confessor. Another entry in the same register records a bequest of 40s.
by Richard Tyttesburry, canon of Exeter, to the anchorite of
Marhamchurch. His will was made on the 24th of February, 1405, and
proved on the 7th of June, 1409.[109]
At St. Teath there was a hermit, name unknown, who in 1408, under the
will of Sir William Bonevylle, received 20s. to pray for the soul of the
testator: “al heremyte de Stetth pour prier pour moy.” In the Lambeth
manuscript the bequest is recorded “a lermytage de Stath,” suggesting,
but by no means proving, a permanent hermitage in the parish.[110]
Seven years later, in 1415: “Margaret an anchorite dwelling near Bodmin,
having asked permission to migrate to the monastery of St. Bridget by
Schene and to join the order settled there, is licensed by the bishop
accordingly.” To her or to her predecessor Richard Tyttesburry, whose
name has been already mentioned, bequeathed in 1405 the sum of 40s.[111]
It has been generally supposed that Roche Rock, a natural and rugged
monolith some 300 feet in height, situated in the parish which bears its
name, was formerly the seat of a hermitage, and there is much to favour
the supposition. Norden (1584) describes it as “a verie high, steepe and
craggie rock, upon the top whereof is placed a cell or hermitage, the
walls whereof are partly wroughte, and that with great labour out of the
obdurate rock.” In the illustration, which he gives, the building is
complete with roof, windows and door. A detailed account is supplied by
Davies Gilbert (1838), from which it appears that in his day the roof
and upper chamber (as shown in Norden’s plate) had already disappeared,
the beam holes of the chamber being the only evidence that such a
chamber had existed. The dimensions of what is supposed to have been the
chapel are given by him: the length 20 feet, the breadth 12 feet and the
height 10 feet.
There are apparently only two purposes for which a building, at such an
elevation and in so desolate and remote a spot, could serve—that of a
beacon house or of a hermitage. The former is the less probable
explanation because of more suitable sites in the neighbourhood. The
lack of documentary evidence in support of the latter hypothesis is not
surprising and will carry little weight with those who reflect that it
is only, as it were, by accident that we have any evidence at all
respecting the other hermitages in the county. Comparing the cell on
Roche Rock with other similar cells in various parts of England it may
be inferred that the building was at one and the same time used by its
occupants for both purposes.
The foregoing survey discloses no such secrets as might have been
expected. It leaves the story of Cornwall’s conversion where we found
it. The key of the position remains undiscovered—the key wherewith to
open and unroll the unwritten record of the struggles of those first
fateful days when the Christian faith gained a foothold in the land. We
are thrown back upon the witness of an age so late as to render the
witness of doubtful value. If we refer to it, it is with diffidence,
having little or no hope that, as evidence, it will receive the
consideration it deserves. Yet in spite of all that may be urged against
any particular legend, we must not forget that hagiographer and monk,
chronicler and poet, cross and cell, holy well and church, all proclaim
the same story and tell the same tale when they represent the heralds of
the good tidings as wandering in deserts and in mountains and in dens
and caves of the earth. The account of St. Sampson’s visit and the
legend of St. Petrock are but types of the rest.
It would doubtless help towards the solution of the problem if something
more definite could be known of the quarter whence the earliest of those
heralds came. Was it from Gaul, from Lerins, from the East or from Rome?
We know that St. Hilary of Poitiers, in the middle of the fourth
century, dedicated his treatise _De Synodis_ to the bishops of the
British provinces, that St. German of Auxerre accompanied by St. Lupus
of Troyes came over to Britain in 429 to assist in extirpating the
Pelagian heresy. Does this point to some closer and deeper connection
than that of mere propinquity between the Churches of Gaul and of
Britain?
The intercourse between Rome and Britain, the Roman soldiers and
merchants who during the occupation were brought into daily contact with
the Britons could not fail to effect some change in the religious
attitude of the latter. It is not, however, this slow, silent, indirect
influence which excites our interest. It is rather of that direct attack
upon paganism which so far succeeded as to impress a definite character
and to make it possible to speak of Celtic Christianity as a distinct
type that we wish to hear.
