‘For the honour of that ancient Metropolis’: William Somner’s, The Antiquities of Canterbury (1640)

190 ‘For the honour of that ancient Metropolis’: William Somner’s The Antiquities of Canterbury (1640) avril leach Following the publication of papers on William Somner’s life and scholarly achievements in two recent volumes of Archaeologia Cantiana, this article examines in greater detail his first book, The Antiquities of Canterbury.1 It derives from the CHAS William Urry Memorial Lecture delivered by the author in October 2019. In May 1660, King Charles II returned to England to re-establish monarchy in the wake of civil wars and the Interregnum. As Charles broke his journey from Dover to London at Canterbury, city-born scholar and antiquarian William Somner offered a copy of his first book, The Antiquities of Canterbury, to the king. A detailed and comprehensively researched history of the city, dedicated to Archbishop William Laud by an unapologetic supporter of both church and monarchy, the work had languished since its publication in 1640 on the eve of the country’s descent into the chaotic experience of civil war. Somner’s gift to Charles II symbolically reaffirmed the high reputation and significance of Canterbury as a city with an important ecclesiastic history within a monarchic realm, reinforcing a personal sentiment declared by Somner on the book’s title page, that he had produced his work ‘for the honour of that ancient metropolis’. In typical seventeenth-century style, the first edition title page presents significantly more information than for a modern book (Fig. 1). Indeed, its text encapsulates four major aspects of Somner’s work, thereby providing an informative guide to the study of this work. The first section directs attention to the book’s subject matter and Somner’s general method of presentation; the second points to Somner’s research methods and what he reveals of the city’s history and of the city as he knew it; the third part prompts a consideration of Somner’s motivations for writing, including why he felt his work honoured the city; and the final section links to the book’s material features. Following the lead of the title page, this article considers the result of Somner’s scholarly endeavours, The Antiquities of Canterbury. Somner’s work has lasting merit. Twentieth-century Canterbury Cathedral archivist, William Urry, considered that ‘the volume speaks eloquently for itself and its author’ and The Antiquities has recently been described as ‘the earliest and best and most scholarly of all the historical accounts of an English provincial borough and its great ecclesiastical monuments, and the first intensive study of an ‘FOR THE HONOUR OF THAT ANCIENT METROPOLIS’: WILLIAM SOMNER (1640) 191 English cathedral’.2 Somner’s work was also praised by contemporaries although it has been observed that antiquarian books of the time ‘resound with mutual praise as they salute each other’s accomplishments and urge their colleagues on to new victories’.3 The book, however, remains an important resource for researchers of Canterbury’s history today. Before moving to consider the work in greater detail, it is useful first to set out the publication history of The Antiquities and the context of the book within the framework of Somner’s life. Four noteworthy versions of The Antiquities exist. The first edition of The Antiquities was published in early 1640. A sub-set of these books became a ‘re-release’ of the same work in 1661 under the title The Most Accurate History of the Ancient City, and Famous Cathedral of Canterbury. Unsold 1640 print copies were simply given a new title page, ‘to be pasted over the Fig. 1 The first edition title page of The Antiquities of Canterbury. AVRIL LEACh 192 old Title Page’ and a small number of existing copies present this way, although the two title pages have often separated over time.4 A second edition of The Antiquities was published in 1703, some years after Somner’s death in 1669. This edition incorporates corrections made by Somner in an extant proof copy and was further ‘Revised and Enlarged’, as well as re-organised, by Nicholas Battely, vicar of Bekesbourne. Battely’s edition appended a short pamphlet titled ‘Chartham-News’ detailing ‘some strange Bones there lately digged up’ and ‘some Observations concerning the Roman Antiquities of Canterbury’, both penned by Somner. Battely removed many of Somner’s in-text transcripts to the Appendix, extending it from thirty-seven to seventy-five entries. He further added Cantuaria Sacra as a second part concerning local religious antiquities ‘Enquired into’ by Nicholas Battely and encompassing a series of plates illustrating the cathedral, several of its monuments, and the buildings of St Augustine’s Abbey. The fourth version worth noting is a modern reprint of the second edition (which omits Battely’s Cantuaria Sacra text but includes plates), published in 1977 and significant for the addition of a new introduction to the book by the aforementioned William Urry.5 Urry considered that it may have taken Somner twenty years to compile his book suggesting Somner had begun gathering material – whether intentionally for publication or simply out of interest – from his late teens onwards and likely from the beginning of his working life.6 Somner’s occupational association with the cathedral was reinforced by his personal belief in the church establishment and the monarchy. White Kennet, whose father had known Somner, describes him in 1693, as one who ‘adher’d to his Royal Master, and dar’d to suffer with him’ and having religious conviction ‘arising from a sense of conscience, that no threats or flatteries could move’.7 This stance is clear in his written work. Whilst presenting as a history of Canterbury, The Antiquities is also a tribute to the glory of the church and carries a dedication to his patron and supporter of his ‘High-Church antiquarianism’, Archbishop William Laud.8 The period during which Somner must have completed The Antiquities – the book’s imprimatur is dated 23 October 1639 – overlapped with the death of his parents, the birth of several children and his appointment as Proctor. Printing of the book was certainly complete before 14 April 1640, on which date Somner appeared before Canterbury city corporation to present them with a copy, this event being recorded in the Burghmote court minutes: ‘At this Court Mr William Somner deputie Register to my lorde Grace of Canterbury did present this Citty with a book entituled the Antiquities of Canterbury’.9 It was, however, unfortunate timing as the political and religious landscape was a troubling one with tensions between conservative churchmen and those of a more puritan outlook. In Kent, the county elite were divided between ‘wrestling with the problem of ecclesiastical reformation’ in parliament and the actions of ‘a powerful pressure group’ of puritans.10 Within weeks of the publication of Somner’s book, soldiers were gathering at Bridge Hill just a few miles to the south-east of Canterbury, and in London, Lambeth Palace was being guarded by soldiers.11 By early 1641 Archbishop Laud was in the Tower of London and executed in 1645. Nevertheless, given the strength of Somner’s positive convictions concerning church and monarchy, it seems unlikely that he would have been repentant of his publication or his emphatic dedication to Archbishop Laud. Somner’s three-page dedication to ‘FOR THE HONOUR OF THAT ANCIENT METROPOLIS’: WILLIAM SOMNER (1640) 193 Laud, headlined ‘The Epistle Dedicatory’, and the nine-page Preface to his readers which follows it, are effusive but humble and he textually prostrates himself before them all, signing off the dedication as ‘The meanest of Your Graces Servants’. In contrast, the title page conveys a confident and purposeful sense of his method, motivations, scope of research, and material considerations. somner’s method The title page begins with what we think of today as the book’s title, The Antiquities of Canterbury, but there is an alternative, more explanatory title which follows. The text continues: ‘or A survey of that ancient citie with the suburbs and cathedral’. This longer title alludes to Somner’s chosen method for presenting gathered research as ‘a survey’ and draws attention to the material focus of his work. Here he is careful to make clear that his definition of ‘the city’ stretches to include the cathedral and the city’s extra-mural suburban areas. It is undoubtedly the cathedral which draws Somner’s attention, and his descriptive language reflects this, describing it as the ‘chiefest glory both of the City, and my present survey thereof’.12 Somner self-consciously acknowledges his desire to write at length on the subject by contrasting his work with that of William of Malmesbury. Citing Malmesbury’s brief twelfth-century text on the cathedral he confesses ‘But I canot so contain my self’.13 Indeed, the pedestal upon which he places the cathedral is apparent from the proportion of his book given over