Seri a ee reves: ait eae rest iecwnarsses sttevevess3 r tatee seks r es THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Volume 61 1966 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY HEADLEY BROTHERS LTD 10Q KINGSWAY LONDON WC2 AND ASHFORD KENT THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE VOLUME 61 1966 CONTENTS Notes ON SOME EARLY BRONZE AGE Osjects IN Devizes Museum, by Nicholas Thomas - - - - - - - - - - - - = A Late First-Century WELL at CVNETIO, by F. K. Annable - . - - PAGAN SAXON BuRIALS AND BOUNDARIES IN WILTSHIRE, 6y D. J. Bonney - - - Two Finps oF Saxon Domestic PoTTEery IN WILTSHIRE, by P. J. Fowler - - St. Mary’s Cuurcu, CricKLADE. Part II, dy T. R. Thomson and H. M. Taylor - Tue INGLESHAM VIRGIN AND CHILD, by Barbara C. Raw - - - - - THE Rev. WILLIAM WILKES, D.D., RECTOR OF BARFORD ST. MARTIN, WILTSHIRE, 1585-1637, AND JOHN Marston, DRAMATIST (1576-1634), 6» R. E. Brettle - A Loca Crisis BETWEEN EsTABLISHMENT AND NONCONFORMITY: THE SALISBURY VILLAGE PREACHING CONTROVERSY, 1798-1799, by David J. Jeremy - - Norton Manor: A House TRANSFORMED, by June Badeni - - - - - AMONGST THE MuNIMENTS—SoME OppitiEs, by the Marquess of Ailesbury - - NoreEs: Land Mollusca from the Neolithic Enclosure on Windmill Hill; A Possible Beaker Burial from Larkhill, Durrington; Megaliths once near Stonehenge; Unrecorded Barrows at Pitton Lodge, Clarendon Park; A ‘Third ‘Morinic’ Stater from Wiltshire; Romano-British Interments at Potterne; A Romano- British Interment at Bradford-on-Avon; A ?Romano-British Interment at Maiden Bradley; A Romano-British Interment in the Bank of the Winter- bourne, near Avebury; Ancient ?Scrub Clearance at Bayardo Farm, West Overton; Old Court, Downton, and the Moot Earthworks; Burials at Ramsbury; MS. Pedigrees preserved in Cricklade Museum - - - EXCAVATION AND FIELDWORK IN WILTSHIRE, 1965 - - - - - - ACCESSIONS, 1965 - - - - - - - - - - - - OFFICERS’ REPORTS FOR 1965 - - - - - - - = > - ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, 1966 - - - - - = = = = THE REcorpDs BRANCH: REPORT OF THE Hon. SECRETARY FOR 1965 - - - OBITUARIES = s é AS a5 S Z ie z “ 2 : ill PAGE gI 102 109 113 116 117 118 NATURAL HISTORY SECTION THe WEATHER OF 1965, by R. A. U. Jennings WITsHirE Birp NoTEs FOR 1965 WILTsHIRE PLant Notes (26), compiled by Donald Grose ENTOMOLOGICAL REPORT FOR 1965, 4y B. W. Weddell OrrFIcEers’ REPORTS FOR 1965 INDEX TO VOLUME 61 PLATES PAGE 119 120 133 137 140 142 at end of volume frst ; LEED | ‘The Wiltshire Ar onc : and Natural Hi Volume 61 1966 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY The Society was founded in 1853. Its activities include the promotion of archaeological and historical work within the County, and of the study of all branches of Natural History; the issue of a Magazine and other publications; excursions to places of archaeological and historical interest; collaboration with a Records Branch; and the maintenance of a Museum and Library. The subscription rate for membership of the Society is at present as follows: Annual Subscription (minimum), £1 12s. 6d.; Junior Subscription, 1os.; Life Membership, £25. Enquiries about membership should be made to the Secretary of the Society, 41 Long Street, Devizes. OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY, 1965-66 PATRON: The Earl of Pembroke, c.v.o., M.A., H.M.L. TRUSTEES: E. C. Barnes, Esq. The Lord Devlin Sir Michael Peto, Bt. Bonar Sykes, Esq. VICE-PRESIDENT: R. B. Pugh, Esq., M.A., F.S.A., F.R.HIST.S. COMMITTEE : The Marquess of Ailesbury, J.P., D.L. (President and Chairman) R. E. Sandell, Esq., M.A., F.S.A., F.L.S. (Hon. Librarian) K. H. Rogers, Esq., B.A. (Hon. Meetings Secretary) Miss I. F. Smith, B.A., PH.D., F.s.A. (Hon. Editor of W.A.M.) Maurice G. Rathbone, Esq., A.L.A. (ex officio as County Archivist) H. de S. Shortt, Esq., M.A., F.S.A., F.R.N.S. (ex officio as Curator of Salisbury Museum) Group Captain F. A. Willan, c.B.£., D.F.c. (representing the Wiltshire County Council) H. I. Chant, Esq. (representing the Wiltshire County Council) M. G. Bennett, Esq. C. E. Blunt, Esq. D. J. Bonney, Esq., B.A. N. J. Gordon Clark, Esq. Mervyn Fitzgerald, Esq. P. J. Fowler, Esq., M.A., F.S.A. Miss B. Gillam E. G. H. Kempson, Esq., M.A. R. P. de B. Nicholson, Esq., A.M.1.MECH.E. Harry Ross, Esq., B.A. N. P. Thompson, Esq. T. R. F. Thomson, Esq., M.A., M.D., F.R.HIST.S., F.S.A. Mrs. F. de M. Vatcher, F.s.a. Miss T. E. Vernon R. W. H. Willoughby, Esq., B.sc. SECRETARY AND TREASURER: Brigadier A. R. Forbes CURATOR: ASSISTANT CURATOR: F. K. Annable, Esq., B.A., F.S.A., A.M.A. A. M. Burchard, Esq., M.A. HON. ARCHITECT: HON. SOLICITOR: D. A. S. Webster, Esq., M.A., F.R.L.B.A. H. G. Awdry, Esq. NATURAL HISTORY SECTION: R. S. Barron, Esq., M.a., B.sc. (Chairman) Arnold Smith, Esq. (Hon. Treasurer) Mrs. C. Seccombe Hett (Hon. Secretary) Mrs. S. M. Lee (Hon. Meetings Secretary) NOTES ON SOME EARLY BRONZE AGE OBJECTS IN DEVIZES MUSEUM by NICHOLAS THOMAS With a re-assessment of the five-handled jar from Winterbourne Stoke G.5 by A. M. ApSimon. THE IDEAS in this short paper were formed during the course of the writer’s work as Curator of the Devizes Museum between 1952 and 1957. They received fresh stimulus when the Guide Catalogue of the Neolithic and Bronze Age Collections in Devizes Museum was published in 1964, and he intended to incorporate them in his review of this magnificent piece of work.t At the suggestion of the Hon. Editor, however, this part of the review was omitted, so that it could be presented on its own in this, the ensuing volume of the Magazine. In this paper, selected objects from four well- known Early Bronze Age grave groups are reconsidered so as to emphasize details which have hithe:to failed to attract attention, but which seem nevertheless to be worthy of mention: a note on the five-handled jar from Winterbourne Stoke G.5 by A. M. ApSimon is included. The writer attempts to re-interpret the functions of the Bush Barrow gold-covered ‘belt hook’ and the class of bone objects called ‘tweezers’, and also considers the gold-covered bone pendant from barrow Wilsford G.8. Reference to objects which are discussed here is by the numbers used in the 1964 Devizes Museum Guide Catalogue: the latter is referred to throughout this paper as the Catalogue. UPTON LOVELL G.2(a), ‘THE BONE BARROW Professor Piggott has recently placed the primary grave-goods from this remark- able barrow in their North European setting? and he included the illustration of virtually all the bone pieces and some of the stones which had first been published by the late Dr. J. F. S. Stone.3 A much briefer but more comprehensive selection was drawn in the Catalogue (Nos. 242-62) where the questionable suggestion was made that the extended male inhumation and the crouched female from this barrow were both primary. The writer’s purpose here is to illustrate (Fic. 1) and to describe briefly the nine smoothing stones which were apparently associated with the male and which have never received proper attention. These stones were examined by Dr. F. S. Wallis when he was Director of the Bristol City Museum and the geological identifications are his: (1) Quartzite, Old Red Sandstone, Mendip. Mainly naturally shaped, with three edges artificially squared off. (2) Oolitic limestone, Corallian Beds, North Wiltshire. All faces artificially smoothed, together with bevelled corners at the wider edge. (3) Slate. Petrological identification No. 301.4 All surfaces artificially smoothed, with edges squared off. (4) Veined quartz, Upper Greensand, Wiltshire. At least the flat face artificially smoothed. (5) Greenstone. Group I, Petrological identification No. 303.5 Surface of tool smoothed into series of facets. (6) Greenstone. Group IIIa, Petrological identification No. 302.° Similar to last, some facets subsequently fractured (shown dotted in illustration). (7) Veined quartz, Upper Greensand, Wiltshire. All surfaces artificially ground to shape; some subsequent smoothing with use. (8) Veined quartz, Upper Greensand, Wiltshire. Circular area at one end and also at centre on one side artificially roughened. (9) Sarsen, North Wiltshire. Resembles Nos. 5 and 6 but its facets are more rounded and the surfaces of some are rougher. = Fic. 1 Smoothing stones from Upton Lovell G.2(a). The composition of the grooved whetstone (No. 256) from the grave has been studied by Dr. Wallis and should also be recorded. It is weathered Bath stone, Great Oolite, from the Bath district. The petrological analysis of these stones emphasizes the close and extensive relations between Wessex and the South-West which existed early in the Bronze Age, a continuation of trading contacts which had started at a much earlier period.7 WILSFORD G.5, BUSH BARROW Piggott in 1938 and 1962,* Stone in 1958,? Ashbee in 1960'° and the compilers of the Catalogue have amongst them illustrated the essential features of this remarkable burial group and demonstrated the very early stage of the Wessex Culture to which 2 it belongs. Nevertheless certain minor yet interesting details have gone unrecorded and these must now be set down. One face of the bronze axe retains near its centre unmistakable traces of the split end of its wooden knee-shaft handle (ric. 2), These are visible in the photograph NUNS ease SE CMS Fic. 2 Bronze axe from Wilsford G.5. published by Stone,‘ but they were not remarked upon by him and seem to have been unnoticed. Since the axe-head also bears traces of textile, well illustrated in the Catalogue, it is interesting to speculate whether burial ritual demanded the wrapping of the axe or whether mounted axes were normally carried in a protective covering of cloth or some other material.t> When the axe was examined by the writer in 1953, about half a dozen of the minute gold pins from the handle of one ot the great daggers (Catalogue, No. 169) were observed embedded in the wax which now covers the axe, just in front of the trace of the wooden handle described above. These may have become accidentally lodged there when Hoare (presumably it was he) was waxing the axe after its recovery: their presence need have no more signifi- cance than this. It is just possible, however, that they indicate the closeness of the axe to the dagger in the grave. In the Catalogue, it might have been pointed out that around one edge of the pertoration through the mace-head, No. 175, can still be seen remains of the bronze ring with which, as Cunnington recorded, it was kept in place at the top of its wooden handle. The possibility should also be mentioned that the large rivet from this assemblage, No. 172, could have come from the third dagger which fell to pieces during the original excavation and was not otherwise preserved; and further that one of the fragments of wood (none illustrated or numbered in the Catalogue) which, with the small rivets and hook (Nos. 171 and 173), belong probably to the remains of a shield or helmet, is attached to a piece of flat bronze sheet.*3 WINTERBOURNE STOKE G.4 This barrow, a large bell with a pond-barrow impinging upon its ditch on the south side, has been well served by its excavators, Hoare and Cunnington,!4 and by the drawings and photographs in Stone’s Wessex before the Celts.15 It is the object of this note to establish the purpose of the two pieces of carved bone, each perforated by two bronze pins, which have been variously described as bow tips (Cunnington and Hoare) and as mounts (Catalogue). In truth they are inlays for the wooden pommel of a dagger handle, fitted presumably to the massive ogival blade (No. 220) with which they were found.‘® As indicated in Fic. 3, they are to be seen as opposite Fic. 3 Bone pommel inlays and reconstructed pommel of bronze dagger from Winterbourne Stoke G.4. Actual size. quadrants, as it were, of a pommel carved at the top of the wooden dagger handle, and would have been attached to it by the two bronze pins through each. If, as we may suppose, the wood of the handle was brown, or would soon have become dark with use, the white bone pieces at the top must have afforded an attractive contrast. It seems likely that their inner corners would have touched, dividing the top of the pommel equally into four parts, two being dark (i.e., wood) and two of white bone. This arrangement would recall the cruciform pattern outlined with gold pins on the amber pommel from Hameldon, Devon.'7 Bone was commonly used as a contrasting inlay or application to wood in the earlier Bronze Age. ‘The bone pommel of a knife dagger of the Beaker period from Foxley Farm, Eynsham, Oxon.,!* has a rectangular opening which would have been filled by the projecting top of its handle; there is a similar slit in the top of a bone pommel from Anglesea and on one from Barrow 7 on the Dorset Ridgeway." There are two small circular holes in the top of another pommel from Winterbourne Stoke G.66 (No. 530 in the Catalogue), which would have fitted over similar wooden projections. More elaborate treatment can be seen in a composite bone and wood 4 pommel on the handle of a Beaker-period knife from Scambridge, N.R., Yorks.?° Here the pommel appears to have consisted of five parts, the sides and centre being bone, fitted by pins to two tongues of wood projecting from the top of the handle: viewed from above, this pommel would have appeared as longitudinal strips of white and dark brown. The zig-zag bone rings and terminal bone pieces on the shaft of the mace found in Bush Barrow, No. 174 in the Catalogue, provide another example of contrasting bone and woodwork at this time. We should also remember the necklace from Windle Nook, Derbyshire,! which has biconical beads of jet divided into groups by six bone spacer-plates. Unusual interest attaches to a foot-note added by Cunnington to the account of the opening of this barrow,?? in which he makes the following comment about a wooden case in which, apparently, the dagger (No. 220) from this grave was found: ‘I should have observed before that this spearhead was enclosed in a case of wood, as was one I formerly discovered. This case was composed of thin slips of wood that appeared to have been wove together, similar to basketwork..’ Since the surfaces of this dagger still bear traces of a leather sheath, the basketwork noticed by Cunnington must have formed an outer covering. Among recorded remains of British dagger scabbards, this appears to be without parallel. It seems worth while to make one more observation about the general shape of this dagger No. 220, with its prominent pommel and its sheath whose shoulders would probably have extended a little beyond the edges of the blade. The complete profile would have come suggestively close to the weathered dagger shape carved on Stone 53 of the trilithons at Stonehenge. So much has been made of its resemblance to the outlines of contemporary Mycenaean daggers that its equally close appearance to the Wessex blades?3 has been ignored. Yet, as the Catalogue so clearly emphasizes, these massive bronze dagger blades with their composite handles and pommels and elaborate sheaths, were above all the symbol of wealth and prestige in Wessex. Recent research by Professor G. S. Hawkins of Boston University, by Professor A. Thom of Oxford University and others on the geometry and measurement involved in megalithic monuments and their use as calendars and in astronomy?4 has, moreover, emphasized the very great experience in mathematical calculation upon which the builders of a monument like Stonehenge must have based their design. Research such as this enables us with increasing confidence to attribute the plan of Stonehenge to Western knowledge and to rely less upon contacts with the Mycenaean world for its inspiration. It is surely now more likely that the dagger carved at Stonehenge, like the axe-head outlines there, was a copy of a Wessex-made weapon. WINTERBOURNE STOKE G.5 The objects found in this bell-barrow and the circumstances of their discovery have been described by Hoare? and in the Catalogue (Nos. 263-6). A re-assessment of the five-handled urn which Hoare claimed to have found within the coffin has long been due, and Mr. A. M. ApSimon wrote the following note in 1957: ‘Some recent work having led me to this pot, Mr. Nicholas Thomas was kind enough to lend me a shard to examine as it was some years since I had seen 5) it. I had previously noticed the fabric as being “‘hard reddish, with a grey core, without noticeable grit backing, the inside is brownish and the outside has a red slip’. All observers from Coit Hoare onwards have agreed in saying that this fabric was quite unlike any other British Bronze Age pot. ‘On re-examination it was clear that this pot is in fact of haematite ware, such as is common on Iron Age A sites in Wessex. ‘The shape as figured by Hoare is not unlike some pots from All Cannings Cross.?® Perforated lug-handles are also a common feature on Iron Age A pottery. ‘It does not seem possible for this pot to be a Bronze Age import, for, though quite good parallels to the shape are to be found among some degenerate Saxo- Thuringian amphorae, Professor Sulimirski informs me that the fabric of these is very different. ‘My opinion of this pot, which is shared by my friend Mr. ‘Thomas and by my archaeological colleagues who have seen this shard, is supported by Dr. Ian Cornwall who has examined a section taken from the shard, and comments: ‘**Tn this section, the sherd showed a dense, dark under-fired core with lighter zones, both externally and internally, in which the iron compounds are fully oxidized. Apart from scattered quartzes, mostly between 0-2 and 0-005 mm. in diameter, there were no coarse mineral grains. ‘The most interesting feature was presented by the outer surface which had a very smooth finish, densely black even at the standard thickness of section (0-02 mm.) and evidently consisting of dehydrated ferric oxide staining the fine-grade clay-minerals. In places this could be seen to form a thin pellicle, up to -o1 mm. thick, evidently applied to the surface of the pot after forming of the body. It would thus appear to be a slip containing much iron oxide, which on firing was converted to haematite and appears opaque in the thin section but bright red by reflected light.” ‘Since this pot is said to have been found 15 feet below the surface of the barrow there would seem to be only three possibilities: (1) The pot indicates an Tron Age disturbance of the barrow unrecognized by Hoare; (2) The pot fell from a high level during the excavation; (3) The pot was ‘planted’ by some hoaxer during the excavation. ‘One cannot now unfortunately feel quite so sure about the associations of grave groups dug by Hoare and Cunnington. This reservation must be read into a note published by P. Ashbee and myself,?7 with the proviso that we would still hold to the parallels cited there.’ The purpose served by many Wessex Culture objects continues to cause specula- tion among students of the period. Likewise many of the smaller pieces are clearly modelled upon larger functional products whose identity remains a mystery. In the final section of this paper, the writer speculates generally upon two well-known classes of object, and upon the gold mounted bone disc No. 182, beginning with the group of carved bone pieces called ‘tweezers’.28 The Catalogue lists three of them, Nos. 221, 327 and 330. It is surely not enough to quote the eye-brow hairs from the barrow at Amesbury”? in assessing them as tweezers. For tweezers to remove facial hair successfully, the open ends of the arms must have straight edges which meet accurately, so as to grip the hairs individually. The ends of the Wessex Culture ‘tweezers’ are invariably rounded, and where complete they do not appear to have been designed so as to provide a precise grip. For this reason the writer has never been able to accept the usual interpretation, but sees no reason why more attention should not be paid to their resemblance, in miniature, to our old-fashioned wooden clothes peg; something—feathers, cloth, a scalp perhaps—could have been held in place between the prongs, and the bone object then used as a mount for display. The bone piece from the Peak district of Derbyshire,*° which is presumably the same type of object, looks particularly clip-like. The curiously shaped gold pendant No. 182 from Wilsford G.8 is a mount for a circular piece of bone. With that circular nick in its edge, could it not be a model lunula, matching the gold pendant No. 192 which Professor Piggott long ago likened to a central European ingot torque in miniature ? One wonders, too, at the significance of the small circular piece of bone so carefully contained within the gold casing of No. 182. Recent excavations in Wessex have revealed at least four examples of trepanning. Would expert examination reveal that this mounted bone was a cranial disc ?3* The gold casing does not envelop the edges of the bone but stops half way across. Gold and bone were fixed together by two pins (only the holes are present) which were driven at divergent angles through the edges of the nick in the casing and then through the bone to emerge at its inner surface, which is stained green from contact with bronze in the grave. Of course, these holes could have been to suspend the object, the gold and bronze presumably being held together by glue. It seems at least possible, however, that pins had originally been pushed through these holes: the object could then, perhaps, have been fixed to something else as an ornament or talisman. Since the exposed side of the bone has been in contact with bronze while in the grave, it is possible that this piece adorned the scabbard of a dagger—or perhaps the object of bronze which was found in a state too decomposed to be identifiable by Cunnington. The bone belt hooks, Nos. 306, 313, 331 and 332, comprise a prominent group of objects illustrated in the Cazalogue.3* It is usual to consider the Bush Barrow belt hook (No. 176) as another, and the most princely of all these hooks. As a group Nos. 306, 313 and 332 are alike, and with their recurved, groove-decorated hooks could have been set vertically in a leather belt to act as a fixing for a dagger scabbard. They could also have been fitted horizontally at one end of a belt to act as its fastener, assuming a corresponding slit at the other end—a hook-and-eye. The object No. 331 differs in that the hook projects from the edge of a much wider plate of bone which, if the whole was mounted at one end of a belt, would have provided stout shoulders against which a considerable lateral pull could have been exerted. If the other three bone hooks were mounted in this fashion it is difficult to see how they would have taken the amount of strain which is normally put upon the buckle of a belt, since they have no shoulders or rivet holes with which to bear any lateral strain. Nevertheless, some way might possibly have been found to attach them firmly in a belt, using lashings. This same problem of a secure fixing would apply, but to a lesser extent, if the hooks had been mounted vertically in the side of the belt from which to suspend a dagger in its sheath. The Bush Barrow hook is assumed to have been one of these, the gold casing presumably covering a wooden belt hook. The mistake in interpretation which is ii always made, it seems to the writer, is to imply that the whole of this gold-covered object is the equivalent of the bone belt hooks. What we have in the object from Bush Barrow, surely, is the gold casing from both the hook and the eye of a belt. If the whole was merely a hook, mounted vertically in the side of the belt as a fixing for one of the daggers, the hook itself is so short and open that nothing would hang on it for long, particularly if its owner was running; it would jump off. If the whole was fixed at one end of a belt, the plate part, one of the most beautifully and subtly designed gold objects from Wessex, would be hidden behind the other end of the belt with its corresponding eye-hole, through which the tongue alone of No. 176 would show. What we have, instead, is the gold plated eye-hole at one end of the belt, and fitting through this the gold casing of the (?wooden) hook which had originally been attached to the other end of the belt. ‘They were found fitted together by Cunnington because the Bush Barrow chieftain must have been buried dressed. The edges of the hole in the gold plate, through which the hook projects, are worn in such a way as to suggest to the writer that the hook had been inserted into the hole repeatedly and had never been a permanent fixture there. It is thus probably misleading to illustrate any of these hooks with their open end downwards; they should be shown pointing to one side. Here, then, is a somewhat disconnected series of notes on certain objects from a well-known series of Wessex graves. They are offered by one who has devoted much thought to their meaning and purpose while he had custody of them, in the hope that others better qualified will continue to analyse these enigmatic remains of such an interesting period of our prehistory. 1 W.A.M., 60 (1965), 142ff. > Ibid., 58 (1962), 93ff. independently by Mrs. E. V. W. Proudfoot when discussing ogival daggers with pointillé ornament. 3 Wessex before the Celts (1958), pl. 13. P.P.S., XX1X (1963), 408. + P.P.S.. xvit (1951), 146. 17 Ant. F., XVII (1937), 313ff. s Ibid. 18 Inventaria Archaeologica (1956), GB 14. © [bid. 19 Ibid., ref. in notes on GB 14: Proc. Dorset N.H. 7 P.PS., xxvut (1962), 233ff. and A.S., Lv (1936), 2off. 8 P.P.S.,1V (1938), 52ff; W.A.M., 58 (1962), 94. 9 Wessex before the Celts (1958), pls. 41, 42. 10 The Bronze Age Round Barrow in Britain (1960), 7 Off. 11 Cf. footnote 9, pl. 41. 12 The smaller bronze axe-head from Barrow 7 on the Ridgeway, Dorset, was also buried wrapped in cloth. The traces of textile on both have been studied by Miss A. S. Henshall, P.P.S., xv1 (1950), 133. 13 The recent suggestion that these remains of wood, sheet and rivets of bronze belong to a hat or head-dress rather than to a shield is to be welcomed: the writer has often wondered whether the fragments of wood and the assortment of beads found near the head of the old woman buried at Manton (Wilts.), barrow Preshute G.I(a) repre- sent another head-dress (Catalogue, Nos. 195-210). 14 Ancient Wilts., 1, 122; Cunnington letters, preserved in the Library of the Wiltshire Archaeo- logical Society at Devizes, Bk. 2, p. 9-5. 15 Pls. 47, 48. 16 This identification seems to have been made 20 T am indebted to Professor Stuart Piggott for drawing my attention to this piece; it is in Sheffield Museum, Bateman Collection J. 93-454. 21 Sheffield Mus., Cat. of Bateman Antiquities (1899), J. 93-431 (G.79). 22 Cunnington letters, Bk. 13, p. 15. 23 Particularly to dagger No. 159. 24 Antiquity, XL (1966), 121ff. 25 Ancient Wilts., 1, 122-3, pl. XV. 26 M. E. Cunnington, The Early Iron Age Inhabited Site at All Cannings Cross Farm, Wiltshire (1923), pl. 41, No. 4. 27 W.A.M., LV (1954), 326ff. 28 These have recently been listed by Mrs. E. V. W. Proudfoot, P.P.S., xx1x (1963), 424-5. 29 W.A.M., Lit (1947), 126. 30 Sheffield Mus., Cat. of Bateman Antiquities (1899), 54; J. 93-422. ; 3t Paul Ashbee has made the same suggestion independently, The Bronze Age Round Barrow in Britain (1960), 120. 32 Belt hooks have been discussed recently by Alexander and Ozanne, P.P.S., xxv1 (1960), 276. “A LATE FIRST-CENTURY WELL AT CVNETIO by F. K. ANNABLE* SINCE 1957 small scale excavations have been in progress at the lesser walled township of Cunetio (Mildenhall), the primary object of the work there being a complete investigation of the layout of the town defences.* During 1960-1 the course of the west wall of the town was traced by electrical resistivity survey, and subsequent excavation across its line revealed a hitherto unsuspected gateway approximately 285 ft. south of the north-west corner of the masonry defences.” A further find resulted from that season’s work. During clearance of a section of the wall abutting on the west gate from the south, a well came to light, sealed by the wall footings, 19 ft. south of the main axis of the gate. Lack of time prevented its clearance in the 1961 season, and full excavation was subsequently delayed until the summer of 1963. This was not the first of such discoveries to be made at Cunetio. On two previous occasions wells have been located accidentally during cultivation in Black Field. The first, opened about 1860, was emptied to a depth of 25 ft., and yielded coarse pottery, bricks, tiles, animal bones, oyster shells and fragments of over fifty Samian vessels, some bearing stamps of the second century potters BoNoxvs and TiTTIvs.3 A further cavity in the ground, reported at the same time to be a well, does not seem to have been investigated, and, unhappily, the precise location of either site remains unrecorded. A second well, examined in 1912 by J. W. Brooke,¢4 was situated, as is now known, approximately 200 ft. south of the south-east angle of the town wall. Pottery finds from the filling consisted of Samian wares, late painted and rosette-stamped types from the New Forest kilns, and a single sherd of Argonne (previously Marne) ware3 with sunken square ornament. By a fortunate chance yet a fourth well was disclosed in 1957 when sections were dug across the line of the south wall of the town. It was sealed beneath the massive flint rubble and mortar wall foundation in Cutting D®¢ but as the discovery was made at a late stage of the dig, its investigation was left for a future date. The material from both previously excavated wells attests occupation at Black Field continuing from the middle of the second century until the final phases of Roman occupation. Finds from the interior of the well under discussion, however, undoubtedly bear witness to an occupational phase late in the first century A.D., * The excavation of the well, as also previous investigations at the site, were jointly directed by the writer and Anthony J. Clark, the last named also being responsible for carrying out resistivity surveys. and except for isolated surface discoveries,7 they provide the major body of informa- tion so far known for an early occupation at Cunetio. For this reason the publication of the pottery recovered in advance of the full report on investigations at this site may serve a useful purpose. THE WELL After removal of the upper layers of the well (ric. 1) by hand to a depth of 8 ft., the remainder of the filling was excavated by bucket, the spoil being hauled to the surface over a pulley supported from a tripod of metal scaffolding poles construc- ted over the well mouth. Below a depth of 13 ft., conditions became extremely muddy, water table being reached at 16 ft. 6 in. below the well head. As excavation proceeded, the shaft filled rapidly with water which poured in through the base and sides, and pumping became necessary. Fortunately this was possible, as the well proved to be of comparatively shallow depth, and the ample width of the shaft allowed for a suction pipe to be let down into the water without seriously hindering digging. Messrs. Currie Plant (Swindon) Ltd., supplied a 3 in. diameter diesel driven pump which proved admirable for the purpose. The stratification of the well was recorded as far as possible from an examination of the filling as it came to the surface; the finds also were sorted and recorded at the well head. The well was an unlined circular shaft dug through the natural chalk, measuring 4 ft. across and 20 ft. in depth. Its sides were extremely straight, and varied hardly at all from the vertical, converging at the base to form a rough hemisphere. ‘The filling, with the exception of the final two feet, was fairly homogeneous, with no striking variations between individual layers. Nine of these were, however, defined below the wall footings, and are listed below :8 Layer 1 ‘Topsoil. Layer 2 Sealing layer of wall footings of flint rubble in mortar. Layer 15 Brown soil containing plant roots. Layer 16 Light brown rubbly soil with gravel. Layer 17 Brown soil containing small flints and chalk lumps. Small patches of clean soil occurred with occasional specks of charcoal. Layer 18 Soil changed character, becoming less chalky and somewhat clayey. Layer 19 Avslightly lighter, rather chalky layer with charcoal specks and more flints. Layer 20 Light brown, gravelly, with chalk lumps and heavy flints. Layer 21 : eouetown rubbly fill. Water table reached at i6 ft. 6 in. below the weil read. Layer 22 Fill changed from rubble to lighter gravel. Layer 23 ‘Thin layer of fine clayey silt, contemporary with the use of the well. ANALYSIS OF THE WELL FILLING The most notable feature with regard to the contents of the well was the virtual absence within the filling of artefacts other than pottery. Thirty bone fragments were recovered, many of them extremely small, and of the total, nineteen occurred in the bottom two feet. The remaining non-ceramic material consisted of a single glass fragment, three lumps of sandstone, one of sarsen, two small pieces of brick ie) SAMIAN WARE A “SAVERNAKE’ WARE @ CUNETIO - MILDENHALL : SECTION OF WELL BENEATH TOWN WALL a SCALE OF FEET a [| rm 3\ Tea SOG “Mr Lats ; SON ANS fo] LO MN \\. oly \ ta rar NNN i a er eeaty & qe CAVE DH +e 2 ye%er at. +i [ T\+ +A .A+h co + + HE = Sf TU-AC SY => Wy Pye NY, oY e'D cms ryt oP AZ Teas AN They Rea leat [=a Str + + © {EI les a +: +f] wane + + Be ra 2S + joan = jun] Py + ct a, eile] Ey 2° 2 og ta tee PH Qe SS ED EO seine (Saas is rT [al ie d Nk ee 4 di A ay, e a 6 14 aie e 2 ° S 4 L i 3. oh > {_/ LA Delo Rpicio tare: v jefe] Bae Ain) ae v o a o a ae ¥ 0 © io Ee ee ga Oe ee T\ ? b . 5 [7 ih ceenge ee ae i o o 7 ct ar Shes, tH - |_/ oe mec C4 - fa 8 8 yen) ri ° v Dee SC, (po 14 5 v Tas] a pop oO | EEN leo i een iat tie jam EIN Of Sore) Fic. 1 Cunetio. Well section. ( 2) WATER LEVEL: SEPT. 1963 and a fragmentary oyster shell. Pottery occurred in the upper layers down to a depth of 14 ft. below the well head. Below this level, and for a further 5 ft., the pottery deposits thinned out, increasing again at 19 ft., when sherds became plentiful at the base of the filling. Amongst the types recovered were large storage jars with bead and cavetto rims, cooking pots, smaller bead-rim bowls, butt beakers, both imported and of native manufacture, small jugs, shallow bowls, and a few plate rims. Two or three near complete vessels, their sherds distributed vertically through a depth of two feet, occurred respectively in the upper and middle levels of the well. A number of Samian sherds belonging to the same vessels were also present at varying depths in the filling. (Report on Samian, Nos. 7, 14; 10, 13.) The shallow depth of the primary silt deposit (Layer 23) suggests, unless we assume a periodic clearing out of the interior, that the working period of the well was of fairly short duration. It is possible to explain the gravel layer (Layer 22) as having been deliberately thrown in, its purpose being first to raise the level of the water, and secondly, to act as a filter, purifying the water pouring in from the base and lower sides of the shaft. The general homogeneity of the filling, excluding the two bottommost layers, suggests that the fill may have come from a single source, and that the closure, when it was made, was a rapid one. The paucity of animal bones, and the absence from the well of artefacts other than pottery, e.g., metalwork or organic and building materials, further imply that the fill material was obtained from a source some distance away from the area of occupation proper, and probably close to the well itself. Additionally, the near completeness of some of the vessels, and the vertical distribution of joining sherds through a considerable depth surely indicate a rapid closing up of the well, perhaps carried out in a single operation once the decision had been made to abandon it. DISCUSSION The conclusion reached above that the closing of the well was performed in a single operation is put forward primarily on the evidence of sherds from the same vessel vertically distributed at variant depths through the filling. The pottery recovered from the well interior falls into three clear-cut groups. These are: (1) Samian fragments, closely dated as a group by Dr. Simpson to the period A.D. 50-60. (11) Romanized coarse pottery, of which the most significant are sherds of ‘Savernake’ type and indisputably products of the Romano-British pottery industry in Savernake Forest® recently investigated and dated by the writer to approximately A.D. 100. The sherds were distributed in association with the Samian types through all levels of the well filling (ric. 1). (iii) Also associated with the above-named groups were many sherds whose affinities, both in style and fabric, are closer to the pottery of the pre-Roman Belgic era. The forms include Gallo-Belgic type platters, heavy storage jars, and a pedestal I2 base, together with butt-beaker and jug forms of native and imported continental styles. Close parallels to many of the types exist amongst the coarse ware series from the Bagendon excavations;!° the Gallo-Belgic forms (rics. 3, 4: Nos. 21-22, 61-62, 64 and 71) are also commonly attested at Colchester up to the Boudiccan rebellion of A.D. 61, but are notably absent from levels subsequent to that date. Even in the Colonia which began earlier, at about A.D. 50, the forms are hardly to be found.!! If it were possible to disregard the chronological evidence of the Savernake fragments, then no single sherd from the entire well assemblage can certainly be used to postulate a closure date for the well much beyond the middle of the century. Such a conclusion, although in agreement with the dated Samian, nevertheless contradicts the evidence of the ‘Savernake’ sherds, obviously the determining factor when considering the evidence in toto. Conversely, it is impossible to distinguish any sherd which might reasonably be cited as evidence of a later limit than that proposed by the ‘Savernake’ pottery. In the circumstances it must, therefore, be concluded that the operation of filling the well was performed somewhere around A.D. 100, with the reasonable allowance of a few years on either side of this central date. If it is accepted that the Savernake products are correctly dated within the limits stated, and the well, therefore, abandoned in a single operation about A.D. 100, it becomes necessary to consider the apparent hiatus existing between the Samian and coarse wares assignable to the period ¢. A.D. 50-60, and the “Savernake’ type pottery of latest date. In considering first the Samian group, present knowledge suggests there is no weight of evidence to indicate that Samian pottery survived in use anywhere for very long periods. The problem of Samian survival has recently been discussed by Dr. Grace Simpson,'? and it is unnecessary here to reiterate the arguments put forward to support her conclusion that Samian pottery only had a comparatively short life at all periods of the Roman occupation. Doubtless, much more detailed analyses of stratified deposits will be required before any safe conclusions can be reached on this difficult problem, but on present evidence it seems inconceivable that the well Samian could have survived for some forty years except as broken rubbish incorporated with the latest finds. The evidence from stratified levels at overlapping Belgic/Roman sites also confirms that the bulk of Gallo-Belgic wares did not themselves survive in use much beyond the middle of the century. Must we then link the Gallo-Belgic sherds with the Samian finds as material also surviving as rubbish up to the time of deposition of the Savernake sherds? It is of interest to recall the discovery of pottery and other objects from a rubbish mound close to Martinsell Camp, excavated in 1907-8 by Mr. and Mrs. Cunning- ton.!3 Here, recovered from the mound, we have an assemblage of pottery exactly paralleled by the well contents, namely, Samian wares of early-middle first century date,14 Gallo-Belgic types, including butt-beakers, and sherds of certain ‘Savernake’ manufacture. Is this then a further instance of material surviving as rubbish long after its accepted date in use? The circumstances of the find certainly suggest that it is. Or, in spite of the unequivocally early date of the Gallo-Belgic forms noted above at Colchester (and elsewhere), does the possibility exist that our region 13 remained a backwater, largely unaffected by the changing styles and techniques of ceramic production in the early period of the Conquest? If this were so, then these early fabrics may well have continued in use with little change (even if the Samian did not) for a longer period than similar wares at sites further to the east. In spite of the fact that the Samian group has no bearing upon the date of closure of the well, its presence within the filling does raise interesting questions concerning the early occupation of the site, and more particularly, in view of its uniformly early date as a group, the possibility of a specifically military phase at or near Black Field. Earlier finds of Republican coins's and brooches of ‘Aucissa’ and Continental types, '© although few in quantity, attest an early, and possibly military, occupation at Cunetio, and the early Samian gives an added significance to the previous discoveries. At this point it is worth noting the strikingly rectangular layout of the pre- masonry ditched defences surrounding the township, first indicated by air-photo- graphy'7 and later confirmed by excavation.'® More recent investigations within the north-west corner of Black Field’? now suggest that the pre-wall ditches con- tinued further northwards, thus conforming precisely to the ‘playing card’ layout of a Roman military fortification. Finds from the ditch sections indicate at present, however, that these defences belong to the civil phase of the occupation, and if a military forerunner exists within or near Black Field, it still remains to seek. THE FIND S* THE COARSE POTTERY (FIGS 2, 3, 4) LAYER [5 Depth 3 ft. 1. Hard, smoothed fabric, light grey core and surface. A product of the Savernake kilns. 2. Hard, finely granulated fabric, dark grey surface, light grey core with dark specks. 3. Hard, smoothed fabric, dark grey surface, light grey core with dark specks. 4. Rough fabric containing mixed grits of flint and ?chalk, medium grey core and surface. 5. Hard fabric, dark grey surface, light grey core. 6. Coarse native fabric, uneven exterior, dark grey throughout. 7. Coarse native fabric containing mixed flint and chalk grits, grey/buff core and surface. 8. Softer fabric than (7), orange colour throughout. Depth 3-4 ft. g. Hard, smoothed fabric, light grey core and surface. 10. Coarse ?native fabric, buff/grey surface, light grey core. 11. Sandy native fabric, band of smoothing immediately below shoulder, buff core and surface. A fragment of the same vessel was found at a depth of 5 ft. 12. Shallow dish of Belgic style. Hard fabric, buff/grey core and surface. Probably product of the Savernake kilns. 13. Smoothed fabric, buff/grey core, buff surface. 14. Hard fabric containing grey grits. Medium grey surface, light grey core. Product of the Savernake kilns. 15. Rough fabric, uneven exterior, dark grey core and surface. * For key to abbreviated references used in the following sections, see p. 24. 14 31 L ee 5 ) 34 ——— | SS | “\ = Se \ a) IMAFPRAAADR Fic. 3 Cunetio. Romano-British pottery from the well. Scale: 1: 4. 32 68 : 63 70 @ Wnwae//4// J , / Sale oie Fic. 4 Cunetio. Romano-British pottery from the well. Scale: 1: 4. 22. 