STONE CASTLES OF THE NORMAN PERIOD
It may be a surprise to some of our readers to learn how very few stone
castles there are in England which can certainly be ascribed to the
first period of the Norman Conquest, that is to the 11th century. When
we have named the Tower of London, Colchester, the recently excavated
foundations of the remarkable keep at Pevensey, and perhaps the ruined
keep of Bramber, we have completed the list, as far as our present
knowledge goes, though possibly future excavations may add a few
others.[1111]
It is obvious that so small a number of instances furnishes a very
slender basis for generalisations as to the characteristics of early
Norman keeps, if we ask in what respect they differed from those of the
12th century. But it is the object of this chapter to suggest research,
rather than to lay down conclusions. The four early instances mentioned
should be compared with the earliest keeps of France, the country where
the pattern was developed. This has not yet been done in any serious
way, nor does the present writer pretend to the knowledge which would
be necessary for such a comparison.[1112] But data exist, which, if
they were used in the right way, would greatly add to our knowledge.
In the first place, we have a list of the castles built by Fulk Nerra,
Count of Anjou, at the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th
century, during his life-long struggle with the Counts of Blois for
the possession of Touraine. This list may be regarded as authentic,
as it is given by his grandson, Fulk Rechin, in the remarkable
historical fragment which he has bequeathed to us.[1113] The list is
as follows:--_In Touraine_: Langeais, Chaumont-sur-Loire, Montrésor,
St Maure. _In Poitou_: Mirabeau (N.W. of Poitiers), Montcontour,
Faye-la-Vineuse, Musterolum (Montreuil-Bonnin), Passavent, Maulevrier.
_In Anjou_: Baugé, Chateau-Gontier, Durtal. "Et multa alia," adds
Fulk's grandson. Nine of these others are mentioned by the chroniclers:
Montbazon, Semblançay, Montboyau, St Florent-le-Vieil, Chateaufort
near Langeais, Chérament, Montrevault, Montfaucon, and Mateflon.
Many of these were undoubtedly wooden castles, with wooden keeps on
mottes.[1114] In many other cases the ancient fabric has been replaced
by a building of the Renaissance period. Whether any remains of stone
donjons built by Fulk Nerra exist at any of these places except at
Langeais, the writer has been unable to find out; probably Langeais
is the only one; but French archæologists are agreed that the ruined
tower which stands on the ridge above the 15th-century castle of
Langeais is the work of this count,[1115] a venerable fragment of a
10th-century keep.[1116]
Unfortunately only two sides of this tower and the foundations of
the other sides remain. The walls are only 3 feet 6 inches thick,
contrasting strikingly with the castles of the 12th and 13th centuries,
where the usual thickness is 10 feet, which is often exceeded. This
points to a date before any great improvement had taken place in
assaulting-machinery. The masonry is what French architects call
_petit appareil_, very small stones, but regularly coursed. There is
no herring-bone work. The buttresses, of which there are five on the
front, certainly suggest a later date, from the size of the ashlar with
which they are faced, and from their considerable projection (3 feet on
the entrance wall, 2 on the front). There is no sign of a forebuilding.
There are only two storeys above the basement. The floors have been
supported on ledges, not on vaults. The doorway, a plain round arch,
with bar-holes, is on the first floor;[1117] it is now only a few feet
above the ground, but probably the basement has been partially filled
up with rubbish. The first storey is quite windowless in the walls
which remain. There are no fireplaces nor any loopholes in these two
fragments. In the second storey there are three rather small windows
and one very large one;[1118] they are round arched, have no splay, and
their voussoirs are of narrow stones alternated with tiles. In these
details they resemble the Early Romanesque, which in England we call
Anglo-Saxon.
The Tower of London and Colchester keep are some seventy or eighty
years later than that of Langeais, and if we attempt to compare them,
we must bear in mind that Langeais was the work of a noble who was
always in the throes of an acute struggle with a powerful rival,
whereas the Tower and Colchester Castle were built by a king who had
reached a position of power and wealth beyond that of any neighbouring
sovereign.[1119] Langeais is but a small affair compared with these
other two keeps. The larger area,[1120] thicker walls, the angle towers
with their provision of stairways, the splayed windows [of Colchester],
the fireplaces, the chapels with round apses, the mural gallery [of the
Tower] cannot be definitely pronounced to be instances of development
unless we have other instances than Langeais to compare with them.
De Caumont mentions Chateau du Pin (Calvados), Lithaire (Manche),
Beaugency-sur-Loire, Nogent-le-Rotrou (Eure et Loire), Tour de l'Islot
(Seine et Oise), St Suzanne (Mayenne), and Tour de Broue (Charente
Inf.), as instances of keeps of the 11th century.[1121] These should
be carefully examined by the student of castle architecture, and De
Caumont's statements as to their date should be verified. Not having
had the opportunity of doing this, we will only ask what features the
keeps of Langeais, London, and Colchester have in common, which may
serve as marks of an earlier date than the 12th century.[1122] The
square or oblong form and the entrance on the first floor are common
to all three, but also to the keeps of the first three-quarters of
the 12th century. The absence of a forebuilding is probably an early
sign,[1123] and so is the extensive use of tiles.[1124] The chapel
with a round apse which projects externally only occurs in the keeps
of London and Colchester, and in the ruins of Pevensey keep.[1125] The
absence of a plinth is believed by Enlart to be an early token.[1126]
But Colchester has a plinth and so has the Tower. It is, however,
very possible that in both cases the plinth is a later addition; at
Colchester it is of different stone to the rest of the building, and
may belong to the repairs of Henry II., who was working on this castle
in 1169; while the Tower has undergone so many alterations in the
course of its eight hundred years of existence that it is difficult to
say whether the rudimentary plinth which it still possesses is original
or not.
Wide-jointed masonry is generally recognised by architectural students
as a mark of the early Norman style. Even this is a test which may
sometimes deceive; certain kinds of ashlar are very liable to weather
at the edges, and when the wall has been pointed at a comparatively
recent period, a false appearance of wide joints is produced.
Moreover, there are instances of wide-jointed masonry throughout the
12th century. The use of rubble instead of ashlar is common at all
dates, and depends no doubt on local conditions, the local provision
of stone, or the affluence or poverty of the castle-builder. We are
probably justified in laying down as a general rule that the dimensions
of the ashlar stones increase as the Middle Ages advance. There is a
gradual transition from the _petit appareil_ of Fulk Nerra's castle
to the large blocks of well-set stone which were used in the 15th
century.[1127] But this law is liable to many exceptions, and cannot be
relied upon as a test of date unless other signs are present. The Tower
of London is built of Kentish rag; Colchester keep of small cement
stones (septaria), which whether they are re-used Roman stones or not,
resemble very much in size the masonry of Langeais. It is of course
unnecessary to say to anyone who is in the least acquainted with Norman
architecture that all Norman walls of ashlar are of the core-and-facing
kind, an internal and an external shell of ashlar, filled up with
rubble; a technique which was inherited from Roman times in Gaul, but
which was not followed by the Anglo-Saxons.[1128]
The presence or absence of fireplaces and chimneys is not a test of
date. Colchester is certainly an early keep,[1129] but it is well
provided with fireplaces which appear to be original. These fireplaces
have not proper chimneys, but only holes in the wall a little above the
fireplace. But this rudimentary form of chimney is found as late as
Henry II.'s keep at Orford, and there is said to be documentary mention
of a proper chimney as early as 816 in the monastery of St Gall.[1130]
The entire absence of fireplaces is no proof of early date, for in
Henry II.'s keep at the Peak in Derbyshire, the walls of which are
almost perfect (except for their ashlar coats) there are no fireplaces
at all, nor are there any in the 13th-century keep of Pembroke. It is
possible that in these cases a free standing fireplace in the middle
of the room, with a chimney carried up to the roof, was used. Such a
fireplace is described by the poet, Chrestien of Troyes, but no example
is known to exist.[1131]
But apart from details, if we look at the general plan of these four
early stone castles, we shall see that it is exactly similar. It is
the keep-and-bailey plan, the plan which prevailed from the 10th to
the 13th century, and was not even superseded by the introduction of
the keepless castle in the latter century.[1132] The motte-and-bailey
type was of course only another version of the keep-and-bailey. In
this primitive type of castle the all-important thing was the keep or
donjon.[1133] Besides the donjon there was little else but a rampart
and ditch. "Until the middle of the 12th century, and in the simpler
examples of the epochs which followed, the donjon may be said to
constitute in itself the whole castle."[1134] Piper states that up
to the time of the Crusades German castles do not seem to have been
furnished with mural towers.[1135] Köhler, whose work treats of French
and English castles as well as German, says that mural towers did
not become general till the second half of the 12th century.[1136]
Nevertheless, as it is highly probable that the baileys of castles were
defended at first with only wooden ramparts on earthen banks, even
when the donjon was of stone, it is not unlikely that mural towers of
wood may have existed at an earlier period than these writers suppose.
