Of the Abbots of Tinterne the historical notices are very scanty. The following occur in the “Parliamentary Writs,” by Sir Francis Palgrave:— A.D. 1294.—Abbas de Tynterne is summoned to a council of the clergy, to be held before the King in person, at Westminster, on the Feast of St. Matthias the Apostle, on the twenty-first day of September, and twenty-second of Edward I. Again— 1295.—The Abbas de Tynterne is summoned to Parliament at Westminster, on Sunday next after the feast of St. Martin, thirteenth day of October, and twenty-third year of the reign of Edward I., prorogued to Sunday next, before the Feast of St. Andrew the Apostle, the twenty-seventh of November. Thirdly— 1296.—Summoned to Parliament at Bury St. Edmund’s, on the morrow of All-Souls, November the third day, and twenty-fourth year of the reign of Edward I. 1300.—Abbas de Tynterne—Letter of Credence addressed to him concerning the expedition against the Scots—at Blith, the seventeenth day of January, and twenty-eighth year of the reign of Edward I. Again, the same year, the abbot was summoned to Parliament in London, on the second Sunday in Lent, being the sixth day of March. 1301.—Abbas de Tynterne is summoned to Parliament at Lincoln—in eight days of St. Hilary—the twentieth day of January, and twenty-eighth year of the reign aforesaid. 1305.—Summoned to Parliament at Westminster, on Tuesday, in fifteen days of the Purification, the sixteenth of February; afterwards prorogued to Sunday next, after the Feast of St. Matthias the Apostle, the twenty-eighth day of February—but to which he was not resummoned—and thirty-third year of the reign of Edward I. 1316.—Abbas de Tynterne, certified pursuant to writ, tested at Clipston, March the fifth, as one of the lords of the township of Acle, 1316.—Johannes de Tynterne, certified in like manner, as holding part of the burgh of Lyme-Regis, in the county of Dorset, in the ninth year of the reign of Edward II. The following is the original document referred to in various passages of the foregoing articles on Chepstow and Tinterne:— Genealogia Fundatoris (Ex MS. Codice in Bibl. Cottoniana [sub Effigie Vitellii, F. 4], fol. 7). Gunnora Comitissa NormanniÆ duas habuit sorores, una Turulpho de Ponte-Adamaro conjuncta erat in matrimonio, et procreavit Humfridum de Vetulis qui fuit pater Rogeri de Bellomonte, ex quo comites de Warwike et LeicestriÆ processerunt. Turketillus fuit frater istius Turulphi, cujus filius Hasculfus de Harecurt aliam sororem predictÆ ComitissÆ GunnorÆ con ... erat duos procreavit filios; scilicet Walterum de Giffard, primogenitum, qui alium Walterum procreavit, et dictus fuit Walterius Giffard secundus. Rohesia, una sororum Walteri (duas plures enim habuit) conjuncta in matrimonio Ricardo filio comitis Gisleberti, qui in re militari, tempore Conquestoris omnes sui temporis magnates prÆcessit. PrÆdicta Rohesia supervixit et renupta Eudoni, dapifero Regis NormanniÆ qui construxit castrum ColecestriÆ, cum coenobio, in honore Sancti Johannis, ubi sepultus fuit, cum conjuge sua, tempore Henrici primi. Margareta filia eorum nupta fuit Willielmo de Mandevill, et fuit mater Gaufredi filii comitis EssexiÆ et jure matris, NormanniÆ dapifer. PrÆdictus Ricardus apud sanctum Neotum jacet sepultus. Huic rex Willielmus concessit baroniam De Clare, villam verÒ cum castello de Tunbridge, de Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, pro aliis terris in Normannia, perquisivit in excambium. Baldwinus, frater istius Ricardi, Willielmum, Robertum, et Ricardum, cum tribus sororibus genuit. Ex prÆdicta Rohesia hanc sobolem procreavit Ricardus, Rogerus natu secundus terras patris sui in Normannia adeptus est; Walterus dominium WenciÆ inferioris, in Wallia, qui construxit Abbatiam de Tinterna, anno Domini MCXXXI; obiit sine prole. The Deed, by which the privileges originally granted by the founders were confirmed and completed by Roger Bigod, after the lapse of a hundred and seven years, is expressed in the following terms:— Rogerus le Bygod Comes NorfolciÆ, et Mareschallus AngliÆ, Salutem in Datum apud Modesgat, quarto die Augusti, anno Domini M.CCCI. Authorities quoted or referred to in the preceding article on Tinterne Abbey and its vicinity:—Dugdale’s Monasticon and Baronage—Thomas’s Tinterne—Camden—Giraldus Cambrensis—Robert of Gloucester—Matthew Paris—William of Worcester—Fosbroke’s British Monachism—Dallaway’s Arts—Reed—Barber—Mores Catholici—Life of St. Bernard—French Monastic Writers—Annales et Usus Cistercienses—Morton’s Monastic Annals—Nicolson’s History—West’s Furness—Wonders and Traditions of Wales—Bp. Godwin—Burnet—Pictorial Hist. of Engl.—Sir H. Ellis’s Original Letters—Wilkins’s Concilia—Macaulay’s History—Blunt’s Sketch of the Reformation—Latimer’s Sermons—Madden’s Penalties—Warton—Taylor’s Index Monast.