¹ I take some comfort from finding the same difficulty in hitting upon the best translation in McIntosh, Marjorie K., “Finding Language for Misconduct: Jurors in Fifteenth-Century Local Courts,” in Bodies and Disciplines: Intersections of Literature and History in Fifteenth-Century England, ed. Hanawalt, Barbara A. and Wallace, David (Minneapolis and London, 1996), p. 99Google Scholar.

² There is a good discussion, however, in Ingram, Martin, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England, 1570–1640 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 286–91Google Scholar.

³ For example, Addy, John, Sin and Society in the Seventeenth Century (London, 1989), pp. 156–57Google Scholar; it is mentioned as a separate category and examples given, however, in Hair, Paul, Before the Bawdy Court: Selections from Church Court Records (London, 1972), p. 246Google Scholar; and in Emmison, F. G., Elizabethan Life: Morals and the Church Courts (Chelmsford, 1973), pp. 25–30Google Scholar.

⁴ The quoted phrase is taken from McIntosh, Marjorie Keniston, Controlling Misbehavior in England, 1370–1600 (Cambridge, 1998), p. 213CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Ex officio c. Coupe, KAO, DRb Pa 2, fol. 15v (1444): “Tenet personas suspectas et extraneas in domo sua et nescitur causa expectationis earum.“ The following abbreviations are used throughout: Archd., Archdeaconry of; BIHR, Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, York; BL, British Library, London; CCA, Canterbury Cathedral Archives, Canterbury; CUL, Cambridge University Library, Cambridge; DRO, Devonshire Record Office, Exeter; Hants. RO, Hampshire Record Office, Winchester; KAO, Kent Archives Office, Maidstone; RO, Record Office; Wilts. RO, Wiltshire Record Office, Trowbridge. All cases cited below are from manuscript court records kept in these or other repositories. The diocese and year are also given in parentheses for each case.

⁶ Ex officio c. Bayes (Rochester, 1604), KAO, DRb Pa 22, fol. 97.

⁷ For example, Ex officio c. William Amyas (Norwich, 1424), Norfolk RO, DCN 67/4; Ex officio c. Christiana Barnett (York, 1404), BIHR, D/C.AB.l, fol. 34; Ex officio c. Margery Lawrence (London, 1497), in Hale, William, A Series of Precedents and Proceedings in Criminal Causes, 1475–1640 (Edinburgh, 1973), p. 50Google Scholar.

⁸ See, e.g., CUL, EDR, Liber B, fol. 19 (1460).

⁹ Karras, Ruth Mazo, “The Regulation of Brothels in Later Medieval England,” Signs 14 (1989): 399–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wunderli, Richard M., London Church Courts and Society on the Eve of the Reformation (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), pp. 92–101Google Scholar.

¹⁰ This accords with the work devoted to the subject, Karras, Ruth Mazo, “The Latin Vocabulary of Illicit Sex in English Ecclesiastical Court Records,” Journal of Medieval Latin 2 (1990): 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 9–13.

¹¹ For example, Ex officio c. Joan Fontans (London, 1471), London Guildhall, MS. 9064/1, fol. 101: “pronuba est et specialiter filie sue”; Ex officio c. Amy Semmyster (York, 1438), BIHR, D/C.AB.l, fol. 92: “est communis pronuba … et presertim inter dominum Willelmum Norton vicarium et Elenam Tisshewener ac Robertum Wright vicarium et Ceciliam de Lahowe.“

¹² For example, Jodocus Damhouder (d. 1581), Praxis rerum criminalium (Antwerp, 1601Google Scholar; reprint, Aalen, 1978), chap. 93, no. 1.

