very rare feature; the chemisette may be compared to the more perfect
envelope at Tretower and Launceston, but it is evidently an addition.
The dimensions are nearly those of Bronllys, which is, however, rather
later, and of far superior work. It is singular that the original
castle should have been placed so far from the edge of the cliff
which constituted a part of its later defences. The excavations now
in progress may yet throw a light upon the precise age of some of the
parts. It is something to have found mouldings of the Norman period.
The only parts absolutely destroyed belong to the north front, where
the wall has certainly been blown down by gunpowder, probably during
the occupation of Gower by Cromwell.
This is not the only stronghold within the parish and manor of Penrice.
About half a mile south-west of the castle, and west of, and very near
to, the parish church, is a circular earthwork, composed of a single
mound, with an exterior ditch, and an entrance on the north-west side.
The diameter of the interior space may be 100 feet, and the mound from
6 to 10 feet high. This is a very perfect, and evidently a very early
work, and no doubt was stockaded with timber.
The adjacent church, though much altered in recent times, has a Norman
wall and arch, masked with plaster, between the nave and the chancel,
and a remarkable south porch of early Decorated and a south door of
early English date. Outside the south door of the church and in the
porch, on the right on entering, is a water stoup, hollowed out in a
sort of stone seat. The upper part of the tower and a small north
transept are said to have been rebuilt in the last century.
The church stands upon a strong position, superior in many respects to
that selected for the castle. The adjacent church of Nicholaston has a
rude coupled east window of early English date.
The castle, the ruins of which have been described, was for many
generations the seat of a considerable Gower family, who no doubt
derived their surname from their estate, therein differing from
several of their neighbours, the owners of Nicholaston, Reynoldston,
Leysanston, and Scurlage, whose names were bestowed upon and are
preserved in those manors. Either custom was here common, and there are
several examples of each in the Vale of Glamorgan.
No doubt the lords of Penrice were followers of the Bellomonts and
early Norman settlers in Gower, where they probably erected, before
the close of the twelfth century, that part of the castle to which
the lately-discovered Norman fragments may be assigned. The castle
descended by a Penrice heiress to the Mansels, and is at this time the
property of their descendant, Mr. Talbot.
PENRITH CASTLE, CUMBERLAND.
Penrith Castle stands upon a slight elevation of old red sandstone
gravel, about a furlong from, and from 50 feet to 70 feet above,
the church and the old town of Penrith, and a few yards east of the
modern railway station. Originally and always a simple structure of no
particular military strength or architectural merit, its remains are
now scanty, and chiefly remarkable for the excellence of their material
and workmanship, and well known from their position in full view of one
of the great highways of the country.
The castle is in plan rectangular, 130 feet north and south by 153 feet
east and west. It is composed of a stout and lofty curtain-wall, within
and against which were built the rooms occupied by the garrison, and
outside is an artificial and dry ditch, also rectangular in outline,
and rather peculiar in the space left between it and the castle wall.
On the west side this ditch has been removed in the formation of a deep
road leading from the town to the station. On the south it remains,
and beyond it are some excavations, which appear to be old, but are
not very intelligible. On the east side the ditch is very perfect.
About 9 yards intervene between its scarp and the foot of the curtain
wall; and beyond, crowning the counterscarp, is rather a high bank,
advantageously placed for those who intended to attack the wall with
the weapons and engines of the Middle Ages. On the north front is a
considerable platform, about half the area of the castle, and on the
same level. This is defended towards the town by a natural slope,
made somewhat steeper by art, but the ditch is continued in the rear
of this, round the north-east angle, just west of which is a roadway
indicating the approach to the place. This approach was flanked by the
north-east angle of the platform, and the ground beyond the ditch.
The earthworks on this quarter are so sharp and fresh that they seem
to have been deepened and strengthened to resist a modern attack from
this quarter; and in that case the bank outside the east ditch may have
been thrown up to protect the base of the curtain from being breached
by cannon. Possibly the intention was to resist the Pretender’s army in
1745.
