Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Early Norman Castles of the
British Isles.
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the
Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.
Title: The Early Norman Castles of the British Isles.
Author: Ella Sophia Armitage
Illustrator: D. H. Montgomerie
Release date: March 29, 2015 [eBook #48602]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48602
Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Paul Clark and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE EARLY
NORMAN CASTLES OF THE BRITISH ISLES. ***
Transcriber's Note:
British Isles.
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the
Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.
Title: The Early Norman Castles of the British Isles.
Author: Ella Sophia Armitage
Illustrator: D. H. Montgomerie
Release date: March 29, 2015 [eBook #48602]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48602
Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Paul Clark and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE EARLY
NORMAN CASTLES OF THE BRITISH ISLES. ***
Transcriber's Note:
Page 4
Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as possible. The errata listed at the
beginning of the book have been fixed, and some minor corrections of spelling and punctuation
have been made.
Larger versions of Figs. 5, 6, 14, 16, 30, 37, 38 and 39 my be seen by clicking on the images.
THE EARLY NORMAN CASTLES
OF THE BRITISH ISLES
beginning of the book have been fixed, and some minor corrections of spelling and punctuation
have been made.
Larger versions of Figs. 5, 6, 14, 16, 30, 37, 38 and 39 my be seen by clicking on the images.
THE EARLY NORMAN CASTLES
OF THE BRITISH ISLES
Page 5
Dol.
Rennes.
Rennes.
Page 6
Dinan.
Bayeux.
Bayeux.
Page 7
Hastings.
Motte-Castles from the Bayeux Tapestry.
THE EARLY NORMAN CASTLES
OF THE BRITISH ISLES
BY ELLA S. ARMITAGE
HONORARY FELLOW OF THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF
SCOTLAND
AUTHOR OF “THE CHILDHOOD OF THE ENGLISH NATION”; “THE
CONNECTION
OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND”; “AN INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH
ANTIQUITIES,”
ETC., ETC.
Motte-Castles from the Bayeux Tapestry.
THE EARLY NORMAN CASTLES
OF THE BRITISH ISLES
BY ELLA S. ARMITAGE
HONORARY FELLOW OF THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF
SCOTLAND
AUTHOR OF “THE CHILDHOOD OF THE ENGLISH NATION”; “THE
CONNECTION
OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND”; “AN INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH
ANTIQUITIES,”
ETC., ETC.
Page 8
WITH PLANS BY D. H. MONTGOMERIE, F.S.A.
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. 1912
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. 1912
Page 9
ERRATA
Page 34, note 1.—For “construerat” read “construxerat.”
Page 40, line 9.—For “there was only one motte, the site of the castle of the
Norman Giffards is now almost obliterated,” read “there was only one
motte, site of the castle of the Norman Giffards, now almost obliterated.”
Page 133, line 16.—For “1282” read “1182.”
Page 145, note 1.—For “Legercestria” read “Legecestria.”
Page 147, line 15.—Delete comma after “castle.”
Page 216, note 2.—For “instalment” read “statement.”
Page 304, note 3.—For “Galloway, Wigton, Kirkcudbright, and Dumfries,” read
“Galloway (Wigton, Kirkcudbright, and Dumfries).”
Page 34, note 1.—For “construerat” read “construxerat.”
Page 40, line 9.—For “there was only one motte, the site of the castle of the
Norman Giffards is now almost obliterated,” read “there was only one
motte, site of the castle of the Norman Giffards, now almost obliterated.”
Page 133, line 16.—For “1282” read “1182.”
Page 145, note 1.—For “Legercestria” read “Legecestria.”
Page 147, line 15.—Delete comma after “castle.”
Page 216, note 2.—For “instalment” read “statement.”
Page 304, note 3.—For “Galloway, Wigton, Kirkcudbright, and Dumfries,” read
“Galloway (Wigton, Kirkcudbright, and Dumfries).”
Page 10
PREFACE
Some portions of this book have already appeared in print. Of these, the most
important is the catalogue raisonné of early Norman castles in England which
will be found in Chapter VII., and which was originally published in the English
Historical Review (vol. xix., 1904). It has, however, been enlarged by the
inclusion of five fresh castles, and by notes upon thirty-four others, of which the
article in the Review gave only the names; the historical notes in that essay being
confined to the castles mentioned in Domesday Book.
The chapter on Irish mottes appeared in the Antiquary (vol. xlii., 1906), but it has
been revised, corrected, and added to. Portions of a still earlier paper, read before
the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in March 1900, are incorporated in various
parts of the book, but these have been recast in the fuller treatment of the subject
which is aimed at here.
The rest of the work is entirely new. No serious attempt had been made to
ascertain the exact nature of Saxon and Danish fortifications by a comparison of
the existing remains with the historical records which have come down to us,
until the publication of Mr Allcroft’s valuable book on Earthwork of England.
The chapters on Saxon and Danish earthworks in the present volume were
written before the appearance of his book, though the results arrived at are only
slightly different.
In Chapter V. an effort is made to trace the first appearance of the private castle
in European history. The private castle is an institution which is often carelessly
supposed to have existed from time immemorial. The writer contends that it only
appears after the establishment of the feudal system.
The favourable reception given by archæologists to the paper read before the
Scottish Society led the writer to follow up this interesting subject, and to make a
closer study of the motte-castles of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. The book now
offered is the fruit of eleven years of further research. The result of the inquiry is
to establish the theory advanced in that earlier paper, that these castles, in the
British Islands, are in every case of Norman origin.
The writer does not claim to have originated this theory. Dr Round was the first
to attack (in the Quarterly Review, 1894) the assertion of the late Mr G. T. Clark
that the moated mound was a Saxon castle. Mr George Neilson continued the
Some portions of this book have already appeared in print. Of these, the most
important is the catalogue raisonné of early Norman castles in England which
will be found in Chapter VII., and which was originally published in the English
Historical Review (vol. xix., 1904). It has, however, been enlarged by the
inclusion of five fresh castles, and by notes upon thirty-four others, of which the
article in the Review gave only the names; the historical notes in that essay being
confined to the castles mentioned in Domesday Book.
The chapter on Irish mottes appeared in the Antiquary (vol. xlii., 1906), but it has
been revised, corrected, and added to. Portions of a still earlier paper, read before
the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in March 1900, are incorporated in various
parts of the book, but these have been recast in the fuller treatment of the subject
which is aimed at here.
The rest of the work is entirely new. No serious attempt had been made to
ascertain the exact nature of Saxon and Danish fortifications by a comparison of
the existing remains with the historical records which have come down to us,
until the publication of Mr Allcroft’s valuable book on Earthwork of England.
The chapters on Saxon and Danish earthworks in the present volume were
written before the appearance of his book, though the results arrived at are only
slightly different.
In Chapter V. an effort is made to trace the first appearance of the private castle
in European history. The private castle is an institution which is often carelessly
supposed to have existed from time immemorial. The writer contends that it only
appears after the establishment of the feudal system.
The favourable reception given by archæologists to the paper read before the
Scottish Society led the writer to follow up this interesting subject, and to make a
closer study of the motte-castles of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. The book now
offered is the fruit of eleven years of further research. The result of the inquiry is
to establish the theory advanced in that earlier paper, that these castles, in the
British Islands, are in every case of Norman origin.
The writer does not claim to have originated this theory. Dr Round was the first
to attack (in the Quarterly Review, 1894) the assertion of the late Mr G. T. Clark
that the moated mound was a Saxon castle. Mr George Neilson continued the
Page 11
same line of argument in his illuminating paper on “The Motes in Norman
Scotland” (Scottish Review, vol. xxxii., 1898).[1] All that the writer claims is to
have carried the contention a stage further, and to have shown that the private
castle did not exist at all in Britain until it was brought here by the Normans.
The author feels that some apology is necessary for the enormous length of
Chapter VII., containing the catalogue of Early English castles. It may be urged
in extenuation that much of the information it contains has never before appeared
in print, seeing that it has been taken from unpublished portions of the Pipe
Rolls; further, that contemporary authorities have in all cases been used, and that
the chapter contains a mass of material, previously scattered and almost
inaccessible, which is here for the first time collated, and placed, as the author
thinks, in its right setting. It is hoped that the chapter will prove a useful
storehouse to those who are working at the history of any particular castle
mentioned in the list.
To many it may seem a waste of labour to devote a whole book to the
establishment of a proposition which is now generally adopted by the best
English archæologists; but the subject is an important one, and there is no book
which deals with it in detail, and in the light of the evidence which has recently
been accumulated. The writer hopes that such fuller statement of the case as is
here attempted may help not only to a right ascription of British castle-mounds,
and of the stone castles built upon many of them, but may also furnish material to
the historian who seeks to trace the progress of the Norman occupation.
Students of the architecture of castles are aware that this subject presents much
more difficult questions than does the architecture of churches. Those who are
seriously working on castle architecture are very few in number, and are as yet
little known to the world at large. From time to time, books on castles are issued
from the press, which show that the writers have not even an idea of the
preliminary studies without which their work has no value at all. It is hoped that
the sketch of castle architecture from the 10th century to the 13th, which is given
in the last chapter, may prove a useful contribution to the subject, at any rate in
its lists of dated castles. The Pipe Rolls have been too little used hitherto for the
general history of castle architecture, and no list has ever been published before
of the keeps built by Henry II. But without the evidence of the Pipe Rolls we are
in the land of guesswork, unsupported, as a rule, by the decorative details which
render it easy to read the structural history of most churches.
My warmest thanks are due to Mr Duncan H. Montgomerie, F.S.A., for his
generous labour on the plans and illustrations of this book, and for effective
Scotland” (Scottish Review, vol. xxxii., 1898).[1] All that the writer claims is to
have carried the contention a stage further, and to have shown that the private
castle did not exist at all in Britain until it was brought here by the Normans.
The author feels that some apology is necessary for the enormous length of
Chapter VII., containing the catalogue of Early English castles. It may be urged
in extenuation that much of the information it contains has never before appeared
in print, seeing that it has been taken from unpublished portions of the Pipe
Rolls; further, that contemporary authorities have in all cases been used, and that
the chapter contains a mass of material, previously scattered and almost
inaccessible, which is here for the first time collated, and placed, as the author
thinks, in its right setting. It is hoped that the chapter will prove a useful
storehouse to those who are working at the history of any particular castle
mentioned in the list.
To many it may seem a waste of labour to devote a whole book to the
establishment of a proposition which is now generally adopted by the best
English archæologists; but the subject is an important one, and there is no book
which deals with it in detail, and in the light of the evidence which has recently
been accumulated. The writer hopes that such fuller statement of the case as is
here attempted may help not only to a right ascription of British castle-mounds,
and of the stone castles built upon many of them, but may also furnish material to
the historian who seeks to trace the progress of the Norman occupation.
Students of the architecture of castles are aware that this subject presents much
more difficult questions than does the architecture of churches. Those who are
seriously working on castle architecture are very few in number, and are as yet
little known to the world at large. From time to time, books on castles are issued
from the press, which show that the writers have not even an idea of the
preliminary studies without which their work has no value at all. It is hoped that
the sketch of castle architecture from the 10th century to the 13th, which is given
in the last chapter, may prove a useful contribution to the subject, at any rate in
its lists of dated castles. The Pipe Rolls have been too little used hitherto for the
general history of castle architecture, and no list has ever been published before
of the keeps built by Henry II. But without the evidence of the Pipe Rolls we are
in the land of guesswork, unsupported, as a rule, by the decorative details which
render it easy to read the structural history of most churches.
My warmest thanks are due to Mr Duncan H. Montgomerie, F.S.A., for his
generous labour on the plans and illustrations of this book, and for effective
Page 12
assistance in the course of the work, especially in many toilsome pilgrimages for
the purpose of comparing the Ordnance Survey with the actual remains. I also
owe grateful thanks to Mr Goddard H. Orpen, R.I.A., for most kindly revising the
chapter on Irish mottes; to Mr W. St John Hope (late Assistant Secretary of the
Society of Antiquaries), for information on many difficult points; to Mr Harold
Sands, F.S.A., whose readiness to lay his great stores of knowledge at my
disposal has been always unfailing; to Mr George Neilson, F.S.A.Scot., for most
valuable help towards my chapter on Scottish mottes; to Mr Charles Dawson,
F.S.A., for granting the use of his admirable photographs from the Bayeux
Tapestry; to Mr Cooper, author of the History of York Castle, for important facts
and documents relating to his subject; to the Rev. Herbert White, M.A., and to Mr
Basil Stallybrass, for reports of visits to castles; and to correspondents too
numerous to mention who have kindly, and often very fully, answered my
inquiries.
ELLA S. ARMITAGE.
Westholm,
Rawdon, Leeds.
the purpose of comparing the Ordnance Survey with the actual remains. I also
owe grateful thanks to Mr Goddard H. Orpen, R.I.A., for most kindly revising the
chapter on Irish mottes; to Mr W. St John Hope (late Assistant Secretary of the
Society of Antiquaries), for information on many difficult points; to Mr Harold
Sands, F.S.A., whose readiness to lay his great stores of knowledge at my
disposal has been always unfailing; to Mr George Neilson, F.S.A.Scot., for most
valuable help towards my chapter on Scottish mottes; to Mr Charles Dawson,
F.S.A., for granting the use of his admirable photographs from the Bayeux
Tapestry; to Mr Cooper, author of the History of York Castle, for important facts
and documents relating to his subject; to the Rev. Herbert White, M.A., and to Mr
Basil Stallybrass, for reports of visits to castles; and to correspondents too
numerous to mention who have kindly, and often very fully, answered my
inquiries.
ELLA S. ARMITAGE.
Westholm,
Rawdon, Leeds.
Page 13
CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface vii
CHAPTER I
Introductory 1
CHAPTER II
Anglo-Saxon Fortifications 11
CHAPTER III
Anglo-Saxon Fortifications—continued 31
CHAPTER IV
Danish Fortifications 48
CHAPTER V
The Origin of Private Castles 63
CHAPTER VI
Distribution and Characteristics of Motte-castles 80
CHAPTER VII
The Castles of the Normans in England 94
CHAPTER VIII
Motte-castles in North Wales 251
CHAPTER IX
Motte-castles in South Wales 273
CHAPTER X
Motte-castles in Scotland 302
CHAPTER XI
Motte-castles in Ireland 323
PAGE
Preface vii
CHAPTER I
Introductory 1
CHAPTER II
Anglo-Saxon Fortifications 11
CHAPTER III
Anglo-Saxon Fortifications—continued 31
CHAPTER IV
Danish Fortifications 48
CHAPTER V
The Origin of Private Castles 63
CHAPTER VI
Distribution and Characteristics of Motte-castles 80
CHAPTER VII
The Castles of the Normans in England 94
CHAPTER VIII
Motte-castles in North Wales 251
CHAPTER IX
Motte-castles in South Wales 273
CHAPTER X
Motte-castles in Scotland 302
CHAPTER XI
Motte-castles in Ireland 323
Page 14
CHAPTER XII
Stone Castles of the Norman Period 351
APPENDICES
A. Primitive Folk-moots 381
B. Watling Street and the Danelagh 382
C. The Military Origin of the Boroughs 382
D. The words “Castrum” and “Castellum” 383
E. The Burghal Hidage 385
F. Thelwall 385
G. The word “Bretasche” 386
H. The word “Hurdicium” 387
I. The word “Hericio” 388
K. The Castle of Yale 388
L. The Castle of Tullow 389
M. The Castle of Slane 390
N. The word “Donjon” 390
O. The Arrangements in Early Keeps 391
P. Keeps as Residences 392
Q. Castles Built by Henry I. 392
R. The so-called Shell Keep 393
S. Professor Lloyd’s “History of Wales” 393
Schedule of English Castles from the Eleventh Century 396
Index 401
Stone Castles of the Norman Period 351
APPENDICES
A. Primitive Folk-moots 381
B. Watling Street and the Danelagh 382
C. The Military Origin of the Boroughs 382
D. The words “Castrum” and “Castellum” 383
E. The Burghal Hidage 385
F. Thelwall 385
G. The word “Bretasche” 386
H. The word “Hurdicium” 387
I. The word “Hericio” 388
K. The Castle of Yale 388
L. The Castle of Tullow 389
M. The Castle of Slane 390
N. The word “Donjon” 390
O. The Arrangements in Early Keeps 391
P. Keeps as Residences 392
Q. Castles Built by Henry I. 392
R. The so-called Shell Keep 393
S. Professor Lloyd’s “History of Wales” 393
Schedule of English Castles from the Eleventh Century 396
Index 401
Page 15
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND PLANS
FIG.
Motte-Castles from the Bayeux Tapestry:—Dol, Rennes,
Dinan, Bayeux, Hastings Frontispiece
FACING PAGE
1. Typical Motte-Castles:—Topcliffe, Yorks; Laughton-en-le-
Morthen, Yorks; Anstey, Herts; Dingestow, Monmouth;
Hedingham, Essex 4
2. Anglo-Saxon MS. of Prudentius 19
3. Wallingford, Berks; Wareham, Dorset 28
4. Eddisbury, Cheshire; Witham, Essex 36
5. Plan of Towcester about 1830 42
6. Shoebury, Essex 52
7. Willington, Beds 59
8. Arundel, Sussex; Abergavenny, Monmouth 98
9. Barnstaple, Devon; Berkhampstead, Herts; Bishop’s Stortford,
Herts 102
10. Bourn, Lincs; Bramber, Sussex 108
11. Caerleon, Monmouth; Carisbrooke 114
12. Carlisle; Castle Acre, Norfolk 124
13. Clifford, Hereford; Clitheroe, Lancs; Corfe, Dorset 128
14. Dover (from a plan in the British Museum, 1756) 138
15. Dunster, Somerset; Dudley, Staffs 144
16. Durham 146
FIG.
Motte-Castles from the Bayeux Tapestry:—Dol, Rennes,
Dinan, Bayeux, Hastings Frontispiece
FACING PAGE
1. Typical Motte-Castles:—Topcliffe, Yorks; Laughton-en-le-
Morthen, Yorks; Anstey, Herts; Dingestow, Monmouth;
Hedingham, Essex 4
2. Anglo-Saxon MS. of Prudentius 19
3. Wallingford, Berks; Wareham, Dorset 28
4. Eddisbury, Cheshire; Witham, Essex 36
5. Plan of Towcester about 1830 42
6. Shoebury, Essex 52
7. Willington, Beds 59
8. Arundel, Sussex; Abergavenny, Monmouth 98
9. Barnstaple, Devon; Berkhampstead, Herts; Bishop’s Stortford,
Herts 102
10. Bourn, Lincs; Bramber, Sussex 108
11. Caerleon, Monmouth; Carisbrooke 114
12. Carlisle; Castle Acre, Norfolk 124
13. Clifford, Hereford; Clitheroe, Lancs; Corfe, Dorset 128
14. Dover (from a plan in the British Museum, 1756) 138
15. Dunster, Somerset; Dudley, Staffs 144
16. Durham 146
Page 16
17. Ely, Cambs; Ewias Harold, Hereford; Eye, Suffolk 150
18. Hastings, Sussex; Huntingdon 158
19. Launceston, Cornwall; Lewes, Sussex 164
20. Lincoln 166
21. Monmouth; Montacute, Somerset; Morpeth, Northumberland 168
22. Norham; Nottingham 172
23. Norwich (from Harrod’s Gleanings among the Castles and
Convents of Norfolk, p. 133) 174
24. Okehampton, Devon; Penwortham, Lancs; Pevensey, Sussex 178
25. Oxford (from Oxonia Illustrata, David Loggan, 1675) 180
26. Pontefract, Yorks; Preston Capes, Northants; Quatford, Salop 188
27. Rayleigh, Essex; Richard’s Castle, Hereford 192
28. Richmond, Yorks; Rochester, Kent 194
29. Rockingham, Northants 202
30. Old Sarum, Wilts 204
31. Shrewsbury; Skipsea, Yorks 208
32. Stafford; Tamworth, Staffs; Stanton Holgate, Salop; Tickhill,
Yorks 212
33. Tonbridge, Kent; Totnes, Devon 220
34. Trematon, Cornwall; Tutbury, Staffs 226
35. Wallingford, Berks 228
36. Warwick; Wigmore, Hereford 232
37. Winchester (from a plan by W. Godson, 1750) 234
18. Hastings, Sussex; Huntingdon 158
19. Launceston, Cornwall; Lewes, Sussex 164
20. Lincoln 166
21. Monmouth; Montacute, Somerset; Morpeth, Northumberland 168
22. Norham; Nottingham 172
23. Norwich (from Harrod’s Gleanings among the Castles and
Convents of Norfolk, p. 133) 174
24. Okehampton, Devon; Penwortham, Lancs; Pevensey, Sussex 178
25. Oxford (from Oxonia Illustrata, David Loggan, 1675) 180
26. Pontefract, Yorks; Preston Capes, Northants; Quatford, Salop 188
27. Rayleigh, Essex; Richard’s Castle, Hereford 192
28. Richmond, Yorks; Rochester, Kent 194
29. Rockingham, Northants 202
30. Old Sarum, Wilts 204
31. Shrewsbury; Skipsea, Yorks 208
32. Stafford; Tamworth, Staffs; Stanton Holgate, Salop; Tickhill,
Yorks 212
33. Tonbridge, Kent; Totnes, Devon 220
34. Trematon, Cornwall; Tutbury, Staffs 226
35. Wallingford, Berks 228
36. Warwick; Wigmore, Hereford 232
37. Winchester (from a plan by W. Godson, 1750) 234
Page 17
38. Windsor Castle (from Ashmole’s Order of the Garter) 236
39. York Castle and Baile Hill (from a plan by P. Chassereau,
1750) 244
40. Motte-Castles of North Wales:—Mold, Welshpool, Wrexham,
Mathraval 260
41. Motte-Castles of South Wales:—Cilgerran, Blaenporth,
Chastell Gwalter 282
42. Motte-Castles of South Wales:—Builth, Gemaron, Payn’s
Castle 290
43. Motte-Castles of South Wales:—Cardiff, Loughor 294
44. Scottish Motte-Castles:—Annan, Moffat, Duffus, Old
Hermitage 310
45. Irish Motte-Castles:—Ardmayle, Downpatrick, Drogheda,
Castleknock 336
39. York Castle and Baile Hill (from a plan by P. Chassereau,
1750) 244
40. Motte-Castles of North Wales:—Mold, Welshpool, Wrexham,
Mathraval 260
41. Motte-Castles of South Wales:—Cilgerran, Blaenporth,
Chastell Gwalter 282
42. Motte-Castles of South Wales:—Builth, Gemaron, Payn’s
Castle 290
43. Motte-Castles of South Wales:—Cardiff, Loughor 294
44. Scottish Motte-Castles:—Annan, Moffat, Duffus, Old
Hermitage 310
45. Irish Motte-Castles:—Ardmayle, Downpatrick, Drogheda,
Castleknock 336
Page 18
THE EARLY NORMAN CASTLES OF THE
BRITISH ISLES
BRITISH ISLES
Page 19
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
The study of earthworks has been one of the most neglected subjects in English
archæology until quite recent years. It may even be said that during the first half
of the 19th century, less attention was paid to earthworks than by our older
topographical writers. Leland, in the reign of Henry VIII., never failed to notice
the “Dikes and Hilles, which were Campes of Men of Warre,” nor the “Hilles of
Yerth cast up like the Dungeon of sum olde Castelle,” which he saw in his
pilgrimages through England. And many of our 17th- and 18th-century
topographers have left us invaluable notices of earthworks which were extant in
their time. But if we turn over the archæological journals of some fifty years ago,
we shall be struck by the paucity of papers on earthworks, and especially by the
complete ignoring, in most cases, of those connected with castles.
The misfortune attending this neglect, was that it left the ground open to
individual fancy, and each observer formed his own theory of the earthworks
which he happened to have seen, and as often as not, stated that theory as a fact.
We need not be surprised to find Camden doing this, as he wrote before the dawn
of scientific observation; but that such methods should have been carried on until
late in the 19th century is little to the credit of English archæology. Mr Clark’s
work on Mediæval Military Architecture (published in 1884), which has the merit
of being one of the first to pay due attention to castle earthworks,
counterbalances that merit by enunciating as a fact a mere guess of his own,
which, as we shall afterwards show, was absolutely devoid of solid foundation.
The scientific study of English earthworks may be said to have been begun by
General Pitt-Rivers in the last quarter of the 19th century; but we must not forget
that he described himself as a pupil of Canon Greenwell, whose careful
investigations of British barrows form such an important chapter of prehistoric
archæology. General Pitt-Rivers applied the lessons he had thus learned to the
excavation of camps and dykes, and his labours opened a new era in that branch
of research. By accumulating an immense body of observations, and by recording
those observations with a minuteness intended to forestall future questions, he
built up a storehouse of facts which will furnish materials to all future workers in
prehistoric antiquities. He was too cautious ever to dogmatise, and if he arrived at
conclusions, he was careful to state them merely as suggestions. But his work
INTRODUCTORY
The study of earthworks has been one of the most neglected subjects in English
archæology until quite recent years. It may even be said that during the first half
of the 19th century, less attention was paid to earthworks than by our older
topographical writers. Leland, in the reign of Henry VIII., never failed to notice
the “Dikes and Hilles, which were Campes of Men of Warre,” nor the “Hilles of
Yerth cast up like the Dungeon of sum olde Castelle,” which he saw in his
pilgrimages through England. And many of our 17th- and 18th-century
topographers have left us invaluable notices of earthworks which were extant in
their time. But if we turn over the archæological journals of some fifty years ago,
we shall be struck by the paucity of papers on earthworks, and especially by the
complete ignoring, in most cases, of those connected with castles.
The misfortune attending this neglect, was that it left the ground open to
individual fancy, and each observer formed his own theory of the earthworks
which he happened to have seen, and as often as not, stated that theory as a fact.
We need not be surprised to find Camden doing this, as he wrote before the dawn
of scientific observation; but that such methods should have been carried on until
late in the 19th century is little to the credit of English archæology. Mr Clark’s
work on Mediæval Military Architecture (published in 1884), which has the merit
of being one of the first to pay due attention to castle earthworks,
counterbalances that merit by enunciating as a fact a mere guess of his own,
which, as we shall afterwards show, was absolutely devoid of solid foundation.
The scientific study of English earthworks may be said to have been begun by
General Pitt-Rivers in the last quarter of the 19th century; but we must not forget
that he described himself as a pupil of Canon Greenwell, whose careful
investigations of British barrows form such an important chapter of prehistoric
archæology. General Pitt-Rivers applied the lessons he had thus learned to the
excavation of camps and dykes, and his labours opened a new era in that branch
of research. By accumulating an immense body of observations, and by recording
those observations with a minuteness intended to forestall future questions, he
built up a storehouse of facts which will furnish materials to all future workers in
prehistoric antiquities. He was too cautious ever to dogmatise, and if he arrived at
conclusions, he was careful to state them merely as suggestions. But his work
Page 20
destroyed many favourite antiquarian delusions, even some which had been
cherished by very learned writers, such as Dr Guest’s theory of the “Belgic
ditches” of Wiltshire.
A further important step in the study of earthworks was taken by the late Mr I.
Chalkley Gould, when he founded the Committee for Ancient Earthworks, and
drew up the classification of earthworks which is now being generally adopted by
archæological writers. This classification may be abridged into (a) promontory or
cliff forts, (b) hill forts, (c) rectangular forts, (d) moated hillocks, (e) moated
hillocks with courts attached, (f) banks and ditches surrounding homesteads, (g)
manorial works, (h) fortified villages.
We venture to think that still further divisions are needed, to include (1) boundary
earthworks; (2) sepulchral or religious circles or squares; (3) enclosures clearly
non-military, intended to protect sheep and cattle from wolves, or to aid in the
capture of wild animals.[2]
This classification, it will be observed, makes no attempt to decide the dates of
the different types of earthworks enumerated. But a great step forward was taken
when these different types were separated from one another. There had been no
greater source of confusion in the writings of our older antiquaries, than the
unscientific idea that one earthwork was as good as another; that is to say, that
one type of earthwork would do as well as another for any date or any
circumstances. When it is recognised that large classes of earthworks show
similar features, it becomes probable that even if they were not thrown up in the
same historic period, they were at any rate raised to meet similar sets of
circumstances. We may be quite sure that a camp which contains an area of 60 or
80 acres was not constructed for the same purpose as one which only contains an
area of three.
We are not concerned here, however, with the attempt to disentangle the dates of
the various classes of prehistoric earthworks.[3] Such generalisations are for the
most part premature; and although some advance is being made in this direction,
it is still impossible to decide without excavation whether a camp of class (a) or
(b) belongs to the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, or the Iron Age. Our business is
with classes (d) and (e) of Mr Gould’s list, that is, with the moated hillocks. We
shall only treat of the other classes to the extent which is necessary to bring out
the special character of classes (d) and (e).
Let us look more closely into these earthworks in their perfect form, the class (e)
of the Earthwork Committee’s list. They consist, when fully preserved, of an
cherished by very learned writers, such as Dr Guest’s theory of the “Belgic
ditches” of Wiltshire.
A further important step in the study of earthworks was taken by the late Mr I.
Chalkley Gould, when he founded the Committee for Ancient Earthworks, and
drew up the classification of earthworks which is now being generally adopted by
archæological writers. This classification may be abridged into (a) promontory or
cliff forts, (b) hill forts, (c) rectangular forts, (d) moated hillocks, (e) moated
hillocks with courts attached, (f) banks and ditches surrounding homesteads, (g)
manorial works, (h) fortified villages.
We venture to think that still further divisions are needed, to include (1) boundary
earthworks; (2) sepulchral or religious circles or squares; (3) enclosures clearly
non-military, intended to protect sheep and cattle from wolves, or to aid in the
capture of wild animals.[2]
This classification, it will be observed, makes no attempt to decide the dates of
the different types of earthworks enumerated. But a great step forward was taken
when these different types were separated from one another. There had been no
greater source of confusion in the writings of our older antiquaries, than the
unscientific idea that one earthwork was as good as another; that is to say, that
one type of earthwork would do as well as another for any date or any
circumstances. When it is recognised that large classes of earthworks show
similar features, it becomes probable that even if they were not thrown up in the
same historic period, they were at any rate raised to meet similar sets of
circumstances. We may be quite sure that a camp which contains an area of 60 or
80 acres was not constructed for the same purpose as one which only contains an
area of three.
We are not concerned here, however, with the attempt to disentangle the dates of
the various classes of prehistoric earthworks.[3] Such generalisations are for the
most part premature; and although some advance is being made in this direction,
it is still impossible to decide without excavation whether a camp of class (a) or
(b) belongs to the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, or the Iron Age. Our business is
with classes (d) and (e) of Mr Gould’s list, that is, with the moated hillocks. We
shall only treat of the other classes to the extent which is necessary to bring out
the special character of classes (d) and (e).
Let us look more closely into these earthworks in their perfect form, the class (e)
of the Earthwork Committee’s list. They consist, when fully preserved, of an
Page 21
artificial hillock, 20, 30, 40, or in some rare instances 100 feet high. The hillock
carried a breastwork of earth round the top, which in many cases is still
preserved; this breastwork enclosed a small court, sometimes only 30 feet in
diameter, in rare cases as large as half an acre; it must have been crowned by a
stockade of timber, and the representations in the Bayeux Tapestry would lead us
to think that it always enclosed a wooden tower.[4] As a rule the hillock is round,
but it is not unfrequently oval, and occasionally square. The base of the hillock is
surrounded by a ditch. Below the hillock is a court, much larger than the small
space enclosed on the top of the mount. It also has been surrounded by a ditch,
which joins the ditch of the mount, and thus encloses the whole fortification. The
court is defended by earthen banks, both on the scarp and counterscarp of the
ditch, and these banks of course had also their timber stockades, the remains of
which have sometimes been found on excavation.[5]
carried a breastwork of earth round the top, which in many cases is still
preserved; this breastwork enclosed a small court, sometimes only 30 feet in
diameter, in rare cases as large as half an acre; it must have been crowned by a
stockade of timber, and the representations in the Bayeux Tapestry would lead us
to think that it always enclosed a wooden tower.[4] As a rule the hillock is round,
but it is not unfrequently oval, and occasionally square. The base of the hillock is
surrounded by a ditch. Below the hillock is a court, much larger than the small
space enclosed on the top of the mount. It also has been surrounded by a ditch,
which joins the ditch of the mount, and thus encloses the whole fortification. The
court is defended by earthen banks, both on the scarp and counterscarp of the
ditch, and these banks of course had also their timber stockades, the remains of
which have sometimes been found on excavation.[5]
Page 22
Topcliffe, Yorks.
Laughton-en-le-Morthen, Yorks.
Laughton-en-le-Morthen, Yorks.
Page 23
Anstey, Herts.
Dingestow, Monmouth.
Dingestow, Monmouth.
Page 24
Hedingham, Essex.
Fig. 1.—Typical Motte-Castles.
These are the main features of the earthworks in question. Some variations may
be noticed. The ditch is not invariably carried all round the hillock, occasionally
it is not continued between the hillock and the court.[6] Sometimes the length of
the ditch separating the hillock from the court is at a higher level than the main
ditch.[7] Often the ditches were evidently dry from the first, but not infrequently
they are wet, and sometimes vestiges of the arrangements for feeding them are
still apparent. The hillock is not invariably artificial; often it is a natural hill
scarped into a conical shape; sometimes an isolated rock is made use of to serve
as a citadel, which saved much spade-work. The shape of the court is very
variable: it may be square or oblong, with greatly rounded corners, or it may be
oval, or semilunar, or triangular; a very common form is the bean-shaped. The
area covered by these fortifications is much more uniform; one of the features
contrasting them most strongly with the great prehistoric “camps” of southern
England is their comparatively small size. We know of only one (Skipsea) in
which the bailey covers as much as eight acres; in by far the greater number the
whole area included in the hillock, court, and ditches does not exceed three acres,
and often it is not more than one and a half.[8]
Now this type of fort will tell us a good deal about itself if we examine it
carefully. In the first place, its character is more pronounced than that of any
Fig. 1.—Typical Motte-Castles.
These are the main features of the earthworks in question. Some variations may
be noticed. The ditch is not invariably carried all round the hillock, occasionally
it is not continued between the hillock and the court.[6] Sometimes the length of
the ditch separating the hillock from the court is at a higher level than the main
ditch.[7] Often the ditches were evidently dry from the first, but not infrequently
they are wet, and sometimes vestiges of the arrangements for feeding them are
still apparent. The hillock is not invariably artificial; often it is a natural hill
scarped into a conical shape; sometimes an isolated rock is made use of to serve
as a citadel, which saved much spade-work. The shape of the court is very
variable: it may be square or oblong, with greatly rounded corners, or it may be
oval, or semilunar, or triangular; a very common form is the bean-shaped. The
area covered by these fortifications is much more uniform; one of the features
contrasting them most strongly with the great prehistoric “camps” of southern
England is their comparatively small size. We know of only one (Skipsea) in
which the bailey covers as much as eight acres; in by far the greater number the
whole area included in the hillock, court, and ditches does not exceed three acres,
and often it is not more than one and a half.[8]
Now this type of fort will tell us a good deal about itself if we examine it
carefully. In the first place, its character is more pronounced than that of any
Page 25
other class of earthwork. It differs entirely from the great camps which belong to
the tribal period. It was evidently not designed to accommodate a mass of people
with their flocks and herds. It is small in area, and its citadel, as a rule, is very
small indeed. Dr Sophus Müller, the eminent Danish archæologist, when dealing
with the specimens of this class of fortification which are to be found in
Denmark, made the luminous remark that “the fortresses of prehistoric times are
the defences of the community, north of the Alps as in the old classical lands.
Small castles for an individual and his warrior-band belong to the Middle
Ages.”[9] These words give the true direction to which we must turn for the
interpretation of these earthworks.
In the second place, this type presents a peculiar development of plan, such as we
do not expect to find in the earliest times in these islands. It has a citadel of a
most pronounced type. This alone differentiates it from the prehistoric or Keltic
camps which are so abundant in Great Britain. It might be too hasty a
generalisation to say that no prehistoric camps have citadels, but as a rule the
traverses by which some of these camps are divided appear to have been made
for the purpose of separating the cattle from the people, rather than as ultimate
retreats in time of war. The early German camps, according to Köhler, have inner
enclosures which he thinks were intended for the residence of the chief; but he
calls attention to the great difference between these camps and the class we are
now considering, in that the inner enclosure is of much greater size.[10] It would
appear that some of the fortifications in England which are known or suspected
to be Saxon have also these inner enclosures of considerable size (6 acres in the
case of Witham), but without any vestige of the hillock which is the principal
feature of class (e).
It is clear, in the third place, that the man who threw up earthworks of this latter
class was not only suspicious of his neighbours, but was even suspicious of his
own garrison. For the hillock in the great majority of cases is so constructed as to
be capable of complete isolation, and capable of defending itself, if necessary,
against its own court. Thus it is probable that the force which followed this
chieftain was not composed of men of his own blood, in whom he could repose
absolute trust; and the earthworks themselves suggest that they are the work of an
invader who came to settle in these islands, who employed mercenaries instead
of tribesmen, and who had to maintain his settlement by force.
When on further inquiry we find that earthworks of this type are exceedingly
common in France, and are generally found in connection with feudal castles,[11]
and when we consider the area of their distribution in the United Kingdom, and
the tribal period. It was evidently not designed to accommodate a mass of people
with their flocks and herds. It is small in area, and its citadel, as a rule, is very
small indeed. Dr Sophus Müller, the eminent Danish archæologist, when dealing
with the specimens of this class of fortification which are to be found in
Denmark, made the luminous remark that “the fortresses of prehistoric times are
the defences of the community, north of the Alps as in the old classical lands.
Small castles for an individual and his warrior-band belong to the Middle
Ages.”[9] These words give the true direction to which we must turn for the
interpretation of these earthworks.
In the second place, this type presents a peculiar development of plan, such as we
do not expect to find in the earliest times in these islands. It has a citadel of a
most pronounced type. This alone differentiates it from the prehistoric or Keltic
camps which are so abundant in Great Britain. It might be too hasty a
generalisation to say that no prehistoric camps have citadels, but as a rule the
traverses by which some of these camps are divided appear to have been made
for the purpose of separating the cattle from the people, rather than as ultimate
retreats in time of war. The early German camps, according to Köhler, have inner
enclosures which he thinks were intended for the residence of the chief; but he
calls attention to the great difference between these camps and the class we are
now considering, in that the inner enclosure is of much greater size.[10] It would
appear that some of the fortifications in England which are known or suspected
to be Saxon have also these inner enclosures of considerable size (6 acres in the
case of Witham), but without any vestige of the hillock which is the principal
feature of class (e).
It is clear, in the third place, that the man who threw up earthworks of this latter
class was not only suspicious of his neighbours, but was even suspicious of his
own garrison. For the hillock in the great majority of cases is so constructed as to
be capable of complete isolation, and capable of defending itself, if necessary,
against its own court. Thus it is probable that the force which followed this
chieftain was not composed of men of his own blood, in whom he could repose
absolute trust; and the earthworks themselves suggest that they are the work of an
invader who came to settle in these islands, who employed mercenaries instead
of tribesmen, and who had to maintain his settlement by force.
When on further inquiry we find that earthworks of this type are exceedingly
common in France, and are generally found in connection with feudal castles,[11]
and when we consider the area of their distribution in the United Kingdom, and
Page 26
see that they are to be found in every county in England, as well as in Wales and
in the Normanised parts of Ireland and Scotland, we see that the Norman invader
is the one to whom they seem to point. We see also that small forts of this kind,
easily and cheaply constructed, and defensible by a small number of men, exactly
correspond to the needs of the Norman invader, both during the period of the
Conquest and for a long time after his first settlement here.
But it will at once occur to an objector that there have been other invaders of
Britain before the Normans, and it may be asked why these earthworks were not
equally suited to the needs of the Saxon or the Danish conquerors, and why they
may not with equal reason be attributed to them. To answer this question we will
try to discover what kind of fortifications actually were constructed by the
Saxons and Danes, and to this inquiry we will address ourselves in the
succeeding chapters.
It will clear the ground greatly if it is recognised at the outset that these
earthworks are castles, in the usual sense of the word; that is, the private fortified
residences of great landowners. It was the chief merit of Mr G. T. Clark’s work
on Mediæval Military Architecture, that he showed the perfect correspondence in
plan of these earthen and timber structures with the stone castles which
immediately succeeded them, so that it was only necessary to add a stone tower
and stone walls to these works to convert them into a Norman castle of the
popularly accepted type. We regard the military character of these works as so
fully established that we have not thought it necessary to discuss the theory that
they were temples, which was suggested by some of our older writers, nor even
the more modern idea that they were moot-hills, which has been defended with
considerable learning by Mr G. L. Gomme.[12] Dr Christison remarks in his
valuable work on Scottish fortifications that an overweening importance has been
attached to moot-hills, without historical evidence.[13] And Mr George Neilson,
in his essay on “The Motes in Norman Scotland”[14] (to which we shall often
have occasion to refer hereafter), shows that moot-hill in Scotland means nothing
but mote-hill, the hill of the mote or motte; but that moots or courts were held
there, just because it had formerly been the site of a castle, and consequently a
seat of jurisdiction.[15]
That some of these hillocks have anciently been sepulchral, we do not attempt to
deny. The Norman seems to have been free from any superstitious fear which
might have hindered him from utilising the sepulchres of the dead for his
personal defence; or else he was unaware that they were burial-places. There are
some very few recorded instances of prehistoric burials found under the hillocks
in the Normanised parts of Ireland and Scotland, we see that the Norman invader
is the one to whom they seem to point. We see also that small forts of this kind,
easily and cheaply constructed, and defensible by a small number of men, exactly
correspond to the needs of the Norman invader, both during the period of the
Conquest and for a long time after his first settlement here.
But it will at once occur to an objector that there have been other invaders of
Britain before the Normans, and it may be asked why these earthworks were not
equally suited to the needs of the Saxon or the Danish conquerors, and why they
may not with equal reason be attributed to them. To answer this question we will
try to discover what kind of fortifications actually were constructed by the
Saxons and Danes, and to this inquiry we will address ourselves in the
succeeding chapters.
It will clear the ground greatly if it is recognised at the outset that these
earthworks are castles, in the usual sense of the word; that is, the private fortified
residences of great landowners. It was the chief merit of Mr G. T. Clark’s work
on Mediæval Military Architecture, that he showed the perfect correspondence in
plan of these earthen and timber structures with the stone castles which
immediately succeeded them, so that it was only necessary to add a stone tower
and stone walls to these works to convert them into a Norman castle of the
popularly accepted type. We regard the military character of these works as so
fully established that we have not thought it necessary to discuss the theory that
they were temples, which was suggested by some of our older writers, nor even
the more modern idea that they were moot-hills, which has been defended with
considerable learning by Mr G. L. Gomme.[12] Dr Christison remarks in his
valuable work on Scottish fortifications that an overweening importance has been
attached to moot-hills, without historical evidence.[13] And Mr George Neilson,
in his essay on “The Motes in Norman Scotland”[14] (to which we shall often
have occasion to refer hereafter), shows that moot-hill in Scotland means nothing
but mote-hill, the hill of the mote or motte; but that moots or courts were held
there, just because it had formerly been the site of a castle, and consequently a
seat of jurisdiction.[15]
That some of these hillocks have anciently been sepulchral, we do not attempt to
deny. The Norman seems to have been free from any superstitious fear which
might have hindered him from utilising the sepulchres of the dead for his
personal defence; or else he was unaware that they were burial-places. There are
some very few recorded instances of prehistoric burials found under the hillocks
Page 27
of castles; but in ordinary cases, these hillocks would not be large enough for the
mottes of castles.[16] There are, however, some sepulchral barrows of such great
size that it is difficult to distinguish them from mottes; the absence of a court
attached is not sufficient evidence, as there are some mottes which stand alone,
without any accompanying court. Excavation or documentary evidence can alone
decide in these cases, though the presence of an earthen breastwork on top of the
mount furnishes a strong presumption of a military origin. But the undoubtedly
sepulchral barrows of New Grange and Dowth in Ireland show signs of having
been utilised as castles, having remains of breastworks on their summits.[17]
mottes of castles.[16] There are, however, some sepulchral barrows of such great
size that it is difficult to distinguish them from mottes; the absence of a court
attached is not sufficient evidence, as there are some mottes which stand alone,
without any accompanying court. Excavation or documentary evidence can alone
decide in these cases, though the presence of an earthen breastwork on top of the
mount furnishes a strong presumption of a military origin. But the undoubtedly
sepulchral barrows of New Grange and Dowth in Ireland show signs of having
been utilised as castles, having remains of breastworks on their summits.[17]
Page 28
CHAPTER II
ANGLO-SAXON FORTIFICATIONS
We have pointed out in the preceding chapter that when it is asked whether the
earthworks of the moated mound-and-court type were the work of the Anglo-
Saxons, the question resolves itself into another, namely, Did the Anglo-Saxons
build castles?
As far as we know, they did not; and although to prove a negative we can only
bring negative evidence, that evidence appears to us to be very conclusive. But
before we deal with it, we will try to find out what sort of fortifications the
Anglo-Saxons actually did construct.
The first fortification which we read of in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is that of
Bamborough, in Northumberland. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us that in 547
Ida began to reign in Northumberland, and adds that he built “Bebbanburh,”
which was first enclosed with a hedge, and afterwards with a wall. Unfortunately
this celebrated passage is merely the interpolation of a 12th-century scribe, and is
consequently of no authority whatever,[18] though there is nothing improbable in
the statement, and it is supported by Nennius.[19] Ida’s grandson Ethelfrith gave
this fortress to his wife Bebba, from whom it received the name of Bebbanburh,
now Bamborough. It was built without doubt on the same lofty insulated rock
where the castle now stands; for when it was attacked by Penda in 633, he found
the situation so strong that it was impossible to storm it, and it was only by
heaping up wood on the most accessible side that he was able to set fire to the
wooden stockade.[20] Modern historians talk of this fort as a castle, but all the
older authorities call it a town;[21] nor is there any mention of a castle at
Bamborough till the reign of William II. The area of the basaltic headland of
Bamborough covers 4¾ acres, a site large enough for a city of Ida’s day. The
church of St Peter was placed on the highest point. The castle which was built
there in Norman times does not seem to have occupied at first more than a
portion of this site,[22] though it is probable that eventually the townsmen were
expelled from the rock, and that thus the modern town of Bamborough arose in
the levels below. Although 4¾ acres may seem a small size for an urbs, it was
certainly regarded as such, and was large enough to protect a considerable body
of invaders.
ANGLO-SAXON FORTIFICATIONS
We have pointed out in the preceding chapter that when it is asked whether the
earthworks of the moated mound-and-court type were the work of the Anglo-
Saxons, the question resolves itself into another, namely, Did the Anglo-Saxons
build castles?
As far as we know, they did not; and although to prove a negative we can only
bring negative evidence, that evidence appears to us to be very conclusive. But
before we deal with it, we will try to find out what sort of fortifications the
Anglo-Saxons actually did construct.
The first fortification which we read of in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is that of
Bamborough, in Northumberland. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us that in 547
Ida began to reign in Northumberland, and adds that he built “Bebbanburh,”
which was first enclosed with a hedge, and afterwards with a wall. Unfortunately
this celebrated passage is merely the interpolation of a 12th-century scribe, and is
consequently of no authority whatever,[18] though there is nothing improbable in
the statement, and it is supported by Nennius.[19] Ida’s grandson Ethelfrith gave
this fortress to his wife Bebba, from whom it received the name of Bebbanburh,
now Bamborough. It was built without doubt on the same lofty insulated rock
where the castle now stands; for when it was attacked by Penda in 633, he found
the situation so strong that it was impossible to storm it, and it was only by
heaping up wood on the most accessible side that he was able to set fire to the
wooden stockade.[20] Modern historians talk of this fort as a castle, but all the
older authorities call it a town;[21] nor is there any mention of a castle at
Bamborough till the reign of William II. The area of the basaltic headland of
Bamborough covers 4¾ acres, a site large enough for a city of Ida’s day. The
church of St Peter was placed on the highest point. The castle which was built
there in Norman times does not seem to have occupied at first more than a
portion of this site,[22] though it is probable that eventually the townsmen were
expelled from the rock, and that thus the modern town of Bamborough arose in
the levels below. Although 4¾ acres may seem a small size for an urbs, it was
certainly regarded as such, and was large enough to protect a considerable body
of invaders.
Page 29
Strange to say, this is the only record which we have of any fortress-building by
the invading Saxons. Until we come to the time of Alfred, there is hardly an
allusion to any fortification in use in Saxon times.[23] It is mentioned in 571 that
the Saxons took four towns (tunas) of the Britons, and the apparent allusion to
sieges seems to show that these British towns had some kind of fortification. The
three chesters, which were taken by the Saxons in 577, Gloucester, Cirencester,
and Bath, prove that some Roman cities still kept their defences. In 755 the
slaughter of Cynewulf, king of the West Saxons, by the etheling Cyneard, is told
with unusual detail by the Chronicle. The king was slain in a bur (bower, or
isolated women’s chamber[24]), the door of which he attempted to defend; but this
bur was itself enclosed in a burh, the gates of which were locked by the etheling
who had killed the king, and were defended until they were forced by the king’s
avengers. Here it seems to be doubtful whether the burh was a town or a private
enclosure resembling a stable-yard of modern times. The description of the
storming of York by the Danes in 867 shows that the Roman walls of that city
were still preserved. These passages are the solitary instances of fortifications in
England mentioned by the Chronicle before the time of Alfred.[25] The invasions
of the Danes led at last to a great fortifying epoch, which preserved our country
from being totally overwhelmed by those northern immigrants.
The little Saxon kingdom of Wessex was the germ of the British Empire. When
Alfred came to the throne it had already absorbed the neighbouring kingdoms of
Kent, Sussex, and Surrey, and the issue hanging in the balance was whether this
small English state would survive the desolating flood of pagan barbarism which
had already overwhelmed the sister kingdoms of the Midlands and the North. It
was given to Alfred to raise again the fallen standard of Christendom and
civilisation, and to establish an English kingdom on so sound a basis that when,
in later centuries, it successively became the prey of the Dane and the Norman,
the English polity survived both conquests. The wisdom, energy, and
steadfastness of King Alfred and his children and grandchildren were amongst
the most important of the many factors which have helped to build up the great
empire of Britain.
We are concerned here with only one of the measures by which Alfred and his
family secured the triumph of Wessex in her mortal struggle with the Danes, the
fortifications which they raised for the protection of their subjects. From the
pages of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle we might be led to think that Alfred’s son
and daughter, Edward and Ethelfleda, were the chief builders of fortifications.
But there is ample evidence that they only carried out a systematic purpose which
had been initiated by Alfred. We know that Alfred was a great builder. “What
the invading Saxons. Until we come to the time of Alfred, there is hardly an
allusion to any fortification in use in Saxon times.[23] It is mentioned in 571 that
the Saxons took four towns (tunas) of the Britons, and the apparent allusion to
sieges seems to show that these British towns had some kind of fortification. The
three chesters, which were taken by the Saxons in 577, Gloucester, Cirencester,
and Bath, prove that some Roman cities still kept their defences. In 755 the
slaughter of Cynewulf, king of the West Saxons, by the etheling Cyneard, is told
with unusual detail by the Chronicle. The king was slain in a bur (bower, or
isolated women’s chamber[24]), the door of which he attempted to defend; but this
bur was itself enclosed in a burh, the gates of which were locked by the etheling
who had killed the king, and were defended until they were forced by the king’s
avengers. Here it seems to be doubtful whether the burh was a town or a private
enclosure resembling a stable-yard of modern times. The description of the
storming of York by the Danes in 867 shows that the Roman walls of that city
were still preserved. These passages are the solitary instances of fortifications in
England mentioned by the Chronicle before the time of Alfred.[25] The invasions
of the Danes led at last to a great fortifying epoch, which preserved our country
from being totally overwhelmed by those northern immigrants.
The little Saxon kingdom of Wessex was the germ of the British Empire. When
Alfred came to the throne it had already absorbed the neighbouring kingdoms of
Kent, Sussex, and Surrey, and the issue hanging in the balance was whether this
small English state would survive the desolating flood of pagan barbarism which
had already overwhelmed the sister kingdoms of the Midlands and the North. It
was given to Alfred to raise again the fallen standard of Christendom and
civilisation, and to establish an English kingdom on so sound a basis that when,
in later centuries, it successively became the prey of the Dane and the Norman,
the English polity survived both conquests. The wisdom, energy, and
steadfastness of King Alfred and his children and grandchildren were amongst
the most important of the many factors which have helped to build up the great
empire of Britain.
We are concerned here with only one of the measures by which Alfred and his
family secured the triumph of Wessex in her mortal struggle with the Danes, the
fortifications which they raised for the protection of their subjects. From the
pages of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle we might be led to think that Alfred’s son
and daughter, Edward and Ethelfleda, were the chief builders of fortifications.
But there is ample evidence that they only carried out a systematic purpose which
had been initiated by Alfred. We know that Alfred was a great builder. “What
Page 30
shall I say,” cries Asser, “of the cities and towns which he restored, and of others
which he built which had never existed before! Of the royal halls and chambers,
wonderfully built of stone and wood by his command!”[26] The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle notices the restoration of London (886),[27] about which two extant
charters are more precise.[28] It also mentions the building of a work (geweorc) at
Athelney, and another at Limene-muthan (doubtless a repair of the Roman fort at
Lympne), and two works built by Alfred on the banks of the river Lea.[29]
William of Malmesbury tells us that in his boyhood there was a stone in the
nunnery of Shaftesbury which had been taken out of the walls of the town, which
bore this inscription: “Anno dominicæ incarnationis Alfredus rex fecit hanc
urbem, DCCCLXXX, regni sui VIII.”[30] Ethelred, Alfred’s son-in-law, built the
burh at Worcester in Alfred’s lifetime, as a most interesting charter tells us.[31]
It may be safely assumed, then, that when Edward came to the throne he found
Wessex well provided with defensive places, and that when he and his sister
signalised their conquests in the Midlands by building strongholds at every fresh
step of their advance, they were only carrying out the policy of their father.
At the time of Alfred’s death, and the succession of Edward the Elder to the
crown (901), Ethelfleda, daughter of Alfred, was the wife of Ethelred, ealdorman
of Mercia, who appears to have been a sort of under-king of that province.[32] On
the death of Ethelred in 912,[33] Edward took possession of London and Oxford
and “of all the lands which owed obedience thereto”—in other words, of that
small portion of Eastern Mercia which was still in English hands; that is, not only
the present Oxfordshire and Middlesex, but part of Herts, part of Bedfordshire,
all Buckinghamshire, and the southern part of Northants. The Watling Street,
which runs north-west from London to Shrewsbury, and thence north to Chester
and Manchester, formed at that time the dividing line between the English and
Danish rule.[34] It would seem from the course of the story that after Ethelred’s
death there was some arrangement between Ethelfleda and her brother, possibly
due to the surrender of the territory mentioned above, which enabled her to rule
English Mercia in greater independence than her husband had enjoyed. Up to this
date we find Edward disposing of the fyrd of Mercia;[35] this is not mentioned
again in Ethelfleda’s lifetime. Nothing is clearer, both from the Chronicle and
from Florence, than that the brother and sister each “did their own,” to use an
expressive provincial phrase. Ethelfleda goes her own way, subduing Western
Mercia, while Edward pushes up through Eastern Mercia and Essex to complete
the conquest of East Anglia. A certain concert may be observed in their
movements, but they did not work in company.
which he built which had never existed before! Of the royal halls and chambers,
wonderfully built of stone and wood by his command!”[26] The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle notices the restoration of London (886),[27] about which two extant
charters are more precise.[28] It also mentions the building of a work (geweorc) at
Athelney, and another at Limene-muthan (doubtless a repair of the Roman fort at
Lympne), and two works built by Alfred on the banks of the river Lea.[29]
William of Malmesbury tells us that in his boyhood there was a stone in the
nunnery of Shaftesbury which had been taken out of the walls of the town, which
bore this inscription: “Anno dominicæ incarnationis Alfredus rex fecit hanc
urbem, DCCCLXXX, regni sui VIII.”[30] Ethelred, Alfred’s son-in-law, built the
burh at Worcester in Alfred’s lifetime, as a most interesting charter tells us.[31]
It may be safely assumed, then, that when Edward came to the throne he found
Wessex well provided with defensive places, and that when he and his sister
signalised their conquests in the Midlands by building strongholds at every fresh
step of their advance, they were only carrying out the policy of their father.
At the time of Alfred’s death, and the succession of Edward the Elder to the
crown (901), Ethelfleda, daughter of Alfred, was the wife of Ethelred, ealdorman
of Mercia, who appears to have been a sort of under-king of that province.[32] On
the death of Ethelred in 912,[33] Edward took possession of London and Oxford
and “of all the lands which owed obedience thereto”—in other words, of that
small portion of Eastern Mercia which was still in English hands; that is, not only
the present Oxfordshire and Middlesex, but part of Herts, part of Bedfordshire,
all Buckinghamshire, and the southern part of Northants. The Watling Street,
which runs north-west from London to Shrewsbury, and thence north to Chester
and Manchester, formed at that time the dividing line between the English and
Danish rule.[34] It would seem from the course of the story that after Ethelred’s
death there was some arrangement between Ethelfleda and her brother, possibly
due to the surrender of the territory mentioned above, which enabled her to rule
English Mercia in greater independence than her husband had enjoyed. Up to this
date we find Edward disposing of the fyrd of Mercia;[35] this is not mentioned
again in Ethelfleda’s lifetime. Nothing is clearer, both from the Chronicle and
from Florence, than that the brother and sister each “did their own,” to use an
expressive provincial phrase. Ethelfleda goes her own way, subduing Western
Mercia, while Edward pushes up through Eastern Mercia and Essex to complete
the conquest of East Anglia. A certain concert may be observed in their
movements, but they did not work in company.
Page 31
The work of fortification begun in Alfred’s reign had been continued by the
restoration of the Roman walls of Chester in 908, by Ethelred and his wife; and
Ethelfleda herself (possibly during the lingering illness which later chroniclers
give to her husband) had built a burh at Bremesbyrig. During the twelve years
which elapsed between Ethelred’s death and that of Edward in 924, the brother
and sister built no less than twenty-seven burhs, giving a total of thirty, if we add
Chester and Bremesbyrig, and Worcester, which was built in Alfred’s reign. Now
what was the nature of these fortifications, which the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
uniformly calls burhs?
There is really not the slightest difficulty in answering this question. The word is
with us still; it is our word borough. It is true we have altered the meaning
somewhat, because a borough means now an enfranchised town; but we must
remember that it got that meaning because the fortified towns, the only ones
which were called burhs or burgi, were the first to be enfranchised, and while the
fortifications have become less and less important, the franchise has become of
supreme importance.
Bede, in the earliest times of our history, equated burh with urbs, a city; Alfred in
his Orosius translates civitas by burh;[36] the Anglo-Saxon gospels of the 11th
century do the same;[36] and the confederacy of five Danish towns which existed
in Mercia in the 10th century is called in contemporary records fif burga, the five
boroughs.[37]
Burh is a noun derived from the word beorgan, to protect. Undoubtedly its
primitive meaning was that of a protective enclosure. As in the case of the words
tun, yard, or garth, and worth or ward, the sense of the word became extended
from the protecting bulwark to the place protected. In this sense of a fortified
enclosure, the word was naturally applied by the Anglo-Saxons to the prehistoric
and British “camps” which they found in Britain, such as Cissbury. Moreover, it
is clear that some kind of enclosure must have existed round every farmstead in
Saxon times, if only as a protection against wolves. The illustrated Saxon
manuscripts show that the hall in which the thane dwelt, the ladies’ bower, the
chapel and other buildings dependent on the hall, were enclosed in a stockade,
and had gates which without doubt were closed at night.[38] This enclosure may
have been called a burh, and the innumerable place-names in England ending in
borough or bury[39] seem to suggest that the burh was often nothing more than a
stockade, as in so many of these sites not a vestige of defensive works remains.
[40]
We may concede that the original meaning of an enclosure was never entirely
lost, and that it appears to be preserved in a few passages in the Anglo-Saxon
restoration of the Roman walls of Chester in 908, by Ethelred and his wife; and
Ethelfleda herself (possibly during the lingering illness which later chroniclers
give to her husband) had built a burh at Bremesbyrig. During the twelve years
which elapsed between Ethelred’s death and that of Edward in 924, the brother
and sister built no less than twenty-seven burhs, giving a total of thirty, if we add
Chester and Bremesbyrig, and Worcester, which was built in Alfred’s reign. Now
what was the nature of these fortifications, which the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
uniformly calls burhs?
There is really not the slightest difficulty in answering this question. The word is
with us still; it is our word borough. It is true we have altered the meaning
somewhat, because a borough means now an enfranchised town; but we must
remember that it got that meaning because the fortified towns, the only ones
which were called burhs or burgi, were the first to be enfranchised, and while the
fortifications have become less and less important, the franchise has become of
supreme importance.
Bede, in the earliest times of our history, equated burh with urbs, a city; Alfred in
his Orosius translates civitas by burh;[36] the Anglo-Saxon gospels of the 11th
century do the same;[36] and the confederacy of five Danish towns which existed
in Mercia in the 10th century is called in contemporary records fif burga, the five
boroughs.[37]
Burh is a noun derived from the word beorgan, to protect. Undoubtedly its
primitive meaning was that of a protective enclosure. As in the case of the words
tun, yard, or garth, and worth or ward, the sense of the word became extended
from the protecting bulwark to the place protected. In this sense of a fortified
enclosure, the word was naturally applied by the Anglo-Saxons to the prehistoric
and British “camps” which they found in Britain, such as Cissbury. Moreover, it
is clear that some kind of enclosure must have existed round every farmstead in
Saxon times, if only as a protection against wolves. The illustrated Saxon
manuscripts show that the hall in which the thane dwelt, the ladies’ bower, the
chapel and other buildings dependent on the hall, were enclosed in a stockade,
and had gates which without doubt were closed at night.[38] This enclosure may
have been called a burh, and the innumerable place-names in England ending in
borough or bury[39] seem to suggest that the burh was often nothing more than a
stockade, as in so many of these sites not a vestige of defensive works remains.
[40]
We may concede that the original meaning of an enclosure was never entirely
lost, and that it appears to be preserved in a few passages in the Anglo-Saxon
Page 32
laws. Thus Edmund speaks of mine burh as an asylum, the violation of which
brings its special punishment; and Ethelred II. ordains that every compurgation
shall take place in thaes kyninges byrig; and the Rectitudines Singularum
Personum tells us that one of the duties of the geneat was to build for his lord,
and to hedge his burh.[41] But it is absolutely clear that even in these cases a burh
was an enclosure and not a tump; and it is equally clear from the general use of
the word that its main meaning was a fortified town. Athelstan ordains that there
shall be a mint in every burh; and his laws show that already the burh has its
gemot or meeting, and its reeve or mayor.[42] He ordains that all burhs are to be
repaired fourteen days after Rogations, and that no market shall be held outside
the town.[43] In the laws of Edgar’s time not only the borough-moot and the
borough-reeve are spoken of, but the burh-waru or burgesses.[44] Burh is
contrasted with wapentake as town with country.[45]
Fig. 2.—Anglo-Saxon MS. of Prudentius.
If we wish to multiply proofs that a burh was the same thing as a borough, we
can turn to the Anglo-Saxon illustrated manuscripts, and we shall find that they
give us many pictures of burhs, and that in all cases they are fortified towns.[46]
Finally, Florence of Worcester, one of the most careful of our early chroniclers,
who lived when Anglo-Saxon was still a living language, and who must have
known what a burh meant, translates it by urbs in nineteen cases out of twenty-
six.[47] His authority alone is sufficient to settle this question, and we need no
brings its special punishment; and Ethelred II. ordains that every compurgation
shall take place in thaes kyninges byrig; and the Rectitudines Singularum
Personum tells us that one of the duties of the geneat was to build for his lord,
and to hedge his burh.[41] But it is absolutely clear that even in these cases a burh
was an enclosure and not a tump; and it is equally clear from the general use of
the word that its main meaning was a fortified town. Athelstan ordains that there
shall be a mint in every burh; and his laws show that already the burh has its
gemot or meeting, and its reeve or mayor.[42] He ordains that all burhs are to be
repaired fourteen days after Rogations, and that no market shall be held outside
the town.[43] In the laws of Edgar’s time not only the borough-moot and the
borough-reeve are spoken of, but the burh-waru or burgesses.[44] Burh is
contrasted with wapentake as town with country.[45]
Fig. 2.—Anglo-Saxon MS. of Prudentius.
If we wish to multiply proofs that a burh was the same thing as a borough, we
can turn to the Anglo-Saxon illustrated manuscripts, and we shall find that they
give us many pictures of burhs, and that in all cases they are fortified towns.[46]
Finally, Florence of Worcester, one of the most careful of our early chroniclers,
who lived when Anglo-Saxon was still a living language, and who must have
known what a burh meant, translates it by urbs in nineteen cases out of twenty-
six.[47] His authority alone is sufficient to settle this question, and we need no
Page 33
longer have any doubt that a burh was the same thing which in mediæval Latin is
called a burgus, that is a fortified town, and that our word borough is lawfully
descended from it.
It would not have been necessary to spend so much time on the history of the
word burh if this unfortunate word had not been made the subject of one of the
strangest delusions which ever was imposed on the archæological world. We
refer of course to the theory of the late Mr G. T. Clark, who contended in his
Mediæval Military Architecture[48] that the moated mound of class (e), which we
have described in our first chapter, was what the Anglo-Saxons called a burh. In
other words, he maintained that the burhs were Saxon castles. It is one of the
most extraordinary and inexplicable things in the history of English archæology
that a man who was not in any sense an Anglo-Saxon scholar was allowed to
affix an entirely new meaning to a very common Anglo-Saxon word, and that this
meaning was at once accepted without question by historians who had made
Anglo-Saxon history their special study! The present writer makes no pretensions
to be an Anglo-Saxon scholar, but it is easy to pick out the word burh in the
Chronicle and the Anglo-Saxon Laws, and to find out how the word is translated
in the Latin chronicles; and this little exercise is sufficient in itself to prove the
futility of Mr Clark’s contention.
Sentiment perhaps had something to do with Mr Clark’s remarkable success.
There is an almost utter lack of tangible monuments of our national heroes; and
therefore people who justly esteemed the labours of Alfred and his house were
pleased when they were told that the mounds at Tamworth, Warwick, and
elsewhere were the work of Ethelfleda, and that other mounds were the work of
Edward the Elder. It did not occur to them that they were doing a great wrong to
the memory of the children of Alfred in supposing them capable of building these
little earthen and timber castles for their personal defence and that of their nobles,
and leaving the mass of their people at the mercy of the Danes. Far other was the
thought of Ethelfleda, when she and her husband built the borough of Worcester.
As they expressed it in their memorable charter, it was not only for the defence of
the bishop and the churches of Worcester, but “To Shelter all the Folk.”[49]
And we may be sure that the same idea lay at the founding of all the boroughs
which were built by Alfred and by Edward and Ethelfleda. They were to be
places where the whole countryside could take refuge during a Danish raid. The
Chronicle tells us in 894 how Alfred divided his forces into three parts, the duty
of one part being to defend the boroughs; and from this time forth we constantly
find the men of the boroughs doing good service against the Danes.[50] It was by
called a burgus, that is a fortified town, and that our word borough is lawfully
descended from it.
It would not have been necessary to spend so much time on the history of the
word burh if this unfortunate word had not been made the subject of one of the
strangest delusions which ever was imposed on the archæological world. We
refer of course to the theory of the late Mr G. T. Clark, who contended in his
Mediæval Military Architecture[48] that the moated mound of class (e), which we
have described in our first chapter, was what the Anglo-Saxons called a burh. In
other words, he maintained that the burhs were Saxon castles. It is one of the
most extraordinary and inexplicable things in the history of English archæology
that a man who was not in any sense an Anglo-Saxon scholar was allowed to
affix an entirely new meaning to a very common Anglo-Saxon word, and that this
meaning was at once accepted without question by historians who had made
Anglo-Saxon history their special study! The present writer makes no pretensions
to be an Anglo-Saxon scholar, but it is easy to pick out the word burh in the
Chronicle and the Anglo-Saxon Laws, and to find out how the word is translated
in the Latin chronicles; and this little exercise is sufficient in itself to prove the
futility of Mr Clark’s contention.
Sentiment perhaps had something to do with Mr Clark’s remarkable success.
There is an almost utter lack of tangible monuments of our national heroes; and
therefore people who justly esteemed the labours of Alfred and his house were
pleased when they were told that the mounds at Tamworth, Warwick, and
elsewhere were the work of Ethelfleda, and that other mounds were the work of
Edward the Elder. It did not occur to them that they were doing a great wrong to
the memory of the children of Alfred in supposing them capable of building these
little earthen and timber castles for their personal defence and that of their nobles,
and leaving the mass of their people at the mercy of the Danes. Far other was the
thought of Ethelfleda, when she and her husband built the borough of Worcester.
As they expressed it in their memorable charter, it was not only for the defence of
the bishop and the churches of Worcester, but “To Shelter all the Folk.”[49]
And we may be sure that the same idea lay at the founding of all the boroughs
which were built by Alfred and by Edward and Ethelfleda. They were to be
places where the whole countryside could take refuge during a Danish raid. The
Chronicle tells us in 894 how Alfred divided his forces into three parts, the duty
of one part being to defend the boroughs; and from this time forth we constantly
find the men of the boroughs doing good service against the Danes.[50] It was by
Page 34
defending and thus developing the boroughs of England that Alfred and his
descendants saved England from the Danes.
Thus far we have seen that all the fortifications which we know to have been
built by the Anglo-Saxons were the fortifications of society and not of the
individual. We have heard nothing whatever of the private castle as an institution
in Saxon times; and although this evidence is only negative, it appears to us to be
entitled to much more weight than has hitherto been given to it. Some writers
seem to think that the private castle was a modest little thing which was content
to blush unseen. This is wholly to mistake the position of the private castle in
history. Such a castle is not merely a social arrangement, it is a political
institution of the highest importance. Where such castles exist, we are certain to
hear of some of them, sooner or later, in the pages of history.
We can easily test this by comparing Anglo-Saxon history with Norman of the
same period, after castles had arisen in Normandy. Who among Saxon nobles
was more likely to possess a castle than the powerful Earl Godwin, and his
independent sons? Yet when Godwin left the court of Edward the Confessor,
because he would not obey the king’s order to punish the men of Dover for
insulting Count Eustace of Boulogne, we do not hear that he retired to his castle,
or that his sons fortified their castles against the king; we only hear that they met
together at Beverstone (a place where there was no castle before the 14th
century)[51] and “arrayed themselves resolutely.”[52] Neither do we hear of any
castle belonging to the powerful Earl Siward of Northumbria, or Leofric, Earl of
Mercia. And when Godwin returned triumphantly to England in 1052 we do not
hear of any castles being restored to him.
Now let us contrast this piece of English history, as told by the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, with the Norman history of about the same period, the history of the
rebellion of the Norman nobles against their young duke, William the Bastard.
The first thing the nobles do is to put their castles into a state of defence. William
has to take refuge in the castle of a faithful vassal, Hubert of Rye, until he can
safely reach his own castle of Falaise. After the victory of Val-ès-Dunes, William
had to reduce the castles which still held out, and then to order the destruction of
all the castles which had been erected against him.[53]
Or let us contrast the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of 1051 with that of 1088, when
certain Norman barons and bishops in England conspired against the new king,
William Rufus. The first thing told us is that each of the head conspirators “went
to his castle, and manned it and victualled it.” Then Bishop Geoffrey makes
Bristol Castle the base of a series of plundering raids. Bishop Wulfstan, on the
descendants saved England from the Danes.
Thus far we have seen that all the fortifications which we know to have been
built by the Anglo-Saxons were the fortifications of society and not of the
individual. We have heard nothing whatever of the private castle as an institution
in Saxon times; and although this evidence is only negative, it appears to us to be
entitled to much more weight than has hitherto been given to it. Some writers
seem to think that the private castle was a modest little thing which was content
to blush unseen. This is wholly to mistake the position of the private castle in
history. Such a castle is not merely a social arrangement, it is a political
institution of the highest importance. Where such castles exist, we are certain to
hear of some of them, sooner or later, in the pages of history.
We can easily test this by comparing Anglo-Saxon history with Norman of the
same period, after castles had arisen in Normandy. Who among Saxon nobles
was more likely to possess a castle than the powerful Earl Godwin, and his
independent sons? Yet when Godwin left the court of Edward the Confessor,
because he would not obey the king’s order to punish the men of Dover for
insulting Count Eustace of Boulogne, we do not hear that he retired to his castle,
or that his sons fortified their castles against the king; we only hear that they met
together at Beverstone (a place where there was no castle before the 14th
century)[51] and “arrayed themselves resolutely.”[52] Neither do we hear of any
castle belonging to the powerful Earl Siward of Northumbria, or Leofric, Earl of
Mercia. And when Godwin returned triumphantly to England in 1052 we do not
hear of any castles being restored to him.
Now let us contrast this piece of English history, as told by the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, with the Norman history of about the same period, the history of the
rebellion of the Norman nobles against their young duke, William the Bastard.
The first thing the nobles do is to put their castles into a state of defence. William
has to take refuge in the castle of a faithful vassal, Hubert of Rye, until he can
safely reach his own castle of Falaise. After the victory of Val-ès-Dunes, William
had to reduce the castles which still held out, and then to order the destruction of
all the castles which had been erected against him.[53]
Or let us contrast the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of 1051 with that of 1088, when
certain Norman barons and bishops in England conspired against the new king,
William Rufus. The first thing told us is that each of the head conspirators “went
to his castle, and manned it and victualled it.” Then Bishop Geoffrey makes
Bristol Castle the base of a series of plundering raids. Bishop Wulfstan, on the
Page 35
other hand, aids the cause of William by preventing an attempt of the rebels on
the castle of Worcester. Roger Bigod throws himself into Norwich Castle, and
harries the shire; Bishop Odo brings the plunder of Kent into his castle of
Rochester. Finally the king’s cause wins the day through the taking of the castles
of Tonbridge, Pevensey, Rochester, and Durham.
If we reflect on the contrast which these narratives afford, it surely is difficult to
avoid the conclusion that if the chronicler never mentions any Saxon castles it is
because there were no Saxon castles to mention. Had Earl Godwin possessed a
stronghold in which he could fortify himself, he would certainly have used it in
1051. And as the Norman favourites of Edward the Confessor had already begun
to build castles in England, we can imagine no reason why Godwin did not do the
same, except that such a step was impossible to a man who desired popularity
amongst his countrymen. The Welshmen, we are told (that is the foreigners, the
Normans), had erected a castle in Herefordshire among the people of Earl Sweyn,
and had wrought all possible harm and disgrace to the king’s men thereabout.[54]
The language of the Chronicle shows the unpopularity, to say the least of it, of
this castle-building; and one of the conditions which Godwin, when posing as
popular champion, wished to exact from the king, was that the Frenchmen who
were in the castle should be given up to him.[55] When Godwin returned from his
exile, and the Normans took to flight, the chronicler tells us that some fled west
to Pentecost’s castle, some north to Robert’s castle. Thus we learn that there were
several castles in England belonging to the Norman favourites.
It is in connection with these Norman favourites that the word castel appears for
the first time in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This is a fact of considerable
importance in itself; and when we weigh it in connection with the expressions of
dislike recorded above which become much more explicit and vehement after the
Norman Conquest, we cannot but feel that Mr Freeman’s conclusion, that the
thing as well as the word was new, is highly probable.[56] For the hall of the
Anglo-Saxon ealdorman or thane, even when enclosed in an earthwork or
stockade, was a very different thing from the castle of a Norman noble. A castle
is built by a man who lives among enemies, who distrusts his nearest neighbours
as much as any foe from a distance. The Anglo-Saxon noble had no reason to
distrust his neighbours, or to fortify himself against them. Later historians, who
were familiar with the state of things in Norman times, tell us frequently of
castles in the Saxon period; but it can generally be proved that they
misunderstood their authorities. The genuine contemporary chroniclers of Saxon
times never make the slightest allusion to a Saxon castle.
the castle of Worcester. Roger Bigod throws himself into Norwich Castle, and
harries the shire; Bishop Odo brings the plunder of Kent into his castle of
Rochester. Finally the king’s cause wins the day through the taking of the castles
of Tonbridge, Pevensey, Rochester, and Durham.
If we reflect on the contrast which these narratives afford, it surely is difficult to
avoid the conclusion that if the chronicler never mentions any Saxon castles it is
because there were no Saxon castles to mention. Had Earl Godwin possessed a
stronghold in which he could fortify himself, he would certainly have used it in
1051. And as the Norman favourites of Edward the Confessor had already begun
to build castles in England, we can imagine no reason why Godwin did not do the
same, except that such a step was impossible to a man who desired popularity
amongst his countrymen. The Welshmen, we are told (that is the foreigners, the
Normans), had erected a castle in Herefordshire among the people of Earl Sweyn,
and had wrought all possible harm and disgrace to the king’s men thereabout.[54]
The language of the Chronicle shows the unpopularity, to say the least of it, of
this castle-building; and one of the conditions which Godwin, when posing as
popular champion, wished to exact from the king, was that the Frenchmen who
were in the castle should be given up to him.[55] When Godwin returned from his
exile, and the Normans took to flight, the chronicler tells us that some fled west
to Pentecost’s castle, some north to Robert’s castle. Thus we learn that there were
several castles in England belonging to the Norman favourites.
It is in connection with these Norman favourites that the word castel appears for
the first time in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This is a fact of considerable
importance in itself; and when we weigh it in connection with the expressions of
dislike recorded above which become much more explicit and vehement after the
Norman Conquest, we cannot but feel that Mr Freeman’s conclusion, that the
thing as well as the word was new, is highly probable.[56] For the hall of the
Anglo-Saxon ealdorman or thane, even when enclosed in an earthwork or
stockade, was a very different thing from the castle of a Norman noble. A castle
is built by a man who lives among enemies, who distrusts his nearest neighbours
as much as any foe from a distance. The Anglo-Saxon noble had no reason to
distrust his neighbours, or to fortify himself against them. Later historians, who
were familiar with the state of things in Norman times, tell us frequently of
castles in the Saxon period; but it can generally be proved that they
misunderstood their authorities. The genuine contemporary chroniclers of Saxon
times never make the slightest allusion to a Saxon castle.
Page 36
The word castellum, it is true, appears occasionally in Anglo-Saxon charters, but
when it is used it clearly means a town. Thus Egbert of Kent says in 765: “Trado
terram intra castelli mœnia supranominati, id est Hrofescestri, unum viculum
cum duobus jugeribus, etc.,” where castellum is evidently the city of Rochester.
[57]
Offa calls Wermund “episcopus castelli quod nominatur Hroffeceastre.”[58]
These instances can easily be multiplied. Mr W. H. Stevenson remarks that “in
Old-English glosses, from the 8th century Corpus Glossary downwards,
castellum is glossed by wic, that is town.”[59] In this sense no doubt we must
interpret Asser’s “castellum quod dicitur Werham.”[60] Henry of Huntingdon
probably meant a town when he says that Edward the Elder built at Hertford
“castrum non immensum sed pulcherrimum.” He generally translates the burh of
the Chronicle by burgus, and he shows that he had a correct idea of Edward’s
work when he says that at Buckingham Edward “fecit vallum ex utraque parte
aquæ”—where vallum is a translation of burh. The difference between a burh and
a castle is very clearly expressed by the Chronicle in 1092, when it says
concerning the restoration of Carlisle on its conquest by William Rufus, “He
repaired the borough (burh) and ordered the castle to be built.”
The following is a table of the thirty boroughs built by Ethelfleda and Edward,
arranged chronologically, which will show that we never find a motte, that is a
moated mound, on the site of one of these boroughs unless a Norman castle-
builder has been at work there subsequently. The weak point in Mr Clark’s
argument was that when he found a motte on a site which had once been Saxon,
he did not stop to inquire what any subsequent builders might have done there,
but at once assumed that the motte was Saxon. Of course, if we invariably found
a motte at every place where Edward or Ethelfleda are said to have built a burh, it
would raise a strong presumption that mottes and burhs were the same thing. But
out of the twenty-five burhs which can be identified, in only ten is there a motte
on the same site; and in every case where a motte is found, except at Bakewell
and Towcester, there is recorded proof of the existence of a Norman castle. In this
list, the burhs on both sides of the river at Hertford, Buckingham, and
Nottingham are counted as two, because the very precise indications given in the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle show that each burh was a separate construction.
Burhs of Ethelfleda.
Worcester 873-899 A motte and a Norman castle.
Chester 908 A motte and a Norman castle.
Bremesburh 911 Unidentified.
Scærgate 913 Unidentified.
when it is used it clearly means a town. Thus Egbert of Kent says in 765: “Trado
terram intra castelli mœnia supranominati, id est Hrofescestri, unum viculum
cum duobus jugeribus, etc.,” where castellum is evidently the city of Rochester.
[57]
Offa calls Wermund “episcopus castelli quod nominatur Hroffeceastre.”[58]
These instances can easily be multiplied. Mr W. H. Stevenson remarks that “in
Old-English glosses, from the 8th century Corpus Glossary downwards,
castellum is glossed by wic, that is town.”[59] In this sense no doubt we must
interpret Asser’s “castellum quod dicitur Werham.”[60] Henry of Huntingdon
probably meant a town when he says that Edward the Elder built at Hertford
“castrum non immensum sed pulcherrimum.” He generally translates the burh of
the Chronicle by burgus, and he shows that he had a correct idea of Edward’s
work when he says that at Buckingham Edward “fecit vallum ex utraque parte
aquæ”—where vallum is a translation of burh. The difference between a burh and
a castle is very clearly expressed by the Chronicle in 1092, when it says
concerning the restoration of Carlisle on its conquest by William Rufus, “He
repaired the borough (burh) and ordered the castle to be built.”
The following is a table of the thirty boroughs built by Ethelfleda and Edward,
arranged chronologically, which will show that we never find a motte, that is a
moated mound, on the site of one of these boroughs unless a Norman castle-
builder has been at work there subsequently. The weak point in Mr Clark’s
argument was that when he found a motte on a site which had once been Saxon,
he did not stop to inquire what any subsequent builders might have done there,
but at once assumed that the motte was Saxon. Of course, if we invariably found
a motte at every place where Edward or Ethelfleda are said to have built a burh, it
would raise a strong presumption that mottes and burhs were the same thing. But
out of the twenty-five burhs which can be identified, in only ten is there a motte
on the same site; and in every case where a motte is found, except at Bakewell
and Towcester, there is recorded proof of the existence of a Norman castle. In this
list, the burhs on both sides of the river at Hertford, Buckingham, and
Nottingham are counted as two, because the very precise indications given in the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle show that each burh was a separate construction.
Burhs of Ethelfleda.
Worcester 873-899 A motte and a Norman castle.
Chester 908 A motte and a Norman castle.
Bremesburh 911 Unidentified.
Scærgate 913 Unidentified.
Page 37
Bridgenorth 913 No motte, but a Norman stone keep.
Tamworth 914 A motte and a Norman castle.
Stafford, N. of Sowe 914 No motte and no Norman castle.
Eddisbury 915 No motte and no Norman castle.
Warwick 915 A motte and a Norman castle.
Cyricbyrig (Monk’s Kirby) 916 No motte and no Norman castle.
Weardbyrig 916 Unidentified.
Runcorn 916 No motte; a mediæval castle (?).
Burhs of Edward the Elder.
Hertford, N. of Lea 913 No motte and no Norman castle.
Hertford, S. of Lea 913 A motte and a Norman castle.
Witham 914 No motte and no Norman castle.
Buckingham, S. of Ouse 915 No motte and no Norman castle.
Buckingham, N. of Ouse 915 A motte and a Norman castle.
Bedford, S. of Ouse 916 No motte and no Norman castle.
Maldon 917 No motte and no Norman castle.
Towcester 918 A motte.
Wigingamere 918 Unidentified.
Huntingdon 918 A motte and a Norman castle.
Colchester 918 No motte; an early Norman keep.
Cledemuthan 918 Unidentified.
Stamford, S. of Welland 919 No motte and no Norman castle.
Nottingham, N. of Trent 919 A motte and a Norman castle.
Thelwall 920 No motte and no Norman castle.
Manchester 920 No castle on the ancient site.
Nottingham, S. of Trent 921 No motte and no Norman castle.
Bakewell (near to) 921 A motte and bailey.
Out of this list of the burhs of Ethelfleda and Edward, thirteen are mentioned as
boroughs in Domesday Book;[61] and as we ought to subtract five from the list as
unidentified, and also to reckon as one the boroughs built on two sides of the
river, the whole number should be reduced to twenty-two. So that more than half
the boroughs built by the children of Alfred continued to maintain their existence
during the succeeding centuries, and in fact until the present day. But the others,
for some reason or other, did not take root. Professor Maitland remarked that
Tamworth 914 A motte and a Norman castle.
Stafford, N. of Sowe 914 No motte and no Norman castle.
Eddisbury 915 No motte and no Norman castle.
Warwick 915 A motte and a Norman castle.
Cyricbyrig (Monk’s Kirby) 916 No motte and no Norman castle.
Weardbyrig 916 Unidentified.
Runcorn 916 No motte; a mediæval castle (?).
Burhs of Edward the Elder.
Hertford, N. of Lea 913 No motte and no Norman castle.
Hertford, S. of Lea 913 A motte and a Norman castle.
Witham 914 No motte and no Norman castle.
Buckingham, S. of Ouse 915 No motte and no Norman castle.
Buckingham, N. of Ouse 915 A motte and a Norman castle.
Bedford, S. of Ouse 916 No motte and no Norman castle.
Maldon 917 No motte and no Norman castle.
Towcester 918 A motte.
Wigingamere 918 Unidentified.
Huntingdon 918 A motte and a Norman castle.
Colchester 918 No motte; an early Norman keep.
Cledemuthan 918 Unidentified.
Stamford, S. of Welland 919 No motte and no Norman castle.
Nottingham, N. of Trent 919 A motte and a Norman castle.
Thelwall 920 No motte and no Norman castle.
Manchester 920 No castle on the ancient site.
Nottingham, S. of Trent 921 No motte and no Norman castle.
Bakewell (near to) 921 A motte and bailey.
Out of this list of the burhs of Ethelfleda and Edward, thirteen are mentioned as
boroughs in Domesday Book;[61] and as we ought to subtract five from the list as
unidentified, and also to reckon as one the boroughs built on two sides of the
river, the whole number should be reduced to twenty-two. So that more than half
the boroughs built by the children of Alfred continued to maintain their existence
during the succeeding centuries, and in fact until the present day. But the others,
for some reason or other, did not take root. Professor Maitland remarked that
Page 38
many of the boroughs of Edward’s day became rotten boroughs before they were
ripe;[62] and it is a proof of the difficulty of the task which the royal brethren
undertook that, with the exception of Chester, none of the boroughs which they
built in the north-western districts survived till Domesday. In all their boroughs,
except Bakewell, the purpose of defending the great Roman roads and the main
waterways is very apparent.
Our list is very far from being a complete list of all the Anglo-Saxon boroughs
existing in Edward’s day. In the document known as the “Burghal Hidage” we
have another quite different list of thirty-two boroughs,[63] which, according to
Professor Maitland, “sets forth certain arrangements made early in the 10th
century for the defence of Wessex against the Danish inroads.”[64] Five at least on
the list are Roman chesters; twenty are mentioned as boroughs in Domesday
Book. There are two among them which are of special interest, because there is
reason to believe that the earthen ramparts which still surround them are of
Saxon origin: Wallingford and Wareham. Both these fortifications are after the
Roman pattern, the earthen banks forming a square with rounded corners.[65] See
Fig. 3.
To complete our knowledge of Anglo-Saxon fortification, we ought to examine
the places mentioned in Anglo-Saxon charters as royal seats, where possibly
defensive works of some kind may have existed. Unfortunately we are unable to
learn that there are any such works, except at one place, Bensington in
Oxfordshire, where about a hundred years ago “a bank and trench, which seem to
have been of a square form,” were to be seen.[66]
ripe;[62] and it is a proof of the difficulty of the task which the royal brethren
undertook that, with the exception of Chester, none of the boroughs which they
built in the north-western districts survived till Domesday. In all their boroughs,
except Bakewell, the purpose of defending the great Roman roads and the main
waterways is very apparent.
Our list is very far from being a complete list of all the Anglo-Saxon boroughs
existing in Edward’s day. In the document known as the “Burghal Hidage” we
have another quite different list of thirty-two boroughs,[63] which, according to
Professor Maitland, “sets forth certain arrangements made early in the 10th
century for the defence of Wessex against the Danish inroads.”[64] Five at least on
the list are Roman chesters; twenty are mentioned as boroughs in Domesday
Book. There are two among them which are of special interest, because there is
reason to believe that the earthen ramparts which still surround them are of
Saxon origin: Wallingford and Wareham. Both these fortifications are after the
Roman pattern, the earthen banks forming a square with rounded corners.[65] See
Fig. 3.
To complete our knowledge of Anglo-Saxon fortification, we ought to examine
the places mentioned in Anglo-Saxon charters as royal seats, where possibly
defensive works of some kind may have existed. Unfortunately we are unable to
learn that there are any such works, except at one place, Bensington in
Oxfordshire, where about a hundred years ago “a bank and trench, which seem to
have been of a square form,” were to be seen.[66]
Page 39
Wallingford, Berks.
Page 40
Wareham, Dorset.
Fig. 3.
In the following chapter we shall deal in detail with such archæological remains
as still exist of the boroughs of Edward and Ethelfleda, but here we will briefly
summarise by anticipation the results to which that chapter will lead. We see that
sites defensible by nature were often seized upon for fortification, as at
Bamborough, Bridgenorth, and Eddisbury; but that this was by no means always
the case, as a weak site, such as Witham, for example, was sometimes rendered
defensible by works which appear to have fulfilled their purpose. In only one
case (Witham) do we find an inner enclosure; and as it is of large size (9½ acres)
it is more probable that the outer enclosure was for cattle, than that the inner one
Fig. 3.
In the following chapter we shall deal in detail with such archæological remains
as still exist of the boroughs of Edward and Ethelfleda, but here we will briefly
summarise by anticipation the results to which that chapter will lead. We see that
sites defensible by nature were often seized upon for fortification, as at
Bamborough, Bridgenorth, and Eddisbury; but that this was by no means always
the case, as a weak site, such as Witham, for example, was sometimes rendered
defensible by works which appear to have fulfilled their purpose. In only one
case (Witham) do we find an inner enclosure; and as it is of large size (9½ acres)
it is more probable that the outer enclosure was for cattle, than that the inner one
Page 41
was designed solely for the protection of the king and his court. We are not told
of stone walls more than once (at Towcester); but the use of the word timbrian,
which does not exclusively mean to build in wood,[67] does not preclude walls of
stone in important places. In the square or oblong form, with rounded corners, we
see the influence which Roman models exercised on eyes which still beheld them
existing.
We see that the main idea of the borough was the same as that of the prehistoric
or British “camp of refuge,” in that it was intended for the defence of society and
not of the individual. It was intended to be a place of refuge for the whole
countryside. But it was also something much more than this, something which
belongs to a much more advanced state of society than the hill-fort.[68] It was a
town, a place where people were expected to live permanently and do their daily
work. It provided a fostering seat for trade and manufactures, two of the chief
factors in the history of civilisation. The men who kept watch and ward on the
ramparts, or who sallied forth in their bands to fight the Danes, were the men
who were slowly building up the prosperity of the stricken land of England. By
studding the great highways of England with fortified towns, Alfred and his
children were not only saving the kernel of the British Empire, they were laying
the sure foundations of its future progress in the arts and habits of civilised life.
of stone walls more than once (at Towcester); but the use of the word timbrian,
which does not exclusively mean to build in wood,[67] does not preclude walls of
stone in important places. In the square or oblong form, with rounded corners, we
see the influence which Roman models exercised on eyes which still beheld them
existing.
We see that the main idea of the borough was the same as that of the prehistoric
or British “camp of refuge,” in that it was intended for the defence of society and
not of the individual. It was intended to be a place of refuge for the whole
countryside. But it was also something much more than this, something which
belongs to a much more advanced state of society than the hill-fort.[68] It was a
town, a place where people were expected to live permanently and do their daily
work. It provided a fostering seat for trade and manufactures, two of the chief
factors in the history of civilisation. The men who kept watch and ward on the
ramparts, or who sallied forth in their bands to fight the Danes, were the men
who were slowly building up the prosperity of the stricken land of England. By
studding the great highways of England with fortified towns, Alfred and his
children were not only saving the kernel of the British Empire, they were laying
the sure foundations of its future progress in the arts and habits of civilised life.
Page 42
CHAPTER III
ANGLO-SAXON FORTIFICATIONS—continued
The bare list which we have given of the boroughs of Edward and Ethelfleda
calls for some explanatory remarks. Let us take first the boroughs of Ethelfleda.
Worcester.—We have already noticed the charter of Ethelred and Ethelfleda
which tells of the building of the burh at Worcester.[69] There appears to have
been a small Roman settlement at Worcester, but there is no evidence that it was
a fortified place.[70] This case lends some support to the conjecture of Dr
Christison, that the Saxons gave the name of chester to towns which they had
themselves fortified.[71] The mediæval walls of Worcester were probably more
extensive than Ethelfleda’s borough, of which no trace remains.
Chester is spoken of by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 894 as “a waste chester in
Wirral.” It had undoubtedly been a Roman city, and therefore the work of
Ethelred and Ethelfleda here was solely one of restoration. Brompton, who wrote
at the close of the 13th century “a poor compilation of little authority,”[72] was
the first writer to state that the walls of Chester were enlarged by Ethelfleda so as
to take in the castle, which he fancied to be Roman;[73] and this statement, being
repeated by Leland, has acquired considerable vogue. It is very unlikely that any
extension of the walls was made by the Mercian pair, seeing that the city was
deserted at the time when it was occupied by the Danes, only fourteen years
before. But it is quite certain that the Norman castle of Chester lay outside the
city walls, as the manor of Gloverstone, which was not within the jurisdiction of
the city, lay between the city and the castle.[74] A charter of Henry VII. shows that
the civic boundary did not extend to the present south wall in his reign.
Ethelfleda’s borough probably followed the lines of the old Roman castrum.
Bremesbyrig.—This place has not yet been identified. Bromborough on the
Mersey has been suggested, and is not impossible, for the loss of the s sometimes
occurs in place-names; thus Melbury, in Wilts, was Melsburie in Domesday.
Bremesbyrig was the first place restored after Chester, and as the estuary of the
Dee had been secured by the repair of Chester, so an advance on Bromborough
would have for its aim to secure the estuary of the Mersey. It was outside the
Danish frontier of Watling Street, and could thus be fortified without breach of
the peace in 911. There is a large moated work at Bromborough, enclosing an
ANGLO-SAXON FORTIFICATIONS—continued
The bare list which we have given of the boroughs of Edward and Ethelfleda
calls for some explanatory remarks. Let us take first the boroughs of Ethelfleda.
Worcester.—We have already noticed the charter of Ethelred and Ethelfleda
which tells of the building of the burh at Worcester.[69] There appears to have
been a small Roman settlement at Worcester, but there is no evidence that it was
a fortified place.[70] This case lends some support to the conjecture of Dr
Christison, that the Saxons gave the name of chester to towns which they had
themselves fortified.[71] The mediæval walls of Worcester were probably more
extensive than Ethelfleda’s borough, of which no trace remains.
Chester is spoken of by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 894 as “a waste chester in
Wirral.” It had undoubtedly been a Roman city, and therefore the work of
Ethelred and Ethelfleda here was solely one of restoration. Brompton, who wrote
at the close of the 13th century “a poor compilation of little authority,”[72] was
the first writer to state that the walls of Chester were enlarged by Ethelfleda so as
to take in the castle, which he fancied to be Roman;[73] and this statement, being
repeated by Leland, has acquired considerable vogue. It is very unlikely that any
extension of the walls was made by the Mercian pair, seeing that the city was
deserted at the time when it was occupied by the Danes, only fourteen years
before. But it is quite certain that the Norman castle of Chester lay outside the
city walls, as the manor of Gloverstone, which was not within the jurisdiction of
the city, lay between the city and the castle.[74] A charter of Henry VII. shows that
the civic boundary did not extend to the present south wall in his reign.
Ethelfleda’s borough probably followed the lines of the old Roman castrum.
Bremesbyrig.—This place has not yet been identified. Bromborough on the
Mersey has been suggested, and is not impossible, for the loss of the s sometimes
occurs in place-names; thus Melbury, in Wilts, was Melsburie in Domesday.
Bremesbyrig was the first place restored after Chester, and as the estuary of the
Dee had been secured by the repair of Chester, so an advance on Bromborough
would have for its aim to secure the estuary of the Mersey. It was outside the
Danish frontier of Watling Street, and could thus be fortified without breach of
the peace in 911. There is a large moated work at Bromborough, enclosing an
Page 43
area of 10 acres, in the midst of which stands the courthouse of the manor of
Bromborough. But this manor was given by the Earl of Chester to the monks of
St Werburgh about 1152, and it is possible that the monks fortified it, as they did
their manor of Irby in Wirral, against the incursions of the Welsh. One of the
conditions of the Earl’s grant was that the manor is to be maintained in a state of
security and convenience for the holding of the courts appertaining to Chester
Abbey.[75] Thus the fortification appears to be of manorial use, though this does
not preclude the possibility of an earlier origin. On the other hand, if
Bromborough is the same as Brunanburh, where Athelstan’s great battle was
fought (and there is much in favour of this), it cannot possibly have been
Bremesbyrig in the days of Edward. Another site has been suggested by the Rev.
C. S. Taylor, in a paper on The Danes in Gloucestershire, Bromsberrow in S.
Gloucestershire, one of the last spurs of the Malvern Hills. Here the top of a
small hill has been encircled with a ditch; but the ditch is so narrow that it does
not suggest a defensive work, and it is remote from any Roman road or navigable
river.
Scergeat has not yet been identified. Mr Kerslake argued with some probability
that Shrewsbury is the place;[76] but the etymological considerations are adverse,
and it is more likely that such an important place as Shrewsbury was fortified
before Edward’s time. Leland calls it Scorgate, and says it is “about Severn
side.”[77] It should probably be sought within the frontier of Watling Street,
which Ethelfleda does not appear to have yet crossed in 911.
Bridgenorth is undoubtedly the Bricge of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, as
Florence of Worcester identifies it with the Bridgenorth which Robert Belesme
fortified against Henry I. in 1101.[78] Bridgenorth is on a natural fortification of
steep rock, which would only require a stout wall to make it secure against all the
military resources of the 10th century. We may therefore be quite certain that it
was here Ethelfleda planted her borough, and not (as Mr Eyton unfortunately
conjectured) on the mound outside the city, in the parish of Oldbury.[79] This
mound was far more probably the site of the siege castle (no doubt of wood)
which was erected by Henry I. when he besieged the city.[80]
Tamworth was an ancient city of the Mercian kings, and therefore may have
been fortified before its walls were rebuilt by Ethelfleda.[81] The line of the
ancient town-wall can still be traced in parts, though it is rapidly disappearing.
Dugdale says the town ditch was 45 feet broad. Tamworth was a borough at the
time of Domesday.
Bromborough. But this manor was given by the Earl of Chester to the monks of
St Werburgh about 1152, and it is possible that the monks fortified it, as they did
their manor of Irby in Wirral, against the incursions of the Welsh. One of the
conditions of the Earl’s grant was that the manor is to be maintained in a state of
security and convenience for the holding of the courts appertaining to Chester
Abbey.[75] Thus the fortification appears to be of manorial use, though this does
not preclude the possibility of an earlier origin. On the other hand, if
Bromborough is the same as Brunanburh, where Athelstan’s great battle was
fought (and there is much in favour of this), it cannot possibly have been
Bremesbyrig in the days of Edward. Another site has been suggested by the Rev.
C. S. Taylor, in a paper on The Danes in Gloucestershire, Bromsberrow in S.
Gloucestershire, one of the last spurs of the Malvern Hills. Here the top of a
small hill has been encircled with a ditch; but the ditch is so narrow that it does
not suggest a defensive work, and it is remote from any Roman road or navigable
river.
Scergeat has not yet been identified. Mr Kerslake argued with some probability
that Shrewsbury is the place;[76] but the etymological considerations are adverse,
and it is more likely that such an important place as Shrewsbury was fortified
before Edward’s time. Leland calls it Scorgate, and says it is “about Severn
side.”[77] It should probably be sought within the frontier of Watling Street,
which Ethelfleda does not appear to have yet crossed in 911.
Bridgenorth is undoubtedly the Bricge of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, as
Florence of Worcester identifies it with the Bridgenorth which Robert Belesme
fortified against Henry I. in 1101.[78] Bridgenorth is on a natural fortification of
steep rock, which would only require a stout wall to make it secure against all the
military resources of the 10th century. We may therefore be quite certain that it
was here Ethelfleda planted her borough, and not (as Mr Eyton unfortunately
conjectured) on the mound outside the city, in the parish of Oldbury.[79] This
mound was far more probably the site of the siege castle (no doubt of wood)
which was erected by Henry I. when he besieged the city.[80]
Tamworth was an ancient city of the Mercian kings, and therefore may have
been fortified before its walls were rebuilt by Ethelfleda.[81] The line of the
ancient town-wall can still be traced in parts, though it is rapidly disappearing.
Dugdale says the town ditch was 45 feet broad. Tamworth was a borough at the
time of Domesday.
Page 44
Stafford has a motte on which stood a Norman castle; but this is not mentioned
in the table, because it stands a mile and a half from the town on the southern
side of the river Sowe, while we are expressly told by Florence that Ethelfleda’s
borough was on the northern side, as the town is now. Stafford was a Domesday
borough; some parts of the mediæval walls still remain. The walls are mentioned
in Domesday Book.[82]
Eddisbury, in Cheshire (Fig. 4), is the only case in which the work of Ethelfleda
is preserved in a practically unaltered form, as no town or village has ever grown
out of it. The burh stands at the top of a hill, commanding the junction of two
great Roman roads, the Watling Street from Chester to Manchester, and the
branch which it sends forth to Kinderton on the east. As a very misleading plan of
this work has been published in the Journal of the British Archæological
Association for 1906, the burh has been specially surveyed for this book by Mr
D. H. Montgomerie, who has also furnished the following description:—
“This plan is approximately oval, and is governed by the shape of the ground; the
work lies at the end of a spur, running S.E. and terminating in abrupt slopes to the
E. and S. The defences on the N. and W. consist of a ditch and a high outer bank,
the proportions of these varying according to the slope of the hill. There are slight
remains of a light inner rampart along the western half of this side. The remains
of an original entrance (shown in Ormerod’s Cheshire) are visible in the middle
of the N.W. side, beyond which the ditch and outer bank have been partially
levelled by the encroachments of the farm buildings. The defences of the S. side
seem to have consisted of a long natural slope, crowned by a steeper scarp, cut
back into the rock, and having traces of a bank along its crest. The S.E. end of the
spur presents several interesting details, for it has been occupied in mediæval
times by a small fortified enclosure, whose defences are apt to be confused with
those of the older Saxon town. The rock makes a triangular projection at this end,
containing the foundations of mediæval buildings,[83] and strengthened on the
N.E. by a slight ditch some 7 to 10 feet below the crest; the rock on the inner side
of this ditch has been cut back to a nearly vertical face, while on the outer bank
are the footings of a masonry wall extending almost to the point of the spur.
There are traces of another wall defending the crest on the N.E. and S.; but the
base of the triangle, facing the old enclosure, does not appear to have been
strengthened by a cross ditch or bank.
“It may be noted that this enclosure presents not the slightest appearance of a
motte. It is at a lower level than the body of the hill, and belongs most certainly
to the Edwardian period of the masonry buildings.”
in the table, because it stands a mile and a half from the town on the southern
side of the river Sowe, while we are expressly told by Florence that Ethelfleda’s
borough was on the northern side, as the town is now. Stafford was a Domesday
borough; some parts of the mediæval walls still remain. The walls are mentioned
in Domesday Book.[82]
Eddisbury, in Cheshire (Fig. 4), is the only case in which the work of Ethelfleda
is preserved in a practically unaltered form, as no town or village has ever grown
out of it. The burh stands at the top of a hill, commanding the junction of two
great Roman roads, the Watling Street from Chester to Manchester, and the
branch which it sends forth to Kinderton on the east. As a very misleading plan of
this work has been published in the Journal of the British Archæological
Association for 1906, the burh has been specially surveyed for this book by Mr
D. H. Montgomerie, who has also furnished the following description:—
“This plan is approximately oval, and is governed by the shape of the ground; the
work lies at the end of a spur, running S.E. and terminating in abrupt slopes to the
E. and S. The defences on the N. and W. consist of a ditch and a high outer bank,
the proportions of these varying according to the slope of the hill. There are slight
remains of a light inner rampart along the western half of this side. The remains
of an original entrance (shown in Ormerod’s Cheshire) are visible in the middle
of the N.W. side, beyond which the ditch and outer bank have been partially
levelled by the encroachments of the farm buildings. The defences of the S. side
seem to have consisted of a long natural slope, crowned by a steeper scarp, cut
back into the rock, and having traces of a bank along its crest. The S.E. end of the
spur presents several interesting details, for it has been occupied in mediæval
times by a small fortified enclosure, whose defences are apt to be confused with
those of the older Saxon town. The rock makes a triangular projection at this end,
containing the foundations of mediæval buildings,[83] and strengthened on the
N.E. by a slight ditch some 7 to 10 feet below the crest; the rock on the inner side
of this ditch has been cut back to a nearly vertical face, while on the outer bank
are the footings of a masonry wall extending almost to the point of the spur.
There are traces of another wall defending the crest on the N.E. and S.; but the
base of the triangle, facing the old enclosure, does not appear to have been
strengthened by a cross ditch or bank.
“It may be noted that this enclosure presents not the slightest appearance of a
motte. It is at a lower level than the body of the hill, and belongs most certainly
to the Edwardian period of the masonry buildings.”
Page 45
Eddisbury, Cheshire.
Page 46
Witham, Essex.
Fig. 4.
Warwick Castle has a motte which has been confidently attributed to Ethelfleda,
only because Dugdale copied the assertion of Thomas Rous, a very imaginative
writer of the 15th century, that she was its builder. The borough which Ethelfleda
fortified probably occupied a smaller area than the mediæval walls built in
Edward I.’s reign; and it is probable that it did not include the site of the castle, as
Domesday states that only four houses were destroyed when the castle was built.
[84]
The borough was doubtless erected to protect the Roman road from Bath to
Fig. 4.
Warwick Castle has a motte which has been confidently attributed to Ethelfleda,
only because Dugdale copied the assertion of Thomas Rous, a very imaginative
writer of the 15th century, that she was its builder. The borough which Ethelfleda
fortified probably occupied a smaller area than the mediæval walls built in
Edward I.’s reign; and it is probable that it did not include the site of the castle, as
Domesday states that only four houses were destroyed when the castle was built.
[84]
The borough was doubtless erected to protect the Roman road from Bath to
Page 47
Lincoln, the Foss Way, which passes near it. Domesday Book, after mentioning
that the king’s barons have 112 houses in the borough, and the abbot of Coventry
36, goes on to say that these houses belong to the lands which the barons hold
outside the city, and are rated there.[85] This is one of the passages from which
the late Professor Maitland concluded that the boroughs planted by Ethelfleda
and Edward were organised on a system of military defence, whereby the
magnates in the country were bound to keep houses in the towns.[86]
Cyricbyrig.—About this place we adopt the conjecture of Dugdale, who
identified it with Monk’s Kirby in Warwickshire, not far from the borders of
Leicestershire, and therefore on the edge of Ethelfleda’s dominions. It lies close
to the Foss Way, and about three miles from Watling Street; like Eddisbury, it is
near the junction of two Roman roads. There are remains of banks and ditches
below the church. Dugdale says “there are certain apparent tokens that the
Romans had some station here; for by digging the ground near the church, there
have been discovered foundations of old walls and Roman bricks.”[87] Possibly
Ethelfleda restored a Roman castrum here. At any rate, it seems a much more
likely site than Chirbury in Shropshire, which is commonly proposed, but which
does not lie on any Roman road, and is not on Ethelfleda’s line of advance; nor
are there any earthworks there.
Weardbyrig has not been identified. Wednesbury was stated by Camden to be the
place,[88] and but for the impossibility of the etymology, the situation would suit
well enough. Weardbyrig must have been an important place, for it had a mint.[89]
Warburton, on the Mersey, has been gravely suggested, but is impossible, as it
takes its name from St Werburgh.
Runcorn has not a vestige to show of Ethelfleda’s borough; but local historians
have preserved some rather vague accounts of a promontory fort which once
existed at the point where the London and North-Western Railway bridge enters
the river. A rocky headland formerly projected here into the Mersey, narrowing
its course to 400 yards at high water; a ditch with a circular curve cut off this
headland from the shore. This ditch, from 12 to 16 feet wide, with an inner bank
6 or 7 feet high, could still be traced in the early part of the 19th century.
Eighteen feet of the headland were cut off when the Duke of Bridgewater made
his canal in 1773, and the ditch was obliterated when the railway bridge was
built. From the measurements which have been preserved, the area of this fort
must have been very small, not exceeding 3 acres at the outside;[90] and it is
unlikely that it represented Ethelfleda’s borough, as the church, which was of
pre-Conquest foundation, stood outside its bounds, and we should certainly have
that the king’s barons have 112 houses in the borough, and the abbot of Coventry
36, goes on to say that these houses belong to the lands which the barons hold
outside the city, and are rated there.[85] This is one of the passages from which
the late Professor Maitland concluded that the boroughs planted by Ethelfleda
and Edward were organised on a system of military defence, whereby the
magnates in the country were bound to keep houses in the towns.[86]
Cyricbyrig.—About this place we adopt the conjecture of Dugdale, who
identified it with Monk’s Kirby in Warwickshire, not far from the borders of
Leicestershire, and therefore on the edge of Ethelfleda’s dominions. It lies close
to the Foss Way, and about three miles from Watling Street; like Eddisbury, it is
near the junction of two Roman roads. There are remains of banks and ditches
below the church. Dugdale says “there are certain apparent tokens that the
Romans had some station here; for by digging the ground near the church, there
have been discovered foundations of old walls and Roman bricks.”[87] Possibly
Ethelfleda restored a Roman castrum here. At any rate, it seems a much more
likely site than Chirbury in Shropshire, which is commonly proposed, but which
does not lie on any Roman road, and is not on Ethelfleda’s line of advance; nor
are there any earthworks there.
Weardbyrig has not been identified. Wednesbury was stated by Camden to be the
place,[88] and but for the impossibility of the etymology, the situation would suit
well enough. Weardbyrig must have been an important place, for it had a mint.[89]
Warburton, on the Mersey, has been gravely suggested, but is impossible, as it
takes its name from St Werburgh.
Runcorn has not a vestige to show of Ethelfleda’s borough; but local historians
have preserved some rather vague accounts of a promontory fort which once
existed at the point where the London and North-Western Railway bridge enters
the river. A rocky headland formerly projected here into the Mersey, narrowing
its course to 400 yards at high water; a ditch with a circular curve cut off this
headland from the shore. This ditch, from 12 to 16 feet wide, with an inner bank
6 or 7 feet high, could still be traced in the early part of the 19th century.
Eighteen feet of the headland were cut off when the Duke of Bridgewater made
his canal in 1773, and the ditch was obliterated when the railway bridge was
built. From the measurements which have been preserved, the area of this fort
must have been very small, not exceeding 3 acres at the outside;[90] and it is
unlikely that it represented Ethelfleda’s borough, as the church, which was of
pre-Conquest foundation, stood outside its bounds, and we should certainly have
Page 48
expected to find it within. As the Norman earls of Chester established a ferry at
Runcorn in the 12th century, and as a castle at Runcorn is spoken of in a
mediæval document,[91] it seems not impossible that there may have been a
Norman castle on this site, as we constantly find such small fortifications placed
to defend a ferry or ford. It is probable that Ethelfleda’s borough was destroyed at
an early period by the Northmen, for Runcorn was not a borough at Domesday,
but was then a mere dependency of the Honour of Halton.
The Burhs of Edward the Elder.
Hertford.—Two burhs were built by Edward at Hertford in 913, one on the north
and the other on the south side of the river Lea. Therefore if a burh were the same
thing as a motte, there ought to be two mottes at Hertford, one on each side of the
river; whereas there is only one, and that forms part of the works of the Norman
castle. Mr Clark, with his usual confidence, says that the northern mound has
“long been laid low”;[92] but there is not the slightest proof that it ever existed
except in his imagination. Hertford was a borough at the time of Domesday. No
earthworks remain.
Witham (Fig. 4).—There are some remains of a burh here which are very
remarkable, as they show an inner enclosure within the outer one. They have
been carefully surveyed by Mr F. C. J. Spurrell, who has published a plan of
them.[93] Each enclosure formed roughly a square with much-rounded corners.
The ditch round the outer work was 30 feet wide; the inner work was not ditched.
The area enclosed by the outer bank was 26¼ acres, an enclosure much too large
for a castle; the area of the inner enclosure was 9½ acres. As far as is at present
known, Witham is the only instance we have of an Anglo-Saxon earthwork which
has a double enclosure.[94] Witham is not mentioned as a borough in Domesday
Book, but the fact that it had a mint in the days of Hardicanute shows that it
maintained its borough rights for more than a hundred years. The name Chipping
Hill points to a market within the borough.
Buckingham is another case where a burh was built on both sides of the river, and
as at Hertford, there was only one motte, site of the castle of the Norman
Giffards, now almost obliterated. The river Ouse here makes a long narrow loop
to the south-west, within which stands the town, and, without doubt, this would
be the site of Edward’s borough. No trace is left of the second borough on the
other side of the river. Buckingham is one of the boroughs of Domesday.
Runcorn in the 12th century, and as a castle at Runcorn is spoken of in a
mediæval document,[91] it seems not impossible that there may have been a
Norman castle on this site, as we constantly find such small fortifications placed
to defend a ferry or ford. It is probable that Ethelfleda’s borough was destroyed at
an early period by the Northmen, for Runcorn was not a borough at Domesday,
but was then a mere dependency of the Honour of Halton.
The Burhs of Edward the Elder.
Hertford.—Two burhs were built by Edward at Hertford in 913, one on the north
and the other on the south side of the river Lea. Therefore if a burh were the same
thing as a motte, there ought to be two mottes at Hertford, one on each side of the
river; whereas there is only one, and that forms part of the works of the Norman
castle. Mr Clark, with his usual confidence, says that the northern mound has
“long been laid low”;[92] but there is not the slightest proof that it ever existed
except in his imagination. Hertford was a borough at the time of Domesday. No
earthworks remain.
Witham (Fig. 4).—There are some remains of a burh here which are very
remarkable, as they show an inner enclosure within the outer one. They have
been carefully surveyed by Mr F. C. J. Spurrell, who has published a plan of
them.[93] Each enclosure formed roughly a square with much-rounded corners.
The ditch round the outer work was 30 feet wide; the inner work was not ditched.
The area enclosed by the outer bank was 26¼ acres, an enclosure much too large
for a castle; the area of the inner enclosure was 9½ acres. As far as is at present
known, Witham is the only instance we have of an Anglo-Saxon earthwork which
has a double enclosure.[94] Witham is not mentioned as a borough in Domesday
Book, but the fact that it had a mint in the days of Hardicanute shows that it
maintained its borough rights for more than a hundred years. The name Chipping
Hill points to a market within the borough.
Buckingham is another case where a burh was built on both sides of the river, and
as at Hertford, there was only one motte, site of the castle of the Norman
Giffards, now almost obliterated. The river Ouse here makes a long narrow loop
to the south-west, within which stands the town, and, without doubt, this would
be the site of Edward’s borough. No trace is left of the second borough on the
other side of the river. Buckingham is one of the boroughs of Domesday.
Page 49
Bedford has had a motte and a Norman castle on the north side of the Ouse; but
this was not the site of Edward’s borough, which the Chronicle tells us was
placed on the south side of that river. On the south side an ancient ditch, 10 or 12
feet broad, with some traces of an inner rampart, semicircular in plan, but with a
square extension, is still visible, and fills with water at flood times.[95] This is
very likely to be the ditch of Edward’s borough. Both at Bedford and
Buckingham the Chronicle states that Edward spent four weeks in building the
burh. Mediæval numbers must never be taken as precise; but the disproportion
between four weeks and eight days, the space often given for the building of an
early Norman castle, corresponds very well to the difference between the time
needed to throw up the bank and stockade of a town, and that needed for the
building of an earthen and wooden castle.
Maldon.—Only one angle of the earthen bank of Edward’s borough remains
now, but Gough states that it was an oblong camp enclosing about 22 acres.[96] It
had rounded corners and a very wide ditch, with a bank on both scarp and
counterscarp. Maldon was a borough at Domesday;[97] the king had a hall there,
but there was never any castle, nor is there any trace of a motte.
Towcester (Fig. 5).—There is a motte at Towcester, but no direct evidence has
yet been found for the existence of a Norman castle there, though Leland says
that he was told of “certen Ruines or Diches of a Castelle.”[98] There was a mill
and an oven to which the citizens owed soke,[99] and the value of the manor,
which belonged to the king, had risen very greatly since the Conquest;[100] all
facts which render the existence of a Norman castle extremely likely. But there
can be no question as to the nature of Edward’s work at Towcester, as the
Chronicle tells us expressly that “he wrought the burgh at Towcester with a stone
wall.”[101] Towcester lies on Watling Street, and is believed to have been the
Roman station of Lactodorum. Baker gives a plan of the remains existing in his
time, which may either be those of the Roman castrum or of Edward’s borough.
[102]
The area is stated to be about 35 acres.
Wigingamere.—This place is not yet identified, for the identification with
Wigmore in Herefordshire, though accepted by many respectable writers, will not
stand a moment’s examination. Wigmore was entirely out of Edward’s beat, and
he had far too much on his hands in 918 to attempt a campaign in Herefordshire.
As Wigingamere appears to have specially drawn upon itself the wrath of East
Anglian and Essex Danes, it must have lain somewhere in their neighbourhood.
The mere which is included in the name would seem to point to that great inland
water which anciently stretched southwards from the Wash into Cambridgeshire.
this was not the site of Edward’s borough, which the Chronicle tells us was
placed on the south side of that river. On the south side an ancient ditch, 10 or 12
feet broad, with some traces of an inner rampart, semicircular in plan, but with a
square extension, is still visible, and fills with water at flood times.[95] This is
very likely to be the ditch of Edward’s borough. Both at Bedford and
Buckingham the Chronicle states that Edward spent four weeks in building the
burh. Mediæval numbers must never be taken as precise; but the disproportion
between four weeks and eight days, the space often given for the building of an
early Norman castle, corresponds very well to the difference between the time
needed to throw up the bank and stockade of a town, and that needed for the
building of an earthen and wooden castle.
Maldon.—Only one angle of the earthen bank of Edward’s borough remains
now, but Gough states that it was an oblong camp enclosing about 22 acres.[96] It
had rounded corners and a very wide ditch, with a bank on both scarp and
counterscarp. Maldon was a borough at Domesday;[97] the king had a hall there,
but there was never any castle, nor is there any trace of a motte.
Towcester (Fig. 5).—There is a motte at Towcester, but no direct evidence has
yet been found for the existence of a Norman castle there, though Leland says
that he was told of “certen Ruines or Diches of a Castelle.”[98] There was a mill
and an oven to which the citizens owed soke,[99] and the value of the manor,
which belonged to the king, had risen very greatly since the Conquest;[100] all
facts which render the existence of a Norman castle extremely likely. But there
can be no question as to the nature of Edward’s work at Towcester, as the
Chronicle tells us expressly that “he wrought the burgh at Towcester with a stone
wall.”[101] Towcester lies on Watling Street, and is believed to have been the
Roman station of Lactodorum. Baker gives a plan of the remains existing in his
time, which may either be those of the Roman castrum or of Edward’s borough.
[102]
The area is stated to be about 35 acres.
Wigingamere.—This place is not yet identified, for the identification with
Wigmore in Herefordshire, though accepted by many respectable writers, will not
stand a moment’s examination. Wigmore was entirely out of Edward’s beat, and
he had far too much on his hands in 918 to attempt a campaign in Herefordshire.
As Wigingamere appears to have specially drawn upon itself the wrath of East
Anglian and Essex Danes, it must have lain somewhere in their neighbourhood.
The mere which is included in the name would seem to point to that great inland
water which anciently stretched southwards from the Wash into Cambridgeshire.
Page 50
The only approach to East Anglia from the south lay along a strip of open chalk
land which lay between the great swamp and the dense forests which grew east of
it.[103] Here ran the ancient road called the Icknield way. On a peninsula which
now runs out into the great fens of the Cam and the Ouse there is still a village
called Wicken, 6 miles west of the Roman road; and possibly, when the land
surrounding this peninsula was under water, this bight may have been called
Wigingamere. This suggestion of course is merely tentative, but what gives it
some probability is that the Danish army which attacked “the borough at
Wigingamere” came from East Anglia as well as Mercia.[104]
Fig. 5.—Plan of Towcester about 1830.
Huntingdon.—The borough of Huntingdon was probably first built by the Danes,
as it was only repaired by Edward. In Leland’s time there were still some remains
of the walls “in places.” Huntingdon is one of the burgi of Domesday.
Colchester.—This of course was a Roman site, and Edward needed only to
restore the walls, as the Chronicle indicates. Colchester was placed so as to
defend the river Colne, just as Maldon defended the estuary of the Blackwater.
land which lay between the great swamp and the dense forests which grew east of
it.[103] Here ran the ancient road called the Icknield way. On a peninsula which
now runs out into the great fens of the Cam and the Ouse there is still a village
called Wicken, 6 miles west of the Roman road; and possibly, when the land
surrounding this peninsula was under water, this bight may have been called
Wigingamere. This suggestion of course is merely tentative, but what gives it
some probability is that the Danish army which attacked “the borough at
Wigingamere” came from East Anglia as well as Mercia.[104]
Fig. 5.—Plan of Towcester about 1830.
Huntingdon.—The borough of Huntingdon was probably first built by the Danes,
as it was only repaired by Edward. In Leland’s time there were still some remains
of the walls “in places.” Huntingdon is one of the burgi of Domesday.
Colchester.—This of course was a Roman site, and Edward needed only to
restore the walls, as the Chronicle indicates. Colchester was placed so as to
defend the river Colne, just as Maldon defended the estuary of the Blackwater.
Page 51
As the repair of Colchester and the successful defence of Wigingamere were
followed the same year by the submission of East Anglia, it seems not unlikely
that Edward’s various forces may have made a simultaneous advance, along the
coast, and along the Roman road by the Fen country; but this of course is the
merest conjecture, as the Chronicle gives us no details of this very important
event.
Cledemuthan.—This place is only mentioned in the Abingdon MS. of the
Chronicle, but the year 921 is the date given for its building. This date should
probably be transposed to 918, the year in which, according to Florence, Edward
subjugated East Anglia. It is well known how confused the chronology of the
various versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is during the reign of Edward the
Elder.[105] Cley, in Norfolk, would be etymologically deducible from Clede (the d
being frequently dropped, especially in Scandinavian districts), and the muthan
points to some river estuary. Cley is one of the few havens on the north coast of
Norfolk, and its importance in former times was much greater than now, as is
shown not only by the spaciousness of its Early English church, but by the fact
that the port has jurisdiction for 30 miles along the coast.[106] It would be highly
probable that Edward completed the subjugation of East Anglia by planting a
borough at some important point. But as the real date of the fortification of
Cledemuthan is uncertain, we must be content to leave this matter in abeyance.
[107]
Stamford is another case where the borough is clearly said to have been on the
side which is opposite to the one where the Norman castle stands. Edward’s
borough was on the south side, the motte and other remains of the Norman castle
are on the north of the Welland. It is remarkable that the part of Stamford on the
south side of the Welland is still a distinct liberty; it is mentioned in Domesday as
the sixth ward of the borough. The line of the earthworks can still be traced in
parts. The borough on the north side of the Welland was probably first walled in
by the Danes, as it was one of the Five Boroughs—Stamford, Leicester, Lincoln,
Nottingham, and Derby—which appear to have formed an independent or semi-
independent state in middle England.[108] Stamford is a borough in Domesday.
Nottingham.—The first mention of a fortress in connection with Nottingham
seems to suggest that it owed its origin to the Danes. In 868 the Danish host
which had taken possession of York in the previous year “went into Mercia to
Nottingham, and there took up their winter quarters. And Burgræd king of Mercia
and his Witan begged of Ethelred, king of the West Saxons, and of Alfred his
brother, that they would help them, that they might fight against the army. And
followed the same year by the submission of East Anglia, it seems not unlikely
that Edward’s various forces may have made a simultaneous advance, along the
coast, and along the Roman road by the Fen country; but this of course is the
merest conjecture, as the Chronicle gives us no details of this very important
event.
Cledemuthan.—This place is only mentioned in the Abingdon MS. of the
Chronicle, but the year 921 is the date given for its building. This date should
probably be transposed to 918, the year in which, according to Florence, Edward
subjugated East Anglia. It is well known how confused the chronology of the
various versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is during the reign of Edward the
Elder.[105] Cley, in Norfolk, would be etymologically deducible from Clede (the d
being frequently dropped, especially in Scandinavian districts), and the muthan
points to some river estuary. Cley is one of the few havens on the north coast of
Norfolk, and its importance in former times was much greater than now, as is
shown not only by the spaciousness of its Early English church, but by the fact
that the port has jurisdiction for 30 miles along the coast.[106] It would be highly
probable that Edward completed the subjugation of East Anglia by planting a
borough at some important point. But as the real date of the fortification of
Cledemuthan is uncertain, we must be content to leave this matter in abeyance.
[107]
Stamford is another case where the borough is clearly said to have been on the
side which is opposite to the one where the Norman castle stands. Edward’s
borough was on the south side, the motte and other remains of the Norman castle
are on the north of the Welland. It is remarkable that the part of Stamford on the
south side of the Welland is still a distinct liberty; it is mentioned in Domesday as
the sixth ward of the borough. The line of the earthworks can still be traced in
parts. The borough on the north side of the Welland was probably first walled in
by the Danes, as it was one of the Five Boroughs—Stamford, Leicester, Lincoln,
Nottingham, and Derby—which appear to have formed an independent or semi-
independent state in middle England.[108] Stamford is a borough in Domesday.
Nottingham.—The first mention of a fortress in connection with Nottingham
seems to suggest that it owed its origin to the Danes. In 868 the Danish host
which had taken possession of York in the previous year “went into Mercia to
Nottingham, and there took up their winter quarters. And Burgræd king of Mercia
and his Witan begged of Ethelred, king of the West Saxons, and of Alfred his
brother, that they would help them, that they might fight against the army. And
Page 52
then they went with the West Saxon force into Mercia as far as Nottingham, and
there encountered the army which was in the fortress (geweorc), and besieged
them there; but there was no great battle fought, and the Mercians made peace
with the army.”[109] Nottingham became another of the Danish Five Boroughs.
The Danish host on this occasion came from York, no doubt in ships down the
Ouse and up the Trent. The site would exactly suit them, as it occupied a very
strong position on St Mary’s Hill, a height equal to that on which the castle
stands, defended on the south front by precipitous cliffs, below which ran the
river Leen, and only a very short distance from the junction of the Leen with the
Trent, the great waterway of middle England.[110] Portions of the ancient ditch
were uncovered in 1890, and its outline appears to have been roughly rectangular,
like the Danish camp at Shoebury. The ditch was about 20 feet wide. The area
enclosed was about 39 acres.
This borough was captured by Edward the Elder in 919, when after the death of
his sister Ethelfleda he advanced into Danish Mercia, taking up the work which
she had left unfinished.[111] The Chronicle tells us that he repaired the borough
(burh), and garrisoned it with both English and Danes. Two years later, he
evidently felt the necessity of fortifying the Trent itself, for he built another
borough on the south side of the river, and connected the two boroughs by a
bridge, which must have included a causeway or a wooden stage across the
marshes of the Leen. It is not surprising that the frequent floods of the Trent have
carried away all trace of this second borough.[112] The important position of
Nottingham was maintained in subsequent times, and it was still a borough at
Domesday.
Thelwall.—According to Camden, Thelwall explains by its name the kind of
work which was set up here, a wall composed of the trunks of trees. This was
another attempt to defend the course of the Mersey, which was once tidal as far
as Thelwall. No remains of any fortifications can now be seen at Thelwall, which
was not one of the boroughs which took root. But the Mersey has changed its
course very much at this point, even before the making of the Ship Canal effected
a more complete alteration.[113]
Manchester.—The burh repaired by Edward the Elder was no doubt the Roman
castrum, which was built on the triangle of land between the Irwell and the
Medlock. Large portions of the walls were still remaining in Stukeley’s time,
about 1700, and some fragments have recently been unearthed by the Manchester
Classical Association. It was one of the smaller kind of Roman stations, its area
being only 5 acres. Manchester is not mentioned as a borough in Domesday, but
there encountered the army which was in the fortress (geweorc), and besieged
them there; but there was no great battle fought, and the Mercians made peace
with the army.”[109] Nottingham became another of the Danish Five Boroughs.
The Danish host on this occasion came from York, no doubt in ships down the
Ouse and up the Trent. The site would exactly suit them, as it occupied a very
strong position on St Mary’s Hill, a height equal to that on which the castle
stands, defended on the south front by precipitous cliffs, below which ran the
river Leen, and only a very short distance from the junction of the Leen with the
Trent, the great waterway of middle England.[110] Portions of the ancient ditch
were uncovered in 1890, and its outline appears to have been roughly rectangular,
like the Danish camp at Shoebury. The ditch was about 20 feet wide. The area
enclosed was about 39 acres.
This borough was captured by Edward the Elder in 919, when after the death of
his sister Ethelfleda he advanced into Danish Mercia, taking up the work which
she had left unfinished.[111] The Chronicle tells us that he repaired the borough
(burh), and garrisoned it with both English and Danes. Two years later, he
evidently felt the necessity of fortifying the Trent itself, for he built another
borough on the south side of the river, and connected the two boroughs by a
bridge, which must have included a causeway or a wooden stage across the
marshes of the Leen. It is not surprising that the frequent floods of the Trent have
carried away all trace of this second borough.[112] The important position of
Nottingham was maintained in subsequent times, and it was still a borough at
Domesday.
Thelwall.—According to Camden, Thelwall explains by its name the kind of
work which was set up here, a wall composed of the trunks of trees. This was
another attempt to defend the course of the Mersey, which was once tidal as far
as Thelwall. No remains of any fortifications can now be seen at Thelwall, which
was not one of the boroughs which took root. But the Mersey has changed its
course very much at this point, even before the making of the Ship Canal effected
a more complete alteration.[113]
Manchester.—The burh repaired by Edward the Elder was no doubt the Roman
castrum, which was built on the triangle of land between the Irwell and the
Medlock. Large portions of the walls were still remaining in Stukeley’s time,
about 1700, and some fragments have recently been unearthed by the Manchester
Classical Association. It was one of the smaller kind of Roman stations, its area
being only 5 acres. Manchester is not mentioned as a borough in Domesday, but
Page 53
the old Saxon town was long known as Aldportton, which literally means “the
town of the old city.” This is its title in mediæval deeds, and it is still preserved in
Alport Street, a street near the remains of the castrum.[114] The later borough of
Manchester, which existed at least as early as the 13th century, appears to have
grown up round the Norman castle, about a mile from the Roman castrum.[115]
Bakewell.—The vagueness of the indication in the Chronicle, “nigh to
Bakewell,” leaves us in some doubt where we are to look for this burh, which
Florence calls an urbs. Just outside the village of Bakewell there are the remains
of a motte and bailey castle (a small motte and bailey of 2 acres), which are
always assumed to be the burh of Edward. But the enclosure is far too small for a
borough, and Edward’s burh would certainly have enclosed the church; for
though the present church contains no Saxon architecture, the ancient cross in the
graveyard shows that it stands on a Saxon site. It is more reasonable to suppose
that Edward’s borough, if it was at Bakewell, has disappeared as completely as
those of Runcorn, Buckingham, and Thelwall, and that the motte and bailey
belong to one of the many Norman castles whose names never appear in history.
There is no conclusive evidence for the existence of a Norman castle at
Bakewell, but the names Castle Field, Warden Field, and Court Yard are at least
suggestive.[116] Bakewell was the seat of jurisdiction for the High Peak Hundred
in mediæval times.[117]
town of the old city.” This is its title in mediæval deeds, and it is still preserved in
Alport Street, a street near the remains of the castrum.[114] The later borough of
Manchester, which existed at least as early as the 13th century, appears to have
grown up round the Norman castle, about a mile from the Roman castrum.[115]
Bakewell.—The vagueness of the indication in the Chronicle, “nigh to
Bakewell,” leaves us in some doubt where we are to look for this burh, which
Florence calls an urbs. Just outside the village of Bakewell there are the remains
of a motte and bailey castle (a small motte and bailey of 2 acres), which are
always assumed to be the burh of Edward. But the enclosure is far too small for a
borough, and Edward’s burh would certainly have enclosed the church; for
though the present church contains no Saxon architecture, the ancient cross in the
graveyard shows that it stands on a Saxon site. It is more reasonable to suppose
that Edward’s borough, if it was at Bakewell, has disappeared as completely as
those of Runcorn, Buckingham, and Thelwall, and that the motte and bailey
belong to one of the many Norman castles whose names never appear in history.
There is no conclusive evidence for the existence of a Norman castle at
Bakewell, but the names Castle Field, Warden Field, and Court Yard are at least
suggestive.[116] Bakewell was the seat of jurisdiction for the High Peak Hundred
in mediæval times.[117]
Page 54
CHAPTER IV
DANISH FORTIFICATIONS
We must now inquire into the nature of the fortifications built by the Danes in
England, which are frequently mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It has
often been asserted, and with great confidence, that the Danes were the authors of
the moated mounds of class(e); those in Ireland are invariably spoken of by
Lewis in his Topographical Dictionary as “Danish Raths.” This fancy seems to
have gone somewhat out of fashion since Mr Clark’s burh theory occupied the
field, though Mr Clark’s view is often so loosely expressed as to lead one to think
that he supposed all the Northern nations to be makers of mottes; in fact, he
frequently includes the Anglo-Saxons under the general title of “Northmen”![118]
We must therefore endeavour to find out what the Danish fortifications actually
were.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions twenty-four places where the Danes either
threw up fortifications (between 787 and 924) or took up quarters either for the
winter, or for such a period of time that we may infer that there was some
fortification to protect them. The word used for the fortification is generally
geweorc, a work, or fæsten (in two places only), which has also the general vague
meaning of a fastness. There are ten places where these works or fastnesses are
mentioned in the Chronicle:—
1. Nottingham.—We have already seen that the Danish host took up their winter
quarters here in 868, and that there is the highest probability that the borough
which Edward the Elder restored was first built by them. We have also seen that
it was a camp of roughly rectangular form, and enclosed a very large area,
necessary for great numbers.[119]
2. Rochester.—This city was besieged by the Danes in 885, and they fortified a
camp outside. As the artificial mound called Boley Hill is outside the city, most
topographers have jumped to the conclusion that this was the Danish camp. But
the character of the Danish fortification is clearly indicated in the Chronicle:
“they made a work around themselves,” that is, it was an enclosure.[120] They
could hardly have escaped by ship, as they did, if their camp had been above the
bridge, which is known to have existed in Saxon times. But Boley Hill is above
the bridge.
DANISH FORTIFICATIONS
We must now inquire into the nature of the fortifications built by the Danes in
England, which are frequently mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It has
often been asserted, and with great confidence, that the Danes were the authors of
the moated mounds of class(e); those in Ireland are invariably spoken of by
Lewis in his Topographical Dictionary as “Danish Raths.” This fancy seems to
have gone somewhat out of fashion since Mr Clark’s burh theory occupied the
field, though Mr Clark’s view is often so loosely expressed as to lead one to think
that he supposed all the Northern nations to be makers of mottes; in fact, he
frequently includes the Anglo-Saxons under the general title of “Northmen”![118]
We must therefore endeavour to find out what the Danish fortifications actually
were.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions twenty-four places where the Danes either
threw up fortifications (between 787 and 924) or took up quarters either for the
winter, or for such a period of time that we may infer that there was some
fortification to protect them. The word used for the fortification is generally
geweorc, a work, or fæsten (in two places only), which has also the general vague
meaning of a fastness. There are ten places where these works or fastnesses are
mentioned in the Chronicle:—
1. Nottingham.—We have already seen that the Danish host took up their winter
quarters here in 868, and that there is the highest probability that the borough
which Edward the Elder restored was first built by them. We have also seen that
it was a camp of roughly rectangular form, and enclosed a very large area,
necessary for great numbers.[119]
2. Rochester.—This city was besieged by the Danes in 885, and they fortified a
camp outside. As the artificial mound called Boley Hill is outside the city, most
topographers have jumped to the conclusion that this was the Danish camp. But
the character of the Danish fortification is clearly indicated in the Chronicle:
“they made a work around themselves,” that is, it was an enclosure.[120] They
could hardly have escaped by ship, as they did, if their camp had been above the
bridge, which is known to have existed in Saxon times. But Boley Hill is above
the bridge.
Page 55
3. Milton, in Kent (Middeltune).—Hæsten the Dane landed at the mouth of the
Thames with 80 ships, and wrought a geweorc here in 893. Two places in the
neighbourhood of Milton have been suggested as the site of it, a square
earthwork at Bayford Court, near Sittingbourne, and a very small square
enclosure called Castle Rough. Neither of these are large enough to have been of
any use to a force which came in 80 ships.[121] Steenstrup has calculated that the
average number of men in a Viking ship must have been from 40 to 50; Hæsten
therefore must have had at least 3200 men with him. It is therefore probable that
the camp at Milton has been swept away.
4. Appledore.—A still larger Danish force, which had been harrying the
Carlovingian empire, came in 250 ships, with their horses, in 893, and towed
their ships “up the river” (which is now extinct) from Lymne to Appledore, where
they wrought a work. There are no earthworks at Appledore now, but at
Kenardington, 2 miles off, there are remains of “a roughly defined rectangular
work, situated on the north and east of the church, on the slope of the hill towards
the marsh, a very likely place for an entrenchment thrown up to defend a fleet of
light-draught ships hauled up on the beach.”[122] The enclosure was very large,
one side which remains being 600 feet long.[123]
5. Benfleet.—Here Hæsten wrought a work in 894; here he was defeated by
Alfred’s forces, and some of his ships burnt. Mr Spurrell states that there are still
some irregular elevations by the stream and about the church, which he believes
to be remains of the Danish camp.[124] “As the fleet of ships lay in the Beamfleet,
it is obvious that the camp must have partaken of the character of a fortified
hithe, with the wall landward and the shore open to the river and the ships.” He
also learned on the spot that when the railway bridge across the Fleet was being
made, the remains of several ancient ships, charred by fire, and surrounded by
numerous human skeletons, were found in the mud.[125] Benfleet must have been
a very large camp, as not only was the joint army of Danes housed in it, that from
Milton and that from Appledore, but they had with them their wives and children
and cattle.
6. Shoebury (Fig. 6).—After the storming of the camp at Benfleet by the Saxon
forces, the joint armies of the Danes built another geweorc at Shoebury in Essex.
We should therefore expect a large camp here, and Mr Spurrell has shown that
the area was formerly about a third of a square mile. About half the camp had
been washed away by the sea when Mr Spurrell surveyed it in 1879, but enough
was left to give a good idea of the whole. It was a roughly square rampart, with a
ditch about 40 feet wide, the ditch having a kind of berm on the inner side. The
Thames with 80 ships, and wrought a geweorc here in 893. Two places in the
neighbourhood of Milton have been suggested as the site of it, a square
earthwork at Bayford Court, near Sittingbourne, and a very small square
enclosure called Castle Rough. Neither of these are large enough to have been of
any use to a force which came in 80 ships.[121] Steenstrup has calculated that the
average number of men in a Viking ship must have been from 40 to 50; Hæsten
therefore must have had at least 3200 men with him. It is therefore probable that
the camp at Milton has been swept away.
4. Appledore.—A still larger Danish force, which had been harrying the
Carlovingian empire, came in 250 ships, with their horses, in 893, and towed
their ships “up the river” (which is now extinct) from Lymne to Appledore, where
they wrought a work. There are no earthworks at Appledore now, but at
Kenardington, 2 miles off, there are remains of “a roughly defined rectangular
work, situated on the north and east of the church, on the slope of the hill towards
the marsh, a very likely place for an entrenchment thrown up to defend a fleet of
light-draught ships hauled up on the beach.”[122] The enclosure was very large,
one side which remains being 600 feet long.[123]
5. Benfleet.—Here Hæsten wrought a work in 894; here he was defeated by
Alfred’s forces, and some of his ships burnt. Mr Spurrell states that there are still
some irregular elevations by the stream and about the church, which he believes
to be remains of the Danish camp.[124] “As the fleet of ships lay in the Beamfleet,
it is obvious that the camp must have partaken of the character of a fortified
hithe, with the wall landward and the shore open to the river and the ships.” He
also learned on the spot that when the railway bridge across the Fleet was being
made, the remains of several ancient ships, charred by fire, and surrounded by
numerous human skeletons, were found in the mud.[125] Benfleet must have been
a very large camp, as not only was the joint army of Danes housed in it, that from
Milton and that from Appledore, but they had with them their wives and children
and cattle.
6. Shoebury (Fig. 6).—After the storming of the camp at Benfleet by the Saxon
forces, the joint armies of the Danes built another geweorc at Shoebury in Essex.
We should therefore expect a large camp here, and Mr Spurrell has shown that
the area was formerly about a third of a square mile. About half the camp had
been washed away by the sea when Mr Spurrell surveyed it in 1879, but enough
was left to give a good idea of the whole. It was a roughly square rampart, with a
ditch about 40 feet wide, the ditch having a kind of berm on the inner side. The
Page 56
bank also had a slight platform inside, about 3 feet above the general level.[126]
As Hæsten had lost his ships at Benfleet, there would be no fortified hithe
connected with it, and if there had been, the sea would have swept it away. The
camp was abandoned almost as soon as it was made, and the Danish army started
on that remarkable march across England which the Saxon Chronicle relates.
They were overtaken and besieged by Alfred’s forces, in a fastness at
7. Buttington, on the Severn.—It has sometimes been contended that this was
the Buttington near Chepstow; but as the line of march of the army was “along
the Thames till they reached the Severn, then up along the Severn,”[127] it is more
probable that it was Buttington in Montgomery, west of Shrewsbury.[128] Here
there are remains of a strong bank with a broad deep ditch, which was evidently
part of a rectangular earthwork, as it runs at right angles to Offa’s Dyke, which
forms one side of it. It now encloses both the churchyard and vicarage. Whether
the Danes constructed this earthwork, or found it there, we are not told.
8. There appear to be no remains of the geweorc on the river Lea, 20 miles above
London, made by the Danes in 896. But 20 miles above London, on the Lea,
would land us at Amwell, near Ware. In Brayley’s Hertfordshire it is stated that at
Amwell, “on the hill above the church are traces of a very extensive fortification,
the rampart of which is very distinguishable on the side overlooking the vale
through which the river Lea flows.”[129]
As Hæsten had lost his ships at Benfleet, there would be no fortified hithe
connected with it, and if there had been, the sea would have swept it away. The
camp was abandoned almost as soon as it was made, and the Danish army started
on that remarkable march across England which the Saxon Chronicle relates.
They were overtaken and besieged by Alfred’s forces, in a fastness at
7. Buttington, on the Severn.—It has sometimes been contended that this was
the Buttington near Chepstow; but as the line of march of the army was “along
the Thames till they reached the Severn, then up along the Severn,”[127] it is more
probable that it was Buttington in Montgomery, west of Shrewsbury.[128] Here
there are remains of a strong bank with a broad deep ditch, which was evidently
part of a rectangular earthwork, as it runs at right angles to Offa’s Dyke, which
forms one side of it. It now encloses both the churchyard and vicarage. Whether
the Danes constructed this earthwork, or found it there, we are not told.
8. There appear to be no remains of the geweorc on the river Lea, 20 miles above
London, made by the Danes in 896. But 20 miles above London, on the Lea,
would land us at Amwell, near Ware. In Brayley’s Hertfordshire it is stated that at
Amwell, “on the hill above the church are traces of a very extensive fortification,
the rampart of which is very distinguishable on the side overlooking the vale
through which the river Lea flows.”[129]
Page 57
Shoebury, Essex.
Fig. 6.
9. Bridgenorth, or Quatbridge.—The Winchester MS. of the Chronicle says the
Danes wrought a geweorc at Quatbridge, in 896, and passed the winter there.
There is no such place as Quatbridge now, only Quatford; and seeing there were
so few bridges in those days, we are disposed to accept the statement of the
Worcester MS., which must have been the best informed about events in the
west, that Bridgenorth was the site of their work, especially as the high rock at
Bridgenorth offers a natural fortification. The only circumstance that is in favour
Fig. 6.
9. Bridgenorth, or Quatbridge.—The Winchester MS. of the Chronicle says the
Danes wrought a geweorc at Quatbridge, in 896, and passed the winter there.
There is no such place as Quatbridge now, only Quatford; and seeing there were
so few bridges in those days, we are disposed to accept the statement of the
Worcester MS., which must have been the best informed about events in the
west, that Bridgenorth was the site of their work, especially as the high rock at
Bridgenorth offers a natural fortification. The only circumstance that is in favour
Page 58
of Quatford is that it is mentioned as a burgus in Domesday, which shows that it
possessed fortifications of the civic kind; and we shall see later on, that such
fortifications were often the work of the Danes. But this burgus may more
probably have been the work of Roger de Montgomeri, who planted a castle there
in the 11th century.
10. Tempsford.—Here the Danes wrought a work in 918.[130] There is a small
oblong enclosure at Tempsford, still in fair preservation, called Gannock Castle,
which is generally supposed to be this Danish work. The ramparts are about 11 or
12 feet above the bottom of the moat, which is about 20 feet wide. There is a
small circular mound, about 5 feet high, on top of the rampart, which appears to
be so placed as to defend the entrance. This mound is “edged all round by the
root of a small bank, which may have been the base of a stockaded tower.”[131]
This curious little enclosure is different altogether from any of the Danish works
just enumerated, and it is difficult to see what purpose it could have served. The
area enclosed is only half an acre, which would certainly not have accommodated
the large army “from Huntingdon and from the East Angles,” which built the
advanced post at Tempsford as a base for the forcible recovery of the districts
which they had lost.[132] Such a small enclosure as this might possibly have been
a citadel, but our knowledge of Danish camps does not tell us of any with
citadels, and it is hardly likely that the democratic constitution of these pirate
bands would have allowed of a citadel for the chief. It is far more probable that
this work belongs to a later time, and that the Danish camp has been swept away
by the river.[133]
11. Reading.—There is no “work” mentioned by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at
this place, which the Danes made their headquarters in 871, but we add it to the
list because Asser not only mentions it, but describes the nature of the
fortification. It was a vallum drawn between the rivers Thames and Kennet, so as
to enclose a peninsula.[134] It had several entrances, as the Danes “rushed out
from all the gates” on the Anglo-Saxon attack. Such a fort belongs to the simplest
and easiest kind of defence, used at all times by a general who is in a hurry, and it
has therefore no significance in determining the general type of Danish works.
Besides these eleven places where works are mentioned, there are thirteen places
where the Danes are said to have taken up their winter quarters, and where we
may be certain that they were protected by some kind of fortifications. These are
Thanet, Sheppey, Thetford, York, London, Torkesey, Repton, Cambridge, Exeter,
Chippenham, Cirencester, Fulham, and Mersey Island. Four places out of this list
—York, London, Exeter, and Cirencester—were Roman castra, whose walls
possessed fortifications of the civic kind; and we shall see later on, that such
fortifications were often the work of the Danes. But this burgus may more
probably have been the work of Roger de Montgomeri, who planted a castle there
in the 11th century.
10. Tempsford.—Here the Danes wrought a work in 918.[130] There is a small
oblong enclosure at Tempsford, still in fair preservation, called Gannock Castle,
which is generally supposed to be this Danish work. The ramparts are about 11 or
12 feet above the bottom of the moat, which is about 20 feet wide. There is a
small circular mound, about 5 feet high, on top of the rampart, which appears to
be so placed as to defend the entrance. This mound is “edged all round by the
root of a small bank, which may have been the base of a stockaded tower.”[131]
This curious little enclosure is different altogether from any of the Danish works
just enumerated, and it is difficult to see what purpose it could have served. The
area enclosed is only half an acre, which would certainly not have accommodated
the large army “from Huntingdon and from the East Angles,” which built the
advanced post at Tempsford as a base for the forcible recovery of the districts
which they had lost.[132] Such a small enclosure as this might possibly have been
a citadel, but our knowledge of Danish camps does not tell us of any with
citadels, and it is hardly likely that the democratic constitution of these pirate
bands would have allowed of a citadel for the chief. It is far more probable that
this work belongs to a later time, and that the Danish camp has been swept away
by the river.[133]
11. Reading.—There is no “work” mentioned by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at
this place, which the Danes made their headquarters in 871, but we add it to the
list because Asser not only mentions it, but describes the nature of the
fortification. It was a vallum drawn between the rivers Thames and Kennet, so as
to enclose a peninsula.[134] It had several entrances, as the Danes “rushed out
from all the gates” on the Anglo-Saxon attack. Such a fort belongs to the simplest
and easiest kind of defence, used at all times by a general who is in a hurry, and it
has therefore no significance in determining the general type of Danish works.
Besides these eleven places where works are mentioned, there are thirteen places
where the Danes are said to have taken up their winter quarters, and where we
may be certain that they were protected by some kind of fortifications. These are
Thanet, Sheppey, Thetford, York, London, Torkesey, Repton, Cambridge, Exeter,
Chippenham, Cirencester, Fulham, and Mersey Island. Four places out of this list
—York, London, Exeter, and Cirencester—were Roman castra, whose walls
Page 59
were still available for defence. Three—Thanet, Sheppey, and Mersey—were
islands, and thus naturally defended, being much more insular than they are now.
[135]
Three—Thetford, Torkesey, and Cambridge—appear as burgi in Domesday,
showing that they were fortified towns. It is highly probable that the Danes threw
up the first fortifications of these boroughs. There are no remains of town banks
at Torkesey; at Cambridge the outline of the town bank can be traced in places;
[136]
and at Thetford there was formerly an earthwork on the Suffolk side of the
river, which appears to have formed three sides of a square, abutting on the river,
and enclosing the most ancient part of the town.[137] Chippenham and Repton
were ancient seats of the Anglo-Saxon kings, and may have had fortifications, but
nothing remains now. Chippenham is a borough by prescription, therefore of
ancient date. At Fulham, on the Thames, there is a quadrangular moat and bank
round the Bishop of London’s palace, which is sometimes supposed to be the
camp made by the Danes in 879; but it may equally well be mediæval. There was
formerly a harbour at Fulham.[138]
It must be confessed that this list of Danish fortresses furnishes us with a very
slender basis for generalisation as to the nature of Danish fortifications, judging
from the actual remains. All we can say is that in six cases out of twenty-four
(not including Tempsford or Fulham) the work appears to have been rectangular.
In the case of Shoebury, about which we have the best evidence, the imitation of
Roman models seems to be clear. If we turn from remaining facts to à priori
likelihoods, we call to mind that the Danes were a much-travelled people, had
been in Gaul as well as in England, and had had opportunities of observing
Roman fortifications, as well as much practice both in the assault and defence of
fortified places. It may not be without significance that it is not until after the
return of “the army” from France that we hear of their building camps at all,
except in the case of Reading.
As far as our information goes, their camps were without citadels. What evidence
we have from the other side of the channel supports the same conclusion. Richer
gives us an account of the storming of a fortress of the Northmen at Eu, by King
Raoul, in 925, from which it is clear that as soon as the king’s soldiers had got
over the vallum, they were masters of the place; there was no citadel to attack.
[139]
Dudo speaks of the Vikings “fortifying themselves, after the manner of a
castrum, by heaped up earth-banks drawn round themselves,” and it is clear from
the rest of his description that the camp had no citadel.[140]
In no case do we find anything to justify the theory that mottes were an
accompaniment of Danish camps. In five cases out of the twenty-four there are or
islands, and thus naturally defended, being much more insular than they are now.
[135]
Three—Thetford, Torkesey, and Cambridge—appear as burgi in Domesday,
showing that they were fortified towns. It is highly probable that the Danes threw
up the first fortifications of these boroughs. There are no remains of town banks
at Torkesey; at Cambridge the outline of the town bank can be traced in places;
[136]
and at Thetford there was formerly an earthwork on the Suffolk side of the
river, which appears to have formed three sides of a square, abutting on the river,
and enclosing the most ancient part of the town.[137] Chippenham and Repton
were ancient seats of the Anglo-Saxon kings, and may have had fortifications, but
nothing remains now. Chippenham is a borough by prescription, therefore of
ancient date. At Fulham, on the Thames, there is a quadrangular moat and bank
round the Bishop of London’s palace, which is sometimes supposed to be the
camp made by the Danes in 879; but it may equally well be mediæval. There was
formerly a harbour at Fulham.[138]
It must be confessed that this list of Danish fortresses furnishes us with a very
slender basis for generalisation as to the nature of Danish fortifications, judging
from the actual remains. All we can say is that in six cases out of twenty-four
(not including Tempsford or Fulham) the work appears to have been rectangular.
In the case of Shoebury, about which we have the best evidence, the imitation of
Roman models seems to be clear. If we turn from remaining facts to à priori
likelihoods, we call to mind that the Danes were a much-travelled people, had
been in Gaul as well as in England, and had had opportunities of observing
Roman fortifications, as well as much practice both in the assault and defence of
fortified places. It may not be without significance that it is not until after the
return of “the army” from France that we hear of their building camps at all,
except in the case of Reading.
As far as our information goes, their camps were without citadels. What evidence
we have from the other side of the channel supports the same conclusion. Richer
gives us an account of the storming of a fortress of the Northmen at Eu, by King
Raoul, in 925, from which it is clear that as soon as the king’s soldiers had got
over the vallum, they were masters of the place; there was no citadel to attack.
[139]
Dudo speaks of the Vikings “fortifying themselves, after the manner of a
castrum, by heaped up earth-banks drawn round themselves,” and it is clear from
the rest of his description that the camp had no citadel.[140]
In no case do we find anything to justify the theory that mottes were an
accompaniment of Danish camps. In five cases out of the twenty-four there are or
Page 60
were mottes at the places mentioned, but in all cases they belonged to Norman
castles. The magnificent motte called the Castle Hill at Thetford was on the
opposite side of the river to the borough, which we have seen reason to think was
the site of the Danish winter quarters. Torkesey in Leland’s time had by the river
side “a Hille of Yerth cast up,” which he judged to be the donjon of some old
castle, probably rightly, though we have been unable as yet to find any mention
of a Norman castle at Torkesey; a brick castle of much more recent date is still
standing near the river, and probably the motte to which Leland alludes was
destroyed when this was built. The motte at Cambridge is placed inside the
original bounds of the borough, and was part of the Norman castle.[141] We have
already dealt with the Boley Hill at Rochester, and shall have more to say about it
hereafter. The rock motte at Nottingham was probably not cut off by a ditch from
the rest of the headland until the Norman castle was built.
Willington, Beds.
Fig. 7.
It seems highly probable that besides providing accommodation in their camps
for very large numbers of people, the Danes sometimes fortified the hithes where
they drew up their ships on shore, or even constructed fortified harbours.[142] We
castles. The magnificent motte called the Castle Hill at Thetford was on the
opposite side of the river to the borough, which we have seen reason to think was
the site of the Danish winter quarters. Torkesey in Leland’s time had by the river
side “a Hille of Yerth cast up,” which he judged to be the donjon of some old
castle, probably rightly, though we have been unable as yet to find any mention
of a Norman castle at Torkesey; a brick castle of much more recent date is still
standing near the river, and probably the motte to which Leland alludes was
destroyed when this was built. The motte at Cambridge is placed inside the
original bounds of the borough, and was part of the Norman castle.[141] We have
already dealt with the Boley Hill at Rochester, and shall have more to say about it
hereafter. The rock motte at Nottingham was probably not cut off by a ditch from
the rest of the headland until the Norman castle was built.
Willington, Beds.
Fig. 7.
It seems highly probable that besides providing accommodation in their camps
for very large numbers of people, the Danes sometimes fortified the hithes where
they drew up their ships on shore, or even constructed fortified harbours.[142] We
Page 61
have already quoted Mr Spurrell’s remark on the hithe[143] at Benfleet (p. 51),
and there is at least one place in England which seems to prove the existence of
fortified harbours. This is Willington, on the river Ouse, in Bedfordshire, which
has been carefully described by Mr A. R. Goddard.[144] This “camp” consists of
two wards, and a wide outer enclosure (Fig. 7). “But one of the most interesting
features is the presence of two harbours, contained within the defences and
communicating with the river.” Mr Goddard points out that the dimensions of the
smaller one are almost the same as those of the “nausts” (ship-sheds or small
docks) of the Vikings in Iceland. He also cites from the Jomsvikinga Saga the
description of a harbour made by the Viking Palnatoki at Jomsborg. “There he
had a large and strong sea burg made. He also had a harbour made within the
burg in which 300 long ships could lie at the same time, all being locked within
the burg.” The harbours at Willington are large enough to accommodate between
twenty-five and thirty-five ships of the Danish type. Unfortunately there is no
historical proof that the Willington works were Danish, though their construction
makes it very likely. Nor have any works of a similar character been as yet
observed in England, as far as we are aware.
But if archæology and topography give a somewhat scanty answer to our
question about the nature of Danish fortifications, there are other fields of
research, opened up of late years, from which we can glean important facts,
bearing directly on the subject which we are treating. Herr Steenstrup’s
exhaustive inquiry into the Danish settlement in England has shown that the way
in which the Danes maintained their hold on the northern and eastern shires was
by planting fortified towns on which the soldiers and peasants dwelling around
were dependent.[145] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives us a glimpse of these
arrangements when it speaks of the Danes who owed obedience to Bedford,
Derby, Leicester, Northampton, and Cambridge.[146] It also tells us of the Five
Boroughs, which, as we have already said, appear to have been a confederation
of boroughs forming an independent Danish state between the Danish kingdoms
of East Anglia and Northumbria.
The same system was followed by the Danes who colonised Ireland. “The colony
had a centre in a fortified town, or it consisted almost exclusively of dwellers in
one. But round this town was a district, in which the Irish inhabitants had to pay
taxes to the lords of the town.”[147] The Irish chronicle called The Wars of the
Gaedhil and the Gaill says, further, that Norse soldiers were quartered in the
country round these towns in the houses of the native Irish, and it even says that
there was hardly a house without a Norseman.[148] Herr Steenstrup does not go so
far as to assert that this system of quartering obtained in England also; but he
and there is at least one place in England which seems to prove the existence of
fortified harbours. This is Willington, on the river Ouse, in Bedfordshire, which
has been carefully described by Mr A. R. Goddard.[144] This “camp” consists of
two wards, and a wide outer enclosure (Fig. 7). “But one of the most interesting
features is the presence of two harbours, contained within the defences and
communicating with the river.” Mr Goddard points out that the dimensions of the
smaller one are almost the same as those of the “nausts” (ship-sheds or small
docks) of the Vikings in Iceland. He also cites from the Jomsvikinga Saga the
description of a harbour made by the Viking Palnatoki at Jomsborg. “There he
had a large and strong sea burg made. He also had a harbour made within the
burg in which 300 long ships could lie at the same time, all being locked within
the burg.” The harbours at Willington are large enough to accommodate between
twenty-five and thirty-five ships of the Danish type. Unfortunately there is no
historical proof that the Willington works were Danish, though their construction
makes it very likely. Nor have any works of a similar character been as yet
observed in England, as far as we are aware.
But if archæology and topography give a somewhat scanty answer to our
question about the nature of Danish fortifications, there are other fields of
research, opened up of late years, from which we can glean important facts,
bearing directly on the subject which we are treating. Herr Steenstrup’s
exhaustive inquiry into the Danish settlement in England has shown that the way
in which the Danes maintained their hold on the northern and eastern shires was
by planting fortified towns on which the soldiers and peasants dwelling around
were dependent.[145] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives us a glimpse of these
arrangements when it speaks of the Danes who owed obedience to Bedford,
Derby, Leicester, Northampton, and Cambridge.[146] It also tells us of the Five
Boroughs, which, as we have already said, appear to have been a confederation
of boroughs forming an independent Danish state between the Danish kingdoms
of East Anglia and Northumbria.
The same system was followed by the Danes who colonised Ireland. “The colony
had a centre in a fortified town, or it consisted almost exclusively of dwellers in
one. But round this town was a district, in which the Irish inhabitants had to pay
taxes to the lords of the town.”[147] The Irish chronicle called The Wars of the
Gaedhil and the Gaill says, further, that Norse soldiers were quartered in the
country round these towns in the houses of the native Irish, and it even says that
there was hardly a house without a Norseman.[148] Herr Steenstrup does not go so
far as to assert that this system of quartering obtained in England also; but he
Page 62
shows that it is probable, and we may add that such a system would help to
explain the speedy absorption of the Danes into the Anglo-Saxon population,
which took place in the Danelaw districts.[149]
The large numbers of the Danish forces, and the fact that in the second period of
their invasions they brought their wives and children with them, would render
camps of large area necessary. These numbers alone make it ridiculous to
attribute to the Danes the small motte castles of class (e), whose average area is
not more than 3 acres.
Finally, the Danish host was not a feudal host. Steenstrup asserts that the
principle of the composition of the host was the voluntary association of equally
powerful leaders, of whom one was chosen as head, and was implicitedly
obeyed, but had only a temporary authority.[150] We should not, therefore, expect
to find the Danish camps provided with the citadels by which the feudal baron
defended his personal safety. When Rollo and his host were coming up the Seine,
the Frankish king Raoul sent messengers to ask them who they were, and what
was the name of their chief. “Danes,” was the reply, “and we have no chief, for
we are all equal.”[151] That such an answer would be given by men who were
following a leader so distinguished as Rollo shows the spirit of independence
which pervaded the Danish hosts, and how little a separate fortification for the
chief would comport with their methods of warfare.[152]
We may conclude, then, with every appearance of certainty that the Danish
camps were enclosures of large area which very much resembled the larger
Roman castra, and that, like these, they frequently grew into towns. Placed as
they generally were on good havens, or on navigable rivers, they were most
suitable places for trade; and it turned out that the Danes, who were a people of
great natural aptitudes, had a special aptitude for commerce.[153] Dr Cunningham
remarks that they were the leading merchants of the country, and he attributes to
them a large share in the development of town life in England.[154] The
organisation of their armies was purely military, but at the same time democratic;
and when it was applied to a settled life in the new country, the organisation of
the town was the form which it took. The Lagmen of Lincoln, Stamford,
Cambridge, Chester, and York are a peculiarly Scandinavian institution, which
we find still existing at the time of the Domesday Survey.[155]
Thus we see that the fortifications of the Danes, like those of the Anglo-Saxons,
were the fortifications of the community. And we shall see in the next chapter
explain the speedy absorption of the Danes into the Anglo-Saxon population,
which took place in the Danelaw districts.[149]
The large numbers of the Danish forces, and the fact that in the second period of
their invasions they brought their wives and children with them, would render
camps of large area necessary. These numbers alone make it ridiculous to
attribute to the Danes the small motte castles of class (e), whose average area is
not more than 3 acres.
Finally, the Danish host was not a feudal host. Steenstrup asserts that the
principle of the composition of the host was the voluntary association of equally
powerful leaders, of whom one was chosen as head, and was implicitedly
obeyed, but had only a temporary authority.[150] We should not, therefore, expect
to find the Danish camps provided with the citadels by which the feudal baron
defended his personal safety. When Rollo and his host were coming up the Seine,
the Frankish king Raoul sent messengers to ask them who they were, and what
was the name of their chief. “Danes,” was the reply, “and we have no chief, for
we are all equal.”[151] That such an answer would be given by men who were
following a leader so distinguished as Rollo shows the spirit of independence
which pervaded the Danish hosts, and how little a separate fortification for the
chief would comport with their methods of warfare.[152]
We may conclude, then, with every appearance of certainty that the Danish
camps were enclosures of large area which very much resembled the larger
Roman castra, and that, like these, they frequently grew into towns. Placed as
they generally were on good havens, or on navigable rivers, they were most
suitable places for trade; and it turned out that the Danes, who were a people of
great natural aptitudes, had a special aptitude for commerce.[153] Dr Cunningham
remarks that they were the leading merchants of the country, and he attributes to
them a large share in the development of town life in England.[154] The
organisation of their armies was purely military, but at the same time democratic;
and when it was applied to a settled life in the new country, the organisation of
the town was the form which it took. The Lagmen of Lincoln, Stamford,
Cambridge, Chester, and York are a peculiarly Scandinavian institution, which
we find still existing at the time of the Domesday Survey.[155]
Thus we see that the fortifications of the Danes, like those of the Anglo-Saxons,
were the fortifications of the community. And we shall see in the next chapter
Page 63
that this was the general type of the fortifications which were being raised in
Western Europe in the 9th century.
Western Europe in the 9th century.
Page 64
CHAPTER V
THE ORIGIN OF PRIVATE CASTLES
We have now seen that history furnishes no instance of the existence of private
castles among the Anglo-Saxons or the Danes (previous to the arrival of Edward
the Confessor’s Norman friends), and we have endeavoured to show that this
negative evidence is of great significance. If, assuming that we are right in
accepting it as conclusive, we ask why the Anglo-Saxons did not build private
castles, the answer is ready to hand in the researches of the late Dr Stubbs, the
late Professor Maitland, Dr J. H. Round, and Professor Vinogradoff, which have
thrown so much fresh light on the constitutional history of England. These
writers have made it clear that whatever tendencies towards feudalism there were
in England before the Conquest, the system of military tenure, which is the
backbone of feudalism, was introduced into England by William the Conqueror.
[156]
“Feudalism, in both tenure and government was, so far as it existed in
England, brought full-grown from France,” says Dr Stubbs; and this statement is
not merely supported, but strengthened, by the work of the later writers named.
[157]
The institutions of the Anglo-Saxons, when they settled in England, were
tribal; and though these institutions were in a state of decay in the 11th century,
they were not completely superseded by feudal institutions till after the Norman
Conquest.
We should naturally expect, then, that the fortifications erected by the Anglo-
Saxons would be those adapted to their originally tribal state, that is, in the words
which we have so often used already, they would be those of the community and
not of the individual. And as far as we can discover the character of these
fortifications, we find that this was actually the case. As we have seen, we find
one of the earliest kings, Ida, building for the defence of himself and his
followers what Bede calls a city; and we find Alfred and his children also
building and repairing cities, at the time of the Danish invasions.
The same kind of thing was going on at about the same time in Germany and in
France. Henry the Fowler (919-936), that great restorer of the Austrasian
kingdom, planted on the frontiers which were exposed to the attacks of the Danes
and Huns a number of walled strongholds, not only for the purpose of resisting
invasion, but to afford a place of refuge to all the inhabitants of the country. He
ordained that every ninth man of the peasants in the district must build for
THE ORIGIN OF PRIVATE CASTLES
We have now seen that history furnishes no instance of the existence of private
castles among the Anglo-Saxons or the Danes (previous to the arrival of Edward
the Confessor’s Norman friends), and we have endeavoured to show that this
negative evidence is of great significance. If, assuming that we are right in
accepting it as conclusive, we ask why the Anglo-Saxons did not build private
castles, the answer is ready to hand in the researches of the late Dr Stubbs, the
late Professor Maitland, Dr J. H. Round, and Professor Vinogradoff, which have
thrown so much fresh light on the constitutional history of England. These
writers have made it clear that whatever tendencies towards feudalism there were
in England before the Conquest, the system of military tenure, which is the
backbone of feudalism, was introduced into England by William the Conqueror.
[156]
“Feudalism, in both tenure and government was, so far as it existed in
England, brought full-grown from France,” says Dr Stubbs; and this statement is
not merely supported, but strengthened, by the work of the later writers named.
[157]
The institutions of the Anglo-Saxons, when they settled in England, were
tribal; and though these institutions were in a state of decay in the 11th century,
they were not completely superseded by feudal institutions till after the Norman
Conquest.
We should naturally expect, then, that the fortifications erected by the Anglo-
Saxons would be those adapted to their originally tribal state, that is, in the words
which we have so often used already, they would be those of the community and
not of the individual. And as far as we can discover the character of these
fortifications, we find that this was actually the case. As we have seen, we find
one of the earliest kings, Ida, building for the defence of himself and his
followers what Bede calls a city; and we find Alfred and his children also
building and repairing cities, at the time of the Danish invasions.
The same kind of thing was going on at about the same time in Germany and in
France. Henry the Fowler (919-936), that great restorer of the Austrasian
kingdom, planted on the frontiers which were exposed to the attacks of the Danes
and Huns a number of walled strongholds, not only for the purpose of resisting
invasion, but to afford a place of refuge to all the inhabitants of the country. He
ordained that every ninth man of the peasants in the district must build for
Page 65
himself and his nine companions a dwelling in the “Burg,” and provide barns and
storehouses, and that the third part of all crops must be delivered and housed in
these towns.[158] In this way, says the historian Giesebrecht, he sought to
accustom the Saxons, who had hitherto dwelt in isolated farms, or open villages,
to life in towns. He ordered that all assemblies of the people should be held in
towns. Giesebrecht also remarks that it is not improbable that Henry the Fowler
had the example of Edward the Elder of England before his eyes when he
established these rows of frontier towns.[159]
The same causes led, on Neustrian soil, to the fortification of a number of cities,
the walls of which had fallen into decay during the period of peace before the
invasions of the Danes. Thus Charles the Bald commanded Le Mans and Tours to
be fortified “as a defence for the people against the Northmen.”[160] The bishops
were particularly active in thus defending the people of their dioceses.
Archbishop Fulk rebuilt the walls of Rheims, between 884 and 900;[161] his
successor, Hervey, fortified the town of Coucy[162] (about 900); the Bishop of
Cambray built new walls to his city in 887-911;[163] and Bishop Erluin fortified
Peronne in 1001, “as a defence against marauders, and a refuge for the
husbandmen of the country.”[164] But permission had probably to be asked in all
these cases, as it certainly had in the last. The Carlovingian sovereigns
represented a well-ordered state, modelled on the pattern of the Roman Empire;
they were jealous of any attempts at self-defence which did not proceed from the
State, and thus as long as they had the power they strove to put down all
associations or buildings of a military character which did not emanate from their
imperial authority.
The history of the 9th and 10th centuries is the history of the gradual break-up of
the Carlovingian Empire, and the rise of feudalism on its ruins. In 877, the year
of his death, Charles the Bald signed a decree making the counts of the
provinces, who until then had been imperial officers, hereditary. He thus, as
Sismondi says, annihilated the remains of royal authority in the provinces.[165]
The removable officers now became local sovereigns. Gradually, as the
Carlovingian Empire fell to pieces, the artificial organisation of the feudal system
arose to take its place. By the end of the 10th century the victory of feudalism
was complete; and the victory of feudalism was the victory of the private castle.
“The very word castle,” says Guizot, “brings with it the idea of feudal society;
we see it rising before us. It was feudalism that built these castles which once
covered our soil, and whose ruins are still scattered upon it. They were the
declaration of its triumph. Nothing like them had existed on Gallo-Roman soil.
storehouses, and that the third part of all crops must be delivered and housed in
these towns.[158] In this way, says the historian Giesebrecht, he sought to
accustom the Saxons, who had hitherto dwelt in isolated farms, or open villages,
to life in towns. He ordered that all assemblies of the people should be held in
towns. Giesebrecht also remarks that it is not improbable that Henry the Fowler
had the example of Edward the Elder of England before his eyes when he
established these rows of frontier towns.[159]
The same causes led, on Neustrian soil, to the fortification of a number of cities,
the walls of which had fallen into decay during the period of peace before the
invasions of the Danes. Thus Charles the Bald commanded Le Mans and Tours to
be fortified “as a defence for the people against the Northmen.”[160] The bishops
were particularly active in thus defending the people of their dioceses.
