Reviews: "A Kentish Cartulary"

( 301 ) REVIEWS. A KENTISH CARTULARY. A Kentish Cartulary of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, by Charles Cotton, O.B.E. K.A.S. Records Branch, Vol. XI. Printed by Headley Brothers, Ashford, 1930. DR. COTTON is a Knight of Grace of the Order of St. John and this volume may be regarded as an appropriate work of piety. I t is perhaps from fihal (or fraternal) piety that he refrains from saying what a very unsatisfactory document from the Kentish point of view the Grand Cartulary of 1442 reaUy is. Translations (somewhat abbreviated) of all references to Kent contained in this Cartulary make up the second part of this volume (pp. 81-140) and form, Dr. Cotton says, " perhaps the most important part" of it. What does it contain % By far the greater portion (pp. 81-124) is concerned with charters relating to Sutton-at-Hone; then follow some relating to Dartford and Burnham, and one reference to the "Pension of Ashe." Compare this meagre result with Dr. Cotton's " Conspectus of the Preceptories, manors, houses, churches, cells and lands belonging to the Order of St. John in the County of Kent " which forms the first part of his volume (pp. 1-80.) What strikes us most is the extraordinary omissions from the Cartulary of 1442. Togive afewexamples; there is no mention of the Manor of EweU or Temple Ewell, the bailiwick or preceptory or commandery of Swingfield, the churches of Hadlow and Tonbridge, the preceptory of West Peckham. The omission of the last might be due to its peouliar position in the administration of the Order ; it was one of the properties reserved to the Grand Master's use and so was to some extent outside the jurisdiction of the Grand Prior and ' Tongue' of England. But this would not account for the other omissions. Possibly an examination of the manuscript would supply the explanation and absolve 302 REVIEWS. the compilers of the Great Cartulary from the charge of laziness or incompetence. Dr. Cotton, deahng with only a fragment of the manuscript, has not felt bound to give a description of it, and the facsimUe printed as a frontispiece is so reduced as to give a misleading impression. It is always best in giving a reduced or enlarged facsimile to photograph with it a scale of inches or miUimetres. MS. Cotton Nero E VI. is a large MS. measuring 15| by 11 inches ; it contains 467 leaves and is weU and clearly written. It consists of two parts ; the first occupies ff. 1-288 and is headed " Prima Camera prioratus Anglie " ; the second occupies fi. 289-467 and should be headed " Secunda Camera," though the title page has been misplaced and only a fragment of it remains. These " Camerse " clearly imply some kind of grouping of properties for administrative, probably financial, purposes, just as the estates scattered throughout aU the ' Tongues ' of the Order, which were reserved for the use of the Grand Master, were grouped together under the title of " Camera magistralis." Was the English ' Tongue ' divided into more than two ' camerse ' and is the Grand Cartulary preserved in Nero E, VI. only a fragment ? Was there another volume now lost ? If so, this would account for the fragmentary character of the work as it at present exists. Dr. Cotton gives in a -valuable appendix the text and translation of the Letters Patent of PhiUp and Mary (which he rightly dates 2nd April, 1558) re-establishing the Order in England and such parts of the Letters Patent restoring their estates as relate to Kent. One is surprised to find a word printed several times " Bamlivis " or " BamUni" and a note at the end calling attention to it. The word is of course " Baiuhui " or " BajuUvi," a title very frequently used in the MUitary Orders and by Dr. Cotton himself in this volume. In his Conspectus of the Manors, etc., Dr. Cotton has coUected much useful information and has included some exceUent and weU-chosen ihustrations. Of quite exceptional interest are the documents relating to EweU, which are given both in the original and in translation. Ought the Records REVIEWS. 