to it. The book’s first 150 pages deal with the city, the following 174 pages are devoted to aspects of the cathedral’s history. William Gostling, writing 134 years later, similarly devotes a large proportion of his Walk in and about the City of Canterbury to the cathedral (chapters ten to forty-five of forty-five), an often-repeated pattern of attention for Canterbury ever since the construction of the cathedral within the city walls.14 Despite Somner’s clear desire to showcase the cathedral, nevertheless it is placed within the broad context of his city survey. His approach is distinctly resolute with frequent reference to his ‘method’. In discussion of the city wards he writes: ‘leaving Worthgate, I come now as I promised erewhile, and as the order of my method requires, to Westgate’; when moving on, it is ‘According to my proposed method, coming now to the Suburbs’; and in moving from his survey of the city to the cathedral he states: ‘Having briefly surveyed our Cities Wards, the order of my proposed method requires, in the next place, my survey of the Cathedrall, and Parish Churches of and about the City’.15 The method of his city survey is definitively his own, based on his geographic and historic knowledge of Canterbury but undoubtedly echoes John Stow’s earlier published survey of London (1598) and carries the same sense of a perambulation as set out in Stow’s work and in William Lambarde’s Perambulation of Kent (1576). His use of language confirms this is what is in his own mind as innumerable scattered phrases show: ‘And so I walk on to Worth-gate’; ‘Whereas the more ancient rode and passage into the City from Dover lay by the next Gate, wither I am going’; ‘Come we now to the Castle, to which our passage from the City lay of old by a Bridge’; ‘Yet thither let me leade you, and have your Patience whilest I survey the present Remains of the place’; and ‘Now being upon taking our leave AVRIL LEACh 194 of the Abbey, and making our retraict, let me lead you (as the next way out) over the forgotten Sepulchres of the dead …’.16 This conversational style reinforces for the reader the sense of walking through the city with Somner and of viewing the seventeenth-century city through his eyes. After a table setting out the titles of the seventeen chapters (including the Appendix) of the book, Somner begins The Antiquities with an exploration of the ancient foundation of the city, an acknowledgement of its antiquity and a discussion of the origins of its name, its Saxon identity as a borough of Kent, and the Roman name Durovernum, associating it with ‘a swift river’, the river Stour. It is the river (and mills), along with other large-scale physical features of the city, ‘The City- Wall, and Gates therein’ along with ‘The City-ditch’ and the castle, which are his next port of call, thus setting out the geographical scope of the city through its most ancient landmarks. He is unafraid of admitting to a lack of knowledge about places: ‘Somewhat I have heard of a Ferry sometime at this place [Westgate Street over the Stour], belonging, as I am told, to the Archbishop, who did arrent it out for 16d. per annum. But I have seene no record to warrant the relation, and therefore no more of that untill I be better instructed’.17 His uncertainty concerning the siting of disappeared priory buildings within the cathedral precinct has also been noted, despite his deep knowledge of the city.18 Where he is unable to provide sure, documented evidence for aspects of observed features he makes clear his own considered view. Thus, in his description of Worthgate he begins: Of which I can say but little, and the rather because I am not as yet perswaded to be of their opinion who think that Winchep-gate, that now is, and so called, is the ancient Worthgate. For my part, I rather conceive the gate now disgated sometime leading out of the Castle-yard into Winchep to be Worthgate, because it is both the more ancient Gate in all appearance […] and in its ruins retains the vestigia of a gate […] Besides, by it the road is continued, directly from Castle-street into Winchep, and è contra: whereas Winchep-gate carries no shew of the least antiquitie; and, beside stands wide of Winchep, making the passenger wheel about, and fetch a compasse to come to it.19 The forensic detail of Somner’s awareness of the topography and built environment of his home city is a pervasive feature of his work. Coupled with his own turns of phrase, as at the end of the above quotation, or the metaphorical conveyance of his strenuous search for evidence of the almost disappeared Queningate – ‘I sought as narrowly for it as for Ants-paths’ – it is Somner’s engaging approach to his perambulation which allows an insight into the character of his personality.20 Somner next turns to features of the suburbs, beginning with the range of religious (or ex-religious) properties sited there. From St Augustine’s Abbey, to the east of the city and most anciently established, he moves clockwise around the outskirts of the walls to discuss the history of each of ten establishments in turn: St Martin’s, The Mote, Long-port, The Nunnery of St Sepulchre’s, The Hospital of St Lawrence, St James’s otherwise St Jacob’s Hospital, The Hospital of St Nicholas at Herbaldown, Hakynton, Barton and Jesus Hospital, The Priory of St Gregory’s, and St John’s Hospital, Westgate-Street. As a final suburban step – ‘I have now surrounded the Suburbs’ – he comes to the area of Westgate Street outside the city ‘FOR THE HONOUR OF THAT ANCIENT METROPOLIS’: WILLIAM SOMNER (1640) 195 liberty, ‘therewith to finish my survey of the Suburbs’, before stating ‘and then I shall enter the walls’.21 His treatment of the suburbs is patently logical. The Westgate entrance to the city was the main route into Canterbury from London and therefore significant that he returns here for his imagined step into the city. Once within the city walls – ‘Marching on therefore from the Gate into the City’ – he works his way around the city wards in turn: Westgate, Newingate, Northgate, Worthgate, Ridingate, and Burgate.22 In these sections, he considers the ex-friaries, Eastbridge Hospital, and ‘The Exchange, Mint, Jury, and Guildhall’. Here we learn of his own gathering of found objects: ‘Amongst other pieces of antique (Romane, Britain, Saxon, Danish and Norman) coyne which I have met with and reserve […] I have withall a piece or two of H. 8. [Henry VIII] coyned at Canterbury’.23 In Northgate, he notes that the ward ‘offers and affords three remarkable Places to our Survey’, namely Stablegate, House of the Templars, and the House of the Black Prince’s Chantry Priests.24 He further covers several hospitals, that of the Poor Priests then serving as a Bridewell, Maynard’s Spittal, and Cotton’s Hospital, and goes on to examine the Dungeon or Dane John and the central city marketplace, then known as the Bullstake, on the north side of which is situated the main cathedral gate. At this point in his perambulation Somner’s attention turns to the cathedral. In this section on the ‘Mother church’, he details the history of the cathedral foundation and its fabric, presents ‘A Survey of the present Church’, its monuments, and the surrounding precinct and Archbishop’s Palace. He follows this with three catalogues. The first, a catalogue of archbishops – John Stow having presented a similar catalogue for Bishops of London – begins with Augustine in 596 ‘Whose whole Story is become so trite and vulgar that it needs no repetition’ and continues to William Laud, the contemporary – and seventy-fifth – archbishop, presenting a sentence or somewhat more for each entry.25 A similar treatment is given to the priors of the earlier establishment, Christ Church Priory, from Henry, who was instituted by Archbishop Lanfranc in 1080, to the last prior, Thomas Goldwell, in 1517, and is followed by a more narrative catalogue concerning archdeacons. He finishes the book’s main text with a discussion of parish churches and their monuments, a section on the constitution of ‘Ecclesiastical Government’, and another on ‘Temporal Government’, the latter consisting largely of a list of mayors. Somner completes the work with an Appendix containing thirty-seven transcripts in English and Latin; these are an addition to the many transcribed documents scattered through the main text. The Appendix contains relevant sections of the Domesday Book, foundation grants for chantries, grants of land to noblemen, charitable institutions and the city, various charters, and listings of local manors. Many entries have a religious connection, for example, the form of electing and installing Priors of Christ Church, but Somner also presents civic records, such as the text of an Act of Parliament relating to the paving of Canterbury’s streets. Somner’s own house in Castle Street was physically located just outside the remit of this Act which required those owning houses lining the five main city thoroughfares to repair pavements in front of their houses. His father, however, was