Archbishop Fulk rebuilt the walls of Rheims, between 884 and 900;[161] his
successor, Hervey, fortified the town of Coucy[162] (about 900); the Bishop of
Cambray built new walls to his city in 887-911;[163] and Bishop Erluin fortified
Peronne in 1001, “as a defence against marauders, and a refuge for the
husbandmen of the country.”[164] But permission had probably to be asked in all
these cases, as it certainly had in the last. The Carlovingian sovereigns
represented a well-ordered state, modelled on the pattern of the Roman Empire;
they were jealous of any attempts at self-defence which did not proceed from the
State, and thus as long as they had the power they strove to put down all
associations or buildings of a military character which did not emanate from their
imperial authority.
The history of the 9th and 10th centuries is the history of the gradual break-up of
the Carlovingian Empire, and the rise of feudalism on its ruins. In 877, the year
of his death, Charles the Bald signed a decree making the counts of the
provinces, who until then had been imperial officers, hereditary. He thus, as
Sismondi says, annihilated the remains of royal authority in the provinces.[165]
The removable officers now became local sovereigns. Gradually, as the
Carlovingian Empire fell to pieces, the artificial organisation of the feudal system
arose to take its place. By the end of the 10th century the victory of feudalism
was complete; and the victory of feudalism was the victory of the private castle.
“The very word castle,” says Guizot, “brings with it the idea of feudal society;
we see it rising before us. It was feudalism that built these castles which once
covered our soil, and whose ruins are still scattered upon it. They were the
declaration of its triumph. Nothing like them had existed on Gallo-Roman soil.
Page 66
Before the Germanic invasion, the great landed proprietors dwelt either in the
cities, or in beautiful houses agreeably situated near the cities.”[166] These Gallo-
Roman villas had no fortifications;[167] nor were the Roman villas in England
fortified.[168] It was the business of the State to defend the community; this was
the theory so long sustained by imperial Rome, and which broke down so
completely under the later Carlovingians.
In the time of Charlemagne and Louis le Debonnaire, even the royal palaces do
not appear to have been fortified. They were always spoken of as palatia, never
as castella. The Danes, when they took possession of the palace of Nimeguen in
880, fortified it with ditches and banks.[169] Charles the Bald appears to have
been the first to fortify the palace of Compiègne.[170]
Although there can be no doubt that private castles had become extremely
common on the mainland of Western Europe before the end of the 10th century, it
is more difficult than is generally supposed to trace their first appearance.
Historians, even those of great repute, have been somewhat careless in translating
the words castrum or castellum as castle or château, and taking them in the sense
of the feudal or private castle.[171] We have already pointed out that these words
in our Anglo-Saxon charters mean a town or village.[172] The fact is that from
Roman times until toward the end of the 9th century the words castrum and
castellum are used indifferently for a fortified city or town, or a temporary camp.
The expression civitates et castella is not uncommon, and might lead one to think
that a distinction was drawn between large and small towns, or forts. But it is far
more likely that it is a mere pleonasm, a bit of that redundancy which was always
dear to the mediæval scribe who was trying to write well. For as the instances
cited in the Appendix will prove, we constantly find the words castrum and
castellum used for the same town, sometimes even in the same paragraph. Later,
from the last quarter of the 9th century to the middle of the 12th century, these
same words are used indifferently for a town or a castle, and it is impossible to
tell, except by the context, whether a town or a castle is meant; and often even
the context throws no light upon it.
This makes it extremely difficult to say with any exactness when the private
castle first arose. We seem indeed to have a fixed date in the Capitulary of Pistes,
issued by Charles the Bald in 864,[173] in which he straightly ordered that all who
had made castles, forts, or hedge-works without his permission should forthwith
be compelled to destroy them, because through them the whole neighbourhood
suffered depredation and annoyance. This edict shows, we might argue, that
private castles were sufficiently numerous by the year 864 to have become a
cities, or in beautiful houses agreeably situated near the cities.”[166] These Gallo-
Roman villas had no fortifications;[167] nor were the Roman villas in England
fortified.[168] It was the business of the State to defend the community; this was
the theory so long sustained by imperial Rome, and which broke down so
completely under the later Carlovingians.
In the time of Charlemagne and Louis le Debonnaire, even the royal palaces do
not appear to have been fortified. They were always spoken of as palatia, never
as castella. The Danes, when they took possession of the palace of Nimeguen in
880, fortified it with ditches and banks.[169] Charles the Bald appears to have
been the first to fortify the palace of Compiègne.[170]
Although there can be no doubt that private castles had become extremely
common on the mainland of Western Europe before the end of the 10th century, it
is more difficult than is generally supposed to trace their first appearance.
Historians, even those of great repute, have been somewhat careless in translating
the words castrum or castellum as castle or château, and taking them in the sense
of the feudal or private castle.[171] We have already pointed out that these words
in our Anglo-Saxon charters mean a town or village.[172] The fact is that from
Roman times until toward the end of the 9th century the words castrum and
castellum are used indifferently for a fortified city or town, or a temporary camp.
The expression civitates et castella is not uncommon, and might lead one to think
that a distinction was drawn between large and small towns, or forts. But it is far
more likely that it is a mere pleonasm, a bit of that redundancy which was always
dear to the mediæval scribe who was trying to write well. For as the instances
cited in the Appendix will prove, we constantly find the words castrum and
castellum used for the same town, sometimes even in the same paragraph. Later,
from the last quarter of the 9th century to the middle of the 12th century, these
same words are used indifferently for a town or a castle, and it is impossible to
tell, except by the context, whether a town or a castle is meant; and often even
the context throws no light upon it.
This makes it extremely difficult to say with any exactness when the private
castle first arose. We seem indeed to have a fixed date in the Capitulary of Pistes,
issued by Charles the Bald in 864,[173] in which he straightly ordered that all who
had made castles, forts, or hedge-works without his permission should forthwith
be compelled to destroy them, because through them the whole neighbourhood
suffered depredation and annoyance. This edict shows, we might argue, that
private castles were sufficiently numerous by the year 864 to have become a
Page 67
public nuisance, calling for special legislation. But the chronicles of the second
half of the 9th century do not reveal any extensive prevalence of private castles.
Indeed, after studying all the most important chronicles of Neustria and Austrasia
during this period, the present writer has only been able to find four instances of
fortifications which have any claim at all to be considered private castles; and
even this claim is doubtful.[174]
When we come to the chroniclers of the middle of the 10th century we find a
marked difference. It is true that the words castrum, castellum, municipium,
oppidum, munitio, are still used quite indifferently by Flodoard and other writers
for one and the same thing, and that in a great many cases they obviously mean a
fortified town. But there are other cases where they evidently mean a castle. And
if we compare these writers with the earlier ones in the same way as we have
already compared the pre-Conquest portion of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle with
the chroniclers of the 11th and 12th centuries, we find the same contrast between
them. In the pages of Flodoard or Ademar the action constantly turns on the
building, besieging, and burning of castles, which by whatever name they are
called, have every appearance of being private castles. In fact before we get to
the end of the century, the private castle is as much the leading feature of the
drama as it is in the 11th or 12th centuries.
Why, then, had the chroniclers no fresh word for a thing which was in its
essential nature so novel? The obvious and only answer is that the private castle
in its earlier stages was nothing more than an embankment with a wooden
stockade thrown round some villa or farm belonging to a private owner, and was
therefore indistinguishable in appearance, though radically different in idea, from
the fortifications which had hitherto been thrown up for the protection of the
community.[175] How easily we may be mistaken in the meaning of the word
castellum, if we interpret it according to modern ideas, may be seen by
comparing the account of the bridge built by Charlemagne over the Elbe, in the
Annales Laurissenses, with Eginhards narrative of the same affair. The former
states that Charlemagne built a castellum of wood and earth at each end of the
bridge, while the latter tells us that it was a vallum to protect a garrison which he
placed there. This, however, was a work of public utility, and not a private castle.
But scanty as the evidence is, it all leads us to infer that the first private castles
were fortifications of this simple nature.[176] Mazières-on-the-Meuse, which was
besieged for four weeks by Archbishop Hervey, took its name from the macerias
or banks which Count Erlebald had constructed around it. It is impossible to say
whether this enclosure should be called a castle or a town, but in idea it was
half of the 9th century do not reveal any extensive prevalence of private castles.
Indeed, after studying all the most important chronicles of Neustria and Austrasia
during this period, the present writer has only been able to find four instances of
fortifications which have any claim at all to be considered private castles; and
even this claim is doubtful.[174]
When we come to the chroniclers of the middle of the 10th century we find a
marked difference. It is true that the words castrum, castellum, municipium,
oppidum, munitio, are still used quite indifferently by Flodoard and other writers
for one and the same thing, and that in a great many cases they obviously mean a
fortified town. But there are other cases where they evidently mean a castle. And
if we compare these writers with the earlier ones in the same way as we have
already compared the pre-Conquest portion of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle with
the chroniclers of the 11th and 12th centuries, we find the same contrast between
them. In the pages of Flodoard or Ademar the action constantly turns on the
building, besieging, and burning of castles, which by whatever name they are
called, have every appearance of being private castles. In fact before we get to
the end of the century, the private castle is as much the leading feature of the
drama as it is in the 11th or 12th centuries.
Why, then, had the chroniclers no fresh word for a thing which was in its
essential nature so novel? The obvious and only answer is that the private castle
in its earlier stages was nothing more than an embankment with a wooden
stockade thrown round some villa or farm belonging to a private owner, and was
therefore indistinguishable in appearance, though radically different in idea, from
the fortifications which had hitherto been thrown up for the protection of the
community.[175] How easily we may be mistaken in the meaning of the word
castellum, if we interpret it according to modern ideas, may be seen by
comparing the account of the bridge built by Charlemagne over the Elbe, in the
Annales Laurissenses, with Eginhards narrative of the same affair. The former
states that Charlemagne built a castellum of wood and earth at each end of the
bridge, while the latter tells us that it was a vallum to protect a garrison which he
placed there. This, however, was a work of public utility, and not a private castle.
But scanty as the evidence is, it all leads us to infer that the first private castles
were fortifications of this simple nature.[176] Mazières-on-the-Meuse, which was
besieged for four weeks by Archbishop Hervey, took its name from the macerias
or banks which Count Erlebald had constructed around it. It is impossible to say
whether this enclosure should be called a castle or a town, but in idea it was
Page 68
certainly a castle, since it was an enclosure formed for private, not for public
interests.
Whether these first private castles were provided with towers we have no
evidence either to prove or to disprove. No instance occurs from which we can
conclude that they possessed any kind of citadel, before the middle of the 10th
century.[177] But before the century is far advanced, we hear of towers in
connection with the great towns, which, whether they were originally mural
towers or not, are evidently private strongholds, and may justly be called keeps.
The earliest instance known to the writer is in 924, when the tower of the
presidium where Herbert Count of Vermandois had imprisoned Charles the
Simple was burnt accidentally.[178] This tower must have been restored, as nine
years later it withstood a six weeks’ siege from King Raoul. A possibly earlier
instance is that of Nantes, where Bishop Fulcher had made a castle in 889; for
when this castle was restored by Count Alan Barbetorte (937-943), we are told
that he restored the principal tower and made it into his own house.[179] Count
Herbert built a keep in Laon before 931; and this appears to have been a different
tower to the one attached to the royal house which Louis d’Outremer had built at
the gate of the city.[180] We hear also of towers at Amiens (950), Coucy (958),
Chalons (963), and Rheims (988). All these towers, it will be observed, are
connected with towns.[181] The first stone keep in the country for whose date we
have positive evidence, is that of Langeais, built by Fulk Nerra, Count of Anjou,
about the year 994; its ruins still exist.
But we are concerned more particularly here with the origin of the motte-and-
bailey castle. The exact place or time of its first appearance is still a matter of
conjecture. Certainly there is not a word in the chronicles which is descriptive of
this kind of castle before the beginning of the 11th century.[182] The first
historical mention of a castle which is clearly of the motte-and-bailey kind is in
the Chronicle of St Florent le Vieil, where, at a date which the modern biographer
of Fulk Nerra fixes at 1010, we learn that this same Count of Anjou built a castle
on the western side of the hill Mont-Glonne, at St Florent le Vieil, on the Loire,
and threw up an agger on which he built a wooden tower.[183] In this case the
word agger evidently means a motte. But Fulk began to reign in 987; he was a
great builder of castles, and was famed for his skill in military affairs.[184] One of
his first castles, built between 991 and 994, was at Montbazon, not far from
Tours. About 500 metres from the later castle of Montbazon is a motte and
outworks, which De Salies not unreasonably supposes to be the original castle of
Fulk.[185] Montrichard, Chateaufort, Chérament, Montboyau, and Baugé are all
interests.
Whether these first private castles were provided with towers we have no
evidence either to prove or to disprove. No instance occurs from which we can
conclude that they possessed any kind of citadel, before the middle of the 10th
century.[177] But before the century is far advanced, we hear of towers in
connection with the great towns, which, whether they were originally mural
towers or not, are evidently private strongholds, and may justly be called keeps.
The earliest instance known to the writer is in 924, when the tower of the
presidium where Herbert Count of Vermandois had imprisoned Charles the
Simple was burnt accidentally.[178] This tower must have been restored, as nine
years later it withstood a six weeks’ siege from King Raoul. A possibly earlier
instance is that of Nantes, where Bishop Fulcher had made a castle in 889; for
when this castle was restored by Count Alan Barbetorte (937-943), we are told
that he restored the principal tower and made it into his own house.[179] Count
Herbert built a keep in Laon before 931; and this appears to have been a different
tower to the one attached to the royal house which Louis d’Outremer had built at
the gate of the city.[180] We hear also of towers at Amiens (950), Coucy (958),
Chalons (963), and Rheims (988). All these towers, it will be observed, are
connected with towns.[181] The first stone keep in the country for whose date we
have positive evidence, is that of Langeais, built by Fulk Nerra, Count of Anjou,
about the year 994; its ruins still exist.
But we are concerned more particularly here with the origin of the motte-and-
bailey castle. The exact place or time of its first appearance is still a matter of
conjecture. Certainly there is not a word in the chronicles which is descriptive of
this kind of castle before the beginning of the 11th century.[182] The first
historical mention of a castle which is clearly of the motte-and-bailey kind is in
the Chronicle of St Florent le Vieil, where, at a date which the modern biographer
of Fulk Nerra fixes at 1010, we learn that this same Count of Anjou built a castle
on the western side of the hill Mont-Glonne, at St Florent le Vieil, on the Loire,
and threw up an agger on which he built a wooden tower.[183] In this case the
word agger evidently means a motte. But Fulk began to reign in 987; he was a
great builder of castles, and was famed for his skill in military affairs.[184] One of
his first castles, built between 991 and 994, was at Montbazon, not far from
Tours. About 500 metres from the later castle of Montbazon is a motte and
outworks, which De Salies not unreasonably supposes to be the original castle of
Fulk.[185] Montrichard, Chateaufort, Chérament, Montboyau, and Baugé are all
Page 69
castles built by Fulk, and all have or had mottes. Montboyau is the clearest case
of all, as it was demolished by Fulk a few years after he built it, and has never
been restored, so that the immense motte and outworks which are still to be seen
remain very much in their original state, except that a modern tower has been
placed on the motte, which is now called Bellevue.[186]
It was a tempting theory at one time to the writer to see in Fulk Nerra the
inventor of the motte type of castle, for independently of his fame in military
architecture, he is the first mediæval chieftain who is known to have employed
mercenary troops.[187] Now as we have already suggested in Chapter I., the plan
of the motte-and-bailey castle strongly suggests that there may be a connection
between its adoption and the use of mercenaries. For the plan of this kind of
castle seems to hint that the owner does not only mistrust his enemies, he also
does not completely trust his garrison. The keep in which he and his family live
is placed on the top of the motte, which is ditched round so as to separate it from
the bailey; the provisions on which all are dependent are stored in the cellar of
the keep, so that they are under his own hand; and the keys of the outer ward are
brought to him every night, and placed under his pillow.[188]
But unfortunately for this theory, there is some evidence of the raising of mottes
at an earlier period in the 10th century than the accession of Fulk Nerra. Thibault-
le-Tricheur, who was Count of Blois and Chartres from 932 to 962, was also a
great builder, and it is recorded of him that he built the keeps of Chartres,
Chateaudun,[189] Blois, and Chinon,[190] and the castle of Saumur; these must
have been finished before 962. Now there was anciently a motte at Blois, for in
the 12th century, Fulk V. of Anjou burnt the whole fortress, “except the house on
the motte.”[191] There was also a motte at Saumur;[192] and the plan of the castle
of Chinon is not inconsistent with the existence of a former motte.[193] These
instances seem to put back the existence of the motte castle to the middle of the
10th century.
We know of no earlier claim than this, unless we were to accept the statement of
Lambert of Ardres that Sigfrid the Dane, who occupied the county of Guisnes
about the year 928, fortified the town, and enclosed his own dunio with a double
ditch.[194] If this were true, we have a clear instance of a motte built in the first
half of the 10th century. But Lambert’s work was written at the end of the 12th
century, with the object of glorifying the counts of Guisnes, and its editor regards
the early part of it as fabulous. That Sigfrid fortified the town of Guisnes we can
easily believe, as we know the Danes commonly did the like (see Chapter IV.);
but that he built himself a personal castle is unlikely.[195]
of all, as it was demolished by Fulk a few years after he built it, and has never
been restored, so that the immense motte and outworks which are still to be seen
remain very much in their original state, except that a modern tower has been
placed on the motte, which is now called Bellevue.[186]
It was a tempting theory at one time to the writer to see in Fulk Nerra the
inventor of the motte type of castle, for independently of his fame in military
architecture, he is the first mediæval chieftain who is known to have employed
mercenary troops.[187] Now as we have already suggested in Chapter I., the plan
of the motte-and-bailey castle strongly suggests that there may be a connection
between its adoption and the use of mercenaries. For the plan of this kind of
castle seems to hint that the owner does not only mistrust his enemies, he also
does not completely trust his garrison. The keep in which he and his family live
is placed on the top of the motte, which is ditched round so as to separate it from
the bailey; the provisions on which all are dependent are stored in the cellar of
the keep, so that they are under his own hand; and the keys of the outer ward are
brought to him every night, and placed under his pillow.[188]
But unfortunately for this theory, there is some evidence of the raising of mottes
at an earlier period in the 10th century than the accession of Fulk Nerra. Thibault-
le-Tricheur, who was Count of Blois and Chartres from 932 to 962, was also a
great builder, and it is recorded of him that he built the keeps of Chartres,
Chateaudun,[189] Blois, and Chinon,[190] and the castle of Saumur; these must
have been finished before 962. Now there was anciently a motte at Blois, for in
the 12th century, Fulk V. of Anjou burnt the whole fortress, “except the house on
the motte.”[191] There was also a motte at Saumur;[192] and the plan of the castle
of Chinon is not inconsistent with the existence of a former motte.[193] These
instances seem to put back the existence of the motte castle to the middle of the
10th century.
We know of no earlier claim than this, unless we were to accept the statement of
Lambert of Ardres that Sigfrid the Dane, who occupied the county of Guisnes
about the year 928, fortified the town, and enclosed his own dunio with a double
ditch.[194] If this were true, we have a clear instance of a motte built in the first
half of the 10th century. But Lambert’s work was written at the end of the 12th
century, with the object of glorifying the counts of Guisnes, and its editor regards
the early part of it as fabulous. That Sigfrid fortified the town of Guisnes we can
easily believe, as we know the Danes commonly did the like (see Chapter IV.);
but that he built himself a personal castle is unlikely.[195]
Page 70
It is the more unlikely, because the Danes in Normandy do not appear to have
built personal castles until the feudal system was introduced there by Richard
Sans Peur. The settlement in Normandy was not on feudal lines. “Rollo divided
out the lands among his powerful comrades, and there is scarcely any doubt that
they received these lands as inheritable property, without any other pledge than to
help Rollo in the defence of the country.”[196] “The Norman constitution at
Rollo’s death can be described thus, that the duke ruled the country as an
independent prince in relation to the Franks; but for its internal government he
had a council at his side, whose individual members felt themselves almost as
powerful as the duke himself.”[197] Sir Francis Palgrave asserts that feudalism
was introduced into Normandy by the Duke Richard Sans Peur, the grandson of
Rollo, towards the middle of the 10th century. He “enforced a most extensive
conversion of allodial lands into feudal tenure,” and exacted from his baronage
the same feudal submission which he himself had rendered to Hugh Capet.[198]
It is quite in accordance with this that in the narrative of Dudo, who is our only
authority for the history of Normandy in the 10th century, there is no mention of
a private castle anywhere. We are told that Rollo restored the walls and towers of
the cities of Normandy,[199] and it is clear from the context that the castra of
Rouen, Fécamp, and Evreux, which are mentioned, are fortified cities, not
castles. Even the ducal residence at Rouen is spoken of as a palatium or an aula,
not as a castle; and it does not appear to have possessed a keep until (as we are
told by a later writer) the same Duke Richard who introduced the feudal system
into Normandy built one for his own residence.[200] It is possible that when the
feudal oath was exacted from the more important barons, permission was given
to them to build castles for themselves; thus we hear from Ordericus of the castle
of Aquila, built in the days of Duke Richard; the castle of the lords of
Grantmesnil at Norrei; the castle of Belesme; all of which appear to have been
private castles.[201] But there seems to have been no general building of castles
until the time of William the Conqueror’s minority, when his rebellious subjects
raised castles against him on all sides. “Plura per loca aggeres erexerunt, et
tutissimas sibi munitiones construxerunt.”[202] It is generally, and doubtless
correctly, supposed that aggeres in this passage means mottes, and taking this
statement along with the great number of mottes which are still to be found in
Normandy, it has been further assumed (and the present writer was disposed to
share the idea) that this was the time of the first invention of mottes. But the facts
which have been now adduced, tracing back the first known mottes to the time of
Thibault-le-Tricheur, and the county of Blois, show that the Norman claim to the
invention of this mode of fortification must be given up. If the Normans were late
built personal castles until the feudal system was introduced there by Richard
Sans Peur. The settlement in Normandy was not on feudal lines. “Rollo divided
out the lands among his powerful comrades, and there is scarcely any doubt that
they received these lands as inheritable property, without any other pledge than to
help Rollo in the defence of the country.”[196] “The Norman constitution at
Rollo’s death can be described thus, that the duke ruled the country as an
independent prince in relation to the Franks; but for its internal government he
had a council at his side, whose individual members felt themselves almost as
powerful as the duke himself.”[197] Sir Francis Palgrave asserts that feudalism
was introduced into Normandy by the Duke Richard Sans Peur, the grandson of
Rollo, towards the middle of the 10th century. He “enforced a most extensive
conversion of allodial lands into feudal tenure,” and exacted from his baronage
the same feudal submission which he himself had rendered to Hugh Capet.[198]
It is quite in accordance with this that in the narrative of Dudo, who is our only
authority for the history of Normandy in the 10th century, there is no mention of
a private castle anywhere. We are told that Rollo restored the walls and towers of
the cities of Normandy,[199] and it is clear from the context that the castra of
Rouen, Fécamp, and Evreux, which are mentioned, are fortified cities, not
castles. Even the ducal residence at Rouen is spoken of as a palatium or an aula,
not as a castle; and it does not appear to have possessed a keep until (as we are
told by a later writer) the same Duke Richard who introduced the feudal system
into Normandy built one for his own residence.[200] It is possible that when the
feudal oath was exacted from the more important barons, permission was given
to them to build castles for themselves; thus we hear from Ordericus of the castle
of Aquila, built in the days of Duke Richard; the castle of the lords of
Grantmesnil at Norrei; the castle of Belesme; all of which appear to have been
private castles.[201] But there seems to have been no general building of castles
until the time of William the Conqueror’s minority, when his rebellious subjects
raised castles against him on all sides. “Plura per loca aggeres erexerunt, et
tutissimas sibi munitiones construxerunt.”[202] It is generally, and doubtless
correctly, supposed that aggeres in this passage means mottes, and taking this
statement along with the great number of mottes which are still to be found in
Normandy, it has been further assumed (and the present writer was disposed to
share the idea) that this was the time of the first invention of mottes. But the facts
which have been now adduced, tracing back the first known mottes to the time of
Thibault-le-Tricheur, and the county of Blois, show that the Norman claim to the
invention of this mode of fortification must be given up. If the Normans were late
Page 71
in adopting feudalism, they were probably equally late in adopting private
castles, and the fortifications of William I.’s time were most likely copied from
castles outside the Norman frontier.[203]
It might be thought that the general expectation of the end of the world in the
year 1000, which prevailed towards the end of the 10th century, had something to
do with the spread of these wooden castles, as it might have seemed scarcely
worth while to build costly structures of stone. But it is not necessary to resort to
this hypothesis, because there is quite sufficient evidence to show that long
before this forecast of doom was accepted, wood was a very common, if not the
commonest, material used in fortification. The reader has only to open his Cæsar
to see how familiar wooden towers and wooden palisades were to the Romans;
and he has only to study carefully the chronicles of the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th
centuries to see how all-prevalent this mode of fortification continued to be. The
general adoption of the feudal system must have brought about a demand for
cheap castles, which was excellently met by the motte with its wooden keep and
its stockaded bailey. M. Enlart has pointed out that wooden defences have one
important advantage over stone ones, their greater cohesion, which enabled them
to resist the blows of the battering-ram better than rubble masonry.[204] Their
great disadvantage was their liability to fire; but this was obviated, as in the time
of the Romans, by spreading wet hides over the outsides. Stone castles were still
built, where money and means were available, as we see from Fulk Nerra’s keep
at Langeais; but the devastations of the Northmen had decimated the population
of Gaul; labour must have been dear, and skilled masons hard to find. In these
social and economic reasons we have sufficient cause for the rapid spread of
wooden castles in France.
The sum of the evidence which we have been reviewing is this: the earliest
mottes which we know of were probably built by Thibault-le-Tricheur about the
middle of the 10th century. But in the present state of our knowledge we must
leave the question of the time and place of their first origin open. The only thing
about which we can be certain is that they were the product of feudalism, and
cannot have arisen till it had taken root; that is to say, not earlier than the 10th
century.
castles, and the fortifications of William I.’s time were most likely copied from
castles outside the Norman frontier.[203]
It might be thought that the general expectation of the end of the world in the
year 1000, which prevailed towards the end of the 10th century, had something to
do with the spread of these wooden castles, as it might have seemed scarcely
worth while to build costly structures of stone. But it is not necessary to resort to
this hypothesis, because there is quite sufficient evidence to show that long
before this forecast of doom was accepted, wood was a very common, if not the
commonest, material used in fortification. The reader has only to open his Cæsar
to see how familiar wooden towers and wooden palisades were to the Romans;
and he has only to study carefully the chronicles of the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th
centuries to see how all-prevalent this mode of fortification continued to be. The
general adoption of the feudal system must have brought about a demand for
cheap castles, which was excellently met by the motte with its wooden keep and
its stockaded bailey. M. Enlart has pointed out that wooden defences have one
important advantage over stone ones, their greater cohesion, which enabled them
to resist the blows of the battering-ram better than rubble masonry.[204] Their
great disadvantage was their liability to fire; but this was obviated, as in the time
of the Romans, by spreading wet hides over the outsides. Stone castles were still
built, where money and means were available, as we see from Fulk Nerra’s keep
at Langeais; but the devastations of the Northmen had decimated the population
of Gaul; labour must have been dear, and skilled masons hard to find. In these
social and economic reasons we have sufficient cause for the rapid spread of
wooden castles in France.
The sum of the evidence which we have been reviewing is this: the earliest
mottes which we know of were probably built by Thibault-le-Tricheur about the
middle of the 10th century. But in the present state of our knowledge we must
leave the question of the time and place of their first origin open. The only thing
about which we can be certain is that they were the product of feudalism, and
cannot have arisen till it had taken root; that is to say, not earlier than the 10th
century.
Page 72
CHAPTER VI
DISTRIBUTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF
MOTTE-CASTLES
The motte-and-bailey type of castle is to be found throughout feudal Europe, but
is probably more prevalent in France and the British Isles than anywhere else. We
say probably, because there are as yet no statistics prepared on which to base a
comparison.[205] How recent the inquiry into this subject is may be learned from
the fact that Krieg von Hochfelden, writing in 1859, denied the existence of
mottes in Germany;[206] and even Cohausen in 1898 threw doubt upon them,[207]
although General Köhler in 1887 had already declared that “the researches of
recent years have shown that the motte was spread over the whole of Germany,
and was in use even in the 13th and 14th centuries.”[208] The greater number of
the castles described by Piper in his work on Austrian castles are on the motte-
and-bailey plan, though the motte in those mountainous provinces is generally of
natural rock, isolated either by nature or art. Mottes were not uncommon in Italy,
according to Muratori,[209] and are especially frequent in Calabria, where we may
strongly suspect that they were introduced by the Norman conqueror, Robert
Guiscard.[210] It is not improbable that the Franks of the first crusade planted in
Palestine the type of castle to which they were accustomed at home, for several
of the excellent plans in Rey’s Architecture des Croisés show clearly enough the
motte-and-bailey plan.[211] In most of these cases the motte was a natural rock.
On the other hand, we are told by Köhler that motte-castles are not found among
the Slavonic nations, because they never adopted the feudal system.[212] Nor are
there any in Norway or Sweden.[213] Denmark has some, which are attributed by
Dr Sophus Müller to the mediæval period.[214]
Of course whenever a motte was thrown up, the first castle upon it must have
been a wooden one. A stone keep could not be placed on loose soil.[215] The
motte, therefore, must always represent the oldest castle. But there is no reason to
think that the motte and its wooden keep were merely temporary expedients,
intended always to be replaced as soon as possible by stone buildings. Even after
stone castles had been fully developed, wood continued to hold its ground as a
solid building material until a very late period.[216] And mottes were used not
DISTRIBUTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF
MOTTE-CASTLES
The motte-and-bailey type of castle is to be found throughout feudal Europe, but
is probably more prevalent in France and the British Isles than anywhere else. We
say probably, because there are as yet no statistics prepared on which to base a
comparison.[205] How recent the inquiry into this subject is may be learned from
the fact that Krieg von Hochfelden, writing in 1859, denied the existence of
mottes in Germany;[206] and even Cohausen in 1898 threw doubt upon them,[207]
although General Köhler in 1887 had already declared that “the researches of
recent years have shown that the motte was spread over the whole of Germany,
and was in use even in the 13th and 14th centuries.”[208] The greater number of
the castles described by Piper in his work on Austrian castles are on the motte-
and-bailey plan, though the motte in those mountainous provinces is generally of
natural rock, isolated either by nature or art. Mottes were not uncommon in Italy,
according to Muratori,[209] and are especially frequent in Calabria, where we may
strongly suspect that they were introduced by the Norman conqueror, Robert
Guiscard.[210] It is not improbable that the Franks of the first crusade planted in
Palestine the type of castle to which they were accustomed at home, for several
of the excellent plans in Rey’s Architecture des Croisés show clearly enough the
motte-and-bailey plan.[211] In most of these cases the motte was a natural rock.
On the other hand, we are told by Köhler that motte-castles are not found among
the Slavonic nations, because they never adopted the feudal system.[212] Nor are
there any in Norway or Sweden.[213] Denmark has some, which are attributed by
Dr Sophus Müller to the mediæval period.[214]
Of course whenever a motte was thrown up, the first castle upon it must have
been a wooden one. A stone keep could not be placed on loose soil.[215] The
motte, therefore, must always represent the oldest castle. But there is no reason to
think that the motte and its wooden keep were merely temporary expedients,
intended always to be replaced as soon as possible by stone buildings. Even after
stone castles had been fully developed, wood continued to hold its ground as a
solid building material until a very late period.[216] And mottes were used not
Page 73
only throughout the 11th and 12th centuries, but even as late as the 13th. King
John built many castles of this type in Ireland; and as late as 1242 Henry III.
ordered a motte and wooden castle to be built in the island of Rhé.[217] Muratori
gives a much later instance: in 1320 Can Grande caused a great motte to be built
near Pavia, and surrounded with a ditch and hedge, in order to build a castle on it.
[218]
And as will be seen in the next chapter, there is considerable evidence that
many mottes in England which were set up in the reign of William I., retained
their wooden towers or stockades even till as late as the reign of Edward I. The
motte at Drogheda held out some time against Cromwell, and is spoken of by
him as a very strong place, having a good graft (ditch) and strongly palisaded.
[219]
Tickhill Castle in Yorkshire had a palisade on the counterscarp of the ditch
when it was taken by Cromwell.[220]
The position of these motte-castles is wholly different from that of prehistoric
fortresses. They are almost invariably placed in the arable country, and as a rule
not in isolated situations, but in the immediate neighbourhood of towns or
villages. It is rare indeed to find a motte-castle in a wild, mountainous situation in
England. The only instance which occurs to the writer is that of the motte on the
top of the Hereford Beacon; but there is great probability that this was a post
fortified by the Bishop of Hereford in the 13th century to protect his game from
the Earl of Gloucester. Nothing pointing to a prehistoric origin was found in this
motte when it was excavated by Mr Hilton Price,[221] though the camp in which it
is placed is supposed to be prehistoric.
The great majority of mottes in England are planted either on or near Roman or
other ancient roads, or on navigable rivers.[222] It was essential to the Norman
settlers that they should be near some road which would help them to visit their
other estates, which William had been so careful to scatter, and would also enable
them to revisit from time to time their estates in Normandy.[223] The rivers of
England were much fuller of water in mediæval times than they are now, and
were much more extensively used for traffic; they were real waterways. When we
find a motte perched on a river which is not navigable, the purpose probably was
to defend some ford, or to exact tolls from passengers. Thus the Ferry Hill
(corrupted into Fairy Hill) at Whitwood stands at the spot where the direct road
from Pontefract to Leeds would cross the Calder. It was probably not usual for
the motte to be dependent on a stream or a spring for its supply of water, and this
is another point in which the mediæval castle differs markedly from the
prehistoric camp; wells have been found in a number of mottes which have been
John built many castles of this type in Ireland; and as late as 1242 Henry III.
ordered a motte and wooden castle to be built in the island of Rhé.[217] Muratori
gives a much later instance: in 1320 Can Grande caused a great motte to be built
near Pavia, and surrounded with a ditch and hedge, in order to build a castle on it.
[218]
And as will be seen in the next chapter, there is considerable evidence that
many mottes in England which were set up in the reign of William I., retained
their wooden towers or stockades even till as late as the reign of Edward I. The
motte at Drogheda held out some time against Cromwell, and is spoken of by
him as a very strong place, having a good graft (ditch) and strongly palisaded.
[219]
Tickhill Castle in Yorkshire had a palisade on the counterscarp of the ditch
when it was taken by Cromwell.[220]
The position of these motte-castles is wholly different from that of prehistoric
fortresses. They are almost invariably placed in the arable country, and as a rule
not in isolated situations, but in the immediate neighbourhood of towns or
villages. It is rare indeed to find a motte-castle in a wild, mountainous situation in
England. The only instance which occurs to the writer is that of the motte on the
top of the Hereford Beacon; but there is great probability that this was a post
fortified by the Bishop of Hereford in the 13th century to protect his game from
the Earl of Gloucester. Nothing pointing to a prehistoric origin was found in this
motte when it was excavated by Mr Hilton Price,[221] though the camp in which it
is placed is supposed to be prehistoric.
The great majority of mottes in England are planted either on or near Roman or
other ancient roads, or on navigable rivers.[222] It was essential to the Norman
settlers that they should be near some road which would help them to visit their
other estates, which William had been so careful to scatter, and would also enable
them to revisit from time to time their estates in Normandy.[223] The rivers of
England were much fuller of water in mediæval times than they are now, and
were much more extensively used for traffic; they were real waterways. When we
find a motte perched on a river which is not navigable, the purpose probably was
to defend some ford, or to exact tolls from passengers. Thus the Ferry Hill
(corrupted into Fairy Hill) at Whitwood stands at the spot where the direct road
from Pontefract to Leeds would cross the Calder. It was probably not usual for
the motte to be dependent on a stream or a spring for its supply of water, and this
is another point in which the mediæval castle differs markedly from the
prehistoric camp; wells have been found in a number of mottes which have been
Page 74
excavated, and it is probable that this was the general plan, though we have not
sufficient statistics on this subject as yet.[224]
Occasionally, but very rarely, we find two mottes in the same castle. The only
instances in England known to the writer are at Lewes and Lincoln.[225] It is not
unfrequent to find a motte very near a stone castle. In this case it is either the
abandoned site of the original wooden castle, or it is a siege castle raised to
blockade the other one. We constantly hear of these siege castles being built in
the Middle Ages; their purpose was not for actual attack, but to watch the
besieged fort and prevent supplies from being carried in.[226] Hillocks were also
thrown up for the purpose of placing balistæ and other siege engines upon them;
but these would be much smaller than mottes, and would be placed much nearer
the walls than blockade castles.
The mottes of France are in all probability much more decidedly military than
those of England. France was a land of private war, after the dissolution of the
empire of Charlemagne; and no doubt one of the reasons for the rapid spread of
the motte-castle, after its invention, was due to the facilities which it offered for
this terrible game. In England the reasons for the erection of mottes seem to have
been manorial rather than military; that is, the Norman landholder desired a safe
residence for himself amidst a hostile peasantry, rather than a strong military
position which could hold out against skilful and well-armed foes.
Attached to the castle, both in England and abroad, we frequently find an
additional enclosure, much larger than the comparatively small area of the bailey
proper. This was the burgus or borough, which inevitably sprang up round every
castle which had a lengthened existence. Our older antiquaries, finding that the
word burgenses was commonly used in Domesday in connection with a site
where a castle existed, formed the mistaken idea that a burgus necessarily
implied a castle. But a burgus was the same thing as a burh, that is, a borough or
fortified town. It may have existed long before the castle, or it may have been
created after the castle was built. The latter case was very common, for the noble
who built a castle would find it to his advantage to build a burgus near it.[227] In
exchange for the protection offered by the borough wall or bank, he could
demand gablum or rent from the burghers; he could compel them to grind their
corn at his mill, and bake their bread at his oven; he could exact tolls on all
commodities entering the borough; and if there was a market he would receive a
certain percentage on all sales. The borough was therefore an important source of
revenue to the baron. Domesday Book mentions the new borough at Rhuddlan,
evidently built as soon as the castle had been planted on the deserted banks of the
sufficient statistics on this subject as yet.[224]
Occasionally, but very rarely, we find two mottes in the same castle. The only
instances in England known to the writer are at Lewes and Lincoln.[225] It is not
unfrequent to find a motte very near a stone castle. In this case it is either the
abandoned site of the original wooden castle, or it is a siege castle raised to
blockade the other one. We constantly hear of these siege castles being built in
the Middle Ages; their purpose was not for actual attack, but to watch the
besieged fort and prevent supplies from being carried in.[226] Hillocks were also
thrown up for the purpose of placing balistæ and other siege engines upon them;
but these would be much smaller than mottes, and would be placed much nearer
the walls than blockade castles.
The mottes of France are in all probability much more decidedly military than
those of England. France was a land of private war, after the dissolution of the
empire of Charlemagne; and no doubt one of the reasons for the rapid spread of
the motte-castle, after its invention, was due to the facilities which it offered for
this terrible game. In England the reasons for the erection of mottes seem to have
been manorial rather than military; that is, the Norman landholder desired a safe
residence for himself amidst a hostile peasantry, rather than a strong military
position which could hold out against skilful and well-armed foes.
Attached to the castle, both in England and abroad, we frequently find an
additional enclosure, much larger than the comparatively small area of the bailey
proper. This was the burgus or borough, which inevitably sprang up round every
castle which had a lengthened existence. Our older antiquaries, finding that the
word burgenses was commonly used in Domesday in connection with a site
where a castle existed, formed the mistaken idea that a burgus necessarily
implied a castle. But a burgus was the same thing as a burh, that is, a borough or
fortified town. It may have existed long before the castle, or it may have been
created after the castle was built. The latter case was very common, for the noble
who built a castle would find it to his advantage to build a burgus near it.[227] In
exchange for the protection offered by the borough wall or bank, he could
demand gablum or rent from the burghers; he could compel them to grind their
corn at his mill, and bake their bread at his oven; he could exact tolls on all
commodities entering the borough; and if there was a market he would receive a
certain percentage on all sales. The borough was therefore an important source of
revenue to the baron. Domesday Book mentions the new borough at Rhuddlan,
evidently built as soon as the castle had been planted on the deserted banks of the
Page 75
Clwydd. In some cases a “new borough” is clearly a new suburb, doubtless
having its own fortifications, built specially for the protection of the Norman
settlers in England, as at Norwich and Nottingham.[228]
That even in the 12th century a motte was considered an essential feature of a
castle is shown by Neckham’s treatise “De Utensilibus,” where he gives
directions as to how a castle should be built; the motte should be placed on a site
well defended by nature; it should have a stockade of squared logs round the top;
the keep on the motte should be furnished with turrets and battlements, and crates
of stones for missiles should be always provided, as well as a perpetual spring of
water, and secret passages and posterns, by which help might reach the besieged.
[229]
What the outward appearance of these motte-castles was we learn from the
Bayeux Tapestry, which gives us several instructive pictures of motte-castles
existing in the 11th century at Dol, Rennes, Dinan, and Bayeux.[230] There is
considerable variety in these pictures, and something no doubt must be ascribed
to fancy; but all show the main features of a stockade round the top of the motte,
enclosing a wooden tower, a ditch round the foot of the motte, with a bank on the
counterscarp, and a stepped wooden bridge, up which horses were evidently
trained to climb, leading across the moat to the stockade of the motte. In no case
is the bailey distinctly depicted, but we may assume that it has been already
taken, and that the horsemen are riding over it to the gate-house which (in the
picture of Dinan) stands at the foot of the bridge. The towers appear to be square,
but in the case of Rennes and Bayeux, are surmounted by a cupola roof.
Decoration does not appear to be have been neglected, and the general
appearance of the buildings, far from being of a makeshift character, must have
been very picturesque.
The picture of the building of the motte at Hastings shows only a stockade on top
of the motte; this may be because the artist intended to represent the work as
incomplete. What is remarkable about this picture is that the motte appears to be
formed in layers of different materials. We might ascribe this to the fancy of the
embroiderer, were it not that layers of this kind have occasionally been found in
mottes which have been excavated or destroyed. Thus the motte at Carisbrook,
which was opened in 1903, was found to be composed of alternate layers of large
and small chalk rubble. In some cases, layers of stones have been found; in others
(as at York and Burton) a motte formed of loose material has been cased in a sort
of pie-crust of heavy clay. In the Castle Hill at Hallaton in Leicestershire layers
of peat and hazel branches, as well as of clay and stone boulders, were found. But
having its own fortifications, built specially for the protection of the Norman
settlers in England, as at Norwich and Nottingham.[228]
That even in the 12th century a motte was considered an essential feature of a
castle is shown by Neckham’s treatise “De Utensilibus,” where he gives
directions as to how a castle should be built; the motte should be placed on a site
well defended by nature; it should have a stockade of squared logs round the top;
the keep on the motte should be furnished with turrets and battlements, and crates
of stones for missiles should be always provided, as well as a perpetual spring of
water, and secret passages and posterns, by which help might reach the besieged.
[229]
What the outward appearance of these motte-castles was we learn from the
Bayeux Tapestry, which gives us several instructive pictures of motte-castles
existing in the 11th century at Dol, Rennes, Dinan, and Bayeux.[230] There is
considerable variety in these pictures, and something no doubt must be ascribed
to fancy; but all show the main features of a stockade round the top of the motte,
enclosing a wooden tower, a ditch round the foot of the motte, with a bank on the
counterscarp, and a stepped wooden bridge, up which horses were evidently
trained to climb, leading across the moat to the stockade of the motte. In no case
is the bailey distinctly depicted, but we may assume that it has been already
taken, and that the horsemen are riding over it to the gate-house which (in the
picture of Dinan) stands at the foot of the bridge. The towers appear to be square,
but in the case of Rennes and Bayeux, are surmounted by a cupola roof.
Decoration does not appear to be have been neglected, and the general
appearance of the buildings, far from being of a makeshift character, must have
been very picturesque.
The picture of the building of the motte at Hastings shows only a stockade on top
of the motte; this may be because the artist intended to represent the work as
incomplete. What is remarkable about this picture is that the motte appears to be
formed in layers of different materials. We might ascribe this to the fancy of the
embroiderer, were it not that layers of this kind have occasionally been found in
mottes which have been excavated or destroyed. Thus the motte at Carisbrook,
which was opened in 1903, was found to be composed of alternate layers of large
and small chalk rubble. In some cases, layers of stones have been found; in others
(as at York and Burton) a motte formed of loose material has been cased in a sort
of pie-crust of heavy clay. In the Castle Hill at Hallaton in Leicestershire layers
of peat and hazel branches, as well as of clay and stone boulders, were found. But
Page 76
our information on this subject is too scanty to justify any generalisations as to
the general construction of mottes.
The pictures shown in the Bayeux Tapestry agree very well with the description
given by a 12th-century writer of the castle of Merchem, near Dixmüde, in the
life of John, Bishop of Terouenne, who died in 1130. “Bishop John used to stay
frequently at Merchem when he was going round his diocese. Near the
churchyard was an exceedingly high fortification, which might be called a castle
or municipium, built according to the fashion of that country by the lord of the
manor many years before. For it is the custom of the nobles of that region, who
spend their time for the most part in private war, in order to defend themselves
from their enemies to make a hill of earth, as high as they can, and encircle it
with a ditch as broad and deep as possible. They surround the upper edge of this
hill with a very strong wall of hewn logs, placing towers on the circuit, according
to their means. Inside this wall they plant their house, or keep (arcem), which
overlooks the whole thing. The entrance to this fortress is only by a bridge, which
rises from the counterscarp of the ditch, supported on double or even triple
columns, till it reaches the upper edge of the motte (agger).”[231] The chronicler
goes on to relate how this wooden bridge broke down under the crowd of people
who were following the bishop, and all fell 35 feet into the ditch, where the water
was up to their knees. There is no mention of a bailey in this account, but a bailey
was so absolutely necessary to a residential castle, in order to find room for the
stables, lodgings, barns, smithies and other workshops, which were necessary
dependencies of a feudal household, that it can seldom have been omitted, and
the comparatively rare instances which we find of mottes which appear never to
have had baileys were probably outposts dependent on some more important
castle.
Lambert of Ardres, the panegyrist of the counts of Guisnes,[232] writing about
1194, gives us a minute and most interesting description of the wooden castle of
Ardres, built about the year 1117. “Arnold, lord of Ardres, built on the motte of
Ardres a wooden house, excelling all the houses of Flanders of that period both
in material and in carpenter’s work. The first storey was on the surface of the
ground, where were cellars and granaries, and great boxes, tuns, casks, and other
domestic utensils. In the storey above were the dwelling and common living
rooms of the residents, in which were the larders, the rooms of the bakers and
butlers, and the great chamber in which the lord and his wife slept. Adjoining this
was a private room, the dormitory of the waiting maids and children. In the inner
part of the great chamber was a certain private room, where at early dawn or in
the evening or during sickness or at time of blood-letting, or for warming the
the general construction of mottes.
The pictures shown in the Bayeux Tapestry agree very well with the description
given by a 12th-century writer of the castle of Merchem, near Dixmüde, in the
life of John, Bishop of Terouenne, who died in 1130. “Bishop John used to stay
frequently at Merchem when he was going round his diocese. Near the
churchyard was an exceedingly high fortification, which might be called a castle
or municipium, built according to the fashion of that country by the lord of the
manor many years before. For it is the custom of the nobles of that region, who
spend their time for the most part in private war, in order to defend themselves
from their enemies to make a hill of earth, as high as they can, and encircle it
with a ditch as broad and deep as possible. They surround the upper edge of this
hill with a very strong wall of hewn logs, placing towers on the circuit, according
to their means. Inside this wall they plant their house, or keep (arcem), which
overlooks the whole thing. The entrance to this fortress is only by a bridge, which
rises from the counterscarp of the ditch, supported on double or even triple
columns, till it reaches the upper edge of the motte (agger).”[231] The chronicler
goes on to relate how this wooden bridge broke down under the crowd of people
who were following the bishop, and all fell 35 feet into the ditch, where the water
was up to their knees. There is no mention of a bailey in this account, but a bailey
was so absolutely necessary to a residential castle, in order to find room for the
stables, lodgings, barns, smithies and other workshops, which were necessary
dependencies of a feudal household, that it can seldom have been omitted, and
the comparatively rare instances which we find of mottes which appear never to
have had baileys were probably outposts dependent on some more important
castle.
Lambert of Ardres, the panegyrist of the counts of Guisnes,[232] writing about
1194, gives us a minute and most interesting description of the wooden castle of
Ardres, built about the year 1117. “Arnold, lord of Ardres, built on the motte of
Ardres a wooden house, excelling all the houses of Flanders of that period both
in material and in carpenter’s work. The first storey was on the surface of the
ground, where were cellars and granaries, and great boxes, tuns, casks, and other
domestic utensils. In the storey above were the dwelling and common living
rooms of the residents, in which were the larders, the rooms of the bakers and
butlers, and the great chamber in which the lord and his wife slept. Adjoining this
was a private room, the dormitory of the waiting maids and children. In the inner
part of the great chamber was a certain private room, where at early dawn or in
the evening or during sickness or at time of blood-letting, or for warming the
Page 77
maids and weaned children, they used to have a fire.... In the upper storey of the
house were garret rooms, in which on the one side the sons (when they wished it)
on the other side the daughters (because they were obliged) of the lord of the
house used to sleep. In this storey also the watchmen and the servants appointed
to keep the house took their sleep at some time or other. High up on the east side
of the house, in a convenient place, was the chapel, which was made like unto the
tabernacle of Solomon in its ceiling and painting. There were stairs and passages
from storey to storey, from the house into the kitchen, from room to room, and
again from the house into the loggia (logium), where they used to sit in
conversation for recreation, and again from the loggia into the oratory.”[233]
This description proves that these wooden castles were no mere rude sheds for
temporary occupation, but that they were carefully built dwellings designed for
permanent residence. The description is useful for the light it throws on the stone
keeps whose ruins remain to us. They probably had very similar arrangements,
and though only their outside walls are now existing, they must have been
divided into different rooms by wooden partitions which have now perished.[234]
In this account of Lambert’s it is further mentioned that the kitchen was joined to
the house or keep, and was a building of two floors, the lower one being
occupied by live stock, while the upper one was the actual kitchen. We must
remember that this account was written at the end of the 12th century. In the
earlier and simpler manners of the 11th century it is probable that the cooking
was more generally carried on in the open air, as it was among the Anglo-Saxons.
[235]
The danger of fire would prevent the development of chimneys in wooden
castles; we have seen that there was only one in this wonderful castle of Ardres.
But even after stone castles became common, we have evidence that the kitchen
was often an isolated building in the courtyard. One such kitchen still exists in
the monastic ruins of Glastonbury.
The word mota, which was used in the 12th century for the artificial hills on
which the wooden keeps of these castles were placed, comes from an old French
word motte, meaning a clod of earth, which is still used in France for a small
earthen hillock.[236] The keep itself appears to have been called a bretasche,
though this word seems to have meant a wooden tower of any kind, and was used
both for mural towers and for the movable wooden towers employed for sieges.
[237]
At a much later period it was given to the wooden balconies by which walls
were defended, but the writer has found no instance of this use of the word before
the 14th century. On the contrary, these wooden galleries for the purpose of
defending the foot of the walls by throwing missiles down are called hurdicia or
house were garret rooms, in which on the one side the sons (when they wished it)
on the other side the daughters (because they were obliged) of the lord of the
house used to sleep. In this storey also the watchmen and the servants appointed
to keep the house took their sleep at some time or other. High up on the east side
of the house, in a convenient place, was the chapel, which was made like unto the
tabernacle of Solomon in its ceiling and painting. There were stairs and passages
from storey to storey, from the house into the kitchen, from room to room, and
again from the house into the loggia (logium), where they used to sit in
conversation for recreation, and again from the loggia into the oratory.”[233]
This description proves that these wooden castles were no mere rude sheds for
temporary occupation, but that they were carefully built dwellings designed for
permanent residence. The description is useful for the light it throws on the stone
keeps whose ruins remain to us. They probably had very similar arrangements,
and though only their outside walls are now existing, they must have been
divided into different rooms by wooden partitions which have now perished.[234]
In this account of Lambert’s it is further mentioned that the kitchen was joined to
the house or keep, and was a building of two floors, the lower one being
occupied by live stock, while the upper one was the actual kitchen. We must
remember that this account was written at the end of the 12th century. In the
earlier and simpler manners of the 11th century it is probable that the cooking
was more generally carried on in the open air, as it was among the Anglo-Saxons.
[235]
The danger of fire would prevent the development of chimneys in wooden
castles; we have seen that there was only one in this wonderful castle of Ardres.
But even after stone castles became common, we have evidence that the kitchen
was often an isolated building in the courtyard. One such kitchen still exists in
the monastic ruins of Glastonbury.
The word mota, which was used in the 12th century for the artificial hills on
which the wooden keeps of these castles were placed, comes from an old French
word motte, meaning a clod of earth, which is still used in France for a small
earthen hillock.[236] The keep itself appears to have been called a bretasche,
though this word seems to have meant a wooden tower of any kind, and was used
both for mural towers and for the movable wooden towers employed for sieges.
[237]
At a much later period it was given to the wooden balconies by which walls
were defended, but the writer has found no instance of this use of the word before
the 14th century. On the contrary, these wooden galleries for the purpose of
defending the foot of the walls by throwing missiles down are called hurdicia or
Page 78
hourdes in the documents, a word of cognate origin to our word hoarding.[238]
The word bretasche is also of Teutonic origin, akin to the German brett, a board.
The court at the base of the hillock is always called the ballium, bayle, or bailey,
a word for which Skeat suggests the Latin baculus, a stick, as a possible though
very doubtful ancestor. The wooden wall which surrounded this court was the
palum, pelum, or palitium of the documents, a word which Mr Neilson has
proved to be the origin of the peels so common in Lowland Scotland, though it
has been mistakenly applied to the towers enclosed by these peels.[239] The
palitium was the stockade on the inner bank of the ditch which enclosed the
bailey; but the outer or counterscarp bank had also its special defence, called the
hericio, from its bristling nature (French hérisson, a hedgehog). There can be
little doubt that it was sometimes an actual hedge of brambles, at other times of
stakes intertwined with osiers or thorns.[240]
Thus the words most commonly used in connection with these wooden castles
are chiefly French in form, but a French that is tinctured with Teutonic blood.
This is just what we might expect, since the first castles of feudalism arose on
Gallic soil (France or Flanders), but on soil which was ruled by men of Teutonic
descent. We may regard it as fairly certain that it was in the region anciently
known as Neustria that the motte-castle first appeared; and as we have previously
shown, there is some reason to think that the centre of that region was the place
where it originated. But this must for the present remain doubtful. What we
regard as certain is that it was from France, and from Normandy in particular,
that it was introduced into the British Isles; and to those islands we must now
turn.
The word bretasche is also of Teutonic origin, akin to the German brett, a board.
The court at the base of the hillock is always called the ballium, bayle, or bailey,
a word for which Skeat suggests the Latin baculus, a stick, as a possible though
very doubtful ancestor. The wooden wall which surrounded this court was the
palum, pelum, or palitium of the documents, a word which Mr Neilson has
proved to be the origin of the peels so common in Lowland Scotland, though it
has been mistakenly applied to the towers enclosed by these peels.[239] The
palitium was the stockade on the inner bank of the ditch which enclosed the
bailey; but the outer or counterscarp bank had also its special defence, called the
hericio, from its bristling nature (French hérisson, a hedgehog). There can be
little doubt that it was sometimes an actual hedge of brambles, at other times of
stakes intertwined with osiers or thorns.[240]
Thus the words most commonly used in connection with these wooden castles
are chiefly French in form, but a French that is tinctured with Teutonic blood.
This is just what we might expect, since the first castles of feudalism arose on
Gallic soil (France or Flanders), but on soil which was ruled by men of Teutonic
descent. We may regard it as fairly certain that it was in the region anciently
known as Neustria that the motte-castle first appeared; and as we have previously
shown, there is some reason to think that the centre of that region was the place
where it originated. But this must for the present remain doubtful. What we
regard as certain is that it was from France, and from Normandy in particular,
that it was introduced into the British Isles; and to those islands we must now
turn.
Page 79
CHAPTER VII
THE CASTLES OF THE NORMANS IN ENGLAND
In this chapter we propose to give a list, in alphabetical order for convenience of
reference, of the castles which are known to have existed in England in the 11th
century, because they are mentioned either in Domesday Book, or in charters of
the period, or in some contemporary chronicle.[241] We do not for a moment
suppose that this catalogue of eighty-four castles is a complete list of those which
were built in England in the reigns of William I. and William II. We have little
doubt that all the castles in the county towns, such as Leicester, Northampton,
and Guildford, and those which we hear of first as the seats of important nobles
in the reign of Henry II., such as Marlborough, Groby, Bungay, Ongar, were
castles built shortly after the Conquest, nearly all of them being places which
have (or had) mottes. Domesday Book only mentions fifty castles in England and
Wales,[242] but it is well known that the Survey is as capricious in its mention of
castles as in its mention of churches. It is possible that further research in charters
which the writer has been unable to examine may furnish additional castles, but
the list now given may be regarded as complete as far as materials generally
accessible will allow.[243] One of the castles mentioned (Richard’s Castle) and
probably two others (Hereford and Ewias) existed before the Conquest; they
were the work of those Norman friends of Edward the Confessor whom he
endowed with lands in England.
Out of this list of eighty-four castles we shall find that no less than seventy-one
have or had mottes. The exceptions are the Tower of London, Colchester,
Pevensey, and Chepstow, where a stone keep was part of the original design, and
a motte was therefore unnecessary: Bamborough, Peak, and Tynemouth, where
the site was sufficiently defended by precipices: Carlisle and Richmond, whose
original design is unknown to us: Belvoir, Dover, Exeter, and Monmouth, which
might on many grounds be counted as motte-castles, but as the evidence is not
conclusive, we do not mark them as such; but even if we leave them out, with the
other exceptions, we shall find that nearly 86 per cent. of our list of castles of the
11th century are of the motte-and-bailey type.
About forty-three of these castles are attached to towns. Of these, less than a third
are placed inside the Roman walls or the Saxon or Danish earthworks of the
towns, while at least two-thirds are wholly or partly outside these enclosures.[244]
THE CASTLES OF THE NORMANS IN ENGLAND
In this chapter we propose to give a list, in alphabetical order for convenience of
reference, of the castles which are known to have existed in England in the 11th
century, because they are mentioned either in Domesday Book, or in charters of
the period, or in some contemporary chronicle.[241] We do not for a moment
suppose that this catalogue of eighty-four castles is a complete list of those which
were built in England in the reigns of William I. and William II. We have little
doubt that all the castles in the county towns, such as Leicester, Northampton,
and Guildford, and those which we hear of first as the seats of important nobles
in the reign of Henry II., such as Marlborough, Groby, Bungay, Ongar, were
castles built shortly after the Conquest, nearly all of them being places which
have (or had) mottes. Domesday Book only mentions fifty castles in England and
Wales,[242] but it is well known that the Survey is as capricious in its mention of
castles as in its mention of churches. It is possible that further research in charters
which the writer has been unable to examine may furnish additional castles, but
the list now given may be regarded as complete as far as materials generally
accessible will allow.[243] One of the castles mentioned (Richard’s Castle) and
probably two others (Hereford and Ewias) existed before the Conquest; they
were the work of those Norman friends of Edward the Confessor whom he
endowed with lands in England.
Out of this list of eighty-four castles we shall find that no less than seventy-one
have or had mottes. The exceptions are the Tower of London, Colchester,
Pevensey, and Chepstow, where a stone keep was part of the original design, and
a motte was therefore unnecessary: Bamborough, Peak, and Tynemouth, where
the site was sufficiently defended by precipices: Carlisle and Richmond, whose
original design is unknown to us: Belvoir, Dover, Exeter, and Monmouth, which
might on many grounds be counted as motte-castles, but as the evidence is not
conclusive, we do not mark them as such; but even if we leave them out, with the
other exceptions, we shall find that nearly 86 per cent. of our list of castles of the
11th century are of the motte-and-bailey type.
About forty-three of these castles are attached to towns. Of these, less than a third
are placed inside the Roman walls or the Saxon or Danish earthworks of the
towns, while at least two-thirds are wholly or partly outside these enclosures.[244]
Page 80
This circumstance is important, because the position outside the town indicates
the mistrust of an invader, not the confidence of a native prince. In the only two
cases where we know anything of the position of the residence of the Saxon
kings we find it in the middle of the city.[245] Even when the castle is inside the
town walls it is almost invariably close to the walls, so that an escape into the
country might always be possible.[246]
Of the towns or manors in which these castles were situated, Domesday Book
gives us the value in King Edward’s and King William’s time in sixty-two
instances. In forty-five cases the value has risen; in twelve it has fallen; in five it
is stationary. Evidently something has caused a great increase of prosperity in
these cases, and it can hardly be anything else than the impetus given to trade
through the security afforded by a Norman castle.
Our list shows that Mr Clark’s confident statement, that the moated mounds were
the centres of large and important estates in Saxon times, was a dream. Out of
forty-one mottes in country districts, thirty-six are found in places which were
quite insignificant in King Edward’s day, and only five can be said to occupy the
centres of important Saxon manors.[247]
In the table in the Appendix, the area occupied by the original baileys of the
castles in this list has been measured accurately by a planimeter, from the 25-in.
Ordnance maps, in all cases in which that was possible.[248] This table proves that
the early Norman castles were very small in area, suitable only for the personal
defence of a chieftain who had only a small force at his disposal, and absolutely
unsuited for a people in the tribal state of development, like the ancient Britons,
or for the scheme of national defence inaugurated by Alfred and Edward. We may
remark here that in not a single case is any masonry which is certainly early
Norman to be found on one of these mottes; where the date can be ascertained,
the stonework is invariably later than the 11th century.
Abergavenny (Fig. 8).—This castle, being in Monmouthshire, must be included
in our list. The earliest notice of it is a document stating that Hamelin de Ballon
gave the church and chapel of the castle of Abergavenny, and the land for making
a bourg, and an oven of their own, to the Abbey of St Vincent at Le Mans.[249]
The castle occupies a pointed spur at the S. end of the town, whose walls
converge so as to include the castle as part of the defence. The motte has been
much altered during recent years, and is crowned by a modern building; but a
plan in Coxe’s Tour in Monmouthshire, 1800, shows it in its original round form.
The bailey is roughly of a pentagonal shape, covering 1 acre, and is defended by
the mistrust of an invader, not the confidence of a native prince. In the only two
cases where we know anything of the position of the residence of the Saxon
kings we find it in the middle of the city.[245] Even when the castle is inside the
town walls it is almost invariably close to the walls, so that an escape into the
country might always be possible.[246]
Of the towns or manors in which these castles were situated, Domesday Book
gives us the value in King Edward’s and King William’s time in sixty-two
instances. In forty-five cases the value has risen; in twelve it has fallen; in five it
is stationary. Evidently something has caused a great increase of prosperity in
these cases, and it can hardly be anything else than the impetus given to trade
through the security afforded by a Norman castle.
Our list shows that Mr Clark’s confident statement, that the moated mounds were
the centres of large and important estates in Saxon times, was a dream. Out of
forty-one mottes in country districts, thirty-six are found in places which were
quite insignificant in King Edward’s day, and only five can be said to occupy the
centres of important Saxon manors.[247]
In the table in the Appendix, the area occupied by the original baileys of the
castles in this list has been measured accurately by a planimeter, from the 25-in.
Ordnance maps, in all cases in which that was possible.[248] This table proves that
the early Norman castles were very small in area, suitable only for the personal
defence of a chieftain who had only a small force at his disposal, and absolutely
unsuited for a people in the tribal state of development, like the ancient Britons,
or for the scheme of national defence inaugurated by Alfred and Edward. We may
remark here that in not a single case is any masonry which is certainly early
Norman to be found on one of these mottes; where the date can be ascertained,
the stonework is invariably later than the 11th century.
Abergavenny (Fig. 8).—This castle, being in Monmouthshire, must be included
in our list. The earliest notice of it is a document stating that Hamelin de Ballon
gave the church and chapel of the castle of Abergavenny, and the land for making
a bourg, and an oven of their own, to the Abbey of St Vincent at Le Mans.[249]
The castle occupies a pointed spur at the S. end of the town, whose walls
converge so as to include the castle as part of the defence. The motte has been
much altered during recent years, and is crowned by a modern building; but a
plan in Coxe’s Tour in Monmouthshire, 1800, shows it in its original round form.
The bailey is roughly of a pentagonal shape, covering 1 acre, and is defended by
Page 81
a curtain wall with mural towers and a gatehouse. The ditch on the W. and N. is
much filled in and obscured by the encroachment of the town. On the E. the
ground descends in a steep scarp, which merges into those of the headland on
which the motte is placed.[250]
much filled in and obscured by the encroachment of the town. On the E. the
ground descends in a steep scarp, which merges into those of the headland on
which the motte is placed.[250]
Page 82
Arundel, Sussex.
Page 83
Abergavenny, Monmouth.
Fig. 8.
Arundel (Fig. 8).—“The castrum of Arundel,” says Domesday Book, “paid 40s.
in King Edward’s time from a certain mill, and 20s. from three boardlands (or
feorm-lands), and 2s. from one pasture. Now, between the town feorm and the
water-gate and the ships’ dues, it pays 12l.”[251] Castrum in Domesday nearly
always means a castle; yet the description here given is certainly that of a town
and not of a castle. We must therefore regard it as an instance of the fluctuating
meaning which both castrum and castellum had in the 11th century.[252] Arundel
Fig. 8.
Arundel (Fig. 8).—“The castrum of Arundel,” says Domesday Book, “paid 40s.
in King Edward’s time from a certain mill, and 20s. from three boardlands (or
feorm-lands), and 2s. from one pasture. Now, between the town feorm and the
water-gate and the ships’ dues, it pays 12l.”[251] Castrum in Domesday nearly
always means a castle; yet the description here given is certainly that of a town
and not of a castle. We must therefore regard it as an instance of the fluctuating
meaning which both castrum and castellum had in the 11th century.[252] Arundel
Page 84
is one of the towns mentioned in the “Burghal Hidage.”[253] But even accepting
that the description in Domesday refers to the town, we can have very little doubt
that the original earthen castle was reared by Roger de Montgomeri, to whom
William I. gave the Rapes of Arundel and Chichester, and whom he afterwards
made Earl of Shrewsbury.[254] Roger had contributed sixty ships to William’s
fleet, and both he and his sons were highly favoured and trusted by William, until
the sons forfeited that confidence. We shall see afterwards that their names are
connected with several important castles of the early Norman settlement. We
shall see also that the Rapes into which Sussex was divided—Chichester,
Arundel, Bramber, Lewes, Pevensey, and Hastings—were all furnished with
Norman castles, each with the characteristic motte, except Pevensey, which had a
stone keep. Each of these castles, at the time of the Survey, defended a port by
which direct access could be had to Normandy. It was to protect his base that
William fortified these important estuaries, and committed them to the keeping of
some of the most prominent of the Norman leaders.
The castle stands on the end of a high and narrow ridge of the South Downs,
above the town of Arundel. It consists of an oblong ward, covering 4½ acres, in
the middle of which, but on the line of the west wall, is a large motte, about 70
feet high, surrounded by its own ditch. The lower and perhaps original bailey is
only 2 acres in extent. Round the top of the motte is a slightly oval wall, of the
kind called by Mr Clark a shell keep. We have elsewhere expressed our doubts of
the correctness of this term.[255] In all the more important castles we find that the
keep on top of the motte has a small ward attached to it, and Arundel is no
exception to this rule; it has the remains of a tower, as well as the wall round the
motte. The tower is a small one, but it is large enough for the king’s chamber in
times which were not extravagant in domestic architecture. It is probable that this
tower, and the stone wall round the motte are the work of Henry II., as he spent
nearly 340l. on this castle between the years 1170 and 1187. His work consisted
chiefly of a wall, a king’s chamber, a chapel, and a tower.[256] The wall of the
motte corresponds in style to the work of the middle of his reign; it is built of
flints, but cased with Caen stone brought from Normandy, and has Norman
buttresses. The original Norman doorway on the south side (now walled up) has
the chevron moulding, which shows that it is not earlier than the 12th century.
The tower, which we may assume to be the tower of Henry II.’s records, has a
round arched entrance, and contains a chapel and a chamber (now ruined) besides
a well chamber.
There is earlier Norman work still remaining in the bailey, namely, the fine
gateway, which though of plain and severe Norman, is larger and loftier than the
that the description in Domesday refers to the town, we can have very little doubt
that the original earthen castle was reared by Roger de Montgomeri, to whom
William I. gave the Rapes of Arundel and Chichester, and whom he afterwards
made Earl of Shrewsbury.[254] Roger had contributed sixty ships to William’s
fleet, and both he and his sons were highly favoured and trusted by William, until
the sons forfeited that confidence. We shall see afterwards that their names are
connected with several important castles of the early Norman settlement. We
shall see also that the Rapes into which Sussex was divided—Chichester,
Arundel, Bramber, Lewes, Pevensey, and Hastings—were all furnished with
Norman castles, each with the characteristic motte, except Pevensey, which had a
stone keep. Each of these castles, at the time of the Survey, defended a port by
which direct access could be had to Normandy. It was to protect his base that
William fortified these important estuaries, and committed them to the keeping of
some of the most prominent of the Norman leaders.
The castle stands on the end of a high and narrow ridge of the South Downs,
above the town of Arundel. It consists of an oblong ward, covering 4½ acres, in
the middle of which, but on the line of the west wall, is a large motte, about 70
feet high, surrounded by its own ditch. The lower and perhaps original bailey is
only 2 acres in extent. Round the top of the motte is a slightly oval wall, of the
kind called by Mr Clark a shell keep. We have elsewhere expressed our doubts of
the correctness of this term.[255] In all the more important castles we find that the
keep on top of the motte has a small ward attached to it, and Arundel is no
exception to this rule; it has the remains of a tower, as well as the wall round the
motte. The tower is a small one, but it is large enough for the king’s chamber in
times which were not extravagant in domestic architecture. It is probable that this
tower, and the stone wall round the motte are the work of Henry II., as he spent
nearly 340l. on this castle between the years 1170 and 1187. His work consisted
chiefly of a wall, a king’s chamber, a chapel, and a tower.[256] The wall of the
motte corresponds in style to the work of the middle of his reign; it is built of
flints, but cased with Caen stone brought from Normandy, and has Norman
buttresses. The original Norman doorway on the south side (now walled up) has
the chevron moulding, which shows that it is not earlier than the 12th century.
The tower, which we may assume to be the tower of Henry II.’s records, has a
round arched entrance, and contains a chapel and a chamber (now ruined) besides
a well chamber.
There is earlier Norman work still remaining in the bailey, namely, the fine
gateway, which though of plain and severe Norman, is larger and loftier than the
Page 85
early work of that style, and of superior masonry.[257] The one Pipe Roll of Henry
I. which we possess shows that he spent 78l. 6s. 2d. on the castle in 1130, and
possibly this refers to this gatehouse.[258] We know that Henry was a great
builder, but so was the former owner of this castle, Robert Belesme, son of Roger
de Montgomeri.
The value of the town of Arundel had greatly increased since the Conquest, at the
time of the Domesday Survey.[259]
Bamborough, Northumberland.—We first hear of this castle in the reign of
Rufus, when it was defended against the king by Robert Mowbray, the rebel Earl
of Northumberland; but there can be little doubt that the earliest castle on this
natural bastion was built in the Conqueror’s reign. In the 13th century certain
lands were held by the tenure of supplying wood to the castle of Bamborough,
and it was declared that this obligation had existed ever since the time of William
I.[260] William certainly found no castle there, for Bamborough had fallen into
utter ruin and desolation by the middle of the 11th century.[261] William’s hold on
Northumberland was too precarious to give opportunity for so long and costly a
work as the building of a stone keep. It is more probable that a strong wooden
castle was the fortress of the governors of Northumberland under the first
Norman kings, and that the present stone keep was built in Henry II.’s reign.[262]
There is no motte at Bamborough, nor was one needed on a site which is itself a
natural motte, more precipitous and defensible than any artificial hill.[263] As the
Domesday Survey does not extend to Northumberland, we have no statement of
the value of Bamborough. The area of the castle is 4¾ acres.
Barnstaple, Devon (Fig. 9).—This castle is not mentioned in Domesday, but the
town belonged to Judhael, one of the followers of the Conqueror, whose name
suggests a Breton origin. William gave him large estates in Devon and Cornwall.
A charter of Judhael’s to the priory which he founded at Barnstaple makes
mention of the castle.[264] Barnstaple, at the head of the estuary of the Taw, was a
borough at Domesday, and the castle was placed inside the town walls.[265] The
motte remains in good condition; the winding walks which now lead to the top
are certainly no part of the original plan, but are generally found in cases where
the motte has been incorporated in a garden. There was formerly a stone keep, of
which no vestige remains.[266] The castle seems to have formed the apex of a
town of roughly triangular shape. The bailey can just be traced, and must have
covered 1⅓ acres.
I. which we possess shows that he spent 78l. 6s. 2d. on the castle in 1130, and
possibly this refers to this gatehouse.[258] We know that Henry was a great
builder, but so was the former owner of this castle, Robert Belesme, son of Roger
de Montgomeri.
The value of the town of Arundel had greatly increased since the Conquest, at the
time of the Domesday Survey.[259]
Bamborough, Northumberland.—We first hear of this castle in the reign of
Rufus, when it was defended against the king by Robert Mowbray, the rebel Earl
of Northumberland; but there can be little doubt that the earliest castle on this
natural bastion was built in the Conqueror’s reign. In the 13th century certain
lands were held by the tenure of supplying wood to the castle of Bamborough,
and it was declared that this obligation had existed ever since the time of William
I.[260] William certainly found no castle there, for Bamborough had fallen into
utter ruin and desolation by the middle of the 11th century.[261] William’s hold on
Northumberland was too precarious to give opportunity for so long and costly a
work as the building of a stone keep. It is more probable that a strong wooden
castle was the fortress of the governors of Northumberland under the first
Norman kings, and that the present stone keep was built in Henry II.’s reign.[262]
There is no motte at Bamborough, nor was one needed on a site which is itself a
natural motte, more precipitous and defensible than any artificial hill.[263] As the
Domesday Survey does not extend to Northumberland, we have no statement of
the value of Bamborough. The area of the castle is 4¾ acres.
Barnstaple, Devon (Fig. 9).—This castle is not mentioned in Domesday, but the
town belonged to Judhael, one of the followers of the Conqueror, whose name
suggests a Breton origin. William gave him large estates in Devon and Cornwall.
A charter of Judhael’s to the priory which he founded at Barnstaple makes
mention of the castle.[264] Barnstaple, at the head of the estuary of the Taw, was a
borough at Domesday, and the castle was placed inside the town walls.[265] The
motte remains in good condition; the winding walks which now lead to the top
are certainly no part of the original plan, but are generally found in cases where
the motte has been incorporated in a garden. There was formerly a stone keep, of
which no vestige remains.[266] The castle seems to have formed the apex of a
town of roughly triangular shape. The bailey can just be traced, and must have
covered 1⅓ acres.
Page 86
The former value of Barnstaple is not given in the Survey, so we cannot tell
whether it had risen or not.
whether it had risen or not.
Page 87
Barnstaple, Devon.
Page 88
Berkhampstead, Herts.
Page 89
Bishop’s Stortford, Herts.
Fig. 9.
Belvoir, Leicester.—This castle was founded by the Norman Robert de Todeni,
who died in 1088.[267] It stands on a natural hill, so steep and isolated that it
might be called a natural motte. The first castle was destroyed by King John, and
the modernising of the site has entirely destroyed any earthworks which may
have existed on the hill. There appears to have been a shell wall, from the
descriptions given by Nicholls and Leland.[268] It was situated in the manor of
Bottesdene, a manor of no great importance, but which had risen in value at the
date of the Survey.[269]
Berkeley, or Ness.—The identity of Berkeley Castle with the Ness castle of
Domesday may be regarded as certain. All that the Survey says about it is: “In
Ness there are five hides belonging to Berkeley, which Earl William put out to
make a little castle.”[270] Earl William is William FitzOsbern, the trusty friend
and counsellor of the Conqueror, who had made him Earl of Herefordshire. He
had also authority over the north and west of England during William’s first
absence in Normandy, and part of the commission he received from William was
to build castles where they were needed.[271] Berkeley was a royal manor with a
large number of berewicks, and the probable meaning of the passage in
Domesday is that Earl William removed the geldability of the five hides
Fig. 9.
Belvoir, Leicester.—This castle was founded by the Norman Robert de Todeni,
who died in 1088.[267] It stands on a natural hill, so steep and isolated that it
might be called a natural motte. The first castle was destroyed by King John, and
the modernising of the site has entirely destroyed any earthworks which may
have existed on the hill. There appears to have been a shell wall, from the
descriptions given by Nicholls and Leland.[268] It was situated in the manor of
Bottesdene, a manor of no great importance, but which had risen in value at the
date of the Survey.[269]
Berkeley, or Ness.—The identity of Berkeley Castle with the Ness castle of
Domesday may be regarded as certain. All that the Survey says about it is: “In
Ness there are five hides belonging to Berkeley, which Earl William put out to
make a little castle.”[270] Earl William is William FitzOsbern, the trusty friend
and counsellor of the Conqueror, who had made him Earl of Herefordshire. He
had also authority over the north and west of England during William’s first
absence in Normandy, and part of the commission he received from William was
to build castles where they were needed.[271] Berkeley was a royal manor with a
large number of berewicks, and the probable meaning of the passage in
Domesday is that Earl William removed the geldability of the five hides
Page 90
occupying the peninsula or ness which stretches from Berkeley to the Severn,
bounded on the south by the Little Avon, and appropriated these lands to the
upkeep of a small castle. This castle can hardly have been placed anywhere but at
Berkeley, for there is no trace of any other castle in the district.[272] Earl Godwin
had sometimes resided at Berkeley, but probably his residence there was the
monastery which by evil means had come into his hands;[273] for we never hear
of any castle in connection with Godwin. But a Norman motte exists at Berkeley,
though buried in the stone shell built by Henry II. Mr Clark remarks: “If the
masonry of Berkeley Castle were removed, its remains would show a mound of
earth, and attached to three sides of it a platform, the whole encircled with a ditch
or scarp.”[274] The motte raised by Earl William has, in fact, been revetted with a
stone shell of the 12th century, whose bold chevron ornament over the entrance
gives evidence of its epoch. What is still more remarkable is that documentary
evidence exists to fix the date of this transformation. A charter of Henry II. is
preserved at Berkeley Castle, in which he grants the manor to Robert
Fitzhardinge, pledging himself at the same time to fortify a castle there,
according to Robert’s wish.[275] Robert’s wish probably was to possess a stone
keep, like those which had been rising in so many places during the 12th century.
But there had been a Norman lord at Berkeley before Fitzhardinge, Roger de
Berkeley, whose representatives only lost the manor through having taken sides
with Stephen in the civil war.[276] This Roger no doubt occupied the wooden
castle on the motte built by William FitzOsbern. Henry II.’s shell was probably
the first masonry connected with the castle. This remarkable keep is nearly
circular, and has three round turrets and one oblong. As the latter, Thorpe’s
Tower, was rebuilt in Edward III.’s reign, it probably took the place of a round
tower. The keep is built of rubble, and its Norman buttresses (it has several later
ones) project about a foot. The cross loopholes in the walls are undoubtedly
insertions of the time of Edward III. The buildings in the bailey are chiefly of the
time of Edward III., but the bailey walls have some Norman buttresses, and are
probably of the same date as the keep.[277] This bailey is nearly square, and the
motte, which is in one corner, encroaches upon about a quarter of it. The small
size of the area which it encloses, not much more than half an acre, corresponds
to the statement of Domesday Book that it was “a little castle.” There is no trace
of the usual ditch surrounding the motte, and the smallness of the bailey makes it
unlikely that there ever was one. A second bailey has been added to the first,[278]
and the whole is surrounded on three sides by a moat, the fourth side having
formerly had a steep descent into swamps, which formed sufficient protection.
[279]
bounded on the south by the Little Avon, and appropriated these lands to the
upkeep of a small castle. This castle can hardly have been placed anywhere but at
Berkeley, for there is no trace of any other castle in the district.[272] Earl Godwin
had sometimes resided at Berkeley, but probably his residence there was the
monastery which by evil means had come into his hands;[273] for we never hear
of any castle in connection with Godwin. But a Norman motte exists at Berkeley,
though buried in the stone shell built by Henry II. Mr Clark remarks: “If the
masonry of Berkeley Castle were removed, its remains would show a mound of
earth, and attached to three sides of it a platform, the whole encircled with a ditch
or scarp.”[274] The motte raised by Earl William has, in fact, been revetted with a
stone shell of the 12th century, whose bold chevron ornament over the entrance
gives evidence of its epoch. What is still more remarkable is that documentary
evidence exists to fix the date of this transformation. A charter of Henry II. is
preserved at Berkeley Castle, in which he grants the manor to Robert
Fitzhardinge, pledging himself at the same time to fortify a castle there,
according to Robert’s wish.[275] Robert’s wish probably was to possess a stone
keep, like those which had been rising in so many places during the 12th century.
But there had been a Norman lord at Berkeley before Fitzhardinge, Roger de
Berkeley, whose representatives only lost the manor through having taken sides
with Stephen in the civil war.[276] This Roger no doubt occupied the wooden
castle on the motte built by William FitzOsbern. Henry II.’s shell was probably
the first masonry connected with the castle. This remarkable keep is nearly
circular, and has three round turrets and one oblong. As the latter, Thorpe’s
Tower, was rebuilt in Edward III.’s reign, it probably took the place of a round
tower. The keep is built of rubble, and its Norman buttresses (it has several later
ones) project about a foot. The cross loopholes in the walls are undoubtedly
insertions of the time of Edward III. The buildings in the bailey are chiefly of the
time of Edward III., but the bailey walls have some Norman buttresses, and are
probably of the same date as the keep.[277] This bailey is nearly square, and the
motte, which is in one corner, encroaches upon about a quarter of it. The small
size of the area which it encloses, not much more than half an acre, corresponds
to the statement of Domesday Book that it was “a little castle.” There is no trace
of the usual ditch surrounding the motte, and the smallness of the bailey makes it
unlikely that there ever was one. A second bailey has been added to the first,[278]
and the whole is surrounded on three sides by a moat, the fourth side having
formerly had a steep descent into swamps, which formed sufficient protection.
[279]
Page 91
There is no statement in the Survey of the value of Ness, but the whole manor of
Berkeley had risen since the Conquest.[280]
Berkhampstead, Herts (Fig. 9).—Mr D. H. Montgomerie rightly calls this a
magnificent example of an earthwork fortress.[281] It is first mentioned in a
charter of Richard I., which recapitulates the original charter of William, son of
Robert, Count of Mortain, in which he gives the chapel of this castle to the
Abbey of Grestein in Normandy.[282] We may, therefore, with all probability look
upon this as one of the castles built by the Conqueror’s half-brother. And this will
account for the exceptional strength of the work, which comprises a motte 40 feet
high, ditched round (formerly), and a bailey of 2⅔ acres, surrounded not only
with the usual ditch and banks, but with a second ditch outside the counterscarp
bank, which encircles both motte and bailey. At two important points in its line,
this counterscarp bank is enlarged into mounds which have evidently once
carried wooden towers;[283] if this arrangement belonged to the original plan, as it
most probably did, it confirms a remark which we have made elsewhere as to the
early use of wooden mural towers. Works in masonry were added to the motte
and the bailey banks in the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries. There are traces of a
semicircular earthwork outside the second ditch on the west, which appears to
have formed a barbican. But the most exceptional thing about this castle is the
series of earthen platforms on the north and east, connected by a bank, and
closely investing the external ditch, which were formerly supposed to form part
of the castle works. Mr W. St John Hope has suggested the far more plausible
theory that they were the siege platforms erected by Louis, the Dauphin of
France, in 1216. We are told that his engines kept up a most destructive fire of
stones.[284]
The value of the manor of Berkhampstead had considerably decreased, even
since the Count of Mortain received it.[285]
Bishop’s Stortford, Herts (Fig. 9).—Waytemore Castle is the name given to the
large oval motte at this place, which is evidently the site of the castle of
“Estorteford,” given by William the Conqueror to Maurice, Bishop of London.
[286]
The manor of Stortford had been bought from King William by Maurice’s
predecessor, William, who had been one of the Norman favourites of Edward the
Confessor.[287] He may have built this castle, but he cannot have built it till after
the Conquest, as the land did not belong to his see till then.
“The castle consists of a large oval motte, 250 × 200 feet at its base, rising 40 feet
above the marshes of the river Stort, and crowned by a keep with walls of flint
Berkeley had risen since the Conquest.[280]
Berkhampstead, Herts (Fig. 9).—Mr D. H. Montgomerie rightly calls this a
magnificent example of an earthwork fortress.[281] It is first mentioned in a
charter of Richard I., which recapitulates the original charter of William, son of
Robert, Count of Mortain, in which he gives the chapel of this castle to the
Abbey of Grestein in Normandy.[282] We may, therefore, with all probability look
upon this as one of the castles built by the Conqueror’s half-brother. And this will
account for the exceptional strength of the work, which comprises a motte 40 feet
high, ditched round (formerly), and a bailey of 2⅔ acres, surrounded not only
with the usual ditch and banks, but with a second ditch outside the counterscarp
bank, which encircles both motte and bailey. At two important points in its line,
this counterscarp bank is enlarged into mounds which have evidently once
carried wooden towers;[283] if this arrangement belonged to the original plan, as it
most probably did, it confirms a remark which we have made elsewhere as to the
early use of wooden mural towers. Works in masonry were added to the motte
and the bailey banks in the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries. There are traces of a
semicircular earthwork outside the second ditch on the west, which appears to
have formed a barbican. But the most exceptional thing about this castle is the
series of earthen platforms on the north and east, connected by a bank, and
closely investing the external ditch, which were formerly supposed to form part
of the castle works. Mr W. St John Hope has suggested the far more plausible
theory that they were the siege platforms erected by Louis, the Dauphin of
France, in 1216. We are told that his engines kept up a most destructive fire of
stones.[284]
The value of the manor of Berkhampstead had considerably decreased, even
since the Count of Mortain received it.[285]
Bishop’s Stortford, Herts (Fig. 9).—Waytemore Castle is the name given to the
large oval motte at this place, which is evidently the site of the castle of
“Estorteford,” given by William the Conqueror to Maurice, Bishop of London.
[286]
The manor of Stortford had been bought from King William by Maurice’s
predecessor, William, who had been one of the Norman favourites of Edward the
Confessor.[287] He may have built this castle, but he cannot have built it till after
the Conquest, as the land did not belong to his see till then.
“The castle consists of a large oval motte, 250 × 200 feet at its base, rising 40 feet
above the marshes of the river Stort, and crowned by a keep with walls of flint
Page 92
rubble, 12 feet thick. On the S. of the motte there are traces of a pentagonal
bailey, covering 2½ acres. It is enclosed on four sides by the narrow streams
which intersect the marshes. The dry ditch on the fifth side, facing the motte, is
discernible. The castle abuts on the road called The Causeway, which crosses the
valley; it is in a good position to command both road and river.”[288] The value of
the manor had gone down at Domesday.[289]
Bourn, Lincolnshire (Fig. 10).—The manor of Bourn or Brune appears to have
been much split up amongst various owners at the time of Domesday. A Breton
named Oger held the demesne.[290] A charter of Picot, the Sheriff of
Cambridgeshire, a person often mentioned in Domesday Book, gives the church
of Brune and the chapel of the castle to the priory which he had founded near the
castle of Cambridge—afterwards removed to Barnwell.[291] Bourn was the centre
of a large soke in Anglo-Saxon times. Leland mentions the “Grete Diches, and
the Dungeon Hill of the ancient Castel,”[292] but very little of the remains is now
visible, and the motte has been almost removed.
“The castle lies in flat ground, well watered by springs and streams. The motte
was placed at the southern apex of a roughly oval bailey, from which it was
separated by its own wet ditch, access being obtained through a gatehouse which
stood on the narrow neck by which this innermost enclosure, at its N.W. end,
joined the principal bailey, which, in its turn, was embraced on all sides but the S.
by a second and concentric bailey, also defended by a wet ditch, which broadens
out at the S.W. corner into St Peter’s Pool. There is another enclosure beyond this
which may be of later date. The inner bailey covers 3 acres. Very little is now left
of the motte, but a plan made in 1861 showed it to be fairly perfect,[293] and some
slight remains of the gatehouse were excavated in that year. The castle is on the
line of the Roman road from Peterborough to Sleaford, and close to the Roman
Car-Dyke.”[294]
The value of Bourn had risen at Domesday.
bailey, covering 2½ acres. It is enclosed on four sides by the narrow streams
which intersect the marshes. The dry ditch on the fifth side, facing the motte, is
discernible. The castle abuts on the road called The Causeway, which crosses the
valley; it is in a good position to command both road and river.”[288] The value of
the manor had gone down at Domesday.[289]
Bourn, Lincolnshire (Fig. 10).—The manor of Bourn or Brune appears to have
been much split up amongst various owners at the time of Domesday. A Breton
named Oger held the demesne.[290] A charter of Picot, the Sheriff of
Cambridgeshire, a person often mentioned in Domesday Book, gives the church
of Brune and the chapel of the castle to the priory which he had founded near the
castle of Cambridge—afterwards removed to Barnwell.[291] Bourn was the centre
of a large soke in Anglo-Saxon times. Leland mentions the “Grete Diches, and
the Dungeon Hill of the ancient Castel,”[292] but very little of the remains is now
visible, and the motte has been almost removed.
“The castle lies in flat ground, well watered by springs and streams. The motte
was placed at the southern apex of a roughly oval bailey, from which it was
separated by its own wet ditch, access being obtained through a gatehouse which
stood on the narrow neck by which this innermost enclosure, at its N.W. end,
joined the principal bailey, which, in its turn, was embraced on all sides but the S.
by a second and concentric bailey, also defended by a wet ditch, which broadens
out at the S.W. corner into St Peter’s Pool. There is another enclosure beyond this
which may be of later date. The inner bailey covers 3 acres. Very little is now left
of the motte, but a plan made in 1861 showed it to be fairly perfect,[293] and some
slight remains of the gatehouse were excavated in that year. The castle is on the
line of the Roman road from Peterborough to Sleaford, and close to the Roman
Car-Dyke.”[294]
The value of Bourn had risen at Domesday.
Page 93
Bourn, Lincs.
Page 94
Bramber, Sussex.
Fig. 10.
Bramber, Sussex (Fig. 10).—Of the manor of Washington, in which Bramber is
situated, the Survey says that it formerly paid geld for fifty-nine hides; and in one
of these hides sits the castle of Bramber.[295] It must not be imagined that the
castle occupied a whole hide, which according to the latest computations would
average about 120 acres. It is evident that there had been some special
arrangement between the King and William de Braose, the Norman tenant-in-
chief, by which the whole geld of the manor had been remitted. The Domesday
scribe waxes almost pathetic over the loss to the fisc of this valuable prey. “It
used to be ad firmam for 100l.,” he says. The manor of Washington belonged to
Gurth, the brother of Harold, before the Conquest, but it is clear that Bramber
was not the caput of the manor in Saxon times; nor was Washington the centre of
Fig. 10.
Bramber, Sussex (Fig. 10).—Of the manor of Washington, in which Bramber is
situated, the Survey says that it formerly paid geld for fifty-nine hides; and in one
of these hides sits the castle of Bramber.[295] It must not be imagined that the
castle occupied a whole hide, which according to the latest computations would
average about 120 acres. It is evident that there had been some special
arrangement between the King and William de Braose, the Norman tenant-in-
chief, by which the whole geld of the manor had been remitted. The Domesday
scribe waxes almost pathetic over the loss to the fisc of this valuable prey. “It
used to be ad firmam for 100l.,” he says. The manor of Washington belonged to
Gurth, the brother of Harold, before the Conquest, but it is clear that Bramber
was not the caput of the manor in Saxon times; nor was Washington the centre of
Page 95
a large soke. Bramber Castle was constructed to defend the estuary of the river,
now known as the Adur, one of the waterways to Normandy already alluded to.
The castle occupies a natural hill which forms on the top a pear-shaped area of 3
acres. Towards the middle rises an artificial motte about 30 feet high; there is no
sign of a special ditch around it, except that the ground sinks slightly at its base.
The bailey is surrounded by a very neatly built wall of pebbles and flints, laid
herring-bone-wise in places, which does not stand on an earthen bank. The
absence of this bank makes it likely, though of course not certain, that this wall
was the original work of De Braose; the stones of which it is composed would be
almost as easily obtained as the earth for a bank. On the line of the wall, just east
of the entrance, stands a tall fragment of an early Norman tower. The
workmanship of this tower, which is also of flints laid herring-bone-wise, with
quoins of ashlar, so strongly resembles that of the neighbouring church that it
seems obvious that both were built at about the same time.[296] The church is
dedicated to St Nicholas, who was worshipped in Normandy as early as 1067;
[297]
it was probably the Normans who introduced his worship into England. Both
church and tower are undoubtedly early Norman. The motte shows no sign of
masonry.
The value of the manor of Washington had slightly risen since the Conquest.
Bristol.—Robert, Earl of Gloucester, the Empress Matilda’s half-brother and
great champion, is always credited with the building of Bristol Castle; but this is
one of the many instances in which the man who first rebuilds a castle in stone
receives the credit of being the original founder.[298] For it is certain that there
was a castle at Bristol long before the days of Earl Robert, as the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle mentions it in 1088, when it was held by Geoffrey, Bishop of
Coutances, and Robert Curthose against William II.; and Symeon of Durham, in
the same year, speaks of it as a “castrum fortissimum.” Bishop Geoffrey held
Bristol at the date of the Domesday Survey, and he probably built the castle by
William’s orders.[299] It was completely destroyed in 1655 (only a few 13th
century arches in a private house now remain), and no trustworthy plan has been
preserved, but there is clear evidence that it was a motte-and-bailey castle of the
usual Norman type.[300] In Stephen’s reign it was described as standing on a very
great agger.[301] An agger does not necessarily mean a motte, but it is often used
for one, and there is other evidence which shows that this is its meaning here. A
Perambulation of the bounds of Bristol in 1373 shows that the south-western part
of the castle ditch, which enclosed the site of the keep, was called le Mot-dich;
which should certainly be translated the ditch of the motte, and not, as Seyer
now known as the Adur, one of the waterways to Normandy already alluded to.
The castle occupies a natural hill which forms on the top a pear-shaped area of 3
acres. Towards the middle rises an artificial motte about 30 feet high; there is no
sign of a special ditch around it, except that the ground sinks slightly at its base.
The bailey is surrounded by a very neatly built wall of pebbles and flints, laid
herring-bone-wise in places, which does not stand on an earthen bank. The
absence of this bank makes it likely, though of course not certain, that this wall
was the original work of De Braose; the stones of which it is composed would be
almost as easily obtained as the earth for a bank. On the line of the wall, just east
of the entrance, stands a tall fragment of an early Norman tower. The
workmanship of this tower, which is also of flints laid herring-bone-wise, with
quoins of ashlar, so strongly resembles that of the neighbouring church that it
seems obvious that both were built at about the same time.[296] The church is
dedicated to St Nicholas, who was worshipped in Normandy as early as 1067;
[297]
it was probably the Normans who introduced his worship into England. Both
church and tower are undoubtedly early Norman. The motte shows no sign of
masonry.
The value of the manor of Washington had slightly risen since the Conquest.
Bristol.—Robert, Earl of Gloucester, the Empress Matilda’s half-brother and
great champion, is always credited with the building of Bristol Castle; but this is
one of the many instances in which the man who first rebuilds a castle in stone
receives the credit of being the original founder.[298] For it is certain that there
was a castle at Bristol long before the days of Earl Robert, as the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle mentions it in 1088, when it was held by Geoffrey, Bishop of
Coutances, and Robert Curthose against William II.; and Symeon of Durham, in
the same year, speaks of it as a “castrum fortissimum.” Bishop Geoffrey held
Bristol at the date of the Domesday Survey, and he probably built the castle by
William’s orders.[299] It was completely destroyed in 1655 (only a few 13th
century arches in a private house now remain), and no trustworthy plan has been
preserved, but there is clear evidence that it was a motte-and-bailey castle of the
usual Norman type.[300] In Stephen’s reign it was described as standing on a very
great agger.[301] An agger does not necessarily mean a motte, but it is often used
for one, and there is other evidence which shows that this is its meaning here. A
Perambulation of the bounds of Bristol in 1373 shows that the south-western part
of the castle ditch, which enclosed the site of the keep, was called le Mot-dich;
which should certainly be translated the ditch of the motte, and not, as Seyer
Page 96
translates it, the moat ditch.[302] Finally, the description of the castle in 1642 by
Major Wood, says: “The castle stood upon a lofty steep mount, that was not
minable, as Lieutenant Clifton informed me, for he said the mount whereon the
castle stood was of an earthy substance for a certain depth, but below that a firm
strong rock, and that he had searched purposely with an auger and found it so in
all parts.”[303] He goes on to describe the wall of the bailey as resting on an
earthen rampart, testifying to the wooden stockade of the first castle. The great
tower of Earl Robert appears to have been placed on the motte, which must have
been of considerable size, as it held not only the keep, but a courtyard, a chapel,
and the constable’s house, besides several towers on its walls. The whole area of
the castle was very nearly 4 acres.[304]
Bristol Castle was no doubt originally a royal castle, though Earl Robert of
Gloucester held it in right of his wife, who had inherited it from her father,
Robert Fitz Hamon; but the crown did not abdicate its claim upon it, and after the
troubles of 1174, Henry II. caused the son of Earl Robert to surrender the keep
into his hands.[305]
Seyer very pertinently remarks that Bristol Castle “was erected with a design
hostile to the town; for it occupies the peninsula between two rivers, along which
was the direct and original communication between the town and the main part of
Gloucestershire.”[306] It was outside the city, and was not under its jurisdiction till
James I. granted this authority by charter.[307] The value T. R. E. is not given in
Domesday Book.
Buckingham.—The only mention of this castle as existing in the 11th century is
in the Gesta Herewardi,[308] an undated work which is certainly in great part a
romance, but as it is written by some one who evidently had local knowledge, we
may probably trust him for the existence of Buckingham Castle at that date;
especially as Buckingham was a county town, and one of the boroughs of the
Burghal Hidage, the very place which we should expect to find occupied by a
Norman castle. This writer speaks of the castle as belonging to Ivo de Taillebois;
this is not inconsistent with the fact shown by Domesday Book, that the borough
belonged to the king. That it was a motte-and-bailey castle is indicated by
Speed’s map of Buckingham in 1611; he speaks of the “high hill,” though he only
indicates it slightly in his plan, with a shield-shaped bailey. Brayley states that the
present church is “proudly exalted on the summit of an artificial mount, anciently
occupied by a castle.”[309]
Major Wood, says: “The castle stood upon a lofty steep mount, that was not
minable, as Lieutenant Clifton informed me, for he said the mount whereon the
castle stood was of an earthy substance for a certain depth, but below that a firm
strong rock, and that he had searched purposely with an auger and found it so in
all parts.”[303] He goes on to describe the wall of the bailey as resting on an
earthen rampart, testifying to the wooden stockade of the first castle. The great
tower of Earl Robert appears to have been placed on the motte, which must have
been of considerable size, as it held not only the keep, but a courtyard, a chapel,
and the constable’s house, besides several towers on its walls. The whole area of
the castle was very nearly 4 acres.[304]
Bristol Castle was no doubt originally a royal castle, though Earl Robert of
Gloucester held it in right of his wife, who had inherited it from her father,
Robert Fitz Hamon; but the crown did not abdicate its claim upon it, and after the
troubles of 1174, Henry II. caused the son of Earl Robert to surrender the keep
into his hands.[305]
Seyer very pertinently remarks that Bristol Castle “was erected with a design
hostile to the town; for it occupies the peninsula between two rivers, along which
was the direct and original communication between the town and the main part of
Gloucestershire.”[306] It was outside the city, and was not under its jurisdiction till
James I. granted this authority by charter.[307] The value T. R. E. is not given in
Domesday Book.
Buckingham.—The only mention of this castle as existing in the 11th century is
in the Gesta Herewardi,[308] an undated work which is certainly in great part a
romance, but as it is written by some one who evidently had local knowledge, we
may probably trust him for the existence of Buckingham Castle at that date;
especially as Buckingham was a county town, and one of the boroughs of the
Burghal Hidage, the very place which we should expect to find occupied by a
Norman castle. This writer speaks of the castle as belonging to Ivo de Taillebois;
this is not inconsistent with the fact shown by Domesday Book, that the borough
belonged to the king. That it was a motte-and-bailey castle is indicated by
Speed’s map of Buckingham in 1611; he speaks of the “high hill,” though he only
indicates it slightly in his plan, with a shield-shaped bailey. Brayley states that the
present church is “proudly exalted on the summit of an artificial mount, anciently
occupied by a castle.”[309]
Page 97
The castle hill occupies a strong position on the neck of land made by a bend of
the river; it extends nearly half-way across it, and commands both town and river.
The original earthworks of the castle were destroyed and levelled for the erection
of a church in 1777, but the large oval hill remains, having a flat summit about 2
acres in extent, and about 30 feet above the town below. Its sides descend in steep
scarps behind the houses on all sides but the north-east. There can be no doubt
that the motte has been lowered, and thus enlarged, in order to build the church.
The foundations of a stone castle were found in digging a cellar on the slope of
the motte.[310]
The value of Buckingham had considerably risen at the date of Domesday.[311]
Caerleon, Monmouthshire (Fig. 11).—Domesday Book speaks of the castellaria
of Caerleon.[312] A castellaria appears to have meant a district in which the land
was held by the service of castle-guard in a neighbouring castle. The Survey goes
on to say that this land was waste in the time of King Edward, and when William
de Scohies, the Domesday tenant, received it; now it is worth 40s. Wasta, Mr
Round has remarked, is one of the pitfalls of the Survey. Perhaps we shall not be
far wrong if we say that in a general way it means that there was nobody there to
pay geld. When this occurs in a town it may point to the devastations committed
at the Conquest; but when it occurs in the country, and when it is accompanied by
so clear a statement that the land which was wasta in King Edward’s time and at
the Conquest is now producing revenue, the inference would seem to be clear
that the castle of Caerleon was built on uninhabited land. Caerleon, however, had
been a great city in Roman times, and had kept up its importance at least till the
days of Edgar, when it is twice mentioned in Welsh history.[313] It must therefore
have gone downhill very rapidly. Giraldus mentions among the ruins of Roman
greatness which were to be seen in his day, a gigantic tower, and this is
commonly supposed to have belonged to the castle.[314] It certainly did not, for
Giraldus is clearly speaking of a Roman tower, and the motte of the Norman
castle not only has no signs of masonry, but has been thrown up over the ruins of
a Roman villa which had been burnt.[315] The motte and other remains of the
castle are outside the Roman castrum, between it and the river. The bailey is
roughly pentagonal, and covers 4¾ acres. The manor of Caerleon was waste T. R.
E. and had risen to 40s. T. R. W.[316]
the river; it extends nearly half-way across it, and commands both town and river.
The original earthworks of the castle were destroyed and levelled for the erection
of a church in 1777, but the large oval hill remains, having a flat summit about 2
acres in extent, and about 30 feet above the town below. Its sides descend in steep
scarps behind the houses on all sides but the north-east. There can be no doubt
that the motte has been lowered, and thus enlarged, in order to build the church.
The foundations of a stone castle were found in digging a cellar on the slope of
the motte.[310]
The value of Buckingham had considerably risen at the date of Domesday.[311]
Caerleon, Monmouthshire (Fig. 11).—Domesday Book speaks of the castellaria
of Caerleon.[312] A castellaria appears to have meant a district in which the land
was held by the service of castle-guard in a neighbouring castle. The Survey goes
on to say that this land was waste in the time of King Edward, and when William
de Scohies, the Domesday tenant, received it; now it is worth 40s. Wasta, Mr
Round has remarked, is one of the pitfalls of the Survey. Perhaps we shall not be
far wrong if we say that in a general way it means that there was nobody there to
pay geld. When this occurs in a town it may point to the devastations committed
at the Conquest; but when it occurs in the country, and when it is accompanied by
so clear a statement that the land which was wasta in King Edward’s time and at
the Conquest is now producing revenue, the inference would seem to be clear
that the castle of Caerleon was built on uninhabited land. Caerleon, however, had
been a great city in Roman times, and had kept up its importance at least till the
days of Edgar, when it is twice mentioned in Welsh history.[313] It must therefore
have gone downhill very rapidly. Giraldus mentions among the ruins of Roman
greatness which were to be seen in his day, a gigantic tower, and this is
commonly supposed to have belonged to the castle.[314] It certainly did not, for
Giraldus is clearly speaking of a Roman tower, and the motte of the Norman
castle not only has no signs of masonry, but has been thrown up over the ruins of
a Roman villa which had been burnt.[315] The motte and other remains of the
castle are outside the Roman castrum, between it and the river. The bailey is
roughly pentagonal, and covers 4¾ acres. The manor of Caerleon was waste T. R.
E. and had risen to 40s. T. R. W.[316]
Page 98
Caerleon, Monmouth.
Page 99
Carisbrooke.
Fig. 11.
Cambridge.—Ordericus tells us that William built this castle on his return from
his first visit to Yorkshire in 1068,[317] and Domesday Book states that twenty-
seven houses were destroyed to make room for the castle.[318] There can hardly
be a clearer statement that the castle was entirely new. We have already seen that
there is some probability that Cambridge was first fortified by the Danes; for
though it has been assumed to be a Roman castrum, no Roman remains have ever
been found there, and the names which suggest Roman occupation, Chesterton
and Grantchester, are at some distance from Cambridge. The castle, according to
Mr St John Hope’s plan,[319] was placed inside this enclosure, and the destruction
of the houses to make room for it is thus explained. The motte and a portion of
Fig. 11.
Cambridge.—Ordericus tells us that William built this castle on his return from
his first visit to Yorkshire in 1068,[317] and Domesday Book states that twenty-
seven houses were destroyed to make room for the castle.[318] There can hardly
be a clearer statement that the castle was entirely new. We have already seen that
there is some probability that Cambridge was first fortified by the Danes; for
though it has been assumed to be a Roman castrum, no Roman remains have ever
been found there, and the names which suggest Roman occupation, Chesterton
and Grantchester, are at some distance from Cambridge. The castle, according to
Mr St John Hope’s plan,[319] was placed inside this enclosure, and the destruction
of the houses to make room for it is thus explained. The motte and a portion of
Page 100
the bank of the bailey are all that now remain of the castle, but the valuable
ancient maps republished by Mr Hope show that the motte had its own ditch, and
that the bailey was rectangular. There was formerly a round tower on the motte,
which, if it had the cross-loop-holes and machicolations represented in the print
published in 1575, was certainly not of Norman date. The area of the bailey was
4¼ acres.[320] The castle was a royal one, and like many royal castles, went early
to ruin. Henry IV. gave the materials of the hall to the master and wardens of
King’s Hall for building their chapel.
The value of Cambridge T. R. W. is not given in Domesday Book.
Canterbury.—Domesday Book only mentions this castle incidentally in
connection with an exchange of land: “The archbishop has seven houses and the
abbot of St Augustine fourteen for the exchange of the castle.”[321] It has been too
hastily assumed that it was a pre-Conquest castle which was thus exchanged for
twenty-one houses; but anyone who knows the kind of relations which existed
chronically between the archbishop of Canterbury and the abbot of St
Augustine’s will perceive that it was an impossibility that these two potentates
should have held a castle in common. It was the land for the castle, not the castle
itself, which the king got from these ecclesiastics. This is rendered clear by a
passage in the Chartulary of St Augustine’s, which tells us that the king, who was
mesne lord of the city of Canterbury, had lost the rent of thirty-two houses
through the exchange of the castle: seven having gone to the archbishop, fourteen
to the abbot, and eleven having been destroyed in making the ditch of the castle.
[322]
There can scarcely be any doubt that the hillock now known by the
ridiculous name of Dane John is the motte of this original castle of the
Conqueror. Its proper name, the Dungeon Hill, which it bore till the 16th and
even the 18th century,[323] shows what its origin was; it was the hill on which
stood the dungeon or donjon of a Norman castle.[324] The name Dane John is not
so much a corruption as a deliberate perversion introduced by the antiquary
Somner about 1640, under the idea that the Danes threw up the hill—an idea for
which there is not the slightest historical evidence.[325] We have seen that there is
no reason to think that the Danes ever constructed fortifications of this kind, and
their connection with this earthwork is due to one of those guesses, too common
in English archæology, which have no scientific basis whatever.
Somner makes the important statement that this earthwork was originally outside
the city walls. His words are:—
ancient maps republished by Mr Hope show that the motte had its own ditch, and
that the bailey was rectangular. There was formerly a round tower on the motte,
which, if it had the cross-loop-holes and machicolations represented in the print
published in 1575, was certainly not of Norman date. The area of the bailey was
4¼ acres.[320] The castle was a royal one, and like many royal castles, went early
to ruin. Henry IV. gave the materials of the hall to the master and wardens of
King’s Hall for building their chapel.
The value of Cambridge T. R. W. is not given in Domesday Book.
Canterbury.—Domesday Book only mentions this castle incidentally in
connection with an exchange of land: “The archbishop has seven houses and the
abbot of St Augustine fourteen for the exchange of the castle.”[321] It has been too
hastily assumed that it was a pre-Conquest castle which was thus exchanged for
twenty-one houses; but anyone who knows the kind of relations which existed
chronically between the archbishop of Canterbury and the abbot of St
Augustine’s will perceive that it was an impossibility that these two potentates
should have held a castle in common. It was the land for the castle, not the castle
itself, which the king got from these ecclesiastics. This is rendered clear by a
passage in the Chartulary of St Augustine’s, which tells us that the king, who was
mesne lord of the city of Canterbury, had lost the rent of thirty-two houses
through the exchange of the castle: seven having gone to the archbishop, fourteen
to the abbot, and eleven having been destroyed in making the ditch of the castle.
[322]
There can scarcely be any doubt that the hillock now known by the
ridiculous name of Dane John is the motte of this original castle of the
Conqueror. Its proper name, the Dungeon Hill, which it bore till the 16th and
even the 18th century,[323] shows what its origin was; it was the hill on which
stood the dungeon or donjon of a Norman castle.[324] The name Dane John is not
so much a corruption as a deliberate perversion introduced by the antiquary
Somner about 1640, under the idea that the Danes threw up the hill—an idea for
which there is not the slightest historical evidence.[325] We have seen that there is
no reason to think that the Danes ever constructed fortifications of this kind, and
their connection with this earthwork is due to one of those guesses, too common
in English archæology, which have no scientific basis whatever.
Somner makes the important statement that this earthwork was originally outside
the city walls. His words are:—
Page 101
“I am persuaded (and so may easily, I think, anyone be that well observes
the place) that the works both within and without the present wall of the city
were not counterworks one against the other, as the vulgar opinion goes, but
were sometimes all one entire plot containing about 3 acres of ground, of a
triangular form (the outwork) with a mount or hill entrenched round within
it; and that when first made or cast up it lay wholly without the city wall;
and hath been (the hill or mount, and most part also of the outwork), for the
city’s more security, taken in and walled since; that side of the trench
encompassing the mound now lying without and under the wall fitly
meeting with the rest of the city ditch, after either side of the earthwork was
cut through to make way for it, at the time of the city’s inditching.”[326]
It is not often we are so fortunate as to have so clear a description of an
earthwork which has almost entirely disappeared; but the description is
confirmed by Stukeley and Hasted, and down to the making of the Chatham and
Dover railway in 1860 the earthworks of the part of the bailey which was left
outside the city wall were still to be seen, and were noticed by Mr G. T. Clark.
[327]
It is clear that Somner’s description corresponds exactly, even in the detail of
size, to the type of a motte-and-bailey castle.
There are certain facts, which have not been put together before, which enable us
to make a very probable guess as to the date at which this ancient castle was cut
through by the newer city bank. The walls of Canterbury have never yet received
so careful an examination as those of Rochester have had from the Rev. Greville
Livett;[328] but the researches of Mr Pilbrow about thirty years ago showed that
the original Roman walls included a very small area, which would leave both the
motte and the Plantagenet castle outside.[329] Certain entries in the Close Rolls
show that the fortification of the town of Canterbury was going on in the years
1215-1225.[330] But it is too often forgotten that where a wall stands on an
earthen bank it is a clear proof that before the wall was built there was a wooden
stockade in its place. Now the portion of the city wall which encloses the Dane
John stands on an earthen bank; so, indeed, does the whole wall from the
Northgate to the castle. It is clear that this piece of bank cannot have been made
till the first Norman castle, represented by the earthwork, was abandoned; and
fortunately we have some evidence which suggests a date for the change. In the
Pipe Rolls of Henry II.’s reign there are yearly entries, beginning in 1168, of 5s.
paid to Adeliza Fitzsimon “for the exchange of her land which is in the castle of
Canterbury.” There can be little doubt that this land was purchased to build the
great Plantagenet castle whose splendid keep was once one of the finest in
England.[331] The portion of the castle wall which can still be seen does not stand
the place) that the works both within and without the present wall of the city
were not counterworks one against the other, as the vulgar opinion goes, but
were sometimes all one entire plot containing about 3 acres of ground, of a
triangular form (the outwork) with a mount or hill entrenched round within
it; and that when first made or cast up it lay wholly without the city wall;
and hath been (the hill or mount, and most part also of the outwork), for the
city’s more security, taken in and walled since; that side of the trench
encompassing the mound now lying without and under the wall fitly
meeting with the rest of the city ditch, after either side of the earthwork was
cut through to make way for it, at the time of the city’s inditching.”[326]
It is not often we are so fortunate as to have so clear a description of an
earthwork which has almost entirely disappeared; but the description is
confirmed by Stukeley and Hasted, and down to the making of the Chatham and
Dover railway in 1860 the earthworks of the part of the bailey which was left
outside the city wall were still to be seen, and were noticed by Mr G. T. Clark.
[327]
It is clear that Somner’s description corresponds exactly, even in the detail of
size, to the type of a motte-and-bailey castle.
There are certain facts, which have not been put together before, which enable us
to make a very probable guess as to the date at which this ancient castle was cut
through by the newer city bank. The walls of Canterbury have never yet received
so careful an examination as those of Rochester have had from the Rev. Greville
Livett;[328] but the researches of Mr Pilbrow about thirty years ago showed that
the original Roman walls included a very small area, which would leave both the
motte and the Plantagenet castle outside.[329] Certain entries in the Close Rolls
show that the fortification of the town of Canterbury was going on in the years
1215-1225.[330] But it is too often forgotten that where a wall stands on an
earthen bank it is a clear proof that before the wall was built there was a wooden
stockade in its place. Now the portion of the city wall which encloses the Dane
John stands on an earthen bank; so, indeed, does the whole wall from the
Northgate to the castle. It is clear that this piece of bank cannot have been made
till the first Norman castle, represented by the earthwork, was abandoned; and
fortunately we have some evidence which suggests a date for the change. In the
Pipe Rolls of Henry II.’s reign there are yearly entries, beginning in 1168, of 5s.
paid to Adeliza Fitzsimon “for the exchange of her land which is in the castle of
Canterbury.” There can be little doubt that this land was purchased to build the
great Plantagenet castle whose splendid keep was once one of the finest in
England.[331] The portion of the castle wall which can still be seen does not stand
Page 102
on an earthen bank, an indication (though not a proof) that the castle was on a
new site. Henry II. was a great builder of stone keeps, but he seldom placed them
on artificial mottes. It is no uncommon thing to find an old motte-and-bailey
castle abandoned for a better or larger site close at hand.[332]
The bailey of the second castle, according to Hasted, extended almost to the
Dane John, which is about 800 feet from the present keep. The part of the older
castle which lay outside the new city bank was possessed by a family of the name
of Chiche from the time of Henry II. to that of Edward IV., while the Dungeon
Hill itself remained royal property.[333] That the new bank was Henry II.’s work
we may conjecture from the passages in the Pipe Rolls, which show that between
the years 1166 and 1173 he spent about £30 in enclosing the city of Canterbury
and making a gate. We are therefore not without grounds for concluding that
Henry II. was the first to enlarge the city by taking in the Dane John, cutting
through the ancient bailey, and at the same time enclosing a piece of land for a
new stone castle.[334] The very small sum paid for the city gate (11s., equal to
about £11 of our money) suggests that the gate put up by Henry II. was a wooden
gateway in the new stockaded bank. The stone walls and towers which were
afterwards placed on the bank are of much later date than his reign.[335]
The Dungeon Hill appears to have been used for the last time as a fortification in
1643, when ordnance was placed upon it, and it was ordered to be guarded by the
householders.[336] In 1790 it was converted into a pleasure-ground for the city;
the wide and deep ditch which had surrounded it was filled up, and serpentine
walks cut to lead up to the summit. Brayley says that “the ancient and venerable
character of this eminence was wholly destroyed by incongruous additions.” Still,
enough remains to show that it was once a very fine motte, such as we might
expect the Conqueror to raise to hold in check one of the most important cities of
his new realm.
The value of Canterbury had increased from 51l. to 54l. since the days of King
Edward.[337]
Carisbrooke, Isle of Wight (Fig. 11).—There can be no doubt that this is the
castle spoken of in Domesday Book under the manor of Alwinestone.
Carisbrooke is in the immediate neighbourhood of Alvington. The language in
which the Survey speaks of this manor is worthy of note. “The king holds
Alwinestone: Donnus held it. It then paid geld as two and a half hides: now as
two hides, because the castle sits in one virgate.”[338] Certain entries similar to
this in other places seem to indicate that there was some remission of geld
new site. Henry II. was a great builder of stone keeps, but he seldom placed them
on artificial mottes. It is no uncommon thing to find an old motte-and-bailey
castle abandoned for a better or larger site close at hand.[332]
The bailey of the second castle, according to Hasted, extended almost to the
Dane John, which is about 800 feet from the present keep. The part of the older
castle which lay outside the new city bank was possessed by a family of the name
of Chiche from the time of Henry II. to that of Edward IV., while the Dungeon
Hill itself remained royal property.[333] That the new bank was Henry II.’s work
we may conjecture from the passages in the Pipe Rolls, which show that between
the years 1166 and 1173 he spent about £30 in enclosing the city of Canterbury
and making a gate. We are therefore not without grounds for concluding that
Henry II. was the first to enlarge the city by taking in the Dane John, cutting
through the ancient bailey, and at the same time enclosing a piece of land for a
new stone castle.[334] The very small sum paid for the city gate (11s., equal to
about £11 of our money) suggests that the gate put up by Henry II. was a wooden
gateway in the new stockaded bank. The stone walls and towers which were
afterwards placed on the bank are of much later date than his reign.[335]
The Dungeon Hill appears to have been used for the last time as a fortification in
1643, when ordnance was placed upon it, and it was ordered to be guarded by the
householders.[336] In 1790 it was converted into a pleasure-ground for the city;
the wide and deep ditch which had surrounded it was filled up, and serpentine
walks cut to lead up to the summit. Brayley says that “the ancient and venerable
character of this eminence was wholly destroyed by incongruous additions.” Still,
enough remains to show that it was once a very fine motte, such as we might
expect the Conqueror to raise to hold in check one of the most important cities of
his new realm.
The value of Canterbury had increased from 51l. to 54l. since the days of King
Edward.[337]
Carisbrooke, Isle of Wight (Fig. 11).—There can be no doubt that this is the
castle spoken of in Domesday Book under the manor of Alwinestone.
Carisbrooke is in the immediate neighbourhood of Alvington. The language in
which the Survey speaks of this manor is worthy of note. “The king holds
Alwinestone: Donnus held it. It then paid geld as two and a half hides: now as
two hides, because the castle sits in one virgate.”[338] Certain entries similar to
this in other places seem to indicate that there was some remission of geld
Page 103
granted on the building of a castle;[339] but as here the king was himself the
owner, the remission must have been granted to his tenants.
The original castle of Carisbrooke consists of a high motte, ditched round, placed
at the corner of a parallelogram with rounded corners. This bailey, covering 2¾
acres, is surrounded by high banks, which testify to the former presence of a
wooden stockade. There is another bailey on the eastern side, called the Tilt-yard.
The excellent little local guide-book compiled by Mr Stone calls this a British
camp, but there is no reason to believe that it was anything else than what it
appears to be—a second bailey added as the castle grew in importance. On the
motte is a shell of polygonal form, of rubble masonry, but having quoins of well-
dressed ashlar. It is believed to be of the time of Henry I., since the author of the
Gesta Stephani states that Baldwin de Redvers, son of Richard de Redvers, to
whom Henry granted the lordship of the Isle of Wight, had a castle there
splendidly built of stone, defended by a strong fortification.[340] This would
indicate that, besides the stone keep, stone walls were added to the earthworks of
the Domesday castle. The keep is of peculiar interest, as it still retains the
remains of the old arrangements in keeps of this style, though of much later date.
The motte was opened in 1893, and was found to be composed of alternate layers
of large and small chalk rubble.[341] Little attention has hitherto been paid to the
construction of these Norman mottes, but other instances have been noted which
show that they were often built with great care. The whole castle, including the
Tilt-yard, was surrounded with an elaborate polygonal fortification in Elizabeth’s
reign, when the Spanish invasion was expected.
The value of the manor of Alvington had increased at the time of the Survey,
though the number of ploughs employed had actually decreased. This increase
must have been owing to the erection of the castle, which provided security for
trade and agriculture. Alvington was not the centre of a large soke in the
Confessor’s time, so it is unlikely that there was any fortification there in Saxon
days.[342]
Carlisle, Cumberland (Fig. 12).—This castle was built by William Rufus in
1092, when for the first time Cumberland was brought under Norman sway. The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says, “he repaired the burh, and reared the castle,” a
passage which is sufficient of itself to show that burh and castle were two quite
different things. Carlisle of course was a Roman fortress, and needed only the
repairing of its walls. The castle was a new thing, and was placed outside the city.
Its plan, which is roughly a triangle, with the apex formed into a small court by a
ditch which (formerly) separated it from the bailey, looks very suggestive of a
owner, the remission must have been granted to his tenants.
The original castle of Carisbrooke consists of a high motte, ditched round, placed
at the corner of a parallelogram with rounded corners. This bailey, covering 2¾
acres, is surrounded by high banks, which testify to the former presence of a
wooden stockade. There is another bailey on the eastern side, called the Tilt-yard.
The excellent little local guide-book compiled by Mr Stone calls this a British
camp, but there is no reason to believe that it was anything else than what it
appears to be—a second bailey added as the castle grew in importance. On the
motte is a shell of polygonal form, of rubble masonry, but having quoins of well-
dressed ashlar. It is believed to be of the time of Henry I., since the author of the
Gesta Stephani states that Baldwin de Redvers, son of Richard de Redvers, to
whom Henry granted the lordship of the Isle of Wight, had a castle there
splendidly built of stone, defended by a strong fortification.[340] This would
indicate that, besides the stone keep, stone walls were added to the earthworks of
the Domesday castle. The keep is of peculiar interest, as it still retains the
remains of the old arrangements in keeps of this style, though of much later date.
The motte was opened in 1893, and was found to be composed of alternate layers
of large and small chalk rubble.[341] Little attention has hitherto been paid to the
construction of these Norman mottes, but other instances have been noted which
show that they were often built with great care. The whole castle, including the
Tilt-yard, was surrounded with an elaborate polygonal fortification in Elizabeth’s
reign, when the Spanish invasion was expected.
The value of the manor of Alvington had increased at the time of the Survey,
though the number of ploughs employed had actually decreased. This increase
must have been owing to the erection of the castle, which provided security for
trade and agriculture. Alvington was not the centre of a large soke in the
Confessor’s time, so it is unlikely that there was any fortification there in Saxon
days.[342]
Carlisle, Cumberland (Fig. 12).—This castle was built by William Rufus in
1092, when for the first time Cumberland was brought under Norman sway. The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says, “he repaired the burh, and reared the castle,” a
passage which is sufficient of itself to show that burh and castle were two quite
different things. Carlisle of course was a Roman fortress, and needed only the
repairing of its walls. The castle was a new thing, and was placed outside the city.
Its plan, which is roughly a triangle, with the apex formed into a small court by a
ditch which (formerly) separated it from the bailey, looks very suggestive of a
Page 104
previous motte and bailey, such as we might expect the Norman king to have
thrown up. The keep is known to have been built by David, king of Scotland, in
Stephen’s reign,[343] and it is possible that he may have removed the motte. The
castle appears to have had a wooden pelum or palicium on its outer banks as late
as 1319.[344] The whole area covers 4 acres.
Castle Acre, Norfolk (Fig. 12).—There can be no doubt that this castle existed
in the 11th century, as William de Warenne mentions it in the charter of
foundation of Lewes Priory, one of the most interesting and human of monastic
charters.[345] The earthworks still remaining of this castle are perhaps the finest
castle earthworks in England; the banks enclosing the bailey are vast. The large
and high motte carries a wall of flint rubble, built outside and thus revetting the
earthen bank which formed its first defence. In the small court thus enclosed
(about 100 feet in diameter) the foundations of an oblong keep can be discerned.
A very wide ditch surrounds the motte, and below it is a horse-shoe bailey, about
2 acres in extent, stretching down to the former swamps of the river Nar. On the
east side of the motte is a small half-moon annexe, with its own ditch; this
curious addition is to be found in several other motte castles,[346] and is believed
to have been a work intended to defend the approach, of the nature of a barbican.
On the west side of the motte is the village of Castle Acre, enclosed in an oblong
earthwork with an area of 10 acres. This work now goes by the name of the
Barbican, but probably this name has been extended to it from a barbican
covering the castle entrance (of which entrance the ruins still remain). It is most
likely that this enclosure was a burgus attached to the castle. Mr Harrod, who
excavated the banks, found quantities of Roman pottery, which led him to think
that the work was Roman; but as the pottery was all broken, it is more likely that
the banks were thrown up on the site of some Roman villa.[347] This earthwork
has a northern entrance in masonry, evidently of 13th century date; and as the
scanty masonry remaining of the castle is similar in character, it is probably all of
the same date. The area covered by the motte and the two original baileys is 3½
acres; that of the whole series of earthworks, 15 acres.
Acre was only a small manor in Saxon times; its value at the time of the Survey
had risen from 5l. to 9l.[348]
thrown up. The keep is known to have been built by David, king of Scotland, in
Stephen’s reign,[343] and it is possible that he may have removed the motte. The
castle appears to have had a wooden pelum or palicium on its outer banks as late
as 1319.[344] The whole area covers 4 acres.
Castle Acre, Norfolk (Fig. 12).—There can be no doubt that this castle existed
in the 11th century, as William de Warenne mentions it in the charter of
foundation of Lewes Priory, one of the most interesting and human of monastic
charters.[345] The earthworks still remaining of this castle are perhaps the finest
castle earthworks in England; the banks enclosing the bailey are vast. The large
and high motte carries a wall of flint rubble, built outside and thus revetting the
earthen bank which formed its first defence. In the small court thus enclosed
(about 100 feet in diameter) the foundations of an oblong keep can be discerned.
A very wide ditch surrounds the motte, and below it is a horse-shoe bailey, about
2 acres in extent, stretching down to the former swamps of the river Nar. On the
east side of the motte is a small half-moon annexe, with its own ditch; this
curious addition is to be found in several other motte castles,[346] and is believed
to have been a work intended to defend the approach, of the nature of a barbican.
On the west side of the motte is the village of Castle Acre, enclosed in an oblong
earthwork with an area of 10 acres. This work now goes by the name of the
Barbican, but probably this name has been extended to it from a barbican
covering the castle entrance (of which entrance the ruins still remain). It is most
likely that this enclosure was a burgus attached to the castle. Mr Harrod, who
excavated the banks, found quantities of Roman pottery, which led him to think
that the work was Roman; but as the pottery was all broken, it is more likely that
the banks were thrown up on the site of some Roman villa.[347] This earthwork
has a northern entrance in masonry, evidently of 13th century date; and as the
scanty masonry remaining of the castle is similar in character, it is probably all of
the same date. The area covered by the motte and the two original baileys is 3½
acres; that of the whole series of earthworks, 15 acres.
Acre was only a small manor in Saxon times; its value at the time of the Survey
had risen from 5l. to 9l.[348]
Page 105
Carlisle.
Page 106
Castle Acre, Norfolk.
Fig. 12.
Chepstow (Estrighoel or Strigul), Monmouthshire.—Notwithstanding the fact
that there is another castle of the name of Strigul about 9 miles from Chepstow
(known also as Troggy Castle), it is clear that Chepstow is the castle meant by
Domesday, as the entry speaks of ships going up the river, a thing impossible at
Strigul.[349] The castle occupies a narrow ridge, well defended by the river on one
side, and on the other by a valley which separates it from the town. There are
four wards, and the last and smallest of all seemed to the writer, when visiting the
castle, to mark the site of a lowered motte. This opinion, however, is not shared
by two competent observers, Mr Harold Sands and Mr Duncan Montgomerie,
who had much ampler opportunities for studying the remains. This ward is now a
barbican, and the masonry upon it belongs clearly to the 13th century; it occupies
the highest ground in the castle, and is separated from the other wards, and from
Fig. 12.
Chepstow (Estrighoel or Strigul), Monmouthshire.—Notwithstanding the fact
that there is another castle of the name of Strigul about 9 miles from Chepstow
(known also as Troggy Castle), it is clear that Chepstow is the castle meant by
Domesday, as the entry speaks of ships going up the river, a thing impossible at
Strigul.[349] The castle occupies a narrow ridge, well defended by the river on one
side, and on the other by a valley which separates it from the town. There are
four wards, and the last and smallest of all seemed to the writer, when visiting the
castle, to mark the site of a lowered motte. This opinion, however, is not shared
by two competent observers, Mr Harold Sands and Mr Duncan Montgomerie,
who had much ampler opportunities for studying the remains. This ward is now a
barbican, and the masonry upon it belongs clearly to the 13th century; it occupies
the highest ground in the castle, and is separated from the other wards, and from
Page 107
the ridge beyond it, by two ditches cut across the headland. The adjoining court
must have belonged to the earliest part of the castle, as it contains a very
remarkable early Norman building (splendidly restored in the 13th century)
which is regarded by most authorities as the original hall of William FitzOsbern.
It must, however, have combined both hall and keep, otherwise the castle was not
provided with any citadel, if there was no motte.[350] What is now the second
ward has a Norman postern in the south wall, and may have been the bailey to
the keep. All the other masonry is of the late Early English or the Perpendicular
period, and the entrance ward is probably an addition of the 13th century. The
shape of all the baileys is roughly quadrangular, except that of the fourth, which
would be semicircular but for the towers which make corners to it. The whole
area of the castle is 1⅔ acres.
We are not told what the value of the manor was before William FitzOsbern built
his castle there, but from the absence of this mention we may infer that the site
was waste. It paid 40s. in his time from ships’ dues, 16l. in his son Earl Roger’s
time, and at the date of the Survey it paid the king 12l.[351] Chepstow was not the
centre of a large soke, and it appears to have owed all its importance to the
creation of William FitzOsbern’s castle.
Chester.—The statement of Ordericus, that William I. founded this castle on his
return from his third visit to York, is sufficiently clear.[352] The very valuable
paper of Mr E. W. Cox on Chester Castle[353] answers most of the questions
which pertain to our present inquiry. The original castle of Chester consisted of
the motte, which still remains, though much built over, and the small ward on the
edge of which it stands, a polygonal enclosure scarcely an acre in extent. On the
motte the vaulted basement of a tower still remains, but the style is so obscured
by whitewash and modern accretions that it is impossible to say whether the
vaulting is not modern. The first buildings were certainly of wood, but Mr Cox
regarded some of the existing masonry on the motte as belonging to the 12th
century; and this would correspond with the entry in the Pipe Rolls of 102l. 7s.
0d. spent on the castle by Henry II. in 1159.[354] The tower, nicknamed Cæsar’s
Tower, and frequently mistaken for the keep, is shown in Mr Cox’s paper to be
only a mural tower of the 13th century, probably built when the first ward was
surrounded with walls and towers in masonry.[355] The large outer bailey was first
added in the reign of Henry III.[356] It is further proved by Mr Cox that Chester
Castle stood outside the walls of the Roman city. The manor of Gloverstone lay
between it and the city, and was not under the jurisdiction of the city until quite
recent times.[357] This disposes of the ball set rolling by Brompton at the end of
must have belonged to the earliest part of the castle, as it contains a very
remarkable early Norman building (splendidly restored in the 13th century)
which is regarded by most authorities as the original hall of William FitzOsbern.
It must, however, have combined both hall and keep, otherwise the castle was not
provided with any citadel, if there was no motte.[350] What is now the second
ward has a Norman postern in the south wall, and may have been the bailey to
the keep. All the other masonry is of the late Early English or the Perpendicular
period, and the entrance ward is probably an addition of the 13th century. The
shape of all the baileys is roughly quadrangular, except that of the fourth, which
would be semicircular but for the towers which make corners to it. The whole
area of the castle is 1⅔ acres.
We are not told what the value of the manor was before William FitzOsbern built
his castle there, but from the absence of this mention we may infer that the site
was waste. It paid 40s. in his time from ships’ dues, 16l. in his son Earl Roger’s
time, and at the date of the Survey it paid the king 12l.[351] Chepstow was not the
centre of a large soke, and it appears to have owed all its importance to the
creation of William FitzOsbern’s castle.
Chester.—The statement of Ordericus, that William I. founded this castle on his
return from his third visit to York, is sufficiently clear.[352] The very valuable
paper of Mr E. W. Cox on Chester Castle[353] answers most of the questions
which pertain to our present inquiry. The original castle of Chester consisted of
the motte, which still remains, though much built over, and the small ward on the
edge of which it stands, a polygonal enclosure scarcely an acre in extent. On the
motte the vaulted basement of a tower still remains, but the style is so obscured
by whitewash and modern accretions that it is impossible to say whether the
vaulting is not modern. The first buildings were certainly of wood, but Mr Cox
regarded some of the existing masonry on the motte as belonging to the 12th
century; and this would correspond with the entry in the Pipe Rolls of 102l. 7s.
0d. spent on the castle by Henry II. in 1159.[354] The tower, nicknamed Cæsar’s
Tower, and frequently mistaken for the keep, is shown in Mr Cox’s paper to be
only a mural tower of the 13th century, probably built when the first ward was
surrounded with walls and towers in masonry.[355] The large outer bailey was first
added in the reign of Henry III.[356] It is further proved by Mr Cox that Chester
Castle stood outside the walls of the Roman city. The manor of Gloverstone lay
between it and the city, and was not under the jurisdiction of the city until quite
recent times.[357] This disposes of the ball set rolling by Brompton at the end of
Page 108
the 13th century, and sent on by most Chester topographers ever since, that
Ethelfleda, when she restored the Roman walls of Chester, enlarged their circuit
so as to take in the castle. We have already referred to this in Chapter III.
Chester, as we have seen, was originally a royal castle. And though it was
naturally committed to the keeping of the Norman earls of Chester, and under
weak kings may have been regarded by the earls as their own property, no such
claim was allowed under a strong ruler. After the insurrection of the younger
Henry, Hugh, Earl of Chester, forfeited his lands; Henry II. restored them to him
in 1177, but was careful to keep the castle in his own hands.[358]
The city of Chester, Domesday Book tells us, had greatly gone down in value
when the earl received it, probably in 1070; twenty-five houses had been
destroyed. But it had already recovered its prosperity at the date of the Survey;
there were as many houses as before, and the ferm of the city was now let by the
earl at a sum greatly exceeding the ferm paid in King Edward’s time.[359] This
prosperity must have been due to the security provided for the trade of Chester by
the Norman castle and Norman rule.
Ethelfleda, when she restored the Roman walls of Chester, enlarged their circuit
so as to take in the castle. We have already referred to this in Chapter III.
Chester, as we have seen, was originally a royal castle. And though it was
naturally committed to the keeping of the Norman earls of Chester, and under
weak kings may have been regarded by the earls as their own property, no such
claim was allowed under a strong ruler. After the insurrection of the younger
Henry, Hugh, Earl of Chester, forfeited his lands; Henry II. restored them to him
in 1177, but was careful to keep the castle in his own hands.[358]
The city of Chester, Domesday Book tells us, had greatly gone down in value
when the earl received it, probably in 1070; twenty-five houses had been
destroyed. But it had already recovered its prosperity at the date of the Survey;
there were as many houses as before, and the ferm of the city was now let by the
earl at a sum greatly exceeding the ferm paid in King Edward’s time.[359] This
prosperity must have been due to the security provided for the trade of Chester by
the Norman castle and Norman rule.
Page 109
Clifford, Hereford.
Clitheroe, Lancs.
Clitheroe, Lancs.
Page 110
Corfe, Dorset.
Fig. 13.
Clifford, Herefordshire (Fig. 13).—It is clearly stated by Domesday Book that
William FitzOsbern built this castle on waste land.[360] At the date of the Survey
it was held by Ralph de Todeni, who had sub-let it to the sheriff. In the many
castles attributed to William FitzOsbern, who built them as the king’s vicegerent,
we may see an indication that the building of castles, even on the marches of
Wales, was not undertaken without royal license. In the reign of Henry I. Clifford
Castle had already passed into the hands of Richard Fitz Pons, the ancestor of the
Fig. 13.
Clifford, Herefordshire (Fig. 13).—It is clearly stated by Domesday Book that
William FitzOsbern built this castle on waste land.[360] At the date of the Survey
it was held by Ralph de Todeni, who had sub-let it to the sheriff. In the many
castles attributed to William FitzOsbern, who built them as the king’s vicegerent,
we may see an indication that the building of castles, even on the marches of
Wales, was not undertaken without royal license. In the reign of Henry I. Clifford
Castle had already passed into the hands of Richard Fitz Pons, the ancestor of the
Page 111
celebrated house of Clifford, and one of the barons of Bernard de Neufmarché,
the Norman conqueror of Brecon.[361]
The castle has a large motte, roughly square in shape, which must be in part
artificial.[362] Attached to it on the south-west is a curious triangular ward,
included in the ditch which surrounds the motte. The masonry on the motte is
entirely of the “Edwardian” style, when keepless castles were built; it consists of
the remains of a hall, and a mural tower which is too small to be called a keep.
There is also a small court, with a wall which stands on a low bank. Below the
motte is an irregular bailey of about 2⅓ acres, with earthen banks which do not
appear to have ever carried any masonry, though in the middle of the court there
is a small mound which evidently covers the remains of buildings. The whole
area of the castle, including the motte and the two baileys, is about 3½ acres.
The value of the manor had apparently risen from nothing to 8l. 5s. Clifford was
not the centre of a large soke.
Clitheroe, Lancashire (Fig. 13).—There is no express mention of this castle in
Domesday Book, but of two places in Yorkshire, Barnoldswick and Calton, it is
said that they are in the castellate of Roger the Poitevin.[363] A castellate implies
a castle, and as there is no other castle in the Craven district (to which the words
of the Survey relate) except Skipton, which did not form part of Roger’s property,
there is no reason to doubt that this castle was Clitheroe, which for centuries was
the centre of the Honour of that name. The whole land between the Ribble and
the Mersey had been given by William I. to this Roger, the third son of his trusted
supporter, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. One can understand why William gave
important frontier posts to the energetic and unscrupulous young men of the
house of Montgomeri, one of whom was the adviser and architect of William
Rufus, another a notable warrior in North Wales, another the conqueror of
Pembrokeshire. As it appears from the Survey that Roger’s possessions stretched
far beyond the Ribble into Yorkshire and Cumberland, it seems quite possible—
though here we are in the region of conjecture—that just as his father and
brothers had a free hand to conquer as they listed from the North and South
Welsh, so Roger had a similar commission for the hilly districts still unconquered
in the north-west of England. But fortune did not favour the Montgomeri family
for long. They were exiled from England in 1102 for siding with Robert
Curthose, and in the same year we find the castle of Clitheroe in the hands of
Robert de Lacy, lord of the great Yorkshire fief of Pontefract.[364]
The castle of Clitheroe stands on a lofty motte of natural rock.[365] There are no
earthworks on the summit, but a stout wall of limestone rubble without buttresses
the Norman conqueror of Brecon.[361]
The castle has a large motte, roughly square in shape, which must be in part
artificial.[362] Attached to it on the south-west is a curious triangular ward,
included in the ditch which surrounds the motte. The masonry on the motte is
entirely of the “Edwardian” style, when keepless castles were built; it consists of
the remains of a hall, and a mural tower which is too small to be called a keep.
There is also a small court, with a wall which stands on a low bank. Below the
motte is an irregular bailey of about 2⅓ acres, with earthen banks which do not
appear to have ever carried any masonry, though in the middle of the court there
is a small mound which evidently covers the remains of buildings. The whole
area of the castle, including the motte and the two baileys, is about 3½ acres.
The value of the manor had apparently risen from nothing to 8l. 5s. Clifford was
not the centre of a large soke.
Clitheroe, Lancashire (Fig. 13).—There is no express mention of this castle in
Domesday Book, but of two places in Yorkshire, Barnoldswick and Calton, it is
said that they are in the castellate of Roger the Poitevin.[363] A castellate implies
a castle, and as there is no other castle in the Craven district (to which the words
of the Survey relate) except Skipton, which did not form part of Roger’s property,
there is no reason to doubt that this castle was Clitheroe, which for centuries was
the centre of the Honour of that name. The whole land between the Ribble and
the Mersey had been given by William I. to this Roger, the third son of his trusted
supporter, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. One can understand why William gave
important frontier posts to the energetic and unscrupulous young men of the
house of Montgomeri, one of whom was the adviser and architect of William
Rufus, another a notable warrior in North Wales, another the conqueror of
Pembrokeshire. As it appears from the Survey that Roger’s possessions stretched
far beyond the Ribble into Yorkshire and Cumberland, it seems quite possible—
though here we are in the region of conjecture—that just as his father and
brothers had a free hand to conquer as they listed from the North and South
Welsh, so Roger had a similar commission for the hilly districts still unconquered
in the north-west of England. But fortune did not favour the Montgomeri family
for long. They were exiled from England in 1102 for siding with Robert
Curthose, and in the same year we find the castle of Clitheroe in the hands of
Robert de Lacy, lord of the great Yorkshire fief of Pontefract.[364]
The castle of Clitheroe stands on a lofty motte of natural rock.[365] There are no
earthworks on the summit, but a stout wall of limestone rubble without buttresses
Page 112
encloses a small court, on whose south-west side stands the keep. It is just
possible that the outer wall may be the original work of Roger, as limestone
rubble would be easier to get than earth on this rocky hill. The keep is small,
rudely built of rubble, and has neither fireplace nor garde-robe, nor the slightest
ornamental detail—not even a string course. But in spite of the entire absence of
ornament, a decorative effect has been sought and obtained by making the
quoins, voussoirs, and lintels of a dressed yellow sandstone. The care with which
this has been done is inconsistent with the haste with which Roger must
inevitably have constructed his first fortification, if we suppose, as is probable,
that he received the first grant of his northern lands on William’s return in 1070
from his third visit to the north, when he made that remarkable march through
Lancashire to Chester which is described by Ordericus. It seems more likely that
even if the outer wall or shell were the work of Roger, he had only wooden
buildings inside its circuit. Dugdale attributes the building of the keep to the
second Robert de Lacy, between 1187 and 1194, and it is probable that this date
is correct.[366] The bailey of Clitheroe lay considerably below the keep, and is
now overbuilt with a modern house, offices, and garden. It covers one acre. A
Roman road up the valley of the Ribble passes near the foot of the rock.[367]
As the very name of Clitheroe is not mentioned in Domesday Book, it clearly
was not an important centre in Saxon times. The value of Blackburn Hundred, in
which Clitheroe is situated, had fallen between the Confessor’s time and the time
when Roger received it. It is quite possible that he never lived at Clitheroe, as he
sub-infeoffed the manor and Hundred of Blackburn to Roger de Busli and Albert
Greslet before 1086.[368]
Colchester, Essex.—The remarkable keep of this castle has been the subject of
antiquarian legend for many centuries, and Mr Clark has the merit of having
proved its early Norman origin, by its plan and architecture. A charter of Henry I.
is preserved in the cartulary of St John’s Abbey at Colchester, which grants to
Eudes the Dapifer “the city of Colchester, and the tower and the castle, and all
the fortifications of the castle, just as my father had them and my brother and
myself.”[369] This proves that the keep and castle were in existence in the
Conqueror’s time; the Norman character of the architecture proves that the keep
was not in existence earlier. We see, then, that the reason there is no motte at
Colchester is that there was a stone keep built when first the castle was founded.
As far as we are aware, Colchester, the Tower of London, and the recently
discovered keep of Pevensey are the only certain instances of stone keeps of the
11th century in England.
possible that the outer wall may be the original work of Roger, as limestone
rubble would be easier to get than earth on this rocky hill. The keep is small,
rudely built of rubble, and has neither fireplace nor garde-robe, nor the slightest
ornamental detail—not even a string course. But in spite of the entire absence of
ornament, a decorative effect has been sought and obtained by making the
quoins, voussoirs, and lintels of a dressed yellow sandstone. The care with which
this has been done is inconsistent with the haste with which Roger must
inevitably have constructed his first fortification, if we suppose, as is probable,
that he received the first grant of his northern lands on William’s return in 1070
from his third visit to the north, when he made that remarkable march through
Lancashire to Chester which is described by Ordericus. It seems more likely that
even if the outer wall or shell were the work of Roger, he had only wooden
buildings inside its circuit. Dugdale attributes the building of the keep to the
second Robert de Lacy, between 1187 and 1194, and it is probable that this date
is correct.[366] The bailey of Clitheroe lay considerably below the keep, and is
now overbuilt with a modern house, offices, and garden. It covers one acre. A
Roman road up the valley of the Ribble passes near the foot of the rock.[367]
As the very name of Clitheroe is not mentioned in Domesday Book, it clearly
was not an important centre in Saxon times. The value of Blackburn Hundred, in
which Clitheroe is situated, had fallen between the Confessor’s time and the time
when Roger received it. It is quite possible that he never lived at Clitheroe, as he
sub-infeoffed the manor and Hundred of Blackburn to Roger de Busli and Albert
Greslet before 1086.[368]
Colchester, Essex.—The remarkable keep of this castle has been the subject of
antiquarian legend for many centuries, and Mr Clark has the merit of having
proved its early Norman origin, by its plan and architecture. A charter of Henry I.
is preserved in the cartulary of St John’s Abbey at Colchester, which grants to
Eudes the Dapifer “the city of Colchester, and the tower and the castle, and all
the fortifications of the castle, just as my father had them and my brother and
myself.”[369] This proves that the keep and castle were in existence in the
Conqueror’s time; the Norman character of the architecture proves that the keep
was not in existence earlier. We see, then, that the reason there is no motte at
Colchester is that there was a stone keep built when first the castle was founded.
As far as we are aware, Colchester, the Tower of London, and the recently
discovered keep of Pevensey are the only certain instances of stone keeps of the
11th century in England.
Page 113
That one of the most important of the Conqueror’s castles, second only to the
Tower of London, and actually exceeding it in the area it covers, should be found
in Colchester, is not surprising, because the Eastern counties at the time of the
Conquest were not only the wealthiest part of the kingdom (as Domesday Book
clearly shows[370]), but they also needed special protection from the attacks of
Scandinavian enemies. Mr Round has conjectured that the castle was built at the
time of the invasion of St Cnut, between 1080 and 1085.[371]
The castle is built of Roman stones used over again, with rows of tiles introduced
between the courses with much decorative effect.[372] The original doorway was
on the first floor, as in most Norman keeps; but at some after time, probably in
the reign of Henry I.,[373] the present doorway was inserted; and most likely the
handsome stairway which now leads up from this basement entrance was added,
as it shows clear marks of insertion. Henry II. was working on the walls of the
castle in 1182, and it may be strongly suspected that the repairs in ashlar, and the
casing of the buttresses with ashlar, were his work.[374] One item in the accounts
of Henry II. is £50 “for making the bailey round the castle.”[375] There were two
baileys to the castle of Colchester—the inner one, which scarcely covered 2
acres, and the outer one, which contained about 11. The inner bailey was
enclosed at first with an earthwork and stockade, the earthwork being thrown up
over the remains of some Roman walls, whose line it does not follow. Afterwards
a stone wall was built on the earthwork, the foundations of which can still be
traced in the west rampart.[376] The outer bailey, which lay to the north, extended
on two sides to the Roman walls of the town; on the west side it had a rampart
and stockade. If the £50 spent by Henry II. represents the cost of a stone wall
round the inner bailey, then the palicium blown down by the wind in 1219 must
have been the wooden stockade on the west side of the outer bailey.[377] The
question is difficult to decide, but at any rate the entry proves that as late as
Henry III.’s reign, some part of the outer defences of Colchester Castle was still
of timber.
The position of Colchester Castle is exceptional in one respect, that the castle is
almost in the middle of the town. But this very unusual position is explained by
Mr Round’s statement that the land forming the castle baileys, as well as that
afterwards given to the Grey Friars on the east, was crown demesne before the
Conquest, and consequently had been cultivated land, so that we do not hear of
any houses in Colchester being destroyed for the site of the castle.[378] But by
keeping this land as the inalienable appendage of the royal castle William secured
Tower of London, and actually exceeding it in the area it covers, should be found
in Colchester, is not surprising, because the Eastern counties at the time of the
Conquest were not only the wealthiest part of the kingdom (as Domesday Book
clearly shows[370]), but they also needed special protection from the attacks of
Scandinavian enemies. Mr Round has conjectured that the castle was built at the
time of the invasion of St Cnut, between 1080 and 1085.[371]
The castle is built of Roman stones used over again, with rows of tiles introduced
between the courses with much decorative effect.[372] The original doorway was
on the first floor, as in most Norman keeps; but at some after time, probably in
the reign of Henry I.,[373] the present doorway was inserted; and most likely the
handsome stairway which now leads up from this basement entrance was added,
as it shows clear marks of insertion. Henry II. was working on the walls of the
castle in 1182, and it may be strongly suspected that the repairs in ashlar, and the
casing of the buttresses with ashlar, were his work.[374] One item in the accounts
of Henry II. is £50 “for making the bailey round the castle.”[375] There were two
baileys to the castle of Colchester—the inner one, which scarcely covered 2
acres, and the outer one, which contained about 11. The inner bailey was
enclosed at first with an earthwork and stockade, the earthwork being thrown up
over the remains of some Roman walls, whose line it does not follow. Afterwards
a stone wall was built on the earthwork, the foundations of which can still be
traced in the west rampart.[376] The outer bailey, which lay to the north, extended
on two sides to the Roman walls of the town; on the west side it had a rampart
and stockade. If the £50 spent by Henry II. represents the cost of a stone wall
round the inner bailey, then the palicium blown down by the wind in 1219 must
have been the wooden stockade on the west side of the outer bailey.[377] The
question is difficult to decide, but at any rate the entry proves that as late as
Henry III.’s reign, some part of the outer defences of Colchester Castle was still
of timber.
The position of Colchester Castle is exceptional in one respect, that the castle is
almost in the middle of the town. But this very unusual position is explained by
Mr Round’s statement that the land forming the castle baileys, as well as that
afterwards given to the Grey Friars on the east, was crown demesne before the
Conquest, and consequently had been cultivated land, so that we do not hear of
any houses in Colchester being destroyed for the site of the castle.[378] But by
keeping this land as the inalienable appendage of the royal castle William secured
Page 114
that communication between the castle and the outside country which was so
essential to the invaders.
The value of the city of Colchester had risen enormously at the date of the
Survey.[379]
Corfe, Dorset (Fig. 13).—Mr Eyton has shown that for the castellum Warham of
Domesday Book we ought to read Corfe, because the castle was built in the
manor of Kingston, four miles from Wareham.[380] And this is made clear by the
Testa de Nevill, which says that the church of Gillingham was given to the
nunnery of Shaftesbury in exchange for the land on which the castle of Corfe is
placed.[381] Because King Edward the Martyr was murdered at Corfe, at some
place where his stepmother Elfrida was residing, it has been inferred that there
was a Saxon castle at Corfe; and because there is a building with some herring-
bone work among the present ruins, it has been assumed that this building is the
remains of that castle or palace. But the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the only
contemporary authority for the event, says nothing of any castle at Corfe, but
simply tells us that Edward was slain at Corfe Geat, a name which evidently
alludes to a gap or passage through the chalk hills, such as there is at Corfe.[382]
Nor is there any mention of Corfe as a fortress in Anglo-Saxon times; it is not
named in the Burghal Hidage, and we do not hear of any sieges of it by the
Danes. Nor is it likely that the Saxons would have had a fortress at Corfe, when
they had a fortified town so near as Wareham.[383] Kingston, the manor in which
Corfe is situated, was not an important place, as it had no dependent soke. The
language of Domesday absolutely upsets the idea of any Saxon castle or palace at
Corfe, as it tells us that William obtained the land for his castle from the nuns of
Shaftesbury, and we may be quite sure they had no castle there.[384]
Corfe Castle stands on a natural hill, which has been so scarped artificially that
the highest part now forms a large motte. Three wards exist—the eastern or motte
ward, the western, and the southern. The two former probably formed the original
castle. On the motte (which possibly is not artificial, but formed by scarping)
stands the lofty keep, of splendid workmanship, probably of the time of Henry I.
In the ward pertaining to it are buildings of the time of John and Henry III.[385]
The western ward has towers of the 13th century, but it also contains the
interesting remains of an early Norman building, probably a hall or chapel, built
largely of herring-bone work; this is the building which has been so positively
asserted to be a Saxon palace. But herring-bone masonry, which used to be
thought an infallible sign of Saxon work, is now found to be more often Norman.
[386]
The building is certainly an ancient one, and may possibly have been
essential to the invaders.
The value of the city of Colchester had risen enormously at the date of the
Survey.[379]
Corfe, Dorset (Fig. 13).—Mr Eyton has shown that for the castellum Warham of
Domesday Book we ought to read Corfe, because the castle was built in the
manor of Kingston, four miles from Wareham.[380] And this is made clear by the
Testa de Nevill, which says that the church of Gillingham was given to the
nunnery of Shaftesbury in exchange for the land on which the castle of Corfe is
placed.[381] Because King Edward the Martyr was murdered at Corfe, at some
place where his stepmother Elfrida was residing, it has been inferred that there
was a Saxon castle at Corfe; and because there is a building with some herring-
bone work among the present ruins, it has been assumed that this building is the
remains of that castle or palace. But the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the only
contemporary authority for the event, says nothing of any castle at Corfe, but
simply tells us that Edward was slain at Corfe Geat, a name which evidently
alludes to a gap or passage through the chalk hills, such as there is at Corfe.[382]
Nor is there any mention of Corfe as a fortress in Anglo-Saxon times; it is not
named in the Burghal Hidage, and we do not hear of any sieges of it by the
Danes. Nor is it likely that the Saxons would have had a fortress at Corfe, when
they had a fortified town so near as Wareham.[383] Kingston, the manor in which
Corfe is situated, was not an important place, as it had no dependent soke. The
language of Domesday absolutely upsets the idea of any Saxon castle or palace at
Corfe, as it tells us that William obtained the land for his castle from the nuns of
Shaftesbury, and we may be quite sure they had no castle there.[384]
Corfe Castle stands on a natural hill, which has been so scarped artificially that
the highest part now forms a large motte. Three wards exist—the eastern or motte
ward, the western, and the southern. The two former probably formed the original
castle. On the motte (which possibly is not artificial, but formed by scarping)
stands the lofty keep, of splendid workmanship, probably of the time of Henry I.
In the ward pertaining to it are buildings of the time of John and Henry III.[385]
The western ward has towers of the 13th century, but it also contains the
interesting remains of an early Norman building, probably a hall or chapel, built
largely of herring-bone work; this is the building which has been so positively
asserted to be a Saxon palace. But herring-bone masonry, which used to be
thought an infallible sign of Saxon work, is now found to be more often Norman.
[386]
The building is certainly an ancient one, and may possibly have been
Page 115
contemporary with the first Norman castle; its details are unmistakably Norman.
But very likely it was the only Norman masonry of the 11th century at Corfe
Castle.[387] It is clear that the stone wall which at present surrounds the western
bailey did not exist when the hall (or chapel) was built, as it blocks up its
southern windows. Probably there was a palisade at first on the edge of the scarp.
Palisades still formed part of the defences of the castle in the time of Henry III.,
when 62l. was paid “for making two good walls in place of the palisades at Corfe
between the old bailey of the said castle and the middle bailey towards the west,
and between the keep of the said castle and the outer bailey towards the
south.”[388] This shows that the present wing-walls down from the motte were
previously represented by stockades. The ditch between the keep and the
southern bailey has been attributed to King John, on the strength of an entry in
the Close Rolls which orders fifteen miners and stone-masons to work on the
banks of the ditch in 1214.[389] But we may be quite certain that this ditch below
the motte belonged to the original plan of the castle; John’s work would be either
to line it with masonry, or to enlarge it. It is not without significance for the early
history of the castle that Durandus the carpenter held the manor of Mouldham
near Corfe, by the service of finding a carpenter to work at the keep whenever
required.[390]
The area of Corfe Castle, if we include the large southern bailey, is 3¾ acres;
without it, 1½ acres. This bailey was certainly in existence in the reign of Henry
III. (as the extract from the Close Rolls proves) before the towers of superb
masonry were added to it by Edward I.
The value of Kingston Manor had considerably increased at the date of the
Survey. After the Count of Mortain forfeited his lands (in 1105), the castle of
Corfe was kept in the hands of the crown, and this increases the probability that
the keep was built by Henry I.
About 400 yards S.W. of Corfe Castle is an earthwork which might be called a
“Ring and Bailey.” Instead of the usual motte there is a circular enclosure,
defended by a bank and ditch of about the same height as those of its bailey, but
having in addition an interior platform or berm. This work is probably the
remains of a camp thrown up by Stephen during his unsuccessful siege of Corfe
Castle in 1139.
But very likely it was the only Norman masonry of the 11th century at Corfe
Castle.[387] It is clear that the stone wall which at present surrounds the western
bailey did not exist when the hall (or chapel) was built, as it blocks up its
southern windows. Probably there was a palisade at first on the edge of the scarp.
Palisades still formed part of the defences of the castle in the time of Henry III.,
when 62l. was paid “for making two good walls in place of the palisades at Corfe
between the old bailey of the said castle and the middle bailey towards the west,
and between the keep of the said castle and the outer bailey towards the
south.”[388] This shows that the present wing-walls down from the motte were
previously represented by stockades. The ditch between the keep and the
southern bailey has been attributed to King John, on the strength of an entry in
the Close Rolls which orders fifteen miners and stone-masons to work on the
banks of the ditch in 1214.[389] But we may be quite certain that this ditch below
the motte belonged to the original plan of the castle; John’s work would be either
to line it with masonry, or to enlarge it. It is not without significance for the early
history of the castle that Durandus the carpenter held the manor of Mouldham
near Corfe, by the service of finding a carpenter to work at the keep whenever
required.[390]
The area of Corfe Castle, if we include the large southern bailey, is 3¾ acres;
without it, 1½ acres. This bailey was certainly in existence in the reign of Henry
III. (as the extract from the Close Rolls proves) before the towers of superb
masonry were added to it by Edward I.
The value of Kingston Manor had considerably increased at the date of the
Survey. After the Count of Mortain forfeited his lands (in 1105), the castle of
Corfe was kept in the hands of the crown, and this increases the probability that
the keep was built by Henry I.
About 400 yards S.W. of Corfe Castle is an earthwork which might be called a
“Ring and Bailey.” Instead of the usual motte there is a circular enclosure,
defended by a bank and ditch of about the same height as those of its bailey, but
having in addition an interior platform or berm. This work is probably the
remains of a camp thrown up by Stephen during his unsuccessful siege of Corfe
Castle in 1139.
Page 116
Dover.
(From a plan in the British Museum, 1756.)
Fig. 14.
Dover, Kent (Fig. 14).—The Norman historian, William of Poitiers, tells us that
the castrum of Dover was built by Harold at his own expense.[391] This comes
from the celebrated story of the oath of Harold to William, a story of which Mr
Freeman says that there is no portion of our history more entangled in the mazes
of contradictory and often impossible statements.[392] But let us assume the
statement about the castrum to be true; the question then to be answered is this:
(From a plan in the British Museum, 1756.)
Fig. 14.
Dover, Kent (Fig. 14).—The Norman historian, William of Poitiers, tells us that
the castrum of Dover was built by Harold at his own expense.[391] This comes
from the celebrated story of the oath of Harold to William, a story of which Mr
Freeman says that there is no portion of our history more entangled in the mazes
of contradictory and often impossible statements.[392] But let us assume the
statement about the castrum to be true; the question then to be answered is this:
Page 117
of what nature was that castrum? We never are told by English chroniclers that
Harold built any castles, though we do hear of his fortifying towns. The present
writer would answer this question, tentatively indeed, and under correction, by
the theory that the castrum constructed or repaired by Harold was the present
outer rampart of Dover Castle, which encloses an area of about 34 acres, and may
have enclosed more, if it was formerly complete on the side towards the sea.[393]
The evidence in support of this theory is as follows:—
1. There certainly was a burh on the top of the cliff at Dover in Saxon times, as
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us that in 1048 Eustace of Boulogne, after
coming to Dover, and slaying householders there, went up to the burh, and slew
people both within and without, but was repulsed by the burh-men.[394] There
was then a burh, and valiant burh-men on the cliff at Dover in Edward the
Confessor’s reign. But the whole analogy of the word burh makes it certain that
by the time of Edward it meant a fortified town.[395]
2. That the burh at Dover was of the nature of a town, with houses in it, is
confirmed by the poem of Guy of Amiens, who says that when King William
entered the castrum, he ordered the English to evacuate their houses.[396] William
of Poitiers also states that there was an innumerable multitude of people in the
castle,[397] though he may refer to a multitude gathered there for safety.
3. Though the whole of the outer enceinte is generally credited to Hubert de
Burgh in Henry III.’s reign, the truth probably is that he built the first stone walls
and towers on the outer rampart; but the existence of this earthen rampart shows
that there was a wooden wall upon it previously. It is not improbable that it was
for the repair of this wooden wall that so much timber was sent to Dover in the
reigns of Richard I. and John.[398] Dering, who was lieutenant of the castle in
1629, records the tradition that the tower in the outer enceinte, called Canons’
Gate, dates from Saxon times (of course this could only be true of a wooden
predecessor of the stone tower), and that Godwin’s Tower, on the east side of the
outer vallum, existed as a postern before the Conquest.[399] Nearly all the towers
on this wall were supported by certain manors held on the tenure of castle-guard,
and eight of them still retain the names of eight knights to whom William is said
to have given lands on this tenure. Mr Round has shown that the Warda
Constabularii of Dover Castle can be traced back to the Conquest, and that it is a
mere legend that it was given as a fief to a Fienes. He remarks that the nine wards
of the castle named in the Red Book of the Exchequer are all reproduced in the
names still attached to the towers. “This coincidence of testimony leads us to
believe that the names must have been attached at a very early period; and
Harold built any castles, though we do hear of his fortifying towns. The present
writer would answer this question, tentatively indeed, and under correction, by
the theory that the castrum constructed or repaired by Harold was the present
outer rampart of Dover Castle, which encloses an area of about 34 acres, and may
have enclosed more, if it was formerly complete on the side towards the sea.[393]
The evidence in support of this theory is as follows:—
1. There certainly was a burh on the top of the cliff at Dover in Saxon times, as
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us that in 1048 Eustace of Boulogne, after
coming to Dover, and slaying householders there, went up to the burh, and slew
people both within and without, but was repulsed by the burh-men.[394] There
was then a burh, and valiant burh-men on the cliff at Dover in Edward the
Confessor’s reign. But the whole analogy of the word burh makes it certain that
by the time of Edward it meant a fortified town.[395]
2. That the burh at Dover was of the nature of a town, with houses in it, is
confirmed by the poem of Guy of Amiens, who says that when King William
entered the castrum, he ordered the English to evacuate their houses.[396] William
of Poitiers also states that there was an innumerable multitude of people in the
castle,[397] though he may refer to a multitude gathered there for safety.
3. Though the whole of the outer enceinte is generally credited to Hubert de
Burgh in Henry III.’s reign, the truth probably is that he built the first stone walls
and towers on the outer rampart; but the existence of this earthen rampart shows
that there was a wooden wall upon it previously. It is not improbable that it was
for the repair of this wooden wall that so much timber was sent to Dover in the
reigns of Richard I. and John.[398] Dering, who was lieutenant of the castle in
1629, records the tradition that the tower in the outer enceinte, called Canons’
Gate, dates from Saxon times (of course this could only be true of a wooden
predecessor of the stone tower), and that Godwin’s Tower, on the east side of the
outer vallum, existed as a postern before the Conquest.[399] Nearly all the towers
on this wall were supported by certain manors held on the tenure of castle-guard,
and eight of them still retain the names of eight knights to whom William is said
to have given lands on this tenure. Mr Round has shown that the Warda
Constabularii of Dover Castle can be traced back to the Conquest, and that it is a
mere legend that it was given as a fief to a Fienes. He remarks that the nine wards
of the castle named in the Red Book of the Exchequer are all reproduced in the
names still attached to the towers. “This coincidence of testimony leads us to
believe that the names must have been attached at a very early period; and
Page 118
looking at the history of the families named, it cannot have been later than that of
Henry II.”[400] May it not have been even earlier? Eight of these names are
attached to towers on the outer circuit,[401] and five of them are found as
landholders in Kent in Domesday Book.
4. William of Poitiers further tells us that when the duke had taken the castle, he
remained there eight days, to add the fortifications which were wanting.[402]
What was wanting to a Norman eye in Anglo-Saxon fortifications, as far as we
know them, was a citadel; and without laying too much stress on the chronicler’s
eight days, we may assume that the short time spent by William at Dover was just
enough for the construction of a motte and bailey, inside the castrum of Harold,
but crowned by wooden buildings only.
Taking these things together, we venture to assume that the inner court in which
the keep of Dover stands, represents an original motte, or at any rate an original
citadel, added to the castle by William I. Whether what now remains of this motte
is in part artificial, we do not pretend to say; it may be that it was formed simply
by digging a deep ditch round the highest knoll of ground within the ancient
ramparts.[403] Anyhow, it is still in effect a motte, and a large one, containing not
only the magnificent keep, but a small ward as well. That this keep was the work
of Henry II. there can be no manner of doubt; the Pipe Rolls show that he spent
more than £2000 on the turris or keep of Dover Castle between the years 1181
and 1187, and Benedict of Peterborough mentions the building of the keep at this
date.[404] The curtain around the motte may also be reckoned to be his work
originally, as the cingulum is spoken of along with the turris in the accounts.
Modern alterations have left little of Norman character in this curtain which
shows at a glance, and the gateways (one of which remains) belong to a later
period.
Attached to this keep ward is another ward, whose rampart is generally attributed
to Saxon times. We are not in a position positively to deny that the Saxons had an
inner earthwork on the highest part of the ground within their burh. But
considering that small citadels are unusual in Saxon earthworks: considering also
that this bailey is attached to the motte in the usual manner of a Norman bailey,
and that its size corresponds to the usual size of an original Norman bailey in an
important place, it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that this was the
original bailey attached to the Conqueror’s motte. Its shape is singular, part of it
being nearly square, while at the S.E. corner a large oval loop is thrown out, so as
to enclose the Roman Pharos and the Saxon church. The outline of the bailey
certainly suggests that it was built after the Pharos and the church, and was built
Henry II.”[400] May it not have been even earlier? Eight of these names are
attached to towers on the outer circuit,[401] and five of them are found as
landholders in Kent in Domesday Book.
4. William of Poitiers further tells us that when the duke had taken the castle, he
remained there eight days, to add the fortifications which were wanting.[402]
What was wanting to a Norman eye in Anglo-Saxon fortifications, as far as we
know them, was a citadel; and without laying too much stress on the chronicler’s
eight days, we may assume that the short time spent by William at Dover was just
enough for the construction of a motte and bailey, inside the castrum of Harold,
but crowned by wooden buildings only.
Taking these things together, we venture to assume that the inner court in which
the keep of Dover stands, represents an original motte, or at any rate an original
citadel, added to the castle by William I. Whether what now remains of this motte
is in part artificial, we do not pretend to say; it may be that it was formed simply
by digging a deep ditch round the highest knoll of ground within the ancient
ramparts.[403] Anyhow, it is still in effect a motte, and a large one, containing not
only the magnificent keep, but a small ward as well. That this keep was the work
of Henry II. there can be no manner of doubt; the Pipe Rolls show that he spent
more than £2000 on the turris or keep of Dover Castle between the years 1181
and 1187, and Benedict of Peterborough mentions the building of the keep at this
date.[404] The curtain around the motte may also be reckoned to be his work
originally, as the cingulum is spoken of along with the turris in the accounts.
Modern alterations have left little of Norman character in this curtain which
shows at a glance, and the gateways (one of which remains) belong to a later
period.
Attached to this keep ward is another ward, whose rampart is generally attributed
to Saxon times. We are not in a position positively to deny that the Saxons had an
inner earthwork on the highest part of the ground within their burh. But
considering that small citadels are unusual in Saxon earthworks: considering also
that this bailey is attached to the motte in the usual manner of a Norman bailey,
and that its size corresponds to the usual size of an original Norman bailey in an
important place, it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that this was the
original bailey attached to the Conqueror’s motte. Its shape is singular, part of it
being nearly square, while at the S.E. corner a large oval loop is thrown out, so as
to enclose the Roman Pharos and the Saxon church. The outline of the bailey
certainly suggests that it was built after the Pharos and the church, and was built
Page 119
with reference primarily to the keep or motte ward. The nature of the ground, and
the necessity of enclosing the church and the Roman tower within the immediate
bailey of the castle, which would otherwise have been commanded by them, were
the other factors which decided the unusual shape of the bailey.
On this earthwork the foundations of a rubble wall were formerly to be traced,
[405]
probably built by Henry II., as considerable sums for “the wall of the castle”
are mentioned in his accounts.[406] Whether there are still any remains of this
curtain we are unable to say, but so many of the features of the middle ward have
been swept away by modern alterations, and the difficulty of examining what
remains, owing to military restrictions, is so great, that little can be said about it,
and we find that most authorities observe a judicious silence on the subject. But
as the carriage of stone is expressly mentioned in Henry II.’s accounts, we may
with great probability assign to him the transformation of the original wooden
castle of William into a castle of stone; while the transformation of the Anglo-
Saxon borough into a stone enceinte was the work of Henry III.’s reign.
We think the evidence suggests that this burh or outer rampart was in existence
when the Conqueror came to Dover, crowned in all probability with a stockade
and towers of wood. It may possibly have been a British or even a Roman
earthwork originally (though its outline does not suggest Roman work); or it may
have been built by Harold as a city of refuge for the inhabitants of the port.[407]
The Saxon church which it encloses, and which has long been attributed to the
earliest days of Saxon Christianity, is now pronounced by the best authorities to
be comparatively late in the style.[408]
The size of the inner castle of Dover appears to be about 6 acres, reckoning the
keep ward at 2, and the bailey at about 4.
The value of the town of Dover had trebled at the time of the Survey, in spite of
the burning of the town at William’s first advent.[409]
the necessity of enclosing the church and the Roman tower within the immediate
bailey of the castle, which would otherwise have been commanded by them, were
the other factors which decided the unusual shape of the bailey.
