CHAPTER VII

THE CASTLES OF THE NORMANS IN ENGLAND

In this chapter we propose to give a list, in alphabetical order for convenience of reference, of the castles which are known to have existed in England in the 11th century, because they are mentioned either in Domesday Book, or in charters of the period, or in some contemporary chronicle.[241] We do not for a moment suppose that this catalogue of eighty-four castles is a complete list of those which were built in England in the reigns of William I. and William II. We have little doubt that all the castles in the county towns, such as Leicester, Northampton, and Guildford, and those which we hear of first as the seats of important nobles in the reign of Henry II., such as Marlborough, Groby, Bungay, Ongar, were castles built shortly after the Conquest, nearly all of them being places which have (or had) mottes. Domesday Book only mentions fifty castles in England and Wales,[242] but it is well known that the Survey is as capricious in its mention of castles as in its mention of churches. It is possible that further research in charters which the writer has been unable to examine may furnish additional castles, but the list now given may be regarded as complete as far as materials generally accessible will allow.[243] One of the castles mentioned (Richard's Castle) and probably two others (Hereford and Ewias) existed before the Conquest; they were the work of those Norman friends of Edward the Confessor whom he endowed with lands in England.

Out of this list of eighty-four castles we shall find that no less than seventy-one have or had mottes. The exceptions are the Tower of London, Colchester, Pevensey, and Chepstow, where a stone keep was part of the original design, and a motte was therefore unnecessary: Bamborough, Peak, and Tynemouth, where the site was sufficiently defended by precipices: Carlisle and Richmond, whose original design is unknown to us: Belvoir, Dover, Exeter, and Monmouth, which might on many grounds be counted as motte-castles, but as the evidence is not conclusive, we do not mark them as such; but even if we leave them out, with the other exceptions, we shall find that nearly 86 per cent. of our list of castles of the 11th century are of the motte-and-bailey type.

About forty-three of these castles are attached to towns. Of these, less than a third are placed inside the Roman walls or the Saxon or Danish earthworks of the towns, while at least two-thirds are wholly or

## partly outside these enclosures.[244] This circumstance is important,

because the position outside the town indicates the mistrust of an invader, not the confidence of a native prince. In the only two cases where we know anything of the position of the residence of the Saxon kings we find it in the middle of the city.[245] Even when the castle is inside the town walls it is almost invariably close to the walls, so that an escape into the country might always be possible.[246]

Of the towns or manors in which these castles were situated, Domesday Book gives us the value in King Edward's and King William's time in sixty-two instances. In forty-five cases the value has risen; in twelve it has fallen; in five it is stationary. Evidently something has caused a great increase of prosperity in these cases, and it can hardly be anything else than the impetus given to trade through the security afforded by a Norman castle.

Our list shows that Mr Clark's confident statement, that the moated mounds were the centres of large and important estates in Saxon times, was a dream. Out of forty-one mottes in country districts, thirty-six are found in places which were quite insignificant in King Edward's day, and only five can be said to occupy the centres of important Saxon manors.[247]

In the table in the Appendix, the area occupied by the original baileys of the castles in this list has been measured accurately by a planimeter, from the 25-in. Ordnance maps, in all cases in which that was possible.[248] This table proves that the early Norman castles were very small in area, suitable only for the personal defence of a chieftain who had only a small force at his disposal, and absolutely unsuited for a people in the tribal state of development, like the ancient Britons, or for the scheme of national defence inaugurated by Alfred and Edward. We may remark here that in not a single case is any masonry which is certainly early Norman to be found on one of these mottes; where the date can be ascertained, the stonework is invariably later than the 11th century.

ABERGAVENNY (Fig. 8).--This castle, being in Monmouthshire, must be included in our list. The earliest notice of it is a document stating that Hamelin de Ballon gave the church and chapel of the castle of Abergavenny, and the land for making a _bourg_, and an oven of their own, to the Abbey of St Vincent at Le Mans.[249]

The castle occupies a pointed spur at the S. end of the town, whose walls converge so as to include the castle as part of the defence. The motte has been much altered during recent years, and is crowned by a modern building; but a plan in _Coxe's Tour in Monmouthshire_, 1800, shows it in its original round form. The bailey is roughly of a pentagonal shape, covering 1 acre, and is defended by a curtain wall with mural towers and a gatehouse. The ditch on the W. and N. is much filled in and obscured by the encroachment of the town. On the E. the ground descends in a steep scarp, which merges into those of the headland on which the motte is placed.[250]

[Illustration: FIG. 8. Arundel, Sussex. Abergavenny, Monmouth.]

