Conviviality and charity in medieval and early modern England - response to Judith M. Bennett, Past and Present, no. 134, February 1992

Past & Present, Feb, 1997 by Maria Moisa

Walter of Henley's Husbandry stressed the need to be on good terms with one's neighbours: `Acquaint yourself with loyal and wise folk, and have love for your neighbours, for it is said in French: He who has a good neighbour has a good morrow'.(24) The method was gift- or help-exchange, for giving to neighbours and friends was to receive back: `you should give to him who may do you good or harm', and `according to the person, and to whether your business with him is little or great'. In a separate paragraph, Henley introduced the rationale of giving to the poor, `not for the praise of the world but for the sake of God's praise', in other words, without expecting reciprocity in this life.(25) References to giving to friends and to the poor can be found sometimes in consecutive lines or paragraphs and, at other times, in unrelated passages.

In confessors' manuals, alms to the poor were listed among the works of mercy: `Poor, naked and hungry have you succoured meekly ... [and] prisoners and wayfarers?' But good relations with neighbours were usually found under `Envy', which included, among the sins to be declared, coveting one's neighbour's cows or wife, backbiting, bearing false witness against him, or refusing him the help he had asked for.(26) In an early fifteenth-century poem, the Good Wife advised her daughter:

... and also, for anything that may happen, please well your neighbours who dwell beside you ...

... welcome fair your neighbours, each man after his degree, and help the poor in need.(27)

As was usual, she was prepared to recognize social strata among those to whom she must be hospitable, but she placed `the poor in need' outside such categories.

Against a different economic and institutional background, Tusser's Good Husbandry was still giving some conservative pieces of advice: love, `friendly use' and mutual trust between neighbours were to be practiced, while the poor should be given daily alms.(28) Time and time again a distinction was drawn between giving to neighbours, who would return favours, and to the poor, who could not. Help between friends and neighbours should be placed among the gift and credit institutions rather than under the mantle of charity-almsgiving-poor relief.

The help-ale was one of the ways in which cash circulated locally. Like most medieval credit, help-ale cash was given as a gesture of friendly aid, for which no interest was charged. But credit was expected to come back to the giver in due course:

First, you must give before you are in need, because two shillings before--hand are worth more than ten shillings when they are needed. Second, if you must give or spend, do it with good will so that a thing will be [given back] to you as the double.(29)

As the distinction between gift and loan became sharper, it was possible to apply the same rules to pure loans. This was done by Tusser three centuries later:

... lending to neighbour, in time of his need, wins love of thy neighbour, and credit does breed.(30)

These examples could be multiplied. They persuade us that the English countryside knew forms of exchange within local circles which moved between the gift and the loan, and that both gifts and loans circulated within webs of reciprocity, to be repaid at an uncertain and possibly distant future date. The help of the group was indispensable for having a whip-round or for borrowing money. This is the reason why the medieval poor could not be invited to help-ales. Unable to contribute, they were excluded from membership of the drinking group. They could not afford `the cost of maintaining a place in the gang'.