was a ridge roof, with a small window at each end. Altogether this is
a very peculiar building, much more like a Scottish than an English
castle. It is all of one date, probably the work of Walter de Hopton,
who died in 1304–5, and seems to have been a man of considerable wealth
and power.
HUNTINGDON CASTLE.
It has generally been supposed that the town of Godmanchester, upon the
right bank of the Ouse, represents the Roman station of Durolipons. It
is traversed by the Ermine Street, which here receives the Via Devana
from Cambridge, and another Roman road from the station at Salenæ,
or Sandy. The Roman town, however, seems, as was often the case, to
have been destroyed in the centuries of war that followed on the
departure of the Roman armies, and its memory is chiefly preserved in
the termination of “Chester” suffixed to its later name. The northern
invaders did not much care to build upon or employ Roman foundations,
and in this case they passed over from the low and watery side of the
old station and established themselves on the higher position of the
Hunters, or Hunting-down, on the opposite, or left and northern, bank
of the river. By whom, or precisely when, the capital of the future
county was founded is not known. The first mention of it, or rather
of Huntingdon Port, in history, is in A.D. 657, when it occurs in
the foundation limits of Medehampstede (Peterborough). As a military
post it is named in A.D. 918, when, according to the Saxon Chronicle,
the Danish army from Huntingdon and East Anglia threw up a work at
Tempsford, and for it deserted another at Huntingdon. That work must
necessarily be the earthworks now remaining, which may either have been
thrown up by the Danes or by earlier Saxons. Later in the year, King
Eadweard with his West Saxons brought the Danes of Northampton and
Welland to obedience, “reduced the burgh at Huntingdon, and repaired
and renovated it, where it was before in a state of ruin.... And all
the folk that were left there of the peasantry submitted to King
Eadweard, and sought his peace and his protection.”
Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, who wrote towards the close of
the eleventh century, mentions the three burhs (_tria castra_) of
Buckingham, Bedford, and Huntingdon. The castle is mentioned several
times in Domesday. It was within the borough of Huntingdon. The Bishop
of Lincoln had a residence (_mansio_) in the place of the castle (_in
loco castri_). In the place of the castle were twenty residences
(_mansiones_). “Besides these were and are LX. ‘mansiones’ waste ...
and on account of these are VIII. ‘mansiones’ waste.” William the
Conqueror was at Huntingdon 1068, when he ordered a castle to be built,
evidently on the site of the old fortress restored by Edward the Elder
in 918. The names in Domesday show how complete had been the removal of
the larger English landowners. The new castle was probably built by,
and in the hands of, Eustace, one of the most rapacious of the Norman
sheriffs; but the earldom was given to Judith, the king’s niece, and
descended to and through Maud, her daughter, by Earl Waltheof. Maud
married, first, Simon de St. Liz, in her right Earl of Huntingdon. The
earldom, on his death, was held by David, afterwards King of Scots,
Maud’s second husband, and, with the castle, was long a subject of
contention between the two families, until David, the third son of
Henry, son of Maud and David, laid siege to and took the castle, on
which Simon de St. Liz, the son of Maud, retook it. The result was
that Henry II. had the castle demolished, nor does it appear ever to
have been rebuilt. The town occurs from time to time in the public
records, and the honour remained attached to the earldom. The king
also had a prison there; but there is never any allusion to a castle.
In 1205 King John granted to Robert Rufus the demesne and mill at
Huntingdon, and in 1218 and 1219 the sheriff had order to give seizin,
under certain limitations, to Alexander, King of Scotland, as custos of
the honour. The junior branch of the house of Hastings took the title
of Huntingdon, to commemorate the descent of the elder line from the
Scottish earls.
