This blog
If you want to read more from my blog, please do subscribe either by using the Subscribe via Email button top right of my blog, or the button at the very bottom. Â If you’ve enjoyed reading this post, then please do Like it with the Facebook button and/or leave a comment below.
Click the picture of Hatfield Peverel’s witch (below) to read Part 1 of the story of Great Dunmow’s Elizabethan witches.
1566: The Examination and confession of certaine wytches at Chensforde
There were two sets of husbands and wifes accused of witchcraft in the Elizabethan era in Great Dunmow: Alice & John Prestmary (1567), and Richard & Joan Prestmary (1578). The calendars of the Assizes and the Queen’s Bench Indictments containing the Prestmary trials have survived and are now held by Essex Record Office. These contain the only surviving official records of these two cases. The authorities did not directly accuse John Prestmary of witchcraft and so isn’t named in any of the Assize trials. However, as will become clear in this post, there is enough circumstantial evidence to support my theory that he must have been involved in some way with his wife’s actions.
The Prestmarys of early-modern Great Dunmow have not been comprehensively researched by other historians. This is probably because it was previously thought that there was no other surviving evidence regarding the Prestmarys, such as contemporary pamphlets. Contemporary pamphlets are much used by historians as resources to be analysed for the causes, consequences and responses to witchcraft in early-modern England. Two such pamphlets are: The Examination and confession of certaine wytches at Chensforde(1566) and The apprehension and confession of three notorious witches. Arreigned and by iustice condemned and executed at Chelmes-forde, in the Countye of Essex, (1589). Therefore, with such limited sources available to historians for their research, this is perhaps why the Prestmarys have not been comprehensively documented in the secondary literature before now.
However evidence regarding the Prestmarys have survived in the form of Great Dunmow’s churchwardens’ accounts and the town’s 1523-4 Lay Subsidy returns. Part 1of this story discussed the surviving 1567 legal documents around Alice and John Prestmary. To recap the official documents:
On the 1st February, Alice Prestmary of Great Dunmow, wife of John Prestmary, bewitched Robert Parker’s son, Edward ‘putting him peril of his life, so that his life is despaired of’.(1) At her trial at the Brentwood Assizes on 13 March, she pleaded not guilty but was found guilty. However, she died of ‘a fever’ (possibly gaol fever) in Colchester gaol on 7 May, which, according to the official Inquisition into her death, was a‘visitation of God’.(2)
On the same day as the bewitchment of Edward Parker, the inquest into Alice’s husband’s suicide took place. John Prestmary, aged 60 years old, had hanged himself from a walnut tree in his garden on 30 January. Two days later, 1 February, his inquest took place.(3)
Suicide in early-modern England would have been considered an act of ‘self-murder’ and only something that could have occurred if the Devil himself had been involved. It is very likely that the inquest into John Prestmary’s suicide took place somewhere in the town of Great Dunmow itself. It cannot be coincidence that John Prestmary killed himself on 30 January and a two days later, his wife had bewitched a neighbour’s child. The official records are silent on the events in Great Dunmow so we can only guess at what had taken place during that January. Had Joan, the newly bereaved wife, attended her husband’s inquest? Did she blame the Parkers for the death of her husband? Was the mutterings and ramblings of a grief-stricken old woman taken to be the curses and incantations of a witch? Had there been a neighbourly dispute between the Prestmarys and the Parkers resulting in John’s suicide and Alice being tried as a witch? The official records are silent on all of this.
However, we can establish is that there had probably been some form of neighbourly dispute or ill-will between the Parkers (the accusers) and the Prestmarys (the accused). The evidence discussed below shows that both the Parkers and the Prestmarys were established families in Great Dunmow for at least 40 years before the 1567 trial.
The accused: the Prestmarys of Great Dunmow That John Prestmary was recorded in the legal records as being about 60 years old is crucial to constructing more background information about him. Taking his age-range to have actually been between 50 to 70 years old, this would give him a (wide) date of birth of between 1497 to 1517. Therefore, by the time of the 1523-4 Lay Subsidy and the first parish-wide church collection of 1525-6, John Prestmary would either have been too young to have paid the Lay Subsidy tax in 1523-4, or he was a young man in his twenties.
A John Prestmary is not recorded in the 1523-4 Lay Subsidy returns(4) but he is in the1525-6 parish collection for the church steeple. In the parish collection, John Prestmary was recorded as living in the Bishopswood Quarter (an area to the south of the parish) and contributed 4d towards the church’s steeple. As has been discussed in previous posts, 4d was the equivalent of one day’s wage for a labourer and this was the amount that themajority of parishioners paid towards their church’s new steeple. There were no other ‘Prestmary’ families recorded in either the Lay Subsidy or the collection for the church’s steeple. As John Prestmary was not levied in the Lay Subsidy returns, this could mean that:
He was a pauper and therefore exempt from the tax. Or,
He was too young to pay the tax. However if this was the case, where (or with whom) was he living? No-one with the Prestmary name was recorded in Great Dunmow as paying the 1523-4 Lay Subsidy. Or,
He was not a local man but had arrived in Great Dunmow sometime between 1523 and 1525. According to Peter Higginbotham’s excellent website onEnglish Workhouses, part of theOrigins of the Old Poor Law (1601), was the statue passed in 1495: TheVagabonds and Beggars Act (11 Henry VII c.2), which stated
‘Vagabonds, idle and suspected persons shall be set in the stocks for three days and three nights and have none other sustenance but bread and water and then shall be put out of Town. Every beggar suitable to work shall resort to the Hundred where he last dwelled, is best known, or was born and there remain upon the pain aforesaid.’
