The Project Gutenberg EBook of British Castles, by Charles H. Ashdown
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: British Castles
Author: Charles H. Ashdown
Release Date: August 31, 2012 [EBook #40630]
Language: English
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BRITISH CASTLES ***
Produced by Darleen Dove, Sue Fleming and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
BRITISH CASTLES
[Illustration: BODIAM CASTLE, SUSSEX.]
BRITISH
CASTLES
BY
CHARLES H. ASHDOWN
CONTAINING 32 FULL-PAGE ILLUSTRATIONS IN COLOUR
AND A NUMBER OF PLANS AND DIAGRAMS IN THE TEXT
[Illustration: A TREBUCHET]
LONDON
ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK
1911
AGENTS
AMERICA THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
64 & 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK
AUSTRALASIA THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
205 FLINDERS LANE, MELBOURNE
CANADA THE MACMILLAN COMPANY OF CANADA, LTD.
ST. MARTIN'S HOUSE, 70 BOND STREET, TORONTO
INDIA MACMILLAN & COMPANY, LTD.
MACMILLAN BUILDING, BOMBAY
309 BOW BAZAAR STREET, CALCUTTA
GERMANY, AUSTRIA-HUNGARY,}
RUSSIA, } BROCKHAUS AND PEHRSSON
SCANDINAVIA, AND } 16 QUERSTRASSE, LEIPZIG
GERMAN SWITZERLAND }
PREFACE
Considering the richness and variety of both technical and popular
literature upon Castles generally, it may appear superfluous to send
forth another book upon the same subject, and, if investigation had been
at a standstill or barren in results during the past decade, criticism
would be justified. But much has come to light upon this interesting
subject which undoubtedly revolutionises pre-existing ideas, both as to
primitive forms of castellation and of those in historic periods. The
allocation of the former to approximately definite epochs, and also of
two great and important phases of the latter to well-defined periods,
are the salient features of late investigations. Unfortunately the
ordinary reader is debarred from becoming intimate with these changes of
thought, inasmuch as newly acquired discoveries are generally to be
found only in the transactions of learned Societies or in disconnected
brochures not readily available. To bring these ideas to a focus and
present them in such a form that the Man in the Street--undoubtedly a
member of the preponderating majority--may readily comprehend them is
one of the aims of the writer, while another is to suggest to the
ordinary observer that the earthworks in our islands entitle primitive
man to be considered with much more respect and consideration than has
hitherto been afforded him.
The monumental work of Mr. T. G. Clark, _Mediæval Military
Architecture_, has had no formidable rival since its appearance, but
unfortunately it must now be read with care since much of the matter is
obsolete. The distinction between the Saxon _burh_ and the primitive
type of castle thrown up by the early Norman invaders was not apparent
at the time the work appeared, and consequently many scores of
castellated works are assigned to incorrect periods. This had the effect
of making the chronology of the Rectangular Keep incorrect. Unhappily
_The History of the Art of War_ by Oman followed Clark's lead and with,
of course, the same result. Mr. J. H. Round in his _Geoffrey de
Mandeville_ appears to have been one of the first, if not the first, to
differentiate between the _turris_ and the _castellum_ (_i.e._ the Keep
and the Ward) of medieval writers, who were proverbially loose with
respect to their employment of technical terms. Excellent work also in
this respect has been carried out by Mrs. E. Armitage, who, by the
process of practically investigating in detail some of the defences
mentioned in Domesday Book, has been able to definitely assign the Motte
and Bailey type to the early Norman Period. In the recently issued
_Victoria History of the Counties of England_ the effect of these
discoveries is discernible in those parts relating to castellation,
which very carefully correct the errors prevailing in former standard
and in local topographical works. With regard to Earthworks, the
invaluable investigations carried out by "The Committee upon Ancient
Earthworks and Fortified Enclosures," acting in co-operation with the
Society of Antiquaries, has resulted in a flood of light being thrown
upon these interesting remains, so that the old allocation to British,
Roman, and Danish influence, so arbitrarily insisted upon in former
times according to the contour of the earthwork in question, no longer
subsists, or only as far as circumstances justify the nomenclature. No
generally available work is to hand dealing with these subjects in a
non-technical manner, and it may be hoped that this endeavour will help
to fill the interregnum between the work of Clark and a future equally
monumental tome.
The thanks of the Author are herewith gratefully tendered to the
Congress of Archæological Societies of 1903 for permission to make use
of the plans of Earthworks issued in their "Scheme for Recording Ancient
Defensive Earthworks and Fortified Enclosures," and also to Mr. Cecil C.
Brewer for the plans of various floors in Hedingham Keep.
CHARLES H. ASHDOWN.
ST. ALBANS.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
PAGE
NATURAL FORTRESSES STRENGTHENED 1
CHAPTER II
FORTIFIED HILL-TOPS 13
CHAPTER III
SIMPLE ARTIFICIAL ENCLOSURES 33
CHAPTER IV
THE MOTTE AND BAILEY CASTLE 48
CHAPTER V
THE SHELL KEEP 64
CHAPTER VI
THE RECTANGULAR KEEP 76
CHAPTER VII
THE CYLINDRICAL KEEP 101
CHAPTER VIII
THE CONCENTRIC CASTLE 110
CHAPTER IX
THE CASTELLATED MANSION 147
CHAPTER X
THE CASTLES OF SCOTLAND 173
CHAPTER XI
THE SIEGE AND DEFENCE OF A MEDIEVAL CASTLE 188
INDEX 201
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FULL PAGE IN COLOUR
1. Bodiam Castle, Sussex _Frontispiece_
One of the most picturesque ruins in Sussex and the most
interesting of its class in the Kingdom. It was erected
by a veteran of Agincourt and is based upon the plan of
those existing in Gascony at that time. Only the
encircling walls and towers now remain, the interior
having been despoiled. The view shows the Gateway and a
portion of the defences of the Causeway across the Moat.
FACING PAGE
2. Maiden Castle, Dorsetshire 9
This gigantic earthwork looms darkly in the distance,
with indications upon its broken outline of the enormous
mounds and fosses which render it one of the most
impressive examples of its class. As a work of Neolithic
man it commands attention, both by reason of the vastness
of its plan and the skill shown in the design.
3. Pevensey Castle, Sussex 16
Within the Roman walls encircling this ancient site a
Concentric Castle was erected during the time of Edward
I., a short portion of the existing wall being used for
the new building. It was partly surrounded by a moat, a
part of which appears in the view, while the drum tower
occupying the centre is one of those designed to protect
the approach to the Castle.
4. The Beauchamp Tower, Tower of London 25
This building affords an interesting example of the
ground floor of a tower of the thirteenth century with
massive walls and deep embrasures. It became famous as a
prison in Tudor times and later when numerous notable
persons were incarcerated; the carvings on the walls
reveal many notable names.
5. Corfe Castle, Dorsetshire 32
The scattered ruins of the great Castle of Corfe owe
their present appearance to the "slighting" by gunpowder
in 1646, after its capture by the Parliamentarians. Amid
the desolation produced the great Keep still rears a
massive front towards the sky, as if protesting against
the indignity. The Gateway to the inner Bailey is nearly
perfect, and the smooth ashlar of many of the circular
towers remains wonderfully preserved.
6. The Tower of London 49
The three lines of defence which render the Tower one of
the most effective Concentric Castles in this country are
well seen in the illustration. The outer encircling
walls, the higher curtain wall of the second defence,
with one of the many towers which bestride it, and the
innermost of all, the White Tower, the finest example of
a Norman Keep in England, may be distinctly located.
7. Kenilworth Castle, Warwickshire 56
Although deprived of the charm of the great Moat which
once surrounded the Castle, Kenilworth still forms a
beautiful object, magnificent in its decay. The halo of
romance hangs over these ruins, and speaks eloquently of
the Barons' War, and of the 'spacious days' of Queen
Elizabeth.
8. Arundel Castle, Sussex 73
This massive pile, overlooking the little river Arun at
its base, stands upon a spur of chalk which once bore a
Motte and Bailey Castle. The Motte is now crowned by a
Shell Keep, seen towards the right of the picture, while
some of the other buildings erected upon the enceinte
form an effective group in the centre.
9. Dover Castle, Kent 80
The great Keep dominates the view, with the buildings of
its fore-court at the base, while below are seen the
towers and massive defences of the formidable entrance to
the Castle. It is one of the most impressive piles to be
seen in the British Isles, and never fails to impress the
foreigner when approaching it from the coast of France.
10. Rochester Castle, Kent 89
Of Rochester Castle nothing of importance remains except
the great Keep and fragments of walls. The Norman Keep
was erected in the reign of Henry I. (1100-1135) and is
one of the finest now in existence. It has seen many
troublous times in its varied history, chiefly at the
hands of King John and Simon de Montfort. The combination
of Keep, Cathedral, and river presented in the view is
particularly pleasing.
11. Richmond Castle, Yorkshire 96
This lordly Castle occupies a commanding position in the
romantically beautiful valley of the Swale and dates back
to the Norman period. The Keep is a salient feature and
exemplifies in a remarkable degree nearly all the
characteristics inherent in buildings of this class. The
Norman hall is one of the best preserved of its type to
be found in this country.
12. Carnarvon Castle, Carnarvonshire 105
One of the most impressive features of this great Castle,
termed the finest in Europe, is the Eagle Tower with its
many historical associations. The bands and dressings of
dark sandstone are well shown in the illustration, while
upon the merlons crowning the turrets may be perceived as
little dots the statuettes of men and animals which
usually occur upon the Edwardian Castles in Wales.
13. Castle Rushen, Isle of Man 112
Castle Rushen, in Castletown, is the ancient residence of
the Kings of Man; it probably dates from the thirteenth
century and is still quite entire. The Keep-like
structure upon the right are the curtain walls and towers
surrounding the inner Bailey.
14. Leeds Castle, Kent 121
Leeds Castle is of the Concentric type and stands upon
two islands in the middle of a lake which contains about
fifteen acres of water. It has a rich history and the
remains are of considerable interest, although the
earliest work now to be seen is not older than the
twelfth century. The Gloriette or Keep is that portion
lying to the right in the picture.
15. Tower of London, The Middle Tower 128
This building might more aptly be termed 'The Barbican,'
as it lies upon the farther side of the Moat from the
Fortress. It now forms the entrance to the Tower from
Tower Hill and affords access to the outer Bailey through
the Byward Tower, whose entrance may be perceived through
the archway. In earlier times this gate, which is one of
those built by Henry III., was separated from a former
outer barbican by the waters of the Moat, hence its name,
the Middle Tower.
16. Chepstow Castle, Monmouthshire 137
Chepstow Castle is an example of an Early Norman Fortress
of the Rectangular Keep type, which was rendered
concentric by the addition of Baileys and a wall of
enceinte. A steep side towards the river is visible in
the picture upon which the domestic buildings were built.
Among the many beautiful spots to be found upon the banks
of the Wye, Chepstow Castle holds a worthy place. Perhaps
the 'beauty of decay' is in no case better exemplified in
any part of England than here.
17. Leeds Castle, Kent 144
The Gateway of the Castle is one of the most picturesque
portions of the building. A range of machicoulis is
placed over the entrance, while a small portion of an
original bretasche, a very rare survival of the medieval
period, is also preserved in the Castle.
18. Windsor Castle 147
Windsor Castle was originally of the Motte and Bailey
type, but the Motte was subsequently crowned with a
massive Shell Keep, one of the largest of its kind. It
appears in the illustration surmounted by the Royal
Standard. By later additions the Castle was rendered
concentric. In the centre is the upper portion of St.
George's Chapel, and on the right the Curfew Tower built
by Henry III. and restored by Salvin, while in the front
nestles a portion of the old town.
19. Skipton Castle, Yorkshire 150
Skipton Castle possesses a history reaching back to the
Norman Conquest, and has been in the possession of the
great Clifford family since the reign of Edward II. The
portion here shown is the Tudor Courtyard, erected by the
first Earl of Cumberland in the reign of Henry VIII.
20. Ightham Mote, Kent 155
Ightham Mote boasts of a Hall erected early in the
fourteenth century and one of the best of its kind. The
tower is of Perpendicular architecture, and most of the
other portions Elizabethan. The half-timber work
exhibited in this building is a beautiful example, and
the whole structure harmonizes in the happiest manner
with the uncommon beauty of the surroundings.
21. Wressle Castle, Yorkshire 158
Wressle Castle has a history which is indissolubly linked
up with the great house of the Percies, who periodically
maintained their court in it for centuries. Only the
south façade is now standing, as the Parliamentarians
destroyed the remaining three sides about 1650. It was
surrounded by a moat and a deep dry ditch. The famous
Household Book of Henry Percy, written soon after the
country settled down after the Wars of the Roses, reveals
elaborate details of the life in this Castle. The
illustration shows how a castle built on level ground is
able to look over a very extended area from its
battlements.
22. Hever Castle, Kent 161
Hever Castle dates from the time of Edward III., and a
romantic interest is attached to it in connection with
the ill-fated Anne Boleyn, whose family resided there.
The Gatehouse, not shown in the illustration, is
undoubtedly one of the most effective portions of the
building.
23. Maxstoke Castle, Warwickshire 163
This Castle is practically entire, having escaped the
destructive hands of the Parliamentarians. It was raised
in the early part of the reign of Edward III. and the
Gatehouse forms an excellent example of castellation of
that period. Strange to say, some of the original
domestic apartments are still in a good state of
preservation.
24. Herstmonceaux Castle, Sussex 166
This Castle is one of the later type, and erected in
brick. It is contemporary with Tattershall in
Lincolnshire, also built of brick, and undoubtedly forms
one of the finest examples of the Castellated Mansion to
be found in England.
25. Penshurst Place, Kent 168
The manor-house of the Sydneys first came into existence
in the reign of Edward II., and gradually expanded into a
happy mixture of the manorial mansion and the Castle. The
Hall, seen in the centre of the picture, dates from the
middle of the fourteenth century and is one of the
earliest parts of the building.
26. Bothwell Castle, Lanarkshire 179
Bothwell Castle stands in all the majesty of ruin upon
the banks of the Clyde, and is without doubt the grandest
example in Scotland of the simple enclosure castle of the
thirteenth century. A deep and wide moat protects it upon
the land side, and its Donjon is also strengthened by its
own ditch.
27. Neidpath Castle, Peeblesshire 182
Is a typical Lowland Keep or Peel overlooking the Tweed,
and although it probably does not date back earlier than
the fourteenth century in its present form, an older
structure existed in the time of David I. (1124-1153),
who dated charters there. The Castle was held by the
Frasers until the fourteenth century, and John, Lord
Yester, afterwards the Earl of Tweeddale, defended the
place against Cromwell in 1646 but was obliged to
surrender.
28. Edinburgh Castle from the Terrace of Heriot's Hospital 185
Edinburgh Castle is the centre of the national history of
Scotland. It stands upon the ancient Burgh of Edwin, King
of Northumbria, and although sadly altered and disfigured
in comparatively modern times by the addition of many
unpicturesque buildings, it still possesses interesting
features of the past, and an imposing aspect when viewed
from the city.
29. Dunnottar Castle, Kincardineshire 187
Dunnottar Castle is undoubtedly one of the most majestic
ruins of the fourteenth century in Scotland, with a rich
store of interesting history casting a halo of romance
around the massive pile. The sea surrounds it on three
sides, while a deep ravine upon the fourth severs it from
the mainland. The tide of war has often ebbed and flowed
before its hoary walls. The Keep was built by Sir William
Keith in 1392, and in the Great Civil War the regalia of
Scotland, which had been sent here for safety, was sent
out of the Castle before its surrender to the English.
30. Tantallon Castle, Haddingtonshire 190
Tantallon Castle stands upon a bold spur of rock south of
the Firth of Forth. It is a magnificent example of a
Quadrangular Castle, surrounded upon three sides by the
waters of the North Sea, and defended upon the remaining
side by gigantic walls flanked by the Keep, and also a
deep ditch.
31. Stirling Castle, Stirlingshire 192
Stirling Castle occupies a precipitous site upon the
river Forth and is connected with the history of Scotland
from a very early period. Of sieges and battles it has
seen its full share, and although modern fortifications
and barracks somewhat detract from its appearance, it
still possesses a number of medieval structures of great
beauty and interest.
32. Raising the Portcullis 196
The method for raising and lowering the Portcullis of a
medieval castle is shown here, the example being taken
from the Tower of London. This effective defence could be
entirely detached if required and dropped at a critical
moment when, perhaps, a few assailants had gained
admission, and were in that manner cut off from their
comrades.
LINE DRAWINGS IN THE TEXT
PAGE
1. A Trebuchet Title-page
2. Comb Moss, Derbyshire 11
3. Maiden Castle, West Entrance 16
4. Maiden Castle, East Entrance 17
5. Stockade of Stone and Rubble, with Palisade of Wood 19
6. Simple Stockade of Stone and Earth, retained by
Wooden Stakes 20
7. Stone Stockade, with Inner Core of Masonry 20
8. Wooden Palisade of Tree-Trunks, strengthened with
Earth 21
9. Badbury Rings, Dorset 23
10. The Berm of Cadbury Castle 24
11. Ravensburgh Castle, Hexton, Herts 26
12. Mam Tor, Derbyshire 28
13. Hunsbury, Northamptonshire 30
14. Yarnbury, Wilts 31
15. Melandra, Derbyshire 35
16. Section of the City Defences of Verulamium (near
St. Albans) 37
17. Battlemented Parapet shown in Caedmon's Paraphrase 41
18. Battlements shown in Harl. MS. 603 41
19. The Danish Burh at Gannock's Castle, near Tempsford 44
20. Pevensey Castle 46
21. Clifford's Castle, Northants 51
22. Forebuilding of the Keep, Berkeley 79
23. Dover Castle 81
24. Clun Castle, Salop 89
25. Bamborough Castle 95
26. Plans of the Keep of Hedingham Castle 100
27. Ground Plan of Conisborough Keep 107
28. Conisborough 108
29. The Ideal Concentric Castle 115
30. Machicoulis supporting an Alur 117
31. Merlon pierced with Oillet 124
32. Caerphilly Castle 127
33. Kidwelly Castle, Carmarthenshire 129
34. Chepstow Castle 141
35. Leeds Castle, Kent 143
36. Bartizan 178
37. Diagram illustrating the Principle of Construction in
Classical Engines 192
BRITISH CASTLES
CHAPTER I
NATURAL FORTRESSES STRENGTHENED
Man is essentially a pugilistic animal and experiences a keen sense of
delight in hunting all objects of the chase, ferocious or otherwise, but
the keenest undoubtedly when upon the track of the grandest of all
game--man. But at the same time though willing to inflict injury he
invariably does so at the minimum of risk to himself, deeming the
preservation of his own life, the greatest of the gifts that Nature has
bestowed upon him, of the first importance. Thus it is conceivable that
after the selection of a stone or the fabrication of a club by primitive
man he naturally proceeded to make a protection for himself to
counteract the effect of those weapons when wielded by others, and the
shield would follow as a logical sequence. The shield was to all intents
and purposes a movable castle, since it afforded him the means of
causing the greatest amount of annoyance to his enemy, while at the same
time furnishing the maximum means of protection to himself; a definition
which is appropriate to the first and latest type of feudal castle. As a
non-movable protection he would soon recognise the advantages afforded
by a tree, a rock, a fold in the ground; and the efficacy of these
natural defences would suggest artificial examples where they were
non-existent.
Hence the earthwork and the parapet of rock, singly or combined, may be
regarded as the first of all castellation, with an origin so remote as
to be practically coeval with man's first appearance upon earth. These
simple means of defence are found in every country occupied by primitive
races; in America they are numerous and undoubtedly point to a high
antiquity, and the same holds good in many parts of Asia and Europe. In
the British Isles we have a richer collection probably than can be found
in any other portion of the globe, for in the habitable districts hardly
a square mile exists without some indication of disturbance of the soil
due in the majority of cases to some work of a defensive character.
Earthworks are of such a varied nature, with so many differences of
contrast alike as regards shape, elevation and area, that to the
ordinary observer any classification seems impossible, and practically
it is only when descriptions and plans of the whole are aggregated for
selection that they fall under different headings by presenting
essential features common to a class. Hence in late years a system of
differentiation has been evolved, and the allocation of an earthwork to
a definite class is now possible. To the antiquary this is a source of
keen satisfaction, and it is hoped that to the ordinary observer it may
prove one of equal interest.
It should be borne in mind that earthworks of great antiquity are found
only in those districts and localities where man could delve with his
primitive appliances, and thus a classification presents itself at once
in a contradistinction between the Western and Central parts of England
compared with the Southern and Eastern. It is obvious that no primitive
race, with their crude appliances, could dig into Cambrian, Silurian, or
Carboniferous rock in order to entrench themselves, and that in those
localities the breastwork would necessarily be paramount; and that
entrenching would only be possible where an accumulation of detritus or
alluvium existed, that is to say, in the valleys. So that, broadly
speaking, the parapet prevails in Wales and the Midland counties and the
ditch in the remaining portions. Those districts, reaching approximately
from Dorsetshire to Yorkshire and belonging to the Cretaceous formation,
would therefore roughly divide the country into two portions--the fosse
prevailing to the east of it, and the breastwork to the west.
Another fact is apparent when dealing with this subject: the earthwork
is much more durable than any other form of castrametation, in fact it
is almost indestructible so far as meteoric agencies are concerned,
whereas the parapet suffers not only from disintegration by the
weathering influences of rain, frost, wind, and heat, but also from the
tendency to lose its original shape through having no natural or
artificial coherence between the separate parts. Thus undoubted examples
of prehistoric ramparts are comparatively rare when compared with the
wealth of existent earthworks.
It must be borne in mind that the study of the earthwork is the alphabet
to that of castellation, and that the evolution of the latter cannot be
efficiently comprehended without an intelligent appreciation of the
former. So far as classification of earthworks has been made to the
present time, the following table represents the general mode of
procedure, and under one or other of its separate headings the whole of
the earthworks, so far as our knowledge extends at the time of writing,
may be allocated.
CLASSIFICATION OF EARTHWORKS
1. _Natural Fortresses strengthened._ This refers to fortresses partly
inaccessible by reason of precipices, cliffs, or water, additionally
defended by artificial banks or walls.
2. _Fortified Hill-Tops strengthened._ This includes fortresses situated
on hill-tops, with artificial defences adapted to the natural
configuration of the ground, or to those which are less dependent on the
natural slopes.
3. _Simple Artificial Enclosures_, including rectangular or other forms,
and all the fortifications and towns of the Romano-British period.
4. _The Mount and Fosse._
5. _The Mount and Bailey_, consisting of natural or artificial mounds
with one or more courts attached.
6. _Homestead Moats._
7. _Homestead Moats developed_, referring to enclosures similar to No. 6
but augmented by supplementary defences.
8. _Protected Village Sites._
_Class I.--Natural Fortresses strengthened._
This division may very readily be subdivided into three parts dealing
with natural fortresses according to the topographical characteristics
as follows:
(_a_) Promontory forts, or cliff castles both upon the coasts
and inland.
(_b_) Those depending upon rivers, woods, marshes, etc. for
efficiency.
(_c_) Plateau forts.
(_a_) _Promontory Forts._--This type of fort is prehistoric as a rule
and not characterised by an excess of variation. No distinctive
uniformity can be traced, it is true, but special features may be
discovered in almost every example of the class. It is only natural that
primitive man should seize upon any spot which promised the minimum of
labour to adapt it for his purpose of protection, hence distinguishing
features may be discerned in almost every case, depending upon the
presence of a precipice, slope, bog, wood, chasm, marsh, etc. The
description of a few of these fortresses will sufficiently illustrate
the point.
