to disinheriting of the said Master and Fellows, and the overthrow of
the said Judgment given in our Chancery, by the authority of Parlia-
ment as aforesaid. And because we have had full deliberation in our
present Council now held at Oxon, we will not, as we ought not, suffer
this ; nor that these things that are discussed in Parliament, or before
our Council, or in other our great Courts ; especially by authority of
Parliament, are still in discussion, should be pleaded, or any way
treated of: We, by the advice and assent of our said Council, com-
mand, and firmly enjoin you, that if any assize of Errour, or any other
plea or Process, be before you against the foresaid Master and Scholars,
or tenants of their tenements, by the said Edmund and Idonia in their
own names, or of others concerning the foresaid tenements, begun, or
to be begun, you put an end to them : saying to the foresaid Edmund
and Idonia, or other prosecutors, that they should prosecute before
our Council if they think expedient ; where we will cause a completion
of speedy Justice to be made to them. Dated at Oxon, the 2nd of
August, in the 12th year of our Reign, A°. 1388, per Concilium^.'
The history of University College not being before us, but only the
myth, it is not necessary to pursue the matter further, but there are two
remarks which may perhaps be made in connection with the case. It J
^ See Beda, bk. v. caps. 2, 3, and 6.
* No doubt this is the Richard, Archbishop of Armagh, who was consecrated |
Archbishop in 1347, ^"^^ ^^'^ \)&e.Vi a member of the College for a short time. He 1
was Chancellor of the University about the year 1333, and died 1366.
' From Smith's Annals, p. 134.
THE MYTHICAL ORIGIN OF OXFORD. 57
is evident the College had no scruples, for in the archives are still
existing several forged charters relating to this property, and, it would
appear, they had tried these first, and, as seems most likely, their
clumsiness had led to their detection. No chance, therefore, remained
but to resort to this myth of Alfred. Further, it should be added, that
this decision of the Privy Council, being one of policy rather than law, in
order to enhance the authority of the Crown than to do justice, brought
with it its own condemnation. The losing side had thought, by invoking
the aid of the Crown to help them, they would gain an easy victory.
The Crown simply looked to its own advantages, and a judgment
delivered under those circumstances had no moral weight whatever.
The judges might make law, they could not make history. Though by
Twyne, Wood, Hearne, and the like, the judgment is thought to prove
that Alfred founded Oxford, no reasonable person who reads history for
the sake of truth, and not for controversial purposes, would attach the
slightest weight to it : further, it happened as might have been expected;
such a judgment was simply ignored, and the thunder of the Privy
Council had no effect; for we find in the Hilary Term, 1 388-1 389
the whole matter submitted to arbitration, and the courts in January,
1 389-1 390, register ' A Final Concord,' and the indentures between
the Masters of the Hall and Edmund and Idonia follow, dated respec-
tively the 3rd and 14th of February the same year.
Not that the myth was wholly stamped out, for in a suit with
the Abbot of Oseney, commenced in 1427, 'Richard Witton, Warden
of the Great Hall of the University,' put in the plea following : —
* That the said Great Hall is a certain ancient College, of the foun-
dation and patronage of the aforesaid King that now is, and of his
Progenitors, sometimes Kings of England ; to wit, of the foundation
of the Lord Alfred, sometime King of England, progenitor of the lord
King that now is, before time, and in the whole time, to the contrary
of which the memory of man does not exist ; for a Master and seventy
eight Scholars, viz. for 26 Grammarian Scholars, 26 Philosopher
Scholars, and 26 Theological Scholars, to be instructed, and taught to
support, maintain and sustain the Faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
of the holy Church, and the Laws of the Land, and the customs of the
Kingdom of England \'
So much, then, for University College, and that part of the myth.
As already said, after the death of the Oxford and Cambridge
champions the struggle between the two Universities for priority of
1 Smith's Anitals, p. 145. It will be found that one of the French petitions
represents the foundation to be for 24 divines, the other petition to be for 26, while
this has increased the number to 28. Appendix A, § 23.
58 THE EARLY HISTORY OF OXFORD.
date of foundation found no public advocates, till Bryan Twyne in
1608 issued his Apologia'^. This work consists of some 384 pages
of closely printed matter, in 4to size, divided into three parts or books.
It is exceedingly verbose and digressive, and it is impossible to give
any idea of the work in a brief space. The first two parts consist
mainly of criticism on the arguments used by John Caius, the first
part being wholly taken up with attacks upon the Cambridge story.
