La Hougue Bie history
La Hougue Bie
Although the article addresses the possible history of La Hougue Bie, it is more concerned with the legend associated with it than the reality of what might have lain under the mound for centuries before. It would be some years before that was discovered
|
Tourist attraction
This is one of the localities in Jersey usually visited by tourists, and, apart from its present incongruous adjuncts as a place of public entertainment, may be regarded as a spot with which certain interesting traditions and memories, both of earlier and later date, are associated — more so perhaps than with any other place in the Island.
But the absurd stories sometimes told respecting it and its structural accessories by the ordinary Ciceroni, or by the guides of excursions, are calculated to reflect discredit upon the antiquarian, as well as the historic intelligence of the island, which they purport to retail.
A brief summary, therefore, of what can be most reasonably surmised, with regard to the probable origin of the hougue, or artificial mound, itself—together with some historic account of its subsequent accretions, may not be unacceptable to enquirers.
Three headings
Such information may be conveniently classified under the three following headingss :—
- The probable origin and earlier nomenclature of the hougue itself, entirely apart from its present superstructure and surroundings
- Its state in the Middle Ages, after the erection upon its summit of a sepulchral or ecclesiastical structure, or succession of structures.
- The final completion of the upper tower in its present state, somewhat less than a century ago.
As to the first point, this particular hougue, viewed simply as a comparatively ancient tumulus, must be considered as holding an evidently distinct place and character from most, if not all, of the other prehistoric, or neolithic earth mounds, which have existed or still exist in Jersey.
These latter, locally called pouquelayes (a word connected, in its final syllable, with the Celtic word lech, or stone, which is also met with in the corresponding Anglicised term Cromlech) are found to contain within them very ancient structures of unhewn stones, these latter often of great size - from which cause the structures have in such cases derived the scientific name of megalithic.
As many as some 50 of this kind of hougues are mentioned in Falle’s History, as having been formerly known to exist in the Island, though the greater part of them have now disappeared.
Among those that remain may be instanced the fine specimen at Anne Port, near Gorey; and others, as at the Couperon, near Rozel Harbour; at Mont Ubé, near Samares Manor; and one at Mont Cochon, St Helier, contiguous to St Aubin’s Road.
All these, and their fellow structures of the same description, the remains of two or three of which, of minor importance, have been examined, and reported on by the Société Jersiaise, belong to very far back prehistoric times.
Much later date
But the Hougue Bie is certainly of much later date, and of an entirely different character. There can be little or no doubt, judging especially from its name, that it is one of the same kind as those known elsewhere as Danish barrows. [1]
It is a symmetrical earthen mound of considerable circumference, namely, of about 360 feet by present measurement. And it rises to a proportionate height, namely, about 45 feet at present, giving an original height, after allowing for abrasion, and levelling of the summit for the superadded buildings, of at least 50 feet.
Similar barrows or mounds have been opened in England by tunnelling or otherwise, and have usually been found to enclose at the base a central chamber, of no great compass, formed of worked stone slabs; differing in that respect from the so called Kist-vaens of the much older cromlechs, which are always of rough unwrought stone.
These stone chambers in Danish barrows have been ordinarily found to contain human remains, together with iron weapons and other relics, belonging to a later period than even the bronze age. In Lieut Oliver’s Report on the present state and condition of prehistoric remains in the Channel Islands (London, 1870), mention is made of some sepulchral chambers of this kind, near Le Trépied Cromlech, in St Saviour’s Parish, Guernsey. The account given is as follows:
‘About 200 yards to the eastward of the above-mentioned cromlech, under a watch-tower, probably built upon a former hougue, there were formerly four stone graces. These were explored by Mr Lukis in 1840. They were found to contain iron knives, swords, and daggers, as well as fictile vessels.‘
Such tumuli are attributed to the earlier Danish Sea Rovers, or Vikings, who, about the end of the 8th century, began their invasions into England, as well as the Belgic and the North Gallic Coasts and Islands.
They would thus have come into conflict with the previously settled inhabitants of those parts, many of whom, as the Saxons, Angles, and Jutes, had themselves come originally in the same way — as pagan invaders — but had since become Christianised and civilised.
It seems to have been the frequent custom of these heathenish Danes, after any great and decisive battle, in which they had conquered, and so remained masters of the field, to erect, generally in some comparatively level situation, these earthen barrows, often of considerable area and elevation, beneath which, in such a central stone chamber as has been described, they buried any of their chief men who might have fallen in the fight.
