Teaching Resources for the Black Death

Resource task taken from the TES website:

How did people react?

People’s reactions depended on what they thought had caused the plague.

Read the reactions in the table below.  What might the people reacting like this have believed about the causes of the plague (you can tick more than 1)

 

	Bad air	Person to person	Punishment by God
People say you should carry sweet smelling herbs	x
I have heard that you should burn the plague victims’ clothes	x	x
People are walking  through the streets of London whipping themselves and praying			x
The Bishop of Winchester has run away			x
Some plague victims have been locked in their own homes		x
Rich people have left London to go to the country side where there is less infection	x	x

This table helps to gauge contemporary reactions to the plague and perceptions of how and why it was spread.

The Plague song

I have just found this video on youtube.  It is a parody of Gwen Stefani’s “Hollaback Girl” – quite disturbing but also quite catchy!  I’m not sure if I would use it in a lesson but I think if I had a class which I think would respond to it I might be tempted to try it.  I could perhaps print out the lyrics which we could then annotate together highlighting the symptoms described, the consequences of the plague, how it was spread, perceptions about why it arose etc.

Art

The Plague led to a preoccupation with mortality and death.  In art this was displayed in two specific forms.

1.       The Three Living and the Three Dead

The Story of the Three Living and the Three Dead was popular in the centuries following the Black Death.  This image, taken from the De Lisle Psalter illustrates its significance.  Three living brothers who are bedecked with earthly possessions meet three skeletal figures who are covered in shrouds and being feasted on by maggots (I love medieval art!).  The dead warn the living, ‘“I was well and fair and so shall you be like me.  As I am, you so shall be”, illustrating the triviality of excess in life.



The Three Living and Three Dead, De Lisle Psalter



2.       Cadaver Tombs

Cadaver or Transi tombs were effigies which exhibited two bodies – one living and one dead.  Primarily adopted by ecclesiastical individuals, the contrast between the living and the decomposing body acted as a memento mori for the living, reminding the viewer of the inevitability of death and the triviality of earthly possessions.  This is a photograph of Archbishop Chichele’s tomb in Canterbury Cathedral. Although Chichele died in 1443 his tomb was erected seventeen years before this, allowing him to observe his own fate and complete intercessory prayers to help move his soul through purgatory.

Tomb of Archbishop Chichele (d. 1443), Canterbury Cathedral

Warwick Castle

Also, as a side note my family and I visited Warwick Castle to experience everything Medieval!  It was a fantastic day out and extremely educational – definitely a must for a school trip.  While we were there we met the ‘singing plague victims’ who told us tales of their symptoms and even gave me my own plague baby!

The Black Death

The Plague arose in central Europe during the 14^th century.  It swept across the continent, causing an estimated third of the population of Europe to die within three years.  Also known as the Black Death, the Bubonic Plague and the Great Pestilence, the plague was a fast killing pandemic and the medieval inhabitants of Europe were lost as to what had caused it and how it spread.  Attempts were made across Europe to dispose of the dead in an attempt to prevent infection, yet the living found it difficult to bury the dead quickly enough, leading to the burial of the dead in mass graves.  The phrase 'there were hardly enough living to care for the sick and bury the dead' was repeated throughout the period.

William Dene wrote:

‘This mortality devoured such a multitude of both sexes that no one could be found to carry the bodies of the dead to burial, but men and women carried the bodies of their own little ones to church on their shoulders and threw them into mass graves from which arose such a stench that it was barely possible for anyone to go past the churchyard’.  [Source: Schama, p. 230]

What was the Plague and how did it spread?

The bubonic form of the Plague was spread by fleas which were carried by rats.  As the opening up of trade routes across Europe grew as the result of commercialisation, rats were able to spread from Asia to Europe, bringing with them the plague bacteria.  The earliest records of the plague dates to 1338 where its presence in Issyk Kul, present day Kyrgyzstan, is noted.  By 1343 it had spread to Theodosia and by 1348 had spread across the Mediterranean to English shores.  Once it had reached London, the pneumonic form which was spread from person to person was also rife.  The spread of the disease through the city (which had a population of c. 100,000) was aggravated by close living conditions and poor sanitation.  The Scottish took advantage of the plague, raiding Durham in 1349 while the English were weak.  As a consequence, however, the returning soldiers took the plague back with them.  It spread to Wales and Ireland the same year.

