{Page numbers 1–4 not used}
{5}
More than a century has elapsed since a fortunate accident led to the discovery of one of the most interesting specimens of antiquity possessed by this or any other country—the Royston Cave. So great was the curiosity occasioned by this singular occurrence, that it immediately gave rise to a warm controversy between two eminent archaeologists of the day, Dr. William Stukeley and the Rev. Charles Parkin, in the course of which, though both parties displayed abundant learning and ingenuity, the cause of truth suffered much from their mutual loss of temper, and the too eager desire on both sides to establish a rival theory. The foibles of these literary combatants have passed away. And the present age, distinguished, unquestionably, by a much higher sense of the national value of the archaeological studies, when rightly conducted, and aided likewise by a more enlarged experience of archaeological probabilities, seems to be in a better position to exercise an impartial and correct judgment on the points disputed. Recent researches also have contributed, in some degree, to throw additional light on the origin and use of this remarkable excavation. The result has been a revival of curiosity in several quarters, which has ended in a request, now complied with, to publish the substance of a Report, {6} presented a few years ago to the Royal Society of Antiquaries. In respect to which paper it need only be stated, that the desire to make the subject strictly popular, has led to the omission of numerous quotations and references, which would have encumbered the page, without adding in equal proportion to the gratification of the general reader.
Our present object being merely a history of the Cave, any further description of the town and neighbourhood than may be necessary to decide upon the origin and use of this remarkable excavation must be deemed superfluous.
A very brief notice of the locality will suffice for this purpose. The town of Royston stands partly in Cambridgeshire and partly in Hertfordshire,* on a range of chalk downs which extend through the kingdom from east to west, and precisely at the point of junction of two military roads of great antiquity, which here cross each other; one called the Ermen Street, commencing, as it is supposed, on the coast of Sussex, and proceeding through Stamford and Lincoln, into the northern counties; the other called the Ikenhilde Street, probably commencing in Dorsetshire, and following the chalk downs eastward through Dunstable and Ickleton, to Ickleham in Suffolk.
* Now wholly in Hertfordshire.
Near Royston two vicinal roads ran parallel to the Ikenhilde Street, one along the brow of the hills, and still called in some parts, the Ridgeway; the other skirting the northern edge of the downs, and still known by the name of the Ashwell Way.
{7} The whole country abounds with British, Roman, and Saxon antiquities. Along the ancient ways, especially in the direction of the Ikenhilde Street, are numerous Roman military posts, cemeteries and sepulchral remains, including the Roman Villa and Cemetery at Litlington; and Roman coins of most of the imperial reigns are frequently found. Dr. Stukeley and the Rev. Charles Parkin both take it for granted that a Roman town or Station existed on the site of the present town; founding their opinion on the well-known Roman custom of erecting a station at the junction of their principal roads. It must be confessed, however, that this reasoning is not quite conclusive; and no certain vestiges of Roman habitations can be affirmed to have been ever discovered. But the absence of these may, perhaps, be sufficiently accounted for, in so exposed a country, by the subsequent ravages of Pictish, Saxon, and Danish invaders, each bent on the destruction of the works of their predecessors. And some confirmation is given to the idea of a Roman station, by the recent discovery of several ancient shafts or pits similar to those found at Chesterford, and other confessedly Roman sites.
Proofs of a successive British and Saxon occupation, however, are everywhere seen. It cannot be doubted, that on the beautiful turf around, each of these ancient races in turn pastured their flocks, celebrated their games, marshalled their forces, and for very many ages in succession buried their illustrious dead. Their funereal mounds still form the most picturesque feature of the landscape, and, as we shall presently have occasion to observe, may possibly be able to contest with Lady Rosia herself the honour of giving their name to the modern town.
