MASTERSCRIPTIE ENGELSE TAAL EN CULTUUR RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN
“Sche was but a woman”
Margaret Paston’s Female Rhetoric and
Letters of Good Conduct
Heleen Kappen(s1944800)
Date: 17 June 2013
Supervisor: Prof. Dr S.I. (Sebastian) Sobecki
Heleen Kappen; 2
Contents
Acknowledgements 3
Introduction 4
Chapter 1: Margaret as a Letter Writer 7
Trust in writing 8
Letter Writing 11
Medieval Literacy 19
Chapter 2: Margaret as a Woman 21
Legal Language 26
Letters of Petition 31
Chapter 3: Margaret as a Wife 37
Mistress of the Household 40
Petitions and Reputation 46
Raising a Support Group 49
Conclusion 55
Heleen Kappen; 3
Acknowledgements
I am greatly indebted to my supervisor and teacher Prof. dr. Sebastian I. Sobecki, who has sparked my enthusiasm for Medieval Literature and without whose
Heleen Kappen; 4
Introduction
As a family in a constant struggle to improve their social status, the Pastons of Norfolk must not have been pleased with the existence of a report which discredited their claims of noble descent. For an unknown writer had composed an account of the Pastons’ heritage which began as follows:
A Remembraunce of the wurshypfull Kyn and Auncetrye of Paston, borne in Paston in Gemyngham Soken. Fyrst there was one Clement Paston dwellyng in Paston, and he was a good pleyn husbond, and lyvyd upon hys lond yt he had in Paston, and kept yron a Plow alle tymes in ye yer, and sumtyme in Barlysell to Plowes. The seyd Clement yede att on Plowe both wyntr and sōmer, and he rodd to mylle on the bar horsbak wyth hys corn undr hym, and brought hom mele ageyn under hym. And also drove hys carte with dyvrs cornys to Wyntrton to selle, as a good husbond ought to do. (Davis xli-ii)
Heleen Kappen; 5 William Paston, David claims, was ultimately the one “who brought the family from obscurity” into “a position of respect in Norwich and a substantial holding of lands in the country” (xlii). However, it was only his grandson John II who was able to officially ‘settle’ the matter. For though he and his father “in the 1460s [were] probably no more able to know which [Pastons in Paston] were [their] ancestors than we, which is to say not at all” (19), John II was eventually able to secure from King Edward IV a statement that he and the other males of his family “were ‘gentlemen discended lineally of worshipfull blood sithen the Conquest hither” (Davis xlii).
That the Pastons were constantly attempting to assert their position amongst the Norfolk gentry is also evidenced from the marriages they made. As Helen Jewell states, “[t]he Pastons’ rise, to gentry standing in the fifteenth century and ultimately to nobility, was founded on the marriage of Clement Paston to Beatrice Goneld or Somerton, whose brother was a justice of the peace and member of parliament for Yarmouth, Norfolk” (121) and William Paston II’s marriage to “Anne Beaufort, daughter of the duke of Somerset”. But in the meantime, Clement’s son William also made an advantageous marriage to Agnes Berry, a Hertfordshire heiress who brought him mansions such as Marlingford, Stanstead, and Orwellbury (Davis xliii). William and Agnes, in their constant struggle for gentry standing and attempts at increasing their lands and possessions, also ensured that their son John I was married well. The lucky woman was Margaret Mautby, “daughter and heiress of John Mautby, a
Heleen Kappen; 6 suspicious circumstances, come to inherit. Luckily for John, he had married a woman who was very able at managing the affairs back home, while he was in London to either perform his profession as a lawyer, or to defend his titles to various estates. It is Margaret Paston, John’s devoted and loving wife, who is the topic of this
Heleen Kappen; 7
Chapter 1
Margaret as a Letter Writer
I grytte you well, and send you God ys blessing and myn, desyryng you to send me word how that ye spede in youre materes, for think right long tyll I here tydyngys from you. And in alwyse I avyse you for to be ware that ye kepe wysly youre wrytyngys that ben of charge, that it com not in here handys that may hurt you heraftere. Youre fadere, wham God assole, in hys trobyll seson set more by hys wrytyngys and evydens than he dede by any of his moveabell godys. Remembere that yf tho were had from you ye kowd neuer gyte no moo such as tho be for youre parte. (Davis no. 333) 1
These now well-known words form the opening passage of a letter written by Margaret Paston to her son John II on 29 October 1466. Though it almost seems cliché to quote these as an introduction to this chapter on Margaret as a letter-writer, it is an excellent example of the Pastons’ view on the written word. In this family, the written word took a central position; not only as a means of communication, but also as evidence. As mention above, the Paston family were in a constant struggle to defend their social and physical position, with enemies constantly dragging the family to court. Therefore, the Pastons knew from experience the importance of a good documentation of legal documents, for, as Margaret writes, John, “in hys trobyll seson set more by hys wrytyngys and evydens than he dede by any of his moveabell godys”. Naturally, the value placed on the written word mainly originated in John
1 All quotations of the letters in the original Middle English are from the same source, in which they are
Heleen Kappen; 8 Paston’s profession. However, though this reliance on the written word seems very natural to the twenty-first century reader, from a medieval perspective the Paston’s view was a fairly modern one. For the trust that is put in writings nowadays, did not develop over a short period of time. So before looking at the ways in which Margaret uses her letters as written evidence, it is important to examine how the written word, and especially the epistle, was valued in the fifteenth century.
Trust in writing
Heleen Kappen; 9 of these ceremonies, not on its own account as a written record of the transaction” (44). This shows that though the written word was already part of legal transfers, its position was not yet crucial to the transfer.
Writing and literacy used to be uniformly tied to religion. Before the twentieth century it was, according to Clanchy, “pastors and priests (rather than schoolteachers) who pioneered the diffusion of literacy among the masses” (14). But even before transferring these skills to the laity, it was the monks who pioneered in record keeping. As Clanchy writes: “[b]efore the Norman Conquest, and for a century after it, the majority of writers … were monks” (146). They did not use the written word as later generations of writers would do (e.g. for transitory purposes). Instead, their documents usually addressed God or posterity (Clanchy 146); their value lay not in present but in the future. The increasing use of documents for mundane purposes was ultimately a result of the Norman Conquest, since “[m]aking records is initially a product of distrust rather than social progress” (Clanchy 6). Clanchy describes how the bureaucratic domination of the Normans “caused churchmen and ultimately even laymen to keep records of their own” (7). Because of the mobility of the royal court, kings often had to communicate via letters. This written culture eventually made its way to legal procedures, and when Henry II established the rule that “no one is bound to answer for any freehold of his in his lord’s court without a royal writ” (qtd in Clanchy 273), the written word “became the basis of legal procedure for all important land transactions in seigniorial courts as well as royal ones”. Before these times (i.e. in the early Middle Ages), “nothing seems to have been impossible to accomplish without writing” (Mostert “Forgery” 43), causing illiteracy amongst the masses.