The symptoms

-          black pustules which appeared on the armpits and groin which could swell to the size of an apple

-          swelling of the lymph nodes (called buboes)

-          fever

-          deliriousness

-          vomiting blood

Myths about the plague

During the Medieval period people were unsure as to what had caused the Black Death and how it was spread.  Several suggestions were posed:

-          Many blamed the sins of man for the plague, viewing it as the wrath of God on Earth.  This led to the production of images which depicted the coming of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

-          Others in Europe blamed the Jews for purposefully infecting wells (although in England there were no Jewish inhabitants, having been expelled from the country in 1290 by Edward I).

-          Fears that it was spread from person to person meant that bodies were disposed of quickly (where possible)

-          Others saw squalid living conditions as the source, with human and animal waste infecting the air

Remedies

Attempts to stave off the Black Death were extremely varied.  Some physically tried to outrun the Plague, leaving the more densely populated cities for the countryside.  Others carried sweet-smelling herbs to try and clean the air around them to prevent infection. 

The Aftermath

-          Between a third and a half of the population of England died as a result of the Black Death

-          The plague reoccurred several times between 1348 and 1400, evoking an environment of fear

-          Before the Plague there had been a population explosion.  This meant that workers were forced to work for lower wages as they competed with their fellow men for positions.  The rapid decline in the population following the Black Death, however, had the opposite effect.  Fewer workers meant that they held the power to negotiate wages and working conditions.  As a consequence, the wages of workmen rose after the pandemic despite legislation trying to control it: workmen knew that there were less of them and thus they were more valuable and so exploited this fact.  Even the King had to break his own law to keep his own workers as there were large numbers of deserters.

-          People died without having the last Sacraments of the Church administered as there were literally not enough healthy Priests to serve their congregations – Churchmen being disproportionately hit by the plague.  In 1349, it was agreed that the last rites could be given to a member of the laity.  Schama suggests that this led to a crisis of confidence in the Church as many possibly felt abandoned by them.

Teaching resources for the Magna Carta

The TES website has some really helpful resources which I could use to help teach the Magna Carta to a year seven class. 

The first worksheet has a flowchart which depicts the events which contributed to the formation of the Magna Carta, making the various grievances of the barons easily decipherable.  There are then questions which help the students to engage with the material which will have previously been discussed in class:

Another worksheet which I have found helps to easily divide the effects of each part of the Magna Carta up in a tick-box table:

 

I think that this is quite useful in highlighting the intentions and effects of the Magna Carta, making the information more accessible and more easy to understand.  It would also be pertinent to highlight the influence of the Magna Carta here, as by identifying its role in the formation of the American Constitution and the myth of Robin Hood as representative of the turmoil of King John’s reign, the relevance of the document to the present day may make the information more engaging for the students.

King John (r. 1199-1216) and the Magna Carta

In contrast to his elder brother, John is not seen as a military hero but is often viewed as incompetent and notorious for making bad decisions.  Even upon his coronation at Westminster Abbey on 27^th May 1199 there were doubts as to John’s right to rule, many arguing that Arthur, Duke of Brittany and the son of his late brother Geoffrey, was the next in line.  Traditionally, the crown would have passed to Arthur if Richard had not named John as his successor and consequently, Arthur refused to recognise John as the lawful King of England and Duke of Normandy.  This post will explore the various events which led to the formation of this perception of John, resulting in the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215.

The loss of Normandy

John is often attributed to having lost the kingdom which was established during the reign of William I, in which the King of England also held the position of the Duke of Normandy.  This position was strengthened by Henry II and his addition of the lands of Aquitaine in Southern France, yet by the end of John’s reign, he had lost his French lands in Normandy.