But whatever may have been the antecedent history of the spot, we learn from the celebrated Camden, that at the time of the Norman Conquest no town existed here. The {8} place was not even mentioned by name in Domesday Book. From this, however, we are by no means obliged to conclude that it was an absolute solitude. We must bear in mind, that having at that time no parochial existence, it could not be noticed in the Norman record of parishes; and all that could be then said was contained in the recitals of the various fees and lordships which extended over it. Something like proof, moreover, that the spot was in fact inhabited by a British tribe, may be gathered, not only from the innumerable British tumuli in the vicinity, but from the discovery of various circular floors and cuttings in the chalk, usually considered to mark the sites of ancient British dwellings; and evidences of a Saxon population may be equally inferred from the disclosure of numerous Saxon graves, both around and within the limits of the town; as well as from the continued usage of a Saxon appellation to a part of it (the Fleet or Flett end), which seems clearly to indicate one or more habitations on the spot at a period anterior to the Norman survey, not specifically noticed, but included, of course, in the general recitals of Bassingbourne parish, to which they belong.
At the junction of these two ancient military roads formerly stood the Old Cross; and as we shall probably be able to establish a connexion between the Cave and the Cross, it will not be altogether beside our purpose to offer a few remarks upon the latter. The exact position of this venerable monument is not known, but it may be presumed to have stood in the south-east angle of the roads, somewhere between the dome of the Cave and the line of the Ermen Street, being in the parish of Barkway, and in the fee of the Lordship of Newsells It may have occupied the {9} site of an earlier monument, and possibly even in Roman times. It was certainly the practice of that people to set up a Hermes at crossways for the guidance and protection of travellers; and it was not less common among the Saxons to erect a cross for similar purposes; but the previous existence of a monument in this place cannot be carried beyond conjecture. Unfortunately for the question, also, of its Saxon or Norman origin, the form of the historical Cross cannot now be determined, the upper part having been long since destroyed. But the foot-stone, which still exists, is properly described by Stukeley, as a “flattish stone of very great bulk, with a square hole, or mortaise, in the centre, wherein was let the foot of the upright stone, or tenon, which was properly the cross.” And this interesting relic, after several migrations,—first to the opposite corner of the street, where it was seen by Stukeley, and next to the Market Hill,—was ultimately removed to the garden of the Royston Town Hall1858 edition: Royston Institute.
Camden, who is a great authority on most questions, but who seems in the present instance to have contented himself with local tradition, ascribes the erection of this Cross to “a famous Lady Rosia, by some supposed,” he says, “to have been Countess of Norfolk, about the time of the Norman Conquest, which Cross,” he adds, “was called after her name, Royse’s Cross, till Eustace de Marc founded, just by it, a Priory, dedicated to St. Thomas à Becket, the Martyr of Canterbury; upon which occasion inns came to be built, and by degrees it became a town, which instead of Royse’s Cross, took the name Royse’s Town, afterwards contracted to Royston.”
An inspection of the earliest deeds connected with this Priory will show that Camden was not quite accurate on that subject; and he may have been misled as to the origin of the Cross. A great probability undoubtedly exists, that {10} the earliest proprietors of the fee of Newsells had something to do, either with its erection or its restoration; a probability helped by the fact, that, among the members and nearest connexions of that noble family, shortly after the Conquest, there actually were several ladies who bore the name of “Rosia.” But Camden’s statement by no means identifies the lady to whom the Cross, even in this case, should be ascribed. And, allowing some ground for the tradition, we should be disposed to refer it to the elder Lady Rosia, the wife of Eudo Dapifer, the first Norman possessor of the fee, and the grandmother, by marriage, of Dr. Stukeley’s heroine, rather than to the second Lady Rosia, whom he so gratuitously prefers.
There are other writers, however, who, judging as well from the old Roman and Saxon practice above mentioned, as from the internal testimony of the Priory deeds, and the probable etymology of ancient words, have been disposed to attribute a much earlier date to this Cross. Among these, the Rev. Mr. Parkin argues, with some force, that the style and title of the Priory, founded in the lifetime of the second Lady Rosia, and called after the name of the Cross, “De Cruce Roæsie,” certainly imply that the Cross itself was at that time of considerable fame, and probably of considerable antiquity. And this inference seems strengthened by the local and vernacular name of the spot, frequently occurring in the earliest Priory deeds, and latinized into “Roœsie,” which is variously spelt “Roys,” “Roes,” “Rous,” and “Roheys,” words which certainly have much of a Scandinavian character, and are not so easily derived from a female Christian name.
