[242]The list is brought up to fifty by interpreting theregis domusof Winchester to be Winchester castle; the reasons for this will be given later. The number would be increased to fifty-two if we counted Ferle and Bourne in Sussex as castles, as Mr Freeman does in hisNorman Conquest, v., 808. But the language of Domesday seems only to mean that the lands of these manors were held of Hastings castle by the service of castle-guard. See D. B., i., pp. 21 and 206.[243]The total number would be eighty-six if Burton and Aldreth were included. Burton castle is mentioned in Domesday, but there is no further trace of its existence. The castle of Alrehede or Aldreth in the island of Ely is stated by theLiber Eliensisto have been built by the Conqueror, but no remains of any kind appear to exist now. Both these castles are therefore omitted from the list.[244]Exact numbers cannot be given, because in some cases the bounds of the ancient borough are doubtful, as at Quatford.[245]At Winchester and Exeter. For Winchester, see Milner,History of Winchester, ii., 194; for Exeter, Shorrt’sSylva Antiqua Iscana, p. 7.[246]Colchester is the only exception to this rule, as the castle there is in the middle of the town; but even this is only an apparent exception, as the second bailey extended to the town wall on the north, and had been royal demesne land even before the Conquest. See Round’sColchester Castle, ch. vii.[247]These five are Berkeley, Berkhampstead, Bourn, Pontefract, Rayleigh.[248]I am indebted for these measurements to Mr D. H. Montgomerie.[249]Notification in Round’sCalendar of Documents preserved in France, p. 367. Mr Round dates the Notification 1087-1100.[250]Description furnished by Mr D. H. Montgomerie, F.S.A.[251]“Castrum Harundel T. R. E. reddebat de quodam molino 40 solidos, et de 3 conviviis 20 solidos, et de uno pasticio 20 solidos. Modo inter burgum et portum aquæ et consuetudinem navium reddit 12 libras, et tamen valet 13. De his habet S. Nicolaus 24 solidos. Ibi una piscaria de 5 solidos et unum molinum reddens 10 modia frumenti, et 10 modia grossæ annonæ. Insuper 4 modia. Hoc appreciatum est 12 libras. Robertus filius Tetbaldi habet 2 hagas de 2 solidis, et de hominibus extraniis habet suum theloneum.” Several otherhagæandburgensesare then enumerated. (D. B., i., 23a, 1.)[252]See Mr Round’s remarks on the words in hisGeoffrey de Mandeville,Appendix O. The above was written before the appearance of Mr Round’s paper on “The Castles of the Conquest” (Archæologia, lviii.), in which he rejects the idea thatcastrum Harundelmeans the castle.[253]Seeante,p. 28.[254]Florence of Worcester mentions the castle of Arundel as belonging to Roger de Montgomeri in 1088.[255]SeeAppendix R.[256]The expenses entered in thePipe Rolls(1170-1187) are for the works of the castle, the chamber and wall of the castle, thehousesof the castle (an expression which generally refers to the keep), and for flooring the tower (turris) and making a garden.Turrisis the usual word for a keep, and is never applied to a mere mural tower.[257]This gateway is masked by a work of the 13th century, which serves as a sort of barbican.[258]In operibus castelli de Arundel 22l.7s.8d.Et debet 55l.18s.6d.Pipe Roll, 31, Henry I., p. 42.[259]D. B., i., 23a, 1.[260]Testa de Nevill, i., iii., 236, cited by C. Bates, in a very valuable paper on Bamborough Castle, inArchæologia Æliana, vol. xiv., “Border Holds.” Mr Bates gives other evidence to the same effect. The early existence of the castle is also proved by the fact that Gospatric, whom William had made Earl of Northumberland, after his raid on Cumberland in 1070, brought his booty to thefirmissimam munitionemof Bamborough. Symeon of Durham, 1070.[261]Vita S. Oswaldi, ch. xlviii., in Rolls edition of Symeon.[262]This was the opinion of the late Mr Cadwalader Bates, who thought that the smallness of the sums entered for Bamborough in Henry II.’s reign might be accounted for by the labour and materials having been furnished by the crown tenants.Border Strongholds, p. 236.[263]Bamborough rock has every appearance of having been once an island. As late as 1547 the tide came right up to the rock on the east side; the sea is now separated from the castle by extensive sandhills.[264]M. A., v., 197.[265]Domesdaymentions the destruction of twenty-three houses at Barnstaple, which may have been due partly or wholly to the building of the castle. I., 100.[266]From a lecture by Mr J. R. Chanter.[267]TheFundatioof Belvoir priory says that Robert founded the church of St Mary,juxta castellum suum,M. A., iii., 288. As Robert’s coffin was actually found in the Priory in 1726, with an inscription calling him Robert de Todneile Fundeur, the statement is probably more trustworthy than documents of this class generally are.[268]Nicholls,History of Leicester, i., 110.[269]D. B., i., 233b.[270]“In Ness sunt 5 hidæ pertinentes ad Berchelai, quas comes Willielmus misit extra ad faciendum unum castellulum.” D. B., i., 163a, 2.[271]“Castella per loca firmari præcepit.”Flor. Wig., 1067. See Freeman,N. C., iv., 72. Domesday tells us that FitzOsbern built Ness, Clifford, Chepstow, and Wigmore, and rebuilt Ewias.[272]Robert Fitzhardinge, in his charter to St Austin’s Abbey at Bristol, says that King Henry [II.] gave him the manor of Berchall, and all Bercheleiernesse.Mon. Ang., vi., 365.[273]It is not necessary to discuss the authenticity of the story preserved by Walter Map; it is enough that Gytha, the wife of Godwin, held in horror the means by which her husband got possession of Berkeley Nunnery. D. B., i., 164.[274]Mediæval Military Architecture, i., 236.[275]The gift of the manor was made before Henry became king, and was confirmed by charter on the death of Stephen in 1154. Fitzhardinge was an Englishman, son of an alderman of Bristol, who had greatly helped Henry in his wars against Stephen. See Fosbroke’sHistory of Gloucester.[276]He held Berkeley under the crown at the time of the Survey. D. B., i., 163a.[277]From information received from Mr Duncan Montgomerie.[278]Fosbroke’sHistory of Gloucesterattributes this bailey to Maurice, son of Robert Fitzhardinge. One of the most interesting features in this highly interesting castle is the wooden pentice leading from the main stairway of the keep to the chamber called Edward II.’s. Though a late addition, it is a good instance of the way in which masonry was eked out by timber in mediæval times.[279]Clark,M. M. A., i., 229.[280]D. B., i., 163.[281]Victoria County History of Herts, from which the description of these earthworks is entirely taken.[282]Mon. Ang., vii., 1090.[283]They were excavated by Mr Montgomerie in 1905, and no trace of masonry was found.[284]Roger of Wendover, 1216.[285]D. B., i., 163.[286]The charter, which is in both Anglo-Saxon and Latin, is given in Dugdale’sHistory of St Paul’s, 304.[287]SeeFreeman, ii., 356; and D. B., i., 134a.[288]From report by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.[289]Waytemorehas sometimes been identified with the puzzling Wiggingamere, but in defiance of phonology.[290]D. B., i., 351b.[291]M. A., vi., 86.[292]Itin., i., 27.[293]Associated Archæological Societies, VI., ix.