The raising of such a considerable mound as La Hongue Bie would of course occupy much time and labour—And this would indicate that the constructors must have made a prolonged, and perhaps permanent, settlement there.
The latter supposition would agree with the name, which has from time immemorial adhered to the hougue. The Danish terminal affix, By, Gallicised into Bie, Bye, Bey, when given to any place, is always considered to signify, not a passing visit, but a permanent settlement of that people.
Seigneur de Hambye
It is further remarkable that, in the inseparable legend connected with the spot, there crops up, so to speak, an additional indication of the same kind, in the name of the Norman Seigneur de Hambye, otherwise Hambey, on the opposite coast, introducing again the significant Danish terminal - By.
This circumstantial evidence has been unaccountably overlooked in Austed and Latham’s Channel Islands.
We read: “Of the local names in Normandy, the few ending in boeuf are the only examples of the typical Norse form of By. In the Channel Islands, (so far as we may hazard the assertion of a negative) none are found.”
Hougue Bie, in Jersey, and Hambye, in Normandy, had evidently escaped the author’s notice. In Guernsey, in addition to the stone graves at St Saviour’s already mentioned, Catel, Hougue Fouque, and Hougue Hatenai, are mentioned in Tupper’s History, as implying tokens of Danish stations having at some time been established there.
Among these localities, Haten-ai bears an evident resemblance to the name of Hasting, the Danish Rover, said by Wace to have made predatory visits to the Islands. The terminal --ai, may answer to the -ey, in Guernsey, Jersey, etc
It may here be added, that an excavation of the Hougue Bie, in search of such a central sepulchral chamber, was advocated, apparently on the notion of its being a barrow of this kind, in Note 236, to Falle’s History.
Reasoning from these premises, the rational conclusion seems to be that, in the legend of the Seigneur de Hambye coming over from Normandy with his treacherous servant or squire, to slay the Jersey serpent or dragon, is involved the usual confusion and blending together of earlier and later historical incidents.
Fabulous serpent
The fabulous serpent, like the sragon of other old legends of Christendom, has most probably to do with the far past, and may probably in this case be identified with the first pagan Danish invader, who, after a successful conflict with the then Christianised inhabitants of Jersey, fixed his station, or lurking place, approached perhaps by a serpentine entrenchment, at or near the newly erected hougue, which would serve as a look-out and post of vantage.
Other combatants, on one side or the other, may have afterwards come over from the neighbouring Continent, and, amid a series of earlier or later conflicts, some episode may possibly have occurred, giving rise to that part of the legend which relates to the murdered Seigneur de Hambye and his treacherous squire.
In any case, such an episode, if founded on facts, must evidently be relegated to post-pagan days—for we never hear of the earlier Danish Rovers, as going forth for adventures in knightly guise, with only their attendant squires.
Or, to start another solution, which would agree better with the later date and aspect of this evidently monkish legend, it may have happened, as among the Danish settlers in England, that, on their agreeing to embrace Christianity, a portion of territory was assigned to them by treaty with the former inhabitants, thus giving permanence to many a By, (or fixed Danish abode) side by side with the previous settlers.
The continental Seigneur of Hambye may thus have been christianised first, a circumstance rendered likely by the existence of an early monastic foundation there, mentioned in Neustria Pia, from which Monastery this legend may very probably have originated.
This unpaganised chieftain may subsequently have undertaken the task of coming over for the purpose of converting, in a rough and ready way, some still pagan kinsman or dependant settled at La Hougue Bie in Jersey. Thus the Paynim serpent would be figuratively slain, by being rendered peaceable and comparatively harmless to his Christian neighbours.
And, as in similar cases elsewhere, a marriage with a Christian spouse may have sealed the conversion, and so have given some ground for the matrimonial part of the legend. The slaying of the Jersey Serpent would thus allegorize the dying out of the imported Danish paganism.
Paisnel
Another possible theory, as regards the legend, might be suggested, namely, that, after the Paisnel forfeiture in Jersey, some forcible attempt for its recovery may have been made from Normandy, giving rise to the mythic symbolism involved. The legend itself is evidently of a mediaeval era.
We must now pass over a long interval, namely, from the 9th and 10th centuries, in the course of which the Danes embraced Christianity, to the year 1208, when, in authentic records relating to Jersey, in the ninth year of the reign of King John), we meet with the surname of the family which is known to have held the Seigneury of Hambye in Normandy then and subsequently.
