CHAPTER XII.

OF THE EDWARDIAN OR CONCENTRIC CASTLES.

Every castle, if more than a solitary tower or peel, and having more

than a single line of defence, has more or less of a concentric

character, but in most, even of the largest of the earlier castles, the

secondary defences were of small extent and confined to works for the

protection of the entrance, as at Richmond and Coningsborough, and such

cannot, with any propriety, be called in a general sense concentric.

At Richmond, for example, the original castle was an enclosure within

a fortified wall of which the keep formed a part, a small barbican

covering the entrance, and so of the purely Norman part of Corfe, of

Coningsborough, of Brough, of Bridgnorth, and probably of the original

Tower of London. None of these were originally concentric, nor can the

term be correctly applied to the original castles of the early part of

the reign of Henry III., nor even to some of those built by his son.

White Castle, Grosmount, Cilgerran, and even Caernarvon and Conway,

are mere enclosures, strengthened and fortified by mural towers and

gatehouses upon a single line of wall. Salisbury was concentric by

necessity, the earthworks leaving the builders no choice in the matter.

The concentric arrangement has been supposed to have been introduced

by Prince Edward from Syria. That so able a soldier, and so shrewd an

observer, added to his knowledge of the military art by what he saw in

Palestine is probable enough, but the system of defence for which his

reign became celebrated was in truth introduced into England before the

death of Henry and before Edward returned from the East. Caerphilly,

one of the most complete examples of the concentric lines of defence,

was constructed just before Henry’s death, and was the work, not of the

sovereign but of a subject. Nevertheless, so great was Edward’s fame,

that the system which, though he did not invent, he adopted, has been

designated by his name, and the term Edwardian has been applied to that

style of fortress, that took the place both of the round tower and of

the walled enclosure, and carried forward the art of fortification

from the Early English to the Decorated period of English architecture.

Edward’s policy, on his return from the East, and accession to the

throne, led him not to build, but to pull down castles. In the fourth

year of his reign it was enacted: “It is to be enquired of castelles,

and also of other buyldings girt with dytches, that the walls, tymber,

stone, lead, and other manner of coverynges are worth, and how they may

be solde, after the very value of the same walles and buyldinges. And

how moche the buyldinges without the dych may be sold for, and what

they may be worth, with the gardens, custylages, dove house, and all

other issues of the court by the yere.” Probably this mainly related

to such unlicensed castles as had escaped the hands of Henry, as none

of the older or more important structures were then pulled down. Many

of these, indeed, had recently been augmented and embellished, and

where it suited his convenience, Edward followed in the same track,

strengthening and repairing decayed walls and towers, and adapting

them to the changed circumstances of the time. Thus, at Porchester, he

rebuilt the inner ward, and much enlarged the contained buildings. The

additions to Middleham, an outer ward and gatehouse, are of his reign,

and the vast outworks beyond the lake at Kenilworth, and the effect of

these and similar alterations was to convert the original castles into

those of the concentric type.

But it was in North Wales that circumstances called forth Edward’s

talent as a military engineer. In that country the strong places were

hill camps, unfitted for modern warfare, and out of the line of his

operations. He found there neither English mounds nor Norman keeps, and

his works are not only on a grand scale, but they are original. To him

are entirely due the castles of Conway and Caernarvon, Beaumaris and

Harlech. Possibly Bere Castle and Dolbadarn Tower were strengthened

by him, but they rather resemble the early works of his father. In

Scotland Edward’s works have been mostly destroyed, but his hand may be

recognised at Linlithgow, possibly in the castle at Edinburgh, and in

the old fortifications of Berwick.

The first characteristic of a concentric castle is the arrangement of

its lines of defence, one within the other, two or even three deep,

with towers at the angles and along the walls, so planned that no part

is left entirely to its own defences. A wall cannot be advantageously

defended unless so arranged that the exterior base of one part can be

seen and commanded from the summit of another. A Norman keep or an

Early English round tower could only be defended by the projection

of missiles from the battlements, exposing those who discharged

almost as much as those who received them. The employment of mural

towers not only added to the passive strength of the wall whence

they projected, but when placed within a bowshot distance enabled

the defenders, themselves protected, to enfilade the intermediate

curtain. By this means the curtain wall, that part of the work least

able to withstand the strokes of the ram, became that in defence of

which most projectiles could be brought to bear, whilst the towers,

which from their distance apart were but imperfectly flanked, were

from their form and solidity in little danger of being breached. By

this means also material was economised. The walls were less thick,

and the defence generally was carried on with more skill and less

dependence upon passive strength. In this indeed there was nothing

new, but not the less the principle was ignored in the construction

both of keep-towers and their successors, the round towers, donjons,

or juliets. But in the concentric system a good deal more than this

was effected. The parts of the lines of defence were so arranged that

the garrison could sally from one part, and so harass the attack upon

another. Moreover each part, tower or gatehouse, and sometimes each

stage of a building, was so contrived that it could be held separately

for a short time. Also, from the concentric arrangement of the lines,

a breach of the outer wall did not involve the loss of the place. The

second ward, as at Beaumaris, Harlech, Caerphilly, or the Tower, was

so narrow that in the event of its being entered from a breach, the

assailants were exposed to an attack on either flank, in such a manner

that their greater number could not be brought to bear, nor was there

room to work a catapult or set up a malvoisin. In these castles, the

keep, the main feature in a Norman or an Early English fortress, was

dispensed with; it was developed, to speak anatomically, into an open

court, strengthened at its sides and angles by gatehouses and mural

towers, and having the hall and domestic apartments ranged against the

wall along one or two sides. Around this inner ward was disposed a

second ward, of narrow breadth, and broken up by cross walls. Sometimes

around this second ward was disposed a third or outer ward, usually

of large area, so as to accommodate the greater part of the garrison,

the horses, and the neighbouring peasants with their cattle. In many

castles this outer ward contained a ditch, or even a large sheet of

water, as at Ledes, Caerphilly, and Kenilworth, formed by damming back

a local streamlet. In such cases the defence of the dam became a matter

of prime consequence, and was specially provided for by stout walls

along its length, and towers or gatehouses at either end. In these

castles every part is intended for everyday use. No part is set apart

only to be inhabited during a siege. The hall, chapel, and kitchen were

habitually used, and constructed on a fitting scale.

As Caerphilly is both the earliest and the most complete example in

Britain of a concentric castle, it will be convenient briefly to

point out its principal features. The position was selected to close

a pass by which the Welsh were wont to issue from the hill country of

Glamorgan into Monmouthshire, the way by the sea coast being barred by

Cardiff and the castles of the vale. The spot selected lay between the

Taff and the Rhymny, upon a gravel bank rising in a low marshy bottom,

having mountainous, or at least very high ground to its north, south,

and west. The central part of the bank was occupied by a rectangular

enclosure, 70 yards by 53 yards, having at each angle a lofty drum

tower, and in the centre of each end a broad and lofty gatehouse. On

one side of this inner ward was the hall, 72 feet long by 33 feet

wide, placed between the chapel and the private apartments, while

the gatehouses also contained apartments second only to the hall in

magnitude. This inner ward stood within a second and rather larger

area, also rectangular, and 106 yards by 90 yards. This middle ward was

provided with smaller gatehouses connected with those within, and was

contained within a revetment and parapetted wall which descended 20

feet all round into water. Four parapetted bastions, corresponding to

the interior towers, capped the four angles, and the side next the hall

contained the kitchen and offices, and a water-gate opening from the

hall by a broad passage with space for the stowage of boats.

The water by which these two wards were encompassed was on one side

a deep and broad lake covering about 16 acres, and on the other

side a smaller sheet of water of about 3½ acres. These two waters

were connected by cross cuts at each end, traversed, opposite the

gatehouses, by drawbridges. One of these dropped upon a _tête du pont_,

a sort of hornwork or ravelin of earth, about an acre and a-half

in area, and enclosed within a revetment wall duly parapetted, and

probably with a stout palisade on the raised ground within. A branch

from the lake encircled this work, and a second drawbridge connected

it with the ground outside. At the opposite end of the castle another

bridge dropped from the middle ward upon the outer ward, a very

remarkable work. This was a raised platform nearly 330 yards long by

from 14 yards to 36 yards in depth, covering the whole front of the

castle, including the two sheets of water. The platform was divided

near its centre by a lofty wall embattled on each face, and having a

ditch along one of them. On this wall was a strong gatehouse having

below a portcullised doorway, with a drawbridge connecting the two

parts of the platform, and above, a smaller doorway, also protected by

a bridge and portcullis, and guarding the way to the battlements of the

outer wall. At one end of the platform was a postern connected with the

stables, and at the other a cluster of towers on the outer bank of the

lake, containing another postern. In the centre was the great exterior

gatehouse, from the gateway of which a bridge dropped upon an enormous

pier standing in the middle of the outer ditch, from the exterior

face of which a second bridge dropped upon the village street. On the

platform was a large corn-mill, and connected with it the dam and

sluice by which the waters of the lake were retained and regulated, and

which was very strongly fortified. Thus there were two great gates and

two posterns at points of the castle distinct from each other, whence

large bodies of cavalry could issue, so that the camp of a besieging

force could be attacked from four directions, and, in case of failure,

the castle could be reached by four entrances, besides two water-gates.

In addition to these strategical arrangements, each tower and gatehouse

had a portcullised entrance on the ground floor, and in the upper

stories the lateral doorways opening on the battlements of the curtains

were protected in a similar manner.

In a military point of view, Caerphilly is a work of consummate skill.

Unfortunately for its historic fame, the settlement of Wales followed

so closely upon its erection that it never attained to any great

importance.

Harlech is a concentric castle, probably designed by the architect of

Caerphilly. Here also is an inner rectangular ward, with drum towers at

the angles and the hall, and other buildings on two sides. This stands

within an outer ward, also rectangular, with parapetted walls and

bastions. The inner ward has a large single gatehouse, connected with

a second and smaller one in the outer ward, from which a drawbridge

spanned a deep and broad ditch quarried in the rock. Harlech stands

well, and occupies a bold headland of rock which formerly rose out of

the sea, from which it is now separated by a broad tract of low land.

Its great peculiarity is a covered staircase cut in the rock, defended

seaward by a looped parapet, and closed above and below by small

gatehouses. This was the water-gate of the fortress, and opened upon a

small quay now occupied by the railway.

Beaumaris, another of Edward’s castles, deserves special attention

from the fact that it stands upon open ground, and its plan is

therefore unaffected by any peculiarities of level. It is composed

of two wards; the inner rectangular, 58 yards by 66 yards, with high

curtain walls, drum towers at the four angles, a gatehouse in the

centre of each end and half-round towers in the centre of each side,

of which one is the chapel. The apartments were in the gatehouses, and

the hall was on the first floor, above the portal. The curtains are

remarkable. They are 16 feet thick, but are pierced longitudinally

below the ground level by a series of sewers, and above by a mural

gallery, the rampart walk being above all. The outer ward is an

irregular octagon, the opposite sides being equal. It is strengthened

by twelve drum towers. The space between the two walls, forming the

ward, is narrow—from 40 to 50 feet broad. At one end is a gatehouse,

protected by a double traverse raking the passage, and at the other is

a postern, part of a gatehouse, either unfinished or pulled down. From

one end towards the sea shore projects a wall 5 yards broad and about

33 yards long, containing a passage looped each way and traversed by a

gateway. This is a spurwork, and was connected with the quay, and ended

in a round tower. There was but one ditch, which girdled the whole, and

was fed from the adjacent sea. It is now filled up.

The additions to the Tower of London, by which its Norman keep and

Early English inner ward were converted into a regular concentric

castle, are skilfully managed. Here the second ward, as usual, is very

narrow, and a broad and deep ditch girdles the whole. One limb of

the ditch is, however, represented by the Thames, but between it and

the outer wall is a strip of land serving as a quay for the landing

of stores, of which the rear is strongly fortified. At each end was

a sluice for regulating the water of the ditch, and in the centre a

grand and strongly fortified water-tower, with a portcullised canal

from the river, known as Traitors’ Gate. The annexed plan of the Tower

represents very fairly a composite but concentric castle.