[294]Report by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.[295]Ipse Willielmus tenet Wasingetune. Guerd Comes tenuit T. R. E. Tunc se defendebat pro 59 hidis. Modo non dat geldum. In una ex his hidis sedet castellum Brembre. D. B., i., 28a, 1.[296]We often find that the architecture of the nearest church throws light on the date of the castle. A Norman seldom built or restored his castle without doing something for the church at the same time.[297]See Ordericus, ii., 178.[298]TheChronica de Fundatoribus of Tewkesbury Abbeyseems to be the origin of the tradition that Earl Robert was the builder of Bristol Castle. There can be no doubt that his work was in stone, as the same authority states that he gave every tenth stone to the Chapel of Our Lady in St James’ Priory.M. A., ii., 120. According to Leland, the keep was built of Caen stone.Itin., vii., 90. Robert of Gloucester calls it the flower of all the towers in England.[299]We have no historical account of the Norman conquest of Bristol, and the city is only mentioned in the most cursory manner in D. B.[300]Seyer (Memoirs of Bristol, i.) was convinced that the plan published by Barrett, and attributed to the monk Rowlie, was a forgery; his own plan, as he candidly admits, was largely drawn from imagination.[301]Castellum plurimo aggere exaltatum.Gesta Stephani, 37.[302]Seyer, i., 391, and ii., 82.[303]Quoted by Seyer, ii., 301, fromPrynne’s Catal., p. 11.[304]Calculated from the measurements given by William of Worcester.Itin., p. 260. William probably alludes to the motte when he speaks of the “mayng round” of the castle.[305]Benedict of Peterborough, i., 92.[306]Hist. of Bristol, i., 373.[307]Ibid., vol. ii.[308]De Gestis Herewardi Saxonis, Wright’s edition. See Freeman, N. C., iv., 804.[309]Beauties of England and Wales, Buckingham, p. 282.[310]Camden’sBritannia, i., 315.[311]D. B., i., 143.[312]“Willielmus de Scohies tenet 8 carucatas terræ in castellaria de Carliun, et Turstinus tenet de eo. Ibi habet in dominio unam carucam, et tres Walenses lege Walensi viventes, cum 3 carucis, et 2 bordarios cum dimidio carucæ, et reddunt 4 sextares mellis. Ibi 2 servi et una ancilla. Hæc terra wasta erat T. R. E., et quando Willelmus recepit. Modo valet 40 solidos.” D. B., i., 185b, 1.[313]TheGwentian Chronicle, Cambrian Archæological Association,A.D.962, 967. It is not absolutely impossible that these passages refer to Chester. Caerleon appears to have been seized by the Welsh very soon after the death of William I.[314]Itin. Camb., p. 55.[315]Loftus Brock, inJourn. Brit. Arch. Ass., xlix. J. E. Lee, inArch. Camb., iv., 73.[316]D. B., i., 185b.[317][Rex] “in reversione sua Lincolniæ, Huntendonæ et Grontebrugæ castra locavit.”Ord. Vit., p. 189.[318]D. B., i., 189.[319]A similar plan was made independently by the late Professor Babington. Some traces of the original earthwork of the city are still to be seen. See Mr Hope’s paper onThe Norman Origin of Cambridge Castle, Cambridge Antiquarian Soc., vol. xi.; and Babington’sAncient Cambridgeshire, in the same society’sOctavo Publications, No. iii., 1853.[320]W. H. St John Hope, as above, p. 342.[321]“Archiepiscopus habet ex eis [burgensibus] 7 et abbas S. Augustini 14 pro excambio castelli.” D. B., i. a, 2.[322]“Et undecim sunt perditi infra fossatum castelli”; cited by Larking,Domesday of Kent, App. xxiv. Domesday says, “sunt vastatæ xi. in fossacivitatis.” There can be no doubt that the Chartulary gives the correct account.[323]The hill is called the Dungan, Dangon, or Dungeon Hill in many old local deeds. See “Canterbury in Olden Times,”Arch. Journ., 1856. Stukeley and Grose both call it the Dungeon Hill.[324]SeeAppendix N.[325]Somner’sAntiquities of Canterbury, p. 144. Published in 1640.[326]Antiquities of Canterbury, p. 75.[327]Mr Clark thought there was another motte in the earthworks outside the walls, though he expresses himself doubtfully: “I rather think they [the mounds outside the city ditch] or one of them, looked rather like a moated mound, but I could not feel sure of it.“Arch. Cantiana, xv., 344. Gostling (A Walk about Canterbury, 1825) says there weretwo, which is perhaps explained by a passage in Brayley’sKent(1808), in which he describes the external fortification as “a lesser mount, now divided into two parts, with a ditch and embankment.” P. 893. Stukeley’s description (circa 1700) is as follows: “Within the walls is a very high mount, called Dungeon Hill; a ditch and high bank enclose the area before it; it seems to have been part of the old castle. Opposite to it without the walls is a hill, seeming to have been raised by the Danes when they besieged the city. The top of the Dungeon Hill is equal to the top of the castle.”Itin. Curiosum, i., 122. It is of course not impossible that there may have been two mottes to this castle, as at Lewes and Lincoln, but such instances are rare, and it seems more likely that a portion of the bailey bank which happened to be in better preservation and consequently higher was mistaken for another mount. Mr Clark committed this very error at Tadcaster, and the other writers we have quoted were quite untrained as observers of earthen castles. At any rate there can be no doubt that the Dane John is the original chief citadel of this castle, as the statements of Somner, Stukeley, and we may add, Leland, are explicit. The most ancient maps of Canterbury, Hoefnagel’s (1570), Smith’s (Description of England, 1588), and Grose’s (1785), all show the Dungeon Hill within the walls, but take no notice of the outwork outside.[328]Archæologia Cantiana, xxxiii., 152.[329]Ibid., xxi.[330]Close Rolls, i., 234b, ii., 7b, 89.[331]Now, to the disgrace of the city of Canterbury, converted into gasworks.[332]For instance, at Middleham, Rochester, Rhuddlan, and Morpeth.[333]Beauties of England and Wales, Kent, p. 893.[334]The passages from thePipe Rollbearing on this subject (which have not been noticed by any previous historian of Canterbury) are as follows:—1166-7.In operatione civitatis Cantuar. claudendæ£5 19 6"Ad claudendam civitatem Cantuar.20 0 01167-8.Pro claudenda civitate Cantuar.5 1 11168-9.In terris datis Adelizæ filie Simonis 15 solidos de tribus annis pro escambio terræ suæ quæ est in Castello de Cantuar.0 15 01172-3.In operatione turris ejusdem civitatis10 0 0"In operatione predicte turris53 6 8"Summa denariorum quos vicecomes misit in operatione turris73 1 41173-4.In operatione turris et Castelli Chant.24 6 0"In operatione turris Cantuar.5 11 71174-5.Et in warnisione ejusdem turris5 8 0The latter extract, which refers to the provisioning of the keep, seems to show that it was then finished. The sums put down to the castle, amounting to about £4000 of our money, are not sufficient to defray the cost of so fine a keep. But the entries in thePipe Rollsrelate only to the Sheriff’s accounts, and it is probable that the cost of the keep was largely paid out of the revenues of the archbishopric, which Henry seized into his own hands during the Becket quarrel.