¹³ Ex officio c. Thomas Moyle (Winchester, 1525) Hants. RO, Winchester, Act book 21 M65/C1/2, fol. 120: the charge was “quod habuit nonnullas mulieres impregnatas et suspectas in domo sua.“ He confessed that he had permitted “quandam Margeriam Kynge suspectam in domo sua.“ Another example: Ex officio c. Edith Pers (Canterbury, 1470), CCA, Act book Y.1. 11, fol. 83v, in which the defendant was cited for crimen lenocinii, which when specified was “quod custodit in domo sua virum et mulierem non coniugatos.“

¹⁴ See Poos, Larry and Parker, Sandra Lee, “A Consistory Court from the Diocese of Rochester, 1363–4,” English Historical Review 106 (1991): 654Google Scholar.

¹⁵ I reach this conclusion for two reasons. First, because in medieval ex officio act books there are often prosecutions of servants for sexual relations, but without corresponding prosecutions against the masters for harboring the offense. See, e.g., Poos, and Parker, , “Consistory Court,” p. 651Google Scholar; see also Diocese of Rochester Act book (1445–56), KAO, DRb Pa2, or Diocese of Winchester Act book (1520s), Hants. RO, 21M65/C1/2. Second, because there are more than isolated cases in which defendants pleaded lack of knowledge. For example, Ex officio c. John Cowper (Winchester, 1523), Hants. RO, 21M65/C1/2, fol. 67v, in which he was allowed to undergo compurgation on his allegation that the offense was not suo consensu ac scientia. See also Ex officio c. Katherine Gudbarne (York, 1520), BIHR, D/C.AB.2, fol. 238: “prestitit iuramentum se fuisse innocentem de aliquo lenocinio per earn ad noticiam suam perpetrato in domo suo (sic).“

¹⁶ Ex officio c. Alice Boverlay (London, 1470), London Guildhall, MS. 9064/1, fol. 41v: “pronuba filie sue”; Ex officio c. Joan Foster (London, 1470), London Guildhall, MS. 9064/1, fol. 50v: “et ipsa est pronuba filie sue.“ See also Hanawalt, Barbara, Growing Up in Medieval London (New York, 1993), pp. 122–23Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Ex officio c. John Flaxton (York, 1422), BIHR, Act book D/C.AB.1, fol. 62: “fovet peccatum inter Johannem Henry son de Tenthorp et Aliciam uxorem eiusdem.“ There are similar examples in Quaife, G. R., Wanton Wenches and Wayward Wives: Peasants and Illicit Sex in Early Seventeenth Century England (New Brunswick, N.J., 1979), pp. 151–52Google Scholar.

¹⁸ For example, Ex officio c. Cowper (Winchester, 1523), Hants. RO, Act book 21M65/C1/2, fol. 67v.

¹⁹ Ex officio c. Peter Young (Winchester, 1525), Hants. RO, Act book 21M65/C1/2, fol. 118v.

²⁰ See Stone, Lawrence, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500–1800 (New York, 1977), pp. 98–99Google Scholar; Fletcher, Anthony, Gender, Sex and Subordination in England, 1500–1800 (New Haven, Conn., 1995), pp. 102–4Google Scholar, with sources cited therein.

²¹ Ex officio c. Thomas Hellyer (Winchester, 1578), Hants. RO, Act book 21M65/C1/20, s.d. 8 February. Other examples: Ex officio c. Richard Bickerstaffe (Chester, 1619), Cheshire RO, Chester, EDV 1/21, fol. 6v: “for harbouring his daughter a fornicatrix”; Ex officio c. Elizabeth Dunoulde (Ely, 1592), CUL, EDR D/2/18, fol. 128: “for receiveinge her daughter into her house beinge greate with child”; Ex officio c. Henry Maile (Bath and Wells, 1623), Somerset RO, Taunton, Act book D/D/Ca 236, s.d. 15 September (defendant's sister); Ex officio c. Walter Holmes (Worcester, 1613), Hereford & Worcester RO, Worcester, Act book 802 BA 2884, fol. 100 (daughter).

