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] 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 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]
[Illustration: FIG. 8. Arundel, Sussex. Abergavenny, Monmouth.]
ARUNDEL (Fig. 8).--"The castrum of Arundel," says Domesday Book, "paid
40_s._ in King Edward's time from a certain mill, and 20_s._ from
three boardlands (or feorm-lands), and 2_s._ from one pasture. Now,
between the town feorm and the water-gate and the ships' dues, it pays
12_l._"[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 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 4-1/2 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 340_l._ 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 early work of that style, and of superior
masonry.[257] The one Pipe Roll of Henry I. which we possess shows that
he spent 78_l._ 6_s._ 2_d._ 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
4-3/4 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 1-1/3 acres.
The former value of Barnstaple is not given in the Survey, so we cannot
tell whether it had risen or not.
[Illustration: FIG. 9. Barnstaple, Devon. Bishop's Stortford, Herts.
Berkhampstead, Herts.]
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 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]
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 2-2/3 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 rubble, 12 feet thick. On the S. of the
motte there are traces of a pentagonal bailey, covering 2-1/2 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.
[Illustration: FIG. 10. Bourn, Lincs. Bramber, Sussex.]
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 100_l._,"
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 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 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]
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 4-3/4 acres. The
manor of Caerleon was waste T. R. E. and had risen to 40s. T. R. W.[316]
[Illustration: FIG. 11. Caerleon, Monmouth. Carisbrooke.]
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 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 4-1/4 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:--
"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 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 51_l._ to 54_l._ 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 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 2-3/4 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 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
3-1/2 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 5_l._ to 9_l._[348]
[Illustration: FIG. 12. Carlisle. Castle Acre, Norfolk.]
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 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 1-2/3 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 40_s._ in his time from
ships' dues, 16_l._ in his son Earl Roger's time, and at the date of
the Survey it paid the king 12_l._[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 102_l._
7_s._ 0_d._ 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 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.
[Illustration: FIG. 13. Clifford, Hereford. Clitheroe, Lancs. Corfe,
Dorset.]
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 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 2-1/3 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 3-1/2 acres.
The value of the manor had apparently risen from nothing to 8_l._ 5_s._
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 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.
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 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 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 62_l._
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 3-3/4 acres; without it, 1-1/2 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.
[Illustration: FIG. 14. Dover. (From a plan in the British Museum,
1756.)]
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: 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 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 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]
[Illustration: FIG. 15. Dudley, Staffs. Dunster, Somerset.]
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 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 1-3/4 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 1-3/4 acres. The value of Dunster had risen at the date of
Domesday.[419]
[Illustration: FIG. 16. Durham.]
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 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 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 2-1/2 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]
[Illustration: FIG. 17. Ely, Cambs. Ewias Harold, Hereford. Eye,
Suffolk.]
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 2-1/3 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 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 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 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]
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.
[Illustration: FIG. 18. Hastings, Sussex. Huntingdon.]
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 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 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 5-1/2 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 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 2-1/2 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.
[Illustration: FIG. 19. Launceston, Cornwall. Lewes, Sussex.]
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 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.
[Illustration: FIG. 20. LINCOLN.]
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 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 5-3/4 acres.
The total revenue which the city of Lincoln paid to the king and the
earl had gone up from 30_l._ T. R. E. to 100_l._ 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]
[Illustration: FIG. 21. Monmouth. Montacute, Somerset. Morpeth,
Northumberland.]
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 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 1-3/4 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 6_l._ to the earl, and 3_l._ 3_s._ 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.[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]