On this earthwork the foundations of a rubble wall were formerly to be traced,
[405]
probably built by Henry II., as considerable sums for “the wall of the castle”
are mentioned in his accounts.[406] Whether there are still any remains of this
curtain we are unable to say, but so many of the features of the middle ward have
been swept away by modern alterations, and the difficulty of examining what
remains, owing to military restrictions, is so great, that little can be said about it,
and we find that most authorities observe a judicious silence on the subject. But
as the carriage of stone is expressly mentioned in Henry II.’s accounts, we may
with great probability assign to him the transformation of the original wooden
castle of William into a castle of stone; while the transformation of the Anglo-
Saxon borough into a stone enceinte was the work of Henry III.’s reign.
We think the evidence suggests that this burh or outer rampart was in existence
when the Conqueror came to Dover, crowned in all probability with a stockade
and towers of wood. It may possibly have been a British or even a Roman
earthwork originally (though its outline does not suggest Roman work); or it may
have been built by Harold as a city of refuge for the inhabitants of the port.[407]
The Saxon church which it encloses, and which has long been attributed to the
earliest days of Saxon Christianity, is now pronounced by the best authorities to
be comparatively late in the style.[408]
The size of the inner castle of Dover appears to be about 6 acres, reckoning the
keep ward at 2, and the bailey at about 4.
The value of the town of Dover had trebled at the time of the Survey, in spite of
the burning of the town at William’s first advent.[409]
Page 120
Dudley, Staffs.
Page 121
Dunster, Somerset.
Fig. 15.
Dudley, Staffordshire (Fig. 15).—William Fitz Ansculf held Dudley at the time
of the Survey, “and there is his castle.”[410] Mr Clark appears to accept the
dubious tradition of a Saxon Dodda, who first built this castle in the 8th century,
since he speaks of Dudley as “a great English residence.”[411] This tradition,
however, is not supported by Domesday Book, which shows Dudley to have been
only a small and unimportant manor before the Conquest. The strong position of
the hill was no doubt the reason why the Norman placed his castle there. There is
no Norman masonry in the present ruins. The earliest work is that of the keep on
the motte, a rectangular tower with round corner turrets, attributed by Mr W. St
John Hope to about 1320. The first castle was demolished by Henry II. in 1175,
[412]
and an attempt to restore it in 1218 was stringently countermanded.[413] The
Fig. 15.
Dudley, Staffordshire (Fig. 15).—William Fitz Ansculf held Dudley at the time
of the Survey, “and there is his castle.”[410] Mr Clark appears to accept the
dubious tradition of a Saxon Dodda, who first built this castle in the 8th century,
since he speaks of Dudley as “a great English residence.”[411] This tradition,
however, is not supported by Domesday Book, which shows Dudley to have been
only a small and unimportant manor before the Conquest. The strong position of
the hill was no doubt the reason why the Norman placed his castle there. There is
no Norman masonry in the present ruins. The earliest work is that of the keep on
the motte, a rectangular tower with round corner turrets, attributed by Mr W. St
John Hope to about 1320. The first castle was demolished by Henry II. in 1175,
[412]
and an attempt to restore it in 1218 was stringently countermanded.[413] The
Page 122
case of Dudley is one of those which proves that Henry II. destroyed some lawful
castles in 1175 as well as the unlawful ones. In 1264 a license to restore it was
granted to Roger de Somery, in consideration of his devotion to the king’s cause
in the Barons’ War.[414] The whole area of the castle, including the motte, but not
including the works at the base of the hill on which it stands, is 1¾ acres. The
bailey is an irregular oval, following the hill top. Dudley is an instance in which
the value of the manor has gone down instead of up since the erection of the
castle; this may perhaps be laid to the account of the devastation caused through
the Staffordshire insurrection of 1069.
Dunster, Somerset (Fig. 15).—Called Torre in Domesday Book. “There William
de Moion has his castle.”[415] The motte here appears to be a natural rock or tor,
whose summit has been levelled and its sides scarped by art. About 80 feet below
the top is a (roughly) half-moon bailey, itself a shelf on the side of the hill; there
is another and much smaller shelf at the opposite end.[416] Some foundations
found in the S.W. corner of the upper ward appear to indicate a former stone
keep.[417] Dunster was only a small manor of half a hide before the Conquest, but
afterwards its value tripled. There was a borough as well as a castle.[418] The
castle became the caput baroniæ of the De Moions, to whom the Conqueror gave
fifty-six manors in different parts of the county. There is not the slightest reason
to suppose that the site was fortified before the Conquest. Mr Clark remarks that
“it is remarkable that no mouldings or fragments of Norman ornament have been
dug up in or about the site, although there is original Norman work in the parish
church.” The simple explanation, probably, is that the first castle of De Moion
was of wood, although on a site where it would have been possible to build in
stone from the first, as it does not appear that any part of the motte is artificial.
The area of the bailey is 1¾ acres. The value of Dunster had risen at the date of
Domesday.[419]
castles in 1175 as well as the unlawful ones. In 1264 a license to restore it was
granted to Roger de Somery, in consideration of his devotion to the king’s cause
in the Barons’ War.[414] The whole area of the castle, including the motte, but not
including the works at the base of the hill on which it stands, is 1¾ acres. The
bailey is an irregular oval, following the hill top. Dudley is an instance in which
the value of the manor has gone down instead of up since the erection of the
castle; this may perhaps be laid to the account of the devastation caused through
the Staffordshire insurrection of 1069.
Dunster, Somerset (Fig. 15).—Called Torre in Domesday Book. “There William
de Moion has his castle.”[415] The motte here appears to be a natural rock or tor,
whose summit has been levelled and its sides scarped by art. About 80 feet below
the top is a (roughly) half-moon bailey, itself a shelf on the side of the hill; there
is another and much smaller shelf at the opposite end.[416] Some foundations
found in the S.W. corner of the upper ward appear to indicate a former stone
keep.[417] Dunster was only a small manor of half a hide before the Conquest, but
afterwards its value tripled. There was a borough as well as a castle.[418] The
castle became the caput baroniæ of the De Moions, to whom the Conqueror gave
fifty-six manors in different parts of the county. There is not the slightest reason
to suppose that the site was fortified before the Conquest. Mr Clark remarks that
“it is remarkable that no mouldings or fragments of Norman ornament have been
dug up in or about the site, although there is original Norman work in the parish
church.” The simple explanation, probably, is that the first castle of De Moion
was of wood, although on a site where it would have been possible to build in
stone from the first, as it does not appear that any part of the motte is artificial.
The area of the bailey is 1¾ acres. The value of Dunster had risen at the date of
Domesday.[419]
Page 123
Durham.
Fig. 16.
Durham (Fig. 16).—The castle here was first built by the Conqueror, on his
return from his expedition against Scotland in 1072.[420] It was intended as a
strong residence for the bishop, through whom William hoped to govern this
turbulent part of the country. He placed it on the neck of the lofty peninsula on
which the cathedral stands. The motte of the Conqueror still remains, and so does
the chapel[421] which he built in the bailey; probably the present court of the
castle, though crowded now with buildings, represents the outline of the original
Fig. 16.
Durham (Fig. 16).—The castle here was first built by the Conqueror, on his
return from his expedition against Scotland in 1072.[420] It was intended as a
strong residence for the bishop, through whom William hoped to govern this
turbulent part of the country. He placed it on the neck of the lofty peninsula on
which the cathedral stands. The motte of the Conqueror still remains, and so does
the chapel[421] which he built in the bailey; probably the present court of the
castle, though crowded now with buildings, represents the outline of the original
Page 124
bailey.[422] The present shell keep on the motte was built by Bishop Hatfield in
Edward III.’s reign,[423] but has been extensively modernised. There can be little
doubt that up to 1345 there were only wooden buildings on the motte, as the
writer was informed by Canon Greenwell that no remains of older stone-work
than the 14th century had been found there. It is so seldom that we get any
contemporary description of a castle of this kind, that it seems worth while to
translate the bombastic verse in which Laurence, Prior of Durham, described that
of Durham in Stephen’s reign:[424]
“Not far hence [from the north road into the city] a tumulus of rising earth
explains the flatness of the excavated summit, explains the narrow field on the
flattened vertex, which the apex of the castle occupies with very pleasing art. On
this open space the castle is seated like a queen; from its threatening height, it
holds all that it sees as its own. From its gate, the stubborn wall rises with the
rising mound,[425] and rising still further, makes towards the comfort (amæna) of
the keep. But the keep, compacted together, rises again into thin air, strong within
and without, well fitted for its work, for within the ground rises higher by three
cubits than without—ground made sound by solid earth. Above this, a stalwart
house[426] springs yet higher than the [shell] keep, glittering with splendid beauty
in every part; four posts are plain, on which it rests, one post at each strong
corner.[427] Each face is girded by a beautiful gallery, which is fixed into the
warlike wall.[428] A bridge, rising from the chapel [in the bailey] gives a ready
ascent to the ramparts, easy to climb; starting from them, a broad way makes the
round of the top of the wall, and this is the usual way to the top of the citadel....
The bridge is divided into easy steps, no headlong drop, but an easy slope from
the top to the bottom. Near the [head of the] bridge, a wall descends from the
citadel, turning its face westward towards the river.[429] From the river’s lofty
bank it turns away in a broad curve to meet the field [i.e., Palace Green]. It is no
bare plot empty of buildings that this high wall surrounds with its sweep, but one
containing goodly habitations.[430] There you will find two vast palaces built with
porches, the skill of whose builders the building well reveals. There, too, the
chapel stands out beautifully raised on six pillars, not over vast, but fair enough
to view. Here chambers are joined to chambers, house to house, each suited to the
purpose that it serves.... There is a building in the middle of the castle which has
a deep well of abundant water.... The frowning gate faces the rainy south, a gate
that is strong, high-reaching, easily held by the hand of a weakling or a woman.
The bridge is let down for egress,[431] and thus the way goes across the broad
moat. It goes to the plain which is protected on all sides by a wall, where the
youth often held their joyous games. Thus the castellan, and the castle artfully
Edward III.’s reign,[423] but has been extensively modernised. There can be little
doubt that up to 1345 there were only wooden buildings on the motte, as the
writer was informed by Canon Greenwell that no remains of older stone-work
than the 14th century had been found there. It is so seldom that we get any
contemporary description of a castle of this kind, that it seems worth while to
translate the bombastic verse in which Laurence, Prior of Durham, described that
of Durham in Stephen’s reign:[424]
“Not far hence [from the north road into the city] a tumulus of rising earth
explains the flatness of the excavated summit, explains the narrow field on the
flattened vertex, which the apex of the castle occupies with very pleasing art. On
this open space the castle is seated like a queen; from its threatening height, it
holds all that it sees as its own. From its gate, the stubborn wall rises with the
rising mound,[425] and rising still further, makes towards the comfort (amæna) of
the keep. But the keep, compacted together, rises again into thin air, strong within
and without, well fitted for its work, for within the ground rises higher by three
cubits than without—ground made sound by solid earth. Above this, a stalwart
house[426] springs yet higher than the [shell] keep, glittering with splendid beauty
in every part; four posts are plain, on which it rests, one post at each strong
corner.[427] Each face is girded by a beautiful gallery, which is fixed into the
warlike wall.[428] A bridge, rising from the chapel [in the bailey] gives a ready
ascent to the ramparts, easy to climb; starting from them, a broad way makes the
round of the top of the wall, and this is the usual way to the top of the citadel....
The bridge is divided into easy steps, no headlong drop, but an easy slope from
the top to the bottom. Near the [head of the] bridge, a wall descends from the
citadel, turning its face westward towards the river.[429] From the river’s lofty
bank it turns away in a broad curve to meet the field [i.e., Palace Green]. It is no
bare plot empty of buildings that this high wall surrounds with its sweep, but one
containing goodly habitations.[430] There you will find two vast palaces built with
porches, the skill of whose builders the building well reveals. There, too, the
chapel stands out beautifully raised on six pillars, not over vast, but fair enough
to view. Here chambers are joined to chambers, house to house, each suited to the
purpose that it serves.... There is a building in the middle of the castle which has
a deep well of abundant water.... The frowning gate faces the rainy south, a gate
that is strong, high-reaching, easily held by the hand of a weakling or a woman.
The bridge is let down for egress,[431] and thus the way goes across the broad
moat. It goes to the plain which is protected on all sides by a wall, where the
youth often held their joyous games. Thus the castellan, and the castle artfully
Page 125
placed on the high ridge, defend the northern side of the cathedral. And from this
castle a strong wall goes down southwards, continued to the end of the
church.”[432]
The original bailey of this castle covers 1 acre.
Ely, Cambridgeshire (Fig. 17).—This castle was built by William I. in 1070,
when he was repressing the last struggle of the English under the heroic
Hereward. The monks of Ely felt it a sore grievance that he placed the castle
within their own bounds.[433] Both this castle and the one built by William at
Aldreth, to defend the passage into the Isle of Ely, had a continuous existence, as
they were both refortified by Nigel, Bishop of Ely in Stephen’s reign, and Ely
Castle was besieged and taken by Stephen.[434] The earthworks of this castle still
exist, to the south of the Minster. There is a fine motte with an oval bailey, of
which the banks and ditches are traceable in parts. The area of the bailey is 2½
acres. Of Aldreth or Aldrey there appear to be no remains.
The value of the manor of Ely was £33 in the Confessor’s reign; it fell to £20
after the devastations of the Conquest, but had risen again to £30 at the time of
the Survey.[435]
castle a strong wall goes down southwards, continued to the end of the
church.”[432]
The original bailey of this castle covers 1 acre.
Ely, Cambridgeshire (Fig. 17).—This castle was built by William I. in 1070,
when he was repressing the last struggle of the English under the heroic
Hereward. The monks of Ely felt it a sore grievance that he placed the castle
within their own bounds.[433] Both this castle and the one built by William at
Aldreth, to defend the passage into the Isle of Ely, had a continuous existence, as
they were both refortified by Nigel, Bishop of Ely in Stephen’s reign, and Ely
Castle was besieged and taken by Stephen.[434] The earthworks of this castle still
exist, to the south of the Minster. There is a fine motte with an oval bailey, of
which the banks and ditches are traceable in parts. The area of the bailey is 2½
acres. Of Aldreth or Aldrey there appear to be no remains.
The value of the manor of Ely was £33 in the Confessor’s reign; it fell to £20
after the devastations of the Conquest, but had risen again to £30 at the time of
the Survey.[435]
Page 126
Ely, Cambs.
Ewias Harold, Hereford.
Ewias Harold, Hereford.
Page 127
Eye, Suffolk.
Fig. 17.
Ewias, Herefordshire (Fig. 17).—The brief notice of this castle in Domesday
Book throws some light on the general theory of castle-building in England.[436]
William FitzOsbern, as the king’s vicegerent, rebuilt this march castle, and
committed it to the keeping of another Norman noble, and the king confirmed the
arrangement. But in theory the castle would always be the king’s. This is the only
case in the Survey where we hear of a castle being rebuilt by the Normans. We
naturally look to one of King Edward’s Norman favourites as the first founder,
for they alone are said by history to have built castles on the Welsh marches
before the Conquest. Dr Round conjectures that Ewias was the “Pentecost’s
castle” spoken of in the (Peterborough) Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1052.[437] No
masonry is now to be seen on the motte at Ewias, but Mr Clark states that the
outline of a circular or polygonal shell keep is shown by a trench out of which the
foundations have been removed. The bailey is roughly of half-moon shape and
the mound oval. The whole area of the castle, including the motte and banks, is
2-⅓ acres.
Exeter.—This castle is not mentioned in Domesday Book, but Ordericus tells us
that William chose a site for the castle within the walls, and left Baldwin de
Molis, son of Count Gilbert, and other distinguished knights, to finish the work,
and remain as a garrison.[438] In spite of this clear indication that the castle was a
new thing, it has been obstinately held that it only occupied the site of some
former castle, Roman or Saxon.[439] Exeter, of course, was a Roman castrum, and
its walls had been restored by Athelstan. In this case William placed his castle
inside instead of outside the city walls, because, owing to the natural situation of
Fig. 17.
Ewias, Herefordshire (Fig. 17).—The brief notice of this castle in Domesday
Book throws some light on the general theory of castle-building in England.[436]
William FitzOsbern, as the king’s vicegerent, rebuilt this march castle, and
committed it to the keeping of another Norman noble, and the king confirmed the
arrangement. But in theory the castle would always be the king’s. This is the only
case in the Survey where we hear of a castle being rebuilt by the Normans. We
naturally look to one of King Edward’s Norman favourites as the first founder,
for they alone are said by history to have built castles on the Welsh marches
before the Conquest. Dr Round conjectures that Ewias was the “Pentecost’s
castle” spoken of in the (Peterborough) Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1052.[437] No
masonry is now to be seen on the motte at Ewias, but Mr Clark states that the
outline of a circular or polygonal shell keep is shown by a trench out of which the
foundations have been removed. The bailey is roughly of half-moon shape and
the mound oval. The whole area of the castle, including the motte and banks, is
2-⅓ acres.
Exeter.—This castle is not mentioned in Domesday Book, but Ordericus tells us
that William chose a site for the castle within the walls, and left Baldwin de
Molis, son of Count Gilbert, and other distinguished knights, to finish the work,
and remain as a garrison.[438] In spite of this clear indication that the castle was a
new thing, it has been obstinately held that it only occupied the site of some
former castle, Roman or Saxon.[439] Exeter, of course, was a Roman castrum, and
its walls had been restored by Athelstan. In this case William placed his castle
inside instead of outside the city walls, because, owing to the natural situation of
Page 128
Exeter, he found in the north-west corner a site which commanded the whole city.
Although Domesday Book is silent about the castle, it tells us that forty-eight
houses in Exeter had been destroyed since William came to England,[440] and
Freeman remarks that “we may assume that these houses were destroyed to make
room for the castle, though it is not expressly said that they were.”[441]
Exeter Castle stands on a natural knoll, occupying the north-west corner of the
city, which has been converted into a sort of square motte by digging a great
ditch round the two sides of its base towards the town.[442] That this ditch is no
pre-Roman work is shown by the fact that it stops short at the Roman wall, and
begins again on the outside of it, where, however, the greater part has been
levelled to form the promenade of the Northernhay or north rampart of the city.
On top of this hill, banks 30 feet high were thrown up, which still remain, and
give to the courtyard which they enclose the appearance of a pit.[443] On top of
these banks there are now stone walls; but these were certainly no part of the
work of Baldwin de Molis, who must have placed a wooden stockade on the
banks which he constructed. One piece of stonework he probably did set up, the
gatehouse, which by its triangle-headed windows and its long-and-short work is
almost certainly of the 11th century. It has frequently been called Saxon, but
more careful critics now regard it as “work that must have been done, if not by
Norman hands, at Norman bidding and on Norman design.”[444] It was no
uncommon thing at this early period to have gatehouses of stone to walls of earth
and wood. Of these gatehouses Exeter is the most perfect and the most clearly
stamped with antiquity.
One thing we look for in vain at Exeter, and that is a citadel. There is no keep,
and there is no record that there ever was one, though a chapel, hall, and other
houses are mentioned in ancient accounts. Mr Clark says that probably the
Normans regarded the whole court as a shell keep. It certainly was, in effect, a
motte; but it was altogether exceptional among Norman castles of importance if it
had no bailey. And in fact a bailey is mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1 Richard I.,
where there is an entry for the cost of making a gaol in the bailey of the castle.
[445]
Now Norden, who published a plan of Exeter in 1619, says that the prison
which formerly existed at the bottom of Castle Lane (on the south or city front of
the present castle) was “built upon Castle grounde,” and he states that the
buildings and gardens which have been made on this ground are intrusions on the
king’s rights.[446] The remarkably full account of the siege of Exeter in the Gesta
Stephani speaks of an outer promurale which was taken by Stephen, as well as
the inner bridge leading from the town to the castle, before the attack on the
castle itself. Unfortunately the word promurale has the same uncertainty about it
Although Domesday Book is silent about the castle, it tells us that forty-eight
houses in Exeter had been destroyed since William came to England,[440] and
Freeman remarks that “we may assume that these houses were destroyed to make
room for the castle, though it is not expressly said that they were.”[441]
Exeter Castle stands on a natural knoll, occupying the north-west corner of the
city, which has been converted into a sort of square motte by digging a great
ditch round the two sides of its base towards the town.[442] That this ditch is no
pre-Roman work is shown by the fact that it stops short at the Roman wall, and
begins again on the outside of it, where, however, the greater part has been
levelled to form the promenade of the Northernhay or north rampart of the city.
On top of this hill, banks 30 feet high were thrown up, which still remain, and
give to the courtyard which they enclose the appearance of a pit.[443] On top of
these banks there are now stone walls; but these were certainly no part of the
work of Baldwin de Molis, who must have placed a wooden stockade on the
banks which he constructed. One piece of stonework he probably did set up, the
gatehouse, which by its triangle-headed windows and its long-and-short work is
almost certainly of the 11th century. It has frequently been called Saxon, but
more careful critics now regard it as “work that must have been done, if not by
Norman hands, at Norman bidding and on Norman design.”[444] It was no
uncommon thing at this early period to have gatehouses of stone to walls of earth
and wood. Of these gatehouses Exeter is the most perfect and the most clearly
stamped with antiquity.
One thing we look for in vain at Exeter, and that is a citadel. There is no keep,
and there is no record that there ever was one, though a chapel, hall, and other
houses are mentioned in ancient accounts. Mr Clark says that probably the
Normans regarded the whole court as a shell keep. It certainly was, in effect, a
motte; but it was altogether exceptional among Norman castles of importance if it
had no bailey. And in fact a bailey is mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1 Richard I.,
where there is an entry for the cost of making a gaol in the bailey of the castle.
[445]
Now Norden, who published a plan of Exeter in 1619, says that the prison
which formerly existed at the bottom of Castle Lane (on the south or city front of
the present castle) was “built upon Castle grounde,” and he states that the
buildings and gardens which have been made on this ground are intrusions on the
king’s rights.[446] The remarkably full account of the siege of Exeter in the Gesta
Stephani speaks of an outer promurale which was taken by Stephen, as well as
the inner bridge leading from the town to the castle, before the attack on the
castle itself. Unfortunately the word promurale has the same uncertainty about it
Page 129
that attaches to so many mediæval terms, and the description given of it would
apply either to the banks of a bailey, or to the heriçon on the counterscarp of the
ditch of the motte. We must, therefore, leave it to the reader’s judgment whether
the evidence given above is sufficient to establish the former existence of a bailey
at Exeter, and to place Exeter among the castles of the motte-and-bailey type.
The description of the castle given by the writer of the Gesta has many points of
interest.[447] He describes the castle as standing on a very high mound (editissimo
aggere) hedged in by an insurmountable wall, which was defended by
“Cæsarian” towers built with the very hardest mortar. This must refer to Roman
towers which may have existed on the Roman part of the wall. Whether there was
a stone wall on the other two sides, facing the city, may be doubted, as the
expenditure entered to Henry II. in the Pipe Rolls suggests that he was the first to
put stone walls on the banks, and the two ancient towers which still exist appear
to be of his time.[448] The chronicler goes on to say that after Stephen had taken
the promurale and broken down the bridge, there were several days and nights of
fighting before he could win the castle, which was eventually forced to surrender
by the drying-up of the wells. The mining operations which he describes were no
doubt undertaken with the view of shaking down the Roman wall at the angle
where it joins the artificial bank of Baldwin de Molis. Possibly the chamber in
the rock with the mysterious passages leading from it, which is still to be seen in
the garden of Miss Owthwaite, at the point where the ditch ends, is the work of
Stephen’s miners.[449] The description of his soldiers scrambling up the agger on
their hands and knees (quadrupede incessu) will be well understood by those
who have seen the castle bank as it still rises from that ditch.
The present ward of Exeter Castle, which is rudely square in plan, covers an area
of 2 acres, which is as large as the whole area of many of the smaller Norman
castles. The castle was allowed to fall into decay as early as 1549,[450] and since
then it has been devastated by the building of a Sessions House and a gaol. No
plan has been preserved of the former buildings in this court, though the site of
the chapel is known.
There is no statement in Domesday Book as to the value of Exeter.
Eye, Suffolk (Fig. 17).—This castle was built by William Malet, one of the
companions of the Conqueror, who is described as having been half Norman and
half English.[451] Eye, as its name implies, seems to have been an island in a
marsh in Norman times, and therefore a naturally defensible situation. The
references in the Pipe Rolls to the palicium and the bretasches of Eye Castle
show that the outer defences of the castle at any rate were of wood in the days of
apply either to the banks of a bailey, or to the heriçon on the counterscarp of the
ditch of the motte. We must, therefore, leave it to the reader’s judgment whether
the evidence given above is sufficient to establish the former existence of a bailey
at Exeter, and to place Exeter among the castles of the motte-and-bailey type.
The description of the castle given by the writer of the Gesta has many points of
interest.[447] He describes the castle as standing on a very high mound (editissimo
aggere) hedged in by an insurmountable wall, which was defended by
“Cæsarian” towers built with the very hardest mortar. This must refer to Roman
towers which may have existed on the Roman part of the wall. Whether there was
a stone wall on the other two sides, facing the city, may be doubted, as the
expenditure entered to Henry II. in the Pipe Rolls suggests that he was the first to
put stone walls on the banks, and the two ancient towers which still exist appear
to be of his time.[448] The chronicler goes on to say that after Stephen had taken
the promurale and broken down the bridge, there were several days and nights of
fighting before he could win the castle, which was eventually forced to surrender
by the drying-up of the wells. The mining operations which he describes were no
doubt undertaken with the view of shaking down the Roman wall at the angle
where it joins the artificial bank of Baldwin de Molis. Possibly the chamber in
the rock with the mysterious passages leading from it, which is still to be seen in
the garden of Miss Owthwaite, at the point where the ditch ends, is the work of
Stephen’s miners.[449] The description of his soldiers scrambling up the agger on
their hands and knees (quadrupede incessu) will be well understood by those
who have seen the castle bank as it still rises from that ditch.
The present ward of Exeter Castle, which is rudely square in plan, covers an area
of 2 acres, which is as large as the whole area of many of the smaller Norman
castles. The castle was allowed to fall into decay as early as 1549,[450] and since
then it has been devastated by the building of a Sessions House and a gaol. No
plan has been preserved of the former buildings in this court, though the site of
the chapel is known.
There is no statement in Domesday Book as to the value of Exeter.
Eye, Suffolk (Fig. 17).—This castle was built by William Malet, one of the
companions of the Conqueror, who is described as having been half Norman and
half English.[451] Eye, as its name implies, seems to have been an island in a
marsh in Norman times, and therefore a naturally defensible situation. The
references in the Pipe Rolls to the palicium and the bretasches of Eye Castle
show that the outer defences of the castle at any rate were of wood in the days of
Page 130
Henry II.[452] That there were works in masonry at some subsequent period is
shown by a solitary vestige of a wing wall of flints which runs up the motte. A
modern tower now occupies the summit. The bailey of the castle, the outline of
which can still be traced, though the area is covered with buildings and gardens,
was oval in shape, and covered 2 acres.
The value of the manor of Eye had gone up since the Conquest from £15 to £21.
This must have been due to the castle and to the market which Robert Malet or
his son William established close to the castle; for the stock on the manor and the
number of ploughs had actually decreased.[453] A proof that there is no deliberate
register of castles in Domesday Book is furnished by the very careful inventory
of the manor of Eye, where there is no mention of a castle, though it is noticed
that there are now a park and a market; and it is only in the account of the lands
of the bishop of Thetford, in mentioning the injury which William Malet’s market
at Eye had done to the bishop’s market at Hoxne, that the castle of Eye is named.
Gloucester.—“There were sixteen houses where the castle sits, but now they are
gone, and fourteen have been destroyed in the burgus of the city,” says
Domesday Book.[454] Gloucester was undoubtedly a Roman chester, and Roman
pavements have been found there.[455] The description in the Survey would lead
us to think that the castle was outside the ancient walls,[456] though Speed’s map
places it on the line of the wall of his time, which may have been a mediæval
extension. The castle of Gloucester is now entirely destroyed, but there is
sufficient evidence to show that it was of the usual Norman type. There was a
motte, which was standing in 1819, and which was then called the Barbican Hill;
[457]
it appears to have been utilised as part of the works of the barbican. This
motte must originally have supported a wooden keep, and Henry I. must have
been the builder of the stone keep which Leland saw “in the middle of the
area;”[458] for in 1100 Henry gave lands to Gloucester Abbey “in exchange for
the site where now the keep of Gloucester stands.”[459] The bailey had previously
been enlarged by William Rufus.[460] Possibly the framea turris or framework
tower spoken of in Henry II.’s reign may refer to the wooden keep which had
been left standing on the motte.[461] The walls of Gloucester Castle were
frequently repaired by Henry II.,[462] but the word murus by no means implies
always a stone wall, and it is certain that the castle was at that time surrounded
by a wooden stockade, as a writ of a much later period (1225) says that the
stockade which is around our castle of Gloucester has been blown down and
broken by the wind, and must be repaired.[463] Wooden bretasches on the walls
are spoken of in the Pipe Rolls of 1193, and even as late as 1222.[464]
shown by a solitary vestige of a wing wall of flints which runs up the motte. A
modern tower now occupies the summit. The bailey of the castle, the outline of
which can still be traced, though the area is covered with buildings and gardens,
was oval in shape, and covered 2 acres.
The value of the manor of Eye had gone up since the Conquest from £15 to £21.
This must have been due to the castle and to the market which Robert Malet or
his son William established close to the castle; for the stock on the manor and the
number of ploughs had actually decreased.[453] A proof that there is no deliberate
register of castles in Domesday Book is furnished by the very careful inventory
of the manor of Eye, where there is no mention of a castle, though it is noticed
that there are now a park and a market; and it is only in the account of the lands
of the bishop of Thetford, in mentioning the injury which William Malet’s market
at Eye had done to the bishop’s market at Hoxne, that the castle of Eye is named.
Gloucester.—“There were sixteen houses where the castle sits, but now they are
gone, and fourteen have been destroyed in the burgus of the city,” says
Domesday Book.[454] Gloucester was undoubtedly a Roman chester, and Roman
pavements have been found there.[455] The description in the Survey would lead
us to think that the castle was outside the ancient walls,[456] though Speed’s map
places it on the line of the wall of his time, which may have been a mediæval
extension. The castle of Gloucester is now entirely destroyed, but there is
sufficient evidence to show that it was of the usual Norman type. There was a
motte, which was standing in 1819, and which was then called the Barbican Hill;
[457]
it appears to have been utilised as part of the works of the barbican. This
motte must originally have supported a wooden keep, and Henry I. must have
been the builder of the stone keep which Leland saw “in the middle of the
area;”[458] for in 1100 Henry gave lands to Gloucester Abbey “in exchange for
the site where now the keep of Gloucester stands.”[459] The bailey had previously
been enlarged by William Rufus.[460] Possibly the framea turris or framework
tower spoken of in Henry II.’s reign may refer to the wooden keep which had
been left standing on the motte.[461] The walls of Gloucester Castle were
frequently repaired by Henry II.,[462] but the word murus by no means implies
always a stone wall, and it is certain that the castle was at that time surrounded
by a wooden stockade, as a writ of a much later period (1225) says that the
stockade which is around our castle of Gloucester has been blown down and
broken by the wind, and must be repaired.[463] Wooden bretasches on the walls
are spoken of in the Pipe Rolls of 1193, and even as late as 1222.[464]
Page 131
The value of the city of Gloucester had apparently risen at the time of the Survey,
though the entry being largely in kind, T. R. E., it is not easy to calculate.
though the entry being largely in kind, T. R. E., it is not easy to calculate.
Page 132
Hastings, Sussex.
Page 133
Huntingdon.
Fig. 18.
Hastings, Sussex (Fig. 18).—In this case we have positive contemporary
evidence that the earthen mound of the castle was thrown up by the Normans at
the time of the Conquest, for there is a picture in the Bayeux Tapestry which
shows them doing it. A number of men with spades are at work raising a circular
mound, on the top of which, with the usual all-inclusiveness of mediæval
picturing, a stockade is already erected. A man with a pick seems to be working
at the ditch. The inscription attached is: “He commands that a castle be dug at
Hestengaceastra.”[465] There is no need to comment on the significance of this
drawing and its inscription for the history of early Norman castles; what is
extraordinary is that it should have been entirely overlooked for so long. In no
case is our information more complete than about Hastings. Not only does
Domesday Book mention the castellaria of Hastings,[466] but the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle also tells us that William built a castle there, while the chronicle of
Battle Abbey makes the evidence complete by telling us that “having taken
possession of a suitable site, he built a wooden castle there.”[467] This of course
means the stockade on top of the motte, with the wooden tower or towers which
Fig. 18.
Hastings, Sussex (Fig. 18).—In this case we have positive contemporary
evidence that the earthen mound of the castle was thrown up by the Normans at
the time of the Conquest, for there is a picture in the Bayeux Tapestry which
shows them doing it. A number of men with spades are at work raising a circular
mound, on the top of which, with the usual all-inclusiveness of mediæval
picturing, a stockade is already erected. A man with a pick seems to be working
at the ditch. The inscription attached is: “He commands that a castle be dug at
Hestengaceastra.”[465] There is no need to comment on the significance of this
drawing and its inscription for the history of early Norman castles; what is
extraordinary is that it should have been entirely overlooked for so long. In no
case is our information more complete than about Hastings. Not only does
Domesday Book mention the castellaria of Hastings,[466] but the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle also tells us that William built a castle there, while the chronicle of
Battle Abbey makes the evidence complete by telling us that “having taken
possession of a suitable site, he built a wooden castle there.”[467] This of course
means the stockade on top of the motte, with the wooden tower or towers which
Page 134
would certainly be added to it. Wace states that this wooden castle was brought
over in pieces in the ships of the Count of Eu.[468]
The masonry now existing at the castle is probably none of it older than the reign
of Henry II. at the earliest, and most of it is certainly much later.[469] The Pipe
Rolls show that Henry II. spent £235 on the castle of Hastings between the years
1160 and 1181, and it is indicated that some of this money was for stone, and
some was for a keep (turrim).[470] There is no tower large enough for a keep at
Hastings now, nor have any stone foundations been found on the motte, and Mr
Harold Sands, who has paid particular attention to this castle, concludes that
Henry II.’s keep has been carried away by the sea, which has probably torn away
at least 2 acres from the area of the castle.[471] The beautiful fragment of the
Chapel of St Mary is probably of Henry II.’s reign; the walls and towers on the
east side of the castle appear to be of the 13th century. The ditch does not run
round the motte, but is cut through the peninsular rock on which the castle stands,
the motte and its ward being thus isolated. The form of this bailey is now
triangular, but it may have been square originally. Beyond the ditch is another
bailey, defended by earthen banks and by a second ditch cut through the
peninsula.[472] No exact estimate can be given of the original area of the castle, as
so much of the cliff has been carried away by the sea.
Hastings itself had been a fortified town before the Norman Conquest, and is one
of those mentioned in the Burghal Hidage. The name Hæstingaceaster, given to it
in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1050), is a proof that the Saxons used the name
chester for constructions of their own, as no Roman remains have been found at
Hastings. But the Norman castle is outside the town, on a cliff which overlooks
it. As in the case of the other ports of Sussex, the castle was committed to an
important noble, in this case the Count of Eu.
The manor of Bexley, in which Hastings Castle stood, had been laid waste at the
Conquest; at the date of the Survey it was again rising in value, though it had not
reached the figure of King Edward’s days.[473]
Hereford.—There can be little doubt that the castle of Hereford was built by the
Norman Ralph, Earl of Hereford, Edward the Confessor’s nephew, about the year
1048.[474] It was burnt by the Welsh in 1055, after which Harold fortified the
town with a dyke and ditch; but as Mr Freeman remarks, it is not said that he
restored the castle.[475] The motte of Earl Ralph is now completely levelled, but it
is mentioned several times in documents of the 12th century,[476] and is described
in a survey of 1652, from which it appears that it had a stone keep tower, as well
over in pieces in the ships of the Count of Eu.[468]
The masonry now existing at the castle is probably none of it older than the reign
of Henry II. at the earliest, and most of it is certainly much later.[469] The Pipe
Rolls show that Henry II. spent £235 on the castle of Hastings between the years
1160 and 1181, and it is indicated that some of this money was for stone, and
some was for a keep (turrim).[470] There is no tower large enough for a keep at
Hastings now, nor have any stone foundations been found on the motte, and Mr
Harold Sands, who has paid particular attention to this castle, concludes that
Henry II.’s keep has been carried away by the sea, which has probably torn away
at least 2 acres from the area of the castle.[471] The beautiful fragment of the
Chapel of St Mary is probably of Henry II.’s reign; the walls and towers on the
east side of the castle appear to be of the 13th century. The ditch does not run
round the motte, but is cut through the peninsular rock on which the castle stands,
the motte and its ward being thus isolated. The form of this bailey is now
triangular, but it may have been square originally. Beyond the ditch is another
bailey, defended by earthen banks and by a second ditch cut through the
peninsula.[472] No exact estimate can be given of the original area of the castle, as
so much of the cliff has been carried away by the sea.
Hastings itself had been a fortified town before the Norman Conquest, and is one
of those mentioned in the Burghal Hidage. The name Hæstingaceaster, given to it
in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1050), is a proof that the Saxons used the name
chester for constructions of their own, as no Roman remains have been found at
Hastings. But the Norman castle is outside the town, on a cliff which overlooks
it. As in the case of the other ports of Sussex, the castle was committed to an
important noble, in this case the Count of Eu.
The manor of Bexley, in which Hastings Castle stood, had been laid waste at the
Conquest; at the date of the Survey it was again rising in value, though it had not
reached the figure of King Edward’s days.[473]
Hereford.—There can be little doubt that the castle of Hereford was built by the
Norman Ralph, Earl of Hereford, Edward the Confessor’s nephew, about the year
1048.[474] It was burnt by the Welsh in 1055, after which Harold fortified the
town with a dyke and ditch; but as Mr Freeman remarks, it is not said that he
restored the castle.[475] The motte of Earl Ralph is now completely levelled, but it
is mentioned several times in documents of the 12th century,[476] and is described
in a survey of 1652, from which it appears that it had a stone keep tower, as well
Page 135
as a stone breastwork enclosing a small ward.[477] It stood outside the N.W.
corner of the bailey, surrounded by its own ditch; the site is still called Castle
Hill. If the castle was not restored before the Norman Conquest it was certainly
restored afterwards, as in 1067 we find the “men of the castle” fighting with
Edric Child and the Welsh. The castle appears to have had stone walls by the time
of Henry II., as the mention of a kiln for their repair proves.[478] But these walls
had wooden towers.[479] The timber ordered in 1213 “ad hordiandum castellum
nostrum de Hereford”[480] refers to the wooden alures or machicolations which
were placed on the tops of walls for the purpose of defending the bases.
Though Hereford was a private castle in the Confessor’s reign, it was claimed for
the crown by Archbishop Hubert, the Justiciary, in 1197, and continued to be a
royal castle throughout the 13th century.[481]
The bailey of Hereford Castle still exists, with its fine banks; it is kite-shaped and
encloses 5½ acres. The castle stood within the city walls, in the south-east angle.
The value of Hereford appears to have greatly increased at the date of the Survey.
[482]
Huntingdon (Fig. 18).—“There were twenty houses on the site of the castle,
which are now gone.”[483] Ordericus tells us that the castle of Huntingdon was
built by William on his return from his second visit to York in 1068.[484]
Huntingdon had been a walled town in Anglo-Saxon times, and was very likely
first fortified by the Danes, but was repaired by Edward the Elder. As in the case
of so many other towns, the houses outside the walls had to pay geld along with
those of the city, and it was some of the former which were displaced by the new
Norman castle. Huntingdon was part of the patrimony of Earl Waltheof, and
came to the Norman, Simon de Senlis, through his marriage with Waltheof’s
daughter and heiress. The line of Senlis ended in another heiress, who married
David, afterwards the famous king of Scotland; David thus became Earl of
Huntingdon. In the insurrection of the younger Henry in 1174, William the Lion,
grandson of David, took sides with the young king, and consequently his castle
was besieged and taken by the forces of Henry II.,[485] and the king ordered it to
be destroyed. The Pipe Rolls show that this order was carried out, as they contain
a bill for “hooks for pulling down the stockade of Huntingdon Castle,” and “for
the work of the new castle at Huntingdon, and for hiring carpenters, and crooks,
and axes.”[486] We learn from these entries that the original castle of the Conquest
had just been replaced by a new one, very likely a new fortification of the old
mounds by William, in anticipation of the insurrection. We also learn that the
corner of the bailey, surrounded by its own ditch; the site is still called Castle
Hill. If the castle was not restored before the Norman Conquest it was certainly
restored afterwards, as in 1067 we find the “men of the castle” fighting with
Edric Child and the Welsh. The castle appears to have had stone walls by the time
of Henry II., as the mention of a kiln for their repair proves.[478] But these walls
had wooden towers.[479] The timber ordered in 1213 “ad hordiandum castellum
nostrum de Hereford”[480] refers to the wooden alures or machicolations which
were placed on the tops of walls for the purpose of defending the bases.
Though Hereford was a private castle in the Confessor’s reign, it was claimed for
the crown by Archbishop Hubert, the Justiciary, in 1197, and continued to be a
royal castle throughout the 13th century.[481]
The bailey of Hereford Castle still exists, with its fine banks; it is kite-shaped and
encloses 5½ acres. The castle stood within the city walls, in the south-east angle.
The value of Hereford appears to have greatly increased at the date of the Survey.
[482]
Huntingdon (Fig. 18).—“There were twenty houses on the site of the castle,
which are now gone.”[483] Ordericus tells us that the castle of Huntingdon was
built by William on his return from his second visit to York in 1068.[484]
Huntingdon had been a walled town in Anglo-Saxon times, and was very likely
first fortified by the Danes, but was repaired by Edward the Elder. As in the case
of so many other towns, the houses outside the walls had to pay geld along with
those of the city, and it was some of the former which were displaced by the new
Norman castle. Huntingdon was part of the patrimony of Earl Waltheof, and
came to the Norman, Simon de Senlis, through his marriage with Waltheof’s
daughter and heiress. The line of Senlis ended in another heiress, who married
David, afterwards the famous king of Scotland; David thus became Earl of
Huntingdon. In the insurrection of the younger Henry in 1174, William the Lion,
grandson of David, took sides with the young king, and consequently his castle
was besieged and taken by the forces of Henry II.,[485] and the king ordered it to
be destroyed. The Pipe Rolls show that this order was carried out, as they contain
a bill for “hooks for pulling down the stockade of Huntingdon Castle,” and “for
the work of the new castle at Huntingdon, and for hiring carpenters, and crooks,
and axes.”[486] We learn from these entries that the original castle of the Conquest
had just been replaced by a new one, very likely a new fortification of the old
mounds by William, in anticipation of the insurrection. We also learn that the
Page 136
new castle was a wooden one; for a castle which has to be pulled down by
carpenters with hooks and axes is certainly not of stone. It does not appear that
the castle was ever restored, though “the chapel of the castle” is spoken of as late
as the reign of Henry III.[487]
The motte of Huntingdon still exists, and has not the slightest sign of masonry.
The bailey is roughly square, with the usual rounded corners; the motte was
inside this enclosure, but had its own ditch. The whole area was 2½ acres, but
another bailey was subsequently added.
The value of Huntingdon appears to have been stationary at the time of the
Survey, the loss of the twenty houses causing a diminution of revenue which
must have been made up from the new feudal dues of the castle.
Launceston, or Dunheved,[488] Cornwall (Fig. 19).—There, says Domesday
Book, is the castle of the Earl of Mortain.[489] In another place it tells us that the
earl gave two manors to the bishop of Exeter “for the exchange of the castle of
Cornwall,” another name for Dunheved Castle. We have already had occasion to
note that the “exchange of the castle,” in Domesday language, is an abbreviation
for the exchange of the site of the castle. The fact that the land was obtained from
the church is a proof that the castle was new, for it was not the custom of Saxon
prelates thus to fortify themselves. The motte of Launceston is a knoll of natural
rock, which has been scarped and heightened by art. This motte now carries a
circular keep, which cannot be earlier than the 13th century.[490] There is no early
Norman work whatever about the masonry of the castle, and the remarkably
elaborate fortifications on the motte belong to a much later period.[491] The motte
rises in one corner of a roughly rectangular bailey, which covers 3 acres. It stands
outside the town walls, which still exist, and join those of the castle, as at Totnes.
Launceston was only a small manor of ten ploughs in the time of the Confessor.
In spite of the building of the castle, the value of the manor had greatly gone
down in William’s time.[492] The ten ploughs had been reduced to five.
carpenters with hooks and axes is certainly not of stone. It does not appear that
the castle was ever restored, though “the chapel of the castle” is spoken of as late
as the reign of Henry III.[487]
The motte of Huntingdon still exists, and has not the slightest sign of masonry.
The bailey is roughly square, with the usual rounded corners; the motte was
inside this enclosure, but had its own ditch. The whole area was 2½ acres, but
another bailey was subsequently added.
The value of Huntingdon appears to have been stationary at the time of the
Survey, the loss of the twenty houses causing a diminution of revenue which
must have been made up from the new feudal dues of the castle.
Launceston, or Dunheved,[488] Cornwall (Fig. 19).—There, says Domesday
Book, is the castle of the Earl of Mortain.[489] In another place it tells us that the
earl gave two manors to the bishop of Exeter “for the exchange of the castle of
Cornwall,” another name for Dunheved Castle. We have already had occasion to
note that the “exchange of the castle,” in Domesday language, is an abbreviation
for the exchange of the site of the castle. The fact that the land was obtained from
the church is a proof that the castle was new, for it was not the custom of Saxon
prelates thus to fortify themselves. The motte of Launceston is a knoll of natural
rock, which has been scarped and heightened by art. This motte now carries a
circular keep, which cannot be earlier than the 13th century.[490] There is no early
Norman work whatever about the masonry of the castle, and the remarkably
elaborate fortifications on the motte belong to a much later period.[491] The motte
rises in one corner of a roughly rectangular bailey, which covers 3 acres. It stands
outside the town walls, which still exist, and join those of the castle, as at Totnes.
Launceston was only a small manor of ten ploughs in the time of the Confessor.
In spite of the building of the castle, the value of the manor had greatly gone
down in William’s time.[492] The ten ploughs had been reduced to five.
Page 137
Launceston, Cornwall.
Page 138
Lewes, Sussex.
Fig. 19.
Lewes, Sussex (Fig. 19).—The castle of Lewes is not mentioned in its proper
place in Sussex by Domesday Book, and this is another proof that the Survey
contains no inventory of castles; for that the castle was existing at that date is
rendered certain by the numerous allusions in the Norfolk portion to “the
exchange of the castle of Lewes.”[493] It is clear that at some period, possibly
during the revolt of Robert Curthose in 1079, William I. gave large estates in
Norfolk to his trusty servant, William de Warenne, in exchange for the important
castle of Lewes, which he may have preferred to keep in his own hands at that
critical period. This bargain cannot have held long, at least as regards the castle,
which continued to belong to the Warenne family for many generations. We
cannot even guess now how the matter was settled, but the lands in Norfolk
certainly remained in the hands of the Warennes.
Lewes is one of the very few castles in England which have two mottes.[494]
They were placed at each end of an oval bailey, each surrounded by its own ditch,
and each projecting about three-fourths beyond the line of the bailey. On the
Fig. 19.
Lewes, Sussex (Fig. 19).—The castle of Lewes is not mentioned in its proper
place in Sussex by Domesday Book, and this is another proof that the Survey
contains no inventory of castles; for that the castle was existing at that date is
rendered certain by the numerous allusions in the Norfolk portion to “the
exchange of the castle of Lewes.”[493] It is clear that at some period, possibly
during the revolt of Robert Curthose in 1079, William I. gave large estates in
Norfolk to his trusty servant, William de Warenne, in exchange for the important
castle of Lewes, which he may have preferred to keep in his own hands at that
critical period. This bargain cannot have held long, at least as regards the castle,
which continued to belong to the Warenne family for many generations. We
cannot even guess now how the matter was settled, but the lands in Norfolk
certainly remained in the hands of the Warennes.
Lewes is one of the very few castles in England which have two mottes.[494]
They were placed at each end of an oval bailey, each surrounded by its own ditch,
and each projecting about three-fourths beyond the line of the bailey. On the
Page 139
northern motte only the foundations of a wall round the top remain; on the other,
part of the wall which enclosed a small ward, and two mural towers. These
towers have signs of the early Perpendicular period, and are very likely of the
reign of Edward III., when the castle passed into the hands of the Fitz Alans. The
bailey, which enclosed an area of about 3 acres, is now covered with houses and
gardens, but parts of the curtain wall on the S.E. and E. stand on banks, bearing
witness to the original wooden fortifications. The great interest of this bailey is
its ancient Norman gateway. The entrance was regarded by mediæval architects
as the weakest part of the fortress, and we frequently find that it was the first part
to receive stone defences.[495] It is not surprising that at such an important place
as Lewes, which was then a port leading to Normandy, and at the castle of so
powerful a noble, we should find an early case of stone architecture
supplementing the wooden defences. But the two artificial mottes have no
masonry that can be called early Norman.
Lewes is one of the boroughs mentioned in the Burghal Hidage, and was a
burgus at the time of the Survey.[496] The value of the town had increased by £1,
18s. from what it had been in King Edward’s time.
part of the wall which enclosed a small ward, and two mural towers. These
towers have signs of the early Perpendicular period, and are very likely of the
reign of Edward III., when the castle passed into the hands of the Fitz Alans. The
bailey, which enclosed an area of about 3 acres, is now covered with houses and
gardens, but parts of the curtain wall on the S.E. and E. stand on banks, bearing
witness to the original wooden fortifications. The great interest of this bailey is
its ancient Norman gateway. The entrance was regarded by mediæval architects
as the weakest part of the fortress, and we frequently find that it was the first part
to receive stone defences.[495] It is not surprising that at such an important place
as Lewes, which was then a port leading to Normandy, and at the castle of so
powerful a noble, we should find an early case of stone architecture
supplementing the wooden defences. But the two artificial mottes have no
masonry that can be called early Norman.
Lewes is one of the boroughs mentioned in the Burghal Hidage, and was a
burgus at the time of the Survey.[496] The value of the town had increased by £1,
18s. from what it had been in King Edward’s time.
Page 140
Lincoln.
Fig. 20.
Lincoln (Fig. 20).—Domesday Book tells us that 166 houses were destroyed to
furnish the site of the castle.[497] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that William
built a castle here on his return from his first visit to York in 1068, and Ordericus
makes the same statement.[498] Lincoln, like Exeter, was a Roman castrum, and
the Norman castle in both cases was placed in one corner of the castrum; but the
old Roman wall of Lincoln, which stands on the natural ground, was not
considered to be a sufficient defence on the two exterior sides, probably on
Fig. 20.
Lincoln (Fig. 20).—Domesday Book tells us that 166 houses were destroyed to
furnish the site of the castle.[497] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that William
built a castle here on his return from his first visit to York in 1068, and Ordericus
makes the same statement.[498] Lincoln, like Exeter, was a Roman castrum, and
the Norman castle in both cases was placed in one corner of the castrum; but the
old Roman wall of Lincoln, which stands on the natural ground, was not
considered to be a sufficient defence on the two exterior sides, probably on
Page 141
account of its ruinous condition. It was therefore buried in a very high and steep
bank, which was carried all round the new castle.[499] This circumstance seems to
point to the haste with which the castle was built, Lincoln being then for the first
time subdued. The fact that it was inside the probably closely packed Roman
walls explains why so many houses were destroyed for the castle.[500] Lincoln,
like Lewes, has two mottes: both are of about the same height, but the one in the
middle of the southern line of defence is the larger and more important; it was
originally surrounded with its own ditch. It is now crowned with a polygonal
shell wall, which may have been built by the mother of Ralph Gernon, Earl of
Chester, in the reign of Henry I.[501] The tower on the other motte, at the south-
east corner, has been largely rebuilt in the 14th century and added to in modern
times, but its lower storey still retains work of Norman character. There is good
reason to suppose that this bailey was first walled with stone in Richard I.’s reign,
as there is an entry in the Pipe Rolls of 1193-1194 “for the cost of fortifying the
bailey, £82, 16s. 4d.”[502] The present wall contains a good deal of herring-bone
work, and this circumstance led Mr Clark, who was looking for something which
he could put down to William I.’s time, to believe that the walls were of that date.
But the herring-bone work is all in patches, as though for repairs, and herring-
bone work was used for repairs at all epochs of mediæval building. The two
gateways (that is the Norman portions of them) are probably of about the same
date as the castle wall. The whole area is 5¾ acres.
The total revenue which the city of Lincoln paid to the king and the earl had gone
up from 30l. T. R. E. to 100l. T. R. W. For the sake of those who imagine that
Saxon halls had anything to do with mottes, it is worth noting that the hall which
was the residence of the chief landholder in Lincoln before the Conquest was still
in existence after the building of the castle, but evidently had no connection with
it.[503]
bank, which was carried all round the new castle.[499] This circumstance seems to
point to the haste with which the castle was built, Lincoln being then for the first
time subdued. The fact that it was inside the probably closely packed Roman
walls explains why so many houses were destroyed for the castle.[500] Lincoln,
like Lewes, has two mottes: both are of about the same height, but the one in the
middle of the southern line of defence is the larger and more important; it was
originally surrounded with its own ditch. It is now crowned with a polygonal
shell wall, which may have been built by the mother of Ralph Gernon, Earl of
Chester, in the reign of Henry I.[501] The tower on the other motte, at the south-
east corner, has been largely rebuilt in the 14th century and added to in modern
times, but its lower storey still retains work of Norman character. There is good
reason to suppose that this bailey was first walled with stone in Richard I.’s reign,
as there is an entry in the Pipe Rolls of 1193-1194 “for the cost of fortifying the
bailey, £82, 16s. 4d.”[502] The present wall contains a good deal of herring-bone
work, and this circumstance led Mr Clark, who was looking for something which
he could put down to William I.’s time, to believe that the walls were of that date.
But the herring-bone work is all in patches, as though for repairs, and herring-
bone work was used for repairs at all epochs of mediæval building. The two
gateways (that is the Norman portions of them) are probably of about the same
date as the castle wall. The whole area is 5¾ acres.
The total revenue which the city of Lincoln paid to the king and the earl had gone
up from 30l. T. R. E. to 100l. T. R. W. For the sake of those who imagine that
Saxon halls had anything to do with mottes, it is worth noting that the hall which
was the residence of the chief landholder in Lincoln before the Conquest was still
in existence after the building of the castle, but evidently had no connection with
it.[503]
Page 142
Monmouth.
Page 143
Montacute, Somerset.
Page 144
Morpeth, Northumberland.
Fig. 21.
Monmouth (Fig. 21).—Domesday Book says that the king has four ploughs in
demesne in the castle of Monmouth.[504] Dr Round regards this as one of the
cases where castellum is to be interpreted as a town and not as a castle. However
this may be, the existence of a Norman castle at Monmouth is rendered certain by
a passage in the Book of Llandaff, in which it is said that this castle was built by
William FitzOsbern, and a short history of it is given, which brings it up to the
days of William Fitz Baderun.[505] Speed speaks of this castle as “standing
mounted round in compasse, and within her walls another mount, whereon a
Fig. 21.
Monmouth (Fig. 21).—Domesday Book says that the king has four ploughs in
demesne in the castle of Monmouth.[504] Dr Round regards this as one of the
cases where castellum is to be interpreted as a town and not as a castle. However
this may be, the existence of a Norman castle at Monmouth is rendered certain by
a passage in the Book of Llandaff, in which it is said that this castle was built by
William FitzOsbern, and a short history of it is given, which brings it up to the
days of William Fitz Baderun.[505] Speed speaks of this castle as “standing
mounted round in compasse, and within her walls another mount, whereon a
Page 145
Towre of great height and strength is built.”[506] This sounds like the description
of a motte and bailey; but the motte cannot be traced now. It is possible that it
may have been swept away to build the present barracks; the whole castle is now
on a flat-topped hill. The area is 1¾ acres.[507]
The value of the manor before the Conquest is not given.
Montacute, Somerset (Fig. 21).—This is another instance of a site for a castle
obtained by exchange from the church. Count Robert of Mortain gave the manor
of Candel to the priory of Athelney in exchange for the manor of Bishopstowe,
“and there is his castle, which is called Montagud.”[508] The English name for the
village at the foot of the hill was Ludgarsburh, which does not point to any
fortification on the hill itself, the spot where the wonder-working crucifix of
Waltham was found in Saxon times. Robert of Mortain’s son William gave the
castle of Montacute, with its chapel, orchard, and other appurtenances, to a priory
of Cluniac monks which he founded close to it. The gift may have had something
compulsory in it, for William of Mortain was banished by Henry I. in 1104 as a
partisan of Robert Curthose. Thus, as Leland says, “the notable castle partly fell
to ruin, and partly was taken down to make the priory, so that many years since
no building of it remained; only a chapel was set upon the very top of the
dungeon, and that yet standeth there.”[509] There is still a high oval motte, having
a ditch between its base and the bailey; the latter is semilunar in shape. The hill
has been much terraced on the eastern side, but this may have been the work of
the monks, for purposes of cultivation.[510] There is no masonry except a quite
modern tower. According to Mr Clark, the motte is of natural rock. The French
name of the castle was of course imported from Normandy, and we generally find
that an English castle with a Norman-French name of this kind has a motte.[511]
Bishopstowe, in which the castle was placed, was not a large manor in Saxon
times. Its value T. R. E. is not given in the Survey, but we are told that it is worth
6l. to the earl, and 3l. 3s. to the knights who hold under him.
Morpeth, Northumberland (Fig. 21).—There is only one mention known to us of
Morpeth Castle in the 11th century, and that is in the poem of Geoffrey Gaimar.
[512]
He says that William Rufus, when marching to Bamborough, to repress the
rebellion of Mowbray, Earl of Northumberland, “took the strong castle of
Morpeth, which was seated on a little mount,” and belonged to William de
Morlei. Thus there can be no doubt that the Ha’ Hill, about 100 yards to the N. of
the present castle, was the motte of the first castle of Morpeth, though the
remains of the motte, which are mentioned by Hodgson, have been destroyed.
of a motte and bailey; but the motte cannot be traced now. It is possible that it
may have been swept away to build the present barracks; the whole castle is now
on a flat-topped hill. The area is 1¾ acres.[507]
The value of the manor before the Conquest is not given.
Montacute, Somerset (Fig. 21).—This is another instance of a site for a castle
obtained by exchange from the church. Count Robert of Mortain gave the manor
of Candel to the priory of Athelney in exchange for the manor of Bishopstowe,
“and there is his castle, which is called Montagud.”[508] The English name for the
village at the foot of the hill was Ludgarsburh, which does not point to any
fortification on the hill itself, the spot where the wonder-working crucifix of
Waltham was found in Saxon times. Robert of Mortain’s son William gave the
castle of Montacute, with its chapel, orchard, and other appurtenances, to a priory
of Cluniac monks which he founded close to it. The gift may have had something
compulsory in it, for William of Mortain was banished by Henry I. in 1104 as a
partisan of Robert Curthose. Thus, as Leland says, “the notable castle partly fell
to ruin, and partly was taken down to make the priory, so that many years since
no building of it remained; only a chapel was set upon the very top of the
dungeon, and that yet standeth there.”[509] There is still a high oval motte, having
a ditch between its base and the bailey; the latter is semilunar in shape. The hill
has been much terraced on the eastern side, but this may have been the work of
the monks, for purposes of cultivation.[510] There is no masonry except a quite
modern tower. According to Mr Clark, the motte is of natural rock. The French
name of the castle was of course imported from Normandy, and we generally find
that an English castle with a Norman-French name of this kind has a motte.[511]
Bishopstowe, in which the castle was placed, was not a large manor in Saxon
times. Its value T. R. E. is not given in the Survey, but we are told that it is worth
6l. to the earl, and 3l. 3s. to the knights who hold under him.
Morpeth, Northumberland (Fig. 21).—There is only one mention known to us of
Morpeth Castle in the 11th century, and that is in the poem of Geoffrey Gaimar.
[512]
He says that William Rufus, when marching to Bamborough, to repress the
rebellion of Mowbray, Earl of Northumberland, “took the strong castle of
Morpeth, which was seated on a little mount,” and belonged to William de
Morlei. Thus there can be no doubt that the Ha’ Hill, about 100 yards to the N. of
the present castle, was the motte of the first castle of Morpeth, though the
remains of the motte, which are mentioned by Hodgson, have been destroyed.
Page 146
[513]
A natural ridge has been used to form a castle by cutting off its higher end to
form a motte, and making a court on the lower part of the ridge. The great
steepness of the slopes rendered ordinary ditches unnecessary, nor are there any
traces now of banks or foundations. In the court some Norman capitals and
carved stones were found in 1830. This early castle was admirably placed for
commanding the river and the bridge.[514] The present castle of Morpeth was
built in 1342-1349.[515]
Newcastle, Northumberland.—The first castle here was built by Robert, son of
William I., on his return from his expedition to Scotland in 1080.[516] It was of
the usual motte-and-bailey kind, the motte standing in a small bailey which was
rectilinear and roughly oblong.[517] This motte was in existence when Brand
wrote his History of Newcastle, but was removed in 1811. The castle was placed
outside the Roman station at Monkchester, and commanded a Roman bridge over
the Tyne, “and to the north-east overlooked a ravine that under the name of The
Side formed for centuries a main artery of communication between England and
Scotland.”[518] Henry II., when he built the fine keep of this castle, did not place
it on the motte, but in the outer and larger ward, which was roughly triangular.
The outer curtain appears to have stood on the banks of the former earthen castle,
as the Parliamentary Survey of 1649 speaks of the castle as “bounded with strong
works of stone and mud.”[519] The area of the whole castle was 3 acres and 1
rood.
A natural ridge has been used to form a castle by cutting off its higher end to
form a motte, and making a court on the lower part of the ridge. The great
steepness of the slopes rendered ordinary ditches unnecessary, nor are there any
traces now of banks or foundations. In the court some Norman capitals and
carved stones were found in 1830. This early castle was admirably placed for
commanding the river and the bridge.[514] The present castle of Morpeth was
built in 1342-1349.[515]
Newcastle, Northumberland.—The first castle here was built by Robert, son of
William I., on his return from his expedition to Scotland in 1080.[516] It was of
the usual motte-and-bailey kind, the motte standing in a small bailey which was
rectilinear and roughly oblong.[517] This motte was in existence when Brand
wrote his History of Newcastle, but was removed in 1811. The castle was placed
outside the Roman station at Monkchester, and commanded a Roman bridge over
the Tyne, “and to the north-east overlooked a ravine that under the name of The
Side formed for centuries a main artery of communication between England and
Scotland.”[518] Henry II., when he built the fine keep of this castle, did not place
it on the motte, but in the outer and larger ward, which was roughly triangular.
The outer curtain appears to have stood on the banks of the former earthen castle,
as the Parliamentary Survey of 1649 speaks of the castle as “bounded with strong
works of stone and mud.”[519] The area of the whole castle was 3 acres and 1
rood.
Page 147
Norham.
Page 148
Nottingham.
Fig. 22.
Norham, Northumberland (Fig. 22).—The first castle here was built by Ranulf
Flambard, Bishop of Durham, in the reign of William Rufus. It was built to
defend Northumberland against the incursions of the Scots, and we are expressly
told that no castle had existed there previously.[520] This first castle, which we
may certainly assume to have been of earth and wood, was destroyed by the
Scots in 1138, and there does not seem to have been any stone castle until the
time of Bishop Puiset or Pudsey, who built the present keep by command of King
Henry II.[521] Mr Clark tried hard to find some work of Flambard’s in this tower,
but found it difficult, and was driven back on the rather lame assumption that
Fig. 22.
Norham, Northumberland (Fig. 22).—The first castle here was built by Ranulf
Flambard, Bishop of Durham, in the reign of William Rufus. It was built to
defend Northumberland against the incursions of the Scots, and we are expressly
told that no castle had existed there previously.[520] This first castle, which we
may certainly assume to have been of earth and wood, was destroyed by the
Scots in 1138, and there does not seem to have been any stone castle until the
time of Bishop Puiset or Pudsey, who built the present keep by command of King
Henry II.[521] Mr Clark tried hard to find some work of Flambard’s in this tower,
but found it difficult, and was driven back on the rather lame assumption that
Page 149
“the lapse of forty [really fifty at least] years had not materially changed the style
of architecture then in use.”[522] In fact, the Norman parts of this keep show no
work so early as the 11th century, but are advanced in style, for not only was the
basement vaulted, but the first floor also. The simple explanation is that
Flambard threw up the large square motte on which the keep now stands, and
provided it with the usual wooden defences. It also had a strong tower, but almost
certainly a wooden one; hence it was easily destroyed by the Scots when once
taken.[523] The motte was probably lowered to some extent when the stone keep
was built. It stands on a high bank overlooking the Tweed, and is separated from
its bailey by a deep ditch. The bailey may be described as a segment of a circle;
its area is about 2 acres.
Norwich (Fig. 23).—We find from Domesday Book that no less than 113 houses
were destroyed for the site of this castle, a certain proof that the castle was new.
[524]
It is highly probable that it was outside the primitive defences of the town, at
any rate in part. Norwich was built, partly on a peninsula formed by a double
bend of the river Wensum, partly in a district lying south-west of this peninsula,
and defended by a ridge of rising ground running in a north-easterly direction.
The castle was placed on the edge of this ridge, and all the oldest part of the
town, including the most ancient churches, lies to the east of it.[525] In the
conjectural map of Norwich in 1100, given in Woodward’s History of Norwich
Castle,[526] the street called Burg Street divides the Old Burg on the east from the
New Burg on the west; this street runs along a ridge which traverses the neck of
the peninsula from south-west to north-east, and on the northern end of this ridge
the castle stands.[527] There can be little doubt that this street marks the line of the
burh or enclosing bank by which the primitive town of Norwich was defended.
[528]
A clear proof of this lies in the fact that the castle of Norwich was anciently
not in the jurisdiction of the city, but in that of the county; the citizens had no
authority over the houses lying beyond the castle ditches until it was expressly
granted to them by Edward III.[529] The mediæval walls of Norwich, vastly
extending the borders of the city, were not built till Henry III.’s reign.[530]
of architecture then in use.”[522] In fact, the Norman parts of this keep show no
work so early as the 11th century, but are advanced in style, for not only was the
basement vaulted, but the first floor also. The simple explanation is that
Flambard threw up the large square motte on which the keep now stands, and
provided it with the usual wooden defences. It also had a strong tower, but almost
certainly a wooden one; hence it was easily destroyed by the Scots when once
taken.[523] The motte was probably lowered to some extent when the stone keep
was built. It stands on a high bank overlooking the Tweed, and is separated from
its bailey by a deep ditch. The bailey may be described as a segment of a circle;
its area is about 2 acres.
Norwich (Fig. 23).—We find from Domesday Book that no less than 113 houses
were destroyed for the site of this castle, a certain proof that the castle was new.
[524]
It is highly probable that it was outside the primitive defences of the town, at
any rate in part. Norwich was built, partly on a peninsula formed by a double
bend of the river Wensum, partly in a district lying south-west of this peninsula,
and defended by a ridge of rising ground running in a north-easterly direction.
The castle was placed on the edge of this ridge, and all the oldest part of the
town, including the most ancient churches, lies to the east of it.[525] In the
conjectural map of Norwich in 1100, given in Woodward’s History of Norwich
Castle,[526] the street called Burg Street divides the Old Burg on the east from the
New Burg on the west; this street runs along a ridge which traverses the neck of
the peninsula from south-west to north-east, and on the northern end of this ridge
the castle stands.[527] There can be little doubt that this street marks the line of the
burh or enclosing bank by which the primitive town of Norwich was defended.
[528]
A clear proof of this lies in the fact that the castle of Norwich was anciently
not in the jurisdiction of the city, but in that of the county; the citizens had no
authority over the houses lying beyond the castle ditches until it was expressly
granted to them by Edward III.[529] The mediæval walls of Norwich, vastly
extending the borders of the city, were not built till Henry III.’s reign.[530]
Page 150
Norwich.
(From Harrod’s “Gleanings among the Castles and Convents of
Norfolk,” p. 133.)
Fig. 23.
The motte of Norwich Castle, according to recent investigations, is entirely
artificial;[531] it was originally square, and had “a prodigious large and deep ditch
around it.”[532] The fancy of the antiquary Wilkins that the motte was the centre
of two concentric outworks[533] was completely disproved by Mr Harrod, who
showed that the original castle was a motte with one of the ordinary half-moon
(From Harrod’s “Gleanings among the Castles and Convents of
Norfolk,” p. 133.)
Fig. 23.
The motte of Norwich Castle, according to recent investigations, is entirely
artificial;[531] it was originally square, and had “a prodigious large and deep ditch
around it.”[532] The fancy of the antiquary Wilkins that the motte was the centre
of two concentric outworks[533] was completely disproved by Mr Harrod, who
showed that the original castle was a motte with one of the ordinary half-moon
Page 151
baileys attached. Another ward, called the Castle Meadow, was probably added at
a later date. The magnificent keep which now stands on the motte is undoubtedly
a work of the 12th century.[534] The castle which Emma, wife of Earl Ralf
Guader, defended against the Conqueror after the celebrated bride-ale of Norwich
was almost certainly a wooden structure. As late as the year 1172 the bailey was
still defended by a wooden stockade and wooden bretasches;[535] and even in
1225 the stockade had not been replaced by a stone wall.[536]
Norwich was a royal castle, and consequently always in the hands of the sheriff;
it was never the property of the Bigods.[537] As the fable that extensive lands
belonging to the monastery of Ely were held on the tenure of castle guard at
Norwich before the Conquest is repeated by all the local historians,[538] it is
worth while to note that the charters of Henry I. setting the convent free from this
service, make no allusion to any such ancient date for it,[539] and that the tenure
of castle guard is completely unknown to the Anglo-Saxon laws. The area of the
inner bailey is 3¼ acres, and that of the outer, 4½ acres. The value of Norwich
had greatly risen since the Conquest.[540]
Nottingham (Fig. 22).—This important castle is not mentioned in Domesday
Book, but the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that William I. built the castle at
Nottingham in 1067, on his way to repress the first insurrection in Yorkshire.
Ordericus, repeating this statement, adds that he committed it to the keeping of
William Peverel.[541] The castle was placed on a lofty headland at some distance
from the Danish borough, and between the two arose the Norman borough which
is mentioned in Domesday Book as the novus burgus. The two upper wards of
the present castle probably represent William’s plan. The upper ward forms a
natural motte of rock, as it is 15 feet higher than the bailey attached to it, and has
been separated from it by a ditch cut across the rocky headland, which can still be
traced below the modern house which now stands on the motte. Such a site was
not only treated as a motte, but was actually called by that name, as we read of
the mota of Nottingham Castle in the Pipe Rolls of both John’s and Richard I.’s
reigns.
Mr Clark published a bird’s-eye view of Nottingham Castle in his Mediæval
Military Architecture, about which he only stated that it was taken from the
Illustrated London News. It does not agree with the plan made by Simpson in
1617,[542] and is therefore not quite trustworthy; the position of the keep, for
example, is quite different. The keep, which Hutchison in his Memoirs speaks of
as “the strong tower called the Old Tower on the top of the rock,” seems clearly
Norman, from the buttresses. It was placed (according to Simpson’s plan), on the
a later date. The magnificent keep which now stands on the motte is undoubtedly
a work of the 12th century.[534] The castle which Emma, wife of Earl Ralf
Guader, defended against the Conqueror after the celebrated bride-ale of Norwich
was almost certainly a wooden structure. As late as the year 1172 the bailey was
still defended by a wooden stockade and wooden bretasches;[535] and even in
1225 the stockade had not been replaced by a stone wall.[536]
Norwich was a royal castle, and consequently always in the hands of the sheriff;
it was never the property of the Bigods.[537] As the fable that extensive lands
belonging to the monastery of Ely were held on the tenure of castle guard at
Norwich before the Conquest is repeated by all the local historians,[538] it is
worth while to note that the charters of Henry I. setting the convent free from this
service, make no allusion to any such ancient date for it,[539] and that the tenure
of castle guard is completely unknown to the Anglo-Saxon laws. The area of the
inner bailey is 3¼ acres, and that of the outer, 4½ acres. The value of Norwich
had greatly risen since the Conquest.[540]
Nottingham (Fig. 22).—This important castle is not mentioned in Domesday
Book, but the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that William I. built the castle at
Nottingham in 1067, on his way to repress the first insurrection in Yorkshire.
Ordericus, repeating this statement, adds that he committed it to the keeping of
William Peverel.[541] The castle was placed on a lofty headland at some distance
from the Danish borough, and between the two arose the Norman borough which
is mentioned in Domesday Book as the novus burgus. The two upper wards of
the present castle probably represent William’s plan. The upper ward forms a
natural motte of rock, as it is 15 feet higher than the bailey attached to it, and has
been separated from it by a ditch cut across the rocky headland, which can still be
traced below the modern house which now stands on the motte. Such a site was
not only treated as a motte, but was actually called by that name, as we read of
the mota of Nottingham Castle in the Pipe Rolls of both John’s and Richard I.’s
reigns.
Mr Clark published a bird’s-eye view of Nottingham Castle in his Mediæval
Military Architecture, about which he only stated that it was taken from the
Illustrated London News. It does not agree with the plan made by Simpson in
1617,[542] and is therefore not quite trustworthy; the position of the keep, for
example, is quite different. The keep, which Hutchison in his Memoirs speaks of
as “the strong tower called the Old Tower on the top of the rock,” seems clearly
Norman, from the buttresses. It was placed (according to Simpson’s plan), on the
Page 152
north side of the small ward which formed the top of the motte, and was enclosed
in a yet older shell wall which has now disappeared. The height of this motte is
indicated in the bird’s-eye view by the ascending wall which leads up it from the
bailey. It had its own ditch, as appears by several mentions in the accounts of “the
drawbridge of the keep,” and “the bridge leading up to the dongeon.”[543] It is
highly probable that this keep was built by King John, as in a Mise Roll of 1212
there is a payment entered “towards making the tower which the king
commanded to be built on the motte of Nottingham.”[544] But the first masonry in
the castle was probably the work of Henry II., who spent £1737, 9s. 5d. on the
castle and houses, the gaol, the king’s chamber, the hall, and in raising the walls
and enclosing the bailey.[545] The castle has been so devastated by the 17th
century spoiler, that the work of Henry and John has been almost entirely swept
away, but the one round tower which still remains as part of the defences of the
inner bailey, looks as though it might be of the time of Henry II. This bailey is
semicircular; the whole original castle covers only 1⅔ acres. A very much larger
bailey was added afterwards, probably in John’s reign.[546] Probably this later
bailey was at first enclosed with a bank and stockade, and this stockade may be
the palitium of which there are notices in the records of Henry III. and Edward I.
[547]
The main gateway of this bailey, which still remains, is probably of Edward
I. or Edward II.’s reign.[548]
The castle of Nottingham was the most important one in the Midlands, and
William of Newburgh speaks of it as “so well defended by nature and art that it
appears impregnable.”[549] The value of the town had risen from £18 to £30 at the
time of the Survey.[550]
in a yet older shell wall which has now disappeared. The height of this motte is
indicated in the bird’s-eye view by the ascending wall which leads up it from the
bailey. It had its own ditch, as appears by several mentions in the accounts of “the
drawbridge of the keep,” and “the bridge leading up to the dongeon.”[543] It is
highly probable that this keep was built by King John, as in a Mise Roll of 1212
there is a payment entered “towards making the tower which the king
commanded to be built on the motte of Nottingham.”[544] But the first masonry in
the castle was probably the work of Henry II., who spent £1737, 9s. 5d. on the
castle and houses, the gaol, the king’s chamber, the hall, and in raising the walls
and enclosing the bailey.[545] The castle has been so devastated by the 17th
century spoiler, that the work of Henry and John has been almost entirely swept
away, but the one round tower which still remains as part of the defences of the
inner bailey, looks as though it might be of the time of Henry II. This bailey is
semicircular; the whole original castle covers only 1⅔ acres. A very much larger
bailey was added afterwards, probably in John’s reign.[546] Probably this later
bailey was at first enclosed with a bank and stockade, and this stockade may be
the palitium of which there are notices in the records of Henry III. and Edward I.
[547]
The main gateway of this bailey, which still remains, is probably of Edward
I. or Edward II.’s reign.[548]
The castle of Nottingham was the most important one in the Midlands, and
William of Newburgh speaks of it as “so well defended by nature and art that it
appears impregnable.”[549] The value of the town had risen from £18 to £30 at the
time of the Survey.[550]
Page 153
Okehampton, Devon.
Penwortham, Lancs.
Penwortham, Lancs.
Page 154
Pevensey, Sussex.
Fig. 24.
Okehampton, Devon (Fig. 24).—Baldwin de Molis, Sheriff of Devon, held the
manor of Okehampton at the time of the Survey, and had a castle there.[551] On a
hill in the valley of the Okement River stand the remains of a castle of the motte-
and-bailey pattern. On the motte, which is high and steep, are the ruins of a keep
of late character, probably of the 14th century.[552] The oval bailey covers ½ an
acre, and the whole castle is surrounded with a very deep ditch (filled up now on
the east side) which is in part a natural ravine. The usual ditch between the motte
and the bailey is absent here. This castle appears to have continued always in
private hands, and therefore there is little to be learned about it from the public
records. The value of Okehampton manor had increased since the Conquest from
£8 to £10. As there is no burgus mentioned T. R. E., but four burgenses and a
market T. R. W., Baldwin the Sheriff must have built a borough as well as a
castle. Otherwise it was a small manor of thirty ploughs.
Oswestry, Shropshire.—Mr Eyton’s identification of the Domesday castle of
Louvre, in the manor of Meresberie, Shropshire, with Oswestry, seems to be
decisive.[553] The name is simply L’Œuvre, the Work, a name very frequently
given to castles in the early Norman period. Domesday Book says that Rainald de
Fig. 24.
Okehampton, Devon (Fig. 24).—Baldwin de Molis, Sheriff of Devon, held the
manor of Okehampton at the time of the Survey, and had a castle there.[551] On a
hill in the valley of the Okement River stand the remains of a castle of the motte-
and-bailey pattern. On the motte, which is high and steep, are the ruins of a keep
of late character, probably of the 14th century.[552] The oval bailey covers ½ an
acre, and the whole castle is surrounded with a very deep ditch (filled up now on
the east side) which is in part a natural ravine. The usual ditch between the motte
and the bailey is absent here. This castle appears to have continued always in
private hands, and therefore there is little to be learned about it from the public
records. The value of Okehampton manor had increased since the Conquest from
£8 to £10. As there is no burgus mentioned T. R. E., but four burgenses and a
market T. R. W., Baldwin the Sheriff must have built a borough as well as a
castle. Otherwise it was a small manor of thirty ploughs.
Oswestry, Shropshire.—Mr Eyton’s identification of the Domesday castle of
Louvre, in the manor of Meresberie, Shropshire, with Oswestry, seems to be
decisive.[553] The name is simply L’Œuvre, the Work, a name very frequently
given to castles in the early Norman period. Domesday Book says that Rainald de
Page 155
Bailleul built a castle at this place.[554] He had married the widow of Warin,
Sheriff of Shropshire, who died in 1085. The castle afterwards passed into the
hands of the Fitz Alans, great lords-marcher on the Welsh border. As the Welsh
annals give the credit of building the castle to Madoc ap Meredith, into whose
hands it fell during the reign of Stephen, it is not impossible that some of the
masonry still existing on the motte, which consists of large cobbles bedded in
very thick mortar, may be his work, and probably the first stonework in the
castle. A sketch made in the 18th century, however, which is the only drawing
preserved of the castle, seems to show architecture of the Perpendicular period.
[555]
But probably the keep alone was of masonry in the 12th century, as in 1166,
when the castle was in royal custody, the repair of the stockade is referred to in
the Pipe Rolls.[556] No plan has been preserved of Oswestry Castle, so that it is
impossible to recover the shape or area of the bailey, which is now built over. The
manor of Meresberie had been unoccupied (wasta) in the days of King Edward,
but it yielded 40s. at the date of the Survey. Eyton gives reasons for thinking that
the town of Oswestry was founded by the Normans.
Sheriff of Shropshire, who died in 1085. The castle afterwards passed into the
hands of the Fitz Alans, great lords-marcher on the Welsh border. As the Welsh
annals give the credit of building the castle to Madoc ap Meredith, into whose
hands it fell during the reign of Stephen, it is not impossible that some of the
masonry still existing on the motte, which consists of large cobbles bedded in
very thick mortar, may be his work, and probably the first stonework in the
castle. A sketch made in the 18th century, however, which is the only drawing
preserved of the castle, seems to show architecture of the Perpendicular period.
[555]
But probably the keep alone was of masonry in the 12th century, as in 1166,
when the castle was in royal custody, the repair of the stockade is referred to in
the Pipe Rolls.[556] No plan has been preserved of Oswestry Castle, so that it is
impossible to recover the shape or area of the bailey, which is now built over. The
manor of Meresberie had been unoccupied (wasta) in the days of King Edward,
but it yielded 40s. at the date of the Survey. Eyton gives reasons for thinking that
the town of Oswestry was founded by the Normans.
Page 156
Oxford.
(From “Oxonia Illustrata,” David Loggan, 1675.)
Fig. 25.
Oxford (Fig. 25).—This castle was built in 1071 by Robert d’Oilgi (or d’Oilly),
a Norman who received large estates in Oxfordshire.[557] Oxford was a burgus in
Saxon times, and is one of those mentioned in the Burghal Hidage. Domesday
tells us that the king has twenty mural mansions there, which had belonged to
Algar, Earl of Mercia, and that they were called mural mansions because their
owners had to repair the city wall at the king’s behest, a regulation probably as
old as the days of Alfred. The Norman castle was placed outside the town walls,
but near the river, from which its trenches were fed.[558] It was without doubt a
motte-and-bailey castle; the motte still remains, and the accompanying bird’s-eye
view by David Loggan, 1675, shows that the later stone walls of the bailey stood
on the earthen banks of D’Oilly’s castle. The site is now occupied by a gaol. On
the line of the walls rises the ancient tower of St George’s Church, which so
(From “Oxonia Illustrata,” David Loggan, 1675.)
Fig. 25.
Oxford (Fig. 25).—This castle was built in 1071 by Robert d’Oilgi (or d’Oilly),
a Norman who received large estates in Oxfordshire.[557] Oxford was a burgus in
Saxon times, and is one of those mentioned in the Burghal Hidage. Domesday
tells us that the king has twenty mural mansions there, which had belonged to
Algar, Earl of Mercia, and that they were called mural mansions because their
owners had to repair the city wall at the king’s behest, a regulation probably as
old as the days of Alfred. The Norman castle was placed outside the town walls,
but near the river, from which its trenches were fed.[558] It was without doubt a
motte-and-bailey castle; the motte still remains, and the accompanying bird’s-eye
view by David Loggan, 1675, shows that the later stone walls of the bailey stood
on the earthen banks of D’Oilly’s castle. The site is now occupied by a gaol. On
the line of the walls rises the ancient tower of St George’s Church, which so
Page 157
much resembles an early Norman keep that we might think it was intended for
one, if the Osney chronicler had not expressly told us that the church was
founded two years after the castle.[559] It is evident that the design was to make
the church tower work as a mural tower, a combination of piety and worldly
wisdom quite in accord with what the chronicler tells us of the character of Roger
d’Oilly.
Henry II. spent some £260 on this castle between the years 1165 and 1173, the
houses in the keep, and the well being specially mentioned. We may presume that
he built with stone the decagonal [shell?] keep on the motte, whose foundations
were discovered at the end of the 18th century.[560] There is still in the heart of
the motte a well in a very remarkable well chamber, the masonry of which may
be of his time. The area of the bailey appears to have been 3 acres.
The value of the city of Oxford had trebled at the time of the Domesday Survey.
[561]
In the treaty between Stephen and Henry in 1153 the whole castle of Oxford is
spoken of as the “Mota” of Oxford.[562]
Peak Castle, Derbyshire.—The Survey simply calls this castle the Castle of
William Peverel, but tells us that two Saxons had formerly held the land.[563]
There is no motte here, but the strong position, defended on two sides by frightful
precipices, rendered very little fortification necessary. It is possible that the wall
on the N. and W. sides of the area may be, in part at least, the work of William
Peverel; the W. wall contains a great deal of herring-bone work, and the tower at
the N.W. angle does not flank at all, while the other one in the N. wall only
projects a few feet; the poor remains of the gatehouse also appear to be Norman.
It would probably be easier to build a wall than to raise an earthbank in this stony
country; nevertheless, behind the modern wall which runs up from the gatehouse
to the keep, something like an earthbank may be observed on the edge of the
precipice, which ought to be examined before any conclusions are determined as
to the first fortifications of this castle. The keep, which is of different stone to the
other towers and the walls, stands on the highest ground in the area, apparently
on the natural rock, which crops up in the basement. It is undoubtedly the work
of Henry II., as the accounts for it remain in the Pipe Rolls, and the slight
indications of style which it displays, such as the nook-shafts at the angles,
correspond to the Transition Norman period.[564] The shape of the bailey is a
quadrant; its area scarcely exceeds 1 acre.
one, if the Osney chronicler had not expressly told us that the church was
founded two years after the castle.[559] It is evident that the design was to make
the church tower work as a mural tower, a combination of piety and worldly
wisdom quite in accord with what the chronicler tells us of the character of Roger
d’Oilly.
Henry II. spent some £260 on this castle between the years 1165 and 1173, the
houses in the keep, and the well being specially mentioned. We may presume that
he built with stone the decagonal [shell?] keep on the motte, whose foundations
were discovered at the end of the 18th century.[560] There is still in the heart of
the motte a well in a very remarkable well chamber, the masonry of which may
be of his time. The area of the bailey appears to have been 3 acres.
The value of the city of Oxford had trebled at the time of the Domesday Survey.
[561]
In the treaty between Stephen and Henry in 1153 the whole castle of Oxford is
spoken of as the “Mota” of Oxford.[562]
Peak Castle, Derbyshire.—The Survey simply calls this castle the Castle of
William Peverel, but tells us that two Saxons had formerly held the land.[563]
There is no motte here, but the strong position, defended on two sides by frightful
precipices, rendered very little fortification necessary. It is possible that the wall
on the N. and W. sides of the area may be, in part at least, the work of William
Peverel; the W. wall contains a great deal of herring-bone work, and the tower at
the N.W. angle does not flank at all, while the other one in the N. wall only
projects a few feet; the poor remains of the gatehouse also appear to be Norman.
It would probably be easier to build a wall than to raise an earthbank in this stony
country; nevertheless, behind the modern wall which runs up from the gatehouse
to the keep, something like an earthbank may be observed on the edge of the
precipice, which ought to be examined before any conclusions are determined as
to the first fortifications of this castle. The keep, which is of different stone to the
other towers and the walls, stands on the highest ground in the area, apparently
on the natural rock, which crops up in the basement. It is undoubtedly the work
of Henry II., as the accounts for it remain in the Pipe Rolls, and the slight
indications of style which it displays, such as the nook-shafts at the angles,
correspond to the Transition Norman period.[564] The shape of the bailey is a
quadrant; its area scarcely exceeds 1 acre.
Page 158
The value of the manor had risen since the Conquest, and William Peverel had
doubled the number of ploughs in the demesne. The castle only remained in the
hands of the Peverels for two generations, and was then forfeited to the crown.
The manor was only a small one; and the site of the castle was probably chosen
for its natural advantages and for the facility of hunting in the Peak Forest.
Penwortham, Lancashire (Fig. 24).—“King Edward held Peneverdant. There are
two carucates of land there, and they used to pay ten pence. Now there is a castle
there, and there are two ploughs in the demesne, and six burghers, and three
radmen, and eight villeins, and four cowherds. Amongst them all they have four
ploughs. There is half a fishery there. There is wood and hawk’s eyries, as in
King Edward’s time. It is worth £3.”[565] The very great rise in value in this
manor shows that some great change had taken place since the Norman
Conquest. This change was the building of a castle. The modo of Domesday
always expresses a contrast with King Edward’s time, and clearly tells us here
that Penwortham Castle was new.[566] It lay in the extensive lands between the
Ribble and the Mersey, which were part of the Conqueror’s enfeoffment of Roger
the Poitevin, third son of Earl Roger de Montgomeri.[567] Since Penwortham is
mentioned as demesne, and no under-tenant is spoken of, we may perhaps
assume that this castle, which was the head of a barony, was built by Roger
himself. He did not hold it long, as he forfeited all his estates in 1102. At a later
period, though we have not been able to trace when, the manor of Penwortham
passed into the hands of the monks of Evesham, to whom the church had already
been granted, at the end of the Conqueror’s reign.[568] Probably it is because the
castle thus passed into the hands of the church that it never developed into a
stone castle, like Clitheroe. The seat of the barony was transferred elsewhere, and
probably the timbers of the castle were used in the monastic buildings of
Penwortham Priory.
The excavations which were made here in 1856 proved conclusively that there
were no stone foundations on the Castle Hill at Penwortham.[569] These
excavations revealed the singular fact that the Norman had thrown up his motte
on the site of a British or Romano-British hut, without even being aware of it,
since the ruins of the hut were buried 5 feet deep and covered by a grass-grown
surface, on which the Norman had laid a rude pavement of boulders before piling
his motte.[570] Among the objects found in the excavations was a Norman prick
spur, a conclusive proof of the Norman origin of the motte.[571] No remains
appear to have been found of the Norman wooden keep; but this would be
accounted for by the theory suggested above.
doubled the number of ploughs in the demesne. The castle only remained in the
hands of the Peverels for two generations, and was then forfeited to the crown.
The manor was only a small one; and the site of the castle was probably chosen
for its natural advantages and for the facility of hunting in the Peak Forest.
Penwortham, Lancashire (Fig. 24).—“King Edward held Peneverdant. There are
two carucates of land there, and they used to pay ten pence. Now there is a castle
there, and there are two ploughs in the demesne, and six burghers, and three
radmen, and eight villeins, and four cowherds. Amongst them all they have four
ploughs. There is half a fishery there. There is wood and hawk’s eyries, as in
King Edward’s time. It is worth £3.”[565] The very great rise in value in this
manor shows that some great change had taken place since the Norman
Conquest. This change was the building of a castle. The modo of Domesday
always expresses a contrast with King Edward’s time, and clearly tells us here
that Penwortham Castle was new.[566] It lay in the extensive lands between the
Ribble and the Mersey, which were part of the Conqueror’s enfeoffment of Roger
the Poitevin, third son of Earl Roger de Montgomeri.[567] Since Penwortham is
mentioned as demesne, and no under-tenant is spoken of, we may perhaps
assume that this castle, which was the head of a barony, was built by Roger
himself. He did not hold it long, as he forfeited all his estates in 1102. At a later
period, though we have not been able to trace when, the manor of Penwortham
passed into the hands of the monks of Evesham, to whom the church had already
been granted, at the end of the Conqueror’s reign.[568] Probably it is because the
castle thus passed into the hands of the church that it never developed into a
stone castle, like Clitheroe. The seat of the barony was transferred elsewhere, and
probably the timbers of the castle were used in the monastic buildings of
Penwortham Priory.
The excavations which were made here in 1856 proved conclusively that there
were no stone foundations on the Castle Hill at Penwortham.[569] These
excavations revealed the singular fact that the Norman had thrown up his motte
on the site of a British or Romano-British hut, without even being aware of it,
since the ruins of the hut were buried 5 feet deep and covered by a grass-grown
surface, on which the Norman had laid a rude pavement of boulders before piling
his motte.[570] Among the objects found in the excavations was a Norman prick
spur, a conclusive proof of the Norman origin of the motte.[571] No remains
appear to have been found of the Norman wooden keep; but this would be
accounted for by the theory suggested above.
Page 159
Penwortham is a double motte, the artificial hill rising on the back of a natural
hill, which has been isolated from its continuing ridge by an artificial ditch cut
through it. The double hill rises out of a bailey court which is rudely square, but
whose shape is determined by the ground, which forms a headland running out
into the Ribble. The whole area cannot certainly be ascertained. There was a ferry
at this point in Norman times.[572] The castle defends the mouth of the Ribble and
overlooks the town of Preston.
Penwortham was certainly not the caput of a large soke in Saxon times, as it was
only a berewick of Blackburn, in which hundred it lay. It was the Norman who
first made it the seat of a barony.
Peterborough.—The chronicler, Hugh Candidus, tells us that Abbot Thorold, the
Norman abbot whom William I. appointed to the ancient minster of
Peterborough, built a castle close to the church, “which in these days is called
Mount Torold.”[573] This mount is still existing, but it has lost its ancient name,
and is now called Tout Hill. It stands in the Deanery garden, and has probably
been largely ransacked for garden soil, as it has a decayed and shapeless look.
Still, it is a venerable relic of Norman aggression, well authenticated.
Pevensey, Sussex (Fig. 24).—The Roman castrum of Pevensey (still so striking
in its remains) was an inhabited town at the date of the Norman Conquest, and
was an important port.[574] After taking possession of the castrum, William I.
drew a strong bank across its eastern end, and placed a castle in the area thus
isolated. This first castle was probably entirely of wood, as there was a wooden
palicium on the bank as late as the reign of Henry II.[575] But if a wooden keep
was built at first, it was very soon superseded by one of stone.[576] The remains
of this keep have recently been excavated by Mr Harold Sands and Mr
Montgomerie, and show it to have been a most remarkable building[577] (see
Chapter XII., p. 355)—in all probability one of the few 11th century keeps in
England. We may perhaps attribute this distinction to the fact that no less a man
than the Conqueror’s half-brother, the Count of Mortain, was made the guardian
of this important port.
Pevensey is mentioned as a port in the Close Rolls of Henry III.’s reign, and was
one of the important waterways to the Continent.[578] As has been already noted,
the establishment of the castle was followed by the usual rise in the value of the
burgus.[579] The area of the castle covers 1 acre.
Pontefract, Yorkshire (Fig. 26).—This castle is not spoken of in Domesday by
its French name, but there can be no doubt that it is “the Castle of Ilbert” which is
hill, which has been isolated from its continuing ridge by an artificial ditch cut
through it. The double hill rises out of a bailey court which is rudely square, but
whose shape is determined by the ground, which forms a headland running out
into the Ribble. The whole area cannot certainly be ascertained. There was a ferry
at this point in Norman times.[572] The castle defends the mouth of the Ribble and
overlooks the town of Preston.
Penwortham was certainly not the caput of a large soke in Saxon times, as it was
only a berewick of Blackburn, in which hundred it lay. It was the Norman who
first made it the seat of a barony.
Peterborough.—The chronicler, Hugh Candidus, tells us that Abbot Thorold, the
Norman abbot whom William I. appointed to the ancient minster of
Peterborough, built a castle close to the church, “which in these days is called
Mount Torold.”[573] This mount is still existing, but it has lost its ancient name,
and is now called Tout Hill. It stands in the Deanery garden, and has probably
been largely ransacked for garden soil, as it has a decayed and shapeless look.
Still, it is a venerable relic of Norman aggression, well authenticated.
Pevensey, Sussex (Fig. 24).—The Roman castrum of Pevensey (still so striking
in its remains) was an inhabited town at the date of the Norman Conquest, and
was an important port.[574] After taking possession of the castrum, William I.
drew a strong bank across its eastern end, and placed a castle in the area thus
isolated. This first castle was probably entirely of wood, as there was a wooden
palicium on the bank as late as the reign of Henry II.[575] But if a wooden keep
was built at first, it was very soon superseded by one of stone.[576] The remains
of this keep have recently been excavated by Mr Harold Sands and Mr
Montgomerie, and show it to have been a most remarkable building[577] (see
Chapter XII., p. 355)—in all probability one of the few 11th century keeps in
England. We may perhaps attribute this distinction to the fact that no less a man
than the Conqueror’s half-brother, the Count of Mortain, was made the guardian
of this important port.
Pevensey is mentioned as a port in the Close Rolls of Henry III.’s reign, and was
one of the important waterways to the Continent.[578] As has been already noted,
the establishment of the castle was followed by the usual rise in the value of the
burgus.[579] The area of the castle covers 1 acre.
Pontefract, Yorkshire (Fig. 26).—This castle is not spoken of in Domesday by
its French name, but there can be no doubt that it is “the Castle of Ilbert” which is
Page 160
twice mentioned and several times alluded to in the Clamores, or disputed claims,
which are enrolled at the end of the list of lands in Yorkshire belonging to the
tenants-in-chief.[580] The existence of Ilbert’s castle at Pontefract in the 11th
century is made certain by a charter (only an early copy of which is now extant)
in the archives of the Duchy of Lancaster, in which William Rufus at his
accession regrants to Ilbert de Lacy “the custom of the castelry of his castle, as he
had it in the Conqueror’s days and in those of the bishop of Bayeux.”[581] As Mr
Holmes remarks, this carries us back to four years before the compilation of
Domesday Book, since Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, whom William had left as regent
during his absence in Normandy, was arrested and imprisoned in 1082.[582]
Pontefract is called Kirkby in some of the earlier charters, and this was evidently
the English (or rather the Danish) name of the place. It lay within the manor of
Tateshall, which is supposed to be the same as Tanshelf, a name still preserved in
the neighbourhood of, but not exactly at, Pontefract.[583] Tanshelf claims to be the
Taddenescylf mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, where King Edgar
received the submission of the Yorkshire Danes in 947. There is no proof that the
hill at Kirkby was fortified before the Conquest. It was a steep headland rising
out of the plain of the Aire, and needing only to be scarped by art and to have a
ditch cut across its neck to be almost impregnable. It lay scarcely a mile east of
the Roman road from Doncaster to Castleford and the north.
which are enrolled at the end of the list of lands in Yorkshire belonging to the
tenants-in-chief.[580] The existence of Ilbert’s castle at Pontefract in the 11th
century is made certain by a charter (only an early copy of which is now extant)
in the archives of the Duchy of Lancaster, in which William Rufus at his
accession regrants to Ilbert de Lacy “the custom of the castelry of his castle, as he
had it in the Conqueror’s days and in those of the bishop of Bayeux.”[581] As Mr
Holmes remarks, this carries us back to four years before the compilation of
Domesday Book, since Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, whom William had left as regent
during his absence in Normandy, was arrested and imprisoned in 1082.[582]
Pontefract is called Kirkby in some of the earlier charters, and this was evidently
the English (or rather the Danish) name of the place. It lay within the manor of
Tateshall, which is supposed to be the same as Tanshelf, a name still preserved in
the neighbourhood of, but not exactly at, Pontefract.[583] Tanshelf claims to be the
Taddenescylf mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, where King Edgar
received the submission of the Yorkshire Danes in 947. There is no proof that the
hill at Kirkby was fortified before the Conquest. It was a steep headland rising
out of the plain of the Aire, and needing only to be scarped by art and to have a
ditch cut across its neck to be almost impregnable. It lay scarcely a mile east of
the Roman road from Doncaster to Castleford and the north.
Page 161
Pontefract, Yorks.
Page 162
Preston Capes, Northants.
Quatford, Salop.
Quatford, Salop.
Page 163
Fig. 26.
It is no part of our task to trace the fortunes of this famous castle, which was
considered in the Middle Ages to be the key of Yorkshire.[584] In spite of the labels
affixed to the walls we venture to assert with confidence that none of the masonry
now visible belongs to the days of Ilbert. The structural history of the castle was
probably this: Ilbert de Lacy, one of the greatest of the Norman tenants-in-chief in
Yorkshire,[585] built in this naturally defensive situation a castle of earth and wood,
like other Norman castles. Whether he found the place already defended by earthen
banks we do not attempt to decide, but analogy makes it fairly certain that the
motte was his work, and was crowned by a wooden tower. This motte, which was
at least partially scarped out of the soft sandstone rock, is now disguised by the
remarkable keep which has been built up around it, consisting at present of two
enormous round towers and the ruins of a third. As a fourth side is vacant, it may
reasonably be conjectured that there was a fourth roundel.[586] If the plan was a
quatrefoil it resembled that of the keep of York, which is now ascertained to belong
to the reign of Henry III.; and the very little detail that is left supports the view that
Pontefract keep was copied from the royal experiment at York, though it differed
from it in that it actually revetted the motte itself. There is no ditch now round the
motte, but we venture to think that its inner ditch is indicated by the position of the
postern in Piper’s Tower, which seems to mark its outlet. It appears to have been
partly filled up during the great siege of Pontefract in 1648.[587] The platform
which is attached to the motte on the side facing the bailey is probably an addition
of the same date, intended for artillery; its retaining wall shows signs of hasty
construction. A well chamber and a passage leading both to it and to a postern
opening towards the outer ditch appear to have been made in the rocky base of the
motte in the 13th century.
The area of the inner and probably original bailey of this castle, including the
motte, is 2⅓ acres. The Main Guard, and another bailey covering the approach on
the S. side, were probably later additions, bringing up the castle area to 7 acres. The
shape of the first bailey is an irregular oval, determined by the hill on which it
stands.
The value of the manor of Tateshall had fallen at the time of the Survey from £20 to
£15, an unusual circumstance in the case of a manor which had become the seat of
an important castle; but the number of ploughs had decreased by half, and we may
infer that Tateshall had not recovered from the great devastation of Yorkshire in
1068.[588]
It is no part of our task to trace the fortunes of this famous castle, which was
considered in the Middle Ages to be the key of Yorkshire.[584] In spite of the labels
affixed to the walls we venture to assert with confidence that none of the masonry
now visible belongs to the days of Ilbert. The structural history of the castle was
probably this: Ilbert de Lacy, one of the greatest of the Norman tenants-in-chief in
Yorkshire,[585] built in this naturally defensive situation a castle of earth and wood,
like other Norman castles. Whether he found the place already defended by earthen
banks we do not attempt to decide, but analogy makes it fairly certain that the
motte was his work, and was crowned by a wooden tower. This motte, which was
at least partially scarped out of the soft sandstone rock, is now disguised by the
remarkable keep which has been built up around it, consisting at present of two
enormous round towers and the ruins of a third. As a fourth side is vacant, it may
reasonably be conjectured that there was a fourth roundel.[586] If the plan was a
quatrefoil it resembled that of the keep of York, which is now ascertained to belong
to the reign of Henry III.; and the very little detail that is left supports the view that
Pontefract keep was copied from the royal experiment at York, though it differed
from it in that it actually revetted the motte itself. There is no ditch now round the
motte, but we venture to think that its inner ditch is indicated by the position of the
postern in Piper’s Tower, which seems to mark its outlet. It appears to have been
partly filled up during the great siege of Pontefract in 1648.[587] The platform
which is attached to the motte on the side facing the bailey is probably an addition
of the same date, intended for artillery; its retaining wall shows signs of hasty
construction. A well chamber and a passage leading both to it and to a postern
opening towards the outer ditch appear to have been made in the rocky base of the
motte in the 13th century.
The area of the inner and probably original bailey of this castle, including the
motte, is 2⅓ acres. The Main Guard, and another bailey covering the approach on
the S. side, were probably later additions, bringing up the castle area to 7 acres. The
shape of the first bailey is an irregular oval, determined by the hill on which it
stands.
The value of the manor of Tateshall had fallen at the time of the Survey from £20 to
£15, an unusual circumstance in the case of a manor which had become the seat of
an important castle; but the number of ploughs had decreased by half, and we may
infer that Tateshall had not recovered from the great devastation of Yorkshire in
1068.[588]
Page 164
Preston Capes, Northants (Fig. 26).—That a castle of the 11th century stood here is
only proved by a casual mention in the Historia Fundationis of the Cluniac priory
of Daventry, which tells us that this priory was first founded by Hugh de Leycestre,
Seneschal of Matilda de Senlis, close to his own castle of Preston Capes, about
1090. Want of water and the proximity of the castle proving inconvenient, the
priory was removed to Daventry.[589] The work lies about 3 miles from the Watling
Street. The castle stands on a spur of high land projecting northwards towards a
feeder of the river Nesse, about 3 miles W. of the Watling Street. The works consist
of a motte, having a flat top 80 to 90 feet in diameter, and remains of a slight
breastwork. This motte is placed on the edge of the plateau, and the ground falls
steeply round its northern half. About 16 feet down this slope, a ditch with an outer
bank has been dug, embracing half the mound. Lower down, near the foot of the
slope, is another and longer ditch and rampart. It is probable that the bailey
occupied the flatter ground S.E. of the motte, but the site is occupied by a farm, and
no traces are visible.[590]
The value of the manor of Preston Capes had risen from 6s. to 40s. at the time of
the Survey. It was held by Nigel of the Count of Mellent.[591]
Quatford, Shropshire (Fig. 26).—There can hardly be any doubt that the nova
domus at Quatford mentioned in the Survey was the new castle built by Roger de
Montgomeri, Earl of Shrewsbury. We have already suggested that the burgus which
also existed there may have been his work, and not that of the Danes.[592] The
manor belonged to the church before the Conquest.[593] The oval motte, which still
remains, is described as placed on a bold rocky promontory jutting into the Severn;
it is not quite 30 feet high, and about 60 feet by 120 in diameter on top, and has a
small bean-shaped bailey of 1 acre. It is near the church, which has Norman
remains.[594] Robert Belesme, son of Earl Roger, removed the castle to
Bridgenorth, and so the Quatford castle is heard of no more.[595] The manor of
Quatford was paying nothing at the date of the Survey.
Rayleigh, Essex (Fig. 27).—“In this manor Sweyn has made his castle.”[596] Sweyn
was the son of Robert Fitz-Wymarc, a half English, half Norman favourite of
Edward the Confessor. Robert was Sheriff of Essex under Edward and William, and
Sweyn appears to have succeeded his father in this office.[597] Sweyn built his
castle on land which had not belonged to his father, so Rayleigh cannot be the
“Robert’s Castle” of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, to which some of the Norman
adventurers fled on the triumph of Earl Godwin.[598] There is a fine motte at
Rayleigh, and a semicircular bailey attached; the ditch round the whole is still well
marked. There is not a vestige of masonry on the surface, but some excavations
made in 1910 revealed stone foundations. The inner bailey covers ¾ of an acre. The
only proved by a casual mention in the Historia Fundationis of the Cluniac priory
of Daventry, which tells us that this priory was first founded by Hugh de Leycestre,
Seneschal of Matilda de Senlis, close to his own castle of Preston Capes, about
1090. Want of water and the proximity of the castle proving inconvenient, the
priory was removed to Daventry.[589] The work lies about 3 miles from the Watling
Street. The castle stands on a spur of high land projecting northwards towards a
feeder of the river Nesse, about 3 miles W. of the Watling Street. The works consist
of a motte, having a flat top 80 to 90 feet in diameter, and remains of a slight
breastwork. This motte is placed on the edge of the plateau, and the ground falls
steeply round its northern half. About 16 feet down this slope, a ditch with an outer
bank has been dug, embracing half the mound. Lower down, near the foot of the
slope, is another and longer ditch and rampart. It is probable that the bailey
occupied the flatter ground S.E. of the motte, but the site is occupied by a farm, and
no traces are visible.[590]
The value of the manor of Preston Capes had risen from 6s. to 40s. at the time of
the Survey. It was held by Nigel of the Count of Mellent.[591]
Quatford, Shropshire (Fig. 26).—There can hardly be any doubt that the nova
domus at Quatford mentioned in the Survey was the new castle built by Roger de
Montgomeri, Earl of Shrewsbury. We have already suggested that the burgus which
also existed there may have been his work, and not that of the Danes.[592] The
manor belonged to the church before the Conquest.[593] The oval motte, which still
remains, is described as placed on a bold rocky promontory jutting into the Severn;
it is not quite 30 feet high, and about 60 feet by 120 in diameter on top, and has a
small bean-shaped bailey of 1 acre. It is near the church, which has Norman
remains.[594] Robert Belesme, son of Earl Roger, removed the castle to
Bridgenorth, and so the Quatford castle is heard of no more.[595] The manor of
Quatford was paying nothing at the date of the Survey.
Rayleigh, Essex (Fig. 27).—“In this manor Sweyn has made his castle.”[596] Sweyn
was the son of Robert Fitz-Wymarc, a half English, half Norman favourite of
Edward the Confessor. Robert was Sheriff of Essex under Edward and William, and
Sweyn appears to have succeeded his father in this office.[597] Sweyn built his
castle on land which had not belonged to his father, so Rayleigh cannot be the
“Robert’s Castle” of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, to which some of the Norman
adventurers fled on the triumph of Earl Godwin.[598] There is a fine motte at
Rayleigh, and a semicircular bailey attached; the ditch round the whole is still well
marked. There is not a vestige of masonry on the surface, but some excavations
made in 1910 revealed stone foundations. The inner bailey covers ¾ of an acre. The
Page 165
value of the manor had risen since the Conquest, but it was only a small one, with
no villages in its soke.
Richard’s Castle, Herefordshire (Fig. 27).—There can be little doubt that this is
the castle referred to in Domesday Book under the name of Avreton, as it is not far
from Overton, on the northern border of Hereford.[599] Richard’s Castle is almost
certainly the castle of Richard, son of Scrob, one of the Normans to whom Edward
the Confessor had granted large estates, and who probably fortified himself on this
site. At the time of the Survey Richard was dead, and the castle was held by his son
Osbern, and it is noted that he pays 10s., but the castle is worth 20s. to him. Its
value was the same as in King Edward’s time, a fact worth noting, as it coincides
with the assumption that this was a pre-Conquest castle. There is a high and steep
motte at Richard’s Castle, and a small half-moon shaped bailey.[600] There are
remains of a stone wing wall running down the motte, and on the top there is a
straight piece of masonry which must be part of a tower keep. The area of the inner
bailey is ⅔ of an acre. Avreton was not the centre of a soke, but appears to have lain
in the manor of Ludeford.
no villages in its soke.
Richard’s Castle, Herefordshire (Fig. 27).—There can be little doubt that this is
the castle referred to in Domesday Book under the name of Avreton, as it is not far
from Overton, on the northern border of Hereford.[599] Richard’s Castle is almost
certainly the castle of Richard, son of Scrob, one of the Normans to whom Edward
the Confessor had granted large estates, and who probably fortified himself on this
site. At the time of the Survey Richard was dead, and the castle was held by his son
Osbern, and it is noted that he pays 10s., but the castle is worth 20s. to him. Its
value was the same as in King Edward’s time, a fact worth noting, as it coincides
with the assumption that this was a pre-Conquest castle. There is a high and steep
motte at Richard’s Castle, and a small half-moon shaped bailey.[600] There are
remains of a stone wing wall running down the motte, and on the top there is a
straight piece of masonry which must be part of a tower keep. The area of the inner
bailey is ⅔ of an acre. Avreton was not the centre of a soke, but appears to have lain
in the manor of Ludeford.
Page 166
Rayleigh, Essex.
Richard’s Castle, Hereford.
Fig. 27.
Richard’s Castle, Hereford.
Fig. 27.
Page 167
Richmond, Yorks (Fig. 28).—As in the case of Pontefract, this other great Yorkshire
castle is not mentioned by name in Domesday Book, nor is there any allusion to it
except a casual mention in the Recapitulation that Earl Alan has 199 manors in his
castelry, and that besides the castelry he has 43 manors.[601] The castle must have
been built at the date of the Survey, which was completed only a year before
William I.’s death; for during William’s lifetime Earl Alan, the first holder of the
fief, gave the chapel in the castle of Richmond to the abbey of St Mary at York,
which he had founded.[602] The name, of course, is French, and it seems impossible
now to discover what English manor-name it has displaced.[603] It is certainly a
case in which the Norman castle was not placed in the seat of the former Saxon
proprietor, but in the site which seemed most defensible to the Norman lord. The
lands of Earl Alan in the wapentake of Gilling had belonged to the Saxon Earl
Edwin, and thus cannot have fallen to Alan’s share before Edwin’s death in 1071.
The Genealogia published by Dodsworth (from an MS. compiled in the reign of
Edward III.), says that Earl Alan first built Richmond Castle near his chief manor
of Gilling, to defend his people against the attacks of the disinherited English and
Danes.[604] The passage has been enlarged by Camden, who says that Alan “thought
himself not safe enough in Gilling”; and this has been interpreted to mean that Alan
originally built his castle at Gilling, and afterwards removed it to Richmond; but
the original words have no such meaning.[605]
Richmond Castle differs from most of the castles mentioned in Domesday in that it
has no motte. The ground plan indeed was very like that of a motte-and-bailey
castle, in that old maps show a small roundish enclosure at the apex of the large
triangular bailey.[606] But a recent examination of the keep by Messrs Hope and
Brakespear has confirmed the theory first enunciated by Mr Loftus Brock,[607] that
the keep is built over the original gateway of the castle, and that the lower stage of
its front wall is the ancient wall of the castle. The small ward indicated in the old
maps is therefore most likely a barbican, of later date than the 12th century keep,
which is probably rightly attributed by the Genealogia cited above to Earl Conan,
who reigned from 1148-1171.[608] Some entries in the Pipe Rolls make it almost
certain that it was finished by Henry II., who kept the castle in his own hands for
some time after the death of Conan.[609] There are some indications at Richmond
that the first castle was of stone and not of earth and wood. The walls do not stand
on earthen banks; the Norman curtain can still be traced on two sides of the castle,
and on the west side it seems of early construction, containing a great deal of
herringbone work, and might possibly be the work of Earl Alan.
castle is not mentioned by name in Domesday Book, nor is there any allusion to it
except a casual mention in the Recapitulation that Earl Alan has 199 manors in his
castelry, and that besides the castelry he has 43 manors.[601] The castle must have
been built at the date of the Survey, which was completed only a year before
William I.’s death; for during William’s lifetime Earl Alan, the first holder of the
fief, gave the chapel in the castle of Richmond to the abbey of St Mary at York,
which he had founded.[602] The name, of course, is French, and it seems impossible
now to discover what English manor-name it has displaced.[603] It is certainly a
case in which the Norman castle was not placed in the seat of the former Saxon
proprietor, but in the site which seemed most defensible to the Norman lord. The
lands of Earl Alan in the wapentake of Gilling had belonged to the Saxon Earl
Edwin, and thus cannot have fallen to Alan’s share before Edwin’s death in 1071.
The Genealogia published by Dodsworth (from an MS. compiled in the reign of
Edward III.), says that Earl Alan first built Richmond Castle near his chief manor
of Gilling, to defend his people against the attacks of the disinherited English and
Danes.[604] The passage has been enlarged by Camden, who says that Alan “thought
himself not safe enough in Gilling”; and this has been interpreted to mean that Alan
originally built his castle at Gilling, and afterwards removed it to Richmond; but
the original words have no such meaning.[605]
Richmond Castle differs from most of the castles mentioned in Domesday in that it
has no motte. The ground plan indeed was very like that of a motte-and-bailey
castle, in that old maps show a small roundish enclosure at the apex of the large
triangular bailey.[606] But a recent examination of the keep by Messrs Hope and
Brakespear has confirmed the theory first enunciated by Mr Loftus Brock,[607] that
the keep is built over the original gateway of the castle, and that the lower stage of
its front wall is the ancient wall of the castle. The small ward indicated in the old
maps is therefore most likely a barbican, of later date than the 12th century keep,
which is probably rightly attributed by the Genealogia cited above to Earl Conan,
who reigned from 1148-1171.[608] Some entries in the Pipe Rolls make it almost
certain that it was finished by Henry II., who kept the castle in his own hands for
some time after the death of Conan.[609] There are some indications at Richmond
that the first castle was of stone and not of earth and wood. The walls do not stand
on earthen banks; the Norman curtain can still be traced on two sides of the castle,
and on the west side it seems of early construction, containing a great deal of
herringbone work, and might possibly be the work of Earl Alan.
Page 168
Richmond, Yorks.
Page 169
Rochester, Kent.
Fig. 28.
The whole area of the castle is 2½ acres, including the annexe known as the
Cockpit. This was certainly enclosed during the Norman period, as it has a Norman
gateway in its wall.
As we do not know the name of the site of Richmond before the Conquest, and as
the name of Richmond is not mentioned in Domesday Book, we cannot tell
whether the value of the manor had risen or fallen. But no part of Yorkshire was
more flourishing at the time of the Survey than this wapentake of Gilling, which
belonged to Earl Alan; in no district, except in the immediate neighbourhood of
Fig. 28.
The whole area of the castle is 2½ acres, including the annexe known as the
Cockpit. This was certainly enclosed during the Norman period, as it has a Norman
gateway in its wall.
As we do not know the name of the site of Richmond before the Conquest, and as
the name of Richmond is not mentioned in Domesday Book, we cannot tell
whether the value of the manor had risen or fallen. But no part of Yorkshire was
more flourishing at the time of the Survey than this wapentake of Gilling, which
belonged to Earl Alan; in no district, except in the immediate neighbourhood of
Page 170
York, are there so many places where the value has risen. Yet the greater part of it
was let out to under-tenants.
Rochester, Kent (Fig. 28).—Under the heading of Aylsford, Kent, the Survey tells
us that “the bishop of Rochester holds as much of this land as is worth 17s. 4d. in
exchange for the land in which the castle sits.”[610] Rochester was a Roman
castrum, and portions of its Roman wall have recently been found.[611] The fact that
various old charters speak of the castellum of Rochester has led some authorities to
believe that there was a castle there in Saxon times, but the context of these
charters shows plainly that the words castellum Roffense were equivalent to
Castrum Roffense or Hrofesceastre.[612] Otherwise there is not a particle of
evidence for the existence of a castle at Rochester in pre-Norman times, and the
passage in Domesday quoted above shows that William’s castle was a new erection,
built on land obtained by exchange from the church.
Outside the line of the Roman wall, to the south of the city, and west of the south
gate, there is a district called Boley or Bullie Hill, which at one time was included
in the fortifications of the present castle. It is a continuation of the ridge on which
that castle stands, and has been separated from it by a ditch. This ditch once
entirely surrounded it, and though it was partly filled up in the 18th century its line
can still be traced. The area enclosed by this ditch was about 3 acres; the form
appears to have been oblong. In the grounds of Satis House, one of the villas which
have been built on this site, there still remains a conical artificial mound, much
reduced in size, as it has been converted into a pleasure-ground with winding
walks, but the retaining walls of these walks are composed of old materials; and
towards the riverside there are still vestiges of an ancient wall.[613] We venture to
think that this Boley Hill and its motte formed the original site of the (probably)
wooden castle of William the Conqueror. Its nature, position, and size correspond
to what we have already observed as characteristic of the first castles of the
Conquest. It stands on land which originally belonged to the church of St Andrew,
as Domesday Book tells us William’s castle did.[614] The very name may be
interpreted in favour of this theory.[615] And that there was no Roman or Saxon
fortification on the spot is proved by excavations, which have shown that both a
Roman and a Saxon cemetery occupied portions of the area.[616]
It is well known that between the years 1087 and 1089 the celebrated architect,
Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, built a new stone castle for William Rufus, “in the
best part of the city of Rochester.”[617] This castle, of course, was on the same site
as the present one, though the splendid keep was not built till the next reign.[618]
But if what we have maintained above be correct the castle of Gundulf was built on
a different site from that of the castle of William. Nor are we without evidence in
was let out to under-tenants.
Rochester, Kent (Fig. 28).—Under the heading of Aylsford, Kent, the Survey tells
us that “the bishop of Rochester holds as much of this land as is worth 17s. 4d. in
exchange for the land in which the castle sits.”[610] Rochester was a Roman
castrum, and portions of its Roman wall have recently been found.[611] The fact that
various old charters speak of the castellum of Rochester has led some authorities to
believe that there was a castle there in Saxon times, but the context of these
charters shows plainly that the words castellum Roffense were equivalent to
Castrum Roffense or Hrofesceastre.[612] Otherwise there is not a particle of
evidence for the existence of a castle at Rochester in pre-Norman times, and the
passage in Domesday quoted above shows that William’s castle was a new erection,
built on land obtained by exchange from the church.
Outside the line of the Roman wall, to the south of the city, and west of the south
gate, there is a district called Boley or Bullie Hill, which at one time was included
in the fortifications of the present castle. It is a continuation of the ridge on which
that castle stands, and has been separated from it by a ditch. This ditch once
entirely surrounded it, and though it was partly filled up in the 18th century its line
can still be traced. The area enclosed by this ditch was about 3 acres; the form
appears to have been oblong. In the grounds of Satis House, one of the villas which
have been built on this site, there still remains a conical artificial mound, much
reduced in size, as it has been converted into a pleasure-ground with winding
walks, but the retaining walls of these walks are composed of old materials; and
towards the riverside there are still vestiges of an ancient wall.[613] We venture to
think that this Boley Hill and its motte formed the original site of the (probably)
wooden castle of William the Conqueror. Its nature, position, and size correspond
to what we have already observed as characteristic of the first castles of the
Conquest. It stands on land which originally belonged to the church of St Andrew,
as Domesday Book tells us William’s castle did.[614] The very name may be
interpreted in favour of this theory.[615] And that there was no Roman or Saxon
fortification on the spot is proved by excavations, which have shown that both a
Roman and a Saxon cemetery occupied portions of the area.[616]
It is well known that between the years 1087 and 1089 the celebrated architect,
Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, built a new stone castle for William Rufus, “in the
best part of the city of Rochester.”[617] This castle, of course, was on the same site
as the present one, though the splendid keep was not built till the next reign.[618]
But if what we have maintained above be correct the castle of Gundulf was built on
a different site from that of the castle of William. Nor are we without evidence in
Page 171
support of this. What remains of the original Norman wall of Gundulf’s castle (and
enough remains to show that the circuit was complete in Norman times) does not
stand on earthen banks; and this, though not a proof, is a strong suggestion that
there was no earthen bank belonging to some previous castle when Gundulf began
his building.[619] But further, Mr Livett has shown in his paper on Mediæval
Rochester[620] that in order to form a level plateau for the court of the castle the
ground had to be artificially made up on the north and east sides, and in these
places the wall rests on a foundation of gravel, which has been forcibly rammed to
make it solid, and which goes through the artificial soil to the natural chalk below.
Now what can this rammed gravel mean but an expedient to avoid the danger of
building in stone on freshly heaped soil? Had the artificial platform been in
existence ever since the Conquest, it would have been solid enough to build upon
without this expense. It is therefore at least probable that Bishop Gundulf’s castle
was built on an entirely new site.
It seems also to be clear that the Boley Hill was included as an outwork in Bishop
Gundulf’s plan, for the castle ditch is cut through the Roman wall near the south
gate of the city.[621] Mr Livett remarks that King John appears to have used the hill
as a point of vantage when he attacked the city in 1215, and he thinks this was
probably the reason why Henry III.’s engineers enclosed it with a stone wall when
they restored the walls of the city.[622] Henry III.’s wall has been traced all round
the city, and at the second south gate it turns at right angles, or nearly so, so as to
enclose Boley Hill.[623] It is probable, as Mr Livett suggests, that the drawbridge
and bretasche, or wooden tower, ordered in 1226 for the southern side of Rochester
Castle,[624] were intended to connect the Boley Hill court with the main castle. In
1722 the owner of the castle (which had then fallen into private hands) conveyed to
one Philip Brooke, “that part of the castle ditch and ground, as it then lay
unenclosed, on Bully Hill, being the whole breadth of the hill and ditch without the
walls of the castle, extending from thence to the river Medway.”[625]
The general opinion about the Boley Hill is that it is a Danish earthwork, thrown up
by the Danes when they besieged the city in 885. But if our contention in Chapter
IV. is just, the Danish fortifications were not mottes, nor anything like them; and
(as has already been pointed out) the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle indicates the nature of
the fortress in this case by its expression, “they made a work around themselves”;
[626]
that is, it was a circumvallation. Moreover, at Rochester the Danes would have
had to pass under the bridge (which is known to have existed both in Roman and
Saxon times) in order to get to the Boley Hill; and even if their ships were small
enough to do this they would hardly have been so foolish as to leave a bridge in
enough remains to show that the circuit was complete in Norman times) does not
stand on earthen banks; and this, though not a proof, is a strong suggestion that
there was no earthen bank belonging to some previous castle when Gundulf began
his building.[619] But further, Mr Livett has shown in his paper on Mediæval
Rochester[620] that in order to form a level plateau for the court of the castle the
ground had to be artificially made up on the north and east sides, and in these
places the wall rests on a foundation of gravel, which has been forcibly rammed to
make it solid, and which goes through the artificial soil to the natural chalk below.
Now what can this rammed gravel mean but an expedient to avoid the danger of
building in stone on freshly heaped soil? Had the artificial platform been in
existence ever since the Conquest, it would have been solid enough to build upon
without this expense. It is therefore at least probable that Bishop Gundulf’s castle
was built on an entirely new site.
It seems also to be clear that the Boley Hill was included as an outwork in Bishop
Gundulf’s plan, for the castle ditch is cut through the Roman wall near the south
gate of the city.[621] Mr Livett remarks that King John appears to have used the hill
as a point of vantage when he attacked the city in 1215, and he thinks this was
probably the reason why Henry III.’s engineers enclosed it with a stone wall when
they restored the walls of the city.[622] Henry III.’s wall has been traced all round
the city, and at the second south gate it turns at right angles, or nearly so, so as to
enclose Boley Hill.[623] It is probable, as Mr Livett suggests, that the drawbridge
and bretasche, or wooden tower, ordered in 1226 for the southern side of Rochester
Castle,[624] were intended to connect the Boley Hill court with the main castle. In
1722 the owner of the castle (which had then fallen into private hands) conveyed to
one Philip Brooke, “that part of the castle ditch and ground, as it then lay
unenclosed, on Bully Hill, being the whole breadth of the hill and ditch without the
walls of the castle, extending from thence to the river Medway.”[625]
The general opinion about the Boley Hill is that it is a Danish earthwork, thrown up
by the Danes when they besieged the city in 885. But if our contention in Chapter
IV. is just, the Danish fortifications were not mottes, nor anything like them; and
(as has already been pointed out) the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle indicates the nature of
the fortress in this case by its expression, “they made a work around themselves”;
[626]
that is, it was a circumvallation. Moreover, at Rochester the Danes would have
had to pass under the bridge (which is known to have existed both in Roman and
Saxon times) in order to get to the Boley Hill; and even if their ships were small
enough to do this they would hardly have been so foolish as to leave a bridge in
Page 172
their possible line of retreat. It is therefore far more likely that their fastness was
somewhere to the north or east of the city.[627]
It is a noteworthy fact that up till very recently the Boley Hill had a special
jurisdiction of its own, under an officer called the Baron of the Bully, appointed by
the Recorder of the city. This appears to date from a charter of Edward IV. in 1460,
which confirms the former liberties of the citizens of Rochester, and ordains that
they should keep two courts’ leet and a court of pie-powder annually on the Bullie
Hill. The anonymous historian of Rochester remarks that it was thought that the
baron represented the first officer under the governor of the castle before the court
leet was instituted, to whose care the security of the Bullie Hill was entrusted.[628]
This is probably much nearer the truth than the theory which would assign such
thoroughly feudal courts as those of court leet and pie-powder to an imaginary
community of Danes residing on the Boley Hill. When we compare the case of the
Boley Hill with the somewhat similar cases of Chester and Norwich castles we
shall see that what took place in Edward IV.’s reign was probably this: the separate
jurisdiction which had once belonged to an abandoned castle site was transferred to
the citizens of Rochester, but with the usual conservatism of mediæval legislation,
it was not absorbed in the jurisdiction of the city.
The value of Rochester at the time of the Survey had risen from 100s. to 20l.[629]
The increase of trade, arising from the security of traffic which was provided by
William’s castles on this important route, no doubt accounts in great measure for
this remarkable rise in value.
Rockingham, Northants (Fig. 29).—Here, also, the castle was clearly new in
William’s reign, as the manor was uninhabited (wasta) until a castle was built there
by his orders, in consequence of which the manor produced a small revenue at the
time of the Survey.[630] The motte, now in great part destroyed, was a large one,
being about 80 feet in diameter at the top; attached to it is a bailey of irregular but
rectilateral shape (determined by the ground) covering about 3 acres. There is
another large bailey to the S. covering 4 acres, formed by cutting a ditch across the
spur of the hill on which the castle stands, which is probably later. The first castle
would undoubtedly be of wood, and it is probable that King John was the builder of
the “exceeding fair and strong” keep which stood on the motte in Leland’s time,
[631]
as there is an entry in the Pipe Roll of the thirteenth year of his reign for 126l.
18s. 6d. for the work of the new tower.[632] This keep, if Mr Clark is correct, was
polygonal, with a timber stockade surrounding it.
Rockingham was only a small manor of one hide in Saxon times, though its Saxon
owner had sac and soke. It stands in a forest district, not near any of the great
somewhere to the north or east of the city.[627]
It is a noteworthy fact that up till very recently the Boley Hill had a special
jurisdiction of its own, under an officer called the Baron of the Bully, appointed by
the Recorder of the city. This appears to date from a charter of Edward IV. in 1460,
which confirms the former liberties of the citizens of Rochester, and ordains that
they should keep two courts’ leet and a court of pie-powder annually on the Bullie
Hill. The anonymous historian of Rochester remarks that it was thought that the
baron represented the first officer under the governor of the castle before the court
leet was instituted, to whose care the security of the Bullie Hill was entrusted.[628]
This is probably much nearer the truth than the theory which would assign such
thoroughly feudal courts as those of court leet and pie-powder to an imaginary
community of Danes residing on the Boley Hill. When we compare the case of the
Boley Hill with the somewhat similar cases of Chester and Norwich castles we
shall see that what took place in Edward IV.’s reign was probably this: the separate
jurisdiction which had once belonged to an abandoned castle site was transferred to
the citizens of Rochester, but with the usual conservatism of mediæval legislation,
it was not absorbed in the jurisdiction of the city.
The value of Rochester at the time of the Survey had risen from 100s. to 20l.[629]
The increase of trade, arising from the security of traffic which was provided by
William’s castles on this important route, no doubt accounts in great measure for
this remarkable rise in value.
Rockingham, Northants (Fig. 29).—Here, also, the castle was clearly new in
William’s reign, as the manor was uninhabited (wasta) until a castle was built there
by his orders, in consequence of which the manor produced a small revenue at the
time of the Survey.[630] The motte, now in great part destroyed, was a large one,
being about 80 feet in diameter at the top; attached to it is a bailey of irregular but
rectilateral shape (determined by the ground) covering about 3 acres. There is
another large bailey to the S. covering 4 acres, formed by cutting a ditch across the
spur of the hill on which the castle stands, which is probably later. The first castle
would undoubtedly be of wood, and it is probable that King John was the builder of
the “exceeding fair and strong” keep which stood on the motte in Leland’s time,
[631]
as there is an entry in the Pipe Roll of the thirteenth year of his reign for 126l.
18s. 6d. for the work of the new tower.[632] This keep, if Mr Clark is correct, was
polygonal, with a timber stockade surrounding it.
Rockingham was only a small manor of one hide in Saxon times, though its Saxon
owner had sac and soke. It stands in a forest district, not near any of the great
Page 173
ancient lines of road, and was probably built for a hunting seat.
The value of the manor had risen at the time of the Survey.[633]
During the Civil War, the motte of Rockingham was fortified in an elaborate
manner by the Parliamentarians, part of the defences being two wooden stockades:
[634]
an interesting instance of the use both of mottes and of wooden fortifications
in comparatively modern warfare. Only the north and west sides of this mount now
remain.
Rockingham, Northants.
Fig. 29.
The value of the manor had risen at the time of the Survey.[633]
During the Civil War, the motte of Rockingham was fortified in an elaborate
manner by the Parliamentarians, part of the defences being two wooden stockades:
[634]
an interesting instance of the use both of mottes and of wooden fortifications
in comparatively modern warfare. Only the north and west sides of this mount now
remain.
Rockingham, Northants.
Fig. 29.
Page 174
Old Sarum, Wilts (Fig. 30).—Sir Richard Colt Hoare printed in his Ancient
Wiltshire a document purporting to be an order from Alfred, “King of the English,”
to Leofric, “Earl of Wiltunshire,” to maintain the castle of Sarum, and add another
ditch to it.[635] The phraseology of the document suggests some doubts of its
genuineness, and though there would be nothing improbable in the theory that
Alfred reared the outer bank of the fortress, recent excavations have shown that the
place was occupied by the Romans, and therefore make it certain that its origin was
very much earlier than Alfred’s time. Moreover, the convergence of several Roman
roads at this spot suggests the probability of a Roman station,[636] while the form of
the enclosure renders an earlier origin likely. Domesday Book does not speak of
Salisbury as a burgus, and when the burgus of Old Sarum is mentioned in later
documents it appears to refer to a district lying at the foot of the Castle Hill, and
formerly enclosed with a wall.[637] Nor is it one of the boroughs of the Burghal
Hidage. But that Sarum was an important place in Saxon times is clear from the
fact that there was a mint there; and there is evidence of the existence of at least
four Saxon churches, as well as a hospital for lepers.[638]
For more exact knowledge as to the history of this ancient fortress we must wait till
the excavations now going on are finished, but in the meanwhile it seems probable
that the theory adopted by General Pitt-Rivers is correct. He regarded Old Sarum as
a British earthwork, with an inner castle and outer barbicans added by the
Normans. After building this castle in the midst of it the Normans appear to have
considered the outer and larger fortification too valuable to be given up to the
public, but retained it under the government of the castellan, and treated it as part of
the castle.
There is no mention of the castle of Salisbury in Domesday Book, but the bishop is
named as the owner of the manor.[639] The episcopal see of Sherborne was
transferred to Sarum in 1076 by Bishop Hermann, in accordance with the policy
adopted by William I. that episcopal sees should be removed from villages to
towns:[640] a measure which in itself is a testimony to the importance of Salisbury
at that time. The first mention of the castle is in the charter of Bishop Osmund,
1091.[641] The bishop was allowed to lay the foundations of his new cathedral
within the ancient fortress. As might be expected, friction soon arose between the
castellans and the ecclesiastics; the castellans claimed the custody of the gates, and
sometimes barred the canons, whose houses seem to have been outside the fortress,
from access to the church. These quarrels were ended eventually by the removal of
the cathedral to the new town of Salisbury at the foot of the hill.
Wiltshire a document purporting to be an order from Alfred, “King of the English,”
to Leofric, “Earl of Wiltunshire,” to maintain the castle of Sarum, and add another
ditch to it.[635] The phraseology of the document suggests some doubts of its
genuineness, and though there would be nothing improbable in the theory that
Alfred reared the outer bank of the fortress, recent excavations have shown that the
place was occupied by the Romans, and therefore make it certain that its origin was
very much earlier than Alfred’s time. Moreover, the convergence of several Roman
roads at this spot suggests the probability of a Roman station,[636] while the form of
the enclosure renders an earlier origin likely. Domesday Book does not speak of
Salisbury as a burgus, and when the burgus of Old Sarum is mentioned in later
documents it appears to refer to a district lying at the foot of the Castle Hill, and
formerly enclosed with a wall.[637] Nor is it one of the boroughs of the Burghal
Hidage. But that Sarum was an important place in Saxon times is clear from the
fact that there was a mint there; and there is evidence of the existence of at least
four Saxon churches, as well as a hospital for lepers.[638]
For more exact knowledge as to the history of this ancient fortress we must wait till
the excavations now going on are finished, but in the meanwhile it seems probable
that the theory adopted by General Pitt-Rivers is correct. He regarded Old Sarum as
a British earthwork, with an inner castle and outer barbicans added by the
Normans. After building this castle in the midst of it the Normans appear to have
considered the outer and larger fortification too valuable to be given up to the
public, but retained it under the government of the castellan, and treated it as part of
the castle.
There is no mention of the castle of Salisbury in Domesday Book, but the bishop is
named as the owner of the manor.[639] The episcopal see of Sherborne was
transferred to Sarum in 1076 by Bishop Hermann, in accordance with the policy
adopted by William I. that episcopal sees should be removed from villages to
towns:[640] a measure which in itself is a testimony to the importance of Salisbury
at that time. The first mention of the castle is in the charter of Bishop Osmund,
1091.[641] The bishop was allowed to lay the foundations of his new cathedral
within the ancient fortress. As might be expected, friction soon arose between the
castellans and the ecclesiastics; the castellans claimed the custody of the gates, and
sometimes barred the canons, whose houses seem to have been outside the fortress,
from access to the church. These quarrels were ended eventually by the removal of
the cathedral to the new town of Salisbury at the foot of the hill.
Page 175
Old Sarum, Wilts.
Fig. 30.
The position of the motte of Old Sarum is exceptional, as it stands in the centre of
the outer fortress. This must be owing to the position of the ancient vallum,
encircling the summit of one of those round, gradually sloping hills so common in
the chalk ranges, which made it necessary to place the motte in the centre, because
it was the highest part of the ground. The present excavations have shown that it is
in part artificial. But though the citadel was thus exceptionally placed, the principle
that communication with the outside must be maintained was carried out; the motte
had its own bailey, reaching to the outer vallum. The remains of three cross banks
still exist, two of which must have enclosed the magnum ballium which is spoken
of in the Pipe Rolls of Henry II. Probably this bailey occupied the south-eastern
third of the circle, which included the main gateway and the road to the citadel. In
the ditch on the north side of this enclosure, an arched passage, apparently of
Norman construction, was found in 1795; it was doubtless a postern or sallyport.
[642]
The main entrance is defended by a separate mount with its own ditch, which
is conjectured to be of later date than the vallum itself. The area of the top of the
motte is about 1¾ acres, a larger size than usual, but not larger than that of several
Fig. 30.
The position of the motte of Old Sarum is exceptional, as it stands in the centre of
the outer fortress. This must be owing to the position of the ancient vallum,
encircling the summit of one of those round, gradually sloping hills so common in
the chalk ranges, which made it necessary to place the motte in the centre, because
it was the highest part of the ground. The present excavations have shown that it is
in part artificial. But though the citadel was thus exceptionally placed, the principle
that communication with the outside must be maintained was carried out; the motte
had its own bailey, reaching to the outer vallum. The remains of three cross banks
still exist, two of which must have enclosed the magnum ballium which is spoken
of in the Pipe Rolls of Henry II. Probably this bailey occupied the south-eastern
third of the circle, which included the main gateway and the road to the citadel. In
the ditch on the north side of this enclosure, an arched passage, apparently of
Norman construction, was found in 1795; it was doubtless a postern or sallyport.
[642]
The main entrance is defended by a separate mount with its own ditch, which
is conjectured to be of later date than the vallum itself. The area of the top of the
motte is about 1¾ acres, a larger size than usual, but not larger than that of several
Page 176
other important castles.[643] In Leland’s time there was “much notable ruinous
building” still remaining of this fortress, and the excavations have already revealed
the lower portions of some splendid walls and gateways, and the basement of a late
Norman keep which presents some unusual features.[644] The earthworks, however,
bear witness to a former wooden stockade both to the citadel and the outer
enclosure. The top of the motte is still surrounded by high earthen banks.
As that great building bishop, Roger of Salisbury (1099-1139), is said to have
environed the castle with a new wall,[645] it would seem likely that he was the first
to transform the castle from wood to stone. But in Henry II.’s reign, we find an
entry in the Pipe Rolls for materials for enclosing the great bailey. An order for the
destruction of the castle had been issued by Stephen,[646] but it is doubtful whether
it was carried out. The sums spent by Henry II. on the castle do not amount to more
than £266, 12s. 5d., but the work recently excavated which appears to be of his date
is very extensive indeed.
The mention of a small wooden tower in Richard I.’s reign shows that some parts
of the defences were still of wood at that date.[647] Timber and rods for hoarding
the castle, that is, for the wooden machicolations placed at the tops of towers and
walls, were ordered at the end of John’s reign.[648]
It is not known when the castle was abandoned, but the list of castellans ceases in
the reign of Henry VI., when it was granted to the Stourton family.[649] Though the
earls of Salisbury were generally the custodians of Sarum Castle, except in the time
of Bishop Roger, it was always considered a royal castle, while the manor belonged
to the bishop.[650] It is remarked in the Hundred Rolls of Henry III., that no one
holds fiefs for ward in this castle, and that nothing belonged to the castle outside
the gate.[651]
The value of the manor of Salisbury appears to have risen very greatly since the
Conquest.[652]
Shrewsbury (Fig. 31).—The passage in Domesday Book relating to this town has
been called by Mr Round one of the most important in the Survey, and it is of
special importance for our present purpose. “The English burghers of Shrewsbury
say that it is very grievous to them that they have to pay all the geld which they
paid in King Edward’s time, although the castle of the earl occupies [the site of] 51
houses, and another 50 are uninhabited.”[653] It is incomprehensible how in the face
of such a clear statement as this, that the new castle occupied the site of fifty-one
houses, anyone should be found gravely to maintain that the motte at Shrewsbury
was an English work; for if the motte stood there before, what was the clearance of
building” still remaining of this fortress, and the excavations have already revealed
the lower portions of some splendid walls and gateways, and the basement of a late
Norman keep which presents some unusual features.[644] The earthworks, however,
bear witness to a former wooden stockade both to the citadel and the outer
enclosure. The top of the motte is still surrounded by high earthen banks.
As that great building bishop, Roger of Salisbury (1099-1139), is said to have
environed the castle with a new wall,[645] it would seem likely that he was the first
to transform the castle from wood to stone. But in Henry II.’s reign, we find an
entry in the Pipe Rolls for materials for enclosing the great bailey. An order for the
destruction of the castle had been issued by Stephen,[646] but it is doubtful whether
it was carried out. The sums spent by Henry II. on the castle do not amount to more
than £266, 12s. 5d., but the work recently excavated which appears to be of his date
is very extensive indeed.
The mention of a small wooden tower in Richard I.’s reign shows that some parts
of the defences were still of wood at that date.[647] Timber and rods for hoarding
the castle, that is, for the wooden machicolations placed at the tops of towers and
walls, were ordered at the end of John’s reign.[648]
It is not known when the castle was abandoned, but the list of castellans ceases in
the reign of Henry VI., when it was granted to the Stourton family.[649] Though the
earls of Salisbury were generally the custodians of Sarum Castle, except in the time
of Bishop Roger, it was always considered a royal castle, while the manor belonged
to the bishop.[650] It is remarked in the Hundred Rolls of Henry III., that no one
holds fiefs for ward in this castle, and that nothing belonged to the castle outside
the gate.[651]
The value of the manor of Salisbury appears to have risen very greatly since the
Conquest.[652]
Shrewsbury (Fig. 31).—The passage in Domesday Book relating to this town has
been called by Mr Round one of the most important in the Survey, and it is of
special importance for our present purpose. “The English burghers of Shrewsbury
say that it is very grievous to them that they have to pay all the geld which they
paid in King Edward’s time, although the castle of the earl occupies [the site of] 51
houses, and another 50 are uninhabited.”[653] It is incomprehensible how in the face
of such a clear statement as this, that the new castle occupied the site of fifty-one
houses, anyone should be found gravely to maintain that the motte at Shrewsbury
was an English work; for if the motte stood there before, what was the clearance of
Page 177
houses made for? The only answer could be to enlarge the bailey. But this is exactly
what the Norman would not wish to do; he would want only a small area for the
small force at his disposal for defence. Shrewsbury was certainly a borough (that is,
a fortified town) in Anglo-Saxon times; probably it was one of the towns fortified
by Ethelfleda, though it is not mentioned by name in the list of those towns
furnished by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.[654] Its ancient walls were certainly only
of earth and wood, for a writ of 1231 says that the old stockade and the old
bretasche of the old ditch of the town of Shrewsbury are to be granted to the
burghers for strengthening the new ditch.[655]
The castle of Shrewsbury was built on the neck of the peninsula on which the town
stands, and on the line of the town walls. The oval motte, which still remains,
stands, as usual, on the line of the castle banks, and slopes steeply down to the
Severn on one side. Its nearness to the river made it liable to damage by floods.
Thus we find Henry II. spending 5l. on the repair of the motte,[656] and in Edward
I.’s reign the abbot’s mill is accused of having caused damage to the extent of 60
marks to the motte. But the men of the hundred exonerate the mill, and from
another passage the blame appears to lie on the fall of a great wooden tower.[657]
This can hardly have been other than the wooden keep on the motte, and thus we
learn the interesting fact that as late as Edward I.’s reign the castle of Shrewsbury
had only a wooden keep. The present tower on the motte is the work of Telford.
what the Norman would not wish to do; he would want only a small area for the
small force at his disposal for defence. Shrewsbury was certainly a borough (that is,
a fortified town) in Anglo-Saxon times; probably it was one of the towns fortified
by Ethelfleda, though it is not mentioned by name in the list of those towns
furnished by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.[654] Its ancient walls were certainly only
of earth and wood, for a writ of 1231 says that the old stockade and the old
bretasche of the old ditch of the town of Shrewsbury are to be granted to the
burghers for strengthening the new ditch.[655]
The castle of Shrewsbury was built on the neck of the peninsula on which the town
stands, and on the line of the town walls. The oval motte, which still remains,
stands, as usual, on the line of the castle banks, and slopes steeply down to the
Severn on one side. Its nearness to the river made it liable to damage by floods.
Thus we find Henry II. spending 5l. on the repair of the motte,[656] and in Edward
I.’s reign the abbot’s mill is accused of having caused damage to the extent of 60
marks to the motte. But the men of the hundred exonerate the mill, and from
another passage the blame appears to lie on the fall of a great wooden tower.[657]
This can hardly have been other than the wooden keep on the motte, and thus we
learn the interesting fact that as late as Edward I.’s reign the castle of Shrewsbury
had only a wooden keep. The present tower on the motte is the work of Telford.
Page 178
Shrewsbury.
Page 179
Skipsea, Yorks.
Fig. 31.
The bailey of Shrewsbury Castle is roughly semilunar and covers nearly an acre.
The walls stand on banks, which shows that the first wall was of timber. The
Norman entrance arch seems to render it probable that it was in Henry II.’s reign
that stone walls were first substituted for a wooden stockade, and the Pipe Rolls
contain several entries of sums spent by Henry on this castle.[658] But the first
mention of stone in connection with the castle is in the reign of Henry III.[659] In
the reign of Edward I., a jarola or wooden wall, which had been raised above the
outer ditch in the time of the Barons’ War, was replaced by a stone wall.[660] This
Fig. 31.
The bailey of Shrewsbury Castle is roughly semilunar and covers nearly an acre.
The walls stand on banks, which shows that the first wall was of timber. The
Norman entrance arch seems to render it probable that it was in Henry II.’s reign
that stone walls were first substituted for a wooden stockade, and the Pipe Rolls
contain several entries of sums spent by Henry on this castle.[658] But the first
mention of stone in connection with the castle is in the reign of Henry III.[659] In
the reign of Edward I., a jarola or wooden wall, which had been raised above the
outer ditch in the time of the Barons’ War, was replaced by a stone wall.[660] This
Page 180
perhaps refers to the second bailey, now destroyed, which lay to the south of the
castle. In the time of Charles I. the castle still had a wooden palisade on the
counterscarp of the ditch.[661] The two large drum towers on the walls, and the
building between them, now converted into a modern house, belong to a much later
period than the walls. The area of the present castle, including the motte, is ⅘ of an
acre.
The value of the town of Shrewsbury had risen since the Conquest.
Skipsea, Yorks (Fig. 31).—There is no mention of this castle in Domesday Book,
but the chronicle of Meaux Abbey tells us that it was built by Drogo de Bevrère in
the reign of William I.[662] This chronicle is not indeed contemporary, but its most
recent editor regards it as based on some much earlier document. It was the key of
the great manor of Holderness, which the Conqueror had given to Drogo, but which
Drogo forfeited by murdering his wife, probably on this very site. The situation of
Skipsea is remarkable, but the original plan of Kenilworth Castle presented a close
parallel to it. The motte, which is 46 feet high, and ⅕ of an acre in space on top, is
separated from the bailey by a level space, which was formerly the Mere of
Skipsea, mentioned in documents of the 13th century, which reckon the take of eels
in this mere as a source of revenue.[663] The motte thus formed an island in the
mere, but as an additional defence—perhaps when the mere began to get shallow—
it was surrounded by a bank and ditch of its own. No masonry is to be seen on the
motte now, except a portion of a wing wall going down it. It is connected with its
bailey on the other side of the mere by a causeway which still exists. This bailey is
of very unusual size, covering 8¼ acres; its banks still retain the name of the Baile
Welts, and one of the entrances is called the Baile Gate. Skipsea Brough, which no
doubt represents the former burgus of Skipsea, is outside this enclosure, and has no
defences of its own remaining. A mandate of Henry III. in 1221, ordered the
complete destruction of this castle,[664] and it was no doubt after this that the earls
of Albemarle, who had succeeded to Drogo’s estates, removed their caput baroniæ
to Burstwick.[665]
The value of the manor of Cleeton, in which Skipsea lies, had fallen at Domesday.
[666]
Stafford (Fig. 32).—The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that Ethelfleda of Mercia
built the burh of Stafford; and consequently we find that both in King Edward and
King William’s time Stafford was a burgus, or fortified town. Florence of
Worcester, who is considered to have used a superior copy of the Chronicle as the
foundation of his work, says that Ethelfleda built an arx on the north bank of the
Sowe in 914. Arx, in our earlier chronicles, is often only a bombastic expression for
castle. In the time of Charles I. the castle still had a wooden palisade on the
counterscarp of the ditch.[661] The two large drum towers on the walls, and the
building between them, now converted into a modern house, belong to a much later
period than the walls. The area of the present castle, including the motte, is ⅘ of an
acre.
The value of the town of Shrewsbury had risen since the Conquest.
Skipsea, Yorks (Fig. 31).—There is no mention of this castle in Domesday Book,
but the chronicle of Meaux Abbey tells us that it was built by Drogo de Bevrère in
the reign of William I.[662] This chronicle is not indeed contemporary, but its most
recent editor regards it as based on some much earlier document. It was the key of
the great manor of Holderness, which the Conqueror had given to Drogo, but which
Drogo forfeited by murdering his wife, probably on this very site. The situation of
Skipsea is remarkable, but the original plan of Kenilworth Castle presented a close
parallel to it. The motte, which is 46 feet high, and ⅕ of an acre in space on top, is
separated from the bailey by a level space, which was formerly the Mere of
Skipsea, mentioned in documents of the 13th century, which reckon the take of eels
in this mere as a source of revenue.[663] The motte thus formed an island in the
mere, but as an additional defence—perhaps when the mere began to get shallow—
it was surrounded by a bank and ditch of its own. No masonry is to be seen on the
motte now, except a portion of a wing wall going down it. It is connected with its
bailey on the other side of the mere by a causeway which still exists. This bailey is
of very unusual size, covering 8¼ acres; its banks still retain the name of the Baile
Welts, and one of the entrances is called the Baile Gate. Skipsea Brough, which no
doubt represents the former burgus of Skipsea, is outside this enclosure, and has no
defences of its own remaining. A mandate of Henry III. in 1221, ordered the
complete destruction of this castle,[664] and it was no doubt after this that the earls
of Albemarle, who had succeeded to Drogo’s estates, removed their caput baroniæ
to Burstwick.[665]
The value of the manor of Cleeton, in which Skipsea lies, had fallen at Domesday.
[666]
Stafford (Fig. 32).—The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that Ethelfleda of Mercia
built the burh of Stafford; and consequently we find that both in King Edward and
King William’s time Stafford was a burgus, or fortified town. Florence of
Worcester, who is considered to have used a superior copy of the Chronicle as the
foundation of his work, says that Ethelfleda built an arx on the north bank of the
Sowe in 914. Arx, in our earlier chronicles, is often only a bombastic expression for
Page 181
a walled town, as, for example, when Ethelwerd says that Ethelfleda’s body was
buried in St Peter’s porch in the arx of Gloucester.[667] But the statement led many
later writers, such as Camden, to imagine that Ethelfleda built a tower in the town
of Stafford; and these imaginings have created such a tangled skein of mistake that
we must bespeak our readers’ patience while we attempt to unravel it.
Domesday Book only mentions Stafford Castle under the manor of Chebsey, a
possession of Henry de Ferrers. Its words are: “To this manor belonged the land of
Stafford, in which the king commanded a castle to be built, which is now
destroyed.”[668] Ordericus also says that the king placed a castle at Stafford, on his
return from his third visit to the north, in 1070.[669] Now the language of Domesday
appears to us to say very plainly that in the manorial rearrangement which followed
the Conquest some land was taken out of the manor of Chebsey, which lies
immediately to the south of the borough of Stafford, to furnish a site for a royal
castle.[670] It is exactly in this position that we now find a large oblong motte,
similar to the other mottes of the Conquest, and having the usual bailey attached to
it. It lies about a mile and a half south-west of the town, near the main road leading
into Shropshire.
The position was an important one, as the castles of Staffordshire formed a second
line of defence against the North Welsh, as well as a check to the great palatinate
earls of Shropshire.[671] The motte itself stood on high ground, commanding a view
of twenty or thirty miles round, and both Tutbury and Caus castles could be seen
from it. Between it and the town lies a stretch of flat ground which has evidently
been a swamp formerly, and which explains the distance of the castle from the
town; while the fact that it lies to the south of the Sowe shows that it has no
connection with Ethelfleda’s work. There is no dispute that this motte was the site
of the later baronial castle of Stafford, the castle besieged and taken in the Civil
War; the point we have to prove is that it was also the castle of Domesday Book.
[672]
buried in St Peter’s porch in the arx of Gloucester.[667] But the statement led many
later writers, such as Camden, to imagine that Ethelfleda built a tower in the town
of Stafford; and these imaginings have created such a tangled skein of mistake that
we must bespeak our readers’ patience while we attempt to unravel it.
Domesday Book only mentions Stafford Castle under the manor of Chebsey, a
possession of Henry de Ferrers. Its words are: “To this manor belonged the land of
Stafford, in which the king commanded a castle to be built, which is now
destroyed.”[668] Ordericus also says that the king placed a castle at Stafford, on his
return from his third visit to the north, in 1070.[669] Now the language of Domesday
appears to us to say very plainly that in the manorial rearrangement which followed
the Conquest some land was taken out of the manor of Chebsey, which lies
immediately to the south of the borough of Stafford, to furnish a site for a royal
castle.[670] It is exactly in this position that we now find a large oblong motte,
similar to the other mottes of the Conquest, and having the usual bailey attached to
it. It lies about a mile and a half south-west of the town, near the main road leading
into Shropshire.
The position was an important one, as the castles of Staffordshire formed a second
line of defence against the North Welsh, as well as a check to the great palatinate
earls of Shropshire.[671] The motte itself stood on high ground, commanding a view
of twenty or thirty miles round, and both Tutbury and Caus castles could be seen
from it. Between it and the town lies a stretch of flat ground which has evidently
been a swamp formerly, and which explains the distance of the castle from the
town; while the fact that it lies to the south of the Sowe shows that it has no
connection with Ethelfleda’s work. There is no dispute that this motte was the site
of the later baronial castle of Stafford, the castle besieged and taken in the Civil
War; the point we have to prove is that it was also the castle of Domesday Book.
[672]
Page 182
Stafford.
Stanton Holgate, Salop.
Stanton Holgate, Salop.
Page 183
Tamworth, Staffs.
Tickhill, Yorks.
Fig. 32.
If the first castle of Stafford was of earth and wood, like most of William’s castles,
there would be nothing wonderful in its having many destructions and many
resurrections. This castle was clearly a royal castle, from the language of
Tickhill, Yorks.
Fig. 32.
If the first castle of Stafford was of earth and wood, like most of William’s castles,
there would be nothing wonderful in its having many destructions and many
resurrections. This castle was clearly a royal castle, from the language of
Page 184
Domesday Book. As a royal castle it would be committed to the custody of the
sheriff, who appears to have been Robert de Stafford,[673] ancestor of the later
barons of Stafford, and brother of Ralph de Todeni, one of the great nobles of the
Conquest. Ralph joined the party of Robert Curthose against Henry I. in 1101, and
it is conjectured that his brother Robert was involved in the same rebellion, for in
that year we find the castle held for the king by William Pantolf, a trusty
companion of the Conqueror.[674] It is very unlikely that this second castle of
Stafford was on a different site from the one which had been destroyed; and an
ingenious conjecture of Mr Mazzinghi’s helps us to identify it with the castle on the
motte. In that castle, when it again emerges into light in the reign of Henry II., we
find a chapel dedicated to St Nicholas, which Robert de Stafford gives to the abbey
of Stone, and the king confirms the gift.[675] The worship of St Nicholas came
greatly into fashion after the translation of his remains from Asia Minor to Bari, in
Italy, in 1087. William Pantolf visited the shrine at Bari, got possession of some of
the relics of St Nicholas, and with great reverence deposited them in his own
church of Noron, in Normandy.[676] It is therefore extremely probable that Pantolf
founded the chapel of St Nicholas in Stafford Castle during the time that the castle
was in his custody.[677] But about the situation of the chapel of St Nicholas there is
no doubt, as its history is traceable down to the 16th century. It stood in the bailey
of the castle outside the town. This castle was therefore certainly identical with that
of Henry II., and most probably with that of Henry I. and William I.
So far, as we have seen, Stafford Castle was a royal castle. It is true that in the reign
of Henry II.’s predecessor, Stephen, we find the castle again in the hands of a
Robert de Stafford, who speaks of it as “castellum meum.”[678] Apparently the
troubles of Stephen’s reign afforded an opportunity to the family of the first
Norman sheriff to get the castle again into their hands. But under the stronger rule
of Henry II. the crown recovered its rights, and the gift of the chapel in the castle
evidently could not be made without the consent of the king. The gaol which Henry
II. caused to be made in Stafford was doubtless in this castle.[679] John repaired the
castle,[680] and ordered bretasches, or wooden towers, to be made in the forest of
Arundel, and sent to Stafford:[681] a statement which gives us an insight into the
nature of the castle in John’s reign. But it was the tendency of sheriffdoms to
become hereditary, as Dr Stubbs has pointed out,[682] and this seems to have been
the case at Stafford. In the reign of Edward I. a local jury decided that Nicholas,
Baron of Stafford, held the castle of Stafford from the king in capite, by the service
of three and a half knights’ fees;[683] and in 1348, Ralph, Baron of Stafford,
obtained a license from Edward III. “to fortify and crenellate his manses of Stafford
and Madlee with a wall of stone and lime, and to make castles thereof.”[684] The
indenture made with the mason a year previously is still extant, and states that the
sheriff, who appears to have been Robert de Stafford,[673] ancestor of the later
barons of Stafford, and brother of Ralph de Todeni, one of the great nobles of the
Conquest. Ralph joined the party of Robert Curthose against Henry I. in 1101, and
it is conjectured that his brother Robert was involved in the same rebellion, for in
that year we find the castle held for the king by William Pantolf, a trusty
companion of the Conqueror.[674] It is very unlikely that this second castle of
Stafford was on a different site from the one which had been destroyed; and an
ingenious conjecture of Mr Mazzinghi’s helps us to identify it with the castle on the
motte. In that castle, when it again emerges into light in the reign of Henry II., we
find a chapel dedicated to St Nicholas, which Robert de Stafford gives to the abbey
of Stone, and the king confirms the gift.[675] The worship of St Nicholas came
greatly into fashion after the translation of his remains from Asia Minor to Bari, in
Italy, in 1087. William Pantolf visited the shrine at Bari, got possession of some of
the relics of St Nicholas, and with great reverence deposited them in his own
church of Noron, in Normandy.[676] It is therefore extremely probable that Pantolf
founded the chapel of St Nicholas in Stafford Castle during the time that the castle
was in his custody.[677] But about the situation of the chapel of St Nicholas there is
no doubt, as its history is traceable down to the 16th century. It stood in the bailey
of the castle outside the town. This castle was therefore certainly identical with that
of Henry II., and most probably with that of Henry I. and William I.
So far, as we have seen, Stafford Castle was a royal castle. It is true that in the reign
of Henry II.’s predecessor, Stephen, we find the castle again in the hands of a
Robert de Stafford, who speaks of it as “castellum meum.”[678] Apparently the
troubles of Stephen’s reign afforded an opportunity to the family of the first
Norman sheriff to get the castle again into their hands. But under the stronger rule
of Henry II. the crown recovered its rights, and the gift of the chapel in the castle
evidently could not be made without the consent of the king. The gaol which Henry
II. caused to be made in Stafford was doubtless in this castle.[679] John repaired the
castle,[680] and ordered bretasches, or wooden towers, to be made in the forest of
Arundel, and sent to Stafford:[681] a statement which gives us an insight into the
nature of the castle in John’s reign. But it was the tendency of sheriffdoms to
become hereditary, as Dr Stubbs has pointed out,[682] and this seems to have been
the case at Stafford. In the reign of Edward I. a local jury decided that Nicholas,
Baron of Stafford, held the castle of Stafford from the king in capite, by the service
of three and a half knights’ fees;[683] and in 1348, Ralph, Baron of Stafford,
obtained a license from Edward III. “to fortify and crenellate his manses of Stafford
and Madlee with a wall of stone and lime, and to make castles thereof.”[684] The
indenture made with the mason a year previously is still extant, and states that the
Page 185
castle is to be built upon the moële in the manor, whereby the motte is evidently
meant.[685] Besides, the deed is dated “at the Chastel of Stafford,” showing that the
new castle of stone and lime was on the site of an already existing castle.
We might spin out further evidence of the identity of the site of William’s castle
with that of the present one, from the name of the manor of Castel, which grew up
around it, displacing the equally suggestive name of Montville, which we find in
Domesday Book.[686] Against the existence of another castle in the town we have
the absence of any such castle in William Smith’s plan of 1588; the silence of
Speed and Leland, who only mention the present castle;[687] and the statement of
Plot, who wrote about the end of the 17th century, that “he could not hear any
footsteps remaining” of a castle in Stafford.[688] We may therefore safely conclude
that it was only due to the fancy of some Elizabethan antiquary that in an old map
of that time a spot to the south-west of the town is marked with the inscription,
“The old castle, built by Edward the Elder, and in memorie fortified with reel
walls.”[689]
The value of Stafford town had risen at the time of the Survey, as the king had 7l.
for his share, which would make the whole revenue to king and earl 10l. 10s., as
against 9l. before the Conquest. The property of the canons of Stafford had risen
from £1 to £3.[690]
The area of the bailey is 1⅗ acres.
Stamford, Lincoln and Northants.—This was one of the boroughs fortified by
Edward the Elder, and consequently we find it a royal burgus at the time of the
Survey. But Edward’s borough, the Chronicle tells us, was on the south side of the
Welland; the northern borough, on the other side, may have been the work of the
Danes, as Stamford was one of the towns of the Danish confederacy of the Five
Boroughs. The Norman castle and its motte are on the north side, and five
mansiones were destroyed for the site.[691] There is at present no appearance of
masonry on the motte, which is partly cut away, and what remains of the castle wall
is of the 13th century. It is therefore probable that the turris, or keep, which
surrendered to Henry II. in 1153, was of wood.[692] Henry gave the castle to
Richard Humet, constable of Normandy, in 1155.[693] It was a very exceptional
thing that Henry should thus alienate a royal castle, and special circumstances must
have moved him to this act. The castle was destroyed in Richard III.’s time, and the
materials given to the convent of the Carmelite Friars. It appears to have been
within the town walls, with a bailey stretching down to the river; this bailey is
quadrangular. An inquisition of 1341 states that “the site of the castle contains 2
acres.”[694]
meant.[685] Besides, the deed is dated “at the Chastel of Stafford,” showing that the
new castle of stone and lime was on the site of an already existing castle.
We might spin out further evidence of the identity of the site of William’s castle
with that of the present one, from the name of the manor of Castel, which grew up
around it, displacing the equally suggestive name of Montville, which we find in
Domesday Book.[686] Against the existence of another castle in the town we have
the absence of any such castle in William Smith’s plan of 1588; the silence of
Speed and Leland, who only mention the present castle;[687] and the statement of
Plot, who wrote about the end of the 17th century, that “he could not hear any
footsteps remaining” of a castle in Stafford.[688] We may therefore safely conclude
that it was only due to the fancy of some Elizabethan antiquary that in an old map
of that time a spot to the south-west of the town is marked with the inscription,
“The old castle, built by Edward the Elder, and in memorie fortified with reel
walls.”[689]
The value of Stafford town had risen at the time of the Survey, as the king had 7l.
for his share, which would make the whole revenue to king and earl 10l. 10s., as
against 9l. before the Conquest. The property of the canons of Stafford had risen
from £1 to £3.[690]
The area of the bailey is 1⅗ acres.
Stamford, Lincoln and Northants.—This was one of the boroughs fortified by
Edward the Elder, and consequently we find it a royal burgus at the time of the
Survey. But Edward’s borough, the Chronicle tells us, was on the south side of the
Welland; the northern borough, on the other side, may have been the work of the
Danes, as Stamford was one of the towns of the Danish confederacy of the Five
Boroughs. The Norman castle and its motte are on the north side, and five
mansiones were destroyed for the site.[691] There is at present no appearance of
masonry on the motte, which is partly cut away, and what remains of the castle wall
is of the 13th century. It is therefore probable that the turris, or keep, which
surrendered to Henry II. in 1153, was of wood.[692] Henry gave the castle to
Richard Humet, constable of Normandy, in 1155.[693] It was a very exceptional
thing that Henry should thus alienate a royal castle, and special circumstances must
have moved him to this act. The castle was destroyed in Richard III.’s time, and the
materials given to the convent of the Carmelite Friars. It appears to have been
within the town walls, with a bailey stretching down to the river; this bailey is
quadrangular. An inquisition of 1341 states that “the site of the castle contains 2
acres.”[694]
Page 186
Stamford had risen enormously in value since the Conquest. “In King Edward’s
time it paid 15l.; now, it pays for feorm 50l., and for the whole of the king’s dues it
now pays 28l.”[695]
Stanton, Stanton Long, in Shropshire (Fig. 32).—At the time of the Survey, the
Norman Helgot was Lord of Corve Dale, and had his castle at Stanton.[696] The
castle was afterwards known as Helgot’s Castle, corrupted into Castle Holdgate.
The site has been much altered by the building of a farmhouse in the bailey, but the
motte still exists, high and steep, with a ditch round about half its circumference;
there are some traces of masonry on the top. One side of the bailey ditch is still
visible, and a mural tower of Edwardian style has been incorporated with the
farmhouse. The exact area cannot now be calculated, but it can hardly have
exceeded 2½ acres. The manor of Stanton was an agglomeration of four small
manors which had been held by different proprietors in Saxon times, so it was not
the centre of a soke. The value of the manor had risen.
Tamworth, Stafford (Fig. 32).—Although Tamworth Castle is not mentioned in
Domesday Book, it must have been in existence in the 11th century, as a charter of
the Empress Matilda mentions that Robert le Despenser, brother of Urso d’Abetot,
had formerly held this castle;[697] now Urso d’Abetot was a contemporary of the
Conqueror, and so must his brother have been. Tamworth Castle stands on a motte
50 feet high, and 100 feet in diameter across the top, according to Mr Clark. It is an
interesting instance of what is commonly called a shell keep, with a stone tower;
one of the instances which suggest that the shell did not belong to a different type
of castle to the tower, but was simply a ward wall, which probably at first enclosed
a wooden tower. The tower and wall (or chemise) are probably late Norman, but the
remarkable wing wall (there is only one, instead of the usual two) which runs down
the motte is entirely of herring-bone work, and may be as old as Henry I.’s time.
[698]
A bailey court, which cannot have been large, lay between the motte and the
river Tame, but its outline cannot now be determined, owing to the encroachments
of buildings. Tamworth is about a mile from the great Roman road known as
Watling Street. We have already referred to the fortification of the burh here by
Ethelfleda;[699] probably she only restored walls or banks which had existed before
round this ancient capital of Mercia.
The value of the manor of Tamworth is not given in Domesday Book.
Tickhill, Yorks (Fig. 32).—The name Tickhill does not occur in Domesday, but it
is covered by that of Dadesley, the manor in which this castle was built: a name
which appears to have gone out of use when the hill was thrown up. There can be
no doubt that it was the castle of Roger de Busli, one of the most richly endowed of
time it paid 15l.; now, it pays for feorm 50l., and for the whole of the king’s dues it
now pays 28l.”[695]
Stanton, Stanton Long, in Shropshire (Fig. 32).—At the time of the Survey, the
Norman Helgot was Lord of Corve Dale, and had his castle at Stanton.[696] The
castle was afterwards known as Helgot’s Castle, corrupted into Castle Holdgate.
The site has been much altered by the building of a farmhouse in the bailey, but the
motte still exists, high and steep, with a ditch round about half its circumference;
there are some traces of masonry on the top. One side of the bailey ditch is still
visible, and a mural tower of Edwardian style has been incorporated with the
farmhouse. The exact area cannot now be calculated, but it can hardly have
exceeded 2½ acres. The manor of Stanton was an agglomeration of four small
manors which had been held by different proprietors in Saxon times, so it was not
the centre of a soke. The value of the manor had risen.
Tamworth, Stafford (Fig. 32).—Although Tamworth Castle is not mentioned in
Domesday Book, it must have been in existence in the 11th century, as a charter of
the Empress Matilda mentions that Robert le Despenser, brother of Urso d’Abetot,
had formerly held this castle;[697] now Urso d’Abetot was a contemporary of the
Conqueror, and so must his brother have been. Tamworth Castle stands on a motte
50 feet high, and 100 feet in diameter across the top, according to Mr Clark. It is an
interesting instance of what is commonly called a shell keep, with a stone tower;
one of the instances which suggest that the shell did not belong to a different type
of castle to the tower, but was simply a ward wall, which probably at first enclosed
a wooden tower. The tower and wall (or chemise) are probably late Norman, but the
remarkable wing wall (there is only one, instead of the usual two) which runs down
the motte is entirely of herring-bone work, and may be as old as Henry I.’s time.
[698]
A bailey court, which cannot have been large, lay between the motte and the
river Tame, but its outline cannot now be determined, owing to the encroachments
of buildings. Tamworth is about a mile from the great Roman road known as
Watling Street. We have already referred to the fortification of the burh here by
Ethelfleda;[699] probably she only restored walls or banks which had existed before
round this ancient capital of Mercia.
The value of the manor of Tamworth is not given in Domesday Book.
Tickhill, Yorks (Fig. 32).—The name Tickhill does not occur in Domesday, but it
is covered by that of Dadesley, the manor in which this castle was built: a name
which appears to have gone out of use when the hill was thrown up. There can be
no doubt that it was the castle of Roger de Busli, one of the most richly endowed of
Page 187
William’s tenants-in-chief, as it is mentioned as such by Ordericus.[700] He calls it
the castle of Blythe, a name which it probably received because Blythe was the
most important place near, and Dadesley was so insignificant. Florence of
Worcester, when describing the same events, calls the castle Tykehill. The remains
furnish an excellent specimen of the earthworks of this class. The motte is 75 feet
high, and its area on top about 80 feet in diameter; about a third of it is natural, the
rest artificial. Only a slight trace remains of the ditch separating it from the oval
bailey, which covers 2 acres. The foundations of a decagonal tower, built in the
reign of Henry II., are still to be seen on the top.[701] The bailey retains its banks on
the scarp, surmounted now by a stone curtain, which, along with the older part of
the gatehouse, is possibly of the time of Henry I.[702] The outer ditch is about 30
feet broad, and is still full of water in parts. On the counterscarp a portion of the
bank remains. This bank carried a wooden palisade when the castle was besieged
by Cromwell.[703] The site is not naturally defensible; it is about three and a half
miles from the northern Roman road.
The value of the manor of Dadesley had risen at the time of the Survey.[704] The
stone buildings which once stood in the bailey have been transformed into a
modern house.
Tonbridge, Kent (Fig. 33).—This notable castle, the first English seat of the
powerful family who afterwards took their name from Clare in Suffolk, is first
mentioned in 1088, when it was stormed by William Rufus and his English
subjects, who had adopted his cause against the supporters of his brother Robert.
[705]
The castle was one of great importance at several crises in English history; but
it began as a wooden keep on a motte, and the stone shell which now crowns this
motte cannot be earlier than the 12th century, and judging by its buttresses, is much
later. The castle stands outside the town of Tonbridge, separated from it by moats
which were fed from the river. The smaller bailey of 1½ acres, probably the
original one, is square, with rounded corners. The palatial gatehouse, of the 13th or
14th century, is a marked feature of this castle. There appears to have been only one
wing wall down the motte to the bailey, but a second one was not needed, owing to
the position of the motte with regard to the river.