ARUNDEL (Fig. 8).--"The castrum of Arundel," says Domesday Book, "paid 40_s._ in King Edward's time from a certain mill, and 20_s._ from three boardlands (or feorm-lands), and 2_s._ from one pasture. Now, between the town feorm and the water-gate and the ships' dues, it pays 12_l._"[251] _Castrum_ in Domesday nearly always means a castle; yet the description here given is certainly that of a town and not of a castle. We must therefore regard it as an instance of the fluctuating meaning which both _castrum_ and _castellum_ had in the 11th century.[252] Arundel is one of the towns mentioned in the "Burghal Hidage."[253] But even accepting that the description in Domesday refers to the town, we can have very little doubt that the original earthen castle was reared by Roger de Montgomeri, to whom William I. gave the Rapes of Arundel and Chichester, and whom he afterwards made Earl of Shrewsbury.[254] Roger had contributed sixty ships to William's fleet, and both he and his sons were highly favoured and trusted by William, until the sons forfeited that confidence. We shall see afterwards that their names are connected with several important castles of the early Norman settlement. We shall see also that the Rapes into which Sussex was divided--Chichester, Arundel, Bramber, Lewes, Pevensey, and Hastings--were all furnished with Norman castles, each with the characteristic motte, except Pevensey, which had a stone keep. Each of these castles, at the time of the Survey, defended a port by which direct access could be had to Normandy. It was to protect his base that William fortified these important estuaries, and committed them to the keeping of some of the most prominent of the Norman leaders.

The castle stands on the end of a high and narrow ridge of the South Downs, above the town of Arundel. It consists of an oblong ward, covering 4-1/2 acres, in the middle of which, but on the line of the west wall, is a large motte, about 70 feet high, surrounded by its own ditch. The lower and perhaps original bailey is only 2 acres in extent. Round the top of the motte is a slightly oval wall, of the kind called by Mr Clark a shell keep. We have elsewhere expressed our doubts of the correctness of this term.[255] In all the more important castles we find that the keep on top of the motte has a small ward attached to it, and Arundel is no exception to this rule; it has the remains of a tower, as well as the wall round the motte. The tower is a small one, but it is large enough for the king's chamber in times which were not extravagant in domestic architecture. It is probable that this tower, and the stone wall round the motte are the work of Henry II., as he spent nearly 340_l._ on this castle between the years 1170 and 1187. His work consisted chiefly of a wall, a king's chamber, a chapel, and a tower.[256] The wall of the motte corresponds in style to the work of the middle of his reign; it is built of flints, but cased with Caen stone brought from Normandy, and has Norman buttresses. The original Norman doorway on the south side (now walled up) has the chevron moulding, which shows that it is not earlier than the 12th century. The tower, which we may assume to be the tower of Henry II.'s records, has a round arched entrance, and contains a chapel and a chamber (now ruined) besides a well chamber.

There is earlier Norman work still remaining in the bailey, namely, the fine gateway, which though of plain and severe Norman, is larger and loftier than the early work of that style, and of superior masonry.[257] The one Pipe Roll of Henry I. which we possess shows that he spent 78_l._ 6_s._ 2_d._ on the castle in 1130, and possibly this refers to this gatehouse.[258] We know that Henry was a great builder, but so was the former owner of this castle, Robert Belesme, son of Roger de Montgomeri.

The value of the town of Arundel had greatly increased since the Conquest, at the time of the Domesday Survey.[259]

BAMBOROUGH, Northumberland.--We first hear of this castle in the reign of Rufus, when it was defended against the king by Robert Mowbray, the rebel Earl of Northumberland; but there can be little doubt that the earliest castle on this natural bastion was built in the Conqueror's reign. In the 13th century certain lands were held by the tenure of supplying wood to the castle of Bamborough, and it was declared that this obligation had existed ever since the time of William I.[260] William certainly found no castle there, for Bamborough had fallen into utter ruin and desolation by the middle of the 11th century.[261] William's hold on Northumberland was too precarious to give opportunity for so long and costly a work as the building of a stone keep. It is more probable that a strong wooden castle was the fortress of the governors of Northumberland under the first Norman kings, and that the present stone keep was built in Henry II.'s reign.[262] There is no motte at Bamborough, nor was one needed on a site which is itself a natural motte, more precipitous and defensible than any artificial hill.[263] As the Domesday Survey does not extend to Northumberland, we have no statement of the value of Bamborough. The area of the castle is 4-3/4 acres.

BARNSTAPLE, Devon (Fig. 9).--This castle is not mentioned in Domesday, but the town belonged to Judhael, one of the followers of the Conqueror, whose name suggests a Breton origin. William gave him large estates in Devon and Cornwall. A charter of Judhael's to the priory which he founded at Barnstaple makes mention of the castle.[264] Barnstaple, at the head of the estuary of the Taw, was a borough at Domesday, and the castle was placed inside the town walls.[265] The motte remains in good condition; the winding walks which now lead to the top are certainly no part of the original plan, but are generally found in cases where the motte has been incorporated in a garden. There was formerly a stone keep, of which no vestige remains.[266] The castle seems to have formed the apex of a town of roughly triangular shape. The bailey can just be traced, and must have covered 1-1/3 acres.

The former value of Barnstaple is not given in the Survey, so we cannot tell whether it had risen or not.

[Illustration: FIG. 9. Barnstaple, Devon. Bishop's Stortford, Herts. Berkhampstead, Herts.]