We allow that the same truths when accepted by different races produce
different effects and find expression in different ways. An orthodox
Russian Churchman and an English Churchman profess the same creeds,
accept the same Scriptures, and are in all essentials of one heart and
of one soul; yet it will be some time before the latter can be got to
feel at home in the public worship of the former. Race, temperament and
tradition reveal themselves in external modes of worship. This is true,
but it is not sufficient to account for the rôle of isolation assumed by
the British Church and by the daughter Church of Brittany. Some external
influence appears to have been at work at a very early period, monastic
in character, which was unfavourable to the cultivation of close
relations with the rest of Western Christianity. It could hardly have
been either of Roman or of Gaulish origin. Had it been Roman it would
have constituted a bond of union instead of being, as it was, a barrier
against which Augustine could not prevail; had it been Gaulish it would
probably have been attempered by intercourse with the source of its
inspiration. Possibly it came from the Mediterranean or from the East by
way of Marseilles.
-----
Footnote 95:
_Hermits and Anchorites of England_, Methuen & Co.
Footnote 96:
Nancherrow and Carnyorth, two neighbouring hamlets in St.
Just-in-Penwith, denote respectively the _valley of the stag_ and _the
hill of the roebuck_.
Footnote 97:
Leland, _Collectanea_, i, 75.
Footnote 98:
Loth, _Les Noms des Saints bretons_, p. 48.
Footnote 99:
_Parochial History of Cornwall_, Supplement, pp. 102, 110.
Footnote 100:
The name of Neot’s predecessor, like that of Veronica, may have been
suggested to Asser by the reputed miracle; but, if so, it would not
invalidate the truth of the narrative so far as it relates to the
successive founders of the church.
Footnote 101:
Colemanshegg is probably Kelmonseg (1308)=Kilmonseg (1332)=Kilmonsek
(1427)=Kyllymansak (1442)=Calamansack (hodie), in Constantine parish,
which in the eleventh century was embraced in the forest of Morrois.
Footnote 102:
Inq. p.m., 28 Edw. I, 44 (4).
Footnote 103:
_Calendar of Close Rolls_, 20 May, 1301, p. 488.
Footnote 104:
Pat. R., 13 Edw. III, 1339.
Footnote 105:
_Ibid._, 9 Edw. II, 1316.
Footnote 106:
_Ibid._, 1 Rich. II, 1378, and _Reg. Brantyngham_, p. 387.
Footnote 107:
Pat. R., 3 Edw. VI, 1549.
Footnote 108:
Hermit (Gr. Eremites, L. Heremita), one who lives in the desert;
Anchorite (Gr. Anachoretes, L. Anchorita), one withdrawn from the
world; Monk (Gr. Monachos, L. Monachus), one who dwells alone. The
difference between a hermit and an anchorite was that the former was
free to move from place to place, the latter was confined. The monk
who had at first been a solitary soon became a member of an ordered
and celibate community.
It is curious to notice that the impulse which created the hermit
produced the monastery, and that, at a later date, the monastery
incidentally produced the hermit.
Footnote 109:
_Register Stafford_, pp. 25, 251, 294.
Footnote 110:
_Ibid._, p. 391.
Footnote 111:
_Ibid._, pp. 25, 294.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
ST. MICHAEL’S MOUNT
It is of little consequence to consider when and by whom the suggestion
was first put forward, but it was one which captivated all who were
anxious to endow their native county with a unique distinction. The
suggestion was that St. Michael’s Mount was identical with the island of
Ictis, mentioned by Diodorus Siculus about the beginning of the first
century before the Christian era.
Assuming the truth of this hypothesis, for which, indeed, many cogent
arguments could be urged, historical writers were enabled to make a
better start in the case of Cornwall than in the case of any other
English county.
It is therefore somewhat disquieting to find a distinguished geologist
staking a great reputation upon a counter-theory which, though promulged
so recently as the year 1905, has at the present moment the support of
the majority of those who are competent to form a judgment of its
scientific value. Mr. Clement Reid, F.R.S., basing his arguments upon
the evidence of geology and physical geography, has been able to
show[112] that, nineteen hundred years ago, the Isle of Wight was, at
high water, an island and, at low water, a peninsula answering exactly
to the description of the island of Ictis given by Diodorus, whereas St.