The value of the manor of Hadlow, in which Tonbridge lay, was stationary at
Domesday.[706] It belonged to the see of Canterbury, and was held by Richard de
Bienfaite, ancestor of the House of Clare, as a tenant of the see.
the castle of Blythe, a name which it probably received because Blythe was the
most important place near, and Dadesley was so insignificant. Florence of
Worcester, when describing the same events, calls the castle Tykehill. The remains
furnish an excellent specimen of the earthworks of this class. The motte is 75 feet
high, and its area on top about 80 feet in diameter; about a third of it is natural, the
rest artificial. Only a slight trace remains of the ditch separating it from the oval
bailey, which covers 2 acres. The foundations of a decagonal tower, built in the
reign of Henry II., are still to be seen on the top.[701] The bailey retains its banks on
the scarp, surmounted now by a stone curtain, which, along with the older part of
the gatehouse, is possibly of the time of Henry I.[702] The outer ditch is about 30
feet broad, and is still full of water in parts. On the counterscarp a portion of the
bank remains. This bank carried a wooden palisade when the castle was besieged
by Cromwell.[703] The site is not naturally defensible; it is about three and a half
miles from the northern Roman road.
The value of the manor of Dadesley had risen at the time of the Survey.[704] The
stone buildings which once stood in the bailey have been transformed into a
modern house.
Tonbridge, Kent (Fig. 33).—This notable castle, the first English seat of the
powerful family who afterwards took their name from Clare in Suffolk, is first
mentioned in 1088, when it was stormed by William Rufus and his English
subjects, who had adopted his cause against the supporters of his brother Robert.
[705]
The castle was one of great importance at several crises in English history; but
it began as a wooden keep on a motte, and the stone shell which now crowns this
motte cannot be earlier than the 12th century, and judging by its buttresses, is much
later. The castle stands outside the town of Tonbridge, separated from it by moats
which were fed from the river. The smaller bailey of 1½ acres, probably the
original one, is square, with rounded corners. The palatial gatehouse, of the 13th or
14th century, is a marked feature of this castle. There appears to have been only one
wing wall down the motte to the bailey, but a second one was not needed, owing to
the position of the motte with regard to the river.
The value of the manor of Hadlow, in which Tonbridge lay, was stationary at
Domesday.[706] It belonged to the see of Canterbury, and was held by Richard de
Bienfaite, ancestor of the House of Clare, as a tenant of the see.
Page 188
Tonbridge, Kent.
Page 189
Totnes, Devon.
Fig. 33.
Totnes, Devonshire (Fig. 33).—The castle of Totnes belonged to Judhael, one of
King William’s men, who has been already mentioned under Barnstaple. This castle
is not noticed in Domesday Book, but its existence in the 11th century is made
certain by a charter of Judhael’s giving land below his castle to the Benedictine
priory which he had founded at Totnes: a charter certainly of the Conqueror’s reign,
as it contains a prayer for the health of King William.[707] The site was an important
one; Totnes had been one of the boroughs of the Burghal Hidage; it was at the head
of a navigable river, and was the point where the ancient Roman (?) road from
Devonshire to Bath and the North began its course.[708] The motte of the castle is
very high and precipitous, and has a shell on top, which is perfect up to the
battlements, and appears to be rather late Norman. This keep is entered in a very
unusual way, by a flight of steps leading up from the bailey, deeply sunk in the
upper part into the face of the motte, so as to form a highly defensible passage. Two
wing walls run down to the walls of the bailey. There is at present no ditch between
the motte and the bailey. The whole area of the work is ¾ acre. It stands in a very
Fig. 33.
Totnes, Devonshire (Fig. 33).—The castle of Totnes belonged to Judhael, one of
King William’s men, who has been already mentioned under Barnstaple. This castle
is not noticed in Domesday Book, but its existence in the 11th century is made
certain by a charter of Judhael’s giving land below his castle to the Benedictine
priory which he had founded at Totnes: a charter certainly of the Conqueror’s reign,
as it contains a prayer for the health of King William.[707] The site was an important
one; Totnes had been one of the boroughs of the Burghal Hidage; it was at the head
of a navigable river, and was the point where the ancient Roman (?) road from
Devonshire to Bath and the North began its course.[708] The motte of the castle is
very high and precipitous, and has a shell on top, which is perfect up to the
battlements, and appears to be rather late Norman. This keep is entered in a very
unusual way, by a flight of steps leading up from the bailey, deeply sunk in the
upper part into the face of the motte, so as to form a highly defensible passage. Two
wing walls run down to the walls of the bailey. There is at present no ditch between
the motte and the bailey. The whole area of the work is ¾ acre. It stands in a very
Page 190
defensible situation on a spur of hill overlooking the town, and lies just outside the
ancient walls.
The value of the town of Totnes had risen at Domesday.[709]
The Tower of London.—Here, as at Colchester, there is no motte, because the
original design was that there should be a stone keep. Ordericus tells us that after
the submission of London to William the Conqueror he stayed for a few days in
Barking while certain fortifications in the city were being finished, to curb the
excitability of the huge and fierce population.[710] What these fortifications were
we shall never know, but we may imagine they were earthworks of the usual
Norman kind.[711] Certainly the great keep familiarly known as the White Tower
was not built in a few days; it does not appear to have been even begun till some
eleven years later, when Gundulf, a monk celebrated for his architectural skill, was
appointed to the see of Rochester. Gundulf was the architect of the Tower,[712] and
it must therefore have been built during his episcopate, which lasted from 1077-
1108.[713] In 1097 we read that “many shires which owe works to London were
greatly oppressed in making the wall (weall) round the Tower.”[714] This does not
necessarily mean a stone wall, but probably it does, as Gundulf’s tower can hardly
have been without a bank and palisade to its bailey.
As the Tower in its general plan represents the type of keep which was the model
for all succeeding stone keeps up to the end of the 12th century, it seems
appropriate here to give some description of its main features. Its resemblance to
the keep of Colchester, which also was a work of William I.’s reign, is very
striking.[715] Colchester is the larger of the two, but the Tower exceeds in size all
other English keeps, measuring 118 × 98 feet at its base.[716] As it has been altered
or added to in every century, its details are peculiarly difficult to trace, especially as
the ordinary visitor is not allowed to make a thorough examination.[717] Thus much,
however, is certain: neither of the two present entrances on the ground floor is
original; the first entrance was on the first floor, some 25 feet above the ground, at
the S.W. angle of the south side, and has been transformed into a window. There
was no entrance to the basement, but it was only reached by the grand staircase,
which is enclosed in a round turret at the N.E. angle. There were two other stairs at
the N.W. and S.W. angles, but these only began on the first floor. The basement is
divided by a cross wall, which is carried up to the third storey. There are at present
three storeys above the basement. The basement, which is now vaulted in brick,
was not originally vaulted at all, except the south-eastern chamber, under the crypt
of the chapel.
ancient walls.
The value of the town of Totnes had risen at Domesday.[709]
The Tower of London.—Here, as at Colchester, there is no motte, because the
original design was that there should be a stone keep. Ordericus tells us that after
the submission of London to William the Conqueror he stayed for a few days in
Barking while certain fortifications in the city were being finished, to curb the
excitability of the huge and fierce population.[710] What these fortifications were
we shall never know, but we may imagine they were earthworks of the usual
Norman kind.[711] Certainly the great keep familiarly known as the White Tower
was not built in a few days; it does not appear to have been even begun till some
eleven years later, when Gundulf, a monk celebrated for his architectural skill, was
appointed to the see of Rochester. Gundulf was the architect of the Tower,[712] and
it must therefore have been built during his episcopate, which lasted from 1077-
1108.[713] In 1097 we read that “many shires which owe works to London were
greatly oppressed in making the wall (weall) round the Tower.”[714] This does not
necessarily mean a stone wall, but probably it does, as Gundulf’s tower can hardly
have been without a bank and palisade to its bailey.
As the Tower in its general plan represents the type of keep which was the model
for all succeeding stone keeps up to the end of the 12th century, it seems
appropriate here to give some description of its main features. Its resemblance to
the keep of Colchester, which also was a work of William I.’s reign, is very
striking.[715] Colchester is the larger of the two, but the Tower exceeds in size all
other English keeps, measuring 118 × 98 feet at its base.[716] As it has been altered
or added to in every century, its details are peculiarly difficult to trace, especially as
the ordinary visitor is not allowed to make a thorough examination.[717] Thus much,
however, is certain: neither of the two present entrances on the ground floor is
original; the first entrance was on the first floor, some 25 feet above the ground, at
the S.W. angle of the south side, and has been transformed into a window. There
was no entrance to the basement, but it was only reached by the grand staircase,
which is enclosed in a round turret at the N.E. angle. There were two other stairs at
the N.W. and S.W. angles, but these only began on the first floor. The basement is
divided by a cross wall, which is carried up to the third storey. There are at present
three storeys above the basement. The basement, which is now vaulted in brick,
was not originally vaulted at all, except the south-eastern chamber, under the crypt
of the chapel.
Page 191
The first floor, like the basement, is divided into three rooms, as, in addition to the
usual cross wall, the Tower has a branch cross wall to its eastern section, which is
carried up to the top. This floor was formerly only lit by loopholes; Clark states that
there were two fireplaces in the east wall, but there is some doubt about this. The
S.E. room contained the crypt of the chapel, which was vaulted. It is commonly
supposed that the rooms on the first floor were occupied by the guards of the keep.
In the account which we have quoted from Lambert of Ardres, the first floor is said
to be the lord’s habitation, and the upper storey that of the guards; so that there
seems to have been no invariable rule.[718] No special room was allotted to the
kitchen, as in time of peace at any rate, the lord of the castle and all his retainers
took their meals in a great hall in the bailey of the castle.[719] The ceilings of the
two larger rooms of this floor are now supported by posts, an arrangement which is
probably modern, as the present posts certainly are.[720]
The second floor contains the chapel, which in many keeps is merely an oratory,
but is here of unusual size. Its eastern end is carried out in a round apse, a feature
which is also found at Colchester, but is not usual in Norman keeps.[721] It is a
singularly fine specimen of an early Norman chapel. This floor probably contained
the royal apartments; it was lighted by windows, not loops. Both the eastern and
western rooms had fireplaces; the eastern room goes by the name of the Banqueting
Chamber.
The third storey is on a level with the triforium of the chapel.[722] This triforium is
continued all round the keep as a mural passage, and it has windows only slightly
smaller than those of the floor below. These mural galleries are found in most
important keeps. As their windows were of larger size than the loops which lit the
lower floors, it is possible that they may have been used for defence, either for
throwing down missiles or for shooting with bows and arrows. But no near aim
could be taken without a downward splay to the window, and the bows of the 11th
and 12th centuries were incapable of a long aim. A plausible theory is that they
were intended for the march of sentinels.[723]
The masonry of the Tower is of Kentish rag, with ashlar quoins. In mediæval times
it had a forebuilding, with a round stair turret, which is shown in some old views;
but it may reasonably be doubted whether this was an original feature.
As regards the ground plan of the castle as a whole, it is now concentric, but was
not so originally. The Tower was certainly placed in the S.E. angle of the Roman
walls of London, and very near the east wall, portions of which have been
discovered.[724] The conversion of the castle into one of the concentric type was the
work of later centuries, and the history of its development has still to be traced.[725]
usual cross wall, the Tower has a branch cross wall to its eastern section, which is
carried up to the top. This floor was formerly only lit by loopholes; Clark states that
there were two fireplaces in the east wall, but there is some doubt about this. The
S.E. room contained the crypt of the chapel, which was vaulted. It is commonly
supposed that the rooms on the first floor were occupied by the guards of the keep.
In the account which we have quoted from Lambert of Ardres, the first floor is said
to be the lord’s habitation, and the upper storey that of the guards; so that there
seems to have been no invariable rule.[718] No special room was allotted to the
kitchen, as in time of peace at any rate, the lord of the castle and all his retainers
took their meals in a great hall in the bailey of the castle.[719] The ceilings of the
two larger rooms of this floor are now supported by posts, an arrangement which is
probably modern, as the present posts certainly are.[720]
The second floor contains the chapel, which in many keeps is merely an oratory,
but is here of unusual size. Its eastern end is carried out in a round apse, a feature
which is also found at Colchester, but is not usual in Norman keeps.[721] It is a
singularly fine specimen of an early Norman chapel. This floor probably contained
the royal apartments; it was lighted by windows, not loops. Both the eastern and
western rooms had fireplaces; the eastern room goes by the name of the Banqueting
Chamber.
The third storey is on a level with the triforium of the chapel.[722] This triforium is
continued all round the keep as a mural passage, and it has windows only slightly
smaller than those of the floor below. These mural galleries are found in most
important keeps. As their windows were of larger size than the loops which lit the
lower floors, it is possible that they may have been used for defence, either for
throwing down missiles or for shooting with bows and arrows. But no near aim
could be taken without a downward splay to the window, and the bows of the 11th
and 12th centuries were incapable of a long aim. A plausible theory is that they
were intended for the march of sentinels.[723]
The masonry of the Tower is of Kentish rag, with ashlar quoins. In mediæval times
it had a forebuilding, with a round stair turret, which is shown in some old views;
but it may reasonably be doubted whether this was an original feature.
As regards the ground plan of the castle as a whole, it is now concentric, but was
not so originally. The Tower was certainly placed in the S.E. angle of the Roman
walls of London, and very near the east wall, portions of which have been
discovered.[724] The conversion of the castle into one of the concentric type was the
work of later centuries, and the history of its development has still to be traced.[725]
Page 192
Trematon, Cornwall (Fig. 34).—“The Count [of Mortain] has a castle there and a
market, rendering 101 shillings.”[726] Two Cornish castles are mentioned in
Domesday, and both of them are only on the borders of that wild Keltic country;
but while Launceston is inland, Trematon guards an inlet on the south coast. The
position of this castle is extremely strong by nature, at the end of a high headland;
on the extreme point of this promontory the motte is placed. It carries a well-
preserved shell wall, which may be of Norman date, from the plain round arch of
the entrance.[727] It has been separated by a ditch from the bailey, but the steepness
of the hill rendered it unnecessary to carry this ditch all round. The bailey, 1 acre in
extent, in which a modern house is situated, still has an entrance gate of the 13th
century, and part of a mediæval wall. A second bailey, now a rose-garden, has been
added at a later period. In spite of the establishment of a castle and a market the
value of the manor of Trematon had gone down at the time of the Survey, which
may be accounted for by the fact that there were only ten ploughs where there
ought to have been twenty-four. It was only a small manor, and no burgus is
mentioned.
market, rendering 101 shillings.”[726] Two Cornish castles are mentioned in
Domesday, and both of them are only on the borders of that wild Keltic country;
but while Launceston is inland, Trematon guards an inlet on the south coast. The
position of this castle is extremely strong by nature, at the end of a high headland;
on the extreme point of this promontory the motte is placed. It carries a well-
preserved shell wall, which may be of Norman date, from the plain round arch of
the entrance.[727] It has been separated by a ditch from the bailey, but the steepness
of the hill rendered it unnecessary to carry this ditch all round. The bailey, 1 acre in
extent, in which a modern house is situated, still has an entrance gate of the 13th
century, and part of a mediæval wall. A second bailey, now a rose-garden, has been
added at a later period. In spite of the establishment of a castle and a market the
value of the manor of Trematon had gone down at the time of the Survey, which
may be accounted for by the fact that there were only ten ploughs where there
ought to have been twenty-four. It was only a small manor, and no burgus is
mentioned.
Page 193
Trematon, Cornwall.
Page 194
Tutbury, Staffs.
Fig. 34.
Tutbury, Staffordshire (Fig. 34).—In the magnificent earthworks of this castle, and
the strength of its site, we probably see a testimony to the ability of Hugh
d’Avranches; for we learn from Ordericus that in 1070 William I. gave to Henry de
Ferrers the castle of Tutbury, which had belonged to Hugh d’Avranches,[728] to
whom the king then gave the more dangerous but more honourable post of the
earldom of Chester. Domesday Book simply states that Henry de Ferrers has the
castle of Tutbury, and that there are forty-two men living by their merchandise
alone in the borough round the castle.[729]
At Tutbury the keep was placed on an artificial motte, which itself stood on a hill of
natural rock, defended on the N.W. side by precipices. There is no trace of any
ditch between the motte and bailey. At present there is only the ruin of a
comparatively modern tower on the motte, but Shaw states that there was formerly
Fig. 34.
Tutbury, Staffordshire (Fig. 34).—In the magnificent earthworks of this castle, and
the strength of its site, we probably see a testimony to the ability of Hugh
d’Avranches; for we learn from Ordericus that in 1070 William I. gave to Henry de
Ferrers the castle of Tutbury, which had belonged to Hugh d’Avranches,[728] to
whom the king then gave the more dangerous but more honourable post of the
earldom of Chester. Domesday Book simply states that Henry de Ferrers has the
castle of Tutbury, and that there are forty-two men living by their merchandise
alone in the borough round the castle.[729]
At Tutbury the keep was placed on an artificial motte, which itself stood on a hill of
natural rock, defended on the N.W. side by precipices. There is no trace of any
ditch between the motte and bailey. At present there is only the ruin of a
comparatively modern tower on the motte, but Shaw states that there was formerly
Page 195
a stone keep.[730] A description of Elizabeth’s reign says, “The castle is situated
upon a round hill, and is circumvironed with a strong wall of astilar [ashlar]
stone.... The king’s lodging therein is fair and strong, bounded and knit to the wall.
And a fair stage hall of timber, of a great length. Four chambers of timber, and
other houses well upholden, within the walls of the castle.”[731] The king’s lodging
will no doubt be the closed gatehouse; the custom of erecting gatehouse palaces
arose as early as the 13th century. This account shows how many of the castle
buildings were still of timber in Elizabeth’s reign.
The bailey is quadrant-shaped, and has the motte at its apex. Its area is 2½ acres. Its
most remarkable feature is that it still retains its ancient banks on the east side and
part of the south, and the more recent curtain is carried on top of them. This curtain
is of the same masonry as the three remaining towers, which are of excellent
Perpendicular work, and are generally attributed to John of Gaunt, who held this
castle after his marriage with Blanche of Lancaster. The first castle was
undoubtedly of wood; it was pulled down by order of Henry I. in 1175,[732] nor
does there seem to have been any resurrection till the time of Earl Thomas of
Lancaster at the earliest.
Though Tutbury was the centre of the Honour of Ferrers, it does not seem to have
been even a manor in Saxon times. The borough was probably the creation of the
castellan, who also founded the Priory.[733] There is no statement in the Survey
from which we can learn the value T. R. E., but T. R. W. it was 4l. 10s.
Tynemouth, Northumberland.—Besieged and taken by William Rufus in 1095.[734]
There is no motte there, and probably never was one, as the situation is defended by
precipitous cliffs on all sides but one, where a deep ditch has been cut across the
neck of the headland.
upon a round hill, and is circumvironed with a strong wall of astilar [ashlar]
stone.... The king’s lodging therein is fair and strong, bounded and knit to the wall.
And a fair stage hall of timber, of a great length. Four chambers of timber, and
other houses well upholden, within the walls of the castle.”[731] The king’s lodging
will no doubt be the closed gatehouse; the custom of erecting gatehouse palaces
arose as early as the 13th century. This account shows how many of the castle
buildings were still of timber in Elizabeth’s reign.
The bailey is quadrant-shaped, and has the motte at its apex. Its area is 2½ acres. Its
most remarkable feature is that it still retains its ancient banks on the east side and
part of the south, and the more recent curtain is carried on top of them. This curtain
is of the same masonry as the three remaining towers, which are of excellent
Perpendicular work, and are generally attributed to John of Gaunt, who held this
castle after his marriage with Blanche of Lancaster. The first castle was
undoubtedly of wood; it was pulled down by order of Henry I. in 1175,[732] nor
does there seem to have been any resurrection till the time of Earl Thomas of
Lancaster at the earliest.
Though Tutbury was the centre of the Honour of Ferrers, it does not seem to have
been even a manor in Saxon times. The borough was probably the creation of the
castellan, who also founded the Priory.[733] There is no statement in the Survey
from which we can learn the value T. R. E., but T. R. W. it was 4l. 10s.
Tynemouth, Northumberland.—Besieged and taken by William Rufus in 1095.[734]
There is no motte there, and probably never was one, as the situation is defended by
precipitous cliffs on all sides but one, where a deep ditch has been cut across the
neck of the headland.
Page 196
Wallingford, Berks.
Fig. 35.
Wallingford, Berkshire (Fig. 35).—There is good reason to suppose that in the
vallum of the town of Wallingford we have an interesting relic of Saxon times.
Wallingford is one of the boroughs enumerated in the Burghal Hidage; it was
undoubtedly a fortified town at the time of the Conquest,[735] and is called a burgus
in Domesday Book; but there appears to be no evidence to connect it with Roman
times except the discovery of a number of Roman coins in the town and its
neighbourhood. No Roman buildings or pavements have ever been found.[736] The
Saxon borough was built on the model of a Roman chester: a square with rounded
Fig. 35.
Wallingford, Berkshire (Fig. 35).—There is good reason to suppose that in the
vallum of the town of Wallingford we have an interesting relic of Saxon times.
Wallingford is one of the boroughs enumerated in the Burghal Hidage; it was
undoubtedly a fortified town at the time of the Conquest,[735] and is called a burgus
in Domesday Book; but there appears to be no evidence to connect it with Roman
times except the discovery of a number of Roman coins in the town and its
neighbourhood. No Roman buildings or pavements have ever been found.[736] The
Saxon borough was built on the model of a Roman chester: a square with rounded
Page 197
corners. The rampart of Wallingford, which still exists in great part, is entirely of
earth, and must have been crowned with a wooden wall, such as was still existing at
Portsmouth in Leland’s time.[737] The accounts of Wallingford in the great Survey
are very full and important. “King Edward had eight virgates in the borough of
Wallingford, and in these there were 276 haughs paying 11l. of rent. Eight have
been destroyed for the castle.”[738] This Norman castle was placed in the N.E.
corner of the borough. At present its precincts cover 30 acres,[739] but this includes
garden grounds, and no doubt represents later enclosures. No ancient plan of the
castle has been preserved, but from Leland’s description there appear to have been
three wards in his time, each defended by banks and ditches. The inner ward, which
was doubtless the original one, is rudely oblong in shape; it covers 4½ acres.
Leland says, “All the goodly buildings, with the towers and dungeon, be within the
third dyke.” The motte, which still exists, was on the south-eastern edge of this
ward; that is, it was so placed as to overlook both the borough and the ford over the
Thames.[740] It was ditched around, and is said to have had a stone keep on the top;
but no foundations were found when it was recently excavated. It was found to rest
on a foundation of solid masonry several feet thick, sloping upwards towards the
outside, so that it must have stood in a kind of stone saucer.[741] The masonry which
remains in the other parts of the castle is evidently none of it of the early Norman
period, unless we accept a fragment of wall which contains courses of tiles.
Numerous buildings were added in Henry III.’s reign; the walls and battlements
were repaired, and the hurdicium, which had been blown down by a high wind, was
renewed.[742] But the motte and the high banks show clearly that the first Norman
castle was of wood.
The value of the royal borough of Wallingford had considerably risen since the
Conquest.[743]
Warwick (Fig. 36).—Here again we have a castle built on land which the
Conqueror obtained from a Saxon convent, a positive proof that there was no castle
there previously. Only a small number of houses was destroyed for the castle,[744]
and this points to the probability, which is supported by some other evidence, that
the castle was built outside the town. Warwick, of course, was one of the boroughs
fortified by Ethelfleda, and it was doubtless erected to protect the Roman road from
Bath to Lincoln, the Foss Way, against the Danes. Domesday Book, after
mentioning that the king’s barons have 112 houses in the borough, and the abbot of
Coventry 36, goes on to say that these houses belong to the lands which the barons
hold outside the city, and are rated there.[745] This is one of the passages from
which Professor Maitland has concluded that the boroughs planted by Ethelfleda
and her brother were organised on a system of military defence, whereby the
earth, and must have been crowned with a wooden wall, such as was still existing at
Portsmouth in Leland’s time.[737] The accounts of Wallingford in the great Survey
are very full and important. “King Edward had eight virgates in the borough of
Wallingford, and in these there were 276 haughs paying 11l. of rent. Eight have
been destroyed for the castle.”[738] This Norman castle was placed in the N.E.
corner of the borough. At present its precincts cover 30 acres,[739] but this includes
garden grounds, and no doubt represents later enclosures. No ancient plan of the
castle has been preserved, but from Leland’s description there appear to have been
three wards in his time, each defended by banks and ditches. The inner ward, which
was doubtless the original one, is rudely oblong in shape; it covers 4½ acres.
Leland says, “All the goodly buildings, with the towers and dungeon, be within the
third dyke.” The motte, which still exists, was on the south-eastern edge of this
ward; that is, it was so placed as to overlook both the borough and the ford over the
Thames.[740] It was ditched around, and is said to have had a stone keep on the top;
but no foundations were found when it was recently excavated. It was found to rest
on a foundation of solid masonry several feet thick, sloping upwards towards the
outside, so that it must have stood in a kind of stone saucer.[741] The masonry which
remains in the other parts of the castle is evidently none of it of the early Norman
period, unless we accept a fragment of wall which contains courses of tiles.
Numerous buildings were added in Henry III.’s reign; the walls and battlements
were repaired, and the hurdicium, which had been blown down by a high wind, was
renewed.[742] But the motte and the high banks show clearly that the first Norman
castle was of wood.
The value of the royal borough of Wallingford had considerably risen since the
Conquest.[743]
Warwick (Fig. 36).—Here again we have a castle built on land which the
Conqueror obtained from a Saxon convent, a positive proof that there was no castle
there previously. Only a small number of houses was destroyed for the castle,[744]
and this points to the probability, which is supported by some other evidence, that
the castle was built outside the town. Warwick, of course, was one of the boroughs
fortified by Ethelfleda, and it was doubtless erected to protect the Roman road from
Bath to Lincoln, the Foss Way, against the Danes. Domesday Book, after
mentioning that the king’s barons have 112 houses in the borough, and the abbot of
Coventry 36, goes on to say that these houses belong to the lands which the barons
hold outside the city, and are rated there.[745] This is one of the passages from
which Professor Maitland has concluded that the boroughs planted by Ethelfleda
and her brother were organised on a system of military defence, whereby the
Page 198
magnates in the country were bound to keep houses in the towns.[746] Ordericus,
after the well-known passage in which he states that the lack of castles in England
was one great cause of its easy conquest by the Normans, says: “The king therefore
founded a castle at Warwick, and gave it in custody to Henry, son of Roger de
Beaumont.”[747] Putting these various facts together, we may fairly assert that the
motte which still forms part of the castle of Warwick was the work of the
Conqueror, and not, as Mr Freeman believed, “a monument of the wisdom and
energy of the mighty daughter of Alfred,”[748] whose energy was very much better
employed in the protection of her people. Dugdale, who also put the motte down to
Ethelfleda, was only copying Rous, a very imaginative writer of the 15th century.
The motte of Warwick is mentioned several times in the Pipe Rolls of Henry II.; it
then carried wooden structures on its top.[749] In Leland’s time there were still
standing on this motte the ruins of a keep, which he calls by its Norman name of
the Dungeon. A fragment of a polygonal shell wall still remains.[750] But there is
not a scrap of masonry of Norman date about the castle. The motte, and the earthen
bank which still runs along one side of the court, show that the first castle was a
wooden one. The bailey is oblong in shape, the motte being outside it; its area is
about 2½ acres.
The value of Warwick had doubled since the Conquest.
after the well-known passage in which he states that the lack of castles in England
was one great cause of its easy conquest by the Normans, says: “The king therefore
founded a castle at Warwick, and gave it in custody to Henry, son of Roger de
Beaumont.”[747] Putting these various facts together, we may fairly assert that the
motte which still forms part of the castle of Warwick was the work of the
Conqueror, and not, as Mr Freeman believed, “a monument of the wisdom and
energy of the mighty daughter of Alfred,”[748] whose energy was very much better
employed in the protection of her people. Dugdale, who also put the motte down to
Ethelfleda, was only copying Rous, a very imaginative writer of the 15th century.
The motte of Warwick is mentioned several times in the Pipe Rolls of Henry II.; it
then carried wooden structures on its top.[749] In Leland’s time there were still
standing on this motte the ruins of a keep, which he calls by its Norman name of
the Dungeon. A fragment of a polygonal shell wall still remains.[750] But there is
not a scrap of masonry of Norman date about the castle. The motte, and the earthen
bank which still runs along one side of the court, show that the first castle was a
wooden one. The bailey is oblong in shape, the motte being outside it; its area is
about 2½ acres.
The value of Warwick had doubled since the Conquest.
Page 199
Warwick.
Page 200
Wigmore, Hereford.
Fig. 36.
Wigmore, Herefordshire (Fig. 36).—We have already referred to the absurdity of
identifying this place with the Wigingamere of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.[751] We
have the strongest indication that the Norman castle at Wigmore was a new
erection, since Domesday Book tells us that William FitzOsbern built it on waste
land called Mereston.[752] This express statement disposes of the fable in the
Fundationis Historia of Wigmore Priory, that the castle of Wigmore had belonged
to Edric the Wild, and was rebuilt by Ralph Mortimer.[753] Wigmore had only been
a small manor of two taxable hides in Saxon times. Whereas it had then been
unproductive, at the date of the Survey there were two ploughs in the demesne, and
the borough attached to the castle yielded 7l. Here we have another instance of the
planting of a borough close to a castle, and of the revenue which was thus obtained.
There is a very large and high motte at Wigmore Castle, of oval shape, on a
headland which has been cut off by a deep ditch. The earthen banks of its first
fortification still remain, enclosing a small ward, but on top of them is a wall in
masonry, and the ruins of a polygonal keep;[754] also the remains of two mural
Fig. 36.
Wigmore, Herefordshire (Fig. 36).—We have already referred to the absurdity of
identifying this place with the Wigingamere of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.[751] We
have the strongest indication that the Norman castle at Wigmore was a new
erection, since Domesday Book tells us that William FitzOsbern built it on waste
land called Mereston.[752] This express statement disposes of the fable in the
Fundationis Historia of Wigmore Priory, that the castle of Wigmore had belonged
to Edric the Wild, and was rebuilt by Ralph Mortimer.[753] Wigmore had only been
a small manor of two taxable hides in Saxon times. Whereas it had then been
unproductive, at the date of the Survey there were two ploughs in the demesne, and
the borough attached to the castle yielded 7l. Here we have another instance of the
planting of a borough close to a castle, and of the revenue which was thus obtained.
There is a very large and high motte at Wigmore Castle, of oval shape, on a
headland which has been cut off by a deep ditch. The earthen banks of its first
fortification still remain, enclosing a small ward, but on top of them is a wall in
masonry, and the ruins of a polygonal keep;[754] also the remains of two mural
Page 201
towers. Half-way down the end of the headland, below the motte, is a small square
court, which may have been the original bailey; below it, again, is a larger half-
moon bailey furnished with walls and towers. But the whole area covered is only 1
acre. The masonry is none of it earlier than the Decorated period, except one tower
in the bailey wall which may be late Norman.
Winchester.
(From a plan by W. Godson, 1750.)
Fig. 37.
Winchester, Hants.—We include Winchester among the castles mentioned or
alluded to in Domesday Book, because we think it can be proved that the domus
regis mentioned under Alton and Clere is the castle built by William outside the
west gate of the city, where the present County Hall is now almost the only
remaining relic of any castle at all.[755] Under the head of “Aulton” we are told that
the abbot of Hyde had unjustly gotten the manor in exchange for the king’s house,
because by the testimony of the jurors it was already the king’s house.[756] That
excambio domus regis should read excambio terræ domus regis is clear from the
corresponding entry under Clere, where the words are pro excambio terræ in qua
domus regis est in civitate.[757] The matter is put beyond a doubt by the
confirmatory charter of Henry I. to Hyde Abbey, where the king states that his
father gave Aulton and Clere to Hyde Abbey in exchange for the land on which he
court, which may have been the original bailey; below it, again, is a larger half-
moon bailey furnished with walls and towers. But the whole area covered is only 1
acre. The masonry is none of it earlier than the Decorated period, except one tower
in the bailey wall which may be late Norman.
Winchester.
(From a plan by W. Godson, 1750.)
Fig. 37.
Winchester, Hants.—We include Winchester among the castles mentioned or
alluded to in Domesday Book, because we think it can be proved that the domus
regis mentioned under Alton and Clere is the castle built by William outside the
west gate of the city, where the present County Hall is now almost the only
remaining relic of any castle at all.[755] Under the head of “Aulton” we are told that
the abbot of Hyde had unjustly gotten the manor in exchange for the king’s house,
because by the testimony of the jurors it was already the king’s house.[756] That
excambio domus regis should read excambio terræ domus regis is clear from the
corresponding entry under Clere, where the words are pro excambio terræ in qua
domus regis est in civitate.[757] The matter is put beyond a doubt by the
confirmatory charter of Henry I. to Hyde Abbey, where the king states that his
father gave Aulton and Clere to Hyde Abbey in exchange for the land on which he
Page 202
built his hall in the city of Winchester.[758] Where, then, was this hall, which was
clearly new, since fresh land was obtained for it, and which must not therefore be
sought on the site of the palace of the Saxon kings? The Liber Winton, a roll of
Henry I.’s time, says that twelve burgesses’ houses had been destroyed and the land
was now occupied by the king’s house.[759] Another passage says that a whole
street outside the west gate was destroyed when the king made his ditch.[760] These
passages justify the conclusion of Mr Smirke that the king’s house at Winchester
was neither more nor less than the castle which existed until the 17th century
outside the west gate.[761] Probably the reason why it is spoken of so frequently in
the earliest documents as the king’s house or hall, instead of the castle, is that in
this important city, the ancient capital of Wessex, where the king “wore his crown”
once a year, William built, besides the usual wooden keep on the motte, a stone hall
in the bailey, of size and dignity corresponding to the new royalty.[762] In fact, the
hall so magnificently transformed by Henry III., and known to be the old hall of the
castle, can be seen on careful examination to have still its original Norman walls
and other traces of early Norman work.[763] The palace of the Saxon kings stood,
where we might expect to find the palace of native princes, in the middle of the
city; according to Milner it was on the site of the present Square.[764] William may
have repaired this palace, but that he constructed two royal houses, a palace and a
castle, is highly improbable. The castle became the residence of the Norman kings,
and the Saxon palace appears to have been neglected.[765] We see with what caution
the Conqueror placed his castle at the royal city of Wessex without the walls.
Milner tells us that there was no access to it from the city without passing through
the west gate.[766] The motte of the castle appears to have been standing in his time,
as he speaks of “the artificial mount on which the keep stands.”[767] It is frequently
mentioned in mediæval documents as the beumont or beau mont. It was surrounded
by its own ditch.[768] The bailey, if Speed’s map is correct, was triangular in shape.
With its ditches and banks the castle covered 6 acres, according to the
commissioners who reported on it in Elizabeth’s reign; but the inner area cannot
have been more than 4½ acres. We may infer from the sums spent on this castle by
Henry II., that he was the first to give it walls and towers of stone; the Pipe Rolls
show entries to the amount of 1150l. during the course of his reign; the work of the
walls is frequently specified, and stone is mentioned.
Domesday Book does not inform us whether the value of Winchester had risen or
fallen since the Conquest.
clearly new, since fresh land was obtained for it, and which must not therefore be
sought on the site of the palace of the Saxon kings? The Liber Winton, a roll of
Henry I.’s time, says that twelve burgesses’ houses had been destroyed and the land
was now occupied by the king’s house.[759] Another passage says that a whole
street outside the west gate was destroyed when the king made his ditch.[760] These
passages justify the conclusion of Mr Smirke that the king’s house at Winchester
was neither more nor less than the castle which existed until the 17th century
outside the west gate.[761] Probably the reason why it is spoken of so frequently in
the earliest documents as the king’s house or hall, instead of the castle, is that in
this important city, the ancient capital of Wessex, where the king “wore his crown”
once a year, William built, besides the usual wooden keep on the motte, a stone hall
in the bailey, of size and dignity corresponding to the new royalty.[762] In fact, the
hall so magnificently transformed by Henry III., and known to be the old hall of the
castle, can be seen on careful examination to have still its original Norman walls
and other traces of early Norman work.[763] The palace of the Saxon kings stood,
where we might expect to find the palace of native princes, in the middle of the
city; according to Milner it was on the site of the present Square.[764] William may
have repaired this palace, but that he constructed two royal houses, a palace and a
castle, is highly improbable. The castle became the residence of the Norman kings,
and the Saxon palace appears to have been neglected.[765] We see with what caution
the Conqueror placed his castle at the royal city of Wessex without the walls.
Milner tells us that there was no access to it from the city without passing through
the west gate.[766] The motte of the castle appears to have been standing in his time,
as he speaks of “the artificial mount on which the keep stands.”[767] It is frequently
mentioned in mediæval documents as the beumont or beau mont. It was surrounded
by its own ditch.[768] The bailey, if Speed’s map is correct, was triangular in shape.
With its ditches and banks the castle covered 6 acres, according to the
commissioners who reported on it in Elizabeth’s reign; but the inner area cannot
have been more than 4½ acres. We may infer from the sums spent on this castle by
Henry II., that he was the first to give it walls and towers of stone; the Pipe Rolls
show entries to the amount of 1150l. during the course of his reign; the work of the
walls is frequently specified, and stone is mentioned.
Domesday Book does not inform us whether the value of Winchester had risen or
fallen since the Conquest.
Page 203
(From Ashmole’s “Order of the Garter.”)
Fig. 38.
Windsor (Fig. 38).—Here we have another of the interesting cases in which the
geld due from the tenant of a manor is lessened on account of a castle having
occupied a portion of the land.[769] The Survey tells us that the castle of Windsor
sits in half a hide belonging to the manor of Clewer, which had become William’s
property as part of the spoils of Harold. It was now held of the king by a Norman
tenant-in-chief, but whereas it was formerly rated as five hides it was now (that is,
probably, since the castle was built) rated as four and a half hides. Of course we are
not to suppose that the castle occupied the whole half hide, which might be some
60 acres; but it extinguished the liability of that portion. At Windsor, however, we
have no occasion to press this argument as a proof that the castle was new, since it
is well established that the palace of the Saxon kings was at least 2 miles from the
present castle and town, in the village long known as Old Windsor, which fell into
decay as the town of Windsor sprang up under the Norman castle.[770] The manor
of Windsor was given by Edward the Confessor to the convent of Westminster, but
recovered by the Conqueror.[771] But as the Survey shows us, he did not build his
castle in the manor of Windsor, but in that of Clewer. He built it for a hunting-seat,
[772]
and it may have been for the purpose of recovering forest rights that he
resumed possession of Old Windsor; but he placed his castle in the situation which
Fig. 38.
Windsor (Fig. 38).—Here we have another of the interesting cases in which the
geld due from the tenant of a manor is lessened on account of a castle having
occupied a portion of the land.[769] The Survey tells us that the castle of Windsor
sits in half a hide belonging to the manor of Clewer, which had become William’s
property as part of the spoils of Harold. It was now held of the king by a Norman
tenant-in-chief, but whereas it was formerly rated as five hides it was now (that is,
probably, since the castle was built) rated as four and a half hides. Of course we are
not to suppose that the castle occupied the whole half hide, which might be some
60 acres; but it extinguished the liability of that portion. At Windsor, however, we
have no occasion to press this argument as a proof that the castle was new, since it
is well established that the palace of the Saxon kings was at least 2 miles from the
present castle and town, in the village long known as Old Windsor, which fell into
decay as the town of Windsor sprang up under the Norman castle.[770] The manor
of Windsor was given by Edward the Confessor to the convent of Westminster, but
recovered by the Conqueror.[771] But as the Survey shows us, he did not build his
castle in the manor of Windsor, but in that of Clewer. He built it for a hunting-seat,
[772]
and it may have been for the purpose of recovering forest rights that he
resumed possession of Old Windsor; but he placed his castle in the situation which
Page 204
he thought best for defence. For even a hunting-seat in Norman times was virtually
a castle, as many other instances show.
It is needless to state that there is no masonry at Windsor of the time of the
Conqueror, or even of the time of his son Henry I., in spite of the statement of
Stowe that Henry “new builded the castle of Windsor.” This statement may perhaps
be founded on a passage in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which says that Henry held
his court for the first time in the New Windsor in 1110. Perhaps the Chronicle here
refers to the borough of New Windsor, as an entry in the Pipe Roll of Henry I.
seems to show that he was the first to enclose the burgus of Windsor.[773] For it is
probable that the first stone castle at Windsor was built by Henry II., who spent
£1670 on it in the course of his reign. One of his first acts after his accession was
an exchange of land at Windsor, which seems to have been for the purpose of a
vineyard, and was possibly the origin of the second bailey.[774] At present the
position of the motte is central to the rest of the castle, but this is so unusual that it
suggests the idea that the upper ward is the oldest, and that the motte stood on its
outer edge. Henry II. surrounded the castle with a wall, at a cost of about 128l.[775]
The other entries in the Pipe Rolls probably refer to the first stone shell on the
motte, and there is little doubt that the present Round Tower, though its height has
been raised in modern times, and its masonry re-dressed and re-pointed so as to
destroy all appearance of antiquity, is in the main of Henry II.’s building. The
frequent payments for stone show the nature of Henry’s work.
Although so much masonry was put up in Henry II.’s reign, the greater part of what
is now visible is not older than the time of Henry III. The lower bailey seems to
have been enlarged in his reign, as the castle ditch was extended towards the town,
and compensation given for houses taken down.[776] The upper (probably the
original) ward is rectangular in shape, and with the motte and its ditches covers
about 6½ acres.[777] The state apartments, a chapel, and the Hall of St George, are
in the upper ward, showing that this was the site of the original hall and chapel of
the castle. The charter of agreement between Stephen and Henry in 1153 speaks of
the motte of Windsor as equivalent to the castle.[778] Repairs of the motte are
mentioned in the Pipe Rolls of Henry II.[779]
The value of the manor of Clewer had fallen since the Conquest; that of Windsor,
which was worth 15l. T. R. E., but after the Conquest fell to 7l., was again worth
15l. at the date of the Survey.[780]
Wisbeach, Cambridgeshire.—William I. built a castle here in 1072, after
suppressing the revolt of Hereward, in order to hold in check the Cambridgeshire
fen country.[781] There is an early mention of it in the Register of Thorney Abbey.
a castle, as many other instances show.
It is needless to state that there is no masonry at Windsor of the time of the
Conqueror, or even of the time of his son Henry I., in spite of the statement of
Stowe that Henry “new builded the castle of Windsor.” This statement may perhaps
be founded on a passage in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which says that Henry held
his court for the first time in the New Windsor in 1110. Perhaps the Chronicle here
refers to the borough of New Windsor, as an entry in the Pipe Roll of Henry I.
seems to show that he was the first to enclose the burgus of Windsor.[773] For it is
probable that the first stone castle at Windsor was built by Henry II., who spent
£1670 on it in the course of his reign. One of his first acts after his accession was
an exchange of land at Windsor, which seems to have been for the purpose of a
vineyard, and was possibly the origin of the second bailey.[774] At present the
position of the motte is central to the rest of the castle, but this is so unusual that it
suggests the idea that the upper ward is the oldest, and that the motte stood on its
outer edge. Henry II. surrounded the castle with a wall, at a cost of about 128l.[775]
The other entries in the Pipe Rolls probably refer to the first stone shell on the
motte, and there is little doubt that the present Round Tower, though its height has
been raised in modern times, and its masonry re-dressed and re-pointed so as to
destroy all appearance of antiquity, is in the main of Henry II.’s building. The
frequent payments for stone show the nature of Henry’s work.
Although so much masonry was put up in Henry II.’s reign, the greater part of what
is now visible is not older than the time of Henry III. The lower bailey seems to
have been enlarged in his reign, as the castle ditch was extended towards the town,
and compensation given for houses taken down.[776] The upper (probably the
original) ward is rectangular in shape, and with the motte and its ditches covers
about 6½ acres.[777] The state apartments, a chapel, and the Hall of St George, are
in the upper ward, showing that this was the site of the original hall and chapel of
the castle. The charter of agreement between Stephen and Henry in 1153 speaks of
the motte of Windsor as equivalent to the castle.[778] Repairs of the motte are
mentioned in the Pipe Rolls of Henry II.[779]
The value of the manor of Clewer had fallen since the Conquest; that of Windsor,
which was worth 15l. T. R. E., but after the Conquest fell to 7l., was again worth
15l. at the date of the Survey.[780]
Wisbeach, Cambridgeshire.—William I. built a castle here in 1072, after
suppressing the revolt of Hereward, in order to hold in check the Cambridgeshire
fen country.[781] There is an early mention of it in the Register of Thorney Abbey.
Page 205
This castle, after being several times rebuilt, is now completely destroyed, and
“several rows of elegant houses built on the site.” Nevertheless, there still remain
distinct traces of the motte-and-bailey pattern in the gardens which now occupy the
site of the original castle of King William; the present Crescent probably follows
the line of the ditch. The meagre indications preserved in casual accounts confirm
this. There was an inner castle of about 2 acres, just the area of the present garden
enclosure, and an outer court, probably an addition, of some 4 acres.[782] Both areas
were moated. Weston, a prisoner who was confined in the keep of this castle in the
17th century, has left an account of his captivity, in which he casually mentions that
the keep or dungeon stood upon a high terrace, from which he could overlook the
outer bailey, and was surrounded by a moat filled with water.[783]
The castle is not mentioned in Domesday, but as might be expected in a district
which had been so ravaged by war, the value of the manor had fallen.
Worcester.—This borough, as we have seen, was fortified by Ethelfleda and her
husband Ethelred in the 9th century. That the fortifications thus erected were those
of a city and not of a castle is shown with sufficient clearness by the remarkable
charter of this remarkable pair, in which they declare that they have built the burh
at Worcester to shelter all the people, and the churches, and the bishop.[784] The
castle is first mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1088, and it is to be noted
that it is styled the king’s castle. Urse d’Abitot, the Norman sheriff of Worcester,
has the credit of having built the first castle, and Malmesbury relates that he seized
part of the monks’ cemetery for the bailey.[785] The monks, however, held on to
their right, and in the first year of Henry III. the bailey was restored to them by the
guardians of the young king, the motte being reserved for the king’s use.[786] The
first wooden castle was burnt in 1113.[787] The tower or keep which succeeded it,
and which was repaired by Henry II.,[788] may have been either of stone or wood;
but in the order of John, that the gateway of the castle, which is of wood, is to be
made of stone, we get a hint of the gradual transformation of the castle from a
wooden to a stone fortress.[789]
Worcester Castle was outside the town, from Speed’s map, and was near the
Severn. The area now called College Green was no doubt the outer ward of the
castle, which was restored to the convent by Henry III. The tower called Edgar’s
Tower was built by the monks as the gatehouse to their newly conceded close.[790]
From the map given by Green, this outer bailey appears to have been roughly
square; but there was also a small oblong inner ward, retained by the king, where
the gaol was afterwards built. The area of the castle is said to have been between 3
and 4 acres.[791] The motte, which is mentioned several times in mediæval
“several rows of elegant houses built on the site.” Nevertheless, there still remain
distinct traces of the motte-and-bailey pattern in the gardens which now occupy the
site of the original castle of King William; the present Crescent probably follows
the line of the ditch. The meagre indications preserved in casual accounts confirm
this. There was an inner castle of about 2 acres, just the area of the present garden
enclosure, and an outer court, probably an addition, of some 4 acres.[782] Both areas
were moated. Weston, a prisoner who was confined in the keep of this castle in the
17th century, has left an account of his captivity, in which he casually mentions that
the keep or dungeon stood upon a high terrace, from which he could overlook the
outer bailey, and was surrounded by a moat filled with water.[783]
The castle is not mentioned in Domesday, but as might be expected in a district
which had been so ravaged by war, the value of the manor had fallen.
Worcester.—This borough, as we have seen, was fortified by Ethelfleda and her
husband Ethelred in the 9th century. That the fortifications thus erected were those
of a city and not of a castle is shown with sufficient clearness by the remarkable
charter of this remarkable pair, in which they declare that they have built the burh
at Worcester to shelter all the people, and the churches, and the bishop.[784] The
castle is first mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1088, and it is to be noted
that it is styled the king’s castle. Urse d’Abitot, the Norman sheriff of Worcester,
has the credit of having built the first castle, and Malmesbury relates that he seized
part of the monks’ cemetery for the bailey.[785] The monks, however, held on to
their right, and in the first year of Henry III. the bailey was restored to them by the
guardians of the young king, the motte being reserved for the king’s use.[786] The
first wooden castle was burnt in 1113.[787] The tower or keep which succeeded it,
and which was repaired by Henry II.,[788] may have been either of stone or wood;
but in the order of John, that the gateway of the castle, which is of wood, is to be
made of stone, we get a hint of the gradual transformation of the castle from a
wooden to a stone fortress.[789]
Worcester Castle was outside the town, from Speed’s map, and was near the
Severn. The area now called College Green was no doubt the outer ward of the
castle, which was restored to the convent by Henry III. The tower called Edgar’s
Tower was built by the monks as the gatehouse to their newly conceded close.[790]
From the map given by Green, this outer bailey appears to have been roughly
square; but there was also a small oblong inner ward, retained by the king, where
the gaol was afterwards built. The area of the castle is said to have been between 3
and 4 acres.[791] The motte, which is mentioned several times in mediæval
Page 206
documents,[792] was completely levelled in 1848; it was then found out that it had
been thrown up over some previous buildings, which were believed to be Roman,
though this seems doubtful.[793]
The value of Worcester had risen since the Conquest.[794]
York (Fig. 39).—William the Conqueror built two castles at York, and the mottes
of both these castles remain, one underneath Clifford’s Tower, the keep of York
Castle, the other, on the south side of the Ouse, still bearing the name of the Baile
Hill, or the Old Baile.[795] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle implies, though it does not
directly state, that both these castles were built in 1068, on the occasion of
William’s first visit to York. The more detailed narrative of Ordericus shows that
one was built in 1068, and the other at the beginning of 1069, on William’s second
visit.[796] Both were destroyed in September 1069, when the English and Danes
captured York, and both were rebuilt before Christmas of the same year, when
William held his triumphant Christmas feast at York.
This speedy erection, destruction, and re-erection is enough to prove that the castles
of William in York were, like most other Norman castles, hills of earth with
buildings and stockades of wood, especially as we find these hills of earth still
remaining on the known sites of the castles. And we may be quite sure that the
Norman masonry, which Mr Freeman pictures as so eagerly destroyed by the
English, never existed.[797] But the obstinate tendency of the human mind to make
things out older than they are has led to these earthen hills being assigned to
Britons, Romans, Saxons, Danes, anybody rather than Normans. A single passage
of William of Malmesbury, in which he refers to the castrum which the Danes had
built at York in the reign of Athelstan, is the sole vestige of basis for the theory that
the motte of Clifford’s Tower is of Danish origin.[798] The other theories have
absolutely no foundation but conjecture. If Malmesbury was quoting from some
older source which is now lost, it is extremely probable that the word castrum
which he copied, did not mean a castle in our sense of the word at all, but was a
translation of the word burh, which almost certainly referred to a vallum or wall
constructed round the Danish suburb outside the walls of York. Such a suburb there
was, for there in 1055 stood the Danish church of St Olave, in which Earl Siward
was buried, and the suburb was long known as the Earlsburgh or Earl’s Burh,
probably because it contained the residence of the Danish earls of Northumbria.[799]
This suburb was not anywhere near Clifford’s Tower, but in quite a different part of
the city. To prove that both the mottes were on entirely new sites, we have the
assurance of Domesday Book that out of the seven shires or wards into which the
city was divided, one was laid waste for the castles; so that there was clearly a great
destruction of houses to make room for the new castles.[800]
been thrown up over some previous buildings, which were believed to be Roman,
though this seems doubtful.[793]
The value of Worcester had risen since the Conquest.[794]
York (Fig. 39).—William the Conqueror built two castles at York, and the mottes
of both these castles remain, one underneath Clifford’s Tower, the keep of York
Castle, the other, on the south side of the Ouse, still bearing the name of the Baile
Hill, or the Old Baile.[795] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle implies, though it does not
directly state, that both these castles were built in 1068, on the occasion of
William’s first visit to York. The more detailed narrative of Ordericus shows that
one was built in 1068, and the other at the beginning of 1069, on William’s second
visit.[796] Both were destroyed in September 1069, when the English and Danes
captured York, and both were rebuilt before Christmas of the same year, when
William held his triumphant Christmas feast at York.
This speedy erection, destruction, and re-erection is enough to prove that the castles
of William in York were, like most other Norman castles, hills of earth with
buildings and stockades of wood, especially as we find these hills of earth still
remaining on the known sites of the castles. And we may be quite sure that the
Norman masonry, which Mr Freeman pictures as so eagerly destroyed by the
English, never existed.[797] But the obstinate tendency of the human mind to make
things out older than they are has led to these earthen hills being assigned to
Britons, Romans, Saxons, Danes, anybody rather than Normans. A single passage
of William of Malmesbury, in which he refers to the castrum which the Danes had
built at York in the reign of Athelstan, is the sole vestige of basis for the theory that
the motte of Clifford’s Tower is of Danish origin.[798] The other theories have
absolutely no foundation but conjecture. If Malmesbury was quoting from some
older source which is now lost, it is extremely probable that the word castrum
which he copied, did not mean a castle in our sense of the word at all, but was a
translation of the word burh, which almost certainly referred to a vallum or wall
constructed round the Danish suburb outside the walls of York. Such a suburb there
was, for there in 1055 stood the Danish church of St Olave, in which Earl Siward
was buried, and the suburb was long known as the Earlsburgh or Earl’s Burh,
probably because it contained the residence of the Danish earls of Northumbria.[799]
This suburb was not anywhere near Clifford’s Tower, but in quite a different part of
the city. To prove that both the mottes were on entirely new sites, we have the
assurance of Domesday Book that out of the seven shires or wards into which the
city was divided, one was laid waste for the castles; so that there was clearly a great
destruction of houses to make room for the new castles.[800]
Page 207
York Castle and Baile Hill.
(From a plan by P. Chassereau, 1750.)
Fig. 39.
What has been assumed above receives striking confirmation from excavations
made recently (1903) in the motte of Clifford’s Tower. At the depth of 13 feet were
found remains of a wooden structure, surmounted by a quantity of charred wood.
[801]
Now the accounts of the destruction of the castles in 1069 do not tell us that
they were burned, but thrown down and broken to pieces.[802] But the keep which
was restored by William, and on the repair of which Henry II. spent 15l. in 1172,
[803]
was burnt down in the frightful massacre of the Jews at York Castle in 1190.
[804]
The excavations disclosed the interesting fact that this castle stood on a lower
motte than the present one, and that when the burnt keep was replaced by a new
one the motte was raised to its present height, “an outer crust of firmer and more
clayey material being made round the older summit, and a lighter material placed
inside this crater to bring it up to the necessary level.” This restoration must have
taken place in the third year of Richard I., when 28l. was spent “on the work of the
castle.”[805] This small sum shows that the new keep also was of wood; and remains
of timber work were in fact found on the top of the motte during the excavations,
though unfortunately they were not sufficiently followed up to determine whether
(From a plan by P. Chassereau, 1750.)
Fig. 39.
What has been assumed above receives striking confirmation from excavations
made recently (1903) in the motte of Clifford’s Tower. At the depth of 13 feet were
found remains of a wooden structure, surmounted by a quantity of charred wood.
[801]
Now the accounts of the destruction of the castles in 1069 do not tell us that
they were burned, but thrown down and broken to pieces.[802] But the keep which
was restored by William, and on the repair of which Henry II. spent 15l. in 1172,
[803]
was burnt down in the frightful massacre of the Jews at York Castle in 1190.
[804]
The excavations disclosed the interesting fact that this castle stood on a lower
motte than the present one, and that when the burnt keep was replaced by a new
one the motte was raised to its present height, “an outer crust of firmer and more
clayey material being made round the older summit, and a lighter material placed
inside this crater to bring it up to the necessary level.” This restoration must have
taken place in the third year of Richard I., when 28l. was spent “on the work of the
castle.”[805] This small sum shows that the new keep also was of wood; and remains
of timber work were in fact found on the top of the motte during the excavations,
though unfortunately they were not sufficiently followed up to determine whether
Page 208
they belonged to a wooden tower or to a platform intended to consolidate the motte.
[806]
It is extremely likely that this third keep was blown down by the high wind of
1228, when 2s. was paid “for collecting the timber of York Castle blown down by
the wind.”[807] In its place arose the present keep, one of the most remarkable
achievements of the reign of Henry III.[808] The old ground-plan of the square
Norman keep was now abandoned, and replaced by a quatrefoil. The work
occupied thirteen years, from the 30th to the 43rd Henry III., and the total sum
expended was 1927l. 8s. 7d., equal to about 40,000l. of our money. This remarkable
fact has slumbered in the unpublished Pipe Rolls for 700 years, never having been
unearthed by any of the numerous historians of York.
The keep was probably the first work in stone at York Castle, and for a long time it
was probably the only defensive masonry. The banks certainly had only a wooden
stockade in the early part of Henry III.’s reign, as timber from the forest of Galtres
was ordered for the repair of breaches in the palicium in 1225.[809] As late as
Edward II.’s reign there was a pelum, or stockade, round the keep, on top of a
murus, which was undoubtedly an earthen bank.[810] At present the keep occupies
the whole top of the motte except a small chemin de ronde, but the fact so
frequently alluded to in the writs, that a stockade ran round the keep, proves that a
small courtyard existed there formerly, as was usually the case with important
keeps. Another writ of Edward II.’s reign shows that the motte was liable to injury
from the floods of the River Fosse,[811] and probably its size has thus been reduced.
The present bailey of York Castle does not follow the lines of the original one, but
is an enlargement made in 1825. A plan made in 1750, and reproduced here, shows
that the motte was surrounded by its own ditch, which is now filled up, and that the
bailey, around which a branch of the Fosse was carried, was of the very common
bean-shaped form; it was about 3 acres in extent. The motte and bailey were both
considerably outside what is believed to have been the Anglo-Saxon rampart of
York,[812] but the motte was so placed as to overlook the city.
The value of the city of York, in spite of the sieges and sacks which it had
undergone, and in spite of there being 540 houses “so empty that they pay nothing
at all,” had risen at the date of the Survey from 53l. in King Edward’s time to 100l.
in King William’s.[813] This extraordinary rise in value can only be attributed to
increased trade and increased exactions, the former being promoted by the greater
security given to the roads by the castles, the latter due to the tolls on the high-
roads and waterways, which belonged to the king, and the various “customs”
belonging to the castles, which, though new, were henceforth equally part of his
rights.
[806]
It is extremely likely that this third keep was blown down by the high wind of
1228, when 2s. was paid “for collecting the timber of York Castle blown down by
the wind.”[807] In its place arose the present keep, one of the most remarkable
achievements of the reign of Henry III.[808] The old ground-plan of the square
Norman keep was now abandoned, and replaced by a quatrefoil. The work
occupied thirteen years, from the 30th to the 43rd Henry III., and the total sum
expended was 1927l. 8s. 7d., equal to about 40,000l. of our money. This remarkable
fact has slumbered in the unpublished Pipe Rolls for 700 years, never having been
unearthed by any of the numerous historians of York.
The keep was probably the first work in stone at York Castle, and for a long time it
was probably the only defensive masonry. The banks certainly had only a wooden
stockade in the early part of Henry III.’s reign, as timber from the forest of Galtres
was ordered for the repair of breaches in the palicium in 1225.[809] As late as
Edward II.’s reign there was a pelum, or stockade, round the keep, on top of a
murus, which was undoubtedly an earthen bank.[810] At present the keep occupies
the whole top of the motte except a small chemin de ronde, but the fact so
frequently alluded to in the writs, that a stockade ran round the keep, proves that a
small courtyard existed there formerly, as was usually the case with important
keeps. Another writ of Edward II.’s reign shows that the motte was liable to injury
from the floods of the River Fosse,[811] and probably its size has thus been reduced.
The present bailey of York Castle does not follow the lines of the original one, but
is an enlargement made in 1825. A plan made in 1750, and reproduced here, shows
that the motte was surrounded by its own ditch, which is now filled up, and that the
bailey, around which a branch of the Fosse was carried, was of the very common
bean-shaped form; it was about 3 acres in extent. The motte and bailey were both
considerably outside what is believed to have been the Anglo-Saxon rampart of
York,[812] but the motte was so placed as to overlook the city.
The value of the city of York, in spite of the sieges and sacks which it had
undergone, and in spite of there being 540 houses “so empty that they pay nothing
at all,” had risen at the date of the Survey from 53l. in King Edward’s time to 100l.
in King William’s.[813] This extraordinary rise in value can only be attributed to
increased trade and increased exactions, the former being promoted by the greater
security given to the roads by the castles, the latter due to the tolls on the high-
roads and waterways, which belonged to the king, and the various “customs”
belonging to the castles, which, though new, were henceforth equally part of his
rights.
Page 209
The Baile Hill, York (Fig. 39).—There can be no doubt whatever that this still
existing motte was the site of one of William’s castles at York, and it is even
probable that it was the older of the two, as Mr Cooper conjectures from its
position on the south side of the river.[814] The castle bore the name of the Old
Baile at least as early as the 14th century, perhaps even in the 12th.[815] In 1326 a
dispute arose between the citizens of York and Archbishop William de Melton as to
which of them ought to repair the wall around the Old Baile. The mayor alleged
that the district was under the express jurisdiction of the archbishop, exempt from
that of the city; the archbishop pleaded that it stood within the ditches of the city.
[816]
The meaning of this dispute can only be understood in the light of facts which
have recently been unearthed by the industry and observation of Mr T. P. Cooper, of
York.[817] The Old Baile, like so many of William’s castles, originally stood outside
the ramparts of the city. The original Roman walls of York (it is believed) enclosed
only a small space on the eastern shore of the Ouse, and before the Norman
Conquest the city had far outgrown these bounds, and therefore had been enlarged
in Anglo-Saxon times. It appears that the Micklegate suburb was then for the first
time enclosed with a wall, and as this district is spoken of in Domesday Book as
“the shire of the archbishop,” it was evidently under his jurisdiction. At a later
period this wall was buried in an earthen bank, which probably carried a palisade
on top, until the palisade was replaced by stone walls in the reign of Henry III.[818]
The evidence of the actual remains renders it more than probable that this rampart
turned towards the river at a point 500 feet short of its present angle, so that the Old
Baile, when first built, was quite outside the city walls.[819] This is exactly how we
should expect to find a castle of William the Norman’s in relation to one of the
most turbulent cities of the realm; and, as we have seen, the other castle at York
was similarly placed. By the time of Archbishop Melton the south-western suburb
was already enclosed in the new stone walls built in the 13th century, and these
walls had been carried along the west and south banks of the Old Baile, so as to
enclose that castle within the city. This was the archbishop’s pretext for trying to
lay upon the citizens the duty of maintaining the Old Baile. But probably on
account of his ancient authority in this part of the city, the cause went against him;
though he stipulated that whatever he did in the way of fortification was of his own
option, and was not to be accounted a precedent. A contemporary chronicler says
that he enclosed the Old Baile first with stout planks 18 feet long, afterwards with a
stone wall:[820] an interesting proof that wooden fortifications were still used in the
reign of Edward III.
Though the base court of the Old Baile is now built over, its area and ditches were
visible in Leland’s time,[821] and can still be guessed at by the indications Mr
existing motte was the site of one of William’s castles at York, and it is even
probable that it was the older of the two, as Mr Cooper conjectures from its
position on the south side of the river.[814] The castle bore the name of the Old
Baile at least as early as the 14th century, perhaps even in the 12th.[815] In 1326 a
dispute arose between the citizens of York and Archbishop William de Melton as to
which of them ought to repair the wall around the Old Baile. The mayor alleged
that the district was under the express jurisdiction of the archbishop, exempt from
that of the city; the archbishop pleaded that it stood within the ditches of the city.
[816]
The meaning of this dispute can only be understood in the light of facts which
have recently been unearthed by the industry and observation of Mr T. P. Cooper, of
York.[817] The Old Baile, like so many of William’s castles, originally stood outside
the ramparts of the city. The original Roman walls of York (it is believed) enclosed
only a small space on the eastern shore of the Ouse, and before the Norman
Conquest the city had far outgrown these bounds, and therefore had been enlarged
in Anglo-Saxon times. It appears that the Micklegate suburb was then for the first
time enclosed with a wall, and as this district is spoken of in Domesday Book as
“the shire of the archbishop,” it was evidently under his jurisdiction. At a later
period this wall was buried in an earthen bank, which probably carried a palisade
on top, until the palisade was replaced by stone walls in the reign of Henry III.[818]
The evidence of the actual remains renders it more than probable that this rampart
turned towards the river at a point 500 feet short of its present angle, so that the Old
Baile, when first built, was quite outside the city walls.[819] This is exactly how we
should expect to find a castle of William the Norman’s in relation to one of the
most turbulent cities of the realm; and, as we have seen, the other castle at York
was similarly placed. By the time of Archbishop Melton the south-western suburb
was already enclosed in the new stone walls built in the 13th century, and these
walls had been carried along the west and south banks of the Old Baile, so as to
enclose that castle within the city. This was the archbishop’s pretext for trying to
lay upon the citizens the duty of maintaining the Old Baile. But probably on
account of his ancient authority in this part of the city, the cause went against him;
though he stipulated that whatever he did in the way of fortification was of his own
option, and was not to be accounted a precedent. A contemporary chronicler says
that he enclosed the Old Baile first with stout planks 18 feet long, afterwards with a
stone wall:[820] an interesting proof that wooden fortifications were still used in the
reign of Edward III.
Though the base court of the Old Baile is now built over, its area and ditches were
visible in Leland’s time,[821] and can still be guessed at by the indications Mr
Page 210
Cooper has noted. The area of the bailey must have been nearly 3 acres, and its
shape nearly square. This measurement includes the motte, which was placed in the
south-west corner on the line of the banks; it thus overlooked the river as well as
the city.[822]
shape nearly square. This measurement includes the motte, which was placed in the
south-west corner on the line of the banks; it thus overlooked the river as well as
the city.[822]
Page 211
CHAPTER VIII
MOTTE-CASTLES IN NORTH WALES
Motte-castles are as common in Wales as they are in England, and in certain
districts much more common. It is now our task to show how they got there. They
were certainly not built (in the first instance at any rate) by the native inhabitants,
for they do not correspond to what we know to have been the state of society in
Wales during the Anglo-Saxon period.[823] The Welsh were then in the tribal
condition, a condition, as we have shown, inconsistent with the existence of the
private castle. The residence of the king or chieftain, as we know from the Welsh
Laws, was a great hall, such as seems to have been the type of chieftains’ residence
among all the northern nations at that time. “It was adapted for the joint occupation
of a number of tribesmen living together.”[824]
Pennant describes the residence of Ednowen, a Welsh chieftain of the 12th century,
as follows: “The remains are about 30 yards square; the entrance about 7 feet wide,
with a large upright stone on each side for a doorcase; the walls were formed of
large stones uncemented by any mortar; in short the structure shows the very low
state of Welsh architecture at this time; it may be paralleled only by the artless
fabric of a cattle-house.”[825] This certainly is a hall and not a castle.
The so-called Dimetian Code indeed tells us that the king is to have a man and a
horse from every hamlet, with hatchets for constructing his castles (gestyll) at the
king’s cost; but the Venedotian Code, which is the older MS., says that these
hatchet-men are to form encampments (uuesten); that is, they are to cut down trees
and form either stockades on banks or rude zerebas for the protection of the host.
[826]
It is clearly laid down in the Codes what buildings the king’s villeins are to
erect for him at his residences: a hall, buttery, kitchen, dormitory, stable, dog-house,
and little house.[827] In none of these lists is anything mentioned which has the
smallest resemblance to a castle, not even a tower. We can imagine that these
buildings were enclosed in an earthwork or stockade, but it is not mentioned.[828]
Wales was never one state, except for very short periods. Normally it was divided
into three states, Gwynedd or North Wales, Powys or Mid-Wales, and Deheubarth,
all almost incessantly at war with each other.[829] Other subdivisions asserted
themselves as opportunity offered, so that the above rough division into provinces
must not be regarded as always accurate. A Wales thus divided, and perpetually rent
by internal conflicts, invited the aggression of the Saxons, and it is probable that
MOTTE-CASTLES IN NORTH WALES
Motte-castles are as common in Wales as they are in England, and in certain
districts much more common. It is now our task to show how they got there. They
were certainly not built (in the first instance at any rate) by the native inhabitants,
for they do not correspond to what we know to have been the state of society in
Wales during the Anglo-Saxon period.[823] The Welsh were then in the tribal
condition, a condition, as we have shown, inconsistent with the existence of the
private castle. The residence of the king or chieftain, as we know from the Welsh
Laws, was a great hall, such as seems to have been the type of chieftains’ residence
among all the northern nations at that time. “It was adapted for the joint occupation
of a number of tribesmen living together.”[824]
Pennant describes the residence of Ednowen, a Welsh chieftain of the 12th century,
as follows: “The remains are about 30 yards square; the entrance about 7 feet wide,
with a large upright stone on each side for a doorcase; the walls were formed of
large stones uncemented by any mortar; in short the structure shows the very low
state of Welsh architecture at this time; it may be paralleled only by the artless
fabric of a cattle-house.”[825] This certainly is a hall and not a castle.
The so-called Dimetian Code indeed tells us that the king is to have a man and a
horse from every hamlet, with hatchets for constructing his castles (gestyll) at the
king’s cost; but the Venedotian Code, which is the older MS., says that these
hatchet-men are to form encampments (uuesten); that is, they are to cut down trees
and form either stockades on banks or rude zerebas for the protection of the host.
[826]
It is clearly laid down in the Codes what buildings the king’s villeins are to
erect for him at his residences: a hall, buttery, kitchen, dormitory, stable, dog-house,
and little house.[827] In none of these lists is anything mentioned which has the
smallest resemblance to a castle, not even a tower. We can imagine that these
buildings were enclosed in an earthwork or stockade, but it is not mentioned.[828]
Wales was never one state, except for very short periods. Normally it was divided
into three states, Gwynedd or North Wales, Powys or Mid-Wales, and Deheubarth,
all almost incessantly at war with each other.[829] Other subdivisions asserted
themselves as opportunity offered, so that the above rough division into provinces
must not be regarded as always accurate. A Wales thus divided, and perpetually rent
by internal conflicts, invited the aggression of the Saxons, and it is probable that
Page 212
the complete subjugation of Britain would have been accomplished by the
descendants of Alfred, if it had not been for the Danish invasions. The position of
the Welsh kings after the time of Athelstan seems to have been that of tributaries,
who threw off their allegiance whenever it was possible to do so. But still the
Anglo-Saxon frontier continued to advance. Professor Lloyd has shown, from a
careful examination of Domesday Book, that even before the Norman Conquest the
English held the greater part of what is now Flintshire and East Denbighshire, and
were advancing into the vale of Montgomery and the Radnor district.[830] The
victories of Griffith ap Llywelyn, an able prince who succeeded in bringing all
Wales under his sway, devastated these English colonies; but his defeat by Earl
Harold in 1063 restored the English ascendancy over these regions. The
unimpeachable evidence of Domesday Book shows that a considerable district in
North Wales and a portion of Radnor were held respectively by Earl Edwin and
Earl Harold before the Norman Conquest. Moreover, the fact mentioned by the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1065, that Harold was building a hunting-seat for King
Edward at Portskewet, after he had subdued it, suggests that the land between Wye
and Usk, which Domesday Book reckons under Gloucestershire, was a conquest of
Harold’s.[831]
The Norman Conqueror was not the man to slacken his hold on any territory which
had been won by the Saxons. But there is no succinct history of his conquests in
Wales; we have to make it out, in most cases, from notices that are scarcely more
than allusive, and from the surer, though scanty, ground of documents. It is
noteworthy that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is so hostile to the Norman kings that it
discounts their successes in Wales. Thus we have only the briefest notice of
William I.’s invasion of South Wales, which was very probably the beginning of the
conquest of that region; and several expeditions of William II. are spoken of as
entirely futile, though as we are told that the existing castles were still held by the
Normans, or new ones were built, it is clear that this summing-up is not strictly
correct.[832] Our Welsh authorities, the Annales Cambriæ and the Brut y
Tywysogion,[833] seem to give a fairly candid account of the period, although the
dates in the Brut are for the most part wrong (sometimes by three years), and they
hardly ever give us a view of the situation as a whole. They tell us when the Welsh
rushed down and burnt the castles built by the Normans in the conquered districts,
but do not always tell when the Normans recovered and rebuilt them.
Fortunately we are not called upon here to trace the history of the cruel and
barbarous warfare between Normans and Welsh. No one can turn that bloodstained
page without wishing that the final conquest had come two hundred years earlier, to
put an end to the tragedy of suffering which must have been so largely the portion
of the dwellers in Wales and the Marches after the coming of the Normans.[834] Our
descendants of Alfred, if it had not been for the Danish invasions. The position of
the Welsh kings after the time of Athelstan seems to have been that of tributaries,
who threw off their allegiance whenever it was possible to do so. But still the
Anglo-Saxon frontier continued to advance. Professor Lloyd has shown, from a
careful examination of Domesday Book, that even before the Norman Conquest the
English held the greater part of what is now Flintshire and East Denbighshire, and
were advancing into the vale of Montgomery and the Radnor district.[830] The
victories of Griffith ap Llywelyn, an able prince who succeeded in bringing all
Wales under his sway, devastated these English colonies; but his defeat by Earl
Harold in 1063 restored the English ascendancy over these regions. The
unimpeachable evidence of Domesday Book shows that a considerable district in
North Wales and a portion of Radnor were held respectively by Earl Edwin and
Earl Harold before the Norman Conquest. Moreover, the fact mentioned by the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1065, that Harold was building a hunting-seat for King
Edward at Portskewet, after he had subdued it, suggests that the land between Wye
and Usk, which Domesday Book reckons under Gloucestershire, was a conquest of
Harold’s.[831]
The Norman Conqueror was not the man to slacken his hold on any territory which
had been won by the Saxons. But there is no succinct history of his conquests in
Wales; we have to make it out, in most cases, from notices that are scarcely more
than allusive, and from the surer, though scanty, ground of documents. It is
noteworthy that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is so hostile to the Norman kings that it
discounts their successes in Wales. Thus we have only the briefest notice of
William I.’s invasion of South Wales, which was very probably the beginning of the
conquest of that region; and several expeditions of William II. are spoken of as
entirely futile, though as we are told that the existing castles were still held by the
Normans, or new ones were built, it is clear that this summing-up is not strictly
correct.[832] Our Welsh authorities, the Annales Cambriæ and the Brut y
Tywysogion,[833] seem to give a fairly candid account of the period, although the
dates in the Brut are for the most part wrong (sometimes by three years), and they
hardly ever give us a view of the situation as a whole. They tell us when the Welsh
rushed down and burnt the castles built by the Normans in the conquered districts,
but do not always tell when the Normans recovered and rebuilt them.
Fortunately we are not called upon here to trace the history of the cruel and
barbarous warfare between Normans and Welsh. No one can turn that bloodstained
page without wishing that the final conquest had come two hundred years earlier, to
put an end to the tragedy of suffering which must have been so largely the portion
of the dwellers in Wales and the Marches after the coming of the Normans.[834] Our
Page 213
business with both Welsh and Normans is purely archæological. We hold no brief
for the Normans, nor does it matter to us whether they kept their hold on Wales or
were driven out by the Welsh; our concern is with facts, and the solid facts with
which we have to deal are the castles whose remains still exist in Wales, and whose
significance we have to interpret.
“Wales was under his sway, and he built castles therein,” says the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, in summing up the reign of the Conqueror; a passage which is scarcely
consistent with its previous almost complete silence about events in Wales. There
can be little doubt that William aimed at a complete conquest of Wales, and that the
policy he adopted was the creation of great earldoms along the Welsh border,
endowed with special privileges, one of which was the right of conquering
whatever they could from the Welsh.[835] To these earldoms he appointed some of
his strongest men, men little troubled by scruples of justice or mercy, but capable
leaders in war or diplomacy. It was an essential part of the plan that every conquest
should be secured by the building of castles, just as had been done in England. And
we have now to trace very briefly the outline of Norman conquest in Wales by the
castles which they have left behind them.
We shall confine ourselves to those castles which are mentioned in the Brut y
Tywysogion, the Pipe Rolls, or other trustworthy documents between 1066 and
1216, the end of King John’s reign. Of many of these castles only the earthworks
remain; of many others the original plan, exactly similar to that of the early castles
of Normandy and France, is still to be traced, though masked by the masonry of a
later age. Grose remarked but could not explain the fact that we continually read of
the castles of the Marches being burnt and utterly destroyed, and a few months later
we find them again standing and in working order. This can only, but easily, be
explained when we understand that they were wooden castles built on mottes,
quickly restored after a complete destruction of the wooden buildings.
North Wales appears to have been the earliest conquest of the Normans, though not
the most lasting. North Wales comprised the Welsh kingdoms of Gwynedd and
Powys. Gwynedd covered the present shires of Anglesea, Carnarvon, and
Merioneth, and the mountainous districts round Snowdon.[836] Powys stretched
from the estuary of the Dee to the upper course of the Wye, and roughly included
Flint, Denbigh, Montgomery, and Radnor shires. Hugh of Avranches, Earl of
Chester, was the great instrument of Norman conquest in Gwynedd, and in the
northern part of Powys, which lay so near his own dominions. He was evidently a
man in whose ability William had great confidence, as he removed him from
Tutbury to the more difficult and dangerous position of Chester, and gave his
earldom palatine privileges; all the land in Cheshire was held under the earl, and he
was a sort of little king in his county.
for the Normans, nor does it matter to us whether they kept their hold on Wales or
were driven out by the Welsh; our concern is with facts, and the solid facts with
which we have to deal are the castles whose remains still exist in Wales, and whose
significance we have to interpret.
“Wales was under his sway, and he built castles therein,” says the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, in summing up the reign of the Conqueror; a passage which is scarcely
consistent with its previous almost complete silence about events in Wales. There
can be little doubt that William aimed at a complete conquest of Wales, and that the
policy he adopted was the creation of great earldoms along the Welsh border,
endowed with special privileges, one of which was the right of conquering
whatever they could from the Welsh.[835] To these earldoms he appointed some of
his strongest men, men little troubled by scruples of justice or mercy, but capable
leaders in war or diplomacy. It was an essential part of the plan that every conquest
should be secured by the building of castles, just as had been done in England. And
we have now to trace very briefly the outline of Norman conquest in Wales by the
castles which they have left behind them.
We shall confine ourselves to those castles which are mentioned in the Brut y
Tywysogion, the Pipe Rolls, or other trustworthy documents between 1066 and
1216, the end of King John’s reign. Of many of these castles only the earthworks
remain; of many others the original plan, exactly similar to that of the early castles
of Normandy and France, is still to be traced, though masked by the masonry of a
later age. Grose remarked but could not explain the fact that we continually read of
the castles of the Marches being burnt and utterly destroyed, and a few months later
we find them again standing and in working order. This can only, but easily, be
explained when we understand that they were wooden castles built on mottes,
quickly restored after a complete destruction of the wooden buildings.
North Wales appears to have been the earliest conquest of the Normans, though not
the most lasting. North Wales comprised the Welsh kingdoms of Gwynedd and
Powys. Gwynedd covered the present shires of Anglesea, Carnarvon, and
Merioneth, and the mountainous districts round Snowdon.[836] Powys stretched
from the estuary of the Dee to the upper course of the Wye, and roughly included
Flint, Denbigh, Montgomery, and Radnor shires. Hugh of Avranches, Earl of
Chester, was the great instrument of Norman conquest in Gwynedd, and in the
northern part of Powys, which lay so near his own dominions. He was evidently a
man in whose ability William had great confidence, as he removed him from
Tutbury to the more difficult and dangerous position of Chester, and gave his
earldom palatine privileges; all the land in Cheshire was held under the earl, and he
was a sort of little king in his county.
Page 214
Hugh appears to have at once commenced the conquest of North Wales. As
Professor Lloyd remarks, Domesday Book shows us Deganwy as the most
advanced Norman post on the North Welsh coast, while on the Bristol Channel they
had got no further than Caerleon.[837] In advancing to the valley of the Clwyd and
building a castle at Rhuddlan, the Normans were only securing the district which
had already been conquered by Harold in 1063, when he burnt the hall of King
Griffith at Rhuddlan. Nearly the whole of Flintshire (its manors are enumerated by
Domesday Book under Cheshire) was held by Earl Hugh in 1086, so that he
commanded the entire road from Chester to Rhuddlan. His powerful vassal, Robert
of Rhuddlan, who became the terror of North Wales, besides the lands which he
held of Earl Hugh, held also directly of the King Rhos and Rhufeniog, districts
which roughly correspond to the modern shire of Denbigh, and “Nort Wales” which
Professor Lloyd takes to mean the remainder of the principality of Gwynedd, from
which the rightful ruler, Griffith ap Cynan, had been driven as an exile to Ireland.
It does not appear that there was any fortification at Rhuddlan[838] before the
“castle newly erected” by Earl Hugh and his vassal Robert. They shared between
them the castle and the new borough which was built near it.[839] One word about
this new borough, which will apply to the other boroughs planted by Norman
castles. There were no towns in Wales of any importance before the Norman
Conquest, and this civilising institution of the borough is the one great set-off to the
cruelty and unrighteousness of the conquest. Mills, markets, and trade arose where
castles were seated, and civilisation followed in their train.
The castle of Hugh and Robert was not the magnificent building which still stands
at Rhuddlan, for that is entirely the work of Edward I., and there is documentary
evidence that Edward made a purchase of new land for the site of his castle.[840]
More probably Robert and Hugh had a wooden castle on the now reduced motte
which may be seen to the south of Edward’s castle. In Gough’s time this motte was
still “surrounded with a very deep ditch, including the abbey.” Nothing can be seen
of this ditch now, except on the south side of the motte, where a deep ravine runs
up from the river. As from Gough’s description the hillock (called Tut Hill)[841] was
within the precincts of the priory of Black Friars, founded in the 13th century, it is
extremely probable that Edward gave the site of the old castle to the Dominicans
when he built his new one.[842]
Another of the castles of Robert of Rhuddlan was Deganwy, or Gannoc, which
defended the mouth of the Conway.[843] Here it is said that there was an ancient
seat of the kings of Gwynedd.[844] The two conical hills which rise here offer an
excellent site for fortification, one of them being large enough on top for a
considerable camp. The Norman Conqueror treated them as two mottes, and
Professor Lloyd remarks, Domesday Book shows us Deganwy as the most
advanced Norman post on the North Welsh coast, while on the Bristol Channel they
had got no further than Caerleon.[837] In advancing to the valley of the Clwyd and
building a castle at Rhuddlan, the Normans were only securing the district which
had already been conquered by Harold in 1063, when he burnt the hall of King
Griffith at Rhuddlan. Nearly the whole of Flintshire (its manors are enumerated by
Domesday Book under Cheshire) was held by Earl Hugh in 1086, so that he
commanded the entire road from Chester to Rhuddlan. His powerful vassal, Robert
of Rhuddlan, who became the terror of North Wales, besides the lands which he
held of Earl Hugh, held also directly of the King Rhos and Rhufeniog, districts
which roughly correspond to the modern shire of Denbigh, and “Nort Wales” which
Professor Lloyd takes to mean the remainder of the principality of Gwynedd, from
which the rightful ruler, Griffith ap Cynan, had been driven as an exile to Ireland.
It does not appear that there was any fortification at Rhuddlan[838] before the
“castle newly erected” by Earl Hugh and his vassal Robert. They shared between
them the castle and the new borough which was built near it.[839] One word about
this new borough, which will apply to the other boroughs planted by Norman
castles. There were no towns in Wales of any importance before the Norman
Conquest, and this civilising institution of the borough is the one great set-off to the
cruelty and unrighteousness of the conquest. Mills, markets, and trade arose where
castles were seated, and civilisation followed in their train.
The castle of Hugh and Robert was not the magnificent building which still stands
at Rhuddlan, for that is entirely the work of Edward I., and there is documentary
evidence that Edward made a purchase of new land for the site of his castle.[840]
More probably Robert and Hugh had a wooden castle on the now reduced motte
which may be seen to the south of Edward’s castle. In Gough’s time this motte was
still “surrounded with a very deep ditch, including the abbey.” Nothing can be seen
of this ditch now, except on the south side of the motte, where a deep ravine runs
up from the river. As from Gough’s description the hillock (called Tut Hill)[841] was
within the precincts of the priory of Black Friars, founded in the 13th century, it is
extremely probable that Edward gave the site of the old castle to the Dominicans
when he built his new one.[842]
Another of the castles of Robert of Rhuddlan was Deganwy, or Gannoc, which
defended the mouth of the Conway.[843] Here it is said that there was an ancient
seat of the kings of Gwynedd.[844] The two conical hills which rise here offer an
excellent site for fortification, one of them being large enough on top for a
considerable camp. The Norman Conqueror treated them as two mottes, and
Page 215
connected them by walls so as to form a bailey below them. The stone fortifications
are probably the remains of the castle built by the Earl of Chester in 1211.[845] This
castle was naturally a sorely contested point, and often passed from hand to hand;
but it was in English possession in the reign of Henry III. It was abandoned when
Edward I. built his great castle at Conway.
With its usual indifference, the Survey mentions no castle in Flintshire, but we may
be sure that the castle of Mold, or Montalto (Fig. 40), was one of the earliest by
which the Norman acquisitions in that region were defended,[846] though it is not
mentioned in authentic history until 1147. The tradition that it was built by Robert
de Monte Alto, one of the barons of the Earl of Chester, is no doubt correct, though
the assumption of Welsh legend-makers that the Gwydd Grug, or great tumulus,
from which this castle derives its Welsh name, existed before the castle, may be
dismissed as baseless. The motte of Robert de Monte Alto still exists, and is
uncommonly high and perfect; it has two baileys, separated by great ditches, and
appears to have had a shell on top. [D. H. M.] The castle was regarded as specially
strong, and its reduction by Owen Gwynedd in 1147 was one of the sweetest
triumphs that the Welsh ever won.[847]
are probably the remains of the castle built by the Earl of Chester in 1211.[845] This
castle was naturally a sorely contested point, and often passed from hand to hand;
but it was in English possession in the reign of Henry III. It was abandoned when
Edward I. built his great castle at Conway.
With its usual indifference, the Survey mentions no castle in Flintshire, but we may
be sure that the castle of Mold, or Montalto (Fig. 40), was one of the earliest by
which the Norman acquisitions in that region were defended,[846] though it is not
mentioned in authentic history until 1147. The tradition that it was built by Robert
de Monte Alto, one of the barons of the Earl of Chester, is no doubt correct, though
the assumption of Welsh legend-makers that the Gwydd Grug, or great tumulus,
from which this castle derives its Welsh name, existed before the castle, may be
dismissed as baseless. The motte of Robert de Monte Alto still exists, and is
uncommonly high and perfect; it has two baileys, separated by great ditches, and
appears to have had a shell on top. [D. H. M.] The castle was regarded as specially
strong, and its reduction by Owen Gwynedd in 1147 was one of the sweetest
triumphs that the Welsh ever won.[847]
Page 216
Mold.
Welshpool.
Welshpool.
Page 217
Wrexham.
Page 218
Mathraval.
Fig. 40.—Motte-Castles of North Wales.
It is clear from the Life of Griffith ap Cynan[848] that the Earl of Chester had
conquered and incastellated Gwynedd before the accession of William
Rufus. This valuable document unfortunately gives no dates, but it mentions
in particular the castle at Aberlleinog,[849] one at Carnarvon, one at Bangor,
and one in Merioneth. The motte at Aberlleinog, near Beaumaris, still
exists, and the half-moon bailey is traceable, but the curious little round
towers and revetting wall in masonry on the motte were probably built to
carry guns at the time of the Civil War, when this castle was besieged by the
Royalists. At Carnarvon the magnificent castle of Edward I. has displaced
all former erections, yet some evidence for a motte-and-bailey plan may be
found in the fact that the northern portion of the castle has evidently been
once separated by a ditch from the southern, and is also much higher.[850]
On the hills above Bangor, Pennant thought he had discovered the remains
Fig. 40.—Motte-Castles of North Wales.
It is clear from the Life of Griffith ap Cynan[848] that the Earl of Chester had
conquered and incastellated Gwynedd before the accession of William
Rufus. This valuable document unfortunately gives no dates, but it mentions
in particular the castle at Aberlleinog,[849] one at Carnarvon, one at Bangor,
and one in Merioneth. The motte at Aberlleinog, near Beaumaris, still
exists, and the half-moon bailey is traceable, but the curious little round
towers and revetting wall in masonry on the motte were probably built to
carry guns at the time of the Civil War, when this castle was besieged by the
Royalists. At Carnarvon the magnificent castle of Edward I. has displaced
all former erections, yet some evidence for a motte-and-bailey plan may be
found in the fact that the northern portion of the castle has evidently been
once separated by a ditch from the southern, and is also much higher.[850]
On the hills above Bangor, Pennant thought he had discovered the remains
Page 219
of Earl Hugh’s castle, but having carefully examined these walls, we are
convinced that they never formed part of a castle at all, as they are much
too thin; nor are there any vestiges of earthworks.[851] We are disposed to
think that instead of at Bangor, the castle of Earl Hugh was at Aber, often
spoken of as Abermenai in the Chronicles, and evidently the most important
port on the Straits. At Aber there still remains a motte which must have
belonged to an important castle, as it was afterwards one of the seats of
Llywelyn ap Jorwerth, Prince of Gwynedd. The castle in Merioneth cannot
be certainly identified.
In one of the invasions of William Rufus, which both the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle and the Brut describe as so unsuccessful, we hear that he
encamped at Mur Castell, a place undoubtedly the same as what is now
called Tomen-y-Mur, a motte standing just inside a Roman camp, on the
Roman road leading from Shropshire into Merioneth and Carnarvon. This
motte is surrounded by a ditch; there are traces of the usual earthen rampart
round the top, now mutilated by landslips.[852] We may, with great
probability, assume that this motte was thrown up by William Rufus, and
that the Roman camp served as a bailey for his invading host. Whether it
was garrisoned for the Normans we cannot say, but it evidently formed an
important post on a route often followed by their invading armies, as Henry
I. is said to have encamped there twice.[853] It is one of the few mottes
which stand in a wild and mountainous situation, and its purpose no doubt
was purely military.[854]
The earls of Chester did not retain the sovereignty of Gwynedd; on the
death of Rufus, Griffith ap Cynan returned, and obtained possession of
Anglesea. He was favourably received at the court of Henry I., and
gradually recovered possession of the whole of Gwynedd. In 1114 Henry
had to undertake a great expedition against him to enforce the payment of
tribute;[855] from which, and from the peaceful manner in which Griffith
seems to have acquired his principality, we may infer that this tribute was
the bargain of his possession. It very likely suited Henry’s policy better to
have a tributary Welsh prince than a too powerful earl of Chester.
convinced that they never formed part of a castle at all, as they are much
too thin; nor are there any vestiges of earthworks.[851] We are disposed to
think that instead of at Bangor, the castle of Earl Hugh was at Aber, often
spoken of as Abermenai in the Chronicles, and evidently the most important
port on the Straits. At Aber there still remains a motte which must have
belonged to an important castle, as it was afterwards one of the seats of
Llywelyn ap Jorwerth, Prince of Gwynedd. The castle in Merioneth cannot
be certainly identified.
In one of the invasions of William Rufus, which both the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle and the Brut describe as so unsuccessful, we hear that he
encamped at Mur Castell, a place undoubtedly the same as what is now
called Tomen-y-Mur, a motte standing just inside a Roman camp, on the
Roman road leading from Shropshire into Merioneth and Carnarvon. This
motte is surrounded by a ditch; there are traces of the usual earthen rampart
round the top, now mutilated by landslips.[852] We may, with great
probability, assume that this motte was thrown up by William Rufus, and
that the Roman camp served as a bailey for his invading host. Whether it
was garrisoned for the Normans we cannot say, but it evidently formed an
important post on a route often followed by their invading armies, as Henry
I. is said to have encamped there twice.[853] It is one of the few mottes
which stand in a wild and mountainous situation, and its purpose no doubt
was purely military.[854]
The earls of Chester did not retain the sovereignty of Gwynedd; on the
death of Rufus, Griffith ap Cynan returned, and obtained possession of
Anglesea. He was favourably received at the court of Henry I., and
gradually recovered possession of the whole of Gwynedd. In 1114 Henry
had to undertake a great expedition against him to enforce the payment of
tribute;[855] from which, and from the peaceful manner in which Griffith
seems to have acquired his principality, we may infer that this tribute was
the bargain of his possession. It very likely suited Henry’s policy better to
have a tributary Welsh prince than a too powerful earl of Chester.
Page 220
The reigns of the three first Norman kings were the time in which Norman
supremacy in Wales made its greatest advances. With the accession of
Stephen and the civil war which followed it came the great opportunity for
the Welsh of throwing off the Norman yoke. Powys appears to have been
the only province which remained faithful to the English allegiance, under
Madoc ap Meredith.[856] The history of Norman conquest in Powys is more
confused than that of Gwynedd, but Domesday shows us that Rainald, the
Sheriff of Shropshire, a vassal of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, was seated at
Edeyrnion and Cynlle, two districts along the upper valley of the Dee.[857]
Robert of Rhuddlan held part of his grant of “Nort Wales,” namely the
hundred of Arwystli, in the very centre of Wales, under Earl Roger.
Professor Lloyd remarks, “Earl Roger claimed the same authority over
Powys as Earl Hugh over Gwynedd, and the theory that the princes of this
region were subject to the lords of Salop survived the fall of the House of
Montgomery.”[858]
We have already spoken of Earl Roger de Montgomeri and his brood of
able and unscrupulous sons.[859] The palatine earldom of Shrewsbury lay
along the eastern border of central Powys, and must soon have proved a
menace to that Welsh kingdom. Domesday Book shows us that Earl Roger
had already planted his castle of Montgomery well within the Welsh border
at that date. But the ambition of Earl Roger and his sons stretched beyond
their immediate borders. It is probable that they used the upper Severn
valley, which they fortified by the castle of Montgomery, and possibly by
the castle of Welshpool, as their road into Ceredigion, for we find Earl
Roger named by the Brut as the builder of the castle of Cilgerran,[860] and
some say of Cardigan also. Possibly he was helping his son Arnolf in the
conquest of Pembroke. In 1098 we find his successor, Earl Hugh, allied
with the Earl of Chester in the invasion of Anglesea.
Montgomery.—This castle is named from the ancestral seat of its founder.
[861]
The motte-and-bailey plan is still very apparent in the ruins, though the
motte is represented by a precipitous rock, only a few feet higher than the
baileys attached, and separated from them by a ditch cut through the
headland. The masonry, the chief part of which is the shell wall and towers
on this isolated rock, is none of it older than the reign of Henry III., when
large sums were spent on this castle, and it is spoken of in a writ as “the
supremacy in Wales made its greatest advances. With the accession of
Stephen and the civil war which followed it came the great opportunity for
the Welsh of throwing off the Norman yoke. Powys appears to have been
the only province which remained faithful to the English allegiance, under
Madoc ap Meredith.[856] The history of Norman conquest in Powys is more
confused than that of Gwynedd, but Domesday shows us that Rainald, the
Sheriff of Shropshire, a vassal of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, was seated at
Edeyrnion and Cynlle, two districts along the upper valley of the Dee.[857]
Robert of Rhuddlan held part of his grant of “Nort Wales,” namely the
hundred of Arwystli, in the very centre of Wales, under Earl Roger.
Professor Lloyd remarks, “Earl Roger claimed the same authority over
Powys as Earl Hugh over Gwynedd, and the theory that the princes of this
region were subject to the lords of Salop survived the fall of the House of
Montgomery.”[858]
We have already spoken of Earl Roger de Montgomeri and his brood of
able and unscrupulous sons.[859] The palatine earldom of Shrewsbury lay
along the eastern border of central Powys, and must soon have proved a
menace to that Welsh kingdom. Domesday Book shows us that Earl Roger
had already planted his castle of Montgomery well within the Welsh border
at that date. But the ambition of Earl Roger and his sons stretched beyond
their immediate borders. It is probable that they used the upper Severn
valley, which they fortified by the castle of Montgomery, and possibly by
the castle of Welshpool, as their road into Ceredigion, for we find Earl
Roger named by the Brut as the builder of the castle of Cilgerran,[860] and
some say of Cardigan also. Possibly he was helping his son Arnolf in the
conquest of Pembroke. In 1098 we find his successor, Earl Hugh, allied
with the Earl of Chester in the invasion of Anglesea.
Montgomery.—This castle is named from the ancestral seat of its founder.
[861]
The motte-and-bailey plan is still very apparent in the ruins, though the
motte is represented by a precipitous rock, only a few feet higher than the
baileys attached, and separated from them by a ditch cut through the
headland. The masonry, the chief part of which is the shell wall and towers
on this isolated rock, is none of it older than the reign of Henry III., when
large sums were spent on this castle, and it is spoken of in a writ as “the
Page 221
new Castle of Montgomery.”[862] Yet even then the whole of the defences
were not remade in stone, as bretasches of timber are ordered in a
mandamus of 1223.[863] The four wards are all roughly rectilateral. The
castle was never recovered permanently by the Welsh, and after the
forfeiture of Robert Belesme, the third Earl of Shrewsbury, in 1101, the
Crown kept this important border fortress in its own hands throughout the
Middle Ages.
Although Montgomery Castle is the only one mentioned in that region at
the same date, there must have been many others, for in 1225 Henry III.
ordered all who had mottes in the valley of Montgomery to fortify them
with good bretasches without delay;[864] and the remains of these mottes are
still numerous in the valley. It is quite possible that the mottes at Moat Lane
and Llandinam were thrown up to defend the road into Arwystli; but this is
conjecture.[865]
Welshpool, alias Pol or Pool (Fig. 40), is also called the Castle of Trallung.
—In Powell’s History of Wales (p. 137) it is stated that Cadwgan ap
Bleddyn, when Henry I. took Cardigan from him, retired to Powys, and
began to build a castle here. Powell’s statements, however, have no
authority when unconfirmed, and we are unable to find any confirmation of
this statement in the more trustworthy version of the Brut. And as the House
of Montgomeri was firmly established in the valley of Montgomery as early
as 1086, it seems more probable that the two motte-and-bailey castles at
Welshpool, lower down the Severn valley, are relics of the early progress of
that family, especially as one of these castles is only about a mile east of
Offa’s Dyke, the ancient border. This latter motte is partly cut into by the
railway, and diminished in size, but the bailey is nearly perfect. The other
one is in the park of Powys Castle, and is an admirable specimen of its
class. The breastwork round the top of the motte remains. [H. W.] It seems
probable that this was the precursor of Powys Castle, and was abandoned at
an early period, as the newer castle was known by the name of Castell
Coch, or the Red Castle, as early as 1233.[866] Leland states that there were
formerly two castles of two different Lords Marchers at Welshpool;[867]
possibly this throws some light on the existence of these two motte-castles.
were not remade in stone, as bretasches of timber are ordered in a
mandamus of 1223.[863] The four wards are all roughly rectilateral. The
castle was never recovered permanently by the Welsh, and after the
forfeiture of Robert Belesme, the third Earl of Shrewsbury, in 1101, the
Crown kept this important border fortress in its own hands throughout the
Middle Ages.
Although Montgomery Castle is the only one mentioned in that region at
the same date, there must have been many others, for in 1225 Henry III.
ordered all who had mottes in the valley of Montgomery to fortify them
with good bretasches without delay;[864] and the remains of these mottes are
still numerous in the valley. It is quite possible that the mottes at Moat Lane
and Llandinam were thrown up to defend the road into Arwystli; but this is
conjecture.[865]
Welshpool, alias Pol or Pool (Fig. 40), is also called the Castle of Trallung.
—In Powell’s History of Wales (p. 137) it is stated that Cadwgan ap
Bleddyn, when Henry I. took Cardigan from him, retired to Powys, and
began to build a castle here. Powell’s statements, however, have no
authority when unconfirmed, and we are unable to find any confirmation of
this statement in the more trustworthy version of the Brut. And as the House
of Montgomeri was firmly established in the valley of Montgomery as early
as 1086, it seems more probable that the two motte-and-bailey castles at
Welshpool, lower down the Severn valley, are relics of the early progress of
that family, especially as one of these castles is only about a mile east of
Offa’s Dyke, the ancient border. This latter motte is partly cut into by the
railway, and diminished in size, but the bailey is nearly perfect. The other
one is in the park of Powys Castle, and is an admirable specimen of its
class. The breastwork round the top of the motte remains. [H. W.] It seems
probable that this was the precursor of Powys Castle, and was abandoned at
an early period, as the newer castle was known by the name of Castell
Coch, or the Red Castle, as early as 1233.[866] Leland states that there were
formerly two castles of two different Lords Marchers at Welshpool;[867]
possibly this throws some light on the existence of these two motte-castles.
Page 222
When Henry II. came to the throne in 1154, one of the many questions
which he had to settle was the Welsh question. His first expedition against
North Wales was in 1157. Here he was one day placed in grave difficulties,
and fortune was only restored by his personal courage. But in spite of this
we learn even from the Welsh chronicler that he continued his advance to
Rhuddlan, and that the object of the expedition, which was the restoration
of Cadwalader, one of the sons of Griffith ap Cynan, to his lands, was
accomplished. The English chronicler Roger of Wendover says that Henry
recovered all the fortresses which had been taken from his predecessors,
and rebuilt Basingwerk Castle; and when he had reduced the Welsh to
submission, returned in triumph to England. The undoubted facts of the
Pipe Rolls show us that in the year 1159 Henry had in his hands the castles
of Overton, Hodesley, Wrexham, Dernio, Ruthin, and Rhuddlan, castles
which would give him command of the whole of Flintshire and of East
Denbigh and the valley of the Clwyd. Similarly, after the expedition of
1165, sometimes stated to have been only disastrous, we find him in
possession of the castles of Rhuddlan, Basingwerk, Prestatyn, Mold,
Overton, and Chirk;[868] so that after the battle of Crogen, or Chirk, he
actually held the battlefield.
We are thus introduced to an entirely new group of castles, Rhuddlan being
the only one which we have heard of before. But it is highly probable that
most of these castles were originally raised by the earls of Chester or
Shrewsbury, and were in Henry’s hands by escheat.
*Basingwerk.—The werk referred to in this name has probably nothing to
do with the castle, but refers to Wat’s Dyke, which reaches the Dee at this
point. The abbey at this place was founded by an earl of Chester,[869] which
makes it probable that the castle also was originally his work, especially as
Wendover says that Henry rebuilt it. There is no trace of a castle near the
abbey,[870] but less than a mile off, near Holywell Church, there is a
headland called Bryn y Castell, with a small mound at the farther end,
which has far more claim to be the site of Basingwerk Castle, especially as
it is mentioned in John’s reign (when it was retaken from the Welsh) as the
castle of Haliwell.[871]
Overton, in East Denbigh, on the middle course of the Dee. In custody of
Roger de Powys for the king in 1159-1160. As Leland speaks of the ditches
which he had to settle was the Welsh question. His first expedition against
North Wales was in 1157. Here he was one day placed in grave difficulties,
and fortune was only restored by his personal courage. But in spite of this
we learn even from the Welsh chronicler that he continued his advance to
Rhuddlan, and that the object of the expedition, which was the restoration
of Cadwalader, one of the sons of Griffith ap Cynan, to his lands, was
accomplished. The English chronicler Roger of Wendover says that Henry
recovered all the fortresses which had been taken from his predecessors,
and rebuilt Basingwerk Castle; and when he had reduced the Welsh to
submission, returned in triumph to England. The undoubted facts of the
Pipe Rolls show us that in the year 1159 Henry had in his hands the castles
of Overton, Hodesley, Wrexham, Dernio, Ruthin, and Rhuddlan, castles
which would give him command of the whole of Flintshire and of East
Denbigh and the valley of the Clwyd. Similarly, after the expedition of
1165, sometimes stated to have been only disastrous, we find him in
possession of the castles of Rhuddlan, Basingwerk, Prestatyn, Mold,
Overton, and Chirk;[868] so that after the battle of Crogen, or Chirk, he
actually held the battlefield.
We are thus introduced to an entirely new group of castles, Rhuddlan being
the only one which we have heard of before. But it is highly probable that
most of these castles were originally raised by the earls of Chester or
Shrewsbury, and were in Henry’s hands by escheat.
*Basingwerk.—The werk referred to in this name has probably nothing to
do with the castle, but refers to Wat’s Dyke, which reaches the Dee at this
point. The abbey at this place was founded by an earl of Chester,[869] which
makes it probable that the castle also was originally his work, especially as
Wendover says that Henry rebuilt it. There is no trace of a castle near the
abbey,[870] but less than a mile off, near Holywell Church, there is a
headland called Bryn y Castell, with a small mound at the farther end,
which has far more claim to be the site of Basingwerk Castle, especially as
it is mentioned in John’s reign (when it was retaken from the Welsh) as the
castle of Haliwell.[871]
Overton, in East Denbigh, on the middle course of the Dee. In custody of
Roger de Powys for the king in 1159-1160. As Leland speaks of the ditches
Page 223
and hill of the castle, it was probably a motte-castle of the usual type. “One
parte of the ditches and Hille of the castel yet remaynith; the residew is in
the botom of Dee.”[872] It is probably all there now, as not a vestige can be
traced. [B. T. S.]
Dernio, or Dernant.—There can be no question that Dernio is Edeyrnion,
the valley stretching from Bala Lake to Corwen. Domesday Book tells us
that Rainald the Sheriff, a “man” of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, held two
“fines” in Wales, Chenlei and Dernio, that is, Cynllaith and Edeyrnion.[873]
Towards the end of the 11th century there must have been a Norman castle
at Rug in Edeyrnion, as it was to this place that the earls of Chester and
Shrewsbury enticed Griffith ap Cynan, the rightful ruler of Gwynedd; they
then sent him prisoner to Chester for twelve years.[874] Very likely the castle
of Dernio, which Henry II. was putting into a state of defence in 1159,[875]
was at Rug, 1½ miles from Corwen, where there is still a motte in some
private grounds, and there was formerly a bailey also.[876] The place was
the seat of an important family in later times. At any rate, the castle was in
Edeyrnion, and shows that Henry was holding the northern part of
Merionethshire.
Hodesley; undoubtedly “The Rofts” near Gresford, a motte with remains of
a bailey, on a headland above the river Alyn. It is in the former lordship of
Hoseley.[877]
Wrexham, the Wristlesham of the Pipe Rolls (Fig. 40).—Henry was paying
for the custody of this castle and that of Hoseley in 1160 and 1161. Both
castles are in the district of Bromfield, which was one of the early
acquisitions of the earls of Chester. Mr Palmer remarks that this district was
probably ceded to the princes of Powys, in return for the help which they
often rendered to the English king against other Welsh princes, as it is found
as part of Powys at a later period.[878] There are no remains of any castle at
Wrexham itself, but about a mile off, in Erddig Park, there is a motte and
bailey of considerable size (though the motte is reduced) showing that a
castle of some importance once stood there. There were formerly some
remains of masonry.[879] Wat’s Dyke has been utilised to form one side of
the bailey. It is probable that the importance of the two Bromfield castles,
parte of the ditches and Hille of the castel yet remaynith; the residew is in
the botom of Dee.”[872] It is probably all there now, as not a vestige can be
traced. [B. T. S.]
Dernio, or Dernant.—There can be no question that Dernio is Edeyrnion,
the valley stretching from Bala Lake to Corwen. Domesday Book tells us
that Rainald the Sheriff, a “man” of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, held two
“fines” in Wales, Chenlei and Dernio, that is, Cynllaith and Edeyrnion.[873]
Towards the end of the 11th century there must have been a Norman castle
at Rug in Edeyrnion, as it was to this place that the earls of Chester and
Shrewsbury enticed Griffith ap Cynan, the rightful ruler of Gwynedd; they
then sent him prisoner to Chester for twelve years.[874] Very likely the castle
of Dernio, which Henry II. was putting into a state of defence in 1159,[875]
was at Rug, 1½ miles from Corwen, where there is still a motte in some
private grounds, and there was formerly a bailey also.[876] The place was
the seat of an important family in later times. At any rate, the castle was in
Edeyrnion, and shows that Henry was holding the northern part of
Merionethshire.
Hodesley; undoubtedly “The Rofts” near Gresford, a motte with remains of
a bailey, on a headland above the river Alyn. It is in the former lordship of
Hoseley.[877]
Wrexham, the Wristlesham of the Pipe Rolls (Fig. 40).—Henry was paying
for the custody of this castle and that of Hoseley in 1160 and 1161. Both
castles are in the district of Bromfield, which was one of the early
acquisitions of the earls of Chester. Mr Palmer remarks that this district was
probably ceded to the princes of Powys, in return for the help which they
often rendered to the English king against other Welsh princes, as it is found
as part of Powys at a later period.[878] There are no remains of any castle at
Wrexham itself, but about a mile off, in Erddig Park, there is a motte and
bailey of considerable size (though the motte is reduced) showing that a
castle of some importance once stood there. There were formerly some
remains of masonry.[879] Wat’s Dyke has been utilised to form one side of
the bailey. It is probable that the importance of the two Bromfield castles,
Page 224
Wrexham and Hoseley, was lost when the princes of Powys built their castle
on Dinas Bran.
*Ruthin.—This important castle, defending the upper valley of the Clwyd,
was probably in existence long before Henry II. repaired it in 1160, and
may perhaps be attributed to Earl Hugh of Chester. The plan shows
distinctly that it was once a motte and bailey, though the castle is now
transformed into a modern house.[880]
Chirk, or Crogen, in the valley of the Ceiriog.—Henry was paying for the
custody of this castle in 1164, and was provisioning it in 1167.[881] King
John paid for the erection of a bretasche there, possibly after some
destruction by the Welsh.[882] Probably the first castle of Chirk did not stand
in the commanding situation now occupied by the castle of Edward I.’s
reign, but is represented by a small motte in a garden near the Ceiriog
stream, and close to the church. An Anglo-Norman poem of the 13th
century attributes the first building of this castle to William Peverel, Lord of
Whittington and Ellesmere, and says he placed it “on the water of
Ceiriog.”[883] No doubt it defended the passage of the stream, and an
important road into Shropshire.
Prestatyn.—This castle defended the coast road from Chester to Rhuddlan.
Henry II. granted it to Robert Banaster for his services in 1165.[884] It was
destroyed by Owen Gwynedd in 1167, and does not appear to have been
rebuilt. A low motte with a half-moon bailey, and a larger square enclosure,
still remain. [B. T. S.]
Mr Davis has remarked that John was more successful in extending his
authority over the British Isles than in anything else.[885] In 1211 he led an
expedition into the heart of Wales, and reduced his son-in-law Llywelyn ap
Jorwerth to complete submission. As usual, the expedition was marked by
the building or repair of castles. The Earl of Chester restored Deganwy,
which shows that the English frontier was again advanced to the Conway;
he also repaired the castle of Holywell, which the Pipe Roll shows to have
been recovered from the Welsh about this time.[886] These Rolls also show
on Dinas Bran.
*Ruthin.—This important castle, defending the upper valley of the Clwyd,
was probably in existence long before Henry II. repaired it in 1160, and
may perhaps be attributed to Earl Hugh of Chester. The plan shows
distinctly that it was once a motte and bailey, though the castle is now
transformed into a modern house.[880]
Chirk, or Crogen, in the valley of the Ceiriog.—Henry was paying for the
custody of this castle in 1164, and was provisioning it in 1167.[881] King
John paid for the erection of a bretasche there, possibly after some
destruction by the Welsh.[882] Probably the first castle of Chirk did not stand
in the commanding situation now occupied by the castle of Edward I.’s
reign, but is represented by a small motte in a garden near the Ceiriog
stream, and close to the church. An Anglo-Norman poem of the 13th
century attributes the first building of this castle to William Peverel, Lord of
Whittington and Ellesmere, and says he placed it “on the water of
Ceiriog.”[883] No doubt it defended the passage of the stream, and an
important road into Shropshire.
Prestatyn.—This castle defended the coast road from Chester to Rhuddlan.
Henry II. granted it to Robert Banaster for his services in 1165.[884] It was
destroyed by Owen Gwynedd in 1167, and does not appear to have been
rebuilt. A low motte with a half-moon bailey, and a larger square enclosure,
still remain. [B. T. S.]
Mr Davis has remarked that John was more successful in extending his
authority over the British Isles than in anything else.[885] In 1211 he led an
expedition into the heart of Wales, and reduced his son-in-law Llywelyn ap
Jorwerth to complete submission. As usual, the expedition was marked by
the building or repair of castles. The Earl of Chester restored Deganwy,
which shows that the English frontier was again advanced to the Conway;
he also repaired the castle of Holywell, which the Pipe Roll shows to have
been recovered from the Welsh about this time.[886] These Rolls also show
Page 225
that in 1212-1213 John was paying for works at the castles of Carreghova,
Ruthin, and Chirk, as well as at the following castles, which have not been
mentioned before.
Mathraval, Madrael in the Pipe Rolls (Fig. 40), near Meifod in
Montgomeryshire, defending the valley of the Vyrnwy.—Here was the chief
royal residence of Powys;[887] but the castle was built in John’s reign by
Roger de Vipont. It occupied 2¼ acres, and the motte is in one corner of the
area, which is square,[888] and surrounded only by banks; though ruined
foundations are found in parts of the castle. John himself burned the castle
in 1211, when the Welsh were besieging it,[889] but the Pipe Roll (1212-
1213) shows that he afterwards repaired it. [D. H. M.]
Egloe, or Eulo, called by Leland Castle Yollo.—On the Chester and
Holywell road, about 8 miles from Holywell. The mention in the Pipe Roll
of pikes and ammunition provided for this castle in 1212-1213 is the first
ancient allusion to it with which we are acquainted. It is a motte-and-bailey
castle, with additions in masonry which are probably of the reign of Henry
III. The keep is of the “thimble” plan, a rare instance.[890] [B. T. S.]
*Yale.—The Brut tells us that in 1148 (read 1150) Owen Gwynedd built a
castle in Yale. Powell identified this with Tomen y Rhodwydd, a motte and
bailey on the road between Llangollen and Ruthin. Yale, however, is the
name of a district, and there can be little doubt that the castle of Yale was
the motte and bailey at Llanarmon, which for a long period was the caput of
Yale.[891] Yale undoubtedly belonged to the Normans when Domesday
Book was compiled,[892] and it is therefore not unlikely that these
earthworks were first thrown up by the Earl of Chester. The castle was burnt
by Jorwerth Goch in 1158, but restored by John in 1212. One of the
expenses entered for that year is “for iron mallets for breaking the rocks in
the ditch of the castle of Yale.”[893] This ditch cut in the rock still remains,
as well as some foundations on the motte,[894] which is known as Tomen y
Vardra, or the Mount of the demesne.[895]
Ruthin, and Chirk, as well as at the following castles, which have not been
mentioned before.
Mathraval, Madrael in the Pipe Rolls (Fig. 40), near Meifod in
Montgomeryshire, defending the valley of the Vyrnwy.—Here was the chief
royal residence of Powys;[887] but the castle was built in John’s reign by
Roger de Vipont. It occupied 2¼ acres, and the motte is in one corner of the
area, which is square,[888] and surrounded only by banks; though ruined
foundations are found in parts of the castle. John himself burned the castle
in 1211, when the Welsh were besieging it,[889] but the Pipe Roll (1212-
1213) shows that he afterwards repaired it. [D. H. M.]
Egloe, or Eulo, called by Leland Castle Yollo.—On the Chester and
Holywell road, about 8 miles from Holywell. The mention in the Pipe Roll
of pikes and ammunition provided for this castle in 1212-1213 is the first
ancient allusion to it with which we are acquainted. It is a motte-and-bailey
castle, with additions in masonry which are probably of the reign of Henry
III. The keep is of the “thimble” plan, a rare instance.[890] [B. T. S.]
*Yale.—The Brut tells us that in 1148 (read 1150) Owen Gwynedd built a
castle in Yale. Powell identified this with Tomen y Rhodwydd, a motte and
bailey on the road between Llangollen and Ruthin. Yale, however, is the
name of a district, and there can be little doubt that the castle of Yale was
the motte and bailey at Llanarmon, which for a long period was the caput of
Yale.[891] Yale undoubtedly belonged to the Normans when Domesday
Book was compiled,[892] and it is therefore not unlikely that these
earthworks were first thrown up by the Earl of Chester. The castle was burnt
by Jorwerth Goch in 1158, but restored by John in 1212. One of the
expenses entered for that year is “for iron mallets for breaking the rocks in
the ditch of the castle of Yale.”[893] This ditch cut in the rock still remains,
as well as some foundations on the motte,[894] which is known as Tomen y
Vardra, or the Mount of the demesne.[895]
Page 226
How long the two last-mentioned groups of castles continued in Anglo-
Norman hands we do not attempt to say. North Wales, as is well known,
reaped a harvest of new power and prosperity through the civil war of the
end of John’s reign, and the ability of Llywelyn ap Jorwerth. Our task ends
with the reign of John. We have only to remark that until the Pipe Rolls of
Henry III.’s reign have been carefully searched, it is impossible to say with
certainty what castles of North Wales, or if any, were still held by the
English king.
Norman hands we do not attempt to say. North Wales, as is well known,
reaped a harvest of new power and prosperity through the civil war of the
end of John’s reign, and the ability of Llywelyn ap Jorwerth. Our task ends
with the reign of John. We have only to remark that until the Pipe Rolls of
Henry III.’s reign have been carefully searched, it is impossible to say with
certainty what castles of North Wales, or if any, were still held by the
English king.
Page 227
CHAPTER IX
MOTTE-CASTLES IN SOUTH WALES
It is not possible to fix certain dates for all the Norman conquests of the
several provinces of South Wales. These conquests proceeded from various
points, under different leaders. We might have expected that the earliest
advances would have been on the Herefordshire border, the earldom of
Hereford having been given by William I. to William FitzOsbern, one of his
most trusted and energetic servants. Ordericus tells us that FitzOsbern and
Walter de Lacy first invaded the district of Brecknock, and defeated three
kings of the Welsh.[896] This looks as though the conquest of Brecknock
was then begun. But it was not completed till the reign of Rufus; in 1093
Bernard of Neufmarché defeated and slew Rhys ap Tudor, King of South
Wales, in a battle which the Welsh chronicler speaks of as the fall of the
kingdom of the Britons.[897] William FitzOsbern died in 1071, and he had
scarcely time to accomplish more than the building of the border castles of
Wigmore, Clifford, Ewias, and Monmouth, and the incastellation of Gwent,
that is the country between the Wye and the Usk, which had already been
conquered by Harold.
It seems probable that Pembrokeshire was one of the earliest Norman
conquests in South Wales, as in 1073 and 1074 the Brut tells of two
expeditions of “the French” into Dyfed, a region which included not only
what we now call Pembrokeshire, but also Strath Towy, which comprised an
extensive district on both sides of the valley of the Towy.[898] The Annales
Cambriæ name Hugh de Montgomeri, Earl Roger’s eldest son, in
connection with the second of these expeditions, seven years before the
expedition of King William into Wales in 1081.[899] The House of
Montgomeri certainly took the most conspicuous part in the conquest of
Dyfed and Cardigan, which was completed, according to the Brut, in 1093.
[900]
Arnulf of Montgomeri, fifth son of Earl Roger, was the leader of this
conquest. But his father must at the same time have been operating in
Cardigan, as the building of the castle of Cilgerran, which is on the very
borders of Pembroke and Cardigan, is attributed to him.
MOTTE-CASTLES IN SOUTH WALES
It is not possible to fix certain dates for all the Norman conquests of the
several provinces of South Wales. These conquests proceeded from various
points, under different leaders. We might have expected that the earliest
advances would have been on the Herefordshire border, the earldom of
Hereford having been given by William I. to William FitzOsbern, one of his
most trusted and energetic servants. Ordericus tells us that FitzOsbern and
Walter de Lacy first invaded the district of Brecknock, and defeated three
kings of the Welsh.[896] This looks as though the conquest of Brecknock
was then begun. But it was not completed till the reign of Rufus; in 1093
Bernard of Neufmarché defeated and slew Rhys ap Tudor, King of South
Wales, in a battle which the Welsh chronicler speaks of as the fall of the
kingdom of the Britons.[897] William FitzOsbern died in 1071, and he had
scarcely time to accomplish more than the building of the border castles of
Wigmore, Clifford, Ewias, and Monmouth, and the incastellation of Gwent,
that is the country between the Wye and the Usk, which had already been
conquered by Harold.
It seems probable that Pembrokeshire was one of the earliest Norman
conquests in South Wales, as in 1073 and 1074 the Brut tells of two
expeditions of “the French” into Dyfed, a region which included not only
what we now call Pembrokeshire, but also Strath Towy, which comprised an
extensive district on both sides of the valley of the Towy.[898] The Annales
Cambriæ name Hugh de Montgomeri, Earl Roger’s eldest son, in
connection with the second of these expeditions, seven years before the
expedition of King William into Wales in 1081.[899] The House of
Montgomeri certainly took the most conspicuous part in the conquest of
Dyfed and Cardigan, which was completed, according to the Brut, in 1093.
[900]
Arnulf of Montgomeri, fifth son of Earl Roger, was the leader of this
conquest. But his father must at the same time have been operating in
Cardigan, as the building of the castle of Cilgerran, which is on the very
borders of Pembroke and Cardigan, is attributed to him.
Page 228
How far Earl Roger made himself master of Ceredigion it is impossible to
say. Later writers say that he built the castle of Cardigan, but we have not
been able to find any early authority for this statement, which in itself is not
improbable. Powell’s History makes him do homage to William Rufus for
the lordship of Cardigan, but here again the authority is doubtful.[901] The
fact that a castle in or near Aberystwyth was not built until 1109 may
indicate that the conquest of Northern Cardigan was not completed till it
became the portion of the De Clares. This took place in 1109, when Henry
I. deposed Cadwgan, a Welsh prince whom he had made Lord of Cardigan,
and gave the lordship to Gilbert de Clare, who immediately proceeded to
build the above-mentioned castle, and to restore Earl Roger’s castle at
Cilgerran (Dingeraint).[902] From this time the castle and district of
Cardigan continued to be an appanage of the House of Clare (of course with
frequent interruptions from Welsh invasions), and of the family of William
Marshall, to whom the Clare lands came by marriage. The authority of these
earls was suspended during the reign of Henry II., when he made Rhys ap
Griffith, who had possessed himself of Ceredigion by conquest, Justiciar of
South Wales, but in the reigns of John and Henry III., the Close Rolls show
that Cardigan Castle and county were generally in the hands of the
Marshalls.
The conquest of Pembrokeshire must have been closely followed by that of
what is now Carmarthenshire, which was then reckoned as part of Dyfed.
[903]
We first hear of the castle of Rhyd y Gors in 1094,[904] but it evidently
existed earlier. This castle we believe to have been the important castle of
Carmarthen (see post). It was founded by William, son of Baldwin, sheriff
of Devon, and cousin of the Gilbert de Clare who at a later period was made
Lord of Cardigan by Henry I. We thus see at what an early date this
important family made its appearance in Welsh history.
The conquest of Brecknock (Brecheiniog) we have already briefly referred
to. It must have begun as early as 1088, for in that year Bernard de
Neufmarché gave to St Peter’s Abbey at Gloucester the church and manor
of Glasbury. The inheritance of Bernard passed by marriage to the De
Braoses, and from them to the Mortimers. It is convenient to mention in this
connection the Norman conquest of Radnor, of which the De Braoses and
Mortimers were the heroes. A charter of Philip de Braose, not later than
say. Later writers say that he built the castle of Cardigan, but we have not
been able to find any early authority for this statement, which in itself is not
improbable. Powell’s History makes him do homage to William Rufus for
the lordship of Cardigan, but here again the authority is doubtful.[901] The
fact that a castle in or near Aberystwyth was not built until 1109 may
indicate that the conquest of Northern Cardigan was not completed till it
became the portion of the De Clares. This took place in 1109, when Henry
I. deposed Cadwgan, a Welsh prince whom he had made Lord of Cardigan,
and gave the lordship to Gilbert de Clare, who immediately proceeded to
build the above-mentioned castle, and to restore Earl Roger’s castle at
Cilgerran (Dingeraint).[902] From this time the castle and district of
Cardigan continued to be an appanage of the House of Clare (of course with
frequent interruptions from Welsh invasions), and of the family of William
Marshall, to whom the Clare lands came by marriage. The authority of these
earls was suspended during the reign of Henry II., when he made Rhys ap
Griffith, who had possessed himself of Ceredigion by conquest, Justiciar of
South Wales, but in the reigns of John and Henry III., the Close Rolls show
that Cardigan Castle and county were generally in the hands of the
Marshalls.
The conquest of Pembrokeshire must have been closely followed by that of
what is now Carmarthenshire, which was then reckoned as part of Dyfed.
[903]
We first hear of the castle of Rhyd y Gors in 1094,[904] but it evidently
existed earlier. This castle we believe to have been the important castle of
Carmarthen (see post). It was founded by William, son of Baldwin, sheriff
of Devon, and cousin of the Gilbert de Clare who at a later period was made
Lord of Cardigan by Henry I. We thus see at what an early date this
important family made its appearance in Welsh history.
The conquest of Brecknock (Brecheiniog) we have already briefly referred
to. It must have begun as early as 1088, for in that year Bernard de
Neufmarché gave to St Peter’s Abbey at Gloucester the church and manor
of Glasbury. The inheritance of Bernard passed by marriage to the De
Braoses, and from them to the Mortimers. It is convenient to mention in this
connection the Norman conquest of Radnor, of which the De Braoses and
Mortimers were the heroes. A charter of Philip de Braose, not later than
Page 229
1096, is dated at “Raddenoam.”[905] Even during the anarchy of Stephen’s
reign, the Mortimers were able to maintain their hold on this district, for the
Brut relates that in 1145, Hugh, son of Ralph Mortimer, conquered
Malienydd and Elvael the second time.[906] These two districts properly
belong to Powys, though geographically in South Wales.
We leave to the last the conquest of Glamorgan, which may possibly have
been one of the earliest, but whose date is still a matter of dispute, owing to
the legendary nature of the Aberpergwm version of the Brut, the only one
which even alludes to this conquest. We have, however, an initial date given
us in the year 1082, when the Brut y Tywysogion tell us of the building of
Cardiff Castle.[907] The conquest of “Morgannwg,” that is the country
between the Usk and the Neath, was the most permanent of any of those
accomplished by the Normans in Wales, but its details are the most obscure
of any. The earlier version of the Brut takes no notice of the conquest of
Glamorgan; the later version which goes by the name of the Gwentian
Chronicle[908] tells us that the Norman Robert Fitz Hamon, being called in
to the help of one Welsh prince against another, conquered Glamorgan for
himself, and divided it amongst his followers, who built castles in all parts
of the country. The date given is 1088. It seems to be agreed by historians
that while the facts of Robert Fitz Hamon’s existence and of his conquest of
Glamorgan are certain, the details and the list of followers given in this
chronicle are quite untrustworthy.[909]
The district called Gower did not then form part of Glamorgan, as it does
now, though it is still ecclesiastically separate. If we are to believe the
Aberpergwm Brut, it must have been conquered in 1094, when William de
Londres, one of the “knights” of Robert Fitz Hamon, built a strong castle in
Cydweli (Kidwelly).[910]
We will now briefly notice such of the castles of these various districts as
are mentioned in the sources to which we have already referred in our last
chapter, taking them in the order of the modern counties in which they are
found.
Castles of Pembrokeshire.
reign, the Mortimers were able to maintain their hold on this district, for the
Brut relates that in 1145, Hugh, son of Ralph Mortimer, conquered
Malienydd and Elvael the second time.[906] These two districts properly
belong to Powys, though geographically in South Wales.
We leave to the last the conquest of Glamorgan, which may possibly have
been one of the earliest, but whose date is still a matter of dispute, owing to
the legendary nature of the Aberpergwm version of the Brut, the only one
which even alludes to this conquest. We have, however, an initial date given
us in the year 1082, when the Brut y Tywysogion tell us of the building of
Cardiff Castle.[907] The conquest of “Morgannwg,” that is the country
between the Usk and the Neath, was the most permanent of any of those
accomplished by the Normans in Wales, but its details are the most obscure
of any. The earlier version of the Brut takes no notice of the conquest of
Glamorgan; the later version which goes by the name of the Gwentian
Chronicle[908] tells us that the Norman Robert Fitz Hamon, being called in
to the help of one Welsh prince against another, conquered Glamorgan for
himself, and divided it amongst his followers, who built castles in all parts
of the country. The date given is 1088. It seems to be agreed by historians
that while the facts of Robert Fitz Hamon’s existence and of his conquest of
Glamorgan are certain, the details and the list of followers given in this
chronicle are quite untrustworthy.[909]
The district called Gower did not then form part of Glamorgan, as it does
now, though it is still ecclesiastically separate. If we are to believe the
Aberpergwm Brut, it must have been conquered in 1094, when William de
Londres, one of the “knights” of Robert Fitz Hamon, built a strong castle in
Cydweli (Kidwelly).[910]
We will now briefly notice such of the castles of these various districts as
are mentioned in the sources to which we have already referred in our last
chapter, taking them in the order of the modern counties in which they are
found.
Castles of Pembrokeshire.
Page 230
Pembroke.—Giraldus says that Arnulf de Montgomeri first built this castle
of sods and wattles, a scanty and slender construction, in the reign of Henry
I.[911] This date, however, must certainly be wrong, for the castle sustained a
siege from the Welsh in 1094, and in 1098 Arnulf gave the chapel of St
Nicholas in his castle of Pembroke to the abbey of St Martin at Sées.[912]
There is no motte at Pembroke Castle; the magnificent keep (clearly of the
13th century or later) stands in a small ward at the edge of a cliff,[913]
separated by a former ditch from the immense encircling bailey whose
walls and towers are clearly of Edwardian date. The words of Giraldus “a
castle of wattles and turf” might lead us to think that the first castle was a
motte of the usual type, but the use which he makes of the same expression
in his work on Ireland leads one to think that he means a less defensible
fort, a mere bank and fence.[914] There is some reason, moreover, to doubt
whether the present castle of Pembroke stands on the same site as Arnulf’s,
as after the banishment of the latter, Gerald, the royal Seneschal of
Pembroke “built the castle anew in the place called Little Cengarth.”[915]
But however this may be, the castle of Pembroke was certainly strong
enough in 1094 to resist a great insurrection of the Welsh, when all the
castles of south-west Wales were destroyed, except Pembroke and Rhyd y
Gors. And it continued to be one of the chief strongholds of English power
in South Wales until Edward I. completed the conquest of the country. Its
splendid situation on a high cliff at the mouth of an excellent harbour, to
which supplies could be brought by sea, was one of the secrets of its
strength. A passage cut in the rock led from the castle to a cave below
opening on to the water.
*Newport, or Trefdaeth, was the head of the Barony of Keymes, an
independent lordship founded at the time of the first Norman advance, by
Martin of Tours.[916] There is no mention of it before 1215. The present
ruined castle of Newport is not earlier than the 13th century, but about 1½
miles higher up the river, at Llanhyfer, is a fine motte and bailey, which
probably mark the site of the first castle of Martin of Tours.[917]
Wiston, alias Gwys or Wiz.—First mentioned in 1148, when it was taken
by the Welsh.[918] At a later period we find it one of the castles of the Earl
of Pembroke. There is a motte still remaining, with a shell wall on top, 6
of sods and wattles, a scanty and slender construction, in the reign of Henry
I.[911] This date, however, must certainly be wrong, for the castle sustained a
siege from the Welsh in 1094, and in 1098 Arnulf gave the chapel of St
Nicholas in his castle of Pembroke to the abbey of St Martin at Sées.[912]
There is no motte at Pembroke Castle; the magnificent keep (clearly of the
13th century or later) stands in a small ward at the edge of a cliff,[913]
separated by a former ditch from the immense encircling bailey whose
walls and towers are clearly of Edwardian date. The words of Giraldus “a
castle of wattles and turf” might lead us to think that the first castle was a
motte of the usual type, but the use which he makes of the same expression
in his work on Ireland leads one to think that he means a less defensible
fort, a mere bank and fence.[914] There is some reason, moreover, to doubt
whether the present castle of Pembroke stands on the same site as Arnulf’s,
as after the banishment of the latter, Gerald, the royal Seneschal of
Pembroke “built the castle anew in the place called Little Cengarth.”[915]
But however this may be, the castle of Pembroke was certainly strong
enough in 1094 to resist a great insurrection of the Welsh, when all the
castles of south-west Wales were destroyed, except Pembroke and Rhyd y
Gors. And it continued to be one of the chief strongholds of English power
in South Wales until Edward I. completed the conquest of the country. Its
splendid situation on a high cliff at the mouth of an excellent harbour, to
which supplies could be brought by sea, was one of the secrets of its
strength. A passage cut in the rock led from the castle to a cave below
opening on to the water.
*Newport, or Trefdaeth, was the head of the Barony of Keymes, an
independent lordship founded at the time of the first Norman advance, by
Martin of Tours.[916] There is no mention of it before 1215. The present
ruined castle of Newport is not earlier than the 13th century, but about 1½
miles higher up the river, at Llanhyfer, is a fine motte and bailey, which
probably mark the site of the first castle of Martin of Tours.[917]
Wiston, alias Gwys or Wiz.—First mentioned in 1148, when it was taken
by the Welsh.[918] At a later period we find it one of the castles of the Earl
of Pembroke. There is a motte still remaining, with a shell wall on top, 6
Page 231
feet thick, having a plain round arched entrance. This masonry is probably
the work of William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, as he restored the castle in
1220 after it had been razed to the ground by Llywelyn ap Jorwerth.[919]
The bailey is large and bean-shaped.
Lawhaden, or Llanyhadein, or Lauwadein.—First mention in 1192.[920] It
afterwards became a palace of the bishops of St David’s. There is no motte,
though the circular outline of the platform on which the fine ruins of the
castle stand, very much suggests a lowered motte.
Haverfordwest.—First mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1214-1215, when it
was in the custody of the Earl of Pembroke. Although this castle is now a
gaol, and the whole site masked with gaol buildings, the motte can still be
seen distinctly from one side, though the keep which stands upon it is
blocked by buildings. The ditch which went round the motte can also be
traced. [H. W.]
Narberth.—This castle is first mentioned in 1115, when it was burnt by the
Welsh. Said to have been the castle of Stephen Perrot.[921] The present ruins
are entirely of the 13th century, and there is no motte; but Lewis states that
the first castle was in another site, between the present town and Templeton;
about which we have no information.
Tenby.—First mention in 1152. An important coast station. The small and
curious round keep is placed on the highest point of a small island; it is a
miniature copy of the keep of Pembroke, and was probably built by one of
the earls Marshall, not earlier than the 13th century. There is no motte, nor
was one needed in such a situation.
Castles of Cardigan.
Cardigan Castle, or Aberteifi, has been so much transformed by the
incorporation of the keep into a modern house that nothing decisive can be
said about its original plan, but there is nothing to foreclose the idea of a
previous motte, and Speed’s plan of 1611 seems to show that the keep and
the small ward attached to it were on a higher elevation than the bailey.
That the first castle was a wooden one is rendered almost certain by the fact
that Rhys ap Griffith, after having demolished the previous castle, rebuilt it
the work of William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, as he restored the castle in
1220 after it had been razed to the ground by Llywelyn ap Jorwerth.[919]
The bailey is large and bean-shaped.
Lawhaden, or Llanyhadein, or Lauwadein.—First mention in 1192.[920] It
afterwards became a palace of the bishops of St David’s. There is no motte,
though the circular outline of the platform on which the fine ruins of the
castle stand, very much suggests a lowered motte.
Haverfordwest.—First mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1214-1215, when it
was in the custody of the Earl of Pembroke. Although this castle is now a
gaol, and the whole site masked with gaol buildings, the motte can still be
seen distinctly from one side, though the keep which stands upon it is
blocked by buildings. The ditch which went round the motte can also be
traced. [H. W.]
Narberth.—This castle is first mentioned in 1115, when it was burnt by the
Welsh. Said to have been the castle of Stephen Perrot.[921] The present ruins
are entirely of the 13th century, and there is no motte; but Lewis states that
the first castle was in another site, between the present town and Templeton;
about which we have no information.
Tenby.—First mention in 1152. An important coast station. The small and
curious round keep is placed on the highest point of a small island; it is a
miniature copy of the keep of Pembroke, and was probably built by one of
the earls Marshall, not earlier than the 13th century. There is no motte, nor
was one needed in such a situation.
Castles of Cardigan.
Cardigan Castle, or Aberteifi, has been so much transformed by the
incorporation of the keep into a modern house that nothing decisive can be
said about its original plan, but there is nothing to foreclose the idea of a
previous motte, and Speed’s plan of 1611 seems to show that the keep and
the small ward attached to it were on a higher elevation than the bailey.
That the first castle was a wooden one is rendered almost certain by the fact
that Rhys ap Griffith, after having demolished the previous castle, rebuilt it
Page 232
with stone and mortar, in the reign of Henry II.[922] The Welsh chronicler
speaks of this castle as the key of all Wales, an exaggeration certainly, but it
was undoubtedly the most important stronghold of South Ceredigion. [H.
W.]
Cilgerran, or Dingeraint (Fig. 41).—This castle was certainly built by Earl
Roger;[923] a castle of great importance, in a magnificent situation. Like
nearly all the castles in our Welsh list, it was repeatedly taken by the Welsh
and retaken from them. The present masonry is of the 13th century, but the
original motte-and-bailey plan is quite discernible. [H. W.] It was a
connecting link between the castles of Pembrokeshire and those of
Cardigan, and stands near a road leading directly from Tenby and Narberth
to Cardigan.
Aberystwyth, also Lampadarn Vaur, also Aberrheiddiol.[924] In 1109 Henry
I. deposed Cadwgan, a Welsh prince who had purchased from the king the
government of Cardigan, and gave that country to Gilbert, son of Richard,
Earl of Clare, who took possession, and built a castle “opposite to
Llanbadarn, near the mouth of the river Ystwyth.”[925] This was
undoubtedly the precursor of the modern castle of Aberystwyth, but it is
doubtful whether it was on the same site; the present ruins are not opposite
Llanbadarn. The castle was as important for the defence of N. Cardigan as
Cardigan Castle for the south. It was taken at least seven times by the
Welsh, and burnt at least five times. The present ruins are not earlier than
the time of Edward I., and there is no motte or keep. [H. W.]
*Blaenporth, or Castell Gwythan (Fig. 41).—Also built by Gilbert de
Clare, and evidently placed to defend the main road from Cardigan to
Aberystwyth. The motte and bailey are still remarkably perfect, as shown
by the 25-inch Ordnance Map.
Ystrad Peithyll.—Another of Gilbert de Clare’s castles, as it was
inhabited by his steward. It was burnt by the Welsh in 1115,[926] and is
never mentioned again, but its motte and ditch still survive, with some signs
of a bailey, close to the little stream of the Peithyll, near Aberystwyth. [H.
W.]
speaks of this castle as the key of all Wales, an exaggeration certainly, but it
was undoubtedly the most important stronghold of South Ceredigion. [H.
W.]
Cilgerran, or Dingeraint (Fig. 41).—This castle was certainly built by Earl
Roger;[923] a castle of great importance, in a magnificent situation. Like
nearly all the castles in our Welsh list, it was repeatedly taken by the Welsh
and retaken from them. The present masonry is of the 13th century, but the
original motte-and-bailey plan is quite discernible. [H. W.] It was a
connecting link between the castles of Pembrokeshire and those of
Cardigan, and stands near a road leading directly from Tenby and Narberth
to Cardigan.
Aberystwyth, also Lampadarn Vaur, also Aberrheiddiol.[924] In 1109 Henry
I. deposed Cadwgan, a Welsh prince who had purchased from the king the
government of Cardigan, and gave that country to Gilbert, son of Richard,
Earl of Clare, who took possession, and built a castle “opposite to
Llanbadarn, near the mouth of the river Ystwyth.”[925] This was
undoubtedly the precursor of the modern castle of Aberystwyth, but it is
doubtful whether it was on the same site; the present ruins are not opposite
Llanbadarn. The castle was as important for the defence of N. Cardigan as
Cardigan Castle for the south. It was taken at least seven times by the
Welsh, and burnt at least five times. The present ruins are not earlier than
the time of Edward I., and there is no motte or keep. [H. W.]
*Blaenporth, or Castell Gwythan (Fig. 41).—Also built by Gilbert de
Clare, and evidently placed to defend the main road from Cardigan to
Aberystwyth. The motte and bailey are still remarkably perfect, as shown
by the 25-inch Ordnance Map.
Ystrad Peithyll.—Another of Gilbert de Clare’s castles, as it was
inhabited by his steward. It was burnt by the Welsh in 1115,[926] and is
never mentioned again, but its motte and ditch still survive, with some signs
of a bailey, close to the little stream of the Peithyll, near Aberystwyth. [H.
W.]
Page 233
Chastell Gwalter, or Llanfihangel, in Pengwern (Fig. 41).—Castle of
Walter de Bec, probably one of the barons of Gilbert de Clare. First
mentioned in 1137, when it was burned by the Welsh.[927] There is a small
but well-made motte and part of an adjoining bailey standing in a most
commanding position on a high plateau. The ditch of the motte is excavated
in the rock. [D. H. M.]
Walter de Bec, probably one of the barons of Gilbert de Clare. First
mentioned in 1137, when it was burned by the Welsh.[927] There is a small
but well-made motte and part of an adjoining bailey standing in a most
commanding position on a high plateau. The ditch of the motte is excavated
in the rock. [D. H. M.]
Page 234
Cilgerran.
Page 235
Blaenporth.
Page 236
Chastell Gwalter.
Fig. 41.—Motte-Castles of South Wales.
*Dinerth.—Also burnt in 1137; restored by Roger, Earl of Clare, in 1159,
after which it underwent many vicissitudes.[928] Probably originally a castle
of the Clares. “In the grounds of Mynachty, in the parish of Llanbadarn Tref
Eglwys, is a small hill called Hero Castell, probably the site of the keep of
Dinerth Castle.”[929] The O.M. shows a small motte and bailey placed
between two streams.
*Caerwedros, or Castell Llwyndafydd, also burned by the Welsh in 1137,
[930]
after which it is not mentioned again. “A very large moated tumulus,
with foundations of walls on the top.”[931] Probably a Clare castle.
*Humphrey’s Castle, now Castle Howel, from one of its Welsh conquerors.
The original name shows that it was built by a Norman, and it was restored
Fig. 41.—Motte-Castles of South Wales.
*Dinerth.—Also burnt in 1137; restored by Roger, Earl of Clare, in 1159,
after which it underwent many vicissitudes.[928] Probably originally a castle
of the Clares. “In the grounds of Mynachty, in the parish of Llanbadarn Tref
Eglwys, is a small hill called Hero Castell, probably the site of the keep of
Dinerth Castle.”[929] The O.M. shows a small motte and bailey placed
between two streams.
*Caerwedros, or Castell Llwyndafydd, also burned by the Welsh in 1137,
[930]
after which it is not mentioned again. “A very large moated tumulus,
with foundations of walls on the top.”[931] Probably a Clare castle.
*Humphrey’s Castle, now Castle Howel, from one of its Welsh conquerors.
The original name shows that it was built by a Norman, and it was restored
Page 237
by Roger, Earl of Clare, in 1159.[932] A moated tumulus near the river
Clettwr marks the site of Humphrey’s Castle.[933]
Ystrad Meurug, or Meyric, at the head of the valley of the Teifi, and
commanding the pass leading over into Radnorshire.—Built by Gilbert de
Clare when he reconquered Cardigan, and one of his most important castles.
[934]
Its importance is shown by the fact that it had a small stone keep, the
date of which cannot now be determined, as only the foundations remain,
buried under sods. There is no motte, and the bailey can only be guessed at
by a portion of the ditch which still remains on the N. side, and by two
platforms which appear to be artificially levelled. The castle is about three
miles from the Sarn Helen or Roman road through Cardigan.
*Pont y Stuffan, or Stephen’s Bridge, near Lampeter.—Burnt by the Welsh
in 1138, and not again mentioned.[935] In the outskirts of the town of
Lampeter is—or was—a lofty moated tumulus (not shown on O.M.), and
traces of a quadrangular court.[936] As it is also called Castell Ystuffan, it
was probably built by Stephen, the Norman constable of Cardigan. There
appears to be another castle mound at Lampeter itself, near the church.
Lampeter was an important post on the Roman road up the valley of the
Teifi.
*Nant yr Arian.—This castle is only mentioned once, in the partition of
Cardigan and Pembroke which took place in 1216, during the most
disastrous part of John’s reign.[937] There are two “castellau” marked at
Nant yr Arian in the N. of Cardiganshire in the O.M.; neither of them look
like mottes. This castle, as well as that of Ystrad Peithyll, seems to have
been placed to defend the road from Aberystwyth to Llanidloes, which
would be the chief highway between Shropshire and Ceredigion.
Castles of Carmarthenshire.
Rhyd y Gors, or Rhyd Cors.—We have no hesitation in adopting the
opinion of the late Mr Floyd, that this is another name for the castle of
Carmarthen.[938] As it and Pembroke were the only castles which held out
during the great Welsh revolt of 1096,[939] it is evident that they were the
two strongest and best defended places, therefore the most important.
Clettwr marks the site of Humphrey’s Castle.[933]
Ystrad Meurug, or Meyric, at the head of the valley of the Teifi, and
commanding the pass leading over into Radnorshire.—Built by Gilbert de
Clare when he reconquered Cardigan, and one of his most important castles.
[934]
Its importance is shown by the fact that it had a small stone keep, the
date of which cannot now be determined, as only the foundations remain,
buried under sods. There is no motte, and the bailey can only be guessed at
by a portion of the ditch which still remains on the N. side, and by two
platforms which appear to be artificially levelled. The castle is about three
miles from the Sarn Helen or Roman road through Cardigan.
*Pont y Stuffan, or Stephen’s Bridge, near Lampeter.—Burnt by the Welsh
in 1138, and not again mentioned.[935] In the outskirts of the town of
Lampeter is—or was—a lofty moated tumulus (not shown on O.M.), and
traces of a quadrangular court.[936] As it is also called Castell Ystuffan, it
was probably built by Stephen, the Norman constable of Cardigan. There
appears to be another castle mound at Lampeter itself, near the church.
Lampeter was an important post on the Roman road up the valley of the
Teifi.
*Nant yr Arian.—This castle is only mentioned once, in the partition of
Cardigan and Pembroke which took place in 1216, during the most
disastrous part of John’s reign.[937] There are two “castellau” marked at
Nant yr Arian in the N. of Cardiganshire in the O.M.; neither of them look
like mottes. This castle, as well as that of Ystrad Peithyll, seems to have
been placed to defend the road from Aberystwyth to Llanidloes, which
would be the chief highway between Shropshire and Ceredigion.
Castles of Carmarthenshire.
Rhyd y Gors, or Rhyd Cors.—We have no hesitation in adopting the
opinion of the late Mr Floyd, that this is another name for the castle of
Carmarthen.[938] As it and Pembroke were the only castles which held out
during the great Welsh revolt of 1096,[939] it is evident that they were the
two strongest and best defended places, therefore the most important.
Page 238
Carmarthen also was a Roman city, and its walls were still standing in
Giraldus’ time;[940] it was therefore the place where one would expect to
find a Norman castle. Now Carmarthen, along with Cardiff and Pembroke,
continued up till the final conquest of all Wales to be the most important
seat of English power in South Wales. Moreover, Rhyd y Gors was a royal
castle; we are expressly told that it was built by William Fitz Baldwin, by
the command of the king of England.[941] Carmarthen also was a royal
castle, and the only one in South Wales at that date which belonged directly
to the king. It was temporarily abandoned after William Fitz Baldwin’s
death in 1096, and afterwards Henry I. gave it into the custody of a
Welshman, who also had charge of Strath Towy; a passage which proves
that Rhyd y Gors was in that district. It was restored by Richard Fitz
Baldwin in 1104,[942] and is mentioned for the last time in 1105. After that
the castle of Carmarthen, which has not been mentioned before, begins to
appear, and its importance is clear from the continual references to it.
Placed as it is on a navigable river, at the entrance of the narrower part of
the vale of Towy, and on the Roman road from Brecon to St David’s, its
natural position must have marked it as a fit site for a royal castle. The
castle is now converted into a gaol, and disfigured in the usual way; yet the
ancient motte of William Fitz Baldwin still remains, partly inside and partly
outside the walls. It is crowned with a stone revetment which Colonel
Morgan believes to have been erected at the time of the Civil War, to form a
platform for guns.[943] The bailey is rectangular and covers about 2 acres.
The motte is placed at one corner of it, on the line of the walls. On the
outside it is now built over with poor cottages; but the site of the ditch can
still be traced.
*Llandovery, or Llanymdyfri, or the castle of Cantrebohhan.—It is referred
to in the Pipe Rolls of 1159-1160 by the latter name, which is only a
Norman way of spelling Cantref Bychan, the little cantref or hundred, of
which this castle was the head.[944] It was then in royal custody, and Henry
II. spent nearly £60 on its works. But it had originally belonged to Richard
Fitz Pons, one of the barons of Bernard de Neufmarché, and the fact that he
held the key of this cantref goes to prove that it was from Brecknock that
the Normans advanced into northern Carmarthenshire. The castle is first
mentioned in the Brut in 1115, when Griffith ap Rhys burnt the bailey, but
could not take the keep on the motte.[945] It does not appear to have been
Giraldus’ time;[940] it was therefore the place where one would expect to
find a Norman castle. Now Carmarthen, along with Cardiff and Pembroke,
continued up till the final conquest of all Wales to be the most important
seat of English power in South Wales. Moreover, Rhyd y Gors was a royal
castle; we are expressly told that it was built by William Fitz Baldwin, by
the command of the king of England.[941] Carmarthen also was a royal
castle, and the only one in South Wales at that date which belonged directly
to the king. It was temporarily abandoned after William Fitz Baldwin’s
death in 1096, and afterwards Henry I. gave it into the custody of a
Welshman, who also had charge of Strath Towy; a passage which proves
that Rhyd y Gors was in that district. It was restored by Richard Fitz
Baldwin in 1104,[942] and is mentioned for the last time in 1105. After that
the castle of Carmarthen, which has not been mentioned before, begins to
appear, and its importance is clear from the continual references to it.
Placed as it is on a navigable river, at the entrance of the narrower part of
the vale of Towy, and on the Roman road from Brecon to St David’s, its
natural position must have marked it as a fit site for a royal castle. The
castle is now converted into a gaol, and disfigured in the usual way; yet the
ancient motte of William Fitz Baldwin still remains, partly inside and partly
outside the walls. It is crowned with a stone revetment which Colonel
Morgan believes to have been erected at the time of the Civil War, to form a
platform for guns.[943] The bailey is rectangular and covers about 2 acres.
The motte is placed at one corner of it, on the line of the walls. On the
outside it is now built over with poor cottages; but the site of the ditch can
still be traced.
*Llandovery, or Llanymdyfri, or the castle of Cantrebohhan.—It is referred
to in the Pipe Rolls of 1159-1160 by the latter name, which is only a
Norman way of spelling Cantref Bychan, the little cantref or hundred, of
which this castle was the head.[944] It was then in royal custody, and Henry
II. spent nearly £60 on its works. But it had originally belonged to Richard
Fitz Pons, one of the barons of Bernard de Neufmarché, and the fact that he
held the key of this cantref goes to prove that it was from Brecknock that
the Normans advanced into northern Carmarthenshire. The castle is first
mentioned in the Brut in 1115, when Griffith ap Rhys burnt the bailey, but
could not take the keep on the motte.[945] It does not appear to have been
Page 239
long in English hands after 1159, but its alternations were many. The 25-
inch O.M. shows an oval motte, carrying some fragments of masonry, to
which is attached a roughly quadrangular bailey. This was one of the many
castles by which the Normans held Strath Towy.
Llanstephan.[946]—This castle stands in a splendid situation at the mouth of
the Towy, and was doubtless built to secure a maritime base for
Carmarthen. The motte is of unusual size, semicircular in shape, one side
being on the edge of the cliff; it measures 300 feet by 200 in the centre of
the arc.[947] Such a size allowed all the important parts of the castle to be
built on the motte; but there was a rectangular bailey attached, which is
only imperfectly shown on the O.M.; the scarp is in reality well marked on
all sides, and the ditch separating it from the motte is a very deep one. [H.
W.] The towers that now crown the motte are not earlier than the year 1256,
when the castle was destroyed by Llywelyn.[948]
Dinevor, or Dinweiler.—Most Welsh writers associate Dinevor with the
ancient residence of the kings of South Wales, but there appears to be some
doubt about this, as the place is not mentioned before the 12th century.[949]
Anyhow the castle was certainly the work of Earl Gilbert, as the Brut itself
tells us so.[950] In 1162 it was taken by Rhys ap Griffith, the able prince
who attempted the consolidation of South Wales, and who was made
Justiciar of that province by Henry II. It continued in Welsh hands,
sometimes hostile, sometimes allied, till it was finally taken by the English
in 1277. The existing ruins are entirely of the 13th century, but the plan
certainly suggests a previous motte and bailey, the motte having probably
been lowered to form the present smaller ward, whose walls and towers
appear to be of Edward I.’s reign. The small bailey attached to this ward is
separated from it by a ditch cut through the headland on which the castle
stands.
Kidwelly (Cydweli).—This castle, though in Carmarthen, was not founded
by the conquerors from Brecknock, but by Normans from Glamorgan or
Gower. Kidwelly was first built by William de Londres, in 1094.[951] The
present castle shows no trace of this early origin, but is a fine specimen of
the keepless pattern introduced into England in the 13th century.[952] There
is no motte.
inch O.M. shows an oval motte, carrying some fragments of masonry, to
which is attached a roughly quadrangular bailey. This was one of the many
castles by which the Normans held Strath Towy.
Llanstephan.[946]—This castle stands in a splendid situation at the mouth of
the Towy, and was doubtless built to secure a maritime base for
Carmarthen. The motte is of unusual size, semicircular in shape, one side
being on the edge of the cliff; it measures 300 feet by 200 in the centre of
the arc.[947] Such a size allowed all the important parts of the castle to be
built on the motte; but there was a rectangular bailey attached, which is
only imperfectly shown on the O.M.; the scarp is in reality well marked on
all sides, and the ditch separating it from the motte is a very deep one. [H.
W.] The towers that now crown the motte are not earlier than the year 1256,
when the castle was destroyed by Llywelyn.[948]
Dinevor, or Dinweiler.—Most Welsh writers associate Dinevor with the
ancient residence of the kings of South Wales, but there appears to be some
doubt about this, as the place is not mentioned before the 12th century.[949]
Anyhow the castle was certainly the work of Earl Gilbert, as the Brut itself
tells us so.[950] In 1162 it was taken by Rhys ap Griffith, the able prince
who attempted the consolidation of South Wales, and who was made
Justiciar of that province by Henry II. It continued in Welsh hands,
sometimes hostile, sometimes allied, till it was finally taken by the English
in 1277. The existing ruins are entirely of the 13th century, but the plan
certainly suggests a previous motte and bailey, the motte having probably
been lowered to form the present smaller ward, whose walls and towers
appear to be of Edward I.’s reign. The small bailey attached to this ward is
separated from it by a ditch cut through the headland on which the castle
stands.
Kidwelly (Cydweli).—This castle, though in Carmarthen, was not founded
by the conquerors from Brecknock, but by Normans from Glamorgan or
Gower. Kidwelly was first built by William de Londres, in 1094.[951] The
present castle shows no trace of this early origin, but is a fine specimen of
the keepless pattern introduced into England in the 13th century.[952] There
is no motte.
Page 240
Laugharne, or Talycharne.—Also called Abercorran, being at the point
where the little river Corran flows into the estuary of the Taff. In 1113 this
castle belonged to a Norman named Robert Courtmain.[953] The ancient
features of the plan have been obliterated by transformation first into an
Edwardian castle, then into a modern house. There is of course no motte.
[H. W.]
*Ystrad Cyngen.—This must, we think, be the same as St Clears, which
stands in the Cynen valley, near its junction with the Taff. Welsh writers
identify St Clears with the castle of Mabudrud, the name of the commot in
which it stands. First mentioned in 1154.[954] There is no notice of its origin,
but the fact that a Cluniac priory existed in the village, which was a cell of
St Martin des Champs at Paris, points to a Norman founder, and renders an
11th century date probable. It was a motte-and-bailey castle, of which the
earthworks remain.[955]
*Newcastle Emlyn.—This castle does not appear to have received the
name of “the new castle of Emlyn” till after Edward I.’s conquest.[956] The
new castle, which is quite Edwardian, was probably built on a different site
to the old, as “on the other side of the bridge is a considerable mount, of a
military character, which must have commanded the river. It may have been
the original strong post occupied by the Normans.”[957] In the 12th century
Pipe Rolls compensation is paid to William FitzGerald for many years “as
long as Rhys ap Griffith holds the castle of Emlyn,” which points to Gerald,
the Seneschal of Pembroke, or his family, as its founders. It is on the very
border of Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire, defending the main road
from Carmarthen to Cardigan.
Llanegwad.—This castle is only once mentioned, in the Brut, under the
year 1203, when it was taken by the Welsh. A small motte, called locally
Pen y Knap, with an earthen breastwork round the top, is still standing
about a mile from the church of Llanegwad, and is all that is left of this
castle. The position commands a fine view over the Towy valley, and it is
noteworthy that it stands very near the supposed Roman road from Brecon
to Carmarthen. [H. W.]
*Llangadog.—This castle also does not appear till 1203; it was razed or
burnt at least thrice in five years.[958] A mound of earth on the banks of the
where the little river Corran flows into the estuary of the Taff. In 1113 this
castle belonged to a Norman named Robert Courtmain.[953] The ancient
features of the plan have been obliterated by transformation first into an
Edwardian castle, then into a modern house. There is of course no motte.
[H. W.]
*Ystrad Cyngen.—This must, we think, be the same as St Clears, which
stands in the Cynen valley, near its junction with the Taff. Welsh writers
identify St Clears with the castle of Mabudrud, the name of the commot in
which it stands. First mentioned in 1154.[954] There is no notice of its origin,
but the fact that a Cluniac priory existed in the village, which was a cell of
St Martin des Champs at Paris, points to a Norman founder, and renders an
11th century date probable. It was a motte-and-bailey castle, of which the
earthworks remain.[955]
*Newcastle Emlyn.—This castle does not appear to have received the
name of “the new castle of Emlyn” till after Edward I.’s conquest.[956] The
new castle, which is quite Edwardian, was probably built on a different site
to the old, as “on the other side of the bridge is a considerable mount, of a
military character, which must have commanded the river. It may have been
the original strong post occupied by the Normans.”[957] In the 12th century
Pipe Rolls compensation is paid to William FitzGerald for many years “as
long as Rhys ap Griffith holds the castle of Emlyn,” which points to Gerald,
the Seneschal of Pembroke, or his family, as its founders. It is on the very
border of Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire, defending the main road
from Carmarthen to Cardigan.
Llanegwad.—This castle is only once mentioned, in the Brut, under the
year 1203, when it was taken by the Welsh. A small motte, called locally
Pen y Knap, with an earthen breastwork round the top, is still standing
about a mile from the church of Llanegwad, and is all that is left of this
castle. The position commands a fine view over the Towy valley, and it is
noteworthy that it stands very near the supposed Roman road from Brecon
to Carmarthen. [H. W.]
*Llangadog.—This castle also does not appear till 1203; it was razed or
burnt at least thrice in five years.[958] A mound of earth on the banks of the
Page 241
Sawddwy River, near where the Roman road from Brecon is supposed to
have reached the Towy valley, is all that remains of it.[959] Lewis says that it
stands in a large oval entrenchment, and that the motte is of natural rock,
scarped conically, and deeply moated.
Castles in Brecknockshire.
Brecon, or Aberhonddu, the seat of Bernard de Neufmarché himself.—A
charter of Bernard’s mentions the castle.[960] It seems to have been a
particularly strong place, as we do not hear of its having been burnt more
than once. The newer castle of Brecon is evidently of the time of Edward I.,
but across the road the old motte of Bernard is still standing, and carries the
ruins of a shell wall, with a gatehouse tower.[961] A portion of the bank and
ditch of the bailey remains; the whole is now in a private garden. The
situation is a strong one, between the Usk and the Honddu. Brecon of
course was a burgus, and part of the bank which fortified it remains.
have reached the Towy valley, is all that remains of it.[959] Lewis says that it
stands in a large oval entrenchment, and that the motte is of natural rock,
scarped conically, and deeply moated.
Castles in Brecknockshire.
Brecon, or Aberhonddu, the seat of Bernard de Neufmarché himself.—A
charter of Bernard’s mentions the castle.[960] It seems to have been a
particularly strong place, as we do not hear of its having been burnt more
than once. The newer castle of Brecon is evidently of the time of Edward I.,
but across the road the old motte of Bernard is still standing, and carries the
ruins of a shell wall, with a gatehouse tower.[961] A portion of the bank and
ditch of the bailey remains; the whole is now in a private garden. The
situation is a strong one, between the Usk and the Honddu. Brecon of
course was a burgus, and part of the bank which fortified it remains.
Page 242
Builth.
Page 243
Gemaron.
Page 244
Payn’s Castle.
Fig. 42.—Motte-Castles of South Wales.
Builth, on the upper Wye, alias Buallt (Fig. 42).—A remarkably fine motte
and bailey, presenting some peculiarities of plan. It is not mentioned till
1210,[962] but it has been conjectured with great probability that it was one
of the castles built by Bernard de Neufmarché when he conquered
Brecknock.[963] It was refortified by John Mortimer in 1242,[964] probably
in stone, as in the account of its destruction by Llywelyn in 1260 it is said
that “not one stone was left on another.”[965] Nevertheless when Edward I.
rebuilt it the towers on the outer wall appear to have been of wood.[966] Mr
Clark states that there are traces of masonry foundations and small portions
of a wing wall. The bailey of this castle consists of a rather narrow
platform, divided into two unequal portions by a cross ditch which connects
the ditch of the motte with that of the bailey. The ditch round the motte is of
unusual breadth, being 120 feet broad in the widest part. The whole work is
encircled by an outer ditch of varying breadth, being 100 feet wide on the
weakest side of the work, and by a counterscarp bank which appears to be
Fig. 42.—Motte-Castles of South Wales.
Builth, on the upper Wye, alias Buallt (Fig. 42).—A remarkably fine motte
and bailey, presenting some peculiarities of plan. It is not mentioned till
1210,[962] but it has been conjectured with great probability that it was one
of the castles built by Bernard de Neufmarché when he conquered
Brecknock.[963] It was refortified by John Mortimer in 1242,[964] probably
in stone, as in the account of its destruction by Llywelyn in 1260 it is said
that “not one stone was left on another.”[965] Nevertheless when Edward I.
rebuilt it the towers on the outer wall appear to have been of wood.[966] Mr
Clark states that there are traces of masonry foundations and small portions
of a wing wall. The bailey of this castle consists of a rather narrow
platform, divided into two unequal portions by a cross ditch which connects
the ditch of the motte with that of the bailey. The ditch round the motte is of
unusual breadth, being 120 feet broad in the widest part. The whole work is
encircled by an outer ditch of varying breadth, being 100 feet wide on the
weakest side of the work, and by a counterscarp bank which appears to be
Page 245
still perfect. The entrance is defended by four small mounds which probably
cover the remains of towers.[967] The area of the two baileys together is
only 1 acre. [D. H. M.]
*Hay, or Tregelli.—The earliest mention of this castle is in a charter of
Henry I.[968] The present castle of Hay is of late date, but Leland tells us
that “not far from the Paroche Chirch is a great round Hille of Yerth cast up
by Men’s Hondes.”[969] It is shown on the 25-inch O.M., and so is the line
of the borough walls.
*Talgarth.—Mentioned in a charter of Roger, Earl of Hereford, not later
than 1156.[970] A 13th-century tower on a small motte is still standing, and
can be seen from the railway between Brecon and Hereford.
Castles of Radnorshire.
*Radnor, or Maes Hyvaidd.—Though this castle is not mentioned in the
Brut till 1196, when it was burnt by Rhys ap Griffith, it must have been
built by the Normans at a very early period. The English had penetrated into
the Radnor district even before the Norman Conquest,[971] and the Normans
were not slow to follow them. A charter of Philip de Braose is granted at
“Raddenoam” not later than 1096.[972] There are mottes both at Old and
New Radnor, towns three miles distant from each other, so that it is
impossible to say which was the Maes Hyvaidd of the Brut. Both may have
been originally De Braose castles, but New Radnor evidently became the
more important place, and has massive remains in masonry. The town was a
burgus.
*Gemaron, or Cwm Aron (Fig. 42).—Near Llandewi-Ystrad-denny. The
Brut mentions its repair by Hugh Mortimer in 1145.[973] The 6-inch O.M.
shows a square central bailey of 1 acre, containing some remains of
masonry, lying between an oblong motte in the S. and an outer enclosure on
the N., the whole being further defended by a high counterscarp bank on the
W. It commands a ford over the river Aran. There is no village attached to
it.
cover the remains of towers.[967] The area of the two baileys together is
only 1 acre. [D. H. M.]
*Hay, or Tregelli.—The earliest mention of this castle is in a charter of
Henry I.[968] The present castle of Hay is of late date, but Leland tells us
that “not far from the Paroche Chirch is a great round Hille of Yerth cast up
by Men’s Hondes.”[969] It is shown on the 25-inch O.M., and so is the line
of the borough walls.
*Talgarth.—Mentioned in a charter of Roger, Earl of Hereford, not later
than 1156.[970] A 13th-century tower on a small motte is still standing, and
can be seen from the railway between Brecon and Hereford.
Castles of Radnorshire.
*Radnor, or Maes Hyvaidd.—Though this castle is not mentioned in the
Brut till 1196, when it was burnt by Rhys ap Griffith, it must have been
built by the Normans at a very early period. The English had penetrated into
the Radnor district even before the Norman Conquest,[971] and the Normans
were not slow to follow them. A charter of Philip de Braose is granted at
“Raddenoam” not later than 1096.[972] There are mottes both at Old and
New Radnor, towns three miles distant from each other, so that it is
impossible to say which was the Maes Hyvaidd of the Brut. Both may have
been originally De Braose castles, but New Radnor evidently became the
more important place, and has massive remains in masonry. The town was a
burgus.
*Gemaron, or Cwm Aron (Fig. 42).—Near Llandewi-Ystrad-denny. The
Brut mentions its repair by Hugh Mortimer in 1145.[973] The 6-inch O.M.
shows a square central bailey of 1 acre, containing some remains of
masonry, lying between an oblong motte in the S. and an outer enclosure on
the N., the whole being further defended by a high counterscarp bank on the
W. It commands a ford over the river Aran. There is no village attached to
it.
Page 246
*Maud’s Castle, otherwise Colwyn or Clun.[974]—A ditched motte with
square bailey on the left bank of the river Edwy, near the village of Forest
Colwyn. The statement that this castle was repaired in 1145 shows that it
must have been older than the time of Maude de Braose, from whom it is
generally supposed to have taken its name. It was rebuilt by Henry III. in
1231.[975]
*Payn’s Castle, otherwise “the castle of Elvael.”—First mentioned in 1196,
when it was taken by Rhys ap Griffith. This is also a motte-castle (and an
exceptionally fine one), placed on a road leading from Kington in Hereford
to Builth. Rebuilt in stone by Henry III. in 1231.[976] (Fig. 42.)
*Knighton, in Welsh Trefclawdd.—First mentioned in the Pipe Roll of
1181. The motte still remains, near the church. There is another motte just
outside the village, called Bryn y Castell. It may be a siege castle.
*Norton.—First mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1191. A motte remains close
to the church, and two sides of a bailey which ran down to the Norton
brook.
*Bleddfa, the Bledewach of the Pipe Roll of 1195-1196, when £5 was
given to Hugh de Saye ad firmandum castellum, an expression which may
mean either building or repairing. An oval motte, and traces of a bailey, are
marked in the 6-inch O.M.
Tynboeth, alias Dyneneboth, Tinbech,[977] and Llananno.—First mentioned
in Pipe Roll of 1196-1197. There is a fine large motte in a commanding
situation, and a crescent-shaped bailey, now marked only by a scarp. There
are some remains of masonry, and the castle was evidently an important
one. It is first mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1196, and it occurs in lists of
the Mortimer castles in the 14th century.[978] It is not far from two fords of
the river Ithon. [H. W.]
These four castles are not mentioned in the Brut y Tywysogion, though the
Annales Cambriæ mentions the capture of Bleddfa, Knighton, and Norton
by the Welsh in 1262. They all command important roads. Knighton and
Norton were boroughs.
square bailey on the left bank of the river Edwy, near the village of Forest
Colwyn. The statement that this castle was repaired in 1145 shows that it
must have been older than the time of Maude de Braose, from whom it is
generally supposed to have taken its name. It was rebuilt by Henry III. in
1231.[975]
*Payn’s Castle, otherwise “the castle of Elvael.”—First mentioned in 1196,
when it was taken by Rhys ap Griffith. This is also a motte-castle (and an
exceptionally fine one), placed on a road leading from Kington in Hereford
to Builth. Rebuilt in stone by Henry III. in 1231.[976] (Fig. 42.)
*Knighton, in Welsh Trefclawdd.—First mentioned in the Pipe Roll of
1181. The motte still remains, near the church. There is another motte just
outside the village, called Bryn y Castell. It may be a siege castle.
*Norton.—First mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1191. A motte remains close
to the church, and two sides of a bailey which ran down to the Norton
brook.
*Bleddfa, the Bledewach of the Pipe Roll of 1195-1196, when £5 was
given to Hugh de Saye ad firmandum castellum, an expression which may
mean either building or repairing. An oval motte, and traces of a bailey, are
marked in the 6-inch O.M.
Tynboeth, alias Dyneneboth, Tinbech,[977] and Llananno.—First mentioned
in Pipe Roll of 1196-1197. There is a fine large motte in a commanding
situation, and a crescent-shaped bailey, now marked only by a scarp. There
are some remains of masonry, and the castle was evidently an important
one. It is first mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1196, and it occurs in lists of
the Mortimer castles in the 14th century.[978] It is not far from two fords of
the river Ithon. [H. W.]
These four castles are not mentioned in the Brut y Tywysogion, though the
Annales Cambriæ mentions the capture of Bleddfa, Knighton, and Norton
by the Welsh in 1262. They all command important roads. Knighton and
Norton were boroughs.
Page 247
Cardiff.
Page 248
Loughor.
Fig. 43.—Motte-Castles of South Wales.
Castles of Glamorganshire.
Cardiff (Fig. 43).—The first castle of Cardiff was certainly a wooden one;
its lofty mound still remains. It is placed inside a Roman station, and the
south and west walls of the castle bailey rest on Roman foundations, “but
do not entirely coincide with those foundations.”[979] The Roman fort was
probably ruinous when Robert Fitz Hamon placed his first castle there, as
on the N. and E. sides the bailey is defended by an earthbank, in which the
remains of a Roman wall have been found buried. The area of the Roman
Castrum was about 8¼ acres, and evidently the Normans found this too
large, as they divided it by a cross wall, which reduces the inner fort to
Fig. 43.—Motte-Castles of South Wales.
Castles of Glamorganshire.
