| Home | Articles | People | Places | Trees
 |
Archives
|
Forums | Misc |
|
The Knight in Chilthorne Domer By K.M. Vagg, Toronto April, 1979.
This paper was originally published by K.M. Vagg in April 1979, it was a first glimpse at the contents of his book on the history of the Vagg family, which after his sudden death in 1981 was never written. Forty copies of the paper were made and distributed to leading academics in both Canada, U.S.A. and England, copies were sent to the University of Toronto, Queens and York Universities also Cambridge, Oxford and the London School of Economics, with a dozen going to people and organisations in and around Somerset. Indeed the publication of the monograph has been acclaimed by the Assistant Archivist of the Somerset, Record Office (R.J.E. Bush) as a valuable contribution to local history. The paper was subsequently republished as an appendix in "The Vagg Odyssey: A thousand years of the Vaggs" by C. M. Vagg.
CONTENTS
APPENDICES
INTRODUCTION "Within the alter rail on the North side under an arch is the recumbent figure of a knight. It is clad in coat of mail. The right leg is crossed over the left. A long heater-shaped shield is suspended from the right shoulder, and the head rests upon the helmet. It may be the effigy of Sir William de Domer, father of Sir John de Domer, whose effigy is in Pendomer Church, but more probably it represents a member of the Vagg family, who held a manor in the parish". Rev, GW. Swunders, M.A. Vicar of Martock, (in The Western Gazette. 15.4.1932). The abridged article, containing the above description and opinion, follows in attached booklet. Also included are photos of the stone knights from both Chilthorne Domer and South Petherton. A medieval stone knight in the village church is par for the course in much of Somerset. Three have been linked together here; they are:
An unsolved problem is always a challenge, and my first impression was that this one only existed because no one had worked on it. That effort, we still do not know the name of the individual commemorated in the Chilthorne Domer church; nor do we know where the statue came from or why it differs in so many respects from, say, the knight in Pendomer. Perhaps none of these specific questions matter very much; because the knight focuses our efforts to understand how people thought over 700 years ago. So these notes are a statement of the problem, a report of work in progress, and an appeal for more information. CHILTHORNE DOMER CHURCH. ITS INTEREST AND HISTORY. BY THE REV. G.W. SAUNDERS, M.A., (Vicar of Martock.) Chilthorne Domer and Pendomer derive their names from the family of Domer, or Dummer, that originated from the village of Dummer, near Basingstoke in Hampshire. The elder branch of this family migrated to Somerset, and became possessed of Penne by the marriage Radulphus de Domer with Agnes de la Penne, c.1148. A Sir John de Dommer, son of William de Dommer, presented to the Rectory of Penne Domer in 1311, was Knight of the Shire, and attended Parliament in 1313. In 1315 he granted 6 1/2 acres of land in Chiltern to Walter Isaac, of Hull. In 1316 he was supervisor of the assize of arms and array for the County of Somerset, and is certifice as Lord of Chiltern Dommer the same year. It is probably the tomb of this Sir John that is such a striking feature in the little church of Pendomer. Chilthorne Domer Church possess some features which are peculiarly its own. It is dedicated in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and consists of a nave, chancel, a modern vestry on the north side of the chancel, and a porch on the south side of the nave. The nave, chancel, and, perhaps, the porch belong to the 14th century. In the 15th century the waits of the nave were raised, the roof flattened, and a bell-cot was added to the west gable; larger windows were inserted, and the walls crowned with a parapet. A vestry was added to the north of the chancel in 1883. THE INTERIOR We enter the church by the south door, which has perpendicular strips of wood nailed to its surface, and is studded with nails. It has retained the strap hinges, lock plate, and drop handle. Above the door, within, is a small undated panel bearing the Royal arms, and to the east is a holy water stoup. The west font stands upon an octagonal base at the west end of the church. The bowl is octagonal and is carved with quatrefoils containing plain shields and four-petalled flowers. It rests upon a square base, each side decorated with a trefoiled panel. THE WOODWORK. The features of the church is its woodwork. It is seated through out with Jacobean seats. The bench ends are rounded at the top. Within the semi-circle is a fan ornament, and at each side and the top is a ball. Below are two panels, the upper carved, the lower left plain, but framed and slightly sunk. The doors of the seats have been removed and set against the wall to form a dado. The pulpit is in keeping with the seats, and is complete with back and sounding board. In the back is a small panel inscribed:- 1624 JOHN TILI JOHN SERLE, CHURCH WARDENS. The roodscreen has been destroyed, but at the N.E. corner of the nave is a door leading to the rood stairs, and higher up in the wall a blocked door which admitted to the rood loft. The chancel arch is of two orders. The outer one rises from floor. The inner one springs higher up from moulded caps supported by two well-carved heads-N. a male, S. a female. On the north side of the arch is a piscina-marking the site of an altar-behind the pulpit. Within the alter rails on the north side under an arch is the recumbent figure of a knight. It is clad in coat of mail. The right leg is crossed over the left. A long heater-shaped shield is suspended from the right shoulder, and the head rests upon the helmet. It may be the effigy of Sir William de Domer, father of Sir John de Domer, whose effigy is in Pendomer Church, but more probably it represents a member of the Vagg family, who held manor in the parish. Reprinted from THE WESTERN GAZETTE April 15th, 1932, and part of a series of articles on South Somerset Churches. The mystery and the cast. In his 1932 article, the Vicar of Martock comments that the stone knight "may be the effigy of Sir William de Domer" but considers that "more probably it represents a member of the Vagg family". It would be interesting to know the evidence (and the reasoning) behind the Vicar's opinion. (However, the article was published 47 years ago, and additional material may not, be available.) At this stage, we do not know who the stone knight represents. However, on the key assumption that Professor Pevsner is correct when he judges the statue to be late thirteenth century, there seem to be a least 4 candidates. They are:
These are inextricable mixed with 4 manors mentioned in Domesday. These are:
