eighth, and ninth centuries, that is from the first appearance of the
Vikings upon the shores of Britain, came chiefly from the east, and
by the way of the Humber and the Ouse. Hence, the defence of the city
on that side, and against a maritime foe, became a matter of vital
importance to the earlier Saxon settlers, who had to defend themselves
against a brood later from the bowels of the North, and possessing all
that fierceness of which civilisation had more or less deprived their
predecessors. The first object was to defend the river. We learn from
the Saxon Chronicles that the English way of effecting this was to
throw up two large mounds, one upon each bank. Thus in the eighth and
ninth centuries they defended Nottingham, and Hertford, and Stamford,
and Buckingham, and thus they would naturally defend York, and this
is doubtless the origin of the Castle Hill on the left and the Bayle
on the right bank, which may thus be attributed to the ninth century.
These mounds are the almost invariable accompaniment of an English
aula, or chief residence, and nowhere are they more abundant than in
Yorkshire. The date of many of them is recorded in the Saxon Chronicle,
and close analogy affords a clue to that of most of the others. Usually
they have a circular ditch, proper to, and shutting off the mound,
while on one side, also included within its proper ditch, is a base
court or area. Tamworth, of which the date is recorded, is an excellent
example of such a work, as is Tickhill, and, on a smaller scale,
Barwick-in-Elmet and Laughton-en-le-Morthen. The York mounds are of the
same character. Clifford’s Hill had, until recently, its proper ditch,
fed from the Ouse, and isolating it from the lower ward, now disfigured
by the assize courts and prisons, but which also had its ditches, of
which the Foss formed and does still form a part. So also the Bayle
Hill had its ditch, now filled up, and that this surrounded the hill,
and was fed from the Foss, is evident to those who examine it closely,
and observe the depression in the later wall, where it is carried over
the filled up ditch to reach the slope of the mound. But, to complete
the defence of the city from that side, something more was required.
The Danes came in their own ships, and would have ascended the Foss
and thence attacked the city. An area was therefore traced out beyond
the Foss, and which, covering the river and flanking the Ouse, made an
attack on that side a work of danger. The Walmgate, as the new outwork
is called, is fortified by a curved bank, in the English manner, and
which extends about 900 yards, resting on the marsh of the Foss island
at the one end, and on the Foss itself at Fishergate on the other. A
glance at the map will show how completely this front of the city was
protected by the Walmgate works beyond the Foss, by the Foss itself,
by the castle in its rear, and by the Bayle Hill and its connected
works beyond the Ouse. It is remarkable that such Saxon remains of
buildings as are found in York are contained within the two suburbs of
Walmgate and Micklegate. Saxon interments in great numbers are found
about the city, many laid above those of the Romans, as the British
remains are laid below them. The suburb of Walmgate was built upon and
traversed by a Roman road, but no Roman remains have been found within
it. Probably it lay too low for habitations. If, on the one hand, these
fortifications tended to repel enemies, on the other, the great wealth
of the city operated as a still stronger attraction to invite them.