When the size of the fortress did not require more than one ward, as

at Pennard in Gower, or where the ground was unsuitable, as at Conway

and Chepstow, the concentric arrangement was laid aside. At Chepstow

the Norman keep stands upon a steep ridge of rock, occupying its whole

breadth. The additions, therefore, were necessarily at each end, so

that the whole castle, constructed at various times, is an oblong,

composed of five wards opening one from the other, with the keep in the

centre. Its plan is, as it were, a slice cut right across a concentric

castle.

In an Edwardian castle the principal feature was the hall, spacious,

well lighted, usually with a handsome fireplace and an open timber

roof. At Beaumaris it occupies the first floor of a gatehouse; at

Ludlow, Durham, Pembroke, and Conway it is built against the curtain.

The domestic apartments opened from the dais end of the hall. The

accounts of Henry III. often record works in the halls of castles.

28 Henry III. a great louvre was ordered for the hall at Woodstock,

and a new hall 60 feet by 40 feet at Ludgershall, with offices and two

kitchens for the king and his household at one end of it. At Chepstow

Henry ordered a hall and kitchen to be constructed of timber.

[Illustration]

The kitchen was a very important part of an Edwardian castle. The

Norman cookery was probably very simple, and few of their keeps have

any discoverable kitchen. The later kitchen was often a great feature

in the castle. At Caerphilly, as at Cockermouth, it occupies a large

tower. At Ludlow it stood out alone in the court-yard. At Kenilworth

its remains are considerable. The oven was often of large size. That at

Morlais was 12 feet diameter.

The chapel is also an essential part of an Edwardian castle. Many

of the Norman keeps contain mural oratories. In Newcastle, Dover,

and Middleham there were regular chapels within the forebuilding. At

Guildford the oratory is an =∟=-shaped mural cell. At Caerphilly the

chapel opened from the lower end of the hall. At Kenilworth foundations

of a large chapel, of Decorated date, have been laid open in the outer

ward. At Goderich the chapel is connected with the gatehouse, and at

Prudhoe. At Beaumaris, Kidwelly, and Oxwich it occupied a mural tower.

At Chepstow the chapel was on a large scale, and in the outer ward.

There is also, in Martens tower, a charming Early English oratory. In

royal castles, in the reign of Henry III., the chapel often appears in

the accounts. In one castle Henry orders a chapel to be constructed 25

feet long, and the head of the oriel was to be in the king’s chamber.

At Kennington Castle, the chapel was to be wainscotted and provided

with a staircase of plaster 30 feet long and 12 feet wide. Its upper

part communicated with the queen’s private chapel, and the household

sat below. At Winchester the chapel opened into the queen’s chamber,

and at Woodstock was a passage between the two, so that the queen could

go and return dryshod. Twelve mats for the worshippers were ordered in

St. Thomas’ Chapel in Winchester Castle. Many of the larger castles

contained regularly endowed chapels, sometimes, as at Windsor, even

collegiate. Pontefract and Hastings were so provided. This was also the

practice in Scotland. Dalkeith Castle had a chapel endowed in 1377,

and to Lord Moray’s chapel, in Bucharm Castle, were attached certain

tithes early in the thirteenth century. At Dunster and elsewhere was a

provision that the officiating monks, who came from an adjacent priory,

should during a siege perform their services at home.

An Edwardian gatehouse is a very imposing structure. It was usually

rectangular in plan, always flanked in front by two drum towers, and

sometimes in the rear by two others containing well-staircases. In

its centre was the portal arch opening into a long straight passage

traversing the building. Three loops in each flanking tower commanded

the bridge of approach, raked the lateral curtain, and covered a point

immediately outside the gate. Above the portal was usually a small

window, and above that, at the summit, a machicolation set out on

corbels, or in its place a sort of bridge, thrown across from tower to

tower a couple of feet in advance of the wall, so that a chase or slot

was left, down which stones or even beams could be let fall upon those

who might be assailing the gate below. Such an arrangement is seen at

Neath, Leybourne, and Pembroke, and is not uncommon. Over the town

gate at Coucy and at the barbican gate at Ledes the projection was of

timber, and part of it remains.

The portal arch, wide enough to admit a wain, or three men-at-arms

abreast, was usually of the form known as “drop.” Within, the first

defence was a herse or portcullis, and behind it a door of two leaves,

opening inwards, and, when closed, held by one or two stout bars of

oak, which could be pushed back into cavities in the wall. Behind the

door the vaulting was often replaced by a flat roof of timber, through

which worked a second portcullis, and then came two lateral doorways

opening into porters’ lodges, usually connected with a small prison.

At St. Briavels the lodge doors are portcullised. At the end of the

boarded space the vault recommenced, and there was a second pair of

doors and a second portcullis. These two were intended against assaults

from within, each gatehouse being constructed for an independent

defence.

Usually, in addition to these gates and doors, the vault was pierced

with from one to five square or round holes, about a foot across,

called “meurtrières.” These might serve to hold posts to check the

entrance of a body of men, or for thrusting pikes down upon them. They

have also been supposed to be intended to allow water to be poured

down, supposing the passage filled with bushes set on fire, though it

is difficult to see how any quantity of water could be obtained, any

more than melted lead or pitch, which are spoken of. The first floor of

the larger gatehouses contained a handsome chamber with lateral doors

leading to the ramparts of the curtain, and sometimes, as at Caerphilly

and the Tower, to an oratory. The portcullises were worked through the

floor, and their tackle must have given an air of warlike reality to

the room, like the guns in a state-cabin at sea. At Caerphilly and

Chepstow the passage to the curtains is protected by a portcullis and a

drawbridge, of which the pit is a deep hollow in the wall.

The walls of these Edwardian castles varied from 25 to 40 feet in

height and were from 6 to 8 feet thick, or even more, to allow of mural

galleries, as at Chepstow, Caerphilly, and Beaumaris. Upon their top

was a path called the “allure,” or rampart walk, protected in front

by an embattled parapet, and in the rear by lower and lighter walls.

Frequently there was a loop in each merlon, and each embrasure was

fitted with a hanging shutter, both of which are seen at Chepstow.

Where the curtain crosses a ward or projects as a spur, as at

Caerphilly and Beaumaris, it was embattled on both faces. The ramparts

were usually reached from the adjacent mural towers, but sometimes,

as at Warwick, by an open staircase of stone. Occasionally, where a

wall is too slight to allow of a rampart wall, it was, in time of war,

provided with a platform of wood, like a builder’s scaffold. This seems

to have been the case with the city wall of York where it bounds the

cathedral garden.

Mural towers vary much in form and size, but are more usually round,

or half-round, or half-round with prolonged sides, than square. Now

and then they are polygonal, as at Stokesay, Warwick, Cardiff, and the

Bishop’s Gatehouse at Llandaff. Stokesay is of the thirteenth century,

but usually these towers are later. Mural towers have seldom much

internal projection. In Roman works they are usually solid, but in

later castles they are sometimes open in the rear or gorge to prevent

their being held when taken by the assailants. The towers of Cologne

and Avignon are so open, and at the Tower the Byward and Traitors’ Gate

towers are closed only with a wooden brattice. The annexed drawing

shows the back view of Traitors’ Gate, with the large arch over the

water and the timber-work above it.

Where there was an outer ward and a second wall, this was considerably

lower than the inner wall, and commanded from it; and the mural towers

often became mere bastions, not rising above the curtains. The second

ward, besides being too narrow to allow of troops being massed or

machines posted for the attack on the inner wall, was traversed by

cross walls with gates, so as to isolate any body of assailants who had

breached the outer wall. Such cross walls may be seen at Caerphilly and

at the Tower.

The barbican was sometimes a mere walled space attached in front of

the gateway, as at Carlisle, Alnwick, Richmond, or the Bars at York.

Sometimes it was a _tête du pont_, detached from the main work, and

posted at the end of the bridge, upon the counterscarp of the ditch,

as at Hawarden, Ledes, and Goderich. At Scarborough it is placed at

the outer end of the long raised causeway, which, again, is broken by

two drawbridges falling from a low central tower. At Helmsley, as at

Caerphilly, the barbican partakes of the character of a horn-work. The

Tower barbican, called the Spurgate, is a regular low gatehouse, with

flanking drum towers or bastions covering the head of the bridge, and

itself protected by a loop from the main ditch. At Bridgenorth the

barbican contained a kitchen, ordered to be repaired, 17 Hen. III. At

Canterbury the barbican, _temp._ Ed. II., was used as a prison.

[Illustration]

Spelman defines a barbican or “ante-murale” as “munimen a fronte castri

aliter ante murale dictum; etiam foramen in urbium castrorumque mœniis

ad trajicienda missilia.”

A palisaded embrasure in front of the barbican was known as the

“barriers.” They are well represented at the Tower by the stockade

covering the entrance.

The drawbridge was an important feature in the defence of a castle.

In its most simple form it was a platform of timber turning upon two

gudgeons or trunnions at the inner end; when up, it concealed the

portal, and when down, dropped upon a pier in the ditch or upon the

counterscarp. Its span varied from 8 to 12 feet. The contrivances for

working it were various. Sometimes chains attached to its outer end

passed through holes above the portal, and were worked within by hand

or by a counterpoise. Occasionally there was a frame above the bridge,

also on trunnions. In the larger castles the arrangements were very

elaborate. Sometimes the bridge was the only connexion between the

gateway and the opposite pier; at others the parapets or face walls

rested on a fixed arch, and the bridge dropped between them. A fine

example of this kind of bridge is seen at the Constable’s Gate, Dover

Castle. At Goderich the details are tolerably perfect. The ditch was

crossed by a stone bridge, apparently of two arches, but only the outer

one is permanent. The roadway of the inner one was a drawbridge. At

Caerphilly, in the ditch in front of the main gate, is a large stone

pier from which a bridge fell each way. Probably it carried a tower of

timber. In Henry III.’s accounts is mention of a _brétasche_ on the

bridge of the great tower at Winchester, and of another, covered with

lead, upon the new bridge.

The portcullis, the “altera securitas” of the badge of the House of

Somerset, always present in the castles of Henry and Edward, was an

important part of the defence. It was a strong grating, in the smaller

gateways of iron, in the larger of oak, strengthened and shod with

iron spikes, and suspended in grooves by two cords or chains, which

passed over two sheaves, or sometimes through a single central block,

and either were attached to counterpoises or worked, as at the Tower

and York gates, by a winch. The grooves are generally half-round,

with slightly prolonged sides, 4 to 6 inches broad by from 4 to 7

inches deep. Above, in the vault, is a chase through which the grate

is worked. Sometimes the portcullis chamber is a small cell in the

wall, as at Rochester keep and Coucy, but in large gateways where

there are two or three grates, they are worked in the chamber above.

At Linlithgow and Thornton Abbey, where the grate is single, it is

carried up within the wall and worked in the second story. Sometimes

the grate had no lateral grooves, and must have either hung loose or

been steadied by its spikes resting on the ground below. This is seen

at St. Briavels and at the upper gate of Chepstow, though never with an

outer portcullis. Sometimes grooves are cut for a spare grate, but do

not appear to have been armed.

Nothing is more remarkable than the provisions for cleanliness in

military buildings. At Ludlow, Langley, and Caerphilly Castles are

large mural towers appropriated to garderobes. At Goderich they occupy

a broad buttress. At Beaumaris the sewers are of very large size, and

run within the main curtain like galleries. Such sewers are often

supposed to be secret passages, though the garderobes above, and the

character of the outlets below, should correct this notion. At Coyty

the filth was collected in an enormous vaulted chamber. The ramparts of

the curtains are also usually provided with garderobes.