Cardiff (Fig. 43).—The first castle of Cardiff was certainly a wooden one;
its lofty mound still remains. It is placed inside a Roman station, and the
south and west walls of the castle bailey rest on Roman foundations, “but
do not entirely coincide with those foundations.”[979] The Roman fort was
probably ruinous when Robert Fitz Hamon placed his first castle there, as
on the N. and E. sides the bailey is defended by an earthbank, in which the
remains of a Roman wall have been found buried. The area of the Roman
Castrum was about 8¼ acres, and evidently the Normans found this too
large, as they divided it by a cross wall, which reduces the inner fort to
Page 249
about 2 acres. The motte has its own ditch. The position of Cardiff was a
very important base, not only as a port near Bristol, but as a point on the
probably Roman road which connected Gloucester with Carmarthen and
beyond.[980]
The lands of Robert Fitz Hamon, in the next generation, passed into the
hands of Robert, the great Earl of Gloucester, Henry I.’s illegitimate son. He
was a great castle-builder, and it is probable that the first masonry of
Cardiff Castle was his work.[981]
Newcastle Bridgend.—This castle and the three which follow are all
situated on or near the “Roman” road from Cardiff to St David’s, of which
we have already spoken. There were two castles at Bridgend, the Old Castle
and the New Castle, from which the town takes its name. The site of the
former is now too much cut up for any definite conclusions about it; the site
of the latter has been converted into market gardens, but a motte is still
standing in one corner with the ruins of a tower upon it. [H. W.] This castle
is not noticed either by the Brut or the Aberpergwm version; the earliest
mention known to us is in the Pipe Roll of 1184, at a time when the castles
of the Earl of Gloucester were in royal custody, and this appears to have
been one of them.
Kenfig.—This castle is close to the “Roman” road. The Aberpergwm Brut
says that it was one of the castles of Robert Fitz Hamon, and states that in
1092 it was rebuilt “stronger than ever before, for castles prior to that were
built of wood.” This is a good specimen of the mixture of truth and error to
be found in this 16th century MS. There is little doubt that all the first
castles of the Normans in Wales were built of wood; but it is extremely
unlikely that any wooden keep was replaced by a stone one as early as
1092. The town and castle of Kenfig are now almost entirely buried in sand-
drifts, but the top of the motte, with some fragments of masonry upon it, is
still visible. [H. W.][982] The note in the Pipe Rolls of the repair of the
palicium of this castle shows that the bailey wall at any rate was still of
wood in 1183. Even as late as 1232 the keep was only defended by a ditch
and hedge; yet it withstood an assault from Llywelyn ap Jorwerth.[983] The
bailey is said to contain 11 acres, a most unusual size. Kenfig was a
borough in Norman times, and it is possible that this large bailey was the
very important base, not only as a port near Bristol, but as a point on the
probably Roman road which connected Gloucester with Carmarthen and
beyond.[980]
The lands of Robert Fitz Hamon, in the next generation, passed into the
hands of Robert, the great Earl of Gloucester, Henry I.’s illegitimate son. He
was a great castle-builder, and it is probable that the first masonry of
Cardiff Castle was his work.[981]
Newcastle Bridgend.—This castle and the three which follow are all
situated on or near the “Roman” road from Cardiff to St David’s, of which
we have already spoken. There were two castles at Bridgend, the Old Castle
and the New Castle, from which the town takes its name. The site of the
former is now too much cut up for any definite conclusions about it; the site
of the latter has been converted into market gardens, but a motte is still
standing in one corner with the ruins of a tower upon it. [H. W.] This castle
is not noticed either by the Brut or the Aberpergwm version; the earliest
mention known to us is in the Pipe Roll of 1184, at a time when the castles
of the Earl of Gloucester were in royal custody, and this appears to have
been one of them.
Kenfig.—This castle is close to the “Roman” road. The Aberpergwm Brut
says that it was one of the castles of Robert Fitz Hamon, and states that in
1092 it was rebuilt “stronger than ever before, for castles prior to that were
built of wood.” This is a good specimen of the mixture of truth and error to
be found in this 16th century MS. There is little doubt that all the first
castles of the Normans in Wales were built of wood; but it is extremely
unlikely that any wooden keep was replaced by a stone one as early as
1092. The town and castle of Kenfig are now almost entirely buried in sand-
drifts, but the top of the motte, with some fragments of masonry upon it, is
still visible. [H. W.][982] The note in the Pipe Rolls of the repair of the
palicium of this castle shows that the bailey wall at any rate was still of
wood in 1183. Even as late as 1232 the keep was only defended by a ditch
and hedge; yet it withstood an assault from Llywelyn ap Jorwerth.[983] The
bailey is said to contain 11 acres, a most unusual size. Kenfig was a
borough in Norman times, and it is possible that this large bailey was the
Page 250
original borough, afterwards enlarged in mediæval times. There is evidence
that there were burgage tenements within the bailey.[984]
Aberavon.—The Aberpergwm MS. says that Fitz Hamon gave Aberavon to
the son of the Welsh traitor who had called him into Glamorgan. At a later
period, however, we find it in Norman hands. The site of the castle has been
entirely cleared away, but it had a motte, which is still remembered by the
older inhabitants. [H. W.][985] It is not mentioned in the Brut before 1152,
when it was attacked and burnt by Rhys ap Griffith.
*Neath.—The site of the first castle of Neath was given by Richard de
Granville, its owner, to the abbey of Neath, which he had founded.[986]
About the year 1111, according to the Aberpergwm Brut, Richard returned
from the Holy Land, bringing with him a Syrian architect, well skilled in
the building of monasteries, churches, and castles, and by him we may
presume, a new castle was built on the other side of the river, though the
present castle on that site is clearly of much later date. The monks of course
destroyed all vestiges of the first (probably wooden) castle.
*Remmi, or Remni.—Of this castle there is only one solitary mention, in the
Pipe Roll of 1184. The name seems to indicate the river Rhymney, which is
the boundary between Glamorgan and Monmouth. We are unable to find
any castle site so near the Rhymney as Ruperra, where Clark mentions a
fine motte.[987] But we do not venture on this identification without further
information.[988]
Castles of Gower.
*Swansea, or Abertawy.—This was the castle of Henry Beaumont, the
conqueror of Gower. The present castle is comparatively modern. It is
inside the town; but there used to be a moated mound outside the town,
which was only removed in 1804. It seems probable to us that this was the
original castle of Beaumont.[989] That this first castle had a motte is
suggested by the narrative in the Brut which tells how Griffith ap Rhys
burnt the outworks in 1115, but was unable to get at the tower.[990]
*Loughor, or Aberllychor (Fig. 43).—Also built by Henry Beaumont. The
mound of the castle still remains, with a small square keep on top. There
that there were burgage tenements within the bailey.[984]
Aberavon.—The Aberpergwm MS. says that Fitz Hamon gave Aberavon to
the son of the Welsh traitor who had called him into Glamorgan. At a later
period, however, we find it in Norman hands. The site of the castle has been
entirely cleared away, but it had a motte, which is still remembered by the
older inhabitants. [H. W.][985] It is not mentioned in the Brut before 1152,
when it was attacked and burnt by Rhys ap Griffith.
*Neath.—The site of the first castle of Neath was given by Richard de
Granville, its owner, to the abbey of Neath, which he had founded.[986]
About the year 1111, according to the Aberpergwm Brut, Richard returned
from the Holy Land, bringing with him a Syrian architect, well skilled in
the building of monasteries, churches, and castles, and by him we may
presume, a new castle was built on the other side of the river, though the
present castle on that site is clearly of much later date. The monks of course
destroyed all vestiges of the first (probably wooden) castle.
*Remmi, or Remni.—Of this castle there is only one solitary mention, in the
Pipe Roll of 1184. The name seems to indicate the river Rhymney, which is
the boundary between Glamorgan and Monmouth. We are unable to find
any castle site so near the Rhymney as Ruperra, where Clark mentions a
fine motte.[987] But we do not venture on this identification without further
information.[988]
Castles of Gower.
*Swansea, or Abertawy.—This was the castle of Henry Beaumont, the
conqueror of Gower. The present castle is comparatively modern. It is
inside the town; but there used to be a moated mound outside the town,
which was only removed in 1804. It seems probable to us that this was the
original castle of Beaumont.[989] That this first castle had a motte is
suggested by the narrative in the Brut which tells how Griffith ap Rhys
burnt the outworks in 1115, but was unable to get at the tower.[990]
*Loughor, or Aberllychor (Fig. 43).—Also built by Henry Beaumont. The
mound of the castle still remains, with a small square keep on top. There
Page 251
was formerly a shell wall also. The place of a bailey was supplied by a
terrace 15 feet wide.[991] The four castles last mentioned are all at the
mouths of rivers, as well as on an ancient (if not Roman) coast road.
*Llandeilo Talybont, or Castell Hu.—Only mentioned once in the Brut,
under 1215, as the castle of Hugh de Miles. A moated mound with a square
bailey and no masonry still remains.[992] It commands the river Loughor,
which is still navigable up to that point at high tides.[993] On the opposite
side of the river is another motte and bailey, called Ystum Enlle. Possibly
there was a ford or ferry at this point, which these castles were placed to
defend.[994]
Oystermouth, a corruption of Ystum Llwynarth.—First mentioned in the
older Brut in 1215, when it was burnt by Rhys Grug. The later version says
it was built by Beaumont in 1099. The castle stands on a natural height,
fortified artificially by a motte, which is of great size. There is a small
bailey below to the N.E., and a curious small oval embankment thrown out
in the rear of the castle towards the N.W. The architecture of this
magnificent castle is all of the Edwardian style, and as the castle was burnt
down by Rhys ap Meredith in 1287, it is probable that only wooden
structures stood on this site until after that date. The castle is in a fine
situation overlooking the Bay of Swansea. [H. W.]
We have now completed our list of the Norman castles built in Wales which
are known to history. It must not be supposed, however, that we imagine
this to be a complete list of all the Norman castles which were ever erected
in Wales. The fact that several in our catalogue are only once mentioned in
the records makes it probable that there were many others which have never
been mentioned at all. In this way we may account for the many mottes
which remain in Wales about which history is entirely silent. As there was
scarcely a corner in Wales into which the Normans did not penetrate at
some time or other, it is not surprising if we find them in districts which are
generally reckoned to be entirely Welsh. But there is another way of
accounting for them; some of them may have been built by the Welsh
themselves, in imitation of the Normans. As the feudal system and feudal
terrace 15 feet wide.[991] The four castles last mentioned are all at the
mouths of rivers, as well as on an ancient (if not Roman) coast road.
*Llandeilo Talybont, or Castell Hu.—Only mentioned once in the Brut,
under 1215, as the castle of Hugh de Miles. A moated mound with a square
bailey and no masonry still remains.[992] It commands the river Loughor,
which is still navigable up to that point at high tides.[993] On the opposite
side of the river is another motte and bailey, called Ystum Enlle. Possibly
there was a ford or ferry at this point, which these castles were placed to
defend.[994]
Oystermouth, a corruption of Ystum Llwynarth.—First mentioned in the
older Brut in 1215, when it was burnt by Rhys Grug. The later version says
it was built by Beaumont in 1099. The castle stands on a natural height,
fortified artificially by a motte, which is of great size. There is a small
bailey below to the N.E., and a curious small oval embankment thrown out
in the rear of the castle towards the N.W. The architecture of this
magnificent castle is all of the Edwardian style, and as the castle was burnt
down by Rhys ap Meredith in 1287, it is probable that only wooden
structures stood on this site until after that date. The castle is in a fine
situation overlooking the Bay of Swansea. [H. W.]
We have now completed our list of the Norman castles built in Wales which
are known to history. It must not be supposed, however, that we imagine
this to be a complete list of all the Norman castles which were ever erected
in Wales. The fact that several in our catalogue are only once mentioned in
the records makes it probable that there were many others which have never
been mentioned at all. In this way we may account for the many mottes
which remain in Wales about which history is entirely silent. As there was
scarcely a corner in Wales into which the Normans did not penetrate at
some time or other, it is not surprising if we find them in districts which are
generally reckoned to be entirely Welsh. But there is another way of
accounting for them; some of them may have been built by the Welsh
themselves, in imitation of the Normans. As the feudal system and feudal
Page 252
ideas penetrated more and more into Wales, and the Welsh princes
themselves became feudal homagers of the kings of England, it was natural
that the feudal castle should also become a Welsh institution, especially as it
was soon found to be a great addition to the chieftain’s personal strength.
The following castles are stated in the Brut to have been built by the Welsh.
[995]
1113. *Cymmer, in Merioneth.—Built by Uchtred ap Edwin, whose name,
as we have already remarked, suggests an English descent. Near Cymmer
Abbey the motte or tomen remains.
*Cynfael, in Merioneth, near Towyn.—Built by Cadwalader, son of Griffith
ap Cynan, on whose behalf Henry II. undertook his first expedition into
Wales, and who was at that time a protégé of the Anglo-Normans. Clark
gives a plan of this motte-castle in Arch. Camb., 4th ser., vi., 66.
1148. *Yale, in Denbigh = Llanarmon.—Said to have been built by Owen
Gwynedd, but here, as we have said, an earlier Norman foundation seems
probable (see p. 272).
1148. Llanrhystyd, in Cardigan.—Also built by Cadwalader, who was then
establishing himself in Cardigan. Probably the motte and bailey called
Penrhos, or Castell Rhos, to the east of Llanrhystyd village. [H. W.]
1155. Aberdovey.—Built by Rhys ap Griffith to defend Cardigan against
Owen, Prince of Gwynedd. It must therefore have been on the Cardigan
shore of the Dovey, and not at the present town of Aberdovey, which is on
the Merioneth shore. And in fact, on the Cardigan shore of the estuary,
about two miles west of Glandovey Castle, there is a tumulus called
Domenlas (the green tump), which was very likely the site of this castle of
Rhys.[996]
1155. Caereinion.—Built by Madoc of Powys, who was then a homager of
Henry II. Remains of a motte near the church; the churchyard itself appears
to be the former bailey. About a mile off is a British camp called Pen y
Voel, which may have been the seat of the son of Cunedda, who is said to
have settled here. [H. W.]
themselves became feudal homagers of the kings of England, it was natural
that the feudal castle should also become a Welsh institution, especially as it
was soon found to be a great addition to the chieftain’s personal strength.
The following castles are stated in the Brut to have been built by the Welsh.
[995]
1113. *Cymmer, in Merioneth.—Built by Uchtred ap Edwin, whose name,
as we have already remarked, suggests an English descent. Near Cymmer
Abbey the motte or tomen remains.
*Cynfael, in Merioneth, near Towyn.—Built by Cadwalader, son of Griffith
ap Cynan, on whose behalf Henry II. undertook his first expedition into
Wales, and who was at that time a protégé of the Anglo-Normans. Clark
gives a plan of this motte-castle in Arch. Camb., 4th ser., vi., 66.
1148. *Yale, in Denbigh = Llanarmon.—Said to have been built by Owen
Gwynedd, but here, as we have said, an earlier Norman foundation seems
probable (see p. 272).
1148. Llanrhystyd, in Cardigan.—Also built by Cadwalader, who was then
establishing himself in Cardigan. Probably the motte and bailey called
Penrhos, or Castell Rhos, to the east of Llanrhystyd village. [H. W.]
1155. Aberdovey.—Built by Rhys ap Griffith to defend Cardigan against
Owen, Prince of Gwynedd. It must therefore have been on the Cardigan
shore of the Dovey, and not at the present town of Aberdovey, which is on
the Merioneth shore. And in fact, on the Cardigan shore of the estuary,
about two miles west of Glandovey Castle, there is a tumulus called
Domenlas (the green tump), which was very likely the site of this castle of
Rhys.[996]
1155. Caereinion.—Built by Madoc of Powys, who was then a homager of
Henry II. Remains of a motte near the church; the churchyard itself appears
to be the former bailey. About a mile off is a British camp called Pen y
Voel, which may have been the seat of the son of Cunedda, who is said to
have settled here. [H. W.]
Page 253
*Walwern, or Tafolwern, near Llanbrynmair, in Montgomery, may have
been a Welsh castle. It is first mentioned in 1163, when Howel ap Jeuav
took it from Owen Gwynedd, who may have been its builder. The motte is
marked in the O.M. on a narrow peninsula at the junction of two streams.
1169. *Abereinon, in Cardigan.—Built by Rhys ap Griffith, Henry II.’s
Justiciar of South Wales. “A circular moated tumulus, now called Cil y
Craig.”[997] (It is marked on the 25-inch O.M.)
1177. *Rhaidr Gwy.—Also built by Rhys ap Griffith, no doubt as a menace
to Powys, as this castle was afterwards sorely contested. It is a motte-and-
bailey castle, the motte being known as Tower Mount.[998]
All these castles are of the motte-and-bailey type, and prove the adoption by
the Welsh of Norman customs.[999] It will be noticed that in the first
instances they were built by men who were specially under Norman
influences. But probably the fashion was soon more widely followed,
although these are the only recorded cases.
The contribution made by the castles of Wales to the general theory of the
origin of mottes in these islands is very important. Leaving out the seven
castles attributed to the Welsh, we find that out of seventy-one castles built
by the Normans, fifty-three, or very nearly three-fourths, still have mottes;
while in the remaining eighteen, either the sites have been so altered as to
destroy the original plan, or there is a probability that a motte has formerly
existed.
been a Welsh castle. It is first mentioned in 1163, when Howel ap Jeuav
took it from Owen Gwynedd, who may have been its builder. The motte is
marked in the O.M. on a narrow peninsula at the junction of two streams.
1169. *Abereinon, in Cardigan.—Built by Rhys ap Griffith, Henry II.’s
Justiciar of South Wales. “A circular moated tumulus, now called Cil y
Craig.”[997] (It is marked on the 25-inch O.M.)
1177. *Rhaidr Gwy.—Also built by Rhys ap Griffith, no doubt as a menace
to Powys, as this castle was afterwards sorely contested. It is a motte-and-
bailey castle, the motte being known as Tower Mount.[998]
All these castles are of the motte-and-bailey type, and prove the adoption by
the Welsh of Norman customs.[999] It will be noticed that in the first
instances they were built by men who were specially under Norman
influences. But probably the fashion was soon more widely followed,
although these are the only recorded cases.
The contribution made by the castles of Wales to the general theory of the
origin of mottes in these islands is very important. Leaving out the seven
castles attributed to the Welsh, we find that out of seventy-one castles built
by the Normans, fifty-three, or very nearly three-fourths, still have mottes;
while in the remaining eighteen, either the sites have been so altered as to
destroy the original plan, or there is a probability that a motte has formerly
existed.
Page 254
CHAPTER X
MOTTE-CASTLES IN SCOTLAND
The Scottish historians of the 19th century have amply recognised the
Anglo-Norman occupation of Scotland, which took place in the 11th and
12th centuries, ever since its extent and importance were demonstrated by
Chalmers in his Caledonia. Occupation is not too strong a word to use,
although it was an occupation about which history is strangely silent, and
which seems to have provoked little resistance except in the Keltic parts of
the country. But it meant the transformation of Scotland from a tribal Keltic
kingdom into an organised feudal state, and in the accomplishment of this
transformation the greater part of the best lands in Scotland passed into the
hands of English refugees or Norman and Flemish adventurers.
The movement began in the days of Malcolm Canmore, when his English
queen, the sainted Margaret, undoubtedly favoured the reception of English
refugees of noble birth, some of whom were her own relations.[1000] Very
soon, the English refugees were followed by Norman refugees, who had
either fallen under the displeasure of the king of England, like the
Montgomeries, or were the cadets of some Norman family, wishful to carve
out fresh fortunes for themselves, like the Fitz Alans, the ancestors of the
Stuarts. The immigration continued during the reign of the sons of
Margaret, but seems to have reached its culminating point under David I.
(1124-1153).
David, as Burton remarks, had lived for sixteen years as an affluent Anglo-
Norman noble, before his accession to the Scottish crown, being Earl of
Huntingdon in right of his wife, the daughter of Simon de Senlis, and
granddaughter, through her mother, of Earl Waltheof. David’s tastes and
sympathies were Norman, but it was not taste alone which impelled him to
build up in Scotland a monarchy of the Anglo-Norman feudal type. He had
a distinct policy to accomplish; he wished to do for Scotland what Edward
I. sought to do for the whole island, to unite its various nationalities under
one government, and he saw that men of the Anglo-Norman type would be
MOTTE-CASTLES IN SCOTLAND
The Scottish historians of the 19th century have amply recognised the
Anglo-Norman occupation of Scotland, which took place in the 11th and
12th centuries, ever since its extent and importance were demonstrated by
Chalmers in his Caledonia. Occupation is not too strong a word to use,
although it was an occupation about which history is strangely silent, and
which seems to have provoked little resistance except in the Keltic parts of
the country. But it meant the transformation of Scotland from a tribal Keltic
kingdom into an organised feudal state, and in the accomplishment of this
transformation the greater part of the best lands in Scotland passed into the
hands of English refugees or Norman and Flemish adventurers.
The movement began in the days of Malcolm Canmore, when his English
queen, the sainted Margaret, undoubtedly favoured the reception of English
refugees of noble birth, some of whom were her own relations.[1000] Very
soon, the English refugees were followed by Norman refugees, who had
either fallen under the displeasure of the king of England, like the
Montgomeries, or were the cadets of some Norman family, wishful to carve
out fresh fortunes for themselves, like the Fitz Alans, the ancestors of the
Stuarts. The immigration continued during the reign of the sons of
Margaret, but seems to have reached its culminating point under David I.
(1124-1153).
David, as Burton remarks, had lived for sixteen years as an affluent Anglo-
Norman noble, before his accession to the Scottish crown, being Earl of
Huntingdon in right of his wife, the daughter of Simon de Senlis, and
granddaughter, through her mother, of Earl Waltheof. David’s tastes and
sympathies were Norman, but it was not taste alone which impelled him to
build up in Scotland a monarchy of the Anglo-Norman feudal type. He had
a distinct policy to accomplish; he wished to do for Scotland what Edward
I. sought to do for the whole island, to unite its various nationalities under
one government, and he saw that men of the Anglo-Norman type would be
Page 255
the best instruments of this policy.[1001] It mattered little to him from what
nation he chose his followers, if they were men who accepted his ideas.
Norman, English, Flemish, or Norse adventurers were all received at his
court, and endowed with lands in Scotland, if they were men suitable for
working the system which he knew to be the only one available for the
accomplishment of his policy. And that system was the feudal system. He
saw that feudalism meant a higher state of civilisation than the tribalism of
Keltic Scotland, and that only by the complete organisation of feudalism
could he carry out the unification of Scotland, and the subjugation of the
wild Keltic tribes of the north and west.[1002]
The policy was successful, though it was not completely carried out until
Alexander III. purchased the kingdom of the Isles from the King of Norway
in 1266. The sons of David, Malcolm IV., and William the Lion were strong
men who doughtily continued the subjugation of the Keltic parts of
Scotland, and distributed the lands of the conquered among their Norman or
Normanised followers. The struggle was a severe one; again and again did
the North rebel against the yoke of the House of Malcolm. In Moray the
Keltic inhabitants were actually driven out by Malcolm IV., and the country
colonised by Normans or Flemings.[1003] The same Malcolm led no less
than three expeditions against Galloway, where in spite of extensive Norse
settlements on the coast, the mass of the inhabitants appear to have been
Keltic.[1004]
We know very little about the details of this remarkable revolution, because
Scotland had no voice in the 12th century, none of her chroniclers being
earlier than the end of the 14th century. As regards the subject which
concerns this book, the building of castles, there are only one or two
passages which lift the veil. A contemporary English chronicler, Ailred of
Rievaulx, in his panegyric of David I., says that David decorated Scotland
with castles and cities.[1005] In like manner Benedict of Peterborough tells
us that when William the Lion was captured by Henry II.’s forces in 1174,
the men of Galloway took the opportunity to destroy all the castles which
the king had built in their country, expelling his seneschals and guards, and
killing all the English and French whom they could catch.[1006] Fordun
casually mentions the building of two castles in Ross by William the Lion;
and once he gives us an anecdote which is a chance revelation of what must
nation he chose his followers, if they were men who accepted his ideas.
Norman, English, Flemish, or Norse adventurers were all received at his
court, and endowed with lands in Scotland, if they were men suitable for
working the system which he knew to be the only one available for the
accomplishment of his policy. And that system was the feudal system. He
saw that feudalism meant a higher state of civilisation than the tribalism of
Keltic Scotland, and that only by the complete organisation of feudalism
could he carry out the unification of Scotland, and the subjugation of the
wild Keltic tribes of the north and west.[1002]
The policy was successful, though it was not completely carried out until
Alexander III. purchased the kingdom of the Isles from the King of Norway
in 1266. The sons of David, Malcolm IV., and William the Lion were strong
men who doughtily continued the subjugation of the Keltic parts of
Scotland, and distributed the lands of the conquered among their Norman or
Normanised followers. The struggle was a severe one; again and again did
the North rebel against the yoke of the House of Malcolm. In Moray the
Keltic inhabitants were actually driven out by Malcolm IV., and the country
colonised by Normans or Flemings.[1003] The same Malcolm led no less
than three expeditions against Galloway, where in spite of extensive Norse
settlements on the coast, the mass of the inhabitants appear to have been
Keltic.[1004]
We know very little about the details of this remarkable revolution, because
Scotland had no voice in the 12th century, none of her chroniclers being
earlier than the end of the 14th century. As regards the subject which
concerns this book, the building of castles, there are only one or two
passages which lift the veil. A contemporary English chronicler, Ailred of
Rievaulx, in his panegyric of David I., says that David decorated Scotland
with castles and cities.[1005] In like manner Benedict of Peterborough tells
us that when William the Lion was captured by Henry II.’s forces in 1174,
the men of Galloway took the opportunity to destroy all the castles which
the king had built in their country, expelling his seneschals and guards, and
killing all the English and French whom they could catch.[1006] Fordun
casually mentions the building of two castles in Ross by William the Lion;
and once he gives us an anecdote which is a chance revelation of what must
Page 256
have been going on everywhere. A certain English knight, Robert, son of
Godwin, whose Norman name shows that he was one of the Normanised
English, tarried with the king’s leave on an estate which King Edgar had
given him in Lothian, and while he was seeking to build a castle there, he
was attacked by the men of Bishop Ranulf of Durham, who objected to a
castle being built so near the English frontier.[1007]
But even if historians had been entirely silent about the building of castles
in Scotland, we should have been certain that it must have happened, as an
inevitable part of the Norman settlement. Robertson remarks that the Scots
in the time of David I. were still a pastoral and in some respects a migratory
people, their magnates not residing like great feudal nobles in their own
castles, but moving about from place to place, and quartering themselves
upon the dependent population. There is in fact no reason for supposing that
the Keltic chiefs of Scotland built castles, any more than those of Wales or
Ireland.[1008] But the feudal system must very soon have covered Scotland
with castles.
The absence of any stone castles of Norman type has puzzled Scottish
historians, whose ideas of castles were associated with buildings in stone.
[1009]
In 1898 Dr Christison published his valuable researches into the Early
Fortifications of Scotland, in which for the first time an estimate was
attempted of the distribution of Scottish motes,[1010] and their Norman
origin almost, if not quite, suspected. His book was quickly followed by Mr
George Neilson’s noteworthy paper on the “Motes in Norman
Scotland,”[1011] in which he showed that the wooden castle is the key which
unlocks the historians’ puzzle, and that the motes of Scotland are nothing
but the evidence of the Norman feudal settlement.
Two important points urged in Mr Neilson’s paper are the feudal and legal
connection of these motes. He has given a list of mottes which are known to
have been the site of the “chief messuages” of baronies in the 13th and 14th
centuries, and has collected the names of a great number which were seats
of justice, or places where “saisine” of a barony was taken, not because they
were moot-hills, but because the administration of justice remained fixed in
the ancient site of the baron’s castle. “The doctrine of the chief messuage,
which became of large importance in peerage law, made it at times of
moment to have on distinct record the nomination of what the chief
Godwin, whose Norman name shows that he was one of the Normanised
English, tarried with the king’s leave on an estate which King Edgar had
given him in Lothian, and while he was seeking to build a castle there, he
was attacked by the men of Bishop Ranulf of Durham, who objected to a
castle being built so near the English frontier.[1007]
But even if historians had been entirely silent about the building of castles
in Scotland, we should have been certain that it must have happened, as an
inevitable part of the Norman settlement. Robertson remarks that the Scots
in the time of David I. were still a pastoral and in some respects a migratory
people, their magnates not residing like great feudal nobles in their own
castles, but moving about from place to place, and quartering themselves
upon the dependent population. There is in fact no reason for supposing that
the Keltic chiefs of Scotland built castles, any more than those of Wales or
Ireland.[1008] But the feudal system must very soon have covered Scotland
with castles.
The absence of any stone castles of Norman type has puzzled Scottish
historians, whose ideas of castles were associated with buildings in stone.
[1009]
In 1898 Dr Christison published his valuable researches into the Early
Fortifications of Scotland, in which for the first time an estimate was
attempted of the distribution of Scottish motes,[1010] and their Norman
origin almost, if not quite, suspected. His book was quickly followed by Mr
George Neilson’s noteworthy paper on the “Motes in Norman
Scotland,”[1011] in which he showed that the wooden castle is the key which
unlocks the historians’ puzzle, and that the motes of Scotland are nothing
but the evidence of the Norman feudal settlement.
Two important points urged in Mr Neilson’s paper are the feudal and legal
connection of these motes. He has given a list of mottes which are known to
have been the site of the “chief messuages” of baronies in the 13th and 14th
centuries, and has collected the names of a great number which were seats
of justice, or places where “saisine” of a barony was taken, not because they
were moot-hills, but because the administration of justice remained fixed in
the ancient site of the baron’s castle. “The doctrine of the chief messuage,
which became of large importance in peerage law, made it at times of
moment to have on distinct record the nomination of what the chief
Page 257
messuage was, often for the imperative function of taking sasine. In many
instances the caput baroniæ, or the court or place for the ceremonial entry
to possession, is the ‘$1’moit,’ the ‘mothill,’ the ‘auld castell,’ the ‘auld
wark,’ the ‘castellsteid,’ the ‘auld castellsteid,’ the ‘courthill,’ or in Latin
mons placiti, mons viridis, or mons castri.”[1012] In certain places where two
mottes are to be found, he was able to prove that two baronies had once had
their seats. Another point which Mr Neilson worked out is the relation of
bordlands to mottes. Bordland or borland, though an English word, is not
pre-Conquest; it refers to “that species of demesne which the lord reserves
for the supply of his own table.” It is constantly found in the near proximity
of mottes.[1013]
The following is a list of thirty-eight Anglo-Norman or Normanised
adventurers settled in Scotland, on whose lands mottes are to be found. The
list must be regarded as a tentative one, for had all the names given by
Chalmers been included, it would have been more than doubled. But the
difficulties of obtaining topographical information were so great that it has
been judged expedient to give only the names of those families who are
known to have held lands, and in most cases to have had their principal
residences, in places where mottes are or formerly were existing.[1014]
Anstruther.—William de Candela obtained the lands of Anstruther, in Fife,
from David I. His descendants took the surname of Anstruther. The
“Mothlaw” of Anstruther is mentioned in 1590.[1015] “At the W. end of the
town there is a large mound, called the Chester Hill, in the middle of which
is a fine well.” (N. S. A., 1845.) The well is an absolute proof that this was
the site of a castle.
Avenel.—Walter de Avenel held Abercorn Castle and estate, in Linlithgow,
in the middle of the 12th century. The castle stood on a green mound (N. S.
A.) which is clearly marked in the O.M.
Balliol.—The De Bailleul family had their seat at Barnard Castle, in
Durham, after the Conquest. They obtained lands in Galloway from David
I., and had strongholds at Buittle, and Kenmure, in Kirkcudbright. At
Buittle the site of the castle exists, a roughly triangular bailey with a motte
at one corner;[1016] and at Kenmure the O.M. clearly shows a motte, as does
instances the caput baroniæ, or the court or place for the ceremonial entry
to possession, is the ‘$1’moit,’ the ‘mothill,’ the ‘auld castell,’ the ‘auld
wark,’ the ‘castellsteid,’ the ‘auld castellsteid,’ the ‘courthill,’ or in Latin
mons placiti, mons viridis, or mons castri.”[1012] In certain places where two
mottes are to be found, he was able to prove that two baronies had once had
their seats. Another point which Mr Neilson worked out is the relation of
bordlands to mottes. Bordland or borland, though an English word, is not
pre-Conquest; it refers to “that species of demesne which the lord reserves
for the supply of his own table.” It is constantly found in the near proximity
of mottes.[1013]
The following is a list of thirty-eight Anglo-Norman or Normanised
adventurers settled in Scotland, on whose lands mottes are to be found. The
list must be regarded as a tentative one, for had all the names given by
Chalmers been included, it would have been more than doubled. But the
difficulties of obtaining topographical information were so great that it has
been judged expedient to give only the names of those families who are
known to have held lands, and in most cases to have had their principal
residences, in places where mottes are or formerly were existing.[1014]
Anstruther.—William de Candela obtained the lands of Anstruther, in Fife,
from David I. His descendants took the surname of Anstruther. The
“Mothlaw” of Anstruther is mentioned in 1590.[1015] “At the W. end of the
town there is a large mound, called the Chester Hill, in the middle of which
is a fine well.” (N. S. A., 1845.) The well is an absolute proof that this was
the site of a castle.
Avenel.—Walter de Avenel held Abercorn Castle and estate, in Linlithgow,
in the middle of the 12th century. The castle stood on a green mound (N. S.
A.) which is clearly marked in the O.M.
Balliol.—The De Bailleul family had their seat at Barnard Castle, in
Durham, after the Conquest. They obtained lands in Galloway from David
I., and had strongholds at Buittle, and Kenmure, in Kirkcudbright. At
Buittle the site of the castle exists, a roughly triangular bailey with a motte
at one corner;[1016] and at Kenmure the O.M. clearly shows a motte, as does
Page 258
the picture in Grose’s Antiquities of Scotland. The terraces probably date
from the time when the modern house on top was built.
Barclay.—The De Berkeleys sprang from the De Berkeleys of England,
and settled in Scotland in the 12th century. Walter de Berkeley was
Chamberlain of Scotland in 1165; William the Lion gave him the manor of
Inverkeilor, in Forfarshire; there he built a castle, on Lunan Bay. “An
artificial mound on the west side of the bay, called the Corbie’s Knowe,
bears evident marks of having been a castle long previous to the erection of
Redcastle.” (N. S. A.) The family also had lands in what is now
Aberdeenshire, and at Towie, in the parish of Auchterless, they had a castle.
“Close to the church of Auchterless there is a small artificial eminence of an
oval shape, surrounded by a ditch, which is now in many places filled up. It
still retains the name of the Moat Head, and was formerly the seat of the
baronial court.” (N. S. A.; N.; C.)
Bruce.—The De Brus held lands in North Yorkshire at the time of the
Domesday Survey. David I. gave them the barony of Annan, in
Dumfriesshire. The original charter of this grant still exists in the British
Museum, witnessed by a galaxy of Norman names.[1017] Their chief castles
were at Annan and Lochmaben. At Annan, near the site of a later castle,
there is still a motte about 50 feet high, with a vast ditch and some traces of
a bailey (N.), called the Moat (N. S. A.). The “terras de Moit et Bailyis,
intra le Northgate,” are mentioned in 1582. South of the town of
Lochmaben, on the N.W. side of the loch, is a fine motte called Castle Hill,
with some remains of masonry, which is still pointed out as the original
castle of the Bruces.[1018] (G.) The fine motte and bailey at Moffat must
also have been one of their castles, as Moffat was one of their demesne
lands. (Fig. 44.)
Cathcart.—Name territorial. Rainald de Cathcart witnesses a charter (in
the Paisley Register) in 1179. Near the old castle of Cathcart, Lanark, is “an
eminence called Court Knowe.” (N. S. A.) As Mr Neilson has shown, these
court knowes and court hills are generally disused mottes. The name
Rainald is clearly Norman.
Cheyne.—This family is first known in 1258, but had then been long settled
in Scotland, and were hereditary sheriffs of Banffshire. Chalmers only
from the time when the modern house on top was built.
Barclay.—The De Berkeleys sprang from the De Berkeleys of England,
and settled in Scotland in the 12th century. Walter de Berkeley was
Chamberlain of Scotland in 1165; William the Lion gave him the manor of
Inverkeilor, in Forfarshire; there he built a castle, on Lunan Bay. “An
artificial mound on the west side of the bay, called the Corbie’s Knowe,
bears evident marks of having been a castle long previous to the erection of
Redcastle.” (N. S. A.) The family also had lands in what is now
Aberdeenshire, and at Towie, in the parish of Auchterless, they had a castle.
“Close to the church of Auchterless there is a small artificial eminence of an
oval shape, surrounded by a ditch, which is now in many places filled up. It
still retains the name of the Moat Head, and was formerly the seat of the
baronial court.” (N. S. A.; N.; C.)
Bruce.—The De Brus held lands in North Yorkshire at the time of the
Domesday Survey. David I. gave them the barony of Annan, in
Dumfriesshire. The original charter of this grant still exists in the British
Museum, witnessed by a galaxy of Norman names.[1017] Their chief castles
were at Annan and Lochmaben. At Annan, near the site of a later castle,
there is still a motte about 50 feet high, with a vast ditch and some traces of
a bailey (N.), called the Moat (N. S. A.). The “terras de Moit et Bailyis,
intra le Northgate,” are mentioned in 1582. South of the town of
Lochmaben, on the N.W. side of the loch, is a fine motte called Castle Hill,
with some remains of masonry, which is still pointed out as the original
castle of the Bruces.[1018] (G.) The fine motte and bailey at Moffat must
also have been one of their castles, as Moffat was one of their demesne
lands. (Fig. 44.)
Cathcart.—Name territorial. Rainald de Cathcart witnesses a charter (in
the Paisley Register) in 1179. Near the old castle of Cathcart, Lanark, is “an
eminence called Court Knowe.” (N. S. A.) As Mr Neilson has shown, these
court knowes and court hills are generally disused mottes. The name
Rainald is clearly Norman.
Cheyne.—This family is first known in 1258, but had then been long settled
in Scotland, and were hereditary sheriffs of Banffshire. Chalmers only
Page 259
mentions their manor of Inverugie, in Aberdeenshire. Behind the ruins of
Inverugie Castle rises a round flat-topped hill, which was the Castle Hill or
Mote Hill of former days. (N. S. A.)
Colville.—Appears in Scotland in the reign of Malcolm IV., holding the
manors of Heton and Oxnam, in Roxburgh. About ¼ mile from Oxnam
(which was a barony) is a moated mound called Galla Knowe. (O.M., C.,
and N.) Hailes identified the castle in Teviotdale, captured and burnt by
Balliol in 1333, with that of Oxnam.[1019] Le Mote de Oxnam is mentioned
in 1424 (N.).
Inverugie Castle rises a round flat-topped hill, which was the Castle Hill or
Mote Hill of former days. (N. S. A.)
Colville.—Appears in Scotland in the reign of Malcolm IV., holding the
manors of Heton and Oxnam, in Roxburgh. About ¼ mile from Oxnam
(which was a barony) is a moated mound called Galla Knowe. (O.M., C.,
and N.) Hailes identified the castle in Teviotdale, captured and burnt by
Balliol in 1333, with that of Oxnam.[1019] Le Mote de Oxnam is mentioned
in 1424 (N.).
Page 260
Moffat.
Annan.
Annan.
Page 261
Duffus.
Page 262
Liddesdale.
Fig. 44.—Scottish Motte-Castles.
Cumyn, or Comyn.—The first of this family came to Scotland as the
chancellor of David I.[1020] First seated at Linton Roderick, in
Roxburghshire, where there is a rising ground, surrounded formerly by a
foss, the site of the original castle; (G.) a description which seems to
suggest a motte. William the Lion gave the Cumyns Kirkintilloch in
Dumbarton, and we afterwards find them at Dalswinton in Dumfriesshire,
and Troqueer in Kirkcudbright. At Kirkintilloch the O.M. shows a square
mount concentrically placed in a square enceinte. The enclosure was
apparently one of the forts on the wall of Agricola, but the writer on
Kirkintilloch in the N. S. A. suspected that it had been transformed into a
castle by the Cumyns. At Dalswinton the O.M. shows a motte, and calls it
the “site of Cumyn’s Castle.” At Troqueer, “directly opposite the spot on the
other side the river where Cumyn’s Castle formerly stood is a mote of
circular form and considerable height.” (N. S. A.) The Cumyn who held
Kirkintilloch in 1201, was made Earl of Buchan, and held the vast district
Fig. 44.—Scottish Motte-Castles.
Cumyn, or Comyn.—The first of this family came to Scotland as the
chancellor of David I.[1020] First seated at Linton Roderick, in
Roxburghshire, where there is a rising ground, surrounded formerly by a
foss, the site of the original castle; (G.) a description which seems to
suggest a motte. William the Lion gave the Cumyns Kirkintilloch in
Dumbarton, and we afterwards find them at Dalswinton in Dumfriesshire,
and Troqueer in Kirkcudbright. At Kirkintilloch the O.M. shows a square
mount concentrically placed in a square enceinte. The enclosure was
apparently one of the forts on the wall of Agricola, but the writer on
Kirkintilloch in the N. S. A. suspected that it had been transformed into a
castle by the Cumyns. At Dalswinton the O.M. shows a motte, and calls it
the “site of Cumyn’s Castle.” At Troqueer, “directly opposite the spot on the
other side the river where Cumyn’s Castle formerly stood is a mote of
circular form and considerable height.” (N. S. A.) The Cumyn who held
Kirkintilloch in 1201, was made Earl of Buchan, and held the vast district
Page 263
of Badenoch, or the great valley of the Spey. The N. S. A. gives many
descriptions of remains in this region which are suggestive of motte-castles;
we can only name the most striking: Ruthven, “a castle reared by the
Comyns on a green conical mound on the S. bank of the Spey, thought to be
partly artificial,” now occupied by ruined barracks; Dunmullie, in the parish
of Duthill, where “there can be traced vestiges of a motte surrounded by a
ditch, on which, according to tradition, stood the castle of the early lords”;
Crimond, where Cumyn had a castle, and where there is a small round hill
called Castle Hill; and Ellon, where the Earl of Buchan had his head court,
on a small hill which has now disappeared, but which was anciently known
as the moot-hill of Ellon. Saisin of the earldom was given on this hill in
1476. (N. S. A.)
Cunningham.—Warnebald, who came from the north of England, was a
follower of the Norman, Hugh de Morville, who gave him the lands of
Cunningham, in Ayrshire, from which the family name was taken. In the
parish of Kilmaurs, which is in the district of Cunningham, there is a
“mote,” which may have been the castle of Warnebald; at any rate the
original manor place of Cunningham was in this parish. It is of course
possible that this motte may have been originally a De Morville castle.
Douglas.—Name territorial; progenitor was a Fleming, who received lands
on the Douglas water, in Lanark, in the middle of the 12th century. In the
park of Douglas, to the east of the modern castle, is a mound called
Boncastle, but we are unable to state certainly that it is a motte. Lag Castle,
in the parish of Dunscore, “has a moat or court hill a little to the east.” (N.
S. A.: shown in Grose’s picture.) It must have been originally Douglas land,
as in 1408 it was held by an armour-bearer of Douglas.
Durand.—Clearly a Norman name, corrupted into Durham. The family
were seated at Kirkpatrick Durham in the 13th century. There is or was a
motte at Kirkpatrick.[1021]
Durward.—This family was descended from Alan de Lundin, who was dur-
ward or door-keeper to the king about 1233. They possessed a wide domain
in Aberdeenshire, and had a castle at Lumphanan, where Edward I. stayed
in 1296. There is a round motte in the Peel Bog at Lumphanan, surrounded
by a moat, which was fed by a sluice from the neighbouring burn. There
descriptions of remains in this region which are suggestive of motte-castles;
we can only name the most striking: Ruthven, “a castle reared by the
Comyns on a green conical mound on the S. bank of the Spey, thought to be
partly artificial,” now occupied by ruined barracks; Dunmullie, in the parish
of Duthill, where “there can be traced vestiges of a motte surrounded by a
ditch, on which, according to tradition, stood the castle of the early lords”;
Crimond, where Cumyn had a castle, and where there is a small round hill
called Castle Hill; and Ellon, where the Earl of Buchan had his head court,
on a small hill which has now disappeared, but which was anciently known
as the moot-hill of Ellon. Saisin of the earldom was given on this hill in
1476. (N. S. A.)
Cunningham.—Warnebald, who came from the north of England, was a
follower of the Norman, Hugh de Morville, who gave him the lands of
Cunningham, in Ayrshire, from which the family name was taken. In the
parish of Kilmaurs, which is in the district of Cunningham, there is a
“mote,” which may have been the castle of Warnebald; at any rate the
original manor place of Cunningham was in this parish. It is of course
possible that this motte may have been originally a De Morville castle.
Douglas.—Name territorial; progenitor was a Fleming, who received lands
on the Douglas water, in Lanark, in the middle of the 12th century. In the
park of Douglas, to the east of the modern castle, is a mound called
Boncastle, but we are unable to state certainly that it is a motte. Lag Castle,
in the parish of Dunscore, “has a moat or court hill a little to the east.” (N.
S. A.: shown in Grose’s picture.) It must have been originally Douglas land,
as in 1408 it was held by an armour-bearer of Douglas.
Durand.—Clearly a Norman name, corrupted into Durham. The family
were seated at Kirkpatrick Durham in the 13th century. There is or was a
motte at Kirkpatrick.[1021]
Durward.—This family was descended from Alan de Lundin, who was dur-
ward or door-keeper to the king about 1233. They possessed a wide domain
in Aberdeenshire, and had a castle at Lumphanan, where Edward I. stayed
in 1296. There is a round motte in the Peel Bog at Lumphanan, surrounded
by a moat, which was fed by a sluice from the neighbouring burn. There
Page 264
were ruins in masonry on the top some hundred years ago. The writer of the
N. S. A. account of this place, with remarkable shrewdness, conjectures that
a wooden castle on this mound was the ancient residence of the Durwards,
superseded in the 15th century by a building of stone, and that it has
nothing to do with Macbeth, whose burial-place is said to be a cairn in the
neighbourhood.[1022]
Fitz Alan.—This is the well-known ancestor of the House of Stuart, Walter,
a cadet of a great Norman family in Shropshire, who is said to have
obtained lands in Scotland in Malcolm Canmore’s time. Renfrew was one
of his seats, and Inverwick, in Haddington, another. Renfrew Castle is
entirely destroyed, but the description of the site, on a small hill, ditched
round, called Castle Hill, strongly suggests a motte. The keep of Inverwick
stands on a natural motte of rock.[1023] Dunoon was one of their castles,
near to which “stood the Tom-a-mhoid, or Hill of the court of justice” (G.),
possibly an ancient motte.[1024] Dunoon Castle, however, itself stands on a
motte, partly artificial and partly carved out of a headland. (N.)
Fleming.—There were many Flemings among the followers of David I., and
eventually the name stuck to their descendants as a surname. Baldwin the
Fleming obtained lands at Biggar, in Lanarkshire. There is a motte at the
west end of the town of Biggar, 36 feet high. Biggar was the head of a
barony. (N. S. A. and N.) Colban the Fleming settled at Colbantown, now
Covington, Lanarkshire, where there is a motte (N.). Robert the Fleming
has left a well-preserved oblong motte at Roberton, in Lanark, which was a
barony, and where the moit was spoken of in 1608. (N.)
Graham.—Came from England under David I., and received lands in
Lothian. A Graham was lord of Tarbolton, in Ayrshire, in 1335, so it is
possible that the motte at that place, on which stood formerly the chief
messuage of the barony of Tarbolton, was one of their castles (N. S. A.), but
it may have been older.
Hamilton.—It is not certain that the Hamiltons came to Scotland before
1272. King Robert I. gave them the barony of Cadzow, Lanark, which had
originally been a royal seat. In Hamilton Park there is a mote hill, which
was the site of the chief messuage of this barony (N.). It was formerly
surrounded by the town of Hamilton. (N. S. A.) It is of course possible that
N. S. A. account of this place, with remarkable shrewdness, conjectures that
a wooden castle on this mound was the ancient residence of the Durwards,
superseded in the 15th century by a building of stone, and that it has
nothing to do with Macbeth, whose burial-place is said to be a cairn in the
neighbourhood.[1022]
Fitz Alan.—This is the well-known ancestor of the House of Stuart, Walter,
a cadet of a great Norman family in Shropshire, who is said to have
obtained lands in Scotland in Malcolm Canmore’s time. Renfrew was one
of his seats, and Inverwick, in Haddington, another. Renfrew Castle is
entirely destroyed, but the description of the site, on a small hill, ditched
round, called Castle Hill, strongly suggests a motte. The keep of Inverwick
stands on a natural motte of rock.[1023] Dunoon was one of their castles,
near to which “stood the Tom-a-mhoid, or Hill of the court of justice” (G.),
possibly an ancient motte.[1024] Dunoon Castle, however, itself stands on a
motte, partly artificial and partly carved out of a headland. (N.)
Fleming.—There were many Flemings among the followers of David I., and
eventually the name stuck to their descendants as a surname. Baldwin the
Fleming obtained lands at Biggar, in Lanarkshire. There is a motte at the
west end of the town of Biggar, 36 feet high. Biggar was the head of a
barony. (N. S. A. and N.) Colban the Fleming settled at Colbantown, now
Covington, Lanarkshire, where there is a motte (N.). Robert the Fleming
has left a well-preserved oblong motte at Roberton, in Lanark, which was a
barony, and where the moit was spoken of in 1608. (N.)
Graham.—Came from England under David I., and received lands in
Lothian. A Graham was lord of Tarbolton, in Ayrshire, in 1335, so it is
possible that the motte at that place, on which stood formerly the chief
messuage of the barony of Tarbolton, was one of their castles (N. S. A.), but
it may have been older.
Hamilton.—It is not certain that the Hamiltons came to Scotland before
1272. King Robert I. gave them the barony of Cadzow, Lanark, which had
originally been a royal seat. In Hamilton Park there is a mote hill, which
was the site of the chief messuage of this barony (N.). It was formerly
surrounded by the town of Hamilton. (N. S. A.) It is of course possible that
Page 265
this motte may be much older than the Hamiltons, as the site of an
originally royal castle.
Hay.—First appears in the 12th century, as butler to Malcolm IV. The
family first settled in Lothian, where they had lands at Lochorworth. The
Borthwick family, who got this estate by marriage, obtained a license from
James I. about 1430 to build a castle “on the mote of Locherwart,” and to
this castle they gave their own name. (N. S. A.) No doubt it was the original
motte of the Hays. King William gave the Hays the manor of Errol, in
Perthshire, which was made into a barony. Here is or was the mote of Errol,
“a round artificial mound about 20 feet high, and 30 feet in diameter at the
top; the platform at the top surrounded with a low turf wall, and the whole
enclosed with a turf wall at the base, in the form of an equilateral triangle.”
(N. S. A.; evidently a triangular bailey.) It is called the Law Knoll, and is
spoken of as a fortalicium in 1546. (N.)
Lennox.—The earls of Lennox are descended from Arkel, an Englishman,
who received from Malcolm Canmore lands in Dumbartonshire. At Catter,
near the Earl’s castle, is a large artificial mound.[1025]
Lockhart.—Stevenston, in Ayrshire, takes its name from Stephen Loccard,
and Symington, in Lanark, from his son (?), Simon Loccard. At Stevenson
there was formerly a castle, and there still (1845) is a Castle Hill.
Stevenston was given by Richard Morville to Stephen Loccard about 1170.
(N. S. A.) At Symington there was formerly a round mound, called Law
Hill, at the foot of the village, but it has been levelled. (N. S. A.)
Logan.—A Robert Logan witnesses a charter of William the Lion, and
appears later as Dominus Robertus de Logan. The name Robert shows his
Norman origin. At Drumore, near Logan (parish of Kirkmaiden, Wigton),
there was a castle, and there is still a court hill or mote.[1026] Another mote,
at Myroch, in the same parish, is mentioned by Mr Neilson as the site of the
chief messuage of the barony of Logan.
Lovel.—Settled at Hawick, Roxburghshire. The mote of Hawick, from the
picture in Scott’s Border Antiquities, seems to be a particularly fine one.
Hawick was a barony, and Le Moit is mentioned in 1511. (N.)
originally royal castle.
Hay.—First appears in the 12th century, as butler to Malcolm IV. The
family first settled in Lothian, where they had lands at Lochorworth. The
Borthwick family, who got this estate by marriage, obtained a license from
James I. about 1430 to build a castle “on the mote of Locherwart,” and to
this castle they gave their own name. (N. S. A.) No doubt it was the original
motte of the Hays. King William gave the Hays the manor of Errol, in
Perthshire, which was made into a barony. Here is or was the mote of Errol,
“a round artificial mound about 20 feet high, and 30 feet in diameter at the
top; the platform at the top surrounded with a low turf wall, and the whole
enclosed with a turf wall at the base, in the form of an equilateral triangle.”
(N. S. A.; evidently a triangular bailey.) It is called the Law Knoll, and is
spoken of as a fortalicium in 1546. (N.)
Lennox.—The earls of Lennox are descended from Arkel, an Englishman,
who received from Malcolm Canmore lands in Dumbartonshire. At Catter,
near the Earl’s castle, is a large artificial mound.[1025]
Lockhart.—Stevenston, in Ayrshire, takes its name from Stephen Loccard,
and Symington, in Lanark, from his son (?), Simon Loccard. At Stevenson
there was formerly a castle, and there still (1845) is a Castle Hill.
Stevenston was given by Richard Morville to Stephen Loccard about 1170.
(N. S. A.) At Symington there was formerly a round mound, called Law
Hill, at the foot of the village, but it has been levelled. (N. S. A.)
Logan.—A Robert Logan witnesses a charter of William the Lion, and
appears later as Dominus Robertus de Logan. The name Robert shows his
Norman origin. At Drumore, near Logan (parish of Kirkmaiden, Wigton),
there was a castle, and there is still a court hill or mote.[1026] Another mote,
at Myroch, in the same parish, is mentioned by Mr Neilson as the site of the
chief messuage of the barony of Logan.
Lovel.—Settled at Hawick, Roxburghshire. The mote of Hawick, from the
picture in Scott’s Border Antiquities, seems to be a particularly fine one.
Hawick was a barony, and Le Moit is mentioned in 1511. (N.)
Page 266
Lyle, or Lisle.—The castle of this Norman family was at Duchal,
Renfrewshire. The plan is clearly that of a motte and bailey, but the motte is
of natural rock.[1027]
Male, now Melville.—Settled in Haddingtonshire under David I., and
called their seat Melville. Melville Castle is modern. They afterwards
obtained by marriage lands on the Bervie River, in the Mearns. Dr
Christison’s map shows a motte near the mouth of the Bervie.
Maxwell.—Maccus, son of Unwin[1028] (evidently of Scandinavian origin),
received lands on the Tweed from David I., and called his seat Maccusville,
corrupted into Maxwell. There is a motte at Maxwell, near Kelso. (N.)
Maxton, in Roxburghshire, takes its name from him, and there is a motte
called Ringley Hall, on the Tweed, in this parish. (C. and N. S. A.)
Montalt, or Mowat.—Robert de Montalto (Mold, in Flintshire) witnesses a
charter of David I. The family settled in Cromarty. Le Mote at Cromarty is
mentioned in 1470. (N.)
Montgomery.—This family is undoubtedly descended from some one of
the sons of the great Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, settled in Scotland after the
ruin of his family in England. Robert de Montgomerie received the manor
of Eaglesham, Renfrew, from Fitz Alan, the High Steward of Scotland. The
principal messuage of this manor was at Polnoon, ½ mile S.E. of
Eaglesham. Here Sir John Montgomerie built the castle of Polnoon about
1388. (N. S. A.) The O.M. seems to show that the ruins of this castle stand
on a motte, probably the original castle of Montgomerie.
Morville.—Hugh de Morville was a Northamptonshire baron, the life-long
friend of David I.[1029] He founded one of the most powerful families in the
south of Scotland, though after three generations their lands passed to
heiresses, and their chief seat is not even known by name. But Mr Neilson
states that Darnhall, in Peebles, was the head of their “Black Barony,” and
that there is a motte there. As Hugh de Morville gave the church of Borgue
to Dryburgh Abbey about 1150, it is probable that the motte at Boreland of
Borgue was one of his castles. The barony of Beith, in Ayr, given by
Richard de Morville to the Abbey of Kilwinning, has also a motte, which
may be reckoned to be the site of a De Morville castle. Largs, in Ayr,
Renfrewshire. The plan is clearly that of a motte and bailey, but the motte is
of natural rock.[1027]
Male, now Melville.—Settled in Haddingtonshire under David I., and
called their seat Melville. Melville Castle is modern. They afterwards
obtained by marriage lands on the Bervie River, in the Mearns. Dr
Christison’s map shows a motte near the mouth of the Bervie.
Maxwell.—Maccus, son of Unwin[1028] (evidently of Scandinavian origin),
received lands on the Tweed from David I., and called his seat Maccusville,
corrupted into Maxwell. There is a motte at Maxwell, near Kelso. (N.)
Maxton, in Roxburghshire, takes its name from him, and there is a motte
called Ringley Hall, on the Tweed, in this parish. (C. and N. S. A.)
Montalt, or Mowat.—Robert de Montalto (Mold, in Flintshire) witnesses a
charter of David I. The family settled in Cromarty. Le Mote at Cromarty is
mentioned in 1470. (N.)
Montgomery.—This family is undoubtedly descended from some one of
the sons of the great Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, settled in Scotland after the
ruin of his family in England. Robert de Montgomerie received the manor
of Eaglesham, Renfrew, from Fitz Alan, the High Steward of Scotland. The
principal messuage of this manor was at Polnoon, ½ mile S.E. of
Eaglesham. Here Sir John Montgomerie built the castle of Polnoon about
1388. (N. S. A.) The O.M. seems to show that the ruins of this castle stand
on a motte, probably the original castle of Montgomerie.
Morville.—Hugh de Morville was a Northamptonshire baron, the life-long
friend of David I.[1029] He founded one of the most powerful families in the
south of Scotland, though after three generations their lands passed to
heiresses, and their chief seat is not even known by name. But Mr Neilson
states that Darnhall, in Peebles, was the head of their “Black Barony,” and
that there is a motte there. As Hugh de Morville gave the church of Borgue
to Dryburgh Abbey about 1150, it is probable that the motte at Boreland of
Borgue was one of his castles. The barony of Beith, in Ayr, given by
Richard de Morville to the Abbey of Kilwinning, has also a motte, which
may be reckoned to be the site of a De Morville castle. Largs, in Ayr,
Page 267
belonged to the De Morvilles, and has a Castle Hill near the village, which
appears to be a motte. (G.)
Mowbray.—This well-known Norman family also sent a branch to
Scotland. Amongst other places, about which we have no details, they held
Eckford, in Roxburghshire. In this parish, near the ancient mansion, is an
artificial mount called Haughhead Kipp. (N. S. A.) This seems a possible
motte, but its features are not described.
Murray.—Freskin the Fleming came to Scotland under David I., and
received from that king lands in Moray. He built himself a castle at Duffus,
in Elgin, which is on the motte-and-bailey plan.[1030] The stone keep now
on the motte appears to be of the 14th century. Freskin’s posterity took the
name of De Moravia, or Moray. (Fig. 44.)
Oliphant, or Olifard.—Cambuslang, in Lanark, belonged to Walter
Olifard, Justiciary of Lothian in the time of Alexander II. About a mile E. of
the church is a circular mound 20 feet high. It was here that the Oliphants’
castle of Drumsagard formerly stood. (N. S. A.) Drumsagard was a barony.
(N.)
De Quincy.—Obtained from William the Lion the manors of Travernant, in
East Lothian, and Leuchars, in Fife. Near the village of Leuchars is a motte
with some slight remains of a stone keep, a deep well in the centre, and an
entrenched bailey, known as the site of the castle of Leuchars.[1031]
Ross.—Godfrey de Ros, a vassal of Richard de Morville, held of him the
lands of Stewarton, in Ayr. The caput of the lordship was Castletown, where
Le Mote is spoken of in 1451 (N. and C.). The De Ros were also the first
lords of the barony of Sanquhar. A little lower down the river Nith than the
later castle of Sanquhar is a mote called Ryehill, and a place anciently
manorial. (N.)
Somerville.—William de Somerville was a Norman to whom David I. gave
the manor of Carnwath, in Lanarkshire. There is a very perfect entrenched
motte at Carnwath (N. S. A. and O.M.), and Le Moit de Carnwath is
mentioned in 1599. (N.)
appears to be a motte. (G.)
Mowbray.—This well-known Norman family also sent a branch to
Scotland. Amongst other places, about which we have no details, they held
Eckford, in Roxburghshire. In this parish, near the ancient mansion, is an
artificial mount called Haughhead Kipp. (N. S. A.) This seems a possible
motte, but its features are not described.
Murray.—Freskin the Fleming came to Scotland under David I., and
received from that king lands in Moray. He built himself a castle at Duffus,
in Elgin, which is on the motte-and-bailey plan.[1030] The stone keep now
on the motte appears to be of the 14th century. Freskin’s posterity took the
name of De Moravia, or Moray. (Fig. 44.)
Oliphant, or Olifard.—Cambuslang, in Lanark, belonged to Walter
Olifard, Justiciary of Lothian in the time of Alexander II. About a mile E. of
the church is a circular mound 20 feet high. It was here that the Oliphants’
castle of Drumsagard formerly stood. (N. S. A.) Drumsagard was a barony.
(N.)
De Quincy.—Obtained from William the Lion the manors of Travernant, in
East Lothian, and Leuchars, in Fife. Near the village of Leuchars is a motte
with some slight remains of a stone keep, a deep well in the centre, and an
entrenched bailey, known as the site of the castle of Leuchars.[1031]
Ross.—Godfrey de Ros, a vassal of Richard de Morville, held of him the
lands of Stewarton, in Ayr. The caput of the lordship was Castletown, where
Le Mote is spoken of in 1451 (N. and C.). The De Ros were also the first
lords of the barony of Sanquhar. A little lower down the river Nith than the
later castle of Sanquhar is a mote called Ryehill, and a place anciently
manorial. (N.)
Somerville.—William de Somerville was a Norman to whom David I. gave
the manor of Carnwath, in Lanarkshire. There is a very perfect entrenched
motte at Carnwath (N. S. A. and O.M.), and Le Moit de Carnwath is
mentioned in 1599. (N.)
Page 268
De Soulis.—Followed David I. from Northamptonshire into Scotland, and
received Liddesdale, in Roxburghshire, from him. The motte and bailey of
his original castle still remain, very near the more celebrated but much later
Hermitage Castle.[1032] (Fig. 44.)
Valoignes.—Philip de Valoignes and his son William were each
successively chamberlains of Scotland.[1033] One of their estates was Easter
Kilbride, in Lanarkshire, where they had a castle. In this parish is an
artificial mount of earth, with an oval area on top, about ¼ mile from the
present house of Torrance. (N. S. A.)
Vaux, or De Vallibus.—Settled in Scotland under William the Lion. Held
the manors of Dirleton and Golyn, in East Lothian. Dirleton has been
transformed into an Edwardian castle, but from the pictures it appears to
stand on a natural motte of rock. But about 3 miles from Dirleton the O.M.
shows a large motte called Castle Hill, which may possibly be the original
castle of the De Vaux.
Wallace, or Wallensis.—Richard Walensis was the first of this family, and
acquired lands in Ayrshire in David I.’s time. He named his seat Riccardton,
after himself, and the remains of his motte are still there, a small oval motte
called Castle Hill, on which the church of Riccarton now stands, but which
is recognised as having been a “mote hill.” (G.)
To this list must be added a number of royal castles known to have been
built in the 12th century, which, as they were built on mottes, must in the
first instance have been wooden castles.
Banff.—It seems clear that Banff Castle had a motte, because the doggerel
rhymes of Arthur Johnstone in 1642 say:
A place was near which was a field until
Our ancestors did raise it to a hill;
A stately castle also on it stood.
The Gazetteer says: “The citadel occupied a mount, originally at the end
though now near the middle of the town.” The site is still called Castle Hill.
(N. S. A.)
received Liddesdale, in Roxburghshire, from him. The motte and bailey of
his original castle still remain, very near the more celebrated but much later
Hermitage Castle.[1032] (Fig. 44.)
Valoignes.—Philip de Valoignes and his son William were each
successively chamberlains of Scotland.[1033] One of their estates was Easter
Kilbride, in Lanarkshire, where they had a castle. In this parish is an
artificial mount of earth, with an oval area on top, about ¼ mile from the
present house of Torrance. (N. S. A.)
Vaux, or De Vallibus.—Settled in Scotland under William the Lion. Held
the manors of Dirleton and Golyn, in East Lothian. Dirleton has been
transformed into an Edwardian castle, but from the pictures it appears to
stand on a natural motte of rock. But about 3 miles from Dirleton the O.M.
shows a large motte called Castle Hill, which may possibly be the original
castle of the De Vaux.
Wallace, or Wallensis.—Richard Walensis was the first of this family, and
acquired lands in Ayrshire in David I.’s time. He named his seat Riccardton,
after himself, and the remains of his motte are still there, a small oval motte
called Castle Hill, on which the church of Riccarton now stands, but which
is recognised as having been a “mote hill.” (G.)
To this list must be added a number of royal castles known to have been
built in the 12th century, which, as they were built on mottes, must in the
first instance have been wooden castles.
Banff.—It seems clear that Banff Castle had a motte, because the doggerel
rhymes of Arthur Johnstone in 1642 say:
A place was near which was a field until
Our ancestors did raise it to a hill;
A stately castle also on it stood.
The Gazetteer says: “The citadel occupied a mount, originally at the end
though now near the middle of the town.” The site is still called Castle Hill.
(N. S. A.)
Page 269
Crail, Fife.—The O.M. does not show a motte here. The N. S. A. says
“there was a royal residence here, upon an eminence overlooking the
harbour.” That this “eminence” was a motte seems clear from the Register
of the Great Seal, quoted by Mr Neilson, which speaks of “Le Moitt olim
Castrum” in 1573.
Cupar.—There seem to be two mottes here, both raised on a natural
“esker”; the one formerly called the Castle Hill is now called the School
Hill, the school having been built upon it. The other and higher hill is called
the Moot Hill, and is said to be the place where the earls of Fife used to
dispense justice. (N. S. A.) Mr Neilson states that both are mentioned in the
Registrum.
Dumfries.—Here there were two mottes, one being now the site of a
church, the other, called Castle Dykes, a short distance S. of the town, on
the opposite side of the river. Both no doubt were royal castles, and Mr
Neilson has suggested that as an old castlestead is spoken of in a charter of
William the Lion, it implies that a new castle had recently been built,
possibly after the great destruction of the royal castles in Galloway in 1174.
[1034]
The Castle Dykes appears to be the later castle, as it is spoken of in
the 16th century. (N.)
Dunskeath, Cromarty.—Built by William the Lion in 1179. The castle is
built on a small moat overhanging the sea. (G.)
Elgin.—Built by William the Lion on a small green hill called Lady Hill,
with conical and precipitous sides. (N. S. A. and G.)
Forfar.—“The castle stood on a round hill to the N. of the town, and must
have been surrounded by water.” (N. S. A.) It was destroyed in 1307. It is
called Gallow Hill in the O.M., and is now occupied by gasworks.
Forres.—The plan in Chalmers’ Caledonia clearly shows a motte, to which
the town appears to have formed a bailey.
Inverness.—Built by David I. when he annexed Moray. The site is now
occupied by a gaol, but the O.M. shows it to have been a motte, which is
clearly depicted in old engravings.
“there was a royal residence here, upon an eminence overlooking the
harbour.” That this “eminence” was a motte seems clear from the Register
of the Great Seal, quoted by Mr Neilson, which speaks of “Le Moitt olim
Castrum” in 1573.
Cupar.—There seem to be two mottes here, both raised on a natural
“esker”; the one formerly called the Castle Hill is now called the School
Hill, the school having been built upon it. The other and higher hill is called
the Moot Hill, and is said to be the place where the earls of Fife used to
dispense justice. (N. S. A.) Mr Neilson states that both are mentioned in the
Registrum.
Dumfries.—Here there were two mottes, one being now the site of a
church, the other, called Castle Dykes, a short distance S. of the town, on
the opposite side of the river. Both no doubt were royal castles, and Mr
Neilson has suggested that as an old castlestead is spoken of in a charter of
William the Lion, it implies that a new castle had recently been built,
possibly after the great destruction of the royal castles in Galloway in 1174.
[1034]
The Castle Dykes appears to be the later castle, as it is spoken of in
the 16th century. (N.)
Dunskeath, Cromarty.—Built by William the Lion in 1179. The castle is
built on a small moat overhanging the sea. (G.)
Elgin.—Built by William the Lion on a small green hill called Lady Hill,
with conical and precipitous sides. (N. S. A. and G.)
Forfar.—“The castle stood on a round hill to the N. of the town, and must
have been surrounded by water.” (N. S. A.) It was destroyed in 1307. It is
called Gallow Hill in the O.M., and is now occupied by gasworks.
Forres.—The plan in Chalmers’ Caledonia clearly shows a motte, to which
the town appears to have formed a bailey.
Inverness.—Built by David I. when he annexed Moray. The site is now
occupied by a gaol, but the O.M. shows it to have been a motte, which is
clearly depicted in old engravings.
Page 270
Innermessan.—As the lands here appear to have been royal property as late
as the time of David II., the large round motte here may have been an early
royal castle, a conjecture which finds some confirmation in the name
“Boreland of Kingston,” which Pont places in the same parish. (N. S. A.)
Jedburgh.—Probably built by David I. The site, which is still called Castle
Hill, has been levelled and completely obliterated by the building of a gaol.
Yet an old plan of the town in 1762, in the possession of the late Mr
Laidlaw of Jedburgh, shows the outline of the castle to have been exactly
that of a motte and bailey, though, as no hachures are given, it is not
absolutely convincing.
Kincleven, Perth.—The O.M. shows no earthworks connected with the
present castle, but on the opposite side of the river it places a motte called
Castle Hill, which may very likely be the site of the original castle.
Kirkcudbright.—Dr Christison marks a motte here, to the W. of the town.
The place is called Castle Dykes. Mr Coles says it has an oblong central
mound and a much larger entrenched area.[1035]
Lanark.—Ascribed traditionally to David I. “On a small artificially shaped
hill between the town and the river, at the foot of the street called Castle
Gate, and still bearing the name of Castle Hill, there stood in former times
beyond all doubt a royal castle.” (N. S. A.) Mr Neilson says, “It certainly
bears out its reputation as an artificial mound.”
Rosemarkie, Cromarty.—Was made a royal burgh by Alexander II., so the
castle must have been originally royal. “Immediately above the town is a
mound of nearly circular form, and level on the top, which seems to be
artificial, and has always been called the Court Hill.” (N. S. A.)
Even if we had no other evidence that motte-castles were of Norman
construction, this list would be very significant. But taken in connection
with the evidence for the Norman origin of the English, Welsh, and Irish
mottes, it supplies ample proof that in Scotland, as elsewhere, the Norman
and feudal settlement had its material guarantees in the castles which were
planted all over the land, and that these castles were the simple structures of
earth and wood, whose earthen remains have been the cause of so much
mystification.
as the time of David II., the large round motte here may have been an early
royal castle, a conjecture which finds some confirmation in the name
“Boreland of Kingston,” which Pont places in the same parish. (N. S. A.)
Jedburgh.—Probably built by David I. The site, which is still called Castle
Hill, has been levelled and completely obliterated by the building of a gaol.
Yet an old plan of the town in 1762, in the possession of the late Mr
Laidlaw of Jedburgh, shows the outline of the castle to have been exactly
that of a motte and bailey, though, as no hachures are given, it is not
absolutely convincing.
Kincleven, Perth.—The O.M. shows no earthworks connected with the
present castle, but on the opposite side of the river it places a motte called
Castle Hill, which may very likely be the site of the original castle.
Kirkcudbright.—Dr Christison marks a motte here, to the W. of the town.
The place is called Castle Dykes. Mr Coles says it has an oblong central
mound and a much larger entrenched area.[1035]
Lanark.—Ascribed traditionally to David I. “On a small artificially shaped
hill between the town and the river, at the foot of the street called Castle
Gate, and still bearing the name of Castle Hill, there stood in former times
beyond all doubt a royal castle.” (N. S. A.) Mr Neilson says, “It certainly
bears out its reputation as an artificial mound.”
Rosemarkie, Cromarty.—Was made a royal burgh by Alexander II., so the
castle must have been originally royal. “Immediately above the town is a
mound of nearly circular form, and level on the top, which seems to be
artificial, and has always been called the Court Hill.” (N. S. A.)
Even if we had no other evidence that motte-castles were of Norman
construction, this list would be very significant. But taken in connection
with the evidence for the Norman origin of the English, Welsh, and Irish
mottes, it supplies ample proof that in Scotland, as elsewhere, the Norman
and feudal settlement had its material guarantees in the castles which were
planted all over the land, and that these castles were the simple structures of
earth and wood, whose earthen remains have been the cause of so much
mystification.
Page 271
Page 272
CHAPTER XI
MOTTE-CASTLES IN IRELAND
In the year 1169, when the first Norman invaders landed in Ireland, the
private castle had been in existence in England for more than a hundred
years, and had it been suited to the social organisation of the Irish people,
there had been plenty of time for its introduction into Ireland. Nor are we in
a position to deny that some chieftain with a leaning towards foreign
fashions may have built for himself a castle in the Anglo-Norman style; all
we can say is that there is not the slightest evidence of such a thing.[1036]
We have two contemporary accounts of the Norman settlement in Ireland,
the one given by Giraldus in his Expugnatio Hibernica, and the Anglo-
Norman poem, edited by Mr Goddard H. Orpen, under the title of the “Song
of Dermot and the Earl.”[1037] Now Giraldus expressly tells us that the Irish
did not use castles, but preferred to take refuge in their forests and bogs.
[1038]
The statement is a remarkable one, since Ireland abounds with
defensive works of a very ancient character; are we to suppose that these
were only used in the prehistoric period? But if castles of the Norman kind
had been in general use in Ireland in the 12th century, we should certainly
hear of their having been a serious hindrance to the invaders. The history of
the invasion, however, completely confirms the statement of Giraldus; we
never once hear of the Irish defending themselves in a castle. When they do
stand a siege, it is in a walled town, and a town which has been walled, not
by themselves, but by the Danes, to whom Giraldus expressly attributes
these walls. Moreover, the repeated insistence of Giraldus on the necessity
of systematic incastellation of the whole country[1039] is proof enough that
no such incastellation existed.
It is true that in some of the earliest Irish literature we hear of the dun, lis,
or rath (the words are interchangeable), which encircled the chieftain’s
house.
Many descriptions of royal abodes in Irish poems are evidently purely
fanciful, but underneath the poetical adornments we can discern the features
MOTTE-CASTLES IN IRELAND
In the year 1169, when the first Norman invaders landed in Ireland, the
private castle had been in existence in England for more than a hundred
years, and had it been suited to the social organisation of the Irish people,
there had been plenty of time for its introduction into Ireland. Nor are we in
a position to deny that some chieftain with a leaning towards foreign
fashions may have built for himself a castle in the Anglo-Norman style; all
we can say is that there is not the slightest evidence of such a thing.[1036]
We have two contemporary accounts of the Norman settlement in Ireland,
the one given by Giraldus in his Expugnatio Hibernica, and the Anglo-
Norman poem, edited by Mr Goddard H. Orpen, under the title of the “Song
of Dermot and the Earl.”[1037] Now Giraldus expressly tells us that the Irish
did not use castles, but preferred to take refuge in their forests and bogs.
[1038]
The statement is a remarkable one, since Ireland abounds with
defensive works of a very ancient character; are we to suppose that these
were only used in the prehistoric period? But if castles of the Norman kind
had been in general use in Ireland in the 12th century, we should certainly
hear of their having been a serious hindrance to the invaders. The history of
the invasion, however, completely confirms the statement of Giraldus; we
never once hear of the Irish defending themselves in a castle. When they do
stand a siege, it is in a walled town, and a town which has been walled, not
by themselves, but by the Danes, to whom Giraldus expressly attributes
these walls. Moreover, the repeated insistence of Giraldus on the necessity
of systematic incastellation of the whole country[1039] is proof enough that
no such incastellation existed.
It is true that in some of the earliest Irish literature we hear of the dun, lis,
or rath (the words are interchangeable), which encircled the chieftain’s
house.
Many descriptions of royal abodes in Irish poems are evidently purely
fanciful, but underneath the poetical adornments we can discern the features
Page 273
of the great wooden hall which appears to have been the residence of the
tribal chieftain, whether Keltic, Norse, or Saxon, throughout the whole
north of Europe in early times.[1040] The thousands of earthen rings,
generally called raths, which are still scattered over Ireland, are believed to
be the enclosures of these kings’ or chieftains’ homesteads. Were they
intended for serious military defence? We are not in a position to answer
this question categorically, but the plans of a number of them which we
have examined do not suggest anything but a very slight fortification,
sufficient to keep off wolves. At all events we never hear of these raths or
duns standing a siege; the conquering raider comes, sees, and burns.[1041]
We are therefore justified in concluding that they did not at all correspond
to what we mean by a private castle. And most certainly the motte-castle,
with its very small citadel, and its limited accommodation for the flocks and
herds of a tribe, was utterly unsuited to the requirements of the tribal
system.
A good deal of light is thrown on the way in which Irish chieftains regarded
private castles at the time of the invasion by the well-known story of one
who refused a castle offered him by the invaders, saying that he preferred a
castle of bones to a castle of stones. Whether legendary or not, it represents
the natural feeling of a man who had been accustomed to sleep trustfully in
the midst of men of his own blood, tied to him by the bonds of the clan. The
clan system in Ireland undoubtedly led to great misery through the absence
of a central authority to check the raids of one clan upon another; but
though we occasionally hear of a chieftain being murdered “by his own,”
we have no reason to think that clan loyalty was not sufficient, as a rule, for
the internal safety of the community. So that a popular chieftain might well
refuse a fortification which had every mark of a hateful and suspicious
invader.[1042]
Unfortunately there is—or has been until quite recently—a strong prejudice
in the minds of Irish antiquaries that works of the motte-and-bailey kind
belong to the prehistoric age of Ireland. Irish scholars indeed admit that the
word mota is not found in any Irish MS. which dates from before the
Norman invasion of Ireland.[1043] We must therefore bear in mind that when
they tell us that such and such an ancient book mentions the “mote” at Naas
or elsewhere, what they mean is that it mentions a dun, or rath, or longport,
tribal chieftain, whether Keltic, Norse, or Saxon, throughout the whole
north of Europe in early times.[1040] The thousands of earthen rings,
generally called raths, which are still scattered over Ireland, are believed to
be the enclosures of these kings’ or chieftains’ homesteads. Were they
intended for serious military defence? We are not in a position to answer
this question categorically, but the plans of a number of them which we
have examined do not suggest anything but a very slight fortification,
sufficient to keep off wolves. At all events we never hear of these raths or
duns standing a siege; the conquering raider comes, sees, and burns.[1041]
We are therefore justified in concluding that they did not at all correspond
to what we mean by a private castle. And most certainly the motte-castle,
with its very small citadel, and its limited accommodation for the flocks and
herds of a tribe, was utterly unsuited to the requirements of the tribal
system.
A good deal of light is thrown on the way in which Irish chieftains regarded
private castles at the time of the invasion by the well-known story of one
who refused a castle offered him by the invaders, saying that he preferred a
castle of bones to a castle of stones. Whether legendary or not, it represents
the natural feeling of a man who had been accustomed to sleep trustfully in
the midst of men of his own blood, tied to him by the bonds of the clan. The
clan system in Ireland undoubtedly led to great misery through the absence
of a central authority to check the raids of one clan upon another; but
though we occasionally hear of a chieftain being murdered “by his own,”
we have no reason to think that clan loyalty was not sufficient, as a rule, for
the internal safety of the community. So that a popular chieftain might well
refuse a fortification which had every mark of a hateful and suspicious
invader.[1042]
Unfortunately there is—or has been until quite recently—a strong prejudice
in the minds of Irish antiquaries that works of the motte-and-bailey kind
belong to the prehistoric age of Ireland. Irish scholars indeed admit that the
word mota is not found in any Irish MS. which dates from before the
Norman invasion of Ireland.[1043] We must therefore bear in mind that when
they tell us that such and such an ancient book mentions the “mote” at Naas
or elsewhere, what they mean is that it mentions a dun, or rath, or longport,
Page 274
which they imagine to be the same as a motte. But this is begging the whole
question. There is not the slightest proof that any of these words meant a
motte. Dun is often taken to mean a hill (perhaps from its resemblance to
Anglo-Saxon dun), but Keltic scholars are now agreed that it is cognate
with the German zaun and Anglo-Saxon tun, meaning a fenced enclosure.
[1044]
It may be applied to a fort on a hill, but it may equally well be applied
to a fort on the flat. Rath is translated fossa in the Book of Armagh; Jocelin
of Furness equates it with murus.[1045] The rath of Armagh was evidently a
very large enclosure in 1166, containing several streets, houses, and
churches, so it was certainly not a motte.[1046] It is of course not impossible
that the Normans may sometimes have occupied an ancient fortified site,
but we may be sure from the considerations already urged that the
fortifications which they erected were of a wholly different character to the
previous ones, even if they utilised a portion for their bailey.
It is of course difficult to decide in some cases (both in Ireland and
elsewhere) whether a mound which stands alone without a bailey is a
sepulchral tumulus or a motte. There are some mottes in England and
Scotland which have no baileys attached to them, and do not appear ever to
have had any. In Ireland, the country of magnificent sepulchral tumuli, it is
not wonderful that the barrow and the motte have become confused in
popular language. It would appear, too, that there exist in Ireland several
instances of artificial tumuli which were used for the inauguration of Irish
chieftains, and these have occasionally been mistaken for mottes.[1047] As
Mr Orpen has shown, there are generally indications in the unsuitability of
the sites, in the absence of real fortification, or in the presence of sepulchral
signs, to show that these tumuli did not belong to the motte class. Magh
Adair, for example, which has been adduced as a motte outside the Norman
boundary, is shown by Mr Orpen to be of quite a different character.
At many sites in Ireland where the Normans are known to have built castles
at an early period of the invasion there are no mottes to be seen now. It is
probable that where the Norman conquerors had both money and time at
their disposal they built stone keeps from the first, and that the motte-
castles, with their wooden towers or bretasches, were built in the times of
stress, or were the residences of the less wealthy under-tenants. But we
know from documents that even in John’s reign the important royal castle
question. There is not the slightest proof that any of these words meant a
motte. Dun is often taken to mean a hill (perhaps from its resemblance to
Anglo-Saxon dun), but Keltic scholars are now agreed that it is cognate
with the German zaun and Anglo-Saxon tun, meaning a fenced enclosure.
[1044]
It may be applied to a fort on a hill, but it may equally well be applied
to a fort on the flat. Rath is translated fossa in the Book of Armagh; Jocelin
of Furness equates it with murus.[1045] The rath of Armagh was evidently a
very large enclosure in 1166, containing several streets, houses, and
churches, so it was certainly not a motte.[1046] It is of course not impossible
that the Normans may sometimes have occupied an ancient fortified site,
but we may be sure from the considerations already urged that the
fortifications which they erected were of a wholly different character to the
previous ones, even if they utilised a portion for their bailey.
It is of course difficult to decide in some cases (both in Ireland and
elsewhere) whether a mound which stands alone without a bailey is a
sepulchral tumulus or a motte. There are some mottes in England and
Scotland which have no baileys attached to them, and do not appear ever to
have had any. In Ireland, the country of magnificent sepulchral tumuli, it is
not wonderful that the barrow and the motte have become confused in
popular language. It would appear, too, that there exist in Ireland several
instances of artificial tumuli which were used for the inauguration of Irish
chieftains, and these have occasionally been mistaken for mottes.[1047] As
Mr Orpen has shown, there are generally indications in the unsuitability of
the sites, in the absence of real fortification, or in the presence of sepulchral
signs, to show that these tumuli did not belong to the motte class. Magh
Adair, for example, which has been adduced as a motte outside the Norman
boundary, is shown by Mr Orpen to be of quite a different character.
At many sites in Ireland where the Normans are known to have built castles
at an early period of the invasion there are no mottes to be seen now. It is
probable that where the Norman conquerors had both money and time at
their disposal they built stone keeps from the first, and that the motte-
castles, with their wooden towers or bretasches, were built in the times of
stress, or were the residences of the less wealthy under-tenants. But we
know from documents that even in John’s reign the important royal castle
Page 275
of Roscrea was built with a motte and bretasche,[1048] which proves that this
type of castle was still so much esteemed that we may feel reasonably
certain that when Giraldus speaks of “slender defences of turf and stakes”
he does not mean motte-castles, but mere embankments and palisades.[1049]
But there is another reason for the absence of mottes from some of the early
Norman castle sites. Those who have examined the castles of Wales know
that it is rare to find a motte in a castle which has undergone the complete
metamorphoses of the Edwardian[1050] period. These new castles had no
keeps, and necessitated an entire change of plan, which led either to the
destruction of the motte or the building of an entirely new castle on a
different site. The removal of a motte is only a question of spade labour, and
many sites in England can be pointed out where mottes are known to have
existed formerly, but where now not a vestige is left.[1051] There are many
other cases where the Edwardian castle shows not a trace of any former
earthworks, but where a motte and bailey a little distance off probably
represents the original wooden castle.[1052]
The passion for identifying existing earthworks with sites mentioned in
ancient Irish history or legend has been a most serious hindrance to the
progress of real archæological knowledge in Ireland. It is not until one
begins to look into this matter that one finds out what giddy guesswork
most of these identifications of Irish place-names really are. O’Donovan
was undoubtedly a great Irish scholar, and his editions of the Book of Rights
and the Annals of the Four Masters are of the highest importance. The
topographical notes to these works are generally accepted as final. But let
us see what his method was in this part of his labours. In the Book of Rights,
he says very naïvely, about a place called Ladhrann or Ardladhrann, “I
cannot find any place in Wexford according with the notices of this place
except Ardamine, on the sea-coast, where there is a remarkable moat.”[1053]
No modern philologist, we think, would admit that Ardamine could be
descended from Ardladhrann. In the same way O’Donovan guessed Treada-
na-righ, “the triple-fossed fort of the kings,” to be the motte of Kilfinnane,
near Kilmallock. But this was a pure guess, as he had previously guessed it
to be “one of the forts called Dun-g-Claire.” To the antiquaries of that day
one earthwork seemed as good as another, and differences of type were not
considered important.[1054]
type of castle was still so much esteemed that we may feel reasonably
certain that when Giraldus speaks of “slender defences of turf and stakes”
he does not mean motte-castles, but mere embankments and palisades.[1049]
But there is another reason for the absence of mottes from some of the early
Norman castle sites. Those who have examined the castles of Wales know
that it is rare to find a motte in a castle which has undergone the complete
metamorphoses of the Edwardian[1050] period. These new castles had no
keeps, and necessitated an entire change of plan, which led either to the
destruction of the motte or the building of an entirely new castle on a
different site. The removal of a motte is only a question of spade labour, and
many sites in England can be pointed out where mottes are known to have
existed formerly, but where now not a vestige is left.[1051] There are many
other cases where the Edwardian castle shows not a trace of any former
earthworks, but where a motte and bailey a little distance off probably
represents the original wooden castle.[1052]
The passion for identifying existing earthworks with sites mentioned in
ancient Irish history or legend has been a most serious hindrance to the
progress of real archæological knowledge in Ireland. It is not until one
begins to look into this matter that one finds out what giddy guesswork
most of these identifications of Irish place-names really are. O’Donovan
was undoubtedly a great Irish scholar, and his editions of the Book of Rights
and the Annals of the Four Masters are of the highest importance. The
topographical notes to these works are generally accepted as final. But let
us see what his method was in this part of his labours. In the Book of Rights,
he says very naïvely, about a place called Ladhrann or Ardladhrann, “I
cannot find any place in Wexford according with the notices of this place
except Ardamine, on the sea-coast, where there is a remarkable moat.”[1053]
No modern philologist, we think, would admit that Ardamine could be
descended from Ardladhrann. In the same way O’Donovan guessed Treada-
na-righ, “the triple-fossed fort of the kings,” to be the motte of Kilfinnane,
near Kilmallock. But this was a pure guess, as he had previously guessed it
to be “one of the forts called Dun-g-Claire.” To the antiquaries of that day
one earthwork seemed as good as another, and differences of type were not
considered important.[1054]
Page 276
The following list of early Norman castles in Ireland was first published in
the Antiquary for 1906. It is an attempt to form a complete list from
contemporary historians only, that is, from Giraldus Cambrensis and the
“Song of Dermot,” and from the documents published in Sweetman’s
Calendar, of the Norman castles built in Ireland, up to the end of John’s
reign.[1055] Since then, the task has been taken up on a far more
philosophical plan by Mr Goddard H. Orpen, whose exceptional knowledge
of the history of the invasion and the families of the conquerors has enabled
him to trace their settlements in Ireland as they have never been traced
before.[1056] Nevertheless, it still seems worth while to republish this list, as
though within a limited compass, consistent with the writer’s limited
knowledge, it furnishes an adequate test of the correctness of the Norman
theory, on a perfectly sound basis. The list has now the advantage of being
corrected from Mr Orpen’s papers, and of being enlarged by identifications
which he has been able to make.[1057]
*Antrim[1058] (Cal., i., 88).—A royal castle in 1251. Present castle modern;
close to it is a large motte, marked in 25-inch O.M.
Aq’i (Cal., i., 13).—Unidentified; perhaps an alias for one of the Limerick
castles, as it was certainly in the county of Limerick.
Ardfinnan, Tipperary (Gir., v., 386).—Built in 1185, immediately after
John’s coming to Ireland. No motte; castle is late Edwardian and partly
converted into a modern house; one round tower has ogee windows. [B. T.
S.]
Ardmayle, or Armolen, Tipperary (Cal., i., 81).—A castle of Theobald
Walter. A motte with half-moon bailey, and earthen wing walls running up
its sides, exactly as stone walls do in later Norman castles. Ruins of a
Perpendicular mansion close to it, and also a square tower with ogee
windows. [B. T. S.] Fig. 45.
Ardnurcher, or Horseleap, King’s Co. (Song of Dermot and Cal., i., 145).
—A castle of Meiler Fitz Henry’s, built in 1192.[1059] An oblong motte with
the Antiquary for 1906. It is an attempt to form a complete list from
contemporary historians only, that is, from Giraldus Cambrensis and the
“Song of Dermot,” and from the documents published in Sweetman’s
Calendar, of the Norman castles built in Ireland, up to the end of John’s
reign.[1055] Since then, the task has been taken up on a far more
philosophical plan by Mr Goddard H. Orpen, whose exceptional knowledge
of the history of the invasion and the families of the conquerors has enabled
him to trace their settlements in Ireland as they have never been traced
before.[1056] Nevertheless, it still seems worth while to republish this list, as
though within a limited compass, consistent with the writer’s limited
knowledge, it furnishes an adequate test of the correctness of the Norman
theory, on a perfectly sound basis. The list has now the advantage of being
corrected from Mr Orpen’s papers, and of being enlarged by identifications
which he has been able to make.[1057]
*Antrim[1058] (Cal., i., 88).—A royal castle in 1251. Present castle modern;
close to it is a large motte, marked in 25-inch O.M.
Aq’i (Cal., i., 13).—Unidentified; perhaps an alias for one of the Limerick
castles, as it was certainly in the county of Limerick.
Ardfinnan, Tipperary (Gir., v., 386).—Built in 1185, immediately after
John’s coming to Ireland. No motte; castle is late Edwardian and partly
converted into a modern house; one round tower has ogee windows. [B. T.
S.]
Ardmayle, or Armolen, Tipperary (Cal., i., 81).—A castle of Theobald
Walter. A motte with half-moon bailey, and earthen wing walls running up
its sides, exactly as stone walls do in later Norman castles. Ruins of a
Perpendicular mansion close to it, and also a square tower with ogee
windows. [B. T. S.] Fig. 45.
Ardnurcher, or Horseleap, King’s Co. (Song of Dermot and Cal., i., 145).
—A castle of Meiler Fitz Henry’s, built in 1192.[1059] An oblong motte with
Page 277
one certain bailey, and perhaps a second. No masonry but the remains of a
wall or bridge across the fosse. [B. T. S.]
Ardree, Kildare (Gir., v., 356, and Song).—The castle built by Hugh de
Lacy for Thomas the Fleming in 1182, was at Ardri, on the Barrow. There is
an artificial mound at Ardree, turned into a graveyard, and near it a levelled
platform above the river, on which stands Ardree House.[1060] On the west
bank of the Barrow, opposite Ardree, is a low circular motte with ditch and
bank, but no bailey. A piece of Norman pottery with green glaze was found
by Mr Stallybrass, one foot below the surface in the counterscarp bank. Mr
Orpen thinks this motte may have been the castle of Robert de Bigarz, also
mentioned by Giraldus as near Ardree, on the opposite side of the Barrow.
Askeaton, or Hinneskesti, Limerick.—Built in 1199, probably by Hamo de
Valoignes.[1061] An excellent instance of a motte-and-bailey castle, where
the motte is of natural rock. The splendid keep and hall are of the 15th
century, but there are two older towers, which might date from 1199. This
natural motte has been identified with the ancient Irish fort of Gephthine
(Askeaton = Eas Gephthine), mentioned in the Book of Rights. But this
work does not mention any fort at Gephthine, only the place, in a list which
is clearly one of lands (perhaps mensal lands), not of forts, as it contains
many names of plains, and of tribes, as well as the three isles of Arran.[1062]
*Askelon, or Escluen (Cal., i., 91).—Castle restored to Richard de Burgh
in 1215; the site is placed by Mr Orpen at Carrigogunell, which is in the
parish of Kilkeedy, Limerick.[1063] Carrigogunell has the ruins of a castle on
a natural motte of rock.
*Athlone, Roscommon (Cal., i., 80).—Built in 1210 by the Justiciar, John
de Gray. The keep is placed on a lofty motte, which has been revetted with
masonry. Turlough O’Connor built a caislen at Athlone in 1129, but it was
not even on the site of the Norman castle, for which John obtained land
from the church, as already stated.
Baginbun (Gir., i., 13; Song, 1406).—Mr Orpen has proved that this was the
spot where Raymond le Gros landed and entrenched himself for four
months.[1064] It is a headland on the sea-coast, and headland castles seldom
have mottes, as they were not needed on a promontory washed on three
wall or bridge across the fosse. [B. T. S.]
Ardree, Kildare (Gir., v., 356, and Song).—The castle built by Hugh de
Lacy for Thomas the Fleming in 1182, was at Ardri, on the Barrow. There is
an artificial mound at Ardree, turned into a graveyard, and near it a levelled
platform above the river, on which stands Ardree House.[1060] On the west
bank of the Barrow, opposite Ardree, is a low circular motte with ditch and
bank, but no bailey. A piece of Norman pottery with green glaze was found
by Mr Stallybrass, one foot below the surface in the counterscarp bank. Mr
Orpen thinks this motte may have been the castle of Robert de Bigarz, also
mentioned by Giraldus as near Ardree, on the opposite side of the Barrow.
Askeaton, or Hinneskesti, Limerick.—Built in 1199, probably by Hamo de
Valoignes.[1061] An excellent instance of a motte-and-bailey castle, where
the motte is of natural rock. The splendid keep and hall are of the 15th
century, but there are two older towers, which might date from 1199. This
natural motte has been identified with the ancient Irish fort of Gephthine
(Askeaton = Eas Gephthine), mentioned in the Book of Rights. But this
work does not mention any fort at Gephthine, only the place, in a list which
is clearly one of lands (perhaps mensal lands), not of forts, as it contains
many names of plains, and of tribes, as well as the three isles of Arran.[1062]
*Askelon, or Escluen (Cal., i., 91).—Castle restored to Richard de Burgh
in 1215; the site is placed by Mr Orpen at Carrigogunell, which is in the
parish of Kilkeedy, Limerick.[1063] Carrigogunell has the ruins of a castle on
a natural motte of rock.
*Athlone, Roscommon (Cal., i., 80).—Built in 1210 by the Justiciar, John
de Gray. The keep is placed on a lofty motte, which has been revetted with
masonry. Turlough O’Connor built a caislen at Athlone in 1129, but it was
not even on the site of the Norman castle, for which John obtained land
from the church, as already stated.
Baginbun (Gir., i., 13; Song, 1406).—Mr Orpen has proved that this was the
spot where Raymond le Gros landed and entrenched himself for four
months.[1064] It is a headland on the sea-coast, and headland castles seldom
have mottes, as they were not needed on a promontory washed on three
Page 278
sides by the sea. Moreover, Baginbun was of the nature of a temporary fort
rather than a residential castle, and it is to be noted that Giraldus calls it “a
poor sort of a castle of stakes and sods.” Still, the small inner area, ditched
off with a double ditch, and the large area, also ditched, roughly correspond
to the motte-and-bailey plan. [B. T. S.]
Balimore Eustace, Kildare (Cal., i., 28).—A castle of the Archbishop of
Dublin. A motte, with a remarkable platform attached to one side (cf.
Wigmore Castle). No bailey now; no stone castle. [B. T. S.]
Caherconlish (Karkinlis, Kakaulis, Cal., i., 81).—Castle of Theobald Fitz
Walter. There is nothing left above ground but a chimney of late date. A few
yards from it is a hillock, which has very much the appearance of a
mutilated motte. [E. S. A.] Mr Orpen, however, thinks that Theobald’s
castle may have been at Knockatancashlane, “the hill of the old castle,” a
townland a little to the north of Caherconlish.[1065]
Carbury, Kildare.—The Song says Meiler Fitz Henry first got Carbury, so
the castle was probably his. It is a motte with two baileys, one of imperfect
outline, the other a curious little half-circle. A 15th-century castle is built
against the side of the motte. [B. T. S.]
Carlingford, Louth (Cal., i., 95).—Apparently a royal castle (Cal., i., 156),
first mentioned in 1215. It stands on a rock, which might possibly have
been a former motte. There certainly has been a former castle, for the
present ruin is Edwardian in plan and in every detail. [E. S. A.]
Carrick, Wexford (Gir., v., 245).—This again seems to be one of the
temporary forts built by the first invaders (in this case Fitz Stephen), in a
strong natural situation, and Giraldus applies to it the same contemptuous
language as to Baginbun. There is no motte, but an oval area of 45 yards by
25 is ditched and banked; a modern imitation of a round tower stands within
the enclosure. [B. T. S.]
Carrickfergus, Antrim (Cal., i., 107).—This was probably one of the
castles built by John de Courcy, the conqueror of Ulster. The gatehouse and
mural towers are late, but the keep may well be of De Courcy’s time, and
furnishes an excellent instance of a castle on the keep-and-bailey plan, built
by the Normans in stone from the beginning. [E. S. A.]
rather than a residential castle, and it is to be noted that Giraldus calls it “a
poor sort of a castle of stakes and sods.” Still, the small inner area, ditched
off with a double ditch, and the large area, also ditched, roughly correspond
to the motte-and-bailey plan. [B. T. S.]
Balimore Eustace, Kildare (Cal., i., 28).—A castle of the Archbishop of
Dublin. A motte, with a remarkable platform attached to one side (cf.
Wigmore Castle). No bailey now; no stone castle. [B. T. S.]
Caherconlish (Karkinlis, Kakaulis, Cal., i., 81).—Castle of Theobald Fitz
Walter. There is nothing left above ground but a chimney of late date. A few
yards from it is a hillock, which has very much the appearance of a
mutilated motte. [E. S. A.] Mr Orpen, however, thinks that Theobald’s
castle may have been at Knockatancashlane, “the hill of the old castle,” a
townland a little to the north of Caherconlish.[1065]
Carbury, Kildare.—The Song says Meiler Fitz Henry first got Carbury, so
the castle was probably his. It is a motte with two baileys, one of imperfect
outline, the other a curious little half-circle. A 15th-century castle is built
against the side of the motte. [B. T. S.]
Carlingford, Louth (Cal., i., 95).—Apparently a royal castle (Cal., i., 156),
first mentioned in 1215. It stands on a rock, which might possibly have
been a former motte. There certainly has been a former castle, for the
present ruin is Edwardian in plan and in every detail. [E. S. A.]
Carrick, Wexford (Gir., v., 245).—This again seems to be one of the
temporary forts built by the first invaders (in this case Fitz Stephen), in a
strong natural situation, and Giraldus applies to it the same contemptuous
language as to Baginbun. There is no motte, but an oval area of 45 yards by
25 is ditched and banked; a modern imitation of a round tower stands within
the enclosure. [B. T. S.]
Carrickfergus, Antrim (Cal., i., 107).—This was probably one of the
castles built by John de Courcy, the conqueror of Ulster. The gatehouse and
mural towers are late, but the keep may well be of De Courcy’s time, and
furnishes an excellent instance of a castle on the keep-and-bailey plan, built
by the Normans in stone from the beginning. [E. S. A.]
Page 279
Castletown Delvin, Westmeath (Gir., v., 356).—Castle of Gilbert de
Nungent. A motte, with a garden at base, which may have been the bailey;
near it the stone castle, a keep with round towers at the angles, probably not
as early as John’s reign. [B. T. S.]
Clonard, Meath (Gir., v., 356).—Built by Hugh de Lacy about 1182. A
motte, with broad ditch and curious little oblong bailey; no remains in
masonry. [B. T. S.]
Clonmacnoise, King’s Co. (Cal., i., 94).—First contemporary mention
1215; the Annals of Loch Cè say it was built in 1214 “by the foreigners.” A
royal castle. A large motte with bailey attached; the wing walls of the bailey
run up the motte. The importance of the castle is shown by the fact that a
stone keep was added not very long after it was built. [B. T. S.]
*Collacht (Gir., v., 355).—Castle of John of Hereford. Collacht appears to
be a scribal error for Tullaght, now Tullow, Carlow.[1066] The site of the
castle is marked on the 6-inch O.M.; it has been visited by Mr G. H. Orpen,
who found very clear indications of a motte and bailey. (See Appendix L.)
Crometh (Cal., i., 91).—Castle of Maurice FitzGerald. Supposed to be
Croom, Limerick, though the identification is by no means certain.[1067]
There are the ruins of an Edwardian castle at Croom; no motte. [E. S. A.]
Downpatrick, Down (Gir., v., 345).—The traveller approaching
Downpatrick sees a number of small hills which no doubt have once been
islands rising out of the swamps of the Quoyle. On one of these hills stands
the town and its cathedral; on another, to the east, but separated from the
town by a very steep descent and a brook, stands a motte and bailey of the
usual Norman type. It occupies the whole summit of the small hill, so that
the banks of the bailey are at a great height above the outer ditch, which is
carried round the base of the hill (compare Skipsea). The motte, which is
not a very large one, has had an earthen breastwork round the top, now
much broken away. Its ditch falls into the ditch of the bailey, but at a higher
level. The bailey is semilunar, extending round about three-quarters of the
circumference of the motte. There is not the slightest sign of masonry. As
the size of this work has been greatly exaggerated, it is as well to say that
when measured on the 25-inch O.M. with a planimeter, its area proves to be
Nungent. A motte, with a garden at base, which may have been the bailey;
near it the stone castle, a keep with round towers at the angles, probably not
as early as John’s reign. [B. T. S.]
Clonard, Meath (Gir., v., 356).—Built by Hugh de Lacy about 1182. A
motte, with broad ditch and curious little oblong bailey; no remains in
masonry. [B. T. S.]
Clonmacnoise, King’s Co. (Cal., i., 94).—First contemporary mention
1215; the Annals of Loch Cè say it was built in 1214 “by the foreigners.” A
royal castle. A large motte with bailey attached; the wing walls of the bailey
run up the motte. The importance of the castle is shown by the fact that a
stone keep was added not very long after it was built. [B. T. S.]
*Collacht (Gir., v., 355).—Castle of John of Hereford. Collacht appears to
be a scribal error for Tullaght, now Tullow, Carlow.[1066] The site of the
castle is marked on the 6-inch O.M.; it has been visited by Mr G. H. Orpen,
who found very clear indications of a motte and bailey. (See Appendix L.)
Crometh (Cal., i., 91).—Castle of Maurice FitzGerald. Supposed to be
Croom, Limerick, though the identification is by no means certain.[1067]
There are the ruins of an Edwardian castle at Croom; no motte. [E. S. A.]
Downpatrick, Down (Gir., v., 345).—The traveller approaching
Downpatrick sees a number of small hills which no doubt have once been
islands rising out of the swamps of the Quoyle. On one of these hills stands
the town and its cathedral; on another, to the east, but separated from the
town by a very steep descent and a brook, stands a motte and bailey of the
usual Norman type. It occupies the whole summit of the small hill, so that
the banks of the bailey are at a great height above the outer ditch, which is
carried round the base of the hill (compare Skipsea). The motte, which is
not a very large one, has had an earthen breastwork round the top, now
much broken away. Its ditch falls into the ditch of the bailey, but at a higher
level. The bailey is semilunar, extending round about three-quarters of the
circumference of the motte. There is not the slightest sign of masonry. As
the size of this work has been greatly exaggerated, it is as well to say that
when measured on the 25-inch O.M. with a planimeter, its area proves to be
Page 280
3.9 acres; the area of the motte and its ditch .9, leaving 3 acres for the
bailey. [E. S. A.] Fig. 45.
This thoroughly Norman-French castle, which was formerly called a Danish
fort, has lately been baptised as Rathceltchair, and supposed to be the work
of a mythical hero of the 1st century A.D. Mr Orpen, however, has disposed
of this fancy by showing that the name Rathceltchair belonged in pre-
Norman times to the enclosure of the ancient church and monastery which
stood on the other hill.[1068] We may therefore unhesitatingly ascribe this
motte-castle to John de Courcy, who first put up a slender fortification
within the town walls to defend himself against temporary attack,[1069] but
afterwards built a regular castle, for which this island offered a most
favourable site.[1070] A stone castle was built inside the town at a later
period; it is now entirely destroyed.
Drogheda, Louth (Cal., i., 93).—First mention 1203, but Mr Orpen thinks it
probable that it was one of the castles built by Hugh de Lacy, who died in
1186. A high motte, with a round and a square bailey, just outside the town
walls;[1071] called the Mill Mount in the time of Cromwell, who occupied it;
he mentions that it had a good ditch, strongly palisadoed.[1072] No stone
castle, though much of the bailey wall remains; a late martello tower on top
of motte. [B. T. S.] Fig. 45.
bailey. [E. S. A.] Fig. 45.
This thoroughly Norman-French castle, which was formerly called a Danish
fort, has lately been baptised as Rathceltchair, and supposed to be the work
of a mythical hero of the 1st century A.D. Mr Orpen, however, has disposed
of this fancy by showing that the name Rathceltchair belonged in pre-
Norman times to the enclosure of the ancient church and monastery which
stood on the other hill.[1068] We may therefore unhesitatingly ascribe this
motte-castle to John de Courcy, who first put up a slender fortification
within the town walls to defend himself against temporary attack,[1069] but
afterwards built a regular castle, for which this island offered a most
favourable site.[1070] A stone castle was built inside the town at a later
period; it is now entirely destroyed.
Drogheda, Louth (Cal., i., 93).—First mention 1203, but Mr Orpen thinks it
probable that it was one of the castles built by Hugh de Lacy, who died in
1186. A high motte, with a round and a square bailey, just outside the town
walls;[1071] called the Mill Mount in the time of Cromwell, who occupied it;
he mentions that it had a good ditch, strongly palisadoed.[1072] No stone
castle, though much of the bailey wall remains; a late martello tower on top
of motte. [B. T. S.] Fig. 45.
Page 281
Ardmayle.
Downpatrick.
Downpatrick.
Page 282
Drogheda.
Castlenock.
Fig. 45.—Irish Motte-castles.
Duleek, Meath (the castrum Duvelescense of Giraldus, v., 313).—Probably
first built by Hugh de Lacy; restored by Raymond le Gros in 1173. The
motte is destroyed, but an old weaver living in the village in 1906 says that
it existed in the time of his father, who used to roll stones down it in his
Castlenock.
Fig. 45.—Irish Motte-castles.
Duleek, Meath (the castrum Duvelescense of Giraldus, v., 313).—Probably
first built by Hugh de Lacy; restored by Raymond le Gros in 1173. The
motte is destroyed, but an old weaver living in the village in 1906 says that
it existed in the time of his father, who used to roll stones down it in his
Page 283
youth. It was in the angle between two streams, and there is still a slight
trace of it. No stone castle. [B. T. S.]
Dunamase, Queen’s Co. (Dumath, Cal., i., 100).—First mentioned in 1215
as a castle of William Marshall’s, which makes it not unlikely that it was
originally built by Strongbow. The plan of this castle is the motte-and-
bailey plan, but the place of the motte is taken by a natural rock, isolated by
a ditch. There are three baileys, descending the hill. The stone keep on the
summit is of the 15th or 16th century. [B. T. S.]
Dungarvan, Waterford (Cal., i., 89).—Granted to Thomas Fitz Antony in
1215. To the west of the town is a motte called Gallowshill; it has no bailey,
but some trace of a circumvallation. The castle east of the river is not earlier
than the 14th or 15th century. [B. T. S.]
*Durrow, King’s Co. (Gir., v., 387).—A castle of Hugh de Lacy’s; he was
murdered while he was building it, because he had chosen the enclosure of
the church for his bailey.[1073] A plan in Journ. R. S. A. I., xxix., 227, shows
clearly the motte and bailey, though the writer mistakes for separate
mounds what are clearly broken portions of the vallum. It is possible that
the bailey may have followed the line of the ancient rath of the church, but
it would almost certainly be a much stronger affair.
*Favorie = Fore, Westmeath.—I owe this identification to Mr Orpen. As
Hugh de Lacy founded or endowed the monastery at Fore,[1074] this was
probably one of his castles, but the first mention is in 1215 (Cal., i., 95). Mr
Westropp mentions the oval motte of Fore with its bailey in his list of
“complex motes.”[1075]
Ferns, Wexford (Gir., v., 326).—A castle was built by Walter the German
near Ferns. Ferns is spoken of as a city in the time of King Dermot. There is
no motte at Ferns; the stone castle has a keep, which is certainly not earlier
than the time of Henry III. [B. T. S.]
*Fotheret Onolan, castle of Raymond le Gros (Gir., v., 355).—Mr Orpen
identifies this with Castlemore, near Tullow, Co. Carlow. There is an oval
motte, and a rectangular bailey with indications of masonry.[1076]
trace of it. No stone castle. [B. T. S.]
Dunamase, Queen’s Co. (Dumath, Cal., i., 100).—First mentioned in 1215
as a castle of William Marshall’s, which makes it not unlikely that it was
originally built by Strongbow. The plan of this castle is the motte-and-
bailey plan, but the place of the motte is taken by a natural rock, isolated by
a ditch. There are three baileys, descending the hill. The stone keep on the
summit is of the 15th or 16th century. [B. T. S.]
Dungarvan, Waterford (Cal., i., 89).—Granted to Thomas Fitz Antony in
1215. To the west of the town is a motte called Gallowshill; it has no bailey,
but some trace of a circumvallation. The castle east of the river is not earlier
than the 14th or 15th century. [B. T. S.]
*Durrow, King’s Co. (Gir., v., 387).—A castle of Hugh de Lacy’s; he was
murdered while he was building it, because he had chosen the enclosure of
the church for his bailey.[1073] A plan in Journ. R. S. A. I., xxix., 227, shows
clearly the motte and bailey, though the writer mistakes for separate
mounds what are clearly broken portions of the vallum. It is possible that
the bailey may have followed the line of the ancient rath of the church, but
it would almost certainly be a much stronger affair.
*Favorie = Fore, Westmeath.—I owe this identification to Mr Orpen. As
Hugh de Lacy founded or endowed the monastery at Fore,[1074] this was
probably one of his castles, but the first mention is in 1215 (Cal., i., 95). Mr
Westropp mentions the oval motte of Fore with its bailey in his list of
“complex motes.”[1075]
Ferns, Wexford (Gir., v., 326).—A castle was built by Walter the German
near Ferns. Ferns is spoken of as a city in the time of King Dermot. There is
no motte at Ferns; the stone castle has a keep, which is certainly not earlier
than the time of Henry III. [B. T. S.]
*Fotheret Onolan, castle of Raymond le Gros (Gir., v., 355).—Mr Orpen
identifies this with Castlemore, near Tullow, Co. Carlow. There is an oval
motte, and a rectangular bailey with indications of masonry.[1076]
Page 284
Galtrim, Meath.—Identified by Mr Orpen with the castle of Hugh de Hose,
or Hussey, mentioned in the “Song of Dermot.” Destroyed in 1176; no stone
castle. An oval motte; bailey indistinctly traceable. [B. T. S.]
Geashill, King’s Co. (Cal., i., 30).—Mentioned in 1203 as a castle of
William, Earl Marshall. There are remains of a motte, on which stands a
14th-century keep; but the whole site has been so pulled about in making a
modern house, drive, and gardens, that nothing more can be made of the
plan. The motte, however, is plain, though mutilated. [E. S. A.]
Granard, Longford (Cal., i., 95).—Built by Richard Tuit in 1199.[1077] A
magnificent motte, with a very wide ditch, and a small fan-shaped bailey.
Foundations of a shell wall round the top of the motte, and of a small round
tower in the centre. [B. T. S.]
*Hincheleder, or Inchelefyre (Cal., i, 95).—Said by Butler (Notices of
Trim Castle, 12) to be Inchleffer, Meath, a castle of Hugh de Lacy. No
further information.
John de Clahull’s Castle.—Mr Orpen believes this to be Killeshin,
Queen’s Co., as it corresponds to the description in the Song, “entre Eboy et
Lethelyn.” There is a motte there, and traditions of a town.
*Karakitel, or Carrickittle, Limerick (Cal., i., 14).—Castle of William de
Naas in 1199. There was a remarkable natural motte of rock here, with the
foundations of a castle upon it, now destroyed.[1078]
*Killamlun (Cal., i., 53).—Identified by Mr Orpen with Killallon, Meath,
where there is a large motte. There is a stone passage into this motte, but no
evidence has been brought forward to prove that it is of the same nature as
the prehistoric souterrains so common in Ireland.[1079] In England there is a
remarkable instance at Oxford of a well-chamber built inside a motte.
Killare, Westmeath (Gir., v., 356).—A castle of Hugh de Lacy, built in
1184;[1080] burnt in 1187. A good motte, with ditch and well-preserved bank
on counterscarp; no bailey. No stone castle. [B. T. S.]
Kilbixie, Westmeath.—Identified by Mr Orpen with Kelbery, given to
Geoffrey de Constantin (Song, 3154); the castle is mentioned in a charter of
or Hussey, mentioned in the “Song of Dermot.” Destroyed in 1176; no stone
castle. An oval motte; bailey indistinctly traceable. [B. T. S.]
Geashill, King’s Co. (Cal., i., 30).—Mentioned in 1203 as a castle of
William, Earl Marshall. There are remains of a motte, on which stands a
14th-century keep; but the whole site has been so pulled about in making a
modern house, drive, and gardens, that nothing more can be made of the
plan. The motte, however, is plain, though mutilated. [E. S. A.]
Granard, Longford (Cal., i., 95).—Built by Richard Tuit in 1199.[1077] A
magnificent motte, with a very wide ditch, and a small fan-shaped bailey.
Foundations of a shell wall round the top of the motte, and of a small round
tower in the centre. [B. T. S.]
*Hincheleder, or Inchelefyre (Cal., i, 95).—Said by Butler (Notices of
Trim Castle, 12) to be Inchleffer, Meath, a castle of Hugh de Lacy. No
further information.
John de Clahull’s Castle.—Mr Orpen believes this to be Killeshin,
Queen’s Co., as it corresponds to the description in the Song, “entre Eboy et
Lethelyn.” There is a motte there, and traditions of a town.
*Karakitel, or Carrickittle, Limerick (Cal., i., 14).—Castle of William de
Naas in 1199. There was a remarkable natural motte of rock here, with the
foundations of a castle upon it, now destroyed.[1078]
*Killamlun (Cal., i., 53).—Identified by Mr Orpen with Killallon, Meath,
where there is a large motte. There is a stone passage into this motte, but no
evidence has been brought forward to prove that it is of the same nature as
the prehistoric souterrains so common in Ireland.[1079] In England there is a
remarkable instance at Oxford of a well-chamber built inside a motte.
Killare, Westmeath (Gir., v., 356).—A castle of Hugh de Lacy, built in
1184;[1080] burnt in 1187. A good motte, with ditch and well-preserved bank
on counterscarp; no bailey. No stone castle. [B. T. S.]
Kilbixie, Westmeath.—Identified by Mr Orpen with Kelbery, given to
Geoffrey de Constantin (Song, 3154); the castle is mentioned in a charter of
Page 285
Walter de Lacy, as well as in the Annals of Loch Cè, which state that it was
built in 1192. A motte, with a broad ditch, and no bailey; but on the W. side
the counterscarp bank of the ditch widens out into a sort of narrow half-
moon terrace. This peculiarity may be noted in several other Irish castles.
Foundations of an oblong shell on top of motte, and of a small square tower
in the centre of this ward. [B. T. S.]
*Kilfeakle, Tipperary (Cal., i., 29).—A castle of William de Burgh. Built
in 1193.[1081] A motte and bailey; trace of a stone wing wall down the
motte.[1082]
*Kilmehal (Cal., i., 44).—Mr Orpen regards the identification of this castle
with Kilmallock as extremely doubtful.
*Kilmore (Cal., i., 95).—Restored to Walter de Lacy in 1215. Identified
with Kilmore, near Lough Oughter, Cavan.[1083] Mr Westropp mentions the
motte at this place, which is outside the Anglo-Norman area. The castle was
wrecked in 1225 or 1226, and no more is heard of it. The Anglo-Norman
advance in this direction failed.
*Kilsantan, Londonderry (Cal., i., 70).—Built by John de Courcy in 1197.
[1084]
Now called Kilsandal, or Mount Sandal, a large motte on the Bann,
not far from Coleraine. The castle of Coleraine, inside the town, was built in
1214, apparently of stone,[1085] and probably superseded the castle of
Kilsandal.
Kiltinan, Tipperary (Cal., i., 94).—Castle of Philip of Worcester in 1215.
No motte; a headland castle overhanging a river valley. The castle has not
only undergone a late Edwardian transformation, but has been cut up to
make a modern mansion and farm buildings. No fosses or earthworks
remain. [E. S. A.]
Knock, or Castleknock, Dublin (Cal., i., 81).—Castle of Hugh Tyrrel. An
oval motte, walled round the top, carrying on its edge a smaller motte (with
traces of a ditch) on which stand the ruins of an octagonal keep. No other
bailey; ditch and bank double for more than half the circumference. [B. T.
S.] Fig. 45.
built in 1192. A motte, with a broad ditch, and no bailey; but on the W. side
the counterscarp bank of the ditch widens out into a sort of narrow half-
moon terrace. This peculiarity may be noted in several other Irish castles.
Foundations of an oblong shell on top of motte, and of a small square tower
in the centre of this ward. [B. T. S.]
*Kilfeakle, Tipperary (Cal., i., 29).—A castle of William de Burgh. Built
in 1193.[1081] A motte and bailey; trace of a stone wing wall down the
motte.[1082]
*Kilmehal (Cal., i., 44).—Mr Orpen regards the identification of this castle
with Kilmallock as extremely doubtful.
*Kilmore (Cal., i., 95).—Restored to Walter de Lacy in 1215. Identified
with Kilmore, near Lough Oughter, Cavan.[1083] Mr Westropp mentions the
motte at this place, which is outside the Anglo-Norman area. The castle was
wrecked in 1225 or 1226, and no more is heard of it. The Anglo-Norman
advance in this direction failed.
*Kilsantan, Londonderry (Cal., i., 70).—Built by John de Courcy in 1197.
[1084]
Now called Kilsandal, or Mount Sandal, a large motte on the Bann,
not far from Coleraine. The castle of Coleraine, inside the town, was built in
1214, apparently of stone,[1085] and probably superseded the castle of
Kilsandal.
Kiltinan, Tipperary (Cal., i., 94).—Castle of Philip of Worcester in 1215.
No motte; a headland castle overhanging a river valley. The castle has not
only undergone a late Edwardian transformation, but has been cut up to
make a modern mansion and farm buildings. No fosses or earthworks
remain. [E. S. A.]
Knock, or Castleknock, Dublin (Cal., i., 81).—Castle of Hugh Tyrrel. An
oval motte, walled round the top, carrying on its edge a smaller motte (with
traces of a ditch) on which stand the ruins of an octagonal keep. No other
bailey; ditch and bank double for more than half the circumference. [B. T.
S.] Fig. 45.
Page 286
*Knockgraffan, Tipperary (Cal., i., 27).—Castle of William de Braose in
1202. One of the finest mottes to be seen anywhere. Built in 1192, at the
same time as the castle of Kilfeakle.[1086] The motte is 55 feet high, has a
wide ditch and high counterscarp bank, which is also carried round the ditch
of the “hatchet-shaped” bailey, in proper Norman fashion. “There are
indications of a rectangular stone building on the flat summit of the mote,
and there are extensive stone foundations in the bailey.”[1087]
*Lagelachon (Cal., i., 95).—Probably Loughan or Castlekieran, in which
parish is the great motte of Derver.[1088]
Lea, Queen’s Co. (Cal., i., 30).—Castle of William, Earl Marshall, in 1203.
A motte with two baileys; motte entirely occupied, and partly mutilated by a
13th-century keep, with two large roundels. [B. T. S.]
Leighlin, Carlow.—Mr Orpen has shown that the fine motte of
Ballyknockan answers to the description given by Giraldus of the site of the
castle of Lechlin built by Hugh de Lacy.[1089] There is a trace of a possible
bailey. The stone castle called Black Castle at Leighlin Bridge is of very
late date. Those who believe that we have authentic history of Ireland in the
3rd century B.C. will be able to believe with Dr Joyce that the description
of the annalists identifies this motte with the site of the ancient palace of
Dinn Righ, burnt by the chieftain Maen at that date! [B. T. S.]
Lismore, Waterford (Gir., i., 386).—About a quarter of a mile from
Lismore, above a ford of the river, is an excellent specimen of a Norman
motte and bailey, called the Round Hill. The name of the prehistoric fort of
Dunsginne has lately been applied to it, but purely by guesswork.[1090] The
Song says that Henry II. intended to build a castle at Lismore, and that it
knows not why he put it off. Possibly he may have placed these earthworks
here, and never added the wooden castle, or else this is the site of the castle
which was built by his son John in 1185. The castle inside the town is
certainly later than the time of John, as although much modernised it is
clearly Edwardian in plan. The Norman fragments incorporated in the walls
probably belonged to the abbey of St Carthagh, on the site of which the
town castle is said to have been built. The so-called King John’s Tower is
only a mural tower, not a keep. [B. T. S.]
1202. One of the finest mottes to be seen anywhere. Built in 1192, at the
same time as the castle of Kilfeakle.[1086] The motte is 55 feet high, has a
wide ditch and high counterscarp bank, which is also carried round the ditch
of the “hatchet-shaped” bailey, in proper Norman fashion. “There are
indications of a rectangular stone building on the flat summit of the mote,
and there are extensive stone foundations in the bailey.”[1087]
*Lagelachon (Cal., i., 95).—Probably Loughan or Castlekieran, in which
parish is the great motte of Derver.[1088]
Lea, Queen’s Co. (Cal., i., 30).—Castle of William, Earl Marshall, in 1203.
A motte with two baileys; motte entirely occupied, and partly mutilated by a
13th-century keep, with two large roundels. [B. T. S.]
Leighlin, Carlow.—Mr Orpen has shown that the fine motte of
Ballyknockan answers to the description given by Giraldus of the site of the
castle of Lechlin built by Hugh de Lacy.[1089] There is a trace of a possible
bailey. The stone castle called Black Castle at Leighlin Bridge is of very
late date. Those who believe that we have authentic history of Ireland in the
3rd century B.C. will be able to believe with Dr Joyce that the description
of the annalists identifies this motte with the site of the ancient palace of
Dinn Righ, burnt by the chieftain Maen at that date! [B. T. S.]
Lismore, Waterford (Gir., i., 386).—About a quarter of a mile from
Lismore, above a ford of the river, is an excellent specimen of a Norman
motte and bailey, called the Round Hill. The name of the prehistoric fort of
Dunsginne has lately been applied to it, but purely by guesswork.[1090] The
Song says that Henry II. intended to build a castle at Lismore, and that it
knows not why he put it off. Possibly he may have placed these earthworks
here, and never added the wooden castle, or else this is the site of the castle
which was built by his son John in 1185. The castle inside the town is
certainly later than the time of John, as although much modernised it is
clearly Edwardian in plan. The Norman fragments incorporated in the walls
probably belonged to the abbey of St Carthagh, on the site of which the
town castle is said to have been built. The so-called King John’s Tower is
only a mural tower, not a keep. [B. T. S.]
Page 287
*Louth, or Luveth (Cal., i., 30).—A royal castle in 1204, but it must have
been in existence as early as 1196, when the town and castle of Louth were
burnt by Niall MacMahon.[1091] This was probably the “Fairy Mount” at
Louth, of which a plan is given in Wright’s Louthiana. This plan shows “the
old town trench,” starting from opposite sides of the motte, so that the castle
stood on the line of the town banks. The motte was ditched and banked
round, but the plan does not show any bailey or any entrance.
*Loske (Cal., i., 30).—Mr Orpen has pointed out to the writer that this
cannot be Lusk, which was a castle of the Archbishop of Dublin, while
Loske belonged to Theobald Walter, and is not yet identified.
*Loxhindy (Cal., i., 95).—Mr Orpen identifies this name with Loughsendy,
or Ballymore Loughsendy, Westmeath, where there is a motte.[1092]
Naas, Kildare (Gir., v., 100).—The dun of Naas is mentioned in the Book of
Rights, p. 251, and in the Tripartite Life of St Patrick. By the Dindsenchas it
is attributed to the legendary Princess Tuiltinn in 277 A.D. On this
“evidence” the motte at Naas has been classed as prehistoric. But as we
have seen, a dun does not mean a motte, or even a hill, but an enclosure.
Naas was part of the share which fell to the famous Anglo-Norman leader,
Maurice FitzGerald, and the earthworks are quite of the Norman pattern;
[1093]
a good motte, ditched and banked, with trace of a small bailey
attached. The terrace round the flank of the motte may be no older than the
modern buildings on the summit.[1094] [B. T. S.]
Navan, Meath.—The Song says Navan was given to Jocelin de Nangle, and
it is known that the castle of the Nangles was at Navan. A lofty motte, with
a very small semilunar platform below, formed by broadening out a part of
the counterscarp bank of the ditch. (Compare Kilbixie.) [B. T. S.]
Nobber, Meath (Cal., i., 104).—A castle of Hugh de Lacy. A motte, with
traces of a breastwork round the top, and wing banks running down to what
remains of the bailey on the S. Two curious little terraces on the N. side of
the motte. No masonry. [B. T. S.]
Rath’ (Cal., i., 95).—This castle, evidently one of the most important in
Ulster, but hitherto unidentified, has been shown by Mr Orpen to be the
famous castle of Dundrum, Down.[1095] This castle is situated on a natural
been in existence as early as 1196, when the town and castle of Louth were
burnt by Niall MacMahon.[1091] This was probably the “Fairy Mount” at
Louth, of which a plan is given in Wright’s Louthiana. This plan shows “the
old town trench,” starting from opposite sides of the motte, so that the castle
stood on the line of the town banks. The motte was ditched and banked
round, but the plan does not show any bailey or any entrance.
*Loske (Cal., i., 30).—Mr Orpen has pointed out to the writer that this
cannot be Lusk, which was a castle of the Archbishop of Dublin, while
Loske belonged to Theobald Walter, and is not yet identified.
*Loxhindy (Cal., i., 95).—Mr Orpen identifies this name with Loughsendy,
or Ballymore Loughsendy, Westmeath, where there is a motte.[1092]
Naas, Kildare (Gir., v., 100).—The dun of Naas is mentioned in the Book of
Rights, p. 251, and in the Tripartite Life of St Patrick. By the Dindsenchas it
is attributed to the legendary Princess Tuiltinn in 277 A.D. On this
“evidence” the motte at Naas has been classed as prehistoric. But as we
have seen, a dun does not mean a motte, or even a hill, but an enclosure.
Naas was part of the share which fell to the famous Anglo-Norman leader,
Maurice FitzGerald, and the earthworks are quite of the Norman pattern;
[1093]
a good motte, ditched and banked, with trace of a small bailey
attached. The terrace round the flank of the motte may be no older than the
modern buildings on the summit.[1094] [B. T. S.]
Navan, Meath.—The Song says Navan was given to Jocelin de Nangle, and
it is known that the castle of the Nangles was at Navan. A lofty motte, with
a very small semilunar platform below, formed by broadening out a part of
the counterscarp bank of the ditch. (Compare Kilbixie.) [B. T. S.]
Nobber, Meath (Cal., i., 104).—A castle of Hugh de Lacy. A motte, with
traces of a breastwork round the top, and wing banks running down to what
remains of the bailey on the S. Two curious little terraces on the N. side of
the motte. No masonry. [B. T. S.]
Rath’ (Cal., i., 95).—This castle, evidently one of the most important in
Ulster, but hitherto unidentified, has been shown by Mr Orpen to be the
famous castle of Dundrum, Down.[1095] This castle is situated on a natural
Page 288
motte of rock, no doubt scarped by art, with a deep ditch cut through the
rock, and a bailey attached. The top of the motte contains a small ward
fortified in stone, and a round keep. It is very doubtful whether this keep is
as old as the time of John de Courcy, to whom the castle is popularly
attributed; for the round keep without buttresses hardly appears in England
before the reign of Henry III. [E. S. A.]
Rathwire, Meath.—Rathwire was the portion of Robert de Lacy (Song,
3150), and a castle was built here by Hugh de Lacy.[1096] There is a motte
and bailey, with considerable remains of foundations in the bailey, and one
wing bank going up the motte. [B. T. S.]
*Ratouth, Meath, now Ratoath (Cal., i., 110).—A castle of Hugh de Lacy.
There is “a conspicuous mount” near the church, about which there is a
legend that Malachy, first king of all Ireland, held a convention of states
(Lewis). It is marked in the map.
*Rokerel (Cal., i., 81).—Unidentified.
Roscrea, Tipperary (Cal., i., 81).—A motte and bretasche were built here in
King John’s reign, as is recorded in an inquisition of 29 Henry III. (Cal., i.,
412). There is no motte now at Roscrea, but an Edwardian castle with mural
towers and no keep; a 14th-century gatehouse tower. Here we have a proved
instance of a motte completely swept away by an Edwardian
transformation.[1097] [E. S. A.]
Skreen, Meath.—Giraldus mentions the castle of Adam de Futepoi, and as
Skreen was his barony, his castle must have been at Skreen. In the grounds
of the modern castellated house at Skreen there is a motte, 11 feet high
(probably lowered), with a terrace round its flank; some slight traces of a
bailey. [B. T. S.]
Slane, Meath.—The Song relates the erection of a motte by Richard the
Fleming: “un mot fist cil jeter pur ses enemis grever.”[1098] It also tells of its
destruction by the Irish, but does not give its name, which is supplied by the
Annals of Ulster. Probably Richard the Fleming restored his motte after its
destruction, for there is still a motte on the hill of Slane, with a large
annular bailey,[1099] quite large enough for the “100 foreigners, besides
women and children and horses,” who were in it when it was taken. The
rock, and a bailey attached. The top of the motte contains a small ward
fortified in stone, and a round keep. It is very doubtful whether this keep is
as old as the time of John de Courcy, to whom the castle is popularly
attributed; for the round keep without buttresses hardly appears in England
before the reign of Henry III. [E. S. A.]
Rathwire, Meath.—Rathwire was the portion of Robert de Lacy (Song,
3150), and a castle was built here by Hugh de Lacy.[1096] There is a motte
and bailey, with considerable remains of foundations in the bailey, and one
wing bank going up the motte. [B. T. S.]
*Ratouth, Meath, now Ratoath (Cal., i., 110).—A castle of Hugh de Lacy.
There is “a conspicuous mount” near the church, about which there is a
legend that Malachy, first king of all Ireland, held a convention of states
(Lewis). It is marked in the map.
*Rokerel (Cal., i., 81).—Unidentified.
Roscrea, Tipperary (Cal., i., 81).—A motte and bretasche were built here in
King John’s reign, as is recorded in an inquisition of 29 Henry III. (Cal., i.,
412). There is no motte now at Roscrea, but an Edwardian castle with mural
towers and no keep; a 14th-century gatehouse tower. Here we have a proved
instance of a motte completely swept away by an Edwardian
transformation.[1097] [E. S. A.]
Skreen, Meath.—Giraldus mentions the castle of Adam de Futepoi, and as
Skreen was his barony, his castle must have been at Skreen. In the grounds
of the modern castellated house at Skreen there is a motte, 11 feet high
(probably lowered), with a terrace round its flank; some slight traces of a
bailey. [B. T. S.]
Slane, Meath.—The Song relates the erection of a motte by Richard the
Fleming: “un mot fist cil jeter pur ses enemis grever.”[1098] It also tells of its
destruction by the Irish, but does not give its name, which is supplied by the
Annals of Ulster. Probably Richard the Fleming restored his motte after its
destruction, for there is still a motte on the hill of Slane, with a large
annular bailey,[1099] quite large enough for the “100 foreigners, besides
women and children and horses,” who were in it when it was taken. The
Page 289
motte has still a slight breastwork round the top. The modern castle of the
Marquis of Conyngham, below, incorporates half a round tower of 13th-
century work, belonging no doubt to the stone castle which succeeded the
motte.[1100] [B. T. S.]
Thurles, Tipperary (Dorles, Cal., i., 81).—A castle of Theobald Walter.
Thurles Castle has a late keep with trefoil windows, and according to Grose
was built by the Earl of Ormond in 1328. From information on the spot it
appears that there used to be a motte in the gardens behind the castle;
mentioned also by Lewis. [B. T. S.]
Tibraghny, or Tipperaghny, Kilkenny (Gir., i., 386; Cal., i., 19).—Granted
to William de Burgh in 1200; built by John in 1185.[1101] A motte, with
ditch and bank, and some trace of a half-moon bailey to the north. About
200 yards away is the stone castle, a late keep with ogee windows. [B. T. S.]
Timahoe, Queen’s Co. (Gir., i., 356).—Built by Hugh de Lacy for Meiler
Fitz Henry. A motte, called the Rath of Ballynaclogh, half a mile west of the
village. The bailey, the banks and ditches of which seem remarkably well
preserved, is almost circular, but the motte is placed at its edge, not
concentrically. There are wing-banks running up the motte. Near it are the
ruins of a stone castle built in Elizabeth’s reign (Grose). [B. T. S.]
Trim, Meath.—The Song tells of the erection of this castle by Hugh de
Lacy, and how in his absence the meysun (the keep—doubtless wooden)
was burnt by the Irish, and the mot levelled with the ground. This express
evidence that the first castle at Trim had a motte is of great value, because
there is no motte there now. The castle was restored by Raymond le Gros,
[1102]
but so quickly that the present remarkable keep can hardly have been
built at that date.[1103] [B. T. S.]
*Tristerdermot (Gir., v., 356).—Castle of Walter de Riddlesford.
Tristerdermot is now Castledermot; there used to be a rath of some kind
here close to the town. But Mr Orpen inclines to believe that the castle
Giraldus alludes to was at Kilkea, another manor of De Riddlesford’s,
where there is a motte, near the modern castle. “In the early English
versions of the Expugnatio Kilcae is put instead of Tristerdermot as the
place where Walter de Riddlesford’s castle was built.”[1104]
Marquis of Conyngham, below, incorporates half a round tower of 13th-
century work, belonging no doubt to the stone castle which succeeded the
motte.[1100] [B. T. S.]
Thurles, Tipperary (Dorles, Cal., i., 81).—A castle of Theobald Walter.
Thurles Castle has a late keep with trefoil windows, and according to Grose
was built by the Earl of Ormond in 1328. From information on the spot it
appears that there used to be a motte in the gardens behind the castle;
mentioned also by Lewis. [B. T. S.]
Tibraghny, or Tipperaghny, Kilkenny (Gir., i., 386; Cal., i., 19).—Granted
to William de Burgh in 1200; built by John in 1185.[1101] A motte, with
ditch and bank, and some trace of a half-moon bailey to the north. About
200 yards away is the stone castle, a late keep with ogee windows. [B. T. S.]
Timahoe, Queen’s Co. (Gir., i., 356).—Built by Hugh de Lacy for Meiler
Fitz Henry. A motte, called the Rath of Ballynaclogh, half a mile west of the
village. The bailey, the banks and ditches of which seem remarkably well
preserved, is almost circular, but the motte is placed at its edge, not
concentrically. There are wing-banks running up the motte. Near it are the
ruins of a stone castle built in Elizabeth’s reign (Grose). [B. T. S.]
Trim, Meath.—The Song tells of the erection of this castle by Hugh de
Lacy, and how in his absence the meysun (the keep—doubtless wooden)
was burnt by the Irish, and the mot levelled with the ground. This express
evidence that the first castle at Trim had a motte is of great value, because
there is no motte there now. The castle was restored by Raymond le Gros,
[1102]
but so quickly that the present remarkable keep can hardly have been
built at that date.[1103] [B. T. S.]
*Tristerdermot (Gir., v., 356).—Castle of Walter de Riddlesford.
Tristerdermot is now Castledermot; there used to be a rath of some kind
here close to the town. But Mr Orpen inclines to believe that the castle
Giraldus alludes to was at Kilkea, another manor of De Riddlesford’s,
where there is a motte, near the modern castle. “In the early English
versions of the Expugnatio Kilcae is put instead of Tristerdermot as the
place where Walter de Riddlesford’s castle was built.”[1104]
Page 290
*Typermesan (Cal., i., 110).—Mr Orpen writes that this name occurs again
in a list of churches in the deanery of Fore, which includes all the parish
names in the half barony of Fore, except Oldcastle and Killeagh. He
suspects that Typermesan is now known as Oldcastle, “where there is a
remarkably well-preserved motte and raised bailey.”[1105]
Waterford (Cal., i., 89).—We are not told whether Strongbow built a castle
here when he took the town from the Ostmen in 1170. The castle is not
mentioned till 1215, when it was granted by John to Thomas Fitz-Antony.
Waterford was a walled town in 1170, and had a tower called Reginald’s
Tower, which seems to have been the residence of the two Danish
chieftains, as they were taken prisoners there. Here too, Henry II.
imprisoned Fitz Stephen.[1106] It is possible that this tower, as Mr Orpen
supposes,[1107] may have been considered as the castle of Waterford. But the
existing “Ring tower” on the line of the walls, which is sometimes called
Reginald’s Tower, is certainly a round mural tower of the 13th century;
there are others of similar masonry on the walls. [B. T. S.]
*Wexford (Gir., v., 314).—Probably built by Maurice Prendergast; first
mentioned when taken from his sons in 1176. Mr Orpen writes: “The site of
Wexford Castle is an artificial mound. Two of the scarped sides still remain,
and the other two are built up above streets. When recently laying some
drainpipes, the workmen came upon no rock, but only made earth.”
Wicklow (Gir., i., 298).—Existing when Henry II. left Ireland in 1173; he
gave it to Strongbow. The Black Castle at Wicklow is a headland castle; it
preserves the motte-and-bailey plan, though there is no motte, as there is a
small triangular inner ward (about thirty paces each side) several feet higher
than the outer bailey, from which it is separated by a very deep ditch cut
through the rock. [B. T. S.]
We have here a list of seventy-two castles mentioned in the contemporary
history of the Norman invasion. If the list is reduced by omitting Aq’i,
Kilmehal, Loske, Rokerel, and Incheleder, which are not yet identified, and
five castles of which the identification may be considered doubtful,
Caherconlish, Croom, Clahull’s Castle, Lagelachan, and Typermesan, sixty-
two castles are left, and out of these sixty-two, fifty-two have or had mottes.
[1108]
In five cases the place of the motte is taken by a natural rock, helped
in a list of churches in the deanery of Fore, which includes all the parish
names in the half barony of Fore, except Oldcastle and Killeagh. He
suspects that Typermesan is now known as Oldcastle, “where there is a
remarkably well-preserved motte and raised bailey.”[1105]
Waterford (Cal., i., 89).—We are not told whether Strongbow built a castle
here when he took the town from the Ostmen in 1170. The castle is not
mentioned till 1215, when it was granted by John to Thomas Fitz-Antony.
Waterford was a walled town in 1170, and had a tower called Reginald’s
Tower, which seems to have been the residence of the two Danish
chieftains, as they were taken prisoners there. Here too, Henry II.
imprisoned Fitz Stephen.[1106] It is possible that this tower, as Mr Orpen
supposes,[1107] may have been considered as the castle of Waterford. But the
existing “Ring tower” on the line of the walls, which is sometimes called
Reginald’s Tower, is certainly a round mural tower of the 13th century;
there are others of similar masonry on the walls. [B. T. S.]
*Wexford (Gir., v., 314).—Probably built by Maurice Prendergast; first
mentioned when taken from his sons in 1176. Mr Orpen writes: “The site of
Wexford Castle is an artificial mound. Two of the scarped sides still remain,
and the other two are built up above streets. When recently laying some
drainpipes, the workmen came upon no rock, but only made earth.”
Wicklow (Gir., i., 298).—Existing when Henry II. left Ireland in 1173; he
gave it to Strongbow. The Black Castle at Wicklow is a headland castle; it
preserves the motte-and-bailey plan, though there is no motte, as there is a
small triangular inner ward (about thirty paces each side) several feet higher
than the outer bailey, from which it is separated by a very deep ditch cut
through the rock. [B. T. S.]
We have here a list of seventy-two castles mentioned in the contemporary
history of the Norman invasion. If the list is reduced by omitting Aq’i,
Kilmehal, Loske, Rokerel, and Incheleder, which are not yet identified, and
five castles of which the identification may be considered doubtful,
Caherconlish, Croom, Clahull’s Castle, Lagelachan, and Typermesan, sixty-
two castles are left, and out of these sixty-two, fifty-two have or had mottes.
[1108]
In five cases the place of the motte is taken by a natural rock, helped
Page 291
by art; but as the idea and plan are the same it is legitimately classed as the
same type.
This list might easily have been enlarged by the addition of many castles
mentioned in the various Irish annals as having been built by the Normans.
But this would have involved the identification of a number of difficult
names, a labour to which the writer’s limited knowledge of Irish topography
was not equal. The greater number of these sites have now been identified
by Mr Orpen, and to his papers, so frequently cited above, we must refer the
reader who wishes to study the fullest form of the argument sketched in
these pages.
One can easily sympathise with the feelings of those who, having always
looked upon these mottes as monuments of ancient Ireland, are loath to part
with them to the Norman robber. Many of us have had similar feelings
about the mottes of England, some of which we had been taught to regard
as the work of that heroic pair, Edward the Elder and Ethelfleda. But these
feelings evaporated when we came to realise that it would have been highly
unpatriotic in these founders of the British empire to have built little castles
for their own personal safety, instead of building cities which were “to
shelter all the folk,” in the words of Ethelfleda’s charter to Worcester. In
like manner, wretched as were the intertribal wars of Ireland, it would have
been a disgrace to the Irish chieftains if they had consulted solely their own
defence by building these little strongholds for their personal use.
The Irish motte-castles furnish us with interesting proof that this type of
castle was commonly used, not only as late as the reign of Henry II., but
also in the reigns of his sons, Richard I. and John;[1109] that is to say, at a
time when castle-building in stone was receiving remarkable developments
at the hands of Richard I. and Philip Augustus of France. This, however,
need not surprise us, since we know that as late as 1242, Henry III. was
building a motte and wooden castle in the Isle of Rhé, at the mouth of the
Garonne.[1110] But those who imagine that the Normans built stone castles
everywhere in England, Wales, and Ireland, will have to reconsider their
views.
Note.—Mr Orpen’s work on Ireland under the Normans did not appear until
too late for use in this chapter. The reader is referred to it for a more careful
same type.
This list might easily have been enlarged by the addition of many castles
mentioned in the various Irish annals as having been built by the Normans.
But this would have involved the identification of a number of difficult
names, a labour to which the writer’s limited knowledge of Irish topography
was not equal. The greater number of these sites have now been identified
by Mr Orpen, and to his papers, so frequently cited above, we must refer the
reader who wishes to study the fullest form of the argument sketched in
these pages.
One can easily sympathise with the feelings of those who, having always
looked upon these mottes as monuments of ancient Ireland, are loath to part
with them to the Norman robber. Many of us have had similar feelings
about the mottes of England, some of which we had been taught to regard
as the work of that heroic pair, Edward the Elder and Ethelfleda. But these
feelings evaporated when we came to realise that it would have been highly
unpatriotic in these founders of the British empire to have built little castles
for their own personal safety, instead of building cities which were “to
shelter all the folk,” in the words of Ethelfleda’s charter to Worcester. In
like manner, wretched as were the intertribal wars of Ireland, it would have
been a disgrace to the Irish chieftains if they had consulted solely their own
defence by building these little strongholds for their personal use.
The Irish motte-castles furnish us with interesting proof that this type of
castle was commonly used, not only as late as the reign of Henry II., but
also in the reigns of his sons, Richard I. and John;[1109] that is to say, at a
time when castle-building in stone was receiving remarkable developments
at the hands of Richard I. and Philip Augustus of France. This, however,
need not surprise us, since we know that as late as 1242, Henry III. was
building a motte and wooden castle in the Isle of Rhé, at the mouth of the
Garonne.[1110] But those who imagine that the Normans built stone castles
everywhere in England, Wales, and Ireland, will have to reconsider their
views.
Note.—Mr Orpen’s work on Ireland under the Normans did not appear until
too late for use in this chapter. The reader is referred to it for a more careful
Page 292
tracing of the history and archæology of the Norman settlements in Ireland.
Page 293
CHAPTER XII
STONE CASTLES OF THE NORMAN PERIOD
It may be a surprise to some of our readers to learn how very few stone
castles there are in England which can certainly be ascribed to the first
period of the Norman Conquest, that is to the 11th century. When we have
named the Tower of London, Colchester, the recently excavated foundations
of the remarkable keep at Pevensey, and perhaps the ruined keep of
Bramber, we have completed the list, as far as our present knowledge goes,
though possibly future excavations may add a few others.[1111]
It is obvious that so small a number of instances furnishes a very slender
basis for generalisations as to the characteristics of early Norman keeps, if
we ask in what respect they differed from those of the 12th century. But it is
the object of this chapter to suggest research, rather than to lay down
conclusions. The four early instances mentioned should be compared with
the earliest keeps of France, the country where the pattern was developed.
This has not yet been done in any serious way, nor does the present writer
pretend to the knowledge which would be necessary for such a comparison.
[1112]
But data exist, which, if they were used in the right way, would greatly
add to our knowledge.
In the first place, we have a list of the castles built by Fulk Nerra, Count of
Anjou, at the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th century, during
his life-long struggle with the Counts of Blois for the possession of
Touraine. This list may be regarded as authentic, as it is given by his
grandson, Fulk Rechin, in the remarkable historical fragment which he has
bequeathed to us.[1113] The list is as follows:—In Touraine: Langeais,
Chaumont-sur-Loire, Montrésor, St Maure. In Poitou: Mirabeau (N.W. of
Poitiers), Montcontour, Faye-la-Vineuse, Musterolum (Montreuil-Bonnin),
Passavent, Maulevrier. In Anjou: Baugé, Chateau-Gontier, Durtal. “Et multa
alia,” adds Fulk’s grandson. Nine of these others are mentioned by the
chroniclers: Montbazon, Semblançay, Montboyau, St Florent-le-Vieil,
Chateaufort near Langeais, Chérament, Montrevault, Montfaucon, and
STONE CASTLES OF THE NORMAN PERIOD
It may be a surprise to some of our readers to learn how very few stone
castles there are in England which can certainly be ascribed to the first
period of the Norman Conquest, that is to the 11th century. When we have
named the Tower of London, Colchester, the recently excavated foundations
of the remarkable keep at Pevensey, and perhaps the ruined keep of
Bramber, we have completed the list, as far as our present knowledge goes,
though possibly future excavations may add a few others.[1111]
It is obvious that so small a number of instances furnishes a very slender
basis for generalisations as to the characteristics of early Norman keeps, if
we ask in what respect they differed from those of the 12th century. But it is
the object of this chapter to suggest research, rather than to lay down
conclusions. The four early instances mentioned should be compared with
the earliest keeps of France, the country where the pattern was developed.
This has not yet been done in any serious way, nor does the present writer
pretend to the knowledge which would be necessary for such a comparison.
[1112]
But data exist, which, if they were used in the right way, would greatly
add to our knowledge.
In the first place, we have a list of the castles built by Fulk Nerra, Count of
Anjou, at the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th century, during
his life-long struggle with the Counts of Blois for the possession of
Touraine. This list may be regarded as authentic, as it is given by his
grandson, Fulk Rechin, in the remarkable historical fragment which he has
bequeathed to us.[1113] The list is as follows:—In Touraine: Langeais,
Chaumont-sur-Loire, Montrésor, St Maure. In Poitou: Mirabeau (N.W. of
Poitiers), Montcontour, Faye-la-Vineuse, Musterolum (Montreuil-Bonnin),
Passavent, Maulevrier. In Anjou: Baugé, Chateau-Gontier, Durtal. “Et multa
alia,” adds Fulk’s grandson. Nine of these others are mentioned by the
chroniclers: Montbazon, Semblançay, Montboyau, St Florent-le-Vieil,
Chateaufort near Langeais, Chérament, Montrevault, Montfaucon, and
Page 294
Mateflon. Many of these were undoubtedly wooden castles, with wooden
keeps on mottes.[1114] In many other cases the ancient fabric has been
replaced by a building of the Renaissance period. Whether any remains of
stone donjons built by Fulk Nerra exist at any of these places except at
Langeais, the writer has been unable to find out; probably Langeais is the
only one; but French archæologists are agreed that the ruined tower which
stands on the ridge above the 15th-century castle of Langeais is the work of
this count,[1115] a venerable fragment of a 10th-century keep.[1116]
Unfortunately only two sides of this tower and the foundations of the other
sides remain. The walls are only 3 feet 6 inches thick, contrasting strikingly
with the castles of the 12th and 13th centuries, where the usual thickness is
10 feet, which is often exceeded. This points to a date before any great
improvement had taken place in assaulting-machinery. The masonry is what
French architects call petit appareil, very small stones, but regularly
coursed. There is no herring-bone work. The buttresses, of which there are
five on the front, certainly suggest a later date, from the size of the ashlar
with which they are faced, and from their considerable projection (3 feet on
the entrance wall, 2 on the front). There is no sign of a forebuilding. There
are only two storeys above the basement. The floors have been supported
on ledges, not on vaults. The doorway, a plain round arch, with bar-holes, is
on the first floor;[1117] it is now only a few feet above the ground, but
probably the basement has been partially filled up with rubbish. The first
storey is quite windowless in the walls which remain. There are no
fireplaces nor any loopholes in these two fragments. In the second storey
there are three rather small windows and one very large one;[1118] they are
round arched, have no splay, and their voussoirs are of narrow stones
alternated with tiles. In these details they resemble the Early Romanesque,
which in England we call Anglo-Saxon.
The Tower of London and Colchester keep are some seventy or eighty years
later than that of Langeais, and if we attempt to compare them, we must
bear in mind that Langeais was the work of a noble who was always in the
throes of an acute struggle with a powerful rival, whereas the Tower and
Colchester Castle were built by a king who had reached a position of power
and wealth beyond that of any neighbouring sovereign.[1119] Langeais is but
a small affair compared with these other two keeps. The larger area,[1120]
keeps on mottes.[1114] In many other cases the ancient fabric has been
replaced by a building of the Renaissance period. Whether any remains of
stone donjons built by Fulk Nerra exist at any of these places except at
Langeais, the writer has been unable to find out; probably Langeais is the
only one; but French archæologists are agreed that the ruined tower which
stands on the ridge above the 15th-century castle of Langeais is the work of
this count,[1115] a venerable fragment of a 10th-century keep.[1116]
Unfortunately only two sides of this tower and the foundations of the other
sides remain. The walls are only 3 feet 6 inches thick, contrasting strikingly
with the castles of the 12th and 13th centuries, where the usual thickness is
10 feet, which is often exceeded. This points to a date before any great
improvement had taken place in assaulting-machinery. The masonry is what
French architects call petit appareil, very small stones, but regularly
coursed. There is no herring-bone work. The buttresses, of which there are
five on the front, certainly suggest a later date, from the size of the ashlar
with which they are faced, and from their considerable projection (3 feet on
the entrance wall, 2 on the front). There is no sign of a forebuilding. There
are only two storeys above the basement. The floors have been supported
on ledges, not on vaults. The doorway, a plain round arch, with bar-holes, is
on the first floor;[1117] it is now only a few feet above the ground, but
probably the basement has been partially filled up with rubbish. The first
storey is quite windowless in the walls which remain. There are no
fireplaces nor any loopholes in these two fragments. In the second storey
there are three rather small windows and one very large one;[1118] they are
round arched, have no splay, and their voussoirs are of narrow stones
alternated with tiles. In these details they resemble the Early Romanesque,
which in England we call Anglo-Saxon.
The Tower of London and Colchester keep are some seventy or eighty years
later than that of Langeais, and if we attempt to compare them, we must
bear in mind that Langeais was the work of a noble who was always in the
throes of an acute struggle with a powerful rival, whereas the Tower and
Colchester Castle were built by a king who had reached a position of power
and wealth beyond that of any neighbouring sovereign.[1119] Langeais is but
a small affair compared with these other two keeps. The larger area,[1120]
Page 295
thicker walls, the angle towers with their provision of stairways, the splayed
windows [of Colchester], the fireplaces, the chapels with round apses, the
mural gallery [of the Tower] cannot be definitely pronounced to be
instances of development unless we have other instances than Langeais to
compare with them. De Caumont mentions Chateau du Pin (Calvados),
Lithaire (Manche), Beaugency-sur-Loire, Nogent-le-Rotrou (Eure et Loire),
Tour de l’Islot (Seine et Oise), St Suzanne (Mayenne), and Tour de Broue
(Charente Inf.), as instances of keeps of the 11th century.[1121] These should
be carefully examined by the student of castle architecture, and De
Caumont’s statements as to their date should be verified. Not having had the
opportunity of doing this, we will only ask what features the keeps of
Langeais, London, and Colchester have in common, which may serve as
marks of an earlier date than the 12th century.[1122] The square or oblong
form and the entrance on the first floor are common to all three, but also to
the keeps of the first three-quarters of the 12th century. The absence of a
forebuilding is probably an early sign,[1123] and so is the extensive use of
tiles.[1124] The chapel with a round apse which projects externally only
occurs in the keeps of London and Colchester, and in the ruins of Pevensey
keep.[1125] The absence of a plinth is believed by Enlart to be an early
token.[1126] But Colchester has a plinth and so has the Tower. It is, however,
very possible that in both cases the plinth is a later addition; at Colchester it
is of different stone to the rest of the building, and may belong to the repairs
of Henry II., who was working on this castle in 1169; while the Tower has
undergone so many alterations in the course of its eight hundred years of
existence that it is difficult to say whether the rudimentary plinth which it
still possesses is original or not.
Wide-jointed masonry is generally recognised by architectural students as a
mark of the early Norman style. Even this is a test which may sometimes
deceive; certain kinds of ashlar are very liable to weather at the edges, and
when the wall has been pointed at a comparatively recent period, a false
appearance of wide joints is produced. Moreover, there are instances of
wide-jointed masonry throughout the 12th century. The use of rubble
instead of ashlar is common at all dates, and depends no doubt on local
conditions, the local provision of stone, or the affluence or poverty of the
castle-builder. We are probably justified in laying down as a general rule
that the dimensions of the ashlar stones increase as the Middle Ages
windows [of Colchester], the fireplaces, the chapels with round apses, the
mural gallery [of the Tower] cannot be definitely pronounced to be
instances of development unless we have other instances than Langeais to
compare with them. De Caumont mentions Chateau du Pin (Calvados),
Lithaire (Manche), Beaugency-sur-Loire, Nogent-le-Rotrou (Eure et Loire),
Tour de l’Islot (Seine et Oise), St Suzanne (Mayenne), and Tour de Broue
(Charente Inf.), as instances of keeps of the 11th century.[1121] These should
be carefully examined by the student of castle architecture, and De
Caumont’s statements as to their date should be verified. Not having had the
opportunity of doing this, we will only ask what features the keeps of
Langeais, London, and Colchester have in common, which may serve as
marks of an earlier date than the 12th century.[1122] The square or oblong
form and the entrance on the first floor are common to all three, but also to
the keeps of the first three-quarters of the 12th century. The absence of a
forebuilding is probably an early sign,[1123] and so is the extensive use of
tiles.[1124] The chapel with a round apse which projects externally only
occurs in the keeps of London and Colchester, and in the ruins of Pevensey
keep.[1125] The absence of a plinth is believed by Enlart to be an early
token.[1126] But Colchester has a plinth and so has the Tower. It is, however,
very possible that in both cases the plinth is a later addition; at Colchester it
is of different stone to the rest of the building, and may belong to the repairs
of Henry II., who was working on this castle in 1169; while the Tower has
undergone so many alterations in the course of its eight hundred years of
existence that it is difficult to say whether the rudimentary plinth which it
still possesses is original or not.
Wide-jointed masonry is generally recognised by architectural students as a
mark of the early Norman style. Even this is a test which may sometimes
deceive; certain kinds of ashlar are very liable to weather at the edges, and
when the wall has been pointed at a comparatively recent period, a false
appearance of wide joints is produced. Moreover, there are instances of
wide-jointed masonry throughout the 12th century. The use of rubble
instead of ashlar is common at all dates, and depends no doubt on local
conditions, the local provision of stone, or the affluence or poverty of the
castle-builder. We are probably justified in laying down as a general rule
that the dimensions of the ashlar stones increase as the Middle Ages
Page 296
advance. There is a gradual transition from the petit appareil of Fulk
Nerra’s castle to the large blocks of well-set stone which were used in the
15th century.[1127] But this law is liable to many exceptions, and cannot be
relied upon as a test of date unless other signs are present. The Tower of
London is built of Kentish rag; Colchester keep of small cement stones
(septaria), which whether they are re-used Roman stones or not, resemble
very much in size the masonry of Langeais. It is of course unnecessary to
say to anyone who is in the least acquainted with Norman architecture that
all Norman walls of ashlar are of the core-and-facing kind, an internal and
an external shell of ashlar, filled up with rubble; a technique which was
inherited from Roman times in Gaul, but which was not followed by the
Anglo-Saxons.[1128]
The presence or absence of fireplaces and chimneys is not a test of date.
Colchester is certainly an early keep,[1129] but it is well provided with
fireplaces which appear to be original. These fireplaces have not proper
chimneys, but only holes in the wall a little above the fireplace. But this
rudimentary form of chimney is found as late as Henry II.’s keep at Orford,
and there is said to be documentary mention of a proper chimney as early as
816 in the monastery of St Gall.[1130] The entire absence of fireplaces is no
proof of early date, for in Henry II.’s keep at the Peak in Derbyshire, the
walls of which are almost perfect (except for their ashlar coats) there are no
fireplaces at all, nor are there any in the 13th-century keep of Pembroke. It
is possible that in these cases a free standing fireplace in the middle of the
room, with a chimney carried up to the roof, was used. Such a fireplace is
described by the poet, Chrestien of Troyes, but no example is known to
exist.[1131]
But apart from details, if we look at the general plan of these four early
stone castles, we shall see that it is exactly similar. It is the keep-and-bailey
plan, the plan which prevailed from the 10th to the 13th century, and was
not even superseded by the introduction of the keepless castle in the latter
century.[1132] The motte-and-bailey type was of course only another version
of the keep-and-bailey. In this primitive type of castle the all-important
thing was the keep or donjon.[1133] Besides the donjon there was little else
but a rampart and ditch. “Until the middle of the 12th century, and in the
simpler examples of the epochs which followed, the donjon may be said to
Nerra’s castle to the large blocks of well-set stone which were used in the
15th century.[1127] But this law is liable to many exceptions, and cannot be
relied upon as a test of date unless other signs are present. The Tower of
London is built of Kentish rag; Colchester keep of small cement stones
(septaria), which whether they are re-used Roman stones or not, resemble
very much in size the masonry of Langeais. It is of course unnecessary to
say to anyone who is in the least acquainted with Norman architecture that
all Norman walls of ashlar are of the core-and-facing kind, an internal and
an external shell of ashlar, filled up with rubble; a technique which was
inherited from Roman times in Gaul, but which was not followed by the
Anglo-Saxons.[1128]
The presence or absence of fireplaces and chimneys is not a test of date.
Colchester is certainly an early keep,[1129] but it is well provided with
fireplaces which appear to be original. These fireplaces have not proper
chimneys, but only holes in the wall a little above the fireplace. But this
rudimentary form of chimney is found as late as Henry II.’s keep at Orford,
and there is said to be documentary mention of a proper chimney as early as
816 in the monastery of St Gall.[1130] The entire absence of fireplaces is no
proof of early date, for in Henry II.’s keep at the Peak in Derbyshire, the
walls of which are almost perfect (except for their ashlar coats) there are no
fireplaces at all, nor are there any in the 13th-century keep of Pembroke. It
is possible that in these cases a free standing fireplace in the middle of the
room, with a chimney carried up to the roof, was used. Such a fireplace is
described by the poet, Chrestien of Troyes, but no example is known to
exist.[1131]
But apart from details, if we look at the general plan of these four early
stone castles, we shall see that it is exactly similar. It is the keep-and-bailey
plan, the plan which prevailed from the 10th to the 13th century, and was
not even superseded by the introduction of the keepless castle in the latter
century.[1132] The motte-and-bailey type was of course only another version
of the keep-and-bailey. In this primitive type of castle the all-important
thing was the keep or donjon.[1133] Besides the donjon there was little else
but a rampart and ditch. “Until the middle of the 12th century, and in the
simpler examples of the epochs which followed, the donjon may be said to
Page 297
constitute in itself the whole castle.”[1134] Piper states that up to the time of
the Crusades German castles do not seem to have been furnished with
mural towers.[1135] Köhler, whose work treats of French and English castles
as well as German, says that mural towers did not become general till the
second half of the 12th century.[1136] Nevertheless, as it is highly probable
that the baileys of castles were defended at first with only wooden ramparts
on earthen banks, even when the donjon was of stone, it is not unlikely that
mural towers of wood may have existed at an earlier period than these
writers suppose. It is, however, in favour of the general absence of mural
towers that the word turris, even in 12th-century records, invariably means
the keep, as though no other towers existed.[1137]
That the baileys of some of the most important castles in England had only
these wooden and earthen defences, even as late as the 13th century, can be
amply proved from the Close Rolls.[1138] Colchester Castle had only a
timber wall on the banks of its bailey as late as 1215, and in 1219 this
palicium was blown down and an order issued for its reconstruction.[1139]
The arrangements in the stone donjons were probably the same as those we
have already described when writing of the wooden ones.[1140] The
basement was the storehouse for provisions,[1141] the first floor was
generally the guardhouse, the second the habitation, of the lord and lady.
Where there were three or four storeys, the arrangements varied, and the
finest rooms are often found on the third floor. An oratory was probably an
invariable feature, though it cannot always be detected in ruined keeps. One
of Mr Clark’s most pronounced mistakes was his idea that these keeps were
merely towers of refuge used only in time of war.[1142] History abounds
with evidence that they were the permanent residences of the nobles of the
11th and 12th centuries. The cooking, as a rule, was carried on in a separate
building, of which there are remains in some places.[1143]
Occasionally we find a variant of the keep-and-bailey type, which we may
call the gatehouse keep. The most remarkable instance of this kind in
England is Exeter, which appears never to have had any keep but the
primitive gatehouse, undoubtedly the work of Baldwin de Moeles, the first
builder of the castle. In Normandy, De Caumont gives several instances of
gatehouse keeps. Plessis-Grimoult (which has been visited by the writer)
the Crusades German castles do not seem to have been furnished with
mural towers.[1135] Köhler, whose work treats of French and English castles
as well as German, says that mural towers did not become general till the
second half of the 12th century.[1136] Nevertheless, as it is highly probable
that the baileys of castles were defended at first with only wooden ramparts
on earthen banks, even when the donjon was of stone, it is not unlikely that
mural towers of wood may have existed at an earlier period than these
writers suppose. It is, however, in favour of the general absence of mural
towers that the word turris, even in 12th-century records, invariably means
the keep, as though no other towers existed.[1137]
That the baileys of some of the most important castles in England had only
these wooden and earthen defences, even as late as the 13th century, can be
amply proved from the Close Rolls.[1138] Colchester Castle had only a
timber wall on the banks of its bailey as late as 1215, and in 1219 this
palicium was blown down and an order issued for its reconstruction.[1139]
The arrangements in the stone donjons were probably the same as those we
have already described when writing of the wooden ones.[1140] The
basement was the storehouse for provisions,[1141] the first floor was
generally the guardhouse, the second the habitation, of the lord and lady.
Where there were three or four storeys, the arrangements varied, and the
finest rooms are often found on the third floor. An oratory was probably an
invariable feature, though it cannot always be detected in ruined keeps. One
of Mr Clark’s most pronounced mistakes was his idea that these keeps were
merely towers of refuge used only in time of war.[1142] History abounds
with evidence that they were the permanent residences of the nobles of the
11th and 12th centuries. The cooking, as a rule, was carried on in a separate
building, of which there are remains in some places.[1143]
Occasionally we find a variant of the keep-and-bailey type, which we may
call the gatehouse keep. The most remarkable instance of this kind in
England is Exeter, which appears never to have had any keep but the
primitive gatehouse, undoubtedly the work of Baldwin de Moeles, the first
builder of the castle. In Normandy, De Caumont gives several instances of
gatehouse keeps. Plessis-Grimoult (which has been visited by the writer)
Page 298
has a fragment of a gatehouse tower, but has also a mural tower on the line
of the walls; as the castle was ruined and abandoned in 1047, these remains
must be of early date.[1144] The gatehouse keep is probably an economical
device for combining a citadel with the defence of the weakest part of the
castle.
We must pass on to the keeps of Henry I.[1145] There is only one in England
which authentic history gives to his time, that of Rochester.[1146] But the
chronicler Robert de Torigny[1147] has fortunately given us a list of the
keeps and castles built by Henry in Normandy, and though many of these
are now destroyed, and others in ruins, a certain number are left, which,
taken along with Rochester, may give us an idea of the type of keep built in
Henry I.’s time. The keeps attributed by Robert to Henry I. are Arques,
Gisors, Falaise, Argentan, Exmes, Domfront, Ambrières, Vire, Waure,
Vernon, Evreux, Alençon, St Jean, and Coutances. How many of these
survive we cannot positively say;[1148] we can only speak of those we have
seen (Falaise, Domfront, and Gisors),[1149] and of Arques, described by M.
Deville in his Histoire du Chateau d’Arques, by M. Viollet le Duc in his
treatise on Donjons,[1150] and by Mr G. T. Clark.[1151]
Speaking under correction, as a prolonged study of the keeps in Normandy
was impossible to the writer, we should say that there is no very striking
difference to be observed between the keeps of Henry I. and those built by
his father. The development of the forebuilding seems to be the most
important change, if indeed we are justified in assuming that the 11th-
century keeps never had it; its remains can be seen at Arques, Falaise,[1152]
Domfront, and Rochester. At Arques and Falaise the doorway is on the
second floor, which is an innovation, a new attempt to solve the difficulty of
defending the entrance. The first floor at Arques could only be entered by a
trap from the second floor; at Falaise there is a stone stair from one to the
other. Rochester is entered from the first floor. The basement storeys of
Arques, Falaise, and Domfront are quite unlit; at the Tower the basement
has had a number of loopholes, and the angular heads of those which
remain suggest that they are at least copied from original lights. The main
floors in Henry I.’s keeps are always of wood, but this was not because
vaulting was then unknown, because the crypt, sub-crypt, and chapel of the
Tower are vaulted, not to speak of many early churches.[1153] The four
of the walls; as the castle was ruined and abandoned in 1047, these remains
must be of early date.[1144] The gatehouse keep is probably an economical
device for combining a citadel with the defence of the weakest part of the
castle.
We must pass on to the keeps of Henry I.[1145] There is only one in England
which authentic history gives to his time, that of Rochester.[1146] But the
chronicler Robert de Torigny[1147] has fortunately given us a list of the
keeps and castles built by Henry in Normandy, and though many of these
are now destroyed, and others in ruins, a certain number are left, which,
taken along with Rochester, may give us an idea of the type of keep built in
Henry I.’s time. The keeps attributed by Robert to Henry I. are Arques,
Gisors, Falaise, Argentan, Exmes, Domfront, Ambrières, Vire, Waure,
Vernon, Evreux, Alençon, St Jean, and Coutances. How many of these
survive we cannot positively say;[1148] we can only speak of those we have
seen (Falaise, Domfront, and Gisors),[1149] and of Arques, described by M.
Deville in his Histoire du Chateau d’Arques, by M. Viollet le Duc in his
treatise on Donjons,[1150] and by Mr G. T. Clark.[1151]
Speaking under correction, as a prolonged study of the keeps in Normandy
was impossible to the writer, we should say that there is no very striking
difference to be observed between the keeps of Henry I. and those built by
his father. The development of the forebuilding seems to be the most
important change, if indeed we are justified in assuming that the 11th-
century keeps never had it; its remains can be seen at Arques, Falaise,[1152]
Domfront, and Rochester. At Arques and Falaise the doorway is on the
second floor, which is an innovation, a new attempt to solve the difficulty of
defending the entrance. The first floor at Arques could only be entered by a
trap from the second floor; at Falaise there is a stone stair from one to the
other. Rochester is entered from the first floor. The basement storeys of
Arques, Falaise, and Domfront are quite unlit; at the Tower the basement
has had a number of loopholes, and the angular heads of those which
remain suggest that they are at least copied from original lights. The main
floors in Henry I.’s keeps are always of wood, but this was not because
vaulting was then unknown, because the crypt, sub-crypt, and chapel of the
Tower are vaulted, not to speak of many early churches.[1153] The four
Page 299
keeps mentioned have all three storeys, thus not exceeding Colchester in
height;[1154] the Tower has now four storeys, but a good authority has
remarked that the fourth storey has not improbably been made by dividing
the third.
No marked advance is observable in the masonry of these keeps. Arques is
built of petit appareil; Falaise of small stones in herring-bone work;
Domfront of very small stones rudely coursed; Rochester of Kentish rag
mixed with flint rubble. Both Falaise and Domfront have plinths of superior
masonry, but there is always the possibility that these plinths are later
additions. The voussoirs of the arches at Falaise, Domfront, and Rochester
are larger than the rag or tile voussoirs which are used at Colchester, the
Tower, and Langeais. At Rochester and Arques provision is made for
carrying the water-supply from the well in the basement to the upper floors,
a provision of which there is no trace in the older keeps.[1155]
As Robert de Monte says that Henry I. built many castles in England as
well as in Normandy, we naturally ask what other English keeps besides
Rochester may be assigned to him. It appears to the writer that Corfe and
Norwich keeps may very likely be his. Both were royal castles in his time,
and both were originally wooden castles on mottes.[1156] Both these castles
have forebuildings, and neither of them have floors supported on vaults.
[1157]
Corfe has very superior masonry, of larger stones than those used in
the keeps known to be Henry I.’s, but wide-jointed. At Norwich only a very
small piece of the original ashlar is left. Corfe is extremely severe in all its
details, but quite corresponds to work of Henry I.’s reign.[1158] Norwich has
a great deal of decoration, more advanced in style than that to be seen at
Falaise, but still consistent with the first half of the 12th century. Neither
keep has the least sign of Transition Norman, such as we seldom fail to find
in the keeps of Henry II. Moreover, neither of them figure in the Pipe Rolls
of Henry II., except for repairs; and as Stephen in his harassed reign can
hardly have had any money for building stone keeps, we may with some
confidence ascribe these two keeps to Henry I.
A few words should be given to the castle of Gisors, which contains in itself
an epitome of castle history. The first castle, built by William Rufus in
1096, was undoubtedly a wooden castle on a motte, with a stockaded bailey
below it; certain portions of the present bailey walls rest on earthen banks,
height;[1154] the Tower has now four storeys, but a good authority has
remarked that the fourth storey has not improbably been made by dividing
the third.
