afterwards dismantled, together with those of the Castle-Keep and
the Gatehouse. In the next reigns the lead and stones were conveyed
in large quantities to Windsor Castle to be used in repairs and in
building the Poor Knights' lodgings. Yet the main fabric of the Castle
remained, and was used for the imprisonment of heretics in the early
years of Elizabeth. During all this time Sir Francis Knollys was
constable, having been appointed to the office by Edward VI. in 1551.
In the latter part of Elizabeth's reign he was succeeded by his son,
Sir William, who became Viscount Wallingford under James I., and Earl
of Banbury under Charles I.
We come now to the closing scene. The Castle was strongly fortified by
King Charles at the commencement of the Civil War, and Colonel Blagge,
an officer of distinguished courage in the King's army, was placed
in charge of it, the King coming for a day and night to inspect the
fortifications in 1643. Three years later, when every other castle
had been captured except Raglan on the Welsh border and Pendennis in
Cornwall, Wallingford still held out for the King's cause. The town
was closely surrounded by the troops of the Parliament; but as long
as there was any possibility of resistance the Governor refused to
yield. For sixty-five days the resistance lasted, and only five of
the garrison had fallen. At last, when all supplies were exhausted,
Colonel Blagge consented to make terms with Fairfax; and on July
29th, 1646, he was permitted to lead out his officers and men with
flying colours and martial music as if they had been the victors. The
Castle was a state prison during the remainder of the war, but the old
sentiment seems to have lingered about the place to the last. In 1652 a
conspiracy was detected for delivering it up to King Charles II., for
which a soldier of the garrison was condemned to death, and an order
was issued for the demolition of the building.
The last of the line of constables was Edmund Dunch, appointed by his
cousin Oliver Cromwell, who also created him Baron Burnell of East
Wittenham in 1658; but Dunch became a strong supporter of the King's
restoration. The demolition had then been effected, and part of the
materials were used in building the tower of St. Mary's Church. During
the eighteenth century the estate was let on lease, and afterwards
sold to private owners by the Commissioners of the Crown; while the
broken fragments which are left of the Castle tell the story of the
completeness of its ruin, and serve as a memorial of its ancient
greatness.
Cumnor Place and Amy Robsart.
BY H.J. REID, F.S.A.
A Benedictine abbey was founded as is well known at Abingdon, in the
seventh century, and to this rich and powerful monastery, Cumnor
appears from the very first to have belonged. Its earliest mention is
found in the "Chronicles of the Monastery of Abingdon," in which "the
book," probably a register or cartulary is repeatedly referred to.
Cumnor according to Dugdale is derived from Cumanus, second abbot of
Abingdon, who died _circa_ 784, but Dr. Buckler, author of "Stemmata
Chicheleana," and keeper of the Archives of Oxford University, who was
vicar of Cumnor for twenty-five years, suggests St. Coleman or Cuman,
an Irish or Scottish saint, who lived in the sixth and seventh century.
As early as the year 689, Colmonora is mentioned in a Latin deed in the
Abingdon Chronicle, twenty hides of land there being conferred upon the
Abbey by a Charter of Ceadwalla, and again in a similar deed, being a
Charter of Kenulph, dated 851, in which is an illuminated portrait of
that King. An Anglo-Saxon boundary attached to Eadred's confirmation
Charter to Abingdon in 955, mentions Cumnor, as does also a subsequent
charter of Edgar, 968, which also has a carefully defined boundary
attached to it, and the biography of St. Ethelwold, who refounded the
Abbey after its destruction by the Danes, 240 years after the original
foundation of Abbot Heane. It is very improbable that these documents
are authentic. They may possibly be copies, but are more probably
forgeries, made for various purposes in later years, based in many
instances doubtless upon the fabulous history of Geoffrey of Monmouth,
who died about 1154, leaving what was professedly the translation of a
work in the British tongue made at the request of Walter, Archdeacon of
Oxford. It contains perhaps a modicum of fact, but is not dependable;
it has been largely drawn upon by later so called historians and
romancers. Nevertheless there is every reason to believe that Cumnor
from the very earliest times belonged to Abingdon Abbey, its name in
early documents being written Cumenoran, and the Church is known to
have been one out of but three spared by the Danes, when they ravished
the district around and destroyed Abingdon in the reign of Alfred the
Great.