at least twice presented in court for street offences during Somner’s youth – in 1623 for ‘annoyance of the high way neare his back gate and stable by sullage’ and in 1628 when he ‘hath layne and doth suffer to ly the doung of his stable’ in St John’s Lane – perhaps prompting the inclusion of such an Act in his book.26 AVRIL LEACh 196 A final section, titled ‘an Epilogue to his Countrey-men’, promotes his plan for a future publication on Kent, and this is followed by ‘The Table’, a twelve-page index of the book’s contents. Some surviving copies include an errata page detailing errors by page and line number and separating out textual and marginal errors. Despite requiring an errata page, throughout The Antiquities Somner’s method of survey and the organisation of his material is logical, precise, and consistent, representing a pedantic and scholarly approach to research and presentation. somner’s research and the city’s history The Antiquities is underpinned by extensive research. The second section of the title page, where Somner expands further still on his title, draws attention to this aspect of his work: Containing principally matters of Antiquity in them all. Collected chiefly from old Manuscripts, Lieger-books, and other like Records, for the most part, never as yet Printed. With an Appendix here annexed: Wherein (for better satisfaction to the learned the Manuscripts, and Records of chiefest consequence, are faithfully exhibited). It is here that Somner sets out his stall as a scholar. He indicates he gathered material from manuscripts and records, ‘primary sources’ in today’s terms. In the text, he specifically points out – as with Appendix item Scriptura xxxj, ‘An abstract out of the Life of St Elphege’ – where documents are ‘never before Printed’ – and is careful to mention this feature of his work on the title page.27 This makes his work appear valuable. By presenting something new to the world, it emphasises that his endeavours with the book are a worthwhile cause and based on real historical records. His Appendix of over 130 pages – ‘An Appendix, containing such Authenticall Instruments, escripts and writings as are quoted and cited in the precedent worke’ – constitutes, very approximately, one third of the book, and he is keen to be clear that he has ‘faithfully exhibited’ transcripts of the original records. His language skills are evident in his transcripts and interpretation of records, using both Latin – still very much in regular use – and the older, Anglo-Saxon language, this research providing a practical grounding for his future publication of the first Anglo-Saxon dictionary (1659). In noting that the records he presents are ‘for the better satisfaction to the learned’, he is not only marking out his imagined readership but placing himself in a position of freely presenting the scholarly community with a generous gift – an early modern expression of honourable giving. Learning his trade as an ecclesiastical lawyer working alongside his father exposed Somner to the range and content of the cathedral’s written records on which he drew for much of his research. Later, his own role within the cathedral institution facilitated further study. His occupational connection with Archbishop Laud and others, for example Laud’s commissary Sir Nathaniel Brent, enabled access to a wide range of documents. It is likely that his ecclesiastic connections also allowed him to obtain the design drawing of the cathedral font, the subject of the third of the book’s three plates (usually placed between pp. 180/181). The font had been paid for by the Bishop of Rochester, John Warner, and newly installed in the cathedral in 1639. The similarity between the plate in The Antiquities and ‘FOR THE HONOUR OF THAT ANCIENT METROPOLIS’: WILLIAM SOMNER (1640) 197 an extant design drawing by John Christmas, now in the V&A Museum, is selfevident though close examination reveals tiny differences.28 For example, the front-facing statue in the pedestal niche is reversed, and the decorative lid statues to left and right have swapped locations. Somner also gained access to documents through his personal network of other scholars. They constituted a group of like minds and were useful in gathering material for the book as well as, no doubt, for scholarly discussions about it.29 A prime example is the second plate (usually bound between pp. 46/47) showing the ‘high altar at St Austins [St Augustine’s Abbey] with the Chapells about it’, the ‘Chapells’ being the medieval shrines of the Abbey. The original manuscript from which this image is taken is found within Speculum Augustinian, a history of the Abbey produced by an early fifteenth-century Benedictine monk, Thomas Elmham.30 In the top left corner of the plate, Somner is careful to quote his source as ‘an ancient faire MS. Sometime belonging to that Abbey, and procured to me by my worthy friend Dr. Casaubon’. Meric Casaubon, a cathedral canon and precinct resident, was a particularly close associate and of a similar age to Somner. The manuscript did not belong to Casaubon having probably been donated to Trinity Hall, Cambridge, by antiquary Robert Hare in the 1590s, nevertheless, it was Casaubon who ‘procured’ it for his friend.31 Over four hundred years later, the manuscript remains in the College and is now freely accessible in digital form through Cambridge University’s Digital Library. As with the font, the drawn image is largely accurate to the original with tiny differences, including the reversal of the figure of Christ and an altered arm placement to across the knee rather than being raised as in the original, perhaps a misinterpretation of draped clothing. At this point, it is worth noting that despite Somner’s affection for, and comprehensive treatment of, the cathedral, there is no image of the building or any part of it included in The Antiquities, except for its depiction in the book’s remaining plate, a city map placed before the book’s main text. The most likely explanation is that no contemporary image existed beyond small illustrations in maps of the city or county at this time. Somner did later arrange for the drawing of the south prospect of the cathedral by Thomas Johnson (engraved by Wenceslaus Hollar), amongst other images, in collaboration with Sir William Dugdale in preparation for the publication of Dugdale’s Monasticon Anglicanum (1655).32 In 1640, however, it would appear he had no source document to draw on. On the title page of The Antiquities, as noted, Somner emphasises his use of primary records, underplaying the contribution of his reading of other published works, and his own observations, to producing a full and detailed history of Canterbury. He made extensive use of published histories, quoting and commenting on them throughout. In establishing the ‘Antiquity of this our City’ at the outset, he turns to the ‘Testimonies only of two’, lately deceased William Camden (1623) and twelfth-century historian Henry of Huntingdon. Elsewhere, amongst others, he references John Twyne’s De Rebus Albionicis, Holinshed’s Chronicles, John Stow’s Annales of England and Survey of London, John Speed’s Historie of Great Britaine, Henry Spelman’s Glossary, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, William Lambarde’s (consistently referred to as Lambert) Perambulation of Kent, John Weaver’s Ancient Funeral Monuments, William Thorne’s Chronicle of St Augustine’s Abbey, and Edmer’s Historia Novorum in Anglia. His frustration at AVRIL LEACh 198 not being able to obtain two of perhaps the most useful, and surprisingly local, documents – thirteenth-century St Augustine’s monk Spot’s, or Sprot’s, History of Canterbury and ex-King’s School headmaster, John Twyne’s Collection of Canterbury Antiquities – led him to bemoan their unavailability in his Preface, indicating that he felt his work should have been brought to ‘more perfection’ with them. It is likely that being aware of their existence he had intently endeavoured to seek them out. One published work of significance is John Speed’s Theatre of the Empire (first published 1606) since the first plate in The Antiquities, placed before the main text, is a copy of Speed’s inset map of Canterbury which accompanied the map of Kent. This inclusion prompts a consideration of the role and influence of the cartographic work of John Speed on Somner. As for the map in Stow’s Survey of London, Somner’s text makes no reference to the map, it being placed to illustrate the text rather than as a guide to it. The map in The Antiquities is clearly a reworked version of Speed’s original with the addition of the several insignia of Archbishop Laud, Canterbury Cathedral, and the city of Canterbury (Fig. 2). Somner also took the opportunity to correct observed errors in Speed’s map. For example, the placement of several annotations is altered, including number thirtynine indicating Castle Street which is moved from its place beyond the end of the street (though, in error, this is also retained) to its middle