Medieval Normandy’s royal forests were contested spaces where peasants, monasteries and merchants frequently came into conflict with the king’s officials. Danny Lake-Giguère examines the crimes, punishments and abuses that shaped life in these closely guarded woodlands.
By Danny Lake-Giguère
In the 13th and 14th centuries, royal forests in Normandy were often the scene of tense relations, and even conflicts, between users and royal officials. Demographic pressure, the general decline in forest cover and its growing importance in the kingdom of France’s yearly revenues meant that, during this period, royal forests became areas under increasingly strict surveillance. They were constantly patrolled by verderers and their sergeants, and were subject to frequent official visits by the masters of Waters and Forests. This unrelenting supervision was intended to minimize as much as possible the excesses and violations committed by users.
According to accounts and judicial proceedings, such transgressions were extremely common, especially during the early 14th century. It was during that period, when the Waters and Forests administration took form more clearly, that accounts of fines were introduced. Most users of the royal forests in Normandy enjoyed relatively generous usage rights, which they exercised at little to no cost. Religious institutions and aristocrats usually did not pay anything. At most, they were required to perform certain services for the king. Abbeys, for example, undertook to pray for the king, his ancestors and his relatives. Some lords, for their part, were required to assist royal officials in administering the forests under their supervision or were required to perform certain military services in time of war.
As for the common users, they could generally take wood in exchange for the payment of certain fees, in money or in kind (in herring, oats or eggs, to name a few), or in exchange for certain labor duties. Many rural villages were required to help maintain the king’s bridges, castles and mills, for example. A small price to pay for such an important resource.
Petty Crime and Repeat Offenders
The poacher – St Botolph’s church in Grimston – photo by Evelyn Simak / Wikimedia Commons
Petty forest crimes were nevertheless common. Almost daily, peasants stole timber from the king’s forests. Some would come at night, to avoid the verderers and their people. For such misdeeds, they often used saws, which were much quieter than axes. Others, those who had legitimate usage rights, often exercised them with great excess or unlawfully, without regard for the regulations in place. Those might take timber in the wrong place, cut the wrong type of wood, or even bring too many pigs into the forest for what they were entitled to, according to their charters or local customs.
The exact nature of the forest offenses in accounts from that period is usually difficult to establish with certainty. However, the relatively small amounts of the fines suggest that these were minor offenses. More often, the offenders were undoubtedly poor people, who stole only a few branches from the king, although we sometimes find fines levied on nobles or even priests. One account dating from 1326 provides a little more detail on this subject. Illegal logging and improper uses were the two most common violations, followed by the rest: wrongful usage rights, regarding either timber or grazing privileges, fraud, theft, fishing or sometimes poaching, and purprestures, the wrongful appropriation of the king’s property.
Accounts from the early 14th century also reveal that minor forest offenders were also often repeat offenders, whose names appear repeatedly in judicial records. Moreover, they were also frequently quite well-known to local authorities, who often identified them in accounts by their nicknames or even family ties. It seems likely that the forest sergeants and offenders habitually frequented the same places – the same parish, for example – and that they often knew one another. One account from the forest of Breteuil, dating from 1320, shows that Guillot le Duc had received 15 fines throughout the year, amounting to 99 sous tournois. Three nobles, the lords of Bémécourt and Moyaux, and Robert Le Febvre, who had been king Philip the Fair’s doctor, are among the offenders listed in this account.
In the same source, one Jean Loysel also appears 12 times, for 72 sous tournois. Raoul Loysel, undoubtedly a member of his family, received 4 fines; another Loysel, who lived in nearby Rugles, had also received 4. Offenders rarely acted alone, and it also seems likely that whole families were often involved in these illegal activities. Unfortunately, records of fines from this period are scarce, which prevents any definitive conclusions from being drawn on this matter.
