THE RECTANGULAR KEEP, _c._ 1100-1200
We have seen that the Shell Keep was a logical sequence in the
development of a castle which had been originally erected upon the Motte
and Bailey plan, and the question will naturally suggest itself as to
the nature of Castles which the Normans built in the twelfth century
upon a site not previously occupied. This was the Rectangular Keep with
its fortified enclosure, answering approximately to the Shell Keep and
the bailey.
Rectangular Keeps had been prominent in French fortifications for at
least thirty years before the Norman Conquest, but the introduction of
the defence into England was slow and protracted. Only two examples are
extant which preceded the death of William I., namely, the White Tower
of London, and the Keep at Colchester. This type of castle has come to
be associated with the Normans, to the practical exclusion of the much
greater number of Motte and Bailey and Shell Keep fortalices which are
equally connected with their occupation; probably the dignified
appearance of the massive Keep, with its impressive adjuncts and
surroundings, are responsible for the popular belief.
The Keep itself was essentially a new feature in the art of
fortification, a medieval method of resisting the special form of attack
prevailing at that period. The enclosure was directly derived from the
rectangular _castra_ of Roman times, descended through the Anglo-Saxon
burh and the Norman bailey. Probably of all the military structures
which the world has seen, the Rectangular Keep is the grandest in
impressive appearance and dimensions, combined as it is with simplicity
of outline; it is also the most durable in workmanship by its adamantine
strength and structural proportions. The walls are generally from 8 to
14 feet thick, and, at the base, sometimes even 20 feet, while a few
still standing are reputed to have the ground floor solid. The enormous
thickness of walls in medieval buildings must not always be taken as an
indication of strength; in a large number of cases they consist of two
walls at some distance apart, with the intermediate space filled in with
rubble and a certain amount of mortar, generally inferior in quality, so
that at times when the outer casing is pierced, the interior core pours
out through the opening like grain from a sack. They afforded, however,
facilities for the construction of passages in the wall itself, and also
for small chambers, while the exterior portion of the wall was
invariably strengthened by flat pilaster buttresses. The entrances to
these Keeps were usually on the first floor, access being gained by
means of a ladder or wooden gangway, the doorway being of small
dimensions. A series of narrow vertical slits in the walls, splayed out
into embrasures inside, served the purpose of windows, and also as
oillets or arbalesteria, for the discharge of arrows and bolts.
Later examples of the Keep are furnished with forebuildings adapted to
protect the vulnerable portion, the entrance. These forebuildings were
especially designed to present unusual difficulties of penetration;
drawbridges, meurtriers, oubliettes, and other devices being opposed to
intruders, while passages leading to every spot except those desired
were constructed in the walls to mislead and divert attacks from
inrushing assailants. One of the best examples is that at
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, built _c._ 1172; it has two towers and contains a
chapel, the entrance to the Keep itself being from the roof which forms
an open platform.
[Illustration: FOREBUILDING OF THE KEEP, BERKELEY.]
But by far the best example of a forebuilding is to be found at Dover,
standing against the eastern face of the great Keep. It is so designed
that three separate protections are afforded to the stairway leading
into the Keep, the base, centre, and landing stage having each a
separate tower for its defence. The entrance upon the first floor is
barred by a door of formidable thickness and great strength; upon the
first floor occurs the Chapel, and a view into it is obtained from the
stairway, while a small chapel or oratory is placed overhead upon the
second floor. A well, now disused, formerly had its opening in the
third floor. The actual entrance to the Keep occurs upon the second
floor, although an ancient one, now blocked up, opened to it from the
first floor.
_Dover Castle_, from its commanding position at the narrowest part of
the English Channel, has for many centuries occupied one of the most
prominent positions among the fortresses of England. It stands upon a
chalk knoll to the east of the town, and by nature and art is
practically severed from the adjacent land, whether high or low. From
traces, which are now almost entirely obliterated, it is concluded that
a Celtic defence primarily existed upon the summit; this was followed
after A.D. 42 by a Roman station, the chief remains of which are to-day
embodied in the well-known Pharos, a companion probably to that erected
in A.D. 40 by Caligula upon the Gallic shore. Traces of the Roman
occupation, apart from the lighthouse, are very scanty, and are
overshadowed by the Saxon work, although it is open to doubt whether the
development of the latter was carried out to any elaborate extent.
[Illustration: DOVER CASTLE, KENT.]
It is with the Norman period that the history proper of the Castle
commences. It surrendered without opposition to the Conqueror, who
added to the defences, and it was able to resist a sharp attack upon it
in 1074 when the men of Kent rose against William. Shortly after this
the town was surrounded by walls.
