OF THE SHELL KEEP.
While of the rectangular keep there remain many, and some very perfect,
examples both in England and Normandy, the SHELL KEEP, though once the
most common of the two, has rarely been preserved, and is seldom, if
ever, found in a perfect or unaltered condition. There is a difference
of opinion as to the date of the introduction of these keeps, whether a
little before or a little after the other type. The shell keep, being
invariably connected with early earthworks, might be supposed to be
the older form; and Arundel, the only castle mentioned in Domesday
as existing in the time of the Confessor, has a shell keep; but a
tolerably close examination has failed to discover, either at Arundel
or elsewhere in England or in Normandy, any masonry of very early
character, probably none that can safely be attributed to the eleventh
century. The fact seems to be that the early timber structures, which
are known to have been erected originally on the moated mounds, were
found to be very defensible, and so were retained by the Norman lords
until they were able to replace the timber by masonry. The rectangular
keeps were either on new sites, or on sites not defended by very strong
earthworks, so that their construction, from the first, was in masonry,
and thus it came to pass that the shells of masonry, though always
connected with the older sites, were of later date than the solid
towers. Even at Durham, a castle recorded to have been built by the
Conqueror, and of which the keep must always have been on the present
mound, though the chapel and connected buildings may be his work, the
shell keep contains no Norman masonry; and if, as is to be supposed,
there was once a Norman shell, it was probably the work of one of the
Conqueror’s sons, or even of Henry II.
A shell keep is always placed upon a mound, either natural or
artificial. Of those on natural hills, the most considerable are
Belvoir, Durham, and Lewes, but the masonry of the two former is not
original, though built upon the old lines. Dunster, the Tor of the
early Lords Mohun, has been examined, and the only trace of its keep
is a fragment of a drain. Montacute, where the hill is wholly natural,
has also been cleared of masonry. But by far the larger number of these
mounds are either wholly artificial, or of a mixed character.
In plan and dimensions these keeps are roughly governed by the figure
of the mound on which they stand. Most are polygons of ten or twelve
sides, not always equal. Some are circular, others polygonal outside
and circular within. Others are slightly oval, others more complex in
plan. York, for example, approaches to a quatrefoil, 64 feet by 45
feet, and this seems to have been the plan of the long-since destroyed
keep of Warwick. Their diameter is rarely less than 30 feet, and seldom
exceeds 100 feet.
The wall was usually 8 feet to 10 feet thick, and, as a security
against settlement, was generally placed 2 feet to 3 feet within the
edge of the mound. Sometimes, as at Lincoln and Tickhill, the walls
were strengthened by flat Norman pilasters, but more commonly they
were of plain rubble with plinths and angle quoins of ashlar. Cardiff,
though without a plinth, has angle quoins, and probably dates from
early in the twelfth century. The walls of these keeps were 20 feet to
25 feet high to the rampart walk, which was reached by open interior
staircases either of wood or stone. Traces of the latter were visible
a few years ago at Cardiff. Such a shell is well suited to be placed
upon made ground, which would not have supported a solid mass. At
Cardiff, where a heavy tower was long afterwards added, it slipped and
fell. The interior of the larger keeps was an open court, around which
were placed the buildings—sometimes mere sheds—against the ring wall.
Where the keep was large and the castle important, these buildings were
permanent, though even in the greater keeps, such as York, timber was
largely used. Windsor, before the alterations, contained an open court,
as still does the keep of Ledes Castle, which is peculiar in standing
upon a small island, completely occupied by it. The present round tower
at Windsor, though modern, is built upon the lines of the Edwardian
tower, which again was built upon those of a late Norman keep, the
foundations of which were laid open by Wyattville, and found to rest
upon an artificial mound. Durham keep is said to have been originally
open, but to have been closed to accommodate the bishops, who were
forced, by the disturbed state of the country, to reside within it. The
keep at York, known as Clifford’s tower, is rather Early English than
Norman, and probably succeeded a timber structure. It much resembles
some of the French keeps built by Philip Augustus. It has a well in
the court, turnpike stairs to the ramparts, and a chapel over the
entrance, much altered in the Decorated period, and which, as is not
uncommon, serves as a portcullis chamber. At Hawarden, a small and
close, but very curious keep, the oratory is over the entrance.