My interpretation of this Act is that if John Prestmary was a pauper from another parish, and that parish was in theHundred of Dunmow, he would not be returned to the parish of his birth. (This earlier Act was slightly different to the later1601 Act for the Relief of the Poor (the Old Poor Law), when a pauper would have been sent back to the parish were they were born.) I have not yet searched the Lay Subsidy returns for the other towns and villages in the Hundred of Dunmow. If I can’t find him listed elsewhere on other villages’ Lay Subsidy returns for the Hundred, then it is credible that he was a pauper and so exempt from Henry VIII’s tax.
At the moment, my evidence does point to John Prestmary being a pauper in the 1520s and so was exempt from paying the Lay Subsidy. However, he did pay the church’s unofficial tax: the levy for the church steeple – as seemed to have been the case with many other pauper donors. Of course, the John Prestmary recorded in the 1525-6 parish collection may not be the same John Prestmary who killed himself in 1567: the former could have been the latter’s father.
Prestmary evidence from within Great Dunmow’s churchwardens’ accounts is as follows:
1525-6 John Prestmary of Bishopswood Quarter contributed 4d towards the church’s steeple.(5)
1527-9 John Prestmery of Windmill Street contributed 2d towards the parish collection for the new bells. (6) Windmill Street is in the middle of town about a mile away from Bishopswood Quarter (Windmill Street’s modern day name is Rosemary Lane/The Downs.)
1529-30 Richard Prestmary contributed 1d towards the collection for the organs. (7) It is interesting that John Prestmary was not documented in this collection for the organ. This was the 3rd (and final) parish-wide collection conducted by the church. However, this collection recorded approximately 20 less names than the first collection and 10 less names than the second collection. There had been a devastating outbreak of the lethal sweating sickness in the late 1520s which had claimed many lives within England (it almost claimed the life of Anne Boleyn). So this could account for the drop in the total number of contributors to each collection but it doesn’t explain why John Prestmary’s name was missing. As the list of contributors to the parish collections only documented the heads-of-households, it is possible that John Prestmary (and family) were living with Richard Prestmary at the time of this collection.
John Prestmarie paid church rent of 10s – an amount that was for two years rent owed at the Feast of St Michael (Michaelmas – September) during the 5th and 6th year of either Edward VI’s reign or Mary’s reign (either 1551-2 or 1557-8).(8) For John to have paid rent at 5s per year means that by this time, he was certainly more effluent then he had been in the 1520s/1530s.
This all leads to the conclusion that by the time of the 1567 trial, the Prestmarys had been living in Great Dunmow for at least 40 years.
The accusers: the Parker families of Great Dunmow Now onto the Parker family, whose child, Edward, Alice Prestmary was accused of bewitching. This is harder to analyse and evaluate as there were so many Parkers in Great Dunmow between the 1520s and 1560s. Contributing towards the many parish collections were several John Parkers, a Richard Parker, two Robert Parkers, and a Mother Parker. Because there were so many Parkers in Great Dunmow, their trades were recorded alongside the majority of their names. Their recorded trades were fletcher, sawyer, butcher, tiller, labourer, tanner, brewer, and wheeler. From a distance of 500 years it is impossible to determine if (or how) they were all related to each other. However, it can be established that one of the John Parker’s almost certainly had at least two sons: Nicholas and Robert: ‘rec of Rbt Parker and Nycolas Parker for the buriall of olde Parker in the churche’(9). The many Parkers of Great Dunmow were also recorded in the 1523-4 Lay Subsidy returns.
Therefore, by amalgamating the Parker evidence (from the Lay Subsidy returns, their trades, and the contributions to the various church collections) it can be shown that the various Parker families were certainly not amongst the poor of the parish. Indeed,John Parker, the Fletcher, was extremely wealthy and, according to the 1523-4 Lay Subsidy was the richest man in the entire parish. His burial, costing 6s 8d, within the church building itself (i.e. not outside in a grave in the churchyard) also indicates that he was one of the elite of the parish. It was Robert Parker who accused Alice Prestmary of bewitching his son. There were two Robert Parkers assessed in the 1523-4 Lay Subsidy:
one who was assessed as having land to the value of 40s (the thirteenth wealthiest man in the parish);
and the other who was assessed as having goods to the value of 20s.
Throughout the 1520s to the 1560s, various Parkers were recorded as helping out with church business:
John Parker who played the fool at Christmas and gathered in money from the merry-making parishioners,(10);
Richard Parker who sold 24 paving slabs from recently dissolved Tilty Abbey to be laid in Great Dunmow’s church(11). (Is this the very first documented evidence of the infamous Essex man on the make with his equally infamous van?);
Mother Parker, widow of Thomas Parker, tenant of church land(12);
Parker who was paid by the churchwardens for destroying and removing the High Altar in Edward VI’s reign(13).
Several Parkers had been churchwardens, including Robert Parker, who had been one of thechurchwardens prior to the startof the leather-bound churchwardens’ accounts, and then again in 1537-8 and 1538-9 (or was this the other Robert Parker?).
Whilst it cannot be pinpointed with any great certainity who exactly was the Robert Parker whose son was bewitched by Alice Prestmary, the evidence does establish that the Parkers had been in Great Dunmow for at least 40 years before the witchcraft trial of 1567. Moreover, in such a small parish of approximately 160 households, most of the Parkers were probably related to each other and they were either relatively well-off or amongst the top elite of the parish.
The tensions of early-modern communities Many historians of early-modern witchcraft have put forward the hypothesis that there were significant tensions within parish life during early-modern England. If previously good relationships broke down between neighbours, often the cry of witchcraft was heard in the village. There is also the premise that witchcraft accusations often resulted because of ‘charity denied’. That is, Person A (normally a poor woman) requested charity or help from Person B. Person B refused to help so Person A bewitched either them, their family or their livestock. Or conversely, Person B having refused to give help or charity to Person A, then accused Person A of witchcraft to expunge their guilt at denying the needed charity. Tensions between neighbours could be highly charged!