 

Phillips suggests that John’s marriage to Isabella of Angoulême in 1200 was the first factor which aided this loss of land.  Isabella was just twelve years old when she married John and had been betrothed to Hugh de Lusignan, a French baron.  Lusignan appealed to King Philip of France for help, but when summoned by Philip to answer the charges levelled against him, John refused to attend.  As the Duke of Aquitaine John was answerable to Philip, although Ibeji suggests that John would have viewed this relationship as a ‘mere formality’ rather than a power which could actually be put in to use.  Philip did exert his influence, however, in 1202 naming John a “contumacious vassal” and stripping him of all his French lands.

The murder of Arthur

During the dispute between John and the French nobles which resulted from this, Arthur was captured at Mirebeau Castle by John’s men, which Schama argues proved John to be as capable in military action as his brother despite his nickname ‘Swordsoft’.  Arthur, only twelve years old at the time, was murdered whilst being kept hostage.  Contemporary accounts suggest that John ‘slew him with his own hand’, but the reliability of this is uncertain.  Nevertheless, the rumours of John’s brutality meant that John lost the support of the barons of Normandy and Anjou and the inhabitants of Brittany.

Dispute with the Church

Following the death of the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1206, John refused to accept Pop Innocent III’s  choice of Stephen Langton as his successor.  The result of this dispute was that John was excommunicated by the Pope in 1209.  This placed him in precisely the position of inferiority and vulnerability to the Church which his father, Henry II, had wished to abolish.  English people were held under Church Law, which stated that no marriage or Christening would be deemed legal until the Pope removed this constraint.  John retaliated by taxing the Church and confiscating some of its lands. 

John consequently agreed to give England to the Pope, declaring it a fiefdom of the Church, meaning that England was now a vassal to Rome.  Schama suggests that rather than viewing this as a failure of John’s reign, it mean that he now had the support of the Church, therefore in actuality strengthening his position.

The angering of the Barons and the Battle of Bouvines

With the Pope on his side, John decided to invade France once more.  In order to do this he needed the support of his Barons to either fight or pay towards the cause.  This angered many who disagreed with John’s intentions and did not want to support him.  John’s campaign at Bouvines in 1214 was unsuccessful and returning from France, John found that many of the Barons were unwilling to pay further money towards his exploits.

John and the Magna Carta



The Magna Carta



In 1215, the Barons launched a revolt, presenting John with a list of reforms which they wanted to enforce so as to avoid a full scale rebellion against the King.  They saw it as a peaceful rather than revolutionary move, intended to allow negotiation between the disillusioned Barons and the King.

John gave his seal to the Articles of the Barons at Runnymede in 1215.  This was a list of demands which were then used to form The Magna Carta (which means ‘Great Charter’) on 15^th July and was most probably drafted by the Archbishop Stephen Langton.  The Magna Carta consisted of 63 chapters which were intended to rectify what were perceived as Royal abuses of power towards the Barons, the Church, merchants and ‘free-men’.  Rather than giving Englishmen more rights, however, the Magna Carter intended to greatly diminish the ability of the King to abuse his position, making the monarch subject to law just like everyone else.  It was certainly not an attempt to overthrow the monarchy.

What did the Magna Carta contain?

The Magna Carta gave protection to the Barons, aided the creation of English law and secured the position of the Catholic Church as separate from the monarchy in England.  Some of the main points were:

-          the King needs to consult his Lords if he was to raise taxes

-          all freemen are to have a trial by Jury

-          the King cannot interfere with the Catholic Church

Why did John agree to it?

John did not intend to abide by the Magna Carta in the long term, but agreed to it so as to ‘demonstrate his reasonableness’ to those barons who were undecided as to whether they were going to support the King or join the inevitable uprising against him.   

Just three months after the Magna Carta was signed by John and declared void by the Pope, the King reclaimed Rochester Castle from the barons.  In response, they rallied around Prince Louis, the son of the French King Philip in the hope to establish him as the next King of England once John had been overthrown.  These plans were rendered void, however, when on October 18^th 1216 John died of dysentery.  The barons then rallied around Henry III, John’s son, supporting him instead of Louis as the next King of England.