BELVOIR, Leicester.--This castle was founded by the Norman Robert de Todeni, who died in 1088.[267] It stands on a natural hill, so steep and isolated that it might be called a natural motte. The first castle was destroyed by King John, and the modernising of the site has entirely destroyed any earthworks which may have existed on the hill. There appears to have been a shell wall, from the descriptions given by Nicholls and Leland.[268] It was situated in the manor of Bottesdene, a manor of no great importance, but which had risen in value at the date of the Survey.[269]

BERKELEY, or NESS.--The identity of Berkeley Castle with the Ness castle of Domesday may be regarded as certain. All that the Survey says about it is: "In Ness there are five hides belonging to Berkeley, which Earl William put out to make a little castle."[270] Earl William is William FitzOsbern, the trusty friend and counsellor of the Conqueror, who had made him Earl of Herefordshire. He had also authority over the north and west of England during William's first absence in Normandy, and part of the commission he received from William was to build castles where they were needed.[271] Berkeley was a royal manor with a large number of berewicks, and the probable meaning of the passage in Domesday is that Earl William removed the _geldability_ of the five hides occupying the peninsula or _ness_ which stretches from Berkeley to the Severn, bounded on the south by the Little Avon, and appropriated these lands to the upkeep of a small castle. This castle can hardly have been placed anywhere but at Berkeley, for there is no trace of any other castle in the district.[272] Earl Godwin had sometimes resided at Berkeley, but probably his residence there was the monastery which by evil means had come into his hands;[273] for we never hear of any castle in connection with Godwin. But a Norman motte exists at Berkeley, though buried in the stone shell built by Henry II. Mr Clark remarks: "If the masonry of Berkeley Castle were removed, its remains would show a mound of earth, and attached to three sides of it a platform, the whole encircled with a ditch or scarp."[274] The motte raised by Earl William has, in fact, been revetted with a stone shell of the 12th century, whose bold chevron ornament over the entrance gives evidence of its epoch. What is still more remarkable is that documentary evidence exists to fix the date of this transformation. A charter of Henry II. is preserved at Berkeley Castle, in which he grants the manor to Robert Fitzhardinge, pledging himself at the same time to fortify a castle there, according to Robert's wish.[275] Robert's wish probably was to possess a stone keep, like those which had been rising in so many places during the 12th century. But there had been a Norman lord at Berkeley before Fitzhardinge, Roger de Berkeley, whose representatives only lost the manor through having taken sides with Stephen in the civil war.[276] This Roger no doubt occupied the wooden castle on the motte built by William FitzOsbern. Henry II.'s shell was probably the first masonry connected with the castle. This remarkable keep is nearly circular, and has three round turrets and one oblong. As the latter, Thorpe's Tower, was rebuilt in Edward III.'s reign, it probably took the place of a round tower. The keep is built of rubble, and its Norman buttresses (it has several later ones) project about a foot. The cross loopholes in the walls are undoubtedly insertions of the time of Edward III. The buildings in the bailey are chiefly of the time of Edward III., but the bailey walls have some Norman buttresses, and are probably of the same date as the keep.[277] This bailey is nearly square, and the motte, which is in one corner, encroaches upon about a quarter of it. The small size of the area which it encloses, not much more than half an acre, corresponds to the statement of Domesday Book that it was "a little castle." There is no trace of the usual ditch surrounding the motte, and the smallness of the bailey makes it unlikely that there ever was one. A second bailey has been added to the first,[278] and the whole is surrounded on three sides by a moat, the fourth side having formerly had a steep descent into swamps, which formed sufficient protection.[279]

There is no statement in the Survey of the value of Ness, but the whole manor of Berkeley had risen since the Conquest.[280]

BERKHAMPSTEAD, Herts (Fig. 9).--Mr D. H. Montgomerie rightly calls this a magnificent example of an earthwork fortress.[281] It is first mentioned in a charter of Richard I., which recapitulates the original charter of William, son of Robert, Count of Mortain, in which he gives the chapel of this castle to the Abbey of Grestein in Normandy.[282] We may, therefore, with all probability look upon this as one of the castles built by the Conqueror's half-brother. And this will account for the exceptional strength of the work, which comprises a motte 40 feet high, ditched round (formerly), and a bailey of 2-2/3 acres, surrounded not only with the usual ditch and banks, but with a second ditch outside the counterscarp bank, which encircles both motte and bailey. At two important points in its line, this counterscarp bank is enlarged into mounds which have evidently once carried wooden towers;[283] if this arrangement belonged to the original plan, as it most probably did, it confirms a remark which we have made elsewhere as to the early use of wooden mural towers. Works in masonry were added to the motte and the bailey banks in the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries. There are traces of a semicircular earthwork outside the second ditch on the west, which appears to have formed a barbican. But the most exceptional thing about this castle is the series of earthen platforms on the north and east, connected by a bank, and closely investing the external ditch, which were formerly supposed to form part of the castle works. Mr W. St John Hope has suggested the far more plausible theory that they were the siege platforms erected by Louis, the Dauphin of France, in 1216. We are told that his engines kept up a most destructive fire of stones.[284]

The value of the manor of Berkhampstead had considerably decreased, even since the Count of Mortain received it.[285]

BISHOP'S STORTFORD, Herts (Fig. 9).--Waytemore Castle is the name given to the large oval motte at this place, which is evidently the site of the castle of "Estorteford," given by William the Conqueror to Maurice, Bishop of London.[286] The manor of Stortford had been bought from King William by Maurice's predecessor, William, who had been one of the Norman favourites of Edward the Confessor.[287] He may have built this castle, but he cannot have built it till after the Conquest, as the land did not belong to his see till then.

