Better than Just Fine: Combining Final Concords with Documentary and Symbolic Practices

ABSTRACTThis article examines how litigants from the 1190s through the 1270s combined final concords with other forms of documentary and symbolic agreement: affirmations given through letters and in court, homage, and charters. The end of the twelfth century through the mid-thirteenth century saw the growth of the royal courts as a more standardized and powerful legal system. Over this period, litigants increasingly trusted final concords as a secure way to transfer land and rights and to settle disputes. At the same time, they continued to combine final concords with other forms of agreement. This enabled them to expand concords beyond the principal parties to other claimants and authority figures. By layering multiple types of documentary and symbolic acts, litigants were also able to connect to both administrative and personal authority, and to reinforce agreements within their local social networks. These patterns show how early final concords, despite their routine form, were flexible enough to accommodate individual needs. Litigants’ ability to deploy these documents creatively demonstrates the overall flexibility of the early common law, and its space for continuity with earlier approaches to dispute resolution.KEYWORDS: Final concordscommon lawhomagecharterstwelfth centurythirteenth centuryfinesdocumentary culturedispute settlement AcknowledgmentsResearch for this article was conducted with the support of the Medieval Academy of America and the Huntington Library. I am grateful to Jehangir Malegam, John Hudson, Kristen Neuschel, William Reddy, and Marcus Bull, who read an early version of this project, and to William Eves, who provided insightful feedback. I would also like to thank the journal’s anonymous reviewers, who provided suggestions based on great care and attention. Any errors that remain are mine, but there certainly would have been more of them without the reviewers’ work.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Frederick Pollock and Frederic William Maitland, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I, 2 vols., 2nd ed., Cambridge, 1905, vol.1, 297.2 William Eves, ‘Collusive Litigation in the Early Years of the English Common Law: The Use of Mort D’Ancestor for Conveyancing Purposes c. 1198–1230’, 41 The Journal of Legal History (2020), 227–256, here 228; John Hudson, The Oxford History of the Laws of England: 871–1216 (The Oxford History of the Laws of England 2), Oxford, 2012, 523; Doris Stenton, English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter 1066–1215 (Jeyne Lectures for 1963), Philadelphia, 1964, 51; C.W. Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln from the Feet of Fines Preserved in the Public Record Office, A. D. 1244–1272; with Additions from Various Sources, A. D. 1176–1250, 2 vols. (Publications of the Lincoln Record Society 17), Horncastle, 1920, vol.2, x.3 Litigants’ efforts to use common law actions and documents in ways beyond their official intent extended beyond final concords. For an example of different uses of mort d’ancestor, sometimes accidentally and sometimes strategically, see William Eves, ‘The Assize of Mort d’Ancestor from Glanvill to Bracton: c.1188–1230’, thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of St Andrews, 2016, 140–166, esp.166.4 Paul Hyams, ‘The Charter as a Source for the Early Common Law’, 12 The Journal of Legal History (1991), 173, at 174; David Bates, ‘Charters and Historians of Britain and Ireland: Problems and Possibilities’, in Marie Therese Flanagan and Judith A Green, eds., Charter and Charter Scholarship in Britain and Ireland, New York, 2005, 1, at 9.5 Bates, ‘Charters and Historians of Britain and Ireland’, 10.6 See Hyams, ‘The Charter as a Source for the Early Common Law’, 178 for a similar observation about 1100.7 For examples of early final concords, see J.H. Round, ‘The Earliest Fines’, 12 The English Historical Review (1897), 293; L.F. Salzmann, ‘Early Fines’, 25 The English Historical Review (1910), 708; Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, x, 