These upper servants were responsible for carrying out the extraordinarily elaborate ritual already described by Mr Russell, which governed their master’s every waking moment – from first light to the ending of the day. Their duties usually began early, as in the household of the Prince of Wales, the young Prince Edward, in the 1470s. The main gates would be opened from five in summer and six in winter. As was usual in great households then, the daily round would start with a chapel service, followed by breakfast for the lord and his family. Dinner for the household was served between nine and eleven in the morning. The evening was demarcated by evensong, supper, and the ceremony of ‘all night’ or seeing the lord to bed. The main gates were closed by nine or ten.64
As Mr Russell’s treatise shows, the entertainment of great visitors was central to the life of the noble household. Another late-fifteenth-century treatise sets out the protocol for receiving a guest who has arrived during a mealtime, describing how he should be taken to his chamber, through the great hall, to be greeted courteously by the marshal and ushers. An usher should take his servants to drink at the bar of the buttery and show them their master’s sleeping quarters; he should also ensure that bread, beer and wine were taken to his chamber.65
All this was not just for protection, but for dignity’s sake. Remember the argument in Act II, scene IV, between King Lear and his daughters about his need for retainers, when he is asked to reduce his retinue, eventually to one. When Regan says, ‘What need one?’ he replies in agony: ‘O! reason not the need: our basest beggars/Are in the poorest thing superfluous.’ The actual physical presence of even a few retainers was quite simply the sine qua non of aristocratic life at any level. This ‘need’ is hinted at by Elizabeth Stonor, of Stonor in Oxfordshire, who strikes a plaintive note in a letter to her husband, written in March 1478: ‘And I pray you that you will send me some of your servants and mine to wait upon me, for now I am right bare of servants.’66 It was difficult to emphasise your noble or gentry status without the proper attendants.
The nature of such a household, recounted in detail only fifty years after John Russell’s treatise but with many of the practices there described still in vogue, is to be found in the remarkable document known as the Northumberland Household Book. The household regulations of Henry Algernon Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland, were drawn up in 1511/12 as a process of audit and good management, supplying a rare example of a non-royal list of household members and its arrangements. These regulations relate principally to his two houses, Leaconfield Castle and Wressil Castle, providing an extraordinarily vivid portrait of the great household at its fullest, at the beginning of the century when it started to become unfashionable to retain one on a permanent basis. The list of those in the household is worth inspecting here in some detail.67
Leaconfield, or Leconfield, Castle was near Beverley in Yorkshire. It no longer survives but was described by the antiquary John Leland thus: ‘Leckinfield is a large house, and stands within a great moat, in one very spacious court; 3 parts of the house, saving the main gate that is made of bricke, [are] all of timber. The 4[th] parte is fair, made of stone, and some brick . . . the Park thereby is very fair and large.’68In 1541, the earl hosted a visit from Henry VIII there. Wressil Castle, now known as Wressle, also in Yorkshire, was a similarly extensive complex and survives only as a ruin.
The original manuscript is preserved in the archives of the present Duke of Northumberland at Alnwick Castle. It is a remarkable leather-bound document, as heavy as an old bible, and carefully indexed with little sealing-wax knobs on strings, suggesting that it was very much for practical reference, covering every aspect of the finances, feeding, heating and transporting of a large noble household. The text was transcribed, edited and reprinted in the eighteenth century by the bishop and antiquary Thomas Percy, who was struck then by how like a royal household it was. It includes a list of ‘those abiding in his household’ at Michaelmas in the third year of the reign of Henry VIII.
First comes the earl’s blood family and their immediate personal attendants: ‘My Lord, My Lady, My Young Lord and his two brothers, and their servants, each having a yeoman and a groom’. There were three servants for the nursery alone, ‘viz. 2, rockers and a child to attend in nursery’; the rockers were literally people, presumably women, hired to rock the cradle. Then there were ‘three Gentlewomen for my Lady and two Chamberers for my Lady’, and ‘My Lord’s Brothers every [one] of them with their servants’.
Next come the four upper servants (and their servants): ‘My Lord’s head officers of household’, namely the chamberlain (and his servants: a chaplain, a clerk, two yeomen, a child of his chamber and his horse-keeper), and the steward (whose list of servants matched that of the chamberlain). Then the Treasurer and his servants (including his clerk and his horsekeeper); and the controller (and his servants, a clerk and his horsekeeper). In the household of a major landowner these were all powerful men with considerable economic influence and patronage of their own.
Then, as with most noble households until the Reformation, came the numerous clergy who organised the daily services and said masses for the souls of the dead. In the earl’s household there was ‘the Dean of the Chapel and his servant, the Survisor [a supervisory chaplain] and his servant, two of My Lord’s Council each with their servants; the Secretary and his servant; my Lord’s Chaplains in household’ of whom there were six. They included the almoner who would distribute alms, the ‘master of grammar’ or schoolmaster to the young in the household, ‘a Chaplain to ride with my lord’ and three more clergy.