"The castle consists of a large oval motte, 250 × 200 feet at its base, rising 40 feet above the marshes of the river Stort, and crowned by a keep with walls of flint rubble, 12 feet thick. On the S. of the motte there are traces of a pentagonal bailey, covering 2-1/2 acres. It is enclosed on four sides by the narrow streams which intersect the marshes. The dry ditch on the fifth side, facing the motte, is discernible. The castle abuts on the road called The Causeway, which crosses the valley; it is in a good position to command both road and river."[288] The value of the manor had gone down at Domesday.[289]

BOURN, Lincolnshire (Fig. 10).--The manor of Bourn or Brune appears to have been much split up amongst various owners at the time of Domesday. A Breton named Oger held the demesne.[290] A charter of Picot, the Sheriff of Cambridgeshire, a person often mentioned in Domesday Book, gives the church of Brune and the chapel of the castle to the priory which he had founded near the castle of Cambridge--afterwards removed to Barnwell.[291] Bourn was the centre of a large soke in Anglo-Saxon times. Leland mentions the "Grete Diches, and the Dungeon Hill of the ancient Castel,"[292] but very little of the remains is now visible, and the motte has been almost removed.

"The castle lies in flat ground, well watered by springs and streams. The motte was placed at the southern apex of a roughly oval bailey, from which it was separated by its own wet ditch, access being obtained through a gatehouse which stood on the narrow neck by which this innermost enclosure, at its N.W. end, joined the principal bailey, which, in its turn, was embraced on all sides but the S. by a second and concentric bailey, also defended by a wet ditch, which broadens out at the S.W. corner into St Peter's Pool. There is another enclosure beyond this which may be of later date. The inner bailey covers 3 acres. Very little is now left of the motte, but a plan made in 1861 showed it to be fairly perfect,[293] and some slight remains of the gatehouse were excavated in that year. The castle is on the line of the Roman road from Peterborough to Sleaford, and close to the Roman Car-Dyke."[294]

The value of Bourn had risen at Domesday.

[Illustration: FIG. 10. Bourn, Lincs. Bramber, Sussex.]

BRAMBER, Sussex (Fig. 10).--Of the manor of Washington, in which Bramber is situated, the Survey says that it formerly paid geld for fifty-nine hides; and in one of these hides sits the castle of Bramber.[295] It must not be imagined that the castle _occupied_ a whole hide, which according to the latest computations would average about 120 acres. It is evident that there had been some special arrangement between the King and William de Braose, the Norman tenant-in-chief, by which the whole geld of the manor had been remitted. The Domesday scribe waxes almost pathetic over the loss to the fisc of this valuable prey. "It used to be ad firmam for 100_l._," he says. The manor of Washington belonged to Gurth, the brother of Harold, before the Conquest, but it is clear that Bramber was not the _caput_ of the manor in Saxon times; nor was Washington the centre of a large soke. Bramber Castle was constructed to defend the estuary of the river, now known as the Adur, one of the waterways to Normandy already alluded to.

The castle occupies a natural hill which forms on the top a pear-shaped area of 3 acres. Towards the middle rises an artificial motte about 30 feet high; there is no sign of a special ditch around it, except that the ground sinks slightly at its base. The bailey is surrounded by a very neatly built wall of pebbles and flints, laid herring-bone-wise in places, which does not stand on an earthen bank. The absence of this bank makes it likely, though of course not certain, that this wall was the original work of De Braose; the stones of which it is composed would be almost as easily obtained as the earth for a bank. On the line of the wall, just east of the entrance, stands a tall fragment of an early Norman tower. The workmanship of this tower, which is also of flints laid herring-bone-wise, with quoins of ashlar, so strongly resembles that of the neighbouring church that it seems obvious that both were built at about the same time.[296] The church is dedicated to St Nicholas, who was worshipped in Normandy as early as 1067;[297] it was probably the Normans who introduced his worship into England. Both church and tower are undoubtedly early Norman. The motte shows no sign of masonry.

The value of the manor of Washington had slightly risen since the Conquest.

