Antiquarian Correspondence.

Sin scire labores,Quære, age: quærenti pagina nostra patet.

All communications must be accompanied by the name and address of the sender, not necessarily for publication.

DR. FRANCIS MALLETT.

Sir,—Dr. Francis Mallett, Vicar of Rothwell, near Leeds, instituted 7 January, 1533, is styled in the church register, “Magister Franciscus Malett: Sacre Theologie Doctor.” He resigned this living before 1547. In the catalogue of vicars, he is designated “Mr. Francis Malett, cap.” (capellanus or chaplain).

In a sketch of the life of Arthur Yeldard, one of the first Fellows ofTrinity College, Oxford, founded by Sir Thomas Pope, it is stated that Mr. Yeldard, while at Cambridge (in 1553) for his better support in study, received an annual exhibition from the Princess, afterwards Queen, Mary, by the hands of Dr. Francis Mallet, her chaplain and confessor, the last master of Michael House in Cambridge, and dean of Lincoln.

Again, I find that a Dr. Francis Mallett, as master of St. Katherine’s Hospital,[34]offered to resign the mastership in 1559.

On December 18, 1573, a “Dr. Mallett” was buried at Normanton, and it is remarked in the parish register that there remained unpaid for his burial in the church, 3s. 4d.

I wish to ascertain, if possible, whether the instances given refer to one and the same man or no; and if so, whether he was a member of the ancient family of the Mallets of Normanton, in Yorkshire.

John Batty.

East Ardsley, near Wakefield.

ARMS OF JOSUAH BARNES.

Sir,—I send you a description of the armorial plate, dated 1700, of Josuah Barnes, who was appointed Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge in 1695, and of whom Bentley said that he knew as much Greek as an Athenian cobbler. (1) For Greek Professor—Argent and sable, party per chevron: in first, the letters Alpha and Omega sable; in second, a grasshopper argent. On a chief gules a lion passant guardant or, impaling (2) Barnes—Argent, a lion rampant gules, crowned; in dexter chief a mullet; a chief or. The crown and mullet have no tincture marked.

The crest over a healm (an owl argent on a wreath argent and sable) and the mantelling (gules doubled argent) are those of the Greek Professor. Below is the motto—

“Hæc mihi musa deditVix ea nostra voco;”

and under this—

“Josua Barnes, S. T. B. Græc. Ling. Cantab.Prof. Reg. Eman. Coll. Soc. 1700.”

According to grant of arms to the five Regius Professors, the lion passant guardant is marked in his side with the letter G sable, and the owl has its legs, ears, and beak or.

J. Hamblin Smith.

Woodbridge, Suffolk.

PORTS AND CHESTERS.

(Seeante, pp. 47, 96.)

Sir,—Mr. Round adds nothing of value to what has gone before.

(1) As to the alleged “borrowing,” the word port must, on Mr. Round’s own showing, have been taken up, adopted, orborrowedby the so-called English pirates, before they incorporated it into their language; the question is, when?

Bosworth says that A.S. port means town in English, but that scholar has now fallen into discredit, for others doubt or deny his accuracy; further, we find it used as a compound, thus: portreeve, portsoken, portman. Portreeve is, I affirm, by transition from the Latinportus. The port of London extends from Yanlett Creek to Staines, so that the “city”itself is dwarfed by the larger jurisdiction appended to it; we can readily explain the anomaly, but the usage appears to have extended to other places where the hythe or haven,i.e., boat-shelter, is not so clearly marked and then the word is thrust back upon us in a sense that we repudiate.

It is further complicated with “gate” or “doorway”; portsoken, for, instance, means a liberty outside the gate or port of Aldgate, and in many northern towns where the Danes settled in force, we find the word port used for gate, as thus: Westport, Eastport, but it is not to be read as west or east-town; so the portman might mean a burgess told off to keep watch and ward over any particular gate of his own town; just as we have “wards,”i.e.guards, in London, originally confined to gates but extended to intermediate parts of the entire wall, for that was the primitive arrangement.

The Viking invaders used boats that could be pushed up comparatively narrow streams, and it might be contended that any inland place thus reached would be aportof debarkation.