All households had regular services, whilst some held as many as six or seven masses throughout the day. In larger noble households, the clerics, being well educated, might also have served as secretaries, to maintain estate records and accounts.69 The Reformation of the 1530s brought an end to the huge numbers of priests attached to a single household. Although retained chaplains and daily prayers remained common, this must have changed the atmosphere and habits of many of the great households.
The Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1535 also caused the breakup of the households of great abbots, which until then had set the standard of devotion and ritual practice, and were certainly highly regarded for the education of the young. The closing of such establishments must have had an impact on English culture, even in terms of the numbers of highly trained household servants who must have lost their jobs.70
In the Earl of Northumberland’s household, the next rank of household officers – made up of gentlemen – are listed: the ushers, carvers, servers (sometimes known as sewers), and the waiters and henchmen. These would largely be drawn from noble or gentry backgrounds and would provide immediate attendance on the earl while simultaneously learning the skills of serving described in John Russell’s treatise.
The next rung down are the ‘yeomen’, skilled individuals working under the gentleman servitors, as well as the choristers of the chapel. Below them come the yet more ‘hands on’ servants of the day with very specific responsibilities suggested clearly by their titles. The word ‘groom’ at this date does not have the sole association with the stables that it has in later times, but rather means a dedicated male attendant, and originally a young boy.71 There would be a groom for every office: the ewery, the pantry, the cellar, the buttery, the kitchen (the larder), and the hall, plus a groom porter, a groom of the stirrup, a groom of the palfreys (saddle horses), and a groom of the supterman (reserve horse), as well as a groom of the chariot (or carriage).
Even the grooms might have their underlings, including ten children for the offices of the household: one for the wardrobe, one for the kitchen, one for the scullery, one for the stable, one for the carriage, one for the bakehouse, one for the arrasmender (who took care of valuable tapestries), one for the butchery, one for the catery (catering department) and one for the armoury. There was also one man whose job it was to ‘serve the grooms of the Chamber with Wood’ – for the open fires.72
Most large medieval and Tudor households employed musicians, who came rather low in the pecking order. Additional entertainers were presumably employed on an ad hoc basis. The Earl of Northumberland’s household included three minstrels, playing a tabouret, a lute and a rebec or early form of fiddle. Some households, like that of Sir Thomas More, also kept a fool, a practice that was especially popular at court.73
The Northumberland household list records one footman, two falconers, a painter and a joiner (the latter to assemble, or repair, household furniture). There was also a huntsman in charge of deer hunting, including the preservation of game against vermin and poaching. There was a ‘Gardener of the place where my lord Lyeth for the time to have meat and drink within’, presumably a hunting lodge. (This is believed to be the hunting tower described by Leland where he is thought to have kept his ‘secret household’ during audits.)
There were ten in the accounts office, including two clerks of the foreign expenses, one clerk of the works, one clerk of the wearing book, and two clerks to write under the clerks of the foreign expenses. The whole number, at the time of this survey in 1511/12, ‘of all the said persons in Household is 166’.74 There is some evidence that the full number was not permanently in attendance, but served in rotation.
Every particular of the house’s activity is accounted for in this book, showing how scrupulously a large household had to be run to avoid chaos, or, more importantly perhaps, embezzlement and theft, problems still current today in any large establishment. Considerable economic management was required, so the book sets out in meticulous detail the provision of all meats, fish and hops for brewing. It also covered liveries, which we will look at later in this chapter. There was also stipulation that all bread should be baked on the premises and not bought in, and that beer likewise be brewed by the household itself. To give just one example, the breakfasts allowed for each level in the household were specified down to the exact quantities of bread, fish and beer each was to receive. Beer would be brewed on site and was regarded as a kind of healthy liquid bread rather than an intoxicant.75
To modern eyes, these households seem more like tribes or villages than a single entity. They were a complex organism of interrelated activities and duties.76 In principle, servants were often employed for a year at a time, although even in the greater households many carried on working for the same masters for decades. There are even recorded cases of contracts being dissolved between masters and servants by virtue of the unacceptable behaviour of a master.
