British Museum MS. Royal 15 A. xx. fo. 163 b - 164 a |
|
|
- Synopsis
- Translation
- Commentary
- Essay
Story XI tells the tale of a man from the Cleveland Hills who, leaving behind his pregnant wife, makes a pilgrimage to Santiago de la Compostela. On the Camino Real he witnesses a parade of the dead, including his baby son who was not given a Christian burial. The man promises to rectify this and takes with him a token from the child. Upon his return home to Yorkshire, he publicly interrogates his wife and servants and then dramatically reveals the token. Ultimately the child is given a proper burial and the man divorces his wife. (LR)
11. About the amazing work of God who calls these things which do not exist, so as these things which do exist. And he who is able to make at what time and whatever he wishes. And about a certain amazing thing.
It is entrusted to memory that a certain man of Cleveland, Richard with the surname Rowntree, leaving behind his own wife pregnant he went to the tomb of Saint James with many others who on a certain night passed the night in a certain forest near the royal road. Hence it is that any of them kept watch through a certain space of night on account of nocturnal fear, and the rest slept more freely. It happened that in that part of the night in which the aforesaid man was the guard and alert of the night he heard a great sound crossing over through the royal road. And some sat and rode on horses, sheep, and oxen and certain ones on other animals, and the herd collectively which was their own mortuaries when they died. Finally he saw just as a very small thing rolling in a certain sock above the ground. And he conjured it himself: “Who would be and how would it roll thus?” It responded: “It is not proper that you conjure me. You were my father and I am your miscarried son without baptism and having been buried without a name.” With that being heard, the same traveler stripped off from himself his own night shirt and put it on his small boy, giving to him a name in the name of the Holy Trinity and he carried with him that old sock in testimony of this thing. The infant, who indeed having been named so, leaped up eagerly and finally went erect on his own feet who previously was rolling above the ground. With the journey indeed finished he made a feast with his neighbors and demanded from his wife his socks. That woman showed him one but did not find the other sock. Then her husband showed to her the sock in which the boy was rolled, and at this she was amazed. However with the midwives confessing the truth about the death and burial of the boy in the aforesaid sock, a divorce was made between the husband and the wife of him because he was the godfather to his own son having been miscarried so. But I believe that this divorce was strongly displeasing to God.
line 1 De opera dei mirando This story begins with an invocation of God, which is interesting and not found in every story. Story IX has something somewhat similar, but it is strictly related to God forgiving the sins of the ghost because he was given absolution, while this looks more Classical in nature, praying to God before telling a great story about His deeds.
line 5 Clyueland The main character of this story is from what the narrator simply calls “Cleveland,” and seems to be referring to the Cleveland Hills in the northeast county of York in modern day England. Cleveland, as with the other locations named in these stories, is very close to the Byland Abbey, less than 20 miles north (Google Maps).
Ricardus Rountre – Ricardus is the Latinized version of Richard, whereas Rountre appears to be a French version of the English surname Rowntree. Rowntree is actually a topographical name referring to the rowan tree and likely referred to the neighborhood where this Richard Rowntree was living, particularly if there were no or few rowan trees in surrounding areas. Yorkshire was actually one of the most common places to use the surname Rowntree (and its variations). The first recorded use of the surname Rowntree was on a government document in 1301 in Yorkshire. Perhaps this Richard Rowntree was part of the same family (Surname Database). This Richard does not appear to be overly rich, but did have enough money to be able to go on a long pilgrimage to Spain, presumably by boat, so it was unlikely he was a serf.
line 6 tumbam sancti Iacobi Saint James’ tomb is in Northern Spain, at what was called Santiago de la Compostela. A very popular pilgrimage route in the Middle Ages, it was a particularly dangerous one through mountains and, at the time of Richard Rowntree, some Muslims still resided in Spain and threatened passing pilgrims. It was said that Charlemagne himself went on a pilgrimage to Santiago de la Compostela. The story of how Saint James’ body even got there is somewhat of a mystery (as he was an apostle living in Jerusalem for most of his life), but two main traditions state that either his disciples sailed his body to Iberia and carried it inland to Compostela or his body was taken up by angels and sealed in rocks at Compostela until he was found during the reign of King Alfonso II sometime in the early 800s (Shannon). The “Camino Real” is the name of the road that leads to Saint James’ tomb, translated literally as “The Royal Road” which has been translated as the Latin via regia in this tale (Encyclopedia Britannica).
line 9 timorem nocturnum – we have seen this phrase before in Story II and will again see it in Story XII, evidently these “nocturnal fears” were important parts of daily life in the Middle Ages.