and, perhaps fortuitously, to just outside Somner’s own house. It is probable that John Speed’s map significantly influenced how Somner conceptualised the space of the city. The Theatre was first published in the year of Somner’s birth, and he was the first generation of Canterbury inhabitants to grow up with Speed’s formally surveyed map of the city, a plan perhaps drafted in 1606 or 1608.33 Speed’s book could easily have been a childhood favourite of Somner’s, and it is not without the bounds of possibility that it represents an inspirational spark to Somner’s work. As the first relatively accurate map of the city, it enabled a new understanding of urban space, one which Somner could relate to his own experience of walking about the city. Throughout The Antiquities, Somner exhibits a good spatial awareness with an acute sense of the physical three-dimensional nature of spaces of the city and he is easily able to visualise real-world settings from the text of old documents. Just one example from the text underlines his detailed awareness. Having determined a house in the Precinct to have been the Priory’s ‘Aula and Camera Hospitum’ where there ‘was intertainment to be had of charity, for religious and secular guests’, he draws on information from church records to declare: ‘On the top or by the foot of the Staire-case of stone vaulted underneath, anciently hung a gate, whereof (it seems) there was a constant keeper, who had his chamber hard at hand’.34 It has been noted, however, that more generally his observations of ‘architectural styles’ are made ‘in order to determine age and origins rather than to appreciate whatever impressions a visitor or resident might receive’.35 Overall, Somner’s textual descriptions are a mixture of noteworthy antiquities, documented chronologies of the history of places, recorded evidence, and all informed by his own experience of walking the streets and examining the fabric of the city. Somner’s meticulous observational skills are critical to the depth of quality of his work. As the title of the book suggests, his objective was to present the ‘old’ ‘FOR THE HONOUR OF THAT ANCIENT METROPOLIS’: WILLIAM SOMNER (1640) 199 things of Canterbury. If items did not meet his criteria, then he observed them but purposefully did not record them. In his description of St Dunstan’s church, he omits the recording of items on the basis of their recent age: ‘There are other monuments of the Ropers, but out of my survey, being not of any Antiquity’.36 Despite his intended aim, he does include some new and current features of the city. As described above, he chose to include the new cathedral font: one rare piece of novelty […] a monument; not of the dead, I confesse, but (which is much better) of the operative and exemplary piety of the living Donor […] the first thing of worth, that by any private hand hath been offered to this Church of latter times.37 Under an entry for Archbishop George Abbot (archbishop 1611-33) whom he describes as a ‘special Benefactor’ to Canterbury, Somner writes of ‘the goodly conduit which he built for the common good and service of the same’.38 This large stone water conduit was constructed in the High Street during Somner’s teenage years, coming into operation in the early 1620s.39 Witnessing such significant alterations of Canterbury’s urban landscape perhaps nurtured his awareness of material change over time. It is possible to glimpse the seventeenth-century city familiar to Somner via revealing observations scattered throughout the text. From his discussion of the age of bricks in the city walls we learn that two former city gates are closed up. He writes: ‘Tokens of the walls good antiquitie are the British bricks, to be seen at Riding-gate, at the gate also now done up, sometime leading from the Castleyard to Wencheape, and at Queningate, or rather (if you will) at the place in the wall, where once the gate so called stood, and is now also made up’.40 In further discussion of the gates, he notes that Westgate ‘is at this day the common Gaole or Prison of the City’, but also that the prison was formerly ‘in the heart of the City, hard by S. Andrews Church, on the North-side of the street, even where since and now our corn-market is kept’.41 Somner is concerned by the poor state of Canterbury’s city walls. After writing of how ‘A Cities aspect is much blemished by ruinous edifices: especially publicke, and in places most obvious to the eye’, he poses the question: ‘Now what more publicke and obvious then the City Wall?’ and calls to his readers: ‘let us with our forefathers, as good Patriots, looke better to our Walles’.42 He continues with an indictment of the city’s governors, conjuring up an image of chronically neglected walls: ‘But I feare I speake too late […] The malady is of that growth by the want of applying timely remedies, that, I thinke, it is now become incurable’.43 It is surely fortunate that sections of the walls remain almost 400 years later. Moving on to record the twenty-one ‘Turrets, or small watch Towers orderly placed’ along the city walls, he appears to be repeating current public discussion concerning their use: ‘in many mens judgements, such, as with no great cost, if it might stand with the wisdome of the City, might make, what we much want, convenient Pest-houses, and Receptacles for the poore visited people of the City’.44 Plague was a repetitive feature of city life with a significant outbreak in 1625 (Somner was nineteen) and the city corporation’s rental of towers to private individuals for profit did not sit well, perhaps, with the difficulties of dealing with plague in the city. AVRIL LEACh 200 Fig. 2 Somner’s map of Canterbury in the first edition ‘FOR THE HONOUR OF THAT ANCIENT METROPOLIS’: WILLIAM SOMNER (1640) 201 of The Antiquities, 1640 (Canterbury Library). AVRIL LEACh 202 We learn also of the state of the city ditch running around the city walls. Having recorded that it was ‘originally of a great breadth, 150. foot over’ he acknowledges that by his observation it is ‘A breadth which the present ditch, I think, in no part shews’.45 As for the condition of those parts of the ditch which did still exist, he says: [It is] no marvell; for, as the wall, so the ditch too is in these days much neglected. Little more then halfe the wall is now in-ditched, the rest being either swerved, or else filled up, and in many parts builded upon; nay, the wall it self in some places easily scalable, what with piles and stacks of wood in some, what with housing and the like in other parts of it.46 In lamenting the lack of care for the ditch, he again suggests that it is ‘the greedinesse of a small advantage to bee a meanes (as it is) to betray the City at once both to danger and deformity,’ being threatened by the ‘private profit of some few’.47 Moving on to the river, Somner writes of on an ongoing third attempt of successive city governors to clear the river to allow boats through into the city. In praising the river’s ‘plenty of singular good fish, which it breeds and yeelds of divers sorts, Trouts especially’, he again picks up on current problems claiming that the fish stocks would be much higher ‘but for the common pochers’.48 On reaching St Augustine’s, he records how after the Reformation it was brought to ‘irrecoverable ruine: whose uncovered walls stood so languishing in time, and storms of weather that daily increased the aspect of her ruines, till now lastly they are made subject to other publick uses’.49 Here he is referencing the use of stone from the ruins for other buildings, some previously even sent to London.50 He further confirms his own observation of the state of the Abbey structures as he moves towards the Chapel of St Pancras, stating it is ‘The next thing (and what else onely is observable amongst these heapes of ruines)’.51 More such evidence of Somner’s city exists in the text. It is through these observations, woven through discussions of history and transcripts of records, that Somner subtly adds the history of his own time to his written history of the city. This makes The Antiquities of as much relevance for Canterbury’s seventeenthcentury history as for the history Somner sought to present. In dealing with the parish churches, Somner provides invaluable lists of monumental inscriptions, but it is his detailing of the content of the stained-glass windows of the cathedral for which his book is, perhaps, best known. Somner describes twelve cathedral windows as the third item of the Appendix: ‘Fenstrae in superiori parte ecclesiae Christi Cant. incipientes a parte septentrionali’.52 With a copy of The Antiquities to hand, it was these easy-to-follow descriptions which in 1642 local minister and puritan iconoclast Richard Culmer used to determine exactly which windows ‘in that Cathedrall Ocean of Images’ he should target and smash: ‘It’s sure working by the booke: But here is the wonder, that this booke should be a means to pull down Idols, which so much advaunceth Idolatry’.53 Culmer’s work was only part of