A guest-blog by UWTSD PhD student Elliot MacMillan, currently researching the Welsh manuscript tours of Richard Gough.
For Thomas Pennant’s contemporary, correspondent, and friend, the antiquarian Richard Gough (1735-1809), travel was a key driver of knowledge production, and in his Welsh travels Gough used the knowledge of local people to aid his research. Examples from the journals he produced as a result of his exploration of the antiquities of south Wales in 1761 (the ‘Survey’), and of the north (the ‘Progress’) nine years later demonstrate the important role locally sourced knowledge played in eighteenth-century travel itineraries and antiquarian research.[1]
The ‘person who shews the Castle’
Gough’s time in south Wales in particular, spotlights the role of local guides at historic sites, highlighting their contribution to the interpretation of British antiquities. For instance, after retelling the siege of Pembroke Castle through transcriptions from Bulstrode Whitelock’s Memorials of the English Affairs (1682), Gough relayed further information that was added by ‘the person who shews the Castle’. This included the detail that:
‘after a ‘sally from the Castle 1600 of the Enemy were kill’d; upon which the rest fled precipitately towards Tenbigh, & buried their dead on St Cyrian’s hill on the ridgeway ab[ou]t 2 miles from Tenbigh where their bones were found sound & dry, the beginning of August this year (1761).’[2]
The date of the discovery of the bodies near Tenby was akin to an exclusive breaking news story, as Gough’s visit to the castle was on Sunday 16th August 1761. This highlights a key benefit of antiquarians visiting historical sites — that they were able to learn about the latest developments within living memory. The only way in which the textual record of historical sites could be updated accurately would be through in-person visits and dialogue with those involved in their care, or with first-hand experience of the antiquities.
This is further exemplified by the plan of the castle included by Gough in the ‘Survey’, which was most probably produced from dialogue with his guide (See Fig. 1). In the floor of the Queen’s Nursery Gough explains that there ‘is now a long square hole where balls & ammunition have been lately found conceal’d there when it was made a garrison for K[ing] Ch[arle]s.’[3] The inclusion of information from a recent find provides a sense of immediacy to the description and illustration. Near the sallyport, which Gough labels as G, ‘a person found a large parcel of leather money upon the information of a dream’ (somehow not the last local in these tours directed to buried treasure in their sleep, as we shall see below) .[4] This anecdote was supported by a footnote from secondary reading—the implication is that the rest of the passage, describing features A-F, were sourced from his own observations and information shared by the guide. Gough’s visit to Pembroke Castle highlights how local guides provided information that otherwise would have remained obscure.
Nine years later, in his north Wales tour, Gough likewise used local people as some of his sources. He did not always explicitly mention them, but the inferences make it clear. At Powis Castle, as well as mentioning the staircase, paintings, and gardens, Gough detailed the family history of the owners. Next to the mention of a bishop of Beaufort, he has added a footnote, in which he explains, ‘I find no such in Eng[land] or Irel[an]d so must have misheard the name’.[5] This underlines that the information he gained was derived in the first instance from someone in the actual location. From this he was then able to construct family pedigrees, which are to be found loose between the relevant pages (See Fig. 2). Furthermore, Gough seems to have gleaned knowledge that only someone involved with Powis Castle’s affairs would likely know. It had lately been ‘deserted by its noble owner, who, upon the sale of Oakley park, is expected to make it his future Residence’.[6] In addition, the ‘curious waterworks in the garden have been taken away by the pres[en]t E[arl] on a notion that they made the place damp, but in fact to save the expence which was considerable.’[7] As well as explaining the significance of a historical building’s past, these guides could also help indicate its future.
At Caernarvon Castle, in what Gough believed to be the dungeon, ‘they relate that a man being let down into it to fetch up a dog found hammer, & a wooden door which he was afraid to open’.[8] Meanwhile, near St Helen’s Chapel there was found ‘two years ago a brass pot of money under a tree.’[9] A mile from the ruins, ‘a pot or urn full of coins was found by a dream last winter near the Gallows in the bank of the marsh by the sides of the [Seiont], […] I was shown both the holes where the discoveries were made’. This was not only a second discovery by dream-vision, but also another based on local knowledge, requiring a dialogue between Gough and his guides. [10] In this situation, the latter seem to have decided what was worthy of note and suitable for a travelling antiquarian. Gough’s inclusion of these details suggests they were correct, and thus shows that local knowledge partly shaped how his antiquarian knowledge was gathered.
