What are the Liberties?

Greetings my well regarded readers, I hope that in the north hemisphere your Fall or Autumn isn’t proving too much of a trial after the joys of Summer.

Today I have a few announcements before we move on to the body of the blog.  Firstly my Tudor novella The Fetter Lane Fleece will be available free for two days from the 15/10/13 at Amazon USA/Aust and Amazon UK so I encourage you to call by and if you haven’t already download a copy for your entertainment.  In the mean time I’d like to thank those of my readers who’ve stopped by and left a review, every of them (even the obvious sock puppets) help improve the position of an Indie writer.

Now on to the meat of our discourse;

In a 1601 speech to the House of Commons, Stephen Soame, MP for the City of

London, spoke in support of a bill that would have extended the City’s jurisdiction into

the neighbouring liberty of St Katherine by the Tower. The privileges enjoyed by the

Liberties, he argued, ‘are the very sincke of sinne, the nurserye of nawghtie and lewd

places, the harbors of thieves, roagues and beggars, and maynteyners of ydle persons,

ffor when our shoppes and howses be robbed, thether they ffly ffor releife and sanctuarie, and we cannot helpe our selves.’

 The prorogation of Parliament a few days later killed his bill, but Soame’s characterisation of St Katherine’s proved more durable. Such descriptions of the liberties, made by Soame and other contemporaries, have led many modern scholars to assume that the Liberties posed a constant threat to metropolitan order. There is, however, reason to believe that the Liberties were more complex and less purely problematic than their general historiographical portrayal would suggest.

In 1530 two dozen religious foundations dotted the landscape of the capital. The sixteen religious houses within or immediately adjacent to the City of London were joined by eight others in Spitalfields, Clerkenwell, Westminster and Southwark.  

Extract The City of London and the Problem of the Liberties, c1540 – c1640

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Modern History

Anthony Paul House Christ Church Trinity Term 2006.

So what are the Liberties?  My main character Ned Bedwell seems to spend an inordinate amount of time frequenting the Liberties rather than attending to his duties as a Law apprentice.  What could be the attraction?  Well for a start the reason Stephen Soame was frothing so fervently about the disorders of the Liberties was a very simple one.  They were exempt from the normal processes of civil and royal jurisdiction by fact of belonging to the English Church.  Over time the Church had accumulated a lot of properties in and around London via grants, purchase or deeds, before the Great Dissolution under Henry VIII it is possible that around a fifth of the city of London was under their direct control as owners or landlords.  And where they held sway so did Canon law, it was as if the city and surrounding regions were covered in a patchwork of independent tax and law free zones pretty much like the Virgin or Channel Islands today for the obscenely rich.  To escape local justice if any thief or other insalubrious person made to one of the Liberties then they were immune to seizure or prosecution by the local constables and justice of the peace.  Of course the upholders of civic law could always petition the Church to gain hold of the miscreant, however such proceedings were both expensive and long drawn out.  The Church was jealous of its rights and maintained its exemption from civil laws.  At least Until King Henry VIII clipped their wings.

Of course this refuge form common law was an opportunity that the denizens of deceit and depravity found irresistible, especially since the Church wasn’t very effective in policing its own property.  Thus by the 1530’s the various Liberties were considered over run by thieves, beggars’ vagrants’ whores, malcontents, coiners, forgers and murderers.  The fact that they also housed brothels, gaming dens stews and other places of vile debauchery and sin probably made them more attractive for the average Londoner, especially the young lads of the Inns of Court.  Though they weren’t the only inhabitants, it was also a favoured refuge for foreigners, debtors, Guildless tradesmen and surprisingly evangelicals spreading the word of the Bible in the English tongue.  However the situation of the Liberties in and around London is somewhat more complex than this simple explanation.  The legal or other position of these areas was frequently a useful carrot or occasionally goad for the Royal Sovereign to use in his negotiations with the London Guildhall and the Church over taxes and privileges.  For London the Liberties also served as a useful excuse for ‘failing’ to deal with crimes or imposing royal writs since these ‘territories’ made a ‘mockery of their zeal and  commitment to his Majesties lawful demands’.  Come the Great Dissolution in the late 1530’s the status of the Liberties changed though you’ll have to wait a few novels until Ned Bedwell undergoes this transformation of England to see what survives and what goes under.  Though I suspect there will always be a place for rogues, whores and dice men in the Tudor realm.  

Regards Greg 

The Fetter Lane Fleece Links from the 15/10/13-17/10/13

AmazonUSA/Aust The Fetter Lane Fleece

Amazon UK The Fetter Lane Fleece

Sir Thomas More, an example for Indie Writers?

Greetings fellow Tudor aficionados and well regarded readers, please accept my apologies for the long absence, lots of writing and editing took up too large a proportion of my time.  I thought today I’d be terribly self indulgent and link my current plight with that of perhaps the most famous Tudor writer, Sir Thomas More.  This eminent scholar, politician and the author of Utopia and A Dialogue concerning Heresies to name but two of his works, was a witness and participant of the most dramatic years of the reign of Henry VIII.  His writings have helped form modern perceptions in such diverse areas as religious thought, political morality and even Shakespeare’s plays (particularly Richard III).  I have started to discuss my perceptions of Thomas More in an earlier blog article The Reality of the Written Word and Thomas More so I won’t go over that ground again.  

Instead I think we should discuss a few examples of Thomas More and his efforts to spread the word as it were for his writings.