Heleen Kappen; 10 which England transformed from an oral to a written culture. On the contrary, what becomes very evident when studying this issue is that this was a very gradual change, which also met with reluctance of its participants. The trust in oral performance was well-established, for when no other means of ascertaining the truth was available it had been essential to establish this trust. On the contrary, trust in writing was only starting to emerge. Marco Mostert discusses the ways in which the written word gradually came to be trusted in medieval England. One of the ways in which this happened, which seems quite obvious, is through frequency. For, Mostert writes, “the intensive use of the written word may lead to changes in the … notions about trust in writing and written texts” (“Forgery” 43). The increase in writings was, therefore, one of the reasons for the increase in trust in the written word. In this view, trust in writing must have had an enormous boost in the thirteenth century, since the main difference between England in the Anglo-Saxon period and thirteenth century England is “the production and retention of records on an unprecedented scale” (Clanchy 1). There is, of course, a correlation to be found here: the increase in writings has increased the trust, which caused an increase in retention of – and again trust in – the written word.
Heleen Kappen; 11 practices. It is also from here that the Pastons’ view on writings stems, for the connection between the written word and the law was so well fixed in their minds that they regarded writings as evidence and composed it as such. In the chapter on Margaret as a wife the ways in which she uses her letters as evidence shall be further explored. But first, let me turn to the mode of writing she employed.
Letter Writing
As mentioned, the increase in reliance on the written word also increased the different literary modes that were employed. Margaret’s function in the Paston
Letters was, obviously, that of a letter writer. Before looking into how she exactly
performed this role, it is necessary to examine the way in which the epistolary genre was used in the fifteenth century. A short discussion of the history and function of the letter is, therefore, in place.
Heleen Kappen; 12 letters were not intended to be missives, but intended to be recorded for posterity. However, the thirteenth century saw an increase in letters which were intended as missives, as “more mundane letters beg[a]n to survive” (Clanchy 90). It is in this category of letters, often written in the vernacular, that the Pastons’ letters fall. Naturally, the transition from Latin artistic letters to vernacular functional letters was a gradual process which can only be witnessed when looking at the medieval letters which are preserved. What can also be deduced by doing this, is that the amount of vernacular letters increased significantly after “about 1420, when the English-language war-report letters of Henry V gave a stamp of authority to English-English-language documents, and the gentry, merchants, and lawyers began sending their missives in their own first language” (Richardson “Fading” 228-9). Interestingly enough, it is again the authority of (i.e. trust in) letters that was needed to increase their significance. However, the shift from Latin to vernacular writing was not received as favourable by everyone. Giles Constable calls this a debasing change, which caused letter writing to be “degraded and mechanical” (qtd. in Douglas 31). The debasement mainly results from the fact that the Latin models for letter writing were not entirely applicable to the English vernacular letters. However, the art of letter writing – or ars
dictaminis – was for quite some time to keep a strong hold over the English letter
writers, before being “allowed to trail off quietly” (“Fading” 226)2. Since the letters written by Margaret Paston were missives, I shall mainly focus on the ars dictaminis in the context of missive epistles and leave artistic letter composition aside.
The letter was an especially adequate literary mode for the Pastons to use, for letter writing serves two purposes: communication and memory (Mostert Forgery 45). John Paston’s occupation in London necessitated Margaret’s communication via this medium, while the letters simultaneously provided Margaret with written
2
Heleen Kappen; 13 evidence of her conduct. Moreover, since the already discussed association of the written word and the law, the letters can also be considered as evidence which could, if necessary, be used in court. John expected Margaret to send him these letters, as can be seen from the letter he sent her on 15 January 1465, where he writes:
I praye yow see to the god gouernaunce of my housold and guydyng of other thynges touching my profite, and Ϸat ye, with Daubeney and Richard Calle and with other such of my frendes and seruauntes as can avise yow aftir the mater requirith, wekely take a sad communcacion of such thynges as be for to do, or oftenner and nede be. (no. 72)
The way in which he expects her to take good governance of his household shall be discussed below, but for now it is important that John has commanded his wife to send him the letters that she writes. The fact that these letters were not spontaneously written, but subject to scrutinisation of the reader sheds a different light on them. Naturally, in the case of letter writing the writer must always be aware of a ‘third person’ reader, but in Margaret’s case extra care should also be taken so that the initial addressee will be pleased with them as well. Therefore, it is not strange that Margaret – trying to prove her worth – should write her letters in accordance with the set rules.
Heleen Kappen; 14 letter-writing to become part of the curriculum in these countries, in England “[t]he
ars dictaminis was never part of an official curriculum” (Cornelius 87), and therefore
its “textbook tradition was indeed comparatively weak” (88). However, the traces of the ars dictaminis are very evident in medieval English letters, which means that the art must have been known to English letter writers. Perhaps the most well-known letter-writing manual in England was that of Thomas Sampson of Oxford (Davis “Troili” 241), written in French. As the written word took over the functions and prominence of the spoken word, it is not surprising that the letter became modelled after “the six parts of a Ciceronian oratio” (Richardson “Ars Dictaminis” 56). Though the earlier manuals varied in focus and content, “Medieval artes dictandi after the early twelfth century agree that a letter may be divided into five parts”:
1. Salutatio, or formal greeting of the receiver;
2. Capitatio benevolentiae, a section to win the receiver’s sympathy, attention, and good will;
3. Narratio, the background leading to the request or demand; 4. Petitio, the request or demand;
5. Conclusio, the formal ending, often involving a blessing and the place and date of the letter. (Richardson “Ars Dictaminis 56)
Heleen Kappen; 15 and prose rhythm (cursus), but mostly stressed the importance of brevity (Richardson “Ars Dictaminis” 56, Cornelius 86). It was especially the content about style which was difficult to translate to English letters. Because of the medieval practice of reading letters aloud, “manuals often spent much time on elements of Latin style that were designed to make the prose sound pleasing when spoken” (“Richardson Ars Dictaminis” 56). Naturally, not all such constructions could be transferred to the English letter. A manual deprived of these stylistic comments might well evoke the criticism of being too formulaic. However, when discussing the
narratio below, I shall illustrate how style played a part for English letter-writers as
well.
Heleen Kappen; 16 was just beginning to emerge, the writers of these letters must have felt the need for a model to base their own letters on. This would, according to Richardson, also account for the fading influence of the dictamen, for when the letter-writers had gained enough confidence the manuals became superfluous ("Fading” 232).
