William of Codineston

¶ Dominus Wilielmus de Codineston’ presbiter, rector Ecclsie de Findon’ Cycestr' dyoci’, testis supra iuratus productus a procuratore Capituli Herefordensis, ad probacionem tantum primi miraculi de suspendio Willelmi Cragh, simpliciter litteratus deposuit wulgariter lingua Gallica de predicto miraculo in hunc modum.

¶ Primo siquidem dixit quod dudum erant duo famosi latrones, et malefactores in terra nobilis uiri domini Willelmi de Breuse, baronis wulgariter appellata Gouer, in Episcoptatu Meneuensi, in Wallia, et unus ex dictis malefactoribus vocabatur Willelmus Cragh, et alius Traharn ap Howel, et dicti malefactores una die comprehensi fuerint, et sequenti die ad suspendium ducti presente ipso teste, et tunc dictas Willelmus Cragh, voluit confiteri peccata sua predicto testi qui erat tunc familiaris, et Capellanus et ad huc est dicti domini de Breuse, et quia dictus Willelmus Cragh, nesciebat loqui Anglicum, et dictus testis, qui est Anglicus nesciebat loqui nec intelligere Wallense, quod erat linguagium dicti Willelmi Cragh, fuit predictus Willelmus Cragh qui ostendebat, se habere magnam contricionem et doloremWritten in lighter ink, added later.  de peccatis suis, et rogabat gentes quod orarent deum pro eo, et quod remiterrent ei dampna que intulerat eis sicut idem testis dixit se predicta vidisse, et suis auribus audiuisse, cum dictus Willelmus predicta dicebat, et dicta signa penitencie et contricionis cum fleta et lacrimis ostendebat, confessus peccata sua alteri sacerdoti, de cuius nomine idem testis interrogatus dixit se non recordari.

¶ Secundo dixit idem testis quod dum predicti duo latrones ducerentur ad suspendium; dictus Willelmus Cragh, in itinere rogauit sanctum Thomam de Cantilupo ut rogaret deum quod remitteret peccata sua dicto Willelmo, et quod eriperet eum a dicto suspendio, et hoc referebatur communiter per gentes qui fuerant presentes quando dictus Willelmus fecit oracionem predictam, sed dictus testis non fuerat presens, ut dixit, quandodicta oratione facta fuit, quia propter officium sacerdotale noluit sequi dictos malefactores quando ad suspendium ducebantur extra villam de Sweyneseye. Dictus tamen Willelmus Cragh sanitate recuperata presente ipso teste retulit domino de Breuse, qui tunc erat, et domine Marie eius uxori supra examinate, se fecisse oracionem predictam, et hoc retulit dictus Willelmus in camera dicti domini de Breuse Castri sui de Sweyneseye cum magno timore, et pauore, quia dubitabat quod iterum suspenderetur.

¶ Tercio dixit idem testis, quod predictus Willelmus Cragh, sicut gentes communiter referebant, non tamen vidit hoc dictus testis, fuit primo suspensus quam predictus alius latro, scilicet Traharn ap Howel. Sed iste Traharn ap Howel fuit in cominenti post suspendium mortuus, autem dicto Willelmo Cragh, non dum mortuo sicut communiter dicebatur, dicte furce fuerint per se ipsas absque humana operatione, nescit per quem modum fracte. Ita quod dictus duo suspense, ceciderunt ad terram, postmodum dicte furce fuerint denuo erecte, et quia dictus Willelmus Cragh, videbatur ad huc spirare et respirare flatum, et ad huc non esse mortuus licet non posset loqui, fuit iterum suspensus. Et cum stetisset sic suspensus nescit tamen per quantum tempus, ut respondit interrogates corda, cum qua predictus Willelmus Cragh erat suspensus, fuit fracta, et ipse de furcis cecidit ad terram, sicut predictus testis dixit se ab aliis de quorum non recordatur nominibus audiuisse. 