This hypothesis of neighbourly tensions exploding into witchcraft accusations had happened in 1567 in Great Dunmow. We will never know the precise details. However, what can be ascertained is that two families, who had lived in close proximity to each other in a small rural town for at least 40 years, ended up in a neighbourly dispute that caused one man to commit suicide, the imprisonment of his nearly bereaved widow in terrible gaol conditions, and her death from a disease caught whilst imprisoned. The Parkers, the richer and better connected family, had accused the Prestmarys, who were amongst the poor of the parish, of witchcraft. John Prestmary’s suicide and Alice’s death in prison from a ‘visitation of God’ no doubt confirmed to the Parkers (and other parishioners) the guilt of this pair of witches. Their deaths must also have conveniently obliterated any remorse that the Parkers might have felt at pointing the finger of accusation at their long-standing neighbours.
Death and burial of the Prestmarys I have yet to examine parish registers (births, deaths, and marriages) for Great Dunmow for this period to find all the Prestmarys and the Parkers. I would not expect to find any record of John Prestmary’s burial. As a suicide, he probably was buried at midnight, in unconsecrated land in the darkest corner and most isolated part of the parish church’s large graveyard (probably the most northern part). Alice, having died in Colchester gaol, would obviously not have been buried in Great Dunmow: her body was probably cast into an unmarked massive paupers grave within the castle’s grounds.
Digital images of theGreat Dunmow’s parish registers are all online from the Essex Record Office’s website. One day, when time allows, I want to look through them to see if I can find any more Prestmarys. Unless, of course, any of my blog readers has already done so or could help me? Searching the parish registers could give an answer as to how John & Alice were related to Richard Prestmary.
Richard and Joan Prestmary of Great Dunmow In the next part of this series, I will consider the second Prestmary couple accused of witchcraft: Richard and Joan Prestmary. To be continued…
Note on the Prestmary spelling So far in the records I have seen the name spelt as below. For uniformity my posts (unless quoting directly from primary sources) will use the most consistent spelling – ‘Prestmary’.
Prestmary
Prestmarye
Prestmery
Prestmarie
Presmary
Presmarye
Presmere
Presmere
Preistmarye
Prestmare
Preasmary
Footnotes 1) Calendar of Essex Assize File [ASS 35/9/2] Assizes held at Brentwood(13 March 1567), Essex Record Office, T/A 418/11/5. This case is detailed in J. S. Cockburn (editor), Calendar of Assize Records: Essex Indictments, Elizabeth I (London, 1978), p52. In Cockburn’s book, the citation is that the bewitchment took place on the 1st February. The E.R.O. record implies that the date of the Indictment (i.e. the date she was charged of the crime) was 1st February. I suppose it was possible that Alice was charged on the same day that the bewitchment took place.
2) Calendar of Queen’s Bench Indictments Ancient 619, Part I, (1567), Essex Record Office, T/A 428/1/14A.
3) Calendar of Queen’s Bench Indictments Ancient 617,Part I, (1567), Essex Record Office, T/A 428/1/12A.
4) Hundred of Dunmow: Calendar of Lay Subsidy Rolls (1523-4), The National Archives, E179/108/161.
5) Great Dunmow, Churchwarden accounts (1526-1621), Essex Record Office D/P11/5/1 – folio 4r.
6) Ibid, folios 7r-9r 7) Ibid. folios 12v-14v. 8) Ibid, folio 42r. Dating entries on this folio is extremely difficult. Although this folio contains entries relating almost entirely to Mary’s reign, it was not written into the leather-bound churchwardens’ accounts until the first year of Elizabeth’s reign. The clergy and churchwardens of Great Dunmow had been very lax in keeping their accounts formerly documented during the last few years of Edward VI’s reign and the whole of Mary’s reign. Thus, the accounts for Mary’s entire reign were written retrospectively on this and the following folios in 1558/9 (i.e. during Elizabeth’s reign). To add to this confusion, the 1558/9 scribe or churchwardens also mixed up entries from the final years of Edward VI’s reign. The entry for the John Prestmary’s rent states that the rent was for the 5th and 6th year but does not explicitly state which reign. The preceding entry explicitly states Edward’s reign but the following entry states Mary’s. So other entries on the same page cannot be used to fix the date of John Prestmary’s rent. Hence the uncertainty of about the precise date that he was tenant of church-land. A later blog post will explain in more details the difficulties analysing the Edwardian and Marian accounts.
9) Ibid, folio 39v
10) Ibid, folios 29r-30r.
11) Ibid, folios 24v-28v.
12) Ibid, folio 42r.
13) Ibid, folio 40v.
Notes about Great Dunmow’s churchwarden accounts
Great Dunmow’s original churchwardens’ accounts (1526-1621) are kept in Essex Record Office (E.R.O.), Chelmsford, Essex, D/P 11/5/1. All digital images of the accounts within this blog appear by courtesy of Essex Record Office and may not be reproduced. Examining these records from this Essex parish gives the modern reader a remarkable view into the lives and times of some of Henry VIII’s subjects and provides an interpretation into the local history of Tudor Great Dunmow.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
If you want to learn more about Essex’s witches, then you may be interested in my online course about the Witches of Elizabethan and Stuart Essex. Click the “Learn More” button below for full details.
Genealogist Thomas MacEntee of Geneabloggers runs a great website for genealogists. He suggests ‘Daily Blogging Prompts’ to help inspire bloggers to write genealogical posts. In the spirit of one of his Prompts, Follow Friday, my post today contains my top 10 Essex related websites  for genealogical and local history research.
