Restoration Canterbury and Tunbridge Wells

Church of King Charles the Martyr, Tunbridge Wells

(familypedia.wiki.com)

Normally I would not associate January with a great crop of lectures, but this January has been exceptional. Indeed there have been so many that last night brought the Anselm Lecture at the University of Kent, given by Professor Sandy Heslop on St Anselm’s ‘Glorious Choir’, a marvellous blend of sculpture, painting and stained glass, and the Canterbury branch lecture of the Historical Association at Canterbury Cathedral Archives & Library on Restoration Canterbury, given by Dr Doreen Rosman. Initially I had intended to go to the Anselm Lecture to hear Professor Heslop, an expert on medieval art and architecture, because I am interested in his analysis of Anselm’s strategies concerning the bringing together of words and images.

However, earlier in the afternoon at four I had had to be both in Darwin College, finishing teaching a seminar on ‘Towns and Townspeople in Medieval England’ and at the other end of the campus at the University of Kent in Keynes College to start a seminar on ‘Early Drama’. So having sprinted across campus once yesterday, I decided doing it again at or just after six to arrive late at the Anselm Lecture was a step too far. Consequently I decided to go for the more leisurely time of seven at the archives to hear Dr Rosman. While I am sure Sandy Heslop’s talk was fascinating, I certainly was not disappointed by going to hear Doreen Rosman. Moreover, as you will see below, in terms of time period attending Dr Rosman’s lecture made more sense because it means I can keep to the late seventeenth century.

Doreen’s talk was a tour de force concerning how one can use the locality to explore important political and social events that affected the whole country. As she said, Canterbury was not so much an exceptional place during this period, but that what was played out among the citizens and the civic authorities can provide insights into the wider picture. Furthermore, being able to make use of the extensive and varied primary sources for this period, especially those housed in the cathedral archives, some of which were on display last night, enhanced her analysis and allowed her audience to appreciate just how fortunate researchers are to have such resources locally. Indeed, Dr Rosman was able to highlight the valuable role played by earlier historians and those who had treasured the city’s records. As she said, the extensive notebooks compiled by Alderman Bunce, whose imposing portrait hangs in the archives, are a valuable starting point because he transcribed and collected together information that he thought was important in the civic archive. Dr Rosman also noted the value of the work of William Somner, the seventeenth-century Canterbury historian and antiquarian, who published his Antiquities of Canterbury for a second time in 1660 to mark the arrival of Charles II as the restored monarch. His first edition had been dedicated to Archbishop Laud in 1640, which was not a good time for such a dedication!

Dr Rosman provided a clear and comprehensive case study of Canterbury society during the reigns of Charles II and his Catholic brother James II. She looked at a range of issues but as you might expect she gave particular emphasis to the composition and attitudes of successive civic authorities – the mayor, aldermen and common councillors; and also to the strength, personnel and activities of various dissenting congregations, including the Quakers. As she said, Canterbury is very fortunate to have a detailed register, beginning in 1645, produced by one of these early independent congregations, and this register was one of the documents on display last night. Among the topics associated with these religious groups that Dr Rosman covered was the level of persecution many suffered at the hands of the local and regional authorities. Indeed the Quakers’ sufferings are recorded in ‘books of sufferings’, detailing issues such as imprisonment and the breaking up of their meetings. As she noted, they were especially targeted by officialdom because of their refusal to swear oaths (of allegiance etc), at a time when such swearing was seen as an essential part of English society.

A further important point that Dr Rosman stressed was that Canterbury, particularly during the early 1680s, as far as she can see was not ruled by those from among the dissenters; that is the city government comprised men who held a variety of opinions and no one group held sway. Moreover, she thinks the evidence points on the whole to policies of ‘live and let live’ in that the senior civic and church authorities in the city and at the cathedral realised that for these to function successfully toleration rather than persecution was a far better approach. To a degree this is at odds with some within the historiography, who appear to have been heavily influenced by the vitriolic letters of contemporaries, such as William, later Sir William, Rooke, who had a particular political (and religious) agenda and who saw ‘fanatics’ at every turn. Dr Rosman’s careful analysis has led her to believe that Rooke’s comments were unjustified and could not have been substantiated at the time in Canterbury if the Secretary of State had cared to investigate further.

These are just a few of the issues raised by Dr Rosman in what was a fascinating lecture, punctuated by moments of humour and allusions to topical concerns, such as how do you absorb large numbers of religious refugees, an issue in 1684 as it is today. As one might expect, Professor Jackie Eales, who has studied Canterbury’s history earlier in the seventeenth century, asked the first question; and another staff member of the Centre, Professor Louise Wilkinson, very ably introduced and chaired the session.