It is difficult to suppose that Henry would, within a century of its
construction, demolish a first-class castle, commanding a shire town,
and posted upon the edge of a very strong and inaccessible tract of
country. The usual course with an important structure was to attach
it to the Crown. And yet, whatever stood there was certainly then
demolished, and Huntingdon Castle is not again heard of. Was there
really a castle built there, or was it, as was often the case, a mere
strengthened form of the older English work in timber? It is difficult,
after this lapse of time, to say, though an excavation judiciously
conducted would no doubt set the question at rest.
There does not appear to be any plan of Huntingdon Castle, that is,
of the earthworks known as Castle Hill, which still are seen; and as
they are extensive and partly included within a private garden, a mere
handsketch is scarcely practicable. The position is a fine one. The
Ouse, here deep, broad, and sluggish, in its way from Bedford and Eaton
to the Fens, recedes from the higher land to the northward, and makes,
between Huntingdon and Godmanchester, a bold curve to the south; thus
enclosing a grand circle of meadow about half a mile in diameter, and
now used as the racecourse. Along the northern edge of this breadth
of sward flows the Alconbury brook, a considerable watercourse, which
skirts the foot of the high land, and joins the Ouse opposite the
Castle Hill, and just above the bridge by which the Ermine Street is
carried across the river. Here, upon the edge of the high land, and
protected from the south by the river and the brook, and the low and
formerly impassable levels beyond them, are the ancient earthworks,
which, though partially levelled, and reduced both in height and depth,
and traversed by a road and a railway, are still very considerable,
and form a remarkable feature in the view of the town from the south.
In general outline the work is rather a circle than a square, and
about 180 yards in clear diameter. The outer ditch, which is included
in this measurement, encircles two-thirds of the whole, communicating
at each end with the brook, which thus completes the investment. Upon
the western margin of the area thus enclosed, and projecting boldly
into it, is a large mound, the flat top of which, now crowned by a
neglected mill, is 100 feet diameter, and about 30 feet high above the
inner platform, and 40 feet or more above the country outside. This
mound, which was the citadel of the work, had its proper surrounding
ditch, which at the outer face was identified with the main ditch, but
elsewhere cut off the mound from the general area of the fortress.
This remainder, which, by the indentation of the mound and ditch
cutting out a huge cantle, was converted into a sort of crescent, was
defended along its outer edge by broad and high banks of earth, perhaps
20 feet above the contained area, and 30 feet or 40 feet above the
circumscribing ditch. The railway passes east and west, close south of
the mound, and cuts off a part of the work; the road passes north of
the mound; and north of this a close fence shuts off from the visitors
a part of the earthwork.
The entrance was on the east, or town side. Towards the west, outside
the ditch, is a natural elevated platform, which, at 100 yards
distance, terminates in a steep slope, and which may have been a part
of the defences, or perhaps a safe penfold for cattle. There was a mill
mentioned in Domesday, upon the river below the castle. There is now no
trace of masonry above ground, but the earthworks look as though they
had been built upon.
The two town churches are handsome. One seems, except perhaps the
tower, wholly Perpendicular; the other contains some Norman or early
English work, with much of Decorated work, and some of Tudor date. Near
the George Hotel are two large round-headed arches springing from three
fine Norman piers. The building to which they belong has been rebuilt,
or nearly so, in brick. There is said to have been a hospital here.
Although the evidence is, on the whole, in favour of the English origin
of these earthworks, and of those at Eaton-Socon, the mound at Eaton
does not form so important a feature as usual in the burhs of the tenth
century, although it is nevertheless present. But both these works
present a feature which is, independently of the mound, very common in
works of their class, and very uncommon in those of admitted British
or Roman origin. Not only is there a mound, but the level of the area
contained within the inner ditches is generally higher than the land
immediately around. This is remarkably so at Builth and Kilpeck, among
many other places, and was apparently intended to give the domestic
buildings greater safety and an advantage when actually attacked. This
distinction does not seem to have been pointed out, and it is possible
that upon it may turn the identification of many of the earthworks, the
date of which is now unknown.
HUNTINGTON CASTLE, HEREFORDSHIRE.