[335]The portion of the wall of Canterbury, which rests on an earthen bank, extends from Northgate to the Castle, and is roughly semicircular in plan. In the middle of it was St George’s Gate, which was anciently calledNewingate(Gostling, p. 53) and may possibly have been Henry II.’s new gate. The part enclosing the Dungeon Hill is angular, and appeared to Mr Clark, as well as to Somner and Hasted, to have been brought out at this angle in order to enclose the hill.[336]Arch. Journ., 1856.[337]D. B., i., 2a, 1.[338]“Isdem rex tenet Alwinestone. Donnus tenuit. Tunc pro duabus hidis et dimidia. Modo pro duabus hidis, quia castellum sedet in una virgata.” D. B., i., 2a, 1.[339]See below, underWindsor.[340]“In hac [insula] castellum habebat ornatissimum lapidum ædificio constructum, validissimo munimine firmatum.”Gesta Stephani, R. S., p. 28.[341]Stone’sOfficial Guide to the Castle of Carisbrooke, p. 39.[342]Mr W. H. Stevenson, in his edition ofAsser, pp. 173, 174, shows that the name Carisbrooke cannot possibly be derived from Wihtgares-burh, as has been sometimes supposed, as the older forms prove it to have come frombrook, notburh. The lines of the present castle banks, if produced, would not correspond with those of the Tilt-yard, which is proof that the Norman castle was not formed by cutting an older fortification in two.[343]Bower’sScotochronicon, v., xlii. Cited by Mr Neilson,Notes and Queries, viii., 321. See also Palgrave,Documents and Records, i., 103.[344]Cal. of Close Rolls, Edward II., iii., 161.[345]Mon. Ang., v., 12. “Castelli nostri de Acra.”[346]As at Burton, Mexborough, Lilbourne, and Castle Colwyn.[347]Harrod’sGleanings among the Castles and Convents of Norfolk. See alsoArch. Journ., xlvi., 441.[348]D. B., ii., 160b.[349]“Castellum de Estrighoiel fecit Willelmus comes, et ejus tempore reddebat 40 solidos, tantum de navibus in silvam euntibus.” D. B., i., 162. Tanner has shown that while Chepstow was an alien priory of Cormeille, in Normandy, it is never spoken of by that name in the charters of Cormeille, but is always called Strigulia.Notitia Monastica, Monmouthshire. See also Marsh’sAnnals of Chepstow Castle.[350]I must confess that in spite of very strong opposing opinions, I see no reason why this building should not be classed as a keep. It is of course a gross error to call Martin’s Tower the keep; it is only a mural tower.[351]D. B., 162, 1a.[352]“Cestriæ munitionem condidit.” P. 199 (Prévost’s edition).[353]Chester Historical and Archæological Society, v., 239.[354]Pipe Rolls, ii., 7. Ranulph, Earl of Chester, died in 1153, and the castle would then escheat into the king’s hands.[355]This work seems to have been completed in the reign of Edward II., who spent £253 on the houses, towers, walls, and gates.Cal. of Close Rolls, Edward II., ii., 294.[356]Close Rolls, 35, Henry III., cited by Ormerod,History of Cheshire, i., 358.[357]See Mr Cox’s paper, as above, and Shrubsole,Chester Hist. and Arch. Soc., v., 175, and iii., New Series, p. 71.[358]Benedict of Peterborough, i., 135, R. S.[359]D. B., i., 262b.[360]“Willelmus comes fecit illud [castellum] in wasta terra quam tenebat Bruning T. R. E.” D. B., i., 183a, 2.[361]“Ancient Charters,”Pipe Roll Society, vol. x., charter xiii., and Mr Round’s note, p. 25.[362]It is extraordinary that Mr Clark, in his description of this castle, does not mention the motte, except by saying that the outer ward is 60 or 70 feet lower than the inner.M. M. A., i., 395.[363]This passage occurs in a sort of appendix to Domesday Book, which is said to be in a later hand, of the 12th century. (Skaife,Yorks. Arch. Journ., Part lv., p. 299.) It cannot, however, be very late in the 12th century, as it speaks of Roger’s holdings in Craven in the present tense.[364]See Farrer’sLancashire Pipe Rolls, p. 385. The castle is not actually mentioned, but “le Baille” (the bailey) is spoken of. Mr Farrer also prints an abstract of a charter of Henry I. (1102): “per quam concessit eidem Roberto [de Laci] Boelandam [Bowland] quam tenuit de Rogero Comite Pictavensi, ut extunc eam de eodem rege teneat.” P. 382.[365]In an inquisition of Henry de Laci (+ 1311) it is said that “castelli mote et fossæ valent nihil.” (Whitaker’sHistory of Whalley, p. 280.) This is probably an instance of the wordmottebeing applied to a natural rock which served that purpose. See another instance under Nottingham,post,p. 176.[366]Dugdale’sBaronage, i., p. 99. Dugdale’s authority appears to have been the “Historia Laceiorum,” a very untrustworthy document, but which may have preserved a genuine tradition in this instance. The loopholes in the basement of the keep, with the large recesses, appear to have been intended for crossbows, and the crossbow was not reintroduced into England till the reign of Richard I.
[242]The list is brought up to fifty by interpreting theregis domusof Winchester to be Winchester castle; the reasons for this will be given later. The number would be increased to fifty-two if we counted Ferle and Bourne in Sussex as castles, as Mr Freeman does in hisNorman Conquest, v., 808. But the language of Domesday seems only to mean that the lands of these manors were held of Hastings castle by the service of castle-guard. See D. B., i., pp. 21 and 206.
[242]The list is brought up to fifty by interpreting theregis domusof Winchester to be Winchester castle; the reasons for this will be given later. The number would be increased to fifty-two if we counted Ferle and Bourne in Sussex as castles, as Mr Freeman does in hisNorman Conquest, v., 808. But the language of Domesday seems only to mean that the lands of these manors were held of Hastings castle by the service of castle-guard. See D. B., i., pp. 21 and 206.
[243]The total number would be eighty-six if Burton and Aldreth were included. Burton castle is mentioned in Domesday, but there is no further trace of its existence. The castle of Alrehede or Aldreth in the island of Ely is stated by theLiber Eliensisto have been built by the Conqueror, but no remains of any kind appear to exist now. Both these castles are therefore omitted from the list.
[243]The total number would be eighty-six if Burton and Aldreth were included. Burton castle is mentioned in Domesday, but there is no further trace of its existence. The castle of Alrehede or Aldreth in the island of Ely is stated by theLiber Eliensisto have been built by the Conqueror, but no remains of any kind appear to exist now. Both these castles are therefore omitted from the list.
[244]Exact numbers cannot be given, because in some cases the bounds of the ancient borough are doubtful, as at Quatford.
[244]Exact numbers cannot be given, because in some cases the bounds of the ancient borough are doubtful, as at Quatford.
[245]At Winchester and Exeter. For Winchester, see Milner,History of Winchester, ii., 194; for Exeter, Shorrt’sSylva Antiqua Iscana, p. 7.
[245]At Winchester and Exeter. For Winchester, see Milner,History of Winchester, ii., 194; for Exeter, Shorrt’sSylva Antiqua Iscana, p. 7.
[246]Colchester is the only exception to this rule, as the castle there is in the middle of the town; but even this is only an apparent exception, as the second bailey extended to the town wall on the north, and had been royal demesne land even before the Conquest. See Round’sColchester Castle, ch. vii.