So briefly to come to my other Restoration topic, I thought I would alert readers of the blog to the Kent Archaeological Society’s churches committee study day that will take place on Saturday 15 October 2016. This will take place at Tunbridge Wells and is the fourth such study day to chart specific periods in the history of the parish church (in Kent). Previous occasions have explored medieval parish life (St Leonard’s, Hythe), living through the Reformation (St Dunstan’s, Canterbury), and the mid-nineteenth-century Oxford Movement and its legacy (Holy Trinity, Folkestone). The one this coming October will focus on the Restoration Church and the Parish, and will take place at the very interesting parish church dedicated to King Charles the Martyr (see above). As well as being a very unusual dedicated, it is extremely interesting, bringing as it does contemporary perceptions about martyrdom, associations to Christ and cult status. Among the lecturers will be Rebecca Warren, who is researching the Cromwellian Church and its ministry for her doctorate at the University of Kent. Moreover, the church archives, now held at the Kent History Library Centre in Maidstone, contain a number of seventeenth-century documents relating to the building of the church, which means that the afternoon workshops will offer opportunities to explore documentary sources as well as the church building itself. Thus at both ends of the county members of the Centre are involved in researching and disseminating ideas about this important period in Kent’s and England’s history, as well as demonstrating how universities and other organisations can work together to provide opportunities for people to investigate their own history and heritage.

Canterbury’s Medieval History and Archaeology

Sir John Tufton of Hothfield

A fascinating gentry tomb – well worth a visit

This week has been busy, what with trying to finish off editing ‘Early Medieval Kent’ and attending the Fifteenth Century conference that this year took place at the University of Kent, which means I’m intending to write a short blog this week. Concerning the conference, although primarily organised by Kent people, there was some input from those from Canterbury Christ Church, and Dr David Grummitt, the head of the School of Humanities here was one of the co-organisers. There were a number of interesting papers, although the use of parallel sessions – inevitable but still a pity – meant that I missed a couple of speakers I would like to have heard. It was a varied programme ranging from peasant dairying (Jordan Claridge) to the wayward activities of apprentices in the guilds of Ghent (Laura Crombie), but as is often the case there was a fairly heavy emphasis on royalty and politics, as well as war which is not surprising considering the century witnessed conflict abroad and at home in England. The two plenary lectures were examples from these two strands of high politics and economics, the former from Paul Cavill of Cambridge on sermons at Paul’s Cross in London where preachers, as far as we know, focused on topical, political concerns; and Philip Slavin of Kent who looked at the agrarian crisis of the late 1430s, which very interestingly did not include cattle plague, as it had in the early fourteenth century.

For me the highlight of the conference was hearing Jonathan Hughes exposition of the cultural outlook of Duke Humphrey of Gloucester, one of Henry V’s younger brothers and a man of commanding intellect. It is Duke Humphrey’s library that is at the core of the Bodleian collection at Oxford and his wide-ranging scholastic interests ranged far wider than his contemporaries. Alchemy was one of his interests, as well as associated medical texts. Such ideas informed much of his reading and thinking regarding classical texts, which included Greek philosophers as well as the more usual Roman writers. Jonathan’s particular focus was on Plato’s ‘Republic’ and how Plato’s ideas on rulers and governance, and the structure of society seems to have informed the duke’s perception. For as he pointed out, the evidence strongly suggests that he was extremely familiar with this text. This was very interesting, and so were his observations of the translation that Duke Humphrey commissioned that has come down to us as the Middle English ‘Book of Husbandry’. This treatise on the management of a gentleman’s estate month by month over twelve months and how is explores the relationship between man and the land, again using ideas associated with humour theory – the ‘wet, cold’ land of England (probably in actuality but also from the perspective of the humours) that needed to be dried through care to achieve balance – was fascinating for an ex-agriculturalist.

So that was the week just gone and turning to things to come, several from the Centre will be meeting on Monday to discuss Martin Watts’ idea about a possible study day or something similar on the fascinating history of Richborough, probably from its great Roman fort to its extraordinary use as a port during the Great War – Martin’s particular interest. So there is that to come and it is also worth mentioning here that the Medieval Canterbury Weekend in April 2016 will coincide with Canterbury Archaeological Trust’s celebration of its forty-year history – remembering what has happened and looking forward to what is to come. Amongst other events this will involve a grand exhibition of Trust finds, discoveries and interpretations from the work of past and present members, which will be held at the Beaney before it goes ‘on tour’ around Canterbury and its environs. And there will be more on all of these projects in the coming week, so watch this space!