¶ Quarto dixit predictus testis se similiter audiuisse referri ab aliis de quorum nominibus dixit se non recordari, quod cum dictus Willelmus Cragh cecidisset a dictis furcis corda cum qua suspensus fuerat fracta; fuit apportatus una cum alio latrone cum eodem suspensuo ad Capellam Sancti Johannis, que capella est prope dictam villam Sweyneseye, si tamen in baculo vel ligno rotundo, vel qualiter fuerant ad dictam capellam apportati. Interrogatus, dixit se nescire, adiciens se audiuisse referri publice quod cum fuissent apportati ad dictam capellam, dictus Willelmus Cragh fuit inuentas adhuc habere carnem callidam, ita quod non erat ad huc mortuus, sicut aliqui dicebant, alii vero qui ipsum videbant reputabant ipsum esse mortuum, sicut dictus testis audiuit referri ab aliis. Reliquus vero suspensus habebat carnem frigidam. Tunc autem sicut dicebatur dictus Willelmus Cragh fuit mensuratus, nescit tamen per quem uel ad cuius instanciam ad cuius instanciam ad sanctum Thomam de Cantilupo This appears to be the text, but the manuscript is badly damaged.  Episcopum Hereford'.
Et post dictam mensurationem non in continente, sed post pausam uel horam unam dicebatur quod dictus Willelmus aliquantulum mouerat linguam suam, et post aliam pausam mouerat unum pedem, et postmodum paulatim incepit resumere vires membrorum, et iacuit sicut dicebatur per viii vel decem dies infirmusIn the same ink and hand as the main text, and therefore appears to be a contemporary addition.   et non poterat assumere nisi sorbilia quia habebat guttur et collum inflata. Cum autem posset loqui et ire, venit ad dictum dominum et dominam de Breuse, ad dictum castrum eorum de Sweyneseye ipso teste presente, et dixit eis illa verba de quibus ipse testis deposuit supra, in versiculo secundo dixit. Et insuper quod cum fuit suspensus, quidam episcopus albus indutus paramentis albis sustinebat per pedes eleuando sursum in furcis dictum Willelmum Cragh, ne ex suspendio interiret. Interrogatus tamen dictus Willelmus Cragh a predicto domino de Breuse, presente ipso teste, quis fuerat ille episcopus. Respondit se nescire.

¶ Quinto dixit, quod predicti dominus, et domina, de Breuse duxerunt dictum Willelmum Cragh. Ratione dicti miraculi ad Ecclesiam Herefordensem et optulerunt seu, offerri fecerunt per dictum Willelmum furcas cereas, cum ymagine cerea hominis suspense, et dictus Willelmus iuit pedes cum eis. Ipse tamen testis non fuit presens, nec ex tunc vidit dictam Willelmum, audiuit tamen referri quod dictus Willelmus vouerat ire ad terram sanctam, et non iuit sed remansit in terra sua, et audiuit dici idem testis quod, dictas Willelmus Cragh obiit, sunt duo uel tres anni elapsi. 

¶ Item interrogates, super tercio interrogatorio tercii articuli si predictum miraculum fuerat supra vel contra naturam. Respondit se credere quod sic, et quod absque miraculo non potuisset tunc euitasse mortem.

¶ Item interrogatorio supra quinto. Interrogata dicti tercii articuli. Respondit se non credere quod herbe, lapides vel alique alie res naturales vel medicinales vel incarnationes vel superticiones vel fraudes alique interuenerint in operatione et perfectione miraculi supradicti, potissime quia dictus dominus de Breuse, et eius iusticiarii, officiales et ministri multum odiebant dictum Willelmum Cragh, et multum gaudebant de suspendio et morte eiusdem, et dicti Ministri et Justiciarii interfuerant inAdded on an erasure, slightly smudged.  suspendio supradicto, de eorum tamen, nominibus interrogatus, dixit se non recordari, quia non erat de partibus illis.

¶ Item supra sexto interrogata, dixit Additional 't' added contemporaneously. se credere quod fides et devoto dicti Willi Cragh, et aliorum angebatur ex miraculo secundo.

¶ Item super septimo interrogatorio, dixit se nichil scire.

¶ Item super viiio interrogatorio. Respondit quod non nouerat dictum Willelmum, nisi postquam fuerat captus per gentes dicti domini de Breuse.   

¶ Item super xi interrogatorio. Respondit, quod xvi anni sunt elapsi, quod illa de quibus deposuit fuerant facta in dicto loco de Sweyneseye, de certo tamen anno, mense, et die, et quibus presentibus predicta facta fuerint dixit se aliud nescire, quam supra deposuit.

¶ Item super xii et xiii interrogatoriis dicti tercii articuli. Respondit quod illo tempore quo illa de quibus supra deposuit interuenerunt, referebantur predicta publice in dicto loco de Sweynesye, et erat fama publica de predictis. Interrogatus quid vocatThis was originally 'erat' in the MS, but the 'e' has been crossed out and a 'u' added above the line.  famam publicam, dixit quod illud quod in pluribus locis publice dicitur et publicatur communiter per omnes. Si tamen ex tunc fuerit vel fit ad huc fama publica de hoc in dicto loco, dixit se nescire quia ex tunc non fuerat ibi. 