No marked advance is observable in the masonry of these keeps. Arques is
built of petit appareil; Falaise of small stones in herring-bone work;
Domfront of very small stones rudely coursed; Rochester of Kentish rag
mixed with flint rubble. Both Falaise and Domfront have plinths of superior
masonry, but there is always the possibility that these plinths are later
additions. The voussoirs of the arches at Falaise, Domfront, and Rochester
are larger than the rag or tile voussoirs which are used at Colchester, the
Tower, and Langeais. At Rochester and Arques provision is made for
carrying the water-supply from the well in the basement to the upper floors,
a provision of which there is no trace in the older keeps.[1155]
As Robert de Monte says that Henry I. built many castles in England as
well as in Normandy, we naturally ask what other English keeps besides
Rochester may be assigned to him. It appears to the writer that Corfe and
Norwich keeps may very likely be his. Both were royal castles in his time,
and both were originally wooden castles on mottes.[1156] Both these castles
have forebuildings, and neither of them have floors supported on vaults.
[1157]
Corfe has very superior masonry, of larger stones than those used in
the keeps known to be Henry I.’s, but wide-jointed. At Norwich only a very
small piece of the original ashlar is left. Corfe is extremely severe in all its
details, but quite corresponds to work of Henry I.’s reign.[1158] Norwich has
a great deal of decoration, more advanced in style than that to be seen at
Falaise, but still consistent with the first half of the 12th century. Neither
keep has the least sign of Transition Norman, such as we seldom fail to find
in the keeps of Henry II. Moreover, neither of them figure in the Pipe Rolls
of Henry II., except for repairs; and as Stephen in his harassed reign can
hardly have had any money for building stone keeps, we may with some
confidence ascribe these two keeps to Henry I.
A few words should be given to the castle of Gisors, which contains in itself
an epitome of castle history. The first castle, built by William Rufus in
1096, was undoubtedly a wooden castle on a motte, with a stockaded bailey
below it; certain portions of the present bailey walls rest on earthen banks,
Page 300
which probably belonged to the original castle, and show what a much
smaller affair it was than the present one. Henry I., Robert de Monte tells
us, strengthened this castle with a keep. Probably this was the shell wall
which now crowns the motte; the smallness of the masonry (stones about 5
inches high, rudely dressed and coursed) and the slight projection of the
buttresses (9 inches) agree with much of the work of his time. There would
be a wooden tower inside.[1159] The chemise or shell wall is pierced by
loopholes, a very unusual arrangement; they are round arched, and of very
rude voussoirs.[1160] Inside this shell there is a decagonal tower, called the
Tower of Thomas à Becket, which is almost certainly the work of Henry II.,
[1161]
as its name would indicate; the chapel of St Thomas is close to it. A
stair turret of the 15th century has been added to this keep; its original
entrance was, as usual, a door on the first floor, but a basement entrance
was built afterwards, probably in the 13th century. Philip Augustus, after he
had taken this castle from John, added to it one of the round keeps which
had then become the fashion, and subsequent enlargements of the bailey
converted it into a “concentric” castle, of which the motte now forms the
centre.
There is one keep which is known to be of the reign of Stephen, though not
built by him, that of Carlisle, built by David, King of Scotland, in 1136,
[1162]
a time when he thought his hold on the four northern counties of
England was secure, little reckoning on the true character of his great-
nephew, Henry, son of Matilda. There is no advance to be seen in this keep
on those of Henry I., except that the walls are faced with ashlar. The
vaulting of the basement is pronounced by Mr Clark to be very evidently a
late insertion.[1163]
With the reign of Henry II. a new era opens as regards the documentary
history of our ancient castles, because the Pipe Rolls of that king’s reign
have most fortunately been preserved.[1164] These contain the sheriff’s
accounts for money spent on the building or repair of the king’s castles, and
are simply invaluable for the history of castle architecture. The following is
a list of the keeps which the Pipe Rolls show to have been built or finished
by Henry II.:—
Scarborough, built between 1157 and 1174. Tower
smaller affair it was than the present one. Henry I., Robert de Monte tells
us, strengthened this castle with a keep. Probably this was the shell wall
which now crowns the motte; the smallness of the masonry (stones about 5
inches high, rudely dressed and coursed) and the slight projection of the
buttresses (9 inches) agree with much of the work of his time. There would
be a wooden tower inside.[1159] The chemise or shell wall is pierced by
loopholes, a very unusual arrangement; they are round arched, and of very
rude voussoirs.[1160] Inside this shell there is a decagonal tower, called the
Tower of Thomas à Becket, which is almost certainly the work of Henry II.,
[1161]
as its name would indicate; the chapel of St Thomas is close to it. A
stair turret of the 15th century has been added to this keep; its original
entrance was, as usual, a door on the first floor, but a basement entrance
was built afterwards, probably in the 13th century. Philip Augustus, after he
had taken this castle from John, added to it one of the round keeps which
had then become the fashion, and subsequent enlargements of the bailey
converted it into a “concentric” castle, of which the motte now forms the
centre.
There is one keep which is known to be of the reign of Stephen, though not
built by him, that of Carlisle, built by David, King of Scotland, in 1136,
[1162]
a time when he thought his hold on the four northern counties of
England was secure, little reckoning on the true character of his great-
nephew, Henry, son of Matilda. There is no advance to be seen in this keep
on those of Henry I., except that the walls are faced with ashlar. The
vaulting of the basement is pronounced by Mr Clark to be very evidently a
late insertion.[1163]
With the reign of Henry II. a new era opens as regards the documentary
history of our ancient castles, because the Pipe Rolls of that king’s reign
have most fortunately been preserved.[1164] These contain the sheriff’s
accounts for money spent on the building or repair of the king’s castles, and
are simply invaluable for the history of castle architecture. The following is
a list of the keeps which the Pipe Rolls show to have been built or finished
by Henry II.:—
Scarborough, built between 1157 and 1174. Tower
Page 301
Windsor, " " 1161 " 1177. Shell wall
Orford, " " 1165 " 1172. Tower
Bridgenorth, " " 1166 " 1173. Tower
Newcastle, " " 1167 " 1177. Tower
Bowes, " " 1171 " 1187. Tower
Richmond, " " 1171 " 1174. Tower
Chilham, " " 1171 " 1173. Tower
Peak, " " 1172 " 1176. Tower
Canterbury, " " 1172 " 1174. Tower
Arundel, " " 1176 " 1182. Shell wall
Tickhill, " " 1178 " 1181. Tower
The dates given here must be taken as only roughly accurate, as owing to
the meagreness of the entries in the Pipe Rolls, it is not always certain
whether the expenses were for the great tower or for other buildings. The
list by no means includes all the work which Henry II. did on his English
castles, for he was a great builder; but a good deal of his work seems to
have been the substitution of stone walls with mural towers, for wooden
stockades, and our list comprises all the cases in which it is clear that the
keep was the work of this king.[1165] We confine our attention to the keeps,
because though mural towers of stone began to be added to the walls of
baileys during Henry II.’s reign (a detail which must have greatly altered
the general appearance of castles), it is certain that the keep was still the
most important part, and the residence of the king or noble whenever he
visited the castle.
Seven out of the ten tower keeps are built on precisely the same plan as
those of Henry I. The chief advance is in the masonry. All the tower keeps
of Henry II., except Dover, Chilham, and Canterbury, are or have been
cased with good ashlar, of stones somewhat larger in size than those used
by Henry I. The same may be said of the shell walls (namely, Windsor and
Arundel); it is interesting to note that Henry II. still used this elementary
form of citadel, which consisted merely of a wall round the top of a motte,
with wooden buildings inside.[1166] In three cases out of the ten tower
keeps, Newcastle, Bowes, and Richmond, the basement storey is vaulted,
which does not occur in the older keeps.[1167] Yet such important castles as
Orford, " " 1165 " 1172. Tower
Bridgenorth, " " 1166 " 1173. Tower
Newcastle, " " 1167 " 1177. Tower
Bowes, " " 1171 " 1187. Tower
Richmond, " " 1171 " 1174. Tower
Chilham, " " 1171 " 1173. Tower
Peak, " " 1172 " 1176. Tower
Canterbury, " " 1172 " 1174. Tower
Arundel, " " 1176 " 1182. Shell wall
Tickhill, " " 1178 " 1181. Tower
The dates given here must be taken as only roughly accurate, as owing to
the meagreness of the entries in the Pipe Rolls, it is not always certain
whether the expenses were for the great tower or for other buildings. The
list by no means includes all the work which Henry II. did on his English
castles, for he was a great builder; but a good deal of his work seems to
have been the substitution of stone walls with mural towers, for wooden
stockades, and our list comprises all the cases in which it is clear that the
keep was the work of this king.[1165] We confine our attention to the keeps,
because though mural towers of stone began to be added to the walls of
baileys during Henry II.’s reign (a detail which must have greatly altered
the general appearance of castles), it is certain that the keep was still the
most important part, and the residence of the king or noble whenever he
visited the castle.
Seven out of the ten tower keeps are built on precisely the same plan as
those of Henry I. The chief advance is in the masonry. All the tower keeps
of Henry II., except Dover, Chilham, and Canterbury, are or have been
cased with good ashlar, of stones somewhat larger in size than those used
by Henry I. The same may be said of the shell walls (namely, Windsor and
Arundel); it is interesting to note that Henry II. still used this elementary
form of citadel, which consisted merely of a wall round the top of a motte,
with wooden buildings inside.[1166] In three cases out of the ten tower
keeps, Newcastle, Bowes, and Richmond, the basement storey is vaulted,
which does not occur in the older keeps.[1167] Yet such important castles as
Page 302
Scarborough, Dover, and Canterbury are without this provision against fire.
None of these keeps appear to have more than three storeys above the
basement.[1168] None of the entrances to the keeps (except Tickhill) have
any portcullis grooves,[1169] nor any special contrivances for defence,
except at Canterbury, where the entrance (on the first floor) takes two turns
at right angles before reaching the hall to which it leads.[1170] There are
nearly always in the keeps of Henry II. some signs of Transition Norman in
the details, such as the nook shafts at the angles of the towers of
Scarborough and the Peak, certain arches at Canterbury, the Transition
capitals used at Newcastle, and the filleted string round the outside of
Bowes.
But we have yet to speak of three keeps of Henry II.’s reign which are on a
different plan to all the others, and which point to coming changes—
Chilham, Orford, and Tickhill.[1171] Chilham is an octagonal tower of three
storeys, with a square annexe on one side, which appears to be original.
Orford is polygonal outside, round inside. Orford indeed is one of the most
extraordinary keeps to be seen anywhere, and we must regard it as an
experiment, and an experiment which appears never to have been repeated.
[1172]
Instead of the usual Norman buttresses, this polygonal keep has three
buttress towers, placed between every four of the outer faces, 22 feet wide,
and 12 feet in projection.[1173] Tickhill, however, the last keep he built, is
decagonal. The object of the polygonal tower was to deflect the missiles
thrown from siege engines, and the round tower was evidently considered
an improvement on the polygonal for this purpose, as it subsequently
supplanted the polygonal type. It is therefore rather remarkable that Henry
II. built both these keeps in the second decade of his reign, and afterwards
went on building square keeps like his predecessors. We have seen,
however, that he built at least one polygonal tower in Normandy, that of
Gisors. We must bear in mind that the Norman and Angevine frontier was
the theatre of the continuous struggle of Henry II. with the French kings,
Louis VII. and Philip Augustus, and that it is here that we must expect the
greatest developments in military architecture.
Speaking generally, we may say that just as there was comparatively little
change in armour during the 12th century until the end of Henry II.’s reign,
so there was comparatively little change in military architecture during the
None of these keeps appear to have more than three storeys above the
basement.[1168] None of the entrances to the keeps (except Tickhill) have
any portcullis grooves,[1169] nor any special contrivances for defence,
except at Canterbury, where the entrance (on the first floor) takes two turns
at right angles before reaching the hall to which it leads.[1170] There are
nearly always in the keeps of Henry II. some signs of Transition Norman in
the details, such as the nook shafts at the angles of the towers of
Scarborough and the Peak, certain arches at Canterbury, the Transition
capitals used at Newcastle, and the filleted string round the outside of
Bowes.
But we have yet to speak of three keeps of Henry II.’s reign which are on a
different plan to all the others, and which point to coming changes—
Chilham, Orford, and Tickhill.[1171] Chilham is an octagonal tower of three
storeys, with a square annexe on one side, which appears to be original.
Orford is polygonal outside, round inside. Orford indeed is one of the most
extraordinary keeps to be seen anywhere, and we must regard it as an
experiment, and an experiment which appears never to have been repeated.
[1172]
Instead of the usual Norman buttresses, this polygonal keep has three
buttress towers, placed between every four of the outer faces, 22 feet wide,
and 12 feet in projection.[1173] Tickhill, however, the last keep he built, is
decagonal. The object of the polygonal tower was to deflect the missiles
thrown from siege engines, and the round tower was evidently considered
an improvement on the polygonal for this purpose, as it subsequently
supplanted the polygonal type. It is therefore rather remarkable that Henry
II. built both these keeps in the second decade of his reign, and afterwards
went on building square keeps like his predecessors. We have seen,
however, that he built at least one polygonal tower in Normandy, that of
Gisors. We must bear in mind that the Norman and Angevine frontier was
the theatre of the continuous struggle of Henry II. with the French kings,
Louis VII. and Philip Augustus, and that it is here that we must expect the
greatest developments in military architecture.
Speaking generally, we may say that just as there was comparatively little
change in armour during the 12th century until the end of Henry II.’s reign,
so there was comparatively little change in military architecture during the
Page 303
same period. But great changes took place towards the end of the 12th
century. One of these changes was a great improvement in missile engines;
the trébuchet was one of the most important of these. It could throw much
heavier stones than the largest catapult, and could take a more accurate aim.
[1174]
These new engines were useful for defence as well as attack, and this
affected the architecture of castles, because flat roofs covered with lead, on
which machines could be placed, were now substituted for the former
sloping roofs.[1175] There are several payments for lead for roofing castles
in the Pipe Rolls of Henry II., the earliest being in 1166. In the reigns of
John and Henry III. the mention of lead for roofing becomes much more
frequent.[1176]
Hitherto, in the defence of keeps, reliance had mainly been placed upon
their passive strength, though not so entirely as has been commonly
assumed, since it was always the practice to shoot with arrows from the
battlements round the roof of the tower. But not only was the fighting
strength of the keep increased by the trébuchet, but the introduction of the
crossbow gave it a defensive arm of the greatest importance. The crossbow
had been known to the Romans, and was used in the early part of the 12th
century, but it was forbidden by the second Lateran Council in 1139 as a
weapon hateful to God.[1177] This prohibition seems actually to have been
effective, as William the Breton says expressly that the crossbow was
unknown to the French before the wars of Richard I. and Philip Augustus.
[1178]
Richard learned the use of it in the third crusade.[1179] But to use the
crossbow in the defence of buildings it was necessary to construct special
loopholes for shooting, splayed downwards externally, so that it was
possible to aim from them. Up till this time the loopholes of castles had
been purely for light and not for shooting; anyone may see that it is
impossible to take aim through an immensely thick wall unless there is a
downward splay to increase the field of vision. William the Breton tells us
that Richard built windows for crossbows to his towers, and this is the first
mention we have of them.[1180]
From this time defensive loopholes become common in castles, and take
various fanciful forms, as well as the commoner ones of the circle, square,
or triangle at the base of the loop. The cross loophole, which does not
appear till the latter quarter of the 13th century, is explained by Viollet le
century. One of these changes was a great improvement in missile engines;
the trébuchet was one of the most important of these. It could throw much
heavier stones than the largest catapult, and could take a more accurate aim.
[1174]
These new engines were useful for defence as well as attack, and this
affected the architecture of castles, because flat roofs covered with lead, on
which machines could be placed, were now substituted for the former
sloping roofs.[1175] There are several payments for lead for roofing castles
in the Pipe Rolls of Henry II., the earliest being in 1166. In the reigns of
John and Henry III. the mention of lead for roofing becomes much more
frequent.[1176]
Hitherto, in the defence of keeps, reliance had mainly been placed upon
their passive strength, though not so entirely as has been commonly
assumed, since it was always the practice to shoot with arrows from the
battlements round the roof of the tower. But not only was the fighting
strength of the keep increased by the trébuchet, but the introduction of the
crossbow gave it a defensive arm of the greatest importance. The crossbow
had been known to the Romans, and was used in the early part of the 12th
century, but it was forbidden by the second Lateran Council in 1139 as a
weapon hateful to God.[1177] This prohibition seems actually to have been
effective, as William the Breton says expressly that the crossbow was
unknown to the French before the wars of Richard I. and Philip Augustus.
[1178]
Richard learned the use of it in the third crusade.[1179] But to use the
crossbow in the defence of buildings it was necessary to construct special
loopholes for shooting, splayed downwards externally, so that it was
possible to aim from them. Up till this time the loopholes of castles had
been purely for light and not for shooting; anyone may see that it is
impossible to take aim through an immensely thick wall unless there is a
downward splay to increase the field of vision. William the Breton tells us
that Richard built windows for crossbows to his towers, and this is the first
mention we have of them.[1180]
From this time defensive loopholes become common in castles, and take
various fanciful forms, as well as the commoner ones of the circle, square,
or triangle at the base of the loop. The cross loophole, which does not
appear till the latter quarter of the 13th century, is explained by Viollet le
Page 304
Duc as an ingenious way of allowing three or four archers to fire in a
volley.[1181] But up to the present time very little study has been given to
this subject, and we must be content to leave the question for future
observation to settle.[1182]
The crossbowmen not only required splayed loopholes, but also niches,
large enough to accommodate at least three men, so that a continuous
discharge of darts (quarrells) might be kept up. Any defensive loop which
really means work will have a niche like this behind it. These niches had the
defect of seriously weakening the wall.
Another innovation introduced by Richard I. was that of stone
machicolations, or hurdicia.[1183] Whether wooden galleries round the tops
of walls, with holes for dropping down stones, boiling-water, or pitch on the
heads of the besiegers had not been used from the earliest times, is regarded
by Köhler as extremely doubtful.[1184] They were certainly used by the
Romans, and may even be seen clearly figured on the Assyrian monuments.
In the Bayeux Tapestry, the picture of Bayeux Castle shows the stockade on
top of the motte crested with something extremely like hurdicia. Yet the
writer has found no authentic mention of them before the end of the 12th
century.[1185] The stone machicolations built by Richard round his keep of
Chateau Gaillard are of an unusual type, which was only rarely imitated.
[1186]
But from this time wooden hurdicia became universal, to judge from
the numerous orders for timber for hoarding castles and town walls in the
Close Rolls of the first half of the 13th century. Towards the middle of the
13th century stone brackets for the support of wooden hurdicia began to be
used; they may still be seen in the great keep of Coucy, which was begun in
1230. But machicolations entirely of stone, supported on double or triple
rows of brackets, do not become common till the 14th century.[1187]
The greatest architectural change witnessed at the end of the 12th century
was the victory of the round keep over the square. Round towers were built
by the Romans as mural towers, but the universal type of mediæval keep
appears to have been the square or oblong, until towards the end of the 12th
century.[1188] The polygonal keep was probably a transitional form; we have
seen that Henry II.’s polygonal keep at Orford was begun as early as 1165.
Many experiments seem to have been made at the end of the 12th century,
volley.[1181] But up to the present time very little study has been given to
this subject, and we must be content to leave the question for future
observation to settle.[1182]
The crossbowmen not only required splayed loopholes, but also niches,
large enough to accommodate at least three men, so that a continuous
discharge of darts (quarrells) might be kept up. Any defensive loop which
really means work will have a niche like this behind it. These niches had the
defect of seriously weakening the wall.
Another innovation introduced by Richard I. was that of stone
machicolations, or hurdicia.[1183] Whether wooden galleries round the tops
of walls, with holes for dropping down stones, boiling-water, or pitch on the
heads of the besiegers had not been used from the earliest times, is regarded
by Köhler as extremely doubtful.[1184] They were certainly used by the
Romans, and may even be seen clearly figured on the Assyrian monuments.
In the Bayeux Tapestry, the picture of Bayeux Castle shows the stockade on
top of the motte crested with something extremely like hurdicia. Yet the
writer has found no authentic mention of them before the end of the 12th
century.[1185] The stone machicolations built by Richard round his keep of
Chateau Gaillard are of an unusual type, which was only rarely imitated.
[1186]
But from this time wooden hurdicia became universal, to judge from
the numerous orders for timber for hoarding castles and town walls in the
Close Rolls of the first half of the 13th century. Towards the middle of the
13th century stone brackets for the support of wooden hurdicia began to be
used; they may still be seen in the great keep of Coucy, which was begun in
1230. But machicolations entirely of stone, supported on double or triple
rows of brackets, do not become common till the 14th century.[1187]
The greatest architectural change witnessed at the end of the 12th century
was the victory of the round keep over the square. Round towers were built
by the Romans as mural towers, but the universal type of mediæval keep
appears to have been the square or oblong, until towards the end of the 12th
century.[1188] The polygonal keep was probably a transitional form; we have
seen that Henry II.’s polygonal keep at Orford was begun as early as 1165.
Many experiments seem to have been made at the end of the 12th century,
Page 305
such as the addition of a stone prow to the weakest side of a keep, to enable
it better to resist showers of missiles. Richard I.’s keep at Chateau Gaillard
is a round keep with a solid prow of this kind. Five-sided keeps are said to
be not uncommon on the left bank of the Rhine and in Nassau; this type was
simply the addition of a prow to a square keep. The only English instance
known to the writer is that of Mitford, Northumberland, but this is merely a
five-sided keep, the prow is not solid, as at Chateau Gaillard. The castle of
Étampes, whose plan is a quatrefoil, is assigned by French archæologists to
this period of experiment.[1189] But the round keep was eventually the type
preferred. Philip II. thought it necessary to add a round keep to the castle of
Gisors, after he had taken it from John, and he adopted the round keep for
all his new castles, of which the Louvre was one.[1190]
Along with the round keep, ground entrances became common.[1191] Viollet
le Duc states that when the French soldiers broke into the inner ward at
Chateau Gaillard the defenders had no time to escape into the keep by the
narrow stair which led to the first floor, and consequently this proud tower
was surrendered without a blow; and that this event so impressed on
Philip’s mind the danger of difficult entrances that he abandoned the old
fashion. This may be true, but it is a pure guess of Le Duc’s, as there is
nothing whatever to justify it in William the Breton’s circumstantial
narrative. It is, however, certain that Philip adopted the ground entrance to
all his keeps. In England we find ground entrances to many round keeps of
the 13th century, as at Pembroke; but the older fashion was sometimes
retained; Conisburgh, one of the finest keeps in England, has its entrance on
the first floor.[1192]
After the introduction of the trébuchet, we might expect that the walls of
keeps would be made very much thicker, and such seems to have been the
case in France,[1193] but we do not find that it was the rule in England.[1194]
The lower storeys were now generally instead of occasionally vaulted. In
the course of the 13th century it became common to vault all the storeys.
But in spite of the military advantages of the round keep, in its avoidance of
angles favourable to the battering-ram, and its deflection of missiles, the
square keep continued to be built in various parts of both France and
England till quite late in the Middle Ages.[1195] On the Scottish border,
square towers of the ancient type, with quite Norman decorations, were
it better to resist showers of missiles. Richard I.’s keep at Chateau Gaillard
is a round keep with a solid prow of this kind. Five-sided keeps are said to
be not uncommon on the left bank of the Rhine and in Nassau; this type was
simply the addition of a prow to a square keep. The only English instance
known to the writer is that of Mitford, Northumberland, but this is merely a
five-sided keep, the prow is not solid, as at Chateau Gaillard. The castle of
Étampes, whose plan is a quatrefoil, is assigned by French archæologists to
this period of experiment.[1189] But the round keep was eventually the type
preferred. Philip II. thought it necessary to add a round keep to the castle of
Gisors, after he had taken it from John, and he adopted the round keep for
all his new castles, of which the Louvre was one.[1190]
Along with the round keep, ground entrances became common.[1191] Viollet
le Duc states that when the French soldiers broke into the inner ward at
Chateau Gaillard the defenders had no time to escape into the keep by the
narrow stair which led to the first floor, and consequently this proud tower
was surrendered without a blow; and that this event so impressed on
Philip’s mind the danger of difficult entrances that he abandoned the old
fashion. This may be true, but it is a pure guess of Le Duc’s, as there is
nothing whatever to justify it in William the Breton’s circumstantial
narrative. It is, however, certain that Philip adopted the ground entrance to
all his keeps. In England we find ground entrances to many round keeps of
the 13th century, as at Pembroke; but the older fashion was sometimes
retained; Conisburgh, one of the finest keeps in England, has its entrance on
the first floor.[1192]
After the introduction of the trébuchet, we might expect that the walls of
keeps would be made very much thicker, and such seems to have been the
case in France,[1193] but we do not find that it was the rule in England.[1194]
The lower storeys were now generally instead of occasionally vaulted. In
the course of the 13th century it became common to vault all the storeys.
But in spite of the military advantages of the round keep, in its avoidance of
angles favourable to the battering-ram, and its deflection of missiles, the
square keep continued to be built in various parts of both France and
England till quite late in the Middle Ages.[1195] On the Scottish border,
square towers of the ancient type, with quite Norman decorations, were
Page 306
built as late as the 15th century.[1196] The advantage of the square tower was
that it was more roomy inside, and was therefore preferred when the tower
was intended for habitation.
We come now to the greatest of all the changes introduced in the 13th
century: the keepless castle, in which the keep is done away with altogether,
and the castle consists of a square or oblong court surrounded by a strong
wall with massive towers at the angles, and in large castles, in the curtain
also.[1197] Usually this inner quadrangle is encircled with an outer
quadrangle of walls and towers, so that this type of castle is frequently
called the concentric. But the castles of the keepless kind are not invariably
concentric; those built by Edward I. at Conway, Carnarvon, and Flint are
not so.[1198] Instead of a dark and comfortless keep, the royal or noble
owner is provided in this type of castle with a palatial house. In England
this house is frequently attached to the gateway, forming what we may call
a gatehouse palace; good examples may be seen at Beaumaris, Harlech, and
Tonbridge.[1199] The gateway itself is always defended by a pair of massive
towers.
Edward I. is generally credited with the introduction of this type of castle
into England, but until the Pipe Rolls of Henry III.’s reign have been
carefully examined, we cannot be certain that it was not introduced earlier.
It was certainly known in Germany fifty years before Edward’s accession to
the throne, and in France as early as 1231.[1200]
It is always supposed that this type of castle was introduced by the
Crusaders from Syria. But when did it make its first appearance in Syria?
This is a point which, we venture to think, has not been yet sufficiently
investigated. We do not believe that it can have existed in Syria at the time
of the third crusade, otherwise Richard I., who is universally acknowledged
to have been a first-class military architect, would have brought the idea
home with him.[1201] Yet his favourite castle of Chateau Gaillard, built in
accordance with the latest military science, is in the main a castle of the
keep-and-bailey type, and has even a reminiscence of the motte, in the
scarped rock on which the keep and inner ward are placed.
The new type of keepless castle never entirely displaced the old keep-and-
bailey type. We have already seen that keeps of the old sort continued to be
that it was more roomy inside, and was therefore preferred when the tower
was intended for habitation.
We come now to the greatest of all the changes introduced in the 13th
century: the keepless castle, in which the keep is done away with altogether,
and the castle consists of a square or oblong court surrounded by a strong
wall with massive towers at the angles, and in large castles, in the curtain
also.[1197] Usually this inner quadrangle is encircled with an outer
quadrangle of walls and towers, so that this type of castle is frequently
called the concentric. But the castles of the keepless kind are not invariably
concentric; those built by Edward I. at Conway, Carnarvon, and Flint are
not so.[1198] Instead of a dark and comfortless keep, the royal or noble
owner is provided in this type of castle with a palatial house. In England
this house is frequently attached to the gateway, forming what we may call
a gatehouse palace; good examples may be seen at Beaumaris, Harlech, and
Tonbridge.[1199] The gateway itself is always defended by a pair of massive
towers.
Edward I. is generally credited with the introduction of this type of castle
into England, but until the Pipe Rolls of Henry III.’s reign have been
carefully examined, we cannot be certain that it was not introduced earlier.
It was certainly known in Germany fifty years before Edward’s accession to
the throne, and in France as early as 1231.[1200]
It is always supposed that this type of castle was introduced by the
Crusaders from Syria. But when did it make its first appearance in Syria?
This is a point which, we venture to think, has not been yet sufficiently
investigated. We do not believe that it can have existed in Syria at the time
of the third crusade, otherwise Richard I., who is universally acknowledged
to have been a first-class military architect, would have brought the idea
home with him.[1201] Yet his favourite castle of Chateau Gaillard, built in
accordance with the latest military science, is in the main a castle of the
keep-and-bailey type, and has even a reminiscence of the motte, in the
scarped rock on which the keep and inner ward are placed.
The new type of keepless castle never entirely displaced the old keep-and-
bailey type. We have already seen that keeps of the old sort continued to be
Page 307
built till the end of the Middle Ages. Hawarden Castle has a good example
of a 14th-century round keep; Warkworth a most remarkable specimen of
the 15th, the plan being a square tower with polygonal turrets set on each
face.[1202] In France and Germany also the old type appears to have
persisted.[1203]
We have already trespassed beyond the limits of our subject; but as we offer
this chapter more as a programme of work than as a categorical outline, we
trust it may not be without use to the student who may feel disposed to take
up this much-neglected subject.
A few words must yet be said about the state of the law relating to castles.
Nothing explicit has come down to us on this subject from the 11th century
in England, but it is clear that the feudal system which William introduced,
and which required that all lands should revert to the king on the death of
the holder, forbade the building of any castle without the king’s license,
and, further, allowed only a life tenure in each case. The Council of
Lillebonne in 1080 had laid it down in express terms that no one should
build a castle in Normandy without the permission of the duke;[1204] and
William, after his great victory over his revolted barons, had enforced the
right of garrisoning their castles. He was not able to do this in England,
while he must have desired to check the building of private castles as far as
possible. On the other hand, he had to face the dilemma that no Norman
land-holder would be safe in his usurped estates without the shelter of a
castle. In this situation we have the elements of the civil strife which burst
forth in Stephen’s reign, and which was ended by what we may call the
anti-castle policy of Henry II.[1205]
The rights secured by this able king were often recklessly sold by his
successors, but in the reign of Henry III. it was evidently illegal even to
fortify an ordinary house with a ditch and stockade without royal
permission.[1206]
Feudalism was an inevitable phase in the evolution of the Western nations,
and it ought neither to be idealised nor execrated. After the break-up of the
of a 14th-century round keep; Warkworth a most remarkable specimen of
the 15th, the plan being a square tower with polygonal turrets set on each
face.[1202] In France and Germany also the old type appears to have
persisted.[1203]
We have already trespassed beyond the limits of our subject; but as we offer
this chapter more as a programme of work than as a categorical outline, we
trust it may not be without use to the student who may feel disposed to take
up this much-neglected subject.
A few words must yet be said about the state of the law relating to castles.
Nothing explicit has come down to us on this subject from the 11th century
in England, but it is clear that the feudal system which William introduced,
and which required that all lands should revert to the king on the death of
the holder, forbade the building of any castle without the king’s license,
and, further, allowed only a life tenure in each case. The Council of
Lillebonne in 1080 had laid it down in express terms that no one should
build a castle in Normandy without the permission of the duke;[1204] and
William, after his great victory over his revolted barons, had enforced the
right of garrisoning their castles. He was not able to do this in England,
while he must have desired to check the building of private castles as far as
possible. On the other hand, he had to face the dilemma that no Norman
land-holder would be safe in his usurped estates without the shelter of a
castle. In this situation we have the elements of the civil strife which burst
forth in Stephen’s reign, and which was ended by what we may call the
anti-castle policy of Henry II.[1205]
The rights secured by this able king were often recklessly sold by his
successors, but in the reign of Henry III. it was evidently illegal even to
fortify an ordinary house with a ditch and stockade without royal
permission.[1206]
Feudalism was an inevitable phase in the evolution of the Western nations,
and it ought neither to be idealised nor execrated. After the break-up of the
Page 308
tribal system the nations of Europe sought refuge in the forms of
imperialism which were devised by Charlemagne, and even the small and
distant island of England strove to move in the same direction. But the
times were not ripe for centralisation on so great a scale, and when the
system of the Carlovingian Empire gave way under the inrush of Northmen
and Huns, European society would have fallen into ruin had it not been for
the institutions of feudalism. These offered, in place of the old blood bond
of the tribe, a social compact which, though itself artificial, was so
admirably adapted to the general need that it was speedily adopted by all
the progressive nations of Europe. The great merit of feudalism was that it
replaced the collective responsibility of the tribe by the individual
responsibility of the man to his lord, and of the lord to his man. In an age
when the decay of mutual trust was the worst evil of society it laid stress on
individual loyalty, and insisted that personal honour should consist in the
fulfilment of obligations. Being a system so wholly personal, its usefulness
depended largely on the nature of the person in power, and it was therefore
liable to great abuses.
But it is probable that feudalism worked better on the whole in England
than in any other part of Western Europe. The worst evils of French
feudalism never appeared in this country, except during the short and
disastrous reign of Stephen. The strong kings of the Norman and
Plantagenet Houses held in check the turbulence of the barons; and private
war was never allowed to become here, as it was on the Continent, a
standing evil. To follow out this subject would lead us beyond the limits of
this book, but it is interesting to remember that not only the picturesque
ruins of our castles, but also the neglected green hillocks of which we have
treated in this work, while they point to the skilful machinery by which the
Norman Conquest was riveted on the land, bear witness also to something
still more important. They tell of a period of discipline and education
through which the English people passed, when in spite of much oppression
and sometimes even cruelty, seeds of many noble and useful things were
sown, from which succeeding generations have garnered the enduring fruit.
imperialism which were devised by Charlemagne, and even the small and
distant island of England strove to move in the same direction. But the
times were not ripe for centralisation on so great a scale, and when the
system of the Carlovingian Empire gave way under the inrush of Northmen
and Huns, European society would have fallen into ruin had it not been for
the institutions of feudalism. These offered, in place of the old blood bond
of the tribe, a social compact which, though itself artificial, was so
admirably adapted to the general need that it was speedily adopted by all
the progressive nations of Europe. The great merit of feudalism was that it
replaced the collective responsibility of the tribe by the individual
responsibility of the man to his lord, and of the lord to his man. In an age
when the decay of mutual trust was the worst evil of society it laid stress on
individual loyalty, and insisted that personal honour should consist in the
fulfilment of obligations. Being a system so wholly personal, its usefulness
depended largely on the nature of the person in power, and it was therefore
liable to great abuses.
But it is probable that feudalism worked better on the whole in England
than in any other part of Western Europe. The worst evils of French
feudalism never appeared in this country, except during the short and
disastrous reign of Stephen. The strong kings of the Norman and
Plantagenet Houses held in check the turbulence of the barons; and private
war was never allowed to become here, as it was on the Continent, a
standing evil. To follow out this subject would lead us beyond the limits of
this book, but it is interesting to remember that not only the picturesque
ruins of our castles, but also the neglected green hillocks of which we have
treated in this work, while they point to the skilful machinery by which the
Norman Conquest was riveted on the land, bear witness also to something
still more important. They tell of a period of discipline and education
through which the English people passed, when in spite of much oppression
and sometimes even cruelty, seeds of many noble and useful things were
sown, from which succeeding generations have garnered the enduring fruit.
Page 309
APPENDICES
Page 310
APPENDIX A
PRIMITIVE FOLK-MOOTS
The popular meetings of the Anglo-Saxons, those of the hundred and the
shire, were held in the open air. Since many of those who attended them had
to travel far, some sign was necessary to mark out the place of meeting, and
some striking feature, such as a hillock, or a particular tree, or an ancient
barrow, was chosen. Thus we have the Shire Oak, near Leeds, which gives
its name to the wapentake of Skyrack; and in a charter of Edgar we find the
mot-beorh mentioned, and translated Congressionis Collem = the meeting
barrow. (M. A., ii., 324.) It does not appear that a hillock was an essential
feature of these meeting-places, though this is popularly supposed to be the
case, because the “Thing-wall” in Iceland and the “Tynwald” in the Isle of
Man have hillocks from which laws were proclaimed. The Thingwall, or
field of meeting in Iceland had a natural rock just above it, isolated by a
stream, and though proclamations were made from this rock, deliberations
took place on the level. (Gomme’s Primitive Folk-Moots, 31.)
The Tynwald Hill, in the Isle of Man, which is also still used for the
proclamation of new laws, was probably an ancient barrow, as there are
other barrows in the immediate neighbourhood. (Kermode and Herdman,
Illustrated Notes on Manx Antiquities, pp. 23 and 61.) At Thingwall, near
Liverpool, and Thingwall in Wirral, both probably Norse settlements, there
is no hillock.
In Scotland, the use of a former motte as a meeting-place for the baronial
court appears to have been much more common than in England. Mr
George Neilson’s explanation of this fact is referred to in Chapter X., p.
307.
PRIMITIVE FOLK-MOOTS
The popular meetings of the Anglo-Saxons, those of the hundred and the
shire, were held in the open air. Since many of those who attended them had
to travel far, some sign was necessary to mark out the place of meeting, and
some striking feature, such as a hillock, or a particular tree, or an ancient
barrow, was chosen. Thus we have the Shire Oak, near Leeds, which gives
its name to the wapentake of Skyrack; and in a charter of Edgar we find the
mot-beorh mentioned, and translated Congressionis Collem = the meeting
barrow. (M. A., ii., 324.) It does not appear that a hillock was an essential
feature of these meeting-places, though this is popularly supposed to be the
case, because the “Thing-wall” in Iceland and the “Tynwald” in the Isle of
Man have hillocks from which laws were proclaimed. The Thingwall, or
field of meeting in Iceland had a natural rock just above it, isolated by a
stream, and though proclamations were made from this rock, deliberations
took place on the level. (Gomme’s Primitive Folk-Moots, 31.)
The Tynwald Hill, in the Isle of Man, which is also still used for the
proclamation of new laws, was probably an ancient barrow, as there are
other barrows in the immediate neighbourhood. (Kermode and Herdman,
Illustrated Notes on Manx Antiquities, pp. 23 and 61.) At Thingwall, near
Liverpool, and Thingwall in Wirral, both probably Norse settlements, there
is no hillock.
In Scotland, the use of a former motte as a meeting-place for the baronial
court appears to have been much more common than in England. Mr
George Neilson’s explanation of this fact is referred to in Chapter X., p.
307.
Page 311
APPENDIX B
WATLING STREET AND THE DANELAGH
It has been pointed out by Schmid (Gesetze der Angelsachsen, xxxviii.) that
the document called Alfred and Guthrum’s Peace cannot belong to the year
of Guthrum’s baptism at Wedmore; and Mr J. R. Green (Conquest of
England, p. 151) goes further, and doubts whether the boundaries laid down
in this deed refer to anything except to the East Anglian kingdom of
Guthrum. But Mr Green gives no adequate reason for rejecting the
generally accepted conclusion that the Watling Street was the boundary
between English and Danish Mercia, which is borne out by the following
facts: (1) the Danish confederacy of the five boroughs, Lincoln, Stamford,
Leicester, Nottingham, and Derby, pretty well covers the part of Mercia
north of Watling Street, especially when Chester is added, as it sometimes
is, to the list; (2) the division into wapentakes instead of hundreds, now
believed to be of Danish origin, is found in Lincolnshire, Notts, Derbyshire,
Rutland, Leicestershire, and Northamptonshire. Staffordshire, it is true, is
not divided into wapentakes, but it was apparently won by conquest when
Ethelfleda fortified the town. Chester was occupied by her husband in 908.
Watling Street furnishes such a well-defined line that it was natural to fix
upon it as a frontier.
WATLING STREET AND THE DANELAGH
It has been pointed out by Schmid (Gesetze der Angelsachsen, xxxviii.) that
the document called Alfred and Guthrum’s Peace cannot belong to the year
of Guthrum’s baptism at Wedmore; and Mr J. R. Green (Conquest of
England, p. 151) goes further, and doubts whether the boundaries laid down
in this deed refer to anything except to the East Anglian kingdom of
Guthrum. But Mr Green gives no adequate reason for rejecting the
generally accepted conclusion that the Watling Street was the boundary
between English and Danish Mercia, which is borne out by the following
facts: (1) the Danish confederacy of the five boroughs, Lincoln, Stamford,
Leicester, Nottingham, and Derby, pretty well covers the part of Mercia
north of Watling Street, especially when Chester is added, as it sometimes
is, to the list; (2) the division into wapentakes instead of hundreds, now
believed to be of Danish origin, is found in Lincolnshire, Notts, Derbyshire,
Rutland, Leicestershire, and Northamptonshire. Staffordshire, it is true, is
not divided into wapentakes, but it was apparently won by conquest when
Ethelfleda fortified the town. Chester was occupied by her husband in 908.
Watling Street furnishes such a well-defined line that it was natural to fix
upon it as a frontier.
Page 312
APPENDIX C
THE MILITARY ORIGIN OF ALFRED’S
BOROUGHS
Keutgen (Untersuchungen über den Ursprung der Deutschen
Stadtverfassung, 1895) appears to have been the first to notice the military
origin of the Old Saxon boroughs; and Professor Maitland saw the
applicability of the theory to the boroughs of Alfred and Edward the Elder.
(Domesday Book and Beyond.) The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in 894, speaks
of “the men whose duty it was to defend the towns”; this proves that Alfred
had made some special arrangement for the defence of the towns; and this
arrangement must have been something quite apart from the ordinary
service of the fyrd or militia, which was only due for a short time. It must
have been something permanent, with an adequate economic basis, such as
we have in Henry the Fowler’s plan.
THE MILITARY ORIGIN OF ALFRED’S
BOROUGHS
Keutgen (Untersuchungen über den Ursprung der Deutschen
Stadtverfassung, 1895) appears to have been the first to notice the military
origin of the Old Saxon boroughs; and Professor Maitland saw the
applicability of the theory to the boroughs of Alfred and Edward the Elder.
(Domesday Book and Beyond.) The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in 894, speaks
of “the men whose duty it was to defend the towns”; this proves that Alfred
had made some special arrangement for the defence of the towns; and this
arrangement must have been something quite apart from the ordinary
service of the fyrd or militia, which was only due for a short time. It must
have been something permanent, with an adequate economic basis, such as
we have in Henry the Fowler’s plan.
Page 313
APPENDIX D
THE WORDS “CASTRUM” AND
“CASTELLUM”
If we take the chroniclers of the reign of Charlemagne and his successors in
the 9th century, we find the word castrum constantly used for places such as
Avignon, Dijon, Macon, Rheims, Chalons, Cologne, Andernach, Bonn,
Coblenz, etc., all of which are known to have been Roman castra, when
there can be no doubt that the city is meant. Take, for instance, the Annales
Mettenses (Pertz, i., 326), 737: Karl Martel hears that the Saracens have
taken “castrum munitissimum Avinionem” (Avignon); he marches against
them, and “predictam urbem obsidione circumdat.” But these cities are not
only called castra, they are also called castella. Thus the chronicle ascribed
to Hincmar calls Macon both castrum and castellum in the same breath.
(Migne, 125, 1298.) The fortifications built by Charlemagne against the
Saxons are called castra, castella, and civitates. (Chron. Moissiacense,
Pertz, i., 308. Ann. Einhardi, ibid., 196, 204.) The camps of the Northmen,
which as we have seen, were of great size, are also called not only castra,
but civitates, castella, munitiones, oppida. (Annales Fuldenses, Pertz, i.,
397.) The camp built by Charles the Bald at Pistes in 868 is called a
castellum, though it was evidently an enclosure of great size, as he
measured out quarters in it for his nobles, and formed an elaborate scheme
for its maintenance. (Hincmar, Migne, 125, 1242, 1244.) Coming to the
10th century, the following passage from Flodoard will show the vagueness
of the words in common use for fortifications: “Heribertus Ansellum
Bosonis subditum, qui prædictum custodiebat castrum (Vitry), cum ipso
castello recipit, et Codiacum S. Remigii municipium illi cum alia terra
concedit. Nec longum, Bosonis fideles oppidanorum proditione
Victoriacum (Vitry) recipiunt, et Mosonum fraude pervadunt. At Heribertus,
a quibusdam Mosomensibus evocatus, supervenit insperatus, et entrans
oppidum, porta latenter a civibus aperta, milites Bosonis, qui ad custodiam
loci residebant, ibidem omnes capit.” (Migne, 135, 297.) Here it is clear that
castrum, castellum, municipium, and oppidum all mean the same thing, and
THE WORDS “CASTRUM” AND
“CASTELLUM”
If we take the chroniclers of the reign of Charlemagne and his successors in
the 9th century, we find the word castrum constantly used for places such as
Avignon, Dijon, Macon, Rheims, Chalons, Cologne, Andernach, Bonn,
Coblenz, etc., all of which are known to have been Roman castra, when
there can be no doubt that the city is meant. Take, for instance, the Annales
Mettenses (Pertz, i., 326), 737: Karl Martel hears that the Saracens have
taken “castrum munitissimum Avinionem” (Avignon); he marches against
them, and “predictam urbem obsidione circumdat.” But these cities are not
only called castra, they are also called castella. Thus the chronicle ascribed
to Hincmar calls Macon both castrum and castellum in the same breath.
(Migne, 125, 1298.) The fortifications built by Charlemagne against the
Saxons are called castra, castella, and civitates. (Chron. Moissiacense,
Pertz, i., 308. Ann. Einhardi, ibid., 196, 204.) The camps of the Northmen,
which as we have seen, were of great size, are also called not only castra,
but civitates, castella, munitiones, oppida. (Annales Fuldenses, Pertz, i.,
397.) The camp built by Charles the Bald at Pistes in 868 is called a
castellum, though it was evidently an enclosure of great size, as he
measured out quarters in it for his nobles, and formed an elaborate scheme
for its maintenance. (Hincmar, Migne, 125, 1242, 1244.) Coming to the
10th century, the following passage from Flodoard will show the vagueness
of the words in common use for fortifications: “Heribertus Ansellum
Bosonis subditum, qui prædictum custodiebat castrum (Vitry), cum ipso
castello recipit, et Codiacum S. Remigii municipium illi cum alia terra
concedit. Nec longum, Bosonis fideles oppidanorum proditione
Victoriacum (Vitry) recipiunt, et Mosonum fraude pervadunt. At Heribertus,
a quibusdam Mosomensibus evocatus, supervenit insperatus, et entrans
oppidum, porta latenter a civibus aperta, milites Bosonis, qui ad custodiam
loci residebant, ibidem omnes capit.” (Migne, 135, 297.) Here it is clear that
castrum, castellum, municipium, and oppidum all mean the same thing, and
Page 314
the one word civibus betrays that it is a city which is meant. Undoubtedly
the chronicler thinks it elegant to change his words as often as he can.
Munitio is another word frequently used; in classical Latin it means a
bulwark, a wall or bank; in the chroniclers of the 10th century it is used
indifferently for a town or castle, though certain passages, such as
“subversis multarum munitionibus urbium” (Flodoard, i., vi.), show that the
right sense is not far from the mind of the writer. The numerous passages in
which we are told of monasteries being enclosed with walls and converted
into castella, show that the enclosure is the chief idea which the chroniclers
associate with this word. The citations made above are not exceptional, but
typical, and could be paralleled by countless others.
Since the above was written, I have read Keutgen’s Untersuchungen über
den Ursprung der Deutschen Stadtverfassung. He remarks that the Latin
words for a town (in the 10th and 11th century writers) are urbs, castellum,
civitas, sometimes arx; for a village, villa, oppidum, vicus. This absolutely
agrees with what I have observed in these writers, except that I have
certainly found oppidum used for a town, as in the passage from Flodoard
cited above.
the chronicler thinks it elegant to change his words as often as he can.
Munitio is another word frequently used; in classical Latin it means a
bulwark, a wall or bank; in the chroniclers of the 10th century it is used
indifferently for a town or castle, though certain passages, such as
“subversis multarum munitionibus urbium” (Flodoard, i., vi.), show that the
right sense is not far from the mind of the writer. The numerous passages in
which we are told of monasteries being enclosed with walls and converted
into castella, show that the enclosure is the chief idea which the chroniclers
associate with this word. The citations made above are not exceptional, but
typical, and could be paralleled by countless others.
Since the above was written, I have read Keutgen’s Untersuchungen über
den Ursprung der Deutschen Stadtverfassung. He remarks that the Latin
words for a town (in the 10th and 11th century writers) are urbs, castellum,
civitas, sometimes arx; for a village, villa, oppidum, vicus. This absolutely
agrees with what I have observed in these writers, except that I have
certainly found oppidum used for a town, as in the passage from Flodoard
cited above.
Page 315
APPENDIX E
THE BURGHAL HIDAGE
The Burghal Hidage has been printed by Birch, Cartularium, iii., 671. The
manuscript is very corrupt, and several of the places cannot be identified.
Those which can be identified are: Hastings, Lewes, Burpham (near
Arundel), Chichester, Porchester, Southampton, Winchester, Wilton,
Tisbury, Shaftesbury, Twineham, Wareham, Bridport, Exeter, Halwell,
Lidford, Pilton, Barnstaple, Watchet, Axbridge, Lyng (near Athelney),
Langport, Bath, Malmesbury, Cricklade, Oxford, Wallingford, Buckingham,
Eashing (near Guildford), and Southwark. The list thus seems to give an
outline of Alfred’s kingdom as it was at his death, or at the beginning of the
reign of his son. Dr Liebermann refers it to the latter date. (Leges Anglorum,
9.)
THE BURGHAL HIDAGE
The Burghal Hidage has been printed by Birch, Cartularium, iii., 671. The
manuscript is very corrupt, and several of the places cannot be identified.
Those which can be identified are: Hastings, Lewes, Burpham (near
Arundel), Chichester, Porchester, Southampton, Winchester, Wilton,
Tisbury, Shaftesbury, Twineham, Wareham, Bridport, Exeter, Halwell,
Lidford, Pilton, Barnstaple, Watchet, Axbridge, Lyng (near Athelney),
Langport, Bath, Malmesbury, Cricklade, Oxford, Wallingford, Buckingham,
Eashing (near Guildford), and Southwark. The list thus seems to give an
outline of Alfred’s kingdom as it was at his death, or at the beginning of the
reign of his son. Dr Liebermann refers it to the latter date. (Leges Anglorum,
9.)
Page 316
APPENDIX F
THELWALL
A writer in the Manchester Guardian a few years ago suggested a new
solution of the name Thelwall. He believes that the Thelwall raised by
Edward was a boundary wall of timber, stretching from Thelwall to
Runcorn. The Mersey, he argues, above Thelwall formerly broadened out
into a series of swamps which would effectually defend the frontier towards
the east. But westward from Thelwall there were no such obstacles, and it is
assumed that Edward made a timber wall from Thelwall to Ethelfleda’s
fortress at Runcorn. Some support to this hypothesis is given in the names
of places between Thelwall and Runcorn: Stockton, Walton (twice),
Stockham, Walford, Wallmore, and Wall-hes. Further, when the bed of the
Mersey was delved for the Ship Canal, discovery was made of “a
remarkable series of submerged piles, 9 feet long, arranged in two parallel
ranks which were 30 feet apart. The intervals between the piles varied, but
seem to have averaged 5 to 6 feet. Between the ranks were diagonal rows of
upright stakes, each stake about 5 feet long, extending from either rank
chevron-wise to the middle and there overlapping, so that the ground-plan
of them makes a kind of herring-bone pattern. By this plan, anyone passing
through would have to make a zigzag course. In some places sticks and
sedges were found interwoven horizontally with the stakes, a condition of
things which probably obtained throughout the whole series. The tops of the
tallest piles were 10 feet below the present surface of the ground, which fact
goes far toward precluding the possibility that this elaborate work may have
been a fish-weir. The disposition of the stakes points to a military origin. So
arranged, the advantage they offered to defending forces was enormous.” I
think it worth while to reproduce this account, especially because of the
place-names, but those who are learned in the construction of fish-weirs
may perhaps think that the description will apply to a work of that kind.
THELWALL
A writer in the Manchester Guardian a few years ago suggested a new
solution of the name Thelwall. He believes that the Thelwall raised by
Edward was a boundary wall of timber, stretching from Thelwall to
Runcorn. The Mersey, he argues, above Thelwall formerly broadened out
into a series of swamps which would effectually defend the frontier towards
the east. But westward from Thelwall there were no such obstacles, and it is
assumed that Edward made a timber wall from Thelwall to Ethelfleda’s
fortress at Runcorn. Some support to this hypothesis is given in the names
of places between Thelwall and Runcorn: Stockton, Walton (twice),
Stockham, Walford, Wallmore, and Wall-hes. Further, when the bed of the
Mersey was delved for the Ship Canal, discovery was made of “a
remarkable series of submerged piles, 9 feet long, arranged in two parallel
ranks which were 30 feet apart. The intervals between the piles varied, but
seem to have averaged 5 to 6 feet. Between the ranks were diagonal rows of
upright stakes, each stake about 5 feet long, extending from either rank
chevron-wise to the middle and there overlapping, so that the ground-plan
of them makes a kind of herring-bone pattern. By this plan, anyone passing
through would have to make a zigzag course. In some places sticks and
sedges were found interwoven horizontally with the stakes, a condition of
things which probably obtained throughout the whole series. The tops of the
tallest piles were 10 feet below the present surface of the ground, which fact
goes far toward precluding the possibility that this elaborate work may have
been a fish-weir. The disposition of the stakes points to a military origin. So
arranged, the advantage they offered to defending forces was enormous.” I
think it worth while to reproduce this account, especially because of the
place-names, but those who are learned in the construction of fish-weirs
may perhaps think that the description will apply to a work of that kind.
Page 317
APPENDIX G
THE WORD “BRETASCHE”
This word, which also appears as bretagium, britagium, or bristega,
evidently means a tower, as is clear from the following passages: Order
from King John to erect a mota et bretagium at Roscrea, in Ireland
(Sweetman’s Calendar, i., 412); Order by Henry III. to the dwellers in the
Valley of Montgomery “quod sine dilatione motas suas bonis bretaschiis
firmari faciant” (Close Rolls, ii., 42); Order that the timber and bretasche of
Nafferton Castle be carried to Newcastle, and the bretasche to be placed at
the gate of the drawbridge in place of the little tower which fell through
defect in its foundations (Close Rolls, i., 549b).
The word is also expressly defined by William the Breton as a wooden
castle: “Circuibat castrum ex omni parte, et fabricavit brestachias duplices
per septem loca, castella videlicet lignea munitissima.” (Bouquet, xvii., 78.)
See also Wright, “Illustrations of Domestic Architecture,” Arch. Journ., i.,
212 and 301. In these papers it is clear that “breteske” means a tower, as
there are several pictures of it. At a later period it seems to have been used
for a wooden balcony made for the purpose of shooting, in the same sense
as the word “hurdicium”; but I have not met with any instance of this before
the 14th century.
THE WORD “BRETASCHE”
This word, which also appears as bretagium, britagium, or bristega,
evidently means a tower, as is clear from the following passages: Order
from King John to erect a mota et bretagium at Roscrea, in Ireland
(Sweetman’s Calendar, i., 412); Order by Henry III. to the dwellers in the
Valley of Montgomery “quod sine dilatione motas suas bonis bretaschiis
firmari faciant” (Close Rolls, ii., 42); Order that the timber and bretasche of
Nafferton Castle be carried to Newcastle, and the bretasche to be placed at
the gate of the drawbridge in place of the little tower which fell through
defect in its foundations (Close Rolls, i., 549b).
The word is also expressly defined by William the Breton as a wooden
castle: “Circuibat castrum ex omni parte, et fabricavit brestachias duplices
per septem loca, castella videlicet lignea munitissima.” (Bouquet, xvii., 78.)
See also Wright, “Illustrations of Domestic Architecture,” Arch. Journ., i.,
212 and 301. In these papers it is clear that “breteske” means a tower, as
there are several pictures of it. At a later period it seems to have been used
for a wooden balcony made for the purpose of shooting, in the same sense
as the word “hurdicium”; but I have not met with any instance of this before
the 14th century.
Page 318
APPENDIX H
THE WORDS “HURDICIUM” AND
“HORDIARI”
These words refer to the wooden galleries carried round the tops of walls, to
enable the defenders to throw down big stones or other missiles on those
who were attempting to attack the foot of the walls. “Hurdicia quæ muros
tutos reddebant.” (Philippidos, vii., 201; Bouquet, xvii.) The word “alures”
is sometimes used in the same sense. See a mandamus of Henry III., cited
by Turner, History of Domestic Architecture, i., 198: “To make on the same
tower [of London] on the south side, at the top, deep alures of good and
strong timber, entirely and well covered with lead, through which people
can look even to the foot of the tower, and better defend it, if need may be.”
The alures of the castle of Norwich are spoken of as early as 1187, but this
mention, and one of the alures round the castle of Winchester in 1193, are
the only ones I find in the 12th century in England.
THE WORDS “HURDICIUM” AND
“HORDIARI”
These words refer to the wooden galleries carried round the tops of walls, to
enable the defenders to throw down big stones or other missiles on those
who were attempting to attack the foot of the walls. “Hurdicia quæ muros
tutos reddebant.” (Philippidos, vii., 201; Bouquet, xvii.) The word “alures”
is sometimes used in the same sense. See a mandamus of Henry III., cited
by Turner, History of Domestic Architecture, i., 198: “To make on the same
tower [of London] on the south side, at the top, deep alures of good and
strong timber, entirely and well covered with lead, through which people
can look even to the foot of the tower, and better defend it, if need may be.”
The alures of the castle of Norwich are spoken of as early as 1187, but this
mention, and one of the alures round the castle of Winchester in 1193, are
the only ones I find in the 12th century in England.
Page 319
APPENDIX I
“HERICIO, ERICIO, HERITO, HERISSON”
This is derived from the French word hérisson, a hedgehog, and should
mean something bristling, perhaps with thorns or osiers. Several passages
show that it was a defence on the counterscarp of the ditch, and it may
sometimes have been a hedge. Cohausen, Befestigungen der Vorzeit, shows
that hedges were frequently used in early fortifications (pp. 8-13). The
following passages seem to show clearly that it was on the counterscarp of
the ditch: “[Montreuil] il a bien clos, esforce e ferme de pel e hericon.”
(Wace, 107.) “Reparato exterioris Ardensis munitionis valli fossato et
amplificato, et sepibus et ericiis consepto et constipato.” (Lambert of
Ardres, 623, circa 1117.) The French poem of Jordan Fantosme, describing
the siege of Wark by the Scots in 1174, says the Scots attacked and carried
the hericon, and got into the ditch, but they could not take the bayle, i.e.,
they could not get over the palicium.
“HERICIO, ERICIO, HERITO, HERISSON”
This is derived from the French word hérisson, a hedgehog, and should
mean something bristling, perhaps with thorns or osiers. Several passages
show that it was a defence on the counterscarp of the ditch, and it may
sometimes have been a hedge. Cohausen, Befestigungen der Vorzeit, shows
that hedges were frequently used in early fortifications (pp. 8-13). The
following passages seem to show clearly that it was on the counterscarp of
the ditch: “[Montreuil] il a bien clos, esforce e ferme de pel e hericon.”
(Wace, 107.) “Reparato exterioris Ardensis munitionis valli fossato et
amplificato, et sepibus et ericiis consepto et constipato.” (Lambert of
Ardres, 623, circa 1117.) The French poem of Jordan Fantosme, describing
the siege of Wark by the Scots in 1174, says the Scots attacked and carried
the hericon, and got into the ditch, but they could not take the bayle, i.e.,
they could not get over the palicium.
Page 320
APPENDIX K
THE CASTLE OF YALE
In the year 1693, the antiquary Edward Llwyd was sitting on the motte of
Tomen y Rhoddwy engaged in making a very bad plan of the castle
[published in Arch. Camb., N.S., ii., 57]. His guide told him that he had
heard his grandfather say that two earls used to live there. Llwyd called the
guide an ignorant fellow. Modern traditions are generally the work of some
antiquary who has succeeded in planting his theories locally; but here we
have a tradition of much earlier date than the time when antiquaries began
to sow tares, and such traditions have usually a shred of truth in them. Is it
possible that this castle of Tomen y Rhoddwy and the neighbouring one of
Llanarmon were built by the earls of Chester and Shrewsbury, who
certainly went on expeditions together against Wales, and appear to have
divided their conquests? It is to be noted that the township is called Bodigre
yr Yarll, the township of the earls.
THE CASTLE OF YALE
In the year 1693, the antiquary Edward Llwyd was sitting on the motte of
Tomen y Rhoddwy engaged in making a very bad plan of the castle
[published in Arch. Camb., N.S., ii., 57]. His guide told him that he had
heard his grandfather say that two earls used to live there. Llwyd called the
guide an ignorant fellow. Modern traditions are generally the work of some
antiquary who has succeeded in planting his theories locally; but here we
have a tradition of much earlier date than the time when antiquaries began
to sow tares, and such traditions have usually a shred of truth in them. Is it
possible that this castle of Tomen y Rhoddwy and the neighbouring one of
Llanarmon were built by the earls of Chester and Shrewsbury, who
certainly went on expeditions together against Wales, and appear to have
divided their conquests? It is to be noted that the township is called Bodigre
yr Yarll, the township of the earls.
Page 321
APPENDIX L
THE CASTLE OF TULLOW OR
“COLLACHT,” p. 335
This information is kindly supplied by Mr Goddard H. Orpen, who writes to
me: “I visited Tullow lately, and asked myself where would a Norman erect
a mote, and I had no difficulty in answering: on the high ground near where
the Protestant church stands. When I got up there the first thing that I
noticed was that the church stood on a platform of earth 10 to 14 feet higher
than the road, and that this platform was held in position by a strong
retaining wall, well battered towards the bottom on one side. I then found
on enquiry that the hill on which it stood and the place to the N.W. of it was
called the ‘Castle Hill.’ On going round to the N.W. of the church I found a
horseshoe-shaped space, scarped all round to a height of 6 to 10 feet, and
rising to about 16 feet above the adjoining fields. There is no doubt that this
was the site of the castle, and that it was artificially raised. To my mind
there was further little doubt that it represented an earlier mote. In a field
adjoining on the W. I could detect a platform of about 50 to 70 paces, with
traces of a fosse round the three outer sides.... This was certainly the
Castellum de Tulach mentioned in the deeds concerning Raymond le Gros’
grant to the Abbey of St Thomas.—Dublin Reg. St Thomas, pp. 111, 113.”
THE CASTLE OF TULLOW OR
“COLLACHT,” p. 335
This information is kindly supplied by Mr Goddard H. Orpen, who writes to
me: “I visited Tullow lately, and asked myself where would a Norman erect
a mote, and I had no difficulty in answering: on the high ground near where
the Protestant church stands. When I got up there the first thing that I
noticed was that the church stood on a platform of earth 10 to 14 feet higher
than the road, and that this platform was held in position by a strong
retaining wall, well battered towards the bottom on one side. I then found
on enquiry that the hill on which it stood and the place to the N.W. of it was
called the ‘Castle Hill.’ On going round to the N.W. of the church I found a
horseshoe-shaped space, scarped all round to a height of 6 to 10 feet, and
rising to about 16 feet above the adjoining fields. There is no doubt that this
was the site of the castle, and that it was artificially raised. To my mind
there was further little doubt that it represented an earlier mote. In a field
adjoining on the W. I could detect a platform of about 50 to 70 paces, with
traces of a fosse round the three outer sides.... This was certainly the
Castellum de Tulach mentioned in the deeds concerning Raymond le Gros’
grant to the Abbey of St Thomas.—Dublin Reg. St Thomas, pp. 111, 113.”
Page 322
APPENDIX M
THE CASTLE OF SLANE
Mr Westropp says that the “great earthworks and fosses” on the Hill of
Slane are mentioned in the “Life of St Patrick” (Journ. R. S. A. I., 1904, p.
313). What the Life really says is: “They came to Ferta Fer Fiecc,” which is
translated “the graves of Fiacc’s men”; and the notes of Muirchu Maccu-
Machtheni add, “which, as fables say, were dug by the slaves of Feccol
Ferchertni, one of the nine Wizards” (Tripartite Life, p. 278). It does not
mention any fort, or even a hill, and though Ferta Fer Fiecc is identified
with Slane, there is nothing to show what part of Slane it was.
THE CASTLE OF SLANE
Mr Westropp says that the “great earthworks and fosses” on the Hill of
Slane are mentioned in the “Life of St Patrick” (Journ. R. S. A. I., 1904, p.
313). What the Life really says is: “They came to Ferta Fer Fiecc,” which is
translated “the graves of Fiacc’s men”; and the notes of Muirchu Maccu-
Machtheni add, “which, as fables say, were dug by the slaves of Feccol
Ferchertni, one of the nine Wizards” (Tripartite Life, p. 278). It does not
mention any fort, or even a hill, and though Ferta Fer Fiecc is identified
with Slane, there is nothing to show what part of Slane it was.
Page 323
APPENDIX N
THE WORD “DONJON”
Professor Skeat and The New English Dictionary derive this word from the
Low Latin, dominionem, acc. of dominio, lordship. Leland frequently
speaks of the keep as the dungeon, which of course is the same word. Its
modern use for a subterranean prison seems to have arisen when the keeps
were abandoned for more spacious and comfortable habitations by the
noble owners, and were chiefly used as prisons. The word dunio, which, as
we have seen, Lambert of Ardres used for a motte, probably comes from a
different root, cognate with the Anglo-Saxon dun, a hill, and used in
Flanders for the numerous sandhills of that coast.
THE WORD “DONJON”
Professor Skeat and The New English Dictionary derive this word from the
Low Latin, dominionem, acc. of dominio, lordship. Leland frequently
speaks of the keep as the dungeon, which of course is the same word. Its
modern use for a subterranean prison seems to have arisen when the keeps
were abandoned for more spacious and comfortable habitations by the
noble owners, and were chiefly used as prisons. The word dunio, which, as
we have seen, Lambert of Ardres used for a motte, probably comes from a
different root, cognate with the Anglo-Saxon dun, a hill, and used in
Flanders for the numerous sandhills of that coast.
Page 324
APPENDIX O
THE ARRANGEMENTS IN EARLY KEEPS
We get a glimpse of these in a story given in the “Gesta Ambasiensium
Dominorum,” D’Archery, Spicilegium, 278. Sulpicius the Treasurer of the
Abbey of St Martin at Tours, an important personage, built a stone keep at
Amboise in 1015 (Chron. Turonense Magnum), in place of the “wooden
house” which his brother had held. In the time of Fulk Rechin (1066-1106),
this keep was in the hands of the adherents of the counts of Blois. Hugh,
son of Sulpicius, with two other men, hid themselves by night in the
basement, which was used as a storehouse; it must therefore have had an
entrance from outside. With the help of ropes, they climbed up a sewer into
the bedchamber, which was above the cellar, and evidently had no stair
communicating with the cellar. Here they found the lady of the house and
two maids sleeping, and a watchman who was also asleep. While one of the
men held these in terror with a drawn sword, the other two climbed up a
ladder and through a trap-door up to the roof of the tower, where they
unfurled the banner of Hugh. Here we see a very simple keep, which has
only one storey above the basement; this may have been divided into two or
more apartments, but it was thought a fitting residence for a lady of rank. It
had no stairs, but all the communications were by trap-doors and ladders.
We may be quite sure that the people of rank of the 11th and 12th centuries
were content with much rougher accommodation than Mr Clark imagined.
Even Richard I.’s much admired keep of Chateau Gaillard appears to have
had no communication but ladders between the floors.
THE ARRANGEMENTS IN EARLY KEEPS
We get a glimpse of these in a story given in the “Gesta Ambasiensium
Dominorum,” D’Archery, Spicilegium, 278. Sulpicius the Treasurer of the
Abbey of St Martin at Tours, an important personage, built a stone keep at
Amboise in 1015 (Chron. Turonense Magnum), in place of the “wooden
house” which his brother had held. In the time of Fulk Rechin (1066-1106),
this keep was in the hands of the adherents of the counts of Blois. Hugh,
son of Sulpicius, with two other men, hid themselves by night in the
basement, which was used as a storehouse; it must therefore have had an
entrance from outside. With the help of ropes, they climbed up a sewer into
the bedchamber, which was above the cellar, and evidently had no stair
communicating with the cellar. Here they found the lady of the house and
two maids sleeping, and a watchman who was also asleep. While one of the
men held these in terror with a drawn sword, the other two climbed up a
ladder and through a trap-door up to the roof of the tower, where they
unfurled the banner of Hugh. Here we see a very simple keep, which has
only one storey above the basement; this may have been divided into two or
more apartments, but it was thought a fitting residence for a lady of rank. It
had no stairs, but all the communications were by trap-doors and ladders.
We may be quite sure that the people of rank of the 11th and 12th centuries
were content with much rougher accommodation than Mr Clark imagined.
Even Richard I.’s much admired keep of Chateau Gaillard appears to have
had no communication but ladders between the floors.
Page 325
APPENDIX P
KEEPS AS RESIDENCES
The description of a keep which we have already given from Lambert of
Ardres (Chap. VI.) is sufficient to prove that even wooden keeps in the 12th
century were used as permanent residences, and this is confirmed by many
scattered notices in the various chronicles of France and England. It was not
till late in the 13th century that the desire for more comfortable rooms led to
the building of chambers in the courtyard.
KEEPS AS RESIDENCES
The description of a keep which we have already given from Lambert of
Ardres (Chap. VI.) is sufficient to prove that even wooden keeps in the 12th
century were used as permanent residences, and this is confirmed by many
scattered notices in the various chronicles of France and England. It was not
till late in the 13th century that the desire for more comfortable rooms led to
the building of chambers in the courtyard.
Page 326
APPENDIX Q
CASTLES BUILT BY HENRY I.
The castles, which according to Robert de Monte, Henry I. built altogether
[ex integro] were Drincourt, Chateauneuf-sur-Epte, Verneuil, Nonancourt,
Bonmoulins, Colmemont, Pontorson, St Denis-en-Lyons, and Vaudreuil.
Many of these may have been wooden castles; Chateauneuf-sur-Epte almost
certainly was; it has now a round donjon on a motte. The “Tour Grise” at
Verneuil is certainly not the work of Henry I., but belongs to the 13th
century.
CASTLES BUILT BY HENRY I.
The castles, which according to Robert de Monte, Henry I. built altogether
[ex integro] were Drincourt, Chateauneuf-sur-Epte, Verneuil, Nonancourt,
Bonmoulins, Colmemont, Pontorson, St Denis-en-Lyons, and Vaudreuil.
Many of these may have been wooden castles; Chateauneuf-sur-Epte almost
certainly was; it has now a round donjon on a motte. The “Tour Grise” at
Verneuil is certainly not the work of Henry I., but belongs to the 13th
century.
Page 327
APPENDIX R
THE SO-CALLED SHELL KEEP
We have three accounts of motte-castles from the 12th century: that of
Alexander Neckham, in the treatise De Utensilibus; that of Laurence of
Durham, cited in Chapter VII., p. 147; and the well-known description of
the castle of Marchem, also cited in Chapter VI., p. 88. All these three
describe the top of the motte as surrounded by a wall (of course of wood),
within which is built a wooden tower. The account of Marchem says that it
was built in the middle of the area. This supports the conjecture in the text.
Mr H. E. Malden has shown (Surrey Archæolog. Collections, xvi., 28) that
the keep of Guildford is of later date than the stone wall round the top of the
motte. Remove this tower, and there would be what is commonly called a
shell keep. It would appear, therefore, that it was a common practice to
change the bank or stockade round the top of the motte into a stone wall (no
doubt as a defence against fire), leaving the keep inside still of wood. Four
of the pictures from the Bayeux Tapestry (see Frontispiece) all give the idea
of a wooden tower inside a stockade on a motte.
THE SO-CALLED SHELL KEEP
We have three accounts of motte-castles from the 12th century: that of
Alexander Neckham, in the treatise De Utensilibus; that of Laurence of
Durham, cited in Chapter VII., p. 147; and the well-known description of
the castle of Marchem, also cited in Chapter VI., p. 88. All these three
describe the top of the motte as surrounded by a wall (of course of wood),
within which is built a wooden tower. The account of Marchem says that it
was built in the middle of the area. This supports the conjecture in the text.
Mr H. E. Malden has shown (Surrey Archæolog. Collections, xvi., 28) that
the keep of Guildford is of later date than the stone wall round the top of the
motte. Remove this tower, and there would be what is commonly called a
shell keep. It would appear, therefore, that it was a common practice to
change the bank or stockade round the top of the motte into a stone wall (no
doubt as a defence against fire), leaving the keep inside still of wood. Four
of the pictures from the Bayeux Tapestry (see Frontispiece) all give the idea
of a wooden tower inside a stockade on a motte.
Page 328
APPENDIX S
PROFESSOR LLOYD’S “HISTORY OF
WALES”
I regret that this valuable work did not appear until too late for me to make
use of it in my chapter on Welsh Castles. It is worth while to note the
following points in which Professor Lloyd’s conclusions differ from or
confirm those which I have been led to adopt.
Aberystwyth and Aberrheiddiol.—“After the destruction of the last
Aberystwyth Castle of the older situation in 1143, the chief stronghold of
the district was moved to the mouth of the Rheiddiol, a position which it
ever afterwards retained, though people still insisted on calling it
Aberystwyth” (514). “The original castle of Aberystwyth crowned the slight
eminence at the back of the farm of Tan y Castell, which lies in the Ystwyth
valley 1½ miles S. of the town. There is the further evidence of the name,
and the earthworks still visible on the summit” (426, note).
Carreghova.—I ought perhaps to have included this castle in my list, though
on the actual map its site is within the English border; but as there are
absolutely no remains of it [D. H. M.] it does not affect the question I am
discussing.
Cardigan and Cilgerran.—“Dingeraint cannot be Cilgerran, because
Cilgerran is derived from Cerran, with the feminine inflection, not from
Geraint; nor is Cilgerran ‘close to the fall of the Teifi into the sea,’ as the
chronicler says Dingeraint was. The castle built by Earl Roger was probably
Cardigan” (401). Professor Lloyd afterwards identifies Cilgerran with the
castle of Emlyn (661). This seems to me questionable, as the “New Castle
of Emlyn,” first mentioned in Edward I.’s reign, presupposes an older
castle, and as I have stated, a mound answering to the older castle still
exists not far from the stone castle.
Carmarthen.—Professor Lloyd thinks this castle stood at the present farm of
Rhyd y Gors, about a mile below the town; but I see no reason to alter the
PROFESSOR LLOYD’S “HISTORY OF
WALES”
I regret that this valuable work did not appear until too late for me to make
use of it in my chapter on Welsh Castles. It is worth while to note the
following points in which Professor Lloyd’s conclusions differ from or
confirm those which I have been led to adopt.
Aberystwyth and Aberrheiddiol.—“After the destruction of the last
Aberystwyth Castle of the older situation in 1143, the chief stronghold of
the district was moved to the mouth of the Rheiddiol, a position which it
ever afterwards retained, though people still insisted on calling it
Aberystwyth” (514). “The original castle of Aberystwyth crowned the slight
eminence at the back of the farm of Tan y Castell, which lies in the Ystwyth
valley 1½ miles S. of the town. There is the further evidence of the name,
and the earthworks still visible on the summit” (426, note).
Carreghova.—I ought perhaps to have included this castle in my list, though
on the actual map its site is within the English border; but as there are
absolutely no remains of it [D. H. M.] it does not affect the question I am
discussing.
Cardigan and Cilgerran.—“Dingeraint cannot be Cilgerran, because
Cilgerran is derived from Cerran, with the feminine inflection, not from
Geraint; nor is Cilgerran ‘close to the fall of the Teifi into the sea,’ as the
chronicler says Dingeraint was. The castle built by Earl Roger was probably
Cardigan” (401). Professor Lloyd afterwards identifies Cilgerran with the
castle of Emlyn (661). This seems to me questionable, as the “New Castle
of Emlyn,” first mentioned in Edward I.’s reign, presupposes an older
castle, and as I have stated, a mound answering to the older castle still
exists not far from the stone castle.
Carmarthen.—Professor Lloyd thinks this castle stood at the present farm of
Rhyd y Gors, about a mile below the town; but I see no reason to alter the
Page 329
conclusion to which I was led by Mr Floyd’s paper, that the Rhyd y Gors of
the castle was a ford at Carmarthen itself. The fact that Henry I. founded a
cell to Battle Abbey at Carmarthen (431) seems to me an additional piece of
evidence that the castle was there; castle and abbey nearly always went
together.
Dinweiler.—Professor Lloyd assumes Dinweiler to be the same as the castle
in Mabudryd built by Earl Gilbert, and to be situated at or near Pencader
(501). It should be noted, however, that Dinweiler reads Dinefor in MS. B.
of the Brut, in 1158. I am in error in supposing St Clair to be the castle of
Mabudryd (following a writer in Archæologia Cambrensis), as St Clair is
not in that commote. Professor Lloyd’s map of the cantrefs and commotes
differs widely from that of previous writers.
Llangadoc.—“Luchewein” should not be identified with this castle;
Professor Lloyd thinks it may refer to a castle at Llwch Owain, a lake in the
parish of Llanarthney, where there is an entrenchment known as Castell y
Garreg.
Maud’s Castle.—Camden identified “Matildis castrum” with Colewent or
Colwyn, but Professor Lloyd is of opinion that “a careful collation of the
English and Welsh authorities for the events of the years 1198 and 1231 will
make it clear that Payne’s Castle and Maud’s Castle are the same.” This of
course does not affect what is said about Colwyn Castle in the text.
Montgomery.—Professor Lloyd deems that the emphasis laid (especially in
the Charter Rolls, i., 101) on the fact that the building of Henry III.’s reign
was New Montgomery, leaves no doubt that the former town and castle
stood elsewhere, probably at Hên Domen. This, if true, would greatly
strengthen my case, as Hên Domen is an admirable motte and bailey.
the castle was a ford at Carmarthen itself. The fact that Henry I. founded a
cell to Battle Abbey at Carmarthen (431) seems to me an additional piece of
evidence that the castle was there; castle and abbey nearly always went
together.
Dinweiler.—Professor Lloyd assumes Dinweiler to be the same as the castle
in Mabudryd built by Earl Gilbert, and to be situated at or near Pencader
(501). It should be noted, however, that Dinweiler reads Dinefor in MS. B.
of the Brut, in 1158. I am in error in supposing St Clair to be the castle of
Mabudryd (following a writer in Archæologia Cambrensis), as St Clair is
not in that commote. Professor Lloyd’s map of the cantrefs and commotes
differs widely from that of previous writers.
Llangadoc.—“Luchewein” should not be identified with this castle;
Professor Lloyd thinks it may refer to a castle at Llwch Owain, a lake in the
parish of Llanarthney, where there is an entrenchment known as Castell y
Garreg.
Maud’s Castle.—Camden identified “Matildis castrum” with Colewent or
Colwyn, but Professor Lloyd is of opinion that “a careful collation of the
English and Welsh authorities for the events of the years 1198 and 1231 will
make it clear that Payne’s Castle and Maud’s Castle are the same.” This of
course does not affect what is said about Colwyn Castle in the text.
Montgomery.—Professor Lloyd deems that the emphasis laid (especially in
the Charter Rolls, i., 101) on the fact that the building of Henry III.’s reign
was New Montgomery, leaves no doubt that the former town and castle
stood elsewhere, probably at Hên Domen. This, if true, would greatly
strengthen my case, as Hên Domen is an admirable motte and bailey.
Page 330
SCHEDULE OF ENGLISH CASTLES KNOWN
TO DATE FROM THE ELEVENTH
CENTURY[1207]
IN TOWNS
Whole Area of
No. Name of Castle. [1208] Enceinte or Value.
Type.
Bailey.
M. and B., Whole area 4½
1. Arundel Risen.
O. acres
Whole area 4¾
2. Bamborough K. and B. ...
acres
Not given T.
3. Barnstaple M. and B. Bailey 1⅓ acres
R. E.
M. and B., Whole area nearly Not given T.
4. Bristol
O. 4 acres R. E.
5. Buckingham M. and B. ? Risen.
M. and B.,
6. Caerleon Bailey 4¾ acres Risen.
O.
Not given T.
7. Cambridge M. and B. Bailey 4¼ acres
R. W.
Canterbury M. and B., Whole area 3
8. Risen.
(Dungeon Hill) O. acres
K. and B., Whole area 4
9. Carlisle ...
O. acres
M. and B.,
10. Chester First ward ¾ acre Risen.
O.
Inner ward and
11. Colchester K. and B. Risen.
keep about 2 acres
TO DATE FROM THE ELEVENTH
CENTURY[1207]
IN TOWNS
Whole Area of
No. Name of Castle. [1208] Enceinte or Value.
Type.
Bailey.
M. and B., Whole area 4½
1. Arundel Risen.
O. acres
Whole area 4¾
2. Bamborough K. and B. ...
acres
Not given T.
3. Barnstaple M. and B. Bailey 1⅓ acres
R. E.
M. and B., Whole area nearly Not given T.
4. Bristol
O. 4 acres R. E.
5. Buckingham M. and B. ? Risen.
M. and B.,
6. Caerleon Bailey 4¾ acres Risen.
O.
Not given T.
7. Cambridge M. and B. Bailey 4¼ acres
R. W.
Canterbury M. and B., Whole area 3
8. Risen.
(Dungeon Hill) O. acres
K. and B., Whole area 4
9. Carlisle ...
O. acres
M. and B.,
10. Chester First ward ¾ acre Risen.
O.
Inner ward and
11. Colchester K. and B. Risen.
keep about 2 acres
Page 331
Inner castle about
12. Dover K. and B. Risen.
6 acres
M. and B.,
13. Durham Bailey 1 acre ...
O.
Fallen, but
14. Ely M. and B., O. Bailey 2½ acres
rising.
15. Exeter B. only now 2 acres ...
16. Gloucester M. and B., O. ? Risen.
M. and B., Fallen, but
17. Hastings ?
O. rising.
18. Hereford M. and B. Bailey 5½ acres Risen.
M. and B., Inner bailey 2½
19. Huntingdon Stationary.
O. acres
20. Lewes M. and B. Bailey 3 acres Risen.
21. Lincoln M. and B. Bailey 5¾ acres Risen.
Not given T.
22. Monmouth K. and B. Bailey 1¾ acres
R. E.
M. and B., Whole area 3
23. Newcastle ...
O. acres 1 rood
M. and B., Inner bailey 3¼
24. Norwich Risen.
O. acres
M. and B.,
25. Nottingham Bailey 1⅔ acres Risen.
O.
M. and B.,
26. Oxford Bailey 3 acres Risen.
O.
27. Pevensey K. and B. Bailey 1 acre Risen.
M. and B.,
28. Quatford Bailey 1 acre ...
probably O.
Rochester M. and B., Whole area about
29. Risen.
(Boley Hill) O. 3 acres
Inner ward 1¾
30. Old Sarum. M. and B. Risen.
acres
M. and B., Bailey ⅘ of an
31. Shrewsbury Risen.
O. acre
12. Dover K. and B. Risen.
6 acres
M. and B.,
13. Durham Bailey 1 acre ...
O.
Fallen, but
14. Ely M. and B., O. Bailey 2½ acres
rising.
15. Exeter B. only now 2 acres ...
16. Gloucester M. and B., O. ? Risen.
M. and B., Fallen, but
17. Hastings ?
O. rising.
18. Hereford M. and B. Bailey 5½ acres Risen.
M. and B., Inner bailey 2½
19. Huntingdon Stationary.
O. acres
20. Lewes M. and B. Bailey 3 acres Risen.
21. Lincoln M. and B. Bailey 5¾ acres Risen.
Not given T.
22. Monmouth K. and B. Bailey 1¾ acres
R. E.
M. and B., Whole area 3
23. Newcastle ...
O. acres 1 rood
M. and B., Inner bailey 3¼
24. Norwich Risen.
O. acres
M. and B.,
25. Nottingham Bailey 1⅔ acres Risen.
O.
M. and B.,
26. Oxford Bailey 3 acres Risen.
O.
27. Pevensey K. and B. Bailey 1 acre Risen.
M. and B.,
28. Quatford Bailey 1 acre ...
probably O.
Rochester M. and B., Whole area about
29. Risen.
(Boley Hill) O. 3 acres
Inner ward 1¾
30. Old Sarum. M. and B. Risen.
acres
M. and B., Bailey ⅘ of an
31. Shrewsbury Risen.
O. acre
Page 332
M. and B.,
32. Stafford Bailey 1⅗ acres Risen.
O.
33. Stamford M. and B. Bailey 1¾ acres Risen.
M. and B.,
34. Tamworth Bailey 1 acre Not given.
probably O.
M. and B., Bailey ¾ of an
35. Totnes Risen.
O. acre
Tower of
36. K. and B. Originally? Not given.
London
37. Wallingford M. and B. Bailey 4½ acres Risen.
M. and B.,
38. Warwick Bailey 2½ acres Risen.
O.
M. and B., Whole area 4½
39. Winchester Not given.
O. acres
Whole area
M. and B.,
40. Worcester between 3 and 4 Risen.
O.
acres
Whole area
M. and B.,
41. York formerly about 3 Risen.
O.
acres
The Baile Hill, M. and B., Whole area 2¾
42. ...
York O. acres
IN MANORS
Head of Whole Area
Name of
No. Type. District T. of Enceinte Value.
Castle.
R. E. or Bailey.
M. and Bailey 1
43. Abergavenny ? ...
B. acre.
M. and
44. Belvoir No ? Risen.
B.?
Berkeley or M. and Bailey 1½
45. Yes Risen.
Ness B acres
32. Stafford Bailey 1⅗ acres Risen.
O.
33. Stamford M. and B. Bailey 1¾ acres Risen.
M. and B.,
34. Tamworth Bailey 1 acre Not given.
probably O.
M. and B., Bailey ¾ of an
35. Totnes Risen.
O. acre
Tower of
36. K. and B. Originally? Not given.
London
37. Wallingford M. and B. Bailey 4½ acres Risen.
M. and B.,
38. Warwick Bailey 2½ acres Risen.
O.
M. and B., Whole area 4½
39. Winchester Not given.
O. acres
Whole area
M. and B.,
40. Worcester between 3 and 4 Risen.
O.
acres
Whole area
M. and B.,
41. York formerly about 3 Risen.
O.
acres
The Baile Hill, M. and B., Whole area 2¾
42. ...
York O. acres
IN MANORS
Head of Whole Area
Name of
No. Type. District T. of Enceinte Value.
Castle.
R. E. or Bailey.
M. and Bailey 1
43. Abergavenny ? ...
B. acre.
M. and
44. Belvoir No ? Risen.
B.?
Berkeley or M. and Bailey 1½
45. Yes Risen.
Ness B acres
Page 333
M. and Bailey 3
46. Berkhampstead Yes Fallen.
B acres
Bishop’s M. and Bailey 2½
47. No Fallen.
Stortford B acres
M. and Bailey 3
48. Bourn Yes Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 3
49. Bramber No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 2¾
50. Carisbrooke No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 2
51. Castle Acre No Risen.
B. acres
K. and Whole area
52. Chepstow No Risen.
B. 1⅔ acres
M. and Bailey 2⅓
53. Clifford No Risen.
B. acres
M. and
54. Clitheroe No Bailey 1 acre Fallen.
B.
M. and Bailey 1½
55. Corfe No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 1¾
56. Dudley No Fallen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 1¾
57. Dunster No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 2⅓ Not given
58. Ewias ?
B. acres T. R. E.
M. and Bailey 2
59. Eye No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 3
60. Launceston No Fallen.
B. acres
M. and Not given
61. Montacute No ?
B. T. R. E.
M. and
62. Morpeth ? ? ...
B.
46. Berkhampstead Yes Fallen.
B acres
Bishop’s M. and Bailey 2½
47. No Fallen.
Stortford B acres
M. and Bailey 3
48. Bourn Yes Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 3
49. Bramber No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 2¾
50. Carisbrooke No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 2
51. Castle Acre No Risen.
B. acres
K. and Whole area
52. Chepstow No Risen.
B. 1⅔ acres
M. and Bailey 2⅓
53. Clifford No Risen.
B. acres
M. and
54. Clitheroe No Bailey 1 acre Fallen.
B.
M. and Bailey 1½
55. Corfe No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 1¾
56. Dudley No Fallen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 1¾
57. Dunster No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 2⅓ Not given
58. Ewias ?
B. acres T. R. E.
M. and Bailey 2
59. Eye No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 3
60. Launceston No Fallen.
B. acres
M. and Not given
61. Montacute No ?
B. T. R. E.
M. and
62. Morpeth ? ? ...
B.
Page 334
M. and Bailey 2
63. Norham ? ...
B. acres
M. and Bailey½ an
64. Okehampton No Risen.
B. acre
M. and
65. Oswestry No ? Risen.
B.
K. and
66. Peak Castle No Bailey 1 acre Risen.
B.
M. and
67. Penwortham No ? Risen.
B.
Motte
68. Peterborough only ? ? ...
now
M. and Bailey 2⅓
69. Pontefract Probably Fallen.
B. acres
M. and
70. Preston Capes No ... Risen.
B.
M. and Bailey ¾
71. Rayleigh Yes Risen.
B. acre
Richard’s M. and
72. No Bailey⅔ acre Stationary.
Castle B.
K. and Bailey 2½
73. Richmond No ...
B. acres
M. and First bailey 3
74. Rockingham No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 8¼
75. Skipsea No Fallen.
B. acres
Stanton M. and
76. No ... Risen.
Holgate B.
M. and Bailey 2
77. Tickhill No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 1½
78. Tonbridge No Stationary.
B. acres
63. Norham ? ...
B. acres
M. and Bailey½ an
64. Okehampton No Risen.
B. acre
M. and
65. Oswestry No ? Risen.
B.
K. and
66. Peak Castle No Bailey 1 acre Risen.
B.
M. and
67. Penwortham No ? Risen.
B.
Motte
68. Peterborough only ? ? ...
now
M. and Bailey 2⅓
69. Pontefract Probably Fallen.
B. acres
M. and
70. Preston Capes No ... Risen.
B.
M. and Bailey ¾
71. Rayleigh Yes Risen.
B. acre
Richard’s M. and
72. No Bailey⅔ acre Stationary.
Castle B.
K. and Bailey 2½
73. Richmond No ...
B. acres
M. and First bailey 3
74. Rockingham No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 8¼
75. Skipsea No Fallen.
B. acres
Stanton M. and
76. No ... Risen.
Holgate B.
M. and Bailey 2
77. Tickhill No Risen.
B. acres
M. and Bailey 1½
78. Tonbridge No Stationary.
B. acres
Page 335
M. and
79. Trematon No Bailey 1 acre Fallen.
B.
M. and Bailey 2½ Not given
80. Tutbury No
B. acres T. R. E.
81. Tynemouth ? ? ? ...
M. and
82. Wigmore No Bailey 1 acre Risen.
B.
M. and Upper bailey Fallen, but
83. Windsor No
B. 6½ acres rising.
M. and Whole area
84. Wisbeach No Fallen.
B. 4 acres
It has been thought best to tabulate the chief defensible area of each castle.
The total area, including ditches and scarps, is liable to great variation
owing to the nature of the ground.
79. Trematon No Bailey 1 acre Fallen.
B.
M. and Bailey 2½ Not given
80. Tutbury No
B. acres T. R. E.
81. Tynemouth ? ? ? ...
M. and
82. Wigmore No Bailey 1 acre Risen.
B.
M. and Upper bailey Fallen, but
83. Windsor No
B. 6½ acres rising.
M. and Whole area
84. Wisbeach No Fallen.
B. 4 acres
It has been thought best to tabulate the chief defensible area of each castle.
The total area, including ditches and scarps, is liable to great variation
owing to the nature of the ground.
Page 336
INDEX
Aber, 261
Aberavon, 296
Abercorn, 308
Aberdovey, 300
Abereinon, 301
Abergavenny, 97
Aberlleinog, 261
Aberystwyth, 281, 393
Aggeres, 77, 111
Aldreth, 150
Alfred, King, 13, 14, 15
Amwell, 52
Annan, 309
Anstruther family, 308
Antrim, 331
Appledore, 50
Aq’i, 331
Aquila, castle of, 77
Ardfinnan, 331
Ardmayle, 331
Ardnurcher, 331
Ardree, 331
Ardres, 75, 89
Aber, 261
Aberavon, 296
Abercorn, 308
Aberdovey, 300
Abereinon, 301
Abergavenny, 97
Aberlleinog, 261
Aberystwyth, 281, 393
Aggeres, 77, 111
Aldreth, 150
Alfred, King, 13, 14, 15
Amwell, 52
Annan, 309
Anstruther family, 308
Antrim, 331
Appledore, 50
Aq’i, 331
Aquila, castle of, 77
Ardfinnan, 331
Ardmayle, 331
Ardnurcher, 331
Ardree, 331
Ardres, 75, 89
Page 337
Area of Norman castles, 97
Arques, 361
Arundel, 98
Arx, 211, 384
Ashlar masonry, 356
Askeaton, 332
Askelon, 332
Athelney, 14
Athlone, 333
Auchterless, 309
Avenel family, 308
Baginbun, 333
Bailey, ballium, 4, 5, 92, 207
Bakewell, 47
Balimore Eustace, 333
Balliol family, 308
Ballyknockan, 341
Ballynaclogh, 346
Bamborough, 11, 100, 355, 357
Banff, 319
Barclay, 309
Barnstaple, 102
Barnwell, 376
Baronies, 307
Basements of keeps, 359, 362
Basingwerk, 267
Arques, 361
Arundel, 98
Arx, 211, 384
Ashlar masonry, 356
Askeaton, 332
Askelon, 332
Athelney, 14
Athlone, 333
Auchterless, 309
Avenel family, 308
Baginbun, 333
Bailey, ballium, 4, 5, 92, 207
Bakewell, 47
Balimore Eustace, 333
Balliol family, 308
Ballyknockan, 341
Ballynaclogh, 346
Bamborough, 11, 100, 355, 357
Banff, 319
Barclay, 309
Barnstaple, 102
Barnwell, 376
Baronies, 307
Basements of keeps, 359, 362
Basingwerk, 267
Page 338
Bastille, the, 376
Bayeux Tapestry, 87, 158, 393
Bayford Court, 49
Bedford, 40
Beith, 317
Belesme, Roger, 100, 191;
castle, 77
Belvoir, 102
Benfleet, 50
Bensington, 28
Berkeley, 103, 367
Berkhampstead, 105
Bernard de Neufmarché, 273, 276
Bervie River, 316
Biggar, 313
Bishop’s Stortford, 107
Blaenporth, 282
Bleddfa, 293
Blois, 75
Blythe, 219
Boley Hill, 49, 196, 199, 200
Bordlands, 307
Borgue, 317
Boroughs, 21, 258, 382
Boulogne, 376 n. 1
Bourn, 107
Bayeux Tapestry, 87, 158, 393
Bayford Court, 49
Bedford, 40
Beith, 317
Belesme, Roger, 100, 191;
castle, 77
Belvoir, 102
Benfleet, 50
Bensington, 28
Berkeley, 103, 367
Berkhampstead, 105
Bernard de Neufmarché, 273, 276
Bervie River, 316
Biggar, 313
Bishop’s Stortford, 107
Blaenporth, 282
Bleddfa, 293
Blois, 75
Blythe, 219
Boley Hill, 49, 196, 199, 200
Bordlands, 307
Borgue, 317
Boroughs, 21, 258, 382
Boulogne, 376 n. 1
Bourn, 107
Page 339
Bowes, 366
Bramber, 109
Braose, De, 109, 276, 292
Brecknock, 276, 290
Bremesbyrig, 32
Bretasche, 91, 386
Bridgenorth, 33, 52
Bristol, 23, 110
Bromborough, 32
Bruce family, 309
Brut y Tywysogion, 254
Buckingham, 25, 40
Burghal Hidage, 28, 98, 160, 385
Burgh Castle, 44 n. 1.
Burgus, 85
Burh, 17-19, 123;
Clark’s theory of, 20-29
Buttington, 51
Cadwalader, 266
Cadzow, 314
Caen keep, 361
Caereinion, 300
Caerleon, 113
Caerphilly, 376 n. 1
Caerwedros, 283
Caherconlish, 333
Bramber, 109
Braose, De, 109, 276, 292
Brecknock, 276, 290
Bremesbyrig, 32
Bretasche, 91, 386
Bridgenorth, 33, 52
Bristol, 23, 110
Bromborough, 32
Bruce family, 309
Brut y Tywysogion, 254
Buckingham, 25, 40
Burghal Hidage, 28, 98, 160, 385
Burgh Castle, 44 n. 1.
Burgus, 85
Burh, 17-19, 123;
Clark’s theory of, 20-29
Buttington, 51
Cadwalader, 266
Cadzow, 314
Caen keep, 361
Caereinion, 300
Caerleon, 113
Caerphilly, 376 n. 1
Caerwedros, 283
Caherconlish, 333
Page 340
Cambridge, 55, 57, 115
Camps, of refuge, 29;
prehistoric, 6;
of Danes, 61
Canterbury, 116
Carbury, 333
Cardiff, 294
Cardigan, 274, 275;
Castle, 280
Carisbrook, 121
Carlingford, 334
Carlisle, 25, 128, 365
Carlovingian Empire, 66
Carmarthen, 275, 394
Carnarvon, 261, 375
Carnwath, 318
Carreghova, 271, 394
Carrick, 334
Carrickfergus, 334
Carrickittle, 339
Carrigogunell, 332
Castel, the word, 24, 98
Castellum, castrum, 25, 67, 169, 383
Castles, private, Ch. V.;
product of feudalism, 66;
in Normandy, 76, 77;
wooden, 78;
stone, Ch. XII.;
Camps, of refuge, 29;
prehistoric, 6;
of Danes, 61
Canterbury, 116
Carbury, 333
Cardiff, 294
Cardigan, 274, 275;
Castle, 280
Carisbrook, 121
Carlingford, 334
Carlisle, 25, 128, 365
Carlovingian Empire, 66
Carmarthen, 275, 394
Carnarvon, 261, 375
Carnwath, 318
Carreghova, 271, 394
Carrick, 334
Carrickfergus, 334
Carrickittle, 339
Carrigogunell, 332
Castel, the word, 24, 98
Castellum, castrum, 25, 67, 169, 383
Castles, private, Ch. V.;
product of feudalism, 66;
in Normandy, 76, 77;
wooden, 78;
stone, Ch. XII.;
Page 341
sites given to church, 259 n. 2.
Castle Acre, 124
Castledermot, 347
Castle guard, 175
Castleknock, 341
Castlemore, 338
Castle Rough, 49
Castle Rushen, 377 n. 1
Castletown Delvin, 334
Cathcart family, 310
Catter, 315
Ceredigion, 274, 275
Chapels in castles, 355
Chartres keep, 74
Chastell Gwalter, 282
Chateaudun keep, 75
Chateau Gaillard, 372, 376, 391
Chepstow, 125
Chester, 31, 126, 367
Chevron moulding, 100
Cheyne family, 310
Chilham, 368
Chimneys, 357
Chinon, 75
Chippenham, 55
Chirk, 269
Castle Acre, 124
Castledermot, 347
Castle guard, 175
Castleknock, 341
Castlemore, 338
Castle Rough, 49
Castle Rushen, 377 n. 1
Castletown Delvin, 334
Cathcart family, 310
Catter, 315
Ceredigion, 274, 275
Chapels in castles, 355
Chartres keep, 74
Chastell Gwalter, 282
Chateaudun keep, 75
Chateau Gaillard, 372, 376, 391
Chepstow, 125
Chester, 31, 126, 367
Chevron moulding, 100
Cheyne family, 310
Chilham, 368
Chimneys, 357
Chinon, 75
Chippenham, 55
Chirk, 269
Page 342
Christison, Dr, 8, 31, 304, 306
Cilgerran, 281, 394
Citadels, 6, 54, 56
Clare, house of, 275, 281
Clark, G. T., 2, 8, 19, 26, 48
Clears, St, 288, 394
Cledemuthan, 43
Clifford, 128
Clitheroe, 129
Clonard, 334
Clonmacnoise, 335
Colchester, 41, 132, 223, 354, 355
Collacht, 335
Colville family, 310
Comyn family, 310
Concentric castles, 375
Cooking in castles, 359
Corfe, 135, 363
Coucy, 65, 372
Courcy, John de, 336
Court hills, 310, 391
Covington, 313
Crail, 319
Crimond, 311
Crogen, battle of, 266
Cromarty, 316
Cilgerran, 281, 394
Citadels, 6, 54, 56
Clare, house of, 275, 281
Clark, G. T., 2, 8, 19, 26, 48
Clears, St, 288, 394
Cledemuthan, 43
Clifford, 128
Clitheroe, 129
Clonard, 334
Clonmacnoise, 335
Colchester, 41, 132, 223, 354, 355
Collacht, 335
Colville family, 310
Comyn family, 310
Concentric castles, 375
Cooking in castles, 359
Corfe, 135, 363
Coucy, 65, 372
Courcy, John de, 336
Court hills, 310, 391
Covington, 313
Crail, 319
Crimond, 311
Crogen, battle of, 266
Cromarty, 316
Page 343
Crometh, 335
Cromwell, 220, 336
Croom, 335
Crossbow, the 370
Cunningham family, 311
Cupar, 320
Cymmer, 299
Cynewulf, murder of, 13
Cynfael, 300
Cyricbyrig, 37
Dalswinton, 311
Dane John, 116, 118, 121
Danes in Ireland, 60
Dangio, 75
Danish raths, 48;
camps, 61;
colonies, 59, 60
Darnhall, 317
David I. of Scotland, 123, 163, 303
Deganwy, 259, 270
Dernio, 267
Derver, 341
Dinan, 87
Dinerth, 282
Dinevor, 287, 394
Dinweiler, 394
Cromwell, 220, 336
Croom, 335
Crossbow, the 370
Cunningham family, 311
Cupar, 320
Cymmer, 299
Cynewulf, murder of, 13
Cynfael, 300
Cyricbyrig, 37
Dalswinton, 311
Dane John, 116, 118, 121
Danes in Ireland, 60
Dangio, 75
Danish raths, 48;
camps, 61;
colonies, 59, 60
Darnhall, 317
David I. of Scotland, 123, 163, 303
Deganwy, 259, 270
Dernio, 267
Derver, 341
Dinan, 87
Dinerth, 282
Dinevor, 287, 394
Dinweiler, 394
Page 344
Dirleton, 319
Domfront keep, 361
Donjons, 358, 390
Douglas family, 312
Dover, 138;
church, 144;
Pharos, 143
Downpatrick, 335
Drogheda, 336
Drumore, 315
Drumsagard, 317
Duchal, 315
Dudley, 144
Dudo of St Quentin, 76
Duffus, 317
Duleek, 337
Dumfries, 320
Dun, the word, 326
Dunamase, 337
Dungarvan, 337
Dunio, 75
Dunmullie, 311
Dunoon, 313
Dunskeath, 320
Dunster, 145
Durand, 312
Durham, 146
Domfront keep, 361
Donjons, 358, 390
Douglas family, 312
Dover, 138;
church, 144;
Pharos, 143
Downpatrick, 335
Drogheda, 336
Drumore, 315
Drumsagard, 317
Duchal, 315
Dudley, 144
Dudo of St Quentin, 76
Duffus, 317
Duleek, 337
Dumfries, 320
Dun, the word, 326
Dunamase, 337
Dungarvan, 337
Dunio, 75
Dunmullie, 311
Dunoon, 313
Dunskeath, 320
Dunster, 145
Durand, 312
Durham, 146
Page 345
Durward, 312
Dyfed, 274
Earthworks, Committee, 2
Eddisbury, 35
Edward, 14-16, 45, 65, 127
Edward the Martyr, 135
Edwardian castles, 328, 345
Egloe, Eulo, 271
Elgin, 320
Ellon, 311
Ely, 149
Entrances to keeps, 355, 361, 373
Errol, 314
Escluen, 332
Étampes Castle, 373
Ethelfleda, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 45, 232, 342
Eu, 56
Eustace of Boulogne, 139
Ewias, 150
Exeter, 151;
siege of, 154
Eye, 155
Falaise, 361-363
Favorie, 338
Ferns, 338
Feudalism, 63, 66, 378, 379;
Dyfed, 274
Earthworks, Committee, 2
Eddisbury, 35
Edward, 14-16, 45, 65, 127
Edward the Martyr, 135
Edwardian castles, 328, 345
Egloe, Eulo, 271
Elgin, 320
Ellon, 311
Ely, 149
Entrances to keeps, 355, 361, 373
Errol, 314
Escluen, 332
Étampes Castle, 373
Ethelfleda, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 45, 232, 342
Eu, 56
Eustace of Boulogne, 139
Ewias, 150
Exeter, 151;
siege of, 154
Eye, 155
Falaise, 361-363
Favorie, 338
Ferns, 338
Feudalism, 63, 66, 378, 379;
Page 346
in Normandy, 76;
in Wales, 299, 378;
in Scotland, 303
Fireplaces, 357
Fitz Alans, 179, 313
Fitzhardinge, Robert, 104
FitzOsbern, William, 103, 126, 128, 150, 273
Five Boroughs, the 44, 59
Flambard, Ranulf, 172
Fleming family, 313
Flint, 375
Folk-moots, 381
Fore, 338
Forebuildings, 355, 361
Forfar, 320
Forres, 321
Fortifications, Anglo-Saxon, 29, 64;
Danish, 55, 61;
wooden, 78
Fotheret Onolan, 338
French earthworks, 7
Fulham, 55
Fulk Nerra, 73, 74, 352
Gaimar, Geoffrey, 171
Gallo-Roman villas, 67
Galtrim, 338
Gatehouse keeps, 359
in Wales, 299, 378;
in Scotland, 303
Fireplaces, 357
Fitz Alans, 179, 313
Fitzhardinge, Robert, 104
FitzOsbern, William, 103, 126, 128, 150, 273
Five Boroughs, the 44, 59
Flambard, Ranulf, 172
Fleming family, 313
Flint, 375
Folk-moots, 381
Fore, 338
Forebuildings, 355, 361
Forfar, 320
Forres, 321
Fortifications, Anglo-Saxon, 29, 64;
Danish, 55, 61;
wooden, 78
Fotheret Onolan, 338
French earthworks, 7
Fulham, 55
Fulk Nerra, 73, 74, 352
Gaimar, Geoffrey, 171
Gallo-Roman villas, 67
Galtrim, 338
Gatehouse keeps, 359
Page 347
Gatehouse palace, 375
Geashill, 338
Gemaron, 292
Gephthine, 332
Gilling, 193, 194
Gisors, 364
Glamorgan, 276
Gloucester, 156
Godwin, Earl, 22, 24, 103
Gomme, G. L., 8
Gould, I. C, 2
Gower, 277, 297
Graham family, 314
Granard, 338
Greenwell, Canon, 2
Guildford, 393
Guisnes, 75, 76
Gundulf, Bishop, 197, 198, 222
Guy of Amiens, 139
Gwyddgrug, 260
Gwynedd, 256-262
Hæsten the Dane, 49, 50
Hall, the Anglo-Saxon, 17, 24, 168
Hallaton Castle Hill, 88
Hamilton family, 314
Harold, Earl and King, 138, 161, 257
Geashill, 338
Gemaron, 292
Gephthine, 332
Gilling, 193, 194
Gisors, 364
Glamorgan, 276
Gloucester, 156
Godwin, Earl, 22, 24, 103
Gomme, G. L., 8
Gould, I. C, 2
Gower, 277, 297
Graham family, 314
Granard, 338
Greenwell, Canon, 2
Guildford, 393
Guisnes, 75, 76
Gundulf, Bishop, 197, 198, 222
Guy of Amiens, 139
Gwyddgrug, 260
Gwynedd, 256-262
Hæsten the Dane, 49, 50
Hall, the Anglo-Saxon, 17, 24, 168
Hallaton Castle Hill, 88
Hamilton family, 314
Harold, Earl and King, 138, 161, 257
Page 348
Hastings, 87, 158
Haughead Kipp, 317
Haverfordwest, 280
Hawarden, 377
Hawick, 315
Hay, 291
Hay family, 314
Hên Domen, 395
Henry I., castles of, 360-364, 392
Henry II., castles of, 365-369
Henry the Fowler, 64
Hericio, 388
Hermitage Castle, 318
Herring-bone work, 136, 168, 218
Hincheleder, 339
Hithes, 57
Hodesley, Hoseley, 268
Holywell, 267, 270
Hubert de Burgh, 140
Hugh of Avranches, 256, 257
Humphrey’s Castle, 283
Huntingdon, 42, 162
Hurdicia, 91, 372, 387
Ida, King, 11
Inchelefyre, 339
Innermessan, 321
Haughead Kipp, 317
Haverfordwest, 280
Hawarden, 377
Hawick, 315
Hay, 291
Hay family, 314
Hên Domen, 395
Henry I., castles of, 360-364, 392
Henry II., castles of, 365-369
Henry the Fowler, 64
Hericio, 388
Hermitage Castle, 318
Herring-bone work, 136, 168, 218
Hincheleder, 339
Hithes, 57
Hodesley, Hoseley, 268
Holywell, 267, 270
Hubert de Burgh, 140
Hugh of Avranches, 256, 257
Humphrey’s Castle, 283
Huntingdon, 42, 162
Hurdicia, 91, 372, 387
Ida, King, 11
Inchelefyre, 339
Innermessan, 321
Page 349
Inverness, 321
Inverugie, 310
Inverwick, 313
Irish chiefs, 325, 342
Jedburgh, 321
John, Bishop of Terouenne, 88
John, King, 137, 270, 370 n. 1
Jomsborg, 59
Karakitel, 339
Keepless castles, 328, 374
Keep and bailey, 357
Keeps, arrangements in, 359, 391;
polygonal, 368;
prows to, 373;
residences, 392;
round, 368, 373
Keeps of Henry I., 360, 363, 392
Keeps of Henry II., 366
Keeps of William I., 351, 354
Kelts of Scotland, 304
Kenardington, 50
Kenfig, 295
Kenmure, 308
Kidwelly, 288
Kilbixie, 339
Kilbride, 318
Kilfeakle, 340
Inverugie, 310
Inverwick, 313
Irish chiefs, 325, 342
Jedburgh, 321
John, Bishop of Terouenne, 88
John, King, 137, 270, 370 n. 1
Jomsborg, 59
Karakitel, 339
Keepless castles, 328, 374
Keep and bailey, 357
Keeps, arrangements in, 359, 391;
polygonal, 368;
prows to, 373;
residences, 392;
round, 368, 373
Keeps of Henry I., 360, 363, 392
Keeps of Henry II., 366
Keeps of William I., 351, 354
Kelts of Scotland, 304
Kenardington, 50
Kenfig, 295
Kenmure, 308
Kidwelly, 288
Kilbixie, 339
Kilbride, 318
Kilfeakle, 340
Page 350
Kilfinnane, 329
Kilkea, 347
Killamlun, 339
Killare, 339
Kilmaurs, 311
Kilmehal, 340
Kilmore, 340
Kilsantan, 340
Kiltinan, 340
Kincleven, 321
Kirkcudbright, 321
Kirkintilloch, 311
Kirkpatrick Durham, 312
Kitchens in castles, 90
Knighton, 293
Knock, 341
Knockgraffan, 341
Lacy, Ilbert de, 187, 188;
Hugh de, 337
Lag Castle, 312
Lagelachon, 341
Lagmen, 62
Lambert of Ardres, 75, 89
Lanark, 321
Langeais keep, 72, 353
Laon, 72
Kilkea, 347
Killamlun, 339
Killare, 339
Kilmaurs, 311
Kilmehal, 340
Kilmore, 340
Kilsantan, 340
Kiltinan, 340
Kincleven, 321
Kirkcudbright, 321
Kirkintilloch, 311
Kirkpatrick Durham, 312
Kitchens in castles, 90
Knighton, 293
Knock, 341
Knockgraffan, 341
Lacy, Ilbert de, 187, 188;
Hugh de, 337
Lag Castle, 312
Lagelachon, 341
Lagmen, 62
Lambert of Ardres, 75, 89
Lanark, 321
Langeais keep, 72, 353
Laon, 72
Page 351
Largs, 317
Laugharne, 288
Launceston, 164
Laurence of Durham, 147
Law about castles, 377
Lawhaden, 279
Lea Castle, 341
Lea River, 15, 52
Lead roofs, 369
Leighlin, 341
Lennox, 315
Leuchars, 318
Lewes, 165
Lincoln, 167
Linton Roderick, 310
Lismore, 342
Llanarmon, 272
Llandeilo Talybont, 298
Llandovery, 286
Llanegwad, 289
Llangadog, 289, 394
Llanrhystyd, 300
Llanstephan, 286
Lloyd, Professor, 253, 393
Lochmaben, 309
Lochorworth, 314
Laugharne, 288
Launceston, 164
Laurence of Durham, 147
Law about castles, 377
Lawhaden, 279
Lea Castle, 341
Lea River, 15, 52
Lead roofs, 369
Leighlin, 341
Lennox, 315
Leuchars, 318
Lewes, 165
Lincoln, 167
Linton Roderick, 310
Lismore, 342
Llanarmon, 272
Llandeilo Talybont, 298
Llandovery, 286
Llanegwad, 289
Llangadog, 289, 394
Llanrhystyd, 300
Llanstephan, 286
Lloyd, Professor, 253, 393
Lochmaben, 309
Lochorworth, 314
Page 352
Lockhart family, 315
Logan family, 315
London fortified, 14
Loopholes, 362, 370, 371;
cross loopholes, 371
Lords-marchers, 255
Loske, 343
Loughor, 298
Louth, 342
Louvre, the, 373
Lovel family, 315
Loxhindy, 343
Ludgarsburh, 170
Lumphanan, 312
Lyle or Lisle family, 315
Lympne, 15
Mabudryd, 394
Machicolations, 372
Magh Adair, 327
Maitland, Professor, 27
Maldon, 41
Manchester, 46
Manors, Saxon, and mottes, 96
Mans, Le, keep of, 361
Masonry, 356, 362, 367
Mathraval, 271
Logan family, 315
London fortified, 14
Loopholes, 362, 370, 371;
cross loopholes, 371
Lords-marchers, 255
Loske, 343
Loughor, 298
Louth, 342
Louvre, the, 373
Lovel family, 315
Loxhindy, 343
Ludgarsburh, 170
Lumphanan, 312
Lyle or Lisle family, 315
Lympne, 15
Mabudryd, 394
Machicolations, 372
Magh Adair, 327
Maitland, Professor, 27
Maldon, 41
Manchester, 46
Manors, Saxon, and mottes, 96
Mans, Le, keep of, 361
Masonry, 356, 362, 367
Mathraval, 271
Page 353
Maud’s Castle, 293, 394
Maxton, 316
Maxwell family, 316
Melton, Archbishop, 248
Melville family, 315
Mercenaries, 7, 74 n. 1
Merchem Castle, 88
Mersey Island, 54
Military service, 64
Milton, 49
Missile engines, 369
Mitford, 373
Moffat, 309
Mold, 260
Monmouth, 168
Montacute, 169
Montalt, 316
Montgomeri, Roger de, 53, 98, 130, 191, 263;
Hugh de, 274;
Arnolf, 274, 278;
castle, 264, 395
Montgomerie family, Scotland, 316
Moot-hills, 8, 9, 381
Moray, colonisation of, 304
Morpeth, 171
Mortain, Count of, 106, 138, 164, 169, 186
Mortimers, 276
Maxton, 316
Maxwell family, 316
Melton, Archbishop, 248
Melville family, 315
Mercenaries, 7, 74 n. 1
Merchem Castle, 88
Mersey Island, 54
Military service, 64
Milton, 49
Missile engines, 369
Mitford, 373
Moffat, 309
Mold, 260
Monmouth, 168
Montacute, 169
Montalt, 316
Montgomeri, Roger de, 53, 98, 130, 191, 263;
Hugh de, 274;
Arnolf, 274, 278;
castle, 264, 395
Montgomerie family, Scotland, 316
Moot-hills, 8, 9, 381
Moray, colonisation of, 304
Morpeth, 171
Mortain, Count of, 106, 138, 164, 169, 186
Mortimers, 276
Page 354
Morville family, 316
Mottes, described, 4, 5;
the word, 9 n. 1;
distribution, 80-82;
situation, 83-96;
in France, 85;
in Wales, 301;
in Scotland, 322;
in Ireland, 348;
history, 72, 74
Mowbray, Earl Robert, 101
Mowbray family, 317
Müller, Dr Sophus, 6
Mural towers, 358
Murray family, 317
Naas, 343
Nantes Castle, 71
Nant yr Arian, 284
Narberth, 280
Navan, 344
Neath, 296
Neckham, “De Utensilibus,” 86
Neilson, Mr George, 8, 306
Neu Leiningen, 376 n. 1
Newcastle, 171
Newcastle Bridgend, 295
Newcastle Emlyn, 289
New Grange, 10
Mottes, described, 4, 5;
the word, 9 n. 1;
distribution, 80-82;
situation, 83-96;
in France, 85;
in Wales, 301;
in Scotland, 322;
in Ireland, 348;
history, 72, 74
Mowbray, Earl Robert, 101
Mowbray family, 317
Müller, Dr Sophus, 6
Mural towers, 358
Murray family, 317
Naas, 343
Nantes Castle, 71
Nant yr Arian, 284
Narberth, 280
Navan, 344
Neath, 296
Neckham, “De Utensilibus,” 86
Neilson, Mr George, 8, 306
Neu Leiningen, 376 n. 1
Newcastle, 171
Newcastle Bridgend, 295
Newcastle Emlyn, 289
New Grange, 10
Page 355
Newport, 279
Nicetus, his castrum, 67
Nicholas, St, 110, 213
Nobber, 344
Normandy, 22, 76, 77
Norman favourites, 23
Norman walls, 356
Normans, 7
Norrei Castle, 77
Northmen, camps of, 61, 383
Norton, 293
Norwich, 173, 363
Nottingham, 44, 49, 57, 176
O’Donovan, 329
Offa’s Dyke, 52
Okehampton, 178
Oldcastle, 347
Old Sarum, 202
Oliphant family, 317
Orford, 246 n.
Oswestry, 179
Overton (Denbigh), 267;
(Hereford), 192
Owen Gwynedd, 260, 270
Oxford, 180
Oxnam, 310
Nicetus, his castrum, 67
Nicholas, St, 110, 213
Nobber, 344
Normandy, 22, 76, 77
Norman favourites, 23
Norman walls, 356
Normans, 7
Norrei Castle, 77
Northmen, camps of, 61, 383
Norton, 293
Norwich, 173, 363
Nottingham, 44, 49, 57, 176
O’Donovan, 329
Offa’s Dyke, 52
Okehampton, 178
Oldcastle, 347
Old Sarum, 202
Oliphant family, 317
Orford, 246 n.
Oswestry, 179
Overton (Denbigh), 267;
(Hereford), 192
Owen Gwynedd, 260, 270
Oxford, 180
Oxnam, 310
Page 356
Oystermouth, 298
Pantolf, William, 213
Parliamentary fortifications, 202
Payn’s Castle, 293, 395
Peak, 182
Pembroke, 278
Pentecost’s Castle, 24, 150
Penwortham, 183
Peterborough, 185
Pevensey, 99, 186
Pistes, Capitulary of, 68, 72
Pitt-Rivers, General, 2
Plinths, 355
Polnoon, 316
Pontefract, 187;
siege of, 189
Pont y Stuffan, 283
Powys, 263-266
Prestatyn, 270
Preston Capes, 190
Pretorium, 72
Prisons in castles, 359
Private castles, 21, 68
Pudsey, Bishop, 173
Quatbridge, 58
Quatford, 191
Pantolf, William, 213
Parliamentary fortifications, 202
Payn’s Castle, 293, 395
Peak, 182
Pembroke, 278
Pentecost’s Castle, 24, 150
Penwortham, 183
Peterborough, 185
Pevensey, 99, 186
Pistes, Capitulary of, 68, 72
Pitt-Rivers, General, 2
Plinths, 355
Polnoon, 316
Pontefract, 187;
siege of, 189
Pont y Stuffan, 283
Powys, 263-266
Prestatyn, 270
Preston Capes, 190
Pretorium, 72
Prisons in castles, 359
Private castles, 21, 68
Pudsey, Bishop, 173
Quatbridge, 58
Quatford, 191
Page 357
Quincy, De, family, 318
Radnor, 292
Rainald the Sheriff, 263
Rapes of Sussex, 299
Rathceltchair, 336
Raths in Ireland, 325, 327
Rathwire, 344
Ratouth, 344
Rayleigh, 191
Reading, 54
Redcastle, Lunan Bay, 309
Reginald’s Tower, 347, 348
Remni, 297
Renfrew, 313
Retford, 55
Rhaidr Gwy, 301
Rhé Island, motte on, 350
Rhuddlan, 257, 259
Rhyd y Gors, 275, 284
Rhys ap Griffith, 275, 287
Riccarton, 319
Richard Sans Peur, 76
Richard I., 370-372
Richard’s Castle, 192
Richmond, 193
Robert Curthose, 110
Radnor, 292
Rainald the Sheriff, 263
Rapes of Sussex, 299
Rathceltchair, 336
Raths in Ireland, 325, 327
Rathwire, 344
Ratouth, 344
Rayleigh, 191
Reading, 54
Redcastle, Lunan Bay, 309
Reginald’s Tower, 347, 348
Remni, 297
Renfrew, 313
Retford, 55
Rhaidr Gwy, 301
Rhé Island, motte on, 350
Rhuddlan, 257, 259
Rhyd y Gors, 275, 284
Rhys ap Griffith, 275, 287
Riccarton, 319
Richard Sans Peur, 76
Richard I., 370-372
Richard’s Castle, 192
Richmond, 193
Robert Curthose, 110
Page 358
Robert de Monte, 360
Robert, Earl of Gloucester, 110, 295
Robert Fitz Hamon, 277
Robert of Rhuddlan, 257
Roberton, 314
Rochester, 25, 49, 195
Rockingham, 201
Roger the Poitevin, 129, 183, 184
Rokerel, 345
Rollo, 76
Roscrea, 345
Rosemarkie, 322
Ross, 318
Rouen, 77
Runcorn, 38
Ruthin, 269
Ruthven, 311
Sanquhar, 318
Sarn Helen, 283
Saumur Castle, 75
Saxon fortifications, Chapters II., III., 29
Saxon royal seats, 151 n. 2, 235
Scergeat, 33
Sepulchral hillocks, 9;
in Ireland, 327
Shaftesbury, 15
Robert, Earl of Gloucester, 110, 295
Robert Fitz Hamon, 277
Robert of Rhuddlan, 257
Roberton, 314
Rochester, 25, 49, 195
Rockingham, 201
Roger the Poitevin, 129, 183, 184
Rokerel, 345
Rollo, 76
Roscrea, 345
Rosemarkie, 322
Ross, 318
Rouen, 77
Runcorn, 38
Ruthin, 269
Ruthven, 311
Sanquhar, 318
Sarn Helen, 283
Saumur Castle, 75
Saxon fortifications, Chapters II., III., 29
Saxon royal seats, 151 n. 2, 235
Scergeat, 33
Sepulchral hillocks, 9;
in Ireland, 327
Shaftesbury, 15
Page 359
Shell keep, 99
Sheppey Isle, 54
Shoebury, 51
Shrewsbury, 207
Siege castles, 85
Siegfried the Dane, 75
Siward, Earl, 22
Skipsea, 209
Skreen, 345
Slane, 345
Somerville family, 318
Somner, antiquary, 117
Soulis family, 318
Stafford, 34, 211
Stamford, 44, 216
Stanton, 217
Stevenston, 315
Stewarton, 318
Swansea, 297
Symington, 315
Table of Boroughs, 26
Talgarth, 292
Tamworth, 34, 218
Tarbolton, 314
Tateshall, 187
Tempsford, 53
Sheppey Isle, 54
Shoebury, 51
Shrewsbury, 207
Siege castles, 85
Siegfried the Dane, 75
Siward, Earl, 22
Skipsea, 209
Skreen, 345
Slane, 345
Somerville family, 318
Somner, antiquary, 117
Soulis family, 318
Stafford, 34, 211
Stamford, 44, 216
Stanton, 217
Stevenston, 315
Stewarton, 318
Swansea, 297
Symington, 315
Table of Boroughs, 26
Talgarth, 292
Tamworth, 34, 218
Tarbolton, 314
Tateshall, 187
Tempsford, 53
Page 360
Tenby, 280
Terraces to mottes, 102
Thanet, 54
Thelwall, 46, 385
Thetford, 55, 56
Thibault-le-Tricheur, 74
Thingwall, 381
Thorne, 368 n. 3
Thurles, 346
Tibraghny, 346
Tickhill, 219
Tiles, use of, 255
Timahoe, 346
Tom-a-mhoid, 313
Tomen y Mur, 262
Tomen y Rhoddwy, 271, 272, 388
Tonbridge, 220
Toot Hill, 259
Topcliffe, 5 n.
Torkesey, 55, 56
Totnes, 221
Towcester, 41
Tower of London, 221, 354, 355
Towers to castles, 71
Towns, fortification of, 65
Trade, 30
Terraces to mottes, 102
Thanet, 54
Thelwall, 46, 385
Thetford, 55, 56
Thibault-le-Tricheur, 74
Thingwall, 381
Thorne, 368 n. 3
Thurles, 346
Tibraghny, 346
Tickhill, 219
Tiles, use of, 255
Timahoe, 346
Tom-a-mhoid, 313
Tomen y Mur, 262
Tomen y Rhoddwy, 271, 272, 388
Tonbridge, 220
Toot Hill, 259
Topcliffe, 5 n.
Torkesey, 55, 56
Totnes, 221
Towcester, 41
Tower of London, 221, 354, 355
Towers to castles, 71
Towns, fortification of, 65
Trade, 30
Page 361
Trébuchet, 369
Trematon, 226
Tribalism, 64
Trim, 346, 377
Tristerdermot, 347
Tullow, 335, 389
Tutbury, 227
Tynboeth, 293
Tynemouth, 228
Tynwald Hill, 381
Typermesan, 347
Valoignes family, 318
Value of manors and towns, 96
Vaulting, 362, 365, 367, 374
Vaux family, 319
Viking crews, 90
Viollet le Duc, 368 n. 1
Vire, keep, 361
Voussoirs, 362
Wales, Chapters VIII., IX.;
Wales and Saxons, 253;
Wales and Normans, 254
Wallace family, 319
Wallingford, 28, 228
Walwern, 301
Wareham, 25, 28
Trematon, 226
Tribalism, 64
Trim, 346, 377
Tristerdermot, 347
Tullow, 335, 389
Tutbury, 227
Tynboeth, 293
Tynemouth, 228
Tynwald Hill, 381
Typermesan, 347
Valoignes family, 318
Value of manors and towns, 96
Vaulting, 362, 365, 367, 374
Vaux family, 319
Viking crews, 90
Viollet le Duc, 368 n. 1
Vire, keep, 361
Voussoirs, 362
Wales, Chapters VIII., IX.;
Wales and Saxons, 253;
Wales and Normans, 254
Wallace family, 319
Wallingford, 28, 228
Walwern, 301
Wareham, 25, 28
Page 362
Warenne, Wm., 124, 165
Wark, 366, 367, 368 n. 2, 388
Warkworth, 377
Warwick, 36, 230
Wasta, 114
Waterford, 347
Water-supply, 362-363
Watling Street, 16, 32, 382
Waytemore Castle, 107
Weardbyrig, 36
Welsh halls, 251
Welshpool, 265
Wessex, 13
Wexford, 348
Wicklow, 348
Wigingamere, 41
Wigmore, 232
William I., 22, 77
William the Lion, 163, 305
Willington, 57
Winchester, 233
Winding walks on mottes, 102, 121
Windsor, 236;
borough, 238
Wisbeach, 239
Wiston, 279
Wark, 366, 367, 368 n. 2, 388
Warkworth, 377
Warwick, 36, 230
Wasta, 114
Waterford, 347
Water-supply, 362-363
Watling Street, 16, 32, 382
Waytemore Castle, 107
Weardbyrig, 36
Welsh halls, 251
Welshpool, 265
Wessex, 13
Wexford, 348
Wicklow, 348
Wigingamere, 41
Wigmore, 232
William I., 22, 77
William the Lion, 163, 305
Willington, 57
Winchester, 233
Winding walks on mottes, 102, 121
Windsor, 236;
borough, 238
Wisbeach, 239
Wiston, 279
Page 363
Witham, 39
Wolvesey Castle, 235 n. 4
Wooden fortifications, 78, 208, 228, 250, 306, 358, 359
Worcester, 115, 23, 31, 240;
charter, 21
Wrexham Castle, 268
Yale Castle, 271, 300
Year 1000, 78
York, 13, 242
York, Baile Hill, 248
Ystrad Cyngen, 288
Ystrad Meurig, 283
Ystrad Peithyll, 282
Wolvesey Castle, 235 n. 4
Wooden fortifications, 78, 208, 228, 250, 306, 358, 359
Worcester, 115, 23, 31, 240;
charter, 21
Wrexham Castle, 268
Yale Castle, 271, 300
Year 1000, 78
York, 13, 242
York, Baile Hill, 248
Ystrad Cyngen, 288
Ystrad Meurig, 283
Ystrad Peithyll, 282
Page 364
PRINTED BY OLIVER AND BOYD, EDINBURGH
Page 365
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Mr W. H. St John Hope arrived independently at similar conclusions.
[2] In the paper on Earthworks in the second volume of the Victoria County
History of Yorkshire, this subdivision of the promiscuous class X., is used.
[3] Since the above was written, Mr Hadrian Allcroft’s work on Earthwork of
England has furnished an admirable text-book of this subject.
[4] See Frontispiece.
[5] See Fig. 1.
[6] For instance, at Berkeley, Ewias Harold, Yelden, and Tomen y Roddwy.
[7] As at Rayleigh and Downpatrick.
[8] In some of these castles there is no gap in the bailey banks for an entrance.
They must have been entered by a movable wooden stair, such as horses can be
taught to climb. See the plan of Topcliffe Castle, Yorks (Fig. 1).
[9] Vor Oldtid, p. 629.
[10] Entwickelung des Kriegswesens, iii., 379.
[11] See Chapter VII.
[12] Primitive Folkmoots. See Appendix A.
[13] Early Fortifications in Scotland, p. 13. He adds an instance showing that
Moot Hill is sometimes a mistake for Moot Hall.
[14] Scottish Review, vol. xxxii.
[15] Some writers give the name of moot-hill to places in Yorkshire and
elsewhere where the older ordnance maps give moat-hill. Moat in this
connection is the same as motte, the Scotch and Irish mote, i.e., the hillock of a
castle, derived from the Norman-French word motte. As this word is by far the
most convenient name to give to these hillocks, being the only specific name
which they have ever had, we shall henceforth use it in these pages. We prefer it
to mote, which is the Anglicised form of the word, because of its confusion with
moat, a ditch. Some writers advocate the word mount, but this appears to us too
vague. As the word motte is French in origin, it appropriately describes a thing
which was very un-English when first introduced here.
[16] At York, a prehistoric crouching skeleton was found by Messrs Benson and
Platnauer when excavating the castle hill in 1903, 4 feet 6 inches below the level
of the ground. The motte at York appears to have been raised after the
destruction of the first castle, but whether the first hillock belonged to the
ancient burial is not decided by the account, “Notes on Clifford’s Tower,” by the
above authors. Trans. York. Philosoph. Soc., 1902. Another instance is recorded
in the Revue Archæologique, to which we have unfortunately lost the reference.
[1] Mr W. H. St John Hope arrived independently at similar conclusions.
[2] In the paper on Earthworks in the second volume of the Victoria County
History of Yorkshire, this subdivision of the promiscuous class X., is used.
[3] Since the above was written, Mr Hadrian Allcroft’s work on Earthwork of
England has furnished an admirable text-book of this subject.
[4] See Frontispiece.
[5] See Fig. 1.
[6] For instance, at Berkeley, Ewias Harold, Yelden, and Tomen y Roddwy.
[7] As at Rayleigh and Downpatrick.
[8] In some of these castles there is no gap in the bailey banks for an entrance.
They must have been entered by a movable wooden stair, such as horses can be
taught to climb. See the plan of Topcliffe Castle, Yorks (Fig. 1).
[9] Vor Oldtid, p. 629.
[10] Entwickelung des Kriegswesens, iii., 379.
[11] See Chapter VII.
[12] Primitive Folkmoots. See Appendix A.
[13] Early Fortifications in Scotland, p. 13. He adds an instance showing that
Moot Hill is sometimes a mistake for Moot Hall.
[14] Scottish Review, vol. xxxii.
[15] Some writers give the name of moot-hill to places in Yorkshire and
elsewhere where the older ordnance maps give moat-hill. Moat in this
connection is the same as motte, the Scotch and Irish mote, i.e., the hillock of a
castle, derived from the Norman-French word motte. As this word is by far the
most convenient name to give to these hillocks, being the only specific name
which they have ever had, we shall henceforth use it in these pages. We prefer it
to mote, which is the Anglicised form of the word, because of its confusion with
moat, a ditch. Some writers advocate the word mount, but this appears to us too
vague. As the word motte is French in origin, it appropriately describes a thing
which was very un-English when first introduced here.
[16] At York, a prehistoric crouching skeleton was found by Messrs Benson and
Platnauer when excavating the castle hill in 1903, 4 feet 6 inches below the level
of the ground. The motte at York appears to have been raised after the
destruction of the first castle, but whether the first hillock belonged to the
ancient burial is not decided by the account, “Notes on Clifford’s Tower,” by the
above authors. Trans. York. Philosoph. Soc., 1902. Another instance is recorded
in the Revue Archæologique, to which we have unfortunately lost the reference.
Page 366
[17] From the report of a competent witness, Mr Basil Stallybrass.
[18] Earle, Two Saxon Chronicles Parallel, Introd., xxiii.
[19] Nennius says that Ida “unxit (read cinxit) Dynguayrdi Guerth-Berneich”=a
strength or fort of Bernicia. Mon. Hist. Brit., 75. Elsewhere he calls Bamborough
Dinguo Aroy. It is quite possible that there might have been a Keltic din in a
place so well fitted for one as Bamborough.
[20] Bede, H. E., iii., 16.
[21] See Bede, as above, and Symeon, ii., 45 (R.S.).
[22] We infer this from the strong defences of what is now the middle ward.
[23] The fact, however, that the Trinoda Necessitas, the duty of landholders to
contribute to the repair of boroughs and bridges, and to serve in the fyrd, is
occasionally mentioned in charters earlier than the Danish wars, shows that there
were town walls to be kept up even at that date. See Baldwin Brown, The Arts in
Early England, i., 82.
[24] See Wright, History of Domestic Manners, p. 13.
[25] The Danish fortress of Nottingham is mentioned by the Chronicle in 868,
but we are speaking now of purely Anglo-Saxon fortresses.
[26] Asser, ch. 91, Stevenson’s edition.
[27] “That same year King Alfred repaired London; and all the English
submitted to him, except those who were under the bondage of the Danish men;
and then he committed the city (burh) to the keeping of Ethelred the ealdorman.”
A.-S. C., 886. The word used for London is Londonburh. Asser says:
“Londoniam civitatem honorifice restauravit et habitabilem fecit,” p. 489.
[28] Birch’s Cartularium, ii., 220, 221.
[29] Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 878, 893, 896. According to Henry of Huntingdon,
the work on the Lea was the splitting of that river into two channels; but I am
informed that no trace of such a division remains.
[30] Gesta Pontificum, 186. See Appendix C.
[31] Birch’s Cartularium, ii., 222; Kemble’s Codex Diplomaticus, v., 142.
[32] He signs a charter in 889 as “subregulus et patricius Merciorum,” Kemble’s
Codex Diplomaticus. See Freeman, N. C., i., 564; and Plummer, A.-S. C., i., 118.
[33] The dates in this chapter are taken from Florence of Worcester, who is
generally believed to have used a more correct copy of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle than those which have come down to us.
[34] See Appendix B.
[35] A.-S. C., 910, 911.
[36] New English Dictionary, Borough.
[18] Earle, Two Saxon Chronicles Parallel, Introd., xxiii.
[19] Nennius says that Ida “unxit (read cinxit) Dynguayrdi Guerth-Berneich”=a
strength or fort of Bernicia. Mon. Hist. Brit., 75. Elsewhere he calls Bamborough
Dinguo Aroy. It is quite possible that there might have been a Keltic din in a
place so well fitted for one as Bamborough.
[20] Bede, H. E., iii., 16.
[21] See Bede, as above, and Symeon, ii., 45 (R.S.).
[22] We infer this from the strong defences of what is now the middle ward.
[23] The fact, however, that the Trinoda Necessitas, the duty of landholders to
contribute to the repair of boroughs and bridges, and to serve in the fyrd, is
occasionally mentioned in charters earlier than the Danish wars, shows that there
were town walls to be kept up even at that date. See Baldwin Brown, The Arts in
Early England, i., 82.
[24] See Wright, History of Domestic Manners, p. 13.
[25] The Danish fortress of Nottingham is mentioned by the Chronicle in 868,
but we are speaking now of purely Anglo-Saxon fortresses.
[26] Asser, ch. 91, Stevenson’s edition.
[27] “That same year King Alfred repaired London; and all the English
submitted to him, except those who were under the bondage of the Danish men;
and then he committed the city (burh) to the keeping of Ethelred the ealdorman.”
A.-S. C., 886. The word used for London is Londonburh. Asser says:
“Londoniam civitatem honorifice restauravit et habitabilem fecit,” p. 489.
[28] Birch’s Cartularium, ii., 220, 221.
[29] Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 878, 893, 896. According to Henry of Huntingdon,
the work on the Lea was the splitting of that river into two channels; but I am
informed that no trace of such a division remains.
[30] Gesta Pontificum, 186. See Appendix C.
[31] Birch’s Cartularium, ii., 222; Kemble’s Codex Diplomaticus, v., 142.
[32] He signs a charter in 889 as “subregulus et patricius Merciorum,” Kemble’s
Codex Diplomaticus. See Freeman, N. C., i., 564; and Plummer, A.-S. C., i., 118.
[33] The dates in this chapter are taken from Florence of Worcester, who is
generally believed to have used a more correct copy of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle than those which have come down to us.
[34] See Appendix B.
[35] A.-S. C., 910, 911.
[36] New English Dictionary, Borough.
Page 367
[37] Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 942. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has three words
for fortifications, burh, faesten, and geweorc. Burh is always used for those of
Edward and Ethelfleda, faesten (fastness) or geweorc (work) for those of the
Danes.
[38] See the illustrations in Wright, History of Domestic Manners.
[39] Bury is formed from byrig, the dative of burh.
[40] Professor Maitland observed: “To say nothing of hamlets, we have full 250
parishes whose names end in burgh, bury, or borough, and in many cases we see
no sign in them of an ancient camp or of an exceptionally dense population.”
Domesday Book and Beyond, 184.
[41] Schmid, Gesetze der Angelsachsen, pp. 176, 214, 372. It is not absolutely
certain that the burh in these three cases does not mean a town.
[42] Schmid, 138. Professor Maitland says: “In Athelstan’s day it seems to be
supposed by the legislator that a moot will usually be held in a burh. If a man
neglect three summonses to a moot, the oldest men of the burh are to ride to his
place and seize his goods.” Domesday Book and Beyond, 185. “All my reeves,”
are mentioned in the Preface to Athelstan’s Laws, Schmid, 126.
[43] Schmid, 138. “Butan porte” is the Saxon expression, port being another
word for town; see Schmid, 643.
[44] Schmid, Edgar III., 5; Ethelred II., 6.
[45] Edgar IV., 2.
[46] The writer was first led to doubt the correctness of the late Mr G. T. Clark’s
theory of burhs by examining the A.-S. illustrated MSS. in the British Museum.
On p. 29 of the MS. of Prudentius (Cleopatra, c. viii.), there is an excellent
drawing of a four-sided enclosure, with towers at the angles, and battlemented
walls of masonry. The title of the picture is “Virtutes urbem ingrediuntur,” and
urbem is rendered in the A.-S. gloss as burh. See Fig. 2.
[47] Florence translates burh as urbs nineteen times, as arx four times, as murum
once, as munitio once, as civitas once.
[48] Published in 1884, but comprising a number of papers read to various
archæological societies through many previous years, during which Mr Clark’s
reputation as an archæologist appears to have been made.
[49] “Eallum thæm folc to gebeorge.” Birch’s Cartularium, ii., 222.
[50] Professor Maitland has claimed that the origin of the boroughs was largely
military, the duty of maintaining the walls of the county borough being
incumbent on the magnates of the shire. Domesday Book and Beyond, 189. See
Appendix C.
[51] Parker’s Domestic Architecture in England from Richard II. to Henry VIII.,
part ii., 256.
[52] A.-S. C., 1048.
for fortifications, burh, faesten, and geweorc. Burh is always used for those of
Edward and Ethelfleda, faesten (fastness) or geweorc (work) for those of the
Danes.
[38] See the illustrations in Wright, History of Domestic Manners.
[39] Bury is formed from byrig, the dative of burh.
[40] Professor Maitland observed: “To say nothing of hamlets, we have full 250
parishes whose names end in burgh, bury, or borough, and in many cases we see
no sign in them of an ancient camp or of an exceptionally dense population.”
Domesday Book and Beyond, 184.
[41] Schmid, Gesetze der Angelsachsen, pp. 176, 214, 372. It is not absolutely
certain that the burh in these three cases does not mean a town.
[42] Schmid, 138. Professor Maitland says: “In Athelstan’s day it seems to be
supposed by the legislator that a moot will usually be held in a burh. If a man
neglect three summonses to a moot, the oldest men of the burh are to ride to his
place and seize his goods.” Domesday Book and Beyond, 185. “All my reeves,”
are mentioned in the Preface to Athelstan’s Laws, Schmid, 126.
[43] Schmid, 138. “Butan porte” is the Saxon expression, port being another
word for town; see Schmid, 643.
[44] Schmid, Edgar III., 5; Ethelred II., 6.
[45] Edgar IV., 2.
[46] The writer was first led to doubt the correctness of the late Mr G. T. Clark’s
theory of burhs by examining the A.-S. illustrated MSS. in the British Museum.
On p. 29 of the MS. of Prudentius (Cleopatra, c. viii.), there is an excellent
drawing of a four-sided enclosure, with towers at the angles, and battlemented
walls of masonry. The title of the picture is “Virtutes urbem ingrediuntur,” and
urbem is rendered in the A.-S. gloss as burh. See Fig. 2.
[47] Florence translates burh as urbs nineteen times, as arx four times, as murum
once, as munitio once, as civitas once.
[48] Published in 1884, but comprising a number of papers read to various
archæological societies through many previous years, during which Mr Clark’s
reputation as an archæologist appears to have been made.
[49] “Eallum thæm folc to gebeorge.” Birch’s Cartularium, ii., 222.
[50] Professor Maitland has claimed that the origin of the boroughs was largely
military, the duty of maintaining the walls of the county borough being
incumbent on the magnates of the shire. Domesday Book and Beyond, 189. See
Appendix C.
[51] Parker’s Domestic Architecture in England from Richard II. to Henry VIII.,
part ii., 256.
[52] A.-S. C., 1048.
Page 368
[53] William of Jumièges, vii.-xvii.
[54] A.-S. C. (Peterborough), 1048.
[55] A.-S. C., 1052 (Worcester). This castle is generally supposed to be Richard’s
Castle, Herefordshire, built by Richard Scrob; but I see no reason why it should
not be Hereford, as the Norman Ralph, King Edward’s nephew, was Earl of
Hereford. We shall return to these castles later.
[56] Mr Freeman says: “In the eleventh century, the word castel was introduced
into our language to mark something which was evidently quite distinct from the
familiar burh of ancient times.... Ordericus speaks of the thing and its name as
something distinctly French: “munitiones quas Galli castella nuncupant.” The
castles which were now introduced into England seem to have been new
inventions in Normandy itself. William of Jumièges distinctly makes the
building of castles to have been one of the main signs and causes of the general
disorder of the days of William’s minority, and he seems to speak of the practice
as something new.” N. C., ii., 606. It is surprising that after so clear a statement
as this, Mr Freeman should have fallen under the influence of Mr Clark’s burh
theory, and should completely have confused castles and boroughs.
[57] Codex Diplomaticus, i., 138.
[58] History of Rochester, 1772, p. 21.
[59] Stevenson’s edition of Asser, 331. See Appendix D.
[60] Asser, c. xlix.
[61] Worcester, Chester, Tamworth, Stafford, Warwick, Hertford, Buckingham,
Bedford, Maldon, Huntingdon, Colchester, Stamford, and Nottingham.
[62] Domesday Book and Beyond, 216.
[63] Buckingham is the only place which is included in both lists. See Appendix
E.
[64] Domesday Book and Beyond, 188. See Appendix E. Southwark, one of the
names, which is not called a borough in Domesday, retains its name of The
Borough to the present day.
[65] No Roman remains have been found in either place.
[66] Beauties of England and Wales, Oxfordshire.
[67] See Skeat’s Dictionary, “Timber.”
[68] Excavation has recently shown that many of the great hill-forts were
permanently inhabited, and it is now considered improbable that they were
originally built as camps of refuge. It seems more likely that this use, of which
there are undoubted instances in historic times (see Cæsar, Bello Gallico, vi., 10,
and v., 21), belonged to a more advanced stage of development, when population
had moved down into the lower and cultivatable lands, but still used their old
forts in cases of emergency.
[69] Ante, p. 21.
[54] A.-S. C. (Peterborough), 1048.
[55] A.-S. C., 1052 (Worcester). This castle is generally supposed to be Richard’s
Castle, Herefordshire, built by Richard Scrob; but I see no reason why it should
not be Hereford, as the Norman Ralph, King Edward’s nephew, was Earl of
Hereford. We shall return to these castles later.
[56] Mr Freeman says: “In the eleventh century, the word castel was introduced
into our language to mark something which was evidently quite distinct from the
familiar burh of ancient times.... Ordericus speaks of the thing and its name as
something distinctly French: “munitiones quas Galli castella nuncupant.” The
castles which were now introduced into England seem to have been new
inventions in Normandy itself. William of Jumièges distinctly makes the
building of castles to have been one of the main signs and causes of the general
disorder of the days of William’s minority, and he seems to speak of the practice
as something new.” N. C., ii., 606. It is surprising that after so clear a statement
as this, Mr Freeman should have fallen under the influence of Mr Clark’s burh
theory, and should completely have confused castles and boroughs.
[57] Codex Diplomaticus, i., 138.
[58] History of Rochester, 1772, p. 21.
[59] Stevenson’s edition of Asser, 331. See Appendix D.
[60] Asser, c. xlix.
[61] Worcester, Chester, Tamworth, Stafford, Warwick, Hertford, Buckingham,
Bedford, Maldon, Huntingdon, Colchester, Stamford, and Nottingham.
[62] Domesday Book and Beyond, 216.
[63] Buckingham is the only place which is included in both lists. See Appendix
E.
[64] Domesday Book and Beyond, 188. See Appendix E. Southwark, one of the
names, which is not called a borough in Domesday, retains its name of The
Borough to the present day.
[65] No Roman remains have been found in either place.
[66] Beauties of England and Wales, Oxfordshire.
[67] See Skeat’s Dictionary, “Timber.”
[68] Excavation has recently shown that many of the great hill-forts were
permanently inhabited, and it is now considered improbable that they were
originally built as camps of refuge. It seems more likely that this use, of which
there are undoubted instances in historic times (see Cæsar, Bello Gallico, vi., 10,
and v., 21), belonged to a more advanced stage of development, when population
had moved down into the lower and cultivatable lands, but still used their old
forts in cases of emergency.
[69] Ante, p. 21.
Page 369
[70] Haverfield, in V. C. H. Worcester, Romano-British Worcester, i.
[71] Early Fortifications in Scotland, p. 105.
[72] Gairdner and Mullinger, Introduction to the Study of English History, 268.
[73] The tower called Cæsar’s Tower is really a mural tower of the 13th century.
E. W. Cox, “Chester Castle,” in Chester Hist. and Archæol. Soc., v., 239.
[74] Cox, as above. See also Shrubsole, “The Age of the City Walls of Chester,”
Arch. Journ., xliv., 1887. The present wall, which includes the castle, is an
extension probably not earlier than James I.’s reign.
[75] The charter is given in Ormerod’s History of Cheshire, ii., 405.
[76] Journ. of Brit. Arch. Ass., 1875, p. 153.
[77] Itin., ii., 2.
[78] “Arcem quam in occidentali Sabrinæ fluminis plaga, in loco qui Bricge
dicitur lingua Saxonica, Ægelfleda Merciorum domina quondam construxerat,
fratre suo Edwardo seniore regnante, Comes Rodbertus contra regem Henricum,
muro lato et alto, summoque restaurare cœpit.” 1101.
[79] A good deal has been made of the name Oldbury, as pointing to the old
burh; but Oldbury is the name of the manor, not of the hillock, which bears the
singular name of Pampudding Hill. Tradition says that the Parliamentary forces
used it for their guns in 1646. Eyton’s Shropshire, i., 132.
[80] “Bricge cum exercitu pene totius Angliæ obsedit, machinas quoque ibi
construere et castellum firmare præcepit.” Florence, 1102.
[81] Florence in fact says urbem restauravit.
[82] D. B., i., 246.
[83] These buildings formed part of a hunting lodge built in the reign of Edward
III., called The Chamber in the Forest. See Ormerod’s Cheshire, ii., 3. When
visiting Eddisbury several years ago, the writer noticed several Perpendicular
buttresses in these ruins.
[84] D. B., i., 238a, 1.
[85] “Abbas de Couentreu habet 36 masuras, et 4 sunt wastæ propter situm
castelli.... Hae masurae pertinent ad terras quas ipsi barones tenent extra burgum,
et ibi appreciatae sunt.” D. B., i., 238.
[86] Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 189. See Appendix D.
[87] Dugdale’s Warwickshire, 1st edition, pp. 50 and 75. The derivation of Kirby
from Cyricbyrig is not according to etymological rules, but there can be no
doubt about it as a fact; for in Domesday it is stated that Chircheberie was held
by Geoffrey de Wirche, and that the monks of St Nicholas [at Angers] had two
carucates in the manor. In the charter in which Geoffrey de Wirche makes this
gift Chircheberie is called Kirkeberia [M. A., vi., 996], but in the subsequent
charter of Roger de Mowbray, confirming the gift, it is called Kirkeby.
[71] Early Fortifications in Scotland, p. 105.
[72] Gairdner and Mullinger, Introduction to the Study of English History, 268.
[73] The tower called Cæsar’s Tower is really a mural tower of the 13th century.
E. W. Cox, “Chester Castle,” in Chester Hist. and Archæol. Soc., v., 239.
[74] Cox, as above. See also Shrubsole, “The Age of the City Walls of Chester,”
Arch. Journ., xliv., 1887. The present wall, which includes the castle, is an
extension probably not earlier than James I.’s reign.
[75] The charter is given in Ormerod’s History of Cheshire, ii., 405.
[76] Journ. of Brit. Arch. Ass., 1875, p. 153.
[77] Itin., ii., 2.
[78] “Arcem quam in occidentali Sabrinæ fluminis plaga, in loco qui Bricge
dicitur lingua Saxonica, Ægelfleda Merciorum domina quondam construxerat,
fratre suo Edwardo seniore regnante, Comes Rodbertus contra regem Henricum,
muro lato et alto, summoque restaurare cœpit.” 1101.
[79] A good deal has been made of the name Oldbury, as pointing to the old
burh; but Oldbury is the name of the manor, not of the hillock, which bears the
singular name of Pampudding Hill. Tradition says that the Parliamentary forces
used it for their guns in 1646. Eyton’s Shropshire, i., 132.
[80] “Bricge cum exercitu pene totius Angliæ obsedit, machinas quoque ibi
construere et castellum firmare præcepit.” Florence, 1102.
[81] Florence in fact says urbem restauravit.
[82] D. B., i., 246.
[83] These buildings formed part of a hunting lodge built in the reign of Edward
III., called The Chamber in the Forest. See Ormerod’s Cheshire, ii., 3. When
visiting Eddisbury several years ago, the writer noticed several Perpendicular
buttresses in these ruins.
[84] D. B., i., 238a, 1.
[85] “Abbas de Couentreu habet 36 masuras, et 4 sunt wastæ propter situm
castelli.... Hae masurae pertinent ad terras quas ipsi barones tenent extra burgum,
et ibi appreciatae sunt.” D. B., i., 238.
[86] Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 189. See Appendix D.
[87] Dugdale’s Warwickshire, 1st edition, pp. 50 and 75. The derivation of Kirby
from Cyricbyrig is not according to etymological rules, but there can be no
doubt about it as a fact; for in Domesday it is stated that Chircheberie was held
by Geoffrey de Wirche, and that the monks of St Nicholas [at Angers] had two
carucates in the manor. In the charter in which Geoffrey de Wirche makes this
gift Chircheberie is called Kirkeberia [M. A., vi., 996], but in the subsequent
charter of Roger de Mowbray, confirming the gift, it is called Kirkeby.
Page 370
[88] Britannia, ii., 375.
[89] Numismatic Chronicle, 3rd S., xiii., 220.
[90] Fowler’s History of Runcorn gives a plan of this fort, and there is another in
Hanshall’s History of Cheshire, p. 418 (1817). A very different one is given in
Beaumont’s History of Halton.
[91] Beaumont’s Records of the Honour of Halton. In 1368, John Hank received
the surrender of a house near to the castle in Runcorn.
[92] Mediæval Military Architecture, ii., 120.
[93] Essex Naturalist, January 1887.
[94] Danbury Camp, which has also been surveyed by Mr Spurrell (Essex
Naturalist, 1890), is precisely similar in plan to Witham, but nothing is known of
its history.
[95] See Victoria History of Bedfordshire, i., 281.
[96] Morant’s History of Essex, i. Three sides of the rampart were visible in his
time.
[97] D. B., ii., 5.
[98] Itin., i., 12.
[99] Baker’s History of Northampton, ii., 321.
[100] D. B., i., 219b.
[101] A.-S. C., 921. “Wrohte tha burg æt Tofeceastre mid stan wealle.” Florence
says 918.
[102] Baker, History of Northants, ii., 318. See also Haverfield, V. C. H.,
Northants, i., 184.
[103] Atkinson’s Cambridge Described, p. 1.
[104] There is, however, this difficulty, that Cambridge was still occupied by a
Danish force when Wigingamere was built. It submitted to Edward in 918.
[105] See Mr Plummer’s discussion of these variations in his edition of the
Chronicle, ii., 116.
[106] Lewis, Topographical Dictionary of England. Mr Rye remarks:—“The
silting up of the harbour has ruined a port which once promised to be of as great
importance as Norwich.” History of Norfolk, p. 228.
[107] It is really wonderful that the identification of Cledemuthan with the
mouth of the Cleddy in Pembrokeshire could ever have been accepted by any
sober historian. That Edward, whose whole time was fully occupied with his
conquests from the Danish settlers, could have suddenly transported his forces
into one of the remotest corners of Wales, would have been a feat worthy of the
coming days of air-ships. William of Worcester has preserved a tradition that
Edward repaired Burgh, “quae olim Saxonice dicebatur Burgh-chester,” but he
[89] Numismatic Chronicle, 3rd S., xiii., 220.
[90] Fowler’s History of Runcorn gives a plan of this fort, and there is another in
Hanshall’s History of Cheshire, p. 418 (1817). A very different one is given in
Beaumont’s History of Halton.
[91] Beaumont’s Records of the Honour of Halton. In 1368, John Hank received
the surrender of a house near to the castle in Runcorn.
[92] Mediæval Military Architecture, ii., 120.
[93] Essex Naturalist, January 1887.
[94] Danbury Camp, which has also been surveyed by Mr Spurrell (Essex
Naturalist, 1890), is precisely similar in plan to Witham, but nothing is known of
its history.
[95] See Victoria History of Bedfordshire, i., 281.
[96] Morant’s History of Essex, i. Three sides of the rampart were visible in his
time.
[97] D. B., ii., 5.
[98] Itin., i., 12.
[99] Baker’s History of Northampton, ii., 321.
[100] D. B., i., 219b.
[101] A.-S. C., 921. “Wrohte tha burg æt Tofeceastre mid stan wealle.” Florence
says 918.
[102] Baker, History of Northants, ii., 318. See also Haverfield, V. C. H.,
Northants, i., 184.
[103] Atkinson’s Cambridge Described, p. 1.
[104] There is, however, this difficulty, that Cambridge was still occupied by a
Danish force when Wigingamere was built. It submitted to Edward in 918.
[105] See Mr Plummer’s discussion of these variations in his edition of the
Chronicle, ii., 116.
[106] Lewis, Topographical Dictionary of England. Mr Rye remarks:—“The
silting up of the harbour has ruined a port which once promised to be of as great
importance as Norwich.” History of Norfolk, p. 228.
[107] It is really wonderful that the identification of Cledemuthan with the
mouth of the Cleddy in Pembrokeshire could ever have been accepted by any
sober historian. That Edward, whose whole time was fully occupied with his
conquests from the Danish settlers, could have suddenly transported his forces
into one of the remotest corners of Wales, would have been a feat worthy of the
coming days of air-ships. William of Worcester has preserved a tradition that
Edward repaired Burgh, “quae olim Saxonice dicebatur Burgh-chester,” but he
Page 371
confuses it with Norwich. Itinerarium, 337. Is it possible that we ought to look
for Cledemuthan at Burgh Castle, at the mouth of the Waveney? It would be
quite in accordance with Edward’s actions elsewhere to restore an old Roman
castrum.
[108] Leland says: “There were 7 principall Towers or Wards in the waulles of
Staunford, to eche of which were certeyne freeholders in the Towne allottid to
wache and ward in tyme of neadde.” Itinerarium, vii., 11.
[109] A.-S. C., 868.
[110] Shipman’s Old Town Wall of Nottingham, pp. 73-75. The evidence for a
Roman origin of the borough is altogether too slight, as, except some doubtful
earthenware bottles, no Roman remains have been found at Nottingham.
[111] A.-S. C., 921. Florence of Worcester, 919.
[112] I am indebted for much of the information given here to the local
antiquarian knowledge of Mr Harold Sands, F.S.A. He states that the old
borough was 1400 yards from the Trent at its nearest point, and that the highest
ground on the south side of the Trent is marked by the Trent Bridge cricket
ground, the last spot to become flooded. Here, therefore, was the probable site of
Edward’s second borough.
[113] See Appendix F.
[114] Whitaker’s History of Manchester, i., 43.
[115] Trans. of Lanc. and Chesh. Hist. and Ant. Soc., v., 246.
[116] “Castle” in combination with some other word is often given to works of
Roman or British origin, because its original meaning was a fortified enclosure;
but the name Castle Hill is extremely common for mottes.
[117] We may remark here that it is not surprising that there should be a number
of motte castles which are never mentioned in history, especially as it is certain
that all the “adulterine” castles, which were raised without royal permission in
the rebellions of Stephen’s and other reigns, were very short-lived.
[118] Mediæval Military Architecture, i., 18. See Mr Round’s remarks on Mr
Clark’s vagueness in his “Castles of the Conquest,” Archæologia, 1902.
[119] The A.-S. C. speaks of this Danish host as “a great heathen army.” 866.
[120] “Worhton other fæsten ymb hie selfe.” The same language is frequently
used in the continental accounts of the Danish fortresses: “Munientes se per
gyrum avulsæ terræ aggere,” Dudo, 155 (Duchesne): “Se ex illis (sepibus et
parietibus) circumdando munierant.” It., p. 81.
[121] The earthworks at Bayford Court must belong to the mediæval castle
which existed there. See Beauties of England and Wales, Kent, p. 698. Castle
Rough is less than an acre in area.
[122] Mr Harold Sands, Some Kentish Castles, p. 10.
for Cledemuthan at Burgh Castle, at the mouth of the Waveney? It would be
quite in accordance with Edward’s actions elsewhere to restore an old Roman
castrum.
[108] Leland says: “There were 7 principall Towers or Wards in the waulles of
Staunford, to eche of which were certeyne freeholders in the Towne allottid to
wache and ward in tyme of neadde.” Itinerarium, vii., 11.
[109] A.-S. C., 868.
[110] Shipman’s Old Town Wall of Nottingham, pp. 73-75. The evidence for a
Roman origin of the borough is altogether too slight, as, except some doubtful
earthenware bottles, no Roman remains have been found at Nottingham.
[111] A.-S. C., 921. Florence of Worcester, 919.
[112] I am indebted for much of the information given here to the local
antiquarian knowledge of Mr Harold Sands, F.S.A. He states that the old
borough was 1400 yards from the Trent at its nearest point, and that the highest
ground on the south side of the Trent is marked by the Trent Bridge cricket
ground, the last spot to become flooded. Here, therefore, was the probable site of
Edward’s second borough.
[113] See Appendix F.
[114] Whitaker’s History of Manchester, i., 43.
[115] Trans. of Lanc. and Chesh. Hist. and Ant. Soc., v., 246.
[116] “Castle” in combination with some other word is often given to works of
Roman or British origin, because its original meaning was a fortified enclosure;
but the name Castle Hill is extremely common for mottes.
[117] We may remark here that it is not surprising that there should be a number
of motte castles which are never mentioned in history, especially as it is certain
that all the “adulterine” castles, which were raised without royal permission in
the rebellions of Stephen’s and other reigns, were very short-lived.
[118] Mediæval Military Architecture, i., 18. See Mr Round’s remarks on Mr
Clark’s vagueness in his “Castles of the Conquest,” Archæologia, 1902.
[119] The A.-S. C. speaks of this Danish host as “a great heathen army.” 866.
[120] “Worhton other fæsten ymb hie selfe.” The same language is frequently
used in the continental accounts of the Danish fortresses: “Munientes se per
gyrum avulsæ terræ aggere,” Dudo, 155 (Duchesne): “Se ex illis (sepibus et
parietibus) circumdando munierant.” It., p. 81.
[121] The earthworks at Bayford Court must belong to the mediæval castle
which existed there. See Beauties of England and Wales, Kent, p. 698. Castle
Rough is less than an acre in area.
[122] Mr Harold Sands, Some Kentish Castles, p. 10.
Page 372
[123] See the plan in Victoria History of Kent, paper on Earthworks by the late
Mr I. C. Gould. Hasted states that there was a small circular mount there as well
as an embankment, and that there are other remains in the marsh below, which
seem to have been connected with the former by a narrow ridge or causeway,
Kent, iii., 117. The causeway led to a similar mount in the marsh below, but Mr
Gould inclined to think the mounts and causeway later, and possibly part of a
dam for “inning” the marsh. V. C. H., p. 397.
[124] “Hæsten’s Camps at Shoebury and Benfleet,” Essex Naturalist, iv., 153.
[125] The Chronicle says that the ships of Hæsten were either broken to pieces,
or burnt, or taken to London or Rochester. 894.
[126] Essex Naturalist, as above, p. 151. These berms certainly suggest Roman
influence.
[127] A.-S. C., 894.
[128] Montgomery Collections, xxxi., 337; Dymond, On the Site of Buttington.
See also Steenstrup, Normannerne, ii., 80.
[129] Beauties of England and Wales, vii., 246. There is nothing left either at
Great or Little Amwell now but fragments of what are supposed to be homestead
moats. Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, pp. 95, 142, Herts. vol.
[130] Florence’s date.
[131] Victoria History of Bedfordshire, i., 282, from which this description is
taken.
[132] The Chronicle speaks of Tempsford as a burh, so it must have been a large
enclosure.
[133] Mr Clark actually speaks of a subsequent Norman castle at Tempsford (M.
M. A., i., 78), but we have been unable to find any confirmation of this. Faint
traces of larger works in the fields below were formerly visible. V. C. H.
Bedfordshire.
[134] Stephenson’s Asser, p. 27.
[135] There are no remains of earthworks in Thanet or Sheppey, except a place
called Cheeseman’s Camp, near Minster in Thanet, which the late Mr Gould
regarded as of the “homestead-moat type.” V. C. H. Kent, i., 433. Nor are there
any earthworks on Mersey Island mentioned by Mr Gould in his paper on Essex
earthworks in the V. C. H.
[136] Stukeley, who saw this earthwork when it was in a much more perfect
state, says that it contained 30 acres. See Mr Hope’s paper in Camb. Antiq. Soc.,
vol. xi.
[137] Blomefield’s Norfolk, ii., pp. 7, 8, 27. His description is very confused.
[138] See Erlingssen’s Ruins of the Saga Time, Viking Club, p. 337.
[139] Richerii, Historiarum Libri Quatuor, edition Guadet, p. 67.
Mr I. C. Gould. Hasted states that there was a small circular mount there as well
as an embankment, and that there are other remains in the marsh below, which
seem to have been connected with the former by a narrow ridge or causeway,
Kent, iii., 117. The causeway led to a similar mount in the marsh below, but Mr
Gould inclined to think the mounts and causeway later, and possibly part of a
dam for “inning” the marsh. V. C. H., p. 397.
[124] “Hæsten’s Camps at Shoebury and Benfleet,” Essex Naturalist, iv., 153.
[125] The Chronicle says that the ships of Hæsten were either broken to pieces,
or burnt, or taken to London or Rochester. 894.
[126] Essex Naturalist, as above, p. 151. These berms certainly suggest Roman
influence.
[127] A.-S. C., 894.
[128] Montgomery Collections, xxxi., 337; Dymond, On the Site of Buttington.
See also Steenstrup, Normannerne, ii., 80.
[129] Beauties of England and Wales, vii., 246. There is nothing left either at
Great or Little Amwell now but fragments of what are supposed to be homestead
moats. Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, pp. 95, 142, Herts. vol.
[130] Florence’s date.
[131] Victoria History of Bedfordshire, i., 282, from which this description is
taken.
[132] The Chronicle speaks of Tempsford as a burh, so it must have been a large
enclosure.
[133] Mr Clark actually speaks of a subsequent Norman castle at Tempsford (M.
M. A., i., 78), but we have been unable to find any confirmation of this. Faint
traces of larger works in the fields below were formerly visible. V. C. H.
Bedfordshire.
[134] Stephenson’s Asser, p. 27.
[135] There are no remains of earthworks in Thanet or Sheppey, except a place
called Cheeseman’s Camp, near Minster in Thanet, which the late Mr Gould
regarded as of the “homestead-moat type.” V. C. H. Kent, i., 433. Nor are there
any earthworks on Mersey Island mentioned by Mr Gould in his paper on Essex
earthworks in the V. C. H.
[136] Stukeley, who saw this earthwork when it was in a much more perfect
state, says that it contained 30 acres. See Mr Hope’s paper in Camb. Antiq. Soc.,
vol. xi.
[137] Blomefield’s Norfolk, ii., pp. 7, 8, 27. His description is very confused.
[138] See Erlingssen’s Ruins of the Saga Time, Viking Club, p. 337.
[139] Richerii, Historiarum Libri Quatuor, edition Guadet, p. 67.
Page 373
[140] “In modo castri, munientes se per girum avulsæ terræ aggere.” Dudo, 155
(edition Duchesne).
[141] “The castle end of Cambridge was called the Borough within the memory
of persons now living.” Atkinson’s Cambridge Described (1897), p. 9.
[142] Steenstrup says that the Northmen built themselves shipyards all round
Europe, especially on the islands where they had their winter settlements.
Normannerne, i., 354.
[143] A.-S., hyth, a shore, a landing-place.
[144] Victoria County History of Beds., i., 282.
[145] Steenstrup’s Normannerne, vol. iv.; Danelag, p. 40.
[146] A.-S. C., 914-921.
[147] Steenstrup, Danelag, p. 41.
[148] Ibid., pp. 22, 23.
[149] Such quartering must have been confined to the unmarried Danes, but
there must have been plenty of unmarried men in the piratical host, even at the
period when it became customary to bring wives and children with the army.
[150] Normannerne, i., 282.
[151] Dudo, 76 (Duchesne).
[152] Herr Steenstrup shows that so far from the settlement of the Danes in
Normandy being on feudal lines, they only reluctantly accepted the feudal yoke,
and not till the next century. Normannerne, i., 305, 310. It is not till the 11th
century that feudal castles become general in Normandy.
[153] The Danes in Normandy soon made Rouen a great centre of trade.
Normannerne, i., 190.
[154] Cunningham’s Growth of English Industry, i., 92.
[155] See Vinogradoff, English Society in the 11th Century, pp. 5, 11, 478.
[156] See Stubbs, Constitutional History, i., 251; Maitland’s Domesday Book
and Beyond, p. 157; Round’s Feudal England, p. 261; Vinogradoff’s English
Society in the 11th Century, p. 41.
[157] Professor Maitland wrote: “The definitely feudal idea that military service
is the tenant’s return for the gift of land did not exist [before the Norman
Conquest], though a state of things had been evolved which for many practical
purposes was indistinguishable from the system of knight’s fees.” Domesday
Book and Beyond, p. 157. Dr Round holds that “the military service of the
Anglo-Norman tenant-in-chief was in no way derived or developed from that of
the Anglo-Saxons, but was arbitrarily fixed by the king, from whom he received
his fief.” Feudal England, p. 261. Similarly, Professor Vinogradoff states that
“the law of military fees is in substance French law brought over to England by
the [Norman] conquerors.” English Society in the 11th Century, p. 41.
(edition Duchesne).
[141] “The castle end of Cambridge was called the Borough within the memory
of persons now living.” Atkinson’s Cambridge Described (1897), p. 9.
[142] Steenstrup says that the Northmen built themselves shipyards all round
Europe, especially on the islands where they had their winter settlements.
Normannerne, i., 354.
[143] A.-S., hyth, a shore, a landing-place.
[144] Victoria County History of Beds., i., 282.
[145] Steenstrup’s Normannerne, vol. iv.; Danelag, p. 40.
[146] A.-S. C., 914-921.
[147] Steenstrup, Danelag, p. 41.
[148] Ibid., pp. 22, 23.
[149] Such quartering must have been confined to the unmarried Danes, but
there must have been plenty of unmarried men in the piratical host, even at the
period when it became customary to bring wives and children with the army.
[150] Normannerne, i., 282.
[151] Dudo, 76 (Duchesne).
[152] Herr Steenstrup shows that so far from the settlement of the Danes in
Normandy being on feudal lines, they only reluctantly accepted the feudal yoke,
and not till the next century. Normannerne, i., 305, 310. It is not till the 11th
century that feudal castles become general in Normandy.
[153] The Danes in Normandy soon made Rouen a great centre of trade.
Normannerne, i., 190.
[154] Cunningham’s Growth of English Industry, i., 92.
[155] See Vinogradoff, English Society in the 11th Century, pp. 5, 11, 478.
[156] See Stubbs, Constitutional History, i., 251; Maitland’s Domesday Book
and Beyond, p. 157; Round’s Feudal England, p. 261; Vinogradoff’s English
Society in the 11th Century, p. 41.
[157] Professor Maitland wrote: “The definitely feudal idea that military service
is the tenant’s return for the gift of land did not exist [before the Norman
Conquest], though a state of things had been evolved which for many practical
purposes was indistinguishable from the system of knight’s fees.” Domesday
Book and Beyond, p. 157. Dr Round holds that “the military service of the
Anglo-Norman tenant-in-chief was in no way derived or developed from that of
the Anglo-Saxons, but was arbitrarily fixed by the king, from whom he received
his fief.” Feudal England, p. 261. Similarly, Professor Vinogradoff states that
“the law of military fees is in substance French law brought over to England by
the [Norman] conquerors.” English Society in the 11th Century, p. 41.
Page 374
[158] Giesebrecht, Geschichte der Kaiserzeit, i., 224. The word Burg, which
Giesebrecht uses for these strongholds, means a castle in modern German; but its
ancient meaning was a town (see Hilprecht’s German Dictionary), and it
corresponded exactly to the Anglo-Saxon burh. It was used in this sense at least
as late as the end of the 12th century; see, e.g., Lamprecht’s Alexanderlied,
passim. It is clear by the context that Giesebrecht employs it in its ancient sense.