the damage inflicted upon the cathedral with the font, memorials and statues targeted.54 It is possible that The Antiquities was used to identify more than just the stained glass windows, however, this was clearly not the intended use of his book Somner had in mind when he carefully recorded material details of the cathedral structure. ‘FOR THE HONOUR OF THAT ANCIENT METROPOLIS’: WILLIAM SOMNER (1640) 203 Somner may not have been able to foresee Culmer’s destruction, but he was acutely aware of the threat to the church establishment as he published his work. When writing about the office of archbishop, Somner declares it to have been falsely stigmatized by ‘some late turbulent Innovators’, underlining his own support of the church hierarchy.55 And he finishes this section with a prescient comment: ‘onely pray we that Anarchy never get possession of our Stage, lest confusion shut up the Scene’.56 This sense of foreboding can only have been reinforced by Culmer’s iconoclasm as the country slipped further into civil war, and as cathedrals, bishops, and the monarchy were subsequently abolished. It is no surprise, therefore, that Somner was so eager to present his work to Charles II at the Restoration with his hopes for church and monarchy to be revived. This sentiment is clear from a printed sheet believed to be that which Somner included with his gift to the king. In the text of this piece Somner places himself as loyal and humble servant to the king, presenting his book as a ‘topographicall accompt of this once renowned and flourishing, now ruined and languishing city and cathedral’.57 Somner, who studied the minutiae of the city he loved, perhaps more than anyone, understood what had been lost and destroyed in Canterbury during the intervening twenty years from the book’s publication to the arrival of Charles II. honouring the city: somner’s motivations Somner was undoubtedly pleased that he had recorded so much of Canterbury’s history and fabric, although as he wrote he could not have known what would come to pass. What, therefore, was his motivation for producing The Antiquities? In proposing an answer to this question, it is useful to consider the third section of the book’s title page which is ostensibly that presenting the author’s name. Additional text, however, informs the potential reader that the book’s content has been gathered ‘All (for the honour of that ancient Metropolis, and his good affection to Antiquities)’. This presents two obvious reasons why Somner produced his book. One appears selfless – for the honour of the city – and the other selfish – for his own love of history. Somner’s vision of Canterbury as a metropolis, or ‘mother city’, was grounded in four things: its long history, its position as the home of the cathedral or ‘mother church’, the role of the Canterbury monastic house of St Augustine’s Abbey in the establishment of Christianity, and the city’s reputation as a seat of human learning. By invoking a sense of honour – in the seventeenth century implying a sense of responsibility to provide for and serve those less well off than oneself by honourable giving, and a personal duty to maintain one’s financial and reputation creditworthiness in the eyes of others – this phrase presents both his desire to defend the city and its ecclesiastical heritage, whilst maintaining his own personal standing and bolstering his scholarly reputation with an honourable gift of The Antiquities to the public. What follows is further self-promotion, in which Somner underlines his own hard work and his good faith in completing it for the reader, it having been ‘Sought out and Published By the Industry, and Goodwill of William Somner’. Simple human industriousness, however, is not the whole picture. Somner’s AVRIL LEACh 204 name is followed by a quotation from Cicero: ‘Nescire quid antea quam natus sis acciderit, est semper esse puerum’, essentially translating as ‘To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain forever a child’. In the book’s Preface, Somner discusses the notion of the immortality of man. He describes his own understanding of the distinct difference between immortality of the body (achieved through procreation) and immortality of the mind, the latter, in his opinion, ‘the best and chiefest part of Man’. Drawing from Plato, he suggests that, however old in age, people with knowledge of only the events of their own lifetime, are ‘babes and children’. By contrast, an individual who understands the long history of a place may be considered ‘to have lived so many years, as he is able truly and historically to give an account of’. Perhaps this is Somner’s true impetus for developing as broad a knowledge of Canterbury’s history as possible. He sought the essence of immortality and his publication of The Antiquities might be interpreted as a coming-of-age moment. In setting out such a comprehensive history of Canterbury he had proved to the world – importantly, the scholarly world – that he was no child. Furthermore, in gifting his book to King Charles II in 1660 he was, in a sense, reaffirming the immortality of the city and seeking to restore something of its former honour as an ancient metropolis. the first edition work Somner’s gift to the king was a real object and the last section of the title page, providing the names of the book’s printer and publisher – ‘London, Printed by I. L. for Richard Thrale, and are to be sold at his Shop at Pauls-Gate at the signe of the Crosse-Keyes. 1640’ – prompts a consideration of extant first edition copies of The Antiquities, the subject of ongoing research. By 1640, it had been almost one hundred years since books were printed in Canterbury, a trade which ended with the death of printer John Mychel in 1556.58 Somner’s sole option, therefore, was to look to London for publication, his book being one of over 570 books published in 1640.59 A comment on the book’s errata page makes clear the consequences of the author’s distance from the press in London: ‘As Errors are incident to all labours, so especially to theirs whose occasions will not suffer their attendance on the Presse. Such as, by that meanes, have escaped in the present worke, may be thus rectified’.60 A similar sentiment was expressed by Francis Taylor in 1655 in his publication ‘An Exposition of the Three First Chapters of the Proverbs’ with an additional direction to readers of his work: whereas by reason of my far distance from the presse, many faults have escaped, and I have therefore added a Table of the most material ones that corrupt the sens, I desire that the Reader would follow the practise of a godly and reverend Minister in Kent, who reads no Book till he have first corrected all the faults in it with his pen, according to the Authors minde expressed in the Errata. So shalt thou meet with no such rubs in the way, nor puzzle thine owne head to finde another mans meaning.61 Certainly, some readers of The Antiquities took this approach, as evidenced by pedantic alterations observed in surviving first edition copies. In the period 1630-1640, Archbishop Laud instigated a controlling process ‘FOR THE HONOUR OF THAT ANCIENT METROPOLIS’: WILLIAM SOMNER (1640) 205 whereby books for publication required specific authorization in the form of an imprimatur. An official text printed in each book confirmed it had been reviewed by an appropriate authority and received formal licence for publication. In 1637, a Crown decree specified the type of book to be licensed by each approved licenser with modern English history to be signed off by ‘one of the Principal Secretaries of State’.62 The Antiquities, however, was placed into Laud’s catch-all category of ‘all other books’ and officially signed off by one of Laud’s chaplains, William Bray.63 Somner likely knew – or at least knew of – Bray since he had been appointed as a Canterbury cathedral canon in 1637, stepping into the first prebendal stall which had been left vacant by John Warner’s appointment as Bishop of Rochester. Coincidentally, this stall was later held by John Battely, brother to Nicholas, who produced the second edition of The Antiquities in 1703. The imprimatur in first edition copies of The Antiquities is dated 23 October 1639, the year Bray also licensed Sir Henry Spelman’s Concilia.64 Licensing carried a personal responsibility, especially given the spirit of the times and Bray’s licensing of two controversial books by John Pocklington in 1636 and 1637 saw him delivering an apologetic sermon in 1641. The licensing process was, however, thorough and could take up to a year, and Bray may have been working on reviewing Somner’s book for much of 1639.65 It is likely, therefore, that Somner finished his book some time before the grant of the licence, and perhaps even before the death of his father in 1638. The book’s publisher, Richard Thrale, may have been introduced to Somner by someone in his scholarly, or ecclesiastical, network. Thrale, based in London, had been responsible the previous year for the publication of