(2) My word “ramify” expresses a real difficulty; I did try to spread out or extend Mr. Round’s argument under its different heads and branches,i.e., to follow up the variousramificationsof his literary matter, with a view to the extraction of a tangible meaning; and I still contend that his wordsdoimply that caer was put for castrum; but it is certain that this “native form” was unknown on the south-eastern coast, for the transliteration shows that the Romans met with dune or dinas, not caer or ker.

A. Hall.

A BAKER BLESSED.

(Seeante, p. 44.)

Sir,—Will Mr. Hussey take a suggestion for a half-answer to his query? It may possibly put him on the track of the origin of the lines that he quotes:—

In “Hamlet,” Ophelia says: “The owl was a baker’s daughter.” The ideas floating through her mind are connected with St. Valentine’s Day.

Grimm gives a story that “the cuckoo was a baker’s (or miller’s) man, and that is why he wears a dingy meal-sprinkled coat. In a dear season he robbed the poor of their flour, and when God was blessing the dough in the oven, he would take it out, and pull lumps out of it, crying every time, ‘Guk-guk,’ look, look; therefore the Lord punished him by changing him into a bird of prey, which incessantly repeats that cry.” This story, Grimm says, is doubtless very ancient, and was once told very differently. “That ‘dear season’ may have to do with the belief that when the Cuckoo’s call continues to be heard after midsummer, it betokens dearth.”

Again Grimm alludes to one of the many superstitions concerning the cuckoo in spring, and says that in some districts a rhyme runs thus:

“KukukbeckenknechtSag mir recht,Wie viel jar (jahr) ich leben soll.”

Here the idea of the baker is brought in.

Grimm gives a story of the woodpecker, which has also to do with the baking element. A combination of the Scandinavian with the saint-legendary element.

In Norway the red-hooded blackpecker is called Gertrude’s fowl, andthe origin is thus explained. The story will be found in Mr. Stallybrass’ translation of Grimm’s “Teutonic Mythology” (see vol. ii. p. 673), together with much curious information concerning rhymes and charms, which may possibly be of some help to Mr. Hussey in his researches for origins of curious old rhymes and verses.

J. G.

AN ARCHÆOLOGICAL DISCOVERY.

Sir,—A find of some archæological interest was made a few days ago in the churchyard of Hitcham, Bucks. In digging a grave on the south side of the (Norman) nave, a stone cist, or sarcophagus, was discovered 4 ft. 6 in. from the present surface. Fourteen years ago a similar cist was found; with the remains were a quantity of iron rings, 1¼ in. diameter, and iron nails, but no other indication of there having been a coffin. The head of the present cist was then brought to view, but not disturbed. The inside dimensions of the present cist were 6 ft. in length, 12 in. wide at the head, and 8 in. at the foot; 19 in. at its greatest width. The south side was composed of 5 slabs, the north side of 6; the covering slabs were 5 in number; also 1 at the head and foot—18 stones in all, 13 in. deep at the head and 12 in. at the foot; the side stones averaging 4 in. and the covering stones 5½ in. in thickness. The chalk or claunch stones of which the cist is composed were rudely squared and hewn or axed on all sides with a tool 1 in. wide, and rounded on the edge; one other tool 3 in. in width, the axe marks being sharp and clearly defined. A large and perfect skeleton was enclosed, but no trace of a coffin, wood or metal. The bed or floor of the grave was composed of fine gravel-pit sand. The bones were considerably crystallised; probably the body was covered with carbonate of lime. The skull bore traces of having lain in a liquid; it was very friable, and crumbled at the touch; the femur measured 18½ in. in length. Llewellyn Jewitt says: “The mode of burial seems this: when the body was placed in the stone cist, or sarcophagus, it was fully draped in its usual dress. It was laid flat upon its back, at full length, at the bottom of the cist; any relics intended to be buried with it were placed by its side. Liquid lime or gypsum was then poured in, upon, and around it, the face alone being left uncovered by the liquid. The body was thus completely (with the exception of the face) encased in liquid lime, which, when it became set, formed a solid mass. When these are brought to light and opened, a perfect impression or mould of the figure of the deceased appears on the bed of plaster or lime in which it had been enclosed, and, in some instances, the texture, and even the colours of the dress is clearly defined. Some years ago a cist was opened at York, in which the body of a woman clothed in rich purple, with a small child laid upon her lap, was clearly discernible in the plaster.”

