens and void grounds, as it evidently appeared."

It is, moreover, certain that Yarmouth Church, large as it appears
in these days, was, before the plague of 1349, not ample enough for
the population,[237] and preparations had already been made for
considerably enlarging its nave. Owing to the pestilence the work was
not carried out. Nor is this the only instance in the county where
the enlargement of churches already vast was rendered unnecessary by
the diminution of inhabitants through the sickness. It is impossible
to examine the great churches which abound in the counties of Norfolk
and Suffolk without coming to the conclusion that they were built to
serve the purposes of a large population.

To take one example, the tax on the town of Dunwich had been granted
by the King to the monastery of Ely; but in 1351 the inhabitants
petitioned for relief as they were quite unable to find the money
for the royal collectors. The King gave way to what he calls "the
relation of the men of the town of Dunwich," which recited that
"the said town, which before this time was completely inhabited by
fisher-folk, had been rendered desolate by the deadly plague late
raging in those parts, and by our enemies the [p132] French seizing
and killing the fishermen at sea, and still remained so."[238]

From Norfolk and Suffolk we pass to the adjoining county of
Cambridge, which is conterminous with the diocese of Ely. The Bishop
of the diocese, Thomas de Lisle, was abroad at the time when the
plague broke out in the county. On the 19th of May he wrote to the
clergy of his diocese, forwarding the letter of Stephen, Archbishop
of Arles, and Chamberlain of the Pope, already referred to elsewhere.
By this anyone was empowered to choose his own confessor, "since in
all places now is, or will be, the epidemic or mortality of people
which at present rages in most parts of the world."[239] The Bishop
had made arrangements for the government of his see during his
absence abroad, but on April 9th, 1349, he wrote from Rome, making
other dispositions in view of the plague. "By reason of the epidemic,
as it is called, wonderfully increasing in the diocese," as he has
lately understood by people from thence, he, "for fear his former
Vicars General should die," augments their number. And, further,
"considering how difficult it is for two people to agree about the
same sentence, he appoints John, prior of Barnwell, singly and solely
to dispose of all vacant benefices, and in case of his death, or
refusal to act, then Master Walter de Peckham, LL.D., to be sole
disposer of them," and then six others in order; a provision which
itself shows how slight he considered the chance of life for any
individual. In other matters any of his Vicars General could act;
and "in case of any death putting a stop to business, as was likely
in such a mortality," whichever Vicar General was present should act
until the arrival of the three specially appointed.[240]

The foresight of the Bishop was not unnecessary. From [p133] the
month of April vacancies followed quickly one upon another. For three
years previous to 1349 the average number of institutions recorded
in the episcopal registers was nine, and in 1348 it was only seven.
In this year of the great sickness 97 appointments to livings in the
diocese were made by the Bishop's Vicars, and in July alone there
were 25.[241] The prior of Barnwell died early in the course of the
sickness, probably even before he could have received the Bishop's
commission to act for him in the matter of vacant benefices.

In June there are evidences of the mortality in the Cathedral priory
of Ely. On the 23rd of the month John de Co, Chancellor of the
diocese, acting as the Bishop's representative, according to the
commission, appointed a new sub-prior to the monastery, and again
on July the 2nd a cellarer and camerarius. A week later, on the 9th
of July, 1349, "brother Philip Dallyng, late sacrist of Ely, being
dead, and the said brother Paulinus (the camerarius) being likewise
dead and both of them buried, he appointed to both offices, namely,
brother Adam de Lynsted as sacrist, and brother John of St. Ives
as camerarius."[242] At the same time also two chantries in the
Cathedral became vacant; one, called "the green chantry," twice in
two months.

The number of clergy carried away by the sickness in this diocese
may be estimated from the number of vacant benefices. Deducting
the average number of yearly [p134] institutions, it is fair to
consider that 89 priests holding benefices died at this time.[243]
The proportion of non-beneficed clergy to those beneficed was then
probably about the same as it was in the second year of King Richard
II. The clerical subsidy for that time shows 140 beneficed clergy
against 508 non-beneficed, including the various religious.[244] On
this basis at least 350 of the clerical order must have perished in
the diocese of Ely.

The University town of Cambridge did not escape. On May 24th, 1349,
the church of St. Sepulchre's fell vacant, and already in July
several of the churches were without incumbents. Towards the end of
April the Master of the hospital of St. John died, and one Robert de
Spronston was appointed to succeed. Then he died a short time after,
and one Roger de Broom was instituted on May 24th; but in his turn
Roger died, and another took his place.

Cambridge, too, had probably its common plague pit. "Some years ago,"
writes the late Professor Thorold Rogers, "being at Cambridge while
the foundations of the new Divinity School were being laid, I saw
that the ground was full of skeletons, thrown in without any attempt
at order, and I divined that this must have been a Cambridge plague
pit."[245]

A curious document preserved in the Bishop's archives shows how
severely some parishes must have suffered. It is a consent given by
the prior and convent of Ely to a proposal of the Bishop to unite
two parishes in Cambridge. It mentions the churches of All Saints'
and St. Giles', of Cambridge, near the castle, and states that the
parishioners of the former are, for the most part, dead in the
pestilence, [p135] and those that had been left alive had gone to
the parishes of other churches. It also says that the people of St.
Giles' have died, and, further, that the nave of All Saints' is in
a ruinous state, "and the bones of the dead exposed to beasts." The
Bishop consequently proposes to unite these two ancient parishes of
Cambridge, and in this consent to the proposal a glimpse is almost
accidentally afforded of the desolation wrought in the University
town by the terrible scourge.[246]

An example of what was probably very general throughout the county
is afforded by a roll of accounts for a Cambridgeshire manor in this
year. Considerable decay of rents is noted, and no wonder, for it
would seem that 50 tenements and 22 cottages were in hand, and that
the services which the holders would otherwise have rendered have to
be paid for. At Easter 13 copyholders' tenements are vacant, and by
Pentecost another 30 are added to the long list.[247]

The clergy were reduced to the greatest straits in consequence of
the deaths among their parishioners, leading to a proportional
diminution of their incomes. On September 20th, 1349, the Bishop's
Vicar addressed a letter to John Lynot, vicar of All Saints', Jury,
Cambridge.[248] "We are informed," he says, "by your frequent
complaint that the portion coming to you in the said church is known
to consist only of offerings of the parishioners, and that the same
parishioners have been so swept away by the plague notoriously
raging in this year that the offerings of the said church do not
suffice for the necessities of life, and that you cannot elsewhere
obtain help to bear the burden laid upon you. On this account you
have humbly petitioned [p136] us to be allowed to have for two
years an anniversary (mass) for your necessary support. Since your
position in God's Church does not make it fitting that you should
seek alms, particularly for necessities in food and clothing, we
grant you the permission asked on the condition that as soon as the
fruit and revenue of the said portion be sufficient to properly
furnish you with necessaries you altogether give up the income of
this anniversary (mass)."[249] At the same time a similar permission
was granted to John Atte Welle, vicar of St. John, "in Melnstreet,"
Cambridge.

The adjoining county of Huntingdon forms a portion of the great
diocese of Lincoln. In it there were some 95 benefices, which may
give some indication of the probable number of deaths in the ranks of
the clergy of the county.

The abbot of Ramsey died on the 10th of June, 1349, and the King
did not, as usual, claim the temporalities during the vacancy, but
allowed the monks to pay a smaller sum than was usual; "and, be it
remembered," says the document allowing this, "that because of the
depression of the said abbey by the present mortal pestilence raging
in the country, the said custody is granted to the prior and convent
for a lesser sum to pay to the King than at the time of the last
vacancy."[250]

Among the _Inquisitiones post mortem_ is one relating to the manor
of Caldecot, in Huntingdonshire. It formed part of the estates of
Margaret, Countess of Kent, who died on St. Michael's day, 1349.
Many houses of the manor are represented as ruinous, and of no
value. Rents of assize, formerly worth £8 a year, this time produced
but fifty shillings; an old mill, which hitherto had been let with
[p137] land for two pounds a year, is now only worth 6s. 8d.,
"because of the pestilence it could be let at no higher rate." And,
lastly, the fees of the manor court had sunk from 13s. 4d. to 3s. 4d.
"through dearth of tenants there."[251]

Proceeding westward from Huntingdonshire, the county of Northampton
next claims attention. Judged by the lists of institutions given in
Bridges' history of the county, there were changes at this period
in 131 instances out of 281. In fifteen cases two or more changes
occurred in the same place in 1349, and the number of institutions
was greatest in August, when 36 appointments were made.[252] From
the institutions it appears likely that the town of Northampton was
attacked most severely about the October of the year 1349; at least,
on November the 1st two appointments were made to livings there.

As to the religious houses, at Luffield all are said to have died of
the plague. William de Skelton, the prior, was carried off by the
sickness, and the rental of the house was subsequently declared to be
inadequate for its support. At Delaprey Convent, Catherine Knyvet,
the abbess, fell a victim to the disease. At Worthorp, the superior,
Emma de Pinchbeck, died, and probably many of the Augustinian nuns
there. The Bishop appointed Agnes Bowes to succeed, but the convent
never recovered, and in 1354 was, at the petition of its patron
Sir Thomas Holland, [p138] united to the convent of St. Michael
near Stamford. In the royal licence it is stated "that the convent,
being poorly endowed, was, by the pestilence which lately prevailed,
reduced to such poverty that all the nuns but one, on account of
their penury, had dispersed."[253]

The inquiry just referred to, as to the estates of the Countess of
Kent upon her death in 1349, reports as to the state of a manor in
Northamptonshire. It is the same tale of depression and desolation as
appears everywhere else throughout England. Pasture formerly worth
forty shillings now yields only ten, and some even brought in only
five shillings in place of eighteen; and the sole reason assigned is
"the mortality." A water mill and a wind mill "for the same cause"
was let for 6s. 8d., instead of the old 56 shillings.

The priory of Stamford itself moreover was in sad distress. The
rents from five free tenants and eighteen customary tenants, were
just one-third of their former value "for the same cause." And the
same nuns, in place of 19s. 8d. which they used to get for thirteen
tenements, now received only four shillings, whilst their yearly
tenants, who should pay 13lbs. of pepper, at 12d. the pound, have
paid nothing; moreover the fines of the manor, estimated to produce
twenty shillings a year, have brought in but two.

A third example is given in the case of a manor near Blisworth, in
which two mills are let for twenty, in place of the old rent of
sixty-five shillings; and two carucates of land produced only some
fifteen shillings the carucate, "and not more, on account of the
mortality in those parts."[254]

Of the small county of Rutland, lying at the north of
Northamptonshire, little can be said. It likewise formed part of
the diocese of Lincoln, and contained some 57 benefices. From an
inquisition we learn that on one manor for nine virgates of land
there could be estimated [p139] nothing in the way of rent, "because
all the tenants died before the feast of Easter (1349). They (_i.e._,
the jury) also say that the natives and cottars did not work this
year." In another place, a house and garden formerly let for forty
shillings, now produces only twenty shillings; 240 acres of arable
land are let for half their former value, and 180 acres of meadow are
worth 10d. per acre, in place of eighteen-pence.[255]

Eastward, the county adjoining Northampton is Leicester. For this
county there exists the local account of Knighton, a canon of
Leicester abbey. As far as concerns England his relation may fitly
find a place here. "The sorrow-bearing pestilence," he writes,
"entered the sea coast at Southampton, and came to Bristol, and
almost the whole strength of the town died as if struck with sudden
death, for there were few who kept their beds beyond three or two
days or even half a day. Then the terrible death rolled on into all
parts according to the course of the sun, and at Leicester, in the
little parish of St. Leonard, there died more than 380; in the parish
of Holy Cross more than 400; in that of St. Margaret, Leicester, more
than 700; and so in every parish great numbers.

"The Bishop of Lincoln sent through his diocese a general power to
all and every priest, both regular and secular, to hear confessions
and to absolve with full and entire episcopal power, except only in
the case of debt. In that case, if able (the penitent) himself was to
make satisfaction whilst he lived, or at least others should do so
with his property, after his death. In the same way the Pope granted
a full remission from all sins, to be obtained once only by every one
in danger of death, and he allowed this faculty to last till the next
Easter following, and each to choose at will his own confessor.

"In the same year, there was a great mortality of sheep everywhere in
the kingdom; so much so, that in one place [p140] there died in one
pasture more than 5,000 sheep, and they were so putrid that neither
beast nor bird would touch them. The price for everything was low;
through fear of death, very few cared for riches and the like. And
then a man could purchase a horse for half a mark, which before had
been worth forty shillings; a large fat ox for 4s.; a cow for 12d.;
a bullock for 6d.; a fat wether for 4d.; a sheep for 3d.; a lamb for
2d.; a large pig for 5d.; and a stone of wool for nine pence; and
sheep and cattle roamed about, wandering in fields and through the
growing harvest, and there was no one to drive them off or collect
them; but in ditches and thickets they died in innumerable quantities
in every part, for lack of guardians; for so great a dearth of
servants and labourers existed that no one knew what to do. Memory
could not recall so universal and terrible a mortality since the time
of Vortigern, king of the Britons, in whose reign, as Bede in his 'De
gestis Anglorum' testifies, the living did not suffice to bury the
dead.

"In the following autumn no one could get a harvester at a lower
price than eight pence with food. For this reason many crops perished
in the fields for lack of those to gather them; but in the year of
the pestilence, as said above of other things, there was such an
abundance of crops of all kinds that no one, as it were, cared for
them."[256]

In the absence of any definite information as to the institutions
made at this time in the county of Leicester it is only necessary
to note that the number of benefices was about 250 at this period.
There were also some twelve religious houses and several hospitals.
In 1351, as we learn from the records, Croxton abbey still "remained
quite deserted." The church and many of the buildings had been burnt,
and "by the pestilence the abbey was entirely deprived of those by
whose ability the monastery was then administered" (the abbot and
prior alone excepted). [p141] The abbot was sick, "and the said
prior (in November, 1351) was fully occupied in the conduct of the
Divine Office and the instruction of the novices received there into
the community, after the pestilence."[257]

A slight confirmation of Knighton's account of the distress in the
country parts after the plague had passed, if any were needed, is
found in an inquisition made upon the death of Isabella, wife of
William de Botereaux, who died upon St. James' Day, 1349. The manor
held by her was at a place called Sadington, in Leicestershire, and
two carucates of land are represented as lying uncultivated and waste
"through the want of tenants."[258]

The adjoining county of Staffordshire formed part of the diocese of
Coventry and Lichfield. It comprised 165 benefices, which may form
some basis on which to calculate in estimating the number of clergy
who were carried off by the pestilence. Some lands in this county,
near Tamworth, belonged to the Earl of Pembroke. Upon his death,
whilst the heir was a minor, they were farmed out at a rent of £38
per annum, to be paid to the King. In 1351 the man who had agreed to
pay that sum petitioned to have it reduced, because "the tenements
with the said land so let are so deteriorated by the pestilential
mortality lately raging in those parts that they do not reach their
wonted value." After inquiry, his rent is reduced by £8 the year.[259]

Of the two counties bordering upon Wales, Hereford and Shropshire,
not much is known at this time. There can be little doubt, however,
that they suffered quite as severely from the epidemic as the other
counties of England.

In the diocese of Hereford, including that county and a portion of
Shropshire, the average number of institutions to benefices, during
three years before and after the epidemic, was some 13. In 1349
there are recorded in [p142] Bishop Trileck's register no fewer
than 175 institutions, and in the following year the number of 45
vacant benefices filled up, points to the fact that many livings had
probably remained for some months without incumbents. This suspicion
is further strengthened by the frequent appearance of the words "by
lapse" in the record of institutions at this period, which shows
that for six months the living had not been filled by the patron. It
is probable, therefore, that in the diocese of Hereford about 200
beneficed clergy fell victims to the disease. Taking the dates of the
institutions as some indication of the period when the epidemic was
most severe in the diocese, it would appear that the worst time was
from May to September, 1349.[260]

One fact bearing upon the subject of the great mortality in the
pestilence of 1349 in the county of Hereford is recorded in the
episcopal register. In 1352 the Bishop united into one parish the two
churches of Great Colington and Little Colington, about four miles
from Bromyard. The patrons of the two livings agreed to support a
petition of the parishes to this effect, and in it they say "that the
sore calamity of pestilence of men lately passed, which ravaged the
whole world in every part, has so reduced the number of the people
of the said churches, and for that said reason there followed, and
still exists, such a paucity of labourers and other inhabitants, such
manifest sterility of the lands, and such notorious poverty in the
said parishes, that the parishioners and receipts of both churches
scarcely suffice to support one priest."[261] The single church
[p143] of Colington remains to this day as a memorial of the great
mortality in that district. Even among the inhabitants the memory of
the two Colingtons has apparently been lost.

In Salop the historians of the county town record that "through all
these appalling scenes (consequent upon the great mortality of 1349)
the zeal of the clergy, both secular and monastic, was honourably
distinguished. The episcopal registers of the diocese, within which
Shrewsbury is situated, bear a like honourable testimony to the
assiduity of the secular clergy of the district."[262] From the
same source it appears that the average number of institutions to
benefices vacant by death during ten years before 1349 and ten years
after are only 1-1/2 per annum, or 15 for the whole period. In that
year the number of institutions to vacancies known to have been
caused by _death_ was 29. If this number be taken as a guide for the
general mortality, Shropshire would appear to have suffered in an
exceptional manner. Besides these, however, there are a number of
other institutions registered at this time, the cause of which is not
specified, and many of them most probably were also caused by the
great epidemic.

As an example of the general destitution caused by the great
sickness, Owen and Blakeway quote an _Inquisitio post mortem_, taken
in the year of the plague, upon the estate of a Shropshire gentleman,
John le Strange of Blakmere. By that record he is found by the jury
to have died, seized with various lands, etc., amongst others, the
three watermills, "which used to be worth by the year 20 marks, but
now they are worth only half that sum, by reason of the want of
those grinding, on account of the pestilence." The same cause is
assigned for the diminution of other parts of his revenue, as tolls
on markets, rent of assize, etc.

In the manor of Dodinton, proceeds the record of the inquiry,
"there are two carucates of land which used to be [p144] worth
yearly sixty shillings, and now the said jurors know not how to
value the said land, because the domestic and labouring servants
(_famuli et servientes_) are dead, and no one is willing to hire
the land." The water-mill has sunk in value from thirty shillings
to six-and-eightpence, because the tenants are dead; the pond was
valueless since the fish had been taken out, and it had not been
stocked again.[263]

This John le Strange, of Whitchurch, died on August 20th, 1349, and
the inquisition held upon his estates names three sons—Fulk, the
eldest, who was married; Humphrey, the second; and John, who was 17
years of age; and it notes that if Fulk were to die then Humphrey
his brother was the heir. The inquiry was held upon August 30th,
ten days after the death of John, and at this very time when Fulk
was thus declared to be the heir he had himself been dead two days.
Apparently also Humphrey was carried off by the sickness as well;
because in the inquisition subsequently held upon the estate of Fulk,
John, the third brother, is named as the heir. In this inquiry the
jury bear out the declarations of that which had testified to the
condition of the estates upon the death of the father. On one manor
it is stated that the rent of assize, which used to be £20, is now
only forty shillings, and the court fees have fallen from forty to
five shillings, "because the tenants there are dead." And in another
Shropshire hamlet the rent of assize, formerly £4, was now "from the
said cause" only eight shillings.[264]

North of a line drawn from the Wash to the Dee, the four counties of
Chester, Derby, Nottingham, and Lincoln stretch across England from
west and east. A brief record of the pestilence in each of these
counties is all that need be here given. In its main lines, and,
indeed, almost in its every detail, the story of one county is that
of every [p145] other, and it is only by chance that the account of
definite incidents has been preserved.

The benefices in the county of Chester numbered some 70. In the
four months June, July, August, and September thirty institutions
are entered in the registers of Coventry and Lichfield for the
archdeaconry of Chester alone. The most numerous are in the month
of September.[265] The non-beneficed clergy are, of course, not
included in this number; and in the city alone, at the end of Edward
the Third's reign, there were at least fifty or sixty of this class.
In one parish, for example, that of St. John by the Riverside, there
were nine non-beneficed vicars and six chaplains.[266] In August a
new prioress was installed at St. Mary's, Chester, and a new prior at
Norton.

From the ministers' accounts for the County Palatine of Chester, at
this period, some facts can be gleaned as to the general state of
desolation to which the great sickness reduced it. Thus, in the manor
of Frodsham, the bailiff returns the receipt of only twenty shillings
rent for the lands of the manor farm, "received for 66 animals
feeding on them." He adds, "and not more this year, because he could
get no tenants by reason of the pestilence." Further he notes the
general prices as being low, and names a mill and a bakehouse that
cannot be let. As an instance of the decay of rent it is noted that
in the town of Netherton, more than a year after the plague had
ceased, eleven houses and a great quantity of land, which fell into
the hands of the lord in the last year through the pestilence, remain
yet in his hands;" the same also is remarked of other townships, and
in one place the miller had been allowed a reduction in his rent on
account of the way his business had fallen off since the disease.[267]

In the same way on another manor, that of Bucklow, at Michaelmas
1350, it is stated that 215 acres of arable land [p146] are lying
waste, "for which no tenants can be found through the pestilence,
which had visited the place the previous year. Further, those who
had held a portion of the manor land during the last year had given
their holdings up at the feast of St. Michael at the beginning of the
account (_i.e._, 1349). On the same estate the rent of a garden was
put down at only 12d., because there was no one to buy the produce.
One of the largest receipts was 3s. 6d., paid by one Margery del
Holes, "for the turf of divers tenants of the manor who had died in
the time of the pestilence." On the whole of the estate there is
represented to be a decrease of £20 9s. 2-3/4d. in the rent of this
year, and a good part of the deficit is accounted for by the fact
that 34 tenants owe various sums, but cannot pay as they have nothing
but their crops, and that 46 of the tenants had been carried off by
the epidemic.

On the estate, moreover, it is not uninteresting to note that a
portion—no less, indeed, than a third part—of the rent was remitted
at this time. The remission, however, hardly appears to have been
made willingly, but in consequence of a threat on the part of the
holders of the manor lands that unless it was granted they would
leave. This is noted upon the roll: "In money remitted to the tenants
of Rudheath (some four miles from Northwich) by the Justices of
Chester and others, by the advice of the lord, for the third part of
their rent by reason of the plague which had been raging, because the
tenants there wished to depart and leave the holdings on the lord's
hands, unless they obtained this remission until the world do come
better again, and the holdings possess a greater value . . . £10 13s.
11-3/4d."[268]

Eastward the adjoining county is Derbyshire. An examination of the
institutions for this county has been made by the Rev. Dr. Cox for
his work on the _Churches of Derbyshire_. The result of his studies
may here be [p147] given almost in his words. In May, 1349, there
is evidence that the plague had reached Derbyshire. At that period
the total number of benefices in the county was 108, and the average
number of institutions registered yearly during the century was only
seven. In 1346 the actual number had been but four, in 1347 only two,
and in 1348 it was eight. In the year of the plague, 1349, no fewer
than sixty-three institutions to vacant benefices are registered, and
"in the following year (many of the vacant benefices not being filled
up till then) they numbered forty-one." In this period seventy-seven
of the beneficed clergy died; that is considerably more than half the
total number, and twenty-two more resigned their livings.

"Of the three vicars of Derby churches two died, whilst the third
resigned. The chantry priest of Our Lady at St. Peter's Church also
died. The two rectors of Eckington both died, and of the three
rectors who then shared the rectory of Derley two died and one
resigned. The rectories of Langwith and Mugginton, and the vicarages
of Barlborough, Bolsover, Horsley, Longford, Sutton-on-the-Hill, and
Willington were twice emptied by the plague, and three successive
vicars of Pentrich all fell in the same fatal year. Nor were the
regular clergy more fortunate, for the abbots of Beauchief, Dale, and
Derley, the prior of Gresley, the prior of the Dominicans at Derby,
and the prioress of King's Mead, were all taken."[269]

The same author has called attention to some obituary notes in the
calendar prefixed to the Chartulary of Derley abbey.