23. . Hard fabric, heavily embedded with grey flint grits, grey/buff surface, grey core. . Sandy fabric, dark grey core and surface. . Softer fabric than (17), brown core, medium grey surface. . Base of pedestal jar. Coarse native fabric containing flint grits, grey/buff core and surface. . Hard, thin fabric, cream surface, pale orange core. . Butt-beaker fragment. Hard, well-made fabric, cream colour throughout. cf, Camulo- dunum, pl. LVII, form 113. This fragment could have been made at Colchester. Claudius-Nero. Base fragment of butt-beaker. Thin fabric, pale orange surface, light grey core. Either copy of Camulodunum, form 113, or an actual 113 made in a different factory. Fabric may be copying Terra rubra. Claudius-Nero. Base of beaker, exact form unknown. Hard fabric, pale orange surface, light grey core. Same fabric as (22) and possibly of similar date. Fabric may copy Terra rubra. Depth 4-5 ft. . Coarse, granulated fabric containing brown and white grits, medium grey core, dark grey surface. . Coarse native fabric, grey/buff surface, medium grey core. . Rusticated beaker. Globular profile with nodular decoration, rim short and straight, typical of Flavian exs., cf., North Hykeham, p. 26. . Rim of jug. Hard fabric, burnished externally, dark grey core and surface. Depth 5-6 ft. . Rough fabric, brown/grey core, light grey surface. . Hard well-made fabric, slightly burnished externally, light grey core, medium grey surface. Product of Savernake kilns. . Hard fabric containing brown grits, grey/buff core and surface. Probably product of Savernake kilns. . Heavy, coarse fabric, heavily embedded with grey and brown grits. Reddish/grey core, grey/brown surface. . Native fabric, heavily embedded with white and brown flint grits. Buff/grey surface, reddish/grey core. Depth 6-7 ft. . Hard, finely granulated ?native fabric, dark grey surface, grey/brown core. . Bead-rim. Type reminiscent of Savernake kiln products. Dark grey core and surface. . Hard, smoothed fabric, medium grey surface, light grey core. . Shallow platter of Belgic type. Hard, smoothed fabric, grey/buff surface, light grey core. LAYER 16 Depth 7-8 ft. . Hard fabric, light grey core and surface. Product of Savernake kilns. Depth 8-9 ft. . Hard fabric, smoothed externally, light grey core, medium grey surface. . Shallow platter. Hard fabric, smoothed internally, dark grey core and surface. . Hard fabric, light grey surface, orange/grey core. Depth 9-10 ft. . Large storage jar. Hard, native type fabric, light grey core, grey/buff surface. cf, Bagendon, figs. 5'7 and 69. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. LAYER 17 Depth ro-r1 ft. . Coarse, native fabric, containing brown and white grits, grey/buff core and surface. . Jar reminiscent of Savernake types. Hard fabric, dark grey smoothed surface, light grey/buff core. . Rough fabric, light grey surface, dark grey core. . Coarse fabric, grey/brown core and surface. . Hard, smoothed fabric, medium grey core and surface. . Hard fabric, grey/brown core and surface. LAYER 18 Depth 11-12 ft. . Hard native fabric, buff surface, reddish brown core. . Coarse native fabric, dark grey surface, lighter grey core. . Coarse porridgy fabric containing small flint grits. Orange/buff core, grey/buff surface. . Rim of butt-beaker. ?Local copy in a hard smooth fabric, orange colour throughout. . Rim of jug. Hard, burnished fabric, light grey core and surface. cf., Dorchester, fig. 15, . Hard, smoothed fabric, orange core and surface. LAYER 19 Depth 12-13 ft. . Hard porridgy fabric with small dark grits. Medium grey surface, light grey core. Product of Savernake kilns. . Belgic style platter. Hard fabric, dark grey surface, light grey core. . Similar to (55) in style and fabric. . Hard, smoothed fabric, buff core and surface. . Hard, rough fabric, light/medium grey core and surface. Product of Savernake kilns. . Well burnished fabric, dark grey surface, grey/brown core. Depth 13-14 ft. . Hard fabric, rough textured, buff surface, medium grey core. . Body fragment of butt-beaker of Camulodunum form 113 type. Hard fabric, reddish brown core and surface, perhaps copying Terra rubra. . Butt-beaker fragment. Further copy, or actual Gamulodunum form 113. Hard fabric, orange/brown core and surface, fabric perhaps copying Terra rubra. Claudius-Nero. LAYER 20 Depth 14-15 ft. Carinated bowl. Hard, native fabric, light brown core and surface, cf., Dorchester, fig. 15, 79. Flavian-Trajan. LAYER 21 Depth 15-16 ft. Base of jug. Fine, hard, smoothed ware, cream colour throughout. Almost certainly Camulodunum form 161. Claudius-Nero. Ring-necked jug. Hard, smooth, well-made ware, orange colour throughout. LAYER 22 Depth 20-21 ft. Base of ?butt-beaker with faint rouletting. Hard, slightly sandy fabric, cream colour throughout. Hard, coarse, fabric with flint and ?chalk grits. Reddish core, medium grey surface. i) 68. 69. 70. Hard fabric with grey flints embedded, light grey colour throughout. Hard fabric with tiny dark grits embedded, light grey core and surface. Product of Savernake kilns. LAYER 23 Depth 22 ft.-22 ft. 6 in. Hard fabric with tiny dark grits embedded. Light grey core and surface. Probably product of the Savernake kilns. THE SAMIAN POTTERY (FIG. 5) The Samian pottery in the well can be closely dated within the period late Claudian to early Neronian. The decorated sherds Nos. 3, 4, 17 and 19 are typical of this time; there is a Claudian example of the Dr.27 cup with a flattened rim (No. 16), and there are also the slightly later Dr.27 with a rounded rim (Nos. 1 and 15). A less common early vessel is the little cup Ritterling 9. The latest sherds are probably Nos. 5 and 6. There is nothing here that need be later than c. A.D. 60, and the period might close five years earlier than that. i) 20 LAYER 15 Depth 4 ft. 6 in. . Dr.27 with a small rounded rim, cf: Camulodunum, 186-7, S14C, Claudian and later. Depth 5 ft. 6 in. . Dr.24/25—Camulodunum, $15 B and C, and O. @ P., pl. xl, 9-12. The rouletting has almost disappeared in some final turning process on the finishing lathe. Claudian and later. Depth 6 ft. 6 in. . Dr.go. The gloss is thin, brownish, and only slightly glossy. he bead rim is small and rounded, the mouldings inside and outside above the ovolo are wide and emphatic, and there is a moulding across the upper part of the ovolo which has partly obliterated it. The same feature appears on Anorr, 1919, Taf. 89 H, from Wiesbaden, which shows the unusual lion O.1367; and the same obliterating line shows on Atkinson, Wroxeter, pl. 65, S22, and on two unpublished sherds in Colchester Museum. The ovolo is double-bordered, with a plain, straight tongue. It is uncommon and not yet attributable to any potter. Another example of the ovolo is in Arch., fig. 60, p. 93. The design of the two sherds from Cunetio (see below, No. 4), overlap and show a hare not recorded in Oswald’s Index of Figure Types. The hare is between plain scrolls encircling a tiny ten-pointed star or rosette which also appears in the field. ‘The bowl has been damaged by the bowl finisher. Period of manufacture ¢. A.D. 40-55. LAYER 16 Depth 8 ft. 6 in. . Dr.gjo. Sherd is from same vessel as No. 3. Depth g ft. 6 in. . Dr.18, the large size, with a neatly rounded rim and no offset, cf. Camulodunum, p. 185, S8B, or O. @ P., pl. xlv, 3, or Ritterling’s type 2B at Hofheim. Claudian and later. . Dr.gg. A tiny sherd from the frieze with part of the central moulding. The ten-pointed rosette has a central dot. Moderately glossy. Early Neronian ? / pase aot aarp ony \\ \ ee | ae — . | a ‘ Lf Ga bSt ya NIMS \ See’ 4 = Fic. 5 Cunetio. Plain and figured Samian from the well. Scale: 1:1, except No. 19, approx. 1: 2. 10. AE 22 LAYER 18 Depth 11-12 ft. . Ritterling 12. Part of the spout. From the same vessel as a small sherd found at 16-17 ft. down which joins No. 14 below. . Base of Dr.18. Two sherds join. . Dr.15/17. Rim and basal fragments from the same vessel, similar in type to No. 10. LAYER I 9. Depth 12-13 ft. Dr.15/17. Wall fragment, and No. 13 is probably from the same vessel. ‘Thin, brownish matt gloss. The profile is like the Claudian variety at Camulodunum, p. 183, S6A, or 0. @ P., pl. xlii, 14 and 23. Claudian. Rim of Dr.27 with an interior lip groove. The rim is half-way between the Camulo- dunum S14B type, in which the rim is rounded on top but pointed externally, and the S14C with a full bead-rim. Dull gloss. Claudian and later. . Curved fragment of wall, probably from either a Dr.24/25 or the lower curve of a Dr.27. Matt gloss. Probably Claudian. LAYER 20 Depth 14-15 ft. . Dr.15/17. See No. 10 above. LAYER 2I Depth 16-17 ft. Flange of form Ritterling 12 (see also No. 7). The straight flange has a moderate gloss with the unusual addition of a clear thumb-print. In Camulodunum, p. 187, this is S19, and see also O. & P., pl. Ixxi, 1-7. Claudian-Neronian. Dr.27 with a small rounded rim, a different vessel from No. 1 above. Dr.27 with the flattened rim common in the Claudian period. ‘Thin, brownish matt gloss. See Camulodunum, p. 186, 514B, and O. & P., p. 187, for the rim shape which is an early Claudian feature. LAYER 22 Depth 20-22 ft. . Dr.29. A series of vertical torsades, see Anorr, 1912, Taf, 4, 10, are bordered below by a straight wreath of the little ornament used by oF Bassico, see ibid., Taf. 18, 3, which was reproduced in Anorr, 1952, Taf. 10F. The little ornament was used by the same potter in Taf. 10E also. ‘Zeit des Claudius’, wrote Knorr, which accords with the appearance of this sherd. . Ritterling 9. See O. @ P., pp. 170-1, pl. xxxix, 4 and 5. The cup in Camulodunum, p. 187, S17C is slightly larger, but otherwise very like this cup. Both have the truncated or flattened rim, the outward slope of the wall which has girth grooves and the small moulding at the angle. Moderate gloss. Claudius-Nero at latest. . Dr.g9 with a slightly rounded carination, and a matt brownish gloss. ‘The decoration is exactly like Anorr, 1g19, Taf. 56A, from Vindonissa which bears the name MELVSFE, ‘made by Melus’. He was one of the early potters of La Graufesenque in S. Gaul. Oswald suggested that his working life was from ‘Tiberius-Nero, but Knorr suggested A.D. 50-60. The shape and colour of this sherd are Claudian. The tendril bindings consist of groups of four small beads. The decoration was carelessly impressed in the mould. GRACE SIMPSON THE GLASS FRAGMENT The fragment is clearly from the base of either a plain or indented beaker, although it is impossible to reconstruct the full shape from such a small piece. It is colourless, and remarkably free from green tints even on the fracture. Such a piece in a probable first century context, however late in the century it may be, is of considerable interest, because colourless glass did not get into normal use in this country until the second century A.D. Colourless glass is, however, known from Flavian times onwards, so there is nothing exceptional about this piece, nor would I wish to query the dating of the well on its account. D. B. HARDEN THE ANIMAL BONES The size of this collection, just on thirty specimens in all, is too small for any calcula- tion of relative numbers of species to be valid, but it has been possible to extract some information concerning ages and sizes of the animals represented. ‘There are only three species, cattle, sheep and horse. Cattle Mandibles indicate two animals of two years, one of 24 to 3, and another of more than five years of age. The size range is consistent with remains of cattle from Iron Age and early Roman period sites. The length of the tooth row in one mandible is 131 mm. This compares with Glastonbury, p. 666 (118-132 mm.), and is similar to Cranborne Chase (Table of Measurements of Bones of Test Animals, following p. 215), test animal (129 mm.) which was a Kerry cow 3 ft. 5 in. at the shoulder. The length of two lower third molars, 33-5 and 34:7 mm., comes within the Iron Age range quoted by Degerbol, p. 69, for Danish cattle. Sheep Two mandibles and a molar indicate ages of three, one and a half, and approximately two years of age. ‘The mandibles are of the Soay/St. Kilda type and size, and a metacarpal (length 122 mm., mid-shaft diameter 12 mm.) has the long, slender form characteristic of this type. Its length compares with specimens from Swallowcliffe Down, p. 93 (113-121 mm)., All Cannings Cross, p. 4.7 (112-128 mm.) and Glastonbury, p. 666. Horse Of a mandible it is only possible to say, in the absence of incisors, that it is from an animal of more than four years old. A metatarsal of 230 mm. in length indicates a pony of about 114 hands (Cranborne Chase, loc. cit.), and with a mid-shaft diameter of 24 mm. this gives a length-width ratio of 9:6 showing it to have been a lightly built slender animal. R. HARCOURT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many friends assisted with the overall excavation of the west gate, but we are especially indebted to Messrs. N. P. Thompson, John Mead and H. Ross who readily undertook the unpleasant task of clearing the well. To Mr. Ross we owe our further thanks for the use of his Land-Rover without which it would have been impossible to manceuvre the pump up to the well head. The generosity of the parent Committee of the Society in contributing towards the cost of excavation is also gratefully acknowledged. The writer is extremely grateful to Dr. Grace Simpson, Dr. D. B. Harden and Mr. R. Harcourt for their specialist contributions, and to Dr. Graham Webster, who kindly read through the report and made a number of valuable suggestions. Insignificant as this report is, it also gives us an opportunity to pay a special tribute to the late Mrs. Hannay who died in September 1964. 23 Winifred Hannay lived on the very threshold of Cunetio, at Werg Mill Cottage, Milden- hall, and from the outset of our excavations took an ardent interest in all work at the site. Her interest, indeed, rapidly turned into involvement, for the cottage soon became the source of all our domestic requirements, yet the daily demands we made for water, for milk and for tea, or the use of the telephone (often, it would now seem, presumptuous), never failed to be met with a rare tolerance and charm. Apart from this, we owe her gratitude, not only for permission, readily granted, to excavate on her land, but also for a long use of the cottage barn which, when we began, was immediately offered for our convenience, and served as an excavation hut during each season’s work. ‘Trained in her early life as painter, but artist by very nature, with all the zest of the artist, she remained whilst being our continual provider, a constant and curious visitor to our trenches, always deeply interested in any fresh discovery. Her company was delightful, and her death a belittlement of us all. All Cannings Cross. The Early Iron Age Inhabited Site at All Cannings Cross Farm. M. E. Cunnington (1923). Arch. Roman London: its initial occupation as evidenced by early types of Terra Sigillata. T. D. Pryce and F. Oswald, Archaeologia, Lxxvut (1928). Bagendon. Bagendon: A Belgic Oppidum. E. M. Clifford (1961). Camulodunum. Camulodunum, Excavations, 1930-39: C. F. C. Hawkes and M. R. Hull. Soc. of Anti- quaries of London, Research Report No. xiv (1947). har: Cranborne Chase. Excavations in Cranborne Chase, Vo. II. A. Pitt-Rivers (1888). Degerbol. Man and Catile. Essays edited by C. Mourant and F. E. Zeuner. Royal Anthropological Institute (London, 1964). Dorchester. Excavations at Dorchester on Thames, 1962. Sheppard Frere, Arch. Journ., cx1x (1962). Glastonbury. The Glastonbury Lake Village, Vol. 11. A Bulleid and H. St. George Gray (1917). knorr, 1912. Die Terra-Sigillata Gefasse von Aislingen. R. Knorr, Jahrbuch des Historischen Vereins Dillingen, 1912. Knorr, 1919. Topfer und Fabriken verzierter Terra- Stgillata des ersten Jahrhunderts. R. Knorr (Stuttgart, 1Q1Q). Knorr, 1952. Terra-Sigillata-Geftisse des ersten Jahrhunderts mit Tépfernamen. R. Knorr (Stuttgart, 1952). North Hykeham. A Romano-British Pottery Kiln at North Hykeham, Lincs. F. H. Thompson, Antiq. Journ., Xxxviit (1958). Oswald. Index of Figure-Types. F. Oswald. (Uni- versity Press of Liverpool, 1936-7). 24 O. G P. Terra Sigillata. F. Oswald and T. D. Pryce (1920). Swallowcliffe Down. An Inhabited Site of La Téne I Date on Swallowcliffe Down. R. C. C. Clay, W.A.M., xLut (1925), 59-93- Wroxeter. Report on Excavations at Wroxeter, 1923-7. D. Atkinson, Birmingham Archaeological Society, 1942. (O.U.P.) 1 W.A.M., Lvi (1956), 241ff. > Ibid., 59 (1961), 35. Ibid., vit (1861), 12t. Ibid., XLt (1920), 151ff. Med. Arch., 111 (1959), 109. W.A.M., Lvt (1956), 245. V.C.H., 1, 1 (1957), 88. 8 Layers 3-14 appear in the north-south section across the town west gate (forthcoming). 9 W.A.M., 58 (1962), 143 ff. to EF. M. Clifford, Bagendon, A Belgic Oppidum (1961), figs. 54, 57, 69. ™ JT am grateful to Mr. M. R. Hull, M.a., F.s.A., for his examination of some of the Gallo-Belgic forms, and his comments (in litt.). 12 G. Simpson, Britons and the Roman Army (1964). 13 W.A.M., xxxvi (1909), 125ff. ™4 The nine so-called Arretine sherds from Oare are respectively South Gaulish, Samian and Gallo- Belgic Terra rubra. '§ W.A.M., xii (1921), 392. 16 V.C.H., 1, i (1957), 88. 17 F.RS., XLII (1953), pl. XIII, 2. 18 W.A.M., Lv1 (1956), 241ff. "9 Tbid., 58 (1962), 245. IAN PW PAGAN SAXON BURIALS AND BOUNDARIES IN WILTSHIRE by D. J. BONNEY IN WILTSHIRE, as elsewhere in England, the pagan Anglo-Saxons are represented almost entirely by their dead: none of their settlements has so far been clearly recog- nized archaeologically.t Over eighty certain or probable burial sites are known,? a high number for any county and exceeded only by Kent. ‘The overall number of burials is, however, small since there are few cemeteries, and those but small ones compared to the large necropoli of south-eastern and eastern England. No very precise date is assignable to most of the burials because of the scarcity of closely datable grave-goods accompanying them, but burials with grave-goods indicate pagan practices and such practices were current in Wiltshire from the fifth century; to at least the late seventh century when they were being abandoned in the face of Christianity. Here the burials are considered briefly from a distributional rather than from a cultural or chronological standpoint. In particular their distribution in relation to certain apparently later settlements and boundaries is examined. Sixty-nine of the eighty-odd burial sites within the county may be located with fair accuracy, 2.e. toa national grid reference of at least six figures, and it is only these which are considered here. Of these, thirteen are the sites of cemeteries, nine of primary burials in barrows, twenty-nine of secondary burials in barrows, and eighteen of other burials in flat graves, either singly or in very small groups. All the burials are inhumations. Whether these sites constitute a representative sample of what once existed, or exists to be found, is open to question and it must be borne in mind that future discoveries may alter the pattern of our information, though not, perhaps, to a marked degree distributionally. The high proportion of sites represented by burials in barrows probably means that the distribution is overweighted in those areas where barrows are not only numerous but where many of them have been excavated. All but four of the burial sites lie within the chalklands in the south and east of the county (FIG. 1), many of them scattered on the high downland remote from the valleys. Two sites lie on the Corallian Limestone and two on the Greensand. None is known on the claylands in the north and west of the county or on the Oolitic Limestone of the Cotswold dip-slope in the extreme north-west. Such a distribution suggests that the pagan Saxons were attracted by the chalklands, with their light soils and long tradition of cultivation, and that they settled these first. But where did their settlements lie and in what way are the burial sites, with their seemingly haphazard distribution, related to them? The general view of the whereabouts of the majority of pagan Saxon settlements, now widely accepted, is that recently restated by Mr. C. W. Phillips. ‘Clearly a lot of the evidence for the early settlements’, 29 Solid Symbols Represent Sites On or Very Near Parish Boundaries. Kk CEMETERIES O@ BURIALS, PRIMARY IN) BARROWS ox ) OTHER BURIALS 44 BURLALS, SECONDARY IN BARROWS 0 5) 10 LS Miles Chalklands Unstippled Fic. 1 The distribution of pagan Saxon burials in Wiltshire. he writes, ‘must lie at the bottom of the stratification under modern communities which are their descendants.’4 Now within the Wiltshire chalklands nearly all medieval and later settlement is confined to the river valleys, primarily by the need for water, and that this is true for the later Saxon period is clear from Domesday Book. Thus in the river valleys the bulk of the pagan Saxon settlements are to be expected, a view which finds some support in the distribution of the burial sites. Nineteen (27-5 per cent.) lie on the slopes and in the bottoms of the river valleys. Of these, six are cemeteries, and it is cemeteries which most obviously indicate the presence of settled communities. Three of the cemeteries, moreover, Harnham, Petersfinger and Winterbourne Gunner, contain recognizable fifth-century burials, thereby indicating early settlement. Eight of these valley sites, among them four cemeteries, lie in or very close to present-day villages and may fairly be connected with the forerunners of those villages (see Appendix I). A further indication that the pagan Saxon burials are those of the early, if not earliest,® inhabitants of settlements still in existence today lies in their relationship to the parish boundaries. Twenty (29 per cent.) of the burial sites lie actually on parish boundaries while a further nine (13 per cent.) lie very near them, 7.e. within 500 ft. These comprise two cemeteries, five primary and fifteen secondary burials in barrows, and seven other burials (see Appendix II), many of them lying on the downland in remote parts of the parishes well away from the settlements in the river valleys. Such a proportion of sites on or near boundaries is far too high for mere coincidence and some explanation of their position is required. Parish boundaries as such are old, but as boundaries they are even older. The majority of ecclesiastical parishes, from which modern civil parishes are derived, came into being during the tenth and the eleventh centuries? and by the twelfth century the familiar pattern of parishes, which has survived virtually unbroken to the present day, had been established. Changes there have been: parishes have been amalgamated and, chiefly since the nineteenth century, sub-divided, particularly in and around expanding urban centres. But for an essentially rural area such as Wiltshire the picture is a largely static one. Behind the ecclesiastical parishes lie the estates on which they were founded. These estates, the manors of Domesday Book and after, make their first appearance in the land charters of the later Saxon period. ‘The charters normally give the bounds of the estates and though only a limited number exist for Wiltshire, as indeed for any county, they indicate a clear correspondence between estate and parish boundaries.* This is not to say that parish and estate, or manor, invariably coincide in Wiltshire; frequently they do, as elsewhere in Wessex, but often a parish incorporates two or more estates and, more rarely, a single large estate is divided between two or more parishes. The estates are, however, units of land tenure and they in turn are based on essentially physical units composed of settlements and their associated lands. In a largely, if not entirely, subsistence economy, such as pertained throughout Saxon England, each settlement—farm, hamlet or village—was dependent on an area or unit of land and it is such units, or ageregates of such units, which are basic to both estates and parishes in Wiltshire. In consequence there is a marked correspondence between the boundaries of the estates, manors and parishes and those of the lands of the settlements.° 27 In the light of this the appearance of numerous pagan Saxon burial sites on or near parish boundaries becomes intelligible. ‘They surely indicate that those bound- aries, as boundaries, were in being as early as the pagan Saxon period and they imply the existence of a settled landscape clearly divided among the settlements at a time prior to any documentary evidence for such. Dr. Meaney, it may be noted here, has already observed of some inhumation cemeteries that ‘the boundary of a territory seems to have been the proper place for them’,!° an observation based presumably on the proximity of such cemeteries to parish boundaries. How early in the pagan Saxon period the boundaries of settlements and estates were defined is hard to say, but there are indications that some of the boundaries were in existence in the fifth century. Three of the five burial sites in Wiltshire containing recognizable fifth century burials—the Bassett Down and Petersfinger cemeteries and the secondary burials in barrows at West Overton—lie on or very near parish boundaries. What proportion, if any, of the boundaries have had a continuous existence from pre-Saxon times remains questionable but the possibility of continuity should not be lightly dismissed. In conclusion it may be said that preliminary work on other counties shows that the existence of burial sites on or very near parish boundaries and in or very near existing villages is by no means peculiar to Wiltshire. In Hampshire and to a lesser extent in Lincolnshire, for example, sites on or near parish boundaries pre- dominate, while in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire sites in or near existing villages are preponderant. This facet of early settlement history, largely ignored at present, is one which the local historian in particular might well examine with profit, es- pecially in any consideration of the evolution of the boundaries of estates and manors. APPENDIX I BURIAL SITES IN OR VERY NEAR EXISTING SETTLEMENTS Cemeteries Broad Chalke SU 04252504 West Chisenbury, Enford SU 13615317 Harnham SU 13702875 Winterbourne Gunner SU 182352 Other burials Great Cheverell ST 980544 Mildenhall SU 210697 Evelyn Street, Swindon SU 158831 Secondary in barrow Ogbourne St. Andrew SU 18897233 APPENDIX II I. BURIAL SITES ON PARISH BOUNDARIES Cemetery Petersfinger, Clarendon SU 16312938 Other burials Barbury Castle, Ogbourne St. Andrew — SU 150763 Crofton, Great Bedwyn SU 261623 28 Heytesbury ST 920428 Marlborough/ Mildenhall SU 207686 Stanton Fitzwarren SU 188905 Witherington, Alderbury SU 185252 Primaries in barrows Middle Down, Alvediston Roundway Hill, Bishop’s Cannings Race Course, Coombe Bissett ST 96702526 SU 01956433 SU 10402818 Secondaries in barrows Boscombe Down, Amesbury Thornhill Lane, Clyffe Pypard Ell Barrow, Wilsford (North) Great Botley Copse, East Grafton Great Botley Copse, East Grafton SU 17794009 SU 09017726 SU 07305137 SU 29376000 Kill Barrow, Tilshead King Barrow, Boreham, Warminster Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterslow Hut, Idmiston SU 29376035 SU 00004789 ST 89754446 SU 10444220 SU 10124168 SU 22843538 2. BURIAL SITES VERY NEAR PARISH BOUNDARIES Cemetery Bassett Down, Lydiard Tregoze Other burials Woodbridge, North Newnton Primaries in barrows Ashton Valley, Codford St. Peter Ford Down, Laverstock Secondaries in barrows Ashton Valley, Codford St. Peter Everleigh Roundway Down, Roundway Sherrington West Overton Ansty"? t It is to be hoped that by the time this is published Mr. Musty’s excavations in Winter- bourne Gunner will have produced evidence of one pagan Saxon settlement site—fifth century ? 2 V.C.H., Wilts., 1, 1 (1957), passim; Meaney, A., A Gazetteer of Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites (1964), 264-79; for additional sites not listed in the foregoing, see W.A.M., 58 (1963), 467; 59 (1964), 73, 76; 60 (1965), 138. SU 11547995 SU 13305709 ST 97944269 SU 17203320 ST 98054280 SU 18485603 SU 00606476 ST 96883918 SU 11966835 ST 96722540 3 Evison, V. I., The Fifth Century Invasions South of the Thames (1965), 37-40. 4 Ordnance Survey, Map of Britain in The Dark Ages, 2nd ed. (1966), 15. One must include here, of course, deserted medieval settlements where no modern community survives. 5 V.C.\H., Wilts., 11 (1955), map inter 112-3. 6 There are hints that some villages are pre- Saxon in origin. An analysis of the settlements of 29 known Roman date in Wiltshire indicates that at least 15 per cent. of them lie under existing villages. 7 Addleshaw, G. W. O., The Development of the Parochial System from Charlemagne (768-814) to Urban EN OIE 90) (1954), esp. 11-17. 8 The most comprehensive account of the Saxon land charters of Wiltshire, though displaying the inevitable shortcomings of pioneer work, remains that of G. B. Grundy in Arch. Journ., LXXVI (1919), 143-301; Lxxvu (1920), 8-126. For a recent appraisal of the situation see W.A. M., 58 (1963), 442, and Finberg, H. P. R., The Early Charters of Wessex (1964), 69-108. 30 9 For a general discussion of the topic of estates, manors and parishes see Addleshaw, G. W. O., op. cit.; Tate, W. E., The Parish Chest (1951); 9-11; Hoskins, W. G., Local History in England (1959), 40-47. 10 Meaney, A.., op. cit., 20. 11 This Bronze Age barrow, excavated by Major and Mrs. H. L. Vatcher since the above was written, contained an impressive secondary pagan Saxon burial. It lay in the extreme S.E. corner of the parish, some 30 yds. from the parish boundary. TWO FINDS OF SAXON DOMESTIC POTTERY IN WILTSHIRE by P. J. FOWLER TWO GROUPS OF hand-made pottery, similar to the Saxon domestic pottery found at Castle Meadow, Downton,! nearly a decade ago, have recently been recognized in Wiltshire. Since little has happened in the meantime to add to the excavator’s point that the Downton sherds were ‘among the first Saxon sherds to be found in Wiltshire’, the opportunity is taken here to publish these two new groups with a brief discussion of their date and a list of other sites in the county that have yielded pottery likely to belong to the centuries between the end of the Romano-British period and the Norman Conquest (Appendix, p. 36). Though the dating evidence is extremely uncertain, it is argued here that the two groups under review, respectively from Round Hill Down, Ogbourne St. George, and from Wellhead, Westbury, are more likely than not to be earlier than A.D. 800. Despite the lack of good dating evidence, the recognition of the Ogbourne and Westbury material makes the important point that domestic pottery is not entirely lacking from the local archaeological record in the immediately post-Roman centuries. The point is worth emphasizing since so far, unlike other areas, little progress has been made in Wiltshire in the establishment of local sequences spanning all or part of the ‘Dark Ages’. This is unfortunate because, archaeologically and historically as well as ceramically, the county occupies a crucial position in these centuries. THE POTTERY A. SHERDS FROM ROUND HILL DOWN, OGBOURNE ST. GEORGE (SU 215755). PL. I. The following nine sherds were found c. 830 ft. above O.D. on top of the ridge between Aldbourne and the valley of the R. Og in north-east Wiltshire. The site, damaged by turf-stripping as well as ploughing, lies on Clay-with-Flints, and has already been noted as a settlement on the evidence of Iron Age and Romano-British material recovered as surface finds.3 Slight earthworks, including depressions, mark the area, and though these support the identification as a settlement, they are too damaged to indicate its form with any certainty. The absence of any enclosing earthwork plus the amorphous nature of the disturbed area suggest, however, that here was a small ‘open’ Romano-British settlement of a type once common on the downland.4 In the surrounding area are ‘Celtic’ field remains. The material from the site has been collected over some years by Mr. O. Meyrick, in whose possession it remains and by whose kind permission sherds 1-8 31 are published. After examining the collection and picking out those sherds as being quite distinct from the bulk of the otherwise Iron Age/Romano-British assemblage, the writer visited the site, then (1963) mostly under grass, and found sherd No. 9, one other fragment similar to sherd No. 6, and bead rim from an Iron Age bowl. Sherds Nos. 1-8 are numbered as on PL. I: 1. About 3-5 cm. square, uniformly 0-9 cm. thick. Soft, fine paste superficially similar to No. 2, but feels rougher and harder, with a few small (flint ?) grits visible. External surface dark buff, with a few haphazard impressions, at least three recognizably of chopped grass. Core and internal surface grey, with surface marked irregularly, probably by organic matter. 2. 5°4.cm. by 3°5 cm. Probably from lower half of vessel near base, since thickens from o-7cm. to 1:4.cm. Soft, fine paste, clearly layered but well-levigated, containing many tiny micaceous specks. Where thickens, paste includes lump of grog at least 2 cm. long from what appears to be sherd of Romano-British ware. External surface buff with im- pressions of chopped(?) grass generally lying in vertical (or possibly horizontal) plane, and of some grain, perhaps barley. Interior surface and core black, the surface lightly scored with brushing marks as if from bunch of grass. 3. 3°5.cm. by 2-5 cm.; 0-9 cm. thick. Paste as No. 2. External surface dark grey and rough, with impressions; core dark grey; internal surface light brown with many tiny impressions (some perhaps from leaching of chalk) and three parallel stripes as if from grass brush. 4. 4°5 cm. by 2-9 cm.; 1 cm. thick. So similar to No. 2, as to be almost certainly from the same vessel. 5. 3°5cem. by 1-7cm.; 0-6 cm. thick. Paste similar to No. 2. External surface buff to grey with small chopped (?) grass impressions; core black; internal surface buff, again with impressions. 6. 4°5cm. by 3:4.cm.; 0-7 cm. thick. Paste similar to No. 2, but with obvious small grits making the sherd look much coarser. External surface buff and much cracked, with some impressions from organic material; core black; internal surface black, very rough and uneven, with impressions. 7. Decorated sherd. 5-5 cm. by 4 cm.; 0-6 to 0-8 cm. thick. Paste similar to No. 2, though feels somewhat rougher. External surface black, decorated with two parallel rows of differently spaced and somewhat irregular circular holes about 0-4 cm. in diameter, 0-1 cm. deep at most and made with a blunt instrument. In one row are six holes, in the other two. Medially between them is a slight incised line. The surface is cracked, and impressed by organic material. Core black; internal surface very similar to, though lighter in colour than, external surface of No. 1. 8. Decorated sherd. 2:2 cm. by 1:8 cm.; 0:6 cm. thick. Paste apparently finer and harder than Nos. 1-7 and not quite so obviously layered. External surface same colour as No. 1, with straight incised line 0-1 cm. wide, and four complete and one incomplete circular impressions 0-4. cm. in diameter, 0-1 to 0-2 cm. deep, and made with a blunt instrument. The holes are arranged so that those in the lower row cover the spaces between holes in the upper. Core brownish; internal surface dark brown and quite smooth with no im- pressions. g. (Not illustrated.) Rim, 3:5 cm. by 2:0cm.; 0-7cm. thick. Similar to No. 6 in appearance, paste and fabric, though external surface not cracked. Sherd too small for reconstruction drawing, though rim is everted, slightly bulbous on tip and almost certainly from a jar. B. SHERDS FROM WELLHEAD, WELLHEAD LANE, WESTBURY (ST 873503). FIG. I. The prolific site in and around the garden of Wellhead, a bungalow at the east end of Wellhead Lane, Westbury, has already occasioned much interest and several 32 " mw! I Ce “@ 14 “a I5 16 17 Fic. 1 Sherds of Saxon domestic pottery from Wellhead, Westbury. Scale: 1:3. Drawn by F. RK. Annable notes in W.A.M.5 The small, abortive excavation carried out by the writer in 1964 was prompted by the pottery which is the subject of this note. This pottery, now in Devizes Museum, has been turned up from several places in and around Wellhead over the last few years during Col. W. D. Shaw’s by now fairly extensive excavations, and is published here with his permission. Although nowhere usefully stratified (a few of these sherds are recorded from ‘the upper levels’ of Col. Shaw’s excavation in 1964) and found apparently mixed up with Romano-British material, this “Saxon’ pottery is quite distinct from the earlier wares and is of considerable interest if only for its quantity here and scarcity elsewhere in the county. Its similarity to the Downton and Ogbourne St. George pottery is very marked. The Westbury group consists of 89 sherds,’ 15 of which are rims representing twelve separate vessels. Seventeen sherds are basal fragments (one a most unusual pedestal base, 33 Fic. 1, No. 17), and one sherd (No. 3) has a small, crudely-made and probably vertical lug. Only two types of vessel are indicated: small cooking pots and somewhat larger storage jars, each characterized by a simple everted rim, a globular body, and a slightly sagging base without a sharp basal angle. Grass-tempering is the most obvious superficial feature of nearly all the sherds here considered as post-Roman, the impression being mostly either of short, chopped grass or long blades. ‘The impressions are deeper on the interior surface, the outer surface having apparently been smoothed. Decoration is entirely absent. Some sherds have an uneven external surface, but the pots were perhaps completed on a slow wheel. Indeed, despite the coarseness of the pottery, the external surfaces suggest that three separate actions may have been involved in its production, viz. grass-tempering, wiping with a ‘brush’ of long grass, and finally smoothing, perhaps on a slow wheel, perhaps with a blade. The fabric is hard and free of gritty inclusions. One sherd has chalk-filling; another has grog (i.e. crushed pottery). The sherds are either dark grey throughout (c. 75 per cent. of the assemblage), brownish on one face, or brownish on both surfaces with a grey core. Wall-sherds are characteristically about 0-6 cm. thick, but the basal sherds are markedly heavier and thicker, in some cases being 1-3 cm. A representative selection of the pottery is shown in FIG. 1. DISCUSSION Both the Ogbourne and Westbury groups of pottery described above are distinctive, on their sites and in the area generally, by virtue of their grass-tempered fabric. Organic matter, particularly grass, was deliberately included in the potting clay during its preparation, and was subsequently burnt out during firing, producing a characteristic ‘worm-eaten’ effect on the pot surfaces. Grass-tempering is, of course, a technique used in pottery-making, and not necessarily either evidence of date or even of a shared cultural trait when it appears on pottery from different sites. But the grass-tempered pottery from Downton, Ogbourne and Westbury is sufficiently similar to suggest that it is at the very least all in the same tradition, and perhaps approximately of the same date. Since grass-tempering does not appear in the local prehistoric, Romano-British or post-Norman Conquest pottery types, there is good reason to suppose that this kind of ware belongs in the post-Roman/pre-Norman period. Within that period, this pottery cannot, at the moment, be closely dated. Opinions on the comparable Downton sherds have varied from 7th-8th centuries, through middle-Saxon but before A.D. goo, to late-Saxon.* An upper limit is probably given locally by the first appearance of scratch-marked ware, recently noted in a roth century context at Winchester.° None of the many sites in the Salisbury area which have now produced scratch-marked ware has also contained associated grass-tempered fabrics; and at Downton, where the two wares were both found in Castle Meadow, the grass-tempered pottery was not only considered to be earlier than the scratch-marked ware but a single jar, ‘probably of the 11th century’, and also from Castle Meadow, was regarded as being a forerunner of scratch-marked ware itself.!° That grass-tempered pottery was being produced much earlier in the period is shown, for example, by kiln 1 at Purwell Farm, Cassington (6th-early 7th centuries A.D.),!! and nearer to hand, by the grass-tempered sherds associated with pagan 34 Saxon burials on Overton Hill, West Overton.!? The impressed dot decoration on two (Nos. 7 and 8) of the Ogbourne sherds might indicate such a date rather than a later one; and some of the profiles amongst the Westbury group seem to reflect Romano-British prototypes rather than new Saxon forms. In particular, the necked and fairly sharply everted rims recall the way in which the local ‘native’ pottery evolved from Romano-British forms in the post-Roman period at, for example, Gwithian, Cornwall.'3 Further, the small, upright pierced lug, exemplified in the Westbury group, is a feature which, it has been argued, is a pagan/middle-Saxon type.'4 It is possible, therefore, that the Ogbourne and Westbury pottery is that will- o’-the-wisp, a local 5th-7th century ware. It may be significant in this respect that both groups occurred on long-lived Romano-British sites. Unfortunately, neither site in itself is particularly informative about the date of this material; and at neither site was the material stratified or in a useful context. It could, however, be argued that to explain the occurrence of these sherds on the Ogbourne settlement, high on the downs and far removed from the predominantly valley settlement pattern consolidated during the Saxon period, would be extremely difficult if they are in fact of late-Saxon date. Historically, as well as archaeologically, they would make much more sense if they represented (? a continuation of) ‘native’ occupation during the early post-Roman period. In this respect, it is perhaps relevant that, on the one hand there is little reason to suppose that the area was over-run by Saxons before c. A.D. 550, and even then they might initially have ignored the downs; and on the other hand, there is a possibility that on this Wilts./Berks. border several existing or partly deserted ‘medieval’ downland settlements like Baydon (on the Silchester-Cirencester Roman road), Snap and Upper Upham, may have survived from the Roman period.15 The Westbury material is, if anything, more difficult to assess, mainly because the nature of the site where it was found is still uncertain. If it is a settlement, then the same difficulties as at Ogbourne apply over a late date. In any case, unless the founding and desertion of a settlement here on the much-favoured Greensand within the Saxon period is postulated, a late date would leave the awkward problem of explaining why no evidence of continuing medieval occupation has been found. Any conclusion about the date of these two groups of pottery must clearly await further work. There seem good local reasons for regarding them as belonging to the pagan/middle-Saxon period (without any prejudice as to whether or not the pots were actually made by Saxons), though the general opinion on the closely comparable pottery from Downton suggests a middle-/late-Saxon date.!® Discussion of the date, however, should not obscure the real significance of this pottery, which is not only that domestic pottery of the early post-Roman period exists in Wiltshire, but also that at least one of the wares is readily recognizable. While it is clear that, whatever the date of the grass-tempered wares, problems of interpretation on the Ogbourne and Westbury sites arise, what is so encouraging about the latter in particular is that the pottery occurs in such quantity. There must surely be many similar sites in Wiltshire from which a pottery sequence for the ‘Dark Ages’, with all its implications, can be established within the next decade.'7 35 zor ‘(¥g61) 6S “prop yy Sg-g9 “(hg61) 6S “Wey mM oS& *(6961) 9S “Wy mM (¢00G ‘a'v ‘9) JA aAvID ‘AJ9{OUI9D UOXeG ULSeg MOIIEG UT dATSN.I}UT sjeLing uOxeg ueseg [elioyeul “g-"y zSSzgl ns Cg9611 QS gl6gbofi Qs IHH 401.124Q uleqd UuMO(T Jguunyy) dUINOGI9}UT\A, UO}IIAQ SIMA Jaded yussoig yeliayeul “gq-"yy £0SEL8 LS PeUI[IM, AINQ}S9\A, "039 ‘ssoq 8Il “ADA Pyerys YIM UOoNeUNYyUT Logtzz Ns 1[PYX0.J ysnoioque A €S61/z& p ‘ou ‘ooe “sjuRET “snyy younyoysrayyy) é é Aanqsyes “IN , Ainqsyes spiooal "yg Ul pouon -uour AjuO sprays £96 “A)DY i Arajouia9 uoxeg = ob. g/ 801 9S XOJ IU], uojIng taded yuasoig spuy sovy.ang Gc/G1z ns UMO(] [IF] PUNOY —-ABAOaL) “1G DUINOGSO uoleuNyuUI ue SuTuTe}UOD 9f1 ‘(Sg61) 09 “RM MOITeq UOXeS PlOY 2 YooissdsAe'y] z&SEL1 NS UMOCT PIO.T 18 “H'O'A c é é uo}e] g-bar ‘(bg61) 69 “pop My yid jaaeis uoxeg zI1Z0gI QS MOPpRap Ise u0jUMO(T 69 HOA yang (é) uerpayty — SE6001 1S UMO], apeppno 8S “HDA * (8561) Cngsyng ‘uu ‘sasuyfsigag qo drajauary (Ammjuao 49) uoxvG-o)sup ‘WWIOYS 2 spss] Azajau129 §/V F6zSg1 YS Jasuys19}og yleg uopuareyy zi ‘u ‘6a1 ‘(P961) 6S “pp My ‘gz *(6G61) mI “yop “papy “sn Ainqaay ‘OI'M'N peyaquinyy é 669201 QS }UISTAUNUOW ISuUd}{ Aimqoay 101 ‘(zg61) gS “wy mM (9€ “By ‘PSs “(PS61) uD Wd ‘(uorjaqfop eyoorg) £6 “weg é é umoq 2dway (¢aynysoig 10) Ainqoay JOUIIIJOY, suUOTIeIDOSSY YON dus ystieg AUIHSLIIM NI AWALLOd NVNWYON-dud/NVNOU-LSOd ONIGTAIA SALIS JO LSIT TWNOISIAOUd XIGNdddV t W.A.M., 59 (1964), 124-9. The curators and their assistants at both Devizes and Salisbury Museums have most willingly helped in the preparation of this note. 2 Med. Arch., ut (1959), 1-78 and 8q-111. References given in these two comprehensive papers are not repeated here. 3 V.C.H. Wilts, 1, 1 (1957), 95. Hereafter quoted as VCH. 4 C. Thomas (ed.), Rural Settlement in Roman Britain (C.B.A. Research Rpt. No. 7, 1966), 43-67, discusses the Wessex evidence on such settle- ments. 5 W.A.M., 58 (1962), 245-6; 59 (1964), 187-8; 60 (1965), 136. 6 ibid., 60 (1965), 137. 7 Further sherds were dug up in 1965-6. 8 W.A.M.,.59 (1964), 127. 9 Antiq. Fourn., XLV (1965), 256. 10 W.A.M., 59 (1964), 128. 