Gentle, courteous, and _patient_ reader--to understand the above plan,
it is requisite that you carry your mind's eye back to those troublous
times when men enjoyed no protection, but in opposing force to force;
and to a period when _every man's house was his castle_, though not in
the metaphorical sense we have since been accustomed to apply these
words, viz. to the protection and security of British subjects.
Few portions of our island have been more amply illustrated, by
antiquarians, than OXFORD; and from one of these we learn that a Keep
Tower, or Castle, existed here a considerable time before the conquest;
for Alfred lived here; and Harold Harefoot was crowned and resided here;
and one of Alfred's sons struck money here. Hearne has likewise
identified this fact by the very ancient and original arms of Oxford,
which have a castle represented, with a large ditch and bridge. Upon the
same authority we learn that Offa "built walls at Oxford," and by him,
therefore, a Saxon castle was originally built at Oxford.
Leland, Dugdale, and Camden, on the other hand, affirm that the castle
at Oxford was built by Robert D'Oiley, who came into England with
William the Conqueror; and the Chronicles of Osney Abbey, preserved in
the Cottonian library, even ascertain the precise date of this great
baron's undertaking, viz. A.D. 1071. No question, therefore, can remain,
but that this illustrious chieftain either repaired or rebuilt the
castle; but as we have shown, upon equal authority, there was a Saxon
castle, fit for a royal residence at Oxford, long previous to D'Oiley's
time. About the year 1794, several Saxon remains were discovered here;
but our engraving represents the castle in Norman times, with Robert
D'Oiley's magnificent additions, and is a facsimile of a plan by Ralph
Agas, in 1538, which, allowing a little for bad or unskilful drawing,
may be taken as a perfect specimen of Norman military architecture, and
will, we are persuaded, be received by our readers as a popular and
interesting illustration of the warlike character of the age in which
the castle was erected.
For the description we are indebted to a MS. account of Anthony Wood, in
the Bodleian library, who informs us that at one of its entrances was "a
large bridge, which led into a long and broad entry, and so to the chief
gate of the castle, the entry itself being fortified, on each side, with
a large embattled wall; and having several passages above, from one side
to the other, with open spaces between them, through which, in times of
storm, whenever any enemy had broken through the first gates of the
bridge, and was gotten into the entry, scalding water or stones might be
cast down to annoy them."
On passing through the gate, at the end of this long entry, the
fortification stretched itself, on the left hand, in a straight line,
till it came to a _round_ tower, that was rebuilt in the 19th of Henry
III.[1] And from thence went a fair embattled wall, guarded for the most
part with the mill-stream underneath, till it came to the high tower
joining to St. George's church.[2]
From hence, says the manuscript, the wall went to another gate, now
quite down, opposite to the abovementioned; and leading to Osney, over
another bridge; close to which joined that lofty and eminent mount,
sometime crowned with an embattled tower. The manuscript adds, that for
the greater defence of this castle, there was, on one of the sides of
it, _a barbican_; which seems to have not merely been a single tower,
but (according to an ancient deed) _a place_, or outwork, containing
several habitations; and from other accounts it further appears, that
there were more barbicans than one.
The ruins of certain other towers of the castle, besides the barbicans,
and those already described, are also said to have been standing till
1649; when they were pulled down to erect new bulwarks for the
parliamentary garrison.
This is an abstract of Anthony Wood's manuscript, which agrees with
Agas's drawing, except that in his sketch, the tower between the
gate-tower and St. George's, is represented square instead of being
round. Antiquarians also infer that in the drawing it was intended to
represent the great keep-tower as standing upon the top of the mount,
and not by the side of it.[3]
Some discoveries made in 1794, throw much light on the history of the
castle, and warrant a conclusion that in its area were several
buildings. Wells were then cleared out, and among the rubbish were found
horses' bones, dogs' bones, horse-shoes, and human skeletons; the
appearance of the latter is not easily accounted for, unless they were
the bodies of malefactors, who had been executed on the gallows placed
near the castle, in later ages, that might have been flung in here,
instead of being buried under the gibbet. We must however pass over many
interesting facts, and content ourselves with a mere reference to the
empress Maud being besieged here in 1141, and her miraculous flight with
three knights, all escaping the eyes of the besiegers by the brightness
of their raiment; Maud having just previously escaped from the castle of
the Devizes, as a dead corpse, in a funeral hearse or bier. The reader
will not be surprised at the decay of the castle, when he is informed
that it was in a dilapidated state in the reign of Edward III.
The castle was situate on the west side of the city of Oxford, on the
site of the present county gaol. In 1788 little remained except the
tower, which was for some time used as the county prison, and part of
the old wall could then be traced 10 feet in thickness. In the
castle-yard were the remains of the ancient sessions-house, in which, at
the _Black Assize_, in 1577, the lieutenant of the county, two knights,
eighty esquires and justices, and almost all the grand jury, died of a
distemper, brought thither and communicated by the prisoners; and nearly
one hundred scholars and townsmen fell victims to the same disorder.
We have been somewhat minute in the preceding description, but we hope
not more so than the exhaustless curiosity of the public on such
subjects appears to warrant. Indeed, these interesting details are only
a tithe portion of what we might have abridged. The warlike habits of
our ancestors are always attractive topics for inquirers into the
history of mankind, and their study is not
Dull and crabbed as some fools suppose,
but a treasury or depository of useful knowledge, by enabling the
inquirer to draw many valuable inferences from the comparative states of
men in the several ages he seeks to illustrate. The enthusiasm of such
pursuits is, likewise, an everlasting source of delight; for who can
visit such shrines as Netley, St. Albans, or Melrose, without feeling
that he is on holy ground; and although we are equally active in our
notice of the architectural triumphs of our own times, we must not
entirely leave the proud labours of by-gone ages to be clasped in the
ponderous folio, or to moulder and lie neglected on the upper shelves of
our libraries.
We have to acknowledge the loan of the original of the engraving, from a
lineal descendant of D'OILEY[4], the founder or repairer of the Castle
at Oxford--a name not altogether unknown to our readers.
[1] The sum of 144_l_. 5_s_. was expended in the rebuilding.
[2] By an odd mode of expression in the MS., it should seem as
if this tower itself, or at least some building adjoining it,
was formerly made use of as a _royal residence_, for the words
are, _from hence went a fair embattled wall, guarded for the
most part with the mill-stream underneath, till it came in the
high tower, going under St. George's College, and the king's
house employed formerly as a campanile belonging to that
church_.
[3] Grose fell into an error on this point, in his 3rd volume of
Antiquitica, for in his copy of Aga's plan, he placed a large
keep tower just at the foot of an artificial mount--an anomaly
in fortification. The same punster who described _fortification_
as _two twenty fications_, would call this a _Grose_ blunder.
[4] When Robert D'Oiley, in the reign of Henry V. built the
abbey at Osney, for monks and regulars, and gave them the
revenues, &c. of the church of St. George, in the Castle, it is
said in the Osney chronicle, that there "Robert Pulen began to
read at Oxford the Holy Scriptures, which had fallen into
neglect in England. And after both the church of England and
that of France had profited greatly by his doctrine, he was
called away by Pope Lucius II., who made him chancellor of the
holy Roman church." This short effort, to which the Pope's
preferment put a stop, seems to have been the true origin of the
DIVINITY LECTURE, and of the DIVINITY SCHOOLS at Oxford; and of
the studies of the SORBONNE at Paris.
* * * * *