Medieval England had a defamation problem: how people used the law to fight rumours, insults and rivals

For medieval people, reputation was paramount. To be considered reliable, reputable and respectable was important at all levels of society, from the king to the peasantry. Being of “ill fame” (bad reputation) had serious consequences, which might include social ostracising, legal impediments and financial hardship. A person’s name mattered and medieval people were more than willing to go to court to protect it. Based on the legal foundation of the Council of Oxford of 1222, a defamation case could be brought against someone if they publicly and “maliciously impute a crime to any person who is not of ill fame among good and serious men”. Common cases involved accusations of theft, perjury, heresy, adultery or forgery. Defamation could have financial repercussions and petitioners often reported the damages that the crime was said to have caused. This might involve the loss of goods and trade. It could even involve the claim of a wife whose husband “refused to admit her to his bed as he was accustomed to” because of the slanderous words. Illumination from the French manuscript Le livre de Lancelot du Lac (circa 1401). WikiCommons Such monetary losses were largely irrelevant in the church courts, but they featured prominently in manorial or borough courts. In these jurisdictions, defamation was treated akin to trespass and monetary damages were regularly claimed. Many cases involving women centred on accusations of sexual impropriety or abusive and slanderous language. Some were deliberate attacks upon business ventures, such as that upon Christine Colmere in 1413. Witnesses in the case claimed that people were afraid to drink her beer because she had been accused of having leprosy by her competitors. Changes to the way defamation cases were handled reveal the broadening of concerns surrounding reputational damage in late medieval England. Initially, a person needed to have been accused of a crime – and often a specific crime – for a defamation proceeding. A case against a woman in 1417 was dismissed because she was accused of having said to a priest: “I do not know how to piss holy water as you do.” Such words were abusive but not considered defamatory because no crime was alleged. In one case, people were afraid to drink a landlady’s beer because she had been accused of having leprosy by her competitors. British Library Yet increasingly by the end of the 15th century, abusive words could themselves result in a defamation suit. Accusations like “false piking knave”, “town bull” and “son of a butcher” begin to appear within court records. The definition of defamation therefore expanded to move beyond false accusations of criminal activity to include all defamatory or malicious words. Such was the concern over reputational damage that pressure might be applied on those making accusations. In 1440, Richard Blackburn, a monk of Durham cathedral priory, was accused of fornicating with Margaret, widow of Robert Soulby. The accuser, one Robert Whyte, feared the prior intended to excommunicate him because he himself had defamed Richard. Robert thought this absurd because he had offered no words to slander Richard and Margaret, except to say that he had often seen them spending the night in bed together. The prior offered Robert the opportunity to amend or withdraw his statement. Choosing his words very carefully, Robert decided not to revoke them, instead confirming that he had seen Richard and Margaret many times in bed, alone with each other, lying naked and exerting (“laborantes”) together, as it appeared to him, though he could not possibly say whether Richard knew her carnally or not. Public restoration of a person’s good name The seriousness with which people took any attempt to impugn their reputation can be seen in the lengths John Oll, another Durham monk, went to clear his name in 1446. Accused of being of peasant birth by his enemies, Oll gathered the great and the good of the county to attest publicly to his free status. One witness recalled John Oll playing football in his youth, a game reserved for the better free men of the manor. A public restoration of reputation was especially important for women who were accused of sexual misconduct. Bodleian Libraries Receiving a positive verdict in the courts was not enough in itself. The restoration of a person’s good fame needed to be made public. Documents might even be issued to confirm the restoration of a person’s reputation. This public restoration was especially important for women who were accused of sexual misconduct. The potential for a good future marriage might depend on such outcomes. For example, Margaret was “falsely and wickedly defamed” of falling pregnant with Robert Cresswell in 1450. She received letters from the prior of Durham asserting that she was innocent of the offence, “free and absolved and utterly reputed among her neighbours to be uncorrupted and untainted by a man’s touch”. Long before society was concerned with the reputations of celebrities and politicians or the relationship between defamation and free speech, rumour and gossip abounded. Medieval people were acutely aware of how others viewed them and went to great lengths to stave off any threats to their good name.