Since the salutatio was obviously emphasised in the manuals, it is not strange that in Margaret’s letters this part is explicitly present. The importance of this part of the letter has caused Norman Davis to divide the salutatio and the capitatio
benevolentiae into another 7 parts, which are:
1. A form of address;
2. a formula commending the writer to the recipient, often accompanied by an expression of humility and a request for a blessing;
3. an expression of desire to hear of the recipient’s welfare; 4. a prayer for the continuation and increase of this welfare;
5. a conditional clause deferentially offering news of the writer’s welfare; 6. a report of the writer’s good health ‘at the making of this letter’;
7. thanks to God for it. (adapted from Davis Troili 236)
Heleen Kappen; 17 that after only a few letters to her husband, Margaret drops the adjective ‘reuerent’ (i.e. venerable) and standardises her openings to merely ‘right worshipful husband’ – decreasing the humility of her address. Moreover, she increasingly slims down the formulaic opening to the short phrase: “Right wurchepfull husband, I recomaund me to you. Please it you to wete Ϸat…” (no. 189), leaving out parts 3 to 7. However, this ties in with Alison Truelove’s conclusion that “structurally, the more formal the subject, the more adherent to convention the letter seems to have been” (qtd. in “Scripting” 8). It seems logical that Margaret, as her marriage progressed, decreased the formality of her letters, as the extent of deviation “reflects both the nature of the suit and the social status of the letter writer in relation to the recipient” (“Scripting” 8). Similarly, the conclusio of Margaret’s letters are at once formulaic and slimmed-down. At minimum, she only recounts the date on which the letter was written, though often the conclusio reads as follows: “þe Holy Trynyté have ȝw jn hys kepyng and send ȝw helth and gode spede jn all ȝwr materys twchyng ȝwr ryth. Wretyn at Norwyche on þe Wedenys-day nexst after þatt ȝe partyd hens. ȝwrys, Margarete Paston” (no. 128), in which she includes a blessing and expresses the hope of her husband’s continued welfare.
Heleen Kappen; 18 enumeration of facts3. In this long passage, written in 1448, she connects all sentences by using the conjunction ‘and’, not feeling the necessity to pay attention to style but rather focusing on the content of her letter. However, though typically Margaret’s narratio is indeed lengthy and bulletin-like, it goes too far to claim that the Paston’s “bespeak credit by total carelessness of … ornament” (qtd. in Davis “Style” 7) as Fenn did in his preface to the first edition of the Paston Letters. As mentioned, the ars dictaminis did not only focus on format, but also concerned itself with style. Norman Davis in his essay “Style and Stereotype in Early English Letters”, recognises in the Paston letters some stylistic tendencies which, according to him, are “so much more numerous in the fifteenth-century letters than anywhere else that they may fairly be attributed to the epistolary tradition in particular, and so ultimately to the example of the dictatores” (8-9). Amongst these, he names the use of participles. Margaret’s use of this construction is not limited to the salutatio (“desyryng, praying”), but can also be found in the narrative part of her letters. For example, when speaking of Sir Henry Inglose, Margaret writes: “[a]nd on Saterday last past he come ryding thorow this town toward Framyngham, and if he had
abedyn in this town he shuld haue ben arestyd” (no. 149; emphasis added). Davis
adds impersonal phrases like Margaret’s “[i]t ys sayd here” (no. 184) to the stylistic elements which point to an influence of the dictatores. Set phrases such as these were stylistic devices in much the same way as the Latin cursus was.
I hope to have demonstrated how the ars dictaminis influenced Margaret’s letter-writing. By adhering to these set rules, Margaret might have hoped to increase the trustworthiness of her letters. As the increase of the written word simultaneously increased the trust in writing, it also caused the writings of different cultures to “show
3
Heleen Kappen; 19 ever greater similarities” (Mostert “Forgery” 57). For letters, this meant that the use of the ars dictaminis was a way of adding credibility to letters.
Medieval Literacy
Heleen Kappen; 20 writing” (41). Though it is difficult to determine how many people were truly literate, the amount of texts surviving from the 13th century onwards suggests that many people found a way to participate in literate production. Georges Declercq calls this “pragmatic literacy, which implies that even people who were illiterate in the strict sense of the word could nonetheless participate in literate practices” (55).
One of the way in which this was done was through scribes. Unfortunately, since men undoubtedly received an education in which the art of writing was included more frequently4, women’s dependence on scribes tends to be exaggerated. But as James Daybell asserts, it was similarly not uncommon for noble men to employ secretaries, since writing was seen as a “tedious and messy [task] best left to servants” (qtd. in Douglas 34). Moreover, as Douglas also asserts, “most women of nobility and gentry are believed to have been able to read” (35), and were therefore capable of controlling the contents of their letters. As for Margaret, it can be assumed that she too was able to read. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that any of her secretaries would deliberately misinterpret her words – all of them were trusted and had long been employed by the Paston family (Douglas 35-36). Therefore, Margaret Paston’s letters do not need to be scrutinised for any scribal influence, and the thoughts and ideas presented in her letters may all be credited to her. Having cleared this stumbling-block, let me turn to the ways in which Margaret actually uses her letter-writing to construct her public self.
4 James Daybell, for example, in his article on female literacy in Tudor England points to the fact that women
Heleen Kappen; 21
Chapter 2
Margaret as a Woman
Heleen Kappen; 22 words, Margaret was able to script a public self that fitted the circumstances of her writings, or as Magnusson describes it: “we find a link between a woman’s language and an estimate of her power” (64).5
The ways in which Margaret indeed needed to act energetically, in order to convince her husband of her aptness as a wife, is the topic of the next chapter. However, it is interesting to look at the way in which Margaret’s authoritative position changed through the passing of her husband and how this influenced her way of depicting herself as a woman in her letters. While her husband is alive, Margaret receives the influence that fits her maternal position. So when her husband and son John II are on unfriendly terms, she is in a position to chastise her son while simultaneously pleading for his forgiveness to John I. The reason for this dispute between father and son was money, for John I was “furious that his son was spending more money than John I thought he should” (Krug 53). Margaret commands her son John II that he “shuld not spare to write to hym ageyn as lowly as ye cane, besecheying hym to be your good fader, and send hym such tydyngys as bethe in the contré ther ye bethe in, and that ye be ware of your expence bettyr and ye have be before thys tyme (no. 175). Instead of suggesting that he goes to visit his father, Margaret recommends him to write a letter of petition as “evidence of his virtuous behaviour” (Krug 54). However, this is not a tentative recommendation, but rather the word “shuld” indicates that Margaret thinks that writing a letter would only be right or becoming of her son. This coincides with Magnusson view on feminine strategies employed in letters of petition, where she names the “supposal and assurance” script. This script is “characterised by authority, confidence and
5
Heleen Kappen; 23 assertions of social expectations to be met (14), and this is exactly this script that Margaret employs towards her son in this letter. On the other hand, Margaret pleads for her husband’s reconciliation with their son, writing: “I be-seche ʒow hartyly Ϸat ʒe wochesaf to be hys god fadyr, fore I hope he is schastysyd and wil be Ϸe warhere her-aftyr” (no. 176). Here, Margaret employs the feminine script of “humility and entreaty” (Magnusson 57) in order to move her husband to act after her will. However, these pleas led John I to believe that Margaret was too lenient as a mother, for in a later letter she feels obliged to add: “I pray you thynk not in me that I wyll supporte hym ne fauour hym in no lewdnesse, for I wylnot” (no. 179). It becomes clear, then, that Margaret indeed employs a script that corresponds to the “estimate of her power”. When in a hierarchically higher position – when writing to her son – Margaret assumes an authoritative role, while towards her husband she uses a “rhetoric of deference” (Magnusson 58). Moreover, the authority that Margaret’s husband has over her can also be seen from seemingly trivial passages dealing with request for goods which she requires, but that cannot be (cheaply) bought nearby. A passage from 14 November 1453 reads:
Heleen Kappen; 24 As soon as she makes a request such as this, she transfers the responsibility and the freedom of choice which she originally held in the matter over to her husband. Though initially she could have chosen any type of cloth that she wanted, she now has to rely on John’s choice in the matter. She does no longer venture to interfere, not even to describe what kind of cloth and colour she would have preferred. Though this is only a trivial matter of dress, it is telling for the relationship between Margaret and her husband. Though the authoritative position that Margaret obtains is mostly constituted by her husband, he is also the one to whom she sacrifices this authority. Though Margaret has much authority while John is away, as soon as he reappears on the scene she respects his authority without interference.