That name was Paisnel — Gallicised from the Latin Paganellus, in which latter form it appears in 1230 in Matthew Paris Polydore Vergil; and also in French state records of the period.
Now, this term Paganellus is but the diminutive form of paganus, or pagan, and might well have been applied to a Danish chieftain or family, that had become gradually Christianised, or less and less pagan.
This dominant Seigneurial family of Paisnel, in the person or persons of one or more of its representatives, seems to have held possessions both in Normandy, at Hambye, near Coutance; and in Jersey; including perhaps La Hougue Bie, though there is no actual record of this.
From the Fourth publication of La Société Jersiaise, (printed in 1879) containing ‘Historical documents from the Public Record Office in London’, we take the following extract :
The King to Hascoulf de Suligny, apparently Governor of Jersey: Be it known unto you, that we have given to Thomas Paisnel the land which belonged to Thomas de Humet with the appurtenances in the Island of Jersey, and that we have received his homage. And accordingly we command you without delay to give him full seisin of the said land with the revenues for this year.
Witness : Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, Chief Justiciary in the King’s absence, at Winchester. [2]
And to show that this Thomas Paisnel must have been an important personage, we turn to the following extract immediately ensuing :
The King to the Bailifis of the Ports of Southampton, he. Find a ship without payment for Hasconlf de Suligny and Thomas Paisnel and others whom we are sending with them on our service to the Island of Jersey. And the same shall be accounted for to you at the Exchequer
Witness : Peter, Lord Bishop of Winchester, at Winchester. . [3]
Severance: Landowners' choice
But we find that there soon came a severance between this Thomas Paisnel, who may possibly have been also Seigneur of Hambye, but who evidently held possessions in Normandy, and his Jersey fief.
In 1213 Philip of France, availing himself of the Papal Interdict against King John, declared war against him, and seized his Duchy of Normandy. Then it was that those Normans who held possessions in England; or in the Channel Islands (which latter adhered to John), as well as in Normandy, had to choose between their English, and the newly created French allegiance.
And Thomas Paisnel, having most probably his largest stake in Normandy, either at Hambye or elsewhere, seems to have renounced his allegiance to John for that of the King of France, and so forfeited his Jersey possessions; as shown by the following extract from La Publication 1ere of the Société Jersiaise (printed in 1876)—being the Extente of Edward III. AD 1331:
Thus seems to have ended the connection with Jersey of the Paisnels, some of whose name still remained Seigneurs of Hambye.
The name of their Fief of Hambye seems to testify to their being descended from some Danish chieftain, who made conquests and settlements in those parts. And, taking the legend for what it is worth, it seems to establish a connection of some kind between Hougue Bie in Jersey, and Hambye in Normandy: for the widow of the Norman seigneur could scarcely have reared a monument for her husband at Hougue Bie, as the legend states, without some territorial right enabling her to do so.
Now, with regard to the Hougue Bie, considered simply as the mound itself in its first and earliest aspect, it should be borne in mind that it must be entirely divested of all its present adjuncts; and we must simply imagine it as standing out, in the form of a circular earthen mound, of considerable extent and elevation, covered in due time with grass or verdure; but not with trees planted on it, as at present
Defensive earthwork
It would have perhaps a defensive earthwork on its summit. The date of its formation would probably be from AD 800 to 850. Wace in his Roman de Rou, makes mention of Hssting, the Danish Rover, having pillaged the Islands. His inroads dated about the middle of the 9th centurey
The hougue would in those days rear itself in the midst of an extensive plateau, which, for the stategic purposes of the By or settlement, would, no doubt, be kept clear and open to a considerable distance around, except as regards some possible outlying earthworks.
The subsequent probability is that when the Danish settlers embraced Christianity, a religious structure may possibly have been erected on the summit at a later period, to commemorate some other chieftain.
The statement contained in later amplifications of the legend, as in a note to Falle’s History, to the effect that the structure was so contrived as to be visible in clear weather from Coutance, near which the Hambye settlement was situated, seems to have been derived from the expression in the legend, that the tumulus or hougue itself was erected in a conspicuous spot, (in loco conspicuo).
We pass on now to the Second Division of our subject : 2 The state of La Hougue Bie in the Middle Ages, after the erection upon the summit of a sepulchral or ecclesiastical structure, or succession of structures.