These four manors were all adjacent to the thirteenth century St. Mary's Church of Chilthorne Domer in the postal district of Vagg. Hence the Lord of the Manor of any one of them could, in theory, be commemorated in the stone knight. 6. Thorn Prior In fact, we can immediately eliminate Thorn Prior. Domesday tells us that in the time of Edward the Confessor (1042-1066) part of Torne (or what was subsequently called Thorn Prior) was held by two English theins in parage (pariter). By 1086 it was held by Ralph the Priest, and it was subsequently given by Ranulph the Chancellor to the Abbey of C1uny and became part of the endowment of Montacute Priory between 1091 and 1104. It was known as Thorn Prior by 1375 and was retained by Montacute Priory until The Dissolution in 1539, when it was let to the Salmon family (who inter-married with the Chilcompton Vaggs). The Salmons continued in occupation until at least 1574. Hence, since the lords of this manor were priests from 1086 to 1539, they can hardly have been represented by a stone knight in the late 1200's. 7. The Coffins. The other part of the manor of Torne (now known as Thorn Coffin) was occupied by an Englishman called Cheneve between 1042 and 1066, and by Drogo (or Drew, whose descendants became Montague or Montacute, and later earls of Salisbury) in 1086. In 1198, it was exchanged for Long Sutton with another branch of the Montague family, and part eventually re-appeared through, a descendant of their in-laws (Sir Edmund de Clevedon) in 1340, and part was owned by the le Despensers between 1341 and 1381. Although primarily associated with Devon, the Coffin family were recorded in Somerset in 1224, and by 1279 there was a court case involving Ellis Coffin of Thorne Coffin. Hence the Coffins must have already been tenants for some years in order for their surname to be also a suffix in the place name of Thorn. At least 5 Coffins - Ellis, Ralph, John, Ellis (son of John) and Robert (grandson of John) were prominent between 1224 and 1327. Robert held Thorn Coffin and Long Sutton jointly with Robert de Montague in 1320, and was recorded as patron of the church and the most prosperous resident in 1327. As co-owner with the family of the earls of Salisbury, he had both money, and motive to commemorate his father, the second Ellis Coffin. 8. The Chitthornes. Like Thorn, Chilthorne Domer or Vagg was actually 2 manors (both called Cilterne before Domesday). One was held by an Englishman named Brictuin between 1042 and 1066; the other by an Englishman named Alwi. Both were owned in 1086 by Alvred, pincerna (butler) for Robert, Count of Moretain - who was actually tenant-in-chief for all 4 manors and responsible to his half-brother, William the Conqueror. By the thirteenth century, the two manors of Chilthorne Domer or Vagg were strongly associated with three families. My guess is that the first of these was Richard de Chilthorne. The Ecclesiastes Valor of 1535 records that Montacute Priory was bound to distribute alms for the souls of its founder, William (Count of Moretain), for King John, and for Richard de Chilthorne. The last-named obviously moved in good company and supported the church. If he was the father (or close senior relative) of Alice de Chithorne or Chilthorne, he would also have lived during the right period. This lady became Abbess of the Priory called White Hall, Ilchester (about 3 miles from Chilthorne Domer or Vagg) in 1313, and averaged about one court case per year until 18th September, 1323, when she was removed and "charged with incontinence and immorality with John de Passelawe, the Chaplin". A supporter of Montacute Priory, with female relatives active in the church, and a name commemorated in 2 manors in the parish, could also be commemorated in the church of Chilthorne Domer. 9. The Domers. The Vicar of Martock noted that the family of Domer (or Dunmer) originated from the village of Dunmer, near Basingstoke in Hampshire, and that they migrated to Somerset when Radulphus de Domer married Agnes de la Penne in about 1148 (creating Pendomer). By 1311, Sir John de Domer (son of William de Domer) presented to the Rectory of Pendomer, and in 1313 was Knight of the Shire and attended parliament. He subsequently was supervisor of the assize of arms and array for Somerset and Lord of Chilthorne Domer in 1316. The Vicar mentions a grant of land by Sir John de Domer in 1315; this should have been 1314 (the Sunday after Michaelmas Day or 30th March by the old calender). Also, his reference to Walter Isaac of Hull actually reads "of Hulle" in the original and hence refers to Chilthorne Hill. There are some omissions as well as errors; Sir John de Domer witnessed a deed by John Lauerantz of Chiltern Vagge in 1323, another by Sir Walter de Romesie in 1328, and yet another by Walter of Mylton in 1329. Obviously Sir John de Domer was a locally prominent man. His family had been Lords of Pendomer since about 1148, and he himself is generally believed to be represented by the stone knight of Pendomer. Hence it may be that his father. Sir William de Domer, is the stone knight in Chilthorne Domer or Vagg (which is only 2 miles from Pendomer). However Pevsner's estimate that all three knights are late thirteenth century seems to me to create difficulties for the de Domers (in Pendomer and particularly Chilthorne Domer). On the one hand, it could be argued that the Pendomer statue is more likely to be that of Sir William de Domer; if it can be established that he died between 1265 and 1300, this would be the right period for Pevsner's assertion. Moreover, if Sir John, his son, had then become Lord of Pendomer in the late thirteenth century, he would have been in a position to commemorate his father - because a young man with a bright future would be unlikely to want to celebrate his own death about 50 years before it occurred. Also, if he erected a memorial to Sir William, Pendomer - the family seat for 150 years - would be the more likely site. On the other hand, it seems to me that the Chilthorne Domer statue is unlikely to be that of either Sir William or Sir John de Domer. It could hardly be Sir William because Sir John did not become Lord of Chilthorne Domer until 1316, which would have been 40-50 years after his father's death (and the statue's creation); it could hardly have been Sir John himself because he was still busily witnessing documents in 1329 (well into the fourteenth century) and, in any case, did not own Chilthorne Domer - and may not even have been born when that statue had presumably been created. Besides, it is supposed to be his statue in Pendomer; he would hardly need two. Some of the speculative elements in this argument may be removed by research into the dates of birth and death of both Sir William and Sir John de Domer. Alternatively, Professor Pevsner's estimate of both statues as late thirteenth century may have to be revised. 10. The Vaggs. The last family (and the one favoured by the Vicar of Martock) was that of Fag or Vagg. The earliest Somerset reference I have discovered was to William Fag in the Assize Roll for 1269; the earliest indication of Vagg ownership of Chilthorne Domer or Vagg was from Kirby's Quest for 1284-85, which reads: Johannes Fag tenet Chilterne Fag de lsabella de la Haye, et eadem Isabella de rege in capite per idem servicium. (Or, as we would say. "John Fag (VAGG) holds Chilterne Fag (VAGG) from Isabella Hay and the same Isabella from the King in chief for the same service"). Even in 1284, the land held by John Fag was called Chilterne Fag, thus indicating that the family had been associated with it for several generations. Hence, if the stone knight was a Vagg, he could be the father of this John Fag. Unfortunately (as with all the other families except the de Domers) we do not know the name of John Fag's father - and we do not know any of the relevant dates of birth and death for any of the four families. The only specific Vagg we can suggest is the 1269 reference to William Fag. We do know a little more about John Fag. As well as the Kirby's Quest reference to him in 1284. he appears as John Fagge (witnessing a will in 1314), John Vagge (witnessing in 1323) John Fagge (witnessing in 1328 , and John Fagg (witnessing 1329). Presumably he died sometime between 1329 and 1355, when deeds concerning Chilterne Fagge were witnessed by Marmaduke Fagge - probably his heir and hence his son or younger brother. He died well into the fourteenth century and hence could not be the thirteenth century knight. There are a series of variations on the association of the property and the family name. In 1284 it was Chilterne Fag, in 1312 it was Faggechilterne, in 1323 it was Chilterne Vagge and Chiletern Vagge in 1329 it was Chiltern Vagg, and in 1355 it was Chilterne Fagge. It is also important to note that 4 of these 6 documents (ie., those for 1312. 