¶ Item interrogatus cuius etatis erat, dixit quod xlv annorum vel circa.

¶ Item interrogatus si fuerit de parentela vel familia dicti domini Thome, vel si viderat ipsum, vel sciebat plura miracula de eo, dixit quod non. Sed tamen audiuerat dici communiter per totam Angliam ubicumque fiebat mencio de dicto dominoAdded later in lighter ink.  Thoma quod fuerat bone et sancte vite. 

¶ Item interrogatus, an prece precepto timore odio amore precio et lucri dati vel promissi habiti vel habendi causa deposuerit, et utrum doctus vel instructus fuerit sic testificari, et ad concordauerit cum aliis testibus sic deponere. Respondit quod non. Et quia videbatur sufficienter interrogatus, et examinatus fuit licenciatus.

¶ Acta fuerunt hec in dicto Capitulo sancti Pauli Coram dominis, Episcopo Mimatensi, et G. Archidiacono Aran', absente domino Episcopo Lond', qui notificauerat predictis dominis, Episcopo Mimaten' et Archidiacono Aran', per Magistrum Willelmum de Meleford', Cancellarium suum quod non poterat predictis interesse, presentibus dicto Magistro Willelmo de Meleford, et domino R. precentore, Mimaten', et me Willelmo, Ad[am], et Reymundo, notariis huius processus die xv a huius mensis Julii.

¶ Lord William of Codineston, priest, Rector of the Church of Findon in the diocese of Chichester was called to witness and led forward by the proctor of the Chapter of Hereford to give evidence on the first miracle of the hanging of William Cragh. Simply educated, he testified in the common tongue of France concerning the aforesaid miracle in this manner:

¶ First accordingly he said that a little while ago there were two famous brigands and criminals in the lands of the noble man Lord William de Briouze the baron commonly called Gower, in the episcopate of St Davids, in Wales, and one of the said criminals was called William Cragh, and the other Trahaearn ap Hywel, and one day the said criminals were caught,Following their attack on Oystermouth Castle. For a contemporary chronicler’s account of the episode [CLICK HERE] for the Welsh annal contained in the Neath Abbey Domesday Breviate..  and on the following day [were] led to be hanged in the presence of the witness himself. And then the said William Cragh wanted to confess his sins to the aforesaid witness, who was at that time (and is still) a member and chaplain of the household of the said lord de Briouze. And because the said William Cragh was unable to speak English, and the said witness who is English was unable to speak or understand the Welsh that was the language of the said William Cragh, the aforesaid William (who was showing he had great contrition and sorrow for his sins and was asking the people to beseech God for him, and forgive him the damage which he had inflicted upon them, just as the same witness said he saw before, and heard with his own ears, when William was saying the aforesaid, and was showing the said signs of penitence and contrition with weeping and tears,) confessed his sins to another priest concerning whose name the same witness said he did not recall when they questioned.William Cragh gives this preist's name as Madock. The process of confession, contrition, absolution, ordeal and redemption that we have here with William Cragh is the standard formula enacted in public spectacles as part of the drama of Christian repentance, purification and salvation (Merback, 1999: 143-4). 

¶ Secondly the same witness said that while the aforesaid two brigands were led to be hanged, on the way the said William Cragh asked St Thomas de Cantilupe to petition God that he repented his (the said William’s), sins and that would He rescue him from the said hanging,An important condition of receiving the intercession and resulting miracles of saints was that the sinner was truly repentant, and had publically declared to that effect. (Merback, 1999: 174, 184 and 265; Porterfield, 2005: 81-2
 and Warner, 1976: 316).  and this was commonly reported by people who were present when the said William made the aforesaid speech. But the said witness was not present in person, as he said, when the said speech was made, because of his priestly office he did not wish to accompany the said criminals when they were led to be hanged outside of the town of Swansea. However, [when] the said William Cragh recovered his health, he reported back to the then Lord de Briouze and the wife Lady Mary (examined above), (the witness himself being present), that he had made the aforesaid speech, and this the said William reported in the vaulted room of the said Lord de Briouze in his castle of Swansea with great fear and panic because he was not certain that he would be hanged again.For other versions of William’s visit to the castle following his resuscitation, [CLICK HERE] for the testimonies of William Codineston, William Cragh, and John of Baggeham. 

¶ Thirdly the same witness said that (as people commonly reported, this was not, however, what the said witness saw) the aforesaid William Cragh was first to be hanged, then the other aforesaid brigand, a certain Trahaearn ap Hywel. But that Trahaearn ap Hywel was completely dead after being hanged, while the said William Cragh was not yet dead, as it was commonly said. And the said gallows was broken by itself, without human activity, he did not know by what means. But the said two hanged men fell to the ground; a little while later the said gallows was newly erected, and because the said William Cragh was seeming to breathe in and out breath at this point, and at this point was not dead (although he was not able to speak), he was hanged again. And when he had been remaining hanging (however he replied when questioned that he did not know for how long) the rope with which the aforesaid William Cragh was hanged had broken, and he fell himself from the gallows to the ground. The aforesaid witness said he heard this from others, concerning whose names he could not recall.

¶ Fourthly the aforesaid witness said he heard similar reports from others (concerning whose names he said he did not recall) that when the said William Cragh had fallen from the said gibbet the rope with which he had been hanged had broken he was carried together with the other brigand hanged with him in the same place, to the chapel of St John, and the chapel is near the said town of Swansea.This is the only account which says that Trahaearn was taken to the chapel with William. To see the others who say that he was buried at the site of the gallows, [CLICK HERE].  However, having been questioned he said he did not know in what way he had been carried to the said chapel, if [it was] on a stave or a wooden wheel, adding he heard reported publically that when he had been carried to the said chapel, the said William Cragh was discovered to have warm flesh, such that he was not at this point dead. Others were saying - others who truly saw him - thought him to be dead, just as the said witness heard reported by others. The remaining hanged man in truth had cold flesh. But at that time, just as it was said, the said William Cragh was measured to St Thomas de Cantilupe, Bishop of Hereford;This as a popular English custom in the Middle Ages. The idea was that a thread was used to measure the body, and that in the event of a miraculous cure the thread would be made into a votive candle for the saint responsible for the miracle. It was particularly common as a long-range device intended to attract the attention of the saint. For more on this practice, see Webb (2000: 74); Finucane (1977);
 Bartlett (2006: 8-9)
  and Vauchez (1997: 456-7, 490).  yet, he did not know by whom or according to whose insistence. And after the said measuring, not immediately, but after a pause or even one hour it was said that the said William had moved his tongue a very small amount, and after another pause he moved one foot, and a little while later little by little he began to recover strength in his limbs. And he lay weak just as it was said for eight or ten days, and was not able to consume [anything] except broth because he had an inflamed throat and neck.The word given here in the Latin literally means ‘suck-up-able’. Given the statement of John of Baggeham, it is likely that this broth was made from almonds. Almond milk was deemed to be soothing and quick to produce, keeping longer than dairy milk would have done. For further details, see Adamson (2004: 45);Civitello (2011: 82);Newman (2001: 19); and Rumble (2009:64). Other witnesses say that Mary made or gave the order for the broth to be made and given to William – [CLICK HERE].  But when he was able to speak and to walk he came to the said lord and lady of Briouze in his said castle of Swansea, the witness himself being present, and he said to them those words about which the witness himself testified above in the second statement. And in addition he said that when he was hanged, a certain white bishop clothed in white garments supported him by the feet lifting him up on the gibbet so that the said William Cragh did not die from being hanged.The idea of an individual being saved by a saint supporting them by the feet was a common one. (Koopmans, 2011).  Yet the said William Cragh was questioned by the aforesaid lord de Briouze, the witness himself being present, as to who the bishop was. He replied he did not know.

¶ Fifthly he said, that the aforesaid lord and lady de Briouze led the said William Cragh by reason of the said miracle to Hereford Cathedral, and they present[ed] the offering made by the said William of the gibbet with the wax likeness of a hanged man,The practice of offering wax models is well documented at Hereford, where over 2000 are known to have been left for St Thomas. The image was supposed to relate to the miracle being sought or granted – in William’s case a wax man hanging on the gallows, but others included a head for chronic headaches and eyeballs for blindness. For further details, please see, Webb (2000: 74-5); Nilson (1999: 105);
 Sumption (1975: 157);
 Vauchez (1997: 221, 456-7);
  For the origins of this custom growing out of previously held pagan beliefs, see, Crook (2011: 21-2).  and the said William with them went on foot.It was common practice for a pilgrimage to be made following the working of a miracle (Yarrow, 2006), but the effectiveness of the pilgrimage was deemed greater if it was made on foot or even barefooted, as other witnesses say William did. The parents of the apparently drowned and resuscitated Joanna were said to have walked barefoot to Hereford to give thanks to St Thomas for the miracle. (Webb, 2000: xiv and 75).  For further examples and discussion of this, see Sumption (1975: 123-8).  Yet the witness himself was not present nor from that time did he see William, yet he heard reported that the said William vowed to go to the Holy Land,Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land was deemed to be the most dangerous (and therefore the most rewarding) of all (Sumption, 1975).  Perhaps the extent of the miraculous nature of William Cragh’s revival was thought to warrant such and extreme journey to truly reflect his thanks, but the cost and difficulty of the dissuaded him.   and had not gone, but remained in his own land, and the same witness had heard that the said William Cragh had died two or three years ago.