Subterranean chambers were not more frequent in England in the

thirteenth and fourteenth than in the eleventh and twelfth centuries,

and if we have nothing like the magnificent tiers of vaulting in the

tower of Coucy, neither have we anything like the wretched cells and

oubliettes found in German castles, and of which those of Baden-Baden

are examples. The basement chambers of mural towers are, indeed, often

below the level of the court-yard, but they are above that of the ditch

outside. At Castel Coch, near Cardiff, is about the worst dungeon in

Britain, but even this is not underground.

The posterns in these castles are often very elaborate. There is a very

fine one at Windsor, opening in the castle ditch, and intended for

the passage of cavalry. This is probably of the age of Henry III. At

Caerphilly are two with regular gatehouses and drawbridges. Sometimes

the postern is a small door with a grate. That at Goderich was worked

in the floor above, so that it required two men in two several places

to open or close the postern. At Caerphilly are two water-posterns; one

out of which a boat could be lowered into the lake, the other at the

water-level, as at Ledes and Tonbridge. Harlech water-gate has been

mentioned.

The castles both of Henry and Edward combine the palace with the

fortress, but the domestic are always subordinate to the military

arrangements. Whether absolutely original, as Caerphilly or Beaumaris,

or completions of older works, as Corfe, Dover, and the Tower, they

usually present a grand appearance, and the masonry is generally

excellent.

Very many of our principal towns were walled in during the reigns of

Henry and Edward; some—as York, Leicester, Colchester, and Chester—took

advantage of the Roman wall. Northampton was walled before 1278. At

Winchester the wall was founded upon an early earth-bank. The only

licences granted for town walls appear to have been to the men of

Harwich and Ipswich, 26 Ed. III.; the Mayor and prud-hommes (probi

homines) of Coventry, 37 and 38 Ed. III.; of Salisbury, 46 Ed. III.;

and of Winchelsea, 3 Hy.; the defences of Hereford, a very exposed

place, seem to have been formed of briars and thorns, placed upon very

formidable banks of earth. It sometimes happened that the gatehouses

were of masonry, while the rest of the defences were banks of earth

stockaded.

The fourteenth century was prolific in castles, chiefly of the smaller

class, upon the Scottish border and in Scotland. In England Dacre,

Dunstanborough, and Spofforth were built early in that century; the

Palace Castle of St. David’s was built in 1342, Caesar’s Tower at

Warwick about 1360, and Guy’s Tower in 1394, two magnificent works.

Gradually, however, pure castles fell into disuse, and such structures

as Bolton and Wressill and Sheriff-Hutton took their place, affecting

generally the form of a square court, round which the buildings were

ranged, and which was entered by a regular gatehouse. In these,

however, the castellate character was employed more from custom than

from necessity, and the external windows are large, and the walls of

very moderate thickness. Many of the royal castles were left to decay,

and others were employed as prisons and handed over to the counties. A

short Act of the 13 R. II. orders “that the King’s castles and gaols

should be joined to the bodies of the counties, and, where severed,

should be reunited.”

Castle-building was from a very early time considered as a royal

prerogative, though in the reigns immediately succeeding the Conquest,

it was so great an object to hold the country, that the claim seems

to have been allowed to slumber. The wholesale destruction of the

adulterine or unlicensed castles which followed upon the death of

Stephen showed the revival of the prerogative, and, in the reign of

Henry III., a regular form of licence, “licentia crenellare,” had to be

granted before a house could lawfully be fortified. The earliest known

of these licences was granted by Henry III. to the Bishop of Winchester

in 1257-8, to enable him to fortify the Isle of Portland. Henry granted

20 of these licences; Edward I., 44; Edward II., 60; Edward III., 181;

Richard II., 60; Henry IV., 8; Henry V., 1; Henry VI., 5; and Edward

IV., 3. A very complete list of these licences, prepared by Sir J.

Duffus Hardy, has been printed by Mr. Parker. Of the 382 given by him,

only four relate to castles of importance; Belvoir, Bungay, Dudley,

and Whitchurch, all of which had been fortified before legal memory.

Most of the others relate to manor-houses, some to bishops’ palaces

and cathedral closes, some to monasteries, some to houses in cities,

and some to castles probably then first built, or perhaps rebuilt on

a larger scale. Such were Apley, Aldworth, Amberley, Bodiam, Bolton,

Bothal, Cowling, Dunstanborough, Ford, Harewood, Naworth, Penrith, Rose

Castle, Stokesay, Shirburne, Tanfield, Tongue, and Wardour, most of

which are still standing, and two or three inhabited.

The following, from the Patent Roll, 15 Hen. VI., 1437, is a part of

the licence granted to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and his Duchess,

who proposed to build a strong house upon the hill now occupied by

the Royal Observatory at Greenwich: “Muris petra et calce includere

et firmare, et muros illos kernellare, batellare, et turrellare, ac

quandam turrim infra parcum prædictum similiter petra et calce de novo

construere, edificare, ac tam turrim illam sic de novo constructam et

edificatam quam dictum manerium sive mansionem ut præmittitur inclusum,

firmatum, kernellatum, imbattellatum, et turrellatum, tenere possint

sibi et hæredibus suis prædictis in perpetuum.”

Innis (“Sketches,” 444) gives a corresponding licence from the Earl of

Ross, in 1406, for the building of Kilravock.

“Johne of Yle, Erle of Ross ande Lord of the Ilis, to all ande sundry

to quhais knawlage thir our present letteris sall come, greeting. Witte

us to have gevyn ande grantit, and be thir present letteris gevis

ande grantis, our full power ande licence till our luffid cosing, man

ande tennand, Huchone de Roos, Baron of Kylravok, to fund, big, ande

upmak a toure of fens, with barmkin and bataling, upon quhat place

of strynth him best likes, within the barony of Kilrawok, without

any contradictioun or demaund, questioun, or any obiection to put in

contrar of him or his ayris, be us or our ayris, for the said toure

ande barmkyn making, with the bataling, now or in tyme to cum. In

witnes hereof, ye haf gert our sele to ther letteris be affixt at

Inuernys, the achtend day of Februar, the yer of Godd a thousand four

hundreth sixte yer.”

Mr. Innis points out that one of James’s first acts on returning from

his English captivity was to order the owners of all castles and

manor-places to make them habitable and to live in them; and he adds

that it is remarkable “How many Scotch castles date from the half

century following the above enactment, and all of one design—a stern,

square keep, rudely kernellated, and surmounted with a cap-house,

partially surrounded by a barbican or barmkin, affording protection

to the inhabitants and their cattle from the hurried inroads of

rough-handed neighbours.”

MEDIÆVAL MILITARY ARCHITECTURE.

DESCRIPTIONS.

“...Time

Has mouldered into beauty many a tower,

Which, when it frowned with all its battlements,

Was only terrible.” ... —MASON.

ALNWICK CASTLE, NORTHUMBERLAND.

The castle of Alnwick stands upon a moderate eminence on the south bank

of, and about 150 yards distant from, the river Alne, which was thus

its immediate defence against the Scot. It is about five miles from,

and about 200 feet above, the sea-level. Towards the east and south

the castle is cut off from the town of Alnwick by a deep combe, once

the bed of the Bow Burn. This has been trimmed and scarped by art, and

its upper part towards the town has been almost obliterated by modern

upfilling.

To the west is a nearly level platform in front of the castle, and

separated from it by a ditch wholly artificial, and in part filled up

and covered by the stables. This ditch was formerly produced along the

south front, and communicated with the Bow Burn ravine. A modern bank

of earth conceals the town from the castle on this, the south-western

quarter.

The walls of Alnwick town were embattled, and probably built, under a

licence to Henry Percy, in 1434, when he constructed the Bond Gate,

now standing. It is uncertain whether the town wall was independent of

the castle, as at Chepstow, or abutted against its outer wall, as at

Carlisle. The main entrance to the castle and its principal postern

were both outside the town. The former was approached from it by a town

gate, the position of which is remembered, and its name preserved, in

the way called “Narrow Gate.” The castle postern opens towards the

river. The Lion gateway in the south wall, leading to the town and the

railway station, is altogether a modern structure, but may represent a

by-gate communicating with the town.

In plan the castle is irregular and many-sided; the west and south

sides terminate, the one in the Abbot’s Tower, and the other in the

Eastern or Ravine Tower, and are 125 yards and 213 yards long; and the

side towards the river, and contained between these two towers, is 226

yards. The area within the walls is nearly 3 acres; that included by

the ditch is near 7 acres.

There is no single keep-tower. The keep is in plan an irregular

polygon, set round with clustered towers, and containing a central

court. This is placed nearly in the middle of the general inclosure,

with which it was connected at three points: one, on the south, by a

bold and lofty gallery which has replaced an original curtain, and

projects 35 yards from the keep to a gatehouse which divides the

eastern and western wards, and is known as the Middle Gate. The other

connexions on the north side were two curtain walls, of which one

reached from the keep 33 yards to the Falconer’s Tower, now rebuilt and

shifted, and had upon it the Armourer’s Tower, now destroyed; and the

other was a curtain, now removed, which extended 20 yards from the keep

to the Postern Tower.

By these arrangements the area was subdivided into an outer or western,

an inner or eastern ward, and a central open keep. There remained,

however, on the north front a three-sided space, bounded by the keep

and the two curtains, and flanked by the Falconer’s and Postern towers.

This space, open towards the river, is at present protected on that

side by a low retaining terrace-wall and bastions of very modern

date. A survey of 1567 shows this side open, and no doubt it was so

originally; the river, its steep bank, the keep, the flanking towers

and curtains, and no doubt palisade, being regarded as a sufficient

defence. This disposition is, however, singular and very curious, and

looks as though the engineer wished to attract the enemy to this the

strongest and most completely flanked part, by a show of weakness by

the absence of an outer _enceinte_. Economy of construction could not

have been the motive, for the cross curtains, in length, would go some

way towards completing the broken _enceinte_.

It would seem, from existing fragments and traces of foundations, that

the lines of the present _enceinte_ and keep are those of the old

Norman fortress. The outline is governed very much by the disposition

of the ground, and the shell keep was the approved Norman way of

occupying such a knoll, whether natural, as at Durham, or artificial,

as at Windsor, or, as here, probably a very slight addition to a

natural knoll. A distinct ditch, now filled up, encircled the keep and

protected it from its containing wards. Towards the river this ditch

seems to have worked out into a steep scarp.

The keep is at this time an open court surrounded by towers. To the

south-east, the gatehouse, about 40 feet deep and 20 feet wide, has

grand external and internal round-headed Norman arches of 9 feet 2

inches span, the vault between being segmental and crossed by plain

chamfered ribs. The exterior arch has a double band of bold chevron

mouldings within a circle of double-hatched work. The inner arch has a

single chevron band, and above it a band of which the voussoirs have

alternate patterns of sunk nail-heads and the heraldic “lozengy.”

This is the work of Eustace de Vesci, who died 1157, and may be dated

1150, though possibly a part of his “munitissimum castellum,” which,

according to Mr. Tate, was existing in 1135. This Norman gateway is

imbedded within a complete gatehouse by Henry de Percy in 1530, of

which the main features are two lofty towers, which as half octagons

flank the entrance from the eastern ward. Original shields of arms,

in the Northumbrian fashion, are carved below the parapets; and

upon the merlons, which are looped, are some original figures, as at

Bothal and Chepstow. The archway is portcullised. The parapets are not

machicolated. The vaulting of the interior of these towers is very

good, and they contain in the basement the original dungeons, which are

described as vaults 10 feet square, aired by loops, while below these

are oubliettes, 8 feet by 9 feet, and reached only by trap-doors in the

floor above. Over the gateway is the private dining-room. The plan of

encrusting an original Norman gateway with later work is very common;

the gatehouses at York afford excellent examples of it.