BRISTOL.--Robert, Earl of Gloucester, the Empress Matilda's half-brother and great champion, is always credited with the building of Bristol Castle; but this is one of the many instances in which the man who first rebuilds a castle in stone receives the credit of being the original founder.[298] For it is certain that there was a castle at Bristol long before the days of Earl Robert, as the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ mentions it in 1088, when it was held by Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances, and Robert Curthose against William II.; and Symeon of Durham, in the same year, speaks of it as a "castrum fortissimum." Bishop Geoffrey held Bristol at the date of the Domesday Survey, and he probably built the castle by William's orders.[299] It was completely destroyed in 1655 (only a few 13th century arches in a private house now remain), and no trustworthy plan has been preserved, but there is clear evidence that it was a motte-and-bailey castle of the usual Norman type.[300] In Stephen's reign it was described as standing on a very great _agger_.[301] An _agger_ does not necessarily mean a motte, but it is often used for one, and there is other evidence which shows that this is its meaning here. A Perambulation of the bounds of Bristol in 1373 shows that the south-western part of the castle ditch, which enclosed the site of the keep, was called _le Mot-dich_; which should certainly be translated the ditch of the motte, and not, as Seyer translates it, the moat ditch.[302] Finally, the description of the castle in 1642 by Major Wood, says: "The castle stood upon a lofty steep mount, that was not minable, as Lieutenant Clifton informed me, for he said the mount whereon the castle stood was of an earthy substance for a certain depth, but below that a firm strong rock, and that he had searched purposely with an auger and found it so in all parts."[303] He goes on to describe the wall of the bailey as resting on an earthen rampart, testifying to the wooden stockade of the first castle. The great tower of Earl Robert appears to have been placed on the motte, which must have been of considerable size, as it held not only the keep, but a courtyard, a chapel, and the constable's house, besides several towers on its walls. The whole area of the castle was very nearly 4 acres.[304]

Bristol Castle was no doubt originally a royal castle, though Earl Robert of Gloucester held it in right of his wife, who had inherited it from her father, Robert Fitz Hamon; but the crown did not abdicate its claim upon it, and after the troubles of 1174, Henry II. caused the son of Earl Robert to surrender the keep into his hands.[305]

Seyer very pertinently remarks that Bristol Castle "was erected with a design hostile to the town; for it occupies the peninsula between two rivers, along which was the direct and original communication between the town and the main part of Gloucestershire."[306] It was outside the city, and was not under its jurisdiction till James I. granted this authority by charter.[307] The value T. R. E. is not given in Domesday Book.

BUCKINGHAM.--The only mention of this castle as existing in the 11th century is in the _Gesta Herewardi_,[308] an undated work which is certainly in great part a romance, but as it is written by some one who evidently had local knowledge, we may probably trust him for the existence of Buckingham Castle at that date; especially as Buckingham was a county town, and one of the boroughs of the Burghal Hidage, the very place which we should expect to find occupied by a Norman castle. This writer speaks of the castle as belonging to Ivo de Taillebois; this is not inconsistent with the fact shown by Domesday Book, that the borough belonged to the king. That it was a motte-and-bailey castle is indicated by Speed's map of Buckingham in 1611; he speaks of the "high hill," though he only indicates it slightly in his plan, with a shield-shaped bailey. Brayley states that the present church is "proudly exalted on the summit of an artificial mount, anciently occupied by a castle."[309]

The castle hill occupies a strong position on the neck of land made by a bend of the river; it extends nearly half-way across it, and commands both town and river. The original earthworks of the castle were destroyed and levelled for the erection of a church in 1777, but the large oval hill remains, having a flat summit about 2 acres in extent, and about 30 feet above the town below. Its sides descend in steep scarps behind the houses on all sides but the north-east. There can be no doubt that the motte has been lowered, and thus enlarged, in order to build the church. The foundations of a stone castle were found in digging a cellar on the slope of the motte.[310]

The value of Buckingham had considerably risen at the date of Domesday.[311]

CAERLEON, Monmouthshire (Fig. 11).--Domesday Book speaks of the _castellaria_ of Caerleon.[312] A _castellaria_ appears to have meant a district in which the land was held by the service of castle-guard in a neighbouring castle. The Survey goes on to say that this land was waste in the time of King Edward, and when William de Scohies, the Domesday tenant, received it; _now_ it is worth 40s. _Wasta_, Mr Round has remarked, is one of the pitfalls of the Survey. Perhaps we shall not be far wrong if we say that in a general way it means that there was nobody there to pay geld. When this occurs in a town it may point to the devastations committed at the Conquest; but when it occurs in the country, and when it is accompanied by so clear a statement that the land which was _wasta_ in King Edward's time and at the Conquest is now producing revenue, the inference would seem to be clear that the castle of Caerleon was built on uninhabited land. Caerleon, however, had been a great city in Roman times, and had kept up its importance at least till the days of Edgar, when it is twice mentioned in Welsh history.[313] It must therefore have gone downhill very rapidly. Giraldus mentions among the ruins of Roman greatness which were to be seen in his day, a gigantic tower, and this is commonly supposed to have belonged to the castle.[314] It certainly did not, for Giraldus is clearly speaking of a Roman tower, and the motte of the Norman castle not only has no signs of masonry, but has been thrown up over the ruins of a Roman villa which had been burnt.[315] The motte and other remains of the castle are outside the Roman _castrum_, between it and the river. The bailey is roughly pentagonal, and covers 4-3/4 acres. The manor of Caerleon was waste T. R. E. and had risen to 40s. T. R. W.[316]

[Illustration: FIG. 11. Caerleon, Monmouth. Carisbrooke.]

