Tải bản đầy đủ - 0 (trang)
Hall, chamber, and household

Hall, chamber, and household

Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang

  ,      ,       


with varying chronologies, in most western European countries.101 The

fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are, however, seen as crucial to this

evolution. In England, it has been said, one legacy of the Yorkist period

(– ) was ‘a complex of ideas and attitudes, as well as social habits

and institutional forms, which had given “the court” a new or at least

an acutely intensifed self-consciousness’.102 Yet it could be argued that

Walter Map’s view of the court in the late twelfth century was nothing if

not self-conscious.103 The self-conscious institutionalization of upper

and lower household departments in fifteenth-century England may

merely represent a formalization of existing structures and procedures.

For example, the very gradual detachment of the ruler’s chamber (camera, chambre) from his hall (aula, salle), reflected physically in the division

and distribution of space within his residences, had taken place at a much

earlier date Map .

By the last quarter of the fifteenth century, according to the Black Book

of the English household, the duties of the four household squires for the

body, who were of noble status, lay in service of a personal and intimate

kind to the king in his chamber:

of them alwei ij to be attendaunt uppon the kinges person to aray and unray hym,

to wache day and nyght, to dresse hym in his clothes. And they be callers to the

chaumbrelayn if ony thing lak for his person or plesaunce; theyre business is

many secretes, som sitting in the kinges chaumbre, som in the hall, with persones

of like servyse, wich is called knyghtes service . . . Oftyn tymes thees stond in

stede of kervers and cupberers.104

They were to receive liveries of wine, ale, wax, candles, litter, clothing,

rushes, and so forth, plus wages when present at court. Much of this has

a familiar ring—and the compiler of the Black Book himself reminded his


Thes esquiers of houshold of old be acustumed, wynter and somer, in after nonys

and in evenynges, to drawe to lordez chambrez within courte, there to kepe

honest company aftyr theyre cunyng, in talkyng of cronycles of kinges and of

other polycyez, or in pypyng, or harpyng, synging, or other actez marciablez,

to help occupy the court and acompany straungers, tyll the tym require of

departing . . .105


By, for example, Norbert Elias in The Court Society, –, –; also see A. Maczak,

‘From aristocratic household to princely court: restructuring patronage in the sixteenth

and seventeenth centuries’, in Princes, Patronage and the Nobility, –.



Morgan, ‘The house of policy’, .

Map, De Nugis, –, , –.



Household of Edward IV, –.

Ibid. , .


              

How ‘old’ was ‘of old’? This was not mere reproduction or parroting of

Burgundian practice but rested upon a long-term tendency, and longstanding tradition, at the English court.106 The activities of young squires,

which in effect both reflected and shaped ‘court culture’, were by no

means exclusive to the fifteenth century. It is clear that personal services

to the ruler, as well as social and ‘cultural’ activities similar to those of

Edward IV’s squires for the body, were discharged in a broadly similar

manner by their early fourteenth-century predecessors. The chamber

squires of Edward I appear not to have been of ‘noble condition’, but a

rise in their status is discernible over the following decades.107 Edward II’s

reign may have been crucial in this respect.108 But before chamber squires

could play their part in the life of a household, there had to be a chamber

(or chambers, as they served in ‘lordez chambrez within courte’) in which

they could exercise their social, musical, narrative, and conversational

skills. The Renaissance court, with its self-conscious emphasis upon

the cultural and intellectual accomplishments of its members, was not

without precursors. The need for privacy, diversion, and entertainment

among rulers and their families, set apart from the communal hall, made

their chambers a natural setting for ‘courtly’ activities.

Walter Map claimed in his character-assassination of Queen Matilda

that she was a malign influence upon her son, the young Henry II, telling

him that ‘he ought . . . to be much in his chamber and little in public’.109

Map alleged that Henry put this bad advice into practice: ‘when he makes

a stay anywhere . . . he does not allow himself to be seen as honest men

would have him do, but shuts himself up within, and is only accessible to

those who seem unworthy of such ready access’.110 To retire to one’s

chamber may not have been politically or socially desirable in a prince.

