The Antiquities of CANTERBURY: W'illiam Somner William Somner's Antiquities of Canter- bury, first published in 1640, stands in the first rank of early town histories, in the tradition of, and probably inspired by, Stow’s Survey of London. As an ac- count of Canterbury, Somner’s Antiqui- ties has had only one real imitator, in Edward Hasted’s section on Canterbury in his History and Topographical Survey qf Kent (1788-1799), and Hasted derived much from Somner. Later general his- tories of the city have lacked deep original scholarship, so that Somner's Antiquities remains significant“ as a body of original evidence; as a register ofmuch that has since been lost; and as a fascinating piece of reading in its own right. This is especially so in the edition of 1703 where a modest metamorphosis has been efiected by Nicholas Battely. It is this edition of the Antiquities which is here reproduced, with the addition of some ofthe attractive illustrations taken from Battely’s own Cantuaria Scan, and prefaced by an authoritative Introduc- tion by W'illiam Urry, himself the his- torian of Canterbury in the Angevin period. Dr. Urry places the writing of the Antiquities in the context of Somner’s personal life and his literary career, and also provides an interesting note on Nicholas Battely. It is hoped that this new printing ofSomner’s Antiquities, still so frequently consulted, will make more generally available this unique contri- bution to the general history of Can- terbury, and to early urban history. a fascii right. '3 of 1703‘ has bcei It is chi is here 3 some of from Bg prefacd; (ion by? Lorian _ period. Z chest ‘ pcrsohu; also pré Vicholas mw’ prir} .0 frc-qu(; gencrallj )ution I crbury, 2 i ? 1.-........ QRTAQ -. —“.;.k.......¢m_~..:..u.a_g.. OT\lNE RU S 1TI?§£"‘I*iI"i‘}7iTE3’ I x INTRODUCTION William Somner and his ‘Antiquities’ remarkable group of men had an origin in Canterbury within the century between A Reformation and Civil W'ar. They numbered the dramatist Christopher .\Iarlowe (d. 1593); john Lyly (d. 1606), author of the best-selling novel Eup/rues; Stephen Gosson, the puritan controversialist !:d. 1624:); and Richard Boyle, ‘Great Earl of Cork’ (d. 1643). To these, born in the city, may be added William Harvey, the anatomist (d. 1657), and Robert Cushman (cl. X625), the grocer’s assistant who was mainly instrumental in hiring the ship gllqiflozver. Harvey and Cushman (both of Kentish origins) underwent education and apprenticeship respectively in Canterbury. William Somncr stands high amid this diversity of talent and it is curious that he has never attracted a serious biography. A great discouragement has been the destruction of his papers in the fire at the Cathedral Audit House in 1670, the year after his death. There was a second, less well-known destruction ofdocuments relating to Somner and his family in the air-raid ofjune I94/2, though fortunately notes of their contents survive, while some letters to his distinguished correspondents are available. l\/loreover, as a busy official he left masses of administrative documents in his beautiful but difficult handwriting. Happily at least part of his historical collections, with his books both printed and manuscript (some of medieval date), had been transferred to the Cathedral library and escaped damage in 1670.‘ White Kennett compiled a Life of .l/Ir. Somner, prefixed to the Rev. James Brome’s edition of Somner’s Roman Ports and Fort: in Kent (1693). Kennett was himself a dis- tinguished antiquary whose father, Basil Kennett, had known Somner personally. White Kennett was at this time Vice-Principal of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, where he had been an undergraduate, and dated his Life of Somner with great precision from ‘Edm. Hall Oxon. Feb. 15. 1693’. Edmund Gibson, from the adjacent Q_ueen’s College, supplied learned footnotes to the edition of Roman P0T[5.2 Kennett’s Life, however, though written in stately Stuart prose, with much charm and enthusiasm for its subject, is of limited value, for it is commonly vague, discursive, inaccurate and lacking in such essential features of a biography as sound personal chronology. In fact it is less a Life than a manifesto for the value of contemporary antiquarian studies. Kennett may perhaps be excused for a faulty compilation, since he lived far from Kent, had few materials to work upon, and was out of immediate Contact with those who harboured fleeting recollections of the great antiquary and who could have supplied personal memories and touches. James Brome can less be excused, for as incumbent ofNewington near Folkestone he was living only a few miles from Somner’s widow and children. Brome (who enjoyed a name as a travel writer) I (V) I (vi) INTRODUCTION had wished the task of writing a memoir on to Kennett upon the excuse of a ‘retir’d life, and want of access to books’, yet he was no more than a ride from the Cathedral library at Canterbury. Kennett is vague about Somner's origins, and commends him for not advertising them. The father proves to be another VVilliam Somner (son of David Somner), Registrar of the Canterbury Consistory Court, baptized at Boxley near Maidstone in 1572 and brought up not far away at Debtling. He reached Canterbury when about nineteen around the year 1591 and was apprenticed to lawyers in the Consistory Court, then conducted beneath the north—west tower in the Cathedral nave.3 He had left his heart behind him, for in October 1594 he went to Maidstone and on 22nd of the month married the twenty-year old Anne Winston, then of that town, who had been born at Linstead, near Faversham. William Somner the antiquary, her son, owned a medieval glossary once in the hands of Giles Winston, an objectionable Canterbury attorney, so perhaps there is a family connection with him.‘ In the absence of much personal information about the mother of I/Villiam Somner, we may proffer what we do know, and observe that she was, like many ladies of the day, unlettered and unable to sign her own name.5 She was near neighbour of and acquainted with Mrs Susan Fludd, the mother-in-law to Izaak \'Valton, and it is possible that William Somner met the author of the Compleat Angler. I/Valton liked to cultivate clerico-legal circles, and for his Life ofRic/mm’ Hooker obtained a copy of H0oker’s will ‘attested under the hand ofWilliam Somner, the Archbishop’s Registrar for the Province [sic] of Canterbury’.“ V/Valton probably used the copy of Hooker’s will issued in 1600 for probate purposes by Somner senior. Both Izaak \Nalton the angler, and \-‘Villiam Somner the antiquary were in accord over the excellence of Fordwich trout, remarking respectively that they are ‘accounted rare meat’, and that they ‘beare away the bell’. Walton was intimate with Meric Casaubon, Prebendary of Canterbury, the antiquary’s friend and patron.’ In a court case of 1622, the elder William Somner gave evidence and provided additional news of his movements. Entries of baptisms (underlined by the evidence) show that the young couple started married life in St. Margaret’s parish in Canterbury. Their child George Somner was christened in that church on 17 February 1597, while a V‘Villiam Somner followed on 5 November 1598.3 The father, advancing in his career, was admitted Proctor in the Consistory Court on 7 June 1597,” and about then moved into St. Alphage parish, dwelling in the building with the sign of the ‘Sun’, the wooden structure still standing on the Sun Yard in Sun Street.” It seems once to have been known as the ‘Splayed Eagle’, and as such would have been the boyhood home ofjohn Lyly, author ofEup/mar. Baptisms appear in the St. Alphage Register, of Henry Somner (1600), Mary (1603) and of_]ohn (1605). After a sojourn of— about five years, the Somner family returned to St. Margaret’s parish, clearly moving into the large house with an overhang, today with a Classicized front, numbered 5 Castle Street. At that time the house bore a sign, like the previous residence, namely the ‘Crown’.