_Trevalgue Head_, one mile north-east of New Quay, is practically an
island, being cut off from the mainland by a chasm through which the
tide flows, thus presenting a formidable obstacle 20 feet wide in
places. In order to strengthen this natural obstruction many lines of
entrenchments have been thrown up, both upon the island and the
mainland. The presence of quantities of flint chippings sufficiently
proves that this fort was the residence of Neolithic man, probably the
descendant of local Palæolithic ancestors.
As the terms "Stone Age," "Bronze Age," "Iron Age" do not convey any
idea of date to the great majority of people, it may be advisable to
mention that the Stone Age approximately terminated about 3000 B.C. upon
the Continent, and 1500 B.C. in the British Isles, when the Bronze Age
is supposed to have commenced. These dates are of course entirely
conjectural. The Iron Age commenced in Britain about 400 B.C.
The general idea of a cliff castle may be gathered from the foregoing
description of Trevalgue; there are many examples to be found in our
Islands, and similar ones occur in Brittany. That they are of ancient
British origin is suggested by the fact that they invariably occur in a
district where cromlechs, stone circles, menhirs, and other Celtic
remains are to be found.
_Treryn Castle_, about three miles from St. Buryan, contains the famous
Logan stone. The fort is a gigantic mass of granite, nearly 250 feet in
height, separated from the mainland by a triple row of formidable
entrenchments, still 4 or 5 yards in height. This fort is probably the
finest to be found in Cornwall.
At _St. David's Head_ is a cliff castle called _Clawll y Milwyr_, where
a small peninsula has been converted into a formidable fortress by the
erection of a great stone wall about 12 feet in thickness and still some
15 or more feet in height. The only method of approaching the enclosed
space is by a narrow entrance at the end of the wall. A fosse is
associated with the defence in question, and several other subsidiary
walls and fosses are found. Excavation has proved that the formation of
the castle occurred in the early Iron Age.
[Illustration: MAIDEN CASTLE, DORSETSHIRE.]
_Old Castle Head_, Manorbier, in Pembrokeshire, may be cited as a good
example of a cliff castle, and
_Dinas_, four miles from Fishguard, affords another, where a natural
crevasse has been carefully scarped in order to separate a headland from
the mainland. The examples given have been taken from South Wales and
the Cornish peninsula, where for obvious reasons less probability of
disturbance during later periods has occurred. Ideal spots like Portland
are to be found in the British Isles, but the operations of man in
quarrying, building, etc. have probably destroyed all traces of defences
erected by the primitive inhabitants.
_Clifton Camps_, three in number, lying on either side of the Avon,
afford us examples of cliff castles remote from the sea. The projecting
land jutting out into the loops of the winding river has in each case
been protected by lines of trenches.
It can hardly be supposed that cliff castles generally were continuously
occupied, because as a rule the area is limited, and could not afford
sustenance for flocks and herds. Neither do they boast the possession of
the indispensable well or spring in the majority of cases. Simplicity
in plan is their chief feature, and generally the fosse defending them
is single, rarely double, and practically never treble. They probably
afforded the last resort when hard pressed by the enemy; abandoning
flocks and herds and thinking only of life and limb, the refugees could
make a last stand within them, and, if fortune still proved adverse,
could lower themselves down the steep faces of the cliffs, and trust to
the mercy of the waters.
(_b_) Another class of fortresses falling under the same heading are
those which depended upon woods, marshes, rivers, and similar natural
defences for their efficiency.
The _Dyke Hills_ at Dorchester, in Oxfordshire, undoubtedly formed at
one time a safe haven of refuge, being almost surrounded by swamps
forming a most effective defence. At the present time, however, these
have disappeared owing to the general lowering of the water-level
throughout England, by drainage, locks, weirs, etc., and they
consequently give no indication of former efficiency. Two great fosses
may be traced reaching from the Thame to the Thames, thus cutting off a
piece of land and entirely defending it by means of water.
The _Isle of Avalon_, near Glastonbury, is essentially a peninsula,
rising from the midst of a marsh with a series of aggers and
accompanying dykes carried across the isthmus.
[Illustration: COMB MOSS, DERBYSHIRE.]
(_c_) _Plateau Forts._--_Comb Moss._ One of the finest examples of this
division is Comb Moss, which is situated near Chapel-en-le-Frith in the
vicinity of Derby, and at about 1600 feet above the level of the sea.
Its mission is so obvious that the name of "The Castle" is applied to
it locally. It is roughly triangular in shape, and upon two sides
precipitous slopes occur, which descend for nearly 500 feet and offer
magnificent protection. The third side leads out upon a fairly level
plateau, and here a double rampart and fosse has been made, completely
closing the entrance with the exception of a narrow portion at the
north-east side upon the very edge of the precipice, forming a most
dangerous entry and consequently could be easily defended by a small
number. There is an opening in the centre of the ramparts which is
probably of later date, conjecturally Roman. An ancient plan shows a
spring in the open space, but it does not appear at the present time. A
rough wall was constructed round the edges of the precipices to confine
sheep, but the original fortress was doubtless defended by a thick and
massive rampart, there being no lack of material for such a protection,
while the usual timber and stone breastwork would crown it.
CHAPTER II
FORTIFIED HILL-TOPS
This class of fortress is illustrated by numerous examples in the
British Isles, many of which possess a very high order of merit. Class
I. is generally found associated with coast line or rivers with
precipitous banks; Class II. deals almost entirely with inland
elevations which, while having some natural advantages in the way of
steep ground or other defences of an inaccessible character, rely
chiefly upon the artificial additions which have been made to the
natural ones. With such a wealth of illustration it is somewhat
difficult to select examples, but those described may perhaps be typical
of every variety to be found in the kingdom. These camps of the plateau
type were the commonest prevailing before the Norman Conquest, and for
every great fortress like Cissbury, Maiden Castle, Dolebury, or
Bradbury there were hundreds of smaller examples.
These latter were, as a rule, much more liable to destruction by the
plough, being slightly constructed and generally at no great elevation
above the mean level of the land; the farmer, ever in search of good
rich earth, turned with avidity to the great banks of loose soil placed
ready to hand, and hence the destruction of small camps has been
excessive. The great fortresses, with their steep scarps, have defied
the ploughman, and to this we may ascribe the excellent preservation
they generally present.
These contour forts are undoubtedly an advance upon the earlier
promontory type and show an adaptation to the requirements of advancing
civilisation, pointing to coalescence and centralisation of
hitherto-divided communities, the protection of a settled area, and the
guarding of trade-routes. Hence they indicate the presence of larger
numbers and the possession of greater wealth.
_Hembury Fort, Honiton._--This is by far the most wonderful example of
the class to be found in Devonshire. It stands at a height of nearly 900
feet above sea-level and encloses a space of approximately 8 acres in
extent. Double valla, and their accompanying fosses, surround the whole
camp, the crest of the inner vallum averaging from 50 to 60 feet above
the bed of its fosse. To these formidable defences a third vallum has
been added, surrounding it upon every side except the east where it was
deemed unnecessary. It is prehistoric and probably British, but up to
the present time has not been excavated.
_Ham Hill_ in the south-east part of Somersetshire is a high mass of
rock standing detached from the neighbouring hills. The wonderful
trenches, too numerous to mention in detail, show a very high order of
military skill in fortification, and this is the more remarkable when we
discover that Neolithic man was probably answerable for their
construction, although the fort has been subsequently occupied by men of
the Bronze Age, and also by the Romans.
_South Cadbury_ lies five miles north of Sherborne. It is a huge and
extremely formidable fortress standing at a height of over 500 feet
above sea-level, and possessing no less than four lines of massive
ramparts, steeply scarped, some of them even penetrating into the hard
oolitic rock. There are two entrances into the large space enclosed by
the ramparts, and in each case protective mounds have been erected
defending them.
[Illustration: MAIDEN CASTLE, WEST ENTRANCE.]
_Maiden Castle_, about two miles from Dorchester (Dorset), easily holds
the premier place among the fortified camps of Great Britain, not only
on account of its vast extent and the cyclopean character of its works,
but also by reason of the marvellous military ingenuity displayed in its
construction. Our general conception of the intellectual calibre of
primitive man forcibly undergoes an alteration when contemplating the
colossal schemes which his brain was capable of producing and his hand
had the power of carrying into effect.
[Illustration: PEVENSEY CASTLE, SUSSEX.]
[Illustration: MAIDEN CASTLE, EAST ENTRANCE.]
The area enclosed is no less than 45 acres, while the whole fort
occupies a space of 115 acres. The circumference of this vast work
measures one and a half miles, and three enormous valla and fosses
stretch this distance; in many places the crest of a vallum above the
fosse beneath it amounts to 60 feet. But perhaps our chief admiration is
evoked by the complex arrangement, by means of which the two entrances
into the fort are protected. A glance at the plans illustrating these
will at once show that fortified mounds and bastions of the most
complicated forms are placed so as to impede the progress of stormers,
and there can be no doubt that every means of protection known at the
time were interposed between them and the besieged.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.
STOCKADE OF STONE AND RUBBLE, WITH PALISADE OF WOOD.]
And here perhaps we may mention that the defences of an ancient
earthwork can hardly be judged adequately at the present time without
imagining the subsidiary structures which once crowned the works. These
auxiliary aids cannot with certainty be described, because of the
perishable character which generally signalised them, and the very
meagre references which occur in the most ancient of our writers. It is
generally accepted by authorities upon the subject that some stockade or
other defence was invariably added to the summit of a rampart, and that
this depended in character upon the nature of the country. In districts
where stone was abundant, uncemented walls of large blocks were erected,
generally with battering surfaces, the hollow portion between the two
faces being filled up with earth or rubble as in Fig. 1. More primitive
still would be the single wall with a bank of retaining earth behind it
for support (Fig. 2), while more complicated would be one strengthened
by a central core of masonry (Fig. 3). Remains of these walls have been
found in various places still _in situ_. It is quite possible that a
palisade of sharpened stakes or of wattle surmounted these stone walls,
thus still further adding to their efficiency. In a "soft" country,
where only earth or chalk is available, timber would naturally take the
place of stone. The Gallic defences of this nature, which gave so much
trouble to Caesar's legions, appear to have been made of tree-trunks
lying side by side upon the ground with the second course of trunks
superposed at right angles, the whole of the interstices being filled
with stones and earth tightly rammed (Fig. 4). It will readily be
perceived that a rampart constructed of alternate courses similar to
this, and approximately 10 feet in thickness and of considerable height,
would be quite impervious to the missile weapons of the period, and
indestructible by fire, even if the assailants succeeded in filling up
the deep vallum below the base of the wall with combustible materials.
Whether this method of the utilisation of timber for barricades was
ever introduced into the British Isles for strengthening valla we have
no means of ascertaining, owing to the perishable nature of the defence,
but considering that the ancient Britons were of undoubted Celtic
origin, we are perhaps justified in assuming it. On the other hand, a
row of thick vertical planks driven deeply into the soil and placed
closely together upon the summit of a rampart would prove a very
formidable obstacle after surmounting 60 feet of steep escarpment under
a hail of missiles. The small mounds so often placed as defences near
the entrances of fortified hill-tops were clearly intended for a ring of
palisades upon their summits, and isolated bastions similarly placed
were doubtless treated in the same manner.
[Illustration: FIG. 2.
SIMPLE STOCKADE OF STONE AND EARTH, RETAINED BY WOODEN STAKES.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3.
STONE STOCKADE, WITH INNER CORE OF MASONRY.]
[Illustration: FIG. 4.
WOODEN PALISADE OF TREE-TRUNKS, STRENGTHENED WITH EARTH.]
There are no less than five lines of defence upon the south and
south-east of Maiden Castle, and a feature of the work is the large
amount of room provided upon the summits of the valla to afford
accommodation for great bodies of defenders to stand and use their
weapons.
_Badbury Rings_, four miles N.W. of Wimborne.--This may be classed among
the greater hill fortresses inasmuch as it encloses a space of 18 acres
and is furnished with three valla and their accompanying ditches. The
scarps are in places very steep and 40 feet above the fosses. The
eastern entrance is reminiscent of Maiden Castle, a bastion-like
obstruction being thrown forward to obstruct ingress, while the great
area of standing-room provided for the defenders may be looked upon as
characteristic of west country forts as it is repeated in a number of
others--Cadbury Castle, near Tiverton, and Shoulsbury on Exmoor, for
examples. In the outer area a mound occurs, and ponds also have been
formed within the fort. Investigations have brought Celtic antiquities
to light and also proved its occupation by the Romans. It affords a
magnificent prospect from the summit. In historic times it has been
utilised, as in A.D. 901 Æthelwald the Ætheling mustered his men there
after Alfred's death, upon the occasion of a popular rising.
[Illustration: BADBURY RINGS, DORSET.]
_Cadbury Castle._--This is a good example of a contour fort crowning an
isolated hill 800 feet in height. Upon three sides are formidable
natural precipices, and the ramparts enclose an oval inner space, which
is approximately level. The valla are continuous except upon the south,
where a scarped drop occurs of about 30 feet to the level of a wide
berm, on the outside of which a gigantic rampart rises to the height of
more than 20 feet above the berm.
[Illustration: THE BERM OF CADBURY CASTLE.]
_Cissbury_, north of Worthing.--This great fortress was constructed by
men of the Flint Age, and indubitable proofs of its occupancy by a
permanent population engaged in a staple trade are afforded by the
immense remains of flint chippings within its area, the product of many
generations of flint-knappers. The deep and wide pits within it were dug
for the purpose of obtaining flints, the raw material of their industry,
and these excavations were subsequently utilised for dwelling-places.
The fort is advantageously situated upon the trading route between the
inhabitants of the Great Forest of Anderida, covering the Weald of
Sussex, and the maritime population of the southern littoral; and this
fact appealed not only to Neolithic man but also the men of the
Bronze and Iron Ages, who occupied it in succession. It is a camp of the
plateau type with an inner vallum rising nearly 50 feet above the fosse
and 20 above the inner area. General Pitt Rivers estimated that 5000 men
would be required to man the ramparts effectually.
[Illustration: THE BEAUCHAMP TOWER, TOWER OF LONDON.]
_Ravensburgh Castle, Hexton, Herts._--The northern escarpment of the
Chiltern Hills is marked by numerous deep ravines leading down with
winding courses to the lowlands. This has the effect of leaving bold
bluffs of chalk standing up between them, and upon one of these this
remarkably fine hill fortress is placed. In addition to the two ravines
lying at the sides it is still further isolated by a third running at
right angles between the others. The castle occupies 16 acres of the
western half of this plateau, and possesses double ramparts on three
sides and triple on the north. The section AB shows the steep descent
into the ravine upon the south side, and DE indicates the same, while
clearly showing the three lines of defence formed by the two ditches.
The scarps are remarkable for their clean and smooth surfaces, the chalk
presenting the appearance of having been cut with a huge knife. The
entrances into the defence lie at nearly 500 feet above the sea-level.
[Illustration: RAVENSBURGH CASTLE, HEXTON, HERTS.]
One of the most prominent examples of the class is _Mam Tor_, a great
hill rising to a height of 1700 feet above sea-level, and dominating
Castleton and Edale, Derbyshire. Upon the summit of this eminence is a
remarkable earthwork enclosing about 16 acres of land, round which the
original rampart must have been nearly three-quarters of a mile in
length. Natural defences of a very marked character are upon two sides
of the triangular enclosure, consisting of steep slopes which descend
for a considerable distance. Upon the summit of these slopes two
formidable ramparts with an accompanying fosse have been constructed,
thus adding still further to an almost unassailable position. The
agricultural inhabitants of the district often term it "The Shivering
Mountain" from the many little avalanches of shale which are dislodged
from its sides. Upon the northern part the natural defences are not so
apparent, as the ridge of an adjoining hill approaches at that point. An
entrance to the Fort occurs there at the present time, as shown in the
plan, but not in its primitive condition. The only method of entering
was by means of the narrow passage shown at the S.W., defended by a
fortified mound at its inner mouth, which in turn was defended by a
larger mound lying to the N.W. A small spring of water still rises
within the enclosure and escapes through the N.W. break. The interior
has not been levelled, and a central spine of rock traverses it from
north to south. Undoubtedly Mam Tor furnishes us with one of the finest
examples of a fortified hilltop to be found in England.
[Illustration: MAM TOR, DERBYSHIRE.]
The following are a few instances of artificial defences which, although
they stand upon higher ground than the surrounding land, are less
dependent upon their elevated position.
_Ambresbury Banks, Essex._--These banks are situated in Epping Forest,
at the side of the road between Epping and London. They are of British
origin, as has been definitely proved by excavations carried out by
General Pitt Rivers and the Essex Field Club, thus definitely disproving
the assertion previously prevailing of their supposed Roman origin. The
outline approaches a square form, and this probably gave rise to the
supposition. Only a few pieces of crude pottery and some flint chippings
came to light during the excavations. A feature, however, was disclosed
in the fosse, the lower part of which was originally of an angular
section; in it a depth of silt approximating to 7 feet had accumulated.
The scarp was inclined at an angle of 45°, and the counterscarp probably
rose at almost the same angle; the width of the fosse was over 20 feet,
and the depth above half that measurement.
[Illustration: HUNSBURY, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.]
_Hunsbury, Northamptonshire._--This earthwork is about one and a half
miles from Northampton, and may be cited as an example which falls
naturally into this subdivision, inasmuch as the hill upon which it
stands possesses such an easy slope that it does not tend to help to any
marked extent the formidable defences upon the summit. These lie nearly
200 feet above the river Nen, and 370 feet above sea-level. It is a
small enclosure, the single fosse of which is well preserved with the
exception of a portion upon the north, which has been quarried for
iron-stone, much in demand in that district. The defences were
undoubtedly of great power originally, but have been much degraded; the
interior of the camp has been ploughed, and the earthworks planted with
trees. The original opening is that lying to the S.E. The name upon the
Ordnance Survey is "Danes Camp," though upon what authority is not
apparent. Camps of a very similar nature may be found at Ring Hill in
Essex, and Badbury in Berks, while Whelpley Hill in Buckinghamshire is
almost an exact replica.
[Illustration: YARNBURY, WILTS.]
_Yarnbury_ lies about three miles to the west of Winterbourne Stoke in
Wiltshire and is allocated to this division, being one of the largest
and best of its kind. The area enclosed is about 20 acres, encircled by
three valla and two or three ditches. The inner rampart rises at times
to over 50 feet above the fosse. There are a number of entrances, but
only those to the east and west are original, each being defended with
outworks, the eastern gate by bastions similar to those at Maiden Castle
and Badbury Rings.
[Illustration: CORFE CASTLE, DORSETSHIRE.]
CHAPTER III
SIMPLE ARTIFICIAL ENCLOSURES
(_a_) _The Romano-British Period, 54 B.C.-A.D. 410_
The earthworks under consideration are those which, rectangular or
otherwise, were constructed during the historic period commencing with
the Roman subjugation of Great Britain, and ending a few years before
the Norman Conquest. It may be termed the Romano-British-Saxon Period.
It was the incipient era of castellation proper in the British Isles,
distinct from pure earthworks, inasmuch as during the Roman period
massive defences of masonry supplanted the earlier uncemented walls and
wooden palisading.
At the first invasion of Caesar, 55 B.C., we read of no towns being
assaulted, but in the next, 54 B.C., the great _oppidum_ of
Cassivelaunus was taken by storm after the passage of the Thames. This
capital, Verulamium (adjacent to the modern St. Albans), was a large
oval enclosure defended upon three sides by a deep fosse and vallum, in
one place doubled, and upon the other by an impassable marsh. The city
was attacked in two places and captured. In A.D. 43 the final
subjugation of England took place, and the vallum at Verulamium was
crowned by the Romans with a massive wall of masonry, great portions of
which still remain, supplanting the former wooden obstructions.
That which occurred at Verulamium happened also in numerous other
places, Silchester for example, the Romans thus adapting an efficient
earthwork to suit their own requirements. Where, however, pre-existing
works did not occur, the walls, ramparts, and fosses were invariably
constructed round a rectangular area such as may be seen at Chester. The
enclosed streets crossed each other at right angles, and this feature is
a marked one in Verulamium, although, as stated, the defences do not
conform to the rectangular shape. Isolated earthworks constructed during
the Roman Period are always more or less square.
[Illustration: MELANDRA, DERBYSHIRE.]
_Melandra_ is a Roman earthwork in a good state of preservation near
Glossop in Derbyshire. It is almost square, and consists of a simple
vallum and external fosse. There are four openings caused by two main
roads which intersected at the centre of the earthwork. It affords an
example of the prevailing structure of Roman Camps, which are numerous
in those parts of the British Isles which owned the sway of the
conquerors. The many camps, for example, upon the Watling Street all
exhibit the same general plan, based upon the formation of the Roman
legion.
_Richborough Castle_, near Sandwich in Kent, may be cited as a veritable
example of a Roman castle built in Britain, and is almost the only one
remaining at the present day that preserves in any marked degree its
original salient points. It is conjectured to have been erected in the
time of the Emperor Severus, its mission being to protect the southern
mouth of the great waterway which then separated the island of Thanet
from the mainland, a similar office being performed by Reculvers at the
northern entry. Three sides of the rectangle are still protected by the
massive masonry walls which the Romans knew so well how to build; the
fourth, or eastern side, where flowed the river Stour, possesses no
visible defence, as it has been undermined and overthrown by the
river-current. The northern boundary is 440 feet long, and the western
460. The walls, which vary in height from 12 to 30 feet, are about 12
feet thick and batter towards the top; they are beautifully faced with
squared stone in horizontal courses similar to those seen at Segontium,
the Roman station at Carnarvon; the core is composed of boulders from
the neighbouring beach, embedded in mortar with courses of the usual
Roman bonding tiles. In the centre of the area stood a temple and other
buildings; the foundations of some of these are still in evidence.
Whether the external walls were strengthened by the addition of square
or circular towers of masonry, as at Porchester and Silchester, has not
as yet been definitely determined.
[Illustration: SECTION OF THE CITY DEFENCES OF VERULAMIUM (NEAR ST.
ALBANS).]
A common device in Roman castrametation was the berm or platform outside
the surrounding wall, but immediately beneath it; in an attack upon the
fortifications the assailants would be exposed to a plunging fire of
missiles from the ramparts while descending the steep counterscarp of
the ditch, to a raking discharge when ascending the slope of the scarp,
and be entirely devoid of cover when crossing the berm, which was
generally about 20 feet wide. Another advantage of the berm was that it
placed the engines of the besiegers on the remote side of the ditch at
a greater distance from the walls, and thereby lessened the effect of
the missiles discharged from them. To still further modify the results
of the latter upon the wall it was customary to bank up the earth upon
the inner face to form a ramp, and this also lessened the effects of the
rams of the besiegers. These features are shown in the foregoing
diagrammatic section of the walls of Verulamium.
(_b_) _The Saxon Period, c. 410-1066_
Concerning the defensive works erected in the British Isles during the
Saxon Period there is more indefiniteness prevailing at the time of
writing than there is with regard to any period antecedent or consequent
to it. This may be attributed to two causes, the first being the
unsatisfactory use of the word _burh_ in Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, and
the second the effects produced during the past half-century by writers
wrongly attributing the remains of early Norman castellation to the
period preceding it, following upon a misunderstanding of the word above
mentioned. This has had the result of rendering the major portion of
the works produced upon the subject of castellation during the latter
half of the nineteenth century unreliable and obsolete so far as the
Saxon and Roman periods are concerned, while at the same time producing
a marked hesitancy among experts to definitely attribute any work to the
first of the periods without systematic excavation of the site.
In O.E. the word _burh_ in its nominative form signifies a fort or
stronghold and is generally translated as "borough," while in its dative
form _byrig_ it is commonly used to indicate what its modern
representative "bury" conveys. But Anglo-Saxon writers did not use the
two words strictly, and thus hesitancy and confusion have been produced.
It is now being generally accepted that the usual form of burh or
borough was that of a rectangular enclosure surrounded by a rampart and
an external ditch, the area being of any dimensions up to 20 or 30 acres
or more. This arrangement is probably exemplified in the earthworks at
Wallingford.
