TODAY is the feast day of a little-known local saint, St Robert of Knaresborough. He was a twelfth-century hermit who became renowned because he lived in a cave near the River Nidd in Knaresborough, and he had a chapel nearby. St Robert's Chapel, more correctly known as The Chapel of Our Lady of the Crag, can still be seen close to the famous Fort Montague, an eighteenth-century house which is built into the side of the cliff. It has become known as The House in the Rock.
St Robert was born Robert Flower about 1160 and, although his family was wealthy, he renounced everything to become a monk in Northumberland, later joining the brethren at Fountains Abbey. Afterwards, he preferred the solitary life and became a hermit, living in his cave beside the River Nidd. Such was his fame as a holy man that he was visited there by King John in 1216.
St Robert's Chapel was carved out of the rock by a mason called John in 1408. It is about 10ft deep, with an altar and piscina inside. The carved figure of a knight with a drawn sword guards the entrance and this is where Robert celebrated daily mass.
His cave is nearby. Much has been destroyed, but it received unwelcome notoriety after the renowned murder case which involved Eugene Aram. When Aram killed his wife's lover, Daniel Clark, in 1744, he concealed Clark's body in St Robert's Cave, an act which has led to the murder being featured in many books and poems. Aram, a schoolmaster in Knaresborough, was hanged for the murder and the gibbet was in a field near what is now the Mother Shipton Inn. I believe part of the gibbet remains in a wall upon Waterside, near Knaresborough's spectacular viaduct.
But although this murder occurred some 260 years ago, there remains considerable doubt over Aram's guilt. That doubt hinges on the fact that the body found in St Robert's Cave was never formally identified as that of Daniel Clark.
At Sharow, near Ripon, on the junction of Dishforth Road and Sharow Lane, are the remains of an ancient and historic stone cross.
There is only a short stump set in a stone block, but it is marked by a plaque which provides a brief account of its history. This is all that survives of the Sharow Cross, and it is now cared for by the National Trust.
This is one of eight Sanctuary Crosses which were established on all the approaches to Ripon. Each cross was within one mile of the cathedral and they were sometimes known collectively as the mile crosses. Their purpose was to mark the extremities within which a plea of sanctuary could be claimed by felons - criminals who were fleeing from justice.
This was a practice widely used in medieval times and it was based on the idea that God would pardon a criminal if he reached the high altar of a major church and there sought forgiveness in public.
This meant that criminals on the run would often head for a church which offered sanctuary. In this area they included the cathedrals and minsters at Ripon, Durham, York and Beverley.
There were different interpretations of the precise method for claiming sanctuary. At Ripon, it was sometimes suggested the privilege could be claimed if the felon managed to get within that one-mile boundary, and sometimes he was safe if he got within a churchyard or even into the porch. But the usual guarantee of safety was to sit on the sanctuary chair which was positioned on the high altar. In Durham's case, the criminal could claim sanctuary if he grabbed the twelfth-century sanctuary knocker, known as a hagoday, which is still to be seen on a door of the cathedral.
Bearing in mind that serious crimes were often punished by death, the act of gaining sanctuary was a means of saving one's life, but it was not quite as simple as would first appear.
There were complicated rules and procedures to follow, although it was widely accepted that if the criminal actually reached sanctuary, then at least his life would be spared even if he was expected to undertake some kind of penance.
For example, if he reached sanctuary, he was often a prisoner within the church for 40 days or until he received the royal pardon. It meant, of course, that he must be fed and given a place to rest while inside the church, or he might be expected to perform various acts of penance to earn his keep until the official pardon was granted. Quite often, well-meaning parishioners found themselves having to look after a vicious murderer or rapist for the time he was there.
If a criminal had committed a very serious crime, such as murder, and had reached sanctuary, he could be granted an alternative pardon by agreeing to abjure the realm. This meant he must make a solemn undertaking to leave the country forever, and to forfeit all his properties to the king. If he accepted this punishment, he was branded on his thumb with the letter A, meaning abjured. This was to identify him as he made his way to the nearest port to find a ship which would transport him to his self-imposed exile.
Even if this was an approved and widely-practiced system of dealing with criminals, there was no guarantee that the sanctuary-seeker was safe. There were instances of parishioners taking great exception to notorious sanctuary-seekers and dragging them out of the church, where they would be subjected to local justice.
One example occurred in 1757, even though the system of sanctuary had been abolished in 1623. In this case, a man and his wife were accused of witchcraft. At the time, the fear of witches was at its height and the couple sought sanctuary rather than face the courts and the dreadful forms of capital punishment. Unfortunately for them, they were discovered in the church by a group of vigilantes, dragged out and taken to a local pond where both were drowned as a form of local justice.
In addition to churches, sanctuary could also be sought within a royal palace or its precincts, within an ambassador's residence or even within the Houses of Parliament. I believe these all ended in the nineteenth century.
Tarrying awhile in this part of Yorkshire, I am reminded of the county's links with Robin Hood. In particular, it is his legendary association with Fountains Abbey which interests me because two of the best-known tales from his adventures in the greenwood are supposedly based in the grounds of what is now a famous and beautiful ruin. Most of us know about the battle between Robin Hood and the man who became known as Little John. Robin encountered this giant of a man on a narrow footbridge which crossed a stream near Fountains Abbey. He told the fellow to get out of his way, as he wished to cross the beck. The man, who carried a long staff, refused, whereupon Robin threatened to shoot him with his bow and arrow. At this, the man said it would be an act of cowardice to shoot a man armed only with a staff, so Robin went into the trees, cut himself a similar staff, and prepared to fight the man on the bridge. Robin lost. He was knocked into the water, but climbed out to say he admired the bravery of the other, inviting him to join his band of merry men. So John Little joined Robin Hood's company to become Little John.
Shortly afterwards, in the grounds of Fountains Abbey, the band of merry men met the famous fighting monk, Friar Tuck. Robin wanted to challenge him to a contest and encountered him on the banks of the River Skell dressed in his monk's habit with a suit of armour beneath. Robin ordered the monk to carry him across the river near the abbey and Tuck obliged, then asked Robin to carry him back over the water. Robin did so, before asking the monk to return him once more to the other side. This time the monk threw Robin into the water, at which Robin fired several arrows at the fellow, but all bounced off his armour. More trials followed until the pair decided to call a truce, with Robin inviting the monk to join his merry men. Friar Tuck agreed, saying it was time for a change because he'd lived at Fountains for many years. There is still a Robin Hood's Well in the grounds of Fountains Abbey.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article