However, this is not to say that Margaret always employs a rhetoric of self-deprecation in her communications to her husband. Though always maintaining a tone of deference, Margaret is not unwilling to portray herself as a woman of authority towards her husband. Writing at the beginning of the troubles at Hellesdon, she writes to her husband:
Item, I haue left John Paston the oldere at Castere to kype the place there, as Richard can tell you, for I had levere, and it pleasyd you, to be captenesse here then at Castere. Yet I was nothyng purposyd to a-byde here when I com from hom but for a day or ij, but I shall a-byde here tyll I here tydyngys from you. (no. 180)
Here, Margaret draws on a military metaphor that aptly describes her situation (Krug 63), by referring to herself as ‘captenesse’.6 Though she still indicates that she will do as John pleases her to do, this does not prevent her from ascribing a highly
6
Heleen Kappen; 26
Legal Language
John Paston I’s absences from home also created the necessity for Margaret to develop significant legal acumen. Indeed, Margaret seems to be well versed in legal phraseology, for as Spedding claims she “used or was exposed to 182 definable legal words or phrases, expressions which … constituted at least part of her legal lexicon” (8). In the letters that Margaret received, legal terminology was mostly used without offering any further explanation, which shows that her associates were aware of her legal competence (Spedding 11). As for the origin of Margaret’s knowledge, Spedding concludes that “Margaret acquired her impressive legal linguistic competence initially as a function of growing up, augmented in the early days of her marriage by informal exposure to the Pastons’ legal expertise and through oral discourse … with her husband” (7-8). Though most of Margaret’s legal involvement was born out of necessity, Margaret is again able to manipulate her use of this language in a way through which she gains more authority. Though it should not be forgotten that in this case as well, Margaret acquires this authority through her husband, the ‘legal linguistic competence’ is her own, even if it has been gained from contact with her husband, and mostly used in reference to him and his affairs.
Heleen Kappen; 27 Barrow about how the Paston’s are “dissesyd of her lyvelode” and how Lord Moleyns had “no tytyl of rytʒ … to Ϸe maner of Gressam” (no. 131). Instead of referring to the estate merely as a residence, by using the word “lyvelode” Margaret aptly indicates the value that Gresham has as a property yielding part of their income. As Spedding makes clear, Margaret was “self-assured and businesslike in dealing with the distress and counter-distress of goods”, for she did not enter into these conversations out of “advice received” (Spedding 17), but identified the need for her interference herself and acted accordingly – without initially asking her husband’s permission. Furthermore, by pointing to the absence of written legal records proving Lord Moleyns’ ownership of the manor, Margaret attempts to persuade Barrow to “haue compascion on” John.
Conversations such as these, in which Margaret acts as an agent defending the family’s properties, create a scope for Margaret to show her legal acumen, and proved to John that he could entrust such matters to her. This coincides with Creelman’s view that, instead of functioning as a passive mouthpiece, Margaret gained “considerable rhetorical agency” (“Quotation” 116) in reporting these conversations. The main rhetorical device that Margaret employs to gain this agency, apart from the correct use of legal terminology, is that of quotation. As shall be shown below, Margaret often reports her own speech verbatim while paraphrasing the words of others. Thus she de-emphasises the words of others by paraphrase and foregrounds her own by quotation.7
But it is not only on her own account that Margaret enters into legal conversations. John Paston I’s long absences from home meant that he could not engage in face-to-face conversations with the persons from his home county whom he represented at court. Therefore, he needed Margaret to convey messages and hold
Heleen Kappen; 28 conversations with them in his stead. Often, however, reports of these conversations do not include any legal terminology or detail, and do not extend beyond a short message such as: “I have spoke to John of Damme to do as ʒe sent me word in ʒowr letter, and he seyth he wol don his part as ʒowr desire is with all his hert” (no. 136). The fact that John did indeed trust in Margaret’s legal knowledge enough to entrust such matters to her is another reason to suspect that Margaret’s indeed “had a comprehensive understanding of the law” (Spedding 2). However, due to the conciseness of these passages it is more interesting to look at the more lengthy passages dealing with Margaret’s unsolicited interference.
Heleen Kappen; 29 Margaret shows that “she was confident of her understanding of the legal procedure” (15). Naturally, this conversation could not have taken place if Margaret was not aware of the legal actions that could be taken against the Pastons, or which legalities were needed in order to prevent Lady Morley from suing. But that is not all. Apart from claiming authority for herself by using legal language, Margaret’s quotation of her own attempts at dissuading Lady Morley emphasises her efforts, despite how sadly they may have failed. This stands in stark contrast to the way in which Margaret reports her mother-in-law’s (successful) attempt to convince Lady Morley to think the better of suing:
And truly my moder dede here devere ryth feythfully Ϸer-jn, as myn cosyn Clere xal tellyn ʒw qhan Ϸat he spekyth with ʒw, and sche gete grawnt of my seyd lady Ϸat Ϸer xuld nowth ben don aʒens ʒw Ϸer-jn and ʒe wold acordyn with here and don as ʒe owyn to do be-twyx Ϸis tym and Trinyté Sunday. (no. 128)
In this passage, Margaret does not even paraphrase the words spoken by Agnes Paston, but disregards them altogether. While fully recording her own attempts, augmented by legal vocabulary, Margaret merely relates the outcome of Agnes’s successful endeavour. Instead of focussing on Agnes’s success in solving the matter, the use of direct speech when recording her own attempts places the focus of the reader on the effort Margaret put into the case. By placing the focus thus, Margaret legitimises her observation that Lady Morley took her message “ryth strawngely” – arguing that the cause of her failure is not to be found in Margaret herself, but in Lady Morley – who is more easily persuaded by Agnes’s words than by Margaret’s.
Heleen Kappen; 31 “I pray you wyth all myn herth” that you engage the Lord of Suffolk as patron, “jn esyng of myn hert also” she acknowledges the plight that she is in – she has a heart that needs easing and appeals to the only person who has the power to assure her. It can be said, therefore, that Margaret is able to combine a register which is mostly reserved for men (legal language), with more feminine rhetorical strategies. Again it can be seen that Margaret uses her language as the occasion sees fit, using legal language when in a more authoritative position, while shifting back to tropes of feminine weakness when making requests to her authorities.
Letters of Petition
Heleen Kappen; 32 Margaret voices to her husband, in order to demonstrate how Margaret employs two of the types of women’s epistolary rhetoric that Daybell addresses in his essay.