2. Ancestor owned or ran a pub in Essex? Try Pub History
Royal Oak pub in Great Dunmow. Left picture has the figure of the landlord, James Nelson Kemp (my grandfather’s uncle), and the right picture is of his son, Gordon Parnall Kemp (my grandfather’s cousin), killed in the Great War and commemorated on the town’s War Memorial along with his brother, Harold.
4. The early-modern witches of Essex: Â http://www.witchtrials.co.uk/Â (This site also contains an essay by me which I wrote when I first started my research into witchcraft in early-modern Essex – see if you can spot it!)
10. Website with links to early-modern and modern Essex: Genmaps – Essex
And, of course, if your ancestor lived in early-modern Great Dunmow, then this website, Essex Voice Past!
Another one to add to my list! Update 9 March 2012 at 19:30: I’ve realised I’ve made a glaring admission in my Top 10. Â This one is definitely up there amongst my favourite sites.
Was you ancestor in a workhouse? This is an amazing site, be prepared to lose a few hours pouring over it!:Â http://www.workhouses.org.uk/
Have I missed any of your favourites? Let me know…
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
This blog
If you want to read more from my blog, please do subscribe either by using the Subscribe via Email button top right of my blog, or the button at the very bottom.  If you’ve enjoyed reading this post, then please do Like it with the Facebook button and/or leave a comment below.
This blog
If you want to read more from my blog, please do subscribe either by using the Subscribe via Email button top right of my blog, or the button at the very bottom. Â If you’ve enjoyed reading this post, then please do Like it with the Facebook button and/or leave a comment below.
How can contemporary maps help you understand your genealogical or local history research? In this post, I will be considering Christopher Sexton’s 1576 map of Essex(1) and assess its benefit to my historical research on the town of Great Dunmow in the pre-Reformation period. This map was commissioned as part of an atlas of England belonging to William Cecil, Lord Burghley(2), Elizabeth I’s Secretary of State. Click the map below to be taken to the British Library’s zoomable image.
Using maps in local history research Maps may provide not just a town’s geographical infrastructure such as roads and rivers, but also extra detail. For example, Sexton’s map of Essex, with its small pictorial vignette of each church, showed me the precise location of each church in Great Dunmow’s neighbouring villages and towns. Other maps of Essex from a later period give fantastic evidence as to the style, format and floor-plan of the houses depicted. Examine the images of John Walker’s 1591 map of Chelmsford ‘A trew platt of the mannor and towne of Chellmisforde’ and see how each individual house in the town’s centre has been drawn on the map.
Great Dunmow, Sexton’s map and Corpus Christi plays Great Dunmow’s churchwardens’ accounts documented many neighbouring Essex villages and towns, and even cities such as Cambridge and London. Â Sexton’s map of Essex helped me track the various locations documented within the accounts and assess the assertions of various historians. In particular, the claims that during Henry VIII’s reign, a band of travelling players toured Great Dunmow’s neighbouring villages to perform plays on Corpus Christi feast-day and then returned home to Great Dunmow each night. Â Sexton’s map helped me with my hypothesis that this could not have been the case. Â Rather people from the neighbouring villages travelled into Great Dunmow to witness one central play on one single day.
Corpus Christi was a mid-Summer moveable feast-day that occurred on one given day. The sheer distance between each village, and the number of locations itemised, would have meant that the players would have travelled to a maximum of 16 villages either on one single day or over a period of days. Even if these players had performed in two villages per day, then the plays would have taken more than two weeks to be performed in all the named villages. A two-week festival was hardly in keeping with a single feast-day that took place during the busy agricultural Summer months! Last year, I tried to drive around the 16 villages named by the churchwardens in the 1530-2 accounts as having contributed money towards the feast of Corpus Christi. Even with my super-dupa modern-sports car, I couldn’t drive to all the villages in a single day – let alone setup and perform a religious play!
Even through Sexton’s map was drawn 50 years after the period under my study, having his map has given more credibility to my supposition that neighbouring villagers travelled into Great Dunmow and not vice-versa.
Villages documented as attending Great Dunmow’s 1530-2 Corpus Christi play
Villages documented as attending Great Dunmow’s 1539-41 Corpus Christi play
I would strongly recommend that whenever possible you use contemporary maps when doing any local history research or any genealogical research.
Many of John Walker’s wonderful maps of sixteenth/seventeenth century Essex have been reprinted in the glorious book:-
A.C. Edwards and K.C. Newton, The Walkers of Hanningfield: Surveyors and Mapmakers Extraordinary, (London, 1985). If you are interested in early-modern Essex or early-modern map making, then I thoroughly recommend this book.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
This blog
If you want to read more from my blog, please do subscribe either by using the Subscribe via Email button top right of my blog, or the button at the very bottom.  If you’ve enjoyed reading this post, then please do Like it with the Facebook button and/or leave a comment below.
