John Hooker was one of England's earliest local historians. Like others with an interest in preserving local tradition – such as Andrew Horn (chamberlain of London), Robert Ricart (town clerk of Bristol) and Nathaniel Bacon (recorder of Ipswich) – Hooker was in a privileged position of access to documentary evidence, having served as chamberlain at Exeter from about 1555 until his death in 1601. He also served in other posts, such as city coroner, recorder, and M.P., and was one of the founders of the guild of merchant adventurers at Exeter, incorporated 1559. The family, which had earlier also used the surname Vowell, was prominent in the city and had supplied past mayors and parliamentary representatives, so family pride in the city underlay Hooker's motivation for compiling his historical studies ca.1575, which grew out of his efforts to calendar the city records. His pamphlets were intended only for local distribution, and it was not until two centuries later that some of his writings received wider publication. The above extracts are not directly from Hooker, but from a regurgitated version by an unidentified author, who also made use of the studies of other local antiquarians.

Hooker also commissioned from Remigius Hogenberg, in 1587, one of the earliest maps of Exeter (based on the Braun and Hogenberg map of 1563). This birds-eye view illustrates some of the economic aspects of the city: notably the use of the river for shipping, fishing and powering mills; like his history, the map celebrates the wealth and status of the city. He wrote other works, such as a biography of Sir Peter Carew, servant to the Tudor monarchs, whom Hooker accompanied on an expedition to Ireland and chronicled the event; he even sat as a member of the Irish parliament.

His interests and his commitment to the city inevitably colours what he produced, or commissioned, for future generations. Nonetheless his works, particularly those still unpublished, continue to be a valued source of information for modern historians.

Although Hooker asserted (without any explicit evidence, as he admitted) that Exeter was founded by the descendants of the legendary Trojan fugitive Brutus, this was part of a broader trend of aggrandizement of certain English cities, by ascribing as much antiquity as possible to them, just as FitzStephen had done for London, and as also evidenced at York and a number of other large towns. In fact, part of the site of future Exeter was a British settlement straddling a ridgeway route, part of which would become the later High Street; this settlement was of modest size yet there is evidence some of its residents were involved in international commerce, and it was important enough – perhaps even a tribal capital [W.G. Hoskins, Two Thousand Years in Exeter, rev.ed., Chichester: Phillimore, 2004, p.3] – to be described as an oppidum by the Roman invaders, and to be converted by them into the base of a legion assigned to the subjugation of the southwest. It took the 'Isca' part of its Latin name from a Celtic word meaning a flowing or a fish-stocked river, referring to the Exe, by which the site of the fortress had a strategic position, commanding a ford. Once the region was subdued, the legionnaires were replaced by colonists and Exeter became a provincial city.

It was however largely depopulated after the collapse of imperial rule, but the seeds of revival were sown with the building of a monastery there in the late seventh century, later (1050) to become a cathedral. Thanks to the Romans, Exeter was provided with an earthen bank and stone wall long before the reign of Athelstan. The crediting of Athelstan by Hooker and later writers with replacing ditch/bank fortifications with a strong new stone wall with numerous towers, and the assumption that the castle was built at the same time, reflects imperfectly the historical fact of the re-establishment of urban settlement in the time of King Alfred, when it became one of a handful of burhs in Devon and a mint was set up there. The old Roman wall was strengthened and heightened at some point in the late Anglo-Saxon period. But the walls and gates that Hooker saw are to a large extent the product of the later Middle Ages (wall-building with financial support from the king being evidenced as early as 1215-18), while the castle owes its existence to William the Conqueror. He felt the need to assure Norman control of the city after its residents rejected his authority in 1067 – at which time the existing walls were strong enough to withstand an eighteen-day siege.

Hooker's description of Exeter shows two particular preoccupations. One was the city's water supply. In this he has a common interest with FitzStephen, who also praises the quality of springs just outside London, but Hooker's account illustrates how by the close of the Middle Ages, civic effort was in a number of towns being organized towards piping in water supplies. As a member of local government, it is not surprising that Hooker should point a finger proudly at this achievement.