[246]Colchester is the only exception to this rule, as the castle there is in the middle of the town; but even this is only an apparent exception, as the second bailey extended to the town wall on the north, and had been royal demesne land even before the Conquest. See Round’sColchester Castle, ch. vii.
[247]These five are Berkeley, Berkhampstead, Bourn, Pontefract, Rayleigh.
[247]These five are Berkeley, Berkhampstead, Bourn, Pontefract, Rayleigh.
[248]I am indebted for these measurements to Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[248]I am indebted for these measurements to Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[249]Notification in Round’sCalendar of Documents preserved in France, p. 367. Mr Round dates the Notification 1087-1100.
[249]Notification in Round’sCalendar of Documents preserved in France, p. 367. Mr Round dates the Notification 1087-1100.
[250]Description furnished by Mr D. H. Montgomerie, F.S.A.
[250]Description furnished by Mr D. H. Montgomerie, F.S.A.
[251]“Castrum Harundel T. R. E. reddebat de quodam molino 40 solidos, et de 3 conviviis 20 solidos, et de uno pasticio 20 solidos. Modo inter burgum et portum aquæ et consuetudinem navium reddit 12 libras, et tamen valet 13. De his habet S. Nicolaus 24 solidos. Ibi una piscaria de 5 solidos et unum molinum reddens 10 modia frumenti, et 10 modia grossæ annonæ. Insuper 4 modia. Hoc appreciatum est 12 libras. Robertus filius Tetbaldi habet 2 hagas de 2 solidis, et de hominibus extraniis habet suum theloneum.” Several otherhagæandburgensesare then enumerated. (D. B., i., 23a, 1.)
[251]“Castrum Harundel T. R. E. reddebat de quodam molino 40 solidos, et de 3 conviviis 20 solidos, et de uno pasticio 20 solidos. Modo inter burgum et portum aquæ et consuetudinem navium reddit 12 libras, et tamen valet 13. De his habet S. Nicolaus 24 solidos. Ibi una piscaria de 5 solidos et unum molinum reddens 10 modia frumenti, et 10 modia grossæ annonæ. Insuper 4 modia. Hoc appreciatum est 12 libras. Robertus filius Tetbaldi habet 2 hagas de 2 solidis, et de hominibus extraniis habet suum theloneum.” Several otherhagæandburgensesare then enumerated. (D. B., i., 23a, 1.)
[252]See Mr Round’s remarks on the words in hisGeoffrey de Mandeville,Appendix O. The above was written before the appearance of Mr Round’s paper on “The Castles of the Conquest” (Archæologia, lviii.), in which he rejects the idea thatcastrum Harundelmeans the castle.
[252]See Mr Round’s remarks on the words in hisGeoffrey de Mandeville,Appendix O. The above was written before the appearance of Mr Round’s paper on “The Castles of the Conquest” (Archæologia, lviii.), in which he rejects the idea thatcastrum Harundelmeans the castle.
[253]Seeante,p. 28.
[253]Seeante,p. 28.
[254]Florence of Worcester mentions the castle of Arundel as belonging to Roger de Montgomeri in 1088.
[254]Florence of Worcester mentions the castle of Arundel as belonging to Roger de Montgomeri in 1088.
[255]SeeAppendix R.
[255]SeeAppendix R.
[256]The expenses entered in thePipe Rolls(1170-1187) are for the works of the castle, the chamber and wall of the castle, thehousesof the castle (an expression which generally refers to the keep), and for flooring the tower (turris) and making a garden.Turrisis the usual word for a keep, and is never applied to a mere mural tower.
[256]The expenses entered in thePipe Rolls(1170-1187) are for the works of the castle, the chamber and wall of the castle, thehousesof the castle (an expression which generally refers to the keep), and for flooring the tower (turris) and making a garden.Turrisis the usual word for a keep, and is never applied to a mere mural tower.
[257]This gateway is masked by a work of the 13th century, which serves as a sort of barbican.
[257]This gateway is masked by a work of the 13th century, which serves as a sort of barbican.
[258]In operibus castelli de Arundel 22l.7s.8d.Et debet 55l.18s.6d.Pipe Roll, 31, Henry I., p. 42.
[258]In operibus castelli de Arundel 22l.7s.8d.Et debet 55l.18s.6d.Pipe Roll, 31, Henry I., p. 42.
[259]D. B., i., 23a, 1.
[259]D. B., i., 23a, 1.
[260]Testa de Nevill, i., iii., 236, cited by C. Bates, in a very valuable paper on Bamborough Castle, inArchæologia Æliana, vol. xiv., “Border Holds.” Mr Bates gives other evidence to the same effect. The early existence of the castle is also proved by the fact that Gospatric, whom William had made Earl of Northumberland, after his raid on Cumberland in 1070, brought his booty to thefirmissimam munitionemof Bamborough. Symeon of Durham, 1070.
[260]Testa de Nevill, i., iii., 236, cited by C. Bates, in a very valuable paper on Bamborough Castle, inArchæologia Æliana, vol. xiv., “Border Holds.” Mr Bates gives other evidence to the same effect. The early existence of the castle is also proved by the fact that Gospatric, whom William had made Earl of Northumberland, after his raid on Cumberland in 1070, brought his booty to thefirmissimam munitionemof Bamborough. Symeon of Durham, 1070.
[261]Vita S. Oswaldi, ch. xlviii., in Rolls edition of Symeon.
[261]Vita S. Oswaldi, ch. xlviii., in Rolls edition of Symeon.
[262]This was the opinion of the late Mr Cadwalader Bates, who thought that the smallness of the sums entered for Bamborough in Henry II.’s reign might be accounted for by the labour and materials having been furnished by the crown tenants.Border Strongholds, p. 236.
[262]This was the opinion of the late Mr Cadwalader Bates, who thought that the smallness of the sums entered for Bamborough in Henry II.’s reign might be accounted for by the labour and materials having been furnished by the crown tenants.Border Strongholds, p. 236.
[263]Bamborough rock has every appearance of having been once an island. As late as 1547 the tide came right up to the rock on the east side; the sea is now separated from the castle by extensive sandhills.
[263]Bamborough rock has every appearance of having been once an island. As late as 1547 the tide came right up to the rock on the east side; the sea is now separated from the castle by extensive sandhills.
[264]M. A., v., 197.
[264]M. A., v., 197.
[265]Domesdaymentions the destruction of twenty-three houses at Barnstaple, which may have been due partly or wholly to the building of the castle. I., 100.
[265]Domesdaymentions the destruction of twenty-three houses at Barnstaple, which may have been due partly or wholly to the building of the castle. I., 100.
[266]From a lecture by Mr J. R. Chanter.
[266]From a lecture by Mr J. R. Chanter.
[267]TheFundatioof Belvoir priory says that Robert founded the church of St Mary,juxta castellum suum,M. A., iii., 288. As Robert’s coffin was actually found in the Priory in 1726, with an inscription calling him Robert de Todneile Fundeur, the statement is probably more trustworthy than documents of this class generally are.
[267]TheFundatioof Belvoir priory says that Robert founded the church of St Mary,juxta castellum suum,M. A., iii., 288. As Robert’s coffin was actually found in the Priory in 1726, with an inscription calling him Robert de Todneile Fundeur, the statement is probably more trustworthy than documents of this class generally are.
[268]Nicholls,History of Leicester, i., 110.
[268]Nicholls,History of Leicester, i., 110.
[269]D. B., i., 233b.
[269]D. B., i., 233b.