Michael’s Mount was at that time “an isolated rock rising out of a
swampy wood.” On the other hand, however, it is only fair to say that
Prof. Oman, who has doubtless examined and weighed, with his accustomed
acumen, Mr. Reid’s reasoning and conclusions, remains unconvinced. The
Rev. H. R. Coulthard has broached a new theory, which has perhaps not
yet received the attention it deserves; it is that Ictis was the entire
peninsula of Western Penwith. As against this, there is the evidence of
Pliny who, on the authority of Timæus, states that the island of Mictis,
apparently only another form of Ictis, was distant six days’ sail along
the British coast, a statement which is as fatal to the claims of
Penwith as to those of the Mount itself.
The question can hardly be said to be finally decided, but the
prevailing opinion is in favour of the Isle of Wight.
The Mount has had several names. In the life of St. Cadoc[113] it is
called Dinsul, which probably means the citadel of the sun.
St. Cadoc is said to have visited his aunt St. Keyne there, and to have
miraculously provided the Mount with a supply of water.
By the Cornish it was called Careg Cowse, or Karrek-luz-en-Kuz, which
William of Worcester correctly translates “Hoar Rock in the Wood.” It
would be interesting to discover earlier evidence of this name. Its
survival in the fifteenth century[114]—in spite of the monastic and
military occupation of the Mount for many centuries—is very remarkable
and seems to carry us back to the time when Mr. Reid’s description was
exactly realised.
At some period, very difficult to determine, the Mount became known as
Mons Tumba.[115] A charter in the Otterton custumal recording the
reconstitution of St. Michael’s priory, in the reigns of Henry I, and
Stephen, enjoins that the Cornish monks shall receive the blessing of
their abbot at Monte Tumba unless, perchance, it shall please him to
come into Cornwall and bless them there; from which it may be inferred
that the religious house in Monte Tumba was at that time identified with
Mont St. Michel in Normandy, although the latter was then, at an earlier
date and long afterwards, commonly described as St. Michael in Periculo
Maris.[116] When dealing with the medley of notes collected by William
of Worcester it will be necessary to bear this in mind.
The Mount was associated with St. Michael before the Norman Conquest, in
all probability before the Saxon invasion of Cornwall.
As Professor Loth has pointed out,[117] the name-saints
(_hagio-onomastique_) of ancient Brittany are entirely national. “With
the exceptions of some apostles, of St. Michael, St. Matthew, of St.
Peter who has given his name to Ploubezre, it is useless to seek for
them in Gaul and the Roman Church: they are all of them insular (British
or Irish) or native Breton.” The same may be said of Cornwall with very
few exceptions. The position assigned to St. Michael was everywhere
unique. At some time subsequent to the Babylonish captivity St. Michael
came to be had in special veneration of the Jews. From apostolic times
in the East and from the fifth century, at least, in the West, he was
received into the devotional system of the Christian Church. Nothing
could have been more sane or scriptural than the honour paid to St.
Michael. As the Prince of God’s people and the Captain of the heavenly
hosts[118] (_militiae celestis signifer_) he, who had prevailed against
the Spirit of evil, might well be expected to lend his aid when the
wrestling was against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly
places. And what spot so worthy to be the site of an earthly fane for
one whose warring is in the regions above man’s head, as the lonely
mountain’s top. There is a sense of security felt by those who live on,
or surrounded by, hills even now when so many ages have run since they
were remotely responsible for it. The proper seat of the Archangel was
clearly on the hill-top. They “found him an house” accordingly on the
Cornish Mount, on Rowtor, on Rame Head, on Penkevil, on Caerhayes and on
the western Carn Brea. Whether the cult of St. Michael superseded some
earlier pagan cult in Cornwall it is impossible to say. Until some
evidence is forthcoming it can serve no useful purpose to dilate upon
the possible identity of Michael, Elias and Helios, or upon the
possibility of one whose most notable achievement was the destruction of
sun worship on Mount Carmel, being himself its personification to after
ages.
That there was a religious community at the Mount bearing the name of
St. Michael before the Norman Conquest hardly admits of doubt. All the
saints, with three exceptions, found there by William of Worcester, in
the Calendar, were Celtic and insular.