Salmon, the antiquary of the county, adopting a similar view, cites the earned Dane, Olaus Wormius, to prove, that among the northern nations, the practice of burning the dead, and heaping a mound over their ashes, was {11} known by the name of “Roiser,” and the tumulus itself, by the name of “Roise.” And various Saxon words, almost identical in sound, and of similar import, such as “Hreaws,” pronounced “Rows,” meaning a funeral; “Reowes,” pronounced “Roes,” signifying sorrow or mourning; and “Rowes,” or “Rous,” implying rest or repose, all appear to confirm the Scandinavian origin of the name, and raise a strong presumption that the original Cross was so called, either from some remarkable funereal mound erected on the spot, or from those numerous tumuli in the neighbourhood, which in its originally wild and open condition, must have formed the chief characteristic of the country, and would naturally suggest the appellation.
Stukeley himself, while strenuously maintaining the claims of the Lady Rosia to the honour of erecting the Royston Cross, fully admits that the practice was very common in Saxon times for religious persons to build such monuments by the wayside, and especially where several roads met. And he adds, that hermits’ cells were often placed near them, where, in accordance with the superstition of the age, recluses spent their remaining days in directing travellers, and in praying for their safety and welfare.
The most reasonable conclusion, as we think, to be drawn from the whole, is, that an earlier cross did actually, exist here, before the Norman Conquest; which having been subsequently rebuilt or repaired by one of the pious ladies of the manor of Newsells, in whose domain it stood, and whose Christian name was Rosia, the resemblance of this name to the former pagan name by which it was known, enabled the monks of a later age easily to substitute the one for the other, and thus to transfer the honour of the foundation to a member of the noble house to which they owed their own endowment.
{12}
The Cave was discovered by accident, in the month of August, 1742, and was almost immediately afterwards visited by the Rev. George North, of Caldecot, a member of the Society of Antiquaries, at their special request. Its position has been already indicated as being in the southeast angle of the two main roads, and nearly below the Cross. In a letter, addressed to the learned Society in the following month of September, Mr. North states, that on examination, he had found the Cave, not only different from what he had apprehended, but from anything he ever saw before. The workmen, however, had not then reached the bottom by 8 feet, for which reason he could give but an imperfect account of it. But by way of illustration, he enclosed a rough drawing of its appearance at that stage, a copy of which will be seen among the sketches now presented to the reader. Mr. North, after giving a brief description of the place and the circumstances of the discovery, to which we shall presently advert, expressed his conviction that the whole was the work of remote ages, and certainly anterior to the existence of a town on the spot. He stated, however, that no relics had as yet been found, except a human skull and a few decayed bones, fragments of a small drinking cup of common brown earth, marked with yellow spots, and a piece of brass without any figure or inscription on it. He added that there was no tradition in the town to lead to the design of the excavation.
Dr. Stukeley, the celebrated secretary to the Society, shortly afterwards went down, and found the place entirely {13} cleared. He repeated his visit somewhat later, and made sketches of the interior, which he published with an account of the discovery. But he records the finding of no additional relics, except a small seal of pipe-clay, marked with a fleur-de-lys, which afterwards came into his possession.
From the respective statements of these two antiquaries, we learn, that in the year above mentioned, the town’s people had occasion to set down a post in the Mercat House, which then stood above it, and was used as a cheese and butter market by the mercat women. In digging beneath the bench on which these women were accustomed to sit, the workmen struck upon a mill-stone laid underground, at the depth of about a foot, having a hole in the centre. Finding that there was a cavity beneath, they tried its depth by a plumb line, which descended i6 feet. This induced them to remove the stone, which covered a shaft of about 2 feet in diameter, with foot-holes cut into the sides, at equal distances, and opposite each other, like the steps of a ladder. This shaft, we are informed, was quite circular and perpendicular. A boy was first let down into it, and afterwards a slender man, with a lighted candle, who ascertained that it passed through an opening about 4 feet in height into another cavity, which was filled with loose earth, yet not touching the wall which he saw to the right and left. The people now entertained a notion of great treasure hid in this place, and some workmen enlarged the descent. Then, with buckets and a well-kirb, they set to work in earnest to draw up the earth and rubbish. The vast concourse of people now becoming very troublesome, they were obliged to work by night, till, at length, by unwearied diligence, after raising two hundred loads of earth, they quite exhausted it.