line 12 et aliqui sedebant Richard Rowntree is one of two men to have seen a parade of the dead in these stories, while most of the other humans have only seen one ghost, regardless as to how many ghosts are actually there. He also sees animals – the ones they are riding – and those are the animals offered to the church at the time of their funerals. The baby rolling in the shoe at the end of the line did not have a funeral, and thus is only accompanied by the shoe he was buried in (Schmitt 143). MR James also comments that this is a curious parade of the dead as it is the only one he has found that includes the dead riding on their mortuaries (the animals offered) and that it is reminiscent of the pagan rituals where the sacrifices were buried with the dead. It is also curious that this “parade” is happening on a royal road, as one would imagine would happen during the day with live performers, rather than at night with dead people.
line 16 caliga There is much debate about whether “caliga” refers to a sock or a boot. Translations will translate this word either way. Jean-Claude Schmitt refers to it as a boot (Schmitt 145), but others translate it as a sock (Mulcahy). For me, although “boot” is closer to the Classical Latin meaning of “caliga,” it is more likely that Richard Rowntree would have used a sock. Boots were important commodities in Medieval England, and people did not have many pairs of boots, and they certainly would not have been expendable enough to use in a burial of a child. More likely, the sock was used as a wrapping cloth, something tighter would be more appropriate. The baby also had to roll on the ground in it, and a boot would be much more difficult than a sock to roll around in. The Revised Latin Word List also defines “caliga” as “mesh” or “hose, stocking,” giving more evidence to the fact that it was likely a sock rather than a boot (RE Latham).
line 18 sine baptismo Richard’s miscarried child was buried without baptism (or funeral, it would seem) and thus could not go to Heaven where it belonged. The giving of a name as well as the baptism is what allows the child to go to Heaven, unlike many others who need absolution (Mulcahy). It is curious though that the story does not include the name of the child, although it was of the utmost importance for the child to cross over. Many of the other ghosts are named outright in these stories, but this child was not.
lines 20-21 induit...Trinitatis Here, the father performs a pretty unorthodox baptism, both posthumously and not by a priest. While either of those things were not terribly uncommon, particularly for young children or babies, Schmitt calls Richard’s actions “a sort of wild emergency baptism taking the place of a postmortem baptism” (Schmitt 143). All Richard appears to do for the baptism is invoke the name of the Holy Trinity, which would make sense as he had limited supplies and no clerical training. However, it is interesting that the baby immediately recognized his father, having never seen him before. It was not uncommon for ghosts to recognize kin (as in Stories VII and XII), but it seems odd that the baby ghost made its way to Spain to reach its unknown father (Schmitt 145).
line 25 conuiuium vicinis It seems a bit odd that after a pilgrimage, Richard would put together a huge feast for all of his neighbors. Was he simply gathering them together so they could be witnesses to his wife’s crime? It is known that often, pilgrims or Crusaders would return from Spain and the Holy Land with spices so season food, so it is also quite possible that after his pilgrimage, Richard held a feast to eat these new spices (“Medieval Life”)
line 30 diuorcium This divorce seems rather strange to most modern readers, but evidently burying a child before baptism, as well as the father also being the godfather were such heinous crimes to Richard that he could no long live with his wife. This is the only story from the collection that includes a hint of a judgment by the monk who wrote these stories down. Perhaps the monk writing these stories added that part in to be used as part of a story, as these stories all have a sort of moral to them (Schmitt 257). Most of these ghosts are tormented in Purgatory for sins they committed in life, but a child as young as Richard’s could not have committed any crime, whereas the wife and midwives certainly did when they buried the miscarried child without giving it a proper baptism. MR James wrote this about the divorce: “Evidently the wife was not accessory to the indecent burial of the child, and the sympathy of the writer is with her. The divorce does seem superfluous, since, though sponsors were not allowed to marry, here was but one sponsor: but I know not the canon law” (MRJ). Also canon law stated at the time that the only ground for divorce (other than consanguinity, which does not appear to be the case here) is adultery of the wife. According to Sara Butler, “Although heresy was an acceptable justification for judicial separation, adultery and cruelty dominated English suits for separation” (Butler 16). Perhaps, then, Richard Rowntree viewed his wife as a heretic for making him be the godfather to his own child. However, what may have bothered the monk even more was that Richard Rowntree may have “self-divorced” his wife and avoided the courtroom entirely. The self-divorce would have allowed Richard and his wife to separate, but it was not recognized by the church (Butler 40).
*There are multitudinous examples of the nightly processions of the dead, but I do not know another case in which they ride on their own 'mortuaries ' (the beasts offered to their church, or claimed by it, at their decease): it is a curious reminiscence of the pagan fashion of providing means of transport for the dead by burying beasts with them. Evidently the wife was not accessory to the indecent burial of the child, and the sympathy of the writer is with her. The divorce does seem superfluous, since, though sponsors were not allowed to marry, here was but one sponsor: but I know not the canon law. (MRJ)
There are three particularly interesting parts of Story XI, the first being the pilgrimage to Santiago, the second being the parade of the dead and infant ghost, the last being the divorce between Richard Rowntree and his wife.