The curtain, of which the ditch is the outwork, is about 30 feet high
and 5 feet thick. It is built of blocks of the red sandstone of the
district, of a deep colour and handsome appearance. These are squared,
and laid in courses. The wall appears, wholly or in part, to have been
crowned by a corbel-table, of moderate projection, upon which rested
the parapets. At some special points these corbels are bolder, and form
machicolations, but more commonly their object was to add 6 inches in
breadth to the rampart walk.
Along the east, and on the adjacent part of the north and south
sides, the curtain is tolerably perfect. On the west side are some
foundations, and a fragment of wall of full height. At the south-east
angle a square buttress, original, of about 3 feet broad by 3 feet 6
inches projection, is set diagonally, and caps the angle. In the middle
of the east wall is a similar buttress, but set square. These have
no bases or setts-off, and rise to the parapets. At the north-east
angle seems to have been a bartisan, or square turret, projected upon
corbels; the wall is quite plain below. The other two angles are gone;
but the foundations show no trace of mural towers. Grose’s plan, though
very incorrect, may be taken to show that late in the last century the
walls were tolerably perfect; and that in the centre of the south wall
and at the south-west angle were buttresses similar to those described
above.
All traces of the gateway are gone; but the earthwork shows it to have
been on the north front, rather near the east end. West of this some
traces of windows seem to indicate the site of the hall, and part of a
large half-round barrel-vault, abutting against the remains of the west
wall, seems to have belonged to its substructure. In the east wall,
near its summit, are two large window openings, about 5 feet broad.
The tracery is gone; but the arch of the recesses is flat segmental,
strengthened by two plain bold ribs.
There is no trace of any keep or detached central building. The head
of a flat-topped window of two lights, trefoiled, has been dug up and
preserved. It seems to be early Perpendicular. The general plan of
the building and what remains of its vault and arches, point to the
Decorated period, during which both the round-headed and the flat
segmental arch were largely used in this district. What remains appears
to be of one date. The Ordnance sheet lviii. 4. 24. contains a plan
of this castle to a scale of 10·56 feet to the mile, or ¹⁄₃₀₀.
[Illustration: PENRITH CASTLE
Wyman & Sons, Gᵗ. Queen Sᵗ. London.]
In describing the building, it has been found convenient to call the
tower face the north, but really it fronts more to the north-east.
It has been suggested, from the rectangular plan of the earthworks, and
from the prevalence of Roman remains in the district, that the castle
occupies the site of a Roman encampment, and that its material, said
by some to have been taken from Mayburgh, was derived from some Roman
building. This latter suggestion is, no doubt, perfectly possible.
Certainly the material was not taken from Mayburgh, which never could
have supplied ashlar in large quantities.
It is certain that there was no castle here during the early Norman
times, or while the manor was the heritage of the kings of Scotland.
From them it came to John Baliol, and was confiscated with his other
English possessions late in the thirteenth century. The Neviles of
Raby then held it. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, had the castle and
manor, and seems to have been often here. He probably made any pure
Perpendicular additions of which evidence may remain.
There are extant two licences, one to crenellate the town of Penrith,
20 Edward III.; and the other, 22 Richard II., to William de
Strickland, with permission to make a mantlet of stone and lime, and to
crenellate it. Probably the present castle is the mantlet referred to.
PEVENSEY CASTLE, SUSSEX.
Pevensey is, in some respects, the most interesting place in the south
of England. Not only is it closely associated with English history
during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, but its ancient and present
names, and a part of its material remains in masonry and earthworks,
connect it closely with the British, Roman, and early English
occupation of our island.