Whether this was an interment of the Roman-British or Anglo-Saxon period the orientation was very decided in this case, as in the five others I have seen in this spot, they all lying due east and west. Two-thirds in length of this very interesting relic had to be removed to obtain the depth required for the new grave. I collected the bones and placed them in the remaining third portion left undisturbed.

JAMES RUTLAND,Hon. Sec. Berks Archæological and ArchitecturalSociety, and Maidenhead FieldClub and Thames Valley AntiquarianSociety.

The Gables, Taplow,August, 1884.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

TheEditor declines to pledge himself for the safety or return of MSS. voluntarily tendered to him by strangers.

Thecontinuation of Mr. J. H. Round’s paper on “Port and Port-Reeve” is unavoidably postponed to our next.

1. History of the Parish of Ruardyn. By Sir John Maclean, F.S.A.

2. History of the Wrays of Glentworth. By Charles Dalton.

3. Northamptonshire Notes and Queries. Part iii. Northampton: Taylor & Son. July, 1884.

4. English Etchings. Part xxxix. D. Bogue, 3, St. Martin’s-place, W.C.

5. Johns Hopkins University Studies. Second Series, vii. Baltimore. July, 1884.

6. New England Historical and Genealogical Register. No. cli. Boston, July, 1884.

7. Western Antiquary. Part ii. Plymouth. July, 1884.

8. Journal of the British Archæological Association. Vol. xl. Part ii. June, 1884.

9. Poems. By Lewis Gidley. (2nd Edition). Parker & Co. 1884.

10. Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Notes. Part iv.ChronicleOffice, Leigh.

11. The Hull Quarterly and East Riding Portfolio. No. iii. Hall, Brown & Sons.

12. Ye Historical Sketch of ye Olde London Streete. By T. St. Edmund Hake. Waterlow & Sons. 1884.

13. “Aberdeen Printers.” By J. P. Edmond. Parts i. & ii. Aberdeen: Edmond & Spark. 1884.

Works of Hogarth (set of original Engravings, elephant folio, without text), bound. Apply by letter to W. D., 56, Paragon-road, Hackney, N.E.

Original water-colour portrait of Jeremy Bentham, price 2 guineas. Apply to the Editor of this Magazine.

A large collection of Franks, Peers, and Commoners. Apply to E. Walford, 2, Hyde Park Mansions, N.W.

Antiquarian Magazine and Bibliographer, several copies of No. 2 (February, 1882) are wanted, in order to complete sets. Copies of the current number will be given in exchange at the office.

Dodd’s Church History, 8vo., vols. i. ii. and v.; Waagen’s Art and Artists in England, vol. i.; East Anglian, vol. i., Nos. 26 and 29. The Family Topographer, by Samuel Tymms, vols. iii. and iv.; Notes and Queries, the third Index. Johnson’s “Lives of the Poets” (Ingram and Cooke’s edition), vol. iii. A New Display of the Beauties of England, vol. i., 1774. Chambers’ Cyclopædia of English Literature, vol. i. Address, E. Walford, 2, Hyde Park Mansions, Edgeware-road, N.W.

SEAL OF THE BOROUGH OF SEAFORD. W. Dampier, del.SEAL OF THE BOROUGH OF SEAFORD.W. Dampier, del.

[Image of decorative bar not available]

NO. II.—SEAFORD, SUSSEX.

ON the Sussex coast, between Newhaven and Eastbourne, stands the “ancient town and port” of Seaford, a place which was formerly of some importance—seeing that it could boast of returning two Members to Parliament, and that it contained no less than seven churches; but, having been disfranchised under the Reform Act of 1832, it degenerated into an obscure fishing village, from which condition, like many other places on the southern coast, having felt the impulse of fashion, it is now rising to the dignity of a watering-place.