Yet the desire for privacy among twelfth-century—and later—rulers was

entirely understandable. The communal life of the hall allowed very little

opportunity for the prince and his family to retire from its hurly-burly and

enforced sociability. The huge, noisy common table in the hall, and the

constant presence of what, under Edward I, T. F. Tout described as ‘the


Cf. Olivier de la Marche, ‘Estat de la maison du duc Charles de Bourgoigne, dit le

Hardy’, in Mémoires d’Olivier de la Marche, ed. H. Beaune and J. d’Arbaumont, iv (Paris,

), : the sixteen chamber squires of Charles the Bold kept the duke company in his

chamber, where ‘les ungs chantent, les autres lisent romans et nouvelletez, les autres se

devisent d’amours et d’armes, et font le prince passer le temps en gratieuses nouvelles’.


See below, pp. – ; also Table (a).


See Tout, Chapters, ii. – , and below, pp. – .



Map, De Nugis, .

Ibid. .

  ,      ,       


monstrous crowd of riff-raff, the hangers-on of the various [household]

offices, grooms, pages, boys, Welshmen, archers, messengers, women

of ill-fame, and the rest whose presence made the advent of the royal

household a terror to the countryside’111 made rulers subject to almost

every kind of importunity and unwelcome attention. But this was one

price of personal rule. Walter Map contrasted Henry II unfavourably

with his grand-father, Henry I when he claimed that the latter

would allow access to his presence, either in a great house or in the open, up to

the sixth hour. At that time he would have with him the earls, barons, and noble

vavasours. The young people of his household, however, were not with him

before dinner, nor the seniors after it; except such as might make their way in

at their own choice, either to learn or give instruction. And when this orderly

method became known all over the world, his court was desired as much as

others are shunned, and it was famous and frequented.112

Map’s description, with its stress upon order, discipline, learning, and

instruction at court, put forward a model which was widely influential.

The part played by the ‘young people’ ( juvenes) of the king’s household

may have made them the twelfth-century equivalents of the fifteenthcentury squires to the king’s body.113

As we have seen, it was in the chamber that the English household

knights and squires were retained and where they served the king. The

chamber (camera regis) had always been the place in which the ruler slept,

and to which he might retire (Pl. ). The very close and intimate proximity of its staff to him meant that it was often considered as his personal

domain, answerable only to the prince.114 Tout pointed out that the English

household ordinance of  was ‘absolutely silent as to the king’s

chamber’. It was, he claimed, ‘an excrescence, an eccentric offshoot of

the wardrobe’, at least until the reforming household ordinance of .115

Although Tout’s interpretation of the role of administrative departments

and their associated seals may not command unqualified support, his

highlighting of the reign of Edward II in the ‘rise’ of the chamber seems

entirely warranted.116 A rise in the status of the king’s chamberlain,

exemplified by the high fees paid to him, was already discernible under


Tout, Chapters, ii.  –.

Map, De Nugis, .

Household of Edward IV, .


Edward III exemplified this view by ordering Chamber records to be burnt. See

Given-Wilson, The Royal Household,  –; Tout, Chapters, iv. –.


Tout, Chapters, ii. , .


See J. R. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster,  – (Oxford, ), –; Tout,

Chapters, ii.  – ; also see below, pp. – .




              

Edward I, while the detailed provisions for the chamber’s functioning in

the ordinance of  endorsed its growing importance. The chamberlain was now on a par with the seneschal of the household, often holding

the rank of banneret, with a knight bachelor and three squires attendant

on him, all eating at the common table in the hall.117 Piers Gaveston

had already been camerarius familiarissimus to Edward II when prince of

Wales, and his elevation to the office of chamberlain-in-chief clearly put

him in a position of great influence and power.118 The chamber also was

a place in which the king would eat—served by his squires and valets (or

yeomen), some of whom were from gentry families.119 Sir John Charlton

of Powys, Edward’s chamberlain from  to , had risen from the

rank of valet (yeoman) in his household as prince of Wales to squire,

and then knight.120 There appears to have been no social distinction at

this period between a valet and squire of the chamber.