It is obvious that the inherent weakness in this very elementary system
of defence lies in the inability to adequately man all the ramparts at
once because of their great extent; the defenders probably relied upon
the promptness with which they could meet a threatened attack at any
particular point. The Anglo-Saxons at a very early period recognised the
advisability of forming fortified positions in the island, and carried
out the system so entirely that practically every isolated house, farm,
or group of buildings was enclosed by its rampart and ditch. Even at the
present day we become aware of this fact from the scores of "burys" and
"boroughs" with which the surface of our land abounds. The burh was thus
a comparatively slight affair when compared with earthworks which had
preceded it.
But undoubtedly the great centres of defensive strength lay in those
towns which the Romans had formerly fortified, and the inclusion of
their masonry walls in the borough boundary immensely augmented their
efficiency, as is exemplified at York, Lincoln, and Chester. Around
villages and farmsteads the defences probably consisted of a ditch, a
vallum surmounted by a turf wall, a palisading of thick stakes, or even
a hedge. That the latter was a mode of defence in the earlier part of
the Saxon Period is proved by an insertion in the Old English Chronicle
under the year 547--where Ida of Northumbria is said to have built
_Bebban burh_, _i.e._ Bamborough,--that it was first enclosed with a
hedge, and subsequently with a stone wall. Illuminations in Saxon MSS.
representing fortified towns invariably depict stone walls with
battlements; but, again, it may be that these are Roman, and crenellated
walls are extremely ancient, being represented upon the Nineveh marbles.
In the illustration from the Caedmon MS. given here true battlements are
depicted by the Saxon artist, while a similar attempt has also been made
in Harl. MS. 603--a battlemented parapet being evidently intended.
[Illustration: BATTLEMENTED PARAPET SHOWN IN CAEDMON'S PARAPHRASE; MS.
IN BODLEIAN LIBRARY.]
[Illustration: BATTLEMENTS SHOWN IN HARL. MS. 603. (An Anglo-Saxon MS.
of the Psalms.)]
Ida "wrought a burh" at Taunton (before 721), and Alfred built many
burhs against the Danes. His son, Edward the Elder, and Ethelfleda, the
Lady of the Mercians, were yet more energetic in raising these defences.
To Edward the burh at Witham, now unfortunately in process of
demolition, and also that at Maldon are attributed, while Ethelfleda was
responsible for those at Stafford and Tamworth in 913, and at Warwick in
914. In the absence of rebutting evidence we are undoubtedly justified
in assuming that these burhs were simply replicas of the conjectured
method of fortification pursued by the Saxons; the belief is
strengthened by the remains at Maldon and Witham, where wide rectangular
enclosures are found surrounded by earthen ramparts and external fosses.
A difficulty, however, arises when we consider the two burhs erected at
Nottingham. No rectangular enclosures have been discovered there, and it
seems probable that the word simply signifies that two forts were
erected to protect the bridge which passed over the Trent at this point,
similar perhaps to the mounds of earth at Bakewell and Towcester, which
are supposed to date from the same period.
The genius of the Saxons appears to have been adapted to field warfare
rather than to the construction or maintenance of strong military
stations, for we find that when defeated they took refuge in natural
fastnesses rather than in fortresses; the woods and marshes of Somerset,
for example, protected Alfred from the pursuit by the Danes, and the
last stand of these people against the Normans occurred in the fens and
marshes about Ely. There is no account extant of a protracted resistance
afforded by a Saxon fortress; that of London against the Danes may be
attributed to the massive Roman walls there.
It is unsatisfactory to be compelled to wander thus in the realms of
conjecture, but it is probable that the kinds of defence varied in
different places, since at Worcester Edward surrounded an ancient
borough with a wall of stone. An oblique light, however, is thrown upon
the subject by the presence in England of a few undoubted examples of
fortifications erected at definite dates by another northern race,
_i.e._ the Danes, who might be expected to fortify themselves somewhat
similarly to the Saxons.
[Illustration: THE DANISH BURH AT GANNOCK'S CASTLE, NEAR TEMPSFORD.]
These marauders built burhs at Reading, Quatford on the Severn, and
Benfleet, but by far the best now remaining are those at Willington and
Tempsford on the river Ouse. At Willington the Danes proposed to
establish their winter quarters in 921, and an extensive burh was thrown
up for the purpose. It consisted of a large enclosure with inner and
outer wards, high ramparts, and three wide ditches filled with water
from the river. The most striking features, perhaps, were the two large
harbours within the fortifications, designed to protect the Danish
galleys. The Saxon king Edward, however, carried the place by assault
and burnt the fleet. The discomfited Danes, much lessened in numbers,
retreated up the river, and near the junction of the Ivel with the main
stream threw up a smaller burh which now bears the name of Gannock's
Castle, near Tempsford. The fort is an oblong area enclosed within a
single fosse, and, what is very significant in face of later
developments, a mound of earth stands within it near a corner, where the
only entrance to the fort is found. Probably this mound was protected by
palisades the same as the rampart, but Edward, flushed by his former
success, stormed the burh and captured it with terrible loss to the
routed garrison.
[Illustration: PEVENSEY CASTLE.]
_Pevensey._--Pevensey Castle is associated with the earliest history of
Britain. Upon its site stood the Roman Camp of Anderida, oval in shape,
and obviously adapted to surface configuration. It is the reputed site
of the landing of Caesar. The British occupied it when the Romans left,
and here occurred the great massacre by the South Saxons under Ella in
477. In 1066 William I. landed at Pevensey and erected one of his
portable wooden castles, probably within the Roman Camp. The Castle
came to his half-brother Robert, Earl of Mortaign, who considerably
strengthened the existing remains. The supposition that he erected a
Motte and Bailey castle seems to be negatived by recent investigations.
The Castle was held by Bishop Odo against the forces of Rufus for six
weeks in 1088, but was surrendered, Odo promising to give up Rochester,
which promise he subsequently violated. King Stephen besieged it in
person in the war with the Empress Maud, when it was defended by
Gilbert, Earl of Clare, and only surrendered through famine. It came to
the Crown during the thirteenth century, and John of Gaunt appointed the
Pelham family to be castellans. In 1399, Sir John of that name, an
adherent of Bolingbroke, was absent when the Castle was besieged by the
king's forces, but his wife, the Lady Jane, conducted an historical
defence with such gallantry that the assailants retired. Pevensey
appears to have been used as a State prison, and within it many notable
persons have been incarcerated, including Edward Duke of York, James I.
of Scotland, and Joan of Navarre, second queen of Henry IV.
A large proportion of the Roman wall surrounding the oval site is still
in excellent preservation; it is strengthened by fifteen drum towers of
great solidity. The height ranges between 20 and 30 feet, and upon the
summits may still be perceived some of the strengthening Norman masonry.
The inner castle is a remarkable feature of the enclosure; it is
supposed to have been erected at the end of the thirteenth century, and
one of the towers dates from the time of Edward II. It forms an
irregular pentagon, each angle being strengthened by a massive drum
tower; two semicircular towers flank the entrance, of which one only
remains in good condition. The masonry of the drawbridge is still to be
seen, and the entrance passage with portcullis grooves and meurtrière
openings are in good condition. The great Roman wall has been utilised
to form portions of the eastern and southern sides, but this suffered in
the time of Elizabeth, when a part of it was blown up by gunpowder.
CHAPTER IV
THE MOTTE AND BAILEY CASTLE, _c._ 1066-_c._ 1100
As is well known to students of English history the Norman influence
began to prevail in this country some time anterior to 1066. The court
of Edward the Confessor owned a fairly large proportion of Normans, the
sympathies of that monarch being strongly in their favour. They obtained
from him grants of estates in return for feudal duties, and, the Welsh
being at that time a source of annoyance, some of the land so allocated
was situated on the borderland.
[Illustration: THE TOWER OF LONDON.]
So far as is known, the earliest castle to be erected by a Norman in
that locality was built by Richard Fitz-Scrob, _c._ 1050. _Richard's
Castle_, as it is termed, stands in the northern part of Herefordshire;
a second example was thrown up at Hereford, and a third at the southern
entrance to the Golden Valley. If we may trust contemporary documents
a similar work was erected about the same time at Clavering Castle in
Essex by a Saxon native of the county, Swegen the Sheriff, and also,
probably, the castle at Dover, which appears to have been in existence
prior to the Battle of Hastings. Of this little group of pre-Conquest
castles the strongest was conjecturally that at Hereford, erected in
1055 by Harold, Earl of the West Saxons, consisting of a Motte and
Bailey similar to the rest, but only a small portion of the bailey
remains at the present time, as the mound has been removed and the ditch
filled up.
As regards the construction of a castle of the Motte and Bailey type, it
was commenced by the excavation of a deep ditch enclosing, as a rule, a
circular space. There are a few exceptions which approximate to the
oval, and the oblong form is not unknown. The whole of the ballast
excavated was thrown up inside the ring until a high mound, flattened at
the top, and with sides as steep as the "angle of repose" of the
excavated material would allow, had been formed. The last portions of
the superincumbent earth thrown up were consolidated by ramming. Around
the edge of the area upon the summit of the mound a breastwork of
timber was placed, either of thick vertical planks driven deeply into
the soil and firmly strengthened behind, or of timber and stone as
previously described in connection with fortified hill-tops (Chap. II.).
Upon the summit and occupying the centre, as a rule, a wooden castle was
erected known as the "bretasche," and varying in size and accommodation
according to the available space. We may safely infer that the height of
the bretasche was not less than two stories, and this, added to the
elevation of the mound which occasionally reached to 60 feet, would
afford a coign of vantage for a view over the whole area below. Upon the
outer edge of the fosse a vallum occurs in many examples, thus still
further adding to the depth of the defence and giving increased height
to the counterscarp; it also afforded a means for erecting a palisading
of stakes if advisable. To afford ingress and egress to the fort a
narrow flying bridge of wood was erected reaching from the top of the
mound to the outer edge of the fosse.
[Illustration: CLIFFORD'S CASTLE, NORTHANTS.]
Such was the method of construction of the simplest form of this type,
of which Bures Mount in Essex, The Mount, Caerleon, and Clifford's
Castle, Northamptonshire, are examples; but it is extremely questionable
even if these cited cases were made without an accompanying bailey,
although no traces can now be discerned. The accommodation would be so
extremely limited, and the danger of starvation to the garrison so
imminent, seeing that no room could be afforded for any cattle or sheep
upon the motte, that, unless intended to be of a temporary nature or
hastily raised in an emergency, we are justified in assuming that these
forts, of which not very many occur, are in an incomplete condition.
_Clifford's Castle_, at Little Houghton, three miles east of
Northampton, is an example of the Motte and Fosse; it is one of those
defending the valley of the river Nen--Earl's Barton and Wollaston being
similar companion defences. The hill is of large circumference,
presenting imposing proportions, and may be compared with important
works like those at Ongar and Pleshey in Essex, or with Thetford in
Norfolk. It rises to a height of over 50 feet above its surroundings,
and lies upon part of a small natural ridge. A ditch surrounds the base,
the ballast from which was taken to the top of the hill in order to
increase the height; the summit there, however, is level. In order to
increase the efficiency of the fosse it was converted into a moat, water
being admitted from the adjacent river. At the present time no traces
whatever of a bailey are discernible, nor of any enclosure with masonry
walls. This does not prove that these additions have never existed; the
natural place for them would be upon the eastern side where high ground
is situated, and if they have been built at any period they would
present features similar to those at Thurnham in Kent. The summit of the
mound would in that case be reached by a flying bridge of wood.
The Bailey, or base court, was an enclosed piece of land lying at the
foot of the motte; a ditch surrounded it, the ballast from which was
thrown up inside the area so as to make a rampart for palisading. The
two ends of the ditch joined the fosse encircling the motte, generally
upon opposite sides of the latter. In the bailey the buildings for the
garrison, stables, offices and domestic buildings were erected, while
the bretasche afforded accommodation for the lord of the castle, his
family, and immediate attendants. In those cases where a second bailey
occurs it is generally extended beyond the first on the face remote from
the motte, as at Ongar Castle, Essex; but sometimes, though more rarely,
both baileys will abut upon the mound, as at Newton in Montgomeryshire,
while in a limited group of castles, including Windsor and Arundel, the
motte occupies the centre of the whole defence.
It is not difficult to understand the almost universal rule that the
mound is placed upon the outer edge of the enceinte; it was without
doubt the strongest part of the position, and the refuge to which the
besieged retreated when the bailey, or baileys, had been lost, and in
the last extremity it afforded a means for escaping to the open country.
This disposition of the mound with regard to the bailey should be borne
in mind when dealing with those castles which have been erected in later
times upon a pre-existing Motte and Bailey fortress, the mound, as a
rule, with its accompanying enclosures serving as a nucleus around which
masonry defences could be grouped.
Through the agency of the plough, and aerial forces of degradation of
various kinds, baileys present but scanty traces at the present day in
many instances, and this may be taken as proof, if any were needed, that
earth and wood were the only kinds of material employed during the early
Norman period in the construction of forts. No traces of stone have been
discovered which can be assigned to that period with absolute
certainty, and not only does this well-established fact corroborate the
assertion, but documentary evidence points in the same direction.
It is quite possible that other Motte and Bailey castles besides the few
enumerated may eventually be ascribed to the fifteen or twenty years
preceding the Norman invasion, for there was nothing to prevent a
wealthy Thegn from erecting one of this type which he may have observed
on the Continent where many scores were in existence. The Bayeaux
tapestry shows Dinant as being defended by a Motte and Bailey castle;
the usual wooden tower is seen upon the top of the mound, and the
enclosed bailey is stockaded. It also shows the construction of such a
castle at Hastings, besides four similar examples in Brittany and
Normandy.
Certain it is that almost immediately after 1066 a rapid construction of
these fortified posts occurred in many parts of England and Wales, not
necessarily equally distributed, but more thickly dotted in those places
which the military instinct of the great Conqueror led him to deem
desirable. Thus the Welsh borderland is remarkably rich in examples,
Herefordshire alone containing thirty-two, as compared with
Leicestershire four, Nottinghamshire five, and Hertfordshire four. It is
remarkable, however, that many highly developed examples of this class
are to be found in the eastern counties where no borderland existed, and
we can only account for this anomaly by supposing that a Norman lord, to
whom a grant of land had been assigned in recognition of his military
services, hastened to consolidate his occupancy by the erection of a
castle, and that such building might possibly not have any reference to
the defence of the kingdom as a whole.
Thus the castle became the accredited centre of a feudal barony, and a
Motte and Bailey in almost every case is connected with places mentioned
in the Domesday Book as being the residence of a Norman landowner. For
example, Berkhampstead, owned by Robert Count of Mortaign, boasts one of
the most perfect specimens to be found in the country; the manors of
Nigel de Albini at Cainhoe in Bedfordshire, Robert de Malet at Eye in
Suffolk, William Fitz-Ansculf at Dudley in Staffordshire, Geoffrey
Alselin at Laxton in Nottinghamshire, William de Mohun at Dunster in
Somersetshire, Robert le Marmion at Tamworth in Staffordshire, Robert
Todenei at Belvoir in Leicestershire, Henry de Ferrers at Tutbury in
Staffordshire, Roger de Busli of Tickhill in the West Riding, and Ilbert
de Lacy at Pontefract in Yorkshire, all exhibit the same feature.
These castles in many cases became the centre around which sprang up the
dwellings of traders and agriculturists which subsequently developed
into boroughs, while in not a few instances ecclesiastical settlements
occurred which finally expanded into stately monasteries.
Again, many barons threw up castles in the centre of, or adjacent to,
pre-existing towns, the subsequent fortifications of which became an
integral part of the whole scheme of defence, as at Warwick, Nottingham,
and Leicester. Wherever a castle was built for the double purpose of
overawing a town and defending it against a common enemy, it is
generally found placed upon the city defences or immediately adjacent
thereto; and as the settlement had invariably originally sprung up in
the vicinity of, or upon the banks of, a river, the fort is usually
found placed at the junction where the borough and the river defences
meet. A fortress situated in this position would be able to afford
material help to a relieving army, while at the same time in the event
of the town being captured and given to the flames it would occupy the
best possible position, short of being entirely outside the walls, for
the garrison to escape the effects of the conflagration. This position
of the castle with respect to the town walls and other defences will be
recognised in the cases of Warwick, Hereford, Stamford, Cambridge,
Bedford, Chester, Shrewsbury, etc.
[Illustration: KENILWORTH CASTLE, WARWICKSHIRE.]
The Motte and Bailey castle was, as a general rule, placed upon the
banks of a river, which thus ensured immunity from attack upon one side,
while at the same time supplying the water for the ditches defending the
other three sides. In many examples, however, the defence depended upon
dry ditches. The proximity of high land apparently had no bearing upon
the choice of position, unless of course it was dangerously near; it was
only upon the introduction of gunpowder that the presence of commanding
spots in the neighbourhood became of importance in the selection of a
site. We find, however, that the positions usually chosen enabled the
garrison to command a view over the surrounding country, and this
feature is a prominent one at Richard's Castle, which affords a wide
extent over the northern part of Herefordshire. This is also the case at
Belvoir, which occupies a similar position with respect to the great
plain of Nottinghamshire. There were naturally a number of points which
had to be taken into consideration in the selection of a site, but those
enumerated were among the most important; one fact is forcibly borne in
upon the mind when viewing the positions of these ancient fortresses,
namely, that the builders had a keen eye for the recognition of salient
points in the ichnography of a district.
In an invasion of the British Isles at the present day the unwelcome
intruder would probably hasten to entrench himself and render his
position safe by pits, earthworks, and an elaborate entanglement of
barbed wire; and in the same manner as these could be rapidly prepared,
so we find that the Conqueror, directly after Hastings, threw up the
defence which would be the most expeditious in the making and the
cheapest in construction. The Motte and Bailey castle fulfilled both
conditions inasmuch as it was only necessary to obtain, by fair means
or otherwise, an adequate number of Saxon labourers to ensure the rapid
erection of the mound, while simultaneously the local trees were being
felled and roughly hewn into shape by native carpenters for the
palisades and bretasche. To give an idea of the speed with which these
fortresses could be made, we find that in a brief campaign of less than
two months, in 1068, the king founded eight of considerable importance,
including those at Nottingham, Warwick, Lincoln, Huntingdon, and York;
in the following year the erection of a second castle at York only
occupied eight days, and Baile Hill, the mount of the defence in
question, sufficiently testifies to the magnitude of the work. One great
advantage of the system should not be forgotten, namely, the possibility
of adequate defence by a small garrison because of the narrow front
exposed to an attack, and the immunity from harm of the besieged while
the defences stood intact.
_Windsor._--The Royal Castle of Windsor originated in one of the Motte
and Bailey type erected by the Conqueror upon the striking eminence near
the Thames. It was one of those that were hastily thrown up in order to
consolidate his power, as it is mentioned as early as 1070, and in
Domesday Book in 1086. It is one of a small and exclusive type by reason
of the dominating motte occupying the centre of the enclosure instead of
the usual position at the side or end; this peculiarity is shared by
Arundel, Nottingham, and one or two others. It is quite reasonable to
infer, however, that one, or even both, of the baileys were added at
some time subsequent to the throwing up of the mound. It was
sufficiently advanced in strength in 1095 to be the prison of de
Mowbray, Earl of Northumberland, and the extensive additions made by
Henry I. enabled the Court to be held there in 1110. John seized on
Windsor during the absence of his brother, but was besieged in it by the
loyal barons, and forced to surrender. Windsor has been stated as the
place of imprisonment of the de Braose family in 1210, who were
deliberately starved to death by the inhuman John. In the reign of Henry
III. very extensive building operations occurred, and a number of
towers, including the Barbican, were added, but probably Edward III.
left a greater mark upon the castle than any monarch preceding him,
possibly by reason of a natural affection for his birthplace.
Upon the great motte which his Norman ancestors had reared he built that
magnificent Shell Keep which forms such a fitting centre for the grand
range of buildings encircling it. The works commenced about 1348 and
lasted for twenty years, the celebrated William of Wykeham, subsequently
Bishop of Winchester, being the architect. They included the whole of
the walls of the enceinte, the great Hall, various lodgings for
officials, and St. George's Chapel.
In 1347 two notable prisoners were confined here, David Bruce and John,
king of France. In the reign of Richard II. St. George's Chapel was
found to be in an insecure condition, and Geoffrey Chaucer was appointed
Clerk of the Works. Windsor was the scene of the imprisonment of the
Scottish king James I. under Henry IV. and V.
Edward IV. commenced the re-building of St. George's Chapel, which was
not completed until the reign of Henry VIII., while to the latter
monarch is due the great gateway which bears his name. The Castle
suffered but little structurally during the Civil War, but all the plate
and many of the priceless relics were the objects of plunder. Charles
II., William III., and Anne probably did more to destroy this gorgeous
monument of antiquity than any preceding monarchs; with the idea of
adapting it to modern requirements buildings were dismantled, old
landmarks were removed, and trashy innovations of an unworthy age
substituted in their place. There are but few marks of commendation
attached to the name of George IV., but among them the restoration of
the Castle upon the ancient lines, when £700,000 were expended, must be
placed to his credit. In spite of the vandalism of recent centuries
there still remain many interesting examples of medieval masonry.
CHAPTER V
THE SHELL KEEP, _c._ 1100-1200
The Shell Keep represents the second development of the Norman Castle,
and consists of a circular or polygonal ring of stone walling erected
upon the motte in the position formerly occupied by the wooden
palisading. The substitution of masonry for perishable material was a
natural and logical sequence, but in the hurried rush of events
immediately following upon the Conquest there was no time for erecting
such a defence. A hastily thrown-up mound also would not bear the
weight, and it was necessary to allow the earth to consolidate before
imposing it. As the country became more settled, and economic and other
upheavals less frequent, the Norman barons found time and means to
devote to the strengthening of their feudal homes.
Of the precise date of the first Shell Keep erected in these islands we
have no definite record; it is very doubtful if any saw the light during
the reign of William the Conqueror or Rufus, although many examples
could be found at that time upon the Continent. We know that certain
Castles, such as Carisbrooke, Lincoln, and Totnes, had developed Shell
Keeps prior to the termination of the reign of Stephen, and that
Windsor, Berkeley, Arundel, and a number of others were furnished with
the same not very long after, so that the age of the Shell Keep may
roughly be ascribed to the twelfth century. One must not infer, however,
that every example of a Shell Keep dates inexorably from that age,
because, having proved its efficiency, it became a recognised method of
defence, and Lewes and Durham were endowed with Shells as late as the
reign of Edward III.
The Shell Keep is always placed upon a mound, either natural, structural
at the time of erection, or a pre-existing motte, but by far the greater
number of mounds are artificial. The configuration of the earthwork
suggested the shape of the Shell, being either circular, oval, or, as in
the case of York and probably Warwick, that of a quatrefoil. The
majority are polygonal, the sides not necessarily of equal length, and
few of them exceeding the duodecagon in number. The diameter varied from
100 feet to 30, seldom more or less; the thickness of the wall was from
10 feet to 12 feet, and the foundations were carried from 4 feet to 6
feet into the soil. This wall was not built upon the extreme edge of the
plateau, but generally a few feet from it and carried upwards to a
height of between 20 feet and 30 feet, steps of wood or stone upon the
interior face giving access to the rampart.
Being essentially in one compact mass, without vertical breaks of any
great extent, and homogeneous in construction, the Shell Keep was
specially adapted to crown the summit of an artificial mound. The
interior area was occupied by buildings, generally abutting upon the
Keep walls; in early examples these were constructed of wood, but
subsequently almost entirely of stone to lessen the danger of
conflagration.