The variations of the stories as told by different authors are marshalled
in order to show their absurd inconsistencies with each other and
known historical facts. He shows that the ' authorities,' for instance,
on which Caius relies for the foundation, have no idea when it happened.
The great Cambridge Black Book gives Anno Mundi 432 1^ Lydgate
4348, Caius himself 3588, Nicasius Cadney 4415, Chronicon Mor-
ganense 4848, and four MS. authorities, which had been adduced 4695,
4317, 4091, 3869 respectively. This work of demolition is easy, but
when he begins the task of building up his own positions as to the
antiquity of Oxford he labours painfully. He has to explain away
similar variations in telling the stories introduced by the writers of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, on whom he has to rely. But, on the
other hand, he adduces many new arguments which had not been
introduced before, though, as a rule, they are of the very weakest kind.
For instance, he quotes as an authority Francis Thynne for con-
necting Greeklade with the first Greek Archbishop, i.e. Archbishop
Theodore (a.d. 669), but argues that Archbishop Theodore could
have only been the restorer of schools and not their founder, because
they existed in British times (p. 116). He takes seriously Burley's
argument, already referred to, that the Greeks must have chosen
Oxford on Aristotelian principles, and carefully shows that this is not
necessarily inconsistent with their having first chosen Greeklade, and
moved hither (p. 121). He finds satisfaction in discovering amongst
the medieval halls in Oxford a Greek Hall, and, still more, an Aristode's
well (p. 123). He deduces from certain etiquette which was observed 1
towards King James in 1604, when certain officials of the University J
met him on his way from Woodstock on the occasion of his visit to
Oxford, an argument for the University having been once situated in
St. Giles (p. 124). His dissertations on Rydochen and Boso, and the
British name Caer, are puerile to a degree. Though for some time '
^ Antiqzdtatis Acadcmiae Oxoniaisis Apologia in ires Libros divisa authore
Briano Twyno. 4to, Oxonii, 1608.
^ Possibly Nicholas Cantilupe, the author, gave the sequence of the figures by 1
way of jest.
THE MYTHICAL ORIGIN OF OXFORD. 59
was a doubtful question,' he thinks that Isis is not derived from Ice
{\.t. glacies), but may be the British word Ouse (p. 137).
But his very far-fetched arguments as to the priority of date of
Oxford over Cambridge, derived from the mention of the place by two
German astronomers of the sixteenth century (p. 139), are not so
amusing in themselves as in their mythical after-growth. He says
(when discussing the geographical position of Oxford, or, rather,
Britain, that ' P. Appiamis^ in the second part of his Cosmographta, in
his description of the most famous places, names three as the most
celebrated cities of Albion, viz. Canterbury, Ochenfurt, and London,
leaving out Cambridge, because it was never reckoned amongst the
famous cities of Albion. He follows this up with another instance,
namely, that ' Cyprianns Leovilius,' the author of the Ephemerides, in
his index of the chief cities, omits Cambridge, but he notes Oxford.
He then goes on to discuss the polar altitude given to Oxford and to
Cambridge respectively by other writers.
The P. Appianus is meant for Peter Apian, known in Germany as
Bienewitz, an astronomer of Leipsig, who died in 1552^ The
Cyprianus Leovitius is Cyprian Leowitz, a contemporary astronomer,
who died in Swabia in 1574^.
If one turns to the Memorials of Oxford, in the account of the
city (p. 3) we find that, after referring to Rous carrying the city back
to 1000 years b.c, and Twyne following him. Dr. Ingram writes : —
' But not to go so far back, there is no doubt of the comparative
importance of the place from the earliest period, Appian in his cata-
logue of British cities amongst those of eminence mentions Canterbury,
Oxford, and London. Cyprian includes it in his index of ancient
British cities. In the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries its history
becomes matter of ordinary record ^.'
So myths grow even in our own day.
Twyne also manages to derive some help to his argument that
Oxford was chosen as a Bishop's See and Cambridge not (p. 141);
' The book referred to is Cosmographia seu descriptio totius orbis. Per P.
Apianuni et Gcmam Frisciuni. Antwerp, 1529; Paris, 1551.