King Richard I (r. 1189-1199)

Both Ibeji and Schama highlight the traditional tendency of historians to divide King Richard and King John into opposite categories which portray Richard as the ‘good’ King and his brother John as ‘bad’.  The perception is somewhat limited, however, as each King can be argued to have possessed different strengths and weaknesses.  This post will focus on King Richard and the next will focus on the reign of King John.

King Richard is often referred to as Richard the Lionheart, making reference to his extensive military campaigns whilst on Crusade: he actually only spent six months out of his ten year reign in England.  Ibeji suggests that this removal from courtly life enabled Richard to develop the persona of a ‘warrior King’, whilst also ensuring that he was far enough removed from governance that unpopular measures could be distanced from his own hand, making him a popular figure.  There is evidence to suggest that Richard did not speak a great deal of English, suggesting that one of the country's most celebrated monarchs in actuality had little interest in the role of King of England himself.

Following his coronation of 3^rd September 1189, Richard stipulated that John was to remain in France for three years whilst he was on the Third Crusade (1190-92), fearing that his brother might attempt to take advantage of his absence.  On his mother’s advice, Richard retracted this command, allowing John back into the country.  John consequently acted as Richard had predicted.  He drove William Longchamps, the Bishop of Ely who had been appointed Chief Justiciar in Richard’s absence, into exile, scheming with King Philip of France how Richard’s empire could be divided between the two of them.  As Ibeji describes, John aimed to ‘set himself up as King in all but name’. 

Eleanor of Aquitaine prevented John from carrying out his plans and upon hearing the news, Richard returned from the Holy Land.  He was captured by Duke Leopold of Austria upon his return but was freed in 1193 after paying a ransom which equated to a quarter of each worker's yearly salary.  Richard forgave John’s attempts to usurp him, possibly viewing John as a weaker, somewhat piteous man who had failed in his efforts to match his own prowess and in 1194 returned to the Holy Land.  Richard died in 1199 in France after having been shot in the shoulder with an arrow. 

Teaching Thomas à Becket

I think that there are many ways in which I could teach this topic to a year seven/eight class which would help them to engage with the information whilst also helping to build analytical skills when approaching sources.  I have found some sources which I think would be really useful to explore in class:

1.       Extract taken from ‘The Life of Thomas Becket’ by Edward Grim (1180)

“After the monks took [Thomas] through the doors of the church, the four aforementioned knights followed behind with a rapid pace. A certain subdeacon, Hugh the Evil-clerk, named for his wicked offense and armed with their malice, went with them - showing no reverence for either God or the saints because by following them he condoned their deed. When the holy archbishop entered the cathedral the monks who were glorifying God abandoned vespers - which they had begun to celebrate for God - and ran to their father whom they had heard was dead but they saw alive and unharmed. They hastened to close the doors of the church in order to bar the enemies from slaughtering the bishop, but the wondrous athlete turned toward them and ordered that the doors be opened ... Without delay the sacrilegious men entered the house of peace and reconciliation with swords drawn ... "Where is Thomas Becket, traitor of the king and kingdom?" No one responded and instantly they cried out more loudly, "Where is the archbishop?" Unshaken he replied to this voice as it is written, "The righteous will be like a bold lion and free from fear," he descended from the steps to which he had been taken by the monks who were fearful of the knights and said in an adequately audible voice, "Here I am, not a traitor of the king but a priest; why do you seek me?" And [Thomas], who had previously told them that he had no fear of them added, "Here I am ready to suffer in the name of He who redeemed me with His blood; God forbid that I should flee on account of your swords or that I should depart from righteousness." ... The murderers pursued him and asked, "Absolve and restore to communion those you have excommunicated and return to office those who have been suspended." To these words [Thomas] replied, "No penance has been made, so I will not absolve them." "Then you," they said, "will now die and will suffer what you have earned." [and] ... With rapid motion they laid sacrilegious hands on him, handling and dragging him roughly outside of the walls of the church so that there they would slay him or carry him from there as a prisoner, as they later confessed. But when it was not possible to easily move him from the column, he bravely pushed one [of the knights] who was pursuing and drawing near to him; he called him a panderer saying, "Don't touch me, Rainaldus, you who owes me faith and obedience, you who foolishly follow your accomplices."... He had barely finished speaking when the impious knight, fearing that [Thomas] would be saved by the people and escape alive, suddenly set upon him and, shaving off the summit of his crown which the sacred chrism consecrated to God, he wounded the sacrificial lamb of God in the head; the lower arm of the writer was cut by the same blow. Indeed [the writer] stood firmly with the holy archbishop, holding him in his arms - while all the clerics and monks fled - until the one he had raised in opposition to the blow was severed ... Then, with another blow received on the head, he remained firm. But with the third the stricken martyr bent his knees and elbows, offering himself as a living sacrifice, saying in a low voice, "For the name of Jesus and the protection of the church I am ready to embrace death." But the third knight inflicted a grave wound on the fallen one; with this blow he shattered the sword on the stone and his crown, which was large, separated from his head so that the blood turned white from the brain.”