Monasteries, Merchants and Poachers
Monks in a forest – British Library MS Royal 10 E. IV, fol. 222
Alongside these petty crimes, there existed forest delinquency on a much more important scale: that of the monasteries and the timber merchants. Abbeys in Normandy often had very liberal usage rights which dated back several centuries. Most, from the great royal monasteries to the smallest priories, were able to take large quantities of wood from the royal forests every day without paying any fees. Nevertheless, they were often involved in legal proceedings brought against them by royal foresters or the masters of Waters and Forests. Several of these cases were heard before Parliament or were subjected to lengthy investigations by royal officials. The activities of the abbeys generally took a heavy toll on the health of the royal forests in Normandy. It is surprising that legal action against them was not more common at the time. Although rare, procedures against religious institutions show that the king’s patience and generosity were not infinite. In one such procedure, the monks of Mortemer, who were no strangers to legal troubles with the Waters and Forests administration, were fined 40 livres tournois because they had used oaks that had been cut down in the forest of Lyons to make fences, even though, according to their usage rights, they could only use them for lumber.
The destructive practices of the Norman abbeys and monasteries were constant. However, it is the fraud committed by timber merchants that received the most attention in records from the period. These merchants, who held commercial leases from the king, were permitted to exploit entire sections of the royal forests in exchange for annual payments. They provided an important stream of revenue to the Treasury. It seems that most of them were honest.
Some, however, took advantage of the situation to defraud the king. Such is the case with a well-known merchant from the reign of Charles IV, Nicolas de Soteville, who had been heavily fined by the masters of Waters and Forests. At one point, for having harvested timber outside his lease, he had been fined a hefty 300 livres tournois. His accomplice, one Roger de Planchieu, had been fined 60 livres tournois. Nicolas de Soteville must, however, have been in King Charles IV’s good graces, since in 1326 the king agreed to reduce the numerous fines he owed to a much more modest sum of 100 livres tournois. Unsurprisingly, during the early 14th century, timber merchants were under close scrutiny by royal officials.
Generally speaking, timber-related offenses were much less serious than hunting offenses, which did not usually fall within the purview of the Waters and Forests administration. The standard punishment for forest offenses was a fine, the amount of which varied depending on the severity of said offense. A record of fines levied in 1326 by Robert II Le Veneur, master of Waters and Forests, highlights the much harsher treatment reserved for poachers. Jeannot Samsom, Robin Cornette, Drouet Fresant and his brother, Guillot Fouet, Simon Muchon and Richard Muchon had been apprehended after having stolen rabbits from the king’s warrens at Le Vaudreuil. After having been imprisoned for 80 days at the royal castle, they were sentenced to enucleation (eyeball removal) and banishment. Only the queen’s intervention saved them from such punishment.
When Royal Foresters Broke the Rules
While timber-related crimes were extremely common throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, complaints against overzealous royal officials were no less frequent. Forest users often complained to the king or his representatives about the harsh or unfair decisions of his foresters. Such disputes started soon after the conquest of Normandy in 1204 and continued throughout the century. One particularly common source of disputes was the impeachment which foresters could place on the exercise of usage rights when they detected instances of abuse and fraud. Such offenses, while sometimes genuine, were often the result of overzealousness on the foresters’ part, which compelled the king to intervene. Initially, it was the bailiffs, and later the masters of Waters and Forests, who investigated and addressed these complaints, often correcting their subordinates’ initial decisions. Some cases were even referred to the Exchequer of Normandy or the Parliament of Paris, where they were adjudicated following an investigation. Royal foresters, being naturally suspicious, would thus sometimes punish usage rights that weren’t actually problematic or illegitimate.
Not all royal foresters were honest. Beginning in the mid-13th century, there were several procedures brought against officials who were dishonest or who took advantage of their position to defraud the king. Those frequently appear in restitution inquests from the reign of Louis IX. It seems that royal officials investigated the conduct of their subordinates almost as often as they investigated the misdeeds of forest users. Negligence, fraud, theft and corruption are just a few of the charges brought against certain royal foresters. Such misconduct, it seems, was not the norm but rather the exception. Most foresters were honest. Their fault was, generally speaking, that they were often too zealous. Unlike in 13th-century England, there is no evidence to suggest that the royal foresters were particularly disliked by those who used the forests.
Danny Lake-Giguère is a medieval historian and lecturer at the University of Montreal. In 2020, he defended his Ph.D. thesis on forest management in medieval Normandy. His main areas of interest are environmental and forest history and the history of royal institutions in France. He is passionate about hunting and fishing, both academically and recreationally. You can follow him on Academia.edu and LinkedIn.