In very early times the site of the present town was doubtless chosen as advantageous to the dwellers on the coast, and many traces of Roman occupation have been discovered hereabouts, particularly near the cliff overlooking the eastern part of the town, where is an extensive earthwork, locally known as the Roman Camp. About the year 1820 evidences of a Roman cemetery were disclosed at Green-street, in this neighbourhood: these included sepulchral urns and coins, among the latter being one of Antonia, daughter of Marc Antony.

Somner has fixed upon Pevensey as the Anderida of the Romans; and a great battle between the Saxons and Britons in 485, at Mereredesburn, is thought to have been fought in this locality.

Seaford suffered considerably from the ravages of the French intheir “descents” on the English coast; and it was probably in the invasion in 1545 that the place was burnt, and its several churches and other public buildings destroyed.

There is a tradition that the privileges of the borough were first granted by Edward I., in consequence of its inhabitants having supplied the king with the gift or loan of “five ships and eighty mariners;” the said “privileges” comprised exemptions from toll and custom, namely, “lastage, tollage, passage, rivage, appensage, wreck,” &c., and with rights of “soc and sac and toll,” and freedom from “justices itinerant.” The town received its charter of incorporation from Henry VIII. At that time Hastings was in a pitiful state, as recited in the charter.

In the reign of Charles I. the town was made a member of the Cinque Ports, which comprised Hastings, Sandwich, Dover, Romney, Hythe, Rye, Winchilsea, Seaford, Pevensey, Fordwich, Folkestone, Feversham, Lydd, and Tenterden; now, however, it is but a “member” of the first-named port, though with “separate local jurisdiction.”

The government of the town is a municipal corporation, consisting of a bailiff or mayor, jurats, and an indefinite number of freemen. The bailiff is also (ex officio) coroner for the liberty; and the jurats, who are local magistrates and may be twelve in number, are chosen by the freemen, who were formerly styled “barons.” These “barons” of the Cinque Ports possessed extensive and peculiar privileges under their charters, and attended the Brotherhood and Guestling of the Cinque Ports Parliament, the last of which was held at New Romney, in July, 1828. The first bailiff, elected in 1541, was one John Ockenden.

The bailiff is annually elected on Michaelmas Day, with quaint formalities, which are thus set forth by Mr. M. A. Lower in his “Memorials of Seaford:” “At the summons of the church bell the assembly of freemen takes place in the town-hall, and after thepro formâbusiness has been gone through, thefreemen—leaving the jurats behind them on the bench—retire in a body to a certain gatepost near West House, and there elect their chief officer for the year ensuing. The motive for this singular proceeding seems to have been the prevention of unfair influence on the part of the magisterial body. The townsmen are attended on this occasion by the serjeant-at-mace in his proper costume, bearing the ensign of the bailiff’s authority in the shape of a small mace of silver, which is ornamented with the arms of Queen Elizabeth. The procession commences ata place called the Old Tree, where it appears the town pillory anciently stood, as it is called in old documents ‘the Pillory Tree.’ The place of execution, or rather the perquisite of the ‘finisher of the law,’ is still pointed to by the name of a piece of land called ‘Hangman’s Acre.’ ” The Pillory Tree was standing in 1578. The site is now marked by the “Old Tree” Inn.

In the 37th year of Elizabeth, the cucking-stool, the pillory, and the butts are mentioned in a “presentment” by the jury as in a state of decay. The pillory was an instrument of punishment to be met with in former times in most old county towns; but the cucking or ducking-stool was not so common, on account of its peculiar construction and use. It could, of course, be used only in such places as had a convenient pond or piece of water at hand wherein to “duck” its unfortunate occupant. The cucking-stool is referred to by some of the older poets. Thus Gay writes:—

“I’ll hie me to the pond, where the high stoolOn the long plank hangs o’er the muddy pool,That stool, the dread of every scolding quean.”

Down to the sixteenth century, Seaford had a harbour of its own. The river Ouse flowed between the town and the shingly beach to find an outlet at Seaford Head, or Cliff End, and ships floated up to the houses, in much the same fashion as they do at Shoreham even to this day; but by the accumulation of shingle through the action of the tides its outlet was diverted, and the harbour destroyed. A grant of Queen Elizabeth, dated 1592, speaks of the “decayed haven of Seaforth, called Beame lands,” &c. This land, now used for the purposes of recreation, but still retaining the corrupted name of the Bemblands, exhibits but few traces of the river-bed which of old conferred upon the town the distinction of a Cinque port. The haven in the end became a duck-pool.