the Visitation articles of Archbishop Laud’s Commissary General, Sir Nathaniel Brent, with whom Somner worked. The printer, John Legate, is denoted on the title page by the initials I. L. although Legate’s printing type in 1640 did contain the upper- and lower-case letter J, used primarily in The Antiquities, it appears, for the word ‘jurisdiction’.66 Legate was the son of a Cambridge University printer, also named John Legate.67 The younger Legate printed several works for Thrale and the two men served together as wardens of the Stationers’ Company in the 1650s. Legate was also involved in printing works for Somner’s friend, Meric Casaubon, and Sir Henry Spelman, reinforcing the importance of Somner’s social network to the circumstances of his own publication. The first edition of The Antiquities was produced in quarto (the second in folio, 1703). Legate’s print shop was for a time based in Trinity Lane in London, a short distance from St Paul’s cathedral, making this a candidate for the site where Somner’s book was printed. With over 140 known surviving first edition copies, the print run for The Antiquities likely encompassed at least 200 copies and probably more, maybe another several hundred. In 1659, over five hundred copies of Somner’s Dictionary were printed.68 Today, copies are spread across cathedrals, universities, and major libraries in England and abroad. Some remain in, or have returned to, institutions in Canterbury whilst the British Library holds four copies and the Oxford and Cambridge colleges hold at least twenty-five between them, including a copy at Lincoln College, Oxford owned by Archbishop Laud. A significant number are probably in private hands and uncatalogued libraries. Only seven books with a 1661 title page have been identified to date. Nicholas AVRIL LEACh 206 Battely, in his preface to the second edition, passes comment on the reason for the post-Restoration republication: During those distractions of our Church and State, this Book was so disagreeable to the then prevailing Powers, as that the best Fate which the Book or its Author could at that time expect, was to lie hid, and to be sheltered under the Security of being not regarded. After an end was put to the Great Rebellion, the whole Impression of this Book was not sold off, and the Author seems to have designed to have put forth a new Edition of it; hereupon the Bookseller, to revive the Sale of this Treatise, caused a new Title to be printed Anno 1662 [sic], and to be pasted over the old Title Page. The change in title in 1661 reflects a more scientific approach to the work, so Somner’s ‘Survey of the city’ becomes ‘The most accurate history’. Apparently designed to appeal to a wider audience, title page references to manuscripts and records are removed and the book’s illustration with ‘divers maps and figures’ is highlighted. This ‘diversity’ remained unaltered from 1640, being the three plates described above and the arms of Archbishop Laud printed on the reverse of the title page. Battely also informs us that by 1703 ‘the whole Impression has been long since sold’, thus justifying his own endeavours in publication of a second edition. The new, 1661 single sheet pastedown title was printed by William Godbid, printer of John Philipot’s Villare Cantianum two years earlier, but the publisher remained Richard Thrale. Over time, in some books, page separation has obviously occurred though both titles remain in the binding. Where separated, the gluey brush strokes are visible and close examination of individual copies should, therefore, allow identification of Most Accurate History copies even where the later title is missing. In the clear absence of such marks, it can be cautiously assumed that a copy was first sold in the period 1640-60. The apparent survival of so few 1661 sales indicates that perhaps a relatively small number of books were retained by Somner or maybe that the initial release was purchased by a different type of reader, those able to afford superior bindings and storage, consequently ensuring a higher survival rate. Confirmation of Battely’s observation that unsold copies were simply retitled may be had by material examination of watermarks. Evidence from surviving first edition copies reveals maybe ten different watermark patterns in the paper pages, with similar marks to be found in books with 1640 and 1661 title pages. Identifiable watermark patterns include an intricate shield form, two grape patterns (one smaller, one larger), a lozenge design with initials and quatrefoils, and a distinctive large fleur-de-lys topped by initials. Watermarks found in some of the plates indicate that the same paper stocks were used as for the main text. Paper use from different stocks appears generally random. There is positional variation between books confirming a range of paper stocks were used rather than a single stock being purchased for printing and indicating a relatively cheaper production. This is, perhaps, symptomatic of a wider perceived problem, as White Kennett declares after pointing out that Somner resorted to subscriptions for publication of his Anglo-Saxon dictionary: ‘Till the men of curiosity increase their number, this must be the fate of the best books, that they shall not bear the charges of their own Impression’.69 ‘FOR THE HONOUR OF THAT ANCIENT METROPOLIS’: WILLIAM SOMNER (1640) 207 A significant number of books were probably purchased on initial publication. One of the earliest identifiable owners is Thomas Windsor, 6th Baron Windsor, whose arms appear in gold tooling on his book’s binding.70 He must have obtained Somner’s book fairly rapidly after publication since he died on 6 Dec 1641. In another copy, an inscription confirms its – apparently grateful – inheritance by an unknown owner on 23 September 1647: ‘Haereditas mea providentia’.71 Authors Richard Kilburne and John Philipot (d.1645) both passed comment on Somner’s work and likely purchased an early copy. Such evidence affirms an initial level of interest in The Antiquities, despite the difficult religious and political context. There is no doubt that Somner freely gifted some copies of The Antiquities and Somner’s own library evidences the gifting of other books between friends. From at least 1644 onwards, there is evidence that Somner received more than one gifted book from Meric Casaubon; local minister Edward Aldey; former headmaster of the King’s School, John Ludd; Roger Twysden; William Dugdale; and Cornelius Bee.72 These are all, perhaps, candidates for gifts from Somner though most may equally be considered those whom Somner would expect to purchase a copy. To date, four extant copies can be identified as gifts from the author by inscriptions, two of which are dated. One copy was given away by the author on 29 April 1640, just two weeks after Somner’s recorded presentation to Canterbury corporation.73 Another is inscribed ‘Ex dono auctoris Oct 7 1644’, some four years after publication and during the years of civil war.74 This may be a book taken from the unsold stock and gifted to someone Somner had not met in the intervening period, or perhaps even a return gift to one of those noted above. It is highly likely that Somner gifted the copy to Archbishop Laud and it is not inconceivable, given Somner’s connections and monarchist stance, and evidence of his later gift to Charles II, that a copy could have been gifted to King Charles I. This idea is reinforced by a possible meeting with the king in Canterbury in 1640, the year of publication.75 Others to whom Somner may well have gifted a copy are his friends Meric Casaubon and Thomas Denne, both of whom are mentioned in the book’s Preface. Casaubon, as previously noted, provided access to the manuscript from which the shrines of St Augustine’s image was produced. By this token, it might be postulated that John Warner received a copy in relation to his assumed assistance in providing an image of Christ Church font. John Speed might well have been in line for a copy had he not died in 1629. Somner’s parents both died shortly before the time of publication, but might he have given a copy to his brothers John and George or other family members? He later appears to have purchased a second copy of Dugdale’s Monasticon to provide one each for himself and his brother John.76 One first edition Antiquities is inscribed ‘by ye givest of my brother somner 1660’ and bears the name John Dawson, as does another undated copy; the owners may both be related to Somner’s second wife, Barbara, daughter of John Dawson of Lympne, whom he married in December 1659.77 This evidence points to Somner reinforcing family connections with gifts of books. Ongoing examination of extant copies may reveal additional evidence in this regard. Somner does not appear to have been entirely generous with his gifts, however. The anonymous author of ‘Antidotum Culmerianum’ (1644), a pamphlet responding to Richard Culmer’s earlier publication ‘Cathedrall Newes from Canterbury’, writes AVRIL LEACh 208 with some