The Norman Conquest has left us more certain and dependable records.
From the survey of Domesday we ascertain that Comenore in 1086
contained thirty hides of land, having been rated _tempore Regis
Edwardi_, at fifty hides. It will be remembered the early English
Charters gave twenty hides as its extent, so that the Manor had by
this time been either added to, or the hidation varied, possibly
both. The Manor maintained sixty villani, sixty-nine bordarii or
freemen, with four servi or bondsmen; the Church is mentioned, as also
two fisheries of the value of forty shillings yearly. Sevacoord, or
Seacourt, and Winteham probably Wytham, were a portion of Cumnor which
is the first manor mentioned in Domesday Book, belonging to the Abbey
of Abingdon, and in evidence of ancient right it is expressly written
there:--"Semper fuit de Abbatia." Cumnor Church is again alluded to in
a Papal Bull dated 1152, but there are now no visible traces of this
edifice. The present church which underwent thorough restoration some
forty years ago, having previously suffered by injudicious alterations
at various times, is of the Transition period, the most ancient portion
being the tower, according to the dicta of ecclesiastical architects,
not erected before the year 1250. Many objects of great interest to
the Archæologist are yet preserved in and about the church, despite
the more recent restorations. Among others, are two stone coffins,
enclosing the remains of former Abbots of Abingdon, two piscinæ, and
of yet more recent date the tomb of Anthony Forster, of whom I shall
have something to say presently. Some of the stone carvings within
the church, are of great delicacy, being remarkably fine examples of
fourteenth century work, in the shape of two corbels, the capitals of
three columns, a window, and the portion of an arch.
In the chancel are some poppy heads, carved upon both sides; on
one is the sacred monogram I.H. S. upon a shield, upon another the
five stigmata, _i.e._, the pierced feet, the hands, and heart of
the Saviour, also a cross; upon the reverses are also carved the
crucifixial emblems,--the ladder, spear, and reed or staff, to which
is affixed a sponge; there are also the hammer, pincers, and three
nails. Upon the upper shield are the Vestments, the crown of thorns,
and bag of money.
[Illustration: CUMNOR CHURCH.]
A letter referring to Cumnor Church during the Civil Wars, written
by a member of the Pecock or Peacock family is printed in Mercurius
Academicus. This family held the Manor at that period, Richard Pecock
compounding for his estate by paying the considerable sum of £140. Many
of the family lie buried in Cumnor Church, and the school is mainly
supported by the legacy of a Mrs. Peacock.
The letter refers principally to the conduct of certain soldiers, who,
finding nothing worth removing, took down the weathercock, "that might
have been left alone to turn round," and did much other damage. The
letter is dated Thursday, February 26th, 1644, and is as follows:--"To
present you with as honest men as those of Evesham and honeste you will
not deeme them to be when you heare they came from Abingdon, to a place
called Cumner in no smaller a number than 500; where the chieftains
view the church, goe up into the steeple and overlook the country as
if they meant to garrison there, but finding it not answerable to
their hopes and desires they descend, but are loathe to depart without
leaving a mark of their iniquitie and impiety behind them. Some they
employ to take down the weather cock (that might have been left alone
to turn round), others take down a cross from off an isle of the church
(and this you must not blame them for they are enemies to the cross),
others to plunder the countrymens' houses of bread, beare, and bacon,
and whatsoever else was fit for sustentation."
There is also copied in a late seventeenth century MS. volume in the
British Museum, (Harl. 6365, 53 b.), an epitaph, which, I believe, may
yet be seen in the church, and is rather quaint and curious.