“ The house has a singular feature for it spans the three Canterbury parishes of St. Margaret, St. Mildred and St. Mary de Castro. Here was born another William on 30 March (according to family tradition), in the year 1606. Probably he was baptized at St. Margaret’s, but in the absence of the parish register or of the Bish0p’s transcripts for that particular year, we are uncertain. The baptism is at any rate not noticed in any other of the central parishes. A sister, Mabel, was born in 1615 and baptized at St. -Mildredls, Canterbury. There can be no question but that the child William, born in 1606, is the antiquary. Kennett debates the point and the Dictionary (J./Vational Bt(Jg7'a[}fl)' settles for the earlier date in 1598, but the child baptized then must have died, while the family perpetuated the Christian name. William Somner (the younger) himself resolves the question, for during a court case in November 1663 he said that he was born in Canterbury, had lived there ab incunabu/is, and was then 56 years of age, which points to the later date INTRODUCTION (vii) of 1606 but suggests that the famous historian had forgotten precisely how old he was, and was a year out.” The young Somner grew up in an atmosphere ofecclesiastical law as suitors or clients came and went, for the ‘Crown’ was not only his father’s orhce, but the centre of much diocesan business. Somner, senior, (as disclosed in his own Consistory Court records) was called upon to write wills, and occasionally agitated relatives induced him to ride far out into the countryside to take down a testament at a bedside. William Somner, the younger, probably first attended school at one of the numerous small private establishments of which only a bare trace remains in local archives. He went on to the Kings School, where his headmaster was the redoubtable john Ludd, with his famous boast of 37 l\/Iasters of Arts of his own bringing up. But Somner’s stay at the school can hardly have extended much beyond the age of thirteen or so, when he was taken away and apprenticed to his father’s occupation.” The transition was easy, for he worked at home. The court archives were kept in the house, useful not only for reference to cases, but as sources of precedent, and in due time as a mine of information to the growing antiquary about medieval Canterbury, for the earliest Consistory register went back to the year 1396. Somner’s interest in antiquity must indeed have fermented at an early age. Clearly the Antiquities published in 1640, when he was 34, written not in learned leisure but in the spare time of a busy professional life, can hardly have taken less than twenty years to compile. In his career as an ecclesiastical lawyer the grade to be aimed at was that of Notary Public. There seems to be no record of his admission to the grade available, but on’3 April 1623, when he was just seventeen years of age, VVilliam Somner, junior, gave evidence in a case styling himself Nalariur Publicus.” He would henceforth be much in demand, representing people in the church courts, in a period when those institutions interfered to a now unbelievable degree in private lives. For instance, Sir James Hales of Reculver, a sworn olficer of His Majesty’s Privy Chamber, no less, early in 1626 sought the services of the Notary Somner, not yet twenty, to extricate himself and his lady from a charge of non-attendance at church.“ A Notary’s word was as good as that of two ordinary witnesses. Somner could now draw up Notarial Instruments, that class of solemn legal document, adorned in great days during the Middle Ages with complex individual notarial signs. Such a sign, of \/Villiam Somner, senior, is reproduced in this volume with attestation written out in the hand of his son, V‘Villiam, the antiquary.” Several men connected with Canterbury influenced Somner’s development as a scholar. These included William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, whose patronage of learning was marred by his tactless and overbearing rule, contributing so much to political troubles of the time. One of Laud’s more ill-advised projects was an effort to impose conformity with the Church of England upon the French and VValloon Protestant refugees, of whom there was a very large community at Canterbury, wor- shipping in the Cathedral crypt. They were sober, disciplined and industrious, keeping their own poor and also providing employment for many native English. Few were anxious to see them disturbed but Laud could not keep his fingers off them. A com- mission was instituted to deal with them, including somewhat unenthusiastic members like Dean john Bargrave and Meric Casaubon B.D. (and later D.D.), the classical scholar, Prebendary of Canterbury (see below). The commissioners, among whom was Sir Nathaniel Brent, the Commissary, met delegates from the refugee churches in the Somners’ own house in Castle Street, on 19 December 1634.” The Archbishop had and has but few. admirers. However he stirred a devotion in the heart of William Somner, who, when he came to publish his Antiquities, dedicated it in a fulsome address to Laud. But Laud deserved and still deserves adulation from scholars, for today they benefit from his great benefactions in manuscripts reposing in libraries like the Bodleian. VVilliam Somner, deeply learned in the history of the diocese, was of value to the Archbishop in resolving questions relating to benefices.” (viii) . INTRODUCTION Another influence upon Somner was Prebendary Meric Casaubon, son to the im- mensely learned Isaac, the refugee from France living in Geneva, enticed to this country by James I. Meric produced theological works and editions of the classics. He dwelt, the scholarly ornament of the Cathedral Chapter, in a house flanking the Mint Yard, where William Somner was certainly a visitor. It was Casaubon who directed Somner’s footsteps towards a study of Anglo-Saxon. Yet another inspirer of studies (according to Somner’s Preface) was Thomas Denne, Esquire, who may be identified with the Counsellor—at-Law (and later Recorder) to the Canterbury Corporation, a member of the distinguished Kentish legal family.” \Nilliam Somner developed enthusiasm for at least one field-sport. His passion for archery made him overstep bounds of prudence, though his publisher indulged him. He went off at a tangent in the Antiquities on the subject and in the Appendix reprinted in six sides of print An Apologia for Archery taken from Bingham’s Notes on Aelians Tactic/ts."'° No doubt Somner lived at home in Castle Street all these years. He was 28 before he married, late for the age. On 12 June 1634 he espoused Elizabeth Thurgar of the Archbishop’s Palace precinct, a member of a Cambridgeshire family.