These terms are used because of the evidently existent tradition, that, before Dean Mabon reared his religious edifices, to be presently described, there had been on the hougue some quasi-sacred structure, which gave him the idea.
A number of ancient chapels are known to have existed in the island, of which La Chapelle és Pécheurs, in St Brelade’s Churchyard, is an example; though many others have disappeared, leaving in some cases their local name behind them.
Dean Richard Mabon
There is no actual authority of such a religious use having been made of the hougue until Dean Richard Mabon, the last but one who held the office previously to the Reformation, and whose tenure lasted from 1512 to 1548, conceived the idea of erecting upon the spot, which had by some means come into his possession, certain ecclesiastical shrines, contained apparently within one circular enclosure, in imitation, on a small scale, of two or three sacred places at Jerusalem, to visit which holy City he had formerly made a pilgrimage.
At the basement, or crypt, he contrived a. miniature representation of the Holy Sepulchre; and over it two separate chapels, occupying perhaps the respective sites of the present so called chapel and library.
The first and larger of the two was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, under certain titles, summed up in that of Notre Dame de la Clarté Adjoining thereto on the east side, as a lesser adjunct, was ‘another small chapel, fashioned as an oratory, built in honour of the Passion of Jesus, named Jerusalem'.
A careful examination of the masonry might show the height to which the edifice rose; and architects could, no doubt, give an idea how it was finished and roofed above.
That Dean Mabon was actuated by devout motives, from his point of view, and not, as has been supposed, by purposes of jersonal enrichment, is shewn by the existence of a contract, or deed of gift, passed by him before the Royal Court of Jersey, dated 31 May 1533—in which he made over the hougue and grounds adjoining, together with the chapels, etc which he had erected, for religious purposes.
In addition to the expected offerings of devotees visiting the shrines, set apart several quarters of wheat-rente from his own property—for the maintenance of two ecelesiastics, who were to celebrate masses for himself and others in the two upper chapels. The crypt below, made in imitation of the Holy Sepulehre, does not seem to have been used for any other purpose than that of pious inspection.
It would be impressed, we may believe, upon local devotees, that a visit to these imitative shrines would partake, in some degree, of the merit attached in those days to a pilgrimage to Jerusalem itself—in much the same way that Henry IV of Lancaster is said to have comforted himself, in lieu of a purposed penitential visit to Palestine, by yielding up his parting breath in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster, saying in the language attributed to him by Shakspere: ‘In that Jerusalem shall Harry die.’
The time for these things was soon to pass away in Jersey. Dean John Paulet, Mabon’s successor, was the last Dean under the pre-Reformation regime: and we can only suppose that the above mentioned endowments either reverted afterwards to the next heirs, or fell to the Crown—as having been dedicated to superstitious uses.
Thus Dean Mabon’s foundations, which do not appear to have been consecrated in the ecclesiastical sense of the term, lost their sacredness, and the spot became once more secularised. This brings us—though with a considerable interval between the two periods—to the third and last division of our subject: 3. The final erection of the upper structure, called ‘Prince’s Tower’ or La Tour d’Auvergne.
Admiral Philip d’Auvergne
Both these latter names have reference to Admiral Philip d’Auvergne, RN, belonging to a Jersey family. He held the command of the Jersey Naval Station from 1794 to about 1813.
It was during this period that he acquired possession of Hougue Bie, with the remains of Dean Mabon’s chapels still standing on it. On this foundation the Admiral reared the present tower, as a naval lookout and occasional residence.
It comprised, in addition to a spiral staircase, one chamber only on each of the upper stages. The flat roof was battlemented, and from thence, by means of signals, almost the whole circuit of the Island could be communicated with.
The whole was well built, and stands in good external repair to the present time. The trees about the place appear by their age to have been mostly planted at this period.
A remarkable circumstance in Admiral d’Auvergne’s career was his adoption by the then representative of the Tour d’Auvergne family in France, who was Duc de Bouillon and held the titular rank of Prince. This adoption took place in the belief that Philip d’Auvergne was-descended from a collateral branch of the French family.
On the decease of the Duke and of his son and heir without issue (the latter in 1802), Admiral d’Auvergne assumed the title. From this cause the tower erected by him has come to be popularly called Prince’s Tower, otherwise La Tour d’Auvergne. It may be added that the Admiral’s claim to the Dukedom and princely title was disallowed by the Plenipotentiaries at the Congress of Vienna. Through disappointment and pecuniary distress, he died in London by his own hand in 1816.
