Page:Sussex Archaeological Collections, volume 6.djvu/27

 respecting the channel through which they obtained their knowledge that their lists had any existence in the Abbey before the dissolution.

Next comes Du Chesne. He received from Camden a copy of Stowe's List, and he has printed it with the title—Cognomina Nobilium qui Gulielmum Normanniae Ducem in Angliam sequuti sunt: ex Tabula Monasterii de Bello in Anglia cum hac superscriptione—Then follow the five lines,

These lines are interesting enough; but it is extraordinary that Du Chesne did not perceive they formed no title, and no proper exordium to the list of Norman names which follows: nor is his testimony to the existence of the lists in the Abbey of Battle to be regarded as independent of the testimony of Stowe.

Camden, however, seems to have given credit to what Holinshead and Stowe have said of their lists having come from the Abbey,—"albeit, happly thay are not mentioned in those tables of Battle Abbey of such as came in at the Conquest," but in what light estimation these tables were in his opinion, appears from what he next says, "which whosoever considers well shall find always to be forged, and those names to be inserted which the time in every age favoured and were never mentioned in that authentical record." (Remains, 4to, 1629, p.130). Camden would seem to have entertained a notion that there was some primitive list made at Battle, but lost.

I must however halt at this step, to take especial notice of what is said by Browne Willis, an antiquary of a later age but of high authority. He wrote concise accounts of the abbies, which he called Mitred, and among them is Battle:—"Nor were the monks of Battle less careful about preserving a table of the Norman gentry which came into England with the Conqueror. This table also continued till the dissolution, and was seen by our admirable antiquary Mr. Leland, who hath given us the contents of it in the first tome of his 'Collectanea.'"

Willis seems to have confounded Leland with Stowe, who