1323, 1329 and 1355) refer to both Chilthorne Vagg and Chilthorne Domer indicating that the names of Vagg and Domer referred to different properties. As with the 3 previously mentioned candidates, the Vagg family was locally prominent at the right period, were so closely associated with certain property that their surname became a place name (or vice versa), and were held in sufficient respect for their signatures to frequently appear on a variety of land transactions. Again like the other candidate, families, the Vaggs had money, motive, and were almost under social pressure to erect such a monument. It seems odd that we do not know which family (and for whom). 11. Sources. Since the original source material is not readily available, I have reproduced translations of the 6 wills mentioned in connection with the Domer and Vagg families in my notes entitled "Ilchester Almshouse Deeds" (see Appendix1). It will be observed that the document dated 1st May, 1328, was signed at Ac1e. This is now known as Oakley and was a portion of Chilthorne Domer that was first called Achelai and was held by Aiwi Baneson before Conquest and by Alvred pincerna until Exon Domesday, when it was added to the King's manor at Martock. (Confirmed in the Inquisitio Geldi, where it was assessed at 2 hides). We do not know when any of these 4 families became associated with Chilthorne Domer except that it was after Conquest and by the early thirteenth century - ie., within a margin of about 120 years. Nor do we know when 3 of these families ceased to be linked to the property. However, on the authority of Thomas Gerard in his "Particular Description of the County of Somerset" (witten in 1633), we learn that Chilterne Vag passed from that family when the great-grandchild of John Fage or Vage died without issue in 1576. Hence we have documentary proof of Vagg ownership for the 292 years between 1284 and 1576 (and evidence of much longer association through the fact that, as early as 1284, the family name was also incorporated in the place name for the property). Since the source material from Thomas Gerard of Trent is also difficult to obtain, it was reproduced in my "Antiquarian References" as Appendix 2. So far as I know, there are no errors in that document, but it was written 10 months ago, and the present notes incorporate some later study of both the Exon Domesday and the Inquisitio Geldi, "an? these are reflected in the references to Thorn Prior and Oakley. It will be obvious that all my specific statements involving places, persons, and dates require supporting documentation. This is available, but seemed inappropriate in a non-technical summary. The only statements that I cannot yet confirm are some of those about the Domer family in the 1932 article by the Vicar of Martock. However, he too was writing for a general audience, and it may be possible to secure his detailed references. 12. Knight in Chilthorne Domer or Vagg.
Although this photograph describes the church as thirteenth century, the Vicar's article judges that "The nave, chancel, and perhaps the porch cbelong to the fourteenth century" and all other parts of the building as more recent. However, it is generally agreed (i.e., by Nikikays Pevsner, Arthur Mee, and John Betjamin) that the stone knight is thirteenth century, and the oldest possession. hence, in addition to the mystery of the unknown effigy, we do not know for certain when it was made, where it previously resided, and when and how it arrived in St. Mary's church.
Stone Knight Effigy, Chilthorne Domer.
St Marys Church of Chilthorne Domer.
Stone Effigy at St. Peter and Paul South Petherton.
The main internal feature is the woodwork - particularly the Jacobean seats and the pulpit. Students of Vagg history will note on the back of the pulpit is inscribed!
1624
John Tili John Serle
Church Wardens
(The Tillys intermarried with several generations of the South Petherton Vaggs).
The stone knight has been briefly described in the Vicar's article and are attached for both the Chilthorne Domer and the South Petherton effigies. (There was no one around when I visited Pendomer with. my camera, and I had not written for permission to take photographs). There are some marked similarities between the 3 statues, (largely because they are stylised rather than representational art). Each knight is 'in armour, with head bowed, lying on his back, right leg crossed over the left, arms by his side, right hand on sword and left on shield, etc. Also, each may be made from the same sort of stone, each has clothing, armour, and weapons, each represents members of an elite who were buried inside the church, and each is proclaiming the power and wealth of his family as well as himself. Yet, comparing the Chilthorne Domer or Vagg with the South Petherton or the Pendomer knights, it can be argued that the differences outweigh the similarities between three artifacts that are supposed to have come from the same workshops during the same period. For instance, the Chilthorne Domer knights:
13. Knight in South Petherton.
South Petherton has Chilthorne Domer about 4 miles to the north-east, and Pendomer about the same distance to the south-east. Crewkerne is 3 miles to the south, Ilminster (with the Wadham brasses) 3 miles to the west, Langport (source of the second Vagg emigration to Australia in the 1850's) 5 miles to the north and Martock 2 to the north-east. Over the past 1500 years. South Petherton has been the most urbanised and industrialized of the resting places for our 3 stone knights. (At Domesday, the rent included a bloom of iron from every free man in nearby Cricket St. Thomas - which also reminds us that time in the West of England, over 20% of the population were slaves). South Petherton was one of the 12 Somerset manors specified in Domesday as of Ancient Demesne, a group with 2 distinctive features. First, they had never paid geld or land tax (and were therefore not assessed in hides like the other estates); second, instead a money rent, they paid in kind (South Petherton was valued at £42.8.4). These differences are evidence of exceedingly ancient origin and may have dated back as far as King Ina or Ine in the eighth century (although the so-called King Ina's Palace - the town's oldest building - was probably completed by the second of the descendants or our stone knight called Giles Daubeney, who lies buried in Westminister Abbey).
