CHAPTER XII

STONE CASTLES OF THE NORMAN PERIOD

It may be a surprise to some of our readers to learn how very few stone castles there are in England which can certainly be ascribed to the first period of the Norman Conquest, that is to the 11th century. When we have named the Tower of London, Colchester, the recently excavated foundations of the remarkable keep at Pevensey, and perhaps the ruined keep of Bramber, we have completed the list, as far as our present knowledge goes, though possibly future excavations may add a few others.[1111]

It is obvious that so small a number of instances furnishes a very slender basis for generalisations as to the characteristics of early Norman keeps, if we ask in what respect they differed from those of the 12th century. But it is the object of this chapter to suggest research, rather than to lay down conclusions. The four early instances mentioned should be compared with the earliest keeps of France, the country where the pattern was developed. This has not yet been done in any serious way, nor does the present writer pretend to the knowledge which would be necessary for such a comparison.[1112] But data exist, which, if they were used in the right way, would greatly add to our knowledge.

In the first place, we have a list of the castles built by Fulk Nerra, Count of Anjou, at the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th century, during his life-long struggle with the Counts of Blois for the possession of Touraine. This list may be regarded as authentic, as it is given by his grandson, Fulk Rechin, in the remarkable historical fragment which he has bequeathed to us.[1113] The list is as follows:--_In Touraine_: Langeais, Chaumont-sur-Loire, Montrésor, St Maure. _In Poitou_: Mirabeau (N.W. of Poitiers), Montcontour, Faye-la-Vineuse, Musterolum (Montreuil-Bonnin), Passavent, Maulevrier. _In Anjou_: Baugé, Chateau-Gontier, Durtal. "Et multa alia," adds Fulk's grandson. Nine of these others are mentioned by the chroniclers: Montbazon, Semblançay, Montboyau, St Florent-le-Vieil, Chateaufort near Langeais, Chérament, Montrevault, Montfaucon, and Mateflon. Many of these were undoubtedly wooden castles, with wooden keeps on mottes.[1114] In many other cases the ancient fabric has been replaced by a building of the Renaissance period. Whether any remains of stone donjons built by Fulk Nerra exist at any of these places except at Langeais, the writer has been unable to find out; probably Langeais is the only one; but French archæologists are agreed that the ruined tower which stands on the ridge above the 15th-century castle of Langeais is the work of this count,[1115] a venerable fragment of a 10th-century keep.[1116]

Unfortunately only two sides of this tower and the foundations of the other sides remain. The walls are only 3 feet 6 inches thick, contrasting strikingly with the castles of the 12th and 13th centuries, where the usual thickness is 10 feet, which is often exceeded. This points to a date before any great improvement had taken place in assaulting-machinery. The masonry is what French architects call _petit appareil_, very small stones, but regularly coursed. There is no herring-bone work. The buttresses, of which there are five on the front, certainly suggest a later date, from the size of the ashlar with which they are faced, and from their considerable projection (3 feet on the entrance wall, 2 on the front). There is no sign of a forebuilding. There are only two storeys above the basement. The floors have been supported on ledges, not on vaults. The doorway, a plain round arch, with bar-holes, is on the first floor;[1117] it is now only a few feet above the ground, but probably the basement has been partially filled up with rubbish. The first storey is quite windowless in the walls which remain. There are no fireplaces nor any loopholes in these two fragments. In the second storey there are three rather small windows and one very large one;[1118] they are round arched, have no splay, and their voussoirs are of narrow stones alternated with tiles. In these details they resemble the Early Romanesque, which in England we call Anglo-Saxon.