—Heraldic Enquiries—Henniker—Cowel—Chronicles of England—Local historians and poets—Gilpin—Heath—Barber—Thomas, whose work on “Tinterne and its Environs” is the best hand-book that has yet appeared on this locality—Notes taken by the Editor during a Tour on the Wye—Hints and Suggestions from Correspondents, etc. On taking leave of Tinterne, we shall here introduce a short notice of— Goodrich Castle, once a stronghold of the Marshalls, whose names have been so often recorded in connection with the abbey. It stands on a finely wooded promontory, round which the river Wye flows in a semicircular direction. By whom it was originally founded is unknown, though the near affinity of its name to that of ‘Godricus Dux,’ who occurs as a witness to two charters granted by King Canute to the abbey of Hulm, has given birth to a not improbable conjecture that he was the founder. The Keep is evidently of a date antecedent to the Conquest; but the surrounding works are principally Norman, though various additions and alterations may be distinguished as the workmanship of different periods, even down to the time of Henry VI. In its general outline, this castle forms a parallelogram, with a round tower at each angle, and a square ‘keep’ standing in the south-west part of the enclosed area. The common thickness of the exterior walls is somewhat more than seven feet; the length of the longest sides—that is, those towards the south-east and north-west, including the projections of the towers—is about 176 feet; and that of the south-west and north-east sides about 152 feet. The keep stands somewhat in the same manner as those of Porchester, Pevensey, and Castleton, close to the outward wall of the castle; and, like them, it has no window on the outside next the country. It had evidently three rooms or floors, one above the other; all of them, however, were very small, The window in the apartment beneath is similar in its general construction; but the columns which support the arch are somewhat higher, and a semicircular moulding of zigzag is carried beneath the arch; the middle part of the window, however, has been altered—a stone frame for glass having been inserted, of the style and age of Henry the Sixth, and probably in the time of the celebrated Earl Talbot, whom tradition represents as having his own chamber in this tower. In the second apartment is a fire-hearth, and, in an angle of the wall, a circular staircase leads to the upper story. “To this staircase is a most remarkable doorway; it has one large transom stone, as if to aid the arch to support the wall above, and in this respect it resembles several other Saxon structures, in which this singular fashion seems to have been uniformly adopted, until it became gradually altered by the introduction of a flattish under-arch, substituted in the room of the transom stone.” The principal entrance was by a flight of steps on one side, distinct from the main building, and ascending to a platform before the doorway leading to the second chamber. The entrance to the dungeon, or lower apartment, was under “a very remarkable sort of pointed arch, formed of flat sides, which seems, from the appearance of the wall around it, and from its peculiar style, to have been inserted many ages after the tower was built, and in the time of Edward III.; a suspicion that appears to be most strongly confirmed, by the circumstance, that about the twenty-second year of Edward the Third, Richard Talbot, its then lord, obtained the royal license In describing the additions made to this fortress in the Norman times, and during the successive reigns to the time of Henry the Sixth, we shall follow Mr. King, and begin with the strongly-fortified entrance, which, commencing between two semicircular towers of equal dimensions, near the east angle, was continued under a dark vaulted passage, to an extent of fifty feet. “Immediately before the entrance, and within the space enclosed by the fosse, was a very deep pit, hewn out of the solid rock, formerly crossed by a drawbridge, which is now gone, but which evidently appears to have exactly fitted, and to have closed, when drawn up, the whole front of the gateway between the towers. About eleven feet within the passage was a massive gate, the strong iron hinges of which still remain: this gate and the drawbridge were defended on each side by loopholes, and overhead by rows of machicolations in the vaulting. Six feet and a half beyond this was a portcullis, and about seven feet further a second portcullis; the space between these was again protected by loopholes and machicolations. About two feet more inward was another strong gate, and five feet and a half beyond this, on the right, a small door leading to a long narrow gallery, only three feet wide, formed in the thickness of the wall, and which was the means of access to the loopholes in the eastern tower, as well as to some others that commanded the brow of the steep precipice towards the north-east.” These works appear to have been thought sufficient for general defence; but a resource was ingeniously contrived for greater security, in case they had all been forced: “for a little further on are many stone projections in the wall on each side, like pilasters, manifestly designed for inserting great beams of timber within them, like bars, from one side of the passage, which was about nine feet ten inches wide, to the other, so as to form a strong barricade, with earth or stones between the rows of timber, which would in a short time, and with rapidity, Chapel.—The ruins of the chapel run parallel with the entrance on the left; the style of the broken ornaments, and particularly of those about its great window, show this to have been repaired and adorned even so late as the reign of Henry the Seventh. In one part is a very remarkable niche, and near it a smaller one, for holy water. On the opposite side is also another niche for the same purpose. Beneath the chapel was a deep vault, and over it a chamber, with a fireplace, which still appears projecting from the wall. Adjoining the chapel, and near the entrance, is a small octagonal watch-tower, which rises above the other buildings, and commands a fine view over the surrounding country. The buildings between the chapel and the south or garrison tower, to the upper part of which a passage, or covered-way, led along the top of the outer wall, are mostly in ruins. Here appear to have been the stables. The garrison tower adjoins the entrance to the keep; its foundation is a square of about thirty-six feet; but the three outward angles diminish as they ascend, and form triangular buttresses, so that the upper part of the tower is circular. The walls are at least eight feet in thickness. The entrances to this tower were so continued, that there was access to it from every part of the walls. It contained three floors, and in each of them a fire-hearth. The interior forms an irregular octagon, about twenty feet in diameter from the angles, and about seventeen from side to side. Great Tower.