11 Med. Arch., vi-vul (1962-3), 1-14. 12 W.A.M., 59 (1964), 73, 76. Full report forthcoming. 13 Not fully published; for available references see Med. Arch., 01 (1959), I11. ™4 Med. Arch., 11 (1959), 16-17. 1s VCH, 22-3. 16 Pagan, middle-Saxon and _ late-Saxon are here used as in Med. Arch., 111 (1959), 1-78, i.e. 5th to early 7th centuries A.D. (though in Wilts. a mid-7th century date would be more realistic) ; A.D. 650-850; and gth century to post-Conquest. 17 Perhaps without fine local wheel-made wares, comparing with the S.W. rather than with E. Anglia and the S. coast; and cf. Med. Arch., 1 (1959), 19, and the preliminary results from the royal pre-Conquest site at Cheddar, Med. Arch., vi-vil (1962-3), 66. On the other hand, fine imported wheel-made wares should be sought in Wilts., coming from the E. Mediterranean in the 5th-7th centuries via the Atlantic coast routes or from the Continent via Hamwih, for example, in the later Saxon period. Already several possibilities of the former. e.g. from Mildenhall, Nettleton Shrub and Potterne, have been considered without success. But with such pottery securely identified at Cadbury Castle, only 12 miles beyond the county boundary in Somerset, W. Wilts. at least may eventually be included in the distribution of these exotic wares. 37 ST. MARY’S CHURCH, CRICKLADE PART II by T. R. THOMSON and H. M. TAYLOR IN THE FIRST part of this article in last year’s Magazine (W.A.M., 60) we described in some detail the present state of St. Mary’s church and we promised in this second part to propose at any rate tentative answers to a number of questions that arise from an inspection of the fabric. It is perhaps convenient here to re-state the major questions: (a) Why was the church built almost on top of the north wall of the Anglo-Saxon burgh ? (b) Why is the north chapel oriented along the line of this north wall while the axis of the nave of the church is inclined at an angle of about 6° to it in an anti-clockwise direction ? (c) Why are the sixteenth-century arcades of the nave not parallel to a line joining the centre of the Norman chancel-arch to the centre of the fourteenth-century tower-arch ? (d) Why does the chancel extend eastward so as to make an awkward bulge beyond what was clearly the original building-line on the west of Cricklade’s High Street ? In Sections 1, 2 and 3 of Part I of this article we described respectively the ground plan, the exterior, and the interior of the church. In Section 4 below we give our tentative building history, which gives answers to the questions posed above; and which will, we hope, lead others to put forward simpler and more satisfactory answers to the same questions. In Section 5 we give briefly some fixed historical dates that may have a bearing upon the development of the church. SECTION 4. TENTATIVE BUILDING HISTORY The building history which we propose is based upon the evidence that is provided within the church itself; first, by the styles of the various features, whether windows, doors, piers, or mouldings; secondly by the strange way in which the various parts of the church are inclined in different directions; and thirdly by the way in which these different parts are joined together. The building history is illustrated in the successive plans in Fics. 1 and 2. In each successive plan the new additions are shown in dark outline, by contrast with the previously existing church which is shown in faint outline only. Plan 1 shows the approximate layout of the adjoining ramparts and north gate of the Alfredian town wall, and the probable site of the gate-house or chapel whose foundations we think were later used for the fifteenth-century north chapel of St. Mary’s church. It also shows the probable alignment of the main street as indicated by the present alignment of the frontages along the present High Street. Finally, in dotted outline the plan shows the ground plan of the Norman church that was added in the twelfth century. 38 Plan 2 shows the small Norman church, consisting of a long narrow nave and a small square chancel, united by the chancel-arch which has survived to the present day. This church was built in the twelfth century with its chancel close beside the Anglo-Saxon gate-house or chapel, and the plan shows how we think that (for some reason that is not now obvious) the axis of this nave and chancel was inclined at an angle of 6° in an anti- clockwise direction from that of the earlier rectangular gate-house or chapel. The dotted outlines on either side of the walls of the nave represent the wider Norman foundations which, as shown in plan 4, were later used as the foundation for the thirteenth-century arcades that were built on a slightly different alignment. Plan 3 shows how in the thirteenth century a buttressed south aisle and an unbut- tressed west tower were added to the Norman church. These additions had their walls parallel to those of the nave and chancel, except possibly for the east wall of the aisle. Plan 4 shows how, later in the thirteenth century, a rood-loft was provided, and access given to it by stairs outside the east end of the south aisle. At this stage, also, a north J jem] a == a A : —_——e Ls = et J Fic. 1 St. Mary’s Church, Cricklade. Plans 1 to 4. Scale as for Fig. 2. 39 aisle was added and new arcades were built on an alignment inclined at 2° clockwise to the original alignment of the nave. Moreover, buttresses were added to the tower; and, although the south wall of the south aisle was retained, it was given new buttresses which were narrower but projected more boldly from the nave. The old Norman north doorway of the nave was re-used in the new north wall of the north aisle, and in preparation for a widening and lengthening of the chancel a new south wall was built in an alignment parallel to the new arcades. Finally, the old Anglo-Saxon gate-house or chapel was incorporated into the church as a vestry by opening a doorway into it from the chancel. Plan 5 shows how in the fourteenth century the enlarged chancel was completed, and how it then encroached for about half its extended length upon the old main street of the town. Moreover at this stage the new north and east walls of the chancel were not built parallel to and at right angles to the south wall but at an angle 2° clockwise from those alignments. At this stage, also, the original Norman west doorway that until then opened into the tower was enlarged to form the present tower-arch. fl 1 mr. SY — | | | | = i FORMER | on =| | STREET | Lee ale TS iy | ee | = Cl ee o [oa ae oat ine a area at iP @ so-so 7 . =| Lys ant af Ls ie I | 10) 10 ° 10 3 50 rei Fic. 2 St. Mary’s Church, Cricklade. Plans 5 to 7. 40 Plan 6 shows how in the fifteenth century the old vestry formed from the Anglo-Saxon gatehouse or chapel was replaced by the present north chapel. This was built on the original foundations and with its east and north walls in the original alignments. At this stage the present archway was opened through from this chapel into the chancel. Also at this stage the present south porch was built. Plan 7 shows how in the sixteenth century the rood-loft was taken away and yet a third set of arcades replaced those of the thirteenth century, but in the same alignment; and how at the same time, or perhaps rather later, the present wide arch was opened through from the north chapel to the north aisle. At this stage the most easterly of the three buttresses of the north aisle was moved to the north-west corner of the north chapel in order to help to withstand the sideways thrust of this new arch. The church was then complete in its present form save for such minor alterations as have taken place in modern times. The architectural history summarized in the plans and in the preceding paragraphs has omitted the detailed discussion of insertion of later windows in walls of earlier date. These insertions are recorded in detail in Part I of this paper in last year’s W.A.M., 60 and in fig. 1 of that paper. The architectural history as described above may sound unduly complicated; but it does account logically for the present features and for their strange alignments. For example: (a) The position of the church close beside the Anglo-Saxon town wall is explained by its having been built with its chancel adjoining the earlier gate-house or chapel, no doubt to make use of that building for some purpose. Moreover the position, close beside the north gate of the town, should be compared to St. Michael’s church at Wareham and to St. Michael’s church at Oxford, both of which were at the north gates of those walled towns, although in both instances on the east of the gateways by contrast with Cricklade where the church is on the west. (b) It is hard to say exactly why the Norman church should have had its axis inclined at an angle to the axis of the gate-house and the axis of the wall. The most likely explanation seems to be that there was some obstruction further west, beside the nave, that implied that the nave had to be set a little further southward, whereas the builders wanted their chancel to adjoin the existing gate-house. (c) The displacement of the axis of the later arcades from the axis of the Norman nave seems to us to be a consequence of the desire to have a rood-loft that was to be entered by an external staircase that led up into the south-west corner of the chancel and then needed space for a doorway through from the chancel beside the south side of the chancel-arch. To provide space for that doorway seems to have led the builders of the thirteenth-century arcades (as shown in plan 4) to move the eastern end of their south arcade about a foot southward from the position of the south wall of the Norman nave. (d) The extension of the fourteenth-century chancel across part of the High Street follows from the original placing of the Norman church so close to the gateway and from the desire to extend its small square chancel. We appreciate that, even so, it may well be objected that this whole tentative building history is far too complicated, particularly the southward displacement of 4! the arcades from the line of the Norman wall in (c) above and in plan 4. It would seem highly unlikely that if the side walls of the Norman nave were intact the builders of a rood-loft would do other than pierce their arcades through them. Our interpretation therefore does seem to imply that between the periods of plan 3 and plan 4 (i.e. sometime about the middle of the thirteenth century) the church suffered some major catastrophe which encouraged its rebuilders to use the foundations of the side walls of the Norman nave for supports for new arcades, rather than using the side walls themselves to pierce their arcades through them. SECTION 5. DATES THAT MAY HAVE A BEARING ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH The foundation and layout of the burgh c¢. 950 gives the date for the small rectangular gate-house or chapel at the west side of the north gate. Cricklade received a charter c. 1156, and this would fit with the desire to erect a Norman church beside the small gate-house chapel. Isabella, Countess of Devon and the richest woman in England, was Lord of the Borough from 1260 to 1293. It might therefore be expected that the developments of aisles, rood-loft, and external stairway as indicated in plans 3 and 4 would take place in her time. Walter, Lord Hungerford, who flourished c. 1428, was a large benefactor to Cricklade and it would be natural to expect in his time the insertion of the windows in fifteenth-century style to replace smaller windows of the earlier work. John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, who was executed on 22nd August 1553, was a generous patron of St. Sampson’s church. To his time must be attributed the sixteenth-century arcade and the removal of the rood-loft, no doubt both asso- ciated with the fire referred to on p. 83 of W.A.M., 60. In the time of fully recorded facts we have a restoration in 1862, another in 1908, and yet a third in 1963-4. 42 THE INGLESHAM VIRGIN AND CHILD by BARBARA C. RAW THE SMALL NORMAN church at Inglesham in Wiltshire contains a rather battered and little known carving of the Virgin and Child (px. II), usually dated to the eleventh century, though opinion is divided as to whether it should be placed before or after the Norman Conquest. Kendrick ascribes it to the early eleventh century, while Talbot Rice confines himself to pointing out the Saxon quality of the carving.* The carving is now built into the inside of the South wall of the Church, but it must have been outside at some stage in its history, for a sundial has been carved on the lower left-hand corner of the scene. This dial is later than the main carving. The panel is of interest because it represents an unusual iconographic type. The Virgin Mary is seen in profile, but with her head turned towards the spectator. Although she appears to be seated, there is no trace of a throne or chair, though of course this may have been effaced when the sundial was made. The Child is seated across both His Mother’s knees. His left hand rests on a book, which is held against His left knee; His right hand is raised in blessing, and rests against His Mother’s arm. The Virgin Mary’s left arm is not visible, though presumably it is thought of as supporting the Child’s back; her right hand rests on His right knee. The Virgin’s head is thrust forward in a manner typical of the figures in the ninth-century Utrecht Psalter, and of English drawings and carvings influenced by the Utrecht style. One might compare the Inglesham figure with, for instance, the Virgin and Child in the eleventh-century drawing known as the Quinity of Winchester, or with the Virgin and Child in two initials in the ninth-century Sacramentary of Drogo of Metz. The first of these initials represents the Nativity, and shows St. Joseph sitting opposite the Virgin and Child; the second initial shows the Adoration of the Magi. In both these drawings the Virgin is seated facing the right as in the Inglesham carving; in both there is the same slumped position of the shoulders and the same square arrange- ment of the seat, though in fact the seat is not visible in the second initial. This second initial is particularly close to the Inglesham carving, for both representations show the Virgin Mary’s head turned to face the spectator, whereas in the first of the Drogo initials she faces towards the right. But there is one very important difference between the Inglesham carving and these two drawings. In the Inglesham repre- sentation the Child’s body faces His Mother, though His head is turned to face the spectator, whereas in the two drawings He faces in the same direction as His Mother. This feature, by which the two figures face each other, sets the Inglesham carving apart from any other eleventh-century English representation of the Virgin and Child. The miniature of the Adoration of the Magi in the eleventh-century Sacra- mentary of Robert of Jumiéges, for instance, shows the Virgin Mary in profile, but 43. the Child faces in the same direction as His Mother.3 But it is doubtful whether it is legitimate to compare the Inglesham carving with scenes of the Adoration of the Magi, for the carving treats the subject as an ‘icon’. When the Virgin and Child are shown alone in this way, as a cult image, it is more usual to show the Virgin seated en face, while the Child is seen either en face or in semi-profile, seated on one of His Mother’s knees. The crosses at Nunburnholme and Shelford, both of the early eleventh century, show the Virgin en face, with the Child seated across both her knees; the ninth-century Dewsbury cross shows the Virgin en face with the Child seated on her left knee.4 There are also two eleventh-century ivory carvings, both of which show the Virgin en face with the Child supported on her left knee, and a drawing in a decorative border in the eleventh-century Grimbald Gospels, which is almost identical with one of the ivories.5 The ‘complementary profiles’ arrangemen of the Inglesham carving seems to be unique in eleventh-century English art. Talbot Rice, in his discussion of the Inglesham carving, says “That a Byzantine model was followed at anything like first hand in this instance is most improbable, but that the ultimate prototype was Byzantine seems equally certain, even though the Virgin has twisted sideways and the Child has slipped off her knee in the process of repeated copyings.’® He considers that the ultimate prototype was probably similar to the eleventh-century ivory of the Virgin and Child at Utrecht. This seems very unlikely. It is true that the position of the Child in the Inglesham carving, holding a book and raising a hand in blessing, would connect the carving with the Byzantine type known as the Hodegetria or Indicator of the Way, but as far as I know, all examples of the seated Hodegetria show the figures en face. In his study of the iconography of the Virgin, Lasareff produces only one example in which the figures are seen in profile, namely the Virgin and Child in the Book of Kells.7 In this painting the Child clasps His Mother’s hand in His right hand and raises His left hand to her breast. These gestures relate the scene not to the type known as the Hodegetria but to the more informal representations of the Virgin and Child, derived from early secular representations of women nursing their children. * ‘These informal pictures of the Virgin and Child developed by the eleventh century into the type known as the Eleousa or Virgin of Tenderness, in which the Virgin Mary clasps the Child with both hands, pressing her face affectionately against His, and the Child in turn raises His hand to her breast or clutches her cloak. Lasareff suggested that this type developed from the type known as the seated Hodegetria, and that the Kells painting shows an early stage in this development, but the evidence brought forward by Kitzinger suggests that informal representations of this kind were quite common up to the fifth century, and that even after that date, when the more formal and hieratic frontal images had largely replaced them, there was still a thin stream of more informal representations of the scene. There are, for instance, drawings of the Virgin and Child in three latish manuscripts, the ninth-century Homilies of Gregory Nazianzen, the eleventh-century Bristol Psalter and an eleventh-century Spanish manuscript of Beatus of Liebana’s Commentary on the Apocalypse, all of which show the Child turning towards His Mother, who clasps Him with both hands.°® In all these cases the figures form part of a picture of the Adoration of the Magi and are not icons, but they do suggest that there was a constant, if tenuous, stream of 44 informal representations of the Virgin and Child. The ‘complementary profiles’ arrangement of the Inglesham carving suggests that it, like the painting in the Book of Kells, may be related to these informal representations. It could perhaps be based on some Byzantine model which came to England in the tenth or eleventh century, for Byzantine influence was strong in the late Saxon period, and there is evidence that the repertory of English art at this time included the type known as the Eleousa as well as the Hodegetria.‘® The eleventh-century carving of the Virgin and Child at Shelford shows the Virgin’s hands clasped beneath the Child’s body. This detail is typical of the Eleousa and is found, for instance, in a ninth-century Coptic ivory in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore.t! The Inglesham carving, however, cannot be derived from a model of this kind. The Inglesham Virgin, though she clasps the Child with both hands, rests her right hand on top of His knees, whereas in the Shelford carving her hands are beneath His body. Moreover, the Shelford carving is a frontally placed image. If one wishes to find a parallel to the Inglesham carving in English art one has to go right back to the seventh century, to the carving on the Cuthbert Coffin. It must be admitted that at first sight the two representations do not look very similar, for they are in very different styles. The figure of the Virgin Mary on the Coffin, for instance, is seated upright, rather than in the hunched position of the Inglesham Virgin. As has already been stated, this hunched position is probably the result of influence from the Utrecht style of art. But if one disregards style, one can see that the iconography of the two representations is very close indeed. To begin with, both representations show the ‘complementary profiles’ arrangement, which, as has already been pointed out, is very unusual: on the Coffin, as on the Inglesham carving, the heads of both Mother and Child face the spectator, while their bodies are turned towards each other. In both representations, although the Virgin appears to be comfortably seated there is, in fact, no indication of any seat or throne: there is simply a square-shaped space which, in the Inglesham carving, is filled by the sundial. In both representations the Virgin’s hand rests on the Child’s knees. There is one slight difference between the two representations of the Child: on the Coffin He raises His right hand in blessing, but holds it in front of His body; in the carving His right hand, the fingers extended in blessing, rests against His Mother’s right arm. The scene on the Cuthbert Coffin is related to the painting of the Virgin and Child in the Book of Kells.*3 They must both be derived from a common model, though it seems likely that the Kells painting is closer to the prototype than the Coffin is, and that the carver of the Coffin has adapted the model, substituting a more formal representation of the Child for the affectionate Child found in the Kells painting. According to Kitzinger, the prototype, which was probably based in Northumbria, continued to influence English carving right down to the eleventh century.14 All his examples, however, show frontally placed figures, even though they preserve traces of the less formal iconography. The Sutton-on-Derwent carving, for instance, preserves the affectionate gestures of the Child, and in the carving at Nunburnholme the Virgin clasps her Child with both hands and He sits athwart both her knees.15 If the Inglesham carving is a late example of this same iconography it must be derived from something much closer to the original model than the 45 Nunburnholme Cross. It is, to say the least of it, unlikely that the carver of the Inglesham slab could have seen the Cuthbert Coffin itself, but the carving is so close to the Coffin in certain details of the iconography that it seems clear that there is some connection between the two, especially when one considers the rarity of the ‘complementary profiles’ type. One might, however, suggest that two details of the Inglesham carving reflect the model of the Coffin rather than the Coffin itself. The position of the Child’s right hand, which rests against His Mother’s arm, seems to bring the carving closer to the Kells painting, which is presumed to represent the model more faithfully. The way in which the heads of the two figures at Inglesham approach each other may be the result of a stylistic convention, but it also relates the carving to the informal and affectionate iconography presumed to have existed in the model for the Coffin. The reappearance of this iconographic type in the eleventh century, even though in an isolated example, would tend to support Kitzinger’s theory that the model of the Cuthbert Coffin had ‘something of the status of a revered icon’, and that it formed the basis for works of art long after the seventh century.'® tT, D. Kendrick, Late Saxon and Viking Art (London, 1949), 43; D. Talbot Rice, English Art 871-1100 (Oxford, 1952), 106. 2 British Museum MS. Cotton Titus D. xxvil, f. 75, reproduced in F. Wormald, English Drawings of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London, 1952), pl. 16 (a); Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, fonds latin 9428, reproduced in A Boinet, La miniature Carolingienne (Paris, 1913), PL. Ixxxix. 3 Rouen, Bibliotheque Municipale, MS. 274 (Y. 6), f. 37, reproduced in Talbot Rice, English Art, pl. 53 (a). 4 For Nunburnholme and Dewsbury see W. G. Collingwood, Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age (London, 1927), 135, fig. 152, and 73, fig. 91; for Shelford see Kendrick, Late Saxon and Viking Art, pl. 51. 5 For the ivories see Talbot Rice, English Art, pl. 34 (a) and 35 (b); for the miniature see British Museum Additional MS. 34890, f. 15, reproduced in H. Swarzenski, Monuments of Romanesque Art (London, 1954), pl. 62, No. 141. 6 Talbot Rice, English Art, 106. In fact, the Child is not slipping off the Virgin’s lap at all; the right hand part of the carving is the Child’s sleeve though this is not clear in Talbot Rice’s photograph. 7 V. Lasareff, Studies in the Iconography of the Virgin, Art Bulletin, 20 (1938), 26-65; on the Kells miniature see also E. Kitzinger, The . Coffin Reliquary, in C. F. Battiscombe, The Relics of St. Cuthbert (Oxford, 1956), 202-304, especially 253, and pl. xiv, fig. 1. 8 e.g. the late third century Virgin and Child in the Catacomb of St. Priscilla, reproduced in W. F. Volbach, Early Christian Art (London, 1961), pl. 8; there is a similar representation on a sarco- phagus fragment from the cemetery of St. Sebas- 46 tian, reproduced in F. Cabrol and H. Leclergq, D.A.C.L., 10, pt. 2 (1931), 1997, fig. 7704. 9 Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, fonds grec 510, f. 137, reproduced in H. Omont, Facsimilés des miniatures des plus anciens Manuscrits grecs de la Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris, 1902), pl. xxxii; British Museum Additional MS. 40731, f. r15v, reproduced in Battiscombe, Relics of St. Cuthbert, pl. xiv, fig. 5; Turin, Bibl. Naz. MS. lat. 93, f. 14v, reproduced in Battiscombe, pl. xiv, fig. 4. 10 Talbot Rice, English Art, 117. Talbot Rice bases his argument for the presence in England of a model of the Elousa type on the York Virgin, which he dates in the eleventh century. This carving is, of course, usually dated to the twelfth century, but the same iconographic features occur in the Shelford carving, which Talbot Rice does not mention, and which is certainly to be dated in the eleventh century. 11 The Baltimore ivory is reproduced in Battis- combe, Relics of St. Cuthbert, pl. xiv, fig. 2, and the Shelford carving in Kendrick, Late Saxon and Viking Art, pl. 51. ™2 Reproduced in Battiscombe, Relics of St. Cuthbert, pl. iv, fig. 4 (a), pl. x. 13 Battiscombe, Relics of St. Cuthbert, 261. 14 Battiscombe, Relics of St. Cuthbert, 264. 15 For Sutton-on-Derwent see Yorks. Arch. Fourn., 29 (1927-9), plate facing p. 238; for Nunburnholme see Collingwood, Northumbrian Crosses, 135, fig. 152. Kitzinger also lists the Dewsbury Cross as a later example of this type, but this carving looks to me like the normal seated Hodegetria found in the examples mentioned in Note 5; the Dewsbury Cross is reproduced by Collingwood, 73, fig. 91. 16 My thanks are due to Mr. A. J. Vickers of the Photographic Department of the University Library, Keele, for his help with photography. THE REV. WILLIAM WILKES, D.D., Rector of Barford St. Martin, Wiltshire, 1585-1637, and JOHN MARSTON, dramatist (1576-1634) by R. E. BRETTLE CONTEMPORARY REFERENCES to Marston tell little of his life. Weever’s epigram in 1599 showed that Marston’s ‘Horace vein’ was then recognized; Bodenham in his Belvedere, 1600, included Marston in his list of ‘modern and extant poets’; Mar- ston’s contribution to Chester’s Love’s Martyr, 1601, showed him to be, in Chester’s estimation, among the ‘best and the chiefest’ of the writers of the time; and so on through Fitzgeoffry, the lawyer Manningham, Camden, Howes (in continuation of Stow) to Sheares, the publisher of a collection of Marston’s plays in 1633. But perhaps the most suggestive, if not the lengthiest, of contemporary references to Marston are to be found in Drummond’s notes of Ben Jonson’s conversations in 1619. Marston is mentioned four times; twice in connection with quarrels with Jonson; once with reference to Eastward Ho, the play by Chapman, Jonson and Marston; and once in a somewhat malicious though critical quip that ‘Marston wrote his father-in-law’s preachings and his father-in-law his comedies’. According to Marston’s funeral certificate, to which I drew attention in 1927,! he married Mary, the only daughter of William Wilkes, Doctor of Divinity, of Barford St. Martin in Wiltshire. Anthony a Wood? no doubt had this information for he incorporated it in what he said of William Wilkes: ‘William Wilkes, a most excellent preacher in the court of King James I was born within the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, elected probationer fellow of Merton College in 1572, entered into the sacred function when master of arts, and in 1580 became vicar of the church of S. Peter in the East, within the city of Oxford, by the presentation there- unto of the warden and society of the said college, where for his excellent sermons he was much frequented by scholars and citizens. Afterwards taking the degrees in divinity he resigned the said church being well beneficed in Wiltshire, and dignified. After King James came to the English crown he was made one of his chaplains in ordinary, preached often before him to his great content, and wrote: Of Obedience or Ecclesiastical Union. London, 1605 (Oct.); A Second Memento for Magistrates, directing how to reduce all Offenders; and being reduced, how to preserve them in the Unity and Love both in Church and Commonwealth. London, 1608 (Oct.). As for the first Zemento I have not yet seen it, unless it be meant of the Book of Obedience, etc. He died at Barford St. Martins in Wiltshire, of which he was rector, leaving behind him only one daughter named Mary, who was married to John Marston of the City of Coventry, gentleman... .’ 47 I It is interesting and profitable to fill out Wood’s sketch, especially as it is known that Marston and his wife (with man-servant and maid-servant) had ‘lodging and diet’ with the Rev. Dr. Wilkes for eleven years, probably from 1605 until 1616, when Marston was presented to the living of Christchurch, Hampshire. According to a statement in a Privy Council letter of znd January 1604, to the Mayor and Aldermen of Coventry on Wilkes’s behalf, William Wilkes was born in Coventry, but in the university and Merton College records there is no reference to his place of origin. A namesake, an Alderman of the City, who died in 1587, in his will dated 8th June 1587 disposed of property in Coventry and bequeathed a piece of plate of ten ounces to his nephew William Wilkes. The family of Wilkes had many branches and a quaint note in a College of Arms manuscript,3 giving the pedigree of Sir Thomas Wilkes, one of the Clerks of Queen Elizabeth’s Privy Council and a cousin of William Wilkes, mentions that Sir Thomas’s great-grandfather, William, had eighteen sons whereof twelve had issue from which came many gentlemen. Wilkes may have been educated at Coventry Grammar School. He was elected probationer fellow of Merton in 1572, proceeding to his B.A. degree on 2nd December 1572 and his M.A. degree on 25th June 1577. He held various college offices: Wyllyot’s Bachelor 1576/7 (the year is from 1st August-31st July) Wyllyot’s Bursar 1577/8 Junior Dean (of three) 1578/9 Chaplain’s chaplain (shared stipend) 1579/80 He was dispensed from ‘variations’ on goth April 1579, but did ‘vary’ on 17th February 1580.4 He was presented to the living of St. Peter’s-in-the-East, in the gift of the college, on 22nd April 1580, on the death of the previous vicar and former fellow of the college, John Hemminge. The presentation was the cause of a long dispute between Wilkes and the Warden and Fellows. Before dealing with that it is appropriate to refer to the career of his cousin Thomas Wilkes, knighted by the French king in 1592.5 II It is necessary first to determine the relationship between Thomas and William since some early heraldic manuscripts refer to them as brothers. Harleian MS. 1396 (fol. 280 v.), which is regarded as authoritative and was transcribed for the Harleian Society— The Visitation of Shropshire, 1623; vols. 28 and 29 (1889)—‘refers to Marston’s marriage to the daughter of a certain Wilkes, brother of Sir Thomas Wilkes. This manuscript was apparently followed in Harleian MS. 1984 (f. 230) where Mary Wilkes is described as niece to Sir Thomas Wilkes. But the College of Arms manu- script previously referred to, and Harleian MS. 1563, while mentioning Sir Thomas’s four brothers (including a William) state that all the brothers died without issue. The relationship seems to be settled, however, in a letter from William to Thomas dated 22nd February 1592. Cousin Thomas, according to his own statement, after travelling for some eight years on the Continent, in France, Germany, and Italy, settled in Oxford in 1572 48 as a probationer fellow of All Soul’s, graduating B.A. on 20th February 1573. He was not to continue long in Oxford. In March 1573, Dr. Valentine Dale, formerly a fellow of All Souls’, was appointed ambassador to France and Wilkes was invited ‘to become his secretary. Some objection to his absence was raised by the fellows— that Wilkes was a probationer and not a fellow—but a letter from the Privy Council sent on 24th May at Dale’s request produced the required licence of absence.7 Montagu Burrows’ repeats a passage quoted by Wood in his Annals from Sir William Boswell about Queen Elizabeth’s instructions to the Chancellors of both universities to compile a list of eminent and hopeful graduates, with their names, colleges and standings. If she wished to appoint an ambassador to go abroad, she would nominate this college graduate to be his secretary and that one to be his chaplain. So also when there were places to dispose ‘fit for persons of an academical education’. For graduates to be aware that their Sovereign’s eye was upon them was a ‘switch and spur on their industries’. So began Thomas Wilkes’s lifelong concern with politics and diplomacy, but there can be no doubt that the cousins kept in touch and that William relied from time to time on the influence which Thomas could exert. On 18th July 1576, Thomas was sworn one of the four clerks of the Privy Council, in which office he continued until his death in 1598, apart from a break in 1587-9 when he had incurred Leicester’s enmity and the Queen’s displeasure and was in prison for a time. He went as am- bassador or agent to Spain in 1577, to Austria in 1578, and to France in 1593 and 1598. He died in Rouen on 2nd March 1598 and, according to Rowland Whyte,9 there were many suitors for his two offices of Clerk of the Council and Mustermaster General of the Low Countries. On the more domestic side, Thomas Wilkes was enrolled as a Freeman of Southampton on 28th January 1581. He was a member of parliament for Downton in Wiltshire in 1584-5, in 1586-7, and for Southampton in 1588-9 and 1593. He probably had his country residence in Downton from about 1582 until about 1592.'° His first wife, Margaret, died at Rickmansworth, Hertford- shire, in May 1596, and he re-married before the end of that year. His will, dated 18th January 1598, describes him as of Rickmansworth and refers to the lease of his house there as well as to the copyhold of other property. He mentions his forthcoming journey overseas at the command of the Queen and, probably in ill health at the time, gave instructions that if he should die abroad, he should be buried there without pomp.?! Il To return to William Wilkes, fellow of Merton, who was presented to the vicarage of St. Peter’s-in-the-East, Oxford, in April 1580. If the vicarage was a uberius beneficium, then according to the college statutes the fellowship had to be resigned. Wilkes disputed this and the dispute dragged on until January 1582 when he finally resigned his fellowship or was expelled from it. The procedure was that a fellow of the college, on receiving a more lucrative appointment, was given a year of grace after which his fellowship was declared vacant. Wilkes used what influence he had with the college Visitor (Archbishop Grindal) to procure a continuance of his fellowship. The Visitor was ‘moved by 49 letters from certain of Her Majesty’s Privy Council’, and restoration was decreed until such time as it could be proved that the value of the vicarage was more than the fellowship.*3 It is not far-fetched to guess that cousin Thomas was concerned here. Although the fellows demurred, they were advised by Warden Bickley (in a letter because of his absence) to give way. On his return the Warden went to see the Archbishop to inform him of the unanimous opinion of the fellows against this breach of the statutes, and on 31st May 1581 the Warden at a college meeting declared that Wilkes was no longer a fellow. Wilkes obtained the intervention of Dr. Aubrey, as Grindal’s ‘deputy’, and the college was required to readmit him. The college at first complied, but on 3rd November expelled Wilkes again for breaking his oath not to appeal or invoke outside intervention against his former expulsion. On 19th Novem- ber, on behalf of the Archbishop, a citation was posted in the Chapel requiring the Warden and Fellows to appear at Lambeth on 7th December to answer for their contempt of the Visitor’s order. They appeared and it was then arranged that the last sentence of expulsion should be withdrawn but that Wilkes should be removed on the Visitor’s authority as holder of a uberius beneficium, subject to some financial adjustment. As the formal order to that effect was long delayed, Warden Bickley wrote a long letter of remonstrance to the Visitor, summing up the whole case and pointing out how serious it was to college discipline for the Visitor apparently to connive at a breach of the college statutes. Dr. Aubrey replied on behalf of the Archbishop on 19th January 1582 that Wilkes’s expulsion would be confirmed but stipulating for certain pecuniary concessions. On 24th January 1582 Wilkes’s resignation was actually received, but treated as null and void since he ceased to be a fellow on completing his year of grace. The college granted his request that he should be allowed for a short time to draw commons at his own charge, but refused to let him retain his rooms, except by private arrangement with the fellow entitled to them, or to allow him the expenses incurred in his vexatious proceedings against the college. IV The date and place of William Wilkes’s marriage are not yet known, but it is most unlikely that it could have taken place before 1582, while he held the fellow- ship. On 8th January 1580 a William Wilkes was married to Anne Hollywaye, and on 22nd January 1581 Thomas Wilkes and Marion Turrent were married in the Church of St. Peter’s-in-the-East, Oxford, and the name Wilkes appears also in baptisms and burials. (There is a note in the early register that Mr. Wilkes, vicar, kept no record of burials in 1581.) While vicar of St. Peter’s-in-the-East, William Wilkes proceeded to the degree of Bachelor of Divinity on 17th December 1583, and to the degree of Doctor of Divinity on 14th July 1585. Although the Institution Registers of the Bishops of Salisbury are missing from 3rd March 1585 to 24th January 1592, Joseph Foster (Alumni Oxontenses, 1892) stated that Wilkes was instituted rector of Barford St. Martin in 1585 and vicar of Downton in 1587. Foster was no doubt using the Composition Books of the Court of Exchequer (Public Record Office) which supply the names of the incumbents of those livings chargeable with First Fruits, and the 50 dates of ‘compounding’ are close to the dates of their actual institution. There is another connection with cousin Thomas here. In March 1582, Queen Elizabeth, through her Privy Council, induced the Warden and fellows of Winchester College to grant her on behalf of Thomas Wilkes the lease of the parsonage and vicarage of Downton. The agreement of the College was given reluctantly after delays and correspondence, in the hope that the granting of the lease would not be regarded as a precedent. The details of the lease were clearly set out: Wilkes to have four terms of ten years each, and not to sub-let for more than one year, except to his wife or children, without the licence of the Warden of the College.4 According to a survey of Wiltshire livings in 1649-50, the parsonage with glebe lands was said to be worth £700 per annum and the vicarage £40 per annum.'s Thomas Wilkes no doubt had to wait some years, probably until the death or resignation of the then incumbent, before cousin William could be presented to the living and instituted vicar in 1587. V The next traceable contact between the cousins is the letter, already referred to, of gand February 1592 from William to Thomas. William had apparently been asked for evidence and opinions on rebaptism. His reply illustrates a little his some- what rigid Anglican attitude and mentions his long stay at Lambeth.16 That Wilkes was no Puritan is shown more clearly in the next reign in 1605, when as King’s Chaplain he turned author and entered into the religious controversies of the time. But although with his cousin’s death in 1598 he lost what influence Sir Thomas could wield, especially as Clerk of the Privy Council, Dr. William was not without influence on his own account as is shown by a Privy Council letter dated 2nd January 1604 to the Mayor and Aldermen of Coventry on his behalf. VI In the Calendar of State Papers'7 there is reference to a draft of a letter to the Mayor of Coventry from the King’s Privy Council on behalf of Dr. Wilkes, one of the King’s Chaplains in ordinary, and his suit for the reversion of a lease. The original in the Coventry archives is a most interesting document, differing in certain particulars from the draft.t* The gist of it is that Wilkes, who held a lease of part of the farm of Cowndon, with a term of fourteen years still to run, wished to have a lease in reversion of the whole farm for as many years as could be conveniently arranged. Wilkes is described as one of the King’s Chaplains ‘and one greatly favoured by his Highness’, well known and esteemed by most members of the Privy Council through his long service at Court (which is twice mentioned), a man of virtues and learning and moreover ‘a Townsman born’. The letter is dated from Hampton Court and signed by thirteen members of the Privy Council and one of the clerks. 9 In the Coventry Council Book there is no specific reference to the Privy Council letter, but the minute of the Council meeting held on 8th February 1604 records the agreement that ‘Mr. Dr. Wilkes’ shall have a lease of his garden in the Priory from Michaelmas last past for fifty-six years, yielding thirty shillings rent at Lady Day 51 and Michaelmas.?