{14} And “then fully appeared,” writes Dr. Stukeley, with the genuine enthusiasm of an antiquary, “this agreeable subterranean recess, hewn out of pure chalk. ’Tis of an elegant bell-like, or rather mitral form, well turned, and exactly circular,”—an observation, however, which is not quite correct. “The effect,” he goes on to say, “is very pleasing. The light of the candles scarce reaches the top, and that gloominess overhead increases the solemnity of the place. All around the sides, it is adorned with imagery, in basso relievo, of crucifixes, saints, martyrs, and historical pieces. They are cut with a design and rudeness suitable to the time, which was soon after the Conquest. A kind of broad bench goes quite round the floor next the wall, broader than a step, and not quite so high as a seat. This bench is cut off in the eastern point by the grave, which is dug deeper into the chalk.”
The actual appearance of the Cave, at this period, being of some consequence to our further enquiries, a few more particulars will be added respecting the dome, which does not seem, however, to have undergone any close examination. Dr. Stukeley, who saw it only from the bottom, and by candle-light, merely adverts to a piece of masonry visible near the top, which they who viewed it near, he says, told him, was made of brick, tile, and stone, laid in good mortar, and thought it might have been done to mend a defective part in the chalk, while Stukeley himself conjectured that it might be the original descent, afterwards walled up when the second shaft was made. Mr. North, who made his observations before the Cave was emptied, and therefore from a higher level, remarks that a portion of the dome had been either repaired or strengthened with free-stone and tiles, placed edgeways; and that almost opposite the shaft through which he entered, there appeared the top of an arch, which the workmen imagined {15} might lead to the ancient way into it, concluding from the narrowness of this shaft that it was designed only for a vent or air-hole. He also remarks, that the top or crown-work of the dome was curiously composed of tile work, and within a foot of the street above; and further, that some persons thought a passage ran from the Cave to the Priory, a notion which was discredited, however, by Stukeley.
The subsequent discovery of a date in this part of the Cave gives rise to regret that a more careful inspection and a fuller report had not been made by the two first visitors. All that we can now gather from their statements is, that no inscription was then perceived; that the masonry concealing the supposed passage was at that time entire; and that the dome had not then been opened to the surface. Before we pass on to another division of our subject, it may be right to perpetuate the fact recorded by Stukeley, that Mr. George Lettis, probably the bailiff of the manor, and William Lilley, a tailor and salesman, who lived in the adjoining house, were the chief movers in opening and clearing the place.
Before we proceed to more recent investigations, it will be proper to state that, since the time of Stukeley and North, several changes have occurred, considerably altering the appearance of the place.
In their day, it will be borne in mind, the entrance was by a narrow shaft in the northern side of the Cave. The crown of the dome had not then been pierced, and the place could only be seen by artificial lights. The masonry concealing the opening of the shaft on the eastern side had {16} not been disturbed. And the part which Stukeley called the grave had not been made up to the level of the podium or broad step which encircles the floor.
The present entrance is by an arch opening into the bottom of the Cave, just above the grave, and on the eastern side; and is reached by means of a gradually descending passage, 72 feet in length, passing under the Ikenhilde Street, which was cut through the solid chalk, in the year 1790, by Thomas Watson, a bricklayer, who occupied the Town House, on the opposite side, and who employed his workmen during a hard winter in accomplishing this difficult task. A glimmering light is now also admitted through a grated opening in the dome, which was probably made at the same time. And, either then, or at some other time unknown, the masonry closing the arch on the eastern side of the dome was broken down, plainly exposing another shaft, which now appears above.
The design of affording greater facilities for the inspection of the Cave, was, by these means, accomplished; and the labour and expense of the projector, were, in the sequel, amply repaid. Among the numerous distinguished personages who have since visited it, may be mentioned the late King of the French, Louis XVIII., induced possibly, by Stukeley’s description of the historical figures, to pay this homage to the memory of his ancestor, Louis VII. And many individuals are still living, who remember the patriotic zeal and comical effect with which the old Widow Watson, as pythoness of the Cave, was accustomed to descant on the exploits and piety of its heroes and heroines, mixing up the legends of saints with the fables of Stukeley, and confidently supporting her statements by quotation from history, which she humorously called the “Book of Kings.”