—The wall that extended between the keep and the west tower is in ruins. This tower, which is also greatly dilapidated, appears of more modern construction than the former, and is probably of the time of the Edwards. Its outward form is circular; but the interior is somewhat of an octangular figure, but very irregular, its general dimensions being thirty-three feet long, and twenty-five feet broad. In this appears to have been the great kitchen; the fireplace is still distinguishable, with a recess and loophole on each side. Here was a small doorway, or sally-port, communicating with a sort of outer ballium, which runs on the north-west side, and was enclosed by an outer wall. On this side also, and ranging between the west tower and the north or Ladies’ tower, were the state apartments. The Hall was a magnificent room of the time of Edward the First, as clearly appears from the style and architecture of its remains, and particularly from its long, slender, and narrow windows. This apartment was sixty-five feet long, and twenty-eight feet broad. Some years ago it contained a single beam of oak, “without knot or knarle,” sixty-six feet long, and nearly two feet square throughout its whole length. On the north-west side is the great State-room, which was fifty-five feet and a half long by twenty broad. At the upper end, or towards the north, are two beautiful pointed arches, springing from a well-wrought octagon pillar in the middle of the apartment, and resting on corbels at the sides. Here seem to have been two large windows; but the walls are so much broken, or closely mantled with ivy, that this cannot with certainty be affirmed. The architecture of this part of the building is of the time of Henry the Fifth or Sixth. At the north angle of this room is an opening leading into the north or Ladies’ tower, which is so situated on the brow of a high and steep precipice, as to be the most defensible part of the castle. From the apartment within, which is a neat octagon, about fifteen feet in diameter, is a most beautiful view over the adjacent country. From the common appellation of this tower, there can be little doubt of its having been appropriated as a “Ladies’ bower.” Beyond the state-room, in the north-east wall, is a square recess and loophole, supposed to have been formed for the lodging and seat of the warden. Such was the original construction of Goodrich Castle; but almost every part has yielded to the iron tooth of age, and to the more speedy demolition of war. The ruins, however, are extremely grand; the massive towers are finely mantled with ivy; and even the great moat is embellished with the luxuriant foliage of tall forest-trees. From the adjoining woods the crumbling turrets have a very striking and interesting effect; and seen from the water, the view has been truly characterized as “one of the grandest upon the Wye.” Whoever was the original founder of this Castle, “whether Godricus Dux, who witnessed King Canute’s charters, or any chieftain prior to him,” it is certain that the earliest authenticated record yet discovered, is of A.D. 1204, when it was given by “King John to William Strigul, Earl Marshall, to hold by the service of two knights’ fees.” His son Walter, Earl of Pembroke—as noticed in a former page of this volume—died here in December, 1245. It was afterwards conveyed by a female to William de Valentia, Earl of Pembroke, whose third son, Aymer de Valence, became his heir, and was murdered in France in 1323. From him it passed to the Talbots, by the marriage of Elizabeth Comyn, daughter of Joan, his second sister, with Sir Richard, afterwards Lord Talbot, who procured the license from Edward the Third to have a In the civil wars between Charles I. and his Parliament, Goodrich Castle was alternately possessed by both parties. It was first seized by the Parliamentary army; but afterwards fell into the hands of the Royalists, who sustained a siege of nearly six weeks against Colonel Birch. The colonel began the siege on the 22nd of June, 1646. On the third of August, as appears from Whitelocke, “Colonel Birch entered some of the works of Gotherich Castle, whereupon the garrison hung out a white flag for parley, which Birch refused, and went on storming, until they all submitted to mercy. In the castle, besides the governor, were 50 gentlemen and 120 soldiers, with arms, ammunition, and provisions.” On the twenty-fifth the Parliament gave orders that the Countess of Kent should be informed that there was a necessity for demolishing the castle; and that “on the demolishing thereof, satisfaction should be made to her. On the first of March following, they finally resolved that the castle should be totally disgarrisoned, and slighted. The breaches of the Ladies’ tower, which is the most effectually ruined, were said to have been chiefly occasioned by the battering of the cannon during the siege.” |