Entering the court, the open part of which is about 24 yards across,

on the right, in the wall, is the very curious well. Within a pointed

panel are three deep recesses, also pointed, of which the centre

contains the mouth of the well, the shaft of which descends in the

thickness of the wall. A wooden axle crosses above it, and is fitted in

the lateral niches with two wheels, set round with pegs, for winding up

the water-buckets by hand. Above, within the panel, in a small niche is

a figure of St. James blessing the source. This curious and probably

singular well was the work of the first Henry de Percy, in 1312-15;

but the figure of the saint is thought to be an insertion of the last

century. There is a similar arrangement over the great gate of Goderich

Castle for working the portcullis.

Beyond the well is the rear wall of the Great Hall, built by the same

Percy, refitted by the first duke, and rebuilt in 1863. The vaults

below with their segmental ribbing are original, as is part of the rear

and north wall and of the bow, whence the cross curtain ran to the

Postern Tower. This is still the state dining-room, 60 feet by 24 feet,

and the vaults fulfil their original destination as cellars. At this

point is placed a modern cloister supporting a corridor, by which a

bye-access is given to the suite of state-rooms. The original entrance

to the hall was by six open steps from the court.

Next beyond the hall, pointing to the north-east, is a tower, once the

kitchen and scullery, but rebuilt for the second time in 1856, and now

the drawing-room, 45 feet by 22 feet. Beyond this, along the north-east

front, are the saloon, 42 feet by 22 feet, and an ante-room, 22 feet

by 22 feet, built in 1750-86, but newly fitted up. Next to these,

and forming the north-west angle of the keep, is Prudhoe Tower, the

principal tower in the fortress, upon which the flag is hoisted. This

contains the library, 55 feet by 24 feet, and presents two grand bays

to the east and west, with a deep re-entering angle between them. This

also is modern.

Next, on the west front, follows the chapel, built in 1856, a

rectangular tower of bold projection, one principal floor, and a

high-pitched roof. The two angles are cut off, so as to form a

polygonal apse. This conventional east end points, however, south-west.

Then, facing to the south-west, follow two half-round towers, rebuilt

1750-86, containing state bedrooms, and connected by a short curtain,

within which is a dressing-room. Finally, between these and the

gatehouse, completing the circuit of the keep, and projecting due

south, is the gallery, having on the first floor a breadth of one line

of five rooms and a corridor, and below, the middle gateway. The rooms

are the private apartments of the duke and duchess, and a passage

communicating with the kitchens. The gateway, which has a portcullis,

is of the date of 1309-15, and built into the south curtain, from the

outside of which it projects as a mural tower. The gallery replaced

a curtain about 1760, and was rebuilt 1856. The battlements of the

gatehouse were probably added about 1407-55.

The entrance to the state apartments is in the central court, beneath

the arched vestibule, at the north-west corner. From this a grand

flight of steps ascends to an interior vestibule, and thence by a

second flight to the guard chamber, which opens into the state-rooms.

These are all on the first floor, the basement being occupied by

servants’ rooms.

Although the greater part of the keep has been rebuilt in the last and

the present century, it still is composed of the seven towers of the

early Percies, shown in the plan of 1567, and much, especially of the

basement, is old; and what is new is arranged with a close general

regard to the older, and, indeed, in many parts, Norman plan. The

exterior ditch of the keep is partly filled up, and the drawbridge of

the inner gate has been removed. A portcullis remains.

Of the general and exterior _enceinte_, the most complete and striking

portion is the western gateway, a very fine and unaltered example of

a gate and barbican of the Edwardian period, 1312-15, in its simplest

form. The barbican, about 55 feet long by 32 feet wide, is entered by a

large round-headed arch, between a pair of square flanking buttresses,

corbelled out above into two turrets, also square. Over the entrance

in a sunk panel is a large Percy lion, with their motto, “Espérance.”

The arch leads into a passage, 55 feet long by 10 feet wide, for the

first 20 feet vaulted, but afterwards open to the sky. This lies

between very lofty side walls, embattled each way. On the left, a

small side-door led to the counterscarp of the ditch; also on the left

another door opens into a mural stair ascending to the battlements. In

front is the portal of the gatehouse. This barbican crossed the ditch

now filled up. Besides an outer drawbridge, over a loop of the main

ditch, it had an inner bridge between its lateral walls, dropping from

the gatehouse. This is mentioned in the survey of 1538, and was removed

in 1567. The parapets are without machicolations, and the embrasures

have no mouldings. The merlons are not looped, and the figures placed

upon them date only from 1750-86. Probably in advance of the ditch of

this barbican was a barrier or palisade of timber, and the level space

in front, commanded by the walls of both town and castle, is what was

usually employed for jousting matches or military duels. The adjacent

river was a sufficient security against surprise.

The gatehouse, of which the barbican is the covering, is a rectangle

40 feet deep by 45 feet broad, of slight internal and bold external

projection, and presenting to the field two half octagonal towers.

The passage is vaulted and has the usual defences of a portcullis and

gates. The portals are round-headed. There are lateral lodges, entered

one from the passage and one from the court.

Entering the court, the curtain on the left, of considerable height,

has Norman foundations, 1150, and an Edwardian superstructure, 1350.

Outside, a string-course marks the base of the parapet, and the

embrasures have a decorated moulding carried all round. The wall

extends to the Abbot’s Tower, but upon it is a small rectangular mural

tower, called the Avener’s Tower, 1309-15. The Abbot’s Tower, of the

same date, caps the north-west angle. It is rectangular and of three

stages, the lowest being vaulted and ribbed with segmental arches, as

in the Constable’s Tower, and below the Great Hall. The third stage

rises clear of the wall, and is reached by a well-stair, which occupies

the north-east angle.

From this a short curtain of mixed date, 1150 and 1350, with a low

salient, extends to the Falconer’s Tower, also rectangular, rebuilt,

though not exactly on the old site, in 1856, and from which a modern

curtain wall runs up to the Prudhoe Tower of the keep. Upon this wall

stood the Armourer’s Tower, also rectangular, destroyed in 1856,

to improve the view from the library. The removal of this and the

Falconer’s Tower are said to have been the only subtractions made from

the original military works of the castle.

Returning to the west gate, the curtain on its right extends past the

west Garret Tower to the Clock Tower, all rebuilt 1750-86. The latter

is circular, with a flat gorge and keel-shaped salient, and caps the

south-west angle. Outside the last-named curtain, and reached through

it by a gateway, are the stable courts, riding-school, and guest-hall,

135 feet by 35 feet, by 25 feet to the spring of the open timber roof,

a very noble structure. These buildings are of modern date, 1856.

From the Clock Tower the south curtain supports on its outside the

estate offices. Part of this curtain is 1750-86, part 1309-15. This

latter part includes the Auditor’s Tower, 1770, of which the square

rear projects into the court and the half-round front outside. Beyond

this is a bit of Norman curtain, 1150, against which on the outside

is built the modern kitchen, and above which a modern corridor

communicates between the duke’s room and the record-room in the

Auditor’s Tower. The treatment of this part of the structure by Mr.

Salvin deserves especial notice from the happy combination of the

features of the Edwardian age with the appliances of the present day.

The kitchen, with much to remind the visitor of Durham and Avignon,

is as a whole superior to either, and is besides a model of culinary

arrangement. These offices, originally within the keep at the east end

of the hall, were placed here by the first duke, but were recast and

rebuilt by Duke Algernon.

Formerly there stood in the west ward the exchequer and the stables.

The exchequer was a large rectangular building, applied to the north

limb of the west gatehouse, and, like it, embattled. The two ranges of

stabling stood a little within and parallel to the curtains next the

Clock Tower. These buildings, shown in the survey of 1650, were removed

probably about 1755.

Traversing the middle gate, in front is the eastern or inner ward, and

on the left the inner or gatehouse of the keep. On the right, outside

the curtain, is the steward’s room, and beyond it the Warder’s Tower,

mentioned in 1567, but altogether remodelled and rebuilt in 1860 upon

a work of 1770. It now contains the Lion gateway, leading to the

gardens. Below the gatehouse is an ale-cellar, and above one side of

it, attached to the offices, the confectionary.

Beyond, the line of the curtain is irregular. About the salient it is

Norman, 1150, and a very good example of the rough walling of the age.

Upon it is the East Garret, 1309-15, and it ends in the Ravine Tower,

the most eastern work of the castle, and capping an acute angle of

the _enceinte_. This is a good-sized round tower, with a well-stair

at its junction with the curtain. It has been much repaired since its

foundation in 1309-15. It is defended by the ravine, whence it derives

its name.

From hence the curtain trends to the north-west, being in great part

Norman, but repaired at what is called the “Bloody Gap.” Beyond this

is a garret bartizan, called Hotspur’s Chair. It was the gorge of a

half-round tower, now removed, but shown in the plan of 1650. Beyond

this the curtain is again mixed Norman and Decorated of 1312-15, to

the Constable’s Tower. This is a strong half-round tower, capping a

flattish salient to the north-east; it has an exterior entrance by

stairs to each of its three floors. From this a short curtain, 1150,

leads to the Postern Tower, 1312-15, rectangular, pierced below by

the vaulted and portcullised passage of the postern, and vaulted also

on the first floor. This tower is a fine example of a Northumbrian

military building of the Decorated period. The arches are round-headed

or segmental, and it has in its rear wall a remarkable two-light window

with a transom, and in the head a foliated circle. There is also a very

perfect garderobe with external shoot. From this tower a curtain, now

removed, ran upwards to the bow of the hall tower of the keep, and thus

completed the defences of this ward. The original postern passage is

filled up, or nearly so, with earth, but by the side of the tower a way

leads to a terrace walk between the keep and the river, and extending

to Falconer’s Tower.

The eastern ward contained the castle chapel and the conduit, supplied

with water by lead pipes from an exterior spring called Howling Well.

The chapel, a considerable building, stood detached near the Bloody

Gap, and was removed in 1755. The ecclesiastical establishment seems

to have been on a respectable scale, and included a chantry for the

performance of the obits of the family. In this quarter also stood the

brew, bake, and slaughter-houses for the use of the garrison.

Alnwick Castle is probably the finest extant example of a Norman castle

of this type, having an open keep and a complete _enceinte_; for

although most of the present buildings are either of the fourteenth

or the nineteenth century, the plan is certainly Norman, and certain

detached portions of the construction. It seems also that the keep was

never a mere shell, like Cardiff or Arundel, but was always set about

with towers and provided with a handsome gatehouse. A notable feature

is the use of the round-headed and the segmental arch in the Decorated

period. This is not uncommon in the North of England. The very free use

of stone warriors upon the parapets, carried to an absurd extent in

the repairs of the last century, is also remarkable. They are seen at

Bothal, and in Edwardian works both at Caernarvon and Chepstow, but by

no means so freely distributed as here. They were obviously intended

for ornament only, but, of all figures, that of the eagle at Caernarvon

is the only one at all appropriate. No archer would or could have

stood on the crest of the parapet. Most of the later figures were very

properly removed by Mr. Salvin.

There is found upon the battlements of both walls and towers, in

various parts of the castle, a convenient arrangement for hanging a

movable wooden shutter in the embrasures, so as to defend the warders

from a Scottish shaft, and from the scarcely less keen edge of the

bleak winds of the Border. The shutter was suspended horizontally, like

a port-lid, but from trunnions, of which one rested in a round hole in

one merlon, and the other in a similar hole terminating in a groove

in the other, so that the shutter hung freely, and could be lifted in

and out if necessary. The arrangement is precisely that applied to the

roller of a round towel. Traces of this arrangement remain in various

parts of the castle. A perfect example is seen on the barbican. It may

also be seen on the east wall of Goderich, at Chepstow, and elsewhere.

The officers forming the staff of this castle as a civil residence, in

1567, were the constable or governor; the porter of the outer gate; the

greive, or executive officer or bailiff; the receiver or auditor; the

feodary, who looked up the services and tenures; the steward, learned

in the law, who administered justice; the clerk of the courts, who

engrossed the rolls and kept the records; and the foreign or outer

bailiff, who collected the castle-guard and cornage money, and summoned

the tenants and suitors. The whole of the annual payment to these

officers was £58. 18s.