Now for the few of you who may not know it, apart from talent, Thomas More the writer was gifted with advantages that the rest of us modern day scribblers really couldn’t imagine.   Except for that coterie of Romantic and Gothic era writers who tended to indulge in a touch too much laudanum…among other diverse pursuits.  More was an important figure at the Royal Court even before he became Lord Chancellor so a ‘suggestion’ to a prospective printer came with the sort of implied hints that only a fool or one keen on prison food would ignore.  Secondly his brother in law John Rastell was a printer at the ‘sygn of the mearemayd next to pollys gate’ so from around 1520- 1535 this provided More with a printer on tap.  Then there was a final advantage that any modern media baron would easily understand…money.  While Thomas More’s personal wealth couldn’t compete with that of his former lord Cardinal Wolsey, it was never the less pretty damned good for the Tudor period.  There was also a suggestion in some contemporary accounts that More had been the recipient of thousands of pounds from the English Church to act as a lobbyist and advisor.  Thus Thomas More had that most amazing of opportunities for any writer, he could easily fund the printing and distribution of as many of his books as he wanted.  He had the contacts, the influence, the network, the prestige and the envious ability even now to write at a prodigious speed. So with all these advantages I have to ask one question.

 

Why did Thomas More forge his own book reviews? 

The advent of movable type via Gutenberg had a dramatic impact, it was the Information Revolution of the Renaissance and very much like the Internet was for us, speeding up discussion on just about very aspect of society.  Especially religion, quite a few historians have put forward that Martin Luther’s assault upon the Catholic Church may not have had as much of an impact if his declaration hadn’t instantly been rushed into print.  It is these very heretical complaints of Luther’s that had More extremely steamed up.  In 1520-21 he’d recently finished helping his Sovereign  Henry VIII compose his Assertio or the Assertion of the Seven Sacraments for which the Pope granted him the title of Defender of the Faith.  Ironically a title still held by the British monarchs.  Well just like a modern chat room flame war this prompted responses backwards and forwards until 1522-23.   More then decided on a counter blast to knock the ‘shitty befouled heretic’ for a six by publishing his Responsio ad Lutherum or the Response against Luther.  It was indeed, ‘ahem’ an astounding piece of work.  At a time which held a certain minimal level of literary decorum this little tome hit new lows giving us some lovely phrases of abuse, invective and insult. 
 For instance a quoted extract in Marius’ biography on More.

“will we not have the posterior right to proclaim the beshitted tongue of this practitioner of posterioristics most fit to lick with his anterior the very posterior of a pissing she mule.”  And that’s the polite part, for the rest he pulls out all the usual Renaissance writing ploys like exaggeration, classical allusions, fantastic legends, outright lies and occasionally when nothing else can be found …the truth.

So after going on in this vain for thousands of words More apparently decided to publish this under the name William Rosse.  Okay that’s fair enough there are hundreds of instances of pen names through out history, however More appears to have been unsatisfied with this simple nom de plume.  He decided to take this a few steps further and also added a number of fictitious reviews from apparently eminent scholars such as Hermann of Prague, John Carcelius and Ferdinand Baravellus.  Now this does sound familiar a very contemporary practice inventing reviews to boosts sales.  More though didn’t stop there, each of his imaginary reviewers then egged each other on plus backing up William Rosse in his ‘need’ to defend his slandered monarch.  Apparently More himself urged his friends to defend the right worthy Master Rosse even asking Erasmus to lend his pen to the cause.  The humanist scholar sensibly sidestepped simply remarking that Luther could learn the use of invective from Master Rosse.

As for impact it certainly was a memorable work in the literary and religious circles of Europe, though it certainly didn’t have the effect More intended.  Those heretical mischief makers increased in number and popularity thus Sir Thomas was soon forced to resort to more physical methods of dissuasion like in imprisonment and torture.  But the question remains, why did the most respected and influential humanist writer in England ghost his book and go to such lengths to fake his reviews?  Was it political, perhaps a touch of shame or did he really believe any tactic was worth the result?  Since the Catholic Church has put its imprimatur on his writings and life as well as making him the patron saint of politicians, I have to ask is this really a worthy example for writers to follow?  Do we not see too much plagiarism and faked reviews?   Where should Indie writers who desperately need an edge in promotion look to for inspiration?

I would suggest others would be more worthy, especially our readers.

Now Indie writers have many advantages, such as enthusiasm, they are able to pursue their projects with passion and verve often devoting long hours to research and finely crafting their pieces.  They also thrive on the most minuscule rewards, compliments and praise.  Always striving to directly connect with their audience and give the reader the personal link that is so frequently impossible in the commercial world.

However all that being said, they/we/I also continually labour under a number of ominously heavy burdens.  Being an Indie means you lack fully developed commercial networks, influence and resources unlike Sir Thomas More.  Covers the eye candy and blazon of your work are essentially whatever you can afford, which in my very fortunate case is my talented son Alexander.  For editing the bane and bugbear of many I have my extremely experienced partner Jocelyn, who squeezes her reviewing in between all the other tasks expected of a parent.  As for publicity, well this is it, blogs, Face book, forums and mostly the kindness of strangers.  Thus it is too these kindly passers-by that I frame this request.  The vast majority of Indies are not Thomas Mores, we cannot plug in unbelievable sums into publicity nor do we fabricate wonderfully glowing reviews (though it may get tempting).  Instead we ask our readers to pause, even for a minute or two and let someone else know what interested you about this indie book, did it amuse, enthral, satisfy or make you curious.  If it did even in the slightest, how about leaving your thoughts as a review so some other passer by can experience the same pleasure of discovery.  Go on take a minute, you can spare it and you’ll feel so much better afterwards.
Coming soon to Amazon Kindle The Cardinals Angels

Regards Greg