The Tower of London and Colchester keep are some seventy or eighty years later than that of Langeais, and if we attempt to compare them, we must bear in mind that Langeais was the work of a noble who was always in the throes of an acute struggle with a powerful rival, whereas the Tower and Colchester Castle were built by a king who had reached a position of power and wealth beyond that of any neighbouring sovereign.[1119] Langeais is but a small affair compared with these other two keeps. The larger area,[1120] thicker walls, the angle towers with their provision of stairways, the splayed windows [of Colchester], the fireplaces, the chapels with round apses, the mural gallery [of the Tower] cannot be definitely pronounced to be instances of development unless we have other instances than Langeais to compare with them. De Caumont mentions Chateau du Pin (Calvados), Lithaire (Manche), Beaugency-sur-Loire, Nogent-le-Rotrou (Eure et Loire), Tour de l'Islot (Seine et Oise), St Suzanne (Mayenne), and Tour de Broue (Charente Inf.), as instances of keeps of the 11th century.[1121] These should be carefully examined by the student of castle architecture, and De Caumont's statements as to their date should be verified. Not having had the opportunity of doing this, we will only ask what features the keeps of Langeais, London, and Colchester have in common, which may serve as marks of an earlier date than the 12th century.[1122] The square or oblong form and the entrance on the first floor are common to all three, but also to the keeps of the first three-quarters of the 12th century. The absence of a forebuilding is probably an early sign,[1123] and so is the extensive use of tiles.[1124] The chapel with a round apse which projects externally only occurs in the keeps of London and Colchester, and in the ruins of Pevensey keep.[1125] The absence of a plinth is believed by Enlart to be an early token.[1126] But Colchester has a plinth and so has the Tower. It is, however, very possible that in both cases the plinth is a later addition; at Colchester it is of different stone to the rest of the building, and may belong to the repairs of Henry II., who was working on this castle in 1169; while the Tower has undergone so many alterations in the course of its eight hundred years of existence that it is difficult to say whether the rudimentary plinth which it still possesses is original or not.

Wide-jointed masonry is generally recognised by architectural students as a mark of the early Norman style. Even this is a test which may sometimes deceive; certain kinds of ashlar are very liable to weather at the edges, and when the wall has been pointed at a comparatively recent period, a false appearance of wide joints is produced. Moreover, there are instances of wide-jointed masonry throughout the 12th century. The use of rubble instead of ashlar is common at all dates, and depends no doubt on local conditions, the local provision of stone, or the affluence or poverty of the castle-builder. We are probably justified in laying down as a general rule that the dimensions of the ashlar stones increase as the Middle Ages advance. There is a gradual transition from the _petit appareil_ of Fulk Nerra's castle to the large blocks of well-set stone which were used in the 15th century.[1127] But this law is liable to many exceptions, and cannot be relied upon as a test of date unless other signs are present. The Tower of London is built of Kentish rag; Colchester keep of small cement stones (septaria), which whether they are re-used Roman stones or not, resemble very much in size the masonry of Langeais. It is of course unnecessary to say to anyone who is in the least acquainted with Norman architecture that all Norman walls of ashlar are of the core-and-facing kind, an internal and an external shell of ashlar, filled up with rubble; a technique which was inherited from Roman times in Gaul, but which was not followed by the Anglo-Saxons.[1128]

The presence or absence of fireplaces and chimneys is not a test of date. Colchester is certainly an early keep,[1129] but it is well provided with fireplaces which appear to be original. These fireplaces have not proper chimneys, but only holes in the wall a little above the fireplace. But this rudimentary form of chimney is found as late as Henry II.'s keep at Orford, and there is said to be documentary mention of a proper chimney as early as 816 in the monastery of St Gall.[1130] The entire absence of fireplaces is no proof of early date, for in Henry II.'s keep at the Peak in Derbyshire, the walls of which are almost perfect (except for their ashlar coats) there are no fireplaces at all, nor are there any in the 13th-century keep of Pembroke. It is possible that in these cases a free standing fireplace in the middle of the room, with a chimney carried up to the roof, was used. Such a fireplace is described by the poet, Chrestien of Troyes, but no example is known to exist.[1131]