“ Two children of the union have been traced, Elizabeth Somner who was unmarried at the date of her father’s death in 1669, and Ann who married Richard Pising, a goldsmith—an unsatisfactory son-in—law, with erratic movements, if anything can be read into the language used of him in William Somner’s will. The next landmark in Somner’s career was admission on 20 l\/larch 1638 as Proctor of the Consistory Court. His father had been admitted at 25, but the younger man was over thirty before promotion. Present on the occasion in court was Sir Nathaniel Brent, the Commissary, with \'Villiam Somner, senior, as Registrar. William Somner, junior, appeared, flourishing a mandate from Archbishop Laud, enjoining his admission. The Commissary duly complied, but at once a question of precedence arose with Leonard Browne, N.P.,’admitted Proctor at the last court day. It was agreed by Browne that Somner might occupy a place to his right, whereupon Somner expressed his gratitude. All this question of protocol is now of course lost upon us, but clearly it must have meant a lot to the parties concerned.” VVithin this year the father died. He had prepared his will on 11 July X637. Various legacies were made to the children and to servants. A surprising bequest for a supposedly pacific official was of armour, assigned to George. The principal legacy, the house in Castle Street, devolved upon George Somner, as the eldest surviving son. He had evidently no wish to live in it, and sold it to V/Villiam, who had spent much if not all of his life there, and was probably dwelling in the building with his young wife. Probate was effected on *2! September 1638 in the presence of William Somner, N.P., junior, acting in his official capacity.” The office of Registrar was open to purchase. Somner could not succeed his own father, since two bidders had already obtained reversion to act jointly. It must have been galling when on 27 February 1639 Benjamin Holford, N.P., and Richard Cobb, N.P., attired in ofhcial robes, were established as joint-Registrars in the court place in the Cathedral nave, and even more galling when the couple arrived in Castle Street to take over the accumulated archives of the court. They turned everyone out of the depository even including \/Villiam Somner himself. Eventually he was admitted and required to make an official record of proceedings.“ It seems very likely, however, that Holford and Cobb left the records and the oflice where they were, and where they had been for 30 or 40 years, in which case things went on very much as before. It seems that Somner was living in the house in the years after 1639, for in 1669, when writing the pamphlet C/tart/Jam .N(7£U5, he remarked that his next neighbour in Castle Street, ‘within these thirty years’ had found Roman remains when sinking a cellar. At this time Somner must have been hard at work completing the .47ztz‘qui£ics, with ‘, __,_ ,___,,_”_”_ <5; 2 aL:'Twé)»:C6‘g «K > A ’ 31.4» “I”? up w» > I V‘ "26, ' V; - V t x . , ' °~*5}34"*°/*°A“"—- e “V //V.‘ ‘-Ky.‘/“ ;. ,. . .r \ '/mzkkz /5 M g Notarial sign rf Wit/z‘am Sumner, yem}/r, Notary Public and Registrar If the Canterbury Corzsistory Court, with attestatzbn written out in the hand of /11‘: 5071 and asxixtant, I/Vi/[iam Sumner, junior, Notary Publir, the arztiquzzry INTRODUCTION (ix) proof-correcting and ‘journeys to London to see the publisher-printers. The work was finally brought out in i640, and in the same year Somner, the fierce local patriot, had the gratifying experience of being admitted as a Freeman of Caiiterbtirv by gift.25 He had actually made application, and would have expected to pay fees, but as the minute shows, he was accorded the Freedom on the grounds that he was now Deputy Registrar to the Archbishop (a fact not noticed in the records of the Consistory Court). Another minute, under date 14 April 1640, discloses that at the City Council meeting on that day, VVilliam Somner, Deputy Registrar to the Archbishop, presented to the city his book The Antiquities afCante7/7ur_v. Little need be said of the Antiquz'ties as the volume speaks eloquently for itself and its author. Alter the adulatory address to Archbishop Laud, Somner offers his own Preface, in the form of a charming apologia for the study of history in general, and of local history in particular. The author’s passionate affection for his native city stands out in every line. He tells with tremendous relish the story of Cicero’s visit to Syracuse, where he asked after the tomb of their famous resident, Archimedes. To Cicero’s contempt this was only discovered after clearance ofvegetation in the overgrown local cemetery, ‘as ifa man should scoffingly object to us here of Canterbury’, that the graves of local heroes could not be identified. Canterbury Cathedral is more splendid than almost any other (Somner clearly mentally omits ‘almost’) in the realm, and likewise is richer in the ‘unvaluable’ (i.e. of non-bullion value) archives to go with the buildings. The inspiration of the voluriie is obviously Stowe’s London, in turn inspired by Lambalrd’s Kent. Indeed some of the internal order is the same, for Somner follows the other topographer’s subject matter, as in antiquity, city walls, to the city ditch and defences. Somner’s chapters on wards, parish churches, ecclesiastical government, and temporal government, are clearly modelled on those in the London volume. The Antiquities appeared at a most unhappy moment, on the eve of the Civil VVar. Copies remained unsold at the Restoration in 1660, and to clear the stock it was put out with a new title-page ‘pasted over the old’ (see Battely’s Preface, below). By the end of the century there was call for a new edition. There were now many more readers than before the wars, but less ponderously learned, and Somner’s heavy ballast of Latin documents was now not so welcome. Nicholas Battely, Vicar of the nearby Bekesbourne, decided to bring out a new edition, catering for the public of the time. He transferred the Latin evidences to the appendix for the greater part ‘(often with translations), but left some of Somner’s learned mannerisms still standing in ‘the text. In effect Battely’s performance is a work of popularization. His explanation of his methods should be studied in his Preface below. To Somner brought up to d'at<_?, Battely added his own Cantuaria Sacra not reproduced here. As its title indicates, it IS mainly concerned with the ecclesiastical side of local history. During the Civil VVar Canterbury suffered grievously. The Cathedral underwent A: desecration in August 1642 effected by Colonel Sandys and his ruflhanly troopers.- VVhat William Somner suffered during the episode hardly bears contemplation but a more systematic attack was to follow the next year. Acting on authority of Parliament, commissioners ‘for abolishing monuments of idolatry’, numbering the Mayor and the Recorder with the local puritan fanatic, the Rev. Richard Culmer, called Blue Dick from his gown with its unclerical colour, entered the building, hot upon mischief. The middle-aged vandals did not know where to start, and in an excess of refined cruelty, as the psychopathic Cultner gleefully records, they used ‘a copy of Somner 5 recently published Antiquities ofCam‘.erbur} to find their way around.’