308–309.8 For a detailed overview of the procedure of final concords, see Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, xviii-xxx.9 In a true dispute, there was usually a delay of some months between the parties being granted a license to agree and stating their agreement in court. Later in the thirteenth century, as cases were increasingly fictitious (as will be discussed below), parties could immediately state their concord after being granted a license to agree.10 Hudson, Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol.2, 523; Brian Kemp, ‘Exchequer and Bench in the Later Twelfth Century -- Separate or Identical Tribunals?’, 88 The English Historical Review (1973), 559, at 571. In some cases, agreements were enrolled in the plea rolls but not recorded in chirograph form: Eves, ‘Collusive Litigation’, 230–231.11 Paul Brand, ‘In Perpetuum: The Rhetoric and Reality of Attempts to Control the Future in the English Medieval Common Law’, in J.A. Burrow and Ian P. Wei, eds., Medieval Futures: Attitudes to the Future in the Middle Ages, Woodbridge, 2000, 101, at 101–103.12 The precise length of this interval is unclear. Bracton prescribed fifteen days between the settlement and the delivery of the concord. Maitland believed that a longer period of a year and a day would be used in practice: Henricus de Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, ed. George E. Woodbine, trans. Samuel Edmund Thorne, 4 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1968, vol.4, 355–356; Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law, vol.2, 102; see additional discussion in Eves, ‘Collusive Litigation’, 231–232.13 Brand, ‘In Perpetuum’, 103.14 Hudson, Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol.2, 594.15 For a challenge to a final concord, see The National Archives: Public Record Office (PRO) SC 1/10/79. This is a rare, rather than a representative, case. Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, was a significant political figure close to King Edward I, who had enough clout to bend standard legal procedure. For final concord terms that had to be reinforced through later bonds, see Canterbury Cathedral Archives CCA-DCc-ChAnt/L/372A and CCA-DCc-ChAnt/H/128.16 PRO E 40/8596).17 Eves, ‘Collusive Litigation’, 228; Hyams, ‘The Charter as a Source for the Early Common Law’, 179; Barbara Dodwell, ed., Feet of Fines for the County of Norfolk for the Reign of King John, 1201–1215 (Publications of the Pipe Roll Society 70), London, 1958, xxiii.18 Eves, ‘Collusive Litigation’, 232–233.19 Hyams, ‘The Charter as a Source for the Early Common Law’, 179.20 Eves, 'Collusive Litigation', 234–235.21 Eves, 'Collusive Litigation', 235–236. For a full description of Eves’s method for assessing collusiveness, which I attempt to follow here, see ibid. 235–239.22 Ethel Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines (Publications of the Dugdale Society 11), ed. Frederick Wellstood, 3 vols., London, 1932, vol.1, case 704.23 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 787; PRO CP 25/1/244/21, ‘et hac concordia facta est inter eas ex assensu et voluntate Rogeri’. For another example of the bishop of Coventry and Lichfield sending letters patent to the justices from 1233–34, see Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 504.24 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 260; PRO CP 25/1/243/11-22.25 William Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines: Henry II and Richard I’, in William Farrer, ed., Final Concords of the County of Lancaster, Part 1, 1189–1307 (Record Society of Lancashire and Chesire 39), Edinburgh, 1899, Richard I, no.113, accessed 27 September 2023.26 In standard presentment procedure, a bishop mandated the local archdeacon to induct the new parson into possession of the church. In Richmond between 1127 and 1541, the archdeaconry was endowed with most of the powers and duties that would usually belong to the archbishop of York, including the supervision of local clergy: Joshua Tate, Power and Justice in Medieval England: The Law of Patronage and the Royal Courts, New Haven, 2022, 