[Illustration: DOVER CASTLE.]
Although Dover was rightly considered as the key of England, the
fortress is not connected with many of the great events which have gone
to make the history of England. It has always been in the possession of
the Crown and governed by a Constable. Hubert de Burgh defended it
against the Dauphin in the time of King John, and, although Louis built
many trebuchets and imported minor petraries from France, these,
combined with beffrois, sows, and rams, failed to shake his determined
defence. Dover appears to have played but little part in subsequent
history, probably through its falling into ruin by neglect during the
"Wars of the Roses" and of the great Rebellion.
The Keep is a fine example, dating from 1182, and essentially Norman; it
is nearly 100 feet square, and rises to a height of 95 feet. It presents
a commanding feature from the sea as the summit is nearly 500 feet above
high water. The usual Norman pilaster buttresses are apparent at the
angles and in the centres of three of the faces. The Keep walls are of
most unusual thickness, in parts exceeding 20 feet, but these are
honeycombed by a number of small chambers and passages. Only loopholes
admit light to the lower stage, the more important rooms being upon the
second floor. The Keep is provided with two wells, not contained, as
usual, in the great transverse wall which divides the building into two
distinct portions, but in the thickness of the eastern wall.
Subsequent defences have taken the form of massive curtains defending
the enceinte, which encloses an area of 35 acres, a special feature
being the large number of towers, round-fronted or square, which are
liberally scattered along it. The general shape now developed may claim
to be that of the Concentric Fortress, although it is classified among
the Rectangular Keeps. Its adaptation to up-to-date requirements has in
many cases led to the obliteration of many ancient features formerly
distinguishing it; these, although undoubtedly justifiable, are to be
regretted from the antiquarian point of view.
In order to convey an idea of the internal economy of a Keep and the
disposition of the various apartments the diagram appearing on p. 100
may be of use. It shows the five successive floors of Hedingham Keep,
Essex, which dates from about 1140. Upon the ground floor plan the great
thickness of the walls, about 12 feet, is plainly apparent with the
narrow embrasures giving light. At the base the walls batter slightly
for a few feet, not shown on plan. The well-stair commences in the
basement and extends to all the floors. The first floor or entrance
story has a small round-headed doorway, the arch of which is ornamented
with zigzag moulding; steps now lead up the face of the wall to it, but
formerly it opened from a forebuilding of which traces still remain.
Here the honeycombing of the walls commences which is so marked a
feature in Keeps. The embrasures have very narrow openings externally
but wider than on the ground floor. The central dividing wall here is
pierced by an arch and hence shown dotted in plan. On the second floor
is the great Hall of Audience; across the centre is built a remarkably
fine arch carried upon Norman shafts with scollop capitals and moulded
bases. The fireplace and also the window openings have zigzag mouldings
around the circular heads. The upper part of this room has a gallery
running round it shown as the third floor plan; the windows are doubled
by a dividing pier and openings admit of a view into the Audience
Chamber. Above is the fourth floor low in height, with zigzag moulding
round the external window heads. Over this story is the flat roof and
the turrets at the corners, two of which still remain. The floors and
the roof were all supported upon wooden beams.
Hedingham Castle was the residence of the de Vere family for about six
centuries. King John besieged and captured it in 1216, but it underwent
no subsequent siege. The outer fortifications were demolished in the
reign of Elizabeth and only the Keep remains at the present time.
The ramparts upon the summit of a Rectangular Keep were carried upon the
walls themselves, the latter, as a rule, being sufficiently thick for
the purpose without corbelling outwards. The parapet was either
continuous or embattled. A roof, at times covered with lead, was carried
over the central opening, and the uppermost floors were invariably borne
upon massive wooden joists. The lowest floor was generally free from
timber, being constructed of masonry carried upon the arches of a crypt,
but in those cases where the whole structure was borne upon a solid
foundation of masonry spread upon the entire area of the site, this
might be dispensed with. Some existing crypts are not coeval with the
building, but were added at a later date, that at Richmond, for example,
dates from the Decorated period. As a general rule the Keep contained a
well which was sunk through the foundations and carried upwards in the
central dividing wall to the various floors, but examples occur where it
is placed in the enclosure. Most Keeps were furnished with an oratory or
private chapel, one of the most famous being that in the Tower of
London, while those at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Colchester, and Guildford
are well known. In the later type of Keep this feature is absent, the
tendency being to erect all buildings used during times of peace within
the enclosure.