Transcription of Tudor Great Dunmow’s churchwardens’ accounts (1525-6)
1. Layde owte for ye cherche
[Laid out for the church]
2. In p[r]im[s] ffor iiij galuns oyle ffor ye lampe
[In primis (Firstly,) for 4 gallons oil for the lamp]
vijs iiijd
3. Item for iij lampe glassys pryce
[Item for 3 glasses for the lamp, price]
iiid
4. Item ffor mendying of ye ffurnes of ye lampe to scoryar
[John Scoryar – documented as paying ‘nichell’ (nothing) to the church steeple collection. Item for mending of the furnace of the lamp]
iid
5. Item to John bykner for stykynge of ye Rood lyght
[Item to John Bykner for striking of the Rood Light]
xiiijd
6. Item ffor strykynge of ye lyght before owre lady
[Item for striking of the light before our lady]
7. att ye hy alter & ye lyght on the basun \?li <illegible> off wax/
[at the High Altar & the light on the basin]
vijd
8. Item payde to Thom[a]s turner ffor mendynge off ye
[Item paid to Thomas Turner for mending the]
9. ledys in dyvers plasys & ffor ye longe ?? ye stepyll
[leds in divers places and for the long ?? the steeple]
vs viid
10. Item ffor slenynge[??] of ?? new clothe
[Item for sewing? of ? new cloth]
vjd
11. Item for p[ar]te of ye makynge of ye closett for ye Roode
[Item for making part of the closet for the Rood].
iis
12. Item to Marry\ou/ for mendying of ye bells on all hall[o]ws evyn
[John Mayor – documented as paying 4d to the church steeple collection.] [Item to Mayor for mending the bells on All Hallows Eve(ning)]
viijd
13. Item payde to John oltyng for mendynge of
[Item paid to John Oltyng for mending of]
14. the clapers the yere’d ffore thatt we cam on
[the (bell) clappers the years (be)fore that we came on]
vis viijd
15. Item for claperynge of iij letell bells for ye can[n]epe
[Item for ?? of 3 little bells for the canopy]
id
16. Item to kynge for trussyng up of ye bell clapper
[Item to King for trussing up the bell clapper]
id
17. Item to John Scoryar ffor mendynge of ye hutchys
[Item to John Scorya for mending of the hutches]
18. <illegible> and of ye stoles
[and of the stools]
vijd
19. Item for hys borde ye ssame tyme
[Item for his board (ie accommodation/lodgings) the same time]
iiijd
20. Item ffor ij planks ffor ye same hutchys
[Item for 2 planks for the same hutches]
vid
21. Item to wyllem hott for nayles for yeene wark
[Item to William Hot for nails for ?? work
22. for ye same hutchys
[for the same hutches]
xd
23. Item ffor oyl small nale for ye same
[Item for oil??? small nail for the same]
iid
24. Item for ij dayes \warke/ off Thomas Savage ye same time
[Item for 2 days work of Thomas Savage the same time – Thomas Savage donated the largest amount of money for the church steeple £3 6s 8d]
viijd
25. Item payde to burle in yernest off ye gyldynge off Awr lady
[Item paid to burle? in earnest?? of the gilding of Our Lady.
xxd
26. Item for xxijth li of wex for ye Rood lyrite
[Item for 22 pounds (li = libra) of wax for the Rood Light
xijs xd
27. Item to John Scoryar & Rychard hys brother
[Item to John Scoryar and Richard his brother]
28. ffor makynge off iij new stepys in ye vyce off the Rood loft
[for making of 3 new steps in the vice of the Rood Loft]
xd
29. Item ffor xviij ryngs ffor ye nayle & the settyng on
[Item for 18 rings for the nails & the setting on]
iijd
30. Item ffor a poly to hange ye basun on before owr lady of bedlem
[Item for a pole to hang the basin on before Our Lady of Bedlem (Bethleham)]
iijd
31. Item ffor scorynge off ye grate & makynge off ye got?? ye cherch walk? [Item for scoring off the grate & making off the ?? the curch walk?]
ixd
32. Item ffor a parcall lyne & ffor pyns & nalls ffor \ye/ sepolk[er]
[Item for a parcel line & for pins & nails for the sepulchre
iiijd
33. Item ffor a New keye ffor ye stepyll dor
[Item for a new key for the steeple door]
iiijd
34. Item payd ffor a blakk morres coatt
xiid
35. Item payde ffor a sansbell rope
[Item paid for a sansbell (sanctus bell) rope
ijd
Commentary Yet another fascinating page from Great Dunmow’s history with so many interesting items. On this folio, all the items are all expenses i.e. items purchased by the churchwardens on behalf of Great Dunmow’s parish church, as they were ‘Layde owte for ye cherche’.
Great Dunmow’s Black Morris Coat One of the most important items on this folio is the entry 2nd from bottom.
An expense of 12d for ‘a blakk morres coatt’.
This can be transcribed as being a ‘Black Morris Coat’. At some points in my research, I did wonder if this entry was actually a ‘Black Mores Coat’. However, the entry very definitely shows a double ‘r’ and reading the accounts in their entirety many times over helped me hear the voice of the scribe and understand the dialect of Tudor Essex. The double ‘r’ was meant to be pronounced, and this entry was certainly for a ‘Mor-ris’ coat, not a ‘Mores’ coat.
This entry for Great Dunmow’s Morris Coat has been much cited by historians of medieval and early-modern English drama, Morris Dancing, the Catholic ritual year, as well as English folklore. If you have read any of the secondary literature on these topics and themes, then you will invariable find reference to Great Dunmow’s ‘Black Morris’ coat. And this is the primary source entry for it! However, this is the one and only documented reference to ‘Morris’ or ‘Black Morris’ in the entire hundred years of the surviving churchwardens’ accounts. There are no other mentions.
The entry is very short and concise, so by using ‘Unwitting Testimony’, it could be surmised that the coat was not an extraordinary purchase but its cost was significant. According to Great Dunmow’s churchwardens’ accounts, a man’s labour for one day cost 4d. Therefore, the purchase of this coat for 12d was a noteworthy sum of money. Moreover, the accounts were very precise that this was just one coat: ‘a blakk morres coat’ (in the singular). This coat must have been quite a spectacular item – full of finery and regalia. Today’s East Anglian modern revival of Molly Dancing is a thought to be a throw-back from English traditions performed at May Day and Plough Monday. Perhaps Great Dunmow’s early-modern Black Morris coat was a very early version of the magnificent robes that now adorn the modern-day Molly Dancers of East Anglia. On the previous folio of the churchwardens’ accounts (fol.4r), both May Day and the Plough-fest were itemised as bringing in revenue into the church. Therefore, it was more than likely that this magnificent Black Morris Coat costing 12d was worn at either (or both) festivities.