15–16; H.B. Hall, Richmondshire Churches, London, 1910, xxiii.27 Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines: Henry II and Richard I’, Richard I, no.113.28 Tate, Power and Justice in Medieval England, 16.29 'List 13: Archdeacons, Richmond', in Diana E. Greenway, ed., Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066–1300: Volume 6, York, London, 1999, 47–52 n.122: accessed 27 September 2023.30 1196 was a busy year for Eustace, but not his busiest. He would go on to become the bishop of Ely and the royal chancellor; Dorothy M. Owen, ‘Eustace (d. 1215), Administrator and Bishop of Ely’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography accessed 27 September 2023.31 Glenn Kumhera, The Benefits of Peace: Private Peacemaking in Late Medieval Italy, Leiden, 2017, 128, 155.32 This overview comes from Bracton, written c.1220s. Hudson, Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol.2, 546.33 Hudson, John, Land, Law, and Lordship in Anglo-Norman England, Oxford, 1997, 197–199.34 Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines: Henry II and Richard I’, 30–39 Henry III, no.119.35 For background on the family of Matilda de Thorinton and William de Winwick, see Thomas Brooke, The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey of the Premonstratensian Order (Chetham Society New Series 39), ed. William Farrer, vol.1 part 2, Manchester, 1898, 231, n.1. This final concord was also copied into the Cokersand Abbey cartulary, ibid., 233.36 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 426.37 For a full account of the disputes, see Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines: Henry II and Richard I’, 30–39 Henry III, n.3.38 Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines: Henry II and Richard I’, 12-19 Henry III, no.32.39 This case occurred in the York assize of 1246, PRO JUST 1/1045 m.2.40 The priory of Hornby was a cell of the Abbey of Croxton.41 F.M. Powicke, 'The Oath of Bromholm', The English Historical Review 56 (1941), 529, at 547.42 Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines: Henry II and Richard I’, 30–39 Henry III, no.102.43 Although the right of women to inherit was generally acknowledged, their inheritance was more likely than that of men to be subject to contestation and exploitation: Harriet Lily Kersey, ‘Aristocratic Female Inheritance and Property Holding in Thirteenth-Century England’, thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Canterbury Christ Church University, 2017, 238–62.44 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 417. Both parties are described as the ‘son of Ralph’, so it is likely although not certain that they were brothers.45 Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, vol.2, 34 Henry III no.89.46 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 448.47 PRO JUST 1/951A m.15. Thomas appears as a party in two different pleas, although a plea between him and Roger de Withinton does not appear, suggesting the case was collusive.48 Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines: Henry II and Richard I’, 30–39 Henry III, no.111.49 PRO JUST 1/404 m.9.50 Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines: Henry II and Richard I’, 1–12 John, no.61 and 30–39 Henry III, no.104. Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, cases 123, 127, 150, 277, 702 and 955.51 Stokes dates this case to 5 John (1203–1204), and the manuscript is organized at the National Archives with other final concords of that year. In a note at the top of the fine, C.A.F. Meekings attributes the fine instead to 5 Henry III (1220–1221). Within the AALT digitization, at least, the dating clause is all but illegible. PRO CP 25/1/242/10/136. Thank you to one of this article’s anonymous reviewers for the attribution to Meekings.52 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, case 150.53 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, cases 82 and 644.54 Although final concords are not sealed documents, I place them within the context of documentary culture that aimed to replicate the presence and authority of the involved parties, as