Notwithstanding the Danish invasions and spoilings, the vitality of
the city continued strong. Alcuin, who wrote in the same century in
which lived Inguar and Ubba, commemorates its wealth and splendour, its
love of literature (indicated by the volumes in the cathedral library),
and its great commercial prosperity. In 923 the city fell before
Bagnald, a Northman, and after the middle of the eleventh century,
when Deira was passing into Yorkshire, York was again disturbed by
the oppression of Tostig, against whom the whole province rose, and
a gemote was held here in 1065, at which, says Freeman, both English
and Danish blood were represented. The object of the assembly was in
truth the breaking up of the kingdom, and the provincial movement was
aided by the Mercians and the Welsh. Happily, however, wiser counsels
prevailed, peace was purchased by concession, and Tostig, against
whom the revolt was directed, was banished. The defences of York were
once more to be tried before the coming in of the Normans. In the
fated year 1066, Tostig, encouraged by his Norman allies, hovered
over the English shore, and uniting with Hadrada, entered the Humber,
and laid up their ships at Riccal, 9 miles below the city. Edwin and
Morker left their seats at Laughton and Barwick, and mustered their
forces at York, and the armies met at Gate-Fulford, two miles down the
river. The two earls were beaten, and York surrendered, and agreed to
give hostages at Stamford Bridge, though the actual handing over is
thought to have taken place at Aldby, where a mound and foss still
indicate the residence of the Northumbrian kings. But though the earls
had failed, Harold was not wanting to his duty. Notwithstanding the
impending invasion from the south, he marched at once to York, resting
neither day nor night. He reached Tadcaster while the city was actually
capitulating. He entered York without resistance, left it without
delay, and fought and won the battle of Stamford Bridge. Again he
marched through York, and upon the Derwent came up with the Norwegian
reserve. These he put to flight; then returned, and after passing two
days in York, again marched southward, to lay down his life for England
at Hastings. York was thus a witness to the last and noblest effort of
the great English leader to free his northern capital from the invader,
and so, with her defences sorely broken down, and with but little
military credit, she awaited the approach of the Normans. The Norman
conquest found York a very considerable city, and if her military
reputation at that time stood low, events showed this to be due rather
to the want of a leader than to the absence of bravery in her citizens.
The city was then composed of seven divisions called “shires,” of which
one, containing the outer Bayle, belonged to the archbishop. There were
1,800 “Mansiones hospitatæ,” that is, houses paying customary rents,
and two castles. William visited York for the first time in the summer
of 1068. The citizens received him with submission, and as usual he
ordered a castle to be built, and equally as usual the place selected
was the mound of the existing stronghold. Its construction and defence
were entrusted to William Malet, Robert Fitz Richard, and five hundred
selected knights. Malet, who had distinguished himself at Hastings,
was sheriff of Yorkshire and a large landholder in the shire. At York
William received acknowledgment of his supremacy from Malcolm of
Scotland, Æthelwine Bishop of Durham, and Archill a great Northumbrian
Thane. It appears from Domesday that of the seven shires one was laid
waste in the construction of the castle, and the houses were reduced
from 1,800 to about 1,036. Probably the people had been allowed
to build up to the castle ditch, and it was necessary to clear an
esplanade around it. The submission of York was due to circumstances,
and was apparent only. In the following year, 1069, the citizens rose
against the Norman garrison. They were joined by Eadgar and the men of
Northumbria, and the castle was beleaguered. Of course, little could
have been done in so short a time towards substituting masonry for
the lighter English works, which were probably of timber, or at best
of walling without mortar, and Malet must have confined himself to
strengthening the works already in existence. The position, even if
only stockaded, was a strong one, and Malet held out until William came
to his assistance, harried the city, defiled the minster, and punished
the citizens. He now ordered a second castle to be constructed upon the
Bayle Hill. That this was a mere stockade is clear from the fact that
it was completed in eight days, before he left the city. Rapidly as the
works were constructed, still the post must have been very strong, for
the mound was high and steep, its ditches broad and deep, and filled
with water from the river. But though such works were capable of being
held safely by a few resolute men, as at Wigmore, against an army, the
defences were familiar to the English, and would not strike them with
the same terror as the stony and lofty keeps which the Normans had
lately begun to build in Normandy, and which William had commenced in
London. William Fitz Osborne was placed in charge of the second castle,
which much resembled that recently constructed in his own earldom at
Hereford. Even this double bridle failed to restrain the fierce spirit
of the English. After a brief rising, which was put down by William’s
lieutenants, the people organised a final and more serious attack.
In September, 1069, the Danish fleet once more ascended the Humber.
These allies were joined by the men of Northumbria and the English
earls from Scotland. The rising threatened William’s throne. He
charged Malet and Fitz Gilbert to hold firm, and received from them
the assurance that they were safe for a year. They must have repented
of their pledge when they beheld the whole population of the city
mustering thick as wasps before the castle. The garrison at once fired
the adjacent houses to clear the way for the defence, and thus burned
a large part of the city, during which they sallied out in force. They
were intercepted; three thousand are said to have been slain; the
castle fell, and the commander was taken prisoner. The new defences
were destroyed, probably by fire, and the north once more was free.