It is, however, in favour of the general absence of mural towers that
the word _turris_, even in 12th-century records, invariably means the
_keep_, as though no other towers existed.[1137]
That the baileys of some of the most important castles in England
had only these wooden and earthen defences, even as late as the 13th
century, can be amply proved from the _Close Rolls_.[1138] Colchester
Castle had only a timber wall on the banks of its bailey as late as
1215, and in 1219 this _palicium_ was blown down and an order issued
for its reconstruction.[1139]
The arrangements in the stone donjons were probably the same as those
we have already described when writing of the wooden ones.[1140] The
basement was the storehouse for provisions,[1141] the first floor was
generally the guardhouse, the second the habitation, of the lord and
lady. Where there were three or four storeys, the arrangements varied,
and the finest rooms are often found on the third floor. An oratory was
probably an invariable feature, though it cannot always be detected in
ruined keeps. One of Mr Clark's most pronounced mistakes was his idea
that these keeps were merely towers of refuge used only in time of
war.[1142] History abounds with evidence that they were the permanent
residences of the nobles of the 11th and 12th centuries. The cooking,
as a rule, was carried on in a separate building, of which there are
remains in some places.[1143]
Occasionally we find a variant of the keep-and-bailey type, which
we may call the gatehouse keep. The most remarkable instance of
this kind in England is Exeter, which appears never to have had any
keep but the primitive gatehouse, undoubtedly the work of Baldwin de
Moeles, the first builder of the castle. In Normandy, De Caumont gives
several instances of gatehouse keeps. Plessis-Grimoult (which has been
visited by the writer) has a fragment of a gatehouse tower, but has
also a mural tower on the line of the walls; as the castle was ruined
and abandoned in 1047, these remains must be of early date.[1144] The
gatehouse keep is probably an economical device for combining a citadel
with the defence of the weakest part of the castle.
We must pass on to the keeps of Henry I.[1145] There is only one
in England which authentic history gives to his time, that of
Rochester.[1146] But the chronicler Robert de Torigny[1147] has
fortunately given us a list of the keeps and castles built by Henry in
Normandy, and though many of these are now destroyed, and others in
ruins, a certain number are left, which, taken along with Rochester,
may give us an idea of the type of keep built in Henry I.'s time. The
keeps attributed by Robert to Henry I. are Arques, Gisors, Falaise,
Argentan, Exmes, Domfront, Ambrières, Vire, Waure, Vernon, Evreux,
Alençon, St Jean, and Coutances. How many of these survive we cannot
positively say;[1148] we can only speak of those we have seen (Falaise,
Domfront, and Gisors),[1149] and of Arques, described by M. Deville
in his _Histoire du Chateau d'Arques_, by M. Viollet le Duc in his
treatise on Donjons,[1150] and by Mr G. T. Clark.[1151]
Speaking under correction, as a prolonged study of the keeps in
Normandy was impossible to the writer, we should say that there is no
very striking difference to be observed between the keeps of Henry I.
and those built by his father. The development of the forebuilding
seems to be the most important change, if indeed we are justified
in assuming that the 11th-century keeps never had it; its remains
can be seen at Arques, Falaise,[1152] Domfront, and Rochester. At
Arques and Falaise the doorway is on the second floor, which is an
innovation, a new attempt to solve the difficulty of defending the
entrance. The first floor at Arques could only be entered by a trap
from the second floor; at Falaise there is a stone stair from one to
the other. Rochester is entered from the first floor. The basement
storeys of Arques, Falaise, and Domfront are quite unlit; at the Tower
the basement has had a number of loopholes, and the angular heads of
those which remain suggest that they are at least copied from original
lights. The main floors in Henry I.'s keeps are always of wood, but
this was not because vaulting was then unknown, because the crypt,
sub-crypt, and chapel of the Tower are vaulted, not to speak of many
early churches.[1153] The four keeps mentioned have all three storeys,
thus not exceeding Colchester in height;[1154] the Tower has now four
storeys, but a good authority has remarked that the fourth storey has
not improbably been made by dividing the third.
No marked advance is observable in the masonry of these keeps. Arques
is built of _petit appareil_; Falaise of small stones in herring-bone
work; Domfront of very small stones rudely coursed; Rochester of
Kentish rag mixed with flint rubble. Both Falaise and Domfront have
plinths of superior masonry, but there is always the possibility
that these plinths are later additions. The voussoirs of the arches
at Falaise, Domfront, and Rochester are larger than the rag or tile
voussoirs which are used at Colchester, the Tower, and Langeais. At
Rochester and Arques provision is made for carrying the water-supply
from the well in the basement to the upper floors, a provision of
which there is no trace in the older keeps.[1155]
As Robert de Monte says that Henry I. built many castles in England as
well as in Normandy, we naturally ask what other English keeps besides
Rochester may be assigned to him. It appears to the writer that Corfe
and Norwich keeps may very likely be his. Both were royal castles in
his time, and both were originally wooden castles on mottes.[1156]
Both these castles have forebuildings, and neither of them have
floors supported on vaults.[1157] Corfe has very superior masonry, of
larger stones than those used in the keeps known to be Henry I.'s,
but wide-jointed. At Norwich only a very small piece of the original
ashlar is left. Corfe is extremely severe in all its details, but quite
corresponds to work of Henry I.'s reign.[1158] Norwich has a great deal
of decoration, more advanced in style than that to be seen at Falaise,
but still consistent with the first half of the 12th century. Neither
keep has the least sign of Transition Norman, such as we seldom fail to
find in the keeps of Henry II. Moreover, neither of them figure in the
_Pipe Rolls_ of Henry II., except for repairs; and as Stephen in his
harassed reign can hardly have had any money for building stone keeps,
we may with some confidence ascribe these two keeps to Henry I.
A few words should be given to the castle of Gisors, which contains
in itself an epitome of castle history. The first castle, built by
William Rufus in 1096, was undoubtedly a wooden castle on a motte,
with a stockaded bailey below it; certain portions of the present
bailey walls rest on earthen banks, which probably belonged to the
original castle, and show what a much smaller affair it was than the
present one. Henry I., Robert de Monte tells us, strengthened this
castle with a keep. Probably this was the shell wall which now crowns
the motte; the smallness of the masonry (stones about 5 inches high,
rudely dressed and coursed) and the slight projection of the buttresses
(9 inches) agree with much of the work of his time. There would be a
wooden tower inside.[1159] The chemise or shell wall is pierced by
loopholes, a very unusual arrangement; they are round arched, and of
very rude voussoirs.[1160] Inside this shell there is a decagonal
tower, called the Tower of Thomas à Becket, which is almost certainly
the work of Henry II.,[1161] as its name would indicate; the chapel of
St Thomas is close to it. A stair turret of the 15th century has been
added to this keep; its original entrance was, as usual, a door on the
first floor, but a basement entrance was built afterwards, probably
in the 13th century. Philip Augustus, after he had taken this castle
from John, added to it one of the round keeps which had then become the
fashion, and subsequent enlargements of the bailey converted it into a
"concentric" castle, of which the motte now forms the centre.
There is one keep which is known to be of the reign of Stephen, though
not built by him, that of Carlisle, built by David, King of Scotland,
in 1136,[1162] a time when he thought his hold on the four northern
counties of England was secure, little reckoning on the true character
of his great-nephew, Henry, son of Matilda. There is no advance to be
seen in this keep on those of Henry I., except that the walls are faced
with ashlar. The vaulting of the basement is pronounced by Mr Clark to
be very evidently a late insertion.[1163]
With the reign of Henry II. a new era opens as regards the documentary
history of our ancient castles, because the _Pipe Rolls_ of that king's
reign have most fortunately been preserved.[1164] These contain the
sheriff's accounts for money spent on the building or repair of the
king's castles, and are simply invaluable for the history of castle
architecture. The following is a list of the keeps which the _Pipe
Rolls_ show to have been built or finished by Henry II.:--
Scarborough, built between 1157 and 1174. Tower
Windsor, " " 1161 " 1177. Shell wall
Orford, " " 1165 " 1172. Tower
Bridgenorth, " " 1166 " 1173. Tower
Newcastle, " " 1167 " 1177. Tower
Bowes, " " 1171 " 1187. Tower
Richmond, " " 1171 " 1174. Tower
Chilham, " " 1171 " 1173. Tower
Peak, " " 1172 " 1176. Tower
Canterbury, " " 1172 " 1174. Tower
Arundel, " " 1176 " 1182. Shell wall
Tickhill, " " 1178 " 1181. Tower
The dates given here must be taken as only roughly accurate, as owing
to the meagreness of the entries in the _Pipe Rolls_, it is not always
certain whether the expenses were for the great tower or for other
buildings. The list by no means includes all the work which Henry II.
did on his English castles, for he was a great builder; but a good
deal of his work seems to have been the substitution of stone walls
with mural towers, for wooden stockades, and our list comprises all
the cases in which it is clear that the keep was the work of this
king.[1165] We confine our attention to the keeps, because though mural
towers of stone began to be added to the walls of baileys during Henry
II.'s reign (a detail which must have greatly altered the general
appearance of castles), it is certain that the keep was still the most
important part, and the residence of the king or noble whenever he
visited the castle.
Seven out of the ten tower keeps are built on precisely the same plan
as those of Henry I. The chief advance is in the masonry. All the tower
keeps of Henry II., except Dover, Chilham, and Canterbury, are or have
been cased with good ashlar, of stones somewhat larger in size than
those used by Henry I. The same may be said of the shell walls (namely,
Windsor and Arundel); it is interesting to note that Henry II. still
used this elementary form of citadel, which consisted merely of a wall
round the top of a motte, with wooden buildings inside.[1166] In three
cases out of the ten tower keeps, Newcastle, Bowes, and Richmond,
the basement storey is vaulted, which does not occur in the older
keeps.[1167] Yet such important castles as Scarborough, Dover, and
Canterbury are without this provision against fire. None of these keeps
appear to have more than three storeys above the basement.[1168] None
of the entrances to the keeps (except Tickhill) have any portcullis
grooves,[1169] nor any special contrivances for defence, except at
Canterbury, where the entrance (on the first floor) takes two turns at
right angles before reaching the hall to which it leads.[1170] There
are nearly always in the keeps of Henry II. some signs of Transition
Norman in the details, such as the nook shafts at the angles of the
towers of Scarborough and the Peak, certain arches at Canterbury, the
Transition capitals used at Newcastle, and the filleted string round
the outside of Bowes.