²² Such cases come from virtually every part of England: Ex officio c. John Millerde (Bath and Wells, 1621), Somerset RO, Taunton, Act book D/D/Ca 224, fol. 1; Ex officio c. John Stoakes (Bristol, 1603), Bristol RO, Act book EP/J/1/12, s.d. 5 June; Ex officio c. Edward Davell (Canterbury, 1582–83), CCA, Act book X.2.1, fol. 87; Ex officio c. Calcott (a woman) (Chester, 1598), Cheshire RO, Chester, Act book EDV 1/20, fol. 41v; Ex officio c. William Worsfold (Chichester, 1613), West Sussex RO, Chichester, Act book Ep I/17/15, s.d. 11 December; Ex officio c. William Robson (Durham, 1612), Library of Dean and Chapter, Durham, DCD SJC/3, fol. 69; Ex officio c. Edmund Webster (Ely, 1606), CUL, EDR B/2/26, fol. 7v; Ex officio c. William Done (Archd. Essex, 1638), Essex RO, Chelmsford, Act book D/ABA 9, fol. 10; Ex officio c. Robert Harvye (Exeter, 1621), DRO, Act book Chanter MS. 763, s.d. 6 July; Ex officio c. John Whitney (Hereford, 1608), Hereford RO, Hereford, Act book O/83, p. 123; Ex officio c. William Boughie (Lichfield, 1596), Lichfield Jt. RO, Lichfield, Act book B/C.3/4, s.d. 1596; Ex officio c. Peter de Mawbery (London, 1589), Guildhall Library, London, MS. 9064/13, fol. 27v; Ex officio c. Robert Ellis (Norwich, 1602), Norfolk RO, Norwich, Act book ANW/6/5, s.d. 10 December; Ex officio c. Henry Ledbeater (Archd. Nottingham, 1608), Nottingham University Library, MSS. Dept., Act book A 16, s.d. 20 September; Ex officio c. John Heninges (Rochester, 1603), KAO, Act book DRb Pa 22, fol. 29; Ex officio c. Dawlyn (Archd. St. Alban's, 1593), Hertfordshire RO, Act book ASA 7/15, fol. 28; Ex officio c. Silvester Ellington (Salisbury, 1592), Wilts. RO, Act book D2/4/1/5, fol. 53v; Ex officio c. Ambrose Birche (Winchester, 1578), Hants. RO, Act book 21M65/C1/20, s.d. 1 February; Ex officio c. William Dolphin (Worcester, 1611), Hereford & Worcester RO, Worcester, Act book 802 BA 2884, fol. 52; Ex officio c. Thomas Proctor (York, 1598), BIHR, Y.V/CB.l, fol. 27.

²³ For example, Ex officio c. Matthew Turner (Rochester, 1604), KAO, Act book DRb Pa 22, fol. 102: “We [the churchwardens] present M. Turner for harboringe a woman with child and suffering her to be convayd away before she made satisfaction to the congregation.”

²⁴ See, e.g., Articles of Bishop Richard Vaughan (London, 1605), nos. 31–32, in Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church, vol. 1, ed. Fincham, Kenneth, Church of England Record Society, vol. 1 (Woodbridge and Rochester, N.Y., 1994), p. 36Google Scholar.

²⁵ Ex officio c. Thomas Browne (Peterborough, 1616), Northamptonshire RO, Peterborough, PDR Correction book 41, p. 139. This record is in English, as given in the text in modernized form.

²⁶ Pleas that defendants had acted in response to a request from a third person were sometimes made, but it is not at all clear what effect they had. For example, Ex officio c. Richard Marches (Winchester, 1578), Hants. RO, Winchester, Act book 21M65/C1/20, s.d. 4 October: “He lodged her at the request of Robert Buck, non obstantibus dominus monuit ilium ad purgandum se super suspicione lenocinii se sexta manu.“

²⁷ Ex officio c. John White (Archd. Berkshire), Berks. RO, Reading, Act book D/A2/C.20, fol. 23. See also Ex officio c. Elizabeth Wade (Canterbury, 1618), CCA, Act book X.9.14, fol. 42v: the defendant answered that Mary Miller, “a poore woman,” had been turned out with her infant by her master, “whereupon shee this respondent beinge moved with commiseration of her and her sayd infant shee havinge no place to goe unto and it beinge late in the eveninge and unseasonable weather did meerly out of charity entertaine the said Mary into her house together with her infant.“

²⁸ McIntosh, , Controlling Misbehavior, p. 83Google Scholar. See also Ingram, , Church Courts, pp. 288–89Google Scholar, noting also the frequency with which women paid for being harbored by the defendant.