The substitution of masonry for palisading upon the mound suggested a
similar course for the defence of the bailey, and the twelfth century
witnessed the erection of many of those gigantic walls surrounding them
which excite our admiration at the present day by their massiveness and
strength. They followed the scarp of the original mounds, and in many
examples the water of the external fosse lapped their bases. The
addition of a barbican or ravelin to defend the chief entrance to the
castle, which invariably opened into the bailey, was now adopted, while
the former wooden ladders or bridges giving from the motte to the bailey
were superseded by causeways of stone, defended on either side by a
continuation of the bailey enceinte up the slope of the mound. Stone
steps instead of wood led from the inner surface of the curtain walls to
the ramparts above; stone buildings were erected for the domestic
offices, barracks, etc., while the wooden planks and ladders by which
the moats had formerly been crossed gave place to masonry arches.
These improvements in the majority of examples did not occur at the same
time, hence the presence of a twelfth-century Shell Keep is no guarantee
that the curtain walls are of the same age. The introduction of flanking
towers, generally semicircular, into the curtain wall, and of
rectangular towers, astride it, as a rule, occurred in this century.
There are examples in our island, however, which prove that only partial
adoption of these improvements took place in many castles, and that, for
example, the baron and his family were quite content to dwell within the
wooden bretasche upon the motte, at the same time strengthening the
weaker bailey defences by the erection of a substantial curtain wall.
_Alnwick._--The magnificent Castle of Alnwick is an excellent example of
a Shell Keep fortress; it stands upon elevated ground on the south bank
of the Aln river and about 5 miles from the sea. At the Conquest the
site, which probably had an earlier defence upon it, was granted to Ivo
de Vescy, whose daughter married Eustace Fitz-John. The constant inroads
of the Scots necessitated a stronger fortress at this point, and, about
1140, Fitz-John began the building of which some splendid remains are
still visible, chiefly in the innermost gateway and the outer curtain
wall. His son, who took his mother's name of de Vescy, placed the Castle
in the custody of the Empress Maud's uncle, King David of Scotland. In
1174, William the Lion invaded England and besieged the Castle, but a
coalition of the northern barons captured the king and took him to
Richmond, thus raising the siege. The de Vescy family died out in 1297,
and after a temporary occupation by Anthony Bek, Bishop of Durham, was
purchased by Sir Henry de Percy, a name which is associated with
everything that is brave, chivalrous, and martial in the county of
Northumberland. The Percy who fought through the wars of Edward III. and
was present at Halidon Hill and Neville's Cross was considered as second
only to the king in importance, while the marriage of his son to Mary
Plantagenet, daughter of Henry, Earl of Lancaster, proved that it was
worthy of alliance with the blood-royal.
In 1405 Alnwick was besieged, and yielded to Henry IV., following upon
the battle of Shrewsbury and the defection and death of Hotspur; Henry
V., however, restored the heir to his possessions, and created him Earl
of Northumberland. He was killed at the first Battle of St. Albans,
1455, while his son fell at Towton in 1461. The Castle saw much fighting
in the latter part of the fifteenth century. The long line of the
Percies came to an end in 1670; it was probably the most historic of
our great English families, and eight bearers of the title met with
violent deaths, chiefly on the battlefield. The daughter of the last
Earl married Charles Seymour, Duke of Somerset, and their daughter
married Sir William Wyndham, thus conveying to him the estates of
Petworth, Egremont, and Leconfield. In the next century a Duke of
Somerset left a daughter who inherited Alnwick and married Sir Hugh
Smithson, who was created Earl Percy and became the ancestor of the
present owner.
The Castle is cut off from the town of Alnwick by a deep combe, which
has been much scarped; it is a matter for doubt whether the battlemented
walls of the town were ever joined to those of the Castle, the same as
at Conway and elsewhere. The Shell Keep was erected in 1140, but is so
surrounded by subsidiary towers as to almost lose the characteristic. It
lies in the centre of the great enclosure, and dual defences run east
and west to the enceinte, thus making two wards, or baileys. The knoll
upon which the Shell rests may either be a natural feature or the
artificial motte of a previous castle. The great gateway and the
barbican present excellent examples of military architecture of the
fourteenth century. In the middle of the eighteenth century repairs and
restorations took place in the execrable taste then prevalent, some of
which remain to the present time to mar the aspect of an otherwise
superb relic of the past.
_Arundel._--The Manor of Arundel is one of the most ancient in the
kingdom, being specifically mentioned in the time of Alfred the Great,
while, respecting the Castle standing there, it is unique in being the
only one mentioned in Domesday as being in existence before the
accession of William I. That king granted it to the great Montgomery
family, who were succeeded in its possession by King Henry I., through
the rebellion of Robert de Belesme. It afterwards passed in succession
through the families of D'Albini, Fitz-Alan, and Howard for seven
centuries to its present owner, the Duke of Norfolk.
Many important events have linked this great military structure
indissolubly to the history of England. Here the Empress Maud was
received with her brother, the Earl of Gloucester, in 1139, which
precipitated an attack by King Stephen, but the most famous event
connected with it was the siege of 1643, when Sir William Waller, first
overcoming the defences of the Town, placed his guns on the top of the
Church Tower and proceeded to batter the Castle. It capitulated after
seventeen days' siege, and the domestic buildings were levelled to the
ground.
The Castle is constructed upon the end of a ridge of Chalk extending
from the South Downs, with a natural escarpment upon the east and south.
It is an excellent example of masonry superseding earthwork defences
without obliterating their original lines. The position is such as to
suggest a prehistoric camp of the promontory type. The chief original
defence was the great moated mount, which is over 200 feet in diameter;
on the south side the height from the summit to the bottom of the ditch
is 70 feet, being altogether but a little smaller than Windsor. Like the
latter it possesses two baileys, occupying over 5 acres in extent, and
together forming an oblong enclosure. The mount stands near the centre
of the western side upon the enceinte, the ditch forming part of the
outer ditch of the Castle in one place. This outer fosse has been much
strengthened by artificial means, but is in many places natural.
[Illustration: ARUNDEL CASTLE, SUSSEX.]
Upon the motte a Shell Keep was erected in the late Norman Period; it
is about 20 feet high, with walls nearly 10 feet thick, and is almost 70
feet in diameter. The walls are faced with Caen stone covering a core of
Sussex stone and Chalk. The barbican, called the Bevis Tower, and a
portion of the great gatehouse, were built in 1295 by Richard Fitz-Alan,
who also erected four towers at equal distances round the enceinte.
After the last siege the place remained a heap of ruins for many years,
but about 1786 the tenth Duke of Norfolk began to rebuild it, and
expended vast sums upon the fabric. The result was the practical
re-erection of the present magnificent structure, a typical example of
the stately homes of England, and an appropriate dwelling-place for our
premier Duke, who has in comparatively recent years erected a sumptuous
Cathedral as a fitting companion to the ancient baronial Castle.
_Carisbrooke._--Carisbrooke stands upon a site which was undoubtedly a
fortress occupied by the Jutes, who conquered the island; William
Fitz-Osborne, Earl of Hereford, obtained possession from the Conqueror
and reared a motte and bailey castle there. His son, who was imprisoned
for life, forfeited the estates, which came into possession of Richard
de Redvers, whose heir became Earl of Devon. Piers Gaveston held the
Castle in the fourteenth century, and also the Earl of Rutland, son of
Edmund of Langley; it was in the occupation of a number of persons
subsequently but fell to the Crown in the fifteenth century. It is
intimately associated with the unfortunate Charles I., who made three
distinct attempts to escape from its confinement.
The mound of the Norman Castle was enclosed by a Shell Keep by Richard
de Redvers; it is an irregular polygon of eleven faces and sixty feet in
diameter, the walls being of enormous strength and thickness. Entrance
is gained by a long flight of steps leading to a passage defended by a
portcullis and double gates. The Keep encloses one of the two Castle
wells.
Very extensive additions were made by Anthony, Lord Scales, who was Lord
of the Castle in 1474. The majestic gateway dates from his time; it is a
fine and impressive entrance, flanked by two lofty cylindrical towers
with a good example of machicolation between the towers, added late in
the fifteenth century. The ruins of the apartments occupied by the
royal prisoner lie to the north of the enclosure. In the reign of Queen
Elizabeth an elaborate system of fortification was carried out by an
Italian engineer, in view of the advent of the Spanish Armada, but was
never put to use. After the Restoration many regrettable alterations and
additions were made by Lord Cutts, with a view to modernising it, but
some of these have been modified recently by the Crown. The
picturesqueness of the ruins and their surroundings are an acknowledged
feature of the island, and few visit the latter without seeing this
venerable relic of the past.
CHAPTER VI
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._]
CHAPTER VII
THE CYLINDRICAL KEEP, _c._ 1170-1250
The latter part of the twelfth century and the earlier portion of the
thirteenth was marked by the introduction of the Cylindrical Keep,
forming a transition or connecting link between the Shell and the
Rectangular Keeps of the previous period, and the remarkable development
of castellation which occurred in the thirteenth century. The latter,
however, must not be considered in the light of a sudden revolutionary
change, inasmuch as many indications occur in the castles of the twelfth
century which exhibit a tendency to break through the conventionalism
then prevailing, and to produce works of a more complex character,
suited to the progress in military methods of attack. The introduction
of the Cylindrical Keep was one of these innovations; although it did
not remedy the great fault inherent in Keeps generally, viz. that of
impotence with regard to driving off the besiegers, yet it furnished a
method which enabled the builder to effect a considerable economy in
material and labour, while at the same time affording that strenuous
passive resistance to assault which characterised the former styles. It
is probable that King Henry II. was chiefly responsible for the
introduction of the Cylindrical Keep, as by reason of his French birth
he was acquainted with a number of foreign castles having citadels built
upon this plan. These Cylindrical Keeps were likewise known as Donjons
and Juliets, and attained to a degree of perfection upon the Continent
which was never reached in the British Isles. The example at Coucy is
probably the finest abroad.
The advantages which may be claimed for the Cylindrical Keep, apart from
its lessened cost of construction, are the increased solidity, and the
great difficulty in breaching it, or bringing it down by a mine. By
vaulting each floor the resistance of the structure was increased; by
enclosing the upper part in a similar manner also, the danger of fire
from incendiary missiles launched upon the roof was practically
nullified. A disadvantage, however, lay in the fact that the besieged
could not concentrate a discharge of missiles against assailants at one
part of the base without exposing themselves to the enemy's archery.
This was to a great extent rectified by the bretasche, which, though in
use previously, became established as a regular defence at this period.
These were timber galleries encircling the outer part of the tower at
its summit, supported in position by strong beams of wood inserted in
holes made for the purpose, and strengthened by struts resting upon
corbels. Upon this foundation a wooden gallery was built, covered in by
a sloping roof resting against the walls, and generally enclosing the
summit of the wall. In suitable places the gallery was loopholed for
archers and cross-bowmen, while through openings in the floor stones and
other missiles could be dropped upon assailants at the foot of the Keep.
It could be entered from the battlements behind, where stores of
ammunition were placed.
At times two bretasches were in use, one above the other; the upper
projected a greater distance from the walls so as to avoid injury to
the lower. The unfinished appearance of the tops of many towers can be
explained by their having been covered with a bretasche in former times,
although this defence was not kept in position permanently but usually
built upon the approach of danger. The machicoulis and alurs of a later
date were imitations in stone of the wooden bretasche. At Coucy these
defences were placed about 180 feet from the ground, and the nerve
displayed by the defenders working at such a giddy height excites
admiration.
The introduction of machicolation proper into England occurred in the
latter part of the thirteenth century and became a prominent feature at
that period. The faults inherent in the bretasche were the feeble
resistance which it offered to missiles launched from the mangonels of
the besiegers; the destruction of one part by a well-aimed stone would
naturally expose the remaining defenders to archery, besides seriously
weakening the rest of the structure, which depended to a great extent
upon its continuity for safety.
Another weakness was the perishable nature of the material, which
required constant renovation and addition, and to this circumstance
may be attributed the fact that examples of the true medieval bretasche
are extremely rare at the present day. A fragment remains over one of
the gates at Coucy, while the position of the main beam may be seen upon
the outer gate of Leeds Castle. At Norham Castle a small doorway appears
in the upper part of the square Keep, the conjectured use for which is
that it gave access to the bretasche. In many castles of the twelfth
century still remaining a line of small openings in the outer wall at
the top is visible; they indicate the position of the former bretasche,
and are caused by the removal of stones for the insertion of the
projecting beams. Notwithstanding the advantages inherent in the
Cylindrical Keep, which prompted their erection in many parts of France
and other parts of the Continent, we do not find one example forming an
integral part in a British Castle of the first class.
[Illustration: CARNARVON CASTLE. CARNARVONSHIRE.]
Cylindrical Keeps were not always of a stereotyped form, and among the
comparatively few erected in England there is marked diversity in
detail. Launceston, for example, really consists of a triple defence;
two outermost rings of walling, one of which is a dozen feet thick and
nearly 30 feet in height, effectually prevent any attempt at mining the
Keep proper, which stands a few feet within the second ring. It is now
only a shell, but timber flooring once divided it into three stories.
The walls are nearly 50 feet in height, about 10 feet thick at the base,
and stand in a ring whose diameter is nearly 20 feet. The open spaces
around the Keep were formerly covered by roofing.
Richard, King of the Romans and brother of Henry III., is generally
credited with raising the Launceston Keep and also the companion one at
Restormel. The Keep at Barnard Castle is remarkable for the huge
projecting triangular spur, which, springing from the soil, rises to
within a few feet of the parapet. The floors were vaulted. This circular
Keep is about 50 feet in height and 40 feet wide. Pembroke Keep, on the
other hand, rises without buttress or spur or concentric walling
straight from a battering base at the ground-level to a height of about
70 feet to the spring of the vaulted roof. It trusted apparently to the
enormous thickness of its walls, 20 feet at the base, to defy any
attempts at mining.
_Conisborough Castle_ possesses the most remarkable Keep of the
cylindrical type in the British Isles, both by reason of its
extraordinary plan and rare contour. It is a gigantic cylinder nearly 70
feet in diameter, and tapering upwards to a height of over 90 feet. Upon
the exterior six enormous buttresses are arranged symmetrically round
the face, projecting 9 feet from the surface and being 16 feet wide
where they support the cylinder. They diminish in width, however, as
they recede from it. These buttresses are carried up the whole height of
the Keep, and thus, combined as they are with a massive base of masonry
upon which the tower stands, and forming an integral portion of the wall
which is about 12 feet thick, we have what is probably the most
efficient protection against the deadly mine ever devised as a
protection to a British Castle. It may be compared to six enormous
spurs, the blowing up of one or even two but little affecting the
stability of the remainder.
[Illustration: GROUND PLAN OF CONISBOROUGH KEEP.]
[Illustration: CONISBOROUGH.]
The entrance to the Keep is only a small square aperture placed in the
first floor and approached by a long flight of steps in which at one
time a drawbridge occurred. The ground floor contains the well and is
entered by means of a trap-door in the vaulted ceiling. The buttresses
are excavated in places to form chambers, and in one is situated the
oratory described by Scott in _Ivanhoe_. It is beautifully vaulted in
the Early English style, with carved capitals and bases to the
supporting shafts. This grand relic of the feudal period was probably
built in the reign of Richard I. by Hamelin Plantagenet, the natural
brother of King Henry II., who had married into the de Warrenne family,
the rich Earls of Surrey.
Another variety of the Cylindrical Keep was that at Orford, in Suffolk,
which possessed a cylindrical shaft similar to that at Conisborough, and
was supported by three minor towers symmetrically arranged and carried
above the battlements. This Keep was protected at the base by a massive
wall with a ditch between the wall and the Castle base, and probably
suggested the Conisborough Keep and also that at Warkworth, while those
at Wallingford, York and Pontefract approximated to the same ideal.
CHAPTER VIII
THE CONCENTRIC CASTLE, _c._ 1250, TO THE CASTELLATED MANSION PERIOD
The inception of the concentric idea in castellation must not be
ascribed to the English builders of the second half of the thirteenth
century, inasmuch as the plan is essentially oriental and appeared in
the Levant before 1200. Thus Château Gaillard, built by Richard I. in
1196 upon the banks of the Seine near Les Andelys, is based essentially
upon the concentric type, though it does not absolutely conform to that
ideal owing to the configuration of the ground. That crusading monarch
was among the first to recognise the possibilities of the Saracenic form
and based this castle upon it. Upon the only side where it could be
attacked it offered first an outer triangular-shaped ward, with an
encircling wall, having five towers upon its enceinte. Between this and
the second ward was a formidable ditch, 30 feet in depth, the wall
standing upon the brink of the scarp; this second ward was of large
dimensions with five towers upon its walls, which were practically built
upon the edge of precipices. It was roughly hexagonal in shape and
contained the inner ward, partially circular in outline and surrounded
by a ditch. The walls of this ward were lofty and faced with bastions
segmental in plan, thus embodying the prevailing belief that angles and
corners were more vulnerable than curved surfaces. Inside this ward
stood the Keep, forming the fourth successive line of defence to be
overcome. The Keep or Donjon is splayed outwards at the base, a device
often adopted for projecting missiles among the assailants when dropped
from above, and also for greater strength. Probably the earliest
examples of machicoulis are found upon this Keep. This formidable
fortress fell by a combination of mining, filling up of the great ditch,
battering the Keep, and escalading the inner ward, after pounding the
curtain walls with perriers.
The thousands of warriors returning from the many crusades were well
acquainted with the Concentric Castle, having in many cases been
detained before the walls of an eastern city built upon a similar
design. The difficulty and danger in attacking such a place were well
known to them, and we can only ascribe the question of cost as the chief
reason for the non-adoption of the idea at an earlier period.
At Constantinople the crusading hosts before the city found themselves
confronted by a comparatively low fortified wall, bristling with
impediments; within it, at the distance of some hundreds of feet, arose
another and taller wall, while beyond that again a third wall, the
highest of all, appeared. These walls extended for more than three miles
upon the western side, with one hundred towers; all were embattled, and
they offered a stupendous scene to the wondering eyes of the Crusaders
as they vanished in grand perspective into the distance. There is no
castle in England which presents more than three hundred yards of
continual front. The capture of the first defence of the eastern capital
by no means imperilled the integrity of the second, while the
prospective losses of the assailants when confined in the narrow space
between the first and second lines was appalling to con template. The
same difficulty would occur with regard to the second and third lines of
defence, and it is small wonder that the leaders paused in a projected
attack upon so formidable an obstacle.
[Illustration: CASTLE RUSHEN, ISLE OF MAN.]
The essential principles underlying the construction of a castle erected
upon the concentric plan were:--
1. That the natural features of the selected site should be adapted
and made part of the defences, and that no rigid plan of the ground
occupied, based upon former principles of castellation, should be
strictly followed.
2. That a series of defences independent and complete in themselves
should be presented in turn to an assault, the capture of one by no
means entailing that of another.
The castle-builders of the second half of the thirteenth century rigidly
adhered to the principles embodied in the first clause given above; they
did not produce a structure of the Motte and Bailey, or the Keep and
Base-court types, with little regard to the situation and configuration
of the ground, but made their plans with the utmost care, embracing
every advantage which the site presented. As a necessary sequence the
ground plan of one Concentric Castle differs from every other, and it is
only by a general summary of the ideas prevailing that any comparison
can be made.
The second clause naturally suggested a concentric plan whereby each
defence was placed within the other, the strongest of all naturally
being in the centre. But as most of the English castles were rendered
concentric by means of additions to buildings previously existing, the
pure concentric ideal is seldom reached except in those structures
reared entirely at that period, the others attained it more or less by
developing conditions already obtaining.
[Illustration: THE IDEAL CONCENTRIC CASTLE.]
The ideal concentric outline may be gleaned from the accompanying plan,
where the three entrances are a special feature, each being placed as
far as possible from the one adjacent. By this device the assailants who
had managed to capture the outer enceinte would be compelled to pass
under one half of the second line of towers and curtain walls before
reaching the entrance pierced through them, being all the time subjected
to a plunging fire of deadly missiles. The same would occur if the
second line were captured. The gates were in all cases flanked by
defensive towers, and generally reached by a drawbridge which could be
raised before the entrance archway; this was narrow and defended by one
or more portcullises, while a strong gate, usually sheathed with iron,
was placed at the entrance immediately behind the raised drawbridge. If
these formidable obstacles were overcome and the first part of the
passage captured the inner portcullis or portcullises had to be forced,
but the assailants would in the meantime be subjected to a galling
discharge of arrows and bolts from the narrow loopholes on either side,
which were pierced in the walls of rooms whose only entrances were from
the inner courtyard or from the ramparts. In the vaulted roof of the
passage also circular openings were built, termed "meurtriers," or
murderers, through which melted lead, hot water or oil, and other
liquids could be poured upon the struggling mass of assailants below.
From the formidable nature of the defence it may readily be understood
that direct assaults of castles built upon the concentric ideal were
limited, the besiegers contenting themselves with waiting until famine
had done its work, or treachery within the walls allowed them to enter.
The project of capturing three strong castles, one within the other, was
a prospect sufficient to daunt any ordinary commander, and so long as
the besieged could count upon a friendly army in the field outside, the
loyalty of the garrison, and a plentiful supply of provisions, the
fortress might be relied upon to maintain its integrity.
[Illustration: MACHICOULIS SUPPORTING AN ALUR.]
It was during this period that machicoulis and alurs reached their
highest efficiency and development, and in every castle built after 1250
they may be found wherever extra strengthening of the defence was
desirable. In some illustrated medieval romances of the second part of
the thirteenth century the castle is depicted with these additions,
although at times the perspective indulged in by the artist is somewhat
disconcerting. Where machicolation was not adopted, probably by reason
of the expense, the walls were generally corbelled outwards at the upper
parts of towers and walls, thus giving a more effective control over the
bases of these structures where mining or battering might be attempted.
Battlementing was almost universal, and the system of piercing the
merlons with arbalestraria may be assigned to this early date, although
not reaching the full development it subsequently met with in the
Edwardian Castles of Wales. It may be seen in illustrated manuscripts in
the form of simple circular openings in the merlons. The protection of
loopholes and windows by a hanging shield is likewise illustrated; it
prevented the admission of arrows and bolts discharged with a high
trajectory.
The maximum development of the art of castle-building in the British
Isles occurred in the reign of Edward I. and is exhibited in its best
form in those magnificent buildings which he erected in Wales to
consolidate the conquest of that country. With the great Snowdonian
range as the centre he placed a ring of fortresses at those strategic
points, chosen with remarkable military perspicacity, where they would
be of the utmost advantage in commanding the widest stretch of country.
Criccieth and Harlech, standing upon the sites of previous strongholds,
and Conway and Carnarvon upon entirely new ground, are the most
prominent and famous of this encircling ring. The term "Edwardian,"
however, for a Concentric Castle so frequently used, is a misnomer,
because some of the grandest examples of the style date from the time of
Henry III.; the outer ward of the Tower of London, for example, rendered
it concentric in 1240 to 1258.
The _Castle of Harlech_ approaches the concentric form so far as its
position will permit, but the bold rocky promontory upon which it stands
was too irregular for the complete ideal, and consequently the Castle
was adapted to the site. It is practically an oblong with massive
circular buttress towers at the four angles; two others defend the
gateway and two smaller ones are on either side of the barbican
entrance. Small watch-towers, corbelled at the summits upon false
machicolations, are adjacent to the larger. The barbican lies upon the
eastern side of the fortress, and was only accessible by a steep and
narrow entrance after a dry ditch had been crossed. Harlech and Kidwelly
are similar in not being purely concentric; each have short fronts of
wall and the defences of two of the baileys are united, thus only two
lines of resistance are interposed. Neither possess a donjon, the two
inner wards being the last resort of the garrison.
The inaccessibility of this massive pile, perched 200 feet above the
adjacent sea and producing a strangely impressive effect by reason of
its grim vastness, has been repeatedly tested since its walls were first
raised. Owen Glendower beat in vain against its impregnable strength and
lost Mortimer, his son-in-law, before its walls. In the Wars of the
Roses, when the soul-stirring "March of the Men of Harlech" was penned,
the Castle was summoned to surrender by the Yorkists, but the Constable
of the time, a doughty Welshman, held out for the Lancastrian cause and
made a most protracted resistance in the campaign of 1474, Harlech being
the last fortress to surrender in that great struggle. In the Civil War
it maintained its reputation, but was finally delivered up to Cromwell's
brother-in-law.