[270]“In Ness sunt 5 hidæ pertinentes ad Berchelai, quas comes Willielmus misit extra ad faciendum unum castellulum.” D. B., i., 163a, 2.
[270]“In Ness sunt 5 hidæ pertinentes ad Berchelai, quas comes Willielmus misit extra ad faciendum unum castellulum.” D. B., i., 163a, 2.
[271]“Castella per loca firmari præcepit.”Flor. Wig., 1067. See Freeman,N. C., iv., 72. Domesday tells us that FitzOsbern built Ness, Clifford, Chepstow, and Wigmore, and rebuilt Ewias.
[271]“Castella per loca firmari præcepit.”Flor. Wig., 1067. See Freeman,N. C., iv., 72. Domesday tells us that FitzOsbern built Ness, Clifford, Chepstow, and Wigmore, and rebuilt Ewias.
[272]Robert Fitzhardinge, in his charter to St Austin’s Abbey at Bristol, says that King Henry [II.] gave him the manor of Berchall, and all Bercheleiernesse.Mon. Ang., vi., 365.
[272]Robert Fitzhardinge, in his charter to St Austin’s Abbey at Bristol, says that King Henry [II.] gave him the manor of Berchall, and all Bercheleiernesse.Mon. Ang., vi., 365.
[273]It is not necessary to discuss the authenticity of the story preserved by Walter Map; it is enough that Gytha, the wife of Godwin, held in horror the means by which her husband got possession of Berkeley Nunnery. D. B., i., 164.
[273]It is not necessary to discuss the authenticity of the story preserved by Walter Map; it is enough that Gytha, the wife of Godwin, held in horror the means by which her husband got possession of Berkeley Nunnery. D. B., i., 164.
[274]Mediæval Military Architecture, i., 236.
[274]Mediæval Military Architecture, i., 236.
[275]The gift of the manor was made before Henry became king, and was confirmed by charter on the death of Stephen in 1154. Fitzhardinge was an Englishman, son of an alderman of Bristol, who had greatly helped Henry in his wars against Stephen. See Fosbroke’sHistory of Gloucester.
[275]The gift of the manor was made before Henry became king, and was confirmed by charter on the death of Stephen in 1154. Fitzhardinge was an Englishman, son of an alderman of Bristol, who had greatly helped Henry in his wars against Stephen. See Fosbroke’sHistory of Gloucester.
[276]He held Berkeley under the crown at the time of the Survey. D. B., i., 163a.
[276]He held Berkeley under the crown at the time of the Survey. D. B., i., 163a.
[277]From information received from Mr Duncan Montgomerie.
[277]From information received from Mr Duncan Montgomerie.
[278]Fosbroke’sHistory of Gloucesterattributes this bailey to Maurice, son of Robert Fitzhardinge. One of the most interesting features in this highly interesting castle is the wooden pentice leading from the main stairway of the keep to the chamber called Edward II.’s. Though a late addition, it is a good instance of the way in which masonry was eked out by timber in mediæval times.
[278]Fosbroke’sHistory of Gloucesterattributes this bailey to Maurice, son of Robert Fitzhardinge. One of the most interesting features in this highly interesting castle is the wooden pentice leading from the main stairway of the keep to the chamber called Edward II.’s. Though a late addition, it is a good instance of the way in which masonry was eked out by timber in mediæval times.
[279]Clark,M. M. A., i., 229.
[279]Clark,M. M. A., i., 229.
[280]D. B., i., 163.
[280]D. B., i., 163.
[281]Victoria County History of Herts, from which the description of these earthworks is entirely taken.
[281]Victoria County History of Herts, from which the description of these earthworks is entirely taken.
[282]Mon. Ang., vii., 1090.
[282]Mon. Ang., vii., 1090.
[283]They were excavated by Mr Montgomerie in 1905, and no trace of masonry was found.
[283]They were excavated by Mr Montgomerie in 1905, and no trace of masonry was found.
[284]Roger of Wendover, 1216.
[284]Roger of Wendover, 1216.
[285]D. B., i., 163.
[285]D. B., i., 163.
[286]The charter, which is in both Anglo-Saxon and Latin, is given in Dugdale’sHistory of St Paul’s, 304.
[286]The charter, which is in both Anglo-Saxon and Latin, is given in Dugdale’sHistory of St Paul’s, 304.
[287]SeeFreeman, ii., 356; and D. B., i., 134a.
[287]SeeFreeman, ii., 356; and D. B., i., 134a.
[288]From report by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[288]From report by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[289]Waytemorehas sometimes been identified with the puzzling Wiggingamere, but in defiance of phonology.
[289]Waytemorehas sometimes been identified with the puzzling Wiggingamere, but in defiance of phonology.
[290]D. B., i., 351b.
[290]D. B., i., 351b.
[291]M. A., vi., 86.
[291]M. A., vi., 86.
[292]Itin., i., 27.
[292]Itin., i., 27.
[293]Associated Archæological Societies, VI., ix.
[293]Associated Archæological Societies, VI., ix.
[294]Report by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[294]Report by Mr D. H. Montgomerie.
[295]Ipse Willielmus tenet Wasingetune. Guerd Comes tenuit T. R. E. Tunc se defendebat pro 59 hidis. Modo non dat geldum. In una ex his hidis sedet castellum Brembre. D. B., i., 28a, 1.
[295]Ipse Willielmus tenet Wasingetune. Guerd Comes tenuit T. R. E. Tunc se defendebat pro 59 hidis. Modo non dat geldum. In una ex his hidis sedet castellum Brembre. D. B., i., 28a, 1.
[296]We often find that the architecture of the nearest church throws light on the date of the castle. A Norman seldom built or restored his castle without doing something for the church at the same time.
[296]We often find that the architecture of the nearest church throws light on the date of the castle. A Norman seldom built or restored his castle without doing something for the church at the same time.
[297]See Ordericus, ii., 178.
[297]See Ordericus, ii., 178.
[298]TheChronica de Fundatoribus of Tewkesbury Abbeyseems to be the origin of the tradition that Earl Robert was the builder of Bristol Castle. There can be no doubt that his work was in stone, as the same authority states that he gave every tenth stone to the Chapel of Our Lady in St James’ Priory.M. A., ii., 120. According to Leland, the keep was built of Caen stone.Itin., vii., 90. Robert of Gloucester calls it the flower of all the towers in England.
[298]TheChronica de Fundatoribus of Tewkesbury Abbeyseems to be the origin of the tradition that Earl Robert was the builder of Bristol Castle. There can be no doubt that his work was in stone, as the same authority states that he gave every tenth stone to the Chapel of Our Lady in St James’ Priory.M. A., ii., 120. According to Leland, the keep was built of Caen stone.Itin., vii., 90. Robert of Gloucester calls it the flower of all the towers in England.
[299]We have no historical account of the Norman conquest of Bristol, and the city is only mentioned in the most cursory manner in D. B.
[299]We have no historical account of the Norman conquest of Bristol, and the city is only mentioned in the most cursory manner in D. B.
[300]Seyer (Memoirs of Bristol, i.) was convinced that the plan published by Barrett, and attributed to the monk Rowlie, was a forgery; his own plan, as he candidly admits, was largely drawn from imagination.
[300]Seyer (Memoirs of Bristol, i.) was convinced that the plan published by Barrett, and attributed to the monk Rowlie, was a forgery; his own plan, as he candidly admits, was largely drawn from imagination.