- The work referred to is Ephemeridum opus ab anno 1556 usque in annum
1606. Aug. Vindob. 1557.
3 It is probable that Dr. Ingram did not take this direct from Twyne, but through
some intermediate source. Possibly it was from Sir John Peshall's edition of Wood,
who, however, by speaking of the author as Paul Appian (though his name was
Peter), ought to have prevented any confusion between the German astronomer
temp. Queen Elizabeth and the Greek historian who flourished A.D. 140; and
should have suggested that the other was not the St. Cyprian who was martyred
in A.D. 258. it is needless to say that neither of these writers has left behind
a list of British cities.
6o THE EARLY HISTORY OF OXFORD.
but it is difficult to follow him. Equally difficult, too, is the argument
relating to British coins, being said by some chronicler to have been
dug up at Abingdon (p. 142). It is here (p. 143) that he comes to
the Asser controversy, and implies that Archbishop Parker possibly
suppressed the passage, which was most likely not written till after
the Archbishop had printed his book. Then he plunges into the
question of Germanus and Gildas (p. 145), and contends that Iren
mentioned in an obscure chronicle is not Ireland, but Icen, and so
Oxford. He revels in Merlin's wild prophecy and the curious remark
of Alexander Neckam, and finds a fulfilment in the University going to
Stamford (of which, by-the-bye, he seems to accept the foundation as
given by John Harding, viz. that it was due to the British King Bladud) ;
the treatise on transmigration of learning, however, in connection with
the prophecy, occupies several pages.
During the lifetime of St. Frideswide, or certainly soon after, he
brings John of Beverley^ Beda, and Alcuin to Oxford. His argument
as to Beda is ingenious. Beda listened to Archbishop Theodore
of Canterbury, Archbishop Theodore founded Greeklade, therefore
Beda studied at Greeklade, and consequently Oxford can claim him,
and not Cambridge.
Of course much of his treatise is taken up with the Alfred contro-
versy, and the several masters whom Alfred summoned, according to
the story, which, as has been shown, first appears in the Hyde Abbey
version of the myth. He has, of course, to combat the difficulty of
Alfred being spoken of as the founder of Oxford, according to most of
his authorities, on which he relies, for bringing Alfred to Oxford at all,
and has to make out that they meant by a founder only a restorer.
The above few notes may perhaps give some idea of the manner in
which he treats the mythical history. The rest of the second book,
together with the whole of the third, treats of times after the history of
Oxford begins.
After Twyne the next important writer upon Oxford who sup-
ports the myths, is Antony a Wood. He follows in the wake of
Twyne, adding nothing of any moment, but by omission and more
^ Possibly John of Beverley was brought to Oxford simply on the ground that
others were brought, namely that being men of note or learning at this period, it
was thought that they must have been educated at Oxford. But it is curious that
we find there was once actually a John of Beverley here, for ' Joannes de Beverlao
Prior Oxoniae, et Baculaureus Theologiae,' was one of the compromissaries at the
election of Robert Greystains by the chapter to the Bishopric of Durham in 1333.
Set Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres, Surtees Soc. 1S39, p 120. And for
the coincidence of the burial of John of Bury, and the election of Thomas Hatfield
on St. John of Beverley's day, see p. 137.
I
THE MYTHICAL ORIGIN OF OXFORD. 6 1
careful language he makes his stones run more smoothly. But he is
evidently a firm believer in all Rous's inventions, and he still puts him
in the forefront of the historians of the University of Oxford.
In Hearne we have a second Twyne as regards credulity, but with-
out his learning. He takes in everything, and here and there adds
something of his own. Two examples may be given, perhaps, as char-
acteristic. The story of Mempric, it will be remembered, as told by
Geoffrey of Monmouth, and before Rous used it for engrafting on to
it the story of the foundation of Oxford, ended with his being eaten up
by wolves. Hearne finds corroborative evidence of this in Wolvercot^.
He thinks it might have been written Wolves' cot, and two pages of
dissertation about Wlfgar-coit-well, or Aristotle's well, and Walton,
where he thinks the ancient walls of the city extended, follows on as a
natural consequence. The other is this : He has found an instance
of Busney, probably only in some later and badly spelt charter, but he
thinks it substantiates the argument as to Oxford once being on the
north : —
' This place is called Buseneia in old books, and indeed, I take Busney
to be righter than Binsey. Which if it will be allowed, it will confirm
what is said in old story about Oxford's standing formerly more north-
west than it does at present .... The first part therefore of Binsey,
according to the old way of writing, must be the same with the Greek
^ov'i, and the latter must be from the water ^.'