The church is Somerset Perpendicular, mainly thirteenth to fifteenth century, with elements of Norman and modern additions. It is a fine large structure, of no particular architectural distinction, but crammed with interesting items and associations. The names of all its vicars since 1080 are recorded, and there is a page from the diary of Richard Symonds (a Royalist soldier quartered there in 1644, who wrote extensively on South Petherton). The south doors Norman work, the tower vaulting (springing from winged symbols of the Evangalists) is thirteenth century, and the tracery of the north transept window is fourteenth century. Looking down from the high altar, on the right is an odd staircase, cut through two pillars to reach the belfry; further over, on the south wall, is a bronze plaque, which was donated by Mervyn and May Vagg, of Melbourne. This commemorates members of the Vagg family both here and in the Southern Hemisphere (since the emigration of John and Mary Vagg in the spring of 1840).
On the left or north side of the high alter is the fifteenth century lady chapel, with perhaps the church's finest window, and a series of memorials to the Daubeney family, to which we shall return in a moment. In contrast to the cult of the Virgin Mary (associated with the lady chapel) the chair stalls on the south side of the church were in 1935 dedicated to Dr. Thomas Coke, a man who figures prominently in the history of Methodism. In 1771, Coke - then curate of South Petherton - was drummed out of town by the vicar and his congregation for heretical sermons; he subsequently joined the Methodists and became John Wesley's chief administrator. (So far as I know. Coke's comments on this incident are not available; probably his attitude was similar to that of the central figure in Abraham Lincoln's story of the American who was tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. When subsequently asked for his opinion, the man said that the ceremony was greatly over-rated and that - had it not been for the honour entailed - he would just as soon have walked).
As a manor of Ancient Demesne, South Petherton. gave its name to its Hundred - the local administrative unit of the Middle Ages. Although much smaller than the Bishop of Winchester's enormous manor of Taunton, it was one of the 10 largest manors in the country, and hence was virtually a Hundred in itself. However, it did include 2 smaller manors. Wigborough was one of 6 estates held at Domesday by John the Usher (Hostiarus) among the king's sergeants, and Tudor house called Wigborough still exists. Compton Durville was then called Contune and held by Malger, one of the 4 chief under-tenants to the Count of the heirs of Essehulle (i.e., the Vaux family) at the time of Kirby's Quest in 1284. The Comptons are perpetuated in the place names of half a dozen other Somerset villages; both Wigborough and Compton Durville are remembered in wall monuments in South Petherton church (Henry Compton, 1603, and William Ashe, 1677).
Reverting to the lady chapel, it contains a series of memorials to the de Albinis, who at Conquest were related to Drogo or Dru, founder of the house of Montagu. William Rufus (1087-1100), son of William the Conqueror. De Albini's son was known as William-of-the-Strong-Arm, who married Adelicia of Louvin (the Fair maid of Brabant), widow of the Conqueror's fourth son. Henry I (1100-1135). They were the Southern branch of the family; our main concern is with the Western branch whose name became Daubeney and whose titles were the Dukes of Bridgewater. The most sumptuous brass I ever saw in England was the memorial to Sir Giles Daubeney (died 1445) and his two wives. However, in this context, our main interest is in the memorial claimed to be for Sir Philip de Albini, who died in 1292 he is the stone knight in the colour Xerox on P. 7, and lies in a niche under the north wall. The figure is that of a well-proportioned man, in chain mail. bare-headed (and with curly hair), right hand on his sword and heatershaped shield on his left arm. On the shield is visible the design - though, of course, not the colours of the Montagu arms, i.e., three lozenges gules on a filed argent; an extremely simple device which is evidence of its great antiquity. By contrast, one of the difficulties in identifying the knight in Chilthorne Domer or Vagg is that he is facing the other way in his niche, and hence the shield (and the arms) are obscured. A second difficulty is that, even when you lean into the niche seeking a better view, the design on the shield cannot be discerned. (It is 5 years since I personally inspected the statue, and I forget whether the device is worn and incomplete, or whether the shield was apparently carved without identifying arms). A point of similarity between these two stone knights is that both have been either unknown or lost; about 30 years ago Sir Philip de Albini's statue was dug out of a hole being prepared for a petrol pump on the Yeovil-Ilminster road. This is doubly interesting because both statutes are claimed to be late thirteenth century and Sir Philip must have been exposed to the elements for several hundreds years. Yet it is the statue in Chilthorne Domer or Vagg that appears significantly more weathered and/or older.
14. Knight in Pendomer.
Like Chilthorne Domer or Vagg, Pendomer was held at Conquest by Alvred pincerna (butler) of the Count of Mortain. It is fitting that the Englishman who previously held it in the time of Edward the Confessor was Alward venator (the hunter), because the church remains as far off the beaten track as any in Somerset. In fact, you do not reach it by road, but by lane that degenerates into a path that leads across the border into Dorset. Like Thorne, Pendomer at Domesday was less than a thriving metropolis; its population was 17 (including 7 slaves, who - together with 4 ploughs - were listed as farm equipment). It is of interest that it is only 20 miles from Melcombe Regis (now part of Weymouth), that, in 1348, the Black Death reached England "a little before the Feast of St. John the Bapitst", (i.e., 24th June, 1348). However, even though the resulting plague is believed to have resulted in the "lost villages" that are common in other parts of England, or even to have caused depressed hamlets like Thorne ,and Pendomer (because the plague struck heavily in urban areas and about 95%, of the Somerset population lived in the country). A far likely reason was the subsequent industrialization and growth of Yeovil - which was not even a town at Domesday.
Pendomer is also only about 4 miles from Mebury Osmond, the home of Thomas Hardy's mother. Hardy spent his childhood within walking distance of Pendomer and Chilthorne Domer, and obviously knew this region well - Mervyn Vagg recently sent me a copy of a Hardy poem entitled "Vagg Hollow". Nearby parts of Dorset, Somerset, and Devon are described in detail in the Wessex Novels; he also had extensive knowledge of local customs and dialects. (Hardy has in fact brought this part of England to an international audience - his tragic view of human destiny struck a responsive chord in a culture on the other side of the world, and the Japanese now have a very active Hardy Society).
Next to Pendomer church is the sixteenth century manor house of John Stourton, who also owned Preston Plucknett and Brympton. (His arms are in Pendomer, though he is buried in Stavordale Priory). But the main feature inside this church is the stone effigy of Sir John de Domer. Like the two already discussed, it is in chain mail, with limbs arranged in the conventional posture of the period, but is by far the most elaborate monument of the three. It is surmounted by an embattled canopy, held by the statues of two peasants. The canopy has iron spikes for candles (to be lit on the anniversary of the knight's death) and there is also a statue of an angel holding a manniken - Sir John's soul on its way to heaven. (This conopied monument was a frequent thirteenth century design; the best one I know for that most elaborate - and claimed to be the finest monument in England - is the fifteenth century memorial to the Duchess of Suffolk, who died in 1475, at Ewelme, Oxon. Prickets or spikes for candles were not uncommon; there is a pleasing example at West Tanfield in the North Riding).