Teaching the relevance of this source to this class:

I think that some aspects of this source could be quite complex for a KS3 class.  Therefore, it would be beneficial to let the students read through the text individually and see what aspects they can identify by themselves, then go through their ideas on the board by annotating a projection of the text.  After this, the students could then answer questions in their exercise books along the lines of those below.

What is this source? 

An eye witness account of the murder of Thomas à Becket.

Who produced it?

The extract is taken from Edward Grim’s biography of Thomas à Becket.  It was published in 1180, ten years after Becket’s murder.

When was it written and why is this important?

1180 – it is a source which was produced relatively close to the time of the event. 

What does it tell us?  (Give details and quotes).

It reveals the details of the murder, including how Grim himself was injured in the attack and why the Knights have come to find Becket, deeming him a ‘traitor’ and asking him to revoke the excommunication of the bishops: ‘The murderers pursued him and asked, "Absolve and restore to communion those you have excommunicated and return to office those who have been suspended."

What evidence can you find which shows the author’s personal opinions?  What are these opinions?

The source reveals that Grim was very sympathetic towards Becket.  He describes him as ‘wondrous’, ‘brave’ and ‘sacrificial’ whilst the Knights are deemed as ‘sacriligous’ and ‘murderous’, clearly revealing his opinion that Becket was unjustly murdered and was martyred.   

2.       Print of ‘King Henry II whipt by the Popes Order’

I have found some really interesting ideas on the TES website of exercises to make the topic interesting for the class.  I really like one idea put forward which was for students to produce a ‘murder booklet’ in which they play the role of detective and note the possible suspects, motives and events of the murder.  This would help the pupils to place information from the sources and knowledge gained in class into separate sections, charting the reasons for the murder, what happened and the possible reasons for its occurrence.  Below is an example taken from the website which I could adapt for my own lesson:

Another task could be to produce a newspaper article about the murder, including images and quotes from the sources.

Canterbury as a sight of pilgrimage

Nicola Coldstream’s essay ‘Canterbury Cathedral and the Cult of Thomas Becket’ in The History of British Art 600-1600, David Bindman, ed. (London: Tate Publishing, 2008) describes the growth of Canterbury as a site of pilgrimage, stating that following Becket’s canonization, the cathedral became ‘a symbol of the conflict between the secular and ecclesiastical powers’ (p. 70).  Pilgrims came to visit the relics of the saint: Becket’s scalp was displayed in the rotunda behind the high altar and the reliquary containing his relics was placed over his tomb.  It was believed that by visiting Becket’s shrine and the north transept where he was murdered, pilgrims could be alleviated of health complaints and receive miracles in return.  The cathedral was decorated with tributes to Becket, purbeck marble, stained glass accounts of his life and death and the floor mosaic all celebrating the Saint.  Pilgrims could also purchase pilgrim badges as proof of their visit.  Canterbury Cathedral was the destination of the travellers in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (late C14^th).

Henry II and Thomas à Becket

The murder of Thomas à Becket is perhaps the most renowned event of Henry II’s reign.  In my last post, I explored Henry’s attempts to increase control through the legal reforms implemented during his reign and the English move into Ireland.  Yet, Henry’s dealings with the Church were also instrumental to this.   Unlike the Catholic Church, Henry believed in the Divine Right of the King to rule.  This meant that Henry believed that Kings were appointed by God and therefore could not be challenged or deemed as subordinate to another power.  This clashed with the views of the Church and continually created tensions between the two throughout Henry’s reign. 