Next we have Dr. Ingram, who seems to follow Twyne, Wood, or
Hearne indiscriminately, as regards the passages which he introduces
into the Memorials of Oxford, respecting the mythical history of the
town, or the story of Alfred's foundation; but he never seems for
one moment to attempt to verify the authorities, on which their state-
ments are supposed to rest, and no further evidence of his careless-
ness in this respect is needed than that just given on a previous page.
In the foregoing pages an attempt has been made to give the chief
myths in the exact words of the writers, where they first occur, with a
view as far as possible of suggesting the probable circumstances which
led to their existence. To have followed these several myths through
their variations as they appear in writers of the sixteenth century alone
would have occupied a volume. To expose all the companion myths
which have grown up since would be merely waste of time, and it has
been thought sufficient to give a few specimens only from one or two
' Joannis Rossi Historia Oxonii, 1745. Editoris praefatio, p. vii.
2 Gulielmi Neubrigcnsis Historia. Notae Thomae Hearaii. Oxon., 1719,
P- 758.
62 THE EARLY HISTORY OF OXFORD.
writers of eminence. It is almost impossible to take up any book which
touches on the early history of Oxford without discovering, if not the
glaring myths themselves, at least their influence, in one way or another;
and this in books of all kinds, from the great folios of the Acta
Sanctorum, where the author of the article on St. Frideswide has filled
whole columns with a recapitulation of the myths, to the little guide-
book which is thrown away when done with. The Oxford University
Calendar, too, in its account of University, still has ' The College
of the Great Hall of the University is said to have been founded in
the year 872 by Alfred the Great V and always has had it. And it is
not long ago that, on the occasion of the imaginary one thousandth
anniversary of this foundation, those in high position in the Church and
in the State joined together in a dinner to celebrate it ^. But, as said
before, such repetitions of a myth do harm, in that they obliterate the
true history, and therefore it has been thought necessary to give several
pages to an explanation of the circumstances under which the general
reception of the myths has come about, before attempting to give any
historical account of the rise of Oxford.
^ The Oxford University Calendar for the year 1885. Oxford, at the Clarendon
Press.
* The dinner took place in University College, June 12, 1872 (the implied date
agreeing with neither the Hyde Abbey Chronicle, nor that of Rous, &c.). The
Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rt. Hon. Robert Lowe) is reported to have said
on that occasion : ' I have always made it a matter of principle to believe in
King Alfred in connection with the College. I was told it was founded by
him ; I read it in the University Calendar ; and I never heard any argument
against it until I listened to the perfidious advocacy of the Dean of Westminster.'
See Guardian Newspaper, June 19, 1872.
CHAPTER III.
The Site of Oxford during the British and
Roman Settlement.
The position which Oxford occupies is one which at first sight
appears to offer great advantages for a settlement. It is situated on
the bank of the chief river of the country, and at a point where that
river is joined by a tributary which opens up a considerable district to
the north ; added to which a thick bed of gravel exists at the spot,
forming a promontory between a southern course of the Thames on
the west, and that of the Cherwell on the right, and rising at its
summit to some twenty-five feet above the meadow-land, amidst which
the many streams of the divided Thames here find their way, and this
is exceedingly suitable for dwelHngs. But, on the other hand, if we
consider the circumstances which in all probability attracted British
settlers, we shall find that they were wanting. For so important a
river would naturally have formed a boundary line between the
provinces into which we gather that Britain was divided, and thus
rendered the dwellers on one side or the other liable to frequent
hostile incursions.
The probability is, judging from the scant remains found of
anything betokening British occupation on the site of Oxford \ or
in its immediate vicinity, that this promontory of gravel, which lay
towards the eastern end of the southern boundary of the territory
of the Dobuni, was not populated or marked by any settlement of
importance. On the western side of the Thames, in the meadows
beneath the shadow and shelter of the Wytham hills, a few graves ^
^ The nine days' wonder of the ' British Village ' discovered on the site of the
Angel Hotel, when digging for the foundations of the New Schools, created some
stir, from the letters which appeared in the London papers. It was found to be
only hollows where gravel had been excavated for ordinary purposes. See Oxford
Times, Dec. 9th, 1876. Still, the gravel yielded pottery which might be of early
date, and some earthenware spindle-whorls. In 1874 a single urn, apparently
British, was discovered in digging foundations in Norham Gardens. Some bronze
weapons of various kinds were found on the Wolvercot side of Port-meadow in
1830 ; and a number of Paaistahswere said to have been found in Cowley Marsh in
1881. All the above are in the Ashmolean Museum.
^ See Oxford Architectural and Historical Society's Proceedings, Mar. 1870,
64 THE EARLY HISTORY OF OXFORD.
with traces of pottery, betoken habitations possibly of British times.