My recollection is that the Pendomer -monument also contained a host of finer details, but it would be rash to argue from memories of a visit made 5 years ago - particularly when at that time Pendomer was viewed as background to Chilthorne Domer. However, we can establish the general point that the stone knight in Pendomer is a much more elaborate structure than those in either South Petherton of Chilthorne Domer. This is a significant difference, but we have not established the reason for it. Probably, part of the expiation lies in the fact that the Pendomer monument is the only one that remained on the original location, and with, its subsidy works more or less intact. The churches were in process of continual physical modification and change, and it may well be that, several centuries after the event, some architect in South Pentherton decided to eliminate a canopy that lacked the central element of a stone knight. In Chilthorne Domer or Vagg, there may have been either the same or different process. Their stone knight (which seems older than the church) could have been introduced from a different building - in which case there may be an empty canopy somewhere, or some records that establish the identity of the figure. A whole series of implications follow if we consider that fact that the South Petherton and Chilthorne Domer knights in their wall niches may have little relation to their original location and surroundings.
Also, these stone knights did not suddenly materialise in splendid isolation within the churches. They were merely one aspect of a series of complex negotiations between the knights, their families and heirs, their lawyers, and their churchmen - negotiations that generally lasted for years and that generated written records. Moreover, they were accompanied by elaborate arrangements for regular and/or anniversary masses and prayers for the souls of the departed that were meant to continue until the Second Coming; again, some record of these church obligations must surely exist. As well as checking county and family history, wills, and other legal records, we will have to seek information actually available within the churches and the Somerset Records Office, together with that under the control of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the various Roman Catholic orders, and historians within Downside Abbey. It seems likely that the mystery of the unknown knight in Chilthorne Domer is simply due to a lack of serious effort to discover who he is, and that comparison with the knights in South Petherton and Pendomer may bring our questions into sharper focus.
15. Repertory Grid Analysis.
This is a technique that developed from The Psychology of Personal Constructs (1955) by G.A.Ke11y. I first used it as a clinical psychologist in Australia (to establish contact with cases of schizophrenic withdrawal), then subsequently modified it for advertising pre-testing research in Britain, and have further restructured it for market and mass communication research in the U.S.A. and Canada. Since, for me, it has shown a 20-year track record of extreme versatility, it seemed reasonable to try the technique on this problem of historical analysis. A detailed rationale is already in the literature, but a brief and non-technical explanation now follows.
In seeking to overcome the limitations of mechanistic forms of behaviourism and stimulus-response psychology, George Kelly developed a theory based on the active and exploratory propensities of the individual. He began with 3 metaphysical assumptions about the universe: first, that it is real and not a figment of the imagination; second, that it can be understood only on a time line; third, given sufficient knowledge and a broad enough perspective, all events can be seen to be inter-connected. Man was postulated to be an animal that related aspects of the universe in ways that were meaningful to him - man was held to be active and reactive; anticipatory rather than passive. One consequence was that, when a series of items were presented to our awareness, we began to classify them in terms of similarities and differences that reflected our perception of the world. The simplest way to observe this process is to record and analyse how people classify triads. consequence was that, when a series of items were presented to our awareness, we began to classify them in terms of similarities and differences that reflected our perception of the world. The simplest way to observe this process is to record and analyse how people classify triads.
For example, in clinical psychology, if you confront a patient with a pencil, a bottle of ink, and a sheet of paper, and ask him in what way one of these items differs from the other two, you learn quite a lot about his world-view if he tells you that the ink bottle is different because the Russians are using it to squirt death rays at him. In market research, if you set 3 apparently similar products - say, different brands of low tar cigarettes - before each of 50 individuals, you will first learn (over the course of 50 two-hour interviews) that each smoker can, on average, list 25 ways in which one brand differs from the other two. Then, if you computer-analyse these individual results, you will find that a majority of the respondents share perhaps 10 psychological constructs (which can be used to provide a generally understood "universe of discourse" in which to frame the advertising message). In mass communication research, if a series of focus groups containing equal numbers of listeners to 3 competing radio stations are depth-analysed about the ways in which, say, 30 elements of the program formats differ from each other, you build up a detailed picture of how the total "image" of each station is formed - and hence begin to develop some practical recommendations on how to change your client station.
These examples generate data through a comparison of triads (i.e., groups of 3 concepts or things). They have a whole series of logical properties, but the most significant one is their tendency to divide into sub-groups of 2 members on the one hand and a remaining member on the other. Modern discussion of triads began about 1890 with Georg Simmel (in Die Kreuzung socialer Kreise).
A point of some subtlety is the distinction between a concept (which is a term in formal logic) and a construct which is psychological). Kelly likened constructs to sets of goggles through which a person could view sections of the world. (If the goggles presented a distorted image, the individual would act inappropriately). More generally a construct is a way in which some things are seen as being alike and yet different from others. A construct links two items; it entails a particular basis for considering both likenesses and differences, and at the same it excludes certain other things are irrelevant. Thus "black and white" could be one psychological construct (in which all other colours had been excluded as irrelevant), but it would be 2 concepts in formal logic (i.e., "black" and "not black" would be one, and "white" and "not white" would be the other). Concepts are labels that machines can apply, but constructs are essentially purposive and predictive (because they form a network of relationships). For instance; if we construe a man as reliable rather than unreliable, and if our construct of "reliable-unreliable" is linked to constructs such as punctual, trust- worthy, and affectionate, then we are committed to a whole series of expectations about the behaviour of "reliable" people that could never be generated by pure logic.
Reverting now to our three examples from clinical psychology, marketing research, and mass communications, it will be noted that the constructs generated by repertory grid analysis are strongly empirical. The results are generated by the people in the situation rather than the investigator observing them. The technique can be used as a sorting procedure which shows how one item differs from two others; it can also be used as a cataloguing procedure for generating a list of differences. In the case of the stone knights, I propose to use it in two ways. First, to focus on the differences that are relevant to us; second (by a process of extrapolation to what we know of the economic, social, and religious conditions of 7-800 years ago) to attempt to specify the differences that were relevant to the original participants. If that can be done, as we learn more of the specific purposes in creating these stone knights we may also develop insights that will help us identify the one in Chilthorne Dormer.
