A while back, I wrote a short piece about medieval nuns being abducted, and/or eloping from their convents (you can see it here). A small footnote to that is this case, from the King’s Bench roll of Michaelmas 1442, which tells a nun-abduction story with some interesting variations in the narrative.
An entry on KB 27/726 Rex m.4 (AALT image 0275), which you can see here,[i] notes that a Middlesex jury made a presentment (accusation) in relation to a certain John Andrew of Huntingdon, notary. They said that, on 1st May 1441, John had feloniously raped/ravished[ii] and abducted Elizabeth, a nun of the house of Fynchyngbrook, Hunts, [Hinchin(g)brook(e)] in the Strand, and, having abducted her against her will, he kept her for the following year, living an immoderate (or wanton?) life (luxuriose vivendo), reducing the level of divine service in the said church (or that’s my best effort!). In a familiar pattern, a great deal of procedural toing and froing follows, and in the end Andrewe is acquitted.
An anticlimax, but so many questions!
First of all – we can’t help but ask ourselves, can we? – what was the truth of the matter? Complete pack of lies? Abduction and then some sort of acquiescence? Abduction and continued objection? Elopement? If this whole story had any truth in it, was she meeting the notary on some official, legal business? If Elizabeth was indeed a nun of the Benedictine priory of Hinchin(g)brook, her convent seems to have been in a bit of a sorry state in the 1440s, and the possibility that it might go out of business seems to have been recognised in a royal grant later in the decade. As ever, we will never know.
Secondly – what is going on with that narrative? Why tell us about the alleged style of life of Elizabeth, post-abduction? Why mention the bit about diminution in divine service as a result of the abduction? This all seems to be a muddle. The abduction of nuns was an offence under the statute of Westminster II 1285, c.34, in any case – there was no need to give an account of the damage caused by the nun’s absence. The immoderate living part here seems to be a matter of general misogynist mud-slinging, rather undermining the apparent fair-mindedness of the statement that that the abduction was contrary to Elizabeth’s will. Can a person can live luxuriose without their co-operation? And the bit about diminution in divine service is worth some thought: I would imagine that it was influenced by several decades of bedding-in of the Labourers legislation, focused as it was on withdrawal of services which were due, and loss caused thereby. But a nun was not really equivalent to an ordinary labourer (for who was her employer?), nor (I think) to a male cleric who had covenanted to sing. So perhaps this was a bit of a non-starter, and that was recognised. There does not seem to be a connected law report, sadly, so there is no sign that this issue got the full court-room debate treatment. So off it goes onto the intractable mystery pile – I will be interested to see whether there is any other information out there on either of the alleged parties, or the events in this story, but sometimes you just have to let things go.
GS
23/9/2023
Image, Wikimedia Commons
[i] See also the King’s Bench Indictment File for Trinity 1442, here.
[ii] rapuit