But apart from details, if we look at the general plan of these four early stone castles, we shall see that it is exactly similar. It is the keep-and-bailey plan, the plan which prevailed from the 10th to the 13th century, and was not even superseded by the introduction of the keepless castle in the latter century.[1132] The motte-and-bailey type was of course only another version of the keep-and-bailey. In this primitive type of castle the all-important thing was the keep or donjon.[1133] Besides the donjon there was little else but a rampart and ditch. "Until the middle of the 12th century, and in the simpler examples of the epochs which followed, the donjon may be said to constitute in itself the whole castle."[1134] Piper states that up to the time of the Crusades German castles do not seem to have been furnished with mural towers.[1135] Köhler, whose work treats of French and English castles as well as German, says that mural towers did not become general till the second half of the 12th century.[1136] Nevertheless, as it is highly probable that the baileys of castles were defended at first with only wooden ramparts on earthen banks, even when the donjon was of stone, it is not unlikely that mural towers of wood may have existed at an earlier period than these writers suppose. It is, however, in favour of the general absence of mural towers that the word _turris_, even in 12th-century records, invariably means the _keep_, as though no other towers existed.[1137]

That the baileys of some of the most important castles in England had only these wooden and earthen defences, even as late as the 13th century, can be amply proved from the _Close Rolls_.[1138] Colchester Castle had only a timber wall on the banks of its bailey as late as 1215, and in 1219 this _palicium_ was blown down and an order issued for its reconstruction.[1139]

The arrangements in the stone donjons were probably the same as those we have already described when writing of the wooden ones.[1140] The basement was the storehouse for provisions,[1141] the first floor was generally the guardhouse, the second the habitation, of the lord and lady. Where there were three or four storeys, the arrangements varied, and the finest rooms are often found on the third floor. An oratory was probably an invariable feature, though it cannot always be detected in ruined keeps. One of Mr Clark's most pronounced mistakes was his idea that these keeps were merely towers of refuge used only in time of war.[1142] History abounds with evidence that they were the permanent residences of the nobles of the 11th and 12th centuries. The cooking, as a rule, was carried on in a separate building, of which there are remains in some places.[1143]

Occasionally we find a variant of the keep-and-bailey type, which we may call the gatehouse keep. The most remarkable instance of this kind in England is Exeter, which appears never to have had any keep but the primitive gatehouse, undoubtedly the work of Baldwin de Moeles, the first builder of the castle. In Normandy, De Caumont gives several instances of gatehouse keeps. Plessis-Grimoult (which has been visited by the writer) has a fragment of a gatehouse tower, but has also a mural tower on the line of the walls; as the castle was ruined and abandoned in 1047, these remains must be of early date.[1144] The gatehouse keep is probably an economical device for combining a citadel with the defence of the weakest part of the castle.

We must pass on to the keeps of Henry I.[1145] There is only one in England which authentic history gives to his time, that of Rochester.[1146] But the chronicler Robert de Torigny[1147] has fortunately given us a list of the keeps and castles built by Henry in Normandy, and though many of these are now destroyed, and others in ruins, a certain number are left, which, taken along with Rochester, may give us an idea of the type of keep built in Henry I.'s time. The keeps attributed by Robert to Henry I. are Arques, Gisors, Falaise, Argentan, Exmes, Domfront, Ambrières, Vire, Waure, Vernon, Evreux, Alençon, St Jean, and Coutances. How many of these survive we cannot positively say;[1148] we can only speak of those we have seen (Falaise, Domfront, and Gisors),[1149] and of Arques, described by M. Deville in his _Histoire du Chateau d'Arques_, by M. Viollet le Duc in his treatise on Donjons,[1150] and by Mr G. T. Clark.[1151]

Speaking under correction, as a prolonged study of the keeps in Normandy was impossible to the writer, we should say that there is no very striking difference to be observed between the keeps of Henry I. and those built by his father. The development of the forebuilding seems to be the most important change, if indeed we are justified in assuming that the 11th-century keeps never had it; its remains can be seen at Arques, Falaise,[1152] Domfront, and Rochester. At Arques and Falaise the doorway is on the second floor, which is an innovation, a new attempt to solve the difficulty of defending the entrance. The first floor at Arques could only be entered by a trap from the second floor; at Falaise there is a stone stair from one to the other. Rochester is entered from the first floor. The basement storeys of Arques, Falaise, and Domfront are quite unlit; at the Tower the basement has had a number of loopholes, and the angular heads of those which remain suggest that they are at least copied from original lights. The main floors in Henry I.'s keeps are always of wood, but this was not because vaulting was then unknown, because the crypt, sub-crypt, and chapel of the Tower are vaulted, not to speak of many early churches.[1153] The four keeps mentioned have all three storeys, thus not exceeding Colchester in height;[1154] the Tower has now four storeys, but a good authority has remarked that the fourth storey has not improbably been made by dividing the third.