16. Information in Funerary Monuments.
The changes that have developed in commemorative church monuments can be most readily seen in Bath Abbey, which is only a short distance of about 50 miles from the region we have been describing. Bath itself has to be the most beautiful city in England and either the Romans baths or the west front of the Abbey are each sufficient to justify a visit.
The legend is that Bath was the administrative centre for King Bladud (who was the father of King Lear and the contemporary of Elizah, the Hebrew prophet). Much later, the Romans were there for 400 years; they called it Aquae, sulis because of the hot mineral springs, which they were the first to develop. The Saxons overran the city and it reverted to barbarism at about the end of the sixth century. By 775 a college of secular conons was founded, and this became a Benedictine monastery about 970. Then there were two Norman abbeys, the second built in 1122 and lasting until the end of the fifteenth century, when the present Abbey was begun through efforts of Bishop Montagu and prior Byrde.
The point that is relevant to our research into the knight in Chilthorne Dormer or Vagg is the enormous collection of funeral tablets and monuments in Bath Abbey. Sir Gilbert Scott arranged 600 of them on the walls, and being able to simultaneously compare them is a qualitatively different experience from passing through a series of churches that each contains e only a couple of examples. With a s sample of 600 monuments distributed over about 400 years, we would predict o a wide range of variation in materials, time and money expended, artistic competence, formal composition, calligraphy, literary ability, etc; These occur, but the more interesting fact is that substantial changes in both attitudes to death and in the purpose behind these monuments can also be observed. Hence, if our analysis were extended twice as far in time (to the period of the stone knights) one would expect the differences from current attitudes and purposes to be even greater.
The last sentence sounds unexceptional, but, if accepted, it would have important consequences. The most general error of "popular” history is a psychological fallacy: we realise that - 100 to 10,000 years ago - people dressed differently, spoke differently, and had different technology and social institutions; however, we tend to assume that they thought in the same way that we do. But suppose they also differed from us profoundly in ways of thought? The most fruitful attack on the mystery of our stone knight may be to study changes in ideas about death and monuments to the dead. Death is the one inevitable common experience for all people of all ages. Hence it serves as continuing focus for a cluster or constellation of associated ideas that, as previously noted, have survived in wills and ecclesiastical records (because, on such matters of final importance, individuals tend to specify the details in writing rather than leave them to the goodwill or competence of their surviving relatives). We think of a will only as a document relating to property, but, in earlier times, it also included directions for forms of morning, funeral ceremonies, disposition of the body, monuments, and religious rites.
Such a constellation of ideas has a dynamism of its own, and has changed substantially over the centuries. Some of these changes have been influenced by biology, other by demography (e.g., marrying age and mortality), others by "acts of God" like the Black Death, starvation, wars, and climatic changes, and others by the growth of individualism, the development of the nuclear family, the industrial revolution, and changes in our notions of sin, suffering, and the purpose of life. In consequence, something like the following 6 stages have occurred in Britain over the past thousand years.
(1) Individuals die. but the community lives on. This was the most primitive stage, pre-dating the rise of a strong concept of individualism. The social group - family, village, or class - was seen as the abiding reality. We all die, and there is no point in becoming excited about it, regardless of whether you are the principal actor or a spectator to the drama.
(2) Death of the individual. Restricted to the social elite, this emphasised the deceased individual's material success and social position. It also enlisted religious help in securing a smooth and favourable transition to the next world.
(3) Death of the body. This, to us, seems quite bizarre, and developed between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries, attempted to make a clear distinction between body and soul, and to frighten the faithful into the paths of righteousness by showing the body in full corruption - worms, skulls, and open cadavers.
(4) Death of a loved one. Developed during the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries, and associated with individualism, and the close emotional bonding of the nuclear family. However, it was a different form of individualism, with emphasis on the survivors rather than the deceased, and with unrestrained and extravagant expressions of sorrow.
(5) Denial of death. This is a twentieth century phenomenon (with its most extreme form in America), and is based on an absolute death phobia. As sex becomes more overt, death becomes covert, and is not even spoken of in polite society.
(6) Death with dignity. This is a very recent development, and has only become apparent over about the last 10 years. It seems to be a revulsion against the extreme medicalisation and hospitalisation of death, and an assertion of the individual's right to decide how, when, and where they will die.
When reading old documents, we tend to translate them into our own frame of reference and dismiss everything else as irrelevant. Repertory grid analysis and a general theory of changes in attitudes to death may be important conceptual tools in our attempts to fix the time period and discover the identity of our "thirteenth century knight". They may also be useful when analysing the seventeenth century vault of the Chilcompton Vaggs.
17. Spelling and Place Names.
Origins of the Vagg surname are not proven. Present evidence is consistent with Danish descent (i.e. from Vagn Akason, who was prominent at the funeral ceremonies of Harald Blue- tooth in 986 A.D.). The Vagns, or Vaggs, or Faggs appear in the south of England (i.e., Kent, Sussex and Surrey) during the eleventh century, but we do not know whether they came directly (with either Swein Forkbeard or his son, King Canute) or first went to France and then were associated with the Norman invasion. They have been in the West Country (particularly Somerset) from the thirteenth century, and the Danish form continued in the parish of Saint Germans, Cornwall at least until the baptism of Mary Vagne on 9.3.1798.
Probably, there is inherently more difficulty in managing a monosyllable. In any case, our name seems to have survived in a form closer to the original than many other surnames of comparable age. The main forms were Vagg, Fagg and Vague, or anything that sounded or could be spelt like these - about 50 variations in all, including Latinisations.
These can all be summarised and explained by the following 3 principles:
(a) The consonants V and F were virtually interchangeable before spelling was standardized.
(b) The West Country accents tend towards V rather than F.
(c) Surnames of early West Country owners tend to be incorporated into the place name of their properties.
The surname and place name of Vagg were associated in Somerset from at least 1284, which raises the question of which came first. The answer (for Somerset) is the surname, which was recorded in the south of England form the eleventh century. However, this merely changes the location of a major problem: since we are not certain of the original language, we do not even know what the surname means.