But we have yet to speak of three keeps of Henry II.'s reign which
are on a different plan to all the others, and which point to coming
changes--Chilham, Orford, and Tickhill.[1171] Chilham is an octagonal
tower of three storeys, with a square annexe on one side, which
appears to be original. Orford is polygonal outside, round inside.
Orford indeed is one of the most extraordinary keeps to be seen
anywhere, and we must regard it as an experiment, and an experiment
which appears never to have been repeated.[1172] Instead of the usual
Norman buttresses, this polygonal keep has three buttress towers,
placed between every four of the outer faces, 22 feet wide, and 12
feet in projection.[1173] Tickhill, however, the last keep he built,
is decagonal. The object of the polygonal tower was to deflect the
missiles thrown from siege engines, and the round tower was evidently
considered an improvement on the polygonal for this purpose, as it
subsequently supplanted the polygonal type. It is therefore rather
remarkable that Henry II. built both these keeps in the second decade
of his reign, and afterwards went on building square keeps like his
predecessors. We have seen, however, that he built at least one
polygonal tower in Normandy, that of Gisors. We must bear in mind that
the Norman and Angevine frontier was the theatre of the continuous
struggle of Henry II. with the French kings, Louis VII. and Philip
Augustus, and that it is here that we must expect the greatest
developments in military architecture.
Speaking generally, we may say that just as there was comparatively
little change in armour during the 12th century until the end of Henry
II.'s reign, so there was comparatively little change in military
architecture during the same period. But great changes took place
towards the end of the 12th century. One of these changes was a great
improvement in missile engines; the trébuchet was one of the most
important of these. It could throw much heavier stones than the largest
catapult, and could take a more accurate aim.[1174] These new engines
were useful for defence as well as attack, and this affected the
architecture of castles, because flat roofs covered with lead, on which
machines could be placed, were now substituted for the former sloping
roofs.[1175] There are several payments for lead for roofing castles
in the _Pipe Rolls_ of Henry II., the earliest being in 1166. In the
reigns of John and Henry III. the mention of lead for roofing becomes
much more frequent.[1176]
Hitherto, in the defence of keeps, reliance had mainly been placed upon
their passive strength, though not so entirely as has been commonly
assumed, since it was always the practice to shoot with arrows from the
battlements round the roof of the tower. But not only was the fighting
strength of the keep increased by the trébuchet, but the introduction
of the crossbow gave it a defensive arm of the greatest importance.
The crossbow had been known to the Romans, and was used in the early
part of the 12th century, but it was forbidden by the second Lateran
Council in 1139 as a weapon hateful to God.[1177] This prohibition
seems actually to have been effective, as William the Breton says
expressly that the crossbow was unknown to the French before the wars
of Richard I. and Philip Augustus.[1178] Richard learned the use of it
in the third crusade.[1179] But to use the crossbow in the defence of
buildings it was necessary to construct special loopholes for shooting,
splayed downwards externally, so that it was possible to aim from them.
Up till this time the loopholes of castles had been purely for light
and not for shooting; anyone may see that it is impossible to take aim
through an immensely thick wall unless there is a downward splay to
increase the field of vision. William the Breton tells us that Richard
built windows for crossbows to his towers, and this is the first
mention we have of them.[1180]
From this time defensive loopholes become common in castles, and take
various fanciful forms, as well as the commoner ones of the circle,
square, or triangle at the base of the loop. The _cross loophole_,
which does not appear till the latter quarter of the 13th century, is
explained by Viollet le Duc as an ingenious way of allowing three or
four archers to fire in a volley.[1181] But up to the present time very
little study has been given to this subject, and we must be content to
leave the question for future observation to settle.[1182]
The crossbowmen not only required splayed loopholes, but also niches,
large enough to accommodate at least three men, so that a continuous
discharge of darts (quarrells) might be kept up. Any defensive loop
which really means work will have a niche like this behind it. These
niches had the defect of seriously weakening the wall.
Another innovation introduced by Richard I. was that of stone
machicolations, or _hurdicia_.[1183] Whether wooden galleries round the
tops of walls, with holes for dropping down stones, boiling-water, or
pitch on the heads of the besiegers had not been used from the earliest
times, is regarded by Köhler as extremely doubtful.[1184] They were
certainly used by the Romans, and may even be seen clearly figured on
the Assyrian monuments. In the Bayeux Tapestry, the picture of Bayeux
Castle shows the stockade on top of the motte crested with something
extremely like hurdicia. Yet the writer has found no authentic
mention of them before the end of the 12th century.[1185] The stone
machicolations built by Richard round his keep of Chateau Gaillard are
of an unusual type, which was only rarely imitated.[1186] But from
this time wooden hurdicia became universal, to judge from the numerous
orders for timber for _hoarding_ castles and town walls in the _Close
Rolls_ of the first half of the 13th century. Towards the middle of the
13th century stone brackets for the support of wooden hurdicia began
to be used; they may still be seen in the great keep of Coucy, which
was begun in 1230. But machicolations entirely of stone, supported on
double or triple rows of brackets, do not become common till the 14th
century.[1187]
The greatest architectural change witnessed at the end of the 12th
century was the victory of the round keep over the square. Round towers
were built by the Romans as mural towers, but the universal type of
mediæval keep appears to have been the square or oblong, until towards
the end of the 12th century.[1188] The polygonal keep was probably a
transitional form; we have seen that Henry II.'s polygonal keep at
Orford was begun as early as 1165. Many experiments seem to have been
made at the end of the 12th century, such as the addition of a stone
prow to the weakest side of a keep, to enable it better to resist
showers of missiles. Richard I.'s keep at Chateau Gaillard is a round
keep with a solid prow of this kind. Five-sided keeps are said to be
not uncommon on the left bank of the Rhine and in Nassau; this type
was simply the addition of a prow to a square keep. The only English
instance known to the writer is that of Mitford, Northumberland, but
this is merely a five-sided keep, the prow is not solid, as at Chateau
Gaillard. The castle of Étampes, whose plan is a quatrefoil, is
assigned by French archæologists to this period of experiment.[1189]
But the round keep was eventually the type preferred. Philip II.
thought it necessary to add a round keep to the castle of Gisors, after
he had taken it from John, and he adopted the round keep for all his
new castles, of which the Louvre was one.[1190]
Along with the round keep, ground entrances became common.[1191]
Viollet le Duc states that when the French soldiers broke into the
inner ward at Chateau Gaillard the defenders had no time to escape
into the keep by the narrow stair which led to the first floor, and
consequently this proud tower was surrendered without a blow; and
that this event so impressed on Philip's mind the danger of difficult
entrances that he abandoned the old fashion. This may be true, but it
is a pure guess of Le Duc's, as there is nothing whatever to justify
it in William the Breton's circumstantial narrative. It is, however,
certain that Philip adopted the ground entrance to all his keeps.
In England we find ground entrances to many round keeps of the 13th
century, as at Pembroke; but the older fashion was sometimes retained;
Conisburgh, one of the finest keeps in England, has its entrance on the
first floor.[1192]
After the introduction of the trébuchet, we might expect that the
walls of keeps would be made very much thicker, and such seems to
have been the case in France,[1193] but we do not find that it was
the rule in England.[1194] The lower storeys were now generally
instead of occasionally vaulted. In the course of the 13th century it
became common to vault all the storeys. But in spite of the military
advantages of the round keep, in its avoidance of angles favourable to
the battering-ram, and its deflection of missiles, the square keep
continued to be built in various parts of both France and England till
quite late in the Middle Ages.[1195] On the Scottish border, square
towers of the ancient type, with quite Norman decorations, were built
as late as the 15th century.[1196] The advantage of the square tower
was that it was more roomy inside, and was therefore preferred when the
tower was intended for habitation.
We come now to the greatest of all the changes introduced in the
13th century: the keepless castle, in which the keep is done away
with altogether, and the castle consists of a square or oblong court
surrounded by a strong wall with massive towers at the angles, and in
large castles, in the curtain also.[1197] Usually this inner quadrangle
is encircled with an outer quadrangle of walls and towers, so that this
type of castle is frequently called the _concentric_. But the castles
of the keepless kind are not invariably concentric; those built by
Edward I. at Conway, Carnarvon, and Flint are not so.[1198] Instead
of a dark and comfortless keep, the royal or noble owner is provided
in this type of castle with a palatial house. In England this house
is frequently attached to the gateway, forming what we may call a
gatehouse palace; good examples may be seen at Beaumaris, Harlech, and
Tonbridge.[1199] The gateway itself is always defended by a pair of
massive towers.
Edward I. is generally credited with the introduction of this type
of castle into England, but until the _Pipe Rolls_ of Henry III.'s
reign have been carefully examined, we cannot be certain that it was
not introduced earlier. It was certainly known in Germany fifty years
before Edward's accession to the throne, and in France as early as
1231.[1200]
It is always supposed that this type of castle was introduced by the
Crusaders from Syria. But when did it make its first appearance in
Syria? This is a point which, we venture to think, has not been yet
sufficiently investigated. We do not believe that it can have existed
in Syria at the time of the third crusade, otherwise Richard I., who is
universally acknowledged to have been a first-class military architect,
would have brought the idea home with him.[1201] Yet his favourite
castle of Chateau Gaillard, built in accordance with the latest
military science, is in the main a castle of the keep-and-bailey type,
and has even a reminiscence of the motte, in the scarped rock on which
the keep and inner ward are placed.
The new type of keepless castle never entirely displaced the old
keep-and-bailey type. We have already seen that keeps of the old sort
continued to be built till the end of the Middle Ages. Hawarden Castle
has a good example of a 14th-century round keep; Warkworth a most
remarkable specimen of the 15th, the plan being a square tower with
polygonal turrets set on each face.[1202] In France and Germany also
the old type appears to have persisted.[1203]
We have already trespassed beyond the limits of our subject; but as we
offer this chapter more as a programme of work than as a categorical
outline, we trust it may not be without use to the student who may feel
disposed to take up this much-neglected subject.