No marked advance is observable in the masonry of these keeps. Arques is built of _petit appareil_; Falaise of small stones in herring-bone work; Domfront of very small stones rudely coursed; Rochester of Kentish rag mixed with flint rubble. Both Falaise and Domfront have plinths of superior masonry, but there is always the possibility that these plinths are later additions. The voussoirs of the arches at Falaise, Domfront, and Rochester are larger than the rag or tile voussoirs which are used at Colchester, the Tower, and Langeais. At Rochester and Arques provision is made for carrying the water-supply from the well in the basement to the upper floors, a provision of which there is no trace in the older keeps.[1155]

As Robert de Monte says that Henry I. built many castles in England as well as in Normandy, we naturally ask what other English keeps besides Rochester may be assigned to him. It appears to the writer that Corfe and Norwich keeps may very likely be his. Both were royal castles in his time, and both were originally wooden castles on mottes.[1156] Both these castles have forebuildings, and neither of them have floors supported on vaults.[1157] Corfe has very superior masonry, of larger stones than those used in the keeps known to be Henry I.'s, but wide-jointed. At Norwich only a very small piece of the original ashlar is left. Corfe is extremely severe in all its details, but quite corresponds to work of Henry I.'s reign.[1158] Norwich has a great deal of decoration, more advanced in style than that to be seen at Falaise, but still consistent with the first half of the 12th century. Neither keep has the least sign of Transition Norman, such as we seldom fail to find in the keeps of Henry II. Moreover, neither of them figure in the _Pipe Rolls_ of Henry II., except for repairs; and as Stephen in his harassed reign can hardly have had any money for building stone keeps, we may with some confidence ascribe these two keeps to Henry I.

A few words should be given to the castle of Gisors, which contains in itself an epitome of castle history. The first castle, built by William Rufus in 1096, was undoubtedly a wooden castle on a motte, with a stockaded bailey below it; certain portions of the present bailey walls rest on earthen banks, which probably belonged to the original castle, and show what a much smaller affair it was than the present one. Henry I., Robert de Monte tells us, strengthened this castle with a keep. Probably this was the shell wall which now crowns the motte; the smallness of the masonry (stones about 5 inches high, rudely dressed and coursed) and the slight projection of the buttresses (9 inches) agree with much of the work of his time. There would be a wooden tower inside.[1159] The chemise or shell wall is pierced by loopholes, a very unusual arrangement; they are round arched, and of very rude voussoirs.[1160] Inside this shell there is a decagonal tower, called the Tower of Thomas à Becket, which is almost certainly the work of Henry II.,[1161] as its name would indicate; the chapel of St Thomas is close to it. A stair turret of the 15th century has been added to this keep; its original entrance was, as usual, a door on the first floor, but a basement entrance was built afterwards, probably in the 13th century. Philip Augustus, after he had taken this castle from John, added to it one of the round keeps which had then become the fashion, and subsequent enlargements of the bailey converted it into a "concentric" castle, of which the motte now forms the centre.

There is one keep which is known to be of the reign of Stephen, though not built by him, that of Carlisle, built by David, King of Scotland, in 1136,[1162] a time when he thought his hold on the four northern counties of England was secure, little reckoning on the true character of his great-nephew, Henry, son of Matilda. There is no advance to be seen in this keep on those of Henry I., except that the walls are faced with ashlar. The vaulting of the basement is pronounced by Mr Clark to be very evidently a late insertion.[1163]

With the reign of Henry II. a new era opens as regards the documentary history of our ancient castles, because the _Pipe Rolls_ of that king's reign have most fortunately been preserved.[1164] These contain the sheriff's accounts for money spent on the building or repair of the king's castles, and are simply invaluable for the history of castle architecture. The following is a list of the keeps which the _Pipe Rolls_ show to have been built or finished by Henry II.:--