A JACOBEAN LEGAL DOCUMENT
At Ilchester, April 13. in the 19th year of James 1, before Thomas Southworth, J.P., Thomas Stuckey and Edmond Prigge desire:
This indenture made October 26, in the 18th year of James I, 1620, between George Stuckey of Shepton Beauchamp, yeoman, and Edmond Prigge of Eastlambrooke in Kingsbury Episcopi, yeoman: and William Stuckey of Stoill in Morlynch, husbandman, brother of G.S., witnesseth that G.S. and E.P. for 15 1. have sold to M.S. that "moyetie" of that tenement in Eastlambrooke containing l ½r of land ‘a. of arable land in the west field of East Lambrooke in Moll furlong between the land now or late in the tenure of Thomas Baker in the east and the land now or late in the tenure of William Baunton in the west, sometimes in the tenure of Richard Penney and now in that of Thomas Tolman; that other 'moyetie' of the said premises, sometimes in the possession of Thomas Pavis, and now or late in that of Thomas Baker; that toft and orchard called Westhaye containing 1 r. between the land now or late in the tenure of Thomase Stagge on the south; that close of land and pasture called Footlandes containing 1 ½ a. in the Northfield of Eastlambrooke between the land of James Vagg on the south and the land now or late in the tenure of Robert King on the North; that ½ a. of land in the said Northfield in a furlong called Doune between the land now or late in the tenure of John Pyttard on, the east and the land now or late in the tenure of James Vagg on the west; which premises are now in the tenure of John Russell alias Croker of South Petherton, in the right of Elizabeth his wife; with all buildings, land, and rights belonging to, and all deeds concerning, the promises; to hold the chief lord of the fee by the rents accustomed.
And G.S. does covenant that he and E.P. have full power to sell the premises; that he will discharge the premises of all encumbrances; except lease of the premises (as above) to Thomas Tolman, Edith his wife and Thomas their son; to Thomas Baker for life, and the reversion of his estate for
ninety-nine years, if Gyles Cowley his servant and Thomas Bowridge, son of Steven Bowridge of Chesilborough, husbandman, do live so long; to John Russell and Elizabeth his wife, for the lives of Elizabeth, and Edith Pyttard daughter of Thomas Pyttard of Eastlambrooke, tucker; and the rents to the chief lord of the fee, and G.S. and Katheryn his wife and E.P. and Elizabeth his wife covenant that during the space of seven years next ensuing they will do all such things for the better assurance of the premises to W.S. by fine or otherwise as shall be devised by W.S. And G.S. and E.P. appoint William Chaffey of Stoke under Hamdon, clerk, and John Vagge of Eastlambrooke, clerk, their attornies, to give possession of the premises to W.S.
SOURCE: Somerset Record Society, Vol. LI, (1936), pp 231-233.
This document is the first knowledge we have of any Vagg belonging to the Legal profession.
ILCHESTER ALMSHOUSE DEEDS.
In the autumn of 1858, deeds relating to the property of the Almshouse of Ilchester were restored by Lord Huntingtower to the reconstituted Board of Trustees.
These deeds or wills were translated into English from Latin, and I have so far been unable to check them from the originals. (An important point, because many Victorian translations were less than scholarly). Hence, they are offered on a tentative basis - even though they may be further limited by the medieval terms and legal concepts (many of which have no equivalent at a point in time that is over 600 years after they were written). An extensive essay on the meaning of terms like "foefment", "message", "ferlingus", "common pasture", and the concept of holding land from a local overlord rather than the Crown is being developed.
Meantime, the broad conclusions that emerge from these 6 wills are that:
(a) the surname and place of Vagg were closely associated in this region of Somerset over 600 years ago.
(b) because of the association of the Vagg family with these 3 properties, it seems likely that their names were sought as witnesses because it was felt that this would somehow make the agreements more binding.
(c) Further study is required into the association of the Vagg family with Chilthorne Vagg, Chilthorne Domer and Thorne Coffin.
June, 1978
No.17: Edward II, 1312; Saturday, November, 18.
Walter called the Millward of Southwark to John of Middleton - All right and title of lands... .which the same John held by the gift and foefment of John the Millward, father of the said Walter in Faggeschilterne (Vagg) and Dummerschilterne, in the County of Somerset....
No.18: Edward 11, 1314; Sunday after Michaelmas Day.
John de Dummere, knight, to Walter Issac of Hulle (Chilthorn Hill) six acres of arable land of Henry de Romesye, and Hulamstrete, two acres above Bymere, between land of Nicholas Kayron and Henry of Pypelpenne; one acre in Bymthecmermere, between land of Henry Ie Mone and of John de Middletone; one Dummere, accruing from the land and tenement which Thomas of Remmysbury held for his life. Witnesses - Sir Walter de 'Romesye, knight; John de Middelton, Henry de Pypelpenne, John Fagge... . Given at Penne on the Lord's Day next after the Feast of St. Michael in the eithth year of the regin of king Edward son of king Edward.
No.21: Edward 11. 1323; Sunday after October. 18.
John Lauerantz of Chiltern Vagge, to John de Kayhays Perpetual, Vicar of the Church of Combe Kaygnes - A message in Chiltherne Vagge and one ferlingus (10 acres) of land in Chilterne Dommere Fields. One acre in Stretforland, one near Longmere, one above Erleyge, Two by Middlemere, Two near Upmere, One near the Mens' Field, westward. One acre and a half near Sewersgore, one acre in Longland, one by Greenway, Half-an-acre in Merforland near the Ditch, One acre atop of Smallhill, Half-an-acre of Meadow near that of Geoffrey de Heunebere, One fourth part of an acre in the Meadow of Chiletern Vagge. Also, pasturage for one heifer, three oxen, four cows, cna fifty tow-year sheep in the common pasture in Chiltern Dommere fields. Witnesses - John Vagge, John de Dommere, John de Milton, Luke de Barri, John of Crewekerne, and others. Given at Chiltern Vagge on the Lord's day next after the Feast of St. Luke the Evangalist in the seventeenth year of the reign of king Edward, son of king Edward.
No.24: Edward III. 1328; Sunday May 1st.
Walter of Romesie, knight (after citing a former Deed, No. 20, and promising, that on the death of Matilda Isaac, named therein her two co-tenants gave up possessions to himself) declares - that in return, for good service rendered by Walter to him and his; He (de Romesie) grants anew to Walter and Willm Isaac (the late co-tenant with Matilda) and to Margaret Pigaz wife of the latter, the lands and tenements in question. Given at Acle (Oakley) on the Lord's Day, being the Feast of the Apostles Philip and James; in the second of the reign of king Edward the Third after Conquest. Witnesses - Sir Richard de Gyverney knight; Peter Colsweyn, John Dommere, William de Cantello, Thomas de Pipelpenne, John Fagge, John Pigaz, and others.