[301]Castellum plurimo aggere exaltatum.Gesta Stephani, 37.
[301]Castellum plurimo aggere exaltatum.Gesta Stephani, 37.
[302]Seyer, i., 391, and ii., 82.
[302]Seyer, i., 391, and ii., 82.
[303]Quoted by Seyer, ii., 301, fromPrynne’s Catal., p. 11.
[303]Quoted by Seyer, ii., 301, fromPrynne’s Catal., p. 11.
[304]Calculated from the measurements given by William of Worcester.Itin., p. 260. William probably alludes to the motte when he speaks of the “mayng round” of the castle.
[304]Calculated from the measurements given by William of Worcester.Itin., p. 260. William probably alludes to the motte when he speaks of the “mayng round” of the castle.
[305]Benedict of Peterborough, i., 92.
[305]Benedict of Peterborough, i., 92.
[306]Hist. of Bristol, i., 373.
[306]Hist. of Bristol, i., 373.
[307]Ibid., vol. ii.
[307]Ibid., vol. ii.
[308]De Gestis Herewardi Saxonis, Wright’s edition. See Freeman, N. C., iv., 804.
[308]De Gestis Herewardi Saxonis, Wright’s edition. See Freeman, N. C., iv., 804.
[309]Beauties of England and Wales, Buckingham, p. 282.
[309]Beauties of England and Wales, Buckingham, p. 282.
[310]Camden’sBritannia, i., 315.
[310]Camden’sBritannia, i., 315.
[311]D. B., i., 143.
[311]D. B., i., 143.
[312]“Willielmus de Scohies tenet 8 carucatas terræ in castellaria de Carliun, et Turstinus tenet de eo. Ibi habet in dominio unam carucam, et tres Walenses lege Walensi viventes, cum 3 carucis, et 2 bordarios cum dimidio carucæ, et reddunt 4 sextares mellis. Ibi 2 servi et una ancilla. Hæc terra wasta erat T. R. E., et quando Willelmus recepit. Modo valet 40 solidos.” D. B., i., 185b, 1.
[312]“Willielmus de Scohies tenet 8 carucatas terræ in castellaria de Carliun, et Turstinus tenet de eo. Ibi habet in dominio unam carucam, et tres Walenses lege Walensi viventes, cum 3 carucis, et 2 bordarios cum dimidio carucæ, et reddunt 4 sextares mellis. Ibi 2 servi et una ancilla. Hæc terra wasta erat T. R. E., et quando Willelmus recepit. Modo valet 40 solidos.” D. B., i., 185b, 1.
[313]TheGwentian Chronicle, Cambrian Archæological Association,A.D.962, 967. It is not absolutely impossible that these passages refer to Chester. Caerleon appears to have been seized by the Welsh very soon after the death of William I.
[313]TheGwentian Chronicle, Cambrian Archæological Association,A.D.962, 967. It is not absolutely impossible that these passages refer to Chester. Caerleon appears to have been seized by the Welsh very soon after the death of William I.
[314]Itin. Camb., p. 55.
[314]Itin. Camb., p. 55.
[315]Loftus Brock, inJourn. Brit. Arch. Ass., xlix. J. E. Lee, inArch. Camb., iv., 73.
[315]Loftus Brock, inJourn. Brit. Arch. Ass., xlix. J. E. Lee, inArch. Camb., iv., 73.
[316]D. B., i., 185b.
[316]D. B., i., 185b.
[317][Rex] “in reversione sua Lincolniæ, Huntendonæ et Grontebrugæ castra locavit.”Ord. Vit., p. 189.
[317][Rex] “in reversione sua Lincolniæ, Huntendonæ et Grontebrugæ castra locavit.”Ord. Vit., p. 189.
[318]D. B., i., 189.
[318]D. B., i., 189.
[319]A similar plan was made independently by the late Professor Babington. Some traces of the original earthwork of the city are still to be seen. See Mr Hope’s paper onThe Norman Origin of Cambridge Castle, Cambridge Antiquarian Soc., vol. xi.; and Babington’sAncient Cambridgeshire, in the same society’sOctavo Publications, No. iii., 1853.
[319]A similar plan was made independently by the late Professor Babington. Some traces of the original earthwork of the city are still to be seen. See Mr Hope’s paper onThe Norman Origin of Cambridge Castle, Cambridge Antiquarian Soc., vol. xi.; and Babington’sAncient Cambridgeshire, in the same society’sOctavo Publications, No. iii., 1853.
[320]W. H. St John Hope, as above, p. 342.
[320]W. H. St John Hope, as above, p. 342.
[321]“Archiepiscopus habet ex eis [burgensibus] 7 et abbas S. Augustini 14 pro excambio castelli.” D. B., i. a, 2.
[321]“Archiepiscopus habet ex eis [burgensibus] 7 et abbas S. Augustini 14 pro excambio castelli.” D. B., i. a, 2.
[322]“Et undecim sunt perditi infra fossatum castelli”; cited by Larking,Domesday of Kent, App. xxiv. Domesday says, “sunt vastatæ xi. in fossacivitatis.” There can be no doubt that the Chartulary gives the correct account.
[322]“Et undecim sunt perditi infra fossatum castelli”; cited by Larking,Domesday of Kent, App. xxiv. Domesday says, “sunt vastatæ xi. in fossacivitatis.” There can be no doubt that the Chartulary gives the correct account.
[323]The hill is called the Dungan, Dangon, or Dungeon Hill in many old local deeds. See “Canterbury in Olden Times,”Arch. Journ., 1856. Stukeley and Grose both call it the Dungeon Hill.
[323]The hill is called the Dungan, Dangon, or Dungeon Hill in many old local deeds. See “Canterbury in Olden Times,”Arch. Journ., 1856. Stukeley and Grose both call it the Dungeon Hill.
[324]SeeAppendix N.
[324]SeeAppendix N.
[325]Somner’sAntiquities of Canterbury, p. 144. Published in 1640.
[325]Somner’sAntiquities of Canterbury, p. 144. Published in 1640.
[326]Antiquities of Canterbury, p. 75.
[326]Antiquities of Canterbury, p. 75.
[327]Mr Clark thought there was another motte in the earthworks outside the walls, though he expresses himself doubtfully: “I rather think they [the mounds outside the city ditch] or one of them, looked rather like a moated mound, but I could not feel sure of it.“Arch. Cantiana, xv., 344. Gostling (A Walk about Canterbury, 1825) says there weretwo, which is perhaps explained by a passage in Brayley’sKent(1808), in which he describes the external fortification as “a lesser mount, now divided into two parts, with a ditch and embankment.” P. 893. Stukeley’s description (circa 1700) is as follows: “Within the walls is a very high mount, called Dungeon Hill; a ditch and high bank enclose the area before it; it seems to have been part of the old castle. Opposite to it without the walls is a hill, seeming to have been raised by the Danes when they besieged the city. The top of the Dungeon Hill is equal to the top of the castle.”Itin. Curiosum, i., 122. It is of course not impossible that there may have been two mottes to this castle, as at Lewes and Lincoln, but such instances are rare, and it seems more likely that a portion of the bailey bank which happened to be in better preservation and consequently higher was mistaken for another mount. Mr Clark committed this very error at Tadcaster, and the other writers we have quoted were quite untrained as observers of earthen castles. At any rate there can be no doubt that the Dane John is the original chief citadel of this castle, as the statements of Somner, Stukeley, and we may add, Leland, are explicit. The most ancient maps of Canterbury, Hoefnagel’s (1570), Smith’s (Description of England, 1588), and Grose’s (1785), all show the Dungeon Hill within the walls, but take no notice of the outwork outside.