_Conway Castle_, one of the most impressive and majestic of medieval
fortresses in Britain, is situated in a romantic and picturesque spot at
the mouth of the river Conway. It presents a perfect ideal of a fortress
and a fortified town, the massive accompanying walls of the latter
forming an integral portion of the defence as a whole. The town walls
are over a mile in length and are in a singularly good state of
preservation; there are twenty-one towers, arranged at regular intervals
along this enceinte, and four gates, over one of which is a row of
machicoulis, twelve in number, projecting from the upper part of the
wall. It was also protected by a dry ditch and with drawbridges placed
before the gateways.
[Illustration: LEEDS CASTLE, KENT.]
The Castle occupies an irregular oblong area divided into a larger and
smaller ward by a transverse wall, which is carried across at one of the
narrowest parts; thus where breadth is unobtainable, as at Conway and
Carnarvon, ward is set behind ward. Eight lofty circular towers are
arranged at intervals around the massive curtain wall, four of them
being provided with small look-out turrets upon their summits. In the
larger bailey the banqueting hall and domestic apartments were placed.
The Castle and also the town fortifications were erected by King Edward
I., with Henry de Elfreton as the architect; they were completed in
1284, and occupied by the King and Court in 1290, upon the occasion of a
Welsh rising. The monarch, however, was nearly starved out in his
fortress through an unusual flood whereby provisions were unable to be
sent across the river. Previously, however, he had passed a Christmas
there and the assertion that Conway was really a combination of a
castle, a palace, and a pleasant residence is perfectly legitimate.
Richard II. assembled his forces at Conway to resist the invasion of
Bolingbroke, but was induced to leave it, and his betrayal and lodgment
in Flint Castle followed. The edifice suffered but little during the
Wars of the Roses; Henry VII. repaired it where decay had taken place,
and it practically remained intact until the Great Rebellion, when it
suffered from two sieges, and shortly afterwards, in 1665, was despoiled
of its timber, lead, and iron, and reduced to its present condition. The
excellence of the masonry which characterises the Edwardian castles in
Wales is perhaps in no way better exemplified than at Conway, where a
portion of the base of a tower on the south side fell out bodily in
recent times through being undermined, and gave much trouble before it
could be broken up. It has since been restored. The protection of the
Castle is now in the hands of the town authorities of Conway.
_Beaumaris Castle_ was erected by King Edward I. about 1295, and
approximates more to the concentric ideal than perhaps any other castle
in Britain. The outer enceinte is an almost regular octagon,
strengthened by towers at each of the angles and in the centre of each
curtain, excepting the one in which the entrance gateway is placed. The
inner enceinte is square in shape and of very great height, thus
commanding the ramparts of the outer; it has the usual towers, of
immense strength, and is finished with a grand array of battlements. Its
position probably detracts from impressiveness, for it was designed to
have the moat surrounding it filled with water at every tide from the
Menai Strait, and this necessitated the selection of low ground for a
site. By the arrangement of the walls two baileys are formed, the inner
and outer, and the Castle affords an example of a fortress built upon
the concentric ideal where the ground does not modify the detail in any
way.
_Carnarvon Castle_ may be confidently claimed as the finest example of
its type in Europe. It stands upon a site previously unoccupied and was
commenced by King Edward I., who raised the walls sufficiently high to
cover the garrison, and completed by his son, Edward II., who carried
the walls and towers to their present altitude. It is built of limestone
blocks with string-course bands of dark-brown sandstone, the mouldings,
doorways, and other ornamental portions also being of the same material.
The plan of the Castle approaches that of a kidney form, the whole of
the space enclosed forming one ward in contradistinction to that at
Conway, which is subdivided; as the ancient town of Carnarvon was
surrounded by massive walls, large portions of which still remain, the
area so enclosed may be looked upon as the outer bailey.
[Illustration: MERLON PIERCED WITH OILLET.]
Although the enceinte of the Castle is plentifully supplied with towers
which undoubtedly form the chief feature of its picturesque appearance,
yet it is to be questioned if the latter added very materially to its
powers of resistance when compared with the walls, which are in places
over 15 feet in thickness, and of very great height, often over 100
feet. These walls contain, at the points most vulnerable to an attack, a
double line of galleries traversing the thickness and leading easily
into each other for mutual support. The outer walls of these passages
are plentifully supplied with loopholes, and as the merlons upon the
battlements are also pierced with oillets, a triple discharge of
quarrels and arrows could be brought to bear upon assailants by a
garrison securely protected from injury. Against such a hail of missiles
any attack would probably prove futile.
The moat is of great width and depth and formed no inconsiderable
portion of the original defences. The main idea of the architect when
planning Carnarvon Castle appears to have been to render attacks upon
the general line of the enceinte impossible of success, by reason of the
galleries and the thickly-set mural towers, and thus to lead the
assailants to concentrate upon the chief entrance. This, however, was
protected primarily by the town walls, then by a formidable moat, two
massive towers, a narrow entrance furnished with no less than four
portcullises, with two inner obstructions of a similar nature to be
overcome ere the entrance was forced. Such an elaborate concentration of
effective resistance is seldom encountered in medieval fortresses, and
the fact that Carnarvon Castle has never been taken by assault, but only
subdued by starvation, is amply accounted for.
This magnificent structure has always been a Crown possession, and at
the present time is preserved with a care deserving of all praise. It
narrowly escaped demolition at that period which proved so fatal to all
castles in Britain, but, although the order was issued, the carrying out
was delayed, and the accession of Charles II. in 1660 nullified it. The
chief architectural beauty is perhaps the Eagle Tower, crowned with its
three graceful turrets and boasting of the birth within its walls of the
first Prince of Wales, but the traditional apartment is still
problematical.
Although as we have seen the Concentric Castle is usually associated
with the reign of Edward I., and the formidable strongholds in North
Wales are generally cited as the perfection of the type, yet earlier
attempts at the ideal had been made in Britain, and in no greater
perfection than at the well-known Castle of Caerphilly in
Glamorganshire, completed a year before the King came to the throne.
From a military point of view it is the grandest example of the
concentric ideal in our islands, and it is perhaps to be deplored that
this embodiment of a medieval fortress has never been subjected to the
stern arbitrament of war, and that no great military renown is
associated with its history. It was only assailed once, in 1648, when
the Parliamentarians wreaked their traditional destructive tendencies
upon it.
[Illustration: CAERPHILLY CASTLE.
(_From an old print._)]
It was erected and completed in 1271 by Gilbert de Clare, Earl of
Gloucester, and stands upon a mound of gravel in the middle of an
artificial lake, produced by damming up two water-courses and turning
the contents of a marsh into the catchment basin thus formed. The
curtain of the middle ward is of no great height, that of the inner ward
being thus able to dominate it. The outer ward is essentially divided
into two, each forming a _tête-du-pont_.
The eastern portion, and the smaller, has a curtain 15 feet in height
and a moat of its own, the island thus formed being approached through
two gatehouses from the land side, and joined to the inner ward by
drawbridges. The western and outer ward is much more important than the
eastern. It acts as a _tête-du-pont_ the same as its companion, but
contains also the chief approach to the Castle, two conspicuous towers
standing on either side of a narrow entrance, thus forming a strong
gatehouse. From it curtain walls of great height branch off on either
side, washed by the waters of the lake, and sundry half-drum towers, and
other buildings have been built abutting upon the defensive wall. Thus
any assailants would have most formidable obstacles to encounter on
attacking either the eastern or western faces, two moats and three
successive lines of walling being opposed to their efforts.
The immediate object of its erection was to overawe the Welsh Marches,
but these had been reduced to order almost at the same time it was
built; subsequently it but served to consolidate the peace thus secured.
[Illustration: TOWER OF LONDON: THE MIDDLE TOWER]
A still earlier example, though not perhaps embodying all the conditions
of the type, is to be found in the neighbouring county of Carmarthen.
Kidwelly Castle occupies a commanding position upon Carmarthen Bay near
the estuary of the river Gwendraeth. The stream here is of considerable
width and the eastern side of the castle is built upon the edge of the
steep slope leading down to it; consequently no fear of an assault was
to be apprehended from that quarter, and a curtain wall of no great
height was deemed sufficient for the defence. This wall formed the
string of a bow as it were, and the semicircular portion defending the
land side had to rely upon other obstacles, such as a deep moat and a
curtain set with towers. The entrance gateway is at the southern
termination of the wall and consists of two towers with a building
between containing the passage; it affords rooms for soldiers on duty
with two stories above, all the masonry being of the most solid
description. This entrance gave upon the outer ward. The inner ward
consisted of a square enclosure abutting upon the centre of the river
line: it is protected by high curtains strengthened by the usual towers.
It will be perceived that the deviation from the concentric consists in
the coincidence of the east wall of the inner bailey with a portion of
that of the outer. Its foundation dates from 1250, when Payn de Chaworth
reared it.
[Illustration: KIDWELLY CASTLE, CARMARTHENSHIRE.]
Not far from Llandeilo, a village near Carmarthen, stand the remains of
a Concentric Castle around which local tradition has woven a web of
romance, asserting that all history is lost in remote antiquity and
leading the imagination to run riot in conjuring up the identity of its
former inmates. Upon the south side the walls stand upon a precipice
with a sheer drop of probably 500 feet, while a climb of over 200 feet
is necessary to reach the northern face. It is called Carreg Cennen and
occupies the summit of a height springing up from a ring of encircling
hills. It stands upon an acre of ground and is of the rectangular shape;
within the outer curtain stands a small inner bailey with one side
coincident with that of the outer curtain overlooking the precipice,
and as such is comparable to Kidwelly. There is one round tower, but the
others are angular like those of Carnarvon. It was built by Rhys of
Wales in the thirteenth century.
It must not be imagined that the castle-building energies of Edward I.
were entirely expended upon the grand examples of his work found in
North Wales, on the contrary there are many buildings to be discovered
where his handiwork, or that of contemporary barons, is a prominent
feature. A tendency appears to have manifested itself at that period to
alter existing castles of a previous type so that they conformed in some
way to the concentric ideal, and Pevensey, Chepstow, and Corfe are cases
in point. In addition to Caerphilly in Glamorganshire there are many
other structures in South Wales showing a very high ideal of
castellation, indeed that portion of the Principality has been termed
the "Land of Castles," and the appellation is by no means undeserved.
There is hardly a prominent position upon the coast, or a suitable site
inland, but what has been seized upon at some period to erect a position
of defence.
_Pembroke Castle_, with the town walls supporting it, is perhaps the
most important pile to be found in this district; it embodies additions
of varying dates in its massive walls and towers. The great gatehouse
and circular Norman Keep are undoubtedly its chief attractions at the
present day when, although shattered by powder after Cromwell's capture
by means of starvation, and much subsequent spoliation, it presents one
of the most imposing aspects to be found in the kingdom.
_Carew Castle_ is deservedly celebrated for picturesqueness and affords
an illustration of the use of the angle-spur at the foot of drum towers
as a preventive against mining.
_Cilgerran Castle_ occupies a position which is probably unparalleled in
South Wales. It approaches very closely to the Edwardian type, but the
area chosen has not entirely dominated the plan; it once possessed an
inner and outer bailey with a great portcullised gatehouse and massive
cylindrical towers, two of which still stand. Pembrokeshire is
essentially the centre of the castle-land of Wales, for besides those
mentioned there are Manorbier, Lamphey, Narberth, Haverfordwest,
Llawhaddon, Roche and many others, most of them exhibiting traces of
Edwardian influence based upon Norman work.
In the upper valley of the Wye the efficiency of castles was of great
importance, inasmuch as they guarded one of the great lines of incursion
from the heart of Wales into the Marches; here Edwardian additions may
be seen at Builth where a donjon was placed upon a motte which had
already been encircled by a Shell Keep, while a circular rampart
surrounding the whole bailey made a very presentable representation of
the concentric ideal. At Bronllys, farther to the south, a cylindrical
tower was the chief addition, while at Tretower, still farther south
near Crickhowell, a Shell Keep appears to have been inserted within the
remains of a previous Rectangular Keep defending the motte.
_The Tower of London._--This great fortress, palace, and prison, unique
among the castles of England, dates from the time of William the
Conqueror. The site occupied a position upon the river Thames
immediately to the east of Roman London; the latter was surrounded by
massive walls with mural towers which had subsequently been repaired by
Alfred the Great. A portion of this walling undoubtedly furnished part
of the western defence of the Norman citadel, inasmuch as remains have
been found adjacent to the present Wakefield Tower. The wall thus
adapted extended between two bastions, and possibly the first enclosure
was merely stockaded.
It was, however, necessary to erect a more substantial fortress in order
to overawe as well as protect London, and in 1078, William entrusted
Gundulf, the architect-bishop of Rochester, with the commission. The
great Keeps at Rochester and West Malling were also designed by him, and
possibly he had much to do with those at Norwich, Colchester, and other
places in England. To this period may also be ascribed some of the
towers and part of the massive curtain wall lying to the west of the
inner ward or ballium which at that period contained the royal palace,
apartments for the court, and dwellings for the garrison. Possibly a
narrow ditch encircled the walls on the inner line of the present
spacious moat.
In 1155, the buildings were repaired by Thomas à Becket; but to Richard
I. must be ascribed the carrying out of works which materially added to
the general strength. Henry III. caused additions to be made, chiefly
upon the river front, which give it the characteristic appearance it
presents at the present day. The well-known Traitors' Gate dates from
this period, and is one of the finest examples of medieval masonry in
existence. About the year 1270 the Tower began to acquire those features
which subsequently rendered it an excellent example of the concentric
fortress; an outer wall of circumvallation was carried completely round,
with a deep and broad moat washing its face. The outer ward was formed
lying between the two lines of walls, thus producing three lines of
defence, the innermost being the great Keep. A small barbican, which has
now disappeared, stood upon the outer edge of the moat. In the early
part of the reign of Edward III. some towers were added, the chief being
the Beauchamp and Bowyer. Since the period of the Commonwealth the Tower
has ceased to be inhabited by royalty, the removal of the palace, which
stood against the south-eastern corner of the inner ward, being probably
responsible for it. As the Tower of London has been inextricably
involved in the major portion of events forming the history of England,
it is obviously impossible to deal even in a cursory manner with them
within the confines of this work. A few facts, however, relating to the
Keep may be of interest, as it is undoubtedly the most ancient portion
of the structure. It is rectangular in shape, 118 feet long by 107 feet
broad; it rises to a height of 90 feet at the battlements and contains
three stories. The usual Norman pilaster buttresses occur, those at the
angles being continued upwards into three of the square turrets, while
the remaining corner supports a large projecting circular turret
containing the main staircase. The walls are of enormous thickness,
ranging from 12 to 15 feet, and as usual the building is divided into
two portions by a wall 10 feet thick, rising to the maximum height of
the building.
[Illustration: CHEPSTOW CASTLE, MONMOUTHSHIRE.]
The floors were originally of wood, but when Sir Christopher Wren
destroyed the ancient interior features of the Keep, great brick vaults
were built in the lower portion. St. John's Chapel is a magnificent gem
of Early Norman ecclesiastical architecture; it stands upon the
second floor, and its apsidal termination projects boldly beyond the
walls of the Keep. The third floor contains the state apartments with
the great Council Chamber, the walls of the chapel rising through it to
the roof, and containing a mural passage and a triforium. The roof is
flat and was adapted during the Tudor period for mounting artillery. The
position of the original entrance to the Keep is now unknown, the
present one being evidently a construction of later date. No traces of
the forebuilding defending it have come to light. The internal
arrangements for defence against surprise are marvellously intricate,
the principal apartments being approached by mural passages so narrow
that only one person could pass at a time. This was, of course,
eminently desirable from a military standpoint, but inconvenient and
awkward when occupied by the court.
_Corfe Castle._--Seated upon an isolated chalk hill in the island of
Purbeck, with a natural escarpment upon three sides where two rivers
bifurcate on their way to Poole Harbour, and with a gentle slope upon
the fourth side, the great castle of Corfe reared its massive front
through many centuries of dramatic history, marked more than once with
touches of the tragic. The remains of its cyclopean walls and towers now
lie in mighty masses over its slopes, and tell eloquently of a day when
destruction only seemed to occupy the minds of men, and all that was
great and beautiful from the foregoing ages was marked out for
desolation and ruin. Perhaps no castle in England has suffered so much
as that of Corfe.
Its site is connected by history with the Saxon dynasty, for King Edgar
is said to have founded it; and here the tragic deed was perpetrated by
which it is popularly known, when his son Edward the Martyr, King of the
West Saxons, was treacherously murdered by Elfrida his step-mother. Such
an unholy deed was a sinister incident in the birth of a castle, and
appears to have thrown a gloom over its subsequent history.
Four miles to the southward rises the bold coast-line of the Dorset
littoral, while northward is the great depression occupied by the waters
of Poole Harbour.
It appears to have been successively a Saxon Palace, then a Norman, and
afterwards an Edwardian fortress. King Stephen besieged it in 1139,
Earl Baldwin de Redvers having seized it for the Empress Maud. King John
used it as an arsenal for military engines and stores, and here his foul
crime of starving twenty-two knights and nobles to death, whom he had
captured at Mireteau in 1203, was committed. The wretched ex-King Edward
II. lived here for a time before his removal to Berkeley, and it appears
to have been possessed by several important historical personages before
it reverted to the Crown in 1552, when it was granted to Sir Christopher
Hatton. That family sold it in 1635 to Sir John Bankes, the ancestor of
the present owners. The notable defence of the castle for three years by
Lady Bankes against the Commonwealth forces is one of those feats which
stand out bravely against the somewhat sordid history of that period.
The Castle occupies an area of about three acres. The Norman work
consists chiefly of a square Keep occupying the most elevated part of
the hill, where possibly the Saxon Palace had been situated, and, with
its enceinte, formed the innermost ward of the Castle. It is about 60
feet square, and 80 feet high, with the usual flat pilasters; the
masonry is remarkably good, formed of large squared stones obtained
from some hard beds in the vicinity. The floors and apparently the roof
were of wood, and have now disappeared, while the battlements also are
missing.
On the east side of the Keep are the remains of the Queen's hall of
Early English work, and other buildings within the inner ward appear to
be of the same date. The gateway of the middle ward was overthrown by
undermining, part of it has sunk and moved out of the perpendicular. The
great curtain wall reaching between this gateway and the Keep is
comparatively intact, and forms one of the finest defences of that
description now remaining in Britain. The entrance to the outer ward has
been sadly wrecked; the two drum towers have been blown forwards by the
explosive force of gunpowder, the vaulting is rent, and the adjacent
wall to the west overthrown. More than half of the tower called the
Buttavant Tower has been blown clean away, while the minor bastions and
the encircling wall generally have either disappeared or been thrown out
of the perpendicular.
The order to "slight" the Castle, _i.e._ to dismantle it, was issued by
the Parliament in 1646, and perhaps no fortress exists in Britain where
the decree was so thoroughly carried into effect. Unnecessarily large
charges of gunpowder appear to have been used, not only dislodging the
masonry but shattering it; while in many places the effect was obtained
by undermining and propping up with wood, which when subsequently
burnt brought down the superincumbent mass, similarly to the
proceedings at the Keep of Raglan Castle.
[Illustration: CHEPSTOW CASTLE.]
_Chepstow._--The noble ruins of Chepstow Castle form one of the
attractive features of the celebrated Wye valley. They stand in a grand
position surmounting a vertical escarpment springing from the river and
protected on the three remaining sides by ditches of formidable width
and depth. The ground plan is that of an elongated parallelogram, one of
the longer faces being that overlooking the river. This is subdivided
into four courts or wards, while the whole area enclosed is about three
acres. The principal living-rooms overhung the river, where the great
Hall, kitchens, ladies' apartments, etc., were placed. This was a point
of a quite inaccessible character, and consequently permitted of a
certain amount of embellishment, such as large windows, etc.; in the
remainder of the enceinte, oillets and balistraria form the chief
openings.
The main entrance to the Castle is on the eastern side, under a fine
Norman arch flanked by two massive circular towers; the passage was
guarded by a portcullis, and two meurtrières in the groining. Not far
from this entrance the lesser Hall is placed. The Clare family, Earls of
Pembroke, were the earliest Norman owners of Chepstow, after William
Fitz-Osborne the founder, the last of whom, Richard Strongbow, is well
known in connection with the Conquest of Ireland in 1172. His daughter
Isabel married one of the Bigot family, and subsequently it passed to
Sir Charles Somerset, Earl of Worcester, from whom it has descended to
the present owner, the Duke of Beaufort. Chepstow saw much of the Civil
War, being held at first by the Royalists, but it was assailed by
Colonel Morgan in 1645 and surrendered after a siege of four days. It
was again attacked in 1648, when the governor, Sir Nicholas Kemyss, and
forty of the garrison were killed.
[Illustration: LEEDS CASTLE, KENT.]
_Leeds._--This castle is undoubtedly one of the most picturesque in the
British Isles, and its beautiful natural surroundings are enhanced by a
rich history extending back to the Saxon Period. Here Ethelbert of Kent
raised a fortification which was given to Bishop Odo at the Conquest
and, at his fall, came into the Crévecoeur family, who began the
Norman building. It remained in their hands until the Barons' War when
it reverted to the Crown, with whom it remained for about 300 years.
Edward VI. gave it to Sir Anthony St. Leger about 1550, and his
descendants sold it to Sir Richard Smith. It subsequently came into the
possession of the Colepeper family, from whom are descended the Martins,
the present owners.
Among the many historical associations connected with the Castle is that
of the frail Queen Isabella, wife of Edward II. She appeared one evening
before the gateway with a large force of attendants and demanded
admission; under the circumstances then obtaining the Governor, Sir
Thomas Colepeper, thought fit to refuse, being without the king's
orders, and, upon a display of force, saluted the visitors with a shower
of arrows. She repaired to the king and so influenced him that the
Castle was besieged and captured; the Castellan was hanged over the
drawbridge with eleven others. At Leeds Henry V. received the Emperor
Sigismund and imprisoned his step-mother Joan for practising witchcraft;
subsequently, Eleanor, the wife of good Duke Humphrey of Gloucester, was
tried here for the same offence in 1431.
[Illustration: LEEDS CASTLE, KENT.]
The position of this castle was an exceedingly suitable one in those
days when water was deemed the chief method of defence. It occupies two
natural rocky islands, one in the centre of a lake, and one in an
artificial one on the mainland made by sluices and ditches upon which
was placed the Barbicans. The Keep, or Gloriette, as it is here termed,
may have been modelled out of a late Norman Shell Keep, but has been
much altered by additions and restorations. It contains a chapel built
in 1380; the walls rise from the water to a considerable height and are
arranged round a small middle court. In it are the dining-hall, the
Queen's bed-chamber, and other domestic buildings, chiefly of the time
of Henry VIII.
From this island drawbridges permit of passage to the larger central
island, around which a curtain wall of great strength has been built at
the edge of the water with drum towers at the principal angles. Inside
this was a second and concentric wall, thus forming an Inner and Outer
Bailey, but only the southern gate of this has been preserved. It is
probably of late Norman work. The domestic buildings occupied the
northern end of the inner area, now superseded by a splendid mansion
standing upon Norman foundations. Another drawbridge gives upon the
artificial island upon the mainland previously mentioned, where the
Inner Barbican stood, and beyond this again was a strong and massive
Outer Barbican.
[Illustration: WINDSOR CASTLE.]