Heleen Kappen; 33 [A]nd me thynkyth by my cosyn Clere that she wold fayn haue youre gode wyll and that she hath sworyn ryght faythfully to me that there shall no defaute be founde in here, nor noght hath be yf the trogh myght be vnderstond, as she hopyth it shall be heraftere. She sayth there ys no man a-lyff that she hath put here truste in so moch as she hath doon in you. She sayth she wote well such langage as hath be reportyd to you of here othere-wyse then she hath deseruyd causyth you to be othere-wyse to here then ye schold be. She had to me thys langage wypyng and told me of dyuers othere thyngys the which ye shall haue knowlych of hereaftere. (no. 190)
Heleen Kappen; 34 patron. Thus, when pleading to John that “there ys no man a-lyff that she hath put here truste in so moch as she hath doon in you”, Margaret indeed attempts to “wrin[g] out the maximum amount of empathy” (“Scripting” 12) for Elizabeth’s situation, while simultaneously attempting to bring about a favourable outcome through flattery.
Another rhetorical script mostly reserved for females that Margaret employs is that of exploiting “the position of widowhood” (“Scripting” 14), in order to evoke pity. Daybell notes that widowhood had great “religious, emotional and moral significance” (“Scripting” 14), though Harris claims that widows were even better off than before, since now they could “perform [their] tasks … with a new degree of independence and authority” (127). However, this was only true for the truly aristocratic (i.e. wealthy) women. For others, the death of their husband often meant “vulnerability and isolation from the support of family and friends” (“Scripting” 14), making their position truly pitiable. Margaret uses this script in order to advance the suit of her lately widowed friend, the wife of Thomas Denys. Denys, coroner of Norfolk, was in service of the Pastons as well as the Earl of Oxford. Richard Barber presents the reader with a very concise but intriguing history of Denys’s troubles in Norfolk. Though “John Paston seems to have supported [Denys] consistently through [the] troubles” he experienced when falling out with the Earl of Oxford (63), eventually John’s patronage caused his downfall as in 1461 Denys was “attacked by allies of Paston’s old enemy Heydon” (63), and eventually “abducted from his house by a gang led by the parson of Snoring, who murdered him” (64). When Denys’s wife comes to Margaret for help, she writes to her husband:
Heleen Kappen; 35 good masterchep Ϸat ye wolle geve her your advice howe to be demenid for hyr person and hyr godis; for as towchyng hyr owne person she dare not goo home to hyr owne place, for she is thret if Ϸat she myght be take she shuld be slayne or be put in ferfull place in short-tyng of hyr lyve-dayes, and so she standyth in gret heuynes, God her helpe. (no. 160)
Heleen Kappen; 36 The two examples of Elizabeth Clere and Thomas Denys’s wife show how Margaret is able to shape the requests of her petitioners in order to maximise the possibility of a positive reply from her husband. But she does not only apply these rhetorical skills to the requests of others. On the contrary, Margaret is also wont to employ them in order to advance her own interests. For example on Christmas Eve 1459, she writes how she is “sory that [John] xall not at hom be for Crystemes” (no. 153) and prays that he “woll come home as sone as [he] may”. To add to the urgency of her request she adds: “I xhall thynke my-selfe halfe a wedowe because ye xal not be at home”. Here, she uses the image of widowhood to evoke pity for her situation, and to urge John to come home soon. Similarly, when from the last weeks of December 1461 to the first weeks 1462 John fails to send Margaret a letter on how he is doing, she begs him to respond; writing: “wychesaue to send [her] word how ye do as hastly as ye may, for my hert schall nevyr be in ese tyll I haue tydyngys fro yow” (no. 168). In trying to make her husband write to her, Margaret uses the trope of feminine weakness to urge him into action – for it is her feminine heart that will not be easy until he writes to her.
Margaret, therefore, was able to use the language of her letters in order to manipulate the male recipients through female rhetorical strategies. Through this, she constructs a gendered self that is not as devoid of power as some critics would believe medieval women to be. Rather, it is as Daybell describes: Margaret is able to “work within the limitations and constraints imposed by early modern society” (“Scripting” 18), and by “acting as advocate, go-between, and fixer” (Richmond
Endings 103) Margaret indeed gains “considerable rhetorical agency” (“Quotation”
Heleen Kappen; 37
Chapter 3
Margaret as a Wife
Heleen Kappen; 38 someone who had internalised his wishes and interests, and to whom he could, therefore, safely entrust the management of his household (Harris 65). The duration of her husband’s periods of absence meant that fifteenth century women such as Margaret could not fulfil the expectations of good wifehood by merely being passively obedient. Instead, wives were supposed to actively promote the advancement of their husbands’ interests – be it economical or social. Economically, therefore, Margaret was expected to be able to run the household well, while socially she was supposed to keep up her own, her husband’s, and her family’s good name through her conduct.
Heleen Kappen; 39 from time to time. For example on 20 September 1465, when he writes: “I pray yow remember and rede often my bille of erandes, and this lettir, till it be don” (no. 77). However, above I have already discussed how Margaret has redefined her obligatory letters to John as petitions for the cause of others. Now, I would like to add that these letters simultaneously created an opportunity for Margaret to prove her own worth and good reputation. For reputation is the essential keyword when it comes to the social duties of a fifteenth-century wife. In Domestic Dangers, Laura Gowing outlines the importance of reputation and the effects that slander could have on early modern English women. She claims that “for women, neighbourly behaviour, hard work, and quiet living were some of the factors that might give a good name” (17), while the most important aspect that could threaten a woman’s good name was her sexuality. For, as Gowing adds, “[w]hatever made a good reputation, sexual discredit could threaten it”. An example of this can be seen in one of Margaret’s letters to her husband, in which she writes about the illegitimate childbirth of the wife of one of their would-be enemies, Heydon. By writing how Margaret has “herde seyn” that Heydon “wolle nowt be intretit to haue [his wyffe] ayen in no wysse” she contributes to the this woman’s discredit. For when the disgrace of oral rumours was confirmed by written testimony, a ruined reputation was inevitable. Moreover, in this letter Margaret contrasts her “own domestic obedience with Heydon’s wife’s infidelity” (Krug 43).
Heleen Kappen; 40 her husband and the family as well. Discredit was mainly caused by oral slander, for “reputations … were what people said” (20). Because a reputation was so valuable and brittle, it comes as no surprise that – apart from slandering Heydon’s wife – in Margaret letters “there is so little tittle-tattle”, so “little scandal” (Endings 105). For “[a] name for scolding [and] defaming … made a women’s words suspect” (Gowing 16), which is exactly what Margaret seemed to be eager to avoid. She needed her letters to be trustworthy, in order to prove her own value to her husband. The fact that the written word was increasingly relied upon and seen as authoritative, meant that the written word could be used to influence this good reputation; whether to ruin it (as in the case of Heydon’s wife), to uphold, or regain it. Therefore, the letters that Margaret has written to John are a written account of her conduct, through which she was able to prove her worth to her husband and the possible ‘third person reader’. The couple’s absolute faith in the authority of the written word turned the letters that Margaret wrote into evidence of her conduct. In what way she used the language of her letters to shape her own self is the topic of the rest of this chapter.