CAMBRIDGE.--Ordericus tells us that William built this castle on his return from his first visit to Yorkshire in 1068,[317] and Domesday Book states that twenty-seven houses were destroyed to make room for the castle.[318] There can hardly be a clearer statement that the castle was entirely new. We have already seen that there is some probability that Cambridge was first fortified by the Danes; for though it has been assumed to be a Roman castrum, no Roman remains have ever been found there, and the names which suggest Roman occupation, Chesterton and Grantchester, are at some distance from Cambridge. The castle, according to Mr St John Hope's plan,[319] was placed inside this enclosure, and the destruction of the houses to make room for it is thus explained. The motte and a portion of the bank of the bailey are all that now remain of the castle, but the valuable ancient maps republished by Mr Hope show that the motte had its own ditch, and that the bailey was rectangular. There was formerly a round tower on the motte, which, if it had the cross-loop-holes and machicolations represented in the print published in 1575, was certainly not of Norman date. The area of the bailey was 4-1/4 acres.[320] The castle was a royal one, and like many royal castles, went early to ruin. Henry IV. gave the materials of the hall to the master and wardens of King's Hall for building their chapel.

The value of Cambridge T. R. W. is not given in Domesday Book.

CANTERBURY.--Domesday Book only mentions this castle incidentally in connection with an exchange of land: "The archbishop has seven houses and the abbot of St Augustine fourteen for the exchange of the castle."[321] It has been too hastily assumed that it was a pre-Conquest castle which was thus exchanged for twenty-one houses; but anyone who knows the kind of relations which existed chronically between the archbishop of Canterbury and the abbot of St Augustine's will perceive that it was an impossibility that these two potentates should have held a castle in common. It was the land for the castle, not the castle itself, which the king got from these ecclesiastics. This is rendered clear by a passage in the Chartulary of St Augustine's, which tells us that the king, who was mesne lord of the city of Canterbury, had lost the rent of thirty-two houses through the exchange of the castle: seven having gone to the archbishop, fourteen to the abbot, and eleven having been destroyed in making the ditch of the castle.[322] There can scarcely be any doubt that the hillock now known by the ridiculous name of Dane John is the motte of this original castle of the Conqueror. Its proper name, the Dungeon Hill, which it bore till the 16th and even the 18th century,[323] shows what its origin was; it was the hill on which stood the dungeon or donjon of a Norman castle.[324] The name Dane John is not so much a corruption as a deliberate perversion introduced by the antiquary Somner about 1640, under the idea that the Danes threw up the hill--an idea for which there is not the slightest historical evidence.[325] We have seen that there is no reason to think that the Danes ever constructed fortifications of this kind, and their connection with this earthwork is due to one of those guesses, too common in English archæology, which have no scientific basis whatever.

Somner makes the important statement that this earthwork was originally outside the city walls. His words are:--

"I am persuaded (and so may easily, I think, anyone be that well observes the place) that the works both within and without the present wall of the city were not counterworks one against the other, as the vulgar opinion goes, but were sometimes all one entire plot containing about 3 acres of ground, of a triangular form (the outwork) with a mount or hill entrenched round within it; and that when first made or cast up it lay wholly without the city wall; and hath been (the hill or mount, and most part also of the outwork), for the city's more security, taken in and walled since; that side of the trench encompassing the mound now lying without and under the wall fitly meeting with the rest of the city ditch, after either side of the earthwork was cut through to make way for it, at the time of the city's inditching."[326]

It is not often we are so fortunate as to have so clear a description of an earthwork which has almost entirely disappeared; but the description is confirmed by Stukeley and Hasted, and down to the making of the Chatham and Dover railway in 1860 the earthworks of the part of the bailey which was left outside the city wall were still to be seen, and were noticed by Mr G. T. Clark.[327] It is clear that Somner's description corresponds exactly, even in the detail of size, to the type of a motte-and-bailey castle.

There are certain facts, which have not been put together before, which enable us to make a very probable guess as to the date at which this ancient castle was cut through by the newer city bank. The walls of Canterbury have never yet received so careful an examination as those of Rochester have had from the Rev. Greville Livett;[328] but the researches of Mr Pilbrow about thirty years ago showed that the original Roman walls included a very small area, which would leave both the motte and the Plantagenet castle outside.[329] Certain entries in the _Close Rolls_ show that the fortification of the town of Canterbury was going on in the years 1215-1225.[330] But it is too often forgotten that where a wall stands on an earthen bank it is a clear proof that before the wall was built there was a wooden stockade in its place. Now the portion of the city wall which encloses the Dane John stands on an earthen bank; so, indeed, does the whole wall from the Northgate to the castle. It is clear that this piece of bank cannot have been made till the first Norman castle, represented by the earthwork, was abandoned; and fortunately we have some evidence which suggests a date for the change. In the _Pipe Rolls_ of Henry II.'s reign there are yearly entries, beginning in 1168, of 5s. paid to Adeliza Fitzsimon "for the exchange of her land which is in the castle of Canterbury." There can be little doubt that this land was purchased to build the great Plantagenet castle whose splendid keep was once one of the finest in England.[331] The portion of the castle wall which can still be seen does not stand on an earthen bank, an indication (though not a proof) that the castle was on a new site. Henry II. was a great builder of stone keeps, but he seldom placed them on artificial mottes. It is no uncommon thing to find an old motte-and-bailey castle abandoned for a better or larger site close at hand.[332]