CHAPTER IX
THE CASTELLATED MANSION AND MANOR-HOUSE
The reason for the disuse of castles is popularly attributed to the
invention of gunpowder, but the introduction of cannon can hardly be
accepted as entirely responsible for the decline, and we must therefore
seek for other reasons which, added to the first, eventually succeeded
in effecting their destruction and abandonment. The use of gunpowder was
introduced into England in the first half of the fourteenth century, the
first authentic date being 1327, when Edward III. employed it in his
campaign against the Scots. The first reference by Froissart is in 1339,
cannon being specifically mentioned, while at Cressy in 1346 there were
a number of those weapons in use. These early pieces were, however, of
small calibre and were provided with such indifferent powder that
against the walls of a castle they were practically innocuous, and it
was not until the invention of trunnions for cannon, and of bombards
capable of throwing heavy spherical shot in the fifteenth century, that
fortified places had anything to fear.
But long before 1327 the English castle had begun to show signs of
falling into abeyance, in fact but very few new structures of that class
were erected after the close of the thirteenth century, and those that
did spring into existence no longer exhibited the overwhelming strength
and powers of resistance which stamped the erections of the preceding
century. When prosecuting his war with France, Edward III., in 1337,
endeavoured to leave the Kingdom in as defensible a condition as
possible during his absence, and with that object in view ordered the
keepers of the Royal castles to put their respective charges into
first-class order. In spite of this a report upon their efficiency a few
years later revealed the fact that several were utterly unfit to
withstand a siege. In 1322, when the incensed Edward II. raised forces
to avenge the insult to his queen by Bartholomew de Badlesmere at Leeds
Castle, and quickly captured that place, Tickhill, Warwick, Tutbury, and
others, the ease with which they fell into his hands indubitably proves
that they were no longer in a thoroughly defensive condition. And this,
be it remembered, was before the introduction of gunpowder.
The economic conditions prevailing in the fourteenth century were also
in antagonism to the persistence and growth of castles in the land.
Military feudalism was in its death-throes, and the laws passed in the
reign of Edward I.--notably the statute of Quia Emptores--were
undoubtedly responsible for it. The barons no longer held the same
position as formerly when they dictated terms to their own sovereign,
and although a recrudescence of the power of the military nobility
occurred during the time of the Wars of the Roses, that struggle was in
reality but duels upon a large scale between a number of nobles who had
been successful in maintaining a semblance of their former power. The
Statute of Winchester gave almost unlimited rights to the King, whereby
he could summon the commons to arms if a baron proved recalcitrant. The
baronial castle necessarily became an anachronism to a large extent,
since its owner no longer had the power to fill it with numerous
retainers, and also because the King, by his overwhelming numbers,
could easily capture it.
The art of war had also changed consequent chiefly upon the
extraordinary efficiency displayed by the English archer, whereby he
became supreme upon the field of battle: the development of this superb
infantry was under the entire management of the Crown and, consequently,
the King became immeasurably superior in striking strength to any
individual baron. The advantage began to rest with him who could put the
most efficient battalions in the field, and not as formerly with the one
who owned the greatest number of castles. Combined with these conditions
there was the indubitable fact that a castle had acquired the reputation
of being connected with oppression of the people, resistance to lawful
power, and a refuge from justice for the wrongdoer. This was entirely
incompatible with the great reforms insisted upon by Edward I., and
passed into law by parliament; law and order became the rule and not the
exception, and the position of the castle grew anomalous.
[Illustration: SKIPTON CASTLE, YORKSHIRE.]
With the ascendancy of an efficient administration of justice came the
desire for comfort and a display of luxury, and probably no one who
has become acquainted with the internal disposition of an early castle
will qualify the assertion that the acme of discomfort and inconvenience
must have prevailed within them.
Consequent upon this alteration in the economic conditions of the
nation, the need for the impregnable stronghold of the past ages ceased
to exist, and in many parts of England, but more especially in the south
and east, the existing structures were largely altered or added to in
order to afford conditions suitable to the changed amenities of social
life. These alterations in nearly every case were made at the sacrifice
of efficiency, and many castles which had played a notable part in the
history of the nation became merely the residences of their lords, who
made no attempt to put them to their original uses in time of war.
Arundel, the great midland castles of Warwick, Kenilworth, and many
others, fall under this category.
So far as gunpowder is concerned the part which it played in causing the
abandonment of the feudal castle is strangely varied and dependent upon
local circumstances. A well-found castle with an efficient and adequate
garrison, supported by an army in active operation in the field, had no
more to fear from an attack in the fifteenth century than it had in the
thirteenth, perhaps not so much. Very few bombards of the period
mentioned could throw stone shot weighing over 150 lbs., whereas the
medieval trebuchet could hurl a missile of twice that weight, or even
more, and to almost as great a distance. The effect of low-trajectory
cannon upon castle walls in the fifteenth century under ordinary
conditions may almost be left out of consideration, so small was the
calibre. It is true that Sir Ralph Grey, when besieged in Bamborough
Castle in 1464, was forced to surrender in a short space of time by the
army of the Kingmaker, who used his basilisks, aspiks, serpentines,
dragons, syrens, and sakers with excellent effect; but we may justly
claim that this was an exception, the configuration of the ground
enabling Warwick to place his pieces close up to the walls, while Grey
could look for no effective relief from a sympathetic army outside. Ten
years afterwards the Castle of Harlech, under the able governance of
Davydd ap Ifan, held out against all the force that Edward IV. could
bring to bear upon it, and was the last of the castles garrisoned by
Lancastrians to render up its keys.
But perhaps the greatest argument against the belief that the "venomous
saltpetre" was the chief cause of the decline in castellation is that of
the gallant resistance made by many of these old strongholds in the
Great Civil War. At that time the newest of the castles was, perhaps,
about two hundred years old and had not been constructed entirely for
defence; the older structures were in many cases devoid of woodwork
which had perished through age and neglect. Yet these ancient buildings,
now once more called upon to play their part in deadly strife, in many
cases showed a resistance to attack which was simply marvellous,
sometimes, as in the case of Pembroke, defying the ordnance brought to
bear upon them. If a Royalist army of respectable proportions happened
to be in the vicinity of a beleaguered fortress, the Parliamentarians
appeared to regard its reduction as an impossibility, and in the first
place devoted their entire attention to the dispersal of the field
force. It is true that the condition of the unmetalled trackways, which
were dignified by the name of roads, at that time, presented almost
insuperable obstacles to the passage of heavy ordnance, and the advance
of a cumbrous baggage train was at times an impossibility.
But even if cannon of respectable proportions could be brought against a
castle in the Great Civil War, the effects produced were in many cases
out of all proportion to the enormous trouble involved. Thus at the
first siege of Pontefract Castle in 1644 a cannon throwing a 42-lb. shot
was used in conjunction with another of 36 lbs. and two of 24 lbs., the
least being 9 lbs., and yet the siege failed chiefly by reason of the
small effect produced by the 1400 projectiles which were fired into it.
Again although Scarborough Castle was quite ruinous in 1644 when its
siege commenced, and in addition was ill-supplied with ammunition or
food, yet it gallantly sustained a siege lasting for twelve months.
It may therefore be conceded from the foregoing that the assertion
respecting gunpowder causing the disuse of the castle in the British
Isles must be taken with a large degree of reservation, since many other
causes have to be considered, and even those who maintain the assertion
must admit that the reason assigned took an unconscionably long time
in effecting its object.
[Illustration: IGHTHAM MOTE, KENT.]
In the very few castles which saw their origin during the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries in Britain, domestic comforts and attempts at
effective defensive works appear to have run side by side, often to the
almost total exclusion of the latter. The substitution of brick for
stone masonry in many of these was in itself a startling change, but
when combined with this, large and lofty apartments were introduced,
many with magnificent carved and moulded wooden ceilings, windows of
large dimensions filled with beautiful tracery characteristic of
Perpendicular architecture, walls hung with rich tapestry and decorated
with gorgeous heraldic devices and trophies of arms, costly furniture
and other fittings betokening an advanced education in domestic
requirements,--the feeling was borne in upon the minds of the nation
that the feudal castle, as such, had seen its day, and that the age of
the baronial residence and the manorial dwelling-house had superseded
it.
In these later castellated residences the kitchens, larders, cellars,
dining halls, residential rooms and general offices became matters of
supreme moment, the defensive works of secondary importance, but
designed nevertheless with a view to impressiveness and an assumption of
strength which they rarely possessed. Within these lordly halls the
noble owners held high revel, while troops of servitors, henchmen, and
servants of every degree swarmed in the passages and halls in marked
contradistinction to the old time grim men-at-arms, bearded archers, and
steel-clad retainers of the feudal fortress.
There was naturally a period of transition during which the
characteristics of the Castle predominated over the domestic influences,
and those which sprang into existence during the reigns of Henry IV. and
V. very ably show this feature. To this intermediate period we may
ascribe those structures which were chiefly reared by the spoils
acquired upon the Continent by soldiers of fortune who "followed the
wars," and returning to their native land built palatial residences for
themselves, out of their lawful, or it may be, ill-acquired, gains. Many
of these were based upon designs which the adventurers had seen abroad,
thus our first example, Bodiam, is a replica of many castles which were
to be found at the time of its erection in Gascony. _Bodiam Castle_ is
one of the finest in Sussex, and certainly one of the most picturesque
in England; it is situated upon the Rother, which here forms the
boundary between Sussex and Kent. The building owes its origin to Sir
Edward Dalyngrugge, who had served in France and Spain under the Black
Prince with singular credit to himself and marked advantage to his
worldly estate. A portion of this superfluous wealth was expended in
erecting Bodiam Castle, which, while affording every comfort as a
residence, possessed most of the essential qualities for effective
defence.
It presents a singularly beautiful and romantic spectacle at the present
time, the towers and enceinte being entire, while a wealth of foliage
and the wide waters of the surrounding moat afford a _coup d'oeil_
seldom equalled and probably not excelled in England. The licence to
crenellate dates from 1386; the building was erected in the middle of a
lake connected with the river, thus forming a broad and deep moat. A
causeway, defended by an ingenious system of bridges and small gateways,
leads across the latter, and terminates in a small barbican, now partly
dismantled; the entrance is between two tall square towers which
present beautiful examples of machicolation upon their summits. Upon the
opposite, or south face, is the postern leading to the moat and defended
by a massive square tower, being one of nine in all surrounding the
enclosure. The interior is now simply an empty shell, all the domestic
buildings having been destroyed by Sir William Waller in 1643, after the
siege of Arundel, although the Chapel and the chief apartments are
capable of being located. We have therefore simply the outer walls
remaining of a particularly fine castle of the Perpendicular period.
The entrance consists of a vaulted passage with many openings for the
discharge of missiles upon assailants while they were endeavouring to
overcome the three portcullises and the massive wooden gate defending
it. In addition to ordinary loopholes there are round holes for the
discharge of harquebuses. The castle underwent a siege by the Earl of
Surrey in the reign of Richard III. in consequence of a descendant of
Sir Thomas Lewkenor, into whose hands it had passed, proving obnoxious
to the King.
_Shirburn Castle_ is also of the same type and very similar to Bodiam;
it dates from the year 1377 and was erected by Warine de Lisle who
had gained wealth and distinction under Edward III. It stands in the
Chiltern Hills near Stokenchurch and is a large square pile surrounded
by a broad moat.
[Illustration: WRESSLE CASTLE, YORKSHIRE.]
_Wressle Castle, Yorkshire._--The Castle of Wressle lies to the
south-east of York, near the junction of the Derwent with the Ouse, the
navigation of which it was probably designed to protect. Sir Thomas
Percy, the brother of the first Earl of Northumberland, is reputed to
have been the founder. It fell to the Crown, and Henry IV. granted it to
his son John, Earl of Bedford, and after his demise to Sir Thomas Percy,
son of Henry, the second Earl of Northumberland. The Percies seem to
have maintained their Court in the Castle with a magnificence befitting
their illustrious race, and during their occupation the Castle saw the
most glorious portion of its history.
In 1642 and 1648 it was garrisoned by the Parliamentarians and shortly
afterwards was ordered to be dismantled. Three sides of the quadrangle
were thrown down, leaving only the south façade. It was in the
possession of the Seymour family from 1682 to 1750, when it again
passed into the hands of descendants of the Percy family, and now is
owned by Lord Leconfield.
The building originally possessed five towers, one at each corner and
another over the entrance on the south side, which still remains,
together with the curtain wall and flanking towers. These present a very
imposing appearance, but the general effect of the ruins suggests the
castellated mansion of the Perpendicular period more than the grim
sternness of a medieval castle. The square corner towers appear
singularly inadequate for an effective flanking fire, and no doubt the
building relied for defence chiefly upon the broad moat which
encompassed it upon three sides and the deep dry ditch defending the
approach.
_Hever_ undoubtedly owes its fame partly to its magnificent gatehouse,
which forms by far the most impressive part of the structure, and partly
to the rich store of human interest imparted by its intimate connection
with the ill-fated Anne Boleyn. It was built in the reign of Edward III.
by Sir William de Hever, whose daughter brought it to her husband, Lord
Cobham. In the time of Henry VI., Sir Geoffrey Boleyn, Lord Mayor of
London, an opulent mercer, purchased it, and added greatly to the
existing buildings, the work being subsequently finished by his
grandson, Sir Thomas, the father of Anne.
[Illustration: HEVER CASTLE, KENT.]
The latter was born in 1501, and brought up at Hever under a French
governess. After she attracted the notice of the King, her father was
created Viscount Rochford, and Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond, while Anne
was made Marchioness of Pembroke. It was in the garden at Hever that
Henry first saw her, and subsequently his wooing of that unfortunate
queen occurred there. After the execution of Anne and her brother, the
castle went to the Crown and was settled on Anne of Cleves. In 1557 Sir
Edward Waldegrave purchased it, and it passed to Sir William Humfreys
and subsequently to Sir T. Waldo, whose descendant is the present owner.
The Castle is surrounded by a double moat, fed by the river Eden; it is
a small castellated house of the fifteenth century, the chief feature
being the superb entrance, battlemented and machicoulied, and containing
three portcullis grooves in the main passage. The buildings completing
the rectangle are chiefly of the Elizabethan period, but have been very
extensively restored by the present owner.
_Maxstoke_ is one of the very few castles which have come down to us
without the expression "dismantled by order of Parliament" being applied
to it. It affords us an idea of the beauty the face of England would
present, so far as magnificent castles are concerned, if the forces of
destruction and revolution had never been let loose upon our fair isle.
It dates from 1346, when William de Clynton, Earl of Huntingdon,
obtained licence to crenellate. The Duke of Buckingham owned and
occupied it in 1444; he was killed at Northampton in 1460, and his son
Humphrey, Earl of Stafford, having died of wounds received at the First
Battle of St. Albans in 1455, his grandson Henry succeeded him but
was beheaded without trial at Salisbury in 1483. Edward Stafford,
however, succeeded to the estates in the reign of Henry VII.; his death
by beheading occurred on Tower Hill in 1521. Maxstoke came to the Crown
but was given by Henry VIII. to Sir William Compton, from whose
descendants it was purchased by the family of Dilke in whose possession
it still remains.
[Illustration: MAXTOKE CASTLE, WARWICKSHIRE.]
The gatehouse is in excellent preservation, the entrance being
flanked by hexagonal towers, while the archway contains the grooves for
the portcullis, and also the old gates themselves, plated with iron and
bearing the arms of the Stafford family. A fine groined roof is inside
the gatehouse, while the battlements have an alur behind them. The walls
of the enceinte and the four towers at the corners are in good
preservation, and show marks of the wooden buildings formerly erected
against them for accommodating the soldiers. The Chapel and a number of
the domestic apartments are original, dating from the time of Edward
III.
_Raglan_, one of the most imposing ruins in the British Isles, was
erected shortly after 1415 by Sir William ap Thomas, who had returned
rich in honours and also in worldly wealth from many a stricken field,
the last being that of Agincourt. He married the daughter of Sir David
Gam, and commenced the erection of the magnificent building which
combines in such an excellent manner the characteristics of a mansion
and a fortress. If either predominates it is undoubtedly the warlike
portion since, presumably, the builder could not at once forget his
bellicose proclivities. His son was made a baron by Edward IV. and
afterwards Earl of Pembroke, and was beheaded at Northampton, 1469. The
Castle came into the possession of the Somersets in 1503, the ancestors
of the present Duke of Beaufort. The fifth earl carried out extensive
work upon the pile, but shortly afterwards the demolition of the Castle
was ordered by the parliament. Probably the most striking feature of the
Castle is the detached Keep lying to the left of the main entrance, and
called the Yellow Tower. It is surrounded by a wide and deep moat, and
was undoubtedly a formidable obstacle before being slighted. It
underwent a vigorous siege in 1646, when Sir Thomas Fairfax assailed it
with a large force. The garrison ran short of ammunition, and, the north
wall being breached, a capitulation ensued.
_Herstmonceaux Castle._--One of the finest examples of the later castles
is Herstmonceaux, in Sussex, dating from the year 1440. It has been
described as "the most perfect example of the mansion of a feudal lord
in the south of England," and, when visited by Walpole in 1752, was in a
perfect state of preservation; Grose, writing a few decades later, gives
a vivid description of all the principal apartments, which seem to have
suffered but little at that time. Now, however, when there is some
rumour prevailing of an intended restoration, the building is in
ruins,--roofless, ivy-grown, and in many parts dismantled by the
falling-in of roofs and floors. It is built of the small bricks then in
use, two inches or less in thickness; they were brought to England from
Belgium, strange to say the art of brick-making having apparently been
lost since the departure of the Romans. Belgian workmen were also
brought over to erect it.
Sir Roger Fiennes, an Agincourt veteran, was the founder, and probably
the site had borne a previous fortalice. Like Bodiam, erected some
half-century previously, the plan is quadrilateral, almost square, with
four octagonal towers at the corners and three of pentagonal plan
strengthening the curtain walls. The gateway is one of the finest and
most impressive in existence; the towers which flank it rise over 80
feet in height, cylindrical at the upper parts and superposed upon 50
feet of octagonal bases, with smaller turrets rising still higher above
them. A magnificent range of machicoulis with crenellation above
protects the towers and the curtain between, the merlons being pierced
with oillets. A moat, long since dry, encircles the building, a bridge
spanning it at the principal entrance. There are three tiers of cross
loopholes, and below occur openings for matchlocks to defend the
bridge. With the exception of the grand towers of the south gateway and
the shells of some adjoining buildings, there are only broken arches and
shattered walls, piers, and buttresses now to be seen, and it is only by
the description left by Grose and Walpole that the ichnography of the
interior can be traced. Wyatt the architect is responsible for the
vandalism committed, as he dismantled the Castle to furnish material for
the owner's new residence adjacent.
[Illustration: HERSTMONCEAUX CASTLE, SUSSEX.]
Although Herstmonceaux has never undergone any struggles in the "fell
arbitrament of war," yet painful memories cling to the ruins. Thomas
Fiennes, the ninth Lord Dacre, succeeded to the estate at the age of
seventeen. The youth had already laid the foundation of a brilliant
career at Court when an escapade, planned by himself and some madcap
companions, whereby they essayed to play the rôle of poachers upon a
neighbouring estate, led to the death of a keeper whom they encountered.
His three companions were arrested and hanged for murder near
Deptford; Dacre was also tried and condemned, and the sentence was duly
executed at Tyburn in 1541, the young man being twenty-five years old at
the time.
_Tattershall Castle_, on the Witham in Lincolnshire, is contemporary
with Herstmonceaux, and constructed likewise of Flemish brick bonded
with exquisite workmanship. The tower still standing contains four
stories with a total altitude of 112 feet; large Gothic-headed windows
occur filled with Perpendicular tracery, and these windows are repeated
on a smaller scale in the four octagonal towers which clamp the angles
of the building. Massive timber balks once supported the various floors,
and a number of carved chimney-pieces are to be found. The walls are
about 14 feet thick at the base, and many passages and apartments have
been made in their thickness. The well in the base is covered by a
massive arched crypt, upon which the Castle has been erected. But
perhaps the most notable feature in this beautiful relic of the past is
the grand and markedly-perfect system of machicolation combined with the
bretasche, which is exemplified in the cornice surmounting the tops of
the curtain walls. Upon massive stone corbels is built a substantial
stone wall pierced with square apertures for an all-round fire with
various arms; in the floor of the alur are the openings for dropping
missiles upon assailants at the base of the walls; above this again are
the merlons and embrasures giving upon the battlement walk.
The Castle was erected by Ralph, Lord Cromwell, treasurer to King Henry
V., whose vast wealth sought for an opening in which to display itself,
and probably could not have done so more effectively than in the rearing
of a magnificent pile of buildings of which but a small portion, the
tower described, now remains. In its later years it suffered a partial
dismantling during the Commonwealth period, followed by a rifling in the
eighteenth century similar to that which overtook the sister castle of
Herstmonceaux.
After the middle of the fifteenth century castles were no longer built,
and we have to look to the fortified manor-house such as was designed by
the Lord Cromwell above mentioned at Wingfield, Derbyshire, or that at
Exburgh in Norfolk; these when surrounded by moats were capable of being
placed in a good state of defence, and many a thrilling tale is told
of the sieges they underwent during the Civil War when the stout
resistance they made was nearly or quite equal to the defence of the
massive ramparts and cyclopean bastions of the earlier castle-builder.
[Illustration: PENSHURST PLACE. KENT.]
_Penshurst Place._--This was originally an embattled mansion of the
fourteenth century, and gradually expanded by constant additions into an
excellent example of a combined castle and a manorial dwelling-house.
The licence to crenellate is dated the fifteenth year of Edward III.,
and stands in the name of Sir John de Pulteneye. This opulent knight
erected a stately mansion in the form of an irregular square as to plan.
It reverted to the Crown in the reign of Henry VI. and was held by the
Duke of Bedford, Regent for a time, and then by his brother, Humphrey,
Duke of Gloucester. The Staffords held it afterwards, but at the decease
of the Duke of Buckingham Edward VI. gave it to Ralph Fane and then to
Sir William Sydney, one of the heroes of Flodden Field. Its associations
with Sir Philip Sydney form one of its chief claims upon the public. The
spacious Hall measures 60 feet in length by the same in height; it is 40
feet wide, and is a grand example of fourteenth-century architecture.
The beautiful windows reach from the floor to a considerable height, the
roof is open, there is a minstrels' gallery, and an elaborate
arrangement for the fire in the middle of the Hall. Adjacent is a range
of buildings much altered in the Elizabethan period, containing state
rooms, the Queen's drawing-room, etc. Portions of the wall of enceinte
are to be found upon the south and east.
_Ightham Mote._--This building is undoubtedly one of the most perfect
examples of the combination of domestic convenience with an efficient
system of defence to be found in England. It stands about two miles from
Ightham village in Kent in a deep hollow, through which runs a rivulet
flowing into the moat surrounding the House, from which the latter takes
its name. Ivo de Haut possessed the Mote in the reign of Henry II.; it
reverted to the Crown for a time in the reign of Richard III., but was
restored to the family, and subsequently passed through the hands of
many owners.
The House appears to be of three distinct periods, Edward II., Henry
VII., and Elizabeth. The Hall is of the first period; it has a slender
stone arch to carry the roof and contains many ancient features; some
of the original shingles, for example, are still in existence, though a
modern roof covers them. Other objects are a Chapel, original, and the
Gateway Tower with the gateway itself and the doors.
There are many examples in England of the simple manorial hall of purely
domestic type whose owners found it expedient, at some critical period,
to fortify in some manner, and these additions are of the greatest
interest to the antiquarian. Perhaps the best example to be found is
that of Stokesay, near Ludlow, which is a unique specimen of a small
mansion of the thirteenth century subsequently fortified. The licence is
dated 1291, and a stone wall is mentioned; only a few yards remain of
this.