[327]Mr Clark thought there was another motte in the earthworks outside the walls, though he expresses himself doubtfully: “I rather think they [the mounds outside the city ditch] or one of them, looked rather like a moated mound, but I could not feel sure of it.“Arch. Cantiana, xv., 344. Gostling (A Walk about Canterbury, 1825) says there weretwo, which is perhaps explained by a passage in Brayley’sKent(1808), in which he describes the external fortification as “a lesser mount, now divided into two parts, with a ditch and embankment.” P. 893. Stukeley’s description (circa 1700) is as follows: “Within the walls is a very high mount, called Dungeon Hill; a ditch and high bank enclose the area before it; it seems to have been part of the old castle. Opposite to it without the walls is a hill, seeming to have been raised by the Danes when they besieged the city. The top of the Dungeon Hill is equal to the top of the castle.”Itin. Curiosum, i., 122. It is of course not impossible that there may have been two mottes to this castle, as at Lewes and Lincoln, but such instances are rare, and it seems more likely that a portion of the bailey bank which happened to be in better preservation and consequently higher was mistaken for another mount. Mr Clark committed this very error at Tadcaster, and the other writers we have quoted were quite untrained as observers of earthen castles. At any rate there can be no doubt that the Dane John is the original chief citadel of this castle, as the statements of Somner, Stukeley, and we may add, Leland, are explicit. The most ancient maps of Canterbury, Hoefnagel’s (1570), Smith’s (Description of England, 1588), and Grose’s (1785), all show the Dungeon Hill within the walls, but take no notice of the outwork outside.
[328]Archæologia Cantiana, xxxiii., 152.
[328]Archæologia Cantiana, xxxiii., 152.
[329]Ibid., xxi.
[329]Ibid., xxi.
[330]Close Rolls, i., 234b, ii., 7b, 89.
[330]Close Rolls, i., 234b, ii., 7b, 89.
[331]Now, to the disgrace of the city of Canterbury, converted into gasworks.
[331]Now, to the disgrace of the city of Canterbury, converted into gasworks.
[332]For instance, at Middleham, Rochester, Rhuddlan, and Morpeth.
[332]For instance, at Middleham, Rochester, Rhuddlan, and Morpeth.
[333]Beauties of England and Wales, Kent, p. 893.
[333]Beauties of England and Wales, Kent, p. 893.
[334]The passages from thePipe Rollbearing on this subject (which have not been noticed by any previous historian of Canterbury) are as follows:—1166-7.In operatione civitatis Cantuar. claudendæ£5 19 6"Ad claudendam civitatem Cantuar.20 0 01167-8.Pro claudenda civitate Cantuar.5 1 11168-9.In terris datis Adelizæ filie Simonis 15 solidos de tribus annis pro escambio terræ suæ quæ est in Castello de Cantuar.0 15 01172-3.In operatione turris ejusdem civitatis10 0 0"In operatione predicte turris53 6 8"Summa denariorum quos vicecomes misit in operatione turris73 1 41173-4.In operatione turris et Castelli Chant.24 6 0"In operatione turris Cantuar.5 11 71174-5.Et in warnisione ejusdem turris5 8 0The latter extract, which refers to the provisioning of the keep, seems to show that it was then finished. The sums put down to the castle, amounting to about £4000 of our money, are not sufficient to defray the cost of so fine a keep. But the entries in thePipe Rollsrelate only to the Sheriff’s accounts, and it is probable that the cost of the keep was largely paid out of the revenues of the archbishopric, which Henry seized into his own hands during the Becket quarrel.
[334]The passages from thePipe Rollbearing on this subject (which have not been noticed by any previous historian of Canterbury) are as follows:—
The latter extract, which refers to the provisioning of the keep, seems to show that it was then finished. The sums put down to the castle, amounting to about £4000 of our money, are not sufficient to defray the cost of so fine a keep. But the entries in thePipe Rollsrelate only to the Sheriff’s accounts, and it is probable that the cost of the keep was largely paid out of the revenues of the archbishopric, which Henry seized into his own hands during the Becket quarrel.
[335]The portion of the wall of Canterbury, which rests on an earthen bank, extends from Northgate to the Castle, and is roughly semicircular in plan. In the middle of it was St George’s Gate, which was anciently calledNewingate(Gostling, p. 53) and may possibly have been Henry II.’s new gate. The part enclosing the Dungeon Hill is angular, and appeared to Mr Clark, as well as to Somner and Hasted, to have been brought out at this angle in order to enclose the hill.
[335]The portion of the wall of Canterbury, which rests on an earthen bank, extends from Northgate to the Castle, and is roughly semicircular in plan. In the middle of it was St George’s Gate, which was anciently calledNewingate(Gostling, p. 53) and may possibly have been Henry II.’s new gate. The part enclosing the Dungeon Hill is angular, and appeared to Mr Clark, as well as to Somner and Hasted, to have been brought out at this angle in order to enclose the hill.
[336]Arch. Journ., 1856.
[336]Arch. Journ., 1856.
[337]D. B., i., 2a, 1.
[337]D. B., i., 2a, 1.
[338]“Isdem rex tenet Alwinestone. Donnus tenuit. Tunc pro duabus hidis et dimidia. Modo pro duabus hidis, quia castellum sedet in una virgata.” D. B., i., 2a, 1.
[338]“Isdem rex tenet Alwinestone. Donnus tenuit. Tunc pro duabus hidis et dimidia. Modo pro duabus hidis, quia castellum sedet in una virgata.” D. B., i., 2a, 1.
[339]See below, underWindsor.
[339]See below, underWindsor.
[340]“In hac [insula] castellum habebat ornatissimum lapidum ædificio constructum, validissimo munimine firmatum.”Gesta Stephani, R. S., p. 28.
[340]“In hac [insula] castellum habebat ornatissimum lapidum ædificio constructum, validissimo munimine firmatum.”Gesta Stephani, R. S., p. 28.
[341]Stone’sOfficial Guide to the Castle of Carisbrooke, p. 39.
[341]Stone’sOfficial Guide to the Castle of Carisbrooke, p. 39.
[342]Mr W. H. Stevenson, in his edition ofAsser, pp. 173, 174, shows that the name Carisbrooke cannot possibly be derived from Wihtgares-burh, as has been sometimes supposed, as the older forms prove it to have come frombrook, notburh. The lines of the present castle banks, if produced, would not correspond with those of the Tilt-yard, which is proof that the Norman castle was not formed by cutting an older fortification in two.
[342]Mr W. H. Stevenson, in his edition ofAsser, pp. 173, 174, shows that the name Carisbrooke cannot possibly be derived from Wihtgares-burh, as has been sometimes supposed, as the older forms prove it to have come frombrook, notburh. The lines of the present castle banks, if produced, would not correspond with those of the Tilt-yard, which is proof that the Norman castle was not formed by cutting an older fortification in two.
[343]Bower’sScotochronicon, v., xlii. Cited by Mr Neilson,Notes and Queries, viii., 321. See also Palgrave,Documents and Records, i., 103.