° The Council reserved to themselves the right to dig and carry away the stone of the ruins. This lease, continuing until 1659, is mentioned in Dr. Wilkes’s will, made in 1630 and proved in 1637, and in his daughter’s will of 1657. On an earlier page in the same Council Book, the minute?! of the meeting on 13th April 1588 is: “Agreed that Mr. John Marston shall be Steward of this Cittie and is Sworn.” According to the earliest charter, the government of the city was vested in a mayor, a recorder, two sheriffs, a steward (who must be a barrister), a coroner, two chamberlains, two wardens, ten aldermen, a superior council of 31 and a second council or grand inquest of 25 members, assisted by a town clerk, a swordbearer, a macebearer, and subordinate officers. The mayor, sheriffs, steward and coroner were chosen annually by the council of 31.22 In connection with the leases there is an interesting point of possible contact between the two families of Wilkes and Marston, who no doubt were acquainted with each other in Coventry if not elsewhere. In Marston’s father’s will, made and proved in 1599, there is mention not only of his mansion house and garden in Cross Cheaping in Coventry, and various meadows, but also of leases of a garden, orchard, and grass plot in the Priory, and of a farm in Cowndon called the Mott-house (?Moat-house) with the meadow called the Crow Mott.?3 Marston’s widow was to enjoy the leases, except for the last year of each, which were then to pass to her son. There may of course have been other gardens in the Priory and other farms in Cowndon, and the histories of the many leases in the Coventry archives may yet be traced. It may be, however, that one of the Marston leases, that of the Priory garden, passed to Dr. Wilkes in 1604, when he was also very much concerned about the Cowndon farm.?4 Vil According to the Privy Council letter, Dr. Wilkes had long service at the Court and was probably a Court preacher under Queen Elizabeth as well as under her successor. His popularity as a preacher may have continued from his Oxford days, as described by Anthony a Wood. In that same Privy Council letter he was described as one of the King’s chaplains in ordinary and is so described on the title page of his religious tract, Obedience or Ecclesiastical Union, published in 1605. I have not yet discovered when he was appointed to that office, probably by the Lord Chamber- lain, or how long he continued in it. It may be that he continued at Court for some years, but as he was not given preferment, he may have withdrawn to his Wiltshire rectory. His son-in-law, ‘poet Marston’, may have complicated matters by his indis- cretions over his stage plays, especially Eastward Ho (with Jonson and Chapman, 1605) and perhaps the Scottish ‘mines’ play which may have led to his imprisonment in 1608. The reference in Antony Nixon’s Black Year (1606)—quoted later—to Marston’s being ‘sent away westward’ may hint at some form of banishment instead of the usual meaning of being taken west to Tyburn for hanging. The Puritans, although conforming members of the Church of England under Elizabeth, were dissatisfied with it and wanted reform. The new king gave them new 52 hope, and no sooner had James arrived in England than Puritan petitions began to pour in upon him. On his way from Edinburgh to London in April 1603, a very moderate set of demands, in the form of the Millenary Petition (supposed to be from a thousand ministers), was put to him. It asked that the sign of the cross should no longer be used in baptism, that the ring should be abolished from the marriage ceremony, and that the use of cap and surplice be made optional. The petitioners were chiefly concerned that there should be more able and learned men in the ministry, more preaching and fewer pluralists, a reform of church courts, and strict Sabbath observance. Other petitions followed: The Memorial of Abuses; A Complaint in the name of the Meaner Sort of the Laity; and one from the peculiar little sect, the Family of Love. The result-of all this activity was that King James decided to grant the conference on matters of religion, which had been requested in the Memorial, and the Hampton Court Conference was arranged but not held (because of the plague) until January 1604.75 The elated Puritans began a campaign to secure a large number of minor petitions and there were local disturbances in Sussex. Oxford and Cambridge replied to the Millenary Petition, the Oxford tract dealing systematically and unsympathetically with the petition’s objections and false statements. During the summer of 1603 the King was in long and earnest conferences with his English bishops and on 24th October 1603 issued his proclamation prohibiting the seeking of signatures for petitions and announcing the Hampton Court Conference after Christmas. The King and his Privy Council attended the conference, with four represen- tatives of the Puritans, and the Archbishop of Canterbury supported by eight bishops, eight deans, and two doctors of divinity. Dr. Wilkes was not of the company. The King took a lively and interested part in the debate, but as a controversialist he is accounted to have done great harm. The Puritans after some encourageme t had been called to argue a case already decided against them. One notable outcome of the conference was the Authorized Version of the Bible. ‘The changes in the Book of Common Prayer, agreed to by the King and bishops, were referred to a committee of the bishops and Privy Council, who reported to the King. His letters patent of oth February 1604 specified the alterations and ordered the publication and exclusive use of the amended book. This was supplemented by the proclamation of 5th March. New canons were passed, enforcing conformity upon the clergy on pain of the loss of their livings. In spite of the King’s injunctions to the contrary, petitions were proposed in Parliament and the lower house of Convocation for further alterations to the book of Common Prayer and in the established order of church government. Many ministers retained their appointments who were favourable to the ritual and discipline of Geneva. The King’s proclamation of 16th July 1604 required them to conform not later than 30th November 1604. The bishops were to use persuasion, but that failing, ejections were to take place. The Puritans claimed that 300 ministers were ejected from their livings; the Church put the number at 50, while modern research suggests a figure of go. This last proclamation is the starting point and main theme of Wilkes’s Obedience or Ecclesiastical Union (1605).%© He quotes the first introductory sentence: “The care 53 which we have had, and pains, which we have taken to settle the affairs of this church of England in an uniformity as well of doctrine, as of government... may sufficiently appear by our former actions’; but the historical retrospect of the proclamation, that is some two thirds of the whole, is omitted, although the main injunctions and requirements are quoted as follows: ‘We have thought good once again to give notice... by public declaration’ that there is no cause why the form of service should be changed. The troublesome spirits of certain ministers have been the chief authors of divisions and sects. The hope was that they would conform, otherwise ‘that what untractable men do not perform upon admonition, they must be compelled unto by authority’. Yet the disobedient ministers were given time (to 30th November) to mend their ways. ‘In which meantime both they may resolve either to conform themselves to the church of England, and obey the same, or else to dispose of themselves and their families some other ways.’ Archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons were required ‘to do their uttermost endeavours by conferences, arguments, persuasions, and by all other ways of love and gentleness to reclaim all that be in the ministry, to the obedience of our church laws’. The reformation was to be by clemency and weight of reason, not by the rigour of the law, and civil magistrates and gentlemen were to give no support, favour, or countenance to factious ministers in their ob- stinacy. The aim—‘to retain our people in their due obedience to us, and in unity of mind, to the service of Almighty God’. Wilkes, as an ‘ecclesiastical person’, endeavoured to carry out the King’s injunction in his treatise, which follows closely the main lines of the proclamation. Its twenty-one sections may have been persuasive, but some seem now to be queru- lous and dogmatic. “To live in obedience to orders, orderly by judgment of decision established, is more answerable to faith, profitable for the Church, and honourable for our calling’ (p. 2). Obedience is owed to God, then to the King, ‘cheerfully without cunctation and readily without inquisition’ (p. 4). The King has authority to command and power to execute. Civil magistrates should be watchful of ‘novelties’ arising from the ‘new fangled faction’ who are blameworthy in deceiving poor souls (p. 22). To describe the font, the cross and the surplice as trifles is contempt of authority (p. 26). The forms and ceremonies which are said to be superstitions derive from the primitive church (p. 44). The Holy Word and sacraments are given better relish by accepted ceremonies (p. 50). The words of the proclamation are taken up very closely in section 17 (p. 56) on ‘good rule’, where it is stated that if untractable men are unmoved by admonition, they are to be compelled, but the king as lawmaker exercises clemency. In the last section the plea to the bishops not to allow those good things enjoyed by the church to be discontinued 1s a fair sample of Wilkes’s style. The ‘right reverend fathers’ have so far dealt gently with the non-conforming clergy, but they have their ‘rod and staff to repress the insolent, and strengthen the weak, to convert the incredulous, and rule the disordered, to reclaim the erroneous, to convince the seducers, and to bring them to amendment or bar them liberty of deceit . . . In performance of all which your Episcopal duties, be think yourselves (my Lords) what the king, what his Council, what the Country doth require of you. ... Finally so rule as you would be obeyed, your canonical ot rule shall have a canonical obedience, and give us the heart of hope, that as his highness with princely resolution hath approved this church, sound in Doctrine, decent in Ceremonies, perfect in Government, and holy in her liturgies, so he will continue her blessed in her peace, rich in her endowments, plentiful in her immuni- ties, and free from the wounds of malice’ (pp. 66-73). Wilkes’s treatise may have pleased the King, but there is no evidence of favour leading to advancement in the church. Apparently there was no more familiar sight at Court than the King at dinner discussing theology with three or four of his church- men—bishops, deans, and royal chaplains—who stood deferentially behind the royal chair. This was often a trial of wits, and those ‘who were ripe and weighty in their answers were ever designed for some place of credit or profit’.27 The King attended sermons regularly on Sundays and Tuesdays and on all major feasts and communion days. He selected the clergymen to preach at Court and provided them with texts and other material. Perhaps Wilkes could not compete with courtly divines such as the pious, witty and learned Lancelot Andrewes (successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely, and Winchester), or Barlow (Dean of Chester) or Bilson (Bishop of Winchester), or King or Williams or John Donne. None of Wilkes’s sermons is extant. VIil According to Wilkes’s will, made in 1630 and proved in 1637, his daughter, Mary, and son-in-law, John Marston, had ‘lodging and diet’ with him for eleven years. Marston was ordained in 1609 and known to be living at Barford St. Martin in 1610, but he was not presented to the living of Christchurch, Hampshire, until 1616. The eleven years would therefore seem to date from about 1605. Something is known of Marston’s physical movements during the years 1605-10, and more may be conjectured. Until probably the end of 1605 or the beginning of 1606 Marston kept commons at the Middle Temple for a sufficient period each year to retain his share of a chamber there. After his father’s death in 1599 it is probable that his mother continued in the mansion in Cross Cheaping, Coventry, and that thither Marston repaired in vaca- tions, unless, as his father’s will seems to indicate, the relations between mother and son were somewhat strained, or unless London friends and ways detained him. It may be conjectured from his non-payment of commons in 1601 and from the Crispinus (Poetaster) references to a fretted sleeve and debts to an apothecary and probably to a mercer, that Marston sometimes was in money difficulties or that perhaps his courtier-like gentility was sometimes shabby. But this condition seems hardly likely, or at most more than temporary, for Marston had been left well provided by his father’s will. The mansion and garden in Cross Cheaping, Coventry, with a meadow and ‘close of pasture’, were to come in reversion to him after his mother’s death, as were the remaining years in the leases of the Priory garden, orchard, and grass plot in Coventry and of a farm and meadow in the near by hamlet of Cowndon. Moreover, after the death of his maternal grandmother’s second husband (John Butler), Marston was to have a half-interest in certain meadows and the tithe-day thereof in Cropredy, Oxfordshire, and a whole interest in the lease of a farm and nine yards of land at Wardington in the same 99 county. And immediately after his father’s death he entered into possession of the leases of two houses with gardens, orchards, and four yards of meadow or pasture land and other meadows (with their tithe hay) at Wardington. Marston’s mother was to enjoy the furniture and fittings (ceilings, panelling, settles) of the Coventry house during her lifetime but afterwards they were to pass with the house to Marston, who was also to have one-half of the plate and household stuff after his mother had had reasonable use of it for six years, that is until 1605. Among smaller items, by his father’s death Marston became the owner of a black trotting gelding. His prefatory address to The Malcontent, which was entered on the Stationers’ Register on 5th July 1604, mentions his ‘enforced absence’. This may have been due to the malicious interpretations spread at the performance of the play, or to business affairs in Coventry or Oxfordshire. In his temporary retirement, from whatever cause, he may have ‘set out? The Dutch Courtezan. This last play seems to have been the cause of some mild trouble. Anthony Nixon in The Black Year, 1606, speaks of authors who censure other men’s works ‘when their own are sacrificed in Paul’s churchyard for bringing in the Dutch Courtezan to corrupt English conditions, and sent away Westward for carping both at Court, City and country. For they are so sudden witted that a Flea can no sooner frisk forth, but they must needs comment on her.’28 The title-page of copies of the second edition of Parasitaster—the first was entered on the Stationers’ Register on 12th March 1606—telis of the author’s absence, which may have been due to discretion on Marston’s part or to the influence of friends in saving him wholly or in part from prison for his share in the offending play Eastward Ho. His absence from London towards the end of 1605 may be inferred from the letters from prison of Jonson and Chapman, which do not mention him. Nixon’s reference may hint at some sort of banishment from London to the country. But to judge from the brief descriptions in his share of the city pageant on the occasion of the visit of the King of Denmark to James I in 1606, Marston was evidently in London in July of that year. And some time in the summer of 1607 he wrote and probably superintended the rehearsals of his entertainment for the dow- ager Countess of Derby at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, which was given in August. His descriptions of the house and grounds seem to prove his familiarity with the place. Marston may have been selected to compose the entertainment because he was known to the family or a known poet in London. The Clifton letter, which was probably written in August 1607 and is concerned with a copy of the Ashby Enter- tainment, would seem to argue Marston’s presence in the Midlands. If, as seems likely, Marston married in 1605, his ‘diet and lodging’ with his father-in-law at the Rectory, Barford St. Martin, Wiltshire, could not have been without break. He had interests in property in Warwickshire and Oxfordshire, in a Middle ‘Temple chamber, and as a ‘sharer’ in the company of boy actors, the Children ot the Revels. His imprisonment in Newgate in July 1608 may have occurred during one of his more or less frequent visits to London. But Marston is next fairly definitely traceable about a year later in a parish church (Stanton Harcourt) in Oxfordshire where he was ordained deacon on 24th September and priest on 24th December 1609. 56 There are interesting conjectures to account for Marston’s presence in Oxford- shire. In December 1609 he was a member of St. Mary Hall, Oxford, and in suppli- cating for permission to use the Bodleian Library stated then that since taking his B.A. degree he had spent three years and more in philosophy. He can hardly have spent the three years and more at Oxford after Lent, 1594, and his studies at the Middle Temple could hardly be described as philosophical. It is tempting to think, however, that after his marriage in 1605, after he and his wife had taken up residence with his father-in-law, Dr. Wilkes, most probably at Barford St. Martin, Marston turned more and more to philosophical and theological studies, probably under the influence of his father-in-law. And he may have used the Cathedral Library in Salisbury, as Richard Hooker had done after his installation as Sub-dean of the Cathedral in 1591,*9 journeying from Barford to Salisbury, almost as George Herbert journeyed regularly from Bemerton to Salisbury in 1630-3. It would appear that Marston for his final studies preparatory to the ministry returned to Oxford and entered this time at St. Mary Hall, in those days one of the flourishing halls of the University specially favoured by theological students.3° His admission may have taken place before September 1609, but certainly before 7th December in that year. He is known to have been a ‘clerk’ or priest at Barford St. - Martin by 18th June 1610, and he may have been at St. Mary Hall for only one or two terms. In 1957 attention was drawn to a letter written early in 1610 by Thomas Floyde in London to William Trumbull in Brussels wherein it is mentioned that ‘Marston the poet is minister and hath preached at Oxford’.3t Floyde, a member of the staff of Sir Thomas Edmondes, had visited Oxford at Christmas, 1609, but had returned to London by gth February 1610. His letter to William Trumbull was received in Brussels on 13th February 1610. The Church of St. Peter’s-in-the-East, Oxford, where the Rev. Dr. Wilkes was formerly vicar, was regarded as the university church, and it may be that Marston preached there shortly after his ordination. Marston’s decision to enter the Church may have been reached gradually, especially since his marriage and his residence with his father-in-law. However, in his satires, looked on by him as the products of his leisure moments, he showed himself philosophically religious if not wholly religious-minded. His general attitude to his plays, after making some allowance for affectation, seems to have been that of a composer of ‘toys’, ‘stage-pleasings’. His What You Will is a ‘slight-writ play’, the Prologue to The Dutch Courtezan speaks of ‘Slight hasty labours in this easy play’, and the motto given is Martial’s Turpe est difficiles habere nugas. The wording of the preface to The Malcontent, 1604, is strangely reminiscent of Dr. Wilkes’s tract, Of Obedience or Ecclesiastical Unity. ‘Surely I desire to satisfy every firm spirit, who in all his actions, proposeth to himself no more ends than God and virtue do, whose intentions are always simple: to such I protest, that with my free understanding, I have not glanced at disgrace of any, but of those, whose unquiet studies labour innovation, contempt of holy policy, reverent comely superiority, and established unity...’ and the dramatist, who in the prefatory address to Parasitaster, 1606, spoke of being ‘enticed with the delights of poetry’, of his ‘over vehement pursuit’ of these delights as the ‘sickness’ of his youth and the ‘vice’ of his ‘firmer age’, of neg- 57 lecting himself to satisfy others with his stage-pleasings, would not find it difficult to leave play-writing and to enter the Church. Doubtless the 1608 imprisonment may have influenced Marston, just as malicious interpreters, foolish critics, and envious fellow-dramatists may have sickened him. At about the age of thirty-three he took holy orders and apparently found his true vocation. IX In 1613 appears a little evidence of Wilkes’s familiarity with the Marstons. In the will of Thomas Marston,3? of Shropshire and the Middle Temple—Marston’s cousin, mentioned in the elder John Marston’s will—is the bequest, “To my brother Francis Marston, the money which Mr. Doctor Wilkes oweth me’. x On 10th October 1616 Marston was presented to the living of Christchurch in Hampshire by the Dean and Chapter of Winchester. He was instituted to the living on 7th November 1616 and compounded for the First Fruits on 12th February 1617.33 The value of the living was £16 a year, the Tenths, thirty-two shillings, and the First Fruits, thus £14 8. od. On 13th September 1631 Marston resigned his living, probably because of ill-health. From November 1616 until September 1631, he fulfilled his duties as vicar of Christchurch; but such duties hardly necessitated his continuous presence in Christchurch for every month in the year. Little information, however, is to be had about his work or movements during those years. From his funeral certificate we find that there was one child of the marriage, a son John, ‘which died an infant 1624’. As a grandchild is not mentioned in Wilkes’s will, it may be assumed that the child was born after 1616, perhaps in Christchurch, although there is no record of a baptism in the earliest parish register there.34 It is very probable that Marston spent the last few years of his life in the parish of St. Mary Aldermanbury, London, where he died; but there is no record in the Churchwardens’ Accounts of his contributing in 1632 to the repair of the church, and in his death certificate he is described as ‘of Coventry’, although as dying at his London house. It is interesting to note that John Heminges and Henry Condell were both Churchwardens of St. Mary Aldermanbury, and both were buried there, Heminges in 1630 and Condell in 1635. Marston’s will was dated 17th June 1634; and he himself, as the will tells, was ‘sick in body’ and evidently in a very weak state. He died on 25th June and was buried the next day by the side of his father in the Temple Church, under a stone inscribed Obliviont Sacrum.35 The place of burial and the tombstone inscription must both have been the decision of his widow, probably carrying out the wishes of her late husband. His will was proved by his widow, his sole executrix, on oth July following and is mainly a list of money be- quests to relatives and friends with the rest of his ‘goods and chattels moveable and unmoveable’ bequeathed to his ‘well-beloved wife Mary’. His widow made ‘relation’ of her husband’s death to the College of Arms on 18th August and on the information then given a funeral certificate was made out. She herself probably lived on in Aldermanbury parish, where she died in 1657. 58 XI It is a little surprising that Wilkes’s will, which was made in 1630, was not revised after Marston’s death in 1634. There may not have been close contact between Wilkes and his daughter and son-in-law, who, after Marston resigned his Christchurch living in 1631, may have resided in Coventry or in London. The will of Dr. Wilkes, preserved among the probate records of the Bishop of Salisbury’s Court and now deposited in the Wiltshire County Archives, is a copy made and attested by a notary public. It was drawn up on 6th May 1630, when Wilkes was ‘accrased’ in health. His wife, Audrey, was appointed executrix, and he asked to be buried in the chancel of the parish church of Barford. After the legacies to his daughter, Mary, and son-in-law, John Marston, and various minor bequests, the rest of his goods he bequeathed to his ‘loving wife’. Dr. Marmaduke Lynne, Chancellor of the diocese of Salisbury, and Mr. D. Green, of Stockton, his ‘loving friends’, were ‘earnestly’ desired to be the overseers of his will. The document is subscribed to the effect that it was proved at Salisbury, 23rd September 1637, in the presence of Dr. Lynne, Wilkes’s widow having taken the oath in the form prescribed. 3® According to the bishop’s transcript (of entries in the parish register which is not - now extant) made by James Hopkins the curate, William Wilkes died on the 27th and was buried on the 30th August, 1637. Robert Tutt was instituted rector on the 28th August. Probably Dr. Wilkes had been in very poor health for some time.37 By a commission dated 11th September 1637, Dr. Lynne had directed Richard Chandler, the rector of Wilton, and Robert Tutt, the rector of Barford, to take Audrey Wilkes’s oath as executrix and to arrange for a full inventory of the deceased’s goods and chattels. According to an endorsement of the commission, Robert Tutt took the widow’s oath on 11th September, and gave ‘her time to bring in an inven- tory of the goods until the Feast of St. Thomas the Apostle next coming’. The full inventory was made by John Penruddock, Esquire, John Bowles, Esquire (who had the gift of the Barford living), and John Young, Gentleman, on 19th September. A most interesting description is given of the furniture of the rectory, room by room, and priced for each room. In the parlour, for instance, in addition to the tables, cupboard, chairs, settle, joint stools, cushions, carpets, curtains with curtain rods, fire irons and so on, was a bedstead with feather bed and feather bolsters, blankets, coverlet, canopy and curtains. The pictures on the walls were priced separately at £5, the rest of the furniture at £9.1.4d. So through the hall, kitchens, bolting house, mill house, the loft over the mill house, buttery, pantry, the chamber over the hall, the study, the chamber next the study, the rooms over the buttery and the kitchen, and the chapel chamber. The chamber over the hall was evidently the ‘best? bedroom with a ‘standing’ bedstead (as well as a trundle bed), feather bed and feather bolsters and pillows, blankets, but with a pair of white satin valances embroidered with gold, a taffeta quilt to go with taffeta bed curtains, and another silk quilt. Dr. Wilkes’s wearing apparel was assessed at £20. The furniture of the study was priced at £200 and included in addition to books, two writing tables, one chair, two desks, and ten boxes, ‘one geometrical or astronomical instrument called an astrolabe’. The plate was valued at £179.5.6d; money, £40. ‘In and about 59 the backside’ and barns were timber and farm implements, corn and grain of all sorts (£350), hay (£20), cattle and pigs, six horses with their harness (£35), sheep of all sorts (177 at £55), swans, geese, and poultry, and one coach with furnishings. The total value of the goods inventoried was £1,200. No information is at present available about the widow, Audrey Wilkes, her family connections, and where and when she died. It is not even known certainly if Audrey Wilkes was the mother or stepmother of Wilkes’s daughter, Mary, Marston’s widow, who at that time was probably living in the house in Aldermanbury, Lon- don; but it is doubtful if her mother or stepmother joined her there for the remainder of her life. XII I have suggested earlier that Dr. Wilkes’s lease of the Priory garden in Coventry, which he secured in 1604 after the intervention of the Privy Council of James I, may have been the same as, or connected with, the lease mentioned in Marston’s father’s will (1599)—‘garden, orchard and grass plot in the Priory in Coventry’. His lease, due to expire in 1659, was bequeathed to his daughter, Mary. In her will,38 dated 12th June 1657, and proved on 31st July in the same year, there is reference to rent due to her from ‘Mistress Joan Baldwin, widow, and William Baldwin of Coventry’. This rent, bequeathed to her kinsman Richard Lee, gentleman, of Coventry, may refer to the lease of the Priory garden. More information may yet be found about Marston’s wife’s family. Various relations are mentioned in Wiltshire, at Christchurch, Hampshire, and Kingston- on-Thames, as well as in London and Coventry. To her kinsman, Matthew Poore, the son of Edward Poore of Bemerton, near Salisbury, was bequeathed a ‘trunk full of books and a Book of the Martyrs in three volumes not in the trunk’. To her good friend and executor, and her husband’s ‘ancient friend’, Henry Walley of Stationer’s Hall, she bequeathed her ‘dear husband’s picture’ and the three rings she usually wore. It would indeed be a ‘find’ if the portrait should at last be found. Her place of burial was left to her executor, and from the register of the Temple Church we find that ‘Mary Marston, widow of John Marston, sometimes of the Middle Temple, who died in Aldermanbury parish, was buried in the body of the Temple Church near the middle door of the barristers’ seats on the Middle (Temple) side, the fourth day of July (1657)’.39 It was evidently her wish to be buried near to her late husband, whose burial place is more particularly described in the same register in a different connection, ‘in the middle aisle of the ‘Temple Church on the Middle ‘Temple side, next the barristers’ seats near the cross aisle at the feet of Mr. Marston his stone with the inscription (Obliwiont Sacrum)’ .4° t The Modern Language Review (July, 1927), information and for references to Merton Register XXII, 317-19. Ii: 2 Fasti (3rd ed., 1813), 1, columns 46 and 47. 3 2.D. 14. II. fol. 112. 4 I am greatly indebted to Dr. J. R. L. High- field, librarian of Merton, for this and other 60 5 A. F. Pollard’s article on Thomas Wilkes in D.N.B. (Vol. 61, 251-3) gives a very full account, with references to State Papers, etc., which can be supplemented and corrected in minor matters such as the parliamentary activities of Thomas Wilkes and his second marriage after the death of his first wife in 1596. 6 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series 1591-4, vol. ccxi1, 189. The ending of the original in the Public Record Office (S.P. 12., vol. 241, leaf 120) is: I pray for your best helth and so comyt you to thalmighty your loving cosin ever to be comanded Wm. Wilkes. 7 D.N.B. article. There was also correspondence between Dale and Lord Burghley in April 1573 requesting his help with the Archbishop of Canter- bury in this matter. 8 Worthies of All Souls (1874), 91. 9 Letter to Sir Robert Sidney. 7th March 1508. (Arthur Collins, Letters and Memorials of State (1746), 1, 94.) : 10 In a letter to Sir Robert Sidney, dated 8th June 1591, Thomas wrote that he received Sir Robert’s letter of 28th April on 25th May at his house in Wiltshire where by her Majesty’s special licence ‘I had continued home twenty days, not having seen it two years before ’ (Collins, of. cit., 1, 325-7). tt His will was proved on 12th May 1598 (P.C.C. 36 Lewyn). His first wife’s funeral certificate (College of Arms, I.6. fol. 42) states that Margaret was about 34 at the time of her death and her baby daughter, Margaret, between four and five months. The deceased’s widowed mother, Joan Smith, was the chief mourner. There are interesting references to Margaret Wilkes and her daughter in the wills of her father, Ambrose Smith (proved 23rd June 1584), her brother, Francis (proved 4th November 1586), and mother, Joan (proved 2nd May i601). In the Southampton archives are letters from Sir Thomas and the second Lady Wilkes. (See H.M.C. Eleventh Report (1887), Appendix Part 3, 120 and 129.) The reprint of those letters by the Southampton Record Society (Letters of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, ed. R. C. Anderson, 1921) is in need of various corrections because of later information. See also J. E. Neale, The Elizabethan House of Commons (1949), 178-9. 12 The correspondence of Archbishop Grindal, Warden Bickley, and Dr. Aubrey is contained between pp. 71-85 of Merton Register 1:3. The long quarrel is summarized in the Hon. Geo. C. Brodrick, Memorials of Merton College (1885), 270-2, on which my account is based. 13 See John Strype, The History of the Life and Acts... Edmund Grindal ... Archbishop of Canterbury (1821), 370-1. The decree in Latin was dated 22nd April 1580 and was accompanied by a letter in English which Strype quotes. According to Strype (p. 396), on the command of the Queen’s Privy Council, because the Archbishop’s decree previously given had not been obeyed, the Archbishop visited the college and suspended the Warden and certain Fellows for contempt. On their later submission they were remitted from their suspensions. 14 D.N.B. article on Thomas Wilkes. Hoare, The History of Modern Wiltshire, vol. 3 (Hundred of Downton, by George Matcham, 1834, 32-5). The lease later passed into the hands of the Raleigh family, and Wilkes was at Rickmansworth by 1596. 15 W.A.M., xu (1918-19), 303—from manu- scripts in the library of Lambeth Palace. 16 The following is the summary of the letter in the Calendar of State Papers (Elizabeth, 1591-4, vol. cexli, 189). ‘Dr. Wm. Wilkes to his cousin Thos. Wilkes. Has been prevented coming to him by his long stay at Lambeth, and the lack of the Councils. Quotes that of Toulouse, pronouncing an anathema on rebaptism, and the canons of the apostles, ordering the deposition of a bishop who rebaptises. Knows the rest of the Councils are plentiful to the same purpose, as also the fathers, old and new. If the old discipline of the church in primitive times were now in force, a man that so offended would be punished with deprivation of his living, and degradation from the ministry.’ 17 Domestic Series, Addenda, 1580-1625, XXXVI, 438. 18 T am indebted to Miss D. A. Leech, Coventry City Archivist, for her help in producing the letter for inspection and also the Council Book (A.14 (a)— 1557-1625)—Orders Made and Minutes of Proceedings at Meetings of the Town Council. ; ™? John Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, The Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, Lord Buckhurst, the Duke of Devonshire, the Earls of Nottingham, Worcester, Cumberland, Suffolk, and Mar, Sir William Knollys, Sir Robert Cecil, Sir Edward Wotton, and Sir John Stanhope. The clerk was apparently Wiliam Wade or Waad. 20 Council book, 278. 21 jbid., 199. Through Miss Leech I am indebted to Mr. Young Evans, who is compiling a history of Coventry Grammar School, for an _ earlier reference to Marston’s father. A Council minute of gend September 1585 states that John Marston is to have £3 6s. 8d. yearly to be ‘of counsell with this Cittie’. Previously, the earliest known reference to Marston’s father’s contact with Coventry was in the Grant of Arms, dated 29th November 1587, where John Marston senior is described as late of the Middle Temple, now of the city and county of Coventry. 22 Samual Lewis, A Topographical Dictionary of England (3rd ed., 1835), under Coventry. See also Tom Atkinson, Elizabethan Winchester (1963), 92-4. 23 P.C.C., Kidd, 82. 24 There is special mention of the Cowndon property ‘called the Mothouse’, with an orchard, a garden, a croft, a field, and divers closes and pieces of land, in John Cordy Jeaffreson, A Calendar of the Books, Charters, Letters Patent, Deeds, etc., of the City of Coventry (1896), 70. 25 The full background is given in W. H. Frere, The English Church 1558-1625 (1904). See also D. Harris Willson, King James VI and I (1956), especially chapter 12, and G.P. V. Akrigg, Facobean Pageant or the Court of King James I (1962), especially chapter 25. Relevant documents and proclamations are quoted in Henry Gee and William John Hardy, Documents Ulustrative of English Church History (1896), and Edward Cardwell, Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England—1546 to 1716 (1839). 61 26 The treatise was entered on the Stationers’ Register on 22nd February 1605. I have examined the copies of the first edition which are to be found (two each) in the Bodleian, British Museum, and Cambridge University Library. I have also examined a copy with a different title page—A Second Memento Sor Magistrates, 1608—in the Cambridge University Library, and another copy with a similar title page but different date—1609g—in the library of Sion College. This is not the place for a full biblio- graphical description but it seems clear that part of the stock of the first printing was held and ‘re- maindered’ in 1608 and 1609 with a different title page only. The Epistle Dedicatory to the King, the quotation from the royal proclamation, and the body of the tract in twenty-one sections and 73 pages are unchanged. 27 In addition to the previous references to D. Harris Willson and G. P. V. Akrigg, see also Hope Mirrlees, A Fly in Amber, being an extravagant biography of the romantic antiquary, Sir Robert Bruce Cotton (1962), especially chapters XII and XIII, and the reference to John Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (Life of Bishop Wiliams), 1693. 28 Ff, Be recto and verso. 29 Times Lit. Supp., 30th March 1962, 223. Letter of Dr. Elsie Smith, Librarian of Salisbury Cathedral, about Richard Hooker. 3° Few records of St. Mary Hall are to be found, and references to it are scattered and fragmentary. (See Wood, Colleges and Halls of Oxford (1786), 670-5, and Sir Chas. Mallet, History of the University of Oxford (1924), vol. 2, 288-9, 291-2). The number of students at the Hall in 1605, 1611, and 1612 is given in a Twyne MS. as respectively 56, 38 and 48. (See Clark, Life and Times of Anthony Wood, vol. 4 (1895), 151.) In 1613 there were in residence four Masters of Art, eleven Bachelors, and twenty-five undergraduates. Morning prayers were between 5 and 6 a.m. except on Thursdays and in vacations when they were from 7-8 a.m. Lectures on logic followed, with disputations for scholars and bachelors. Themes and corrections were undertaken weekly, and sometimes declamations. There were two beneficed ministers. Apparently the scholars were too much given to going ‘abroad’ without leave of the Principal or tutors. (Victoria County History, Oxfordshire, Vol. 3 (1954), 129-31). 3t Notes and Queries, vol. 202 (1957), 226. J. George, John Marston in the Trumbull Correspondence. The reference is to the Alanuscripts of the Marquis of Downshire preserved at Easthampstead Park, Berks. Vol. 11, 248. Papers of William ‘Trumbull the Elder, 1605-10. Edited by W. K. Purnell and A. B. Hinds. See also G. B. Harrison, A Second Jacobean Journal, 1607-10 (1958), 181 and the note on p. 252; and Arnold Davenport, Poems of John Marston (1961), 6, ned 32 P.C.C., Capell, 87. 33 P.R.O. Liber Institutionum, Series A, vol. 5 (1556-1660). FF. (First Fruits) Composition Books, Series 3, vol. 1. 34 Brief descriptions of the registers are given in The Parish Registers ...in the Archdeaconry of Win- chester, ed. W. A. Fearon and J. F. Williams (1909), and in The Victoria County History of Hampshire, vol. 5 (1912), 107. I am indebted to the present vicar, the Rev. L. H. Yorke, and the verger, Mr. C. H. Stickland, for permission and facilities to examine the registers at Easter, 1963. The earliest, on paper, contains records of christenings 1584-1632, marri- ages 1578-1609, and one sheet of burials 1641-2. The second contains baptisms, marriages, and burials from 1634 onwards. No doubt Marston’s handwriting may be traced among the entries. 35 ‘The day and place of burial are given in the funeral certificate. Wood first made mention of the tombstone inscription and his source of information was probably the Temple Church burial register. 36 In August 1961. Mr. Maurice G. Rathbone, County Archivist for Wiltshire, arranged for me to have photostats of the probate documents rela- ting to Dr. Wilkes. (See R.E.S. New Series, XIII (November 1962), 393.) I found later that these documents had been used by an American scholar, Dr. Ford Elmore Curtis, in connection with his thesis con Marston, an abstract of which was published by Cornell University in 1931. Apparent- ly the documents were ‘found’ for Dr. Curtis by Miss Lilian J. Redstone, presumably at Somerset House before they were transferred to the Wilt- shire County Archives in 1957. Dr. Curtis’s ‘finds’ were later made available to Dr. A. José Axelrad for his work on Marston published in 1955 (Un Malcontent Elizabéthain: John Marston (1576-1634). A very brief summary of Dr. Wilkes’s will and of the inventory of his goods was given in Appendix D, PP. 333-4-) 37 IT am indebted to Miss P. Stewart of the Diocesan Record Office, Salisbury, for permission to examine the transcripts, and for other help. The institution date of Robert Tutt is taken from P.R.O. Book of Institutions, Series A, 1556-1660, vol. 5. See also, John Walker, Sufferings of the Clergy (revised by A. G. Matthews, 1948). 38 P.C.C., Ruthen, 272. — 39 A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, ed. F. A. Inderwick (London, 1898), Vol. 2, 1603-60, 366 (in Appendix No. 9, Register of burials at the Temple Church, 1628-60). 4° Id., 356—describing the burial place of Robert Ashley. Most of the stones and sepulchral monuments in the church were removed and broken up during renovations about the middle of last century. | am assured that none is now extant or on view inscribed with the name Marston or Oblivioni Sacrum. A LOCAL CRISIS BETWEEN ESTABLISHMENT AND NONCONFORMITY THE SALISBURY VILLAGE PREACHING CONTROVERSY, 1798-1799 by DAVID J. JEREMY IT IS QUITE EVIDENT from the national statistics for Dissenting places of worship registered between 1760 and 1808 that the full harvest of the Whitefield-Wesley revival was not gathered till comparatively late: of the 12,161 Nonconformist meeting houses certified during those years just over 75 per cent. were registered in the last two decades. The trend may be exaggerated, as the Methodists were first licensed as Dissenters in 1787. Even so the proliferation of Nonconformist con- gregations was phenomenal. It was first noticed, challenged and temporarily stayed by the Establishment in the diocese of Salisbury. Here bishop Douglas’s episcopal charge of 1798 and the pamphlets of his inferior clergy so focussed public attention on the mushrooming of Dissent that leading Tory churchmen put pressures on prime minister Pitt to contain it. Before examining the participants and pamphlets of the 1798 controversy and afterwards the local and national repercussions, the growth, identity, origins and methods of the Dissenters responsible for the amazing increase in the Salisbury diocese deserve notice. An indication of the statistical pattern of the expansion of Dissent may be found in the Returns of Certified Places of Worship kept by the Diocesan Registry? and the Quarter Sessions of Wiltshire and Berkshire} (which counties then composed the diocese of Salisbury). During the rule of bishop Douglas (1791-1807) 307 new places of worship were registered. Of this total, 9 were registered by the Roman Catholics, 2 by the Presbyterians, 31 by the Baptists, 56 by the Methodists, 126 by the Inde- pendents (or Congregationalists) and 83 recorded no denomination. Slightly over 27 per cent. of these congregations were located in Berkshire; slightly under 73 per cent. in Wiltshire. A longitudinal survey of these figures (see Table 1) shows an astonishing explosion over the three years 1797-9, which, judging by the statistics derived from the bishop’s lengthy Returns and the magistrates’ meagre Returns, was mainly the result of the Independents establishing places of worship in private dwelling houses. Those three years witnessed the certification of 115 Dissenters’ meeting houses: 3 Roman Catholic, 3 Protestant (no denomination given), I Presbyterian, 12 Baptist, 14. Methodist, 58 Independent and 24 of no known affilia- tion. Plainly the Independents were the key Nonconformist sect in this awakening and therefore demand closer treatment. Of the 58 Independent meeting houses registered during these three years when it seemed that the windows of heaven were 63 opened, 17 were to be found in the upper valley of the Salisbury Avon and across the Vale of Pewsey to Devizes whilst another 15 could be located in the Malmesbury- Wootton Bassett-Cricklade region to the north of Chippenham; all but 7 (in Berk- shire) of the rest were scattered throughout Wiltshire, mainly over the western part TABLE I Numbers of new Dissenters’ Meeting Houses registered with the Diocesan Registry and the Clerks of the Peace of Wilts. and Berks. during the rule of bishop Douglas, 1791-1807 Diocesan Registry Clerks of Peace ' Period Year ° Period Annual Wilts. Berks.» | Wilts | Berks: |). 2° Average 1791 6 4 | be I 1792 By 4 I + 1793 i 5 a I ° : 1794 9 4 a 2 : ee 1795 6 ee 2 = 1796 10 I — 3 1797 24 8 2 1798 41 6 2 3 115 33213 1799 ut 5 =e at 1800 14. I — 1801 5 2 — aes 1802 14 2 — — 1803 5 6 — — 1804. 10 is = = 112 14 1805 12 5 —- _— 1806 5 4 I 1807 13 6 = = 215 68 9 15 307 18 Totals | (Annual average 307 1791-1807) in the vicinity of the populous clothing towns, and near the city of Salisbury. Amongst the Independents this success followed the efforts of a few obscure yet ardent mission- aries: William Barrett, a Devizes tradesman, the Rev. John Bartholomew, the Rev. Simon Pitt (see Tables Ila and IIb) and the Rev. John Adams of Salisbury, whose name crops up in the pamphlet controversy. Other pockets of Independent activity in 1797-9 were Colerne and Studley Park near Chippenham and villages in the Nadder and Wylye valleys. ‘The Baptists’ mission fields included the vicinities of Shrewton, Melksham and Calne; the Methodists established preaching places in Whiteparish and in villages between Trowbridge and Melksham, but were most active in the Aldbourne-Chiseldon-Wanborough triangle, south of Swindon. Curious- ly enough the unaffiliated meeting houses registered during these three years were 64 set up in two distinct regions: the Wylye valley between Wilton and Stapleton (5) and the Melksham-Wraxall-Corsham area (7, including a chapel at Atworth). The Roman Catholics appeared in Salisbury and at Newton Tony. TaBs_eE II(a) New Independent Meeting Houses in the Devizes/Pewsey/Netheravon area registered at the Diocesan Registry, 1797-1799 : Nature of Person Mes Date Focanon Meeting House Certifying 1797 24. Apr. Urchfont House | Chris. Garrett* 7 Aug. Enford | House | Ann Carter 10 Aug. All Cannings House | Wm. Barrett 13 Aug. Alton House Wm. Page 4 Sept. Hilcot House Thomas Beth 4 Sept. Fifield House Thomas Hall 20 Sept. Wedhampton House John Giddings 1798 20 Jan. Stanton St. Bernard | House | Wm. Barrett g Mar. All Cannings House Wm. Cook | 9 Mar. | All Cannings House | Wm. Barrett | 14 Mar. Compton House | Chas. Eyles(?) 