Page images
PDF
EPUB

Notes.

[The Council have decided to reserve a small space in each Number of the Journal for notices of Finds and other discoveries; it is hoped that Members will assist in making this a record of all the matters of archæological interest which may from time to time be brought to light in this large county.]

LVII.

IN acknowledgment of Mr. Stapleton's remarks (ante, pp. 315-318) in respect of the alleged connection of the Stapletons of Cudworth with those of the North Riding, a few words seem to be necessary from me in maintenance of my position. And they need be but few.

Mr. Stapleton seems to think the evidence against a supposed connection between the two families is based principally on the difference in their coats of arms. But I need only point to my remarks in Note", on page 116, to show that such is by no means the case, the difference in arms being merely a corroboration. I need not repeat those remarks, but I find it difficult to understand how such a misapprehension could have existed in face of such a declaration, for the very point of my argument is that the two Stapleton families were entirely independent of each other for many years, and that it was not till the third generation that the grandfather of the first Stapleton of Cudworth (who indeed acquired that manor by marriage only) assumed the name of Stapleton, when fairly advanced in life. The allegation that there was a neighbourly connection between the families, six or seven generations afterwards, by no means derogates from this position. For as neither Dama, his grandparent, nor Gilbert, his father, made any pretence whatever to the name, clearly neither of them brought it with him to the West Riding, but assumed it from the place where they lived, after they had been the manorial lords for possibly three generations. I thought that the sketch pedigree of the Stapletons of Stapleton in Darrington, which I gave at page 117, would have made this clear.

VOL. XIII.

I I

With reference to a further remark of Mr. Stapleton's that the same christian names occur in both families, I had judged the case to be the very opposite. For instance, Brian, Milo, and Nicholas, which are the predominating uames, and appear in every generation in the North Riding pedigree, do not once occur among the Stapletons of Darrington.

I need have said no more than the above to confirm my position; and should have contented myself by referring to the note which appeared in connection with the pedigree, but that I feel called upon to point out that Mr. Stapleton has met my remarks with a series of quotations, which he will be as sorry to learn as I am to tell him, are hopelessly inaccurate. This I must not entirely overlook; for if I were to allow them to pass, I might be considered to have acknowledged their accuracy.

1. The foundation by Ilbert de Lascy, of St. Clement's chapel in the castle, was nearly a generation earlier than 1100, to which Mr. Stapleton seems inclined to assign it. It was certainly in the time of the Conqueror, and could hardly have been later than 1080, twenty years earlier than the date given by Mr. Stapleton.

2. While Hugh de Stapleton was certainly not a witness to a grant of land by Robert de Lascy to the monks, "for the recovery (pro remedio) of Henry I. and his wife Matilda, by the advice of Thomas, archbishop of York (1108-1114). Collection of Gervase Holles Lansdowne MSS. 207A fo. 543)," the passage itself as I have copied it from Mr. Stapleton's remarks is a mass of misquotation and erroneous deduction; and as it has appeared in this journal, in connection with one of my articles, I consider myself bound to do somewhat to nail the false money to the counter, and to prevent its future circulation. It is a small point that the quotation will not be found on fo. 543 of Lansdowne 207A, but that anyone seeking the passage will have to refer to 545; for such a mistake might be easily made by the printer. It is more serious, however, when Hugh de Stapleton (as of that ilk) is alleged to be a witness to a document of 1108-14, for as a matter of fact, such is not the case; and more serious still on general grounds when

the grant is said to be for Henry I. and his wife Matilda, it being really for Robert de Lascy and his wife of that name. This last mistake is so curious that it will be worth while, and very instructive from every point of view to follow it up, especially as it illustrates the charge (probably put on record by Gervase Holles himself) that 207A was badly copied, and not scrupulously accurate. For each student of the charters in 207A, is warned by a memorandum prefixed to the volume itself (and which I have already quoted, xi. 445), that they have been badly copied (parum fideliter). How badly the extracts I give below will show; the comparison having been made by myself with the original, to which I have been generously allowed access.

me

PONTEFRACT CHARTULARY, No. 7.
Robertus de Lasci, &c....Sciatis
pro salute anime domini mei
Henrici

et pro incolumitate sua, et statu
regni sui, et pro remedio anime mee
et Matildi uxoris mee, Illeberti
patris mei, et Hawisie matris mei, &c.

AS PARAPHRASED IN 207A.
Robertus de Laceis dedit pro salute
anime domini sui
Henrici

et pro incolumitate sua, et statu
regni sui, et pro remedio anime sue
et Matildis uxoris sue et lleberti
Patris sui, et Hawis matris sui, &c.