New information was always subject to sceptical scrutiny, and Gough remained wary of misinformation (whether in dreams or otherwise) that could not be proved. Near St Beuno’s Chapel, on the shore, ‘they shew the place where St Beuno landed the materials of it; It is a flat sand surrounded by hills of pebbles which in storms are driven over the sand, but do not remain there long; of which the credulous inhabitants make a miracle’.[11] This follows on from a passage in which he recounted that on the tomb of St Beuno, ‘the country people after bathing them in St Beuno’s Well lay their children troubled with epileptic fits; & if they happen to sleep, imagine them perfectly cured.’[12] Gough’s inclusion of these traditions indicates the unsteady epistemological ground on which local knowledge rested. Likewise, near Bridgend, Gough reported that ‘somewhere hereabouts they pretend to shew the ruins of King Caradoc or Caractacus’ palace.’[13] This suggests that there was an element of performance to visiting sites of antiquarian interest, with both the guide and the visitor playing a role, not to mention the likelihood of an economic transaction involved. Gough’s sceptical mind (arising in part from his evidence-based antiquarian practices), had a tendency to interrupt the recital of these locally embedded traditions. He did this by placing the emphasis on the role of the guide — the person ‘showing’ the place — as opposed to the antiquity or site itself informing the visitor.
Social Antiquarianism
Helpful individuals were not necessarily guides found at a site of antiquarian interest but were encountered along the way, appearing in different guises and occupations. This was especially the case whilst in north Wales. In Merionethshire, Gough stated that to access a waterfall ‘I took for my guide […] a gigantic shoe heel maker, John Howel by name, who accompanied me on foot at least 3 Welsh miles for a shilling’.[14] To help in his ‘search of the scenes of Druidism describ’d by Mr Rowlands’ in Anglesey, Gough engaged with local people who lived near cromlechs.[15] (See Fig. 3) As a result of this, phrases such as ‘I was told of’ are commonly seen in the ‘Progress’. For instance, at Brwyn Gwyn, ‘they call it Castelh, & suppose it to have been surrounded antiently with a considerable town […] Behind the cot is a broken cromlech said to have money under it.’[16] One of these informants may have been the resident at Tre’r Dryw, who Gough identified as ‘John Jones an intelligent farmer, who speaks tolerable English.’[17] East of his property, ‘in a home field is a large wide brown stone bedded in the ground, with a round Cavities in it, which the farmer said was intended to burn men or baptise children at.’[18] Although himself a conservative scion of the landed gentry who did not wish to unsettle landowner hegemony, Gough’s inclusion of local agents is indicative of his later published work, which helped to democratise and diffuse the practice of history and make research the site of widening social interaction. Meanwhile, Gough explained that in Llanfair, Montgomeryshire, was ‘a great mart for the Welsh cloth calld Gwart or Webb, made in Merioneth & the Western Co[ounties] & us’d for soldiers cloaths. One meets large droves of pack horses loaded with it for Welshpool or Shrewsbury to which it is all at last carried. These horses are kept by the Welsh Manufacturers or English Carriers.’[19] There is no source for this information, but it is easy to imagine Gough engaging in conversation with other travellers who used the same roads. Thus, the information included in the ‘Progress’ can be incidental and anecdotal, but is nevertheless informative.
Prior to his tour in 1770, Gough corresponded with Daines Barrington (1727-1800), who had ample experience of the area as a judge on the Merioneth, Caernarvonshire, and Anglesey circuit. In a letter dated 20th July 1770, Barrington wrote to Gough and recommended towns and antiquities to visit, the best inns and their landlords, as well as certain residents who Gough should ask for information. At Conwy, Gough was encouraged to ‘apply to Mr Hollan in my name he will shew you his Area’.[20] Meanwhile in regard to ‘Mr Humphrey the Clergyman’ at Llanrwst, he wrote ‘I am persuaded he will on mentioning my name give you any assistance you may want.’[21]
One person in whom Barrington had confidence as an informat was Meredith Hughes, ‘an excellent Surveyor somewhat of a philosopher & a very decent & intelligent man.’ [22] Unfortunately, it is has proved unclear so far in my research as to whether Gough even ventured that way, but Barrington described Hughes very similarly (as ‘a very ingenious land-surveyor’ with a ‘philosophical turn’) in his letter to the Royal Society six months later regarding weather experiments.[23] Therefore, this does show the extensive knowledge networks in north Wales that antiquarians such as Gough could draw on if they so wished.
Indeed, Barrington informed Gough that ‘If you want to consult the Mona Antiqua [Restaurata] during your residence there [Anglesey] apply for it in my name – to Mr Williams the Minister.’[24] First published in 1723, this book by Henry Rowlands theorised that Anglesey was the ancient metropolitan seat of the druids. Upon arriving in Anglesey, Gough declared he ‘turn’d inland in search of the scenes of Druidism describ’d by Mr Rowlands.’[25] Throughout the section in the ‘Progress’ in which Gough examines some of the cromlechs, he frequently mentions (more often than not criticising) Rowlands and includes his page numbers in the footnotes. Although Gough may have been familiar already with this work, there is a strong possibility that he did indeed consult a copy whilst there. This helps provide further insight into the production process of the writing of the ‘Progress’, suggesting that Gough was not only observing and enquiring but also actively reading and taking notes.