Mistress of the Household
Heleen Kappen; 41 mentioned, one of the domestic tasks that Margaret had to perform was to look after “provision of stuffe for [John’s] howsold” (no. 72). In other words, Margaret needed to ensure that the household never wanted anything. In many of her letters to her husband, therefore, Margaret reports on purchases that she has made. A typical report runs as follows: “As for hering, I have bowt an horslode for iiij s. vjd”, though “[a]s for bevere, Ϸer is promysid me somme, but I myt nog gete it yett” (no. 148). As seen above, Margaret also often sends request for goods which she requires, but that cannot be bought nearby, such as the cloth she required in November 1453 (no. 149). Moreover, from the passages dealing with requests that Margaret has not been able to perform yet, it can be concluded that Margaret is a dutiful letter-writer, or as Richmond writes: “a great letter writer” (Endings 91). Whenever Margaret’s tasks are not “don” yet, she does not fail to mention them – hinting that she is ‘working on it’. For example, on 6 July 1451, Margaret writes about Applyard: “he com not yett to this town syn he com from London”, but as soon as “he comyth” I “shall do yowr commawndement” (no. 142). In fact, Margaret has nothing to report concerning Applyard. However, by bringing the matter up she asserts to John that she has not forgotten her duty, and that as soon as the opportunity arises she will do what he has commanded her to do. Moreover, by using this word ‘commawndement’, Margaret places herself in the position of an inferior, showing her willingness to obey her husband’s orders.
Heleen Kappen; 42 persones” who drove Margaret and her servants “oute of the seid mansion and myned down the walle[s]” (no. 36). During the preparations for such an attack, Margaret writes how she requires “som crosse bowis, and wyndacis to bynd Ϸem with, and quarrel, for ʒwr hwsis here ben so low Ϸat Ϸere may non man schete owt with no long bowe Ϸow we hadde neuer so moche nede" (no. 130). Margaret can here be seen at work as the “captenesse” I have commented on above, preparing her troops. However, at the same time she has not forgotten John’s commandment to look after “provision of stuffe for myn howsold”. After an elaboration on the imminent danger and precautions taken against the siege, Margaret continues without a blink: “I pray ʒw Ϸat ʒe wyl vowche-save to don bye for me j li. of almandis and j li. of sugyre, and Ϸat ʒe wille do byen summe frees to maken of ʒwr childeris gwnys; ʒe xall haue best chepe and best choyse of Hayis wyf, as it is told me”. Though perhaps this change of topic seems strange, Margaret is simply doing what has been asked of her. As she is told to provide for the family, in her letters she does not differentiate between providing arms and nutrition. Also, though the arrangements of war might seem like a masculine activity, through her marriage and therefore her identification with her husband’s needs, Margaret is obliged to promote the Paston family’s advancement in every possible manner, including making martial preparations.
Heleen Kappen; 43 perform this task. What is more, in her letters she shows that she has indeed done everything she could in order to try and procure the said rent. For example at Hellesdon, where the Duke of Suffolk’s men (who had turned into an adversary instead of a patron) often threatened the tenants to pay the rents to the Duke rather than to the Pastons, the tenants were often unable to pay their rental fees to Margaret. At one time, she took seventy-seven head of cattle from them, which she intended to keep until the tenants paid their due. The following is an excerpt from the letter in which these events are recorded:
Fyrst on the same Satour-day the tenauntys folwyd vppon, and desyryd to haue there catell a-yen, and I awnnsweryd hem yf thay wold do pay such dewtys as they oght to pay to you, that then they shold haue there catell delyuered a-yen. (no. 182)
Heleen Kappen; 44 in writing from the sheriff, she “syyng the shyryffys replevyn vndere hys seal, bade my men delyuer hem, and soo they were delyueryd”. In these transactions, Margaret represents herself as the main agent in case; it is only after she has “bad” her men to deliver the cattle that the tenants are reunited with their livestock. The ways in which Margaret’s asserts her authority in these matters shows how she is eager to perform the duties of a good housewife, enhancing her reputation as such a one.
Apart from her other duties Margaret was mistress over numerous servants, and was expected to ensure that they also did their duties. As the servants of the Paston’s household were relied on for many a delicate business – such as writing letters – their trustworthiness was vital. Therefore, many of the Pastons’ servants remained in service for many years, as evidenced by their scribal practices. As a family of the gentry, the Pastons were expected to treat their servants well. Margaret not sporadically urges her family to treat their servants as they should. For example in a letter to her husband she writes:
I pray you Ϸat ye wull vochesaf to be gode mayster to Loveday, and Ϸat he may haue mony of you to bye such thynges as be necessary for hym, for I wote wele he shuld go right evill or he shuld compleyne. And if it pleased you to purvey for hym Ϸat he myght be in sum gode seruyce ye myght do gret almesse vp-on hym, and so ye haue do be-fore this tyme, which I trost God shall reward right wele. (no. 166)
Heleen Kappen; 45 also meant that servants could have a great impact on the family’s reputation amongst the gentry. As Creelman demonstrates by her discussion of Thomas Gnatesnale, servants often served several families (“Servants” 102). In his case, Gnatesnale served Lady Morley, the Paston’s social superior, as well as the Paston family. Since reputation was what people said, it is not surprising that Margaret in her letter to John urges him to be good to a servant – in this case Loveday – before he can harm the family’s reputation through evil slander. Moreover, being charitable towards servants could enhance Margaret’s own reputation as well, for “[c]harity was … the most public service a woman could perform to display her generosity and benevolence to the larger community and, in turn, maintain her honourable reputation” (“Servants” 98). One case in which Margaret shows her generous charity is when a (former) servant, Perse, has just been released from prison by the general pardon of the king. Her letter reads:
A-non as [Perse] was delyueryd he cam hedyr to me, God wote in an evyll plyte, and he desyiryd me wepyng Ϸat I wold be hys good mastres and to be mene to yow to be hys good mastyr, and swore sor Ϸat he was nevyr defawty in Ϸat ye haue thowte hym defawty in.
…
Heleen Kappen; 46 In this case, Margaret does not have the authority to bestow her full charity upon the servant, as she needs her husband’s permission to keep him on as a servant. However, by invoking God Margaret appeals to John’s Christian sense of charity. Moreover, Margaret applies similar feminine rhetoric skills as before, trying to evoke pity by alluding to his “wepyng”. Also, the fact that John I has been his “good mastyr” before serves as a precedent for the hope of future aid. And finally, Margaret portrays Perse as a willing servant, keen to obey her and John’s commandments. Therefore, by not sending him away and pleading his case to John, Margaret bestows Perse the only charitable act that she is capable of performing – without losing her husband’s good opinion herself. From this it can be concluded that servants could both pose a threat to Margaret’s reputation as a good mistress, as well as an opportunity to enhance her reputation by being charitable towards them. By reporting how she has acted towards the servant, including the religious compassion (“God wote an evyll plyte”) she had for this weeping servant, she shows her husband what a charitable woman she is.
Petitions and Reputation
Heleen Kappen; 47 charitable wife she was. The language she uses when making the requests for others supports this claim.