²⁹ See Beier, A. L., Masterless Men: The Vagrancy Problem in England, 1560–1640 (London and New York, 1985)Google Scholar.

³⁰ See, e.g., Seaver, Paul, “Community Control and Puritan Politics in Elizabethan Suffolk,” Albion 9 (1977): 297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Most of the presentments seemingly proceeded from the churchwardens.

³¹ Ex officio c. Edward Larlane (Archd. Nottingham, 1626), Nottingham University Library, MSS. Dept., Act book A 35, fol. 146. The duration was three days, but the record does not state where the penance was to be carried out.

³² Ex officio c. Thomas Randall (Archd. Canterbury, 1579), CCA, Act book X.2.1, fol. 30, in which the defendant, having admitted the harboring, was recorded as “promittentis emittere eandem a domo citra festum sancti Michaelis proximum.“

³³ For example, Ex officio c. John Grigge (London, 1612), Guildhall Library, London, MS. 9064/17, fol. 42; the defendant contended that as soon as he had discovered the woman, one of his servants, to be pregnant, he rebuked her, and she being “threatened to be punished, she slipte sodenly away for feare of punishment.“ A variant was to have reported the matter promptly to the proper authorities, seemingly after the woman had left the household. See Ex officio c. Avitia Sargent (Exeter, 1622), DRO, Act book Chanter MS. 763, s.d. 6 February; Ex officio c. Silvester Ellington et ux. (Salisbury, 1592), Wilts. RO, Act book D2/4/1/5, fol. 53v, in which the order was conditioned upon the woman's returning; Ex officio c. Peter Mawbery (London, 1589), London, Guildhall Library, MS. 9064/13, fol. 27v, in which the defendant answered that he had already appeared before the constable and churchwardens and offered to produce the offender.

³⁴ For example, Ex officio c. Mayler et ux. (London, 1588), London Guildhall, MS. 9064/13, fols. llv–12: “that they did receave into their howse an [illeg.] woman who was brought to bedd in their howse and was suffered to departe without punishment”; Ex officio c. Roger Sulley (Archd. Nottingham, 1598), Nottingham University Library, MSS. Dept. A 11 (Pt. 2), p. 117: “for suffering one of his servants to be begotten with child by his servant Geo. Braythfourthe and to go from him unpunished.“ He confessed and was ordered to produce the offenders. Other examples: Ex officio c. Thomas Waters (Rochester, 1602), KAO, Act book DRb Pa 22, fol. 5v; Ex officio c. Henry Maile (Bath and Wells, 1623), Somerset RO, Taunton, Act book D/D/Ca 236, s.d. 15 September; Ex officio c. Margaret Thomson (York, 1595), BIHR, V.1595–96.CB.3, fol. 3.

³⁵ Ex officio c. William Jameson (Chester, 1598), Cheshire RO, Chester, EDV 1/20, fol. 83v “harbored a woman incontinent and suffered her to escape unpunished the childe beinge not baptized”; Ex officio c. Angell (Archd. Berkshire, 1584), Berks. RO, Act book D/A 2/c.20, fol. 24: “She stole away unchurched.“

³⁶ Ex officio c. John Millerde (Bath and Wells, 1621), Somerset RO, Taunton, Act book D/D/Ca 224, fol. 1.

³⁷ See Houlbrooke, Ralph, Church Courts and the People during the English Reformation, 1520–1570 (Oxford 1979), pp. 78–79Google Scholar.