Bell Harry in Canterbury and a Cambridge play

Looking east from Bell Harry Square, Canterbury Cathedral

This week I’m going to start in mid sixteenth-century Cambridge because yesterday I was leading a seminar on a comedy entitled Gammer Gurton’s Needle that was probably performed at Christ’s College during the reign of Edward VI. According to the notes provided by a modern editor, the play can be seen as commenting on such contemporary issues as poverty, vagrancy and religion, and while I would not totally discount these ideas, especially religion, I think probably more pertinent are matters relating to gender and cultural divisions between town and countryside. Thus for the Cambridge dons and scholars who would have comprised the main member of the audience, the writer presumably drawn from among their number, the ignorant, superstitious and generally pretty stupid rural dwellers were in marked contrast to themselves and so ripe to become the butt of the jest concocted by Diccon, an ex-inmate of Bedlum. Yet perhaps even more indicative of this perceived gulf between educated, sophisticated urban dwellers and their poor country cousins, which has been a stock-in trade of many writers over the centuries, is the gender difference between actors and audience, and the objects of their mirth. For discounting any female servants who would have been at the back (low) end of the hall at Christ’s College, everyone else there would have been male and the prospect of seeing two scholar-actors in their late teens and dressed as elderly countrywomen battling it out on stage over a lost (‘stolen’) needle would have reinforced ideas about the ridiculousness of these granddames. And yet such women in their own rural communities would often have been seen as the holders of the community’s knowledge and memory, as midwives, as independent businesswomen (running the local alehouse) and as the custodians of local custom. Consequently such a play may be seen as symptomatic of early modern patriarchal society.

As a way of engaging students’ interest in this ‘broad comedy–and an utterly trivial subject’, I split them into two groups with each set the task of producing a ‘play’ using as the plot line depositions from a contemporary church court case, a method that may indeed have inspired the original play. In both scenarios a woman’s honour was at stake, a matter of considerable importance in Elizabethan society which could affect her socio-economic standing, and its loss might have devastating consequences. Briefly, the first of the two Canterbury cases involved Goodwife Osborne’s meeting with Wallop at the back of her house, her husband already being in bed, and a second late night meeting which also lasted about fifteen minutes in Wallop’s chamber, Wallop apparently being one of three lodgers with Master and Mistress Osborne. The second case involved contradictory statements from several witnesses regarding just what Margaret Raven had been doing early in the morning at harvest time. The worst case scenario, and thus most damaging to Raven’s reputation, was reported by Margaret Richardson. She was said to have told others that morning that she had seen Margaret Raven and a man in Barton Field who ‘had plaid the whore and knave togither’ after which the man had crept away before ‘whipping over the hedge’, while Raven had gone along the hedge as far as the chantry stile and there ‘whipped over as she said’. This latter case, in particular, may be viewed as juxtaposing the rural (it took place in St Paul’s parish in Canterbury’s suburbs beyond the city’s liberty) and the bestial with similarities, as portrayed in Gammer Gurton’s Needle, to the countryside around Cambridge, but perhaps just, or even more importantly, it concerns a hierarchy based on gender.

This brings me to a case I decided not to give to my students which might be said to have more in common with the disturbing revelations from Oxford, Rotherham and elsewhere that have been in the press in recent months. The Canterbury case was recorded in 1571 in the city’s courts where Joane Bellinger, a fifteen-year old servant of a local tailor stated that ‘Steven Jeffrey hir master on munday last past at night being the xixth day of november aboute vj of the clock hir dame then being at supper at Goodman Somers house bad hir this deponent to come to him and when she was come to him the said Steven did take hir by the arme, and then did cast hir vpon the bed in the parler of his howse and then he shued his privy partes vnto hir and then pulled vp hir clothes and wold haue put his yard into hir’. Although she managed to escape, he pursued her and the rape itself took place on this bed in the parlour during which she tried to defend herself but was obviously so frightened that ‘she did neyther crye owte nor call for helpe to anye nor did complayne to any of yt, and she saythe that she did tell him that he did hurte hir, and he said no Joane I do not hurte the, for this dothe me good and thee no harme, and she saythe further that the said Steven hir master caused this deponent to sweare that as gode shuld iudge hir she wold nether tell ffather nor mother nor any other of yt, and she saythe further that the said Jeffrey wold haue had his pleasure of hir twyse or thryse but she with stode yt.’ Just what the outcome of this shocking case was in the courtroom is not recorded, but Joane’s bravery is clearly manifested both through her actions in her master’s house and in her court room appearance and testimony.

For the historian such windows on a distant world are fascinating in their own right in terms of the insights they provide on social relations, the significance of patriarchy and the role of the judiciary, but they also indicate that in some ways human nature does not change, albeit the cultural constructs of early modern society are different from our own. Power relations between individuals can be expressed in many ways, and, of course, not all relate to gender, but looking to the past can sometimes be an uncomfortable mirror of the present however distorted the image as a consequence of time difference. Yet this is not a reason for not looking and the research on Kent’s history that will be on show at the ‘New Directions’ conference on 28 March and the ‘How the Great War changed Kent’ study day on 23 May will demonstrate just how rich the county’s archival sources are for these respective periods. Moreover, these events will showcase the work of a considerable number of early modern and modern scholars who not only wish to share their findings with the academic world, but believe it is important for all to extend their engagement to the wider public.