Heleen Kappen; 48 However, Margaret does not only plead the tenant’s case out of sympathetic motives. She elaborates on how this situation “hurtit [John’s] katel”, by writing:
Ʒowr closys and ʒowr pastor lythe all opyn be-kawse he may not gon abrodde to don hem amendyn, and ʒowr schep ar not lokyd at as Ϸey xuld ben for Ϸer is no schepeherd but Hodgis sonys, for oϷer schepherd dare non abyd Ϸer ner com up-on Ϸe comown … And but if ʒowr bestys mown comown Ϸer jt xall ben grette hurt to hem but if ʒe haue more pasture Ϸan Ϸei haue be-syd Ϸatt. (no. 132)
By repeatedly pointing John’s belongings (‘ʒowr closys, pastor, schep, and bestys’), Margaret emphasises John’s own interest in the matter. In doing this, Margaret implies that she does not only act out of compassion for the poor tenant, but also continues “guydyng … other thynges touchyng [John’s] profite” (no. 72). This relatively short piece of writing from Margaret to John is evidence of two of Margaret’s desirable qualities: a charitable disposition and a heart for the family’s interests. On the one hand, she urges John to have a compassionate heart towards a servant who is clearly not performing his duties, while on the other hand stressing the family’s interest in Foke’s wellbeing – both improving her own reputation as a wife.
gentle-Heleen Kappen; 49 woman marrying a not-gentleman who was one of the servants: that was a shameful scandal” (Endings 94). Therefore, Margaret is left with only two options: cutting off her daughter or sacrificing her reputation. For all the trouble the Pastons had put into climbing the social ladder, the first was certainly not an option. So Margaret again employs her letters to show her family and the outside world how she has restored the family honour. Firstly, she attempted to save the family inclusive of Margery; as she writes to John II how “accompanied by her mother-in-law Agnes, she tried to persuade Walter Lyhert, bishop of Norwich, to annul the marriage” (Watt 138). Simultaneously, in this report of Margaret’s attempts at rectification and reconciliation she tries to acquit herself of any blame. For Margaret writes how both she and Agnes “kowd neuer onderstond be here sayyng, be no language þat euer sche had to hym, þat neythere of hem were bownd to othere” (no. 203). However, when Margery and Richard have stubbornly repeated their marriage vows and declare that they are “bownd”, Margaret has no other choice than rejecting her daughter. From then on, Margaret declares, Margery is no longer to “be reseyued in myn hows”. She goes even further by urging her son not to “take yt … pensyly”, but to remember that they “haue lost of here but a brethele”. Margaret clearly distances herself from what she deems the sinful, disrespectful behaviour of her daughter. By ‘officially’ claiming this distance in writing, Margaret is able to preserve her own reputation, though not – alas – the love of her daughter.
Raising a Support Group
Heleen Kappen; 50 [I]t is thought be my cosyn Elisabeth Clere and Ϸe vikere and othere Ϸat be yowr frendes that it is right necessary for you to haue Hew of Fen to be yowr frende in yowr materes, for he is called right feythfull and trosty to the Kyn and Ϸe lordes, and it is seid Ϸat he may do myche wyth hem Ϸat be yowr aduersaryes. And Ϸerfore, for Goddes sake, if ye may haue his gode wille forsake it not. Also it is thought the more lerned men that ye haue of yowr owyn contré of yowr councell the more wurchepful it is to you. (no. 166)
Since the Pastons were in a constant struggle for their social and economical position, the fact that they could use every help they could in ascertaining their position should not cause any raised eyebrows. Moreover, assembling of group of highly esteemed and well-established acquaintances was not an uncommon practice in the fifteenth century. Harris writes how, for instance, when young brides turned into experienced wives, “most of them also developed friendships and patronage relations with their husbands’ non-resident, collateral kin and members of the local aristocracy” (175). Besides property and a devoted wife, John’s marriage with Margaret also brought him good connections. Of course, the connection which had the greatest impact on the Pastons’ future life was Margaret’s kinship with Sir John Fastolf, whose inheritance left the Pastons properties as well as a good deal of trouble.8 But Margaret brought more influential relationships into her marriage, such as the “lifelong relations with her distant cousins, the Mountfords, Cleres, and Calthorps” (Harris 198). The network that Margaret brought and expanded during her marriage was not limited to her husband’s kin and hers either. Rather, Margaret cultivated relationships with many more people who could benefit her husband’s
8
For a discussion on the troubles concerning Fastolf’s will see for example Colin Richmond’s The Paston
Heleen Kappen; 51 interests. As Harris adds, these relationships “almost certainly contributed to [aristocratic women’s] husbands’ local position” (204). Below, I shall outline the way in which Margaret’s connections benefitted John’s position.
For Margaret, cultivating a relationship with her mother-in-law, Agnes Paston, was unavoidable since they lived in the same house(s) for long periods of time. The positive influence that she had on John’s affairs has already been exemplified by the letter concerning Lady Morley’s suing scheme. But Margaret wanted to show her husband that not only John’s own relations could promote his causes, but that Margaret’s family members were, or could be, of help to John as well. As Richmond argues, Margaret brought to her marriage what “one might call class” (First 134). Her kinship with the Mautbys, Berneys, and Garneys not only benefitted the Paston’s social status, but also provided them with a group of people whom they could turn to in times of trouble. The following passage demonstrates how Margaret wishes to draw attention to the fact that it is her family who is of help to her husband’s interest in the Fastolf matter:
Thys day was holde a gret day at Okyll befor the vndyr-scheue and the vnder-exchetor, for the mater of Syr Jon Fastolfys londys, and there was my cosyn Rookwood and my cosyn Jon Berney of Redham and dyuers idyr jentylmen and thrifty men of the contré; and the mater is well sped aftyr yowyr intent, blyssyd be God. (no. 154; emphasis added)
Heleen Kappen; 52 he kowd or myte be to [John]” (154). Similar language is found when Margaret writes to her husband how her uncle, Phillip Berney, has overheard some of Lord Moleyns’ allies talking about Lord Moleyns possible arrival at Lynn. Margaret again asserts that it is her uncle by writing: “myn vnkyll Phylyp Berney was at Lynne this last weke” (no. 139; emphasis added) and overheard the said conversation. Moreover, in listing people who might be of aid to the family, Margaret does not forget to mention her relatives. So when John “desire[s] to knowe what gentlemen wolde doo for [him] at this tyme” (no. 189), Margaret includes Berney of Reedham as one of John’s supporters.
Heleen Kappen; 53 154). Another example can be found in a letter written to John on 7 August 1465. When Margaret has sent their servants Thomas Bonde and James Gloys to “hold the court in [John’s] name and to clayme [his] tytill” at Drayton, the Duke of Suffolk’s men “toke Ϸe seid Thomas wyth-ought occasion” and “bownde his armes be-hynde hym wyth whippe-cord like a theffe” (no. 189). Moreover, they “shuld haue led hym forth to þe Duke of Suffolk ner had be þat I had spokyn wyth the juges in the morwyn or þei yede to the shire hous, and enformed hem of such ryottes and assaugthis as thei had mad vp-on me and my men”. This meant that the judges were well-disposed towards Margaret, for she “founde the juges right gentell and forberable” as they scolded the bailey of Cossey (who held Thomas in custody) and made him release the prisoner. In this letter, it appears that Margaret was well-aware of the legal procedures of holding court, and uses her connection with the judges to influence them beforehand. So when the need arose – as it did when Thomas was captured – Margaret was able to call on the judges’ goodwill. Moreover, she emphasises her own part in the matter by the phrase “ner had be þat I had spokyn wyth the juges” – claiming that without her intervention the matter would have ended worse.