"A glance at this obituary," he says, "is sufficient to draw the
attention of the reader to the remarkable number of deaths in the
year 1349. . . . Of the character of the plague we can form some idea
when we consider the extent of its ravages in a single household—a
household the most wealthy of the neighbourhood, and situated in as
[p148] healthy and uncrowded a spot as any that could be found on
all the fair hillsides of Derbyshire. Within three months Sir William
de Wakebridge lost his father, his wife, three brothers, two sisters,
and a sister-in-law. Sir William, on succeeding to the Wakebridge
estate, through this sad list of fatalities, appears to have
abandoned the profession of arms and to have devoted a very large
share of his wealth to the service of God in his own neighbourhood.
The great plague had the effect of thoroughly unstringing the
consciences of many of the survivors, and a lamentable outbreak of
profligacy was the result."

The accounts for the Lordship of Drakelow, some four miles from
Burton-on-Trent, may be taken as a sample of what must have been the
case elsewhere. There is noted a loss, to begin with, "upon turf sold
from the waste of the manor to tenants who had died in the time of
the pestilence." The decrease of rent is very considerable. From "the
customs of the manor there is nothing, because all these tenants died
in the time of the plague." Then follow the names of seventy-four
tenants, from all of whom only 13s. 9-3/4d. had been received in the
period covered by the account, and practically from the entire manor
there had been no receipt except for grass. Then, instead of the
harvest being gathered in, as before it had been, by means of the
services of the tenants, this year paid-labour had to be employed at
a cost of £22 18s. 10d. On the receipt side of the account appear the
values of the cows, oxen, and horses of tenants who had died, and
whose goods and animals passed into the possession of the lord of the
manor.[270]

In Nottinghamshire the proportion of deaths among the beneficed
clergy is found, as in other cases, to be fully one-half the total
number. Out of 126 benefices in the county the incumbent died in
sixty-five.[271]

Eastwards, again, the county of Lincoln lies between [p149]
Nottinghamshire and the sea. At an early period Pope Clement VI.
granted to the priests and people of the city and diocese of Lincoln
great indulgences at the hour of death, "since on their behalf
a petition had been made to him which declared that the deadly
pestilence had commenced in the said city and diocese."[272] The
extent of the county is large, and its endowed livings numerous. In
all, not including its forty-nine monasteries, the beneficed clergy
of the county numbered some 700, and from this some estimate may be
formed of the probable number of clerics who died in Lincolnshire in
the year 1349.

The chronicle of Louth Park, a Cistercian abbey in the county,
contains a brief note upon the epidemic. "This plague," it says,
"laid low equally Jew, Christian, and Saracen; together it carried
off confessor and penitent. In many places it did not leave even
a fifth-part of the people alive. It struck the whole world with
terror. Such a plague has not been seen, or heard of, or recorded
before this time, for it is thought so great a multitude of people
were not overwhelmed by the waters of the deluge, which happened in
the day of Noah. In this year many monks of Louth Park died; amongst
them was Dom Walter de Luda, the Abbot, on July 12th, who was much
persecuted because of the manor of Cockrington, and he was buried
before the high altar by the side of Sir Henry Vavasour, Knight.
To him Dom Richard de Lincoln succeeded the same day, canonically
elected according to the institutes of Our Lord and the Order."[273]

From a document relating to the Chapter of Lincoln it would appear
that the Courts of Law did not sit every term, during the universal
visitation. The dean and chapter complain that, whereas "from time
beyond all memory" they had received 6s. 8-1/2d. for some 66 acres
of arable and four acres of meadow at Navenby, this year they had
not done so. Still they were called upon to pay the King's [p150]
dues. They appealed; but there was no cause tried at Trinity anno 23º
(1349) "because of the absence of our judges assigned to hold the
common pleas, by reason of the plague then raging."[274]

The audit of the Escheator's accounts for the county of Lincoln
proves that the distress was very real. Saier de Rocheford, who held
the office for Rutland and Lincoln in 1351, sought to be relieved of
£20 18s. 1d., which he was charged to pay for money he should have
received, on the ground that he had got nothing, "because of the
mortality."[275] Three years later, moreover, he again pleads that he
is unable to raise more, "because of the deadly pestilence of men and
of tenants of the land, who died in the year 1349, and on account of
the dearth of tenants" since.

The people, he adds, were so impoverished that they could pay nothing
for "Wapentakes."[276]

Archbishop Zouche of York was apparently one of the first of the
English prelates to recognise the gravity of the epidemic, which in
1348 was devastating Southern Europe, and ever creeping northwards
towards England. Before the end of July, 1348, he wrote to his
official at York, ordering prayers. "Since man's life on earth is
a warfare," he writes, "those fighting amidst the miseries of this
world are troubled by the uncertainty of a future, now propitious,
now adverse. For the Lord Almighty sometimes permits those whom he
loves to be chastised, since strength, by the infusion of spiritual
grace, is made perfect in infirmity. It is known to all what a
mortal pestilence and infection of the atmosphere is hanging over
various parts of the world, and especially England, in these days.
This, indeed, is caused by the sins of men who, made callous by
prosperity, neglect to remember the benefits of the Supreme Giver."
He goes on to say that it is only by prayer that the scourge can be
turned away, and he, therefore, orders that in all parish churches,
on every Wednesday and Friday, there [p151] shall be processions and
litanies, "and in all masses there be said the special prayer for the
stay of pestilence and infection of this kind."[277]

Judging from a reply of the Pope to a petition of the Archbishop,
it would be necessary to conclude that the plague had reached York
as early as February, 1349. It is, however, more probable that the
petition was sent in the expectation that the scourge would certainly
come sooner or later, and it was best to be prepared. From the dates
of the institutions to vacant benefices, moreover, it would seem that
the province of York suffered chiefly in the summer and autumn of the
year 1349. Pope Clement VI., by letters to Archbishop Zouche, dated
from Avignon as early as March 23rd, 1349, bestowed the faculties
and indulgences already mentioned as having been granted to other
Bishops. This he did, as the letter says, "in response to a petition
declaring that the deadly pestilence has commenced to afflict the
city, diocese, and province of York."[278]

The county of York contained at this date some 470 benefices; or,
counting monastic houses and hospitals, some 550. It has been
pointed out that out of 141 livings in the West Riding, in which
the incumbent changed in 1349, ninety-six vacancies are registered
as being caused by death, and in the East Riding 65 incumbents
died against 61 who apparently survived.[279] In the deanery of
Doncaster,[280] out of fifty-six lists of incumbents, printed in
the [p152] local history, a change is recorded in thirty. It may
be concluded with certainty, from an examination of the printed
lists of institutions for Yorkshire, that one-half at least of the
clergy, generally, were carried off by the sickness. So serious did
the mortality among the cathedral officials become that steps were
taken to prevent the total cessation of business. In July, 1349, for
instance, "it was ordained on account of the existing mortality of
the pestilence that one canon, with the auditor and chapter clerk,
might, in the absence of his fellows, grant vicarages and transact
other matters of business as if the other canons were present,
notwithstanding the statutes."[281]

The Archbishop too sought and obtained from Pope Clement VI.
faculties to dispense with the usual ecclesiastical laws as to
ordinations taking place only in the Ember weeks. "For fear the
Divine worship may be diminished through want of ministers, or the
cure and ruling of souls be neglected," writes the Pope, we grant
leave to hold four extra ordinations during the year, since you say
"that on account of the mortal pestilence, which at present rages
in your province," you fear that "priests may not be sufficient for
the care and guidance of souls."[282] With this the Archbishop gives
a specimen of the testimonial letters to be granted to such as were
ordained under this faculty, reciting that it was given "because of
the want of ecclesiastical ministers carried off by the pestilence
lately existing in our Province."

There is little doubt that the religious houses of the diocese
suffered in a similar way. The abbots of Jervaux and Rievaulx,
Welbeck and Roche, the priors of Thurgarton, and Shelford, of
Monkbretton, of Marton, of Haltemprice and Ferriby, are only some few
of the superiors of religious houses who died at this time.

For one of the monasteries of the county, Meaux, there exists a
special account in the chronicles of the house. [p153] Abbot Hugh,
it says, "besides himself had in the convent 42 monks and seven lay
brethren; and the said abbot Hugh, after having ruled the monastery
nine years, eleven months and eleven days, died in the great plague
which was in the year 1349, and 32 monks and lay brethren also died.

"This pestilence so prevailed in our said monastery, as in other
places, that in the month of August the abbot himself, 22 monks and
six lay brethren died; of these, the abbot and five monks were lying
unburied in one day, and the others died, so that when the plague
ceased, out of the said 50 monks and lay brethren, only ten monks
with no lay brethren were left.

"And from this the rents and possessions of the monastery began to
diminish, particularly as a greater part of our tenants in various
places died, and the abbot, prior, cellarer, bursar, and other men of
years, and officials dying left those, who remained alive after them,
unacquainted with the property, possessions, and common goods of the
monastery. The abbot died on 12th August, A.D. 1349."[283]

In the Deanery of Holderness, in which Meaux Abbey was situated,
there is evidence of great mortality. It is striking to observe how
frequently the bailiffs and collectors of royal rents and taxes are
changed. It is by no means uncommon to find an account rendered
by the executors of executors to the original official.[284] This
evidence as to the great extent of the mortality here as in other
places of England, and as to the consequent distress, is borne out by
the _Inquisitiones post mortem_ for the period. In one case, where
the owner of the property had died on 28th July, 1349, it is said
that 114 acres of pasture were let at 12d. a year, "and not more this
year because of the mortality and dearth of men." At Cliffe, on the
[p154] same estate, the rents of customary tenants and tenants at
will are stated to have been usually worth £10 5s. a year; but in
this special year they had produced only two shillings.[285]

The chronicler of Meaux has described the disastrous consequences
of the sickness in his own monastery. That this condition was not
soon mended appears certain from the fact that in 1354 it was found
necessary to hand over the abbey, "on account of its miserable
condition," to a royal commission.[286]

The account of the King's Escheator in Yorkshire for the year, from
October, 1349, to October, 1350, states that he could in no way
obtain the sum of £4 12s. 2d., "due on certain lands and tenements
from which he had levied and could levy nothing during the said time
because of the mortality amongst men in those parts, and owing to the
dearth of tenants, willing to take up the said land and tenements."
Then follows a list of houses standing vacant.[287]

As another instance may be quoted a case related in the history of
the deanery of Doncaster. "John FitzWilliam, the heir of Sir William,
had a short enjoyment of the family estates. He died in the great
plague of 1349. I transcribe, to show public feeling at the time,
from a chronicle: 'And in these daies was burying withoute sorrowe
and wedding without frendschippe and fleying without refute of
socoure; for many fled from place to place because of the pestilence;
but yet they were effecte and myghte not skape the dethe.'

"In another part of the deanery we find a person willing that his
goods shall be divided among such of his children as shall remain
alive. In the FitzWilliams' MS. is a contemporary memorandum that
John FitzWilliam, the father, gave in the time of the pestilence
before his death all his [p155] goods and chattels, movable and
immovable, to dame Joan, his wife, John, his son, and Alleyn, late
parson of Crosby, amounting to the sum of £288 3s. 8-1/2d."[288]

An incident recorded by the same writer will serve to show how
uncertain people, at this time, regarded the tenure of life, a
feeling hardly to be wondered at when so many were dying all round
them. Thomas Allott, of Wombwell, in the deanery of Doncaster, in his
will, proved 14th September, 1349, after desiring to be buried at
Darfield, says: "Item I leave, etc., to my sons and daughters living
after this present mortal pestilence."[289]

These notes upon the evidence for the plague in Yorkshire may be
concluded by a brief account of the state of Hull in consequence
of the mortality and other causes. In 1353 the King, "considering
the waste and destruction which our town of Kingston-on-Hull has
suffered, both through the overflow of the waters of the Humber
and other causes, and that a great part of the people of the said
town have died in the last deadly pestilence which raged in these
parts, and that the remnant left in the town are so desolate and
poverty-stricken in money," grants them permission to apply the fines
ordered to be imposed on labourers and servants demanding higher
wages than before, to the payment of the fifteenth they owe the royal
exchequer.[290]

Westward of Yorkshire the extensive but then sparsely populated
county of Lancashire stretches between it and the Irish sea. Of this
county there is practically little to be recorded. The number of
benefices which existed in the county was about 65, whilst the number
of chaplains and non-beneficed clergy generally must have greatly
exceeded that number. In the deanery of Blackburn alone there were at
the close of the reign of Edward III at [p156] least 55 capellani
without benefices.[291] One document, of its kind unique, relating
to Lancashire and to this great plague, is preserved in the Record
Office. It was long ago referred to by the late Professor Thorold
Rogers, and is now printed in the _English Historical Review_. It is
a statement of the supposed number of deaths during the incidence of
the great pestilence in the deanery of Amounderness. Unfortunately,
as perhaps might be expected in such a mortality, when death came
so suddenly and men followed one another so rapidly to the grave
that vast numbers had to be cast as quickly as possible into the
same plague pit, the figures are clearly only approximate, being in
every instance round numbers. Still, as they were adduced at a legal
investigation and before a jury, when the facts of the visitation
of Providence must have been fresh in the minds of those who heard
the evidence, it is difficult to suppose that they are mere gross
exaggerations, and may at least be taken as proof that the mortality
in this district of Lancashire was very considerable.

The paper in question is the record of a claim for the profits
received, or supposed to have been received, by the dean of
Amounderness, acting as procurator for the Archdeacon of Richmond,
for proof of wills, administration of intestate estates, and other
matters, during the course of the plague of 1349. Ten parishes are
named in the claim, including Preston, Lancaster, and Garstang.
In those ten parishes it supposes that some 13,180 souls had died
between September 8th, 1349, and January 11th, 1350. In both Preston
and Lancaster 3,000 are said to have been carried off, and in
Garstang 2,000. Nine benefices are declared to have been vacant,
three of them twice, whilst the chapel of St. Mary Magdalene, at
Preston, is stated to have been unserved for seven weeks. The Priory
of Lytham is also noted as having been rendered vacant by the
sickness, [p157] whilst 80 people of the village were said to have
died at the same time.[292]

From the Patent rolls it would appear that Cartmel Priory, also,
about this time lost its superior, as upon September 20th, 1349,
the King's licence was granted to the community to proceed to a new
election.[293]

The counties of Westmoreland, to the north of Lancashire, with
Cumberland, still further to the north again, carry the western part
of England to the borders of Scotland. In the former there were
some 57 beneficed clergy, and in the latter about 85. From these
figures the approximate number of beneficed priests who died in the
pestilence in the two counties may be guessed at about 72.

The state of this borderland county of Cumberland was, even before
the arrival of the plague in the district, deplorable. The Memoranda
rolls of the period contain ample evidence that the Scottish
invasions had rendered the land desolate and almost uninhabitable.
Still the mortality added to the misery of the people. The few
_Inquisitiones post mortem_ afford little knowledge, beyond the fact
that here also the dearth of tenants was severely felt.[294] The
audit of the accounts of Richard de Denton, late Vice-Sheriff of the
County, is more precise in its information. He declares, in excuse
for the smallness of his returns, that "the great part of the manor
lands, attached to the King's Castle at Carlisle," has remained until
the year of his account, 1354, waste and uncultivated, "by reason of
the mortal pestilence lately raging in those parts." Moreover, for
one and a half years after the plague had passed the entire lands
remained "uncultivated for lack of labourers and divers tenants.
Mills, fishing, pastures, and meadow lands could not be let during
that time for want of tenants willing to take the farms of those who
died in the said plague." [p158]

Richard de Denton then produced a schedule of particulars, which
may now be seen stitched on to the roll. This gives the items of
decrease in rents; for instance, there are houses, cottages, and
lands to let, which used to bring in £5, and now but £1; "the farm of
a garden belonging to the King, called King's Mead, is rented now at
13 shillings and fourpence less than it used to be," and so on. The
jury, who were called to consider these statements, concluded that
Richard de Denton had proved them, and they enter a verdict to that
effect, giving a list of the tenants, and adding "the said Richard
says that all the last-mentioned tenants died in the said plague,
and all the tenements have stood since empty through a dearth of
tenants."[295]

An indication of the same difficulties which beset the people of
Cumberland at this time is found in the case of the prior of Hagham,
an alien house, to farm which, during the time it was in the King's
hands on account of his French war, the prior had been appointed, on
condition of his paying the sum of threepence a day in rent to be
paid to the Bishop of Carlisle. At this time he could not get even
this out of the land, and could not live, by reason of the great
dearness of provisions.[296]

The city of Carlisle also in 1352 was relieved of taxation to a
great extent, because "it is rendered void, and more than usual is
depressed, by the mortal pestilence lately raging in those parts."

The two remaining counties of England, Durham and Northumberland,
were no exceptions to the general mortality. In the former there were
some 93 beneficed clergy and in the latter about 72, figures from
which, on the usual calculation, may be deduced the numbers of the
beneficed clergy who died at this time.

In the Durham Cursitor records of this time a glimpse is [p159]
afforded of the state of these northern counties. The Halmote courts
were similar to the manor courts, and were held by commissioners
appointed under the great seal of the Palatinate of Durham, by the
Bishop's certificate, to receive surrender of copyhold lands, to
settle fines, contentions, and generally to transact the business of
the estates. At one of these Halmote courts, held at Houghton on the
14th of July, 1349, it is recorded: "that there is no one who will
pay the fine for any land, which is in the lord's hands through fear
of the plague. And so all are in the same way of being proclaimed as
defaulters until God shall bring some remedy." At another court "all
refused their fines on account of the pestilence." In another, after
stating the receipts, the record adds: "And not more on account of
the poverty and pestilence;" and one tenant "was unwilling to take
the land in any other way, since even if he survived the plague, he
absolutely refused to pay a fine." There are many similar instances
in the records at this period, and in one case it is noted that "a
man and his whole family had fled before the dreaded disease."[297]

In Northumberland the case of the people was so desperate that in
1353 more than £600, which was owing to the King for taxes for five
and twenty parishes named, was allowed to stand over for some months
since it was hopeless to press for payment.[298]

Of Newcastle the same story is told. "It has been shown us," writes
the King, "in a serious complaint by the men of Newcastle-on-Tyne,
that, since very many merchants and other rich people who were wont
to pay the greater part of the tenth, fifteenth, and other burdens
of the town, have died in the deadly pestilence lately raging in the
town, and since the population remaining alive, who were wont to live
by their trading, are by the said pestilence and other adverse causes
in this time of war, [p160] so impoverished that they hardly possess
sufficient to live upon,"[299] they cannot now pay what is due.

At Alnwick, still further north, the plague may be traced into the
spring of the following year, 1350; at least, the chronicle of the
abbey there states that "in the year 1350 (which for them began March
25th) John, abbot of Alnwick, died in the common mortality."[300]
Lastly, it is related by two contemporary authors that the Scotch
carried the disease over the borders into their own country. "The
Scots," writes Knighton, "hearing of the cruel pestilence among the
English, thought this had happened to them as a judgment at the
hand of God. They laughed at their enemies, and took as an oath the
expression, 'Be the foul deth of Engelond,' and so thinking that the
terrible judgment of God had overwhelmed the English, they assembled
in the forest of Selkirk with the intention of invading England. The
terrible mortality, however, came upon them, and the Scotch were
scattered by the sudden and cruel death, and there died in a short
time about five thousand."[301]

An account of the visitation given in the continuation of a
chronicle, probably written at the time, and possibly by a monk
at Tynemouth, may fitly conclude this review of the course of the
epidemic in England; telling, though it does, ever the same story,
and reading like an echo of the plaint first raised in Europe on the
shores of the Bosphorus and in the islands of the Mediterranean. "In
the year of our Lord 1348, and in the month of August," writes this
chronicler, "there began the deadly pestilence in England which three
years previously had commenced in India, and then had spread through
all Asia and Africa, and coming into Europe had depopulated Greece,
Italy, Provence, [p161] Burgundy, Spain, Aquitaine, Ireland, France,
with its subject provinces, and at length England and Wales, so far,
at least, as to the general mass of citizens and rustic folk and
poor, but not princes and nobles.

"So much so that very many country towns and quarters of innumerable
cities are left altogether without inhabitants. The churches or
cemeteries before consecrated did not suffice for the dead; but new
places outside the cities and towns were at that time dedicated
to that use by people and bishops. And the said mortality was so
infectious in England that hardly one remained alive in any house it
entered. Hence flight was regarded as the hope of safety by most,
although such fugitives, for the most part, did not escape death in
the mortality, although they obtained some delay in the sentence.
Rectors and priests, and friars also, confessing the sick, by the
hearing of the confessions, were so infected by that contagious
disease that they died more quickly even than their penitents; and
parents in many places refused intercourse with their children, and
husband with wife."[302]


FOOTNOTES:

[229] _The Coming of the Friars_, pp. 166-261.

[230] The following is a table of the Institutions during four
months:—

 +---------------------------+
 |           1349.           |
 +------+------+------+------+
 |April.| May. | June.| July.|
 +------+------+------+------+
 | 23   |  74  | 139  | 209  |
 +------+------+------+------+

[231] _Ibid._, p. 200.

[232] _Ibid._, p. 203.

[233] Blomefield, _History of Norfolk_ (folio ed.), ii, p. 681.

[234] F. Seebohm, _The Black Death and its place in English History_
(in _Fortnightly Review_, Sept. 1st, 1865).

[235] Fuller, _Worthies_, ed. Nicholas, ii, p. 132.

[236] Ed. Nasmith, p. 344.

[237] Professor Seebohm thinks that Yarmouth had probably a
population of 10,000 before 1349. This seems much too low. It had 220
ships.

[238] R. O., Rot. Claus., 26 Ed. III., m. 5d. This is repeated on two
occasions in the next year.

[239] B. Mus. Cole MS., 5,824, fol. 73. Extracts from Reg. Lisle.

[240] _Ibid._, fol. 76.

[241] The following table will give the number for some months:—

 +------------------------------------------------+
 |                      1349.                     |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
 |April.| May. |June. |July. | Aug. |Sept. | Oct. |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
 |  6   |  8   | 19   |  25  |  13  |  6   |  7   |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

The total number of benefices in the diocese at this time was 142.

[242] Cole MS., _ubi supra_.

[243] Bentham, _History of the Cathedral Church of Ely_, i, p. 161,
has the following note: Register L'Isle, fol. 17-21. Hinc obiter
notandum duxi, numerum clericorum parochialium in tota Diocesi Elien.
hoc tempore fuisse 145, aut circiter; ex hoc autem numero, constat ex
Registro 92 Institutiones fuisse infra annum 1349 (anno incipiente 25
die Martii).

[244] Clerical Subsidy, 21/1.

[245] _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, i, p. 223.

[246] _Hist. MSS. Comm., Sixth Report_, p. 299. This document is
dated 27th May, 1366, and consequently may refer also to the effects
of the plague of 1361.

[247] R. O., Duchy of Lancaster, Mins. Accts., Bundle 288, No. 471.

[248] It was this church which some years later was declared to be in
a ruinous state.

[249] Cole MS., 5824, fol. 81.

[250] R. O., Originalia Roll, 23 Ed. III., m. 6. Among the Ministers'
Accounts (Q. R., Mins. Accts., General Series, 874, No. 9) is a set
belonging to a Ramsey manor at this time. "Many holdings of natives"
are said to be in hand "on account of the pestilence," and in one
place "22 virgates of land" for the same reason.

[251] R. O., Chancery Inq. p. m., 23 Ed. III., No. 88.

[252] The following table will show the number of Institutions in
Northamptonshire for some months; before May and after October, 1349,
some 34 institutions are recorded:—

 +-----------------------------------------+
 |                  1349.                  |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+
 | May. | June.| July.| Aug. |Sept. | Oct. |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+
 |  8   |  15  |  25  |  36  | 10   |  7   |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+

[253] R. O., Rot. Pat., 28 Ed. III., pars 1, m. 16.

[254] R. O., Chancery Inq. p. m., 23 Ed. III., No. 88.

[255] Escheator's Inq. p. m., Series i, File 201.

[256] Twysden, _Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores Decem_, col. 2699.

[257] Rymer, _Fœdera_, v, p. 729.