(Inn)keepers of Knowledge
Usually accompanied with a review of the quality of lodgings, inns were often mentioned by Gough in both the ‘Survey’ and the ‘Progress’. As well as a place to stay, they were also a place of knowledge exchange. For instance, whilst in an inn near Raglan Castle, Gough was shown cannon balls and coins found in the remains of the castle that locals had carried away to mend their houses and roads.[26] This included a Queen Elizabeth shilling from 1578. Sometimes, Gough included their names. The Can Office (still in existence as the Cann Hotel) in Montgomeryshire, was ‘much resortd to by Grouse shooters who come in parties from Shropshire & Staffordshire & spend a month here’ and was kept by ‘Jones the Landlord’, a ‘facetious jolly fellow who entertains his guests with Welsh songs accompanied with grotesque action.’[27] In addition to entertainment, his hostelry helped to correct inaccuracies, as in a footnote where Gough explained that the place was ‘falsely in the maps Cannon’s Office.’[28] Innkeepers in Wales were thus facilitators of antiquarian knowledge production and their places of business acted as important waypoints in both a logistical and educational sense.
Gough’s time in ‘a very decent & commodious inn’ near Maentwrog also shows that they were a source of creative inspiration. Gough considered it ‘at once most picturesque & comfortable’, before launching into a poem in which he described his stay, during which:
‘The friendly Host who shares my evening Walk,
Anxious to make me understand his talk,
While he shares mine; & in his default of speech,
Makes signs expressive to his meaning reach,
While his fair daughter sedulous attends,
And Information with her converse blends.’[29]
This highlights the language barrier that Gough encountered during his time in Wales. The difficulties of this were more keenly felt whilst in the north, because for most of his southern tour in 1761, Gough was accompanied by his Welsh-speaking friend, the Reverend John Howel. In 1770, straightforward translation was evidently not always possible and perhaps such scenes as conveyed by the poem were common. It is therefore a testament to Gough’s perseverance that he was able to gain as much information as appears in the ‘Progress’.
Final Thoughts Fieldwork was at the heart of Richard Gough’s antiquarian investigations. He felt that simply re-examining the material favoured by previous antiquarians and reading existing literature would not result in progress for antiquarian writing. The involvement of local people in Gough’s investigations shows the need for scholars of antiquarianism to follow Noah Heringman in highlighting the crucial role of such ‘knowledge workers.’ They contributed substantially to the research and publication projects associated with the learned societies, despite being often ineligible for membership.[30] Native inhabitants were vital and enthusiastic sources of antiquarian knowledge in their localities. Although some encounters were expected. even planned by Gough, as suggested by his correspondence, others seem a surprise, hence the heightened scrutiny placed upon them. But what the stories above indicate is that Gough entered these encounters with an expectation that useful and noteworthy information would be gained from locals, finding in them a wealth of on-the-ground information that could supplement or improve the written record.
[1] Richard Gough, ‘A Survey of part of the following counties of South Wales viz. Monmouth, Glamorgan, Caermarthen, Pembroke, Cardigan & Brecknock shires MDCCLXI’. Bodleian MS Top.gen.e.27. Hereafter ‘Survey’.
Richard Gough, ‘Notes of antiquarian tours through the counties of England, undertaken by Richard Gough in 1759-71 (North Wales 1770).’ Bodleian MS. Top.gen.e.26. Hereafter ‘Progress’.
[2] ‘Survey’, ff. 67v-68r.
[3] Ibid. f. 65r.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Gough, ‘Progress’, f. 18r.
[6] Ibid. f. 15r.
[7] Ibid. f. 19r.
[8] Ibid. f. 50v.
[9] Ibid. f. 54r.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid. f. 72r.
[12] Ibid. f. 71r.
[13] Gough, ‘Survey’, f. 37r.
[14] Gough, ‘Progress’, f. 31r.
[15] Ibid. f. 75r.
[16] Ibid. f. 76r.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid. f. 78r.
[19] Ibid. f. 19v.
[20] MS. Gough gen. top. 46. f. 6v.
[21] MS. Gough gen. top. 46. f. 6r.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Daines Barrington, ‘Letter from the Hon. Daines Barrington, F.R.S. to William Herberden, M.D.F.R.S. Giving an Account of Some Experiments Made in North Wales, to Ascertain the Different Quantities of Rain, Which Fall in the Same Time, At Different Heights’, Philosophical Transactions (1771), p. 295.
[24] MS. Gough gen. top. 46. f. 7r.
[25] Gough, ‘Progress’, f. 76r.
[26] Gough, ‘Survey’, f. 12r.
[27] Gough, ‘Progress’, f. 23r.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid. ff.33r-34v.
[30] Noah Heringman, Sciences of Antiquity: Romantic Antiquarianism, Natural History, and Knowledge Work (Oxford, 2013), p. 3.