A few words must yet be said about the state of the law relating to
castles. Nothing explicit has come down to us on this subject from the
11th century in England, but it is clear that the feudal system which
William introduced, and which required that all lands should revert to
the king on the death of the holder, forbade the building of any castle
without the king's license, and, further, allowed only a life tenure
in each case. The Council of Lillebonne in 1080 had laid it down in
express terms that no one should build a castle in Normandy without the
permission of the duke;[1204] and William, after his great victory
over his revolted barons, had enforced the right of garrisoning their
castles. He was not able to do this in England, while he must have
desired to check the building of private castles as far as possible. On
the other hand, he had to face the dilemma that no Norman land-holder
would be safe in his usurped estates without the shelter of a castle.
In this situation we have the elements of the civil strife which burst
forth in Stephen's reign, and which was ended by what we may call the
anti-castle policy of Henry II.[1205]
The rights secured by this able king were often recklessly sold by his
successors, but in the reign of Henry III. it was evidently illegal
even to fortify an ordinary house with a ditch and stockade without
royal permission.[1206]
* * * * *
Feudalism was an inevitable phase in the evolution of the Western
nations, and it ought neither to be idealised nor execrated. After
the break-up of the tribal system the nations of Europe sought refuge
in the forms of imperialism which were devised by Charlemagne, and
even the small and distant island of England strove to move in the
same direction. But the times were not ripe for centralisation on
so great a scale, and when the system of the Carlovingian Empire
gave way under the inrush of Northmen and Huns, European society
would have fallen into ruin had it not been for the institutions of
feudalism. These offered, in place of the old blood bond of the tribe,
a social compact which, though itself artificial, was so admirably
adapted to the general need that it was speedily adopted by all the
progressive nations of Europe. The great merit of feudalism was that it
replaced the collective responsibility of the tribe by the individual
responsibility of the man to his lord, and of the lord to his man. In
an age when the decay of mutual trust was the worst evil of society it
laid stress on individual loyalty, and insisted that personal honour
should consist in the fulfilment of obligations. Being a system so
wholly personal, its usefulness depended largely on the nature of the
person in power, and it was therefore liable to great abuses.
But it is probable that feudalism worked better on the whole in
England than in any other part of Western Europe. The worst evils of
French feudalism never appeared in this country, except during the
short and disastrous reign of Stephen. The strong kings of the Norman
and Plantagenet Houses held in check the turbulence of the barons;
and private war was never allowed to become here, as it was on the
Continent, a standing evil. To follow out this subject would lead us
beyond the limits of this book, but it is interesting to remember that
not only the picturesque ruins of our castles, but also the neglected
green hillocks of which we have treated in this work, while they point
to the skilful machinery by which the Norman Conquest was riveted on
the land, bear witness also to something still more important. They
tell of a period of discipline and education through which the English
people passed, when in spite of much oppression and sometimes even
cruelty, seeds of many noble and useful things were sown, from which
succeeding generations have garnered the enduring fruit.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
PRIMITIVE FOLK-MOOTS
The popular meetings of the Anglo-Saxons, those of the hundred and the
shire, were held in the open air. Since many of those who attended them
had to travel far, some sign was necessary to mark out the place of
meeting, and some striking feature, such as a hillock, or a particular
tree, or an ancient barrow, was chosen. Thus we have the Shire Oak,
near Leeds, which gives its name to the wapentake of Skyrack; and in
a charter of Edgar we find the _mot-beorh_ mentioned, and translated
_Congressionis Collem_ = the meeting barrow. (_M. A._, ii., 324.)
It does not appear that a hillock was an essential feature of these
meeting-places, though this is popularly supposed to be the case,
because the "Thing-wall" in Iceland and the "Tynwald" in the Isle of
Man have hillocks from which laws were proclaimed. The Thingwall, or
field of meeting in Iceland had a natural rock just above it, isolated
by a stream, and though proclamations were made from this rock,
deliberations took place on the level. (Gomme's _Primitive Folk-Moots_,
31.)
The Tynwald Hill, in the Isle of Man, which is also still used for
the proclamation of new laws, was probably an ancient barrow, as
there are other barrows in the immediate neighbourhood. (Kermode and
Herdman, _Illustrated Notes on Manx Antiquities_, pp. 23 and 61.) At
Thingwall, near Liverpool, and Thingwall in Wirral, both probably Norse
settlements, there is no hillock.
In Scotland, the use of a former motte as a meeting-place for the
baronial court appears to have been much more common than in England.
Mr George Neilson's explanation of this fact is referred to in Chapter
X., p. 307.
APPENDIX B
WATLING STREET AND THE DANELAGH
It has been pointed out by Schmid (_Gesetze der Angelsachsen_,
xxxviii.) that the document called _Alfred and Guthrum's Peace_ cannot
belong to the year of Guthrum's baptism at Wedmore; and Mr J. R. Green
(_Conquest of England_, p. 151) goes further, and doubts whether the
boundaries laid down in this deed refer to anything except to the East
Anglian kingdom of Guthrum. But Mr Green gives no adequate reason for
rejecting the generally accepted conclusion that the Watling Street was
the boundary between English and Danish Mercia, which is borne out by
the following facts: (1) the Danish confederacy of the five boroughs,
Lincoln, Stamford, Leicester, Nottingham, and Derby, pretty well covers
the part of Mercia north of Watling Street, especially when Chester
is added, as it sometimes is, to the list; (2) the division into
wapentakes instead of hundreds, now believed to be of Danish origin,
is found in Lincolnshire, Notts, Derbyshire, Rutland, Leicestershire,
and Northamptonshire. Staffordshire, it is true, is not divided into
wapentakes, but it was apparently won by conquest when Ethelfleda
fortified the town. Chester was occupied by her husband in 908. Watling
Street furnishes such a well-defined line that it was natural to fix
upon it as a frontier.
APPENDIX C
THE MILITARY ORIGIN OF ALFRED'S BOROUGHS
Keutgen (_Untersuchungen über den Ursprung der Deutschen
Stadtverfassung_, 1895) appears to have been the first to notice the
military origin of the Old Saxon boroughs; and Professor Maitland saw
the applicability of the theory to the boroughs of Alfred and Edward
the Elder. (_Domesday Book and Beyond._) The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_,
in 894, speaks of "the men whose duty it was to defend the towns"; this
proves that Alfred had made some special arrangement for the defence of
the towns; and this arrangement must have been something quite apart
from the ordinary service of the _fyrd_ or militia, which was only
due for a short time. It must have been something permanent, with an
adequate economic basis, such as we have in Henry the Fowler's plan.
APPENDIX D
THE WORDS "CASTRUM" AND "CASTELLUM"
If we take the chroniclers of the reign of Charlemagne and his
successors in the 9th century, we find the word _castrum_ constantly
used for places such as Avignon, Dijon, Macon, Rheims, Chalons,
Cologne, Andernach, Bonn, Coblenz, etc., all of which are known to
have been Roman _castra_, when there can be no doubt that the _city_
is meant. Take, for instance, the _Annales Mettenses_ (Pertz, i.,
326), 737: Karl Martel hears that the Saracens have taken "castrum
munitissimum Avinionem" (Avignon); he marches against them, and
"_predictam urbem_ obsidione circumdat." But these cities are not only
called _castra_, they are also called _castella_. Thus the chronicle
ascribed to Hincmar calls Macon both _castrum_ and _castellum_ in
the same breath. (_Migne_, 125, 1298.) The fortifications built by
Charlemagne against the Saxons are called _castra_, _castella_, and
_civitates_. (_Chron. Moissiacense_, Pertz, i., 308. _Ann. Einhardi_,
ibid., 196, 204.) The camps of the Northmen, which as we have seen,
were of great size, are also called not only _castra_, but _civitates_,
_castella_, _munitiones_, _oppida_. (_Annales Fuldenses_, Pertz, i.,
397.) The camp built by Charles the Bald at Pistes in 868 is called a
_castellum_, though it was evidently an enclosure of great size, as he
measured out quarters in it for his nobles, and formed an elaborate
scheme for its maintenance. (Hincmar, _Migne_, 125, 1242, 1244.) Coming
to the 10th century, the following passage from Flodoard will show the
vagueness of the words in common use for fortifications: "Heribertus
Ansellum Bosonis subditum, qui prædictum custodiebat _castrum_ (Vitry),
cum ipso _castello_ recipit, et Codiacum S. Remigii _municipium_ illi
cum alia terra concedit. Nec longum, Bosonis fideles _oppidanorum_
proditione Victoriacum (Vitry) recipiunt, et Mosonum fraude pervadunt.
At Heribertus, a quibusdam Mosomensibus evocatus, supervenit
insperatus, et entrans _oppidum_, porta latenter a _civibus_ aperta,
milites Bosonis, qui ad custodiam loci residebant, ibidem omnes capit."
(_Migne_, 135, 297.) Here it is clear that _castrum_, _castellum_,
_municipium_, and _oppidum_ all mean the same thing, and the one word
_civibus_ betrays that it is a _city_ which is meant. Undoubtedly the
chronicler thinks it elegant to change his words as often as he can.
_Munitio_ is another word frequently used; in classical Latin it means
a bulwark, a wall or bank; in the chroniclers of the 10th century it
is used indifferently for a town or castle, though certain passages,
such as "subversis multarum munitionibus urbium" (Flodoard, i., vi.),
show that the right sense is not far from the mind of the writer. The
numerous passages in which we are told of monasteries being enclosed
with walls and converted into _castella_, show that the _enclosure_
is the chief idea which the chroniclers associate with this word. The
citations made above are not exceptional, but typical, and could be
paralleled by countless others.
