Free Medieval Hunting by Richard Almond

truth, no doubt, as particular occupations qualified for satirical comment. John Cummins points out that the physically fragile musket, the male sparrow hawk ‘would suit the holy-water clerk because it hardly eats anything and because its neurotic behaviour would drive a profane layman to perdition’. 77 This is also probably a jibe at the established Church as priests were supposedly forbidden to indulge in hunting or hawking. 78
    However, whether or not the catalogue reflected reality, part-reality or merely the barbed wit of its author is not really the point. What is important is that the list reveals an underlying social comment, which tells us that not only was late medieval society deeply divided into upper and lower strata (common knowledge and hardly new) but that medieval writers felt it was necessary to highlight the division between rich and poor. Whether their illustration is serious or satirical is less important than the underlying social point and this has been successfully communicated to us, the literate audience, for hundreds of years.
    Of course, the list in the Boke of Saint Albans can provide a perfect vehicle for lampooning society, and to the medieval mind birds of prey were ideal subjects for this sort of social satire. There are many different species, each with its own distinct and well-known characteristics which could be compared to members of the ruling élite. Also, like humans, they come in all shapes and sizes, from the huge, imperious eagle to the tiny, delicate merlin. Add to these natural points that hawking was seen as a pastime of the upper classes, and one has all the ingredients necessary for successful hierarchical imagery which can be read on several levels.
    What, then, of the two birds near the end of the list allocated to common men, the goshawk for a yeoman and the tiercel (here, the male of the species) for a poor man? Do these categories indicate that commoners were involved in hawking? The answer is both yes and no. The goshawk was cast off from the fist, and had a reputation for being very highly strung, difficult to man (tame) and keep healthy. However, it would take partridge, pheasant, bustard, hares and rabbits. The goshawk has been called the most dynamic and successful of all hunting birds and John Cummins remarks that they were ‘a great asset to the kitchen, but rather on the level of modern rough-shooting as compared to driven game’. 79 They were very effective hunters but did not possess the ‘nobility’ of the peregrine and gyrfalcon, so in the medieval mind may have been consigned to lesser ranks of men. In The Goshawk , T.H. White, who acknowledges the authority of the Boke of Saint Albans , remarks of his own newly acquired bird ‘a goshawk was the proper servant for a yeoman, and I was well content with that’. 80 However, it is unlikely that the yeman of the Boke would be a landholder of intermediate social status, a man who had to work his land for a living, or an artisan living and working in a town. Rather the term refers to a man of intermediate status employed in an aristocratic household who had the time to hawk, perhaps as part of his employment as an officer of the establishment and companion to his lord. Alternatively, it is a yeoman falconer who is referred to in the Boke and flying a goshawk formed part of his training as a professional falconer in the mews of the lord. 81 This leaves the ‘powere man’ with his goshawk tiercel, a bird of less weight and power, of lesser status than the female and even more difficult to man. The author of the list is using the word ‘poor’ in an ambiguous way. An economically poor man, or a peasant, would not have the means to buy and equip, train and maintain a hunting bird. The phrase ‘poor man’ is therefore most probably one of sympathy for the poor gentleman who has not the means to acquire a decent hunting bird, or the unfortunate mews employee with