Below are photos my son took of the Molly Dancers on New Years Day 2012 at The Hythe, Maldon.
Lamp – whatever this lamp was, it must have been large as there was a substantial yearly maintenance cost for this particular year (1525-6). This folio documents the purchase of 4 gallons of oil for it, 3 glasses (or panes of glass) to go in it, and the mending of its furnace.
Lights – several ‘lights’ (ie candles) are documented on this folio. These ‘lights’ (or candles) were all placed in front of a religious image or artefact. Henry VIII’s increasingly attacked traditional (Catholic) religion throughout the 1530s and eventually lights were banned before almost all sacred images. In Henry VIII’s 1538 Royal Injunctions (orchestrated by Thomas Cromwell), there were decrees against candles, tapers, and images of wax placed before any image or picture. Lights were only allowed before the rood, sepulchre, and sacrament of the altar.(1) Later folios of Great Dunmow’s churchwardens’ accounts show that the church had complied with those Injunctions as there are fewer expenses for ‘lights’.
Notes about Great Dunmow’s churchwarden accounts
Great Dunmow’s original churchwardens’ accounts (1526-1621) are kept in Essex Record Office (E.R.O.), Chelmsford, Essex, D/P 11/5/1. All digital images of the accounts within this blog appear by courtesy of Essex Record Office and may not be reproduced. Examining these records from this Essex parish gives the modern reader a remarkable view  into the lives and times of some of Henry VIII’s subjects and provides an interpretation into the local history of Tudor Great Dunmow.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
This blog
If you want to read more from my blog, please do subscribe either by using the Subscribe via Email button top right of my blog, or the button at the very bottom. Â If you’ve enjoyed reading this post, then please do Like it with the Facebook button and/or leave a comment below.
This blog
If you want to read more from my blog, please do subscribe either by using the Subscribe via Email button top right of my blog, or the button at the very bottom. Â If you’ve enjoyed reading this post, then please do Like it with the Facebook button and/or leave a comment below.
Last week’s Tuesday Tip discussed the 6 ‘w’s of decoding a primary source. As a former history student of the UK’s Open University, I would be neglecting my training as a historian if I didn’t blog about ‘unwitting testimony’. This term was invented by the much loved extraordinary Open University professor Arthur Marwick. To quote this redoubtable historian
The phrase is … borrowed from the distinguished American historian of science, Henry Guerlac … `Witting’ means deliberate or intentional; `unwitting’ means unaware or unintentional. `Testimony’ means evidence. … it is the writer, creator, or creators of the document or source, who is, or are, intentional or unintentional, not the testimony itself … Witting testimony is the information or impression that the person or persons who originally compiled the document or source intended to convey … or record. … Unwitting testimony is evidence which historians find very useful, but which the originator of the document is not conscious might be conveyed to later historians, for it would be known anyway, or taken for granted, by contemporaries.(1)
So, what extra ‘unwitting’ information does your primary source give you that perhaps the source’s author didn’t intend to provide?
I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field(2)
What testimony was Elizabeth unwittingly giving to future historians?
I’ve got a few ideas – how about you? Write your thoughts about Elizabeth’s unwitting testimony in the comment box below.
Elizabeth at Tilbury in 1588 after the defeat of the Armada(3)
Henry VIII
Here’s something from Elizabeth’s father – Henry VIII.  These are the opening words of his will.  Very few words but within them, Henry gives his very definite unwitting testimony on his (and therefore England’s) religion.
In the name of god and of the glorious and blessed virgin our Lady Saint Mary and of all the holy company of heaven...(4)
What testimony was Henry unwittingly giving to future historians of the Reformation?  Write your thoughts on Henry’s unwitting testimony in the comment box below.
The Psalter of Henry VIII(5)
Great Dunmow’s churchwarden accounts(6) and unwitting testimony In this post The Catholic Ritual Year – Plough-feast, May Day, Dancing Money, Corpus Christi, I said that activities in Great Dunmow for Plough Monday, May Day and Corpus Christi were probably well established before 1525-6 and the arrival of the leather-bound churchwardens’ accounts.  In 1525-6, the churchwardens wrote short, concise entries without explaining each entry – thus giving the impression that these events were already well-established within the parish before the arrival of the churchwardens’ account-book.  This is unwitting testimony.
Likewise, in this post Tudor administration within Great Dunmow there is unwitting testimony that the scribe took great care in recording the collection for the church steeple and collating all this information.  There is also unwitting testimony that each person was documented in the churchwardens’ accounts in strict social-hierarchy order.  In this instance, this unwitting testimony can be confirmed by cross-referencing each entry to the 1523-4 Lay Subsidy returns.
However, the unwitting testimony about Plough Monday, May Day and Corpus Christi cannot be confirmed as the churchwardens’ accounts prior to 1525-6 have not survived.
Conclusion
Squeezing as much as possible out of primary sources can be an extremely rewarding experience.  Sometimes what a source  doesn’t state is as equally important as what it does!  Use the technique of unwitting testimony along with the 6 ‘w’s of decoding a primary source to make the very most of your  precious source material.