[Illustration]
This is one of the moated mounds with appended courts of which there
are so many in the counties of Hereford and Salop, and here as usual
the earthworks were employed to support and defend the masonry of a
Norman castle. There remains but little of these additions; but the
earthworks are remarkably perfect and show in great completeness the
mound, the inner ward, and its proper ditch, and the outer ward,
also with its ditch. The annexed plan is taken from the pages of the
“Archæologia Cambrensis,” where also there is a valuable paper upon the
castle.
THE CASTLE OF KENILWORTH, WARWICKSHIRE.
The three midland counties of England, happily for those who dwelt in
them, were not rich in castles, and such as remain are rarely of a very
striking character. The position of Belvoir, indeed, is very noble, and
Warwick stands without a rival; but these are brilliant exceptions,
and the early castle-builders of the shires of Leicester, Warwick, and
Northampton, in the absence of those wilder features of nature to which
many of the Welsh and Scottish fortresses owe much of their celebrity,
had to be content with defences often wholly artificial, and, where
natural, seldom of a bold character, though sometimes of formidable
strength.
The Castle of Kenilworth is an excellent example of a midland fortress.
To an ordinary observer, its site presents much of quiet sylvan
beauty, but nothing of obtrusive military strength; and yet, in the
hands of skilful engineers, it became, in point of size, strength, and
accommodation, one of the most important military posts in England.
It had walls capable of great passive resistance, a capacity for
containing a numerous garrison and immense stores of provision, and
a front protected by a large sheet of water, which again was covered
by a formidable outwork. Moreover the midland districts were, from an
early period, traversed by main and cross roads, favourable to the
concentration of troops and the transfer of stores, seldom sought
in vain in so fertile a country. For all these qualities, strength,
capacity, a central position, and facilities for collecting and feeding
a garrison, there was, in the days of its pride, no fortress in England
superior, probably none equal, to Kenilworth; and now, when its grassy
lawns and ivy-covered walls are redolent of peace and prosperity, and
of English rural life, the thoughtful visitor cannot but feel that the
place was a fitting one for the conclusion of that celebrated contest
between monarchical power and civil liberty, in which, though the
honour and nominal victory were with the Crown, the real and permanent
gain remained with the English people.
Half-way between Warwick and Coventry, where the action of water upon
the soft rock of the new red sandstone has wrought the surface of the
country into an immense network of low, round-topped hills and broad
and gentle valleys, the Inchford brook, one of the many tributaries of
the river Sow, receives, on its left or northern bank, a smaller and
nameless streamlet. At the point where the waters and their respective
valleys unite, a knoll, partly of rock and partly of gravel, juts out
from the north-east as a sort of low headland between the two, and is
somewhat farther isolated by an expansion of the valley lower down,
the general effect of which is to invest the high ground with a marshy
frontier upon its west, south, and south-eastern slopes, leaving it
toward the north and north-east connected with larger tracts of equally
raised land.
Such was the spot selected in remote times, probably by some wealthy
English franklin, for a residence, and adopted by his Norman
successors. By one or other, or possibly by both, a deep trench was
dug across the neck of the high ground, on the north and north-east,
and the slopes were made steeper on the other sides. The central plot,
thus isolated, was raised artificially about 15 feet, probably from the
surrounding excavations, and works were thus formed which may still be
traced amidst the additions and alterations due to many generations
of inhabitants. As usual with these concentric earthworks, the inner
and higher part, which carried the residence of the lord, was placed
out of centre with the outer and lower area. This was intended not
only as an outer defence to the citadel, but as a place of security
for the dependents, and in times of danger for the herds and flocks.
It was important that all these should be placed near together, hence
one or two sides of the base court were of large area, while the
remainder was narrow and used for defence only. Such is the arrangement
at Berkhampstead, Caerleon, Wigmore, Richard’s Castle, Tonbridge,
Ewias-Harold, Kilpeck, Shrewsbury, and in many other fortresses where
the Norman engineer has built upon the earlier lines, and such is the
case at Kenilworth, where the eastern and north-eastern sides of the
outer ward are by much the most spacious.