The numbers engaged show that the garrison occupied not merely the
mound, but the lower ward also. Unfortunately for the English, they
had no leader capable of meeting William in the field. He marched
into the east, met with, partially crushed, and partially subsidised,
the invading Danes in the parts of Lindsey, and, such the terror of
his name, entered York unopposed. He directed the castle again to be
renewed, and then was carried out that wide and terrible devastation
of the northern counties, necessary, perhaps, to enable him to hold
England, but which has loaded his name with infamy. Upon the completion
of his horrid task he kept the Christmas of 1069–70, amidst the
blackened ruins of York.
Christmas past, William visited Durham, put down a considerable rising
in the country about the Tees, and, after an absence of a few weeks,
returned, for the last time, to York. What remains at York of a
military character can be attributed to the Conqueror, or to the period
of his reign? Probably none whatever. It has been usual to suppose that
immediately upon the orders of the Conqueror there were constructed
keep and walls, such as we attribute to the Norman period. But this
period of architecture lasted nearly to 1200, and it is probable
that but very few of the Norman keeps were coëval with William. The
Normans had much to occupy them. Their masons, and sometimes even their
materials, were imported from Normandy, and it is probable that in
most cases, as certainly at York, the new lords availed themselves of
such defences as they found ready to hand, and only replaced them with
regular masonry by very slow degrees. Of the present walls only the
inner part or core of the gateways, and a part of the wall above the
Layerthorpe postern, present any distinct Norman features, and these
seem late rather than early in the style. It is very difficult to avoid
the conclusion that the defences of York, for at least a generation
after the Conquest, were a line of palisades along the crest of the
earth-bank, similar works about the castle and the Bayle, deep ditches,
and gatehouses, very possibly, of masonry.
And now, with a general description of the existing walls, these
remarks are brought to a conclusion. It will be observed that the wall
follows everywhere the line of the embankment, being built upon it,
and, consequently, but seldom of any great height, the steep exterior
bank and ditch being reckoned a great part of the defence. The ditch,
indeed, is fast becoming a matter of history. A few years ago a good
example of it covered the front of the city from the Ouse to the
railway arch, but now the works of the new station have encroached
most unnecessarily on the ditch, and a part of it is already filled
up. It is curious also that the foundation of the wall is, for the
most part, very shallow in some places, certainly not above two or
three feet. Much of the wall, indeed, of Walmgate rests upon rude,
slightly-pointed arches; possibly because the foundation was bad,
similar arches are seen below the castle wall of Southampton, intended,
like these, to be covered up. It is also to be remarked that parts of
the wall, especially the oldest part at Layerthorpe, are not above
two or, at the most, three feet thick, so as to afford no possibility
of a rampart walk, without which the wall would, of course, be of
little use for defence. At Layerthorpe this want has been supplied
by an inner wall, built upon arches, and carrying the rampart walk.
At the wall which contains the precinct of St. Mary, meant evidently
for defence, for which a licence was granted by Edward II., it would
seem that this rampart walk was an interior construction, or scaffold
of timber. Where the wall is decidedly of late date, as near Lendal,
it is much thicker, and the rampart walk is an essential part of it,
though here the stone steps must have been supplemented below with
either timber or a bank of earth. Layerthorpe postern seems to have
a regular gatehouse placed upon the inner end of the bridge of the
Foss, and forming an appropriate termination of the wall in this
direction. Fishergate postern, a portcullised doorway of the style
of Henry III. or Edward I., seems to have been a water-gate upon the
Foss. The adjacent square tower by which the curtain is ended seems
in part of the same date, but to have been partly rebuilt in the
Perpendicular period. York is fortunate in its gates, though these
have been treated most injuriously. They contain the original Norman
gatehouse, a small rectangular building, with a round-headed portal at
each end, and a flat timber roof between. There was an upper story,
now removed, and hinges for double gates. There is no portcullis, a
defence well known to the Normans, but of which they made no great use.