However, there were also numerous examples of generous bequests reflecting long and harmonious relationships based on great loyalty and mutual trust and, no doubt, the need to give long-serving retainers some security in their old age. Many great landowners had special relationships with particular hospitals (that is, almshouses), such as the Bishops of Winchester with St Cross, and the Duke of Suffolk with God’s House at Ewelme.77
Sir Geoffrey Luttrell of Irnham, who died in May 1345, left numerous bequests to his servants. These included 40 marks to his chamberlain; 10 marks and a robe and the apparel of the hall to William the porter; 20 shillings to his chaplain; and 5 marks for clothing to his confessor. One cook, John of Bridgford, received 10 marks and a robe, together with the brass and wooden vessels of the kitchen. His pantler and butler (here a combined post), John of Colne, received 10 marks, a robe and the vessels of the pantry and buttery. There was even a bequest of 5 marks to a maidservant, Alice de Wadnowe.78
Luttrell was also notably the commissioning patron of the great Luttrell Psalter with its famous illuminations, now preserved in the British Library. Those illustrating psalms 113–14 show food being prepared in a kitchen, and then being carried by servants (including the loyal John of Colne) to be served to Sir Geoffrey and his household. The miniatures are considered so distinctive that some of the figures depicted at the table may be actual individuals.79
It is possible that some servants provided support and loyalty beyond expectations. A valued friendship between master and servant was later recorded by the 9th Earl of Northumberland: ‘And in this I must truly testify for servants out of experience, that in all my fortunes good and bade, I have found them more reasonable than either wyfe, brothers or friends.’80
Service in a great household in the late medieval and Tudor periods was looked upon by most of those employed as something of a privilege – and the complex hierarchies of staff would have reflected those of society at large. Even the yeoman servants (who had more everyday work) enjoyed a degree of security and patronage. They could also expect what was then a reasonable standard of living, certainly in terms of subsistence, food and drink, as well as lodging (all of which formed a substantial part of their wages). Not surprisingly, because of the degree of intimacy mentioned, servants might often be drawn from the same families, generation after generation. For instance, the surnames of servants in the accounts of John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk, in 1462, are largely the same as those for the 2nd Duke in 1525.81
Some servants, like our friend John Russell, might remain in noble service for their whole careers, enjoying impressive promotions. In the fourteenth century, William de Manton was wardrober to Elizabeth de Burgh; by 1340 he had become the clerk of her chamber. Later still he was her executor and after her death he transferred to the household of her son-in-law, the Duke of Clarence. In 1361–5 he had reached the post of keeper of the wardrobe to Edward III.82 Households would break up on the death of a nobleman, not least because by that time an adult son might well already have a full household of his own.
If, as the Northumberland Household Book makes clear, the household servants were mostly male, they were also predominantly young; indeed, a significant proportion of the young male servants were effectively attached to the house as part of their education, to learn etiquette, discipline and all manner of social polish, as well as to benefit from their proximity to powerful men. It is important that we see this process through medieval rather than modern eyes. For such service was not considered servile; rather it was an expected and necessary part of the life of a young aristocrat.
These young attendants, from noble and gentry backgrounds, would serve for a designated period as if at a finishing school. This weaned them from reliance on their own household servants and prepared them for the duties they would command of others when they were heads of their own establishments. It made them familiar too with protocol on great occasions and taught them personal conduct as well as domestic organisation. It was also intended to give them political connections that could lead to advantageous marriages or positions at court, and certainly to lifelong alliances.
Daniele Barbaro, the sophisticated Venetian ambassador to England in the 1540s, regarded the practice of sending children away at seven or nine, for seven or more years, as somewhat cruel and remarked on their ‘want of affection’ for their children. He asked English nobles why they did it and they replied: ‘in order that their children learn better manners. But I, for my part, believe they do it because they like to enjoy all their comforts themselves, and that they are better served by strangers than they would be by their own children.’83
The young Geoffrey Chaucer was famously a page in the household of Elizabeth de Burgh, Countess of Ulster (d.1363), and the wife of Prince Lionel, one of the sons of Edward III. Indeed, the earliest documentary evidence for Chaucer’s life are payments in her household account books for clothes and a gift ‘for necessaries at Christmas’.84 In the late fifteenth century, the child Thomas More waited in the household of Cardinal Morton. As William Roper, More’s son-in-law, recalled in his biography, Vita Thomas Mori: ‘In whose witt and towardnesse the Cardinall much delightinge, would often say of him unto the nobles that dyvers tymes came to dyne with him: This child here wayting at the table, whosoever shall live to see it, will prove a marvellous man.’85
Well-bred young men would often receive a certain amount of formal education, sometimes with a cleric or later a professional schoolmaster in the n
obleman’s household. They were often following in the footsteps of their fathers and grandfathers, going to the same households for their education – much as later landowning families had attachments to different public schools and Oxford and Cambridge colleges. This habit was beginning to decline during the sixteenth century, when children might equally be sent to grammar schools, or to university, or to the Inns of Court.86
Roger Ascham, who was employed as tutor to Princess Elizabeth, wrote a famous book, published in 1570, when such household-based education was still very current. Its lengthy title was: The schole-master, or plaine perfite way of teaching children to understand, write and to speake, the Latin tong, but specially purposed for the private bringing up of youth in Ientlemen and Noblemen’s houses. His book was in part inspired by a conversation concerning the scholars of Eton who were running away as a result of too heavy beatings. Ascham’s father had been steward to Lord Scrope, and he himself had been educated not at a school but in the household of Sir Humphry Wingfield.87
Most attendants in a medieval and Tudor household were rewarded with ‘liveries’, literally a living allowance. Originally, this meant more than just clothing (which later became the principal meaning associated with the word) and certainly covered money, food and goods, such as candles and wood. Clothing was usually dispensed as cloth, in a quantity and colour chosen to reflect the status of the recipient. Livery badges were worn in addition, often showing the family crest or coat of arms. Academic gowns in universities still continue this tradition of reflecting hierarchy in differentiated dress, as do the judiciary.88
Up and Down Stairs Page 5