The reduction of such a Keep as we have outlined was almost impossible
in the Medieval age except by famine; the outer minor defences, however,
were not proof against the missiles of the trebuchet, onager, and other
petraries, and would invariably succumb. But with regard to the massive
structure of the Keep, the largest stones could be hurled with but small
results; and the few narrow openings in its walls presented but meagre
opportunities for a successful admission of the falarica, quarrel, or
arrow. To carry it by direct assault would be at all times a forlorn
hope.
We thus see that the Rectangular Keep was essentially a structure for
passive defence; and during the time that provisions lasted it was
practically impregnable. Built upon the living rock, as they generally
were, it was an impossibility to mine them; even if attempted, mine
could be met with counter-mine, and the ram and sow might in vain essay
to make any impression upon such solid masonry. At the same time the
garrison was to a certain extent incapable of inflicting much damage
upon the besiegers except in case of assault; the steep shingle roof
afforded no place for a military engine, and but scanty facilities for
storage of rocks, stones, beams, and other weighty missiles for dropping
upon assailants. The narrow entrance into the Keep prevented an
effective sortie, and, if attempted, was a source of danger in retreat.
During the three months spent by King John, in 1215, before the Keep at
Rochester, his military engines produced practically no result upon it,
but an effective mine succeeded in bringing down the masonry of one of
the lower angles, and eventually part of the tower itself.
The great advantages perceivable in a solid Keep were so apparent that
the addition of this feature to many castles of the Motte and Bailey
pattern was deemed advisable, but only in a few places did the Keep
stand upon the mound; Nottingham is an exception, but in nearly all
other examples they occupied new sites, the tremendous weight of the
structure rendering it inadvisable to trust it in that position. The
superiority of the Keep over the Motte and Bailey Castle was well
exemplified in 1102, when Robert of Bellesme, Earl of Shrewsbury, broke
into rebellion against King Henry I. He possessed a fortress of the
Motte and Bailey type at Quatford on the Severn, but this "Devil of
Bellesme," as he was termed, had no confidence in his father's fortress,
and transferred the stones higher up the river where, in the short
period of twelve months, he built the imposing Keep whose massive
remains, although sadly shattered at the time of the Commonwealth, still
excite our admiration. It is erected upon a rocky site, protected by
ravines upon three sides, and overhanging the river Severn upon the
fourth. When besieged by the King it withstood all the efforts of the
formidable petraries brought to bear upon it, and appears to have been
practically uninjured when, at the expiration of a month, a portion of
the garrison became disaffected by reason of the threatening nature of
the royal messages, and managed to secure its surrender.
[Illustration: ROCHESTER CASTLE, KENT.]
When a Keep was added to a castle of the Motte and Bailey type there
does not appear to have been any regular rule as to its position. At
Guildford it was erected upon the motte (though a little way down the
slope), and also at Nottingham, Pickering, and York; at Clun in
Shropshire the Keep was built partly on the motte, occupying the eastern
slope, the mound apparently bearing a defence of the Shell Keep pattern
at the same time. Gloucester Castle has been entirely destroyed in
order to make room for a modern prison, but from existing records we
learn that the Keep was an addition, occupying the centre of the former
bailey, while the building at Newcastle also stood distinct from the
mound. The Keep at Oxford stands upon the enceinte at some distance from
the Shell Keep, while at Rochester and Canterbury the new additions were
erected outside the original castle.
[Illustration: CLUN CASTLE, SALOP.]
In the reign of the Conqueror and his immediate descendants, the rapid
building of castles for overawing the defeated Saxons was a matter of
Crown policy, but with the settlement of the Kingdom, and the rise into
power of Norman nobles waxing rich and powerful upon their estates,
restrictions became imperative if the royal prerogatives were not to be
set at nought. Consequently, special licences to build and crenellate
had to be obtained before erecting, or adding to the existing defences
of, a castle, and the rigorous insistence upon this law was readily
recognised and maintained by all strong rulers of the kingdom. When,
however, a weak monarch came to the throne, or internal dissensions
occurred, the Norman barons invariably seized the opportunity thus
afforded, and a large increase of these fortalices sprang into
existence. The most remarkable example was during the eighteen years of
strife wherein King Stephen was struggling for his crown with the forces
of Queen Maud. In order to propitiate the nobles and secure their
services, the King gave licences with a reckless indifference to
consequences, and many scores of castles were erected under these
permissions, but a still greater number with no licence at all. These
latter became known as "adulterine" or spurious castles; the total
number built during this period of anarchy is said to have been more
than one thousand, but more modern computation places the number at
about seven hundred. Stephen, when too late, perceived the mischief
attending the multiplication of these citadels, and attempted to reduce
the evil by destroying those belonging to the clergy. The essay proved
to be a mistake, and during the disorder that ensued, the land became a
prey to anarchy of the most violent kind, each baron or leader of
mercenaries doing that which was right in his own eyes, and retreating
to the safe precincts of his castle when in difficulties.