Medieval Normandy’s royal forests were contested spaces where peasants, monasteries and merchants frequently came into conflict with the king’s officials. Danny Lake-Giguère examines the crimes, punishments and abuses that shaped life in these closely guarded woodlands.
By Danny Lake-Giguère
In the 13th and 14th centuries, royal forests in Normandy were often the scene of tense relations, and even conflicts, between users and royal officials. Demographic pressure, the general decline in forest cover and its growing importance in the kingdom of France’s yearly revenues meant that, during this period, royal forests became areas under increasingly strict surveillance. They were constantly patrolled by verderers and their sergeants, and were subject to frequent official visits by the masters of Waters and Forests. This unrelenting supervision was intended to minimize as much as possible the excesses and violations committed by users.
According to accounts and judicial proceedings, such transgressions were extremely common, especially during the early 14th century. It was during that period, when the Waters and Forests administration took form more clearly, that accounts of fines were introduced. Most users of the royal forests in Normandy enjoyed relatively generous usage rights, which they exercised at little to no cost. Religious institutions and aristocrats usually did not pay anything. At most, they were required to perform certain services for the king. Abbeys, for example, undertook to pray for the king, his ancestors and his relatives. Some lords, for their part, were required to assist royal officials in administering the forests under their supervision or were required to perform certain military services in time of war.
As for the common users, they could generally take wood in exchange for the payment of certain fees, in money or in kind (in herring, oats or eggs, to name a few), or in exchange for certain labor duties. Many rural villages were required to help maintain the king’s bridges, castles and mills, for example. A small price to pay for such an important resource.
Petty Crime and Repeat Offenders
Petty forest crimes were nevertheless common. Almost daily, peasants stole timber from the king’s forests. Some would come at night, to avoid the verderers and their people. For such misdeeds, they often used saws, which were much quieter than axes. Others, those who had legitimate usage rights, often exercised them with great excess or unlawfully, without regard for the regulations in place. Those might take timber in the wrong place, cut the wrong type of wood, or even bring too many pigs into the forest for what they were entitled to, according to their charters or local customs.
The exact nature of the forest offenses in accounts from that period is usually difficult to establish with certainty. However, the relatively small amounts of the fines suggest that these were minor offenses. More often, the offenders were undoubtedly poor people, who stole only a few branches from the king, although we sometimes find fines levied on nobles or even priests. One account dating from 1326 provides a little more detail on this subject. Illegal logging and improper uses were the two most common violations, followed by the rest: wrongful usage rights, regarding either timber or grazing privileges, fraud, theft, fishing or sometimes poaching, and purprestures, the wrongful appropriation of the king’s property.
Accounts from the early 14th century also reveal that minor forest offenders were also often repeat offenders, whose names appear repeatedly in judicial records. Moreover, they were also frequently quite well-known to local authorities, who often identified them in accounts by their nicknames or even family ties. It seems likely that the forest sergeants and offenders habitually frequented the same places – the same parish, for example – and that they often knew one another. One account from the forest of Breteuil, dating from 1320, shows that Guillot le Duc had received 15 fines throughout the year, amounting to 99 sous tournois. Three nobles, the lords of Bémécourt and Moyaux, and Robert Le Febvre, who had been king Philip the Fair’s doctor, are among the offenders listed in this account.
In the same source, one Jean Loysel also appears 12 times, for 72 sous tournois. Raoul Loysel, undoubtedly a member of his family, received 4 fines; another Loysel, who lived in nearby Rugles, had also received 4. Offenders rarely acted alone, and it also seems likely that whole families were often involved in these illegal activities. Unfortunately, records of fines from this period are scarce, which prevents any definitive conclusions from being drawn on this matter.
Monasteries, Merchants and Poachers
Alongside these petty crimes, there existed forest delinquency on a much more important scale: that of the monasteries and the timber merchants. Abbeys in Normandy often had very liberal usage rights which dated back several centuries. Most, from the great royal monasteries to the smallest priories, were able to take large quantities of wood from the royal forests every day without paying any fees. Nevertheless, they were often involved in legal proceedings brought against them by royal foresters or the masters of Waters and Forests. Several of these cases were heard before Parliament or were subjected to lengthy investigations by royal officials. The activities of the abbeys generally took a heavy toll on the health of the royal forests in Normandy. It is surprising that legal action against them was not more common at the time. Although rare, procedures against religious institutions show that the king’s patience and generosity were not infinite. In one such procedure, the monks of Mortemer, who were no strangers to legal troubles with the Waters and Forests administration, were fined 40 livres tournois because they had used oaks that had been cut down in the forest of Lyons to make fences, even though, according to their usage rights, they could only use them for lumber.