_7 ‘The book was a card and a compasse to sail by in that‘ Cathedral ocean of images. By it many a popish picture was discovered and demolished. ‘ . One wonders if the Mayor had actually brought along the copy presented with glowing pride to the Corporation three years before. The terrible, story of destruction is vylell}; known, largely through Culmer’s own account, Cathedrall Jl/ewesfrom Canterbury, by w 1C u (x) INTRODUCTION the author damned himselfto perpetual infamy. One medieval masterpiece after another was annihilated by the barbarians." Somner must have been distraught. A principal casualty in the Cathedral was the new font, given in 1639 by Dr. John Warner, Bishop of Rochester. Kennett says that the materials were carried off by the rabble, that Somner retrieved the fragments and was rewarded by his daughter being the first to be baptized when the font was re-established in i660. But there are divergent accounts and the chronology seems unsatisfactory.” Kennett also says that at this time Somner concealed the Cathedral archives, depositing some, in unsuspected hands, keeping some in his own custody, and redeeming some from needy soldiers, which suggests that certain were seized during the dragonnade of August I642. As far as we know Somner played no part in the disturbances which occurred in Canterbury in 164.7 and which developed in the following year into a general royalist outbreak. The origin of the affair was a parliamentary decree that Christmas should not be Celebrated. At Canterbury defiant shopkeepers kept closed, while the puritan Mayor went up and down trying to make them open up. A riot ensued and for a few days disorder reigned. The next May parliamentaryjudges came down to conduct the Assizes at Canterbury and to deal with the prisoners taken in the Christmas aifray. These prisoners numbered distinguished local residents like the lawyers Sir Vvilliam Man and Francis Lovelace, with Alderman Avery Sabine, the woollen~draper, who had tried to keep the peace. There were two sessions, one at the Guildhall for the City, and another at the Castle for the county. The bloodthirsty justice Wilde, (who had only just hanged, drawn and quartered a royalist in the ‘Isle of Wight) gave vent to an intemperate attack upon the prisoners, but was quietened down by his colleague, justice Cresheld. The Grand jury threw out the indictment. At once real rebellion flamed. Parliament sent troops into Kent under General Fairfax, who defeated the royalists in a furious battle at Maidstone on 1 june_ 1648. Cant€TbUTY remained the centre of revolt. Three columns approached, Fairfax frorn lthe W65? Jvllt Colonel Rich and Colonel Hewson,_whose regiment had been badly mauie tar Maidstone, coming from the south. W'ith only i.,3oo men to defend the a(;);'t§a]t:(licTll'n“(/361:6 (1% mile round the walls), surrender was inevitable. Ter:jns,hnot urtirczia the énemv agreed with Fairfax at Faversham on 9 June 1648, an t e ne>. uylilcd Off mar marched into Canterbury under General Ireton. The cltydgaées rig: Parms from the hinges and bum‘: “’hilC 3 Stretch of wall was Ovcftgmlf la]:/vliile 00 horses were county to the numbir of3%,ooo were laid out in the at e ra , 3 ' led in to be stabled t ere. __ _ , _ dd“ The Somner family_ suffered grievouls lotss ifntftlfiearrfiligilgr. lCe}fet01}"1gix€tnSt:)yrYfi}I11iC:,falll;;r, the brother, no doubt attired in some at e,asl_ od tachmem in Olamigh Lane’ Close to Registrar, charged at the head cglx” a roya ist He 5 final], subdued with bloody Wyet’, a-nd was klntid ii~]h:,Cn::n;it CrI(;}l1(fhf.fS€t1:: Isl/iilliain Somrferis namt is 1'10‘ {Wind retri ution across e ' . . '1 his among 31055 Who turned out on behalfpf the Kmg. Yflti v:/sasI::nl:::tz::lciiis“ii)ua:sert ‘profession and genius had less adapted iilrli filr aiimlsr all the means which his caPaeit,\t the rightspfftihe Croziwa afitiils t(l)1‘(:.vrll4a“\/,\:iSyOWtit1<: ;1rnea,t Cyouragey setting to workupon an Could use. 6 actc m ‘ b fessed his passion outdistanced his Muse), anonymous poem (where It. must e con . . lmedimmm upon the Kmgj Law entitled T/15$:-sezurztze §fPr(z1nc.e5, aonififiregytnaargfiflifiéornzhO does not idcmifv himself. Suflering 0” 3"‘ » P‘"° “CC ‘" " h b l( Eikon Bmzzke went into Hardly had the head of Charles fallen, VVl?€I1.I. e 00 W m to Work circulatiofll; bringing a revr1]i(l1seiprith2:?gz1:iCnas(t]i:ll;e .%#1;Z(:l%l;20l,llll::1p1:.(1"CCi;€I0“.f élpemlrtiltfnrgs gook Opemjdj again wit more verses, in . I . was easy, enou h to again anonymous but anonymity 111’) .thf:usrr]I:iall Wofld Of Prmters « g p1eIrtcre1’l3I—)I/0l;/ilieéll/Sel:é‘dn0irt1r?lC]f:?:(§<:I:)?Tl:xi:al(dOwi‘i in his professional world, what VVilli}an(i1 9 i , . . - a Somner lived upon in these years. The disciplinary side of the church COUYIS INTRODUCTION (xi) gone, while there was no more litigation for him to handle over tithes, matrimonv or defamation, where he had once drawn fees. However, the local courts in their probate aspect were still functioning in the late 1640s so some income may have been available from professional charges. But there is a suggestion of collapse thereafter, when wills were no longer copied into registers.” A weary decade dragged by with terrors for antiquarians, for the horrors of destruction accompanying the dissolution of the monasteries in the X5305 were almost re-enacted. At one stage a motion was actually brought for the demolition of fifteen great cathedrals. First upon the list was that of Canterbury yet some vestige of commonsense prevailed and no action was taken. But VVilliam Somner had something else to occupy his mind. If barbarism was abroad, so was a surge of antiquarian interest. The Kentish gentleman, Sir Roger Twysden, gave up warfare and devoted himself to his great collection ofancient historians, still valuable today and not superseded, the Scriptures X, brought out in 1652. The distinguished Canterbury antiqu_ary, Somner, could hardly be left out of the project, and contributed his much-laucled word-list of obsolete terms, in some 80 folio pages headed ‘Glossarium: in quo obscuriora quaeque vocabula . . . copiose explicantur . . . Cu/ielmo Somnero Cantuariensi, Auctore.’ A vaster project was under way, namely tllonasticon Angliranum. Roger Dodsworth has accumulated enormous transcripts relating to northern monasteries. \Nilliam Dugdale, the Herald, was collecting materials elsewhere in the realm. Again Somner could not be left out. At the appeal of the compilers, he sent up the charters of Christ Church, Canterbury and of St. Augustine’s Abbey, ‘with the ichnography of the Cathedral, the draught of the monastery and other sculptures’. He ‘furnisht them with the original charter of King Stephen to the abbey of Faversham, then in his hands . . . and then accepted the office imposed upon him, of bearing a peculiar part of the burden, by translating all the Saxon originals, and all the English transcripts from the itinerary of Leland . . . into plain and proper Latin’. Drawings sent up by Somner were prepared by Thomas Johnson, a member of the Canterbury family of artists living for many years in St. George’s parish. Somner told Dugdale that one drawing would cost ten shillings. VVenceslaus Hollar himself engraved some of the plates.” The first volume of the enormous enterprise appeared in I655. There seems to have been some feeling abroad that Somner’s contribution to /llonastiron I was in fact more substantial than it was. Six Kentish or Canterbury poets got to work and pro- duced an amusing set of verses belauding the great tome. The verses were printed in sheets, a copy of which is inserted (as Kennett says) into the magnificent large—paper copy of tllonttrlicon I, with its gilt vellum covers, its gleaming and goffered fore—edges, still in the Chapter library. The versifiers salute Somner as joint—compiler with Dodsworth and Dugdale. Richard Fogge Esq. of Dane court unambiguously heads his Latin effort In Afonastiron . . . a Rogero D0a'.s‘wort/10, Gulielmo Dugdalio, C9” Gulielmo Somner . . . ea/ilum. Dr. Frederick Primrose, the Canterbury physician, starts off in similar terms, bringing the three names together, as does John Boys of Hode. Joshua Childrey, the Faversham schoolmaster, provides a charming imitation of Chaucer, addressed ‘To the right ylered Clerks, Dan I/Villiam Sompner & c. on her makelesse werke, hight zwonqsticon’. Neither in the heading, nor in more than 60 lines of verse do Dugdale and Dodsworth even get a mention, praprio nomine. The loss of VVilliam Somner’s letters, his ‘in’ file, at the Audit House fire of 1670 becomes even more harrowing when his relationships to the great antiquaries of the day are reviewed. Sometimes letters from Somner can be found addressed to such scholars. Dugclale sent him a copy of his History (y’Emban/ting and Draining as a token of help given. On [1 April 1662 the Canterbury antiquary acknowledged the work, promising to promote the sale, ‘but it is (you know) a dull and dead time’.34 The letter concludes with best wishes to be sent on to a whole galaxy of mutual antiquarian (xii) INTRODUCTION friends, Mr. Goddard, Captairi Ashmole, Sirjohn Marsham, ‘and the restiof my noble friends and benefactors, especially my patron Mr. Spelman’. Somner was known to the great international scholar Francis _]unius who wrote to Dugdale from the Hague in January 1656 sending his service to john Rushworth (compiler of the Historical Collections) and to Mr. Somner, ‘with other lovers of Antiquities’.