Of the nature of these unlicensed strongholds there is considerable
doubt, but a great probability exists that they were of very rapid
construction and, therefore, not of the Rectangular Keep type, but of
the Motte and Bailey, or of the Shell Keep pattern. That a large amount
of time had been spent in their erection seems to be negatived by the
fact that upon the accession of Henry II. the great majority of
"adulterine" castles were destroyed in the course of a few months. This
would have been impossible if solid masonry erections were in question,
but hastily improvised defences built by forced, and therefore,
probably, unskilled labour, would not present great difficulties. In all
likelihood a great number of the earthworks which occur in England, and
have not been assigned to any particular date, may owe their origin to
this disturbed period, especially those of the Motte and Bailey type.
Upon the whole, we can hardly look upon the reign of King Stephen as a
period distinguished by an advance in the art of castle-building, but
rather as one of temporary retrogression to elementary types.
With the advent of the second half of the twelfth century the Castle
began to show in many details the influence of the Early English style
of architecture, though ornamentation is singularly rare in early
castellation compared with the lavish wealth bestowed at the same time
upon ecclesiastical buildings. The Norman style was still adhered to in
the main outlines, but the external pilasters developed to such an
extent that they became buttresses, as at Clun and Dover, the masonry
workmanship improved, local stone came more into use, and internal
decorations, such as ribs to the vaulting, began to be introduced. It is
not uncommon to find the dog-tooth ornament employed in conjunction
with contemporary work in the Norman style, but so long as the
Rectangular Keep remained, the internal arrangements became, as it were,
stereotyped, and were strictly adhered to. The latest styles of
Rectangular Keeps carried but few, if any, suggestions of Norman
architecture as they trended upon the Early English periods; thus Fonmon
Castle in Glamorganshire, and Penhow in Monmouthshire, exhibited no
traces of pilaster buttresses, and other features so strongly marked in
earlier examples.
_Bamborough Castle_, grim, grey, and imposing, by its vastness and
massive proportions, stands upon a rocky height of igneous formation on
the coast of Northumberland. It is by nature a promontory fortress, and
as such was seized by Ida and his Angles in 547, and who thence extended
his sway over what subsequently became the kingdom of Bernicia. The
castle is mentioned in 774, and was twice taken by the Danes. In 1095
the dramatic siege occurred with which Bamborough will be for ever
associated. William Rufus besieged it with a formidable army, but such
was the reputation of its impregnability that he would not venture upon
storming it. He, therefore, had recourse to a siege, and one great
beffroi he raised was so formidable that it is mentioned by name,
_malvoisin_; this he advanced to the walls, and so closely that
conversation could easily be exchanged between the rival combatants. The
rebel baron, de Mowbray, left the Castle in charge of his wife, with the
intention of procuring assistance, but was captured in an attempt upon
Newcastle. By the King's orders he was brought to Bamborough and exposed
to the gaze of the garrison: upon a royal threat to put out the eyes of
his captive unless the Castle surrendered at once, the heroic Matilda de
l'Aigle, who had continued the defence with the utmost success, admitted
the King's forces. De Mowbray was imprisoned, but in his old age was
permitted to enter the monastery of St. Alban, where he died.
Rufus appointed Eustace Fitz-John of Alnwick as castellan, and the
Castle, in the time of Stephen, successfully resisted an inroad of
David, King of Scotland. In 1164 the great Keep was erected by Henry
II., and from that period the Constableship of Bamborough became a royal
appointment.
[Illustration: BAMBOROUGH CASTLE.]
During the Wars of the Roses, Bamborough played an important part. First
in Yorkist possession it was captured by Queen Margaret, who placed a
garrison of three hundred men there under the Duke of Somerset. Edward
IV. with ten thousand men besieged Alnwick, Bamborough, and
Dunstanburgh, the Kingmaker in person conducting the operations. The
Castle was surrendered, and Sir Ralph Grey was left in charge, but
betrayed his trust and admitted Margaret in 1463. In 1464 he was
surrounded by Warwick's army, and a fierce bombardment was maintained
which did enormous damage, Grey being injured by one of the falling
towers; he recovered, however, but was subsequently executed at
Doncaster. In the sixteenth century the Castle fell into disrepair, but
in 1757 a partial restoration occurred, and subsequently portions of it
were turned into a school for girls; afterwards, however, it was
purchased by the late Lord Armstrong.