argued by Brigitte Miriam Bedos-Rezak, ‘Medieval Identity: A Sign and a Concept’, 105 The American Historical Review (2000), 1489, at 1489–1511.55 As an example, between one and three per cent of final concords from the Warwickshire Feet of Fines from 1195 to 1284 and the Feet of Fines from Northumberland and Durham from 1198 to 1272 refer to homage. This number should be taken as a rough estimate, rather than an exact count.56 Geoffrey Koziol, ‘England, France, and the Problem of Sacrality in Twelfth-Century Ritual’, in Thomas N. Bisson, ed., Cultures of Power: Lordship, Status, and Process in Twelfth-Century Europe, Philadelphia, 1995, 124; C. Warren Hollister, ‘Anglo-Norman Political Culture and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance’, in C. Warren Hollister, ed., Anglo-Norman Political Culture and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance: Proceedings of the Borchard Conference on Anglo-Norman History, 1995, Woodbridge, 1997, 1; see discussion in Björn Weiler, ‘Knighting, Homage, and the Meaning of Ritual: The Kings of England and Their Neighbors in the Thirteenth Century’, 37 Viator: Medieval and Renaissance Studies (2006), 275, at 275.57 Gerd Althoff, ‘Symbolic Communication and Medieval Order: Strengths and Weaknesses of Ambiguous Signs’, in Wojtek Jezierski et al., eds., Rituals, Performatives, and Political Order in Northern Europe, c. 650–1350, Turnhout, 2015, 63; Jenny Benham, Peacemaking in the Middle Ages: Principles and Practice, Manchester, 2017, 105–7.58 Nicholas Vincent, The Holy Blood: King Henry III and the Westminster Blood Relic, Cambridge, 2001; Reuter, ‘Velle Sibi Fieri in Forma Hac’, in Janet Nelson, ed., Medieval Polities and Modern Mentalities, Cambridge, 2006, 167; Weiler, ‘Knighting, Homage, and the Meaning of Ritual’.59 Weiler, ‘Knighting, Homage, and the Meaning of Ritual’.60 Weiler, ‘Knighting, Homage, and the Meaning of Ritual’, 286–287.61 Klaus van Eickels, ‘“Homagium” Und “Amicitia”: Rituals of Peace and Their Significance in the Anglo-French Negotiations of the Twelfth Century’, 24 Francia (1997), 133–140; Vincent, The Holy Blood; Reuter, ‘Velle Sibi Fieri in Forma Hac’; Björn Weiler, ‘Symbolism and Politics in the Reign of Henry III’, in R.H. Britnell, R. Frame, and M.C. Prestwich, eds., Thirteenth-Century England IX. Proceedings of the Durham Conference 2001, Woodbridge, 2003, 15; Weiler, ‘Knighting, Homage, and the Meaning of Ritual’.62 Weiler, ‘Knighting, Homage, and the Meaning of Ritual’, 298.63 Paul Hyams, ‘Homage and Feudalism: A Judicious Separation’, in Natalie Fryde, Pierre Monnet and Otto Gerhard Oexle, eds., Die Gegenwart des Feudalismus: Présence du féodalisme et présent de la féodalité. The Presence of Feudalism, Göttingen, 2003, 13, at 25.64 Henry de Bracton, Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England, ed. George E Woodbine, trans. Samuel E Thorne, Cambridge, Mass., 1968, vol.2, 228.65 Levi Roach, ‘Submission and Homage: Feudo-Vassalic Bonds and the Settlement of Disputes in Ottonian Germany’, 97 History (2012), 355, at 367.66 Hyams, ‘Homage and Feudalism: A Judicious Separation’; John Gillingham, ‘Doing Homage to the King of France’, in Christopher Harper-Bill and Nicholas Vincent, eds., Henry II: New Interpretations, Woodbridge, 2007, 63; Roach, ‘Submission and Homage’.67 Petkov, The Kiss of Peace: Ritual, Self, and Society in the High and Late Medieval West, Leiden, 2003, 105; Hyams, ‘Homage and Feudalism: A Judicious Separation’, 30–31; Roach, ‘Submission and Homage’, 367.68 Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law, vol.1, 301.69 Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law, vol.1, 306.70 For examples of cases in which a petitioner demanded homage and other services from a tenant, see Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, vol.2, 17, 29 Henry III no.55, 34 Henry III nos.80, 84, and 96, and 37–39 Henry III nos.36 and 40, and 40 Henry III no.9.71 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, case 612. Similar examples include cases 831, 950, and 979; Philip Oliver, Feet of Fines: Northumberland and Durham (Publications of the