Beldam, The Royston Cave, Web section 5

{45}

THE HERMITAGE.

We offer but one word more on the question of the Hermitage,—which was the subject of another warm dispute between Stukeley and Parkin. The idea of a hermitage in this place after the death of Lady Rosia, was rejected by Stukeley as altogether inconsistent with his theory of the origin and use of the Cave. Parkin, who had no such chimeras to defend, maintained the continued existence of a hermitage on this spot, even from Saxon times; and he supported his opinion by the express recital of a deed which conveyed the Priory property to the Chester family. Stukeley, notwithstanding, ridiculed the notion of a hermitage in the midst of a town; and Parkin replied to this objection by citing several instances of hermitages so situated. During the whole of the controversy, the matter rested in mere conjecture. A fortunate discovery, however, has recently confirmed the opinion of Parkin. For although he appears to have mistaken a later grant from Edward VI., which notices a hermitage, for an earlier grant of Henry VIII., in which no hermitage is mentioned; and although {46} the hermitage recited in Edward’s grant, being described as in the Manor of Hedley, and in the parish of Barkway, could not have meant a hermitage at Royston, which was in the manor of Newsells, and in Edward’s reign had become an independent parish; yet he was right in the main fact, of a hermitage actually existing at Royston.

This fact has been ascertained from an entry in the old churchwarden’s book of the parish of Bassingbourne, which extends as far back as the reign of Henry VII.; and among other most curious details, contains a record under date of a.d. 1506, of the “Gyft of 20^d” rec^d “Off a Hermytt depting at Roiston i y^s pysh.” It is true, that this entry does not absolutely fix the residence of this hermit at the Cave. But beside the improbability of there being two hermitages in so small a town; the position of the Cave being exactly across the line which, in that reign, separated the parish of Barkway from the parish of Bassingbourne, shows that a hermit dying on that spot, would be correctly described as departing within the limits of the latter parish; and the existence of a cell above the Cave, moreover, seems almost a necessary consequence of its close proximity to the road, and its having two shafts opening up to the surface. This inference is also corroborated by an old manorial survey, made about seventy years after the dissolution of the Priory, which distinctly recognises the spot as belonging to the lord of the manor, and records the building of the Mercat House, in a way to help the conclusion, that it probably occupied the site of an older building. This survey is dated a.d. 1610, and contains the following memorandum:

“Note: that in the myddest of Icknell Street aforesaid, and at the west end of the same street, there is a ‘Fayr House or Crosse’ buylded up by the Lorde of the said manor, and the whole Township, for a Clock House, and a Prison House, for the use and benefit of the whole Parish, {47} on both sydes, as well for Cambridgeshire as for Hertfordshire syde, and standing in both the said counties.

By the side of it is wrote,
The Clock Howse, Crosse, & Prison House in
Icknell Streete, for the whole Parishe.”

CONTINUED USE AND FINAL ABANDONMENT OF THE ORATORY.

Our investigations thus far have led us to the conclusion, that the dedication of the Ancient Cave to the purpose of a Christian oratory, and the execution of the greater part of its sculptures, may be assigned, with greatest probability, to the period of the Crusades, and about the reigns of Henry II. and Richard Cœur de Lion. We have been obliged, notwithstanding, to dismiss Dr. Stukeley’s fanciful theory in favour of Lady Rosia, as inconsistent with probability; and on that subject we have now only to add the testimony of Leland, that she was really buried at Chickesand, in Bedfordshire, in a nunnery there, founded by herself; and where she spent the close of her life in religious seclusion. Our concluding remarks will also furnish a satisfactory account of the skull and other human bones discovered in the loose earth which afterwards filled the Cave.

The frequency of the religious services celebrated in this oratory, must of course be open to conjecture. We may, perhaps, infer that they were limited to the great festivals of the church, and the holidays of the particular saints who figure in it; to the obits of benefactors; to occasional masses for distinguished pilgrims and visitors; and to the private devotions of the resident hermit or hermits. We have as little certainty as to the religious order to which the hermit of the Cave belonged. But it seems probable that as the monks of the Priory belonged to {48} the order of St. Augustine, the Augustine Eremites would be preferred for the service of the oratory.