The late Professor Freeman and Mr. Horace Round have, however, expressed
a contrary opinion based upon the doubtful authenticity of two charters,
certain particulars of which, connected chiefly with their attestation,
are admittedly and obviously inaccurate.
The first of these charters[119] purports to be a grant made by Edward
the Confessor, “King of the English, to Michael the Archangel for the
use of the brethren serving God in that place, of St. Michael near the
Sea, of the whole of the lands of Vennefire and of the port called
Ruminella with its mills and fisheries.” This charter bears the
signatures of Edward the King, Robert archbishop of Rouen, Herbert
bishop of Lisieux, Robert bishop of Coutances, Ralph, Vinfred, Nigell
the sheriff, Anschitill, Choschet and Turstin. The second charter[120]
claims to be a grant by Robert Count of Mortain to the monks of St.
Michael in Periculo Maris (Normandy), of St. Michael’s Mount in Cornwall
with half a hide of land and a market on Thursdays; and three (Cornish)
acres of land in Amaneth, namely Trevelaboth, Lismanoch, Trequaners and
Carmailoc, the signatories being King William (the Conqueror), Queen
Matilda, Count Robert, William Rufus the King’s son, Henry the Boy
(prince), Robert Count of Mortain, Matilda (his) countess, their son
William, William Fitz Osborn, Roger de Montgomery, Tossetin the sheriff,
Warin and Turulf.
To the grant there are added, 1—a confirmation of it by Livric
(Leofric), bishop of Exeter, bearing date 1085; and 2—a postscript
signed by the bishop, exempting by command of Pope Gregory, the church
of St. Michael in Cornwall from episcopal control and conveying a
remission of one-third of their penance to those who should enrich,
endow or visit the said church.
With regard to Edward’s charter, it has been pointed out by more than
one writer that Edward probably did not assume the title of King of the
English until after the death of Hardicanute in 1042, and that Robert,
archbishop of Rouen, died in 1037. It is not stated whence Dugdale
obtained his copy of the charter, but a footnote by Oliver informs us
that the MSS. of the _abbey_ of St. Michael are preserved in the public
library at Avranches; and it is noteworthy that the charter in his
_Monasticon_ is labelled Carta Edwardi regis Anglorum pro _abbatia_
Sancti Michaelis, and that the three episcopal signatories are _Norman_
ecclesiastics. It is therefore possible that during his sojourn in
Normandy Edward who:
... loved the holy company
Of people of religion,
Who loved only all that was good;
Especially a monk who led
A high and heavenly life
may have been induced to promise or to give Cornish lands to the Norman
St. Michael and that his friends may have styled him Rex Anglorum,
knowing that only when he became de facto King of the English could any
benefit accrue to the abbey. But it seems more probable that a gift of
lands was made by him to the Cornish St. Michael after Hardicanute’s
death and that after the Norman Conquest when the two religious houses
were united by the cession of the Cornish priory to the Norman abbey the
deed which may have borne the signature of Robert, archbishop of
Canterbury, was altered so as to bear that of Robert, archbishop of
Rouen. In that case the grant would have been made between 1050 and
1066. There were undoubtedly bold and fruitless attempts made on the
part of the Norman abbots to enrich the Norman at the expense of the
Cornish house, just as at a later period there were bold and successful
attempts made to enrich the latter by borrowing the legends and
traditions of the former.
The substantial genuineness of Edward’s charter will be regarded as
probable when it is remembered that no ultimate advantage can be shown
to have accrued from it to either house. A spurious document would
hardly have been preserved in the face of facts witnessing to its
failure. Neither Domesday Book nor the _Inquisitio Geldi_ makes mention
of any possessions in Meneage belonging to St. Michael.
The suggestion offered in Chapter VI, viz. that the Meneage was at an
early period monks’ land both in name and in fact, may possibly account
for the entire series of transactions. Grants to religious houses and
for religious purposes have not infrequently been a trifling recompense
made to Paul for the spoiling of Peter. It was notably so in the reign
of King Henry VIII. If in the early part of the eleventh century the
Meneage represented alienated, that is, usurped monastic land, no one
would have been more disposed than King Edward to make restoration or to
honour St. Michael by granting it to the Mount. It is not unlikely that
the grant remained inoperative owing to the difficulty of making terms
with the layfolk in possession.