annoyance: ‘As for the Proctors booke, about which he [Culmer] keeps so great a stir, (I pray tell him) had he thought me worthy of one of his books (as well as some others that I thinke had as little relation to him) I should have thought my self more obliged to have said somewhat in his defence’.78 There is a suggestion here that the unknown author considered himself a fairly close friend, colleague, or family member and this presents another potentially interesting connection with the gifted book noted above bearing a 1644 date. This apparent reluctance in gifting stands in contrast to Somner’s public and open gift to Charles II in 1660, a monarch whose right to rule he had (anonymously) called for in print following the death of Charles I. In Kent, royalist county gentry, including Somner, had been active for months in support of a free parliament and the return of the king, to the point that Somner was imprisoned until shortly before the king’s return.79 Somner’s gift of The Antiquities to Charles II, therefore, was symbolic and filled with hope for the future rather than being a private, personal matter. It was also an obvious expression of the beginning of his broader involvement in the restoration of the city and cathedral.80 Somner was, undoubtedly, a man captivated by a sense of history, whether documented, or inspired by the stories and fabric of the city he was born and lived in. Knowledge of the past, which brought a sense of immortality, was important to him. In offering his learned insights into Canterbury’s history to the world in book form, he delivered the greatest honour he could imagine to the city he loved. It was likely, in part, this sentiment which prompted him to offer his work to King Charles II, his gift embodying a local, urban, and personal restoration as much as a national, monarchical one. That so many copies of his work survive, and continue to be studied, reinforces Somner’s substantial contribution to his goal of bringing immortal honour to the city of Canterbury, now an even more ‘ancient Metropolis’. acknowledgements This research supported by a grant from Canterbury Historical and Archaeological Society (CHAS). list of appendices in william somner’s antiquities of canterbury 1. King Offa’s Charter of the donation of certaine Lands to Christ-Church. [Latin] 2. T he Foundation of Herbaldowne [Harbledown par.] Chantery. [Latin; English commentary containing further Latin texts.] 3. Fenestrae in superiori parte ecclesiae Christi Cant. incipientes a parte septentrionali. [Latin] [The windows in the upper part of Christ Church, Canterbury, from the northern part.] 4. T he Articles between the Prior of S. Gregories of Canterbury and the Covent [sic] of the same Church on the one party, and the Maior and Communalty of the City of Cant. of the other party, by the mediation of Thomas, Prior of Christ-Church of Cant. Iohn Hales one of the Barons of the Exchequer of ‘FOR THE HONOUR OF THAT ANCIENT METROPOLIS’: WILLIAM SOMNER (1640) 209 our Saveraigne Lord the King, Christopher Hales generall Attorney of our said Soveraigne Lord the King, and Thomas Wood Esquire, by the consent of the most reverend Father in God William Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. [English] 5. Foundation of the Vicarage of Cosmus-Bleane [Blean par. church dedication SS Cosmus and Damian] [Latin] 6. T he Foundation of Eastbridge-Chantery. [Latin] 7. T he grant of Poore Priests Hospitall with the Lands and appurtenances to it, by the late Queene, to the Citie. [Latin] 8. A n act of Parliament for paving the streets. [Latin opening, English text] 9. C omposition between the Parson of St Margaret and the Hospitall of Poor Priests. [Latin] 10 C omposition between Christ-Church and St Augustines, about lands lying by the Campanile of Christ-Church. [Latin] 11 C oncerning the Schoole at Canterbury. [Latin] 12. Scrutinium factum circa feretrum beatissimi patris Dunstani Archiepiscopi, ex mandato Reverendissimi patris ac Dni Domini Willielmi Warham Cantuar. Archiepisc. & Domini Thomae Goldston sacrae paginae professoris, ejusdemque ecclesiae Prioris dignissimi Anno Domini 1508. die 22do Aprilis. [Latin] [A search made around the shrine of the most blessed Father Dunstan, Archbishop, on the command of the most Reverend Father and Lord William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Master Thomas Goldston, professor of sacred theology and most worthy Prior of the same church 22 April 1508.] 13. A Grant or Demise of part of the demeasness of Reculver Monastery made by Archbishop Agelnoth to two of his Ministers. [Latin] 14. T he Kentish manors, in the Conquerors time, belonging Scriptura both to the Archbishop and Monkes of Canterbury, and recorded in the Booke of Doomsday. [Latin] 15. [misprinted as 16] The Record of Archbishop Winchelsey his Inthronization, shewing in and after what forme the Archbishops of Canterbury anciently were inthronized: and thence intitled. [Latin] 16. A Grant of power delegated to the Prior of Christ-Church by a Count Palatine, to create Notaries. [Latin] 17. A Composition made Anno 1242. between the Abbey of St Austins, and the Priory of Christ-Church, about divers things, especially maritime customes at and about Minster and Sandwich. [Latin] 18. A Composition between the same houses about a Kay [quay] and house at Fordwich. With such circumstances as are added by the Relator, Thorne, St Augustines Chronicler. [Latin] 19. T he forme of electing and installing the Prior of the Church of Canterbury. [Latin] AVRIL LEACh 210 20. The Chapters Confirmation of the Parsonages of Hakinton [Hackington par.] and Tenham [Teynham par.] appropriated to the Archdeaconry of Canterbury by Stephen Langton the Archbishop. [Latin] 21. A n enlargement of the same Archdeacons Iurisdiction by the same Archbishop. [Latin] 22. T he same Archbishops Charter of Revocation of certaine Churches in the times of Baldwin and Hubert his predecessors exempted from the Archdeaconry, intituled. [Latin] 23. A personal Composition between the Chapter and the same Archdeacon touching Jurisdiction [sic] in the Vacancy. [Latin] 24. A Composition between Saint Augustines Abbey and the Citie of Canterbury about limits and liberties, intituled by Thorne. [Latin] 25. T he Ordination of the Vicarage of St Paul Cant. [Latin] 26. T he Ordination of the Vicarage of St Mary Northgate Canterb. [Latin] 27. T he Ordination of the Vicarage of Holy-Crosse of Westgate, Cant. [Latin] 28. T he Ordination of the Vicarage of St Dunstan, Cant. [Latin] 29. A Record shewing the ancient forme and Custome of payment of Tithes in Canterbury, taken out of the Archbishops principall Registry. [Latin] 30. A nother Record to the same purpose, taken out of the Registry of the Consistory at Cant. being deposition or witnesses examination taken in a suite, Anno 1457. there commenced, for tithes, by the then Parson of St Elphege, Cant. [Latin] 31. A n abstract out of the Life of St Elphege, written by Osborne Scriptura a Monke of Canterbury in the Conquerors time, of what concernes the siege and spoile of Canterbury (both Cathedrall and Citie) happening in the yeare 1011. never before Printed. [Latin] 32. Foundation of the Lukedale [Lackenden, in Bekesbourne par.] Chantery. [Latin] 33. A Grant made by Archbishop Wlfred to the family at Christ-Church permitting them to enjoy certain houses which themselves had built (it seemes) upon the reedifying of the Monastery. [Latin] 34. A n Apologie for Archery, by Mr Iohn Bingham, in his Notes upon Aelians Tactiks, pag. 24. &c. [English, includes a short Latin text] 35. T he Copy of an ancient Ms. shewing and setting forth the forme of some kinde of Law-trialls amongst the English-Saxons. [Latin] 36. R ecords extracted from the Tower of London, touching the liberties of Canterbury. [Latin] 37. A Codicill (or Charter) of Kenulf King of Mercia of the gift of certaine Land in Canterbury (at a place now called Binney [possibly Binnewith island in R. Stour?]) to Wlfred the Archbishop. [Latin] The Epilogue to his Countrymen. [English] ‘FOR THE HONOUR OF THAT ANCIENT METROPOLIS’: WILLIAM SOMNER (1640) 211 bibliography First edition copies of The Antiquities: Canterbury Cathedral Archives and Library, W2/Q-12-8; W2/Q-12-9; W/S-11/14 Bishop Cosin’s Library, Durham, Cosin Y.4.8 Glasgow University Library, Sp. Coll. 585 The Huntington Library, 60681. The Library Company of Philadelphia, C/103/002/001 Two copies in private hands Canterbury Cathedral Archives: CCA-A/C/4 CCA-CC/J/Q/Box 15 (Sept 1623) CCA-CC/J/Q/427i. State Papers Online, SP 14/36, fol. 119 Trinity Hall, Cambridge, MS 1 V & A Museum, Accession E.574-2005 ----- Anon, 1644, ‘Antidotum Culmerianum’. Battely, Nicholas, ‘A Preface to this New Edition’, in The Antiquities of Canterbury by William Somner, 2nd edn (London: R. Knaplock, 1703; repr. Wakefield: EP Publishing, 1977). Bennett, H.S., 1970, English Books & Readers 1603 to 1640 (CUP). Blayney, Peter W.M., 2013, The Stationers’ Company and the Printers of London 1501- 1557 (CUP). Bower, David