The bailey of the second castle, according to Hasted, extended almost to the Dane John, which is about 800 feet from the present keep. The part of the older castle which lay outside the new city bank was possessed by a family of the name of Chiche from the time of Henry II. to that of Edward IV., while the Dungeon Hill itself remained royal property.[333] That the new bank was Henry II.'s work we may conjecture from the passages in the _Pipe Rolls_, which show that between the years 1166 and 1173 he spent about £30 in enclosing the city of Canterbury and making a gate. We are therefore not without grounds for concluding that Henry II. was the first to enlarge the city by taking in the Dane John, cutting through the ancient bailey, and at the same time enclosing a piece of land for a new stone castle.[334] The very small sum paid for the city gate (11s., equal to about £11 of our money) suggests that the gate put up by Henry II. was a wooden gateway in the new stockaded bank. The stone walls and towers which were afterwards placed on the bank are of much later date than his reign.[335]

The Dungeon Hill appears to have been used for the last time as a fortification in 1643, when ordnance was placed upon it, and it was ordered to be guarded by the householders.[336] In 1790 it was converted into a pleasure-ground for the city; the wide and deep ditch which had surrounded it was filled up, and serpentine walks cut to lead up to the summit. Brayley says that "the ancient and venerable character of this eminence was wholly destroyed by incongruous additions." Still, enough remains to show that it was once a very fine motte, such as we might expect the Conqueror to raise to hold in check one of the most important cities of his new realm.

The value of Canterbury had increased from 51_l._ to 54_l._ since the days of King Edward.[337]

CARISBROOKE, Isle of Wight (Fig. 11).--There can be no doubt that this is the castle spoken of in Domesday Book under the manor of Alwinestone. Carisbrooke is in the immediate neighbourhood of Alvington. The language in which the Survey speaks of this manor is worthy of note. "The king holds Alwinestone: Donnus held it. It then paid geld as two and a half hides: now as two hides, because the castle sits in one virgate."[338] Certain entries similar to this in other places seem to indicate that there was some remission of geld granted on the building of a castle;[339] but as here the king was himself the owner, the remission must have been granted to his tenants.

The original castle of Carisbrooke consists of a high motte, ditched round, placed at the corner of a parallelogram with rounded corners. This bailey, covering 2-3/4 acres, is surrounded by high banks, which testify to the former presence of a wooden stockade. There is another bailey on the eastern side, called the Tilt-yard. The excellent little local guide-book compiled by Mr Stone calls this a British camp, but there is no reason to believe that it was anything else than what it appears to be--a second bailey added as the castle grew in importance. On the motte is a shell of polygonal form, of rubble masonry, but having quoins of well-dressed ashlar. It is believed to be of the time of Henry I., since the author of the _Gesta Stephani_ states that Baldwin de Redvers, son of Richard de Redvers, to whom Henry granted the lordship of the Isle of Wight, had a castle there splendidly built of stone, defended by a strong fortification.[340] This would indicate that, besides the stone keep, stone walls were added to the earthworks of the Domesday castle. The keep is of peculiar interest, as it still retains the remains of the old arrangements in keeps of this style, though of much later date. The motte was opened in 1893, and was found to be composed of alternate layers of large and small chalk rubble.[341] Little attention has hitherto been paid to the construction of these Norman mottes, but other instances have been noted which show that they were often built with great care. The whole castle, including the Tilt-yard, was surrounded with an elaborate polygonal fortification in Elizabeth's reign, when the Spanish invasion was expected.

The value of the manor of Alvington had increased at the time of the Survey, though the number of ploughs employed had actually decreased. This increase must have been owing to the erection of the castle, which provided security for trade and agriculture. Alvington was not the centre of a large soke in the Confessor's time, so it is unlikely that there was any fortification there in Saxon days.[342]

CARLISLE, Cumberland (FIG. 12).--This castle was built by William Rufus in 1092, when for the first time Cumberland was brought under Norman sway. The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ says, "he repaired the _burh_, and reared the castle," a passage which is sufficient of itself to show that _burh_ and castle were two quite different things. Carlisle of course was a Roman fortress, and needed only the repairing of its walls. The castle was a new thing, and was placed outside the city. Its plan, which is roughly a triangle, with the apex formed into a small court by a ditch which (formerly) separated it from the bailey, looks very suggestive of a previous motte and bailey, such as we might expect the Norman king to have thrown up. The keep is known to have been built by David, king of Scotland, in Stephen's reign,[343] and it is possible that he may have removed the motte. The castle appears to have had a wooden _pelum_ or _palicium_ on its outer banks as late as 1319.[344] The whole area covers 4 acres.