¶ They asked on the third question of the third article if the aforesaid miracle had been above or contrary to nature?A fundamental characteristic of a miracle was that the occurrence had to be seen as going ‘against’ or ‘above’ what is naturally possible in this world as miracles were seen as being part of the Augustinian model of God’s higher natural order (Sumption, 1975: 54-5 and 65).  He replied he believed yes, and that without a miracle it was not possible at that time to avoid death.

¶ Further they asked the fifth question of the third article. He responded he did not believe that herbs, stones or any other natural or medicinal things or spells or superstition or trickery or other intervention [had been used] in the working of and completion of the above-said miracle,There was deemed to be a fine line between magic and miracle at the time, particularly in cases relating to the raising of the dead, for although it is a key Christian tenant that the dead will live again and that Christ was resurrected, the act could also be seen as the work of a necromancer. For a detailed discussion of medieval ideas on the subject, see Rampton (1999).   principally because the said lord de Briouze and his justices, officials, and ministers had much hatred for the said William Cragh and rejoiced greatly on account of his hanging and death.William Codineston is not the only one to comment on how disliked William Cragh was. [Click Here] for John of Baggeham's testimony below.  And the said ministers and justices had brought about the aforesaid hanging, yet when they asked [him] about their names he said he did not remember, because he was not one of them. 

¶ Further on the sixth question, he said he believed . . . and marked the said William Cragh, and another had been stangled from the miracle.The manuscript here is badly damaged. Richter chose to leave out this statement in his transcriptions, presumably because what is legible does not make much sense. It could, however, be in response to a question about what marks remain on William Cragh's body, and comparing them to other known miracle cases.  

¶ Further to the seventh question, he said he knew nothing.

¶ Further to the eighth question, he replied that he had not been acquainted with the said William until after he was captured by the people of the said Lord de Briouze.

¶ Further to the eleventh question, he replied that sixteen years had elapsed since that about which he testified had happened in the said locality of Swansea, yet concerning the exact year, month, and day, and who was present when the aforesaid had happened, he said he did not know other than what he testified to above.

¶ Further to the twelfth and thirteenth questions of the said third article, he replied that at the time those things about which he testified above occurred, it was reported by the aforesaid public in the said locality of Swansea, and was public knowledge, as said before. They asked what he called public knowledge? He said that it was that which many was said by many in public and was publically communicated by all. Yet if it was had been and was still public knowledge he said he did not know because he had not been there since then.A fundamental requirement for the initiation of any inquisitorial or enquiry process called for by the papacy was ‘publica fama’. See Kelly (2013: 8-29) for a full discussion. 

¶ Further they asked how old he was, he said that 45 years old or thereabouts. 

¶ Further they asked if he was related to or from the household of the said lord Thomas, or if he had seen himself, or knew of his other miracles; he said no, but yet he had heard said commonly throughout the whole of England whenever the said lord Thomas was mentioned that he had had a good and saintly life.An important attribute for a potential saint was that they had lived a ‘good and saintly life’, (Koopmans, 2011). The whole of Vatican MS 4016 is dedicated to the examination of St Thomas’s life and if it was suitably ‘good and saintly’. See Introduction’ for further discussion. 

¶ Further they asked by if he testified by reason of prayer, fear, hate, love, money, gained or promised or anything he had or would have and had had other teaching or instruction in this testimony and had agreed this testimony with other witnesses. He replied no. And because it seemed he had been sufficiently questioned, and examined he was dismissed.

¶ The proceedings here in the said chapter of St Paul Coram lord bishop of MendeA town in southern France, midway between Clermont Ferrand and Montpellier.  and the archdeacon of Aran,The Archdeacon of Aran was named William of Testa. It is possible to trace many of his dealings in the affairs of the papacy and English Church. For further details on this, see Bartlett, 2006: 135-8).  in the absence of the bishop of London (who appointed the aforesaid lords bishop of Mende and Archdeacon of Aran through master William of Meleford his Chancellor because he was not able to be present at the aforesaid questioning). The said Master William of Meleford and lord R. the precentor of Mende and me William, Ad[am], and Reymond notaries of this process were present on the fifteenth day of this month of July.