[258] R. O., Escheator's Inq. p. m., 23 Ed. III., Series i, file 240.

[259] Originalia Roll, 25 Ed. III., m. 11.

[260] The following table will give the number of Institutions in the
diocese of Hereford for some months:

 +--------------------------------------------+
 |                    1349.                   |
 +------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+
 | May. | June. | July. | Aug. | Sept. | Oct. |
 +------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+
 |  13  |  14   |  37   |  29  |  27   |  13  |
 +------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+

[261] Reg. Trileck, fol. 103.

[262] Owen and Blakeway, _Shrewsbury_, i, p. 165.

[263] _Ibid._ The Inquisition is to be found in the Record Office;
Chancery Inq. p. m., 23 Ed. III., No. 78.

[264] Chancery Inq. p. m., 23 Ed. III., No. 79.

[265] B. Mus. Harl. MS. 2071, ff. 159-160.

[266] R. O. Clerical Subsidy, 51 Ed. III., 15/2.

[267] R. O., Q. R. Mins. Accts., Bundle 801, No. 14.

[268] _Ibid._, No. 4.

[269] _Notes on the Churches of Derbyshire._ Introduction, p. viii.

[270] R. O., Q. R. Mins. Accts., Bundle 801, file 3.

[271] Seebohm, _Black Death_, in _Fortnightly Review_, Sept. 1, 1865,
p. 150.

[272] Vatican Archives, Reg. Pontif., Rubrice Litterarum Clem. VI.

[273] _Chronicon de Parco Lude_ (Lincoln Record Society), pp. 38-39.

[274] R. O., Rot. Claus., 24 Ed. III., m. 7.

[275] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 25 Ed. III.

[276] _Ibid._, 28 Ed. III., Trinity term.

[277] Raine, _Historical Papers from Northern Registers_ (Rolls
series), p. 395.

[278] _Ibid._, p. 399.

[279] Seebohm, _Fortnightly Review_, Sept. 1st, 1865.

[280] Joseph Hunter, _Deanery of Doncaster_. The following table will
give the institutions in this deanery for some months of 1349:—

 +-----------------------------------------+
 |                  1349.                  |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+
 |July. | Aug. |Sept. | Oct. | Nov. | Dec. |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+
 |  2   |  3   |  7   |  7   |  3   |  4   |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+

[281] B. Mus. Harl. MS., 6971, fol. 110b.

[282] Raine, _Historical Papers from Northern Registers_, p. 491.

[283] _Chronicon Monasterii de Melsa_ (Rolls series), iii, 37.

[284] _Cf._ for example Mins. Accts. Yorks., Holderness, 23-25 Ed.
III., Bundle 355.

[285] R. O., Chancery Inq. p. m., 23 Ed. III., 1st series, No. 72.
_Cf._ also No. 88.

[286] Rot. Pat., 28 Ed. III., pars 1, m. 3.

[287] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 25 Ed. III.

[288] Hunter, _Deanery of Doncaster_, i, p. 1. The _Inquisitio post
mortem_ of John FitzWilliam is in 1350.

[289] _Ibid._, ii, p. 125.

[290] Rot. Pat., 27 Ed. III., pars 1, m. 18.

[291] R. O., Clerical Subsidy, 15/2.

[292] R. O., Exchequer, Treasury of Receipt 21a/3, in _English
Historical Review_, v, p. 525 (July, 1890).

[293] Rot. Pat., 23 Ed. III., pars 3, m. 25.

[294] _e.g._, Escheator's Inq. p. m., series i, 430.

[295] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 28 Ed. III., m. 9.

[296] R. O., Rot. Claus., 25 Ed. III., m. 16.

[297] R. O., Durham Cursitor Records, Bk. ii, ff. 2b, _seqq._

[298] Rot. Claus., 27 Ed. III., m. 10d.

[299] Rot. Claus., 24 Ed. III., pars 2, m. 5.

[300] B. Mus. Cott. MS., Vitell., E. xiv, fol. 256.

[301] Dr. Creighton (_History of Epidemics in Britain_, p. 119),
speaking of Scotland, says: "The winter cold must have held it in
check as regards the rest of Scotland; for it is clear from Fordoun
that its great season in that country generally was the year 1350."

[302] B. Mus. Cott. MS., Vitell., A. xx, fol. 56.

[p162]




CHAPTER IX.

THE DESOLATION OF THE COUNTRY.


So far the course of the epidemic in England has been followed from
south to north. It is now necessary to consider some statistics and
immediate results of the plague.

The diocese of Salisbury comprised the three counties of Dorset,
Wilts, and Berkshire. The total number of appointments made by the
Bishop, in his entire diocese, is said to have been 202 in the period
from March 25th, 1348, to March 25th, 1349; and 243 during the same
time in the year following.[303] Of this total number of 445 it is
safe to say that two-thirds were institutions to vacancies due to
the plague. Roughly speaking, therefore, in these three counties,
comprised in the diocese of Sarum, some 300 beneficed clergy, at
least, fell victims to the scourge.

The county of Dorset may first be taken. The list of institutions
taken from the Salisbury episcopal registers, given in Hutchins'
history of that county, numbers 211. During the incidence of the
plague ninety of these record a change of incumbent, so that,
roughly, about half the benefices were rendered vacant. In several
cases, moreover, during the progress of the epidemic changes
are recorded twice or three times, so that the total number of
institutions made to Dorsetshire livings at this time was 110.
As regards the non-beneficed clergy, secular and regular, their
proportion to those holding benefices will be considered in the
[p163] concluding chapter. Here it is sufficient to observe that the
proportion commonly suggested is far too low.

It is almost by chance that any information is afforded as to the
effect of the visitation in the religious houses. All contemporary
authorities, both abroad and in England, agree in stating that the
disease was always most virulent and spread most rapidly where
numbers were gathered together, and that, when once it seized upon
any house, it usually claimed many victims. Consequently when it
appears that early in November, 1348, the abbot of Abbotsbury died,
and that about Christmas Day of that year John de Henton, the abbot
of the great monastery of Sherborne, also died, it is more than
probable that many of the brethren of those monasteries were also
carried off by the scourge.

In the county of Wilts the average number of episcopal institutions,
for three years before and three years after the mortality, was
only 26. In the year 1348 there are 73 institutions recorded in the
registers, and in 1349 no less a number than 103,[304] so that of
the 176 vacancies filled in the two years the deaths of only some 52
incumbents were probably due to normal causes, and the rest, or some
125 priests holding benefices in the county, may be said to have died
from the plague.

A chance entry upon the Patent roll reveals the state of one
monastery in this county. The prior of Ederos, or Ivychurch, a house
of Augustinian canons, died on February 2nd, 1349.[305] On February
the 25th the King was informed that death had carried off the entire
community with one single exception. "Know ye," runs the King's
letter, dated March 16th, "that since the Venerable Father Robert,
Bishop of Salisbury, cannot hold the usual election of prior in the
Monastery of Ederos in his diocese, vacant by the death of the last
prior of the same, since all the other canons of the same house,
in which hitherto there [p164] has been a community of thirteen
canons regular, have died, except only one canon, brother James de
Grundwell, we appoint him custodian of the possessions, the Bishop
testifying that he is a fit and proper person for the office.[306]

The general state of the county of Wilts after the epidemic had
passed is well illustrated from some Wiltshire _Inquisitiones post
mortem_. Sir Henry Husee, for instance, had died on the 21st of
June, 1349. He owned a small property in the county. Some 300 acres
of pasture were returned upon oath, by a jury of the neighbourhood,
as "of no value because all the tenants are dead."[307] Again John
Lestraunge, of Whitchurch, a Shropshire gentleman, had half the manor
of Broughton, in the county of Wilts. He died on July the 20th,
1349, and the inquisition was held on August the 30th. At that time
it is declared that only seven shillings had been received as rent
from a single tenant, "and not more this year, because all the other
tenants, as well as the natives, are dead, and their land is all in
the hand of the lord."[308]

So, too, on the manor of Caleston, belonging to Henry de Wilington,
who died on May the 23rd, 1349, it is said that water-mills are
destroyed and worthless; of the six native tenants two have died,
and their lands are in hand; and of the ten cottars, each of whom
paid 12d. for his holding, four have been carried off with all their
family.[309] In other places of the same county woods are declared
to be valueless, "for want of buyers, on account of the pestilence
amongst the population;"[310] from tenants who used to pay £4 a year
there is now obtained only 6s., because all but three free tenants
have been swept away;[311] 140 acres of land and twelve cottages,
formerly in the occupation of [p165] natives of a manor, are all
now in hand, "as all are dead."[312] So, too, at East Grinstead,
seven miles from Salisbury, on the death of Mary, wife of Stephen de
Tumby, in the August of 1349, it is found that only three tenants are
left on the estate, "and not more because John Wadebrok and Walter
Wadebrok, Stephen and Thomas and John Kerde, Richard le Frer, Ralph
Bodde, and Thomas the Tanner, tenants in bondage," who held certain
tenements and lands, are all dead, and their holdings are left in the
hands of the lord of the manor. Also, on the same estate, William le
Hanaker, John Pompe, Edmund Saleman, John Whermeter, and John Gerde,
jun., have also been swept away by the all-prevailing pestilence.

Such examples as these will enable the reader to understand the
terrible mortality produced by this visitation, and in some measure
to appreciate the social difficulties and changes produced by the
sudden removal of so large a number of the population from every part
of the country.

To pass on to the neighbouring county of Somerset. The institutions
given in the episcopal registers of the diocese of Bath and Wells
show that the mortality had already commenced in the county as early
as November, 1348. The average number of inductions to livings in
the county in each month of 1348, previous to November, was less
than three; in November it was nine, and in the following month
thirty-two. During the next year, 1349, the total number of clergy
instituted to the vacant livings of the diocese by the Bishop was
232, against an average in a normal year of 35. For the two years,
1348 and 1349, consequently, out of the 297 benefices to which
institutions were made, some 227 may be said, with fair certainty, to
have been rendered vacant by the great mortality which then raged in
this and other counties of England.

It must be borne in mind that the death of every priest implied
the deaths of very many of his flock, so [p166] that, if no other
information were attainable, some idea of the extent of the sickness
among the laity may be obtained. It cannot but be believed that
the people generally suffered as greatly as the clergy, and that,
proportionally, as many of them fell victims to the scourge. If the
proportion of priests to lay folk was then (as some writers have
suggested) about one to fifty—an estimate, however, which would seem
to be considerably above the actual relation of laymen to those in
sacred orders at that time—the reader can easily form some notion of
the terrible mortality among the people of Somersetshire in the first
half of 1349.

Some slight information, however, is afforded as to the actual state
of the county in one or two instances. In each manor throughout the
country there was held periodically what was known as the Court
of the manor. At this assembly the business of the estate, so far
as the tenants were concerned, was transacted before a chosen and
sworn jury. Holders of land under the lord of the manor came before
the court to claim their tenements and land as the rightful heirs
of tenants deceased, to pay their heriots or fines due to the lord
on every entry of a new holder. At this assembly, too, matters
of police, the infringement of local customs, and often disputes
between the tenants themselves, were disposed of by the officials
of the manor. The record of the business of such courts is known as
the Court roll, and these documents give some information about the
extent of the mortality among the manorial tenants. Here, however,
just as in the case of the institutions of clergy, where the actual
incumbent only is registered and no account is taken of the larger
body of non-beneficed clergy, so on the Court roll only the actual
holder of the land is entered, and no notice is taken of the members
of his family, or of others in the district, such as labourers and
servants, etc., who were not actual tenants of the manor.

Unfortunately the Court rolls for this period are often, if not
generally, found to be missing. They are either lost, or the
disorganised state of the country consequent upon the [p167] great
mortality did not permit of the court being held. There are, however,
quite sufficient of these records to afford a tolerably good idea
of what must have happened pretty generally throughout the country.
Dr. Jessopp has been able by the use of the Norfolk Court rolls to
present his readers with a vivid picture of the havoc made by the
plague in East Anglia. As an illustration of the same, some notes
from a few Court rolls of West of England manors may here be given.

The records of the royal manor of Gillingham, in the county of
Dorset, show that at a court, held on "Wednesday next after the feast
of St. Lucy (13 December), 1348," heriots were paid on the deaths of
some twenty-eight tenants, and the total receipts on this account,
which at ordinary courts amounted to but a few shillings, were £28
15s. 8d. Further, at the same sittings, the bailiff notes that he
has in hand the lands and tenements of about thirty tenants, who had
apparently left no heir to succeed to their holdings. In numbers of
cases it is declared that no heriot has been paid, and this although
the receipts on this score at the sitting of the court, and on many
subsequent sittings, are unusually large. At another court, held
early in the following year (1349) the names of two-and-twenty
tenants of the manor are recorded as having died, and two large slips
of parchment, belonging to the court held on May 6th, give the lists
of dead tenants. Thus in the tything of Gillingham alone forty-five
deaths are recorded, and in the neighbouring tything of Bourton
seventeen.[313]

The next example may be taken from the rolls of a Wiltshire manor,
and ought, perhaps, to have been given in the account of the plague
in that county. On June the 11th, 1349, a court was held at Stockton,
some seven miles from Warminster, consequently only a short distance
from [p168] the boundaries of Somerset. The manor, be it remarked,
was evidently only a very small one. On the parchment record it is
stated that since the previous Martinmas (November 11th, 1348) no
court had been held, and from the entries upon the roll it appears
that out of a small body of tenants on this estate fourteen had died.
How many had been carried off in each household does not, of course,
appear, but in the majority of instances it looks very much as if the
dead tenant had left no heir behind him.[314]

A third instance is taken from the Court roll of the manor of
Chedzoy, near Bridgwater. The plague had made its appearance at
Bridgwater, as before related, some time previous to November 21,
1348. It was to be expected, therefore, that the rolls of a manor
only three miles off would show some sign of the mortality among
the tenants about the same period. As a matter of fact a glance
through the parchment record of a court held on St. Katherine's day,
November 25, 1348, shows that it had made its appearance some time
between September 29th and November 25th. On this latter day some
few of the tenants of the manor are noted as dead, and three or four
fairly large holdings have also fallen into the hands of the lord of
the manor, no heirs being forthcoming. Amongst others, one William
Hammond, who had rented and worked a water-mill, at a place called
_le Slap_, had been carried off by the sickness. The house, it is
noted, had since, up to the date of the court, stood vacant. The mill
wheel no longer spun round at its work, for William Hammond, the
miller, had left no one to succeed him in his occupation.

But this was only a beginning. The next court was held on Thursday
after the Epiphany, January 8th, 1349. What a terrible Christmas
time it must have been for those Somerset villagers on the low-lying
ground about Bridgwater, flooded and sodden by the long months of
incessant rain! At least twenty more tenants are marked off upon
[p169] the roll as dead, and as in this case the actual days of
their deaths are given, it is clear the plague claimed many victims
in this neighbourhood about the close of December, 1348.

Between this and March 23, 1349, the sickness was at its worst in
this manor of Chedzoy. The record of the proceedings at the court,
held on "Monday after the feast of St. Benedict," 1349, occupies two
long skins of parchment closely written on both sides. Some 50 or
60 fines are paid by new tenants on their taking possession of the
lands and houses, which had belonged to others now dead and gone.
Again, who can tell how many had perished in each house? One thing is
absolutely clear. In this single Somerset village many homes had been
left vacant without a solitary inhabitant; many were taken over by
new tenants not connected with the old occupier; and in more than one
instance people came forward to act as guardians to young children
who had apparently been left alone in the world by the death of every
near relative. Take an instance. At this court one John Cran, who, by
the way, took up the house and lands formerly held by his father, who
is said to have died, also agreed with the officer of the court to
take charge of William, the son of Nicholas atte Slope, for the said
Nicholas, and apparently every other near relative of the boy William
had perished in the sickness.

In this same court of March 23rd also several law cases are disposed
of, for they had been settled by the death of one or other or both of
the parties. Thus, in January, 1349, a claim had been laid, at the
sitting of the court, against one John Lager, for the return of some
cattle by three tenants, William, John, and Roger Richeman. At the
March sitting of the court in due course the case was called on. No
plaintiffs, however, appeared, and inquiry elicited the fact that all
three had died in the great pestilence.

The actual document which contains these particulars has, moreover, a
tale of its own to tell. The long entries [p170] on these two skins
of parchment are not all in the same hand. Before the record of the
heavy business done at this court had been all transcribed, the clerk
was changed. The hand which had so long kept the rolls of these Manor
Courts ceases to write. What happened to him? Did he too die? Of
course nothing can be known for certain, but it is not difficult to
conjecture why another at this very time takes up the writing of the
Chedzoy manor records.[315]

Another glimpse of the desolate state to which the country was
generally reduced by this disastrous sickness is afforded by the
case of Hinton and Witham, the two Somerset Carthusian houses. The
King had endeavoured by every means in his power to restrain the
tenants, who survived the plague, from leaving their old holdings
and seeking for others where they could better themselves. Not only
were fines ordered to be inflicted upon such labourers and tenants,
as endeavoured to take advantage of the market rise in wages, but
under similar penalties landowners were prohibited from giving
employment to them. That such a law must have proved hard in the
case of those owning manors, in which some or all of the tenants and
labourers had died, is obvious. It was this hardship which some years
after the epidemic, in 1354, made the Carthusians of Witham plead
for some mitigation of the royal decree. "Our beloved in Christ,
the prior and brethren of the Carthusian Order at Witham, in the
county of Somerset," runs the King's reply, "have petitioned us that
since their said house and all their lands and tenements thereto
belonging are within a close in the forest of Selwood, placed far
from every town, and they possess no domain beyond the said close,
they have nothing to support the prior and his brethren," (and
this) "both because almost all their servants and retainers died
in the last pestilence, and [p171] because by reason of a command
lately made by us and our Parliament, in which _inter alia_ it is
ordered that servants should not leave their villages and parishes
in which they dwelt, as long as they could be hired there, they have
been brought to great need on account of the want of servants and
labourers. Further, that a large part of their lands (for this same
reason) remain waste and untilled, and the corn in the rest of their
estate, which had been sown at the time of harvest, had miserably
rotted as it could not be gathered for lack of reapers. By this they
have been brought into great and manifest poverty." Looking at the
circumstances, therefore, the King permits them for the future to
engage servants and workmen on reasonable wages above the legal sum,
provided that their time of service elsewhere had expired.[316]

The second instance is recorded in the following year, 1355, and
has reference to difficulties springing from the same regulations
as to the employment of labourers:—"The prior and brethren of the
Carthusians of Hinton, in the county of Somerset, have petitioned
us," says the King, "that seeing that they have no support except
by the tillage of their lands, and that the greatest part of their
estates, for want of workmen and servants from the time of the last
pestilence, have been unused and still remain uncultivated, and that
they cannot get any labourers to work their lands," (and further)
"that as many people and tenants were wont to weave the woollen cloth
for the clothes of the brethren from their wool, and do other various
services for them, now through fear of our orders as to servants that
they may not receive greater salaries and stipends from the said
brethren, do not dare to serve them as before, and so leave their
dwelling, so that the brethren cannot get cloth to clothe themselves
properly," they beg that these orders may be relaxed in their regard.
To which petition the King assented, allowing the [p172] Carthusians
of Hinton to pay the wages they had been used to do.[317]

The diocese of Exeter, comprising the two counties of Devon and
Cornwall, was stricken by the disease apparently about the same time
as the county of Somerset. The institutions made by the Bishop of the
diocese, in January, 1349, number some 30, which shows that death had
already been busy among the clergy. The average number of livings
annually rendered vacant in the two counties during the eight years
previous to 1348 was only 36. In the year 1349 the vacancies were
382, and the number of appointments to vacant livings, in each of the
five months from March to July, was actually larger than the previous
yearly average. It would appear, therefore, that in 1349 some 346
vacancies may reasonably be ascribed to the prevailing sickness.

In looking over the lists of institutions it is evident that the
effect of sickness was felt for some years. It is not until 1353 that
the normal average is again reached. The year following the epidemic
the number of vacancies filled up was 80, and even in 1351 it still
remained at the high figure of 57. It is curious to note in these
years that numerous benefices lapsed to the Bishop. These must have
been vacant six months, at least, before the dates when they were
filled by Bishop Grandisson. Sometimes, no doubt, patrons were dead,
leaving no heirs behind them. Sometimes, in all probability, the
patron could find no one to fill the cure. Further, the number of
resignations of benefices during this period would appear to point to
the fact that many livings were now found to be too miserably poor to
afford a bare maintenance.

After the sickness was over here, as in other parts of England,
the desolation and distress is evidenced by chance references in
the inquisitions. Thus at Lydford, a manor on Dartmoor, the King's
escheator returns the value of a [p173] mill at fifteen shillings,
in place of the previous value of double that amount, because "most
of the tenants, who used to grind their corn at it, have died in the
plague." It is the same at other places in the county, and in one
case 30 holdings are named as having fallen into the hands of the
lord of the manor.[318]

A bundle of accounts for the Duchy of Lancaster gives a good idea of
the effect of the pestilence in Cornwall. The roll is for the year
from Michaelmas, 1350, and includes the accounts of several manors
in the Deanery of Trigg, such as Helston, Tintagel, and others, in
the district about the river Camel. In one it is noted that "this
year there are no buyers;" in another only two youths pay poll
tax, two more have not paid, as they have been put in charge of
some land, "and the rest have died in the pestilence." In the same
place pasture, which usually let for 3s. 4d., now, "because of the
pestilence," fetched only 20d.; the holdings of five tenants are
named as in hand, as well as nine other tenements and 214 acres of
land. Again, in another place the rent has diminished by £7 14s.,
because 14 holdings and 102 acres are in hand, together with two
fulling mills; on the other hand credit is given for 8s. 11d., the
value of the goods and chattels of the natives of the manor who have
died. And so the roll proceeds through the accounts of some twelve or
fourteen manors, and everywhere the same story of desolation appears.
Besides numerous holdings and hundreds of acres, represented as in
hand and producing nothing, entire hamlets are named as having been
depopulated. The decay in rent of one manor alone is set down at £30
6s. 1-3/4d.

Attached to the account of Helston, in Trigg, is a skin giving a list
of goods and effects of different tenants named which the lord Prince
"occupied." There are 57 items in this list, which includes goods of
all sorts, from an article of female dress and a golden buckle to
ploughs and [p174] copper dishes; and the total value of the goods
which thus fell into the hands of the Black Prince, presumably by the
death of his tenants without heirs, is £16 18s. 8d.

At Tintagel it is noted that the "fifty shillings previously paid
each year as stipend to the chaplain who celebrated in the chapel,
was not paid this year, because no one would stay to minister there
for the said stipend."[319]

On the 29th May, 1350, the Black Prince, in view of the great
distress throughout the district, authorised his officials to remit
one-fourth part of the rents of the tenants who were left, "for fear
they should through poverty depart from their holdings."[320] But
John Tremayn, the receiver of the revenues of the Prince in Cornwall,
states that even in the years 1352 and 1353, so far from the estates
there showing any recovery, they were in a more deplorable state
still. "For the said two years," he relates, "he has not been able to
let (the lands), nor to raise or obtain anything from the said lands
and tenements, because the said tenements for the most part have
remained unoccupied, and the lands lain waste for want of tenants (in
the place of those) who died in the mortal pestilence lately raging
in the said county."[321]

The loss of the episcopal registers of London for this period
makes it impossible to form any certain estimate of the deaths in
the ranks of the clergy of the capital during the progress of the
epidemic. London contained within its walls, at that time, some 140
parish churches, exclusive of the large number of religious houses
grouped together in its precincts. It is not unreasonable to suppose
that the mortality here was greater than elsewhere. The population
was closely packed in narrow streets, the religious houses were
exceptionally numerous, and many of them, from their very situation,
could have had but very little space. It has already been seen
how fatal was the entry [p175] of the plague into any house, and
consequently the proportion of deaths among the regulars in London
was doubtless greater than elsewhere, whilst other causes must have
also contributed to raise the roll of death among the seculars.[322]

The diocese of London included, with Middlesex, the county of Essex
and a portion of Hertfordshire. The benefices of the county of Essex
were in number some 265, and, like the actual institutions of the
Middlesex clergy for this period, those made in the county of Essex
are unknown. By July, 1349, the consequences of the scourge clearly
appear in the _Inquisitiones post mortem_ for this county. In one
manor ten acres of meadow, which had formerly been let for twenty
shillings, this year produced only half that amount, "because of the
common pestilence." For the same reason the arable land had fallen
in value, and a water-mill was idle, as there was no miller. In
another place 140 acres of arable land was lying waste. "It cannot
be let at all," says the Inquisition, "but if it could be let, it
would be worth but eleven shillings and sixpence" only, in place of
twenty-three shillings. Here, too, pasture had fallen fifty per cent,
in value, and the wood that had been cut could not be sold. So, too,
at a manor near Maldon, in this county, prices had fallen to half the
previous value, and here the additional information is given that,
out of eleven native tenants of the manor eight have died, and their
tenements and land were in hand. It is the same in every instance;
rents had dropped, owing to the catastrophe, to one-half. Arable,
meadow, and pasture could be obtained this year in Essex anywhere at
such a reduction. Other estate receipts had fallen equally. In one
place court fees were three in place of the usual six shillings, and
the manor [p176] dove-house brought in one instead of two shillings.
Water mills were at a greater discount even than this. One, at a
place called Longford, was valued at twenty shillings in place of
sixty shillings, and even at this reduction there is considerable
doubt expressed whether it will let at all.