Tamworth, rather an Early English than a Norman structure, was long
the actual residence of a considerable family. It is still inhabited,
and contains some crowded and curious buildings, an open court, and
a well. Connected with the keep is an earlier curtain-wall with some
herring-bone work. The approach to the keep lies along the rampart of
this wall. The actual entrance is a small, plain, pointed doorway. At
Lincoln the keep is a mere Norman shell. It is nearly circular, and
has two original doorways, one (the larger) opening from the castle
area, the other opening upon the outer ditch. The mound stands upon
the _enceinte_ line of the place, and at the points at which the two
curtains abut upon the keep are two mural chambers, which appear to
have been garderobes. At Clare the shell was a polygon of fourteen
faces, and at each angle was a buttress, triangular in plan, and of
three stages, dying into the wall. The shell was 52 feet internal
diameter, and the walls 6 feet thick and 25 feet high, with four tiers
of putlog holes. The foundations of this keep are of the unusual depth
of 6 feet. There is said to have been an underground chamber, which may
be doubted. The material is flint rubble, with ashlar buttresses and
dressings, but the actual masonry, though, no doubt, generally on the
old lines, does not look later than Edward III., if so old. The mound
is 53 feet high, and on the _enceinte_, and traversed by the curtain.
The base is about 870 feet in girth, of which about 600 feet are
outside, and 270 feet within the area.
At Alnwick the whole inner ward is a shell keep built upon a natural
knoll. The main buildings, being the lord’s lodgings, are built
against and form part of the wall, and the centre is an open court.
The gatehouse is Norman, and part of the foundations of the wall, but
most of the superstructure has been rebuilt twice over, though upon the
old lines. There is a well in the wall, probably original, but encased
in late Norman masonry. Alnwick being a sort of Castle Dangerous, and
always open to sudden attack, the lord habitually lived within the
keep, which was far more commodious than usual. Tickhill keep was a
decagon, of which the foundations remain, to the top of the plinth,
with the base of a flat pilaster capping each angle. The entrance was
by a small door, just within which was the well. The mound stands
on the _enceinte_, and the curtain runs up it on each side. About a
quarter of the girth is within the castle area, and the rest outside.
Part of Pickering keep is standing; it is late and polygonal. Here the
mound is central, and stands on the line of a curtain which divides
the area into two parts. At Ewyas-Harold, Builth, and Berkhampstead
are traces of the foundations of the keep. At Kilpeck part of the wall
is standing, and the well was within it, and is probably older than
the masonry. Farnham keep is part of an inhabited dwelling, and has
not been examined. At Oswestry is a fragment of the masonry, and at
Whittington are traces showing that the mound was revetted, and also,
in Decorated times, strengthened by four or five large mural drum
towers.
The foundations of Tonbridge keep show it to have been a slightly
oval polygon, 86 feet by 76 feet, with fifteen external pilasters at
the angles, and walls 11 feet 6 inches thick. This is attributed to
Bishop Odo, but the noble gatehouse and walls below are later. The
mound covers an acre, and is on the _enceinte_. Arundel has a good
plain Norman doorway from the castle court, and an entrance by a
gallery in the curtain from the gatehouse. Here is a chapel on the
first floor, at the junction of the curtain with the keep, and near it
is the well-chamber. The well is outside, and probably older than the
keep wall. In the wall is a turnpike stair leading to the ramparts,
and near its foot a small subterranean chamber, but both are later
than the keep, and insertions. At Oxford the mound contains a crypt,
an addition; but here, as at Wallingford, Hinckley, Leicester and
Caerleon, the walls are gone, as at Bedford, so celebrated for its
siege by Henry III. The mound at Quatford, having been the seat of Earl
Roger, was, of course, fortified, though whether by masonry is unknown.
There is, however, a deep well, which must have been within the keep. A
tunnel and later flight of steps have been cut, and descend through the
skirts of the hill from the outer ward. This passage strikes the shaft
a few feet above the water level.
Berkeley, on many accounts one of the most interesting castles in
England, has a very curious shell keep, built round a mound, which thus
fills up the lower stage. The wall, the lower part of which is thus a
revetment, is strengthened by three half-round mural towers, one of
which contains the well, and above it the chapel. This keep is also
remarkable for the forebuilding covering its entrance, which contains
a tower over the lower or outer gate, at the foot of the staircase.