That the chamber provided a refuge from the hall is apparent from the

supply of plate and eating utensils to it from the wardrobe. In March

, for instance, twenty-six plates and two bowls for washing (lavatoria)

were delivered pro servicio aule et camere Regis apud Westmonasterium [‘for

the service of the king’s hall and chamber at Westminster’].121 In January

, the wardrobe delivered a quantity of plate, including twenty-two

silver goblets (ciphi ) for the chamber.122 The chamber also received

consignments of medicines and drugs for the surgeon’s office: in , a

substantial quantity was provided by Master Étienne of Paris for the

king’s expedition to Scotland.123 It also acted as a treasury for the king’s

plate and jewels—a function which encroached on the sphere of the

wardrobe.124 For Tout, all this—plus the use of the chamber to receive and

administer the forfeited lands of rebels—constituted a ‘chamber system’,

which was to be wrecked by political crises in the summer of .125 The

lack of chamber accounts—with very few exceptions—does not allow us

to penetrate very far into its working.126 But the chamber had, by , undoubtedly achieved a prominence that it had formerly lacked. Although

they are not mentioned in the ordinance of that year, the existence of









Tout, Place of Edward II, –; Chapters, ii. .

See P. Chaplais, Piers Gaveston: Edward II’s Adoptive Brother (Oxford, ),  – .


Tout, Chapters, ii. –.

Tout, Chapters, ii.  – .


E.// (Mar. ).

E.// ( Jan. ).


Chaplais, Piers Gaveston, –, and see below, pp. – , .

Tout, Chapters, ii. –.

A daily account for the Chamber survives from –  (E.//).

  ,      ,       


knights of the chamber, beside the squires and valets, is attested by

other evidence. Apart from the chamberlain—Sir John Charlton—Sir

Hugh Despenser the younger (who succeeded him), Sir John Sturmy,

Sir Edmund Darel, and Sir Giles Beauchamp were included among the

chivaliers de la chambre le roy or milites de camera regis.127 Their duties were

not defined in the household ordinance, and they merged for all practical

purposes into the other knights of the household, but there can be little

doubt of their especially privileged status. The chamber provided its

own career structure for the able and ambitious, often from well-born

families: men rose from valet, or yeoman, to knight through their service


An analogy is provided by practice at the court of the nearcontemporary kings of Majorca. In May , James II issued a series

of Leges Palatinae for his household, of which a Latin version was made

by Pedro IV of Aragon in .129 Although the ordinance was concerned

as much with questions of protocol, etiquette, and ceremonial, the practical daily duties of the offices were also set out. The great chamberlain

(camerlingue) was to be a baron (or banneret), assisted by two knightly

subordinate chamberlains. They held sway over the kitchen and pharmacy; closed the doors of the king’s apartments at night; slept armed

near him; dressed and undressed him; assigned lodgings to the members

of the household (the duties of the fourrière elsewhere); looked after his

garde-robe, adjudicated the procedures to be followed when receiving

guests and strangers, and so on.130 Below them were six esquires of the

chamber, of whom one was to be a baron, who kept watch at night,

and carried the king’s arms and armour behind him. There were also

two cameriers (or valets of the chamber), who took charge of the king’s

plate and jewels, clothing, and footwear. They were also to prepare his

next day’s clothing—the traditional role of the valet or manservant. The

chamber staff also included two barbers, two physicians, two surgeons

See Tout, Place of Edward II, , ; Chapters, ii. .

Tout, Chapters, ii. .