It was, without doubt, the chief place in the great forest of Anderida,
which, in remote times, extended over the south of Sussex and the
Weald of Kent, and of which the not infrequent remains are seen in the
very numerous and wild parks found in these districts. The British
name, both of forest and town, is preserved in its Roman form, and the
site of the latter is still indicated by its Roman walls and towers,
which, like those of Porchester, have been incorporated into a later
fortress. The Romans probably left Anderida in good repair. One of the
chief strongholds of the “Comes littoris Saxonici” was not likely to
have been neglected, and it appears, from the Saxon Chronicle, that
the Britons were well aware of its value, and held it against their
piratical invaders with fierce but unavailing valour. Late in the
fifth century it was besieged and taken by Ælle and Cissa and their
followers, and every Briton within it was put to the sword.
Andredes-ceaster, or Andreceaster, from a Roman and British, became an
English fortress, and, by slow degrees, the Forest of Andredes-weald
became encroached upon by cultivation. The change of masters also
brought a change of name, and the island or “eye” in the marsh is
supposed to have become the property of “Peofn,” whence its present
name is thought to be derived.
Under the English rule, the divisions and names denoting property were
gradually introduced, and Pevensey became the chief town of a Rape,
an honour it shared with Chichester, Arundel, Bramber, Hastings, and
Lewes, in each of which the town was distinguished by early earthworks,
and at Chichester by Roman walls. Each of these Rapes had its town
and fortress, and each town was placed upon a river. That of Pevensey
rises in the wooded ridge about Penshurst and Dallington by a number of
streamlets which meander athwart the marshy level of Pevensey, until a
little above the castle they form what is still known as the old Haven,
and which was in use in the twelfth century. As late as 1317 a grant
by Edward II. mentions the marshes as overflowed by the sea, and as in
no man’s tenure. The castle then stood on the margin of the sea, from
which it is now more than a mile distant, and the whole area of the
level, many square miles in extent, seems to have been an impracticable
morass, covering the fortress towards the south and east, and in some
degree to the north. The knoll must so have presented itself to Julius
Cæsar, if, as generally supposed, he here landed, and so, with the
addition of the Roman walls, it was certainly seen by Ælle and his
followers, and 500 years later by Duke William when he landed between
Eastbourne and Hastings, and selected the higher ground to the east
of that castle for his march inland to give battle. “Mare transivit,”
says the Bayeux tapestry, “et venit ad Pevensæ,” and the chronicle
of Battle says he landed “prope castrum Pevensel dictum,” whence the
soldiery went to seek victuals at Hastings. Here, then, it was, beneath
these very walls, that the Conqueror took seisin of his yet unconquered
kingdom.
Pevensey, under the Normans, became once more a place of consequence,
and one of the havens through which the sovereigns kept up their
communications with Normandy. It was hence that the king embarked on
his return to Normandy in 1067. William granted it to his half-brother
of Moretaine, who is said to have built a castle there. What he
actually built is unknown, and the only existing masonry that can
possibly be of his date is the broken superstructure of one, or perhaps
two, Roman towers, and some rude repairs executed on the face of one
of them. But whatever he did he held, and continued to hold the Roman
castle till his death, and he so held it against William Rufus, in
1088, being supported and encouraged by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, and
by the hope that Duke Robert would come to their relief from beyond
the sea. This hope was fallacious. Rufus having stormed the mound
of Tonbridge, laid siege to Pevensey. The garrison was brave, the
earl-bishop and his brother count were skilful generals, the walls were
high and strong, and for six weeks the king, at the head of a numerous
army, assailed the place in vain. A tardy force sent, not led, by Duke
Robert, strove to land beneath the castle wall, but, though the king’s
English soldiers were thus placed between the double attack from the
castle and the ships, they overcame and, for the most part, slew the
invaders. The castle was surrendered, and Odo, transmitted under a
guard to Rochester, contrived to enter that castle, and to encourage
its garrison to hold out.
Pevensey next comes under notice in 1101 as the muster-place of the
army led by Henry I. to repel the expected invasion of Duke Robert.