Scarborough, built between 1157 and 1174. Tower Windsor, " " 1161 " 1177. Shell wall Orford, " " 1165 " 1172. Tower Bridgenorth, " " 1166 " 1173. Tower Newcastle, " " 1167 " 1177. Tower Bowes, " " 1171 " 1187. Tower Richmond, " " 1171 " 1174. Tower Chilham, " " 1171 " 1173. Tower Peak, " " 1172 " 1176. Tower Canterbury, " " 1172 " 1174. Tower Arundel, " " 1176 " 1182. Shell wall Tickhill, " " 1178 " 1181. Tower

The dates given here must be taken as only roughly accurate, as owing to the meagreness of the entries in the _Pipe Rolls_, it is not always certain whether the expenses were for the great tower or for other buildings. The list by no means includes all the work which Henry II. did on his English castles, for he was a great builder; but a good deal of his work seems to have been the substitution of stone walls with mural towers, for wooden stockades, and our list comprises all the cases in which it is clear that the keep was the work of this king.[1165] We confine our attention to the keeps, because though mural towers of stone began to be added to the walls of baileys during Henry II.'s reign (a detail which must have greatly altered the general appearance of castles), it is certain that the keep was still the most important part, and the residence of the king or noble whenever he visited the castle.

Seven out of the ten tower keeps are built on precisely the same plan as those of Henry I. The chief advance is in the masonry. All the tower keeps of Henry II., except Dover, Chilham, and Canterbury, are or have been cased with good ashlar, of stones somewhat larger in size than those used by Henry I. The same may be said of the shell walls (namely, Windsor and Arundel); it is interesting to note that Henry II. still used this elementary form of citadel, which consisted merely of a wall round the top of a motte, with wooden buildings inside.[1166] In three cases out of the ten tower keeps, Newcastle, Bowes, and Richmond, the basement storey is vaulted, which does not occur in the older keeps.[1167] Yet such important castles as Scarborough, Dover, and Canterbury are without this provision against fire. None of these keeps appear to have more than three storeys above the basement.[1168] None of the entrances to the keeps (except Tickhill) have any portcullis grooves,[1169] nor any special contrivances for defence, except at Canterbury, where the entrance (on the first floor) takes two turns at right angles before reaching the hall to which it leads.[1170] There are nearly always in the keeps of Henry II. some signs of Transition Norman in the details, such as the nook shafts at the angles of the towers of Scarborough and the Peak, certain arches at Canterbury, the Transition capitals used at Newcastle, and the filleted string round the outside of Bowes.

But we have yet to speak of three keeps of Henry II.'s reign which are on a different plan to all the others, and which point to coming changes--Chilham, Orford, and Tickhill.[1171] Chilham is an octagonal tower of three storeys, with a square annexe on one side, which appears to be original. Orford is polygonal outside, round inside. Orford indeed is one of the most extraordinary keeps to be seen anywhere, and we must regard it as an experiment, and an experiment which appears never to have been repeated.[1172] Instead of the usual Norman buttresses, this polygonal keep has three buttress towers, placed between every four of the outer faces, 22 feet wide, and 12 feet in projection.[1173] Tickhill, however, the last keep he built, is decagonal. The object of the polygonal tower was to deflect the missiles thrown from siege engines, and the round tower was evidently considered an improvement on the polygonal for this purpose, as it subsequently supplanted the polygonal type. It is therefore rather remarkable that Henry II. built both these keeps in the second decade of his reign, and afterwards went on building square keeps like his predecessors. We have seen, however, that he built at least one polygonal tower in Normandy, that of Gisors. We must bear in mind that the Norman and Angevine frontier was the theatre of the continuous struggle of Henry II. with the French kings, Louis VII. and Philip Augustus, and that it is here that we must expect the greatest developments in military architecture.