See A. Leỗoy de la Marche, Les Relations politiques de la France avec le royaume de

Majorque ii (Paris, ), –. The text of the Leges Palatinae is printed in Acta Sanctorum,

Junii, III (Antwerp, ),  ff.; also Aragonische Hofordnungen, ed. Schwarz, –. For a

recent discussion of the Leges Palatinae, from the standpoint of the organization of space

within royal and princely residences, see G. Kerscher, ‘Die Perspektive des Potentaten:

Differenzierung von “Privattrakt” bzw. Appartement und Zeremonialräumen im spätmittelalterlichen Palastbau’, in W. Paravicini (ed.), Zeremoniell und Raum (Sigmaringen,

), –.


For this, and for what follows, see Leỗoy de la Marche, Les Relations politiques, ii. .




             

and apothecaries, two private secretaries, four ushers, four nuntii virgae

(messengers), eight serjeants-at-arms, an armourer, a tailor, fruitier,

argentier, fourrier (who prepared the king’s lodgings in advance of his

arrival), and a number of other minor officers.131 This establishment certainly bore close resemblances to the chambers of the kings of England

and France in the early fourteenth century. Moreover, as a result of their

dissemination via Aragon and (after ) Castile—and the fact that

a contemporary copy, subsequently to be given to Philip the Bold of

Burgundy, passed into Philip VI of France’s hands—the Leges Palatinae

may well have influenced later Burgundian practice.132

The chamber also provided a context in which rulers attempted to

live a private—or at least less public—life.133 In England, this was demonstrated by the purpose of some large sums paid into it by the treasurer, or

by the keeper of the wardrobe. In December , for example, the king’s

Genoese banker, Antonio di Pessagno, paid out no less than , l.st. in

cash pro privatis expensis camere sue faciendis (‘to meet the private expenses

of his chamber’).134 The English ordinance of  tells us something

about the duties of the small body of chamber squires and valets—there

was a carving squire, a squire who attended to (and tasted?) the king’s

food, a cup-bearing squire (the equivalent of an échanson), as well as

two squire ushers, responsible for food and litter in the office of the

chamber.135 Below them stood a body of lesser officers: cooks, ‘ewerers’,

quarter-masters, four serjeants-at-arms, two trumpeters, two minstrels,

and the administrative staff of clerks.136 This was in effect a kind of ‘lower’

chamber within the greater institution, although there was a significant

degree of overlap. But there was no doubt, either in the minds of the

compiler of the treatise known as Fleta under Edward I, or of those who

set out to reform the household under Edward II, that chamber and hall

were distinct entities. As administrative units, the hall was regulated by

the officers of the household; the chamber had its own personnel and

rules. As Tout rightly pointed out: ‘the chamber was to the hall as was the

household to the inferior world dwelling outside the verge of the


Leỗoy de la Marche, Les Relations politiques, ii. ; also see Kerscher, ‘Die Perspektive

des Potentaten’, –.


The manuscript is now Brussels, BR, MS . See Paravicini, ‘The Court of the

Dukes of Burgundy’, in Asch and Birke, Princes, Patronage and the Nobility,  –.


See below, pp. – .


E.// ( Dec. ). For Pessagno’s role at this time see N. Fryde, ‘Antonio

Pessagno of Genoa, king’s merchant of Edward II of England’, in Studi in memoria de

Federigo Melis, ii (Naples, ), –.



Tout, Chapters, ii. ; Place of Edward II, .

Tout, Chapters, ii. .

  ,      ,       


court.’137 As we have seen, it formed an elite body of the household, a

nursery in which the distinctive characteristics of courtly culture might

be fostered. Here was one early precursor of the Domus Magnificencie,

where domestic and personal service to the ruler was accompanied by

courtly ceremonial and display.138

The distinction between hall and chamber was also expressed in

architectural terms (Map , Pl. ). The tenth- and eleventh-century castle,

or motte, tended to provide rather minimal domestic accommodation.