His other preoccupation also follows naturally from his close involvement in city affairs and fortunes, and that concerns the management of commerce through the port. The political power of families such as his was built, in most cases, on successful commercial dealings. Exeter was one of the more important towns in England, despite having a relatively small population. There were perhaps only about 2,000 inhabitants at the time of the Conquest, and little more than 3,000 by the late fourteenth century. But the city prospered thanks to its roles as administrative centre (both secular and ecclesiastical), regional market centre, and as one of the country's leading ports. During the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries it expanded to the point where by Hooker's time it was one of the top provincial centres, thanks largely to Exeter (and the southwest generally) benefiting more from overseas commerce, which helped stave off the economic malaise affecting much of England. Hooker's statement about the pre-eminence of merchants in Exeter society has been confirmed by modern analysis of the character of the urban elite.

So again it is not surprising that the story of the feud between the city and the Courtenays should loom large in Hooker's narrative, or that the author should take the city's part. The story behind the rift, to which Hooker only alludes in the Description – for most of his research remains unpublished, though heavily used by later writers – was that, in 1309 on a day when fish were in short supply in the city market, a quarrel broke out between a servant of the earl and a servant of the bishop as to who should be able to buy the available supply. The argument escalating to draw in some of the citizens, who also wished to buy fish, the mayor – to avoid a riot – made an official decision that one share should be sold to the earl's servant, one share to the bishop's, and a third share reserved for purchase by the citizens. The earl, unhappy at this judgement, came to his house in the city and summoned before him the mayor, who took with him some of the citizens for protection. When earl and mayor were sequestered, a stormy argument between them ensued, and the mayor cast off his topcoat which bore the earl's livery, so as to renounce his obligations to the earl. The citizens outside, hearing the hubbub, tried to break in to rescue the mayor. The earl let the mayor out, but thereafter bore a grudge. We need not take the legend at face value, although not implausible, but it reflects an underlying dispute over authority, and over the city's effort to break free of seigneurial influence, not only of the earl but also of the bishop.

In fact, the problems between Exeter and the Courtenays over obstruction of the river arose in the 1240s, and it became necessary to use Topsham (which was under the earl's lordship, and thereby enabled him to claim a share in tolls taken there) as its outport, as the Romans had, although lighters were able to continue on to the city until the earl entirely blocked the river. The earl had lordship over the castle fee. He was also in dispute with the city over Exe Island and a suburb along the river, over which he claimed lordship; authority there would give him some control over navigation along the river. It had been at the orders of the countess, in the 1280s, that the river was first seriously blocked with a weir, to power her mills on either side of the river; although a thirty-foot gap was left, this action would have impacted on navigability, and thereby the city's fishery and its revenues from tolls. It was this gap that Earl Hugh filled, in 1311. In the 1330s there were fresh disputes, over tolls from a fair.

It was not so unusual either for a landed aristocratic family like the Courtenays to act outside the law, or for urban government to contest with local landlords for jurisdiction and associated control of revenues. Yet they were the most powerful family in Devon and, despite the feud, the city felt it politic to send leading members of the family gifts each year, as well as appoint Courtenay retainers to certain city offices (e.g. steward). Nonetheless, when the Lancastrian earl was attainted by Edward IV, the city took the opportunity to try to re-assert authority over the suburb previously held by the earl, and thereby regain some control over the river. Again, it was the execution of another Courtenay, in 1538, that gave the city opportunity to win royal permission to open up the blockage by the weir, although silting of the river made this effort fruitless. The challenge posed by Topsham was finally overcome by digging, in the Elizabethan period, a canal and creating another weir to feed water from the Exe into it; the canal was enlarged at the close of the seventeenth century so that sea-going ships could once more reach Exeter's quayside.