Lastly, to take one more example in the county of Essex. An inquiry
was made as to the lands held by the abbot of Colchester, who died
on August the 24th, 1349. In this it appears that, in the manors of
East and West Denny, 320 acres of arable land had fallen in yearly
value from four to two pence an acre; 14 acres of meadow from 18d. to
8d.; the woods are valueless, "because there are no buyers;" and out
of six native tenants two are dead. In another place four out of six
have been carried off; in another, only two are left out of seven.
The rent of assize, it is declared, is only £4, "and no more, because
most of the land is in hand."[323]

No account has been preserved of the ravages of the pestilence at the
abbey of Colchester; but the death of the abbot at this time makes
it not unlikely that the disease was as disastrous here as in other
monasteries of which there is preserved some record. It is known that
the town suffered considerably. "One of the most striking effects
was," writes one author, "that wills to the unusual number of 111
were enrolled at Colchester, which at that time had the privilege of
their probate and enrolment."[324]

Talkeley, an alien priory in Essex, was reduced to complete
destitution. It was a cell of St. Valery's Abbey, in Picardy, and
when seized into the King's hands on account of the war with France
the prior was allowed to hold the lands on condition of his paying
£126 a year into the royal purse. Two years after the plague had
visited the county this payment had fallen into arrears, "by reason
of the pestilence lately raging, from which time the said land
[p177] remained uncultivated, and the holdings, from which the
revenues of the priory were derived, remained unoccupied after the
death of the tenants. So terribly is it impoverished that it has
nothing upon which to live, and on account of the arrears no one is
willing to rent the lands and tenements of the priory." In the end
the King was compelled to forgive the arrears of rent.[325]

In the county of Hertfordshire 34 benefices were in the diocese of
London, whilst 22 more were under the jurisdiction of no Bishop,
but formed a peculiar of the abbey of St. Alban's. In both of these
consequently the actual institutions made in the year of the great
plague are unknown. For the portion within the diocese of Lincoln 27
institutions were made in the summer of 1349; so that probably at
least 50 Hertfordshire clergy died at this time.

The values of land and produce fell, as in other places. In one
instance, given in an _Inquisitio post mortem_ into the estate of
Thomas Fitz-Eustace, the lands and tenements, formerly valued at
67 shillings, were on the 3rd of August this year, 1349, estimated
to produce only 13 shillings, and this only "if the pasture can be
let."[326] In the same way the Benedictine convent of Cheshunt, in
the county, is declared shortly afterwards "to be oppressed with
such poverty in these days that the community have not wherewith to
live."[327]

Again the destitution and poverty produced by the pestilence is
evidenced in the case of some lands in the county, given by Sir
Thomas Chedworth to Anglesey priory in Cambridgeshire. It had been
agreed, shortly before the scourge had fallen upon England, that the
monastery should for this benefaction endow a chantry of two secular
priests. In 1351, however, the state of Anglesey priory, consequent
on the fall in rents, made this impossible, and the obligation
was, through the Bishop, readjusted, and the [p178] new document
recites:—"Carefully considering the great and ruinous miseries which
have occurred on account of the vast mortality of men in these days,
to wit, that lands lie uncultivated in innumerable places, not a few
tenements daily decay and are pulled down, rents and services cannot
be levied, nor the advantage thereof, generally had, can be received,
but a much smaller profit is obliged to be taken than heretofore,"
the community shall now be bound to find one priest only, whose
stipend shall be five marks yearly instead of six as appointed, the
value of the property being thus estimated at less than half what it
had been before.[328]

In Buckinghamshire there were at the time between 180 and 200
benefices, in the county of Bedford some 120 and in Berkshire 162.
From these a calculation of the probable number of incumbents carried
off in 1349 by the sickness may be made.

As some indication of the state to which these counties were reduced
by the scourge, a petition of the sheriff of Bedfordshire and
Buckinghamshire, made to the King in 1353, may be here mentioned.
He declared that it was impossible then to pay into the Exchequer
the old sums for the farming of the hundreds, which had been usual
"before the late pestilence." Coming before the King in February,
1353, he not only urged his petition, but claimed to have £66
returned to him, which he had paid over and above his receipts. For
the years 1351 and 1352 he had paid £132 for these rents, as had
been usual since 1342; but he claimed that "from the time of the
pestilence the bailiffs of the hundreds had been unwilling to take
them on such terms." An inquiry by a jury was held in both counties,
and it was declared "that since 1351 the bailiffs of the hundreds had
been able to obtain nothing for certain—except what they could get
by extortion—from the county. Further, that the inhabitants of the
said county were now [p179] so diminished and impoverished that the
bailiffs were able to get nothing for the farms in that year, 1351."
In the same way also John Chastiloun, the sheriff, had received
nothing whatever for his office. In the end the sum claimed was
allowed.[329]

In the Canterbury portion of the county of Kent there were some
280 benefices, which number may form the basis for a calculation
of the death roll. The condition to which this portion of England
was reduced may be estimated from one or two examples. In 1352 the
prioress and nuns of the house of St. James' outside Canterbury
were allowed to be free from the tax of a fifteenth granted to
the King, because they were reduced to such destitution that they
had nothing beyond what was necessary to support them.[330] Even
the Cathedral priory of Christchurch itself had to plead poverty.
About 1350 the monks addressed petitions to the Bishop of Rochester
asking him to give them the church of Westerham "to help them to
maintain their traditional hospitality." They say that "by the great
pestilence affecting man and beast," they are unable to do this, and
as arguments to induce the Bishop to allow this impropriation, they
state that they have lost 257 oxen, 511 cows, and 4,585 sheep, worth
together £792 12s. 6d. Further they state that "1,212 acres of land,
formerly profitable, are inundated by the sea," apparently from want
of labourers to maintain the sea walls.[331] [p180]

The neighbouring county of Sussex, at the time of the appearance of
the disease, counted some 320 benefices. From the Patent Rolls it
appears that in 1349 the King presented to as many as 26 livings
in the county; amongst these no less than five were at Hastings,
at All Saints', St. Clement's, St. Leonards, and two at the Free
Chapel.[332]

In Hampshire, including the Isle of Wight, the average annual
number of appointments to benefices for three years previous to
the pestilence was 21; in 1349 no fewer than 228 institutions are
registered, so that it may fairly be said that over 200 beneficed
clergy were carried off by the sickness.

In the county of Surrey the total number of institutions in 1349
was as high as 92, against a previous average of a little over nine
yearly, so that here, as in Hants, the number of vacancies of livings
was this year increased tenfold. It may fairly be argued that of
the number 92, some 80, at least, of the vacancies were caused by
the epidemic. Several examples have already been given of the havoc
wrought by the epidemic in religious houses in which it had effected
an entrance. Where the head of a community was carried off, it is
practically certain many of the members also would have perished,
and it can be doubted by no one who examines the facts that the
pestilence was not only terrible at the time, but had a lasting and
permanent effect upon the state of the monastic houses. This point
may be illustrated by some of the monasteries of the diocese of
Winchester.

In the city itself the prior of St. Swithun's and the abbess of St.
Mary's Benedictine convent both died, and there is evidence that a
large proportion of both these communities must have perished at
the same time, as well as many at the abbey of Hyde. To take the
Cathedral of St. Swithun's first. In 1325, four and twenty years
before the great mortality, the monks in the house were 64 in
number.[333] Of these the 12 juniors on the list had not at that
time received the subdiaconate. The 34th in order in the community
had been ordained deacon on December 19th, 1310, and all the thirty
below him were his juniors. It is fair to consider that about 60 was
the normal number previous to the year 1349.[334] After that date
they were [p181] reduced to a number which varied between 35 and
40. In 1387 William of Wykeham exhorted the community to use every
effort to get up their strength to the original 60 members[335]; but
notwithstanding all their endeavours they were on Wykeham's death, in
A.D., 1404, only 42. At Bishop Wayneflete's election, in 1447, there
were only 39 monks; three years later only 35; and in A.D. 1487 their
number had fallen to 30, at which figure it remained till the final
dissolution of the house in the reign of Henry VIII.[336]

The neighbouring Abbey of Hyde, a house of considerable importance,
with a community of probably between thirty and forty monks, a
century later had fallen to only twenty. In 1488 it had risen to
twenty-four, and eight of these had joined within the previous three
years. At the beginning of the 16th century, in 1509, the community
again consisted of twenty; but on the eve of the final destruction
of the abbey there are some signs of a recovery, the house then
consisting of twenty-six members, four of whom were novices. So
impoverished was the house by the consequences of the great mortality
that in 1352 the community were forced in order "to [p182] avoid,"
as they say, "the final destruction of their house," and "on account
of their pitiful poverty and want, to relieve their absolute
necessity," to surrender their possessions into the hands of Bishop
Edyndon.[337]

Financial difficulties also overwhelmed and nearly brought to ruin
the Benedictine Convent of St. Mary's, which was reduced to about one
half their former number. To the same generous benefactor, Bishop
Edyndon, they were indebted for their escape from extinction. In
fact, it would appear that at this time many, if not most, of the
religious houses of the diocese were protected and supported by the
liberality of the Bishop and his relatives, whom he interested in
the work of preserving from threatened destruction these monastic
establishments. In the document by which the nuns of St. Mary's
acknowledge Bishop Edyndon as their second founder, they say that "he
counted it a pious and pleasing thing mercifully to come to their
assistance when overwhelmed by poverty, and when, in these days,
evil doing was on the increase and the world was growing worse, they
were brought to the necessity of secret begging. It was at such a
time that the same father, with the eye of compassion, seeing that
from the beginning our monastery was slenderly provided with lands
and possessions, and that now we and our house, by the barrenness of
our land, by the destruction of our woods, and by the diminution or
taking away from the monastery of due and appointed rents, because
of the dearth of tenants carried off by the unheard-of and unwonted
pestilence," came to our assistance to avert our entire undoing.[338]

Six months later the nuns of Romsey, in almost the same words,
acknowledged their indebtedness to the Bishop.[339] Here the results
of the pestilence upon the convent, as regards numbers, are even
more remarkable than [p183] in the instances already given. At the
election of an abbess in A.D. 1333 there were present to record their
votes 90 nuns. Early in May, 1349—that is only 16 years later—the
abbess died, for the royal assent was given to the election of her
successor, Joan Gerneys, on May 7th of that year.[340] What happened
to the community can be gathered by the fact that in 1478 their
number is found reduced to 18, and they never rose above 25 until
their final suppression.

The various bodies of friars must have suffered quite as severely
as the rest of the clergy. It is, however, very difficult to
obtain any definite information about these mendicant orders; but
some slight indication of the dearth of members they must have
experienced at this period in common with all other bodies in
England, ecclesiastical and lay, is to be found in the episcopal
registers of the period. In the diocese of Winchester, for example,
the Augustinians had only one convent, at Winchester. From September,
1346, to June, 1348, they presented four subjects for ordination
to the priesthood; from that time till Bishop Edyndon's death, in
October, 1366, only two more were ordained, both on 22nd December,
1358. The Friars Minor had two houses, one at Winchester, the
other at Southampton; for these, in 1347 and 1348, three priests
were ordained. From that time till the 21st of December, 1359, no
more received orders. Then two were made priests; but no further
ordinations are recorded until after Bishop Edyndon's death. The same
extraordinary want of subjects appears in the case of the Carmelites.
With them, between 1346 and 1348, eleven subjects received the
priesthood. The next Carmelite ordained was in December, 1357, and
only three in all were made priests between the great plague and
the close of the year 1366. The Dominicans also had only one priest
ordained in ten years, that is in the period from March, 1349, to
December, 1359.

Owing to the mortality having swept away so many of [p184] their
tenants, and other consequences traceable to the mortality, the
priory of St. Swithun's became heavily involved in debt. On the
31st of December, 1352, Bishop Edyndon determined to make a careful
inquiry into the state of his cathedral monastery, and wrote to that
effect to the prior and convent. He says in his letter that he has
heard how the temporalities have suffered severely "in these days,
both by the deaths of tenants of the church, from which there has
come a grave diminution of rent and services, and from various other
causes unknown, and that it is burdened with excessive debts." As he
himself was occupied in the King's service, he proposes to send some
officers to inquire into these matters, and begs them to assist them
in every way. He further says that it is reported to him "that in
this our church the former fervour of devotion in the divine service
and regular observance has grown lukewarm;" that both the monastery
and out-buildings are falling to ruins; that "guests are not received
there so honourably as before; on which account we wonder not a
little," he continues, "and are troubled the more because so far you
have not informed us" of these things. He appoints January 21, 1353,
for the beginning of the inquiry, and in a second document names
three priests, including a canon of the diocese of Sarum and the
rector of Froyle, in Hampshire, to hold it.[341]

Shortly after this, on January 14, 1353, Bishop Edyndon ordered a
similar inquiry to be made as to the state of Christchurch priory,
which was also heavily in debt.[342] That the house had been
seriously diminished in members seems more than probable in view of
the fact that from the date of the plague till the beginning of 1366
no subject of the house was ordained priest.

The hospital of Sandown, in Surrey, was left, as before said, without
a single inmate. On June 1, 1349, the Bishop, in giving it into the
care of a priest named William de [p185] Coleton, says: "Since all
and everyone of the brethren of the Hospital of the blessed Mary
Magdalene of Sandown, in our diocese, to whom on a vacancy of the
office of Prior, or guardian, the election belonged, are dead in
the mortality of men raging in the kingdom of England, none of the
brethren being left, the said hospital is destitute both of head and
members."[343]

The same state of financial ruin is known to have existed in the case
of Shireborne priory. On 8th June, 1350, Bishop Edyndon wrote to the
abbot and convent of St. Vigor of Cérisy saying that Shireborne,
which was said to be a dependency of the abbey, was fallen into great
poverty. "The oblations of sacrifices had ceased, and from very
hunger the devotion of priests was grown tepid; the buildings were
falling to ruins, and its fruitful fields, now that the labourers
were carried off, were barren." The priory could not hope, he
considered, to recover "in their days," and so, with the consent of
the patron, he requested the abbot to recall four of the monks to the
abbey, the priory then containing the superior and seven religious.
The same day a letter was sent to the prior of Shireborne directing
that this should be at once carried out.[344]

One fact will be sufficient to show the state to which the diocese
was reduced after the plague had passed. On the 9th of April, 1350,
the Bishop issued a general admonition to his clergy as to residence
on their cures. It had been reported to him, he says, that some
priests, to whom the cure of souls had been committed, "neglecting,
with danger to many souls," this charge, "have most shamefully
absented themselves for their churches," so that "even the divine
sacrifices," for which these churches had been built and adorned,
"had been left off." The sacred buildings were, he says, "left to
birds and beasts," and they neither kept the church in repair nor
repaired what was falling to ruins, "on which account the general
state of the churches is one [p186] of ruin." He consequently orders
all priests to return to their cures within a month, or to get proper
and fitting substitutes.[345]

In the June of the same year (1350) a special monition was issued
to William Elyot, rector of a church near Basingstoke, at once to
return to his living, as the church had been left without service. A
month later, on the 10th of July, 1350, the Bishop published a joint
letter of the Archbishop and Bishops ordering priests to serve the
churches at the previous stipends, and he adds that every parish
church must be contented with one chaplain only, "until those parish
and prebendal churches and chapels which are now, or may hereafter
be, unserved, be properly supplied with chaplains."[346]

There are many indications of the misery and suffering to which the
people generally were reduced in these parts. Thus, for example, the
King, whose compassion and tenderness, by the way, are very rarely
manifested, remits the tax of the 15th due to him in the case of his
tenants in the Isle of Wight. This he does, "taking into account the
divers burdens which" these tenants have borne, "for the men and
tenants of our manors now dead and whose lands and tenements by their
deaths have come into our hands."[347] A glance at the institutions
to benefices in the island will show that at one time or another
during the prevalence of the plague nearly every living became
vacant, and some more than once.

The town of Portsmouth, also, was forced to plead poverty, and ask
the remission of a tax of £12 12s. 2d., because "by the attacks
of our enemies the French, fires, and other adverse chances the
inhabitants were very much depressed."[348] That the "other adverse
chances" refers to the desolation caused by the pestilence appears
[p187] from another grant, of relief for eight years, made to the
town the previous year, because it was so impoverished "both by the
pestilence and by the burning and destruction of the place by our
enemies."[349]

The neighbouring island of Hayling was in even a worse plight after
the pestilence. "The inhabitants of Stoke, Eaststoke, Northwood,
Southwood, Mengham, Weston, and Hayling, in the island of Hayling,
have shown to us," says the King, in 1352, "that they are greatly
impoverished by expenses and burdens for the defence of the said
island against the attacks of the French, and by the great wasting
of their lands by inroad of the sea, as well as by the abandonment
of the island by some who were wont to bear the burdens of the said
island. Those consequently who are left would have to pay more than
double the usual tax were it now levied. Moreover since the greatest
part of the said population died whilst the plague was raging, now,
through the dearth of servants and labourers, the inhabitants are
oppressed and daily are falling most miserably into greater poverty.
Taking into account all this, the King orders the collector of taxes
for Southampton not to require the old amount, but to be content with
only £6 15s. 7-1/4d.[350] Three years later Hayling priory, which as
one of the alien houses then in the King's hands had been paying a
large rent into the royal exchequer in place of sending it over to
their foreign mother house, was relieved by the King of the payment
of £57, as it was "much oppressed in these days."[351]

Even in Winchester difficulties as to taxation, at this time, led to
many people leaving the city. Citizens, as the document relating to
it declares, who have long lived there, "because of the taxation and
other burdens now pressing on them, are leaving the said city with
the property they have made in the place, so as not to contribute
[p188] to the said taxes. And they, betaking themselves to other
localities in the county, are leaving the said city desolate and
without inhabitants to our (_i.e._, the King's) great hurt."[352]

An _Inquisitio post mortem_ for a Hampshire manor, taken in 1350,
shows the fall in prices of lands and produce after the mortality.
Eighty acres of arable land, which in normal times had been let for
two marks (13s. 4d.), now produced only 6s. 8d., or just one-half,
being at the rent of 1d. per acre in place of two pence. The same
fall is to be seen in the rent of meadow land, which let now at 6d.
instead of a shilling, and in the value of woods, 20 acres fetching
only 20d., in the place of double that amount, which it used to
produce.[353]

In Surrey it is the same story. In the inquiry made as to the lands
of William de Hastings, on the 12th March, 1349, it is declared that
the tenements let on the manor produce only thirty-six shillings
because all the tenants but ten are dead, "and the other houses
stand and remain empty for want of tenants, and so are of no value
this year." In another case a watermill is held by the jury to be
worthless because "all the tenants who used it were dead." It had
remained empty and no one could be found to rent it. Of the land 300
acres cannot be let. The court of the manor produced nothing, because
all are dead, and there are no receipts from the free tenants, which
used to amount to £6 a year, "because almost all the tenants on the
said manor are dead, and their tenements remain empty for want of
some to rent them."[354]

In the absence of any definite information about the institutions
of clergy in the county of Gloucester, it may be roughly estimated,
from the number of benefices, that between 160 and 170 beneficed
clergy in this district perished in the epidemic. Like other
religious houses, the [p189] abbey of Winchcombe was impoverished
by the consequences of the great mortality, and some years after
it was unable to support its community and meet its liabilities.
"By defect in past administration," as the document puts it, "it is
burdened with great debt, and its state, from various causes, is so
miserably impoverished that it is necessary to place the custody of
the temporalities in the hands of a commission" appointed by the
crown.[355]

That this is no exaggerated view of the difficulties which beset the
landed proprietors at the time, and that the origin of the misery
must be sought for in the great pestilence, a passage in Smyth's
_Lives of the Berkeleys_ may help to show:—"In the 23rd of this
King," he writes, "so great was the plague within this lord's manor
of Hame (in Gloucestershire) that so many workfolks as amounted to
1,144 days' work were hired to gather in the corn of that manor
alone, as by their deaths fell into the lord's hands, or else were
forsaken by them."[356]

The priory of Lanthony, near Gloucester, was brought to such straits
that the community were forced to apply to the Bishop of Hereford
to grant them one of the benefices in his diocese. They have been,
they say, so situated on the high road as to be obliged to give great
hospitality at all times to rich and poor. Their property, in great
part, was in Ireland, and it had been much diminished in value by the
state of the country. The house was at this time, October 15th, 1351,
so impoverished by this and by a great fire that, without aid, they
could not keep up their charity. For "the rents of the priory and the
services, which the tenants and natives, or serfs of the said house
living on their domain, have been wont yearly, and even daily, to pay
and perform for the religious serving God there, now, through the
pestilence and unwonted mortality by which the people of the kingdom
of England have been [p190] afflicted, and, as is known, almost
blotted out, are for the greater part irreparably lost."[357]

Some few years after the plague had passed an inquisition held at
Gloucester as to the state of the priory of Horsleigh reveals the
fact that a great number of the tenants on the estate had died.
Horsleigh was at the period a cell of the priory of Bruton, in
Somerset, and the question before the jury at this inquiry was as to
the dilapidations caused by the prior or minister of the dependent
cell. They first found that all revenues from the estates at
Horsleigh, after a reasonable amount had been allowed for the support
of the prior and his brethren living in the cell, should be paid to
the head house of Bruton. This the then prior, one Henry de Lyle,
had not done. He had, moreover, dissipated the goods of his house by
cutting down timber and underwood and selling cattle. Amongst the
rest he is declared to have sold "eighty oxen and cows which had come
to the house as mortuaries or heriots of tenants who had died in the
great pestilence."[358]

Dugdale, in his history of the county, prints some 175 lists of
incumbents of Warwickshire livings. In 76 cases there is noted a
change at this period, and in several instances more than once is a
new incumbent appointed to a living within a short period, so that in
all there are some 93 institutions recorded.

A glimpse of the state to which the county generally was reduced
is afforded by some _Inquisitiones post mortem_. As soon after the
plague as 1350, at Wappenbury in Warwickshire, three houses, three
cottages, and 20 acres of land are described as valueless and lying
vacant, because of the pestilence late past. At Alcester, on the
estate of a man who died June 20th, 1349, rents are not received and
tenements are in hand, "for the most [p191] part, through the death
of the holders." Again, at Wilmacott, an inquiry was held as to the
property of Elizabeth, daughter of John de Wyncote, who died 10th
August, 1349. It is declared that the mother died on 10th June, and
the daughter two months later, whilst the great part of the land is
in the hand of the owner "by the death of the tenants in this present
pestilence."[359]

On the estate of one who died in December, 1350, it is certified that
there used to be nine villains, each farming half a virgate of land,
for which they paid eight shillings a year. Five of these had died,
and their land since had been lying idle and uncultivated. On another
portion of the same two out of four tenants, who had six acres of
land each, have been carried off.