From the same MS.,[2] I copied a description of Anthony Forsters
monument. "In ye chancell against ye north wall, a great marble
monument with pillars of marble. On a plate of brass faced to it ye
picture of a man in armour, kneeling before a table upon a book. At the
foot thereof, his helmett, at ye sides his gauntletts, over against
him his wife kneeling, as her husband. Behind her three children,
between them this coat; 3 Bugles, Q, 3 phoeons, points upwards, with
mantling and crest, which is a stag, lodged, and regardant. Gu. charged
on ye shoulder, with a martlett, or, and pierced thro' ye neck with an
arrow, ar. Behind the man this coat; 3 Bugles, Q., 3 phoeons, points
upwards, impaling 2 organ pipes in saltere between 4 crosses, paty.
Then follow the quarterings. Behind ye woman is this coat: Williams.
Az. 2 organ pipes in saltere between 4 crosses, paty. Quarterings as
before described. Under them both a great brass plate, on ye part of
it under him the following verses--." These need not now be recorded;
they will be found in Ashmole, and also translated in most editions of
Scott's Kenilworth. They record his many accomplishments and virtues,
and relate he was wise, eloquent, just, charitable, learned in the
classics, in literature, music, architecture, and in botany. The date
of his death is not mentioned, his burial however is recorded as taking
place Nov. 10th, 1572, by the parish register, which cannot err.
[Illustration: CHAINED BIBLE, CUMNOR CHURCH.]
He is therein mentioned as A.F., gentleman, the last word being written
over an erasure, and it has been thought by some, that an epithet
not so complimentary had previously been placed there, but erased,
and "gentleman" substituted. I see no reason for such a suggestion;
possibly some latin term may originally have been written, _e.g._,
"miles," and the English word "gentleman" was thought more appropriate.
At any rate, Anthony Forster was buried at Cumnor, Nov. 10th, 1572.
Cumnor Place, Forster's residence, was an early fourteenth century
house, used as a residence by the Abbots of Abingdon, and also as a
place of removal or sanitorium by the monks, particularly during the
plague, or black death, which decimated England under Edward III. At
this period, it served both as rectory and manse house, where tithe
and rents were paid, and Manorial Courts held, and where tenants
were bound to attend to do suit and service for their lands to their
superior lords. Such was Cumnor Place, until the dissolution of the
monasteries by Henry VIII. In 1538, it was granted for life by the
Crown to Thomas Pentecost or Rowland, last Abbot of Abingdon, in
consideration of his having willingly surrendered the Abbey and its
possessions to the King. Rowland either died the following year or
ceded Cumnor Place to the King, who seems to have retained possession
for seven years, when, by patent, dated Windsor, Oct. 8th, 1546, the
Lordship, Manor, and rectorial tithes of Cumnor, with all its rights
and appurtenances, particularly the Capital Messuage, Cumnor Place, and
the close adjoining, called the Park, and three closes called Saffron
Plottye, etc., were granted to George Owen, Esq., the King's physician,
and to John Bridges, doctor in physic, in consideration of two closes
in St. Thomas' parish, Oxford, the site of Rowley Abbey, and the sum
of £310 12s. 9d., cash. William Owen, son of Dr. Owen, married, April
24th, 1558, Ursula, daughter of Alexander Fettiplace, the estate being
then settled upon him. Shortly afterwards, Cumnor Place was leased
to Anthony Forster, and it was in his occupation when occurred the
tragic incident which forms the concluding scene in Sir Walter Scott's
Kenilworth, the death of Amy Robsart, wife of Sir Robert Dudley,
afterwards Earl of Leicester.
In the following year, Anthony Forster purchased the property from
Owen, and seems to have greatly enlarged and otherwise improved the
mansion. Dying in November, 1572, he devised the estate to Dudley,
subject to a payment of £1,200 to Forster's heirs. These conditions,
its seems the Earl accepted, but retained possession for a single year
only, as is proved by a document among the Longleat papers purporting
to be a record of the sale of Cumnor by the Earl of Leicester, to Harry
le Norris, ancestor of the Earls of Abingdon, which bears date 15th
February, 16th Elizabeth, 1575.
From this time Cumnor seems to have gradually fallen into decay.
Possibly the sad end of Lady Dudley may have contributed to this; at
all events, rumours were spread among the villagers that her ghost
haunted the locality, and a tradition is even yet received by them that
her spirit was so unquiet that it required nine parsons from Oxford to
lay the ghost, which they at last effectually did, in a pond hard by,
the water in which does not freeze it is said, even in the most severe
winter. This pond is still shown by the villagers, although they are
quite unable to assign any reason for the peculiar conduct of the ghost.