Early stone keeps, or donjons, might include a communal hall on one storey,

with chambers and other apartments at higher levels. By the twelfth century, however, the addition of a separate hall, or salle, with communicating passages to the keep and chapel had become common.139 The desire

of the ruler, his immediate family, and some of the senior members of his

household for greater privacy led to the provision of separate chambers,

often clustering at one end of the hall. Access to the chambers from the

dais or raised platform on which the ruler ate when presiding over the hall

was obtained by a door, or doors, leading to passages and staircases which

joined hall to chamber. The Binnenhof of the counts of Holland at the

Hague, built under Floris V (–), furnishes a mid- to late thirteenthcentury example, with a series of chambers appended, as it were, in a

turreted block, to the west end of the count’s great hall (Pl. ).140 This

arrangement was said to resemble that of Westminster Hall before

Richard II’s alterations, and it has been claimed that the Knights’ Hall at

the Hague was ‘inspired’ by Westminster (Pls. , , Map ).141 Given the

close connections—political, dynastic, and economic—between England

and Holland at this time, there may be some truth in this notion, although

there were perhaps other parts of the palace of Westminster (such as the

‘White’ Hall, or the Painted Chamber), which could have influenced the

Jones, ‘The Court of the Verge’, – , ; Tout, Chapters, ii. .

See above, p. .


For the Gravensteen at Ghent see D. Caillebaut, ‘Le château des Comtes à Gand’

in Château Gaillard: Études de Castellogie médiévale, xi (), –. For the count’s hall

(aula) at Bruges and its communicating passage or gallery see Galbert of Bruges, The

Murder of Charles the Good, ed. and tr. J. B. Ross (Toronto, ), –.


See E. H. ter Kuile, ‘De bouwgeschiedenis van het grafelijk paleis op het Binnenhof ’,

Holland,  (), –; and H. M. Brokken, ‘Het Hof in Den Haage: Grafelijke

residentie en centrum van bestuur’, in R. J. van Pelt and M. E. Tiethoff-Spliethoff, Het

Binnenhof: Van grafelijke residentie tot regeringscentrum (Dieren, ), –.


See H. M. Colvin et al. (eds.), The History of the King’s Works, i (), – ,

– , –; E. Kooper, ‘Introduction’, in E. Kooper (ed.), Medieval Dutch Literature

in its European Context (Cambridge, ),  n. .




             

domestic arrangements of the counts of Holland.142 In such structures,

the kitchen, buttery, and so-called ‘screens passage’ were at the other

extremity of the hall, a practice which was to be replicated in countless

examples, including the domestic arrangements favoured by the Valois

dukes of Burgundy. Hence, at the Flemish counts’ castle of Male, near

Bruges, between Wijnendaal and Torhout, the west wing comprised the

great salle, with the alimentary service departments; while the east wing

contained the chapel, almonry, laundry, stables, and forge, as well as

the moated binnenhof (haute court), the count’s and countess’s chambers,

garden, and ‘retreat’.143

The fundamental layout of these buildings was broadly similar to that

of an Oxford or Cambridge college hall, buttery, and chapel today. Thus,

in the thirteenth century, most rulers in north-west Europe possessed

residences whose architectural structuring made a visual distinction

between the ruler’s accommodation—which could be fittingly grand—and

the domestic offices of provisioning, storage, and supply. In other words,

the administrative and institutional distinctions between hall, household,

and chamber were reflected in the organization of physical space around

the ruler. In some instances, however, the ‘private’ apartments could also

possess a ‘public’ dimension. At the palace of Westminster, Henry III’s

( –) great chamber was extensively refashioned after , and

its large first-floor apartment was to become known as the ‘Painted

Chamber’ in the fourteenth century. It served as the state bedchamber,

flanked by a private chapel, but was also used for audiences, meetings of

the council and, in the fourteenth century, even for Parliaments (Pl. ,

Map ).144 The king’s bed of estate was placed at the east end, against the

north wall, and above its head was a large wall painting, executed in

 –, depicting the coronation of Henry’s saintly predecessor, Edward

the Confessor.145 The Painted Chamber was, however, quite distinct from

the institutional office of the chamber, as a household department, which

had its own premises within the complex of buildings at Westminster


See J. Cherry and N. Stratford, Westminster Kings and the Medieval Palace of

Westminster (British Museum Occasional paper , London, ), –; P. Binski, The

Painted Chamber at Westminster (London, ),  –.