Looking to the character of the country, so charged with traces of

early military earthworks, and to the strong and well-defined natural

position of Alnwick, it seems probable that it was occupied as a camp

by some of the tribes who, from a very remote period, made this Border

their battlefield, and whose defences are still visible in eleven

distinct earthworks within a very short distance of the town. If so,

they would necessarily have placed their defences to the north and

east upon the lines of the present castle. The interior eminence would

certainly have been their citadel, and the trench, completing their

security, would most conveniently have been carried along the general

direction of the western front, so as to connect the head of the Bow

Burn with the Alne, and thus complete the seclusion of the peninsula.

Such a site, so defended, was not uncommonly adopted or constructed by

the Northmen and Saxons when they became settled, and they would have

placed the timber and palisaded mansion of their thane upon the central

entrenched knoll.

Probably the Norman Gilbert Tison, of cloudy memory, who is the reputed

pioneer of the Conquest in these wild regions, found and contented

himself with some early kind of timber fortress, for the earliest

traces of masonry that remain _in situ_ or have been extracted from

the walls, though Norman, are of late character, and attributable to

Eustace Fitzjohn, who married Beatrix, daughter and heir of Ivo de

Vesci, who is thought to have married Tison’s daughter. Eustace, called

De Vesci, flourished under Henry I. and Stephen, and died in 1157. He

was a likely man to have constructed a great castle, being a baron

of considerable power, sheriff of Northumberland, and founder of the

abbeys of Alnwick and, in Yorkshire, of Malton. Also he must have felt

the want of a strong place, for in his days, in 1135, Alnwick Castle

was taken by David I., of Scotland, in the interest of the Empress Maud.

Eustace no doubt built in the first half of the twelfth century a

polygonal clustered keep upon the knoll, gave it the gateway we still

see, and placed his residence within. Traces of his walls are said by

Mr. Tate to have been discovered when the last rebuilding was being

executed. No doubt also he cleared out the moat round the keep. To

him also must be attributed the general wall of the _enceinte_, and

possibly the ditch outside it; and this would have been strengthened

by mural towers, many of which must have stood where their successors

are now placed. De Vesci’s work is indicated by the stones being mostly

square blocks of moderate size, laid in courses, but in beds more or

less wavy, as though the mason used neither line nor level. The joints

are open. Beyond question De Vesci constructed a castle in keeping with

his wealth, and worthy of the chief baron of the Border.

In July, 1174, William the Lion, on his way back from an invasion of

Cumberland, found himself, to his surprise, before Alnwick. William,

son of Eustace de Vesci, attacked him. He was unhorsed, captured, and

sent into England, and beyond sea, to prison. Eustace, son of William,

succeeded in 1190, and was visited by King John, 12th February, 1201,

and 24th April, 1209, when the king received at the castle the homage

of Alexander, king of Scotland. Four years later, May 14th, John

ordered Philip de Ulecote to demolish the castle of Alnwick—a mandate

which could scarcely have been obeyed, seeing the king himself was

there 28th January, 1213, and 11th January, 1216, no doubt unwelcome

visits, for Eustace was a Magna Charta baron. He met his death from an

arrow before Barnard Castle in the last year of King John. Henry III.

visited Alnwick 23rd September, 1256, and Edward I. was the guest of

John de Vesci there 30th April and 1st May, and 16th and 17th August,

1291, and 16th August and 13th and 18th December, 1292; and again 22nd,

23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th September, 1296; and 26th and 29th

June, 1298.

The Barons de Vesci became extinct in 1297, by the death of William,

seventh Baron, when the castle and barony were acquired, it is said, to

the fraudulent exclusion of the natural son, by Antony Bec, the warlike

Bishop of Durham, by whom, in 1309, 3 Edward II., they were sold to

Henry de Percy, the representative of a warlike family, whose advent

forms an important era in the history of the Border. Percy, as the

leader of the Northern barons, made Alnwick his residence, and although

in possession only for five years, seems to have rebuilt much of the

fabric, the rest being completed by his son of the same name.

The Percy Castle, laid out nearly upon the Norman lines, presented very

nearly the appearance of the present structure. The authorship of the

Edwardian part of the inner gatehouse is established by the escutcheon

of Clifford on its walls, the second Henry de Percy having married a

lady of that house. To the first half of this fourteenth century may

be attributed, as has already been pointed out in detail, nearly all

the leading features of the castle, as it stood at the incoming of the

first Duke of the present family. The Percies, though they maintained

the reputation of Alnwick as the great Border fortress during nearly

four centuries, do not appear to have materially altered the fabric of

the two earliest lords. They received here Edward II. in 1311 and 1322,

and Edward III. in 1335; but the later earls were much at Petworth and

in Yorkshire; and upon the death of the eighth earl, in 1537, and the

attainder of his brother, the family ceased to reside at Alnwick, and

the castle was neglected. The Percy line ended in Elizabeth, daughter

of Jocelyn, the eleventh earl, who, 30th May, 1682, married Charles,

Duke of Somerset. Of their children, two had issue, Algernon and

Catherine, who married Sir Wm. Wyndham, and eventually conveyed to that

family the Percy estates at Petworth, Egremont, and Leconfield.

Algernon Seymour, Duke of Somerset, and by creation Earl of

Northumberland, left one child, Elizabeth Seymour, who inherited

Alnwick, and married Sir Hugh Smithson, created Duke of Northumberland,

and ancestor of the present family.

A survey of Alnwick in 1567 shows the decay then to have been very

considerable, and as the Seymour lords preferred their paternal

residence, Alnwick became almost a ruin. From this it was redeemed by

the first duke, who, under the advice of Adam, restored, and in part

rebuilt, the keep; and although he fitted up the interior with plaster

and frippery, made the exterior sound and good, and, on the whole, in

keeping with the character of the place, and with what remained of the

ancient buildings.

Matters so remained until the accession of Duke Algernon, better known

as Lord Prudhoe, a naval officer and a good man of business, who had

travelled much and possessed a cultivated taste, and was of a truly

noble and magnificent disposition. While foremost in works of public

usefulness connected with his estates, county, and profession, and

careful to drain his lands, rebuild the cottages of his labourers,

restore the local churches, and provide lifeboats for his dangerous

coast, he, under the sound advice of Mr. Salvin, almost rebuilt

the castle, preserving with scrupulous care all that admitted of

preservation, and adapting his new work to the period of the first and

second Percy, the founders of the later castle. Having thus restored

the great fortress of the Border with strict regard to the rules of

military architecture, he proceeded, under the advice of Canina, to

fit up the interior in the style of an Italian palace. The contrast

afforded is certainly extreme, and the attempt on so costly a scale was

hardy; but the adaptation of the fittings to the irregular plan of the

rooms is so well conceived, the materials employed are so rich, and the

execution of the details is so skilful, that it is difficult to regard

even so great an incongruity as other than a distinguished success.

Much attention has of late years been paid, and by very competent

persons, to the history of this castle. Grose gives some particulars,

now very valuable; but this and the castles of Warkworth and Prudhoe

have been illustrated by the late Mr. Hartshorne, and are treated

of also by him with great success in the Northumberland volume of

the Archæological Institute. More recently, Mr. Tate has handled the

subject of Alnwick Castle with both skill and accuracy in his admirable

history of the barony of Alnwick. And finally, in the “Life of William

Rufus,” Mr. Freeman has touched lightly but very effectively upon the

connexion of Alnwick and its lords with Northumbrian history. In the

above sketch free use has, to some extent, been made of the above

materials; but the object of the writer has been to treat solely of the

fabric of the castle, and that from a military point of view.

REFERENCES.

1. Donjon.

2. Inner Ward.

3. Outer Ward.

4. Terrace.

5. Stable Courts.

6. Kitchen.

7. Estate Offices.

8. Ravine.

9. Ditch.

10. Tower.

11. Inner Gate.

12. Middle Gate.

13. Barbican.

14. Hall.

15. Withdrawing-room.

16. Music-room.

17. Ante-room.

18. Library. Prudhoe Tower.

19. Chapel.

20. State Bedroom.

21. Entrance.

22. Spur Gallery.

23. West Garret.

24. Abbot’s Tower.

25. Falconer’s Tower.

26. Postern Tower.

27. Constable’s Tower.

28. Ravine Tower.

29. Hotspur’s Chair.

30. East Garret.

31. Warder’s Tower.

32. Auditor’s Tower.

33. Clock Tower.

34. Avener’s Tower.

35. Garden.

[Illustration: PLAN OF ALNWICK CASTLE, NORTHUMBERLAND.]

THE CASTLE OF ARQUES, NEAR DIEPPE.

Arques is one of the earliest examples of a Norman castle, for which

reason, though not an English fortress, it has been thought convenient

to include an account of it in these pages. This grand castle crowns

and occupies the head of a steep and bold cape or promontory, in this

case a spur from the great chalk table-land of the “Pays de Caux.”

On the west it is flanked by a short but deep combe or dry valley,

and on the east by the deeper and far wider valley of the Bethune and

Varenne—streams derived from different sources, but which here meander

across a broad and level bottom, above half a mile wide, until, a

little below the castle, uniting, they receive the tributary Aulne,

and, thus combined, under the name of “la Rivière d’Arques,” fall into

the sea at the port of Dieppe.

The castle thus stands above the left bank of the principal valley.

It is about 4 miles from Dieppe; and immediately below, and to its

north-east, is the village whence it takes its name, remarkable for a

church of unusual size, and a most elegant example of the style of the

latter part of the sixteenth century. Beyond, upon the right bank, are

the remains of the ancient Forest of Arques, a part of the spacious

domain of the ancient lords of the fee, and upon the skirts of which,

within shot of the castle, was fought, in 1589, a very celebrated

battle.

The castle in its present form is composed of a rectangular keep,

standing in the south-west corner of an inner ward, in plan something

less than a half-circle, having its chord to the west, and contained

within an _enceinte_ wall, strengthened by towers and buttresses along

its sides and at its southern end, and capping its angles.

Applied to the north end of this is an outer ward, of later date,

four-sided, and having drum towers at its four angles.

The main entrance, approached by a steep and winding road from the

town, is in the north end, or at the point of the cape, between the

two towers. Entering, is a second gatehouse, opening from the outer

into the inner ward, also between two towers. A third gatehouse, at

the other end of the fortress, leads direct from the exterior into the

south end of the inner ward, and thus opens a communication with the

root of the cape. There is also a lateral postern with vaulted passages

in the west wall of the outer ward.

Outside the wall, encircling it closely, is the ditch, the most

striking feature in the whole fortress. This is in general plan not

unlike the long section of a pear, the northern end being the smaller,

and the western side flattened so as to be nearly straight. The

counterscarp of this ditch includes an area of about 5 acres. The ditch

itself, measured from the level of the foot of the wall crowning its

scarp, is about 60 feet deep, with slopes of 1 foot horizontal to 2

feet vertical, and about 70 feet broad. It is only just not too steep

to be covered with short turf. The crest of the counterscarp is a ridge

about 6 feet broad, and about 20 feet below the level of the foot of

the wall. From it descends another slope, equally steep, but much

deeper; on the west side descending about 150 feet to the bottom of the

valley, and on the east to a rather less depth, as here this “glacis”

is succeeded by a sort of broad terrace of pasture land, which falls

gently towards the river, the level of which may be 250 feet below the

platform of the castle. In many respects these defences resemble those

of Bramber, in Sussex.

At the north-west end the ditch is traversed by a very modern causeway

of earth, which supersedes the earlier drawbridge. At the south end,

where the ground is highest and the ditch about 50 feet deep and

80 feet broad, there remain two engaged piers upon the scarp and

counterscarp, and between them two detached piers, of which the outer

has fallen against the inner. All are rectangular; and the inner of the

detached two is considerably the larger, and probably carried a tower

for the protection and working of a double drawbridge. These piers are

of flint rubble, cased with ashlar, of which a small part only remains.