That the Cave was used for religious purposes long after the time of Richard I. does not admit of reasonable doubt; but the exact period of its abandonment is not so certain. It has been supposed by some, that this event occurred in the reign of Henry IV., when the town was almost consumed by fire. But the careful filling up of the place argues a deliberate purpose. There is little question, indeed, that the Cave was open until the period of the Reformation, when it passed, with other ecclesiastical property, into the hands of the Crown; and on its subsequent transfer to the Chester family, being no longer required for superstitious services, and useless for any other, it underwent the common fate of the Priory and the Free Chapel of St. Nicholas, and was shortly after closed and forgotten.

That this step was taken before the age of Iconoclasm, seems highly probable, from the unmutilated condition of the principal figures. And as the age of the Reformation was one in which such desecrations were too frequent to attract particular notice, or to leave behind any vivid impressions, it will best explain the oblivion into which the very existence of the Cave, as well as the exact sites of the Priory, and of the Free Chapel of St. Nicholas, speedily fell. We may conclude, that at the same time the ancient cross itself disappeared. This period will also account most satisfactorily for the mode of filling up the Cave, as well as for the discovery of human bones and medimval pottery; for then it was, that the Priory and cloisters being taken down, the site was appropriated to the new manor house and gardens, the building and arrangement of which necessarily required the removal of much rubbish, and the clearing away of many bones. Some of these we know to {49} have been afterwards deposited in the church; but a portion of them would be very naturally employed by the lord of the manor, to fill up the oratory, preparatory to the erection of the Mercat House and prison above it. The utter contempt with which popery was afterwards regarded, must have extinguished all desire on the part of the town’s people to perpetuate the memory of a former superstition; and as they had long ceased to be Romanists before they became archæologists, no further interest was felt by any one in the subject.

We offer a few concluding remarks on the Arabic numerals recently discovered in the Cave. And, first respecting the date of 1347, already noticed as being in the dome. The care with which these figures are cut, their general air of antiquity, and their obscure and almost inaccessible position, would certainly have placed them beyond suspicion, but for a single figure (the figure 4), which seems open to challenge, as differing in some degree from the usual form of the fourteenth century. Yet the falsification of these figures seems most improbable. It is next to certain, that neither Stukeley nor Parkin was aware of their existence; for had they been, the former must, as a point of honour, and the latter assuredly would, as a ground of triumph, have adverted to them. Indeed, we have it in proof, that no early antiquaries examined this part of the Cave; and since their time we can conceive of no motive which could prompt any one to attempt a deception.

The peculiarity in the form of this numeral must, nevertheless, be admitted. Yet it is certain, that such a form was occasionally used about the middle of the fifteenth century; and the exact period when the circular shape of the old numeral merged into the angular, or by what gradations, if any, this was effected, is not precisely known. It is clear that the figure here has a transition character; {50} and contemporaneous manuscripts exist, which justify the belief, that as early as the middle of the fourteenth century, the disputed form may, in some instances, have been used.

These, however, are not the only ancient numerals that have been discovered. We have another instance, just above the prison cell of St. Katharine, apparently written by an amateur hand in old English characters, with the name of “Martin,” and the date of 18 February, 1350; and in this case the figures themselves offer no insuperable objection to their authenticity. Supposing these inscriptions to be genuine, they furnish decisive proof of the continued use of the oratory up to that time. In regard to the numerals in the dome, they also seem to mark the date of certain alterations or repairs to the eastern shaft, which we must conceive to have been then the principal entrance; and judging from the colouring on the block itself, we may further imagine that they indicate the period of the painting of the figures, a practice which, from other sources, we know to have been much in vogue in the reign of Edward III.

If, on the other hand, we are obliged to conclude that a fraud has been practised, it would most probably consist in the change of a figure 5 into the figure 3, which would then give us the year 1547—a year remarkable for the first act of parliament which suppressed idolatry and superstition throughout the land. But in this case we must also infer from the insertion of the date, that it was done with the hope that at some future time the oratory might be again opened and used.

However the case be decided, it will be clear that the final exit from the Cave was made through the northern shaft, which afterwards led to its discovery.

{51}

RECAPITULATION.

The result of our whole inquiry will appear in the following conclusions:—

1. That the Cave was first formed by means of shafts, either of British or Romano-British construction, and at a period anterior to Christianity.

2. That at a somewhat later period, the Cave was used as a Roman sepulchre.

3. That about the period of the Crusades, it received the greater part of its present decorations, and was then, if not before, converted into a Christian oratory, to which a hermitage was probably attached.

4. That it remained open until the Reformation, when it was finally filled up, closed, and forgotten.

{52}

DESCRIPTION OF PLATES.