There are three wards within the enceinte of the Castle which encloses
about 5 acres of land, the middle ward and that to the east being at one
time covered by the buildings of the ancient town. The great Keep is
similar to those at Dover and London, but originally possessed only two
stories. It is erected upon a solid mass of masonry, and the entrance
leads by a passage in the thickness of the wall into the second story.
There is no forebuilding as the Keep is of a date anterior to their
introduction. The lower part of the walls is about 11 feet thick, and in
the basement occurs the well over which appears a great vaulted hall.
_Rochester Castle._--The two great Royal Castles in Kent were those at
Canterbury and Rochester, and of these Rochester was the more important
and boasts of a richer history. The Keeps are practically all that
remain of each, and Rochester again asserts the pre-eminence in respect
to the importance of present remains. The site had been previously
occupied by the Romans and the Saxons when, immediately subsequent to
the Conquest, a Motte and Bailey Castle was reared by the Normans,
followed shortly afterwards by a massive encircling wall, enclosing an
area measuring about 160 yards long by 130 yards broad. A portion of
this wall was erected close to the river, and a deep ditch protected the
remaining three sides.
[Illustration: RICHMOND CASTLE, YORKSHIRE.]
It was thus, at the demise of the Conqueror, a very strong fortress, and
that much-hated half-brother of the late King, Bishop Odo of Bayeux,
seized it, but was besieged and captured by Rufus after a resistance of
six weeks. He was sent to Tonbridge Castle and subsequently liberated.
In 1126 Henry I. granted the Constableship of the Castle to Walter de
Corbeuil, Archbishop of Canterbury, and permitted him to erect a tower,
probably the existing Keep.
In 1215, when in the possession of William d'Albini, who was acting for
the Barons, King John sat down before the Castle with a formidable array
of trebuchets, and battered it for three long months. Apparently he had
greater success by undermining than by missile-throwing, the tower at
the south-east angle being partially brought down by a mine, together
with other parts of the chief defences. This extensive damage probably
helped it to fall into the hands of the Dauphin the next year. In 1264
it resisted a vigorous assault from the forces of Simon de Montfort, and
during the Wat Tyler rebellion was besieged and partially captured.
Edward IV. repaired it, but subsequently it fell into a state of
neglect, and has not seen any military operations since. It is now in
the possession of the Corporation of Rochester, and used as a place of
public recreation.
The great Keep is naturally the chief object of interest; it is 113 feet
in height, and about 70 feet square. The thickness of its walls varies
from 12 feet at the base to 10 feet at the top, where the angle turrets
rise over a dozen feet above the main battlements. It is divided, like
the Tower of London, into two portions by a transverse wall rising to
the total height, and carrying in its centre the main shaft of the
Castle well, which was arranged to deliver water at every floor. The
usual flat pilasters appear upon the external walls, and the two lower
stories are pierced by loopholes only. A forebuilding with the usual
complicated contrivances protects the main entrance. The aspect of the
venerable Keep, conjoined to the tower and turrets of the adjacent
Cathedral, form a delightful combination of the military and
ecclesiastical architecture of former ages.
_Richmond Castle._--The Castle of Richmond is beautifully situated upon
high ground overlooking the river Swale, in Yorkshire, but, although
the fortunes of the Castle extend to the time of the Conquest, and many
noble families are connected with its history, it has played no
important part whatever in the making of history, either in its own
country or that of England. It has never seen an arrow launched in
anger, or received a ball from opposing ordnance. It was erected by Alan
Fergeant, who in 1071 commenced operations and encircled the triangular
site with a curtain wall. The Keep was erected by his brother about the
year 1100; it is approximately 50 feet square and 100 feet high, with
the usual Norman pilasters, but deeper than formerly, strengthening the
fronts and angles, while each of the latter bears a turret of two stages
upon the summit. The only entrance is by a door on the south face, from
which a narrow stairway leads to the floor above. The ground floor was
vaulted in the reign of Edward I., the same as that at Newcastle. A
chapel was built, about 1278, adjacent to it, by John, Earl of
Richmond, who was killed at Lyons in 1304, and various other domestic
buildings occur near it. A circular barbican protects the main entrance
to the Castle, while in the south-east angle of the enceinte wall an
imposing rectangular tower has been built, containing the remains of an
ancient postern.
[Illustration: PLANS OF THE KEEP OF HEDINGHAM CASTLE. _Reproduced by
permission of the Architectural Association from the Sketch Book of
Hedingham Castle._]