On the manor of Whitchurch, owned by Margaret de la Beche, who died
in the October of the plague year, 1349, it is noted that there are
no court fees, as all the tenements are in hand. And in May, 1351,
of another Oxfordshire estate it is said that eight claimants out
of eighteen were dead, and no one was forthcoming to take the land;
whilst on the same, out of six native tenants, who had each paid
14 shillings, three are gone, and their land has since remained
untilled.[360]

One or two examples may be given of the difficulties subsequently
experienced by the religious houses. The year after the plague
had passed the Cistercian abbey of Bruerne was forced to seek the
King's protection against the royal provisors and the quartering of
royal servants upon them. This Edward granted, "because it was in
such a bad state, that otherwise in a short time there would follow
the total destruction of the said abbey, and the dispersal of the
monks."[361] Even this protection, however, did not entirely mend
matters, for three years later, "to [p192] avoid total ruin," the
custody of the abbey was handed over to three commissioners."[362]

St. Frideswide's, Oxford, was in much the same case. In May, 1349,
as we may suppose from the death of the superior during the time of
the epidemic at Oxford, the plague had visited the monastery, and
had, in all probability, carried off many of its inmates. The deaths
of many of its tenants, moreover, must have gravely affected its
financial condition, and three years later it was found necessary
to put the temporalities in the hands of a commission. "By want of
good government," it is said, "and through casual misfortunes, coming
upon the said priory, both because of the debts by which it is much
embarrassed, and for other causes," it is reduced to such a state
that it might easily lead to the dispersal of the canons and the
total destruction of the house.[363]

Of the tenants of one manor belonging to a religious house in the
county of Oxford, it is said "that in the time of the mortality of
men or the pestilence, which was in the year 1349, there hardly
remained two tenants on the said manor. These would have left had
not brother Nicholas de Lipton, then abbot, made new agreements with
these and other incoming tenants."[364]

To take but two instances more in other parts of England.

The year after the plague was over, in 1351, the abbey of Barlings
had to plead poverty and to beg for the remission of a tax. It is
true, they urge the building of their new church, but likewise
declare that they have been "impoverished by many other causes." An
_Inquisitio post mortem_ gives the same picture. Two carucates of
land, for example, brought in only forty shillings, on account of
the pestilence and general poverty and deaths of the tenants. "For a
similar reason," a mill, [p193] which used to produce £2 in rent,
now yields nothing; and so on throughout every particular of the
large estate.

In this part of the country, too, the King's officer experienced the
greatest difficulties in getting his dues, and the Escheator pleads,
in mitigation of a small return, that during the whole of 1350
tenements have been standing empty, in Gayton, near Towcester, in
Weedon, in Weston, and in Morton, ten miles from Brackley, as tenants
cannot be found "by reason of the mortality." He further excuses
himself for not levying on the lands and goods of the people "on
account of the pestilence."[365]


FOOTNOTES:

[303] B. Mus. Harl. MS. 6979, f. 64.

[304] _Institutiones clericorum in Comitatu Wiltoniæ_, ed. Sir J.
Phillipps.

[305] Originalia Roll, 23 Ed. III., m. 37.

[306] Rot. Pat., 23 Ed. III., pars 1, m. 20.

[307] R. O., Chancery Inq. p. m., 23 Ed. III. (1st numbers), No. 77.

[308] _Ibid._, No. 78.

[309] _Ibid._, No. 74.

[310] _Ibid._, No. 87.

[311] Escheator's Inq. p. m., Series i, File 95.

[312] _Ibid._

[313] Records of the Manor of Gillingham, which I was permitted to
examine by the kindness of the present Steward of the Manor, R.
Freame, Esq., of Gillingham.

[314] B. Mus. Add. Roll 24, 335.

[315] B. Mus. Add. Rolls 15961-6. Perhaps the Richard Hammond
_capellanus_ who had a mill and six acres, and who is reported as
among the dead, may have been the scribe.

[316] Rot. Pat., 28 Ed. III., pars 1, m. 20 (16th January, 1354).

[317] Rot. Pat., 29 Ed. III., pars 2, m. 4 (October 5th, 1355).

[318] R. O., Escheator's Accts., 828/20.

[319] R. O., Duchy of Lancaster Mins. Accts., No. 817.

[320] _Ibid._

[321] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 28 Ed. III. (Trinity Term).

[322] Judging by the ordination lists in the London Registers, the
proportion of non-beneficed clergy was very large. In the twelve
years, from 1362 to 1374, Bishop Sudbury ordained to the priesthood
456 regulars and 809 non-beneficed clergy, against 237 beneficed
priests. According to this proportion, the non-beneficed would be six
times as numerous as the beneficed.

[323] R. O., Escheator's Inq. p. m., Series i., file 165. Also
_ibid._, file 166. Esch. Accts., 838/23; 846/31. _Cf._ also, Exch. Q.
R. Mins. Accts., Bundle 869, No. 9.

[324] T. Cromwell, _History of Colchester_, i., p. 75.

[325] R. O., Originalia Roll, 25 Ed. III., m. 10.

[326] Escheator's Inq. p. m., Series i, File 165.

[327] Rot. Pat., 25 Ed. III., Pars 3, m. 4.

[328] B. Mus. Cole MS., 5824, fol. 86. _Cf._ Dr. Cunningham, _Growth
of English Industry and Commerce_, p. 305.

[329] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 27 Ed. III. (Hilary term), m. 7.

[330] Rot. Claus., 26 Ed. III., m. 7.

[331] _Hist. MSS. Comm., Fifth Report_, p. 444. These lands were
apparently the Appledore Marshes, which subsequently cost the
monastery £350 to reclaim.

[332] _Sussex Archæological Society_, Vol. xxi, pp. 44, _seqq._

[333] Reg. Pontissera, fol. 143.

[334] This may be considered the number in the previous century from
the _Annales de Wintonia_.

[335] Reg. Wykeham, ii, fol. 226.

[336] The following are the number of monks belonging to Winchester
Cathedral Priory at the annexed dates:—

   Date.              Occasion.            Number.
 A.D. 1260     Episcopal Election            62
 A.D. 1325     Living in the Priory on
                 October 9th                 64
 A.D. 1404     Episcopal Election            42
 A.D. 1416-17  On Chamberlain's Rolls        39 and 2 juniors at
                                                schools.
 A.D. 1422-3   On Chamberlain's Rolls        29 to 32 and 8 juniors
                                                at schools.
 A.D. 1427-8   On Chamberlain's Rolls        35 to 36.
 A.D. 1447     Episcopal Election on the
                 death of Cardinal Beaufort  39
 A.D. 1450     Election of Prior             35
 A.D. 1468     Episcopal Election            30 and 2 or 3 at Oxford.
 A.D. 1498     Election of Prior             31
 A.D. 1524     Election of Prior             30 (none below sub-deacons
                                                named).

[337] Harl. MS., 1761, f. 20.

[338] Rot. Claus., 28 Ed. III., m. 3d (dated February 6th, 1353).

[339] _Ibid._, m. 6 (July 8th).

[340] Rot. Pat., 23 Ed. III., pars 1a, m. 13.

[341] Reg. Edyndon, ii, ff. 27b, 28.

[342] _Ibid._, fol. 28.

[343] Reg. Edyndon, i, fol. 49b.

[344] _Ibid._, ii, fol. 23b.

[345] _Ibid._, fol. 22b.

[346] _Ibid._, fol. 23b.

[347] Rot. Claus., 27 Ed. III., m. 19.

[348] Rot. Claus., 26 Ed. III., m. 12.

[349] _Ibid._, 25 Ed. III., m. 21.

[350] Originalia Roll, 29 Ed. III., m. 8.

[351] Rot. Claus., 26 Ed. III., m. 19. _Cf._ Patent Roll, 26 Ed.
III., pars 1, m. 6.

[352] Rot. Pat., 26 Ed. III., pars 1a, m. 28d.

[353] Escheator's Inq. p. m., series i, file 90.

[354] Escheator's Inq. p. m., 22-23 Ed. III., series i, file 64.

[355] Rot. Pat., 27 Ed. III., m. 17.

[356] Ed. _Bristol and Gloucester Archæological Society_, i, 307.

[357] Reg. Heref. Trileck., fol. 102.

[358] Bruton Chartulary f. 121b. Prior Henry appears to have spent
the money thus raised in the expenses of a journey to Rome and Venice
and back. The inquiry was held in June, 29 Ed. III.

[359] Escheator's Inq. p. m., Series i, file 240.

[360] Escheator's Inq. p. m., Series i, file 103.

[361] Rot. Pat., 25 Ed. III., pars 1a, m. 16.

[362] _Ibid._, 28 Ed. III., m. 10.

[363] _Ibid._, m. 3.

[364] Quoted in _Saturday Review_, Jan. 16, 1886, "The Manor."

[365] R. O., L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 25 Ed. III.

[p194]




CHAPTER X.

SOME CONSEQUENCES OF THE GREAT MORTALITY.


It will be evident to all who have followed the summary of the
history of the epidemic of 1349, given in the preceding chapters,
that throughout England the mortality must have been very great.
Those who, having examined the records themselves, have the best
right to form an opinion, are practically unanimous in considering
that the disease swept away fully one-half of the entire population
of England and Wales.

But whilst it is easy enough to state in general terms the proportion
of the entire population which probably perished in the epidemic,
any attempt to give even approximate numbers is attended with the
greatest difficulty and can hardly be satisfactory. At present we do
not possess data sufficient to enable us to form the basis of any
calculation worthy of the name. From the Subsidy Roll of 1377—or
some 27 years after the great mortality—it has been estimated that
the population at the close of the reign of Edward III. was about
2,350,000 in England and Wales. The intervening years were marked
by several more or less severe outbreaks of Eastern plague; and one
year, 1361, would have been accounted most calamitous had not the
memory of the fatal year 1349 somewhat overshadowed it. At the same
time the French war continued to tax the strength of the country and
levy its tithe upon the lives of Englishmen. It may consequently be
believed that the losses during the thirty years which followed the
plague of 1349 would be sufficient to prevent any actual increase
of the population, and that somewhere about two and a half millions
of people were left in the country after the [p195] epidemic
had ceased. If this be so, it is probable that previously to the
mortality the entire population of the country consisted of from four
to five millions, half of whom perished in the fatal year.[366]

On the other hand, whilst apparently allowing that about one-half
of the population perished, so eminent an authority as the late
Professor Thorold Rogers held that the population of England in
1349 could hardly have been greater than two-and-a-half millions,
and "probably was not more than two millions."[367] The most recent
authority, Dr. Cunningham, thinks that "the results (_i.e._, of an
inquiry into the number of the population) which are of a somewhat
negative character, may be stated as follows: (i.), that the
population was pretty nearly stationary at over two millions from
1377 to the Tudors; (ii.), that circumstances did not favour rapid
increase of population between 1350 and 1377; (iii.), that the
country was not incapable of sustaining a much larger population in
the earlier part of Edward III.'s reign than it could maintain in
the time of Henry VI."[368] Thus the estimate first given, of the
population previous to the Black Death, may be taken as substantially
the same as that adopted by Dr. Cunningham. Mr. Thorold Rogers,
on the other hand, without entering into the question of figures,
views the problem altogether from the standpoint of the land, the
cultivated portion of which he considers incapable of supporting a
larger population than he names.

In the country at large the most striking and immediate effect
of the mortality was to bring about nothing less than a complete
social revolution. Everywhere, although the well-to-do people were
not exempt from the contagion, it was the poor who were the chief
sufferers. "It is well [p196] known," wrote the late Professor
Thorold Rogers, "that the Black Death, in England at least, spared
the rich and took the poor. And no wonder. Living as the peasantry
did in close, unclean huts, with no rooms above ground, without
windows, artificial light, soap, linen; ignorant of certain
vegetables, constrained to live half the year on salt meat; scurvy,
leprosy, and other diseases, which are engendered by hard living and
the neglect of every sanitary precaution, were endemic among the
population.[369]

The obvious and undoubted effect of the great mortality among the
working classes was to put a premium upon the services of those that
survived. From all parts of England comes the same cry for workers to
gather in the harvests, to till the ground, and to guard the cattle.
For years the same demands are re-echoed until the landowners learnt
from experience that the old methods of cultivation, and the old
tenures of land, had been rendered impossible by the great scourge
that had swept over the land.

It was a hard time for the landowners, who up to this had had it,
roughly speaking, all their own away. With rents falling to half
their value, with thousands of acres of land lying untilled and
valueless, with cottages, mills and houses without tenants, and
orchards, gardens, and fields waste and desolate, there came a
corresponding rise in the prices of commodities. Everything that
the landowner had to buy rose at once, as Professor Thorold Rogers
pointed out, "50, 100, and even 200 per cent." Iron, salt and
clothing doubled in value, and fish—and in particular herrings, which
formed so considerable a part of the food of that generation—became
dear beyond the reach of the multitude. "At that time," writes
William Dene, the [p197] contemporary monk of Rochester, "there was
such a dearth and want of fish that people were obliged to eat meat
on the Wednesdays, and a command was issued that four herrings should
be sold for a penny. But in Lent there was still such a want of fish
that many, who had been wont to live well, had to content themselves
with bread and potage."[370]

Then that which had been specially the scourge of the people at
large began to be looked upon as likely to prove a blessing in
disguise. The landowner's need was recognised as the labourers'
opportunity, upon which they were not slow to seize. Wages everywhere
rose to double the previous rate and more. In vain did the King and
Council strive to prevent this by legislation, forbidding either the
labourer to demand, or the master to pay, more than the previous
wage for work done. From the first the Act was inoperative, and the
constant repetition of the royal commands, addressed to all parts of
the country, as well as the frequent complaints of non-compliance
with the regulations, are evidence, even if none other existed,
of the futility of the legislation. Even when the King, taking
into consideration "that many towns and hamlets, both through the
pestilence and other causes, are so impoverished, and that many
others are absolutely desolate," granted, if only the money were paid
him in three months, that the fines levied on servants and others for
demanding excessive wages, and on masters for giving them, might be
allowed to go in relief of the tax of a tenth and fifteenth due to
him,[371] the justices appointed to obtain the money plead that they
"cannot and have not been able to levy any of these penalties."[372]
The truth seems to be that masters generally pleaded the excessive
wages they were called upon to pay, as an excuse for not finding
money to meet the royal demands, and it was for this reason rather
than out of [p198] consideration for the pockets of the better
classes that Edward issued his proclamations to restrain the rise
of wages. But he was quickly forced to understand "that workmen,
servants, and labourers publicly disregarded his ordinances" as to
wages and payments, and demanded, in spite of them, prices for their
services as great as during the pestilence and after it, and even
higher. For disobedience to the royal orders regulating wages the
King charged his judges to imprison all whom they might find guilty.
Even this coercion was found to be no real remedy, but rather a
means of aggravating the evil, since districts where his policy was
carried out were quickly found to be plunged in greater poverty by
the imprisonment of those who could work, and of those who dared to
pay the market price for labour.[373]

Knighton thus describes the situation:—"The King sent into each
county of the kingdom orders that harvesters and other workmen should
not obtain more than they were wont to have, under penalties laid
down in the statute made for the purpose. But labourers were so
elated and contentious that they did not pay attention to the command
of the King; and if anyone wanted to hire them he was forced to pay
them what was asked, and so he had his choice either to lose his
harvest and crops, or give in to the proud and covetous desire of the
workmen. When this became known to the King, he levied heavy fines
upon the abbots, priors, and the higher and lesser lords, as well
as upon the greater and smaller landowners in the country, because
they had not obeyed his orders, and had given higher wages to their
labourers; from some he exacted 100s., from some 40s., and from some
20s., and indeed from each as much as he could be made to pay. And he
took from every carucate throughout the whole kingdom 20s. besides a
fifteenth.

"Then the King arrested very many labourers and put [p199] them in
prison; and many fled and hid themselves in forests and woods for the
time, and those who were caught were fined more severely still. And
the greater number were sworn not to take higher daily wages than was
customary, and were so liberated from prison. In like manner he acted
towards the artificers in towns and cities."[374]

To this account of the labour difficulties which followed on the
mortality may be added the relation of the Rochester contemporary,
William Dene. "So great was the want of labourers and workmen of
every art and craft," in those days, he writes, "that a third
part and more of the land throughout the entire kingdom remained
uncultivated. Labourers and skilled workmen became so rebellious that
neither the King, nor the law, nor the justices, the guardians of the
law, were able to punish them."[375] Many instances are to be found
in the public documents at the period of combinations of workmen for
the purpose of securing higher wages, and of their refusal to work at
the old rate of payment customary before the great mortality had made
the services of the survivors more valuable. This, in the language of
the statute, is called "the malice of servants in husbandry." In the
same way tenants who had survived the visitation refused to pay the
old rents and threatened to leave their holdings unless substantial
reductions were made by their landlords. Thus, in an instance already
given, the landowner remitted a third part of the rent of his
tenants, "because they would have gone off and left their holdings
empty unless they had obtained this reduction."[376]

As a consequence of the great mortality among small tenant farmers
and the labouring classes generally, and forced by the failure of
legislation to practically cope with the "strike" organised by the
survivors, the landowners quickly despaired of carrying on the
traditional system of [p200] cultivation with their own stock
under bailiffs. Professor Thorold Rogers has pointed out that "very
speedily after the plague, this system of farming by bailiff was
discontinued, and that of farming on lease adopted." The difficulty
experienced by the tenant of finding capital to work the farms at
first led to the institution of the stock and seed lease, which,
after lasting till about the close of the fourteenth century, gave
place to the ordinary land lease, with, of course, a certain fixity
of tenure, which at this day we do not associate with that form of
lease. Some landowners tried, with more or less success, to continue
the old system; but these formed the exception, and by the beginning
of the next century the whole tenure of land had been changed in
England by the great mortality of 1349, and by the operation of the
"trades unions," which sprung up at once among the survivors, and
which are designated, in the statute against them, as "alliances,
covines, congregations, chapters, ordinances and oaths."

The people all at once learnt their power, and became masters of
the situation, and although for the next thirty years the lords and
landowners fought against the complete overthrow of the mediæval
system of serfdom, from the year of the great mortality its fall
was inevitable, and practical emancipation was finally won by the
popular rising of 1381. Even to the last, however, the landowning
class appear to have remained in the dark as to the real issues
at stake. They claimed the old labour rents, by which their manor
lands had been worked, as well as the money payments for which
they had been commuted, and they desired that the old ties of the
tenant in villainage to the soil of his lord should be maintained.
Even Parliament was apparently at fault as to the danger which
threatened the established system. It is impossible, however, to
read the sermons of the period without seeing how entirely the
clergy were with the people in their determination to secure full
and entire liberty for themselves and their posterity, and it is
probably to their countenance and advice that the preamble of an
[p201] Act passed in the first year of Richard II. refers when
it says: "Villains withdraw their services and customs from their
lords, by the comfort and procurement of others, their counsellors,
maintainers, and abettors, which have taken hire and profit of the
said villains and land tenants, by colour of certain exemplifications
made out of Domesday, and affirm that they are discharged and will
suffer no distress. Hereupon they gather themselves in great routs,
and argue by such a confederacy that everyone shall resist their
lords by force."

One result of the change of land tenure should be noticed. Previously
to the great plague of 1349 the land was divided up into small
tenancies. An instance taken by Professor Rogers of a parish, where
every man held a greater or a less amount of land, is a typical
example of thousands of manors all over the country. It shows, he
says, "how generally the land was distributed," and that the small
farms and portions of land, so remarkable in France at the present
day, did prevail in England five hundred years ago. A great portion
of this land, however, although held by distinct tenants, lay in
common, and it is a very general complaint at this period that,
as the fields were undivided, they could not be used except by
the multitude of tenants, which had been carried off by the great
sickness. To render them profitable, under the condition of things
consequent upon the new system of farming, these tracts of country
had to be divided up by the plantation of hedges, which form now so
distinguishing a mark of the English landscape as compared with that
of a foreign country.

The population also having by the operation of the great mortality
become already detached from the soil, before the final extinction of
serfdom, their liberation resulted not, as in other countries, in the
establishment of a large class of peasant proprietors, but in that of
a small body of large landowners.

Of course, again, such a phrase must not be interpreted [p202] in
the modern sense, whereby a "landowner" is an "owner" of land in a
way which, in those days of custom and perpetuity of tenure, would
not have been even understood. The change then effected rendered
possible the character of the land settlement that now prevails.

So terrible a mortality cannot but have had its effect and left its
traces upon the education, arts, and architecture of the country.
In the first, besides the temporary interference with the education
at the Universities, "this pestilence forms," write the authors of
the _History of Shrewsbury_, "a remarkable era in the history of our
language. Before that time, ever since the Conquest, the nobility and
gentry of this country affected to converse in French; children even
construed their lessons at school into that language. So, at least,
Higden tells us in his _Polychronicon_. But from the time of 'the
first Moreyn,' as Trevisa, his translator, terms it, this 'manner'
was 'som del ychaungide.' A school-master, named Cornwall, was the
first that introduced English into the instruction of his pupils,
and this example was so eagerly followed that by the year 1385,
when Trevisa wrote, it had become nearly general. The clergy in all
Christian countries are the chief persons by whom the education of
youth is conducted, and it is probable that the dreadful scourge of
which we have been treating, by carrying off many of those ancient
instructors, enabled Mr. Cornwall to work a change in the mode of
teaching, which but for that event he would never have been able to
effect, and which has operated so mighty a revolution in our national
literature."

With regard to architecture, traces of the effects of the great
plague are to be seen in many places. In some cases great additions
to existing buildings, which had only been partially executed, were
put a stop to and never completed. In others they were finished only
after a change had been made in the style in vogue when the great
mortality swept over the country. Dr. Cox, in his [p203] _Notes on
the Churches of Derbyshire_, has remarked upon this. "The awful
shock," he says, "thus given to the nation and to Europe at large
by the Black Death paralyzed for a time every art and industry.
The science of church architecture, then about at its height, was
some years recovering from the blow. In some cases, as with the
grand church of St. Nicholas, Yarmouth, where a splendid pair of
western towers were being erected, the work was stopped and never
resumed. . . . The recollection of this great plague often helps
to explain the break that the careful eye not unfrequently notes
in church buildings of the 14th century, and accounts for the
long period over which the works extended. We believe this to be
the secret of the long stretch of years that elapsed before the
noble church of Tideswell was completed in that century; and it
also affords a clue to much other work interrupted, or suddenly
undertaken, in several other fabrics of the country."[377] To this
may be added the fact that the history of stained-glass manufacture
shows the same break with the past at this period. Not only just at
this time does there appear a gap in the continuity of manufacture,
but the first examples after the great pestilence manifest a change
in the style which had previously existed.

In estimating the mortality among the clergy it has been already
noted that we have, in many instances, more certain data to work
upon than in the case of the population at large. In each county the
number of institutions to benefices during the plague has already
been noticed, and in those cases where the actual figure cannot be
ascertained from documentary evidence, half the total number of
benefices has, in accordance with the general result where such
evidence is available, been taken to represent the livings rendered
vacant during that year. From this it would appear that in round
figures some 5,000 beneficed clergy fell victims to their duty. As
[p204] already pointed out this number in reality represents only
a portion of the clerical body; and in any estimate of the whole
allowance must be made for chaplains, chantry priests, religious, and
others.

It is, of course, possible to come to any conclusion as to the
proportion of the beneficed to the unbeneficed clergy only by very
round numbers. Turning to the Winchester registers, for example, we
find that the average number of priests ordained in the three years
previous to 1349 was 111.[378] The average number of institutions
to benefices annually during the same period was only twenty-one,
so that these figures taken by themselves seem to show that the
proportion of beneficed to unbeneficed clergy was about one to four.
On this basis, and assuming the deaths of beneficed clergy to have
been about 5,000, the total death roll in the clerical order would be
some 25,000.