Since the above was written, I have read Keutgen's _Untersuchungen über
den Ursprung der Deutschen Stadtverfassung_. He remarks that the Latin
words for a town (in the 10th and 11th century writers) are _urbs_,
_castellum_, _civitas_, sometimes _arx_; for a village, _villa_,
_oppidum_, _vicus_. This absolutely agrees with what I have observed in
these writers, except that I have certainly found _oppidum_ used for a
town, as in the passage from Flodoard cited above.
APPENDIX E
THE BURGHAL HIDAGE
The _Burghal Hidage_ has been printed by Birch, _Cartularium_, iii.,
671. The manuscript is very corrupt, and several of the places
cannot be identified. Those which can be identified are: Hastings,
Lewes, Burpham (near Arundel), Chichester, Porchester, Southampton,
Winchester, Wilton, Tisbury, Shaftesbury, Twineham, Wareham, Bridport,
Exeter, Halwell, Lidford, Pilton, Barnstaple, Watchet, Axbridge,
Lyng (near Athelney), Langport, Bath, Malmesbury, Cricklade, Oxford,
Wallingford, Buckingham, Eashing (near Guildford), and Southwark. The
list thus seems to give an outline of Alfred's kingdom as it was at
his death, or at the beginning of the reign of his son. Dr Liebermann
refers it to the latter date. (_Leges Anglorum_, 9.)
APPENDIX F
THELWALL
A writer in the _Manchester Guardian_ a few years ago suggested a
new solution of the name Thelwall. He believes that the Thelwall
raised by Edward was a boundary wall of timber, stretching from
Thelwall to Runcorn. The Mersey, he argues, above Thelwall formerly
broadened out into a series of swamps which would effectually defend
the frontier towards the east. But westward from Thelwall there were
no such obstacles, and it is assumed that Edward made a timber wall
from Thelwall to Ethelfleda's fortress at Runcorn. Some support to
this hypothesis is given in the names of places between Thelwall and
Runcorn: Stockton, Walton (twice), Stockham, Walford, Wallmore, and
Wall-hes. Further, when the bed of the Mersey was delved for the Ship
Canal, discovery was made of "a remarkable series of submerged piles,
9 feet long, arranged in two parallel ranks which were 30 feet apart.
The intervals between the piles varied, but seem to have averaged 5 to
6 feet. Between the ranks were diagonal rows of upright stakes, each
stake about 5 feet long, extending from either rank chevron-wise to the
middle and there overlapping, so that the ground-plan of them makes
a kind of herring-bone pattern. By this plan, anyone passing through
would have to make a zigzag course. In some places sticks and sedges
were found interwoven horizontally with the stakes, a condition of
things which probably obtained throughout the whole series. The tops
of the tallest piles were 10 feet below the present surface of the
ground, which fact goes far toward precluding the possibility that this
elaborate work may have been a fish-weir. The disposition of the stakes
points to a military origin. So arranged, the advantage they offered
to defending forces was enormous." I think it worth while to reproduce
this account, especially because of the place-names, but those who are
learned in the construction of fish-weirs may perhaps think that the
description will apply to a work of that kind.
APPENDIX G
THE WORD "BRETASCHE"
This word, which also appears as bretagium, britagium, or bristega,
evidently means a tower, as is clear from the following passages: Order
from King John to erect a _mota et bretagium_ at Roscrea, in Ireland
(Sweetman's _Calendar_, i., 412); Order by Henry III. to the dwellers
in the Valley of Montgomery "quod sine dilatione motas suas bonis
bretaschiis firmari faciant" (_Close Rolls_, ii., 42); Order that the
timber and bretasche of Nafferton Castle be carried to Newcastle, and
the bretasche to be placed at the gate of the drawbridge _in place of
the little tower_ which fell through defect in its foundations (_Close
Rolls_, i., 549b).
The word is also expressly defined by William the Breton as a wooden
castle: "Circuibat castrum ex omni parte, et fabricavit brestachias
duplices per septem loca, _castella videlicet lignea_ munitissima."
(Bouquet, xvii., 78.)
See also Wright, "Illustrations of Domestic Architecture," _Arch.
Journ._, i., 212 and 301. In these papers it is clear that "breteske"
means a tower, as there are several pictures of it. At a later period
it seems to have been used for a wooden balcony made for the purpose of
shooting, in the same sense as the word "hurdicium"; but I have not met
with any instance of this before the 14th century.
APPENDIX H
THE WORDS "HURDICIUM" AND "HORDIARI"
These words refer to the wooden galleries carried round the tops of
walls, to enable the defenders to throw down big stones or other
missiles on those who were attempting to attack the foot of the walls.
"Hurdicia quæ muros tutos reddebant." (_Philippidos_, vii., 201;
Bouquet, xvii.) The word "alures" is sometimes used in the same sense.
See a mandamus of Henry III., cited by Turner, _History of Domestic
Architecture_, i., 198: "To make on the same tower [of London] on the
south side, at the top, deep alures of good and strong timber, entirely
and well covered with lead, through which people can look even to the
foot of the tower, and better defend it, if need may be." The alures of
the castle of Norwich are spoken of as early as 1187, but this mention,
and one of the alures round the castle of Winchester in 1193, are the
only ones I find in the 12th century in England.
APPENDIX I
"HERICIO, ERICIO, HERITO, HERISSON"
This is derived from the French word _hérisson_, a hedgehog, and should
mean something bristling, perhaps with thorns or osiers. Several
passages show that it was a defence on the counterscarp of the ditch,
and it may sometimes have been a hedge. Cohausen, _Befestigungen
der Vorzeit_, shows that hedges were frequently used in early
fortifications (pp. 8-13). The following passages seem to show clearly
that it was on the counterscarp of the ditch: "[Montreuil] il a bien
clos, esforce e ferme de pel e _hericon_." (Wace, 107.) "Reparato
exterioris Ardensis munitionis valli fossato et amplificato, et sepibus
et ericiis consepto et constipato." (Lambert of Ardres, 623, _circa_
1117.) The French poem of Jordan Fantosme, describing the siege of
Wark by the Scots in 1174, says the Scots attacked and carried the
_hericon_, and got into the ditch, but they could not take the bayle,
_i.e._, they could not get over the palicium.
APPENDIX K
THE CASTLE OF YALE
In the year 1693, the antiquary Edward Llwyd was sitting on the motte
of Tomen y Rhoddwy engaged in making a very bad plan of the castle
[published in _Arch. Camb._, N.S., ii., 57]. His guide told him that he
had heard his grandfather say that two earls used to live there. Llwyd
called the guide an ignorant fellow. Modern traditions are generally
the work of some antiquary who has succeeded in planting his theories
locally; but here we have a tradition of much earlier date than the
time when antiquaries began to sow tares, and such traditions have
usually a shred of truth in them. Is it possible that this castle of
Tomen y Rhoddwy and the neighbouring one of Llanarmon were built by
the earls of Chester and Shrewsbury, who certainly went on expeditions
together against Wales, and appear to have divided their conquests?
It is to be noted that the township is called _Bodigre yr Yarll_, the
township of the earls.
APPENDIX L
THE CASTLE OF TULLOW OR "COLLACHT," p. 335
This information is kindly supplied by Mr Goddard H. Orpen, who writes
to me: "I visited Tullow lately, and asked myself where would a Norman
erect a mote, and I had no difficulty in answering: on the high ground
near where the Protestant church stands. When I got up there the first
thing that I noticed was that the church stood on a platform of earth
10 to 14 feet higher than the road, and that this platform was held in
position by a strong retaining wall, well battered towards the bottom
on one side. I then found on enquiry that the hill on which it stood
and the place to the N.W. of it was called the 'Castle Hill.' On going
round to the N.W. of the church I found a horseshoe-shaped space,
scarped all round to a height of 6 to 10 feet, and rising to about 16
feet above the adjoining fields. There is no doubt that this was the
site of the castle, and that it was artificially raised. To my mind
there was further little doubt that it represented an earlier mote. In
a field adjoining on the W. I could detect a platform of about 50 to
70 paces, with traces of a fosse round the three outer sides.... This
was certainly the Castellum de Tulach mentioned in the deeds concerning
Raymond le Gros' grant to the Abbey of St Thomas.--_Dublin Reg. St
Thomas_, pp. 111, 113."
APPENDIX M
THE CASTLE OF SLANE
Mr Westropp says that the "great earthworks and fosses" on the Hill of
Slane are mentioned in the "Life of St Patrick" (_Journ. R. S. A. I._,
1904, p. 313). What the _Life_ really says is: "They came to Ferta Fer
Fiecc," which is translated "the graves of Fiacc's men"; and the notes
of Muirchu Maccu-Machtheni add, "which, as fables say, were dug by the
slaves of Feccol Ferchertni, one of the nine Wizards" (_Tripartite
Life_, p. 278). It does not mention any fort, or even a hill, and
though Ferta Fer Fiecc is identified with Slane, there is nothing to
show what part of Slane it was.
APPENDIX N
THE WORD "DONJON"
Professor Skeat and _The New English Dictionary_ derive this word
from the Low Latin, _dominionem_, acc. of _dominio_, lordship. Leland
frequently speaks of the keep as the dungeon, which of course is the
same word. Its modern use for a subterranean prison seems to have
arisen when the keeps were abandoned for more spacious and comfortable
habitations by the noble owners, and were chiefly used as prisons.
The word _dunio_, which, as we have seen, Lambert of Ardres used
for a motte, probably comes from a different root, cognate with the
Anglo-Saxon _dun_, a hill, and used in Flanders for the numerous
sandhills of that coast.