Speaking generally, we may say that just as there was comparatively little change in armour during the 12th century until the end of Henry II.'s reign, so there was comparatively little change in military architecture during the same period. But great changes took place towards the end of the 12th century. One of these changes was a great improvement in missile engines; the trébuchet was one of the most important of these. It could throw much heavier stones than the largest catapult, and could take a more accurate aim.[1174] These new engines were useful for defence as well as attack, and this affected the architecture of castles, because flat roofs covered with lead, on which machines could be placed, were now substituted for the former sloping roofs.[1175] There are several payments for lead for roofing castles in the _Pipe Rolls_ of Henry II., the earliest being in 1166. In the reigns of John and Henry III. the mention of lead for roofing becomes much more frequent.[1176]

Hitherto, in the defence of keeps, reliance had mainly been placed upon their passive strength, though not so entirely as has been commonly assumed, since it was always the practice to shoot with arrows from the battlements round the roof of the tower. But not only was the fighting strength of the keep increased by the trébuchet, but the introduction of the crossbow gave it a defensive arm of the greatest importance. The crossbow had been known to the Romans, and was used in the early part of the 12th century, but it was forbidden by the second Lateran Council in 1139 as a weapon hateful to God.[1177] This prohibition seems actually to have been effective, as William the Breton says expressly that the crossbow was unknown to the French before the wars of Richard I. and Philip Augustus.[1178] Richard learned the use of it in the third crusade.[1179] But to use the crossbow in the defence of buildings it was necessary to construct special loopholes for shooting, splayed downwards externally, so that it was possible to aim from them. Up till this time the loopholes of castles had been purely for light and not for shooting; anyone may see that it is impossible to take aim through an immensely thick wall unless there is a downward splay to increase the field of vision. William the Breton tells us that Richard built windows for crossbows to his towers, and this is the first mention we have of them.[1180]

From this time defensive loopholes become common in castles, and take various fanciful forms, as well as the commoner ones of the circle, square, or triangle at the base of the loop. The _cross loophole_, which does not appear till the latter quarter of the 13th century, is explained by Viollet le Duc as an ingenious way of allowing three or four archers to fire in a volley.[1181] But up to the present time very little study has been given to this subject, and we must be content to leave the question for future observation to settle.[1182]

The crossbowmen not only required splayed loopholes, but also niches, large enough to accommodate at least three men, so that a continuous discharge of darts (quarrells) might be kept up. Any defensive loop which really means work will have a niche like this behind it. These niches had the defect of seriously weakening the wall.

Another innovation introduced by Richard I. was that of stone machicolations, or _hurdicia_.[1183] Whether wooden galleries round the tops of walls, with holes for dropping down stones, boiling-water, or pitch on the heads of the besiegers had not been used from the earliest times, is regarded by Köhler as extremely doubtful.[1184] They were certainly used by the Romans, and may even be seen clearly figured on the Assyrian monuments. In the Bayeux Tapestry, the picture of Bayeux Castle shows the stockade on top of the motte crested with something extremely like hurdicia. Yet the writer has found no authentic mention of them before the end of the 12th century.[1185] The stone machicolations built by Richard round his keep of Chateau Gaillard are of an unusual type, which was only rarely imitated.[1186] But from this time wooden hurdicia became universal, to judge from the numerous orders for timber for _hoarding_ castles and town walls in the _Close Rolls_ of the first half of the 13th century. Towards the middle of the 13th century stone brackets for the support of wooden hurdicia began to be used; they may still be seen in the great keep of Coucy, which was begun in 1230. But machicolations entirely of stone, supported on double or triple rows of brackets, do not become common till the 14th century.[1187]

The greatest architectural change witnessed at the end of the 12th century was the victory of the round keep over the square. Round towers were built by the Romans as mural towers, but the universal type of mediæval keep appears to have been the square or oblong, until towards the end of the 12th century.[1188] The polygonal keep was probably a transitional form; we have seen that Henry II.'s polygonal keep at Orford was begun as early as 1165. Many experiments seem to have been made at the end of the 12th century, such as the addition of a stone prow to the weakest side of a keep, to enable it better to resist showers of missiles. Richard I.'s keep at Chateau Gaillard is a round keep with a solid prow of this kind. Five-sided keeps are said to be not uncommon on the left bank of the Rhine and in Nassau; this type was simply the addition of a prow to a square keep. The only English instance known to the writer is that of Mitford, Northumberland, but this is merely a five-sided keep, the prow is not solid, as at Chateau Gaillard. The castle of Étampes, whose plan is a quatrefoil, is assigned by French archæologists to this period of experiment.[1189] But the round keep was eventually the type preferred. Philip II. thought it necessary to add a round keep to the castle of Gisors, after he had taken it from John, and he adopted the round keep for all his new castles, of which the Louvre was one.[1190]