See M. Cafmeyer, ‘Het Kasteel van Male’, Annales de la Société d’Émulation de

Bruges,  (– ), –, ; AGR, CC, R , .


Binski, Painted Chamber, –, –; Cherry and Stratford, Westminster Kings,



Binski, Painted Chamber, –,  –, id., Westminster Abbey and the Plantagenets

(New Haven and London, ), – , and figs. , .

  ,      ,       


(Map ). The public and private spheres of an English ruler’s life were not

yet completely divorced. Further chambers and inner rooms were added

at Westminster during the fourteenth century, so that the king could

effectively retire from public view, attended only by his immediate

entourage, largely made up of the chamber staff.

In continental Europe, the evolution of the ruler’s chamber, as an

administrative department of his household, took different courses

according to the region concerned. In royal France, although the sixth

métier of the king’s household was his chamber, its role tended to diverge,

in some respects, from that of its English equivalent. Its personnel

was small in number, comprising the chamberlain and the valets of the

chamber. These rendered personal service to the king—and included

his barber, surgeon, tailor, and épicier.146 The three or so chamberlains

waited upon the king and slept in his chamber by turns, taking (like their

English contemporaries) meals, fees, and livery of robes. They also kept

the registers in which homages performed by the king’s vassals were

recorded.147 One of the chamberlains sat in the Chambre aux Deniers

(the household’s accounting office) and oversaw much of the financial

business of that department.148 The distinction between ‘public’ and

household finance in the French kingdom at this time was not always

clearly drawn, a situation echoed in part in England. This was, however,

largely reflected in the unique evolution of the wardrobe, rather than the

chamber, as a ‘public’ accounting office.

In France, as in England, a detectable rise in the status and political

significance of the office of chamberlain is apparent during the early

fourteenth century. Its most spectacular manifestation was the career of

Enguerran de Marigny (d.), formerly panetier in the household of the

queen, Joan of Navarre, where he appears in July .149 As the household officer responsible for the paneterie (pantry) Marigny’s function was

to supply the basic food requirements of the queen’s entourage. The skills

demanded in this office clearly served him well. His financial (and, to

some extent, diplomatic) acumen was soon to be put to the test in the

service of Philip the Fair. Joan of Navarre bequeathed him a legacy of

Lalou, ‘Le fonctionnement de l’Hôtel du roi’, –.

See M. Vale, ‘The world of the courts’, in M. Bent and A. Wathey (eds.), Fauvel

Studies: Allegory, Chronicle, Music, and Image in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS

franỗais (Oxford, ), ; Lehugeur, De hospitio Regis,  – ; for the French royal

household ordinances see BN, MS fr. and AN, JJ..


J. Favier, Un conseiller de Philippe le Bel: Enguerran de Marigny (Paris, ), –.


See Vale, ‘The world of the courts’, –; Favier, Un conseiller de Philippe le Bel, –.




             

 livres just before he moved from her household to the king’s, probably

in .150 In that year he succeeded his former patron and fellowNorman, Hugues de Bouville, as chamberlain to the king. This was the

decisive moment in Marigny’s career—as it was in that of Piers Gaveston,

his English contemporary.151 The office of chamberlain gave direct and

immediate access to the king. By , Marigny, like Gaveston, had

become principal chamberlain, or chamberlain-in-chief, having successfully secured the king’s favour, displaying his evident competence not

only in the domestic affairs of the household but, by extension, in finance

and diplomacy.152 The subsequent careers of Marigny and Gaveston bear

some similarities: both fell as spectacularly as they had risen, Gaveston

in  and Marigny in .