Neglected for nearly a hundred years, a portion of the ruined mansion
was then converted into a malthouse, afterwards into labourer's
dwellings, and finally demolished in 1810, for the purpose of
rebuilding Wytham Church. Among other mementoes of its former owner
was an arch bearing upon the label the inscription "_Janua Vitæ
Verbum Domini. Anthonius Forster, 1575._" This, with some handsome
tracery windows, was removed to Wytham, the arch being built into the
entrance wall of the churchyard. The date and name were for some reason
destroyed, possibly to evade an apparent anachronism, for Anthony
Forster had been dead two years in 1575. These windows and other
objects of interest were engraved in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for
1821.
It is said and I believe truly, that so great interest was excited in
Cumnor Place, by Sir W. Scott's novel, that the Earl of Abingdon was
induced to drive some visitors from Wytham to see the ruins, forgetting
that some years previously he had given order for their demolition.
The disappointment of the party on arriving upon the ground was
great, as may be imagined, and not less so that of the Earl, who too
late realized his mistake. The disappointment was felt by everybody,
for it is said all the world hastened to the site of the tragedy so
graphically described by Scott, only to find they were too late. The
public was not then aware that its sympathies had been aroused by the
vivid imagination and marvellous genius of the novelist, and that
while there was just a substratum of fact the greater portion of this
historical novel had no foundation other than the great constructive
power of the Author. While thousands deplored the untimely fate of Amy
Robsart, their sympathies were in truth tributes to the dramatic powers
of the novelist, not to the unfortunate heroine; the novel may be said
to bristle with chronological inaccuracies, and utter disregard for
historic fact.
It has been repeatedly reasoned that novelists should be permitted a
certain licence, and in actual fiction this may possibly be; but if
the subject and characters chosen are both historical, misconceptions
may easily arise, and erroneous statements be indelibly impressed upon
the mind of the reader. Let us recall to our memories the outline of
Kenilworth, and then notice some of Scott's most glaring historical
inaccuracies and anachronisms, and while I have no intention of
attempting a defence for Robert Dudley and his followers, for the crime
here alleged to have been committed, I believe I shall be able to show
that he was, in this instance at any rate, greatly maligned.
The plot in brief is as follows:--Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester,
son of the Duke of Northumberland, who had been executed for
endeavouring to place Lady Jane Grey upon the throne, having secretly
married Amy Robsart, desires to be free, and confides his wishes to
his retainers, Richard Varney and Anthony Forster. The Countess, who
was living in retirement at Cumnor Place, hearing of the festivities
given by her husband at Kenilworth, goes secretly there, and has a most
affecting interview with Queen Elizabeth, in the course of which the
Queen bitterly reproaches Leicester. At length, by specious promises,
he prevails upon Amy to return to Cumnor, arranging to come to her as
soon as liberated from his attendance upon the Queen. She complies,
and is assigned by Forster a portion of the building approached only
by a drawbridge in which is concealed a trap-door. At night Varney,
riding hastily into the courtyard, gives the Earl's private signal--a
peculiar whistle--on hearing which Amy rushes out to meet her husband;
but Forster having meanwhile withdrawn the bolts, she falls through the
trap. "A faint groan and all is over." Immediate punishment overtakes
the criminals. Varney is arrested, but poisons himself in his cell,
while Forster, in his hasty endeavour to escape, closes behind him a
secret door, and dies a lingering death.
Scott tells us in later editions of Kenilworth (the first was published
in 1821), that he based his story upon a beautiful ballad by W.J.
Mickle, the translator of Camoens Lusiad, which had deeply impressed
him; and Ashmole's Antiquities of Berkshire is cited at length by
him as the principal authority upon which the novel was based. But
Ashmole was in this instance only a copyist, and his antiquities
were not published until 1717, nearly 160 years after Lady Dudley's
death. He copied almost verbatim from a most scurrillous work called
"Leicester's Commonwealth," published in 1584 for political purposes,
known subsequently as "Father Parson's Green Coat," from the colour of
the wrapper in which it was introduced from abroad by its author the
celebrated Jesuit, Robert Parsons, although the authorship has been
attributed to Cecil, Lord Burleigh. It was issued at first in MSS., and
eight MS. copies are preserved in the British Museum, and two in the
Bodleian. Sir Philip Sidney immediately issued a hasty answer to these
charges against his relative, but this was not actually printed until
1746, and had but little effect at the time.