[343]Bower’sScotochronicon, v., xlii. Cited by Mr Neilson,Notes and Queries, viii., 321. See also Palgrave,Documents and Records, i., 103.
[344]Cal. of Close Rolls, Edward II., iii., 161.
[344]Cal. of Close Rolls, Edward II., iii., 161.
[345]Mon. Ang., v., 12. “Castelli nostri de Acra.”
[345]Mon. Ang., v., 12. “Castelli nostri de Acra.”
[346]As at Burton, Mexborough, Lilbourne, and Castle Colwyn.
[346]As at Burton, Mexborough, Lilbourne, and Castle Colwyn.
[347]Harrod’sGleanings among the Castles and Convents of Norfolk. See alsoArch. Journ., xlvi., 441.
[347]Harrod’sGleanings among the Castles and Convents of Norfolk. See alsoArch. Journ., xlvi., 441.
[348]D. B., ii., 160b.
[348]D. B., ii., 160b.
[349]“Castellum de Estrighoiel fecit Willelmus comes, et ejus tempore reddebat 40 solidos, tantum de navibus in silvam euntibus.” D. B., i., 162. Tanner has shown that while Chepstow was an alien priory of Cormeille, in Normandy, it is never spoken of by that name in the charters of Cormeille, but is always called Strigulia.Notitia Monastica, Monmouthshire. See also Marsh’sAnnals of Chepstow Castle.
[349]“Castellum de Estrighoiel fecit Willelmus comes, et ejus tempore reddebat 40 solidos, tantum de navibus in silvam euntibus.” D. B., i., 162. Tanner has shown that while Chepstow was an alien priory of Cormeille, in Normandy, it is never spoken of by that name in the charters of Cormeille, but is always called Strigulia.Notitia Monastica, Monmouthshire. See also Marsh’sAnnals of Chepstow Castle.
[350]I must confess that in spite of very strong opposing opinions, I see no reason why this building should not be classed as a keep. It is of course a gross error to call Martin’s Tower the keep; it is only a mural tower.
[350]I must confess that in spite of very strong opposing opinions, I see no reason why this building should not be classed as a keep. It is of course a gross error to call Martin’s Tower the keep; it is only a mural tower.
[351]D. B., 162, 1a.
[351]D. B., 162, 1a.
[352]“Cestriæ munitionem condidit.” P. 199 (Prévost’s edition).
[352]“Cestriæ munitionem condidit.” P. 199 (Prévost’s edition).
[353]Chester Historical and Archæological Society, v., 239.
[353]Chester Historical and Archæological Society, v., 239.
[354]Pipe Rolls, ii., 7. Ranulph, Earl of Chester, died in 1153, and the castle would then escheat into the king’s hands.
[354]Pipe Rolls, ii., 7. Ranulph, Earl of Chester, died in 1153, and the castle would then escheat into the king’s hands.
[355]This work seems to have been completed in the reign of Edward II., who spent £253 on the houses, towers, walls, and gates.Cal. of Close Rolls, Edward II., ii., 294.
[355]This work seems to have been completed in the reign of Edward II., who spent £253 on the houses, towers, walls, and gates.Cal. of Close Rolls, Edward II., ii., 294.
[356]Close Rolls, 35, Henry III., cited by Ormerod,History of Cheshire, i., 358.
[356]Close Rolls, 35, Henry III., cited by Ormerod,History of Cheshire, i., 358.
[357]See Mr Cox’s paper, as above, and Shrubsole,Chester Hist. and Arch. Soc., v., 175, and iii., New Series, p. 71.
[357]See Mr Cox’s paper, as above, and Shrubsole,Chester Hist. and Arch. Soc., v., 175, and iii., New Series, p. 71.
[358]Benedict of Peterborough, i., 135, R. S.
[358]Benedict of Peterborough, i., 135, R. S.
[359]D. B., i., 262b.
[359]D. B., i., 262b.
[360]“Willelmus comes fecit illud [castellum] in wasta terra quam tenebat Bruning T. R. E.” D. B., i., 183a, 2.
[360]“Willelmus comes fecit illud [castellum] in wasta terra quam tenebat Bruning T. R. E.” D. B., i., 183a, 2.
[361]“Ancient Charters,”Pipe Roll Society, vol. x., charter xiii., and Mr Round’s note, p. 25.
[361]“Ancient Charters,”Pipe Roll Society, vol. x., charter xiii., and Mr Round’s note, p. 25.
[362]It is extraordinary that Mr Clark, in his description of this castle, does not mention the motte, except by saying that the outer ward is 60 or 70 feet lower than the inner.M. M. A., i., 395.
[362]It is extraordinary that Mr Clark, in his description of this castle, does not mention the motte, except by saying that the outer ward is 60 or 70 feet lower than the inner.M. M. A., i., 395.
[363]This passage occurs in a sort of appendix to Domesday Book, which is said to be in a later hand, of the 12th century. (Skaife,Yorks. Arch. Journ., Part lv., p. 299.) It cannot, however, be very late in the 12th century, as it speaks of Roger’s holdings in Craven in the present tense.
[363]This passage occurs in a sort of appendix to Domesday Book, which is said to be in a later hand, of the 12th century. (Skaife,Yorks. Arch. Journ., Part lv., p. 299.) It cannot, however, be very late in the 12th century, as it speaks of Roger’s holdings in Craven in the present tense.
[364]See Farrer’sLancashire Pipe Rolls, p. 385. The castle is not actually mentioned, but “le Baille” (the bailey) is spoken of. Mr Farrer also prints an abstract of a charter of Henry I. (1102): “per quam concessit eidem Roberto [de Laci] Boelandam [Bowland] quam tenuit de Rogero Comite Pictavensi, ut extunc eam de eodem rege teneat.” P. 382.
[364]See Farrer’sLancashire Pipe Rolls, p. 385. The castle is not actually mentioned, but “le Baille” (the bailey) is spoken of. Mr Farrer also prints an abstract of a charter of Henry I. (1102): “per quam concessit eidem Roberto [de Laci] Boelandam [Bowland] quam tenuit de Rogero Comite Pictavensi, ut extunc eam de eodem rege teneat.” P. 382.
[365]In an inquisition of Henry de Laci (+ 1311) it is said that “castelli mote et fossæ valent nihil.” (Whitaker’sHistory of Whalley, p. 280.) This is probably an instance of the wordmottebeing applied to a natural rock which served that purpose. See another instance under Nottingham,post,p. 176.
[365]In an inquisition of Henry de Laci (+ 1311) it is said that “castelli mote et fossæ valent nihil.” (Whitaker’sHistory of Whalley, p. 280.) This is probably an instance of the wordmottebeing applied to a natural rock which served that purpose. See another instance under Nottingham,post,p. 176.
[366]Dugdale’sBaronage, i., p. 99. Dugdale’s authority appears to have been the “Historia Laceiorum,” a very untrustworthy document, but which may have preserved a genuine tradition in this instance. The loopholes in the basement of the keep, with the large recesses, appear to have been intended for crossbows, and the crossbow was not reintroduced into England till the reign of Richard I.
[366]Dugdale’sBaronage, i., p. 99. Dugdale’s authority appears to have been the “Historia Laceiorum,” a very untrustworthy document, but which may have preserved a genuine tradition in this instance. The loopholes in the basement of the keep, with the large recesses, appear to have been intended for crossbows, and the crossbow was not reintroduced into England till the reign of Richard I.