Seaford is a borough by prescription, and from the end of the thirteenth century, as stated above, returned two members to Parliament, and it was at one time represented by the celebrated statesmen, the elder Pitt and George Canning; this borough was long remarkable for the obstinate election contests between the partisans of the two noble houses of Lennox and Pelham, and also for the open display of “bribery and corruption,” which formed perhaps the chief political interest of its worthy burgesses.

Seaford gives the title of “Baron” to the family of Ellis, Lords Howard de Walden; and it may be added that the custom of “Borough English” prevails here, whereby property descends to the youngest son.

The arms of Seaford are (like those of the other Cinque Ports) the dimidiated lions of England, with the three ships’ sterns. The town, however, has an ensign peculiar to itself: “Or, an Eagle displayed azure;” while the seal of Seaford, of which we give a representation, bears on the obverse an eagle, and on the reverse an antique ship.

The lordship of the manor of Seaford has belonged successively to families of historic fame, notably the Warrens, the Poynings, the Howards, Dukes of Norfolk, the Monteagles (to whom it was granted as a reward for valour), and the Pelhams. One member, at least, of this last-named family exhibited bravery in the defence of the town, if we may judge from the following verses which appear on the monument of Sir N. Pelham at Lewes:—

“His valour’s proof his manly virtues prayseCannot be marshalled in this narrow roome,His brave exploit in Great King Henry’s dayesAmong the worthye hath a worthier tomb;What time the French sought to have sacked Sayfoord,This Pelham did repell ’em back aboord.”

There are still to be met with in Seaford one or two old buildings which would delight the antiquarian visitor. The Plough Inn possesses a fine old chimney-piece; and the “Crypt House,” and the Court House with its jail beneath—somewhat similar to the Tolhouse at Great Yarmouth, already described in these pages[35]—will not prove uninteresting. Among the old records of the town is one referring to a curious trial which took place here in the reign of Elizabeth, in which the prisoner claimed the “benefit of clergy.” The entry, which we quote from the “Memorials of Seaford,” runs as follows:—

“Nich. Gabriell, a shepherd, was found guilty of stealing six shep, (sheep) at Chintinge. On being asked by the bailiff if he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him, he claimedthe benefit of the clergy, which was granted by the Court. Robert Hyde, Vicar of Seaford, and another clergyman, handed him a book to make proof of his learning, whereupon he read it off like a clerk (legebat ut clericus), and thus the heavier penalty was commuted for branding on the hand.”

The parish church, dedicated to St. Leonard, exhibits marks of considerable antiquity, being mostly of the Decorated period; the tower dating back to the Norman era. It has been recently enlarged and repaired, not in the best of taste; prior to that time the body of the fabric had been “a vile piece of patchwork, to which paintedshutters on the outside of all the lower windows gave a truly grotesque appearance.” The original chancel is supposed to have been burned down in the general conflagration of the town already mentioned. In the nave, opposite the south porch, is a curious piece of sculpture. A tablet in the belfry records the recasting of the bells in 1807.

The bay of Seaford is one of the most dangerous parts along the coast, in consequence of its numerous shoals and rocks, and consequently the spot has become noted for its wrecks and “wreckers.” The latter are referred to by Congreve in his epilogue to the “Mourning Bride:”—

“As Sussex men that dwell upon the shoreLook out when storms arise and billows roar;Devoutly praying with uplifted handsThat some well-laden ship may strike the sands,To whose rich cargo they may make pretence,And fatten on the spoils of Providence;So critics throng to see a new play split,And thrive and prosper on the wrecks of wit.”E. Walford, M.A.

By J. H. Round, M.A.

PART IV.

(Completed from p. 24.)