18 May Potterne House | John White 26 May Etchilhampton | House Wm. Barrett 16 Nov. Hilcot Newly erected John Moore | building | 1799 23 Apr. Upavon | House | Wm. Barrett 20 Sept. Patney House Wm. Barrett 4. Nov. All Cannings House Wm. Barrett * munister But the resurgence of spiritual life in rural Wiltshire in the 1790s was no sudden movement.4 The planting and watering had begun as early as the 1740s when John Wesley had evangelized the clothing towns of the Bristol Avon valley as far as Melksham and also Salisbury, and John Cennick had itinerated in the north of the county, the Malmesbury-Swindon area. Methodism consolidated in the towns very slowly but the heroic example of its persecuted preachers inspired the older Orthodox Dissenters, especially the Independents and the Baptists. The former benefited in Wiltshire from the energies of a number of devoted patrons and preachers directly or indirectly linked with the Calvinistic Anglicans, George Whitefield and his sponsor, the Countess of Huntingdon (before and after she seceded in 1781). For example, Mrs. Joanna Turner, convicted of spiritual backsliding at Whitefield’s Tabernacle, Bristol, financially backed the building of the Trowbridge Tabernacle; her clothier relative, John Clark, became a well-known preacher in west Wiltshire, combining preaching with business. 5 However, the outstanding labourer in the vineyard of rural Wiltshire during the pioneering years of the 1770s and 1780s was the man described by his pupil and 65 Taste II(b) New Independent Meeting Houses in the Malmesbury|Wootton Bassett/Cricklade area registered at the Diocesan Registry, 1797-1799 | ae | . Nature of Person ae | Bale | Bocanen Meeting House Certifying 1797. | 25 Apr. | Wootton Bassett Meeting house | John Bartholomew* g June | Rodbourne House Simon Pitt* 24 June | Back Street, House Wm. Moles*(?) | Malmesbury | 1798.” |. ‘9 Mar: Gt. Somerford House Simon Pitt* g Mar. | Lea | House | Wm. Wilmot* 18 May | Sherston Room Simon Pitt* 18 Oct. Dauntsey House John Hayward 18 Oct. | Brinkworth | House | John Bartholomew* 18 Oct. | Lyneham | House John Bartholomew* 1799 I Feb. Norton House Simon Pitt* ;. of Feb, Hullavington House Wm. Pullin* 1 Feb. Rodbourne House Simon Pitt* 20 Sept. Foxley Room Simon Pitt* 20 Sept. Little Somerford Room Simon Pitt* 20 Sept. Calcut Lane, Meeting house | John Bartholomew* Cricklade * minister friend William Jay (1769-1853) as, along with the superlative John Newton, ‘the most extraordinary Christian character I ever knew’,® namely, Cornelius Winter (1742-1807).7 Converted c. 1760 through the ministry of Whitefield, he accompanied that renowned preacher on his last visit to America, where it was intended that Winter should take the place of the deceased rector of Savannah, Bartholomew Zububuhler. His ambition was never fulfilled. The white population resented him evangelizing the plantation slaves and called him the ‘negro parson’, Whitefield suddenly died, and two English bishops (London and Norwich) refused to ordain Winter when he returned home in 1771, incidentally, carrying Whitefield’s will. With unabated missionary enthusiasm he roamed the country for the next five years, usually going back to the Bristol-Gloucestershire region. At last in 1776 or 1777 (Jay’s Life is rather misleading in places and this has caused some historians® to date Winter’s ordination in 1767), Winter settled in Christian Malford as pastor ‘to the three societies of Castle-combe, Christian-malford, and Chippenham’. John Clark of Trowbridge was one of the three ministers who then ordained him. For at least two years Cornelius Winter preached in the three villages composing his circuit, often travelling out to Rodborough, Dursley, Wotton-under-Edge and Frampton, in the Gloucestershire clothing district. On the advice of the Rev. Robert Sloper, Winter moved in 1778 to Marlborough (much to the displeasure of his patron, the Rev. Rowland Hill) where Thomas Hancock, a grocer, had given 66 the Independent cause a meeting house. Here Winter ‘being destitute’ relieved his poverty through marriage and by keeping a school. Amongst those whom came to him for instruction were a nephew of Mrs. Joanna Turner and also William Jay, then the unknown son of a Tisbury stone-cutter engaged in building William Beckford’s Fonthill mansion. The school presumably flourished and seems to have offered training for ministers. By 1788 Winter had, in some unspecified way, offended Hancock, who was dying and leaving sons who did not share their father’s faith. He therefore consulted his friend Sloper, who ‘refered me to the leading of Providence’ and decided to remove to Painswick in Gloucestershire, taking his academy with him. Here he ministered and taught till his death in 1807. The activities of Cornelius Winter are significant in the present context, for he and his students sowed the gospel seed in the Malmesbury and Devizes-Marlborough districts which would yield abundant fruit in the 1790s. Of Winter’s contemporaries two other Independent ministers in Wiltshire stand out in the records of this late 18th century revival. Firstly there was Winter’s friend Robert Sloper.» He was born at Devizes c. 1758 and became, at about the age of nineteen, the first minister of St. Mary’s Independent chapel there. Here he remained till his death in 1818. His funeral sermon was preached by the Rev. William Jay. A measure of Sloper’s success is the fact that on this occasion all the other places of worship in the town closed and St. Mary’s was overcrowded. Sloper’s children shared the faith of their parents and it is likely that the Mr. Sloper ‘from the Devizes’, educated at Winter’s Painswick academy and later minister at Plymouth, was one of them. Only very sparse records hint at the extent of Sloper’s evangelistic work in Wiltshire: in 1788 he preached at the opening of Highworth Independent meeting house and in 1795 was present at the ordination of the Rev. Edward Dudley Jackson, minister of the Independent chapel at Warminster. But in June 1797, Sloper urged his congregation to attempt to take the Gospel to surrounding villages. Seven res- ponded and went out the following Sunday. Their efforts so prospered that one of them, William Barrett, ‘in the midst of winter...was frequently obliged to preach out of doors’ on account of the number of hearers. A permanent outpost was obtained in May 1798 when the chapel at Hilcot, erected by ‘Mr. Sloper and a few liberal friends’, was opened. It stood ‘in the centre of about ten or eleven hamlets and villages’ and therefore commanded much potential which Sloper and Barrett were not slow to exploit. The ‘Rev. Mr. Barratt was set apart to the pastoral office’ on 5th March 1800, when the Rev. Sloper and the Rev. Clift (one of the 1798 pamphleteers) were numbered with those taking the services at Hilcot and Allington. So the evangelization of the Vale of Pewsey progressed. Sloper also figured in the foreign missions movement and the Wiltshire Association of Independent Ministers, as will be observed later. The other leading Independent minister who seems to have pioneered the work in Wiltshire villages was the Rev. John Adams (1752-1804) of Salisbury. A scanty account of his career is found in his obituary in the Evangelical Magazine: ‘At the age of nineteen he commenced a preacher. After itinerating some years, under the patronage of Lady Huntingdon, he became stationary at New Sarum. At the age of twenty-six he was ordained pastor of the Independent church in that city; where he 67 continued to exercise the duties of his office with credit to himself and profit to others, until the day of his death.’!e Under Adams the Scots Lane meeting house in Salisbury was enlarged in 1791.!! Judging by the denigration he received from one of the clerical pamphleteers in 1798, he must have trained a good number of the reported 50-60 Dissenting preachers who then streamed out from Salisbury each Sunday. *2 Winter, Sloper and Adams were but the leading agents in the late 18th-century village preaching campaigns in Wiltshire. Their efforts were reinforced by those who accompanied or followed them, most of whom have either disappeared into oblivion (like the unknown Baptist schoolmaster who evangelized 20 villages between Devizes and Salisbury, 1796-8) 13 or remain little more than names, like Barratt. If these men prepared the way for a religious revival in Wiltshire, the reasons for its occurrence in the late 1790s and the methods whereby it was achieved remain to be considered. ‘Two factors seem to have triggered off this explosion of Wiltshire Nonconformity. Firstly there was the distress stemming from poor harvests at home and the enervating war with France. The lower orders were forced to face the reality and imminence of eternity, for they were the first to suffer from the soaring bread prices and the 1794 augmenting of the militia. Of an importance equal to, if not greater than, the hardship suffered by the lower classes was the new interest displayed by the Dissenting denominations in foreign missions. The solicitude felt for pagans overseas, as witnessed by the launching of some of the great Protestant missionary societies in the 1790s, tended to rouse concern for the heathen at home. This side- effect of the foreign missionary enterprise was certainly experienced in the west of England, where the Independents strongly backed the establishment of the London Missionary Society'4 three years after the Baptist Missionary Society took root in 1792. Indeed, Carey’s burden for the lost passed to the founder of the L.M.S., the Rev. David Bogue of Gosport, via Dr. John Ryland, principal of the Bristol Baptist academy. Not surprisingly, Robert Sloper made the journey up to London from Devizes to support the foundation of the L.M.S. that busy September week in 1795. Conclusive confirmation of the incidental impact made by foreign missions on domestic, and in particular Wiltshire, evangelism, is found in Kingsbury’s Apology for Village Preachers where he plainly stated that the renewed endeavours of the Independents in the villages after 1795 were their answer to the question posed by many: ‘Have you not Heathens enough at home ?’!s The instruments of evangelism employed by the Independents were not new. Faced with small, scattered, poor and illiterate rural communities, they resorted to the techniques introduced and proven by Whitefield and then Wesley, namely, lay, field and itinerant preaching. Jay recalled how, whilst a pupil of Winter at Marl- borough, ‘We often addressed large numbers out of doors; and many a calm and clear evening I have preached down the day, on the corner of a common or upon the green turf before the cottage door.’t® According to Kingsbury these services consisted of a reading from the Scriptures, ‘or some other good book’ like Burder’s Village Sermons, the singing of Dr. Isaac Watts’s Psalms or Hymns and perhaps a message (this depended on the ability of the preacher) in which ‘the doctrines of the 68 Scriptures’ were explained and enforced.t7 These no doubt squared with mild Calvinism, for Clift declared “The Articles and Homilies... harmonize with our Catechism’.t§ Inevitably lay preaching jarred against the clerical concept of the priesthood, field preaching offended the dignity of the cloth, and itinerant preaching injured an incumbent’s presumed parish monopoly of ministry. Though most of the Nonconformist preachers tried to avoid rivalling the services of the Establish- ment and the demands of harvest time, Jay’s experience was that ‘the excitement of the ignorant populace was commonly produced by the clergyman, the squire, and some of the stupid and intemperate farmers... The village peasantry ... if left to themselves seemed to drink in the word, as rain on the mown grass, and as showers that water the earth.’!9 In Wiltshire so similar were these techniques to those of the earlier revivalists that a correspondent to the Gentleman’s Magazine in 17982° assumed the preachers to be Methodists. The same writer mentioned one device later to become very popular at this personal level, tract distributing to the literate minority in the hope that they would read aloud to the illiterate. Through the preaching of the Gospel a few in each village would enter into the evangelical experience of salvation from sin by faith in Christ. Having gathered such a group in a village, regular meetings would be held in a house or room licensed for the purpose. If the cause prospered, a chapel standing on its own ground might be opened and then the process of spiritual reproduction would begin again. It soon became appar- ent in the 1780s and 1790s that these local evangelistic efforts of the Independents required co-ordination and reinforcement through some kind of regional organiza- tion. Perhaps because of their emphasis on the individual church and the ministry of the ordained pastor, together with a doctrinal affinity with the Baptists, the Independents eschewed the centralized organizational pyramid of Methodism and its excellent circuit system, preferring rather the loose county associations used by the Baptists since the late seventeenth century. A brief digression upon the Baptists will show how much the Independents were indebted to them for a pattern of village preaching stimulated by foreign missions and strengthened by associations. The Western Association of Baptists,?! established in 1699, had grown steadily during the eighteenth century: a membership of 16 churches in 1709 rose to 42 in 1798 and 78 in 1823; over the year 1797-8 alone a clear increase of 121 church members was recorded.?? Anchored to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith,?3 the ministers and elders annually assembled to consider the achievements and supply the needs of member-churches, and to sustain their own collective spiritual life. The acknowledged leader of the Association in the 1790s was the Rev. Dr. John Ryland?4 (1753-1825), since 1794 the pastor of Broadmead chapel, Bristol, and principal of the city’s Baptist academy (a source of and training ground for the Baptist Missionary Society’s candidates as Bogue’s Gosport academy would later become for the L.M.S.). At the age of eighteen, Ryland, the son of the local Baptist minister, had begun preaching in the villages around Northampton. Founder of the B.M.S. and the closest friend of William Carey, he viewed the Western Association as an instru- ment for quickening home and foreign missionary endeavour in the region, as is evident from the sermons he preached to its annual assemblies at Chard in 1794 and Salisbury in 1798. At the latter Ryland spoke on The Dependence of the Whole Law and 69 the Prophets on the two Primary Commandments and urged member-churches if they ‘have had no increase of their numbers... to inquire whether any antiscriptural errors have been imbibed, or gross immoralities connived at, as the Achan in the camp, which hath provoked the Lord to withold his blessing’.25 Plainly he implied that something was seriously wrong with a congregation if it failed to expand. Certainly it would not have lacked assistance, for at Association meetings, money was collected and then distributed ‘partly for the support of the aged and infirm Ministers, and chiefly to encourage village preaching’ .?® Following the example of the Baptists, the Independents established county associations: Hampshire in 1781, Kent in 1791, Dorset in 1795, and Somerset and Shropshire both in 1796. On 5th July 1797 seventeen Independent ministers gathered at Westbury to inaugurate the Wilts. and East Somerset Association.?7 They in- cluded four supporters of the L.M.S. (Hay of Bristol, Jay of Bath, Sibree of Frome and Sloper of Devizes) and also Clark of Trowbridge, Clift of Chippenham and Jackson of Warminster. The first object of their biannual meetings was to build up ministerial fellowship. The second aim is apparent in Clause 10 of the 1797 Regula- tions: “Chat at each Association, any member engaged in the good work of preaching the Gospel in towns and villages within the limits of the Association, and where there is no stated evangelical ministry, shall be allowed a sum, not exceeding two guineas, on giving a satisfactory account of his expenses, and informing the Brethren of the state and progress of Religion in the places where he may thus labour.’28 Funds were raised by collections at the Association’s gatherings and by a two guineas annual subscription from each congregation. It seems most likely that the Wilts. & East Somerset Association emerged to cope with the enormous expansion of 1797-9. Such then is the background to the 1798 crisis in the relations between Estab- lishment and Dissent in the diocese of Salisbury. Sometime during the first seven months of 1798 a young curate, William Mogg Bowen, sounded the earliest blast against the ministering intruders careless of parish boundaries with the publication of his Appeal to the People, on the Alleged Causes of the Dissenters’ Separation from the Established Church. ‘The question of village preaching was taken up by the bishop of Salisbury, Dr. John Douglas, in his third triennial visitation early in August 1798. He charged his clergy ‘to prevent the delusions to which the lower classes of the people, especially in the villages’ were exposed because of ‘the increased activity of dissenters of various denominations, and the great number of licensed preachers registered in the course of last year’.29 This ignited a pamphlet controversy during the autumn of that year. As these tracts issued from the press, the Dissenters in the diocese panicked. Fearing episcopal restriction of village evangelism, they rushed to the Diocesan Registry to obtain licences for an unprecedented number of village causes: in the first eight months of 1798, 22 meetings or an average of 2°75 per month were certified; in the remaining four months a total of 25, giving a monthly average of 6-25, were registered.3° As will be shown later, the Establishment like- wise took fright, but at a national level. Although the bishop, once having delivered his charge, did not indulge in the pamphleteering which followed, some indication of the man and influence the 7O Dissenters defied will show that they pitted themselves against no mere ecclesiastical cipher. John Douglas (1721-1807)3! had scaled the ‘ladder of preferment’ initially through his Scottish connexions, who secured for him the patronage of the Earl of Bath. Expression of his ‘Tory sympathies in two pamphlets written for the Earl in defence of the royal authority earned him a canonry of Windsor in 1762. Another tract in support of Lord North gained Douglas a residentiaryship of St. Paul’s in 1776. But his cultivation of the royal favour at Windsor would seem to have been the powerful lever needed to assist him to reach the uppermost rungs of the preferment ladder: the see of Carlisle (1787), the deanery of Windsor (1788) and the see of Salisbury (1791). A moderate High Churchman faithful to the Tory party and the crown, Douglas possessed literary abilities as well as powers of self-advancement. The London livings he obtained by exchange in 1761 enabled him to join Johnson’s circle, where Boswell dubbed him ‘the great detector of impostures’.3? These exposures included the Cock Lane ghost and a Jesuit impostor, Archibald Bower. Douglas also became one of the more accomplished editors of his day with the publication of editions of Clarendon’s Diary and Letters (1763), CGook’s Journals (second and third voyages) and (with the author) Bruce’s magnificently illustrated Travels in Abyssinia. (1790). At Salisbury Douglas’s administration was typical of the diligent performances of many other 18th-century bishops. When past the age of seventy he carried out four triennial visitations and in one year alone (1792) conducted thirty-four ordina- tions.33 At the palace he offered liberal hospitality, particularly to his parochial clergy. On the other hand his nepotism, so consistently concentrated on his Scottish friends and above all on his own son William, can only be described as indecent, even by 18th-century standards.34+ Douglas probably had little sympathy for Non- conformists. An eye-witness of the Gordon Riots, he could easily envisage the fearful extremes ensuing if irreligion and its politically close neighbour Dissent should conjoin to spread the French contagion. Hence Douglas warned his clergy to resist these two forces in his episcopal charges of 1795 and 1798. In view of his position, his age and the literary inferiority of pamphleteering, Douglas no doubt considered it below his dignity to trifle with a handful of obscure local Dissenters in 1798; his subalterns could answer them both by pamphlets and renewed pastoral efforts. If he took any action it would have been to make sure that at a national level their infiltrations did not go unnoticed, though there is no evidence for this. The seven pamphleteers responsible for the thirteen tracts of the controversy represented the contemporary opinions of four religious camps: High Church, Middle Church, Orthodox Dissent and Rational Dissent. Attention had been drawn to the growth of local Nonconformity before the episcopal charge by a young High Church curate, William Mogg Bowen (c. 1767- c. 1857).35 Originating from Taunton, Somerset, he had taken his first degree at Oxford in 1788 and in 1790 appeared in the Salisbury diocese. On 20th November that year he commenced his curacy of West Cholderton for the rector, the Rev. J. 71 Bradley, at a salary of £30 p.a.3® On 3rd March the new bishop (Douglas) ordained him priest.37 At some point between 1795 and 1798 Bowen procured another curacy, that of Newton Tony,3* whose rector, the Rev. Dr. John Ekins, was dean of Salisbury and absentee rector of Trowbridge. Bowen could hardly be classed as one of the impoverished rural curates, for he could afford to invest £100 in the ill-fated South- ampton and Salisbury canal.39 In making the critical step in the ascent of the temporal stairs of the church, from a curacy to a benefice, Bowen sought preferment through the well-tried method of pamphleteering and early in 1798 published three pamphlets. ‘The first, A Serious Address to the People of England on the Subject of A Reform, covered the need for political, religious and moral reform. Sympathy for Grey’s proposals of 1797 was quietly negatived by advising procrastination ‘until the sword of war be sheathed’.4° Rather rashly, on the religious reforms Bowen demanded a more equal distribution of church livings, for the absence of which he blamed the bishops, and suggested that the collective pressure of the lower clergy be applied on the prelates through diocesan meetings (like the one held at Andover in the summer of 1797). A Serious Address offered sops to adherents of both Fox and Pitt, but the outspoken attack on the bishops (probably Bowen’s cri de coeur) con- stituted a faux pas in his private strategy for elevation, and in the preface to the third edition (dated 8th June 1798) he apologized to the Bench, and also recanted the call for a general meeting of the inferior clergy to impose reforms. The extent of this early tactical mistake can only be appreciated by remembering that English fortunes reached their nadir in the French Wars during 1797. Bowen strove to redeem himself with two other pamphlets which proved beyond doubt his loyalty to the constitution and his opposition to sedition. A Sermon on the Preservation of Integrity is most interesting on account of the author’s choice of pseudonym, James Johnson (a Hanoverian bishop who reached the Bench through friendship with the duke of Newcastle and by renouncing his Jacobite sympathies), which hints at Bowen’s own volte-face. In A Cool Appeal... or, Republicanism and Monarchy considered, Bowen dissociated himself from his earlier tendency towards the Lockeian view of society, liberally quoting Blackstone to assert that sovereignty resided in the Crown. However, the most splendid chance to rectify his earlier mistake presented itself to Bowen when the Dissenters threateningly multiplied in the diocese. The other High Churchman in the fray was John Malham#! (1747-1821), whose professional life had vacillated between teaching and preaching, but who always found time to write on his favourite studies, mathematics and navigation. Having failed to obtain a naval chaplaincy, Malham found himself, at the age of fifty-five, still at the bottom of the ecclesiastical ladder. Between 1792 and 1795 he took the curacies of the two relatively poor livings of Stapleford and South Newton for their absentee holders.42 By 1798 he had shifted to the curacy of West Grim- stead,+3 worth more than the other two together.44 In addition he was chaplain to the county gaol at Fisherton Anger. When the village preaching controversy blew up Malham perceived an opportunity which his previous experience as an author and his then present desire for a patron drove him to seize. The third clerical subaltern to enter the lists of controversy was William Lisle Bowles45 (1762-1850), the most celebrated of all the pamphleteers. Fourteen of his 72 sonnets (published in 1789), composed in Scotland and along the Rhine where he sought solace from a broken engagement, inspired the Romantic poets who later hailed Bowles as their immediate precursor. Returning from Europe he entered the Church and was ordained deacon to the lucrative curacy of Bishop’s Knoyle on 18th May 1788. But Bowles’s auspicious future did not materialize. He never surpassed those first sonnets; the long-awaited valuable living of Bremhill tarried till 1804 (though he was compensated with the rectory of Chicklade in 1795, changed for that of Dumbleton, Glos., in 1797); and, above all, his projected marriage collapsed when his betrothed, Harriet Wake (the daughter of the rector of Knoyle), died in 1793. Bowles recovered from the last blow and married his deceased fiancée’s sister, Magdalene, in 1797. In the controversy Bowles delineated the Middle Church position. The spokesman of Rational Dissent (chiefly Socinians or Unitarians by this time), Henry Wansey#® (1751-1827), a Salisbury clothier, had gained some local repute by introducing the spinning jenny into Salisbury in the early 1790s. At this time, owing to renewed efforts by Dissenters to repeal the obnoxious Test and Corporation Acts, during 1787-90, and above all to the Dissenters’ initial sympathy for the French Revolution (most forcibly expressed in Priestley’s Letters to Burke, - 1791), Dissent, both Rational and Orthodox, was equated with sedition; many Unitarians fled either to France or the U.S.A. to escape persecution. Wansey visited North America in the summer of 1794. Ostensibly on unspecified business, he shrewdly purchased 1,200 acres in Pennsylvania should he later wish to seek asylum.47 His membership of the Society of Antiquaries (election in 1788) served to underline the respectability of his liberalism at a time when Rationalists had become stained with the blood of revolution and Unitarians were still denied the benefits of the Toleration Act. By 1798 the radical agitation on the part of middle-class Dissent had subsided, but the ruling classes did not easily forget the Jacobinism of Rational Dissent. Equally, Wansey clearly remembered the clerical witch hunt, and now that a local bishop seemed intent on restoring it his faith and his rather aggressive personality impelled a sturdy protest. Of Wansey’s defenders little is known. Rights of Discussion apparently came from the pens of ‘Joseph Fisher of Ringwood, Attorney at Law and others’.48 The fact that the pamphlet was published by Thomas Clio Rickman‘9 suggests that it had the backing of a middle-class remnant of the London Constitutional Society. Two ministers represented Orthodox Dissent (Trinitarian Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists). The first, Samuel Clift, Independent pastor of Chippenham, appears to have been present when the bishop visited, confirmed and delivered his charge there on 9th August 1798.5° Clift’s career is barely traceable. A contemporary of William Jay at Cornelius Winter’s Marlborough academy in the late 1780s,5! he appears to have continued with Winter when he moved to Painswick, Glos.,5? in 1788. In his pamphlet, An Incidental Letter, Clift mentioned that he had taken part in most of the projects of Wiltshire Nonconformity since 1793, so he may have graduated from Painswick to Chippenham that year. He is listed as one of the founding members of the Wilts. & East Somerset Association of Independent Minis- ters. Thus Clift’s contribution to the controversy stemmed from the threat to his 13 own calling; moreover, being one of the few Dissenters to hear the bishop’s charge, he could confirm the reality of their fears. In the controversy Clift was joined by a leading Nonconformist, William Kingsburys3 (1744-1818), minister to the Above Bar Independent congregation, Southampton. Educated at the militantly Calvinistic King’s Head academy, Kingsbury moved to Southampton in 1764. A Calvinist himself, he nevertheless allowed John Wesley and ‘Thomas Coke to preach from his pulpit. Not surprisingly, he was acquainted with some of the outstanding Evangelicals of the day, such as Romaine, Cadogan and Newton. He distantly supported the campaign to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts and, when the need was felt to coagulate Orthodox Dissent in reaction to the intolerance generated by the French revolution, Kingsbury joined the group led by the Rev. John Eyre and the Rev. Matthew Wilks which launched the Evangelical Magazine in 1793. Probably through the enthusiasm of his friend and neighbour, the Rev. David Bogue of Gosport, he supported the founda- tion of the London Missionary Society and on his return from London so roused his congregation that they raised £287 for the venture and the next year (1796) sent a sloop with livestock, clothes, provisions and medicines to the ship Duff which sailed from Portsmouth to ‘Tahiti that September. As early as March, 1769, Kingsbury had begun preaching in the surrounding villages, but considerable advances came only in the 1790s when mission stations were set up at Rumbridge (1791), Hythe (1797) and Bramshaw (1798)54 by the Above Bar evangelists. These may well have resulted from the missionary spirit excited by the growth of foreign missions, for shortly after the establishment of the L.M.S. the Hampshire Association of Independent Ministers invited Kingsbury to write and publish a pamphlet to be sent to all the churches in the county on The Duty, Necessity, and Advantages of sending the Gospel to the Villages.55 Kingsbury entered the controversy in defence of the Dissenters of Salisbury and specifically aimed his remarks at Bowen’s Appeal to the People, the apparent source of the ugly rumours circulating about Nonconformist village preaching. The sequence of the thirteen tracts in the Salisbury village preaching controversy is given in Malham’s A Broom for the Conventicle, the eleventh to-be written and the last to appear in 1798 (see Appendix for details of pamphlets). The problem of authorship has not arisen because Bowen inserted real names alongside pen-names in his own copies, which have survived bound together and are now deposited in Southampton University Library.5° An analytical study of these tracts will illustrate some facets of the political/religious positions of Establishment and Dissent already more fully explored at the national level in the studies of Anthony Lincoln and, more recently, Ursula Henriques. 57 For the High Churchmen the controversy centred on the recent sudden ex- pansion of Orthodox Dissent; the intrusion of the Rational Dissenters’ tracts, defending religious liberty and lashing at the corruption of the Establishment, irritated and annoyed Bowen and Malham but did not deflect them from their main assault. Indeed Wansey’s Letter drew very ill-considered replies from the two curates. In his Strictures the bumptious Bowen dissected Wansey’s English style with the blunt scalpel of classical syntax, no doubt intending to display 74 the ignorance of his opponent, though his arid and carping criticisms could only have succeeded in early extinguishing the interest of most of his readers; the Rational- ist’s searing censures were labelled libels and so brushed aside. At least Malham faced up to these in his Remarks: there were too many clergy (goo in the Salisbury diocese and 20,000 in England and Wales) for all to be perfect in their ecclesiastical duties and certainly not all were guilty of pluralism and absenteeism; as for the Church’s ‘regulations’ on doctrine, government and worship, ‘It is sufficient that they are not contrary to the Scriptures.’5’ By granting this much latitude to the Church, Malham and other High Churchmen parted from the basic Reformation principle of sola scriptura and so from both Evangelical Anglicans and Dissenters, including the Rationalists. Rather paradoxically, the Orthodox Dissenters, who made no attempt to attack the Establishment, received a rougher handling from the High Churchmen than did the aggressive Rational Dissenters. Most likely the practical success of the former was the reason for this, though Canning’s Anti- Jacobin Review devoted six pages to a damning criticism of Wansey’s Letter, describing it as ‘the natural produce of the soil, a farrago of illiberality, ignorance and scurrility’ whose author ‘would gladly undertake the destruction of church and state, for a good post under the French Directory’.59 At any rate, Malham and Bowen strove - to check this spread of Orthodox Dissent by refuting the Nonconformists’ reasons for separation, by demonstrating how their growth jeopardized Church and State, and by hinting that this frightening expansion would be halted. Bowen methodically rejected the Orthodox Nonconformists’ objections to the Establishment in his Appeal to the People, using such respectable authorities as the New Testament, the Early Church Fathers, the Reformers, Hooker and Baxter, to remove the grounds for their antipathy towards premeditated prayers, the sign of the cross at baptism, infant baptism, kneeling during the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, lack of pulpit oratory and the episcopacy. But both High Church curates devoted most of their ink to tirades against village preaching, which they resented on a number of scores. Firstly, it involved emotionalism, almost a crime in an age of superficial urbanity and politeness. Malham denounced Burder’s Village Sermons for their ‘enthusiastic spirit’.°° The experience of conversion likewise was distasteful to the High Church party; besides producing ‘bigotry and uncharitableness’,®! it eroded parish congregations and Bowen cited as an example of such sheep-stealing the ‘itinerant blacksmith in Salisbury, and some others’ who ‘dared week after week, and month after month, to intrude themselves among the flock of the Reverend Dean and his Curate; the former of whom does, for eight or nine months in the year, and the latter does constantly reside in the midst of them’.®? Though not actually accusing the Dissenters of Antinomianism, Malham raked up two calumnious accounts inferring that some of them had fallen into this heresy of regarding them- selves above the law. One concerned John Adams, whose meetings had apparently ruined a village shop keeper because the ‘chine and gammon had been preached away 63 (though it is not clear whether the disaster was entirely Adams’s fault) ; the other, an impecunious village preacher caught stealing cabbages from a Salisbury garden. Somewhat inconsistently, in the same tract Malham accused educated men of joining the Dissenters for ‘a lucrative situation’®4 and others, ‘confined in the week HS to the shop-board or the lap-stone’, for financial or social rewards by issuing from Salisbury ‘on the Sunday morning dressed cap-a-pee [sic], in pantaloons, with shining boots, and glittering spurs,...to dispense THE WORD, in the villages to which they have been respectively appointed for the day’.°5 Beyond all else the High Churchmen opposed Dissent on the ground of schism and sedition. Bowen arraigned the Nonconformists of the former because they did not ‘maintain visible com- munion’.°® Malham rebutted the sufficiency of doctrinal agreement (Orthodox Dissenters could have subscribed to the doctrinally vital Thirty-Nine Articles) because ‘By rejecting a part of the establishment, they are as much subject to the charge of being Dissenters, as by denying the whole.’®7 When Kingsbury retorted that the Ecclesia Anglicana itself had seceded at the Reformation, Bowen replied ‘No church is a sound part of the Catholic Church, which maintains the doctrines of image worship, invocation of saints, transubstantiation, pardons, indulgences, sacrifice of the mass, merit, supererogation, &c., &c.; because such doctrines plainly contradict the Holy Scriptures.’®* Sometimes it could be convenient to appeal to Scripture, though the High Churchmen placed as much weight, if not more, on tradition. Their view of the organization of the church militant was based on the unreformed doctrine of Apostolic Succession, but of course this did not yet entail the supremacy of Rome. According to this, episcopal government had been divinely instituted and separation from it constituted sin. For a theory of the Church and State alliance the High Church party relied more on Hooker than Warburton. Thus under their Jacobean Erastianism the corollary of Divine Right was ‘no bishop, no king’ and schism neatly merged into sedition. Consequently, Bowen and Malham viewed village preaching as a cloak for political subversion. This Bowen assumed because of the Dissenters’ anxiety to convert only ‘the very dregs of the people ..., men, possessed of no property, and of no understanding, weak and unprincipled; .. . pliant and able instruments... under an ambitious and designing faction... It has ever been the leading principle of all revolutionists to overthrow the church, as the first step to a political revolution.’®9 Such a hypothesis would appeal to the upper propertied and educated layers in the static stratified English society of the day, particularly as the French Revolution still loomed large on all horizons. In striving to damn the Dissenters even further, Bowen liberally quoted Goldsmith’s History of England (1771) for the opinion that the Independents led by Cromwell had murdered Charles I, and that modern Dissenters had inherited (by what Lincoln has termed ‘political original sin’) anti-monarchical and anti-constitutional sentiments. Bowen mistakenly ascribed Wansey to the Independents, so that even the Rational Dissent- ers did not escape this stigma. Malham too, pronounced the preachers guilty of wanting ‘to subvert REGAL and EPISCOPAL government’,7° finishing the sweep of his Broom with a pious but insinuating quotation from the Litany: ‘From all sedition, privy conspiracy and rebellions; from all false doctrine, heresy and schism, GooD LORD, DELIVER Us. 71! News of the Wiltshire Independent Ministers Association in 1797, supported by John Adams in Salisbury, enabled Bowen to add a more ominous note to his Appeal to the People, whilst Malham could complain that the growth of Dissent, in causing a dearth of horses for hire on Sundays, at the very least gave much inconvenience to the clergy. Both pamphleteers carefully omitted specifying ways 76 to restrict the preachers, but in urging that some action be taken opened up various possibilities such as a greater strictness in the issuing of Nonconformist preacher’s and meetings’ licences, or a wider application of the Sedition Act by Magistrates (which Malham hinted at) or even an amendment of the Toleration Act. Bowles did not join the High Churchmen in all their violent strictures on Dissent. He distinguished between the Orthodox and Rational Nonconformists, showing sympathy for the former and a pronounced aversion to the latter in all his four tracts. He argued that Wansey’s indictments were founded on distorting generaliza- tions; as for the few knaves in clerical orders, “To their own God they stand or fall.’72 Correctly, Bowles placed Wansey with Priestley’s Unitarians with whom ‘prejudice, as far as I can make out, consists in the belief in the Athanasian Creed, and sub- scription to the Thirty-Nine Articles’.73 Wansey’s philippic against Kirk (the Scarborough vicar who had consecretated the colours of the Third West York Regiment of Militia) and clergy condoning the French wars particularly annoyed Bowles (a militia chaplain himself). In descending to malicious ridicule with two sets of Grub-street verses (one, The Dissenter Done Over, a parody of Wansey’s Letter ; the other, A True Account (a caricature of Wansey himself), Bowles directed attention to the clothier’s abhorrence of violence: ‘But O, that dreadful Mr. Kirk— Give him a turban—he’s a Turk See him with pistol, sword and gun Make all the meek believers run! We tremble at such direful work! Spare us, O spare us, mighty Kirk! Spare us, O Mahomet’s dread vicar, And smoke thy pipe, and swill thy liquor Rather than wet thy rusty knife At us—but sure I heard his fife. . .’”4 In denigrating Wansey, Bowles sought to associate him with the extremists favouring the French Revolution. His parting shot in A Rowland for an Oliver inferred Wansey’s sympathy for the London Corresponding Society with a rather devastating pun: ‘If I might add a little advice with respect to Authorship, I would just whisper to you two words: Ne sutor ultra crepidam: which signifieth, Stick to the Spinning Jenny.’ 75 Plautus’s tag, ‘let the shoemaker stick to his last’, must have recalled the radical shoemaker Thomas Hardy. But most damaging to Wansey’s reputation was Bowles’s coupling of Wansey’s name with that of James Napper Tandy.7° Tandy, a revolu- tionary United Irishman and friend of Wolfe Tone, made, on 16th September 1798, one of several futile attempts to raise a Protestant rebellion in Ireland; the affair ended as a fiasco with ‘Tandy’s followers taking their leader off the coast of Donegal blind drunk. In so vilifying Wansey, Bowles’s object must have been to create the spectre of a Protestant Vinegar Hill. Rights of Discussion received short shrift from Bowles, who did not hesitate to class its authors as Rational Dissenters in his Fair Play is a Jewel. Also in this last tract of the controversy the Orthodox Dissen- ters, but not the Methodist ‘ranters’,77 were defended by Bowles. He denied that their motives were political; referring to Malham’s Broom he asserted, “These im- proper and intolerant expressions, the majority of the Clergy would not avow, any eg more, than the respectable part of the Dissenters would avow Mr. W.’s absurd abuse, and many other intolerant sentiments, avowed by some of their society, against the Church.’78 Bowles described Kingsbury as ‘an amiable and venerable man’79 and, in this respect, Malham’s Broom ‘an injudicious attack’.8° Bowles, judging by the fact that no cleric challenged him, appears to have put forward the views of the majority of the clergy of the diocese in A Rowland for an Oliver, his only completely serious pamphlet. Though the Rational Dissenters defended the right of their Orthodox brethren to preach in the villages, they tended to widen the controversy into a debate between Nonconformity and Establishment. Besides not being militant evangelists, they desired to strengthen their own position by aligning themselves with the rest of Dissent. Wansey attributed the decline in parish church attendances not to Noncon- formist preachers but to the worldliness of the clergy. Seen during the week ‘hunting or shooting, or swearing, or drinking, or equipt like a Jockey in a velvet cap, a huntsman’s belt, or buckskin breeches, or a scarlet coat, or some dress quite in the kick of fashion’,’! they seemed more interested in the pursuit either of pleasure or sinecures, certainly not the study of the Scriptures (relying instead on printed ser- mons). Wansey rashly announced that there was more religion in France than Eng- land. Fisher implied that laxity in parish church worship could not have attracted people, particularly the ‘carelessness and indifference of those who swell the loud organ’ and the dependence on ‘the nasal twang of the clerk’ or the few in the gallery ‘who, with the help of an oboe, and so forth, arrogate to themselves to the office of offering up psalms and anthems for a whole congregation’.