At the outer end is the earthwork of a _tête du pont_, or ravelin, of

triangular plan, the passage from which was a little to the east side

of the apex. This work was evidently constructed when artillery was in

use, and is attributed to Henry IV., during the campaign of 1589. It no

doubt represents an earlier barbican, also of earth and timber. There

are no traces of masonry beyond the bridge. This work opens upon the

ridge of the promontory, which widens and rises somewhat higher to the

south. The ground is scarred with banks and ditches, the remains of

fieldworks of various dates, both of attack and defence.

The design of this castle ditch is peculiar. The more obvious plan

would have been to place the walls upon the edge of the hill, and scarp

its sides down to the valley with such steepness as suited the ground.

Instead of this, the upper 40 feet of the hill, being chalk rock, was

scarped vertically, and then faced or revetted by a wall, upon which

was placed the _enceinte_ wall of the inner ward. At the foot of the

revetment was then excavated the ditch just described, the material

being thrown outwards so as to form an artificial scarp, which thus

became a sort of advanced banquette or earthwork beyond the ditch,

representing the crest of the glacis, and capable of being held by a

line of soldiers, but which, when taken, was too exposed and too narrow

to allow of its being held, or of cover being constructed upon it. This

banquette was at a rather lower level than the foot of the opposite

wall.

Such an arrangement is found in other castles in Normandy, and notably,

as pointed out by M. Deville, at Molineaux, De Longueville, Bec de

Montagne, and in the later work of Château-Gaillard, where, however, it

is less marked.

The keep is rectangular, about 80 feet north and south by 70 feet

east and west, and at present about 60 feet high. It stands in the

south-west corner of the inner ward, close to the _enceinte_ wall, of

which its south-west angle forms a part. Its walls at the ground level

are about 13 feet thick. It presents three buttresses on the north

face and two on the south—the third being a sort of cap thickening and

enveloping the south-east angle. These are of the unusual breadth and

projection of 9 feet, and they rise to the present, which cannot be

above 10 feet below the original summit. At the north-east angle the

adjacent buttresses are set square, leaving the angle free. The south

face is plain, or nearly so, excepting the cap at its south-east angle,

which extends southwards, and is connected with the adjacent _enceinte_

wall. The west face is plain, outside of which was the entrance.

This is composed of a flight of steps, beginning upon the north face,

passing by a doorway through its most westerly buttress, and which

then, turning, is continued along the west face, until at its south

end it lands in the usual square appendage or forebuilding common in

these keeps. This staircase was guarded by an exterior wall, and had

gateways at its foot and its summit. It was covered over, as appears

from marks upon the wall; and above it was no doubt the usual platform

for defence. In the basement of the forebuilding, which forms also part

of the _enceinte_ wall, was a vaulted chamber opening into the basement

of the keep, as at Rochester, either a store or a prison. The landing

story was barrel-vaulted, having at one end a loop towards the field,

and at the other a door in the wall of the keep.

Entering this door, the staircase is continued southward in the wall

of the keep, up a roughly-vaulted, round-headed, mural gallery, until

at the angle it reaches the level of the first floor. The gallery now

turns the angle, and is continued on the level half-way along the south

wall, when it is stopped abruptly. A door on the right leads upon the

_enceinte_ rampart, and one on the left probably led into the keep.

The interior of the keep is composed of a basement and an upper or,

perhaps, two floors, divided by a north and south wall into two

chambers on a floor. This division-wall is said to be original, and

ought to be so in a keep of this size, but it looks of the sixteenth

century, and may represent an older one. The west basement is much

choked up with rubbish. The east chamber is tolerably clear, and shows

an exterior aperture in its east wall, near the south end, which

communicates with the adjacent south gateway. This may be original,

but it is now a mere hole. In the north wall is a short mural gallery,

entering a well-stair in the north-east angle, which ascends to the

first floor and chapel only. The lower stage was not vaulted. The

first floor has four windows on the north side, two in each room, and

one on the east side. The second floor had also similar windows on

its north, and a vaulted chamber on its east side; no doubt a chapel.

This chapel is formed by throwing a vault from buttress to buttress

for its floor, and at a higher level for its roof, and above this were

the leads. There are traces of similar chambers on the north front.

The upper story has been vaulted in six bays, three on each side, duly

groined and ribbed, as is shown by the springers. The material and the

workmanship, no less than the section of the ribs, show this to be a

late addition, probably of the sixteenth century.

[Illustration: PLAN OF THE CASTLE OF ARQUES, NORMANDY.]

The supposed two upper floors were very possibly intended for one floor

of state, with two tiers of windows and a chapel above. The chapel

seems to have had a barrel round-headed vault, probably groined. The

accounts show this eastern side to have been the royal chamber in the

fourteenth century. The fireplaces seem to be confined to the upper

floors. As now seen, they are of the date of the vaulting.

In the south-west angle of the keep, very near the wall, is the well,

of which the pipe was continued at least to the first floor, as in the

additions at Richmond. It is about 6 feet diameter, lined with ashlar,

and in 1768 was choked up at 254 feet deep, or about the level of the

river; a depth now reduced to 30 or 40 feet.

Outside, between the buttresses, are traces of walls, as though the

spaces between them had been turned to account below as well as above;

but these walls are thin, and do not seem original.

M. Deville cites the public records for the existence in 1318 of four

turrets on the keep, roofed with lead.

M. Le Duc, in his Dictionary, Art. “Donjon,” gives a great variety of

very curious detail connected with this keep, detail unknown to M.

Deville, and for which there should be some authority other than the

traces actually existing, which are very unsatisfactory.

The keep is built of large chalk flints grouted copiously in mortar,

and cased outside with ashlar, now mostly stripped off and removed.

Within, the flints are occasionally laid herring-bone fashion. The

ashlar was a calcareous tufa, known in the country, and formed by the

trickling of calcareous springs over moss and similar vegetation.

It was much used in the earlier French castles. The later ashlar of

the vaulting ribs and inserted door-cases seems to be a fine hard

limestone, approaching Caen stone in appearance, and perhaps actually

that material. Where the ashlar is wanting, the putlog holes are seen,

placed with exceeding regularity. The joints of the original ashlar are

large, those of the later fine. The new and old ashlar can readily be

distinguished; but one flint wall is very much like another.

The inner ward, in length about 160 yards, and in its greatest breadth

about 70 yards, is a natural chalk platform, revetted all round by

a wall about 8 feet thick, which on the east side is reduced to a

parapet, but on the west rises about 20 feet higher, probably its

original height. In 1708 this court contained the apartments of the

governor and the staff of the garrison, a well, and a chapel. These

were probably of the sixteenth century or later, and have now entirely

disappeared.

The _enceinte_ wall, which girdles this inner ward, deserves attention,

as most of it is of early date. Setting aside the four northern

towers with their curtains, which are of later date, we have about 380

yards of curtain broken by five mural towers and three rectangular

buttresses. Nearly the whole of the wall is faced with flint, with

three bands of ashlar. Much of the flint is laid in herring-bone

fashion, the repairs, where of brick, being of much later date. The

ashlar bands are of tufa. Of the towers two, half round, are on the

east front. Of these one, though probably original, has been cased with

brick. The other has had an ashlar base, and the upper part, of flint,

shows herring-bone work. Each is about 15 feet diameter, with walls 5

feet thick.

Between these towers are three rectangular buttresses; two of 15 feet

breadth and 12 feet projection, and one about 7 feet square. The two

former contain no herring-bone work, and are probably early additions,

perhaps by Henry I.; the latter is original.

On the west face are now no towers, but in 1708 there were two, half

round, and of small size, traces of which remain. They were, no doubt,

original.

The remaining three towers capped the three salient angles of the south

end, the central containing the gateway, and the others flanking it.

All are one quarter engaged.

The flanking towers are alike, about 22 feet diameter and 55 feet high

from the exterior base, with walls 7 feet thick. The bases are either

solid or pierced by steps leading down to the galleries. There is a

regular basement story, and above it a floor on the level of the inner

ward. They are not vaulted and show no exterior herring-bone work,

though one has a little inside. A modern summer-house has been built

upon that to the south-east.

The central or gate-tower is 24 feet diameter. It is pierced at the

level of the scarp by a portal which opens upon the drawbridge, the

piers of which have been described; and there is a stage above this.

The portal ascends towards the keep; its details are much broken down,

and little can be made of them.

Of the _enceinte_ of the inner ward there remains to be noted the

_northern gatehouse_. This, the original and, probably, the only

entrance to the Norman fortress, though much ruined, does not appear to

have been materially altered. It consists in a rectangular building,

40 feet deep by 20 feet broad, set in the centre of the curtain, with

which its outer face is nearly flush. It is crossed by an outer,

middle, and inner wall, each pierced by an arch of 12 feet opening,

through which lies the passage. There remain the rectangular grooves

of a portcullis, and a few years ago there was evidence of a second,

and in the wall is herring-bone work. The arches are plain, without

moulding or chamfer. The inner one is round-headed, and springs from a

flat abacus, chamfered below. The joints of the ashlar work are about

1 inch wide. The curtains on either side of this gateway, though much

repaired, seem to be original, and there are traces of the old round

gate-towers. The pit of the drawbridge remains in front of the gate,

upon the original line of fosse.

The outer ward no doubt occupies the site of an earlier outwork.

It is built against the narrow and north end of the inner ward, is

four-sided, about 250 feet north and south, by a mean of 110 feet east

and west. Its west side is straight, being the continued line of that

face of the old fortress. The east face has a slight re-entering angle,

caused apparently by the shape of the ground. At the two southern

angles are two large drum towers, which connect the old and newer work,

and probably replace two smaller and older towers. These stand in

the line of the old ditch, and flank the Norman gateway. That to the

south-west, rather the larger of the two, and slightly oval in plan,

has a mean diameter of 60 feet; it is of two stages. Both are vaulted,

or rather domed. That to the south-east, of 50 feet diameter, is nearly

circular, but has a remarkable spur or keel-shaped projection towards

the field. It is of three stages, the two lower being domed. These

towers are in fact casemates, having embrasures for small culverins

towards the field. Each has a well-stair in its southern side, and is

entered from the gorge.

The two other towers cap the northern angles of the ward, and flank the

main gateway. They are of irregular form, semicircular to the field and

angular within. In diameter they are about 40 feet, and about the same

height. They are of two stages, which have been domed. The walls of

these four towers are from 14 feet to 16 feet thick. They are of flint

faced with brick.

Between the gate-tower is the gateway, composed of a larger and smaller

portal, the latter very narrow. The present work is modern, but no

doubt in this double entry represents the earlier openings. The ditch,

two detached piers standing in it, and with these any traces of the

drawbridge, are concealed by the modern causeway.

In the west curtain, near the south-west tower, a flight of steps

beneath hanging arches of brick descends from the ward level in the

direction of the foot of the wall. This is much encumbered with ruin,

but seems to have been a postern, opening upon the ditch.

All the works of this outer ward are of flint, rubble-faced with brick,

which material forms the lines of the embrasures. The quoins are

sometimes of ashlar, as are the extensive string-courses and bands, and

the dressings of the openings. Traces of herring-bone work in its west

curtain, outside, will be accounted for afterwards.

As the original castle was confined to the inner ward, its ditch

everywhere encircled it. When the outer ward was added, the intercepted

portion of the ditch was partially filled up, but the new work was

included in a new ditch, which was an accurate prolongation of the old

one, of equal depth and breadth, and continued in the same direction.

Accurate observation will, however, detect two slight shoulders in the

counterscarp, showing where began the curve of the old ditch.

Very remarkable in this castle are the subterranean galleries, driven

in the chalk rock beneath the lines of the original wall, and behind

the scarp of the ditch. These are now in part blocked up, but there

still remain two or three hundred yards of them of which the direction

is known. They are entered by a passage in the inner ward, in its

north-west quarter, and by a descent of fifty-four steps near the keep,

and possibly from other points now lost. The galleries are about 7 feet

high and 6 feet wide, rudely cut, and somewhat singularly laid out.

