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of decay in the 11th century, they were not completely superseded by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 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. 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 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 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
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]
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 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.