But in France the function of the chamber as a household department

changed markedly in the early fourteenth century. It became less of a

household métier, or service department, and more of a financial and

ceremonial office, forming one of six offices which were distinguished

from the métiers in the ordinances of  and .153 These were the

aumônerie (almonry), chapel, chancery, Chambre aux Deniers, and the

office of the mtres de l’hơtel. Since Louis IX’s household ordinance of

, in which it had played a significant part, the chamber had been

steadily superseded by the fourrière (quarter-master’s office) as the

department responsible for the king’s lodgings, and for his ushers,

porters, and messengers. Again, in the early fourteenth century, the

separate department of the argenterie was detached from the chamber.154

By , the keeper of the king’s plate and jewels (garde des joyaux) had

also left the personnel of the chamber. Thus it can be shown that

dès le début du xive siècle, la Chambre, à cause de l’importance prise par ses

membres, de par leur proximité étroite avec la personne royale, n’existe plus en

tant que métier: la Fourrière prend sa place.155

[since the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Chamber, because of its

members’ importance, through their close proximity to the king’s person, ceased

to exist as a household office: the Fourrière took its place.]

See Favier, Un conseiller de Philippe le Bel,  – .

Cf. Chaplais, Piers Gaveston, –.


Favier, Un conseiller de Philippe le Bel, –.


Lalou, ‘Le fonctionnement de l’hôtel du roi’, .


See L. Douet-d’Arcq (ed.), Recueil des comptes de l’Argenterie des rois de France (Paris,

), and Nouveau recueil des comptes de l’Argenterie des rois de France (Paris, ); Lalou,

‘Le fonctionnement de l’hôtel du roi’, , .


Lalou, ‘Le fonctionnement de l’hôtel du roi’, .



  ,      ,       


Its function was to furnish ‘le feurre, les coustes et la buche’, also providing a body of ushers and porters, both as permanent staff in certain royal

residences, and as part of the itinerant household.

The pattern followed in the principalities of northern France and

the Low Countries was a variation on this theme. In Flanders, Brabant,

and Hainault, the ‘chamber’ remained essentially part of the domestic

organization of the princely household, acting as a provisioning department whose functions were often parallel to, or merged with, those of

the fourrière. In Flanders, the household accounts reveal the chamber to

be a provisioning department, supplying spices, butter, and so on to the

count, receiving purveyances of supplies, and acting as a quarter-master’s

office.156 In – , it accounted for four per cent of total household

expenditure—a very small percentage when compared with the kitchen

and buttery. It appears to have possessed no ceremonial or other role,

unlike that of the chamber in the kingdoms of England and France. But

the hereditary chamberlain of Flanders certainly had ceremonial functions apparently unconnected, by the thirteenth century, with the

household department whose name he bore.157 In Brabant, the evidence

suggests that the duke’s chamber was again essentially responsible for

commissariat and lodgings, including the purchase and hiring of beds for

the maisnie or retinue.158 In Artois, there was no separate entry in the

household accounts for ‘chamber’, as the fourrière (following the model of

royal France) performed all its domestic functions.159 Nor is any specific

entry for ‘chamber’ found in the Hainault household accounts, although

members of its staff are recorded receiving wages, liveries, and gifts.160

Their importance, however, seems to have grown during the Bavarian

period during the later fourteenth century.161 In both Flanders and

Hainault, moreover, the chamber was also responsible for the custody of

the count’s plate and jewels—as it was in England under Edward II, as well

as Majorca and Aragon, and France before the argenterie and keepership


See the account for  – in RAG, Wyffels (Chron. suppl.) , no. bis. Also

see above, pp. –.


See below, pp. –. Also Fig. .


AGR, CC, R , m.  (); R ,  ().


See, for early examples of complete accounts for all six household departments

(, ), ADPC, A. and A.; De Loisne, ‘Une cour féodale’, –, –.


See De rekeningen, ed. Smit, i. –.


AEM, Trésorerie, Recueil , no.  (–); Recueil , no. : livery of cottez des

cambrelens ().

Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

Hall, chamber, and household

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay(0 tr)