-3i" VVhite Kennett gives a long list of scholar-gentry, local and nation-wide, whose regard was gained by Somner. Sir Roger Twysden with whom Somner collaborated in the Scriptores X ‘exchanged intimate visits’. Kennett provides a noble roll—call of these Kentish country gentlemen ‘who had affection to virtue and good letters’, who con- tracted relations with Somner and, if the language may so be interpreted, supported him or his learned projects.“ A well-defined picture emerges of \/Villiam Somner as a generous scholar anxious to share his enthusiasms with others, whether with a mature researcher such as Dugdale or a more youthful enthusiast like Anthony :3 Wood, who wrote from Oxford on 21 February 1662 to Somner, respectfully introducing himself as a young antiquary, asking for transcripts relating to the extinct Canterbury College. Despite his correspon- dent’s dubious (and to Somner disadvantageous) postal arrangements, Somner had despatched from Canterbury by 21 March all that was needed by his enquirer.T"‘7 The growing interest in English antiquities had drawn attention to one glaring want in the apparatus criticus of the day, namely an effective dictionary of Anglo-Saxon. Studies in the tongue had long been in progress, indeed since the days of Elizabeth I, at the hands of men like William Lambard. The general public had access to sermons of Bishop \/Vulfstan printed in handsome Old English type by John ‘Day,’ in Foxe s Martyrs. Somner had long been interested in the language and certainly it engaged him through his pre-occupation in the early history of Canterbury.’ Prebendary Meric Casaubon relates in a delightful passage in his De Quatuor Lznguzs how he came to study Anglo-Saxon charters.“ On his appointment to his stall at Canterbury he started looking at the muniments, and with awe discovered the ancienyt. documents in the Cathedral treasury. At this juncture he came ln[O.COI]t2lC[ with V’\illiam Somner, who was making a start in the language. Casaubon claims to have urged upon Somper thhe compilation of a dictionary. Already by 1653 the question of special types or this dictionary was under discussion.” Sir Henry Marsham in his Propyloeitm to tfe Monasticon (i655) remarks that Somner was preparing his Saxon-Latin dictionary or the press. _ . _. VVealthy collectors gave admission to their hoards. Somner was accorded admsission to the library of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, and worked there upon the great Anglo- ‘axltlrri verse Genesis (now B.L. MS. Junius XI)."° Sir Thomas Cotton entertained m 1,5 house at \/Vestmiiister for some months ‘to collect and digest 'l’l1S Saxon Dictijonarly , when Somner gained access to the Saxon Oroszur (now Tiberius B. i. 1), an 0t er treasures of that collection.“ _ _ k Sir Henry Spelman, a leader among the antiquaries and a man of means, fgaooenei practical step and established. a readership in the tongue based'1;1p<;‘n. aftzsua Crlrhe yearly stipend, with presentation to ‘the benefice of Middleton, mg ‘fl 1gh.eg15- ‘ t first Reader was the Cambridge linguist, Abraham W l1€C10Ck: Wholusn 9 _‘5 aPP°ln1; ment by producing a version of Bede and other like works. He made promése toRwor up a dictionary, but had not done much by the time of his deathlrndi Spelman, grandson to the founder, on whom the patronage had de\;l0 Vti , IP ‘“:l’.‘°'_ ’ assign the readership to the Rev. Samuel Foster, a'learned\Na1i;‘ woét iy rivigireld. Archbishop _]ames Usher, however, urged the allocation] i iantih(;uon1:nSe0,mner Spelman deferred to the Judgment of the great ecclesiastica 1lSi?I‘laI‘l,F 1 g Yho €0.11: with characteristic delicacy refused to accept without approval rom 08 CT, “ tented himselfwith the office ofincumbent of Middleton. ' g I f 1 ' The financial provision must have been very welcome indeed to Somnei at a ow ,.-n... , ,_ __,,‘_ , ., . ,. _v ,....«-u, .-a, i-\4vr‘~(*'.="" W‘-,"I~‘ u a ,v, 1. ¢‘<)-'-M',~.~."J¢4vfK'9<;r,.?5vfir -",£t:¢t*,vpv|§.q\-\4- ..«,. .,,..._-, -o W,~‘3m,,.,..,,‘i,,-m,.. ,.,..,.amw- er.».«~.:,«-- --.- INTRODUCTION (xiii) point in his career, with income from much of his normal professional activities in suspense. It can hardly be claimed that the readership supported him while at work on the Dictionary since it came to him near the end of his labours, close upon pub- lication, but it must have re-imbursed him. The great work of scholarship appeared in two volumes in 1659 from the Oxford Press, with the title Dictionarium Saxonico- Latino-Ang[ic'um.43 rElfric’s Saxon Grammar was published under the same covers. A group of friends, including again Joshua Childrey and John Boys of Hode, got together and produced a clutch of learned and humorous verses celebrating publication of the Dictionary, parallel to those produced to mark publication of A/Ionasticon. As in the case of that work, a set of the verses may be found inserted into the Cathedral library copy ofthe Dictionarium. The Dictionary was an extraordinary achievement, an instance of scholarship carried out into wide and obscure fields with no substantial predecessors to provide a foundation, though Somner’s meagre materials, as Kennett says ‘might have exercised a Critic, sooner than instructed a Novice’. Not only is it a pioneer effort, but it reached a singular degree of perfection at a first effort. Says Kennettz“ ‘certainly, if we look back on the first attempts of this kind, in all the ancient and modern tongues, we shall find no one Nomenclature, in ’it’s pure beginning so copious, and so exact, as this of i\/fr. Somner.’ No dictionary can ever be complete. Fresh materials came Somner’s way, naturally through publicity provided by his own work. The bulk swelled continuously, and additional words and corrections were inserted into an extra-leaved copy (still to be seen at ’Canterbury). However, a new edition was not brought out in his lifetime. It is a source of pride to Kentish antiquarians that the shire boasted of its own system of tenure, namely Gavelkind. Its chief feature was the equal partition of ground between heirs, and its attractions were less apparent to estate owners than to antiquaries. Many of the former had their lands disgavelled by Act of Parliament, as shown by lists included in VVilliam Lambard’s Perambulation of Kent. The custom of Gavelkind remained to torment lawyers and owners until 1926. Clearly there was a need for an exposition of the custom, and Somner, both as a good antiquary and a good patriot, set about supplying the want. He had completed the work by 1647, but it was not until 1660 that it saw the light as A Treatise of Gaoelkina’. A second edition was called for in 1726 and was produced by the faithful White Kennett. At some moment in the 16505 \/Villiam Somner’s troubles were sharpened by the loss of his wife, Elizabeth, with whom he had, as V'Vhite Kennett says, ‘liv’d in love and peace about thirty [read twenty?] years’. Parish registers were then being kept only intermittently, and her entry of burial seems not to have survived.