*? Between them the Rationalists made a number of other diverse censures on the Establishment: its control of tithes; its grip on public schools and universities; its lack of concern for the poor; clerical participation in the militia (though Wansey was not a pacifist in spite of the impression given in Bowles’s lampoons) ;*3 the subjection of the episcopacy to the politicians; and, most of all, the rigidity of the Church’s doctrinal ‘scheme’ (for by abolishing clerical subscription to the Articles, Unitarians could have remained honestly within the Establishment). In defence of Dissent, Wansey asked the clergy to adopt Gamaliel’s advice, to remember that the Establishment too had once seceded, and that the great Chatham had spoken in their favour; above all, that St. Paul had not been unduly disturbed by divisions at Corinth and that the right of private judgement (resurrected as the ground of toleration when the natural rights argument fell from favour at the outbreak of the French Revolution) must be exercised in matters religious because the magistrate was impotent with regard to future happiness—for this Wansey quoted Dr. John Jebb. Fisher’s most interesting variation in his apology for Dissent was his refutation of the charge of schism: in the first place the Scriptures were a nose of wax ‘bent to accomodate [sc] the party spectacles through which they are read’;84 more radically his wide doctrine of the church made schism nigh impossible for ‘there exists but one catholic church... and... the Church of England forms part of it? and ‘our dissenting brethren of every denomination, good Catholics, good Lutherans, good Calvinists, good Methodists, and good men of every Christian persuasion, form the glorious catholic church’.85 78 Lastly, there were the tracts of the Orthodox Dissenters. Their goal was simply to enjoy liberty to preach the Gospel; to this end they emphasized their doctrinal affinity with the Establishment in all except ‘circumstantials’’® (appertaining to church government or the practice of baptism, for example) and their segregation from the Rationalists, whom they regarded as heretics. The writings of Clift and Kingsbury are distinguished by their defensive attitudes and the absence of the verbal abuse employed by most of the other pamphleteers, especially the clerical ones. In repudiating the charge of schism Clift not only stressed the doctrinal identity of Orthodox Anglicans and Nonconformists but also appealed to the examples of Baxter, Hopkins, Leighton, Jewel, Burnet and Secker. Yet Clift and Kingsbury were most disturbed by the taint of sedition. Schism offended only the minority High Church party, whilst sedition (if the charge could be made to stick) would alienate the powerful middle and upper classes now very sensitive to the slightest threat to their life or property. Hence Kingsbury devoted his pamphlet to proving the political innocence of the itinerant Gospel preachers. He refuted the imputation of sedition with two arguments: firstly, the historical one that, far from being regicides in the seventeenth century, the Independents had nearly all objected to the death of Charles I (his authorities were Clarendon and Neal); secondly, the empirical argument, that Protestant Dissenters had already declared their allegiance to the throne, preached loyal sermons, prayed for the royal family, supported ‘the present armed assoctations’’7 and ‘the religion of the Bible, which we teach . .. condemns those who despise governments.’ Clift also demonstrated that village preaching demanded great personal sacrifices from the itinerants, and the conversions that followed improved the morals of hitherto dissipated men. Repercussions in Establishment and Nonconformity at both individual and national levels were soon felt. Bishop Douglas must have been relieved to observe that by 1800 the numbers of Dissenters’ meetings certified annually had dropped rapidly and remained at a comforting level till his death on 18th May 1807. He rewarded Malham with the vicarage of Hilton in Dorset in 1800;89 for his part Malham promptly practised his belief in non-residence by spending the rest of his life in the religious publication trade in London.9° Bowen moved to St. Albans in 1803 where the mayor and aldermen had appointed him master of the Free Grammar School. During his long career there (till his death in c. 1857) Bowen amassed sine- cures worth between £500 and £1,000 p.a., depending on how many fee-paying pupils he illegally taught.9! Plainly Bowles had most pleased his Ordinary in the village preaching controversy, for not long after Douglas collated him to two pre- bendal stalls (Stratford on 16th January 1804 and Major Pars Altaris on 13th February 1805).9? In spite of their obscurity the Nonconformist pamphleteers have not entirely disappeared. By 1805 Wansey had retired to his native Warminster, remaining a firm Rational Dissenter to the end and latterly combining his agricultural and religious interests to fight tithes through the Bath & West of England Society.93 Clift moved from Chippenham to Frome in 1799,94 but was at Marlborough in 180295 and still retaining his missionary enthusiasm, for in 1805 he registered an Independent meeting at Oare near Pewsey.9® Kingsbury eventually retired, on 17th December 1805, to Caversham near Reading. To the last he maintained his support 79 for the growing work of the London Missionary Society; fittingly, after his death in 1818, the Rev. Dr. David Bogue preached his memorial sermon from the Above Bar pulpit.97 The controversy was probably but an early stage in the debate over the revision of the Toleration Act. ‘This had exempted Dissenting ministers from militia duty and parish offices but, as seen, since the 17th century a new kind of preacher, the un- educated itinerant, had appeared and very occasionally took to the calling solely to take advantage of these privileges,9* naturally more so in wartime. Malham made a vague reference to these privileges in his Broom99 but the question did not come to the surface in the 1798 Salisbury debate because it was more damaging to Dissenters to call them revolutionaries; because Rational Dissenters did not send out official itinerant missionaries (till the Unitarian Fund employed Richard Wright in 1806) ;1°° and because no abuses of the Toleration Act occurred in the Salisbury diocese. But within two years the problem of irregular Nonconformist preachers became apparent. Wilberforce, the leading Evangelical Anglican of the day, cited Salisbury as the first example of a place where ‘raw ignorant lads’ went out ‘on preaching parties every Sunday’.'°! The Salisbury case very likely spurred the High Churchmen, Michael Angelo Taylor, M.P. for Durham, and Dr. George Pretyman, bishop of Lincoln, to draw up a bill early in 1800 restricting Nonconformist preach- ing. Wilberforce recorded his horror on hearing of itt°? and vainly pleaded with Pitt not to support it. Mysteriously, the bill was never introduced, possibly because of the danger of dividing the nation in the face of the French foe. Later came Sid- mouth’s futile attempt to amend the Toleration Act in 1811. After this, Nonconform- ity took the initiative from the Establishment. The Protestant Dissenting Deputies procured the repeal of the Five Mile and Conventicle Acts the following year and reintroduced their campaign for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. By the time they succeeded in 1828, the threat of violent revolution had passed and the two wings of Dissent were parting company. The Unitarians (having used the Dissenting Deputies to obtain, by William Smith’s Act of 1813, the favours of the Toleration Act) began to suffer from the divisions resulting from efforts to reconcile the right of private judgement with Scripture in the absence of a theological scheme. Whilst the Rationalists waned the Orthodox Dissenters flourished: out of a total of 729 places of worship in Wiltshire in 1851, only 2 belonged to the Unitarians; the rest were shared between Establishment and Orthodox Nonconformity.*°3 This limited local study of a late 18th-century controversy between Establish- ment and Dissent confirms much that has been demonstrated in wider surveys. Perhaps the most interesting variation emerging from this essay is the dominance of the Independents, not the Methodists as might have been expected, in village preaching in the Salisbury diocese 1791-1807. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am most grateful to Miss J. de L. Mann and Mr. K. H. Rogers for their valuable criticisms of earlier drafts of this essay, to the Herefordshire County Library for an excellent library service, and to my wife for her constant encouragement and assistance with typing. 80 APPENDIX A List of the tracts bound in W. M. Bowen’s volume, Bowen’s Tracts: Wanseyan Con- troversy, in the possession of Southampton University Library, in the order of publication.* I. Bowen’s pamphlets not related to the controversy Il. its 20 3. W. M. Bowen, A Serious Address to the People of England, on the subject of A Reform, and the Necessity of Keal and Unanimity in Defence of their Country (Salisbury: J. Easton; London: T. N. Longman, 1798), pp. 63. Ist ed. dated 8 February 1798 (p. 63); 3rd ed. dated 8 June 1798—from Newton Tony, Wilts. (Preface). James Johnson [W. M. Bowen], A Sermon on the Preservation of Integrity (London: T. N. Longman, 1798), pp. 27. The ‘Advertisement’ is dated 10 May 1708. An English Constitutionalist [W. M. Bowen], A Cool Appeal to the Sober Sense of Englishmen: or, Republicanism and Monarchy considered (Salisbury: J. Easton; London: J. Hatchard; F. & C. Rivington, 1798), pp. 46. Controversy pamphlets 4. 10. Il. A Clergyman in the Diocese of Salisbury [W. M. Bowen], An Appeal to the People, on the Alleged Causes of the Dissenters’ Separation from the Established Church: to which are subjoined A Few Cautionary Observations in respect to their Present Political Views (Salisbury: J. Easton; London: F. & C. Rivington; J. Hatchard, 1798), pp. 44. end ed. advertised in Salisbury Journal, 15 October 1708. . A Dissenter, H. W. [H. Wansey], A Letter to the Bishop of Salisbury, on his late charge To the Clergy of his Diocese (Salisbury: B. C. Collins; London: Wilkie, 1798), pp. 26. Dated ‘Salisbury, SEPTEMBER 11, 1798’ (p. 25). . A Country Curate [J. Malham], Remarks on A Letter to the Bishop of Salisbury, on his late charge to the Clergy of his Diocese: By H. W. of Salisbury, a Dissenter, with some Cursory Hints in defence of the Inferior Clergy (Salisbury: J. Easton; London: F. & C. Rivington; J. Hatchard, 1798), pp. 42. Dated 18 September 17098 (p. 42). . A Critic [W. M. Bowen], Strictures, on A Letter to the Bishop of Salisbury, on his late charge to the Clergy of his Diocese: by H. W. of Salisbury, a Dissenter ; Author of ‘A Tour to the United States of America’ (Salisbury: J. Easton; London: F. & C. Rivington; J. Hatchard, 1798), pp. 32. . G. W. [W. L. Bowles], A Rowland for an Oliwer, addressed to Mr. Wansey, on his Letter to the Bishop of Salisbury (Salisbury: J. Easton; London: F. & C. Rivington; J. Hatchard, 1798), pp. 39 . Rev. S. Clift, An Incidental Letter, addressed to The Lord Bishop of Sarum, August the gth, 1798, the day of his visitation Held at Chippenham, Wilts. with some observations and reflections in favour of Village Preaching (Chippenham: J. M. Coombs; Gloucester: Washbourne, 1798), pp. 24. William Kingsbury, M.A., An Apology for Village Preachers: or, An Account of the Proceedings and Motives of Protestant Dissenters, And Serious Christians of other Denomina- tions, in their attempts to suppress Infidelity and Vice, and to Spread Vital Religion in Country Places ; especially Where the Means of Pious Instruction, among the Poor are Rare: With some Animadversions on an Anonymous ‘Appeal to the People’: and Replies to Objections (Southampton: T. Baker; London: T. Chapman; 8. Conder; IT’. Conder; Salisbury: B. C. Collins, 1798), pp. 56. Dated 20 October 1798 (p. vi). [W. L. Bowles], The Dissenter Done Over; or the Woeful Lamentation of Mr. H. W. A Wiltshire Clothier ; setting forth How the Clergy of this Realm, all dressed in fiery Scarlet, have * The order of publication is found in Malham’s Broom, pp. 1-7. 81 12 13. attacked with Mastiffs, Guns, and Pistols, the poor Lamb-like and inoffensive Dissenters, Describing also The dreadful Vicar of Scarborough, with a Turban on his Head, and the Koran in his Hand, crying out, ‘Fee, faw, fum’.—The whole Faithfully translated from the inimitable Production of the same Mr. H. W.; and set to the Tune of The Taylor Done Over’. With a Frontispiece (Salisbury: Ae Easton; London: F. & C. Rivington 1798), pp. 8. P. P. [W. L. Bowles], A True Account of the Deplorable Malady of H---y W----.), a Wiltshire Clothier; Shewing How he mistook a Barber for a Clergyman in a red Coat; and a Lancet, with which it was attempted to bleed him, for a Scymitar, Being An Epistle From his Cook-maid, Doll Dish-clout, to Mrs. Bacon, the Tallow-chandler’s Wife (Salisbury: J. Easton; London: F. & C. Rivington; J. Hatchard, 1798), pp. 8. Brian Monckhouse [W. M. Bowen], A Letter to W. Kingsbury, of Southampton, M.A., in answer to his Apology for Village Preachers: and his Animadversions on a part of an Appeal to the People (Salisbury: J. Easton; London: F. & C. Rivington; J. Hatchard, 1798), Pp. 44. Dated ‘OXFORD, Oct. 27, 1798’ (p. 44). . Rev. John Malham, ‘A Broom for the Gonventicle: or The Arguments for Village Preaching Examined and Fairly Discussed; more particularly Obviating the Unfounded Assertions of Mr. Kingsbury, of Southampton, and Mr. Clift, of Chippenham, with Observations on The Various Replies to Mr. H. W.’s Letter to the Bishop of Salisbury, And the other Publications on this Subject (Salisbury: J. Easton; London: F. & C. Rivington; J. Hatchard, 1798), pp. 62. Dated ‘Salisbury, Nov. 13, 1798’ (p. 62). . A Friend to Civil and Religious Liberty [Joseph Fisher of Ringwood, Attorney at Law & others], Rights of Discussion ; or a Vindication of Dissenters, of Every Denomination : with A Review of the Controversy, occasioned by a late pastoral charge of the Bishop of Salisbury. To which ts added, Hints for Pastoral Charges (London: ‘Thomas Clio Rickman, Upper Mary-le-bone Street, 1799), pp. 150. . A By-Stander [W. L. Bowles], Fair Play is a Jewel: or, the Language and Conduct of the Discussers Discussed: in which the case is fairly stated respecting the Bishop of Salisbury’s Late Charge, and Mr. Wansey’s Letter: The [liberal Charges brought against the Clergy are repelled; and the Pretensions of Some, among Dissenters, to Exclusive Wisdom and Charity, are examined: Occastoned by a Pamphlet, entitled ‘Rights of Discussion’ (Salisbury: J. Easton; London: J. Hatchard; F. & C. Rivington; Southampton: T. Baker; Bath: R. Cruttwell, 1799), pp. 63.7 III. Other Pamphlets in the Volume 17. Joseph Phipps, A Mew Reflections occasioned by the Injurious Treatment of the People called 18. Quakers, on account of their Conscientious Nonconformity to Public Fasts and Festivals, and The Rejoicings of Political Parties (Salisbury: J. Easton, High St., 1799), pp. 8. Rev. David Rivers, Late Preacher to a Congregation of Dissenters at Highgate, Observations on the Political Conduct of the Protestant Dissenters; including A Retrospective View of ther History, from the time of Queen Elizabeth ; In Five Letters to a Friend (London: T. Burton; Rivingtons; ‘E. Booker, Harding, & Mr. Stewart’, 1798). Of some interest is the fact that the booksellers remained loyal to their respective chents in this controversy. At Salisbury, James Easton (who had published Wansey’s Excursion in 1796 and 1798) sold for the clerics and B. C. Collins (the publisher of the Salisbury Journal) for both kinds of Dissenter, Wansey and Kingsbury. t At the end of his own copy of Fair Play Bowen wrote “The end of ye Wanseyan Con- troversy’. 82 t B. L. Manning, The Protestant Dissenting Deputies (Cambridge, 1952), 131. 2 In the Salisbury Diocesan Record Office, The Wren Hall, The Close, Salisbury. 3 In the General Register Office, Somerset House, W.C.2. It would be an impossible, though desirable, task to provide the total number of Dissenting meetings, and sizes of memberships, in Wiltshire in the 1790s and then relate these to the population, standing at 185,000 in 1801. 4 See Marjorie Reeves, ‘Protestant Non- conformity’, V.C.H., Wilts., 11. 5 Converted in her late teens through reading religious books belonging to her clothier brother, Coles Cook, Mrs. Joanna Turner (1732-84) renounced wordly pleasures after reading and hearing Whitefield in the early 1760s. Later, when the blacksmith’s house at Trowbridge proved insufficient for her congregation. she sacrificially purchased ‘a piece of garden-ground’ on which the Tabernacle was afterwards built. So many, meanwhile, attended services that the floor of an upper room she rented in the centre of Trowbridge, capable of holding a hundred people, became unsafe and unusable. The Tabernacle was opened on 20th November 1771, five years after her marriage to Thomas Turner, which had brought her into the retail side of the local textile trades. During her latter years her evangelistic efforts centred on rural areas: in 1782 she opened a chapel at Tisbury and here William Jay first gained the notice of Cornelius Winter. (See Mary Wells, ed., Memoir of Mrs. Joanna Turner, privately printed 1787; London, 1820, 23-5, 30-56, 100-19, 135-65.) John Clark (1745-1808) recalled that he preached at ‘Romsey-Winterbourn-Salisbury’ (sic) when he took a journey to dispose of his cloth in Feb. 1769, and again, that in Feb. 1779, ‘Gave exhortation to my spinners at Rockly, near Marlborough, after [ had paid them: had much liberty and pleasure, and was heard with great attention.’ (W. Jay, ed., Memoirs of the late Rev. John Clark, Bath, 1810, 17 and 55 respectively.) 6 G. Redford and J. A. James, eds., The Autobiography of the Rev. William Jay (London, 1855), 169. Jay became a notable and mellifluous preacher in early Victorian Bath. 7 For all material on Winter, see W. Jay, ed., Memoirs of the Life and Character of the Late Rev. Cornelius Winter (Bath, 1808). 8 A. Antrobus, History of the Wilts. and East Somerset Congregational Union (London, 1947) and Marjorie Reeves in V.C.H., Wilts., 11, for example. 9 See the Evangelical Magazine, 1798, 291; 1800, 218; 1818, 474; Jay, Memoirs of Clark, 57; Jay, Memoirs of Winter, 203; Wells, Memoirs of Mrs. Joanna Turner, 128; and the Congregational Hist. Soc. Trans., 1V (1909-10), 373, for Sloper. 10 Evangelical Magazine, 1805, 177. tr Return of Certified Places of Worship, 1757-1852, Salis. Dioc. R.O., 3. 12 Bowen, Appeal to the People, 17, footnote (see Appendix for pamphlets). 13 Evangelical Magazine, 1798, 201. ™ See R. Lovett, The History of the London Missionary Society, 1795-1895 (London, 1899), I. 15 Kingsbury, Apology for Village Preachers, 10. ™6 Redford and James, Autobiography of Fay, 40. 17 Kingsbury, Apology for Village Preachers, 11. 18 Clift, Incidental Letter, 22. ™9 Redford and James, Autobiography of Fay, 41. 20 Gents. Mag., txvui, Part II, 750. 21 T. Clarke and H. Trend, Historical Sketch of the Western Association (Bridgwater, 1842). 22 Circular Letter of the Western Association of Baptist Churches, 1798, 13. 23 See Preliminaries appended to the Circular Letters and also W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (London, 1911), 215-89. 24 See J. Ryland, Pastoral Memorials (London, 1628), m1. 25 Circular Letter, 1798, 2-3. 26 Ibid., 12. 27 See Antrobus, History of the Wilts. and East Somserset Cong. Union. 28 Tbid., 19. 29 Salisbury Journal, 20 Aug. 1798; Bath Chronicle, 23 Aug. 1708. 30 Return of Certified Places of Worship, 1757-1852, Salis. Dioc. R.O., 5-6. 3t See W. Macdonald, Select Works of... John Douglas... with a Biographical Memoir (Salisbury, 1620); N. Sykes, Church and State in England in the r8th Century (Cambridge, 1934); D.N.B. Un-- fortunately Douglas’s MS. Autobiography in the British Museum (B.M., Eg. 2181) ends at 22 July 1796. 32 J. Boswell, Life of Johnson (Oxford Standard Authors, 1957), 177. 33 Loose sheet at the back of the Subscription Book, 1789-1807. Salis. Dioc. R.O. 34 W. H. Jones Fasti Ecclesiae Sarisberiensis (Salisbury, 1879), 177. 35 J. Foster, Alumni Oxonienses, 1715-1886. 36 Uncatalogued collection of testimonials, Salis. Dioc. R.O. 37 Subscription Book, 1789-1807, Salis. Dioc. R.O. for this date. 38 Bishop’s Clergy Book, 1798, Salis. Dioc. R.O. 39 Salisbury Journal, 15 Sept. 1794. 4° Bowen, Serious Address, 22. 4x DNB. 42 Bishop's Clergy Books, 1792 and 1795. Staple- ford was worth £40 in the early 18th century to its holder and South Newton £45-60 (18th Century Salisbury Diocese Book, Salis. Dioc. R.O., 17 and 22 respectively). 43 Bishop’s Clergy Book, 1708. 44 At £80 in the early 18th Century (18th Century Salisbury Diocese Book, Salis. Dioc. R.O., 35). 45 See G. Greever, A Wiltshire Parson and his Friends (London, 1926); D.N.B. 46 D.N.B. 47 Henry Wansey, Will (Somerset House), proved London, 13 Aug. 1827, 1. 48 Inscription in Bowen’s copy. 49 J. T. Boulton, The Language of Politics in the Age of Wilkes and Burke (London, 1963), 88. 5° Clift, Incidental Letter, 3. 5t Redford and James, Autobiography of Fay, 49. 52 Jay, Memoirs of Winter, 203. 53 See J. Bullar, Memoirs of the late Rev. William Kingsbury, M.A. (London, 1819). 83 54S. Stainer, History of the Above Bar Con- gregational Church, Southampton, from 1662 to 1908 (Southampton, 1909), 313, 307-9, and 305 respectively. 55 Ibid., 93 56 IT am indebted to the Librarian of South- ampton University for a loan of this volume. 57 A. H. Lincoln, Some Political and Social Ideas of English Dissent, 1763-1800 (Cambridge, 1938) and Ursula Henriques, Religious Toleration in England, 1787-1833 (London, 1961). 8 Malham, Remarks, 4-5. 59 Anti-facobin Review, 1798, 409-15. 60 Malham, Broom, 11. 6x [bid., 1 62 Bowen, Letter to Kingsbury, 14. 63 Malham, Broom, 36-38. 64 Ibid., 55. 65 Ibid., 54. 66 Bowen, Appeal to the People, 26. 67 Malham, Broom, 31. 68 Bowen, Letter to Kingsbury, 26. 69 Bowen, Appeal to the People, 32-3. 7° Malham, Broom, 19. 7 Ibid., 62. 72 Bowles, A Rowland, 7. 73 Ibid., 24. 74 Bowles, Dissenter Done Over, 5-6. 75 Bowles, A Rowland, 39. 76 D.N.B. 77 Bowles, Fair Play, 16. 78 Ibid., 44. 79 Ibid., 42. 80 Ibid. 81 Wansey, Letter, 7-8. 82 Fisher, Rights of Discussion, 131. 83 On board the packet Portland, when sailing from Falmouth to Halifax, N.S., in March/April 1794, Wansey himself was prepared to defend the ship against French privateers (H. Wansey, An Excursion to the United States of North America in the summer of 1794, first ed., Salisbury, 1796, 10). 84 Fisher, Rights of Discussion, 77. 85 Ibid., 74. 86 Kingsbury, Apology for Village Preachers, v. 87 [bid., 28. 88 T[bid., 29. 89 Bristol Diocese Act Book, 1782-1810, Bristol R.O., entry for 30th April 1800. Worth £120 in the early 18th Century, Bristol Diocese Book, 1735, Bristol R.O., 337; and £309 in 1840, Salisbury Diocese Book, 1840, Salis. Dioc. R.O., 24. 9° D.N.B. 9t See A. E. Gibbs, ed., The Corporation Records of St. Albans (1890) and F. M. L. Thompson, St. Albans School in the Abbey (St. Albans, Abbey Papers No. 2). 92 Subscription Book, 1789-1807, Salis.. Dioc. R.O., entries for these dates. 93 Bath and West Society Archives, Iv. 94 Evangelical Magazine, 1799, 218. 95 Ibid., 1802, 290. 96 Return of Certified Places of Worship, 1757-1852, Salis. Dioc. R.O., entry for 18 Oct. 1805. 97 Evangelical Magazine, 1818, 161 (obituary) ; 1822, 301-4 (for brief memoir). 98 Manning, Protestant Dissenting Deputies, 130-4. Clark noted that, ‘being in danger of some parish offices’, he had himself licensed as a preacher at the Devizes Quarter Sessions on 13th April 1774 (Jay, Memoirs of Clark, 41). 99 Malham, Broom, 49; this reminder of Pitt’s Sedition Act aroused Fisher (Rights of Discussion, 53). too R, Wright, A Review of the Missionary Life and Labours of Richard Wright (London, 1824), 91. ror R. I, and S. Wilberforce, The Life of William Wilberforce (London, 1838), 1, 361. 102 [bid., 360. Entry in diary for 16 March 1800. 103 V.C.H., Wilts., 11, 144. NORTON MANOR, NEAR MALMESBURY A HOUSE TRANSFORMED by JUNE BADENI IN 1856, the fourth Lord Holland, who had lately retired from the Diplomatic Service, was visiting his properties in North Wiltshire. One of them—an old manor house and the land belonging to it in the parish of Norton, near Malmesbury—he had never seen, and Canon Jackson, the well-known Wiltshire antiquary, who was then completing the first of his four decades as vicar of the parish, decided to see what he could do to interest his Lordship in it. Hearing that Holland was staying in Malmesbury, he went to call on him, taking with him a small oil painting of the house (pL. IIIa) which had been done a few years previously by A. Provis of Chip- penham and which Canon Jackson had bought from John Britton, a fellow antiquary. Lord Holland was much surprised and pleased to find that he owned such an interesting house. ‘What,’ he exclaimed, ‘does that belong to me? I didn’t know I had any house there at all except some sort of farmhouse.’ He visited Norton a day or so later and was very much taken with it.! Norton Manor had been built in two stages. In 1616, Thomas Workman, whose family had been tenants of the land under the Estcourt family for just on 20 years, bought the gabled house facing west in which he lived,? and, seven years later, he added on to it a square block facing south, of great charm and of much more sophisticated architecture. In 1652, Thomas Workman’s son sold the house to John Jacob of Wootton Bassett;3 after remaining for almost a hundred years in the Jacob family, it was bought by Henry Fox, later the rst Lord Holland.¢ This was the father of Charles James Fox. He occupied various Government posts, including that of Paymaster General, and, having gambled away all he had asa young man, he amassed another fortune and got himself much disliked. He was made a peer in 1763 and took the title of Baron Holland of Foxley which is the next village to Norton and where he had inherited property.s There is no record that he ever came to Norton but he may well have done so. When his great-grandson visited it at Canon Jackson’s suggestion, the house, after long years of neglect, had become two separate dwellings, the best rooms were full of old harness and many of the windows were stuffed with sacks.°¢ The south block, built by Thomas Workman, was then occupied by a farmer called Kilmister whom Canon Jackson described as ‘one of the most ignorant, pig-headed, impracticable snobs that ever was a nuisance in a parish’. Soon after Lord Holland’s visit, the Ganon decided to make him a present of the oil painting—an act of generosity which he afterwards said he regretted. Lord Holland, writing from Paris to thank him, said, ‘I was very struck with the curious 85 old house and I mean to fit up a few rooms in it that I may go there occasionally in the shooting season... I could not bear to see the old place falling so rapidly into decay. I wish to make the south side habitable, but as it will never be much lived in, by me at least, I do not contemplate making any very extensive or expensive altera- tions.’ In fact, he finally decided to spend £1,500 on it—in those days a quite con- siderable sum—but he died soon afterwards.7 Plainly, his ideas were large, for it is on record that when he and Lady Holland went to Chertsey to stay a night with the widow of Charles James Fox they took 10 servants, their own bedding and their own confectioner.§® There is no record of what structural alterations Lord Holland made inside the house, but his touch is still apparent in the tiles that surround the smoking-room fireplace—blue Hs on a white ground, the bars of the Hs being formed of coronets —and, by comparing the list of rooms given in Thomas Workman’s will with those existing today, some rough idea may be formed of the changes that have taken place. Most of these must have been during Holland’s ownership. But, until recently, no clue existed as to what he did to the outside of the house, and it was a tantalizing blank in the story that I was trying to reconstruct of the village and of the house which had, in the meantime, become the property of my father. One day, about a hundred years after Lord Hoiland’s first visit to Norton, I was working on some papers in the Society of Antiquaries and there I came across Canon Jackson’s reference to the picture and his gift of it. This, obviously, was what I wanted and, for a time, I was full of hope that I might find it. But enquiries in likely quarters elicited no information. ‘Time passed and hope lessened. Possibly, I thought, it had been destroyed or—since, as far as I knew, it was not inscribed—it was in the possession of someone who had no idea of the identity of the house. I gave up. Then, four or five years later, came one of those sudden and unexpected strokes of luck that do sometimes come from the blue to give new life to a trail that seemed dead. My father sent on to me a letter that he had received from a resident of Chertsey in Surrey enclosing a photograph of a picture—of the picture. The writer, addressing my father as owner of the house, said that the photograph, which might interest him, showed a picture in his possession which was inscribed on the rear of the frame as follows: ‘A Farm House at Norton, near Malmesbury, now belonging to Lord Holland and occupied by Robert Kilmister. This picture was painted by A. Provis, of Chippenham, and was purchased from Mr. J. Britton of London by J. E. Jackson, Vicar of Norton, 23 September 1850.’ Of course I was immensely excited and wrote at once to my father’s correspon- dent asking him how the picture came into his possession. He had bought it, he told me, three or four years before in a junk shop at Kingston-on-Thames. His theory of how it got there is an interesting one. Charles James Fox lived at Chertsey and, after his widow’s death in 1842, their house, St. Anne’s Hill, passed to her husband’s great nephew, the Lord Holland of our story. After Ais death, his widow made considerable additions and alterations to St. Anne’s Hill and seems to have made it her principal residence. It would seem likely that she had brought the picture there, among her other possessions. When she died, the house at Chertsey, like the house 86 at Norton, went to her husband’s nephew, Lord Lilford, and it remained in that family until about 1925. When it was sold, there was probably a sale of furniture and presumably the picture was then bought by someone local and so passed even- tually into the shop at Kingston. The picture illustrates how the appearance of a house can be changed and, even more, its character altered, without it undergoing what could really be called major reconstructions. In the picture by Provis (px. IIa) the south front of Norton Manor is shown with gables which make it entirely typical of the small Cotswold manor house. In the course of the reconstruction by Lord Holland, these gables were removed (pL. I1I[b)—a bold step to take but one which undoubtedly succeeded. With the gables gone and the deeper line of the roof taking their place, the porch built by Thomas Workman in 1623 shows to much greater advantage and the south front is altogether more striking, especially as it has been rendered somewhat different from the typical house of that countryside. Incidentally, the roof was renewed by Lady Holland after her husband’s death but it again fell into a bad state of repair and, in 1901, the then owner, Captain Fenwick, re-roofed it with red tiles. My grandmother, on buying the house in 1911, took these off and replaced them with tiles of local stone again. : There are, of course, other changes illustrated by Provis’s picture. The chimney at the east side of the front has gone and the entrance archway has been set back to a distance of 50 yards from the house and is now flanked by iron railings on top of a stone wall instead of by the balustrading seen in the picture which was evidently then already in a state of decay. ‘The gabled block at the left side of Provis’s picture is problematical. Since there is—and has always been—a block behind the south front and at right angles to it, it seems very unlikely that there could have been one in the position shown by Provis as it would have been so close against the other block as to exclude all light from it. The most likely solution is that Provis has used artist’s licence and turned the 16th century block round to show it in his picture. It may be interesting to people who own pictures of old houses and wish to identify them to see just how hard the task of identification can be without the help of an inscription such as Canon Jackson thoughtfully provided. ™ Canon Jackson’s notes (Norton) in Society of 5 Dictionary of National Biography. Antiquaries. 6 Jackson, op. cit. 2 Deed in Wiltshire Archives Office. 7 Jackson, op cit. 3 Idem. 8 Letter in possession of Mr. B. F. J. Pardoe of 4 Jackson, op. cit. Chertsey. 87 AMONGST THE MUNIMENTS—SOME ODDITIES by THE MARQUESS OF AILESBURY HISTORIANS ARE APT to think of manuscripts simply as the raw material of history. Yet the business of committing facts to paper (or parchment) is something which has a history of its own. It has, at different periods, been done well or badly —and it has emphatically not improved progressively with the passage of time. Thus, the documents produced by our ancestors between (let us say) 1066 and 1485 make, on the whole, easy reading. It may not seem so at first sight; but my point is that the apparent difficulties will all respond to a certain amount of study. We find, in the first place, that the language used is Latin; but it is extremely simple Latin: there are no complex constructions. It is simpler, for instance, than that of Caesar’s war diaries or of Horace’s odes, with which we may have struggled in our days at school. More formidable, at first sight, is the fact of this Latin being written in an archaic script, varying somewhat from one generation of writers to the next. Yet (since the writers were professional clerks) the script is perfectly consistent. ‘Thus, if the student can master one Latin document of (for example) 1275, he will find that he can equally well read any other such document of Edward I’s reign. He will find consistency, too, in the abbreviations which clerks of the medieval period used. It was customary for them to abbreviate nearly all words of a frequently recurring sort; but they would use shorthand symbols to indicate this. Thus an initial ‘p’ with a symbol beneath it will indicate the prefix ‘per’; whereas the same initial letter with a symbol above it will indicate ‘pre’. These symbols were invariable ; so that the student, having once memorized them, need not be baffled by abbreviated Latin words. It is (roughly) in the 15th century that inconsistency begins to creep in—due primarily to the march of progress, which required English words to be inserted where no appropriate Latin term could be found. ‘Thus, when early poachers invaded Savernake Forest, they slew the King’s deer ‘cum arcu’, 1.e. with a long bow. Later, however, they would commit this crime with a crossbow, or even with the newly invented blunderbuss. ‘Thus we begin to read, in a weird medley of Latin and English, of some bad character entering the forest ‘cum ballista vocat a crossebowe’, or—in rare instances—‘cum ballista vocat a handgunne’. This intrusion of English gradually became more common, and there was a time when one might even throw in (for luck?) an occasional French word. Thus it is recorded of one 16th-century poacher that he ‘occidit } le bucke cum suis les buckehoundes’—an absurdity, and one which makes for difficult reading, since the mind has to be switched in and out of three different languages in the course of a single short sentence! 86 Inevitably, the trend was towards the wholesale use of English, particularly for the purposes of local records—and this trend was much accelerated by the abolition of the monasteries and the loss to the community of individuals such as, for example, Brother John of Easton Priory. It may be thought that the resultant English documents of the 16th century must be the easier for the student to read; but in fact there remained certain factors of a baffling sort. For example, some Latin techniques persisted. There is one Savernake docu- ment which, at first sight, gave me considerable worry; for it was about certain events taking place ‘in the pish’. I had thought that I knew a good deal about the medieval forest, its villages, its bailiwicks, etc.; but this ‘pish’ was something entirely new. Then, looking more closely, I saw a shorthand symbol under the letter ‘p’: this of course gave me ferish—from which the word ‘parish’ was fairly easily guessed. The ‘pish’ problem may have been exceptional; but one finds at this period a constant source of trouble, in that no agreed spelling existed for any English word. Our language had been spoken for centuries, but it had not been written: certainly our ancestors had not used written English for any professional or legal purpose. Thus all words had an agreed sound; yet no word connoted a definite sequence of letters. : Even the same writer within the same document did not always succeed in being consistent. Thus, I have a petition of about 1510 relating to a water mill. (There had been a dispute between landlord and tenant, and—landlords then being much tougher than they now are—the tenant’s goods had been ejected ‘into the hye strete’.) Here we are introduced initially to ‘the watter myl’; but, after a few lines only, we are referred back to ‘the aforeseid mille’. And it seems clear that the writer would have settled for ‘the mil’, ‘the myll’, or almost any other variant. To identify odd spellings may not seem too hard a task; but another source of confusion arose at this same period. Our 16th-century ancestors seem to have felt that any educated man of the new age must be able to write—and that, if a writer, he must be able (in local affairs at least) to maintain written records. This was a lamentable theory; for of course there were many (then as now) whose handwriting was a scribble, intelligible to themselves and to their immediate friends, but scarcely intelligible to anyone of a different age or from a different circle. The unhappy change occurred at Savernake in 1554, due to the death or retire- ment of the man who—in a good, old-fashioned, clerkly hand—had for many years kept the records of the Forest Court. His successor, beginning his task on the 25th day of May in the first year of the reign of Queen Mary, wrote with apparent ease; but he did so in a cursive script, with each letter running on into the next. The degree of legibility varied, touching a lamentably low level when he was pressed for time. The cursive script on such occasions would become a mere scrawl—so that the student of Forest records, having read them with only minor hindrance up to 1554, finds thereafter that he is constantly irritated by words and phrases which he can- not make out. There was, of course, a gradual improvement in records after the 16th-century ‘low’. Writing tended to improve: mixtures of Latin words with English were gradually abandoned. Yet spelling remained a subject which the English, for two 89 centuries and more, still were unwilling to take seriously. No educated person had ever mis-spelled a Latin word; yet as late as Queen Anne’s reign one could find a gentleman (a peer’s younger son) writing a sentence such as the following: ‘Your friends treat the allegations against you as being rediculous: they still rely upon your sence and steddinesse.’ The student of such matters may indeed deem it ‘rediculous’; but it was not until (roughly) the mid-18th century that the English language achieved what the Latin language had, from time immemorial, had—a recognized system of spelling. Samuel Johnson published his Dictionary in 1755. It is not suggested that he, by this individual effort, rationalized our language: rather it would seem that, by this date, there was a widespread, urgent feeling that an authoritative dictionary was needed. The erudite Johnson, I suggest, sensed the demand—and decided that he was the man to supply it. Johnson’s Dictionary, valued in his own day, has since become a ‘must’ for all those who desire to read early English correspondence. Not only does he give (with definitive spelling) all known 18th-century words: he also includes a vast number of words then archaic, thus making intelligible many an obscure phrase which may be found in an Elizabethan or earlier letter. In my own case, I remember having to thank Johnson for identifying an ‘ambassadour leger’—an otherwise baffling person upon whom an Elizabethan ancestor had paid a call. (“Leger’, in fact, meant ‘resident’—in days when an ambassador might be a mere emissary.) The Johnson period, as it happened, was one in which other benefits accrued to written English. There began to emerge at this time a new type of professional man, exemplified (at Savernake) by a steward, Charles Bill, and a bailiff, William Winckles, much akin to the estate agent and sub-agent of the present day. Both were men of education: both had obviously been trained to write in a clear, precise, easily legible hand. Their reports, their letters, their accounts—all these may be read by the modern student with no hindrance whatever. It is, indeed, amusing to see how closely such men had reverted to the standards of precision which had existed in the old, pre-Reformation days. Then, Latin had been abbreviated: they abbreviated their English—but with no less consistency. Thus, ‘his Lop.’ indicated their employer, his Lordship; but it was an unvarying abbreviation and so, after the first encounter, can be read with the same ease as ‘dom’ (with shorthand symbol) for Latin dominus. Thus the 18th century brought an end to the problems besetting the student of English manuscripts—and we are left only with the query: how was it possible that the transition from precise Latin to precise English should have taken such a fantastic length of time? One can easily imagine a generation going by before the scholarly Brother John and his like could be adequately replaced. But, in fact, our ancestors took all of two centuries (six generations) to achieve written precision in their own tongue. How could it have taken so long? go NOTES LAND MOLLUSCA FROM THE NEOLITHIC ENCLOSURE ON WINDMILL HILL The recently published list of Mollusca from the buried soil beneath the bank of the causewayed enclosure on Windmill Hill’ is misleading in a number of ways. In the first place it is based mainly on shells picked out by eye and the over-representation of the larger shells resulting from this is very noticeable. Thus Carychium tridentatum, with a shell less than 1-0 mm. in diameter and which recent investigation has shown to be quite common in the buried soil, is not mentioned. On the other hand, Arzanta arbustorum, Helix hortensis and H. nemoralis, with shell sizes up to 2-0 cm. in diameter, comprise about 75 per cent. of the snails in the list, when in reality they constitute only about 2 per cent. of the total fauna. The collection upon which the list is based is preserved in the Institute of Archaeology, London University, and investigation of this showed certain errors of identification. These are: 1. From scraped-up top soil incorporated in bank : Euconulus fulvus should be Acanthinula aculeata; Vallonia pulchella should be Vallonia excentrica. 2. From old ground surface under bank: Ena obscura should be Cochlicopa lubrica; Oxychilus alliarius should be Oxychilus cellarius; Oxychilus lucidus should be Oxychilus cellarius ; Vallonia pulchella should be Vailonia costata. Finally, the comment that ‘All these specimens are of woodland type’ is incorrect. A distinct open-country element is represented by Vallonia excenirica, Vallonia costata and Helicella itala, and with the corrections noted above, the fauna is not incompatible with an open environment of grassland or scrub. In connection with research which the writer is doing at present on Mollusca from prehistoric sites round Avebury, it was decided to reinvestigate the buried soil beneath the Outer Bank.* A pit? was dug through the bank on the east side and samples taken from the buried soil (2-0 kg.) and from the bank material (1-0 kg.) were analysed for Mollusca. The results are presented in the table below. The fauna in the buried soil is dominated by shade-loving species, though grassland species are present: Vallonia costata comprises 14 per cent. of the fauna and other grassland species, Vertigo pygmaea, Pupilla muscorum, Abida secale, Vallonia excentrica and Helicella itala, comprise an additional 7 per cent. ‘The inferred environment is one of scrub and grassland and is quite compatible with the results of pollen analysis. The fauna compares closely with that listed by Sparks from the old land surface at Knap Hill.