Newcastle Upon Tyne Records Committee 10), Newcastle upon Tyne, 1931, cases 138 and 231; Barbara Dodwell, Feet of Fines for the County of Norfolk for the Reign of King John, 1201–1215, London, 1958, case 445; Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, vol.2, 30–33 Henry III no.32, 34 Henry III no.36, and 40 Henry III no.1.72 Examples not discussed in detail below include TNA CRU/182 and Farrer; ‘Lancashire Fines: Henry II and Richard I’, 1–11 Henry III, no.4.73 Oliver, Northumberland and Durham, case 125.74 Hudson, Land, Law, and Lordship, 22.75 Hudson, Land, Law, and Lordship, 20–21. Cases of a tenant forced to forfeit land back to the lord were, however, rare.76 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 644. For the preceding case in the plea rolls, see PRO JUST 1/952, mem.1.77 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 644.78 From the final concord and plea roll alone, it is difficult to judge whether this case was collusive or genuinely contested. It seems likely that Christiana may have held this tenancy during the life of the three sisters’ father, which they challenged after his death.79 Oliver, Northumberland and Durham, case 111. Peter de Malo Lacu, also known as Peter de Maulay, agreed to the terms along with his wife Isabella.80 On the importance of performance in the courtroom, particularly audience response and mood, see Julie Stone Peters, Law as Performance: Theatricality, Spectatorship, and the Making of Law in Ancient, Medieval, and Early Modern Europe, Oxford, 2022, 93.81 Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines: Henry II and Richard I’, 20–29 Henry III, no.81; for similar examples, see ‘Lancashire Fines’, 20–29 Henry III, no.63 and Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, vol. 2, 34 Henry III no.96.82 For additional examples, see Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 616; Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, vol.2, 30–33 Henry III no.28.83 Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines: Henry II and Richard I’, 20–29 Henry III, no.63. On Henry de Walley, see ibid., n.2. Henry married into the Montalt (alternatively written as Monhaut or Monte Alto) family.84 Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines’, 20–29 Henry III, no.63.85 Peters, Law as Performance, 4.86 On this case as collusive, see below at n.130.87 Oliver, Northumberland and Durham, case 238.88 PRO C 132/34/1; Berkshire Record Office R/AT1/2.89 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 501.90 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 501.91 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 689. This detailed agreement between Prior William of Coventry and Roger de Montalt transferred the homage of one man while excepting the homage of seven others.92 Exceptions could preserve rights granted to (or advocated for within) certain communities, as in this 1249–50 case, which retained some independence for men of the earldom of Coventry. See more detailed discussion of this case below at n.98.93 Technically, a grantor could transfer only the homage and service of a free tenant, and not his person. However, grants in the thirteenth century did not always distinguish between person and service. See J.M. Kaye, Medieval English Conveyances, Cambridge, 2009, 346.94 Hudson, Land, Law, and Lordship, 59.95 Dodwell, Feet of Fines for the County of Norfolk, case 187. A similar case from 1199–1200 is Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 57.96 van Caenegem, English Lawsuits, vol.2, case 596.97 van Caenegem, vol.2, case 596. ‘Willelmus devenit homo prefati Philippi in curia domini regis’.98 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 689.99 P.R. Coss, 'Coventry before Incorporation: A Re-Interpretation', Midland History 2 (1974), 137, at 137.100 Richard Goddard, Lordship and Medieval Urbanisation: Coventry, 1043–1355, Woodbridge, 2004, 98; Coss, ‘Coventry before Incorporation’, 137; J. Röhrkasten, 'Conflict in a Monastic Borough: Coventry in the Reign of Edward II', Midland History 18 (1993), 1, at 3–4.101 Coss, 'Coventry before Incorporation', 