This number, although very large, can hardly be considered as
excessive, when it is remembered that the peculiar nature of their
priestly duties rendered them specially liable to infection; whilst
in the case of the religious, the mere fact of their living together
in community made the spread of the deadly contagion in their ranks a
certainty. The Bishops were strangely spared; although it is certain
that they did not shrink from their duty, but according to positive
evidence remained at their posts. To their case are applicable the
lines of the poet upon the like wonderful escape of the Bishop during
the plague in the last century at Marseilles:—

 "Why drew Marseilles' good Bishop purer breath
 When nature sickened, and each gale was death?"[379] [p205]

On the supposition that five-and-twenty thousand of the clerical
body fell victims to the epidemic, and estimating that of the
entire population of the country one in every hundred belonged to
the clergy, and further that the death rate was about equal in both
estates, the total mortality in the country would be some 2,500,000.
This total is curiously the same as that estimated from the basis of
population returns made at the close of the memorable reign of Edward
III., evidencing, namely, a total population, before the outbreak of
the epidemic, of some five millions.[380]

It remains now to briefly point out some of the undoubted effects,
which followed from this great disaster, upon the Church. It is
obvious that the sudden removal of so large a proportion of the
clerical body must have caused a breach in the continuity of the best
traditions of ecclesiastical usage and teaching. Absolute necessity,
moreover, compelled the Bishops to institute young and inexperienced,
if not entirely uneducated clerics, to the vacant livings, and this
cannot but have had its effect upon succeeding generations. The
Archbishop of York sought and obtained permission from the Pope to
ordain at any time, and to dispense with the usual intervals between
the sacred orders;—Bishop Bateman, of Norwich, was allowed by Clement
VI to dispense with sixty clerks, who were but twenty-one years of
age, "though only shavelings," and to allow them to hold rectories,
as otherwise the divine offices of the Church would cease altogether
in many places of his diocese.

"At that time," writes Knighton, the sub-contemporary canon of
Leicester, "there was everywhere such a dearth of priests that many
churches were left without the divine offices, mass, matins, vespers,
sacraments, and sacramentals. One could hardly get a chaplain to
serve a [p206] church for less than £10, or 10 marks. And whereas
before the pestilence, when there were plenty of priests, anyone
could get a chaplain for 5 or even 4 marks, or for 2 marks and his
board,[381] at this time there was hardly a soul who would accept
a vicarage for £20, or 20 marks. In a short time after, however, a
large number of those whose wives had died in the pestilence came
up to receive orders. Of these many were illiterate and mere laics,
except in so far as they knew in a way how to read, although they did
not understand" what they read.[382]

One instance of the rapidity of promotion, so that benefices
might not too long remain unfilled, may be given. In the diocese
of Winchester the registers record at this period very numerous
appointments of clerics, not in sacred orders, to benefices. For
example, in 1349 no fewer than 19 incumbents already appointed to
churches in the city of Winchester came up for ordination, and eight
in the following year. Of these 27 every one took his various orders
of sub-deacon, deacon, and priest at successive ordinations without
the normal interval between each step in the sacred ministry.[383]

Two examples of the straits to which the Bishops were reduced for
priests are to be found in the registers of the [p207] diocese of
Bath and Wells. The one is the admission of a man to the first step
to Orders, in the lifetime of his wife, she giving her consent, and
promising to keep chaste, but not, as was usually required under such
circumstances, being compelled to enter the cloister, "because she
was aged, and could without suspicion remain in the world."[384] The
second instance in the same register of a difficulty experienced in
filling up vacancies is the case of a permission given to Adam, the
rector of Hinton Bluet, to say mass on Sundays and feast days in the
chapel of William de Sutton, even although he had before celebrated
the solemnities of the mass in his church of Hinton.[385]

Another curious case, which we may suspect really came from the same
cause, is noted at an ordination held in December, 1352, at Ely. Of
the four then receiving the priesthood two were monks, and from the
other two an oath of obedience to the Bishop and his successors was
enacted, together with a promise "that they would serve any parish
church to which they might be called."[386]

Many instances could be given of the ignorance consequent upon the
ordinations being hurried on, and upon laymen, otherwise unfitted
for the sacred mission, being too hastily admitted to the vacant
cures. To take but two instances, from Winchester, which may serve
to illustrate this and at the same time to show the zeal with which
the mediæval Bishops endeavoured to guard against the evil. On 24th
June, 1385, the illustrious William of Wykeham, Bishop of Winchester,
caused Sir Roger Dene, Rector of the church of St. Michael, in Jewry
Street, Winchester, to swear upon the Holy Gospels that he would
learn within twelve months the articles of faith, the cases reserved
to the Bishop, the Ten Commandments, the seven works of mercy, the
seven mortal sins, the Sacraments of the Church, and the form of
administering and [p208] conferring them, and also the form of
baptizing, etc., as contained in the Constitutions of Archbishop
Peckham.[387] The same year, on July 2nd, the Bishop exacted from
John Corbet, who on the 2nd of June previous had been instituted to
the rectory of Bradley, in Hampshire, a similar obligation to learn
the same, before the feast of St. Michael then next ensuing. In the
former case Roger Dene had been rector of Ryston, in Norfolk, and had
been instituted to his living at Winchester by the Bishop of Norwich
only on 21st June, 1358, three days before Bishop William of Wykeham
required him to enter into the obligation detailed above.[388]

It has been already remarked that one obvious result of the great
mortality, so far as the Church is concerned, was the extraordinary
decrease in the number of candidates for sacred orders. In the
Winchester diocese, for example, the average number of priests
ordained in each of the three years preceding 1349 was 111; whilst
in the 15 subsequent years, up to 1365, when Bishop Edyndon died,
the yearly average was barely 20; and in the thirty-four years, from
1367 to 1400, even with so zealous a prelate as William of Wykeham
presiding over the diocese, the annual average number of ordinations
to the sacred priesthood was only 27; a number which was further
decreased during the progress of the 15th century.[389]

The same striking result of the plague, which cannot but have had
a very serious effect upon the Church at large, is manifested
elsewhere. The Ely registers, for example, show that the average
number of all those ordained, for the seven years before 1349, was
101-1/2; whilst for the seven years after that date it was but
40-1/2. In 1349 no ordinations whatever apparently were held, and
[p209] the average number of priests ordained yearly, from 1374 to
1394, was only 14. In fact the total number ordained in that period
was only 282, whilst of these many entered the priesthood for other
dioceses, and more than half, namely 161, were members of the various
religious orders; so that the ranks of the diocesan clergy of Ely
appear to have received but few recruits during the whole of this
time.

In the diocese of Hereford, to take another example, previously to
1349, there were some very large ordinations. Thus, in 1346, on
the 11th of March, 438 people were ordained to various grades in
the sacred ministry. Of these some 89 received the priesthood, 49
of them being ordained for the diocese of Hereford. Again, on the
10th of June in the same year, Bishop Trileck conferred orders, in
the parish church of Ledbury, upon 451 candidates, of whom 148 were
made priests; 56 being intended for his own diocese. Altogether, in
that year, some 319 priests were ordained by the Bishop; half of
the number being his own clergy.[390] About the same numbers were
ordained in the year of the plague itself, 1349, and 371 in the
following year. In fact, till 1353 the number remains large, but the
greater portion of those ordained were intended for other dioceses.
The subjects of the Bishop of Hereford at once show a falling off
similar to that noticed in Winchester and Ely. Thus, from 1345 to
1349, the average number of subjects ordained by the Bishop for his
own diocese was 72. In the next five years it was only 34, whilst in
no subsequent year during Bishop Trileck's pontificate did it rise
above 23.

The above three examples will be sufficient to show how seriously
the great pestilence affected the supply of clergy. The reason is
not difficult to divine. The great dearth of population created a
proportionate demand upon the services of the survivors to carry on
the business of the nation, and the greater pressure of business
thus brought [p210] about, and the higher wages to be, in fact,
obtained, in spite of royal prohibitions, were not favourable to the
development of vocations to the clerical life. The void thus caused
by the overwhelming misfortunes of the great mortality was enlarged
by the exigencies of the English war with France, whilst popular
disturbances, and the subsequent Wars of the Roses, maintained the
same causes in operation till far into the reigns of the Tudor
sovereigns.

To some extent, the dearth of students at Oxford and Cambridge, which
has already been referred to, was brought about by the same causes,
and it certainly followed immediately upon the fatal year of 1349. At
Oxford, no doubt, the serious disturbances, which took place at this
time between the students and townsfolk, contributed to aggravate
the evil. So serious, indeed, had the state of the great centre of
clerical education in England become, in less than six years after
the pestilence, that the King was compelled to address the Bishops
on the subject. He begs them to help in the task of renewing the
University; "knowing," he says, "how the Catholic faith is chiefly
supported by the learning of the clergy, and the State governed by
their prudence, we earnestly desire that, particularly in our kingdom
of England, the clerical order may be increased in number, morals,
and knowledge." But, "in the city of Oxford, in which the fount
and source of clerical knowledge" has long existed, owing to the
disturbances, students have forsaken the place, and Oxford, once so
renowned, has become "like a worthless fig-tree without fruit."[391]
It has already been pointed out how, nearly half a century later, the
University had not recovered from the great blow it had received at
this period.[392] [p211]

There seems, indeed, a prevalent misunderstanding in regard to the
relation, or proportionate numbers, of secular and regular clergy at
this period, and as to the decline in popularity of the regulars, as
presumed to be evidenced in the number of those who joined them after
the middle of the fourteenth century. It is assumed that up to that
period the regular clergy were, both in numbers and influence, the
chief factors in the ecclesiastical system of England, and that after
that date they greatly declined in importance, public estimation,
and numbers. As evidence, not only is an actual diminution in mere
numbers adduced, but also the fact that, after this time, the new
religious institutions took the form of colleges, not of monasteries.
The misconception lies first of all in this—that there never was a
period of the middle ages in England, nor for the matter of that
abroad, when the regular clergy was the great mainstay of the
Church, so far, at least, as numbers, external work, and the cure of
souls are concerned. Writers have allowed their imaginations to be
influenced by the magnitude of the great monastic houses, or by the
prominent part taken in the government of the Church by individuals
of eminence, belonging to the ranks of the regular clergy; and
have not remembered how comparatively few in fact were these great
monastic centres, and how small a proportion their inmates bore to
the great body of clergy at large.

It is necessary to refer, perhaps, to figures to bring this home to
those who have not devoted special attention to the mediæval period,
or who, having studied it, still somehow fail to realise facts as
distinct from theories, and to rid themselves of the imaginative
prepossessions with which they entered upon their investigations.
Thus, even after the institution of the mendicant orders, and in the
flow of their popularity, the ordinations for the diocese of York, in
the year 1344-45, show that, whilst the number of priests ordained
was 271, only 44 were regulars. In the same way, the register of
Bishop Stapeldon gives the ordinations [p212] in the diocese of
Exeter from 1301 to 1321. During this period 703 seculars were made
priests, against 114 regulars. In both these instances, therefore,
more than six seculars were ordained for every regular.

This has its importance in estimating the change in the direction
given to religious foundations noticed above. During the course of
the thirteenth century, when so strong a current of intellectual
activity and speculation had set in, the importance of education
to the working clergy—at least to a considerable proportion of
them—forced itself upon those who were the responsible rulers of
the Church. The religious houses were in existence, and, either
great or small, were spread all over the land; indeed, after the
pestilence of 1349, greatly more than sufficed for the number of
vocations in the reduced population. Further, by their foundation
they were not calculated to furnish the means of meeting the new want
that was pressing, aggravated as it was by the sudden diminution of
the pastoral clergy in the sickness. The formation of collegiate
institutions, whether of the University type or of country colleges
for secular priests, such as Stoke-Clare, Arundel, and the very many
others which arose in the century and a half from 1350 to 1500, is
explained by the very circumstances of the case; and there is no
need to have recourse to a supposition as to the wane in popularity
of the religious orders, and the prevalent sense that their work was
over, to explain the diminution in their numbers, and the absence
of new monastic foundations. If the relative proportion between the
numbers of secular and regular clergy ordained before and after the
middle of the fourteenth century be taken as a test of the truth of
this supposition, the statistics available do not bear it out. Thus
the ordinations to the priesthood, registered in the registers of the
diocese of Bath and Wells, for the 80 years, 1443 to 1523, number
901; of these 679 were those of seculars and 222 those of regulars.
In this instance, consequently, the ordination of seculars to
regulars was [p213] in the proportion of 8·5 to 2·7, or rather more
than three to one.[393]

In common with those in worldly professions and businesses the
survivors among the clergy appear to have demanded larger stipends
than they had previously obtained for the performance of their
ecclesiastical duties. Looking back upon the times, and considering
how even the small dues of the clergy had been reduced by the death
of a large proportion of their people, till they became wholly
inadequate for their support, it is impossible to blame them harshly,
and not to see that such a demand must inevitably follow upon a great
reduction in numbers. At the time, however, by the direction of
King and Parliament, the Archbishops and Bishops sought to restrain
them from making these claims, in the same way as the King tried to
prevent the labourers from demanding higher wages. In his letter to
the Bishops of his province Archbishop Islip refers "to the unbridled
cupidity of the human race," which ever requires to be checked by
justice, unless "charity is to be driven out of the world." "General
complaints have come to me," he writes, "and experience, the best
teacher of all things, has shown to me that the priests who still
survive, not considering that they are preserved by the Divine will
from the dangers of the late pestilence, not for their own sakes, but
to perform the ministry committed to them for the people of God, and
the public utility," like other workmen, through cupidity, neglect
the burdens of curates, and take more profitable offices, for which
also [p214] they demand more than before. If this be not at once
put a stop to "many, and indeed most of the churches, prebends, and
chapels of our and your diocese, and indeed of our whole Province,
will remain absolutely without priests." To remedy this not only
were people urged not to employ such chaplains, but the clergy were
to be compelled under ecclesiastical censures to serve the ordinary
cures at moderate and usual salaries. It seems not improbable that
this measure may have contributed to draw the sympathies of the
clergy at large more closely to the people in their struggle for
freedom at this period of English history, when both in the civil and
ecclesiastical sphere there was the same attempt by public law to
impose restraints on natural liberty.

To the great dearth of clergy at this time may, partly at least,
be ascribed the great growth of the crying abuse of pluralities.
Without taking into account the difficulty experienced on all hands
in finding fit, proper, and tried ecclesiastics to fill posts of
eminence and responsibility in the Church, it is impossible to
account for the great increase in the practice just at this time.
The number of benefices, for example, held by William of Wykeham
himself, who entered the Church in consequence of the great mortality
among the clergy in 1361, may be explained, if not excused, by the
prevalent and in the circumstances inevitable dearth of subjects
of training and capacity equal to the arduous and delicate duties
devolving on the higher clergy.

Notwithstanding all the great difficulties which beset the Church
in England in consequence of the great mortality, there is abundant
evidence (which is no part of the present subject) of untiring
efforts on the part of the leading ecclesiastics to bring back
observance to its normal level. This is evidenced in the institution
of so many pious confraternities and guilds, and in a profuse
liberality to churches and sacred places.

The consequences of the mortality, so far as the monastic
establishments of the country are concerned, have already [p215] in
the course of the narrative frequently been pointed out. The same
reasons which militated against the recruiting for the ranks of the
clergy generally after the plague are sufficient explanation of the
fact that the religious houses were never able to regain the ground
lost in that fatal year. Over and above this, moreover, the sudden
change in the tenure of land, brought about chiefly by the deaths of
the monastic tenants, so impaired their financial position, at any
rate for a long period, that they were unable to support the burden
of additional subjects.

To the facts showing how the monasteries were depopulated by the
disease already given may be added the following:—In 1235 the abbey
of St. Albans is supposed to have counted some 100 monks within its
walls. In the plague of 1349 the abbot and some 47 of his monks died
at one time, and subsequently one more died whilst at Canterbury, on
his way with the newly-elected abbot to the Roman Curia. Assuming,
therefore, that the community had remained the same in number as in
1235, St. Albans was at most left with only 51 members. At the close
of the century, namely, in 1396, some 60 monks took part in election,
and as this number includes the priors of the nine dependent cells,
it would seem that the actual community still remained only 51. In
1452 there were only 48 professed monks in the abbey, and at the
dissolution of the monastery, nearly a century later, the number was
reduced to 39. This instance of the way in which the numbers in the
monastic houses were diminished by the sickness, and by its effect on
the general population of the country were prevented from ever again
increasing to their former proportions, may be strengthened by the
case of Glastonbury. This great abbey of the west of England has ever
been regarded as in many respects the most important of the English
Benedictine houses. It is not too much to suppose that in the period
of its greatest prosperity it must have counted probably a hundred
members. In 1377 the number, as given on the subsidy-roll, is only
45. In 1456 they stand [p216] at 48, and were about the same at
the time of the dissolution of the abbey. A similar effect upon the
members at Bath has already been pointed out.

It need hardly be said that the scourge must have been most
demoralising to discipline, destructive to traditional practice, and
fatal to observance. It is a well-ascertained fact, strange though
it may seem, that men are not as a rule made better by great and
universal visitations of Divine Providence. It has been noticed that
this is the evident result of all such scourges, or, as Procopius
puts it, speaking of the great plague in the reign of the Emperor
Justinian, "whether by chance or Providential design it strictly
spared the most wicked."[394] So in this visitation, from Italy to
England, the universal testimony of those who lived through it is
that it seemed to rouse up the worst passions of the human heart, and
to dull the spiritual senses of the soul. Wadding, the Franciscan
annalist, has attributed to this very plague of 1348-9 the decay of
fervour evident throughout his own order at this time. "This evil,"
he writes, "wrought great destruction to the holy houses of religion,
carrying off the masters of regular discipline and the seniors of
experience. From this time the monastic orders, and in particular the
mendicants, began to grow tepid and negligent, both in that piety and
that learning in which they had up to this time flourished. Then,
our illustrious members being carried off, the rigours of discipline
relaxed by these calamities, could not be renewed by the youths
received without the necessary training, rather to fill the empty
houses than to restore the lost discipline."[395]

We may sum up the results of the great mortality in the words of
a recent writer. "For our purpose," writes Dr. Cunningham, "it is
important to notice that the steady progress of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries was [p217] suddenly checked in the fourteenth;
the strain of the hundred years' war would have been exhausting in
any case, but the nation had to bear it when the Black Death had
swept off half the population and the whole social structure was
disorganised."[396]

In dealing with this subject it is difficult to bring home to the
mind the vast range of the great calamity, and to duly appreciate
how deep was the break with then existing institutions. The plague
of 1349 simply shattered them; and it is, as already pointed out,
only by perpetual reiteration and reconsideration of the same
phenomena that we can bring ourselves to understand the character
of such a social and religious catastrophe. But it is at the same
time of the first importance thoroughly to realise the case if we
are to enter into and to understand the great process of social
and religious re-edification, to which the immediately succeeding
generations had to address themselves. The tragedy was too grave to
allow of people being carried over it by mere enthusiasm. Indeed,
the empiric and enthusiast in the attempts at social reconstruction,
as may be found in the works of Wycliff, could only aggravate the
evil. It was essentially a crisis that had to be met by strenuous
effort and unflagging work in every department of human activity.
And here is manifested a characteristic of the middle ages which
constitutes, as the late Professor Freeman has pointed out, their
real greatness. In contradistinction to a day like our own, which
abounds in every facility for achievement, they had to contend with
every material difficulty; but in contradistinction, too, to that
practical pessimism which has to-day gained only too great a hold
upon intelligences otherwise vivacious and open, difficulties, in
the middle ages, called into existence only a more strenuous and
more determined resolve to meet and surmount them. And here is the
sense in which the hackneyed, and in a sense untrue, phrase, "the
Ages [p218] of Faith," has a real application, for nothing can be
more contrary to the spirit and tone of mind of the whole epoch than
pessimism, nothing more in harmony with it than hope. In this sense
the observation of a well-known modern writer on art, in noting the
inability of the middle ages to see things as they really are and the
tendency to substitute on the parchment or the canvas conventional
for actual forms, has a drift which, perhaps, he did not perceive.
In itself unquestionably this defect is a real one, but in practice
it possessed a counterbalancing advantage by supplying the necessary
corrective to that bare literalism and realism which, in the long
run, is fatal no less to sustained effort than it is to art.

The great mortality, commonly called the Black Death, was a
catastrophe sudden and overwhelming, the like of which it will be
difficult to parallel. Many a noble aspiration which, could it have
been realised, and many a wise conception which, could it have
attained its true development, would have been most fruitful of good
to humanity, was stricken beyond recovery. Still no time was wasted
in vain laments. What had perished was perished. Time, however, and
the power of effort and work belonged to those that survived.

Two of the noblest churches in Italy typify the twofold aspect of
this great visitation—the Cathedral of Siena and the Cathedral of
Milan. The former, the vast building that crowns the Tuscan Hill, is
but a fragment of what was originally conceived. It was actually in
course of erection, and would have been hardly less in size than the
present St. Peter's had it been completed. The transepts were already
raised, and the foundations of the enormous nave and choir had been
laid when the plague fell upon the city. The works were necessarily
suspended, and from that day to this have never been resumed.

Little more than a generation had passed from the fatal year when
the most glorious Gothic edifice on Italian soil was already rising
from the plain of Lombardy—a symbol [p219] of new life, new hopes,
new greatness, which would surpass the greatness of the buried past.
And this, be it observed, was no creation of Prince or Potentate; it
was essentially the idea, the work, the achievement of the people of
Milan themselves.[397]

What gives, perhaps, the predominant interest to the century and a
half which succeeded the overwhelming catastrophe of the Black Death
is the fact of the wonderful social and religious recovery from a
state almost of dissolution. It is not the place here even to enter
upon so interesting and important a subject. It must suffice to have
indicated the point of view from which the history of the immediately
succeeding generations must be regarded. In spite of wars and civil
commotions it was an age of distinct progress, although the very
complexity and variety of current and undercurrent is apt at times to
daze the too impatient inquirer, who wishes to reduce everything to
the simple result of the definitely good, or the definitely bad.


FOOTNOTES:

[366] _Cf._ T. Amyot, _Population of English Cities_, _temp. Ed.
III._ (_Archæologia_, Vol. xx, pp. 524-531).

[367] _England before and after the Black Death_ (_Fortnightly
Review_, Vol. viii, p. 191).

[368] W. Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_, p.
304.

[369] _Fortnightly Review_, viii, p. 192. This is, of course, true,
but without qualification might give the reader a false impression as
to the condition of the English peasant in the middle ages. Most of
what Mr. Thorold Rogers says is applicable to all classes of society.
Dr. Cunningham (_Growth of English Industry and Commerce_, p. 275)
takes a truer view: "Life is more than meat, and though badly housed
the ordinary villager was better fed and amused."

[370] B. Mus. Cott. MS., Faust, B. v, fol. 99b.

[371] R. O., Originalia Roll, 26 Ed. III., m. 27.

[372] _Ibid._, 27 Ed. III., m. 19.

[373] _Ibid._, 26 Ed. III., m. 25.

[374] Ed. Twysden, col. 2699.

[375] B. Mus. Cott. MS., Faust, B. v, fol. 98b.

[376] R. O., Q. R. Mins. Accts., Bundle 801, No. 1.

[377] Introduction, p. ix.

[378] Of course, several of these would be ordained for other
dioceses, but in the same way Winchester priests would be ordained
by letters dimissory elsewhere, so that taking the whole of England
we may assume a practical equalisation. In the diocese of London, as
already stated (p. 175 _ante_), the proportion of non-beneficed to
beneficed clergy ordained during 12 years, from 1362 to 1374, was
nearly six to one.

[379] Pope, _Essay on Man_, lines 107-8.

[380] Mr. Thorold Rogers' supposition that the population in 1348 was
only about 2,500,000 would, on the assumption that the two sexes were
about equal in number, lead to the conclusion that one man in every
25 was a priest; a suggestion which seems to bear, on the face of it,
its own refutation.

[381] Amyot (_Archæologia_, xx, p. 531) notes that even soldiers
appear to have been better paid than the clergy. A foot soldier had
3d. a day, or 7 marks a year; a horse soldier 10d. or 12d. a day.
Chaucer's good parson, who was only "rich of holy thought and werk,"
might not be remarkable.

[382] Ed. Twysden, col. 2699.