303 Branch to print documents only in translation without the original, as is done here with the Cartulary of 1442 ? I think the original Latin would have made clear a passage on p. 82 about a yearly rent of 3d. " paid at the three terms of Haga Bacun " on which the editor notes ; " I have no idea what these words mean." The original reads ad tres terminos de Haga Bacun, and de means " from " or " for " and Haga Bacun is a place name, not a Baconian system of quarterdays. Most of the charters in the Cartulary of 1442 are undated and only the first sixteen or so have the names of witnesses, the rest ending for the most part with "Hiis testibus etc." Charters issued by obscure and witnessed by obscurer persons are generaUy impossible to date accurately, but how much can be done in this way (with infinite labour) may be seen in Dr. G. H. Fowler's recent edition of the Wardon Cartulary (Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, vol. XIII, 1930,) which might weU serve as a model to editors of Cartularies, One charter (p. 117) Dr. Cotton has acutely dated from a Dominical letter. Another (p. 124) which he places between 1147 and 1162 can certainly be placed between 1154 and 1161. Another (p. 139) can be exactly assigned from the Patent RoUs to 10 March, 1316. It sometimes is difficult to reconcile the dates given in the volume ; thus Leonard de Tibertis is said to have been Grand Prior from 1329 to 1335 (p. 136, or apparently p. xvii, 1329-1330) and PhiUp de Thame Grand Prior from 1330-1358 (p. 136). On the same page a letter Leonard de Tibertis "Prior of the Hospital in England" is quoted dated 18 June, 1332. Were there two Grand Priors in England between 1330 and 1335, or did Philip enter on the office not in 1330 but in 1335 % I t is a good thing to turn marks into £ s. d. but care should be taken in making the computations. On p. 55 we find 60 marks given as £10 (reaUy £40) 20 marks as £3 6s. 8d. (reaUy £13 6s. 8d.) and 40 marks as £6 13s. 4d. (reaUy £26 13s. 4d.); perhaps these are misprints, but on page 4 we have 12 marks=£6 13s. 4d., and 22 marks=£13 6s. 8d. : perhaps here 12 and 22 are mistakes for 10 and 20. 304 REVIEWS. I think the Records Branch should draw up some rules for the guidance of its editors. For instance, when a formula is omitted in printing a number of Charters, there should be some regular method of indicating where the omitted formula ean be found in full. The method adopted in this book leads to waste of time and temper and uncertain results in the end. I should like some reader to answer this question : What is the formula omitted from the Charter of Eilwric son of Godwin on page 102 ? One could, under Dr. Cotton's guidance, draw from these Kentish Records illustrations of many points concerning the general history and organisation of the Order. I wiU mention only one example. The preceptory or commandery of Swingfield originaUy (till 1180), contained Sisters. It points back to the primitive times when sisters were attached to each house of Hospitallers, when the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem consisted of communities of menandwomenbanded together to serve and save the sick and wounded. The book is well indexed, and Dr. Cotton's admirable practice of giving at the beginning of each sub-section of his " Conspectus " the printed and manuscript authorities used adds greatly to its historical value and usefulness. A.G.L. THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF KENT. The Archaeology of Kent, by Ronald F. Jessup. [The County Archaeologies.] Pp. xiv + 272, with 48 illustrations. London: Methuen, 1930, 10s. 6d. County archseologies and histories are liable to be unsatisfactory things. The geographical unit is nearly always a purely arbitrary one, bearing little relationship to the comings and goings and doings of men in early times. A distinguished contributor to the Victoria County Histories regularly began his section with this lament, and his plaints were usuaUy well founded. Kent is one of the rare counties which can claim some real territorial and historical unity. Blocked towards the south-west by the great barrier of the Weald; open along an extended coastline to the shortest REVIEWS. 305 channel-crossings ; and covering the whole Thames estuary up to the lowest natural bridge-head at Southwark—these and other special factors combined to give ancient Kent a certain isolation and prestige which facihtates a separate treatment of its archseology. Mr. Jessup might perhaps have made more of this distinctive character than he does. In particular, he could profitably have included a physiographical map, showing, on a geological basis, the approximate former distribution of downland, forest, heath and marsh. But he makes it clear in his text that he is fully alive to the importance of physiography. For instance, the distribution of Bronze Age antiquities " emphasises how closely the movements of early people were dependent on geographical considerations. For the most part, finds are plentiful along the northern coastal tract and at the easily