140.102 Richard Vaughan, Matthew Paris, Cambridge, 1958, 128; Goddard, Lordship and Medieval Urbanisation, 98.103 Coss, ‘Coventry before Incorporation’, 137–140.104 Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 689.105 Hyams, ‘The Charter as a Source for the Early Common Law’, 179.106 Bedos-Rezak, ‘Medieval Identity’, 1508–1509.107 Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines: Henry II and Richard I’, 7 Richard I, no.116.108 Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines’, 1–12 John, nos.46 and 48.109 Farrer, ‘Lancashire Fines’, 7 Richard I, no.116; 1–12 John, nos.46 and 48.110 Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, vol. 2, 30–33 Henry III no.28.111 H. Summerson, ‘The King’s Clericulus: The Life and Career of Silvester De Everdon, Bishop of Carlisle, 1247–1254’, Northern History 28, 1992, 70, at 81–82.112 Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, vol. 2, 30–33 Henry III no.28.113 Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, vol.2, 40 Henry III, no.1.114 An example of a preceding charter is Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, vol.2, xli and 311; Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, vol.1, case 78.115 Oliver, Northumberland and Durham, no.7; Feet of Fines of the Tenth Year of the Reign of King Richard I. A.D. 1198 to A.D. 1199 (Pipe Roll Society 24), London, 1900, no.79.116 William Fraser, The Annandale Family Book of the Johnstones, Earls and Marquises of Annandale, Edinburgh, 1894, 1–2.117 I take my account of this family history from David Gilmour, ‘Historical Research Notes: Bekesbourne and the King’s Esnecca 1110–1445’, Archaeologia Cantiana 132 (2012), 315, at 320.118 Audrey M. Woodcock, Cartulary of St. Gregory’s Priory (Camden Third Series 88), London, 1956, 29–30.119 van Caenegem, English Lawsuits, vol.2, case 620.120 van Caenegem, vol.2, case 620. ‘non sunt rationabiliter date sed injuste’.121 van Caenegem, vol.2, case 620. ‘ … quos ego multociens super eadem ecclesia injuste vexavi’.122 van Caenegem, vol.2, case 620. ‘penitens et veniam postulans de injusta vexatione me deinceps illos in hac parte nullatenus vexaturum coram Deo et facie ecclesie fideliter spopondi’.123 Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, vol.2, xl.124 PRO WARD 2/16/531/25; Warrington Archives MS 422.125 PRO E 40/2237.126 J.M. Kaye, Medieval English Conveyances, 185 and 195.127 J.H. Round, ‘The Earliest Fines’, 12 The English Historical Review (1897), 293, at 298–301; Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, xxxix-xl. For a later, Scottish example, see PRO ZSW/1/22.128 Foster, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln, xxxix.129 H.C. Maxwell Lyte, ed., Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III, 1242–1247, 15 vols., London, 1916, vol.5, 353.130 Oliver, Northumberland and Durham, case 238. This is the same case as mentioned above at n.86.131 Edward Bateson, A History of Northumberland Issued Under the Direction of the Northumberland County History Committee, 15 vols., Newcastle upon Tyne, 1895, vol.2, 16–17.132 Oliver, Northumberland and Durham, case 238; PRO DL 10/88.133 Irene Josephine Churchill and Frank W. Jessup, Calendar of Kent Feet of Fines, to the End of Henry III’s Reign (Kent Records), Ashford, 1956, 103; Canterbury Cathedral Archives CCA-DCc-ChAnt/1/132.134 William and Eustace were first cousins once removed, whose families had a history of minor disputes over inherited property. David Gilmour, ‘Bekesbourne and the King’s Esnecca 1110–1445’.135 See above at n.117.136 Churchill and Jessup, Calendar of Kent Feet of Fines, 103–104; Canterbury Cathedral Archives CCA-DCc-ChAnt/1/131.137 Canterbury Cathedral Archives CCA-DCc-ChAnt/1/81.138 Canterbury Cathedral Archives CCA-DCc-ChAnt/1/82.139 CCA-DCc-ChAnt/1/82.Additional informationNotes on contributorsMeghan WoolleyMeghan Woolley is a Post-Doctoral Research Associate at the Purdue University Writing Lab. Her research areas include the history of emotions, politics, and law in Angevin England. She holds a Ph.D. from Duke University and an M.Litt. from the University of St Andrews.