He was so far successful that the invaders were driven to land at
Porchester. Either under Earl William of Moretaine, who was taken
at Tenchbrai and lost his lands, or under his successor, Gilbert de
l’Aigle, the lordship or Lewy of Pevensey was erected into an Honour,
and finally became the Honour of the Eagle, “Honor de Aquila.” In
1144, the castle was attacked by Stephen, and defended by Gilbert de
Clare, then holding it for the Empress, to whose son, Henry, it had
been granted by Henry I. It next came to King Stephen, and about 1216
became the property, under the Crown, of William de Warren, and after
various confiscations and restorations was finally lost to the De
Aquila family in the reign of Henry III. John, Earl Warren, took refuge
here in 1264, after the Mise of Lewes, and in the following year it was
held by Peter of Savoy for the king against the younger De Montfort.
Very little of the present mediæval masonry could have been standing
during these various sieges. The strength of the place must have then
mainly depended upon the Roman exterior wall, furnished, no doubt, with
a mediæval parapet, and dominated by the early English mound, with
probably a shell keep of timber or masonry upon it.
About 1269 it fell into the hands of Prince Edward, and remained awhile
in the Crown. In 1309 it was in a ruinous condition, “Confractum et
male custoditum,” Edward I. having declined to repair it. It must
have been soon after this, judging from the evidence of the existing
masonry, that the present additions were made, that is, either at the
close of the thirteenth or very early in the fourteenth century. The
towers are attributed to Edward II., in 1309.
Pevensey, “La Ville et la Lewee de Peuense,” was included in the
extensive grants made by Edward III. to John of Gaunt, under whom
and the Duchy of Lancaster the Pelhams became hereditary constables.
In 1399, Lady Pelham distinguished herself by holding the castle for
Richard II. against the combined _posse_ of the counties of Kent,
Sussex, and Surrey. After this event it was mainly used as a state
prison. Edmund, Duke of York, was confined here in 1405, and in
his will bears testimony to his good treatment; and here also were
imprisoned James I. of Scotland in 1414, and in 1419 Joan of Navarre,
the last queen of Henry IV. In 1650, the castle had a narrow escape
from the claws of the Parliament, the materials having been actually
sold for building purposes.
The history of the building, though aided by passages in the public
records, is mainly to be established by the study of the material
remains. Those of the Roman period have fallen under the searching and
very accurate notice of Mr. Roach Smith; the present paper deals mainly
with the mediæval additions both in earthworks and masonry.
DESCRIPTION.
The Roman fortress is in plan a rounded oblong, 220 yards north-east
and south-west by 115 yards, and contains from 8½ acres to 9 acres. It
is included within a wall strengthened by towers, and here, as at Lyme,
the outline of the plan was evidently governed by that of the ground on
which the castle stands, and which rises 8 feet to 10 feet above the
sea level and that of the surrounding marsh or meadow. The wall is from
10 feet to 11 feet thick throughout, and at this time from 20 feet to
30 feet high. The length in circuit is about 580 yards. At the bend of
the enclosure, towards the south-west, is the main entrance, preserving
very nearly its original form. Two half-round towers, 28 feet apart,
and 20 feet diameter, with produced flat sides, giving them a depth of
30 feet, and 30 feet high, project 20 feet from the curtain, and were
connected by a cross wall, of which only the foundation remains, and in
which was the outer gateway. These towers are not quite parallel, but
their longer axes radiate slightly outwards. They are solid and have
no internal projection, but from each of them a wall ran backwards 18
feet, terminating in a cross wall, in which was the second gateway, the
foundations of which show that the base had an opening of 9 feet. This
rectangular gatehouse must have resembled those of Porchester, and,
like those, had evidently been altered to suit the Norman entrance, of
which there remains one jamb of the outer gateway.
Besides the towers flanking the entrance are eleven others upon the
curtain wall. These also are solid, of the height and age of the
curtain, and without internal projection. They vary from 14 feet to 20
feet in breadth, and from 14 feet to 16 feet projection from the wall.