CASTLE ACRE, Norfolk (Fig. 12).--There can be no doubt that this castle existed in the 11th century, as William de Warenne mentions it in the charter of foundation of Lewes Priory, one of the most interesting and human of monastic charters.[345] The earthworks still remaining of this castle are perhaps the finest castle earthworks in England; the banks enclosing the bailey are vast. The large and high motte carries a wall of flint rubble, built outside and thus revetting the earthen bank which formed its first defence. In the small court thus enclosed (about 100 feet in diameter) the foundations of an oblong keep can be discerned. A very wide ditch surrounds the motte, and below it is a horse-shoe bailey, about 2 acres in extent, stretching down to the former swamps of the river Nar. On the east side of the motte is a small half-moon annexe, with its own ditch; this curious addition is to be found in several other motte castles,[346] and is believed to have been a work intended to defend the approach, of the nature of a barbican. On the west side of the motte is the village of Castle Acre, enclosed in an oblong earthwork with an area of 10 acres. This work now goes by the name of the Barbican, but probably this name has been extended to it from a barbican covering the castle entrance (of which entrance the ruins still remain). It is most likely that this enclosure was a _burgus_ attached to the castle. Mr Harrod, who excavated the banks, found quantities of Roman pottery, which led him to think that the work was Roman; but as the pottery was all broken, it is more likely that the banks were thrown up on the site of some Roman villa.[347] This earthwork has a northern entrance in masonry, evidently of 13th century date; and as the scanty masonry remaining of the castle is similar in character, it is probably all of the same date. The area covered by the motte and the two original baileys is 3-1/2 acres; that of the whole series of earthworks, 15 acres.

Acre was only a small manor in Saxon times; its value at the time of the Survey had risen from 5_l._ to 9_l._[348]

[Illustration: FIG. 12. Carlisle. Castle Acre, Norfolk.]

CHEPSTOW (Estrighoel or Strigul), Monmouthshire.--Notwithstanding the fact that there is another castle of the name of Strigul about 9 miles from Chepstow (known also as Troggy Castle), it is clear that Chepstow is the castle meant by Domesday, as the entry speaks of ships going up the river, a thing impossible at Strigul.[349] The castle occupies a narrow ridge, well defended by the river on one side, and on the other by a valley which separates it from the town. There are four wards, and the last and smallest of all seemed to the writer, when visiting the castle, to mark the site of a lowered motte. This opinion, however, is not shared by two competent observers, Mr Harold Sands and Mr Duncan Montgomerie, who had much ampler opportunities for studying the remains. This ward is now a barbican, and the masonry upon it belongs clearly to the 13th century; it occupies the highest ground in the castle, and is separated from the other wards, and from the ridge beyond it, by two ditches cut across the headland. The adjoining court must have belonged to the earliest part of the castle, as it contains a very remarkable early Norman building (splendidly restored in the 13th century) which is regarded by most authorities as the original hall of William FitzOsbern. It must, however, have combined both hall and keep, otherwise the castle was not provided with any citadel, if there was no motte.[350] What is now the second ward has a Norman postern in the south wall, and may have been the bailey to the keep. All the other masonry is of the late Early English or the Perpendicular period, and the entrance ward is probably an addition of the 13th century. The shape of all the baileys is roughly quadrangular, except that of the fourth, which would be semicircular but for the towers which make corners to it. The whole area of the castle is 1-2/3 acres.

We are not told what the value of the manor was before William FitzOsbern built his castle there, but from the absence of this mention we may infer that the site was waste. It paid 40_s._ in his time from ships' dues, 16_l._ in his son Earl Roger's time, and at the date of the Survey it paid the king 12_l._[351] Chepstow was not the centre of a large soke, and it appears to have owed all its importance to the creation of William FitzOsbern's castle.

CHESTER.--The statement of Ordericus, that William I. founded this castle on his return from his third visit to York, is sufficiently clear.[352] The very valuable paper of Mr E. W. Cox on Chester Castle[353] answers most of the questions which pertain to our present inquiry. The original castle of Chester consisted of the motte, which still remains, though much built over, and the small ward on the edge of which it stands, a polygonal enclosure scarcely an acre in extent. On the motte the vaulted basement of a tower still remains, but the style is so obscured by whitewash and modern accretions that it is impossible to say whether the vaulting is not modern. The first buildings were certainly of wood, but Mr Cox regarded some of the existing masonry on the motte as belonging to the 12th century; and this would correspond with the entry in the _Pipe Rolls_ of 102_l._ 7_s._ 0_d._ spent on the castle by Henry II. in 1159.[354] The tower, nicknamed Cæsar's Tower, and frequently mistaken for the keep, is shown in Mr Cox's paper to be only a mural tower of the 13th century, probably built when the first ward was surrounded with walls and towers in masonry.[355] The large outer bailey was first added in the reign of Henry III.[356] It is further proved by Mr Cox that Chester Castle stood outside the walls of the Roman city. The manor of Gloverstone lay between it and the city, and was not under the jurisdiction of the city until quite recent times.[357] This disposes of the ball set rolling by Brompton at the end of the 13th century, and sent on by most Chester topographers ever since, that Ethelfleda, when she restored the Roman walls of Chester, enlarged their circuit so as to take in the castle. We have already referred to this in