APPENDIX O
THE ARRANGEMENTS IN EARLY KEEPS
We get a glimpse of these in a story given in the "Gesta Ambasiensium
Dominorum," D'Archery, _Spicilegium_, 278. Sulpicius the Treasurer
of the Abbey of St Martin at Tours, an important personage, built a
stone keep at Amboise in 1015 (_Chron. Turonense Magnum_), in place
of the "wooden house" which his brother had held. In the time of Fulk
Rechin (1066-1106), this keep was in the hands of the adherents of
the counts of Blois. Hugh, son of Sulpicius, with two other men, hid
themselves by night in the basement, which was used as a storehouse;
it must therefore have had an entrance from outside. With the help
of ropes, they climbed up a sewer into the bedchamber, which was
above the cellar, and evidently had no stair communicating with the
cellar. Here they found the lady of the house and two maids sleeping,
and a watchman who was also asleep. While one of the men held these
in terror with a drawn sword, the other two climbed up a ladder and
through a trap-door up to the roof of the tower, where they unfurled
the banner of Hugh. Here we see a very simple keep, which has only one
storey above the basement; this may have been divided into two or more
apartments, but it was thought a fitting residence for a lady of rank.
It had no stairs, but all the communications were by trap-doors and
ladders. We may be quite sure that the people of rank of the 11th and
12th centuries were content with much rougher accommodation than Mr
Clark imagined. Even Richard I.'s much admired keep of Chateau Gaillard
appears to have had no communication but ladders between the floors.
APPENDIX P
KEEPS AS RESIDENCES
The description of a keep which we have already given from Lambert of
Ardres (Chap. VI.) is sufficient to prove that even wooden keeps in the
12th century were used as permanent residences, and this is confirmed
by many scattered notices in the various chronicles of France and
England. It was not till late in the 13th century that the desire for
more comfortable rooms led to the building of chambers in the courtyard.
APPENDIX Q
CASTLES BUILT BY HENRY I.
The castles, which according to Robert de Monte, Henry I. built
altogether [_ex integro_] were Drincourt, Chateauneuf-sur-Epte,
Verneuil, Nonancourt, Bonmoulins, Colmemont, Pontorson, St
Denis-en-Lyons, and Vaudreuil. Many of these may have been wooden
castles; Chateauneuf-sur-Epte almost certainly was; it has now a
_round_ donjon on a motte. The "Tour Grise" at Verneuil is certainly
not the work of Henry I., but belongs to the 13th century.
APPENDIX R
THE SO-CALLED SHELL KEEP
We have three accounts of motte-castles from the 12th century: that
of Alexander Neckham, in the treatise _De Utensilibus_; that of
Laurence of Durham, cited in Chapter VII., p. 147; and the well-known
description of the castle of Marchem, also cited in Chapter VI., p.
88. All these three describe the top of the motte as surrounded by a
wall (of course of wood), within which is built a wooden tower. The
account of Marchem says that it was built in the middle of the area.
This supports the conjecture in the text. Mr H. E. Malden has shown
(_Surrey Archæolog. Collections_, xvi., 28) that the keep of Guildford
is of later date than the stone wall round the top of the motte. Remove
this tower, and there would be what is commonly called a shell keep. It
would appear, therefore, that it was a common practice to change the
bank or stockade round the top of the motte into a stone wall (no doubt
as a defence against fire), leaving the keep inside still of wood. Four
of the pictures from the Bayeux Tapestry (see Frontispiece) all give
the idea of a wooden tower inside a stockade on a motte.
APPENDIX S
PROFESSOR LLOYD'S "HISTORY OF WALES"
I regret that this valuable work did not appear until too late for me
to make use of it in my chapter on Welsh Castles. It is worth while to
note the following points in which Professor Lloyd's conclusions differ
from or confirm those which I have been led to adopt.
Aberystwyth and Aberrheiddiol.--"After the destruction of the last
Aberystwyth Castle of the older situation in 1143, the chief
stronghold of the district was moved to the mouth of the Rheiddiol,
a position which it ever afterwards retained, though people still
insisted on calling it Aberystwyth" (514). "The original castle of
Aberystwyth crowned the slight eminence at the back of the farm of Tan
y Castell, which lies in the Ystwyth valley 1-1/2 miles S. of the town.
There is the further evidence of the name, and the earthworks still
visible on the summit" (426, _note_).
Carreghova.--I ought perhaps to have included this castle in my list,
though on the actual map its site is within the English border; but as
there are absolutely no remains of it [D. H. M.] it does not affect the
question I am discussing.
Cardigan and Cilgerran.--"Dingeraint cannot be Cilgerran, because
Cilgerran is derived from _Cerran_, with the feminine inflection, not
from _Geraint_; nor is Cilgerran 'close to the fall of the Teifi into
the sea,' as the chronicler says Dingeraint was. The castle built by
Earl Roger was probably Cardigan" (401). Professor Lloyd afterwards
identifies Cilgerran with the castle of Emlyn (661). This seems to me
questionable, as the "New Castle of Emlyn," first mentioned in Edward
I.'s reign, presupposes an older castle, and as I have stated, a mound
answering to the older castle still exists not far from the stone
castle.
Carmarthen.--Professor Lloyd thinks this castle stood at the present
farm of Rhyd y Gors, about a mile below the town; but I see no reason
to alter the conclusion to which I was led by Mr Floyd's paper, that
the Rhyd y Gors of the castle was a ford at Carmarthen itself. The fact
that Henry I. founded a cell to Battle Abbey at Carmarthen (431) seems
to me an additional piece of evidence that the castle was there; castle
and abbey nearly always went together.
Dinweiler.--Professor Lloyd assumes Dinweiler to be the same as the
castle in Mabudryd built by Earl Gilbert, and to be situated at or
near Pencader (501). It should be noted, however, that Dinweiler reads
Dinefor in MS. B. of the _Brut_, in 1158. I am in error in supposing St
Clair to be the castle of Mabudryd (following a writer in _Archæologia
Cambrensis_), as St Clair is not in that commote. Professor Lloyd's map
of the _cantrefs_ and _commotes_ differs widely from that of previous
writers.
Llangadoc.--"Luchewein" should not be identified with this castle;
Professor Lloyd thinks it may refer to a castle at Llwch Owain, a lake
in the parish of Llanarthney, where there is an entrenchment known as
Castell y Garreg.
Maud's Castle.--Camden identified "Matildis castrum" with Colewent or
Colwyn, but Professor Lloyd is of opinion that "a careful collation of
the English and Welsh authorities for the events of the years 1198 and
1231 will make it clear that Payne's Castle and Maud's Castle are the
same." This of course does not affect what is said about Colwyn Castle
in the text.
Montgomery.--Professor Lloyd deems that the emphasis laid (especially
in the _Charter Rolls_, i., 101) on the fact that the building of Henry
III.'s reign was New Montgomery, leaves no doubt that the former town
and castle stood elsewhere, probably at Hên Domen. This, if true, would
greatly strengthen my case, as Hên Domen is an admirable motte and
bailey.
SCHEDULE OF ENGLISH CASTLES KNOWN TO DATE FROM THE ELEVENTH
CENTURY[1207]
IN TOWNS
Name of Whole Area of Enceinte
No. Castle. Type.[1208] or Bailey. Value.
1. Arundel M. and B., O. Whole area 4-1/2 acres Risen.
2. Bamborough K. and B. Whole area 4-3/4 acres ...
3. Barnstaple M. and B. Bailey 1-1/3 acres Not given
T. R. E.
4. Bristol M. and B., O. Whole area nearly 4 acres Not given
T. R. E.
5. Buckingham M. and B. ? Risen.
6. Caerleon M. and B., O. Bailey 4-3/4 acres Risen.
7. Cambridge M. and B. Bailey 4-1/4 acres Not given
T. R. W.
8. Canterbury M. and B., O. Whole area 3 acres Risen.
(Dungeon Hill)
9. Carlisle K. and B., O. Whole area 4 acres ...
10. Chester M. and B., O. First ward 3/4 acre Risen.
11. Colchester K. and B. {Inner ward and keep} Risen.
{about 2 acres }
12. Dover K. and B. {Inner castle } Risen.
{about 6 acres}
13. Durham M. and B., O. Bailey 1 acre ...
14. Ely M. and B., O. Bailey 2-1/2 acres Fallen, but
rising.
15. Exeter B. only now 2 acres ...
16. Gloucester M. and B., O. ? Risen.
17. Hastings M. and B., O. ? Fallen, but
rising.
18. Hereford M. and B. Bailey 5-1/2 acres Risen.
19. Huntingdon M. and B., O. Inner bailey 2-1/2 acres Stationary.
20. Lewes M. and B. Bailey 3 acres Risen.
21. Lincoln M. and B. Bailey 5-3/4 acres Risen.
22. Monmouth K. and B. Bailey 1-3/4 acres Not given
T. R. E.
23. Newcastle M. and B., O. Whole area 3 acres 1 rood ...
24. Norwich M. and B., O. Inner bailey 3-1/4 acres Risen.
25. Nottingham M. and B., O. Bailey 1-2/3 acres Risen.
26. Oxford M. and B., O. Bailey 3 acres Risen.
27. Pevensey K. and B. Bailey 1 acre Risen.
28. Quatford {M. and B., }
{probably O.} Bailey 1 acre ...
29. Rochester M. and B., O. Whole area about 3 acres Risen.
(Boley Hill)
30. Old Sarum. M. and B. Inner ward 1-3/4 acres Risen.
31. Shrewsbury M. and B., O. Bailey 4/5 of an acre Risen.
32. Stafford M. and B., O. Bailey 1-3/5 acres Risen.
33. Stamford M. and B. Bailey 1-3/4 acres Risen.
34. Tamworth {M. and B., } Bailey 1 acre Not given.
{probably O.}
35. Totnes M. and B., O. Bailey 3/4 of an acre Risen.
36. Tower of K. and B. Originally? Not given.
London
37. Wallingford M. and B. Bailey 4-1/2 acres Risen.
38. Warwick M. and B., O. Bailey 2-1/2 acres Risen.
39. Winchester M. and B., O. Whole area 4-1/2 acres Not given.
40. Worcester M. and B., O. Whole area between 3
and 4 acres Risen.