In the Decorated period these gatehouses were cased, an outer portal
added, and a portcullis introduced at one or both ends. At Monk Bar
the portal passage was vaulted. There was added a lofty superstructure
with turrets or bartizans corbelled out at the angles, and lateral
doors communicated with the adjacent curtains. Each gatehouse had, in
advance of it, a rectangular enclosure or pen with embattled walls,
and an outer gate opening on the further side of the ditch. Two small
doors opened from the first floor of the gatehouse upon the walls of
this structure, and thus was formed the barbican. The drawbridge was
worked inside, over the ditch. One only of these barbicans remains,
that of Walmgate; but those who wish to see other and rather earlier
examples of this appendage will find one of a similar type at Carlisle,
and a very fine one at Alnwick. The walls have been so patched and
repaired that it is difficult to form an opinion concerning their age.
They were strong enough in 1138 to hold at bay the Scottish King David,
who laid siege to York, during the contest between Maud and Stephen,
a short time before his defeat upon the field of Northallerton; but,
with the slight exceptions already mentioned, their oldest parts seem
of the Decorated period, perhaps of the reigns of Edward I. and II.,
or even of that of Henry III. The charming little tops to the loops in
the Walmgate wall can scarcely be later than Edward II. Much of the
superstructure is far later. The walls were ordered to be repaired by
Edward III., in July, 1327, before the battle of Nevill’s Cross, and
much has been done to them even down to the present day.
The Castle of York, to which the Conqueror directed his special
attention, ought, one would suppose, to retain some memorials of that
age. This, however, is not the case. The wall in the lower ward, upon
the Foss, may, in parts, be early in the twelfth century, but the round
mural towers cannot be earlier than the reign of Henry III. Clifford’s
Tower, indeed, the keep of the fortress, is a very interesting
structure. Circular or polygonal keeps, such as Cardiff, or Arundel,
or Pickering, were often of the Norman period; but the regular round
or quatrefoiled tower, introduced largely by Philip Augustus into
France, found its way into England, and the two principal varieties of
castle keep of the quatrefoil pattern were at Warwick, now removed,
and this at York. It is in plan a quatrefoil of 60 feet and 80 feet
diameter, with walls 9 feet thick and 40 feet high, three of the angles
above the first floor being occupied by circular turrets corbelled
out, and the fourth by a small square projection, which contains,
below, the entrance, and above, a small chapel, handsomely arcaded and
embellished with the dog-tooth moulding. This keep had a ground floor
looped all round, and a first floor with corresponding loops. Probably
the chambers were attached to the walls, and supported upon posts and
beams, leaving a small open court next the entrance and containing the
wall. Two circular staircases lead to the first floor, and from thence
to the battlements. The tower has been much injured by attempts, first
to destroy and then to repair it. The tower itself looks of the reign
of Richard or John. The chapel has been regarded as an addition, if
so, it is a very early one. York Castle was notorious in the reign of
Richard I., for the dreadful tragedy perpetrated there upon and by the
Jews in 1189. The castle was then burned, and we are told that Osbert
de Longchamp, governor for the king, and who took up the cause of the
Jews, rebuilt the work of Rufus in the castle. Probably this included
the keep, very nearly as it is now seen. There was a second and very
narrow ward outside the present castle wall, capped with low drum
towers, apparently of the reign of Henry III. or Edward I.
THE END.