³⁸ This led to the Jacobean infanticide statute which provided the death penalty for women who delivered illegitimate children who were found dead, unless the woman involved could prove the child had in fact been stillborn. 21 Jac. I, c. 17 (1624).

³⁹ Ex officio c. William Courteney et ux. (London, 1599), London Guildhall, MS. 9064/15v, fol. 15v.

⁴⁰ Ex officio c. Thomas Blake (Archd. Berkshire, 1584), Berkshire RO, Reading, Act book D/A 2/c.20, fol. 121 (child stillborn).

⁴¹ See also Wrightson, Keith and Levine, Devid, Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling, 1525–1700 (New York, 1979), pp. 126–31Google Scholar.

⁴² Ex officio c. John Locke (London, 1588), London Guildhall, MS. 9064/13, fol. 24. This was a continuation of the medieval practice.

⁴³ Evidence on this point is given in Helmholz, R. H., Roman Canon Law in Reformation England (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 104–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁴ For example, Ex officio c. Matthew Langby (Dean and Chapter of Durham, 1610), Library of Dean and Chapter, Durham, Act book, DCD SJC/3, fol. 47v: Ex officio promoto c. John Haines (Archd. Berks., 1640), Berks. RO, Reading, Act book D/A 2/c.80, fol. 6.

⁴⁵ On this theme, see evidence presented in McSheffrey, Shannon, Love and Marriage in Late Medieval London (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1995), pp. 19–20Google Scholar; see also Hanawalt, Barbara A., “Childrearing among the Lower Classes of Late Medieval England,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 8 (1977): 20–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Terling Revisited,” in Keith Wrightson and Devid Levine, Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling, 1525–1700 (Oxford, 1995), pp. 207–8Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Ex officio c. Thomas Cooke (Archd. Durham, 1601), Durham University Library, DDR VIII/1, fol. 63v (unlawful card playing).

⁴⁷ For example, Ex officio c. George Todd (York, 1598), BIHR, Y.V.CB.1, fol. 24v: “for harboringe of Richard Todd being excomunicate.“

⁴⁸ For example, Ex officio Thomas Hunt (London 1611), London Guildhall, MS. 9064/17, fol. 19: “for having people eatinge and drinkinge in his howse at time of Sunday services.“ Sometimes these were combined with sexual license; e.g., Ex officio c. William Westlake et ux. (Exeter, 1621), DRO, Chanter MS. 763, s.d. 6 July: the defendants were cited for being the “principall agents” in allowing young people to meet together, “usinge dancinge drincking and such other pastimes all the night,” conduct which was said to be the cause of at least four bastard children having been born in the parish.

⁴⁹ For example, Ex officio c. Cotton et al. (Chester, 1619), Cheshire RO, Chester, EDV 1/21, fol. 20v: “entertaininge Jesuites.“

⁵⁰ For example, Ex officio c. John Middon (Exeter, 1620), DRO, Exeter, Act book Chanter MS. 763, fol. 43: “for suffering of Richard Southill to teache schole in his house being not licensed for ought we knowe.“

⁵¹ Ex officio c. John Reid (York, 1598), BIHR, Act book Y.V.CB.1, fol. 21: “for sufferinge a butcher to kill flesh in his house in service time.“

⁵² For example, Ex officio c. Flood et ux. (Archd. Norwich, 1592), Norfolk RO, Norwich, Act book ANW/2/31, fol. 27v: “for keping of evill rule in their house and suffereth evil company therein at inconvenient types in magnum scandalum vicinorum suorum.“

⁵³ McIntosh, , Controlling Misbehavior, p. 202Google Scholar. See also Samaha, Joel, Law and Order in Historical Perspective: The Case of Elizabethan Essex (New York and London, 1974), pp. 43–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁴ See also Spufford, M., “Puritanism and Social Control?” in Order and Disorder in Early Modern England, ed. Fletcher, Anthony and Stevenson, John (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁵ McIntosh, , Controlling Misbehavior, p. 186Google Scholar.