TURNING now toceaster, I claim it, as I claimport, as a distinctively English word. Just as, ever on the same principle, I see in the use ofweal(wall)—a word etymologically derived fromvallum—for astonewall (murus), an indication that the Teutonic rovers, struck by a phenomenon to them so strange as a fortification even of earth, formed for themselves, out ofvallum, a word denoting a barrierirrespective of its material, so I contend that they formed for themselves, from a phenomenon so strange as thatcastrumwhich faced them on the border of “the Saxon shore,” the wordceasterby which to denote a walled enclosure,irrespective of its size. Is it not a striking thought that, in these English rovers, we have the forefathers of those to whom, as they gazed on the Norman donjon,—

“Both the name and the thing were new.... Such strongholds, strange to English eyes, bore no English name, but retained their French designation ofcastles.”[36]

Thus, to return, as when they made the acquaintance of a stone wall (murus), they would apply their wordwealto it, so, when they reached the large Roman towns of the interior they would apply to them, as being walled enclosures, their own word “ceaster,”totally independent of the proper name by which they were known to Roman or Briton.

Now here we have an instance of the striking results that may follow from minute analysis of “these interesting philological fossils.” For it follows, as a corollary from the above proposition, that the point of view from which all historians, whatever their school of thought may be, have hitherto agreed to look at “-ceaster,” is entirely erroneous and misleading. So far from being essentially aRoman, I shall prove it to be essentially anEnglishtermination. Thus, though in no way a follower of Mr. Freeman’s sweeping theories, I go, it will be seen, in this matter of fact, even beyond the exponent of the extreme “Teutonic” view.

Let us ask ourselves, in the first place, what we mean when we talk of towns with the-ceastertermination having retained their “Roman names.” Mr. Pearson, for instance, who is a follower of Mr. Coote, asserts that—

“Roman local names were preserved by the conquerors as they found them.”[37]

Even Mr. Allen, though an independent thinker, contends that—

“The English conquerors did not usually change the names of Roman or Welsh towns, but simply mispronounced them about as much as we habitually mispronounce Llangollen or Llandudno.”[38]

And he goes, indeed, so far as to assert that—

“There are nowhere any traces of clan nomenclature in any of the cities.They all retain their Celtic or Roman names.”[39]

Take, then, the case of Gloucester. Mr. Freeman and Prebendary Scarth undoubtedly represent, on these questions, the opposite extremes of thought. The former would minimise, and the latter would make the most of the survival of “Roman names,” yet on this point they are at one. “A few great cities,” says Mr. Freeman,

“and a few great natural objects, London on the Thames andGloucesteron the Severn, still retain names older than the English Conquest.”[40]

“London and Lincoln,” says Prebendary Scarth,

“andGlosterare noteworthy examples of places retaining, like many others, the Latinised forms of still earlier names.”[41]

And yet, as Mr. Allen most truly observes—

“To say that Glevum is now Gloucester is to tell only half the truth; until we know that the two were linked together by the gradual steps of Glevum castrum, Gleawan ceaster, Gleawe cester, Gloucester, and Gloster, we have not really explained the words at all.”[42]

It is the advantage of an unflinching analysis such as this that we are immediately confronted in black and white with a form of which the existence is necessarily involved, though hitherto surely overlooked. That form is “Glevum castrum.” This then is the question that we have to ask:was “Glevum castrum” ever the name of Gloucester?“Glevum” we know, and “Gleawan ceaster;” but if we cannot demonstrate the existence of a form “Glevum castrum,” the continuity of the chain is severed; there is between them a missing link.

Now for this form, although, as I have said, it is a necessary postulate to the accepted theory, there is absolutely, we may at once assert, no evidence whatever. Indeed, as in this same article Mr. Allen has himself observed,—

“The new comers could not have learned to speak of a ceaster or chester from Welshmen who called it a caer; nor could they have adopted the names Leicester or Gloucester from Welshmen who knew those towns only as Kair Legion or Kair Gloui.”[43]

Thus, then, as the Roman name was “Glevum,” andnot“Glevum castrum,” we see that “Gloucester,” the English name, isnotthe “Roman name” preserved—is not even, though Mr. Freeman would admit it, “older than the English Conquest.”

But as yet we have only ascertained that “Gloucester” (that is to say, “Gleawan Ceaster”) was a new, an English, name. We have still to learn how it was evolved, and what the name really meant in the mouths of “the English conquerors.”