WYMAN AND SONS, PRINTERS, GREAT QUEEN STREET, LONDON, W.C.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| FOOTNOTES: |
| |
| [1] Ducange gives “Glorieta, ædificiolum altius, nostris |
| _gloriette_.” In the Roman de Partonopex mention occurs of a |
| finely-painted _chambrette_ thus named. In the Statutes of |
| Milan, also, the following clause is found: “Si quis de cætero |
| construere vel construi facere voluerit aliquam Baltrescham, |
| ponticellum, vel Glorietam, in ejus domo, super muro proprio vel |
| communi, per quam immediate prospici possit in domum vicini, hoc |
| ei liceat,” &c. Lacombe gives “Gloriette: prison, petite maison |
| de plaisance, cabinet de verdure,” &c. A favourite resort near |
| Dorking, commanding a fine prospect, is known as “The Glory.” |
| |
| [2] Hutchins, Hist. Dorset, vol. i., third edit., pp. 487, 494. |
| Arch. Journ., vol. xxii., p. 215, 217. |
| |
| [3] Ibid., p. 219. |
| |
| [4] Conventual Buildings, Christ Church, Canterbury, Archæologia |
| Cantiana, vol. vii., pp. 105, 109. |
| |
| [5] “Hæc est conventio inter Gundulfum episcopum et Eadmerum |
| Anhœnde Burgensem Londoniæ.” |
| |
| “Dum idem Gundulfus, ex præcepto regis Willielmi Magni, præesset |
| operi magnæ turris Londoniæ, et hospitatus fuisset apud ipsum |
| Eadmerum quadam vice ipse cœpit episcopum rogare ut concedet |
| sibi societatem ecclesiæ quam regebat, videlicet, Sᵗⁱ. Andreæ. |
| Quod ei episcopus satis libenter concessit. Et ideo concessit |
| Sancto Andreæ et fratribus ibidem Deo servientibus medietatem |
| piscariæ quæ vocatur Niuue Uuere, quam diu viveret. Cum vero |
| moreretur, totam eam ibidem concessit, et totam terram suam quam |
| habebat in Lundonia, et domos tali pacto, ut ipse et uxor ejus |
| ad Rouecestriam deferrentur et ibidem sepelirentur, omnique anno |
| eorum anniversarium observaretur.”—“Textus Roff.,” Ed. Hearne, p. |
| 212. |
| |
| [6] A.D. 1190. “Sub his diebus Wˢ Eliensis Epˢ, Angliæ |
| Justiciarius et Apostolicæ sedis legatus, fecit Turrim |
| Londinensem fossato profundissimo circumcingi, sperans se posse |
| Tamisiæ fluenta in urbem ducere. Sed post multos de fisco sumptus |
| se laborare inutilita comprobavit.”—M. Paris, Ed. 1646, p. 161. |
| |
| [7] “Itaque spe frustratus, in arcem se regiam cum suis omnibus |
| recessit; quorum tantus erat numerus, ut in stricti loci |
| angustiis sua illis esset nocivior multitudo, quam hostium foris |
| frementium multitudo. Æstuebat turris interius comprehensiore |
| multitudinis inclusæ, cito evomitura quos prodendo magis quam |
| tuendos susceperat. Denique post unam noctem egressus ad Johannem |
| et obsessores cæteros. Ille paulo ante rhinoceros sed jam homo, |
| humuli alloquio abeundi facultatem impetravit inclusis.”—W. |
| Heming: p. 530. |
| |
| [8] “Plancherium” is an upper chamber, probably what is meant |
| here. |
| |
| [9] “Per posticum quod de Turri plagam meridionalem respicit |
| et fluvio contiguatur, legatum potenter eduxit, et ejus loco |
| defensores idoneos intromisit, eductoque legato occupatores urbis |
| non immerito deridebat, et procedens usque Stratford ad tria |
| miliaria prope London sine quolibet obice castra fixit.”—CHRON. |
| T. WYKES. |
| |
| [10] A balista was an engine for throwing darts as a catapult |
| threw stones and heavy substances. Both were worked by windlasses |
| or winches. |
| |
| [11] In the “Archæologia,” vol. xxix., plate xliii., is given |
| a plan of Odiham Tower, but accompanied by no description, and |
| without date. It was laid before the Society of Antiquaries by |
| Sir E. Home in 1840. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Transcriber’s note:
- Blank pages have been removed.
- Redundant title and printer information pages have been removed.
- Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected.
- Illustration page information removed.
- There are several references to “Leland” and “Itin.”, these appear
to be to “The Itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary.”, edited by
Thomas Hearne, 1744. See Wikipedia entry for “John Leland
(antiquary)”.