General Note
I learnt some of these techniques for analyzing primary sources via many of the wonderful history tutors from the UK’s excellent Open University.  I owe a debt of gratitude to those tutors in helping me understand how to properly decode historical documents.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
This blog
If you want to read more from my blog, please do subscribe either by using the Subscribe via Email button top right of my blog, or the button at the very bottom.  If you’ve enjoyed reading this post, then please do Like it with the Facebook button and/or leave a comment below.
35. Ite off John atkynso[n] for a fewe bryks & a letell
36. wete lyme & a tabbe ych [which] thay carryd watt in ye sum
ixd
37. Ite off ye glon?? ffor a ladder pryce
iiid
38. Ite ffor a rope sold to ye good ma[n] fyche pryce
xijd
39. Ite resayvyd ffor \ye/ scaffold off Thom[a]s Savage
iijs iiijd
–
40. Sum xviij li xs vd [£18 10s 5d)
41. Sum ??th rec[eived] ?? Anni xxli ijs jd
Commentary
There are many interesting pages within the churchwardens’ account-book and this page has to rank high up the list of intriguing pages – not for what it says, but more what it doesn’t say!
The entries on this page are directly after the parish collection for the church steeple so cover the period 1525-6. Therefore, they are the first receipts for money received by Great Dunmow’s church recorded in the leather account-book. Churchwarden accounts or church records for Great Dunmow prior to 1525-6 have not survived. However, several entries on this folio indicate that the previous churchwardens had also kept careful accounts prior to 1525-6.
Churchwardens – Line 24/25: fo.2r recorded that the current (ie 1525-6) churchwardens were Thomas Savage, John Skylton, John Nyghtyngale and John Clerke. This folio records that before them, the previous churchwardens were William Saud[e]r (probably ‘Saunder(s)’ – the churchwardens’ scribe had a soft Suffolk-like accent and didn’t pronounce hard ‘n’s , see  The dialect of Tudor Essex), Robert Parker, Raff/Ralph Melbourne, and Thomas Hervy (Harvey?). As Medieval and Tudor churchwardens were often in office for two years, it is likely that these men were churchwardens for the periods 1523-4 and 1524-5. The 14 shillings which the old churchwardens handed over to the 1525-6 set was either their cash-in-hand money left over from their tenure or their own money to make up shortfall in the accounts (or a mixture of both). Medieval and Tudor churchwardens were personally liable for any shortfall in their church’s finances at the end of their period in office. It is because of this personal liability that the accounts of Medieval and Tudor churches were so meticulously documented and recorded.
Plough Monday – Line 26:
The plough-feast was celebrated on the first Monday after the Epiphany (Twelfth Day) in January and was the traditional start to the new agricultural year. The young men of the town dragged a plough from door to door in the parish collecting money. If people did not hand-over money, then a ‘trick’ would have been played on the unlucky house-holder (an event similar to today’s Halloween Trick or Treating). This ‘trick’ was likely to have involved the young men ploughing a furrow across the offender’s land. Money received from Great Dunmow’s plough-feast activities was recorded throughout the Henrician churchwarden accounts. It was likely that this was already a well-established money-making activity for the church within Great Dunmow before this first recording of the event within the leather account-book in 1526. This can be determined by the brevity of this entry which could be interpreted that the churchwardens did not need a full and complete explanation about this particular activity. This was the yearly Plough-Feast – so therefore everyone knew what happened – all that needed to be accounted for was the money received! The churchwardens’ accounts do not record what happened to the money raised from Plough Monday. However, it is likely that the money was used to maintain a ‘plough light’ (candle) within the church. The plough light was one of the many ‘lights’ banned and extinguished by Henry VIII in 1538.
The Wikipedia Plough Monday entry suggests that the Plough Monday customs were revived in the 20th century in the East of England and are associated with Molly Dancers. Below are photographs my son took of the Molly Dancers on New Year’s Day 2012 at The Hythe, Maldon. He’s only aged 8 so the photos are a bit blurry!  All photos are copyright of  The Narrator, 2012.
Dancing money – Line 27:
Unknown what this ‘dancing money’ was for. Nicholas Parker was one of many Parkers in Great Dunmow but there was only one Parker with the Christian name of Nicholas. In the 1523-4 Lay Subsidy, Nicholas Parker was assessed as having goods to the value of 23s 4d. In the parish collection for the church steeple, he was recorded as living in Bullock Row and paid 8d towards the collection for the church steeple (fo.2v–fo.3r). It was likely that Nicholas Parker collected money on behalf of Great Dunmow’s parish church for ‘dancing’ and gave that money to the churchwardens. The churchwardens were scrupulously thorough in recording which of the many Catholic feast-days money was collected in for the church. Thus, there are receipts for ‘the plough-feast’, ‘Corpus Christi’ and ‘May Day’ on the same page as this entry. As the entry does not specify a precise feast-day or event, it is possible that this was money collected at some type of ‘general’ dance which was associated with the parish church but not connected with any feast-days within the regular Catholic ritual-year.
Old Hall – Line 28:
Unknown what the ‘old hall’ was. It is possible that this was a bequest in the will of a William Sweeting. Unfortunately not many Great Dunmow wills from this period have survived and there is no trace of William Sweeting’s will from this date, so it cannot be established if this was a bequest. (A later blog will explain the reason why there are so few surviving wills in Great Dunmow.) The only William Sweeting to be assessed in the 1523-4 Lay Subsidy had goods to the value of 40s (so was of moderate wealth). However, it is possible that this 1525-6 entry was a gift, rather than a bequest because a William Sweeting is documented regularly in parish collections after this date in the churchwardens’ accounts.
– 1525-6 church steeple collection: William Sweeting lived in Bishopswood and contributed 6d.
– 1527-9 church bell collection: William Sweeting lived in Bishopswood and contributed 5d.
– 1529-30 church organ collection: William Sweeting contributed 2d (dwelling-places not recorded).