41. York M. and B., O. Whole area formerly
about 3 acres Risen.
42. The Baile M. and B., O. Whole area 2-3/4 acres ...
Hill, York
IN MANORS
Head of Whole Area
No. Name of District of Enceinte
Castle. Type. T. R. E. or Bailey. Value.
43. Abergavenny M. and B. ? Bailey 1 acre. ...
44. Belvoir M. and B.? No ? Risen.
45. Berkeley M. and B Yes " 1-1/2 acres Risen.
or Ness
46. Berkhampstead M. and B Yes " 3 acres Fallen.
47. Bishop's M. and B No " 2-1/2 acres Fallen.
Stortford
48. Bourn M. and B. Yes " 3 acres Risen.
49. Bramber M. and B. No " 3 acres Risen.
50. Carisbrooke M. and B. No " 2-3/4 acres Risen.
51. Castle Acre M. and B. No " 2 acres Risen.
52. Chepstow K. and B. No Whole area 1-2/3 acres Risen.
53. Clifford M. and B. No Bailey 2-1/3 acres Risen.
54. Clitheroe M. and B. No " 1 acre Fallen.
55. Corfe M. and B. No " 1-1/2 acres Risen.
56. Dudley M. and B. No " 1-3/4 acres Fallen.
57. Dunster M. and B. No " 1-3/4 acres Risen.
58. Ewias M. and B. ? " 2-1/3 acres Not given
T. R. E.
59. Eye M. and B. No " 2 acres Risen.
60. Launceston M. and B. No " 3 acres Fallen.
61. Montacute M. and B. No ? Not given
T. R. E.
62. Morpeth M. and B. ? ? ...
63. Norham M. and B. ? Bailey 2 acres ...
64. Okehampton M. and B. No " 1/2 an acre Risen.
65. Oswestry M. and B. No ? Risen.
66. Peak Castle K. and B. No " 1 acre Risen.
67. Penwortham M. and B. No ? Risen.
68. Peterborough Motte only ? ? ...
now
69. Pontefract M. and B. Probably " 2-1/3 acres Fallen.
70. Preston Capes M. and B. No ... Risen.
71. Rayleigh M. and B. Yes Bailey 3/4 acre Risen.
72. Richard's M. and B. No " 2/3 acre Stationary.
Castle
73. Richmond K. and B. No " 2-1/2 acres ...
74. Rockingham M. and B. No First bailey 3 acres Risen.
75. Skipsea M. and B. No Bailey 8-1/4 acres Fallen.
76. Stanton M. and B. No ? Risen.
Holgate
77. Tickhill M. and B. No " 2 acres Risen.
78. Tonbridge M. and B. No " 1-1/2 acres Stationary.
79. Trematon M. and B. No " 1 acre Fallen.
80. Tutbury M. and B. No " 2-1/2 acres Not given
T. R. E.
81. Tynemouth ? ? ? ...
82. Wigmore M. and B. No " 1 acre Risen.
83. Windsor M. and B. No Upper bailey Fallen,
6-1/2 acres but rising.
84. Wisbeach M. and B. No Whole area 4 acres Fallen.
It has been thought best to tabulate the _chief_ defensible area of
each castle. The total area, including ditches and scarps, is liable to
great variation owing to the nature of the ground.
INDEX
Aber, 261
Aberavon, 296
Abercorn, 308
Aberdovey, 300
Abereinon, 301
Abergavenny, 97
Aberlleinog, 261
Aberystwyth, 281, 393
Aggeres, 77, 111
Aldreth, 150
Alfred, King, 13, 14, 15
Amwell, 52
Annan, 309
Anstruther family, 308
Antrim, 331
Appledore, 50
Aq'i, 331
Aquila, castle of, 77
Ardfinnan, 331
Ardmayle, 331
Ardnurcher, 331
Ardree, 331
Ardres, 75, =89=
Area of Norman castles, 97
Arques, 361
Arundel, 98
Arx, 211, 384
Ashlar masonry, 356
Askeaton, 332
Askelon, 332
Athelney, 14
Athlone, 333
Auchterless, 309
Avenel family, 308
Baginbun, 333
Bailey, ballium, 4, 5, 92, 207
Bakewell, 47
Balimore Eustace, 333
Balliol family, 308
Ballyknockan, 341
Ballynaclogh, 346
Bamborough, 11, 100, 355, 357
Banff, 319
Barclay, 309
Barnstaple, 102
Barnwell, 376
Baronies, 307
Basements of keeps, 359, 362
Basingwerk, 267
Bastille, the, 376
Bayeux Tapestry, 87, 158, 393
Bayford Court, 49
Bedford, 40
Beith, 317
Belesme, Roger, 100, 191;
castle, 77
Belvoir, 102
Benfleet, 50
Bensington, 28
Berkeley, 103, 367
Berkhampstead, 105
Bernard de Neufmarché, 273, 276
Bervie River, 316
Biggar, 313
Bishop's Stortford, 107
Blaenporth, 282
Bleddfa, 293
Blois, 75
Blythe, 219
Boley Hill, 49, 196, 199, 200
Bordlands, 307
Borgue, 317
Boroughs, 21, 258, 382
Boulogne, 376 _n._ 1
Bourn, 107
Bowes, 366
Bramber, 109
Braose, De, 109, 276, 292
Brecknock, 276, 290
Bremesbyrig, 32
Bretasche, 91, 386
Bridgenorth, 33, 52
Bristol, 23, 110
Bromborough, 32
Bruce family, 309
Brut y Tywysogion, 254
Buckingham, 25, 40
Burghal Hidage, 28, 98, 160, =385=
Burgh Castle, 44 _n._ 1.
Burgus, 85
Burh, 17-19, 123;
Clark's theory of, 20-29
Buttington, 51
Cadwalader, 266
Cadzow, 314
Caen keep, 361
Caereinion, 300
Caerleon, 113
Caerphilly, 376 _n._ 1
Caerwedros, 283
Caherconlish, 333
Cambridge, 55, 57, =115=
Camps, of refuge, 29;
prehistoric, 6;
of Danes, 61
Canterbury, 116
Carbury, 333
Cardiff, 294
Cardigan, 274, 275;
Castle, =280=
Carisbrook, 121
Carlingford, 334
Carlisle, 25, =128=, 365
Carlovingian Empire, 66
Carmarthen, =275=, 394
Carnarvon, =261=, 375
Carnwath, 318
Carreghova, 271, 394
Carrick, 334
Carrickfergus, 334
Carrickittle, 339
Carrigogunell, 332
Castel, the word, 24, 98
Castellum, castrum, 25, 67, 169, 383
Castles, private, Ch. V.;
product of feudalism, 66;
in Normandy, 76, 77;
wooden, 78;
stone, Ch. XII.;
sites given to church, 259 _n._ 2.