This castle is known to have been built soon after the accession of
Henry II., and, though Norman, is, of course, late in the style;
Orford and Chilham, Norman keeps of a peculiar character, also have
forebuildings. The keep at Pontefract is very peculiar. The castle
covers the table-top of an oval knoll, natural, with precipitous sides
of rock. At one end, on the edge of the cliff, is placed the mound, now
encased partially in masonry. The masonry begins at the foot of the
cliff, as a sort of half-round tower, or rather a cluster of roundlets,
built as a retaining-wall. Above, the circle of masonry is completed,
includes the mound, and forms the shell keep. The base is honeycombed
with passages and chambers, cut in the rock, and partly lined with
masonry. In its present condition this keep exhibits masonry of both
Decorated and Perpendicular date, but its substance, as also some of
its adjacent masonry, is evidently late Norman.
Restormel is rather a round castle than a shell keep, and more Early
English than Norman. On the whole, however, it may be classed with
the shells. It occupies a natural knoll, and its ring-wall crests the
steep slope; against it are the buildings, and within is an open court.
Launceston, also, though Early English, belongs to the shell type. It
has a central round tower, and a concentric wall much lower, a sort
of _chemise_, the space between the two having been covered in with a
flat roof. Possibly Montacute, built by the same lord, may have been
after the same pattern; but of Montacute even the ruins have long since
perished.
The approach to these keeps seems, in its simplest form, to have been
by a wooden bridge over the ditch on the side within the castle,
and thence by steps up the mound, as at Lincoln, where, however,
they are modern, and the ditch is partially filled up. At Tickhill,
and at Hawarden, there is a flight of steps just within, and built
against the curtain. At Cardiff recent excavations have disclosed the
piles of a timber bridge, which crossed the ditch, and may be older
than the remains of the Norman keep. Cardiff, however, thanks to the
same excavations, affords an excellent example of the more elaborate
approach to a Norman shell keep. Here a thick curtain-wall traversed
the court of the castle, and crossing the ditch of the mound was
continued up its slope; just within the curtain was a drawbridge across
the ditch, beyond which a direct flight of steps led up to the keep.
Here, as at Wallingford, the well was on the slope of the mound, just
within its ditch. Usually the actual entrance to the keep was by a mere
door in the wall, as at Arundel, Lincoln, Tickhill, and Tamworth. At
York is a regular gate-house, a part of the shell, which was reached by
a very steep bridge, crossing a very formidable wet ditch.
It has been mentioned that these shell keeps, and the mounds on which
they stand, are usually upon, and form a part of the _enceinte_ or line
of the outer defence of the castle, though isolated from it by their
proper ditch, of which the main ditch of the place is commonly a part.
This is well shown in the old plans of York Castle, and may be actually
seen at Arundel, and many other works both large and small, and in
other mounted mounds, such as Hên-Domen, near Montgomery, and Brinklow,
which have never been defended by masonry. It was, of course, necessary
to carry the palisade, and afterwards, if constructed, the curtain,
across the ditch and up the slope of the mound to the wall of the keep,
and even where the mound was central, as at Pickering and Cardiff, it
was upon the division line of the two wards, and, therefore, on the
line of a curtain. At Berkhampstead the keep seems to have been, not
upon, but outside the line of defence, and to have formed a sort of
spurwork connected with the main curtain by a single but very thick
wall. Arundel, Durham, Lincoln, Tamworth, Tickhill, Tonbridge, Windsor,
and Wallingford, are, or were, good examples of shell keeps on the line
of the _enceinte_ wall.
Besides any other approaches, it is evident that the curtain was always
made use of as one way to the keep, and at Arundel and Tamworth is
still so used, the parapet in front and rear protecting the rampart
walk. As, however, it was a fundamental rule in Norman castles that
the keep, the final retreat, however many its approaches, should have
as few entrances as possible, the curtain usually stopped at the top
level of the mound, and was continued only as a parapet, so that those
who came along the wall had, on reaching the keep, to pass along its
outside a greater or less distance before they reached the doorway.
This is well seen at Tamworth. At Arundel the wall is raised to the
full height of the keep, as at Lincoln, but this is not usual. At
Hawarden the curtain is continued 10 feet or 12 feet high, and so abuts
upon the keep, but the rampart walk does not communicate with it.
The position of the well in these keeps has already been noticed. At
York and Tickhill it is within the area. That at Arundel is in a tower
outside the wall, but a part of it. That at Berkeley is also in a
tower, a part of the wall. Those of Alnwick and Kilpeck are in the wall
itself; those of Cardiff and Wallingford at the foot of the mound, just
within the ditch.