“ Politically the days were dark, but the military government as imposed by Cromwell was too alien to Englishmen to last. VVilliam Somner, who seems to have remained quiescent in earlier crises (apart from his publication of anonymous poetry), found a new boldness. VVith other local men he promoted a petition at Canterbury for a free Parliament. The unrepresentative body calling itself by that name, however, took immediate action and bundled him and fellow-petitioners into the castles of Dover and Deal. By February 1660 William Somner ‘the proctor’, in company with such an old offender as Sir \/Villiam Man, with Mr. Masters from St. Paul’s parish, and with ‘old i\/II‘. Boyce’ (John Boys, the versifier?) is listed as a prisoner within the chilly battlements of Deal.“ On 25 May, however, Charles II arrived at Dover to take possession of his kingdom, and in pious language thanked the Mayor of the town for the gift of a Bible. At Canterbury he was greeted in the suburbs by the Aldermen and City Councillors, probably in the region of Oaten Hill or Dover Street. A golden cup, containing gold pieces, worth £250 was presented to the Monarch, together with yet another Bible, richly bound. There was still a further present, again another book. \Nilliam Somner, choking with royalist fervour, offered to the ‘King ‘on the bended knees of his body’ a llslao INTRODUCTION (xiii) point in his career, with income from much of his normal professional activities in suspense. It can hardly be claimed that the readership supported him while at work on the Dictionary since it came to him near the end of his labours, close upon pub- lication, but it must have re-imbursed him. The great work of scholarship appeared in two volumes in 1659 from the Oxford Press, with the. title Dz'rtz'unarz'unz Saxrmi(o— /./zlin0—i-ln_gI/ictzm.“ ;Elfric’s Saxon Grammar was published under the same covers. A group of friends, including againjoshua Childrey and john Boys of Hode, got together and produced a clutch of learned and humorous verses celebrating publication of the Dictionar_v, parallel to those produced to mark publication of illanzrstiran. :\s in the case of that work, a set of the verses may be found inserted into the Cathedral library copy of the Dictionarium. The Dictionary was an extraordinary achievement, an instance of scholarship carried out into wide and obscure fields with no substantial predecessors to provide a foundation, though Somner’s meagre materials, as Kennett says ‘might have exercised a Critic, sooner than instructed a Novice’. Not only is it a pioneer effort, but it reached a singular degree of perfection at a first effort. Says Kennett?” ‘certainly, if we look back on the first attempts of this kind, in all the ancient and modern tongues, we shall find no one Nomenclrzture, in its pure beginning so copious, and so exact, as this of Mr. Snmrzer.’ No dictionary can ever be complete. Fresh materials came Somner‘s way, naturally through publicity provided by his own work. The bulk swelled continuously, and additional words and corrections were inserted into an extra—leaved copy (still to be seen at Canterbury). However, a new edition was not brought out in his lifetime. It is a source of pride to Kentish antiquarians that the shire boasted of its own system of tenure, namely Gavelkind. Its chief feature was the equal partition of ground between heirs, and its attractions were less apparent to estate owners than to antiquaries. Many of the former had their lands disgavelled by Act of Parliament, as shown by lists included in W'illiain Lambard’s Peram/Julation qf Kent. The custom of Gavelkind remained to torment lawyers and owners until r926. Clearly there was a need for an exposition of the custom, and Somner. both as a good antiquary and a good patriot, set about supplying the want. He had completed the work by 164,7, but it was not until 1660 that it saw the light as A Treatise ofGaz'e/kind. A second edition was called for in 1726 and was produced by the faithful White Kennett. At some moment in the 16503 W'illiam Somneris troubles were sharpened by the loss of his wife, Elizabeth, with whom he had, as White Kennett says, ‘liv’d in love and peace about thirty [read twenty.’] years’. Parish registers were then being kept only intermittently, and her entry of burial seems not to have survived.*‘5 Politically the days were dark, but the military government as imposed by Cromwell was too alien to Englishmen to last. VVilliam Somner, who seems to have remained quiescent in earlier crises (apart from his publication of anonymous poetry), found a new boldness. \Vith other local men he promoted a petition at Canterbury for a free Parliament. The unrepresentative body calling itself by that name, however, took immediate action and bundled him and fellow-petitioners into the castles of Dover and Deal. By February t66_o VVi1liam Somner ‘the proctor’, in companywith such an old offender as Sir William Man, with Mr. Masters from St. Paul’s parish, and with ‘old lV{r. Boyce’ /John Boys, the versifier?) is listed as a prisoner within the chilly battlements of Deal.” On 25 May, however, Charles II arrived at Dover to take possession of his kingdom, and in pious language thanked the Mayor of the town for the gift of a Bible. At Canterbury he was greeted in the suburbs by the Aldermen and City Councillors, probably in the region of Oaten Hill or Dover Street. A golden cup, containing gold pieces, worth £250 was presented to the Monarch, together with yet another Bible, richly bound. There was still a further present, again another book. William Somner, choking with royalist fervour, offered to the King ‘on the bended knees of his body" a -. .»'.\’o.«, gut). .aup..z.-..~_w.v-_... ._ u . (xiv) INTRODUCTION handsome large-paper copy of the Antiquities r)fCantrrbury of 1640. What Charles said about this book or whether he regaled himself with it stands unrecorded, but at any rate the volume was taken into the royal collection, bound in blue morocco and stamped with the kings arms. Somehow, though printing was not carried out nearer than London, Somner had managed to get a special extra dedicatory leaf printed for insertion, with a declaration of loyalty accompanying the humble offer of the book." The actual copy, it should be noted, still survives, and reposes today in the Henry Huntington Library in California. W'illiam Somner settled down at once to the welcome task of establishing the status quo ante bellum. This involved re—activating the church courts. On 15 July 1660 the old Consistory Court register, with its last entry dated 1 June 1643, was fished out, and business re-started with never a glance at the seventeen-year gap.“ The returned Dean and Chapter made William Somner their Auditor or Agent, and he and his employers set about recovering lost income with a will that made them extremely unpopular. Yet there seems to be some suggestion that Somner was actually involved in collection of Cathedral rents at Ladyday 1660. Had he compromised and worked in effect for Parliament which had expropriated the Chapterls estates?” Somner must have been excited and happy at this stage. For the time being there was no Archbishop, so the administration of spiritualities devolved upon the Chapter sede ziacante. The joint Registrars Holford and Cobb seem to have faded from the scene. On 14, July 1660 the Chapter appointed as Registrar W'illiam Somner who now found himself exercising his father’s old office. But the appointment was only temporary, and when Archbishop _]uxon was enthroned he too had a candidate, George Juxon, clearly a kinsman. However, this man and Somner were made joint-Registrars from 6 October 1660.5” ' Somner now enjoyed two offices satisfying to his tastes. V\/hite Kennett provides him with another, that is ‘Keeper of the Arr/lives’ of Canterbury Cathedral.