In the appendix[121] to volume iv. of his _Norman Conquest_, Mr.
Freeman, after referring to the doubtful authenticity of Edward the
Confessor’s charter, goes on: “doubtful as this charter is, the
spuriousness of that which accompanies it (the charter of Robert Count
of Mortain) is still more manifest.” He then recites the fact that
whereas the latter charter is dated 1085, it bears the signatures of
Queen Matilda, who died in 1083, and of Bishop Leofric, who died in
1072; also the exemption from ecclesiastical jurisdiction granted by
Leofric at the instance of Pope Gregory, who did not become Pope until
after Leofric’s death—altogether a most formidable indictment—and he
proceeds to quote from the Exeter Domesday, with a view of establishing
the real date of the foundation of St. Michael, the following passage
(which will also be found below labelled A.):
“Sanctus Michahel habet i. mansionem quae vocatur Treiwal quam tenuit
Brismarus eâ die qua Rex E. fuit vivus et mortuus.... De hac mansione
abstulit Comes de Moritonio i. de praedictis ii. hidis quae erat de
dominicatu beati Michahelis.”
“This,” he says, “is the only mention of the house I can find, and it
would seem to imply a foundation between 1066 and 1085. Brismar was a
man of large property in all the three shires. He is not unlikely to
have been the founder of the Cornish Saint Michael, and if so he must
have founded it, or at least have given the estate, after Edward’s
death.” “It seems plain ... that whoever was the founder of the Cornish
house it was not Earl Robert.” And he concludes, “a note in the
_Monasticon_ (vii. 989) speaks of another tradition as naming Robert’s
son William as the person who gave the Cornish house to the Norman one.
Here we most likely have the clue to the mistake.”
When therefore Mr. Round is found endorsing Mr. Freeman’s opinion[122]
that “Treiwal was given to St. Michael between the death of Edward the
Confessor and the making of the great Survey,” and suggesting that Earl
Brian (who could have had no footing in England before the Conquest) may
have been the founder, it may seem presumption to express an opinion
clean contrary to both. But let Domesday Book tell its own story. There
are three references in the Exeter Book and two in the Exchequer Book
which bear upon the subject. They are given below and labelled A, B, C,
D, E for convenience of reference—those portions only being omitted
which do not concern the present discussion. The extensions are for the
use of those who are not familiar with the abbreviated Latin text.
A. Exeter Domesday, fol. 208b. (Ed. 1816, p. 189).
TERRA SANCTI MICHAHELIS DE CORNUGALLIA. Sanctus Michahel habet unam
mansionem quae vocatur Treiwal quam tenuit Brismarus eâ die qua rex
Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus. In ea sunt ii hidae terrae quae nonquam
reddiderunt gildam. Has possunt arare viii carrucae. Ibi habet Sanctus
Michahel i carrucam.... De hac mansione abstulit comes de Moritonio i de
praedictis ii hidis quae erat de dominicatu beati Michahelis.
B. _Ibid._, fol. 508 (Ed. 1816, p. 471).
Sanctus Michael habet i mansionem quae vocatur Treiwal de qua abstulit
comes de Moritonio i hidam, quae erat in dominicatu Sancti die qua rex
Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus.
C. _Ibid._, fol. 258b (Ed. 1816, p. 138).
Comes habet i mansionem quae vocatur Treuthal quam tenuit Brismarus
sacerdos eâ die qua rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus. In ea est i hida
terrae et reddit gildum (sic) Sancto Michaele (sic). Hanc abstulit comes
Sancto. Bluhidus Brito tenet eam de comite.
D. Exchequer Domesday, page ii, column 2.
Terra Sancti Michaelis. Ecclesia Sancti Michaelis tenet Treiwal. Brismar
tenebat tempore Regis Edwardi. Ibi sunt ii hidae quae nunquam
geldaverunt.... De his ii hidis abstulit comes Moritoniensis i hidam.
E. _Ibid._, columns 1 and 2, 125 a and b.
Idem (Blohiu) tenet Trevthal. Brismar tenebat tempore Regis Edwardi....
Hanc terram abstulit comes aecclesiae Sancti Michaelis.
* * * * *