No.25: Edward III, 1329; Monday April 24.
Walter of Mylton, son and heir of John of Mylton, to John Stagon and Elena relict of Adam de Waltham; sixteen acres and one rood of arable, and two acres of Meadow in Chilterne Dummere fields.... Witn. Sir John de Romesie, knight; John de Dummere, John Fagg....Given at Chiltern Vagg, on Monday being the Morrow of St. George, in the 3rd year of the reign of king Edward the Third from the Conquest.
No.39: Edward III, 1355; Saturday before March 25
Thomas Machon of Chilterne Fagge, to John Bule of Chilterne Dummer, half-an-acre of arable land in Chilterne Dummer field, at the cross, lying in the ploughed ground called Mertfurghland between the land of Roger Torel on one side, and Thourne feild on the other..Witn. Marmaduke Fagge,....- Given at Chilterne Fagge, on Saturday next before the Feast of the Annuciation of the Blessed Mary. In 29th year of Edward.
ANTIQUARIAN REFERENCES
About a dozen of these (of whom John Aubrey and John Leland were the most famous) contain relevant comments and information. For me, the most fascinating, informative, vigorous, and downright entertaining was Thomas Gerard of Trent. He wrote a detailed description of Somerset in 1633, but it remained unknown during his lifetime, and in fact the manuscript was lost for over 250 years. It was first published (as a 262-page book) by the Somerset Records Society as Volume XV of their Proceedings in 1900, but never made the best seller list.
Of course, the factual content is a separate issue from the entertainment value, and each statement has to be cross-checked through other sources. The main information from Thomas Gerard is:
(1) At the time of Conquest, there were two parishes called Chilterne, and the larger of these was called Chilthorne Vagg.
(2) John Vagg was the last Vagg to own Chi.lthorne Vagg, and it passed from the family's ownership in 1576 (i.e.. Escaet 18 E.I.)
(3) It passed out of the family because John Vagg's great-grand-child (presumably an infant) died without heir.
(4) Although Thomas Gerard does not say so, we can infer either some local peculiarity in the inheritance laws or some special clause in the property lease, because Chilthorne Vagg did not pass to the nearest Vagg relative (and there were dozens - maybe hundreds - of them in the West Country at that time).
(5) Subsequently, ownership of Chilthorne Vagg fell to Sir Guy de Brient, and after his death was associated with "a little college of priests at Slapton in Devon".
(6) Chilthorne Vagg was later owned by the Hawker family of Wiltshire, and was still owned by their descendants in 1633.
(7) The second parish was called Chilthorne Domer after Sir William de Domer, who was either Norman or of Norman descent.
(8) At the time when Thomas Gerard wrote, Chilthorne Domer was owned by the Sidenhams, (who had risen to prominence in both county and court circles at the time of Elizabeth I).
Before proceeding to the next stage, the reader may care to check my summary against what was originally written. The relevant passage, from pp 93-94 of "The Particular Description of the County of Somerset, Drawn up by Thomas Gerard of Trent, 1633", is:
"Before the river Parrett comes unto Petherton bridge it crosseth one little rill more which riseth neare
CHILTERNE
For soe are two parishes a little upward called, but I dare not believe upon ye same cause that a part of Buckinghamshire is knowne by the name of the Chiltherne, that being soe called from a chalkie marle which our ancestors called Cilt and Chilt, in place of which you shall find stiff claye and store of dyrte; yet it is stored with a blewe marle which in these parts they employe in improving grounds, both for come and grass where it will suite with the soile.
The first of these called Chilterne Vag was ye possession of John Foge or Vage (Escaet 18 E.I.) whose greategrandchild dying issueless, it fell to Sir Guy de Brient (inq. de quo ad damn. 48 E.3) Lord of it and he not long after builded a little college of priests at Slapton in Devon where he buried, amongst other lands endowed them with this Vage; now the habitacon of Mr. Hawker descendant out of Wilts.
The other named Chilthorne Domer took that addition from the Corners Lords of it, of whom I writ but erstwhile at Pendomer, and from an heire of them by Sturton came hereditarily to the Sidenhams who now owne it."
What Thomas Gerard wrote was true for his time, but is seriously incomplete in any attempt at overall history. There were two old manors or parishes associated with Chilthorne at the time of Domesday Book (1086), and Gerard (like most people of this day) assumed that these were the two holding of Chilthorne Domer and Chilthorne Vagg. In fact, the original two Anglo Saxon manors had been divided into three at the time of the Norman Conquest.
This explanation was literally thrust before my eyes (in the form of a revolting purple-and-gold banner with words like "Chilthorne Domer, incorporating Thorne Coffin") during a visit to the church in 1966. It seemed fairly obvious that there had 'to be either a 3-way division at about the time of Domesday or 3 separate original holdings in order for the simultaneous association of the three families of Vagg (in the name of Chilthorne Vagg and possibly the stone knight), and Domer (in the name of Chilthorne Domer and possibly the stone knight), and Coffin (in the name of Thorne Coffin). It seemed equally obvious (and in fact leads to the same conclusion) that Thorne is merely Chilthorne without the Chil-, and that, when the names on adjoining pieces of land, it might be fruitful to research the history of its ownership in conjunction with that of Chilthorne Vagg and Domer.
I now have about 10,000 words of notes proving that there were at least 3 holdings at about the time of Domesday, and can trace the history of each in considerable detail forward from the time of Edward the Confessor (1042-66). At present I am attempting to (a) trace them backwards from that date (and there are ruins of a Roman villa on Vagg Farm) and (b) plot maps of changes in the various holdings. Meantime, both the editor of Thomas Gerard's book and Volume III of the Victoria County History confirm that Chilthorne was divided into 3 portions at the time of the Norman Conquest.
Some of my other typed notes deal briefly with other points mentioned or implied by Thomas Gerard. In particular, read the Domesday extracts and comments, and Kirby's Quest for 1284-85 (which is the earliest reference I have so far discovered to a Vagg holding Chilthorne Vagg) and the extracts and comments from the Ilchester Almshouse Deeds which, for the period 1312-1355, discussed Chilthorne Vagg, Chilthorne Domer, and Thorne Coffin as three separate properties. Also 4 of the 6 wills were witnessed by John or Marmaduke Vagg, which is consistent both with them being men of property and, more specifically, men whose signature added weight to legal documents dealing with these 3 particular holdings.
I have not yet followed up the reference to Slapton in Devon.
June, 1978.
|