accessible spots of the Dover-Thanet coast. The valleys of the Medway and Stour were settled. . . . If the' distribution map is compared with a map showing superficial geological deposits, it will be found that again and again a group of antiquities coincides with a spread of gravel." On the other hand, " except for barrow burial, high land seems to have been avoided, and it will be seen that scarcely a single find has been made on the Downs " (pp. 125-6). This last statement brings out another, somewhat curious, point of difference between Kent and, say, Sussex. The downs of Sussex carry several important vestiges of prehistoric occupation. The downs of Kent have admittedly been less adequately explored in the past, but this accident is, in itself, insufficient to explain that barrenness to which Mr. Jessup refers. The scarcity of late prehistoric upland " camps " in Kent (Bigbury, near Canterbury, is an important exception and deserves a plan) may be partly accredited to the intensive occupation of the county by the Belgse, who were primarily vaUey-dweUers. On the other hand, in emphasising the importance of the gravel banks of the Kentish rivers in the earUer prehistoric periods also, Mr. Jessup is giving a useful lead to other county archseologists, 24 306 REVIEWS. who have been over-ready to stress the obvious tumuli on the hill-tops at the expense of the less obvious but often more important rehcs of occupation which chance brings to light (far more frequently than is commonly reahsed) in the lowlands. The book reveals at the same time the richness and the inequahty of the prehistoric remains of the County. The excellent section dealing with the megahthic structures in and near the Medway vaUey brings home to the reader, possibly for the first time, the unexpected richness of the area in monuments of this kind, and once more emphasises the fact that, save in the matter of Pleistocene flints, Kentish archseologists have fallen short of many of their neighbours in their researches into their earUer antiquities. The earlier phases of the Early Iron Age are at present miserably represented in the county; but again, in recent years the discovery of " Hallstatt" pottery on occupation-sites excavated at Worth and Richborough (in the latter case, in association with ditches) suggests that the deficiency is one of knowledge rather than of material. The opening phases of the historic period have received better treatment, though here the initiative has too often come from outside the county. Be that as it may, it is now possible to outUne a tolerably coherent story of Roman Kent, and the remarkable Early Christian architecture of the county, as recovered largely by excavation, may be described as unsurpassed in interest in Europe north of the Alps. Mr. Jessup's brief summary of the Roman material is clear and good ; that of the Christian Saxon period needs some revision (e.g., there is no likehhood that St. Pancras, Canterbury, began as a pagan temple), if, indeed, it be retained at aU in a book which deals primarily with the prehistoric epoch. Throughout his difficult task, Mr. Jessup has preserved an exceUent sense of proportion and maintained a sound and conservative judgment. This quahty was severely tried at the outset by the inevitable " eoUthic " problem, on which the author wisely passes the foUowing verdict:—" The focus of the eohth controversy is the so-caUed ' retouching' or REVIEWS. 307 chipping, which, it will be remembered, is very clumsy and rude. The fact of the matter is that there is really no means of distinguishing between a clumsy artificiaUy worked flint and one that has been crushed by natural causes. For this reason, the acceptance or rejection of the eohth chipping depends on the ' personal equation ' of the observer, and at this the matter must be left." Not the least useful feature of the book is the comprehensive " Archseological Gazeteer " which it includes—a section of permanent referential value. Indeed, as a whole the book must be regarded as a new landmark in Kentish archseology, both for its intrinsic worth and as the first substantive work of a young and able archaeologist who should go far in the service of his county. R. E. M. WHEELER. A SAUNTER THROUGH KENT. A Saunter through Kent with Pen and Pencil, Vol. XXIV, 1930, by Sir Charles Igglesden, F.S.A. Pp. 82. " Kentish Express " Office, Ashford, 3s. 6d. This is the latest instalment of the author's interesting and chatty account of the antiquities of our Kentish villages, including one or two towns like Hythe and Heme Bay, with