To solve this further problem, there are two points that must be borne in mind. The first of these points is that “ceaster,” though now only found in place names, and therefore, naturally, to our ears,a component of proper names, was, in the mouths of the earliest English, not a proper but a common name. We are reminded, for instance, by Mr. Grant Allen, that in Beowulf the city-folk are described as the “dwellers in ceasters;” and even so late as the days of Alfred, Chester, as Mr. Freeman loves to remind us, is spoken of as “a waste ceaster,” that is a deserted city. How, then, did this English wordceaster, a word formed to denote an object for which, being new to English eyes, a new word had been added to their speech, pass out of use as a general term, and become a component of certain proper names, embalmed in which it has descended even to our own day? Mr. Allen contends (though the suggestion surely is irreconcilable with his previous hypothesis ofGlevum castrumhaving existed as a Latin form) that

“Sometimes they [i.e., the English] called the place by its Romanised title alone, with the addition ofceaster; sometimes they employed the servile British form; sometimes they even invented an English alternative; but in no case can it be shown that they at once disused the original, and introduced a totally new one of their own manufacture,” &c.[44]

Now this brings me to the second of the two points of which I spoke; this is, that in the names we are considering, such as Gloucester and Doncaster, we have to deal with two component parts, and that thenomen ipsum, the real English name, is always to be sought in the second part, and not, as has hitherto, it would seem, thoughtlessly been assumed, in the first. That is to say, that inGleawan ceaster, as an instance of the original form, we are to seek the true English name in theceaster, and not in theGleawan. So far from seeing in this form “the Romanised title alone, with the addition of ceaster,” we ought to see the English wordceasterimposed by the conquerors upon the city ofGlevum, a prefix toceasterbeing only added where necessary to distinguish it from otherceasters. This is illustrated by the parallel case of the three Romanised forms,Venta Icenorum,Venta Belgarum, andVenta Silurum. In each of these three forms the true place-name wasVenta(Gwent), and the tribal names are mere suffixes, added for the sake of distinction. This parallel will also illustrate the contrast between the Roman and the English Conquests. For whereas the Romans were contented to Latinise “Gwent” asVenta, the English, settlers rather than conquerors, acting as their descendants have done in America, not as they have done in Hindostan, ignored the Roman or, more accurately, the Latinised British name,and, in their own tongue, calledGlevum“Ceaster.” Here I must again quote from Mr. Allen’s able paper, as clearly establishing this proposition, although the inferences we draw from it are not the same:—

“Thus, in the north, Ceaster usually means York, the Roman capital of the province; as when the ‘Chronicle’ tells us that ‘John succeeded to the bishopric of Ceaster;’ that ‘Wilfrith was hallowed as Bishop of Ceaster;’ or that Æthelberht the Archbishop died at Ceaster.’ In the south it is employed to mean Winchester, the capital of the West Saxon kings and overlords of all Britain; as when the ‘Chronicle’ says that ‘King Edgar drove out the priests atCeasterfrom the Old Minster and the New Minster, and set them with monks.’ So, as late as the days of Charles II., ‘to go to town’ meant, in Shropshire, to go to Shrewsbury, and in Norfolk, to go to Norwich. In only one instance has this colloquial usage survived down to our own days in a large town, and that is at Chester, where the short form has quite ousted the full name of Lega Ceaster. But in the case of small towns, or unimportant Roman stations, which would seldom need to be mentioned outside their own immediate neighbourhood, the simple form is quite common, as at Caistor in Norfolk, Castor in Hants, and elsewhere.”[45]

I must explain very carefully the difference between Mr. Allen’s point of view and my own. While I see the true English name in the English word “Ceaster,” and look upon its prefixes as merely added to distinguish one “Ceaster” from another—just as in “East Bergholt” (Suffolk) and “West Bergholt” (Essex), or in the widely separated “East Grinstead” and “West Grinstead” of Sussex, we recognise the original name of each village as “Bergholt” and “Grinstead” respectively—Mr. Allen, by the absolutely converse process, would see the true English name in the full compound, such as “Glewanceaster,” whether formed by simply Anglicising a Latin “Glevum castrum” (see p. 423), or, as he elsewhere holds (p. 434), by using the “Romanised title alone, with the addition of ‘Ceaster.’ ” He consequently sees, in the simple “Ceaster,” not the original form, but a corruption, a “colloquial usage:”—