[159] Ibid., 222. Henry’s son Otto married a daughter of Edward the Elder.
Henry received the nickname of Townfounder (Städtegründer).
[160] “Carolus civitates Transsequanas ab incolis firmari rogavit, Cinomannis
scilicet et Turonis, ut præsidio contra Nortmannos populis esse possent.”
Annales Bertinianorum, Migne, Pat., 125, 53.
[161] Flodoard, Hist. Ecc. Remensis, iv., viii.
[162] Modern historians generally say that he built the castle of Coucy; but from
Flodoard’s account it seems very doubtful whether anything but the town is
meant. Annales, iv., xiii. His words are: “Munitionem quoque apud Codiciacum
tuto loco constituit atque firmavit.” Munitio properly means a bulwark or wall.
[163] Gesta Episcop. Cameracensium, Pertz, vii., 424.
[164] Chron. Camarense et Atrebatorum, Bouquet, x., 196.
[165] Sismondi, Histoire des Français, ii., 172.
[166] Guizot, Histoire de la Civilisation en France, iii., 311.
[167] Enlart, Manuel d’Archæologie Française, ii., 494.
[168] See Dr Haverfield’s articles in the Victoria County Histories, passim. The
late J. H. Burton justly wrote: “We have nothing from the Romans answering to
the feudal stronghold or castle, no vestige of a place where a great man lived
apart with his family and his servants, ruling over dependants and fortifying
himself against enemies.” History of Scotland, i., 385.
[169] Annals of Fulda, 394, Pertz, i.
[170] Cap. Regum Francor., ii., 360.
[171] Thus De Caumont unfortunately spoke of the fortress built by Nicetus,
Bishop of Treves, in the 6th century, as a château (Abécédaire, ii., 382); but
Venantius Fortunatus, in his descriptive poem, tells us that it was a vast
enclosure with no less than thirty towers, built by the good pastor for the
protection of his flock. It even contained fields and vineyards, and altogether
was as different from a private castle as anything can well be. Similarly the
castrum of Merliac, spoken of by Enlart (Architecture Militaire, p. 492) as a
“veritable château,” is described as containing cultivated lands and sheets of
water! (Cited from Gregory of Tours, Hist. Francorum, liii., 13.) De Caumont
himself says: “Les grandes exploitations rurales que possédaient les rois de
France et les principaux du royaume du Vième au Xième siècle ne furent pas des
forteresses et ne doivent point être confondues avec les chateaux.” Abécédaire,
ii., 62.
Giesebrecht uses for these strongholds, means a castle in modern German; but its
ancient meaning was a town (see Hilprecht’s German Dictionary), and it
corresponded exactly to the Anglo-Saxon burh. It was used in this sense at least
as late as the end of the 12th century; see, e.g., Lamprecht’s Alexanderlied,
passim. It is clear by the context that Giesebrecht employs it in its ancient sense.
[159] Ibid., 222. Henry’s son Otto married a daughter of Edward the Elder.
Henry received the nickname of Townfounder (Städtegründer).
[160] “Carolus civitates Transsequanas ab incolis firmari rogavit, Cinomannis
scilicet et Turonis, ut præsidio contra Nortmannos populis esse possent.”
Annales Bertinianorum, Migne, Pat., 125, 53.
[161] Flodoard, Hist. Ecc. Remensis, iv., viii.
[162] Modern historians generally say that he built the castle of Coucy; but from
Flodoard’s account it seems very doubtful whether anything but the town is
meant. Annales, iv., xiii. His words are: “Munitionem quoque apud Codiciacum
tuto loco constituit atque firmavit.” Munitio properly means a bulwark or wall.
[163] Gesta Episcop. Cameracensium, Pertz, vii., 424.
[164] Chron. Camarense et Atrebatorum, Bouquet, x., 196.
[165] Sismondi, Histoire des Français, ii., 172.
[166] Guizot, Histoire de la Civilisation en France, iii., 311.
[167] Enlart, Manuel d’Archæologie Française, ii., 494.
[168] See Dr Haverfield’s articles in the Victoria County Histories, passim. The
late J. H. Burton justly wrote: “We have nothing from the Romans answering to
the feudal stronghold or castle, no vestige of a place where a great man lived
apart with his family and his servants, ruling over dependants and fortifying
himself against enemies.” History of Scotland, i., 385.
[169] Annals of Fulda, 394, Pertz, i.
[170] Cap. Regum Francor., ii., 360.
[171] Thus De Caumont unfortunately spoke of the fortress built by Nicetus,
Bishop of Treves, in the 6th century, as a château (Abécédaire, ii., 382); but
Venantius Fortunatus, in his descriptive poem, tells us that it was a vast
enclosure with no less than thirty towers, built by the good pastor for the
protection of his flock. It even contained fields and vineyards, and altogether
was as different from a private castle as anything can well be. Similarly the
castrum of Merliac, spoken of by Enlart (Architecture Militaire, p. 492) as a
“veritable château,” is described as containing cultivated lands and sheets of
water! (Cited from Gregory of Tours, Hist. Francorum, liii., 13.) De Caumont
himself says: “Les grandes exploitations rurales que possédaient les rois de
France et les principaux du royaume du Vième au Xième siècle ne furent pas des
forteresses et ne doivent point être confondues avec les chateaux.” Abécédaire,
ii., 62.
Page 375
[172] See Appendix D.
[173] “Volumus et expresse mandamus, ut quicunque istis temporibus castella et
firmitates et haias sine nostro verbo fecerint, Kalendis Augusti omnes tales
firmitates disfactas habeant; quia vicini et circummanentes exinde multas
depredationes et impedimenta sustinent.” Capitularia Regum Francorum,
Boretius, ii., 328.
[174] These instances are as follows:—868, A certain Acfrid shut himself up in a
casa firmissima in the villa of Bellus Pauliacus on the Loire, and it was burnt
over his head (Annales Bertinianorum, pp. Migne, 125, 1237); 878, The sons of
Goisfrid attack the castellum and lands of the son of Odo (ibid., p. 1286); 879,
Louis the Germanic besieges some men of Hugh, son of Lothaire, in quodam
castello juxta Viridunum: he takes and destroys the castellum (Annals of Fulda,
Pertz, i., 393); 906, Gerard and Matfrid fortify themselves in a certain castrum,
in a private war (Regino, Pertz, i., 611). Sismondi states that the great nobles
wrested from Louis-le-Bégue (877-879) the right of building private castles. So
far, we have been unable to find any original authority for this statement.
[175] See Guizot, Histoire de la Civilisation, iii., 309. “On voit les villæ
s’entourer peu à peu de fossés, de remparts de terre, de quelques apparences de
fortifications.”
[176] We hear of monasteries being fortified in this way; in 869 Charles the Bald
drew a bank of wood and stone round the monastery of St Denis; “castellum in
gyro ipsius monasterii ex ligno et lapide conficere cœpit.” Ann. Bertinian,
Migne, pp. 125, 1244. In 889 the Bishop of Nantes made a castrum of his church
by enclosing it with a wall, and this wall appears to have had a tower. Chron.
Namnetense, p. 45, in Lobineau’s Bretagne, vol. ii. In 924 Archbishop Hervey
made a castellum of the monastery of St Remi by enclosing it with a wall.
Flodoard, p. 294 (Migne). But the fortification of monasteries was a very
different thing from the fortification of private castles.
[177] In 951 Duke Conrad, being angry with certain men of Lorraine, threw
down the towers of some of them; these may have been the keeps of private
castles. Flodoard, Annales, p. 477.
[178] Presidium is one of those vague words which chroniclers love to use; it
means a defence of any kind, and may be a town, a castle, or a garrison. The
town in which this turris stood appears by the context to have been Chateau
Thierry. Cf. Flodoard, Annales, pp. 924, with 933.
[179] “Castrum muro factum circa eam [ecclesiam].” Chron. Namnetense, p. 45.
“Precepit [Alanus] eis terrarium magnum in circuitu Ecclesiæ facere, sicut
murus prioris castri steterat, quo facto turrem principalem reficiens, in ea
domum suam constitit.” Ibid.
[180] Flodoard, Annales, pp. 931 and 949. This tower was heightened by
Charles, the last of the Carlovingians, and furnished with a ditch and bank, in
988.
[181] It is often supposed that these towers were derived from the Pretoria, or
general’s quarters in the Roman castra. It is far more probable that they were
[173] “Volumus et expresse mandamus, ut quicunque istis temporibus castella et
firmitates et haias sine nostro verbo fecerint, Kalendis Augusti omnes tales
firmitates disfactas habeant; quia vicini et circummanentes exinde multas
depredationes et impedimenta sustinent.” Capitularia Regum Francorum,
Boretius, ii., 328.
[174] These instances are as follows:—868, A certain Acfrid shut himself up in a
casa firmissima in the villa of Bellus Pauliacus on the Loire, and it was burnt
over his head (Annales Bertinianorum, pp. Migne, 125, 1237); 878, The sons of
Goisfrid attack the castellum and lands of the son of Odo (ibid., p. 1286); 879,
Louis the Germanic besieges some men of Hugh, son of Lothaire, in quodam
castello juxta Viridunum: he takes and destroys the castellum (Annals of Fulda,
Pertz, i., 393); 906, Gerard and Matfrid fortify themselves in a certain castrum,
in a private war (Regino, Pertz, i., 611). Sismondi states that the great nobles
wrested from Louis-le-Bégue (877-879) the right of building private castles. So
far, we have been unable to find any original authority for this statement.
[175] See Guizot, Histoire de la Civilisation, iii., 309. “On voit les villæ
s’entourer peu à peu de fossés, de remparts de terre, de quelques apparences de
fortifications.”
[176] We hear of monasteries being fortified in this way; in 869 Charles the Bald
drew a bank of wood and stone round the monastery of St Denis; “castellum in
gyro ipsius monasterii ex ligno et lapide conficere cœpit.” Ann. Bertinian,
Migne, pp. 125, 1244. In 889 the Bishop of Nantes made a castrum of his church
by enclosing it with a wall, and this wall appears to have had a tower. Chron.
Namnetense, p. 45, in Lobineau’s Bretagne, vol. ii. In 924 Archbishop Hervey
made a castellum of the monastery of St Remi by enclosing it with a wall.
Flodoard, p. 294 (Migne). But the fortification of monasteries was a very
different thing from the fortification of private castles.
[177] In 951 Duke Conrad, being angry with certain men of Lorraine, threw
down the towers of some of them; these may have been the keeps of private
castles. Flodoard, Annales, p. 477.
[178] Presidium is one of those vague words which chroniclers love to use; it
means a defence of any kind, and may be a town, a castle, or a garrison. The
town in which this turris stood appears by the context to have been Chateau
Thierry. Cf. Flodoard, Annales, pp. 924, with 933.
[179] “Castrum muro factum circa eam [ecclesiam].” Chron. Namnetense, p. 45.
“Precepit [Alanus] eis terrarium magnum in circuitu Ecclesiæ facere, sicut
murus prioris castri steterat, quo facto turrem principalem reficiens, in ea
domum suam constitit.” Ibid.
[180] Flodoard, Annales, pp. 931 and 949. This tower was heightened by
Charles, the last of the Carlovingians, and furnished with a ditch and bank, in
988.
[181] It is often supposed that these towers were derived from the Pretoria, or
general’s quarters in the Roman castra. It is far more probable that they were
Page 376
derived from mural towers. The Pretorium was not originally fortified, and it
was placed in the centre of the Roman camp. But one great object of the feudal
keep was to have communication with the open country. The keep of Laon was
certainly on the line of the walls, as Bishop Ascelin escaped from it down a rope
in 989, and got away on a horse which was waiting for him. Palgrave, England
and Normandy, ii., 880.
[182] The word motte or mota does not occur in any contemporary chronicle, as
far as is known to the writer, before the 12th century; nor is the word dangio to
be found in any writer earlier than Ordericus. But the thing certainly existed
earlier.
[183] [Fulk and his son Geoffrey] “in occidentali parte montis castellum
determinaverunt.... Aggerem quoque in prospectu monasterii cum turre lignea
erexerunt.“ Chron. St Florentii, in Lobineau’s Bretagne, ii., 87. Some remains of
this motte are still visible. De Salies, Foulques Nerra, p. 263.
[184] “Elegantissimus in rebus bellicis” is the quaint language of the Angevin
chronicler, 176.
[185] See De Salies, Histoire de Foulques Nerra, which indirectly throws
considerable light on the archæological question.
[186] Salies, Histoire de Foulques Nerra, p. 170. M. Enlart, in his Manuel
d’Archæologie Française, ii., 495, has been misled about this castle by the
Chronicon Andegavense, which says: “Odo.... Fulconem expugnare speravit, et
totis nisibus adorsus est. Annoque presenti (1025) Montis Budelli castellum,
quod circiter annos decem retro abhinc contra civitatem Turonicam firmaverat
Fulco, obsedit, et turrim ligneam miræ altitudinis super domgionem ipsius castri
erexit.” Bouquet, x., 176. M. Enlart takes this to be the first recorded instance of
a motte. But the passage is evidently corrupt, as the other accounts of this affair
show that Count Odo’s wooden tower was a siege engine, employed to attack
Fulk’s castle, and afterwards burnt by the besieged. See the Gesta Ambasiens.
Dom., ibid., p. 257, and the Chron. St Florentii. Probably we should read contra
domgionem instead of super. The Chronicon Andegavense was written in the
reign of Henry II.
[187] When Fulk invaded Bretagne in or about 992, he collected an army “tam
de suis quam conductitiis.” Richerius, edition Guadet. The editor remarks that
this is perhaps the first example of the use of mercenaries since the time of the
Romans (ii., 266). Spannagel, citing Peter Damian, says that mercenaries were
already common at the end of the 10th century. Zur Geschichte des Deutschen
Heerwesens, pp. 72, 73.
[188] This was always the custom in mediæval castles. See Cohausen,
Befestigungen der Vorzeit, p. 282.
[189] “Qui vivens turres altas construxit et ædes, Unam Carnotum, sed apud
Dunense reatum.” Chron. St Florentii.
[190] Chron. Namnetense, Lobineau, ii., 47.
[191] Gesta Ambasiensium Dominorum, in Spicilegium, p. 273.
was placed in the centre of the Roman camp. But one great object of the feudal
keep was to have communication with the open country. The keep of Laon was
certainly on the line of the walls, as Bishop Ascelin escaped from it down a rope
in 989, and got away on a horse which was waiting for him. Palgrave, England
and Normandy, ii., 880.
[182] The word motte or mota does not occur in any contemporary chronicle, as
far as is known to the writer, before the 12th century; nor is the word dangio to
be found in any writer earlier than Ordericus. But the thing certainly existed
earlier.
[183] [Fulk and his son Geoffrey] “in occidentali parte montis castellum
determinaverunt.... Aggerem quoque in prospectu monasterii cum turre lignea
erexerunt.“ Chron. St Florentii, in Lobineau’s Bretagne, ii., 87. Some remains of
this motte are still visible. De Salies, Foulques Nerra, p. 263.
[184] “Elegantissimus in rebus bellicis” is the quaint language of the Angevin
chronicler, 176.
[185] See De Salies, Histoire de Foulques Nerra, which indirectly throws
considerable light on the archæological question.
[186] Salies, Histoire de Foulques Nerra, p. 170. M. Enlart, in his Manuel
d’Archæologie Française, ii., 495, has been misled about this castle by the
Chronicon Andegavense, which says: “Odo.... Fulconem expugnare speravit, et
totis nisibus adorsus est. Annoque presenti (1025) Montis Budelli castellum,
quod circiter annos decem retro abhinc contra civitatem Turonicam firmaverat
Fulco, obsedit, et turrim ligneam miræ altitudinis super domgionem ipsius castri
erexit.” Bouquet, x., 176. M. Enlart takes this to be the first recorded instance of
a motte. But the passage is evidently corrupt, as the other accounts of this affair
show that Count Odo’s wooden tower was a siege engine, employed to attack
Fulk’s castle, and afterwards burnt by the besieged. See the Gesta Ambasiens.
Dom., ibid., p. 257, and the Chron. St Florentii. Probably we should read contra
domgionem instead of super. The Chronicon Andegavense was written in the
reign of Henry II.
[187] When Fulk invaded Bretagne in or about 992, he collected an army “tam
de suis quam conductitiis.” Richerius, edition Guadet. The editor remarks that
this is perhaps the first example of the use of mercenaries since the time of the
Romans (ii., 266). Spannagel, citing Peter Damian, says that mercenaries were
already common at the end of the 10th century. Zur Geschichte des Deutschen
Heerwesens, pp. 72, 73.
[188] This was always the custom in mediæval castles. See Cohausen,
Befestigungen der Vorzeit, p. 282.
[189] “Qui vivens turres altas construxit et ædes, Unam Carnotum, sed apud
Dunense reatum.” Chron. St Florentii.
[190] Chron. Namnetense, Lobineau, ii., 47.
[191] Gesta Ambasiensium Dominorum, in Spicilegium, p. 273.
Page 377
[192] Guide Joanne, p. 234.
[193] The furthest point of the headland on which the castle is placed is a small
circular court, with a fosse on all sides but the precipices. From personal
visitation.
[194] Dunio is subsequently explained by Lambert as motte: “Motam altissimam
sive dunionem eminentem in munitionis signum firmavit.” Lamberti Ardensis, p.
613. It is the same word as the Saxon dun, a hill (preserved in our South
Downs), and has no connection with the Irish and Gaelic dun, which is cognate
with the German zaun, a hedge, A.-S. tun, and means a hedged or fortified place.
The form dange appears in Northern France, and this seems to be the origin of
the word domgio or dangio which we find in the chroniclers, the modern form of
which is donjon. If we accept this etymology, we must believe that the word
dunio or domgio was originally applied to the hill, and not to the tower on the
hill, to which it was afterwards transferred. It is against this view that Ordericus,
writing some fifty years before Lambert, uses the form dangio in the sense of a
tower. Professor Skeat and the New English Dictionary derive the word donjon
or dungeon from Low Lat. domnionem, acc. of domnio, thus connecting it with
dominus, as the seignorial residence.
[195] Ducange conjectured that the motte-castle took its origin in Flanders, but it
was probably the passage cited above from Lambert which led him to this
conclusion. See art. “Mota” in Ducange’s Glossarium.
[196] Steenstrup, Normannerne, i., 297.
[197] Ibid., i., 301.
[198] England and Normandy, ii., 535.
[199] “Muros et propugnacula civitatum refecit et augmentavit.” Dudo, p. 85
(Duchesne’s edition).
[200] “Henricus rex circa turrem Rothomagi, quam ædificavit primus Richardus
dux Normannorum in palatium sibi, murum altum et latum cum propugnaculis
ædificat.” Robert of Toringy, R.S., p. 106.
[201] Ordericus, ii., 15, 17, 46 (edition Prévost).
[202] William of Jumièges, anno 1035. Mr Freeman remarks that the language of
William would lead us to suppose that the practice of castle-building was new.
[203] There are some facts which render it probable that the earliest castles built
in Normandy were without mottes, and were simple enclosures like those we
have described already. Thus the castle of the great family of Montgomeri is an
enclosure of this simple kind. Domfront, built by William Talvas in Duke
Robert’s time, has no motte. On the other hand, Ivry, built by the Countess
Albereda in Duke Richard I.’s days, “on the top of a hill overlooking the town”
(William of Jumièges), may possibly have been a motte; and there is a motte at
Norrei, which we have just mentioned as an early Norman castle.
[204] Manuel d’Archæologie Française, p. 457.
[193] The furthest point of the headland on which the castle is placed is a small
circular court, with a fosse on all sides but the precipices. From personal
visitation.
[194] Dunio is subsequently explained by Lambert as motte: “Motam altissimam
sive dunionem eminentem in munitionis signum firmavit.” Lamberti Ardensis, p.
613. It is the same word as the Saxon dun, a hill (preserved in our South
Downs), and has no connection with the Irish and Gaelic dun, which is cognate
with the German zaun, a hedge, A.-S. tun, and means a hedged or fortified place.
The form dange appears in Northern France, and this seems to be the origin of
the word domgio or dangio which we find in the chroniclers, the modern form of
which is donjon. If we accept this etymology, we must believe that the word
dunio or domgio was originally applied to the hill, and not to the tower on the
hill, to which it was afterwards transferred. It is against this view that Ordericus,
writing some fifty years before Lambert, uses the form dangio in the sense of a
tower. Professor Skeat and the New English Dictionary derive the word donjon
or dungeon from Low Lat. domnionem, acc. of domnio, thus connecting it with
dominus, as the seignorial residence.
[195] Ducange conjectured that the motte-castle took its origin in Flanders, but it
was probably the passage cited above from Lambert which led him to this
conclusion. See art. “Mota” in Ducange’s Glossarium.
[196] Steenstrup, Normannerne, i., 297.
[197] Ibid., i., 301.
[198] England and Normandy, ii., 535.
[199] “Muros et propugnacula civitatum refecit et augmentavit.” Dudo, p. 85
(Duchesne’s edition).
[200] “Henricus rex circa turrem Rothomagi, quam ædificavit primus Richardus
dux Normannorum in palatium sibi, murum altum et latum cum propugnaculis
ædificat.” Robert of Toringy, R.S., p. 106.
[201] Ordericus, ii., 15, 17, 46 (edition Prévost).
[202] William of Jumièges, anno 1035. Mr Freeman remarks that the language of
William would lead us to suppose that the practice of castle-building was new.
[203] There are some facts which render it probable that the earliest castles built
in Normandy were without mottes, and were simple enclosures like those we
have described already. Thus the castle of the great family of Montgomeri is an
enclosure of this simple kind. Domfront, built by William Talvas in Duke
Robert’s time, has no motte. On the other hand, Ivry, built by the Countess
Albereda in Duke Richard I.’s days, “on the top of a hill overlooking the town”
(William of Jumièges), may possibly have been a motte; and there is a motte at
Norrei, which we have just mentioned as an early Norman castle.
[204] Manuel d’Archæologie Française, p. 457.
Page 378
[205] This want will be supplied, as regards England, by the completion of the
Victoria County Histories, and as regards France, by the Societé Préhistorique,
which is now undertaking a catalogue of all the earthworks of France. The late
M. Mortillet, in an article in the Revue Mensuelle de l’École d’Anthropologie,
viii., 1895, published two lists, one of actual mottes in France, the other of place-
names in which the word motte is incorporated. Unfortunately the first list is
extremely defective, and the second, as it only relates to the name, is not a safe
guide to the proportional numbers of the thing. All that the lists prove is that
mottes are to be found in all parts of France, and that place-names into which the
word motte enters seem to be more abundant in Central France than anywhere
else. It is possible that a careful examination of local chroniclers may lead to the
discovery of some earlier motte-builder than Thibault-le-Tricheur. We should
probably know more about Thibault’s castles were it not that the Pays Chartrain,
as Palgrave says, is almost destitute of chroniclers.
[206] Cited at length by De Caumont, Bulletin Monumental, ix., 246. Von
Hochfelden considered that the origin of feudal fortresses in Germany hardly
goes back to the 10th century; only great dukes and counts then thought of
fortifying their manors; those of the small nobility date at earliest from the end
of the 12th century.
[207] Die Befestigungen der Vorzeit, p. 28.
[208] Entwickelung des Kriegswesens, iii., 370.
[209] Antiquitates Italicæ, ii., 504. He says they are many times mentioned both
in charters and chronicles in Italy.
[210] We hear of Robert Guiscard building a wooden castle on a hill at Rocca di
St Martino in 1047. Amari, Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, i., 43. Several place-
names in Italy and Sicily are compounded with motta, as the Motta
Sant’Anastasia in Sicily. See Amari, ibid., p. 220.
[211] Especially Montfort and Blanchegarde. But there is a wide field for further
research both in Palestine and Sicily.
[212] “Bei den Sclaven haben die Chateaux-à-motte keinen Eingang gefunden,
weil ihnen das Lehnswesen fremd geblieben ist.” iii., 338.
[213] Professor Montelius informed the writer that they are quite unknown in
Norway or Sweden; and Dr Christison obtained an assurance to the same effect
from Herr Hildebrand.
[214] “These are small well-defended places, the stronghold of the individual,
built for a great man and his followers, and answering to mediæval conditions, to
a more or less developed feudal system.” Vor Oldtid, p. 642.
[215] I am informed by a skilled engineer that even in the wet climate of
England it would take about ten years for the soil to settle sufficiently to bear a
stone building.
[216] Köhler says: “By far the greater part of the castles of the Teutonic knights
in Prussia, until the middle of the fourteenth century, were of wood and earth.”
Die Entwickelung des Kriegswesen, iii., 376.
Victoria County Histories, and as regards France, by the Societé Préhistorique,
which is now undertaking a catalogue of all the earthworks of France. The late
M. Mortillet, in an article in the Revue Mensuelle de l’École d’Anthropologie,
viii., 1895, published two lists, one of actual mottes in France, the other of place-
names in which the word motte is incorporated. Unfortunately the first list is
extremely defective, and the second, as it only relates to the name, is not a safe
guide to the proportional numbers of the thing. All that the lists prove is that
mottes are to be found in all parts of France, and that place-names into which the
word motte enters seem to be more abundant in Central France than anywhere
else. It is possible that a careful examination of local chroniclers may lead to the
discovery of some earlier motte-builder than Thibault-le-Tricheur. We should
probably know more about Thibault’s castles were it not that the Pays Chartrain,
as Palgrave says, is almost destitute of chroniclers.
[206] Cited at length by De Caumont, Bulletin Monumental, ix., 246. Von
Hochfelden considered that the origin of feudal fortresses in Germany hardly
goes back to the 10th century; only great dukes and counts then thought of
fortifying their manors; those of the small nobility date at earliest from the end
of the 12th century.
[207] Die Befestigungen der Vorzeit, p. 28.
[208] Entwickelung des Kriegswesens, iii., 370.
[209] Antiquitates Italicæ, ii., 504. He says they are many times mentioned both
in charters and chronicles in Italy.
[210] We hear of Robert Guiscard building a wooden castle on a hill at Rocca di
St Martino in 1047. Amari, Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, i., 43. Several place-
names in Italy and Sicily are compounded with motta, as the Motta
Sant’Anastasia in Sicily. See Amari, ibid., p. 220.
[211] Especially Montfort and Blanchegarde. But there is a wide field for further
research both in Palestine and Sicily.
[212] “Bei den Sclaven haben die Chateaux-à-motte keinen Eingang gefunden,
weil ihnen das Lehnswesen fremd geblieben ist.” iii., 338.
[213] Professor Montelius informed the writer that they are quite unknown in
Norway or Sweden; and Dr Christison obtained an assurance to the same effect
from Herr Hildebrand.
[214] “These are small well-defended places, the stronghold of the individual,
built for a great man and his followers, and answering to mediæval conditions, to
a more or less developed feudal system.” Vor Oldtid, p. 642.
[215] I am informed by a skilled engineer that even in the wet climate of
England it would take about ten years for the soil to settle sufficiently to bear a
stone building.
[216] Köhler says: “By far the greater part of the castles of the Teutonic knights
in Prussia, until the middle of the fourteenth century, were of wood and earth.”
Die Entwickelung des Kriegswesen, iii., 376.
Page 379
[217] Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1232-1247, p. 340. Mandate to provost of Oléron to
let Frank De Brene have tools to make a new motte in the isle of Rhé. Later the
masters and crews of the king’s galleys are ordered to help in building the motte
and the wooden castle. P. 343.
[218] Antiquitates Italicæ, ii., 504. Can Grande’s motte at Padua. Anno 1320.
“Dominus Alternerius [podesta of Padua] ... cum maxima quantitate peditum et
balistariorum Civitatis Paduæ, iverunt die predicto summo mane per viam Pontis
Corvi versus quamdam motam magnam, quam faciebat facere Dominus Canis,
cum multis fossis et tajatis ad claudendum Paduanos, ne exirent per illam
partem, et volendo ibidem super illam motam ædificare castrum. Tunc prædictus
Potestas cum aliis nominatis splanare incœperunt, et difecerunt dictam motam
cum tajatis et fossa magna.”
We may remark here that as early as the 17th century the learned Muratori
protested against the equation of mota and fossatum, and laughed at Spelman for
making this translation of mota in his Glossary. Antiquitates Italicæ, ii., 504.
[219] Cited by Westropp, Journal of R.S.A., Ireland, 1904.
[220] Vicars’ Parliamentary Chronicle, cited by Hunter, South Yorks, ii., 235.
[221] “Camps on the Malvern Hills,” Journ. Anthrop. Inst., x., 319.
[222] M. de Salies has traced in detail the connection between Fulk Nerra’s
castles and the Roman roads of Anjou and Touraine.
[223] See some excellent remarks on this subject in Mr W. St John Hope’s paper
on “English Fortresses” in Arch. Journ., lx., 72-90.
[224] Only a very small number of mottes have as yet been excavated. Wells
were found at Almondbury, Berkeley, Berkhampstead, Carisbrook,
Conisborough, Kenilworth, Northallerton, Norwich, Pontefract, Oxford,
Tunbridge, Worcester, and York. At Caus, there is a well in the ditch between the
motte and the bailey. Frequently there is a second well in the bailey.
[225] The writer at one time thought that the ruins at the east end of the castle of
Pontefract concealed a second motte, but wishes now to recant this opinion. Eng.
Hist. Review, xix., 419.
[226] Thus Henry I. erected a siege castle to watch Bridgenorth (probably
Pampudding Hill), and then went off to besiege another castle. Mr Orpen kindly
informs me that the camp from which Philip Augustus besieged Château
Gaillard contains a motte. Outside Pickering, Corfe, and Exeter there are
earthworks which have probably been siege castles.
[227] Henry II. built a castle and very fine borough (burgum pergrande) at
Beauvoir in Maine. Robert of Torigny, R.S., p. 243. Minute regulations
concerning the founding of the borough of Overton are given in Close Rolls,
Edward I. (1288-1296), p. 285.
[228] See Round, Studies in Domesday, pp. 125, 126.
[229] Neckham, “De Utensilibus,” in Wright’s Volume of Vocabularies, pp. 103,
104. Unfortunately this work of Neckham’s was not written to explain the
let Frank De Brene have tools to make a new motte in the isle of Rhé. Later the
masters and crews of the king’s galleys are ordered to help in building the motte
and the wooden castle. P. 343.
[218] Antiquitates Italicæ, ii., 504. Can Grande’s motte at Padua. Anno 1320.
“Dominus Alternerius [podesta of Padua] ... cum maxima quantitate peditum et
balistariorum Civitatis Paduæ, iverunt die predicto summo mane per viam Pontis
Corvi versus quamdam motam magnam, quam faciebat facere Dominus Canis,
cum multis fossis et tajatis ad claudendum Paduanos, ne exirent per illam
partem, et volendo ibidem super illam motam ædificare castrum. Tunc prædictus
Potestas cum aliis nominatis splanare incœperunt, et difecerunt dictam motam
cum tajatis et fossa magna.”
We may remark here that as early as the 17th century the learned Muratori
protested against the equation of mota and fossatum, and laughed at Spelman for
making this translation of mota in his Glossary. Antiquitates Italicæ, ii., 504.
[219] Cited by Westropp, Journal of R.S.A., Ireland, 1904.
[220] Vicars’ Parliamentary Chronicle, cited by Hunter, South Yorks, ii., 235.
[221] “Camps on the Malvern Hills,” Journ. Anthrop. Inst., x., 319.
[222] M. de Salies has traced in detail the connection between Fulk Nerra’s
castles and the Roman roads of Anjou and Touraine.
[223] See some excellent remarks on this subject in Mr W. St John Hope’s paper
on “English Fortresses” in Arch. Journ., lx., 72-90.
[224] Only a very small number of mottes have as yet been excavated. Wells
were found at Almondbury, Berkeley, Berkhampstead, Carisbrook,
Conisborough, Kenilworth, Northallerton, Norwich, Pontefract, Oxford,
Tunbridge, Worcester, and York. At Caus, there is a well in the ditch between the
motte and the bailey. Frequently there is a second well in the bailey.
[225] The writer at one time thought that the ruins at the east end of the castle of
Pontefract concealed a second motte, but wishes now to recant this opinion. Eng.
Hist. Review, xix., 419.
[226] Thus Henry I. erected a siege castle to watch Bridgenorth (probably
Pampudding Hill), and then went off to besiege another castle. Mr Orpen kindly
informs me that the camp from which Philip Augustus besieged Château
Gaillard contains a motte. Outside Pickering, Corfe, and Exeter there are
earthworks which have probably been siege castles.
[227] Henry II. built a castle and very fine borough (burgum pergrande) at
Beauvoir in Maine. Robert of Torigny, R.S., p. 243. Minute regulations
concerning the founding of the borough of Overton are given in Close Rolls,
Edward I. (1288-1296), p. 285.
[228] See Round, Studies in Domesday, pp. 125, 126.
[229] Neckham, “De Utensilibus,” in Wright’s Volume of Vocabularies, pp. 103,
104. Unfortunately this work of Neckham’s was not written to explain the
Page 380
construction of motte castles, but to furnish his pupils with the Latin names of
familiar things; a good deal of it is very obscure now.
[230] See frontispiece.
[231] Acta Sanctorum, 27th January, Bolland, iii., 414. This biography was
written only nine months after Bishop John’s death, by an intimate friend, John
de Collemedio.
[232] Guisnes is now in Picardy, but in the 12th century it was in Flanders,
which was a fief of the Empire.
[233] This description is from the Historia Ardensium of Walter de Clusa, which
is interpolated in the work of Lambert, Bouquet, pp. 13, 624.
[234] Yet in some of the later keeps, such as Conisburgh, where we find only
one window to a storey, the room must have been undivided.
[235] See Wright, History of Domestic Manners, p. 26.
[236] According to Littré, the original derivation of the word motte is unknown.
I have not found any instance of the word mota in chronicles earlier than the
12th century, but the reason appears to be that mota or motte was a folk’s word,
and appeared undignified to an ambitious writer. Thus the author of the Gesta
Consulum Andegavensium says that Geoffrey Martel, Count of Anjou, gave to a
certain Fulcoius the fortified house which is still called by the vulgar Mota
Fulcoii. D’Achery, Spicilegium, p. 257.
[237] See Appendix G.
[238] See Appendix H.
[239] Peel, its Meaning and Derivation, by George Neilson.
[240] See Appendix I. Cohausen has some useful remarks on the use of hedges
in fortification. Befestigungen der Vorzeit, pp. 8-13. A quickset hedge had the
advantage of resisting fire. The word sepes, which properly means a hedge, is
often applied to the palitium.
[241] This list or catalogue raisonné was originally published in the English
Historical Review for 1904 (vol. xix.). It is now reproduced with such
corrections as were necessary, and with the addition of five more castles, as well
as of details about thirty-four castles for which there was not space in the
Review. The Welsh castles are omitted from this list, as they will be given in a
separate chapter.
[242] The list is brought up to fifty by interpreting the regis domus of
Winchester to be Winchester castle; the reasons for this will be given later. The
number would be increased to fifty-two if we counted Ferle and Bourne in
Sussex as castles, as Mr Freeman does in his Norman Conquest, v., 808. But the
language of Domesday seems only to mean that the lands of these manors were
held of Hastings castle by the service of castle-guard. See D. B., i., pp. 21 and
206.
familiar things; a good deal of it is very obscure now.
[230] See frontispiece.
[231] Acta Sanctorum, 27th January, Bolland, iii., 414. This biography was
written only nine months after Bishop John’s death, by an intimate friend, John
de Collemedio.
[232] Guisnes is now in Picardy, but in the 12th century it was in Flanders,
which was a fief of the Empire.
[233] This description is from the Historia Ardensium of Walter de Clusa, which
is interpolated in the work of Lambert, Bouquet, pp. 13, 624.
[234] Yet in some of the later keeps, such as Conisburgh, where we find only
one window to a storey, the room must have been undivided.
[235] See Wright, History of Domestic Manners, p. 26.
[236] According to Littré, the original derivation of the word motte is unknown.
I have not found any instance of the word mota in chronicles earlier than the
12th century, but the reason appears to be that mota or motte was a folk’s word,
and appeared undignified to an ambitious writer. Thus the author of the Gesta
Consulum Andegavensium says that Geoffrey Martel, Count of Anjou, gave to a
certain Fulcoius the fortified house which is still called by the vulgar Mota
Fulcoii. D’Achery, Spicilegium, p. 257.
[237] See Appendix G.
[238] See Appendix H.
[239] Peel, its Meaning and Derivation, by George Neilson.
[240] See Appendix I. Cohausen has some useful remarks on the use of hedges
in fortification. Befestigungen der Vorzeit, pp. 8-13. A quickset hedge had the
advantage of resisting fire. The word sepes, which properly means a hedge, is
often applied to the palitium.
[241] This list or catalogue raisonné was originally published in the English
Historical Review for 1904 (vol. xix.). It is now reproduced with such
corrections as were necessary, and with the addition of five more castles, as well
as of details about thirty-four castles for which there was not space in the
Review. The Welsh castles are omitted from this list, as they will be given in a
separate chapter.
[242] The list is brought up to fifty by interpreting the regis domus of
Winchester to be Winchester castle; the reasons for this will be given later. The
number would be increased to fifty-two if we counted Ferle and Bourne in
Sussex as castles, as Mr Freeman does in his Norman Conquest, v., 808. But the
language of Domesday seems only to mean that the lands of these manors were
held of Hastings castle by the service of castle-guard. See D. B., i., pp. 21 and
206.
Page 381
[243] The total number would be eighty-six if Burton and Aldreth were included.
Burton castle is mentioned in Domesday, but there is no further trace of its
existence. The castle of Alrehede or Aldreth in the island of Ely is stated by the
Liber Eliensis to have been built by the Conqueror, but no remains of any kind
appear to exist now. Both these castles are therefore omitted from the list.
[244] Exact numbers cannot be given, because in some cases the bounds of the
ancient borough are doubtful, as at Quatford.
[245] At Winchester and Exeter. For Winchester, see Milner, History of
Winchester, ii., 194; for Exeter, Shorrt’s Sylva Antiqua Iscana, p. 7.
[246] Colchester is the only exception to this rule, as the castle there is in the
middle of the town; but even this is only an apparent exception, as the second
bailey extended to the town wall on the north, and had been royal demesne land
even before the Conquest. See Round’s Colchester Castle, ch. vii.
[247] These five are Berkeley, Berkhampstead, Bourn, Pontefract, Rayleigh.
[248] I am indebted for these measurements to Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[249] Notification in Round’s Calendar of Documents preserved in France, p.
367. Mr Round dates the Notification 1087-1100.
[250] Description furnished by Mr D. H. Montgomerie, F.S.A.
[251] “Castrum Harundel T. R. E. reddebat de quodam molino 40 solidos, et de 3
conviviis 20 solidos, et de uno pasticio 20 solidos. Modo inter burgum et portum
aquæ et consuetudinem navium reddit 12 libras, et tamen valet 13. De his habet
S. Nicolaus 24 solidos. Ibi una piscaria de 5 solidos et unum molinum reddens
10 modia frumenti, et 10 modia grossæ annonæ. Insuper 4 modia. Hoc
appreciatum est 12 libras. Robertus filius Tetbaldi habet 2 hagas de 2 solidis, et
de hominibus extraniis habet suum theloneum.” Several other hagæ and
burgenses are then enumerated. (D. B., i., 23a, 1.)
[252] See Mr Round’s remarks on the words in his Geoffrey de Mandeville,
Appendix O. The above was written before the appearance of Mr Round’s paper
on “The Castles of the Conquest” (Archæologia, lviii.), in which he rejects the
idea that castrum Harundel means the castle.
[253] See ante, p. 28.
[254] Florence of Worcester mentions the castle of Arundel as belonging to
Roger de Montgomeri in 1088.
[255] See Appendix R.
[256] The expenses entered in the Pipe Rolls (1170-1187) are for the works of
the castle, the chamber and wall of the castle, the houses of the castle (an
expression which generally refers to the keep), and for flooring the tower (turris)
and making a garden. Turris is the usual word for a keep, and is never applied to
a mere mural tower.
[257] This gateway is masked by a work of the 13th century, which serves as a
sort of barbican.
Burton castle is mentioned in Domesday, but there is no further trace of its
existence. The castle of Alrehede or Aldreth in the island of Ely is stated by the
Liber Eliensis to have been built by the Conqueror, but no remains of any kind
appear to exist now. Both these castles are therefore omitted from the list.
[244] Exact numbers cannot be given, because in some cases the bounds of the
ancient borough are doubtful, as at Quatford.
[245] At Winchester and Exeter. For Winchester, see Milner, History of
Winchester, ii., 194; for Exeter, Shorrt’s Sylva Antiqua Iscana, p. 7.
[246] Colchester is the only exception to this rule, as the castle there is in the
middle of the town; but even this is only an apparent exception, as the second
bailey extended to the town wall on the north, and had been royal demesne land
even before the Conquest. See Round’s Colchester Castle, ch. vii.
[247] These five are Berkeley, Berkhampstead, Bourn, Pontefract, Rayleigh.
[248] I am indebted for these measurements to Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[249] Notification in Round’s Calendar of Documents preserved in France, p.
367. Mr Round dates the Notification 1087-1100.
[250] Description furnished by Mr D. H. Montgomerie, F.S.A.
[251] “Castrum Harundel T. R. E. reddebat de quodam molino 40 solidos, et de 3
conviviis 20 solidos, et de uno pasticio 20 solidos. Modo inter burgum et portum
aquæ et consuetudinem navium reddit 12 libras, et tamen valet 13. De his habet
S. Nicolaus 24 solidos. Ibi una piscaria de 5 solidos et unum molinum reddens
10 modia frumenti, et 10 modia grossæ annonæ. Insuper 4 modia. Hoc
appreciatum est 12 libras. Robertus filius Tetbaldi habet 2 hagas de 2 solidis, et
de hominibus extraniis habet suum theloneum.” Several other hagæ and
burgenses are then enumerated. (D. B., i., 23a, 1.)
[252] See Mr Round’s remarks on the words in his Geoffrey de Mandeville,
Appendix O. The above was written before the appearance of Mr Round’s paper
on “The Castles of the Conquest” (Archæologia, lviii.), in which he rejects the
idea that castrum Harundel means the castle.
[253] See ante, p. 28.
[254] Florence of Worcester mentions the castle of Arundel as belonging to
Roger de Montgomeri in 1088.
[255] See Appendix R.
[256] The expenses entered in the Pipe Rolls (1170-1187) are for the works of
the castle, the chamber and wall of the castle, the houses of the castle (an
expression which generally refers to the keep), and for flooring the tower (turris)
and making a garden. Turris is the usual word for a keep, and is never applied to
a mere mural tower.
[257] This gateway is masked by a work of the 13th century, which serves as a
sort of barbican.
Page 382
[258] In operibus castelli de Arundel 22l. 7s. 8d. Et debet 55l. 18s. 6d. Pipe Roll,
31, Henry I., p. 42.
[259] D. B., i., 23a, 1.
[260] Testa de Nevill, i., iii., 236, cited by C. Bates, in a very valuable paper on
Bamborough Castle, in Archæologia Æliana, vol. xiv., “Border Holds.” Mr
Bates gives other evidence to the same effect. The early existence of the castle is
also proved by the fact that Gospatric, whom William had made Earl of
Northumberland, after his raid on Cumberland in 1070, brought his booty to the
firmissimam munitionem of Bamborough. Symeon of Durham, 1070.
[261] Vita S. Oswaldi, ch. xlviii., in Rolls edition of Symeon.
[262] This was the opinion of the late Mr Cadwalader Bates, who thought that
the smallness of the sums entered for Bamborough in Henry II.’s reign might be
accounted for by the labour and materials having been furnished by the crown
tenants. Border Strongholds, p. 236.
[263] Bamborough rock has every appearance of having been once an island. As
late as 1547 the tide came right up to the rock on the east side; the sea is now
separated from the castle by extensive sandhills.
[264] M. A., v., 197.
[265] Domesday mentions the destruction of twenty-three houses at Barnstaple,
which may have been due partly or wholly to the building of the castle. I., 100.
[266] From a lecture by Mr J. R. Chanter.
[267] The Fundatio of Belvoir priory says that Robert founded the church of St
Mary, juxta castellum suum, M. A., iii., 288. As Robert’s coffin was actually
found in the Priory in 1726, with an inscription calling him Robert de Todnei le
Fundeur, the statement is probably more trustworthy than documents of this
class generally are.
[268] Nicholls, History of Leicester, i., 110.
[269] D. B., i., 233b.
[270] “In Ness sunt 5 hidæ pertinentes ad Berchelai, quas comes Willielmus
misit extra ad faciendum unum castellulum.” D. B., i., 163a, 2.
[271] “Castella per loca firmari præcepit.” Flor. Wig., 1067. See Freeman, N. C.,
iv., 72. Domesday tells us that FitzOsbern built Ness, Clifford, Chepstow, and
Wigmore, and rebuilt Ewias.
[272] Robert Fitzhardinge, in his charter to St Austin’s Abbey at Bristol, says
that King Henry [II.] gave him the manor of Berchall, and all Bercheleiernesse.
Mon. Ang., vi., 365.
[273] It is not necessary to discuss the authenticity of the story preserved by
Walter Map; it is enough that Gytha, the wife of Godwin, held in horror the
means by which her husband got possession of Berkeley Nunnery. D. B., i., 164.
[274] Mediæval Military Architecture, i., 236.
31, Henry I., p. 42.
[259] D. B., i., 23a, 1.
[260] Testa de Nevill, i., iii., 236, cited by C. Bates, in a very valuable paper on
Bamborough Castle, in Archæologia Æliana, vol. xiv., “Border Holds.” Mr
Bates gives other evidence to the same effect. The early existence of the castle is
also proved by the fact that Gospatric, whom William had made Earl of
Northumberland, after his raid on Cumberland in 1070, brought his booty to the
firmissimam munitionem of Bamborough. Symeon of Durham, 1070.
[261] Vita S. Oswaldi, ch. xlviii., in Rolls edition of Symeon.
[262] This was the opinion of the late Mr Cadwalader Bates, who thought that
the smallness of the sums entered for Bamborough in Henry II.’s reign might be
accounted for by the labour and materials having been furnished by the crown
tenants. Border Strongholds, p. 236.
[263] Bamborough rock has every appearance of having been once an island. As
late as 1547 the tide came right up to the rock on the east side; the sea is now
separated from the castle by extensive sandhills.
[264] M. A., v., 197.
[265] Domesday mentions the destruction of twenty-three houses at Barnstaple,
which may have been due partly or wholly to the building of the castle. I., 100.
[266] From a lecture by Mr J. R. Chanter.
[267] The Fundatio of Belvoir priory says that Robert founded the church of St
Mary, juxta castellum suum, M. A., iii., 288. As Robert’s coffin was actually
found in the Priory in 1726, with an inscription calling him Robert de Todnei le
Fundeur, the statement is probably more trustworthy than documents of this
class generally are.
[268] Nicholls, History of Leicester, i., 110.
[269] D. B., i., 233b.
[270] “In Ness sunt 5 hidæ pertinentes ad Berchelai, quas comes Willielmus
misit extra ad faciendum unum castellulum.” D. B., i., 163a, 2.
[271] “Castella per loca firmari præcepit.” Flor. Wig., 1067. See Freeman, N. C.,
iv., 72. Domesday tells us that FitzOsbern built Ness, Clifford, Chepstow, and
Wigmore, and rebuilt Ewias.
[272] Robert Fitzhardinge, in his charter to St Austin’s Abbey at Bristol, says
that King Henry [II.] gave him the manor of Berchall, and all Bercheleiernesse.
Mon. Ang., vi., 365.
[273] It is not necessary to discuss the authenticity of the story preserved by
Walter Map; it is enough that Gytha, the wife of Godwin, held in horror the
means by which her husband got possession of Berkeley Nunnery. D. B., i., 164.
[274] Mediæval Military Architecture, i., 236.
Page 383
[275] The gift of the manor was made before Henry became king, and was
confirmed by charter on the death of Stephen in 1154. Fitzhardinge was an
Englishman, son of an alderman of Bristol, who had greatly helped Henry in his
wars against Stephen. See Fosbroke’s History of Gloucester.
[276] He held Berkeley under the crown at the time of the Survey. D. B., i.,
163a.
[277] From information received from Mr Duncan Montgomerie.
[278] Fosbroke’s History of Gloucester attributes this bailey to Maurice, son of
Robert Fitzhardinge. One of the most interesting features in this highly
interesting castle is the wooden pentice leading from the main stairway of the
keep to the chamber called Edward II.’s. Though a late addition, it is a good
instance of the way in which masonry was eked out by timber in mediæval
times.
[279] Clark, M. M. A., i., 229.
[280] D. B., i., 163.
[281] Victoria County History of Herts, from which the description of these
earthworks is entirely taken.
[282] Mon. Ang., vii., 1090.
[283] They were excavated by Mr Montgomerie in 1905, and no trace of
masonry was found.
[284] Roger of Wendover, 1216.
[285] D. B., i., 163.
[286] The charter, which is in both Anglo-Saxon and Latin, is given in Dugdale’s
History of St Paul’s, 304.
[287] See Freeman, ii., 356; and D. B., i., 134a.
[288] From report by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[289] Waytemore has sometimes been identified with the puzzling
Wiggingamere, but in defiance of phonology.
[290] D. B., i., 351b.
[291] M. A., vi., 86.
[292] Itin., i., 27.
[293] Associated Archæological Societies, VI., ix.
[294] Report by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[295] Ipse Willielmus tenet Wasingetune. Guerd Comes tenuit T. R. E. Tunc se
defendebat pro 59 hidis. Modo non dat geldum. In una ex his hidis sedet
castellum Brembre. D. B., i., 28a, 1.
confirmed by charter on the death of Stephen in 1154. Fitzhardinge was an
Englishman, son of an alderman of Bristol, who had greatly helped Henry in his
wars against Stephen. See Fosbroke’s History of Gloucester.
[276] He held Berkeley under the crown at the time of the Survey. D. B., i.,
163a.
[277] From information received from Mr Duncan Montgomerie.
[278] Fosbroke’s History of Gloucester attributes this bailey to Maurice, son of
Robert Fitzhardinge. One of the most interesting features in this highly
interesting castle is the wooden pentice leading from the main stairway of the
keep to the chamber called Edward II.’s. Though a late addition, it is a good
instance of the way in which masonry was eked out by timber in mediæval
times.
[279] Clark, M. M. A., i., 229.
[280] D. B., i., 163.
[281] Victoria County History of Herts, from which the description of these
earthworks is entirely taken.
[282] Mon. Ang., vii., 1090.
[283] They were excavated by Mr Montgomerie in 1905, and no trace of
masonry was found.
[284] Roger of Wendover, 1216.
[285] D. B., i., 163.
[286] The charter, which is in both Anglo-Saxon and Latin, is given in Dugdale’s
History of St Paul’s, 304.
[287] See Freeman, ii., 356; and D. B., i., 134a.
[288] From report by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[289] Waytemore has sometimes been identified with the puzzling
Wiggingamere, but in defiance of phonology.
[290] D. B., i., 351b.
[291] M. A., vi., 86.
[292] Itin., i., 27.
[293] Associated Archæological Societies, VI., ix.
[294] Report by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[295] Ipse Willielmus tenet Wasingetune. Guerd Comes tenuit T. R. E. Tunc se
defendebat pro 59 hidis. Modo non dat geldum. In una ex his hidis sedet
castellum Brembre. D. B., i., 28a, 1.
Page 384
[296] We often find that the architecture of the nearest church throws light on the
date of the castle. A Norman seldom built or restored his castle without doing
something for the church at the same time.
[297] See Ordericus, ii., 178.
[298] The Chronica de Fundatoribus of Tewkesbury Abbey seems to be the
origin of the tradition that Earl Robert was the builder of Bristol Castle. There
can be no doubt that his work was in stone, as the same authority states that he
gave every tenth stone to the Chapel of Our Lady in St James’ Priory. M. A., ii.,
120. According to Leland, the keep was built of Caen stone. Itin., vii., 90. Robert
of Gloucester calls it the flower of all the towers in England.
[299] We have no historical account of the Norman conquest of Bristol, and the
city is only mentioned in the most cursory manner in D. B.
[300] Seyer (Memoirs of Bristol, i.) was convinced that the plan published by
Barrett, and attributed to the monk Rowlie, was a forgery; his own plan, as he
candidly admits, was largely drawn from imagination.
[301] Castellum plurimo aggere exaltatum. Gesta Stephani, 37.
[302] Seyer, i., 391, and ii., 82.
[303] Quoted by Seyer, ii., 301, from Prynne’s Catal., p. 11.
[304] Calculated from the measurements given by William of Worcester. Itin., p.
260. William probably alludes to the motte when he speaks of the “mayng
round” of the castle.
[305] Benedict of Peterborough, i., 92.
[306] Hist. of Bristol, i., 373.
[307] Ibid., vol. ii.
[308] De Gestis Herewardi Saxonis, Wright’s edition. See Freeman, N. C., iv.,
804.
[309] Beauties of England and Wales, Buckingham, p. 282.
[310] Camden’s Britannia, i., 315.
[311] D. B., i., 143.
[312] “Willielmus de Scohies tenet 8 carucatas terræ in castellaria de Carliun, et
Turstinus tenet de eo. Ibi habet in dominio unam carucam, et tres Walenses lege
Walensi viventes, cum 3 carucis, et 2 bordarios cum dimidio carucæ, et reddunt
4 sextares mellis. Ibi 2 servi et una ancilla. Hæc terra wasta erat T. R. E., et
quando Willelmus recepit. Modo valet 40 solidos.” D. B., i., 185b, 1.
[313] The Gwentian Chronicle, Cambrian Archæological Association, A.D. 962,
967. It is not absolutely impossible that these passages refer to Chester. Caerleon
appears to have been seized by the Welsh very soon after the death of William I.
[314] Itin. Camb., p. 55.
date of the castle. A Norman seldom built or restored his castle without doing
something for the church at the same time.
[297] See Ordericus, ii., 178.
[298] The Chronica de Fundatoribus of Tewkesbury Abbey seems to be the
origin of the tradition that Earl Robert was the builder of Bristol Castle. There
can be no doubt that his work was in stone, as the same authority states that he
gave every tenth stone to the Chapel of Our Lady in St James’ Priory. M. A., ii.,
120. According to Leland, the keep was built of Caen stone. Itin., vii., 90. Robert
of Gloucester calls it the flower of all the towers in England.
[299] We have no historical account of the Norman conquest of Bristol, and the
city is only mentioned in the most cursory manner in D. B.
[300] Seyer (Memoirs of Bristol, i.) was convinced that the plan published by
Barrett, and attributed to the monk Rowlie, was a forgery; his own plan, as he
candidly admits, was largely drawn from imagination.
[301] Castellum plurimo aggere exaltatum. Gesta Stephani, 37.
[302] Seyer, i., 391, and ii., 82.
[303] Quoted by Seyer, ii., 301, from Prynne’s Catal., p. 11.
[304] Calculated from the measurements given by William of Worcester. Itin., p.
260. William probably alludes to the motte when he speaks of the “mayng
round” of the castle.
[305] Benedict of Peterborough, i., 92.
[306] Hist. of Bristol, i., 373.
[307] Ibid., vol. ii.
[308] De Gestis Herewardi Saxonis, Wright’s edition. See Freeman, N. C., iv.,
804.
[309] Beauties of England and Wales, Buckingham, p. 282.
[310] Camden’s Britannia, i., 315.
[311] D. B., i., 143.
[312] “Willielmus de Scohies tenet 8 carucatas terræ in castellaria de Carliun, et
Turstinus tenet de eo. Ibi habet in dominio unam carucam, et tres Walenses lege
Walensi viventes, cum 3 carucis, et 2 bordarios cum dimidio carucæ, et reddunt
4 sextares mellis. Ibi 2 servi et una ancilla. Hæc terra wasta erat T. R. E., et
quando Willelmus recepit. Modo valet 40 solidos.” D. B., i., 185b, 1.
[313] The Gwentian Chronicle, Cambrian Archæological Association, A.D. 962,
967. It is not absolutely impossible that these passages refer to Chester. Caerleon
appears to have been seized by the Welsh very soon after the death of William I.
[314] Itin. Camb., p. 55.
Page 385
[315] Loftus Brock, in Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., xlix. J. E. Lee, in Arch. Camb.,
iv., 73.
[316] D. B., i., 185b.
[317] [Rex] “in reversione sua Lincolniæ, Huntendonæ et Grontebrugæ castra
locavit.” Ord. Vit., p. 189.
[318] D. B., i., 189.
[319] A similar plan was made independently by the late Professor Babington.
Some traces of the original earthwork of the city are still to be seen. See Mr
Hope’s paper on The Norman Origin of Cambridge Castle, Cambridge
Antiquarian Soc., vol. xi.; and Babington’s Ancient Cambridgeshire, in the same
society’s Octavo Publications, No. iii., 1853.
[320] W. H. St John Hope, as above, p. 342.
[321] “Archiepiscopus habet ex eis [burgensibus] 7 et abbas S. Augustini 14 pro
excambio castelli.” D. B., i. a, 2.
[322] “Et undecim sunt perditi infra fossatum castelli”; cited by Larking,
Domesday of Kent, App. xxiv. Domesday says, “sunt vastatæ xi. in fossa
civitatis.” There can be no doubt that the Chartulary gives the correct account.
[323] The hill is called the Dungan, Dangon, or Dungeon Hill in many old local
deeds. See “Canterbury in Olden Times,”Arch. Journ., 1856. Stukeley and Grose
both call it the Dungeon Hill.
[324] See Appendix N.
[325] Somner’s Antiquities of Canterbury, p. 144. Published in 1640.
[326] Antiquities of Canterbury, p. 75.
[327] Mr Clark thought there was another motte in the earthworks outside the
walls, though he expresses himself doubtfully: “I rather think they [the mounds
outside the city ditch] or one of them, looked rather like a moated mound, but I
could not feel sure of it.“ Arch. Cantiana, xv., 344. Gostling (A Walk about
Canterbury, 1825) says there were two, which is perhaps explained by a passage
in Brayley’s Kent (1808), in which he describes the external fortification as “a
lesser mount, now divided into two parts, with a ditch and embankment.” P. 893.
Stukeley’s description (circa 1700) is as follows: “Within the walls is a very high
mount, called Dungeon Hill; a ditch and high bank enclose the area before it; it
seems to have been part of the old castle. Opposite to it without the walls is a
hill, seeming to have been raised by the Danes when they besieged the city. The
top of the Dungeon Hill is equal to the top of the castle.” Itin. Curiosum, i., 122.
It is of course not impossible that there may have been two mottes to this castle,
as at Lewes and Lincoln, but such instances are rare, and it seems more likely
that a portion of the bailey bank which happened to be in better preservation and
consequently higher was mistaken for another mount. Mr Clark committed this
very error at Tadcaster, and the other writers we have quoted were quite
untrained as observers of earthen castles. At any rate there can be no doubt that
the Dane John is the original chief citadel of this castle, as the statements of
iv., 73.
[316] D. B., i., 185b.
[317] [Rex] “in reversione sua Lincolniæ, Huntendonæ et Grontebrugæ castra
locavit.” Ord. Vit., p. 189.
[318] D. B., i., 189.
[319] A similar plan was made independently by the late Professor Babington.
Some traces of the original earthwork of the city are still to be seen. See Mr
Hope’s paper on The Norman Origin of Cambridge Castle, Cambridge
Antiquarian Soc., vol. xi.; and Babington’s Ancient Cambridgeshire, in the same
society’s Octavo Publications, No. iii., 1853.
[320] W. H. St John Hope, as above, p. 342.
[321] “Archiepiscopus habet ex eis [burgensibus] 7 et abbas S. Augustini 14 pro
excambio castelli.” D. B., i. a, 2.
[322] “Et undecim sunt perditi infra fossatum castelli”; cited by Larking,
Domesday of Kent, App. xxiv. Domesday says, “sunt vastatæ xi. in fossa
civitatis.” There can be no doubt that the Chartulary gives the correct account.
[323] The hill is called the Dungan, Dangon, or Dungeon Hill in many old local
deeds. See “Canterbury in Olden Times,”Arch. Journ., 1856. Stukeley and Grose
both call it the Dungeon Hill.
[324] See Appendix N.
[325] Somner’s Antiquities of Canterbury, p. 144. Published in 1640.
[326] Antiquities of Canterbury, p. 75.
[327] Mr Clark thought there was another motte in the earthworks outside the
walls, though he expresses himself doubtfully: “I rather think they [the mounds
outside the city ditch] or one of them, looked rather like a moated mound, but I
could not feel sure of it.“ Arch. Cantiana, xv., 344. Gostling (A Walk about
Canterbury, 1825) says there were two, which is perhaps explained by a passage
in Brayley’s Kent (1808), in which he describes the external fortification as “a
lesser mount, now divided into two parts, with a ditch and embankment.” P. 893.
Stukeley’s description (circa 1700) is as follows: “Within the walls is a very high
mount, called Dungeon Hill; a ditch and high bank enclose the area before it; it
seems to have been part of the old castle. Opposite to it without the walls is a
hill, seeming to have been raised by the Danes when they besieged the city. The
top of the Dungeon Hill is equal to the top of the castle.” Itin. Curiosum, i., 122.
It is of course not impossible that there may have been two mottes to this castle,
as at Lewes and Lincoln, but such instances are rare, and it seems more likely
that a portion of the bailey bank which happened to be in better preservation and
consequently higher was mistaken for another mount. Mr Clark committed this
very error at Tadcaster, and the other writers we have quoted were quite
untrained as observers of earthen castles. At any rate there can be no doubt that
the Dane John is the original chief citadel of this castle, as the statements of
Page 386
Somner, Stukeley, and we may add, Leland, are explicit. The most ancient maps
of Canterbury, Hoefnagel’s (1570), Smith’s (Description of England, 1588), and
Grose’s (1785), all show the Dungeon Hill within the walls, but take no notice of
the outwork outside.
[328] Archæologia Cantiana, xxxiii., 152.
[329] Ibid., xxi.
[330] Close Rolls, i., 234b, ii., 7b, 89.
[331] Now, to the disgrace of the city of Canterbury, converted into gasworks.
[332] For instance, at Middleham, Rochester, Rhuddlan, and Morpeth.
[333] Beauties of England and Wales, Kent, p. 893.
of Canterbury, Hoefnagel’s (1570), Smith’s (Description of England, 1588), and
Grose’s (1785), all show the Dungeon Hill within the walls, but take no notice of
the outwork outside.
[328] Archæologia Cantiana, xxxiii., 152.
[329] Ibid., xxi.
[330] Close Rolls, i., 234b, ii., 7b, 89.
[331] Now, to the disgrace of the city of Canterbury, converted into gasworks.
[332] For instance, at Middleham, Rochester, Rhuddlan, and Morpeth.
[333] Beauties of England and Wales, Kent, p. 893.
Page 387
[334] The passages from the Pipe Roll bearing on this subject (which have not
been noticed by any previous historian of Canterbury) are as follows:—
1166-
In operatione civitatis Cantuar. claudendæ
7. £5 19 6
" Ad claudendam civitatem Cantuar. 20 0 0
1167-
Pro claudenda civitate Cantuar.
8. 5 1 1
1168- In terris datis Adelizæ filie Simonis 15 solidos de tribus
9. annis pro escambio terræ suæ quæ est in Castello de
Cantuar. 0 15 0
1172-
In operatione turris ejusdem civitatis
3. 10 0 0
" In operatione predicte turris 53 6 8
" Summa denariorum quos vicecomes misit in operatione
turris 73 1 4
1173-
In operatione turris et Castelli Chant.
4. 24 6 0
" In operatione turris Cantuar. 5 11 7
1174-
Et in warnisione ejusdem turris
5. 5 8 0
The latter extract, which refers to the provisioning of the keep, seems to show
that it was then finished. The sums put down to the castle, amounting to about
£4000 of our money, are not sufficient to defray the cost of so fine a keep. But
the entries in the Pipe Rolls relate only to the Sheriff’s accounts, and it is
probable that the cost of the keep was largely paid out of the revenues of the
archbishopric, which Henry seized into his own hands during the Becket quarrel.
[335] The portion of the wall of Canterbury, which rests on an earthen bank,
extends from Northgate to the Castle, and is roughly semicircular in plan. In the
middle of it was St George’s Gate, which was anciently called Newingate
(Gostling, p. 53) and may possibly have been Henry II.’s new gate. The part
enclosing the Dungeon Hill is angular, and appeared to Mr Clark, as well as to
Somner and Hasted, to have been brought out at this angle in order to enclose
the hill.
[336] Arch. Journ., 1856.
[337] D. B., i., 2a, 1.
[338] “Isdem rex tenet Alwinestone. Donnus tenuit. Tunc pro duabus hidis et
dimidia. Modo pro duabus hidis, quia castellum sedet in una virgata.” D. B., i.,
2a, 1.
[339] See below, under Windsor.
[340] “In hac [insula] castellum habebat ornatissimum lapidum ædificio
constructum, validissimo munimine firmatum.” Gesta Stephani, R. S., p. 28.
been noticed by any previous historian of Canterbury) are as follows:—
1166-
In operatione civitatis Cantuar. claudendæ
7. £5 19 6
" Ad claudendam civitatem Cantuar. 20 0 0
1167-
Pro claudenda civitate Cantuar.
8. 5 1 1
1168- In terris datis Adelizæ filie Simonis 15 solidos de tribus
9. annis pro escambio terræ suæ quæ est in Castello de
Cantuar. 0 15 0
1172-
In operatione turris ejusdem civitatis
3. 10 0 0
" In operatione predicte turris 53 6 8
" Summa denariorum quos vicecomes misit in operatione
turris 73 1 4
1173-
In operatione turris et Castelli Chant.
4. 24 6 0
" In operatione turris Cantuar. 5 11 7
1174-
Et in warnisione ejusdem turris
5. 5 8 0
The latter extract, which refers to the provisioning of the keep, seems to show
that it was then finished. The sums put down to the castle, amounting to about
£4000 of our money, are not sufficient to defray the cost of so fine a keep. But
the entries in the Pipe Rolls relate only to the Sheriff’s accounts, and it is
probable that the cost of the keep was largely paid out of the revenues of the
archbishopric, which Henry seized into his own hands during the Becket quarrel.
[335] The portion of the wall of Canterbury, which rests on an earthen bank,
extends from Northgate to the Castle, and is roughly semicircular in plan. In the
middle of it was St George’s Gate, which was anciently called Newingate
(Gostling, p. 53) and may possibly have been Henry II.’s new gate. The part
enclosing the Dungeon Hill is angular, and appeared to Mr Clark, as well as to
Somner and Hasted, to have been brought out at this angle in order to enclose
the hill.
[336] Arch. Journ., 1856.
[337] D. B., i., 2a, 1.
[338] “Isdem rex tenet Alwinestone. Donnus tenuit. Tunc pro duabus hidis et
dimidia. Modo pro duabus hidis, quia castellum sedet in una virgata.” D. B., i.,
2a, 1.
[339] See below, under Windsor.
[340] “In hac [insula] castellum habebat ornatissimum lapidum ædificio
constructum, validissimo munimine firmatum.” Gesta Stephani, R. S., p. 28.
Page 388
[341] Stone’s Official Guide to the Castle of Carisbrooke, p. 39.
[342] Mr W. H. Stevenson, in his edition of Asser, pp. 173, 174, shows that the
name Carisbrooke cannot possibly be derived from Wihtgares-burh, as has been
sometimes supposed, as the older forms prove it to have come from brook, not
burh. The lines of the present castle banks, if produced, would not correspond
with those of the Tilt-yard, which is proof that the Norman castle was not
formed by cutting an older fortification in two.
[343] Bower’s Scotochronicon, v., xlii. Cited by Mr Neilson, Notes and Queries,
viii., 321. See also Palgrave, Documents and Records, i., 103.
[344] Cal. of Close Rolls, Edward II., iii., 161.
[345] Mon. Ang., v., 12. “Castelli nostri de Acra.”
[346] As at Burton, Mexborough, Lilbourne, and Castle Colwyn.
[347] Harrod’s Gleanings among the Castles and Convents of Norfolk. See also
Arch. Journ., xlvi., 441.
[348] D. B., ii., 160b.
[349] “Castellum de Estrighoiel fecit Willelmus comes, et ejus tempore reddebat
40 solidos, tantum de navibus in silvam euntibus.” D. B., i., 162. Tanner has
shown that while Chepstow was an alien priory of Cormeille, in Normandy, it is
never spoken of by that name in the charters of Cormeille, but is always called
Strigulia. Notitia Monastica, Monmouthshire. See also Marsh’s Annals of
Chepstow Castle.
[350] I must confess that in spite of very strong opposing opinions, I see no
reason why this building should not be classed as a keep. It is of course a gross
error to call Martin’s Tower the keep; it is only a mural tower.
[351] D. B., 162, 1a.
[352] “Cestriæ munitionem condidit.” P. 199 (Prévost’s edition).
[353] Chester Historical and Archæological Society, v., 239.
[354] Pipe Rolls, ii., 7. Ranulph, Earl of Chester, died in 1153, and the castle
would then escheat into the king’s hands.
[355] This work seems to have been completed in the reign of Edward II., who
spent £253 on the houses, towers, walls, and gates. Cal. of Close Rolls, Edward
II., ii., 294.
[356] Close Rolls, 35, Henry III., cited by Ormerod, History of Cheshire, i., 358.
[357] See Mr Cox’s paper, as above, and Shrubsole, Chester Hist. and Arch.
Soc., v., 175, and iii., New Series, p. 71.
[358] Benedict of Peterborough, i., 135, R. S.
[359] D. B., i., 262b.
[342] Mr W. H. Stevenson, in his edition of Asser, pp. 173, 174, shows that the
name Carisbrooke cannot possibly be derived from Wihtgares-burh, as has been
sometimes supposed, as the older forms prove it to have come from brook, not
burh. The lines of the present castle banks, if produced, would not correspond
with those of the Tilt-yard, which is proof that the Norman castle was not
formed by cutting an older fortification in two.
[343] Bower’s Scotochronicon, v., xlii. Cited by Mr Neilson, Notes and Queries,
viii., 321. See also Palgrave, Documents and Records, i., 103.
[344] Cal. of Close Rolls, Edward II., iii., 161.
[345] Mon. Ang., v., 12. “Castelli nostri de Acra.”
[346] As at Burton, Mexborough, Lilbourne, and Castle Colwyn.
[347] Harrod’s Gleanings among the Castles and Convents of Norfolk. See also
Arch. Journ., xlvi., 441.
[348] D. B., ii., 160b.
[349] “Castellum de Estrighoiel fecit Willelmus comes, et ejus tempore reddebat
40 solidos, tantum de navibus in silvam euntibus.” D. B., i., 162. Tanner has
shown that while Chepstow was an alien priory of Cormeille, in Normandy, it is
never spoken of by that name in the charters of Cormeille, but is always called
Strigulia. Notitia Monastica, Monmouthshire. See also Marsh’s Annals of
Chepstow Castle.
[350] I must confess that in spite of very strong opposing opinions, I see no
reason why this building should not be classed as a keep. It is of course a gross
error to call Martin’s Tower the keep; it is only a mural tower.
[351] D. B., 162, 1a.
[352] “Cestriæ munitionem condidit.” P. 199 (Prévost’s edition).
[353] Chester Historical and Archæological Society, v., 239.
[354] Pipe Rolls, ii., 7. Ranulph, Earl of Chester, died in 1153, and the castle
would then escheat into the king’s hands.
[355] This work seems to have been completed in the reign of Edward II., who
spent £253 on the houses, towers, walls, and gates. Cal. of Close Rolls, Edward
II., ii., 294.
[356] Close Rolls, 35, Henry III., cited by Ormerod, History of Cheshire, i., 358.
[357] See Mr Cox’s paper, as above, and Shrubsole, Chester Hist. and Arch.
Soc., v., 175, and iii., New Series, p. 71.
[358] Benedict of Peterborough, i., 135, R. S.
[359] D. B., i., 262b.
Page 389
[360] “Willelmus comes fecit illud [castellum] in wasta terra quam tenebat
Bruning T. R. E.” D. B., i., 183a, 2.
[361] “Ancient Charters,” Pipe Roll Society, vol. x., charter xiii., and Mr
Round’s note, p. 25.
[362] It is extraordinary that Mr Clark, in his description of this castle, does not
mention the motte, except by saying that the outer ward is 60 or 70 feet lower
than the inner. M. M. A., i., 395.
[363] This passage occurs in a sort of appendix to Domesday Book, which is
said to be in a later hand, of the 12th century. (Skaife, Yorks. Arch. Journ., Part
lv., p. 299.) It cannot, however, be very late in the 12th century, as it speaks of
Roger’s holdings in Craven in the present tense.
[364] See Farrer’s Lancashire Pipe Rolls, p. 385. The castle is not actually
mentioned, but “le Baille” (the bailey) is spoken of. Mr Farrer also prints an
abstract of a charter of Henry I. (1102): “per quam concessit eidem Roberto [de
Laci] Boelandam [Bowland] quam tenuit de Rogero Comite Pictavensi, ut
extunc eam de eodem rege teneat.” P. 382.
[365] In an inquisition of Henry de Laci (+ 1311) it is said that “castelli mote et
fossæ valent nihil.” (Whitaker’s History of Whalley, p. 280.) This is probably an
instance of the word motte being applied to a natural rock which served that
purpose. See another instance under Nottingham, post, p. 176.
[366] Dugdale’s Baronage, i., p. 99. Dugdale’s authority appears to have been
the “Historia Laceiorum,” a very untrustworthy document, but which may have
preserved a genuine tradition in this instance. The loopholes in the basement of
the keep, with the large recesses, appear to have been intended for crossbows,
and the crossbow was not reintroduced into England till the reign of Richard I.
[367] Victoria History of Lancashire, ii., 523.
[368] See Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls, i., 260.
[369] Printed by Mr Round in Essex Arch. Society’s Transactions, vii., Part ii.
The charter is dated 1101.
[370] See Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 22.
[371] History of Colchester Castle, p. 141.
[372] It has been much debated whether these tiles are Roman or Norman; the
conclusion seems to be that they are mixed. See Round’s History of Colchester,
p. 78.
[373] The single Pipe Roll of Henry I. shows that he spent £33, 15s. on repairs
of the castle and borough in 1130.
[374] In operatione unius Rogi (a kiln), £13, 18s. In reparatione muri castelli,
£16, 3s. 2d. The projection of the buttresses (averaging 1 ft. 3 ins.) is about the
same as that found in castles of Henry I. or Henry II.’s time.
Bruning T. R. E.” D. B., i., 183a, 2.
[361] “Ancient Charters,” Pipe Roll Society, vol. x., charter xiii., and Mr
Round’s note, p. 25.
[362] It is extraordinary that Mr Clark, in his description of this castle, does not
mention the motte, except by saying that the outer ward is 60 or 70 feet lower
than the inner. M. M. A., i., 395.
[363] This passage occurs in a sort of appendix to Domesday Book, which is
said to be in a later hand, of the 12th century. (Skaife, Yorks. Arch. Journ., Part
lv., p. 299.) It cannot, however, be very late in the 12th century, as it speaks of
Roger’s holdings in Craven in the present tense.
[364] See Farrer’s Lancashire Pipe Rolls, p. 385. The castle is not actually
mentioned, but “le Baille” (the bailey) is spoken of. Mr Farrer also prints an
abstract of a charter of Henry I. (1102): “per quam concessit eidem Roberto [de
Laci] Boelandam [Bowland] quam tenuit de Rogero Comite Pictavensi, ut
extunc eam de eodem rege teneat.” P. 382.
[365] In an inquisition of Henry de Laci (+ 1311) it is said that “castelli mote et
fossæ valent nihil.” (Whitaker’s History of Whalley, p. 280.) This is probably an
instance of the word motte being applied to a natural rock which served that
purpose. See another instance under Nottingham, post, p. 176.
[366] Dugdale’s Baronage, i., p. 99. Dugdale’s authority appears to have been
the “Historia Laceiorum,” a very untrustworthy document, but which may have
preserved a genuine tradition in this instance. The loopholes in the basement of
the keep, with the large recesses, appear to have been intended for crossbows,
and the crossbow was not reintroduced into England till the reign of Richard I.
[367] Victoria History of Lancashire, ii., 523.
[368] See Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls, i., 260.
[369] Printed by Mr Round in Essex Arch. Society’s Transactions, vii., Part ii.
The charter is dated 1101.
[370] See Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 22.
[371] History of Colchester Castle, p. 141.
[372] It has been much debated whether these tiles are Roman or Norman; the
conclusion seems to be that they are mixed. See Round’s History of Colchester,
p. 78.
[373] The single Pipe Roll of Henry I. shows that he spent £33, 15s. on repairs
of the castle and borough in 1130.
[374] In operatione unius Rogi (a kiln), £13, 18s. In reparatione muri castelli,
£16, 3s. 2d. The projection of the buttresses (averaging 1 ft. 3 ins.) is about the
same as that found in castles of Henry I. or Henry II.’s time.
Page 390
[375] Ad faciendum Ballium circa castellum, £50. Pipe Rolls, xix., 13. This is
followed by another entry of £18, 13s. 7d. “in operatione castelli,” which may
refer to the same work.
[376] Round’s History of Colchester.
[377] Close Rolls, i., 389. Mandamus to the bishop of London to choose two
lawful and discreet men of Colchester, “et per visum eorum erigi faceatis
palicium castri nostri Colecestrie, quod nuper prostratum fuit per tempestatem.”
[378] Round’s History of Colchester, pp. 135, 136.
[379] Tota civitas ex omnibus debitis reddebat T. R. E., £15, 5s. 4d., in
unoquoque anno. Modo reddit £160. D. B., ii., 107.
[380] Eyton, Key to Domesday, p. 43. This passage was kindly pointed out to me
by Dr Round. The castle is not mentioned in Domesday under Wareham, but
under Kingston. “De manerio Chingestone habet rex unam hidam, in qua fecit
castellum Warham, et pro ea dedit S. Mariæ [of Shaftesbury] ecclesiam de
Gelingeham cum appendiciis suis.” D. B., i., 78b, 2.
[381] “Advocatio ecclesie de Gillingeham data fuit abbati [sic] de S. Edwardo in
escambium pro terra ubi castellum de Corf positum est.” Testa de Nevill, 164b.
[382] It is by no means certain that Corfe was the scene of Edward’s murder, as
we learn from a charter of Cnut (Mon. Ang., iii., 55) that there was a Corfe Geat
not far from Portisham, probably the place now called Coryates.
[383] Called by Asser a castellum; but it has already been pointed out that
castellum in early writers means a walled town and not a castle. (See p. 25.)
Wareham is a town fortified by an earthen vallum and ditch, and is one of the
boroughs of the Burghal Hidage. (See Ch. II, p. 28.) A Norman castle was built
there after the Conquest, and its motte still remains. D. B. says seventy-three
houses were utterly destroyed from the time of Hugh the Sheriff. I., 75.
[384] Edred granted “to the religious woman, Elfthryth,” supposed to be the
Abbess of Shaftesbury, “pars telluris Purbeckinga,” which would include Corfe.
Mon. Ang., ii., 478.
[385] Both these kings spent large sums on Corfe Castle. See the citations from
the Pipe Rolls in Hutchins’ Dorset, vol. i., and in Mr Bond’s History of Corfe
Castle.
[386] See Professor Baldwin Brown’s paper in the Journal of the Institute of
British Architects, Third Series, ii., 488, and Mr Micklethwaite’s in Arch. Journ.,
liii., 338; also Professor Baldwin Brown’s remarks on Corfe Castle in The Arts
in Early England, ii., 71.
[387] There are other instances in which the chapel is the oldest piece of mason-
work about the castle, as, for example, at Pontefract.
[388] Cited in Hutchins’ Dorset, i., 488, from the Close Rolls.
[389] Close Rolls, i., 178b.
followed by another entry of £18, 13s. 7d. “in operatione castelli,” which may
refer to the same work.
[376] Round’s History of Colchester.
[377] Close Rolls, i., 389. Mandamus to the bishop of London to choose two
lawful and discreet men of Colchester, “et per visum eorum erigi faceatis
palicium castri nostri Colecestrie, quod nuper prostratum fuit per tempestatem.”
[378] Round’s History of Colchester, pp. 135, 136.
[379] Tota civitas ex omnibus debitis reddebat T. R. E., £15, 5s. 4d., in
unoquoque anno. Modo reddit £160. D. B., ii., 107.
[380] Eyton, Key to Domesday, p. 43. This passage was kindly pointed out to me
by Dr Round. The castle is not mentioned in Domesday under Wareham, but
under Kingston. “De manerio Chingestone habet rex unam hidam, in qua fecit
castellum Warham, et pro ea dedit S. Mariæ [of Shaftesbury] ecclesiam de
Gelingeham cum appendiciis suis.” D. B., i., 78b, 2.
[381] “Advocatio ecclesie de Gillingeham data fuit abbati [sic] de S. Edwardo in
escambium pro terra ubi castellum de Corf positum est.” Testa de Nevill, 164b.
[382] It is by no means certain that Corfe was the scene of Edward’s murder, as
we learn from a charter of Cnut (Mon. Ang., iii., 55) that there was a Corfe Geat
not far from Portisham, probably the place now called Coryates.
[383] Called by Asser a castellum; but it has already been pointed out that
castellum in early writers means a walled town and not a castle. (See p. 25.)
Wareham is a town fortified by an earthen vallum and ditch, and is one of the
boroughs of the Burghal Hidage. (See Ch. II, p. 28.) A Norman castle was built
there after the Conquest, and its motte still remains. D. B. says seventy-three
houses were utterly destroyed from the time of Hugh the Sheriff. I., 75.
[384] Edred granted “to the religious woman, Elfthryth,” supposed to be the
Abbess of Shaftesbury, “pars telluris Purbeckinga,” which would include Corfe.
Mon. Ang., ii., 478.
[385] Both these kings spent large sums on Corfe Castle. See the citations from
the Pipe Rolls in Hutchins’ Dorset, vol. i., and in Mr Bond’s History of Corfe
Castle.
[386] See Professor Baldwin Brown’s paper in the Journal of the Institute of
British Architects, Third Series, ii., 488, and Mr Micklethwaite’s in Arch. Journ.,
liii., 338; also Professor Baldwin Brown’s remarks on Corfe Castle in The Arts
in Early England, ii., 71.
[387] There are other instances in which the chapel is the oldest piece of mason-
work about the castle, as, for example, at Pontefract.
[388] Cited in Hutchins’ Dorset, i., 488, from the Close Rolls.
[389] Close Rolls, i., 178b.
Page 391
[390] Hutchins’ Dorset, i., 488.
[391] Castrum Doveram, studio atque sumptu suo communitum. P. 108. Eadmer
makes Harold promise to William “Castellum Dofris cum puteo aquæ ad opus
meum te facturum.” Hist. Novorum, i., d. The castle is not mentioned in
Domesday Book.
[392] Norman Conquest, iii., 217.
[393] In 1580 an earthquake threw down a portion of the cliff on which the
castle stands, and part of the walls. Statham’s History of Dover, p. 287.
[394] “Wendon him tha up to thære burge-weard, and ofslogen ægther ge
withinnan ge withutan, ma thanne 20 manna.” Another MS. adds “tha burh-
menn ofslogen 19 men on othre healfe, and ma gewundode, and Eustatius
atbærst mid feawum mannum.”
[395] See ante, pp. 17-19.
[396] His description is worth quoting:
Est ibi mons altus, strictum mare, litus opacum,
Hinc hostes citius Anglica regna petunt;
Sed castrum Doveræ, pendens a vertice montis,
Hostes rejiciens, littora tuta facit.
Clavibus acceptis, rex intrans mœnia castri
Præcepit Angligenis evacuare domos;
Hos introduxit per quos sibi regna subegit,
Unumquemque suum misit ad hospitium.
“Carmen de Bello Hastingensi,” in Monumenta Britannica, p. 603.
[397] William’s description is also of great interest: “Deinde dux contendit
Doueram, ubi multus populus congregatus erat, pro inexpugnabile, ut sibi
videtur, munitione; quia id castellum situm est in rupe mari contigua, quæ
naturaliter acuta undique ad hoc ferramentis elaborate incisa, in speciem muri
directissima altitudine, quantum sagittæ jactus permetiri potest, consurgit, quo in
latere unda marina alluitur.” P. 140.
[398] The following entries in the Pipe Rolls refer to this:—
1194-
Three hundred planks of oak for the works of the castle
5. £2 0 0
1196-
Repair of the wall of the castle
7. 76 3 0
1208- Timber for walling the castles of Dover and Rochester,
9. also rods and [wooden] hurdles and other needful
things 76 13 4
1210-
Payment for the carpenters working the timber
11. 24 9 5
[391] Castrum Doveram, studio atque sumptu suo communitum. P. 108. Eadmer
makes Harold promise to William “Castellum Dofris cum puteo aquæ ad opus
meum te facturum.” Hist. Novorum, i., d. The castle is not mentioned in
Domesday Book.
[392] Norman Conquest, iii., 217.
[393] In 1580 an earthquake threw down a portion of the cliff on which the
castle stands, and part of the walls. Statham’s History of Dover, p. 287.
[394] “Wendon him tha up to thære burge-weard, and ofslogen ægther ge
withinnan ge withutan, ma thanne 20 manna.” Another MS. adds “tha burh-
menn ofslogen 19 men on othre healfe, and ma gewundode, and Eustatius
atbærst mid feawum mannum.”
[395] See ante, pp. 17-19.
[396] His description is worth quoting:
Est ibi mons altus, strictum mare, litus opacum,
Hinc hostes citius Anglica regna petunt;
Sed castrum Doveræ, pendens a vertice montis,
Hostes rejiciens, littora tuta facit.
Clavibus acceptis, rex intrans mœnia castri
Præcepit Angligenis evacuare domos;
Hos introduxit per quos sibi regna subegit,
Unumquemque suum misit ad hospitium.
“Carmen de Bello Hastingensi,” in Monumenta Britannica, p. 603.
[397] William’s description is also of great interest: “Deinde dux contendit
Doueram, ubi multus populus congregatus erat, pro inexpugnabile, ut sibi
videtur, munitione; quia id castellum situm est in rupe mari contigua, quæ
naturaliter acuta undique ad hoc ferramentis elaborate incisa, in speciem muri
directissima altitudine, quantum sagittæ jactus permetiri potest, consurgit, quo in
latere unda marina alluitur.” P. 140.
[398] The following entries in the Pipe Rolls refer to this:—
1194-
Three hundred planks of oak for the works of the castle
5. £2 0 0
1196-
Repair of the wall of the castle
7. 76 3 0
1208- Timber for walling the castles of Dover and Rochester,
9. also rods and [wooden] hurdles and other needful
things 76 13 4
1210-
Payment for the carpenters working the timber
11. 24 9 5
Page 392
1212-
For the carriage of timber and other things
13. 48 16 7
1214-
For the carriage of timber for the castle works
15. 2 0 0
1214- For timber and brushwood for the works, and for
15. cutting down wood to make hurdles, and sending
them sum not given,
but £100 entered same year for the works of the castle. There is no mention of
stone for the castle during these two reigns, but after the death of John we find
that works are going on at Dover for which kilns are required. (Close Rolls, i.,
352, 1218.) This entry is followed by a very large expenditure on Dover Castle
(amounting to at least £6000), sufficient to cover the cost of a stone wall and
towers round the outer circuit. The orders of planks for joists must be for the
towers, and the large quantities of lead, for roofing them. The order for timber
“ad palum et alia facienda” in 1225 may refer to a stockade on the advanced
work called the Spur, which is said to be Hubert’s work. (Close Rolls, ii., 14.)
[399] Cited by Statham, History of Dover, pp. 265, 313.
[400] Commune of London, pp. 278-81.
[401] The ninth name, Maminot, is attached to three towers on the curtain of the
keep ward.
[402] “Recepto castro, quæ minus erant per dies octo addidit firmamenta.” P.
140.
[403] Lyon says: “The keep [hill] was formed of chalk dug out of the interior
hill.” Cited by Statham, p. 245.
[404] “Per præceptum regis facta est apud Doveram turris fortissima.” II. 8, R.
S., anno 1187. The Historia Fundationis of St Martin’s Abbey says that Henry
II. built the high tower in the castle, and enclosed the donjon with new walls: “fit
le haut tour en le chastel, et enclost le dongon de nouelx murs.” M. A., iv., 533.
[405] Puckle’s Church and Fortress of Dover Castle, p. 57.
[406] Pipe Rolls, 1178-80. “In operatione muri circa castellum de Doura, £165,
13s. 4d. The same, £94, 7s. 1d.”
[407] Mr Statham thinks the port of Dover, though a Roman station, was
unwalled till the 13th century, and gives evidence. History of Dover, p. 56.
[408] See Professor Baldwin Brown, “Statistics of Saxon Churches” in the
Builder, 20th October 1900; and in The Arts in Early England, ii., 338.
[409] D. B., i., 1.
[410] “Istedem Willelmus tenet Dudelei, et ibi est castellum ejus. T. R. E.
valebat 4 libras, modo 3 libras.” D. B., i., 177.
[411] M. M. A., i., 24.
For the carriage of timber and other things
13. 48 16 7
1214-
For the carriage of timber for the castle works
15. 2 0 0
1214- For timber and brushwood for the works, and for
15. cutting down wood to make hurdles, and sending
them sum not given,
but £100 entered same year for the works of the castle. There is no mention of
stone for the castle during these two reigns, but after the death of John we find
that works are going on at Dover for which kilns are required. (Close Rolls, i.,
352, 1218.) This entry is followed by a very large expenditure on Dover Castle
(amounting to at least £6000), sufficient to cover the cost of a stone wall and
towers round the outer circuit. The orders of planks for joists must be for the
towers, and the large quantities of lead, for roofing them. The order for timber
“ad palum et alia facienda” in 1225 may refer to a stockade on the advanced
work called the Spur, which is said to be Hubert’s work. (Close Rolls, ii., 14.)
[399] Cited by Statham, History of Dover, pp. 265, 313.
[400] Commune of London, pp. 278-81.
[401] The ninth name, Maminot, is attached to three towers on the curtain of the
keep ward.
[402] “Recepto castro, quæ minus erant per dies octo addidit firmamenta.” P.
140.
[403] Lyon says: “The keep [hill] was formed of chalk dug out of the interior
hill.” Cited by Statham, p. 245.
[404] “Per præceptum regis facta est apud Doveram turris fortissima.” II. 8, R.
S., anno 1187. The Historia Fundationis of St Martin’s Abbey says that Henry
II. built the high tower in the castle, and enclosed the donjon with new walls: “fit
le haut tour en le chastel, et enclost le dongon de nouelx murs.” M. A., iv., 533.
[405] Puckle’s Church and Fortress of Dover Castle, p. 57.
[406] Pipe Rolls, 1178-80. “In operatione muri circa castellum de Doura, £165,
13s. 4d. The same, £94, 7s. 1d.”
[407] Mr Statham thinks the port of Dover, though a Roman station, was
unwalled till the 13th century, and gives evidence. History of Dover, p. 56.
[408] See Professor Baldwin Brown, “Statistics of Saxon Churches” in the
Builder, 20th October 1900; and in The Arts in Early England, ii., 338.
[409] D. B., i., 1.
[410] “Istedem Willelmus tenet Dudelei, et ibi est castellum ejus. T. R. E.
valebat 4 libras, modo 3 libras.” D. B., i., 177.
[411] M. M. A., i., 24.
Page 393
[412] “Circa dies istos castellum de Huntinduna, de Waletuna, de Legecestria, et
Grobi, de Stutesbers [Tutbury], de Dudeleia, de Tresc, et alia plura pariter
corruerunt, in ultionem injuriarum quas domini castellorum regi patri frequenter
intulerunt.” Diceto, i., 404, R. S.
[413] Close Rolls, i., 380.
[414] Parker’s History of Domestic Architecture, Licenses to Crenellate, 13th
century, Part ii., p. 402. Godwin, “Notice of the Castle at Dudley,” Arch. Journ.,
xv., 47.
[415] D. B., i., 95b.
[416] Narrow terraces of this kind are found in several mottes, such as Mere, in
Wilts. They are probably natural, and may have been utilised as part of the plan.
The more regular terraces winding round the motte are generally found where
the motte has become part of a pleasure-ground in later times.
[417] This is the only case in which I have had to trust to Mr Clark for the
description of a castle. M. M. A., ii., 24.
[418] Mentioned in Close Rolls, i., 518a.
[419] D. B., i., 95b.
[420] Symeon of Durham, 1072. “Eodem tempore, scilicet quo rex reversus de
Scotia fuerat, in Dunelmo castellum condidit, ubi se cum suis episcopus tute ab
incursantibus habere potuisset.”
[421] This chapel is an instance of the honour so frequently done to the chapel,
which was in many cases built of stone when the rest of the castle was only of
timber, and was always the part most lavishly decorated.
[422] The bailey was twice enlarged by Bishops Flambard and Pudsey.
[423] Surtees, Durham, iv., 33.
[424] Surtees Society, xx., 11-13.
[425] Evidently the southern wing wall up the motte; but we need not suppose
murus to mean a stone wall.
[426] Domus, a word always used for a habitation in mediæval documents, and
often applied to a tower, which it evidently means here.
[427] This is the only indication which Lawrence gives that the keep was of
wood.
[428]
“Cingitur et pulchra paries sibi quilibet ala,
Omnis et in muro desinit ala fero.”
The translation is conjectural, but gallery seems to make the best sense, and the
allusion probably is to the wooden galleries, or hourdes, which defended the
Grobi, de Stutesbers [Tutbury], de Dudeleia, de Tresc, et alia plura pariter
corruerunt, in ultionem injuriarum quas domini castellorum regi patri frequenter
intulerunt.” Diceto, i., 404, R. S.
[413] Close Rolls, i., 380.
[414] Parker’s History of Domestic Architecture, Licenses to Crenellate, 13th
century, Part ii., p. 402. Godwin, “Notice of the Castle at Dudley,” Arch. Journ.,
xv., 47.
[415] D. B., i., 95b.
[416] Narrow terraces of this kind are found in several mottes, such as Mere, in
Wilts. They are probably natural, and may have been utilised as part of the plan.
The more regular terraces winding round the motte are generally found where
the motte has become part of a pleasure-ground in later times.
[417] This is the only case in which I have had to trust to Mr Clark for the
description of a castle. M. M. A., ii., 24.
[418] Mentioned in Close Rolls, i., 518a.
[419] D. B., i., 95b.
[420] Symeon of Durham, 1072. “Eodem tempore, scilicet quo rex reversus de
Scotia fuerat, in Dunelmo castellum condidit, ubi se cum suis episcopus tute ab
incursantibus habere potuisset.”
[421] This chapel is an instance of the honour so frequently done to the chapel,
which was in many cases built of stone when the rest of the castle was only of
timber, and was always the part most lavishly decorated.
[422] The bailey was twice enlarged by Bishops Flambard and Pudsey.
[423] Surtees, Durham, iv., 33.
[424] Surtees Society, xx., 11-13.
[425] Evidently the southern wing wall up the motte; but we need not suppose
murus to mean a stone wall.
[426] Domus, a word always used for a habitation in mediæval documents, and
often applied to a tower, which it evidently means here.
[427] This is the only indication which Lawrence gives that the keep was of
wood.
[428]
“Cingitur et pulchra paries sibi quilibet ala,
Omnis et in muro desinit ala fero.”
The translation is conjectural, but gallery seems to make the best sense, and the
allusion probably is to the wooden galleries, or hourdes, which defended the
Page 394
walls.
[429] Evidently the northern wing wall.
[430] This is the bailey; the two vast palaces must mean the hall and the
lodgings of the men-at-arms, who did not share the bishop’s dwelling in the
keep. These were probably all of wood, as the buildings of Durham Castle were
burnt at the beginning of Pudsey’s episcopate (1153) and restored by him.
Surtees Society, ix., 12.
[431] “Hujus in egressu pons sternitur.” This seems a probable allusion to a
drawbridge, but if so, it is an early one.
[432] This describes the addition to the bailey made by Flambard. The part of
the peninsula to the S. of the church was afterwards walled in by Pudsey, and
called the South Bailey.
[433] Liber Eliensis, ii., 245 (Anglia Christiana). The part cited was written
early in the 12th century: see Preface.
[434] Stowe’s Annals, 145, 1.
[435] D. B., ii., 192.
[436] “Alured de Merleberge tenet castellum de Ewias de Willelmo rege. Ipse
rex enim concessit ei terras quas Willelmus comes ei dederat, qui hoc castellum
refirmaverat, hoc est, 5 carucatas terræ ibidem.... Hoc castellum valet 10l.” D.
B., i., 186a. As there is no statement of the value in King Edward’s day, we
cannot tell whether it had risen or fallen.
[437] Feudal England, p. 324. The present writer was led independently to the
same conclusion. Pentecost was the nickname of Osbern, son of Richard Scrob,
one of Edward’s Norman favourites, to whom he had given estates in
Herefordshire. Osbern fled to Scotland in 1052, but he seems to have returned,
and was still holding lands in “the castelry of Ewias” at the time of the Survey,
though his nephew Alured held the castle. See Freeman, N. C., ii., 345, and
Florence of Worcester, 1052.
[438] “Locum vero intra mœnia ad extruendum castellum delegit, ibique
Baldwinum de Molis, filium Gisleberti comitis, aliosque milites præcipuos
reliquit, qui necessarium opus conficerent, præsidioque manerunt.” Ordericus,
ii., 181.
[439] Exeter is one of the few cities where a tradition has been preserved of the
site of the Saxon royal residence, which places it in what is now Paul Street, far
away from the present castle. Shorrt’s Sylva Antiqua Iscana, p. 7.
[440] “In hac civitate vastatæ sunt 48 domi postquam rex venit in Angliam.” D.
B., i., 100.
[441] Norman Conquest, iv., 162.
[442] The outer ditch may have been of Roman origin, but in that case it must
have been carried all round the city, and we are unable to find whether this was
the case or not. The banks on the north and east sides must also have been of
[429] Evidently the northern wing wall.
[430] This is the bailey; the two vast palaces must mean the hall and the
lodgings of the men-at-arms, who did not share the bishop’s dwelling in the
keep. These were probably all of wood, as the buildings of Durham Castle were
burnt at the beginning of Pudsey’s episcopate (1153) and restored by him.
Surtees Society, ix., 12.
[431] “Hujus in egressu pons sternitur.” This seems a probable allusion to a
drawbridge, but if so, it is an early one.
[432] This describes the addition to the bailey made by Flambard. The part of
the peninsula to the S. of the church was afterwards walled in by Pudsey, and
called the South Bailey.
[433] Liber Eliensis, ii., 245 (Anglia Christiana). The part cited was written
early in the 12th century: see Preface.
[434] Stowe’s Annals, 145, 1.
[435] D. B., ii., 192.
[436] “Alured de Merleberge tenet castellum de Ewias de Willelmo rege. Ipse
rex enim concessit ei terras quas Willelmus comes ei dederat, qui hoc castellum
refirmaverat, hoc est, 5 carucatas terræ ibidem.... Hoc castellum valet 10l.” D.
B., i., 186a. As there is no statement of the value in King Edward’s day, we
cannot tell whether it had risen or fallen.
[437] Feudal England, p. 324. The present writer was led independently to the
same conclusion. Pentecost was the nickname of Osbern, son of Richard Scrob,
one of Edward’s Norman favourites, to whom he had given estates in
Herefordshire. Osbern fled to Scotland in 1052, but he seems to have returned,
and was still holding lands in “the castelry of Ewias” at the time of the Survey,
though his nephew Alured held the castle. See Freeman, N. C., ii., 345, and
Florence of Worcester, 1052.
[438] “Locum vero intra mœnia ad extruendum castellum delegit, ibique
Baldwinum de Molis, filium Gisleberti comitis, aliosque milites præcipuos
reliquit, qui necessarium opus conficerent, præsidioque manerunt.” Ordericus,
ii., 181.
[439] Exeter is one of the few cities where a tradition has been preserved of the
site of the Saxon royal residence, which places it in what is now Paul Street, far
away from the present castle. Shorrt’s Sylva Antiqua Iscana, p. 7.
[440] “In hac civitate vastatæ sunt 48 domi postquam rex venit in Angliam.” D.
B., i., 100.
[441] Norman Conquest, iv., 162.
[442] The outer ditch may have been of Roman origin, but in that case it must
have been carried all round the city, and we are unable to find whether this was
the case or not. The banks on the north and east sides must also have been of
Page 395
Roman origin, and if we rightly understand the statements of local antiquaries,
the Roman city wall stood upon them, and has actually been found in situ, cased
with mediæval rubble. Report of Devon Association, 1895.
[443] This resemblance to a pit may be seen in every motte which still retains its
ancient earthen breast-work, as at Castle Levington, Burton in Lonsdale, and
Castlehaugh, Gisburne. Perhaps this is the reason that we so frequently read in
the Pipe Rolls of “the houses in the motte” (domos in Mota) instead of on the
motte. Devizes Castle is another and still more striking instance.
[444] Professor Baldwin Brown, The Arts in Early England, ii., 82.
[445] “In custamento gaiole in ballia castelli, £16, 15s. 8d.”
[446] Cited by Dr Oliver, “The Castle of Exeter,” in Arch. Journ., vii., 128.
[447] The whole of this passage is worth quoting: “Castellum in ea situm,
editissimo aggere sublatum, muro inexpugnabile obseptum, turribus Cæsarianis
inseissili calce confectis firmatum. Agmine peditum instructissime armato
exterius promurale, quod ad castellum muniendum aggere cumulatissimo in
altum sustollebatur, expulsis constanter hostibus suscepit, pontemque interiorem,
quo ad urbem de castello incessus protendebatur, viriliter infregit, lignorumque
ingentia artificia, quibus de muro pugnare intentibus resisteretur, mire et
artificiose exaltavit. Die etiam et noctu graviter et intente obsidionem clausis
inferre; nunc cum armatis aggerem incessu quadrupede conscendentibus rixam
pugnacem secum committere; nunc cum innumeris fundatoribus, qui e diverso
conducti fuerunt, intolerabile eos lapidum grandine infestare; aliquando autem
ascitis eis, qui massæ subterranæ cautius norunt venus incidere, ad murum
diruendum viscera terræ scutari præcipere: nonnunquam etiam machinas diversi
generis, alias in altum sublatis, alias humo tenus depressas, istas ad inspiciendam
quidnam rerum in castello gereretur, illas ad murum quassandum vel obruendum
aptare.” Gesta Stephani, R. S., 23.
[448] Pipe Rolls, 1169-1186.
[449] The difficulty about this, however, is that passages branch off from the
central cave in every direction.
[450] Oliver’s History of Exeter, p. 186.
[451] [Willelmus Malet] fecit suum castellum ad Eiam. D. B., ii., 379. For
Malet, see Freeman, N. C., 466, note 4.
[452] “In operatione castelli de Eya et reparatione veterarum bretascharum et 2
novarum bretascharum et fossatorum et pro carriagio et petra et aliis minutis
operationibus 20l. 18s. 4d.” Pipe Rolls, xix., 19 Henry II. The small quantity of
stone referred to here can only be for some auxiliary work. The bretasches in
this case will be mural towers of wood. “In emendatione palicii et 1 exclusæ
vivarii et domorum castelli 20s.” 28 Henry II.
[453] D. B., ii., 319, 320.
[454] D. B., i., 162. “Sedecim domus erant ubi sedet castellum, quæ modo
desunt, et in burgo civitatis sunt wastatæ 14 domus.”
the Roman city wall stood upon them, and has actually been found in situ, cased
with mediæval rubble. Report of Devon Association, 1895.
[443] This resemblance to a pit may be seen in every motte which still retains its
ancient earthen breast-work, as at Castle Levington, Burton in Lonsdale, and
Castlehaugh, Gisburne. Perhaps this is the reason that we so frequently read in
the Pipe Rolls of “the houses in the motte” (domos in Mota) instead of on the
motte. Devizes Castle is another and still more striking instance.
[444] Professor Baldwin Brown, The Arts in Early England, ii., 82.
[445] “In custamento gaiole in ballia castelli, £16, 15s. 8d.”
[446] Cited by Dr Oliver, “The Castle of Exeter,” in Arch. Journ., vii., 128.
[447] The whole of this passage is worth quoting: “Castellum in ea situm,
editissimo aggere sublatum, muro inexpugnabile obseptum, turribus Cæsarianis
inseissili calce confectis firmatum. Agmine peditum instructissime armato
exterius promurale, quod ad castellum muniendum aggere cumulatissimo in
altum sustollebatur, expulsis constanter hostibus suscepit, pontemque interiorem,
quo ad urbem de castello incessus protendebatur, viriliter infregit, lignorumque
ingentia artificia, quibus de muro pugnare intentibus resisteretur, mire et
artificiose exaltavit. Die etiam et noctu graviter et intente obsidionem clausis
inferre; nunc cum armatis aggerem incessu quadrupede conscendentibus rixam
pugnacem secum committere; nunc cum innumeris fundatoribus, qui e diverso
conducti fuerunt, intolerabile eos lapidum grandine infestare; aliquando autem
ascitis eis, qui massæ subterranæ cautius norunt venus incidere, ad murum
diruendum viscera terræ scutari præcipere: nonnunquam etiam machinas diversi
generis, alias in altum sublatis, alias humo tenus depressas, istas ad inspiciendam
quidnam rerum in castello gereretur, illas ad murum quassandum vel obruendum
aptare.” Gesta Stephani, R. S., 23.
[448] Pipe Rolls, 1169-1186.
[449] The difficulty about this, however, is that passages branch off from the
central cave in every direction.
[450] Oliver’s History of Exeter, p. 186.
[451] [Willelmus Malet] fecit suum castellum ad Eiam. D. B., ii., 379. For
Malet, see Freeman, N. C., 466, note 4.
[452] “In operatione castelli de Eya et reparatione veterarum bretascharum et 2
novarum bretascharum et fossatorum et pro carriagio et petra et aliis minutis
operationibus 20l. 18s. 4d.” Pipe Rolls, xix., 19 Henry II. The small quantity of
stone referred to here can only be for some auxiliary work. The bretasches in
this case will be mural towers of wood. “In emendatione palicii et 1 exclusæ
vivarii et domorum castelli 20s.” 28 Henry II.
[453] D. B., ii., 319, 320.
[454] D. B., i., 162. “Sedecim domus erant ubi sedet castellum, quæ modo
desunt, et in burgo civitatis sunt wastatæ 14 domus.”
Page 396
[455] Rudge, History of Gloucester, p. 7. Haverfield, Romanisation of Britain, p.
204.
[456] It is, however, possible that by the burgus may be meant a later quarter
which had been added to the city.
[457] Fosbroke’s History of Gloucester, pp. 125, 126. Stukeley, writing in 1721,
says: “There is a large old gatehouse standing, and near it the castle, with a very
high artificial mount or keep nigh the river.” Itin. Cur., i., 69.
[458] “Of al partes of yt the hy tower in media area is most strongest and
auncient.” Leland, Itin., iii., 64.
[459] “In excambium pro placea ubi nunc turris stat Gloucestriæ, ubi quondam
fuit ortus monachorum.” Mon. Ang., i., 544. The document is not earlier than
Henry II.’s reign.
[460] Round, Studies in Domesday, p. 123.
[461] “In operatione frame turris de Glouec, 20l.” Pipe Rolls, i., 27. In the single
Pipe Roll of Henry I. there is an entry “In operationibus turris de Glouec,” 7l. 6s.
2d., which may be one of a series of sums spent on the new stone keep.
[462] Pipe Rolls, 1177, 1180, 1181, 1184.
[463] Close Rolls, ii., 88b.
[464] “In reparatione murorum et bretaschiarum,” 20l. 7s. 11d. Pipe Rolls, 1193.
[465] “Jussit ut foderetur castellum ad Hestengaceastra.”
[466] D. B., i., 18a, 2. “Rex Willelmus dedit comiti [of Eu] castellariam de
Hastinges.”
[467] “Dux ibidem [at Pevensey] non diu moratus, haud longe situm, qui
Hastinges vocatur, cum suis adiit portum, ibique opportunum nactus locum,
ligneum agiliter castellum statuens, provide munivit.” Chron. Monast. de Bello,
p. 3, ed. 1846. There is also the evidence of Ordericus, who says that Humphrey
de Tilleul received the custody of Hastings Castle “from the first day it was
built.” iv., 4.
[468]
204.
[456] It is, however, possible that by the burgus may be meant a later quarter
which had been added to the city.
[457] Fosbroke’s History of Gloucester, pp. 125, 126. Stukeley, writing in 1721,
says: “There is a large old gatehouse standing, and near it the castle, with a very
high artificial mount or keep nigh the river.” Itin. Cur., i., 69.
[458] “Of al partes of yt the hy tower in media area is most strongest and
auncient.” Leland, Itin., iii., 64.
[459] “In excambium pro placea ubi nunc turris stat Gloucestriæ, ubi quondam
fuit ortus monachorum.” Mon. Ang., i., 544. The document is not earlier than
Henry II.’s reign.
[460] Round, Studies in Domesday, p. 123.
[461] “In operatione frame turris de Glouec, 20l.” Pipe Rolls, i., 27. In the single
Pipe Roll of Henry I. there is an entry “In operationibus turris de Glouec,” 7l. 6s.
2d., which may be one of a series of sums spent on the new stone keep.
[462] Pipe Rolls, 1177, 1180, 1181, 1184.
[463] Close Rolls, ii., 88b.
[464] “In reparatione murorum et bretaschiarum,” 20l. 7s. 11d. Pipe Rolls, 1193.
[465] “Jussit ut foderetur castellum ad Hestengaceastra.”
[466] D. B., i., 18a, 2. “Rex Willelmus dedit comiti [of Eu] castellariam de
Hastinges.”
[467] “Dux ibidem [at Pevensey] non diu moratus, haud longe situm, qui
Hastinges vocatur, cum suis adiit portum, ibique opportunum nactus locum,
ligneum agiliter castellum statuens, provide munivit.” Chron. Monast. de Bello,
p. 3, ed. 1846. There is also the evidence of Ordericus, who says that Humphrey
de Tilleul received the custody of Hastings Castle “from the first day it was
built.” iv., 4.
[468]
Page 397
Par conseil firent esgarder
Boen lieu a fort chastel fermer.
Donc ont des nes mairrien iete,
A la terre l’ont traine,
Que le quens d’Ou i out porte
Trestot percie e tot dole.
Les cheuilles totes dolees
Orent en granz bariz portees.
Ainz que il fust avespre
En ont un chastelet ferme;
Environ firent une fosse,
Si i ont fait grant fermete.—Andresen’s edition, p. 289.
[469] The north curtain is of ruder work than the other masonry.
[470] In attractu petre et calcis ad faciendam turrim de Hasting 6l. Idem 13l. 12s.
Vol. xviii., p. 130. The work must have been extensive, as it is spoken of as
“operatio castelli novi Hasting.” 1181-1182. Though the sum given is not
sufficient for a great stone keep, it may have been supplemented from other
sources.
[471] See Mr Sands’ paper on Hasting’s Castle, in Trans. of the South-Eastern
Union of Scientific Societies, 1908.
[472] This bailey has been supposed to be a British or Roman earthwork, but no
evidence has been brought forward to prove it, except the fact that discoveries
made in one of the banks point to a flint workshop on the site.
[473] Totum manerium valebat T. R. E. 20 libras, et postea wastum fuit. Modo
18 libras 10 solidos. D. B., i., 18a, 2.
Since the above was written, Mr Chas. Dawson’s large and important work on
Hastings Castle has appeared, and to this the reader is referred for many
important particulars, especially the passages from the Pipe Rolls, i., 56, and the
repeated destructions by the sea, ii., 498-9. The reproduction of Herbert’s plan of
1824 (ii., 512) seems to show more than one bailey outside the inner ward. The
evidence for a great outer ditch, enclosing all these works, and supposed to be
prehistoric, is given on p. 515, vol. ii.
[474] See Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1048 (Peterborough) and 1052 (Worcester),
and compare with Florence of Worcester.
[475] N. C., ii., 394.
[476] Pipe Rolls, 11 Henry II., p. 100, and 15 Henry II., p. 140. Stephen granted
to Miles of Gloucester “motam Hereford cum toto castello.” Charter cited by Mr
Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Appendix O, p. 329.
[477] Cited by Grose, Antiquities, ii., 18. Stukeley saw the motte, and mentions
the well in it lined with stone. Itin. Curiosum, i., 71. See also Duncombe’s
History of Hereford, i., 229.
Boen lieu a fort chastel fermer.
Donc ont des nes mairrien iete,
A la terre l’ont traine,
Que le quens d’Ou i out porte
Trestot percie e tot dole.
Les cheuilles totes dolees
Orent en granz bariz portees.
Ainz que il fust avespre
En ont un chastelet ferme;
Environ firent une fosse,
Si i ont fait grant fermete.—Andresen’s edition, p. 289.
[469] The north curtain is of ruder work than the other masonry.
[470] In attractu petre et calcis ad faciendam turrim de Hasting 6l. Idem 13l. 12s.
Vol. xviii., p. 130. The work must have been extensive, as it is spoken of as
“operatio castelli novi Hasting.” 1181-1182. Though the sum given is not
sufficient for a great stone keep, it may have been supplemented from other
sources.
[471] See Mr Sands’ paper on Hasting’s Castle, in Trans. of the South-Eastern
Union of Scientific Societies, 1908.
[472] This bailey has been supposed to be a British or Roman earthwork, but no
evidence has been brought forward to prove it, except the fact that discoveries
made in one of the banks point to a flint workshop on the site.
[473] Totum manerium valebat T. R. E. 20 libras, et postea wastum fuit. Modo
18 libras 10 solidos. D. B., i., 18a, 2.
Since the above was written, Mr Chas. Dawson’s large and important work on
Hastings Castle has appeared, and to this the reader is referred for many
important particulars, especially the passages from the Pipe Rolls, i., 56, and the
repeated destructions by the sea, ii., 498-9. The reproduction of Herbert’s plan of
1824 (ii., 512) seems to show more than one bailey outside the inner ward. The
evidence for a great outer ditch, enclosing all these works, and supposed to be
prehistoric, is given on p. 515, vol. ii.
[474] See Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1048 (Peterborough) and 1052 (Worcester),
and compare with Florence of Worcester.
[475] N. C., ii., 394.
[476] Pipe Rolls, 11 Henry II., p. 100, and 15 Henry II., p. 140. Stephen granted
to Miles of Gloucester “motam Hereford cum toto castello.” Charter cited by Mr
Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Appendix O, p. 329.
[477] Cited by Grose, Antiquities, ii., 18. Stukeley saw the motte, and mentions
the well in it lined with stone. Itin. Curiosum, i., 71. See also Duncombe’s
History of Hereford, i., 229.
Page 398
[478] In custamento prosternandi partem muri castri nostri de Hereford, et
preparatione rogi ad reficiendum predictum murum, 26s. 6d. Pipe Rolls, 1181-
1182.
[479] In operatione 5 bretaschiarum in castro de Hereford, £15, 3s. 9d. Pipe
Rolls, 1173-1174.
[480] Close Rolls, i., 134a.
[481] Hubertus Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus et totius Angliæ summus
Justiciarius, fuit in Gwalia apud Hereford, et recepit in manu sua castellum de
Hereford, et castellum de Briges, et castellum de Ludelaue, expulsis inde
custodibus qui ea diu custodierant, et tradidit ea aliis custodibus, custodienda ad
opus regis. Roger of Howden, iv., 35, R. S.
[482] D. B., i., 179.
[483] “In loco castri fuerunt 20 mansiones, quæ modo absunt.” D. B., i., 203.
[484] Ordericus, ii., 185.
[485] Benedict of Peterborough, i., 70. The Justiciar, Richard de Lucy, threw up
a siege castle against it.
[486] “Pro uncis ad prosternandum palicium de Hunted, 7s. 8d. In operatione
novi castelli de Hunted, et pro locandis carpentariis et pro croccis et securibus et
aliis minutis rebus, 21l.” Pipe Rolls, 20 Henry II., pp. 50, 63. It is clear that the
operatio was in this case one of pulling down. Giraldus (Vita Galfredi, iv., 368,
R. S.) and Diceto (i., 404, R. S.), both say the castle was destroyed.
[487] Mon. Ang., vi., 80.
[488] Leland tells us that Launceston was anciently called Dunheved. Itin., vii.,
122.
[489] “Ibi est castrum comitis.” D. B., i., 121b. “Hæc duo maneria [Hawstone et
Botintone] dedit episcopo comes Moriton pro excambio castelli de Cornualia.”
D. B., i., 101b, 2.
[490] There are no entries for Launceston except repairs in the reigns of Henry
II. and his sons.
[491] Murray’s Guide to Cornwall, p. 203.
[492] “Olim 20l.; modo valet 4l.” D. B., i., 121b.
[493] D. B., ii., 157, 163, 172. The first entry relating to this transaction says:
“Hoc totum est pro escangio de 2 maneriis Delaquis.” The second says:
“Pertinent ad castellum Delaquis.” It is clear that Lewes is meant, as one
paragraph is headed “De escangio Lewes.” I have been unable to find any
explanation of this exchange in any of the Norfolk topographers, or in any of the
writers on Domesday Book.
[494] Lincoln is the only other instance known to the writer. Deganwy has two
natural mottes. It is possible that two mottes indicate a double ownership of a
castle, a thing of which there are instances, as at Rhuddlan.
preparatione rogi ad reficiendum predictum murum, 26s. 6d. Pipe Rolls, 1181-
1182.
[479] In operatione 5 bretaschiarum in castro de Hereford, £15, 3s. 9d. Pipe
Rolls, 1173-1174.
[480] Close Rolls, i., 134a.
[481] Hubertus Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus et totius Angliæ summus
Justiciarius, fuit in Gwalia apud Hereford, et recepit in manu sua castellum de
Hereford, et castellum de Briges, et castellum de Ludelaue, expulsis inde
custodibus qui ea diu custodierant, et tradidit ea aliis custodibus, custodienda ad
opus regis. Roger of Howden, iv., 35, R. S.
[482] D. B., i., 179.
[483] “In loco castri fuerunt 20 mansiones, quæ modo absunt.” D. B., i., 203.
[484] Ordericus, ii., 185.
[485] Benedict of Peterborough, i., 70. The Justiciar, Richard de Lucy, threw up
a siege castle against it.
[486] “Pro uncis ad prosternandum palicium de Hunted, 7s. 8d. In operatione
novi castelli de Hunted, et pro locandis carpentariis et pro croccis et securibus et
aliis minutis rebus, 21l.” Pipe Rolls, 20 Henry II., pp. 50, 63. It is clear that the
operatio was in this case one of pulling down. Giraldus (Vita Galfredi, iv., 368,
R. S.) and Diceto (i., 404, R. S.), both say the castle was destroyed.
[487] Mon. Ang., vi., 80.
[488] Leland tells us that Launceston was anciently called Dunheved. Itin., vii.,
122.
[489] “Ibi est castrum comitis.” D. B., i., 121b. “Hæc duo maneria [Hawstone et
Botintone] dedit episcopo comes Moriton pro excambio castelli de Cornualia.”
D. B., i., 101b, 2.
[490] There are no entries for Launceston except repairs in the reigns of Henry
II. and his sons.
[491] Murray’s Guide to Cornwall, p. 203.
[492] “Olim 20l.; modo valet 4l.” D. B., i., 121b.
[493] D. B., ii., 157, 163, 172. The first entry relating to this transaction says:
“Hoc totum est pro escangio de 2 maneriis Delaquis.” The second says:
“Pertinent ad castellum Delaquis.” It is clear that Lewes is meant, as one
paragraph is headed “De escangio Lewes.” I have been unable to find any
explanation of this exchange in any of the Norfolk topographers, or in any of the
writers on Domesday Book.
[494] Lincoln is the only other instance known to the writer. Deganwy has two
natural mottes. It is possible that two mottes indicate a double ownership of a
castle, a thing of which there are instances, as at Rhuddlan.
Page 399
[495] Exeter and Tickhill are instances of early Norman gateways, and at Ongar
and Pleshy there are fragments of early gateways, though there are no walls on
the banks. We have already seen that Arundel had a gateway which cannot be
later than Henry I.’s time.
[496] D. B., i., 26a, 1.
[497] “De predictis wastis mansionibus propter castellum destructi fuerunt 166.”
D. B., i., 336b, 2.
[498] “In reversione sua Lincoliæ, Huntendonæ, et Grontebrugæ castra locavit.”
Ordericus, 185 (Prévost).
[499] At present the bank is wanting on a portion of the south side, between the
two mottes.
[500] Mr Clark gravely argues that the houses were inside what he believes to
have been the Saxon castle. There is not a vestige of historical evidence for the
existence of any castle in Lincoln in the Saxon period.
[501] Stephen gave Ralph the castle and city of Lincoln, and gave him leave to
fortify one of the towers in Lincoln Castle, and have command of it until the
king should deliver to him the castle of Tickhill; then the king was to have the
city and castle of Lincoln again, excepting the earl’s own tower, which his
mother had fortified. His mother was Lucy, daughter of Ivo Taillebois; and as the
principal tower was known as the Luce Tower, the masonry may have been her
work. In that case the Norman work on the smaller motte may be due to Ralph
Gernon, and may possibly be the nova turris which was repaired in John’s reign.
Pipe Roll, 2 John. Stephen’s charter is in Farrer’s Lancashire Pipe Rolls.
[502] “In custamento firmandi ballium castelli Lincoll.” Pipe Roll, 5 Richard I.
In an excavation made for repairs in modern times it was found that this wall
rested on a timber frame-work, a device to avoid settling, the wall being of great
height and thickness. Wilson, Lincoln Castle, Proc. Arch. Inst., 1848.
[503] D. B., i. 336b, 2: “Tochi filius Outi habuit in civitate 30 mansiones præter
suam hallam, et duas ecclesias et dimidiam, et suam hallam habuit quietam ab
omni consuetudine.... Hanc aulam tenuit Goisfredus Alselin et suus nepos
Radulfus. Remigius episcopus tenet supradictas 30 mansiones ita quod
Goisfredus nihil inde habet.”
[504] “In castello Monemouth habet Rex in dominio 4 carucas. Willelmus filius
Baderon custodit eas. Quod rex habet in hoc castello valet c solidos.” D. B.,
180b.
[505] Liber Landavensis, Evans’ edition, pp. 277-278. See also Round’s
Calendar of Documents Preserved in France, p. 406.
[506] Theatre of Britain, p. 107.
[507] Speed’s map shows the curtain wall surrounding the top of the hill and
also a large round tower towards the N.E. part, but not standing on any “other
mount.” The square keep is not indicated separately. It must be remembered that
Speed’s details are not always accurate or complete.
and Pleshy there are fragments of early gateways, though there are no walls on
the banks. We have already seen that Arundel had a gateway which cannot be
later than Henry I.’s time.
[496] D. B., i., 26a, 1.
[497] “De predictis wastis mansionibus propter castellum destructi fuerunt 166.”
D. B., i., 336b, 2.
[498] “In reversione sua Lincoliæ, Huntendonæ, et Grontebrugæ castra locavit.”
Ordericus, 185 (Prévost).
[499] At present the bank is wanting on a portion of the south side, between the
two mottes.
[500] Mr Clark gravely argues that the houses were inside what he believes to
have been the Saxon castle. There is not a vestige of historical evidence for the
existence of any castle in Lincoln in the Saxon period.
[501] Stephen gave Ralph the castle and city of Lincoln, and gave him leave to
fortify one of the towers in Lincoln Castle, and have command of it until the
king should deliver to him the castle of Tickhill; then the king was to have the
city and castle of Lincoln again, excepting the earl’s own tower, which his
mother had fortified. His mother was Lucy, daughter of Ivo Taillebois; and as the
principal tower was known as the Luce Tower, the masonry may have been her
work. In that case the Norman work on the smaller motte may be due to Ralph
Gernon, and may possibly be the nova turris which was repaired in John’s reign.
Pipe Roll, 2 John. Stephen’s charter is in Farrer’s Lancashire Pipe Rolls.
[502] “In custamento firmandi ballium castelli Lincoll.” Pipe Roll, 5 Richard I.
In an excavation made for repairs in modern times it was found that this wall
rested on a timber frame-work, a device to avoid settling, the wall being of great
height and thickness. Wilson, Lincoln Castle, Proc. Arch. Inst., 1848.
[503] D. B., i. 336b, 2: “Tochi filius Outi habuit in civitate 30 mansiones præter
suam hallam, et duas ecclesias et dimidiam, et suam hallam habuit quietam ab
omni consuetudine.... Hanc aulam tenuit Goisfredus Alselin et suus nepos
Radulfus. Remigius episcopus tenet supradictas 30 mansiones ita quod
Goisfredus nihil inde habet.”
[504] “In castello Monemouth habet Rex in dominio 4 carucas. Willelmus filius
Baderon custodit eas. Quod rex habet in hoc castello valet c solidos.” D. B.,
180b.
[505] Liber Landavensis, Evans’ edition, pp. 277-278. See also Round’s
Calendar of Documents Preserved in France, p. 406.
[506] Theatre of Britain, p. 107.
[507] Speed’s map shows the curtain wall surrounding the top of the hill and
also a large round tower towards the N.E. part, but not standing on any “other
mount.” The square keep is not indicated separately. It must be remembered that
Speed’s details are not always accurate or complete.
Page 400
[508] “Ipse comes tenet in dominio Bishopstowe, et ibi est castellum ejus quod
vocatur Montagud. Hoc manerium geldabat T. R. E. pro 9 hidas, et erat de
abbatia de Adelingi, et pro eo dedit comes eidem ecclesiæ manerium quod
Candel vocatur.” D. B., i., 93a, 1.
[509] Itin., ii., 92.
[510] From a description communicated by Mr Basil Stallybrass. The motte is
shown in a drawing in Stukeley’s Itinerarium Curiosum. The “immense
Romano-British camp” of which Mr Clark speaks (M. M. A., i., 73) is nearly a
mile west.
[511] Mountjoy, Monthalt (Mold), Beaumont, Beaudesert, Egremont, are
instances in point.
[512] Gaimar, 214, Wright’s edition. Gaimar wrote in the first half of the 12th
century; Wright states that his work is mainly copied from the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, but its chief value lies in the old historical traditions of the north and
east of England which he has preserved.
[513] Hodgson’s History of Northumberland, Part II., ii., 384, 389.
[514] This account is taken from a description kindly furnished by Mr D. H.
Montgomerie.
[515] Bates’ Border Holds, p. 11.
[516] Simeon of Durham, 1080. “Castellum Novum super flumen Tyne
condidit.”
[517] See the map in an important paper on Newcastle by Longstaffe, Arch.
Æliana, iv., 45.
[518] Guide to the Castle of Newcastle, published by Society of Antiquaries of
Newcastle, 1901.
[519] Longstaffe, as above.
[520] “Condidit castellum in excelso preruptæ rupis super Twedam flumen, ut
inde latronum incursus inhiberet, et Scottorum irruptiones. Ibi enim utpote in
confinia regni Anglorum et Scottorum creber prædantibus ante patebat excursus,
nullo enim quo hujusmodi impetus repelleretur præsidio locato.” Symeon of
Durham, R. S., i., 140.
[521] “Castellum di Northam, quod munitionibus infirmum reperit, turre
validissima forte reddidit.” Geoffrey of Coldingham, 12 (Surtees Society).
Symeon says it was built “precepto regis.” The keep was extensively altered in
the Decorated period.
[522] M. M. A., ii., 331.
[523] Richard of Hexham, 319 (Twysden).
[524] “In illa terra de quâ Herold habebat socam sunt 15 burgenses et 17
mansuræ vastæ, quæ sunt in occupatione castelli; et in burgo 190 mansuræ
vacuæ in hoc quod erat in soca regis et comitis, et 81 in occupatione castelli.” D.
vocatur Montagud. Hoc manerium geldabat T. R. E. pro 9 hidas, et erat de
abbatia de Adelingi, et pro eo dedit comes eidem ecclesiæ manerium quod
Candel vocatur.” D. B., i., 93a, 1.
[509] Itin., ii., 92.
[510] From a description communicated by Mr Basil Stallybrass. The motte is
shown in a drawing in Stukeley’s Itinerarium Curiosum. The “immense
Romano-British camp” of which Mr Clark speaks (M. M. A., i., 73) is nearly a
mile west.
[511] Mountjoy, Monthalt (Mold), Beaumont, Beaudesert, Egremont, are
instances in point.
[512] Gaimar, 214, Wright’s edition. Gaimar wrote in the first half of the 12th
century; Wright states that his work is mainly copied from the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, but its chief value lies in the old historical traditions of the north and
east of England which he has preserved.
[513] Hodgson’s History of Northumberland, Part II., ii., 384, 389.
[514] This account is taken from a description kindly furnished by Mr D. H.
Montgomerie.
[515] Bates’ Border Holds, p. 11.
[516] Simeon of Durham, 1080. “Castellum Novum super flumen Tyne
condidit.”
[517] See the map in an important paper on Newcastle by Longstaffe, Arch.
Æliana, iv., 45.
[518] Guide to the Castle of Newcastle, published by Society of Antiquaries of
Newcastle, 1901.
[519] Longstaffe, as above.
[520] “Condidit castellum in excelso preruptæ rupis super Twedam flumen, ut
inde latronum incursus inhiberet, et Scottorum irruptiones. Ibi enim utpote in
confinia regni Anglorum et Scottorum creber prædantibus ante patebat excursus,
nullo enim quo hujusmodi impetus repelleretur præsidio locato.” Symeon of
Durham, R. S., i., 140.
[521] “Castellum di Northam, quod munitionibus infirmum reperit, turre
validissima forte reddidit.” Geoffrey of Coldingham, 12 (Surtees Society).
Symeon says it was built “precepto regis.” The keep was extensively altered in
the Decorated period.
[522] M. M. A., ii., 331.
[523] Richard of Hexham, 319 (Twysden).
[524] “In illa terra de quâ Herold habebat socam sunt 15 burgenses et 17
mansuræ vastæ, quæ sunt in occupatione castelli; et in burgo 190 mansuræ
vacuæ in hoc quod erat in soca regis et comitis, et 81 in occupatione castelli.” D.
Page 401
B., ii., 116. This shows that the castle and its ditches occupied ground partly
within and partly without the ancient burh.
[525] Harrod’s Gleanings among Castles, p. 142.
[526] The authorities from which this map is compiled are not given.
[527] The “new borough” at Norwich was the quarter inhabited by the Normans.
D. B., ii., 118. “Franci de Norwich: in novo burgo 36 burgenses et 6 Anglici.”
Mr Hudson says that Mancroft Leet corresponds to the new burgh added to
Norwich at the Conquest. See his map in Arch. Journ., xlvi.
[528] Norwich was not a Roman town; see Haverfield, Vict. Hist. of Norfolk, i.,
320. But the Roman road from Caistor passed exactly underneath the castle
motte. Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journ., xlvi., Rev. H. Dukinfield Astley.
[529] Harrod’s Gleanings among Castles, p. 137.
[530] Mon. Ang., iv., 13. In 37 Henry III. the monks of Norwich Priory received
“licentiam includendi eandem villam cum fossis,” and by doing this they
enclosed the lands of other fees.
[531] Arch. Journ., xlvi., 445.
[532] Kirkpatrick’s Notes of Norwich Castle, written about 1725. He states that
the angles of the motte had been spoilt, and much of it fallen away.
[533] Archæologia, vol. xii.
[534] Mr Hartshorne thought it was built between 1120 and 1125. Arch. Journ.,
xlvi., 260. It is certainly not as late as Henry II.’s reign, or the accounts for it
would appear in the Pipe Rolls.
[535] Pipe Rolls, 19 Henry II., p. 117. In reparatione pontis lapidei et palicii et 3
bretascharum in eodem castello, 20l. 4s. 8d.
[536] Close Rolls, ii., 22. Order that the palicium of Norwich Castle, which has
fallen down and is threatened with ruin, be repaired.
[537] Kirkpatrick, Notes on Norwich Castle.
[538] Except Kirkpatrick, who shows a judicious scepticism on the subject.
Ibid., p. 248.
[539] Mon. Ang., i., 482.
[540] D. B., ii., 117.
[541] Ordericus, ii., 184.
[542] Published in a paper on Nottingham Castle by Mr Emanuel Green, in
Arch. Journ. for December 1901.
[543] See Mr Green’s paper, as above, p. 388.
[544] “Apud Rokingham liberavimus Philippo Marco ad faciendam turrim quam
dominus Rex precepit fieri in Mota de Notingham 100 marcas quas burgenses de
within and partly without the ancient burh.
[525] Harrod’s Gleanings among Castles, p. 142.
[526] The authorities from which this map is compiled are not given.
[527] The “new borough” at Norwich was the quarter inhabited by the Normans.
D. B., ii., 118. “Franci de Norwich: in novo burgo 36 burgenses et 6 Anglici.”
Mr Hudson says that Mancroft Leet corresponds to the new burgh added to
Norwich at the Conquest. See his map in Arch. Journ., xlvi.
[528] Norwich was not a Roman town; see Haverfield, Vict. Hist. of Norfolk, i.,
320. But the Roman road from Caistor passed exactly underneath the castle
motte. Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journ., xlvi., Rev. H. Dukinfield Astley.
[529] Harrod’s Gleanings among Castles, p. 137.
[530] Mon. Ang., iv., 13. In 37 Henry III. the monks of Norwich Priory received
“licentiam includendi eandem villam cum fossis,” and by doing this they
enclosed the lands of other fees.
[531] Arch. Journ., xlvi., 445.
[532] Kirkpatrick’s Notes of Norwich Castle, written about 1725. He states that
the angles of the motte had been spoilt, and much of it fallen away.
[533] Archæologia, vol. xii.
[534] Mr Hartshorne thought it was built between 1120 and 1125. Arch. Journ.,
xlvi., 260. It is certainly not as late as Henry II.’s reign, or the accounts for it
would appear in the Pipe Rolls.
[535] Pipe Rolls, 19 Henry II., p. 117. In reparatione pontis lapidei et palicii et 3
bretascharum in eodem castello, 20l. 4s. 8d.
[536] Close Rolls, ii., 22. Order that the palicium of Norwich Castle, which has
fallen down and is threatened with ruin, be repaired.
[537] Kirkpatrick, Notes on Norwich Castle.
[538] Except Kirkpatrick, who shows a judicious scepticism on the subject.
Ibid., p. 248.
[539] Mon. Ang., i., 482.
[540] D. B., ii., 117.
[541] Ordericus, ii., 184.
[542] Published in a paper on Nottingham Castle by Mr Emanuel Green, in
Arch. Journ. for December 1901.
[543] See Mr Green’s paper, as above, p. 388.
[544] “Apud Rokingham liberavimus Philippo Marco ad faciendam turrim quam
dominus Rex precepit fieri in Mota de Notingham 100 marcas quas burgenses de
Page 402
Notingham et Willelmus Fil. Baldwini dederunt domino Regi pro benevolencia
sua habenda.” In Cole’s Documents Illustrative of English History, 235. There is
some reason to think that John instead of building the cylindrical keeps which
were then coming into fashion, reverted to the square form generally followed
by his father.
[545] Pipe Rolls, 1170-1186. The Pipe Roll of 6 Richard I. mentions the making
of “1 posterne in mota,” which may be the secret passage in the rock.
[546] This is rendered probable by a writ of Henry III.’s reign, ordering that half
a mark is to be paid annually to Isolde de Gray for the land which she had lost in
King John’s time “per incrementum forinseci ballii Castri de Notinge.” Close
Rolls, i., 508.
[547] Close Rolls, i., 548b. “Videat quid et quantum mæremii opus fuerit ad
barbecanas et palitia ipsius castri reparanda” (1223). Close Rolls, i., 531b.
Timber ordered for the repair of the bridges, bretasches, and palicium gardini
(1223). Cal. of Close Rolls, 1286, p. 390: Constable is to have timber to repair
the weir of the mill, and the palings of the court of the castle. Nottingham was
one of eight castles in which John had baths put up. Rot. Misæ., 7 John.
[548] The murage of the town of Nottingham was assigned “to the repair of the
outer bailey of the castle there” in 1288. Patent Rolls, Edward I., i., 308.
[549] Chapter xlii.
[550] D. B., i., 280.
[551] “Ipse Baldwinus vicecomes tenet de Rege Ochementone, et ibi sedet
castellum.” D. B., i., 105b, 2.
[552] The late Mr Worth thought the lower part of the keep was early Norman.
He was perhaps misled by the round arched loops in the basement. But round
arches are by no means conclusive evidence in themselves of Norman date, and
the size of these windows, as well as the absence of buttresses, and the presence
of pointed arches, are quite incompatible with the early Norman period. The
whole architecture of the castle agrees with a 14th century date, to which the
chapel undoubtedly belongs.
[553] Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, vol. vii.
[554] “Ibi fecit Rainaldus Castellum Luure.” D. B., i., 253b. Rainald was an
under-tenant of Roger, Earl of Shrewsbury.
[555] This sketch is reproduced in Mr Parry-Jones’ Story of Oswestry Castle.
Leland says, “Extat turris in castro nomine Madoci.” Itin., v., 38.
[556] “In operatione palicii de Blancmuster 2l. 6s. 8d.” XII., 124. Oswestry was
known as Blancmoustier or Album Monasterium in Norman times.
[557] Abingdon Chronicle and Osney Chronicle, which, though both of the 13th
century, were no doubt compiled from earlier sources.
[558] Osney Chronicle, 1071.
sua habenda.” In Cole’s Documents Illustrative of English History, 235. There is
some reason to think that John instead of building the cylindrical keeps which
were then coming into fashion, reverted to the square form generally followed
by his father.
[545] Pipe Rolls, 1170-1186. The Pipe Roll of 6 Richard I. mentions the making
of “1 posterne in mota,” which may be the secret passage in the rock.
[546] This is rendered probable by a writ of Henry III.’s reign, ordering that half
a mark is to be paid annually to Isolde de Gray for the land which she had lost in
King John’s time “per incrementum forinseci ballii Castri de Notinge.” Close
Rolls, i., 508.
[547] Close Rolls, i., 548b. “Videat quid et quantum mæremii opus fuerit ad
barbecanas et palitia ipsius castri reparanda” (1223). Close Rolls, i., 531b.
Timber ordered for the repair of the bridges, bretasches, and palicium gardini
(1223). Cal. of Close Rolls, 1286, p. 390: Constable is to have timber to repair
the weir of the mill, and the palings of the court of the castle. Nottingham was
one of eight castles in which John had baths put up. Rot. Misæ., 7 John.
[548] The murage of the town of Nottingham was assigned “to the repair of the
outer bailey of the castle there” in 1288. Patent Rolls, Edward I., i., 308.
[549] Chapter xlii.
[550] D. B., i., 280.
[551] “Ipse Baldwinus vicecomes tenet de Rege Ochementone, et ibi sedet
castellum.” D. B., i., 105b, 2.
[552] The late Mr Worth thought the lower part of the keep was early Norman.
He was perhaps misled by the round arched loops in the basement. But round
arches are by no means conclusive evidence in themselves of Norman date, and
the size of these windows, as well as the absence of buttresses, and the presence
of pointed arches, are quite incompatible with the early Norman period. The
whole architecture of the castle agrees with a 14th century date, to which the
chapel undoubtedly belongs.
[553] Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, vol. vii.
[554] “Ibi fecit Rainaldus Castellum Luure.” D. B., i., 253b. Rainald was an
under-tenant of Roger, Earl of Shrewsbury.
[555] This sketch is reproduced in Mr Parry-Jones’ Story of Oswestry Castle.
Leland says, “Extat turris in castro nomine Madoci.” Itin., v., 38.
[556] “In operatione palicii de Blancmuster 2l. 6s. 8d.” XII., 124. Oswestry was
known as Blancmoustier or Album Monasterium in Norman times.
[557] Abingdon Chronicle and Osney Chronicle, which, though both of the 13th
century, were no doubt compiled from earlier sources.
[558] Osney Chronicle, 1071.
Page 403
[559] See Ingram’s Memorials of Oxford for an account of the very interesting
crypt of this church, p. 8. The battlement storey of the tower is comparatively
late.
[560] Mackenzie, Castles of England, i., 160.
[561] D. B., p. 154.
[562] Rymer’s Fœdera, vol. i.
[563] “Terram castelli Pechefers tenuerunt Gerneburn et Hunding.” D. B., i.,
276a, 2.
[564] There are similar nook-shafts to Henry II.’s keep at Scarborough, and to
Castle Rising. Mr Hartshorne (Arch. Journ., v., 207) thought that there had been
an earlier stone keep at Peak Castle, because some moulded stones are used in
the walls, and because there is some herring-bone work in the basement. But this
herring-bone work only occurs in a revetment wall to the rock in the cellar; and
the moulded stones may be quite modern insertions for repairs, and may have
come from the oratory in the N.E. angle, or from some of the ruined windows
and doorways. The sums entered to this castle between the years 1172 and 1176
are less than half the cost of Scarborough keep, and do not appear adequate,
though the keep was a small one. But there is some reason to think that the cost
of castles was occasionally defrayed in part from sources not entered in the Pipe
Rolls.
[565] Rex E. tenuit Peneverdant. Ibi 2 carucatæ terræ et reddebant 10 denarios.
Modo est ibi castellum.... Valent 3 libras. D. B., i., 270.
[566] We need not resort to any fanciful British origins of the name Peneverdant,
as it is clearly the effort of a Norman scribe to write down the unpronounceable
English name Penwortham.
[567] See ante, under Clitheroe.
[568] Mr Halton’s book (Documents relating to the Priory of Penwortham)
throws no light on this point.
[569] Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, vol. ix.,
1856-1857, paper on “The Castle Hill of Penwortham,” by the Rev. W.
Thornber; Hardwick’s History of Preston, pp. 103-11.
[570] In a paper published in the Trans. Soc. Ant. Scot, for 1900, on “Anglo-
Saxon Burhs and Early Norman Castles,” the present writer was misled into the
statement that this hut was the remains of the cellar of the Norman bretasche. A
subsequent study of Mr Hardwick’s more lucid account of the excavations
showed that this was an error. There were two pavements of boulders, one on the
natural surface of the hill, on which the hut had been built, the other 5 feet above
it, and 12 feet below the present surface. The hut appeared to have been circular,
with wattled walls and a thatched roof. Several objects were found in its
remains, and were pronounced to be Roman or Romano-British. The upper
pavement would probably be the flooring of a Norman keep.
crypt of this church, p. 8. The battlement storey of the tower is comparatively
late.
[560] Mackenzie, Castles of England, i., 160.
[561] D. B., p. 154.
[562] Rymer’s Fœdera, vol. i.
[563] “Terram castelli Pechefers tenuerunt Gerneburn et Hunding.” D. B., i.,
276a, 2.
[564] There are similar nook-shafts to Henry II.’s keep at Scarborough, and to
Castle Rising. Mr Hartshorne (Arch. Journ., v., 207) thought that there had been
an earlier stone keep at Peak Castle, because some moulded stones are used in
the walls, and because there is some herring-bone work in the basement. But this
herring-bone work only occurs in a revetment wall to the rock in the cellar; and
the moulded stones may be quite modern insertions for repairs, and may have
come from the oratory in the N.E. angle, or from some of the ruined windows
and doorways. The sums entered to this castle between the years 1172 and 1176
are less than half the cost of Scarborough keep, and do not appear adequate,
though the keep was a small one. But there is some reason to think that the cost
of castles was occasionally defrayed in part from sources not entered in the Pipe
Rolls.
[565] Rex E. tenuit Peneverdant. Ibi 2 carucatæ terræ et reddebant 10 denarios.
Modo est ibi castellum.... Valent 3 libras. D. B., i., 270.
[566] We need not resort to any fanciful British origins of the name Peneverdant,
as it is clearly the effort of a Norman scribe to write down the unpronounceable
English name Penwortham.
[567] See ante, under Clitheroe.
[568] Mr Halton’s book (Documents relating to the Priory of Penwortham)
throws no light on this point.
[569] Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, vol. ix.,
1856-1857, paper on “The Castle Hill of Penwortham,” by the Rev. W.
Thornber; Hardwick’s History of Preston, pp. 103-11.
[570] In a paper published in the Trans. Soc. Ant. Scot, for 1900, on “Anglo-
Saxon Burhs and Early Norman Castles,” the present writer was misled into the
statement that this hut was the remains of the cellar of the Norman bretasche. A
subsequent study of Mr Hardwick’s more lucid account of the excavations
showed that this was an error. There were two pavements of boulders, one on the
natural surface of the hill, on which the hut had been built, the other 5 feet above
it, and 12 feet below the present surface. The hut appeared to have been circular,
with wattled walls and a thatched roof. Several objects were found in its
remains, and were pronounced to be Roman or Romano-British. The upper
pavement would probably be the flooring of a Norman keep.
Page 404
[571] Mr Roach Smith pronounced this spur to be Norman. As its evidence is so
important, it is to be regretted that its position was not more accurately observed.
It was found in the lowest stratum of the remains, but Mr Hardwick says: “As it
was not observed until thrown to the surface, a possibility remained that it might
have fallen from the level of the upper boulder pavement, 5 feet higher.” We
may regard this possibility as a certainty, if the lower hut was really British.
[572] Mr Willoughby Gardner says the castle commands a ford, to which the
ancient sunk road leads. Victoria Hist. of Lancashire, vol. ii.
[573] Hugh Candidus, Cœnob. Burg. Historia, in Sparke’s Scriptores, p. 63. This
passage was kindly pointed out to me by Mr Round. Hugh lived in Henry III.’s
reign, but he must have had the more ancient records of the monastery at his
disposal.
[574] Domesday Book mentions that the value of the burgus had greatly risen. It
was one of the burhs mentioned in the Burghal Hidage.
[575] Pipe Roll, 1187-1188. William of Jumièges says, “Statim firmissimo vallo
castrum condidit, probisque militibus commisit.” VII., 34. Wace professes to
give the account of an eye-witness, who saw the timber for the castle landed
from the ships, and the ditch dug. But Wace was not a contemporary, and as he
has made the mistake of making William land at Pevensey instead of Hastings,
his evidence is questionable. Roman de Rou, p. 293 (Andresen’s edition).
[576] The ruins of this keep, until 1908, were buried under so large a mound of
earth and rubbish that Mr G. T. Clark mistook it for a motte, and the present
writer was equally misled. It ought to be stated, before the date of this keep is
finally settled, that the Gesta Stephani speaks of this castle as “editissimo aggere
sublatum.” P. 106.
[577] Ibid.
[578] Close Rolls, i., 631a.
[579] D. B., i., 20b.
[580] D. B., i., 373b.
[581] Cited in Holmes’ History of Pontefract, p. 62.
[582] Another charter, which is a confirmation by the second Ilbert de Lacy of
the ecclesiastical gifts of Ilbert I. and Robert his son, states that the Chapel of St
Clement in the castle of Pontefract was founded by Ilbert I. in the reign of
William II. Mon. Ang., v., 128.
[583] It is not necessary to discuss the meaning of the name Pontefract, since for
whatever reason it was given, it was clearly bestowed by the Norman settlers.
[584] “Castrum de Pontefracto est quasi clavis in comitatu Ebor.” Letter of
Ralph Neville to Henry III., Fœdera, i., 429, cited by Holmes, Pontefract, 194.
[585] The Conqueror had given him more than 200 manors in Yorkshire. Yorks.
Arch. Journ., xiv., 17.
important, it is to be regretted that its position was not more accurately observed.
It was found in the lowest stratum of the remains, but Mr Hardwick says: “As it
was not observed until thrown to the surface, a possibility remained that it might
have fallen from the level of the upper boulder pavement, 5 feet higher.” We
may regard this possibility as a certainty, if the lower hut was really British.
[572] Mr Willoughby Gardner says the castle commands a ford, to which the
ancient sunk road leads. Victoria Hist. of Lancashire, vol. ii.
[573] Hugh Candidus, Cœnob. Burg. Historia, in Sparke’s Scriptores, p. 63. This
passage was kindly pointed out to me by Mr Round. Hugh lived in Henry III.’s
reign, but he must have had the more ancient records of the monastery at his
disposal.
[574] Domesday Book mentions that the value of the burgus had greatly risen. It
was one of the burhs mentioned in the Burghal Hidage.
[575] Pipe Roll, 1187-1188. William of Jumièges says, “Statim firmissimo vallo
castrum condidit, probisque militibus commisit.” VII., 34. Wace professes to
give the account of an eye-witness, who saw the timber for the castle landed
from the ships, and the ditch dug. But Wace was not a contemporary, and as he
has made the mistake of making William land at Pevensey instead of Hastings,
his evidence is questionable. Roman de Rou, p. 293 (Andresen’s edition).
[576] The ruins of this keep, until 1908, were buried under so large a mound of
earth and rubbish that Mr G. T. Clark mistook it for a motte, and the present
writer was equally misled. It ought to be stated, before the date of this keep is
finally settled, that the Gesta Stephani speaks of this castle as “editissimo aggere
sublatum.” P. 106.
[577] Ibid.
[578] Close Rolls, i., 631a.
[579] D. B., i., 20b.
[580] D. B., i., 373b.
[581] Cited in Holmes’ History of Pontefract, p. 62.
[582] Another charter, which is a confirmation by the second Ilbert de Lacy of
the ecclesiastical gifts of Ilbert I. and Robert his son, states that the Chapel of St
Clement in the castle of Pontefract was founded by Ilbert I. in the reign of
William II. Mon. Ang., v., 128.
[583] It is not necessary to discuss the meaning of the name Pontefract, since for
whatever reason it was given, it was clearly bestowed by the Norman settlers.
[584] “Castrum de Pontefracto est quasi clavis in comitatu Ebor.” Letter of
Ralph Neville to Henry III., Fœdera, i., 429, cited by Holmes, Pontefract, 194.
[585] The Conqueror had given him more than 200 manors in Yorkshire. Yorks.
Arch. Journ., xiv., 17.
Page 405
[586] Four roundels are shown in the plate given in Fox’s History of Pontefract,
“from a drawing in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries.” But the
drawing is so incorrect in some points that it can hardly be relied upon for
others. There were only three roundels in Leland’s time.
[587] Drake’s account of the siege says that there was a hollow place between
Piper’s Tower and the Round Tower all the way down to the well; the gentlemen
and soldiers all fell to carrying earth and rubbish, and so filled up the place in a
little space. Quoted in Holmes’ Manual of Pontefract Castle.
[588] In the English Historical Review for July 1904, where this paper first
appeared, the writer spoke of two mottes at Pontefract, having been led to this
view by the great height of the east end of the bailey, where the ruins of John of
Gaunt’s work are found. This view is now withdrawn, in deference to the
conclusions of Mr D. H. Montgomerie, F.S.A., who has carefully examined the
spot.
[589] Mon. Ang., iv., 178.
[590] From a description by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[591] D. B., i., 224.
[592] See Chapter IV.
[593] Domesday Book says: “Ipse comes (Roger) tenet Ardinton. Sancta
Milburga tenuit T. R. E. Ibi molinum et nova domus et burgus Quatford dictus,
nil reddentes.” I., 254.
[594] G. T. Clark, in Arch. Cambrensis, 1874, p. 264.
[595] Ord. Vit., iv., 32.
[596] “In hoc manerio fecit Suenus suum castellum.” D. B., ii., 33b.
[597] Freeman, N. C., ii., 329, and iv., Appendix H.
[598] Mr Round has suggested that this castle was at Canfield in Essex, where
there is a motte and bailey.
[599] “Isdem Osbernus habet 23 homines in castello Avreton et reddit 10
solidos. Valet ei castellum hoc 20 solidos.” D. B., i., 186b.
[600] Mr Clark’s plan is strangely incorrect, as he altogether omits the bailey.
Compare the plan in Mr Round’s Castles of the Conquest, Archæologia, vol.
lviii., and Mr Montgomerie’s plan here, Fig. 27.
[601] “Comes Alanus habet in sua castellata 199 maneria.... Præter castellariam
habet 43 maneria.” D. B., i., 381a, 2.
[602] This is stated in a charter of Henry II., which carefully recapitulates the
gifts of the different benefactors to St Mary’s. Mon. Ang., iii., 548. It is curious
that the charter of William II., the first part of which is an inspeximus of a
charter of William I., does not mention this chapel in the castle.
“from a drawing in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries.” But the
drawing is so incorrect in some points that it can hardly be relied upon for
others. There were only three roundels in Leland’s time.
[587] Drake’s account of the siege says that there was a hollow place between
Piper’s Tower and the Round Tower all the way down to the well; the gentlemen
and soldiers all fell to carrying earth and rubbish, and so filled up the place in a
little space. Quoted in Holmes’ Manual of Pontefract Castle.
[588] In the English Historical Review for July 1904, where this paper first
appeared, the writer spoke of two mottes at Pontefract, having been led to this
view by the great height of the east end of the bailey, where the ruins of John of
Gaunt’s work are found. This view is now withdrawn, in deference to the
conclusions of Mr D. H. Montgomerie, F.S.A., who has carefully examined the
spot.
[589] Mon. Ang., iv., 178.
[590] From a description by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[591] D. B., i., 224.
[592] See Chapter IV.
[593] Domesday Book says: “Ipse comes (Roger) tenet Ardinton. Sancta
Milburga tenuit T. R. E. Ibi molinum et nova domus et burgus Quatford dictus,
nil reddentes.” I., 254.
[594] G. T. Clark, in Arch. Cambrensis, 1874, p. 264.
[595] Ord. Vit., iv., 32.
[596] “In hoc manerio fecit Suenus suum castellum.” D. B., ii., 33b.
[597] Freeman, N. C., ii., 329, and iv., Appendix H.
[598] Mr Round has suggested that this castle was at Canfield in Essex, where
there is a motte and bailey.
[599] “Isdem Osbernus habet 23 homines in castello Avreton et reddit 10
solidos. Valet ei castellum hoc 20 solidos.” D. B., i., 186b.
[600] Mr Clark’s plan is strangely incorrect, as he altogether omits the bailey.
Compare the plan in Mr Round’s Castles of the Conquest, Archæologia, vol.
lviii., and Mr Montgomerie’s plan here, Fig. 27.
[601] “Comes Alanus habet in sua castellata 199 maneria.... Præter castellariam
habet 43 maneria.” D. B., i., 381a, 2.
[602] This is stated in a charter of Henry II., which carefully recapitulates the
gifts of the different benefactors to St Mary’s. Mon. Ang., iii., 548. It is curious
that the charter of William II., the first part of which is an inspeximus of a
charter of William I., does not mention this chapel in the castle.
Page 406
[603] Mr Skaife, the editor of the Yorkshire Domesday, thinks that it was at
Hinderlag, but gives no reasons. Hinderlag, at the time of the Survey, was in the
hands of an under-tenant. Yorks. Arch. Journ., lii., 527, 530.
[604] “Hic Alanus primo incepit facere castrum et munitionem juxta manerium
suum capitale de Gilling, pro tuitione suorum contra infestationes Anglorum
tunc ubique exhæredatorum, similiter et Danorum, et nominavit dictum castrum
Richmond suo ydiomate Gallico, quod sonat Latine divitem montem, in editiori
et fortiori loco sui territorii situatum.” Mon. Ang., v., 574.
[605] There are no remains of fortification at Gilling, but about a mile and a half
away there used to be an oval earthwork, now levelled, called Castle Hill, of
which a plan is given in M‘Laughlan’s paper, Arch. Journ., vol. vi. It had no
motte. Mr Clark says, “The mound at Gilling has not long been levelled.” M. M.
A., i., 23. It probably never existed except in his imagination.
[606] See Clarkson’s History of Richmond.
[607] Journal of Brit. Arch. Ass., lxiii., 179.
[608] These are the dates given in Morice’s Bretagne.
[609] Henry spent 51l. 11s. 3d. in 1171 on “operationes domorum et turris,” and
30l. 6s. in 1174 on “operationes castelli et domorum.”
[610] “Episcopus de Rouecestre, pro excambio terræ in qua castellum sedet,
tantum de hac terra tenet quod 17 sol. et 4 den. valet.” D. B., i., 2b.
[611] See Mr George Payne’s paper on Roman Rochester, in Arch. Cantiana,
vol. xxi. Mr Hope tells me that parts of all the four sides are left.
[612] Thus Egbert of Kent, in 765, gives “terram intra castelli mœnia supra-
nominati, id est Hrofescestri, unum viculum cum duobus jugeribus,” Kemble, i.,
138; and Offa speaks of the “episcopum castelli quod nominatur Hrofescester,”
Earle, Land Charters, p. 60.
[613] See an extremely valuable paper on Mediæval Rochester by the Rev.
Greville M. Livett, Arch. Cantiana, vol. xxi.
[614] See the charter of Cœnulf, King of Mercia, giving to Bishop Beornmod
three ploughlands on the southern shore of the city of Rochester, from the
highway on the east to the Medway on the west. Textus Roffensis, p. 96.
[615] The name Boley may possibly represent the Norman-French Beaulieu, a
favourite Norman name for a castle or residence. Professor Hales suggested that
Boley Hill was derived from Bailey Hill (cited in Mr Gomme’s paper on Boley
Hill, Arch. Cantiana, vol. xvii.). The oldest form of the name is Bullie Hill, as in
Edward IV.’s charter, cited below, p. 200.
[616] Roman urns and lachrymatories were found in the Boley Hill when it was
partially levelled in the 18th century to fill up the castle ditch. History of
Rochester, p. 281. At the part now called Watt’s Avenue, Mr George Payne
found “the fag-end of an Anglo-Saxon cemetery.” Arch. Cantiana, vol. xxi.
Hinderlag, but gives no reasons. Hinderlag, at the time of the Survey, was in the
hands of an under-tenant. Yorks. Arch. Journ., lii., 527, 530.
[604] “Hic Alanus primo incepit facere castrum et munitionem juxta manerium
suum capitale de Gilling, pro tuitione suorum contra infestationes Anglorum
tunc ubique exhæredatorum, similiter et Danorum, et nominavit dictum castrum
Richmond suo ydiomate Gallico, quod sonat Latine divitem montem, in editiori
et fortiori loco sui territorii situatum.” Mon. Ang., v., 574.
[605] There are no remains of fortification at Gilling, but about a mile and a half
away there used to be an oval earthwork, now levelled, called Castle Hill, of
which a plan is given in M‘Laughlan’s paper, Arch. Journ., vol. vi. It had no
motte. Mr Clark says, “The mound at Gilling has not long been levelled.” M. M.
A., i., 23. It probably never existed except in his imagination.
[606] See Clarkson’s History of Richmond.
[607] Journal of Brit. Arch. Ass., lxiii., 179.
[608] These are the dates given in Morice’s Bretagne.
[609] Henry spent 51l. 11s. 3d. in 1171 on “operationes domorum et turris,” and
30l. 6s. in 1174 on “operationes castelli et domorum.”
[610] “Episcopus de Rouecestre, pro excambio terræ in qua castellum sedet,
tantum de hac terra tenet quod 17 sol. et 4 den. valet.” D. B., i., 2b.
[611] See Mr George Payne’s paper on Roman Rochester, in Arch. Cantiana,
vol. xxi. Mr Hope tells me that parts of all the four sides are left.
[612] Thus Egbert of Kent, in 765, gives “terram intra castelli mœnia supra-
nominati, id est Hrofescestri, unum viculum cum duobus jugeribus,” Kemble, i.,
138; and Offa speaks of the “episcopum castelli quod nominatur Hrofescester,”
Earle, Land Charters, p. 60.
[613] See an extremely valuable paper on Mediæval Rochester by the Rev.
Greville M. Livett, Arch. Cantiana, vol. xxi.
[614] See the charter of Cœnulf, King of Mercia, giving to Bishop Beornmod
three ploughlands on the southern shore of the city of Rochester, from the
highway on the east to the Medway on the west. Textus Roffensis, p. 96.
[615] The name Boley may possibly represent the Norman-French Beaulieu, a
favourite Norman name for a castle or residence. Professor Hales suggested that
Boley Hill was derived from Bailey Hill (cited in Mr Gomme’s paper on Boley
Hill, Arch. Cantiana, vol. xvii.). The oldest form of the name is Bullie Hill, as in
Edward IV.’s charter, cited below, p. 200.
[616] Roman urns and lachrymatories were found in the Boley Hill when it was
partially levelled in the 18th century to fill up the castle ditch. History of
Rochester, p. 281. At the part now called Watt’s Avenue, Mr George Payne
found “the fag-end of an Anglo-Saxon cemetery.” Arch. Cantiana, vol. xxi.
Page 407
[617] “In pulchriore parte civitatis Hrouecestre.” Textus Roffensis, p. 145. Mr
Freeman and others have noticed that the special mention of a stone castle makes
it probable that the first castle was of wood. Mr Round remarks that the building
of Rochester Castle is fixed, by the conjunction of William II. and Lanfranc in
its history, to some date between September 1087 and March 1089. Geoffrey de
Mandeville, p. 339. Probably, therefore, it was this new castle which Bishop Odo
held against Rufus in 1088. Ordericus says that “cum quingentis militibus intra
Rofensem urbem se conclusit.” P. 272.
[618] It is now attributed to Archbishop William of Corbeuil, to whom Henry I.
gave the custody of the castle in the twenty-seventh year of his reign, with
permission to make within it a defence or keep, such as he might please.
Continuator of Florence, 1126. Gervase of Canterbury also says “idem
episcopus turrim egregiam ædificavit.” Both passages are cited by Hartshorne,
Arch. Journ., xx., 211. Gundulf’s castle cost 60l. and can scarcely have been
more than an enclosing wall with perhaps one mural tower. See Mr Round,
Geoffrey de Mandeville, 340, and Mr Livett’s paper, cited above.
[619] Two common friends of Rufus and Gundulf advised the king that in return
for the grant of the manor of Hedenham and the remission of certain moneys,
“episcopus Gundulfus, quia in opere cæmentario plurimum sciens et efficax erat,
castrum sibi Hrofense lapideum de suo construeret.” Textus Roffensis, p. 146.
There was therefore an exchange of land in this affair also.
[620] Arch. Cantiana, vol. xxi.
[621] Arch. Cantiana, vol. xxi., p. 49.
[622] There are several entries in the Close Rolls relating to this wall of Henry
III. in the year 1225.
[623] Mr Beale Poste says that this ancient wall was met with some years since
in digging the foundations of the Rev. Mr Conway’s house, standing parallel to
the present brick walls and about 2 feet within them. “Ancient Rochester as a
Roman Station,” Arch. Cantiana, ii., 71. The Continuator of Gervase of
Canterbury tells us (ii., 235) that at the siege of Rochester in 1265, Simon de
Montfort captured the outer castle up to the keep (forinsecum castellum usque ad
turrim), and Mr Livett thinks this outer castle must have been the Boley Hill.
[624] Close Rolls, ii., 98b.
[625] Hasted’s Kent, iv., 163.
[626] “Ymb sætan tha ceastre and worhton other fæsten ymb hie selfe.” See
ante, p. 49, note 120.
[627] Mr Hope suggests the east side, as the north was a marsh.
[628] History of Rochester (published by Fisher, 1772), p. 285.
[629] D. B., i., 56.
[630] “Wasta erat quando Rex W. iussit ibi castellum fieri. Modo valet 36
solidos.” D. B., i., 220.
Freeman and others have noticed that the special mention of a stone castle makes
it probable that the first castle was of wood. Mr Round remarks that the building
of Rochester Castle is fixed, by the conjunction of William II. and Lanfranc in
its history, to some date between September 1087 and March 1089. Geoffrey de
Mandeville, p. 339. Probably, therefore, it was this new castle which Bishop Odo
held against Rufus in 1088. Ordericus says that “cum quingentis militibus intra
Rofensem urbem se conclusit.” P. 272.
[618] It is now attributed to Archbishop William of Corbeuil, to whom Henry I.
gave the custody of the castle in the twenty-seventh year of his reign, with
permission to make within it a defence or keep, such as he might please.
Continuator of Florence, 1126. Gervase of Canterbury also says “idem
episcopus turrim egregiam ædificavit.” Both passages are cited by Hartshorne,
Arch. Journ., xx., 211. Gundulf’s castle cost 60l. and can scarcely have been
more than an enclosing wall with perhaps one mural tower. See Mr Round,
Geoffrey de Mandeville, 340, and Mr Livett’s paper, cited above.
[619] Two common friends of Rufus and Gundulf advised the king that in return
for the grant of the manor of Hedenham and the remission of certain moneys,
“episcopus Gundulfus, quia in opere cæmentario plurimum sciens et efficax erat,
castrum sibi Hrofense lapideum de suo construeret.” Textus Roffensis, p. 146.
There was therefore an exchange of land in this affair also.
[620] Arch. Cantiana, vol. xxi.
[621] Arch. Cantiana, vol. xxi., p. 49.
[622] There are several entries in the Close Rolls relating to this wall of Henry
III. in the year 1225.
[623] Mr Beale Poste says that this ancient wall was met with some years since
in digging the foundations of the Rev. Mr Conway’s house, standing parallel to
the present brick walls and about 2 feet within them. “Ancient Rochester as a
Roman Station,” Arch. Cantiana, ii., 71. The Continuator of Gervase of
Canterbury tells us (ii., 235) that at the siege of Rochester in 1265, Simon de
Montfort captured the outer castle up to the keep (forinsecum castellum usque ad
turrim), and Mr Livett thinks this outer castle must have been the Boley Hill.
[624] Close Rolls, ii., 98b.
[625] Hasted’s Kent, iv., 163.
[626] “Ymb sætan tha ceastre and worhton other fæsten ymb hie selfe.” See
ante, p. 49, note 120.
[627] Mr Hope suggests the east side, as the north was a marsh.
[628] History of Rochester (published by Fisher, 1772), p. 285.
[629] D. B., i., 56.
[630] “Wasta erat quando Rex W. iussit ibi castellum fieri. Modo valet 36
solidos.” D. B., i., 220.
Page 408
[631] “I markid that there is stronge Tower in the Area of the Castelle, and from
it over the Dungeon Dike is a drawbridge to the Dungeon Toure.” Itin., i., 14.
[632] “In operatione nove turris et nove camere in cast. 126l. 18s. 6d.”
[633] D. B., i., 120.
[634] See the plan reproduced in Wise’s Rockingham Castle and the Watsons, p.
66.
[635] Vol. i., p. 224: cited by Mr Irving in his valuable paper on Old Sarum in
Arch. Journ., xv., 1859. Sir Richard made a vague reference to an MS. in the
Cottonian and Bodleian libraries, for which Mr Irving says he has searched in
vain.
[636] General Pitt-Rivers in his Address to the Salisbury meeting of the
Archæological Institute in 1887, says that traces of these roads may still be seen.
He adds that Old Sarum does not resemble the generality of ancient British
fortifications, in that the rampart is of the same height all round, instead of being
lower where the ground is steeper; this led him to think that the original fortress
had been modernised in later times. Sir Richard Colt Hoare noticed that the
ramparts of Sarum were twice as high as those of the fine prehistoric camps with
which he was acquainted. Ancient Wiltshire, p. 226.
[637] Benson and Hatcher’s Old and New Sarum, p. 604.
[638] Cf. Benson and Hatcher, 63, with Beauties of England and Wales, xv., 78.
[639] D. B., i., 66. “Idem episcopus tenet Sarisberie.” Part of the land which had
been held under the bishop was now held by Edward the Sheriff, the ancestor of
the earls of Salisbury. This in itself is a proof that the castle was new. See
Freeman, N. C., iv., 797.
[640] This policy had been dictated by an œcumenical council.
[641] He gives to the canons of the church two hides in the manor, “et ante
portam castelli Seriberiensis terram ex utraque parte viæ in ortorum
domorumque canonicorum necessitate.” M. A., vi., 1294.
[642] Gentleman’s Magazine, 1795.
[643] The area of the outer camp is 29½ acres.
[644] It is unlikely that this is the turris mentioned in the solitary Pipe Roll of
Henry I. “In unum ostium faciendum ad cellarium turris Sarum, 20s.” This entry
is of great interest, as entrances from the outside to the basement of keeps were
exceptional in the 12th century; but the basement entrance of Colchester keep
has every appearance of having been added by Henry I.
[645] William of Malmesbury, Hist. Nov., ii., 91.
[646] In 1152; the writ is given by Benson and Hatcher, p. 32.
[647] “In operatione unius Bretesche in eodem Castro 50s.” Pipe Rolls, 1193-4.
it over the Dungeon Dike is a drawbridge to the Dungeon Toure.” Itin., i., 14.
[632] “In operatione nove turris et nove camere in cast. 126l. 18s. 6d.”
[633] D. B., i., 120.
[634] See the plan reproduced in Wise’s Rockingham Castle and the Watsons, p.
66.
[635] Vol. i., p. 224: cited by Mr Irving in his valuable paper on Old Sarum in
Arch. Journ., xv., 1859. Sir Richard made a vague reference to an MS. in the
Cottonian and Bodleian libraries, for which Mr Irving says he has searched in
vain.
[636] General Pitt-Rivers in his Address to the Salisbury meeting of the
Archæological Institute in 1887, says that traces of these roads may still be seen.
He adds that Old Sarum does not resemble the generality of ancient British
fortifications, in that the rampart is of the same height all round, instead of being
lower where the ground is steeper; this led him to think that the original fortress
had been modernised in later times. Sir Richard Colt Hoare noticed that the
ramparts of Sarum were twice as high as those of the fine prehistoric camps with
which he was acquainted. Ancient Wiltshire, p. 226.
[637] Benson and Hatcher’s Old and New Sarum, p. 604.
[638] Cf. Benson and Hatcher, 63, with Beauties of England and Wales, xv., 78.
[639] D. B., i., 66. “Idem episcopus tenet Sarisberie.” Part of the land which had
been held under the bishop was now held by Edward the Sheriff, the ancestor of
the earls of Salisbury. This in itself is a proof that the castle was new. See
Freeman, N. C., iv., 797.
[640] This policy had been dictated by an œcumenical council.
[641] He gives to the canons of the church two hides in the manor, “et ante
portam castelli Seriberiensis terram ex utraque parte viæ in ortorum
domorumque canonicorum necessitate.” M. A., vi., 1294.
[642] Gentleman’s Magazine, 1795.
[643] The area of the outer camp is 29½ acres.
[644] It is unlikely that this is the turris mentioned in the solitary Pipe Roll of
Henry I. “In unum ostium faciendum ad cellarium turris Sarum, 20s.” This entry
is of great interest, as entrances from the outside to the basement of keeps were
exceptional in the 12th century; but the basement entrance of Colchester keep
has every appearance of having been added by Henry I.
[645] William of Malmesbury, Hist. Nov., ii., 91.
[646] In 1152; the writ is given by Benson and Hatcher, p. 32.
[647] “In operatione unius Bretesche in eodem Castro 50s.” Pipe Rolls, 1193-4.
Page 409
[648] “Virgam et mairemium ad hordiandum castrum.” Close Rolls, i., 198b
(1215).
[649] Benson and Hatcher, p. 704.
[650] “Dicunt quod castrum cum burgo Veteris Sarum et dominicus burgus
domini Regis pertinent ad coronam cum advocatione cujusdam ecclesiæ quæ
modo vacat.” Hundred Rolls, Edward I., cited by Benson and Hatcher, p. 802.
[651] Cited by Benson and Hatcher, p. 802.
[652] D. B., 66a, 1. The value T. R. E. is not, however, very distinctly stated.
[653] “Dicunt Angligenses burgenses de Sciropesberie multum grave sibi esse
quod ipsi reddunt totum geldum sicut reddebant T. R. E. quamvis castellum
comitis occupaverit 51 masuras et aliæ 50 masuræ sunt wastæ.” D. B., i., 252.
[654] Some writers, such as Mr Kerslake and Mr C. S. Taylor, have supposed
Sceargate to mean Shrewsbury.
[655] Mandatum est vicecomiti Salopie quod veterem palum et veterem
bretaschiam de vetere fossato ville Salopie faciat habere probos homines ville
Salopie ad novum fossatum ejusdem ville, quod fieri fecerant, efforciandum et
emendendum. Close Rolls, 1231, p. 508. The honest men of the city are also to
have “palum et closturam” from the king’s wood of Lichewood “ad hirucones
circa villam Salopie faciendas ad ipsam villam claudendam.” Ibid. Hirucones are
the same as heritones or hericias, a defence of stakes on the counterscarp of the
ditch.