The destructive practices of the Norman abbeys and monasteries were constant. However, it is the fraud committed by timber merchants that received the most attention in records from the period. These merchants, who held commercial leases from the king, were permitted to exploit entire sections of the royal forests in exchange for annual payments. They provided an important stream of revenue to the Treasury. It seems that most of them were honest.
Some, however, took advantage of the situation to defraud the king. Such is the case with a well-known merchant from the reign of Charles IV, Nicolas de Soteville, who had been heavily fined by the masters of Waters and Forests. At one point, for having harvested timber outside his lease, he had been fined a hefty 300 livres tournois. His accomplice, one Roger de Planchieu, had been fined 60 livres tournois. Nicolas de Soteville must, however, have been in King Charles IV’s good graces, since in 1326 the king agreed to reduce the numerous fines he owed to a much more modest sum of 100 livres tournois. Unsurprisingly, during the early 14th century, timber merchants were under close scrutiny by royal officials.
Generally speaking, timber-related offenses were much less serious than hunting offenses, which did not usually fall within the purview of the Waters and Forests administration. The standard punishment for forest offenses was a fine, the amount of which varied depending on the severity of said offense. A record of fines levied in 1326 by Robert II Le Veneur, master of Waters and Forests, highlights the much harsher treatment reserved for poachers. Jeannot Samsom, Robin Cornette, Drouet Fresant and his brother, Guillot Fouet, Simon Muchon and Richard Muchon had been apprehended after having stolen rabbits from the king’s warrens at Le Vaudreuil. After having been imprisoned for 80 days at the royal castle, they were sentenced to enucleation (eyeball removal) and banishment. Only the queen’s intervention saved them from such punishment.
When Royal Foresters Broke the Rules
While timber-related crimes were extremely common throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, complaints against overzealous royal officials were no less frequent. Forest users often complained to the king or his representatives about the harsh or unfair decisions of his foresters. Such disputes started soon after the conquest of Normandy in 1204 and continued throughout the century. One particularly common source of disputes was the impeachment which foresters could place on the exercise of usage rights when they detected instances of abuse and fraud. Such offenses, while sometimes genuine, were often the result of overzealousness on the foresters’ part, which compelled the king to intervene. Initially, it was the bailiffs, and later the masters of Waters and Forests, who investigated and addressed these complaints, often correcting their subordinates’ initial decisions. Some cases were even referred to the Exchequer of Normandy or the Parliament of Paris, where they were adjudicated following an investigation. Royal foresters, being naturally suspicious, would thus sometimes punish usage rights that weren’t actually problematic or illegitimate.
Not all royal foresters were honest. Beginning in the mid-13th century, there were several procedures brought against officials who were dishonest or who took advantage of their position to defraud the king. Those frequently appear in restitution inquests from the reign of Louis IX. It seems that royal officials investigated the conduct of their subordinates almost as often as they investigated the misdeeds of forest users. Negligence, fraud, theft and corruption are just a few of the charges brought against certain royal foresters. Such misconduct, it seems, was not the norm but rather the exception. Most foresters were honest. Their fault was, generally speaking, that they were often too zealous. Unlike in 13th-century England, there is no evidence to suggest that the royal foresters were particularly disliked by those who used the forests.
Danny Lake-Giguère is a medieval historian and lecturer at the University of Montreal. In 2020, he defended his Ph.D. thesis on forest management in medieval Normandy. His main areas of interest are environmental and forest history and the history of royal institutions in France. He is passionate about hunting and fishing, both academically and recreationally. You can follow him on Academia.edu and LinkedIn.
Danny’s new book Administrer les forêts royales en Normandie au Moyen Âge (1204-1328) provides an overview of the development, aims and methods of the Waters and Forests administration in Normandy between the 13th and 14th centuries.
See also: How Medieval Normandy Managed Its Forests
See also: How Medieval Kings Took Control of Forests in Normandy
Top Image: A 15th-century woodcutter – Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, Ms 502 f. 12.
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts