Stephen Hughes Biography

Home	Richard Nash	Lucy Walter	Bridgett Leigh	Stephen Hughes	Oakley Leigh
Rev. Edmund Leigh	David Leigh

Stephen Hughes (1622-88)

Both in his time and later, Stephen Hughes was a very admirable man, truly a relative to be proud of. He was a double second cousin of the wife of Oakley Leigh, ?Margaretta Prichard, as their paternal grandfathers (Hugh and Richard) were brothers who married sisters, Their different surnames arose because one father changed his Welsh patronymic John ap Hugh to John Hughes and the other changed his patronymic John ap Richard to John Prichard (GG Advenae of Carmarthen A 124 65, Film no.104349). See the LEIGH ANCESTRY CHART and the PRICHARD ANCESTRY CHART. Though the blood tie is slight, both the Hughes family and the Leigh family lived in Carmarthen and were active in borough government and trade activities in the same historical period of the Civil Wars and the Restoration.

That chaotic and dramatic period certainly contributed to intense personal relations. Antagonisms and divisions in families, charges of treason and court trials, confiscations of estates, and other social upheavals accompanied the trauma of regicide in the execution of King Charles I and the establishment of Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth. Then these upheavals were repeated with opposite effect in the dismantling of the Commonwealth and the Restoration of the monarchy with the return of Charles II from France in 1660.

Stephen Hughes' life showed a different side of the Commonwealth and the Restoration than appeared with Sir Francis Lloyd and Bridgett Leigh. Hughes was a clergyman close to the Puritans as one of the "Dissenters" trying to radically reform the Anglican church. He became justly famous for the many "Independent" chapels he founded around Carmarthenshire during the Commonwealth, and especially for the way he was able to foster them even after the Restoration of Charles II in 1660, when Hughes was actually expelled from his own chapels (see comments about Hughes in Bridgett Leigh's biography). He moved to Swansea where his devoted "self-effacing" wife Catherine with "indomitable resilience" and a prosperous family helped support his itinerant pastoral work, which was technically illegal (Jenkins 204). During this period the Dissenters "continued to meet, as best they could for worship in remote cottages, farmsteads, barns and isolated places. From these bitter days have come the tradition of the Cwmhwplin cave near Pencader, associated with the itinerant ministry of Stephen Hughes" (Prys-Jones 225). When he died in 1688 half the value of his estate lay in his library, which he willed to his son Stephen (also a clergyman but back in the Anglican fold), and interestingly Hughes also willed twenty books to his daughter Jane (Jenkins 280,229).

 Hughes's second great activity was his effort to bring both religious reform and literacy to the Welsh people by providing inexpensive books in Welsh to the lower classes, thus raising their literacy rate along with their religious understanding. Unlike "some of the Welsh Puritans ... Hughes was neither bigoted nor fanatical" (Prys-Jones 2, 217). He worked with English Anglican clergy interested in helping Welsh religious reform, and convinced them that only Welsh-language books could be effective. They published inexpensive editions of the New Testament and the Psalms, various devotional books, and a second edition of the Welsh Bible in 1672 (Prys-Jones 2,217-19). By the last year of his life Hughes (with three friends) had translated John Bunyan's A Pilgrim's Progress. He established Carmarthenshire as a major Welsh-language publishing and book distribution center (Jenkins 237,245,247). In fact, this period showed a great advance in literacy of the common people.

Probably Stephen Hughes's most lasting fame (as well as his possible closer association with our Leigh heritage) came from his crucial role in preserving and spreading the poetic work of the clergyman Rhys Prichard, who is known to this day as the Vicar of Llandovery. Rhys Prichard was the Anglican clergyman whose humorous, earthy though morally righteous verses in the Welsh of everyday speech were written in the 1630/40s but almost lost in the chaos of the Civil Wars after the Vicar died in 1644. Hughes collected his manuscripts and published them as Canwyll y Cymri (The Welshman's Candle) in several editions from 1659 on. They became enormously popular reading during the next century, and the Vicar was easily the most beloved Welsh poet from the late 17th through the whole 18th century. The Welshman's Candle earned its place beside the Bible in even the simplest Welsh cottages.

Somewhat moralistic, the Vicar's tone reflected the intensity of the Civil War period. It was far different from our modern style of preaching and ecumenical religious discourse, because his "primary purpose was to hammer furiously at the gates of Satan's kingdom and convert sinners" (Jenkins 151). Yet, unlike most of his contemporaries, he was able to write his homely verses with an appealing style that attracted both the Welsh masses and more sophisticated religious readers of all classes. The father-in-law of Richard Leigh (III) (his Welsh wife Sarah William's father) was a "cousin-german" of the Vicar. This was enough of a point of pride to be listed with Sarah's name in the Golden Grove manuscripts (Advenae Carm. C1160, Film no.104349).

Hughes preserved and promulgated the Vicar's verses, but his work with the Vicar's manuscripts was not entirely neutral. First, Hughes' widely known goal was to use the Vicar's easy verse to attract the illiterate masses to learn to read, and ultimately to read the Bible. In this goal he admirably succeeded. But John E. Lloyd says that Hughes' introductory poem Advice to the Book in the 1672 edition outlined his additional goal to use the Anglican Vicar's poems for his own Dissenting political and religious beliefs, not those of their author who was a Royalist and a faithful priest of the Church of England (Lloyd, 2,97-98).

 Lloyd analyzes how Hughes created two personae for the poet, the "old master" Prichard and the "new master" Hughes himself: 

Then he makes the damaging admission that the poems in Prichard's name will be permitted to proclaim truths which, if the new master and others preached, would cause stones to be hurled at their heads. A close examination of the poems reveals clearly the hand of the Puritan Royalists (Lloyd 2,97).

 This way of co-opting the dead Vicar's work for Hughes' own beliefs seems humanly understandable and (to me at least) psychologically acceptable, especially since he owned up to it and did not disguise it. Also, otherwise he was not allowed to publish his own views without persecution. It reminds us that the 17th century was not the tolerant age we live in today. Neither the Cromwellians nor the Royalists were ecumenical as we are. Each group when in power expelled the clergy and occupied the churches of the other side, which then could only meet secretly to worship as they believed.

Yet Hughes seems not to have become embittered. A modern historian summarized his charm and excellent character:

His sweet temper, personal warmth and complete honesty were capable of disarming most of his enemies. Many of the Anglican gentry saw that his cultural aspirations transcended the bounds of party or doctrine and succumbed to his charming and persuasive tongue .... It is worth remembering that few seventeenth-century ministers were more revered than Hughes. The affection which his followers reserved for him bordered on pure adulation, and even those who did not share his views were prepared to admit that his was a life of rare quality and achievement (Jenkins 204-05).

Another historian emphasized the breadth of Hughes' genuine accomplishment:

A man of gracious, tolerant personality, and an attractive preacher, his selfless devotion and religious zeal made him a much beloved figure in his native county. Thus, later on, he became known as "the apostle of Carmarthenshire," and the acknowledged father of Independency in West Wales. His influence, however, spread much further afield. His work for the enlightenment of his people through the medium of the mother-tongue made him a pioneer in the preservation of the Welsh language. (Prys-Jones 2,222)

The Curse of Maesyfelin

 
Such an admirable man could scarcely be associated with the legendary vitriolic curse laid on a family and its heirs that became known as the "curse of Maesyfelin" in its later form. Yet its original form was probably quite different. See Bridgett Leigh to understand the story of the curse. When and even whether the Vicar of Llandovery actually laid a curse on the Lloyd family of Maesyfelin for their alleged murder of his son is now unknown. Originally the curse could not in fact have involved our Bridgett Leigh herself, but it came to be associated with her family. Mentioned by all historians treating the Lloyds of Lampeter, Cardiganshire, it is now part of our Leigh heritage.

Whether the good Stephen Hughes played an innocent part in the curse is purely speculative, but by the rules of circumstantial evidence he was in the right place and time. He had unique access to the scattered manuscripts of the beloved Vicar of Llandovery. Even more may be speculated. For those readers who don't like unfinished mysteries and want to see their ancestors as known quantities, this speculation will seem out of place. For readers who like to see their ancestors as complex personalities with private mysteries, like ourselves, this speculation may be interesting. The Biography of Bridgett Leigh explains why the curse could not have originated in the form it later took. This Biography of Stephen Hughes considers the possible political origin of the curse.

No known documents actually prove that political and religious polemics gave any motive or stimulus for the curse. Since the legend could not rest upon the non-existent murder it alleges, one historian (over a century ago) suggested a political motive:

Here we have a tradition of a certain dark deed done in a certain house, but in examining the accredited records of the family we find that it will not bear the test of the ordinary rules of evidence. I will venture a conjecture: Samuel Prichard may have been on terms of intimacy with Sir Francis Lloyd, and in the habit of visiting Millfield. In returning home he may have perished by drowning in one of the rivers between Maesyfelin and Llandovery, and his father may have uttered something like the "pennill" [= verse], in which the tradition is conveyed. The enemies of the house of Maesyfelin (and in the time of the Civil war, the feelings between families of different parties were very bitter) may have thrown out suspicion that the Vicar's son did not meet his death by fair means, and thus the story of murder may have been patched up. (Edmunds 24-25)

The contemporary historian Bethan Phillips agrees.

Perhaps William Edmunds has come closest to explaining the origin of this strange tale .... The years 1642-43 were the early years of the Civil War when the country was split in its allegiances, when erstwhile friends became foes, when whispers and rumours were rife. Both the Lloyd family of Maesyfelin and Vicar Prichard were ardent Royalists, and Edmunds suggested that those who wished to divide the supporters of the King sought to incriminate Maesyfelin in Samuel Prichard's death. (10)

The curse is nowhere published in the Vicar's works, but as Phillips says,

... this in itself is not strange, for it would have been more surprising if Stephen Hughes, the devout Puritan who published the 1659 edition of Canwyll Y Cymry, had included such an irreligious verse in a volume of the Vicar's sacred works. At this time Maesyfelin was poised to re-emerge as a family of influence, following Cromwell's death a year earlier, and it would have been unwise to publish anything which constituted a gross libel against it. (11)

Also, such a personal lament and curse would be out of place in the religious content of the Vicar's Candle, as well as irrelevant to Hughes' own devout motives in its publication.

The bald partisan political libel suggested by Edmunds and Phillips would never occur to Stephen Hughes as we know him, nor would the vengeful vindictive curse in its later form occur to the Vicar. The original core of the curse must have been more delicate and subtle. Perhaps the Vicar expressed strong moral disapproval of his son's association with the Lloyds, and perhaps the son accidentally drowned on a trip between Maesyfelin and Llandovery. Such indirect blame of the Lloyd family for its corruption of his son, merely expressed privately by the Vicar, might have begun what later became the curse. This possible scenario can also fit the apparent timing of public awareness. The Vicar died in late 1644, more than a year after his son, and nothing irregular was recorded of his son's death. The public apparently became aware of the "curse" only later when its murder charge was no longer easy to disprove.

 If the Vicar penned anything like the curse in his notes or writings, or even merely indicated strong moral disapproval of his son's association with the Lloyds and the belief that it indirectly occasioned his death, Hughes would be the primary person to know of it. He collected the Vicar's papers scattered during the Civil Wars and prepared them for their first publication in 1659. Yet the question must be asked. Would Hughes have used that information. in any public way? For me at least, a political motive seems possible even with the devout Hughes, who (as said above) explicitly expressed his willingness to use the Vicar's work for his own sincerely held beliefs. But the more extreme question must be asked. Would Hughes have gone so far as to attribute a curse crying "murder" to the Vicar's moral conviction that his son suffered fatally from a frivolous association with the Lloyd family? Could the upright Puritan Hughes have squared that extreme interpretation with his conscience? It is very hard to answer yes.