charming ihustrations of some of the churches and old buildings. Nothing that is ancient escapes Sir C. Igglesden, and anything picturesque is sure to find a place among his sketches. What is also remarkable is the number of old stories and recoUections of ancient customs and events, which he has coUected in the various places he has visited. Sir Charles has a real talent for drawing out the reminiscences of old inhabitants. Many of these are extremely interesting, relating as they do to by-gone times, and it is weU that they should be preserved in print before succeeding generations forget them. This volume describes Hythe, Newington-next-Hythe, Borden, TunstaU and Newenden. Parts of it, however, give signs of hasty compilation. For instance it is stated that Sir E. Dering represented Hythe in 1675, and introduced a BiU for the abolition of Bishops, " and later on fought for 308 REVIEWS. Charles I and lost his estate." The date is clearly incorrect : he was elected for Hythe in 1625, and died in 1644, soon after changing his political views. Again, Sir Charles Igglesden relates that " a Mr. Deedes of Saltwood Castle, to save time and bother, elected himself to represent Hythe when a vacancy occurred." The fact is that Mr. Julius Deedes in 1685 was elected by the jurats, commoners, and freemen of Hythe, but the House of Commons decided that, being Mayor and Returning officer, he could not return himself, and his election was declared null and void. He was duly elected in 1688. In the account of Beechborough we read that " in the reign of EUzabeth it was bought by Henry Brockman, who rebuilt the seat in 1713 " ! This is the date of the oldest part of the present mansion, but obviously the Henry Brockman who purchased the estate in Elizabeth's reign, which ended in 1603, could not have been alive 110 years later. The house must have been erected by his descendant bearing the same name.1 No authority is given for the statement that " in 1052 Earl Godwin and his men landed at Hythe, destroyed all the ships that lay in the harbour, and the inhabitants were put to the sword by the hundred." Hythe was situated in Godwin's Earldom, the Cinque Ports mariners were his adherents in the dispute the Earl had with King Edward the Confessor, and any such massacre is most improbable. Nor is it hkely that about the year 1400 " five ships which lay in the harbour were caught in a gale and sunk . . . and a hundred sailors drowned." The old records state that the ships were lost at sea ; not in the sheltered haven of Hythe. Castle Toll, in the Parish of Newenden, is identified in this book as the site of the important Roman city of Anderida. But Sir Charles Igglesden has probably overlooked the paper by Mr. C. Roach Smith, in Vol. XIII, Archceologia Cantiana, which states that no trace of Roman pottery, coins, or buildings have been discovered by excavations at Castle ToU. Such objects are usuaUy found in abundance in ancient 1 See pp. 281-3 of this volume.—ED. REVIEWS. 309 Roman settlements. The mounds at Newenden are probably British earthworks. Most recent authorities regard Pevensey Castle with its Roman remains as the site of Anderida : Castle Toll is far too small. Apart from these and a few other statements which seem doubtful, and which are probably due to lack of time for research, this volume, like its predecessors, is full of charm and interest, and a most useful record of county antiquities and picturesque places. H.D.D. SEVENOAKS ESSAYS. Sevenoaks Essays, by Gordon Ward, M.D. Printed and published for Subscribers by Metcalfe & Cooper, Ltd., London, 1931. Pp. 316.1 Dr. Gordon Ward is weU known as a " snapper up of unconsidered trifles " in the way of charters and early MSS., and as a generous sharer of his finds ; in this volume he offers his subscribers, who will find themselves weU rewarded, " the gleanings of many hundreds of " bundles of ancient papers, many of which he was personaUy instrumental in preserving. In his Preface and often in the course of his book he stresses, what indeed needs no re-stressing in these pages, the immense value of preserving, preferably in a place accessible to students, every particle of written evidence of the past, however unimportant it may seem to the inexperienced in such matters ; and it is largely with a view to showing the use to which the antiquary can put such material that he has pubhshed this book. In an easy, readable style that wastes no words, enhvened with much pleasant humour, but entirely free from the tiresome facetiousness that sometimes besets the " popular " writer on antiquities, Dr. Ward offers no less than seventyeight " essays," few exceeding three pages in length, and some hardly longer than a footnote, on a variety of subjects, topographical, philological and archseological. Though aU 1 A few copies of the Subscribers' Edition remain, price 20s.; copies of the ordinary edition (price 7s. 6d., postage 6d.) can be had of the Author or of J. H. Lorimer, 85 High Street, Sevenoaks. 310 REVIEWS. his pebbles were picked up in Sevenoaks and its immediate neighbourhood, there are few which, dropped into the clear waters of Dr. Ward's easy erudition, do not spread ripples of interest all over Kent or beyond. They are addressed to the general reader rather than to the learned antiquary, but the latter wiU have to be very learned indeed, if he can claim that Dr. Ward can teach him nothing. Can he, for instance, give a ready answer to aU these questions, or would he even know where to look for the answers % What is the likelihood that the modern Shenden is the thirteenth century Shancke Dene—" Holy Valley " ? What is a " hog not justified " ? How was a house built of "four scratches"? Why is RiverhiU so called, when there is not (and was not) any river nearby ? Why were the tenants of Algarysdenne in Wald accused of not " mowing their gaveU " % Why should a widow (this is not a misprint) in 1772 need oihng % What was the Battle of Hastings of 1737 ? What is " porthor " ? What is a " Modus " ? The answers to these and many other curious questions are to be found here. In other essays we learn how the earhest SackviUe to own Knole, Thomas, Earl of Dorset, Lord High Treasurer of England, made a secret lease of the property to three nonentities, in order that he might stiU be able to enjoy it if he were dispossessed by James I ; we watch, with one eye on the Roman artist and the other on a recent British Museum report, the decoration of a viUa at Otford ; we hear how the author (surely it was the author ?) outwitted a Midland bookseller—a very instructive anecdote, this ; how a certain resident in Sevenoaks owns a part of Harold's road to the Battle of Hastings (the 1066 one this time) in his garden ; we study, with the aid of plans and sections, the well at Otford that Becket is said to have made by striking his staff on the ground ; we are instructed how and where to look for eohths, what to do if our sentimental fancy leads us to see a ghostly monk at Monks in the Hole— where old John Monke used to live, and how to play the absorbing game of " Pursuit of the Headmaster." And only considerations of space prevent the extension of the REVIEWS. 311 catalogue. This might well claim to be the Kentish antiquary's ideal bedside book. Dr. Ward is too good a scholar to ask us to take it all on trust; every important statement has a reference to the end of the book, where his authorities are discreetly massed, and there is a fuU and competent Index. The book is attractively bound in buckram and neatly printed, but it is a pity that better lettering was not chosen for the spine. There are a number of good black and white drawings, sketch maps and facsimiles of manuscripts, though, oddly enough, no " list of iUustrations." A.M. REPORT OF ROYAL HISTORICAL MONUMENTS' COMMISSION. Meport of Royal Historical Monuments' Commission. East London. Vol. V (final) of the Report on London of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. H. M. Stationery Office, 1930. Pp. 149 (and copious plates). Vis. 6d. net. Of this admirable series, still in progress, which has also •completed the counties of Hertford, Buckingham, Essex, Huntingdon, and a part of Herefordshire, the present volume is the only one which has reached the borders of Kent; and a casual perusal of its pages will make the Kentish antiquary wish that at least a section of the county proper may be undertaken before long. The scope of the book embraces the famous " East End " of London, north •of the Thames ; and on the south, the boroughs of Southwark and Bermondsey, and that area—the hundred of Blackheath and the parish of Plumstead—which was taken from Kent in 1888 and included in the new county of London. So much of this N.W. extremity of ancient Kent has been disfigured by the uncontrolled expansion of the metropohs, that it is comforting to learn from this Inventory how much old work—chiefly post-mediseval—remains within it. I t is difficult to realise the extent of the changes of a century, when one looks at the welter of modern S.E. London; and .only fifty years ago much of it was still comparatively rural. 