They stand at irregular distances of from 14 yards to 35 yards. Besides
the thirteen standing towers, there are two displaced and broken down,
and the fragments of two others, making seventeen in all. They are
closest along the north-west and north fronts, where the ground outside
is highest. Towards the south and east there are but few, the shallow,
muddy sea and the marsh being found a sufficient protection. Besides
the main entrance there were three posterns, of which that to the
north-east is still in use. That to the north is broken down, but its
remains show it to have passed obliquely, on a slight curve, through
the wall. The southern postern was probably a water-gate. In the south
wall the mouth of a drain, about 18 inches square, and opening towards
the sea, has been laid open. Although the wall is for the most part
thickly covered with ivy, it is pretty evident that in parts it is
still capped by a later battlement, and one of the northern towers,
originally 32 feet high, bears a superstructure of 18 feet, which, from
a window in its side, appears to be of the Norman period.
The wall has been breached on the north front for 65 yards, and its
mass, thrown forwards, still encumbers the ground outside. To the
south is a much longer breach, at least of 200 yards. This seems to
have been produced by a slip of the soil, by which the foundations
have been moved forward bodily for several feet. At the east end also
the wall has been broken down, but here its fragments, which are of
considerable bulk, are mixed up with others of later date in wild, but
not absolutely inextricable, confusion. Most of the north wall has
been picked into to a considerable depth, at the ground level, but
the foundation remains uninjured. This is said to be the work of the
purchaser of the ruins in 1650, but may possibly be the work of some
early assailants, though these are more likely to have worked below the
surface of the earth, and to have inserted props of wood beneath the
base of the masonry, which, when set on fire, would have caused the
destruction of the whole superincumbent mass. No gunpowder has here
been employed.
It is evident that there was formerly a ditch at the foot of the wall
on the south front, full of water, where, indeed, it may still be
traced. Along the north, west, and east fronts, the wall is bordered
by a road, to make which the ditch, probably never very wide or deep,
has been filled up. There can be no question as to the authors of the
exterior _enceinte_, both wall and towers. They are all of one, or
very nearly one, date, and distinctly Roman, and, which is not always
the case, the towers are bonded into the walls. The substance of the
masonry is very rudely-coursed flint-rubble, chiefly composed of flints
and pebbles from the adjacent sea-beach, mixed with angular fragments
of stone, the whole held together by mortar very freely employed. This
mortar is remarkably white in colour, and contains numerous small
pebbles, little if any broken tile, and a preponderance of sand. On the
whole the mortar has set firmly, and holds well together the rather
heterogeneous mass of materials. The face of the work, both inside and
outside, is composed mainly of squared stones from Eastbourne or Beachy
Head. They are generally about 6 inches by 4 inches on the face, but
sometimes as large as 12 inches by 6 inches. The lowest courses at the
ground-level are composed of darker and far larger stones, and in the
wall above are occasional double bands of tile, and sometimes of stone
nearly of the colour of tile. A good deal of the facing at the lower
part of the wall has been stripped off, but inside this stripping is
confined to the part of the wall just above the ground-level, which is
raised artificially higher than the level of the natural soil. In some
places this addition is high enough to convert the lower part of the
masonry into a retaining wall. It has been thought that the earth thus
employed was derived from the inner ditch, an early English work. It
may be so, but more probably the contents of this ditch went to form
the mound, and it is possible that the raised soil may be derived from
the ditches of a British camp preceding the Roman occupation.
The Romans, who constructed the outer walls, seem to have been content
with a single line of defence; but the Northmen treated the whole area
after a different fashion. Within the area, at its eastern end, a mound
was thrown up, table-topped, and about 30 feet high; this, though
within the area, was upon its margin, and rested against the eastern
wall. The material for the mound seems to have been derived from a
ditch which surrounded about two-thirds of its circumference, extending
from wall to wall, and which thus isolated it from the remainder of the
Roman area. This ditch has been filled up, probably to give space, but
its line is still marked by a slight depression in the soil. By this
means a strong place would be formed very nearly in accordance with the
early English practice, having a mound or bank, with its proper ditch,
and an appended court. The only peculiarity would be that the court
was walled, and thus the ditch of the mound would be traversed by the
masonry, and the outer side of the mound supported by it.