[656] “In op. castelli de Salopbe in mota 5l.” Pipe Rolls, 19 Henry II., p. 108.
[657] “Dampnum mote castri Salopp’ ad valenciam 60 marcarum, sed non
recolligunt totum evenisse propter molendinum abbatis Salopp’, quia 30 annis
elapsis mota castri fuit fere deteriorata sicut nunc est.” Hundred Rolls, ii., 80.
“Dicunt quod unus magnus turris ligneus (sic) qui ædificatur in castro Salopp’
corruit in terram tempore domini Uriani de S. Petro tunc vicecomitis, et
meremium ejus turris tempore suo et temporibus aliorum vicecomitum postea ita
consumitur et destruitur quod nihil de illo remansit, in magnum damnum domini
Regis et deteriorationem eiusdem castri.” Ibid., p. 105.
[658] Pipe Rolls, 11 Henry II., p. 89; 12 Henry II., p. 59; 14 Henry II., p. 93; 15
Henry II., p. 108; 20 Henry II., p. 108.
[659] Payment to those who dig stone for the castle of Shrewsbury, Close Rolls,
i., 622b. This is in 1224. There is also a payment of 50l. for works at the castle in
1223. Ibid., 533b.
(1215).
[649] Benson and Hatcher, p. 704.
[650] “Dicunt quod castrum cum burgo Veteris Sarum et dominicus burgus
domini Regis pertinent ad coronam cum advocatione cujusdam ecclesiæ quæ
modo vacat.” Hundred Rolls, Edward I., cited by Benson and Hatcher, p. 802.
[651] Cited by Benson and Hatcher, p. 802.
[652] D. B., 66a, 1. The value T. R. E. is not, however, very distinctly stated.
[653] “Dicunt Angligenses burgenses de Sciropesberie multum grave sibi esse
quod ipsi reddunt totum geldum sicut reddebant T. R. E. quamvis castellum
comitis occupaverit 51 masuras et aliæ 50 masuræ sunt wastæ.” D. B., i., 252.
[654] Some writers, such as Mr Kerslake and Mr C. S. Taylor, have supposed
Sceargate to mean Shrewsbury.
[655] Mandatum est vicecomiti Salopie quod veterem palum et veterem
bretaschiam de vetere fossato ville Salopie faciat habere probos homines ville
Salopie ad novum fossatum ejusdem ville, quod fieri fecerant, efforciandum et
emendendum. Close Rolls, 1231, p. 508. The honest men of the city are also to
have “palum et closturam” from the king’s wood of Lichewood “ad hirucones
circa villam Salopie faciendas ad ipsam villam claudendam.” Ibid. Hirucones are
the same as heritones or hericias, a defence of stakes on the counterscarp of the
ditch.
[656] “In op. castelli de Salopbe in mota 5l.” Pipe Rolls, 19 Henry II., p. 108.
[657] “Dampnum mote castri Salopp’ ad valenciam 60 marcarum, sed non
recolligunt totum evenisse propter molendinum abbatis Salopp’, quia 30 annis
elapsis mota castri fuit fere deteriorata sicut nunc est.” Hundred Rolls, ii., 80.
“Dicunt quod unus magnus turris ligneus (sic) qui ædificatur in castro Salopp’
corruit in terram tempore domini Uriani de S. Petro tunc vicecomitis, et
meremium ejus turris tempore suo et temporibus aliorum vicecomitum postea ita
consumitur et destruitur quod nihil de illo remansit, in magnum damnum domini
Regis et deteriorationem eiusdem castri.” Ibid., p. 105.
[658] Pipe Rolls, 11 Henry II., p. 89; 12 Henry II., p. 59; 14 Henry II., p. 93; 15
Henry II., p. 108; 20 Henry II., p. 108.
[659] Payment to those who dig stone for the castle of Shrewsbury, Close Rolls,
i., 622b. This is in 1224. There is also a payment of 50l. for works at the castle in
1223. Ibid., 533b.
Page 410
[660] Hundred Rolls, ii., 80. A jarola or garuillum is a stockade; apparently
derived from a Gallic word for oak, and may thus correspond to an oak paling.
See Ducange.
[661] Owen and Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, i., 450.
[662] Chronicon de Melsa, R. S. See Preface, p. lxxii.
[663] Yorks Inquisitions (Yorks Rec. Ser.), i., 83.
[664] Rot. Lit. Claus., i., 474b.
[665] Poulson’s History of Holderness, i., 457.
[666] D. B., i., 323b.
[667] Ethelwerd, anno 910.
[668] “Ipse Henricus tenet Cebbeseio. Ad hoc manerium pertinuit terra de
Stadford, in qua rex precepit fieri castellum, quod modo est destructum.” D. B.,
i., 249a.
[669] “Apud Estafort alteram [munitionem] locavit.” Ord. Vit., p. 199.
[670] It should be said that Mr Eyton interprets the passage differently, and takes
it to mean that the castle was built on land in the borough of Stafford belonging
to the manor of Chebsey. But he himself says that “the site of Stafford Castle,
within the liberties, though not within the borough of Stafford, would suggest a
royal foundation”; and he believes this castle (the one on the motte) to have been
the one garrisoned by Henry I. and made a residence by Henry II. Domesday
Studies, p. 21.
[671] Salt. Arch. Soc. Trans., vol. viii., “The Manor of Castre or Stafford,” by
Mr Mazzinghi, a paper abounding in valuable information, to which the present
writer is greatly indebted.
[672] In the addenda to Mr Eyton’s Domesday of Staffordshire (p. 135) the
learned editor says there are two Stafford castles mentioned in Domesday, in two
different hundreds. We have carefully searched through the whole Stafford
account, and except at Burton and Tutbury, there is no other castle mentioned in
Staffordshire but this one at Chebsey.
[673] Dugdale conjectures that Robert was sheriff of Staffordshire. He had large
estates round the town of Stafford. Eyton, Staffordshire, p. 61.
[674] Mazzinghi, Salt Arch. Soc. Trans., viii., 6; Eyton, Domesday Studies, p.
20.
[675] Monasticon, vi., 223: “Ecclesiam S. Nicholai in castello de Stafford.”
[676] Ordericus, vii., 12. See also vii., 13, p. 220 (ed. Prévost).
[677] Mazzinghi, Salt Arch. Soc. Trans., viii., 22.
[678] In a charter to Stone Abbey, Salt Collections, vol. ii. That the castle he
speaks of was the one outside the town is proved by his references to land “extra
derived from a Gallic word for oak, and may thus correspond to an oak paling.
See Ducange.
[661] Owen and Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, i., 450.
[662] Chronicon de Melsa, R. S. See Preface, p. lxxii.
[663] Yorks Inquisitions (Yorks Rec. Ser.), i., 83.
[664] Rot. Lit. Claus., i., 474b.
[665] Poulson’s History of Holderness, i., 457.
[666] D. B., i., 323b.
[667] Ethelwerd, anno 910.
[668] “Ipse Henricus tenet Cebbeseio. Ad hoc manerium pertinuit terra de
Stadford, in qua rex precepit fieri castellum, quod modo est destructum.” D. B.,
i., 249a.
[669] “Apud Estafort alteram [munitionem] locavit.” Ord. Vit., p. 199.
[670] It should be said that Mr Eyton interprets the passage differently, and takes
it to mean that the castle was built on land in the borough of Stafford belonging
to the manor of Chebsey. But he himself says that “the site of Stafford Castle,
within the liberties, though not within the borough of Stafford, would suggest a
royal foundation”; and he believes this castle (the one on the motte) to have been
the one garrisoned by Henry I. and made a residence by Henry II. Domesday
Studies, p. 21.
[671] Salt. Arch. Soc. Trans., vol. viii., “The Manor of Castre or Stafford,” by
Mr Mazzinghi, a paper abounding in valuable information, to which the present
writer is greatly indebted.
[672] In the addenda to Mr Eyton’s Domesday of Staffordshire (p. 135) the
learned editor says there are two Stafford castles mentioned in Domesday, in two
different hundreds. We have carefully searched through the whole Stafford
account, and except at Burton and Tutbury, there is no other castle mentioned in
Staffordshire but this one at Chebsey.
[673] Dugdale conjectures that Robert was sheriff of Staffordshire. He had large
estates round the town of Stafford. Eyton, Staffordshire, p. 61.
[674] Mazzinghi, Salt Arch. Soc. Trans., viii., 6; Eyton, Domesday Studies, p.
20.
[675] Monasticon, vi., 223: “Ecclesiam S. Nicholai in castello de Stafford.”
[676] Ordericus, vii., 12. See also vii., 13, p. 220 (ed. Prévost).
[677] Mazzinghi, Salt Arch. Soc. Trans., viii., 22.
[678] In a charter to Stone Abbey, Salt Collections, vol. ii. That the castle he
speaks of was the one outside the town is proved by his references to land “extra
Page 411
burgum.”
[679] The Pipe Roll contains several entries relating to this gaol at Stafford. It is
clear from several of the documents given by Mr Mazzinghi that the king’s gaol
of Stafford and the king’s gaol of the castle of Stafford are equivalent
expressions.
[680] Pipe Rolls, 2 John.
[681] Close Rolls, i., 69.
[682] Constitutional History, i., 272.
[683] Cited in Salt Arch. Soc. Trans., vi., pt. i., 258.
[684] Patent Rolls, 22 Edward iii., cited by Mazzinghi, p. 80.
[685] Salt Arch. Soc. Trans., viii., 122. It was undoubtedly at this time that the
oblong stone keep on the motte, which is described in an escheat of Henry
VIII.’s reign, was built.
[686] Salt Arch. Coll., viii., 14.
[687] Speed’s Theatre of Britain; Leland, Itin., vii., 26.
[688] The Stafford escheat of Henry VIII.’s reign, which describes the town, also
makes no mention of any castle in the town. Mazzinghi, p. 105.
[689] Salt Arch. Trans., viii., 231. The mistake may possibly have arisen from
the fact that a fine castellated gateway, shown in W. Smith’s map (Description of
England), stood on the south-west wall of the town, close to the spot where
Speed’s map marks a Castle Hill.
[690] There must be some error in the first statement of the Stafford revenue in
Domesday, which says that the king and earl have 7l. between them, as it is
contradicted by the later statement. D. B., i., 246a and 247b, 2.
[691] There were 141 mansiones, T. R. E., “et modo totidem sunt præter 5 quæ
propter operationem castelli sunt wastæ.” From a passage in the Domesday of
Nottingham it would seem that a mansio was a group of houses.
[692] Gervase of Canterbury, i., 156, R. S.
[693] Peck’s Antiquarian Annals of Stamford; he gives the charter, p. 17.
[694] Cited in Nevinson’s “Notes on the History of Stamford,” Journ. Brit. Arch.
Ass., xxxv.
[695] “T. R. E. dabat Stanford 15l.; modo dat ad firmam 50l. De omni
consuetudine regis modo dat 28l.”
[696] “Ibi habet Helgot castellum, et 2 carucas in dominio, et 4 servos, et 3
villanos, et 3 bordarios, et 1 Francigenam cum 3½ carucis. Ibi ecclesia et
presbyter. T. R. E. valebat 18 solidos; modo 25 solidos. Wastam invenit.” D. B.,
i., 258b. There are some fragments of Norman work in the church, which is
[679] The Pipe Roll contains several entries relating to this gaol at Stafford. It is
clear from several of the documents given by Mr Mazzinghi that the king’s gaol
of Stafford and the king’s gaol of the castle of Stafford are equivalent
expressions.
[680] Pipe Rolls, 2 John.
[681] Close Rolls, i., 69.
[682] Constitutional History, i., 272.
[683] Cited in Salt Arch. Soc. Trans., vi., pt. i., 258.
[684] Patent Rolls, 22 Edward iii., cited by Mazzinghi, p. 80.
[685] Salt Arch. Soc. Trans., viii., 122. It was undoubtedly at this time that the
oblong stone keep on the motte, which is described in an escheat of Henry
VIII.’s reign, was built.
[686] Salt Arch. Coll., viii., 14.
[687] Speed’s Theatre of Britain; Leland, Itin., vii., 26.
[688] The Stafford escheat of Henry VIII.’s reign, which describes the town, also
makes no mention of any castle in the town. Mazzinghi, p. 105.
[689] Salt Arch. Trans., viii., 231. The mistake may possibly have arisen from
the fact that a fine castellated gateway, shown in W. Smith’s map (Description of
England), stood on the south-west wall of the town, close to the spot where
Speed’s map marks a Castle Hill.
[690] There must be some error in the first statement of the Stafford revenue in
Domesday, which says that the king and earl have 7l. between them, as it is
contradicted by the later statement. D. B., i., 246a and 247b, 2.
[691] There were 141 mansiones, T. R. E., “et modo totidem sunt præter 5 quæ
propter operationem castelli sunt wastæ.” From a passage in the Domesday of
Nottingham it would seem that a mansio was a group of houses.
[692] Gervase of Canterbury, i., 156, R. S.
[693] Peck’s Antiquarian Annals of Stamford; he gives the charter, p. 17.
[694] Cited in Nevinson’s “Notes on the History of Stamford,” Journ. Brit. Arch.
Ass., xxxv.
[695] “T. R. E. dabat Stanford 15l.; modo dat ad firmam 50l. De omni
consuetudine regis modo dat 28l.”
[696] “Ibi habet Helgot castellum, et 2 carucas in dominio, et 4 servos, et 3
villanos, et 3 bordarios, et 1 Francigenam cum 3½ carucis. Ibi ecclesia et
presbyter. T. R. E. valebat 18 solidos; modo 25 solidos. Wastam invenit.” D. B.,
i., 258b. There are some fragments of Norman work in the church, which is
Page 412
chiefly Early English, doubtless of the same date as the mural tower of the
castle.
[697] Stapleton’s Introduction to Rot. Scac. Normanniæ, vol. ii.
[698] It used to be supposed that herring-bone work was a Saxon sign, and this
furnished an additional claim to the Saxon origin of this castle; but it is now
known that herring-bone work only occurs in the later Saxon work, and is far
more common in Norman. See note, p. 136.
[699] See ante, p. 34.
[700] Ordericus, xi., ch. iii.
[701] There are three entries for the works of the turris at Tickhill in the Pipe
Rolls of 1178 and 1179, amounting to £123, 12s. 5d.
[702] Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I., 33, 36. Expenses for work at the wall of the castle
are mentioned. Ordericus says that Robert Belesme fortified the castle of Blythe
at the time of his rebellion in 1101, but he also says that it had belonged to Roger
de Busli. Hist. Ecc., iv., 33; xi., 3.
[703] Vicar’s Parliamentary Chronicle, quoted by Hunter, South Yorks, ii., 235.
[704] D. B., i., 319a.
[705] A.-S. C. in anno.
[706] D. B., i., 76.
[707] M. A., iv., 630.
[708] Leland is responsible for this last statement.
[709] D. B., i., 108b.
[710] “Egressus Lundoniæ rex dies aliquot in propinquo loco Bercingio
morabatur, dum firmamenta quædam in urbe contra mobilitatem ingentis et feri
populi perficerentur.” P. 165. Ordericus is quoting from William of Poitiers.
There was formerly a Roman camp at Barking, and the motte which William
hastily threw up on its rampart to defend his sojourn still remains. See Victoria
History of Essex.
[711] Mr Harold Sands suggests to me that the first fortification may simply
have been a bank and palisade across the angle of the Roman wall, with perhaps
a wooden keep, and that the great fire in London in 1077 determined William to
build a stone keep.
[712] Hearne’s Textus Roffensis, 212. “Idem Gundulfus, ex precepto Regis
Willielmi Magni, præesset operi magnæ turris Londoniæ.”
[713] The building of stone keeps was generally spread over several years, as we
learn from the Pipe Rolls. Richard I. built his celebrated keep of Chateau
Gaillard in one year, but he himself regarded this as an architectural feat. “Estne
bella, filia mea de uno anno,” he said in delight.
castle.
[697] Stapleton’s Introduction to Rot. Scac. Normanniæ, vol. ii.
[698] It used to be supposed that herring-bone work was a Saxon sign, and this
furnished an additional claim to the Saxon origin of this castle; but it is now
known that herring-bone work only occurs in the later Saxon work, and is far
more common in Norman. See note, p. 136.
[699] See ante, p. 34.
[700] Ordericus, xi., ch. iii.
[701] There are three entries for the works of the turris at Tickhill in the Pipe
Rolls of 1178 and 1179, amounting to £123, 12s. 5d.
[702] Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I., 33, 36. Expenses for work at the wall of the castle
are mentioned. Ordericus says that Robert Belesme fortified the castle of Blythe
at the time of his rebellion in 1101, but he also says that it had belonged to Roger
de Busli. Hist. Ecc., iv., 33; xi., 3.
[703] Vicar’s Parliamentary Chronicle, quoted by Hunter, South Yorks, ii., 235.
[704] D. B., i., 319a.
[705] A.-S. C. in anno.
[706] D. B., i., 76.
[707] M. A., iv., 630.
[708] Leland is responsible for this last statement.
[709] D. B., i., 108b.
[710] “Egressus Lundoniæ rex dies aliquot in propinquo loco Bercingio
morabatur, dum firmamenta quædam in urbe contra mobilitatem ingentis et feri
populi perficerentur.” P. 165. Ordericus is quoting from William of Poitiers.
There was formerly a Roman camp at Barking, and the motte which William
hastily threw up on its rampart to defend his sojourn still remains. See Victoria
History of Essex.
[711] Mr Harold Sands suggests to me that the first fortification may simply
have been a bank and palisade across the angle of the Roman wall, with perhaps
a wooden keep, and that the great fire in London in 1077 determined William to
build a stone keep.
[712] Hearne’s Textus Roffensis, 212. “Idem Gundulfus, ex precepto Regis
Willielmi Magni, præesset operi magnæ turris Londoniæ.”
[713] The building of stone keeps was generally spread over several years, as we
learn from the Pipe Rolls. Richard I. built his celebrated keep of Chateau
Gaillard in one year, but he himself regarded this as an architectural feat. “Estne
bella, filia mea de uno anno,” he said in delight.
Page 413
[714] A.-S. C. in anno.
[715] Round’s History of Colchester, ch. iv.
[716] The keep of Norwich Castle measures 100 × 95 feet; Middleham, 100 ×
80; Dover, 95 × 90. These are the largest existing keeps in England, next to the
Tower and Colchester. The destroyed keep of Duffield measured 99 × 93 feet;
that of Bristol is believed to have been 110 × 95.
[717] The reader will find little help for the structural history of the Tower in
most of the works which call themselves Histories of the Tower of London. The
plan of these works generally is to skim over the structural history as quickly as
possible, perhaps with the help of a few passages from Clark, and to get on to
the history of the prisoners in the Tower. For the description in the text, the
writer is greatly indebted to Mr Harold Sands, F.S.A., who has made a careful
study of the Tower, and whose monograph upon it, it is hoped, will shortly
appear.
[718] Ante, p. 89.
[719] Many of the larger keeps contain rooms quite spacious enough to have
served as banqueting halls, and it is a point of some difficulty whether they were
built to be used as such. But as late as the 14th century, Piers Ploughman rebukes
the new custom which was growing up of the noble and his family taking their
meals in private, and leaving the hall to their retainers. Every castle seems to
have had a hall in the bailey.
[720] Mr Sands says the main floors are not of too great a span to carry any
ordinary weight.
[721] The keep of Pevensey Castle, the basement of which has been recently
uncovered, has no less than four apsidal projections, one of which rests on the
solid base of a Roman mural tower. But this keep is quite an exceptional
building. See Excavations at Pevensey, Second Report, by H. Sands.
[722] Mr Sands has conjectured that the third floor may be an addition, and that
the second storey was originally open up to the roof and not communicating with
the mural passage except by stairs. This was actually the case at Bamborough
keep, and at Newcastle and Rochester the mural gallery opens into the upper part
of the second storey by inner windows.
[723] Until the end of the 12th century the roofs of keeps were gabled and not
flat, but probably there was usually a parapet walk for sentinels or archers.
[724] Parts of these walls, running N. and S. have been found very near the E.
side of the Tower. No trace of the Roman wall has been found S. of the Tower,
but in Lower Thames Street lines have been found which, if produced, would
lead straight to the S. wall of the inner bailey. Communicated by Mr Harold
Sands.
[725] I have to thank Mr Harold Sands for kindly revising this account of the
Tower.
[715] Round’s History of Colchester, ch. iv.
[716] The keep of Norwich Castle measures 100 × 95 feet; Middleham, 100 ×
80; Dover, 95 × 90. These are the largest existing keeps in England, next to the
Tower and Colchester. The destroyed keep of Duffield measured 99 × 93 feet;
that of Bristol is believed to have been 110 × 95.
[717] The reader will find little help for the structural history of the Tower in
most of the works which call themselves Histories of the Tower of London. The
plan of these works generally is to skim over the structural history as quickly as
possible, perhaps with the help of a few passages from Clark, and to get on to
the history of the prisoners in the Tower. For the description in the text, the
writer is greatly indebted to Mr Harold Sands, F.S.A., who has made a careful
study of the Tower, and whose monograph upon it, it is hoped, will shortly
appear.
[718] Ante, p. 89.
[719] Many of the larger keeps contain rooms quite spacious enough to have
served as banqueting halls, and it is a point of some difficulty whether they were
built to be used as such. But as late as the 14th century, Piers Ploughman rebukes
the new custom which was growing up of the noble and his family taking their
meals in private, and leaving the hall to their retainers. Every castle seems to
have had a hall in the bailey.
[720] Mr Sands says the main floors are not of too great a span to carry any
ordinary weight.
[721] The keep of Pevensey Castle, the basement of which has been recently
uncovered, has no less than four apsidal projections, one of which rests on the
solid base of a Roman mural tower. But this keep is quite an exceptional
building. See Excavations at Pevensey, Second Report, by H. Sands.
[722] Mr Sands has conjectured that the third floor may be an addition, and that
the second storey was originally open up to the roof and not communicating with
the mural passage except by stairs. This was actually the case at Bamborough
keep, and at Newcastle and Rochester the mural gallery opens into the upper part
of the second storey by inner windows.
[723] Until the end of the 12th century the roofs of keeps were gabled and not
flat, but probably there was usually a parapet walk for sentinels or archers.
[724] Parts of these walls, running N. and S. have been found very near the E.
side of the Tower. No trace of the Roman wall has been found S. of the Tower,
but in Lower Thames Street lines have been found which, if produced, would
lead straight to the S. wall of the inner bailey. Communicated by Mr Harold
Sands.
[725] I have to thank Mr Harold Sands for kindly revising this account of the
Tower.
Page 414
[726] “Ibi habet comes unum castrum et mercatum, reddentes 101s.” D. B., i.,
122.
[727] It must be remembered that round arches, in castle architecture, are by no
means a certain sign of date. Of course the first castle on this motte must have
been of wood.
[728] Ord. Vit., ii., 222 (Prévost).
[729] “Henricus de Ferrers habet castellum de Toteberie. In burgo circa
castellum sunt 42 homines de mercato suo tantum viventes.” D. B., i., 248b.
[730] Shaw’s History of Staffordshire, i., 49.
[731] Quoted in Beauties of England and Wales, Staffordshire, p. 1129.
[732] Diceto, i., 384. The castle was then besieged on Henry’s behalf by the
vassal prince of South Wales, the Lord Rhys.
[733] The foundation charter is in Mon. Ang., iii., 393.
[734] A.-S. C.
[735] William of Poitiers calls it an oppidum, p. 141.
[736] Hedges, History of Wallingford.
[737] “The Towne of Portsmuth is murid from the Est Tower a forowgh lenght
with a Mudde Waulle armid with Tymbre.” Itin., iii., 113.
[738] “In burgo de Walingeford habuit Rex Edwardus 8 virgatas terræ; et in his
erant 276 hagæ reddentes 11 libras de gablo.... Pro castello sunt 8 destructæ.” D.
B., i., 56. If we divide these 276 haughs by the 114 acres enclosed by the town
rampart, we get an average of about 1 rood 26 perches for each haugh; multiply
this by 8 (the number destroyed for the castle) and we get an area of 3 acres,
which is about the average area of an early Norman castle.
[739] Hedges, History of Wallingford, i., 139.
[740] Camden speaks of the motte as being in the middle of the castle, but this is
a mistake.
[741] Such is the account in Hedges’ History of Wallingford, p. 139, but it
sounds odd. It is to be inferred from the same source that the fragment of a round
building which stands on the top of the motte must be modern; it is thick enough
to be ancient.
[742] Close Rolls, i., anno 1223.
[743] D. B., i., 56.
[744] “Abbas de Couentreu habet 36 masuras, et 4 sunt wastæ propter situm
castelli.” D. B., i., 238a.
[745] “Hæ masuræ pertinent ad terras quas ipsi barones tenent extra burgum, et
ibi appreciatæ sunt.” D. B., i., 238.
122.
[727] It must be remembered that round arches, in castle architecture, are by no
means a certain sign of date. Of course the first castle on this motte must have
been of wood.
[728] Ord. Vit., ii., 222 (Prévost).
[729] “Henricus de Ferrers habet castellum de Toteberie. In burgo circa
castellum sunt 42 homines de mercato suo tantum viventes.” D. B., i., 248b.
[730] Shaw’s History of Staffordshire, i., 49.
[731] Quoted in Beauties of England and Wales, Staffordshire, p. 1129.
[732] Diceto, i., 384. The castle was then besieged on Henry’s behalf by the
vassal prince of South Wales, the Lord Rhys.
[733] The foundation charter is in Mon. Ang., iii., 393.
[734] A.-S. C.
[735] William of Poitiers calls it an oppidum, p. 141.
[736] Hedges, History of Wallingford.
[737] “The Towne of Portsmuth is murid from the Est Tower a forowgh lenght
with a Mudde Waulle armid with Tymbre.” Itin., iii., 113.
[738] “In burgo de Walingeford habuit Rex Edwardus 8 virgatas terræ; et in his
erant 276 hagæ reddentes 11 libras de gablo.... Pro castello sunt 8 destructæ.” D.
B., i., 56. If we divide these 276 haughs by the 114 acres enclosed by the town
rampart, we get an average of about 1 rood 26 perches for each haugh; multiply
this by 8 (the number destroyed for the castle) and we get an area of 3 acres,
which is about the average area of an early Norman castle.
[739] Hedges, History of Wallingford, i., 139.
[740] Camden speaks of the motte as being in the middle of the castle, but this is
a mistake.
[741] Such is the account in Hedges’ History of Wallingford, p. 139, but it
sounds odd. It is to be inferred from the same source that the fragment of a round
building which stands on the top of the motte must be modern; it is thick enough
to be ancient.
[742] Close Rolls, i., anno 1223.
[743] D. B., i., 56.
[744] “Abbas de Couentreu habet 36 masuras, et 4 sunt wastæ propter situm
castelli.” D. B., i., 238a.
[745] “Hæ masuræ pertinent ad terras quas ipsi barones tenent extra burgum, et
ibi appreciatæ sunt.” D. B., i., 238.
Page 415
[746] Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 189.
[747] Ordericus, p. 184. “Rex itaque castellum apud Guarevicum condidit, et
Henrico Rogerii de Bello Monte filio ad servandum tradidit.” Mr Freeman
remarks that no authentic records connect Thurkil of Warwick with Warwick
Castle. N. C., iv., 781.
[748] N. C., iv., 190.
[749] In operatione unius domus in mota de Warwick et unius bretaschie 5l. 7s.
11d. Pipe Rolls, 20 Henry II. As domus is a word very commonly used for a
keep, it is probable this expenditure refers to a wooden keep.
[750] From information received from Mr Harold Sands. There appears to be no
foundation whatever for the curious ground plan given by Parker.
[751] See ante, p. 42.
[752] “Willelmus comes fecit illud castellum in wasta terra quæ vocatur
Mereston.” D. B., i., 183.
[753] Mon. Ang., vi., 349.
[754] This keep rests on a broad extension of the earthen rampart, similar to
what is still to be seen in the mottes of Devizes, Burton-in-Lonsdale, and
William Hill, Middleham.
[755] Ordericus says: “Intra mœnia Guentæ, opibus et munimine nobilis urbis et
mari contiguæ, validam arcem construxit, ibique Willelmum Osberni filium in
exercitu suo precipuum reliquit.” II., 166. The intra mœnia is not to be taken
literally, any more than the mari contiguæ. It is strange that Mr Freeman should
have mistaken Guenta for Norwich, since under 1067 Ordericus translates the
Winchester of the A.-S. C. by Guenta.
[756] “De isto manerio testatur comitatus quod injuste accepit [abbas] pro
excambio domus regis, quia domus erat regis.” D. B., i., 43a, 1.
[757] Ibid., i., 43a, 2.
[758] “Sicut rex Willielmus pater meus ei dedit in excambium pro terra illa in
qua ædificavit aulam suam in urbe Winton.” Mon. Ang., ii., 444.
[759] “Pars erat in dominio et pars de dominio abbatis; hoc totum est post
occupatum in domo regis.” P. 534. This passage throws light on the fraud of the
abbot of Hyde, referred to above.
[760] “Extra portam de Vuest ... ibi juxta fuit quidam vicus; fuit diffactus quando
rex fecit facere suum fossatum.” P. 535.
[761] Arch. Inst., Winchester volume, p. 51.
[762] It should also be said that the word domus is frequently used for a keep in
chronicles and ancient documents of the 11th and 12th centuries.
[763] The line of the more ancient roof gable can be traced in the north wall, and
there is a vestige of a Norman doorway in the east wall.
[747] Ordericus, p. 184. “Rex itaque castellum apud Guarevicum condidit, et
Henrico Rogerii de Bello Monte filio ad servandum tradidit.” Mr Freeman
remarks that no authentic records connect Thurkil of Warwick with Warwick
Castle. N. C., iv., 781.
[748] N. C., iv., 190.
[749] In operatione unius domus in mota de Warwick et unius bretaschie 5l. 7s.
11d. Pipe Rolls, 20 Henry II. As domus is a word very commonly used for a
keep, it is probable this expenditure refers to a wooden keep.
[750] From information received from Mr Harold Sands. There appears to be no
foundation whatever for the curious ground plan given by Parker.
[751] See ante, p. 42.
[752] “Willelmus comes fecit illud castellum in wasta terra quæ vocatur
Mereston.” D. B., i., 183.
[753] Mon. Ang., vi., 349.
[754] This keep rests on a broad extension of the earthen rampart, similar to
what is still to be seen in the mottes of Devizes, Burton-in-Lonsdale, and
William Hill, Middleham.
[755] Ordericus says: “Intra mœnia Guentæ, opibus et munimine nobilis urbis et
mari contiguæ, validam arcem construxit, ibique Willelmum Osberni filium in
exercitu suo precipuum reliquit.” II., 166. The intra mœnia is not to be taken
literally, any more than the mari contiguæ. It is strange that Mr Freeman should
have mistaken Guenta for Norwich, since under 1067 Ordericus translates the
Winchester of the A.-S. C. by Guenta.
[756] “De isto manerio testatur comitatus quod injuste accepit [abbas] pro
excambio domus regis, quia domus erat regis.” D. B., i., 43a, 1.
[757] Ibid., i., 43a, 2.
[758] “Sicut rex Willielmus pater meus ei dedit in excambium pro terra illa in
qua ædificavit aulam suam in urbe Winton.” Mon. Ang., ii., 444.
[759] “Pars erat in dominio et pars de dominio abbatis; hoc totum est post
occupatum in domo regis.” P. 534. This passage throws light on the fraud of the
abbot of Hyde, referred to above.
[760] “Extra portam de Vuest ... ibi juxta fuit quidam vicus; fuit diffactus quando
rex fecit facere suum fossatum.” P. 535.
[761] Arch. Inst., Winchester volume, p. 51.
[762] It should also be said that the word domus is frequently used for a keep in
chronicles and ancient documents of the 11th and 12th centuries.
[763] The line of the more ancient roof gable can be traced in the north wall, and
there is a vestige of a Norman doorway in the east wall.
Page 416
[764] History of Winchester, ii., 210.
[765] Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester and brother of King Stephen, pulled
down the royal palace close to the cathedral, which presumably was the old
Saxon palace, and used the materials to build Wolvesey Castle. See Malmesbury,
“De Vitis Sex Episcoporum,” Anglia Sacra, ii., 421. He could hardly have dared
to do this if the palace had still been used by the Norman kings.
[766] History of Winchester, ii., 210. See Fig. 37.
[767] Ibid., p. 195. It is difficult, now that the area has been levelled, to say
exactly where this motte stood. Woodward says that the keep stood in the N.E.
corner; but he probably alludes to a mural tower whose foundations can still be
seen, near the County Hall. History of Hampshire, i., 295-304.
[768] Turner, History of Domestic Architecture. He cites from the Liberate Roll,
35 Henry II., an order for the repair of the ditch between the great tower and the
bailey.
[769] “Radulfus filius Seifrid tenet de rege Clivor. Heraldus comes tenuit. Tunc
se defendebat pro 5 hidis, modo pro 4½ hidis, et castellum de Windesores est in
dimidia hida.” D. B., i., 62b. The Abingdon History also mentions the foundation
of Windsor Castle and gives some interesting details about castle guard. “Tunc
Walingaforde et Oxenforde et Wildesore, cæterisque locis, castella pro regno
servando compacta. Unde huic abbatiæ militum excubias apud ipsum Wildesore
oppidum habendas regis imperio jussum.” II., 3, R. S.
[770] Leland, iv., 1, 37. See also Tighe’s Annals of Windsor, pp. 1-6. Until
recently there was a farmhouse surrounded by a moat at Old Windsor, which was
believed to mark the site of Edward’s regia domus.
[771] Edward’s grant of Windsor to Westminster is in Cod. Dip., iv., 227.
Domesday does not mention the rights of the church, but says the manor of
Windsor was held of the crown T. R. E. and T. R. W. Camden gives William’s
charter of exchange with the convent of Westminster. Britannia, i., 151.
[772] This is stated in the charter given by Camden.
[773] In 1 virgata terræ quam Willelmus fil. Walteri habet in escambio pro terra
sua quæ capta est ad burgum. P. 721.
[774] The Red Book of the Exchequer, which contains an abstract of the missing
Pipe Roll of 1 Henry II., has an entry of 12s. paid to Richard de Clifwar for the
exchange of his land, and regular payments are made later. There was another
enlargement of the bailey in Henry III.’s reign, but the second bailey was then
existing. See Close Rolls, i., 531b.
[775] “In operatione muri circa castellum 11l. 10s. 4d. Summa denariorum quos
idem Ricardus [de Luci] misit in operatione predicta de ballia 128l. 9s.” Pipe
Roll, 20 Henry II., p. 116.
[776] Tighe’s Annals of Windsor, p. 21.
[777] There is a singular entry in the Pipe Roll of 7 Richard I., “pro fossato
prosternando quod fuit inter motam et domos regis,” clearly the ditch between
[765] Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester and brother of King Stephen, pulled
down the royal palace close to the cathedral, which presumably was the old
Saxon palace, and used the materials to build Wolvesey Castle. See Malmesbury,
“De Vitis Sex Episcoporum,” Anglia Sacra, ii., 421. He could hardly have dared
to do this if the palace had still been used by the Norman kings.
[766] History of Winchester, ii., 210. See Fig. 37.
[767] Ibid., p. 195. It is difficult, now that the area has been levelled, to say
exactly where this motte stood. Woodward says that the keep stood in the N.E.
corner; but he probably alludes to a mural tower whose foundations can still be
seen, near the County Hall. History of Hampshire, i., 295-304.
[768] Turner, History of Domestic Architecture. He cites from the Liberate Roll,
35 Henry II., an order for the repair of the ditch between the great tower and the
bailey.
[769] “Radulfus filius Seifrid tenet de rege Clivor. Heraldus comes tenuit. Tunc
se defendebat pro 5 hidis, modo pro 4½ hidis, et castellum de Windesores est in
dimidia hida.” D. B., i., 62b. The Abingdon History also mentions the foundation
of Windsor Castle and gives some interesting details about castle guard. “Tunc
Walingaforde et Oxenforde et Wildesore, cæterisque locis, castella pro regno
servando compacta. Unde huic abbatiæ militum excubias apud ipsum Wildesore
oppidum habendas regis imperio jussum.” II., 3, R. S.
[770] Leland, iv., 1, 37. See also Tighe’s Annals of Windsor, pp. 1-6. Until
recently there was a farmhouse surrounded by a moat at Old Windsor, which was
believed to mark the site of Edward’s regia domus.
[771] Edward’s grant of Windsor to Westminster is in Cod. Dip., iv., 227.
Domesday does not mention the rights of the church, but says the manor of
Windsor was held of the crown T. R. E. and T. R. W. Camden gives William’s
charter of exchange with the convent of Westminster. Britannia, i., 151.
[772] This is stated in the charter given by Camden.
[773] In 1 virgata terræ quam Willelmus fil. Walteri habet in escambio pro terra
sua quæ capta est ad burgum. P. 721.
[774] The Red Book of the Exchequer, which contains an abstract of the missing
Pipe Roll of 1 Henry II., has an entry of 12s. paid to Richard de Clifwar for the
exchange of his land, and regular payments are made later. There was another
enlargement of the bailey in Henry III.’s reign, but the second bailey was then
existing. See Close Rolls, i., 531b.
[775] “In operatione muri circa castellum 11l. 10s. 4d. Summa denariorum quos
idem Ricardus [de Luci] misit in operatione predicta de ballia 128l. 9s.” Pipe
Roll, 20 Henry II., p. 116.
[776] Tighe’s Annals of Windsor, p. 21.
[777] There is a singular entry in the Pipe Roll of 7 Richard I., “pro fossato
prosternando quod fuit inter motam et domos regis,” clearly the ditch between
Page 417
the motte and the bailey. Mr Hope informs me that this can only refer to the
northern part of the ditch, as the eastern portion was only filled up in 1824. Mr
Hope thinks that the castle area has always included the lower bailey. I regret
that Mr Hope’s History of Windsor Castle did not appear in time to be used in
this work.
[778] Fœdera, vol. i.
[779] Pipe Rolls, 30 Henry II.
[780] D. B., i., 62b, 2; 56b, 2.
[781] Roger of Wendover, in anno.
[782] Walter and Cradock’s History of Wisbeach, pp. 270-278.
[783] Morris’ Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers, p. 223. This keep was one
built by Bishop Morton in 1471.
[784] Birch’s Cartularium, ii., 222.
[785] Ursus erat vicecomes Wigorniæ a rege constitutus, qui in ipsis pœne faucis
monachorum castellum construxit, adeo ut fossatum cœmiterii partem decideret.
Gesta Pontif., p. 253.
[786] “Castrum Wigorniæ nobis redditum est, tanquam jus noster, usquam
motam turris.” Annales de Wigornia, R. S., p. 407. “Rex Johanni Marescallo
salutem: Mandamus vobis quod sine dilatione faciatis habere venerabili patri
nostro domino Wigorniensi episcopo ballium castri nostri Wigorniæ, quod est jus
ecclesiæ suæ; retenta ad opus nostrum mota ejusdem castri.” Patent Rolls, 1
Henry III., p. 46.
[787] Annales de Wigornia, p. 375.
[788] “In reparatione turris Wigorniæ 8l.” Red Book of Exchequer, ii., 656.
[789] “Precipimus tibi quod per visum liberorum et legalium hominum facias
parari portam castri Wigorniæ, quæ nunc est lignea, lapideam, et bonam et
pulchram.” Rot. de Liberate, p. 93, 1204.
[790] Green’s History of Worcester, i., 19.
[791] Allies’ Antiquities of Worcestershire, p. 15. His words strictly apply to “the
lofty mound called the keep, with its ditches, etc.,” but probably the whole area
was not more than 4 acres.
[792] See the documents cited by Mr Round in his Geoffrey de Mandeville,
Appendix O, and the Pipe Rolls of 1173. “In reparatione Mote et Gaiole de
Wirecestra, £35, 13s. 8d.”
[793] Gentleman’s Magazine, i., 36, 1834. See Haverfield, “Romano-British
Worcester,” Victoria County History of Worcestershire, vol. i.
[794] D. B., i., 172.
northern part of the ditch, as the eastern portion was only filled up in 1824. Mr
Hope thinks that the castle area has always included the lower bailey. I regret
that Mr Hope’s History of Windsor Castle did not appear in time to be used in
this work.
[778] Fœdera, vol. i.
[779] Pipe Rolls, 30 Henry II.
[780] D. B., i., 62b, 2; 56b, 2.
[781] Roger of Wendover, in anno.
[782] Walter and Cradock’s History of Wisbeach, pp. 270-278.
[783] Morris’ Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers, p. 223. This keep was one
built by Bishop Morton in 1471.
[784] Birch’s Cartularium, ii., 222.
[785] Ursus erat vicecomes Wigorniæ a rege constitutus, qui in ipsis pœne faucis
monachorum castellum construxit, adeo ut fossatum cœmiterii partem decideret.
Gesta Pontif., p. 253.
[786] “Castrum Wigorniæ nobis redditum est, tanquam jus noster, usquam
motam turris.” Annales de Wigornia, R. S., p. 407. “Rex Johanni Marescallo
salutem: Mandamus vobis quod sine dilatione faciatis habere venerabili patri
nostro domino Wigorniensi episcopo ballium castri nostri Wigorniæ, quod est jus
ecclesiæ suæ; retenta ad opus nostrum mota ejusdem castri.” Patent Rolls, 1
Henry III., p. 46.
[787] Annales de Wigornia, p. 375.
[788] “In reparatione turris Wigorniæ 8l.” Red Book of Exchequer, ii., 656.
[789] “Precipimus tibi quod per visum liberorum et legalium hominum facias
parari portam castri Wigorniæ, quæ nunc est lignea, lapideam, et bonam et
pulchram.” Rot. de Liberate, p. 93, 1204.
[790] Green’s History of Worcester, i., 19.
[791] Allies’ Antiquities of Worcestershire, p. 15. His words strictly apply to “the
lofty mound called the keep, with its ditches, etc.,” but probably the whole area
was not more than 4 acres.
[792] See the documents cited by Mr Round in his Geoffrey de Mandeville,
Appendix O, and the Pipe Rolls of 1173. “In reparatione Mote et Gaiole de
Wirecestra, £35, 13s. 8d.”
[793] Gentleman’s Magazine, i., 36, 1834. See Haverfield, “Romano-British
Worcester,” Victoria County History of Worcestershire, vol. i.
[794] D. B., i., 172.
Page 418
[795] It is needless to remark that baile is the Norman word for an enclosure or
courtyard; Low Latin ballia; sometimes believed to be derived from baculus, a
stick.
[796] Ordericus, ii., 188 (edition Prévost).
[797] Norman Conquest, iv., 270. Mr Freeman has worked out the course of
events connected with the building and destruction of the castles with his usual
lucidity. But he never grasped the real significance of mottes, though he
emphatically maintained that the native English did not build castles.
[798] “Ethelstanus Castrum quod olim Dani in Eboraco obfirmaverant ad solum
diruit, ne esset quo se tutari perfidia posset.” Gesta Regum, ii., 134.
[799] Widdrington, Analecta Eboracensia, p. 120. It was this suburb which
Alan, Earl of Richmond gave to the Abbey of St Mary at York, which he had
founded. “Ecclesiam sancti Olavii in quâ capud abbatiæ in honorem sanctæ
Mariæ melius constitutum est, et burgum in quo ecclesia sita est.” Mon. Ang.,
iii., 547. For the addition of new boroughs to old ones see ante, p. 174, under
Norwich. Although Athelstan destroyed the fortifications of this borough, they
were evidently renewed when the Danish earls took up their residence there, for
when Earl Alan persuaded the monks from Whitby to settle there one
inducement which he offered was the fortification of the site, “loci munitionem.”
Mon. Ang., iii., 545.
[800] In Eboraco civitate T. R. E. præter scyram archiepiscopi fuerunt 6 scyræ;
una ex his est wasta in castellis. D. B., i., 298.
[801] Notes on Clifford’s Tower, by George Benson and H. Platnauer, published
by the York Philosophical Society.
[802] “Thone castel tobræcon and towurpan.” A.-S. C. See Freeman, N. C., iv.,
270.
[803] “In operatione turris de Euerwick, 15l. 7s. 3d.” Pipe Roll, 19 Henry II.,
vol. xix., 2. We assume that William’s second keep lasted till Henry II.’s reign.
[804] Benedict of Peterborough, ii., 107.
[805] “In operatione castri 28l. 13s. 9d.” Pipe Roll, 3 Richard I. Under the year
1193, after relating the tragedy of the Jews at York Castle, Hoveden says:
“Deinde idem cancellarius [William de Longchamp] tradidit Osberto de
Lunchamp, fratri suo, comitatum Eboracensem in custodia, et precepit firmari
castellum in veteri castellario quod Rex Willelmus Rufus ibi construxerat.” III.,
34, R. S. The expression vetus castellarium would lead us to think of the Old
Baile, which certainly had this name from an early period; and Hoveden, being a
Yorkshireman as well as a very accurate writer, was probably aware of the
difference between the two castles. But if he meant the Old Baile, then both the
castles were restored at about the same time. “Rufus” must be a slip, unless there
was some rebuilding in Rufus’ reign of which we do not know.
[806] Messrs Benson and Platnauer are of the former opinion. “The existence of
a second layer of timber seems to show that the fortification destroyed was
rebuilt in wood.” Notes on Clifford’s Tower, p. 2.
courtyard; Low Latin ballia; sometimes believed to be derived from baculus, a
stick.
[796] Ordericus, ii., 188 (edition Prévost).
[797] Norman Conquest, iv., 270. Mr Freeman has worked out the course of
events connected with the building and destruction of the castles with his usual
lucidity. But he never grasped the real significance of mottes, though he
emphatically maintained that the native English did not build castles.
[798] “Ethelstanus Castrum quod olim Dani in Eboraco obfirmaverant ad solum
diruit, ne esset quo se tutari perfidia posset.” Gesta Regum, ii., 134.
[799] Widdrington, Analecta Eboracensia, p. 120. It was this suburb which
Alan, Earl of Richmond gave to the Abbey of St Mary at York, which he had
founded. “Ecclesiam sancti Olavii in quâ capud abbatiæ in honorem sanctæ
Mariæ melius constitutum est, et burgum in quo ecclesia sita est.” Mon. Ang.,
iii., 547. For the addition of new boroughs to old ones see ante, p. 174, under
Norwich. Although Athelstan destroyed the fortifications of this borough, they
were evidently renewed when the Danish earls took up their residence there, for
when Earl Alan persuaded the monks from Whitby to settle there one
inducement which he offered was the fortification of the site, “loci munitionem.”
Mon. Ang., iii., 545.
[800] In Eboraco civitate T. R. E. præter scyram archiepiscopi fuerunt 6 scyræ;
una ex his est wasta in castellis. D. B., i., 298.
[801] Notes on Clifford’s Tower, by George Benson and H. Platnauer, published
by the York Philosophical Society.
[802] “Thone castel tobræcon and towurpan.” A.-S. C. See Freeman, N. C., iv.,
270.
[803] “In operatione turris de Euerwick, 15l. 7s. 3d.” Pipe Roll, 19 Henry II.,
vol. xix., 2. We assume that William’s second keep lasted till Henry II.’s reign.
[804] Benedict of Peterborough, ii., 107.
[805] “In operatione castri 28l. 13s. 9d.” Pipe Roll, 3 Richard I. Under the year
1193, after relating the tragedy of the Jews at York Castle, Hoveden says:
“Deinde idem cancellarius [William de Longchamp] tradidit Osberto de
Lunchamp, fratri suo, comitatum Eboracensem in custodia, et precepit firmari
castellum in veteri castellario quod Rex Willelmus Rufus ibi construxerat.” III.,
34, R. S. The expression vetus castellarium would lead us to think of the Old
Baile, which certainly had this name from an early period; and Hoveden, being a
Yorkshireman as well as a very accurate writer, was probably aware of the
difference between the two castles. But if he meant the Old Baile, then both the
castles were restored at about the same time. “Rufus” must be a slip, unless there
was some rebuilding in Rufus’ reign of which we do not know.
[806] Messrs Benson and Platnauer are of the former opinion. “The existence of
a second layer of timber seems to show that the fortification destroyed was
rebuilt in wood.” Notes on Clifford’s Tower, p. 2.
Page 419
[807] “Pro mairemio castri Ebor. prostrato per ventum colligendo, 2s.” Pipe
Roll, 19 Henry III. It is, of course, a conjecture that this accident happened to the
keep; but the keep would be the part most exposed to the wind, and the
scattering of the timber, so that it had to be collected, is just what would happen
if a timber structure were blown off a motte.
[808] As the writer was the first to publish this statement, it will be well to give
the evidence on which it rests. The keep of York is clearly Early English in style,
and of an early phase of the style. It is, however, evident to every one who has
carefully compared our dated keeps, that castle architecture always lags behind
church architecture in style-development, and must be judged by different
standards. We should therefore be prepared to find this and most other keeps to
be of later date than their architecture would suggest. Moreover, the expenditure
entered to York Castle in the reigns of Henry II., Richard I., and John, is quite
insufficient to cover the cost of a stone keep. The Pipe Rolls of Henry III.’s reign
decide the matter, as they show the sums which he expended annually on this
castle. It is true they never mention the turris, but always the castrum; we must
also admit that the turris and castrum are often distinguished in the writs, even
as late as Edward III.’s reign. (Close Rolls, 1334.) On the other hand extensive
acquaintance with the Pipe Rolls proves that though the mediæval scribe may
have an occasional fit of accuracy, he is generally very loose in his use of words,
and his distinctions must never be pressed. Take, for instance, the case of Orford,
where the word used in the Pipe Rolls is always castellum, but it certainly refers
to the keep, as there are no other buildings at Orford. Other instances might be
given in which the word castellum clearly applies to the keep. It should be
mentioned that in 1204 John gave an order for stone for the castle (Close Rolls,
i., 4b), but the amounts on the bill for it in the Pipe Rolls show that it was not
used for any extensive building operations.
[809] “Mandatum est Galterio de Cumpton forestario de Gauteris quod ad
pontem et domos castri Eboraci et breccas palicii ejusdem castri reparandos et
emendandos Vicecomitem Eboraci mæremium habere faciat in foresta de
Gauteris per visum, etc.” Close Rolls, ii., 61b.
[810] Order to expend up to 6 marks in repairing the wooden peel about the keep
of York Castle, which peel is now fallen down. Cal. of Close Rolls, 17 Edward
II., 25.
[811] Cal. of Close Rolls, 1313-1318, 262. Mota is wrongly translated moat.
[812] See Mr Cooper’s York: The Story of its Walls and Castles. During Messrs
Benson and Platnauer’s excavations, a prehistoric crouching burial was found in
the ground below the motte, 4 feet 6 inches under the present level. This raises
the question whether William utilised an existing prehistoric barrow for the
nucleus of his motte.
[813] D. B., i., 298a.
[814] York: The Story of its Walls and Castles, by T. P. Cooper, p. 222.
[815] See the passage from Hoveden already quoted, ante, p. 245.
[816] Drake’s Eboracum, App. xliv.
Roll, 19 Henry III. It is, of course, a conjecture that this accident happened to the
keep; but the keep would be the part most exposed to the wind, and the
scattering of the timber, so that it had to be collected, is just what would happen
if a timber structure were blown off a motte.
[808] As the writer was the first to publish this statement, it will be well to give
the evidence on which it rests. The keep of York is clearly Early English in style,
and of an early phase of the style. It is, however, evident to every one who has
carefully compared our dated keeps, that castle architecture always lags behind
church architecture in style-development, and must be judged by different
standards. We should therefore be prepared to find this and most other keeps to
be of later date than their architecture would suggest. Moreover, the expenditure
entered to York Castle in the reigns of Henry II., Richard I., and John, is quite
insufficient to cover the cost of a stone keep. The Pipe Rolls of Henry III.’s reign
decide the matter, as they show the sums which he expended annually on this
castle. It is true they never mention the turris, but always the castrum; we must
also admit that the turris and castrum are often distinguished in the writs, even
as late as Edward III.’s reign. (Close Rolls, 1334.) On the other hand extensive
acquaintance with the Pipe Rolls proves that though the mediæval scribe may
have an occasional fit of accuracy, he is generally very loose in his use of words,
and his distinctions must never be pressed. Take, for instance, the case of Orford,
where the word used in the Pipe Rolls is always castellum, but it certainly refers
to the keep, as there are no other buildings at Orford. Other instances might be
given in which the word castellum clearly applies to the keep. It should be
mentioned that in 1204 John gave an order for stone for the castle (Close Rolls,
i., 4b), but the amounts on the bill for it in the Pipe Rolls show that it was not
used for any extensive building operations.
[809] “Mandatum est Galterio de Cumpton forestario de Gauteris quod ad
pontem et domos castri Eboraci et breccas palicii ejusdem castri reparandos et
emendandos Vicecomitem Eboraci mæremium habere faciat in foresta de
Gauteris per visum, etc.” Close Rolls, ii., 61b.
[810] Order to expend up to 6 marks in repairing the wooden peel about the keep
of York Castle, which peel is now fallen down. Cal. of Close Rolls, 17 Edward
II., 25.
[811] Cal. of Close Rolls, 1313-1318, 262. Mota is wrongly translated moat.
[812] See Mr Cooper’s York: The Story of its Walls and Castles. During Messrs
Benson and Platnauer’s excavations, a prehistoric crouching burial was found in
the ground below the motte, 4 feet 6 inches under the present level. This raises
the question whether William utilised an existing prehistoric barrow for the
nucleus of his motte.
[813] D. B., i., 298a.
[814] York: The Story of its Walls and Castles, by T. P. Cooper, p. 222.
[815] See the passage from Hoveden already quoted, ante, p. 245.
[816] Drake’s Eboracum, App. xliv.
Page 420
[817] See Mr Cooper’s York: The Story of its Walls and Castles, which contains
a mass of new material from documentary sources, and sheds quite unexpected
light on the history of the York fortifications. I am indebted to Mr Cooper’s
courtesy for some of the extracts cited above relating to York Castle.
[818] Cooper’s York, chapters ii. and iv. 100l. was spent by the sheriff in
fortifying the walls of York in the sixth year of Henry III. After this there are
repeated grants for murage in the same and the following reign. There are some
Early English buttresses in the walls, but the majority are later. No part of the
walls contains Norman work.
[819] The details of this evidence, which consist mainly in (1) a structural
difference in the extended rampart; (2) a subsidence in the ground marking the
old line of the city ditch, will be found in Mr Cooper’s work, p. 224.
[820] “Locum in Eboraco qui dicitur Vetus Ballium, primo spissis et longis 18
pedum tabulis, secundo lapideo muro fortiter includebat.” T. Stubbs, in Raine’s
Historians of the Church of York, ii., 417, R. S.
[821] “The plotte of this castelle is now caullid the Olde Baile, and the area and
diches of it do manifestley appere.” Itin., i., 60.
[822] See the plan in Mr Cooper’s York, p. 217.
[823] “In the Wales of the Laws, the social system is tribal.” Owen Edwards,
Wales, p. 39.
[824] Vinogradoff, Growth of the Manor, pp. 15-16.
[825] Pennant’s Tour in Wales, Rhys’ edition, ii., 234.
[826] Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales, pp. 238, 94. The MS. of the Leges
Wallicæ is not earlier than the 13th century. The other editions of the Laws are
even later. See Wade Evans, Welsh Mediæval Law, for the most recent criticism
of the Laws of Howel Dda.
[827] The Leges Wallicæ say: “Villani regis debent facere novem domos ad opus
regis; scilicet, aulam, cameram, coquinam, penu (capellam), stabulum, kynorty
(stabulum canum), horreum, odyn (siccarium) et latrinam.” P. 791.
[828] The word Din or Dinas, so often used for a fort in Wales, is cognate with
the German Zaun, Anglo-Saxon tun, and means a fenced place. Neither it nor the
Irish form dun have any connection with the Anglo-Saxon dun, a hill. See J. E.
Lloyd, Welsh Place-names, “Y Cymmrodor,” xi., 24.
[829] It is doubtful whether Deheubarth ever included the small independent
states of Gwent, Brecknock, and Glamorgan.
[830] “Wales and the Coming of the Normans,” Cymmrodorion Trans., 1899.
[831] There is an earthwork near Portskewet, a semicircular cliff camp with
three ramparts and two ditches. It is scarcely likely that this can be Harold’s
work, as Roman bricks are said to have been found there. Willet’s
Monmouthshire, p. 244. Athelstan had made the Wye the frontier of Wales.
Malmesbury, ii., 134.
a mass of new material from documentary sources, and sheds quite unexpected
light on the history of the York fortifications. I am indebted to Mr Cooper’s
courtesy for some of the extracts cited above relating to York Castle.
[818] Cooper’s York, chapters ii. and iv. 100l. was spent by the sheriff in
fortifying the walls of York in the sixth year of Henry III. After this there are
repeated grants for murage in the same and the following reign. There are some
Early English buttresses in the walls, but the majority are later. No part of the
walls contains Norman work.
[819] The details of this evidence, which consist mainly in (1) a structural
difference in the extended rampart; (2) a subsidence in the ground marking the
old line of the city ditch, will be found in Mr Cooper’s work, p. 224.
[820] “Locum in Eboraco qui dicitur Vetus Ballium, primo spissis et longis 18
pedum tabulis, secundo lapideo muro fortiter includebat.” T. Stubbs, in Raine’s
Historians of the Church of York, ii., 417, R. S.
[821] “The plotte of this castelle is now caullid the Olde Baile, and the area and
diches of it do manifestley appere.” Itin., i., 60.
[822] See the plan in Mr Cooper’s York, p. 217.
[823] “In the Wales of the Laws, the social system is tribal.” Owen Edwards,
Wales, p. 39.
[824] Vinogradoff, Growth of the Manor, pp. 15-16.
[825] Pennant’s Tour in Wales, Rhys’ edition, ii., 234.
[826] Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales, pp. 238, 94. The MS. of the Leges
Wallicæ is not earlier than the 13th century. The other editions of the Laws are
even later. See Wade Evans, Welsh Mediæval Law, for the most recent criticism
of the Laws of Howel Dda.
[827] The Leges Wallicæ say: “Villani regis debent facere novem domos ad opus
regis; scilicet, aulam, cameram, coquinam, penu (capellam), stabulum, kynorty
(stabulum canum), horreum, odyn (siccarium) et latrinam.” P. 791.
[828] The word Din or Dinas, so often used for a fort in Wales, is cognate with
the German Zaun, Anglo-Saxon tun, and means a fenced place. Neither it nor the
Irish form dun have any connection with the Anglo-Saxon dun, a hill. See J. E.
Lloyd, Welsh Place-names, “Y Cymmrodor,” xi., 24.
[829] It is doubtful whether Deheubarth ever included the small independent
states of Gwent, Brecknock, and Glamorgan.
[830] “Wales and the Coming of the Normans,” Cymmrodorion Trans., 1899.
[831] There is an earthwork near Portskewet, a semicircular cliff camp with
three ramparts and two ditches. It is scarcely likely that this can be Harold’s
work, as Roman bricks are said to have been found there. Willet’s
Monmouthshire, p. 244. Athelstan had made the Wye the frontier of Wales.
Malmesbury, ii., 134.
Page 421
[832] See A.-S. C., anno 1097, and compare the entry for 1096 with the account
in the Brut for 1093, which shows that the Norman castles had been restored,
after being for the most part demolished by the Welsh.
[833] The Brut y Tywysogion, or Story of the Princes, exists in no MS. older than
the 14th century. It and the Annales Cambriæ have been disgracefully edited for
the Rolls Series, and the topographical student will find no help from these
editions. See Mr Phillimore’s criticism of them, in Y Cymmrodor, vol. xi. The
Aberpergwm MS. of the Brut, known also as the Gwentian Chronicle, has been
printed in the Archæologia Cambrensis for 1864; it contains a great deal of
additional information, but as Mr Phillimore observes, so much of it is forgery
that none of it can be trusted when unsupported.
[834] The barbarity on both sides was frightful, but in the case of the Welsh, it
was often their own countrymen, and even near relations, who were the victims.
And so little patriotism existed then in Wales that the Normans could always
find allies amongst some of the Welsh chieftains. Patriotism, however, is a virtue
of more recent growth than the 11th century.
[835] There is, however, no contemporary evidence for the existence of the
Marcher lordships before the end of the 12th century. See Duckett “On the
Marches of Wales,” Arch. Camb., 1881.
[836] The districts of Cyfeiliog and Arwystli, in the centre of Wales, were also
reckoned in Gwynedd.
[837] “Wales and the Coming of the Normans,” Cymmrodorion Trans., 1899.
[838] In the descriptions of castles in this chapter, those which have not been
specially visited for this work are marked with an asterisk. Those which have
been visited by others than the writer are marked with initials: D. H. M. being
Mr D. H. Montgomerie, F.S.A.; B. T. S., Mr Basil T. Stallybrass; and H. W., the
Rev. Herbert White, M.A. This plan will be followed in the three succeeding
chapters.
[839] “Hugo comes tenet de rege Roelent (Rhuddlan). Ibi T. R. E. jacebat
Englefield, et tota erat wasta. Edwinus comes tenebat. Quando Hugo comes
recipit similiter erat wasta. Modo habet in dominio medietatem castelli quod
Roelent vocatur, et caput est hujus terræ.... Robertus de Roelent tenet de Hugone
comite medietatem ejusdem castelli et burgi, in quo habet ipse Robertus 10
burgenses et medietatem ecclesiæ. Ibi est novus burgus et in eo 10 burgenses....
In ipso manerio est factum noviter castellum similiter Roeland appellatum.” D.
B., i., 269a, 1.
[840] Ayloffe’s Rotuli Walliæ, p. 75. “De providendo indempnitati magistri
Ricardi Bernard, Personæ Ecclesiæ de Rothelan’, in recompensionem terræ suæ
occupatæ ad placeam castri de Rothelan’ elargandam.”
[841] Tut or Toot Hill means “look-out” hill; the name is not unfrequently given
to abandoned mottes. The word is still used locally. Cf. Christison, Early
Fortifications in Scotland, p. 16.
[842] Such presentations of abandoned castle sites, and of old wooden castles, to
the church, were not uncommon. We have seen how the site of Montacute Castle
in the Brut for 1093, which shows that the Norman castles had been restored,
after being for the most part demolished by the Welsh.
[833] The Brut y Tywysogion, or Story of the Princes, exists in no MS. older than
the 14th century. It and the Annales Cambriæ have been disgracefully edited for
the Rolls Series, and the topographical student will find no help from these
editions. See Mr Phillimore’s criticism of them, in Y Cymmrodor, vol. xi. The
Aberpergwm MS. of the Brut, known also as the Gwentian Chronicle, has been
printed in the Archæologia Cambrensis for 1864; it contains a great deal of
additional information, but as Mr Phillimore observes, so much of it is forgery
that none of it can be trusted when unsupported.
[834] The barbarity on both sides was frightful, but in the case of the Welsh, it
was often their own countrymen, and even near relations, who were the victims.
And so little patriotism existed then in Wales that the Normans could always
find allies amongst some of the Welsh chieftains. Patriotism, however, is a virtue
of more recent growth than the 11th century.
[835] There is, however, no contemporary evidence for the existence of the
Marcher lordships before the end of the 12th century. See Duckett “On the
Marches of Wales,” Arch. Camb., 1881.
[836] The districts of Cyfeiliog and Arwystli, in the centre of Wales, were also
reckoned in Gwynedd.
[837] “Wales and the Coming of the Normans,” Cymmrodorion Trans., 1899.
[838] In the descriptions of castles in this chapter, those which have not been
specially visited for this work are marked with an asterisk. Those which have
been visited by others than the writer are marked with initials: D. H. M. being
Mr D. H. Montgomerie, F.S.A.; B. T. S., Mr Basil T. Stallybrass; and H. W., the
Rev. Herbert White, M.A. This plan will be followed in the three succeeding
chapters.
[839] “Hugo comes tenet de rege Roelent (Rhuddlan). Ibi T. R. E. jacebat
Englefield, et tota erat wasta. Edwinus comes tenebat. Quando Hugo comes
recipit similiter erat wasta. Modo habet in dominio medietatem castelli quod
Roelent vocatur, et caput est hujus terræ.... Robertus de Roelent tenet de Hugone
comite medietatem ejusdem castelli et burgi, in quo habet ipse Robertus 10
burgenses et medietatem ecclesiæ. Ibi est novus burgus et in eo 10 burgenses....
In ipso manerio est factum noviter castellum similiter Roeland appellatum.” D.
B., i., 269a, 1.
[840] Ayloffe’s Rotuli Walliæ, p. 75. “De providendo indempnitati magistri
Ricardi Bernard, Personæ Ecclesiæ de Rothelan’, in recompensionem terræ suæ
occupatæ ad placeam castri de Rothelan’ elargandam.”
[841] Tut or Toot Hill means “look-out” hill; the name is not unfrequently given
to abandoned mottes. The word is still used locally. Cf. Christison, Early
Fortifications in Scotland, p. 16.
[842] Such presentations of abandoned castle sites, and of old wooden castles, to
the church, were not uncommon. We have seen how the site of Montacute Castle
Page 422
was given to the Cluniac monks (ante, p. 170). Thicket Priory, in Yorkshire,
occupied the site of the castle of Wheldrake; and William de Albini gave the site
and materials of the old castle of Buckenham, in Norfolk, to the new castle
which he founded there. The materials, but not the site, of the wooden castle of
Montferrand were given in Stephen’s reign to Meaux Abbey, and served to build
some of the monastic offices. Chron. de Melsa, i., 106.
[843] “Fines suos dilatavit, et in monte Dagannoth, qui mari contiguus est,
fortissimum castellum condidit.” Ordericus, iii., 284 (edition Prévost). The verb
condere is never used except for a new foundation.
[844] The Brut says that in the year 823 the Saxons destroyed the Castle of
Deganwy. This is one of the only two instances in which the word castell is used
in this Welsh chronicle before the coming of the Normans. As the MS. is not
earlier than the 14th century it would be idle to claim this as a proof of the
existence of a castle at this period. Castell, in Welsh, is believed to have come
straight from the Latin, and was applied to any kind of fortress. Lloyd, Welsh
Place-names, “Y Cymmrodor,” xi., 28.
[845] The “new castle of Aberconwy” mentioned by the Brut in 1211,
undoubtedly means this new stone castle built by the earl at Deganwy, as the
castle of Conway did not then exist.
[846] See Pennant, ii., 151; and Arch. Camb., 1891, p. 321.
[847] Brut of Tywysogion, 1145.
[848] Published with a Latin translation in Arch. Camb., 1866. “He built castles
in various places, after the manner of the French, in order that he might better
hold the country.”
[849] The Brut also mentions the castle of Aberlleinog, and says it was built in
1096; rebuilt would have been more correct, as the “Life of Griffith ap Cynan”
shows that it was built by the Earl of Chester, and burnt by Griffith, before the
expedition of 1096 (really 1098), when Hugh, Earl of Shrewsbury, met with his
death on the shore near this castle, from an arrow shot by King Magnus
Barefoot, who came to the help of the Welsh.
[850] Mr Hartshorne in his paper on Carnarvon Castle (Arch. Journ., vii.) cites a
document stating that a wall 18 perches long had been begun round the moat
[possibly motam; original not given]. He also cites from the Pipe Rolls an item
for wages to carriers of earth dug out of the castle.
[851] This ruined wall runs in a straight line through the wood on the ridge to
the east of the town; at one place it turns at right angles; at the back of the golf
pavilion is a portion still erect, showing that it was a dry built wall of very
ordinary character.
[852] Roman masonry has been exposed in the bank of the station.
[853] Life of Griffith ap Cynan; Brut, 1111.
[854] Arch. Camb., iv., series 296 and 911.
occupied the site of the castle of Wheldrake; and William de Albini gave the site
and materials of the old castle of Buckenham, in Norfolk, to the new castle
which he founded there. The materials, but not the site, of the wooden castle of
Montferrand were given in Stephen’s reign to Meaux Abbey, and served to build
some of the monastic offices. Chron. de Melsa, i., 106.
[843] “Fines suos dilatavit, et in monte Dagannoth, qui mari contiguus est,
fortissimum castellum condidit.” Ordericus, iii., 284 (edition Prévost). The verb
condere is never used except for a new foundation.
[844] The Brut says that in the year 823 the Saxons destroyed the Castle of
Deganwy. This is one of the only two instances in which the word castell is used
in this Welsh chronicle before the coming of the Normans. As the MS. is not
earlier than the 14th century it would be idle to claim this as a proof of the
existence of a castle at this period. Castell, in Welsh, is believed to have come
straight from the Latin, and was applied to any kind of fortress. Lloyd, Welsh
Place-names, “Y Cymmrodor,” xi., 28.
[845] The “new castle of Aberconwy” mentioned by the Brut in 1211,
undoubtedly means this new stone castle built by the earl at Deganwy, as the
castle of Conway did not then exist.
[846] See Pennant, ii., 151; and Arch. Camb., 1891, p. 321.
[847] Brut of Tywysogion, 1145.
[848] Published with a Latin translation in Arch. Camb., 1866. “He built castles
in various places, after the manner of the French, in order that he might better
hold the country.”
[849] The Brut also mentions the castle of Aberlleinog, and says it was built in
1096; rebuilt would have been more correct, as the “Life of Griffith ap Cynan”
shows that it was built by the Earl of Chester, and burnt by Griffith, before the
expedition of 1096 (really 1098), when Hugh, Earl of Shrewsbury, met with his
death on the shore near this castle, from an arrow shot by King Magnus
Barefoot, who came to the help of the Welsh.
[850] Mr Hartshorne in his paper on Carnarvon Castle (Arch. Journ., vii.) cites a
document stating that a wall 18 perches long had been begun round the moat
[possibly motam; original not given]. He also cites from the Pipe Rolls an item
for wages to carriers of earth dug out of the castle.
[851] This ruined wall runs in a straight line through the wood on the ridge to
the east of the town; at one place it turns at right angles; at the back of the golf
pavilion is a portion still erect, showing that it was a dry built wall of very
ordinary character.
[852] Roman masonry has been exposed in the bank of the station.
[853] Life of Griffith ap Cynan; Brut, 1111.
[854] Arch. Camb., iv., series 296 and 911.
Page 423
[855] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle dates this expedition in 1114, and says that
Henry caused castles to be built in Wales. The Brut mentions the large tribute,
1111.
[856] Brut, 1149. Madoc ap Meredith, with the assistance of Ranulf, Earl of
Chester, prepared to rise against Owen Gwynedd, son of Griffith ap Cynan.
[857] D. B., i., 255a. Professor Lloyd says, “Maelor Saesneg, Cydewain, Ceri,
and Arwystli came under Norman authority, and paid renders of money or kine
in token of subjection.” “Wales and the Coming of the Normans,” Cymmrodor.
Trans., 1899.
[858] Ibid.
[859] See page 130.
[860] Brut, under 1107. The castle is called Dingeraint by this chronicler.
[861] “Ipse comes construxit castrum Muntgumeri vocatum.” D. B., i., 254.
[862] Montgomery Collections, x., 56.
[863] Close Rolls, i., 558b.
[864] “Firmiter precipimus omnibus illis qui motas habent in valle de
Muntgumeri quod sine dilatione motas suas bonis bretaschiis firmari faciant ad
securitatem et defensionem suam et partium illarum.” Close Rolls, ii., 42.
[865] Mr Davies Pryce has suggested that the Hen Domen, a very perfect motte
and bailey within a mile of the present castle of Montgomery was the original
castle of Montgomery, and that the one built by Henry III. was on a new site.
This of course is quite possible, but I do not see that there is sufficient evidence
for it. See Eng. Hist. Rev., xx., 709.
[866] Brut y Tywysogion.
[867] Itin., vii., 16.
[868] Pipe Rolls, 1158-1164. It should be noted that the Brut does not claim the
battle of Crogen as a Welsh victory.
[869] Lyttleton’s History of Henry II.
[870] Pennant thought he saw vestiges of a castle “in the foundations of a wall
opposite the ruins” [of the abbey]; but his accuracy is not unimpeachable.
[871] Pipe Rolls, 1211-1213. “For the money expended in rescuing the castles of
Haliwell and Madrael, £100.”
[872] Itin., p. 67. Toulmin Smith’s edition of Welsh portion.
[873] D. B., i., 255a.
[874] Life of Griffith.
[875] Pipe Roll, 1159-1160. £4, 3s. 4d. paid to Roger de Powys “ad custodiam
castelli de Dernio”; “In munitione turris de Dermant £6, 4s. 0d.” It cannot be
Henry caused castles to be built in Wales. The Brut mentions the large tribute,
1111.
[856] Brut, 1149. Madoc ap Meredith, with the assistance of Ranulf, Earl of
Chester, prepared to rise against Owen Gwynedd, son of Griffith ap Cynan.
[857] D. B., i., 255a. Professor Lloyd says, “Maelor Saesneg, Cydewain, Ceri,
and Arwystli came under Norman authority, and paid renders of money or kine
in token of subjection.” “Wales and the Coming of the Normans,” Cymmrodor.
Trans., 1899.
[858] Ibid.
[859] See page 130.
[860] Brut, under 1107. The castle is called Dingeraint by this chronicler.
[861] “Ipse comes construxit castrum Muntgumeri vocatum.” D. B., i., 254.
[862] Montgomery Collections, x., 56.
[863] Close Rolls, i., 558b.
[864] “Firmiter precipimus omnibus illis qui motas habent in valle de
Muntgumeri quod sine dilatione motas suas bonis bretaschiis firmari faciant ad
securitatem et defensionem suam et partium illarum.” Close Rolls, ii., 42.
[865] Mr Davies Pryce has suggested that the Hen Domen, a very perfect motte
and bailey within a mile of the present castle of Montgomery was the original
castle of Montgomery, and that the one built by Henry III. was on a new site.
This of course is quite possible, but I do not see that there is sufficient evidence
for it. See Eng. Hist. Rev., xx., 709.
[866] Brut y Tywysogion.
[867] Itin., vii., 16.
[868] Pipe Rolls, 1158-1164. It should be noted that the Brut does not claim the
battle of Crogen as a Welsh victory.
[869] Lyttleton’s History of Henry II.
[870] Pennant thought he saw vestiges of a castle “in the foundations of a wall
opposite the ruins” [of the abbey]; but his accuracy is not unimpeachable.
[871] Pipe Rolls, 1211-1213. “For the money expended in rescuing the castles of
Haliwell and Madrael, £100.”
[872] Itin., p. 67. Toulmin Smith’s edition of Welsh portion.
[873] D. B., i., 255a.
[874] Life of Griffith.
[875] Pipe Roll, 1159-1160. £4, 3s. 4d. paid to Roger de Powys “ad custodiam
castelli de Dernio”; “In munitione turris de Dermant £6, 4s. 0d.” It cannot be
Page 424
doubted that these two names mean the same place.
[876] Arch. Camb., iv., 1887.
[877] At the time of the Survey the manor of Gresford (Gretford) was divided
between Hugh, Osbern, and Rainald. Osbern had 6½ hides and a mill grinding
the corn of his court (curiæ suæ). This probably is a reference to this castle. D.
B., i., 268. It was waste T. R. E. but is now worth £3, 5s. 0d.
[878] “On the Town of Holt,” by A. N. Palmer, Arch. Camb., 1907.
[879] Beauties of England and Wales, North Wales, p. 589. I am glad to find that
Mr Palmer, in the new edition of his Ancient Tenures of Land in the Marches of
Wales, confirms the identifications which I have made of these two last castles,
pp. 108, 116, 118.
[880] Arch. Camb., 5th ser., iv., 352. Camden’s statement that this castle was
founded in Edward I.’s reign shows that he was unacquainted with the Pipe
Rolls.
[881] Pipe Rolls, 1164-1165, and 1167-1168.
[882] Pipe Rolls, 1212-1213.
[883] “Sur l’ewe de Keyroc,” History of Fulk Fitz Warine, edited by T. Wright
for Warton Club.
[884] Victoria County History of Lancashire, i., 369.
[885] England under the Normans and Angevins.
[886] “Ad recutienda castella de Haliwell et Madrael £100.” Pipe Rolls, 1212-
1213.
[887] Wade Evans, Welsh Mediæval Law, vol. xii.
[888] It has in fact every appearance of a Roman camp.
[889] Brut, 1211.
[890] The castle of Hawarden, which is only about 2¼ miles from that of Euloe,
is not mentioned in any records before 1215; but it is believed to have been a
castle of the Norman lords of Mold. It also is on a motte.
[891] I am indebted for this identification to the kindness of Mr A. N. Palmer of
Wrexham.
[892] D. B., i., 254. The manor is called Gal. It had been waste T. R. E., but was
now worth 40s.
[893] Pipe Roll (unpublished), 1212-1213.
[894] Whereas there is no rock in the ditch of the neighbouring motte of Tomen
y Rhodwydd. Pennant (and others following him) most inaccurately describe
Tomen y Rhodwydd as two artificial mounts, whereas there is only one, with the
usual embanked court. See Appendix K.
[876] Arch. Camb., iv., 1887.
[877] At the time of the Survey the manor of Gresford (Gretford) was divided
between Hugh, Osbern, and Rainald. Osbern had 6½ hides and a mill grinding
the corn of his court (curiæ suæ). This probably is a reference to this castle. D.
B., i., 268. It was waste T. R. E. but is now worth £3, 5s. 0d.
[878] “On the Town of Holt,” by A. N. Palmer, Arch. Camb., 1907.
[879] Beauties of England and Wales, North Wales, p. 589. I am glad to find that
Mr Palmer, in the new edition of his Ancient Tenures of Land in the Marches of
Wales, confirms the identifications which I have made of these two last castles,
pp. 108, 116, 118.
[880] Arch. Camb., 5th ser., iv., 352. Camden’s statement that this castle was
founded in Edward I.’s reign shows that he was unacquainted with the Pipe
Rolls.
[881] Pipe Rolls, 1164-1165, and 1167-1168.
[882] Pipe Rolls, 1212-1213.
[883] “Sur l’ewe de Keyroc,” History of Fulk Fitz Warine, edited by T. Wright
for Warton Club.
[884] Victoria County History of Lancashire, i., 369.
[885] England under the Normans and Angevins.
[886] “Ad recutienda castella de Haliwell et Madrael £100.” Pipe Rolls, 1212-
1213.
[887] Wade Evans, Welsh Mediæval Law, vol. xii.
[888] It has in fact every appearance of a Roman camp.
[889] Brut, 1211.
[890] The castle of Hawarden, which is only about 2¼ miles from that of Euloe,
is not mentioned in any records before 1215; but it is believed to have been a
castle of the Norman lords of Mold. It also is on a motte.
[891] I am indebted for this identification to the kindness of Mr A. N. Palmer of
Wrexham.
[892] D. B., i., 254. The manor is called Gal. It had been waste T. R. E., but was
now worth 40s.
[893] Pipe Roll (unpublished), 1212-1213.
[894] Whereas there is no rock in the ditch of the neighbouring motte of Tomen
y Rhodwydd. Pennant (and others following him) most inaccurately describe
Tomen y Rhodwydd as two artificial mounts, whereas there is only one, with the
usual embanked court. See Appendix K.
Page 425
[895] “The Maer dref [which Vardra represents] may be described as the home
farm of the chieftain.” Rhys and Brynmor Jones, The Welsh People, p. 401.
[896] Ordericus, ii., 218, 219 (edition Prévost).
[897] Brut y Tywysogion, 1091.
[898] Brut, 1071. “The French ravage Ceredigion (Cardigan) and Dyfed”; 1072,
“The French devastated Ceredigion a second time.”
[899] A.-S. C., 1081. “This year the king led an army into Wales, and there he set
free many hundred persons”—doubtless, as Mr Freeman remarks, captives taken
previously by the Welsh. The Brut treats this expedition as merely a pilgrimage
to St David’s!
[900] “Then the French came into Dyfed and Ceredigion, which they have still
retained, and fortified the castles, and seized upon all the land of the Britons.”
Brut, 1091 = 1093.
[901] Powell’s History of Wales professes to be founded on that of Caradoc, a
Welsh monk of the 12th century; but it is impossible to say how much of it is
Caradoc, and how much Powell, or Wynne, his augmentor.
[902] Brut, 1107.
[903] “In the Brut, Ystrad Towy does not only mean the vale of Towy, but a very
large district, embracing most of Carmarthenshire and part of Glamorganshire.”
Welsh Historical Documents, by Egerton Phillimore, in Cymmrodor, vol. xi.
[904] Brut, 1092.
[905] Lloyd, “Wales and the Coming of the Normans,” Cymmrodor. Trans.,
1899: refers to Marchegay, Chartes du Prieurie de Monmouth.
[906] Brut, 1143.
[907] The date given is 1080, but as the dates in the Brut at this period are
uniformly two years too early, we alter them accordingly throughout this chapter.
[908] Now more often called the Aberpergwm Brut, from the place where the
MS. is preserved.
[909] See Freeman, Norman Conquest, v., 820; William Rufus, ii., 79; and Prof.
Tout, in Y Cymmerodor, ix., 208. For this reason we do not use the list of castles
given in this chronicle, but confine ourselves to those mentioned in the more
trustworthy Brut y Tywysogion.
[910] The same MS. says, under the year 1099, “Harry Beaumont came to
Gower, against the sons of Caradog ap Jestin, and won many of their lands, and
built the castle of Abertawy (Swansea) and the castle of Aberllychor (Loughor),
and the castle of Llanrhidian (Weobley), and the castle of Penrhys (Penrice), and
established himself there, and brought Saxons from Somerset there, where they
obtained lands; and the greatest usurpation of all the Frenchmen was his in
Gower.”
farm of the chieftain.” Rhys and Brynmor Jones, The Welsh People, p. 401.
[896] Ordericus, ii., 218, 219 (edition Prévost).
[897] Brut y Tywysogion, 1091.
[898] Brut, 1071. “The French ravage Ceredigion (Cardigan) and Dyfed”; 1072,
“The French devastated Ceredigion a second time.”
[899] A.-S. C., 1081. “This year the king led an army into Wales, and there he set
free many hundred persons”—doubtless, as Mr Freeman remarks, captives taken
previously by the Welsh. The Brut treats this expedition as merely a pilgrimage
to St David’s!
[900] “Then the French came into Dyfed and Ceredigion, which they have still
retained, and fortified the castles, and seized upon all the land of the Britons.”
Brut, 1091 = 1093.
[901] Powell’s History of Wales professes to be founded on that of Caradoc, a
Welsh monk of the 12th century; but it is impossible to say how much of it is
Caradoc, and how much Powell, or Wynne, his augmentor.
[902] Brut, 1107.
[903] “In the Brut, Ystrad Towy does not only mean the vale of Towy, but a very
large district, embracing most of Carmarthenshire and part of Glamorganshire.”
Welsh Historical Documents, by Egerton Phillimore, in Cymmrodor, vol. xi.
[904] Brut, 1092.
[905] Lloyd, “Wales and the Coming of the Normans,” Cymmrodor. Trans.,
1899: refers to Marchegay, Chartes du Prieurie de Monmouth.
[906] Brut, 1143.
[907] The date given is 1080, but as the dates in the Brut at this period are
uniformly two years too early, we alter them accordingly throughout this chapter.
[908] Now more often called the Aberpergwm Brut, from the place where the
MS. is preserved.
[909] See Freeman, Norman Conquest, v., 820; William Rufus, ii., 79; and Prof.
Tout, in Y Cymmerodor, ix., 208. For this reason we do not use the list of castles
given in this chronicle, but confine ourselves to those mentioned in the more
trustworthy Brut y Tywysogion.
[910] The same MS. says, under the year 1099, “Harry Beaumont came to
Gower, against the sons of Caradog ap Jestin, and won many of their lands, and
built the castle of Abertawy (Swansea) and the castle of Aberllychor (Loughor),
and the castle of Llanrhidian (Weobley), and the castle of Penrhys (Penrice), and
established himself there, and brought Saxons from Somerset there, where they
obtained lands; and the greatest usurpation of all the Frenchmen was his in
Gower.”
Page 426
[911] “Primus hoc castrum Arnulphus de Mongumeri sub Anglorum rege
Henrico primo ex virgis et cespite, tenue satis et exile construxit.” Itin.
Cambriæ, R. S., 89.
[912] Quoted from Duchesne in Mon. Ang., vol. vi.
[913] See Mr Cobbe’s paper on Pembroke Castle in Arch. Camb., 1883, where
reasons are given for thinking that the present ward was originally, and even up
to 1300, the whole castle.
[914] A motte-castle of earth and wood was certainly not regarded as “a weak
and slender defence” in the time of Giraldus.
[915] Brut y Tywysogion, 1095.
[916] Bridgeman’s Hist. of South Wales, 17.
[917] Arch. Camb., 3rd ser., v., a paper on Newport Castle, in which the writer
says that there are two mottes at Llanhyfer, the larger one ditched round. The
Ordnance Map only shows one.
[918] Brut y Tywysogion, 1146.
[919] Patent Rolls of Henry III., 255; Fœdera, i., 161.
[920] Brut y Tywysogion, 1192.
[921] Bridgeman says that Narberth was given to Stephen Perrot by Arnulf de
Montgomeri, but gives no authority for this statement.
[922] Brut, 1171.
[923] Ibid., 1107. “Earl Gilbert built a castle at Dingeraint, where Earl Roger
had before founded a castle.”
[924] The castle of Aberrheiddiol is probably the name of the present castle of
Aberystwyth when it was first built, as Lewis Morris says that the river
Rheiddiol formerly entered the sea near that point. Quoted by Meyrick, History
of Cardigan, p. 488.
[925] Brut, 1107.
[926] Brut, 1113.
[927] Ibid., 1135.
[928] Ibid., 1135, 1157, 1199, 1203, 1207.
[929] Meyrick’s Hist. of Cardigan, p. 293. Dinerth is not the same as
Llanrhystyd, though Lewis (Top. Dict. Wales) says it is; the two places have
separate mention in Brut, 1157. Mr Clark mentions the motte. M. M. A., i., 115.
[930] Brut, 1135.
[931] Meyrick’s Hist. of Cardigan, p. 232.
[932] Brut, 1157.
Henrico primo ex virgis et cespite, tenue satis et exile construxit.” Itin.
Cambriæ, R. S., 89.
[912] Quoted from Duchesne in Mon. Ang., vol. vi.
[913] See Mr Cobbe’s paper on Pembroke Castle in Arch. Camb., 1883, where
reasons are given for thinking that the present ward was originally, and even up
to 1300, the whole castle.
[914] A motte-castle of earth and wood was certainly not regarded as “a weak
and slender defence” in the time of Giraldus.
[915] Brut y Tywysogion, 1095.
[916] Bridgeman’s Hist. of South Wales, 17.
[917] Arch. Camb., 3rd ser., v., a paper on Newport Castle, in which the writer
says that there are two mottes at Llanhyfer, the larger one ditched round. The
Ordnance Map only shows one.
[918] Brut y Tywysogion, 1146.
[919] Patent Rolls of Henry III., 255; Fœdera, i., 161.
[920] Brut y Tywysogion, 1192.
[921] Bridgeman says that Narberth was given to Stephen Perrot by Arnulf de
Montgomeri, but gives no authority for this statement.
[922] Brut, 1171.
[923] Ibid., 1107. “Earl Gilbert built a castle at Dingeraint, where Earl Roger
had before founded a castle.”
[924] The castle of Aberrheiddiol is probably the name of the present castle of
Aberystwyth when it was first built, as Lewis Morris says that the river
Rheiddiol formerly entered the sea near that point. Quoted by Meyrick, History
of Cardigan, p. 488.
[925] Brut, 1107.
[926] Brut, 1113.
[927] Ibid., 1135.
[928] Ibid., 1135, 1157, 1199, 1203, 1207.
[929] Meyrick’s Hist. of Cardigan, p. 293. Dinerth is not the same as
Llanrhystyd, though Lewis (Top. Dict. Wales) says it is; the two places have
separate mention in Brut, 1157. Mr Clark mentions the motte. M. M. A., i., 115.
[930] Brut, 1135.
[931] Meyrick’s Hist. of Cardigan, p. 232.
[932] Brut, 1157.
Page 427
[933] Beauties of England and Wales, Cardigan, p. 502.
[934] Brut, under 1113.
[935] In the Rolls edition of the Brut this castle is called Llanstephan, but the
context makes it probable that Lampeter is meant; the Annales Cambriæ say “the
castle of Stephen.”
[936] Beauties of England and Wales, p. 492.
[937] Brut, 1216.
[938] Arch. Journ., xxviii., 293.
[939] Brut, 1094.
[940] Desc. Camb., i., 10.
[941] Brut, 1094.
[942] Ibid., p. 110. There is a farmhouse called Rhyd y Gors about a mile lower
down than Carmarthen, and on the opposite side are some embankments; but I
am assured by Mr Spurrell of Carmarthen that these are only river-
embankments. Rhyd y Gors means the ford of the bog; there is no ford at this
spot, but there was one at Carmarthen.
[943] See Arch. Camb., 1907, pp. 237-8.
[944] See Round’s Ancient Charters, p. 9, Pipe Roll Series, vol. x.
[945] Brut, 1113.
[946] The first mention of the castle of Llanstephan is in the Brut, 1147, if, as
has been assumed above, the mention in 1136 refers to Stephen’s castle at
Lampeter, as the Annales Cambriæ say.
[947] The motte of Conisburgh in Yorkshire is a very similar case known to the
writer; it measures 280 × 150 feet. Such very large mottes could rarely be
artificial, but were formed by entrenching and scarping a natural hill.
[948] Brut, 1256. See Arch. Camb., 1907, p. 214, for Col. Morgan’s remarks on
this castle.
[949] The name Gueith tineuur is found in the Book of Llandaff, p. 78 (Life of St
Dubricius), but it seems doubtful whether this should be taken to prove the
existence of some “work” at Dinevor in the 6th century. See Wade-Evans, Welsh
Mediæval Law, p. 337-8.
[950] Brut, 1145. “Cadell ap Griffith took the castle of Dinweiler, which had
been erected by Earl Gilbert.”
[951] Gwentian Chronicle.
[952] The statement of Donovan (Excursions Through South Wales), that the
castle stands on an artificial mount is quite incorrect.
[934] Brut, under 1113.
[935] In the Rolls edition of the Brut this castle is called Llanstephan, but the
context makes it probable that Lampeter is meant; the Annales Cambriæ say “the
castle of Stephen.”
[936] Beauties of England and Wales, p. 492.
[937] Brut, 1216.
[938] Arch. Journ., xxviii., 293.
[939] Brut, 1094.
[940] Desc. Camb., i., 10.
[941] Brut, 1094.
[942] Ibid., p. 110. There is a farmhouse called Rhyd y Gors about a mile lower
down than Carmarthen, and on the opposite side are some embankments; but I
am assured by Mr Spurrell of Carmarthen that these are only river-
embankments. Rhyd y Gors means the ford of the bog; there is no ford at this
spot, but there was one at Carmarthen.
[943] See Arch. Camb., 1907, pp. 237-8.
[944] See Round’s Ancient Charters, p. 9, Pipe Roll Series, vol. x.
[945] Brut, 1113.
[946] The first mention of the castle of Llanstephan is in the Brut, 1147, if, as
has been assumed above, the mention in 1136 refers to Stephen’s castle at
Lampeter, as the Annales Cambriæ say.
[947] The motte of Conisburgh in Yorkshire is a very similar case known to the
writer; it measures 280 × 150 feet. Such very large mottes could rarely be
artificial, but were formed by entrenching and scarping a natural hill.
[948] Brut, 1256. See Arch. Camb., 1907, p. 214, for Col. Morgan’s remarks on
this castle.
[949] The name Gueith tineuur is found in the Book of Llandaff, p. 78 (Life of St
Dubricius), but it seems doubtful whether this should be taken to prove the
existence of some “work” at Dinevor in the 6th century. See Wade-Evans, Welsh
Mediæval Law, p. 337-8.
[950] Brut, 1145. “Cadell ap Griffith took the castle of Dinweiler, which had
been erected by Earl Gilbert.”
[951] Gwentian Chronicle.
[952] The statement of Donovan (Excursions Through South Wales), that the
castle stands on an artificial mount is quite incorrect.
Page 428
[953] The Rolls edition of the Brut gives the corrupt reading Aber Cavwy for the
castle of “Robert the Crook-handed,” but a variant MS. gives Aber Korram, and
it is clear from the Gwentian Chronicle and Powell (p. 145) that Abercorran is
meant.
[954] Brut, 1152.
[955] See paper by Mr D. C. Evans, Arch. Camb., 1907, p. 224.
[956] The first mention known to the writer is in 1285.
[957] Arch. Camb., 3rd ser., v., 346.
[958] Annales Cambriæ, 1205; Brut, 1207, 1208. The Annales call it the castle
of Luchewein.
[959] Beauties of England and Wales, “Caermarthen,” pp. 192, 309.
[960] Mon. Ang., iii., 244.
[961] This motte is mentioned in a charter of Roger, Earl of Hereford, Bernard’s
grandson, in which he confirms to the monks of St John “molendinum meum
situm super Hodeni sub pede mote castelli.” Arch. Camb., 1883, p. 144.
[962] The dates in the Brut are now one year too early. Under 1209 it says,
“Gelart seneschal of Gloucester fortified (cadarnhaaod) the castle of Builth.” We
can never be certain whether the word which is translated fortified, whether from
the Welsh or from the Latin firmare, means built originally or rebuilt.
[963] Beauties of England and Wales, “Brecknockshire,” p. 153.
[964] Brut, in anno. The Mortimers were the heirs of the De Braoses and the
Neufmarchés.
[965] Annales Cambriæ, 1260. This may, however, be merely a figure of speech.
[966] Order to cause Roger Mortimer, so soon as the castle of Built shall be
closed with a wall, whereby it will be necessary to remove the bretasches, to
have the best bretasche of the king’s gift. Cal. of Close Rolls, Ed. I., i., 527.
[967] See Clark, M. M. A., i., 307.
[968] Round, Ancient Charters, No. 6.
[969] Itin., v., 74.
[970] Arch. Camb., N. S., v., 23-28.
[971] “Wales and the Coming of the Normans,” by Professor Lloyd, in
Cymmrodorion Transactions, 1899.
[972] Marchegay, Chartes du Prieurie de Monmouth, cited by Professor Lloyd,
as above.
[973] Brut, 1143.
[974] Not to be confounded with the castle of Clun in Shropshire.
castle of “Robert the Crook-handed,” but a variant MS. gives Aber Korram, and
it is clear from the Gwentian Chronicle and Powell (p. 145) that Abercorran is
meant.
[954] Brut, 1152.
[955] See paper by Mr D. C. Evans, Arch. Camb., 1907, p. 224.
[956] The first mention known to the writer is in 1285.
[957] Arch. Camb., 3rd ser., v., 346.
[958] Annales Cambriæ, 1205; Brut, 1207, 1208. The Annales call it the castle
of Luchewein.
[959] Beauties of England and Wales, “Caermarthen,” pp. 192, 309.
[960] Mon. Ang., iii., 244.
[961] This motte is mentioned in a charter of Roger, Earl of Hereford, Bernard’s
grandson, in which he confirms to the monks of St John “molendinum meum
situm super Hodeni sub pede mote castelli.” Arch. Camb., 1883, p. 144.
[962] The dates in the Brut are now one year too early. Under 1209 it says,
“Gelart seneschal of Gloucester fortified (cadarnhaaod) the castle of Builth.” We
can never be certain whether the word which is translated fortified, whether from
the Welsh or from the Latin firmare, means built originally or rebuilt.
[963] Beauties of England and Wales, “Brecknockshire,” p. 153.
[964] Brut, in anno. The Mortimers were the heirs of the De Braoses and the
Neufmarchés.
[965] Annales Cambriæ, 1260. This may, however, be merely a figure of speech.
[966] Order to cause Roger Mortimer, so soon as the castle of Built shall be
closed with a wall, whereby it will be necessary to remove the bretasches, to
have the best bretasche of the king’s gift. Cal. of Close Rolls, Ed. I., i., 527.
[967] See Clark, M. M. A., i., 307.
[968] Round, Ancient Charters, No. 6.
[969] Itin., v., 74.
[970] Arch. Camb., N. S., v., 23-28.
[971] “Wales and the Coming of the Normans,” by Professor Lloyd, in
Cymmrodorion Transactions, 1899.
[972] Marchegay, Chartes du Prieurie de Monmouth, cited by Professor Lloyd,
as above.
[973] Brut, 1143.
[974] Not to be confounded with the castle of Clun in Shropshire.
Page 429
[975] Annales Cambriæ and Annales de Margam. See plan in Arch. Camb., 4th
ser., vi., 251.
[976] Annales Cambriæ.
[977] Really Ty-yn-yr Bwlch, the house in the pass. Not to be confounded with
Tenby in Pembrokeshire.
[978] Cal. of Close Rolls, Ed. II., iii., 415, 643.
[979] See “Cardiff Castle: its Roman Origin,” by John Ward, Archæologia, lvii.,
335.
[980] See “Cardiff Castle: its Roman Origin,” by John Ward, Archæologia, lvii.,
335.
[981] Mr Clark thought the shell wall on the motte was Norman, and the tower
Perp. But the wall of the shell has some undoubtedly Perp. windows. The
Gwentian Chronicle says that Robert of Gloucester surrounded the town of
Cardiff with a wall, anno 1111.
[982] See Gray’s Buried City of Kenfig, where there are interesting photographs.
The remains appear to be those of a shell.
[983] Annales de Margam, 1232.
[984] Gray’s Buried City of Kenfig, pp. 59, 150.
[985] This information is confirmed by Mr Tennant, town clerk of Aberavon.
[986] See Francis’ Neath and its Abbey, where the charter of De Granville is
given. It is only preserved in an Inspeximus of 1468.
[987] M. M. A., i., 112.
[988] Ruperra is not quite one mile from the river Rhymney. There is another
site which may possibly be that of Castle Remni: Castleton, which is nearly 2
miles from the river, but is on the main road from Cardiff to Newport. “It was
formerly a place of strength and was probably built or occupied by the Normans
for the purpose of retaining their conquest of Wentlwg. The only remains are a
barrow in the garden of Mr Philipps, which is supposed to have been the site of
the citadel, and a stone barn, once a chapel.” Coxe’s Monmouthshire, i., 63.
[989] It is right to say that Colonel Morgan in his admirable Survey of East
Gower (a model of what an antiquarian survey ought to be) does not connect this
mound with the old castle which is mentioned, as well as the new castle, in
Cromwell’s Survey of Gower. But even the old castle seems to have been
Edwardian (see the plan, p. 85), so it is quite possible there were three
successive castles in Swansea.
[990] Brut, 1113.
[991] Morgan’s Survey of East Gower, p. 24.
[992] Colonel Morgan’s Survey of East Gower.
ser., vi., 251.
[976] Annales Cambriæ.
[977] Really Ty-yn-yr Bwlch, the house in the pass. Not to be confounded with
Tenby in Pembrokeshire.
[978] Cal. of Close Rolls, Ed. II., iii., 415, 643.
[979] See “Cardiff Castle: its Roman Origin,” by John Ward, Archæologia, lvii.,
335.
[980] See “Cardiff Castle: its Roman Origin,” by John Ward, Archæologia, lvii.,
335.
[981] Mr Clark thought the shell wall on the motte was Norman, and the tower
Perp. But the wall of the shell has some undoubtedly Perp. windows. The
Gwentian Chronicle says that Robert of Gloucester surrounded the town of
Cardiff with a wall, anno 1111.
[982] See Gray’s Buried City of Kenfig, where there are interesting photographs.
The remains appear to be those of a shell.
[983] Annales de Margam, 1232.
[984] Gray’s Buried City of Kenfig, pp. 59, 150.
[985] This information is confirmed by Mr Tennant, town clerk of Aberavon.
[986] See Francis’ Neath and its Abbey, where the charter of De Granville is
given. It is only preserved in an Inspeximus of 1468.
[987] M. M. A., i., 112.
[988] Ruperra is not quite one mile from the river Rhymney. There is another
site which may possibly be that of Castle Remni: Castleton, which is nearly 2
miles from the river, but is on the main road from Cardiff to Newport. “It was
formerly a place of strength and was probably built or occupied by the Normans
for the purpose of retaining their conquest of Wentlwg. The only remains are a
barrow in the garden of Mr Philipps, which is supposed to have been the site of
the citadel, and a stone barn, once a chapel.” Coxe’s Monmouthshire, i., 63.
[989] It is right to say that Colonel Morgan in his admirable Survey of East
Gower (a model of what an antiquarian survey ought to be) does not connect this
mound with the old castle which is mentioned, as well as the new castle, in
Cromwell’s Survey of Gower. But even the old castle seems to have been
Edwardian (see the plan, p. 85), so it is quite possible there were three
successive castles in Swansea.
[990] Brut, 1113.
[991] Morgan’s Survey of East Gower, p. 24.
[992] Colonel Morgan’s Survey of East Gower.
Page 430
[993] Lewis’s Topographical Dictionary.
[994] The passage of the river Lune in Lancashire is similarly defended by the
mottes of Melling and Arkholme.
[995] The dates given are those of the Brut, and probably two years too early.
[996] Meyrick’s History of Cardigan, p. 146.
[997] Meyrick’s History of Cardigan, p. 146.
[998] Lewis’s Topographical Dictionary.
[999] We do not include the castles which the Welsh rebuilt. Thus in 1194 we are
told that Rhys built the castle of Kidwelly, which he certainly only rebuilt.
[1000] Malcolm Canmore himself had passed nearly fourteen years in England.
Fordun, iv., 45.
[1001] Burton remarks: “To the Lowland Scot, as well as to the Saxon, the
Norman was what a clever man, highly educated and trained in the great world
of politics, is to the same man who has spent his days in a village.” History of
Scotland, i., 353.
[1002] Dr Round has brought to light the significant fact that King David took
his chancellor straight from the English chancery, where he had been a clerk.
This first chancellor of Scotland was the founder of the great Comyn family. The
Ancestor, 10, 108.
[1003] Fordun, Annalia, vol. iv.
[1004] It is tempting to connect the extraordinary preponderance of mottes, as
shown by Dr Christison’s map, in the shires which made up ancient Galloway
(Wigton, Kirkcudbright, and Dumfries) with the savage resistance offered by
Galloway, which may have made it necessary for all the Norman under-tenants
to fortify themselves, each in his own motte-castle. It is wiser, however, to delay
such speculations until we have the more exact information as to the number of
mottes in Scotland, which it is hoped will be furnished when the Royal
Commission on Historical Monuments has finished its work. But this work will
not be complete unless special attention is paid to the earthworks which now
form part of stone castles, and which are too often overlooked, even by
antiquaries. The New Statistical Account certainly raises the suspicion that there
are many more mottes north of the Forth than are recognised in the map alluded
to. In one district we are told that “almost every farm had its knap.”
“Forfarshire,” p. 326.
[1005] Cited by Fordun, v., 43.
[1006] Benedict of Peterborough, i., 68, R. S.
[1007] Fordun, v., 26. Bower in one of his interpolations to Fordun’s Annals,
tells how a Highlander named Gillescop burnt certain wooden castles (quasdam
munitiones ligneas) in Moray. Skene’s Fordun, ii., 435.
[994] The passage of the river Lune in Lancashire is similarly defended by the
mottes of Melling and Arkholme.
[995] The dates given are those of the Brut, and probably two years too early.
[996] Meyrick’s History of Cardigan, p. 146.
[997] Meyrick’s History of Cardigan, p. 146.
[998] Lewis’s Topographical Dictionary.
[999] We do not include the castles which the Welsh rebuilt. Thus in 1194 we are
told that Rhys built the castle of Kidwelly, which he certainly only rebuilt.
[1000] Malcolm Canmore himself had passed nearly fourteen years in England.
Fordun, iv., 45.
[1001] Burton remarks: “To the Lowland Scot, as well as to the Saxon, the
Norman was what a clever man, highly educated and trained in the great world
of politics, is to the same man who has spent his days in a village.” History of
Scotland, i., 353.
[1002] Dr Round has brought to light the significant fact that King David took
his chancellor straight from the English chancery, where he had been a clerk.
This first chancellor of Scotland was the founder of the great Comyn family. The
Ancestor, 10, 108.
[1003] Fordun, Annalia, vol. iv.
[1004] It is tempting to connect the extraordinary preponderance of mottes, as
shown by Dr Christison’s map, in the shires which made up ancient Galloway
(Wigton, Kirkcudbright, and Dumfries) with the savage resistance offered by
Galloway, which may have made it necessary for all the Norman under-tenants
to fortify themselves, each in his own motte-castle. It is wiser, however, to delay
such speculations until we have the more exact information as to the number of
mottes in Scotland, which it is hoped will be furnished when the Royal
Commission on Historical Monuments has finished its work. But this work will
not be complete unless special attention is paid to the earthworks which now
form part of stone castles, and which are too often overlooked, even by
antiquaries. The New Statistical Account certainly raises the suspicion that there
are many more mottes north of the Forth than are recognised in the map alluded
to. In one district we are told that “almost every farm had its knap.”
“Forfarshire,” p. 326.
[1005] Cited by Fordun, v., 43.
[1006] Benedict of Peterborough, i., 68, R. S.
[1007] Fordun, v., 26. Bower in one of his interpolations to Fordun’s Annals,
tells how a Highlander named Gillescop burnt certain wooden castles (quasdam
munitiones ligneas) in Moray. Skene’s Fordun, ii., 435.
Page 431
[1008] That Fordun should speak of the castra and municipia of Macduff is not
surprising, seeing that he wrote in the 14th century, when a noble without a
castle was a thing unthinkable.
[1009] Burton actually thought that the Normans built no castles in Scotland in
the 12th century. Messrs MacGibbon and Ross remark that there is not one
example of civil or military architecture of the 12th century, while there are so
many fine specimens of ecclesiastical. Castellated Architecture of Scotland, i.,
63. It is just to add that when speaking of the castles of William the Lion, they
say: “It is highly probable that these and other castles of the 13th century were of
the primeval kind, consisting of palisaded earthen mounds and ditches.” Ibid.,
iii. 6.
surprising, seeing that he wrote in the 14th century, when a noble without a
castle was a thing unthinkable.
[1009] Burton actually thought that the Normans built no castles in Scotland in
the 12th century. Messrs MacGibbon and Ross remark that there is not one
example of civil or military architecture of the 12th century, while there are so
many fine specimens of ecclesiastical. Castellated Architecture of Scotland, i.,
63. It is just to add that when speaking of the castles of William the Lion, they
say: “It is highly probable that these and other castles of the 13th century were of
the primeval kind, consisting of palisaded earthen mounds and ditches.” Ibid.,
iii. 6.
Page 432
[1010] Mote is the word used in Scotland, as in the north of England,
Pembrokeshire, and Ireland, for the Norman motte. As the word is still a living
word in Scotland, its original sense has been partly lost, and it seems to be now
applied to some defensive works which are not mottes at all. But the true motes
of Scotland entirely resemble the mottes of France and England.
[1011] Scottish Review, xxxii., 232.
[1012] Scottish Review, xxxii., 232.
[1013] Ibid., p. 236.
[1014] This list is mainly compiled from Chalmers’ Caledonia, vol. i., book iv.,
ch. i. The letter C. refers to Dr Christison’s Early Fortifications in Scotland; N.,
to Mr Neilson’s paper in the Scottish Review, 1898; O.M., to the 25-inch
Ordnance Map; G., to the Gazetteer of Scotland. It is a matter of great regret to
the writer that she has been unable to do any personal visitation of the Scottish
castles, except in the cases of Roxburgh and Jedburgh. It is therefore impossible
to be absolutely certain that all the hillocks mentioned in this list are true mottes,
or whether all of them still exist.
[1015] Registrum Magni Sigilli, quoted by Christison, p. 19.
[1016] A plan is given by Mr Coles in “the Motes, Forts, and Doons of
Kirkcudbright.” Soc. Ant. Scot., 1891-1892.
[1017] M‘Ferlie, Lands and Their Owners in Galloway, ii., 47.
[1018] This description, taken from the Gazetteer, seems clear, but Mr Neilson
tells me the site is more probably Woody Castle, which is styled a manor in the
15th century. The N. S. A. says: “There is the site of an ancient castle close to
the town, on a mound of considerable height, called the Castle Hill, which is
surrounded by a deep moat.” “Dumfries,” p. 383.
[1019] Annals, ii., 196, cited in Douglas’s History of the Border Counties, 173.
[1020] Round, in The Ancestor, 10, 108.
[1021] Dr Christison distinctly marks one on his map, but Mr Coles says there is
no trace of one, though the name Marl Mount is preserved. Soc. Ant. Scot., 1892,
p. 108.
[1022] See the Aberdeen volume, p. 1092.
[1023] See Grose’s picture, which is confirmed by Dr Ross.
[1024] The name Tom-a-mhoid is derived by some writers from the Gaelic Tom,
a tumulus (Welsh Tomen) and moid, a meeting. Is there such a word for a
meeting in Gaelic? If there is, it must be derived from Anglo-Saxon mot or
gemot. But there is no need to go to Gaelic for this word, as it is clear from the
Registrum Magni Sigilli that moit was a common version of mote, and meant a
castle hill, the mota or mons castri, as it is often called.
[1025] Chalmers, Caledonia, iii., 864. Sir Archibald Lawrie, however, regards it
as doubtful whether Arkel was the ancestor of the earls of Lennox. Early
Pembrokeshire, and Ireland, for the Norman motte. As the word is still a living
word in Scotland, its original sense has been partly lost, and it seems to be now
applied to some defensive works which are not mottes at all. But the true motes
of Scotland entirely resemble the mottes of France and England.
[1011] Scottish Review, xxxii., 232.
[1012] Scottish Review, xxxii., 232.
[1013] Ibid., p. 236.
[1014] This list is mainly compiled from Chalmers’ Caledonia, vol. i., book iv.,
ch. i. The letter C. refers to Dr Christison’s Early Fortifications in Scotland; N.,
to Mr Neilson’s paper in the Scottish Review, 1898; O.M., to the 25-inch
Ordnance Map; G., to the Gazetteer of Scotland. It is a matter of great regret to
the writer that she has been unable to do any personal visitation of the Scottish
castles, except in the cases of Roxburgh and Jedburgh. It is therefore impossible
to be absolutely certain that all the hillocks mentioned in this list are true mottes,
or whether all of them still exist.
[1015] Registrum Magni Sigilli, quoted by Christison, p. 19.
[1016] A plan is given by Mr Coles in “the Motes, Forts, and Doons of
Kirkcudbright.” Soc. Ant. Scot., 1891-1892.
[1017] M‘Ferlie, Lands and Their Owners in Galloway, ii., 47.
[1018] This description, taken from the Gazetteer, seems clear, but Mr Neilson
tells me the site is more probably Woody Castle, which is styled a manor in the
15th century. The N. S. A. says: “There is the site of an ancient castle close to
the town, on a mound of considerable height, called the Castle Hill, which is
surrounded by a deep moat.” “Dumfries,” p. 383.
[1019] Annals, ii., 196, cited in Douglas’s History of the Border Counties, 173.
[1020] Round, in The Ancestor, 10, 108.
[1021] Dr Christison distinctly marks one on his map, but Mr Coles says there is
no trace of one, though the name Marl Mount is preserved. Soc. Ant. Scot., 1892,
p. 108.
[1022] See the Aberdeen volume, p. 1092.
[1023] See Grose’s picture, which is confirmed by Dr Ross.
[1024] The name Tom-a-mhoid is derived by some writers from the Gaelic Tom,
a tumulus (Welsh Tomen) and moid, a meeting. Is there such a word for a
meeting in Gaelic? If there is, it must be derived from Anglo-Saxon mot or
gemot. But there is no need to go to Gaelic for this word, as it is clear from the
Registrum Magni Sigilli that moit was a common version of mote, and meant a
castle hill, the mota or mons castri, as it is often called.
[1025] Chalmers, Caledonia, iii., 864. Sir Archibald Lawrie, however, regards it
as doubtful whether Arkel was the ancestor of the earls of Lennox. Early
Page 433
Scottish Charters, p. 327.
[1026] M‘Ferlie, Lands and Their Owners in Galloway, ii., 140-141.
[1027] See plan in MacGibbon and Ross, Castellated Architecture, iv., 341.
[1028] The name Maccus is undoubtedly the same as Magnus, a Latin adjective
much affected as a proper name by the Norwegians of the 11th and 12th
centuries.
[1029] Lawrie, Early Scottish Charters, p. 273.
[1030] MacGibbon and Ross, i., 279.
[1031] Proceedings of Soc. Ant. Scotland, xxxi., and N. S. A.
[1032] See Armstrong’s History of Liddesdale, cited by MacGibbon and Ross, i.,
523.
[1033] Round, The Ancestor, No. 11, 130.
[1034] Benedict of Peterborough, i., 67. See Mr Neilson’s papers in the
Dumfries Standard, June 28, 1899. Mr Neilson remarks: “It may well be that the
original castle of Dumfries was one of Malcolm IV.’s forts, and that the mote of
Troqueer, at the other side of a ford of the river, was the first little strength of the
series by which the Norman grip of the province was sought to be maintained.”
[1035] “Mottes, Forts, and Doons of Kirkcudbright,” Soc. Ant. Scot., xxv., 1890.
[1036] The Annals of the Four Masters mention the building of three castles
(caisteol) in Connaught in 1125, and the Annals of Ulster say that Tirlagh
O’Connor built a castle (caislen) at Athlone in 1129. What the nature of these
castles was it is now impossible to say, but there are no mottes at the three places
mentioned in Connaught (Dunlo, Galway, and Coloony). The caislen at Athlone
was not recognised by the Normans as a castle of their sort, as John built his
castle on a new site, on land obtained from the church. Sweetman’s Cal., p. 80.
[1037] The meagre entries in the various Irish Annals may often come from
contemporary sources, but as none of their MSS. are older than the 14th century,
they do not stand on the same level as the two authorities above mentioned.
[1038] “Hibernicus enim populus castella non curat; silvis namque pro castris,
paludibus utitur pro fossatis.” Top. Hib., 182, R. S., vol. v. In the same passage
he speaks of the “fossa infinita, alta nimis, rotunda quoque, et pleraque triplicia;
castella etiam murata, et adhuc integra, vacua tarnen et deserta,” which he
ascribes to the Northmen. This passage has been gravely adduced as an
argument in favour of the prehistoric existence of mottes! as though a round
ditch necessarily implied a round hill within it! Giraldus was probably alluding
to the round embankments or raths, of which such immense numbers are still to
be found in Ireland. By the “walled castles” he probably meant the stone
enclosures or cashels which are also so numerous in Ireland. In the time of
Giraldus the word castellum, though it had become the proper word for a private
castle, had not quite lost its original sense of a fortified enclosure of any kind, as
we know from the phrases “the castle and tower” or “the castle and motte” not
infrequent in documents of the 12th century (see Round’s Geoffrey de
[1026] M‘Ferlie, Lands and Their Owners in Galloway, ii., 140-141.
[1027] See plan in MacGibbon and Ross, Castellated Architecture, iv., 341.
[1028] The name Maccus is undoubtedly the same as Magnus, a Latin adjective
much affected as a proper name by the Norwegians of the 11th and 12th
centuries.
[1029] Lawrie, Early Scottish Charters, p. 273.
[1030] MacGibbon and Ross, i., 279.
[1031] Proceedings of Soc. Ant. Scotland, xxxi., and N. S. A.
[1032] See Armstrong’s History of Liddesdale, cited by MacGibbon and Ross, i.,
523.
[1033] Round, The Ancestor, No. 11, 130.
[1034] Benedict of Peterborough, i., 67. See Mr Neilson’s papers in the
Dumfries Standard, June 28, 1899. Mr Neilson remarks: “It may well be that the
original castle of Dumfries was one of Malcolm IV.’s forts, and that the mote of
Troqueer, at the other side of a ford of the river, was the first little strength of the
series by which the Norman grip of the province was sought to be maintained.”
[1035] “Mottes, Forts, and Doons of Kirkcudbright,” Soc. Ant. Scot., xxv., 1890.
[1036] The Annals of the Four Masters mention the building of three castles
(caisteol) in Connaught in 1125, and the Annals of Ulster say that Tirlagh
O’Connor built a castle (caislen) at Athlone in 1129. What the nature of these
castles was it is now impossible to say, but there are no mottes at the three places
mentioned in Connaught (Dunlo, Galway, and Coloony). The caislen at Athlone
was not recognised by the Normans as a castle of their sort, as John built his
castle on a new site, on land obtained from the church. Sweetman’s Cal., p. 80.
[1037] The meagre entries in the various Irish Annals may often come from
contemporary sources, but as none of their MSS. are older than the 14th century,
they do not stand on the same level as the two authorities above mentioned.
[1038] “Hibernicus enim populus castella non curat; silvis namque pro castris,
paludibus utitur pro fossatis.” Top. Hib., 182, R. S., vol. v. In the same passage
he speaks of the “fossa infinita, alta nimis, rotunda quoque, et pleraque triplicia;
castella etiam murata, et adhuc integra, vacua tarnen et deserta,” which he
ascribes to the Northmen. This passage has been gravely adduced as an
argument in favour of the prehistoric existence of mottes! as though a round
ditch necessarily implied a round hill within it! Giraldus was probably alluding
to the round embankments or raths, of which such immense numbers are still to
be found in Ireland. By the “walled castles” he probably meant the stone
enclosures or cashels which are also so numerous in Ireland. In the time of
Giraldus the word castellum, though it had become the proper word for a private
castle, had not quite lost its original sense of a fortified enclosure of any kind, as
we know from the phrases “the castle and tower” or “the castle and motte” not
infrequent in documents of the 12th century (see Round’s Geoffrey de
Page 434
Mandeville, Appendix O, p. 328). We may add that Giraldus’ attribution of these
prehistoric remains to Thorgils, the Norwegian, only shows that their origin was
unknown in his day.
[1039] See Expug. Hib., 383, 397, 398.
[1040] I am informed that the “Crith Gablach,” which gives a minute description
of one of these halls, is a very late document, and by no means to be trusted.
[1041] Vide the Irish Annals, passim.
[1042] There is another story, preserved in Hanmer’s Chronicle, that the Irish
chief Mac Mahon levelled two castles given to him by John de Courcy, saying
he had promised to hold not stones but land.
[1043] Joyce’s Irish Names of Places, p. 290.
[1044] See J. E. Lloyd, Cymmrodor, xi., 24; Skeat’s English Dictionary, “town.”
In the “Dindsenchas of Erin,” edited by O’Beirne Crowe, Journ. R. S. A. I.,
1872-1873, phrases occur, such as “the dun was open,” “she went back into the
dun,” which show clearly that the dun was an enclosure. In several passages dun
and cathair are interchanged.
[1045] Joyce, Irish Names of Places, p. 273.
[1046] Annals of the Four Masters, 1166.
[1047] See Orpen, “Motes and Norman Castles in Ireland,” in Journ. R. S. A. I.,
xxxvii., 143-147.
[1048] Sweetman’s Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland, i., 412.
[1049] That a motte-castle of earth and wood seemed to Giraldus quite an
adequate castle is proved by the fact that numbers of the castles which he
mentions have never had any stone defences. It may be a mere coincidence, but
it is worth noting, that there are no mottes now at any of the places which
Giraldus mentions as exilia municipia, Pembroke, Dundunnolf, Down City, and
Carrick.
[1050] This word must not be understood to mean that this new type of castle
was Edward’s invention, nor even that he was the first to introduce it into Europe
from Palestine; it was used by the Hohenstauffen emperors as early as 1224. See
Köhler, Entwickelung des Kriegswesen, iii., 475.
[1051] Newcastle, Worcester, Gloucester, and Bristol are instances.
[1052] Rhuddlan is an instance of this.
[1053] Book of Rights, p. 203.
[1054] It must be admitted that in the most recent and most learned edition of the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the topographical identifications are quite on a level with
O’Donovan’s.
[1055] The Annals have not been used, partly because in their present form they
are not contemporary, and partly because the difficulties of identifying many of
prehistoric remains to Thorgils, the Norwegian, only shows that their origin was
unknown in his day.
[1039] See Expug. Hib., 383, 397, 398.
[1040] I am informed that the “Crith Gablach,” which gives a minute description
of one of these halls, is a very late document, and by no means to be trusted.
[1041] Vide the Irish Annals, passim.
[1042] There is another story, preserved in Hanmer’s Chronicle, that the Irish
chief Mac Mahon levelled two castles given to him by John de Courcy, saying
he had promised to hold not stones but land.
[1043] Joyce’s Irish Names of Places, p. 290.
[1044] See J. E. Lloyd, Cymmrodor, xi., 24; Skeat’s English Dictionary, “town.”
In the “Dindsenchas of Erin,” edited by O’Beirne Crowe, Journ. R. S. A. I.,
1872-1873, phrases occur, such as “the dun was open,” “she went back into the
dun,” which show clearly that the dun was an enclosure. In several passages dun
and cathair are interchanged.
[1045] Joyce, Irish Names of Places, p. 273.
[1046] Annals of the Four Masters, 1166.
[1047] See Orpen, “Motes and Norman Castles in Ireland,” in Journ. R. S. A. I.,
xxxvii., 143-147.
[1048] Sweetman’s Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland, i., 412.
[1049] That a motte-castle of earth and wood seemed to Giraldus quite an
adequate castle is proved by the fact that numbers of the castles which he
mentions have never had any stone defences. It may be a mere coincidence, but
it is worth noting, that there are no mottes now at any of the places which
Giraldus mentions as exilia municipia, Pembroke, Dundunnolf, Down City, and
Carrick.
[1050] This word must not be understood to mean that this new type of castle
was Edward’s invention, nor even that he was the first to introduce it into Europe
from Palestine; it was used by the Hohenstauffen emperors as early as 1224. See
Köhler, Entwickelung des Kriegswesen, iii., 475.
[1051] Newcastle, Worcester, Gloucester, and Bristol are instances.
[1052] Rhuddlan is an instance of this.
[1053] Book of Rights, p. 203.
[1054] It must be admitted that in the most recent and most learned edition of the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the topographical identifications are quite on a level with
O’Donovan’s.
[1055] The Annals have not been used, partly because in their present form they
are not contemporary, and partly because the difficulties of identifying many of
Page 435
the castles they mention appeared insuperable.
[1056] See especially two papers on “Motes and Norman Castles in Ireland,” in
English Historical Review, vol. xxii., pp. 228, 240. Mr Orpen has further
enriched this subject by a number of papers in the Journ. R. S. A. I., to which
reference will be made subsequently.
[1057] The only castles still unidentified are Aq’i, Kilmehal, Rokerel, and
Inchleder.
[1058] It should be stated that the great majority of the castles in this list have
been visited for the writer by Mr Basil T. Stallybrass, who has a large
acquaintance with English earthworks, as well as a competent knowledge of the
history of architecture. The rest have been visited by the writer herself, except in
a few cases where the information given in Lewis’s Topographical Dictionary or
other sources was sufficient. The castles personally visited are initialled.
[1059] Annals of Loch Cè.
[1060] Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 249.
[1061] Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 450, citing from MS. Annals of Innisfallen.
[1062] The poetical list enumerates the places which were “of the right of Cashel
in its power.” The prose version, which may be assumed to be later, is entitled
“Do phortaibh righ Caisil,” which O’Donovan translates “of the seats of the king
of Cashel.” But can one small king have had sixty-one different abodes?
Professor Bury says “The Book of Rights still awaits a critical investigation.”
Life of St Patrick, p. 69.
[1063] Ibid., p. 449. See Westropp, Trans. R. I. A., xxvi. (c), p. 146. Mr Orpen
informs me that the Black Book of Limerick contains a charter of William de
Burgo which mentions “Ecclesia de Escluana alias Kilkyde.” No. cxxxv.
[1064] Journ. R. S. A. I., 1898, 155; and 1904, 354.
[1065] Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 452.
[1066] Butler’s Notices of the Castle of Trim, p. 13.
[1067] Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 458.
[1068] Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 441.
[1069] “Exile municipium,” Giraldus, 345. See Eng. Hist. Rev., xx., 717.
[1070] Annals of Ulster, 1177.
[1071] See Orpen, “Motes and Castles in County Louth,” Journ. R. S. A. I.,
xxxviii., 249. The town walls are later than the castle, and were built up to it.
[1072] Cited by Westropp, Journ. R. S. A. I., 1904, paper on “Irish Motes and
Early Norman Castles.”
[1073] Annals of Ulster, 1186.
[1074] Round, Cal. of Doc. preserved in France, i., 105, 107.
[1056] See especially two papers on “Motes and Norman Castles in Ireland,” in
English Historical Review, vol. xxii., pp. 228, 240. Mr Orpen has further
enriched this subject by a number of papers in the Journ. R. S. A. I., to which
reference will be made subsequently.
[1057] The only castles still unidentified are Aq’i, Kilmehal, Rokerel, and
Inchleder.
[1058] It should be stated that the great majority of the castles in this list have
been visited for the writer by Mr Basil T. Stallybrass, who has a large
acquaintance with English earthworks, as well as a competent knowledge of the
history of architecture. The rest have been visited by the writer herself, except in
a few cases where the information given in Lewis’s Topographical Dictionary or
other sources was sufficient. The castles personally visited are initialled.
[1059] Annals of Loch Cè.
[1060] Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 249.
[1061] Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 450, citing from MS. Annals of Innisfallen.
[1062] The poetical list enumerates the places which were “of the right of Cashel
in its power.” The prose version, which may be assumed to be later, is entitled
“Do phortaibh righ Caisil,” which O’Donovan translates “of the seats of the king
of Cashel.” But can one small king have had sixty-one different abodes?
Professor Bury says “The Book of Rights still awaits a critical investigation.”
Life of St Patrick, p. 69.
[1063] Ibid., p. 449. See Westropp, Trans. R. I. A., xxvi. (c), p. 146. Mr Orpen
informs me that the Black Book of Limerick contains a charter of William de
Burgo which mentions “Ecclesia de Escluana alias Kilkyde.” No. cxxxv.
[1064] Journ. R. S. A. I., 1898, 155; and 1904, 354.
[1065] Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 452.
[1066] Butler’s Notices of the Castle of Trim, p. 13.
[1067] Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 458.
[1068] Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 441.
[1069] “Exile municipium,” Giraldus, 345. See Eng. Hist. Rev., xx., 717.
[1070] Annals of Ulster, 1177.
[1071] See Orpen, “Motes and Castles in County Louth,” Journ. R. S. A. I.,
xxxviii., 249. The town walls are later than the castle, and were built up to it.
[1072] Cited by Westropp, Journ. R. S. A. I., 1904, paper on “Irish Motes and
Early Norman Castles.”
[1073] Annals of Ulster, 1186.
[1074] Round, Cal. of Doc. preserved in France, i., 105, 107.
Page 436
[1075] “On the Ancient Forts of Ireland,” Trans. R. I. A., 1902.
[1076] Orpen, “The Castle of Raymond le Gros at Fodredunolan,” Journ. R. S.
A. I., 1906.
[1077] Annals of Innisfallen.
[1078] Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 449.
[1079] “On some Caves in the Slieve na Cailliagh District,” by E. C. Rotheram,
Proc. R. I. A., 3rd ser., vol. iii. Mr Rotheram remarks that the passages in the
motte of Killallon, and that of Moat near Oldcastle, seem as if they were not
built by the same people as those who constructed the passages at Slieve na
Cailliagh.
[1080] Annals of Ulster.
[1081] Annals of Loch Cè.
[1082] Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 448.
[1083] Ibid., p. 242.
[1084] Annals of Ulster. See Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 443.
[1085] Annals of Ulster.
[1086] Annals of the Four Masters, vol. iii. See Orpen, Journ. R. S. A. I., vol.
xxxix., 1909.
[1087] Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 448. A place called Graffan is mentioned in
the Book of Rights, and on the strength of this mere mention it has been argued
that the motte is a prehistoric work. Trans. R. I. A., vol. xxxi., 1902.
[1088] Mr Orpen.
[1089] Giraldus’ words are: “Castrum Lechliniæ, super nobilem Beruæ fluvium,
a latere Ossiriæ, trans Odronam in loco natura munito.” V., 352. See Eng. Hist.
Rev., xxii., 245.
[1090] See Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 456, and Journ. R. S. A. I., xxxvii., 140.
[1091] Orpen, “Motes and Norman Castles in County Louth,” Journ. R. S. A. I.,
xxxviii., 241, from which paper the notice above is largely taken.
[1092] Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 242.
[1093] The castle is casually mentioned by Giraldus, v., 100, and the date of its
erection is not given.
[1094] As far as the writer’s experience goes, terraces are only found on mottes
which have at some time been incorporated in private gardens or grounds.
[1095] Journ. R. S. A. I., vol. xxxix., 1909.
[1096] Piers, Collect. de Rebus Hib., cited by Orpen.
[1076] Orpen, “The Castle of Raymond le Gros at Fodredunolan,” Journ. R. S.
A. I., 1906.
[1077] Annals of Innisfallen.
[1078] Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 449.
[1079] “On some Caves in the Slieve na Cailliagh District,” by E. C. Rotheram,
Proc. R. I. A., 3rd ser., vol. iii. Mr Rotheram remarks that the passages in the
motte of Killallon, and that of Moat near Oldcastle, seem as if they were not
built by the same people as those who constructed the passages at Slieve na
Cailliagh.
[1080] Annals of Ulster.
[1081] Annals of Loch Cè.
[1082] Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 448.
[1083] Ibid., p. 242.
[1084] Annals of Ulster. See Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 443.
[1085] Annals of Ulster.
[1086] Annals of the Four Masters, vol. iii. See Orpen, Journ. R. S. A. I., vol.
xxxix., 1909.
[1087] Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 448. A place called Graffan is mentioned in
the Book of Rights, and on the strength of this mere mention it has been argued
that the motte is a prehistoric work. Trans. R. I. A., vol. xxxi., 1902.
[1088] Mr Orpen.
[1089] Giraldus’ words are: “Castrum Lechliniæ, super nobilem Beruæ fluvium,
a latere Ossiriæ, trans Odronam in loco natura munito.” V., 352. See Eng. Hist.
Rev., xxii., 245.
[1090] See Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 456, and Journ. R. S. A. I., xxxvii., 140.
[1091] Orpen, “Motes and Norman Castles in County Louth,” Journ. R. S. A. I.,
xxxviii., 241, from which paper the notice above is largely taken.
[1092] Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 242.
[1093] The castle is casually mentioned by Giraldus, v., 100, and the date of its
erection is not given.
[1094] As far as the writer’s experience goes, terraces are only found on mottes
which have at some time been incorporated in private gardens or grounds.
[1095] Journ. R. S. A. I., vol. xxxix., 1909.
[1096] Piers, Collect. de Rebus Hib., cited by Orpen.
Page 437
[1097] Mr Orpen says: “The castle was ‘constructed anew’ in the sixth and
seventh years of Edward I., when £700 was expended.” Irish Pipe Rolls, 8
Edward I., cited in Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 454.
[1098] Line 3178.
[1099] The annular bailey, with the motte in the centre, is a most unusual
arrangement, and certainly suggests the idea that the motte was placed in an
existing Irish rath.
[1100] See Appendix M.
[1101] Annals of Loch Cè.
[1102] Giraldus, v., 313.
[1103] This keep has a square turret on each of its faces instead of at the angles.
A similar plan is found at Warkworth, and Castle Rushen, Isle of Man.
[1104] Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 248.
[1105] Figured in The Tomb of Ollamh Fodhla, by E. A. Conwell, 1873.
[1106] Gir., i., 255, 277.
[1107] Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 457.
[1108] In five cases the mottes are now destroyed.
[1109] The dates of the building of numbers of these castles are given in the
Annals of Ulster and the Annals of Loch Cè.
[1110] Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1232-1247.
[1111] The tower at Malling was supposed to be an early Norman keep by Mr G.
T. Clark (M. M. A., ii., 251), but it has recently been shown that it is purely an
ecclesiastical building.
[1112] The only stone castles of early date in France which the writer has been
able to visit are those of Langeais, Plessis Grimoult, Breteuil, and Le Mans. The
two latter are too ruinous to furnish data.
[1113] Given in D’Achery’s Spicilegium, iii., 232.
[1114] This can be positively stated of Baugé, Montrichard, Montboyau, St
Florent-le-Vieil, Chateaufort, and Chérament. M. de Salies thinks the motte of
Bazonneau, about 500 metres from the ruins of the castle of Montbazon, is the
original castle of Fulk Nerra. Histoire de Fulk Nerra, 57. About the other castles
the writer has not been able to obtain any information.
[1115] See Halphen, Comté d’Anjou au xiième Siècle, 153.
[1116] The building of Langeais was begun in 994. Chron. St Florent, and
Richerius, 274.
[1117] It somewhat shakes one’s confidence in De Caumont’s accuracy that in
the sketch which he gives of this keep (Abécédaire, ii., 409) he altogether omits
seventh years of Edward I., when £700 was expended.” Irish Pipe Rolls, 8
Edward I., cited in Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 454.
[1098] Line 3178.
[1099] The annular bailey, with the motte in the centre, is a most unusual
arrangement, and certainly suggests the idea that the motte was placed in an
existing Irish rath.
[1100] See Appendix M.
[1101] Annals of Loch Cè.
[1102] Giraldus, v., 313.
[1103] This keep has a square turret on each of its faces instead of at the angles.
A similar plan is found at Warkworth, and Castle Rushen, Isle of Man.
[1104] Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 248.
[1105] Figured in The Tomb of Ollamh Fodhla, by E. A. Conwell, 1873.
[1106] Gir., i., 255, 277.
[1107] Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii., 457.
[1108] In five cases the mottes are now destroyed.
[1109] The dates of the building of numbers of these castles are given in the
Annals of Ulster and the Annals of Loch Cè.
[1110] Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1232-1247.
[1111] The tower at Malling was supposed to be an early Norman keep by Mr G.
T. Clark (M. M. A., ii., 251), but it has recently been shown that it is purely an
ecclesiastical building.
[1112] The only stone castles of early date in France which the writer has been
able to visit are those of Langeais, Plessis Grimoult, Breteuil, and Le Mans. The
two latter are too ruinous to furnish data.
[1113] Given in D’Achery’s Spicilegium, iii., 232.
[1114] This can be positively stated of Baugé, Montrichard, Montboyau, St
Florent-le-Vieil, Chateaufort, and Chérament. M. de Salies thinks the motte of
Bazonneau, about 500 metres from the ruins of the castle of Montbazon, is the
original castle of Fulk Nerra. Histoire de Fulk Nerra, 57. About the other castles
the writer has not been able to obtain any information.
[1115] See Halphen, Comté d’Anjou au xiième Siècle, 153.
[1116] The building of Langeais was begun in 994. Chron. St Florent, and
Richerius, 274.
[1117] It somewhat shakes one’s confidence in De Caumont’s accuracy that in
the sketch which he gives of this keep (Abécédaire, ii., 409) he altogether omits
Page 438
this doorway.
[1118] Measurements were impossible without a ladder.
[1119] It is well known that William the Conqueror left large treasures at his
death.
[1120] The keep of Colchester is immensely larger than any keep in existence.
Mr Round thinks it was probably built to defend the eastern counties against
Danish invasions. Hist. of Colchester Castle, p. 32. Its immense size seems to
show that it was intended for a large garrison.
[1121] Cours d’Antiquités Monumentales, v., 152, and Abécédaire, ii., 413-431.
De Caumont says of the keep of Colchester, “il me parait d’une antiquité moins
certaine que celui de Guildford, et on pourrait le croire du douzième siècle” (p.
205), a remark which considerably shakes one’s confidence in his architectural
judgment.
[1122] As only the foundations of Pevensey are left, it gives little help in
determining the character of early keeps. It had no basement entrance, and the
forebuilding is evidently later than the keep.
[1123] The Tower had once a forebuilding, which is clearly shown in Hollar’s
etching of 1646, and other ancient drawings. Mr Harold Sands, who has made a
special study of the Tower, believes it to have been a late 12th-century addition.
[1124] Tiles are not used in the Tower, but some of the older arches of the arcade
on the top floor have voussoirs of rag, evidently continuing the tradition of tiles.
Most of the arches at Colchester are headed with tiles.
[1125] The room supposed to be the chapel in Bamborough keep has a round
apse, but with no external projection, being formed in the thickness of the wall.
The keep of Pevensey has three extraordinary apse-like projections of solid
masonry attached to its foundations. See Mr Harold Sands’ Report of
Excavations at Pevensey.
[1126] “In the course of the 12th century, the base of the walls was thickened
into a plinth, in order better to resist the battering ram.” (Manuel d’Archæologie
Française, ii., 463.) The keep of Pevensey has a battering plinth which is clearly
original, and which throws doubt either on this theory of the plinth, or on the age
of the building.
[1127] It is well known that blocks of huge size are employed in Anglo-Saxon
architecture, but generally only as quoins or first courses. See Baldwin Brown,
The Arts in Early England, ii., 326.
[1128] Baldwin Brown, “Statistics of Saxon Churches,” Builder, Sept. 1900.
[1129] Mr Round gives ground for thinking that this keep was built between
1080 and 1085. Colchester Castle, p. 32.
[1130] Piper’s Burgenkunde, p. 85.
[1131] Schulz, Das Hofische Leben zur Zeit der Minnesinger, i., 59. Grose
writes of Bamborough Castle: “The only fireplace in it was a grate in the middle
[1118] Measurements were impossible without a ladder.
[1119] It is well known that William the Conqueror left large treasures at his
death.
[1120] The keep of Colchester is immensely larger than any keep in existence.
Mr Round thinks it was probably built to defend the eastern counties against
Danish invasions. Hist. of Colchester Castle, p. 32. Its immense size seems to
show that it was intended for a large garrison.
[1121] Cours d’Antiquités Monumentales, v., 152, and Abécédaire, ii., 413-431.
De Caumont says of the keep of Colchester, “il me parait d’une antiquité moins
certaine que celui de Guildford, et on pourrait le croire du douzième siècle” (p.
205), a remark which considerably shakes one’s confidence in his architectural
judgment.
[1122] As only the foundations of Pevensey are left, it gives little help in
determining the character of early keeps. It had no basement entrance, and the
forebuilding is evidently later than the keep.
[1123] The Tower had once a forebuilding, which is clearly shown in Hollar’s
etching of 1646, and other ancient drawings. Mr Harold Sands, who has made a
special study of the Tower, believes it to have been a late 12th-century addition.
[1124] Tiles are not used in the Tower, but some of the older arches of the arcade
on the top floor have voussoirs of rag, evidently continuing the tradition of tiles.
Most of the arches at Colchester are headed with tiles.
[1125] The room supposed to be the chapel in Bamborough keep has a round
apse, but with no external projection, being formed in the thickness of the wall.
The keep of Pevensey has three extraordinary apse-like projections of solid
masonry attached to its foundations. See Mr Harold Sands’ Report of
Excavations at Pevensey.
[1126] “In the course of the 12th century, the base of the walls was thickened
into a plinth, in order better to resist the battering ram.” (Manuel d’Archæologie
Française, ii., 463.) The keep of Pevensey has a battering plinth which is clearly
original, and which throws doubt either on this theory of the plinth, or on the age
of the building.
[1127] It is well known that blocks of huge size are employed in Anglo-Saxon
architecture, but generally only as quoins or first courses. See Baldwin Brown,
The Arts in Early England, ii., 326.
[1128] Baldwin Brown, “Statistics of Saxon Churches,” Builder, Sept. 1900.
[1129] Mr Round gives ground for thinking that this keep was built between
1080 and 1085. Colchester Castle, p. 32.
[1130] Piper’s Burgenkunde, p. 85.
[1131] Schulz, Das Hofische Leben zur Zeit der Minnesinger, i., 59. Grose
writes of Bamborough Castle: “The only fireplace in it was a grate in the middle
Page 439
of a large room, where some stones in the middle of the floor are burned red.”
He gives no authority. Antiquities of England and Wales, iv., 57.
[1132] “The type of castle created in the 10th century persisted till the
Renascence.” Enlart, Manuel d’Archæologie, ii., 516.
[1133] See Appendix N.
[1134] Enlart, Manuel d’Archæologie, ii., 516. “Jusqu’au milieu du xiiième
siècle, et dans les exemples les plus simples des époques qui suivent, le donjon
est bien près de constituer à lui seul tout le château.”
[1135] Abriss der Burgenkunde, 50-60.
[1136] Entwickelung des Kriegswesen, iii., 352 and 428. No continental writers
are entirely to be trusted about English castles; they generally get their
information from Clark, and it is generally wrong.
[1137] This of course explains why the castle of London is always called The
Tower; it was originally the only tower in the fortress.
[1138] The Close Rolls mention palicia or stockades at the castles of Norwich,
York, Devizes, Oxford, Sarum, Fotheringay, Hereford, Mountsorel, and Dover.
[1139] Close Rolls, i., 195a and 389.
[1140] See Chapter VI., p. 89, and Appendix O.
[1141] Piper states that the evidence of remains proves that the lower storey was
a prison. But these remains probably belong to a later date, when the donjon had
been abandoned as a residence, and was becoming the dungeon to which
prisoners were committed. The top storey of the keep was often used in early
times as a prison for important offenders, such as Conan of Rouen, William, the
brother of Duke Richard II., and Ranulf Flambard.
[1142] See Appendix P.
[1143] At Conisburgh and Orford castles there are ovens on the roofs, showing
that the cooking was carried on there; these are keeps of Henry II.’s time.
[1144] De Caumont says these remains are on a motte, a strange statement, as
they are only a foot or two above the surrounding level.
[1145] No stone castles in England are known to have been built by William
Rufus; he built Carlisle Castle, but probably only in wood. As we have seen,
several Welsh castles were built in his time, but all in earth and timber.
[1146] Built by Archbishop William of Corbeuil. Gervase of Canterbury, R. S.,
ii., 382.
[1147] Robert de Torigny, also called Robert de Monte, was Abbot of Mont St
Michael during the lifetime of Henry II., and was a favoured courtier whose
means of obtaining information were specially good. French writers are in the
habit of discounting his statements, because they do not recognise the almost
He gives no authority. Antiquities of England and Wales, iv., 57.
[1132] “The type of castle created in the 10th century persisted till the
Renascence.” Enlart, Manuel d’Archæologie, ii., 516.
[1133] See Appendix N.
[1134] Enlart, Manuel d’Archæologie, ii., 516. “Jusqu’au milieu du xiiième
siècle, et dans les exemples les plus simples des époques qui suivent, le donjon
est bien près de constituer à lui seul tout le château.”
[1135] Abriss der Burgenkunde, 50-60.
[1136] Entwickelung des Kriegswesen, iii., 352 and 428. No continental writers
are entirely to be trusted about English castles; they generally get their
information from Clark, and it is generally wrong.
[1137] This of course explains why the castle of London is always called The
Tower; it was originally the only tower in the fortress.
[1138] The Close Rolls mention palicia or stockades at the castles of Norwich,
York, Devizes, Oxford, Sarum, Fotheringay, Hereford, Mountsorel, and Dover.
[1139] Close Rolls, i., 195a and 389.
[1140] See Chapter VI., p. 89, and Appendix O.
[1141] Piper states that the evidence of remains proves that the lower storey was
a prison. But these remains probably belong to a later date, when the donjon had
been abandoned as a residence, and was becoming the dungeon to which
prisoners were committed. The top storey of the keep was often used in early
times as a prison for important offenders, such as Conan of Rouen, William, the
brother of Duke Richard II., and Ranulf Flambard.
[1142] See Appendix P.
[1143] At Conisburgh and Orford castles there are ovens on the roofs, showing
that the cooking was carried on there; these are keeps of Henry II.’s time.
[1144] De Caumont says these remains are on a motte, a strange statement, as
they are only a foot or two above the surrounding level.
[1145] No stone castles in England are known to have been built by William
Rufus; he built Carlisle Castle, but probably only in wood. As we have seen,
several Welsh castles were built in his time, but all in earth and timber.
[1146] Built by Archbishop William of Corbeuil. Gervase of Canterbury, R. S.,
ii., 382.
[1147] Robert de Torigny, also called Robert de Monte, was Abbot of Mont St
Michael during the lifetime of Henry II., and was a favoured courtier whose
means of obtaining information were specially good. French writers are in the
habit of discounting his statements, because they do not recognise the almost
Page 440
universal precedence of a wooden castle to the stone building, which when it is
recognised, completely alters the perspective of castle dates. See Appendix Q.
[1148] The keep of Caen, which was square, was demolished in 1793. De
Caumont, Cours d’Antiquités, v., 231. The keep of Alençon is also destroyed.
There are fragments of castles at Argentan, Exmes, and St Jean-le-Thomas. The
keep of Vernon or Vernonnet is embedded in a factory. Guide Joanne, p. 6.
[1149] The writer has also visited Vire and Le Mans, but even if the walls of the
keep of Vire, of which only two sides remain, were the work of Henry I., the
details, such as the corbelled lintel, the window benches, and the loop in the
basement for a crossbow, point to a later period. At Le Mans, to the north of the
cathedral, is a fragment of an ancient tower, built of the rudest rubble, with small
quoins of ashlar; this may be the keep built by William I., which Wace says was
of stone and lime (p. 234, Andresen’s edition). It is difficult to examine, being
built up with cottages. Domfront, like Langeais, is only a fragment, consisting of
two walls and some foundations.
[1150] Dictionnaire de l’Architecture.
[1151] M. M. A., i., 186.
[1152] In speaking of Falaise, of course we only mean the great square keep, and
not the Little Donjon attached to it at a later period, nor the fine round keep
added by Talbot in the 15th century.
[1153] Small spaces, such as the chapel, passages, and mural chambers, are
vaulted in most keeps.
[1154] Colchester keep has only two storeys now, but Mr Round argues that it
must have had three, as a stairway leads upward from the second floor, in the
N.W. tower, and some fragments of window cases remain as evidence.
Colchester Castle, p. 92.
[1155] The Tower and Colchester keep both have wells, which are seldom
wanting in any keep. There was no appearance of a well at Langeais, but
excavation might possibly reveal one.
[1156] The first castle at Corfe was built by William’s half-brother, Robert,
Count of Mortain. The keep of Corfe is sometimes attributed to him, but when
we compare its masonry with that of the early hall or chapel in the middle bailey,
we shall see that this date is most unlikely. Norwich was always a royal castle.
[1157] Part of the basement of Norwich keep has pillars, from which it has been
assumed that it was vaulted; but no trace of vaulting is to be seen.
[1158] The only decoration at Corfe keep is in the oratory, which being at a vast
height in one of the ruined walls is inaccessible to the ordinary visitor. Corfe was
so much pulled about by Sir Christopher Hatton in Elizabeth’s reign, and is now
so ruinous, that many features are obscure. Norwich has suffered greatly from
restorations, and from re-casing.
[1159] In 1184 Henry II. paid “for re-roofing the tower of Gisors.” Rotuli Scacc.
Normanniæ, i., 72.
recognised, completely alters the perspective of castle dates. See Appendix Q.
[1148] The keep of Caen, which was square, was demolished in 1793. De
Caumont, Cours d’Antiquités, v., 231. The keep of Alençon is also destroyed.
There are fragments of castles at Argentan, Exmes, and St Jean-le-Thomas. The
keep of Vernon or Vernonnet is embedded in a factory. Guide Joanne, p. 6.
[1149] The writer has also visited Vire and Le Mans, but even if the walls of the
keep of Vire, of which only two sides remain, were the work of Henry I., the
details, such as the corbelled lintel, the window benches, and the loop in the
basement for a crossbow, point to a later period. At Le Mans, to the north of the
cathedral, is a fragment of an ancient tower, built of the rudest rubble, with small
quoins of ashlar; this may be the keep built by William I., which Wace says was
of stone and lime (p. 234, Andresen’s edition). It is difficult to examine, being
built up with cottages. Domfront, like Langeais, is only a fragment, consisting of
two walls and some foundations.
[1150] Dictionnaire de l’Architecture.
[1151] M. M. A., i., 186.
[1152] In speaking of Falaise, of course we only mean the great square keep, and
not the Little Donjon attached to it at a later period, nor the fine round keep
added by Talbot in the 15th century.
[1153] Small spaces, such as the chapel, passages, and mural chambers, are
vaulted in most keeps.
[1154] Colchester keep has only two storeys now, but Mr Round argues that it
must have had three, as a stairway leads upward from the second floor, in the
N.W. tower, and some fragments of window cases remain as evidence.
Colchester Castle, p. 92.
[1155] The Tower and Colchester keep both have wells, which are seldom
wanting in any keep. There was no appearance of a well at Langeais, but
excavation might possibly reveal one.
[1156] The first castle at Corfe was built by William’s half-brother, Robert,
Count of Mortain. The keep of Corfe is sometimes attributed to him, but when
we compare its masonry with that of the early hall or chapel in the middle bailey,
we shall see that this date is most unlikely. Norwich was always a royal castle.
[1157] Part of the basement of Norwich keep has pillars, from which it has been
assumed that it was vaulted; but no trace of vaulting is to be seen.
[1158] The only decoration at Corfe keep is in the oratory, which being at a vast
height in one of the ruined walls is inaccessible to the ordinary visitor. Corfe was
so much pulled about by Sir Christopher Hatton in Elizabeth’s reign, and is now
so ruinous, that many features are obscure. Norwich has suffered greatly from
restorations, and from re-casing.
[1159] In 1184 Henry II. paid “for re-roofing the tower of Gisors.” Rotuli Scacc.
Normanniæ, i., 72.
Page 441
[1160] It should be remembered that rude work is not invariably a sign of age; it
may only show haste, or poverty of resources. It should also be mentioned that
in the Exchequer Rolls of Normandy there is an entry of £650 in 1184 for several
works at Gisors, including “the wall round the motte” (murum circa motam).
Possibly this may refer to a wall round the foot of the motte, which seems still to
exist. The shell wall of Gisors should be compared with that of Lincoln, which is
probably of the first half of the 12th century.
[1161] No decagonal tower of Henry I.’s work is known to exist; all his tower
keeps are square.
[1162] Bower, Scotichronicon, v., 42. This passage was first pointed out by Mr
George Neilson in Notes and Queries, 8th ser., viii., 321. The keep of Carlisle
has been so much pulled about as to obscure most of its features. The present
entrance to the basement is not original.
[1163] M. M. A., i., 353.
[1164] Unfortunately the greater part of these valuable Rolls is still unpublished.
The Pipe Roll Society is issuing a volume every year, and this year (1910) has
reached the 28th Henry II.
[1165] The keeps of Richmond and Bowes were only finished by Henry II.;
Richmond was begun by Earl Conan, who died in 1170, when Henry appears to
have taken up the work. Bowes was another of Earl Conan’s castles. Tickhill is
now destroyed to the foundations, but it is clear that it was a tower. The writer
has examined all the keeps mentioned in this list. It will be noticed that most of
the towers took many years to build.
[1166] Henry built one shell keep of rubble and rag, that of Berkeley Castle,
which is not mentioned in the Pipe Rolls, having been built before his accession.
It is noteworthy that he did not build it for himself, but for his ally, Robert Fitz
Hardinge.
[1167] The basement storey of Chester keep (the only part which now remains)
is also vaulted, but this can scarcely be Henry’s work, for though he spent £102
on this castle in 1159, it must have been begun by Ranulf, Earl of Chester, in
Stephen’s reign. Moreover, it is doubtful whether the vaulting, which is covered
by whitewash, is really ancient.
[1168] Leland says of Wark, “the dongeon is made of foure howses hight,” but
probably he included the basement.
[1169] The earliest instance of a portcullis groove with which the writer is
acquainted is in the basement entrance of Colchester. It is obvious to anyone
who carefully examines this entrance and the great stair to the left of it that they
are additions of a later time than William’s work. The details seem to point to
Henry I.’s reign. The keep of Rochester has also a portcullis groove which seems
to be a later addition.
[1170] King, paper on Canterbury Castle in Archæologia, vi., 298. We have not
observed in any English keeps (except in this single instance) any of the
elaborate plans to entrap the enemy which M. Viollet le Duc describes in his
may only show haste, or poverty of resources. It should also be mentioned that
in the Exchequer Rolls of Normandy there is an entry of £650 in 1184 for several
works at Gisors, including “the wall round the motte” (murum circa motam).
Possibly this may refer to a wall round the foot of the motte, which seems still to
exist. The shell wall of Gisors should be compared with that of Lincoln, which is
probably of the first half of the 12th century.
[1161] No decagonal tower of Henry I.’s work is known to exist; all his tower
keeps are square.
[1162] Bower, Scotichronicon, v., 42. This passage was first pointed out by Mr
George Neilson in Notes and Queries, 8th ser., viii., 321. The keep of Carlisle
has been so much pulled about as to obscure most of its features. The present
entrance to the basement is not original.
[1163] M. M. A., i., 353.
[1164] Unfortunately the greater part of these valuable Rolls is still unpublished.
The Pipe Roll Society is issuing a volume every year, and this year (1910) has
reached the 28th Henry II.
[1165] The keeps of Richmond and Bowes were only finished by Henry II.;
Richmond was begun by Earl Conan, who died in 1170, when Henry appears to
have taken up the work. Bowes was another of Earl Conan’s castles. Tickhill is
now destroyed to the foundations, but it is clear that it was a tower. The writer
has examined all the keeps mentioned in this list. It will be noticed that most of
the towers took many years to build.
[1166] Henry built one shell keep of rubble and rag, that of Berkeley Castle,
which is not mentioned in the Pipe Rolls, having been built before his accession.
It is noteworthy that he did not build it for himself, but for his ally, Robert Fitz
Hardinge.
[1167] The basement storey of Chester keep (the only part which now remains)
is also vaulted, but this can scarcely be Henry’s work, for though he spent £102
on this castle in 1159, it must have been begun by Ranulf, Earl of Chester, in
Stephen’s reign. Moreover, it is doubtful whether the vaulting, which is covered
by whitewash, is really ancient.
[1168] Leland says of Wark, “the dongeon is made of foure howses hight,” but
probably he included the basement.
[1169] The earliest instance of a portcullis groove with which the writer is
acquainted is in the basement entrance of Colchester. It is obvious to anyone
who carefully examines this entrance and the great stair to the left of it that they
are additions of a later time than William’s work. The details seem to point to
Henry I.’s reign. The keep of Rochester has also a portcullis groove which seems
to be a later addition.
[1170] King, paper on Canterbury Castle in Archæologia, vi., 298. We have not
observed in any English keeps (except in this single instance) any of the
elaborate plans to entrap the enemy which M. Viollet le Duc describes in his
Page 442
article on Donjons. He was an imaginative writer, and many of his statements
should not be accepted without reserve.
[1171] Wark was also an octagonal keep, but there is considerable doubt whether
this octagonal building was the work of Henry II., as Lord Dacre wrote to
Wolsey in 1519 concerning Wark that “the dongeon is clerely finished,” and
mentions that all the storeys but one were vaulted with stone. This makes it
almost certain that the castle of Wark was entirely rebuilt at this time, after
having been demolished by the Scots in 1460. It is now an utter ruin, and even
the foundations of the keep are buried.
[1172] At Thorne, near Doncaster, where the great earls Warenne had a castle,
there are the foundations, on a motte, of a keep which seems to resemble that of
Orford; it ought to be thoroughly excavated.
[1173] These measurements are from Grose, Antiquities, v., 74.
[1174] See Payne Gallwey, The Crossbow, 309; Köhler, Kriegswesen, iii., 192.
The trébuchet is first mentioned at the siege of Piacenza in 1199.
[1175] As far as we can tell, the tops of keeps having generally been ruined or
altered, the common arrangement was either a simple gable, or two gables
resting on a cross wall, such as all the larger keeps possessed.
[1176] Another consequence of the introduction of an engine of longer range
was the widening of castle ditches. We frequently find works on ditches
mentioned in John’s accounts.
[1177] Payne Gallwey, The Crossbow, p. 3. We find it used by Louis VI. of
France, before 1137. Suger’s Gesta Ludovici, 10 (ed. Molinier). Ten balistarii are
mentioned in Domesday Book, but they may have been engineers of the great
balista, a siege machine. There is no representation of a crossbow in the Bayeux
Tapestry. There are entries in the Pipe Rolls of 6, 8, and 9 Henry II. of payments
for arbelast, but these also may refer to the great balista.
[1178] Guill. Brit. Armorici Philippides, Bouquet xvii., line 315.
[1179] The bow brought by Richard from Palestine is believed to have been an
improved form of crossbow, made of horn and yew, “light, elastic, and far more
powerful than a bow of solid wood.” Payne Gallwey, The Crossbow.
[1180] “Fenestris arcubalistaribus,” Bouquet xvii., 75. The writer has never
found a single defensive loophole in any of the keeps of Henry I. or Henry II.
Köhler remarks that the loopholes up to this period do not seem to be intended
for shooting (Entwickelung des Kriegswesen, iii., 409), and Clark has some
similar observations.
[1181] Dictionnaire de l’Architecture, art. “Meurtrière.”
[1182] Meyrick in his Ancient Armour quotes a charter of 1239, in which the
French king grants a castle to the Count de Montfort on condition “quod non
possumus habere in eodem archeriam nec arbalisteriam,” which Meyrick
audaciously translates “any perpendicular loophole for archers, nor any
cruciform loophole for crossbowmen.” The quotation is unfortunately given by
should not be accepted without reserve.
[1171] Wark was also an octagonal keep, but there is considerable doubt whether
this octagonal building was the work of Henry II., as Lord Dacre wrote to
Wolsey in 1519 concerning Wark that “the dongeon is clerely finished,” and
mentions that all the storeys but one were vaulted with stone. This makes it
almost certain that the castle of Wark was entirely rebuilt at this time, after
having been demolished by the Scots in 1460. It is now an utter ruin, and even
the foundations of the keep are buried.
[1172] At Thorne, near Doncaster, where the great earls Warenne had a castle,
there are the foundations, on a motte, of a keep which seems to resemble that of
Orford; it ought to be thoroughly excavated.
[1173] These measurements are from Grose, Antiquities, v., 74.
[1174] See Payne Gallwey, The Crossbow, 309; Köhler, Kriegswesen, iii., 192.
The trébuchet is first mentioned at the siege of Piacenza in 1199.
[1175] As far as we can tell, the tops of keeps having generally been ruined or
altered, the common arrangement was either a simple gable, or two gables
resting on a cross wall, such as all the larger keeps possessed.
[1176] Another consequence of the introduction of an engine of longer range
was the widening of castle ditches. We frequently find works on ditches
mentioned in John’s accounts.
[1177] Payne Gallwey, The Crossbow, p. 3. We find it used by Louis VI. of
France, before 1137. Suger’s Gesta Ludovici, 10 (ed. Molinier). Ten balistarii are
mentioned in Domesday Book, but they may have been engineers of the great
balista, a siege machine. There is no representation of a crossbow in the Bayeux
Tapestry. There are entries in the Pipe Rolls of 6, 8, and 9 Henry II. of payments
for arbelast, but these also may refer to the great balista.
[1178] Guill. Brit. Armorici Philippides, Bouquet xvii., line 315.
[1179] The bow brought by Richard from Palestine is believed to have been an
improved form of crossbow, made of horn and yew, “light, elastic, and far more
powerful than a bow of solid wood.” Payne Gallwey, The Crossbow.
[1180] “Fenestris arcubalistaribus,” Bouquet xvii., 75. The writer has never
found a single defensive loophole in any of the keeps of Henry I. or Henry II.
Köhler remarks that the loopholes up to this period do not seem to be intended
for shooting (Entwickelung des Kriegswesen, iii., 409), and Clark has some
similar observations.
[1181] Dictionnaire de l’Architecture, art. “Meurtrière.”
[1182] Meyrick in his Ancient Armour quotes a charter of 1239, in which the
French king grants a castle to the Count de Montfort on condition “quod non
possumus habere in eodem archeriam nec arbalisteriam,” which Meyrick
audaciously translates “any perpendicular loophole for archers, nor any
cruciform loophole for crossbowmen.” The quotation is unfortunately given by
Page 443
Sir R. Payne Gallwey without the Latin original. It is at any rate probable that
the cruciform loophole was for archers; it does not appear till the time of the
long-bow, which was improved and developed by Edward I., who made it the
most formidable weapon of English warfare.
[1183] See Appendix H.
[1184] Entwickelung des Kriegswesen, iii., 417.
[1185] In 1186, the Duke of Burgundy caused the towers and walls of his castle
of Chatillon to be “hoarded” (hordiari). This duke had been a companion of
Richard’s on the third crusade. William le Breton, Philippides, line 600.
Richard’s hurdicia at Chateau Gaillard were two years earlier.
[1186] See Dieulafoy, Le Chateau Gaillard et l’Architecture Militaire au
Treizième Siècle, p. 13.
[1187] The best French and German authorities are agreed about this. The holes
in which the wooden beams supporting the hurdicia were placed may still be
seen in many English castles, and so may the remains of the stone brackets.
They would be good indications of date, were it not that hurdicia could so easily
be added to a much older building.
[1188] Köhler gives the reign of Frederic Barbarossa (1155-1191) as the time of
the first appearance of the round keep in Germany.
[1189] In spite of this, I cannot feel satisfied that the keep of Étampes is of so
early a date. The decorative features appear early, but the second and third
storeys are both vaulted, which is a late sign. The keep called Clifford’s Tower at
York, built by Henry III. 1245 to 1259, is on the same plan as Étampes.
[1190] This keep has been long destroyed.
[1191] Ground entrances occur in several much earlier keeps, as at Colchester
(almost certainly an addition of Henry I.’s time), Bamborough (probably Henry
II.’s reign), and Richmond, where Earl Conan seems to have used a former
entrance gateway to make the basement entrance of his keep. See Milward,
Arch. Journ., vol. v.
[1192] Built by Earl Hamelin, half-brother of Henry II., who died in 1201.
[1193] Viollet le Duc, art. “Donjon.”
[1194] The walls of the Tower are from 12 to 15 feet thick at the base; those of
Norwich 13; the four walls of Dover respectively, 17, 18, 19, and 21 feet;
Carlisle, 15 feet on two sides. (Clark.) William of Worcester tells us that Bristol
keep was 25 feet thick at the base! Itin., p. 260.
[1195] See Enlart, Manuel d’Archæologie Française, ii., 526.
[1196] MacGibbon and Ross, Castellated Architecture of Scotland, p. 159.
[1197] This type of castle was probably borrowed from the fortifications of
Greek cities, which the Crusaders had observed in the East.
the cruciform loophole was for archers; it does not appear till the time of the
long-bow, which was improved and developed by Edward I., who made it the
most formidable weapon of English warfare.
[1183] See Appendix H.
[1184] Entwickelung des Kriegswesen, iii., 417.
[1185] In 1186, the Duke of Burgundy caused the towers and walls of his castle
of Chatillon to be “hoarded” (hordiari). This duke had been a companion of
Richard’s on the third crusade. William le Breton, Philippides, line 600.
Richard’s hurdicia at Chateau Gaillard were two years earlier.
[1186] See Dieulafoy, Le Chateau Gaillard et l’Architecture Militaire au
Treizième Siècle, p. 13.
[1187] The best French and German authorities are agreed about this. The holes
in which the wooden beams supporting the hurdicia were placed may still be
seen in many English castles, and so may the remains of the stone brackets.
They would be good indications of date, were it not that hurdicia could so easily
be added to a much older building.
[1188] Köhler gives the reign of Frederic Barbarossa (1155-1191) as the time of
the first appearance of the round keep in Germany.
[1189] In spite of this, I cannot feel satisfied that the keep of Étampes is of so
early a date. The decorative features appear early, but the second and third
storeys are both vaulted, which is a late sign. The keep called Clifford’s Tower at
York, built by Henry III. 1245 to 1259, is on the same plan as Étampes.
[1190] This keep has been long destroyed.
[1191] Ground entrances occur in several much earlier keeps, as at Colchester
(almost certainly an addition of Henry I.’s time), Bamborough (probably Henry
II.’s reign), and Richmond, where Earl Conan seems to have used a former
entrance gateway to make the basement entrance of his keep. See Milward,
Arch. Journ., vol. v.
[1192] Built by Earl Hamelin, half-brother of Henry II., who died in 1201.
[1193] Viollet le Duc, art. “Donjon.”
[1194] The walls of the Tower are from 12 to 15 feet thick at the base; those of
Norwich 13; the four walls of Dover respectively, 17, 18, 19, and 21 feet;
Carlisle, 15 feet on two sides. (Clark.) William of Worcester tells us that Bristol
keep was 25 feet thick at the base! Itin., p. 260.
[1195] See Enlart, Manuel d’Archæologie Française, ii., 526.
[1196] MacGibbon and Ross, Castellated Architecture of Scotland, p. 159.
[1197] This type of castle was probably borrowed from the fortifications of
Greek cities, which the Crusaders had observed in the East.
Page 444
[1198] Conway and Carnarvon consist of two adjoining courts, without any
external enclosure but a moat. Flint has a great tower outside the quadrangle,
which is sometimes mistakenly called a keep, but its internal arrangements show
that it was not so, and it is doubtful whether it was ever roofed over. It was
simply a tower to protect the entrance, taking the place of the 13th-century
barbican.
[1199] Köhler states that the gatehouse palace is peculiar to England: “only at
Perpignan is there anything like it.” Entwickelung des Kriegswesen, iii., 480.
[1200] Köhler mentions the castle of Neu Leiningen as the first example in
Germany, built in 1224. Kriegswesen, iii., 475. Frederic II.’s castles were of this
type. The castle of Boulogne, finished in 1231, is one of the oldest examples of
the keepless type in France. Enlart, Archæologie Française, ii., 534. The Bastille
of Paris was a castle of this kind. According to Hartshorne, Barnwell Castle, in
Northants, is of the keepless kind, and as the Hundred Rolls state that it was built
in 1264, we seem to have here a positive instance of a keepless castle in Henry
III.’s reign. Arch. Inst. Newcastle, vol. 1852. And it appears to be certain that
Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, built the keepless castle of Caerphilly
before Edward came to the throne. See Little’s Mediæval Wales, p. 87.
[1201] French archæologists are enthusiastic over the keep of Chateau Gaillard,
the scientific construction of the towers of the curtain, the avoidance of “dead
angles,” the continuous flanking, etc. See Viollet le Duc, art. “Chateau,” and
Dieulafoy, Le Chateau Gaillard.
[1202] This type is extremely rare: Trim, in Ireland, and Castle Rushen, in the
Isle of Man, are the only other instances known to the writer. Trim is a square
tower with square turrets in the middle of each face; Castle Rushen is on the
same plan, but the central part appears to have been an open court.
[1203] Enlart, Archæologie Française, ii., 516.
[1204] Martène’s Thesaurus Anecdotorum, iv., 118. “Nulli licuit in Normannia
fossatum facere in planam terram, nisi tale quod de fundo potuisset terram
jactare superius sine scabello. Et ibi nulli licuit facere palicium, nisi in una
regula; et id sine propugnaculis et alatoriis. Et in rupe et in insula nulli licuit
facere fortitudinem, et nulli licuit in Normannia castellum facere.”
[1205] The document which calls itself Leges Henrici Primi, x., 1, declares the
“castellatio trium scannorum” to be a right of the king. Scannorum is clearly
scamnorum, banks. It is noteworthy that a motte-and-bailey castle is actually a
fortification with three banks: one round the top of the motte, one round the edge
of the bailey, one on the counterscarp of the ditch.
[1206] See the case of Benhall, Close Rolls, ii., 52b (1225).
[1207] Aldreth and Burton are omitted from this list.
[1208] M. and B. stand for Motte and Bailey; K. and B. for Keep and Bailey; O.
for Outside the Town.
external enclosure but a moat. Flint has a great tower outside the quadrangle,
which is sometimes mistakenly called a keep, but its internal arrangements show
that it was not so, and it is doubtful whether it was ever roofed over. It was
simply a tower to protect the entrance, taking the place of the 13th-century
barbican.
[1199] Köhler states that the gatehouse palace is peculiar to England: “only at
Perpignan is there anything like it.” Entwickelung des Kriegswesen, iii., 480.
[1200] Köhler mentions the castle of Neu Leiningen as the first example in
Germany, built in 1224. Kriegswesen, iii., 475. Frederic II.’s castles were of this
type. The castle of Boulogne, finished in 1231, is one of the oldest examples of
the keepless type in France. Enlart, Archæologie Française, ii., 534. The Bastille
of Paris was a castle of this kind. According to Hartshorne, Barnwell Castle, in
Northants, is of the keepless kind, and as the Hundred Rolls state that it was built
in 1264, we seem to have here a positive instance of a keepless castle in Henry
III.’s reign. Arch. Inst. Newcastle, vol. 1852. And it appears to be certain that
Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, built the keepless castle of Caerphilly
before Edward came to the throne. See Little’s Mediæval Wales, p. 87.
[1201] French archæologists are enthusiastic over the keep of Chateau Gaillard,
the scientific construction of the towers of the curtain, the avoidance of “dead
angles,” the continuous flanking, etc. See Viollet le Duc, art. “Chateau,” and
Dieulafoy, Le Chateau Gaillard.
[1202] This type is extremely rare: Trim, in Ireland, and Castle Rushen, in the
Isle of Man, are the only other instances known to the writer. Trim is a square
tower with square turrets in the middle of each face; Castle Rushen is on the
same plan, but the central part appears to have been an open court.
[1203] Enlart, Archæologie Française, ii., 516.
[1204] Martène’s Thesaurus Anecdotorum, iv., 118. “Nulli licuit in Normannia
fossatum facere in planam terram, nisi tale quod de fundo potuisset terram
jactare superius sine scabello. Et ibi nulli licuit facere palicium, nisi in una
regula; et id sine propugnaculis et alatoriis. Et in rupe et in insula nulli licuit
facere fortitudinem, et nulli licuit in Normannia castellum facere.”
[1205] The document which calls itself Leges Henrici Primi, x., 1, declares the
“castellatio trium scannorum” to be a right of the king. Scannorum is clearly
scamnorum, banks. It is noteworthy that a motte-and-bailey castle is actually a
fortification with three banks: one round the top of the motte, one round the edge
of the bailey, one on the counterscarp of the ditch.
[1206] See the case of Benhall, Close Rolls, ii., 52b (1225).
[1207] Aldreth and Burton are omitted from this list.
[1208] M. and B. stand for Motte and Bailey; K. and B. for Keep and Bailey; O.
for Outside the Town.
Page 445
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE EARLY
NORMAN CASTLES OF THE BRITISH ISLES. ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.
Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license,
apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and
trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not
be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of
the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project
Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may
use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative
works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks
may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically
ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S.
copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
NORMAN CASTLES OF THE BRITISH ISLES. ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.
Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license,
apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and
trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not
be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of
the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project
Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may
use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative
works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks
may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically
ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S.
copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
Page 446
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic
work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept
all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If
you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this
agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom
you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic
work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept
all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If
you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this
agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom
you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
Page 447
collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works
in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project
Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with
the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format
with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which
the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase
“Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works
in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project
Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with
the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format
with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which
the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase
“Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with
Page 448
this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located
in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the
country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived
from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United
States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or
providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”
associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with
the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain
permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide
access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the
country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived
from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United
States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or
providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”
associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with
the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain
permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide
access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
Page 449
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of
obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided
that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of
obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided
that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
Page 450
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth
in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in
Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend
considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and
proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the
Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be
stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete,
inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -
Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH
OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES
of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth
in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in
Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend
considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and
proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the
Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be
stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete,
inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -
Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH
OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES
Page 451
EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return
the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that
provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu
of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a
refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If
any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law
of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly
from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a)
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return
the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that
provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu
of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a
refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If
any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law
of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly
from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a)
Page 452
distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration,
modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work,
and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals
and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely
available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and
permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To
learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and
the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state
of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue
Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is
64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S.
federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza
#516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact
modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work,
and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals
and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely
available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and
permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To
learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and
the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state
of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue
Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is
64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S.
federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza
#516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact
Page 453
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable
effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have
not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable
effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have
not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Page 454
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including
how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including
how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
Page 455
back
Page 456
Page 457
back
Page 458
Page 459
back
Page 460
Page 461
back
Page 462
back
Page 463
back
Page 464
back
Page 465
back