They lie within, without, and beneath the wall, and give off frequent

spurs or short passages intended to occupy any space in which a mine

was likely to be opened. At this time they have been broken into at

three or four points in the scarp of the ditch, about half-way down.

They were intended as a system of permanent counter mines to meet any

attempt at mining on the part of the besiegers. In one place a large

central pier is surrounded by a gallery, whence the branches go off,—an

arrangement intended probably to check the progress of those who might

break in. So far as is known, these galleries, of which a survey was

made in 1708, are confined to the southern half, or four-fifths of the

old castle. There are none under the outer ward.

Outside, and to the north-east of the outer gate, are some semicircular

platforms, which seem to have played a part in the defence of the

castle; but whether before or after the use of artillery is uncertain.

The Bel.—A curtain wall, which originally was about 5 feet thick,

and from 15 feet to 20 feet high, commences abruptly upon the crest

of the counterscarp in two places; one on the east opposite to the

mural tower, which marks about the centre of that front of the castle,

and thence descends towards the river; and the other north, close

outside of the drawbridge of the main entrance. This latter wall is

continued down the hill, and makes a bold sweep towards the town, and,

finally reaching the river bank, joins the river wall. The enclosure

thus formed contains about twice the area included by the ditch of

the castle, and has long been known as Le Bel or La Baile, a form

evidently of the Norman-Latin _Ballium_, called by us the “Bailey.”

This enclosure is traversed by the road from Dieppe to Martigny,

which passes through the two gates bearing those names. A third, or

water-gate to the east, opened upon the river. Upon the north front

appear to have been two small half-round mural towers, of which one

remains. The river has somewhat encroached upon the lower part of the

Bel, and has undermined part of the wall.

The Dieppe gate, which is also that from the town of Arques, was in

1433 called “La Première Port du Bel de Château d’Arques,” and, as

such, was the subject of a tenure by castle guard, the tenant being

bound to defend it for forty days in time of war. From this gate the

approach ascends to the castle, having the curtain-wall as a protection

on its right. Where this wall approaches the castle, at either end, it

is covered by a broad ditch, continued down the slope.

A flint wall may be of any age, but the remains of the gates, which a

few years ago showed round-headed arches, prove this inclosure to be

of early date, probably one of the earliest additions to the castle,

and made by Henry I. No doubt, before the construction of the outer

ward, the wall of the Bel was produced so as to unite with those of the

castle. M. Deville has discovered a part of this wall worked into the

great curtain of the outer ward, which lies in its line, and may still

be seen.

Looking to the history of this castle, and to the evidence afforded

by its remains, it seems probable that the keep is the oldest part

of the masonry, and the work of the Conqueror’s uncle, Guillaume

d’Arques, between the years 1039-1043, and it is supposed to be one

of the earliest, if not the earliest, of the rectangular Norman keeps

known. The chronicle of Normandy, cited by M. Deville, says of William,

“Si fist faire une tour moult forte, audessus du chastel d’Arques”;

as though there had been an earlier castle, which the aspect of the

earthworks renders highly probable.

To the Conqueror or his immediate successor must be attributed the

_enceinte_ of the inner ward and the formation of the galleries. The

ditch may be much older than the western masonry. The inner ward no

doubt formed part of the original plan, and it is only the occasional

appearance of round turrets upon the wall that leads to the opinion

that any time intervened between the actual construction of the keep

and of its surroundings.

The southern entrance, with its gate and two flanking towers, and one

or two of the other mural towers or buttresses, seem to be additions,

but of the Norman period, probably the work of the Conqueror’s son,

King Henry I., who, about 1123, seems also to have enclosed the Bel.

Robert de Thorigny—called also “Du Mont,” from his abbacy of Mont St.

Michael—a Norman chronicler of the twelfth century, says that King

Henry I. “fortified admirably the castle of Arques with walls and a

tower.” This has been held to show that the whole structure was the

work of Henry, who reigned from 1105 to 1135, and the extreme boldness

of the buttresses and superincumbent constructions of the keep no doubt

favour this view; but, as M. Deville remarks in the same passage,

similar reference is made to Gisors, Falaise, and other castles, known

to be of earlier date.

M. Deville is disposed to attribute the southern gate to Charles V.,

as he finds a record of 1367, charging cost of transport of 6 “nances”

of stone, each of 16 to 18 “tonneaux,” from the river to the castle,

for the masonry of the new bridge and the new gate of the castle. This

material was taken by the king’s direction from the dismantled “manoir”

of Veules or Weulles, at St. Valery-en-Caux. The accounts of 1378-80

mention the tower on the bridge behind the keep, its drawbridge, axles,

ties, “vergues” or levers 18 feet long, and its beams of 9 feet. This

was probably the southern drawbridge and gate, including the opening

of the communication between this and the basement of the keep.

These works are attributed to Charles V. about 1378-80. He probably

only pierced the existing central tower, not otherwise altering or

rebuilding it.

The next considerable work was the outer ward, which may be attributed

to the fifteenth century, subsequently to the general use of brick and

the introduction of siege artillery. It is singular that no record of

this very considerable work should be preserved, for it included not

only the outer ward, a castle in itself, with its enormous towers and

massive curtains, but the extension of the very formidable ditch, the

repair of the older walls and towers, and finally the fitting up and

vaulting of the keep. All this is supposed to have been the work of

Francis I., and it is said that the date of 1553 was inscribed upon

some of the additions to the keep.

Henry IV., during his occupation of the castle in 1589, may have

constructed quarters in the inner ward and repaired what was amiss in

the old building; but more probably his traces are to be found in the

field works which crown the adjacent hills, and along the high ground

towards Dieppe.

It has been thought that the ditch of the castle is a remain of an

older fortification, such a work as the early Northmen or still earlier

Celts might have constructed. No doubt this was usually the case with

the sites of the great Norman castles, both in Normandy and in England,

and the position of Arques is a tempting one. There is, however, no

positive evidence of an earlier encampment.

It will be observed that the keep is so placed as to command both the

inner ward and the most exposed side of the castle,—that along the

level ridge of the promontory. It was perfectly capable of holding

out when all else was taken, and finally, if threatened with fire or

starvation, its garrison had a possible escape by the galleries.

This castle is the triumph of Norman skill. Often attacked, it was

never taken by storm. Without being a royal residence it was visited

in peace or in war by our Norman kings, from the Conqueror to John,

and by most of the kings of France, from Henry I. to Henry IV.; and,

after a lapse of 800 years, its oldest parts are still those best worth

attention, and are at least as well preserved as the additions of far

later date.

ARUNDEL CASTLE, SUSSEX.

Arundel, in its position, magnitude, and history, is one of the

foremost of the mediæval military structures of England. English

in its origin, Norman by adoption, it is not only among the rare

castles recorded in Domesday, but is the only one therein specifically

mentioned as in existence before the coming in of Duke William. It was

held by Alfred and by Harold, and was granted with its surrounding

and dependent lordships by William to the head of the great house

of Montgomery as an acknowledgment of kinship, and a fitting reward

for his distinguished services at Hastings. Three members and two

generations of that family held the castle for about thirty-two

years. They were followed by Henry I. and his Queen, who held it

for half a century, and it has since descended in succession by the

lines of D’Albini, Fitz-Alan, and Howard, through seven centuries of

inheritance, to its present lord. Though less extensive in area, it is

equal to Windsor in antiquity and position, and resembles it closely

in type, having an upper and lower ward, and a lofty mound partially

interposed between the two, girdled by a deep fosse and crowned by a

circular keep. Within its precinct is the Chapel of St. George, and far

beyond the walls, but in one direction only, extends its broad demesne.

Just beyond the wall of the Norman castle, but probably within the

earlier English outwork, stands the fine parish church, a Fitz-Alan

gift, and attached to its east end is the chapel of the college founded

by Richard, Earl of Arundel, in 1386, and now, by a grant or purchase

in the reign of Edward VI., vested in the descendants of its founder,

and the private property of the lord of the castle. The buildings of

the college are mostly removed, and the chapel contains many tombs of

great magnificence and considerable historic interest, beneath which

rest the remains of many members of the great house of Fitz-Alan, who

loved full well and gave full largely to that church to which their

Howard descendant has shown himself a not less liberal benefactor.

The Arun, a principal river of the south, has its sources in Surrey.

It traverses the whole breadth, here about twenty miles, of the

county of Sussex, and in its passage to the sea cleaves the southern

ridge of the chalk by a very striking ravine or dell, which, with

the river, gives name to the castle and the town, as well as to the

Rape of Arundel, within which they stand. The castle is placed upon

a bold bluff of chalk, which rises on the right or western bank of

the river, here flowing in easy curves across a broad tract of low

and level land, which intervenes between the downs and the sea, from

which the castle is distant about four miles. Upon and at the foot of

the slope has sprung up the town, which for centuries paid allegiance

to the castle and received from it protection and support. Six miles

westward of the Arun is Bognor, rich in Roman remains, and as far

to the east is the mouth of the Adur, where Shoreham contests with

Portsmouth the representation of the ancient Portus Adurni. A few miles

north of the castle, Staneway marks the line of the old Roman road

between Chichester and London. Various villages, the names of which

show their English origin, are thickly posted along the lower course

of the Arun; but the name of the river may be British, as are no doubt

the hill camps here and there scattered over the downs. The Rape is

supposed to be a Jutish division. It includes five Hundreds, and was

formerly nearly all forest. The courts were held beneath an oak-tree at

Madehurst.

The bluff occupied by the castle is the end of a ridge of high ground,

which is specially steep towards the east and south, and ascends to

still higher land towards the north and west. In this direction lies

the park, which covers about 1,100 acres, and includes, between two

ridges of the chalk, a deep valley, in the lower part of which, just

below the castle, is the lake called Swanbourne, the pool from a very

remote period for the use of the mill.

The history of Arundel has been written by Dallaway in his Western

Sussex, and by Tierney in a specific work. Whatever may be the value

of either production for the history and descent of the lordship,

neither gives a full plan of the earthworks of the castle, nor enters

at all scientifically into its details from either the military or

architectural point of view. Unfortunately, the proximity of the

castle to Brighton and some lesser watering-places has caused the

exclusion of visitors, save under restrictions so very narrow that it

is impracticable to examine the works at all in detail. It appears

from Tierney’s history that the castle is protected towards the north

or open country by a double line of defence, composed of a bank and

ditch, of which the outer includes the present as well as the older

park, and is, in places, at least two miles from the castle. The inner

line is of much smaller extent, but the two seem intended to protect

the town and the port, as well as the site of the castle, and to be

rather lines of defence than the remains of a camp, whether British

or English. Within both of these, and probably of later date, are the

earthworks upon a part of which the Norman castle was founded. These

resemble the works common to England with Normandy, and may probably be

attributed to the Northern invaders in the eighth or ninth centuries.

The high ground is occupied by an oblong inclosure, of which more or

less of the original earthbank remains, and outside of which to the

south and east was the natural steep, and to the west a natural hollow,

deepened and extended round the north front by art. The inclosure is

in length 317 yards, and in breadth 83 yards, and includes about 5½

acres. Near the centre of the western side, and forming a part of the

_enceinte_, is a large circular mound, almost wholly artificial, having

its proper ditch, which on the outer face is also the ditch of the

general _enceinte_. The mound is about 90 feet diameter at its table

summit, and about 230 feet at its base. As the ground rises towards the

north, the height is on that side about 50 feet, and on the opposite

side about 70 feet from the bottom of the ditch. The Windsor mound is

about the same height, but rather larger, being 125 feet across, at its

summit. By its projection this work materially narrows the main area,

and with the addition of a short cross-ditch, bank, and wall, now gone,

divided it into an upper or northern and lower or southern ward, in the

latter of which are the domestic buildings. These two wards were the

parts of the earlier fortification taken possession of by the builder

of the Norman castle, but there is also an inclosure opposite to the

mound, and outside the ditch, which runs up to a narrow end towards the

north-west. Whether this was fortified with masonry is uncertain, but

it certainly was a part of the earlier fortress, and shows its extent

and importance. The ditches everywhere being in the chalk, and at a

high level, were no doubt always dry. Earl Roger, probably, found along

the crest of these earthbanks the same sort of defences that he left

behind him, on similar banks and mounds, at his paternal castle in

Normandy; but whether these were of timber or of masonry is uncertain.

