Home History 10 The regulation and protection of minstrels
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

10 The regulation and protection of minstrels

View more publications by Boydell and Brewer
10The regulation and protection of minstrelsIt has been a common view that itinerant minstrels were at the lowest level of society, reviled as immoral and criminal, cast out by the Church and severely cir-cumscribed by the secular and civic authorities. Writers on minstrelsy in Germany, England and France have held this view, citing examples from various places throughout the late Middle Ages to show minstrels committing crimes, supporting immorality, and being excluded and punished by ecclesiastical and secular author-ity. As John Southworth expressed it,1It is not just that the [social] status of the minstrel was low; for very many of his contemporaries, he was altogether beyond the pale of social acceptance. ... Not only was he excluded ... from the normal web of ties and responsibilities that constituted medieval society, but even his membership of the universal church, the fellowship of baptised Christians, was at one time in serious dispute.This is a view that I have accepted in the past, but is it really justified? Does enough evidence exist to demonstrate the case for itinerant minstrels being abhorred as ‘beyond the pale’? On further reflection, perhaps not.The Church was certainly suspicious of those who performed music that resulted in sensual enjoyment and might encourage illicit sexual behaviour and other immo-rality. It is hardly surprising that the Church as an institution should play safe by taking a conservative view, recognising the potential dangers to the Christian soul and acting accordingly. Civic authorities, too, were wary of an itinerant trade that could cause disturbance of various kinds, such as loud noises at night, drunken brawls in ale houses, and enjoyable distraction while pickpockets and other thieves were at work. But there is also much to be said on the other side. As noted in Chapter 5, individual clerics were more practical in their approach to minstrelsy, enjoying the entertainment of minstrels on appropriate occasions and extending to them the hospitality that was part of the Church’s charitable obligation. The heads of secular households took the same course; and towns saw no harm in minstrelsy per se, only a need to exercise crime prevention and administer punishment when necessary.Nor is there a case for saying that minstrels were particularly guilty of crime and immorality. Commentators have tended to offer a few cases, usually from a wide range of places and dates, but the evidence against minstrels is notable less for its 1 Southworth, English Medieval Minstrel, 4–5. See, for example, Chambers, Medieval Stage,II, 262–3; Woodfill, Musicians, 109; and Peters, Musical Sounds, 218–27. Dobozy, Re-Membering, Chapter 2 (‘Minstrels as Pariah’), gives a full and carefully considered assessment, mainly concerning minstrels in Germany.
© 2023, Boydell and Brewer

10The regulation and protection of minstrelsIt has been a common view that itinerant minstrels were at the lowest level of society, reviled as immoral and criminal, cast out by the Church and severely cir-cumscribed by the secular and civic authorities. Writers on minstrelsy in Germany, England and France have held this view, citing examples from various places throughout the late Middle Ages to show minstrels committing crimes, supporting immorality, and being excluded and punished by ecclesiastical and secular author-ity. As John Southworth expressed it,1It is not just that the [social] status of the minstrel was low; for very many of his contemporaries, he was altogether beyond the pale of social acceptance. ... Not only was he excluded ... from the normal web of ties and responsibilities that constituted medieval society, but even his membership of the universal church, the fellowship of baptised Christians, was at one time in serious dispute.This is a view that I have accepted in the past, but is it really justified? Does enough evidence exist to demonstrate the case for itinerant minstrels being abhorred as ‘beyond the pale’? On further reflection, perhaps not.The Church was certainly suspicious of those who performed music that resulted in sensual enjoyment and might encourage illicit sexual behaviour and other immo-rality. It is hardly surprising that the Church as an institution should play safe by taking a conservative view, recognising the potential dangers to the Christian soul and acting accordingly. Civic authorities, too, were wary of an itinerant trade that could cause disturbance of various kinds, such as loud noises at night, drunken brawls in ale houses, and enjoyable distraction while pickpockets and other thieves were at work. But there is also much to be said on the other side. As noted in Chapter 5, individual clerics were more practical in their approach to minstrelsy, enjoying the entertainment of minstrels on appropriate occasions and extending to them the hospitality that was part of the Church’s charitable obligation. The heads of secular households took the same course; and towns saw no harm in minstrelsy per se, only a need to exercise crime prevention and administer punishment when necessary.Nor is there a case for saying that minstrels were particularly guilty of crime and immorality. Commentators have tended to offer a few cases, usually from a wide range of places and dates, but the evidence against minstrels is notable less for its 1 Southworth, English Medieval Minstrel, 4–5. See, for example, Chambers, Medieval Stage,II, 262–3; Woodfill, Musicians, 109; and Peters, Musical Sounds, 218–27. Dobozy, Re-Membering, Chapter 2 (‘Minstrels as Pariah’), gives a full and carefully considered assessment, mainly concerning minstrels in Germany.
© 2023, Boydell and Brewer
Downloaded on 21.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781800109353-021/html?srsltid=AfmBOort-YITNUjyGPyT_7jnJE_xYSLxegLLDCEDRMTLIpURa2OrF5NJ
Scroll to top button