If not Stephen Hughes himself, then what of his family? If they learned from Stephen of the Vicar's feeling about his son's corruption by the Lloyd family, would they have spread that information? Stephen Hughes's immediate family were fervent political Cromwellians as well as religious Puritans. His father and brother (both named John Hughes) were Commonwealth mayors of Carmarthen (in 1650 and 1659), and one served as an eager collector of the fines levied against the estates of prominent s until 1652 (Lloyd 2,29). Stephen's brother John did not enjoy the same good reputation as Stephen did, and he was believed to have enriched himself with confiscated church treasures. He died childless in office as mayor in 1659 (Lloyd 2,468), though his father John may have lived on until 1678 (when the Collocation of Names of St Peter's church gives the burial of "John Hughes, Vice Comite Record" on 22 Apr 1678 on Film no.104504). Alcwen Evans says erroneously that the latter burial was of John Junior, and John Senior was buried in St Peters on 21 Aug 1686 (Brit Genealogy on Film no.104355), but the Collocation of Names gives that John Hughes as "the Tanner".

Obviously the Hughes family were political opponents of the Lloyd family, and of their own relatives the Leighs and their in-law Oakleys and Lewises (these latter being also the in-laws of Stephen Hughes' sister Rebecca). These families were ardent and activist Royalists quite apart from their relation to Sir Francis Lloyd, and the Oakleys had been recusants (illegally practicing Catholics) earlier in their native Wolford in Warwickshire. The father John Hughes was a mercer, "a relatively prosperous silk-mercer" (Jenkins p. 204), like some of the Leighs, and perhaps even economic antagonisms existed among the families. By 1659 Bridgett likely had become the mistress of Sir Francis, as their second son, Charles, was born in 1662. Her brother Richard Leigh and cousin Jonathan Oakley were among the "trusty and beloved friends" who were Sir Francis' allies to secure the inheritance of his and Bridgett's illegitimate children in his will of 1667. The Hughes family knew well some or all of these people and could easily have embellished the curse with Bridgett's relation to Sir Francis. Would they have done so? It is easier to answer that they could have, than that Stephen Hughes could.

But perhaps the Hughes family did nothing to spread the legend of the curse, and in fact they were thinning out by 1659. Public awareness of Sir Francis' relation to Bridgett must have become general in the early 1660s, and many people could have had a political motive to discredit the Lloyd family. Numerous deposed Cromwellians or even disgruntled Royalists may have resented the new prominence of Sir Francis Lloyd at court. This later time period seems as likely as the period of the Civil Wars of 1642-51 suggested in Edmunds' conjecture of "patching up a murder story," and it avoids the problem of easy proof that the Vicar's son's death was not suspicious when it occurred in 1642/3. We may never learn how and when the curse rumor started. In any event, it would have been strengthened immeasurably if its source was said to be Stephen Hughes' knowledge of the Vicar's manuscripts. Even false attribution to Hughes could have served to start the curse on its way.

We'll probably never learn the exact origin of the curse, leaving it as one of history's mysteries. Yet exploring and speculating about it suggests much more than we otherwise would think of about the characters and personalities of our ancestors and relatives who lived in that chaotic historical period of the curse's origin. From here we turn to the "fulfillment" of the curse. Regardless of its mysterious origin the legend was fueled by its amazing accuracy in prophesying the downfall of both the Lloyd family and the estate of Maesyfelin. Again we find a Leigh relative associated with that fuel and fulfillment, The Biography of Oakley Leigh takes up the fulfillment of the legendary curse with the last Lloyd owner of both Maesyfelin estate and Peterwell estate, to which the curse was believed to spread with the stones from Maesyfelin.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Edmunds, William. On Some Old Families in the Neighbourhood of Lampeter, Cardiganshire. Tenby: R. Mason, Printer, 1860. (Film no.839711)

Jenkins, Geraint H. Literature, Religion, and Society in Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1978.

Lloyd, John E. A History of Carmarthenshire. 2 vols. Cardiff: London Carmarthenshire Society, 1935, 1939,

Phillips, Bethan. Peterwell. Gomer Press, 1983.

Prys-Jones, A. G. The Story of Carmarthenshire. 2 vols. Christopher Davies Ltd, 1959, 1972.

By Norma Leigh Rudinsky