Along with the round keep, ground entrances became common.[1191] Viollet le Duc states that when the French soldiers broke into the inner ward at Chateau Gaillard the defenders had no time to escape into the keep by the narrow stair which led to the first floor, and consequently this proud tower was surrendered without a blow; and that this event so impressed on Philip's mind the danger of difficult entrances that he abandoned the old fashion. This may be true, but it is a pure guess of Le Duc's, as there is nothing whatever to justify it in William the Breton's circumstantial narrative. It is, however, certain that Philip adopted the ground entrance to all his keeps. In England we find ground entrances to many round keeps of the 13th century, as at Pembroke; but the older fashion was sometimes retained; Conisburgh, one of the finest keeps in England, has its entrance on the first floor.[1192]

After the introduction of the trébuchet, we might expect that the walls of keeps would be made very much thicker, and such seems to have been the case in France,[1193] but we do not find that it was the rule in England.[1194] The lower storeys were now generally instead of occasionally vaulted. In the course of the 13th century it became common to vault all the storeys. But in spite of the military advantages of the round keep, in its avoidance of angles favourable to the battering-ram, and its deflection of missiles, the square keep continued to be built in various parts of both France and England till quite late in the Middle Ages.[1195] On the Scottish border, square towers of the ancient type, with quite Norman decorations, were built as late as the 15th century.[1196] The advantage of the square tower was that it was more roomy inside, and was therefore preferred when the tower was intended for habitation.

We come now to the greatest of all the changes introduced in the 13th century: the keepless castle, in which the keep is done away with altogether, and the castle consists of a square or oblong court surrounded by a strong wall with massive towers at the angles, and in large castles, in the curtain also.[1197] Usually this inner quadrangle is encircled with an outer quadrangle of walls and towers, so that this type of castle is frequently called the _concentric_. But the castles of the keepless kind are not invariably concentric; those built by Edward I. at Conway, Carnarvon, and Flint are not so.[1198] Instead of a dark and comfortless keep, the royal or noble owner is provided in this type of castle with a palatial house. In England this house is frequently attached to the gateway, forming what we may call a gatehouse palace; good examples may be seen at Beaumaris, Harlech, and Tonbridge.[1199] The gateway itself is always defended by a pair of massive towers.

Edward I. is generally credited with the introduction of this type of castle into England, but until the _Pipe Rolls_ of Henry III.'s reign have been carefully examined, we cannot be certain that it was not introduced earlier. It was certainly known in Germany fifty years before Edward's accession to the throne, and in France as early as 1231.[1200]

It is always supposed that this type of castle was introduced by the Crusaders from Syria. But when did it make its first appearance in Syria? This is a point which, we venture to think, has not been yet sufficiently investigated. We do not believe that it can have existed in Syria at the time of the third crusade, otherwise Richard I., who is universally acknowledged to have been a first-class military architect, would have brought the idea home with him.[1201] Yet his favourite castle of Chateau Gaillard, built in accordance with the latest military science, is in the main a castle of the keep-and-bailey type, and has even a reminiscence of the motte, in the scarped rock on which the keep and inner ward are placed.

The new type of keepless castle never entirely displaced the old keep-and-bailey type. We have already seen that keeps of the old sort continued to be built till the end of the Middle Ages. Hawarden Castle has a good example of a 14th-century round keep; Warkworth a most remarkable specimen of the 15th, the plan being a square tower with polygonal turrets set on each face.[1202] In France and Germany also the old type appears to have persisted.[1203]

We have already trespassed beyond the limits of our subject; but as we offer this chapter more as a programme of work than as a categorical outline, we trust it may not be without use to the student who may feel disposed to take up this much-neglected subject.