It is much to be regretted that so few of these shell keeps remain,
even in ruin, and very few, indeed, in a state at all approaching
to their original condition, for, as the representatives of a very
early form of fortification, and as the chief seats of very ancient
estates, and of original English families, they possess a very peculiar
interest. Nor are they, when of large size, at all wanting in a noble
effect. It is true that upon level ground, as that occupied by the
Tower of London, or upon such a ridge as Corfe, or such an elevated
platform as Hedingham, the rectangular keep produces a very fine
effect, but there are positions in which this is fully equalled by the
keeps of the other type. At Durham, where the central tower of the
cathedral is equal in grandeur and simplicity to a rectangular keep,
it is eclipsed by the adjacent castle. The keep of Belvoir, which,
though rebuilt and weak in its details, retains its original outline,
would be ill exchanged for the towers even of Norham or Lancaster, and
no other structure could be substituted to advantage for the keep of
Windsor, crowning and completing its “tiara of proud towers.” Massive
as is the rectangular keep, simple, uncompromising, and warlike its
features, still, even when seen to its greatest advantage, as on the
promontory of Dover or the bold impregnable rock of Bamburgh, it must
be confessed to be inferior in grandeur and in completeness of outline
to the stern round tower of other days, identified as it is with the
early residences of the adventurous Northmen who laid the foundations
of the English people.
LIST (APPROXIMATIVE) OF SHELL KEEPS, PAST OR PRESENT.
_Bedfordshire._—Bedford, Clophill, Ridgemount (?), Toddington.
_Berks._—Reading (?), Wallingford, Windsor, Yieldon (?).
_Buckinghamshire._—Buckingham.
_Cambridgeshire._—Burwell (?), Cambridge, Ely.
_Cheshire._—Dunham-Massey, Kinderton (?), Malpas (?), Mold (?).
_Cornwall._—Launceston, Restormel, Trematon, Truro (?).
_Derbyshire._—Sheffield (?).
_Devon._—Barnstaple, Barnton, Plympton, Tiverton (?), Totnes.
_Dorset._—Dorchester (?), Shaftesbury (?), Wareham.
_Durham._—Durham, Elswick (?), Throston, (?), Tunstal (?), The Yoden
(?).
_Essex._—Bures (?), Ongar, Plessy.
_Gloucestershire._—Berkeley, Gloucester (?).
_Hampshire._—Basing (?), Carisbrooke, Southampton, Winchester.
_Herefordshire._—Erdesley, Ewyas Harold, Hereford, Kilpeck, Richard’s
Castle, Weobley, Wigmore.
_Hertfordshire._—Ansty (?), Berkhampstead, Hertford, Stansted Mount
Fitchet, Stortford.
_Huntingdonshire._—Huntingdon.
_Kent._—Haydon Mount (?), Kenardington (?), Ledes, Newington (?),
Tunbridge, Tong (?).
_Lancashire._—Gleaston (?), Halton, Penwortham, Robin Hood’s Butt (?).
_Lincolnshire._—Bourne, Lincoln, Stamford.
_Monmouth._—Abergavenny, Caerleon, Crickhowell.
_Northamptonshire._—Fotheringay, Lilbourne (?), Rockingham.
_Northumberland._—Alnwick.
_Oxfordshire._—Oxford.
_Rutland._—Belvoir.
_Salop._—Oswestry, Pulverbatch (?), Quatford, Shrewsbury, Whitchurch,
Whittington.
_Somerset_.—Castle Carey, Dunster, Montacute, Stoke Courcy.
_Staffordshire._—Chartley, Stafford (?), Tutbury.
_Suffolk._—Clare, Eye, Haughley, Thetford.
_Sussex._—Arundel, Chichester (?), Knapp, Lewes.
_Warwick._—Beldesert, Tamworth, Warwick.
_Wiltshire._—Castle Combe, The Devizes, Marlborough, Old Sarum.
_Worcestershire._—Worcester.
_Yorkshire._—Aughton (?), Pickering, Pontefract, Sandal, Skipsea,
Tadcaster, Tickhill, York.
_North Wales._—Hawarden.
_South Wales._—Brecknock, Builth, Cardiff, Coyty.
Thus, of 119 presumed sites of shell keeps, there are set down 31 the
evidence for which is imperfect, and 88 for the existence of which
there is good evidence, and of these about 40 actually remain in a more
or less perfect, or rather, imperfect, condition.