“As a rule, each particular Roman town retained its full name (?), in a more or less clipped form, for official uses; but in the ordinary colloquial language of the neighbourhood they all seem to have been described as ‘Ceaster’ simply, just as we ourselves habitually speak of ‘town,’ meaning the particular town near which we live, or, in a more general sense, London.”[46]

Let me take, as an illustration, a well-known passage, in which the “Chronicle” tells how the West Saxons, in 577, “took three ceasters, Gleawan ceaster and Ciren ceaster, and Bathan ceaster.” Now, each of these cities would be severally known as a “ceaster,” and, in due course, asthe“ceaster”—just as “forum” was developed by the Romans, and as “market” has been by ourselves(vide ante, v. 250)—but when, as here, mentioned together, they would have to be distinguished from one another. Thehamsandtunswhich covered the land were so distinguished by prefixing to them the names of their English owners. This could not be done with theceasters, which did not become the homesteads of English owners. The distinctive prefix was, therefore, sought in some existing (although, to the invaders), meaningless name, either that of the river on which it stood, as “Exan ceaster” (the Chester on the Exe), or that of the place itself, “Glewan ceaster,” a form which may be paralleled in the “Fort Chipewyan,” “Fort Winebago,” &c., of their descendants in North America.[47]It is often, of course, most difficult to say whether the prefix is derived directly from the river, or indirectly, through the original place-name. But, in any case, we must dismiss the hypothesis that the prefix was “the Romanised title” of the town, for the termination “an” (“Exan,” “Gleawan”) is found in cases where the Roman forms differed so widely as “Isca” and “Glevum.” We must guard against the idea that such prefix was ever the “Roman name” itself, used in apposition to “ceaster.”

To resume, then, we have seen that there is no ground for supposing “castrum” to have ever formed part of the “Roman names” of those cities whose modern names end in “Chester,” &c. From this it has followed that the terminal in question is the result and badge of the English invasion, representing the English word “ceaster,” the invaders’ term for a walled town, and not the equivalent of a merecastrum, though etymologically derived from it in the first instance. We have also seen that the terminal in question was not a mere “addition” to the “Roman name,” but was itself the new name imposed by the conquering English, to which, when and where necessary, a prefix was in time permanently added, for the sake of distinction. It is not, surely, too much to say that if these conclusions were satisfactorily established, they must gravely modify, if not revolutionise, the view which has hitherto universally prevailed, and which is based, I think, on a too hasty induction from the resemblance between the English and the Latin words.

I shall not here pursue further the vicissitudes and the fate of “port” and “chester,” but shall content myself with noticing the instructive fact, that, while these words have come down to us, similarly, incompound forms alone, “chester” is a component in the names ofplaces, and “port” in the names ofthings(including, thereby, offices). Now, if “a walled town” was the meaning ofceaster, and “a trading town” the meaning ofport, why should we find this marked difference in the use of words which, in sense, appear to have differed so slightly? Why does “chester” end words, and “port” begin them? Why is a town called a “chester,” when its governor is a “port-reeve,” and its court a “port-manmote?” The answer is to be found in this distinction: theceasterwas the townobjectively, that is, viewed as a natural object, a walled enclosure; theportwas the townsubjectively, that is, relatively to trade, “in its character of a mart or city of merchants.”[48]

Thus it was that whileceasterretained its sturdy objectivity, and was merely qualified, as a place-name, by the addition of a distinctive prefix,port, on the other hand, referring as it did to the town viewed in a particular aspect, was only strong enough to become itself a prefix, used, for the purpose of distinction, in a quasi-adjectival sense. Inport-moteit served to distinguish the moot held in the “port” from thescir-moteandtun-mote; inport-reeveit served to distinguish the reeve of the “port,” or trading town, from thescir-reeve, thewic-reeve, and reeves other innumerable.[49]

Back to Index Next