[383] Mr. Baigent's MS. extracts from the Episcopal Registers. It
is of interest to note that in normal times very few were ordained
after their appointment as incumbents. Thus, to take the churches in
the city of Winchester, besides this period and 1361, when again the
mortality among the clergy was very great, only some 8 or 9 were so
ordained between 1349 and 1361, as the following table will show:—

 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
 | 1346 | 1348 | 1349 | 1350 | 1351 | 1352 | 1354 | 1359 | 1361 |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
 |   1  |   1  |  19  |   8  |   4  |   1  |   2  |   1  |   5  |
 +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

 +------+------+
 | 1362 | 1363 |
 +------+------+
 |   1  |   1  |
 +------+------+


[384] Harl. MS., 6965, fol. 145 (7 Id. Julii, 1349).

[385] _Ibid._, fol. 146b.

[386] B. Mus. Cole MS., 5824, fol. 23b.

[387] For the real meaning to be attached to learning the _Pater
noster_, etc., see my article on _Religious Instruction in England in
the 14th and 15th Centuries_, in _Dublin Review_, Oct., 1893, p. 900.

[388] Mr. Baigent's MS. collections.

[389] From 1400 to 1418 the average was 17, from 1447 to 1467 only 18.

[390] Reg. Trileck, fol. 180 _seqq._

[391] Reg. Trileck, fol. 163.

[392] Archbishop Islip founded Canterbury College at Oxford to supply
the failing ranks of the clergy and to increase the facilities of
learning (Wilkins, iii., p. 52), and William of Wykeham likewise
established his schools and colleges with the same object.

[393] In the diocese of London, in the twelve years, from 1362 to
1374, Bishop Sudbury ordained 1,046 seculars and 456 regulars, the
proportion consequently being about 2·3 to 1. In the last twenty
years of the century, namely, from 1381 to 1401, Bishop Braybroke
ordained to the priesthood only 584 seculars, whilst the regulars
were 425 during the same period. In other words, during the first
period, the average annual number of ordinations to the ranks of
the secular clergy in the diocese of London was over 87; during the
last twenty years of the century it was only 29·2. The averages of
the regulars in the corresponding periods were 35 and 21·2. Similar
results appear from the York registers.

[394] Archbp. Islip at this time (1350) says: "Dum ad memoriam
reducimus admirandam pestilentiam que nuper partes istas subito sic
invasit, ut nobis multo meliores et digniores subtraxerat."

[395] _Annales Minorum_, viii, p. 22.

[396] _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_, p. 275.

[397] The _Annali della fabbrica_, published by the Cathedral
administration, show in the minutest detail the organisation by which
the necessary funds were raised, and enable us to see how it was
popular enterprise by which so noble an undertaking was achieved.
We can now realise the weekly collections made by willing citizens
from door to door, the collections in the churches, the monthly sales
of offerings in kind of the most varied nature, jewels, dresses,
linen, pots and pans, divers articles of dress and domestic use.
Every one, rich and poor alike, felt impelled to join in some way in
the work which, as the words of the originators express it, "_was
begun by Divine inspiration to the honour of Jesus Christ and His
most Spotless Mother_." _Cf._ an article by Mr. Edmund Bishop on the
subject in the _Downside Review_, July, 1893.


THE END.




INDEX.


 Abergavenny priory, 118.

 Abbotsbury abbey, 78, 163.

 Abstinence days, dispensation from, 197.

 Aden, trade route to, 3.

 Adriatic, coast towns of, 60.

 Agatha, St., relics at Catania, 13.

 Ages of Faith, meaning of, 218.

 Agrarian difficulties, 56, 148, 164, _seqq._

 Albans, St., _see_ St. Albans.

 Alcester, Inq. p.m. at, 190.

 Aldgate, Holy Trinity, cemetery at, 93.

 Aleppo, 2.

 Alexandria and trade with Europe, 3.

 Allott, Thomas, 155.

 Almeira, 58.

 Almsford, 84.

 Alnwick abbey, 160.

 Alphonsus XI, death of, 59.

 Alverdiscott, 88.

 Amiens, 49.

 Amounderness, deanery of, 156.

 Andronicus (son of the Emperor Cantacuzene), death of, 12.

 Anglada, on nature of the plague, 8.

 Anglia, East, plague in, 129;
   effect on religious houses of, 129.

 Anglesey priory, Cambridge, 177.

 Animals attacked, 11, 38, 139.

 Antioch, patriarch of, archbishop of Catania, 13.

 Aragon, Queen of, dies, 59.

 Architecture, influence of pestilence on, 202.

 Arles, 37.

 Armenia, 2.

 Arras, decay of, 57.

 Arundel college, 212.

 Asia, epidemic in, 2;
   trade route to Europe from, 2;
   hordes of Tartars in, 3.

 Athelney abbey, 85.

 Atte Welle, John, 136.

 Augustinians of Winchester diocese, 183.

 Austria, 61.

 Avesbury, Robert of, his account of the pestilence, 74.

 Avignon, first reports of plague at, 16;
   account of plague at, 37-45, 51, 119;
   date of epidemic at, 43;
   extent of mortality in, 42;
   decrease of population in, 41;
   new cemeteries at, 38.

 Azarius, Peter, notary of Novara, 62.

 Azor, otherwise Tana, 5.

 Babington, translator of Hecker's _Epidemics_, 2.

 Babington, Somerset, 85.

 Babylon, mediæval name for Cairo, 4.

 Bagdad, the centre of Eastern commerce, 3.

 Baker, Galfrid le, 72, 116.

 Balearic islands, the, 58.

 Barcelona, 58.

 Barlings abbey, 192.

 Barlborough, 147.

 Barnstaple, 89.

 Barnwell, John, prior of, 132.

 Basingstoke, deanery of, 113.

 Basle, 64, 66.

 Bateman, bishop of Norwich, 205.

 Bath, 85.

 Bath priory, decrease in numbers at, 85.

 Bathampton, 85.

 Bath and Wells, diocese of, prayers ordered in, 71;
   date of pestilence in, 80, 83;
   letter of bishop of, 81;
   straits for priests in, 207;
   ordinations in, 212.

 Baths, public, common in the 14th century, 56.

 Battle abbey, 115.

 Bavaria, 61.

 Beauchief abbey, 147.

 Beche, Margaret de la, Inq. p.m. on, 191.

 Bedfordshire, state of manors in, 101;
   institutions in, 178;
   petition of sheriff as to state of, 178.

 Beds in French peasant houses, 56.

 Belgium, 49.

 Bellinzona, 62.

 Beneficed and non-beneficed clergy, proportion of, 134, 155, 175,
 _note_, 204, _note_.

 Bergen, 67.

 Berkshire, state of manors in, 101;
   institutions of clergy in, 178.

 Berne, 63.

 Bincombe, 78, 79.

 Bircheston, abbot of Westminster, 97.

 Biknor, Alexander de, archbishop of Dublin, 119.

 Blackburn, deanery of, 155.

 Black Death, the, recent origin of name, 6;
   symptoms of the disease, 7, 10, 119;
   special nature of, 8, 39, 43, 49;
   modern outbreak of, 9, _note_;
   truce between England and France attributed to, 117;
   inflicted a deadly blow on social body, iii.;
   forms end of mediæval period, iii.;
   catastrophe to church, iii.;
   starting point of modern history, vi.

 Blackmere, manor of, 143.

 Black Prince, Cornish estates of, 174;
   remits rents on, _ibid._

 Black Sea, port of, the centres of infection, 1.

 Blandford, 78.

 Blessed Sacrament, increase of devotion to, v.;
   lamp to burn before, 130.

 Blisworth, manor of, 138.

 Blood-spitting, a characteristic symptom, 8, 27, 39, 43.

 Bobbio, 18.

 Boccaccio, his description of the plague, 16, 29, _seqq._

 Bodmin, 89;
   numbers of deaths in, 90.

 Bodmin priory, 90;
   destitution of, 91.

 Bohemia, 65.

 Bohemian students, account of journey of, 32.

 Bologna, journey from, 32.

 Bolsover, 147.

 Bongar's _Gesta Dei per Francos_, 3.

 Bordeaux, 45.

 Botereaux, Isabel de, 141.

 Botzen, 61.

 Bourton tything, 167.

 Bowes, Agnes, prioress of Worthorp, 137.

 Boxgrove abbey, 115.

 Brackley, state of country near, 193.

 Braunsford, Wulstan, bishop of Worcester, 120.

 Bread, white, unknown in the 14th century, 55.

 Bredwardine, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, 109.

 Bremen, 66.

 Brenner-pass, the, 61.

 Bridgwater, 84, 168.

 Bridlington priory, Trivet's Chronicle continued at, 72.

 Bridport, 79;
   evidence of corporation records, 80.

 Bristol, 84, 86, 116, 139;
   date of plague at, 117;
   new cemetery at, 87;
   decay of, 86.

 Bristol channel, contagion carried along the, 84, 89.

 Broughton manor, 164.

 Bruerne abbey, 191.

 Bruton priory, cell of, 190.

 Bubonic plague, the, 43.

 Buckinghamshire, date of plague in, 102;
   institutions of clergy in, 101-2, 178;
   state of manors in, 100;
   petition of sheriff as to, 178.

 Bucklow manor, 145.

 Burgundy, 46.

 Burials, effected with difficulty, 40;
   Christian idea of, 111.

 Burton-on-Trent, district of, 148.

 Business, cessation of all, 116.

 Buyers, death of, 92, 146.

 Cæsarea, 2.

 Caffa, Genoese port in Crimea, 4.

 Cairo, 2;
   called Babylon, 4;
   trade at, 4.

 Calais, 49, 71, 117;
   the taking of, i.

 Caleston, manor of, 164.

 Caldecot, manor of, 136.

 Cambeth, now Cambay, India, 3.

 Cambray, death of Bishop of Tournay at, 51.

 Cambridge, date of plague at, 134;
   parishes depopulated, 134, 135;
   plague pits at, 134.

 Cambridgeshire, county of, accounts of a manor in, 135;
   state of, 132.

 Camel, district about the river, 173.

 Cantacuzene, the emperor, description of plague, 10, 11, 16.

 Canterbury, diocese of, 102;
   institutions of clergy in, 102, 179;
   benefices in diocese, _ibid._;
   city of, St. Augustine's, 103;
   Christchurch, 103, 107, 179;
   death of a St. Alban's monk at, 103;
   prior of, orders prayers, 74;
   St. Sepulchre's priory, 103;
   St. Gregory's priory, 103;
   St. James's priory, 179;
   hospital of Eastbridge, 103.

 Canterbury college, Oxford, origin of foundation of, 210.

 Caramania, 2.

 Carinthia, 61, 62.

 Carlisle, 157, 158.

 Carmarthen priory, 118.

 Carmelites of Winchester diocese, the, 183.

 Cartmel priory, 157.

 Cary, Richard de, Mayor of Oxford, 127.

 Caspar Camentz, on the plague at Frankfort, 66.

 Castlecary, 84.

 Catania, 13, 14;
   flight of people to, 14;
   death of Gerard Otho, the archbishop, 14.

 Cattle left to wander in fields, 62, 139.

 Cecchetti, signor, on medical faculty of Venice, 31.

 Cemetery, difficulty as to, at Winchester, 110;
   at Avignon, 40;
   at Tournay, 53.

 Cérisy, St. Vigor's abbey of, 185.

 Charterhouse, London, old cemetery at, 94.

 Charterhouse of Somerset, 170.

 Chastiloun, John, sheriff of Bedford, etc., 179.

 Chauliac, Gui de, 8, 43.

 Chedworth, Sir Thomas, and Anglesey priory, 177.

 Chedzoy manor rolls, 168.

 Cheshunt, convent at, 177.

 Chester, county of, 145;
   accounts of County Palatine, 145;
   archdeanery of, institution in, 145;
   city, St. John's in, 145;
   St. Mary's priory, 145.

 China, origin of plague in, 1, 2;
   trade routes from, 3.

 Christchurch priory, Hants, effect of mortality on, 184.

 Christian charity destroyed by plague, 13, 20, 39, 38, 44, 46, 63, 119.

 Church, effects of plague on the, iv, 205, _seqq._;
   benefits to, from middle classes, v.

 Churches left without services, 205-6.

 Chus or Koos, trade routes through, 4.

 Cities, depopulation of, 161.

 Clement VI, pope, 44.

 Clergy, reason for calculating mortality of, 75;
   poor pay of, 206;
   proportion to lay people, 205-6;
   ignorance of some at this time, 207;
   secular and regular, proportion of, 211;
   mortality amongst, 77, 203-4;
   dearth of, 152, 172, 205, 214;
   regulation of fees of, 105;
   demand higher stipends, 206.

 Clerics not in sacred orders appointed to benefices, 206.

 Clevedon, 84.

 Clistel, the lord of, 117.

 Cloford, 85.

 Clopton, Thomas de, 118.

 Clyn, friar John, account of plague in Ireland, 119-120.

 Co, John de, chancellor of Ely diocese, 133.

 Colchester, numbers of wills at, 176;
   abbot of, dies, 176.

 Colington, Great, 142.

 Colington, Little, 142.

 Collegiate establishment rendered necessary, 212.

 Colmar, 66.

 Cologne, 66.

 Combe Kaynes, 79.

 Commerce, routes of eastern, in 14th century, 2.

 Compostella, account of a pilgrim to, 59.

 Compton, 85.

 Confession to laymen, people exhorted to make, 81.

 Constance, 64.

 Constantinople, position in regard to Crimean trade, 9;
   plague at, 10.

 Contagion, special nature of, 36, 39, 40, 44.

 Conventional forms of middle ages, 218.

 Conversation with infected fatal, 42, 44.

 Corbet, John, priest of Winchester, 208.

 Corey, John, establishes a cemetery in London, 93.

 Cork, 120.

 Cornard Parva, manor of, 129.

 Cornwall, evidence of Duchy accounts, 173;
   date of plague in the county of, 80.

 Cornwall, Mr., introduces English in schools, 202.

 Corsica, 58.

 Court rolls, information contained in, 130, 166.

 Country, desolation of, 162, _seqq._

 Coventry, 125.

 Covino, Simon de, poem on the plague, 35.

 Crecy, battle of, i.

 Creighton, Dr., his work on epidemics in Britain, ii.

 Crimea, Italian trading cities in, 3, 4.

 Crokham manor, 101.

 Crops, prolific nature of, at time of plague, 140.

 Crosby, 155.

 Croxton abbey, 140.

 Cumberland, 157.

 Cunningham, Dr., on the population of England, 195;
   on effect of the plague, 216.

 Curates, technical meaning of name, 81, _note_.

 Cyprus, 2.

 Dale abbey, 147.

 Dalkey, 119.

 Dallyng, Philip, sacrist of Ely, 133.

 Dalmatia, 60.

 Dartmoor, 172.

 Deacons, faculties given to, for administering H. Eucharist, 83.

 Death of those attacked by disease considered certain, 38, 43.

 Decameron, description of the plague in the, 16, 20-24.

 Dene, William, monk of Rochester, his description of the plague,
 104, _seqq._, 197;
   account of the labour difficulties by, 199.

 Dene, Roger, priest of Winchester, 207.

 Dene, Sir Thomas, deaths in the family of, 104.

 Delaprey abbey, 137.

 De' Mussi, 4, 16.

 Denis, St., account of plague in chronicle of, 46;
   mortality at, 47.

 Denmark, 69.

 Denny, east and west, 176.

 Denton, Richard de, 137.

 Derby, death of priests in county, 147;
   institutions in, 146;
   Dominicans of, 147.

 Dereford, John de, Mayor of Oxford, 127.

 Derley abbey, notes in the chartulary of, 147.

 Desolation of country after the plague, 48, 50, 56, 68, 69, 106,
 115, 123, 145, 155, 157, 161, _seqq._

 Devon, date of plague in county, 80;
   mortality in, 89.

 Devotions, new character of popular, v.

 Dice converted into "beads," 52.

 Dissentis abbey, 63.

 Ditchford friary, 125.

 Doctors, consulted by French king, 49;
   at Venice, 31;
   at Avignon, 39;
   flight of many, 43.

 Dodington manor, 143.

 Dominicans, falling off in numbers of, 183.

 Doncaster, deanery of, institutions in, 152, 154, 155.

 Dorchester, 79.

 Dorsetshire, first appearance of plague in, 72, 78, 79;
   institutions of clergy in, 79;
   deaths of clergy, 162.

 Doulton, 85.

 Drakelow, lordship of, 148.

 Drogheda, 119;
   convent of Minorites at, 120.

 Drontheim, archbishop and canons of, die, 67;
   bishops of province of, die, 68.

 Dublin, 119;
   state of city after plague, 121;
   convent of Minorites in, 120.

 Duchy of Lancaster accounts, 173.

 Dugdale's _Warwickshire_, institutions from, 125.

 Dunstable, John de, prior of Coventry, 125.

 Dunwich, 131.

 East, the, plague originates in, 1;
   lines of commerce with, 3, 4.

 Eaststoke, in Hayling Island, 187.

 Eckington, 147.

 Ederos, or Ivychurch, 163.

 Education, seriously affected by plague, ix;
   condition of university after, 210.

 Edward III, his great renown at the time of plague, iii.

 Edyndon, Bishop of Winchester, 107;
   his letter on the plague, 107;
   his letter on cemeteries at Winchester, 111;
   benefactions to St. Mary's, Winchester, 182;
   his benefactions to Romsey, 182;
   his inquiry into the state of St. Swithun's, 184;
   his inquiry into the state of Christchurch, Hants, 184;
   his letter about Shereborne priory, 185;
   his admonition to priests about residence, 185.

 Elsyng, Robert, 94.

 Ely, diocese of, 132;
   institutions in, 133;
   arrangement for government of, 132;
   proportion of beneficed and non-beneficed in, 134;
   falling off of ordinations, 208;
   oath demanded from candidates for orders, 207;
   cathedral priory of, 133;
   tax on Dunwich granted to the priory, 131.

 Elyot, William, 186.

 Engelberg, 64;
   nunnery at, terrible mortality at, 64.

 England, date of arrival of plague in, 71, 73.

 English, introduction of, into schools, 202.

 Episcopal registers, value of, 75;
   kind of evidence to be found in, 75.

 Escheator's returns as to death of landowners, 100.

 Esse, Richard de, Abbot of Tavistock, 70.

 Essex, benefices in, 175;
   Inq. p.m. in, 175.

 Etsch, valley of the, 61.

 Eulogium Historiarum, the, 72.

 Europe, lines of Eastern trade with, 4.

 Evercreech, 84.

 Exe, villages on the, 89.

 Exeter, diocese of, date of plague in, 80, 87;
   episcopal registers, testimony of, 88;
   institutions of, 87, 172;
   city of, St. Nicholas, 89.

 Families swept away by plague, 65, 148, 169.

 Farming, change in the system of, 200.

 Farms, small, in use before the plague, 201.

 Feodosia, S., otherwise Caffa, 4.

 Ferriby priory, 152.

 Fifteenth century, the, a period of reconstruction, 219.

 Fish, scarcity of, 197;
   increased price of, 196;
   supposed spread of epidemic through, 42.

 Fishing boats convey infection, 89.

 FitzEustace, Thomas, Inq. p.m. on, 177.

 FitzRalph, archbishop of Armagh, on decrease of Oxford students, 126.

 FitzWilliam, John, 154.

 Flanders, 51.

 Fleurchamps abbey, 67.

 Flight of people before plague, 154.

 Florence, 16, 20-25.

 Food, spread of infection through, 42;
   dearness of, 140.

 Fordingbridge, 112.

 Foswert, 67.

 Foucarmont abbey, 46.

 Fourteenth century, common view as to, i.

 Fowey, the estuary of, 89.

 France, S. Luce on population of, 54;
   condition of rural, in 14th century, 55.

 Franciscans, Wadding on effect of plague on, 216.

 Frankfort, 66.

 Freeman, professor, on real greatness of middle ages, 217.

 Fremington, 89.

 Freshford, 85.

 Friars, of Piacenza, deaths amongst, 19;
   in Provence, mortality amongst, 44;
   mortality of, 45;
   of Winchester diocese, falling off in numbers, 183;
   of Our Lady, Norwich, 129.

 Frodsham manor, 145.

 Frome, 85.

 Funerals, regulations for, 28.

 Furniture of French houses, 55.

 Fyfhide, William de, 112.

 Gall, St., abbey of, 70.

 Gallarete, 62.

 Garstang, 156.

 Garter, foundation of the Order of the, i.

 Gascoigne, Thomas, on decrease of Oxford students, 126.

 Gascony, 46, 48.

 Gayton, near Towcester, 193.

 Gaza, 2.

 Geneva, Lake of, 63.

 Genoa, merchants of, report beginning of plague, 1;
   ships carry plague to, 12;
   date of plague at, 18;
   ships from, carry plague to Marseilles, 34;
   settlements in Crimea of merchants belonging to, 3-4.

 Gerard Otho, archbishop of Catania, 14.

 Gerneys, Joan, abbess of Romsey, 188.

 Gesta Abbatum, the, 97.

 Gibraltar, death of Alphonsus XI at, 59.

 Gillingham, Dorset, court rolls of, 167.

 Girgenti, 14.

 Glastonbury, decrease in number of monks, 85, 215.

 Glass, first use of, 55;
   painted, influence of plague on manufacture of, 203.

 Gloucester, county of, benefices in, 188;
   city of, stops communication with Bristol, 92.

 Godstowe, prioress of, 125.

 Goods of deceased tenants seized by the lord of the manor, 193.

 Grandisson, bishop, 88, 90, 172.

 Green, J. R., his history, ii;
   his estimate of church influence, v.

 Gresley, prior of, 147.

 Grinstead, East, near Salisbury, 165.

 Grisant, William, doctor at Marseilles, 35.

 Guernsey, 71.

 Guilds, rise of, v.

 Hagham priory, 158.

 Hallmote courts, 159.

 Haltemprice priory, 152.

 Hame, manor of, 189.

 Hampole, Richard Rolle, of, iv.

 Hampshire, date of plague in, 112;
   institutions of clergy in, 180;
   Inq. p.m. in, 188.

 Hampton, John de, 112.

 Hardington, 85.

 Hartland abbey, 90.

 Hartlebury, manor of the Bishop of Worcester, 124.

 Harvests unreaped for lack of labour, 171, 189, 196.

 Hastings, royal presentation to church in, 179.

 Hastings, Laurence de, Earl of Pembroke, 118.

 Hastings, William de, Inq. p.m. on, 188.

 Hayling, Island, 113;
   impoverishment of, 187;
   priory, impoverishment of, 187.

 Hecker, his account of commencement of the plague, 2.

 Hedges, origin of, 201.

 Heiligen Kreuz abbey, 65.

 Helston, 173.

 Hereford, disease of, 141;
   institutions of clergy in, 142;
   falling off in numbers ordained, 209.

 Hertfordshire, date of plague in, 98;
   institutions of clergy in, 177;
   manors of, state of, 99.

 Heriots, increase in number of, 190.

 Herrings, increase in price of, 196.

 Heveringland priory, 129.

 Hexstall, Leticia, abbess of Pollesworth, 125.

 Hickling priory, 129.

 Hinton charterhouse, difficulties on death of tenants at, 170, 171.

 Hinton Bluet, two masses on Sundays allowed at, 207.

 Holcombe, Somerset, 85.

 Holderness, deanery of, 153.

 Holland, 67.

 Holland, town of, 49.

 Holland, Sir Thomas, 137.

 Holy Cross, Bristol, 87.

 Holy Name, rise of devotion to the, v.

 Horsleigh priory, 190.

 Horsley, 147.

 Houghton, 159.

 House, style of French country, 55.

 Hull, 155.

 Hume, on the plague, iv.

 Husee, Sir Henry, Inq. p.m. on, 164.

 Hyde abbey, 181.

 Iceland, the bishops of, all die, 68.

 Incumbents, ordination of, after appointment, 206.

 Indulgences granted at time of plague, 110.

 Infection, terrible nature of, 18, 27, 49, 62, 92.

 Institutions of clergy, valuable evidence of, 76.

 Inquisitions post-mortem, value of, 99.

 Ireland, 119, _seqq._

 Iron, increased price of, 196.

 Islep, Simon, Archbishop of Canterbury, his enthronisation, 107;
   letter on stipends of clergy, 213.

 Istria, 61.

 Ivychurch priory, 113, 163.