A wide ditch surrounds the area, and a high tower, similar to two towers
joined together, affords the required defence. It is embattled, the
merlons being pierced, while the embrasures have the ancient shutters
still depending. It dates from the end of the thirteenth century. The
Hall stands adjacent and vies with that at Winchester in being the most
perfect example of a thirteenth-century hall remaining to us. It is
about 50 feet long by 30 wide and over 30 feet in height. The windows
are in the E.E. style, and the corbels carrying the roof are of the same
period. The lord's apartment overlooked the Hall. It has been occupied
by the de Says, the Verduns, and ten generations of the Ludlows, the
first of whom built the crenellated parts. The prompt surrender of the
Cavalier garrison to the Parliamentarian army is no doubt responsible
for the fact that no destruction of the House occurred at that critical
time.
The examples given of the Castellated Mansion and fortified Manor-House
are necessarily meagre in number, and many more, such as Broughton
Castle in Oxfordshire, Sudley in Gloucestershire, Wingfield Manor,
Derbyshire; Hilton, Durham; Hampton Court, Hereford; Whitton, Durham,
etc., call for remark if the exigencies of space permitted.
CHAPTER X
THE CASTLES OF SCOTLAND
_Prehistoric and other Earthworks._--The numerous remains of strongholds
and defensive works of a prehistoric character readily fall as a rule
under one of the divisions used in describing the English examples. They
are usually of a circular or oval formation, and where irregular the
shape has been determined by the site.
The Hill-forts, known as Vitrified Forts, are, however, not represented
in England, and, although found in a few places upon the Continent,
appear to have been chiefly developed in Scotland. By some means, not
definitely determined as yet, the walls of these strongholds have been
subjected to intense heat, whereby the stones have become plastic, and
amalgamated when cool into one coherent mass. It is unnecessary to
dilate upon the obvious advantages which a homogeneous defence of this
nature would possess. These forts chiefly lie in a broad band between
the Moray Firth and Argyle and Wigtown, and are generally constructed of
igneous rocks; when provided with a suitable flux of alkali in the form
of wood-ashes or seaweed a comparatively moderate heat would be
sufficient to cause fusion. The walls of Vitrified Forts are of about
half the thickness of unvitrified, and appear to belong to the Late
Celtic Age.
_Brochs_ are also peculiar to Scotland. They are massive, tower-like
buildings, chiefly occurring in the northern counties and upon the
islands; they are remarkably similar in outline and construction, and
they have been ascribed chronologically to the period immediately before
or after the Roman occupation of Britain, and as being essentially
Celtic. The Broch of Mousa is generally believed to be the most perfect
example extant; it is in Shetland, and consists of a wall 15 feet thick
enclosing a court 20 feet in diameter. The wall is about 45 feet in
height and contains a solitary entrance, narrow and low. In the
thickness of the wall, and approached by three internal openings, are
chambers, while a spiral staircase leads upwards to where passages
constructed in the walls are served by the stairway. Other Brochs which
have been examined appear to possess a similarity of plan, but some have
subsidiary defences in the shape of external walls, ramparts, and
fosses; thus the example at Clickamin, Lerwick, was surrounded by a
stone wall. That found upon Cockburn Law, and known as Odin's, or Edin's
Hold, is of note by reason of the double rampart of earth surrounding
it. It is one of the largest as yet discovered, the wall being 17 feet
thick and the area 56 feet wide. Probably the many hut circles which
surround this Broch are of later date and were formed from its ruins.
The great thickness of the wall is exceeded, however, by the Broch at
Torwoodlee, Selkirkshire, by 6 inches.
With the advent of the historical period firmer ground is reached, and
there are numerous evidences that the Motte and Bailey Castle was
introduced at an early period into Scotland. During the second half of
the eleventh century this was the prevailing type as in England.
It has been found possible to divide the era of castellation proper in
the northern kingdom into four distinct periods:
_First Period_, 1100-1300.--The roving spirit and warlike disposition of
the Normans prompted their adventurers to penetrate into the
fastnesses of the North, where the innovations they introduced made
them acceptable in the main to the inhabitants. They taught the latter
how to raise towers of a design based upon the Rectangular Keep, with
thick cemented walls, and many of the great fortresses, such as
Edinburgh, Stirling, and Dumbarton, originated at this time. The early
type of Keep was quadrangular in plan with towers at the angles, which
were sometimes detached from the main building and placed upon short
curtain walls; but some were naturally modified or specially adapted to
the site like those of Home and Loch Doon. The use of water as a defence
was recognised at an early stage; some towers were placed on islands in
lakes, and most of them were furnished with moats and ditches. At this
period castles were seldom placed upon high promontories. The
workmanship was as a rule poor, rough, and crude, but some exceptions
occur like Kildrummie and Dirleton.
_Second Period_, 1300-1400.--The years of this century were marked in
Scotland by anarchy, war, and bloodshed, which devastated the kingdom
and placed the arts of peace in complete abeyance, while poverty was
universal. The period was consequently unfavourable for the erection of
Scottish castles upon a large scale, but many scores of small Keeps
sprang into existence. Bruce was antagonistic to the building of large
and roomy castles, arguing that their capture by an invader would give
him a standing in the country which otherwise he would not possess.
The towers erected were based upon the Norman Keep; they were of stone
throughout, so that their destruction by fire was impossible. Their
walls were so thick and massive that restoration after a siege was easy.
The basement was always vaulted, and was intended for storage purposes
and the herding of cattle in an emergency. As a general rule it had no
interior communication with the upper floors, but trap-doors are not
unknown. The entrance to the building was on the first storey through a
narrow door reached by a ladder; it gave upon the Hall, the chief
apartment, where all dined in common, and the household slept, a
subsidiary half floor being constructed above for this purpose.
[Illustration: BARTIZAN.]
The second floor was the private apartment of the chieftain and his
family, and was also provided with a wooden gallery for sleeping
purposes. The roof was a pointed arch resting solidly upon the walls and
covered with stone slabs. At the angles of the building bartizans were
usually built, although rounded corners like those at Neidpath and Drum
sometimes occur. In the massive walls spiral staircases, small rooms,
cupboards, and other conveniences were arranged. Round the Tower a wall
was generally erected, within which the stables, offices, and kitchens
were built. In the wall of the Tower itself, and sometimes below the
level of the ground, the universal "pit" or prison was built, ventilated
by a shaft carried upwards in the thickness of the wall. At times the
battlements were provided with parapets resting upon corbels but
executed in a crude manner.
[Illustration: BOTHWELL CASTLE, LANARKSHIRE.]
The century in question saw numerous castles of this type come into
existence, all based upon the same plan, that of the king differing only
in size from that of the small chieftain. The largest are from 40 to 60
feet square, but the majority are much smaller. These Keeps formed
nuclei for subsequent additions as at Loch Leven, Craigmillar, Campbell,
and Aros, and many of them served as ordinary residences down to the
seventeenth century, long after the tide of war had passed.
_Third Period_, 1400-1550.--With the coming of peace and a period of
commercial and industrial prosperity, the nobles of Scotland were able
to observe the progress of castellation around them in England and
France, and began to adopt the styles which they found in those
countries. A type of castle appeared based like that of Bodium upon a
French ideal,--the building of a high embattled wall strengthened with
towers around a quadrangular space. This plan, derived from the
Concentric ideal, was adopted for the largest castles, such as Stirling,
which is the most perfect example of a courtyard plan, and Tantallon.
In the smaller castles the Hall is placed in the centre with the
kitchen, pantry, and buttery adjoining it, and the lord's solar and
private apartments at the daïs end. The wine-vaults and cellars are
built beneath, while the bedrooms occur above. In contrast to the
English buildings of the period, the question of defence was the
dominating idea in spite of the altered conditions of better living and
increased luxury. Many plain and simple Keeps were also built during
this period.
_Fourth Period, after_ 1550.--The development of artillery led to
alterations being made in castellation, while the progress of the
Reformation gradually introduced the fortified mansion and Manor-House.
Many small Keeps, or Peel Towers, were built, however, chiefly on the
Border. Ornamentation up to this period had been conspicuously absent,
but now it assumed a very high importance. Corbelling became almost a
mania,--floors, windows, parapets, chimneys, and other details
projecting to an excessive distance in order to enhance the effect. The
bartizans were covered with high conical roofs, and turrets similarly
ornamented became a prominent style. The accommodation in the upper
floors was greatly increased when compared with the basement, through
the excess of corbelling. Gables were furnished with crow-steps, while
machicolation became at times almost fantastic. Gargoyles shaped like
cannon in stone are a marked feature of the period.
_Bothwell Castle, Lanarkshire (1st Period)_
Bothwell Castle is generally termed the grandest ruin of a
thirteenth-century castle in Scotland. It belonged in the thirteenth
century to the Murray family; was captured by Edward I. and given to
Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke. The English had possession until the
year 1337 when, after capturing it, the Scots dismantled it. From the
Douglas family it passed by marriage to the Earls of Home. It is placed
upon a rocky promontory above the Clyde, and consists of an oblong
courtyard with high curtain walls and strengthening towers, round or
square, while a large circular donjon lies at the west end. The latter
bestrides the enceinte and is separated from the bailey by a moat; it is
of noble proportions, 60 feet in diameter and 90 feet high, with walls
15 feet thick. The Tower forcibly suggests that at Coucy in many
particulars. The Hall and various other apartments occupy the eastern
portion of the Bailey.
_Neidpath Castle_ (_2nd Period_)
Neidpath Castle is situated upon elevated land overlooking a winding of
the Tweed. It was built upon the =L= plan, probably in the fourteenth
century, being a main central tower of the Keep type with a square
projection of considerable size attached to one side. The walls are 11
feet in thickness and the original door was on the basement floor facing
the river, a departure from the general rule. A spiral stair gave access
to the upper storeys. The Tower was originally of enormous strength,
being really two immense vaults superposed upon each other, but other,
wooden, floors have been inserted between. The parapet and corners are
rounded similar to those at Drum Castle. It was greatly altered and
added to in the seventeenth century. No particular history attaches to
the building, which belonged to the Hays of Yester for centuries; it has
only undergone one siege, that by Cromwell, when it surrendered after a
short defence.
[Illustration: NEIDPATH CASTLE, PEEBLES.]
_Edinburgh Castle (3rd Period)_
The site of Edinburgh Castle has undoubtedly been occupied by some
description of fortress from the most remote antiquity. The Romans
occupied it and subsequently Malcolm Canmore fortified it as an aid
towards keeping the English out of Scotland. In 1291 Edward I. besieged
and took it in fifteen days; he recaptured it again in 1294. In 1313 it
fell into the hands of Bruce by a daring escalade, and was stripped of
its defences. Edward III. rebuilt it, and placed a strong garrison
there, but the Scots took it four years later. David II. refortified it
and rendered it so strong that neither Richard II. nor Henry IV. had any
success in their attempts to take it. Since that period it has undergone
a number of sieges.
It is built upon the courtyard plan, and is one of the survivors of the
four chief fortresses in the country, the others being Stirling,
Roxburgh, and Berwick.
The moat at the entrance is now dry and filled up, and the Gateway there
is modern. The Argyle Tower (sometimes called the St. David's Tower) is
a portion of the old castle, as are also the ruins of the Wellhouse
Tower, while St. Margaret's Chapel is the oldest building and also the
oldest church in Scotland, containing Early Norman work and probably
also Saxon. The general aspect of the Castle suffers much from a
picturesque point of view by the addition of the great demi-lune battery
and ranges of modern buildings.
_Stirling Castle (3rd Period)_
The commanding rock upon which Stirling Castle is placed was originally
an old hill fort, but in the twelfth century was one of the four chief
castles. Thus in 1304 it held out for three months against Edward I. and
a powerful army. So important was it considered that Edward II.
attempted to relieve it, and thus led to Bannockburn. Baliol occupied
it, and King David only captured it after a long and obstinate siege. At
the Stuart period it became a Royal Castle and the favourite residence
of the Scottish kings. The present walls are undoubtedly raised upon the
old foundations, but, so far as antiquity is concerned, the oldest part
of the Castle remaining is the Parliament Hall opening from the Inner
Ward which is of late Perpendicular architecture. The Palace is of the
Renaissance, and dates from 1594.
[Illustration: EDINBURGH CASTLE, FROM THE TERRACE OF HERIOT'S HOSPITAL.]
_Dunnottar Castle, Kincardineshire (3rd Period)_
One mile south of Stonehaven stands Dunnottar Castle, upon a flat
platform of rock with the North Sea washing three of the precipitous
sides. A small isthmus, not much above the level of the sea, connects it
to the mainland.
The oldest parts of the Castle date from c. 1382. The entrance is at the
base of the rock upon the land side, where an outwork of remarkable
strength is placed. After ascending a steep incline a tunnel 26 feet
long is reached, also defended, and a second similar defence occurs
beyond, thus the approach was of an extremely formidable character.
The Keep stands at the south-west corner, and is of the =L= shape four
stories in height, and built early in the fifteenth century. The stables
and domestic buildings are of a later date, and arranged round part of
an irregular courtyard. The Castle, although credited with being one of
the most impregnable in Scotland, and to which the Scottish regalia was
entrusted for safe keeping during the Commonwealth, was captured by Sir
William Wallace in 1297, whose troops scaled the precipices and put the
English garrison of 4000 men to the sword. In 1336 Edward III.
refortified it, but the Scots took it as soon as he had left the
kingdom. General Lambert blockaded the Castle in 1652, and eventually
captured it.
_Tantallon Castle (3rd Period)_
Tantallon Castle is of the courtyard type, similar to Caerlaverock and
Doune, and was erected about the end of the fourteenth century. Situated
upon a rocky precipitous site, with three sides washed by the North Sea,
it was only imperative to construct defences upon the fourth or west
side. A deep ditch cut in the rock, curtain walls 12 feet thick and 50
feet high, battlemented, with a level court in front, beyond which was
another deep ditch,--these were the defences deemed all-sufficient to
baffle intruders. The Keep also acted as a flanking defence to the
curtain walls, and contained the only entrance, which passed
completely through it. Many traces exist of the work carried out in
the early part of the sixteenth century in the endeavour to make it
impregnable to artillery. The buildings now occupy only two sides of the
interior quadrangle, the rest having been dismantled.
[Illustration: DUNNOTTAR CASTLE, KINCARDINESHIRE.]
In the rich history of the Castle we find that in 1528 James V. invested
it with 20,000 men and a formidable battering train, the structure
itself being supplied with large artillery. The siege lasted twenty days
and proved unavailing, the great thickness of the walls resisting the
efforts of the gunners. It underwent another siege in 1639 when the Earl
of Angus made a stand in it against the Covenanters. General Monk
invested it and found after two days that his mortars had no effect; he
then tried heavy siege guns which breached the wall, but the garrisons
retreated into the central tower where they were safe, and were allowed
to capitulate upon good terms. The fortress fell into ruin in the
beginning of the eighteenth century.
CHAPTER XI
THE SIEGE AND DEFENCE OF A MEDIEVAL CASTLE
A work upon castellation would undoubtedly be incomplete if it omitted
to deal with the interesting subject of the means by which the medieval
knight defended his castle, and of the methods he employed for attacking
his neighbour's, or an enemy's town, whether in a private feud or
legitimate warfare.
Through the almost universal habit of perusing medieval romances the
general public has formed a mental picture of the hero and his followers
riding round a castle and summoning it to surrender, or challenging the
garrison to emerge from their retreat and essay mortal combat in the
open. As the engineer and captain of the sappers and miners, the
director of the artillery, the designer of movable towers, and the
general head of the various artifices calculated to bring the besieged
to their senses, the hero is less well known.
The _coup de main_ method of attack has probably been the same in most
ages, and undoubtedly was the chief means resorted to by primitive man.
His missile weapons during the Stone, Bronze, and Early Iron Ages were
of no use against earth ramparts crowned by thick palisading; sling,
stones, arrows, and spears were only efficacious against the bodies of
his enemies, and hand-to-hand combat was therefore a necessity. Hence we
may imagine a concentration against a presumably weak point, a sudden
rush, the plunge into the dry ditch and a rapid scramble up the scarp
towards the palisades under a shower of arrows, stones, and other
missiles; the mad escalade of the defences surmounting the earthwork and
the fierce resistance of the defenders, followed by a successful entry
or a disastrous repulse and retreat.
Precisely the same course was pursued in the medieval period when a
rapid bridging of the moat by planks and beams would be attempted,
scaling ladders would be reared, and, protected by their shields from
the rain of missiles, the assailants, covered by their archers' fire of
arrows and bolts upon the ramparts, would mount their ladders and
attempt to effect a lodgment upon the walls. And, although weapons and
conditions have changed, the assault to-day is made upon the self-same
methods.
If, instead of the _coup de main_, a sustained siege is decided upon the
knight will order his "gyns" to be brought up to the front, and large
and heavy ones to be built upon the spot. From the time when Uzziah
"made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on the towers
and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal,"[1] down
to the invention of cannon, the ingenuity of man has been exercised in
devising machines for hurling missiles to a distance.
The Greeks, Romans, and other nations of antiquity brought them to
perfection, and marvellous results were obtained in ancient sieges; the
vivid account by Plutarch of the great engines used at the attack upon
Syracuse, B.C. 214-212, reads almost like romance. Caesar frequently
mentions this artillery, and especially the portable balistae for
throwing arrows and casting stones; they were fitted with axles and
wheels and manoeuvred like batteries of cannon at the present day.
Larger engines were constructed as required like those of the medieval
period.
[Footnote 1: 2 Chron. xxvi. 15.]
[Illustration: TANTALLON CASTLE, HADDINGTONSHIRE.]
The ancient engines were distinct from those of a later age in depending
for their efficacy upon the forces of tension and torsion as compared
with that of counterpoise in the middle ages. The art of preparing the
sinews of animals so as to preserve their elastic powers was known to
the ancients, and great bundles so treated were utilised in different
ways in the various engines. Experiments on sinews, ropes of hair, and
other materials at the present day have proved that loss of elasticity
soon occurs, whereas we learn that such was not the fact in classical
times with their special method of preparation. By fixing an endless
skein in a suitable frame, stretching it tightly and then twisting the
skein in the centre by means of a beam of wood, the necessary torsion
was obtained; if a missile were placed upon the beam when drawn back and
the beam released, the projectile would be hurled to a distance
proportionate to the velocity of the arm and the weight of the missile.
The principle may readily be gleaned from the accompanying diagram which
exemplifies the two vertical skeins used in a portable balista for
throwing arrows; by being fixed in a suitable frame an action like that
of the bow could be obtained. By using immense coils of twisted sinew
the nations of antiquity, and especially the Greeks, threw stones
weighing 50 lbs. or more to a distance of from 400 to 500 yards, and as
a general rule with marvellous accuracy, while lighter missiles are
stated to have been hurled to between 700 and 800 yards. These engines
received the general name of "catapults," although the Greeks generally
referred to them under the term "tormentum," in reference to the twisted
sinews, thongs, and hair, of which the skeins were made. Broadly
speaking, catapults shot darts, arrows, and the falarica,--a long
iron-headed pole; balistas projected stones or similar missiles, though
the names are often interchanged by the chroniclers. Some time after the
fall of the Roman empire the secret of preparing the sinews was lost.
[Illustration: DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTION IN
CLASSICAL ENGINES.]
_The Trebuchet._--Another force was called into play for medieval
artillery. This was the counterpoise, or gravitation, and the principle
upon which all large engines or "gyns" were constructed during the
middle ages. A long wooden arm was pivoted in a framework so that a
short and a long portion projected upon either side; to the shorter part
a great weight in a swinging cradle was fixed which necessarily raised
the longer arm to the vertical position. If the latter were drawn
backwards and downwards the great weight was accordingly raised, and
upon release the long arm would sweep upwards in a curve and project any
missile attached to it. By fixing a sling of suitable length to the arm
the efficiency was immensely increased (_see_ Title-page). Such was the
principle of the "trebuchet," the enormous engines which carried
devastation and destruction to medieval castles. The French are said to
have introduced these in the twelfth century, and by the end of the
thirteenth they were the most formidable siege engines of the time.
[Illustration: STIRLING CASTLE, STIRLINGSHIRE.]
The transition period in England between the classical weapons and the
trebuchet was the twelfth century and the early part of the thirteenth.
The veterans from the crusades undoubtedly introduced the torsion and
tension engines, but found that the home-made article could not compete
in efficiency with the Oriental examples and therefore the advent of the
trebuchet was welcomed. Roughly speaking, the original balista or
catapults depending upon torsion, and throwing shafts rather than balls,
were not so frequently in use as those engines which depended upon
tension and threw heavy stones. In the early part of the thirteenth
century the balista catapult came into vogue once more; it was of the
cross-bow type, and at the end of the century was called the espringale
and mounted on wheels.
The counterpoises used in large trebuchets weighed sometimes between 8
and 9 tons; the throwing arm was often 50 feet in length, and the engine
could hurl a projectile weighing between 2 cwt. and 3 cwt. to a distance
of about 300 yards. Dead horses were at times sent whirling over the
battlements into a besieged town, while casks of matter of an offensive
character and likely to breed pestilences were common missiles. But the
chief use and purpose of the trebuchet was the smashing-up of
bretasches; the pounding of the battlements and upper works to
facilitate escalades; the filling up of the moat in selected places by
throwing large quantities of earth, stones, etc., into it and against
the walls, and, occasionally, to hurl some unfortunate envoy back again
into a town or fortress when the messages he carried were distasteful to
the besiegers. In a medieval MS. full directions are given for trussing
a man intended for use as a projectile.
Camden states that at the siege of Bedford Castle by King John one of
the mangonels, _i.e._ trebuchets, threw millstones into the castle. He
mentions seven great machines being at work at one time. Again, when
Henry III. besieged Kenilworth, in 1266, stones of extraordinary size
were used as missiles; some are still preserved at the Castle and two
are at the Rotunda, Woolwich, the diameters being 18-1/2 inches and
16-1/4 inches; the weight 256 lbs. and 165 lbs. respectively. At
Pevensey Castle catapult stone shot of 144, 156, and 241 lbs.
respectively have been discovered. The great trebuchet constructed by
Edward I. for the siege of Stirling Castle cast balls weighing between
two and three hundredweight. The several parts of this great machine
were sent by sea, but the Castle surrendered before its efficacy could
be tried. The King was annoyed that this, his pet device, the
"War-Wolf," as it was termed, had not had an opportunity, and therefore
ordered the garrison to remain within while he took a few "pot-shots" at
their defences.
Such projectiles would almost demolish a house, and were nearly as
formidable as modern shells; their great weight would batter every
portion of a medieval castle except the very thickest of walls. The
platforms of earth thrown up by besiegers to sustain their great engines
remain in many places intact to-day; thus round Berkhampstead Castle are
eight, upon which the trebuchets of the Dauphin were erected in 1216,
when he battered the castle into submission in about a fortnight. The
terms mangonel, petrary, balista, onager, scorpion, perrier, catapult,
etc., when used by historians of the middle ages, generally apply to the
trebuchet and its varieties, large and small.
_The Arblast, Espringale, and Spurgardon_ were engines based upon the
cross-bow or tension principle; some were of considerable size and threw
huge bolts tipped with iron. Another and a common use was to convey
ignited incendiary matter into the enemy's quarters by their means. They
were mounted upon towers, curtain walls, and in the baileys, while in
the open when placed upon wheels they served the purpose of
field-pieces.
[Illustration: RAISING THE PORTCULLIS.]
_The Ram_, based upon the weapon used by the ancients, was in frequent
use. The working parts and the men manipulating it were protected by a
pent-house called the "Snail," or "Whelk," having a roof of considerable
thickness. In this house it was suspended by chains and pulled backwards
and forwards by hand or mechanical appliances; when released, it smashed
the stones in the wall to powder, so that they could be subsequently
removed from the defences. To mitigate the effects the besieged let down
mattresses, bags of wool, and coiled rope mats by chains from the
ramparts.
_The Terebra._--A machine based upon the classical _terebra_ was also in
use. It consisted of a heavy beam which could be rotated; the iron head
being furnished with a spike of square section was inserted in a joint
into which it bored its way, breaking up the surrounding stones and
facilitating their removal.