° But it is representative of less open conditions than the fauna found beneath certain long barrows in the area from which the writer has recently obtained specimens—G.22, G.47, G.68, all in Avebury parish.° The bank material at Windmill Hill, rather surprisingly, contains Mollusca. The fauna differs from that in the buried soil in containing a larger open-country element and this may be interpreted as representating variation over the old land surface. Alternatively, the humic material incorporated in the bank may be the remains of the siripped-off A-horizon of the old soil.? This would, after all, be the first material to be incorporated in the bank and the presence of Mollusca at all can only reasonably be explained in this way. If this is so, then there is evidence here, albeit rather indirect, of stratification of the Mollusca in the old soil which shows clearance to have taken place at some time prior to the building of the enclosure. This would accord with the archaeological evidence for an earlier occupation of the site. No contamination of the lower part of the bank from above is considered to have occurred. gi Buried Soil Bank Pomatias elegans (Miiller) Carychium tridentatum (Risso) Cochlicopa lubricella (Porro) Cochlicopa spp. Vertigo pygmaea (Draparnaud) Pupilla muscorum (Linné) Abida secale (Draparnaud) Acanthinula aculeata (Miiller) Vallonia costata (Miller) Vallonia excentrica Sterki Ena Montana (Draparnaud) Marpessa laminata (Montagu) Clausilia bidentata (Strém) Arianta arbustorum (Linné) Helix hortensis Miller - co Sto t Gx Gu OHH NE ND | deg [Eos "] Pan 4] 9.19 T tT. F. Smith, Windmill Hill and Avebury: Excava- tions by Alexander Reiller, 1925-39 (1965), 39. 2 The National Trust and the Ministry of Public Building and Works kindly gave permission for this to be done. 3 The pit, 4 ft. square, was dug in the segment of the Outer Bank through which Cuttings V and VI had been made in 1957-8 (Windmill Hill, op. cit., Buried Soil Bank Helix nemoralis Linné =e — Arianta, Helix (Cepaea) spp. 7 — Hysromia hispida (Linné) 55 26 Helicella itala (Linné) 8 LZ Punctum pygmaeum (Draparnaud) — 2 Discus rotundatus (Miller) 26 I Vitrea contracta (Westerlund) 12 12 Oxychilus cellarius (Miller) 8 — Retinella radiatula (Alder) — I Retinella pura (Alder) I —- Retinella ntidula (Draparnaud) 1 3 Vitrina pellucida (Miiller) 5 — Limacidae 24 II J. G. EVANS fig. 3). Its south side was 34 ft. north of the south end of the bank and its west side 2 ft. east of the long axis. 4G. W. Dimbleby in Windmill Hill, op. cit., 36-8. 5 W.A.M., 60 (1965), 19-20. 6 Unpublished; the results will be incorporated in a Ph.D. thesis. 7 Windmill Hill, op. cit., 35. A POSSIBLE BEAKER BURIAL FROM LARKHILL, DURRINGTON The finding of a crouched burial during construction work on Larkhill Camp, to the east of the track running from Stonehenge to the Camp (SU/125438), was reported to Salisbury Museum by Amesbury Police on 1 June 1966. Unfortunately on arrival the skeleton was found to be entirely smashed. It had been buried in a chalk-cut grave orien- tated north/south, about 4 ft. long, 1 ft. 6 in. wide and 3 ft. below the ground surface. The workmen reported it to have been lying on its side with its legs tightly contracted to the chest, and perhaps facing towards the north-west or west. ‘There were no traces of any grave-goods. The skeleton was that of a young male (probably 15-20 years old). The majority of unaccompanied crouched burials appear to belong to either the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age.* They occur as secondary inhumations in Long Barrows and one was found to predate the building of a Wessex Culture barrow at Avebury (G.55).? The practice of crouched burial and the evidence of the Wilsford G.34 Long Barrow, where there were five secondary crouched burials, one of which was with a Beaker, is suggestive that these burials belong to the Beaker culture. However, whereas Beaker skulls are brachycephalic (round-headed), a noticeable proportion of these crouched burials are doli- chocephalic (long-headed). Graves, probably without exception, are dug NW/SE or N/S, and the body can be placed in either direction. In northern Wiltshire, graves may be under a sarsen slab, while in the south they are sometimes under a flint packing. One may suspect that finds of similar burials will lead to the recognition of a poorer class of Beaker burial. Cc. N. MOORE t The following instances are recorded in Winterslow, p. 127. For secondary burials in Long V.C.H., Wilts., 1, i: Amesbury, pp. 27-28; Avebury and Cherhill, pp. 34 and 55; Bishop’s Cannings, p- 41; Dinton, p. 63; Durrington and Wocdhenge, pp. 65-66; Liddington, p. 82; Swindon, p. 112; Tilshead, p. 114; Winterbourne Monkton, p. 126; 92 Barrows and unaccompanied burials in Round Barrows, see V.C.H., pp. 227-31. See also W.A.M., 58 (1963), 378 and pl. III (facing, p. 375) and 57 (1959), 236. 2 W.A.M., 6o (1965), 36. MEGALITHS ONCE NEAR STONEHENGE The Rev. William Stukeley, m.p., F.s.A., gives the following note in his Common-place Book of 1720: ‘On Salisbury Plain near Stonehenge in the sheep-penning there several barrows called the Kings Graves. The stones which once stood there are lately carried away.’? The ‘Kings Graves’ are of course what are now called Seven Barrows, on the right hand of the road from Amesbury to Stonehenge, and the sheep penning must have been at or near Penning Bottom, where the sheep well used to be up to almost 1900, i.e. in the valley on the left hand just before the road forks. Plate I of Inigo Jones’s Stonehenge? is a very careful drawing by J. Hassell; when one stands on his viewpoint and compares the Stonehenge stones with the drawing, one sees how exact it is. He shows two large stones, like undressed sarsens, on the side of the hill above the penning and just over Stone gt. There can be little doubt that these are the stones mentioned by Stukeley. They, and probably others from Stonehenge, have gone in earlier times to fill the holes in the road as it crossed the bottom before the Marquess of Queensbury improved it. The Marquess also set out to make a road to Shrewton, the remains of which can still be seen today. It left the Amesbury road just after Seven Barrows, crossed the valley, went - over the Stonehenge Avenue, and nearly got to the Cursus. But one day the Marquess rode up to see how the work was getting on and then went on to Shrewton. It was Trinity Monday, the Shrewton féte day, and he found them all so drunk that he decided Shrewton was no fit place to be connected with Amesbury. The above particulars about the road were told me by the late Mr. Soul, grocer and baker of Amesbury. R. 8. NEWALL t Surtees Society, Stukeley Diaries and Letters, 2 and ed., 1725. I, 139. UNRECORDED BARROWS AT PITTON LODGE, CLARENDON PARK Following a report by Major S. V. Christie-Miller that he had exposed a new group of four barrows during the clearing of part of Pitton Copse prior to replanting, the writer visited the site with him in April, 1965. The newly discovered barrows are just west of those shown on the O.S. 6 in. map (LXVII S.W.) and recorded in the V.C.H. Gazetteer (Clarendon Park 1-2a). The barrows are low bowls, each approximately 60 ft. in diameter, and are without obvious signs of ditches. They are sited on a slight slope below a series of lynchets which were also exposed by the clearing operations. Three of the barrows lie in a straight line. Major Christie-Miller also drew my attention to another barrow almost confluent with Clarendon Park 1 which also seems to have escaped notice. Thus at Pitton Lodge there can now be recognized a compact group of eight barrows. It should also be noted that numerous pot-boilers are to be found on the ground surface and this fact plus that of the presence of the barrows and the lynchets indicates that much of Pitton Copse was open downland in the prehistoric period. JOHN MUSTY A THIRD ‘MORINIC’? STATER FROM WILTSHIRE At the end of 1964 a gold stater (wt. 4-450 gms., sp.grav. 11-1) was turned up by the plough in a field belonging to Mr. H. L. Sainsbury of Castle Eaton. It was later purchased by the Devizes Museum and I am indebted to the Curator, Mr. F. K. Annable, F.s.a., not only for allowing me to publish the coin, but also for procuring an air photograph of the site taken many years ago by the late Major G. W. G. Allen from Mr. C. W. Phillips, F.s.A., Archaeology Officer of H.M. Ordnance Survey. My thanks are also due to Dr. T. R. Thomson of Cricklade, who first called my attention to the coin and made careful enquiries about the circumstances and position of the find. 93 Castle Eaton lies on the south bank of the Thames where it meanders along the northern boundary of Wiltshire. The field in question lies on the N.E. side of the road from Casile Eaton to the next village of Hannington, but it is only about 200 yards from the village of Castle Eaton and opposite a barn which is shown on the 1 inch O.S. map. Dr. ‘Thomson tells me that no other object was found with the coin and that the find-spot was near the centre of the field which gives the map reference: SU/15109560. The field is just north of a sharp double bend in the road, also clearly visible on the 1 inch map (sheet 157) and on Major Allen’s photograph, which also shows crop marks nearly filling the field in question (PL. Iva). The field stretches from a point opposite the barn at its northern end to within a few yards of the double bend at its southern end. ‘The most distinctive features of the earthwork consist of part of a large irregular circle which must once have crossed into the field on the other side of the road and, near the centre of this circle, but lying entirely within the field, a smaller more perfect circle with a much more clearly marked boundary. ‘The diameter of this circle seems to be not much less than the length of the barn. It might well be a round house of the Early Iron Age of the type well known from Little Woodbury near Salisbury.* ‘Two short straight parallel lines emerging from the north-east sector of the larger circle suggest a protected entrance, and other marks within the circle are less easy to interpret. It was near the centre of this earthwork that the coin (PL. tvb) was found. If it was in fact associated from the beginning with the earthwork, and if the earthwork is strictly similar to Little Woodbury, then the date of the coin should not be much later than 50 B.c. This would also be the approximate lower date if we regard this class of coin as of Gallic provenance. But as long ago as 1864 Evans showed?’ that the type was struck during a long period and that the final issues were probably minted in our own country some years after Caesar’s invasion. ‘The earliest issues, which Evans3 was inclined to date about 80 B.c., weigh about 6-350 gms. with specific gravity up to 14-5. At Frasnes-lez-Buissenal in Belgium‘ a hoard of them was found with gold ornaments which Jacobsthalb dated to the third or second century B.c., while admitting that the coins might not be earlier than the second quarter of the first century B.c. In this country, a distribution of these staters, formerly attributed to the Belgic tribe of Morini, is clearly shown on Map 2 of the Ordnance Survey Map of Southern Britain in the Iron Age. The three main areas of find-spots are (1) the Sussex coast; (2) Kent, stretching westwards south of the Thames, in which area the coin under discussion is an outlier, as are the two other Wiltshire examples from Burbage, Marlborough, and Roundway, Devizes;° and (3) an open crescent with its horns downwards stretching from Clacton in the east to Oxford in the west. The areas do not appear to conform with any known tribal distribution, whether from history or from the archaeological record. One can only say that these uniface coins with deeply cupped reverse are associated in some way with the Belgic Invasions. Allen’ has classified them as Gallo-Belgic E and Mack’s pl. II, nos. 27 and 27a (The Coinage of Ancient Britain, 1953) shows the wide variation in style from the delicate lively and artistically satisfying Celtic horse of the first to the abject spiritless copy of the second. The coin under discussion is one of the abject copies. A small flaw in the centre of the dot between the horse’s legs, coupled with a specific gravity less than that of lead, makes one wonder if this coin may have a copper core, implying either a contemporary forgery or, more probably, an official issue struck by immigrants whose gold reserves were near exhaustion. H. de $8. SHORTT t P.P.S., VI (1940), 30-111. 5 Early Celtic Art (1944), 135, pl. 51, 70. 2 Num. Chron., n.s., 1, 101. 6 D. F. Allen, Origins of Coinage in Britain (1959), 3 Loc. cit., 100. 166. 4 Evans, loc. cit. TIO DCU ETS: ROMANO-BRITISH INTERMENTS AT POTTERNE On 4th December 1964 a group of four inhumations of Romano-British date came to light during building work on a housing estate at Potterne. ‘The interments were located approximately 150 yards due north of Blount’s Court (ST/g9605816). Burial 1. This was unfortunately destroyed with the exception of an adult skull which, according to workmen, lay approximately 6 ft. east of the second burial. Burial 2. Only the lower half was recovered 2 ft. below ground surface, represented by the extended leg bones of an adult skeleton orientated SSW/NNE with the skull originally to the SSW. The upper half had been destroyed in cutting trenches for drain pipes. A single body sherd in a dark grey fabric of Romano-British date lay immediately above the distal end of the right femur. Directly beneath and to the right of the feet bones were scattered a quantity of iron hobnails together with a mass, about 3 in. long, of similar nails, corroded together and still attached to what appeared to be fragments of the original leather boot uppers. No other grave goods were recovered, but a number of sherds occurred above and around the grave filling. The pottery in fracture was identical with the products of the Romano-British pottery kilns in Savernake Forest." Burial 3. This interment was located 10 ft. west of Burials 1 and 2, at a depth of 2 ft. 5 in. below ground surface. It was likewise almost wholly destroyed apart from the skull and portions of the left arm, their disposition suggesting an orientation of the skeleton WNW/ESE with skull to the west. The remains were those of an adult person. A single black ware cooking-pot rim was recovered 10 in. above, and 10 in. north-west of the skull; further sherds again scattered about the burial were almost certainly of ‘Savernake’ type. Burial 4. The last burial to be located on the estate lay thirty feet north-east of Burials 1-3. It was a fully extended adult inhumation, uncoffined, and positioned on its side in a west-east orientation, with skull to the west. A sheep jawbone was placed at the junction of femur and lower leg bones at the left knee; otherwise there were no grave goods. It is difficult to be precise about the dating of this small group of interments owing to the lack of closely datable finds directly associated with individual skeletons. ‘The cooking- pot rim found with Burial 3 need not, however, be later than the early part of the second century A.D., and this together with the number of ‘Savernake’ type sherds scattered about the burials implies a date within the first years of the second century for their deposition. The presence of burials does, nevertheless, indicate occupation within the area, although the paucity of grave goods and the absence of coffins of any kind suggest it to have been an impoverished one. The site should therefore be watched whenever the estate is extended. The finds, now deposited in Devizes Museum, have been recorded on the O.S. 6 in. maps in the Society’s library. We are grateful to the foreman of Vear Bros., building contractors, who notified the Museum of the discovery, and kindly gave permission to excavate. F. K. ANNABLE t Annable, F. K., ‘A Romano-British Pottery in Savernake Forest,’ W.A.M., 58 (1962), 143-55. A ROMANO-BRITISH INTERMENT AT BRADFORD-ON-AVON In November 1964 a coffined interment was discovered 1 ft. 6 in. below ground surface during building work on a housing estate at Bradford-on-Avon at the north-west edge of the town (ST/818612). The coffin, of typical round-ended shape with sides tapering towards the foot, was roughly hewn from a single block of Bath stone; the workmanship was of an inferior quality characteristic of stone sarcophagi of Roman date occurring in this neighbourhood. Internal measurements were as follows: length 6 ft., maximum width 1 ft. 5 in., width at the foot 8 in., depth to in., thickness of walls 5 in. 95 The coffin lid was badly shattered, but an examination of the pieces indicated that it was originally a single roughly rectangular slab of Bath stone approximately 6 in. thick, crudely shaped to cover the lower portion. The interior of the coffin had also been disturbed by workmen. What was left of the skeleton indicated an extended adult person orientated north-south with skull to the north. Close to the lower left leg bones was part of a handled platter in a dark grey ware of typically late 3rd/4th century a.p. date. Scattered in the grave pit, but not inside the coffin, were a further ten body sherds of coarse pottery and a single fragment of plain Samian ware. Information has been recorded on the O.S. 6 in. and 2} in. maps in the Society’s library. The skeleton, as far as it could be recovered, and the pottery are now deposited in Devizes Museum (Acc. No. 11. 1965). The coffin was not preserved. Burials in stone coffins are of common occurrence in the Bradford-on-Avon parish. The last recent discovery was made in 1956,’ but earlier finds are recordedjin V.C.H., Wilts., 1, 1 (1957), 45- F. K. ANNABLE t W.A.M., Lv1 (1956), 390-1. A (?)ROMANO-BRITISH INTERMENT AT MAIDEN BRADLEY In August 1965, a coffined interment was discovered 1 ft. 8 in. below ground surface during excavations for a swimming pool in the grounds of Bradley House, in the parish of Maiden Bradley (ST/803387). The burial, a fully extended adult, was contained in a lead coffin enclosed within an outer sarcophagus hewn from a single block of greensand. This outer shell was of rectangular shape, with roughly rounded ends externally. Internal measurements were as follows: length 5 ft. 11 in., width 1 ft. 74 in., depth 1 ft. 1 in., thickness of walls 4 in. The cover, also cut from a single greensand block, was un- fortunately shattered by the mechanical grab; it was roughly fashioned, but on the under- side had been hollowed out to fit over the lower portion. The lead coffin likewise was rectangular, although both lid and lower half were badly crushed at the middle by the weight of soil which had somehow found its way into the lower shell. It measured as follows: length 5 ft. 9 in., width 1 ft. 3 in., depth of walls 1 ft. Orientation was north-south, with skull to the north. It is of interest to note the technique of manufacture used in the construction of the lead container, and to compare this with similar methods employed on recently discovered lead sarcophagi of Roman date at Westbury’ and Devizes.’ The body of the coffin had been cast in two halves, corresponding to an upper and lower portion, each rectangular in shape, but with squares cut out from each corner. The sides and ends of both portions had then been hammered up, the long sides being retained in an upright position simply by hammering the vertical edges of the end pieces round at right angles to form flanges which afterwards were soldered on to the long sides. The two halves had been joined by the simple technique of hammering the edges to a thin section, after which they were placed together, overlapping slightly, and finally secured by soldering. In this instance the coffin lid was also cast in two portions, and joined at the middle by the same method. The construction of the lid was completed by beating down the edges to overlap the sides of the lower shell in the manner of a biscuit tin lid. No grave goods were recovered, and the certain date of the burial must remain in doubt. Interments in coffins either of lead or wood, enclosed within an outer shell of stone, are, nevertheless well attested in this country? in the Roman period. The crudely worked outer shell, and the methods used in the manufacture of the lead container are both suffi- ciently comparable with interments of certain Roman date in the county to support a probable date in the period for this particular burial. If this is so, then it would indicate 96 that additional evidence of Roman occupation has still to come to light in an area where so far it remains notably absent. Information has been recorded on the O.S. 6 in. maps, and photographs are deposited in the Society’s library. The lead coffin and skeleton are to be placed on exhibition in All Saints’ Church, Maiden Bradley; the stone outer sarcophagus was not preserved. Finally we are indebted to His Grace the Duke of Somerset for so readily providing facilities for recording the burial. F. K. ANNABLE t W.A.M., 57 (1960), 402. 3 EBVRACVM, An Inventory of the Historical Monu- 2 W.A.M., 58 (1962), 222-3. ments in the City of York, 1 (1962), 79. (R.C.H.M.) A ROMANO-BRITISH INTERMENT IN THE BANK OF THE WINTERBOURNE, NEAR AVEBURY In October 1964, while investigating some geological deposits exposed in the bank of the Winterbourne at the foot of Waden Hill near Avebury, the writer noticed a shallow pit in the subsoil from which a humerus and other human bones protruded. On excavation" the pit proved to be a Romano-British grave containing the skeleton of a man that had been truncated at the level of the shoulders, the end of the grave having been washed into the stream. The grave (SU/10376855) was in the east bank of the stream, opposite Silbury Hill and some 180 metres north of the A4 road. It was at a point where the stream is on the edge of its flood plain and had been cut into a low bluff raised somewhat above the level of the latter. When the section was cleaned the following stratification could be seen: (1) topsoil, 15 cm. thick; (2) a 50-60 cm. thick layer of greyish-brown chalky loam containing animal bones, Romano-British pottery and building débris, apparently a down-washed ploughsoil; (3) a 40 cm. thick layer of brown to yellowish-brown loam containing a few fragments of charcoal; (4) a 10 cm. thick layer of white marl showing traces of bedding in the form of stringers of chalk pellets; (5) well-bedded chalk gravels. The top of the grave appeared at the surface of Layer 3 and the bottom penetrated into Layer 4, its total depth being 55 cm. The grave was orientated east-west. The west end had been eroded away by the stream and the remaining part was about 1-50 m. long and 65 cm. wide. The east end was rounded. The body had been placed on its back in an extended position, with the head to the west. The left leg was crossed over the right from mid shin to ankle. The left arm was tightly flexed over the chest, with the hand presumably on the throat. The right arm lay by the side of the body, slightly flexed with the fore-arm in pronation and the hand clasped. Pressure from the overlying deposit had caused some displacement of the bones of the right side, and the skull, neck vertebrae and bones of the left hand had been lost into the stream. The skeleton was that of an adult male. In the absence of the skull and teeth an accur- ate estimate of age could not be made, but it is certain from the well-united epiphyses of the long bones and the rugged character of the areas of muscle attachment that the indi- vidual was at least 25 years of age, and probably older. The height was calculated from regression formulae? as 5 ft. 5 in. Thirty small iron nails were associated with the skeleton’s feet. ‘These, presumably from the buried man’s boots, were all of one type. Each was just over 15 mm. long, with rounded head and spike square in cross-section. ‘The tips of the spikes were bent round. In the fill of the grave and in the overlying Layer 2 were bones of cattle, sheep or goat, and horse. Also present throughout were crude flint flakes, pottery, pieces of limestone and purple sandstone, and an occasional shell of oyster (Ostrea edulis); there was one fragment from a roofing tile. The pottery was sent to Mr. F. K. Annable at Devizes Museum who reports as follows: ‘Amongst the 289 sherds, only a dozen small rims and bases were recognized; the half dozen or so Samian fragments are extremely tiny, much abraded, and wholly un- datable. 97 “There is little to distinguish in type, colour, or fabric between the pottery recovered from the grave filling and that from the superimposed layers. The entire series, however, comprises a variety of wares in orange, grey and buff fabrics, including a characteristic grey/brown gritty pottery noted elsewhere in the Avebury region.’ It can, nevertheless, be observed that the pottery from the layers above the grave is considerably abraded, in contrast to the unworn condition of that reported as found in the grave interior. ‘This large collection of abraded sherds may perhaps be explained as broken pottery from rubbish dumps scattered over the field by Romano-British occupants during the process of manur- ing, later to be further broken and worn by weathering and plough action. (The same phenomenon has been noted at Windmill Hill.)+ ‘A single wall-sided mortarium rim and a tiny New Forest beaker fragment amongst the material from layer 2 may hint at farming activity late in the Roman period, but, as other rims from this layer are not closely datable, occupation and farming may well have been in progress much earlier. In the absence of distinctive and datable sherds from the grave fill it is likewise difficult to suggest a positive date for the interment. A pie-dish rim and a single cooking-pot rim decorated with narrow horizontal grey painted bands were recovered from the upper 15 cm. of the grave interior. The latter may well be a late sherd, thus suggesting a late date for the burial. ‘The large quantity of pottery associated with the burial may simply be material accidentally incorporated when the grave-pit was refilled with soil heavily charged with broken sherds. On the other hand—and this is suggested by the fresher condition of the sherds—they may represent a deliberate deposit. Other instances of Romano-British burials where pottery was deposited in the grave filling have been encountered,> and the Avebury interment may perhaps further attest a common practice of providing token dedicatory offerings to the departed.’ J. G. EVANS t The grave was on the property of Mr. W. J. Amer. F. Phys. Anthrop., 16 (1958), 79-123. Osmond of West Kennett, whose ready co-opera- 3 W.A.M., 59 (1964), 80. tion is gratefully acknowledged. 4 1. F. Smith, Windmill Hill and Avebury: Excava- 2M. Trotter and G. C. Gleser, A re-evaluation tions by Alexander Keiller, 1925-1939 (1965), 172. of estimation of stature based on measurements of 5 Present volume, pp. 95-6. stature taken during life and long-bones after death, ANCIENT SCRUB CLEARANCE (?) AT BAYARDO FARM, WEST OVERTON In a field just to the south of the West Woods section of Wansdyke patches of soil containing burnt matter were noticed in December 1965 by Mr. J. M. Bull of Bayardo Farm, while engaged in ploughing. ‘These pockets seemed to be mainly less than three to four feet in diameter and the few examined never extended more than about eighteen inches below ground surface. They occurred, widely scattered and apparently quite at random, over an area of about one hundred and fifty yards square (SU/152654). Some of them contained chips of sarsen, markedly affected by heating, and the occasional frag- ment of bone, as well as flintwork recognized by Dr. I. F. Smith as neolithic, and sherds of Romano-British pottery, felt by Mr. F. K. Annable to be mainly first century A.D. in date. The most likely explanation of these patches is that they are the result of tree and scrub clearance in Roman or later times. The occurrence of neolithic flints hints that this area, just within the clay-with-flints belt, may well have been free of trees at least tempor- arily during this period. (A similar conclusion is implicit in the situation of the nearby West Woods long barrow—SU/15696563.) We are most grateful to Mr. N. E. King of the Nature Conservancy for drawing our attention to this site; and to Mr. Bull for allowing us access to it. A, M. BURCHARD OLD COURT, DOWNTON, AND THE MOOT EARTHWORKS This note is by way of being a postscript to Mr. Philip Rahtz’s report of the excavation of Saxon and medieval features at Downton,’ in which he demonstrated that a Saxon 98 gravel pit in Moot Close, Downton, had probably been used to provide ‘make-up’ for the Old Court site, which is virtually an island bounded on one side by the River Avon and on the other by a mill cut.? Since this excavation, considerable dredging work has been undertaken in the river bed and large scoops have been bulldozed on the ‘island’. (‘This work was undertaken in 1962.) My attention was drawn to these latter operations following a report made to Salisbury Museum by Mr. J. K. Henderson (the owner of the Moot) of the finding of carved stone. Unfortunately by then the work was already well advanced and the island was covered with very large dumps of dredged material. With the help of members of the Salisbury Museum Research Committee a search was made of the dumps and the workmen were questioned. During this search, large blocks of greensand were found and these, along with the carved stone reported by Mr. Henderson (which included a small decorated capital of 12th/13th century date), point to a substantial building in the immediate vicinity, thus supporting previous observations to that effect. Surprisingly, however, only one sherd of medieval pottery was found and questions put to the workmen elicited the fact that all they had observed during the bulldozing operations was a short length of flint wall which, by the time of our visit, was buried under an enormous dump of dredged material. A further interesting feature, demonstrated in our search and also observed by the workmen, was that the blocks of stone had come from the river or the extreme edge of the island fronting the river. In fact one piece of stone, the complete base of a 13th-century Purbeck stone mortar, had evidently been in the river for a long time as its surfaces were smooth. The fact of the finding of this material on or near the river bank is puzzling and one wonders if the building line extended over the area at present that of the river, which would suggest that the present river bed is a later diversion because of the mill or the water meadows or as a precaution against flooding in the 13th century ‘new town’ area of Downton which had been built across the flood plain. Certainly, the branch of the river on the east side (referred to earlier as the mill cut) is most likely of post-medieval date, as in addition to forming the tail of the mill stream it is also the main carrier for the water meadows. ‘This therefore places the Old Court area in an artificial state of isolation from the Moot earth- works whereas in pre-Conquest and medieval times the two were probably joined. This fact must have an important bearing on the interpretation of Old Court in relation to the Moot. All these points tend, inevitably, to confuse the picture and because of this and the recent disturbances, it is unlikely that any future excavation would lead to a complete interpretation of the two sites, although happily the northern end of the island was left untouched during bulldozing and might repay future exploration. Such exploration might be aimed at examining a possible hypothesis that a pre-Conquest building stood just west of the Moot earthworks subsequently to be replaced by medieval work, and throughout the period served as the administrative headquarters of the Bishop of Winchester’s Manor of Downton. ‘There may also have been pre-Conquest buildings on the Moot site itself but the present earthworks must be those of the Castle erected in 1138 by the then Bishop, Henry de Blois. It is usually assumed that this castle was a sub- stantial masonry building but the earthworks, admittedly much disturbed by landscape gardening, show no obvious signs of masonry work. The possibilities are, therefore, that either occupation on the ‘island’ ceased in 1138 and was transferred to the protection of the earthworks of the new castle, or (in the view of the writer, despite the absence of finds of domestic refuse from the Old Court site) that the principal occupation continued in the lee of the castle earthworks which merely served as a refuge in times of trouble and at all times a defence of the eastward approaches to Old Court (the river would provide a natural defence to the west). JOHN MUSTY t W.A.M., 59 (1964), 124. (1962), 116, fig. 1. 2 An area plan relating the sites of the Moot, 3 Rahtz, loc. cit. Old Court and the rivers is given in W.A.M., 58 99 BURIALS AT RAMSBURY ° On 24th November 1965 levelling operations were being undertaken in the back garden of 2 Burdett Street, Ramsbury (SU/27237155), by the contractors K. M. Eustace & Co. The remains of at least five skeletons were uncovered. They were apparently buried without special care and unaccompanied by grave-goods; all were probably orientated ESE/WNW. They appear to have been laid in a long trench of similar orientation, dug 4-5 ft. below ground surface into the natural clay. A handle fragment and a handled rimsherd, identified by Mr. J. W. G. Musty as being of 13th/14th century type and found about one foot above one of the skeletons, point to a likely medieval date for the skeletons. Though less than 400 ft. west of the present church, the siting of the bodies on the opposite side of a thoroughfare, seemingly of ancient date,’ would militate against the suggestion that this represents the former extent of the present churchyard. The idea that these remains may represent part of a medieval plague pit seems a not unlikely one. We are grateful both to the owner, Mr. R. E. L. Johnson, and to the contractors for allowing us to visit the site. ‘The pottery and as much of the bones as could be retrieved are now in the care of the Society’s museum. A. M. BURCHARD 1 The street seems not to be traceable beyond the presence along it of cottages of at least 17th- Andrews’ and Dury’s map of 1773 and the Rams- century date hint at the possibility of medieval bury Inclosure Award Map of 1778. But its origins. relationship to the rest of the town plan as well as PEDIGREES IN CRICKLADE MUSEUM Following is a list of MS. pedigrees compiled by various hands. Most are of original work, and most have some connection with North Wiltshire. The pedigrees of well-known families are extensions of what has been published before. The numbers against each entry are of the total names on the pedigree, and the dates give the approximate extent of the same. ARCHER of Cricklade (20) 1692-1728 BALpDwIn of Cricklade, see Archer Bonn of Frankfort-on-Main and Cricklade (6) 1850-present Boor of Cricklade (8) 1796-1914 Brooks of Cricklade (26) 1810-present BucKLAND of Cricklade (9) 1759-1839 BurcE of Cricklade (10) 1576-1609 Byrt, see Dennis Carter of Latton and Cricklade, two sheets, (79) 1728-present Cervincton of Langford, Britford, and Cricklade (35) 1331-1558 Coxe of Ashton Keynes, etc., four sheets; a compound pedigree dealing also with the families of Trenchard, Gordon of Auchendolly, Adamson, and Hippisley, 1728-1864. CRICKLADE of Cricklade (19) 1300-1481 Cuss of North Wiltshire (50) 1689-present DE LA BERE of Southam (4) 1554-1636 DE LA More of Wanborough and Cricklade, three sheets, (17) 1227-1325 DE Repvers, Earls of Devon, two sheets, (30) 1156-1274 DE TOENI, see St. Omer Dennis & Byrt of Cricklade (55) 1539-1864 Dennis of Down Ampney (5) 1830-1959 DE ABINGDON, see St. Omer DE ELLESFIELD (8) 1247-1304 Duprey, Duke of Northumberland, (26) 1410-1590 Duncu of Wittenham and Down Ampney, two sheets, (18) 1664-1793 Ear.e of Crudwell, three sheets, (200) 1560-1807 I0O Ecc.es, Viscount, (15) 1760-present FETTIPLACE of Childrey, Castle Eaton and Cricklade, (31) 1639-1729 Fiuce of Cricklade (17) 1695-1728 FRANKLIN of Cricklade (20) 1739-present GARDNER of Cricklade (6) 1882-present GerorcE of Baunton (29) 1360-1673 Gigs of Cricklade (13) 1712-1830 Goppy of Cricklade (23) 1766-1840 Gore, Hertfordshire, (36) 1706-1813 HALtt of Eisey (7) 1740-1788 Hopces of Shipton Moyne and Cricklade (50) 1560-1757 Horn, see St. Omer HuncErRForD of Down Ampney, four sheets, (about 200) 1398-1678 Hicrorp of Dixton and Alderton (13) 1490-1600 Inico JonEs, see Neeld JENNER of Marston Meysey and Widhill, three sheets, (140) 1638-1794 KiINnNEIR of Highworth and Cricklade (49) 1689-present Kemste of Widhill (14) 1573-1637 Lane of Cricklade (13) 1732-1783 LAwreENcE of Cricklade St. Mary (150) 1558-1842 Litt te of Cricklade (43) 1732-present LonceEsPEE, Earls of Salisbury (20) 1119-1311 Lusuiiu of Lushill, descendants of, (24) 1374-1483 Martin of Overbury, see Hodges Mancrort, formerly Samuel, (9) 1775-present NEELD of Grittleton (21) 1754-present NricHotas of Roundway, etc. (16) 1604-1826 NortTHEN of Kempsford (15) 1871-present Nott of Bradon, four sheets (200) 1600-present OckweELt of Cricklade (44) 1745-present Pitt of Cricklade (35) 1678-1811 Pitt of Brokenborough, Cirencester, etc. (36) 1723-1874 Paruam of Cricklade (16) 1600-1623 PLEYDELL of Midghall (15) 1600-1726 PLEYDELL of Cricklade (71) 1554-1770 PoutTon of Cricklade (7) 1747-1826 St. Omer of Britford (20) 1126-1418 SELMAN of Cricklade (32) 1802-present SEWSTER, see Nott SEyMourR of Sudely (6) 1505-1549 SIWARD, see St. Omer TownseEnp of Cricklade, three sheets, (29) 1713-1793 WAKEFIELD of Cricklade (11) 1757-present Watronp of Blunsdon, etc. (96) 1131-1403 Watton of Cricklade (6) 1696-1745 Watkins of Chelworth (3) 1635 WELLs of Cricklade (15) 1793-1887 WinTER of Hoddington (15) 1510-1640 WRITHE, see Hungerford N. M. G. CARTER, Curator IOI EXCAVATION AND FIELDWORK IN WILTSHIRE 1965 BISHOPS CANNINGS: HEMP KNOLL BOWL BARROW (SU/068674) Beaker period The excavation of a bowl barrow south-west of Beckhampton Firs (Grinsell’s Bishops Cannings 81) was directed by Mrs. M. E. Robertson-Mackay on behalf of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. Her summary is extracted from the Ministry of Works publication Excavations: Annual Report 1965 (H.M. Stationery Office, 1966), and included here with their kind permission. The bowl barrow was constructed over a Neolithic occupation site consisting of five roughly circular pits from 2 ft. to 2 ft. 6 in. in diameter by 1 ft. to 1 ft. 3 in. deep. These contained a well stratified flint assemblage comprising scrapers, piercer, hammer stones and flakes, along with Windmill Hill pottery, antler tines, animal bones and hazel nut- shells. A large quantity of flint knapping material derived from this settlement was found in the barrow ditch. The barrow (56 ft. overall diameter) was totally excavated revealing a very irregular single ditch (maximum dimensions 3 ft. wide by 1 ft. 10 in. deep). An irregular length of disconnected barrow ditch 23 ft. long had been dug outside the barrow on the east side. A massive sub-rectangular central primary grave, 7 ft. 4 in. by 6 ft. 3 in. and 5 ft. deep, cut in solid chalk was disproportionately large in relation to the small barrow platform. This contained a rich grave group consisting of a fully flexed male inhumation with a wrist guard on the left wrist, and a toggle at the waist; at the feet was a fine bell beaker. The green slate wrist guard was of curved type with four countersunk perforations, and showed marks of attachment thongs. ‘The rare cylindrical toggle was of carved and polished bone. An indeterminate structure, at least partially of wooden construction, seemed to have covered the body. ‘The entire head and four legs of an ox had been placed in one corner of the grave when it had been partially backfilled. An unaccompanied satellite inhumation of a flexed child lay near the primary burial. A single secondary burial consisted of a cremation in an inverted undecorated Food Vessel. FYFIELD AND OVERTON DOWNS, NEAR MARLBOROUGH Iron Age/Romano-British Further investigations in this area were again conducted under the direction of Mr. P. J. Fowler. A summary of work to the end of 1965, concerned in particular with the above period, has now been published in a volume resulting from the C.B.A. Conference on Rural Settlement in Roman Britain (C.B.A. Research Report No. 7, 1966, pp. 56-67). In 1965, excavation involved further lynchet cuttings and the stripping of a small area at the site (SU/13177037) on Overton Down where trial cuttings in 1963-4 (W.A.M., 59 (1964), 186, and 60 (1965), 136-7) had uncovered a gully and postholes beneath a ‘Celtic’ field lynchet. The site (OD XI on the Fyfield/Overton enumeration of sites) consists of an area where ‘Celtic’ fields appear to overlie an enclosed Iron Age settlement (as suggested in W.A.M., 58 (1962), 101, under No. B.3, and 103, under No. C.3; and as indicated by the good air photograph published, though differently interpreted, in Crawford and Keiller, Wessex from the Air (1928), pl. XIX). The suggested relationship between settlement and fields was proved by the 1965 excavation, which also confirmed that here was the first evidence of a wooden fence originally bounding a ‘Celtic’ field. Within the field, associated ploughmarks, faintly scored in the surviving but crumbling surface of the bedrock, were also exposed, providing I02 the first unequivocal example of such features related to a ‘Celtic’ field on a chalk subsoil (cf. W.A.M., 59 (1964), 186), and only the third example of ‘cross-ploughing’ in the coun- try. Though the Overton Down ploughmarks are probably of Iron Age date, they might have been caused during a second major phase of ploughing of this particular field in the Romano-British period. These discoveries occurred within a sequence established by vertical and horizontal stratigraphy although the surface of the chalk bedrock is only c. 9 in. below the modern EXCAVATED EVIDENCE, SITE OD.XI Phase Period Culture Ta Iron Age | Iron Age SAY Ib Iron Age Iron Age oe II Tron Age Tron Age ox Ill I.A.-late T.A. ‘B’ Ist cen. & *C’ A.D. IV Roman Romano- (and-3rd British cen. only ?) We ?4th cen.- | Late R.B.