I., 2014, ‘Speed’s Town-Mapping Itineraries’, Imago Mundi, 66:1, 95-104 (p. 100). Bowes, Robert, ‘Legate, John (c. 1562-1620/1), printer’, ODNB. Culmer, Richard, ‘Cathedrall Newes from Canterbury’ (London, 1644), repr. in Chronological History of Canterbury Cathedral (Canterbury: H.S. Claris Kent Herald Office, 1883) by G. Smith. Dow, Christopher, 1636, ‘Discourse of the Sabbath’. Everitt, Alan, 1986, The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640-60 (Leicester University Press). Fletcher, Rachel, 2018, ‘“Most Active and Effectual Assistance” in the Correspondence of Sir William Dugdale and William Somner’, Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 78 (2-3), pp. 166-184. Gardiner, Dorothy, ed., 1933, The Oxinden Letters 1607-1642 (London: Constable). Gostling, William, 1774, A Walk in and about the City of Canterbury (Canterbury: [n. pub.]). Gregory, Jeremy, 1995, ‘Canterbury and the Ancien Regime: The Dean and Chapter, 1660- 1828’, in A History of Canterbury Cathedral, ed. by Patrick Collinson, Nigel Ramsay, and Margaret Sparks (Oxford: OUP, repr. 2002), pp. 204-255. Griffin, Sarah and David Shaw, 2020, ‘William Somner and his Books: Provenance Evidence for the Networks of a Seventeenth-century Canterbury Antiquarian’, in Kentish Book Culture: Writers, Archives, Libraries and Sociability c.1400-1660, ed. Claire Bartram (Oxford: Peter Lang), pp. 233-285. Hunt, Arnold, ‘William Bray’, ODNB. AVRIL LEACh 212 Kennett, White, 1693, ‘The Life of Mr. Somner’ in A Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent by William Somner. Le Baigue, Anne and Avril Leach, 2018, ‘“Where Streams of (Living) Water Flow”: The Religious and Civic Significance of Archbishop Abbot’s Conduit in St Andrew’s Canterbury, 1603-1625’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxix, 111-134. Leedham-Green, Elisabeth, ‘Hare, Robert’, ODNB. Lehmberg, Stanford E., 1996, Cathedrals under Siege: Cathedrals in English Society, 1600-1700 (University of Exeter Press). Parry, Graham, 1995, The Trophies of Time: English Antiquarians of the Seventeenth Century (OUP). Sparks, Margaret, 2007, Canterbury Cathedral Precincts: A Historical Survey (Canterbury: Dean and Chapter of Canterbury). Somner, William, 1640, The Antiquities of Canterbury (London: Richard Thrale). Stow, John, 1598, A Suruay of London Contayning the Originall, Antiquity, Increase, Moderne estate, and Description of that Citi. Taylor, Francis, 1655, ‘An Exposition of the Three First Chapters of the Proverbs’. Urry, William, 1977, ‘Introduction’, in The Antiquities of Canterbury by William Somner, 2nd edn (London: R. Knaplock, 1703; repr. Wakefield: EP Publishing). Wright, David, 2019, ‘“Devotion to the Uncovering and Recording of a Nation’s Language and a City’s Antiquities”: The Life of William Somner of Canterbury (1606-1669). Part I’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxl, 13-36. Wright, David, 2020, ‘William Somner (1606-1669). Part II’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxli, 25-46. endnotes 1 David Wright, ‘“Devotion to the Uncovering and Recording of a Nation’s Language and a City’s Antiquities”: The Life of William Somner of Canterbury (1606-1669). Part I’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxl (2019), 13-36; ‘William Somner (1606-1669), Part II’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxli (2020), 25-46. See also: William Urry, ‘Introduction’, in The Antiquities of Canterbury by William Somner, 2nd edn (London, 1703; repr. Wakefield, 1977); and White Kennett’s ‘The Life of Mr. Somner’ published with Somner’s A Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent (1693). 2 William Urry, ‘Introduction’, p. ix; Wright, Part I, p. 20. 3 Graham Parry, The Trophies of Time: English Antiquarians of the Seventeenth Century (Oxford, 1995), p. 1. 4 N icholas Battely, ‘A Preface to this New Edition’, in Somner, Antiquities, 2nd edn, repr. 1977. 5 Somner, Antiquities, 2nd edn, repr. 1977. 6 U rry, p. vii. 7 U rry, p. v; Kennett, pp. 90, 92. 8 Wright, Part I, p. 18. 9 CCA -A/C/4, fol. 152r. 10 A lan Everitt, The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640-60 (Leicester, 1986), p. 85. 11 The Oxinden Letters 1607-1642, ed. by Dorothy Gardiner (London, 1933), pp. 174, 175. 12 William Somner, The Antiquities of Canterbury (London, 1640), p. 150. 13 Ibid. 14 William Gostling, A Walk in and about the City of Canterbury (Canterbury, 1774). 15 Somner, Antiquities, pp. 27, 45, 150. 16 Somner, Antiquities, pp. 18, 21, 33, 60, 63. 17 Somner, Antiquities, p. 95. 18 Margaret Sparks, Canterbury Cathedral Precincts: A Historical Survey (Canterbury, 2007), p. 4. 19 Somner, Antiquities, p. 21. ‘FOR THE HONOUR OF THAT ANCIENT METROPOLIS’: WILLIAM SOMNER (1640) 213 20 Somner, Antiquities, p. 29. 21 Somner, Antiquities, p. 94. 22 Somner, Antiquities, p. 99. 23 Somner, Antiquities, pp. 123-4. 24 Somner, Antiquities, p. 132. 25 John Stow, A Suruay of London Contayning the Originall, Antiquity, Increase, Moderne estate, and Description of that Citi (1598), pp. 399-406; Somner, Antiquities, p. 229. 26 CCA -CC/J/Q/Box 15 (Sept 1623), CCA-CC/J/Q/427i. 27 Somner, Antiquities, p. 471. The Appendix starts on p. 376; the first seven items are identified by Arabic numerals, thereafter by Roman. 28 A ccession E.574-2005, V & A Museum; a digital image is available. 29 For more on this subject, see: Rachel Fletcher, ‘“Most Active and Effectual Assistance” in the Correspondence of Sir William Dugdale and William Somner’, Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik (2018) 78 (2-3), pp. 166-184; Sarah Griffin and David Shaw, ‘William Somner and his Books: Provenance Evidence for the Networks of a Seventeenth-century Canterbury Antiquarian’, in Kentish Book Culture: Writers, Archives, Libraries and Sociability c.1400-1660, ed. by Claire Bartram (Oxford, 2020), pp. 233-285; and Wright, Part I, 26-30. 30 T homas Elmham, Historiae Abbatiae S. Augustini (MS 1), fol. 77r. http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/ view/MS-TRINITYHALL-00001/159. 31 E lisabeth Leedham-Green, ‘Hare, Robert’, in ODNB online. 32 Wright, Part I, 29. 33 David I. Bower (2014) ‘Speed’s Town-Mapping Itineraries’, Imago Mundi, 66:1, 95-104 (p. 100). 34 Somner, Antiquities, p. 207. 35 Wright, Part I, 23. 36 Somner, Antiquities, p. 342. 37 Somner, Antiquities, pp. 181-2. 38 Somner, Antiquities, p. 274. 39 Anne Le Baigue and Avril Leach, ‘“Where Streams of (Living) Water Flow”: The Religious and Civic Significance of Archbishop Abbot’s Conduit in St Andrew’s Canterbury, 1603-1625’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxix (2018), 111-134. 40 Somner, Antiquities, p. 6. 41 Somner, Antiquities, p. 27. 42 Somner, Antiquities, pp. 14, 15. 43 Somner, Antiquities, p. 15. 44 Somner, Antiquities, p. 16. 45 Somner, Antiquities, pp. 31, 32. 46 Somner, Antiquities, p. 32. 47 Somner, Antiquities, p. 33. 48 Somner, Antiquities, p. 45. 49 Somner, Antiquities, p. 60. 50 SP 14/36, fol. 119, State Papers Online. 51 Somner, Antiquities, p. 61. 52 Somner, Antiquities, p. 385. 53 C ulmer, Richard, ‘Cathedrall Newes from Canterbury’ (London, 1644), repr. in Chronological History of Canterbury Cathedral (Canterbury, 1883) by G. Smith, p. 313. 54 S tanford E. Lehmberg, Cathedrals under Siege: Cathedrals in English Society, 1600-1700 (Exeter, 1996), pp. 26-27. 55 Somner, Antiquities, p. 223. 56 Somner, Antiquities, p. 225. 57 Dedication sheet in copy of The Antiquities in The Huntington Library, catalogue ref. 60681. AVRIL LEACh 214 58 P eter W. M. Blayney, The Stationers’ Company and the Printers of London 1501-1557 (Cambridge, 2013), p. 785. 59 H .S. Bennett, English Books & Readers 1603 to 1640 (Cambridge, 1970), p. 1. 60 Somner, Antiquities, errata page. 61 Francis Taylor, ‘An Exposition of the Three First Chapters of the Proverbs’ (1655), To the Reader. 62 Bennett, p. 46. 63 A rnold Hunt, ‘William Bray’, in ODNB online. 64 A n exception to this is Somner’s proof copy (CCAL W/S-11/14) which unusually bears the date 23 October 1640. 65 Bennett, p. 41; Christopher Dow, ‘Discourse of the Sabbath’ (1636), opp. p. 1. 66 For example, for capital ‘J’, see pp. 55, 457, 496; for lower case ‘j’, see pp. 229, 485, 497. 67 R obert Bowes, ‘Legate, John (c. 1562-1620/1), printer’ in ODNB online. 68 Wright, Part II, p. 32. 69 Kennett, p. 81. 70 C anterbury Cathedral Library, W2/Q-12-9. 71 L ibrary Company of Philadelphia, C/103/002/001. 72 Griffin and Shaw, p. 235. 73 Bishop Cosin’s Library, Durham, Cosin Y.4.8. 74 T he author is grateful to M. Byford for this detail. 75 Wright, Part I, 19. 76 Wright, Part I, 30. 77 Glasgow University Library, Sp. Coll. 585 (dated copy); Canterbury Cathedral Library, W2/Q- 12-8; Wright, Part II, p. 35. 78 Anon, Antidotum Culmerianum (1644), p. 32. 79 E veritt, pp. 306-7. 80 Jeremy Gregory, ‘Canterbury and the Ancien Regime: The Dean and Chapter, 1660-1828’, in A History of Canterbury Cathedral, ed. by Patrick Collinson, Nigel Ramsay, and Margaret Sparks (Oxford, 1995; repr. 2002), pp. 204-255 (p. 213).