“ The precise title seems not to have existed at that date, but Somner would have performed such a function ex qflicio from 1660, and his long-standing love of the muniments meant that for long years before then he had kept a tutelary eye upon them. The appointment as Auditor it seems carried with it the right to a house in the Precincts. In November 1661 Somner was still being paid at the rate of £12 per annum by the Chapter in lieu of a house. The map of the waterworks prepared in 1669 shows that the house was sited in what had been the southern aisle of the ancient monastic Infirmary, the front of the building framed in giant 12th-century arches. It may have suited Somner’s antiquarian tastes but it was deep in the shadow of the great church, and perpetually deprived ofsunlight.“ Meanwhile W'illiam Somner had remarried, on I December 1659. The new wife, Barbara Browne, was widow to Edward Browne, Master of the King’.s School, and daughter to john Dawson, ‘a great sufferer in the long rebellion’ as Kennett calls him.” The new Mrs. Somner seems to have been much younger than her husband. Baptisms appear in the Cathedral register: Barbara, daughter of Mr. William Somner, was baptized on 11 September 1660. It is this infant, who it is claimed, was the first baptized at the restored font. The next child was \Villiam Somner, baptized on 3 November 1661; next was Francis, baptized on 16 August 1663. He died an infant, being buried 27 May 1664. The last child was john Somner, baptized on I July 1666, when his father was just 60. Kennett says (1693) that Barbara the daughter died unmarried. V\"illiam went to Merton College, Oxford, and became Vicar of Lyminge in Kent. john Somner practised surgery in the area, and dying in 1695 when only 29, was buried beneath a handsome ledger stone in the chancel at Elham, bearing the Somner arms (see below), and declaring him to have been ‘Son of the Learned Mr. \Villiarn Somner of Canterbury‘.“ \/Villiam Somner seems to have lived on terms of friendship with his brother john, who had followed the trade ofa tailor, with a business next to Christ Church Gate, INTRODUCTION (xv) where he appears to have prospered. john Somner had been made a city Freeman in I658, but had refused office as a City Councillor during the lnterregnum, and was apparently deprived of his freedom. He had been re-elected a Freeman of Canterbury after the Restoration (22 January, 1661) for his part in persuading Archbishop juxon to give new doors for the city gates to replace those burnt by the parliamentary troops in 1648. The Archbishop also provided handsome new doors (still surviving) for Christ Church Gate to succeed those destroyed in the troubles. john, like VVilliam, was a good friend ofthe Cathedral. He donated works of Richard Hooker, Lancelot Andrews, and others, as well as the folio edition of Richard Burton’s Armtomy of/1/Ieloncholv, to the new Cathedral library built by Juxon to replace the ancient library destroyed in the war. John also acted as an on—the-spot supervisor of work in progress on the library buildings” VVilliam had achieved eminence as an author, John was quite prosperous, and it occurred about this time to the brothers that they should seek the distinction of gentility and acquire a coat of arms. They applied to Sir Percy Bysshe, Clarenceux Herald (an old antiquarian Contact of Williams, probably on the_heraldic visitation in Kent), and on 25 August 1663 were granted the handsome coat Ermine, two chevronels or. john, though the elder, bore his coat with a crescent for difference.“ Friendly feelings between John Somner and the Canterbury Corporation were soon marred. He had conceived the generous notion of building, at a cost of over £400, a market house for the city. This was to be on the site of the ancient High Cross destroyed by fanatics during the Commonwealth, and was to have an open lower storey, a large upstairs room for public meetings and assemblies of the city trade- companies, with a loft for grain for the poor against time of dearth. The Somners, for VV'illiam was concerned too, made a modest request of some use of the premises during their lifetimes. But mean people intervened and the brothers’ generosity was thrown back in their faces, though not before the Market House was actually com- pleted.“ The building served the city well, for it acted on the ground floor as a butter market (and as such has given a fresh name to the little square previously called Bullstake), and upstairs as the local theatre until its replacement by another market house in 1790. The Somner family seems to have claimed some rights in the structure as late as 1734.53 Kennett paints a picture of \/Villiam Somner in his latter days as a local patriarchal figure, the doyen of Kentish antiquaries. He shows him appearing at the School, selecting likely lads as King’s Scholars, and noting those to be sent on to the universities. In this period, too, he was appointed as Master of St. John’s Hospital, outside the Northgate of Canterbury, and may be found assiduously defending its interests (with those of Harbledown Hospital) in letters to Miles Smith, Archbishop Sheldon’s secretary.” Here we may well repeat the delightful apostrophe set in Kennett’s Stuart prose:“° ‘Mr. Somner. . . prosecuted the duties of his office with prudence and integrity. An 0 ca (as he calls it) laudable, and enough honourable. And when he had any hour: relieo’dfrom the business ofhis calling, those he devoted to his beloved search into the mysteries of time: to which by the nature of his profession, he seemed the more determined; he himself observing, that to the xtudie (yr/lntiquities his particular calling did in some manner lead him. He lov’d much, and much frequented the Cathedral Service; where after his devotions were paid, he had a new zeal for the honour of the House, walking often in the Nave, and in the more recluse parts, not in that idle and inadvertent posture, nor with that common and trivial discourse, with which those open Temples are vulgarly profan’d: but with a curious and observant eye, to distinguish the age of the buildings, to sift the ashes of the dead; and, in a word, to eternize the memory of things and Men. His visits within the City were to find out the Ancestors, rather than the present inhabitants; and to know the genealogie of houses, and walls, and dust. When he had leisure to refresh himself in the (xvi) INTRODUCTION Suburbs and the. fields, it was not meerly for digestion, and for air; but to survey the British bricks, the Roman wars, the Danish hills and works," the Saxon [Monasteries and the Norman Churches. At the digging up foundations, and other descents into the bowels ofthe earth, he came often to survey the VVorkmen; and to purchase from them the treasure of Coins, Medals, and other buried rcliques, of which he informs us, that man} were found in almost all parts ofthe Cit}, some of whiz/z rame to his hands. VVhenever he relaxt his mind to any other recreation, it was to that of shooting with the long bow, which no doubt he lov’d as much for the antiquity, as for the health and pleasure of that manly sport.’ ' Though he would not be considered old today William Somner was mature indeed by contemporary standards. He was in fact near his end, but went on working and writing to the last. He attended court as Registrar on 17 March 1669, but thereafter failed to make appearance. By now he was terminally ill. At this time he told his wife that in all his life he had never been let blood nor taken physic.“ However, they called in the local doctor, john Bale, at the very end. Late in his life \/Villiam Somner was working upon an acute essay called Chartham News. John his brother had acquired some ground at Chartham on the Stour a few miles above Canterbury, where workmen digging a well encountered certain strange and monstrous bones. Somner embarked upon a discussion, and here we have the spectacle ofan acute mind grappling with preconceived notions derived from biblical chronology. How did the beast get to Chartham? VVhat geographical changes had happened? Somner got a limner to make a drawing but it appears that only a view of the teeth is now available (as the engraving in Chartham News). Somner thought the animal must be an equus fluvialis or hippopotamus. The pamphlet was published in 1669 and reprinted by Battely with the Antiquities in 1703, and the engraving is reproduced below. March 30 was William Somner’s birthday. It is inconceivable that a man who had spent all his life writing wills, proving wills, and using them as historical evidence should not have made his own with all proper formality years before. Perhaps he changed his mind dramatically about legacies at the last moment. His own effective will was made on this day 30 March 1669, at the last moment, not in proper form but nunrupatiz/é, by word of mouth. He gave to his eldest son \/Villiam (now aged seven), the house in Castle Street, to pass to him after the death of Barbara Somner, the child’s mother. He discloses that he has ground at Chartham, like his brother John. He gave to his daughter Elizabeth by his first marriage the sum of £250, and to her sister Ann, wife of Richard Pising, goldsmith, the sum of £100 due from one Mr. Vaughan, who was to succeed him in his Registrar’s place, a valuable insight into traffic in offices in those days. Twenty shillings were to be given to Mr. Stockar, minister of St. Alphage. The residue (after payment ofmiscellaneous minor legacies) was to go to Barbara the wife and her children which he had by her. His brother john Somner was named as executor, and the verbal will was attested by him withjohn Bale M.D. and Leonard Browne, his colleague for endless years in the church courts, now an Alderman of Canterbury.” \/Vithin the course of his birthday \’Villiam Somner died, and was carried on 2 April to burial at his old parish church of St. Margaret, where he was laid to rest in the north aisle. The Chapter made what was both an attempt at a wiseacquisition for their Library and a generous benefaction to the widow, in a payment of £100 which they gave her for VVilliam’s papers, taken round the corner to the Audit House but with disastrous results as we know.“ Barbara Somner did not long bemoan widowhood, for by licence dated 31 January 1671 she married the Rev. Henry Hannington, widower, vicar of Elham. He died in 1691. For years no monument was erected above the remains of the great antiquary, a fact deplored by VVhite Kennett in 1693 :6‘ ‘I cannot but admire and lament, that such learned ashes should lye without a letter on them: that he who rais’d the memory of so many great names, should - vw - ' ‘ “ ‘~ ' ,."l1’sT’¢":'i'Tt‘f'E.R7“’*7'"i‘”' ,,tv,»w?:m~,- ' aim:;»‘«g$.ti*1I{¥%“i£1fi‘*'*>i4i’W7“l3§1§'VBiC§iY+¢¥V?’i‘a”§'W31~"fl94l9‘? .4 INTRODUCTION (xvii) himselfsleep in a place forgotten: and after all his labours, to eternize the tombs and epitaphs of others, should have no such decent ceremony paid to his own dust. Sure the time will come, when some grateful monument shall be erected for him, either by someone of his family, whom providence shall enable to pay that duty: or by some one generous lover of Antiquities: or by that Capitular body, to whom he did such great service.’ Barbara Somner, now Hannington, soon took the hint, and at her own costs, in her widowhood, commissioned the handsome memorial still to be seen in St. Margaret’s Church, ‘in Memory of her beloved Husband’. There is no doubt where her affections lay. She had been married three times, but at the end demanded to be laid to rest, as she said, ‘in the grave of V\/illiam Sumner my husband’.“" Wlilliam Somner’s ring/0—Saxan Dictionary of 1659 may have been regarded by his contemporaries as his magnum opus, but it was a foundation-work, has long since been superseded, and pride of place in Somners writings today must go to his i-'1ntz'quities. Somner‘s book is certainly not only the earliest, but also the best and most scholarly in that age among historical accounts of an English provincial borough and of its great ecclesiastical monuments. VVhite Kennett recites a list of testimonials, sharpened by some very harsh judgments on works in the same field. Richard Izaac’s Exeter (1681), is nothing but ‘a dry collection, full ofmistakes’;]ohn Davies’s Cathedral Church ofDur/zam (1672) is ‘an ignorant and pitiful legend’, to repeat but two of his censures. On the other hand Somner’s Canterbury earned wholesale approbation from the scholarly world. Meric Casaubon called it ‘a pious and laborious work, and highly useful, not only to those who desir’d to know the state of that once flourishing City, but to all that were curious in the ancient English history’. john Burton, the editor of the Antonine Itinerary, refers anyone wanting to know about Canterbury to ‘courteous Mr. Somners description of it’, Richard Kilburne, the surveyor of Kent, touches only briefly upon Canterbury, ‘because Mr. VVilliam Somner had so elaborately, judiciously and fully wrote of the same, and there was left but little. . . which he had not there set down’. Thomas Philpot, ‘who had reason to envy him‘, acknowledges in Villare Cantianum that ‘Canterbury hath. . . exactly in all the parts and limbs of it been describ’d and survey’d by Mr. Somner’, and does not want to compete with the latter’s work, ‘pencilled out in so large and exquisite a volume’.“‘ The Antiqzzities has had only one real imitator,—in Edward Hasted’s section on Canterbury in his vast History and Topographical Survey oft/ze County ofKent.“7 Apart from Hasted, Somner has a minor competitor in VVilliam Gostling, who produced his H/al/C in and about the City of Canterbury, (published in various editions from 1774 to 1825), but this lacks deep scholarship, and for its more solid elements draws upon \/Villiam Somner. Perhaps the enormous wealth of Canterbury in terms of architecture, archae- ological remains, manuscript books, archives and chronicles is enough to deter would-be writers of any general account ofthe city’s history.“ The Antz'quz'tie5, especially as revised and enlarged by Nicholas Battely in the edition of 1703 (made use of by Hasted and here reproduced), still stands as a unique contri- bution to the general history of Canterbury. It is a happiness of local historians that, however slight, their work is never entirely replaced and by the time another comes to rewrite their particular effort, the original has assumed an antiquarian value all of its own. Somner’s Antz'quz'tie5 (at the other end of the scale) remains especially important not only in this way, as a register of so much that has been lost since his own days, but still as a fascinating piece of reading all in its own right, especially with the modest metamorphosis effected by Nicholas Battely.