The mound, so common in English strong places, and found at the
adjacent fortress of Warwick, is not here distinctly visible; the
question being, whether its site is occupied by the Norman keep or
encroached upon by John of Gaunt’s Hall, both of which are connected
with ancient earth-banks. A part of one of these banks is seen on the
west front of the inner ward, and, though mutilated, may well represent
the original burgh. The Norman keep is also connected with made ground.
It includes within its walls a very decidedly artificial mound, from
10 to 15 feet high, against which its walls are built. Kenilworth, as
it now stands, is a castle of several periods, but its general plan is
original and concentric, the principal additions having been the lake
and the outwork beyond it. It is composed of a keep, an inner and outer
ward, a lake now drained, a large outwork beyond the lake, and a dam
which supported the lake, and across which lay the main approach to the
castle.
The _Inner Ward_ measures about 80 yards north and south, by 84
yards east and west. Its north-eastern angle is a right one, and its
eastern and much of its northern sides are straight lines, but the
southern and western sides are irregular. The keep forms and fills
up the north-eastern angle. West of it, on the north front, are the
kitchens, and at the north-west angle the strong tower. The west front
is occupied by the hall, and other domestic and state buildings stand
along the south side. Leicester’s buildings form the south-east angle,
and Henry VIII.’s lodgings and the curtain, now gone, covered the
remainder of the east side. In the centre was an open court, about 40
yards north and south, by 50 yards east and west.
The _Keep_, known as “Cæsar’s,” and with more justice as “Clinton’s
Tower,” is, in magnitude, general proportions, and excellence of
material and workmanship, a fine example of a first-class late Norman
keep of the rectangular type. It forms the north-east angle of the
inner ward, and is built mainly on the rock, here near the surface. The
ground is lowest on the east and south faces, so that on these the base
is composed of a bold battering wall from 8 to 12 feet high, divided
into eight or ten steps, and of 6 to 8 feet projection at the ground
line. At the top of this base, which corresponds to the level of the
ground floor, the keep measures, from curtain to curtain, 58 feet north
and south, by 87 feet east and west, and is from the level about 80
feet high. Its west face is covered by the forebuilding, which projects
38 feet more, and is as long as the keep is broad, or 73 feet from the
front face of the turrets. The angles of the keep are capped by four
turrets, projecting 7 feet 6 inches, and the faces of which are 26
feet and 22 feet, the latter to the east and west. Between these there
are on the south face four, and on the east face three, pilasters, 5
to 7 feet broad, and 1 foot projection. These rise from the common
plinth and ascend to the summit of the present wall, which is broken,
but which includes 5 or 6 feet of parapet. It is remarkable that this
parapet has no exterior projection, not even a stringcourse to mark the
level of its base.
The turrets are broken down nearly to the level of the curtains, but
parts of their chambers remain. The west face is modified by the
forebuilding. There are upon it two pilasters, but they stop at the
level of the first floor. The turrets have an offset of 6 inches at
two-thirds of their height, and the curtains one at a rather lower
level. These are the only exterior reductions in the thickness of the
wall, which is vertical. The walls, at the floor level, are 13 to 14
feet thick, and there were two floors only—a basement and an upper or
main floor. The basement chamber is 60 feet by 30 feet, and 20 feet
high; the upper floor about 4 feet larger, the wall being reduced by 2
feet, upon which shelf the floor rested. This main chamber was about 40
feet high. The basement has lately been probed and opened. It is filled
with made ground, varying from 6 to 15 feet deep. The walls evidently
go through the made ground, and rest either upon the rock or on the
original black vegetable soil. The sacrifice of so much space in so
costly a structure is curious. It is evidently intentional, for the
character of the masonry shows it was not meant to be seen.