Thus the copyist introduced ambiguity by converting a direct case into an oblique, though there would have ceased to be one in the presence of the whole of the clause, for three words more would have shown that if Matilda was "his" wife, Ilbert was "his" father, and Hawise "his" mother, which could not have applied to the king. It is, however, really no wonder that, with possibly an extract only of this inaccurate copy before him, Mr. Stapleton applied to King Henry's wife what really belonged to Robert's wife, each having the same name; but I fail to find his warrant for introducing the passage at all in connection with the name of Hugh de Stapleton, which, as I have said, is not attached to the document, and this I say having seen and carefully examined both the original chartulary and the abstract in 207A.

This is an illustration of the ease with which an unguarded reader may draw an erroneous deduction.

3. There is on the next page, 317, an example of another kind of mistake, leading still more directly to a similar false deduction. Mr. Stapleton says, "Dugdale quoting Stillingfleet who wrote in 1434, says Robert de Stapleton gave the vill of Osmundthorpe to the Templars of Templehirst

(Monast. vi. 480), not Temple Newsam as we should expect, as nearest to his own house at Thorpe Stapleton." For myself, I will be bold to add that I think Mr. Stapleton's expectation is not at fault, and that the gift was certainly to Temple Newsam, a mile off, and not to Temple Iirst, twenty or thirty miles away. And as the history of this remarkable blunder is quite as curious as that which I have already exposed, in which "sue" and "sui" were substituted for mee and "mei," I narrate it as it presents itself

to me.

[ocr errors]

There is (or was) in the College of Arms a MS. (L. 17) alleged to have been written by Brother John Stillingfleet in 1434. This MS. Dugdale copied in full, and published in 1661, in the second volume of the Monasticon, p. 551. The original, I venture to think, would have been as follows:

Robertus de Stapleton dedit Templariis ibi-
dem villam de Osmundethorpe.

Radulphus de Hastings & Willielmus de
Hastings dederunt Templariis Temple Hyrste
& Wyxham, cum pertinentiis, anno Domini
MCLII.quæ modo occupantur per Dominum
de Darcy.

[ocr errors]

Temple

Newsum

Precep-
toria.
Temple
Hurste.

But by some default, either of Dugdale himself (and the portions which he added do not contrast favourably with Dodsworth's original work), or of the printer, or of the original MS., the marginal note which indicates locality, became shifted in position; the four lines, " Temple Newsum Preceptoria," went into the space above, while the two "Temple Hurste took their place as the reference to "Osmundthorpe"; and thus the error never having been discovered, or at least pointed out, has been perpetuated. It may have been noticed as curious, in the same spirit as Mr. Stapleton noticed it, and accepted as correct in deference to the supposed authority, but it has never been openly stigmatised as a mistake, at least as far as my knowledge extends.

In the new edition of the Monasticon, from which Mr. Stapleton makes his quotation, a further stage of confusion was reached, the side references being brought into the text, and a translation given. This Mr. Stapleton, knowing something of the local conditions, quotes with not unnatural

surprise adding "not Temple Newsam, as we should expect, as nearest to his own home at Thorpe Stapleton "; and as he might have added, "Osmondthorpe being, moreover, specially said to be ibidem,' as being in the very parish of Temple Newsam."

6

But in addition to the singular mistake of which I have spoken, the whole history of this gift is curious, and I am sure I shall be excused for shortly rehearsing it.

This Robert de Stapleton was the owner of two knight's fees in 1166. He received Cudworth as part of the dower of his wife Claricia, said to be the daughter of Adam (Vetus) de Reineville, and whose widow and son, after his death, made a covenant with John Tyrel, parson of Royston, for his memorial. He had made an early gift to the monks of Pontefract, of lands in Armley, which he afterwards recovered, giving therefor three bovates in Osmondthorpe (a part of the parish of Temple Newsam), and thus "breaking bulk in his ownership of the whole. Soon afterwards, however, owning all the manor of Osmondthorpe, except those three bovates, and wishing to grant the whole manor unbroken to the Knights Templars (of Temple Hirst, as it appears in the Monasticon; of Temple Newsam, as I have shown, and as Mr. Stapleton correctly supposes), he reclaimed the three bovates from the monks of Pontefract, in order that he might confer the whole manor upon the Preceptory that was so near a neighbour.

The history is clear, moreover, that the Templars of Hirst had no possession in Osmondthorp.

These two illustrations show how vigilantly the student should examine every document that comes before him in order to detect and eliminate any possible error. Truth is always consistent with itself, and will bear examination the most minute. Error may appear consistent in some points; but the more our knowledge is extended, the better are we able to find the exact point at which it is vulnerable. And vulnerable it will always be found to be at some point, if the student's knowledge extends sufficiently.

RICHARD HOLMES.

« PreviousContinue »