Heleen Kappen; 54 Lord Moleyns’ men in 1449 before in 1465 John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, raided Hellesdon. Increasingly, therefore, Margaret reports to John about the support he was to expect from her relations and the people back home. Margaret’s letters demonstrate that the Pastons’ backing consisted of an extremely varied group of people. Firstly, there was John and Margaret’s family (e.g. Agnes Paston and Margaret’s cousins) as has already been pointed out. Furthermore, Margaret also upheld connections with neighbouring aristocrats such as John Damme, “the recorder of Norwich and an MP” (Barber 34). As Barber notes, Damme was “a trusted friend of the Pastons”, always willing to “d[o] his part as [John’s] desire is wyth all his hert” (no. 136). Again, their relationship allowed Margaret to call upon his goodwill when need was high. So when Margaret was turned out of the mansion at Gresham, she took refuge at John of Damme’s place from where she wrote a letter to John; showing her attempts of putting “her husband’s case to the men at Gresham” (Barber 36).
Heleen Kappen; 55
Conclusion
Heleen Kappen; 56
Works Cited
Austin-James, Frances. “A Thousand Years of Model Letter-Writers.” Paradigm. 3.3 (2007): 15-20. Web.
Barber, Richard. The Pastons: A Family in the Wards of the Roses. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1981. Web.
Bennett, Henry S. The Pastons and Their England: Studies in an Age of Transition. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1932. Web.
Cherewatuk, Karen, and Ulrike Wiethaus, eds. Dear Sister: Medieval Women and the
Epistolary Genre. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993. Print.
Clanchy, Michael T. From Memory to Written Record: England 1066-1307. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993. Print.
Cornelius, Ian. Cultural Promotion: Middle English Alliterative Writing and the Ars
Dictaminis. Diss. University of Pennsylvania, 2009. Ann Arbor: UMI, 2011.
Creelman, Valerie. “Margaret Paston’s Use of Captenesse.” Notes and Queries. 55.3 (2008): 257-7. Web.
Creelman, Valerie. “Quotation and Self-Fashioning in Margaret Paston’s Household Letters.” English Studies in Canada. 30.3 (2004): 111-28. Web.
Creelman, Valerie. “‘Ryght worchepfull mastres’: Letters of Requests and Servants’ Scripting of Margaret Paston’s Social Self.” Parergon. 26.1 (2009): 91-114. Web.
Davis, Norman. Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century. Vols. 1 and 2. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. Print.
Davis, Norman. “Style and Stereotype in Early English Letters.” Leeds Studies in
English. 1 (1967): 7-17. Web.
Heleen Kappen; 57
Studies. 16.63 (1965): 233-244. Web.
Daybell, James. “Interpreting Letters and Reading Script: Evidence for Female
Education and Literacy in Tudor England.” History of Education: Journal of
the History of Education Society. 34.6 (2005): 695-715.
Daybell, James. “Scripting a Female Voice: Women’s Epistolary Rhetoric in
Sixteenth-Century Letters of Petition.” Women’s Writing. 13.1 (2006): 3-22. Web.
Declercq, Georges. “Between Legal Action and Performance: the firmatio of Charters in the Early Middle Ages.” Mostert and Barnwell 55-73.
Douglas, Jennifer. ““Kepe wysly youre wrytyngys”: Margaret Paston’s Fifteenth- Century Letters.” Libraries & the Cultural Record. 44.1 (2009): 29-49. Web. Fenn, John, ed. Original Letters, Written During the Reigns of Henry VI. Edward
IV. Edward V. Richard III. And Henry VII. By Various Persons of Rank and Consequence. Vol. 5. London: John Murray, 1823. Web.
Gairdner, James, ed. The Paston Letters A.D. 1422-1509. Vol. 1. London: Chatto & Windus, 1904.
Gastle, Brian W. “Breaking the Stained Glass Ceiling: Mercantile Authority, Margaret Paston, and Margery Kempe.” Studies in the Literary Imagination. 36.1 (2003): 123-147.
Gowing, Laura. “Words, Honour, and Reputation.” Domestic Dangers: Women,
Words, and Sex in Early Modern London. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online,
2011. 1-30. Web.
Harris, Barbara J. English Aristocratic Women, 1450-1550: Marriage and Family,
Property and Careers. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. Print.
Heleen Kappen; 58 Jewell, Helen. Women in Medieval England. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996.
Print.
Kelly, Susan E. “Anglo-Saxon Lay Society and the Written Word.” The Uses of
Literacy in Early Medieval Europe. Ed. R. McKitterick. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1992. 36-62. Web.
Krug, Rebecca. Reading Families: Women’s Literate Practice in Late Medieval
England. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2002. Print.
Magnusson, Lynne. “A Rhetoric of Requests: Genre and Linguistics Scripts in
Elizabethan Women’s Suitors’ Letters.” Women and Politics in Early Modern
England: 1450-1700. Ed. James Daybell. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd,
2004. Web.
"Mastership, n.". OED Online. June 2013. Oxford University Press. 16 June 2013. Mostert, Marco. “Forgery and Trust.” Schulte, Mostert and van Renswoude 37-59. Mostert, Marco, and Paul Barnwell, eds. Physical, Spoken and Written Performance
in the Middle Ages. Vol. 22. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2011. Web.
Murphy, James J. Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from
Saint Augustine to the Renaissance. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1974. Web.
Richardson, Malcolm. “The Ars dictaminis, the Formulary, and Medieval Epistolary Practice.” Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the
Present. Eds. Carol Poster and Linda C. Mitchell. Columbia: University of
South Carolina Press, 2007. 42-66. Web.
Richardson, Malcolm. “The Fading Influence of the Medieval Ars Dictaminis in England After 1400.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric. 19.2 (2001): 225-247. Web.
Heleen Kappen; 59
and Contexts. Eds. Jocelyn Wogan-Browne, et al. Turnhout: Brepols
Publishers, 2000. 251-273. Web.
Richmond Colin: The Paston Family in the Fifteenth Century: Endings. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2000. Print
Richmond, Colin. The Paston Family in the Fifteenth Century: Fastolf’s Will. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Print
Richmond, Colin. The Paston Family in the Fifteenth Century: The First Phase. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990. Web.
Rosenthal, Joel T. Patriarchy and Families of Privilege in Fifteenth-Century
England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991. Web.
Schulte, Petra, Marco Mostert, and Irene van Renswoude, eds. Strategies of Writing. Vol. 13. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2008. Web.
Spedding, Alison J. “‘I Shalle Send Word in Writyng’: Lexical Choices and Legal Acumen in the Letters of Margaret Paston.” Medium Ævum. 77.2 (2008): 241- 259. Web.
Watt, Diane. Medieval Women’s Writing: Works by and For Women in England,