312 REVIEWS. At the accession of Victoria, Beckenham was stiU a sleepy village, and Bromley a little country town ; and even at the time of the Crimean War, Plumstead Church stood nestled in trees and with but few houses near it for neighbours, overlooking the Thames marshes. Nee species sua cuique manet. To go back a little further, John Rocque's fascinating map of the environs of London in 1741-5 shows that even Deptford was still a separate entity, as in the days of Evelyn ; and Woolwich a little riverside town, cut off from Charlton by open tracts with such interesting names as Hanging Wood, Sand Wharf, and Mount Whoredom, and approached from its Common by Cholic Lane ! I t is quite impossible to do adequate justice to this Report in the little space avaUable. It cannot be called exciting reading—but few inventories are that—and is essentiaUy a book of reference; yet the copious and fine illustrations should make anyone loath to put it down. Only a few sahent points can be mentioned here; and the reader of these should be spurred to buy or seek out the volume for himself in the nearest pubhc library. Three buildings of importance, Greenwich R.N. Hospital (begun 1662); Eltham Palace (finished about 1480) ; and Morden CoUege, Blackheath (for'' decayed Turkey Merchants,'' 1695-1702), are fuUy described and finely iUustrated. AU three were visited by the K.A.S. in September, 1928. An exceUent photograph appears of the fine late fifteenth century bridge spanning the moat at Eltham Palace, but—tot inter optima—as much can hardly be said ofothat of the interior of the Great HaU, which has so splendid a hammer-beam roof. The world-famed observatory on Greenwich Hill (1675-6), attributed to Wren, is duly noticed ; and one of the plates illustrates two interesting stained windows : early sixteenth century Flemish glass in Trinity Hospital chapel at Greenwich, and Enghsh, dated 1639 (with modern portions), in Charlton chancel. Domestic architecture is further represented in the remains of Well Hall, Eltham (seat of the Ropers), early REVIEWS. 313 Ehzabethan; Charlton House (finished 1612); the Presbytery, Greenwich (c. 1630); and Eltham Lodge (1663-5). Nor are the old parish churches disregarded, though nearly all have been greatly rebuilt, like so many near London. St. Nicholas, Deptford (c. 1697) and St. Alphege, Greenwich (mostly 1711-14) are commended as good examples of their period; while the preceding century is represented in the tower of Plumstead (1664)—this church retaining a thirteenth century S. transept—and the charming little Laudian church of Charlton (c. 1630-40), whose modern Jacobean woodwork is exceedingly pleasing : here are two Royal Arms happily retained. Lewisham and St. Nicholas, Deptford, have preserved, in part, their Perpendicular W. towers. One is tempted to dwell on the fine post-Reformation church furniture illustrated, but again a smattering must' suffice. Seventeenth and eighteenth century fonts at- Charlton and Greenwich ; pulpits of similar date at Deptford, St. Nicholas (c. 1620), Charlton (c. 1640), Greenwich, and Morden College Chapel; charming twisted balustered altarrails in the last and at Deptford, which church also possesses a portrait of Queen Anne, by Kneller, with her arms (post 1707) above, and a remarkable seventeenth century carving, with faulty Latin inscription, of Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones ; and the fine Queen Anne altar-table at Greenwich. This Inventory extends its scope until 1714, but includes the parish church of Woolwich, rebuilt 1732-8. Having aUowed itself this digression, it might weU have Usted the fine carved and painted arms of George II in this building. V.J.T. RECULVER PARISH CHURCH. Reculver Parish Church of St. Mary the Virgin, together with the Chapelry of the Holy Cross, Hoath. Pp. 11. Ridout & Sons, Heme Bay. 3d. Two of our members, Mr. J. Lewin Payne and Mr. Walter T. HiU, have coUaborated to produce this neatly printed Uttle brochure giving a summary of the history 314 REVIEWS. of Reculver Church with its successor at HiUborough, and of the Chapel of the Holy Cross at Hoath. The leaflet is illustrated with sketches by Mr. F. C. Dickinson, one of which is after the well-known 1781 print. It is clearly addressed only to the general public, but even so the inclusion of a ground plan would have doubled its interest to the casual visitor, and incidentaUy have made it of some use to the serious antiquary, to whom, as it is, the only part of real value is the List of Incumbents from 669 to the present day, compiled by Mr. J. Dolman Turner.