They might very well have been of either. It is, however, certain that

the earl, or his immediate successors, inclosed the main area within a

curtain of masonry, which ran up the mound and placed half of it, as

at Lincoln and Tonbridge, outside the inclosure. Upon this curtain, a

little south of the mound, was placed the gatehouse, and along it at

various points were mural towers, probably square, of which one, on the

curtain north of the mound, and known as Bevis Tower, still remains,

though more or less altered. The domestic buildings were then, as now,

along the sides of the lower ward, and upon the mound was placed a

shell keep.

As the public are only permitted to inspect the lower part of the

gatehouse, the adjacent curtain, and the interior of the keep, it is

impossible to form a correct opinion as to the extent of the original

earthworks, or as to the age of the general curtain, or the basement

of the domestic buildings, parts of which are said to be of Norman

date. That the earthworks were extensive, and in part remain, may be

seen from the summit of the keep, and from the upper gate of the park.

Dallaway gives a large, but not quite correct, plan of the keep and

its mound, the gatehouse and Bevis Tower, and the lower ward; but his

plan does not include the higher ward nor the earthworks, nor is it

accompanied by any sections. Dallaway and Tierney were not strong in

architectural details.

The _Gatehouse_ stands on the line of the curtain, projecting inwards

from it, and upon the southern edge or counterscarp of the ditch of

the mound. It opens into the lower ward. It is of the early Norman

type, resembling that at Tickhill. It is a square of 32 feet, having in

the outer and inner faces a large round-headed doorway, quite plain,

without even a chamfer, and with a plain sloped abacus. The chamber

is, of course, square, and but little broader than the doorways. That

towards the ward seems to have been closed by a pair of doors only.

The other or outer doorway has a broad portcullis groove, which may or

may not be original; more probably not. The covering—the floor of the

upper room—was no doubt of timber, and flat. The present vaulting is

an insertion. There was always an upper floor, but this has been much

altered, chiefly in the Decorated period. The old loops, now blocked,

may be traced. Some of the inserted windows are very late. In the south

part of the inner doorway was a door opening into a mural stair leading

to the upper floor and to the rampart-walk of the curtain, which seems

to have been continued through the gatehouse, over the outer portal.

The present staircase is exterior, and modern. This is the whole of the

original gatehouse, which, with the adjacent and very thick curtain, is

probably the work of Earl Roger.

The gatehouse has been extended outwardly in the Decorated period.

There is appended to it a crooked passage about 10 feet broad

and 40 feet long, between thick lateral walls. In its sides are

shoulder-headed doorways, which led into lodges and cells, and on the

south side is a well-staircase, ascending to the roof. The passage

is covered by a very flat-pointed vault. It ends in an outer doorway

having a drop arch, and opening between a pair of flanking towers, 20

feet square, rising out of the ditch. These have sub-basement chambers

in the ditch, basements at the ground level, and two upper floors. In

the doorway is a very broad portcullis groove for a timber frame, and

in front was a drawbridge, now replaced by an arch of masonry. This

addition to the Norman gatehouse, making with it a very long covered

entrance-passage, is attributed to Earl Richard Fitz-Alan, on his

return from the wars of Edward I. In very modern times the floor of

the passage has been lowered about 3 feet, and the walls underpinned

by a plinth. The doors which are not in use have been left unaltered,

and show the original level of the sill. Probably the approach to this

entrance lay through an outer gate to the north-west, at the upper

part of the town, and across the large outwork, now a garden and a

carpenter’s yard.

The _Keep_ is a rounded shell of masonry, about 67 feet by 59 feet

in the internal cross diameter, and with walls, 8 feet to 10 feet

thick, and 20 feet high to the rampart-walk. It is built of rubble

masonry, the material chiefly Sussex stone and chalk, but faced outside

with small ashlar blocks of Caen stone, close jointed, and with flat

pilasters which die into the wall below the base of the parapet. The

entrance was by a rather large full-centred doorway to the south-east,

probably reached, as at Tickhill and Lincoln, by a flight of steps

up the mound, with a timber bridge at their base, as at York. This

doorway is not shown to visitors, but Tierney’s drawing represents it

as having a bold chevron moulding alternating with rolls or rounds,

common to the head and the jambs, and unbroken by imposts. Within, it

opened into a recess, also full centred, and having its angle replaced

by a bold roll. This, as at Lincoln, was the original entrance, and

it seems, though walled up, not to have been otherwise altered. Near

this doorway a well-stair has been formed in the wall, ascending from

the ground to the ramparts. It is evidently a Decorated insertion, of

the same date with a steep flight of steps and a vaulted subterraneous

chamber near the centre of the area, probably a cellar belonging to

the lodgings which, as at Windsor, were at one time built against the

wall all round, leaving a small open court, as at Tamworth and Ledes,

in the centre. That there were here such lodgings is evident from the

roof corbels in the wall, and that they, as at York, had an upper

floor, is shown by a late fireplace, which marks the upper level, and

the back of which is formed of tiles set on edge. The parapet was

about 8 feet high, and crenellated, and in each merlon was a loop, set

in an arched recess. In one merlon is a small full-centred recess,

evidently a garderobe. The present parapet seems a Decorated addition.

The keep stands, as does the mound, on the line of the main curtain,

which crosses the ditch from the gatehouse, and ascends the mound,

and has a similar continuation northwards. Where the south curtain

abuts upon the keep, there stands a broad irregular tower, of about 20

feet in projection by 50 feet in breadth. This contains the well and

its chamber, the entrance from the curtain rampart, and an oratory.

The entrance is by a vaulted passage, with a portcullis groove at the

ground level of the keep. The curtain has a parapet on either face,

forming a covered way, and is commanded by a sort of balcony connected

with the keep. The well is of unusually large diameter, but not in

use. The chamber was at the surface level of the keep, into which it

opened by a full-centred doorway. There was also an upper chamber,

now ruined. This position of the well, on the outside of the keep, is

found elsewhere. At Wallingford it is on the slope, and at Cardiff

nearly at the foot of it. The oratory, or chapel of St. Martin, is a

small chamber of irregular plan at the first-floor level, and is placed

over the entrance passage. It has a large east window, altered at two

periods, and two smaller lateral windows, all now closed up. The roof

was of timber, and is gone. This oratory had a special endowment,

afterwards shifted and expanded in favour of the large chapel in the

lower ward. The details of this appendage show that, as at York and

Cardiff, it was an addition to the original shell, the ashlar face of

which is seen within one of the lower chambers. At Cardiff the added

tower was Perpendicular; at York, where it included a small chapel,

Early English. Here the addition seems Early Decorated. The chapel is

probably the St. Martin’s mentioned in Domesday, and in the Patent

Rolls of 1275, and was, of course, dismantled when the endowment

was shifted in 1375. The keep is mentioned at different periods as

Beaumont, Hautmont, and Grosmont, all names preserving its chief

characteristic.

As the English “Aula” was probably on this mound, while the ashlar

exterior of its present wall is unquestionably later than the Conquest,

it has been supposed that the heart of the wall is original, and that

it was cased by the Norman architect. Of such casing there is, however,

no appearance. The entrance from the curtain seems to have been cut

through the wall, which has been thought there to show traces of early

masonry. The wall, however, appears all of one date, and that probably

late Norman, as is usual with shell keeps.

_Bevis Tower_ stands upon the curtain and projects from its outer

face only. It stands on the north counterscarp of the ditch of the

mound, about 42 yards from the keep. It is square, and said to be,

in substance, of the age of the gatehouse, but it is not allowed to

be seen close. It is called a barbican, but its position scarcely

justifies its having been so intended. It looks more like an ordinary

mural tower. There is no communication from the keep with the curtain

on this side. North of this tower the earthworks of the upper ward

seem tolerably perfect, but a request to be allowed to visit them was

evidently regarded as a sort of treason.

Besides the well attached to the keep was a second, now covered up,

in the middle of the lower ward. The habitable part of the castle is

mostly or entirely Howard work. Edward, the ninth duke, was a great

builder. He rebuilt Worksop, which was burned soon afterwards, in 1761,

and he founded Norfolk House in St. James’s Square. What he did here

does not appear. The present domestic buildings which line the lower

ward to the east, south, and west sides are, in substance, the work

of Duke Charles towards the close of the last century, or 1791-1806,

and have since been added to. They are what might be expected from the

period, and better than the rather earlier work at Alnwick, lately

removed. It is said that in the cellars, and built into the outer

walls, are parts of the earlier structure, some of Norman date. The

hall stood on the east curtain. It had a good Early English door,

destroyed in the present century. The hall itself was ruined during the

siege of 1643. The present grand entrance to the ward, to the south of

the original one, is entirely modern, as are the approach to it and

the outer gateway. So also is the Chapel of St. George, which stands

along the west wall. The chapel which preceded it, and was taken down

in 1796, was 40 feet long by 22 feet broad, and was endowed by Richard,

Earl of Arundel, in 1375, with spoils derived from Crecy. The domestic

buildings are said to have been augmented at the same time by wealth

from the same source. The ecclesiastical endowment, shifted from the

oratory of St. Martin to the Chapel of St. George in 1375, was, after

about a century, again shifted to the Fitz-Alan Collegiate Church,

without the walls.

Arundel is a castle where, if anywhere, traces of English masonry

earlier than the Norman Conquest might be expected to be preserved,

and no doubt it is just possible that such may be found about the

foundations of the Norman walls. What is mainly remarkable about it is

the resemblance to Windsor in its general plan; the oblong inclosure

encroached upon from one side by the mound and its ditch, so as to

divide it into two wards, in one of which are domestic buildings. The

older part of the gatehouse, and parts of the curtain near it, may be

regarded as Early Norman, the work probably of Earl Roger. The keep

seems later, though also Norman. The additions to the gatehouse, the

well-tower, and the oratory are probably Decorated. What is wanted is

a correct ground-plan, which should include the outworks and the more

distant earthworks. The older walls should be critically examined, and

especially the basement of the domestic buildings.

HISTORY.

The Manor of Arundel, with others in this immediate neighbourhood, was

given by Alfred, by will (885), to his brother’s son. It was held by

Harold, and afterwards by William, who about or before 1070 granted to

Roger de Montgomery the castle and honour of Arundel, with 84½ knights’

fees. Roger, who was of kin to the Conqueror, and commanded the Norman

centre at Hastings, became Earl of Arundel and Shrewsbury, and held the

Castle about twenty-three years, till his death. Domesday describes the

Castle of Harundel as having, in the time of King Edward, paid annually

for the mill, 40s.; for three “convivia,” or entertainments, 20s.; and

“pro uno pasticio,” or pasty, 20s. There was also the church of St.

Nicholas, or the parish church, and St. Martin’s, probably the chapel

of the castle. There was also another mill which paid ten bushels of

corn. The burgh, port, and shipping paid £12 or more.

It is curious that Arundel, Chichester, Shrewsbury, and the Norman

Manor whence Roger derived his territorial designation, each possessed

a mound. On William’s death in 1088, Earl Roger gave his support to

Robert Curthose, whom he invited to land at Arundel. The Prince’s

sluggishness alienated his English followers, and the Earl tendered his

aid to Rufus. At Earl Roger’s death, in 1094, he bequeathed his Sussex

earldom, called also “of Chichester,” to his younger son Hugh, the

Hugh Goch of the Welsh, who held both Arundel and Shrewsbury, stood in

opposition to William Rufus, and was slain while repelling pirates from

the north Welsh coast in 1098. His successor in the English earldom was

his eldest brother, who already held the family lordships in Normandy.

This was Robert, Earl of Belesme in la Perche, who received at Arundel

William Rufus on his arrival from Normandy in 1097.