 Jessop, Dr., his account of the plague in East Anglia, ii, 128, 129.

 Jersey, 71.

 Jervaux abbey, 152.

 Jews, mortality amongst, 38.

 Joan, Queen of Navarre, dies, 47.

 Joan of Burgundy dies, 47.

 Joan, daughter of Edward III, dies, 45.

 John XXI, report as to Eastern commerce to, 2.

 Kent, Margaret, Countess of, 136.

 Keynsham abbey, 85.

 Kidwelly priory, 118.

 Kilkenny, 120.

 Kilkhampton, John de, prior of Bodwin, 90.

 Kilmersdon, 85.

 King Edward, his compassion seldom manifested, 186;
   on clerical education, 210.

 Kingsmead, prioress of, 147.

 Knighton, chronicle by, 73;
   his account of plague at Bristol, 86;
   ditto in Leicestershire, 139;
   his description of labour difficulties, 198;
   on the scarcity of priests, 205.

 Knightsbridge, slaughter place for London at, 95.

 Koos, or Chus, a trade station on the Nile, 4.

 Kurds, the, attacked by the plague, 2.

 Labour, increased cost of, 189, 196.

 Labourers, difficulty of obtaining, 50, 92, 106, 140, 170-1, 179, 189;
   trouble with, 56;
   feel their power, iii, 197;
   get higher wages in spite of legislation, 198-9.

 Lagerbring, on plague in Norway, 67.

 Lamech, earthquake at, 2.

 Lancashire, 155.

 Land, depreciation of, 137, 153, 188, 189, 192, 196;
   rents of, reduced, 106, 143-4, 145, 164, _seqq._;
   cessation of services on, 148;
   a third part of, uncultivated, 199;
   change of, to large tenures, 201.

 Landowners, difficulties of, 196;
   mediæval meaning of, 202.

 Langton, 79.

 Language, effect of plague on, 202.

 Languedoc, 37.

 Langwith, 147.

 Lanthony priory, 189.

 Laon, abbey of St. John at, 56.

 Launceston, appointment of a religious of, as prior of Bodmin, 91.

 Laura de Noves, death of, 37;
   announcement of death of, to Petrarch, 29.

 Law Courts suspended, 149.

 Law suits settled by deaths of parties, 116, 169.

 Lay people and clergy, proportion of, 205.

 Ledbury, large ordination at, 209.

 Leicester, county of, institutions of clergy in, 140.

 Leicester, city of, 139.

 Lesnes monastery, poverty of, 106.

 Lestraunge, John, 144, 164.

 Lewes priory, deaths at, 115.

 Liège, labour difficulties at, 56.

 Lincoln, diocese of, indulgences for, 139, 149;
   institutions of clergy in, 177.

 Lincoln, county of, Escheator's accounts for, 150.

 Lincoln, Richard de, 149.

 Lipton, Nicholas de, abbot, 192.

 Lisle, Thomas de, Bishop of Ely, 132.

 Livings left vacant, 172.

 Lollards, supposed religious revival, due to, iv.

 London, date of plague in, 93, 96, 117;
   new churchyards in, 23-94;
   number of dead in, 94-95, 175;
   insanitary condition of, 95;
   proportion of secular to regular clergy ordained in, 213, _note_.

 Longford, 147, 176.

 Louth Park, 149.

 Luce, M. Simeon, on condition of French rural life, 56.

 Lucerne, 63.

 Lucaris, Dominic de, Archbishop of Spalatro, 60.

 Luda, Walter de, abbot of Louth Park, 149.

 Luffield priory, 137.

 Lulworth, East, 79.

 Lycia, trade route with, 3.

 Lycotin, Matilda, 114.

 Lydford manor, 172.

 Lyle, Henry de, prior of Horsleigh, 190.

 Lynot, John, 135.

 Lynsted, Adam de, sacrist of Ely, 133.

 Magnus II, King of Sweden, 69.

 Mahabar, probably Mahe, on Malabar coast, 3.

 Majorca, 58.

 Maldon manor, 175.

 Male population, demands upon the, 210.

 Malling abbey, 104, 106.

 Malvern, Great, 122.

 Manny, Sir Walter, 94, 116.

 Manors, example of deaths of tenants on, 129, 135, 138, 139, 141,
 167, 168, 169.

 Marino, Sanudo, his account of ancient trade routes, 2.

 Marseilles, 34;
   remains a city of the dead, 40.

 Marton priory, 152.

 Mautravers, John, governor of Channel Islands, 71.

 Meals, account of, in France, 56.

 Meath, bishop of, 119, _note_.

 Meaux abbey, 78, 152;
   decay of, 154.

 Medical science powerless to deal with epidemic, 10, 36, 44, 63.

 Mediterranean ports, infection brought from, 1.

 Melcombe Regis, plague in England first starts from, 72.

 Mengham, Hayling Island, 187.

 Mentmore, Michael, abbot of St. Alban's, 97.

 Merdenchor, quarter of Tournay, 51.

 Messina, 12.

 Mesopotamia, 2;
   trade route through, 3.

 Middle ages, material difficulties in, 217.

 Middle classes, profusion of, v.

 Milan, building of the cathedral of, 219.

 Minster priory, Cornwall, 89.

 Momo, 62.

 Monasteries, special mortality in, 67, 180;
   impoverishment of, 177;
   depopulation of, 215.

 Monkbretton priory, 152.

 Monrieux, 29.

 Montgomery, Sir John, 116.

 Montpellier, 35.

 Morals, effect of scourge on, iv, 25, 32, 48;
   attempt to enforce better, 52.

 Mortality, extent of, in Europe, 50;
   probable estimate of, in England, 194, _seqq._;
   of English clergy, as evidenced by patent rolls, 76;
   greater in confined places, 53.

 Morton, 193.

 Muchelney abbey, 85.

 Muggington, 147.

 Muhldorf, 61.

 Muisis, Gilles Le, abbot of Tournay, 50, 59.

 Mussi, De', his account of the plague in Italy, 16, 17.

 Mustard, nearly the only mediæval condiment, 55.

 Mürz, the valley of the, 61.

 Nangis, William of, his account of the plague, 47.

 Narbonne, 37.

 Navarre, Queen of, dies, 47.

 Netherton, 145.

 Neuberg, 61, 65.

 Newcastle, 159.

 Newenham abbey, 90.

 Norfolk and Suffolk, institution of clergy in, 128;
   manors of, deaths in, 129.

 Normandy, 46, 49.

 Northam, 88.

 Northamptonshire, institutions of clergy in, 137;
   manors of, 138.

 North Sea, ships drifting on the, 2.

 Northumberland, 159.

 Northwich, 146.

 Northwood, Hayling Island, 187.

 Norway, 67.

 Norwich, diocese of, deaths of religious superiors in, 128;
   institutions of clergy in, 128;
   ordinations of youths in, 205.

 Norwich, city of, St. Martin's in the Fields, 129;
   the friars of Our Lady in, _ibid._;
   deaths in, 130;
   supposed population of, _ibid._

 Nottinghamshire, deaths of beneficed clergy in, 148.

 Noves, Laura de, death of, 37.

 Nurses, impossibility of finding, 40, 44, 46, 63;
   almost certain death of, 49.

 Oath, a kind of missionary, imposed at Ely, 207.

 Observance of monasteries, plague fatal to, 216.

 Orders, dearth of candidates for, 152;
   the usual intervals between, dispensed with, 205;
   conferred on a married man, 207;
   conferred on youths, 205.

 Ordinations, effect of plague upon the, 181, 183, 208.

 Ordinations, faculty to archbishop of York for extra, 152.

 Orvieto, 27.

 Ospring manor, 104.

 Otho, Gerard, archbishop of Catania, 14.

 Oxfordshire, date of pestilence in, 125.

 Oxford City, 126;
   mayors die, 126;
   plague pits in, 127.

 Oxford University, students decrease through plague, 126, 210.

 Oxford, St. Frideswide, 125, 192.

 Padova, Andrea di, a doctor at Venice, 31.

 Padua, 26, 61.

 Painted glass, influence of plague on manufacture, 203.

 Paris, 46, 47.

 Parishes, depopulation of, 105, 142;
   impoverishment of, 136.

 Parliament, prorogation of, 93.

 Parma, 28-30.

 Pastoral clergy, necessity for providing, 214.

 Patent rolls, evidence of the mortality upon the, 76.

 Pater noster, meaning of instructions upon the, 208, _note_.

 Pembroke, county of, 118.

 Pentrich, 147.

 People, sympathy of clergy with, 214;
   become masters of the situation, 200.

 Pepys, Samuel, his description of Bristol, 86.

 Pestilence, the great, date of commencement, 1;
   its arrival in England, 73;
   character of, 7, 10, 11, 35, 49, 60, 62;
   special type of, 7, 36, 43, 117, 119;
   rapidity of infection of, 60, 74, 119;
   not affected by climate, 36.

 Petrarch, his account of the plague at Parma, 28-30.

 Pessimism of present day, 217.

 Pfäfers, 63.

 Philip of Valois, Queen of, dies, 47.

 Philip VI consults doctors upon the epidemic, 49.

 Piacenza, 4, 18-19.

 Pilton priory, 89.

 Pinchbeck, Emma de, prioress of Worthorp, 137.

 Pisa, 26;
   effect of plague on morals at, 32.

 Platiensis, Michael, his account of the plague in Sicily, 12.

 Poisoners suspected at Avignon, 41.

 Poitou, 46.

 Pola, 61.

 Pollesworth abbey, 125.

 Poole, 80.

 Poor, unhealthy condition of living, 126;
   very great mortality amongst, 36, 41.

 Population in 14th century, 54;
   statistics of, 75;
   estimate of, in England, 194, _seqq._;
   effect on the, 73, 143;
   proportion carried off, 194;
   detached from the soil by the plague, 201.

 Portesham, 79.

 Portishead, 84.

 Portland, 73.

 Portsmouth, 113, 186.

 Poverty of priests because of the deaths of their people, 135.

 Powick, 122.

 Pratis, John de, bishop of Tournay, 51.

 Preston, 156.

 Priests' deaths imply deaths of many people, 166.

 Priests, poverty of, through the plague, 105, 135-172.

 Priests afraid of infection, 105, 109;
   specially liable to infect, 18, 33, 36, 53, 68, 81, 119;
   dearth of, 81, 105, 172, 205;
   devotion of, 53, 88.

 Processions, orders for, 71-158.

 Provisions, cheap, during the pestilence, 92.

 Provence, 40, 44.

 Ragusa, 60.

 Raleghe, Roger de, Abbot of Hartland, 90.

 Ramsey abbey, 156.

 Realism, need of corrective for, 218.

 Reggio, 28.

 Registers, Episcopal, importance of the, 75.

 Regular clergy, numbers of the, 211;
   position in the Church of, 211;
   ordinations of, 211.

 Religion, paralysis of, after the epidemic, iv;
   history of, in later times, to be understood in light of this
   plague, vi.

 Religious foundations, change in type of, 212.

 Religious houses, special mortality in, 67, 141, 153, 163;
   effect of plague on numbers of, 180;
   impoverishment of, 117, 181, _seqq._

 Religious, falling of in ordinations of, 183.

 Religious feeling and practice, important change in, iv.

 Rent, instance of remission of, 146.

 Rhine valley, 63, 66.

 Rhone valley, 37.

 Rich, the, victims of the plague at Tournay, 53;
   in Hungary, 64.

 Rievaulx abbey, 152.

 Rimini, 27.

 Rivarolo, 18.

 Roche abbey, 152.

 Rochester, diocese of, 104, _seqq._;
   deaths in episcopal palace of, 104;
   the bishop's mandate for prayers, 105;
   state of episcopal manors, 106.

 Rochester, cathedral priory of, 106.

 Rogers, Professor Thorold, on population, 195.

 Romsey abbey, 183;
   election of abbess to, 183;
   benefactions of Bishop Edyndon, 182.

 Roskild, the bishopric of, state of the manors of, 69.

 Round numbers, misleading nature of, 54, 156.

 Ruswyl, 63.

 Rutland, 138.

 Rye, 115.

 Sacraments, difficulty in obtaining the, 33.

 Sacrament, the blessed, increase of devotion to, v.

 Sadington, 141.

 St. Alban's, decrease in number of monks at, 215;
   date of plague at, 97;
   death of a monk of, at Canterbury, 103;
   peculiars of, 177.

 St. Brice, parish of, 51.

 St. Gall, abbey of, 62.

 St. Gothard, pass of, 62.

 St. Ives, John of, camerarius of Ely, 133.

 St. Piat, parish of, Tournay, 51.

 St. Trond, difficulties with tenants at, 56.

 St. Valery, abbey of, Picardy, 176.

 Salisbury, diocese of, institutions of clergy in, 78;
   deaths in, 162.

 Salt, increased price of, 196.

 Salvatierra, 59.

 Sandown, hospital of, 93, 185.

 Sandwich, cemetery at, 103.

 Santiago, 51, 59.

 Sanudo, Marino, his report on lines of commerce, 2.

 Saragossa, 59.

 Sardinia, 58.

 Sciacca, 14.

 Scotch invaders attacked, 160.

 Sebenico, 61.

 Secular and regular clergy, proportion of, 211;
   ordination of, in London, 213, _note_.

 Selkirk forest, 160.

 Selwood forest, 170.

 Selwood, Richard de, 126.

 Seyer, his history of Bristol, 86.

 Shaftesbury, 79.

 Shelford priory, 152.

 Shereborne abbey, 118.

 Shepey, Jordan, Mayor of Coventry, 125.

 Ships without crews on the high seas, 2, 67.

 Shireborne priory, 185.

 Shrewsbury, institutions of clergy in, 143.

 Shrewsbury, Ralph of, and bishop of Bath and Wells, 71;
   letter of, on the plague, 81-3.

 Shropshire, 143.

 Sicily, 12.

 Sick left without attendants, 39-40, 44.

 Siena, 26;
   population of, 27, _note_;
   building of cathedral of, suspended, 27, 218.

 Skelton, William, prior of Luffield, 137.

 Sladen, manor of, 100.

 Smithfield, East, cemetery at, 93.

 Snetterton, manor of, 130.

 Social results of plague, 195, 217.

 Somerset, date of plague in the county of, 80, 81, 83;
   institutions of clergy in, 84, 165;
   dearth of clergy in, 84.

 Southampton, 113, 139.

 Southwood, 187.

 Spain, 48, 58, _seqq._

 Spalatro, 60.

 Spettisbury, 78.

 Spiritual writers, rise of an English school of, iv.

 Spoils of France, English people rich with, i.

 Sprouston, Robert de, 134.

 Staffordshire, 141.

 Stamford, St. Michael's, united to Worthorp, 138.

 Stipends of clergy, 213.

 Stockton, near Warminster, 167.

 Stoke-Clare, college of, 212.

 Stoke, Hayling Island, 187.

 Stowe's account of London cemeteries, 94.

 Strange, John le, 143, 144;
   Fulk, _ibid._;
   Humphrey, _ibid._

 Strikes against old rents, 199.

 Students, decrease in numbers of, 126.

 Styria, 61, 65.

 Suffolk, institutions of clergy in, 128.

 Surrey, date of plague in, 113;
   institutions in, 180;
   depreciation of land in, 188.

 Sussex, 114;
   benefices in, 179;
   royal presentations to livings in, 179.

 Sweden, letter of the king of, on the plague, 69;
   the pestilence in, 69.

 Switzerland, 63.

 Syria, 2;
   trade routes through, 3.

 Talkeley priory, Essex, 176.

 Tallagh abbey, 118.

 Tamworth, land near, 141.

 Tana, now Azor, 5.

 Tartary, 2.

 Tavistock abbey, 90.

 Taxes, difficulty in raising, 197.

 Tenants, deaths of manorial, 146, 148, 150, 154, 157, 188;
   dearth of, 192;
   refusal to pay old rents by, 199;
   small holdings of, before epidemic, 201.

 That-Molyngis, Ireland, pilgrimage to, 119.

 Thurgarton priory, 152.

 Tideswell, Church of, 203.

 Tigris, trade route along, 3.

 Tintagel, 173.

 Tortona, 63.

 Toulouse, 40, 45.

 Tournay, 67, 50 _seqq._;
   bishop of, 51;
   abbey of St. Martin's at, 50.

 Towcester, 193.

 Towns, decay of, 155, 197.

 Trade routes, the chief eastern, 3.

 Trades unions, rise of, 200.

 Trapani, 14.

 Trebizond, trade with, 3.

 Trent, 61.

 Trevisa, his account of introduction of English into schools, 202.

 Trigg, deanery of, 173.

 Trileck, Bishop of Hereford, 142;
   ordinations by, 209.

 Trivet, his chronicle continued, 72.

 Tumby, Stephen de, and Mary, his wife, 165.

 Tura, Agniolo de, his account of the plague, 26.

 Twerton, 85.

 Tynemouth, account by a monk of, 160.

 Tynham, 79.

 Tyrolese Alps, 61.

 Valencia, 58.

 Valery, St., abbey of, 176.

 Varese, 62.

 Venice, ships from Crimea, trade with, 12;
   plague at, 18, 28;
   deaths at, 43;
   doctors at, 31, 32.

 Verona, 65.

 Vienna, 65.

 Villainage, extinction of, 200.

 Villani, Giovanni, dies of the plague, 25.

 Villani Matteo, on origin of the plague, 1;
   on nature of the plague, 8;
   his account of it, 25.

 Vocations to priesthood fall off, 210.

 Wadding on the effects of the plague, 216.

 Wages, attempt to regulate, 197;
   real reason for the measure, 198;
   are doubled, 197.

 Wakebridge, Sir William, 148.

 Wales, 117;
   small number of religious in monasteries of, 118.

 Walter, abbot of Newenham, 90.

 Wordsworth, 114.

 Wappenbury, lands in, 190.

 Wareham, 79, 80;
   alien priory at, 80.

 Waring, John de, 115.

 Warminster, 167.

 Warmwell, 79.

 Warwickshire, institutions of clergy in, 125, 190;
   Inq. p.m. in, 190;
   date of plague in, 125.

 Weedon, 193.

 Welbeck abbey, 152.

 Wells, 85.

 West Chickerell, 79.

 West Gotland, 68.

 Westerham, impropriation of, to Canterbury, 179.

 Westminster, 93;
   hospital of St. James's at, 97.

 Westminster abbey, 96, 97.

 Westmoreland, 157.

 Weston-super-Mare, 84, 193.

 Weston, Hayling Island, 187.

 Weston, William, 97.

 Weymouth, 72, 77.

 Whaddon, 115.

 Whitchurch manor, 144, 164, 191.

 Whitland abbey, 118.

 Wight, Isle of, 114;
   institutions of clergy in, 186.

 William of Worcester, note as to Yarmouth, 130;
   note as to Bodmin, 90.

 Willington, 147.

 Willington, Henry de, 164.

 Wilmacott, Inq. p.m. as to, 191.

 Wills in court of Hustings, London, 96.

 Wiltshire, institutions of clergy in, 163;
   Inq. p.m. in, 164;
   manors of, 167.

 Winchcombe abbey, 189.

 Winchelsea, 114.

 Winchester, diocese of, 107, _seqq._;
   institutions of clergy in, 112;
   deaths of religious superiors of, 114;
   falling off in numbers ordained, 183, 208;
   decay of churches in, 185;
   proportion of beneficed to non-beneficed clergy ordained in, 204;
   clerics not in sacred orders ordained to benefices, 206.

 Winchester, St. Swithun's, 112;
   death of prior, 180;
   effect of deaths in, 180;
   impoverishment of, 180, 184.

 Winchester, St. Mary's nunnery, 182.

 Winchester city, difficulties in collecting taxes, 187;
   processions through, 108;
   riot in, about burial places, 110.

 Winnow, St., 89.

 Winterbourne, St. Nicholas, 80.

 Winterbournes, the, 78.

 Witham charterhouse, difficulties of, 170.

 Wisby, the cathedral of, slabs in, 69.

 Wisby, Franciscan convent in, 68.

 Wiveliscombe, the bishop of Bath and Wells at, 84.

 Wool, making of cloth from, at Hinton charterhouse, 171.

 Woods not to be sold, 164.

 Worcester, letter of bishop of, 122;
   state of his manors after, 123;
   cemetery in, 122;
   St. Oswald's in, 123;
   state of the county of, 123;
   date of plague in, 121;
   institutions of clergy in, 121.

 Workmen, combinations of, 199.

 Worthorp priory, 137.

 Wycliff, failure of social theories of, 217.

 Wycliffite authors, tracts wrongly attributed to, 5.

 Wykeham, William of, his exhortations to St. Swithin's, Winchester,
 181;
   his schools, 210;
   his entry into ecclesiastical state caused by plague, 214.

 Wyncote, John, deaths in family of, 191.

 Yarmouth, population of, 131, _note_;
   mortality in, 130;
   petition to Henry VII from, 131;
   church building stopped, 131;
   St. Nicholas' church, 203.

 York, institutions of clergy in the diocese, 151;
   provision against deaths of canons, 152;
   depreciation of land in the county of, 154;
   letter of Archbishop Zouche, 150;
   indulgences from the Pope for, 151.

 Zouche, archbishop of York, 150.

 Zurich, 64.




TRANSCRIBER'S ENDNOTE

Original printed spelling and grammar is generally retained.
Footnotes were renumbered and moved from the ends of pages to the
ends of chapters. Ellipses look like the originals. Original printed
page numbers are shown like these: "[p-xiii]", in the front matter,
or "[p013]".

The page images available to the proofreaders and to the transcriber
were nearly illegible in a few places, especially in the small print
in some footnotes. The first footnote on page 157 is perhaps the
worst example of this: three different images, presumably from three
different printed copies of the book, failed to clarify whether the
correct reading is "Treasury of Receipt 21a/3", as rendered herein,
or not.

Page 9, footnote: "simoon" was printed, and is retained, but perhaps
"simoom" was meant.

Page 19: "northen Italy" changed to "northern Italy".

Page 35, first footnote: comma inserted between "Austriacarum" and
"Scriptores".

Page 40: "crosssd" changed to "crossed".

Page 61: "familes" changed to "families".

Page 63: "Pfäffers" is spelled "Pfäfers" in the index.

Page 65: "Heiligenkreuz" is spelled "Heiligen Kreuz" in the index.

Page 80: closing quote added to the sentence that ends thus: "the
burial-place of its victims".

Page 85: "Doulting" is retained, although it is spelled "Doulton" in
the index on page 228.

Page 118, etc.: The words "Shereborne" (p 229, 240), "Sherborne" (p
118, 163), and "Shireborne" (p 185, 240) have all been retained,
although two or all three may have the same referent.

Page 133: in "brother Philip Dallying, late sacrist of Ely", changed
"Dallying" to "Dallyng", to agree with index entry.

Page 134: "Robert de Spronston" is spelled "Sprouston, Robert de,
134" in the index.

Page 143: "Dodinton" is spelled "Dodington" in the index.

Page 152: "Rievaux" changed to "Rievaulx" (abbey).

Page 177: "Fitz-Eustace" is spelled "FitzEustace" in the index.

Pages 221-244, Index: there are several entries that apparently
refer to locations within the front matter, where page numbers were
designated by Roman numerals. These references generally seem to be
incorrect. For example, under the heading "Black Death" on page 223,
there are four entries that refer the reader to pages iii or vi, but
these pages were the title page and the second page of the Table of
Contents, respectively. Similarly, under the heading Calais, the
reader is referred to page i, which is the half title page of the
printed book. These incorrect references have been retained.

Page 226: changed "archdeanery" to "archdeaconry", under the index
entry "Chester".

Page 234: in "Lincoln, county of, Escheators' accounts", changed
"Escheators'" to "Escheator's" to agree with page 150.

Page 235: "Mallinge abbey" to "Malling abbey" to agree with text on
pages 104 and 106.

Page 237: "Oxford, St. Frideswithe" changed to "Oxford, St.
Frideswide", to agree with text.

Page 244: in "Wivelscombe, the bishop of Bath and Wells at,", changed
the name to "Wiveliscombe". "Wyclif" and "Wyclifite" were changed to
"Wycliff" and "Wycliffite", respectively, to agree with the text.