In June 1162, Henry appointed Thomas à Becket as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Becket having been the King’s chancellor since January 1155.  As the Chancellor acted as the King’s personal chaplain, his secretary-general and the keeper of the royal archives, Henry and Thomas became close friends.  Thus, through the appointment of Thomas à Becket, Henry hoped that he could enforce reforms of the role of the Church with Thomas’ support.  As such, in 1164 Henry proposed the Constitutions of Clarendon which were intended to reassert the power of the monarchy over the Church in England.

What did Henry want to achieve through the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164)?

• The King should have the power to excommunicate Royal officials.
• The Crown would have full control over the communications between the English clergy and Rome.
• Clerics who had already been tried by Church courts could be re-arrested and re-tried in royal courts, in essence overriding the say of the church and suggesting that ‘all free subjects should be treated alike’.

Contrary to Henry’s expectations, Thomas rejected the Constitutions of Clarendon.   Fearing his loss of favour with the King, he attempted to flee England but was recognised as he attempted to get on a boat to France, preventing his escape.  As a result, Thomas was brought to trial in Northampton in October 1164, not on the charge of his attempt to leave the country without Royal permission, but under 3 other accusations:

• Failing to answer the King’s summons
• The improper use of funds when he acted as chancellor
• Treason – as he had tried to appeal to the Pope for help, therefore going over the head of the King 

Following the trial Becket fled to Flanders with his follower Herbert of Bosham and settled at the Cistercian abbey of Pontigny in France.  By 1169, Henry wanted to invite Becket to return to England as he required him in his capacity as the Archbishop of Canterbury to perform the coronation of his son Henry the Younger, wishing to ensure the legitimacy of his succession.  Consequently, the two met at Montmirail on the border of the French and Angevin territories, yet it did not end as Henry had wished, Becket maintaining his original stance.  As a result, Henry the Younger’s coronation was instead presided over by the Archbishop of York in June 1170.

The next time the King and the Archbishop met was on 22^nd July 1170 where Henry persuaded Becket to return to England.  Becket was met with much hostility upon his arrival, from both those within the King’s inner circle and members of the Church who perceived Becket’s escape following his trial as cowardly.  Ignoring warnings against his increasing outspokenness, Becket continued to challenge Henry, condemning the Bishops who had taken part in Henry the Younger’s coronation.  It is recorded that in a moment of anger and frustration, Henry cried, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent Priest?” – a statement which is often cited as the motivation for Becket’s murder.  Schama suggests that Henry’s shout, ‘what miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household who allow their lord to be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!’, was the most instigative element in the Archbishop’s murder, suggesting that no one present would have mistaken Henry’s wish to be rid of Becket.

As such, on 29^th December 1170, Sir Reginald FitzUrse, William de Tracy, Richard le Bret and Hugh de Morville, four of the King’s most loyal Knights, rode to Canterbury, intending to silence the Archbishop.  Becket was warned of their arrival at the Cathedral, yet he left the Cathedral door open so that his congregation would continue to arrive and observe all which ensued.  With two attendants as witnesses, the Knights murdered Becket at half past four in the afternoon, slicing open his head and removing his brain (some juicy info I’m sure KS3 pupils would love!).  The murdered monk was canonised within a year and a half of his murder.

Henry was said to be so crippled by guilt and grief for the death of his once close friend that in July 1174 he crawled bare feet and shirtless up the nave of Canterbury Cathedral in an act penitence, asking the now Saint for forgiveness, and suffering five lashes from each monk who tended his shrine as punishment.

Brief timeline

1154:     Henry is crowned as King of England

1155:     Thomas à Becket is appointed as Henry’s chancellor

1162:     Thomas becomes the Archbishop of Canterbury

1164:     Henry proposes the Constitutions of Clarendon

                Thomas is put on trial at Northampton

                Thomas escapes to Flanders

1169:     Henry and Thomas meet at Montmirail

1170:     On the 29^th December Thomas is murdered in Canterbury Cathedral