Story XI opens by stating that Richard Rowntree, the main character, was on a journey to Santiago with a many other companions. Saint James’ tomb is in Northern Spain, at what was called Santiago de la Compostela. A very popular pilgrimage route in the Middle Ages, it was a particularly dangerous one through mountains and, at the time of Richard Rowntree, some Muslims still resided in Spain and threatened passing pilgrims. It was said that Charlemagne himself went on a pilgrimage to Santiago de la Compostela. The story of how Saint James’ body even got there is somewhat of a mystery (as he was an apostle living in Jerusalem for most of his life), but two main traditions state that either his disciples sailed his body to Iberia and carried it inland to Compostela or his body was taken up by angels and sealed in rocks at Compostela until he was found during the reign of King Alfonso II sometime in the early 800s (Shannon). The “Camino Real” is the name of the road that leads to Saint James’ tomb, translated literally as “The Royal Road” which has been translated as the Latin via regia in this tale (Encyclopedia Britannica). No other Byland Abbey tale gives an account of any pilgrimage, and none of them travel as far as Richard, who hailed from the Cleveland Hills in Yorkshire, to get to his final destination (the closest is in Story IX where the conjurer of the ghost travels 80 miles).
Richard Rowntree is also one of two men to have seen a parade of the dead in these stories, while most of the other humans have only seen one ghost, regardless as to how many ghosts are actually there. He also sees animals – the ones they are riding – and those are the animals offered to the church at the time of their funerals. The baby rolling in the shoe at the end of the line did not have a funeral, and thus is only accompanied by the shoe he was buried in (Schmitt 143). MR James also comments that this is a curious parade of the dead as it is the only one he has found that includes the dead riding on their mortuaries (the animals offered) and that it is reminiscent of the pagan rituals where the sacrifices were buried with the dead. It is also curious that this “parade” is happening on a royal road, as one would imagine would happen during the day with live performers, rather than at night with dead people. The small child is also interesting in this story was Richard’s miscarried child and was buried without baptism (or funeral, it would seem) and thus could not go to Heaven where it belonged. The giving of a name as well as the baptism is what allows the child to go to Heaven, unlike many others who need absolution (Mulcahy). It is curious though that the story does not include the name of the child, although it was of the utmost importance for the child to cross over. Many of the other ghosts are named outright in these stories, but this child was not. Here, the father performs a pretty unorthodox baptism, both posthumously and not by a priest. While either of those things were not terribly uncommon, particularly for young children or babies, Schmitt calls Richard’s actions “a sort of wild emergency baptism taking the place of a postmortem baptism” (Schmitt 143). All Richard appears to do for the baptism is invoke the name of the Holy Trinity, which would make sense as he had limited supplies and no clerical training. However, it is interesting that the baby immediately recognized his father, having never seen him before. It was not uncommon for ghosts to recognize kin (as in Stories VII and XII), but it seems odd that the baby ghost made its way to Spain to reach its unknown father (Schmitt 145).
Finally, Richard Rowntree decided to divorce his wife for the “wrongs” she had done including burying the baby without a baptism (even though the midwives confessed to that and the wife appeared to have no part in it) and therefore forcing Richard to be the godfather to his own child. This divorce seems rather strange to most modern readers, but evidently burying a child before baptism, as well as the father also being the godfather were such heinous crimes to Richard that he could no long live with his wife. This is the only story from the collection that includes a hint of a judgment by the monk who wrote these stories down. Perhaps the monk writing these stories added that part in to be used as part of a story, as these stories all have a sort of moral to them (Schmitt 257). Most of these ghosts are tormented in Purgatory for sins they committed in life, but a child as young as Richard’s could not have committed any crime, whereas the wife and midwives certainly did when they buried the miscarried child without giving it a proper baptism. MR James wrote this about the divorce: “Evidently the wife was not accessory to the indecent burial of the child, and the sympathy of the writer is with her. The divorce does seem superfluous, since, though sponsors were not allowed to marry, here was but one sponsor: but I know not the canon law” (MRJ). Also canon law stated at the time that the only ground for divorce (other than consanguinity, which does not appear to be the case here) is adultery of the wife. According to Sara Butler, “Although heresy was an acceptable justification for judicial separation, adultery and cruelty dominated English suits for separation” (Butler 16). Perhaps, then, Richard Rowntree viewed his wife as a heretic for making him be the godfather to his own child. However, what may have bothered the monk even more was that Richard Rowntree may have “self-divorced” his wife and avoided the courtroom entirely. The self-divorce would have allowed Richard and his wife to separate, but it was not recognized by the church (Butler 40).
|
|