Castle Acre, =124=
Castledermot, 347
Castle guard, 175
Castleknock, 341
Castlemore, 338
Castle Rough, 49
Castle Rushen, 377 _n._ 1
Castletown Delvin, 334
Cathcart family, 310
Catter, 315
Ceredigion, 274, 275
Chapels in castles, 355
Chartres keep, 74
Chastell Gwalter, 282
Chateaudun keep, 75
Chateau Gaillard, 372, 376, 391
Chepstow, 125
Chester, 31, =126=, 367
Chevron moulding, 100
Cheyne family, 310
Chilham, 368
Chimneys, 357
Chinon, 75
Chippenham, 55
Chirk, 269
Christison, Dr, 8, 31, 304, 306
Cilgerran, =281=, 394
Citadels, 6, 54, 56
Clare, house of, 275, 281
Clark, G. T., 2, 8, 19, 26, 48
Clears, St, =288=, 394
Cledemuthan, 43
Clifford, 128
Clitheroe, 129
Clonard, 334
Clonmacnoise, 335
Colchester, 41, =132=, 223, 354, 355
Collacht, 335
Colville family, 310
Comyn family, 310
Concentric castles, 375
Cooking in castles, 359
Corfe, =135=, 363
Coucy, 65, 372
Courcy, John de, 336
Court hills, 310, 391
Covington, 313
Crail, 319
Crimond, 311
Crogen, battle of, 266
Cromarty, 316
Crometh, 335
Cromwell, 220, 336
Croom, 335
Crossbow, the 370
Cunningham family, 311
Cupar, 320
Cymmer, 299
Cynewulf, murder of, 13
Cynfael, 300
Cyricbyrig, 37
Dalswinton, 311
Dane John, 116, 118, 121
Danes in Ireland, 60
Dangio, 75
Danish raths, 48;
camps, 61;
colonies, 59, 60
Darnhall, 317
David I. of Scotland, 123, 163, =303=
Deganwy, 259, 270
Dernio, 267
Derver, 341
Dinan, 87
Dinerth, 282
Dinevor, =287=, 394
Dinweiler, 394
Dirleton, 319
Domfront keep, 361
Donjons, 358, 390
Douglas family, 312
Dover, =138=;
church, 144;
Pharos, 143
Downpatrick, 335
Drogheda, 336
Drumore, 315
Drumsagard, 317
Duchal, 315
Dudley, 144
Dudo of St Quentin, 76
Duffus, 317
Duleek, 337
Dumfries, 320
Dun, the word, 326
Dunamase, 337
Dungarvan, 337
Dunio, 75
Dunmullie, 311
Dunoon, 313
Dunskeath, 320
Dunster, 145
Durand, 312
Durham, 146
Durward, 312
Dyfed, 274
Earthworks, Committee, 2
Eddisbury, 35
Edward, 14-16, 45, 65, 127
Edward the Martyr, 135
Edwardian castles, 328, 345
Egloe, Eulo, 271
Elgin, 320
Ellon, 311
Ely, 149
Entrances to keeps, 355, 361, 373
Errol, 314
Escluen, 332
Étampes Castle, 373
Ethelfleda, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 45, 232, 342
Eu, 56
Eustace of Boulogne, 139
Ewias, 150
Exeter, 151;
siege of, 154
Eye, 155
Falaise, 361-363
Favorie, 338
Ferns, 338
Feudalism, 63, 66, 378, 379;
in Normandy, 76;
in Wales, 299, 378;
in Scotland, 303
Fireplaces, 357
Fitz Alans, 179, 313
Fitzhardinge, Robert, 104
FitzOsbern, William, 103, 126, 128, 150, 273
Five Boroughs, the 44, 59
Flambard, Ranulf, 172
Fleming family, 313
Flint, 375
Folk-moots, 381
Fore, 338
Forebuildings, 355, 361
Forfar, 320
Forres, 321
Fortifications, Anglo-Saxon, 29, 64;
Danish, 55, 61;
wooden, 78
Fotheret Onolan, 338
French earthworks, 7
Fulham, 55
Fulk Nerra, 73, 74, 352
Gaimar, Geoffrey, 171
Gallo-Roman villas, 67
Galtrim, 338
Gatehouse keeps, 359
Gatehouse palace, 375
Geashill, 338
Gemaron, 292
Gephthine, 332
Gilling, 193, 194
Gisors, 364
Glamorgan, 276
Gloucester, 156
Godwin, Earl, 22, 24, 103
Gomme, G. L., 8
Gould, I. C, 2
Gower, 277, 297
Graham family, 314
Granard, 338
Greenwell, Canon, 2
Guildford, 393
Guisnes, 75, 76
Gundulf, Bishop, 197, 198, 222
Guy of Amiens, 139
Gwyddgrug, 260
Gwynedd, 256-262
Hæsten the Dane, 49, 50
Hall, the Anglo-Saxon, 17, 24, 168
Hallaton Castle Hill, 88
Hamilton family, 314
Harold, Earl and King, 138, 161, 257
Hastings, 87, =158=
Haughead Kipp, 317
Haverfordwest, 280
Hawarden, 377
Hawick, 315
Hay, 291
Hay family, 314
Hên Domen, 395
Henry I., castles of, 360-364, 392
Henry II., castles of, 365-369
Henry the Fowler, 64
Hericio, 388
Hermitage Castle, 318
Herring-bone work, 136, 168, 218
Hincheleder, 339
Hithes, 57
Hodesley, Hoseley, 268
Holywell, 267, 270
Hubert de Burgh, 140
Hugh of Avranches, 256, 257
Humphrey's Castle, 283
Huntingdon, 42, =162=
Hurdicia, 91, 372, =387=
Ida, King, 11
Inchelefyre, 339
Innermessan, 321
Inverness, 321
Inverugie, 310
Inverwick, 313
Irish chiefs, 325, 342
Jedburgh, 321
John, Bishop of Terouenne, 88
John, King, 137, 270, 370 _n._ 1
Jomsborg, 59
Karakitel, 339
Keepless castles, 328, 374
Keep and bailey, 357
Keeps, arrangements in, 359, 391;
polygonal, 368;
prows to, 373;
residences, 392;
round, 368, 373
Keeps of Henry I., 360, 363, 392
Keeps of Henry II., 366
Keeps of William I., 351, 354
Kelts of Scotland, 304
Kenardington, 50
Kenfig, 295
Kenmure, 308
Kidwelly, 288
Kilbixie, 339
Kilbride, 318
Kilfeakle, 340
Kilfinnane, 329
Kilkea, 347
Killamlun, 339
Killare, 339
Kilmaurs, 311
Kilmehal, 340
Kilmore, 340
Kilsantan, 340
Kiltinan, 340
Kincleven, 321
Kirkcudbright, 321
Kirkintilloch, 311
Kirkpatrick Durham, 312
Kitchens in castles, 90
Knighton, 293
Knock, 341
Knockgraffan, 341
Lacy, Ilbert de, 187, 188;
Hugh de, 337
Lag Castle, 312
Lagelachon, 341
Lagmen, 62
Lambert of Ardres, 75, 89
Lanark, 321
Langeais keep, 72, 353
Laon, 72
Largs, 317
Laugharne, 288
Launceston, 164
Laurence of Durham, 147
Law about castles, 377
Lawhaden, 279
Lea Castle, 341
Lea River, 15, 52
Lead roofs, 369
Leighlin, 341
Lennox, 315
Leuchars, 318
Lewes, 165
Lincoln, 167
Linton Roderick, 310
Lismore, 342
Llanarmon, 272
Llandeilo Talybont, 298
Llandovery, 286
Llanegwad, 289
Llangadog, 289, 394
Llanrhystyd, 300
Llanstephan, 286
Lloyd, Professor, 253, 393
Lochmaben, 309
Lochorworth, 314
Lockhart family, 315
Logan family, 315
London fortified, 14
Loopholes, 362, 370, 371;
cross loopholes, 371
Lords-marchers, 255
Loske, 343
Loughor, 298
Louth, 342
Louvre, the, 373
Lovel family, 315
Loxhindy, 343
Ludgarsburh, 170
Lumphanan, 312
Lyle or Lisle family, 315
Lympne, 15
Mabudryd, 394
Machicolations, 372
Magh Adair, 327
Maitland, Professor, 27
Maldon, 41
Manchester, 46
Manors, Saxon, and mottes, 96
Mans, Le, keep of, 361
Masonry, 356, 362, 367
Mathraval, 271
Maud's Castle, 293, 394
Maxton, 316
Maxwell family, 316
Melton, Archbishop, 248
Melville family, 315
Mercenaries, 7, 74 _n._ 1
Merchem Castle, 88
Mersey Island, 54
Military service, 64
Milton, 49
Missile engines, 369
Mitford, 373
Moffat, 309
Mold, 260
Monmouth, 168
Montacute, 169
Montalt, 316
Montgomeri, Roger de, 53, 98, =130=, 191, 263;
Hugh de, 274;
Arnolf, 274, 278;
castle, =264=, 395
Montgomerie family, Scotland, 316
Moot-hills, 8, 9, 381
Moray, colonisation of, 304
Morpeth, 171
Mortain, Count of, 106, 138, 164, 169, 186
Mortimers, 276
Morville family, 316
Mottes, described, 4, 5;
the word, 9 _n._ 1;
distribution, 80-82;
situation, 83-96;
in France, 85;
in Wales, 301;
in Scotland, 322;
in Ireland, 348;
history, 72, 74
Mowbray, Earl Robert, 101
Mowbray family, 317
Müller, Dr Sophus, 6
Mural towers, 358
Murray family, 317
Naas, 343
Nantes Castle, 71
Nant yr Arian, 284
Narberth, 280
Navan, 344
Neath, 296
Neckham, "De Utensilibus," 86
Neilson, Mr George, 8, =306=
Neu Leiningen, 376 _n._ 1
Newcastle, 171
Newcastle Bridgend, 295
Newcastle Emlyn, 289
New Grange, 10
Newport, 279
Nicetus, his castrum, 67
Nicholas, St, 110, 213
Nobber, 344
Normandy, 22, 76, 77
Norman favourites, 23
Norman walls, 356
Normans, 7
Norrei Castle, 77
Northmen, camps of, 61, 383
Norton, 293
Norwich, =173=, 363
Nottingham, 44, 49, 57, =176=
O'Donovan, 329
Offa's Dyke, 52
Okehampton, 178
Oldcastle, 347
Old Sarum, 202
Oliphant family, 317
Orford, 246 _n._
Oswestry, 179
Overton (Denbigh), 267;
(Hereford), 192
Owen Gwynedd, 260, 270
Oxford, 180
Oxnam, 310
Oystermouth, 298
Pantolf, William, 213
Parliamentary fortifications, 202
Payn's Castle, =293=, 395
Peak, 182
Pembroke, 278
Pentecost's Castle, 24, 150
Penwortham, 183
Peterborough, 185
Pevensey, 99, 186
Pistes, Capitulary of, 68, 72
Pitt-Rivers, General, 2
Plinths, 355
Polnoon, 316
Pontefract, 187;
siege of, 189
Pont y Stuffan, 283
Powys, 263-266
Prestatyn, 270
Preston Capes, 190
Pretorium, 72
Prisons in castles, 359
Private castles, 21, 68
Pudsey, Bishop, 173
Quatbridge, 58
Quatford, 191
Quincy, De, family, 318
Radnor, 292
Rainald the Sheriff, 263
Rapes of Sussex, 299
Rathceltchair, 336
Raths in Ireland, 325, 327
Rathwire, 344
Ratouth, 344
Rayleigh, 191
Reading, 54
Redcastle, Lunan Bay, 309
Reginald's Tower, 347, 348
Remni, 297
Renfrew, 313
Retford, 55
Rhaidr Gwy, 301
Rhé Island, motte on, 350
Rhuddlan, 257, 259
Rhyd y Gors, 275, 284
Rhys ap Griffith, 275, 287
Riccarton, 319
Richard Sans Peur, 76
Richard I., 370-372
Richard's Castle, 192
Richmond, 193
Robert Curthose, 110
Robert de Monte, 360
Robert, Earl of Gloucester, 110, 295
Robert Fitz Hamon, 277
Robert of Rhuddlan, 257
Roberton, 314
Rochester, 25, 49, 195
Rockingham, 201
Roger the Poitevin, 129, 183, 184
Rokerel, 345
Rollo, 76
Roscrea, 345
Rosemarkie, 322
Ross, 318
Rouen, 77
Runcorn, 38
Ruthin, 269