Further off to the north, and on the other side of the river, at rather
more than a mile distance, and adjoining the village of Yarnton, a
considerable extent of ground has been occupied by graves\ which,
from the pottery and other circumstances, may well be thought to be
those of the British race. But the dwellers on this side would probably
have lived beneath the shelter of the hill which rises prominently
between Yarnton and Bladon, and the top of which has distinct traces
of a circular entrenched camp, not unlike many which are ascribed to
British fortification^. To the east, again, but on the other side of the
Cherwell, on BuUingdon Green, it is possible that of the many mounds
which were there visible some forty years ago, before the land was
brought under cultivation, some were burial mounds, for one certainly
has produced pottery of an early type, and with it human bones and
burnt fragments, betokening that it was something more than the
earth and sand turned out in the process of quarrying*. Although
on Shotover Hill no traces of habitation or interments have been
found, nor on the range of the Hincksey and Cumnor hills stretching
round on the south and western side of Oxford, still from time to time
flint weapons are found on the surface*, which may possibly betoken
the presence of British settlers near.
Again, there are no traces of any presence of the Romans during
the period of the Roman invasion ^, in what may be called the imme-
vol. ii. p. 196. Also a brief note in the Appendix to Scientific Papers and Addresses,
by Prof. Geo. Rolleston. Oxford, 1885.
' For the remains discovered in cutting the Witney railway line (which traverses
the south-west corner of the field where appears to have been the cemetery), see
a paper by W. B. Dawkins in the Proceedings of the O. A. & H. S., 1862, vol. i.
p. 108, and Appendix to Papcis and Addresses by Professor Rolleston. But of the
oriirinal excavations, under the superintendence of the Rev. Vaughan Thomas, Vicar
of Yarnton, no account seems to have been preserved. The most extensive dis-
coveries of British remains in the neighbourhood were those at Brighthampton,
8 miles S.W. of Oxford. See Archaeologia, vol. xxxvii, pp. 365-398. A model, &c.,
is in the Ashmolean Museum.
2 Called ' Round Castle' on the Survey Map, and referred to by Plot and Warton.
3 The writer of this found the objects in question, c. i860, in a mound at the top
of the road, on the left hand side leading up the hill, along the northern wall of
what is now the riding-ground of the Military College. It would have been a
prominent object from Cowley Marsh. It should be added, a singular piece of a
bronze weapon was found at the same spot.
* A good polished flint implement was found by Professor Phillips in the clay-
pits on Shotover Hill, May 21st, 1861. It is in the Ashmolean Museum. The
writer has found specimens of the small rough arrow-point type on Cumnor Hill, &c.
^ It is just possible that the lines of some trenches, which appear some distance
in the way to Horsepath across BuUingdon, may belong to a camp ; though it
would be dangerous to rely upon such as evidence.
I
SITE OF OXFORD IN ROMAN TIMES. 65
diate vicinity (such as camps and the like). Nor yet of the period of
the Roman occupation, though of the latter there are very many traces
at some distance from Oxford, and in every direction.
It will be well first of all to say a few words about the Roman
roads in this part of Britain \ The two great western lines of com-
munication may be said to be drawn, as if purposely, to avoid the
immediate neighbourhood of Oxford. The chief road, which starts
due west from London and makes straight for Staines (the Ponies of
the Itinerary), to which point it is clearly marked on the Ordnance
Survey, continues its course (though here and there for some distance
it is no longer to be traced) to Silchester (Callevd), the great Roman
city of that southern province of the kingdom referred to as Britannia
Prima"^. Thence, after a few miles, it reaches Speen (Spijice), and
here bifurcates, the lower road being continued due west to Bath, the
upper road taking a north-westerly direction, straight across the Downs
to Cirencester (Corinium). In the latter part of its course, as the
Ordnance map shows, it is clearly to be traced, and goes by the name
of the Ermyne Street.