The north-east turret contained a well-stair 10 feet diameter, which
ascended from the basement to the battlements, communicating with the
first floor. It was lighted by six round-headed loops, of which three
to the south-east remain, and open upon a chamfer which fills up the
hollow angle between the turret and the east curtain. The stair seems
to have opened below by a short bent passage in the north wall, though
in the restoration it has been made to open into the chamber in the
east wall. The whole north curtain is gone, from the plinth upwards,
and has been removed with some care, its junction with the north-west
turret being cut smooth. At the other end its removal has necessarily
carried away half the staircase, the base of which has been entirely
restored. This basement chamber is surrounded by a low, narrow plinth
or step, 2 feet high and 1 foot broad. The floor was paved. In the
south wall are three grand window recesses, round-headed, and each
placed in a reveal about 1 foot broad and deep and square-headed. The
arches spring from a plain abacus. They are 8 feet wide and 12 feet
high to the springing. At present these recesses are parallel-sided,
and open throughout. It is evident they once were deeply splayed, and
contained small lights or loops, but the splays were cut away, and
the loops replaced by large heavily-mullioned windows of the Tudor
period, which windows have again been removed. In the east wall is
a similar recess, 6 feet broad, and unaltered. Here the splay from
outside and inside contracts in an hour-glass fashion to a loop in the
centre of the wall, with a slight shoulder to intercept an arrow. As
the parallel sides of the loop are 2 feet thick, and it is 6 feet from
the face of the wall, it is clear that no arrow could be discharged
hence save nearly straight forwards. As usual, these loops were for air
and light, not for defence. Between this loop and the south angle is
a square-headed door, of 3 feet opening, under a curious round-headed
arch, of which the tympanum is partly formed by the arch stones. This
leads to the well, which is in the centre of the wall. It is 4 feet
diameter, and much choked up. It ascends to the upper floor. At the
north end of this side the wall has been broken away and a small mural
chamber laid open, 5 feet wide by 8 feet long, having a plain barrel
vault. A door opened into it from the great chamber, and it was lighted
by a loop, now converted into a sort of window. The inner wall about
the doorway has been strengthened by a pilaster of 1 foot projection,
which stops at the first floor. In the recent restoration, this chamber
has been made the lobby at the foot of the staircase.
In the west wall is a plain, round-headed doorway, of 6 feet opening,
and with ashlar ring-stones 2 feet deep. This is the opening of a
straight passage through the wall, here 12 feet 9 inches thick. There
are in the passage rebates for two doors, opening towards each other.
At Rochester, a small door in this position led only into a sort of
prison in the base of the forebuilding, and this may have been the case
here; but the size of the door, as at Corfe, makes it at least possible
that it was a regular entrance, approached through the forebuilding
from the common exterior door. In small keeps the basement was often
entered from the first floor only, as at Clitheroe, by a trap, or, in
the larger keeps, by a well-stair, as at Middleham. Unfortunately,
as the forebuilding is almost always more or less injured, it is
impossible in most cases where there is a large basement door to say
positively whether it was an independent entrance. There is also the
further doubt, as at the Tower of London, Guildford, and Malling,
whether the doorway in the basement be not a later introduction. The
cill of this doorway is about 10 feet above the outer or main entrance
of the forebuilding, the floor of which rises to it. Close north of
the large doorway is a small one, of 2 feet 6 inches opening, which
leads into a garderobe, the seat of which is corbelled out into the
interior of the north-west turret. This interior, 10 feet 6 inches
square, seems to have been a vast cesspit, receiving the contents of
garderobes from each floor and from the battlements. There is no drain
below, and the lower part of the pit contained sand, which has recently
been removed. There is a somewhat similar pit in the keep at Ludlow,
and one at Sherborne which resembles them. Large as this pit is for
such a purpose, it is much smaller than the turret, the wall of which
to the west, if solid, must be 11 feet thick. Can there be a second and
smaller shaft in that part of the turret, not now accessible? There
was no way from this floor to either of the southern turrets, both of
which, at this level, were filled with earth.