- ?r2th cen. | Norman? VI ?r2th-13th cen. Features and Finds Interpretation Related earthworks (unexcavated) 3 successive pits, last two with ox and horse skulls; post-holes; little pottery Circular timber structure with surrounding 30 ft. diam. gully, internal hearth and drain, entran- ced on S.E. Iron bracelet in gully Post-holes of fence along one side of ‘Celtic’ field laid out across earlier pits and timber structure; low lynchet behind fence con- taining I.A. ‘A’ sherds only; complete jar buried at field corner on fence- line A? Plough-marks, scored in Chalk, running parallei to and at right angles to each other, the adjacent fence- line and the resultant lynchet (see text) None Lynchet developed further, additional material con- taining R.B. sherds only, plus small D5 penannular brooch; field corner marked by 2 sarsen stones on existing I.A. lynchet None Enclosed settlement Former settlement area cultivated as part of contiguous ‘Celtic’ field system bP) Fields uncultivated ‘Celtic’? field system again cultivated, generally within framework of existing I.A. lynchets ‘Celtic’ field system abandoned Downland tempor- arily cultivated in furlongs Remains of roughly circular enclosure bank around thesettle- ment, with continuous ‘Celtic’ field system on all sides ‘Celtic’ fields Open settlements nearby linked by trackway crossing LA. fields 4th cen. settlements on ‘Celtic’ fields Ridge-and-furrow over J.A./R.B. settle- ments, fields and lynchets 103 turf. The absolute chronology of the sequence is naturally imprecise in detail, but the relative dates of the various features are well founded except for the doubt about the association of the ploughmarks. ‘The two basic assumptions behind the excavation of ‘Celtic’ fields should perhaps be stressed, i.e. a phase of cultivation will be represented by contemporary artifacts, especially pottery, since the arable was manured from domestic middens, and, conversely but less certainly, a phase of non-cultivation, e.g. disuse or grazing, will be indicated by the absence of contemporary artifacts. On those assumptions the Overton Down sequence is sufficiently clear to be tabulated. LUDGERSHALL CASTLE (SU/263515) Medieval (Fic. 1) Ludgershall Castle is a double-ditched double ringwork in the guardianship of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. It has royal associations from 1103 onwards, figured in the wars of the Anarchy, and was apparently used more for residential and pleasure purposes in the 13th century. By the mid-16th century it was ‘“clene down’ (Leland) and today a single crag of masonry in the northern ringwork alone remains above ground. Excavations were undertaken by P. V. Addyman for the Ministry in 1964 and 1965 to reveal more of the buildings for conservation and public display, with the important secondary aims of investigating the nature and date of the defences, and of providing stratified and potentially datable deposits to demonstrate the local sequence of material culture from the 12th to the 16th century. In the northern ringwork a simple late medieval flint and mortar building, 36 ft. by 15 ft. 6 in. internally with oven and hearth at one end, was completely excavated and consolidated for display. It had late 15th-century pottery on the clay floor, and a coin of 1344-91 was found in layers beneath. Elsewhere in the ringwork a complex range of flint and mortar buildings with greensand dressings and plaster internal wall facings, exhibiting a number of modifications and additions, was excavated to 14th-century levels. ‘The masonry remaining above ground is probably part of this range. Trial trenches in the eastern half of the southern ringwork revealed no trace of stone buildings, though scatters of 12th-century pottery, and possible traces of timber structures were found. A deep rectangular latrine produced much early 12th-century pottery and a cut halfpenny of the first issue of Stephen. The inner bank and ditch of the ringwork were sectioned. The chalk and soil bank, constructed over the burnt-out remains of a hut con- taining late 11th/early r2th-century pottery, had dry-stone revetting on its inner face though this was apparently from the outset covered by the tail of the bank. ‘There may have been external revetting in timber. The ditch was V-shaped, with a vertical interval of 35 ft. from the bottom to the present top of the bank. Tripod pitcher sherds from the lower silting of the ditch and the material stratified under the bank suggest an early 12th- century date for the defences. Finds, numerous and ranging in date from the re2th to the 16th century, included a 12th-century composite casket lid decorated overall with bone strips and ring-and-dot and criss-cross ornament, the three central strips pierced and backed with (?) silver, complete with two iron hinges and two iron hasps. Excavation will continue in 1966 and probably 1967. LACOCK: NAISH HILL FARM (ST/93156940) ? A Medieval Pottery Industry Small-scale excavations were undertaken during early summer at Naish Hill Farm, Lacock, by the Archaeology Research Sub-Committee of the Society in collaboration with the Bath Academy of Art. Pottery finds of medieval date over a wide area, and particularly around the site under investigation, suggest that pottery kilns exist in the vicinity. Although extensive magnetometer surveys have so far failed to indicate the presence of kilns, investigations were carried out on a small, barrow-like mound approximately 104. LUDGERSHALL CASTLE we SUI I 7, \\\ VAAL] / anys www S Wy) ) Uy, \\\ Why, = yD ~) itt Cae NUR a, Z wii ww % rp, tes Zz ANU “ALM Ze eee. NY My, Be S : 2 \ Cae rarer aii ereutral ules > “ \ \ ~> \ \s \ \ \ wi? \ C7 .< Treorky, Rhondda, Wales 15.1.65 60 miles W. Retraps of Birds Ringed other than in Wiltshire MUTE SWAN Pull Oxford 30-7.60 Z1320 Ad Coate Reservoir 17.4.65 25 miles S.W. SWALLOW Juv Chew Valley Res., Somerset 11.7.65 HAo7137 Vv Corsham Lake 20.8.65 20 miles E. SAND MARTIN Juv (R) Chichester, Sussex 78.64 AS11138 Vv Calne, Wilts. (C) 5.6.65 65 miles W.N.W. 131 AS11440 Juv (R) Chichester, Sussex 8.8.64 Vv Naish Hill, Wilts. (C) 31.5.65 AS14130 Juv (R) Chichester, Sussex 20.8.64 Vv Calne, Wilts. (C) 5.6.65 N78707 Juv (R) Chichester, Sussex 3.9.63 Vv Calne, Wilts. (C) 5-6.65 P24607 Ad (C) Casbrook Common, Hants. 13.06.64 Vv (C) Calne, Wilts. 5.6.65 72 miles W.N.W. 65 miles W.N.W. 65 miles W.N.W. 35 miles N.W. Terms: Pull=nestlings; Juv=juvenile; Ad=adult; V=trapped and released alive; X=found dead; (R)=at roost; (C)=at colony. It is hoped in future editions of this report to include details of peak migration dates by using ringing records. ‘This year the data was incomplete but it did indicate that Reed Warbler migrants reached a peak during the period 23rd August-3rd September and that a large influx of Song Thrushes took place during the second week of October. 132 G. L. WEBBER. WILTSHIRE PLANT NOTES (26) compiled by DONALD GROSE Undated records are for 1965. Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth. Lady Fern. 8. Wood on Bidcombe Hill. Dryopteris borrer. Newm. Golden-scaled Male Fern. 5. Bramshaw (Hants.), Mrs. V. Morgan (261). Polystichum setiferum (Forsk.) Woynar. Soft Shield Fern. 2. Prickmoor Wood. Polypodium vulgare. L. Common Polypody. ‘Three morphologically distinct species are now recognized in Britain; of these two may be widespread in Wiltshire, while the third (P. australe), although not yet recorded, is likely to occur on the limestone walls of the north-west. The following records are of herbarium specimens: P. vulgare L.s.s. 3. Overtown Gully, Wroughton, on hazel, 1935 (G). 8. Bidcombe Hill, on oak, 1965, WV. E. King (G)! P. interjectum Shivas. 2. Hedgebank, Derry Hill, 1950 (G). Sandy Lane, on beech, 1964 (G). 3. Hodson, on sallow, 1935 (G). Ophioglossum vulgatum L. Adder’s Tongue. 2. Beacon Hill, Heddington, P. Cleverly. 5. Bentley Wood, G. H. Forster (261). 9. Wood near Chilmark Common, L. F. Stearn (261). Aconitum anglicum Stapf. Monkshood. 1. Biss Brook near Brook House, Mrs. B. Sheppard. Adonis annua L. Pheasant’s Eye. 5. In kale, Winterbourne Dauntsey, Commander H. G. Higgins (G). Thalictrum flaaum L. Common Meadow Rue. 2. Bank of Avon near Monkton House, Admiral Sir Fohn Coote. Berberis vulgaris L. Barberry. 1. Lane on Great Cheverell Hill. Ceratophyllum demersum L. Hornwort. Flowering in canal near All Cannings Bridge, N. E. King! Papaver somniferum L. Opium Poppy. 2. Waste ground near Monkton House, Admiral Str Fohn Coote. Meconopsis cambrica (L.) Vig. Welsh Poppy. 2. Waste ground near Monkton House, Admiral Sir Fohn Coote. Fumaria micrantha Lag. Narrow-leaved Fumitory. 7. Frequent. Erucastrum gallicum (Willd.) O. E. Schulz. Pale Mustard. 8. Warden’s Down. Coronopus didymus. (L.) Sm. Wart Cress. 2. Shaw, Melksham, Mrs. B. Sheppard. 8. Corton, Mrs. D. M. Berry. Cardaria draba (L.) Desv. Hoary Cress. 1. Caen Hill, Devizes. Cardamine pratensis L. Cuckoo-flower. Form with double flowers. 2. By Bowood Lake, Miss B. Gillam. Rorippa sylvestris (L.) Bess. 10. Kitchen garden, Longford Castle, Lady Radnor. Erysimum cheiranthoides L. ‘Treacle Mustard. 1. Penleigh, Mrs. E. Curtis. Reseda lutea L. Wild Mignonette. ? var. pulchella J. Muell. A fruticose plant, 50 cm. high, with regularly disposed lateral branches. 3. Waste ground, Old Swindon (G). Viola reichenbachiana Jord. ex. Bor. Wood Violet. 7. Ogbury, Mrs. I. M. Grose! Vaccaria pyramidata Medic. Cow Basil. 2. Garden casual, Shaw, Melksham, Mrs. B. Sheppard (G). Saponaria officinalis L. Soapwort. 2. Frequent. 133 Cerasttum arvense L. Field Mouse-ear Chickweed. 8. Warden’s Down, Miss H. M. Hughes (G). Atriplex hastata L. Hastate Orache. var. deltoides (Bab.) Mog. 2. Waste ground near Monkton House, Admiral Sir John Coote (A; G). Lavatera arborea L. ‘Tree Mallow. 2. Garden adventive, Chippenham, Mrs. 7. Stopford Beale. Geranium rotundifolium L. Round-leaved Crane’s-bill. 2. Seend Station and railway track, Mrs. B. Sheppard. Oxalis cornculata L. Yellow Sorrel. 2. Melksham, Mrs. B. Sheppard. Impatiens glandulifera Royle. Himalayan Balsam. 2. Stream near Chalfield Manor, Mrs. B. Sheppard. Genista tinctoria L. Dyer’s Greenweed. 8. Knapp Down, Miss H. M. Hughes. Sarothamnus scoparius (L.) Wimm. Broom. 2. Prickmoor Wood. Ononis spinosa L. Spinous Rest Harrow. 8. Down near Grant’s Farm, Miss H. M. Hughes! Medicago lupulina L. Black Medick. var. eriocarpa Rouy. 3. Liddington (G). M. arabica (L.) All. Spotted Medick. 7. Pewsey, R. A. H. Hillman. Melilotus altissima ‘Thuill. Common Melilot. 8. Frequent. M. alba Desr. White Melilot. 8. Tenantry Down, Miss H. M. Hughes. Trifolium medium Huds. Zigzag Clover. 2. Somerford Common. 3. Ravensroost Wood, Mrs. I. M. Grose! T. arvense L. Hare’s-foot Trefoil. 2. Lacock Halt, Mrs. 7. G. Cobbold. Robinia pseudoacacia L. Acacia. 1. Rubbish-dump opposite railway station, Westbury, Mrs. E. Curtis. Woodland in Stert Valley, one tree, Col. C. Cowan! Astragalus danicus Retz. Purple Milk Vetch. 5. Porton Ranges, G. H. Forster (261). Vicia tetrasperma (L.) Schreb. Smooth Tare. 1. Frequent. V. sylvatica L. Wood Vetch. 2. Prickmoor Wood. 9. Near Chilmark Common, L. F. Stearn (261). V. sepium L. Bush Vetch. var. ochroleuca Bast. 4. Canal-bank near Pains Bridge, Miss B. Gillam. Lathyrus nissolia L. Grass Vetchling. 2. Near Braydon Pond, Col. C. Cowan. Railway bank between Semington and Seend, Mrs. B. Sheppard. 8. Near Grant’s Farm, Miss H. M. Hughes! Prunus padus L. Bird Cherry. 9. East Knoyle, probably planted, B. M. Stratton (G). Malus sylvestris Mill. Crab Apple. 8. Near Grant’s Farm, Miss H. M. Hughes! Sedum telephium L. Orpine Stonecrop. 5. Frequent. 8. Lane near Shear Water, Mrs. M. Haythornthwaite. : Daphne laureola L. Spurge Laurel. 9. By Fonthill Lake, L. F. Stearn. Epilobium adenocaulon Hausskn. Glandular Willow-herb. 2. Prickmoor Wood. 8. Near Grant’s Farm, Miss H. M. Hughes! Viscum album L. Mistletoe. 4. North border of Littlecote Park, on maple, O. Meyrick! 9. Near Hindon, on hawthorn, L. F. Stearn. Thesium humifusum DC. Bastard Toadflax. 2. Long Dean, Mrs. B. Sheppard. Bupleurum lancifollum Hornem. Narrow Thorow-wax. 1. Dilton Vale, R. Bennett (G). Bratton, Miss H. M. Hughes! 2. Shaw, Melksham, Mrs. B. Sheppard (G). In each case probably introduced with bird-seed. Oenanthe fistulosa L. Water Dropwort. 2. Canal near Whaddon, Mrs. E. Curtis. Heracleum sphondylium L. Hogweed. var. angustifolium Huds. 2. Blue Vein, Mrs. B. Sheppard. Mercurtalis annua L. Annual Mercury. 1. Sewage Farm, Devizes, Miss W. Stevenson. Phytolacca americana L. Virginian Poke. 7. Waste ground, Salisbury, Miss H. F. Buckle. Polygonum nodosum Pers. Spotted Persicaria. 2. Waste ground near Monkton House, Admiral Sir John Coote (G). P. cuspidatum Sieb. & Zucc. Broad-leaved Polygonum. 1. Erlestoke, R. E. Sandell. Poa Fagopyrum esculentum Moench. Buckwheat. 2. Waste ground, Shaw, Melksham, Mrs. B. Sheppard. 4. Track to the downs from Avebury; remarkably robust plants with flowers up to 8 mm. in diameter, Mrs. C. H. Croker-Fox (G). Waste ground, Chilton Foliat, W. 7. Earp (209). 8. Track on Littleton Down, Miss H. M. Hughes. Salix aurita L. Round-eared Sallow. 8. Scrub, Bidcombe Hill (G). Gaultheria shallon Pursh. Shallon. 8. Amongst heather, Longleat, Mrs. M. Haythornthwaite (G). Probably planted for game. Lystmachia vulgaris L. Yellow Loosestrife. 5. Grimstead, A. Grinstead (261). Anagallis arvensis L. Pimpernel. var. caerulea Liidi. 1. Dilton Vale, R. Bennett (G). This blue-flowered colour variant of A. arvensis seems to be much rarer than the true Blue Pimpernel (subsp. foemina). Vinca major L. Greater Periwinkle. 9. By Fonthill Lake, L. F. Stearn (261). V. minor L. Lesser Periwinkle. 9. Roadside, Beacon Hill, L. F. Stearn. Gentianella anglica (Pugsl.) E. F. Warburg. Early Gentian. 1. Fore Hill, Z. #. Mead! Pentaglottis sempervirens (L.) Tausch. Evergreen Alkanet. 1. Near Devizes railway station, Miss B. McBeth. Pulmonaria officinalis L. Lungwort. 8. Wood near Grant’s Farm, 7. Pile! 9. Park Copse, East Knoyle, B. M. Stratton. Hyoscyamus niger L. Henbane. 1. Westbury Leigh and Dilton, Mrs. E. Curtis. Frequent in District 1. 2. Great Chalfield, 1959, Col. C. Floyd. Broughton Gifford Common, Mrs. B. Sheppard; Col. C. Floyd. Melksham, Mrs. B. Sheppard. Colerne, Miss D. M. Frowde. Near Monkton House, Admiral Sir John Coote. 10. Whaddon, Miss E. Occomore (261). Solanum nigrum L. Black Nightshade. 7. Pewsey, R. A. H. Hillman. Datura stramonium L. ‘Thorn-apple. 10. Longford Castle, 1959-1965, Lady Radnor. Verbascum mgrum L. Black Mullein. 1. Waste ground, Westbury, Mrs. E. Curtis. Rail- way bank, Edington, Mrs. 7. Swanborough (G). V. blattaria L. Moth Mullein. 8. Waste ground, Warminster, Mrs. C. Seccombe Hett. Antirrhinum magus L. Snapdragon. 1. Walls near the old Saxon church, Bradford-on- Avon, R. A. H. Hillman. A. orontium L. Lesser Snapdragon. 10. Longtord Castle Formal Garden, Lady Radnor. Linaria repens (L.) Mill. Pale Toadflax. 2. Lacock Halt, Mrs. 7. G. Cobbold. Rickxia spuria (L.) Dum. Round-leaved Fluellen. 1. Bratton, Miss H. M. Hughes (G). Digitalis purpurea L. Foxglove. 2. Prickmoor Wood.. 8. Bidcombe Hill, W. E. King! Veronica montana L. Mountain Speedwell. 3. Little Hinton. V. longifolia L. Long-leaved Speedwell. 5. Naturalized, roadside, Ford Down, AK. Grinstead (261). V. polita Fries. Grey Field Speedwell. 8. Track, ‘Tenantry Down, Mrs. I. M. Grose! V. filuformis Sm. Slender Speedwell. 2. Bremhill Churchyard, 1962, 7. G. Collett (247, 1965). 3. Roadside, Upper Wanborough. 6. Roadside, Everleigh. 7. Roadside, Upper Woodford, Mrs. I. M. Grose! River-bank, Durnford. 8. Lawn, Tilshead, Mrs. E. D. Brown. 9. Roadside, Hindon, L. F. Stearn. 10. Lawn, Ashley Hill, Lady Radnor. Thymus drucet Ronn. Wild Thyme. 8. Bidcombe Hill. Galeopsis angustifolia Ehrh. Red Hemp-nettle. 2. Rail track, Seend, Mrs. B. Sheppard. Plantago indica L. Branched Plantain. 8. Corton, Mrs. D. M. Berry (G). Probably introduced with bird-seed. Asperula arvensis L. Field Woodruff. 9. Garden casual, East Knoyle, B. MM. Stratton (G). Helianthus rigidus (Cass.) Desf. Perennial Sunflower. 7. Waste ground, Salisbury, Miss H. F. Buckle. Galinsoga ciliata (Raf.) Blake. Hairy Galinsoga. 1. Penleigh, Mrs. E. Curtis and R. Bennett. 2. Bradford-on-Avon, EF. Jenkinson. Senecio viscosus L. Stinking Groundsel. 2. Seend, Mrs. B. Sheppard. S. erucifolius L. Hoary Ragwort. 1. Near Grant’s Farm, Miss H. M. Hughes! m0) Inula heleniumL. Elecampane. 1. Storridge Lane, Westbury, Mrs. E. Curtis and R. Bennett. I. conyza DC. Ploughman’s Spikenard. 9g. Frequent. Erigeron acer L. Blue Fleabane. 1. Frequent. 8. Roadside between Imber and Bratton, Miss H. M. Hughes! Grovely, Mrs. I. C. Bateman (261). E. canadensis L. Canadian Fleabane. 2. Frequent. Artemisia biennis Willd. Lesser Mugwort. 3. Garden casual, Liddington (A; G). Cirsium dissectum (L.) Hill. Meadow Thistle. 9. Gutch Common, B. M. Stratton (G). C. tuberosum (L.) All. ‘Tuberous Thistle. 8. Down south-west of Kingston Deverill, Dr. J. F. Hope-Simpson! Possibly this may be the ‘Mere Down’ station, previously allocated to District 9, which has been lost for nearly eighty years. The plants are in good quantity and the owner of the land has agreed to protect them. C’. acaule x tuberosum. 8. Plentiful with the above, Dr. 7. F. Hope-Simpson! Centaurea cyanus L. Cornflower. 1. Dilton Vale Farm, Mrs. £. Curtis and R. Bennett. C. nigra L. ‘Lesser Knapweed. 3. Fox Hill. C. nemoralis Jord. Brown Knapweed. 8.Frequent. 9. Downabove Fovant, B. M. Stratton. C. solstitialis L. St. Barnaby’s Thistle. 8. Corton, Mrs. D. M. Berry (G). Cicerbita macrophylla (Willd.) Wallr. Blue Sowthistle. 4. Field border between Ogbourne Maizey and Rockley, Mrs. C. H. Croker-Fox (G)! 5. Clarendon, C. M. R. Pitman (261). Alisma lanceolatum With. Narrow-leaved Water Plantain. 2. Chalfield Manor Moat, Mrs. B. Sheppard. Polygonatum multiflorum (L.) All. Solomon’s Seal. 9. Beacon Hill, L. F. Stearn (261). Lilium martagon LL. ‘Turk’s-cap Lily. 3. Purton, naturalized, A.7. Brett (G). Ornithogalum umbellatum L. Star of Bethlehem. 1. Frequent. 10. Lane behind Odstock Hospital, Miss D. M. Wear (261). O. nutans L. Drooping Star of Bethlehem. 7. Near Etchilhampton, £. V. Cleverly. Endymion hispanicus (Mill.) Chouard. Spanish Bluebell. 4. Rubbish dump, Chilton Foliat, W. J. Earp (209). Allium ursinum L. Ramsons. 8. Wood on Bidcombe Hill, WV. E. King! Leucojum pulchellum Salisb. Early Summer Snowflake. 7. Abundantly naturalized in swamp near the river, Durnford, 1964, Miss M. J. Webb (A; G)! The plants at Ford recorded as L. aestivum (254, p. 548) also belong to this species. Ins foetidissima L. Gladdon. 3. Coate, W. 7. Earp. Fox Hill. Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz. Broad-leaved Helleborine. 1. Frequent. 5. Frequent. Orchis strictifolia Opiz. Early Marsh Orchis. 5. Winterbourne Gunner, A. Grinstead (261). 10. Bishopstone, Mrs. R. Hinton (261). O. praetermissa Druce. Common Marsh Orchis. 5. Frequent. O. fuchsii Druce. Spotted Orchis. 8. Frequent. O. fuchsi x praetermissa. 5. Winterbourne Gunner, A. Grinstead. Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Br. Fragrant Orchid. 8. Frequent. G. conopsea x Orchis fuchsu. 8. Stockton Down, B. M. Stratton. Lemna gibba L. Gibbous Duckweed. 7. Canal at Pewsey Wharf, R. A. H. Hillman. L. polyrrhiza L. Greater Duckweed. 7. Canal near All Cannings Bridge. Schoenoplectus lacustris (L.) Palla. Bulrush. 7. Frequent. Carex pallescens L. Pale Sedge. 2. Prickmoor Wood. Phleum nodosum L. Cat’s-tail. 3. Fox Hill, Mrs. C. H. Croker-Fox (G). 8. Danes’ Bottom. Sieglingia decumbens (L.) Bernh. Heath Grass. 8. Bidcombe Hill. Poa trivialis L. 1. Rough Meadow Grass, forma glabra (Doell) Junge. 8. Chalk grassland, Bidcombe Hill (G). A most unusual habitat for this species. Festuca ovina L. Sheep’s Fescue. var. hispidula (Hack.) Richt. 8. Bidcombe Hill (G). 209 Marlborough College N.H.S. note-books. 261 Salisbury and District N.H.S. Bulletins. 247 Proceedings of the Botanical Society of the A ‘The Devizes Herbarium. British Isles. G The writer’s herbarium. 254 The Flora of Wiltshire, 1957. ! Seen by the writer in the locality named. 136 ENTOMOLOGICAL REPORT FOR 1965 by B. W. WEDDELL After the uncomfortable and monotonous days of Winter begin to thin out, there is often a sudden spell of fine weather giving us a joyful foretaste of Summer. So it was for this year when the last week of March produced some wonderful days, with record tem- peratures. It is always a joy at this time to watch the first Brimstone in the garden, or, in the woods, the Orange Underwing flying round the tops of the birches against blue sky in bright sunshine. Hope rises again and one realizes that here is a new beginning with who knows what exciting surprises ahead. The early butterflies responded well to this spell and the season began to look really promising, but very soon the temperatures slumped, especially at night, and the moths were not tempted out to very great extent. The cool uncertain Summer that followed checked the promising start and many species appeared much below normal strength. Indeed, in such a summer, when wind and rain so limit the flying hours, it is a mystery how the sexes ever find each other and mate. Much the worst hit of the Blues is the Adonis, which is really in a parlous state, showing no improvement on last year when it was causing great concern. The other mem- bers of this family and the other downland butterflies seem to be in reasonable shape. Hardly any migrants were reported—a few Painted Lady in June by C.M.R.P., but these apparently failed to raise a family. No Red Admiral or Clouded Yellow immigrants were noted. ‘There must have been some migration because several species were reported in the late Summer and Autumn such as the Hummingbird Hawk and the Convolvulus Hawk. The latter was brought in to me on 28th October, having been found roosting on an overnight line of washing in a Trowbridge garden. Oddly enough, almost exactly 20 years before, precisely the same thing happened in another local garden. An important record for 1964 was received too late for inclusion in the report for that year. It was the observation by Lt.-Col. C. F. Cowan of the Brown Hairstreak in North Wilts. It has apparently not been recorded in N. Wilts. for over 84 years (de Worms, 1962). After years of foreboding and gloom in this department, it does one’s heart good to hear from C.M.R.P., an observer of great experience, a cautious note of optimism. In his opinion, many species, at least round Salisbury, are in better shape than they have been for a number of years. Contributors C.F.C. Lt.-Col. C. F. Cowan, visiting North Wilts. D.B. Mr. David Brotheridge, Wroughton. E.J.M.B. Mr. E. J. M. Buxton, Malmesbury. M.C. Marlborough College N.H.S. J.N.K. Lt.-Col. J. N. Kirkaldy, West Lavington. P.M. Mr. Pat Meredith, Devizes. M.E.T. Mr. M. E. Tyte, Hawthorn. Oulee Lt.-Col. Charles Floyd, 0.8.£., Holt. B.W. Mr. B. W. Weddell, Trowbridge. C.G.L. Maj. Gen. C. G. Lipscomb, CUBS ED:S+O;, Crockerton. RAJ. Capt. R. A. Jackson, C.B.E., R.N. ‘(Retd. F.R.E.S., Codford. 137 C.M.R.P. Mr. C. M. R. Pitman, Salisbury. S.F.C. Salisbury Field Club. §-Gi Mr. Stuart Coxey, visiting Castle Combe. PHENOLOGICAL REPORT Average 1965 date emer gence Difference Large White 25°4 2°5 —7 Marbled White 25-6 627 —-II Meadow Brown 15°6 19°6 —4 Cinnabar 19°5 3:6 —I14 Garden Carpet 29°4 10°5 —II Brimstone Moth 14.°5 15°5 —I Orange-tip Euchlée cardamines S.F.C. 16.4 increasing. E.J.M.B. Clouded Yellow Brimstone Silver-washed Fritillary Marsh Fritillary Comma ‘Tortoiseshell Peacock Painted Lady Red Admiral White Admiral Purple Emperor Grayling Duke of Burgundy Brown Hairstreak Small Copper Chalkhill Blue Adonis Blue Small Blue Essex Skipper Convolvulus Hawk Striped Hawk Large Elephant Hawk Humming-bird Hawk Great Prominent 138 Colias croceus Gonopteryx rhamni Argynnis paphia Euphydryas aurinea Polygonia c.-album Aglais urticae Nymphalis io Vanessa cardui V. atalanta Lymenitis camilla Apatura iris Eumenis semele Hamearis lucina Thecla betulae Lycaena phlaeas Lysandra coridon L. bellargus Cupido minimus Thimelicus lineola Herse convolvuli Celerio lineata Deilephila elpenor Macroglossum stellatarum Notodonta anceps 14.5. M.C. 29.3. J.N.K. not seen on the Plain. E.J.M.B.. 26.3. C.M.R.P. mating 31.3. Very early: C.M.R.P. 10.7. Well up to strength. P.M. 13.6, common at Silbury. M.C. 2.6. J.N.K. reports small colony at Imber. M.C. 4.10. S.F.C. 8.3. Flying over snow. E.J.M.B. 16.9. J.N.K. abundant in early Spring. J.N.K. many more than usual. J.N.K. only 2 seen. M.C. . 22:9.. E:J.M.B. 14/9:- Very scarce this year, J.N.K. C.M.R.P. 10.7. Well up to strength. C.M.R.P. reports above average. J.N.K. Common near Shrewton. J.N.KK. Abundant near Imber, also in many localities on the ranges. C.F.C. observed this species in 1964. Previous record in N. Wilts. c. 1880. E.J.M.B. 27.6. Extreme form. J.N.K. Several colonies observed on Plain. C.G.L. No improvement to report. Very scarce. J.N.K. reports great abundance in places. J.N.K. Outnumbers T. sylvestris in places. B.W. 28.10. P.M. 21.5: C.M.R.P. reports larvae feeding on Noli me Tangere! M.C. 17.5. C.M.R.P. 26.10 J.N.K. PIMP 2105: Small Eggar Wood Tiger Scarlet Tiger Large Footman Alder Heart and Club Double Dart Autumnal Rustic Hedge Rustic Dusky Sallow Slender Brindle Grey Chi Brown Crescent Orange Ear Lesser-spotted Pinion Blossom Underwing Flounced Chestnut Orange Sallow Bordered Orange Scarce Tissue Drab Carpet Argent and Sable Lunar Thorn Purple Thorn Eriogaster lanestris Parasemia plantaginis Panaxia dominula Lithosia quadra Apatele alni Agrotis clavis Graphiphora augur Amathes glareosa Tholera cespitis Eremobia ochroleuca Apamea scolopacina Antitype chi Celaena leucostigma Gortina flavago Cosmia affinis Orthosia miniosa Anchoscelis helvola Tiliacea citrago Pyrrhia umbra Calocalpe cervinalis Oporinia murinata Eulype hastata Selenia lunaria S. tetralunaria Small Red-belted Clearwing Aegeria myopiformis Marbled Vert Cryphia muralis C.M.R.P. Many nests of larvae in June. M.C. 2.6. M.C. 22.6. Near Pewsey. ee ae Se ee nd Aug. near Wroughton. VK, ‘common’. A great increase ry few years. ASO Vs 2.8 near Bromham. 7.0. 9.E.Cs 15.8. 102 M.Gs 13510: — ve = 3: I -2 ae L3G. 4. SITOs, 9. b2G. 0:0. I Ot hy tty ne S: Q AN ay! OO oe — QO; vb a= iN) “4.8. “Almost the first Wilts. “record this century. 139 OFFICERS’ REPORTS FOR 1965 REPORT OF THE HON. SECRETARY Since the Annual General Meeting of 1965 Mr. R. S. Barron has succeeded Dr. E. A. R. Ennion as Chairman of the Section. Dr. Ennion was forced to retire, after two years in office, on medical advice. The Section membership totals 316 (288 in 1964); of these 173 (147 in 1964) are claims from the parent Society and 143 (141 in 1964) are Section only members. That is an overall increase of 28. It is the second successive year that the claim list has exceeded the Section only list: 26 this year as against 13 in 1964. Nineteen field meetings were held during the year and the Section was again invited to attend the winter indoor lectures given by the Bath Natural History Society and Dauntsey’s School Natural History Society. These meetings covered a wide variety of interests, mainly plants, birds, moths, mammals, zoology and colour slides of Natural History subjects taken by members during travels abroad. The Section is represented on the Council for Nature, the Council of the Wiltshire Trust for Nature Conservation, the Committee of the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust, and at meetings convened by the Archaeology Sub-Committee of local societies in Wiltshire. The National Wildfowl Count, the National Badger Survey, the British Trust for Ornithology Breeding Season Census of Common Birds and other projects continue to be supported by the Section. REPORT OF THE HON. MEETINGS SECRETARY During the year 19 field meetings were held, with an average attendance of 14. The most popular were the visit to the Wild Fowl Trust, led by Mr. Bernard King, and the meeting led by Mr. M. J. Penistan and Mr. Richard Prior at Vernditch Chase entitled ‘Forestry and Deer’. Few of us realized how much deer are on the increase—a welcome change when most wild things are on the decline. There were four joint meetings, two each with the Salisbury and the Southampton Natural History Societies. Mr. Richard Spencer, always willing to help, led three walks during the year. ‘The first was to Tan Hill in May, where a Stone Curlew was seen clearly by some members through a telescope and the flower Venus’s Looking-glass was noted. ‘The second one, the extremely muddy ‘Winter Walk’ round Chittoe in February, was on a warm sunny day and more like a Spring walk, whereas the April visit to Great Ridge Wood was held on a bitterly cold day with snow about and could justifiably have been called the ‘Winter Walk’! However, several Roe Deer were seen in spite of the cold, and the Roman or edible snail was also found. ‘The ‘Dawn Chorus Walk’, ably led by Mr. Richard Lee and Mr. Roderick Faulkner, was held in the lovely valley of the Bye Brook at Long Dean. The Nightingales were singing on arrrival and the record number of 40 species was seen or heard, amongst them the Lesser Whitethroat, a new bird to several members. At a meeting held in the woods near Maiden Bradley, Mr. J. C. C. Oliver showed members a Nightjar sitting on her nest. Although viewing her from a distance of five or six yards, many of us could not see the bird, so good was the camouflage. One member remarked that she could only see a log of wood and was told “That is the Nightjar!’ Our annual visit to Chew Valley Lake was held in August for the autumn migration instead of in the winter. Unfortunately, the lake was very full, leaving no beach for waders. 140 However, Mr. Bernard King, our leader, showed us 26 species, the most notable being Black Terns, Little Gulls, Spotted Redshank and Green Sandpiper. ‘The visit for migrants to Lacock gravel pits, led by Mr. Julian Rolls, proved disappointing, the most interesting bird seen being a Whinchat. The two winter ornithological meetings were unlucky in the weather. The visit to Sand Bay, Weston-super-Mare, led by myself, suffered from heavy rain and strong wind and there were very few birds to be seen, so the party went inland to Chew Lake in the hope of better luck. This was not forthcoming, however, and the most interesting sight of the day was a large flock of Golden Plover at Marksbury on the way home. Only five members faced the snow and icy roads to attend the winter meeting at Frampton on Severn, led by Miss Janet Robinson. This was a pity, as Bewick’s Swans were seen and the whole flock of several thousand White Fronted Geese were feeding only one field away; a few stragglers of the flock were so near that they could be seen well with the naked eye. The joint meeting with the Southampton naturalists to Martin Down, an area of great interest that is to become a Nature Reserve, was not well attended. Some interesting flowers, butterflies and moths were seen. A survey of Somerford Common in June was conducted by Mr. J. D. Grose. Many plants were rediscovered and three new species noted. The joint meeting with the Southampton naturalists to Cheddar in search of the Cheddar Pink, led by myself, proved a great success and members were pleased to see so much Cheddar Pink in bloom. A visit was made afterwards to a nearby lead mine. An impressive list of over 40 flowers was noted, the most interesting being Alpine Penny Cress, Spring Sandwort, Rock Stonecrop, Lesser Meadow Rue, Wild Madder and Cut-leaved Self-heal. A hybrid between the Self-heal and the Cut-leaved Self-heal was also found. Mr. L. Mead led an autumn botanical meeting to Walker’s Hill, where Autumn Lady’s Tresses, Felwort and Bastard ‘Toad-flax were noted. ‘The party was then taken by Mr. Noel King to West Woods to see the Meadow Saffron and other interesting plants. Mr. B. Weddell was unlucky with the weather in the two moth watches held. The first, in my garden in May, was so cold that only 18 species, were recorded, and the second, at Crockerton in July, was cancelled owing to heavy rain. A very interesting day was spent geologizing with Mr. R. S. Barron in the vicinity of the River Avon, from Chippenham to its source. Several fossils were found, including ammonites and belemnites. Mr. Brian Painter of the Army Forestry Commission led a party of Wiltshire and Salisbury members through Everley Ashes. The Section was again fortunate in being invited to the winter lectures arranged by the Bath Natural History Society and by Dauntsey’s School. In addition to these, two indoor meetings were held. At Marlborough College in November Mr. Noel King gave a very interesting lecture entitled “The Nature Conservancy’. This was followed by the Nature Conservancy’s own film, “The Living Pattern’. In January an enjoyable evening was spent at Devizes Museum when members showed their slides. Section members were invited by the Wiltshire Trust for Nature Conservation to a cheese and wine party at the Town Hall, Devizes. Afterwards a short talk was given on the aims and work of the Trust, and two excellent films was shown. One of these, “The Forest of Falcons’, was of outstanding interest. I should like to close this report by thanking all those who have helped me by acting as leaders during the year. 141 INDEX TO VOLUME 61 Accessions: Library, 109; Museum, 110; County Record Office, 111. Adams, Rev. John, 64 ff. Addyman, P. V., 104 Ailesbury, Marquess of, 88 Alderbury, 29 Algar, D. J., 106 All Cannings, 65 All Gannings Cross, 6 Allington, 67 Alton, 65 Alvediston, 29 Amesbury, 6, 29, 92-3 Anglo-Saxon: accessions, 111; burials, 25 ff., 108; enclosure, 108; gravel pit, 99; pottery, 31 ff.; structure, 39-40; walled town, 38 Animal bones from excavations, 23, 102 Annable, F. K., 9, 93, 95-7 Ansty, 29 ApSimon, A. M., 1,5 Archaeology Research Sub-Committee, 104 Arnold-Forster, Cdr. H. C., obituary, 118 Ashton Valley, Codford St. Peter, 29 Atworth, 65 Avebury, 36, 92, 97 Badeni, Countess June, 85 Barbury Castle, 28 Barford St. Martin, 47 Barnes, Mrs. Ruth, 120 Barrett, William, 64 ff. Barrows: round, 1-8, 25-9, 93, 102 Bartholomew, Rev. John, 64 ff. Bassett Down, Lydiard Tregoze, 28-9 Baydon, 35 Beckford, William, 67 Bemerton, 57, 60 Beth, Thomas, 65 Bill, Charles, go Bishops Cannings, 29, 92, 102 Bishop’s Knoyle, 73 Bonney, D. J., 25 Boreham, Warminster, 29 Boscombe Down, Amesbury, 29 Bowen, Rev. William Mogg, 70 Bowles, John, 59 Bowles, Rev. William Lisle, 72 Boyle, G. L., 120 Bradford-on-Avon, 95 142 Bremhill, 73 Brettle, R. E., 47 Bridgman, C. J., 120 Brinkworth, 66 Britton, John, 85 Broad Chalke, 28 Bronze Age: accessions, 110; animal bones, 102; burials, 102; grave-groups, 1-8, 102; pottery, 102, 108 Brooke, J. W., 9 Bull, J. M., 98 Burbage, 94. Burchard, A. M., 98, 100 Calne, 64 Carter, Ann, 65 Castle Combe, 66 Castle Eaton, 93-4 Castle Meadow, Downton, 31 ff. ‘Celtic’ fields, 31, 102-4. Cennick, Rev. John, 65 Chandler, Rev. Richard, 59 Cherhill, 92 Chicklade, 73 Chippenham, 66, 70, 79, 85 Christian Malford, 66 Christie-Miller, Major S. V., 93 Clarendon Park, 28, 36, 93 Clark, A. J., 9 Clark, Rev. John, 65 ff. Clift, Rev. Samuel, 67 ff. Clyffe Pypard, 29 Codford St. Peter, 29 Coffins: Roman, 95-6 Coins: Belgic, 93-4, 111; Roman, 14, 106-7 Colerne, 64 Compton, 65 Cook, William, 65 Coombe Bissett, 29 Cornwall, Dr. I., 6 Cricklade, 36, 38, 66, 100-1 Crofton, Great Bedwyn, 28 CVNETIO, 9 ff. Cunnington, Mr. and Mrs. B. H., 13 Cunnington, William, 4 ff. Dauntsey, 66 Devizes, 67, 96 Devon, Isabella, Countess of, 4.2 Dinton, 92 Douglas, Dr. John, 63 ff. Douglas, William, 71 Downton, 31 ff., 49 ff., 98 Durrington, 92 East Grafton, 29 Easton Priory, 89 Ekins, Rev. Dr. John, 72 Ell Barrow, 29 Enford, 28, 65 Ennion, Dr. E. A. R., 120 Estcourt family, 85 Etchilhampton, 65 Evans, J. G., 92, 98 Everleigh, 29 Eyles, Charles, 65 Fifield, 65 Fisherton Anger, 72 Fonthill, 67 Ford Down, Laverstock, 29, 36 Fowler, P. J., 31, 102 Fox, Henry, 1st Lord Holland, 85 Foxley, 66, 85 Fyfield Down, 102 Garrett, Rev. Christopher, 65 Giddings, John, 65 Gomeldon, 107-8 Great Bedwyn, 28 Great Cheverell, 28 Great Somerford, 66 Green, D., 59 Grose, D., 133 Hall, Thomas, 65 Hancock, Thomas, 66 Hannay, Mrs. Winifred, 23-4 Hannington, 94 Harcourt, R., 23 Harden, D. B., 23 Harnham, 27-8 Hayward, John, 66 Heytesbury, 29 Highworth, 67 Hilcot, 65, 67 Hoare, R. Colt, 4 ff. Holland, 1st Lord, 85 Holland, 4th Lord, 85 ff. Hullavington, 66 Human skeletal remains, 92, 95-8, 100, 102, 111 Hungerford, Walter, Lord, 42 Idmiston, 29 Inglesham, 43 Iron Age: fields, 102-3; pottery, 6, 31-2, 106; settlements, 94, 102-3 Jackson, Canon, 85 ff. Jackson, Rev. Edward Dudley, 67, 70 Jacob, John, 85 Jay, Rev. William, 67, 69 Jennings, R. A. U., 119 Jeremy, D. J., 63 Kill Barrow, 29 Kilmister, Robert, 85-6 King, N. E., 98 Lacock, 104 Larkhill, 92 Latton, 36 Laverstock, 29, 36 Lea, 66 Liddington, 92 Little Somerford, 66 Ludgershall Castle, 104 Lydiard Tregoze, 29 Lyneham, 66 Lynne, Dr. Marmaduke, 59 Maiden Bradley, 97 Malham, Rev. John, 72 Malmesbury, 66 Marlborough, 29, 66, 79 Marston, John, 47 ff. Martinsell Camp, 13 Mead, John, 23 Medieval: accessions, 111; architecture, 38 ff.; burials, 100; carving, 43 ff.; casket lid, 104; castle, 104; coins, 104; earthworks, 98, 104, 108; fields, 103; pottery, 99-100, 104-5, 108; settlements, 35, 107 Melksham, 64 ff. Meyrick, O., 31 Meyrick, Roderic, obituary, 118 Middle Down, Alvediston, 29 Mildenhall, 9 ff., 28-9, 37 Moles, William, 66 Mollusca from prehistoric site, 91-2 Moore, C. N., 92, 107 Moore, John, 65 Moot earthworks, Downton, 98 Musty, John, 29, 93, 99, 106 143 Neolithic: accessions, 110; flints, 98, 102; pits, 102; pottery, 102 Nettleton Shrub, 37 Newall, R. S., 93 Newton Tony, 65, 72 North Newnton, 29 Northumberland, Duke of, 42 Norton, 66, 85 ff. Oare, 79 Ogbourne St. Andrew, 28 Ogbourne St. George, 31 ff. Old Court, Downton, 98 Old Sarum, 106 Overton Down, 102 Overton Hill, 35 Page, William, 65 Patney, 65 Pedigrees, 100-1, 111 Penruddock, John, 59 Petersfinger, Clarendon Park, 27-8, 36 Petrological identifications, 1-2 Pitt, Rev. Simon, 64 ff. Pitton Lodge, Clarendon Park, 93 Poore family of Bemerton, 60 Potterne, 37, 65, 95 Preshute, 8, 36 Provis, A., 85 ff. Pullin, Rev. William, 66 Purton, 36 Queensbury, Marquess of, 93 Ramsbury, 100 Raw, Barbara C., 43 Robertson-Mackay, Mrs. M. E., 102 Rodbourne, 66 Romano-British: accessions, 110; animal bones, 23; brooches, 14, 103; burials, 95-7; coffins, 95-63 coins, 14, 106-7; fields, 103; glass, 23; hobnails, 95, 97; pottery, 9, 12-22, 31-3, 95-8, 106-7; road, 106-7; rubbish mound, 13; settlements, 9 ff., 31, 106-7; well, 9 ff. Ross, H., 23 Round Hill Down, Ogbourne St. George, 31 ff. Roundway, 29, 94. Sainsbury, H. L., 93 Salisbury, 36, 57, 64 ff. Salisbury Museum Research Committee, 99, 106 Savernake Forest, 88 ff. Shaw, Col. W. D., 33 44. Sherrington, 29 Sherston, 66 Shortt, H. de S., 94 Shrewton, 64, 93 Simpson, Dr. Grace, 13, 22-3 Sloper, Rev. Robert, 67, 70 Snap, 35 South Newton, 72 Stanton Fitzwarren, 29 Stanton St. Bernard, 65 Stapleford, 72 Stockton, 59 Stonehenge, 5, 93 Stratford-sub-Castle, 106 Stratton, J. E. D., 106 Studley Park, 64 Swindon, 28, 92 Taylor, H. M., 38 Temple Down, 36 Thomas, Nicholas, 1 Thompson. N. P., 23 Thomson, T. R., 38, 93 Tilshead, 29, 92 Trowbridge, 65, 70 Turner, Mrs. Joanna, 65, 67 Tutt, Rev. Robert, 59, 62 Upavon, 65 Upper Upham, 35 Upton Lovell, 1 Urchfont, 65 Wallis, Dr. F. S., 1 Wanborough, 36 Wansey, Henry, 73 Warminster, 29, 67, 70, 79 Webster, Dr. Graham, 23 Weddell, B. W., 137 Wedhampton, 65 Wellhead, Westbury, 31 ff. Westbury, 31 ff., 96 West Chisenbury, Enford, 28 West Cholderton, 72 West Grimstead, 72 West Overton, 28-9, 35-6, 98 White, John, 65 Whiteparish, 64 Wilkes, Sir Thomas, 48-50, 61 Wilkes, Rev. William, 47 ff. Wilmot, Rev. William, 66 Wilsford (N.), 29 Wilsford (S.), 1-3, 7-8, 92 Wilton, 59 Wiltshire Association of Independent Ministers, 67, 73 Winckles, William, 90 Windmill Hill, Avebury, 91-2, 98 Winter, Rev. Cornelius, 66 ff. Winterbourne Gunner, 27-9, 36, 108 Winterbourne Monkton, 92 Winterbourne Stoke, 1, 4-6, 29 Winterslow, 92 Witherington, Alderbury, 29 Woodbridge, North Newnton, 29 Woodhenge, 92 Wootton Bassett, 66, 85 Workman, ‘Thomas, 85-7 Young, John, 59 145 PLATE I pecan ss Sherds of Saxon domestic pottery from Round Hill Down, Ogbourne St. George. Scale: 3: 4. TWO FINDS OF SAXON DOMESTIC POTTERY IN WILTSHIRE PLATE II i THE INGLESHAM VIRGIN AND CHILD PLATE III CI, a. Norton Manor c. 1840, from the oil painting by A. Provis. Reproduced by permission of B. F. J. Pardoe, Esq. ES b. Norton Manor as it now appears. Photograph by Miss M- Beak NORTON MANOR PLATE IV ear Castle Eaton, seen from the north. a. Cropmarks in a field n Photograph by the late Major G. W. G. Allen b. The ‘Morinic’ stater found near the centre of the field. Actual size. ¢ FEB 1967 Gs co S LTT we Established over 100 Years F. RENDELL & SONS — LIMITED — DEVIZES WILTS BUILDING AND CIVIL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS HEATING AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS Telephone: Devizes 157 (4 lines) WILTSHIRE JOINERY CO. LTD. WOOTTON BASSETT, SWINDON, WILTS. CA craftsmen in joinery CH we had the pleasure of supplying the display cases in the new Iron Age room at Devizes Museum TELEPHONE: WOOTTON BASSETT 521/2 THE NATIONAL TRUST in Wiltshire The National Trust is a land-owning charity independent of the Government. It now owns one acre in every hundred in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Wiltshire it preserves such properties as the circles of sarsen stones at Avebury, the Iron Age hill-forts on Cley Hill and at Figsbury Rings, the Grey Wethers at Lockeridge Dene, Stonehenge Down, Lacock Abbey and village, Mompesson House in Salisbury Cathedral Close and the Palladian house and landscape gardens at Stourhead. These places are maintained for your enjoy- ment by members of the National Trust who receive a card giving them the privilege of free entry into those properties where a fee is charged. You can join the National Trust and help to preserve this heritage. The minimum subscription is £2 per annum and there is a family membership, details from: THE NATIONAL TRUST 23 CAXTON STREET, LONDON, S.W.1 The Stone-Tipped Arrow BRIDGET ALLCHIN After world-wide, on-the-spot investiga- tion of surviving stone-age cultures, and by intense comparative study of the stone tools of today and prehistory, Dr. Bridget Allchin here shows how almost imperceptible differences in stone tools and weapons illuminate the development of primitive methods of food gathering, fishing, and hunting. Her investigations covered southern and equatorial Africa, India, the Equatorial Islands, and Australia. With 16 pp. plates; 43 drawings; 4 maps 10in x 74in PHOENIX 84s A prospectus is available A Phoenix House Book published by J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 10-13 Bedford Street, London WC; W. A. M. Wanted to complete a bound set, Nos. 119, 120 and 12I (Vol. XXXVIII), June and December, 1913, and June, 1914. £5.0.0d. for the three. Please write Miss T. Vernon, Dyer’s Leaze, Lacock. The Magazine The Magazine is at present issued once a year. It is issued free to members of the Society. Contributions, editorial correspondence and books for review should be sent to the Editor at The Museum, 41 Long Street, Devizes. Back numbers of Magazines can be obtained from the Honorary Librarian, with the other publications listed below. Notes for the guidance of contributors will be found on pp. 207-8 of Volume 60 (1965). Publications to be obtained from the Librarian, The Museum, Devizes A GuIpE CATALOGUE OF THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE COLLECTIONS AT DEvIzEs Museum, by F. K. Annable and D. D. A. Simpson. 1964. Post free, 26s. 6d. A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE GREAT STONE MONUMENTS OF WILTSHIRE: STONEHENGE AND AveEBurRY, by W. J. Harrison. No. LXX XIX (1901) of W.A.M. 5s. 6d. WILTSHIRE INQUISITIONES Post Mortem: Henry III, Epwarp I anp Epwarp II. 133. Dirto. Epwarp III. 13s. THE CuurcH BELLS OF WILTSHIRE, THEIR INSCRIPTIONS AND History, by H. B. Walters. Parts II and III only. 14s. REcoRDS OF THE County oF Wits, EXTRACTS FROM THE QUARTER SESSIONS GREAT ROLLS OF THE 17TH CENTURY, by B. H. Cunnington. 1s. 6d. Devizes BoroucH ANNALS, EXTRACTS FROM THE CORPORATION ReEcorpDs, by B. H. Cunnington. Vol. II, 1792 to 1835. 15s. (Vol. I is out of print.) THe WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL History Society, 1853-1953. A Cen- tenary History. 3s. 6d. Brapon Forest, by T. R. Thomson. 1953. tos. 6d. Tue FLora oF WILTsHIRE, by Donald Grose. Pp. iv, 824. 1957. 4... WILTsHIRE Birps, by L. G. Peirson. 4s. THE MacrROLEPIDOPTERA OF WILTSHIRE, by Baron de Worms. Pp. xv, 177. 1962. 25s. (Members 20s.) PARLIAMENTARY History OF CRICKLADE, by W. B. Crouch. 1961. 12s. A History oF SAVERNAKE Forest, by The Marquess of Ailesbury. 1962. 12s. 6d. The Society’s Museum and Library, Long Street, Devizes The Curator is Mr. F. K. Annable; the Honorary Librarian, Mr. R. E. Sandell All members of the Society are asked to give an annual subscription towards the upkeep of the Museum and Library collections. The Museum contains many objects of great local interest; and the Library a rich collection of books, articles and notes about the history of Wiltshire. Subscriptions should be sent to The Treasurer, The Museum, Devizes. Old printed material and photographs of Wiltshire buildings or other objects of interest will be welcomed by the Librarian at the Museum. The repository for records, e.g. old deeds, maps, plans, etc., is the Wiltshire Record Office, County Hall, Trowbridge. The Records Branch Pounded in 1937 for the publication of original documents igo to the history ol the County. The subscription is £2 yearly. New members are urgently needed. VE Secretary, Miss T. E. Vernon, Dyer’s Leaze, Lacock, Wilts. — ‘The Branch has issued the following. Prices on application. I ABSTRACTS OF FEET OF FINES. RELATING TO” ‘WILTSHIRE | FOR THE Retons oO Epwarp I anp Epwarp II. Edited by R. B. Pugh. 1939. Reprinting. - If ACCOUNTS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY GARRISON OF GREAT CHALFIELD AND BURY, 1645 TO 1646, Edited by J. H. P. Pafford. Reprinted, 1966. Il CALENDAR OF AnTROBUS DEEDS BEFORE 1625. Edited by R. B. Pugh IV WirsuirE County Recorps. Minutes OF PROCEEDINGS IN | SESSIONS I 503 LNT To 1592. Edited by H. C. Johnson. 1949. Vv Lisr or WinrsHirE BoroucH REcorps. EARLIER IN Dae THAN Eedite b Maurice G. Rathbone. With an ees as uae R. B. Poet A051 ethers who wich for a Treasurer of th 1 ve Moe, a the ecuon: ae net: Sonal any io es are already members of the Society. ce . Observations should be se sent to the recorders: Brrps; Mrs. Egber Barnes, i Fiowers: Mr. J. D. Grose, Downs Bde. ‘Teen nea Swi LEPIDOPTERA: ‘Mr. B ek Weddell, It 1 The ae ee # ae teste roptresee st <3 Lisette Steete se betetveasizets saeco pipcriieests et tb cs, “3 puteressitz rs Sstssseasstseeiss: ereuiniennets =e: ~ triste 2. sssagiisteisistesiizi rescetteet aEEaE stot eestT etz3;