_The Cat, or Sow_, was in constant use for mining and underpinning
walls. It was a covered house upon wheels, with an enormously strong
roof calculated to withstand the heavy stones, beams of wood, hot
water, molten lead, and spiked poles which were invariably launched from
the battlements for its destruction. Under its cover the besiegers
tunnelled beneath the walls, which they supported with woodwork until
their task was completed; by starting a conflagration in the chamber
thus excavated the supports were consumed and the wall was breached. At
other times the stones, previously shattered or loosened by the ram or
the terebra, were removed until the wall above was incapable of bearing
its own weight. Mining, like other operations, had to be carried out
with discretion and was undoubtedly a precarious operation. Thus in the
siege of Dryslwyn Castle, Carmarthenshire, in the time of Edward I.,
Lord Stafford and other leaders lost their lives by a sudden collapse of
the walls they were undermining. The mine was often met by a
counter-mine of the garrison as in modern warfare.
_The Beffroi, Belfry, or Movable Tower_ was a machine for facilitating
the capture of fortified positions. It could be built upon the spot or
carried from place to place in pieces. When mounted upon wheels it was
pushed forward towards the walls, the object being to give the
assailants the same advantage of height which was shared by the
besieged. From the upper platform the archers could command the
battlements and approaches; those in lower stages sent their missiles
into loopholes and other openings; in the lowest stage a ram was often
mounted. One feature of its construction was a hinged platform which
fell outwards upon the battlements and over which the assailants
endeavoured to enter the fortress. The besieged hindered the approach of
this terror by digging pitfalls for the wheels, shooting incendiary
missiles, making sallies for its destruction by fire, or concentrating
such a body of men upon the walls that none could live under the hail of
missiles poured into it.
The methods of assailing a castle thus enumerated were, as a rule, put
into operation at the same time and supported one another. Thus in the
siege of Bedford Castle, defended by the followers of Faukes de Breauté,
in 1224, the siege was carried out by King Henry III. in person. Two
wooden Beffrois were made and advanced towards the walls,--these were
occupied by longbow-men and arbalestiers; sappers approached the walls
and undermined by means of a Cat; seven trebuchets cast their ponderous
projectiles against, or into, the castle without intermission night and
day, while lesser artillery hurled lead-covered stones, darts, bolts,
and other missiles among the defenders upon the walls, or through the
oillets and louvre-covered windows. The barbican was taken and then the
outer bailey; a breach in the defending wall gave admission to the inner
bailey, and when, by judicious sapping, one portion of the great Shell
Keep sank and produced a wide breach, the castle was surrendered.
In medieval manuscripts we meet with many illustrations of petardiers
hurling vessels containing Greek fire upon the various engines attacking
a castle or town, and perhaps this terrifying missile deserves more
notice than has hitherto been paid to it. Introduced from the East
during the time of the Crusades it was used with other incendiary
bodies, but as no great objects were specially achieved by its use in
our islands, or rather, as chroniclers do not make special mention of
such results, we are probably justified in thinking that the effects
were more of a terrifying character than of actual effectiveness in
besieging or defending a castle.
INDEX
Adulterine Castles, 90, 91
Ages--Stone, Bronze, Iron, dates of, 7
l'Aigle, Matilda de, 94
Albini, Nigel de, Cainhoe Castle, 56
Alnwick Castle, description of, 68
Alselin, Geoffrey, Laxton Castle, 56
Alur, 117, 168
Ambresbury Banks, Essex, 29
Anderida, 45
Angus, Earl of, 187
Arbalesteria, 78, 117
Arblast, 196
Archer, the English, 150
Aros Castle, 179
Arundel Castle, 54, 65, 151, 158
description of, 71
Shell Keep, 72
siege of, 72
Arundel Cathedral, 73
Aspiks, 152
Avalon, Isle of, 11
Badbury, Berks, 31
Badbury Rings, Wimborne, 22, 23, 32
Badlesmere, Bartholomew, 148
Bailey, buildings in, 53
Bailey or Base Court, 53
Bakewell, 42
Baliol, Robert, 184
Balista, 192, 194, 196
stones, 192
Bamborough Castle, 41
description of, 93
Keep of, 94, 96
siege of, 93
wards of, 96
Banks, Sir John, and Lady, 139
Barbican, or ravelin, 67
Barnard Castle, the Keep, 106
Bartizans, 178, 180
Base Court or Bailey, 53
Basilisks, 152
Battlemented parapets, 41
Bayeux tapestry, 55
Beauchamp Tower, Tower of London, 135
Beaufort, Duke of, 142, 164
Beaumaris Castle, 122
_Bebban burh_ or Bamborough, 41
Bedford Castle, Shell Keep of, 200
siege of, 195
Beffroi, 81, 94, 198, 199
Bek, Anthony, Bishop of Durham, 69
Belesme, Robert de, 71, 87
Belfry, 198
Belvoir Castle, position of, 59
Todenei, Robert, 57
Berkeley Castle, 65
Berkhampstead Castle, 196
Mortaign, Robert, Count of, 56
Berm, Cadbury Castle, 24
Verulamium, 37
Berwick Castle, 183
Bigot family, 142
Bodiam Castle, 165, 179
description of, 157
Boleyn, Anne, 161
Sir Geoffrey, 160
Sir Thomas, 161
Bolingbroke, 121
Bombards, 148, 152
Bothwell Castle, description of, 181
Bowyer Tower, Tower of London, 135
Bradbury, 14
Bretasche, 167, 194
description of, 103
Motte and Bailey Castle, 50
Breauté, Faukes de, 199
Brick Castles, 155
Brick-making, art of, 165
British Isles, earthworks of, 2, 173
Broch, 174
at Cockburn Law, 175
of Mousa, 174
Bronllys Castle, 133
Bronze Age, 7, 189
Broughton Castle, 172
Bruce, Robert, 183
Buckingham, Duke of, 162
Builth Castle, 133
Bures Mount, Essex, 50
Burgh, Hubert de, 81
Burh, bury, borough, and burgh, 39, 40
Burhs, Nottingham, 42
Saxon, 38, 39
Stafford, Tarn worth and Warwick, 42
Witham and Maldon, 42
Busli, Roger de, Tickhill Castle, 57
Cadbury, Tiverton, 22
Castle, 23
Berm of, 24
Caerlaverock Castle, 186
Caerphilly Castle, 131
description of, 126
Caesar, artillery of, 190
Cainhoe Castle, Albini, Nigel de 56
Campbell Castle, 179
Canmore, Malcolm, 183
Cannon, early, 147
gargoyles, 181
shot, weight of, 154
Canterbury Castle, Keep of 89
Carew Castle, 132
Carisbrooke Castle, 65
description of, 73
Carnarvon Castle, 118
description of, 123
town walls of, 124
Castellated Mansion, 147, 155
Castellation, the first, 2
transition period, 156
Castle-building Stephen's reign, 92
Castles, centre of boroughs, 57
centre of feudal baronies, 56
definition of, 1
in Gascony, 156
Herefordshire, 55
Hertfordshire, 56
Leicestershire, 56
Nottinghamshire, 56
of Scotland, 173
sites of, 57
Cat, 197, 200
Catapult, 192, 194, 196
Chapel-en-le-Frith, 11
Chaworth, Payn de, 130
Chepstow Castle, 131
description of, 141
Château Gaillard, description of, 110
the Keep, 111
Chaucer, Geoffrey, 62
Cilgerran Castle, 132
Cissbury, 14, 24
Civil War, efficiency of Castles, 153
Clare, Earl of, 46
Gilbert de, 127
family, 142
Classification of earthworks, 5
Clavering Castle, Essex, 49
Clawll y Milwyr, 8
Cleves, Anne of, 161
Clickamin Broch, 175
Cliff Castles, 7-9
Clifford's Castle, Northants, 50, 52
Clifton Camps, 9
Clinton, William de, 162
Clun Castle, Keep of, 88, 92
Cobham, Lord, 160
Colchester Castle, 134
Chapel of, 85
Colepeper family, 144
Comb Moss, 11
Compton, Sir William, 162
Concentric Castle, 110
essential principles of, 113
Conisborough Castle, description of, 106
Constantinople, fortifications of, 112
Contour forts, 14
Conway, town wall of, 120
Castle, 118
description of, 120
Corbelling, mania for, 180
Corfe Castle, 131
Buttavant Tower, 140
description of, 137
Keep of, 139
"slighting" of, 140
Coucy Castle, 102, 104, 105, 181
Counterpoise engines, 193
Counterpoises of trebuchets, 194
_Coup-de-main_ attack, 189
Craigmillar Castle, 179
Crenellated walls, 41
Crévecoeur family, 143
Criccieth Castle, description of, 118
Cromlechs, 8
Cromwell, Ralph, Lord, 168
Crowstep gables, 181
Curtain walls, 67
Cutts, Lord, 75
Cylindrical Keep, 101
Dalyngrugge, Sir Edward, 157
Danish burhs, 43
Dauphin, 98
Definition of a castle, 1
"Devil of Belesme," 87
Differentiation of earthworks, 3
Dilke family, 162
Dinas, 9
Dirleton Castle, 176
Dog-tooth ornament, 92
Dolebury, 14
Donjon, 102, 181
Dorchester, Oxon, 10
Douglas family, 181
Doune Castle, 186
Dover Castle, 49
description of, 80, 92
the Keep, 82
Dragons, 152
Drum Castle, 178, 182
Dryslwyn Castle, 198
Dudley Castle, Fitz-Ansculf, William, 56
Dumbarton Castle, 176
Dunnottar Castle, description of, 185
Keep of, 185
Dunster Castle, Mohun, William de, 56
Durability of earthworks, 4
Durham Castle, 65
Dyke Hills, 10
Eagle Tower, Carnarvon Castle, 126
Earls Barton Castle, Northants, 52
Earthworks, auxiliary aids to, 18
British Isles, 2
classification of, 5
destruction of, 14
differentiation of, 3
durability of, 4
English, 3
with stockades, 18
Edinburgh Castle, 176, 183
Argyle Tower, 183
Edinburgh Castle, St. Margaret's Chapel, 184
Wellhouse Tower, 184
Edin's Hold, 175
"Edwardian" Castle, 118
Edward the Martyr, 138
Eleanor, wife of Humphrey of Gloucester, 144
Elfreton, Henry de, 121
Ely, 43
Engines, ancient, 191
English earthworks, 3
Escalade, 189
Espringale, 194, 196
Ethelfleda of the Mercians, 41, 42
Exburgh Manor-House, 168
Eye Castle, Malet, Robert de, 56
Fairfax, Sir Thomas, 164
Falarica, 86, 192
Fane, Ralph, 169
Fergeant, Alan, 99
Ferrers, Henry de, Tutbury Castle, 57
Feudal baronies, castles centre of, 56
Fiennes, Sir Roger, 165
Thomas, execution of, 166
First castellation, 2
Fishguard, 9
Fitz-Ansculf, William, Dudley Castle, 56
Fitz-John, Eustace, 68, 94
Fitz-Osborne, William, Earl of Hereford, 73
William, 142
Fitz-Scrob, Richard, 48
Flanking Towers, 67
Flint Castle, 122
Flying bridge, Motte and Bailey Castle, 50
Fonmon Castle, Glamorganshire, 93
Forebuildings, 78
Rochester Castle, 98
Fortified Hill-Tops, classification of, 13
strengthened, 5, 13
Gam, Sir David, 163
Gannock's Castle, near Tempsford, 44, 45
Gaveston, Piers, 74
Glendower, Owen, 119
Gloucester Castle, Keep of, 89
Humphrey, Duke of, 169
Golden Valley, Castle at, 48
Gravitation engines, 193
Greek fire, 200
Grey, Sir Ralph, 95, 152
Guildford Castle, Chapel of, 85
Keep of, 88
Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, 134
Gunpowder, introduction of, 147
"Gyns," 190, 193
Ham Hill, Somerset, 15
Hampton Court, Herefordshire, 172
Harlech Castle, 118, 152
Harquebuses, openings for, 158
Hastings Castle, 55
Hatton, Sir Christopher, 139
Haut, Ivo de, 170
Haverfordwest Castle, 133
Hedingham Keep, Essex, 83
Hembury Fort, Honiton, 14
Herefordshire, Castles in, 55
Hereford, Motte and Bailey Castle, 48, 49
Herstmonceaux Castle, 167, 168
description of, 164
Hertfordshire, Castles in, 56
Hever Castle, 160
Sir William de, 160
Hill forts, 173
Hilton Castle, 172
Home Castle, 176
Earls of, 181
Homestead moats, 6
developed, 6
Humfreys, Sir William, 161
Hunsbury, Northants, 30
Ifan, Davydd ap, 152
Ightham Mote, 170
Iron Age, 7, 189
Isabella, Queen of Edward II., 144
Isle of Avalon, 11
Juliets, 102
Keep, Scottish, plan of, 176
Kemyss, Sir Nicholas, 143
Kenilworth Castle, 151
siege of, 195
Kidwelly Castle, Carmarthenshire, 118, 129
Kildrummie Castle, 176
Lacy, Ilbert de, Pontefract Castle, 57
Lambert, General, 186
Lamphey Castle, 133
"Land of Castles," 131
Launceston Castle, the Keep, 105
Laxton Castle, Alselin, Geoffrey, 56
Leconfield, Lord, 160
Leeds Castle, Kent, 105, 148
Baileys of, 145
Barbicans of, 146
description of, 143
Keep of, 145
Leicestershire, Castles in, 56
Lewes Castle, 65
Lewkenor, Sir Thomas, 158
Licences to crenellate, 90
Lincoln Castle, 65
Lisle, Warine de, 159
Llandilo, Castle near, 130
Llawhaddon Castle, 133
Loch Doon Castle, 176
Loch Leven Castle, 179
Logan Stone, 8
Ludlow, family of, 172
Machicolation, 104, 116, 158, 165, 167, 181
earliest example of, 111
Maiden Castle, 14, 16, 22, 32
entrances of, 17
Malet, Robert de, Eye Castle, 56
_Malvoisin_, 94
Mam Tor, Derbyshire, 27
the shivering mountain, 27
Mangonel, 104, 196
Manorbier Castle, 9, 133
"March of the Men of Harlech," 120
Marmion, Robert le, Tamworth Castle, 56
Maxstoke Castle, 162
Medieval walls, construction of, 78
Melandra, near Glossop, 34
Menhirs, 8
Merlons, 117, 124, 165, 168
Meurtriers, 78, 116, 142
Mining, method of, 198
Missile engines of the ancients, 190
Mohun, William de, Dunster Castle, 56
Monk, General, 187
Montfort, Simon de, 46, 98
Montgomery, family of, 71
Morgan, Colonel, 142
Mortaign, Robert, Count of, Berkhampstead Castle, 56
Earl of, 46
Motte and Bailey Castle, 48
advantages of, 60
bretasche of, 50
construction of, 49
flying bridge of, 50
positions of, 58, 59
positions of mound of, 54
rapid erection of, 60
Scottish, 175
Mount and Fosse, 5
Mount (or Motte) and Bailey, 5
Mount, The, Caerleon, 50
Movable Tower, 198
Mowbray, de, 94
Narberth Castle, 133
Natural fortresses strengthened, 5-6
Neidpath Castle, 178
description of, 182
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Castle,
Chapel of, 85
Forebuilding of, 79
Keep of, 89
Newquay, 7
Newton Castle, Montgomeryshire, 53
Nineveh marbles, 41
Norham Castle, 105
Norwich Castle, 134
Nottingham Castle, 87
Keep of, 88
Nottinghamshire, Castles in, 56
Odin's Hold, Berwickshire, 175
Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, 46, 97, 143
Oillets, 78, 124, 166, 200
Old Castle Head, 9
Onager, 86, 196
Ongar Castle, Essex, 52, 53
_Oppidum_ of Cassivelaunus, 33
Orford Castle, Suffolk, 109
Oubliettes, 78
Oxford Castle, Keep of, 89
Parapet, location of, 4
Peel Towers, 180
Pelham, Lady Jane, 46
Sir John, 46
Pembroke Castle, 132, 153
Keep of, 106
Penhow Castle, Monmouthshire, 93
Penshurst Place, description of, 169
Percy, Earl, 70
Sir Henry de, 69
Sir Thomas, 159
Perrier, 196
Petardier, 200
Petrary, 81, 86, 196
Pevensey Castle, 45, 131
inner Castle of, 47
Pharos at Dover, 80
Pickering Castle, Keep of, 88
"Pit," or Prison, 178
Pitt Rivers, General, 25, 29
Plantagenet, Hamelin, 109
Plateau forts, 6, 11, 13
Pleshey Castle, Essex, 52
Pontefract Castle, 109, 154
Lacy, Ilbert de, 57
Porchester Castle, 37
Portland, 9
Primitive weapons, 1
Projectiles, men as, 195
millstones as, 195
Promontory forts, 6
Protected village sites, 6
Pulteneye, Sir John de, 169
Quatford Castle, 87
Quia Emptores, Statute of, 149
Raglan Castle, 141
description of, 163
Keep of, 164
Ram, 81, 197
Ravelin, or barbican, 67
Ravensburgh Castle, Hexton, 25
Rectangular Keep, 76
Chapel of, 85
Forebuilding of, 78
construction of, 77
Crypt of, 85
impregnability of, 87
internal arrangements of, 83
introduction of, 76
Ramparts of, 84
Reculvers, Isle of Thanet, 36
Redvers, Baldwin de, 139
Richard de, 74
Regalia Scottish, 186
Richard's Castle, Herefordshire, 48, 59
Richborough Castle, Sandwich, 36
Richmond Castle, Barbican of, 100
Chapel of, 99
Crypt of, 99
description of, 99
Keep of, 99
Ring Hill, Essex, 31
Roche Castle, 133
Rochester Castle, 134
description of, 96
Keep of, 89, 97, 98
siege of, 87, 97
Roman fortification, 37
Romano-British Period, 33
Roman wall, Tower of London, 134
Roxburgh Castle, 183
Royal Castles in Kent, 96
St. Burian, 8
St. David's Head, 8
St. John's Chapel, Tower of London, 136
St. Leger, Sir Anthony, 144
Sakers, 152
Saxon burh, 38, 39
MSS., 41
Period, 38
Say, de, family of, 172
_Segontium_ (Carnarvon), 36
Serpentines, 152
Seymour, Charles, Duke of Somerset, 70
family of, 159
Scales, Lord, 74
Scarborough Castle, siege of, 154
Scorpion, 196
Scottish Castles, Periods of, 176-181
Second Period, 177
Third Period, 179
Fourth Period, 180
Shell Keep, 64
configuration of, 66
position of, 65
Shirburn Castle, description of, 158
Shoulsbury, Exmoor, 22
Siege and defence of a medieval castle, 188
Sigismund, Emperor, 144
Silchester, 34, 37
Simple artificial enclosures, 5, 33
Smith, Sir Richard, 144
"Snail," 197
Solar, 180
Somerset, family of, 164
Sir Charles, 142
South Cadbury, Sherborne, 15
Sow, 81, 197
Spurgardon, 196
Spurious castles, 90
Stafford, Edward, 162
family of, 169
Humphrey, Earl of, 162
Lord, 198
Stockades, 18, 19
construction of, 19, 20, 21
Gallic, 19
on earthworks, 18
Stone Age, 7, 189
circles, 8
Stokesay Castle, description of, 171
Stirling Castle, 176, 183
description of, 184
Palace of, 185
Parliament Hall, 184
siege of, 195
Strongbow, Richard, 142
Sudley Castle, 172
Swegen the Sheriff, 49
Sydney, Sir Philip, 169
William, 169
Syracuse, attack on, 190
Syrens, 152
Tamworth Castle, Marmion, Robert le, 57
Tantallon Castle, 179
description of, 186
Keep of, 186
sieges of, 187
Tattershall Castle, crypt of, 167
description of, 167
Taunton burh, 41
Terebra, 197
Thetford Castle, Norfolk, 52
Thomas, Sir William ap, 163
Thurnham Castle, Kent, 53
Tickhill Castle, 148
Busli, Roger de, 57
Todenei, Robert, Belvoir Castle, 57
_Tormentum_, 192
Torsion and tension engines, 193
Torwoodlee Broch, 175
Totnes Castle, 65
Towcester, 42
Tower of London, St. John's Chapel, 85, 136
description of, 133
Keep of, 136
Traitors' Gate, 135
Trebuchets, 81, 86, 97, 152, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 200
projectiles of, 194, 195, 196
Treryn Castle, 8
Tretower Castle, 133
Trevalgue Head, 7
Tutbury Castle, 148
Ferrers, Henry de, 57
Tyler, Wat, 98
Uzziah, 190
Valence, Aymer de, 181
Vaulting Ribs, 92
Verdun, family of, 172
Vere, de, family of, 84
Verulamium, St. Albans, 34
Vescy, Ivo de, 68
Vitrified forts, 173, 174
Waldegrave, Sir Edward, 161
Waldo, Sir T., 161
Wales, Rhys of, 131
Wallace, Sir William, 186
Waller, Sir William, 71, 158
Wallingford, 39
Castle, 109
Walls, medieval, construction of, 78
Warkworth Castle, 109
Warwick Castle, 66, 148, 151
"War-Wolf," 196
Watling Street, 35
West Malling, 134
West Saxons, Harold, Earl of, 49
"Whelk," 197
Whelpley Hill, Bucks, 32
Whitton Castle, Durham, 172
Winchester, Statute of, 149
Windsor Castle, 53, 65
Barbican of, 61
description of, 60
Motte of, 61
St. George's Chapel, 62
Shell Keep of, 62
Wingfield Manor-House, 168, 172
Wollaston Castle, Northants, 52
Wren, Sir Christopher, 136
Wressle Castle, 159
Wyatt, the architect, 166
Wyndham, Sir William, 70
Yarnbury, Wilts, 32
Yester, Hays of, 182
York Castle, 65, 109
Keep of, 88
Zigzag moulding, 83, 84
THE END
_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.
_UNIFORM WITH THIS VOLUME_
ENGLISH COSTUME
PAINTED AND DESCRIBED BY
DION CLAYTON CALTHROP
SQUARE DEMY 8vo (9 × 6-1/4 INCHES), CLOTH, GILT TOP
CONTAINING 72 FULL-PAGE ILLUSTRATIONS IN COLOUR
FACSIMILE, AND NUMEROUS THUMB-NAIL
SKETCHES IN THE TEXT
COMPLETE IN ONE VOLUME
Price 20s. net
(_By Post, 20s. 6d._)
_Or obtainable in four sectional volumes, bound in cloth, gilt top_
Price 7s. 6d. net each
(_By post, 7s. 11d._)
Vol. I. EARLY ENGLISH. Vol. III. TUDOR & STUART.
" II. MIDDLE AGES. " IV. GEORGIAN.
EXCERPTS FROM PREFACE
There is no reason why a book dealing with antiquarian subjects should
be written in the dry-as-dust method; that it should be clear stands to
reason; that it should be as complete as possible is a justification of
its being; but beyond these it is eminently necessary that it should be
interesting.
It is to every kind of historical student that this book is addressed,
especially to those who endeavour to make the dry bones of history
live--the author, the artist, and the actor. It is, also, for all who
take an intelligent interest in history, and who would wish to see the
shifting panorama of men move before their eyes in the right colours and
clothes.
PUBLISHED BY
ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK, 4, 5, & 6 SOHO SQUARE, LONDON, W.
Transcriber's Note. The oe ligature is shown as the separate letters oe
in the following words: Crévecoeur, oeil, and manoeuvred. The
advertising material has been moved to the end of the ebook.
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of British Castles, by Charles H. Ashdown
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BRITISH CASTLES ***
***** This file should be named 40630-8.txt or 40630-8.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/4/0/6/3/40630/
Produced by Darleen Dove, Sue Fleming and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809
North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email
contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
[email protected]
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