"Leicester's Commonwealth" was no sooner in circulation than the
attention of Government was directed to it, and it was stigmatised by
the Queen and Privy Council as "most malicious, false, and scandalous,
and such as none but an incarnate devil could dream to be true."
Without attempting a defence of Leicester, the character of his defamer
may assist in forming a judgement how far any of his statements may be
received, bearing in mind that both in religion and politics he was
antagonistic to the Earl.
Of obscure, if not questionable birth, Parsons was educated in the
reformed religion at Balliol College, Oxford, at the expense of his
putative father. There he quickly rose to the position of dean and
bursar, but was compelled to resign these appointments in order to
avoid expulsion for incontinence and embezzlement of college funds.
Quitting England for Rome, he then adopted the Romish faith and became
a member of the Society of Jesus. Next, visiting Spain, he was most
active in urging the Spanish King to despatch the Invincible Armada,
and, after its destruction, used all his influence to promote a second
invasion. A bold, clever, intriguing, and unscrupulous traitor, he is
known to have even contemplated the assassination of Queen Elizabeth,
and by his writings to have supported the claims of the Spanish Infanta
against King James to the English throne. Such was the man, who did not
hesitate to hurl broadcast accusations of the most atrocious character
against his opponents, sheltering himself meanwhile abroad from the
prosecution his many infamies deserved. To this man principally are
traced the calumnies upon Leicester, Varney, and Forster, which have
been so unfortunately perpetuated in "Kenilworth."
Much of the interest in the novel centres in the alleged secret
marriage of Amy Robsart (who is described as daughter of Sir Hugh
Robsart of Devonshire), and Dudley. Amy is made to say, "I am but a
disguised Countess, and will not take dignity on me until authorised
by him whom I derive it from." Again she is described as "the Countess
Amy, for to that rank she was exalted by her private but solemn union
with England's proudest Earl," Leicester, as I must here call him,
further on saying "She is as surely Countess of Leicester as I am
belted Earl."
Now for the facts. Amy was only daughter of Sir John Robsart, a Knight
of ancient lineage, belonging to Norfolk, born at Stansfield Hall
in that County, afterwards notorious as the scene of the murder of
Mr. Isaac Jermy and his son by Rush. She had an illegitimate brother
named Arthur, and an elder half-brother by her mother's previous
marriage named Appleyard. Among the Longleat papers is a settlement
on the husband's side, dated 24th May, 1550, in contemplation of the
marriage. On the lady's part a deed executed by her father, Sir John
Robsart, is preserved in P.R.O., London, and dated 15th May, 1520. The
marriage itself could scarcely have been more public than it was. It
must certainly have been well known to the Queen, who not improbably
may have been present; her brother, Edward VI., certainly was. I had
occasion to examine an autograph diary of this youthful King, now
preserved in the British Museum (Cott MS. New Edit. 10), usually
described as a "little diary." As a matter of fact the diary is of
full quarto size; its first page having the Royal Arms and monogram
E.R. in gold and colours. Each leaf has now been placed separately
between folio pages for preservation. Bound up with it are many
letters from the King, carefully written and principally in latin. In
one writing from Hatfield he explains in most affectionate terms that
he had delayed writing "Non negligentia sed studium." In this diary
is recorded in King Edward's own handwriting that the Court being at
Sheen, the old name for Richmond, upon June 4th, 1550.
"S. Robert dudeley, third sonne to th erle of warwic maried S. Jon.
Robsartes daughter after wich mariage ther were certain Gentlemen
that did strive to who shuld first take away a goses heade wich was
hanged alive on tow crose postes. Ther was tilting and tourney on
foot on the 5th, and on the 6th he removed to Greenwich."