A few words must yet be said about the state of the law relating to castles. Nothing explicit has come down to us on this subject from the 11th century in England, but it is clear that the feudal system which William introduced, and which required that all lands should revert to the king on the death of the holder, forbade the building of any castle without the king's license, and, further, allowed only a life tenure in each case. The Council of Lillebonne in 1080 had laid it down in express terms that no one should build a castle in Normandy without the permission of the duke;[1204] and William, after his great victory over his revolted barons, had enforced the right of garrisoning their castles. He was not able to do this in England, while he must have desired to check the building of private castles as far as possible. On the other hand, he had to face the dilemma that no Norman land-holder would be safe in his usurped estates without the shelter of a castle. In this situation we have the elements of the civil strife which burst forth in Stephen's reign, and which was ended by what we may call the anti-castle policy of Henry II.[1205]

The rights secured by this able king were often recklessly sold by his successors, but in the reign of Henry III. it was evidently illegal even to fortify an ordinary house with a ditch and stockade without royal permission.[1206]

* * * * *

Feudalism was an inevitable phase in the evolution of the Western nations, and it ought neither to be idealised nor execrated. After the break-up of the tribal system the nations of Europe sought refuge in the forms of imperialism which were devised by Charlemagne, and even the small and distant island of England strove to move in the same direction. But the times were not ripe for centralisation on so great a scale, and when the system of the Carlovingian Empire gave way under the inrush of Northmen and Huns, European society would have fallen into ruin had it not been for the institutions of feudalism. These offered, in place of the old blood bond of the tribe, a social compact which, though itself artificial, was so admirably adapted to the general need that it was speedily adopted by all the progressive nations of Europe. The great merit of feudalism was that it replaced the collective responsibility of the tribe by the individual responsibility of the man to his lord, and of the lord to his man. In an age when the decay of mutual trust was the worst evil of society it laid stress on individual loyalty, and insisted that personal honour should consist in the fulfilment of obligations. Being a system so wholly personal, its usefulness depended largely on the nature of the person in power, and it was therefore liable to great abuses.

But it is probable that feudalism worked better on the whole in England than in any other part of Western Europe. The worst evils of French feudalism never appeared in this country, except during the short and disastrous reign of Stephen. The strong kings of the Norman and Plantagenet Houses held in check the turbulence of the barons; and private war was never allowed to become here, as it was on the Continent, a standing evil. To follow out this subject would lead us beyond the limits of this book, but it is interesting to remember that not only the picturesque ruins of our castles, but also the neglected green hillocks of which we have treated in this work, while they point to the skilful machinery by which the Norman Conquest was riveted on the land, bear witness also to something still more important. They tell of a period of discipline and education through which the English people passed, when in spite of much oppression and sometimes even cruelty, seeds of many noble and useful things were sown, from which succeeding generations have garnered the enduring fruit.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

PRIMITIVE FOLK-MOOTS

The popular meetings of the Anglo-Saxons, those of the hundred and the shire, were held in the open air. Since many of those who attended them had to travel far, some sign was necessary to mark out the place of meeting, and some striking feature, such as a hillock, or a particular tree, or an ancient barrow, was chosen. Thus we have the Shire Oak, near Leeds, which gives its name to the wapentake of Skyrack; and in a charter of Edgar we find the _mot-beorh_ mentioned, and translated _Congressionis Collem_ = the meeting barrow. (_M. A._, ii., 324.) It does not appear that a hillock was an essential feature of these meeting-places, though this is popularly supposed to be the case, because the "Thing-wall" in Iceland and the "Tynwald" in the Isle of Man have hillocks from which laws were proclaimed. The Thingwall, or field of meeting in Iceland had a natural rock just above it, isolated by a stream, and though proclamations were made from this rock, deliberations took place on the level. (Gomme's _Primitive Folk-Moots_, 31.)

The Tynwald Hill, in the Isle of Man, which is also still used for the proclamation of new laws, was probably an ancient barrow, as there are other barrows in the immediate neighbourhood. (Kermode and Herdman, _Illustrated Notes on Manx Antiquities_, pp. 23 and 61.) At Thingwall, near Liverpool, and Thingwall in Wirral, both probably Norse settlements, there is no hillock.

In Scotland, the use of a former motte as a meeting-place for the baronial court appears to have been much more common than in England. Mr George Neilson's explanation of this fact is referred to in