– 1532-3 new gild collection: William Sweeting contributed 2d (dwelling-places not recorded).
– 1537-8 great latten candlestick collection: William Sweeting contributed 1d (dwelling-places not recorded).
A William Sweeting, ‘the elder’, was the witness to the 1552 will of Robert Grene(1).
May day – Line 29:
May money 28s 4d. This money received for ‘activities’ held on May-day is a significant amount of money. Records in Great Dunmow’s churchwarden accounts show that an average daily wage for a labourer was 4d – thus the money raised for May-day equalled approximately 85 days from a labourer. This was a much larger event than the yearly Plough-Feast and received more money. From these scant pieces of evidence, it can be interpreted that the May-day money was collected from possibly the entire parish of Great Dunmow (and probably also other nearby towns and villages – as discussed in later blogs).  Again, the shortness of the entry demonstrates that receiving money from May-day was a well-established practice in Great Dunmow by the time of its first entry in the new leather account book of 1526.
This entry does not explain what happened in Great Dunmow on May Day. Wikipedia suggests some of the activities that might have taken place at May Day.
Corpus Christi – Line 30:
Corpus Christi feast 23s. The shortness of this entry is both intriguing and annoying in equal measures! Once again, this was a substantial amount of money, and the briefness of the entry implies that Corpus Christi was a well established feast within Tudor Great Dunmow. Regular Corpus Christi entries are documented throughout the rest of the Henrician Great Dunmow’s churchwardens’ accounts. These other entries are much more detailed and thorough, allowing the modern-day reader the most amazing insight into the world of Tudor Great Dunmow and the hierarchical relationship between this small parish and their neighbouring towns and villages. Great Dunmow’s Corpus Christi feast, as documented in the churchwarden accounts, has been greatly studied throughout secondary literature on medieval English drama and late medieval religious practices. My own Cambridge University’s master’s dissertation spent over half of the word count discussing and analysing what actually happened during Tudor Great Dunmow’s Corpus Christi feast-day. My own account provides an alternative narrative to the explanation provided by other historians (most of whom do not appear to have consulted directly with the original churchwarden accounts nor have walked the streets of the town). As this was such a critical part of my masters’ dissertation, my interpretation of Great Dunmow’s Corpus Christi plays will be discussed in detail in a later blog.
Rent of church land – Line 33:
Total rent received in for various church lands. In later years, church rent is fully itemised along with the name of each tenant.
Building materials – Line 34-39:
This part of the accounts is still the receipts (money in) for the period 1525-6. These entries demonstrate that the church (and the churchwardens) were selling items of building materials to some of the townsfolk of Great Dunmow. John Atkinson bought a few bricks and a small amount of wet lime. Mr Fyche (Fitch?) bought some rope, and Thomas Savage bought some scaffolding. This last item by Thomas Savage is interesting for several reasons: firstly Thomas Savage was the man who made the largest contribution towards the church steeple and was ultimately awarded the contract for building the steeple (Henry VIII’s 1523-4 Lay Subsidy Tax). Secondly, this entry demonstrates that there were items of scaffolding within the parish church in 1525-6. Either this scaffolding was in the church in the years prior to the building steeple or its existence was because of the construction of the new church steeple. The Victorian vicar of Great Dunmow, W. T. Scott, in his 1873 history of Great Dunmow narrated that there was extensive building work in the church in the years before the church steeple was rebuilt in 1525-6.(2) So there were plenty of reasons for scaffolding to be within the church.
The significance of Thomas Savage’s scaffolding will be discussed in a later blog post.
Footnotes and Further reading 1) Will of Robert Grene, husbandman (March 1552), Essex Record Office, D/ABW 16/83.
2) Scott. W.T., Antiquities of an Essex Parish: Or pages from the history of Great Dunmow (London, 1873) p.20.
For further information on the Catholic religious ritual-year in late medieval/Tudor England, see
– Hutton, R., The rise and fall of Merry England: The Ritual Year 1400-1700 (Oxford, 1994).
Notes about Great Dunmow’s churchwarden accounts
Great Dunmow’s original churchwardens’ accounts (1526-1621) are kept in Essex Record Office (E.R.O.), Chelmsford, Essex, D/P 11/5/1. All digital images of the accounts within this blog appear by courtesy of Essex Record Office and may not be reproduced. Examining these records from this Essex parish gives the modern reader a remarkable view  into the lives and times of some of Henry VIII’s subjects and provides an interpretation into the local history of Tudor Great Dunmow.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
This blog
If you want to read more from my blog, please do subscribe either by using the Subscribe via Email button top right of my blog, or the button at the very bottom. Â If you’ve enjoyed reading this post, then please do Like it with the Facebook button and/or leave a comment below.
This blog
If you want to read more from my blog, please do subscribe either by using the Subscribe via Email button top right of my blog, or the button at the very bottom. Â If you’ve enjoyed reading this post, then please do Like it with the Facebook button and/or leave a comment below.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Find out more about how our site works and how we put you in control by navigating the tabs on the this pop-up window.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
 Guillaume de Deguileville (translator), ‘Devil holding a hook encircling naked people with a rope.’ from The Pilgrimage of the Soul (East England, circa between 1413 and 1475), shelfmark: Egerton 615 f. 34. © British Library Board
Guillaume de Deguileville (translator), ‘Devils’ from The Pilgrimage of the Soul (East England, circa between 1413 and 1475), shelfmark: Egerton 615 f. 46v.
 ‘God holding a compass with angels and cherubins, and Lucifer with fallen angels and devils’ The Queen Mary Psalter (England, 1310-1320), shelfmark: Royal 2 B VII f.1v.
